HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4c. 1258 Palm St. (ARCH-0566-2021)
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY DWELLING TO REPLACE AN
EXISTING DWELLING BEHIND THE PATRICK & CATHERINE MCHENRY HOUSE
(CONTRIBUTING LIST RESOURCE) IN THE MILL STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT;
ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 PALM)
BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593
Email: woetzell@slocity.org
APPLICANT: Richard Diel REPRESENTATIVE: Nelson R. Bernal
RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director as to the consistency
of the proposed project with the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance , including any
recommended conditions of approval to ensure such consistency.
1.0 BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to demolish a small one -bedroom dwelling unit at the rear of the
property and construct a new two-story dwelling in its place (see Project Description,
Attachment A and Project Plans, Attachment B). The property is within the Mill Street
Historic District and is also included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a
Contributing List Resource. The applicant has included with this application an evaluation
of the property’s history, including discussion of its historical character (see Historical
Significance Information, Attachment C).
As provided by §14.01.030(C)(4) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the
Committee will review new construction in historic districts and on historically listed
properties. In addition, the project involves demolition of a small apartment at the rear of
the property, and pursuant to §14.01.030(B)(7) the Committee is asked to consider
whether demolition of the structure is consistent with City policy.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The subject site is a residential parcel measuring 8,235 square feet (0.18 acre) in area,
located on the north side of Palm Street, about 50 feet west of Johnson Avenue. It is
located in the Mill Street Historic District a residential neighborhood developed at the turn
of the 20th century, with the majority of the existing buildings dating from the 1900s to
1920s, the district’s primary period of historical and architectural significance (see
description of District, Attachment D).
Meeting Date: 6/27/2022
Item Number: 4c
Time Estimate: 45 minutes
Page 63 of 103
Item 4c
ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022
The majority of historic homes are more modest residences, built by local builders, and
the District encompasses many different architectural styles, including revival styles
popular at the turn of the twentieth century, such as Neo -classic Row House, Victorian,
Tudor Revival, Mission Revival, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing
architectural details from more than one style.
In 1910 the primary dwelling on the site was built (see Figure 1 below). The applicant’s
historical significance information describes the building:
In 1910 James M. Akin built this house to a pattern from a source
unknown for Irish-born rancher and hotelier Patrick McHenry and his wife
Catherine. It embodies the character-defining features of what Virginia
McAlester characterizes as asymmetric Colonial Revival, I characterize
as Streamline Colonial; is associated with a historically significant
builder; and possesses high artistic values. (Papp, pg. 2)
City permit records for the property list a permit for conversion of a storage building into
a dwelling unit, finalized in 2006 and associated with the address 1260 Palm,
corresponding to the small building directly behind the Patrick and Catherine McHenry
House. At the very back of the property, is a small dwelling at 1258 Palm, described in
City records as Mission Revival in style (see Historical Preservation File, Attachment E)..
The property was designated as a Contributing List Resource in the Invento ry of Historic
Resources compiled after completion of the City’s first historical survey in 1983. The
property appears under the address 1264 Palm Street in the most recent comprehensive
list of historic resources adopted by the City Council (under Resolution 6424, adopted in
April 1988), with neither 1258 nor 1260 Palm listed in the Inventory. It has not been
included in any subsequent Inventory listing actions since that time.
Figure 1: Sanborn Map (1926), left; Patrick and Catherine McHenry House (right)
Page 64 of 103
Item 4c
ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022
2.2 Project Description
The applicant proposes to demolish the small Mission Revival dwelling at the back of the
property (1258) and construct a two-story dwelling in replacement. Fiber-cement siding
in a horizontal orientation is the dominant exterior material used in the design. This
material is also used for trim (“Hardi-trim”) around the building corners, windows, and
doors. The new building is generally rectangular in form, apart from a small offset at the
west and north sides to accommodate the required setbacks for the upper story of the
building. A pitched roof is sheathed with composition shingle and detailed with wood
fascia. Windows are rectangular in form, vertically-oriented sash windows, except for two
picture windows on the upper level of the front elevation.
3.0 EVALUATION
It is the policy of the City that significant historic and architectural resources should be
identified, preserved and rehabilitated, and to ensure that new buildings are compatible
with architecturally and historically signif icant buildings. General Plan policies for
preservation and protection of historical resources are implemented by the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance and its supporting Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
(HPPG). New structures in historic districts are to be designed to be architecturally
compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character and with nearby historic
resources (Historical Preservation Program Guidelines §3.2.1 & 3.2.2), and proposed
new construction must be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties1 (HPPG §3.1.1).
1 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: 1258 Palm (left), 1260 Palm (right)
Page 65 of 103
Item 4c
ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022
3.1 Historic Preservation Ordinance and Program Guidelines2
Definitions
Historic Resource: any building, site, improvement, area or object of aesthetic, architectural,
cultural, historic or scientific significance, and which is included in, or potentially eligible for
local, State or National historic designation.
Primary Structure: the most important building or other structural feature on a parcel in terms
of size, scale, architectural or historical significance, as determined by the Committee
Construction in Historic Districts
§ 3.2.1 - Architecturally compatible development within Historic Districts.
New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with the
district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing,
rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of
the district's historic structures. New structures are not required to copy or imitate historic
structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic.
§ 3.2.2 - Architectural compatibility.
The CHC reviews development in historic districts for architectural compatibility with nearby
historic resources, and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies,
standards, and historic district descriptions. New development should not sharply contrast with,
significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of
historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract
from the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district.
Primary Structure and Builder. This property is listed in the City’s Inventory of Historic
Resources as a Contributing List Property. Historical Significance Information provided
by the applicant (Attachment C) describes the architectural style and significance of the
Primary Structure on the property, the Patrick and Catherine McHenry House, asserting
that it “is the most sophisticated and best-preserved exemplar of Streamline Colonial in
the Mill Street Historic District”:
Flanking Tuscan entry columns; elegantly curving wraparound portico of
four additional columns, enclosed balustrade, and separate cornice;
muscular bay window offering counterpoint to the portico; plain and
recessed frieze topped by a roof cornice; and central hip and corniced
dormer on the hip and corniced roof […] combine for an imposing effect
… (Papp, pg. 5)
2 The Ordinance and Guidelines are available at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/historic-and-archeological-preservation/historic-preservation
Page 66 of 103
Item 4c
ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022
Biographical information provided about James M. Akin, the builder, establishes his
significance as a local contractor and builder “well known as the contractor in 1907 -1908
of the new Baptist Church at Pacific and Osos” along with several other notable local
examples of artfully designed Colonial Revival cottages (Papp, from pg. 2).
1258 Palm. The architectural style of the small stucco building at the rear of the property
(at 1258), proposed to be demolished, is also discussed and compared to local exemplars
of the Mission Revival style, including several within the Mill Street Historic District
(Attachment C, from pg. 6), with attention to defining characteristics of the style including
roof forms and use of tile roofing material, treatment of parapets, arched forms, door and
window patterns, and ornamental accents (see description of style, Attachment F).
Ultimately, the building is found to have no historic or architectural significance, and is not
currently qualified as a Contributing List Resource:
The absence of a building permit in historic files leaves builder and
architect unknown; it does not appear to be the work of a master
(14.01.070.A). The stud and stucco construction was widespread and
was not used here in any notable, “embodying” way. The economical box
form was also widespread and is undistinguished. Though modest
cottages can possess ambitious style, this is not one these … (Papp, pg.
13)
New Construction. The proposed new construction is sited at the rear corner of the
property and conforms to development standards applicable to the Medium-High Density
(R-3) Residential Zone. It does not block views of any adjacent historic resource, and
visibility of the building from the street is substantially occluded by the building’s location
at the back of the site and the rise of the site from the street. It is two stories in height,
comparable to that of one- and two-story buildings adjacent to the subject property and
within the Mill Street Historic District. A conventional residential form and style is
exhibited, utilizing traditional window patterns, fiber cement board siding and trim
materials, and wood fascia. Project plans depicting these elements provide a basis for
finding the new construction to be architecturally compatible with the architectural and
historical character of the subject property, nearby historic resources, and the character
of the Mill Street Historic District, without sharply contrasting with, or visually detracting
from their historic character.
Page 67 of 103
Item 4c
ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022
3.2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of Interior’s Standards provide guidance on preservation, rehabilitation,
and preservation 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. In this case, as the property itself is not a listed historic resource, guidance from
this document is limited mainly to that regarding “Setting,” relevant to the relationship of
new construction to a district or neighborhood.
Setting (District / Neighborhood)
Recommended Not Recommended
Designing adjacent new construction that is
compatible with the historic character of the
setting that preserve the historic relationship
between the buildings and the landscape.
Introducing new construction into historic
districts which is visually incompatible or that
destroys historic relationships within the
setting, or which damages or destroys
important landscape features.
Removing non-significant buildings,
additions, or landscape features which
detract from the historic character of the
setting.
Removing a historic building, a building
feature, or landscape feature which is
important in defining the historic character of
the setting.
As discussed above, the proposed new construction appears to be architecturally
compatible with the character of the Mill Street Historic District and with listed historic
resources in the vicinity, including the Primary Structure on the site. It is not expected to
affect historic relationships within the district or on important landscape features. The
Historical Significance Information provided by the applicant demonstrates that the
Patrick and Catherine McHenry House is the Primary Structure, the historic building, on
this site, and that the small Mission Revival dwelling at 1258 Palm can be considered
“non-significant” and not important in defining the historic character of the District.
Figure 3: Proposed new dwelling, left and front elevations
Page 68 of 103
Item 4c
ARCH-0566-2021 (1258 Palm)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – June 27, 2022
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Construction of a new single-family dwelling is categorically exempt from CEQA
environmental review, as New Construction of Small Structures (Guidelines § 15303 (a)).
5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
5.1. 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.
5.2. Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant.
5.3. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project
inconsistent with historical preservation policies, citing specific a reas of
inconsistency
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Project Description – (Nelson R. Bernal)
B - Project Plans – Diel Residence (NRB Drafting Services, Inc.)
C - Historical Significance Information (James Papp, PhD)
D - Mill Street Historic District (HPPG)
E - Historical Preservation File (1264 Palm)
F - Spanish Eclectic Style (HPPG)
Page 69 of 103
Page 70 of 103
ATTACHMENT A
Page 71 of 103
ATTACHMENT A
Page 72 of 103
N36°21'16"W 149.68'N36°21'16"W 149.71'N55°38'0"E 55.00'N55°38'0"E 55.00'(E) PARKINGSPACE 1(E) 2 BEDROOM RESIDENCE(1264 PALM)CONVERT UNITTO GARAGE(1260 PALM)(E) CONC. DRIVEWAY(E) CONC. WALKWAY(E) CONC. WALKWAY(E) CONC. WALKWAY(E) CONC. SIDEWALK16'-6"5'-6"25'24'-4"(E) NEIGHBORING SHED(E) NEIGHBORING CONC. DRIVEWAY(E) FENCE(E) 1-BEDROOM RESIDENCETO BE REMOVED5'10'(E) CORRUGATED STEELGARAGE TO REMAIN(E) DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO REMAIN(E) WATER LINE(E) 3-ELECTRICMETERS TO BERELOCATED(E) GAS METERTO BERELOCATED(E) GAS(N) GAS LINE(N) ELECTRIC LINE(E) ELECTRIC LINE(E) ELECTRIC LINE5%5%5%2%2%2%STOCKPILE AREAPER DETAIL (7/EC-1)INSTALL CONC. WASHOUTPER DETAIL (8/EC-1)10'20'30' TO CENTER60' TOTAL ROAD EASEMENT11'-2"3'-6"FACE OF CURB(E) 8"ØAPPLE TREE(E) 58" WATER METER(N) 1" WATER METERHP=276.5'FG=276.7'LP=274.8'FG=275.4'23'(N) WATER LINETRASHCONTAINERSTRASHCONTAINERS(N) PAVERSFG=275.8'FG=275.8'(E) 8'x10' GARDEN SHEDTO BE REMOVED(E) FENCE(E) FENCE(E) RETAINING WALL(E) RETAINING WALLD.S.D.S.D.S.D.S.(E) C/O(E) C/O7' TOUPPERFLOOR12' TOUPPERFLOOR(E) C/O(E) C/O(E) SEWER LINE(E) ASPH. DRIVEWAY(N) 2-BEDROOMRESIDENCE(1258 PALM)FF=277.4'TRASH CONTAINERS3'TO ROOF OVHGTOROST.SITEUS HWY 101MONTEREY ST.CALIFORNIA BLVD.MILL ST.SANTA ROSA ST.PALM ST.CSCOVER SHEET/ SITE PLANEC-1EROSION CONTROL NOTES & DETAILST-24 .1 ENERGY COMPLIANCE FORMS/REACH COMPLYT-24.2 ENERGY COMPLIANCE FORMS/REACH COMPLYGC-1.1 GREEN CODE REQUIREMENTSGC-1.1 GREEN CODE REQUIREMENTSLNG LEGEND & ABBREVIATIONSA-1PROPOSED FLOOR PLANA-2 BUILDING SECTIONSA-3 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA-4 ELECTRICAL PLANM-1 MECHANICAL PLAND-4 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILSS-1 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTESS-2 STRUCTURAL PLANSS-2.1 DECK PLAN & DETAILSS-3 FOUNDATION PLAN & DETAILSS-4 STRUCTURAL SECTION & DETAILSS-5 STRUCTURAL SECTION & DETAILSS-6 STRUCTURAL SECTION & DETAILSS-7 STRUCTURAL DETAILSS-8STRUCTURAL DETAILSFLOOR PLAN SQ. FOOTAGE:(N) RESIDENCE:1244 SQ. FT.(N) DECK:98 SQ. FT.PROJECT TEAMOWNERDRAFTSMANNRB DRAFTING, INC.2121 PINE STREET, SUITE A(805) 237-3746(805) 237-1368 FAXPASO ROBLES, CA 93446MR. RICHARD DIEL1264 PALM STREET (805) 610-7843SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 944011258 PALM STREETCITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOCOUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOAPN #: 001-221-017NUMBER OFORIGINALS IN SETTHESE RECORD DOCUMENTS HAVE BEENPREPARED BASED UPON INFORMATION SUBMITTED,IN PART, BY OTHERS. WHILE THIS INFORMATIONIS BELIEVED TO BE RELIABLE, NRB IS NOTRESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACCURACY, NOR FORERRORS OR OMISSIONS WHICH MAY HAVE BEENINCORP'D INTO THESE DOCUMENTS AS A RESULTREVISIONSSHEETJOB NO.DWG NAMEDRAWNSCALEDESCRIPTIONDATEDATENRBNELSON R. BERNALDRAFTINGSERVICES, INC.CHECKEDATTENTION: IF PLAN CHECK CORRECTION DATEDOES NOT APPEAR IN THE REVISION BLOCKBELOW, DO NOT LAYOUT / BUILD STRUCTUREFROM THIS COPY OF CONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED WITH"APPROVED" RED STAMP FROM LOCALBUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COPIESWITHOUT CORRECTION DATE INDICATED AREMOST LIKELY PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS ONLY.2121 Pine St., SUITE APaso Robles, California 93446Tel: 805.237.3746Fax: 805.237.1368Email: nelson@nrbdrafting.bizCITY OFSAN LUIS OBISPOCALIFORNIA01-28-212100721007RESIDENCEDIEL1258 PALM STREET PERMIT# BLDG 2363-2021CORRECTIONS11-30-211" = 10'-0"SITE PLANGENERAL GRADING PLAN NOTES:1. ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE C.B.C. ALL WORK SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY BUILDING DEPT.2. THE DEVELOPER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SCHEDULING A PRE-CONSTRCUTION MEETING WITH THE CITY AND OTHER AFFECTED AGENCIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK BEING PERFORMED AND ARRANGEMENT FOR INSPECTION.3. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANY WORK IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.6. ESTIMATED EARTH QUANTITIES: CUT: 45 CU YRDS FILL: 45 CU YRDS7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL AT ALL TIMES.8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING SURVEY MARKERS DURING CONSTRUCTION. ALL SUCH MONUMENTS OR MARKERS SHALL BE RESET AT THE CONTRACTORS EXPENSE.9. ALL TOP SOIL SHALL BE STOCKPILED FOR LATER DISTRIBUTION OVER THE LOTS AND SLOPES. ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES ARE TO BE PLANTED OR HYDROSEEDED AFTER COMPACTION TO PREVENT EROSION.10. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUB-CONTRACTORS WORKING WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY SHALL HAVE AN APPROPRIATE CONTRACTORS LICENSE, A LOCAL BUSINESS LICENSE, AND SHALL OBTAIN AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.11. SLOPES OF ALL CUT SURFACES TO BE NO LESS THAN 2 HORIZ. TO 1 VERT. ALL FILL SURFACES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 SLOPE. ALL FILL SHALL HAVE 90% COMPACTION.VICINITY MAPCOVERSHEETW.W-GENERAL NOTES:1. CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE OF THE HIGHEST QUALITYWORKMANSHIP. ALL WALLS SHALL BE PLUMB AND TRUE.ALL CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE SECURE ACCORDINGTO ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES OR ASSPECIFIED HEREIN OR AS PER THE 2019 EDITION OF THECALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE.2. NRB ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY CHANGES,ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DEVIATIONS BY THE OWNER ORCONTRACTOR, EITHER INTENTIONAL OR ACCIDENTAL.3. THE OWNER IS ADVISED THAT THESE DRAWINGS ANDASSOCIATED CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE THE ONLYMEDIUM AVAILABLE TO EXPRESS THE INTENT OF NRBAND CANNOT BE ASSUMED ALL-INCLUSIVE WITH REGARDTO SUCH.4. IN ALL CASES, NOTED DIMENSIONS SHALL SUPERSEDESCALED DIMENSIONS.5. CONSTRUCTION METHODS SHALL COMPLY WITHMATERIAL POLLUTION CONTROL MEASURES.6. "OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE" MANUAL SHALL BEPLACED IN THE BUILDING THAT CONTAINS THEAPPLICABLE ITEM LISTED IN CGBSC. (PROVIDE COPY ORTEMPLATE OF MANUAL)7. APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE VERIFICATION OF THEPROPERTY CORNERS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THEBUILDING INSPECTOR AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDATIONINSPECTION.8. GRADING SHALL COMPLY WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONSOF THE SOILS REPORT PREPARED BY HALLINGEOTECHNICAL, JOB NO. H-211437, DATED AUGUST 18,2021 AND FILED WITH THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.UTILITY NOTES:1. PROVIDE WATER PRESSURE REGULATOR FOR NEWCONSTRUCTION.2. THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR RISERS SHALL BE 1" IN DIAMETER.MATERIALS TO BE USED MAY BE SCHEDULE 8O PVC OR TYPE LCOPPER PIPE.3. PROVIDE NEW SEWER LATERAL WITH CLEANOUT 2 FEET MIN.FROM BUILDING.4. HOSE BIBS AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS SHALL HAVE APPROVEDBACKFLOW PREVENTION DEVICES.5. WATER PRESSURE IN BUILDING SHALL BE LIMITED TO 80 PSI ORLESS. PRESSURE REGULATOR IS REQUIRED.6. WHERE APPLICABLE, PROVIDE BACK WATER VALVE ON THESEWER LATERAL WHEN THE PROPOSED BUILDING FIXTURESHAVE FLOOD RIMS LOCATED BELOW THE ELEVATION OF THENEXT UPSTREAM MANHOLE COVER.7. IF DRAIN LINES WITHIN THE BUILDING ARE LOWER THAN THESEWER MAIN, AN EJECTOR SUMP PUMP MAY BE REQUIRED.8. THE NEW WIRE SERVICES SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND INACCORDANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODES AS AMENDEDLOCALLY. EXCEPTIONS TO UNDERGROUND PLACEMENT OF THEUTILITIES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.9. THE EXISTING SEWER LATERAL(S) MAY BE NECESSARY TO BETELEVISED AND APPROVED FOR RE-USE OR SHALL BEABANDONED AT THE CITY SEWER MAINLINE POINT OFCONNECTION IN AN APPROVED MANNER TO THE SATISFACTIONOF THE UTILITIES DIRECTIOR.PLANS PREPARED BY:NRB DRAFTING, INC.2121 PINE STREET., SUITE APASO ROBLES, CA 93446PH (805) 237-3746 FX (805) 237-1368NRB DRAFTING, INC. TAKES NO LIABILITY FOR INFORMATIONPROVIDED BY THE OWNER IN THE PREPARATION OF THESECONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. THE OWNER HAS APPROVEDTHIS SET OF PLANS AND AGREED THAT THIS STRUCTURE ISBUILDABLE ON SAID LOT.THE DRAFTSMAN DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT THESE PLANSOR THE SPECIFICATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH ARESUITABLE, WHETHER OR NOT MODIFIED FOR ANY OTHERSITE THAN THE ONE FOR WHICH THEY WERE SPECIFICALLYPREPARED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND BERESPONSIBLE FOR ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS ONTHE JOB AND THIS OFFICE MUST BE NOTIFIED IN LETTER OFANY VARIATIONS FROM THE DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONSSHOWN BY THESE DRAWINGS. THIS DRAWING IS NOT FINALOR TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL SIGNED BY THEENGINEER.ALL DRAWING AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREINCONSTITUTE THE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THEDRAFTSMAN AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED,USED OR DISCLOSED WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT OF THEDRAFTSMAN.OCCUPANCY: R-3TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: VBHEIGHT: ±27'-11"AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER: YES FIRE ZONE-HIGHSTORIES: TWO ZONING: SZ-R3HLOT SIZE: 0.18 ACDESIGNER NOTESHEET INDEXAREA CALCSBLDG CODE DATACODE ANALYSISPROJECT DATAALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO THE:2019 California Energy Code (CEnC)2019 California Residential Code2019 California Electrical Code2019 California Fire Code2019 California Green Building Code2019 California Mechanical Code2019 California Plumbing Code2019 California Reference Standards Code2019 California Building CodeAS WELL AS ALL CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO LAND ANDBUILDING ORDINANCES AND GREEN BUILDINGSTANDARDSDEFERRED SUBMITTAL/SEPARATE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR:PHOTOVOLTAICFIRE SPRINKLERSDEMOLITION OF EXISTING RESIDENCENOTE:1. REMODELING PRE-1978 STRUCTURES WITHOUT USING LEADSAFE WORK PRACTICES IS A VIOLATION OF THECALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 105256.CONTRACTORS, REMODELS AND PAINTERS AREREQUIRED TO USE "LEAD-SAFE" WORK PRACTICESPURSUANT TO TITLE 17, CALIFORNIA CODE REGULATIONSSECTION 36050. CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS KNOWN TOCONTAIN LEAD-BASED PAINT MUST BE DEPOSITED AT ANAPPROVED LOCATION. CONTACT UTILITIESCONSERVATION AT (805) 781-7213.2. DUST CONTROL SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO SATISFACTIONOF CITY SAN LUIS OBISPO.3. CONSTRUCTION NOISE WILL COMPLY WITH MUNICIPALCODE SECTION 9.12 AND IS LIMITED TO THE HOURSSPECIFIED IN THE NOISE REGULATION.ENGINEERH.F. MAGER411 GRAVES AVENUESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405(805) 541-219322CONSTRUCT A NEW 2-STORY RESIDENCE.SCOPE OF WORKENERGY CALCSCARSTAIRS ENERGY FORMSP.O. BOX 4736(805) 904-9048SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93403FIRE SPRINKLERSSHAFFER FIRE PROTECTION3559 S. HIGUERA ST.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401(805) 594-1916SOIL ENGINEERHALLIN GEOTECHNICALP.O. BOX 1897ATASCADERO, CA 93423(805) 975-7361JOB #:H-211437GRADING:CUT: 45 CU YDS ±FILL: 45 CU YDS ±MAX DEPTH OF CUT = 24"MAX DEPTH OF FILL = 24"PERCENT OF NATURAL GRADE: 3%AREA OF DISTURBANCE: 1O00 SQ.FT.IMPERVIOUS AREA: 800 SQ. FT.STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS1. THIS STATEMENT OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS IS SUBMITTED IN FULFILLMENT OF THEREQUIREMENTS OF CBC SECTIONS 1704 AND 17052. SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTS APPLICABLE TO THIS PROJECT2.1. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS PER SECTIONS 1704 AND 17052.2. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS FOR BUILDING PAD PREPARATION3. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS AND TESTING WILL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEAPPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THIS STATEMENT AND CBC 1704.74. THE OWNER WILL RETAIN AND DIRECTLY PAY FOR THE SPECIAL INSPECTIONS ASREQUIRED IN CBC SECTION 1704.1SCHEDULE OF INSPECTION, TESTING AGENCIES, AND INSPECTORSTHE FOLLOWING ARE THE TESTING AGENCIES AND SPECIAL INSPECTORS THAT WILL BE RETAINED TOCONDUCT THE MAJORITY OF THE TESTS AND INSPECTION ON THIS PROJECTRESPONSIBILITY:FIRM CONTACT INFORMATION:1. GEOTECHNICAL INSPECTIONSHALLIN GEOTECHNICALP.O. BOX 1897ATASCADERO, CA 93423(805) 975-7361SCHEDULE OF SPECIAL INSPECTIONSNOTATION USED IN TABLEC INDICATES CONTINUOUS INSPECTION IS REQUIREDP INDICATES PERIODIC INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED.THE NOTES AND/OR CONTRACT DOCUMENTS SHOULD CLARIFYTABLE 1704.7 - INSPECTION OF SOILS1. VERIFY MATERIALS BELOW FOOTINGS ARE ADEQUATE TO ACHIEVE THE DESIREDBEARING CAPACITY2. VERIFY EXCAVATIONS ARE EXTENDED TO PROPER DEPTH AND HAVE REACHEDPROPER MATERIAL3. PERFORM CLASSIFICATION AND TESTING OF CONTROLLED FILL MATERIALS4. VERIFY USE OF PROPER MATERIALS, DENSITIES AND LIFT THICKNESS DURINGPLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF CONTROLLED FILL.5. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF CONTROLLED FILL, OBSERVE SUBGRADE AND VERIFY THATSITE HAS BEEN PREPARED PROPERLYPCXXXXXPROJECT STATISTICSSITE SUMMARYSITE AREA: 8,233 SQ. FT.EXIST. LOT COVERAGE: 30.2% (FOOTPRINT= 2,486 SQ. FT.)NEW LOT COVERAGE: 32.7% (FOOTPRINT= 2,693 SQ. FT.)MAX. LOT COVERAGE: 50% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE BASED ON GROSS LOT AREAACTUAL LANDSCAPECOVERAGE: 19.2% LANDSCAPE COVERAGEACTUAL HARDSCAPECOVERAGE: 50.8% HARDSCAPE COVERAGE (4,186 SQ. FT.)BUILDING SUMMARYUSE: SINGLE FAMILY 2-BEDROOM RESIDENCEOCCUPANCY: R-3CONSTRUCTION: TYPE VB, FIRE-SPRINKLERS REQUIREDALLOWABLE DENSITY: 20 UNITS/ACPROPOSED DENSITY: 1264 PALM: 2 BEDROOMS = 1.0 UNITS 1258 PALM: 2 BEDROOMS = 1.0 UNITSTOTAL:2.00 UNITSNUMBER OF STORIES: TWO, ACTUAL BUILDING HEIGHT FROM AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE= 21'-2"AVERAGE NATURALGRADE: HIGH ELEV= 276.5 + LOW ELEV= 274.8/2 = 275.65 275.65 + 21.16 = 296.81EXISTING PARKINGSPACES:2 UNCOVERED, 1 COVEREDPARKING SPACESPROVIDED: 2 COVERED PARKING SPACES 1 & 2 FOR 1260 PALM NO PARKING REQUIRED FOR 1264 PALM (EXISTING NON-CONFORMING)ALLOWABLE MAX.BUILDING HEIGHT: 25'-O"FOOTPRINT AREA: PERMEABLE DECK 60SQ.FT. LOWER FLOOR 659 SQ.FT.UPPER FLOOR490SQ.FT.PUBLIC WORKS NOTES:1. NO CONTOURS SHOWN ON SITE PLAN FOR STRUCTURE ON SITE ISEXISTING, NO GRADING REQUIRED. THIS DRAWING SHALL NOTBE CONSTRUCTED AS A GRADING PLAN.2.PROVIDE A MINIMUM SETBACKS PER CITY ORDINANCE.3. ALL PROPERTY CORNERS SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AT TIME OFFOUNDATION INSPECTION WITH THE MARK OF A LICENSED LANDSURVEYOR. ANY EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS SHALL BEPROTECTED IN PLACE OR SHALL BE TIED OUT BY THESURVEYOR AND THEM REPLACED PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY.4. DRIVEWAY APRON SHALL COMPLY WITH CITY STREETSTANDARDS.5. FINISH GRADE AROUND THE STRUCTURE SHALL SLOPE AWAYFROM THE STRUCTURE FOUNDATION. ALL SURFACE ANDSUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS DESIGNED AT LESS THAT 2%SHALL HAVE FINAL GRADIENTS CERTIFIED BY A LICENSEDSURVEYOR OR ENGINEER PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTIONSAPPROVALS.6. ANY SECTIONS OF DAMAGED OR DISPLACED CURB, GUTTER &SIDEWALK OR DRIVEWAY APPROACH SHALL BE REPAIRED ORREPLACED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKSDIRECTOR.7. A TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN CONTROL PLAN SHALL BESUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEWAND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ENCROACHMENT PERMIT ISSUANCE.8. THE ADJOINING STREET AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE CLEANED BYSWEEPING TO REMOVE DIRT, DUST, MUD, AND CONSTRUCTIONDEBRIS AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY.9. ALL MITIGATION MEASURES, CONDITIONS, AND/OR CODEREQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE PLANNING APPROVALSSHALL BE CONSIDERED PART OF THIS CORRECTION LISTWHETHER OR NOT REITERATED HEREIN.10. HISTORIC, UNIQUE, OR UNUSUAL SIDEWALK FEATURES SHALL NOTBE REMOVED, REPLACED, OR ALTERED WITHOUT SPECIFICAPPROVAL OF THE CITY ENGINEER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEENGINEER'S STANDARD'S UNIFORM DESIGN CRITERIA PER PAGE4 OF THE STANDARDS. HISTORIC FEATURES NOT OTHERWISEPROPOSED TO BE RETAINED SHALL SHALL BE APPROVED FORREMOVAL OR ALTERATION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTDIRECTOR.11. ALL WORK LOCATED WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ORWITHIN THE JURISDICTION OF THE UTILITIES AND PUBLIC WORKSDEPARTMENTS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE MOST CURRENTEDITION OF THE ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND STANDARDSPECIFICATIONS. THE CURRENT ADOPTED STANDARDS AREDATED MAY 2018.12. CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION HOTLINE AT 781-7554WITH AT LEAST 48 HOUR NOTICE FOR ANY REQUIREDENCROACHMENT PERMIT INSPECTION OR FINAL INSPECTION.13. A SEPARATE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ANYWORK IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, WITHIN CITY EASEMENTS,OR FOR CONNECTIONS TO PUBLIC UTILITIES. WORK REQUIRINGAN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TODEMOLITIONS, UTILITIES, WATER, SEWER, AND FIRE SERVICELATERALS, CURBS, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK, DRIVEWAYAPPROACHES, SIDEWALK UNDER-DRAINS, STORM DRAINIMPROVEMENTS, STREET, TREE PLANTING OR PRUNING, CURBRAMPS, STREET PAVING, AND PEDESTRIAN PROTECTION ORCONSTRUCTION STAGING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.14. A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IS REQUIRED FROM THE CITYARBORIST FOR THE PROPOSED TREES TO BE REMOVED.CONTACT THE CITY ARBORIST AT (805) 781-7023 TOCOORDINATE A SITE INSPECTION AND TO VERIFY TREEREMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS. THE TREEREMOVAL PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED PRIOR TO BUILDINGPERMIT ISSUANCE.15. HAND DIGGING IS REQUIRED WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF TREES TOREMAIN; ANY EXPOSED ROTS SHALL BE OSERVED BY THE CITYARBORIST BEFORE REMOVING. CONTACT CITY ARBORISTBEFORE COMMENCING WITH CONSTRUCTION, GRADING, OREXCAVATIONS.16. (1) 15-GALLON STREET TREE IS REQUIRED FOR EACH 35 LINEALFEET OF FRONTAGE OR FRACTION THEREOF. TREE SPECIESAND PLANTING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE PER CITYENGINEERING STANDARDS.17. THE EXISTING SEWER LATERAL WAS REPLACED TO CITY MAIN INMARCH 2017, PERMIT # ENCR-0300-2017NOTE:ALL EXISTING DRAINAGEPATTERNS SHALL REMAINATTACHMENT BPage 73 of 103
24'-0"22'-0"AREAS:GARAGE528SQ. FT.(E) 4030 HSDBL GLZ(E) 3010 HSDBL GLZ(E) 2868 SC(E) 2868 SC(E) 2668 HCMIR(E) BATHTILE8'CONC.STOOP(N) STORAGETILE8'(N) GARAGE CONC15'-0" x 20'-8" x 8'(N) SHOP CONC7'-4" x 10'-7" x 8'REMOVE (E) BAY(N) 2668 HC(N) 9070 GARAGE DOOR(E) 4030 HSDBL GLZ(E) 4030 HSDBL GLZ(E) 3010 HSDBL GLZ(E) 2868 SC(E) 2868 SC(E) 2668 HC(E) 2468 HCMIR(E) BATHTILE8'(E) 6040 HSDBL GLZB/I BENCHCONC.STOOPCONC.STOOP(E) STORAGETILE8'(E) STUDIO TILE15'-0" x 20'-8" x 8'UPPERS
REFUPPERS(E) KITCHEN TILE7'-4" x 10'-7" x 8'24'-0"22'-0"AREAS:LIVING528SQ. FT.FLOORPLANGAB1/4" = 1'-0"--1/4" = 1'-0"PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR PLANWALL LEGEND(E) WALL TO REMAIN(E) WALL TO BE REMOVED(N) 2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C.(N) 2x6 STUDS @ 16" O.C.WHPLAN LEGENDTOILETPAPERDISPENSERTUB SHOWERCOMBOOPTIONALSOAKINGSINKDRYER WASHERWATERHEATER ONPLATFORMTUB ONPLATFORMGLASSSHOWERWATERCLOSETBUILT INMICROWAVEDOUBLESINK W/DISPOSALLAVATORY22 X 30ATTICACCESSCONDENSER ONCONCRETE PADUNDER COUNTERDISHWASHERRANGE W/OVEN & HOODREFRIGERATORELEC.METERMIRRDBLOVENFAUMIRCODOUBLEOVENBUILT-INSHOWERTANK-LESSWATERHEATERWALLMOUNTEDMIRRORFORCED AIRUNIT INATTICWINDOWDOORSLIDING / BI-PASSDOORSBI-FOLD DOORSE.G.) 3068 SCTYPEWIDTH (FT.-IN.)HEIGHT (FT.-IN.)AAWDREVISIONSSHEETJOB NO.DWG NAMEDRAWNSCALEDESCRIPTIONDATEDATENRBNELSON R. BERNALDRAFTINGSERVICES, INC.CHECKEDATTENTION: IF PLAN CHECK CORRECTION DATEDOES NOT APPEAR IN THE REVISION BLOCKBELOW, DO NOT LAYOUT / BUILD STRUCTUREFROM THIS COPY OF CONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED WITH"APPROVED" RED STAMP FROM LOCALBUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COPIESWITHOUT CORRECTION DATE INDICATED AREMOST LIKELY PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS ONLY.2121 Pine St., SUITE APaso Robles, California 93446Tel: 805.237.3746Fax: 805.237.1368Email: nelson@nrbdrafting.bizCITY OFSAN LUIS OBISPOCALIFORNIA01-28-212100721007RESIDENCEDIEL1258 PALM STREET PERMIT# BLDG 2363-2021CORRECTIONS11-30-211/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING STUDIO FLOOR PLANATTACHMENT BPage 74 of 103
AREAS:LOWER FLOOR659SQ. FT.UPPER FLOOR490SQ. FT.TOTAL1149 SQ. FT.DECK60SQ. FT.S&P4068 BI-PASSS&P2668 HCS&P8068 BI-PASS2668 PKT3068 SCUP3050 SHDBL GLZW/DSPLITLINENBEDROOM 1 CAR11'-11" x 9'-8" x 9'BEDROOM 2 CAR11'-9" x 11'-10" x 9'BATH TILE9'ENTRY CAR5'-0" x 13'-4" x 9'27'-0"25'-6"CONC.STOOP21'-0"4'-6"25'-6"27'-0"6'-6"20'-6"HALL CAR9'3068 HC3050 SHDBL GLZ2650 SHDBL GLZ3050 SHDBL GLZ12'-212"5'-0"8'-1"4'-3"3'-912"2'-612"12'-012"2'-912"5'-812"1'-8"9'-012"5'-2"3'-6"9'-3"5'-512"AA-2AA-2LINE OFFLOOR ABOVEBA-2BA-26'-5"14'-7"5'-9"3'-1112"10'-112"LINE OFDECK ABV1031041A-11101061122' MIN.30" MIN.3068 FR (T)CONC.STOOP3068 PKT3068 PKT3068 PKTUPPERS
LINENAREAS:LOWER FLOOR659SQ. FT.UPPER FLOOR 490SQ. FT.TOTAL 1149 SQ. FT.DECK 60SQ. FT.DWDNPDR TILE10'3068 SCKITCHEN TILE13'-2" x 9'-6" x 10'A ALIVING TILE17'-7" x 15'-7" x 10'DECK25'-0"23'-6"UPPERS19'-0"18'-6"2650 SHDBL GLZ2650 SHDBL GLZ2650 SHDBL GLZ4050 FXDDBL GLZ7050 FXD W/ VENTSDBL GLZPANTRYUPPERSUPPERS11'-10"11'-3"5'-2"13'-2"4'-3"3'-912"6'-6"5'-6"LINE OF WALL BELOWUPPERSBAR +36"4'-312"AA-2AA-2BA-2BA-23'-312"6'-512"3'-1112"1'-4"LINE OF WALL BELOW2'-0"2'-0"2468 HC18'-012"10'-1112"4'-0"4'-6"1'SLOPETO DRAIN1021051081091A-13'-0"3'-4"106107REFFLOORPLANGAB1/4" = 1'-0"--1/4" = 1'-0"LOWER FLOOR PLANWALL LEGEND(E) WALL TO REMAIN(E) WALL TO BE REMOVED(N) 2x4 STUDS @ 16" O.C.(N) 2x6 STUDS @ 16" O.C.WHPLAN LEGENDTOILETPAPERDISPENSERTUB SHOWERCOMBOOPTIONALSOAKINGSINKDRYER WASHERWATERHEATER ONPLATFORMTUB ONPLATFORMGLASSSHOWERWATERCLOSETBUILT INMICROWAVEDOUBLESINK W/DISPOSALLAVATORY22 X 30ATTICACCESSCONDENSER ONCONCRETE PADUNDER COUNTERDISHWASHERRANGE W/OVEN & HOODREFRIGERATORELEC.METERMIRRDBLOVENFAUMIRCODOUBLEOVENBUILT-INSHOWERTANK-LESSWATERHEATERWALLMOUNTEDMIRRORFORCED AIRUNIT INATTICWINDOWDOORSLIDING / BI-PASSDOORSBI-FOLD DOORSE.G.) 3068 SCTYPEWIDTH (FT.-IN.)HEIGHT (FT.-IN.)AAWDREVISIONSSHEETJOB NO.DWG NAMEDRAWNSCALEDESCRIPTIONDATEDATENRBNELSON R. BERNALDRAFTINGSERVICES, INC.CHECKEDATTENTION: IF PLAN CHECK CORRECTION DATEDOES NOT APPEAR IN THE REVISION BLOCKBELOW, DO NOT LAYOUT / BUILD STRUCTUREFROM THIS COPY OF CONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED WITH"APPROVED" RED STAMP FROM LOCALBUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COPIESWITHOUT CORRECTION DATE INDICATED AREMOST LIKELY PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS ONLY.2121 Pine St., SUITE APaso Robles, California 93446Tel: 805.237.3746Fax: 805.237.1368Email: nelson@nrbdrafting.bizCITY OFSAN LUIS OBISPOCALIFORNIA01-28-212100721007RESIDENCEDIEL1258 PALM STREET PERMIT# BLDG 2363-2021CORRECTIONS11-30-211/4" = 1'-0"UPPER FLOOR PLAN1. ALL EXTERIOR HEADERS ABOVE OPENINGS SHALL BE 6 x 10 #1 DFUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. INTERIOR HEADER SHALL BE 4 x 8 #2 DFUNLESS NOTED.2. ALL INTERIOR PLUMBING WALLS RECOMMENDED TO BE 2x6 STUDS@16" O.C.3. PROVIDE FIRE STOPS IN CONCEALED SPACES OF STUD WALLSINCLUDING SPACES @ CEILINGS & FLOORS AND IN OPENINGS AROUNDDUCTS, PIPES. CHIMNEYS AND SIMILAR OPENINGS WHICH ALLOWPASSAGE OF FIRE.4. SHOWER AREA WALLS SHALL BE FINISHED WITH A SMOOTH NON-ABSORBENT. HARD SURFACE TO A HEIGHT OF 70" ABOVE DRAIN INLET.5. ALL FIREPLACES SHALL HAVE APPROVED COLLAPSIBLE METAL ORGLASS DOORS AND OUTSIDE COMBUSTION AIR. OUTSIDE COMBUSTIONAIR IS NOT REQUIRED ON INTERIOR FIREPLACES INSTALLED OVERCONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE. MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION GUIDETO BE ON-SITE FOR INSPECTION.6. ALL SOLID FUEL BURNING APPLIANCES (STOVES/FIREPLACES) FORWHICH A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED AFTERFEBRUARY 1,1994 MAY BE INSTALLED ONLY IF "EPA" CERTIFIED ASRECOGNIZED BY THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD (COUNTYBOARD OF SUPERVISOR) ACPD 504.7. FLOOR LEVEL CHANGE AT DOORS NOT TO EXCEED 12".8. PROVIDE EMERGENCY EXIT DOOR OR WINDOW FROM SLEEPINGROOMS. NET CLEAR WINDOW OPENING SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 5.0SQ. FT. MIN. NET OPENING HEIGHT DIMENSION, 24" CLEAR; MIN. NETOPENING WIDTH DIMENSION, 20" CLEAR FINISHED SILL HEIGHT. MAX. 44"TO THE BOTTOM OF THE CLEAR OPENING.9. OCCUPANCY SEPARATION BETWEEN GARAGE AND HOUSE SHALL BE OF12" GYPSUM BOARD CONSTRUCTION ON THE GARAGE SIDE. CBCA. FIREWALL IS REQUIRED TO EXTEND FROM FLOOR TO ROOFSHEATHING PROVIDED A COMPLETE SEPARATION BETWEEN THEGARAGE AND SFD OR THE CEILING AND ALL BEARING WALLS OFCEILING ARE REQUIRED TO BE COVERED WITH FIRE RATEDDRYWALL.B. WHEN THE CEILING IN THE GARAGE IS REQUIRED TO BE ENTIRELYPROTECTED, THE WALLS, BEAMS OR POSTS SUPPORTING THECEILING ARE TO BE PROTECTED WITH EQUIVALENT FIRERESTRICTIVE CONSTRUCTION. CBCC. IF THE SEPARATION IS A FLOOR-CEILING ASSEMBLY. THE CEILINGAND ALL SUPPORTING ELEMENTS AND POSTS MUST BE FIREPROTECTED AND JACKETED FOR PROTECTION AGAINSTMECHANICAL DAMAGE 704.2.5 AND 6.10. SKYLIGHTS SHALL BE TEMPERED GLASS. UNIT SKYLIGHT SHALL BETESTED BY AN APPROVED INDEPENDENT LABORATORY, AND SHALLBEAR A LABEL IDENTIFYING MANUFACTURER, PERFORMANCE GRADERATING, AND APPROVED INSPECTION AGENCY TO INDICATECOMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF AAMA/WDMA/CSA101/I.S.2/A440. [§ R308.6.9 CRC]11. EXTERIOR WINDOWS, WINDOW WALLS, GLAZED DOORS, AND GLAZEDDOORS SHALL BE DUAL-GLAZED UNITS WITH A MINIMUM OF ONETEMPERED PANE OR SHALL BE GLOSS BLOCK UNITS OR SHALL HAVEA FIRE-RESTRICTIVE RATING NOT LESS THAN 20 MINUTES. GLAZINGFRAMES MADE OF VINYL SHALL HAVE WELDED CORNERS AND METALREINFORCEMENT IN THE INTERLOCK AREA.12. EXTERIOR DOORS AND EXTERIOR GLAZING SHALL COMPLY WITH CITYOF SAN LUIS OBISPO FIRE REQUIREMENTS.13. WHERE WOOD STRUCTURE MEMBERS SUPPORT A MOISTUREPERMEABLE DECK/BALCONY AND ARE PROTECTED BY A MOISTUREBARRIER SYSTEM, THE STRUCTURE SHALL PROVIDE DRAINAGE OFWATER THAT INFILTRATES THE MOISTURE PERMEABLE FLOORTOPPING. [§ 2304.12.2.5 CBC]14. WHERE BALCONY/DECK IS EXPOSED TO WATER AND STRUCTURALFRAMING IS PROTECTED BY A MOISTURE BARRIER, ALL ELEMENTSSHALL NOT BE CONCEALED UNTIL INSPECTED AND APPROVED. [§110.3.8.1 CBC]FLOOR PLANKEYNOTES101 NOT USED102 42" HIGH STAINLESS RAIL SYSTEM W 4 X 4 WOOD POSTS @ 4'O.C. MAX103 VENT DRYER TO EXTERIOR, THROUGH ROOF IF NECESSARY104 TANK-LESS WATER HEATER, INSTALL PER MANUFACTURESSPECS.105 22" x 30" ATTIC ACCESS106 MINI-SPLIT UNIT, INSTALL PER MANUF. SPECIFICATIONS107 NOT USED108 BUILT-IN CABINETS PER OWNER109 BAR COUNTER +36"110 HANDGRIP PER DETAIL111 TANK-LESS WATER HEATER, INSTALL PER MANIF.SPECIFICATIONS112 200 AMP ELECTRICAL PANEL113 PLUMB FOR SOFT WATER LOOP1WALL-MOUNT HANDRAIL112" O.D. PIPEHANDRAIL112" CLEAR.FINISH FACE OF WALL (WHEREOCCURS)212"112" O.D. HANDRAILPLATE ATTACHED TO WALL, &BLOCKING (WHERE OCCURS)112" O.D. HANDRAILPLATE ANCHORED INTO WALL34" MIN TO 38" MAXABV NOSINGSTAIRWAY NOTESNOTES:- USABLE SPACE UNDER STAIRS SHALL HAVE WALLS &SOFFITS (ON THE ENCLOSED SIDE) PROTECTED AS REQUIRED FOR 1 HOUR FIRE-RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION. 2019 C.R.C.- STAIRWAYS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CLEAR WIDTH OF 36".RISE & RUN (SECTION I009.3)- THE LARGEST TREAD RUN WITHIN ANY FLIGHT OF STAIRSSHALL NOT EXCEED THE SMALLEST BY MORE THAN 3/8".- THE GREATEST RISER HEIGHT WITHIN ANY FLIGHT OF STAIRSSHALL NOT EXCEED THE SMALLEST BY MORE THAN 3/8".- PRIVATE STAIRWAYS SERVING AN OCCUPANT LOAD OFLESS THAN 10 MAY BE CONSTRUCTED WITH AN 7.75"MAXIMUM RISE AND 10" MINIMUM RUN,HANDRAILS (SECTION 1009.10)- STAIRWAYS SHALL HAVE AT LEAST 1 HANDRAIL ANDHANDRAILS SHALL BE INSTALLED ON OPEN SIDES OFSTAIRWAYS.- THE TOP OF HANDRAILS BE PLACED NOT LESS THAN 34" OR MORE THAN 38" ABOVE THE NOSING OF TREADS. THEY SHALL BE CONTINUOUS THE FULL LENGTH OF THE STAIR. ENDS SHALL BE RETURNED OR SHALL TERMINATE IN NEWEL POSTS OR SAFETY TERMINALS.- HANDRAILS PROJECTING FROM A WALL SHALL HAVE ASPACE OF NOT LESS THAN 1-1/2" BETWEEN THE WALL ANDTHE HANDRAIL.- THE HANDGRIP PORTION OF HANDRAILS SHALL NOT BELESS THAN 1 ¼" OR MORE THAN 2" IN CROSS-SECTIONALDIMENSION OR THE SHAPE SHALL PROVIDE AN EQUIVILENTGRIPPING SURFACE. THE HANDGRIP PORTION SHALL HAVEA SMOOTH SURFACE WITH NO SHARP CORNERS.GUARDRAILSA. SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG OPEN-SIDED WALKINGSURFACES, INCLUDING STAIRS, RAMPS, AND LANDINGS,THAT ARE LOCATED MORE THAN 30" ABOVE THE FLOOROR GRADE BELOW AT ANY POINT WITHIN 36"HORIZONTALLY TO THE EDGE OF THE OPEN SIDE.B. SHALL HAVE A HEIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 42" MEASUREDVERTICALLY ABOVE THE WALKING SURFACE,ADJACENT FIXED SEATING, OR THE LINE CONNECTING THELEADING EDGES OF THE TREADS. GUARDS LOCATED ONTHE OPEN SIDE OF STAIRS MAY HAVE A HEIGHT NOT LESSTHAN 34".C. SHALL BE DETAILED SHOWING ADEQUACY OFCONNECTIONS TO RESIST THE LIVE LOADS PRESCRIBED INCRC TABLE R301.5D. OPENINGS BETWEEN RAILINGS SHALL BE LESS THAN 4". THETRIANGULAR OPENINGS FORMED BY THE RISER, TREADAND BOTTOM ELEMENT OF A GUARDRAIL AT A STAIRSHALL BE LESS THAN 6". GUARDS ON THE OPEN SIDES OFSTAIRS SHALL HAVE OPENINGS LESS THAN 4-3/8".1111ATTACHMENT BPage 75 of 103
6'-8"9'-1"FIN. FLR = 277.4'BOT OF HDRTOP PLATE6'-8"10'-1"FIN. FLRBOT OF HDRTOP PLATE4D-45D-43D-431351231027'-212"BUILDING HEIGHTAVG. NAT. GRADE = 275.65'2A-2TOP PLATEBOT OF HDRFIN. FLR = 277.4'9'-1"6'-8"TOP PLATEBOT OF HDRFIN. FLR10'-1"6'-8"3085121A-2TYP.27'-212"AVG. NAT. GRADE = 275.65'BUILDING HEIGHTLIVING6'-8"10'-1"FIN. FLRBOT OF HDRTOP PLATE6'-8"9'-1"FIN. FLR = 277.4'BOT OF HDRTOP PLATE30130230330430530951227'-212"BUILDING HEIGHTAVG. NAT. GRADE = 275.65'TOP PLATEBOT OF HDRFIN. FLR10'-1"6'-8"TOP PLATEBOT OF HDRFIN. FLR = 277.4'9'-1"6'-8"31231151227'-212"AVG. NAT. GRADE = 275.65'BUILDING HEIGHTELEVATIONSGB1/4" = 1'-0"ELEVATION NOTESKEYNOTESREVISIONSSHEETJOB NO.DWG NAMEDRAWNSCALEDESCRIPTIONDATEDATENRBNELSON R. BERNALDRAFTINGSERVICES, INC.CHECKEDATTENTION: IF PLAN CHECK CORRECTION DATEDOES NOT APPEAR IN THE REVISION BLOCKBELOW, DO NOT LAYOUT / BUILD STRUCTUREFROM THIS COPY OF CONSTRUCTIONDRAWINGS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED WITH"APPROVED" RED STAMP FROM LOCALBUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COPIESWITHOUT CORRECTION DATE INDICATED AREMOST LIKELY PRELIMINARY DOCUMENTS ONLY.2121 Pine St., SUITE APaso Robles, California 93446Tel: 805.237.3746Fax: 805.237.1368Email: nelson@nrbdrafting.bizCITY OFSAN LUIS OBISPOCALIFORNIA01-28-212100721007RESIDENCEDIEL1258 PALM STREET PERMIT# BLDG 2363-2021CORRECTIONS11-30-21RIGHT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"FRONT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"REAR ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"LEFT ELEVATION1/4" = 1'-0"1. GLASS SKYLIGHTS SHALL BE TEMPERED ANDCOMPLY WITH CBC.2. ALL ROOFING MATERIAL SHALL BE CLASS 'A", ANDSHALL BE ICBO APPROVED.3. ROOF VALLEY FLASHING SHALL BE PROVIDED OFNOT LESS THAN 26 GALV. SHEET CORROSION-RESISTANT METAL AND SHALL EXTEND AT LEAST18" FROM THE CENTER LINE EACH WAY. SECTIONSOF FLASHING SHALL EXTEND AT LEAST 24" FROMTHE CENTERLINE EACH WAY. SECTIONS OFFLASHING SHALL HAVE AN END LAP OF NOT LESSTHAN 4". ALTERNATIVELY, THE VALLEY SHALLCONSIST OF WOVEN ASPHALT SHINGLES APPLIEDIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'SPRINTED INSTRUCTIONS4. ATTIC INSULATION SHALL BE CONFINED SO AS NOTTO BLOCK EAVE OR CORNICE (ONE INCH MIN.CLEARANCE REQUIRED)5. ATTIC VENTS ARE TO BE PROTECTED WITHCORROSION-RESISTANT WIRE CLOTH SCREENING,HARWARE CLOTH, OR SIMILAR MATERIAL WITHOPENINGS HAVING A LEAST DIMENSION OF MINIMUM116" AND MAXIMUM 14". PER CRC R806.1ROOF GUTTER SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH THE MEANS TO PREVENT THE ACCUMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN THE GUTTER [§ R327.5.4]6. FIRE SPRINKLER PROTECTION IN ATTIC AREA (ATLEAST ONE HEAD) EMBER-RESISTANT VENTSYSTEMS FOR ATTIC AND UNDER7. WHERE THE ROOF PROFILE ALLOWS A SPACEBETWEEN THE ROOF COVERING AND THE ROOFDECKING, THE SPACES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTEDTO PREVENT THE INTRUSION OF FLAMES ANDEMBERS, BE FIRESTOPPED WITH APPROVEDMATERIALS OR HAVE ONE LAYER OF 72 POUNDMINERAL-SURFACE NONPERFORATED CAP SHEETCOMPLYING WITH ASTM D3909 INSTALLED OVERTHE COMBUSTIBLE DECKINGLIVING AND PORCH ATTIC VENTILATION REQUIREDROOF SQ. FT. =490/150 PER CRC R806.23.27000 SQUARE FT. X 144 SQ.IN.470.9 SQ. IN. FREE AREA REQ'DGABLE VENTSAT102 SQ. IN. 6" PIPESROOF VENTSAT105 SQ. IN.VENTILATION2 GABLE VENTS @ 102 SQ. INCHES = 204 SQ. INCHES3 ROOF VENTS @ 105 SQ. INCHES = 315 SQ. INCHES519SQ. INCHES PROVIDED* GABLE VENTS TO BE APPROVED "VULCAN VENT" MODEL VG1424FF* ROOF VENTS TO BE APPROVED "VULCAN VENT" MODEL VSB1212301 42" HIGH STAINLESS STEEL RAILING W/ 4 X 4PICKETS @ 4' O. C.302 ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION ROOF PEROWNER O/ 15# FELT-ELK "SIENNA SUNSET"303 2 X 4 HARDIE-TRIM @ ALL CORNERS ANDWINDOWS & DOORS-SHERWIN WILLIAMS "FAIRFAXBROWN"304 2 x 6 HEM FIR FASCIA-SHERWIN WILLIAMS"DOWNING SAND"305 HORIZONTAL HARDIE-BOARD SIDING PEROWNER O/ APPROVED BUILDINGPAPER-SHERWIN WILLIAMS "SHERATON SAGE"306 6 X 6 WOOD POST (TYPICAL)307 WATERPROOF DECK SURFACE "MIRA FELX II"OR EQUIVALENT, SLOPE TO DRAIN308 PROVIDE FLASHING @ ROOF-TO-WALLCONNECTION309 ROOF VENTS PER ATTIC VENT CALCS310 PROVIDE 'FIRE-RATED' APPROVED CONTINUOUSSOFFIT VENT @ UNDERSIDE OF ENCLOSEDFRAMING311 PROVIDE ALUMINUM GUTTERS ANDDOWNSPOUTS312 HARDIE-SOFFIT ON ALL EXPOSED EVES313 SOLAR PANEL LOCATION, DO NOT PENETRATEROOFATTIC VENT CALS11ATTACHMENT BPage 76 of 103
1
1264 Palm Street
Evaluation of the 1983 Contributing Listing
Certificate of Appropriateness of New Construction
Summary Conclusion
The proposal to replace a 1940s stucco accessory dwelling unit (ADU) with a new unit to
house the property owner’s relative/caregiver presents three questions for the CHC:
I. Following the 1983 Historic Resources Survey, was the property’s Contributing Listing of
the primary dwelling, the 1910 McHenry House, or were the 1940s stucco ADU and 1950s
concrete block garage (now an ADU) included in the property’s Contributing Listing?
II. If the ADUs were included, do they currently qualify for Contributing Listing, or should
they be removed from the list?
III. If the stucco ADU and concrete garage/ADU are not historic, does the proposed new
structure adhere to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation in terms
of its compatibility and differentiation from the primary dwelling unit, the Contributing
Listed McHenry House?
The evidence of this report concludes that the 1940s stucco ADU and 1950s garage did not
qualify for, were not processed for, and were not included in the list; that they do not
currently qualify for historic listing; and that the proposed dwelling unit meets Secretary of
the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation both in the abstract and how the standards have
been applied by the CHC and City Council in the Mill Street Historic District.
Contents
Summary Conclusion 1
I. 1264 Palm Street Structures
A. 1910 Patrick & Catherine McHenry House 2
B. 1940s Stucco ADU 6
C. 1950s Concrete Block Garage/ADU 11
II. Historic Resource Listing Qualifications, Historic Preservation Ordinance
A. 1940s Stucco ADU 13
B. 1950s Concrete Block Garage/ADU 13
III. Certificate of Appropriateness: Adherence to Secretary of the Interior Standards
for the Proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit 15
Conclusion 18
Submitted on behalf of Richard Diel, 1264 Palm Street, by
James Papp, PhD, Historian and Architectural Historian, Secretary of the Interior Professional
Qualification Standards
7 June 2022
ATTACHMENT C
Page 77 of 103
2
I.1264 Palm Street Structures | A. 1910 Patrick & Catherine McHenry House
In 1910 James M. Akin built this house to a pattern from a source unknown for Irish-born
rancher and hotelier Patrick McHenry and his wife Catherine. It embodies the character-
defining features of what Virginia McAlester characterizes as asymmetric Colonial Revival, I
characterize as Streamline Colonial; is associated with a historically significant builder; and
possesses high artistic values. The most sophisticated example of Colonial Revival in the
Mill Street Historic District and of Akin’s extant houses, it is nearly identical to the Old
Town Historic District’s Master Listed Frank Anderson House and then–Contributing
Listed, subsequently Master Listed Leonard Hill House, with far better integrity than the
latter. It is clear why it attracted the windshield survey’s attention in 1983.
The Daily Telegram described Akin in 1908 as “the well-known contractor and builder.”1
He had become well known as the contractor in 1907–1908 of the new Baptist Church
at Pacific and Osos to a design by Los
Angeles architect C. M. Brown, based on the
twelfth century Eglise Saint-Hilaire de Melle
in France (photo at right by Ian Young). This
edifice was to become the last great wood
building in San Luis Obispo: a tour de force
of what would be called Carpenter
Romanesque—if the Romanesque Revival
style had lent itself to carpentry. The
association of the Gothic with nineteenth-
century religion and the technical difficulty
of bending lumber to form Romanesque
arches (the Baptist Church window arches
require five to six boards compared to the
Gothic windows’ two) resulted in few such
churches in North America.
1.“Notable Event,” San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 26 Nov 1907; “New Baptist Church,” San Luis Obispo Daily
Telegram, 5 Feb. 1908.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 78 of 103
3
Most of those are Catholic churches clustered in Canada, possibly using the Romanesque in
attempt to distinguish themselves from the explicit Gothic aesthetic of Anglican colonial
evangelism, and not adopting the heavier Richardsonian Romanesque that in the United
States expressed itself through stone and brick. Examples of wood Romanesque are the
Eglise Ste-Marie, Church Point [1903] and Eglise Saint-Alphonse-de-Liguori [1921],
Mavilette in Nova Scotia; Eglise Saint-Georges [1929], Saint-Georges-de-Malbaie and Eglise
Saint-François-Xavier [1939], Bassin in Quebec; and St. Alphonse Catholic Church,
Manitoba [1886–1930]).
James Akin received additional press in January 1910 for being elected a trustee of the local
Carpenters’ and Joiners’ of America Union and in April of the same year for innovatively
moving a house in San Luis Obispo with a traction engine.2 More practically, he must also
have built a reputation for artfully designed Colonial Revival cottages that often hybridized
some Craftsman elements. Extant examples include the Contributing List 1190 Buchon
Street (1907) and 1053 Islay (1909), as well as the unlisted 1216 Buchon (1909), all of
which expertly employed asymmetry in their façades and the first of which experimented
with an angular wraparound portico—counterpoised to a bay window—that would
become more independently and elegantly expressed on the McHenry House.
Akin and Thurlow’s 1190 Buchon, the
William Rouse House (1907), with bay
window and pediment counterpoised to a
angular wraparound porch
J. M. Akin’s 1053 Islay, the J. B. Redew House
(1909), counterposing a very slightly pushed
out bay with a flat triplet window and
pediment, a Japonesque arch between
J. M. Akin seems to have had a sufficiently lucrative business to keep himself in the public
eye through years of daily newspaper advertising. The partnership of James Akin and
Leonard Thurlow ran display ads daily in the morning Tribune from January through
October 1907. After the dissolution of that partnership, Akin ran near-daily display ads in
the Telegram from 1 April 1908 to 28 December 1910 and in the morning Tribune from 5
June 1910 to 28 May 1911, as well as weekly ads in the weekly Tribune from 27 January to
20 June 1911.
2.“Carpenters and Joiners Hold Banquet,” San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 8 Jan. 1910; “Moving With Traction
Engine,” weekly San Luis Obispo Tribune, 26 Apr. 1910.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 79 of 103
4
Akin’s ads in the Telegram in 1908 (left)
made it clear that he provided not just
construction but plans: rare documentation
of a builder-architect in San Luis Obispo
Morning Tribune announcement of 7
September 1910, the McHenry House (above)
The Patrick and Catherine McHenry House is documented in the San Luis Obispo Building
Permit Collection at Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives with an application date of 15
August 1910, with Akin as the petitioner and contractor, and also in an announcement in
the morning Tribune on 7 September 1910. The anticipated cost was $2,200 according to
the application and $2,000 according to the Tribune.
McHenry’s choice of Akin to build the house is significant, for about the same time (permit
application 3 September 1910) McHenry was employing John Chapek to add a third floor to
his Commercial Hotel (on Monterey Street where the Fremont Theater is now). Chapek was
a skilled builder-architect of suburban houses and had been the carpenter on this same
model (built in reverse) for Leonard Hill in 1905. Patrick and Catherine McHenry were
living at the Commercial Hotel (1910 US Census) until their own house was built.
The McHenrys sold the house to the merchant P. L. Maggetti after five years,
simultaneously trading the Commercial Hotel for “a valuable prune orchard” in San Jose
and moving to the latter locale.3 Neither the McHenrys, who briefly inhabited the house,
nor the Maggettis, who owned it for decades, are significant to the history of San Luis.
Akin developed a number of lots, but his construction business dwindled in the late teens.
The era of virtuoso carpentry was being diminished by the Minimal Traditional (which
favored brick and stucco), along with concerns about fire safety. On 12 November 1920, the
Tribune announced that Akin and family had sold their house at 1555 Higuera Street and
were moving to Morgan Hill. Akin by then was about 65, and he would spend at least
another twenty years as a fruit farmer, according to the 1930 and 1940 censuses. In San
Luis Obispo, he left behind landmarks significant for their artful design and execution.
1983 Survey and Contributing Listing Priscilla Graham,4 who surveyed the lot in
1983, perceived the significance of 1264 and did a thorough job completing the
Architectural Report, answering seventeen out of twenty-four questions; recording design,
materials, and integrity; and including thirteen lines of narrative on physical appearance.
What I will refer to as Streamline Colonial is a style innovated by McKim, Mead, and White
in the 1883–1884 Alice and Julia Appleton House (Lenox, MA) and 1885–1886 H. A. C.
3.“Buys McHenry Home,” morning San Luis Obispo Tribune, 30 July 1915.
4.Priscilla Mann Graham (Mrs. Myron Graham), MLS, 1915–2012; reference librarian at Cal Poly’s Robert
Kennedy Library.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 80 of 103
5
Taylor House (Newport, RI), after the firm had been designing Colonial Revival in Shingle
style for about five years. The Appleton and Taylor Houses substituted clapboard for
shingle, thus adding a linearity to the minimalism, planarity, and curvilinearity of Shingle
Colonials. Virginia and Lee McAlesters’ A Field Guide to American Houses distinguishes
separate asymmetric modernizing and symmetrical traditionalizing trends, but in reality
these are indistinguishable as the style is adopted and adapted for suburban bungalows in
the 1890s and 1900s. The term Streamline Colonial better distinguishes the 1890–1910
suburban style from later Colonial Revivalisms with alternative aesthetics.
In short, 1264 Palm Street is the most sophisticated and best preserved exemplar of
Streamline Colonial in the Mill Street Historic District. Flanking Tuscan entry columns;
elegantly curving wraparound portico of four additional columns, enclosed balustrade, and
separate cornice; muscular bay window offering counterpoint to the portico; plain and
recessed frieze topped by a roof cornice; and central hip and corniced dormer on the hip
and corniced roof—all noted by Graham—combine for an imposing effect that is
nonetheless streamlined of the Queen Anne elements in transitional buildings like its near
neighbor, the busy 1889 Righetti House (e.g., with non-classical jerkinhead gables and
double columns, below left) and the staidness and awkward cramming of Colonial
reference in William H. Week’s 1902 Crocker House (below right, both in 1904
photographs from the Fire Department’s Souvenir of San Luis Obispo).
As the district’s primary Streamline Colonial, with the added historic association builder-
architect James Akin and excellent integrity in all seven aspects—the McHenry House is
clearly qualified for Master Listing, which the owner intends to pursue.
Triplets: Master List Leonard Hill House (1144 Buchon) and Frank Anderson House (1345
Broad) and Contributing List Patrick and Catherine McHenry House
ATTACHMENT C
Page 81 of 103
6
I. 1264 Palm Street Structures | B. 1940s Stucco ADU
The stucco ADU behind the Greek Revival 1248 Palm and Streamline Colonial 1264 Palm
In contrast to the McHenry House, the 1940s stucco ADU was not qualified for the
Contributing List in 1983 due to insufficient age; not surveyed to the established criteria;
does not resemble in sophistication or articulation Mission Revival houses that were
definitively added to the Contributing List 1983; and resembles box-type structures that
were excluded from the list. A separate 1264½ address for the ADU sometimes does and
sometimes doesn’t show up on Contributing List documentation of the 1983–1987 era,
resulting in confusion over whether it was Contributing Listed or simply on the same lot.
Age No permit or newspaper documentation of this 20 x 22’ building exists,5 but we
can ascertain construction between 1 Feb. 1937 (when it is absent from the US Army aerial
photo below left) and 16 June 1941 (when it appears in the Pacific Telephone and
Telegraph aerial photo below right, as a small dark rectangle upper left). (Palm Street runs
along the bottom of the photos, Johnson top to bottom at center. 1264 is far left.)
5. Permits issued to P. L. Maggetti in 1917 for part lot 6, block 38 match the house and garage at 1270 Palm
Street; a 1936 permit for a 10 x 20’ galvanized iron structure ominously referred to as “residence, wood shed”
matches the dimensions of a building behind and perpendicular to the McHenry House that was demolished
in the late 1960s.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 82 of 103
7
This puts the stucco ADU between 42 and 46 years old when Graham surveyed it, below the
minimum 50-year standard for historic listing—unless “it can be demonstrated that
enough time has passed to understand its historical importance” (Historic Preservation
Ordinance 14.01.070). There was no such demonstration in this case.
Historic Resources Survey In the Architectural Worksheet, designed for a single
structure, Graham filled in the addresses for 1264 (the McHenry House) and 1264½ (the
stucco ADU) but the data only for 1264—until the final two questions, 23 and 24 at the
bottom of the second page, on “architectural style(s)” and “present physical appearance of
the structure.” There she noted briefly (in four lines to 1264’s thirteen) that the secondary
unit was a Mission Revival stucco house with a flat roof, “espanalade” (faux espadaña?), tile
shelf above the door, and windows with 6/1 and 4/1 lights. Unlike with 1264, she included
no discussion of integrity.
The 1940s Stucco ADU compared with Contributing List Mission Revival in the Mill
Street Historic District Four street-front Mission Revival buildings without ADUs or
garages were definitively added to the Contributing List in the Mill Street Historic District
on 16 August 1983. These include
• 1367 Mill (built by C. O. Dyer for E. H. Abrams, 1924)
• 862 and 872 Toro (built by H. B. Rogers for L. C. and Julia Bell in 1925)
• 778 Toro (builder unknown, extant by the 1926 Sanborn map)
1367 Mill, front and Pepper Street façades
778 Toro
862 and 872 Toro, 1964. Photo: Jean Martin.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 83 of 103
8
Each of these is a complex articulation of Mission Revival structural form with post–World
War I Art Deco and Pueblo Revival influences, expressed in porticos, columns, and arches
evoking the mission corredor; interplay between the shaped parapets of the central block
and those of the extensions; extensive detail such as molded stucco coping and low-pitched
tile canopies; and carefully designed layout.
1367 Mill has a broad entry porch two-fifths the width of the house with a square frontal
arch rounded at the corners and echoing side arches. 778, 862, and 872 Toro all have near-
full-width front porticos. 862 and 872 have four square columns and central entries, and
778 has three columns and an asymmetric entry.
The front facades of 862 and 872 originally had faux espadaña centers and tourelle corners
squared off as simple rectangular protrusions, echoed by tourelle corner projections on
their porticos. (Unfortunately, recent “restoration” has removed the espadaña projections
on each and added stepped tourelle corners on the main structure of 872.) 778 has stepped
espadaña and tourelle projections echoed in the front and right balustrades of the portico,
though the portico cornice is flat. 1367 does not have an espadaña projection, but its
tourelle corner projections are sufficiently complex without it, given that a single parapet
follows the main block, porch projection on the Mill Street façade, and French window
recess on the Pepper Street façade.
All four buildings have molded stucco coping on the parapets of the main structures and
porch and porticos. This is consistent with Mission Revival aesthetics from the beginning,
in Page Brown, A. C. Schweinfurth, and Bernard Maybeck’s California Pavilion at the 1893
Chicago World’s Fair.
Another consistent Mission Revival character-defining feature was low-pitched tile roofs.
Since these are all flat-roofed buildings, 1367 Mill employs a wraparound three-tile-deep
canopy above its entry porch and front windows, with an additional one in the French
window recess. 862 Toro does (and 872 Toro did) employ wraparound two-tile-deep
canopies on their front porticoes, and only 778 innovatively uses no tile at all.
The symmetry of 1367 Mill and 862 and 872 Toro is achieved with matching flanking
windows, the asymmetry of 778 Toro with a tripartite window in counterpoint to the
doorway. These were all primary, street-facing buildings.
It would be possible to argue that the stucco ADU at 1264 Palm embodies a later era of
Mission Revival. For instance, E. D. Bray’s 1929 Righetti Apartments (below), placed on the
Master List in 1983, have tile instead of molded stucco parapet coping, as well as tile shelf
projections above entryways.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 84 of 103
9
Above: Righetti apartments, rear façade,
corredor effect of the garages. Above right:
Contributing List 1347 Palm (ca. 1927–
1937); below right: carved cantilevers at
1347 rear, probably originally unpainted
The coping tiles, however, are perpendicular to the walls, imitating a roof edge, and the
projections are aesthetically and practically substantial (three tiles deep) and supported by
carved wood knee brackets. Bray also uses a square arch with rounded corners and
flanking round arches, all topped by a low-pitched tile roof with projecting beam ends, as
the entry to frame his courtyard. He employs further flanking arched window insets and
tile shelf projections above windows on the Palm Street façade; low-pitched tile roofs on
the height changes as the complex descends the hill; and a line of seven segmental arches
for garages and a central entry on the rear façade, which fulfill the aesthetic of the corredor
even in a modern, utilitarian, and economical context.
It is an aesthetically sophisticated arrangement for lower-income housing, as is the duplex
at 1347 Palm, dating about the same time as the Righetti Apartments (both built after the
1927 Frank Aston panorama from Terrace Hill in the Bennett-Loomis Archives). 1347 was
added to the Contributing List only in 1987. With neither tile nor molded stucco parapet
coping, it nonetheless uses minimal tourelles, natural wood garage doors with inset beams
above, flanking side entry porches supported by three round arches each, and carved wood
cantilevers at the garden level at back to articulate both Mission Revival and Modernism.
The stucco ADU at 1264 is, in contrast, a box with no extensions of arches or columns, no
use of these forms on the box itself, no reference to Mission-era craft beyond parallel
coping tiles and an aesthetically and practically ill-designed entry shelf, and no reference to
Mission forms beyond espadaña and tourelle projections on the box’s parapet. Windows
mismatched in both size and design on either side of the central entry leave it ambiguous
whether the intent is symmetry or asymmetry. The anachronistic windows, with muntins
above larger plates, appear recycled from an earlier building of the teens or twenties, in
contrast to the streamlined windows of the Righetti Apartments and 1347 duplex.
Comparable to the ADU at 1264 are the flat-roof, parapet buildings at 1351 Peach (circa
1937–1941), with entry canopy and tapering chimney that hint at Mission, and 1208 Peach
ATTACHMENT C
Page 85 of 103
10
(1927, originally a corner grocery), with parallel tile coping. Both, like the ADU behind the
McHenry House, were utilitarian boxes with perfunctory Mission Revival reference and
façades whose window and door arrangement follows no aesthetic logic. Though street-
adjacent primary dwellings, neither was placed on the Contributing List in 1983 or since.
1940s stucco ADU, 1264 Palm Street
Unlisted 1208 Peach before changes in 2012
Unlisted 1351 Peach
1208 after changes
Mission Revival buildings in the Mill Street Historic District more sophisticated and of
provenance more distinguished than 1264’s stucco box—such as 1269 Peach (E. D. Bray,
1923) and 1306 Peach (W. J. Smith, 1922)—were also left off the Contributing List.
Unlisted 1306 Peach (W. J. Smith, 1922)
Unlisted 1296 Peach (E. D. Bray, 1923)
ATTACHMENT C
Page 86 of 103
11
I. 1264 Palm Street Structures | C. 1950s Concrete Block Garage/ADU
Age The concrete block ADU appears to have been built between 1956 and 1959 and
possibly expanded by 1969, according to the Sanborn map and aerial photographs, so
would have been about 25 years old during the survey and, like the stucco ADU, unqualified
for listing in terms of age. It was altered from a garage to ADU.
1956 Sanborn map
29 June 1969, USDA
6 November 1959, Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys
Current Google satellite
ATTACHMENT C
Page 87 of 103
12
Survey Priscilla Graham did not reference the building on her Architectural
Worksheet, whether because it was not visible behind the McHenry House (it is not clear
whether she entered the property), it seemed to her of newer or insignificant design, or it
was not being used as a habitable building.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 88 of 103
13
II. Historic Resource Listing Qualifications, Historic Preservation Ordinance
A. 1940s Stucco ADU
Despite having now reached the qualifying age of fifty years, the stucco ADU has no
association with events of historic significance or persons of historic significance recorded
in contemporary newspapers or directories (Historic Preservation Ordinance 14.01.070.B).
The earliest record of occupancy in city directories is in the 1960s (it may have been used
within the Maggetti family before then). Its occupants were a quickly changing array of
students, single women retirees, one hospital nurse, and a film director at KSBY, none
historically significant and none staying long enough to establish association.
The absence of a building permit in historic files leaves builder and architect unknown; it
does not appear to be the work of a master (14.01.070.A). The stud and stucco construction
was widespread and was not used here in any notable, “embodying” way.
The economical box form was also widespread and is undistinguished. Though modest
cottages can possess ambitious style, this is not one these. No use of intermediate outdoor
spaces, richness of detailing, or thoughtfulness of form suggests embodiment of the Mission
Revival as it was practiced during its engagement with Streamline Moderne and Mid-
Century Modern in the 1930s and 1940s (e.g., in Union Station, Los Angeles). The windows
are anachronistic to the era and clumsily sized and placed. The Mission references are
cursory. Had Neoclassical pediments or Swiss knee braces applied to this box instead of an
espadaña, it would no more have embodied those styles than it embodies Mission Revival.
Of the seven aspects of integrity, location may be original; without a permit, we can’t know
if the structure was moved from elsewhere, but it seems unlikely. Setting appears original
(apart from the addition of the concrete block garage/ADU in the 1950s and new garage to
the west). Design, materials, and workmanship appear original except for a new front door
and doorframe since 1983 (their slight off-centering adding to the challenged symmetry of
the façade). The window awnings were present in 1983, but their structure suggests they
were added once it was perceived sun would be a problem, with oversized windows in an
undersized building. Feeling seems compromised by the concreting of the backyard.
Association is not relevant.
Ultimately, however, the stucco ADU has no historic or architectural significance for its
integrity to communicate.
B. 1950s Concrete Block Garage/ADU
Despite now having reached the qualifying age of fifty years, there is no historic association
for the concrete garage/ADU in contemporary documentation. The flat-roof, block
construction is unexceptional and not sophisticated enough in its use of the material to
achieve embodiment. The peaked canopy over the faux farmhouse door, with shaped beam
ends supported by knee braces, and the half-octagon bay window with a shed roof—all
added when the garage was converted to an ADU within the last twenty years (oral account
of owner Richard Diel)—recall the Swiss Revival of the Madonna Inn. But as with the stucco
ADU, perfunctory architectural references, particularly anachronistic ones, do not result in
embodiment and in this case impact integrity. The concrete block structure is without high
artistic values or documentation of being the work of a master.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 89 of 103
14
The structure appears to have integrity of location and setting; it seems highly unlikely to
have been moved from elsewhere. The design, materials, and workmanship have been
dramatically altered in the façade. Association is not relevant. Feeling, given its conversion
from garage to ADU without clear reference to its past function, appears compromised.
In short, the structure is not historically or architecturally significant and would not have
the integrity to communicate any significance.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 90 of 103
15
III. Certificate of Appropriateness: Adherence to the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for the Proposed Secondary Dwelling Unit
As a secondary dwelling unit separate from the McHenry House, this project falls under
Nos. 9 and 10 of the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation.
Proposed project The proposed ADU at 1264 Palm Street consists of a two-story
peaked-roof, side-gabled building approximately 19 feet to top plate and 24 feet to
ridgeline, with a footprint of approximately 26 x 27 feet. It would replace a one-story, flat-
roof, parapeted building with a footprint of approximately 24 x 18 feet (1260 Palm). The
new ADU would be directly behind the Contributing List Patrick and Catherine McHenry
House (1264 Palm), placed at a distance of about 45 feet and separated from it by an extant
one-story, flat-roof ADU of approximately 23 x 23 feet.
Adjacent structures The concrete block ADU/garage built between 1956 and 1959
has no record of historically significant occupants or events or of builder or architect and
does not embody any type, period, or method of construction.
The primary dwelling was built in 1910 by significant local carpenter and contractor James
M. Akin for Patrick and Catherine McHenry, local ranchers and San Luis Obispo hoteliers.
The McHenry House is Akin’s finest surviving domestic building and was likely constructed
to a pattern, as it is nearly identical to the John Chapek–built Leonard Hill House (1144
Buchon, 1905) and the Frank Anderson House (1345 Broad, by an unknown builder, circa
1910), which are both in the Old Town Historic District and both on the Master List, though
the Hill House has significant loss of integrity compared to the largely pristine McHenry
and Anderson Houses.
Impact on the McHenry House The proposed ADU would be governed by
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation No. 9:
“New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work
will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property
and its environment.”
The proposed ADU would not destroy historic materials or features of the McHenry House.
It would be placed to the right of the current garage and behind the 1950s ADU, as the
current circa 1940 ADU is, but with roughly two-thirds larger footprint and a second story.
Given that the proposed ADU would be some fifty feet away from the McHenry House, with
an extant building that interposes between the historic resource and three-fifths of the new
building’s façade, the impact on spatial relationship would be minimal.
The narrow siding of the proposed ADU would be compatible with the novelty siding of the
McHenry House, but its side gable, modern fenestration, and angular balcony deck would
differentiate it from the hip roof McHenry House with its character-defining curved portico.
Notably, because the proposed ADU would be placed entirely behind the width of the
McHenry House, and the McHenry House is on a rise above the street, the proposed ADU
would be largely invisible from the street, except for being partially visible when observed
ATTACHMENT C
Page 91 of 103
16
at an angle through the driveway. An intervening garage would substantially obscure it
from Johnson Avenue. Despite the McHenry House being a one-story building, its
substantial width and depth, below-floor space, and early-century height create a volume
that would dwarf the volume of the proposed ADU by more than two to one.
Nearby historic buildings comprise the two-story Greek Revival apartment house at 1248
Palm, one-story California Bungalow at 1270 Palm, one- and two-story Streamline Moderne
apartment buildings at 1259 and 1269 Palm, two-story Prairie Box-like house at 1265 Mill
and one-story Craftsman and Colonial bungalows at 1261 and 1253 Mill, monumental one-
and-a-half-story transitional Colonial Righetti House, and the one- to two-story Mission
revival Righetti Apartments. In other words, the adjacent Mill Street Historic District is
highly eclectic in not only style but height and volume, making the proposed ADU
compatible in size, scale and proportion, and massing not only with the immediate historic
resource, the McHenry House, but surrounding ones.
Mill Street Historic District precedence Local precedence is a useful lens through
which to view SOI Standards and an important value for advisory bodies, so that applicants
can reasonably plan and prepare for outcomes. Notably, secondary dwelling units
approved by the CHC in the Mill Street Historic District in the past few years include 1137
Peach Street (June 2022 hearing), where four two-story houses were proposed behind four
historic bungalows. Through input from neighbors and the architect, the CHC resolved that
the size, scale and proportion, and massing of the new units was compatible with the old
but their relative monotony in an eclectic historic district was not compatible, and a CHC
subcommittee was formed with the architect to provide greater stylistic variation. On a flat
part of the district, visible from the side, and with a cumulative impact, these units will be,
when built, more impactful than the single unit behind 1264.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 92 of 103
17
In June 2019 the CHC approved a three-story SDU behind the one-story Contributing List
bungalow at 1355 Palm Street. Although highly visible from Monterey Street, it is not very
visible from Palm Street, so despite its size, scale, and proportion, its massing down the hill
was judged to make it compatible with the historic house and the streetscape of the Mill
Street Historic District.
Secondary dwelling unit behind 1355 Palm as seen from Monterey Street.
Secondary dwelling unit behind 1355 Palm as seen from Palm Street.
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation No. 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 new ADU is related but not adjacent to the McHenry House, separated from it by forty-
five feet an extant building that interposes between three-fifths of the new ADU’s width and
the McHenry House. The new ADU will have no physical impact on the form and integrity of
the McHenry House if removed in the future.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 93 of 103
18
Conclusion
The 1983 Historic Resources Survey deserves to be honored as the greatest
accomplishment of historic preservation in San Luis Obispo. The Contributing List has
inherited structural problems from the survey, however, including that it was based on
windshield or reconnaissance surveys without DPR523s to provide documentation, that
surveyors had minimal training and in most cases no professional background, and that
there was no differentiation between contributing and non-contributing—that is, historic
and non-historic—resources within each Master List or Contributing List property.
The 1910 Patrick and Catherine McHenry House at 1264 Palm was qualified by age to be
added to the Contributing List in 1983; received a complete windshield survey, including
evaluation of integrity; and was clearly comparable to other Contributing List resources in
its embodiment of the Colonial Revival style.
But the 1940s stucco ADU and 1950s concrete block garage/ADU behind the McHenry
House were not qualified by age for the Contributing List in 1983. The concrete structure
was not surveyed, and the stucco structure received cursory answers to three of twenty-
four questions on the McHenry House’s form, with no treatment of integrity. The stucco
structure was clearly comparable to box structures excluded from the Contributing List and
not comparable to well articulated structures added to the Contributing List. It does not
seem plausible that either the 1940s stucco structure or 1950s concrete structure was
considered part of the McHenry House’s Contributing Listing, and conflicting records cast
no light.
Neither structure is currently qualified as a Contributing List resource for association with
historic persons or events, being work of artistic merit or of a master architects, or
embodying a type, period, region, or method of construction.
The resource on the property significant to National Register Criteria, James Akin’s
McHenry House, has been carefully preserved and restored by the owner to Secretary of
the Interior Standards for Preservation and Restoration. The proposed secondary dwelling
unit has been designed and independently vetted with great care for adherence to
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. It is absolutely crucial in historic
preservation to focus protection on resources that meet National Register Criteria for
significance and the integrity to communicate their significance, and to protect them with
the Secretary of the Interior Standards on Preservation, Restoration, and Rehabilitation.
ATTACHMENT C
Page 94 of 103
47
5.2.4 Mill Street Historic District
Setting
Established in 1987, the Mill Street Historic District is a residential neighborhood bounded by
Pepper and Toro Streets on the east and west, and Peach and Palm Streets on the north and south.
The Mill Street District is part of one subdivision, The Town of San Luis Obispo, recorded in
1878, although the area informally has been referred to as Fremont Heights. For its land area,
Mill Street Historic District has the highest concentration of historic structures of the City’s five
Historic districts. It is a relatively small district, with an area of 20 acres or 0.03125 square
miles, and as of January of 2010 had 84 listed historic properties.
The Mill Street district was developed at the turn of the 20th century, with the majority of the
existing buildings dating from the 1900s to 1920s, the district’s primary period of historical and
architectural significance. The district was developed on high ground with originally very wide
(100 ft) lots in response to both the seasonal flooding and fires that plagued early development in
San Luis Obispo. A few of these wide lots remain in the 1300 block of both Mill Street and Palm
Street, but the majority of them were later re-subdivided into 50-60 foot wide lots.
Site Features and Characteristics
Common site features and characteristics include:
A.Trees spaced at regular intervals along
the street (especially on Mill Street)
B.Distinctive Camphor Trees lining both
sides of Mill Street between Johnson and
Pepper, a key entry corridor for the
district
C.Consistent street yard setbacks of 20 feet
or more
D.Coach barns (garages) recessed into rear
yard
E.Finish floors raised 2-3 above finish
grade
F.Front entries oriented toward street, with
prominent walk, stairs and entry porches.
G.Front building facades oriented parallel
to street
Architectural Character
Developed during a population boom in San Luis Obispo circa 1900s-1920s, the district’s
residential architectural styles reflect the prosperity of its residents. While older and more
elaborate residences are located on the 1300 block of both Palm and Mill Streets, the majority of
1344 Mill Street, South Elevation
ATTACHMENT D
Page 95 of 103
48
historic homes were more modest residences. The close proximity to the court house meant that
Mill Street was home to many county employees, including county assessors, attorneys, and
county clerks. The Mill Street District encompasses many different architectural styles, including
revival styles popular at the turn of the twentieth century. These styles include Neo-classic Row
House, Victorian (with elements of Gothic Revival, Queen Anne, Stick and Eastern Shingle),
Tudor Revival, Mission Revival, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing
architectural details from more than one style. Most buildings in this district were built by local
builders, including E.D. Bray and James Maino and were influenced by architectural pattern
books of the time period.
Predominant architectural features include:
A. One- and occasionally two-story
houses
B. Mostly gable and hip roof types
C. Traditional fenestration, such as
double-hung, wood sash windows,
ornamental front doors, wood screen
doors
D. Ornamental roof features, including
prominent fascias, bargeboards,
prominent pediments or cornices
E. Painted wood or stucco surface
material, including siding and molding
Individually Contributing Elements in the Mill Street District
Not all historic resources in the Mill Street
Historic District were built during the
district’s period of significance. Those
buildings date from the late 1800s, generally
do not exhibit the signature architectural
elements described above, but do contribute
to the historic character of San Luis Obispo
in their own right based on age, architectural
style or historical association. By virtue of
their significance, these resources also merit
preservation.
For example, the Buckley House at 777
Johnson Avenue is a converted carriage
house built in the 1880s and is significant for
its design, specifically the board and batten siding, of which there very few examples are left in
the City. The Shipsey House at 1266 Mill Street, a National Register property, is an example of
Eastern Stick and significant for both its architectural style and its association with William
1264 and 1270 Palm Street, South Elevation
777 Johnson Avenue, East Elevation
ATTACHMENT D
Page 96 of 103
49
Shipsey, attorney and mayor of San Luis Obispo from 1898 to1901.
Non-Contributing Elements in the Mill Street District
Non -contributing buildings are those that both do not meet the criteria outlined above and have
not achieved historical significance. Most of the post—1950 contemporary buildings in the
district fall into this latter category.
Non-contributing architectural styles, materials or site features include:
A. Aluminum sliding windows
B. Rectilinear, “boxy” shape
C. Metal or other contemporary material
siding, or “faux” architectural
materials or features.
D. Unarticulated wall surfaces
E. Non-recessed or offset street entries to
buildings
1243 Mill Street, North Elevation
ATTACHMENT D
Page 97 of 103
50
***
1262 Mill Street; 1261 Mill Street; 1143, 1137 and 1127 Peach Street;
Righetti House, 1314 Palm Street
ATTACHMENT D
Page 98 of 103
ATTACHMENT E
Page 99 of 103
ATTACHMENT E
Page 100 of 103
ATTACHMENT E
Page 101 of 103
Page 102 of 103
26
Spanish Ecclectic
After the 1915 Panama-California Exposition there was a renewed interest in Spanish Colonial
architecture, and California especially began to embrace and reinterpret its Spanish and Mexican
past. There are many examples of the Spanish Ecclectic or Spanish Colonial Revival style in
houses, commercial and public buildings throughout California where Spanish and Mexican
cultural influences were strongest. The Spanish Ecclectic style incorporated many details from
different periods of Spanish architecture, and was popular in San Luis Obispo in the 1920s and
1930s.
Characteristic features include:
-barrel or flat tile roofs
-parapets (trowled plaster or stucco)
-flat or low-pitch roofs
-arched doors and windows
-tile chimney cap, vents and drains
-ornamental wood and metal accents
Examples of this style include:
The M.F. Avila House, 1443 Osos Street
The Righetti Apartments, 1305 Palm Street.
ATTACHMENT F
Page 103 of 103