HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-2020 CHC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Agenda
Cultural Heritage Committee
Monday, June 22, 2020
Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the
Governor of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March
17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of
San Luis Obispo will be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location
for the Public to view the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how
to leave public comment.
Additionally, members of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) are allowed to attend the meeting via
teleconference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present.
Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are
encouraged to participate in CH C meetings in the following ways:
1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view:
• View the Webinar (recommended for the best viewing quality):
➢ Registration URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6422572181383874320
➢ Webinar ID: 990-090-451
➢ Telephone Attendee: (415) 655-0052; Audio Access Code: 749-837-558
2. Public Comment - The CHC will still be accepting public comment for items within their purview.
Public comment can be submitted in the following ways:
• Mail or Email Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to
advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM and up until public comment is opened on the item – Limited
to one page emailed to cityclerk@slocity.org and will be read aloud during the public comment
period on the item specified.
• Verbal Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your
name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal
comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to Advisory Body
Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence.
➢ During the meeting – Comments can be submitted up until the Public Comment period is
opened for the item when joining via the webinar (instructions above). Please contact the City
Clerk’s office at cityclerk@slocity.org to more information.
All comments submitted will be placed into the administrative record of the meeting.
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Agenda
Cultural Heritage Committee
5:30 PM REGULAR MEETING TELECONFERENCE
Broadcasted via Webinar
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Papp
ROLL CALL: Committee Members Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Eva Ulz, Vice
Chair Shannon Larrabee and Chair James Papp
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee on items not on the
agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Approve the minutes of the May 18, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
NOTE: The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director,
another advisory
2. Review of a six-story mixed-use building consisting of approximately 30,000 square feet of
commercial/office space and 50 residential dwelling units, within the Downtown Historic
District, including review of the cultural resources analysis of the project. The project includes
a rezone to provide a Planned Development Overlay, demolition of an existing structure,
permanent preservation of an off-site building located at 868 and 870 Monterey Street, and a
request to allow a maximum building height of 75 feet, where 50 feet is normally allowed in
the Downtown Commercial zone. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review
(CEQA) is proposed; Project Address: 1144 Chorro, 868 and 870 Monterey, 876 and 890
Marsh, 895, 898, 973 Higuera Streets,; Case #: ARCH-1687-2018, PDEV-0509-2019, EID-
0475-2019; Zone: C-D-H; Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP, owner/applicant. (Kyle
Bell)
Recommendation: Make a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the
project’s consistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
San Luis Obispo – Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of June 22, 2020 Page 3
3. Review of five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences, each with an attached
two-car garage, and review of the cultural resources analysis of the project. The project site is
within the Mill Street Historic District and includes the retention of five, two-bedroom, single-
story residences, which are on the Contributing List of Historic Properties. The project also
includes a common-interest subdivision to create ten lots, each will contain one of the ten
residences, and requested exceptions from development standards to allow interior side and
rear setbacks to be reduced and to allow required parking to be provided in tandem. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA) is proposed; Project
address: 1137 Peach Street; Case #: ARCH-0568-2019, SBDV-0571-2019, EID-0800-
2019; Zone: R-2-H; Levi Seligman, owner/applicant. (Kyle Van Leeuwen)
Recommendation: Make a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the
project’s consistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
4. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting will be on Monday, July 27, 2020 at 5:30
p.m., via teleconference.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public.
Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with
disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order
to participate in a meeting should direct such requests to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100
at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805)
781-7410.
Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee are available
on the City’s website, http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies. You may also contact
the Community Development Department, by phone, from 8 AM to 3 PM at (805) 781-7150.
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of May 18, 2020 Page 1
Minutes - DRAFT
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, May 18, 2020
Rescheduled Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Rescheduled Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called
to order on Monday, May 18, 2020 at 5:32 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair James Papp.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Eva Ulz, Vice Chair Shannon
Larrabee, Chair James Papp
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille and City Clerk Teresa Purrington
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
--End of Public Comment--
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Approve the minutes of the April 27, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, CARRIED 5-0-0, to approve the minutes of the April 27,
2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting with the added condition to Item 3, stating that
documentation be provided prior to demolition of the shed.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Chair Papp indicated he would need to recuse himself as he wrote the report on the project. Chair
Papp muted his mic and turned off his webcam at 5:38 p.m.
2. 1789 Santa Barbara. Review of a request to designate the single-family dwelling at 1789
Santa Barbara Avenue (The Lozelle and Katie Flickinger Graham House) as a Master List
Resource and include the property in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources (this action is
not subject to environmental review); Project Address: 1789 Santa Barbara; Case #: HIST-
0144-2020; Zone: R-3-H; Michael Hughes, owner/applicant.
Item 1
Packet Page 1
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of May 18, 2020 Page 2
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded to Committee
inquiries.
Public Comment
None
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER VICE CHAIR LARRABEE,
SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER ULZ, CARRIED 4-0-1 (Chair Papp recused), to
recommend that the City Council designate the property as a Master List Resource and include
it in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
Chair Papp rejoined the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
3. 778, 782, 786, & 790 Higuera. Review of a historic significance determination request to
remove the property at 778, 782, 786, and 790 Higuera from the Contributing Properties List
of the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources (this action is not subject to environmental
review); Project address: 778, 782, 786, & 790 Higuera Street; Case #: HIST-0127-2020;
Zone: C-D-H; Randy Russom, RRM Design Group, applicant.
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded to Committee
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Scott Martin, RRM Design and Robert Pavlik, provided a
PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comment
None
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER ULZ, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, CARRIED 3-2 (Member Haydu and Vice Chair
Larrabee voting no), to recommend that the City Council not remove the properties from the
Contributing Properties List.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting
is scheduled for Monday, June 22, 2020 at 5:30 p.m., via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2020
Item 1
Packet Page 2
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 1
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1144 Chorro Street, 868
and 870 Monterey, 876 and 890 Marsh, 895,
898, 973 Higuera Streets
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1687-2018, PDEV-0509-
2019, & EID-0475-2019
APPLICANT: Mark Rawson REPRESENTATIVE: Ten Over Studios, Inc.
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project consists of demolition of an existing one-story commercial building, construction
of a new six-story mixed use building to include approximately 30,000 square feet of
commercial/office space and 50 residential dwelling units, and the application of a Planned
Development (PD) Overlay zone across a 0.38-acre site inclusive of seven parcels located in the
Downtown Historic District, see Figure 1. The basement of the existing one-story structure on-site
would remain in-tact and the rest of the structure would be demolished and removed. The proposed
80,249-square-foot building steps back from the street frontage after the third floor where the
residential portion of the structure would reach a maximum height of 75 feet. The proposed project
consists of ground floor retail and parking, two stories of office space, and three stories of residential
dwellings (Attachment 1, Project Plans).
The subject property is directly adjacent to the Master List Historic Resource Hotel Wineman, and in
the vicinity of the Master List Masonic Temple and the Master List Commercial Bank Building
(Attachment 2, Historic Preservation Report). The subject property is not a listed historic resource
(Attachment 3, Architectural Evaluation).
General Location: The property is located on the corner of Marsh
and Chorro Streets within the Downtown Commercial zone and is
within the Downtown Historic District at its Southeast edge
Present Use: Vacant commercial building
Zoning: Downtown Commercial within the Downtown Historic
District (C-D-H)
General Plan: General Retail
Surrounding Uses:
East: California Pizza Kitchen
West: Eureka Burger
North: Hotel Wineman
South: Chorro Street Parking Structure
Meeting Date: June 22, 2020
Item Number: 2
Item No. 1
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 2
Packet Page 3
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 2
2.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The CHC’s role is to review the project for consistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance which
includes the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and other
policies and standards identified in this report. A Historic Preservation Report (Attachment 2) and an
Architectural Evaluation (Attachment 3) have been prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants,
which includes an assessment of the project’s conformance with Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines. The CHC’s role is also to review the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
sections of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and associated historic
evaluations. The CHC will make a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the consistency
of the proposed project with applicable historical preservation policies and standards.
Historic Preservation Ordinance: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4142
Historic Preservation Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144
Secretary of Interior Standards: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=16940
3.0 BACKGROUND
On November 26, 2018, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the proposed project for
consistency with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The
CHC, with a vote of 7:0, provided eight directional items to the applicant to address specific concerns
related to building and site design (Attachment 4, CHC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes).
On December 3, 2018, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project for
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The ARC, with a vote of 6:1, provided six
directional items to the applicant to address specific concerns related to building and site design
(Attachment 5, ARC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes).
On September 17, 2019, the City Council reviewed the project for initiation of the PD Overlay and
associated mandatory project features as well as the community benefit policies for consideration of
a building height of 75 feet. The City Council, with a vote of 5:0, supported the initiation and provided
two directional items for the applicant to address regarding the community benefit for the Mode Shift,
and clarification about the number of dedicated affordable units (Attachment 6, Council Report and
Action Update).
On June 1, 2020, the ARC reviewed the revised project design and recommended that the PC find the
project consistent with the CDG in consideration of several comments, recommendations, and
Item 2
Packet Page 4
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 3
references to particular CDG that require further consideration, in terms of the project’s effect on
viewsheds from intersections, and compatibility with listed historic properties in the immediate
vicinity (Attachment 7, ARC Report, Draft Minutes 6.1.20).
4.0 PREVIOUS CHC DIRECTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The CHC recommended eight directional items to be reviewed and evaluated prior to taking final
action on the project. The applicant has updated the project plans and made the following changes in
response to the directional items:
CHC Directional Item #1: The project shall include a height analysis of buildings in the vicinity and
within the Historic District, including the Masonic Temple.
Response: The applicant has provided a height analysis of several buildings within Downtown and the
immediate vicinity (please see Sheet T3.0 of the project plans). The height analysis identifies the
maximum heights of several tall structures including the Wineman (47 feet), Masonic Temple (47 feet),
Marsh Street Parking Structure (62 feet), Anderson Hotel (77 feet).
CHC Directional Item #2: The shading study shall be revised to identify the specific shadow of the
proposed structure, to distinguish between shading of existing structures.
Response: The applicant has revised the shading study to clearly identify the shadow of the project
(please see Sheets T3.2 through T3.4 of the project plans). The shadows of the proposed structure are
identified by a different shade of color than the other shadow lines produced by adjacent structures,
and the shading study is consistent with the limitations established under the CDG for downtown
development.
CHC Directional Item #3: The Historic Preservation Report shall be revised to address the existing
structure’s potential historic eligibility within the district, in consideration of the evaluation criteria for
historic resource listing.
Response: An Architectural Evaluation has been provided to complement the Historic Preservation
Report to specifically address the existing structures eligibility as a historic resource under the Historic
Preservation Ordinance’s historic listing criteria (Attachment 4). The study concludes that the former
Riley’s Department Store does not meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the California Register of
Historic Resources, and the existing building does not meet the integrity threshold criterion for historic
resource listing under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance1.
CHC Directional Item #4: The proposed scale and mass of the structure above the fourth story, referred
to as the “stucco portion”, is considered incompatible with the Historic District.
1 Architectural Evaluation. SWCA Environmental Consultants. April 2020. The former Rileys Department Store building at
1144 Chorro Street evaluated as part of this study does not meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR or otherwise
constitute a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Similarly, the former Rileys Department Store building does
not meet the high integrity threshold criterion for historic resource listing under the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance. In order for the building to express its integrity as “part of the continuing development of San Luis Obispo as
a commercial hub and for its association with merchant-owners Herbert A. Landeck, Sr., and Coy Humphrey,” it would
need to be restored using Secretary of the Interior Standards for Restoration to its c1965 appearance…
Item 2
Packet Page 5
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 4
Response: The applicant has revised the project design and the upper floors are now set back further
from the street frontages. The Chorro Street elevation includes a 21-foot step back above the third
floor, and the Marsh Street elevation provides a varying upper story step back between 12 and 21 feet
from the street frontage, see Figure 2.
The “stucco portion” has also been modified to provide additional articulation with a variety of offsets
to add dimension and break up the façade. The courtyard that was originally provided in the center
of the building has been eliminated to provide large deck areas along the exterior of the building
surrounding the fourth floor to provide areas for trees and other planting at the residential level, which
further reduces the perceived scale and height of the structure as viewed from the street. The
applicant has provided a site context elevation that demonstrates how the project responds to the
scale and rhythm of the prevailing character of
the street frontages by reinforcing the
established horizontal lines of facades in adjacent
buildings, see Figure 3. For example, the
horizontal line beneath the eaves of the adjacent
Wineman building has been carried over to
establish the height of the parapet of the third-
floor balcony, other horizontal lines can be
identified through the placement of windows and
storefronts (see Sheet A1.0 of the project plans).
CHC Directional Item #5: The architectural style is considered too “institutional”, alternative styles
should be considered giving the projects prominent location and opportunity to contribute to the
Historic District’s prevailing significance and distinctive architecture.
Response: The applicant has revised the project design to de-‘institutionalize’ the project design. The
street level façade elements have been reduced from four stories to three stories and the façade has
been modified to provide a greater variety of articulation and offsets to individualize the street level
commercial façades from the residential areas, see previous Figure 2.
CHC Directional Item #6: The proposed design should be modified to include more architectural details
and features consistent with the character of the Historic District.
Figure 2: Original rendering (left) at the intersection of Chorro and Marsh Streets, revised rendering (right).
Figure 3: Horizontal Line exhibit from the CDG
Section 4.2.B.4.b
Item 2
Packet Page 6
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 5
Response: The project has been modified to incorporate architectural details and features that are
consistent with the character of the district, inclusive of: transom windows along the store frontage,
window mullions with brick and stucco headers, metal awnings, concrete bulkheads, detailed cornices,
and outdoor sitting areas, see Figure 4.
CHC Directional Item #7: The proposed fenestration is
considered monotonous and should provide greater
variety and articulation.
Response: The applicant has revised the project design
to provide additional articulation with greater variety of
window fenestration, including a reduction in the size of
windows that provides visual break between the
windows to avoid the ‘institutional’ style. The project
has also reduced the symmetry of the structure to
provide greater visual interest and reduce monotony,
see Figures 2 and 4.
CHC Directional Item #8: The project design should
provide more articulation and variety along the
storefront elevations.
Response: The project has been revised to include a
greater setback at the corner of Marsh and Chorro Street
to include a 45-degree angled facade to enhance interest to the corner and provide larger pedestrian
space for circulation. Greater setbacks have also been provided at the street level to allow for more
patio area and useable outdoor seating areas, see Figure 4.
5.0 EVALUATION
5.1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior’s Standards
The project site is located on the southeast margin of the City’s designated Historic Downtown District.
As described in the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines (HPPG), the District encompasses the oldest
part of the City and contains one of the City’s highest concentrations of historic sites and structures.
HPPG Section 3.2.1 states that new structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with the District’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the
scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard
setbacks of the District's historic structures2. The CHC reviews development in historic districts for
architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with applicable design
2 HPPG § 3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts. New structures in historic districts shall be
designed to be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency
with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of
the district's historic structures…. New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create
the illusion that a new building is historic.
Figure 4: Revised Storefront renderings.
Item 2
Packet Page 7
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 6
and preservation policies, standards, and historic district descriptions (HPPG § 3.2.2)3 . The SWCA
Historic Preservation Report concludes that the project complies with the City’s Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties by incorporating numerous design elements that are considered to be compatible with
adjacent and nearby architectural styles and materials within the Historic District4.
Discussion Item #1: As stated under HPPG § 3.2.2 new development should not sharply contrast
with the historic architectural character of historically designated structures in the immediate
vicinity of a project or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic
district. The CHC should review the Historic Preservation Report and discuss whether the revised
architectural style is compatible with the district based on scale, massing, rhythm, architectural
elements, and materials.
The Secretary of the Interior (SOI) identifies the following four approaches to the treatment of historic
properties: Rehabilitation, Preservation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. In evaluating the proposed
project’s compliance with the 10 Rehabilitation Standards, Standard No. 9 5 is the most relevant
standard for the proposed project, which is also addressed under the HPPG.
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption. Based on the Architectural Evaluation prepared for
the project, the former Rileys Department Store does not retain sufficient physical integrity to the
period of its significance (1955–1967) to be able to convey its historic-period identity. Similarly, the
former Rileys Department Store building does not meet the high-integrity threshold criterion for
historic resource listing under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, because the building’s
historic character and appearance have been altered and diminished by the loss of important original,
character-defining features. The project site is located within the Downtown Historic District adjacent
3 HPPG § 3.2.2 Architectural compatibility. The CHC reviews development in historic districts for architectural compatibility
with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and
historic district descriptions…. New development should not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or
visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the
property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district.
4 Historic Preservation Report. SWCA Environmental Consultants. October 2018. The project clearly evidences the intent to
incorporate numerous design elements to be compatible with adjacent and nearby architectural styles and materials.
The massing of the building—though clearly tall and substantial—is nevertheless softened by subdued colors and
fenestration of the lower stories, as well as the setback and change in surface material of the uppermost stories. Cornice
trim is suitably incorporated at a respectful scale. The building is designed in an unobtrusive contemporary style that
neither suggests a fictitious past nor attempts to dominate or compete with the more flamboyant architecture of the
historic Masonic Temple across Marsh Street. … The City parking structure on the opposite corner of Marsh and Chorro
Streets provides a tall visual counterpoint to the proposed Marsh & Chorro Development Project. Other nearby designated
historic buildings within a one-block radius have limited views of the project site from the city street, generally because
of the narrowness of the cross streets and screening provided by street trees.
5 SOI Standard No. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and
will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity
of the property and its environment.
Item 2
Packet Page 8
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 7
to City-listed historic buildings (e.g., Wineman Hotel, First Presbyterian Church, Masonic Temple).
Based on the analysis of historical development of the Downtown Historic District, the character-
defining features of adjacent and nearby designated historic buildings, site topography and sightlines,
the proposed materials, colors, massing, and other design features of the project would not result in
a substantial adverse change in the significance of any historic resources and potential impacts would
be less than significant. The project is also within a Burial Sensitivity Area associated with San Luis
Obispo Creek identified in “Figure 1: Cultural Resources” of the City’s Conservation Open Space
Element (COSE). Based on the project’s location and proposed ground disturbance, the project may
have the potential to impact previously unidentified cultural materials during subsurface grading and
excavation activities. Mitigation measures have been identified to require cultural resource awareness
training of all construction personnel and preparation of an archaeological monitoring plan that would
ensure an immediate halt work order shall be issued in the event that historical or archaeological
remains are discovered. Mitigation measures in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and
utilities and service systems, are recommended to reduce potential impacts to less than significant
levels.
The Draft IS/MND was released for the required 30-day public review period on April 30, 2020 and the
public review period concluded on May 30, 2020. (Attachment 8, IS/MND Cultural Resources, and
Tribal Cultural Resources Sections).
1144 Chorro Mixed-Use Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (EID-0475-2019)
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=26198
7.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
7.1 Recommend approval of the project. An action recommending the Planning Commission
find the project consistent with the HPPG will be forwarded to the PC, final action will
proceed to the City Council. This action may include recommendations for conditions to
address consistency with the HPPG.
7.2 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending the Planning Commission find the
project inconsistent with the HPPG, a recommendation of inconsistency should include
findings that cite the basis for the action and should reference relevant sections within the
General Plan, HPPG, or other policy documents.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
8.1 Project Plans
8.2 Historic Preservation Report
8.3 Architectural Evaluation
8.4 Conceptual CHC Report and Minutes 11.26.18
8.5 Conceptual ARC Report and Minutes 12.3.18
8.6 Council Initiation and Action Update 9.17.19
8.7 ARC Report and Draft Minutes 6.1.20
8.8 IS/MND Cultural Resources, and Tribal Cultural Resources Sections
Item 2
Packet Page 9
MARSH & CHORRO
DEVELOPMENT
at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
ENTITLEMENTS PACKAGE, 06/12/19
Prepared by TEN OVER STUDIO
Providing a true timeless character, the corner of Marsh & Chorro will bring contemporary
living and working to the downtown through an architecture of quiet sophistication. Rhythm,
texture, and light emits through classic massing and material selection while vibrancy, action,
and enthusiasm pours from our truly mixed-use program of merchants, tech visionaries, and an
abundance of small, hip, loft studios.
Item 2
Packet Page 10
CLIENT
JAMESTOWN PREMIER SLO RETAIL, LP
COPELAND PROPERTIES
PO BOX 12260, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
CONTACT: MARK RAWSON
mark@copelandproperties.com
ARCHITECT
MARK RAWSON, AIA
PO BOX 12260, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
mark@copelandproperties.com
TEN OVER STUDIO
539 MARSH ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
805.541.1010
CONTACT: JESSIE SKIDMORE
jessies@tenoverstudio.com
INDEX
PROJECT INFO & DATA T1.0
SITE INFO & DATA T1.1
VIEW FROM CHORRO STREET T2.0
VIEW OF MARSH & CHORRO CORNER T2.1
VIEW FROM DOWNTOWN CENTRE PASEO T2.2
VIEW LOOKING DOWN MARSH STREET T2.3
VIEWSHED ANALYSIS T2.4
CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN T3.0
SURVEY T3.1
SOLAR SHADING - SUMMER SOLSTICE T3.2
SOLAR SHADING - VERNAL EQUINOX T3.3
SOLAR SHADING - WINTER SOLSTICE T3.4
VISUAL STUDY T3.5
VISUAL STUDY T3.6
VISUAL STUDY T3.7
TREE REMOVAL PLAN L1.0
PLANTING PLAN L1.1
ROOFTOP PLANTING PLAN L1.2
PLANTING PALETTE L1.3
WATER CALCULATIONS L1.4
SITE ELEVATIONS A1.0
SITE SECTIONS A1.1
SITE AND FIRST FLOOR PLAN A2.0
SECOND FLOOR PLAN, THIRD , SIM. A2.1
FOURTH FLOOR PLAN A2.2
FIFTH FLOOR PLAN A2.3
SIXTH FLOOR PLAN A2.4
ROOF PLAN A2.5
TYPICAL UNIT FLOOR PLANS A2.6
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - SOUTH A3.0
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - EAST A3.1
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - NORTH A3.2
BUILDING ELEVATIONS - WEST A3.3
MATERIAL BOARD A3.4
CONTACTS
Item 2
Packet Page 11
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019
DATE SUBMITTAL
YYMMDD PERMIT RESUBMITTAL IISUBMITTAL SET DESCRIPTIONPROJECT NAMEPROJECT ADDRESSNOT FOR CONSTRUCTIONTHESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE
AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.
THE DESIGN AND INFORMATION REPRESENTED ON
THESE DRAWINGS ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PROJECT
INDICATED AND SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED OR
OTHERWISE REPRODUCED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN
PERMISSION FROM TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.
COPYRIGHT 2017
T1.0
TITLE SHEET
DRAWING SYMBOLS PROJECT DIRECTORY
OWNER:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
ARCHITECT:
TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.CONTACT: JIM DUFFY
539 MARSH STREET PH:805.541.1010
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 EMAIL:jimd@tenoverstudio.com
PROJECT DATA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT ADDRESS
APN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
LOT SIZE
LIVING SPACE
GARAGE (TO BE REPLACED)
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
AGENCIES & UTILITIES
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
919 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:805.781.7180
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - BUILDING DEPARTMENT
919 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:805.781.7180
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
919 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:805.781.7170
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
919 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:805.781.7220
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO - FIRE DEPARTMENT
2160 SANTA BARBARA AVENUE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:805.781.7380
PG & E
406 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:800.743.5000
SHEET INDEX
TITLE / CODE
T1.0 TITLE SHEET
T1.1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
T2.0 GENERAL NOTES
T2.1 CALGREEN COMPLIANCE
T2.2 GREEN POINTS
T3.0 TITLE 24
T3.1 TITLE 24
T4.0 CODE COMPLIANCE
CIVIL
C1.0 SHEET NAME
C2.0 SHEET NAME
C3.0 SHEET NAME
ARCHITECTURAL
A1.0 DEMOLITION SITE PLAN
A1.1 SITE PLAN
A2.0 DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN
A2.1 DIMENSION FLOOR PLAN
A2.2 FLOOR PLAN
A2.3 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN
A2.4 POWER / COMMUNICATIONS PLAN
A2.5 ROOF PLAN
A3.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A4.0 BUILDING SECTIONS
A4.1 WALL SECTIONS
A5.0 ENLARGED FLOOR PLAN
A6.0 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A7.0 SCHEDULES
A8.0 DETAILS
A9.0 SPECIFICATIONS
STRUCTURAL
S1.0 SHEET NAME
S2.0 SHEET NAME
S3.0 SHEET NAME
MECHANICAL
M1.0 SHEET NAME
M2.0 SHEET NAME
M3.0 SHEET NAME
PLUMBING
P1.0 SHEET NAME
P2.0 SHEET NAME
P3.0 SHEET NAME
ELECTRICAL
E1.0 SHEET NAME
E2.0 SHEET NAME
E3.0 SHEET NAMECALIFORNIA CODE REFERENCES
THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH CURRENT APPLICABLE CODES & ORDINANCES
2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE
2016 CALIFORNIA REFERENCE STANDARDS CODE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE: TITLE 15 BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TITLE 17 ZONING REGULATIONS
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CODE: TITLE 19 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION ORDINANCE
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CODE: TITLE 22 LAND USE ORDINANCE
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY CODE: TITLE 23 COASTAL ZONE LAND USE ORDINANCE
ABBREVIATIONS
ABANCHOR BOLT
ACAIR CONDITIONER
ADJ ADJACENT
AFFABOVE FINISH FLOOR
ALALUMINUM
APPROX. APPROXIMATELY
ASPH ASPHALT
AVG AVERAGE
BDBOARD
BLDG BUILDING
BLK/BLKG BLOCK/BLOCKING
BMBEAM
BNBULLNOSE
BOT BOTTOM
C.F. CUBIC FOOT
C.I.CUBIC INCH
CICAST IRON
CJCEILING JOIST/CONTROL JOINT
CLCENTER LINE
CLRCLEAR/CLEARANCE
CLG CEILING
CLKG CAULKING
CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
COCLEANOUT
COL COLUMN
CONC CONCRETE
CONN CONNECTION
CONST CONSTRUCTION
CONT CONTINUOUS
CTR CENTER
CW COLD WATER
C.Y. CUBIC YARD
DBLDOUBLE
DEG DEGREE
DEPT DEPARTMENT
DET DETAIL
DFDOUGLAS FIR
DIA DIAMETER
DIMDIMENSION
DNDOWN
DSDOWNSPOUT
DWDISHWASHER
EAEACH
EJEXPANSION JOINT
ELEC ELECTRICAL
ELEVELEVATION/ELEVATOR
ENCL ENCLOSURE
EOS EDGE OF SLAB
EQEQUAL
EQUIP EQUIPMENT
EST ESTIMATE
EXIST/(E)EXISTING
EXTEXTERIOR
FAU FORCED AIR UNIT
FHFIRE HYDRANT
F.O.C. FACE OF CURB
F.O.F. FACE OF FINISH
F.O.S. FACE OF STUD
FDFLOOR DRAIN
FDNFOUNDATION
FEFIRE EXTINGUISHER
FFFINISH FLOOR
F.G./FGFINISH GRADE
FINFINISH
FIXFIXTURE
FLRFLOOR
FOS FACE OF STUD
FPFIREPLACE / FLOOR PLAN
F.S./FSFINISH SURFACE
FTFOOT
FTG FOOTING
GGAS
GAGAUGE
GALV GALVANIZED
GDGARBAGE DISPOSAL
GLGLASS
GYP GYPSUM
HBHOSE BIBB
HCHOLLOW CORE
HDR HEADER
HORIZ HORIZONTAL
HRDW HARDWARE
HTHEIGHT
HWHOT WATER
ININCH
INCL INCLUDE
INFO INFORMATION
INSUL INSULATION
INTINTERIOR
INVINVERT
JAN JANITOR
KITKITCHEN
LAM LAMINATED
LAVLAVATORY
LB/#POUND
L.F./LFLINEAR FLOOT
LSLAG SCREW
MAXMAXIMUM
MBMACHINE BOLT
MECH MECHANICAL
MFRMANUFACTURER
MINMINIMUM
MISC MISCELLANEOUS
MTL METAL
(N)NEW
N.G./NGNATURAL GRADE
NO. / #NUMBER
NTS NOT TO SCALE
O/OVER
OBS OBSCURE
O.C./OCON CENTER
OPCIOWNER PROVIDED,
CONTRACTOR INSTALLED
OPOIOWNER PROVIDED,
OWNER INSTALLED
OSOCCUPANCY SENSOR
OZOUNCE
PERFPERFORATED
PERPPERPENDICULAR
PHPHONE
PLPLATE/ PROPERTY LINE
PLYWDPLYWOOD
PRPAIR
PREFABPRE-FABRICATED
P.S.F.POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT
P.S.I.POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
PTDFPRESSURE TREATED DOUG FIR
PVMT PAVEMENT
RRISER
RDROOF DRAIN
REFREFRIGERATOR
REQ REQUIRED
RMROOM
ROROUGH OPENING
ROW RIGHT OF WAY
RTS REFER TO STRUCTURAL
RWDREDWOOD
S4SSURFACED 4 SIDES
SCSOLID CORE
SDSMOKE DETECTOR
S.F./SFSQUARE FOOT
SHT SHEET
SHTG SHEATHING
SIM SIMILAR
SPEC SPECIFICATION
SST STAINLESS STEEL
STD STANDARD
SYM SYMBOL
STL STEEL
T&G TONGUE AND GROOVE
TREA
THKTHICK(NESS)
TELTELEPHONE
TEMPTEMPERATURE
T.O.C. TOP OF CURB
T.O.F. TOP OF FOOTING
T.O.W. TOP OF WALL
T.O.S. TOP OF SLAB
TVTELEVISION
TYP.TYPICAL
UNO UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
VCT VINYL COMPOSITION TILE
VERTVERTICAL
V.I.F. VERIFY IN FIELD
W/WITH
W/OWITHOUT
WC WATER CLOSET
WDWOOD
WH WATER HEATER
W.I.C. WALK IN CLOSET
WTWEIGHT
YDYARD
BUILDING CODE DATA
SPRINKLERS:REQUIRED:YES / NO
PROPOSED:YES / NO
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
OCCUPANCY GROUP:
PROJECT NAME 2
ADDRESS
PROJECT NAME 1
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
INTERIOR
ELEVATION MARKER
KEYNOTE
DETAIL
TARGET
DETAIL REFERENCE:DETAIL NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
DOOR NUMBER
WINDOW NUMBER
ELEV NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
ELEVATION MARKER ELEV NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
SECTION MARKER SECTION NUMBER
SHEET NUMBER
ROOF / GROUND SLOPE: INDICATES SLOPE AND DIRECTION
OF SLOPE
& DIRECTION
OF VIEW
HEIGHT / ELEVATION MARKER
NORTH ARROW
& DIRECTION
OF VIEW
& DIRECTION
OF VIEW
REVISION MARKER
ROOM TAG
XXX
SLOPE
X:XX
XXX
XXX
MASTER
BEDROOM
100
9'-0"
X
AX.XX
X
AX.XX
X
AX.X
1
2
3
4
X
AX.XX
X
AX.XX
X
X
N
1
EQUIPMENT NUMBERX
MECHANICAL / PLUMBING ENGINEER:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
ELECTRICAL ENGINEER:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
CIVIL ENGINEERING:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
SURVEY:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
1314 BROAD STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 PH:1.800.427.2200
N
MARSH STHIGUERA STB
R
O
A
D
S
T
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
S
T
C
H
O
R
R
O
S
T
US-101
PACIFIC STPISMO STBUCHON STMO
R
R
O
S
T
PROJECT LOCATION
CHORRO ST
VICINITY MAP
T1.0
DOWNTOWN CENTRE
1144 CHORRO ST.,AT DOWNTOWN CENTRE, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
APN 002-427-012
CURRENT USE RETAIL
80249 SF 1.84 ACRE
MAX SITE COVERAGE ALLOWABLE 100%
FAR ALLOWABLE 4
DENSITY ALLOWABLE 36/ACRE= 66.24 DU PROPOSED 26.5 DU
HEIGHT LIMIT ALLOWABLE 75'PROPOSED 75'
HEIGHT BONUS POLICY OBJECTIVES HEIGHT BONUS PER C-D DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 17.42.020
SEE PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED OBJECTIVES
ADJACENT ZONES NORTH C-D
EAST C-D
SOUTH C-D
WEST C-D
SETBACKS FRONT 0'
SIDE 0'
REAR 0'
LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
ZONING
OVERLAY ZONES
SPECIFIC AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES
LOT SIZE
C-D DOWNTOWN-COMMERCIAL
N/A
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
ADDRESS
PROPOSED USE MIXED-USE : RETAIL, OFFICE & R-2 RESIDENTIAL
ALLOWED USE IN ZONE Y
ENTITLEMENTS/USE PERMIT REQUIRED ARC, PLANNING COMMISSION USE-PERMIT for height bonus
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Marsh & Chorro (1144 Chorro) Mixed-Use proposes a new 6-story retail, office, and residential building on the
northeast corner of Marsh St. & Chorro St. The first level is comprised of three retail suites with accomodations
for restaurant use, a residential lobby, commercial office lobby, and a small parking facility with ADA parking, and
delivery/drop off spaces. The second and third floor are designated commercial. The fourth, fifth and sixth floors
house residential apartments. In addition to providing 25% moderate affordable units, the remaining units have
been sized to be affordable by design, in that all but three of the units are less than 600 SF.
The site and building design has been carefully considered to meet all the Downtown Design Guidelines to create
a harmonious addition to downtown San Luis Obispo. The traditional brick architecture extends from the street to
third level, to align with the massing of neighboring buildings. The top floors are in a traditional stucco, and step
back significantly to reduce the massing from the pedestrian perspective, and further screened by substantial roof
gardens on the fourth floor. Located on the northeast corner, this project is perfectly situated for the street
frontages to bask in southern light, casting a shadow inward, towards the alley and services areas of adjacent
neighbors. The project will never cast a shadow on either sidewalk of Marsh St or Chorro St, on any given day of
the year between 11 am and 2 pm.
This project is being proposed under a Planned Development Overlay to join 1144 Chorro with the existing
Downtown Centre, allowing the underutilized density of the centre to transfer to the new building proposed and
bring needed residential to the downtown. Through the PD Overlay project will meet the following Mandatory
Project Features:
a) Affordable Housing: A minimum of 25% moderate-income.
b) LEED Silver rating for Energy Efficiency (or city approved equivalent)
c) Preserve Open Space of at least a quarter of an acre on the Downtown Centre site.
d) Guarantee long term Maintenance of a significant Public Plaza on the Downtown Centre Site.
The project seeks a use-permit allowing 75' in height by providing the following Community Benefits Policy
Objectives: (per San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 17.32.030)
a) Affordable and Workforce Housing: 1) Project will provide 25% moderate-income households
b) Pedestrian Amenities: 2) Project provides a significant public plaza
c) View Access and Preservation: 2d) Project will provide a permanent preservation of a listed building off site
within the downtown or Chinatown historic district.
OVERALL BUILDING
OCCUPANCY TYPE R-2, A-2/M, B
CONSTRUCTION TYPE I-A, SPRINKLERED
SPRINKLER SYSTEM NFPA 13
PROJECT MEETS REQUIREMENTS OF CFC, APPENDIX D
STORIES PROPOSED ALLOWABLE UNLIMITED PROPOSED 6
HEIGHT PROPOSED ALLOWABLE UNLIMITED PROPOSED 75'
AREA (MAX/FLOOR)ALLOWABLE UNLIMITED PROPOSED 12708 SF
BUILDING CODE INFO
SIDEWALK ALONG CHORRO STREET
PARKING REQUIRED
RESIDENTIAL USE UNIT COUNT (OR SF) PARKING FACTOR SPACES REQUIRED
STUDIOS & 1 BD 47 1 47
2 BD 3 2 6
27
COMMERCIAL OFFICE 25,251 SF 1 PER 500 51
RESTAURANT 4,806 1 PER 100 48
24
COMBINED TOTAL 102
TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED 7
MOTORCYCLE REQ'D REQUIRED 5 (1:20)PROVIDED 2
PARKING CALCULATIONS
TOTAL W/C-D ZONE 50% REDUCTION
TOTAL W/C-D ZONE 50% REDUCTION
RESIDENTIAL 50 2/UNIT + GST 100 1: 5 UNITS 10 2/UNIT 100
RESTAURANT 4806 1/500 SF 10 75%8 25% 3
OFFICE 25251 1/1500 SF 17 75%13 25% 4
REQ'D TOTAL 127 31 107
PROVIDED TOTAL 128*
* LONG TERM BIKE STORAGE PROVIDED IN EACH RES. UNIT OR BASEMENT
28 BIKE STORAGE SPACES PROVIDED IN BIKE 106 AT FIRST LEVEL
BICYCLE PARKING CALCULATIONS
BIKE PARKING REQUIRED
UNIT COUNT OR SF TOTAL BICYCLE SHORT TERM LONG TERM
Item 2
Packet Page 12
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T1.1
TOTAL DENSITY ALLOWED LOT SIZE:1.84 ACRE
DENSITY FACTOR: 36 / ACRE
ALLOW. DENSITY: 66.24 DU
UNITS PROVIDED UNIT TYPE UNIT COUNT DU FACTOR DENSITY PROVIDED
FOURTH FLOOR STU/1BD <600 SF 15 0.5 7.5
STU/1-BD >600 SF 0 0.66 0
2-BD 1 1 1
FIFTH FLOOR STU/1BD <600 SF 16 0.5 8
STU/1-BD >600 SF 0 0.66 0
2-BD 1 1 1
SIXTH FLOOR STU/1BD <600 SF 16 0.5 8
STU/1-BD >600 SF 0 0.66 0
2-BD 1 1 1
TOTAL 50 26.5
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
TOTAL BUILDING AREA
COV'D DECK SF MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF FLOOR TOTAL
BASEMENT 2415 2415
FIRST FLOOR 11049 744 11793
SECOND FLOOR 12543 12543
THIRD FLOOR 12708 12708
FOURTH FLOOR 8737 865 9602
FIFTH FLOOR 9216 311 9527
SIXTH FLOOR 9216 363 9579
BLDG TOTAL 65884 2283 68167
BASEMENT ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
STORAGE 001 STORAGE 2415
FIRST FLOOR ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
RETAIL 100 RESTAURANT 1738
RETAIL 101 RESTAURANT 1424
RETAIL 102 RESTAURANT 1425
RES. LOBBY 103 RESIDENTIAL 597
OFF. LOBBY 104 BUSINESS 594
SHOW /LCK 110 ACC. STORAGE 198
GARAGE 105 STORAGE 3782
BIKE 106 ACC. STORAGE 308
TRASH 107 ACC. STORAGE 612
UTILITY 108 ACC. STORAGE 480
FIRE RISER 109 ACC. STORAGE 89
COV'D AREA 111 STORAGE 546
TOTAL:11049 744
AREA % 6.73%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
SECOND FLOOR OFFICE 200 BUSINESS 12543
TOTAL:12543
AREA %0.0%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
THIRD FLOOR OFFICE 300 BUSINESS 12708
TOTAL:12708
AREA %0.0%
USE & OCCUPANCY FLOOR AREAS
RESIDENTIAL ENTRY ON CHORRO STREET
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
FOURTH FLOOR UNIT 401 RESIDENTIAL 357
UNIT 402 RESIDENTIAL 350
UNIT 403 RESIDENTIAL 318
UNIT 404 RESIDENTIAL 318
UNIT 405 RESIDENTIAL 616
UNIT 406 RESIDENTIAL 329
UNIT 407 RESIDENTIAL 329
UNIT 408 RESIDENTIAL 337
UNIT 409 RESIDENTIAL 362
LOUNGE 410 ASSEMBLY 479
UNIT 411 RESIDENTIAL 451
UNIT 412 RESIDENTIAL 451
UNIT 413 RESIDENTIAL 408
UNIT 414 RESIDENTIAL 450
UNIT 415 RESIDENTIAL 501
UNIT 416 RESIDENTIAL 484
UNIT 417 RESIDENTIAL 576
MEDIA 418 ASSEMBLY 386
CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100
TOTAL: 8737 865
AREA%9.9%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
FIFTH FLOOR ALL UNITS RESIDENTIAL 7116
LDRY/JAN. 518 ASSEMBLY 221
ELEC. 519 STORAGE 90
CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100
TOTAL: 9216 311
AREA%3.4%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
SIXTH FLOOR ALL UNITS RESIDENTIAL 7116
COMM. KIT. 618 ASSEMBLY 363
CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100
TOTAL: 9216 363
AREA%3.9%
USE & OCCUPANCY FLOOR AREAS, CONT.
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SFFOURTH FLOOR UNIT 401 RESIDENTIAL 357UNIT 402 RESIDENTIAL 350UNIT 403 RESIDENTIAL 318UNIT 404 RESIDENTIAL 318UNIT 405 RESIDENTIAL 616UNIT 406 RESIDENTIAL 329UNIT 407 RESIDENTIAL 329UNIT 408 RESIDENTIAL 337UNIT 409 RESIDENTIAL 362LOUNGE 410 ASSEMBLY 479UNIT 411 RESIDENTIAL 451UNIT 412 RESIDENTIAL 451UNIT 413 RESIDENTIAL 408UNIT 414 RESIDENTIAL 450UNIT 415 RESIDENTIAL 501UNIT 416 RESIDENTIAL 484UNIT 417 RESIDENTIAL 576MEDIA 418 ASSEMBLY 386CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100TOTAL: 8737 865AREA%9.9%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
FIFTH FLOOR ALL UNITS RESIDENTIAL 7116
LDRY/JAN. 518 ASSEMBLY 221
ELEC. 519 STORAGE 90
CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100
TOTAL: 9216 311
AREA%3.4%
ROOM USE MAIN OCC. SF INCIDENTAL SF ACCESSORY SF
SIXTH FLOOR ALL UNITS RESIDENTIAL 7116
COMM. KIT. 618 ASSEMBLY 363
CIRCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2100
TOTAL: 9216 363
AREA%3.9%
USE & OCCUPANCY FLOOR AREAS, CONT.
Item 2
Packet Page 13
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T2.0
VIEW FROM CHORRO STREET
MARSH
C
H
O
R
R
OHIGUERAItem 2
Packet Page 14
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T2.1
VIEW OF MARSH & CHORRO CORNER
MARSH
C
H
O
R
R
OHIGUERAItem 2
Packet Page 15
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T2.2
VIEW FROM DOWNTOWN CENTER PASEO
MARSH
C
H
O
R
R
OHIGUERAItem 2
Packet Page 16
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T2.3
VIEW LOOKING DOWN MARSH STREET
MARSH
C
H
O
R
R
OHIGUERAItem 2
Packet Page 17
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.0
CONTEXTUAL SITE PLAN
SCALE: N.T.S.
EXISTING BUILDING ON SITE TO BE DEMOLISHED
4-STORY MARSH ST. PARKING STRUCTURE
4-STORY RETAIL AND OFFICE BUILDING CHASE BANK PARKING LOT
2-STORY EUREKA RESTAURANT
3-STORY OLD WINEMAN HOTEL
1
4
2
5
3 6
Our site is primarily surrounded by retail establishments.Some, like
ours, with office space above. The buildings range from 2 to 4 stories.
The Masonic Temple (3) and Marsh St. parking structure (4) both have
heavy cornices that appear as 5-story buildings. The surrounding material
pallette is brick and light-colored stucco.
SUMMARY OF CONTEXT
higuera stmonterey st
marsh stpacific stc
h
o
r
r
o
s
t mo
r
r
o
s
t
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
t
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-H
C-D-H C-D
O
C-D
C-D
C-D
C-D-H
1
4
2
5
3
6
O
C-D-H
C-D-H-PD
O
52/62
47
40
31
46
43/75
30
35
41
32
37
34
36
46
40/47
35
37
39
64/77
HEIGHT AT:
STREET / UPPER SETBACK OR
TOWER ELEMENT
Item 2
Packet Page 18
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.1
Item 2
Packet Page 19
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.2
SOLAR SHADING STUDY
SCALE: N.T.S.
N
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 10AM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 1PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 11AM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 2PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 12PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 3PM
Item 2
Packet Page 20
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.3
SOLAR SHADING STUDY
SCALE: N.T.S.
N
VERNAL EQUINOX - 10AM
VERNAL EQUINOX - 1PM
VERNAL EQUINOX - 11AM
VERNAL EQUINOX - 2PM
VERNAL EQUINOX - 12PM
VERNAL EQUINOX - 3PM
Item 2
Packet Page 21
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.4
SOLAR SHADING STUDY
SCALE: N.T.S.
N
WINTER SOLSTICE - 10AM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 1PM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 11AM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 2PM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 12PM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 3PM
Item 2
Packet Page 22
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019
KEY PLAN
SCALE: N.T.S.
VIEW FROM MARSH ST. TOWARDS HILL1
SIMULATED VIEW FROM MARSH ST. TOWARDS HILLS1 VISUAL STUDY
T3.5MARSH STCHORRO ST
1
2
3
4
56
VISUAL STUDY
Pursuant to Zoning regulations Section 17.32.030 F, a visual study shall determine whether
the project will materially obstruct views of distant hills and/or create an adverse visual impact
on existing or planned publicly owned gathering sites by materially obstructing views of
nearby public open spaces, historic resources, City landmarks, or protected natural resources;
and/or create adverse shade and shadow effects during the times of day when a gathering site
is anticipated to be most used.
For the proposed project at 1144 Chorro St., the publicly owned gathering spaces that exist
within the viewshed of the hillside are the publicly owned sidewalks immediately adjacent on
Marsh Street and Chorro Street. These are represented by Views 1, 3, 4, 5 & 6. View 2 is
located at Downtown Centre Paseo.
The most prominent, existing view of the hillside is shown in view 1. View S1 shows the
simulated view where the project has a visual impact on the viewshed by partially catching the
hillside. NItem 2
Packet Page 23
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019
SCALE: N.T.S.
VIEW FROM PASEO COURTYARD TOWARDS HILL2 SIMULATED VIEW FROM PASEO COURTYARD TOWARDS HILLS2
VISUAL STUDY
T3.6MARSH STCHORRO ST
1
2
3
4
56
The second most prominent, existing view of the hillside is shown in view 2 from the
Downtown Centre. View S2 shows the simulated view where the project has no visual impact
on the hillside viewshed.
KEY PLANN Item 2
Packet Page 24
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.7
VIEW FROM MARSH STREET
SCALE: N.T.S.
VIEW FROM MARSH TOWARDS HILL3
VIEW FROM SOUTH CORNER OF MARSH & CHORRO TOWARDS SITE5
VIEW FROM EAST CORNER OF MARSH & CHORRO TOWARDS HILL4
VIEW FROM CHORRO TOWARDS SITE6 VISUAL STUDYMARSH STCHORRO ST
1
2
3
4
56
Views 5 & 6 show that there are no hillside views looking toward the proposed project's
property from sidewalks on Chorro St.
View 3 & 4, taken from the sidewalk at Marsh St. reveals how the hillside view is already
currently largely blocked by the existing building and trees.
KEY PLANN Item 2
Packet Page 25
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019
SCALE: N.T.S.
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDEINE - COMPLIANCE
T3.8
STREET ORIENTATION GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
4.2-A
HEIGHT, SCALE GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
4.2-B,1
4.2-B,1a
4.2-B,1b
4.2-B,1c
4.2-B,1d
4.2-B,2
4.2-B,3
The height and scale of new buildings and alterations to existing buildings
shall fit within the context and vertical scale of existing development and
provide human scale and proportion. Some tools to achieve this include:
See A1.1, Site
Sections
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES
Per San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 4- Downtown Design Guidelines.
The primary goal of the following downtown design guidelines is to preserve and enhance its attractiveness to residents and
visitors as a place where: people prefer to walk rather than drive; and where the pleasant sidewalks, shading trees, and variety
of shops, restaurants, and other activities encourage people to spend time, slow their pace, and engage one another. The
design of buildings and their setting, circulation, and public spaces in the downtown have, and will continue to play a crucial
role in maintaining this character and vitality.
Buildings in the downtown should be located at the back of the sidewalk
unless space between the building and sidewalk is to be used for
pedestrian features such as plazas, courtyards, or outdoor eating areas.
See A1.1 and A2.0
In no case may the height of a building at the back of sidewalk exceed the
width of the adjoining right-of-way (see Figure 4-2).
See A1.1, Building
Height Compliance
New buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings
shall provide appropriate visual transitions.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
For new projects adjacent to buildings included on the City’s Inventory of
Historic Resources there shall be a heightened sensitivity to the mass and
scale of the significant buildings.
See Historical report
The project provides upper story setbacks from the front building façade
along the street consistent with LUE Policy 4.16.4. Portions of the building
above 50 feet should be set back sufficiently so that these upper building
walls are not visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk
along the building’s frontage.
New buildings shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly-owned
gathering places including, but not limited to, Mission Plaza, the Jack
House gardens, and YCLC Cheng Park. In these locations, new buildings
shall respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them
See T3.2-3.4, Solar
Shading Studies
New buildings should not shade the northerly sidewalk of Marsh, Higuera
or Monterey Streets at noon on December 21st. Information
demonstrating this objective shall accompany all applications for
architectural review as detailed on application checklists.
See T3.2-3.4, Solar
Shading Studies
4.2-B,4
4.2-B,4a
4.2-B,4b
4.2-B,4c
4.2-B,4d
4.2-B,4e
4.2-B,4f
4.2-B,4g
4.2-B,4h See A3 - Elevations
4.2-B,4i
4.2-B,4j See A3.4 Materials
Board
4.2-B,5
4.2-B,5a
4.2-B,5b See A2.0
4.2-B,5c
4.2-B,5d
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See T2.0
See T2.1
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
Use roof overhangs, cornices, dentals, moldings, awnings, and other
decorative features to decrease the vertical appearance of the walls;
Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve
multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail
land uses. Appropriate techniques to assure that tall buildings respect the
context of their setting and provide an appropriate visual transition to
adjacent structures include, but are not limited to:
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
For large projects that occupy several lots, variable roof heights and
architectural features that penetrate the roof plane are encouraged to
diminish the mass and scale of the taller structure;
Reinforce the established horizontal lines of facades in adjacent buildings;
Maintain the distinction between the first and upper floors by having a more
transparent ground floor.
Larger buildings (where frontages exceed 50 feet) should be clearly
expressed at the street frontage by changing material or setback to respect
the historic lot pattern and rhythm of downtown development;
Abrupt changes in building heights and/or roof orientation should be
diminished by offsets of building form and mass;
Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into
smaller scale elements;
Use color to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale of the building;
Use planter walls and other pedestrian-oriented features on the ground
floor such as windows, wall detailing, and public art.
Consider the quality of natural and reflected light in public spaces within
and around the project site and choose materials and colors to enhance
lighting effects with respect to available solar exposure.
Utility boxes for phone, cable, electricity, natural gas, information systems
and/or other services should be located along service alleys, within the
building, or in a sub-grade vault.
See A2.0, Site Plan
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See A2.0, Site Plan
and A1.1 Site Sections
See A2.0, A3.0-A3.3,
Building Elevations
Location of backflow prevention devices and the fire sprinkler riser must be
identified on project plans submitted for Architectural Review and shall be
located inside the building, consistent with County Health Department
requirements.
Minimum sidewalk width should be 8-feet clear of obstructions for
pedestrians (furniture, news racks, street trees etc.) across 100% of the
project frontage. Minor deviations may occur where necessary to preserve
street trees, or where right-of-way limitations reduce available sidewalk
width.
Service access to the building for loading and maintenance functions
should not exceed 20% of the project frontage on any facing street.
4.2-B,4 4.2-B,4a4.2-B,4b4.2-B,4c4.2-B,4d4.2-B,4e
4.2-B,4f
4.2-B,4g
4.2-B,4h See A3 - Elevations
4.2-B,4i
4.2-B,4j See A3.4 Materials
Board
4.2-B,5
4.2-B,5a
4.2-B,5b See A2.0
4.2-B,5c
4.2-B,5d
See T2.0-T2.3, Perspective ViewsSee T2.0See T2.1See T2.0-T2.3, Perspective Views
Use roof overhangs, cornices, dentals, moldings, awnings, and other
decorative features to decrease the vertical appearance of the walls;
Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve multiple policy objectives, including design amenities, housing and retail land uses. Appropriate techniques to assure that tall buildings respect the context of their setting and provide an appropriate visual transition to adjacent structures include, but are not limited to: See T2.0-T2.3, Perspective Views
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
For large projects that occupy several lots, variable roof heights andarchitectural features that penetrate the roof plane are encouraged to diminish the mass and scale of the taller structure; Reinforce the established horizontal lines of facades in adjacent buildings; Maintain the distinction between the first and upper floors by having a more transparent ground floor. Larger buildings (where frontages exceed 50 feet) should be clearly expressed at the street frontage by changing material or setback to respect the historic lot pattern and rhythm of downtown development; Abrupt changes in building heights and/or roof orientation should be diminished by offsets of building form and mass;
Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into
smaller scale elements;
Use color to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale of the building;
Use planter walls and other pedestrian-oriented features on the ground
floor such as windows, wall detailing, and public art.
Consider the quality of natural and reflected light in public spaces within
and around the project site and choose materials and colors to enhance
lighting effects with respect to available solar exposure.
Utility boxes for phone, cable, electricity, natural gas, information systems
and/or other services should be located along service alleys, within the
building, or in a sub-grade vault.
See A2.0, Site Plan
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See A2.0, Site Plan
and A1.1 Site Sections
See A2.0, A3.0-A3.3,
Building Elevations
Location of backflow prevention devices and the fire sprinkler riser must be
identified on project plans submitted for Architectural Review and shall be
located inside the building, consistent with County Health Department
requirements.
Minimum sidewalk width should be 8-feet clear of obstructions for
pedestrians (furniture, news racks, street trees etc.) across 100% of the
project frontage. Minor deviations may occur where necessary to preserve
street trees, or where right-of-way limitations reduce available sidewalk
width.
Service access to the building for loading and maintenance functions
should not exceed 20% of the project frontage on any facing street.
FAÇADE DESIGN GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
4.2-C
4.2-C,1
4.2-C,2
4.2-C,3
4.2-C,4
4.2-C,5
4.2-C,6 See A2.0
4.2-C,7
New structures and remodels should provide storefront windows, doors,
entries, transoms, awnings, cornice treatments and other architectural
features that complement existing structures, without copying their
architectural style.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.3
Elevations
Overall character. In general, buildings should have either flat or stepped
rooflines with parapets, and essentially flat facades. Walls with round or
curvilinear lines, or large pointed or slanted rooflines should generally be
avoided.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.3
Elevations
Proportions in relation to context . Buildings should be designed with
consideration of the characteristic proportions (relationship of height to
width) of existing adjacent facades, as well as the rhythm, proportion, and
spacing of their existing door and window openings.
Storefront rhythm . A new building facade that is proposed to be much
"wider" than the existing characteristic facades on the street should be
divided into a series of bays or components, defined by columns or
masonry piers that frame windows, doors and bulkheads. Creating and
reinforcing a facade rhythm helps tie the street together visually and
provides pedestrians with features to mark their progress down the street.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Elevations
Individual storefront proportions. Storefronts should not overpower the
building façade, and should be confined to the area framed by the support
piers and the lintel above, consistent with classic “Main Street”
architecture.
Wall surfaces. Wall surfaces, particularly at the street level, should be
varied and interesting, rather than unbroken and monolithic, because blank
walls discourage pedestrian traffic
Doorways. Doorways should be recessed, as described in Section D.3,
Bulkheads. Storefront windows should not begin at the level of the
sidewalk, but should sit above a base, commonly called a “bulkhead,” of
18 to 36 inches in height. Desirable materials for bulkhead facing include
those already common in the downtown: ornamental glazed tile in deep
rich hues, either plain or with Mediterranean or Mexican patterns; dark or
light marble panels; and pre-cast concrete.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Elevations
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Item 2
Packet Page 26
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 T3.9
SCALE: N.T.S.
DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDEINE - COMPLIANCE
4.2-D,1 GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
4.2-D,3
4.2-D,3a
4.2-D,3b
4.2-D,3c
4.2-D,4
4.2-D,4a
4.2-D,4b
4.2-D,4c
4.2-D,4d
MATERIALS & ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS
Finish materials. The exterior materials of downtown buildings involve
several aspects including color, texture, and materials. Materials with
integral color such as smooth troweled plaster, tile, stone, and brick are
encouraged. If the building's exterior design is complicated, with many
design features, the wall texture should be simple and subdued. However,
if the building design is simple (perhaps more monolithic), a finely textured
material, such as patterned masonry, can greatly enrich the building's
overall character.
See A3.4, Material
Board
Materials should complement those on significant adjacent buildings. The
following materials are considered appropriate for buildings within the
downtown.
- Exterior plaster (smooth troweled preferred)
- Cut stone, rusticated block (cast stone), and precast concrete
- New or used face-brick
- Ceramic tiles (bulkhead or cornice)
- Clapboard (where appropriate)
- Glass block (transom)
- Clear glass windows
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
Use of clear glass (at least 88 percent light transmission) on the first floor
is recommended. Introducing or changing the location or size of windows
or other openings that alter the architectural rhythm or character of the
original building is discouraged.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
Doorways. Doors and storefront systems should be of materials and have
details and ornament appropriate to the building wall materials.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
Storefront entrance doors should be recessed within the building façade to
provide an area for pedestrians to transition from the interior space to the
public sidewalk.
See A2.0 First Floor
Plan
Doors themselves should be primarily of glass, to avoid conflicts
between entering and exiting patrons.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Elevations
Door and entry designs and materials should be compatible with the other
storefront materials. Terrazzo and tile pavers are attractive and appropriate
paving materials common in the downtown, while indoor/outdoor carpeting
and wood planking are inappropriate materials.
Windows. Windows that allow pedestrians to see the activities within the
ground floors of downtown buildings are important in maintaining the
pedestrian orientation of the downtown. Ground floor windows adjacent to
sidewalks encourage pedestrians to linger, while extensive
blank walls do not.
When windows are added or changed, it is important that the design be
compatible with the themes common on the same block.
N/A
Permanent, fixed security grates or grilles in front of windows are not
permitted. Any necessary security grilles should be placed inside, behind
the window display area.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
Traditional storefront transom windows should be retained whenever
feasible. If the ceiling inside the structure has been lowered, the ceiling
should be stepped up to meet the transom so that light will penetrate the
interior of the building.
See A3.0-A3.1
Building Elevations
4.2-D,4e
4.2-D,5
4.2-D,5a
4.2-D,5b
4.2-D,5c
4.2-D,5d
4.2-D,5e
4.2-D,5f See A2.0
4.2-D,5g
4.2-D,6
GUIDELINE COMPLIANCE
4.2-E See A2.0
4.2-E,a See L1.1,A2.0
4.2-E,b See L1.1,A2.0
4.2-E,c See L1.0
4.2-E,d See L1.1,A2.0
4.2-E,e See A2.0
4.2-E,f See A2.0, Room 106
Existing windows should be maintained, and not "walled-in" or darkened to
provide more interior wall or storage space.
N/A
Awnings. Awnings should be retained and/or incorporated where feasible
and compatible with the storefront.
Where the facade of a commercial building is divided into distinct bays,
awnings should be placed within the vertical elements rather than
overlapping them.
See T2.0-T2.1
Perspective Views
Primary access to public plazas and courtyards should be from the street;
secondary access may be from retail shops, restaurants, offices, and other
uses.
Shade trees or architectural elements that provide shelter and relief from
direct sunlight should be provided.
Courtyards should be buffered from parking areas or drive aisles by low
walls, landscaping, or other features to clearly define the edges of the
pedestrian space.
Ample seating should be provided.
Bicycle parking should be provided.
Awning shape should relate to the window or door opening. See T2.0-T2.1
Perspective ViewsAwnings may not be internally illuminated.
Plazas and courtyards are encouraged within the downtown. .
Awnings can be either fixed or retractable.
The use of second floor awnings shall be coordinated with lower storefront
awnings. Canvas is the most appropriate material for awnings. Metal,
plastic (vinyl), or glossy materials are not appropriate.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Awnings should be functional and at least four feet wide.
A single building face with multiple tenants should use consistent awning
design and color on each building floor, unless the building architecture
differentiates the separate tenancies.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views,
and A3.0-A3.1
Other details. A number of other details should be incorporated into
exterior building design to add a degree of visual richness and interest
while meeting functional needs. These details include such items as:
Light fixtures, wall mounted or hung with decorative metal brackets
Metal grillwork, at vent openings or as decorative features at windows,
doorways or gates, decorative scuppers, catches and down-spouts,
preferably of copper, balconies, rails, finials, corbels, plaques, etc.
Flag or banner pole brackets. Crafted artworks.
See T2.0-T2.3,
Perspective Views
PUBLIC SPACES, PLAZAS AND COURTYARDS
Public spaces on downtown sites should be designed as extensions of the
public sidewalk by providing pedestrian amenities such as benches
fountains, and by continuing the pavement treatment of the sidewalk.
Item 2
Packet Page 27
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 L1.0
planting & TREE
REMOVAL PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NUPUPP.L 119.30'204.5 FF
204.38 FF
204.4 FF
204.37 FF 204.15 FF
204.06 FF
204.28 FF
204.77 FF
204.61 FF
CALIFORNIA
PIZZA KITCHEN
CHORRO STREET MARSH STREET(E) 10'-0" ALLEY
(N) MIXED USE BUILDING
BRANZINO
1 122
2333
3
4
54 6
5
TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME CONT REMARKS
4 Jacaranda mimosifolia / Single Trunk 24" box Size: 40-50` tall and 20-30` wide
WUCOLS PF = .4-.6
SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS
12 Sansevieria trifasciata / Mother-in-law`s Tongue 5 gal Size: 2`-4` tall and 1-2` wide
WUCOLS PF = .1-.3
13 Senecio mandraliscae `Blue Chalk Sticks` / Senecio 1 gal Size: 1`-3` tall x 2`-3` wide
WUCOLS PF = .1 - .3
PLANT SCHEDULE
1 SITE PLAN
SCALE:1" = 30'MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE1144 CHORRO STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAJACARANDA MOTHER IN LAWS TONQUE SENECIO
KEYNOTES
1. (E) STREET TREE TO REMAIN
2. (N) DECORATIVE PATIO FENCE
3. (N) RAISED PLANTERS
4. (E) PALM TO BE REMOVED
5. (E) CARROTWOOD TREE TO BE
REMOVED
6. (E) BRACHYCHITON TO BE REMOVED
Item 2
Packet Page 28
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 L1.1
ROOFTOP planting
plan
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NSTUDIO
601
357 SF
STUDIO
603
318 SF
STUDIO
604
318 SF
STUDIO
607
329 SF
STUDIO
608
337 SF
1-BD
611
451 SF
STUDIO
613
408 SF
STUDIO
614
450 SF
STUDIO
615
501 SF
STUDIO
616
484 SF
1-BD
617
576 SF
2-BD
605
660 SF
STUDIO
602
350 SF
STUDIO
606
329 SF
1-BD
609
362 SF
1-BD
610
479 SF
1-BD
612
451 SFCOMMON
KITCHEN
618
363 SF
(N) MIXED USE BUILDING
1 1 1 1
1
1
1
2
22
22
2
TREES QTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME CONT REMARKS
8 Magnolia grandiflora `Little Gem` / Dwarf Southern Magnolia 15 gal Size: 20`-25` tall and 10`-15` wide
WUCOLS PF = .4 - .6
SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS
4 Cotinus coggygria `Royal Purple` / Royal Purple Smoke Tree 5 gal Size: 16` tall and 15` wide
. WUCOLS PF = .4 - .6
43 Nepeta x faassenii `Walkers Low` / Walkers Low Catmint 1 gal Size: 2`- 2 1/2` tall and 2`-3` wide
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
9 Olea europaea `Little Ollie` TM / Little Ollie Olive 5 gal Size: 4`-6` tall and wide
WUCOLS PF = >.1
PLANT SCHEDULE
20 Senecio mandraliscae `Blue Chalk Sticks` / Senecio 1 gal Size: 1`-3` tall x 2`-3` wide
WUCOLS PF = .1 - .3
1 SITE PLAN
SCALE:1" = 30'MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE1144 CHORRO STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CADWARF SOUTHERN
MAGNOLIA
PURPLE ROYAL
SMOKE TREE
WALKERS LOW CATMINT LITTLE OLLIE OLIVE
MOTHER IN LAWS TONQUE SENECIO
KEYNOTES
1. (N) RAISED PLANTERS
2. (N) ROOFTOP PATIO
Item 2
Packet Page 29
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 L1.2
WATER CALCS
Estimated Total Water Use
Equation:
ETWU = (ETo) x (0.62) x [(PF x HA/IE) + SLA]
Enter values in Pale Blue Cells
Tan Cells Show Results
Messages and Warnings
Enter Irrigation Efficiency (equal to or greater than 0.71)0.91
Irrigation Efficiency Default Value 0.71
Plant Water Use Type Plant Factor
Low 0 - 0.3
Medium 0.4 - 0.6
High 0.7 - 1.0
SLA 1.00
Hydrozone
Plant Water
Use Type (s)
(low, medium,
high)
Plant Factor
(PF)
Hydrozone
Area (HA)
(ft2) PF x HA (ft
2)
1 Low 0.20 72 14
2 Medium 0.40 80 32
3 Low 0.20 276 55
4 Low 0.40 192 77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
178
SLA 1 0 0
Sum 620
Results
MAWA = 9,262 ETWU= 5,324 Gallons ETWU complies with MAWA
712 Cubic Feet
7 HCF
0.02 Acre-feet
0.01 Millions of Gallons
Enter value in Pale Blue Cells
Tan Cells Show Results
Messages and Warnings
Click on the blue cell on right to Pick City Name San Luis Obispo Name of City
ETo of City from Appendix A 43.80 ETo (inches/year)
Enter total landscape including SLA 620.00 LA (ft2)
Enter Special Landscape Area 0.00 SLA (ft2)
Results:
MAWA = (ET o) x (0.62) x [(0.55 x LA)+(0.45 x SLA)]9,261.56 Gallons
1,238.09 Cubic Feet
12.38 HCF
0.03 Acre-feet
0.01 Millions of Gallons
MAWA calculation incorporating Effective Precipitation (Optional)
ETo of City from Appendix A 43.80 ETo (inches/year)
Landscape Area 620.00 LA (ft2)
Special Landscape Area 0.00 SLA (ft2)
0.00 Total annual precipitation
Enter Effective Precipitation 0.00 Eppt (in/yr)(25% of total annual precipitation)
Results:
MAWA=(ET o - Eppt) x (0.62) x [(0.55 x LA)+(0.45 x SLA)]- Gallons
- Cubic Feet
- HCF
- Acre-feet
- Millions of Gallons
Item 2
Packet Page 30
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A1.0
2. MARSH STREET ELEVATION
1. CHORRO STREET ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
MARSH ST
TOP OF STRUCTURE 62'-0"
TOP OF BUILDING 55'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 47'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 30'-0"
TOP OF STRUCTURE 35'-0"
PLPL
PL PL
54'-0"15'-0"
5'-0" 10'-0"
70'-00"134'-6"5'-0"
110'-0"
CHORRO ST
MARSH ST
4'-6"
1"=30'-0"
TOP OF STRUCTURE 62'-0"
TOP OF BUILDING 55'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 47'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
TOP OF ROOF 30'-0"
TOP OF STRUCTURE 35'-0"
PLPL
PL PL
54'-0"15'-0"
5'-0"10'-0"
70'-00"134'-6"5'-0"
110'-0"
CHORRO ST
MARSH ST
4'-6"
1"=30'-0"
Item 2
Packet Page 31
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A1.1
SITE SECTION 2
SITE SECTION 1
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
Item 2
Packet Page 32
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.0
site plan and
first floor plan
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NKEYNOTES
1. (N) TREES. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR
SPECIES/SIZE. MAINTAIN 8’ CLEARANCE
2. (N) CURB CUT
3. (E) TREE TO REMAIN. MAINTAIN 8’
CLEARANCE AT SIDEWALK AROUND TREE.
4. (N) PAVING AT SIDEWALK
5. (E) GAS METER IN SIDEWALK
6. (E) PGE VAULT
7. (E) MANHOLE
8. (E) WATER METER IN SIDEWALK
9. (E) WATER METER IN SIDEWALK TO BE
RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF TREE GRATE
AREA
10. (E) FIRE HYDRANT
11. (E) TRUNCATED DOME - ADA MARKING
STRIP
12. (E) STREET LIGHT &TRAFFIC SIGNAL
13. (E) PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL
14. (E) CURB CUT AT ALLEY
15. (N) STORMWATER BIOFILTER PLANTER
TYP.
16. APPROXIMATE SIZE AND LOCATION OF (E)
BASEMENT TO REMAIN (STORAGE 001)
17. NEW FINISH FLOOR GRADES AT DOOR
THRESHOLDS PER 1.5% MAX CROSS
SLOPE FROM ADJACENT TOP OF CURB.
B
1
24'-0"15'-0"24'-0"
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
C D E F G
B C D E F G
20'-0"23'-0"20'-0"20'-0"
20'-0"23'-0"20'-0"20'-0"5'-0"25'-0"20'-0"25'-0"15'-0"5'-0"25'-0"20'-0"25'-0"720'-0"7 20'-0"A
A
10'-0"
10'-0"
H
H
22'-6"
22'-6"UPUPRETAIL
102
1,425 SF
TRASH
107
612 SF
UTILITY
108
480 SF
2
3
RETAIL
101
1,424 SF
RETAIL
100
1,738 SF
OFFICE LOBBY
104
594 SF
RES. LOBBY
103
597 SF
GARAGE
105
3,782 SF
P.L 119.30'(E) 10'-0" ALLEY (E) ADJACENT
BUILDING
CHORRO STREET MARSH STREET
4
5
MC - 2
MC - 1
1-ADA
BIKE
106
292 SF
SHOW /
LOCKERS
110
198 SF
FIRE
RISER
109
89 SF
COVERED
AREA
111
546 SF
MAIL BOXES
1
1
3
2
311 45
5
6 6
7
7
8
8
8
9
10
11
12
13
10
14
5'-0"15
2
A1.1
1
A1.1
6
7
12'-4"4'-4"9'-4"12'-6"10'-0"10'-0"8'-0"16
204.5 FF
204.38 FF
204.4 FF
204.37 FF 204.15 FF
204.06 FF
204.28 FF
204.77 FF
204.61 FF
17
Item 2
Packet Page 33
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.1
SECOND floor plan
third floor, sim.
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NItem 2
Packet Page 34
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.2
fourth FLOOR plan
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NItem 2
Packet Page 35
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.3
fifth FLOOR plan
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NItem 2
Packet Page 36
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.4
sixth FLOOR plan
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NItem 2
Packet Page 37
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.5
ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”NItem 2
Packet Page 38
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A2.6
2-BEDROOM 505 616 SF
SCALE: 3/32” = 1’-0”
UNIT FLOOR PLAN EXAMPLES
STUDIO 507 329 SFSTUDIO 504 318 SFSTUDIO 501 357 SF
1-BEDROOM 511 451 SF STUDIO 516 484 SF1-BEDROOM 510 479 SF1-BEDROOM 509 362 SF
Item 2
Packet Page 39
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A3.0
SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
SECOND FLOOR 15'-0"
THIRD FLOOR 27'-0"
FIFTH FLOOR 50'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"75'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTPL PL
SIXTH FLOOR 61'-0"
FOURTH FLOOR 39'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 72'-0"
FIRST FLOOR 0'-0"15'-0"12'-0"12'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"1/16"=1'-0" - SOUTH
Item 2
Packet Page 40
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A3.1
EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”75'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTPLPL
5'-0"STAIRTOWERSECOND FLOOR 15'-0"
THIRD FLOOR 27'-0"
FIFTH FLOOR 50'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
SIXTH FLOOR 61'-0"
FOURTH FLOOR 39'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 72'-0"
FIRST FLOOR 0'-0"15'-0"12'-0"12'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"EAST - 1/16"=1'-0"
Item 2
Packet Page 41
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A3.2
NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”
PLPL
75'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT5'-0"STAIRTOWERSECOND FLOOR 15'-0"
THIRD FLOOR 27'-0"
FIFTH FLOOR 50'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
SIXTH FLOOR 61'-0"
FOURTH FLOOR 39'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 72'-0"
FIRST FLOOR 0'-0"15'-0"12'-0"12'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"1/16"=1'-0" - NORTH
Item 2
Packet Page 42
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A3.3
WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1” = 20’-0”75'-0"MAX. BUILDING HEIGHTPL PL
5'-0"STAIRTOWERPL
SECOND FLOOR 15'-0"
THIRD FLOOR 27'-0"
FIFTH FLOOR 50'-0"
SIXTH FLOOR 61'-0"
FOURTH FLOOR 39'-0"
TOP OF PARAPET 75'-0"
TOP OF ROOF 72'-0"
FIRST FLOOR 0'-0"15'-0"12'-0"12'-0"11'-0"11'-0"11'-0"TOP OF PARAPET 42'-6"
1/16"=1'-0" - WEST
Item 2
Packet Page 43
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
MARSH & CHORRO MIXED-USE at DOWNTOWN CENTRE
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
DATE: 06/12/2019 A3.4
MATERIAL BOARD
BLACK NO.29 BLACK
NEWPORT SW 7069 IRON OREP-525 NAVAJO WHITE
BULKHEADS AND WINDOW HEADERS
CONCRETE FINISH OR POLISHED PLASTER
STOREFRONT
KAWNEER, ANODIZED ALUM.
WALL SCONCE
LUMENS URBAN INDOOR/OUTDOOR
BRICK SIDING
COMMERCIAL BRICK CORP
SIDING AND TRIM PANELS
BLACK METAL
STUCCO SIDING
MERLEX SBF BASE A
Item 2
Packet Page 44
Item 2
Packet Page 45
Historic Preservation Report for
1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo,
San Luis Obispo County, California
OCTOBER 2018
PREPARED FOR
Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP
Copeland Properties
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Item 2
Packet Page 46
Item 2
Packet Page 47
HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT FOR
1144 CHORRO STREET,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP
Copeland Properties
P.O. Box 12260
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Mark Rawson
Prepared by
Paula Juelke Carr, M.A.
SWCA Environmental Consultants
1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 52154
October 2018
Item 2
Packet Page 48
Item 2
Packet Page 49
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
i
CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Review of City Files: 1144 Chorro ............................................................................................................. 2
Summary of Development of Downtown Historic District ...................................................................... 2
Evaluation Criteria for Consistency with Historic Preservation Ordinance ......................................... 4
Evaluation Criteria for Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties (Rehabilitation)................................................................................... 6
Additional Guidance from the U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................................. 7
Professional Commentary on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards ................................................. 7
Analysis and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 7
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Item 2
Packet Page 50
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Item 2
Packet Page 51
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
1
INTRODUCTION
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) has prepared this Historic Preservation Report to satisfy
Condition 3 of City of San Luis Obispo (City) ARCH-1687-2018 & USE-1688-2018 – Completeness
Review #1 for the Marsh & Chorro Development Project (project) located at 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis
Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. This report includes a review of the proposed project plans
and assesses the project’s conformance with City policies and guidelines.
BACKGROUND
The 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 provided for the
establishment of a Certified Local Government Program to encourage the direct participation of local
governments (in partnership with the State Office of Historic Preservation [SHPO] and National Park
Service [NPS]) in the identification, evaluation, registration, and preservation of historic properties within
local government jurisdictions and promote the integration of local preservation interests and concerns
into local planning and decision-making processes.
The City became a Certified Local Government in 2012, thereby assuming responsibility for the
following historic preservation roles:
• Enforce appropriate state and local laws and regulations for the designation and protection of
historic properties;
• Establish a historic preservation review commission by local ordinance;
• Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties;
• Provide for public participation in the local preservation program; and
• Satisfactorily perform responsibilities delegated to it by the state.
The City has a number of interrelated resources available to assist it in carrying out its mandates as a
Certified Local Government. Among these are:
• The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of
Regulations [CCR] Section 1500 et seq.);
• City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.01);
• City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 10229 [2010 Series]);
• City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines (adopted by City Council Resolution No.
9391 [2002 Series], amended May 2003, October 2004, March 2007, November 2007, and June
2010);
• The Cultural Heritage Committee (historic preservation advisory body to the City Council);
• City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement (Historic Resources Group 2012);
and
• City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Chapter 6: Conservation and Open Space Element
(adopted by City Council Resolution No. 10586 [2014 Series], last revised December 2014);
Section 3: Cultural Heritage.
Item 2
Packet Page 52
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
2
REVIEW OF CITY FILES: 1144 CHORRO
SWCA began with a review of City Community Development Department files relating to the Marsh &
Chorro Development Project site at 1144 Chorro Street, along with further review of the archived Cultural
Heritage Committee (CHC) agenda packets available online. The agenda packet prepared for the regularly
noticed June 22, 2015, CHC hearing included a staff report for the Discovery San Luis Obispo project,
which proposed to remodel the exterior and interior of the commercial building at 1144 Chorro Street (the
Marsh & Chorro Development Project location) (City of San Luis Obispo 2015). The Project Information
section of the staff report described the subject property as “a non-historic structure located with the
Commercial Downtown (C-D-H) zone at the border of the Downtown Historic District” (City of San Luis
Obispo 2015:CHC1-2). The assumption that the project site is not a historical resource for the purposes of
CEQA is based on the above information stated in the City’s CHC agenda packet. No further evaluation
of the building is therefore required.
Although the earlier Discovery San Luis Obispo project did not propose demolition of the existing
structure, the June 22, 2015, staff evaluation and analysis of the proposed Discovery San Luis Obispo
project (excerpted here) nevertheless provides useful comparative material for the evaluation and analysis
of the currently proposed March & Chorro Development project. This earlier documentation also provides
valuable suggestions for enhancing conformity.
City planning staff found that the Discovery project’s proposed exterior and interior modifications to the
1144 Chorro commercial building were consistent with Policy 3.2.1 of the City’s Historic Preservation
Guidelines, which requires that “New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the
scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting, and street yard
setbacks of the district’s historic structures . . . ” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:7).
The staff analysis went on to state:
The proposed remodel maintains the scale, mass, and overall rhythm of the existing
structure and would remain compatible with the form, scale, and massing of nearby
development and the overall Downtown Historic District. The subject location (which is
one floor plus mezzanine in height) abuts single and two-story structures and there are a
range of two to three story structures in the area. No exterior additions to the height or
mass are proposed . . .
The Downtown Historic District has a variety of architectural styles but most structures
appear to be constructed with high quality materials and attention to detail. The
contemporary design of the proposed project does not detract from defining features of
adjacent historic buildings or from other historic resource within the Downtown Historic
District because the modifications have a limited scope, which do not change the massing
and overall architectural form of the structure . . . (City of San Luis Obispo 2015:CHC1-
4).
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN HISTORIC
DISTRICT
The proposed building site at 1144 Chorro Street is located on the southeast margin of the City’s
designated Historic Downtown District. As described in the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines, the
district “encompasses the oldest part of the city of San Luis Obispo and contains one of the City’s highest
Item 2
Packet Page 53
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
3
concentrations of historic sites and structures” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:38–40). The Downtown
Historic District also includes some of the City’s most disparate resources in terms of construction dates,
historic context, and building materials. Examples include Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, Mexican-
era adobes, and examples of American-period frame and brick buildings. The majority of the district’s
surviving buildings date to the 1870s–1920s.
The district, which encompasses more than 60 acres and approximately 100 designated historic buildings,
is characterized chiefly by the commercial buildings that grew up in the latter part of the nineteenth
century along the city’s commercial corridors (Higuera, Monterey, and Marsh) and the main cross streets
that connected them (Chorro and Garden). Other streetscape characteristics include buildings that face the
street, sidewalks, grade-level recessed entrances, and street trees. As discussed in the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, “the district’s commercial architectural styles reflect the increasing
wealth of the times. Architectural styles . . . include examples of Classical Revival, Italianate and
Romanesque structures, and more modest early American commercial. Although a few structures were
designed by outside architects (specifically from San Francisco and Los Angeles) the majority of
Downtown buildings were designed and built by local builders. Predominant architectural features
include:
A. One to two stories (occasionally three)
B. Flat or low-pitched roof, often with a parapet
C. Wide entablature or projecting cornice that often includes classical architectural details such as
dentils, brackets and molding
D. First-floor windows are horizontally oriented storefront windows, often with display space facing
the street. In multi-story structures, windows are vertically oriented, typically with double-hung
wood sashes, and symmetrically arranged so that they are dimensionally taller than their width
E. Structures follow simple rectilinear or ‘boxy’ building forms
F. Masonry or smooth stucco wall siding
G. Contrasting bulkheads along base of street façade
H. Use of awnings, historic signs, second-story overhangs and canopies; and
I. Use of transom windows above storefronts” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:38–39).
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps of the Marsh & Chorro Development Project area document the
transition of the built-environment in the project vicinity through 1970. Although Higuera Street had
become an established commercial street by the 1880s, the project vicinity of Marsh Street retained its
early residential streetscape of one-story frame dwellings, along with a smattering of churches, until the
1910s. The project site itself still had the same one-story frame residences until at least 1926.
The first decade of the twentieth century saw the construction of several large-scale building projects
within a one-block radius of the project area. These included three commercial buildings (the 1901–02
Bank of America Building, the 1903–04 Johnson Block, and the 1904 H. M. Warden Block), the First
Presbyterian Church built in 1905 (from stone quarried from Bishop Peak), and the four-story Masonic
Temple built in 1906 across Marsh Street from the project site. By 1926, the project area was undergoing
further commercial development: Although the subject parcel and neighboring parcels on Marsh Street
remained entirely residential, Chorro Street had a commercial building shared by the Santa Maria Gas
Company and a “pipe shop and office,” and a former residence on the southwest corner of Chorro and
Marsh Streets housed an office of the US Weather Bureau. Farther south on the corner of Marsh and
Garden Streets were two-story stucco buildings—the Struver Building (1913) and the Snyder Building
(1925). North on Marsh Street, at the corner of Morro Street, was the newly built U.S. Post Office (also a
Item 2
Packet Page 54
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
4
prominent stucco building). The post office was flanked by the Presbyterian Church on one side and the
Christian Science Church on the other. The Masonic Temple—a bulky building with stucco coating,
distinctive engaged pilasters, and a prominent cornice and entablature, which remained the tallest and
most substantial building within view—had been joined by the Elks Lodge, on the northwest corner of
Marsh and Morro Streets.
New construction between 1926 and 1970 on Chorro Street, between Marsh and Higuera Streets, included
the three-story Wineman Hotel stucco remodel in 1931 and the two-story brick-faced Riley’s Department
Store building, constructed at 1144 Chorro Street in 1955 and in operation at that location from 1956
through 1992.1 Other commercial buildings constructed on Marsh Street between Garden and Morro
Streets include additional two-story stucco structures.
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CONSISTENCY WITH
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is codified as Chapter 14.01 of the Municipal Code.2 The
subheadings of the chapter relevant to the Marsh & Chorro Development Project are the following, which
incorporate, by reference, CEQA regulations, Community Design Guidelines, and the City’s Conservation
and Open Space Element:
14.01.010 Findings and Purpose
14.01.010.A.3. The California Environmental Quality Act requires special treatment of
historic resources and the establishment of clear local guidance for the identification and
preservation of such resources lends [sic] clarity and certainty to the review of
development applications involving historic resources.
14.01.010.B.1. Identify, protect, preserve, and promote the continuing use and upkeep of
San Luis Obispo’s historic structures, sites and districts.
14.01.010.B.4. Implement the historic preservation goals and policies of the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan.
14.01.010.B.7. Establish the procedures and significance criteria to be applied when
evaluating development project effects on historic resources.
14.01.010.B.8. Fulfill the City’s responsibilities as a Certified Local Government under
State and Federal regulations and for Federal Section 106 reviews.
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance also defines the Historic Preservation Report and other
relevant terminology used in architectural evaluations:
1 Building Permit No. A-475 for new construction, issued to C.C. Humphreys and H. A. Landeck; Maino Construction; June 23,
1955; project completed October 23, 1955.
2 The City of San Luis Obispo CHC is delegated to review applications and development review projects, including new
construction, additions, or alterations located in historic districts, and make recommendations to the Community Development
Department Director, the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, or the City Council (14.01.030.C.4).
Item 2
Packet Page 55
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
5
14.01.020 Definitions
14.01.020.2 Adjacent: located on property which abuts the subject property on at least
one point of the property line, on the same property, or located on property directly
across right-of-way from subject property and able to be viewed concurrently.
14.01.020.9 Character Defining Features: as outlined in the US Department of the
Interior’s National Register 15 and Preservation Brief 17: “How to Identify Character
Defining Features.” The architectural character and general composition of a resource,
including, but not limited to, type and texture of building material; type, design, and
character of all windows, doors, stairs, porches, railings. Molding and other appurtenant
elements; and fenestration, ornamental detailing, elements of craftsmanship, finishes, etc.
14.01.020.20 Historic Context: Historic context are those patterns, themes or trends in
history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning
and significance is made clear.
14.01.020.21 Historic District/Historical Preservation District: areas or neighborhoods
with a collection or concentration of listed or potentially contributing historic
properties…where historic properties help define the area or neighborhood’s unique
architectural, cultural, and historical character or sense of place. Historic districts are
delineated on the official zoning map as Historic (H) overlay zone under San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Chapter 17.54.
14.01.020.23 Historic Preservation Report: A document which describes preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction measures for a historic resource, based on
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of historic Properties, and
which includes standards and guidelines for recommended treatments for preserving the
resource.
14.01.020.32 Massing: The spatial relationships, arrangement and organization of a
building’s physical bulk or volume.
14.01.020.39 Preservation: The act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain
a historic site, building or other structure’s historically significant existing form,
integrity, and materials through stabilization, repair and maintenance.
14.01.020.42 Qualified Professional: an individual meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61 Appendix A) in history,
architectural history, historic architecture and other designated categories….
14.01.020.48 Scale: The proportions of architectural design that relate to human size or
other relative size measure.
14.01.020.49 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as published by the US Department of
the Interior and as amended from time to time.
14.01.020.50 Setting: The physical area, environment or neighborhood in which a
resource is located.
14.01.020.53. Siting: The placement of structures and improvement on a property or site.
Item 2
Packet Page 56
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
6
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE
TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES (REHABILITATION)
Four approaches to the treatment of historic properties are recommended by the Secretary of the Interior:
Rehabilitation, Preservation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Of these, Rehabilitation offers the most
latitude in adaptive re-use of existing historic properties. In evaluating the current proposed project’s
compliance with the 10 Rehabilitation Standards, SWCA has considered the Downtown Historic District
as a whole as well as the individual historic properties within the viewshed of the Marsh & Chorro
Development Project. Standard No. 9 is the most relevant standard for the proposed project.
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires
minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use.
Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be
undertaken.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will
be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the
severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature
will match the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical
evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources
must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property.
The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the
historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the
integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Item 2
Packet Page 57
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
7
Additional Guidance from the U.S. Department of the Interior
“As with new additions, the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of new
construction on the site of a historic building must be compatible with those of the
historic building. When visible and in close proximity to historic buildings, the new
construction must be subordinate to these buildings. New construction should also be
distinct from the old and must not attempt to replicate historic buildings elsewhere on site
and to avoid creating a false sense of historic development” (National Park Service
[n.d.]).
Professional Commentary on the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards
At the 2007 National Preservation Conference, the distinguished architect and professor Steven W. Semes
emphasized that new buildings in an historic setting should focus more on the “sense of place” than the
“sense of time.” Semes’s point of view is that historic districts usually contain buildings in many different
styles, but most follow an approach to design that reflects the sense of the specific place and create
continuity over time rather than contrast and disruption. It is this continuity over time that is important to
creating and maintaining the character of historic districts. Thus, from Semes’s point of view, any style
would be acceptable in an historic district provided it draws on the influences of the place and harmonizes
with, rather than ruptures, the continuity of architectural character (Preservation Alliance for Greater
Philadelphia 2007).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The issue of compatibility—with individual historical resources and with the Downtown Historic District
as a whole—is the primary issue in determining compliance with the City’s Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines (in particular Section 3.2.1) and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation (in particular, Standard No. 9) for development within historic districts and development
adjacent to historical resources.
Some individual City-listed historic buildings located within the Downtown Historic District (e.g.,
Wineman Hotel, First Presbyterian Church, Masonic Temple) are sited in such a way that both the historic
building and the proposed Marsh & Chorro Development project would be visible concurrently. The
project is also proposed as a new addition to the Downtown Historic District, which is currently
experiencing a resurgence of development and redevelopment projects. Several of these infill projects,
either already in construction or still in the development pipeline, are undeniably large-scale in terms of
their height and massing; their visual prominence is altering familiar downtown streetscapes and skylines.
As part of the evaluation for compatibility, a pertinent historic preservation question is whether a given
project, or the aggregate of these new projects, is consistent with the City’s historic preservation goals.
City planning staff and the City Council are, of course, obliged to consider multiple (and often
competing) points of view in their decision making. The cultural heritage section of the City’s General
Plan specifically acknowledges the inherent difficulties in balancing historic preservation goals with other
community goals:
Throughout California, older established neighborhoods are feeling the effects of growth
and intensification due to contemporary development which often dwarfs or lacks the
grace of older homes it replaces. Commercial areas are also feeling the impact of a
changing economy with new uses, development patterns and economic realities.
Item 2
Packet Page 58
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
8
Underutilized sites with historic resources are often prime targets for redevelopment
projects, with the resulting loss of those resources. Moreover, some cultural resources
have been lost due to unclear or conflicting public policies, incomplete information and
the lack of funding. The loss of significant historic, cultural and archaeological resources
can reduce the community’s uniqueness and make it a less desirable place in which to
live, work or visit.
As San Luis Obispo enters the 21st century, it is prudent to look into the future to
anticipate problems which may lie ahead. We have already experienced some of these
same pressures, and it is reasonable to expect that we will continue to face similar
challenges in the near future. Through its General Plan policies and related
implementation measures, the City intends to help balance cultural resource preservation
with other community goals (City of San Luis Obispo 2014:6-14–6-15).
Architectural historians and other technical specialists, on the other hand, are expected to focus on the
particular issues of their area of expertise. That is not to say that they should be unaware of or indifferent
to other issues of concern. It is a standard analytical approach to look at overall historical context when
considering historical resources. This approach has merit, though, only when it is understood in an
organic way and not as a snapshot moment in time. Economic realities have always shaped the form, size,
construction materials, aesthetic qualities, and use of San Luis Obispo’s myriad architectural resources—
no matter when they were built or where they were located. Over the past 150 years, the City has
experienced episodes of economic downturn and economic recovery, accompanied respectively by
building slumps and building booms. New construction has historically embraced contemporary
architectural trends (which sometimes included architectural revivals of earlier styles). As part of this
long-term general economic and construction trend, new construction has also often been larger and more
substantially built than the majority of buildings already in place around it. The Masonic Temple, for
instance, which has dominated Marsh Street for more than a century, was roughly three times the height
and size of surrounding structures when it was built in 1913—at a time when the streetscape was
predominantly one-story frame dwellings and vacant lots. During the past century, there have also been
long intervals of limited growth during which a generation of residents might witness relatively few
conspicuous changes. It should be pointed out, of course, that earlier episodes of large-scale construction
generally happened long before the evolution of the modern regulatory environment and its concerns with
historic preservation, but new construction has nevertheless always been indicative of prevailing
historical trends.
The project clearly evidences the intent to incorporate numerous design elements to be compatible with
adjacent and nearby architectural styles and materials. The massing of the building—though clearly tall
and substantial—is nevertheless softened by subdued colors and fenestration of the lower stories, as well
as the setback and change in surface material of the uppermost stories. Cornice trim is suitably
incorporated at a respectful scale. The building is designed in an unobtrusive contemporary style that
neither suggests a fictitious past nor attempts to dominate or compete with the more flamboyant
architecture of the historic Masonic Temple across Marsh Street. Marsh Street is noticeably wider than
Higuera and Monterey Streets, but the numerous mature street trees provide considerable screening of
building mass on both sides of the street. Marsh Street at Chorro Street is also noticeably at a lower
elevation than the uphill topography that characterizes the intersections of Higuera and Osos Streets or
Chorro and Palm Streets, where buildings that are tall to begin with look even taller against the horizon.
The City parking structure on the opposite corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets provides a tall visual
counterpoint to the proposed Marsh & Chorro Development Project. Other nearby designated historic
buildings within a one-block radius have limited views of the project site from the city street, generally
because of the narrowness of the cross streets and screening provided by street trees.
Item 2
Packet Page 59
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
9
With careful consideration of: (1) the historical development of the Downtown Historic District; (2) the
character-defining features of adjacent and nearby designated historic buildings; (3) site topography,
street width, and sightlines; (4) the district-wide distribution of multi-storied designated historic
buildings, other multi-storied historic-period buildings, and recently constructed multi-storied buildings;
and (5) the proposed materials, colors, massing, setbacks, ornamental detailing, wall recesses, bulkheads,
canopies, balconies, railings, fenestration, lintels, ledges, window reveals, and other design elements of
the proposed project, SWCA has concluded that the project, as currently designed, complies with the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties (Rehabilitation).
Item 2
Packet Page 60
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
10
REFERENCES CITED
City of San Luis Obispo
2006 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Chapter 6: Conservation and Open Space Element.
Adopted April 4, 2006, last revised December 9, 2014 (Council Resolution No. 10586, 2014
Series). Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651. Accessed
October 2018.
2010 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. November 2010.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144. Accessed October
2018.
2015 San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes, Agenda Packet for ARCH-1376-
2015, Hearing Item No. 1. June 22, 2015. Available at:
http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/1,1,1,1/doc/42256/Page1.aspx. Accessed October 2018.
National Park Service
[n.d.] New Construction within the Boundaries of Historic Properties. U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service Technical Preservation Services. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/new-
construction.htm. Accessed October 2018.
Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia
2007 Sense of Place: Design Guidelines for New Construction in Historic Districts. Available at:
http://www.preservationalliance.com/publications/SenseofPlace_final.pdf. Accessed October
2018.
Item 2
Packet Page 61
Architectural Evaluation for
1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo,
San Luis Obispo County, California
APRIL 2020
PREPARED FOR
City of San Luis Obispo
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Item 2
Packet Page 62
Item 2
Packet Page 63
ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION FOR
1144 CHORRO STREET,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Prepared by
Paula Juelke Carr, M.A., Senior Architectural Historian
SWCA Environmental Consultants
1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 27640.15
April 2020
Item 2
Packet Page 64
Item 2
Packet Page 65
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SWCA has prepared this architectural evaluation of the commercial building at 1144 Chorro Street, San
Luis Obispo, in connection with environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for the proposed Jamestown Premier SLO Retail development at 1144 Chorro Street/840 Marsh
Street (project). The building occupies County of San Luis Obispo Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) 002-
427-012. The project area limits are coterminous with the outer boundary of the parcel. As proposed, the
project entails the demolition of the commercial building, built in 1955, that operated at that location as
Rileys Department Store from 1955 to 1993.
Specifically, this report has been prepared, in conformance with 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR)
Section 15064.5 and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, to determine whether the former
Rileys Department Store building possesses sufficient historical significance and physical integrity to
meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or
otherwise constitutes a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA, or whether it is eligible for local
designation on the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Master List of Historic Resources or as a contributing
resource to the Downtown Historic District in conformance with Section 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
This report concludes that the former Rileys Department Store commercial building located at 1144
Chorro Street does not retain sufficient physical integrity to the period of its significance (1955–1967) to
be able to convey its historic-period identity and role in the commercial life of San Luis Obispo. For a
business that relies on branding and visibility, the loss of distinctive and prominent signage (the letter “R”
above the canopy on the Chorro Street frontage, and a tall neon “Rileys” sign that rose above the roofline
at the corner of Chorro and Marsh) is a substantial loss to the building’s integrity of design, materials,
feeling, and association. The interpolation of the marble wall cladding and brick-and-cement bench on
Chorro Street; the expansive, angled canvas awning along both street frontages; and the black anodized
aluminum door frame, which replaced a display window and door on Marsh Street, have caused further
inroads on the integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association that would need to be
present to meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR or for local designation, or otherwise
constitute historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
Item 2
Packet Page 66
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Item 2
Packet Page 67
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
iii
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... i
Project Description ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Historical Context ....................................................................................................................................... 9
San Luis Obispo Mid-Century Commercial Development .................................................................... 9
Mid-Century Architectural Trends in Storefront Design ..................................................................... 11
Rileys Department Store History .......................................................................................................... 17
Crocker & Bros 1887–c1900; J. Crocker & Co. c1900–1920 ....................................................... 17
D. J. Riley ...................................................................................................................................... 19
H.A. Landeck, Sr., and Coy C. Humphrey .................................................................................... 24
The New Store: Chorro and Marsh ................................................................................................ 27
Rileys in the Recent Past................................................................................................................ 37
Description of Historic-Period Built-Environment Resources in the Project Area Limits ................ 38
Evaluation of Architectural Resources in Project Area of Potential Effects ........................................ 59
California Register of Historical Resources................................................................................... 60
City of San Luis Obispo Local Historic Preservation Criteria ....................................................... 64
Findings ...................................................................................................................................................... 69
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 69
Preparer’s Qualifications ......................................................................................................................... 70
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 71
Appendices
Appendix A. Mid-Century Commercial Modernism: Design and Materials, by Carol J. Dyson
Item 2
Packet Page 68
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
iv
Figures
Figure 1. Project location and vicinity map. ............................................................................................... 10
Figure 2. Crystal Motors, Brooklyn, New York, designed by famed Mid-Century architect Morris
Lapidus in 1950 (Class Haus 2019). ......................................................................................... 14
Figure 3. Crystal Motors, Brooklyn, New York, designed by Morris Lapidus in 1950 (Class Haus
2019). ........................................................................................................................................ 14
Figure 4. Architectural rendering for Bullock’s Westwood (PatricksMercy 2010). ................................... 15
Figure 5. Becket’s Bullock's Westwood opened in 1951 (Los Angeles Public Library Photo
Collection c1953). ..................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 6. Libbey-Owens Ford Glass Company brochure, 1942. ................................................................ 16
Figure 7. This 1946 hardware store design “combines dramatic signage with linear display boxes
that run from the exterior plywood and aluminum frame through the open front and on
into the store” (Dyson 2017:6). ................................................................................................. 16
Figure 8. Floating display windows “deconstructed the front plane of retail windows,” Irene Burke
dress shop, Long Beach, 1948 (Dyson 2015:164). ................................................................... 17
Figure 9. February 1888 Sanborn map (sheet 5) showing of Crocker Brothers two-story brick
building under construction at Higuera and Garden Streets. .................................................... 18
Figure 10. December 1891 Sanborn map (sheet 9) showing Crocker Brothers store in operation. ............ 18
Figure 11. The first store building opened in 1888 as A. Crocker & Bros. (Franks 2004:49). ................... 18
Figure 12. After Jacob Crocker bought out his brothers’ interest in the store at the turn of the
century it operated as J. Crocker & Co., at the same Higuera Street and Garden Street
location (Middlecamp 2019). .................................................................................................... 19
Figure 13. Riley-Crocker Company advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1916:4). ..................................... 20
Figure 14. Store advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1917a:5). .................................................................. 21
Figure 15. Store advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1917b:8). .................................................................. 21
Figure 16. Christmas advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1917c:5). .......................................................... 22
Figure 17. Expert corset-fitting advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1918:2). ............................................ 22
Figure 18. Consultation advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1926:5). ........................................................ 23
Figure 19. School opening advertisement (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1942:12)......................... 23
Figure 20. Lamson Pneumatic Tube catalogue, c1910s (Meanwhile, at the Manse 2012). ........................ 24
Figure 21. Landeck and Humphrey’s pledge to carry on the business according to Riley’s wishes
(San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1945b:6). ........................................................................ 25
Figure 22. Interior modernization efforts at the Higuera and Garden Street location (San Luis
Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1954:11). ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 23. Riley Department Store building nearing completion on the day before official opening
(San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1955c:1). ........................................................................ 27
Figure 24. Artist’s rendering of new Rileys Department Store (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
1956b:24). ................................................................................................................................. 28
Figure 25. The first unit of Rileys Department Store, with the Union Hardware store that occupied
the building next door between 1955 and 1960 (History Center of San Luis Obispo
County). .................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 26. In September 1955, Rileys acquired the former Albrecht’s furniture store at 2211 Broad
Street “to complete Rileys growth as a full-fledged department store,” (advertising cuts
from San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1956b:24. ................................................................ 30
Figure 27. Rileys December 1956 “My Baby Magazine,” which probably appeared as an insert in
the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune and other local Central Coast newspapers
(PicClick 2018). ........................................................................................................................ 30
Item 2
Packet Page 69
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
v
Figure 28. Beauty consultant advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1958:6). ................................................ 31
Figure 29. Wedding consultation advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1962a:4). ........................................ 31
Figure 30. Laura Righetti Garzola (1905–2014), who headed the store’s cosmetics department
(Trujillo 2018). .......................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 31. Interior view of store, including mezzanine and staircase, c1958 (KSBY 2018). ..................... 32
Figure 32. Another interior view of merchandise and stairway to mezzanine, taken on same day as
Figure 31, c1958 (Pinterest 2019b). .......................................................................................... 33
Figure 33. Window display advertising Historical Museum’s Cabrillo Scholarship, featuring
historical costume on left, artifacts in case, and Portuguese flag (History Center of San
Luis Obispo County). ................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 34. View of Rileys vertical sign and flagpole at the corner of Chorro and Marsh, c1959
(History Center of San Luis Obispo County). ........................................................................... 34
Figure 35. Artist’s rendering, probably c1955, of what may have been a proposed Rileys
Department Store exterior design; note the hardware store at the left (Pinterest 2019a). ......... 35
Figure 36. An advertisement published in 1962 featured the entire artist’s rendering of the Chorro
Street elevation (cf. Figure 17, above) (Santa Maria Times 1962b:6). ..................................... 35
Figure 37. Rileys opened another satellite store—a home furnishings and music center—on August
13, 1964, in the College Square Shopping Center on Foothill Boulevard (Santa Maria
Times 1964:7). ........................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 38. The former Rileys Home Furnishings and Music Center, at 872 Foothill Boulevard, now
houses CrossFit and Club 24 (Google, November 2018). ........................................................ 36
Figure 39. Former general manager George Christensen (left) and co-owner and general manager
Bob Humphrey in 1987, the centennial of the store’s founding (Middlecamp 2019). .............. 37
Figure 40. Co-owner Ross J. Humphrey (San Luis Obispo Tribune 2014). ............................................... 37
Figure 41. Rileys Department Store staff share a farewell meal on the last day of operation, January
31, 1993 (Middlecamp 2019). ................................................................................................... 38
Figure 42. Former Union Hardware store building incorporated into Rileys in 1960, camera facing
north (Google, November 2018). .............................................................................................. 39
Figure 43. Overview down Chorro Street, camera facing east (Google, November 2018). ....................... 39
Figure 44. View down Chorro Street elevation, camera facing southeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............ 40
Figure 45. Articulation of marble-clad wall with display window supported on brick bulkhead at
left corner of former Union Hardware building, camera facing north (SWCA, May 5,
2019). ........................................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 46. Articulation of rectangular storefront window, brick bulkhead, and door assembly on
former Union Hardware building, camera facing north (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ..................... 41
Figure 47. Door assembly, including transom and wall surface below awning, former Union
Hardware building, camera facing northeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ...................................... 41
Figure 48. Articulation of door assembly with brick wall and projecting display window, camera
facing east (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ........................................................................................... 42
Figure 49. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). .................................................................................................................. 42
Figure 50. Recessed area on Chorro Street with Roman brick wall, memorial plaques, palm tree,
and bench, camera facing northeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019). .................................................... 43
Figure 51. Memorial plaques to Herbert A. Landeck, Sr. (1897–1972), and Coy C. Humphrey
(1906–1968), who owned and developed the property at 1144 Chorro Street in 1955,
camera facing north (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................................................................ 43
Figure 52. Articulation of brick masonry wall and concrete wall at recessed area, with palm tree and
horizontal flagpole, camera facing northwest (SWCA May 5, 2019). ...................................... 44
Item 2
Packet Page 70
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
vi
Figure 53. Inner corners of Roman brick masonry between bench and angled display window,
camera facing northeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ...................................................................... 44
Figure 54. Underside of stuccoed canopy over Chorro Street sidewalk (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............... 45
Figure 55. Chorro Street main entrance, camera facing northeast (Google, November 2018). .................. 45
Figure 56. View of interior and recessed area beyond, through display windows, camera facing
northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................................................................................ 46
Figure 57. Angled display window at left side of main Chorro Street entrance, camera facing north
(SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................................................................................................. 47
Figure 58. Right-angled corner of display window at right side of main Chorro Street entrance,
camera facing east (SWCA, May 5, 2019). .............................................................................. 47
Figure 59. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). .................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 60. View through display window to Marsh Street corner, camera facing southeast (SWCA,
May 5, 2019). ............................................................................................................................ 48
Figure 61. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). .................................................................................................................. 49
Figure 62. Articulation of Roman brick masonry walls at the corner of Chorro Street and Marsh
Street, with brackets that formerly held the vertical Rileys sign and flagpole, camera
facing north (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ......................................................................................... 49
Figure 63. Detail of brick texture and inclusions in clay body; note well-executed concave mortar
tooling (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ................................................................................................. 50
Figure 64. Overview of Chorro and Marsh street elevations, camera facing north (Google,
November 2018). ...................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 65. Marsh Street elevation, near Chorro Street, camera facing northwest (Google, November
2018). ........................................................................................................................................ 51
Figure 66. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). .................................................................................................................. 52
Figure 67. At west end of display window, aluminum frame is flush-mounted in brick wall, Marsh
Street elevation, camera facing northwest (SWCA photograph, May 8, 2019). ....................... 52
Figure 68. Roman brick masonry bulkhead on Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest
(SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................................................................................................. 53
Figure 69. Upper wall surface, underside of canopy, and left concrete pillar of doorway portal,
Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................... 53
Figure 70. At east end of display window, aluminum frame flares out on top of brick masonry,
Marsh Street elevation, camera facing west (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ....................................... 54
Figure 71. Articulation of brick masonry bulkhead, display window assembly, and door assembly,
Marsh Street elevation, camera facing west (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ....................................... 54
Figure 72. Doorway assembly set inside tall, stuccoed concrete entry portal, Marsh Street elevation,
camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ..................................................................... 55
Figure 73. Articulation of stucco with metal mesh screen on underside of canopy and awning,
Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ............................... 55
Figure 74. Metal mesh screening on underside of canvas awning, Marsh Street elevation, camera
facing southwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ................................................................................. 56
Figure 75. Overview of Marsh Street elevation near alleyway, camera facing northwest (SWCA,
May 5, 2019). ............................................................................................................................ 56
Figure 76. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). .................................................................................................................. 57
Figure 77. Replacement door assembly near alleyway on Marsh Street elevation, camera facing
west (SWCA, May 5, 2019). ..................................................................................................... 57
Item 2
Packet Page 71
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
vii
Figure 78. Plan view of new canopy above original doorway and display case, constructed in
September 1962 by Maino Construction (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche, 1144
Chorro Street). ........................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 79. Elevation of new canopy shows original configuration of Marsh Street doorway and
adjacent display window (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche, 1144 Chorro Street). ............. 58
Figure 80. Upper corner of Marsh Street entrance near alleyway, showing where display window
was formerly located, camera facing west (SWCA, May 5, 2019). .......................................... 58
Figure 81. Steel angle bar protecting brick masonry at corner of Marsh Street alleyway behind
Rileys building (SWCA, May 5, 2019). .................................................................................... 59
Figure 82. Modest example of early Mid-Century style, 1335–1337 Monterey Street (Google,
November 2018). ...................................................................................................................... 62
Item 2
Packet Page 72
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
viii
This page intentionally left blank.
Item 2
Packet Page 73
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
9
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP redevelopment project proposed for 1144 Chorro Street/840
Marsh Street (project), currently under environmental review by the City of San Luis Obispo (City),
entails the demolition of the one-story commercial building currently present on the parcel. The building,
constructed in 1955, operated as Rileys Department Store from 1955 to 1993, when it was purchased by
the current owners.
METHODOLOGY
Historic-period built-environment resources (i.e., resources 50 years old or older) are present in the
project area. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), such resources are considered part
of the environment and are subject to review. This architectural evaluation will determine whether any of
the historic-period resources onsite have sufficient significance and integrity to constitute “historical
resources” for the purposes of CEQA. A project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on the
significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.1
The project area limits are coterminous with the outer boundary of County of San Luis Obispo (County)
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 002-427-012 (Figure 1). The architectural evaluation of the subject
property is based on a combination of observations made during site visits to the property on May 2, 5,
and 8, 2019; preliminary research in standard secondary sources; archival research at the County
Assessor’s Office, San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office, and San Luis Obispo City/County Library;
City Community Development Department address and permit files and microfiche for 1144 Chorro; and
desktop research conducted through online databases, including Ancestry.com, Newspapers.com,
GenealogyBank.com, and the California Digital Newspaper Collection. The corporate offices of the L.A.
Darling Company in Bentonville, Arkansas, were also contacted on May 6, 2019, for information about
the original merchandise display systems installed in 1955; no reply has been received to date. SWCA
Environmental Consultants (SWCA) Senior Architectural Historian Paula Juelke Carr, M.A., conducted
the fieldwork, evaluation, and report preparation.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The historical context for the proposed project includes brief reviews of three topics: San Luis Obispo’s
Mid-Century commercial development; national Mid-Century trends in commercial architecture; and the
corporate history of Rileys Department Store and its antecedents.
San Luis Obispo Mid-Century Commercial Development
For the project area, the most relevant period and theme from San Luis Obispo’s history relate to the
City’s mid-twentieth-century growth, and especially to its mid-twentieth-century commercial
development. The City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement (Historic Resources
Group 2013:125–129) provides useful background information on these topics. Although San Luis
Obispo experienced a tremendous amount of building activity associated with troop training facilities in
anticipation of United States involvement in both Europe and the Pacific during World War II, there was
very little new commercial development in the 1940s.
1 CEQA is encoded in Sections 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), with guidelines for implementation
codified in 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Chapter 3, Sections 15000 et seq. The definition of “historical resources”
is contained in Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
Item 2
Packet Page 74
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
10
Figure 1. Project location and vicinity map.
Item 2
Packet Page 75
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
11
The end of wartime rationing and restrictions on building materials, together with the general post-war
economic boom and population increase, brought both new development and architectural remodeling to
downtown San Luis Obispo. As part of President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s emphasis on creating a
national highway system, highway funding became more readily available with the passage of the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Locally, a new alignment of U.S. Route 101 was completed in 1958,
bypassing the former city-street route along Higuera and Monterey Streets, but greatly facilitating
automobile tourism along the Central Coast. In addition to being at the midpoint between Los Angeles
and San Francisco, and at a strategic location along the Central Coast, San Luis Obispo also benefitted
from its role as county seat and the most important shopping hub for miles around. In 1940, San Luis
Obispo’s population had not yet reached 9,000, by 1950 it had surpassed 14,000, by 1960 it was nearly
20,500, and by 1970 it had reached just over 28,000 (Wikipedia 2019). Over the course of these three
decades, San Luis Obispo both grew and modernized as a city.
Many existing commercial buildings in the original downtown core were modified with
contemporary storefronts during this period. New commercial development during this
period included a small number of low-density commercial retail and office buildings
located outside of the historic core. Many of these low-density office buildings were
developed for use as medical offices and health services. The most prominent of these is
the Kundert Medical Building, which was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and
completed in 1956. During the 1950s, San Luis Obispo saw its share of suburban sprawl
within geographically defined borders, and the first mall was built just a few miles from
downtown. In the 1970s, another mall was added. But unlike in other communities in
California, the two shopping centers proved to be little competition for downtown San
Luis Obispo as the major commercial center.
Architectural styles associated with this period include Mid-century Modern. Architects
who are represented in San Luis Obispo during this period include Frank Lloyd Wright
and Craig Ellwood, along with local architects Mackey Deasy, Homer Delawie, George
Hasslein, Warren Leopold, Paul Neel, and Piercy K. Notable local builders include Stan
Bell, Leonard Blazer, Roger Brown, Alex Madonna, Patrick Smith, Arnold Volney, and
Jack Westerman. (Historic Resources Group 2013:126)
Mid-Century Architectural Trends in Storefront Design
In his contribution to the 2000 Preserving the Recent Past 2 conference proceedings (Jackson 2000:2-57–
2-64), architect Mike Jackson, affiliated with the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, presented a
synopsis of American storefront design from 1949 to 1970, excerpted here:
The architectural history of the storefront is one of continuous evolution, with the mid-
twentieth century as one of the most dynamic periods of innovation. Changes in
architectural fashions and construction technologies allowed commercial property owners
to use storefront design and alteration as a method of improving their niche in the
American marketplace. This transformation was never more rapid than in the mid-
twentieth century. The forces prompting these changes were physical, psychological, and
economic, and intensely promoted in the architectural and retail publications. Merchants,
by their very nature, are prompting buyers to stay current by purchasing new things.
Architects and architectural product makers promoted a similar need for merchants and
commercial property owners to keep their buildings up-to-date and appealed to the same
marketing impulses that merchants used to woo their customers . . .
Item 2
Packet Page 76
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
12
In a major competition sponsored by [architectural trade journal] Pencil Points magazine
in 1942, architects around the country were invited to submit designs for the “Storefront
of Tomorrow.” . . . The winning entries to this competition all explored the display
window as both a window and an architectural form, released from the normal bounds of
the wall. The storefront became far more three-dimensional than the Art Deco and Art
Moderne designs promoted in the Modernize Main Street competition just seven years
earlier. The jutting, floating, jewel-box quality of the display window was emphasized.
The same effort was placed in the manipulation of the signs and canopies. The overall
effect seemed to be to defy gravity, since the structural elements that held it together were
minimized in expression. The limits of glass as a self-supporting material were explored.
Manufacturing advances in glass technology, including tempering (higher strength) and
improved attachment details, allowed more glass and less framing.
The “open front” or visual front” was the name attached to this new generation of
storefronts. While the earliest versions date to 1940, the limits of the wartime economy
meant that this form did not gain center stage until the 1950s and 1960s, when the last of
the Art Moderne and streamline designs were fading from popularity. In its ideal
variation, the “open front” was integrated with an interior renovation so that the entire
interior of the store became the “display window,” not just a front window zone. The
principal design characteristics of the “open front” included large display windows that
were often cantilevered . . . , nonsymmetrical and angular plans, angled or jutting support
structures, projecting flat canopies, floating elements such as signs (often used with free-
form cutouts or silhouettes), and a picture-frame motif instead of a display window as the
most prominent design element, a marked contrast to the storefront designs of the
previous decade, which placed much more emphasis on the wall and graphics framing the
display window.
In addition to form changes, the palette of construction materials changed. Clear polished
plate glass was the largest single surface, but the front bulkhead and enframement could
be brick, stone, or tile. The smooth monolithic surfaces of the streamline era gave way to
textured surfaces or those made of very small tile. Brick, in a blond color as well as the
traditional red, with a stacked bond pattern was particularly popular. Regional stone was
used for the bulkhead panels and sidewalls, including simulated stone of cement and
asphalt in the most utilitarian versions. The storefront framing was almost always tubular
aluminum, with varying finishes. Beginning in the mid-1950s, a light tan-colored
(“champagne”) aluminum gained popularity . . .
The front canopy as both a shading device and integral part of the architectural
composition was a major difference from previous generations of commercial structures,
It replaced the fabric awning, which had served for centuries. The canopy separated the
display window from the structure or from the surface above and could be extended into
the interior in a similar design capacity . . . In its most utilitarian form, the canopy was a
thin, cantilevered horizontal line in the overall composition.
In the same article, Jackson goes on to quote Morris Lapidus, a trend-setting Mid-Century architect who
specialized in storefront and hotel design:
The store front is the silent salesman working on the street 24 hours a day . . . Mr. and
Mrs. America and their children have been educated to shopping habits in which the store
front plays a stellar role. Window shopping is probably the greatest single pastime of
men, women and children throughout the country. Millions of dollars are spent on
Item 2
Packet Page 77
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
13
window display, and retailers today are much too canny to spend their money on
anything that does not produce an ample return on investment. To my mind, store fronts
are the catalysts which turn window shoppers into customers and as such are a vital part
of the retailer’s selling equipment. As an architect who has spent many years in the store
field, I feel that nothing contributes more to the quick and continued recognition of a
retailing establishment by the public than a store front.”
In another contribution to the 2000 Preserving the Recent Past 2 conference proceedings (Longstreth
2000:2-1–2-11), architectural and cultural landscape historian Richard Longstreth used Mid-Century
architectural changes in Savannah, Georgia, as an example of the national trend of sweeping postwar
alterations in downtown commercial districts and the rising competition with suburban shopping centers:
Broughton Street served as the primary retail corridor for the city from the late nineteenth
century until the 1960s, when it was eclipsed by shopping centers and other development
on the urban periphery. Most of Broughton Street’s fabric dates from the period of its rise
in the 1920s . . . But another major component dates from the fifteen-year period
following World War II. Between 1942 and 1960, leading national chain stores and
prominent local companies alike constructed substantial new quarters . . .
The new work stood in unabashed contrast to that of previous, decades, but . . . there was
no interest in harmonizing with the past. Indeed the objective in Savannah and elsewhere
coast to coast was to transform main street, to make it seem entirely new. Only then,
retailers believed, could they remain competitive in their merchandising agenda. Locally
the precedent was set in the 1946 outlet of Lerner Shops, a New York-based chain
specializing in women’s and children’s apparel. The ambient newness that it exuded was
made possible through technological advances. Air conditioning and fluorescent lights
reversed the traditional objective of selling floors arranged for maximum natural
ventilation and light. The resulting windowless upper section was, in turn, used as a
backdrop for the boldly-scaled store letters – the whole treated as a great sign that would
quickly attract the eye of the motorist no less than the pedestrian and stand out amid its
neighbors.
Longstreth noted that Savannah’s Woolworth and J. C. Penney stores also erected large new stores, and
“a major local retailer, the R. H. Levy Company, greatly expanded and completely remodeled its building
in 1954, several years after its purchase by Allied Stores, one of the nation’s foremost department store
ownership groups” (Longstreth 2000:2-2).
Figures 2 through 6, below, document high-style commercial architectural designs that clearly
demonstrate the major architectural elements diagnostic of the Mid-Century commercial style, as
discussed by Jackson and Longstreth. Figures 2 and 3 are views of Morris Lapidus’s 1950 design for an
automobile showroom, and Figures 4 and 5 are the work of Welton Becket and Associates, “responsible
for a stunning array of iconic modern structures that literally defined post-war Los Angeles” (Emerton
2003:3). Through an array of architectural and popular magazines, trade journals and catalogues,
newspapers, and advertisements, the Mid-Century style was made known to the American public. Figures
6 through 8 present more modest examples of the Mid-Century commercial style, which nonetheless
incorporate important diagnostic elements. Other examples are depicted in Appendix A (Dyson 2008).
Item 2
Packet Page 78
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
14
Figure 2. Crystal Motors, Brooklyn, New York, designed by famed Mid-
Century architect Morris Lapidus in 1950 (Class Haus 2019).
Figure 3. Crystal Motors, Brooklyn, New York, designed by Morris Lapidus
in 1950 (Class Haus 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 79
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
15
Figure 4. Architectural rendering for Bullock’s Westwood (PatricksMercy 2010).
Figure 5. Becket’s Bullock's Westwood opened in 1951 (Los Angeles Public
Library Photo Collection c1953).
Item 2
Packet Page 80
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
16
Figure 6. Libbey-Owens Ford Glass Company brochure, 1942. “Steel lintels
now easily spanned across an entire façade, transparent ‘open fronts’
replaced earlier opaquely backed display windows . . . ” (Dyson 2017:4).
Figure 7. This 1946 hardware store design “combines dramatic signage
with linear display boxes that run from the exterior plywood and aluminum
frame through the open front and on into the store” (Dyson 2017:6).
Item 2
Packet Page 81
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
17
Figure 8. Floating display windows “deconstructed the front plane of retail
windows,” Irene Burke dress shop, Long Beach, 1948 (Dyson 2015:164).
Rileys Department Store History
Crocker & Bros 1887–c1900; J. Crocker & Co. c1900–1920
Rileys Department Store had its origins in the dry goods store founded in 1887 as A. Crocker & Brothers
(Aaron, Jacob, and Adolph Crocker) at the southeast corner of Higuera and Garden Streets. Their two-
story brick building, which fronted on Higuera Street, was depicted on the February 1888 Sanborn Fire
Insurance map (sheet 5 of 9) as “being built” (Figure 9). In December 1891, the Sanborn map (sheet 9 of
17) documented the store as offering drygoods, clothing, and gentlemen’s furnishings (hats, gloves,
cravats, etc.); offices were located on the second floor (Figure 10). The Crocker Brothers specialized in
“piece goods”—cloth, thread, lace, and ribbon—as well as ready-to-wear clothing, trunks, suitcases, and
household items (Franks 2004:49). The finished building opened for business in 1888 (Figure 11). By
1900 Jacob Crocker had bought out his two brothers and was operating the store as J. Crocker & Co., still
at the corner of Higuera and Garden Streets (Figure 12).
Item 2
Packet Page 82
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
18
Figure 9. February 1888 Sanborn map (sheet 5)
showing of Crocker Brothers two-story brick building
under construction at Higuera and Garden Streets.
Figure 10. December 1891 Sanborn
map (sheet 9) showing Crocker
Brothers store in operation.
Figure 11. The first store building opened in 1888 as A. Crocker & Bros. (Franks 2004:49).
Item 2
Packet Page 83
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
19
Figure 12. After Jacob Crocker bought out his brothers’ interest in the store at the turn of the
century it operated as J. Crocker & Co., at the same Higuera Street and Garden Street location
(Middlecamp 2019).
D. J. Riley
One of Jacob Crocker’s young employees was Daniel John (D. J.) Riley, who was learning the
department store business. Articles of incorporation for the new firm—the Riley-Crocker Corporation—
were filed with the County Clerk on February 9, 1914 (San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 1914a:1). As
reported succinctly in the San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram on the following day (1914b:1), “Daniel J.
Riley of Gilroy to assume entire management of the Riley-Crocker Corporation store (formerly
Crocker’s) tomorrow; from cash-boy2 to store head in fourteen years.” Under the new business
arrangement, Crocker, operating from corporate offices in San Francisco, was in charge of buying; Riley
ran the San Luis Obispo store. Jacob Crocker praised his new partner, saying,
In bringing Mr. Riley to this city and placing him in charge of the entire store we are
bringing a man who is by no means a stranger to this business or to us. Mr. Riley began
life as a cash boy with us in Eureka at the age of fourteen. He rapidly worked his way up
the ladder and after being in our employ six years in Eureka he launched the biggest dry
goods store in Gilroy where he has prospered the past eight years . . .
Mr. Riley will make such changes as in his judgment will make for the betterment of the
business and that may better serve its patrons. If he deems alterations necessary they will
be made. He will be in absolute charge of the entire store and of every department.
2 In the era before cash registers were widely available, “cash boys” were employed in department stores to carry the customer’s
money and the sales clerk’s transaction note from the sales counter to the cashier at a centralized cash desk, and then return to
the sales counter with the customer’s change and the transaction note stamped “paid.”
Item 2
Packet Page 84
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
20
Riley immediately made good on his partners’ predictions. On February 16, the day the store formerly
transferred into his hands, Riley announced that the “first and most important improvement contemplated
was the utilization of the entire building for the store and added departments. A broad stairway will be
constructed from the main floor of the building to the second floor where a department of blankets,
comforters, lace curtains, portiers [interior doorway draperies] of all descriptions, draperies and kindred
departments will be established” (San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 1914c:1). The motto of the new
management was to be: “The Best Made for the Price Paid.”
In November 1916, the company ran a large advertisement in the Santa Maria Times (1916:4). At the top
of the ad was what purported to be a copy of a Western Union telegram from Crocker to Riley (Figure
13):
Have bought entire sample line of Fall coast from one of New York’s largest
Manufacturers whose output for this season has been entirely sold up. Also line of silk,
and wool one-piece dresses from another manufacturer at greatly reduced prices, very
clever styles and a good range of sizes. And about 50 or 60 of this season’s suits. Will
ship to-morrow. Advertise heavily, fill show windows and price them low as you will
have big stock to move. Had several good offers on these here but thought it best to give
our San Luis Patrons an opportunity to economize. Believe they will appreciate it.
Figure 13. Riley-Crocker Company advertisement (Santa Maria Times
1916:4).
Item 2
Packet Page 85
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
21
At a time when ready-made goods were replacing home-made clothing and making it less necessary to
employ seamstresses and milliners, the Riley-Crocker Company made good use of extensive and detailed
advertisements (Figures 14–17).
Figure 14. Store advertisement (Santa
Maria Times 1917a:5).
Figure 15. Store advertisement (Santa Maria Times
1917b:8).
Item 2
Packet Page 86
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
22
Figure 16. Christmas advertisement (Santa
Maria Times 1917c:5).
Figure 17. Expert corset-fitting advertisement
(Santa Maria Times 1918:2).
In 1920 D. J. Riley acquired sole ownership of the Riley-Crocker Company, which retained that name. In
1923 Riley undertook a thorough remodeling of the store’s interior, driven by his intention to introduce an
“efficiency program that is not a mere thing of words arranged in a business slogan, but that is to
permeate the entire store built into its physical properties and an essential part of each department.” As
reported in the San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram (1923:8), the store was closed for about 2 weeks,
during which time it has been practically rebuilt in the interior, the departments having
been completely rearranged in conformity with the store’s new plan of an efficiency that
will make for a lower overhead, a greater labor and stock turnover, an increased volume,
a smaller margin for profit, resulting in a wonderful price benefit to the customer. The
foundation step in this program, Mr. Riley stated, is that of inter-related departments and
fixtures that will utilize space in the displaying as well as the storing of goods . . . We
believe this arrangement serves the important purpose of making it possible for a clerk to
Item 2
Packet Page 87
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
23
serve more customers with a minimum of effort and labor, thus we hope to increase the
volume of business 100 per cent without adding to our expenses, because of the basic
efficiency of the new store plan.
In 1925, Riley stepped away from the daily operations of the store, turning it over to the partnership of
William Lannon and a Mr. Martin; the store was renamed the Riley-Lannon Company (Figures 18 and
19). As reported in his 1945 obituary (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1945a:1), Riley traveled
extensively in the late 1920s and early 1930s, “but eventually returned to San Luis Obispo and once more
took over his old store.” Riley was in charge of the business decision making, but the store was managed
by William Lannon for about 20 years, from the mid-1920s into the 1940s.
Figure 18. Consultation advertisement
(Santa Maria Times 1926:5).
Figure 19. School opening advertisement (San
Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1942:12).
In August 1929, the San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram noted (1929:2), “in keeping with its policy of
making any improvements that tend to increase the efficiency of sales service,” Riley installed a Lamson
Pneumatic Tube system to carry cash and sales tags from the various departments to the cashier’s office
on the top floor, and to return change to the customer—the job formerly carried out by the “cash boys”
(Figure 20).
Item 2
Packet Page 88
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
24
Figure 20. Lamson Pneumatic Tube
catalogue, c1910s (Meanwhile, at the Manse
2012).
H.A. Landeck, Sr., and Coy C. Humphrey
In August 1945, Riley’s health was failing, and he sold his business to partners Coy C. Humphrey and
H.A. Landeck. In his obituary, published on the front page of the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
(1945a:1) (Figure 21), Riley was commemorated as a business and civic leader who had been:
proprietor of the Riley-Lannon dry good store here for the past 31 years. Originally in the
haberdashery business in Gilroy, he had sold out there in 1914 and came to San Luis
Obispo where he purchased the dry goods company owned by A. J. Crocker. ….
Always alert to improve his operating methods, Mr. Riley installed the first pneumatic
tube carrier system in San Luis Obispo. He made it a point to keep up with the latest
methods of display and lightning. He was constantly concerned with keeping the quality
of the store’s merchandise, establishing a quality reputation for Riley-Lannon which has
endured through the many years.
The length of service of Riley-Lannon employees is a testimonial of the fair and generous
attitude Mr. Riley maintained toward his personnel…. In transferring ownership, Mr.
Riley stipulated that the former policies of his concern be maintained, He especially
Item 2
Packet Page 89
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
25
requested that his personnel be retained in their current capacities. The new owners
agreed to this provision and have announced that the store will continue to operate as
before under the complete managership of George L. Christiansen and with no change
whatever in personnel or policies.
Figure 21. Landeck and Humphrey’s pledge
to carry on the business according to Riley’s
wishes (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
1945b:6).
Rileys Department Store is well documented both for its customer service and its dedicated, knowledgeable
employees. In 1948, for example, when the store celebrated its 61st anniversary since its July 1887 founding,
the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune (1948:6) ran an article about its longest-serving staff members:
Pride in the record length of service of many of its employes, in the reputation established
by the pioneer firm and in the merchandise which it now offers its customer,
characterizes the anniversary observance. Ten of Rileys employes have been employed
by the company for a grand total of 253 years, or an average of more than a quarter
century each.
Leading the list of veteran employes is Miss Louise Floyd, head of the lingerie, gloves
and hosiery department, who has been with the store continuously since 1902, when it
was known as Crocker Brothers, under which name it was established in 1887.
Second longest record of service is held by Mrs. D. W. Brophy, who has been with the
firm continuously since 1908, and who is now in active charge of the business office,
George L. Allen, former manager of the store, still oversees its business transactions. He
has been associated with Rileys for the past 25 years.
Item 2
Packet Page 90
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
26
Present manager of Rileys is George L. Christensen, who first started work there 24 years
ago while in the eighth grade at the old Court school. Promoted through successive
positions, he became manager three years ago.
Both Mrs. Daria Ramonetti, graduate corsetier and buyer for the corset department, and
Miss Dora Bergh, who is in charge of alterations, have been with the firm 23 years; Mrs.
Sophia Leitcher, buyer in charge of the ready-to-wear floor, is a veteran of 21 years
service; and Mrs. Milvia Hanrahan, head of the bags, gifts, and jewelry department, has
20 years continuous service.
Other long-time employes include Mrs. Louise Ros, sales lady in the piece goods
department, 17 years; Mrs. Margie B. Tomasini, buyer in charge of the piece goods and
bedding department, 14 years; Miss Lora Scaroni, sales lady of the ready-to-wear floor,
nine years; and Mrs. Stella Chiesa, buyer in charge of the infants wear section, eight
years.
Additional Rileys personnel include Miss Dorothy Gracia, Miss Mary E. Bowden, Miss
Sally Babcock and Miss Lena Oliveira, all of whom work in the business office; Miss
Marilyn Fitzgerald, piece goods; Miss Pearl Anderson and Miss Nora Smith, ready to
wear; Miss Grace Silacci, corset department; Mrs. Donna Amos, baby department; Mrs
Shirley Sondono, gifts; Miss Mary Oliveira and Miss Arline Baker, lingerie section; and
Mrs. Laura Garzoli, who is newly in charge of the cosmetics department.
By 1954 the store building at the corner of Higuera and Garden Streets was bursting at the seams, and the
owners undertook the “first major remodeling job in years.” Store manager George Christensen stated,
“Continued business growth in San Luis Obispo has made it necessary for the store to make the best use
of all available space.” As reported by the Telegram-Tribune (1954:11), “To provide more room for
merchandise and easier access all new fixtures were installed on the mezzanine floor. A large floor-to-
ceiling partition in the balcony’s center was removed,” and the “former solid wall surrounding the
mezzanine floor, restricting view and space, was replaced with a modernistic wire fence with a wooden
railing (Figure 22).
Figure 22. Interior modernization efforts at the Higuera and Garden Street
location (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1954:11).
Item 2
Packet Page 91
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
27
The New Store: Chorro and Marsh
The stopgap alterations made in May 1954 proved fruitless, however: by early 1955, Landeck and
Humphrey had made the decision to relocate. They acquired the subject property at the corner of Chorro
and Marsh Streets, and in May 1955 announced plans for a new store. The City issued building permit
No. A475 on June 23, 1955, listing C. F. Hamlin as the engineer and [Theo.] Maino Construction as the
builders. There is no indication of any architect being associated with the project. The building permit
was finaled on June 23, 1955 (City of San Luis Obispo 2019), and the new Rileys Department Store
officially opened 4 months later, on October 20, 1955 (Figure 23). The old store at Higuera and Garden
Streets was condemned and demolished in November 1955 (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
1956a:21).
Figure 23. Riley Department Store building nearing completion on the day before official opening
(San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1955c:1).
As reported by the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune (1955c:1–2), the opening of the new store was a
milestone for the company. Co-owner Coy C. Humphrey referred to it as:
a completely new frontier in retail merchandising . . . We designed this store with the
customer in mind . . . We wanted to avoid cramping, we wanted wider aisle width for the
convenience of our customers.” The store definitely provides “a forward look,”
Humphrey observed, particularly stressing the “interesting architectural aspects” of the
store . . . Humphrey pointed out that by increasing the floor space over its old location by
two and one-half times, Rileys has now provided several new departments and is enabled
to expand all previously existing departments considerably by the addition of new lines
of merchandise and a much wider selection.
One additional department getting particular emphasis is the men’s furnishings
department. Among the others are the gift shop – the “Pink Pony,” and the “Mirror
room,” providing a separate section for the selections of bridal wear and formal attire.
“We are adding lines where we knew we were short,” Humphrey disclosed.
The design of the fixtures provides “semi-self selection” for the customer, the specialist
said, affording “complete flexibility,” under the “Visusel” trade name.3 The furnishing
3 The term “semi-self selection” would seem to refer to the customers’ ability to browse items at free-standing “Visusel” fixtures
out on the store floor, rather than needing to be waited on at the department counter. This trade name also appears in a
contemporary advertisement for the Children’s Shop, published in the Millville Daily (1964:6): “It’s easy to select from the
‘visusel’ displays.”
Item 2
Packet Page 92
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
28
set a “completely new trend in store merchandising,” providing exercise of imagination
in patterns of display arrangement . . .
Much of the professional assistance in developing today’s modern merchandising plant
was provided by Lee B. Kuhn, Los Angeles, who has been engaged in the project since
last February. Kuhn is a merchandising and store design expert with the firm of L.A.
Darling Co., which engineered the fixtures installed by Rileys. “It is the unique system of
the future,” it was explained. “Everything is adaptable, moveable and non-rigid,” with all
fixtures lending themselves to rapid changes in floor and merchandising arrangement.
As suggested by the photograph taken of the new store building the day before its official opening (see
Figure 23), there was still construction work to be finished. On November 5, 1955, the City issued a
permit (No. E306) to install a porcelain sign (reading “Rileys” from top to bottom) with neon
illumination, 12 feet above the sidewalk at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets; the sign was 15 feet
high, 30 inches wide, and 9 inches thick. A second permit issued the same day (No. E307) was to install a
porcelain enamel metal sign (the letter “R”), 8 feet × 8 feet and 9 inches thick, above the horizontal
cantilevered canopy on the Chorro Street elevation (City Building Department, address file for 1144
Chorro Street).
An artist’s rendering of the completed store building (Figure 24), which extended down Chorro Street
only as far as the palm tree, shows good correspondence with the 1955 photograph (Figure 25). Canopies
are shown extending outward above the projecting display windows on Chorro Street and cantilevered out
over the flush-mounted display windows on the Marsh Street elevation. The prominent central entryway
on Marsh Street is easy to spot just beyond the display windows.
Figure 24. Artist’s rendering of new Rileys Department Store (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
1956b:24).
Item 2
Packet Page 93
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
29
Figure 25. The first unit of Rileys Department Store, with the Union
Hardware store that occupied the building next door between 1955 and
1960 (History Center of San Luis Obispo County).
Overlapping with construction of the Rileys store, the new Union Hardware building had been under
construction next door at 1126 Chorro Street (see Figure 25). The San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
(1955b:2) reported that the hardware store occupied the “former site of frame store buildings razed for the
new project:”
The construction firm of Schmid and Wiswell was engaged for the excavation and for the
foundation work. Plans have not been completed for the store building, and are now
being drawn by William D. Holdredge, local architect. The store front design was be
“coordinated” to complement Rileys proposed new building, which will occupy the
corner of Chorro and Marsh…. The one-story structure will provide a main floor with
38x114 feet of floor space, a mezzanine which is 26x39 feet in size, and a 38x65 foot
basement…. The general contract bid information will not be out until the architect has
completed his plans. It is expected that the store will be ready for occupancy in October.
Newspaper ads and advertising supplements showcased the Rileys satellite furniture store, newly opened
on Broad Street at South Street (Figure 26), as well as the main store’s various specialty departments,
such as infant wear, cosmetics, and the bridal salon (Figures 27–30). The ads often featured the services
of visiting expert consultants, as well as Rileys’ own in-house experts. Window displays often promoted
local events and community celebrations (Figures 31).
Item 2
Packet Page 94
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
30
Figure 26. In September 1955, Rileys acquired the former Albrecht’s
furniture store at 2211 Broad Street “to complete Rileys growth as a full-
fledged department store,” (advertising cuts from San Luis Obispo
Telegram-Tribune 1956b:24.
Figure 27. Rileys December 1956 “My Baby Magazine,” which probably
appeared as an insert in the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune and other
local Central Coast newspapers (PicClick 2018).
Item 2
Packet Page 95
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
31
Figure 28. Beauty consultant advertisement
(Santa Maria Times 1958:6).
Figure 29. Wedding consultation
advertisement (Santa Maria Times 1962a:4).
Item 2
Packet Page 96
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
32
Photographs of the department store interior, probably taken not long after the opening, reveal some of
interior designer Lee B. Kuhn’s design aesthetic, as well as his incorporation of store fixtures
manufactured by the L.A. Darling Company (Figures 30–32). The company’s manufacturing plant was
(and still is) located in Arkansas, and Kuhn was their West Coast representative at the time of his contract
with Landeck and Humphrey.
Figure 30. Laura Righetti Garzola (1905–2014), who headed the store’s
cosmetics department (Trujillo 2018).
Figure 31. Interior view of store, including mezzanine and staircase, c1958
(KSBY 2018).
Item 2
Packet Page 97
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
33
Figure 32. Another interior view of merchandise and stairway to mezzanine,
taken on same day as Figure 31, c1958 (Pinterest 2019b).
Figure 33. Window display advertising Historical Museum’s Cabrillo
Scholarship, featuring historical costume on left, artifacts in case, and
Portuguese flag (History Center of San Luis Obispo County). The exact
location of this display window has not been determined.
Item 2
Packet Page 98
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
34
Figure 34. View of Rileys vertical sign and flagpole at the corner of Chorro
and Marsh, c1959 (History Center of San Luis Obispo County).
By 1959 Rileys Department Store was already embarking on plans to expand its footprint on Chorro
Street. On December 24, 1959, Rileys acquired the adjacent Union Hardware business. The San Luis
Obispo Telegram-Tribune (1959:1) announced that “Major alterations are planned to combine the
hardware store, 1126 Chorro Street, with Rileys building next door, 1144 Chorro Street . . . Integration of
the two structures, which will include the addition of a sprinkler fire control system and air conditioning,
is expected by the fall of 1960. This will add approximately 9,000 square feet to Rileys existing floor
space of 24,000.” The number of new store departments was planned to double from 20 to 40, and
another nine employees were expected to be hired, bringing the total to 75.
Two artists’ renderings (both undated and with no documented provenience) of “Rileys Department
Store” suggest that Rileys may have been planning the incorporation of the Union Hardware store
location for several years. In the first, the architectural firm of Frank E. Martin and Associates, together
with J. H. Leman, engineer, produced a color drawing (Figure 35) that seems to correspond with the
general configuration of the Chorro Street elevation (Figure 36). 4 The second, originally published in
1956 (see Figure 24) and included in a subsequent ad, was actually only the eastern portion of the full
artist’s rendering published in 1962 (Figure 36). Presumably the western portion had already been drawn,
but a decision had been made not to show the entire sketch in 1956.
4 To date, no further information has been located about this architectural firm or structural engineer.
Item 2
Packet Page 99
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
35
Figure 35. Artist’s rendering, probably c1955, of what may have been a
proposed Rileys Department Store exterior design; note the hardware store
at the left (Pinterest 2019a).
Figure 36. An advertisement published in 1962 featured the entire artist’s rendering of the Chorro
Street elevation (cf. Figure 17, above) (Santa Maria Times 1962b:6).
In 1960, Union Hardware’s going-out-of-business advertisement announced the acquisition of the
property by Rileys and noted that the new owner was “closing out all of the hardware stock, moving the
houseware, giftware, glassware, dinnerware stock into the department store. Rileys will continue these
lines but will not continue the hardware business . . . When all the stock is gone, the name of Union
Hardware will be discontinued. Shoppers were advised that they could use their “Rileys credit plate” for
purchases (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1960:6). The building permit (No. 3240) for the
remodeling project that would connect the Union Hardware building to the Rileys store was issued by the
City on May 9, 1960. A 9 × 12-foot opening was cut through the shared wall. Rileys continued to expand
its operations in the 1960s. The largest addition was the construction of another satellite store in the
College Square Shopping Center at Foothill and Highway 1 (Figures 37–38).
Item 2
Packet Page 100
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
36
Figure 37. Rileys opened another satellite store—a home furnishings and music center—on
August 13, 1964, in the College Square Shopping Center on Foothill Boulevard (Santa Maria Times
1964:7).
Figure 38. The former Rileys Home Furnishings and Music Center, at 872 Foothill Boulevard, now
houses CrossFit and Club 24 (Google, November 2018).
In early 1966, H. A. (Bud) Landeck, Jr. (1929–2014), the son of founder H. A. Landeck, Sr. (1897–1972),
resigned from his position as president of the Rileys Corporation, accepting the post of general
merchandise manager for Levy Bros stores in the Bay Area (San Mateo Times 1966:17). The younger
Landeck had begun his career with Rileys working as an assistant to manager George Christiansen.
Landeck’s successor as president was Ross J. Humphrey (1935–2014), son of founder Coy C. Humphrey,
who, along with his brother Robert A. Humphrey (1929–2018), owned and operated the store for nearly
25 years, from 1966 until its closure in 1993. Robert’s obituary, published in the San Luis Obispo Tribune
(2018) stated that, together, “Bob and Ross worked side by side to expand Rileys throughout the county.”
Although Coy C. Humphrey (1906–1968) had been co-owner of the store since 1945, the Humphrey
family did not move to San Luis Obispo until 1955. Both sons received business degrees from San Jose
State College and returned to San Luis Obispo to work at the family business. Ross began working for the
Rileys advertising department. In 1966, when Bud Landeck resigned, Ross took over as president and
Bob Humphrey became vice president and general manager (San Luis Obispo Tribune 2014).
Item 2
Packet Page 101
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
37
Figure 39. Former general manager George Christensen (left) and co-owner
and general manager Bob Humphrey in 1987, the centennial of the store’s
founding (Middlecamp 2019).
Figure 40. Co-owner Ross J. Humphrey (San
Luis Obispo Tribune 2014).
Rileys in the Recent Past
In the 1970s Rileys opened additional stores in Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, and Morro Bay. In August
1987, however, the entire chain was sold to the Charles Ford Company, owners of Ford’s Department
Store, founded in Watsonville in 1852, with store locations in Watsonville, Santa Cruz, Pacific Grove,
Salinas, Hollister, Gilroy, and Half Moon Bay (Santa Cruz Sentinel 1987:D-2). The acquisition, which
seemingly had the potential to be a good fit, given the very similar market niches, ended up being
doomed, in part by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, which caused extensive damage to three of the
Ford’s department stores, and in part by the general economic downturn of the early 1990s (Santa Cruz
Sentinel 1992:D-6). In October 1992, the Ford Company filed for bankruptcy, taking Rileys down with it.
Item 2
Packet Page 102
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
38
The Rileys locations in Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, and Morro Bay had already been shuttered, with only
the San Luis Obispo store still in operation (Santa Maria Times 1992:3). The San Luis Obispo store’s last
day of business was January 31, 1993 (Figure 41).
Figure 41. Rileys Department Store staff share a farewell meal on the last
day of operation, January 31, 1993 (Middlecamp 2019).
DESCRIPTION OF HISTORIC-PERIOD BUILT-ENVIRONMENT
RESOURCES IN THE PROJECT AREA LIMITS
The parcel is occupied by a rectangular commercial building made up of two adjoining buildings with a
slight recessed area between them on the Chorro Street frontage. The building is one story high, with an
interior mezzanine. City records (City Building Department, address file for 1144 Chorro Street) state
that the building is Type III construction. The main structural support depends on a grid of columns and
beams, with infilled exterior wall areas of Roman brick interspersed with anodized aluminum-framed
plate-glass door and display-window assemblies. The west end of the Chorro Street elevation was built as
the Union Hardware building in 1955 and incorporated into the main Rileys Department Store building in
1960. The façade of this portion is characterized by a tall, boxy, plain stuccoed wall that rises above a
canvas awning running the width of the façade; the awning turns the corner to intersect with the brick
wall in the recessed area (Figures 42 and 43).
Below the awning, the storefront configuration is different from the rest, reflecting its different origin as
the hardware store, as well as later modifications. On the left side of the display windows, the wall is clad
with marble slabs (Figures 44 and 45). The display windows on either side of the doorway are
rectangular, rather than angled in toward the entrance. On the left side of the door, the display case is
supported by a low bulkhead of Roman brick laid in a common bond pattern. On the right side of the door
a smaller display window projects from the brick wall, with no supporting bulkhead; bricks below the
window are laid in common bond, and to the right (at the edge of the recessed area) are laid in stacked
bond. Both display windows and door assembly have plate glass framed in anodized aluminum (Figures
46 through 48).
Item 2
Packet Page 103
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
39
Figure 42. Former Union Hardware store building incorporated into Rileys
in 1960, camera facing north (Google, November 2018).
Figure 43. Overview down Chorro Street, camera facing east (Google,
November 2018).
Item 2
Packet Page 104
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
40
Figure 44. View down Chorro Street elevation, camera facing southeast
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Figure 45. Articulation of marble-clad wall with display window supported
on brick bulkhead at left corner of former Union Hardware building, camera
facing north (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 105
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
41
Figure 46. Articulation of rectangular storefront window, brick bulkhead,
and door assembly on former Union Hardware building, camera facing
north (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Figure 47. Door assembly, including transom and wall surface below
awning, former Union Hardware building, camera facing northeast (SWCA,
May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 106
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
42
Figure 48. Articulation of door assembly with brick wall and projecting
display window, camera facing east (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
The recessed area that marks the transition between the former Union Hardware building and the original
portion of the Rileys building is trapezoidal in plan (see Figure 49). This area is characterized by four
prominent features: a tall Roman brick wall, laid in a common bond pattern; a pair of inset bronze
memorial plaques to Herbert A. Landeck, Sr., and Coy C. Humphrey (co-owners and developers of the
property in 1955); a tall palm tree in a low brick planter; and a brick and concrete bench (Figures 50–53).
The bench is a more recent addition to this area; made of a mixture of brick types it is adjacent to the back
wall but not tied into it (see Figure 50). The blocky upper wall and awning-covered canopy of the
adjacent Rileys building project into the recessed area, intersecting the tall brick wall at different heights
and angles. Additional exterior and interior photos are included as Figures 54 through
Figure 49. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). The red arrow shows the limits of the former Union Hardware building; the
yellow arrow shows the location of the recessed area.
Item 2
Packet Page 107
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
43
Figure 50. Recessed area on Chorro Street with Roman brick wall,
memorial plaques, palm tree, and bench, camera facing northeast (SWCA,
May 5, 2019).
Figure 51. Memorial plaques to Herbert A. Landeck, Sr. (1897–1972), and Coy C. Humphrey (1906–
1968), who owned and developed the property at 1144 Chorro Street in 1955, camera facing north
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 108
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
44
Figure 52. Articulation of brick masonry wall and concrete wall at recessed
area, with palm tree and horizontal flagpole, camera facing northwest
(SWCA May 5, 2019).
Figure 53. Inner corners of Roman brick masonry between bench and
angled display window, camera facing northeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 109
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
45
Figure 54. Underside of stuccoed canopy over Chorro Street sidewalk
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Figure 55. Chorro Street main entrance, camera facing northeast (Google,
November 2018).
Item 2
Packet Page 110
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
46
Figure 56. View of interior and recessed area beyond, through display
windows, camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019). The exterior brick
wall extends into the enclosed space; the structural support for the canopy
is also visible.
Item 2
Packet Page 111
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
47
Figure 57. Angled display window at left side of main Chorro Street
entrance, camera facing north (SWCA, May 5, 2019). Note gap in brick
masonry at exterior corner of bulkhead.
Figure 58. Right-angled corner of display window at right side of main
Chorro Street entrance, camera facing east (SWCA, May 5, 2019). Inner
corner of bulkhead brick masonry is not integrated into wall plane.
Item 2
Packet Page 112
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
48
Figure 59. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). The red arrow indicates the trapezoidal shape of the main Chorro Street
entrance.
Figure 60. View through display window to Marsh Street corner, camera
facing southeast (SWCA, May 5, 2019). Display window cases have been
removed.
Item 2
Packet Page 113
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
49
Figure 61. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). The red arrow indicates the brick wall extending into the interior of the store.
Dashed lines on blueprint show where display cases were removed.
Figure 62. Articulation of Roman brick masonry walls at the corner of Chorro Street and Marsh
Street, with brackets that formerly held the vertical Rileys sign and flagpole, camera facing north
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 114
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
50
Figure 63. Detail of brick texture and inclusions in clay body; note well-
executed concave mortar tooling (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 115
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
51
Figure 64. Overview of Chorro and Marsh street elevations, camera facing north (Google,
November 2018).
Figure 65. Marsh Street elevation, near Chorro Street, camera facing northwest (Google,
November 2018).
Item 2
Packet Page 116
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
52
Figure 66. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San Luis Obispo microfiche,
1144 Chorro Street). The red arrow indicates the area shown in Figure 65, above, and Figures 67–
75, below; yellow arrows indicate the pair of stuccoed pillars forming doorway portal.
Figure 67. At west end of display window, aluminum frame is flush-
mounted in brick wall, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest
(SWCA photograph, May 8, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 117
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
53
Figure 68. Roman brick masonry bulkhead on Marsh Street elevation,
camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Figure 69. Upper wall surface, underside of canopy, and left concrete pillar
of doorway portal, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest (SWCA,
May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 118
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
54
Figure 70. At east end of display window, aluminum frame flares out on top
of brick masonry, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing west (SWCA, May
5, 2019).
Figure 71. Articulation of brick masonry bulkhead, display window
assembly, and door assembly, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing west
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 119
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
55
Figure 72. Doorway assembly set inside tall, stuccoed concrete entry
portal, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest (SWCA, May 5,
2019).
Figure 73. Articulation of stucco with metal mesh screen on underside of
canopy and awning, Marsh Street elevation, camera facing northwest
(SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 120
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
56
Figure 74. Metal mesh screening on underside of canvas awning, Marsh
Street elevation, camera facing southwest (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Figure 75. Overview of Marsh Street elevation near alleyway, camera facing northwest (SWCA,
May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 121
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
57
Figure 76. Approved plan for Copeland Sports project, 1992 (City of San
Luis Obispo microfiche, 1144 Chorro Street). The red arrow indicates the
area shown in Figures 69-73, below; the yellow area indicates a display
case removed to accommodate the replacement door.
Figure 77. Replacement door assembly near alleyway on Marsh Street
elevation, camera facing west (SWCA, May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 122
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
58
Figure 78. Plan view of new canopy above
original doorway and display case,
constructed in September 1962 by Maino
Construction (City of San Luis Obispo
microfiche, 1144 Chorro Street).
Figure 79. Elevation of new canopy shows original
configuration of Marsh Street doorway and
adjacent display window (City of San Luis Obispo
microfiche, 1144 Chorro Street).
Figure 80. Upper corner of Marsh Street entrance near alleyway, showing
where display window was formerly located, camera facing west (SWCA,
May 5, 2019).
Item 2
Packet Page 123
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
59
Figure 81. Steel angle bar protecting brick masonry at corner of Marsh
Street alleyway behind Rileys building (SWCA, May 5, 2019). Note
difference in brick type and dimensions, and in depth of mortar tooling,
camera facing west.
Evaluation of Architectural Resources in Project Area of
Potential Effects
The former Rileys Department Store building, at 1144 Chorro Street in San Luis Obispo, is evaluated
here, pursuant to CEQA, to determine whether it meets any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the
CRHR, or otherwise constitutes a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA, or whether it is eligible
for local designation on the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Master List of Historic Resources or as a
contributing resource to the Downtown Historic District in conformance with Section 14.01.070 of the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Item 2
Packet Page 124
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
60
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR includes buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts significant in the architectural,
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of
California. Eligibility to the CRHR is demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following criteria:
• Criterion 1. 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;
• Criterion 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national
history;
• Criterion 3. 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; or
• Criterion 4. Has yielded or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California or the nation.
EVALUATION UNDER CRITERION 1
For an entire century, Rileys Department Store and its direct antecedents played an undeniably large role
in the commercial life of San Luis Obispo—both at its original location on Higuera Street and at the
subject location at Chorro and Marsh Streets. It was, as it claimed to be, a shopping destination for many
Central Coast communities, where customers could find merchandise not readily available elsewhere.
Constructed in 1955, the larger, modern store, with its interior designed by a merchandising and design
professional, was also part of the evolving story of post-World War II consumerism, when Mid-Century
modern storefronts began to prevail and when shopping acquired recreational and acquisitional aspects
for an expanding and relatively well-off middle class. The business also demonstrated a consistent pattern
of employee loyalty and decades of service. As a store that catered primarily to women, most of its sales
staff were also women. Although no women were employed in the uppermost levels of Rileys corporate
management, many female employees were career employees, holding departmental management
positions, sometimes over the course of decades.
EVALUATION UNDER CRITERION 2
The business enterprise known most recently as Rileys has historical associations with the founders of an
earlier iteration (Aaron, Jacob, and Adolph Crocker, owners during 1887–1920), with D. J. Riley (1920–
1945), and with partners Herbert A. (H. A.) Landeck, Sr., and Coy Humphrey (1945–1987). The 1955
construction of the current commercial building, however, and the relocation of the Rileys Department
Store business to the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets took place under the sole direction of Landeck
and Humphrey. Neither the Crocker brothers nor D. J. Riley had any direct influence on the selection of
the current site or on the design or construction of the modern store. In some respects, D. J. Riley’s legacy
of business acumen might be regarded as continuing to influence company policies about the primacy of
customer comfort and service, a broad selection of quality merchandise, and an attention to the well-being
of its staff—but those policies needed to be endorsed and sustained by Landeck and Humphrey (as they
were) in order to succeed. Their partnership, as well as the subsequent partnership of Humphrey’s sons,
Bob and Ross, proved successful and allowed Rileys to retain its local ownership and local customer base
for an unusually long time.
EVALUATION UNDER CRITERION 3
Research for this evaluation has not found evidence of any architect associated with the design of the
1955 Rileys Department Store building. William D. Holdredge, the local architect who designed the
Item 2
Packet Page 125
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
61
elegant Mid-Century San Luis Obispo City Hall building in 1951, is credited with the rather ordinary
design of the Union Hardware building absorbed by Rileys in 1960. It seems unlikely, however, that
Holdredge also designed the Rileys building: the two structures are quite different, perhaps surprisingly
so, given the stated intention for the hardware store front design to be “coordinated” to complement
Rileys proposed new building (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1955b:2). Despite the architectural
color rendering (see Figure 35) produced by Frank E. Martin and Associates and J. H. Leman, Engineer,
neither of these principals is mentioned on the building permit, either. Rather, the Rileys building appears
to have been designed by local civil engineer C. F. Hamlin (1910–1999), who had worked as an associate
bridge engineer for the California Division of Highways (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 1947:6) and
later owned a manufacturing firm specializing in steel bowstring roof-truss systems. The Rileys building
features large expanses of well-executed Roman brick masonry interspersed with large display windows.
At present, these windows offer extensive interior views and cross views that did not exist originally; the
window displays were relatively shallow, with a rear wall and door allowing the window dresser to access
the mannequins on display. The structural engineer selected cantilevered canopies above standard
commercial plate glass and aluminum display window and door assemblies.
Though it is obviously unrealistic to expect the same of level of architectural merit from the Rileys
building as that embodied in the works of a Morris Lapidus or a Welton Becket, the work of such
architects did establish the Mid-Century style. The Rileys design may appropriately by evaluated in
relation to diagnostic features of the style identified by Mike Jackson (Jackson 2000) and Richard
Longstreth (2000), discussed earlier in this report, as well as the features illustrated by Carol J. Dyson
(Dyson 2008) in Appendix A. As a result, the architecture of the Rileys Department Store building
appears to be a rather underdeveloped example of the Mid-Century commercial style, especially given the
fact that the building was newly constructed in 1955, rather than merely remodeled and updated. Given
the fact that Riley’s owned a parking lot across Marsh Street, and given the auto-centric nature of Marsh
Street, which was much broader than pedestrian-oriented Chorro Street, it was perhaps a surprising
decision to make the primary entrance—with its large-scale signage—face Chorro Street. The vertical
sign at the corner, and the name “Rileys” on the suspended awning, seem to have been the only store
signs facing Marsh Street. Most importantly, the long street frontages on both Chorro and Marsh Streets
lack the dramatic “open front” design that treats views of the interior of the store as part of an integrated
window display. Each of Rileys window displays was backed by a rear wall (with a visible door hatch),
blocking interior views. The window assemblies do feature large plate glass display windows with narrow
extruded aluminum frames, but the windows are supported by bulkheads that do not recede (not even by
as much as a toe kick) and that do not allow the windows to “float” or achieve a gravity-defying “jewel-
box” quality. Window planes are all vertical, as are all wall elements. In plan view, there is some use of
angled windows near the doorways, but the approach from the sidewalk to the door is still basically
perpendicular. The (now-covered) roof canopy is cantilevered, but did not express much dynamic
movement; by 1960 it had already been covered by a boxy canvas awning that hung straight down from
the outer edge of the canopy, obscuring the original design intent. The rough-textured Roman bricks
making up the expansive walls are handsome, and the brick masonry shows excellent workmanship, with
consistent, well-tooled concave mortar. Stacked brick, if used at all in the original design, made up only a
miniscule percentage of the wall surface. Though the brick masonry is indeed admirable, it is not
sufficient to carry an eligibility determination for the building as a whole.
Even without the cumulative loss of physical integrity (discussed below), the Rileys Department Store
building lacked important diagnostic features associated with good examples of Mid-Century commercial
architecture necessary for architectural significance under Criterion 3 (which requires a resource to
embody “distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represent the
work of a master or possesses high artistic values”). This lack can probably be attributed, at least in part,
to the fact that H.A. Landeck. Sr., and Coy C. Humphrey were preoccupied with the store’s interior. The
fact that they hired a professional store merchandising display expert (the representative of a
Item 2
Packet Page 126
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
62
manufacturer of store fixtures) but did not hire an architect probably made all the difference in the final
design.
By way of contrast, one modest example of the dawning use of Mid-Century elements in San Luis Obispo
is the small two-unit commercial building at 1335–1337 Monterey Street (Figure 82), built in 1949, which
includes a vertical element above the roof canopy, a jutting triangular wall feature between the two units,
angled wall planes fronting on Monterey Street, and angled plate-glass windows that cant out slightly
from the upper edge but are flush mounted at the lower edge. This is not meant to suggest superior
workmanship or style, but to demonstrate that diagnostic elements of the Mid-Century design vocabulary
were already being adopted in downtown San Luis Obispo in the late 1940s.
Figure 82. Modest example of early Mid-Century style, 1335–1337 Monterey
Street (Google, November 2018).
EVALUATION UNDER CRITERION 4
Criterion 4 is almost exclusively applied to archaeological resources and is not pertinent to the Rileys
Department Store historic-period built-environment resources.
EVALUATION OF INTEGRITY
Illinois architectural historian and Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer Carol J. Dyson recently
posed the following questions regarding architectural evaluations of Mid-Century design (Dyson 2017:8,
11):
What is the integrity of midcentury design? Can you still understand the design intent?
Does the building still tell the story with most components, display windows, and
materials still remaining? For many of these buildings loss of design impact may be due
to the loss of the historic signage. Business or aesthetic changes may have caused
removal of the original postwar signage and replaced it with either neutral or
incompatibly designed signage. Many of these building designs were co-dependent on
their midcentury modern signage. It is likely that the period signage does not remain and
Item 2
Packet Page 127
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
63
should not be given undue weight in evaluation. If it is missing, new signs can usually be
designed that work with the midcentury storefront and help revive the design aesthetic.
The commercial buildings and storefront modifications of the midcentury exhibited an
exuberance, drama, and elegance, as they showcased up-to-date businesses within. These
modifications were just one more step in the continuum of change exhibited in our
dynamic downtowns. They are an important part of our past, and are old enough to no
longer be our “recent past.” As such they deserve our study, survey, careful evaluation,
and in many cases, preservation (Dyson 2017:11).
When considering the potential for historical significance under CRHR Criterion 1 through 4, the
question of the physical integrity of the building must also be considered. The integrity of built-
environment resources is evaluated against seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association.
Location
The store building retains integrity of its prominent location at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets.
Design
The building’s exterior does little in the way of expressing what Dyson refers to as “exuberance” and
“drama.” As seen in Figure 34, above, the store in its early years of use appears rather boxy and staid,
with windows cluttered with posted notices, and a suspended canvas awning obscuring the clean, thin line
of the cantilevered canopy. It is just modern enough to distinguish itself from older businesses, but it does
not make any innovative architectural statement. The store’s Chorro Street frontage incorporates a portion
designed in 1955 by local architect William D. Holdredge, a portion designed in 1955 by engineer C. F.
Hamlin, and more recent additions and alterations, including a canopy built by Maino Construction in
1962, and the removal of an original display window and installation of a distinctly different doorway
assembly on the Marsh Street elevation, sometime after 1992. Figure 33, above, presents a conundrum
about the integrity of other display windows. The photograph shows the two-light window set within a
very shallow recess, with Roman bricks laid in a stacked bond pattern beneath, but this combination of
wall configuration and brick pattern doesn’t exist anywhere on the current building. This suggests that
one or more of the other display windows may have been replaced or modified. The original canopy
design (along with the style of awning added sometime in the late 1950s) is very different from the
current canopy-and-awning configuration. The new canvas awning completely encloses the edges and
upper surface of the original extant canopy and extends the awning continuously across both the Chorro
Street and Marsh Street elevations. In doing so it adds a prominent new angled form to the overall design
and obscures the tall, bulky entry portal facing Marsh Street. The removal of this awning, though feasible,
would not restore the building to its original appearance. The palm tree, planted on Chorro Street in 1955,
has survived in its planter and grown so tall that, at street level, it appears more pole-like than tree-like.
The two bronze plaques are obviously later installations, but are appropriate to the building. The bench is
a poorly designed and poorly executed recent addition. Because of a change in ownership in 1993, none
of the original Rileys signage (neon vertical sign at corner, letters “R” above the canopy, and the name
Rileys printed on awnings) is still in place on the building. As noted above, Dyson cautions against
attaching too much significance to the loss of the signage, but in this instance, the signage was among the
most conspicuous Mid-Century elements incorporated in the building.
Item 2
Packet Page 128
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
64
Setting
Although the store’s setting became increasingly commercial and less residential over time, it retained its
essential character as part of the existing downtown core, facing and flanked by other downtown
businesses.
Materials
Most of the original Roman brick masonry is extant and still in excellent condition. The concave-tooled
mortar also appears to be original, with no repointing or painting. Plate glass windows are still in place,
and the aluminum frames are intact, though dinged and bent at street level in some locations. With the
exception of the new black-framed doorway on Marsh Street (which constitutes a new and visually
prominent material), the aluminum door assemblies are also original. New materials that have been added
include the discordant application of marble slabs at the west end of the building, a canvas awning with a
metal mesh screen attached to the bottom frame, and the concrete-topped bench.
Workmanship
With the exception of the brick bulkheads directly below the window displays, the brick masonry is of
very high quality and has retained its integrity. The masonry for the bulkheads does not tie into the
adjacent walls; rather, the bricks are merely mortared up against the walls. An examination of the
aluminum frames shows that the installation was serviceable, but not exceptional.
Feeling
The building still “reads” as a storefront, but definitely appears to be stripped down and lacking visual
coherence.
Association
The most deleterious impact to this aspect of integrity is the loss of the store’s signage, interior fixtures,
display cases, and visual identity.
City of San Luis Obispo Local Historic Preservation Criteria
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Section 14.01.070, Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource
Listing) provides:
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,
Item 2
Packet Page 129
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
65
ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure
of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity
although the structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a
particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the
uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together.
(2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the
quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts.
Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are
expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also,
suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder)
accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will
be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic
merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among
carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality
may not be superior.
(3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly
responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The
architect will be evaluated as a reference to:
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who
made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect
whose work influenced development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant
contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to
local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's
home - built between 1927 – 30).
B. Historic Criteria:
(1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to
local, California, or national history. Historic person will be
evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor,
congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding
recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who
made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community,
important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members,
educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials).
(2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional
history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
Item 2
Packet Page 130
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
66
(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).
a. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the
building (e.g., Park Hotel).
C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity
evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s
period of significance. Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or
not the original foundation has been changed, if known.
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its
historic character or appearance to be recognizable as an historic
resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance.
(3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and association.
EVALUATION
The primary directive of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is that a prospective historical
resource shall meet three criteria: a high level of integrity, sufficient age (generally 50 years), and
significance. These criteria are standard within the preservation community, with each criterion
accomplishing a specific goal. The integrity threshold is to ensure that resources retain the physical ability
to convey their significance. The 50-year-old threshold is not, as is sometimes thought, to certify that an
older building is automatically an important one; rather, the threshold is meant to ensure that sufficient
time has elapsed to be able to make an informed assessment of its significance. (It is for this reason that
some exceptional buildings and structures that are not yet 50 years old may already be determined eligible
for listing.) Significance is perhaps the most elastic of the City’s three criteria. It is often the case that
local ordinances are more inclusive than CRHR eligibility criteria, where factors such as familiarity in the
landscape, a broad base of personal experience with the resource, and even nostalgia may be considered
along with historical importance.
Age of Resource
In evaluating the former Rileys Department Store building for eligibility under the City’s local ordinance,
the age of the building, constructed in 1955–1956, can easily be seen as sufficient for a fair assessment to
be made of its place in Mid-Century architectural design. The resource as it appears today is therefore
evaluated here in relation to its appearance between 1955 and 1970 (from the time of its construction to
50 years ago, which is the “historic-period” for this resource). The criteria of integrity and significance
Item 2
Packet Page 131
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
67
are interdependent. That is, to constitute an eligible historical resource under the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance, the former Riley’s building needs to demonstrate both significance and a high
level of integrity.
Significance of Resource
The architecture of the Rileys building was a rather undeveloped and unexceptional example of the Mid-
Century commercial style, especially given the fact that it was developed in two phases: the first portion
was newly constructed in 1955, and the second phase was the 1960 annexation and remodeling of an
adjacent hardware store. Rileys was not a trend-setting building in the downtown commercial core. The
building’s exterior expressed neither the exuberance or drama suggested in an early (c1955) architectural
rendering produced by Los Angeles-based Frank E. Martin and Associates but not adopted as the final
design (see Figure 35). The Martin and Associates design featured important hallmarks associated with
the Mid-Century modern style: large-scale signage, including a very prominent tall and broad panel
extending well above the roofline; a broad, uninterrupted span of plate glass permitting unobstructed
views into the interior; a broad and deep overhang sheltering the entire window wall; and a row of tall
pillars articulating the Rileys building with the neighboring Union Hardware building. A comparison of
the Martin and Associates architectural rendering with contemporary photographs (see Figures 23 and 25)
and with local advertising sketches published in 1955 and 1962 (see Figures 24 and 36) reveals that
Rileys operated for 4 to 5 years—until it annexed the 1960 hardware store building—with an overall
architectural design concept that was only partially realized. Martin and Associates is not listed on the
City’s building permit, although, in its completed form, the Rileys building shows the influence of their
design. Rileys owners Landeck and Humphrey ended up constructing a much more staid (and certainly
less expensive) building, as well as annexing the hardware store building designed in 1955 by local
architect William D. Holdredge. Whether Martin and Associates had any further input is as yet
undocumented. The building cannot be said to meet any of the City’s architectural criteria.
This evaluation assessed the potential for local significance in the business and merchandising aspects of
Rileys, as part of the continuing development of San Luis Obispo as a commercial hub and for its
association with merchant-owners Landeck and Humphrey. This potential, however, is tempered in two
ways. In the first place, Landeck and Humphrey were demonstrably less interested in the exterior design
of the building than they were in the interior design of the store. Rileys’ reputation was based on its
excellent customer service, the expertise and well-being of its many longtime employees, its broad
selection of quality merchandise, and its attention to the shopping “experience.” The exterior of the Rileys
building reflects only some of the contemporary Mid-Century design ideas envisioned by Martin and
Associates, but the interior spaces, as documented in contemporary photographs (see Figures 30–32),
clearly show the modish unified architectural interior design and merchandising design aesthetic of the
professional designer, Lee B. Kuhn, hired by Landeck and Humphrey. The difference between Kuhn’s
stylish merchandise displays on the inside (incorporating modern store fixtures and merchandising
techniques) and the ad hoc window displays outside, facing Chorro and Marsh streets (see Figure 33),
demonstrate the disparity in design focus. Eschewing the Mid-Century trend toward unobstructed views
into the store’s interior, Landeck and Humphrey put in large plate glass windows, and then covered them
up with boxed-in display cases. In building their new store, Landeck and Humphrey were chiefly
interested in acquiring more space for the comfort and convenience of shoppers. In that respect, the
“modern” store building was only as modern as it needed to be to house their expanded stock and new
departments. The real modernization effort happened inside. The potential for significance under the
City’s historical criteria lies a great deal in the intangible realm of Landeck and Humphrey’s decisions
about business practices, employee relations, and merchandising, as well as customer reactions to and
memories of their personal shopping experiences.
Item 2
Packet Page 132
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
68
INTEGRITY OF RESOURCE
The second consideration in evaluating the historical significance of the Rileys building is the
complementary evaluation of the resource’s integrity. The opening paragraph of Section 14.01.070 of the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance states, “In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall
exhibit a high level of historic integrity.” The seven aspects of integrity specified in the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association—are
identical to those aspects of integrity evaluated in determinations of eligibility under CEQA:
• Location: The Rileys building retains its prominent downtown location at the corner of Chorro
and Marsh Streets; its foundation is original.
• Design: The historic-period design of the Rileys building is a troubled topic to begin with. The
original design of the building appears to have been influenced by an architectural rendering by
Martin and Associates, although the Rileys building is much more conservative and pared down.
The person responsible for the final design of the first phase of Rileys was not identified, but may
have been San Luis Obispo structural engineer C. F. Hamlin. Local San Luis Obispo architect
William D. Holdredge is credited with the design of the Union Hardware building annexed by
Rileys in 1960. The two parts of the Rileys building are similar in style but distinguishable,
nevertheless. The doorway reconstruction fronting on Marsh Street was carried out by Maino
Construction in 1962. Between 1955 and 1962, then, portions of the Rileys building were
designed by, or at least influenced by, at least four architects or structural engineers. The interior
architectural design was the work of Lee B. Kuhn.
The building, as completed in 1962, was in continual service as the Rileys Department Store until
1993. With the change in ownership, the former department store building lost character-defining
features that were not only original to the building but also fundamental to identifying and
advertising its purpose. On the exterior, these features included distinctive signage, display
windows, and canopies. The loss of signage in this instance was especially deleterious to the
building design. The large 8 × 8-foot porcelain “R” installed above the entrance on Chorro Street
and the vertical 15-foot-high neon “Rileys” sign rising above the corner of Chorro and Marsh
Streets had been eye-catching contributors to the building’s limited range of Mid-Century-style
decorative elements. Removal of the boxy window display cases further distanced the purpose of
the building from its form. It is interesting that, even in the 1950s and 1960s, Rileys covered the
strong, thin horizontal line of the cantilevered canopies with substantial scalloped canvas awnings
that were much more in keeping with storefronts from the 1930s and 1940s. After the store
closed, newer awnings of a different configuration were installed over the cantilevered canopies.
It appears that Landeck and Humphrey continued to treat the building’s exterior from a practical
point of view and were not zealous about maintaining or promoting the Mid-Century aesthetic as
a selling tool. The customers evidently patronized Rileys for other reasons and, once inside the
store, were treated to a good selection of merchandise that suited their wants and needs and were
waited on by knowledgeable staff. In 1992, the store was remodeled to accommodate Copeland
Sports, with a prominent new door assembly installed on Marsh Street. This change demolished a
small original display case and created a blank windowless face for much of the Marsh Street
elevation.
• Setting: Facing and flanked by other commercial buildings, the Rileys store building retains its
place as an element of the downtown commercial core,
• Materials: The well-formed, well-fired, textured, full-dimension bricks that make up large
sections of the Rileys building’s walls have very good physical integrity despite decades of
exposure. Most if not all of the extant plate glass windows and their aluminum channel frames are
probably original, or at least were replaced in kind during the years the building operated as
Item 2
Packet Page 133
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
69
Rileys Department Store. The addition of discordant materials such as the heavy black steel
doorway assembly on Marsh Street, and the odd inclusion of marble slab panels on the Chorro
Street, elevation post-date the store’s operation. The current canvas awning is also a later addition
in a style that does not match the original design. These additions degrade the physical integrity
of the exterior design.
• Workmanship: The brick masonry walls continue to exhibit their original high-quality
workmanship, including the well-executed concave mortar tooling. No other features of the
building can be said to display exceptional workmanship.
• Feeling: The Riley building still “reads” as a storefront, but presents itself now as an
undifferentiated and altered commercial structure, stripped down and lacking visual coherence.
• Association: The most deleterious impacts to this aspect of integrity are the loss of the distinctive
signage that contributed so much to its visual identity and the loss of interior fixtures. As a litmus
test for integrity, the “degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic
character or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for
its significance” is the crux of this analysis. From the point of view of architecture, Rileys is an
example of a building that was never on a firm stylistic path capable of giving full support to its
commercial purpose. The fact that it annexed a neighboring building designed in 1955 by a
different person did not help. Even in its heyday, the building was an unremarkable structure that
happened to house a department store business. The owners were far more vested in the
appearance and modernity of the store’s interior. As a result, they never seem to have made full
use of what the building did offer, particularly by blocking potential views of the array of
merchandise within—expansive windows were blocked with very ordinary display cases (which
have all been removed). The strongest associations with the former Rileys Department Store
would depend on an interior with good integrity—capable of conveying the building’s prior use
and documentation of their business practices.
FINDINGS
As owners of Rileys Department Store, Landeck and Humphrey seem to have adopted a middle ground in
their selection of building style. Though advertised as extremely modern, this claim does not hold up to
close scrutiny. Documentation makes it reasonable to suggest that they put their corporate money into
signage and into the interior design and amenities. With the exception of the original interior staircase and
mezzanine railings, these aspects of the overall design have not survived.
CONCLUSIONS
The former Rileys Department Store building at 1144 Chorro Street evaluated as part of this study does
not meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR or otherwise constitute a historical resource for the
purposes of CEQA. Similarly, the former Rileys Department Store building does not meet the high-
integrity threshold criterion for historic resource listing under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
In order for the building to express its integrity as “part of the continuing development of San Luis
Obispo as a commercial hub and for its association with merchant-owners Herbert A. Landeck, Sr., and
Coy Humphrey,” it would need to be restored using Secretary of the Interior Standards for Restoration to
its c1965 appearance by restoring/replicating the signage, decorative canopy awnings, and display
window cases; removing the steel door assembly on Marsh Street and reconstructing the original doorway
and display window; removing the marble panels; restoring the landscaping; and the restoring character-
defining interior features and primary fixtures.
Item 2
Packet Page 134
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
70
PREPARER’S QUALIFICATIONS
SWCA Senior Architectural Historian Paula Juelke Carr, M.A., meets the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Professionally Qualified Staff as both historian and architectural historian. Ms. Carr has
more than 25 years of experience in California history and architectural history, including more than 11
years as an Associate Environmental Planner (Architectural History) for the California Department of
Transportation, District 5. She has been with SWCA since 2017.
Item 2
Packet Page 135
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
71
REFERENCES CITED
Architectural Forum (in collaboration with Victor Gruen, Morris Ketchum, Morris Lapidus, Kenneth
Welch, and Daniel Schwartzman)
1950 What Makes a 1940 Store Obsolete? Architectural Forum July:62–79. Available at:
https://dahp.wa.gov/sites/default/files/WhatMakes_a_1940StoreObsolete_ArchitecturalForu
m_July1950_small.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2019.
Burke, Gene, and Edgar Kober
1946 Modern Store Design. Institute of Product Research, Los Angeles, CA. Available at:
https://babel.hathitrust.org. Accessed April 29, 2019.
California Office of Historic Preservation.
2019a California Historical Resources. Sacramento, CA. Available at
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/ListedResources/. Accessed March 29, 2019.
2019b California Register of Historical Resources: Criteria for Designation. Sacramento, CA.
Available at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21238. Accessed March 29, 2019
City of San Luis Obispo
2019 Info SLO, Permit History. Available at: https://www.slocity.org/services/info. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
Claass Haus
2019 Morris Lapidus, Storefront King. Available at: https://www.claasshaus.com/blog/the-
storefront-king-morris-lapidus. Accessed March 29, 2019.
Crabb, Guy
2011 San Luis Obispo: 100 Years of Downtown Businesses. The Cross Streets: Osos, Chorro,
Morro, Garden, Broad, Nipomo Streets and Much More. Guy Crabb Publishing, San Luis
Obispo, CA.
Dyson, Carol J.
2008 How to Work with Storefronts of the Mid-Twentieth Century: A Mid-Twentieth Century
Storefronts Components Guide. Presented by Carol J. Dyson, AIA, in “What to Do When a
Storefront is Younger Than You Are: How to Work with Storefronts of the Mid-Twentieth
Century,” prepared for the 2008 National Main Streets meeting, Philadelphia, PA. Available
at: https://www2.illinois.gov/dnrhistoric/Preserve/mid-century/Pages/midcentury.aspx.
Accessed May 19, 2019.
2015 Mid-Century Commercial Modernism: Design and Materials. In Proceedings of the Mid-
Century Modern Structures: Materials and Preservation Symposium, National Park Service
Centennial Symposium Series, pp. 161–170. Available at:
https://www2.illinois.gov/dnrhistoric/Preserve/mid-century/Pages/midcentury.aspx.
Accessed May 19, 2019.
2017 Midcentury Commercial Design Evaluation and Preservation: An Opportunity for
Commissions. In The Alliance Review [National Alliance of Preservation Commissions]
Spring 2017, pp. 4–17. Available at: https://www2.illinois.gov/dnrhistoric/Preserve/mid-
century/Pages/midcentury.aspx. Accessed May 19, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 136
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
72
PicClick
2018 1956 Riley's Department Store My Baby Magazine San Luis Obispo. Available at:
https://picclick.com/1956-Rileys-Department-Store-My-Baby-Magazine-San-
253799613932.html. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Emerton, Bruce
2003 Built by Becket. Brochure produced by the Los Angeles Conservancy Modern Committee
(MODCOM).
Franks, Janet Penn
2004 San Luis Obispo: A History in Architecture. Images of America Series. Arcadia Publishing,
Charleston, SC.
Historic Resources Group
2013 City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the City of San
Luis Obispo. September 30. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4042. Accessed March 29, 2019.
Hornbeck, James S., ed.
1962 Stores and Shopping Centers. McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York, NY.
Houser, Michael
2013 Mid Century Storefronts. The Main Street of Tomorrow: 1930 to 1970. Overview of the
design and application of mid-century storefront systems. Presented by Washington State
Architectural Historian Michael Houser at the Revitalize WA Conference in Vancouver,
WA. May. Available at: https://dahp.wa.gov/local-preservation/main-street-program/recent-
past-on-main-street. Accessed April 29, 2019.
Jackson, Mike
2000 ‘Storefronts of Tomorrow’: American Storefront Design from 1949 to 1970. In Preserving
the Recent Past 2, edited by Deborah Slaton and William G. Foulks, pp. 2-57–2-78. Historic
Preservation Education Foundation, National Park Service, and Association for Preservation
Technology International, Washington, D.C. Available at:
https://www2.illinois.gov/dnrhistoric/Preserve/mid-century/Pages/midcentury.aspx.
Accessed May 19, 2019.
Ketchum, Morris
1957 Shops & Stores. Revised edition (first published 1948). Reinhold Publishing Corporation,
New York, NY.
KSBY
2018 Longtime Operator of Riley’s Dept. Store in San Luis Obispo Dies. April 24. Available at:
https://ksby.com/news/2018/04/24/longtime-operator-of-rileys-dept-store-in-san-luis-obispo-
dies. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Lambert, Cynthia
2014 Ross Humphrey, Co-Owner of Rileys in Downtown SLO, Dies at 78. San Luis Obispo
Tribune 18 January, updated 20 January. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at:
https://www.sanluisobispo.com.news. Accessed May 3, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 137
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
73
Lapidus, Morris
[n.d.] Designs for Modern Merchandising
Longstreth, Richard
2000 Integrity and the Recent Past. In Preserving the Recent Past 2, edited by Deborah Slaton and
William G. Foulks, pp. 2-1–2-11. Historic Preservation Education Foundation, National Park
Service, and Association for Preservation Technology International, Washington, D.C.
Available at: https://www2.illinois.gov/dnrhistoric/Preserve/mid-
century/Pages/midcentury.aspx. Accessed May 19, 2019.
Los Angeles Public Library Photo Collection
c1953 Bullock’s Westwood [photograph]. Identifier: 00074536, Security Pacific National Bank
Collection, Westwood Village-Shops and stores-Department stores-Bullock’s,
CARL0000077343, http://173.196.26.125/cdm/ref/collection/photos/id/115149. Available
at: https://calisphere.org. Accessed May 15, 2019.
Massey, James C., and Shirley Maxwell, comps.
2004 Identification and Evaluation of Mid-20th-Century Buildings. Course materials prepared for
the National Preservation Institute.
Meanwhile, at the Manse
2012 In praise of laundry chutes, and other vintage technology. April 24, 2012. Available at:
https://atthemanse.wordpress.com/tag/pneumatic-tubes/. Accessed May 15, 2019.
Middlecamp, David
2019 For Over 100 Years, this Department Store Brought the Latest Fashions to Downtown SLO.
San Luis Obispo Tribune 4 January. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at:
https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/photos-from-the-
vault/article223788590.html. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Millville Daily
1964 Christmas Joys for Girls and Boys [advertisement]. Millville Daily 25 November:6.
Millville, NJ. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
PatricksMercy
2010 Bullock's Westwood Department Store West Los Angeles, CA rendering 1951. Uploaded
August 22, 2010. Available at:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/65359853@N00/4917690598/in/photostream/. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
Pinterest
2019a Artist Rendering of Rileys Department Store Exterior. Available at:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0e/c9/02/0ec902ab759615bc2bd9c9b8b1c62cf1.jpg. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
2019b Photos of Rileys Department Store Interior. Available at:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ba/c3/03/bac303c324708d4f369a4a61f8e8072a.jpg. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 138
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
74
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
1888 San Luis Obispo. February (sheet 5).
1891 San Luis Obispo. December (sheet 9).
San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram (continued by San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune)
1914a Name Changes February 16. Riley-Crocker Corporation Succeeds to Business. San Luis
Obispo Daily Telegram 9 February:1. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at:
https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1914b Riley to Manage Big Store. San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 10 February:1. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1914c Formal Transfer Today of the Crocker Co. to the Riley-Crocker Corporation. San Luis
Obispo Daily Telegram 16 February:1. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at:
https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1923 Riley-Crocker’s Reopening Set for Next Week. San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 14 April:8.
San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6,
2019.
1929 New System in Big Store. San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 30 August:2. San Luis Obispo,
CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune (continued by San Luis Obispo Tribune)
1942 School Opening [advertisement]. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 19 August:12. San
Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1945a Dan Riley Inspired Loyalty. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 6 September:1. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1945b In memory of Daniel J. Riley. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 6 September:6. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1947 Emergency Repairs on Highway Bridge. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 17
September:6. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
1948 Rileys Store Observing 61st Birthday. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 23 August:6. San
Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1954 New Mezzanine Improvements at Rileys Store [illustrated]. San Luis Obispo Telegram-
Tribune 4 March:11. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
1955a Rileys Announces New Store. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 9 April:1. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1955b Work Starts on Hardware Store Site. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 4 May:2. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1955c Rileys Opens New Store Tomorrow [illustrated]. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 19
October:1–2. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 139
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
75
1956a 1887 – 69 Years of Service. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 10 May:21. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1956b Improvements Come Fast in Business Area [illustrated]. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune
18 May:24. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
1956c My Baby Magazine, holiday supplement. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune December.
San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6,
2019.
1959 Rileys Store Taking Over Hardware Business. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 24
December:1. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
1960 Union Hardware Going Out of Business Sale. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 14
March:6. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
1987 [Untitled]. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune 3 July. San Luis Obispo, CA. San Luis
Obispo, CA. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed May 6, 2019.
San Luis Obispo Tribune
2014 Ross J. Humphrey Obituary. San Luis Obispo Tribune 18 January. San Luis Obispo, CA.
Available at: https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39466137.html. Accessed
May 6, 2019.
2018 Robert Humphrey Obituary. San Luis Obispo Tribune 29 April. San Luis Obispo, CA.
Available at: https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sanluisobispo/obituary.aspx?n=robert-
humphrey&pid=188874280. Accessed May 6, 2019.
San Mateo Times
1966 H. Levy to Staff of Levy Bros. San Mateo Times 8 February:17. San Mateo, CA. Available
at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Santa Cruz Sentinel
1987 Ford’s Buys Chain in San Luis Obispo. Santa Cruz Sentinel 30 August:D-2. Santa Cruz, CA.
Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1992 Ford’s Closes Three Stores. Santa Cruz Sentinel 12 September:D-6. Santa Cruz, CA.
Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Santa Maria Times
1916 Western Union Night Letter. Santa Maria Times 4 November:4. Santa Maria, CA. Available
at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1917a Announcement. Santa Maria Times 24 March:5. Santa Maria, CA. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1917b A Store Just Overflowing with Pretty Things for Fall and Winter Wear [advertisement].
Santa Maria Times 29 September:8. Santa Maria, CA. Available at:
https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 140
1144 Chorro Street Architectural Evaluation
76
1917c A Store Full of Beautiful Gifts [advertisement]. Santa Maria Times 15 December:5. Santa
Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1918 Expert Corsetiere Coming [advertisement]. Santa Maria Times 22 July:2. Santa Maria, CA.
Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1926 Riley-Lannon Co. Announces Mlle. Jeanne [advertisement]. Santa Maria Times 24 June:5.
Santa Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1958 Meet Miss Adrienne Stratton [advertisement]. Santa Maria Times 3 November:6. Santa
Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
1962a You are Cordially Invited to Attend a Wedding Reception [advertisement]. Santa Maria
Times 28 September:4. Santa Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
1962b Friday Night Is Santa Maria Night at Rileys Department Store [advertisement]. Santa Maria
Times 5 December:6. Santa Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/.
Accessed May 6, 2019.
1964 Grand Opening, Rileys Home Furnishings and Music Center. Santa Maria Times 12
August:7 Santa Maria, CA. Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6,
2019.
1992 SLO Fixture Files for Bankruptcy. Santa Maria Times 12 October:3. Santa Maria, CA.
Available at: https://www.newspapers.com/. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Slaton, Deborah, and William G. Foulks, eds.
2000 Preserving the Recent Past 2. Historic Preservation Education Foundation, National Park
Service, and Association for Preservation Technology International, Washington, D.C.
Trujillo, Catherine
2018 Photograph of Rileys Department Store Interior. Available at:
http://www.nothinghappenedhere.org. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Wikipedia
2019 San Luis Obispo, California. Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Luis_Obispo,_California. Accessed May 6, 2019.
Wilson, Nick
2018 Instead of Bowling Alley, SLO Could Get a 75-Foot Tall Building. San Luis Obispo Tribune
26 June, updated 27 June. San Luis Obispo, CA. Available at:
https://www.sanluisobispo.com.news. Accessed May 3, 2019.
Item 2
Packet Page 141
APPENDIX A
Mid-Century Commercial Modernism: Design and Materials, by Carol J. Dyson
Carol J. Dyson, AIA, is the Chief Architect and a Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer for the
Illinois State Historic Preservation Office. Since 1999, she has also co-taught a course on the Recent Past
for the School of the Art Institute of Chicago’s Historic Preservation program. Carol has given frequent
presentations on this topic and has written several articles on midcentury modernism.
Item 2
Packet Page 142
Item 2
Packet Page 143
Item 2Packet Page 144
Item 2Packet Page 145
Item 2Packet Page 146
Item 2Packet Page 147
Item 2Packet Page 148
Item 2Packet Page 149
Item 2Packet Page 150
Proceedings of the
Mid-Century Modern Structures: Materials and Preservation Symposium
St. Louis, Missouri, April 13-16, 2015
Edited by
Kathryn Doyle, The World Monuments Fund
Andrew Ferrell, NCPTT
Frank E. Sanchis Ill, The World Monuments Fund
Mary F. Striegel, NC PTT
Organized by
The National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT)
Friends of NCPTT
In association with
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial
National Park Service Cultural Resources, Partnerships, and Science Directorate
American Institute for Architects St. Louis
Washington University Samuel Fox School of Architecture
World Monuments Fund
Friends of NCPTT
645 University Parkway
Natchitoches, LA 71457
ISBN
Hard copy: 978-0-9970440-0-3
Epub Format: 978-0-9970440-1-0
Mobi Format: 978-0-9970440-2-7
AckJ:1o""UTledgemeJ:1ts
The Editors wish to thank Stephanie Toothman, Associate Director for Cultural Resources and Science for the National
Park Service, for her support in seeing that the symposium came to fruition. Special thanks to NCPTT Executive Direc
tor, Kirk A. Cordell, who offered the staff that planned and organized the symposium. We appreciate the support of
the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial, including Superintendent Tom Bradley, Franklin Mares, Janet Wilding, Vic
toria Dugan, Robert Moore, and Jennifer Clark, who provided much of the logistical support in St. Louis. The Samuel
Fox School of Architecture at Washington University in St. Louis provided space for the public lecture and John Guen
ther and Andrew Raimist served as guides for the site tour. Michelle Swatek and the AIA St. Louis Chapter helped
with marketing and logistics. The World Monuments Fund supported the efforts of this symposium and included the
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial on the 2014 World Monuments Watch. Without Thomas Whitehead and the
efforts of the Friends of NCPTT, the symposium would not have been possible.
Item 2
Packet Page 151
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant has applied for the conceptual review of a six-story mixed-use development with a
maximum height of 75-feet within the Downtown Historic District, see Figure 1. The subject property
is directly adjacent to the Master List Historic Resource Hotel Wineman, and in vicinity of the Master
List Masonic Temple and the Master List Commercial Bank Building. The subject property is not listed
as historic resource. The proposed concept plan consists of ground floor retail and parking, two stories
of office space, and three stories of residential dwellings (Attachment 1, Project Plans).
General Location: The property is located on
the corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets within
the Commercial Downtown zone on the border
of the Downtown Historic District.
Present Use: Vacant
Zoning: Downtown Commercial within the
Downtown Historic District (C-D-H)
General Plan: General Retail
Surrounding Uses:
East: California Pizza Kitchen
West: Eureka Burger
North: Hotel Wineman
South: Chorro Street Parking Structure
2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN
Design details: Brick design that extends from the street level to the third and fourth stories. Upper
floors consisting of stucco siding that are stepped back five feet from the brick façade.
Materials: Brick & Stucco siding, anodized aluminum storefronts, concrete bulkheads and window
header, and black metal awnings/balconies.
3.0 NEXT STEPS
Proceeding the feedback from the CHC, the project will be scheduled for conceptual review by the
ARC, tentatively scheduled for December 3, 2018. The ARC will review the project and provide
feedback based on the Community Design Guidelines. Following conceptual review, the applicant will
Meeting Date: November 26, 2018
Item Number: 1
Item No. 1
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1144 Chorro Street FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1903-2018
APPLICANT: Mark Rawson REPRESENTATIVE: Ten Over Studios, Inc.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Item 2
Packet Page 152
consider feedback and prepare a formal application for complete review. Once all information is
collected and the project is deemed complete hearings will be scheduled before the CHC, ARC, PC, and
City Council for final review of the project.
4.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The CHC’s role is to review the project for consistency with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and other policies and standards identified in this report, and to
provide the applicant and staff with feedback on the proposed conceptual design. A Historic
Preservation Report, prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants, has been provided with this
report that includes an assessment of the project’s conformance with Historic Preservation Guidelines
(Attachment 2).
Historic Preservation Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144
Secretary of Interior Standards: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=16940
5.0 GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS/DISCUSSION ITEMS
HISTORIC PRESERVATON GUIDELINES CHC Discussion Items
§3.2.1 Architecturally compatible
development within Historic Districts.
The CHC should provide feedback on the project’s compatibility
with the prevailing historic character in terms of scale, massing,
rhythm, detailing, materials, and setting.
The CHC should discuss whether the architectural style could be
found compatible with the district based on scale, massing,
rhythm, signature architectural elements, and materials.
§3.2.2 Architectural compatibility.
The CHC should discuss and provide feedback on whether the
proposed project contrasts with, significantly blocks public views
of, or visually detracts from, the historic character of historically
designated structures within the vicinity.
§5.2.2 Downtown Historic District
The CHC should discuss and provide feedback whether the
project includes common site features, and predominant
architectural characteristics of the Historic District.
Figure 1: Neighborhood Context and adjacent building heights.
Item 2
Packet Page 153
6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Setbacks 0 feet 0 feet
Density (DU) 29.26 DU 13.68 DU
Maximum Height of Structures 75 feet 50 - 75 feet
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 91% 100%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 3.87 FAR 3.75 FAR
Total # Parking Spaces 11 spaces 93 spaces
*2018 Zoning Regulations
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
7.1 Project Plans
7.2 Historic Preservation Report
Item 2
Packet Page 154
DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of November 26, 2018 Page 1
Minutes
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, November 26, 2018
Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Monday, November 26, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Papp.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Thom Brajkovich, Glen Matteson, Damon
Haydu, Craig Kincaid, Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee, and Chair James Papp
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner
Walter Oetzell, and Recording Secretary Summer Aburashed
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of
October 22, 2018:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, CARRIED 6-0-0-1 (VICE-CHAIR LARRABEE
ABSTAINING), the Cultural Heritage Committee approved the Minutes of the Regular
Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of October 22, 2018, as amended.
Spelling corrections on page 2, Applicant representatives names Emily “Year” should be
changed to “Ewer” and Bryce “Armstrong” to “Engstrom”.
Spelling corrections on page 1, Committee Member Thom Brajkovich should be changed
from “Brajk” to “Brajkovich.”
Update the action for Leff Street on page 2 to reflect it to state “forward recommendation to
find proposed project consistent with applicable standards.”
Update Recess to show that all Committee Members were present excusing Vice-Chair
Larrabee as she was absent for that meeting.
Item 2
Packet Page 155
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of November 26, 2018 Page 2
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
End of Public Comment--
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2. 1144 Chorro Street. Case #: ARCH-1903-2018, C-D-H Zone; Mark Rawson, Applicant.
Associate Planner Kyle Bell provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Applicant representatives, Mark Rawson with Copeland Properties, Ten Over Studio
Principal Jim Duffy, Project Architect Jessie Skidmore, and Paula Carr provided a
presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
Public Comment
Dave Hannings
Jeanne Kinney
James Lopes
Greg Wynn
Sandra Marshall
Stan Carpenter
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, CARRIED 7-0-0, identifying specific directional items
for the conceptual review of a proposed six-story mixed use building with a maximum height
of 75-feet adjacent to the Master List Historic Structure Hotel Wineman within the
Downtown Historic District.
The committee provided the following directional items to the applicant:
1. The project shall include a height analysis of buildings in the vicinity and within the
Historic District, including the Masonic Temple.
2. The shading study shall be revised to identify the specific shadow of the proposed
structure, to distinguish between shading of existing structures.
3. The Historic Preservation Report shall be revised to address the existing structure’s
potential historic eligibility within the district, in consideration of the evaluation criteria
for historic resource listing.
4. The proposed scale and mass of the structure above fourth story, referred to as the
stucco portion”, is considered incompatible with the Historic District.
Item 2
Packet Page 156
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of November 26, 2018 Page 3
5. The architectural style is considered too “institutional”, alternative styles should be
considered giving the projects prominent location and opportunity to contribute to the
Historic District’s prevailing significance and distinctive architecture.
6. The proposed design should be modified to include more architectural details and
features consistent with the character of the Historic District.
7. The proposed fenestration is considered monotonous and should provide greater variety
and articulation.
8. The project design should provide more articulation and variety along the storefront
elevations.
Recess:
The Committee recessed at 7:35p.m. and reconvened at 7:39 p.m. with all committee
members present.
3. 857 Monterey. Case #: ARCH-1885-2018, C-D-H Zone; Danny Freitas, Applicant
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Applicant representatives, Ten Over Studios representatives, Jim Duffy and Jessie Skidmore
provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
Public Comment
Greg Wynn
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, CARRIED 7-0-0, to recommend that the Community
Development Director find the project consistent with Historic Preservation Ordinance, with
consideration of the consistency of proposed wall sconces with the building’s period of
significance and with the character of surrounding buildings, and with consideration of the
color of the window muntins, for a less stark appearance.
4. 771 Buchon Street. Case #: HIST-1936-2018, R-2-H Zone; Chris and Heidi Frago,
Applicants
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Item 2
Packet Page 157
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of November 26, 2018 Page 4
Applicant representatives, Chris and Heidi Frago, provided a brief description of their request
and of the Nathaniel Brew Home, and responded to Committee inquiries.
Public Comment
None
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECONDED BY
VICE-CHAIR LARRABEE, CARRIED 7-0-0, to approve a Historical Preservation
Agreement (Mill's Act Program) for the Master List Nathaniel Brew Home at 771 Buchon as
presented, with an amendment to exclude interior painting from the list of improvements
proposed under the agreement.
PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
5. Review of documentation and discussion of whether additional information should be
provided for the proposed demolition of 664 Upham Street (not a listed historic
resource)
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
Greg Wynn provided a presentation and responded to Committee inquiries.
The Committee was in consensus that additional information is not necessary, and that the
demolition can proceed without further review of potential historical significance.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting for
December 17, 2018 has been cancelled. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting
is scheduled for Monday, January 28, 2019 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: 01/28/2019
Item 2
Packet Page 158
ARCHITETURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant has applied for the conceptual review of a six-story mixed-use development with a
maximum height of 75-feet within the Downtown Historic District, see Figure 1. The proposed concept
plan consists of ground floor retail and parking, two stories of office space, and three stories of
residential dwellings (Attachment 1, Project Plans).
General Location: The property is located on
the corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets within
the Commercial Downtown zone and
Downtown Historic District.
Present Use: Vacant
Zoning: Downtown Commercial within the
Downtown Historic District (C-D-H)
General Plan: General Retail
Surrounding Uses:
East: California Pizza Kitchen
West: Eureka Burger
North: Hotel Wineman
South: Chorro Street Parking Structure
2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN
Design details: Brick design that extends from the street level to the third and fourth stories. Upper
floors consisting of stucco siding that are stepped back five feet from the brick façade.
Materials: Brick & Stucco siding, anodized aluminum storefronts, concrete bulkheads and window
header, and black metal awnings/balconies.
3.0 NEXT STEPS
The project has been conceptually reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on November
26, 2018. Following conceptual review, the applicant will consider feedback from the CHC and the ARC
and prepare a formal application for complete review. Once all application materials are collected
(including a viewshed analysis and visual assessment) and the project is deemed complete, review
hearings will be scheduled before the CHC, ARC, PC, and City Council for final review of the project.
Meeting Date: December 3, 2018
Item Number: 1
Item No. 1
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1144 Chorro Street FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1903-2018
APPLICANT: Mark Rawson REPRESENTATIVE: Ten Over Studios, Inc.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Item 2
Packet Page 159
4.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
applicable City policies and standards, to provide the applicant and staff with feedback on the
proposed conceptual design. A Historic Preservation Report, prepared by SWCA Environmental
Consultants, has been provided with this report that includes an assessment of the project’s
conformance with Historic Preservation Guidelines (Attachment 2). This was the focus of the CHC’s
review.
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Downtown Concept Plan: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=17344
5.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
Highlighted Sections ARC Discussion Items
CDG Chapter 2 – General Design Principles
§2.1 - Site Design The ARC should discuss whether the project concept considers the context
of best examples of architecture in the vicinity.
§2.2 - Building Design
The ARC should discuss whether the building design provides adequate
proportion and balance of the building elements, including articulation that
effectively reduces the apparent mass of the structure.
CDG Chapter 4 - Downtown Design Guidelines
§4.2B - Height, Scale
The ARC should discuss whether the height and scale of the project provides
adequate visual transitions and sensitivity to historic resources of structures
in the vicinity.
The ARC should discuss whether the project provides the appropriate
techniques, identified in CDG 4.2.B.4, to assure the height of the building
respects the context of the site setting.
§4.2C - Façade Design The ARC should discuss whether the building façade provides appropriate
rhythm and proportion of storefront systems and window openings.
§4.2D - Materials and
Details
The ARC should discuss whether the projects materials and architectural
details are consistent with the distinctive character of Downtown.
Figure 1: Neighborhood Context and adjacent building heights.
Item 2
Packet Page 160
6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS/ASSOCIATED STUDIES
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Setbacks 0 feet 0 feet
Density (DU) 29.26 DU 13.68 DU
Residential Uses Provided Required
Height of Structures
Minimum 6-stories 2-stories along street
Maximum 75 feet 50 feet
Maximum with PC Exception 75 feet 75 feet
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 91% 100%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 3.87 FAR 3.75 FAR
Total # Parking Spaces 11 spaces 93 spaces
Limitations on New Driveways Requested Restricted
Application Requirements
Viewshed Analysis1 & Visual Study Pending Submittal Required
Solar Shading Analysis Provided Required
Parking Demand Management Pending Submittal Required
3-D Digital Model Pending Submittal Required
Solid Waste Management Plan Pending Submittal Required
Green Building Plan Pending Submittal Required
Emergency Services Access Plan Pending Submittal Required
Public Safety Plan Pending Submittal Required
Utilities Infrastructure Analysis Pending Submittal Required
Building Code Analysis Pending Submittal Required
*2018 Zoning Regulations
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
7.1 Project Plans
7.2 Historic Preservation Report
1 Zoning Regulations Section 17.32.030E.6.a - Viewshed Analysis. A written and graphic viewshed analysis from various
perspectives. The analysis shall identify visual resources within the viewshed of the project and indicate how the design of the
project addresses those views from each perspective. Specific attention shall be given to views from adjacent publicly owned
gathering spaces, such as Mission Plaza.
Item 2
Packet Page 161
Minutes
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, December 3, 2018
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
December 3, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Brian Rolph, Micah Smith, Angela Soll, Christie
Withers, and Chair Allen Root
Absent: Vice-Chair Amy Nemcik
Staff: Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Kyle Bell, Senior Planner Shawna
Scott, and Recording Secretary Summer Aburashed. Other staff members presented
reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
End of Public Comment--
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission Meeting of
October 15, 2018.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
WITHERS, CARRIED 6-0-1(VICE-CHAIR NEMCIK ABSENT) to approve the minutes of
the Regular Architectural Review Commission of October 15, 2018, as presented.
Item 2
Packet Page 162
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of December 3, 2018 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 1144 Chorro Street. Case #: ARCH 1903-2018, C-D-H Zone; Mark Rawson, applicant
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report with the use of a PowerPoint
presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant representatives, Project Architect Mark Rawson, provided a PowerPoint
presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
Dave Hannings
James Lopes
Jeanne Kinney
Sandra Marshall
John Grady
Quinn Pullen
Les Beck
End of Public Comment--
By consensus, the Commission reviewed a proposed six-story mixed use building with a
maximum height of 75-feet within the Downtown Historic District. No final action was taken
on the project.
The following direction was provided to the applicant:
The project should respond to the Cultural Heritage Committee directional items with
emphasis on providing a higher degree of articulation to relieve building mass and
provide a greater variety of fenestration, the project should consider a variety in relief of
roof lines.
The project should consider and respond to the planning principles and goals identified in
the Downtown Concept Plan.
The architectural style should be distinctive as a gateway feature to downtown through
design excellence justifying the requested height above 50 feet, given the project
prominence along the intersection, the design should be of its own time while compatible
with adjacent historic structures.
The project should provide greater step backs on the upper levels and/or consider a height
reduction with sensitivity to adjacent historic resources, the design and mass should
reinforce the horizontal lines of adjacent facades.
The design should focus on pedestrian scale, consider opportunity to revitalize the corner
of Marsh and Chorro as a design feature combined with greater sidewalk widths and
additional relief of storefronts to provide for patio dining. Consider tying into the
pedestrian experience of the Downtown Center.
Item 2
Packet Page 163
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of December 3, 2018 Page 3
Materials should be high quality and selected carefully to be compatible with the historic
buildings, without replicating design features, the second story windows should be
reduced in height to reflect traditional transom window designs.
3. 1241 Laurel Lane. Case #: ARCH-1909-2018, C-N Zone, Laurel Lane Investments
LLC, applicant
Deputy Director Doug Davidson presented the staff report with the use of a PowerPoint
presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Applicant representative, Sean Beauchamp, Southpaw Signs, provided graphic materials to
the Commission and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
None
End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
WITHERS, CARRIED 6-0-1(VICE-CHAIR NEMCIK ABSENT) to adopt Resolution No.
ARC-1023-2018 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A SIGN PROGRAM FOR THE
VILLAGE AT LAUREL LANE SHOPPING CENTER AT 1241 LAUREL LANE
APPLICATION ARCH-1909-2018)”, as amended below.
Approve sign program for shopping center with the monument sign modified to 12-foot
maximum above natural grade with up to 2 foot concrete base, with hanging signs and
market signs as proposed.
The Commission also advised staff to: confirm site distance visibility, including visibility
from the bike path; and consider landscaping around the center identification sign.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Deputy Director Davidson provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:59 p.m. The Regular Architectural Review Commission for
Monday, December 17, 2018 has been cancelled. The next Regular Architectural Review
Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 7, 2019 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council
Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
Item 2
Packet Page 164
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of December 3, 2018 Page 4
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: 02/04/2019
Item 2
Packet Page 165
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: September 17, 2019
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: INITIATION OF A PROJECT TO CONSTRUCT A SIX-STORY MIXED-USE
BUILDING CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF
COMMERCIAL/OFFICE SPACE AND 50 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
LOCATED AT 1144 CHORRO STREET. PROJECT ENTITLEMENTS
INCLUDE: 1) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (MAJOR); 2) PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY REZONE; AND 3) ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW.
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a presentation on the project proposal from staff and the project applicant and direct
staff to proceed with processing of the applications with the following considerations:
1. The application of a Planned Development (PD) Overlay zone is an appropriate method for
implementation of the City Council’s goal for higher density housing in the Downtown; and
2. The Mandatory Project Features required for consideration of establishment of the PD
Overlay zone and the Community Benefits Policy Objectives required for consideration of
the proposed building height of 75 feet are appropriate and in alignment with the scope of the
project given the priority that the City Council has placed on new housing in the Downtown.
3. Direct staff to move forward with priority processing of the project through the entitlement
process, including environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
DISCUSSION
The purpose of the project initiation at 1144 Chorro Street, before the City Council is to offer
feedback to the applicant and staff as to whether the project’s strategies for addressing the
required Community Benefits Policy Objectives1 for structures over 50 feet in height, and the
Mandatory Project Features2 to provide for the Planned Development Overlay are consistent with
the intent of the Zoning Regulations before plans are further refined. These comments do not
1 Zoning Regulations §17.32.030.E.5. Community Benefits Policy Objectives. The intent of the following policy
objectives is to ensure that buildings taller than 50 feet proposed in the C-D zone include features that meet the
specific policy objectives outlined for tall buildings in the General Plan.
2 Zoning Regulations §17.48.060. Mandatory Project Features. The Planning Commission may recommend, and
the Council may approve, a rezoning to apply the PD overlay zone only for a project that incorporates a
minimum of three of the following four features…
Packet Pg. 173
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 166
bind the City Council to any final determinations and actions on the project and are intended to
1) Provide the public and community with opportunities for early and meaningful input on the
project and 2) Provide the Council early input on key elements of the project including key
criterion related to height.
Background
The subject property is located in the Downtown Commercial (C-D-H) zone within the
Downtown Historic District. The proposed project consists of a six-story mixed-use development
with a maximum height of 75 feet. The proposed plan includes; ground floor retail (4,806 sq. ft.)
and parking (seven spaces), two stories of office space (25,251 sq. ft.), and three stories of
residential dwellings (50 units) (Attachment A, Project Plans).
1. Zoning Regulation Guidance. The City’s Zoning Regulations, §17.32.030.E, provide
regulations that outline the considerations for buildings higher than 50 feet in the Downtown
Commercial (C-D) zone. This section encourages creative building design, mixed-use
developments, and accommodation of additional residential units in the Downtown Core,
provided that such taller buildings (analyzed through discretionary review processes)
contribute defined community benefits and further the goals of the Downtown Core as stated
in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Planning Commission may approve a
building height up to 75 feet if it determines that the project includes three community
benefits, with at least one of which must be from the affordable and workforce housing
objective. The applicant in this instance seeks a conditional use permit for the 75 feet
building by providing the following three Community Benefits Policy Objectives:
a) Affordable and Workforce Housing: providing 25% moderate-income households; and
b) Pedestrian Amenities: Downtown Centre proposed as a public plaza; and
c) Historic Preservation (Off-site): provide permanent preservation of a listed building off-
site within the Downtown or Chinatown Historic Districts (building not yet specified).
Figure 1: Rendering as seen from mid-block of Marsh Street between Chorro and Morro Streets
Left), Rendering as seen from the intersection of Marsh and Chorro Streets (Right).
Packet Pg. 174
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 167
2. PD Overlay. The PD Overlay zone is
intended to provide for flexibility in the
application of zoning standards for
proposed developments. The purpose is
to allow consideration of innovation in
site planning and other aspects of
project design. This should include
more effective design responses to site
features, land uses on adjoining
properties, and environmental impacts—
than the development standards of the
underlying zone would produce without
adjustment. PD zoning shall be
approved only in conjunction with
derived long-term community benefits
and where the project can help achieve
the vision, goals, and policies of the
General Plan. The applicant in this instance has proposed to include a PD Overlay to join the
property located at 1144 Chorro Street (APN: 002-427-012) with the existing Downtown
Centre property (APN: 002-427-016, 002-427-014, 002-427-015), allowing the residential
density of the Downtown Centre to be completely utilized in the new building3, as seen in
Figure 2. Through the PD Overlay the project proposes to meet three of the Mandatory
Project Features (§17.48.060) by providing:
a) Affordable Housing: A minimum of 25% moderate-income; and
b) Energy Efficiency: LEED Silver rating; and
c) Public Amenity: Guarantee long-term maintenance of a significant public plaza on the
Downtown Centre site.
Previous Advisory Body Actions
1. November 26, 2018 Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) Review. The CHC reviewed the
proposed project for consistency with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards. The CHC, with a vote of 7:0:0, provided eight directional items to
the applicant to address specific concerns related to building and site design (Attachment B,
CHC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes).
2. December 3, 2018 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) Review. The ARC
reviewed the proposed project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The
ARC, with a vote of 6:0:1, provided six directional items to the applicant to address specific
concerns related to building and site design (Attachment C, ARC Staff Report and Meeting
Minutes).
The project plans as attached to this report have responded to some of the directional items, staff
will provide a more detailed analysis of how directional items are addressed once an application
has been deemed complete.
3 Zoning Regulations §17.70.040.B.1 Density Transfer. PD Overly Zone. Development potential may be
transferred within the area covered by a planned development (PD) overlay zone, in conformance with the
requirements of Chapter 17.48: Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone.
Figure 2: Vicinity Map, Red line indicates PD
Overlay Boundary, hatch marks indicated project
development site.
Packet Pg. 175
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 168
Next Development and Advisory Body Review Steps
Should Council provide comments for the project to continue; the next step after all application
materials are submitted and the project applications are deemed complete, and environmental
review has been conducted pursuant to CEQA, further public hearings will be scheduled before
the CHC and ARC. The CHC and ARC recommendations will be provided to the Planning
Commission (PC). The PC will review the project as then proposed as well as the associated
entitlements for consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and applicable City
development standards and guidelines, with a recommendation to City Council for final action.
Staff Analysis
Since the adoption of Ordinance No. 1509 ( 2007 Series)4, several projects have been considered
for increased building heights above the 50-foot limit. However, of the projects that have
received said entitlements, a majority of them have been revised to reduce the maximum height
below 50 feet. The only other active project which received an entitlement to allow a height over
50 feet has not yet been constructed (San Luis Square - 60 feet maximum height).
The applicant’s proposal to satisfy the Community Benefits Policy Objectives and Mandatory
Project Features has been determined by staff to be consistent with the intent of the Zoning
Regulations. A discussion of this analysis is below under the policy section. Notably, the PC or
the City Council may prioritize some of the other Community Benefits identified in the Zoning
Regulations to further the goals of the Downtown Core (Attachment D, Community Benefits
Policy Objectives) in addition to what has been proposed by the project.
Policy Context
The City’s General Plan provides several policies regarding Downtown development. A more
detailed discussion and initial analysis of the proposed project in regard to these policies has
been provided as attached to this report (Attachment E – Policy Context).
Public Engagement
Consistent with the City’s Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) Manual and the City’s
Municipal Code, the project was noticed per the City’s notification requirements for
Development Projects. Newspaper legal advertisements were posted in the Tribune ten days
prior to each advisory body meeting (New Times for City Council). Additionally, postcards were
sent to both tenants and owners of properties located within 300 feet of the project site ten days
before each public hearing. Public comment was provided to the advisory bodies through written
correspondence and through public testimony at each of the hearings.
CONCURRENCE
The project entitlements are currently under review by the various City Departments to ensure
that staff has adequate information for a complete application to evaluate the project and identify
any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. All City Departments will be providing
comments that will be incorporated into the staff reports and recommended resolution/ordinance
as conditions of the project.
4 Ordinance No. 1509 (2007 Series). An Ordinance of the City Council of San Luis Obispo Amending Section 17.42
of the Zoning Regulations Increasing Building Height and Intensity Limits in the Downtown – Commercial Zone.
Packet Pg. 176
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 169
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As this is an initiation with no action regarding project approval to be provided, environmental
review is not required at this time. The required level of environmental review will be addressed
through an initial study as required for the Planned Development Overlay Rezone and in
compliance with CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: N/A
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
Per policy, Development Service fees are based on 100% cost recovery. As this is an initiation
with no action to be provided, no fiscal impact will occur.
ALTERNATIVE
1. Deny the consideration of the application related to the Mandatory Project Features
and/or the Community Benefit Policy Objects chosen for the project by the applicant. The
Council should provide direction to the applicant clearly identifying the priority Mandatory
Project Features and/or the Community Benefit Policy Objects that the application should
incorporate.
2. Continue consideration of the application to a future date. The Council can continue review
of the project to a future meeting. If this alternative is taken, the Council should provide
direction to staff regarding additional information needed to provide further direction
regarding the project application. This alternative is not recommended because the scope of
the Council's current review is limited to initiation, and the project will be sche duled for final
review by the City Council following the typical PD Overlay application procedures.
Packet Pg. 177
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 170
Attachments:
a - Project Plans
b - CHC Report and Meeting Minutes
c - ARC Report and Meeting Minutes
d - Community Benefits Policy Objectives
e - Policy Context
Packet Pg. 178
Item 13Item 2
Packet Page 171
Action Update
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, September 17, 2019
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, month day, 2019
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor
Harmon.
CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick indicated that the Council meet in Closed Session to discuss two separate items of
pending litigation for right of way near Sueldo Street, Tract 703 and Tract Map 3009. Council provided
direction but no further reportable action was taken.
PRESENTATIONS
1. RIDE SHARE WEEK
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments representative Peter Williamson provided a presentation
regarding Rideshare Week 2019."
2. PROCLAMATIONS
NATIONAL MUSEUM DAY
Mayor Harmon presented a Proclamation to Charles Jordan, Board President, San Luis Obispo
Railroad Museum, Ruta Saliklis, Executive Director, San Luis Obispo Museum of Art and Thomas
Kessler, Executive Director, History Center of San Luis Obispo County declaring Saturday,
September 21, 2019 as “National Museum Day.”
RAIL SAFETY WEEK
Mayor Harmon presented a Proclamation to Anna Devers, Public Affairs and Planning for San Luis
Obispo Council of Governments declaring September 22 – 28, 2019 as “Rail Safety Week.”
CONSENT AGENDA
3. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0 to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
Item 2
Packet Page 172
Action Update – City of San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting of September 17, 2019 Page 2
4. DRAFT MINUTES REVIEW - SEPTEMBER 3, 2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held on September 3, 2019.
5. ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING LOCAL AMENDMENTS TO THE
ENERGY CODE; AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING A CARBON
OFFSET REQUIREMENT WITH AN IN-LIEU FEE OPTION
Recommendation: Pulled by Staff and the Council did not discuss or take action on this item.
6. MEADOW PARK PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES REPLACEMENT PROJECT,
SPECIFICATION NO. 1000017
CARRIED 5-0, to
1. Adopt Resolution No. 11045 (2019 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo, California approving an Amendment to the Meadow Park Pedestrian Bridge
Replacement Project and related budgetary appropriations;”
2. Award a construction contract to R. Burke Corporation in the amount of $199,164 for the Meadow
Park Pedestrian Bridges Replacement Project); and
3. Approve a transfer of $271,164 from the Parks Major Maintenance – Annual Asset Maintenance
Account to the Meadow Park Pedestrian Bridges Replacement project to fund the project and
construction support services.
7. RESPONSE TO THE 2018-19 GRAND JURY REPORT ON FIRE RISK MANAGEMENT
CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the City Manager to submit a letter of response to the report on behalf
of the City Council, as required by the Grand Jury.
8. MARSH STREET BRIDGE REPLACEMENT, SPECIFICATION No. 90480
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the construction documents for the “Marsh Street Bridge Replacement,
Specification No. 90480” project, authorize staff to advertise for bids, and authorize the City Manager
to award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder following a selection process
conforming to the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual.
9. APPROPRIATE ZONE 9 FUNDING FOR MID-HIGUERA BYPASS PROJECT FINAL
DESIGN
CARRIED 5-0, to receive $90,000 from the County of San Luis Obispo, and as recommended by the
Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 9 County Advisory Committee, appropriate it
to fund the final design services for Mid-Higuera Bypass Project.
Item 2
Packet Page 173
Action Update – City of San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting of September 17, 2019 Page 3
10. FIREWALL REPLACEMENT PROJECT
CARRIED 5-0, to authorize the Administration and Information Technology Department to advertise
for the purchase of a firewall replacement for the City’s current end of life firewall hardware; and
authorize the City Manager to award a contract if the selected quote is within the approved project
budget of $186,500.
11. ORDINANCE ADOPTION - COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CITY’S SIGN
REGULATIONS, INCLUDING REPEAL OF MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2.40.070
CAMPAIGN SIGNS) AND REPEAL AND REPLACEMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 15.40 (SIGN REGULATIONS)
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Ordinance No. 1667 (2019 Series) entitled, “An Ordinance of the City
Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California repealing Municipal Code Section 2.40.070
Campaign Signs) and repealing and replacing Title 15, Chapter 15.40 of the Municipal Code (Sign
Regulations) to update the regulations for best practices, clarify terms and process, enhance graphics,
and ensure consistency with The Reed v. Town of Gilbert U.S. Supreme Court Decision, as
represented in the staff report and attachments dated August 20, 2019 (Sign Regulations Update)”
12. ADVERTISE COUNCIL CHAMBER AUDIO/VIDEO REPLACEMENT PROJECT,
SPECIFICATION NO. 1000120
CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 11046 (2019 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the Council
of the City of San Luis Obispo, California Approving an amendment to the 2019-20 Budget
Allocation and Capital Improvement Plan;” and approve contract documents for Council Chamber
Audio/Video Replacement project; and authorize staff to advertise for bids; and authorize the City
Manager to award a contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the approved project budget of
200,000 from the City’s share of the Public, Educational and Government (PEG) funds.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
13. PUBLIC HEARING - 1144 CHORRO STREET - INITIATION OF A PROJECT TO
CONSTRUCT A SIX-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL/OFFICE SPACE AND 50
RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS
CARRIED 3-0-2 (COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ AND VICE MAYOR PEASE RECUSED) to
direct staff to proceed with processing of the applications with the following considerations:
1. The application of a Planned Development (PD) Overlay zone is an appropriate method for
implementation of the City Council’s goal for higher density housing in the Downtown; and
2. The Mandatory Project Features required for consideration of establishment of the PD Overlay
zone and the Community Benefits Policy Objectives required for consideration of the proposed
building height of 75 feet are appropriate and in alignment with the scope of the project given the
priority that the City Council has placed on new housing in the Downtown.
3. Direct staff to move forward with priority processing of the project through the entitlement
process, including environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA).
Item 2
Packet Page 174
Action Update – City of San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting of September 17, 2019 Page 4
With the following comments:
Community Benefit - Mode shift.
Proforma to make sure there is no less than 25% affordable housing.
Support for allocating the remaining density units in the downtown.
14. RESPONSE TO THE 2018-19 GRAND JURY REPORT ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING
CARRIED 5-0 to authorize the City Manager to submit a letter of response to the report on behalf of
the City Council, as required by the Grand Jury.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Item 2
Packet Page 175
Meeting Date: June 1, 2020
Item Number: 1
Item No. 1
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The proposed project consists of demolition of an existing one-story commercial building, construction
of a new six-story mixed use building to include approximately 30,000 square feet of
commercial/office space and 50 residential dwelling units, and the application of a Planned
Development (PD) Overlay zone on a 0.38-acre parcel located in the Downtown Historic District, see
Figure 1. The basement of the existing one-story structure on-site would remain in-tact and the rest
of the structure would be demolished and removed. The proposed 80,249-square-foot building would
be 75 feet in height. The proposed plan consists of ground floor retail and parking, two stories of office
space, and three stories of residential dwellings (Attachment 1, Project Plans).
The subject property is directly adjacent to the Master List Historic Resource Hotel Wineman, and in
vicinity of the Master List Masonic Temple and the Master List Commercial Bank Building (Attachment
2, Historic Preservation Report). The subject property is not listed as historic resource (Attachment 3,
Architectural Evaluation).
General Location: The property is located on the corner of Marsh
and Chorro Streets within the Commercial Downtown zone on the
border of the Downtown Historic District.
Present Use: Vacant Commercial Structure
Zoning: Downtown Commercial within the Downtown Historic
District (C-D-H)
General Plan: General Retail
Surrounding Uses:
East: California Pizza Kitchen
West: Eureka Burger
North: Hotel Wineman
South: Chorro Street Parking Structure
PROPOSED DESIGN
Architecture: Contemporary architectural design
Design details: Patio dining areas, flat metal awnings, brick and concrete window headers, upper level
balconies, detailed cornices/central band, and decorative metalwork.
Materials: Brick & Stucco siding, anodized aluminum storefronts, concrete bulkheads, and black metal
awnings.
FROM: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1144 Chorro FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1687-2018
APPLICANT: Mark Rawson REPRESENTATIVE: Ten Over Studios, Inc.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 2
Packet Page 176
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 2
FOCUS OF REVIEW
The Architectural Review Commission’s (ARC) role is to 1) review the proposed project in terms of its
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines (CDG), and applicable City Standards and 2)
provide comments and recommendations to the Planning Commission (PC).
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Downtown Concept Plan: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=14790
Previous Conceptual ARC Agenda Packet and Conceptual Project Plans:
https://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=87136&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk
BACKGROUND
On November 26, 2018, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the proposed project for
consistency with the Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The
CHC, with a vote of 7:0:0, provided eight directional items to the applicant to address specific concerns
related to building and site design (Attachment 4, CHC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes).
On December 3, 2018, the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) reviewed the proposed project for
consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The ARC, with a vote of 6:0:1, provided six
directional items to the applicant to address specific concerns related to building and site design
(Attachment 5, ARC Staff Report and Meeting Minutes).
On September 17, 2019, the City Council reviewed the project for initiation of the PD Overlay and
associated mandatory project features d as well as the community benefit policies for consideration
of a building height of 5 feet. The City Council, with a vote of 5:0, supported the initiation and provided
two directional items for the applicant to address (Attachment 6, Council Report and Action Update).
PREVIOUS ARC DIRECTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
The ARC recommended six directional items to be reviewed and evaluated prior to taking final action
on the project. The applicant has updated the project plans and made the following changes in
response to the directional items:
ARC Directional Item #1: The project should respond to the Cultural Heritage Committee directional
items with emphasis on providing a higher degree of articulation to relieve building mass and provide
a greater variety of fenestration, the project should consider a variety in relief of roof lines.
Figure 2: Project rendering (left) from intersection and rendering from Marsh Street crosswalk (right).
Item 2
Packet Page 177
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 3
Response: The applicant has modified the project design and provided additional application materials
in response to the CHC’s eight directional items. The applicant has provided a Height Analysis (Project
Plans Sheet T3.0), revised the Shading Study (Sheet T3.2-T3.4), and provided an updated Architectural
Evaluation. The applicant has also modified the project design to reduce the perceived mass and scale
of the project by providing a variety of storefronts, fenestration, architectural details, and articulation,
throughout the project design.
ARC Directional Item #2: The project should consider and respond to the planning principles and goals
identified in the Downtown Concept Plan.
Response: The Downtown Concept Plan is not a regulatory document; however, it is intended to be a
tool to guide development downtown in line with the community vision. The project responds to the
eight Project Planning Principles by: providing diversity of design while retaining traditional character;
incorporating opportunities for positive social intersection along the street frontage; contributes to
the economic health and vitality of downtown; priorities alternative modes of transportation by
reducing vehicle parking and providing sufficient bicycle parking; improves the sidewalk and
pedestrian experience along the intersection of Marsh and Chorro Streets; provides for a higher
density project with smaller dwelling units contributing to a vibrant residential mix in the downtown;
incorporates an innovative and compatible design with connectivity to the surrounding built
environment; and is designed to preserve views of the hillsides from public areas. The applicant has
provided a response to each of the policies of the CDG Chapter 4 Downtown Design Guidelines (Sheet
T3.8 & T3.9).
ARC Directional Item #3: The architectural style should be distinctive as a gateway feature to
downtown through design excellence justifying the requested height above 50 feet, given the project
prominence along the intersection, the design should be of its own time while compatible with adjacent
historic structures.
Response: The project has been revised to include a greater setback at the corner of Marsh and Chorro
Street and includes a 45-degree angled facade to enhance interest to the corner and provide larger
pedestrian space for circulation. The corner element and enhanced storefront setback were carefully
designed to complement the clock tower on the Parking Structure across the street to enhance the
intersection as a gateway to Downtown.
Figure 3: Original rendering (left) at the intersection of Chorro and Marsh Streets, revised rendering (right).
Item 2
Packet Page 178
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 4
ARC Directional Item #4: The project should provide greater step backs on the upper levels and/or
consider a height reduction with sensitivity to adjacent historic resources, the design and mass should
reinforce the horizontal lines of adjacent facades.
Response: The applicant has revised the project design and increased the upper floor setback along
the street frontages, where the setback for the conceptual review only provided a 5-foot setback along
each side of the structure. The Chorro Street elevation now includes a 21-foot step back above the
third floor, and the Marsh Street elevation provides a varying upper story step back between 12 and
22feet from the street frontage, refer back to Figure 3. The courtyard that was originally provided in
the center of the building has been eliminated to provide large deck areas along the exterior of the
building surrounding the fourth floor to provide areas for trees and other planting along the residential
level, which further reduces the perceived scale and height of the structure as viewed from the street.
The applicant has provided a site context elevation that demonstrates how the project reinforces the
horizontal lines of the prevailing rhythm and character of the street frontages (see Sheet A1.0 of the
project plans).
ARC Directional Item #5: The design should focus on pedestrian scale, consider opportunity to revitalize
the corner of Marsh and Chorro as a design feature combined with greater sidewalk w idths and
additional relief of storefronts to provide for patio dining. Consider tying into the pedestrian experience
of the Downtown Center.
Response: The project design has been modified to provide a greater setback at the street level to
allow for more patio area and useable outdoor seating areas, where the previous conceptual review
provided a zero foot setback along the street frontages which did not provide any patio areas, see
Figure 4.
ARC Directional Item #6: Materials should be high quality and selected carefully to be compatible with
the historic buildings, without replicating design features, the second story windows should be reduced
in height to reflect traditional transom window designs.
Response: The project proposal includes the use of smooth-troweled plaster, and brick siding which
are identified under the CDG as appropriate materials for buildings within the Downtown. Additional
materials proposed include concrete bulkheads, metal awnings, aluminum storefronts, which are all
materials that are consistent and compatible with the existing character of the Downtown. The
applicant has modified the transom windows to reduce their overall height and reflect a more
traditional style consistent and compatible with adjacent historic structures.
Figure 4: Original site plan (left), revised site plan (right).
Item 2
Packet Page 179
ARCH-1687-2018 (1144 Chorro)
Page 5
PROJECT STATISTICS (UPDATED)
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Setbacks 0 feet 0 feet
Density (DU) with PD Overlay 26.5 DU 77.76 DU
Residential Uses Provided Required
Height of Structures
Minimum
Maximum
Maximum with PC Exception
6-stories
75 feet
75 feet
2 stories along street
50 feet
75 feet
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 71% 100%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 3.94 FAR 4.0 FAR
Total # Parking Spaces 7 spaces and In Lieu Fee 102 spaces and/or In-Lieu Fee
Limitations on New Driveways Requested Restricted
Environmental Status An Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the
potential environmental effects of the proposed project. A
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for
adoption (Attachment 7).
*2019 Zoning Regulations
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Recommend approval of the project. An action recommending approval of the application
based on consistency with the CDG will be forwarded to the PC, final action will be proceed
to the City Council. This action may include recommendations for conditions to address
consistency with the CDG.
6.3 Recommend denial the project. An action recommending denial of the application should
include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the
General Plan, CDG, Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Plans
2. Historic Preservation Report
3. Architectural Evaluation
4. Conceptual CHC Report and Minutes 11.26.18
5. Conceptual ARC Report and Minutes 12.3.18
6. Council Initiation and Action Update 9.17.19
7. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Item 2
Packet Page 180
Minutes - DRAFT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
Monday, June 1, 2020
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday, June
1, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Allen Root.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Richard Beller, Michael DeMartini, Mandi Pickens, Micah Smith,
Vice Chair Christie Withers and Chair Allen Root
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Deputy City Clerk Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
--End of Public Comment--
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Architectural Review Commission Meeting of
May 18, 2020.
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR WITHERS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SMITH, CARRIED 6-0-0 to approve the minutes of the Regular Architectural Review
Commission meeting of May 18, 2020.
Item 2
Packet Page 181
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of June 1, 2020 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING
2. Project Address: 1144 Chorro; Case #: PR-0060-2018; Zone: C-D-H; Jamestown
Premier SLO Retail, LP, owner/applicant. Review of a six-story mixed-use building
consisting of approximately 30,000 square feet of commercial/office space and 50 residential
dwelling units, within the Downtown Historic District. The project includes a rezone to provide
a Planned Development Overlay and a request to allow a maximum building height of 75-feet,
where 50-feet is normally allowed in the Downtown Commercial zone, including a Mitigated
Negative Declaration of environmental review (CEQA).
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report and responded to Commissioner
inquiries.
Applicant representative, Mark Rawson, responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comments:
John Grady
Susan Farrington
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BELLER SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SMITH, CARRIED 5-1-0 (Vice Chair Withers dissenting) to recommend that the Planning
Commission approve the project with the following comments, recommendations, and
references to particular Community Design Guidelines (CDG) that require further
consideration:
• The PC should consider effects on viewsheds from the crosswalk along Marsh Street
in view of Cerro San Luis.
• The PC should consider CDG 2.2.F (coordinate the new with the old) for compatibility
with listed historic properties in the immediate vicinity.
• The project could be improved for consistency with CDG 4.2.C (façade design and wall
surfaces), by providing more well-defined column elements, tone or color of pre-cast
elements (bulkhead and spandrels), the corner angled façade elements such as columns
and cornices should be re-evaluated for more refined detailing that draws in attention.
• The project should reconsider the residential gate feature as shown on Sheet T1.1 and
T1.2 to be congruous with surroundings, consider revisiting patterning that is finer
grained.
• The landscaping plantings along the terrace, Sheet L1.1, could be scaled down to be
more in keeping with character of downtown, consider the County Government Center
as an example.
• The cornice along the third floor should be redesigned to provide further prominence.
• Further consideration should be provided for refinement of brick detailed elements.
• Provide more contrasting color of bulkhead and spandrel above the windows.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Item 2
Packet Page 182
Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of June 1, 2020 Page 3
Senior Planner Shawna Scott provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, June 15, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2020
Item 2
Packet Page 183
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # EID-0475-2019
1. Project Title:
1144 Chorro Street Mixed Use Development
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7524
4. Project Location:
Primary Location: 1144 Chorro Street (APN 002-427-012), San Luis Obispo, CA
Off-site Historic Resource Preservation: 868 and 870 Monterey Street (APN 002-416-040), San Luis Obispo, CA
Proposed Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone: 1144 Chorro Street (APN 002-247-012), the existing
Downtown Centre property (876 Marsh Street, 895 Higuera Street, and 890 Marsh Street; APN 002-427-016, -014,
and -015), two parcels located on the east side of Morro Street (973 Higuera APN 022 -432-011 and -012), and one
parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (898 Higuera; APN 022 -425-011), San Luis Obispo, CA.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Mark Rawson
Jamestown Premier SLO Retail LP
P.O. Box 12260
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
6. General Plan Designations:
General Retail
7. Zoning:
Downtown-Commercial with Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (C-D-H)
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed project consists of demolition of the majority of an existing one-story commercial building,
construction of a new six-story mixed use building to include approximately 30,000 square feet of
commercial/office space and 50 residential dwelling units, and the application of a Planned Development (PD)
Overlay zone on a 0.38-acre parcel located in the historic district in downtown San Luis Obispo (project). The
basement of the existing one-story structure on-site would remain in-tact and the rest of the structure would be
demolished and removed. The proposed 80,249-square-foot building would be 75 feet in height. Proposed
Item 2
Packet Page 184
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 2
demolition and construction activities would result in approximately 50 cubic yards of ground disturbance. The
construction phase of the project is anticipated to last approximately three years.
The first floor of the proposed development would be comprised of three retail suites with accommoda tions for
restaurant use, a residential lobby, commercial office lobby, and a small parking facility with ADA parking, and
delivery/drop off spaces. The second and third floor have been designated for commercial office uses. The fourth,
fifth, and sixth floors would be comprised of residential apartments. Twenty-five percent of the proposed residential
units would be reserved for tenants with moderate incomes (See Section 23 – Source References; source reference
1).
The first three levels of the development would have a light-colored exposed brick exterior and would be setback
approximately 10 feet from the edge of the street/property line to accommodate outdoor dining areas and pedestrian
circulation. The upper three levels of the development would have a t raditional stucco exterior and would be set
back 22.5 feet from the property line to accommodate an outdoor deck area with trees and large planters and reduce
the perceived scale and height of the development as viewed from the street. The project would include the removal
of three existing street trees located along the sidewalk adjacent to Chorro Street and one existing street tree along
the sidewalk adjacent to Marsh Street. Two new blue jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) trees would be planted
along the frontage of Chorro Street and two new blue jacaranda trees would be planted along the frontage of Marsh
Street.
The proposed small parking garage to be located onsite would consist of a total of seven parking spaces, including
1 accessible van space. These spaces are intended to be utilized by car share and short -term use, including pick-up
and drop-off uses. Several strategies have been incorporated into the project design detailed in a Parking Demand
Reduction Plan (source reference 14) to demonstrate compliance with City Zoning Regulations, including provision
of shower and locker room facilities for employees who use alternative modes of transportation, provision of secure
on-site bicycle parking for all employees and residents, and provision of up-to-date public transportation and
rideshare information in office and employee break rooms and welcome packets for new employees and residents.
Water service for the project would be provided by the City ’s Utility Department and the project would require a
total annual water demand of approximately 851,014 gallons (2.61 acre-feet; source references 1 and 2). The
proposed development includes a garbage room with space to accommodate three garbage receptacles, three
recycling receptacles, and several green waste receptacles that would be serviced three times per week by San Luis
Garbage company.
The project is located in the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone, which allows for a maximum building height of
50 feet and a minimum height of two stories. The City’s Zoning Regulations (Title 17) allow consideration of an
increase in maximum height up to 75 feet within this zoning designation if the project includes provision of
community benefits, including, but not limited to, the following criteria: Silver rating on the LEED-CS or NC
checklist (or equivalent measure), no more than 33% of the storefront level to be used for private parking facilities,
and the public benefits associated with the project must significantly outweigh any detrimental impacts from the
additional height. In weighing potential public benefits, relevant considerations would include objectives related
to affordable housing, modal split (strategies designed to promote a permanent shift to alternative transportation
modes for project occupants), historic preservation, and open space preservation. The project has been designed to
meet the Silver rating on the LEED-CS checklist, include no more than 33% of storefront area as private parking,
and provide affordable housing and pedestrian amenities.
The proposed project would result in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.87. The City Zoning Regulations limit FAR
for buildings in the C-D zone greater than 50 feet in height to 3.75. Allowable FAR may be increased up to 4.0 in
the C-D zone if requested with a transfer of development credits for open space protection or historic preservation
or through a density bonus alternative incentive for affordable housing. The project includes the permanent
preservation of an offsite building located at 868 and 870 Monterey Street that is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, which is intended to address this requirement.
The Planned Development (PD) Overlay zone is typically applied to parcels to provide for flexibility in the
application of zoning standards for proposed development. Application of the PD Overlay zone is proposed to be
applied to the property located at the project parcel (1144 Chorro Street; APN 022-427-012), the existing
Downtown Centre property (APN 002-427-016, -014, and -015), two parcels located on the east side of Morro
Street (APN 022-432-011 and -012), and one parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (APN 022-425-011; see
Item 2
Packet Page 185
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 3
Figure 3). This PD overlay zone would allow the residential density units of the Downtown Centre to be completely
utilized within the new building at 1144 Chorro Street, and would allow potential future development on the parcels
on Morro and Higuera Streets to accommodate 51.26 additional density units that were allowed but not utilized in
the other four parcels. Based on the City Zoning Regulations, Planned Development (PD) zoning shall be approved
only in conjunction with derived long-term community benefits and where the project can help achieve the vision,
goals, and policies of the General Plan. Through the PD Overlay the project proposes to meet three of the
Mandatory Project Features (§17.48.060) by providing:
a. Affordable Housing: A minimum of 25% moderate-income;
b. Energy Efficiency: LEED Silver rating; and
c. Public Amenity: Guarantee long-term maintenance of a significant public plaza on the Downtown Centre
site.
The project’s potential for cumulatively considerable impacts has been evaluated in Section 21 , Mandatory
Findings of Significance. Potential future development on the two parcels located on the east side of Morro Street
(APN 022-432-011 and -012), and one parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (APN 022 -425-011) allowed by
the available density units and PD Overlay has been included in the reasonably foreseeable cumulative development
scenario.
9. Project Entitlements:
Development Review (Major)
Planned Development Overlay Rezone
Affordable Housing Alternative Incentives
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Surrounding uses and stories of surrounding buildings are summarized below:
• Northeast – One-story restaurant, Downtown Centre plaza including restaurants, bookstore, and movie
theater
• Northwest – one- to three-story commercial and mixed uses including restaurants on the first level and
studio apartments on the upper levels
• Southwest – One-story restaurant, one-story non-profit office, a one-story commercial printing and
shipping office
• South – Chase bank parking lot
• Southeast – four-level parking structure and shoe store, three-story mixed-use building with commercial
retail on the first floor and studio apartments on the upper floors
11. Have California Native American tribes traditio nally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for
consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cul tural
resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but
not limited to, Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council inquired about a record
search for the property but did not request consultation. A discussion on their request is included in Section 18:
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES of this initial study. No further comments or requests for information have
been received.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
Item 2
Packet Page 186
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 4
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map.
Item 2
Packet Page 187
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 5
Figure 2. Project Location Map.
Item 2
Packet Page 188
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 6
Figure 3. Proposed Planned Development Overlay Zoning.
Item 2
Packet Page 189
Figure 4. Project Architectural Rendering.
Item 2
Packet Page 190
Item 2
Packet Page 191
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 9
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less t han Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Item 2
Packet Page 192
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 10
1. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource pursuant to §15064.5 ?
3, 6,
19,20,
21
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 ? 3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? 3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Pre-Historic Setting
Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast
for at least 10,000 years. The City of San Luis Obispo is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash,
the northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County; the
earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from archaeological sites along the coast. The project site is located
within a Burial Sensitivity Area as identified in Figure 1 of the COSE.
Historic Setting
The City COSE establishes various goals and policies to balance cultural and historical resource preservation with other
community goals. These policies include, but are not limited to the following:
a) Identification, preservation, and rehabilitation of significant historic and architectural resources ;
b) Prevention of demolition of historically or architecturally significant buildings unless doing so is necessary to remove a
threat to health and safety;
c) Consistency in the design of new buildings in historical districts to reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic
structures; and
d) Identification and protection of neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective eff ect of
Contributing or Master List historic properties.
The project site is located within the Downtown-Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (C-D-H). The Downtown Historic District
is one of five Historic Districts in the City which also include Old Town, Chinatown, Mill Street, and the Railroad Historic
District. The Downtown Historic District was developed along the City’s earliest commercial corridors along Monterey, Higuera,
Chorro, Garden, and Marsh Streets, and has retained its historical use as San Luis Obispo’s commercial and civic center. The
Downtown District was primarily built in the 1870s-1910s when the town’s population increased rapidly from about 600 people
in 1868 to 5,157 in 1910. Architectural styles in the downtown include examples of Classical Revival, Italianate and Romanesque
structures and more modest early American commercial (Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 5.2.2).
The City Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC14.01) was adopted in 2010 for the purpose of promoting the public health,
safety and welfare through the identification, protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, structures, sites,
artifacts and other cultural resources that represent distinctive elements of San Luis Obispo’s cultural, educational, social,
economic, political and architectural history . This ordinance includes the responsibilities of the Cultural Heritage Committee
(CHC), whose role is to review and provide recommendations to City Council regarding certain projects associated with historic
districts and/or resources. The ordinance establishes the City’s historical designations “Master List”, “Contributing List
Resources or Properties”, and “Non-contributing Properties”, and references the use of the Secretary of Interior Standards,
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines for projects that
involve new development in Historic Districts and the modification, demolition, or relocation of structures included on the
Inventory of Historic Resources.
Item 2
Packet Page 193
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 11
The City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines provide guidance for construction within historic districts and on properties
with historic resources, alterations to historic resources, and reconstruction of historic resources.
An Architectural Evaluation was prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants to evaluate the h istoric-period built-
environment resources (i.e., resources 50 years old or older) that are present within the project site (source reference 19,
Attachment 2). The existing one-story building located on the project site, constructed in 1955, operated as Rileys Department
Store from 1955 to 1993, when it was purchased by the current owners. In early 1955 co-owners of the company, Coy C.
Humphrey and Herbert A. Landeck, acquired the subject property at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets, and in May 1955
announced plans for a new store. The City issued a building permit (No. A475) on June 23, 1955, listing C. F. Hamlin as the
engineer and [Theo.] Maino Construction as the builders. Overlapping with construction of the Rileys store, a new Union
Hardware building had been under construction next door at 1126 Chorro Street, which was later acquired and incorporated into
the Rileys Department Store in December of 1959-60.
For an entire century, Rileys Department Store and its direct antecedents played a large role in the commercial life of San L uis
Obispo—both at its original location on Higuera Street and at the subject location at Chorro and Marsh Streets. It was, as it
claimed to be, a shopping destination for many Central Coast communities, where customers could find merchandise not readily
available elsewhere. The larger, more modern store located on Chorro and Marsh Streets, with its interior designed by a
merchandising and design professional, was also part of the evolving story of post -World War II consumerism, when Mid-
Century modern storefronts began to prevail and when shopping acquired recreational and acquisitional aspects for an expanding
and relatively well-off middle class.
The parcel is occupied by a rectangular commercial building made up of two adjoining buildings with a slight recessed area
between them on the Chorro Street frontage. The building is one story high, with an interior staircase and mezzanine railings.
The main structural support depends on a grid of columns and beams, with infilled exterior wall areas of Roman brick interspe rsed
with anodized aluminum-framed plate-glass door and display-window assemblies.
a) On November 26th, 2018, the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed a conceptual plan of the proposed project and
provided a number of specific directional items to the applicant, including, but not limited to, revision of the Architectural
Evaluation Report to address the existing structure’s potential historic eligibility within the district, a request for alter native
architectural styles, and additional architectural details to increase consistency with the Historic District’s prevailing
significance and distinctive architecture, and a request for the provision of a height analysis of buildings in the vicinity
and within the Historic District, including the Masonic Temple. The current project design plans have been revised in
response to the comments and recommendations made from the Cultural Heritage Committee's conceptual review.
The former Rileys Department Store building within the project site was evaluated pursuant to CEQA to determine whether
it meets any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or otherwise
constitutes a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA , or whether it is eligible for local designation on the City’s
Master List of Historic Resources or as a contributing resource to the Downtown Historic District in conformance with
Section 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The CRHR includes buildings, sites, structures, objects,
and districts significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, politic al,
military, or cultural annals of California. Eligibility to the CRHR is demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following
criteria:
• Criterion 1. 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;
• Criterion 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
• Criterion 3. 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; or
• Criterion 4. Has yielded or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the
local area, California or the nation.
When considering the potential for historical significance under CRHR Criterion 1 throug h 4, the question of the physical
integrity of the building must also be considered. Guidance from the California Office of Historic Preservation makes it
clear that determinations of eligibility require that resources possess not only significance but als o integrity; that is,
Item 2
Packet Page 194
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 12
resources must “retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and to
convey the reasons for their significance.” The integrity of built environment resources is evaluated against seve n aspects
of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The primary directive of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is that a prospective historical resource shall meet
three criteria: a high level of integrity, sufficient age (generally 50 years), and significance. These criteria are standard
within the preservation community, with each criterion accomplishing a specific goal. The integrity threshold is to ensure
that resources retain the physical ability to convey their significance. The 50-year-old threshold is not, as is sometimes
thought, to certify that an older building is automatically an important one; rather, the threshold is meant to ensure that
sufficient time has elapsed to be able to make an informed assessment of its significance. It is often the case that local
ordinances are more inclusive than CRHR eligibility criteria, where factors such as familiarity in the landscape, a broad
base of personal experience with the resource, and even nostalgia may be considered along with historical importance.
The opening paragraph of Section 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance states, “In order to be eligible
for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integri ty.” The seven aspects of integrity specified in the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association —are
identical to those aspects of integrity evaluated in determinations of eligibility u nder CEQA.
Based on the Architectural Evaluation prepared for the project, t he former Rileys Department Store building at 1144
Chorro Street does not retain sufficient physical integrity to the period of its significance (1955–1967) to be able to convey
its historic-period identity and role in the commercial life of San Luis Obispo. Similarly, the former Rileys Department
Store building does not meet the high-integrity threshold criterion for historic resource listing under the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance. The building’s historic character and appearance have been altered and diminished by the loss of
important original, character-defining features (such as the prominent and distinctive signage, scalloped awnings, and
enclosed window display cases along both Chorro and Marsh street frontages; well -proportioned landscaped niche on
Chorro Street), as well as by the interpolation of newer, incompatible features (new modern entrance on Marsh Street;
new, boxy awning style and configuration on both street frontages; intrusive marble wall panel on Chorro). For a business
that relies on branding and visibility, the loss of distinctive and prominent signage (the letter “R” above the canopy on the
Chorro Street frontage, and a tall neon “Rileys” sign that rose above the roofline at the corner of Chorro and Marsh) is a
substantial loss to the building’s integrity of design, materials, feeling, and association. The interpolation of the marble
wall cladding and brick-and-cement bench on Chorro Street; the expansive, angled canvas awning along both street
frontages; and the prominent, new black anodized aluminum door assembly installed on Marsh Street, which demolished
a small original display case and created a blank windowless face for much of the Marsh Street e levation, have caused
further inroads on the integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association that would need to be present
to meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR or for local designation . The addition of discordant materials such
as the heavy black steel doorway assembly on Marsh Street, and the inclusion of marble slab panels on the Chorro Street
elevation, post-date the store’s operation. The current canvas awning is also a later addition in a style that does not ma tch
the original design. These additions degrade the physical integrity of the exterior design (source reference 19, Attachment
3).
The Architectural Evaluation noted that it appears the Rileys Department Store owners treated the building’s exterior from
a practical point of view and were not zealous about maintaining or promoting the Mid -Century aesthetic as a selling tool;
the customers evidently patronized Rileys for other reasons. The owners were far more vested in the appearance and
modernity of the store’s interior. As a result, they never made full use of what the building did offer, particularly by
blocking potential views of the array of merchandise within (expansive windows were blocked with very ordinary display
cases, which have all been removed). The strongest association with the former Rileys Department Store would depend
on an interior with good integrity – capable of conveying the building’s prior use and documentation of their business
practices. With the exception of the original interior s taircase and mezzanine railings, these aspects of the overall design
have not survived.
Therefore, the building does not meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR, for local designation on the City’s
Master List of Historic Resources or as a contributing resource to the Downtown Historic District, or otherwise constitute
a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA. In order for the building to express its integrity as part of the continuing
development of San Luis Obispo as a commercial hub and/or its association with its merchant/owners (Herbert A. Landeck,
Sr. and Coy Humphrey), it would need to be restored using the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Restoration to its
c1965 appearance by restoring/replicating the signage, decorativ e canopy awnings, and display window cases; removing
the steel door assembly on Marsh Street and reconstructing the original doorway and display window; removing the marble
panels; restoring the landscaping; and restoring the character-defining interior features and primary fixtures.
Item 2
Packet Page 195
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 13
A Historic Preservation Report was also prepared for the project in order to evaluate the project’s overall consistency with
the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines regarding development within historic districts and development
adjacent to historical resources and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties
(source reference 20, Attachment 4). The project site is located within the Downtown Historic District and some individual
City-listed historic buildings located within the Downtown Historic District (e.g., Wineman Hotel, First Presbyterian
Church, Masonic Temple) are sited in such a way that both the historic building and th e proposed Marsh & Chorro
Development project would be visible concurrently.
The project incorporates numerous design elements to be compatible with adjacent and nearby architectural styles and
materials. The massing of the proposed building is softened by subdued colors and fenestration (i.e., the arrangement of
windows and doors) of the lower stories, as well as the setback and change in surface material of the uppermost stories.
Cornice trim is suitably incorporated at an appropriate scale. The building is designed in an unobtrusive contemporary
style that neither misleads viewers to assume it has historic value nor attempts to dominate or compete with the more
flamboyant architecture of the historic Masonic Temple on the opposite side of Marsh Street. Marsh Street is noticeably
wider than Higuera and Monterey Streets, but the numerous mature street trees (existing and proposed) would provide
considerable screening of building mass on both sides of the street. Marsh Street at Chorro Street is also located at a lower
elevation than the uphill topography that characterizes the intersections of Higuera and Osos Streets or Chorro and Palm
Streets, where buildings that are tall to begin with look even taller against the horizon. The City parking structure on th e
opposite corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets provides a tall visual counterpoint to the proposed project development. Other
nearby designated historic buildings within a one -block radius have limited views of the project site from the city street,
generally because of the narrowness of the cross streets and screening provided by street trees.
Based on an analysis of historical development of the Downtown Historic District, the character -defining features of
adjacent and nearby designated historic buildings, site topography and sightlines, the proposed materials, colors, massing,
and other design features of the project, the project would be compliant with the City’s Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines and consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (source
reference 20, Attachment 4).
Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant
to §15064.5 and potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but not limited
to, Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council inquired about a record search for the
property but did not request consultation. A discussion on their request is include d in Section 18: TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES of this initial study. No further comments or requests for information have been received.
The project would include minimal ground disturbance onsite associated with demolition and removal of the existing
building, with the exception of the basement, which would be retained in place, as well as construction of proposed
stormwater retention facilities, for a total of 50 cubic yards of proposed earthwork. The project is located within a Burial
Sensitivity Area associated with San Luis Obispo Creek identified in “Figure 1: Cultural Resources” of the City COSE.
Based on the project’s location and proposed ground disturbance, the pro ject may have the potential to impact previously
unidentified cultural materials during subsurface grading and excavation activities. Mitigation measure CR-1 and CR-2
have been identified to require cultural resource awareness training of all construction personnel and preparation of an
archaeological monitoring plan that would ensure monitoring during the d isturbance of native soil that may contain
archaeological resources. If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during proposed ground-disturbing
activities, mitigation measure CR-3 has been identified to require work be halted in the area until a qualified archaeologist
can assess the significance of the find. Therefore, based on the limited extent of proposed earthwork and identified
mitigation measures, impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources would
be less than significant with mitigation.
c) The project site is partially located within a Burial Sensitivity Area associated with San Lu is Obispo Creek identified in
“Figure 1: Cultural Resources” of the City COSE. No human remains are known to exist within the project site; however,
the unanticipated discovery of unknown human remains is a possibility during ground disturbing activities. Protocol for
properly responding to the inadvertent discovery of human remains is identified in the State of California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 and is detailed in mitigation measure CR-4. Potential impacts related to disturbance of human remains
would be less than significant with compliance with existing state law and incorporation of mitigation measure CR-4.
Therefore, impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with mitigation.
Item 2
Packet Page 196
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 14
Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Prior to construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct cultural resource awareness training for all
construction personnel including the following:
a. Review the types of archaeological artifacts that may be uncovered;
b. Provide examples of common archaeological artifacts to examine;
c. Review what makes an archaeological resource significant to archaeologists and local native Americans;
d. Describe procedures for notifying involved o r interested parties in case of a new discovery;
e. Describe reporting requirements and responsibilities of construction personnel;
f. Review procedures that shall be used to record, evaluate, and mitigate new discoveries; and
g. Describe procedures that would be followed in the case of discovery of disturbed as well as intact human burials
and burial-associated artifacts.
CR-2 Archaeological Monitoring: The applicant shall provide an arch aeological monitoring plan prepared by a City-qualified
archaeologist to be implemented during construction. The plan shall identify the qualified professional who will
conduct the monitoring and shall require monitoring by a City-qualified archaeologist during any ground-disturbing
activities within native soil that may contain archaeological resources. The archaeological monitoring plan shall include
a description of: Native American involvement, how the monitoring shall occur, the location and frequency of
monitoring, what resources are expected to be encountered, circumstances that would result in the halting of work at
the project site, procedures for halting work at the site and notification procedures, monitoring reporting procedures,
and specific detailed protocols for what to do in the event of the discovery of human remain s. The plan shall recommend
specific procedures for responding to the discovery of archeological resources during the construction of the project
consistent with Section 4.60 of the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The plan shall be
submitted as a part of the building permit.
CR-3 In the event that historical or archaeological remains are discovered during earth disturbing activities associated with
the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director shall be notified.
A qualified archaeologist shall conduct an assessment of the resources and formulate proper mitigation measures, if
necessary. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Chumash representative
shall monitor any mitigation excavation associated with Native American materials. The conditions for treatment of
discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans.
CR-4 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated with the project, an immed iate
halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director shall be notified. State Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie
adjacent human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American
descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. These requirements shall
be printed on all building and grading plans.
Conclusion
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the project would have a less than significant impact on cultural
resources.
Item 2
Packet Page 197
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 15
2. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that is: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Approved in 2014, Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be evaluated
under CEQA. Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following:
1) Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe
that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of California Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1.
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying these
criteria for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American Tribe.
Recognizing that tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide
notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if they have requested
notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead
agency must consult with the tribe regarding the potential for adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources as a result of a
project. Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the presence and/or significance of
tribal cultural resources, the level of significance of a project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and available project
alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to avoid or lessen potential impacts on tribal cultural resources.
Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but not limited to,
Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council inquired about a record search for the property,
upon further discussion with staff regarding the proposed mitigation measures CR -3 and CR-4 and providing additional
information on the limited amount of grading necessary for the project, The Northern Chumash Tribal Council confirmed that
they had no additional comments. No further comments or requests for information have been received.
a.i-ii) The City has provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate tribes per the requirements of AB 52 and
received one response for more information. Upon receiving additional information about the project site and proposed
mitigation measures, no further correspondence has been received. T he project site does not contain any known tribal
cultural resources that have been listed or been found eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resource s,
or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1. Mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-4
Item 2
Packet Page 198
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 16
have been identified to require cultural resource awareness training, archaeological monitoring, and cessation of work area
if a discovery is made until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Therefore, impacts related to
a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resource would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
No additional measures beyond CR-1 through CR-4.
Conclusion
With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-4, the project would have a less than
significant impact to tribal cultural resources.
3. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
N/A ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Based on the location, nature, and scale of proposed development, the project does not have the potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popula tion to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California h istory or
prehistory. Potential impacts would be less than significant.
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project includes the proposed application of a PD Overlay Zone to the property located at the project parcel (1144 Chorro
Street; APN 022-427-012), the existing Downtown Centre property (APN 002-427-016, -014, and -015), two parcels located on
the east side of Morro Street (APN 022-432-011 and -012), and one parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (APN 022 -425-
011). This PD overlay zone would allow for the potential future development on the parcels on Morro and Higuera Streets to
accommodate 51.26 additional density units that were allowed but not utilized in the other four parcels. Pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65915, the project applicant may also negotiate a density bonus in exchange for provision of housing
affordable to households with low or moderate income, as defined in the Government Code, and as stipulated in Chapter 17.90
of the City Zoning Regulations.
Item 2
Packet Page 199
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 17
The proposed PD Overlay Zone would result in the redistribution of unutilized density units within the proposed PD Overlay
Zone to provide for potential future residential development on the Morro Street and Higuera Street parcels. The potential future
development of additional dwelling units on these parcels would be subject to all applicable City architectural review and de sign
standards, as well as environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed PD Overlay Zone
would also align directly with Policy 6.8 of the City Housing Element, which states, “consistent with the City’s goal to stimulate
higher density infill where appropriate in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), the City shall consider changes to the Zoning
Regulations that would allow for the development of smaller apartments and efficiency units.”
When project impacts are considered in combination with other reasonably foreseeable impacts, the project’s potential
cumulative impacts may be significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce project -related
impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based on potential future development of surrounding parcels being subject to
discretionary review, and implementation of identified project-specific mitigation measures, the cumulative effects of the
proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant with mitigation.
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with air quality , biological resources, cultural resources,
hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems that could result
in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these potential impacts to
less than significant, including, but not limited to, standard idling restrictions, dust control measures, preparation of a geologic
investigation for asbestos containing materials, and implementation of best management controls for construction noise. With
incorporation of mitigation identified in this Initial Study, potential environmental effects of the project would not direct ly or
indirectly result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Item 2
Packet Page 200
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1137 Peach St. FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0568-2019,
APPLICANT: Levi Seligman SBDV-0571-2019, & EID-0800-2019
For more information contact Kyle Van Leeuwen: 781-7091 or kvanleeu@slocity.org
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant proposes to construct five new two-bedroom, two-story single-family residences
on a site within the Mill Street Historic District. The project site is currently developed with five
existing single-family residences, which are Contributing Historic Resources and will be retained
in their existing locations. The project proposes one new residence on the corner of Peach and
Toro Streets, with the four other residences located interior to the site behind the existing
structures. The project also includes a subdivision of the property into ten lots; each lot would
contain one single-family residence.
General Location: The 0.86 project site is
located on the corner of Peach Street and
Toro Street within the Medium-Density
Residential and zone and has a Historical
Preservation (H) Overlay, within the Mill
Street Historic District (R-2-H).
Present Use: Five single-family residences
(Contributing Historic Resources), to remain
General Plan: Medium Density Residential
Surrounding Uses: The area is characterized
by single-family dwellings, with some office
uses to the west, closer to Santa Rosa
Street. Twelve of the 17 properties in the
immediate vicinity are listed historic
resources (2 Master List, 10 Contributing
List).
2.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The CHC’s role is to review the proposed new project in terms of its consistency with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance, which includes the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and to
review the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources sections of the Initial Study 1
1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-2059
Meeting Date: June 22, 2020
Item Number: 3
Item No. 1
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 3
Packet Page 201
prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Attachment 3). An
Historic Preservation Report (Attachment 4) was prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants.
The Committee will make a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to the consistency
of the proposed project with applicable historical preservation policies and standards and may
recommend conditions of project approval as appropriate.
Historic Preservation Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144
Historic Preservation Ordinance: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4142
2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Historic Preservation Report determined that the five existing dwellings were constructed
between 1906 and 1925. The existing structures are all single-story and exhibit multiple
architectural styles, including Queen Ann cottage and Craftsman bungalow (see Figure 2 below).
The structures are included in the City’s Inventory Historic Resources as Contributing Properties.
4.0 PROPOSED NEW STRUCTURES
As shown in project plans (Attachment 1), four of the five new structures are located to the rear
of the site, behind the existing contributing historic structures to remain. These structures are
oriented towards the common driveway, which will run from east to west from Toro Street. The
fifth structure, located on the corner of Toro and Peach Street, is oriented towards Peach Street.
5.0 EVALUATION/DISCUSSION
5.1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES: The City’s Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines provides guidance for new structures within historic districts and on properties with
Figure 2: Existing dwellings
Item 3
Packet Page 202
historic resources. These Guidelines apply to the proposed project because it is located within
the Mill Street Historic District, and five Contributing Historic Resources are located within the
project site. Selected applicable guidelines, standards, and recommendations from th is
document are outlined below, and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines for the Mill Street
Historic District are provided as Attachment 2 for reference. The Committee should consider the
scale, form, and arrangement of new structures elements, the materials, window patterns, and
rooflines, and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission as to whether the project
is consistent with applicable historical preservation standards and guidelines.
5.1 HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES Staff notes
§3.2.1 Architecturally compatible
development within Historic Districts. New
structures in historic districts shall be
designed to be architecturally compatible
with the district’s prevailing historic
character as measured by their consistency
with the scale, massing, rhythm, signature
architectural elements, exterior materials,
siting and street yard setbacks of the
district's historic structures (…). New
structures are not required to copy or imitate
historic structures or seek to create the
illusion that a new building is historic.
The CHC should discuss if the use of a
raised finished floor, similar eave line,
inclusion of an entry porch, and use of
siding on the proposed corner structure
follows the pattern of the existing
structures on Peach Street and the
prevailing character of the neighborhood.
Similarly, the CHC should discuss if the four
proposed structures interior to the site
effectively use similar rhythm, architectural
elements, and materials in their design as
the existing contributing structures and the
prevailing character of the neighborhood.
§3.2.2 Architectural compatibility. The CHC
reviews development in historic districts for
architectural compatibility with nearby
historic resources, and for consistency with
applicable design and preservation policies,
standards, and historic district descriptions
in Section 5.2. New development should not
sharply contrast with, significantly block
public views of, or visually detract from, the
historic architectural character of historically
designated structures located adjacent to
the property to be developed, or detract
from the prevailing historic architectural
character of the historic district.
The description of the Mill Street Historic
District in the HPPG identifies common site
features and characteristics for the district.
The CHC should discuss how well those
features and characteristics are included in
the project, such as a consistent street yard
setback, raised finished floor, and entry
porch (refer to Figures 3 and 4, below).
Prominent architectural features within the
district include gable and hipped roofs,
traditional fenestration, and painted siding.
The proposed new corner structure does
not block views of neighboring structures in
a way that detracts from its architectural
character or blocks defining features.
Item 3
Packet Page 203
______________________________________________________________________________
Figure 3: Proposed corner structure, existing structure in district (1237 Mill), guidelines example of
1.5-story craftsman bungalow.
Figure 4: Proposed new two-story structures, sketches of existing structures, guidelines example of
new development in historic districts
Item 3
Packet Page 204
5.2 Environmental Review
An Initial Study has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. A Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption. Pertinent evaluation within the Initial
Study for CHC consideration can be found in the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
sections of the Initial Study (Sections 5 and 18). The Initial Study cultural resources evaluation
found that the project would have a less than significant impact on historic resources. As outlined
in the Historic Evaluation Report (Attachment 4), SWCA Environmental Consultants found that
none of the project’s proposed design features, either individually or collectively, would cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource . The Initial Study
evaluation found less than significant impacts to archaeological resources with incorporation of
mitigation measures, including training and contingency measures in the event of an
unanticipated discovery.
The Draft IS/MND was released for the required 30-day public review period on June 11, 2020
and the public review period will conclude on July 11, 2020.
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Historic
Preservation Ordinance
2. Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant.
3. Recommend that the Planning Commission find the project inconsistent with historical
preservation policies, citing specific areas of inconsistency.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Plans
2. Mill Street Historic District (HPPG § 5.2.4)
3. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration – Cultural and Tribal Resources sections
4. Historic Preservation Report for Redevelopment of APN 002-316-005, Paula Juelke Carr,
M.A., May 2020, SWCA Environmental Consultants
Item 3
Packet Page 205
PEACH STREETarc PACKAGE, 10/31/19
Prepared by TEN OVER STUDIO
PROVIDING MUCH NEEDED HOUSING ON PEACH STREET, THESE FIVE NEW HOUSES PROVIDE
A MODERN INTERPRETATION THAT BLENDS SEAMLESSLY WITH THE EXISTING HISTORIC
HOUSES ON SITE WHILE PRESERVING A SENSE OF CHARACTER AND UNIQUE DESIGN TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE UNITS WERE DESIGNED TO FEEL LIKE INDIVIDUAL HOMES WITH
PRIVATE BACK YARDS AND AMAZING VIEWS OF THE LOCAL MOUNTAINS OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.
THE SHARED DRIVEWAY IS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO ALL NEW AND EXISTING
HOUSES WHILE PRESERVING AS MUCH OPEN SPACE PER HOME AS POSSIBLE.
Item 3
Packet Page 206
CLIENT
LEVI SELIGMAN
1405 GARDEN STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
CONTACT: LEVI SELIGMAN
levi@acquireslo.com
ARCHITECT
TEN OVER STUDIO
539 MARSH ST., SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
805.541.1010
CONTACT: WILL RUOFF
willr@tenoverstudio.com
SOILS REPORT, PROVIDED BY PACIFIC COAST TESTING, Inc.
PROJECT#: 19-8706
PROJECT INFO & DATA T1.0
DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT EX-1
PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGER PLAN C1.1
PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C2.1
SITE PLAN A1.0
(N) 2 BEDROOM FLOOR PLANS A2.0 TO A2.2
ELEVATIONS A3.0 TO A3.5
SUN SHADE STUDY A4.0
PROJECT IMAGES A5.0 TO A5.5
CONTACTS
index
JAMES M. DUFFY
C-30770
7.31.2019
RENEWALLICENSEDAR CHI
T
E
CTSTA
T
E
OF A L IFORNIAC
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
7 PEACH ST43, 1151, 1163 PEACH STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CATHESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE
AND ARE THE PROPERTY OF TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.
THE DESIGN AND INFORMATION REPRESENTED ON
THESE DRAWINGS ARE EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PROJECT
INDICATED AND SHALL NOT BE TRANSFERRED OR
OTHERWISE REPRODUCED WITHOUT EXPRESS WRITTEN
PERMISSION FROM TEN OVER STUDIO, INC.
COPYRIGHT 2017
SYMBOLS
VICINITY MAP
PROJECT DIRECTORY
OWNER:
COMPANY NAME CONTACT:NAME
ADDRESS PH:PHONE
ADDRESS EMAIL:email
ARCHITECT:
PROJECT DATA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION
PROJECT ADDRESS
APN
ZONING
CURRENT USE
LOT SIZE
LIVING SPACE
GARAGE (TO BE REPLACED)
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
SHEET INDEX
TITLE / CODE
T1.0 TITLE SHEET
ARCHITECTURAL
A1.0 SITE PLAN
A2.0 RESIDENCE 1 FLOOR PLAN
A2.1 RESIDENCE 2 FLOOR PLAN
A2.2 RESIDENCE 3 FLOOR PLAN
A2.3 RESIDENCE 4 FLOOR PLAN
A3.0 RESIDENCE 1 ELEVATIONS
A3.1 RESIDENCE 2 ELEVATIONS
A3.2 RESIDENCE 3 ELEVATIONS
A3.3 RESIDENCE4 ELEVATIONS
A8.0 DETAILS
BUILDING CODE DATA
SPRINKLERS:REQUIRED:YES / NO
PROPOSED:YES / NO
CONSTRUCTION TYPE:
OCCUPANCY GROUP:
37 PEACH STREET
1137, 1143, 1151, 1163 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
KEYNOTE
DOOR NUMBER
N
HWY 1
PEACH STT
O
R
O
S
T
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
E
S
A
N
T
A
R
O
S
A
S
T
O
S
O
S
S
T
M
O
R
R
O
S
T
WALNUT ST
MILL STPALM ST
GENERAL NOTES
1. THE ARCHITECT HAS NO CONTROL OR RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MEANS, TECHNIQUES, SEQUENCE, OR
PROCEDURES OF CONSTRUCTION OR SAFETY PROGRAMS FOR THIS PROJECT. SUCH PROGRAMS AND
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS, CODES OR ORDINANCES SHALL BE THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS.
2. COORDINATE THE WORK OF ALL TRADES INVOLVED IN THE CEILING WORK TO ENSURE CLEARANCES FOR
FIXTURES, DUCTS, PIPING, CEILING SUSPENSION SYSTEM, ETC., NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE FINISHED
CEILING HEIGHTS INDICATED ON ARCHITECT'S DRAWINGS.
3. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO APPLICABLE CURRENT FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL CODES. THE
CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE FOR ALL REQUIRED NOTIFICATION OF AND COORDINATION WITH CITY AND
STATE AGENCIES, AND PROVIDE REQUIRED PERMITS. ALL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH
OBTAINING APPROVALS TO PROCEED WITH AND COMPLETE THE WORK SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE
CONTRACTOR.
4. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXECUTION OF HIS WORK AND
FOR ANY CHANGES AND / OR DEVIATIONS FROM THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS MADE WITHOUT PRIOR
WRITTEN APPROVAL FROM THE OWNER. THE COST OF CORRECTIONS RESULTING FROM CHANGES AND / OR
DEVIATIONS SHALL BE BORNE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR.
5. DESIGN ALTERATIONS MADE WITHOUT THE ARCHITECT'S KNOWLEDGE DURING THE COURSE OF
CONSTRUCTION ARE DONE AT THE OWNER'S AND / OR CONTRACTOR'S RISK. THE ARCHITECT SHALL NOT BE
HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH CHANGES.
6. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL OPERATIONS WITH THE OWNER, INCLUDING AREA FOR WORK,
MATERIALS STORAGE, AND ACCESS TO AND FROM THE WORK, SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR NOISY WORK,
TIMING OF WORK AND INTERRUPTION OF MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SERVICES. NOISY OR DISRUPTIVE
WORK SHALL BE SCHEDULED AT LEAST ONE (1) WEEK IN ADVANCE OF THE TIME WORK IS TO COMMENCE.
7. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC
AND WORKERS DURING THE COURSE OF THE WORK.
8. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP IN
GENERAL AND WITH SUCH STANDARDS AS ARE SPECIFIED.
9. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DEMOLITION AS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF
THE PROJECT. REMOVE ALL DEMOLISHED MATERIAL NOT DESIGNATED FOR REUSE FROM THE PREMISES.
10. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR ALL WORK REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL FIRE CODE.
PROVIDE FOR ALL REQUIRED SHOP DRAWINGS AND APPROVALS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
PROVIDING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM AUDIBILITY.
11. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SAMPLES OF ALL FINISHES OF SUCH SIZE AND NUMBER THAT THEY REPRESENT
A REASONABLE DISTRIBUTION OF COLOR RANGES AND PATTERN PRIOR TO INSTALLATION FOR ARCHITECT'S
APPROVAL. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS AND PRODUCT DATA FOR ARCHITECT'S
APPROVAL ON ALL SPECIAL ITEMS REQUIRING CUSTOM FABRICATION. (SHALL INCLUDE RATED FIRE DOORS
AND HARDWARE).
12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS PRIOR TO STARTING WORK.
ALL DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ON DRAWINGS ARE INTENDED AS GUIDELINES AND MUST BE FIELD
VERIFIED. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR ANY REASON. REPORT ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES TO THE
ARCHITECT BEFORE CONTINUING WORK. COMMENCEMENT OF WORK IMPLIES THE ACCEPTANCE OF ALL
CONDITIONS. CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO COORDINATE THE WORK WITH THE WORK OF ALL OTHER TRADES.
13. OMISSIONS MADE IN THESE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS WHICH IS MANIFESTLY NECESSARY TO CARRY
OUT THE INTENT OF THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS, OR WHICH IS CUSTOMARILY PERFORMED SHALL
NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM PERFORMING SUCH OMITTED OR DESCRIBED DETAILS OF THE WORK
AS IF FULLY AND COMPLETELY SET FORTH AND DESCRIBED IN THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
14. A COMPLETE SET OF CONTRACT DOCUMENTS MUST BE KEPT AT THE JOB SITE AT ALL TIMES AND ANY
CHANGES MUST BE NOTED THEREON AND INITIALED.
15. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS FOR ANY REASON. REPORT ANY DIMENSIONAL DISCREPANCIES TO THE
ARCHITECT BEFORE CONTINUING WORK.
16. PATCH, REPAIR, OR REPLACE ALL WORK DAMAGED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR
SHALL PATCH WALL AND FLOOR TO CONFORM TO MATERIAL, TEXTURE, AND SURFACE ALIGNMENT WITH THE
ADJOINING SURFACE.
17. ALL FLOORS SHOULD BE LEVEL AND NOT VARY MORE THAN 1/4" IN 10'-0". THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY
ARCHITECT OF ANY CONDITIONS THAT DO NOT MEET THIS STANDARD.
18. MATERIALS, ARTICLES, DEVICES AND PRODUCTS ARE SPECIFIED IN THE DOCUMENTS BY LISTING
ACCEPTABLE MANUFACTURERS OR PRODUCTS, BY REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH REFERENCED STANDARDS,
OR BY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS. FOR ITEMS SPECIFIED BY NAME, SELECT ANY PRODUCT NAMED.
FOR THOSE SPECIFIED BY REFERENCE STANDARDS OR BY PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS SELECT ANY
PRODUCT MEETING OR EXCEEDING SPECIFIED CRITERIA. FOR APPROVAL OF AN ITEM NOT SPECIFIED, SUBMIT
REQUIRED SUBMITTALS, PROVIDING COMPLETE BACK-UP INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF EVALUATION.
WHERE BUILDING STANDARD ITEMS ARE CALLED FOR, NO SUBSTITUTE WILL BE ACCEPTED.
19. MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL FIXTURES, OUTLETS, ETC., WHEN SHOWN ON THE ARCHITECTURAL
DRAWINGS, ARE FOR LOCATION INFORMATION ONLY. MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL TO BE DESIGNED BY
OTHERS. ALL CIRCUITING COORDINATION TO BE BY OTHERS.
20. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE DRAWINGS FOR ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL SHOWING LOCATIONS OF ALL HVAC
THERMOSTATS, GRILLES AND DIFFUSERS, FIRE AND SMOKE DETECTION DEVICES INCLUDING SPRINKLERS,
SMOKE DETECTORS, FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AND HOSE CABINETS, PLUMBING AND PLUMBING EQUIPMENT.
21. REPLACE OR RELOCATE ALL EXISTING PIPING, CONDUIT, WIRING, ETC. REQUIRED FOR THE COMPLETION OF
NEW WORK.
N PLAN GENERAL NOTES
NTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AND LEAVE THE PROJECT AREA IN A CLEAN, SAFE AND ORDERLY
NSIBILITY OF THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO SAFELY CAP, SEAL OR TERMINATE ALL
HANICAL OR ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS AS NECESSARY AT AREAS OF DEMOLITION.
REUSED OR RETURNED TO OWNER SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION. ALL ITEMS TO
ALL EITHER BE (1) RETAINED BY THE OWNER AT HIS DISCRETION, (2) REMOVED AND
TE, OR (3) DELIVERED TO AN APPROPRIATE DUMPSITE. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE DISPOSED
CE WITH LOCAL AGENCY REQUIREMENTS.
LITION SHALL BE LIMITED FROM 7:00 AM TO 7:00 PM, MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. VERIFY
ALL BE PROTECTED FROM CONSTRUCTION / DEMOLITION AS STATED IN CBC CHAPTER 33,
MEASURES SHALL BE IN EFFECT CONTINUOUSLY DURING DEMOLITION AS TO LIMIT THE
ORNE DEBRIS AND DUST. PROVIDE PROTECTION AROUND AREAS WHERE NEW WORK AND/OR
O BE PERFORMED IN ORDER TO PREVENT DUST AND DIRT FROM ENTERING ACTIVE PORTIONS
.
ONSTRUCTION DEBRIS TO BE HAULED OFF SITE SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY COVERED OR TARPED
W ANY MATERIAL TO LEAVE THE VEHICLE WHILE ON ANY PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AND SHALL
DISPOSED OF IN MEANS APPROVED BY JURISDICTION.
RIS AND TRASH FROM PREMISES AND REMOVE FROM SITE DAILY.
RING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CFC CHAPTER 33.
ONSTRUCTION DEBRIS SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED TO ACCUMULATE WITHIN THE BUILDING AND
VED DAILY.
S TO BE DEMOLISHED WITH OWNER/TNEANT PRIOR TO COMMENCING DEMOLITION/REMOVAL.
CT OF ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND IMMEDIATELY.
RUCTION/DEMOLITION, NOTIFY ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY OF AN Y DISCREPANCIES FOUND
ANS AND THE AS BUILT CONDITION.
MEMBER SIZES AND DIRECTION AND NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER WITH DISCREPANCIES.
MBING LOCATIONS WITH OWNER/TENANT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION AND NOTIFY
NY DISCREPANCIES.
OR REPLACE ALL WORK DAMAGED BY NEW CONSTRUCTION. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR
ALL AND FLOOR TO CONFORM TO MATERIAL, TEXTURE, AND SURFACE ALIGNMENT WITH THE
ACE.
ACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DEMOLITION AS REQUIRED FOR COMPLETION OF THE
VE ALL DEMOLISHED MATERIAL NOT DESIGNATED FOR REUSE FROM THE PREMISES.
LOCATE ALL EXISTING PIPING, CONDUIT, WIRING, ETC. REQUIRED FOR THE COMPLETION OF
DS AND RAFTERS TO BE CLEANED AND SEALED TO ELIMINATE SMOKE ODOR.
ED LUMBER TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED.
FLOOR PLAN NOTES
1. TOILET ROOMS SHALL HAVE EXHAUST RATE OF 50 CFM MINIMUM.
2. ELECTRICAL OUTLETS TO BE PLACED AT 18" TO CENTERLINE ABOVE FINISH FLOOR U.N.O.
3. ELECTRICAL SWITCHES TO BE PLACED AT 48" TO CENTERLINE FROM FINISH FLOOR U.N.O.
4. DOORS HANDLES, LOCK AND OTHER OPERATING DEVICES SHALL BE INSTALLED AT A MINIMUM 34" AND A
MAXIMUM 48" A.F.F.
5. ALL EXTERIOR WALL SHALL BE 2X FRAMING WITH MINIMUM INSULATION PER TITLE 24, U.N.O. REFER TO WALL
LEGEND.
6. ALL INTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE 2X4 FRAMING, TYPICAL U.N.O. REFER TO WALL LEGEND.
7. ALL PLUMBING WALLS SHALL BE 2X6 MINIMUM FRAMING. REFER TO WALL LEGEND.
8. PROVIDE R-13 MINIMUM INSULATION AT PLUMBING WALLS AND WALLS OF LAUNDRY ROOM.
9. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUGH AND TO FACE OF STUD (F.O.S.).
10. ALL DIMENSIONS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. IF ANY VARIATION,
DISCREPANCY OR OMISSION IS FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR OR SUB-CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE
ARCHITECT / DESIGNER IN WRITING AND OBTAIN WRITTEN RESOLUTION FROM ARCHITECT / DESIGNER PRIOR
TO PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK.
11. PROVIDE MOISTURE EXHAUST DUCT WITH BACK-DRAFT DAMPER FOR THE DRYER EXHAUST (14' MAX. LENGTH
OF DRYER EXHAUST W/ TWO 90 DEGREE ELBOWS) PER 2013 CEC 504.3 & 504.3.1.2
12. VERIFY ALL EXISTING DIMENSIONS IN FIELD
13. NEW 5/8" GYP. BD. THROUGHOUT. INSULATION IN EXTERIOR WALLS PER TITLE 24 REPORT
14. ALL NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES THROUGHOUT TO BE OWNER SELECTED AND CONTRACTOR INSTALLED, AND
MUST MEET OR EXCEED CALGREEN MANDATORY MEASURES (CA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS SEC. 4.303.)
TOTAL FIXTURE COUNT TO REMAIN THE SAME AS PRIOR TO FIRE DAMAGE.
15. ALL FINISHES AND FIXTURES TO BE OWNER SELECTED AND CONTRACTOR INSTALLED.
DOOR & WINDOW NOTES
1. ALL WINDOWS AND DOORS SHALL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE SECTION 110.6.
2. ALL WINDOWS SHALL BE CLEAR GLAZED, UNO, HAVE A LABEL LISTING THE CERTIFIED U-FACTOR, CERTIFIED
SOLAR HEAT GAIN COEFFICIENT (SHGC), AND INFILTRATION THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEC SECTION
110.6. REFER TO TITLE 24 FOR ADDITIONAL GLAZING REQUIREMENTS.
3. ALL EXTERIOR WINDOWS AND WINDOWS BETWEEN CONDITIONED AND UNCONDITIONED SPACES SHALL LIMIT
AIR LEAKAGE AND ALL JOINTS AND PENETRATIONS CAULKED AND SEALED.
4. EXTERIOR WINDOWS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF MULTIPANE GLAZING WITH A MINIMUM OF ONE TEMPERED
PANE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF 2016 CBC SECTION 2406, OR BE CONSTRUCTED OF GLASS BLOCK
UNITS, OR HAVE A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 10 MINUTES WHEN TESTED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH NFPA 257, OR BE TESTED TO MEET THE PERFORMANCE REQUIREMENTS OF SFM 12-7A-2.
5. SITE BUILT WINDOWS SHALL COMPLY WITH CBC SECTION 2404.
6. ALL GLAZING IN EXTERIOR DOORS SHALL BE DUAL GLAZED AND TEMPERED, UNO. ALL GLAZING IN INTERIOR
DOORS SHALL BE SINGLE GLAZED AND TEMPERED.
7. THRESHOLD AND LANDINGS
7.1. THRESHOLDS AT DOORWAYS SHALL NOT EXCEED 3/4" IN HEIGHT FOR SLIDING DOORS SERVING
DWELLING UNITS OR 1/2" FOR OTHER DOORS. RAISED THRESHOLDS AND FLOOR LEVEL CHANGES
GREATER THAN 1/4" AT DOORWAYS SHALL BE BEVELED WITH A SLOPE NOT GREATER THAN ONE UNIT
VERTICAL IN TWO UNITS HORIZONTAL (50% SLOPE). THE THRESHOLD HEIGHT SHALL BE LIMITED TO 7-
3/4" AND THE DOOR IS AN EXTERIOR DOOR THAT IS NOT A COMPONENT OF THE REQUIRED MEANS OF
EGRESS; THE DOOR DOES NOT SWING OVER THE LANDING OR STEP; AND THE DOORWAY IS NOT ON AN
ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AND IS NOT PART OF AN ADAPTABLE OR ACCESSIBLE DWELLING UNIT. REFER TO CBC
1008.1.7.
8. ROUGH OPENINGS FOR DOOR & WINDOW INSTALLATION SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
9. ALL WINDOW AND DOOR HEADER/SILL HEIGHTS ARE TAKEN FROM THE FINISH FLOOR ELEVATIONS.
LIGHTING PLAN GENERAL NOTES
1. REFER TO CEC SECTION 150, MANDATORY MEASURES, AND/OR TITLE 24 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
2. ALL FIXTURE AND SWITCH LOCATIONS ARE SCHEMATIC. CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM A WALK THROUGH WITH
THE OWNER FOR VERIFICATION OF LOCATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
3. HIGH EFFICIENCY LUMINAIRES OR LED LIGHT ENGINE WITH INTEGRAL HEAT SINK HAS AN EFFICIENCY THAT IS NO
LOWER THAN THE EFFICACIES CONTAINED IN TABLE 150-C AND IS NOT A LOW EFFICACY LUMINAIRE AS SPECIFIED
BY CEC SECTION 150(K) AND TITLE 24.
PROJECT LOCATION
1137, 1143, 1151,
1163 PEACH ST
AND 771 TORO ST
Item 3
Packet Page 207
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 T1.0
OCCUPANCY R-3
CONSTRUCTION TYPE VB, SPRINKLED
SPRINKLER SYSTEM 13-D
STORIES PROPOSED 2
BUILDING AREAS
GARAGE (SF)AREA (SF) OUTDOOR PATIO (SF)DECK, UNCOVERED (SF)
2 BED UNIT A 483.8 1465 156 0
TOTAL:2104.8
2 BED UNIT B 507.1 1404.3 150 174.9
TOTAL:2236.3
2 BED UNIT C 476.7 1460.4 150 119
TOTAL:2206.1
BUILDING INFO
DENSITY CALC
TOTAL 10 DU
DENSITY PER LOT LOT 1 LOT 2 LOT 3
0.083 ACRE 0.085 ACRE 0.085 ACRE
1.02 DU 1.02 DU
1
1
1.07 DU
LOT 9 LOT 10
LOT 5
0.086 ACRE
1.03 DU
DENSITY
5
5
LOT 4
0.089 ACRE
1 DU 1 DU
0.1 ACRE 0.083 ACRE 0.083 ACRE 0.083 ACRE 0.083 ACRE
TOTAL DENSITY ALLOWED
DENSITY CALCULATIONS
DU FACTORUNIT COUNT
1.2 DU 1 DU 1 DU
LOT 6 LOT 7 LOT 8
UNIT TYPE
(E) 2 BED
(N) 2 BED
5
5
1 DU
0.86 ACRE
12/ ACRE
10.32
LOT SIZE:
DENSITY FACTOR:
ALLOW. DENSITY:
PARKING REQUIRED
(E) RESIDENTIAL
(N) RESIDENTIAL USE UNIT COUNT (OR SF) PARKING FACTOR SPACES REQUIRED
2 BED UNIT A (LOT 5)1 2 2
2 BED UNIT B (LOT 7)1 2 2
2 BED UNIT C (LOT 8)1 2 2
2 BED UNIT B (LOT 9)1 2 2
1 BED UNIT C (LOT 10)1 2 2
GUEST PARKING 1
REQUIRED TOTAL 11
PROVIDED TOTAL 11
7TOTAL (E) PARKING TO REMAIN
2 BED LOT 6 (711 TORRO ST)
2
1
1
PARKING CALCULATIONS
2 BED LOT 1 (1137 PEACH ST)
2 BED LOT 4 (1163 PEACH ST)
(E) PARKING TO REMAINUSE
2 BED LOT 2 (1143 PEACH ST)
2 BED LOT 3 (1151 PEACH ST)
2
1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
THE PROPOSED PROJECT INVOLVES THE DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE NEW 2 BEDROOM SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT CREATES A COMMON DRIVE INTO THE SITE AND PROVIDES 2
GARAGE PARKING FOR EACH UNIT, WITH THE TOTAL OF 10 PROPOSED PARKING SPACES. THE PROPOSED
DRIVEWAY WILL ALSO CONNECT WITH EXISTING ONES ON SITE TO INTEGRATE EXISTING WITH NEW AND
PROVIDE SHARED AMENITY TO ALL RESIDENCES. A COMMON INTEREST SUBDIVISION IS REQUIRED TO
ALLOW FOR THE LOT TO BE SPLIT INTO 10 PARCELS TO ALLOW FOR EACH RESIDENCE TO HAVE ITS OWN
LOT. THE PROJECT IS REQUESTING VARIABLE SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR THE NEW SUBDIVISION PER
SECTION 17.70.170.D.2.c.
1137, 1143, 1151, 1163 PEACH ST AND 771 TORO ST
APN 002-316-005
CURRENT USE RESIDENTIAL
37471 SF .86 ACRE
MAX SITE COVERAGE ALLOWABLE 50%PROPOSED 32%, 12060 SF
DENSITY ALLOWABLE 12/ACRE = 10.32 PROPOSED 10 du
HEIGHT LIMIT ALLOWABLE 35'PROPOSED 25'-5"
ADJACENT ZONES NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2
SETBACKS:
20'5'+5'+5'+
2 BEDROOM UNIT A (LOT 5)
NORTH/STREET EAST/STREET SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 22'-1"19'-7"22'-1"19'-7"
SETBACK DISTANCE 20'-0"10'8'-8"5'-0"
2 BEDROOM UNIT B (LOT 7)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 22'-6"18'-3"22'-6"18'-3"
SETBACK DISTANCE 28'-11"6'-10" *11'-3"8'-1"
2 BEDROOM UNIT C (LOT 8)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 25'-5"25'-5"25'-5"18'-11"
SETBACK DISTANCE 23'8'-3" *11'-2"8'
2 BEDROOM UNIT B (LOT 9)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 22'-6"18'-3"22'-6"18'-3"
SETBACK DISTANCE 24'-6"8'-10"11'-1"8'-10"
2 BEDROOM UNIT C(LOT 10)
NORTH EAST SOUTH WEST
HT OF BUILDING 25'-5"25'-5"25'-5"18'-11"
SETBACK DISTANCE 24'-6"11'11'-1"8'
*Per section 17.70.170.D.2.c "Variable Side and Rear Setbacks in New Subdivisions" are permitted
LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
ZONING
OVERLAY ZONES
LOT SIZE
R-2-H
H
ADDRESS
PROPOSED USE RESIDENTIAL
Item 3
Packet Page 208
Item 3
Packet Page 209
Item 3
Packet Page 210
Item 3
Packet Page 211
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 L1.0
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
3617.5 SQ. FT.3717.8 SQ. FT.3704.0 SQ. FT.3855.2 SQ. FT.3738.9 SQ. FT.
4370.1 SQ. FT.3617.3 SQ. FT.3617.4 SQ. FT.3621.8 SQ. FT.3622.4 SQ. FT.
1 1 2 2
2
2
1
3 3 3 3 3 8
33
33
4 4 4 4 4
444
4
5
5 5 5
5
6 6
6
6
6 62
77 7
7
2
2
(N) DRIVEWAY
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 1
1137 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 2
1143 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 3
1151 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 4
1163 PEACH ST
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 8
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 5
771 TORO
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 10
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT A LOT 5
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
GARAGE
ADJACENT
BUILDING
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 7
ADJACENT
BUILDING
9 9
9
9
10
N
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"03015 60
1 SITE PLAN
3617.5 SQ. FT.3717.8 SQ. FT.3704.0 SQ. FT.3855.2 SQ. FT.3738.9 SQ. FT.
4370.1 SQ. FT.3617.3 SQ. FT.3617.4 SQ. FT.3621.8 SQ. FT.3622.4 SQ. FT.
1 1 2 2
2
2
1
3 3 3 3 3 8
33
33
4 4 4 4 4
444
4
5
5 5 5
5
6 6
6
6
6 62
77 7
7
2
2
(N) DRIVEWAY
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 1
1137 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 2
1143 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 3
1151 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 4
1163 PEACH ST
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 8
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 5
771 TORO
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 10
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT A LOT 5
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
GARAGE
ADJACENT
BUILDING
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 7
ADJACENT
BUILDING
9 9
9
9
10
N
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"03015 60
1 SITE PLAN
keynotes
1. (N) STREET TREE
2. (E) TREE TO REMAIN
3. (E) PROPERTY LINES
4. (N) PERMEABLE PAVER PATIOS
5. (N) CONCRETE WALKWAY
6. (N) 5’-0” TALL WOOD FENCE, TYP.
7. (E) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
8. (N) CONCRETE DRIVEWAY
9. (E) SIDEWALK PLANTING AREA TO REMAIN
10. (E) RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN
SITE PLAN LEGEND
(N) DRIVEWAY
PLANTING AREA TO BE
PROVIDED BY RESIDENCE
(E) LAWN TO REMAIN
(N) CONCRETE PAVING
(N) PERMEABLE PAVER PATIOS
(N) 5’-0” WOOD FENCE
Item 3
Packet Page 212
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19
TREES QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT REMARKS
2 Magnolia grandiflora `Little Gem` / Dwarf Southern Magnolia 24"box Size: 20`-25` tall and 10`-15` wide
WUCOLS PF = .4 - .6
4 Maytenus boaria / Mayten Tree 24"box Size: 50` tall and 20` wide.
WUCOLS PF = .4-.6
SHRUBS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS
18 Acanthus mollis / Bear`s Breech 5 gal Size: 3`-4` tall and wide.
WUCOLS PF: .4-.6
67 Buxus x `Green Velvet` / Boxwood 15 gal Size: 3`-4` tall and wide.
WUCOLS PF: .4-.6
147 Helictotrichon sempervirens / Blue Oat Grass 1 gal Size: 1`-2` tall and wide.
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
37 Rosa x `Noaschnee` / White Groundcover Rose 2 gal Size: 2` tall x 3` wide
.
WUCOLS PF: .4 - .6
28 Teucrium chamaedrys / Germander 1 gal Size: 1`-2` tall and 2`-3` wide
WUCOLS PF: .1 - .3
75 Verbena bonariensis / Purpletop Vervain 1 gal Size: 2`-4` tall and 1.5`-3` wide
.
WUCOLS PF: .1-.3
GROUND COVERS QTY BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT SPACING REMARKS
439 sf Agrostis pallens / Thingrass flat Uniform and medium leaf texture
WUCOLS PF = .4-.6
N
03015 60
1 SITE PLAN
DWARF SOUTHERN
MAGNOLIA
BEAR'S BREECH
BOXWOOD BLUE OAT GRASS WHITE GROUNDCOVER
ROSE
GERMANDER PURPLETOP VERVAIN THINGRASS
MAYTEN TREE
L1.1
PLANT PALETTE
PLANTING PALETTE PLANTING IMAGES
Item 3
Packet Page 213
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19
SITE PLAN LEGEND
(N) CONCRETE PATIO
(N) DRIVEWAY
(N) OUTDOOR PATIO
(N) 5’ FENCE
A1.0
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1” = 30’-0”
N
keynotes
1. (E) TREE TO REMAIN
2. (E) TREE TO BE REMOVED
3 (E) DRIVEWAY CURB RAMP TO BE IMPROVED
TO (N) DESIGN
4. (N) 10’x20’ GUEST PARKING
5. (N) PROPERTY LINE
6. (N) CONCRETE PATIO
7. (N) 2-CAR GARAGE PARKING, TYP.
8. (N) 3’x8’ TRASH ARE, TYP.
9. (N) 5’ FENCE, TYP.
10. (N) BALCONY LINE ABOVE
11. (N) 2-BIKE RACK, TYP.
12. (E) TANDEM PARKING TO REMAIN, TYP.
13. (N) PORCH
14. (N) 150 SF OUTDOOR PATIO
3617.5 SQ. FT.3717.8 SQ. FT.3704.0 SQ. FT.3855.2 SQ. FT.3738.9 SQ. FT.
4370.1 SQ. FT.3617.3 SQ. FT.3617.4 SQ. FT.3621.8 SQ. FT.3622.4 SQ. FT.8'-8"SETBACK(N) DRIVEWAY
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 1
1137 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 2
1143 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 3
1151 PEACH ST
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 4
1163 PEACH ST
(E)
DRIVEWAY (E)
DRIVEWAY
(E)
DRIVEWAY
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 8
(E) 2 BED
RESIDENCE 5
771 TORO(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT C, LOT 10
(E)
DRIVEWAY
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT A LOT 5
GARAGE
PARKING
1 & 2 FIRE HYDRANT+/- 80'FIRE HYDRANT
+/- 200'FIRE HYDRANT+/- 220'GARAGE
PARKING
5 & 6
GARAGE
PARKING
9 & 10
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
SHED
ADJACENT
GARAGE
ADJACENT
BUILDING
8
7
1
2
1
11
3
10 6
11
9
5 5 5
5
9 55
9(E) 771 TORO
PARKING
(E) 1151
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1163
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1143
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1137
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1137
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1143
PEACH
PARKING
9
(N) 2 BED
RESIDENCE
UNIT B, LOT 7
GARAGE
PARKING
3 & 4
9
GARAGE
PARKING
7 & 8
5
2
LOT 1 LOT 2
LOT 3 LOT 4
LOT 6
12
12
14510
11
8
2
1
A3.0
3
A3.0
GUEST
PARKING
11
4
14
14
13
14
14
511'-3"SETBACK8'-3"
SETBACK
11'-0"
SETBACK 11'-2"10'-6"39'-6"39'-3"14'-10"13'-6"8'-1"
SETBACK
8'-0"
SETBACK
8'-10"
SETBACK
8'-10"
SETBACK
8'-0"
SETBACK
6'-10"
SETBACK
5'-0"
SETBACK
10'-0"
SETBACK20'-0"SETBACK11'-1"SETBACK14'-1"SETBACK20'-0"7 1
11'-2"SETBACK1
10
109
5
9
2
A3.0
ADJACENT
BUILDING
5
(E) 1151
PEACH
PARKING
(E) 1163
PEACH
PARKING19'-5"19'-5"27'-1"26'-2"19'-7"19'-8"5'-0"8'-2"8
9'-10"
4'-5"5'-0"
6'-5"9'-11"7'-5"7'-2"5'-2"
Item 3
Packet Page 214
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A2.0
2 BED UNIT a SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
2 BED UNIT a FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
TWO-CAR
GARAGE
TRASHUP DNLIVING
ROOM
OPEN TO
BELOW
OFFICE
MASTER
BEDROOM
CLOSET
MASTER
BATHROOM
BEDROOMBATHROOMKITCHEN
DINING
STORAGE
EQ
41'-11"51'-11"10'-0"EQ
31'-3"
3'-6"
25'-2"
3'-7"10'-11"9'-0"51'-11"TWO-CAR
GARAGE
TRASHUP DNLIVING
ROOM
OPEN TO
BELOW
OFFICE
MASTER
BEDROOM
CLOSET
MASTER
BATHROOM
BEDROOMBATHROOMKITCHEN
DINING
STORAGE
EQ
41'-11"51'-11"10'-0"EQ
31'-3"
3'-6"
25'-2"
3'-7" 10'-11"9'-0"51'-11"Item 3
Packet Page 215
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A2.1
3 BED UNIT b SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
3 BED UNIT b FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
UP
DN
OPEN
TO
BELOW
TRASH
POWDER
TWO-CAR
GARAGE
LIVING
ROOM
KITCHEN
DINING
ROOM
CLOSETMASTER
BEDROOM
BEDROOM
BATHROOM
BALCONY
CLOSET
CLOSET
BATHROOM 7'-812"27'-212"34'-11"7'-912"23'-2"
30'-1112"22'-8"40'-11"7'-912"23'-2"
30'-1112"5'-612"12'-812"19'-412"11'-7"
30'-1112"
LAUNDRY
1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:1 2 BED B SECOND FLOOR PLAN
1500.1 SQ FT
0
N
8
1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE:
421 16
2 2 BED B FIRST FLOOR PLAN
1500.1 SQ FT
Item 3
Packet Page 216
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A2.2
2 BED UNIT c SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
2 BED UNIT c FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
N
UP
DN
POWDER LAUNDRYCLOSET
TWO-CAR
GARAGE
LIVING
ROOM
DINING
ROOM
MASTER
BEDROOM
KITCHEN
CLOSET
BEDROOM
BATHROOM BATHROOM
OPEN
TO
BELOW
CLOSET
BALCONY
TRASH 3'-0"38'-11"10'-812"25'-212"21'-10"7'-912"
29'-712"6'-0"3'-0"44'-11"10'-812"25'-212"19'-10"7'-912"
29'-712"
1'-0"1'-0"
Item 3
Packet Page 217
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.0
1. NORTH ELEVATION -FROM PEACH ST
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. NORTH ELEVATION - FROM (N) DRIVEWAY
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
3. EAST ELEVATION - FROM TORO ST
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
(N) 2 BED UNIT A
LOT 5
(E) RESIDENCE 5
LOT 6
(E) RESIDENCE 4
LOT 4
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 7
(E) RESIDENCE 5
LOT 6
(N) 2 BED UNIT A
LOT 5
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 8
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 9
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 10
(E) RESIDENCE 3
LOT 3
(E) RESIDENCE 2
LOT 2
(E) RESIDENCE 1
LOT 1
TOP OF ROOF
22'-8"
PLPLPLPL
5'-0"5'-3"7'-7"7'-2"6'-4"9'-11"4'-6"4'-10"10'-0"
PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
PLPLPLPL
11'-0"8'-10"8'-10"8'-0"8'-3"8'-1"6'-10"5'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"TOP OF ROOF
22'-8"
PL
14'-9"
PLPL
8'-2"21'-0"19'-8"
Item 3
Packet Page 218
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.1
1. LOT 5 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. LOT 5 EAST ELEVATION
4. LOT 5 WEST ELEVATION3. LOT 5 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 325
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 325
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 32 5
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"11'-0"22'-1"10'-0"
SECONDARY STREET
SETBACK
5'-0"
3 2 5 4
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"22'-1"11'-0"10'-0"5'-0"
52 34
PLPL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 8'-8"1
4532
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
20'-0"
FRONT SETBACK8'-8"1
4 32 5
TOP OF ROOF
22'-1"
keynotes
1. STORM GREY (MALARKEY)
SHINGLE ROOF
2. WEB GRAY (SW 7975)
PORCH COLUMNS,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
3. RARE GRAY (SW 6199)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
4. WEB GRAY (SW 7975)
CLAPBOARD SIDING
5. ANDERSON TERRATONE WINDOW
FRAME. (GARAGE TO MATCH
WINDOW FRAME COLOR)
Item 3
Packet Page 219
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.2
1. LOT 7 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. LOT 8 EAST ELEVATION
4. LOT 8 WEST ELEVATION3. LOT 7 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
52 3
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
523
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
52 3
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
PL PL
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-3"
28'-11"
FRONT SETBACK 1
52 3
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK 1
56 7
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-2"
23'-0"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 67
keynotes
1. STORM GREY (MALARKEY)
SHINGLE ROOF
2. THRESHOLD TAUPE (SW 7501)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
3. MINERAL GRAY (SW 2740)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
4. COLONNADE GRAY (SW 7641)
STUCCO
5. ANDERSON TERRATONE WINDOW
FRAME. (GARAGE TO MATCH
WINDOW FRAME COLOR)
6. WEB GRAY (SW 7975)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
7. RARE GRAY (SW 6199)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
Item 3
Packet Page 220
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.3
1. LOT 9 EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
2. LOT 10 EAST ELEVATION
4. LOT 10 WEST ELEVATION3. LOT 9 WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
PL PL
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
14'-1"
25'-3"
FRONT SETBACK 1
5 23
4
PLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK 1
567
PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
11'-1"
24'-6"
FRONT SETBACK1
56 7
keynotes
1. STORM GREY (MALARKEY)
SHINGLE ROOF
2. WEB GRAY (SW 7075)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
3. SOFTER TAN (SW 2740)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
4. TONY TAUPE (SW 7038) STUCCO
5. ANDERSON TERRATONE WINDOW
FRAME. (GARAGE TO MATCH
WINDOW FRAME COLOR)
6. DOWNING SAND (SW 2822)
PORCH COLUMNS, BALCONY,
DOORS, WINDOW TRIMS, AND
FASCIA
7. STORM CLOUD (SW 6249)
HARDIE-BOARD SIDING
Item 3
Packet Page 221
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A3.4
LOT 7-10 NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
LOT 7-10 SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16” = 1’-0”
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 10
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 7
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 9
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 8
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 8
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 9
(N) 2 BED UNIT B
LOT 7
(N) 2 BED UNIT C
LOT 10
PL PL PL PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11"8'-10"8'-11"8'-0"8'-2"8'-2"6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"PLPLPLPLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11" 8'-10"8'-11" 8'-0"8'-2" 8'-2"
6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"PL PL PL PL PL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11"8'-10"8'-11"8'-0"8'-2"8'-2"6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"PLPLPLPLPL
TOP OF ROOF
25'-5"
TOP OF ROOF
25'-3"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
FINISHED FLOOR
0'-0"
8'-1"10'-11"8'-10"8'-11"8'-0"8'-2"8'-2"6'-9"19'-0"25'-3"25'-5"19'-0"19'-0"25'-3"19'-0"25'-3"Item 3
Packet Page 222
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A4.0
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 10AM VERNAL SOLSTICE - 10AM WINTER SOLSTICE - 10AM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 12PM
WINTER SOLSTICE - 3PM
VERNAL SOLSTICE - 12PM
VERNAL SOLSTICE - 3PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 12PM
SUMMER SOLSTICE - 3PM
Item 3
Packet Page 223
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.0
VIEW FROM peach STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A AND (E) RESIDENCE 4
Item 3
Packet Page 224
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.1
VIEW FROM TORO STREET - (N) 2 BED UNIT A
Item 3
Packet Page 225
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.2
VIEW FROM (N) DRIVEWAY - (E) RESIDENCE 5 AND (N) 2 BED RESIDENCES
Item 3
Packet Page 226
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.3
VIEW FROM toro STREET
Item 3
Packet Page 227
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.4
new 2 bedroom unit B
Item 3
Packet Page 228
539 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
805.541.1010
info@tenoverstudio.com
PEACH STREET
1137 PEACH ST, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DATE: 10/31/19 A5.5
new 2 bedroom unit C
Item 3
Packet Page 229
Item 3
Packet Page 230
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
Item 3
Packet Page 231
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
Item 3
Packet Page 232
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
Item 3
Packet Page 233
NI TUDY NVIRONMENTAL
.
woul .
1
,
250
1
5.
3, 19, 20 ☐☐☒☐
4, 61 ☐☒☐☐
4, 61 ☐☒☐☐
g
Item 3
Packet Page 234
NI TUDY NVIRONMENTAL
x
x
x
x
nt distinctive elements of San Luis Obispo’s cultural, educational, social,
with historic districts and/or resources. The ordinance establishes the City’s historical designations “Master List”, “Contri
r Properties”, and “Non ng Properties”, and references the use of the Secretary of Interior Standards,
h d
00s to 1920s, the district’s primary period of historical and architectural significance. Architectural styles in
.
’s
x
x
x
x
x .
that new structures “shall be designed to be architecturally compatible” with the prevailing historic character.
A Historic Pr Report was prepared by SWCA for the project and concluded that none of the project’s proposed
–
Item 3
Packet Page 235
NI TUDY NVIRONMENTAL
project’s proposed design features, either i
s would be .
per the City’s COSE.
.
3, .
less
.
und
3
3 less
.
1
b.
d.
g.
2
Item 3
Packet Page 236
NI TUDY NVIRONMENTAL
3
3
6.
21, 23,
24 ☐☐☒☐
21, 22,
23, 24 ☐☐☒☐
ity’s prim
Item 3
Packet Page 237
NI TUDY NVIRONMENTAL
would
,
.
on
.
n on surrounding
.
18.
5020.1(k
17, 18,
19 ☐☒☐☐
Item 3
Packet Page 238
NI TUDY NVIRONMENTAL
17, 18,
19 ☐☒☐☐
1.
b..
2.
resources, the level of significance of a project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and available project alternati
.
.
1 3
.
1 3.
1 3,
Item 3
Packet Page 239
Historic Preservation Report for
Redevelopment of APN 002-316-005
(Peach and Toro Streets),
San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo
County, California
MAY 2020
PREPARED FOR
City of San Luis Obispo
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Item 3
Packet Page 240
Item 3
Packet Page 241
HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT FOR
REDEVELOPMENT OF APN 002-316-005
(PEACH AND TORO STREETS),
SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Prepared by
Paula Juelke Carr, M.A.
SWCA Environmental Consultants
1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 27640.19
May 2020
Item 3
Packet Page 242
Item 3
Packet Page 243
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) has prepared this Historic Preservation Report to assist the
City of San Luis Obispo (City) by conducting this required review for a proposed residential infill project
on the parcel comprising 1137, 1143, 1151, and 1163 Peach Street and 771 Toro Street (Assessor’s Parcel
Number [APN] 002-316-005), in San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. The project is
located within the boundaries of the City-designated Mill Street Historic District and is flanked by
historic-period residences listed as contributing resources to the district. These resources constitute
historical resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City’s preservation
ordinance requires review of any new construction, additions, or alterations located within historic
districts. Specifically, the report evaluates the compatibility of the proposed project with the Mill Street
Historic District and also assesses the potential for the project to impact historical resources under CEQA.
The results of the evaluation are based on site visits, research on the development of the residential
neighborhood, and on the plans included in the October 31, 2019, Architectural Review Commission
package prepared by Ten Over Studio. This Historic Preservation Report concludes that, as presently
proposed, none of the project’s proposed design features constitutes, either individually or collectively, an
effect that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource – in this
instance defined as any or all of the adjacent contributing properties to the Mill Street Historic District or
the Mill Street Historic District as a whole – or cause the project to have a significant effect on the
environment (14 CCR § 15064.5[b]).
Similarly, none of the project’s proposed design features, either individually or collectively, would cause
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource (as defined above) such that that
the significance of the historical resource would be materially impaired (14 CCR § 15064.5[b][1]).
Item 3
Packet Page 244
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Item 3
Packet Page 245
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
iii
CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Regulatory Background ............................................................................................................................. 1
Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 2
Residential Development in San Luis Obispo ........................................................................................... 2
Garages and Driveways .......................................................................................................................... 4
Mill Street Historic District .................................................................................................................... 6
History of the Project Vicinity ................................................................................................................... 7
Evaluation Criteria for Consistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines ..................... 12
Assessment of Direct Impacts .................................................................................................................. 13
Assessment of Indirect Impacts ............................................................................................................... 13
Evaluation of Architectural Compatability ............................................................................................ 13
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 15
Tables
Table 1. Existing Residences on the Subject Parcel (APN 002-316-005) .................................................... 1
Figures
Figure 1. Overview of Peach Street contributing resources on the subject parcel. ....................................... 5
Figure 2. “Hollywood” driveway leading to a utilitarian garage between 1143 and 1151 Peach
Street (Google May 2019). .......................................................................................................... 5
Figure 3. “Hollywood” driveway leading to a utilitarian garage between 1151 and 1163 Peach
Street (Google May 2019). .......................................................................................................... 6
Figure 4. “Hollywood” driveway leading to utilitarian garage at 771 Toro Street (Google May
2019). ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 5. Mill Street Historic District (City of San Luis Obispo 2019). The subject parcel (APN
002-316-005), comprising more than one-third of Block 33, is indicated by the arrow. ............ 7
Figure 6. Detail of project area, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, 1909, Sheet 5. ............................. 8
Figure 7. Located on the subject parcel, 1137 Peach Street, constructed in 1906, is a contributing
resource to the Mill Street Historic District. ................................................................................ 8
Figure 8. Located on the subject parcel, 1143 Peach Street, constructed in 1906, is a contributing
resource to the Mill Street Historic District. ................................................................................ 9
Figure 9. Located on the subject parcel, 1151 Peach Street, constructed in 1915, is a contributing
resource to the Mill Street Historic District. ................................................................................ 9
Figure 10. Located on the subject parcel, 1163 Peach Street, constructed by 1926, is a contributing
resource to the Mill Street Historic District. .............................................................................. 10
Figure 11. Located on the subject parcel, 771 Toro Street, constructed by 1922, is a contributing
resource to the Mills Street Historic District. ............................................................................ 10
Figure 12. Project area, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, 1926, Sheet 12. Note presence and
absence of garages at the rear of four of the five contributing resources on the subject
parcel. A one-story secondary residence (arrow) is located at the center of Block 33. ............. 11
Item 3
Packet Page 246
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
iv
Figure 13. 1127 Peach Street, J. Maino House (adjacent to 1137 Peach) is a Master List property
built in 1906, with a garage in place at least by 1909................................................................ 11
Figure 14. 1128 Peach Street, Maino/Righetti House (directly across Peach Street from project) is a
Master List property built in 1910. ............................................................................................ 11
Figure 15. One-and-one-half story contributing property at 1168 Mill Street, adjacent to subject
parcel. ........................................................................................................................................ 12
Figure 16. This eight-unit cottage court at 219–221 West de la Guerra Street, Santa Barbara,
features early twentieth-century architectural detailing, abundant landscaping, and a
minimally intrusive Hollywood driveway leading to two four-bay garages at the rear
(Google March 2019). ............................................................................................................... 14
Item 3
Packet Page 247
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
1
INTRODUCTION
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) has prepared this Historic Preservation Report to assist the
City of San Luis Obispo (City) by conducting this required review for a proposed residential infill project
on the parcel comprising 1137, 1143, 1151, and 1163 Peach Street and 771 Toro Street (Assessor’s Parcel
Number [APN] 002-316-005), in San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. The project is
located within the boundaries of the City-designated Mill Street Historic District and is flanked by
historic-period residences listed as contributing resources to the district. These resources constitute
historical resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City’s preservation
ordinance requires review of any new construction, additions, or alterations located within historic
districts.
The proposed project would add five new two-story, single-family residences (each with a double garage
below the main living area) to the 37,483-square-foot parcel at the south corner of the intersection of
Peach and Toro Streets. The parcel is currently occupied by five single-family residences constructed
between 1906 and 1925. All five of the residences currently on-site are listed as contributing resources to
the Mill Street Historic District (City of San Luis Obispo 2016). The Toro Street property was designated
as a contributing resource in August 1983, and the Peach Street properties were designated in February
1985 (Table 1).
Table 1. Existing Residences on the Subject Parcel (APN 002-316-005)
Address Construction Date City Designation
1137 Peach Street 1906 Contributor, Mill Street Historic District
1143 Peach Street 1906 Contributor, Mill Street Historic District
1151 Peach Street 1915 Contributor, Mill Street Historic District
1163 Peach Street 1925 Contributor, Mill Street Historic District
771 Toro Street 1922 Contributor, Mill Street Historic District
As proposed, the project will not demolish, relocate, or alter the existing one-story residences but will
introduce new construction. SWCA has prepared this Historic Preservation Report to evaluate the
compatibility of the proposed project with the Mills Street Historic District and to assesses the potential
for the project to impact historical resources under CEQA.
REGULATORY BACKGROUND
The 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 provided for the
establishment of a Certified Local Government Program to encourage the direct participation of local
governments (in partnership with the State Office of Historic Preservation and National Park Service) in
the identification, evaluation, registration, and preservation of historic properties within local government
jurisdictions and to promote the integration of local preservation interests and concerns into local
planning and decision-making processes.
The City has a number of interrelated resources available to assist it in carrying out its mandates as a
Certified Local Government. Among these are:
• State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 1500 et seq.);
• City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.01);
Item 3
Packet Page 248
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
2
• City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 10229 [2010 Series]);
• City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines (adopted by City Council Resolution No.
9391 [2002 Series], amended May 2003, October 2004, March 2007, November 2007, and June
2010);
• The Cultural Heritage Committee (historic preservation advisory body to the City Council);
• City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement (Historic Resources Group 2013);
and
• City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Chapter 6: Conservation and Open Space Element
(adopted by City Council Resolution No. 10586 [2014 Series], last revised December 2014);
Section 3: Cultural Heritage.
METHODOLOGY
SWCA conducted a desktop review, windshield survey, and pedestrian survey of the Mill Street Historic
District to gain a general understanding of the area’s built environment and development history. Site-
specific research included a review of the project plan set included in the October 31, 2019, Architectural
Review Commission (ARC) package prepared by Ten Over Studio. Desktop research also included
review of the County of San Luis Obispo (County) Assessor and County Recorder online databases,
examination of microfilmed Sanborn maps at the City/County Library, and review of records and
newspaper articles available through Ancestry.com, GenealogyBank.com, Newspapers.com, and the
California Digital Newspaper Collection. The City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context
Statement (Historic Resources Group 2013) provided useful background on the factors influencing the
city’s residential development, including the rising popularity of automobiles. Important considerations in
assessing project compatibility with the Mill Street Historic District included the following:
• Character-defining features of the district;
• Master List, contributing, and non-contributing resources in the district;
• Dates of construction of contributing resources;
• Number and type of multi-story resources in the district; and
• Nature of resources in the interior of blocks.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN SAN LUIS OBISPO
Increasing “Americanization” of the County seat followed the severe drought of the mid-1860s, which
destroyed the cattle herds and economic base of the rancho era and led to the subdivision of rancho lands.
The town of San Luis Obispo also made a series of land grants within its own jurisdiction. A commercial
district (interspersed with frame residences) developed on either side of San Luis Obispo Creek, not far
from Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa but nonetheless generally removed from the older cluster of
adobe buildings in the immediate vicinity of the mission compound. A series of town improvements was
undertaken beginning in the latter 1860s, as reported in the San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context
Statement (Historic Resources Group 2013):
Item 3
Packet Page 249
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
3
Late 19th-Century Americanization & Town Settlement
Significant civic improvements included the construction of the first bridge across San
Luis Obispo Creek in 1868, followed by bridges across Mill, Court, Morro, Chorro,
Nipomo, and Broad Streets by 1871. The City also installed sidewalks and planted street
trees. To meet the increased demand for housing, additional tracts of land were purchased
and improved, and new subdivisions became part of the City. By the early 1880s, there
were approximately 3,000 people living within the City limits. By this time, gas and
water works had been installed and a fire company organized, and several bonds had
been issued to erect town buildings. In 1872, Dr. Hays, C. W. Dana, and M. Benrino
obtained a franchise for water works; the next year A. M. Loomis and Alfred Walker
bought the franchise and started to work on improvements. A small reservoir was built on
Murray Hill, about a mile and a half north of the town, and water was brought in a flume
from the upper San Luis Creek. In 1874, the San Luis Obispo Water Company was
formed. In 1876, a large reservoir was built in the Stenner Creek canyon. In the late 19th
century, the City embarked on significant upgrades to the sewer system, which previously
had largely been accommodated by San Luis Obispo Creek. In 1892, a sewer system was
installed, which was upgraded in 1899. At the same time, the City embarked on
improvements to San Luis Obispo Creek. Concrete retaining walls were added to help
control the creek, allowing for the expansion of commercial development along Higuera
Street (Historic Resources Group 2013:36–37).
Late 19th-Century Residential Development
Residential properties constructed in the last decades of the 19th century represent San
Luis Obispo’s establishment as a City. When the county was first organized, San Luis
Obispo was the only settlement in it, with a few small adobe buildings clustered around
the Mission. By the early 1850s, the main road running through the San Luis Obispo
pueblo ran northeast to southwest, crossing San Luis Obispo Creek below the Mission, at
the end of what is now Dana Street. The pueblo became part of the earliest
neighborhoods during Americanization in the late 19th century. Neighborhoods from this
period are located close to the downtown commercial center, and many have already been
recognized by the City as historic districts.
Although adobe construction was still common, by the 1860s, wood frame construction
was becoming more prevalent. Although San Luis Obispo has a collection of high style
residences constructed in the late 19th century, most wood frame residences in San Luis
Obispo during this period were being designed within the vernacular vocabulary. The
Mission Orchard Tract, which was laid out in 1888 on land that originally belonged to the
mission, is an example of a late 19th century neighborhood largely developed with more
modest housing, including cottages and Folk Victorian examples. This period also saw
the construction of prominent residences erected in architectural styles representative of
the period (Historic Resources Group 2013:42).
Most residences constructed in San Luis Obispo during this period were examples of
vernacular hipped roof cottages or Neo-classical cottages. There are also examples of
more elaborate, high style residences, although they are not the most prevalent type
during this period. In 1875, San Luis Obispo attorney De Guy Cooper wrote: We can
boast of some very fine private residences. Heretofore, the style of architecture has been
of a rather primitive nature; but latterly there has been a marked improvement in this
particular area, and buildings erected within the past year have been of a better nature,
and of a more permanent character. Residents who were building more opulent homes
Item 3
Packet Page 250
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
4
during this period often chose styles that were popular in other parts of the country,
including Queen Anne, Eastlake, and Italianate styles. These large two- and three-story
homes often had elaborate scrollwork and other decorative details. They were constructed
beginning in the 1870s, and these styles remained popular until the turn of the 20th
century. Local architects associated with this period include William Evans, Hilamon
Spencer Laird, W.C. Phillips, and Alfred Walker (Historic Resources Group 2013:45).1
Early 20th Century Residential Development
San Luis Obispo’s population continued to grow in the early 20th century. Residences
from this period range from small, vernacular cottages to more elaborate two-story
residences. There are a few examples of multi-family residential development in the City.
Toward the end of the period there was an increasing accommodation for the
automobile…[emphasis added].
During this period, residential architecture began to shift from the Victorian-era styles
imported from the east and new regional styles began to emerge. In California, the most
notable new residential architecture was inspired by the Arts and Crafts movement and
the development of the California bungalow, which was a simple, garden-oriented house
uniquely suited for the climate and lifestyle of the region (Historic Resources Group
2013:80).
Garages and Driveways
The advent of widespread automobile ownership brought with it the need for neighborhood
accommodations for the “machines,” including automobile storage:
Historically, as today, garages and outbuildings were service buildings which provided
storage and utility space. Garages came into vogue when the automobile replaced horses
as a primary form of transportation. Early garages were small, to house the less imposing
vehicles of early automotive history. They were detached from, and usually set behind or
to the side of the main house and were only one bay wide. As cars became more
common, garages began to be designed to match the houses they went with or were even
built as an integral part of the house” (City of Salem n.d.:2).
In historic districts, accessory structures—especially those visible from the street—often play a
subtle but important role in creating overall neighborhood character. They particularly help define
the setting, creating part of the visual rhythm of alternating prominent primary buildings and
more secluded secondary buildings, depending on their relative position on a given parcel. In the
1920s, during the time the majority of residential development in and around Peach and Toro
Streets was happening, the transition from horse-drawn vehicles had already occurred, although
not every household yet owned an automobile. As a storage structure, early garages in San Luis
Obispo, as elsewhere in the nation, were generally not elaborate. Because of safety issues, for
example “due to fear of its potential flammability, the garage was detached from the house and
located a distance from it, usually along an alley, if one existed . . . The location of the garage
itself moved as owners became less worried about the threat of flammability. During the 1920s,
1 De Guy Cooper, “Resources of San Luis Obispo County,” reprinted in A Vast Pictorial Domain: San Luis Obispo County in the
1870s, 1993, 17. Quoted in Robert C. Pavlik, “Historical Architectural Survey Report for the Cuesta Grade Project,” California
Department of Transportation, October 1994:41. The vernacular nature of most residential development during this period
indicates that most homes were designed without the use of an architect. The architect identified in this section is based on
information available in existing surveys; additional research should be conducted to identify other architects from this per iod.
Item 3
Packet Page 251
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
5
homeowners began to build garages to the side of their house” (Salt Lake City Historic
Preservation Commissioners 2012:Part II, 9:2).
Besides the garages themselves, the presence of driveways between houses helps mark the
introduction of garages in the Mills Street Historic District. On the 1000 block of Peach Street,
not every house has its own driveway (Figure 1). Where driveways do exist, the older forms are
so-called “Hollywood” or “ribbon” driveways: two parallel concrete strips flanking an unpaved
area, often planted with a narrow lawn (Figures 2 and 3). The contributing resource at 771 Toro
Street also features this form of early driveway (Figure 4).
Figure 1. Overview of Peach Street contributing resources on the subject parcel.
Figure 2. “Hollywood” driveway leading to a utilitarian garage between 1143 and 1151 Peach
Street (Google May 2019).
Item 3
Packet Page 252
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
6
Figure 3. “Hollywood” driveway leading to a utilitarian garage between 1151 and 1163 Peach
Street (Google May 2019).
Figure 4. “Hollywood” driveway leading to utilitarian garage at 771 Toro
Street (Google May 2019).
Mill Street Historic District
The Mill Street Historic District comprises two full city blocks (38 and 42) and portions of eight others
(32, 33, 34, 37, 39, 40, 41, and 43) (Figure 5). As summarized on the City’s website, the Mill Street
Historic District centers on the “iconic tree-lined 1300 block of Mill Street . . . The neighborhood includes
a wide variety of early 20th century residential styles including Tudor Revival, Craftsman, Mission
Revival, Prairie, Colonial Revival, and Shingle” (City of San Luis Obispo 2019). Even beyond the
boundaries of the historic district—and especially along Santa Rosa Street—the neighborhood is
characterized by older residences, though many have been converted to professional offices and other
commercial uses.
Item 3
Packet Page 253
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
7
Figure 5. Mill Street Historic District (City of San Luis Obispo 2019). The
subject parcel (APN 002-316-005), comprising more than one-third of Block
33, is indicated by the arrow.
HISTORY OF THE PROJECT VICINITY
The legal description of the subject parcel is based on the 1870 Map of the Town of San Luis Obispo
(Harris and Ward 1870). The Town’s Board of Trustees designated the survey as the official map of the
town, and it became an important instrument in the ongoing attempts to clarify existing land ownership,
often dating from the preceding Mexican era, and to regularize future grants of lots within the town limits.
The subject parcel was part of Block 33, as depicted on the 1870 official map. As indicated on the modern
Assessor map, Block 33 has not been part of any subsequent subdivision. The subject parcel has been
intact since at least 1906, when the vacant property was acquired by Almatia Heald:
That San Luis Obispo is rapidly forging to the front, and that her citizens have confidence
in the future is best evidenced by the numerous transactions being made in real estate.
The following long list of sales have just been closed by the A. F. Fitzgerald agency: . . .
To Mrs. Almatia Heald, mother of Professor Heald of the Polytechnic school, four fine
lots on the corner of Peach and Toro Streets, a fine piece of property 200 feet on Peach
Street with a frontage of 150 feet on Toro Street, and adjoining the property recently sold
to Mrs. Hill (San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune 1906:4).
Mrs. Heald died 4 years later (San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 1911:1), but the houses at 1137 and 1143
Peach Street—the first on the parcel—were built during her tenure (Figures 6 through 8). The 1909
Sanborn map set is the first in the San Luis Obispo series to document the two houses built in 1906, at
1137 Peach Street (Figure 7) and 1143 Peach Street (Figure 8). At this early date, there is one small shed
but no garages on the subject parcel.
Item 3
Packet Page 254
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
8
Figure 6. Detail of project area, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map,
1909, Sheet 5.
The one-story residences at 1137 Peach Street and 1143 Peach Street (Figures 7 and 8, respectively) share
several architectural details, suggesting they were designed and built by the same architect or carpenter-
builder. Both houses feature some of the distinctive elements of a late Queen Anne cottage style, such as
an asymmetrical façade, a front-facing gable pediment, broad cornices, drip molding over elongated
windows and front door, scrollwork, and elaborate porch railings. Such cottages pre-date the Craftsman
bungalow. The houses also share a similar setting, with the same low concrete wall, curving in to meet the
short flight of concrete steps and sidewalk. At the end of the sidewalks, and because the houses sit on
raised foundations, a short flight of wooden steps provides access to the porch. The houses lack driveways
and garages, as they were built before the automobile age had fully arrived in neighborhoods.
Figure 7. Located on the subject parcel, 1137 Peach Street, constructed in
1906, is a contributing resource to the Mill Street Historic District.
Item 3
Packet Page 255
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
9
Figure 8. Located on the subject parcel, 1143 Peach Street, constructed in
1906, is a contributing resource to the Mill Street Historic District.
The first reference to a residence at 1151 Peach Street is a want ad: “For Rent – New six room house with
all modern conveniences. 1151 Peach St.” (San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 1915:7). The house is a
traditional Craftsman bungalow, with a well-organized façade, raised foundation, and a side-gabled
roofline behind a prominent and decorative front-facing gable. The gable is supported on battered
columns sitting atop bulky piers. The small tiered elements flanking the front steps are also typical
Craftsman porch details. Rafter tails and brackets are clearly visible at the eave line. The curved porch
features a low balustrade.
Figure 9. Located on the subject parcel, 1151 Peach Street, constructed in 1915, is a contributing
resource to the Mill Street Historic District.
The first reference to a residence at 1163 Peach Street appeared in the social column of the local
newspaper: “Mrs. Geo. Hamilton and Mrs. F. G. Wetzel of Paso Robles were visitors Wednesday in San
Luis Obispo. They spent the evening as guests at the R. L. Dempsey home, 1163 Peach street, while
Item 3
Packet Page 256
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
10
Messrs. Hamilton and Wetzel attended the banquet at Milestone Motel” (San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram
1927:7). The residence is a less typical example of a Craftsman style house, partly because of the smooth
stucco wall coating rather than wood siding, but neverthless shows several distinctive architectural
hallmarks of the style, including the low side-gabled roofline with a very prominent front-facing gable
supported on heavy square pillars atop square piers, with the characteristic tiered elements flanking the
concrete steps. The porch here is also curved, partly enclosed by a low wall.
Figure 10. Located on the subject parcel, 1163 Peach Street, constructed by 1926, is a contributing
resource to the Mill Street Historic District.
The first reference to a residence at 771 Toro Street appeared in a “Local News Notes” column: “H. H.
Speers and family of Pismo have moved to this place and taken the house at 771 Toro street” (San Luis
Obispo Daily Telegram 1922:5). With its stucco walls, hipped roofline, and lack of a front-facing
ornamental gable, it does retain the porch roof set on pillars and piers and the low porch wall. It is
interesting that in 1934 it was advertised for rent as a “six-room modern, unfurnished stucco home” (San
Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 1934:7).
Figure 11. Located on the subject parcel, 771 Toro Street, constructed by 1922, is a contributing
resource to the Mills Street Historic District.
Item 3
Packet Page 257
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
11
The 1926 Sanborn map set is the first in the San Luis Obispo series to document all five of the houses on
the subject parcel (Figure 12). At this date, it is more common than not for residential properties in what
is now the Mill Street Historic District to have garages, although the 1906 residence at 1137 Peach Street
still lacks a garage.
Figure 12. Project area, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company map, 1926, Sheet
12. Note presence and absence of garages at the rear of four of the five
contributing resources on the subject parcel. A one-story secondary
residence (arrow) is located at the center of Block 33.
In the Mill Street Historic District, it is typical for houses to have been built on raised foundations, with at
least two points of articulation to accommodate the change in grade from the street to the front door—one
from the street sidewalk to the property sidewalk (or from the curb to the property sidewalk) and one from
that sidewalk to the front porch. The front porch, generally recessed or sheltered, becomes a destination
and a focal point in the design, approached in a measured way because of the setback on the parcel. The
two Master List properties adjacent to the project, though built in widely divergent styles, nevertheless
conform to this same design approach from street to door (Figures 13 and 14).
Figure 13. 1127 Peach Street, J. Maino
House (adjacent to 1137 Peach) is a
Master List property built in 1906, with a
garage in place at least by 1909.
Figure 14. 1128 Peach Street, Maino/Righetti House
(directly across Peach Street from project) is a
Master List property built in 1910.
Item 3
Packet Page 258
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
12
San Luis Obispo Sanborn maps showing the development of City Block 33 through 1926 document that
the central portion of the block (that is, the rear yards of the various residences) did not feature any large-
scale structures, although there is one small secondary residence (a one-story frame building) at the rear
of a house on Mill Street. Historic-period two-story properties in the Mill Street Historic District tend to
be concentrated in the 1200 and 1300 blocks of Mill Street. Among these are Master List properties as
well as contributing properties; several modern and altered structures are also present in the district,
although these are non-contributing resources. More generally distributed throughout the district are
historic-period houses of one-and-one-half stories, featuring side-gabled rooflines with prominent
dormers (Figure 15).
Figure 15. One-and-one-half story contributing property at 1168 Mill Street,
adjacent to subject parcel.
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE
CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION GUIDELINES
The City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (Guidelines; City of San Luis
Obispo 2010), as amended, is one of many documents adopted by the City to protect San Luis Obispo’s
myriad historic resources. The intent of the Guidelines is that new structures “shall be designed to be
architecturally compatible” with the prevailing historic character, “as measured by their consistency with
the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard
setbacks” (Section 3.2.1) of “nearby historic resources” (Section 3.2.2). “New development should not
sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic
architectural character of historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be
developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district” (Section
3.2.2). New structures, however, “are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or seek to create
the illusion that a new building is historic” (Section 3.2.1).
Item 3
Packet Page 259
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
13
ASSESSMENT OF DIRECT IMPACTS
As proposed, the project will not demolish, relocate, or alter the existing one-story residences but will
introduce new construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in direct impacts to adjacent
contributing properties to the Mill Street Historic District or the Mill Street Historic District as a whole.
ASSESSMENT OF INDIRECT IMPACTS
None of the project’s proposed design features constitutes, either individually or collectively, an effect
that would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource – in this
instance defined as any or all of the adjacent contributing properties to the Mill Street Historic District or
the Mill Street Historic District as a whole – or cause the project to have a significant effect on the
environment (14 CCR § 15064.5[b]).
EVALUATION OF ARCHITECTURAL COMPATABILITY
The issue of architectural compatibility is the primary issue in determining compliance with Sections
3.2.1 and 3.2.2 of the Guidelines. The city is currently experiencing a rapid period of growth that includes
numerous development projects in all stages of planning review and construction. While this growth spurt
is part of an overall trend throughout California, it often takes place within the milieu of scores of existing
adjacent or nearby one-story, historic-period frame residences on their original lots.
The project area has been relatively stable over the course of several decades, with new construction
generally conforming to styles popular at the time. Although the district does include some of the most
impressive high-style late nineteenth-century homes in the city, it is primarily a district of early twentieth-
century homes and is still notably homogeneous in character. As elsewhere in the older neighborhoods of
San Luis Obispo, examples of the popular one-story late Queen Anne-style cottage and one-story
Craftsman bungalow are both ubiquitous in the Mill Street Historic District and present on the subject
parcel itself.
Similarly to the discussion above, none of the project’s proposed design features, either
individually or collectively, would cause substantial adverse change in the significance of an
historical resource (as defined above) such that the significance of the historical resource would
be materially impaired (14 CCR § 15064.5[b][1]).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Though none of the project’s proposed design features, either individually or collectively, would cause
substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource such that the significance of the
historical resource would be materially impaired, SWCA makes the following recommendations to
improve compatibility with the Mill Street Historic District:
• Implement the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (NPS
2017).
• Consider a cottage court approach to the design layout, with Hollywood driveways or similar
minimally paved driveway treatments (Figure 16).
• Consider one-and-one-half story residences, with communal garage units at the rear of the
driveway.
Item 3
Packet Page 260
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
14
• Do not substitute vinyl siding or windows for genuine wood siding and windows. Do not
substitute concrete “bricks” or pavers for clay-body bricks.
Figure 16. This eight-unit cottage court at 219–221 West de la Guerra Street, Santa Barbara,
features early twentieth-century architectural detailing, abundant landscaping, and a minimally
intrusive Hollywood driveway leading to two four-bay garages at the rear (Google March 2019).
Item 3
Packet Page 261
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
15
REFERENCES CITED
City of Salem
n.d. Resource Guide: Garages & Outbuildings. City of Salem (Oregon) Community Development
Department. Available at: https://www.cityofsalem.net/CityDocuments/historic-buildings-
garages-and-outbuildings-resource-guide.pdf. Accessed October 11, 2019.
City of San Luis Obispo
2010 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. November 2010.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144. Accessed October 11,
2019.
2016 Contributing List Historic Resources. Updated December 28, 2016. City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=14557. Accessed October 11, 2019.
2019 Historic and Archaeological Preservation, webpage. City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department. Available at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/historic-and-archeological-preservation. Accessed
October 11, 2019.
Harris, R. R. and H. C. Ward
1870 Map of the Town of San Luis Obispo. Filed with the County of San Luis Obispo in 1878. San
Luis Obispo County Maps Book A, pg. 168.
Historic Resources Group
2013 City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement. Prepared for City of San Luis
Obispo. September 30, 2013. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4042. Accessed October 11, 2019.
McAlester, Virginia Savage
2015 A Field Guide to American Houses (Revised): The Definitive Guide to Identifying and
Understanding America's Domestic Architecture. November 10. New York, NY: Alfred A.
Knopf.
National Park Service (NPS)
2017 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with
Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Technical
Preservation Services. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-
2017.pdf. Accessed October 14, 2019.
Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commissioners
2012 A Preservation Handbook for Historic Residential Properties & Districts in Salt Lake City.
Salt Lake City (Utah) Historic Landmark Commissioners. Available at:
http://www.slcdocs.com/historicpreservation/GuideRes/ResidentialGuidelines.pdf. Accessed
October 11, 2019.
Item 3
Packet Page 262
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
16
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
1909 San Luis Obispo (sheet 5). July 1909. On file at the City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department and at the San Luis Obispo City/County Library. Accessed October
14, 2019.
1926 San Luis Obispo (sheet 12). April 1926. Microfilm housed at San Luis Obispo City/County
Library. Accessed October 14, 2019.
San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram
1911 Mrs Almatia Heald Died Last Saturday. San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 17 July 1911:1.
Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed October 9, 2019.
1915 For Rent. San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 10 September 1915:7. Available at:
https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed October 9, 2019.
1922 Here from Pismo. San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 31 August 1922:5. Available at:
https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed October 9, 2019.
1927 Overmountain Guests. San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 21 January 1927:7. Available at:
https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed October 9, 2019.
1934 For Rent. San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram 10 March 1934:7. Available at:
https://www.genealogybank.com. Accessed October 9, 2019.
San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune
1906 Going to the Front: The Fitzgerald Real Estate Agency Reports a Number of Sales. San Luis
Obispo Morning Tribune 27 February 1906:4. Available at: https://www.genealogybank.com.
Accessed October 9, 2019.
Item 3
Packet Page 263
APN 002-316-005 (Peach and Toro Streets) Historic Preservation Report
17
This page intentionally left blank.
Item 3
Packet Page 264