Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-28-2020 CHC Agenda Packet City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Agenda Cultural Heritage Committee Monday, September 28, 2020 Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment. Additionally, members of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) are allowed to attend the meeting via teleconference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present. Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are encouraged to participate in CHC meetings in the following ways: ➢ Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view: • View the Webinar (recommended for the best viewing quality): ➢ Webinar URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6848062292696193038 ➢ Webinar ID: 835-765-411 ➢ Telephone Attendee: (415) 655-0060; Audio Access Code: 935-024-998 ➢ Note: The City uses GotoWebinar to conduct virtual meetings. Please test your speakers and microphone settings prior to joining the webinar. If you experience audio issues, check out this YouTube tutorial to troubleshoot audio connection issues. 2. Public Comment - The CHC will still be accepting public comment for items within their purview. Public comment can be submitted in the following ways: • Mail or Email Public Comment ➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at: 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM – Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org and will be archived/distributed to members of the Advisory Body the day after the meeting. Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting • Verbal Public Comment ➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to Advisory Body Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting. ➢ During the meeting – Members of the public who wish to provide public comment can join the webinar (instructions above). Once you have joined the webinar, please put your name and Item # in the questions box. Your mic will be unmuted once Public Comment is called for the Item and you will have 3 minutes to speak. All comments submitted will be placed into the administrative record of the meeting. City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Agenda Cultural Heritage Committee 5:30 PM REGULAR MEETING TELECONFERENCE Broadcasted via Webinar CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Shannon Larrabee ROLL CALL: Committee Members Karen Edwards, Wendy McFarland, Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Eva Ulz, and Vice Chair Shannon Larrabee INTRODUCTION 1. Introduce newly appointed Cultural Heritage Committee members Karen Edwards and Wendy McFarland. ELECTION OF CHAIR 2. Elect a member of the Cultural Heritage Committee to serve a one-year term as Chair. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee on items not on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 3. Approve the minutes of the July 27, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting. Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of September 28, 2020 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NOTE: The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director, another advisory body or to City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed. 4. Review of a Mills Act Historical Property Contract for the Lozelle and Katie Flickinger Graham House at 1789 Santa Barbara Street (this action is not subject to environmental Review); Project Address: 1789 Santa Barbara Street; Case #: HIST-0359-2020; Zone: R-3-H; Michael Hughes, applicant. (Walter Oetzell) Recommendation: Forward a recommendation to the City Council that the City enter into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract for the Master List Historic Property at 1789 Santa Barbara Street. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting will be on Monday, October 26, 2020 at 5:30 p.m., via teleconference. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such requests to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee are available on the City’s website, http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies. You may also contact the Community Development Department, by phone, from 8 AM to 3 PM at (805) 781-7150. Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of July 27, 2020 Page 1 Minutes CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Monday, July 27, 2020 Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, July 27, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference, by Vice Chair Shannon Larrabee. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Eva Ulz, and Vice Chair Shannon Larrabee Absent: Three seats vacant Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Senior Planner Shawna Scott, Contract Planner Emily Creel, and City Clerk Teresa Purrington PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None --End of Public Comment-- CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES 1.Approve the minutes of the June 22, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, CARRIED 4-0-0, (WITH 3 SEATS VACANT) to approve the minutes of the June 22, 2020 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting as amended to show that Member Ulz was absent. Item 3 Packet Page 1 Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of July 27, 2020 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. 12165 & 12193 Los Osos Valley Road. Review of the cultural resources components of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan project, including the relocation/reconstruction of four historic structures (main residence, creamery, dairy barn, and granary) to a proposed park onsite and the demolition of three contributing structures to the Froom Ranch Historic District (a shed, bunkhouse, and old barn). The Final EIR will be available for review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, which includes mitigation to address identified impacts that relate to these actions; Specific Plan Area 3; Project Address: 12165 and 12193 Los Osos Valley Road; Case #: SPEC-0143-2017, SBDV-0955-2017, GENP-0737-2019, EID-0738-2019; Specific Plan Area 3; JM Development Group, Inc., owner/applicant. Contract Planner Emily Creel presented the staff report and responded to Committee inquiries. Applicant representative, Victor Montgomery, provided a presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries. Public Comment None --End of Public Comment-- ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, CARRIED 4-0-0 (WITH 3 SEATS VACANT) recommending the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the City’s General Plan policies for cultural resources, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, and Historic Preservation Guidelines. Also, that the Environmental Impact Report adequately addressed Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources. With a suggestion that staff look at the findings regarding if economic hardship could be grounds for demolition. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:08 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, August 24, 2020 at 5:30 p.m., via teleconference. APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2020 Item 3 Packet Page 2 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner ADDRESS: 1789 Santa Barbara Street FILE NUMBER: HIST-0359-2020 APPLICANT: Michael and Paden Hughes For more information contact Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner: 781-7593 (woetzell@slocity.org) 1.0 RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council that the City enter into a Mills Act historic property contract with the property owners, to encourage maintenance and restoration of the historic property at 1789 Santa Barbara Street. 2.0 BACKGROUND The owners of the Lozelle and Katie Flickinger Graham House at 1789 Santa Barbara Street (Figure 1) submitted an application to enter into a Mills Act historical property contract with the City. The Committee will make a recommendation to the City Council about the request, as provided in § 14.01.030(B) (8) of the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance. 3.0 SITE AND SETTING The property is at the northwest corner of Church Street and Santa Barbara Avenue, in the Medium-High Density Residential and Historical Preservation Overlay (R-3-H) Zones, and in the Railroad Historic District. The property is developed with a single-family dwelling, built in the late 19th Century. It was designated as a Master List Resource on July 7, 2020 (Resolution No. 11139), as a rare example within the City of the Italianate Style, under the eligibility criteria for architecture and integrity set out in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO). 4.0 MILLS ACT CONTRACTS The Mills Act Program is a property tax reduction program for protection of cultural resources that encourages their maintenance and restoration (§ 3.6.2 of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element). Participation in the program is limited to Master List Resources; the most unique and important historic resources in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past (HPO § 14.01.050 (A)). Meeting Date: September 28, 2020 Item Number: 4 Item No. 1 Figure 1: The Lozelle and Katie Flickinger Graham House Item 4 Packet Page 3 The City and owners of a Master List Resource enter into an historical property contract under which the owners agree to restore, maintain, and protect the property in accordance with historical preservation standards. Owners may qualify for property tax relief, potentially realizing tax savings of between 40% and 60% per year. Contracts have a minimum term of ten years, and contain standard elements set out in the Mills Act (Govt. Code §§ 50280 – 50290), including: a provision for preservation (or, where necessary, restoration and rehabilitation) of the property in conformance with state historic preservation guidelines; periodic examination of the property for compliance with the contract; and a provision binding the contract upon successive owners. Automatic one-year extensions are provided, unless either party gives notice of non-renewal of the contract. On acceptance and recordation of the contract, the property is assessed using an “income approach” that values the property by an income capitalization method, following guidelines provided by the State Board of Equalization 5.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Several improvements and maintenance items are identified by the applicant (Attachment 1) for completion under the proposed contract. All of the items listed are relevant to the preservation and maintenance of this Master List Historic Resource, and are included in Exhibit A of the proposed contract (Attachment 2). Among the proposed improvements is restoration of roof cresting that, as noted on page 17 of the Historical Evaluation prepared for the property (Attachment 3), was added to the house sometime after 1892 and removed after 1907. As discussed in the Evaluation, the period of significance of this house, described as between 1884 and 1942 (Evaluation, pg. 5) allows for restoration of this feature, which is also depicted in several photographs within the Evaluation, as a decorative feature associated with the building’s Italianate style. Additionally, any work undertaken on the property must, under the terms of the Mills Act Contract, be carried out in compliance with the City’s historical preservation standards and guidelines and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, in a manner that retains and preserves original, character-defining architectural features and the historical character of the property. 6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council that the City enter into a Mills Act historic property contract with the property owners, to encourage maintenance and restoration of the historic property at 1789 Santa Barbara Street. 2. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff. 3. Recommend to the City Council that the City not enter into the proposed historical property contract, based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Historic Preservation Ordinance, or Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Applicant Request Letter and List of Improvements 2. Historic Property Contract (Draft) 3. Historical Property Evaluation (James Papp) Item 4 Packet Page 4 Mills Act Application Letter Prepared for: City of SLO Prepared by: Michael Hughes July 25, 2020 RESOLUTION NO. 11139 (HIST-0144-2020) 1789 SANTA BARBARA AVE SLO CA 93401 Item 4 Packet Page 5 1. “one of the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of age” 2. “one of the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of … architectural … significance” The property was designated as a Master List resource on July 7th 2020. Please reference the attached documents. Historical Goals -Preserve and replace the unique bathroom window. The window is original and has wood rot around the lower left hand corner of the window frame. It will be removed, patched and replaced with the same or one that exactly matches the current style of the window. -Restoring roof cresting to the property and replacing roof. The roof needs to be replaced in the next 3- 5 years as described in the home inspection report when we purchased the property. We want to restore the roof to its early1900’s roof “cresting” appearance. -Restore landscaping and fence line. The overall property’s landscaping, including the fence line, as been altered many times and is currently inconsistent. We intend to install consistent fencing and landscaping to represent the quality a historical property of SLO should represent. -Updates to plumbing and drainage. The house’s plumbing while relatively modern, was installed with low grade materials and per the house inspector’s notes would need to be updated within 10 years. Also noted in the report was water markings around certain parts of the foundation. Appropriate drainage will be installed to prevent any lasting damage to the property’s structure. -Paint and trim maintenance for exterior. Maintain the house’s exterior paint quality and replace dry rot in trim, landings and siding. 1789 SANTA BARBARA AVE SLO CA 93401 SUMMARY The Lozelle and Katie Flickinger Graham House at 1789 Santa Barbara is one of a pair of 1884 houses—both added to the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources in 1987—that are the Railroad Historic District’s oldest surviving buildings, predating the arrival of the Southern Pacific in 1894. The house is a rare example of an Italianate building in San Luis Obispo virtually unaltered from its original form and retaining its original features. Two stand out features of the property are: Item 4 Packet Page 6 HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNERS OF THE HISTORIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1789 SANTA BARBARA STREET, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ________ day of ________ , 2020, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), and Michael and Paden Hughes (hereinafter referred to as “Owners”), and collectively referred to as the “parties.” WHEREAS, Owners are the owners of that certain real property commonly known as 1789 Santa Barbara Street (APN 003-552-011), and legally described as shown in the attached “Exhibit B” (“Owners’ Property”); and WHEREAS, Owners have agreed to enter into an Historical Property Contract with the City for the preservation, maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of Owners’ Property, an historic resource within the City; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and in further consideration of the mutual benefits, promises, and agreements set out herein, the parties agree as follows: Section 1. Description of Preservation Measures. The Owners, their heirs, or assigns hereby agree to undertake and complete, at his expense, the preservation, maintenance, and improvements measures described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto. Section 2. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective and commence upon recordation and shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten (10) years thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the agreement’s effective date, such initial term will automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Section 50280 through 50290 and in Section 3, below. Section 3. Agreement Renewal and Non-renewal. a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this agreement (hereinafter referred to as “annual renewal date”), a year shall automatically be added to the initial term of this agreement unless written notice of non-renewal is served as provided herein. b. If the Owners or the City desire in any year not to renew the agreement, the Owners or the City shall serve written notice of non-renewal of the agreement on the other party. Unless such notice is served by the Owners to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owners at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of the agreement as provided herein. Item 4 Packet Page 7 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 1789 Santa Barbara Street Page 2 c. The Owners may make a written protest of the notice. The City may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date, withdraw its notice to the Owners of non-renewal. d. If either the City or the Owners serve notice to the other party of non-renewal in any year, the agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining. Section 4. Standards and Conditions. During the term of this agreement, the historic property shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Owners agree to preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate the building and its character-defining features, including: the building’s general architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of windows, doors, and other openings; interior architectural elements that are integral to the building’s historic character or significance; exterior materials, coatings, textures, details, mass, roof line, porch, and other aspects of the appearance of the building’s exterior, as described in Exhibit A, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or his designee. b. All building changes shall comply with applicable City specific plans, City regulations and guidelines, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling shall retain original, character-defining architectural features such as oak and mahogany details, pillars and arches, special tile work, or architectural ornamentation to the greatest extent possible. c. The Community Development Director shall be notified by the Owners of changes to character-defining exterior features prior to their execution, such as major landscaping projects and tree removals, exterior door or window replacement, repainting, remodeling, or other exterior alterations requiring a building permit. The Owners agree to secure all necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to changing the building’s use or commencing construction work. d. Owners agree that property tax savings resulting from this agreement shall be used for property maintenance and improvements as described in Exhibit A. e. The following are prohibited: demolition or partial demolition of the historic building; exterior alterations or additions not in keeping with the standards listed above; dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs, doors, walls, windows; outdoor storage of junk, trash, debris, appliances, or furniture visible from a public way; or any device, decoration, structure, or vegetation which is unsightly due to lack of maintenance or because such feature adversely affects, or is visually incompatible with, the property’s recognized Item 4 Packet Page 8 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 1789 Santa Barbara Street Page 3 historic character, significance, and design as determined by the Community Development Director. f. Owners shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the interior and exterior of the historic property by representatives of the County Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of Equalization, and the City as may be necessary to determine the owners’ compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement. Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owners hereby agree to furnish any and all information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement. Section 6. Cancellation. a. The City, following a duly-noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth in Government Code Section 50285, may cancel this agreement if it determines that the Owners have breached any of the conditions of this agreement or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historic property; or if the City determines that the Owners have failed to preserve, maintain, or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in Section 4 of this agreement. If a contract is cancelled because of failure of the Owners to preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the historic property as specified above, the Owners shall pay a cancellation fee to the State Controller as set forth in Government Code Section 50286, which states that the fee shall be 12 ½% of the full value of the property at the time of cancellation without regard to any restriction imposed with this agreement. b. If the historic building is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of the agreement, the agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government Code Section 50288. Section 7. Enforcement of Agreement. a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the agreement as referenced herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of the agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel the agreement by the Owners, the City shall give written notice of violation to the Owners by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this agreement. If such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter; or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default of said breach; or if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty (30) days and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by the Owners); Item 4 Packet Page 9 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 1789 Santa Barbara Street Page 4 then the City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of the Owners growing out of the terms of this agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by the Owners or apply for such relief as may be appropriate. b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owners if the City does not enforce or cancel this agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this agreement or in the City’s regulations governing historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach or default under this agreement. No waiver by the City of any breach or default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default herein under. c. By mutual agreement, City and Owners may enter into mediation or binding arbitration to resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this contract. Section 8. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owners hereby subject the historic building located at 1789 Santa Barbara Street, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number 003-552-011, to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The City and Owners hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owners’ successors and assigns in title or interest to the historic property. Every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the historic property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this agreement regardless of whether such covenants, restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument. Section 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this agreement shall be sent to the address of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later specified by the parties hereto. To City: Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 To Owners: Michael and Paden Hughes 1789 Santa Barbara Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 Section 10. General Provisions. a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or Item 4 Packet Page 10 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 1789 Santa Barbara Street Page 5 assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise. b. The Owners agree to hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or from claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or activities of the Owners, or from those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee, or other person acting on the Owners’ behalf which relates to the use, operation, maintenance, or improvement of the historic property. The Owners hereby agree to and shall defend the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees with respect to any and all claims or actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, reason of the Owners’ activities in connection with the historic property, excepting however any such claims or actions which are the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, or employees. c. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason of the operations referred to in this agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the historic property. d. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the historic property, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever. e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney’s fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court. f. In the event that any of the provisions of this agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be affected thereby. g. This agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 11. Amendments. This agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto. Item 4 Packet Page 11 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 1789 Santa Barbara Street Page 6 Section 12. Recordation and Fees. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties enter into this agreement, the City shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. Participation in the program shall be at no cost to the Owners; however, the City may charge reasonable and necessary fees to recover direct costs of executing, recording, and administering the historical property contracts. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owners have executed this agreement on the day and year written above. OWNERS ____________________________________ ______________________________ Michael Hughes Date ____________________________________ ______________________________ Paden Hughes Date CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ____________________________________ ______________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon Date Pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. __________(2020 Series) ATTEST: ______________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED Item 4 Packet Page 12 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 1789 Santa Barbara Street Page 7 EXHIBIT “A” MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR THE LOZELLE AND KATIE FLICKINGER GRAHAM HOUSE LOCATED AT 1789 SANTA BARBARA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Owners shall preserve, maintain, and repair the historic building, including its character-defining architectural features in good condition, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee, pursuant to a Mills Act Preservation Contract with the City of San Luis Obispo for property located at 1789 Santa Barbara Street. Character-defining features shall include, but are not limited to: roof, eaves, dormers, trim, porches, walls and siding, architectural detailing, doors and windows, window screens and shutters, balustrades and railings, foundations, and surface treatments. Owners agree to make the following improvements or repairs during the term of this contract but in no case later than ten (10) years from the contract date. All changes or repairs shall be consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: ▪ Preservation and repair of windows, including a unique bathroom window ▪ Replacement of roofing materials, and restoration of roof cresting ▪ Restoration of period-appropriate landscaping and fence line ▪ Plumbing repairs and repairs to address site drainage problems causing water markings around the building foundation ▪ Exterior paint and trim maintenance Item 4 Packet Page 13 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 1789 Santa Barbara Street Page 8 EXHIBIT “B” Legal Description For APN/Parcel ID(s): 003-552-011 THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: [Legal Description Pending] Item 4 Packet Page 14 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 1789 Santa Barbara Street Page 9 State of California } County of San Luis Obispo } On________________, before me __________________________________________, Date Name and Title of the Officer personally appeared, _____________________________________________________, Name of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature __________________________________ Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above State of California } County of San Luis Obispo } On________________, before me __________________________________________, Date Name and Title of the Officer personally appeared, _____________________________________________________, Name of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature __________________________________ Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. Item 4 Packet Page 15 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 1789 Santa Barbara Street Page 10 State of California } County of San Luis Obispo } On________________, before me __________________________________________, Date Name and Title of the Officer personally appeared, _____________________________________________________, Name of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature __________________________________ Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above State of California } County of San Luis Obispo } On________________, before me __________________________________________, Date Name and Title of the Officer personally appeared, _____________________________________________________, Name of Signer(s) who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature __________________________________ Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. Item 4 Packet Page 16 1 Master List Application The Lozelle and Katie Flickinger Graham House 1789 Santa Barbara Avenue Summary Conclusion of Eligibility Under Master List Criteria 1 Timeline 2 Period of Significance 4 Eligibility Under Master List Criteria: Significance and Integrity 15 Summary Conclusion of Eligibility Under Master List Criteria The Lozelle and Katie Flickinger Graham House at 1789 Santa Barbara is one of a pair of 1884 houses—both added to the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources in 1987—that appear to be the Railroad Historic District’s oldest surviving buildings, predating the arrival of the Southern Pacific in 1894. The house is a rare example of an Italianate building in San Luis Obispo virtually unaltered from its original form and retaining its original features. It is eligible for the Master List as 1. “one of the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of age” 2. “one of the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of … architectural … significance” Submitted for owners Michael and Paden Hughes by James Papp, PhD, Historicities LLC, Historian and Architectural Historian, Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards. 6 March 2020. Item 4 Packet Page 17 2 Timeline 1827 William B. Graham is born in Indiana.1 1830 Joseph Henry Flickinger is born in Germany (probably Alsace) and grows up in Erie, Pennsylvania.2 1849 At 19 Flickinger rounds Cape Horn and opens meat market in San Jose during California’s first state legislative session in that city. Spends summer of 1850 in the gold country, returns to meat market in fall; in 1851 adds general merchandise; in 1853 switches to wholesale cattle business (Foote). 1857 Lozelle F. Graham is born in Indiana, only child of physician William B. Graham and Lydia B. Graham of New Jersey (1870 US Census). 1859 Katie Flickinger is born with twin Charles in California, daughter of J. H. Flickinger and Mary Smith Flickinger of New York (1860 US Census). 1860 According to the US Census, J. H. Flickinger, butcher in San Jose, has $3,000 in real and $1,400 in personal estate and lives next to father-in-law China Smith, nurseryman. 1870 According to the US Census, J. H. Flickinger, cattle dealer in San Jose, has real and personal estate of $20,000 each, in household with wife, five children, a servant, laborer, and vaquero. 1870–80 Between 1870 and 1880, the Grahams move from unincorporated Tyner City in Indiana to Napa, California, where William Graham continues to practice as a physician and L. F. Graham becomes a clerk (US Census). 1880 J. H. Flickinger purchases pasture land to convert to orchard (Foote). Figure 1. Ad for Lozelle Graham’s store, weekly San Luis Obispo Tribune, 20 June 1884 1. Grave and 1870 US Census. 2. H. S. Foote, Pen Pictures from the “Garden of the World” (Chicago: Lewis, 1888). Item 4 Packet Page 18 3 1884 June L. F. Graham opens a dry and fancy goods store in Schwab’s Building, Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo,3 and William Graham moves to San Luis to practice as a physician.4 1884 Nov. 6 George C. Cocke, for $300 gold coin, transfers ownership to William and L. F. Graham of two westerly gore blocks formed by Osos Street (later Santa Barbara Avenue) cutting diagonally through blocks 176 and 181 in the Loomis Addition (County Land Records). By 1903 the eastern gores will become El Triangulo, the city’s first and, for more than 40 years, only park. 1885 Jan. 8 William and L. F. Graham transfer ownership of lots 5, 6, and 7, block 176, to Lydia Graham for “ten dollars gold coin” (ibid.). 1885 Jan. 9 The weekly San Luis Obispo Tribune describes Dr. and L. F. Graham’s respective houses on “Cock’s addition.” The location and dimensions are consistent with the early dimensions of 1749 and current dimensions of 1789 Santa Barbara Avenue (on lots 6 and 8, block 176, respectively). On the same day William and Lozelle transfer ownership of lot 8 to “Katie Graham” “in consideration of the love and affection which they bear towards and for the better support and maintenance of the said party of the second part” (ibid). 1885 Jan. 19 Katie Flickinger marries L. F. Graham in San Jose in a Congregational service.5 1886 J. H. Flickinger leaves the cattle dealing business and opens a fruit canning and drying factory, by 1888 planting 250 acres with 25,000 trees, including cherries, peaches, apricots, and plums (Foote). Figure 2. The Flickinger cattle brand and cannery trademark 1888 Aug. 30 The Morning Tribune announces L. F. Graham’s move to San Jose to work for J. H. Flickinger’s Pacific Orchard and Cannery. He eventually becomes president of the company. 1888 Sep. L. F. Graham serves as superintendent of merchandise at San Luis Obispo’s Agricultural District Fair.6 3. “New Dry Goods Store,” weekly San Luis Obispo Tribune, 6 June 1884. 4. “Old Napaites in Southern California,” weekly Napa Register, 1 May 1885. 5. Santa Clara County marriage certificate. 6. “The Fair,” Morning Tribune, 21 Sep. 1888. Item 4 Packet Page 19 4 1889 June The family of A. M. Kurtz, owner of the Phoenix Pharmacy at Higuera and Chorro, moves to the Lozelle and Katie Graham House.7 1896 Dec. 19 Katie Graham transfers ownership of lot 8, block 176 to James S. Jones, hog and cattle dealer (County Land Records). 1903 Apr. Jones employs Maino to build a $3,000, five-room cottage at 972 Church Street behind the Lozelle and Katie Graham House. He expects to occupy it in August, when Southern Pacific conductor Will H. Metz and family will move into the Graham House.8 1904 Aug. 5, 6 Jones, having separated from his wife Alice Herron Jones, transfers lot 5 and the eastern part of lot 8 to her as her portion of community property (County Land Records). 1904 Dec. 3 J. S. Jones sells the western portion of lot 8 with the house at 972 Church Street at a loss to newly arrived barber Frank Smith, who dies three months later of traumatic empyema.9 1905 Feb. The Metzes move to Islay Street so the reunited Joneses can move back to the Lozelle and Katie Graham House.10 1905 June 8 Alice Jones transfers lot 5 and the eastern part of lot 8 back to J. S. Jones (County Land Records). 1905 Nov. 7 J. S. Jones transfers the eastern part of lot 8 to Theresa L. Bell (County Land Records). Bell and her husband own numerous properties and are in the lodging business. 1905 Dec. The original Tribune Building, latterly a lodging house near Morro and Marsh, is bought by Theresa Bell and moved to the north end of the western part of lot 8, next to the Lozelle and Katie Graham House, so the Elks can build a hall on its previous site.11 1906 Feb. 15 The Tribune Building, now the Laurel House, opens its dining room for boarding.12 1913 The five-room Lozelle and Katie Graham House is offered for rent, furnished.13 1915–16 Mrs. R. O. La Rue offers to rent the “large front room” to “one or two gentlemen.” Board is also offered.14 Augusta La Rue’s husband Roscoe 7. Morning Tribune, 20 June 1899. 8. Morning Tribune, 8 July 1903. 9. County Land Records; “Death of F. A. Smith,” Morning Tribune, 19 March 1906. 10. Morning Tribune, 22 Feb. 1905. 11. “Moving the House,” Morning Tribune, 13 Dec. 1905 12. “Personal Mentions,” Morning Tribune, 15 Feb. 1906 13. Daily Telegram, 16 July 1913. 14. Daily Telegram, 6 and 14 Dec. 1915. Item 4 Packet Page 20 5 works as a grocery packer at the Channel Commercial Building across the road.15 1922 The house is occupied by engine watchman Warren P. Russell and his wife.16 Light housekeeping rooms are offered (11 Jan.) and a furnished apartment with bath (16 Oct.). 1940–42 The house is rented by railroad fireman Russell Mott, his wife Ollie, and their 9-year-old son (US Census and San Luis Obispo Telephone Directory). 1946–79 From at least 1946 and throughout the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s the Lozelle and Katie Graham House is occupied by William H. and his wife (and latterly widow) Jessie Bradbeer, operators of Southside Market, 100 Higuera.17 1973 The house’s address changes from 149 to 1789. 1987 San Luis Obispo places the Lozelle and Katie Graham House (1789 Santa Barbara Avenue) and the William and Lydia Graham House (1749 Santa Barbara Avenue) on the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. 1998 San Luis Obispo establishes the Railroad Historic District Lozelle and Katie Graham House Period of Significance: 1884–1942 The Lozelle and Katie Graham House is significant for its late-nineteenth-century Italianate architecture; as an outlier in the southwest expansion of San Luis Obispo in 1884, colonizing what was to become the Railroad Historic District ten years before the arrival of the Southern Pacific; and as a part of the district’s social and aesthetic fabric during the its rapid expansion after the SP’s San Francisco link and its 1901 connection to Los Angeles. The SP continued its dominance as the city’s largest employer until the switch from steam to diesel in 1956. The Graham House’s period of significance extends from its 1884 construction through to its last documented association with employees of the railroad and connected industries in 1942. The preponderance of evidence shows that Lozelle and his father Dr. William Graham built the house in 1884 on lot 8, block 176, at the same time as another house on lot 6, the William and Lydia Graham House, still extant but much altered. Lozelle and William Graham purchased blocks 176 and 181 from George C. Cocke in early November 1884, the San Luis Obispo Tribune described their two houses “in Cock’s addition” (later referred to as the Graham subdivision) in early January 1885, and ownership of lots 8 and 6 were transferred to the two men’s respective wives at the same time. A photograph from Terrace Hill circa 1892 clearly shows the two houses in their current location as an isolated pair. In photographs from Terrace Hill circa 1906, the Lozelle and Katie Graham House has acquired neighbors on lot 8: the James and Alice Herron Jones 15. Draft Registration 1917. 16. “Married Sunday,” Daily Telegram, 2 May 1922. 17. San Luis Obispo Telephone Directories and Polk’s San Luis Obispo City Directories. Item 4 Packet Page 21 6 House at 972 Church Street and the Laurel House boarding establishment, the former Tribune Building, which was moved to 1763 Santa Barbara Avenue from Morro and Marsh in late 1905. The Alexander Galewski House (1904) was built on the other side of the William and Lydia Graham House at 1725; a 1½-story building went up at 1717 in 1902; and the Park View Hotel—built at 1703 in 1897, after its predecessor, transported from the corner of Morro and Monterey in 1895, burnt to the ground—finishes the block. Figure 3. Circa 1892 photograph from Terrace Hill, full view. The circa 1892 photograph can be dated by the presence of structures along the west side of Osos Street between Buchon and Islay absent from the 1891 Sanborn Map but on the 1903 version and by the absence of the 1893 addition to the Mission. The Graham Houses are just to the left and below the photograph’s midpoint. Note the lack of railroad infrastructure in the foreground and any other Railroad District structures that survive. From the late 1890s through the early twentieth century, the Lozelle and Katie Graham House was occupied by people with a connection to the business of the district, including the livestock dealer J. S. Jones (1890s), SP conductor Will H. Metz (1900s), grocery packer Roscoe La Rue (1910s), engine watchman Warren Russell (1920s), and railroad fireman Russell Mott (1940–42). After this there is no documentation linking its occupants to the railroad or connected industries. By the 1906 photographs, the Lozelle and Katie Graham has acquired roof cresting that subsequently disappears. The period of significance would allow its restoration or allow it not to be restored. Eligibility Under Master List Criteria: Significance 1. “One of the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of age” In June of 1884, Lozelle F. “Charlie” Graham opened his dry and fancy goods business in San Luis Obispo, where his father had also moved to open a practice), having been active Item 4 Packet Page 22 7 treating smallpox in Napa till at least the previous year.18 On 6 November 1884, according to County Land Records, George C. Cocke transferred to William and L. F. Graham for $300 in gold coin ownership of the two gore blocks formed by Osos Street (later Santa Barbara Avenue) cutting diagonally through blocks 176 and 181 of the Loomis Addition (see fig. 4). On 9 January 1885 the following squib appeared in the weekly San Luis Obispo Tribune: The 6 and 8 lots of block 176, Cocke’s subdivision, later known as Graham’s subdivision, was a block away from Islay and Morro, which was probably chosen by the Tribune as the nearest inhabited area for reference, as nothing would be built at the corners of Islay and Morro for some years. The main house and wing dimensions given for William and L. F. Graham’s houses are consistent with 1789 Santa Barbara Avenue and the early form of 1749. On the day before the squib appeared, Dr. Graham and his son transferred lot 6, where 1749 stands, and lots 5 and 7 to the doctor’s wife Lydia (County Land Records). The following day, they transferred lot 8 to Katie Flickinger, who would marry Lozelle 10 days later in San Jose. A new house was waiting for the new bride, with the house of her parents-in-law a hundred feet away. Figure 4. Detail from 1894 Henderson Sketch Map, notated Graham subdivision of the Loomis Addition: bisected blocks 176 and 181. By the 1903 Sanborn Map, the eastern halves are El Triangulo, San Luis Obispo’s first (and, till the 1940s, only) park. Figure 5. Detail from 1903 Sanborn Map, showing lot 8 of block 176 with 972 Church (lower left) and 1789 Santa Barbara (lower right); the former Tribune Building will be introduced between 1789 and 1749 (upper right on lot 6) to become the Laurel House. 18. “Old Napaites in Southern California,” weekly Napa Register, 1 May 1885; “Local Briefs,” Napa Register, 1 June 1883. Item 4 Packet Page 23 8 A panoramic photograph from Terrace Hill taken circa 1892 shows the Lozelle and Katie Graham House and the William and Lydia Graham House (figs. 3 and 6). Figure 6. Detail. History Center of San Luis Obispo County. Figure 7. 1906 photograph from Terrace Hill (composite, detail), showing 972 Church Street and 1789, 1763, and 1749 Santa Barbara Avenue. Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives. Figure 8. Google Maps satellite globe view of the same four buildings, February 2020 Item 4 Packet Page 24 9 2. “One of the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of … architectural … significance” There are limited surviving examples of Italianate architecture in San Luis Obispo, among them some of San Luis Obispo’s most prominent historic buildings. They include the NRHP Jack House (1878) and Jack Wash House (by 1886); Master List Hays-Latimer Adobe (wood outer structure by 1865), Dana-Parsons House (circa 1875), Sauer Bakery (circa 1875, reconstructed), Manderscheid House (by 1886), Virginia Levering Latimer House (circa 1888), and Fitzgerald House (1902); Contributing List 651 Buchon, 1415 Nipomo, and 1208 Palm (the Booth House); and unlisted but NRHP-eligible Pinho House. In practice, the Master List Italianate houses are those with a high degree of integrity, while those on the Contributing List have had their street facades compromised: 651 Buchon, whose front porch has been partially enclosed; 1415 Nipomo, which has had railings added to its ground floor entry porch and a balcony to the porch’s roof; and 1208 Palm, whose street façade bay window and porch have been largely removed. The Lozelle and Katie Flickinger Graham House embodies the irregular, the cottage, and the Italianate forms, and no other Italianate structure in San Luis Obispo has a greater degree of integrity and hence ability to communicate the concepts behind its historic forms, down to its original cast iron acanthus leaf grilles, one of them visible in the 1906 photograph. Irregularity Part of the Lozelle and Katie Graham House’s significance lies in its asymmetric wings. The great Scottish landscape architect John Loudon—who invented the Gardenesque landscape embodied by the Jack Garden—in his 1834 Encyclopedia of Cottage, Farm, and Villa Architecture and Furniture, displays dozens of cottage designs. The eleventh, in the Gothic Revival style, is an L-shaped structure with an entrance porch placed in the interior angle, like the Graham House. This “being the first design in which we have made a great departure from symmetry,” Loudon feels obliged to offer 1,300 words of “remarks on the principle of irregularity in architecture,” tracing the first English argument for irregularity in buildings to Sir Uvedale Price’s 1794 Essay on the Picturesque and Price’s inspiration to Sir Joshua Reynolds’ observation, in his 1786 “Discourse XIII” to the Royal Academy: “It often happens that additions have been made to houses at various times, for use or pleasure. As such buildings depart from regularity they now and then acquire something of scenery by this accident, which I should think might not unsuccessfully be adopted by an architect in an original plan, if it does not too much interfere with convenience.”19 Loudon’s L-shaped cottage is Gothic Revival, the embodiment of the picturesque for the English in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, but Gothic was soon joined by the Italianate as a variety of the picturesque. Alexander Jackson Downing, the founder of American landscape architecture, writes in his 1850 The Architecture of Country Houses, that Italianate asymmetry “permits additions, wings, etc., with the greatest facility and always with increasing effect,” a practical feature for Americans with growing families and 19. London: Longman, pp. 52–53. Item 4 Packet Page 25 10 growing wealth and a recognition that the Italianate style not only imitated accretive architecture, it made further accretions possible. Ironically, though the Lozelle and Katie Graham House was to be divided inside to accommodate roomers and boarders, its exterior was never added to, while the similarly irregular William and Lydia Graham House had a front wing added after the 1956 Sanborn Map to make its facade symmetrical. John Loudon’s irregular “XI. Dwelling for a Man and His Wife, and One or Two Children, with a Cow-house and Pigsty,” Encyclopedia of Cottage, Farm, and Villa Architecture. The cow house and pigsty (as well as a water closet) were en suite in back. The Cottage Loudon and Downing are chiefly remembered for their impact as landscape architects but wrote about and designed rural and suburban buildings, which were both part of the landscape and had landscapes created for them. These generally took the form of a cottage (a word of English origin and tied to the idea that the lower classes were picturesque) or villa (a word of Italian origin and suggestive of the notion that the upper classes could be picturesque as well). The border between them was not always clear, possibly because the middle classes soon adopted and reduced the suburban villa, while the upper classes found the notion of a cottage attractively twee, particularly if it could be made massive enough. In Downing’s 1842 Cottage Residences; Or, A Series of Designs for Cottages and Cottage-Villas and Their Grounds Adapted to North America, he features a plan for a “cottage in the Rhine style” that is two-and-a-half stories tall with a three-story tower. William Comstock’s 1883 pattern book American Cottages includes a five-story castle in the Bermudas. The opulent Gilded Age “cottages” of Newport have become an American meme. Item 4 Packet Page 26 11 Small Gothic Cottage from A. J. Downing’s The Architecture of Country Houses (1850) Rusticated cottage from Downing’s Cottage Residences (1853) The newlywed Grahams’ house, however, was definitively in the core cottage tradition of the nineteenth century: both modest in size and picturesque in design. It was affordable housing with aesthetic pretension. The pattern books of the mid nineteenth century tend to render the irregular ell or “gable-front-and-wing” cottage in styles whose steep roofs can accommodate a half story, such as Gothic, English Rural, or even Second Empire. The low roofline of the Italianate style restricted it to either one story or two, and the Graham father and son, neither needing space for children, chose one story. Italianate Architecture in America The Italianate style was intended in its various forms to evoke the Italian Renaissance and Baroque. Introduced by architect John Nash in England in 1802 in the country villa Cronkhill,20 it was elaborated in major English country houses of the 1830s and 1840s, prominently including Queen Victoria’s Osborne House (1845–51) on the Isle of Wight, designed by Prince Albert. Alexander Jackson Davis popularized Italianate architecture in the United States through his designs, including additions to Blandwood at Greenboro, North Carolina, in 1844, thought to be the earliest Italianate structure in the United States, though the Metropolitan Museum of Art has Davis’s 1836 design for an Italianate villa for James Smillie at Rondout, New York21 that was never completed.22 The style had an airiness and shadiness suited to many American climates, an informality and irregularity suited to American life, and a bit of historicist pomposity suited to our national sense of self-importance. 20. Historic England, Cronkhill, Details: historicengland.org.uk. Accessed 19 June 2019. 21. Amelia Peck, ed., Alexander Jackson Davis, American Architect, 1803—1892 (New York: Rizzoli, 1992), color plate 11. 22. John Thorn, “Alexander Jackson Davis, Picturesque American,” [Hudson River]: hudsonriverbracked.blogspot.com. Accessed 19 June 2019. Item 4 Packet Page 27 12 Alexander Jackson Davis’s unexecuted 1836 design for an Italianate villa at Rondout. Metropolitan Museum of Art. As Davis’s younger partner Andrew Jackson Downing pointed out in 1850, Originally adapted to the manifestation of social life in a climate almost the counterpart of that of the middle and southern portions of our country—at least so far as relates to eight months of the year—it is made to conform exactly to our tastes and habits with, perhaps, less alteration than any other style. Its broad roofs, ample verandas, and arcades are especially agreeable in our summers of dazzling sunshine, and […] it has much to render it a favorite in the middle and western sections of our Union.23 In addition, the “style is one that expresses not wholly the spirit of country life nor of town life but something between both and that is a mingling of both” (286). In other words, it was appropriate for our expanding suburbs, like the southeast edge of San Luis Obispo. The style moved from country houses and suburban villas to urban townhouses and commercial and public buildings. Though Italianate architecture reached its height in the United States in the 1850s through 1870s, it had an “enduring hold” and was “still fashionable in rural communities” through the 1880s.24 Indeed, San Luis Obispo’s 1902 Fitzgerald House at Chorro and Buchon Streets is Italianate in its proportions, architectural 23. Andrew Jackson Downing, The Architecture of Country Houses (New York: Dover,1969), p. 285. 24. Kenneth Naversen, West Coast Victorians: A Nineteenth-Century Legacy (Wilsonville: Beautiful America, 1987), p. 96, 106. Item 4 Packet Page 28 13 conventions like its flat-roofed front porch and square and semi-hexagonal bays, decorative elements like its nonfunctional balustrade and neo-baroque corbels, and asymmetry. Downing wrote in 1850 that “the leading features of this style are familiar to most of our readers.” Roofs rather flat, and projecting upon brackets or cantilevers; windows of various forms, but with massive dressings, frequently running into the round arch when the opening is an important one […]; arcades supported on arches or verandas with simple columns (ibid.) To add to Downing’s list, the characteristics of Italianate architecture include • low hip roofs or broad gables • occasional classical pediments and frequently other classical reference • decorative roof balustrades or “widow’s walks” • deep eaves, often incorporating a cornice supported by curved and sculptural corbels issuing from a frieze • in wood, horizontal siding, usually shiplap • horizontal wall banding, molding panels, and quoining or corner boards • asymmetrical facades • flat-roofed verandas with columns integrating bases, capitals, and sometimes corbels, the columns frequently square with chamfered corners and without intervening balustrades • Romanesque or segmentally arched doorways and, more rarely, arches between veranda columns • tall windows, often paired, usually crowned, with rectangular but often Romanesque arched—occasionally segmentally arched—tops • bay windows, more commonly semi-octagonal or semi-hexagonal but also occasionally square • window crowns and other elaborated surrounds • occasionally an asymmetrically placed tower A Field Guide to American Houses identifies six principle Italianate subtypes—simple hipped roof, centered gable, asymmetrical, towered, front-gabled roof, and town house—of which the Lozelle and Katie Graham House is asymmetrical. The Italianate Architecture of the Lozelle and Katie Graham House The asymmetry of the Graham House is typically Italianate, but the extent of the front wing’s thrust is unusual (though not unusual for the irregular cottage form). The front and side gables of the Graham House are at the broad, 110-degree angle characteristic of mid to late Italianate gabled structures; compare to the 80-degree angles of gables on the 1874 Gothic Revival Norcross House. Item 4 Packet Page 29 14 The exterior walls are sheathed in shiplap, an almost universal siding for wooden Italianate structures on the West Coast, emphasizing horizontality. The twinned sash windows on the Santa Barbara Avenue entrance facade are also a typical Italianate structural feature. The twinned windows, singleton windows on the side walls, and front door have characteristically Italianate crowns, though, due to economy of height in the entrance porch, the door crown terminates in the porch’s ceiling. The one-over-one sashes are also characteristically Italianate. A transverse, often full-width front porch is a typical feature of suburban Italianate houses (see in particular the Hays-Latimer Adobe, Dana-Parsons House, Jack House, Virginia Latimer House, Pinho House, and Fitzgerald House), while entry porches on Italianate townhouses tend to surround just the front door and steps. In A Field Guide to American Houses, Virginia and Lee McAlester write, “The simple gable-front-and-wing is a common Italianate form,” and they show one one-story and three two-story examples, each with an entry porch tucked into the interior angle of the ell. But all of these porches are transverse. The Graham House entrance porch that runs back from the street along the front wing is a common cottage form but unusual Italianate form (though not unknown: e.g., the Italianate Jacob Jenne House of Coupeville, Washington). Entry arch with false keystone, fretwork acanthus leaves, blank frieze, and cornice, supported by square pilaster and column with capitals and astragals Cast iron crawl space vent grille with acanthus leaf pattern All the more important, then, for the designer to use the atypical entrance porch to emphasize typically Italianate decorative features. Rising out of a square, chamfered column on the right and pilaster on the left is a modestly sized but finely articulated wood entry arch with a false keystone and fretwork acanthus leaves, emphasizing the Italianate style’s playfulness with its Ancient Roman roots. Keystone and acanthus leaves are repeated in the elongated arch on the porch’s side. The porch’s flat roof also embodies the Italianate, and the one column and two pilasters connecting the porch to each wing (an economical arrangement) retain their typical bases, wide capitals, and astragals. Sadly, railing has been added, but modern Americans seem unable to stay on stairs and porches without assistance, unlike their ancestors. Item 4 Packet Page 30 15 Graham House porch viewed from the side with faux arch and keystone and fretwork acanthus leaves Faux arch and keystone, corbels, linear frieze, and cornice, Hays-Latimer Adobe (before 1865) Capitals, angled arch, blank frieze, and cornice, no longer extant, on Booth House, still extant, 1208 Palm Street (circa 1885) Item 4 Packet Page 31 16 Delightfully, the acanthus leaves in profile are repeated in the cast iron vent grilles, showing a consistency of aesthetic vision by the unknown designer, likely an architect- builder working with pattern books and decorative features from a manufacturer. The acanthus leaf has a Greek architectural origin and is extensively used in Greek Revival architecture, including in the Fremont Theater. Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, in De architectura (30–15 BC), the only treatise on architecture surviving from classical antiquity, recounted its origin legend. An old nurse went to put a basket of offerings on the grave of a young woman who was her former charge. When she returned, acanthus leaves had grown up through the basket; hence they became a symbol of rebirth. Their sinuous forms join the Roman tradition, Neoclassical, and Italianate. They are used extensively on the 1893 Richardsonian Romanesque J. P. Andrews Bank in sight of the 1942 Fremont Theater. The Graham House’s eaves have the shady depth but lack the supporting corbels of more high style Italianate houses like the Jack, Dana-Parsons, and Virginia Latimer Houses, but this lack of corbeling is consistent with such plainer Italianate structures as 1415 Nipomo, 651 Buchon, and the Pinho House. Eligibility Under Master List Criteria: Integrity 1906 (detail) • Location The Lozelle and Katie Graham House retains integrity of location, sited where mapping has shown it since 1903, photography since 1892, and newspaper reference since 1885 • Design The house has remarkable integrity of design, retaining its original footprint and decorative features. There have been none of the room additions common to and even anticipated in irregular Italianate houses. There have been few changes in utilitarian features: the addition of railing to the entrance porch and staircase, a small back window to the south facade of the house, and an attic vent to the front gable; the replacement of the Item 4 Packet Page 32 17 front door, entrance transom glass, and window sashes and panes (in a way sensitive to their proportions); and the removal of structural elements from the rear porch. Roof cresting was added sometime after 1892 and removed sometime after 1907. • Setting The setting of the Lozelle and Katie Graham House has changed dramatically from 1884, although the William and Lydia Graham House still provides original context that communicates the subject house’s significance as one of a pair. The unusual gore blocks of the Graham subdivision also remain intact. The period of significance for the Lozelle and Katie Graham House, however, extends into the railroad era, capturing the property’s integration into the new environment of that trend in history. The Tribune Building, transported to lot 8 to become a boarding establishment, still stands next door on Santa Barbara Avenue, as does the Jones House on Church, built by the prosperous stock dealer who lived in the Lozelle and Katie Graham House before construction of his own house and the again after he had to sell the new one. Beyond the Tribune Building and William and Lydia Graham House, the remainder of the 1700 block of Santa Barbara Street retains its late-nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century buildings: the Master List Alexander Galewski House (1904), William M. Duff House (1901), and the Chicago Hotel (1897), now The Establishment. El Triangulo, viewed from the house, is now bisected by Osos rather than Church, but it is still a green park with trees retaining its triangular form, and though the view of Terrace Hill is now blocked from the Graham House, it is blocked by the 1907 Hotel Park. On the opposite side of Santa Barbara from the Graham House, early Railroad District buildings— from the Allen House and Hageman Sanitarium to the Channel Commercial Company—still Item 4 Packet Page 33 18 stand, the latter adaptively reused with modern additions but still dominant in the cityscape with its redbrick machicolated exterior. The immediate area retains its low-built suburban profile. The house had a stand-alone garage added some time after 1926. This partially blocks the view of the very rear portion of the house’s south facade from the street, but its small size and low profile does not greatly compromise setting. • Materials Character-defining shiplap siding; window frames; fascias; and such porch features as the column, pilasters, arches, and fretwork appear to be original. Wood shingle on the roof and tin on the front porch roof during the period of significance have been replaced, as would be expected; the former is now asphalt shingle. Window glass has also been replaced. The chimney appears to be original. • Workmanship Original carpentry, both utilitarian and decorative, still remains and still delights, particularly in the all-important Italianate porch. • Feeling There is more car traffic on Santa Barbara Avenue and less train traffic on the rails, diesel has replaced steam, and horns have replaced steam whistles, but this is still a functioning and aesthetically recognizable railroad district. Perhaps nothing better captures the Railroad District feeling than a poem by Jack Kerouac written a decade after the Graham House’s period of significance but while the Southern Pacific still ran on steam. In 1953, after he had written On the Road but before it was published, Kerouac, who through the graces of Al Hinkle’s uncle, had got job as a brakeman on the SP, stayed, probably after he had been laid off, for three months at the Hotel Colonial, originally the Chicago Hotel, later the Park View, and now The Establishment. The poem starts to the south of the Graham House, with the Channel Commercial Company’s building (by then Juillard Cockroft): Late afternoon in San Luis, the Juillard Cockroft redbrick courthouse warehouse building stands in the profound 6 pm clarity to the stwigger of all the birdies—some of the birds trill, some sing like humans—a faroff racing motor—the still “suburban” trees—always the rippling pine fronds, the breeze—The green pale grass mtn. with its raw earth cut telephone pole & scattered cows— Item 4 Packet Page 34 19 the green dazzle of grayfence bushes—shadow of a porch across the leaves & whitened buds— Moving shadows of bush on white house— old Indian’s been rubbing his antique truck all day to get the rust rid—now’s inside working on dashboard—That sweet little cottage shack, Southern style groundlevel porch, Purple flowers in a rock Front, little slopey roof, Broom, doormat, with a TV in SJ fine—25 With a few details altered, like the cows on Terrace Hill, this remains the feeling surrounding the Graham House (outside of rush hour) today. The fact that nascent writers, drifters, and dreamers still room at The Establishment confirms it. In one respect the feeling has changed. The year after James S. Jones bought the Lozelle and Katie Graham House, the following item appeared in the Morning Tribune: • Association The form in which the house exists today would be recognizable to and clearly associated with the original occupants, Lozelle and Katie Flickinger Graham, as well as to other occupants who followed during the period of significance in the railroad period. Its association to the railroad and Railroad District also remains clearly communicated by location, setting, and feeling. 25. Jack Kerouac, Book of Sketches (New York: Penguin, 2006). Item 4 Packet Page 35 20 J. H. Flickinger display, Horticultural Building, Chicago World’s Fair, 1893 Item 4 Packet Page 36