The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-27-2020 CHC Agenda Packet City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Agenda Cultural Heritage Committee Monday, April 27, 2020 Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment. Additionally, members of the Architecture Review Commission (ARC) are allowed to attend the meeting via teleconference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present. Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are encouraged to participate in ARC meetings in the following ways: 1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view: • Televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20 • View a livestream of the meeting online at: https://www.slocity.org/channel20 • View the Webinar (recommended for the best viewing quality): ➢ Registration URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6780774376714675212 ➢ Webinar ID: 924-260-491 ➢ Telephone Attendee: (213) 929-4232; Audio Access Code: 873-859-127 2. Public Comment - The ARC will still be accepting public comment for items within their purview. Public comment can be submitted in the following ways: • Mail or Email Public Comment ➢ Received by 3:00 PM the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM and up until public comment is opened on the item – Limited to one page emailed to cityclerk@slocity.org and will be read aloud during the public comment period on the item specified. • Verbal Public Comment ➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to CHC Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence. ➢ During the meeting – Comments can be submitted up until the Public Comment period is opened for the item when joining via the webinar (instructions above). Please contact the City Clerk’s office at cityclerk@slocity.org to more information. All comments submitted will be placed into the administrative record of the meeting. City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Agenda Cultural Heritage Committee 5:30 PM REGULAR MEETING TELECONFERENCE Broadcasted via Webinar CALL TO ORDER: Chair Haydu ROLL CALL: Committee Members Shannon Larrabee, Glen Matteson, James Papp, Eva Ulz, and Chair Damon Haydu. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee on items not on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 1. Elect the Chair and Vice Chair to serve a one-year term. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 2. Approve the minutes of the January 27, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting. CONSENT AGENDA NOTE: Matters appearing on the Consent Agenda are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Committee pull an item for discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Committee chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute time limit. The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director, another advisory body, or City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed. San Luis Obispo – Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of April 27, 2020 Page 3 3. Review of a historic significance determination request to remove the property at 1156 Peach Street from the City’s Contributing historic properties list (this action i s not subject to environmental review); Project Address: 1156 Peach Street; Case #: HIST-0036-2020; Zone: R-2-H; Ivan Lapidus, owner and applicant. (Walter Oetzell) Recommendation: Make a recommendation to the City Council recommending the City Council remove the property from the Contributing list of Historic Resources. 4. Review of a Mills Act Historical Property Contract for the Virginia Levering Latimer House at 858 Toro Street (this action is not subject to environmental review); Project address: 858 Toro Street; Case #: HIST-0048-2020; Zone: R-2-H; Eric Blair, owner/applicant. (Walter Oetzell) Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the City Council recommending that the City enter into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NOTE: The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director, another advisory body, or City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed. 5. Review of a proposed two-story residential unit, garage, and workshop on a Contributing Historic property (Categorically exempt from environmental review); Project Address: 1140 Iris; Case #: ARCH-0022-2020; Zone: R-2-S; Dave and Karen Rucker, applicant. (Walter Oetzell) Recommendation: Make a recommendation to the Community Development Director regarding the project’s consistency with the Historic Preservation Ordinance. 6. Review of a historic significance determination request to remove the property at 778, 782, 786, and 790 Higuera from the City’s Contributing historic properties list (this action is not subject to environmental review); Project address: 778, 782, 786, & 790 Higuera Street; Case #: HIST-0127-2020; Zone: C-D-H; Randy Russom, RRM Design Group, applicant. (Walter Oetzell) Recommendation: Make a recommendation to the City Council recommending the City Council remove the property from the Contributing list of Historic Resources. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 7. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates San Luis Obispo – Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of April 27, 2020 Page 4 ADJOURNMENT The next Rescheduled Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting will be on Monday, May 18, 2020 at 5:30 p.m., via teleconference. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such requests to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee are available on the City’s website, http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies. You may also contact the Community Development Department, by phone, from 8 AM to 3 PM at (805) 781-7150. Minutes - DRAFT CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Monday, January 27, 2020 Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, January 27, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Vice Chair Brajkovich. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Shannon Larrabee, Glen Matteson, James Papp, Eva Ulz, and Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, Absent: Chair Damon Haydu Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille and City Clerk Teresa Purrington PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None --End of Public Comment-- Vice Chair Brajkovich stated that there was a request to re-order the agenda as Member Ulz needed to leave the meeting early. The items will be heard in the following order: Item 2 Item 3 Item 1 CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1.Approve minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee meetings of October 28, 2019 and November 18, 2019. PUBLIC COMMENT None --End of Public Comment— Item 2 Packet Page 1 DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of January 27, 2020 Page 2 ACTION: UPON MONTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER ULZ, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LARRABEE, CARRIED 5-0-1 (CHAIR HAYDU ABSENT), to approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of October 28, 2019 with the following correction: • Page 3 – 6th bullet point: o Either the Murray Abode or the Heyt Hyde Adobe could become a café ACTION: UPON MONTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER ULZ, CARRIED 5-0-1 (WITH CHAIR HAYDU ABSENT), to approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of November 18, 2019. with the following added comments: • The HABS related mitigation measure needs to include a description of the standard to be used. • The EIR should show the quarry area with an outline of proposed development. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS Member Papp recused himself as he prepared the report for the project, however made no money for preparing the report. Member Papp left the room at 5:39 PM 2. 858 Toro. Review of a request to designate the single-family dwelling at 858 Toro Street (Virginia Levering Latimer House) as a Master List Resource and include the property in the City’s inventory of Historic Resources (categorically exempt from environmental review); Project Address: 858 Toro; Case #: HIST-0701-2019; Zone: R-2-H; Eric & Jaqueline Blair, owner/applicant. Associate Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded to Committee inquiries. Eric Blair, owner thanked the Committee for considering their request. and responded to Member inquiries. Public Comment None --End of Public Comment-- ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LARRABEE, CARRIED 4-0-1-1 (CHAIR HAYDU ABSENT AND MEMBER PAPP RECUSED), to designate the property as a Master List Resource and include the property in the City’s inventory of Historic Resources. Member Utz left the meeting at 5:50 PM. Item 2 Packet Page 2 DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of January 27, 2020 Page 3 3. 660 Pismo. Review of a request to remove the accessory office building at 660 Pismo Street (behind St. Stephens Episcopal Church) from the Contributing List of Historic Resources in the City’s inventory of Historic Resources (categorically exempt from environmental review); Project Address: 660 Pismo; Case #: HIST-0845-2019; Zone: R-2-H; St. Stephens Episcopal Church, owner/applicant. Associate Planner Walter Oetzell informed the Committee that this item has been withdrawn from consideration because the building address at 660 Pismo Street was designated in 1983 as “Non-Contributing,” has not been designated as a Contributing List Resource since that time, and was erroneously included in subsequent published lists of the City’s Historic Resources. PRESENTATION 4. Annual Review of the Cultural Heritage Committee Bylaws City Clerk Teresa Purrington presented the Cultural Heritage Committee Bylaws, last adopted February 6, 2018, and responded to Committee inquiries. PUBLIC COMMENT None --End of Public Comment— ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LARRABEE, CARRIED 4-0-2 (WITH MEMBER UTZ AND CHAIR HAYDU ABSENT), to approve the changes to the Bylaws as proposed in the attachment. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 24, 2020 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2020 Item 2 Packet Page 3 A d vi s o r y B o d y H a n d b o o k F e b r u a r y 6 , 2 0 1 8 C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o 1 | P a g e F. Cultural Heritage CommitteeCommission Bylaws (A) ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE The Cultural Heritage Committee Historic Preservation Commission (CHCHPC) promotes the preservation of architectural, archaeological, historical and cultural resources in San Luis Obispo., by: As a City Council established advisory body and a historic preservation commission of a Certified Local Government, in partnership with State of California Office of Historic Preservation and National Park Service, its roles are mandated by the City ordinance and guidelines and Certified Local Government Requirements for Certification. 1. Helping the public pursue cultural resource preservation projects. 2. Sponsoring educational programs and research which improves our understanding of the community’s history and archaeology. 3. On request, commenting on the effects of public and private actions on community cultural resources. 4. Helping with the administration of City-sponsored benefit programs. ARTICLE 2. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS The functioning of the Cultural Heritage Committee Historic Preservation Commission and all of its actions and decisions shall be in compliance with the provisions of the Advisory Body Handbook and as established by Council Resolution. ARTICLE 3. MEMBERSHIP 1. The CHC HPC will have seven members appointed by the City Council. Members must shall be residents and registered voters of the City,. Except that the Council may make appointments of up to two persons with desired professional expertise in cultural resources who are residents and registered voters of the county. All members must have a demonstrated interest, competence, or knowledge in historic preservation. At least two HPC members are encouraged to be appointed from among professionals in the disciplines of history, architecture, architectural history, planning, pre-historic and historic archeology, folklore, cultural anthropology, curation, conservation, and landscape architecture or related disciplines, such as urban planning, American studies, American civilization, or cultural geography, to the extent that such professionals are available in the community. HPC membership may also include lay members. 2. Each HPC member is required to attend at least one informational or educational meeting, seminar, workshop, or conference per year that pertains directly to the work and functions of the commission and would be approvable by the state. Commission members will arrange this in collaboration with and with the approval of the Commission’s staff liaison and Community Development Department and will not be required to underwrite the expense themselves. 1. If possible, membership of the Committee should include a person knowledgeable in local history, a person with training or experience in structural rehabilitation, a person knowledgeable in local archaeology, and a person with knowledge of architecture. Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color: Black Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment:Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5" Formatted: Font: 12 pt Formatted: Font: 12 pt, Font color: Auto Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 12 pt Formatted: Normal, Justified, Right: 0", No bullets ornumbering, Tab stops: Not at 0.6" Item 2 Packet Page 4 A d vi s o r y B o d y H a n d b o o k F e b r u a r y 6 , 2 0 1 8 C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o 2 | P a g e 2. If possible, the Committee should include one resident from each of the five Historical Preservation Districts created but the Council is not limited to this district residency requirement when making appointments. ARTICLE 4. TERMS OF APPOINTMENT Members shall be appointed by the City Council for an initial term of a maximum of four years and may be reappointed for additional terms, not exceeding a total of two consecutive four-year terms. ARTICLE 5. OFFICERS 1. A Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be elected by the CommitteeCommission at its first meeting in April for one-year terms. No person may serve in the office of Chairperson or Vice- Chairperson for more than two consecutive terms. 2. The Chairperson shall preside over all CommitteeCommission meetings, vote on all matters, appoint all subcommittees, call special meetings, and submit an annual report and budget to the CommitteeCommission for approval and presentation to the City Council and an annual report to the State Office of Historic Preservation. 3. The Vice-Chairperson shall serve in the absence or incapacity of the Chairperson and perform such other duties as requested by the Chair. ARTICLE 6. MEETINGS 1. The Committee Commission shall hold a regular meeting each month. All meetings shall be open to the public. Regular meetings shall be held at 5:30 p.m. on the fourth Monday of each month in the City Council Hearing Room, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. 2. A quorum shall consist of a majority of the established members. 3. All action of the Committee Commission shall be decided by a majority vote or consensus of the quorum directed through the Chairperson. 4. Minutes of each meeting shall be forwarded to the City Council and be available as a public record. 5. The Chairperson or a quorum majority of the CommitteeCommission may call a special meeting, provided that all public notice requirements are met. 6. All CommitteeCommission meetings shall be conducted according to City practices, customs, and policies. Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, may be used as a guideline. 7. All members present must vote, except when a member declares a conflict of interest. Any member declaring a conflict of interest shall not vote or participate in any related Item 2 Packet Page 5 A d vi s o r y B o d y H a n d b o o k F e b r u a r y 6 , 2 0 1 8 C i t y o f S a n L u i s O b i s p o 3 | P a g e deliberations or action of the CommitteeCommission. ARTICLE 7. ABSENCES AND RESIGNATIONS 1. If a member fails to attend three consecutive regular meetings or a total of six regular meetings within any 12 months, the member shall automatically be considered for replacement. The Chairperson of the Committee Commission shall inform the Council of such a situation and explain any special circumstances. 2. Committee Commission members are responsible for notifying the Chairperson or the Secretary in advance when an absence is anticipated. 3. If a member needs to resign from the CommitteeCommission, the member shall immediately direct a letter to the City Council with copies forwarded to the CommitteeCommission Chairperson and City Clerk. ARTICLE 8. SUBCOMMITTEES Subcommittees shall be appointed, as needed, by the Chairperson. Subcommittees may include non-CommitteeCommission members who shall have no voting power. ARTICLE 9. AMENDMENTS Bylaw amendments shall be submitted for Council approval by an affirmative vote of the members present at a regular meeting of the CommitteeCommission, provided that such amendments shall have been discussed by the CommitteeCommission on the agenda of at least two meetings prior to the vote. The members shall receive the proposed amendments at least 10 days prior to the first meeting. Item 2 Packet Page 6 Meeting Date: April 27, 2020 Item Number: 3 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Historic significance determination for property currently on the City’s Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. ADDRESS: 1156 Peach Street BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner Phone: 781-7593 FILE #: HIST-0036-2020 E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner 1.0 BACKGROUND The owner of the property at 1156 Peach Street has applied for a determination of the historical significance of the property, requesting that the property be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. An evaluation of the property1 and its eligibility for historic listing has been prepared by Charles Crotser Architect, AIA to inform consideration of this request (see Attachment 1). Consideration of this request is being referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for recommendation to the City Council, as provided in § 14.01.030 (B) (2) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 Site and Setting The property is a residential parcel on the north side of Pacific Street, just west of Toro Street, within the Mill Street Historic District. The neighborhood is characterized by modest single-family dwellings built in the early 20th Century (see description of district, Attachment 2). Within 300 feet of the subject property there are 18 Contributing List Properties and 2 Master List Properties (J. Maino House at 1127 Peach and Maino/Righetti House at 1128 Peach). The site is developed with a single-family dwelling and detached accessory structure, estimated to have been built between 1909 and 19262 (see Figure 1). The building exhibits characteristics of the Residential Vernacular style (see 1 Charles Crotser Architect, AIA, Historic Resource Evaluation: 1156 Peach Street, San Luis Obispo, California (January 2020) 2 Ibid., pg. 5: 1909 Sanborn Map does not depict buildings; Buildings appear on 1926 Sanborn Map Figure 1: 1156 Peach Street Item 3 Packet Page 7 HIST-0036-2020 (1156 Peach) Page 2 Attachment 3): simple houses or cottages with little or no distinguishing decorative features, characterized by their simplicity and lack of any characteristics of recogni zable styles. City records3 provide sparse information about the property, summarizing the architectural style as “Modified Plain Cottage” (see Attachment 4). 2.2 Historic Listing Historic preservation policies are set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s General Plan. Significant historic and architectural resources are to be preserved and rehabilitated, and their demolition, or substantial change to them, is to be avoided (COSE § 3.3). The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01) implements these policies. Property may be designated as a Contributing List resource where a building on it maintains its historic and architectural character, and contributes, by itself or in conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole,4 and satisfies at least one of the historic significance criteria listed in § 14.01.070. The subject property first appears as a “Contributing Property”5 in the listing of properties attached (as “Exhibit C”) to Resolution 6424 adopted in April 1988, establishing a comprehensive listing of historic properties within the City. 3.0 EVALUATION The Historic Resource Evaluation prepared for this property by Charles Crotser Architect, AIA, (Attachment 1) evaluates the residence and accessory structure against the Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing provided in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.6 The author concludes that the although the residence on the property retains a large measure of its integrity, no evidence was found that the buildings satisfy listing criteria to a degree warranting designation as a Contributing List Resource: “…this evaluation found no compelling evidence of architectural importance of this building through a connection with person, important historical events, historical context, or as a community or neighborhood landmark.” 3.1 Criteria for Historic Resource Listing In order to be eligible for designation, a resource must exhibit a high level of historic integrity and satisfy at least one of the evaluation criteria listed in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Ordinance also provides that, while it is the general intent that property not be removed from historic listing, property may be removed if the structure on it is found to no longer meet eligibility (historic significance) criteria for listing (§ 14.01.060 (C)). In evaluating the historic significance of this building, the Commission should consider whether, and to what 3 Architectural Worksheet; CDD Historic Property Record (“Yellow File”) for 1156 Peach 4 See Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 for definition of Contributing List Resource or Property 5 As defined in the listing (Exhibit “C”) attached to Resolution 6424, a Contributing Property is defined as: A structure built before 1941 that has retained its original architectural style and, when viewed in the context of its surroundings, contributes to the historic character of the area. 6 Crotser, pp. 6-8. Item 3 Packet Page 8 HIST-0036-2020 (1156 Peach) Page 3 degree, it satisfies these criteria. For convenience, these criteria have been provided for reference as Attachment 5 to this report. Architectural Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (A)) Style and Design. As noted above, the residence on this property can be described as an example of the Residential Vernacular Style: a simple style lacking characteristics of other recognizable styles (see Attachment 3). The Crotser evaluation notes that the building does not represent a unique example of architecture for the area, and does not exhibit significant or distinctive features that distinguish it from other buildings in the area.7 Architect. The evaluation provided includes a search of permit records related to the construction of the buildings on the site, which provided no indication of their architect or builder. Historic Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (B)) Person or Event. Similarly, the literature search performed for the evaluation did not uncover evidence of any association of the property with persons or events significant to local history.8 There is no evidence that the property was associated with any famous or “first-of-its-kind” event and its construction is not considered to be a notably important, unique, or distinctly interesting contribution to the City. The home can be associated with early residential development of the City, but this does not constitute a notable early, first, or major pattern of local history elevating the structure to the level of historic significance. Integrity The Crotser evaluation notes that apart from minor modifications and routine wear and tear commensurate with the age of the structure, much of the original form and basic character of the dwelling have been retained.9 Nevertheless, the retained integrity of the structure does not rise to a level that would, alone, qualify the building for historical listing. 3.2 Conclusion As described in the Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Charles Crotser Architect, AIA, for this application, the buildings on the property do not appear to possess notable historic significance under the City’s Criteria for Historic Resource Listing. Their architectural style is not particularly rare, they do not exhibit stylistic purity, and are not associated with notable architects or craftsmen. The property is not strongly associated with persons prominent in history, nor with unique events or patterns of history. Because the property and the structures on it do not appear to be important in contributing to the historic character of the City as a whole and do not meet significance criteria, the Committee could recommend that the City Council remove the property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. 7 Ibid. pg. 5 8 Ibid. pg. 5 9 Ibid. pg. 7 Item 3 Packet Page 9 HIST-0036-2020 (1156 Peach) Page 4 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described in CEQA Guidelines § 15061 (b) (3). The determination of continued eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of whether the subject site remains eligible for historic resource listing according to the criteria set forth in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. 5.0 ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff. 2. Recommend to the City Council that the property not be removed from historic listing, based on findings describing the property’s continuing eligibility for listing. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Historic Resource Evaluation (Charles Crotser Architect, AIA) 2. Mill Street Historic District (HPPG Guidelines) 3. Vernacular Style (Context Statement) 4. Architectural Worksheet (City “Yellow File” for property) 5. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing Item 3 Packet Page 10 HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION 1156 Peach Street, San Luis Obispo, California APN 002-315-016 Prepared for: Ivan L. Lapidus July 2019 Prepared by: Charles Crotser Architect, AIA Architectural Consultation - Design Review - Historic Architectural Analysis P.O. Box 12528 ▪ San Luis Obispo ▪ CA 93406 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 11 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 12 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF CONTENTS ------------------------------------------------------------- 1 1. INTRODUCTION --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 1.1 REPORT PREPARATION ------------------------------------------------------ 2 1.2 ANALYSIS RESOURCES ------------------------------------------------------ 2 1.3 ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION ----------------------------------------------- 3 1.4 SETTING --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 2. HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE------------------------------------------------------ 5 2.1 BACKGROUND ---------------------------------------------------------------- 5 2.2 RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION & EVALUATION - CEQA --------------- 5 2.3 RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION & EVALUATION – CITY OF SLO ---------- 6 - 7 2.4 DETERMINATION OF HISTORIC LISTING ---------------------------------- 8 2.5 CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS ----------------------------------------- 8 3. EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS ------------------------------------------------------------ 9 3.1 DEPT. OF INTERIOR STANDARDS TREATMENTS -------------------------- 9 4. CONCLUSIONS--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 APPENDIX -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11 EXHIBIT A - Vicinity Map ---------------------------------------------------- 12 EXHIBIT B - Assessors Parcel Map ----------------------------------------- 13 EXHIBIT C - Sanborn Maps --------------------------------------------------- 14 EXHIBIT D - Existing Main Residence-------------------------------------- 15 - 17 EXHIBIT E - Street View (Subject Property) ----------------------------- 18 EXHIBIT F - Neighborhood Context ---------------------------------------- 19 – 21 1 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 13 1. INTRODUCTION Ivan L. Lapidus, the owner of this property, proposes to demolish the existing residence and storage structure at 1156 Peach Street. As an initial step, he would request that the property de-listed as a “Contributing Historic Property”. This report will evaluate and determine the appropriateness of this request. Ultimately, he wishes to construct a new single-family residence and perhaps a Secondary Dwelling Unit. This property is located in the Mill Street historic neighborhood, one of dive historic districts located in San Luis Obispo. A number of structures in this neighborhood have been designated as either Contributing or Master List historic properties. This residence was designated a “Contributing” property on February 3, 1987, along with 249 other properties within the City. Of this number, 21 properties were within the Mill Street Historic District. This analysis will refer to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (2010) and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. If this property were to retain its historic designation, it likely would require a discretionary permit from the City, and could also be subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It would also need to show how the project would comply with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The project property is depicted in “Exhibit B” and identidied as APN 002-315-016. This study was carried out to determine if any signidicant historic or architectural characteristics could be attributed to the structure on the property. 1.1 REPORT PREPARATION •At the request of the owner, . . . Warren Hamrick - Architect, was retained to prepare design and construction documents to describe the proposed new work. •Charles Crotser Architect AIA, was retained to provide the preparation of the historical and architectural analysis document for this proposal. This report will provide recommendations and guidance to indicate compliance with the above- mentioned regulations, ordinances, guidelines and standards. Work undertaken for this report includes background research, site visits, design review and analysis. 1.2 ANALYSIS RESOURCES Background for the property was gathered by a search of historic literature, maps, newspapers, documents, photographs and the internet. The purpose was to establish the structure’s background, historic use and people associated with the property. This included research to determine if historic events or persons important to the history of San Luis Obispo were a part of the period of signidicance. The material used in the preparation of this report came from the following sources: •The SLO City Community Development Department: review the Historic Resources inventory dile. •San Luis Obispo County History Center Archives to review historic photographs and newspaper articles •Cal Poly Library Special Collections to review 1920’s/’30’s building permits •San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Ofdice for parcel maps No other prior studies regarding this property were discovered 2 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 14 1.3 ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION There are two original structures located on this parcel: a single-family residence, and a detached accessory structure The main residence is a simple single-story structure of a vernacular style. It is rather nondescript in terms of a pure architectural style, but does have certain minor detail elements of note. The residence was placed on the list of historic Contributing Properties On February 3, 1987, along with a number of other properties. In reviewing the Architectural Worksheet for this property, there was very little information regarding its historic importance. The information on the worksheet simply described the general condiguration, materials and features of this small structure. The architectural style is merely described as “Modidied Plain Cottage”. The description of the physical architectural appearance is described as “A simple L-shaped building with added lean-to for porch; plain + unattractive w/no architectural ornamentation”. The main residence is a single-story, L-shaped building with a covered entry porch (Fig. 3) and a small rear porch for a rear access at the back of the residence (Fig. 2 & 4). The main roof is a medium pitched gable with a cross-hip roof on the one leg of the L-shaped plan. The rear portion of the house is a shed-roofed structure which appears to have been added on. The roof is clad with composition shingles. The structure is of wood-framed construction on a raised dloor with under- dloor access below. A small recessed covered porch characterizes the entry (Fig. 3). Generally, there are several window types. Some windows are double-hung windows that appear to be vinyl replacement windows (Fig. 12 & 13). Other windows are of a divided-lite condiguration. These windows are wood sash, and may be original. The main living room window, facing the street, is a 3-part horizontal slider, with what appears to be a vinyl replacement window. The large horizontal window at the front porch is a 6 over 2 divided-lite window, which appears to be original. Another small divided-lite window occurs on the east living room wall, near the porch. These two windows, including the trim detailing, provide a minor bit of traditional detailing. The residence is constructed with a raised wood dloor system, which does not appear to comply with current code access or ventilation requirements. The residence is clad with mostly horizontal ship-lapped board siding. Vertical board, or board and batten siding is used on the below-dloor cripple walls. The rear portion of the residence is clad in vertical wood board and batten siding. The wood siding extends to the earth, with virtually no separation or protection from moisture, pest infestation or other deterioration. The detached garage/accessory structure is a simple rectangular structure with a medium-pitched gable roof with a side shed roof. It is also is a wood framed structure clad with vertical board and batten or horizontal boards. The large garage doors are plywood. As with the main residence, the wood siding extends to the earth. I was unable to enter this structure, but it doesn’t appear to have a proper dloor, and seems to simply sit on natural grade. The roof is of corrugated metal. 3 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 15 1.4 SETTING (District/Neighborhood) The “setting” is the larger area or environment in which a historic building is located. It may be an urban, suburban, or rural neighborhood or a natural landscape in which buildings have been constructed. The relationship of buildings to each other, setbacks, fence patterns, views, driveways and walkways, and street trees and other landscaping together establish the character of a district or neighborhood. This property is within the Mill Street historic neighborhood which is comprised of residential structures of many different styles and a variety of scale. Although most homes on the Peach Street block are single-story, there are a couple of 2-story homes, one of which is immediately next door to the subject property, on the corner of Peach and Toro Streets. The houses on this street are an eclectic mix. (Refer to Exhibit F) For this property, the building setbacks, front and side, are similar to those of other structures on this street and in the neighborhood. However, at just over 900 square feet, this is the smallest residence on this Street. The residence and grounds exhibit a minimum level of maintenance or enhancement. Other properties contribute a higher level of amenity to the streetscape through landscape, fencing, overall upkeep and maintenance as well as other enhancements. 4 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 16 2. HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE 2.1 BACKGROUND City records indicate that the main residence may have been constructed in 1918, however, I was unable to dind a record of the building permit. I did dind a building permit issued on January 20, 1925 for a 14’ X 18’ structure. This seems to coincide with the detached Accessory/Garage structure located to the rear of the property (Fig. 7, 8 & 9). The main residence is 931 square feet with two bedrooms and one bath. In reviewing the Sanborn maps, the 1909 map shows no structures on this property. The 1926 map shows the main residence and the detached accessory building. The 1926 - 1950 maps shows no change from the prior map. Therefore, it appears that both structures are over 100 years old. When this property was placed on the local list of historic properties, it seemed to have been included with a group of seven other buildings on this block, with very little individual analysis. The Architectural Worksheet used for the evaluation of historic properties has extremely sparse information regarding its importance. 2.2 RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION - CEQA In February 1999, changes made to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) removed thresholds of signidicance from the main document and relied upon criteria set forth in Public Resources Code (CPRC), Section 5024.1 Title 14 CCR Section 4852. Criteria for determining the signidicance of a historic or archeological resource under the CPRC has been applied to the property at 1156 Peach Street, San Luis Obispo as indicated below and concurrent dindings are as follows: a.Is associated with events that have made a signiBicant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. No events of signidicance were discovered during the research for the project. b.Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. There were no dindings that would suggest any individuals associated with this property would rise to a level of historical importance as required by the CPRC. c.Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. Generally, the structures on this property represent a style and scale found as being rather humble and quite common. This residence appears to be relatively small compared to others on this block, and within the entire historic district. The neighborhood has remained relatively stable and contains a wide variety of eclectic architectural styles. This residence does not represent a unique example of architecture for this neighborhood or this era. There do not appear to be any signidicant or distinctive features including construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that distinguish this residence from others within this neighborhood. Neither of these two original structures exhibits qualities which would distinguish them as unique examples of architecture or which would raise them to a level of architectural signidicance. d.Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Not likely 5 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 17 2.3 RESOURCE CLASSIFICATION AND EVALUATION – CITY OF SLO 2.3.1 DEFINITION OF “CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE” (per The 2010 SLO Historic Preservation Ordinance) Contributing List Resource or Property: a designation that may be applied to buildings or other resources at least 50 years old that maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character, and contribute either by themselves or in conjunction with other structures to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole. They need not be located in a historic district. 2.3.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR HISTORIC RESOURCE LISTING (14.01.070.) When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource, the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Ofdice (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least difty (50) years old and satisfy at least one of the following criteria: A. ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values: (1) STYLE: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure of: a.The relative purity of a traditional style; b.Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure redlects a once popular style; c.Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic indluences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together. (2) DESIGN: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Redlects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of: a.Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique); b.An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. (3) ARCHITECT: Describes the professional (an individual or dirm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to: a.A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made signidicant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work indluenced development of the city, state or nation. b.An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made signidicant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30). 6 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 18 (4) HISTORIC CRITERIA 4.1 History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was: a.Signidicant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally. b.Signidicant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad ofdicials). 4.2 History – Event: Associated with events that have made a signidicant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of: a.A landmark, famous, or dirst-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city. b.A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history). 4.3 History – Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it redlects: a.Early, dirst, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g., County Museum). b.Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Park Hotel). 4.4 Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of signidicance. Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of: a.Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the original foundation has been changed, if known. b.The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its signidicance. c.The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Based upon the above criteria, the specidic criteria that may apply to this project would be: ITEM 2.4.4 – INTEGRITY. This structure appears to have retained the original form and basic character as when constructed roughly 100 years ago. There seems to have been some interior improvements to make it more habitable. There is also evidence of additional structural bracing in the underBloor space. However, the overall property exhibits wear and deterioration which might be expected in a structure of this age. 7 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 19 2.4 DETERMINATION OF HISTORICAL LISTING In 1987, per City Council Resolution, 21 properties in the Mill Street Historic District were added to the Contributing List of Historic Resources. Prior to the Council’s adoption, the Cultural Heritage Committee had recommended addition of these properties “due to their historical and/or architectural signidicance to their neighborhood and to the community”. The Architectural Worksheet prepared by the City for this property, did not indicate any particular features that identidied this structure as unique. A Historic Resources Inventory Report, normally prepared in advance of listing a property, was unavailable. Otherwise, this evaluation found no compelling evidence of architectural importance of this building through a connection with persons, important historical events, historical context, or as a community or neighborhood landmark. I believe that this structure provides no signidicant “contribution” to the community or neighborhood. 2.5 CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS 1.Simple, single-story, gable roofed form (Figure 1, Exhibit D) 2.Small, recessed front porch with open archway. (Figure 3, Exhibit D) 3.Windows (some original) with simple traditional trim and sill detail. 4.Gable roof end brackets and attic vent (Fig. 14 & 15, Exhibit D) 5.Site placement 8 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 20 3. EVALUATION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS If this property were to remain as a local historic property, it would need to comply with the Secretary of Interior Standards. Should the City choose not to de-list this property, I would evaluate which of the following treatments would be appropriate. As noted in the introduction to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstruction Historic Buildings, . . . “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are regulatory only for projects receiving Historic Preservation Fund grant assistance and other federally-assisted projects. Otherwise, these guidelines are intended to provide general guidance for work on any historic building.”. . . However, evaluation will be performed for this residential project per City requirements. 3.1 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR STANDARDS TREATMENTS According to the Department of Interior (DOI) Standards the four treatment alternatives are as follows: Preservation . . . is de^ined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. However, new exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment. The Standards for Preservation require retention of the greatest amount of historic fabric along with the building’s historic form. Rehabilitation . . . is de^ined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The Rehabilitation Standards acknowledge the need to alter or add to a historic building to meet continuing or new uses while retaining the building’s historic character. Restoration . . . is de^ined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. The Restoration Standards allow for the depiction of a building at a particular time in its history by preserving materials, features, dinishes, and spaces from its period of signidicance and removing those from other periods. Reconstruction . . . is de^ined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a speci^ic period of time and in its historic location. The Reconstruction Standards establish a limited framework for recreating a vanished or non-surviving building with new materials, primarily for interpretive purposes. 9 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 21 4. CONCLUSIONS The owner of the residence at 1156 Peach Street wishes to remove this existing residence from the current list of historic “Contributing” properties in order to accomplish the objectives outlined below. Although the residence generally retains its original appearance, it does not rise to the level of a signidicant cultural resource and this investigation found that the residence: •Did not meet criteria A, B, C or D of the Secretary of the Interior’s criteria for signidicance, and . . . •Failed to meet the level of signidicance required by the California Public Resources Code. The owner intends to construct a new personal residence which would include features providing much improved habitability. The new design should also provide full condidence that this structure will be safe, comfortable and stable for many more years to come. The new residence would be designed with a sensitivity to the neighborhood scale and character while insuring that the structure is structurally sound, meets current code and other functional requirements. The new residence is intended to provide the charm and harmonious character currently appreciated in this district and would fully provide its historic “contribution to the neighborhood”. 10 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 22 APPENDIX PAGE Exhibit A - Vicinity Map 12 Exhibit B - Assessor’s Parcel Map 13 Exhibit C - Sanborn Maps 14 Exhibit D - Existing Main Residence 15 - 17 Exhibit E - Street View of Subject Property 18 Exhibit F - Neighborhood Context Images 19 - 21 11 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 23 EXHIBIT A VICINITY MAP NORTHProject Location 12 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 24 EXHIBIT B 1156 PEACH NO R T H ASSESSOR’S PARCEL MAP 13 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 25 EXHIBIT C SANBORN MAPS 1909 1926 1926 - 1950 14 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 26 Figure 2. - Rear Porch Figure 1. - Front Elevation EXHIBIT D EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE 15 Figure 3. - Front Porch Figure 4. - Northeast Corner ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 27 Figure 8. - Accessory Building - Front EXHIBIT D EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE 16 Figure 5. - Rear Elevation Figure 6. - Northwest corner Figure 7. - View to Rear Yard Figure 9. - Accessory Building - West ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 28 EXHIBIT D Figure 13. - Vertical Slider Figure 11. - Divided-Lite Window Figure 10. - Divided-Lite Window EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE Figure 12. - Vertical Slider 17 Figure 14. - Gable End Brackets Figure 15. - Gable End Vent ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 29 EXHIBIT E Figure 14. - 3/4 Street View STREET VIEW of SUBJECT PROPERTY 18 Figure 15. - Street View Context ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 30 EXHIBIT F Figure 19. - 1134 PeachFigure 18. - 1150 Peach Figure 16. - 1168 Peach Figure 17. - 1154 Peach NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT 19 Figure 20. - 1128 Peach Figure 21. - 1120 Peach ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 31 EXHIBIT F Figure 27. - 1143 PeachFigure 26. - 1137 Peach Figure 25. - 1127 PeachFigure 24. - 1121 Peach Figure 22. - 694 Santa Rosa Figure 23. - 756 Santa Rosa 20 ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 32 EXHIBIT F Figure 28. - 1151 Peach 21 Figure 29. - 1163 Peach ATTACHMENT 1Item 3 Packet Page 33 47 5.2.4 Mill Street Historic District Setting Established in 1987, the Mill Street Historic District is a residential neighborhood bounded by Pepper and Toro Streets on the east and west, and Peach and Palm Streets on the north and south. The Mill Street District is part of one subdivision, The Town of San Luis Obispo, recorded in 1878, although the area informally has been referred to as Fremont Heights. For its land area, Mill Street Historic District has the highest concentration of historic structures of the City’s five Historic districts. It is a relatively small district, with an area of 20 acres or 0.03125 square miles, and as of January of 2010 had 84 listed historic properties. The Mill Street district was developed at the turn of the 20th century, with the majority of the existing buildings dating from the 1900s to 1920s, the district’s primary period of historical and architectural significance. The district was developed on high ground with originally very wide (100 ft) lots in response to both the seasonal flooding and fires that plagued early development in San Luis Obispo. A few of these wide lots remain in the 1300 block of both Mill Street and Palm Street, but the majority of them were later re-subdivided into 50-60 foot wide lots. Site Features and Characteristics Common site features and characteristics include: A.Trees spaced at regular intervals along the street (especially on Mill Street) B.Distinctive Camphor Trees lining both sides of Mill Street between Johnson and Pepper, a key entry corridor for the district C.Consistent street yard setbacks of 20 feet or more D.Coach barns (garages) recessed into rear yard E.Finish floors raised 2-3 above finish grade F.Front entries oriented toward street, with prominent walk, stairs and entry porches. G.Front building facades oriented parallel to street Architectural Character Developed during a population boom in San Luis Obispo circa 1900s-1920s, the district’s residential architectural styles reflect the prosperity of its residents. While older and more elaborate residences are located on the 1300 block of both Palm and Mill Streets, the majority of 1344 Mill Street, South Elevation ATTACHMENT 2Item 3 Packet Page 34 48 historic homes were more modest residences. The close proximity to the court house meant that Mill Street was home to many county employees, including county assessors, attorneys, and county clerks. The Mill Street District encompasses many different architectural styles, including revival styles popular at the turn of the twentieth century. These styles include Neo-classic Row House, Victorian (with elements of Gothic Revival, Queen Anne, Stick and Eastern Shingle), Tudor Revival, Mission Revival, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing architectural details from more than one style. Most buildings in this district were built by local builders, including E.D. Bray and James Maino and were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period. Predominant architectural features include: A. One- and occasionally two-story houses B. Mostly gable and hip roof types C. Traditional fenestration, such as double-hung, wood sash windows, ornamental front doors, wood screen doors D. Ornamental roof features, including prominent fascias, bargeboards, prominent pediments or cornices E. Painted wood or stucco surface material, including siding and molding Individually Contributing Elements in the Mill Street District Not all historic resources in the Mill Street Historic District were built during the district’s period of significance. Those buildings date from the late 1800s, generally do not exhibit the signature architectural elements described above, but do contribute to the historic character of San Luis Obispo in their own right based on age, architectural style or historical association. By virtue of their significance, these resources also merit preservation. For example, the Buckley House at 777 Johnson Avenue is a converted carriage house built in the 1880s and is significant for its design, specifically the board and batten siding, of which there very few examples are left in the City. The Shipsey House at 1266 Mill Street, a National Register property, is an example of Eastern Stick and significant for both its architectural style and its association with William 1264 and 1270 Palm Street, South Elevation 777 Johnson Avenue, East Elevation ATTACHMENT 2Item 3 Packet Page 35 49 Shipsey, attorney and mayor of San Luis Obispo from 1898 to1901. Non-Contributing Elements in the Mill Street District Non -contributing buildings are those that both do not meet the criteria outlined above and have not achieved historical significance. Most of the post—1950 contemporary buildings in the district fall into this latter category. Non-contributing architectural styles, materials or site features include: A. Aluminum sliding windows B. Rectilinear, “boxy” shape C. Metal or other contemporary material siding, or “faux” architectural materials or features. D. Unarticulated wall surfaces E. Non-recessed or offset street entries to buildings 1243 Mill Street, North Elevation ATTACHMENT 2Item 3 Packet Page 36 50 *** 1262 Mill Street; 1261 Mill Street; 1143, 1137 and 1127 Peach Street; Righetti House, 1314 Palm Street ATTACHMENT 2Item 3 Packet Page 37 City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character Citywide Historic Context Statement HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP 139 RESIDENTIAL VERNACULAR The term “Residential Vernacular” is used to describe simple houses or cottages with little or no distinguishing decorative features. These buildings are characterized by their simplicity and lack of any characteristics of recognizable styles. Character-defining features include: Simple square or rectangular form Gabled or hipped roof with boxed or open eaves Wood exterior cladding Simple window and door surrounds  Fitzpatrick House, 670 Islay Street, 1880. Source: Historic Resources Group. Foreman House, 1500 Eto Street, 1878. Source: City of San Luis Obispo. Anderson House, 532 Dana Street, 1898. Source: City of San Luis Obispo. ATTACHMENT 3Item 3 Packet Page 38 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 39 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 40 12 Zoning, or remove the property from historic listing if the structure on the property no longer meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the process for listing set forth herein. 14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource, the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the following criteria: A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. (1)Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure of: a. The relative purity of a traditional style; b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style; c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together. (2)Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of: a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique); b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. (3)Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to: ATTACHMENT 5Item 3 Packet Page 41 13 a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced development of the city, state or nation. b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30). B. Historic Criteria (1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was: a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally. b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials). (2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of: (i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city. (ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history). (3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects: a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g., County Museum). b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Park Hotel). ATTACHMENT 5Item 3 Packet Page 42