HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4a. 559 Pismo St. (ARCH-0121-2022)
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE BIDDLE HOUSE (MASTER
LIST RESOURCE) FOR AN ELEVATOR
BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593
Email: woetzell@slocity.org
APPLICANT: Richard & Adian Lenz REPRESENTATIVE: Timothy Becher
RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director regarding the
consistency of the proposed new construction with the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01).
1.0 BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the Master List Biddle House (see
Project Description, Attachment A), to install an elevator for an accessible connection
between each of the three floors of the building. A s provided by §§ 14.01.030 (B) (7) &
(C) (4) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the project is being referred to the
Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for its recommendation to the Community
Development Director as to its consistency with historical preservation policies for
alterations and additions involving listed resources and properties within hist oric districts.
2.0 DISCUSSION
Site and Setting
The property is a residential parcel on the south side of Pismo Street between Nipomo
and Beach Streets, within the Old Town Historic District, one of the City’s oldest
residential neighborhoods, built up historically around the turn of the twentieth century,
with older structures dating back to the 1880s (see District description, Attachment B). It
is developed with a single-family dwelling, known as “The Biddle House,” constructed
between 1889 and 1897, a small guest cottage, and a larger Carriage House over a
garage, built in 2007. The property was included in the Master Inventory of Historic
Structures compiled in the 1983 Historic Resources Survey Completion Report. In 1998,
the current owners entered into an Historical Property Preservation (Mills Act) Agreement
with the City, for restoration and maintenance of the historic property in exchange for
property tax relief.
Meeting Date: 3/28/2022
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 45 Minutes
Page 9 of 37
Item 4a
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – March 28, 2022
Biddle House
As described in the Historic Resources Inventory for the property (see Attachment C),
The Biddle House is a three-story building on a raised stone foundation with steeply
pitched gables covered with composition shingles. It is noted as “high Victorian” in style,
exhibiting a variety of architectural influences including Queen Anne and Eastlake in its
detailing, with Eastern Stick and Carpenter Gothic in details along eaves and stickwork.
The City’s Historic Context Statement provides summary descriptions of the
characteristics of several Victorian styles, included as Attachment D to this report. In
addition, the property is noted for its association with the Biddles, an influential ranching
family prominent in the City’s early history.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct an addition to the southwest corner of the Biddle
House, to accommodate an elevator to provide barrier -free access for the occupants
between the floors of the three-story house (see Project Plans, Attachment E, and
Figure 2 below). The addition requires removal of a twelve-foot-wide section of siding and
three original windows from the west building elevation and will project seven feet from
Figure 1: The Biddle House (559 Pismo)
Page 10 of 37
Item 4a
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – March 28, 2022
the wall plane at this side of the building. The removed siding and two of the original
windows will be retained and used in the new addition, along with new wood siding and
trim material, all to be designed and painted to replicate the existing paneled pattern and
colors of the house. At the top of t he addition a small new sloped roof section will cover
the addition at the second-floor level, with a new third-floor gable feature projecting from
the roof to cover the upper-most portion of the elevator enclosure. The gable is also
proposed to be patterned and decorated to match that of the existing building.
3.0 EVALUATION
Proposed work for minor additions and alterations to historically listed structures must be
consistent with guidelines for Changes to Historic Resources set out in § 3.4 of the City’s
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.1 These guidelines are concerned with the
retention of character-defining features of the structure and its integrity, and with
consistency and compatibility in form, style, and character. They also require that the
work be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties.2
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,
1 Available online at www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/4144
2 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
Figure 2: Proposed Elevator Addition (as seen from North and West Elevations)
Page 11 of 37
Item 4a
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – March 28, 2022
form, massing, rhythm, fenestration, materials, color and
architectural details
§ 3.4.1 (f)
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.
§ 3.4.2
Percent of historic
resource to be
preserved.
Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain at least 75%
of the original building framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls
and cladding, in total, and reuse original materials as feasible.
Proposed alterations of greater than 25% of the original building
framework, roof, and exterior walls will be subject to the review
process for demolitions.
§ 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, its setting and
architectural context. 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.
The proposed addition is sited and designed in a manner intended to preserve the
integrity of the historical primary dwelling. It is placed at the rear corner of the existing
building, toward the rear of the site, on one of the less-visible portions of the building, as
seen from the public right-of-way. As depicted in project plans, the majority of the structure
and its character-defining features is untouched, with far greater than 75% of the original
structure retained. As more fully discussed in this report, its design is intended to achieve
consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, complementing the original style of the structure, and introducing no
conflicting architectural elements.
Page 12 of 37
Item 4a
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – March 28, 2022
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Rehabilitation)
Standards for Rehabilitation
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal
change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces and spatial relationships.
2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Changes
that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or
elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work
will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features,
size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its
environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a
manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property
and its environment would be unimpaired.
The Secretary of Interior’s Standards provide guidance on rehabilitation 3 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. The property and building will
continue to be used for residential purposes. The proposed addition has been designed
in a manner intended to exhibit compatibility in size and proportion with the historic
dwelling, to preserve the building’s distinctive wood siding, detailing, and windows, and
thereby retain the property’s historic character. In addition, the project architect notes that
should the addition be removed in the future, the building’s essential form and integrity
would be unimpaired, and the original appearance could be restored.
3 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)
Page 13 of 37
Item 4a
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – March 28, 2022
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.
The applicant’s project description and project plans (Attachments A and E) describe and
depict the retention and re-use of the original wood siding and detailing of that would have
to be removed to accommodate the elevator addition. In order to encourage the retention
and preservation of wood features that are important to the b uilding’s character, the
Committee should consider recommending a condition of architectural review approval to
ensure that final plans for permits clearly indicate, in a Demolition Plan sheet, details
about the extent and amount of the removed wood material to be retained for re-use, and
that plans also clearly indicate, in Elevation drawings, where the wood material is re -used
and where new material is used in the addition. Any replacement of wood material (i.e.,
where the material is removed but not re-used) is to be justified by sufficient evidence in
support of any such replacement, (e.g., demonstration of excessive deterioration) before
permits would be granted to carry out the work.
Roofs
Recommended Not Recommended
Identifying, retaining, and preserving roofs
and their functional and decorative features
that are important in defining the overall
historic character of the building. The form of
the roof (gable, hipped, gambrel, flat, or
mansard) is significant, as are its decorative
and functional features (such as cupolas,
cresting, parapets, monitors, chimneys,
weather vanes, dormers, ridge tiles, and
snow guards), roofing material (such as
slate, wood, clay tile, metal, roll roofing, or
asphalt shingles), and size, color, and
patterning.
Removing or substantially changing roofs
which are important in defining the overall
historic character of the building so that, as a
result, the character is diminished.
Changing the configuration or shape of a
roof by adding highly visible new features
(such as dormer windows, vents, skylights,
or a penthouse).
Designing rooftop additions, elevator or stair
towers, decks or terraces, dormers, or
skylights when required by a new or
Changing a character-defining roof form, or
damaging or destroying character-defining
roofing material as a result of an
Page 14 of 37
Item 4a
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – March 28, 2022
continuing use so that they are
inconspicuous and minimally visible on the
site and from the public right-of-way and do
not damage or obscure character-defining
historic features.
incompatible rooftop addition or improperly-
installed or highly-visible mechanical
equipment.
The proposed addition includes some modification of the roofline where it meets the
existing building structure. A new sloped roof section will
extend from the top of the second floor, over the bulk of the
elevator structure, and a new gable feature will project from the
roof, at the third floor level, covering the interior elevator exit
area. The new gable is designed to replicate the pitch and
detailing of the adjacent exiting gable, though it is somewhat
smaller in scale, and without windows (see Figure 3).
While the overall shape and configuration of the roof is largely
maintained, particularly on the more visible and prominent
north and east building elevations, the Committee should
consider whether opportunity exists for design refinements that
could further reduce the size and visibility of this element of the
addition. For example, it may be desirable to avoid replication of the gable form and
detailing, to make the new feature less conspicuous and more subordinate in relation to
the adjacent original gable feature.
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.
Using compatible window treatments (such
as frosted glass, appropriate shades or
blinds, or shutters) to retain the historic
character of the building when it is
necessary to conceal mechanical
equipment, for example, that the new use
requires be placed in a location behind a
window or windows on a primary or highly
visible elevation.
Removing a character-defining window to
conceal mechanical equipment or to provide
privacy for a new use of the building by
blocking up the opening.
Figure 3: New Gable
Page 15 of 37
Item 4a
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – March 28, 2022
Three existing windows will be removed to accommodate the proposed addition. Two of
those will be reused as functioning windows in the addition: one window at the ground -
level pantry extension and one at the second-level bathroom extension. The Committee
should consider recommending a condition of approval to ensure that final plans for the
proposed work clearly identify, in a Demolition Plan sheet, the retention of the removed
windows and, in Elevation drawings, the reuse of two of the windows in the new addition.
Code-Required Work
Recommended Not Recommended
Providing barrier-free access that promotes
independence for the user while preserving
significant historic features.
Making modifications for accessibility that do
not provide independent, safe access while
preserving historic features
The SOI Standards also cover work done to meet accessibility and life -safety code
requirements, encouraging sensitive solutions that protect the historic character of a
building and site. While not necessarily required by code, the proposed work provides
barrier-free access for the building occupants, with consideration given to preserving
significant historic features of the building, as described in this report.
New Exterior Additions
Recommended Not Recommended
Placing functions and services required for a
new use (including elevators and stairways)
in secondary or non-character-defining
interior spaces of the historic building rather
than constructing a new addition.
Expanding the size of the historic building by
constructing a new addition when
requirements for the new use could be met
by altering non-character-defining interior
spaces.
Constructing a new addition on a secondary
or non-character-defining elevation and
limiting its size and scale in relationship to
the historic building.
Constructing a new addition on or adjacent
to a primary elevation of the building which
negatively impacts the building’s historic
character.
Constructing a new addition that results in
the least possible loss of historic materials
so that character-defining features are not
obscured, damaged, or destroyed.
Attaching a new addition in a manner that
obscures, damages, or destroys character-
defining features of the historic building.
Designing a new addition that is compatible
with the historic building.
Designing a new addition that is significantly
different and, thus, incompatible with the
historic building.
Page 16 of 37
Item 4a
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – March 28, 2022
Ensuring that the addition is subordinate and
secondary to the historic building and is
compatible in massing, scale, materials,
relationship of solids to voids, and color.
Constructing a new addition that is as large
as or larger than the historic building, which
visually overwhelms it (i.e., results in the
diminution or loss of its historic character).
Using the same forms, materials, and color
range of the historic building in a manner
that does not duplicate it, but distinguishes
the addition from the original building.
Duplicating the exact form, material, style,
and detailing of the historic building in a new
addition so that the new work appears to be
historic.
Basing the alignment, rhythm, and size of
the window and door openings of the new
addition on those of the historic building.
The size and scale of the addition is limited in relation to that of the building, with the
addition being just over 12 feet in width and extending out seven feet beyond the western
wall plane. Original windows will be reused in the addition, to carry on the alignment,
rhythm, and size of the window openings of the historic bu ilding. The applicant’s Project
Description (Attachment A) discusses the space constraints that make placement of the
elevator feature entirely within the interior of the building infeasible, and the rationale
behind selection of the proposed location as a n appropriate secondary elevation for an
exterior addition, to minimize the removal of original siding, trim, and windows. Though
the addition has been designed for compatibility with the historic building, the Committee,
as suggested in the Roof section of this report, above, should consider whether further
design refinements could make the addition more subordinate and secondary to the
building, to better distinguish the addition from the original building and avoid the
appearance of the new work as historic by reducing duplication of some of the character-
defining gable and detail elements.
Finally, it is noted that while SOI Standards also provide for retention and preservation of
entry and porch features, the existing porch on the west elevation of thi s building is not
an original feature of the building, but rather resulted from a ground -floor kitchen addition
made to the rear of the house in 2007. Its replacement by a small portico entry to the new
elevator would not be inconsistent with those guidelines.
Summary
The applicant has placed the proposed addition, intended to provide barrier-free access
throughout the building, at the rear corner of the existing building, on a less visible and
prominent building elevation, to reduce its visual impact, and has designed it to a form
and scale compatible with that of the existing building. Siding and windows are proposed
to be retained and reused within the new addition, to minimize loss of character -defining
features. However, further refinement to the design of the addition may be possible, for
example by avoiding exact replication of the gable form and detailing, to subordinate and
distinguish it, as far as practical, from the original building.
Page 17 of 37
Item 4a
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – March 28, 2022
Based on the evaluation provided in this report, staff suggests that the Committee
specifically consider the treatment of the wood, roof, and window 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, should repair or replacement be necessary, that such work
is based on sufficient justification and evidence, and carried out consistent with those
Standards and guidelines. Staff offers the following suggestions for conditions language:
Wood Material. Final plans for construction permits to complete this project
shall clearly depict and describe, such as on a Demolition Plan sheet,
details about the extent and amount of existing wood material to be
removed, and shall clearly note the material to be retained for re -use in the
new addition. Final plans shall also clearly indicate, such as in the Building
Elevations drawings, where in the new addition the original wood material
is re-used and where in the addition new material Will be used. Any
replacement of wood material (i.e., where original wood material is removed
but not re-used) depicted or described in final plans shall be accompanied
by sufficient evidence to support such replacement, such as deterioration
beyond repair, etc., to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director, before any permit will be granted to carry out the work.
Windows. Final plans for construction permits to complete this project shall
clearly depict and describe, such as on a Demolition Plan sheet, retention
of the removed windows for re-use in the new addition. Final plans shall
also clearly indicate, such as in the Building Elevations drawings, where in
the new addition the two original windows will be used. Any replacement of
windows (i.e., where original windows are removed but not re-used)
depicted or described in final plans shall be accompanied by sufficient
evidence to support such replacement, such as deterioration beyond repair,
etc., to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, before any
permit will be granted to carry out the work.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Construction of an addition to an existing structure is categorically exempt from CEQA
environmental review, as Existing Facilities (Guidelines § 15301 (e)).
5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project consistent
with the City's historical preservation policies, with any suggested conditions of
approval necessary to achieve such consistency.
2. Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant.
3. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project inconsistent
with historical preservation policies, citing specific areas of inconsistency
Page 18 of 37
Item 4a
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – March 28, 2022
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Applicant’s Project Description
B - Old Town Historic District (Context Statement)
C - Historic Resources Inventory (Biddle House)
D - Victorian Styles – Context Statement
E - Project Plans
Page 19 of 37
Page 20 of 37
TIMOTHY BECHER DESIGN
Architecture Planning Sustainable Systems Collaborative Facilitation Sculpture
P.O.BOX 96 SAN LUIS OBISPO CALI FORNIA 93406
tele p h one: 805_549_0218 fax: 805_52 8 _5619 e -mail: tim s pace @fix.net
City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department March 16, 2022
Re: Elevator addition to the Biddle House
559 Pismo Street,
San Luis Obispo, California
Project Description
The primary goal of this project is the addition of an elevator to provide access from the ground level
to the third level attic.
In the course of restoration and rehabilitation of the house in 1997, the narrow and steep interior
stairway was repaired and retained as a significant historical feature of the period in which it was built.
This feature, however true it is to the architectural style, presents physical challenges for the owners,
and for First Responders to medical emergencies on the upper floors.
Our objective has been locating it strategically with the house plan, and appropriately integrated with
the unique interior and exterior architectural features. We began our process of locating the elevator
by considering if the elevator could be located in the interior of the house. Since one of the require-
ments is that the elevator access be from the exterior at ground level, the closest we could be to
containing it within the house was the indentation on the southwest, (driveway) side near the back
of the house, where a porch and stairs had been added during the 1997 restoration and remodeling
project. We also considered the southeast corner, but at this location the elevator would also be an
exterior addition and with more drastic alterations of the house’s existing character-defining features,
and interior spaces. After weighing the advantages and disadvantages of these two, and two other
possible locations we determined that the location which replaces the added porch and stair was
the least disruptive place, and the most amenable to fitting in with, and complimenting the distinctive
features of the house
The architectural style has been referred to in various accounts as Eastern Stick, and Carpenter
Gothic Revival architecture. In some circles Stick is considered a transitional style between the
Carpenter Gothic of the mid-century and the Queen Anne houses of the late nineteenth century.
The Biddle House combines a spindled Queen Anne porch with some Carpenter Gothic details such
as the decorative gable infilling, and the Stick features expressing verticality, with multiple stories,
tall, double-hung windows, steeply pitched roofs, and towers or tower-like projections. One of the
most character-defining features is the expressive wood facing which combines horizontal
tongue and groove siding divided into panels with a rectangular grid of 1x5 inch trim boards.
Our proposed elevator addition is toward the back of the driveway side of the house. The exterior
entry to the elevator is at the ground level in the space now occupied by a porch which was added in
the original restoration. A small gable similar to the front and rear entry gables, which have pyramidal
“buttons spaced on the fascia, provides shelter at the door.
Page 21 of 37
TIMOTHY BECHER DESIGN
Architecture Planning Sustainable Systems Collaborative Facilitation Sculpture
P.O.BOX 96 SAN LUIS OBISPO CALI FORNIA 93406
tele p h one: 805_549_0218 fax: 805_52 8 _5619 e -mail: tim s pace @fix.net
In order to accommodate the elevator access on the second floor the existing bathroom was
rearranged by projecting seven feet out, for the width of the removed porch. On the ground floor this
area is an entry vestibule for the elevator. On the first floor it is the elevator landing and a new kitchen
pantry. Above the second floor the plane of the addition is a new gable which is set back from the
first and second floors to one foot beyond the existing three-story gabled wall. The proposed gable is
slightly less than one half of the width of the adjacent wall, with detailing emulating the character of its
“neighbor.”
The siding of the proposed addition is a continuation of the horizontal siding, divided into panels with
the 1x5 trim boards, continuing the pattern of the existing house. The corners and door and windows
are also trimmed with the 1x5s.
New windows will be double hung in similar sizes and/or proportions as the existing windows. The
removed windows will be re-used in the addition.
Colors of the new roofing, and the body and trim of the walls will be matching the existing.
The interior finishes and fixtures of the new spaces will continue to remain as close as possible to
maintaining the character of the period architecture.
This project is, for the Owners, a continuation of approximately thirty years of exemplary stewardship
and fastidious care of what they consider to be as much a mission as a property. In every project that
has been undertaken here, they have gone above and beyond the necessary expenditures of time
and resources to keep the Biddle House the architectural treasure which it is. This project is another
in a long line of additions and improvements.
Sincerely,
Timothy B. Becher, AIA
Page 22 of 37
34
5.2.1 Old Town Historic District
Setting
Established in 1987, the Old Town Historic District abuts the Railroad district on the southeast
and is generally bounded by Pacific and Islay streets on the north and south, and by Santa Rosa
and Beach streets on the east and west. As one of the City’s oldest residential neighborhoods,
Old Town was built up historically around the turn of the twentieth century, with older structures
dating back to the 1880s. It consists of five subdivisions: the Mission Vineyard Tract recorded
in March 1873, the Dallidet Tract recorded in 1876, the Murray Church Tract recorded in 1876,
the Ingleside Homestead Tract, recorded in 1887, and the La Vina Homestead Tract, recorded in
1903. The District encompasses 86.1 acres, or 0.13 square miles.
The District’s prominent location, located just south of and uphill from the Downtown
commercial district, made it a desirable neighborhood for the City’s emerging merchant class
and leading citizens. Here, residents were close to businesses and commerce, but could avoid the
flooding and mud that plagued the Downtown. Home sites were laid out in regular grid
patterns, with relatively wide (60 foot right-of-way) streets and 60 foot wide lots. The resultant
wide streets and lot frontages allowed deep (20+ feet) setbacks and ample landscaping,
reinforcing the district’s prosperous image. Today the high concentration of 100 year old or
older residences establishes the District’s predominant architectural and visual character.
Site Features and Characteristics
Common site features and characteristics
include:
A. Prominent street yard setbacks of 20
feet or more
B. Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear
yard
C. Finish floors raised 2 3 above finish
grade
D. Front entries oriented toward street,
with prominent walk, stairs and porch
E. Front building facades oriented
parallel to street
1060 Pismo Street, South Elevation
Page 23 of 37
35
Architectural Character
In keeping with its peak period of development between 1880 and 1920, the Old Town District
has many examples of High Victorian architecture, a style popular in California during that time
period that reflected prosperity, power and discriminating taste. This included several style
variations, such as Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences, especially along
the top of the hill within the district roughly aligned with Buchon Street. Other, more modest
structures with simpler styles abound in other areas of the district. These buildings were first
home to the burgeoning merchant class in San Luis Obispo that emerged during the turn of the
century. These styles include Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman Bungalow,
with many homes borrowing architectural details from several styles. Most of the houses in this
district were designed and constructed by the homes’ first occupants or by local builders and
were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period. The shared first story porches
along Pismo Street are a good example of a common design feature linking buildings.
Predominant architectural features include:
A. Two- and rarely three-story houses
B. Mostly gable and hip roof types
C. Highly ornamented roof features,
including prominent fascias,
bargeboards, gable end treatments,
decorative shingles, prominent
pediments or cornices
D. Traditional fenestration, such as
double-hung, wood sash windows,
divided light windows, ornamental
front doors, wood screen doors
E. Painted wood surface material,
including siding and decorative
moldings
Although many of the buildings were built at separate times, the pattern, rhythm and repetition of
common design elements or detailing of historic building facades along Old Town streets creates
a prevailing theme and character for the
district.
Individually Contributing Elements in the
Old Town District
Some buildings within the bounds of the Old
Town District, constructed outside of the
period of significance for the district, 1880-
1920, do not share the elements outlined in the
above description, but have achieved
historical significance on their own and
1543 Morro Street, East Elevation
M.F. Avila House, 1443 Osos Street, East
Elevation Page 24 of 37
36
therefore individually contribute to the historic character of San Luis Obispo.
The M.F. Avila House at 1443 Osos Street is an example of a Spanish Revival style building
built in the late 1920s that has been placed on the City’s Master List as a significant resource, in
this case for its craftsmanship as well as its association with a historically significant local
person. St. Stephens Episcopal Church at 1344 Nipomo Street built in 1873 is an example of
Carpenter Gothic style. The first Episcopal church in San Luis Obispo County, St. Stephens is
historically significant both its architecture and its association with the pioneer period of San
Luis Obispo.
Non-Contributing Elements in the Old Town District
Non-contributing buildings are those buildings that both do not meet the criteria outlined above
and have not achieved historical significance. Most of the contemporary buildings in the district
fall into this category.
Non-contributing architectural styles,
materials or site features include:
A. Contemporary stucco or other material
exterior siding
B. Flat or extremely low pitched roof
C. Aluminum sliding windows
D. Rectilinear, “boxy” shape or very
horizontal massing
E. Unarticulated wall surfaces
The Vista Grande Apartments, 1415 Morro
Street, East Elevation.
Page 25 of 37
37
***
1059 Leff Street; Biddle House, 559 Pismo Street; 1624, 1636, 1642 Morro Street; and
Pismo Buchon Alley from Santa Rosa Street
Page 26 of 37
Page 27 of 37
Page 28 of 37
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
135
GOTHIC REVIVAL (CARPENTER GOTHIC)
Like the Italianate style, Gothic Revival emerged in England as part of the Picturesque Movement.
Often termed “Carpenter Gothic” in the United States, this style commonly was applied to both
residences and churches. Buildings may be of wood or masonry construction, but wood-frame
predominates in domestic examples.
Character-defining features include:
Asymmetrical façade
Vertical emphasis
Steeply-pitched roof, often with cross gables and overhanging eaves
Often features a square or octagonal tower
Typically with horizontal wood exterior cladding
Tall narrow windows, commonly with pointed arches
One-story entry or full-width porch, often supported by flattened Gothic arches
Fanciful wood ornamentation, including decorative vergeboards
McManus House, 639 Pismo Street, 1901. Source: City of
San Luis Obispo.
First Baptist Church, 1301 Osos Street,
1907. Source: City of San Luis Obispo.
Biddle House, 552 Pismo Street, 1889. Source: City
of San Luis Obispo.
Page 29 of 37
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
136
STICK/EASTLAKE
The Stick style is an architectural link between the earlier Gothic Revival and later Queen Anne style,
all of which are adapted from Medieval buildings traditions. The Stick style is defined primarily by its
decorative detailing, where the wall surface itself is treated as a decorative element, frequently with
visible stick work. The term “Eastlake” typically refers to the decorative ornamentation found on
Victorian-era residences, such as those designed in the Stick style.
Character-defining features include:
Steeply-pitched gabled roof, usually with cross gables
Decorative trusses at the gable apex
Overhanging eaves with exposed rafters
Wood exterior wall cladding with applied decorative stick work
Entry or full-width porches with diagonal or curved braces
May incorporate Eastlake detailing
Shipsey House, 1266 Mill Street, 1890. Source: Historic Resources Group.
Page 30 of 37
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
137
QUEEN ANNE
The Queen Anne style was one of the most popular Victorian-era styles for residential buildings in
California. Like the Stick style that it quickly replaced, Queen Anne uses exterior wall surfaces as a
primary decorative element.
Character-defining features include:
Asymmetrical façade
Steeply-pitched roof of irregular shape, usually with a dominate front-facing gable
Wooden exterior wall cladding with decorative patterned shingles
Projecting partial-, full-width or wrap-around front porch, usually one story in height
Cut-away bay windows
Wood double-hung sash windows
Towers topped by turrets, domes or cupolas
Tall decorative brick chimneys
Ornamentation may include decorative brackets, bargeboards and pendants, as well as Eastlake
details, such as spindle work
Crocker House, 793 Buchon Street, 1901-1902.Source
City of San Luis Obispo.
Stanton House, 752 Buchon Street, 1903-1905. Source City of
San Luis Obispo.
Page 31 of 37
Page 32 of 37
EXISTING 3-STORY RESIDENCEFIRST FLOOR ADDITIONLOT AREA1314075EXISTING PLANS15,000LEGAL & PROJECT DESCRIPTION; AREAS;PROJECT DIRECTORY; GOVERNING CODES;SITE PLAN; VICINITY MAP; SHEET INDEXSECOND FLOOR ADDITION81ALL WORK TO COMPLY WITH FOLLOWING CODES &ORDINANCES:-2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE-2019 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE (CEC)-2019 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC)-2019 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC)-2019 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS(CGBSC)-2019 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE (CEnC)-2019 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE (CEBC)-2019 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE (CFC)-CALIFORNIA STATE ENERGY AND ACCESSIBILITYSTANDARDS AND ORDINANCES-2019 CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONSTITLE 25, DIVISION 1-CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CODES AND ORDINANCES,CURRENT EDITIONEXISTING ELEVATIONSADDITION OF ELEVATOR TO EXTERIOR OF EXISTING3-STOREY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE; 3-STORYADDITION FOR PANTRY & BATHROOM RE-LOCATION;CREATION OF INTERIOR ACCESS HALLWAYS INEXISTING STRUCTUREPROPOSED PLANSTHIRD FLOOR13559 PISMO STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401A.P.N. 003-615-016LOT 2, BLK 1, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAZONING: R-3-HBUILDING TYPE: VMILLS ACT CONTRACTOLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT559 PISMO STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401tel. 805.PROPOSED ELEVATIONSMILLS ACT CONTRACT RESIDENCEOLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICTDAVE HEACOCK, Lic. 878001-C-11tel. 805.215.3722https://www.heacockelevator.netHEACOCK ELEVATOR COMPANYP.O.BOX 1087, GROVER BEACH, CA 93483RESIDENTIAL ELEVATOR CONTRACTORTOTAL ADDITION278GROUND LEVEL ELEVATOR ADDITION53T-1Page 33 of 37
A-1Page 34 of 37
A-3Page 35 of 37
A-2Page 36 of 37
A-4Page 37 of 37
03/28/2022 Item 4a Staff Presentation
1
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Elevator addition to the Master-List Biddle House
2
1
2
03/28/2022 Item 4a Staff Presentation
2
3
4
3
4
03/28/2022 Item 4a Staff Presentation
3
5
Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
Maintain Architectural Integrity and Consistency
Consistency with Secretary of Interior’s Standards
Retention of at Least 75% of Structure
Retain Character Defining Features
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
Maintain historical use
Retain and Preserve Historic Character
Avoid Changes Creating False Sense of Historical Development
Preserve Distinctive Materials, Finishes, Finishes…
Differentiate New Work from the Old, Protect by Compatibility
ARCH-0121-2022 (559 Pismo)
Elevator addition to the Master-List Biddle House
Action
Forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding the consistency of the proposed
work with the City’s historical preservation policies…
5
6