HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - ARCH-1847-2018 (1160 Leff)
Meeting Date: October 22, 2018
Item Number: 2
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Relocation of a single-family dwelling within a residential lot; addition to the
dwelling, and construction of two new dwellings, on historically listed property
ADDRESS: 1160 Leff St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
FILE #: ARCH-1847-2018 Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
Applicant SLO Martin Properties, LLC
Representative Carol Florence, AICP
General Plan Med. High Density Residential
Zoning Med. High Density Residential
(R-3)
Site Area 9,110 square feet
Historic Status Contributing List Resource
(Not in any Historic District)
1.0 COMMITTEE ACTION
Forward a recommendation to the Community Development Director as to the consistency of the
proposed project with applicable historical preservation policies, standards, and guidelines.
2.0 BACKGROUND AND SETTING
The owner of property at 1160 Leff Street, a Contributing List Historic Property, applied for
architectural review of relocation of a cottage dwelling within the property, addition to the cottage,
and construction of 2 new dwellings on the property, a residential parcel on the north side of Leff
Street, 250 feet southwest of Toro. The area is characterized by a mix of single- and multi-family
dwellings, including nearby apartment complexes. It is near, but not within, the Old Town and
Railroad Historic Districts. A small grouping of modest residential cottages with historic character
is found in the immediate vicinity of the site, but only one other property on the block is included
in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources (1169 Leff, a Contributing List Resource).
Packet Page 10
ARCH-1847-2018 (1160 Leff)
Page 2
The property is developed with a small cottage,
built in 1910 (Figure 1), with horizontal wood
siding, unadorned, and an open porch. The
architect of the building is unknown. It was
designated as a Contributing List Resource,
along with 52 other properties within an
8-block area, in December 2012 (Resolution
10416), found to be eligible for historical
listing by satisfaction of Architectural Criteria
for style and design, as described in the adopted
resolution:
2.1 Chattel, Inc. Memorandum (July 2018)
Chattel, Inc., Historic Preservation Consultants, compiled a memorandum accompanying this
application (Attachment 2). It discusses the project history, characteristics of the 1910 cottage, the
work proposed under the project, and consistency of the work with historical preservation policies,
standards, and guidelines. Attached (as Attachment C) to the Chattel Memorandum is a Historic
Resource Inventory and Evaluation for the property prepared in April 2017 by the Provenience
Group of Santa Ynez1 as supporting material to a prior application (HIST-0679-2017) which
proposed demolition of the cottage.2 The Chattel Memorandum builds on the information provided
in this report, concurring with the character-defining features identified and acknowledging that
alterations have weakened the integrity of the cottage, but asserting that the property is still eligible
for designation as a Contributing List Resource. It concludes that: the work conforms to the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; that the new
construction and alterations are compatible with the 1910 cottage; and that the cottage will
continue to convey its significance as a “turn-of the-20th-Century” cottage.
1 Carole Denardo, M.A., RPA and Joshua Severn, M.A., Historic Resource Inventory and Evaluation (1160 Leff),
Provenience Group, April 2017.
2 CHC adopted Reso. CHC-1003-17 recommending leaving the property on the City’s Contributing Properties List
Figure 1: 1160 Leff Street
Figure 2: Architect rendering of completed project
Packet Page 11
ARCH-1847-2018 (1160 Leff)
Page 3
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of relocation of the cottage within the property, addition to the cottage, and
construction of two new buildings on the property (also see Project Plans, Attachment 3):
▪ Demolish detached garage building; demolish rear addition to cottage
▪ Shift existing cottage within property: 8’-9” south, 4’-7” west
▪ Replace cottage porch, vinyl windows, and door; repair siding and board skirt
▪ Construct 2-story addition on rear of cottage (Unit 1)
▪ Construct two new 2-story dwellings: west of the cottage (Unit 2), and behind it (Unit 3)
Materials and colors. Fiber cement board installed in a vertically-oriented board-and-batten
arrangement is the primary building material for the new construction, and composition asphalt
shingles are used for roofing. Windows, trim, and detail have been depicted in building elevations,
but their materials have not been clearly identified. To address this, a conditions of approval is
proposed, requiring wood or suitable substitute material (see § 5.1 below).
4.0 EVALUATION
The project is to be evaluated for consistency with applicable historical preservation policies,
standards, and guidelines, summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Applicable Historical Preservation Policies, Standards, and Guidelines
New construction must conform to design standards (HPPG § 3.1.1); be architecturally compatible
with prevailing historic character, and not sharply contrast with, or block views of, historically
designated structures, and not detract from the character of those structures or the surroundings
(HPPG § 3.2). Alterations to historical structures must preserve and reuse original materials and
features, retain character-defining features, and be carried out in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties3 (§ 3.3).
3 Kay D. Weeks, Anne E. Grimmer., Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service (Washington DC, 1995, Revised 2017).
Source Detail
General Plan:
Conservation and Open Space Element (Ch. 6)
§ 3.2 Historical and architectural resources
Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01)
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG) Chapter 3: Treatment of Historic Resources
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties
Standards for Rehabilitation & Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
Packet Page 12
ARCH-1847-2018 (1160 Leff)
Page 4
4.1 Demolition and relocation
A small detached garage is located behind the existing cottage, with “substantial alterations that
have greatly weakened its integrity” (Chattel, pg. 3). At the rear of the house is a shed-roofed
addition with siding and fenestration different from that of the original building, “not original to
the circa 1910 construction,” and “a non-contributing feature” (Chattel, pg. 3). As described on
page 5 of the Chattel Memorandum, the cottage will be moved only a short distance within the
same site, to a position at its southeast corner. Its orientation on the site will not change, and
conventional setbacks from the street and neighboring structures are observed in the new location.
Standards for Rehabilitation provides the following guideline (SOI Standards pg. 138):
BUILDING SITE
Recommended Not Recommended
Retaining the historic relationship between buildings
and the landscape.
Removing or relocating buildings or landscape
features, thereby destroying the historic relationship
between buildings and the landscape.
Removing or relocating buildings on a site or in a
complex of related historic structures (such as a mill
complex or farm), thereby diminishing the historic
character of the site or complex.
4.2 Replacement and repair
Windows, siding, board skirt. Replacement of incompatible vinyl windows with wood windows,
and limited repair (and where necessary, replacement) of sections of existing siding and skirt
boarding are discussed on page 6 of the Chattel Memorandum. The window pattern on the cottage
is retained, and new construction exhibits similar traditional fenestration, with symmetrical
arrangement and orderly grouping of double-hung windows with wood trim.
Porch. The Chattel Memorandum asserts that the front porch does not contain any historic material
and does not appear to be the original porch (pg. 2, Footnote 4). It is proposed to be rebuilt,
following a conventional design common to this type of “turn-of the-20th-Century” cottage, of
which many extant examples are found in the City. Guidance is provided in Standards for
Rehabilitation for designing replacements for missing historic features (page 112):
ENTRANCES AND PORCHES
Recommended Not Recommended
Designing and installing a new entrance or porch
when the historic feature is completely missing or
has previously been replaced by one that is
incompatible. It may be an accurate restoration
based on documentary and physical evidence, […]
Or, it may be a new design that is compatible
with the size, scale, material, and color of the
historic building.
Creating an inaccurate appearance because the
replacement for the missing entrance or porch is
based upon insufficient physical or historic
documentation, is not a compatible design, or
because the feature to be replaced did not
coexist with the features currently on the
building
Packet Page 13
ARCH-1847-2018 (1160 Leff)
Page 5
4.3 Addition and new construction
The proposed new buildings, and the addition to the relocated cottage, are constructed using fiber-
cement board that has the appearance of wood, with conventional trim and detail, and are two
stories in height, in keeping with the residential scale of the site and surroundings. They are of
rectangular form, with hipped roofs. The Chattel Memorandum discusses the consistency of the
new construction with the historic character of the site and surroundings, and the conformance of
the project design with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (see pages 7-10).
5.0 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
As provided in Historic Preservation Program Guidelines § 3.1.3, the Committee may recommend
conditions for construction on properties that contain listed historic resources. Several conditions
of approval are suggested below, to enhance consistency with the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance and with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
1. Trim material (new construction). Plans submitted for permits to complete this
project shall depict the use of wood trim material on the proposed new buildings,
or a suitable substitute material, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
2. Extent of alteration. Final plans submitted with applications for construction
permits to complete this project shall include drawings depicting the extent of the
retention of original building elements described in § 3.4.2 of the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines. The drawings shall include a summary
calculation of the amount of these elements retained, expressed as a percentage of
the original building framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and cladding, to
facilitate verification of compliance with the 75% retention threshold described in
this section. As provided in this section, ordinary repair and maintenance items that
are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties are not included as alterations subject to the retention threshold
3. Wood features. The applicant shall, consistent with Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings provided in SOI Standards, evaluate the overall condition of the
wood features, and in particular the building siding and skirt board, to determine
the extent of replacement of these elements that will be necessary. Final plans for
the project shall describe the extent of replacement (as a percentage of the original
amount of material) and shall clearly depict the locations on the building at which
new and replacement wood features will be installed. New or replacement features
shall be installed on secondary building elevations and in less-visible locations, as
practicable. Use of replacement features and materials shall be justified by a
description of the reasons why replacement is necessary, and why original materials
and features cannot be repaired and reused.
Packet Page 14
ARCH-1847-2018 (1160 Leff)
Page 6
4. Existing Windows. The applicant shall, consistent with Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings provided in SOI Standards, evaluate the overall
condition of windows on the existing cottage to determine the extent of replacement
that will be necessary. Final plans for the project shall include an inventory, in the
form of a window schedule, describing all existing windows including, but not
limited to, window type, operation, and dimensions, and describing the disposition
of each window (to be preserved, to be repaired and re-used, to be replaced).
5. New and replacement windows. Final plans for construction permits to complete
this project shall include a complete window schedule clearly describing the form,
type, operation, dimension, and material and color of new and replacement
windows, sufficient to evaluate their consistency with the appearance and pattern
of original windows. The locations at which new and replacement windows will be
installed on the cottage shall be clearly indicated, and these shall be installed on
secondary building elevations and in less-visible locations, as practicable, and shall,
consistent with historical preservation guidelines, be of wood material, or suitable
substitute similar material, to satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Use of any replacement window shall be justified by a description of the reasons
why replacement is necessary, and why the original window cannot be repaired and
reused.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the project with direction to applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2. Recommend that the Director find the project inconsistent with the General Plan or Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Project Description (Applicant)
2. Chattel Memorandum
3. Project Plans (Reduced Size)
4. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Rehabilitation)
8.0 READING FILE
Available on the City’s website
City Clerk Public Access > Advisory Bodies > Cultural Heritage Committee > Agenda Packets
http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/1/doc/86133/Page1.aspx
Chattel Memorandum: Attachment C (Provenience Group Evaluation)
Chattel Memorandum: Attachment D (Article: Moving Historic Buildings)
Packet Page 15
Project Description for the
Adaptive reuse of an Historical Resource &
3-Lot Common Interest Development
1160 Leff Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
22 August 2018
I. PROJECT HISTORY
In August 2016, a planning application was lodged for the construction of three new single-family
dwellings with a common interest subdivision, with demolition of the existing structure. The previous
proposal included a request for removal of the existing residence from the City’s Contributing Properties
List of Historic Resources. On June 26, 2017, the project was reviewed by the Cultural Heritage
Committee for a historic significant determination, as the applicant requested the structure be “delisted”
(See application ARCH-3626-2016/HIST-0679-2017); the application was withdrawn on July 9, 2018.
The applicant has substantially modified the project; therefore, the basis for this new application. The
applicant is lodging this ARC/MI application to allow the Cultural Heritage Committee to review the
project again, now that it includes the adaptive reuse of the existing residence, as maintained on the
City’s Contributing Historic Resources list.
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION
Address: 1160 Leff Street
APN: 003-555-020
Parcel Size: 9,110 square feet
Zoning: Medium-High Residential (R-3)1
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The revised project includes retention and adaptive reuse of the historic resource, as noted on the City’s
Contributing List of Historic Resources. The proposed project has been designed to meet the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standard for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings. See memorandum to Brian Leveille,
Senior Planner from Robert Chattel, AIA regarding the Proposed Project Conformance to the
Secretary’s Standards, Chattel, Inc., July 17, 2018. The memo concluded that,
Overall, the proposed scope of work is in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines. The items
described above maintain the integrity of the subject property, and the proposed new construction and
alterations to hardscape and landscape are compatible with the character and setting of the house. The
rehabilitation would greatly prolong the house’s useful life and enable the subject property to continue
conveying significance as an example of a turn-of-the-twentieth century cottage.
To maintain the historic structure, while providing for the allowable density, the structure was re-sited
(shifted approximately 8-feet 9-inches south and approximately 4-feet 7-inches east of its current
location, bringing it closer to Leff Street). The resulting south building setback would be approximately
15-feet 10-inches from Leff Street, with the porch at 10-feet. The east setback would be 3-feet from the
eastern parcel boundary at its closest point at the northeast corner of the house. The re-siting does not
1 All adjacent properties are also R-3
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 16
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC.
22 August 2018
1160 Leff Street – ARC/MI & CHC Application Supplement
Page 2 of 2
include any changes in compass orientation and retains the front or south elevation of the house facing
Leff Street.
A new two-story addition is proposed to be constructed to the north of the historic resource (Unit 1).
This new construction is considered an addition, as it attaches to the north elevations of the house via a
new one-story hyphen.
The west building – Unit 3 is a new two-story residential building proposed to be constructed west of
the re-sited house and proposed new addition, separated by a central driveway. Unit 2 is located to the
north of Unit 1, this is also a two-story building. The proposal includes a total of three (3) units. See
attached plan set and, specifically, Sheet A-1 Site Plan, Vicinity Map, Project Data (Bryce Engstrom
Architect, July 5, 2018).
IV. REQUEST FOR SETBACK EXCEPTIONS
The Applicant is requesting the minor setback exceptions, noted below. While setback exceptions are
not explicitly a purview of the CHC, these exceptions are a result of balancing the constraints of
adaptively reusing the contributing structure while enabling full and allowable use of the subject
property.
The second story of each unit is setback and stepped back to the greatest extent possible, however, there
are minor areas where the second story encroaches 2-feet into the R-3 setback standard. Per the Zoning
Regulations (Table 4 of 17.16.020), the secondary story would require a setback of 7 feet2; the applicant
is requesting a 5-foot setback be allowed for specific second-story locations. The 5-foot setback is
consistent with the minimum yard for one-story structure in the R-3 zone and complies with building
and fire code separations. The request setback exception is less than projections (30-inches to 4-feet)
allowed for architectural features, uncovered balconies, and decks. The Zoning Regulations enables the
Director to allow exceptions to the standards3. The project’s circumstances meet the requirements to
approve an exception, as this is a minor exception that will allow for compliance with solar access
standards to be maintained and a 10 foot of separation between buildings on adjacent parcels. (as there
is a 5-foot minimum setback on the subject and adjacent parcels).
Requested Setback Exceptions
▪ Unit 1 Historic Resource – see re-siting description noted above.
▪ Unit 1 Addition – 19 linear feet of 2nd story east elevation with a setback of 5 feet
▪ Unit 2 – 18 linear feet of 2nd story east elevation with a setback of 5 feet
▪ Unit 3 – 10 linear feet of 2nd story west elevation with a setback of 5 feet
V. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP – to be submitted under separate cover.
Attachments
▪ Proposed Project Conformance to the Secretary’s Standards, Chattel, Inc., 17 July 2018
▪ Project Plans, Bryce Engstrom Architect, 5 July 2018
2 The second story eave is ±18 feet in height; accounting for the slope of the roof, the structure height in the
setback exception area is up to 21 feet in height.
3 17.16.020.E.2.e- Yards, Discretionary Exceptions
ATTACHMENT 1
Packet Page 17
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 17, 2018
TO: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
FROM: Robert Chattel, AIA, President
Brian Matuk, Associate III
Chattel, Inc.
RE: 1160 Leff Street, San Luis Obispo, California
Proposed Project Conformance to the Secretary’s Standards
This memorandum serves as a Historic Preservation Report to accompany a permit application for
proposed improvements to 1160 Leff Street (subject property), a property listed in the City of San
Luis Obispo (City) Contributing List of Historic Resources (Contributing List) in 2012, consisting of a
single-family residence constructed circa 1910 (house) and a garage also constructed circa 1910
(garage). This memorandum provides background on the subject property and describes the
proposed work and its conformance to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing
Historic Buildings (Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines).
Proposed work on the subject property involves relocation and rehabilitation of the house, including
demolition of the non-contributing garage, demolition of a non-contributing rear addition1 at the
house, relocation of the house closer to the southeast corner of the existing parcel, and construction
of two new two-story multi-family residential buildings with garages at-grade to the west and north of
the house. Upon splitting the parcels, the house and new construction would serve as a 3-unit
condominium complex.
The proposed work at 1160 Leff Street is found to conform with the Secretary’s Standards and
Guidelines. Additionally, the proposed work would not adversely impact eligibility of the subject
property as a Contributing List resource and, therefore, would have a less than significant impact on
historical resources for the purposes of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Chattel, Inc.
has collaborated with project architect Bryce Engstrom on the proposed work, to ensure its
conformance with the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines, as demonstrated by the following
examination. This review is based on a detailed schematic design drawing set by Bryce Engstrom
Architect, undated (Drawing Set; Attachment A) with renderings (Attachment B).
Background
The house was identified through City survey evaluation as eligible for listing in the City Contributing
List, and was subsequently added as a Contributing List resource on November 6, 2012. The San
1 While there are actually two additions at the rear—one addition attached to another addition—this
memorandum refers to them collectively as one addition for ease of review.
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 18
BRIAN LEVEILLE, SENIOR PLANNER
1160 LEFF STREET – PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO SECRETARY’S STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
PAGE 2
Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance defines a Contributing List Resource or Property as the
following:
A designation that may be applied to buildings or other resources at least 50 years old that
maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character, and contribute either by
themselves or in conjunction with other structures to the unique or historic character of a
neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole. They need not be located in a historic
district. In some cases, buildings or other resources that are less than 50 years old, but are
nonetheless significant based on architecture, craftsmanship or other criteria as described
herein may be designated as a Contributing List resource. (City Municipal Code §14.01.020
Definitions)
In early 2017, the property owner engaged Provenience Group to conduct an evaluation of the
subject property to assess whether or not the house remained eligible as a Contributing List
Resource or was considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA; the findings of which
were presented in an Historic Resource Inventory and Evaluation report dated April 2017 (2017
Evaluation; Attachment C). The 2017 Evaluation found the property no longer remained eligible as a
Contributing List Resource due to lack of integrity as “modifications to the building were not
completed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation” and were
also unpermitted. Therefore, the 2017 Evaluation asserts that, while the subject property represents
architectural significance at the local level, alterations had weakened integrity to a point that
rendered it ineligible as a Contributing List resource, and therefore, the subject property should be
removed from the Contributing List. At a City Cultural Heritage Committee hearing on June 26, 2017,
commissioners did not concur with the findings of the 2017 Evaluation, and denied the request to
remove the subject property from the Contributing List.
The 2017 Evaluation provided sufficient information regarding site-specific history of the subject
property and local historic context to understand the area of significance under which it was initially
identified. After a thorough review of the 2017 Evaluation, Chattel affirms that the subject property
remains eligible as a Contributing List resource, despite some alterations that have weakened
integrity, and concurs with the character-defining features identified in the 2017 Evaluation.
Character-defining features
The subject property displays character-defining features that convey significance as an example of
a Turn-of-the-Twentieth Century cottage2 of single-wall construction, as noted in the following list of
character-defining features from the 2017 Evaluation. Note one feature is footnoted with Chattel’s
comments:
• Simple square form
• Pyramidal hipped roof with boxed eaves
• Clapboard exterior cladding3
• Symmetrical façade
• Nearly full-length porch supported with square posts4
2 Chattel does not agree with the physical description provided in a Department of Parks and Recreation
Form (DPR) 523A that attributes a “Neoclassical” style to the house. It is Chattel’s professional opinion that the house
does not evoke the Neoclassical style, even in a simplified form, but is a modest, simple Turn -of-the-Twentieth
Century Cottage.
3 Chattel believes that the wood board skirt is also considered a character-defining feature.
4 The existing porch appears to have replaced an original porch, as the boxed eave is misaligned with the
window surrounds at the south elevation, and the porch supports ap pear to be pressure treated lumber. Additionally,
the porch exhibits a closed railing clad in wood clapboard siding, which is likely not original and does not align with
the wood clapboard siding at the house exterior. The existing porch likely reflects the historic pattern of the original
porch, but does not contain any historic material.
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 19
BRIAN LEVEILLE, SENIOR PLANNER
1160 LEFF STREET – PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO SECRETARY’S STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
PAGE 3
The rear addition is a non-contributing feature, as it is not original to the circa 1910 construction of
the house, and does not appear to have acquired historic significance in its own right. This rear
addition has a shed roof clad in asphalt shingles, and an exterior clad in vertical wood board siding
with vinyl sliding sash windows, a contemporary slab door with glazing at the upper half, and a shed-
roof water heater enclosure that is also clad in vertical wood board siding. The rear entry located at
the west elevation of the rear addition is accessible by a set of wood stairs, and is covered by a
corrugated metal roof overhang supported by a wood post.
The garage is an accessory structure and is also non-contributing, as the structure has experienced
substantial alterations that have greatly weakened its integrity. These alterations include
replacement of original garage doors with incompatible slab doors, removal of at least one window,
and replacement of a likely board-and-batten wood siding with vertical wood boards in some areas,
with other areas exhibiting wood shingle siding, corrugated metal siding, and wood clapboard siding.
Additionally, the structure is void of nearly all roof cladding. While the west and east elevations are
more intact than the north and south elevations, the garage was nevertheless excluded from the
physical description of the subject property, which was established upon listing the subject property
in the Contributing List.
The front door is non-contributing, as it consists of a contemporary slab door that is not compatible
with the historic character of the house.
Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines
Section 3.1.1 of the City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines requires proposed work on
properties with listed historic resources to conform to the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines.
The Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines are not intended to be prescriptive, but instead provide
general guidance. They are intended to be flexible and adaptable to specific project conditions to
balance continuity and change while retaining historic building fabric to the maximum extent feasible.
Their interpretation requires exercise of professional judgment, taking into account various
opportunities and constraints of any given project based on use, materials retention and treatment,
and compatibility of new construction. Not every standard necessarily applies to every aspect of a
project, nor is it necessary to comply with every standard to achieve conformance.
The Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines contain four approaches; the appropriate approach for
this project is rehabilitation. The rehabilitation standards are as follows:
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.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old
in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features
will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 20
BRIAN LEVEILLE, SENIOR PLANNER
1160 LEFF STREET – PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO SECRETARY’S STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
PAGE 4
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means
possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be
disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
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 2017 update to the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines5 provides guidance on new additions
to historic buildings and related new construction that has been used to evaluate the proposed work.
Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns6 was also
used to evaluate proposed work.
Proposed work
The subject property has experienced several exterior alterations since its construction circa 1910,
however, none of the alterations appear to weaken integrity to a level that would render the subject
property ineligible for inclusion in the Contributing List. These alterations include the construction of
the rear, shed-roofed addition, replacement of original porch with one likely of similar hipped roof
form, replacement of original wood double-hung sash with vinyl double-hung replacements in
original frames, replacement of original wood double-hung sash with vinyl sliding sash windows in
altered frames, replacement of original roof cladding with asphalt shingles, as well as attachment of
contemporary surface-mounted plumbing and electrical conduit to the east elevation. Additionally,
the garage has experienced substantial alterations since the date of construction.
Proposed work involves demolition of the existing rear additions and demolition of the non-
contributing garage, as well as relocation of the house on the existing parcel to be closer to the
southeast corner, rehabilitation of the exterior and interior of the house, and installation of new
hardscape and landscape. Rehabilitation of the house involves removal of the shed-roofed additions,
replacement of the existing porch to correct misalignment with fenestration and other height
irregularities, in-kind replacement of deteriorated siding where necessary, replacement of
incompatible vinyl sash with wood double-hung sash in rehabilitated frames, and replacement of
existing asphalt shingle roofing with new asphalt shingles.
The project also includes new construction of two new one- and two-story buildings: a two-story
building proposed to be constructed at the north elevation of the house (new addition; east building),
and a new one- to two-story residential building proposed to be constructed at the western portion of
the parcel (west building), both separated by a central driveway. The new addition would be
connected to the north elevation of the house by a one-story hyphen addition, with the combined
space serving as two residential units (Units 1 and 2) with two two-car garages at the ground floor.
The west building would serve as a single residential unit (Unit 3) with a carport at the ground floor.
5 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, National Park Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, 2017.
6 Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks, Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings:
Preservation Concerns, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2010.
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 21
BRIAN LEVEILLE, SENIOR PLANNER
1160 LEFF STREET – PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO SECRETARY’S STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
PAGE 5
Review and compatibility of proposed work
Each item in the proposed scope of work is detailed below, along with a statement on how each item
conforms to the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines.
Demolition of non-contributing rear garage
The non-contributing garage is proposed to be demolished. Because this work does not destroy any
historic materials or features of the subject property, and would retain the character of the house, it
is in conformance with Standard 2. Likewise, demolition of a structure found not to be significant
would not affect eligibility of the subject property as a Contributing List resource.
Rehabilitation and re-siting of house
The proposed scope of work related to the house includes demolition of the rear addition, re-siting of
the house within the parcel, replacement of incompatible vinyl windows with wood windows,
replacement of non-original door, repair of existing clapboard wood siding and vertical board skirt
with in-kind replacement of individual boards, when found to be deteriorated beyond repair.
Demolition of rear addition
A rear shed-roofed addition at the north elevation of the house is proposed to be demolished to
construct the hyphen addition. While this existing addition does not detract from the architectural
significance of the house, it can be interpreted that this addition has not acquired historic
significance in its own right, and is not a character-defining feature of the house. Therefore, its
demolition conforms to Standards 2, 4, and 5.
After demolition of the rear addition, the north elevation would be infilled to the extent required on
either side of the proposed new hyphen. This work would consist of installing new wood clapboard
siding to match existing in size, texture, and lap, and wherever possible, using salvaged wood siding
from other areas of the exterior where removal is necessary due to work such as changing window
openings at the east elevation. This infill work conforms to Standards 5 and 9.
Re-siting
The house is proposed to be shifted approximately 8-feet 9-inches south and approximately 4-feet 7-
inches east of its current location within the parcel, bringing the building closer to Leff Street. The
resulting south building setback would be approximately 15-feet 10-inches from Leff Street, with the
porch at 10-feet. The east setback would be 3 feet from the eastern parcel boundary at its closest
point at the northeast corner of the house and approximately 9-feet 8-inches at its furthest point at
the southeast corner of the porch, closest to the street. This re-siting does not include any changes
in compass orientation, and retains the front, south elevation of the house facing Leff Street.
The house would be relocated by a qualified moving company with experience moving historic
buildings. Prior to relocating the house, the qualified moving company would complete an
assessment of the building to confirm whether it is possible to relocate the house without any
significant risk of damage, and to confirm whether any shoring or stabilization would be necessary to
protect the house during the move. While we do not know the exact means and methods of the
move, Chattel has been involved in a number of comparable projects moving historic buildings, thus,
we expect this project would require a two-step move, and that the sequencing of the project would
likely be completed in the following sequence. First, the non-contributing rear addition and front
porch would be demolished. This would be followed by necessary site preparation, and the house
would be prepared for the move, including removal of wood board skirt to be reinstalled after the
move. Next, the house would be removed from its existing foundation and would be temporarily
installed on cribbing and steel beams and likely moved to the west of its existing location on the
parcel.
The next step of the move begins with excavation, which would occur to prepare the site for
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 22
BRIAN LEVEILLE, SENIOR PLANNER
1160 LEFF STREET – PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO SECRETARY’S STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
PAGE 6
construction of a new poured-in-place concrete foundation for the house. Following completion of the
new foundation, the house would then be moved to its permanent location on the new foundation).
Moving Historic Buildings, a publication of the National Park Service by John Obed Curtis, would
guide the relocation (Attachment D).
Re-siting within the parcel would not impact the subject property integrity of setting or location, and
would improve visibility and prominence of the house from the street. Likewise, this relocation would
retain the subject property’s eligibility as a Contributing List resource.
Repair of existing siding
Rehabilitation of the house is proposed to include repair of horizontal clapboard siding, and in-kind
replacement of individual boards of siding found to be deteriorated beyond repair, in accordance with
Preservation Brief 47: Maintaining the Exterior of Small and Medium Size Historic Buildings.
Replacement of individual boards, when necessary, would match the existing historic clapboard
siding in size, texture, and lap. Similarly, the rehabilitation scope of work would include repair of the
vertical wood board skirt that wraps around the base of the house perimeter.
Replacement of incompatible windows
The house currently has incompatible vinyl single-hung and sliding sash windows—some of which
were installed in existing openings and others installed in altered openings. These incompatible,
contemporary windows are proposed to be replaced with compatible wood windows. Where sliding
sash windows occur, replacement would necessitate the changing of the opening, which would
require removal of a minimal amount of historic siding material. This proposed work conforms to
Standards 2, 5, and 9.
Replacement of incompatible main entry door
The house currently has an incompatible slab door, which is proposed to be replaced with a more
compatible wood paneled door with glazing in the upper portion. This proposed work would not
remove or alter any historic fabric and, therefore, conforms to Standards 2, 5, and 9.
Roofing
The house currently has non-original asphalt shingle cladding that likely replaced original wood
shingle cladding. This non-original roofing is proposed to be replaced with new asphalt shingles to
match what is proposed for the new addition and west building.
Repair of existing siding and skirt
Some areas of the clapboard siding and wood board skirt show deterioration, and are proposed to
be repaired in accordance with Preservation Brief 47: Maintaining the Exterior of Small and Medium
Size Historic Buildings. Repair work is would reuse as much historic material as possible and, where
deterioration is beyond repair, individual boards would be replaced in-kind to match size, texture,
and lap. This proposed work conforms to Standards 2, 5, 6, and 7.
New addition
A new two-story addition is proposed to be constructed to the north of the house. This new
construction is considered an addition, as it attaches to the north elevation of the house via a new
one-story hyphen.
The Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines contain several recommendations for “New Exterior
Additions to Historic Buildings and Related New Construction.”7 As explained in the table below, the
7 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, National Park Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, 2017, 156.
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 23
BRIAN LEVEILLE, SENIOR PLANNER
1160 LEFF STREET – PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO SECRETARY’S STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
PAGE 7
proposed new addition is in conformance with the recommendations for “New Exterior Additions to
Historic Buildings”, and therefore conforms with Standards 9 and 10.
Recommendation Conformance
Adding a new building to a historic site
or property only if the requirements for a
new or continuing use cannot be
accommodated within the existing
structure or structures.
While the proposed new addition is not a standalone
building, this recommendation nevertheless applies.
Due to the Medium-High Density Zoning (R-3)
attributed to the subject property parcel and adjacent
parcels, providing additional residential units could not
be accomplished without new construction at the
subject property.
Constructing a new addition on a
secondary or non-character-defining
elevation and limiting its size and scale
in relationship to the historic building.
The proposed new addition would be constructed on
the least visible and most altered, north elevation. The
addition will be taller than the house, however the
hyphen between the two creates a distance that
minimizes this height difference. These design choices
ensure that the height of the new construction avoids
overwhelming the form of the house.
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.
The proposed addition would result in minimal loss of
historic materials through construction of the proposed
hyphen, and would not result in loss of character-
defining features. The addition would be attached by a
hyphen that strives for reversibility. The hyphen is
shorter than the eaves of the house, leaving the
roofline intact.
Designing a new addition that is
compatible with the historic building.
The proposed addition is compatible with the house
because it is contemporary in design and materials, but
complements the historic building through its vertical
board-and-batten cement fiber board siding, vertical
double-hung windows, and hipped roof with same pitch
as the house. While the proposed addition would be
clad in cement fiber board siding, it would nevertheless
have the appearance of wood, especially given its
proposed board-and-batten pattern.
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.
The proposed addition is located to the north (rear) of
the house, with the primary two-story massing
substantially setback from the house and separated by
the proposed hyphen. The setback ensures that the
new addition is subordinate to the house, and almost
reads as a separate building. The addition uses
contemporary, yet compatible, materials, including
vertical board-and-batten cement fiber board siding,
with neutral earth tones that relate to, and avoid
detracting from, the house. In form, the new addition
displays a hipped roof to minimize differences in mass,
scale, and proportion when compared with the house.
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 24
BRIAN LEVEILLE, SENIOR PLANNER
1160 LEFF STREET – PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO SECRETARY’S STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
PAGE 8
Recommendation Conformance
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.
The proposed addition uses similar rectangular and
cubic forms, compatible exterior materials with the use
of horizontal board-and-batten siding, and neutral earth
tones that would complement the proposed exterior
paint colors of the house. The forms, materials, and
color range are compatible with existing and proposed
elements of the house, but do not duplicate them,
ensuring the new addition is sufficiently differentiated
from the house.
Basing the alignment, rhythm, and size
of the window and door openings of the
new addition on those of the historic
building.
The proposed fenestration for the addition reflects the
alignment and size of the window and door openings at
the house. The proposed design of the new addition
utilizes vertically oriented double-hung windows, and
are placed in a similar rhythm to that of the house.
Incorporating a simple, recessed, small-
scale hyphen, or connection, to
physically and visually separate the
addition from the historic building.
The new addition incorporates a simple, recessed,
small-scale hyphen to physically and visually separate
the new addition from the house. The new addition is
contemporary in design and materials to further
differentiate the new addition and the house, and is
recessed from the east and west elevations to further
separate the two masses.
Distinguishing the addition from the
original building by setting it back from
the wall plane of the historic building.
The most visible, west elevation of the new addition is
set back approximately eight feet from the west
elevation plane of the house to distinguish the addition
from the house. The new addition is also slightly
skewed in orientation to further promote the
appearance of the new addition as a separate building
that appears detached from the house.
Ensuring that the addition is stylistically
appropriate for the historic building type
(e.g., whether it is residential or
institutional).
The new addition is designed to be residential in use,
which appropriately corresponds with the residential
character of the house.
Considering the design for a new
addition in terms of its relationship to
the historic building as well as the
historic district, neighborhood, and
setting.
The design of the new addition attempts to be
interpreted as a separate building from the house, with
an orientation that is skewed. Additionally, construction
of a recessed hyphen creates a greater spatial
separation between the south elevation of the new
addition and north elevation of the house. The new
addition is proposed to be a maximum of two-stories in
height, which is within the general one- to two-story
heights of adjacent and nearby buildings.
West building
The west building is a new one- and two-story residential building proposed to be constructed west
of the re-sited house and proposed new addition, separated by a central driveway. The Secretary’s
Standards and Guidelines contain several recommendations for “New Exterior Additions to Historic
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 25
BRIAN LEVEILLE, SENIOR PLANNER
1160 LEFF STREET – PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO SECRETARY’S STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
PAGE 9
Buildings and Related New Construction.”8 As explained in the table below, the proposed west
building is in conformance with the recommendations for “Related New Construction”, and therefore
conforms with Standards 9 and 10.
Recommendation Conformance
Adding a new building to a historic site
or property only if the requirements for a
new or continuing use cannot be
accommodated within the existing
structure or structures.
Due to the Medium-High Density Zoning (R-3)
attributed to the subject property parcel and adjacent
parcels, providing additional residential units could not
be accomplished without new construction at the
subject property.
Locating new construction far enough
away from the historic building, when
possible, where it will be minimally
visible and will not negatively affect the
building’s character, the site, or setting.
The west building is proposed to be located at the
western portion of the parcel, with the house and
proposed new addition at the eastern portion of the
parcel. This siting of the west building is located far
enough away that it will not negatively affect the
house’s character or setting.
Designing new construction on a
historic site or in a historic setting that is
compatible but differentiated from the
historic building or buildings.
The west building is differentiated from the house in
design, materials, and overall form, yet utilizes
compatible materials and fenestration that reflects, but
does not mimic, that which exists at the house.
Additionally, the west building is designed to have a
one-story portion at the south elevation that sets back
to a two-story portion in order to minimize differences to
the house regarding mass, scale, and proportion.
Considering the design for related new
construction in terms of its relationship
to the historic building as well as the
historic district and setting.
The west building is designed in a general rectangular
form with the short ends facing the street. This
placement approximately 18 feet from the house
intends to create sufficient buffer zone between the
new construction and existing house. This buffer zone
would consist of the proposed new driveway, as well as
12-inch planter strip along the east elevation of the
west building and the west elevation of the house. The
west building design reflects the existing setting of the
neighborhood, as nearby buildings are one- to two-
stories in height and is compatible with both the historic
and more contemporary buildings on Leff Street.
Ensuring that new construction is
secondary to the historic building and
does not detract from its significance.
The proposed distance between the west building and
the house intends to create a sufficient buffer zone to
ensure that the house continues to be a prominent
feature of the subject property and remains visually
independent from the new construction when viewed
from the public right-of-way. The new construction
design and location does not detract from the
significance of the house, and would not weaken
8 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic Buildings, National Park Service, U.S. Department of
the Interior, 2017, 156.
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 26
BRIAN LEVEILLE, SENIOR PLANNER
1160 LEFF STREET – PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMANCE TO SECRETARY’S STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
PAGE 10
integrity of the house to render it ineligible as a
Contributing List resource.
Hardscape and landscape
The current landscape is very minimal, with grassy and dirt ground cover, two black acacia trees,
orange tree, trees of heaven, pine tree, juniper tree, and areas of sprawling vines and shrubbery.
None of the trees are designated Heritage Trees, nor do they appear to contribute to the significance
of subject property. The existing driveway is marked only by ruts in the dirt, and the walkway to the
front porch of the house consists of poured concrete. There are areas of large square pre-cast
concrete pavers adjacent to the rear addition entry and to the west of the poured concrete walkway
that leads from Leff Street to the house.
The proposed alterations to the landscape would include removal of all existing trees. Two new front
yards—one to the south of the re-sited house and one to the south of the new west building—would
be delineated by planting of low hedges broken by low wood gates. Within these front yards, there is
proposed to be a combination of bark planter beds with permeable pavers serving as pathways and
patio space. In front of the house, in particular, a new poured concrete walkway is proposed to
replace the existing poured concrete walkway, which is deteriorated and too narrow.
The central driveway is also proposed to consist of permeable pavers, with areas of bark planter
beds and low plants and hedges proposed to be planted in two new 12-inch planter beds along the
west elevation of the house and east elevation of the west building. These planter beds would
enhance the view toward the house by softening the required 16-foot wide driveway, and creating
more visual distance between the house and the driveway. This could only be accomplished through
the re-siting of the house 2-feet closer to the parcel boundary at the east. Two new planter beds are
proposed to be located to the north of the west building and to the north and west of the proposed
new addition. Areas along the parcel boundary, between the west building and the house and new
addition would consist of pea gravel groundcover with some portions consisting of permeable
pavers. A new concrete walkway is proposed to lead from the new paver walkway to the south of the
house to the east side yard along the eastern parcel boundary.
None of the existing trees appear to contribute to the significance of the subject property nor are
they designated Heritage Trees, therefore, removal would not negatively impact the integrity of
setting. Other proposed alterations to the hardscape and landscape, including new walkways, a new
driveway, and new hedges are compatible with the historic character of the subject property.
Therefore, alterations to the landscape conform to Standard 2.
Conclusion
Overall, the proposed scope of work is in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards and
Guidelines. The items described above maintain the integrity of the subject property, and the
proposed new construction and alterations to hardscape and landscape are compatible with the
character and setting of the house. The rehabilitation would greatly prolong the house’s useful life
and enable the subject property to continue conveying significance as an example of a turn-of-the-
twentieth century cottage.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Drawing Set by Bryce Engstrom Architect, A.R.C Submittal, July 5, 2018.
Attachment B: Renderings of Proposed Project by Bryce Engstrom Architect.
Attachment C: Historic Resource Inventory and Evaluation: 1160 Leff Street (APN 003-555-020),
San Luis Obispo, California.
Attachment D: Moving Historic Buildings, John Obed Curtis, 1979.
ATTACHMENT 2
Packet Page 27
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 28
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 29
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 30
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 31
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 32
ATTACHMENT 3
Packet Page 33
REHABILITATION
76
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 dis
tinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that character
ize 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.
4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be
retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match
the old in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing
features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest
means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.
8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must
be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.
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, fea
tures, 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. ATTACHMENT 4Packet Page 34