HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-2021 CHC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Agenda
Cultural Heritage Committee
Monday, April 26, 2021
Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the
Governor of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued
on March 17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic,
the City of San Luis Obispo will be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no
physical location for the Public to view the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the
meeting remotely and how to leave public comment.
Additionally, members of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) are allowed to attend the meeting via
teleconference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present.
Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are
encouraged to participate in CHC meetings in the following ways:
1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view:
• View the Webinar (recommended for the best viewing quality):
➢ URL: https://slocity-org.zoom.us/j/91827636247?pwd=a0toRU9YMk9kczhTM2YwaElwOXZMUT09
➢ Telephone Attendee: +1 (669) 900-6833
➢ Webinar ID: 918 2763 6247; Passcode: 97900
Note: The City utilizes Zoom Webinar for remote meetings. All attendees will enter the meeting
muted. An Attendee tutorial is available on YouTube; please test your audio settings.
2. Public Comment - The CHC will still be accepting public comment for items within their purview.
Public comment can be submitted in the following ways:
• Mail or Email Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to
advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at: 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo,
CA 93401.
➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM – Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org
and will be archived/distributed to members of the Advisory Body the day after the meeting.
Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting.
• Verbal Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell
your name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The
verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to Advisory
Body Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence. Voicemails will not be played during
the meeting.
➢ During the meeting – Join the webinar (instructions above). Once public comment for the
item you would like to speak on is called, please raise your virtual hand, your name will be
called, and your microphone will be unmuted. If you have questions, contact the office of
the City Clerk at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7100.
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: Committee Member Karen Edwards
OATH OF OFFICE: Committee Members John Ashbaugh and Charles Crotser
ROLL CALL: Committee Members John Ashbaugh, Charles Crotser, Karen Edwards,
Wendy McFarland, Vice Chair Eva Ulz, and Chair Shannon Larrabee
(one vacant seat)
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee on items not on the
agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Approve the minutes of the March 22, 2021 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
NOTE: The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director,
another advisory body or to City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed.
2. Review of the modification of a single-family dwelling with a two-story addition and new
construction of a two-story accessory structure, 25 feet in height, accommodating a garage
with an Accessory Dwelling Unit above, on property listed in the City’s Inventory of Historic
Resources as a Contributing List Resource (categorically exempt from CEQA environmental
review); Project Address: 1159 Islay; Case #: ARCH-0203-2021; Zone: R-3; Chris
Knauer, owner/applicant. (Walter Oetzell)
Recommendation: Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director
regarding the consistency of the proposed work with the City’s Historical Preservation
Ordinance, including any necessary conditions of approval to ensure such consistency.
Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of April 26, 2021 Page 3
3. Review of a request to designate the property at 531 Dana Street as a Master List Resource and
include the property in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as the Dana/Barneberg
House (the action is exempt from CEQA environmental review); Project Address: 531 Dana
Street; Case #: HIST-0091-2021; Zone: R-3-H; Brian Tuohy, owner/applicant.
Recommendation: Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the property’s
qualification to be included on the Master List of Historic Resources.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
3. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates (Brian Leveille)
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting will be on Monday, May 24, 2021 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.
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of March 22, 2021 Page 1
Minutes
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, March 22, 2021
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, March 22, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference, by Chair Shannon Larrabee.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Wendy McFarland, Vice Chair
Eva Ulz, and Chair Shannon Larrabee
Absent: Committee Member Karen Edwards
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, and City Clerk
Teresa Purrington
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
John Ashbaugh
James Papp
--End of Public Comment--
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1.Approve the minutes of the February 22, 2021 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY VICE CHAIR ULZ, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER MATTESON, CARRIED 5-0-1 (Member Edwards absent), to approve the minutes
of the February 22, 2021 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
2.79 Benton Way. Review of a request to include the property at 79 Benton Way in the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources as a Master List Resource (Elbert Earle Christopher House).
This action is categorically exempt from CEQA environmental review; Project Address: 79
Benton Way; Case #: HIST-0675-2020; Zone R-1; Susan and Mark Hoffman,
owner/applicant.
Vice Chair Ulz announced that she would be recusing herself from this item as she has a
financial interest in the consulting firm that worked on the project. Vice Chair Ulz left the
meeting at 5:42 p.m.
Item 1
Packet Page 1
Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of March 22, 2021 Page 2
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded to Committee
inquiries.
Applicant Susan Hoffman, and Applicant representative James Papp provided a presentation
and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Public Comment
None
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, CARRIED 4-0-1-1 (Vice Chair Ulz recused and
Member Edwards absent) to include the property at 79 Benton Way in the City’s Inventory of
Historic Resources as a Master List Resource (Elbert Earle Christopher House) based upon its
representation of the Minimal Traditionalist style, its unique floor plan, and distinctive interior
features.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting
is scheduled for Monday, April 26, 2021 at 5:30 p.m., via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2021
Item 1
Packet Page 2
ARCH-0203-2021 (1159 Islay)
Page 1
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1159 Islay Street. FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0203-2021
APPLICANT: Chris Knauer, represented by Matt Cebulla
For more information contact Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner: 781-7593 (woetzell@slocity.org)
1.0 BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to rehabilitate the existing
Contributing historic residence and to construct a
two-story addition to the rear of the dwelling
(Project Description Attachment 1), including a
two-car garage, additional residential floor area,
and an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
2.0 SITE AND SETTING
The site is located on the south side of Islay Street,
between Toro and Santa Rosa Streets in a
Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) Zone
characterized by single-family dwellings, with
several properties included in the City’s Inventory
of Historic Resources1. In 2012 this property was
added to the City’s Inventory of Historic
Resources as part of a group of 53 properties,
following a survey of an eight-block area adjacent
to Johnson Avenue.2 A Primary Record form 3 (Attachment 2) prepared in 2012 by City staff
indicates a construction date of 1880, and describes the building a a “cottage house,” noting several
of its characteristic features:
▪Raised one-story, rectangular in form; high-pitch pyramidal roof form
▪Horizontal siding, gridded rectangular wooden windows and molding (front elevation)
▪Offset recessed porch supported by unfluted columns with ornate corbels
3.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
New construction, additions, or alterations on historically listed properties are subject to review
by the Cultural Heritage Committee,4 who will make a recommendation to the Community
1 Of the 22 properties on the block, 11 are included in the Inventory, as Contributing List Resources
2 Properties added by Council Resolution 10416, adopted December 4th, 2012
3 Primary Record (Form DPR 523A), California Resources Agency, Department of Parks and Recreation
4 Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.030 (C)
Meeting Date: April 26, 2021
Item Number: 2
Item No. 1
Figure 1: Subject Property
Item 2
Packet Page 3
ARCH-0203-2021 (1159 Islay)
Page 2
Development Director as to the
consistency of the proposed work with
applicable historical preservation
policies and standards, and may
recommend related conditions of project
approval. This evaluation is focused on
the proposed addition and modifications
to the existing single-family dwelling, its
consistency with applicable historical
preservation standards.
4.0 PROPOSED WORK
4.1 Addition and Modification to the
Existing Dwelling
As depicted in project plans (see Attachment 3, and Figure 3, below), the applicant proposes to
construct a two-story addition to the rear of the existing dwelling. The addition will accommodate
a two car garage, and pantry space, a Family Room, Laundry Room and a Master Bedroom and
Bathroom for the primary dwelling, along with a a two bedroom Accessory Dwelling Unit (see
Floor Plans, in Attachment 3). The addition is constructed of cement board lap siding, topped by
composition shingle roofing. Windows are of square and vertically-oriented rectangular forms,
with dimensional trim. Sliding glass doors provide access to two upper-level balconies and to the
rear yard at the ground-level (see Elevation Drawings, in Attachment 2).
4.2 Replacement of Wood and Window Features
Plans depict replacement windows and wood features, with new composite siding for the primary
dwelling, and replacement of porch features, including columns and roofing. The applicant has
provided a statement (Attachment 4) describing the deteriorated condition of the windows, with
photographic evidence of the deterioration. The statement also describes the condition of the
existing redwood siding, asserting that the existing siding appears to be worn, with some evidence
of wood rot, but that, contrary to the notation in plans, the siding could be reconditioned and
Figure 2: 1159 Islay
Figure 3: Perspective drawing of proposed addition (front view)
Item 2
Packet Page 4
ARCH-0203-2021 (1159 Islay)
Page 3
retained on the building. Elevation drawings note that replacement windows will be selected to
match the existing window forms, but do not explicitly note whether existing window trim is
retained or replaced. The drawings indicate replacement of the porch columns with new “4x4
Posts” with simplified corbels and depict a slightly sloped and hipped roof form covering the
porch, in replacement of the existing flat roof covering.
5.0 DISCUSSION ITEMS
Guidance is provided mainly in the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.5 Selected applicable
guidelines, standards, and recommendations from these documents are outlined below.
5.1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
Alterations to Historic Resources
§ 3.4.1 (d)
Additions
Additions to listed historic structures should maintain the structure’s
original architectural integrity and closely match the building’s original
architecture, or match additions that have achieved historic significance in
their own right, in terms of scale, form, massing, rhythm, fenestration,
materials, color and architectural details
§ 3.4.1 (e)
Consistency required
Alterations to listed historic resources shall be approved only upon finding
that the proposed work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, […] General Plan
policies, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and these Guidelines.
§ 3.4.3
Retention of character-
defining features
Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain character defining
features. New features […] should be completed in a manner that preserves
the original architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the
building.
§ 3.4.4
Exterior building
changes
Exterior changes to historically-listed buildings or resources should not
introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be
architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural
character of the building […]. Additions to historic buildings shall comply
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to complement and be
consistent with the original style of the structure. Building materials used to
replicate character-defining features shall be consistent with the original
materials in terms of size, shape, quality and appearance. However,
original materials are not required.
Discussion: The proposed addition is sited and designed in a manner intended to preserve the
integrity of the historical primary dwelling. It is placed behind the existing building, at the rear of
the site and is connected to the existing dwelling by a five-foot long single-story hallway and
5 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service; Technical Preservation Services, 2017
Item 2
Packet Page 5
ARCH-0203-2021 (1159 Islay)
Page 4
pantry space to provide visual separation from the historic building. It is two stories in height and
encompasses an additional 2,125 square feet of floor space (1,690 sq. ft. of residential floor area
and 435 sq ft. of garage space) within a 1,220 square-foot building footprint. The horizontal
composite siding, composition shingle roof material, and conventional window forms and pattern
of the addition exhibit a conventional residential form and character that is compatible with the
architectural character of the existing building, itself sheathed in horizontal redwood siding,
composition shingle roofing, and square and vertically-oriented rectangular windows. The
Committee should evaluate the addition on the basis of the above Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines.
Windows, Entry, and Porch: As depicted in plans and described in the applicant statement, the
existing windows and porch features are proposed for removal and replacement. Replacement of
windows is described as necessary due to extensive deterioration observed during initial evaluation
of their condition, and photographic examples of the state of deterioration have been provided with
the applicant’s statement (Attachment 4). Plans do not indicate whether the existing window trim
will be retained, and do not provide sufficient details to evaluate whether the suitability of
replacement window types for maintenance of the appearance and historical character of the
existing building. Nor has an evaluation of the condition of the porch elements been provided,
demonstrating a need for replacement of these features.
Siding: Also described in the applicant statement is that, despite the notation in plans regarding
installation of composite siding, on preliminary evaluation of the existing siding the applicant has
found that “the siding is worn and there is some wood rot,” but that the siding “has lasting
integrity” and “could be reconditioned and stay in place on this house.”
Staff notes the possibility that the need for limited repair or replacement of extensively damaged
wood features, particularly the siding, window trim, and porch elements, may be uncovered with
closer evaluation of the condition of these features. Further discussion of the treatment of the wood
and window elements and suggested conditions of approval, to ensure proposed work is carried
out consistent with relevant guidelines, are discussed in more detail in section 5.2 of this report
below, regarding consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties.
Figure 4: Elevation Drawing (West)
Item 2
Packet Page 6
ARCH-0203-2021 (1159 Islay)
Page 5
5.2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Rehabilitation)
Standards for Rehabilitation
2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive
materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be
avoided.
5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship
that characterize a property will be preserved.
6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design,
color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by
documentary and physical evidence.
9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials,
features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated
from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and
massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Discussion: The Secretary of Interior’s Standards provide guidance on rehabilitation6 of historic
buildings, including approaches to work treatments and techniques that are either consistent
(“Recommended”) or inconsistent (“Not Recommended”) with the Standards, specific to various
features of historic buildings and sites.
New Exterior Additions
Recommended Not Recommended
Constructing a new addition on a secondary or
non-characterdefining elevation and limiting its
size and scale in relationship to the historic
building.
Constructing a new addition on or adjacent to a
primary elevation
As discussed earlier in this report, the proposed addition to the historic dwelling on this property
has been situated at the rear of the site, behind the dwelling, and adds significant floor area to the
site. The Committee should consider whether, the height, scale, size, and massing of the addition
are consistent with that of the existing building, and whether the placement of the addition behind
the existing dwelling sufficiently minimizes its visual impact to the primary elevations of the
building to preserve its physical integrity and architectural and historical character.
6 Rehabilitation is defined 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. (SOI Standards, pg. 3)
Item 2
Packet Page 7
ARCH-0203-2021 (1159 Islay)
Page 6
Wood
Recommended Not Recommended
Identifying, retaining and preserving wood
features that are important in defining the overall
historic character of the building (such as siding,
cornices, brackets, window and door surrounds,
and steps) and their paints, finishes, and colors..
Removing or substantially changing wood
features which are important in defining the
overall historic character of the building so that,
as a result, the character is diminished.
Removing a major portion of the historic wood
from a façade instead of repairing or replacing
only the deteriorated wood, then reconstructing
the façade with new material to achieve a uniform
or “improved” appearance.
Evaluating the overall condition of the wood to
determine whether more than protection and
maintenance, such as repairs to wood features, will
be necessary.
Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure
the protection of wood features.
Replacing a deteriorated wood feature or wood
siding on a primary or other highly-visible
elevation with a new matching wood feature.
Replacing a deteriorated wood feature or wood
siding on a primary or other highly-visible
elevation with a composite substitute material.
Also mentioned earlier in this report, plans indicate that replacement of the existing siding was
originally proposed, but the applicant’s later statement regarding the condition of windows and
siding acknowledges that, on preliminary inspection, the existing redwood siding appears to be in
salvageable condition, likely allowing for its retention, noting a limited amount of wear and wood
rot that may need to be addressed.
In order to encourage the retention and preservation of wood features that are important to the
building’s character, the Committee should consider recommending a condition of architectural
review approval to ensure that, as directed by SOI Standards, the overall condition of these
features, including the siding, be evaluated to determine the appropriate amount of repair or limited
replacement that will be necessary, and that sufficient evidence in support of any proposed repair
and replacement be provided before permits are granted to carry out such work.
Windows
Recommended Not Recommended
Identifying, retaining, and preserving windows
and their functional and decorative features that
are important to the overall character of the
building. The window material and how the
window operates […] are significant, as are its
components […] and related features, such as
shutters.
Removing or substantially changing windows or
window features which are important in defining
the overall historic character of the building so
that, as a result, the character is diminished.
Changing the appearance of windows that
contribute to the historic character of the building
Item 2
Packet Page 8
ARCH-0203-2021 (1159 Islay)
Page 7
by replacing materials, finsihes or colors which
noticeably change the sash, depth of the reveal,
and muntin configurations, the reflectivity and
color of the glazing; or the appearance of the
frame.
Evaluating the overall condition of the windows
to determine whether more than protection and
maintenance, such as repairs to windows and
window features, will be necessary.
Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure
the protection of window features
Repairing window frames and sash by patching,
splicing, consolidating, or otherwise reinforcing
them using recognized preservation methods.
Repair may include the limited replacement in
kind or with a compatible substitute material of
those extensively deteriorated, broken, or missing
components of features […]
Replacing an entire window when repair of the
window and limited replacement of deteriorated or
missing components are feasible.
Replacing in kind an entire window that is too
deteriorated to repair […] If using the same kind
of material is not feasible, then a compatible
substitute material may be considered.
Using substitute material for the replacement that
does not convey the same appearance of the
surviving components of the window or that is
physically incompatible."
Similarly, plans indicate replacement of existing windows due to, as described and depicted in the
applicant statement, observed wood rot and overall poor condition of the windows.
In order to encourage the retention and preservation of windows and related window features that
are important to the building’s character, the Committee should consider recommending a
condition of approval to ensure that, as directed by SOI Standards, the overall condition of these
features be evaluated to determine the appropriate amount of repair or limited replacement that
will be necessary, that retention, repair, and replacement be clearly indicated in final plans, and
that sufficient evidence in support of any proposed repair and replacement be provided before
permits are issued to carry out such work. In addition, where replacement of extensively damaged,
broken, or missing windows is proposed in final plans, a detailed window schedule should be
required, describing the form, method of operation, materials, and appearance of replacement
windows, sufficient to demonstrate the consistency of the replacement with SOI Standards.
Entrances and Porches
Recommended Not Recommended
Identifying, retaining, and preserving entrances
and porches and their functional and decorative
features that are important in defining the overall
historic character of the building. The materials
themselves (including masonry, wood, and metal)
are significant, as are their features, such as
"Removing or substantially changing entrances
and porches which are important in defining the
overall historic character of the building so that,
as a result, the character is diminished.
Item 2
Packet Page 9
ARCH-0203-2021 (1159 Islay)
Page 8
doors, transoms, pilasters, columns, balustrades,
stairs, roofs, and projecting canopies.
Evaluating the overall condition of entrances and
porches to determine whether more than
protection and maintenance, such as repairs to
entrance and porch features, will be necessary.
Failing to undertake adequate measures to ensure
the protection of entrance and porch features
Repairing entrances and porches by patching,
splicing, consolidating, and otherwise reinforcing
them using recognized preservation methods.
Repair may include the limited replacement in
kind or with a compatible substitute material of
those extensively deteriorated features or missing
components of features when there are surviving
prototypes, such as balustrades, columns, and
stairs.
"Removing entrances and porches that could be
stabilized, repaired, and conserved […]
Replacing an entire entrance or porch feature
when repair of the feature and limited replacement
of deteriorated or missing components are
feasible."
Plans also depict replacement of several entrance and porch features, including columns and
corbels, and the roof covering.
In order to encourage the retention and preservation of distinctive entry and porch elements,
including columns, decorative corbels, and covering, the Committee should consider
recommending a condition of approval to ensure that, as directed by SOI Standards, the overall
condition of these features be evaluated to determine the appropriate amount of repair or limited
replacement that will be necessary, that retention, repair, and replacement be clearly indicated in
final plans and, where replacement of extensively deteriorated entry and porch features or missing
components is proposed in final plans, that sufficient evidence in support of any proposed repair
and replacement be provided before permits are issued to carry out such work.
6.0 SUMMARY
The applicant has placed the proposed addition at the rear of the property behind the existing
dwelling, to reduce its visual impact in relation to the historic building, and has employed
rectangular forms and conventional residential building materials in order to achieve scale,
massing, and detailing with that of the existing building. Plans, however, depict replacement of
several character-defining elements of the existing building, where preservation encourage their
retention and preservation or, where necessary, limited repair or appropriate replacement.
Based on the evaluation provided in this report, staff suggests that the Committee specifically
consider the treatment of the wood, window, and entrance and porch elements described above,
following the guidelines supporting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties, and provide appropriate conditions for any potential project approval to ensure
that the character-defining features of the historic building are retained and preserved and, where
repair or replacement are necessary, that such work is based on sufficient justification and
evidence, and carried out consistent with those Standards and guidelines
Item 2
Packet Page 10
ARCH-0203-2021 (1159 Islay)
Page 9
7.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
▪ Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director regarding the
consistency of the proposed work with the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance,
including any necessary conditions of approval to ensure such consistency.
▪ Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Description (Applicant)
2. Primary Record (DPR 523A) 1159 Islay Street
3. Project Plans
4. Applicant Statement Regarding Condition of Wood and Window Features
Item 2
Packet Page 11
Cebulla
January 12, 2021
City Of San Luis Obispo
RE: ProjectDescription,1159 Islay, SanLuisObispo,Ca.
Dear Sirs;
Proposingto remodelexistingresidence,replacesiding , windowsand doors.Adda 2 story
additionintheback, add2 cargarage,add anADU behindthegarageand abovethegarage.
Sincerely,
Charles Cebulla, Architect C3445
ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTURE / DESIGN
P.O.Box 42
Pismo Beach, CA 93448
PH. (805) 473-1298
www.cebullaassociates.com
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 12
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ___________________
LOCATION MAP Trinomial______________
Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by
recorder)______________________________________________
P1. Other Identifier:
*P2. Location: Not for Publication [] Unrestricted
*a. County San Luis Obispo and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Luis Obispo Date 1995 T 30S; R 12E; L1 of Sec 35; B.M.
c.Address 1159 Islay Street City San Luis Obispo Zip 93401
d.UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone , mE/ mN
e.Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
APN: 003-555-019
*P3a.Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries)
The rectangular cottage house is a raised one story building with an offset recessed porch
with railing, supported by three columns, without fluting, with ornate corbels on the two
sides of the column perpendicular to the street; it has a very high-pitched comp shingle hipped
roof with enclosed eaves, projecting very little. The rectangular wooden windows in the front
elevation are gridded, with a 6” wide and plain wooden molding around it. The exterior is
covered with horizontal siding. The ornamentation shows in the porch’s corbels only. The
structure sits on concrete foundation with steps leading to the porch and is in decent but
original and unrestored condition. The current occupant of this residence has lived here for
more than 50 years.
P5a. Photograph or drawing (photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.
*P3b. Resource Attributes:
(List attributes and codes) Single
Family
*P4. Resources Present: x
Building Structure Object
Site District Element of
District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (view,
date, accession #)
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Source:
x] Historic Prehistoric
Both
1880
*P7. Owner and Address:
Harrison Bina L Etal
1159 Islay San Luis Obispo, Ca
93401
*P8. Recorded by: (Name,
affiliation, and address) City of San
Luis Obispo Historic Resource
Inventory
*P9. Date Recorded: November
2012
*P10.Survey Type: (Describe)
Reconnaissance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none.") Citywide historic resource inventory
prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee 2011-2012
State of California The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
ATTACHMENT 2Item 2
Packet Page 13
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ___________________
LOCATION MAP Trinomial______________
*Attachments: NONE [x]Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):
Page 2 of 2 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by
recorder)______________________________________________
*Map Name: ____________ *Scale: _________________ *Date of Map: _______________________________
ATTACHMENT 2Item 2
Packet Page 14
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
State of California The Resources Agency Primary # _________
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # ___________________
LOCATION MAP Trinomial______________
R-3
O-S
R-3
R-3
R-2-H
R-3
R-3-H
R-3-H
R-2-H R-2
R-3-H
R-3-H
R-2-SC-S-S-H
R-3-H
R-2
R-3R-3-H
LEFFISLAY
TO
R
O
SANTA
ROSA
BUC
H
O
N
LOCATION MAP 003-555-019
1159 ISLAY ¯
003-555-019
ATTACHMENT 2Item 2
Packet Page 15
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2Packet Page 16
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2Packet Page 17
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2Packet Page 18
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2Packet Page 19
$662&,$7(66+((7&(%8//$$662&,$7(63,602%($&+&$ 3+ )$; 32%2;5(9,6,216 -2%'$7( 352-(&7 2:1(5ZZZFHEXOODDVVRFLDWHVFRP1(5$,152)/,$&)2(7$76&$//8%&(6(/5$+&7&(7,+&5$'(61(&,/)URQW(OHYDWLRQ/HIW6LGH(OHYDWLRQ5LJKWVLGH(OHYDWLRQ%DFN(OHYDWLRQ6&$/(
H[LVWLQJQHZH[LVWLQJQHZ
(;,67,1*1$785$/*5$'(
5,'*((/(9$7,21
1(:&20326,7(6,',1*1(::,1'2:60$7&+(;,67,1*1(:$63+$/76+,1*/(522),1*1(:$63+$/76+,1*/(522),1*1(:*$5$*('2251(::22')5217'225;32675(6,'(17,$/5(02'(/$1'$'8 ,6/$<676/2&$ &+5,6.1$8(5&+25526/2&$
SURSHUW\OLQH
DWWLFYHQW[IDFLDKDUGLHVLGLQJ[FRUQHUWULP[WULPVWHHOUDLOLQJFRQFUHWHIRXQGDWLRQSURSHUW\OLQHATTACHMENT 3Item 2Packet Page 20
$662&,$7(66+((7&(%8//$$662&,$7(63,602%($&+&$ 3+ )$; 32%2;5(9,6,216 -2%'$7( 352-(&7 2:1(5ZZZFHEXOODDVVRFLDWHVFRP1(5$,152)/,$&)2(7$76&$//8%&(6(/5$+&7&(7,+&5$'(61(&,/)52173(563(&7,9(%$&.5,*+76,'(%$&./()76,'($'8(175<(;,67,1*&5((.1(:&21&5(7('5,9(:$<5(6,'(17,$/5(02'(/$1'$'8 ,6/$<676/2&$ &+5,6.1$8(5&+25526/2&$ ATTACHMENT 3Item 2Packet Page 21
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2Packet Page 22
Cebulla
To: Walter Oetzell- San Luis Obispo Planning Department
From: Matt Cebulla- Cebulla and Associates
Subject: Window and Siding replacement at 1159 Islay-
Application ARCH-0203-2021
Date: April 15, 2021
Dear Walter:
My firm was hired to provide a review of the siding and window replacement for the residence located
at 1159 Islay. I reviewed the structure today and the following are my conclusions:
Windows- Many of the windows are in poor shape. They have wood rot throughout the frames and the
structural integrity and functionality of the windows is extremely poor. Many of the windows do not
open or the pully system ropes are broken and cannot be found. In addition, some of the windows are
off centered, slanted with window glass missing.
The Replacement windows will look similar as we will use single hung, double hung and divided light
windows to mimic the old windows. The goal is to repair the house but continue its form and function.
Siding- The siding is worn and there is some wood rot but I believe the siding could be reconditioned and
stay in place on this house. The siding is redwood and has lasting integrity.
I have attached some pictures for your review. If you have any questions please contact me.
Sincerely,
Matt Cebulla
ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTURE / DESIGN
P.O. Box 42
Pismo Beach, CA 93448
PH. (805) 440-5016
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 23
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 24
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 25
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 26
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 27
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 28
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 29
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 30
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 31
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 32
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 33
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
Packet Page 34
Meeting Date: April 26, 2021
Item Number: 3
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: A request to include the property at 531 Dana Street in the City’s Inventory of
Historic Resources as a Master List Resource (Dana/Barneberg House)
ADDRESS: 531 Dana Street BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
FILE #: HIST-0091-2021 E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 BACKGROUND
The owner of the property at 531 Dana Street,
Brian Tuohy, has requested that the property be
designated as a Master List Resource in the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources as the
Dana/Barneberg House, and has provided an
evaluation of the property and its eligibility for
historic listing (Historic Resource Evaluation,
Attachment 1). As set out in the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance,1 the Committee will
determine if property meets eligibility criteria for
listing to a degree that warrants designation of the
property as a Master List Resource, and forward a
recommendation to City Council, for final action
on the application.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The property is on the south side of Dana Street, about 400 feet west of Nipomo Street, in a
Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) Zone, an area characterized by single-family dwellings.
It is within a smaller residential section the Downtown Historic District that includes a spectrum
of settlement from the mid-19th century to the 1920s (see Attachment 2). Several properties in the
vicinity are included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.2 The dwelling that is the subject
of this evaluation was originally constructed (architect unknown) in the late 19th Century, from
about 1887, on property across Dana Street (at 550), and moved to the subject site in 1914.3 The
property (531 Dana) appears as a “Contributing Property” on the listing of historic properties
adopted by the City Council in 1988 (by Resolution No. 6424).
1 Historical Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.060
2 13 properties are included in the Inventory (3 Master, 10 Contributing List), 400 & 500 blocks of Dana St.
3 See description of building history, from page 17 of the Bertrando Historic Resource Evaluation (Attachment 1)
Figure 1: 531 Dana Street
Item 3
Packet Page 35
HIST-0091-2021 (531 Dana)
Page 2
2.2 Building Architecture
As described in the applicant’s Historic Resource Evaluation, the dwelling reflects Victorian
vernacular architecture,4 sheathed in shiplap siding, with several distinctive elements:
▪ Unusual mix of roof lines, including flat front and gable with two-patterned shingle
▪ Square bays on front façade, with ins-set columns at corners and continuous sill
▪ Recessed porch with flat sawn balusters, wood railing, and saw cut border of circles above
The City’s Historic Context Statement describes the representative forms and styles of late
19th-Century Residential Development, including cottages and Folk Victorian (see excerpt,
Attachment 3). The specific architectural and historical characteristics of the building are more
fully discussed in the Historic Resource Evaluation submitted with this application, and
summarized in the Evaluation section of
this report, below.
2.3 John Wesley Barneberg and
Grace Barneberg
The applicant’s Historic Resource
Evaluation also provides biographical
details about John Wesley Barneberg
and his daughter Grace, who are most
closely associated with the property.
John Wesley Barneberg, born in Iowa,
had been farming in Arroyo Grande and
relocated to Dana Street after marrying
Sarah Elizabeth Anderson in 1873. As
more fully described in the Historic
Resource Evaluation, he was active in
the community, running a foundry and
machine shop and a hardware store, serving as City Tax Collector, and involved in many civic
committees, later becoming president of two local banks, and having some success in exploration
and development of oil resources in the region. His daughter Grace lived much of her life in the
house, up until the time of her death. She taught high school, having been educated at Stanford
and Berkeley, was one of the founders of the Monday Club, and was active in several local
organizations and boards. She also helped her parents raise her brother’s two children, Helen
Maxine and Jack Barneberg, grandchildren of Charles William Dana, who, in turn, was the son of
William Goodwin Dana. Further detail on which this summary is based, including discussion of
the intertwined relationship between the Dana and Barneberg families, is provided from page 11
of the applicant’s Historic Resource Evaluation (Attachment 1).
4 Bertrando, Historic Resource Evaluation (Attachment 1), from pg. 23.
Figure 2: 531 Dana St. (1995 View)
Item 3
Packet Page 36
HIST-0091-2021 (531 Dana)
Page 3
3.0 EVALUATION
To be eligible for listing as an historic resource, a building must exhibit a high level of historic
integrity, be at least 50 years old, and meet one or more of the eligibility criteria described in
§ 14.01.070 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance (see Attachment 4). Those resources 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 may be designated as a “Contributing List
Resource” (HPO § 14.01.050). The most unique and important resources and properties in terms
of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or
events in the City’s past may be designated as “Master List Resources.” The applicant’s Historic
Resource Evaluation (Attachment 1) provides, from page 26, an evaluation of the eligibility of the
property for designation as a Master List Resource, following the City’s Edibility Criteria).
3.1 Architectural Criteria
As described in the applicant’s Historic Resource Evaluation, the dwelling exhibits many
characteristic features of Victorian vernacular examples form the late 19th Century, in a manner
that expresses interesting details with notable attractiveness, consistent with listing criteria for
“Style” and for “Design”:
The 1880s architectural style of the Dana/Barneberg House used an abundance
of elements that were popular with the prominent citizens of San Luis Obispo at
that time. Using elements found on Queen Anne cottages such as the squared bay,
panels under the windows, and shingle work under the gables, it also represents a
composite of borrowed elements. The saw cut balustrades and scroll sawn border
under a narrow front facing gable behind a shed roof belie other aspects of
design. […] (pg. 26)
3.2 Historic Criteria
The Historic Resource Evaluation provides a summary (pp. 26 & 27) of the local activities in
which John Wesley Barneberg and his sister Sarah, were engaged, illuminating their contributions
to the local community, and notes the association of the Barnebergs with the Dana family, to
demonstrate the association of this property with the lives of persons important to local history, as
described by listing criteria for “History – Person.”
3.3 Integrity
To demonstrate satisfaction of listing criteria for “Integrity,” the Historic Resource Evaluation
notes the retention of the original design, footprint, and character-defining elements of the home
intact in moving to its current site from its original site across Dana Street, the lack of significant
alteration of the building, and its sensitive restoration in 2006, overseen by Darryl Joseph “Joe”
Shauerman, a local glazer and craftman (pp. 20-21, pg. 28).
Item 3
Packet Page 37
HIST-0091-2021 (531 Dana)
Page 4
Overall, the house retains more than enough of its character to communicate its
significance as an innovative, abstracted example of Minimal Traditional
architecture with some extraordinary interior features. (pg. 24).
3.4 Conclusion
The information in the Historic Resource Evaluation prepared for this application, documenting
the architectural character and integrity of the house, and describing the people associated with the
property, provides a basis for the Committee to find that the dwelling satisfies Architectural
Criteria for Style and Design (§§ 14.01.070 (A) (1) & (2)), Historic Criteria for “History-Person”
(§14.01.070 (B) (2)), and Criteria for Integrity (§§ 14.01.070 (C) (1) & (2)), to a degree that
qualifies the property for designation as a Master List Historic Resource. As the Historic Resource
Evaluation concludes:
As a result of this current study, the Dana/Barneberg House qualifies for its age,
design, integrity, as well as the people important to our history that were associated
with the house. It is strongly recommended that the residence be upgraded and
added to San Luis Obispo's Master List of Historic Properties
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). Inclusion of the subject properties on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered
by the general rule described in § 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend to the City Council that the property be designated as a Master List Resource in
the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, noting the elements of the property which satisfy
Evaluation Criteria to a degree warranting such designation, as being among the most unique
and important resources and properties in terms of age, architectural or historical significance,
rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past.
2. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent
issues.
3. Recommend to the City Council that the property should not be designated as a Master List
Resource, based on finding that the property does not satisfy Evaluation Criteria for historic
listing to a degree warranting such designation. This alternative is not recommended because
the applicant has provided an Historic Resource Evaluation supporting a conclusion that the
property meets the applicable Listing Criteria set out in the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance to a degree warranting designation as a Master List Resource.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Historic Resource Evaluation (Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants)
2. Downtown Historic District (Historic Preservation Ordinance)
Item 3
Packet Page 38
HIST-0091-2021 (531 Dana)
Page 5
3. Late 19th-Century Residential Development (Context Statement)
4. Evaluation Criteria (Historic Preservation Ordinance)
5. Queen Anne and Residential Vernacular Styles (Context Statement)
Item 3
Packet Page 39
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 40
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 41
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 42
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 43
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 44
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 45
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 46
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 47
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 48
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 49
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 50
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 51
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 52
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 53
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 54
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 55
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 56
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 57
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 58
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 59
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 60
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 61
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 62
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 63
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 64
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 65
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 66
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 67
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 68
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 69
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 70
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 71
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 72
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 73
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 74
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 75
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 76
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 77
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 78
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 79
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 80
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 81
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 82
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3Packet Page 83
38
5.2.2 Downtown Historic District
Setting
The Downtown Historic District encompasses the oldest part of the City of San Luis Obispo and
contains one of the City’s highest concentrations of historic sites and structures. The historic
Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa is at the geographic and historic center of the district, which
is bounded roughly by Palm and Marsh Streets on the north and south, Osos and Nipomo Streets
on the east and west, plus Dana Street as the northwest corner. Although some structures date to
the Spanish and Mexican eras (1772-1850) and the American pioneer settlement era (1850s-
1870), the majority of surviving structures date from the 1870s to the 1920s. The district is
comprised of two subdivisions: the Town of San Luis Obispo, recorded 1878 and the Mission
Vineyard Tract recorded in March of 1873. The Downtown Historic District has an area of 61.5
acres and in 2010 includes 98 designated historic structures.
The Downtown Historic District was developed along the City’s earliest commercial corridors
along Monterey, Higuera, Chorro, Garden and Marsh Streets, and has retained its historical use
as San Luis Obispo’s commercial and civic center. Commercial structures were laid out in a
regular grid pattern, with buildings set at the back of sidewalks and relatively narrow (60 foot
right-of-way) streets. The resultant narrow streets and zero building setbacks reinforce the
district’s human scale and vibrant Main Street image.
Site Features and Characteristics
Common site features and characteristics
include:
A.Buildings located at back of sidewalk
with zero street and side setbacks
B.Finish floors at grade
C.Recessed front entries oriented toward
the street
D.Front facades oriented toward the
street
E.Trees placed at regular intervals along
the street
Architectural Character
Built during the San Luis Obispo’s boom time circa 1870s-1910s (when the Town’s population
increased over 800 percent from 600 people in 1868 to 5,157 in 1910), the district’s commercial
architectural styles reflect the increasing wealth of the times. Architectural styles present in the
Downtown District include examples of Classical Revival, Italianate and Romanesque structures,
and more modest early American commercial. Although a few structures were designed by
outside architects (specifically from San Francisco and Los Angeles), the majority of Downtown
buildings were designed and built by local builders, including the Maino family, John Chapek,
721, 717 and 715 Higuera Street, North
Elevation
ATTACHMENT 2Item 3
Packet Page 84
39
Doton Building, 777 Higuera
Street, North Elevation
and Frank Mitchell.
Predominant architectural features include:
A. One to two stories (occasionally three)
B. Flat or low pitched roof, often with a parapet
C. Wide entablature or projecting cornice that often
includes classical architectural details such as
dentils, brackets and molding
D. First floor windows are horizontally oriented
storefront windows, often with display space
facing street. In multi-story structures, windows
are vertically oriented, typically with double
hung, wood sashes, and symmetrically arranged
so that they are dimensionally taller than their
width
E. Structures follow simple rectilinear or “boxy”
buildings forms
F. Masonry or smooth stucco wall siding
G. Contrasting bulkheads along base of street façade
H. Use of awnings, historic signs, second-story
overhangs and canopies
I. Use of transom windows above storefronts
Individually Contributing Elements in the Downtown District
Not all historic resources in the Downtown Historic
District were built during the district’s period of
significance of 1870-1930. These buildings 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 Doton Building is an example of
Streamline Moderne architecture from the 1930s. This
building was placed on the Master List as a significant
resource due to its craftsmanship and the rarity of this
particular style in San Luis Obispo. Additional examples
include the Laird building at 1023 Garden. Built in the
1880s, the Laird building is one of the City’s last
remaining Pioneer False front buildings. The Golden State
Creamery building at 570 Higuera is historically
significant to San Luis Obispo for its association with the
Smith Building and Union
Hardware Building, 1119 and
1129 Garden Street, East
Elevation
ATTACHMENT 2Item 3
Packet Page 85
40
dairy industry, an industry integral to the City’s development.
Non-Contributing Elements in Downtown
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. Buildings setback from street or side
property lines
B. Building height, form or massing
which contrasts markedly with the
prevailing 2-3 story pattern
C. Wood, metal or other contemporary
material siding, or “faux”
architectural materials or features.
D. Asymmetrical arrangement of doors
and windows
E. Raised, non-recessed or offset street
entries to buildings
Residential
Although the majority of the Downtown District is commercial, within the district is a smaller
residential section, primarily along Dana Street and also down Monterey Street to the west of the
mission. This subsection includes a spectrum of settlement from the mid 19th century to the
1920s. Lots were generally platted in regular grids, although curved along Dana to accommodate
the creek.
Site features and characteristics- Residential:
A. Street yard setbacks of 20 feet or
more, often with low walls (2 feet) and
fences at sidewalk
B. Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear
yard
C. Front entries oriented toward the street
with prominent porch and steps
D. Front facades oriented toward the
street
The architectural styles in the residential area
of the Downtown district are varied and 756 Palm Street, South Elevation
1010 Nipomo Street, South and West
Elevations
ATTACHMENT 2Item 3
Packet Page 86
41
represent several different periods of development in San Luis Obispo. The oldest, vernacular
Adobe, dates back the early pioneer period. The Rosa Butrón de Canet adobe at 466 Dana is
from this period and is one of the few surviving adobes in San Luis Obispo. Folk and High
Victorian structures built during the population influx at turn of the twentieth century. Finally,
Spanish Revival, a style that achieved popularity in San Luis Obispo during the housing boom of
1920s and 1930s which was itself funded in part by the maturation of war bonds from World
War I.
Architectural features- Residential:
A. One and rarely two story buildings
B. Gable and hip roof types predominate
C. Traditional fenestration, such as
double-hung, wood sash windows,
ornamental front doors, wood screen
doors
D. Painted wood or smooth stucco
siding.
469 Dana Street, North Elevation
ATTACHMENT 2Item 3
Packet Page 87
42
***
Murray Adobe, 474 Monterey Street; Anderson House, 532 Dana
Street; Hotel Wineman, 849 Higuera Street; 762 Higuera Street
ATTACHMENT 2Item 3
Packet Page 88
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
42
THEME: 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. Captain W. G. Dana erected the first frame building in the county on
Snyder House, 1406 Morro Street, 1885.
Photo 2013; source City of San Luis Obispo.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 89
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
43
Monterey Street from material brought from Chile. Captain John Wilson soon after erected a two-
story frame building on the lot where the public library now stands.
Railroad workers settled in San Luis Obispo and became the impetus for new residential development
in the city in the late 1880s. Although many workers opted to live in downtown San Luis Obispo,
development in general shifted towards the eastern and southern boundaries of the city and focused
on tracts adjacent to the Southern Pacific right-of-way. The Loomis, McBride, and Homestead tracts,
developed in 1887, were especially popular with railroad workers due to their proximity to the
Southern Pacific rail yard and service facilities.38
As railroad activity expanded toward the end of the 19th century, the needs of the growing employee
population sparked a demand for increased worker housing. The neighborhoods immediately adjacent
to the railroad station were developed with relatively modest single-family residences to accommodate
the growing influx of workers.39 A popular area was the Imperial Addition tract, which was developed
in 1891 and was conveniently located near the Southern Pacific roundhouse. The neighborhood
eventually became known as “Little Italy” due to the high concentration of Italian railroad workers
who resided there.
In order to continue railroad expansion during this period, many prominent land-holders along the
railroad route granted rights-of-way; this included the Dana family in San Luis Obispo. Establishing a
right-of-way for the railroad significantly impacted the landscape of San Luis Obispo. While many new
subdivisions were developed, existing subdivisions were drastically altered and streets and other access
routes were destroyed to create at-grade crossings. The existing configuration of the city was essentially
cut in half, and several subdivisions had to be re-platted, including the Central Addition and the
Loomis tract.
38 Hemalata Dandekar and Adrianna Jordan, “The Railroads and San Luis Obispo’s Urban Form,” Focus, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Volume
XVII, 2010, 48.
39 Robert Pavlik, “A Railroad Runs through It: The San Luis Obispo Southern Pacific Railroad Historic District,” n.d. Website:
http://www.heritageshared.org/docs/essays/roadscholars/roadscholars.html. Accessed March 2013.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 90
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
44
1. Phillips Addition (1874)
2. Deleissigues Tract (1876)
3. Buena Vista Tract (1885)
4. Loomis Tract (1887)
5. Deleissigues Subdivision (1887)
6. McBride Tract (1887)
7. Homestead Tract (1887)
8. Hathway Addition (1887)
9. Buena Vista Addition (1887)
10. Fairview Addition (1887)
11. Deleissigues Addition (Block 5)
(1887)
12. Central Addition (1888)
13. Maymont Addition (1889)
14. Schwartz Addition (1889)
15. South Side Addition (1891)
16. Imperial Addition (1891)
Map showing land annexations along the proposed right-of-way for the Southern Pacific Railroad, 1874-
1891.
Source: Adrianna Jordan, The Historical Influence of the Railroads on Urban Development and Future Economic
Potential in San Luis Obispo, online version, p. 35.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 91
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
45
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.40
Residents who were building more opulent homes 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.41
40 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 period.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 92
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
46
Late 19th Century Residential Development: Associated Property
Types, Integrity Considerations & Eligibility Standards
Property Type
Single-family Residence; Historic District
A residential property from this period may be significant:
As an increasingly rare example of late-19th century residential development -- Criterion A/1/B.2
(Event).
For its association with a significant person in San Luis Obispo’s early history -- Criterion B/2/B.1
(Person).
As a rare remaining example of adobe residential construction -- Criterion C/3/A.1,A.2
(Design/Construction).
As a good or rare example of a particular architectural style associated with the period -- Criterion
C/3/A.1,A.2 (Design/Construction).
A collection of residences from this period that are linked geographically may be eligible as a
historic district.
Integrity Considerations
In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient
integrity to convey its historic significance under the Late 19th Century Residential Development
theme.
Residential properties from this period eligible under Criteria A/1/B.2 (Event) should retain
integrity of location, design, feeling, and association.
A residential property significant under Criterion B/2/B.1 (Person) should retain integrity of design,
feeling, and association, at a minimum, in order to convey the historic association with a significant
person.
Residential properties significant under Criterion C/3/A.1,A.2 (Design/Construction) should retain
integrity of location, materials, workmanship, and feeling. Any remaining examples of adobe
construction from this period with fair integrity would likely be eligible. In general, the adobe walls
should remain largely intact and the residence should retain the majority of the character-defining
features associated with an adobe structure of its age. Alterations that are consistent with upgrades
typically seen in early adobe structures, including later additions constructed with wood framing
and replacement windows within original window openings, are acceptable. It is expected that the
setting will have been compromised by later development. Wood frame buildings from this period
should retain good integrity, although minor alterations are acceptable.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 93
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
47
Eligibility Standards
To be eligible, a property must:
date from the period of significance;
display most of the character-defining features; and
retain the essential aspects of integrity.
Extant Examples
Hays-Latimer Adobe, 642 Monterey Street, 1860.
Left image: Date unknown; source Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Special Collections.
Right image: 2013; source City of San Luis Obispo.
Dallidet Adobe, 1185 Pacific Avenue, 1860.
Left image: Date unknown; source San Luis Obispo County Historical Society.
Right image: 2013; source City of San Luis Obispo.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 94
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
48
Railroad Cottage, 1127 George Street, 1900.
Photo 2013; source Historic Resources Group.
Baker House, 1636 Morro Street, 1900.
Photo 2013; source City of San Luis Obispo.
Righetti House, 1314 Palm Street, 1877.
Photo 2013; source City of San Luis Obispo. Anderson House, 532 Dana Street, 1898.
Photo 2013; source City of San Luis Obispo.
Mancilla/Freitas Adobe, 868 Chorro Street, c. 1800-
1850. Photo of rehabilitation 2014; source City of San Luis
Obispo.
Rosa Butron Adobe, 466 Dana Street, 1860.
Photo 2013; source City of San Luis Obispo.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 95
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 4Item 3
Packet Page 96
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 4Item 3
Packet Page 97