HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - ARCH-0568-2020 (1137 Peach)
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
The Regular Meeting of the
Cultural Heritage
Committee
will resume shortly
*Recess in Progress*
Item #3
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
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.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.
Staff Presentation By:
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
________________________________________________________________
Recommendation:
Make a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding the project’s
consistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Focus of Review
22
CHC review due to:
◼New residential development within an historic district
and on a property containing contributing historic
resources
CHC Purview:
◼Review the proposed project for its consistency with
the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines.
◼Review the Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural
Resources sections of the Initial Study
Project Description
24
◼Five new two-story, single-family structure
▪Craftsman in character
▪Two-car garages
▪Retention of five existing structures
▪Common accessway extending from Toro Street for
access to new garages and connect existing
driveways.
◼Common interest subdivision dividing the property into ten
lots
Mill Street Historic District
26
◼Many different architectural styles, including Neo -classic
Row House, Victorian, Tudor Revival, Mission Revival,
and Craftsman Bungalow.
◼Site features include:
▪Consistent street yard setbacks of 20 feet or more
▪Front entries oriented toward street, with prominent
walk, stairs and entry porches
▪Front building facades oriented parallel to street
Mill Street Historic District
28
◼Predominant architectural features include:
▪One-and occasionally two-story houses
▪Mostly gable and hip roof types
▪Traditional fenestration, such as double-hung, wood
sash windows, ornamental front doors, wood screen
doors
▪Ornamental roof features, including prominent facias,
bargeboards, prominent pediments or cornices
▪Painted wood or stucco surface
▪material, including siding and molding
Environmental Review
30
◼Project requires an environmental review to subdivide into
ten residential lots. An Initial Study with Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been recommended for adoption.
◼Review of Cultural Resources:
▪Found the project would have less than significant
impact on historic resources.
▪Found the project would have less than significant
impact on archaeological resources or human remains,
w/ mitigation.
◼Tribal Cultural Resources:
▪Found the project would have less than significant
impact on Tribal Historical Resources, w/ mitigations.
Applicant Presentation By:
Joel Snyder, Ten Over Studio
Item #3 (continued)
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM
ARCH-0568-2019 (1137 Peach)