HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - ARCH-1903-2018 (1144 Chorro)ARCHITETURAL REVIEW COMMISSION REPORT
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The applicant has applied for the conceptual review of a six-story mixed-use development with a
maximum height of 75-feet within the Downtown Historic District, see Figure 1. The proposed concept
plan consists of ground floor retail and parking, two stories of office space, and three stories of
residential dwellings (Attachment 1, Project Plans).
General Location: The property is located on
the corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets within
the Commercial Downtown zone and
Downtown Historic District.
Present Use: Vacant
Zoning: Downtown Commercial within the
Downtown Historic District (C-D-H)
General Plan: General Retail
Surrounding Uses:
East: California Pizza Kitchen
West: Eureka Burger
North: Hotel Wineman
South: Chorro Street Parking Structure
2.0 PROPOSED DESIGN
Design details: Brick design that extends from the street level to the third and fourth stories. Upper
floors consisting of stucco siding that are stepped back five feet from the brick façade.
Materials: Brick & Stucco siding, anodized aluminum storefronts, concrete bulkheads and window
header, and black metal awnings/balconies.
3.0 NEXT STEPS
The project has been conceptually reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on November
26, 2018. Following conceptual review, the applicant will consider feedback from the CHC and the ARC
and prepare a formal application for complete review. Once all application materials are collected
(including a viewshed analysis and visual assessment) and the project is deemed complete, review
hearings will be scheduled before the CHC, ARC, PC, and City Council for final review of the project.
Meeting Date: December 3, 2018
Item Number: 2
Item No. 1
FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1144 Chorro Street FILE NUMBER: ARCH-1903-2018
APPLICANT: Mark Rawson REPRESENTATIVE: Ten Over Studios, Inc.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
For more information contact: (Kyle Bell) at 781-7524 or kbell@slocity.org
Packet Page 10
4.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The ARC’s role is to review the project for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines and
applicable City policies and standards, to provide the applicant and staff with feedback on the
proposed conceptual design. A Historic Preservation Report, prepared by SWCA Environmental
Consultants, has been provided with this report that includes an assessment of the project’s
conformance with Historic Preservation Guidelines (Attachment 2). This was the focus of the CHC’s
review.
Community Design Guidelines: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
Downtown Concept Plan: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=17344
5.0 COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES/DISCUSSION ITEMS
Highlighted Sections ARC Discussion Items
CDG Chapter 2 – General Design Principles
§2.1 - Site Design The ARC should discuss whether the project concept considers the context
of best examples of architecture in the vicinity.
§2.2 - Building Design
The ARC should discuss whether the building design provides adequate
proportion and balance of the building elements, including articulation that
effectively reduces the apparent mass of the structure.
CDG Chapter 4 - Downtown Design Guidelines
§4.2B - Height, Scale
The ARC should discuss whether the height and scale of the project provides
adequate visual transitions and sensitivity to historic resources of structures
in the vicinity.
The ARC should discuss whether the project provides the appropriate
techniques, identified in CDG 4.2.B.4, to assure the height of the building
respects the context of the site setting.
§4.2C - Façade Design The ARC should discuss whether the building façade provides appropriate
rhythm and proportion of storefront systems and window openings.
§4.2D - Materials and
Details
The ARC should discuss whether the projects materials and architectural
details are consistent with the distinctive character of Downtown.
Figure 1: Neighborhood Context and adjacent building heights.
Packet Page 11
6.0 PROJECT STATISTICS/ASSOCIATED STUDIES
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required*
Setbacks 0 feet 0 feet
Density (DU) 29.26 DU 13.68 DU
Residential Uses Provided Required
Height of Structures
Minimum 6-stories 2-stories along street
Maximum 75 feet 50 feet
Maximum with PC Exception 75 feet 75 feet
Max Building Coverage (footprint) 91% 100%
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 3.87 FAR 3.75 FAR
Total # Parking Spaces 11 spaces 93 spaces
Limitations on New Driveways Requested Restricted
Application Requirements
Viewshed Analysis1 & Visual Study Pending Submittal Required
Solar Shading Analysis Provided Required
Parking Demand Management Pending Submittal Required
3-D Digital Model Pending Submittal Required
Solid Waste Management Plan Pending Submittal Required
Green Building Plan Pending Submittal Required
Emergency Services Access Plan Pending Submittal Required
Public Safety Plan Pending Submittal Required
Utilities Infrastructure Analysis Pending Submittal Required
Building Code Analysis Pending Submittal Required
*2018 Zoning Regulations
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
7.1 Project Plans
7.2 Historic Preservation Report
1 Zoning Regulations Section 17.32.030E.6.a - Viewshed Analysis. A written and graphic viewshed analysis from various
perspectives. The analysis shall identify visual resources within the viewshed of the project and indicate how the design of the
project addresses those views from each perspective. Specific attention shall be given to views from adjacent publicly owned
gathering spaces, such as Mission Plaza. Packet Page 12
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 13
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 14
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 15
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 16
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 17
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 18
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 19
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 20
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 21
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 22
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 23
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 24
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 25
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 26
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 27
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 28
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 29
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 30
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 31
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 32
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 33
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 34
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 35
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 36
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 37
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 38
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 39
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 40
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 41
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 42
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 43
Attachment 7.1Packet Page 44
Historic Preservation Report for
1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo,
San Luis Obispo County, California
OCTOBER 2018
PREPARED FOR
Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP
Copeland Properties
PREPARED BY
SWCA Environmental Consultants
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 45
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 46
HISTORIC PRESERVATION REPORT FOR
1144 CHORRO STREET,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA
Prepared for
Jamestown Premier SLO Retail, LP
Copeland Properties
P.O. Box 12260
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Mark Rawson
Prepared by
Paula Juelke Carr, M.A.
SWCA Environmental Consultants
1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 543-7095
www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 52154
October 2018
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 47
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 48
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
i
CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Background ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Review of City Files: 1144 Chorro ............................................................................................................. 2
Summary of Development of Downtown Historic District ...................................................................... 2
Evaluation Criteria for Consistency with Historic Preservation Ordinance ......................................... 4
Evaluation Criteria for Consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties (Rehabilitation)................................................................................... 6
Additional Guidance from the U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................................. 7
Professional Commentary on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards ................................................. 7
Analysis and Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 7
References Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 10
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 49
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
ii
This page intentionally left blank.
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 50
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
1
INTRODUCTION
SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) has prepared this Historic Preservation Report to satisfy
Condition 3 of City of San Luis Obispo (City) ARCH-1687-2018 & USE-1688-2018 – Completeness
Review #1 for the Marsh & Chorro Development Project (project) located at 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis
Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. This report includes a review of the proposed project plans
and assesses the project’s conformance with City policies and guidelines.
BACKGROUND
The 1980 amendments to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 provided for the
establishment of a Certified Local Government Program to encourage the direct participation of local
governments (in partnership with the State Office of Historic Preservation [SHPO] and National Park
Service [NPS]) in the identification, evaluation, registration, and preservation of historic properties within
local government jurisdictions and promote the integration of local preservation interests and concerns
into local planning and decision-making processes.
The City became a Certified Local Government in 2012, thereby assuming responsibility for the
following historic preservation roles:
• Enforce appropriate state and local laws and regulations for the designation and protection of
historic properties;
• Establish a historic preservation review commission by local ordinance;
• Maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties;
• Provide for public participation in the local preservation program; and
• Satisfactorily perform responsibilities delegated to it by the state.
The City has a number of interrelated resources available to assist it in carrying out its mandates as a
Certified Local Government. Among these are:
• The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Title 14 California Code of
Regulations [CCR] Section 1500 et seq.);
• City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.01);
• City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (adopted by City Council
Resolution No. 10229 [2010 Series]);
• City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines (adopted by City Council Resolution No.
9391 [2002 Series], amended May 2003, October 2004, March 2007, November 2007, and June
2010);
• The Cultural Heritage Committee (historic preservation advisory body to the City Council);
• City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement (Historic Resources Group 2012);
and
• City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Chapter 6: Conservation and Open Space Element
(adopted by City Council Resolution No. 10586 [2014 Series], last revised December 2014);
Section 3: Cultural Heritage.
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 51
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
2
REVIEW OF CITY FILES: 1144 CHORRO
SWCA began with a review of City Community Development Department files relating to the Marsh &
Chorro Development Project site at 1144 Chorro Street, along with further review of the archived Cultural
Heritage Committee (CHC) agenda packets available online. The agenda packet prepared for the regularly
noticed June 22, 2015, CHC hearing included a staff report for the Discovery San Luis Obispo project,
which proposed to remodel the exterior and interior of the commercial building at 1144 Chorro Street (the
Marsh & Chorro Development Project location) (City of San Luis Obispo 2015). The Project Information
section of the staff report described the subject property as “a non-historic structure located with the
Commercial Downtown (C-D-H) zone at the border of the Downtown Historic District” (City of San Luis
Obispo 2015:CHC1-2). The assumption that the project site is not a historical resource for the purposes of
CEQA is based on the above information stated in the City’s CHC agenda packet. No further evaluation
of the building is therefore required.
Although the earlier Discovery San Luis Obispo project did not propose demolition of the existing
structure, the June 22, 2015, staff evaluation and analysis of the proposed Discovery San Luis Obispo
project (excerpted here) nevertheless provides useful comparative material for the evaluation and analysis
of the currently proposed March & Chorro Development project. This earlier documentation also provides
valuable suggestions for enhancing conformity.
City planning staff found that the Discovery project’s proposed exterior and interior modifications to the
1144 Chorro commercial building were consistent with Policy 3.2.1 of the City’s Historic Preservation
Guidelines, which requires that “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 . . . ” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:7).
The staff analysis went on to state:
The proposed remodel maintains the scale, mass, and overall rhythm of the existing
structure and would remain compatible with the form, scale, and massing of nearby
development and the overall Downtown Historic District. The subject location (which is
one floor plus mezzanine in height) abuts single and two-story structures and there are a
range of two to three story structures in the area. No exterior additions to the height or
mass are proposed . . .
The Downtown Historic District has a variety of architectural styles but most structures
appear to be constructed with high quality materials and attention to detail. The
contemporary design of the proposed project does not detract from defining features of
adjacent historic buildings or from other historic resource within the Downtown Historic
District because the modifications have a limited scope, which do not change the massing
and overall architectural form of the structure . . . (City of San Luis Obispo 2015:CHC1-
4).
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN HISTORIC
DISTRICT
The proposed building site at 1144 Chorro Street is located on the southeast margin of the City’s
designated Historic Downtown District. As described in the City’s Historic Preservation Guidelines, the
district “encompasses the oldest part of the city of San Luis Obispo and contains one of the City’s highest
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 52
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
3
concentrations of historic sites and structures” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:38–40). The Downtown
Historic District also includes some of the City’s most disparate resources in terms of construction dates,
historic context, and building materials. Examples include Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, Mexican-
era adobes, and examples of American-period frame and brick buildings. The majority of the district’s
surviving buildings date to the 1870s–1920s.
The district, which encompasses more than 60 acres and approximately 100 designated historic buildings,
is characterized chiefly by the commercial buildings that grew up in the latter part of the nineteenth
century along the city’s commercial corridors (Higuera, Monterey, and Marsh) and the main cross streets
that connected them (Chorro and Garden). Other streetscape characteristics include buildings that face the
street, sidewalks, grade-level recessed entrances, and street trees. As discussed in the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, “the district’s commercial architectural styles reflect the increasing
wealth of the times. Architectural styles . . . include examples of Classical Revival, Italianate and
Romanesque structures, and more modest early American commercial. Although a few structures were
designed by outside architects (specifically from San Francisco and Los Angeles) the majority of
Downtown buildings were designed and built by local builders. Predominant architectural features
include:
A. One to two stories (occasionally three)
B. Flat or low-pitched roof, often with a parapet
C. Wide entablature or projecting cornice that often includes classical architectural details such as
dentils, brackets and molding
D. First-floor windows are horizontally oriented storefront windows, often with display space facing
the street. In multi-story structures, windows are vertically oriented, typically with double-hung
wood sashes, and symmetrically arranged so that they are dimensionally taller than their width
E. Structures follow simple rectilinear or ‘boxy’ building forms
F. Masonry or smooth stucco wall siding
G. Contrasting bulkheads along base of street façade
H. Use of awnings, historic signs, second-story overhangs and canopies; and
I. Use of transom windows above storefronts” (City of San Luis Obispo 2010:38–39).
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company maps of the Marsh & Chorro Development Project area document the
transition of the built-environment in the project vicinity through 1970. Although Higuera Street had
become an established commercial street by the 1880s, the project vicinity of Marsh Street retained its
early residential streetscape of one-story frame dwellings, along with a smattering of churches, until the
1910s. The project site itself still had the same one-story frame residences until at least 1926.
The first decade of the twentieth century saw the construction of several large-scale building projects
within a one-block radius of the project area. These included three commercial buildings (the 1901–02
Bank of America Building, the 1903–04 Johnson Block, and the 1904 H. M. Warden Block), the First
Presbyterian Church built in 1905 (from stone quarried from Bishop Peak), and the four-story Masonic
Temple built in 1906 across Marsh Street from the project site. By 1926, the project area was undergoing
further commercial development: Although the subject parcel and neighboring parcels on Marsh Street
remained entirely residential, Chorro Street had a commercial building shared by the Santa Maria Gas
Company and a “pipe shop and office,” and a former residence on the southwest corner of Chorro and
Marsh Streets housed an office of the US Weather Bureau. Farther south on the corner of Marsh and
Garden Streets were two-story stucco buildings—the Struver Building (1913) and the Snyder Building
(1925). North on Marsh Street, at the corner of Morro Street, was the newly built U.S. Post Office (also a
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 53
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
4
prominent stucco building). The post office was flanked by the Presbyterian Church on one side and the
Christian Science Church on the other. The Masonic Temple—a bulky building with stucco coating,
distinctive engaged pilasters, and a prominent cornice and entablature, which remained the tallest and
most substantial building within view—had been joined by the Elks Lodge, on the northwest corner of
Marsh and Morro Streets.
New construction between 1926 and 1970 on Chorro Street, between Marsh and Higuera Streets, included
the three-story Wineman Hotel stucco remodel in 1931 and the two-story brick-faced Riley’s Department
Store building, constructed at 1144 Chorro Street in 1955 and in operation at that location from 1956
through 1992.1 Other commercial buildings constructed on Marsh Street between Garden and Morro
Streets include additional two-story stucco structures.
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CONSISTENCY WITH
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is codified as Chapter 14.01 of the Municipal Code.2 The
subheadings of the chapter relevant to the Marsh & Chorro Development Project are the following, which
incorporate, by reference, CEQA regulations, Community Design Guidelines, and the City’s Conservation
and Open Space Element:
14.01.010 Findings and Purpose
14.01.010.A.3. The California Environmental Quality Act requires special treatment of
historic resources and the establishment of clear local guidance for the identification and
preservation of such resources lends [sic] clarity and certainty to the review of
development applications involving historic resources.
14.01.010.B.1. Identify, protect, preserve, and promote the continuing use and upkeep of
San Luis Obispo’s historic structures, sites and districts.
14.01.010.B.4. Implement the historic preservation goals and policies of the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan.
14.01.010.B.7. Establish the procedures and significance criteria to be applied when
evaluating development project effects on historic resources.
14.01.010.B.8. Fulfill the City’s responsibilities as a Certified Local Government under
State and Federal regulations and for Federal Section 106 reviews.
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance also defines the Historic Preservation Report and other
relevant terminology used in architectural evaluations:
1 Building Permit No. A-475 for new construction, issued to C.C. Humphreys and H. A. Landeck; Maino Construction; June 23,
1955; project completed October 23, 1955.
2 The City of San Luis Obispo CHC is delegated to review applications and development review projects, including new
construction, additions, or alterations located in historic districts, and make recommendations to the Community Development
Department Director, the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, or the City Council (14.01.030.C.4).
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 54
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
5
14.01.020 Definitions
14.01.020.2 Adjacent: located on property which abuts the subject property on at least
one point of the property line, on the same property, or located on property directly
across right-of-way from subject property and able to be viewed concurrently.
14.01.020.9 Character Defining Features: as outlined in the US Department of the
Interior’s National Register 15 and Preservation Brief 17: “How to Identify Character
Defining Features.” The architectural character and general composition of a resource,
including, but not limited to, type and texture of building material; type, design, and
character of all windows, doors, stairs, porches, railings. Molding and other appurtenant
elements; and fenestration, ornamental detailing, elements of craftsmanship, finishes, etc.
14.01.020.20 Historic Context: Historic context are those patterns, themes or trends in
history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning
and significance is made clear.
14.01.020.21 Historic District/Historical Preservation District: areas or neighborhoods
with a collection or concentration of listed or potentially contributing historic
properties…where historic properties help define the area or neighborhood’s unique
architectural, cultural, and historical character or sense of place. Historic districts are
delineated on the official zoning map as Historic (H) overlay zone under San Luis Obispo
Municipal Code Chapter 17.54.
14.01.020.23 Historic Preservation Report: A document which describes preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction measures for a historic resource, based on
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of historic Properties, and
which includes standards and guidelines for recommended treatments for preserving the
resource.
14.01.020.32 Massing: The spatial relationships, arrangement and organization of a
building’s physical bulk or volume.
14.01.020.39 Preservation: The act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain
a historic site, building or other structure’s historically significant existing form,
integrity, and materials through stabilization, repair and maintenance.
14.01.020.42 Qualified Professional: an individual meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61 Appendix A) in history,
architectural history, historic architecture and other designated categories….
14.01.020.48 Scale: The proportions of architectural design that relate to human size or
other relative size measure.
14.01.020.49 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards: The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as published by the US Department of
the Interior and as amended from time to time.
14.01.020.50 Setting: The physical area, environment or neighborhood in which a
resource is located.
14.01.020.53. Siting: The placement of structures and improvement on a property or site.
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 55
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
6
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE
TREATMENT OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES (REHABILITATION)
Four approaches to the treatment of historic properties are recommended by the Secretary of the Interior:
Rehabilitation, Preservation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Of these, Rehabilitation offers the most
latitude in adaptive re-use of existing historic properties. In evaluating the current proposed project’s
compliance with the 10 Rehabilitation Standards, SWCA has considered the Downtown Historic District
as a whole as well as the individual historic properties within the viewshed of the Marsh & Chorro
Development Project. Standard No. 9 is the most relevant standard for the proposed project.
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.
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.
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 56
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
7
Additional Guidance from the U.S. Department of the Interior
“As with new additions, the massing, size, scale, and architectural features of new
construction on the site of a historic building must be compatible with those of the
historic building. When visible and in close proximity to historic buildings, the new
construction must be subordinate to these buildings. New construction should also be
distinct from the old and must not attempt to replicate historic buildings elsewhere on site
and to avoid creating a false sense of historic development” (National Park Service
[n.d.]).
Professional Commentary on the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards
At the 2007 National Preservation Conference, the distinguished architect and professor Steven W. Semes
emphasized that new buildings in an historic setting should focus more on the “sense of place” than the
“sense of time.” Semes’s point of view is that historic districts usually contain buildings in many different
styles, but most follow an approach to design that reflects the sense of the specific place and create
continuity over time rather than contrast and disruption. It is this continuity over time that is important to
creating and maintaining the character of historic districts. Thus, from Semes’s point of view, any style
would be acceptable in an historic district provided it draws on the influences of the place and harmonizes
with, rather than ruptures, the continuity of architectural character (Preservation Alliance for Greater
Philadelphia 2007).
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
The issue of compatibility—with individual historical resources and with the Downtown Historic District
as a whole—is the primary issue in determining compliance with the City’s Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines (in particular Section 3.2.1) and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation (in particular, Standard No. 9) for development within historic districts and development
adjacent to historical resources.
Some individual City-listed historic buildings located within the Downtown Historic District (e.g.,
Wineman Hotel, First Presbyterian Church, Masonic Temple) are sited in such a way that both the historic
building and the proposed Marsh & Chorro Development project would be visible concurrently. The
project is also proposed as a new addition to the Downtown Historic District, which is currently
experiencing a resurgence of development and redevelopment projects. Several of these infill projects,
either already in construction or still in the development pipeline, are undeniably large-scale in terms of
their height and massing; their visual prominence is altering familiar downtown streetscapes and skylines.
As part of the evaluation for compatibility, a pertinent historic preservation question is whether a given
project, or the aggregate of these new projects, is consistent with the City’s historic preservation goals.
City planning staff and the City Council are, of course, obliged to consider multiple (and often
competing) points of view in their decision making. The cultural heritage section of the City’s General
Plan specifically acknowledges the inherent difficulties in balancing historic preservation goals with other
community goals:
Throughout California, older established neighborhoods are feeling the effects of growth
and intensification due to contemporary development which often dwarfs or lacks the
grace of older homes it replaces. Commercial areas are also feeling the impact of a
changing economy with new uses, development patterns and economic realities.
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 57
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
8
Underutilized sites with historic resources are often prime targets for redevelopment
projects, with the resulting loss of those resources. Moreover, some cultural resources
have been lost due to unclear or conflicting public policies, incomplete information and
the lack of funding. The loss of significant historic, cultural and archaeological resources
can reduce the community’s uniqueness and make it a less desirable place in which to
live, work or visit.
As San Luis Obispo enters the 21st century, it is prudent to look into the future to
anticipate problems which may lie ahead. We have already experienced some of these
same pressures, and it is reasonable to expect that we will continue to face similar
challenges in the near future. Through its General Plan policies and related
implementation measures, the City intends to help balance cultural resource preservation
with other community goals (City of San Luis Obispo 2014:6-14–6-15).
Architectural historians and other technical specialists, on the other hand, are expected to focus on the
particular issues of their area of expertise. That is not to say that they should be unaware of or indifferent
to other issues of concern. It is a standard analytical approach to look at overall historical context when
considering historical resources. This approach has merit, though, only when it is understood in an
organic way and not as a snapshot moment in time. Economic realities have always shaped the form, size,
construction materials, aesthetic qualities, and use of San Luis Obispo’s myriad architectural resources—
no matter when they were built or where they were located. Over the past 150 years, the City has
experienced episodes of economic downturn and economic recovery, accompanied respectively by
building slumps and building booms. New construction has historically embraced contemporary
architectural trends (which sometimes included architectural revivals of earlier styles). As part of this
long-term general economic and construction trend, new construction has also often been larger and more
substantially built than the majority of buildings already in place around it. The Masonic Temple, for
instance, which has dominated Marsh Street for more than a century, was roughly three times the height
and size of surrounding structures when it was built in 1913—at a time when the streetscape was
predominantly one-story frame dwellings and vacant lots. During the past century, there have also been
long intervals of limited growth during which a generation of residents might witness relatively few
conspicuous changes. It should be pointed out, of course, that earlier episodes of large-scale construction
generally happened long before the evolution of the modern regulatory environment and its concerns with
historic preservation, but new construction has nevertheless always been indicative of prevailing
historical trends.
The project clearly evidences the intent to incorporate numerous design elements to be compatible with
adjacent and nearby architectural styles and materials. The massing of the building—though clearly tall
and substantial—is nevertheless softened by subdued colors and fenestration of the lower stories, as well
as the setback and change in surface material of the uppermost stories. Cornice trim is suitably
incorporated at a respectful scale. The building is designed in an unobtrusive contemporary style that
neither suggests a fictitious past nor attempts to dominate or compete with the more flamboyant
architecture of the historic Masonic Temple across Marsh Street. Marsh Street is noticeably wider than
Higuera and Monterey Streets, but the numerous mature street trees provide considerable screening of
building mass on both sides of the street. Marsh Street at Chorro Street is also noticeably at a lower
elevation than the uphill topography that characterizes the intersections of Higuera and Osos Streets or
Chorro and Palm Streets, where buildings that are tall to begin with look even taller against the horizon.
The City parking structure on the opposite corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets provides a tall visual
counterpoint to the proposed Marsh & Chorro Development Project. Other nearby designated historic
buildings within a one-block radius have limited views of the project site from the city street, generally
because of the narrowness of the cross streets and screening provided by street trees.
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 58
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
9
With careful consideration of: (1) the historical development of the Downtown Historic District; (2) the
character-defining features of adjacent and nearby designated historic buildings; (3) site topography,
street width, and sightlines; (4) the district-wide distribution of multi-storied designated historic
buildings, other multi-storied historic-period buildings, and recently constructed multi-storied buildings;
and (5) the proposed materials, colors, massing, setbacks, ornamental detailing, wall recesses, bulkheads,
canopies, balconies, railings, fenestration, lintels, ledges, window reveals, and other design elements of
the proposed project, SWCA has concluded that the project, as currently designed, complies with the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties (Rehabilitation).
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 59
1144 Chorro Street Historic Preservation Report
10
REFERENCES CITED
City of San Luis Obispo
2006 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Chapter 6: Conservation and Open Space Element.
Adopted April 4, 2006, last revised December 9, 2014 (Council Resolution No. 10586, 2014
Series). Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651. Accessed
October 2018.
2010 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. November 2010.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144. Accessed October
2018.
2015 San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes, Agenda Packet for ARCH-1376-
2015, Hearing Item No. 1. June 22, 2015. Available at:
http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/1,1,1,1/doc/42256/Page1.aspx. Accessed October 2018.
National Park Service
[n.d.] New Construction within the Boundaries of Historic Properties. U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service Technical Preservation Services. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation/successful-rehab/new-
construction.htm. Accessed October 2018.
Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia
2007 Sense of Place: Design Guidelines for New Construction in Historic Districts. Available at:
http://www.preservationalliance.com/publications/SenseofPlace_final.pdf. Accessed October
2018.
Attachment 7.2
Packet Page 60