Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem3HIST01272020778Higuer CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner ADDRESS: 778, 782, 786, & 790 Higuera St. FILE NUMBER: HIST-0127-2020 APPLICANT: Randy Russom, RRM Design Group For more information contact Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner: 781-7593 (woetzell@slocity.org) 1.0 BACKGROUND The owners of the property at 778-790 Higuera Street have applied for a determination of historical significance of the property, and request that the buildings at these addresses be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. This request is being referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for a determination and recommendation for Council action, as provided in §14.01.030(B)(2) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance 1.1 Prior Review On April 27, 2020 the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the applicant’s proposal. After considering the application materials and staff and applicant presentations, and after discussion of the item, the Committee voted (4-0-1, Committee Member Ulz absent) to recommend that the City Council remove the property at 778 Higuera Street (“The Network”) from the Inventory of Historic Resources due to a lack of historical integrity. Consideration of the remaining property at 782-790 Higuera was continued to this (May 18th) meeting to allow time to gather additional information regarding the most recent remodeling work done to the façade of those buildings. The additional information about that work has been incorporated into a revised Historical Resource Evaluation (Attachment 1) and into this staff report. 2.0 SITE AND SETTING ▪ Zoning: Downtown Commercial and Historic Preservation Overlay Zones (C-D-H) ▪ Historic District: Downtown Historic District ▪ Addresses: 778 Higuera (Network Mall); 782 Higuera (Creeky Tiki Bar and Grill); 783 Higuera (Cage Clothing); and 790 Higuera (Unique Selections). ▪ Historic Designation: Contributing List Resources o 1983 (782-790 Higuera) and 1987 (778 Higuera) Meeting Date: May 18, 2020 Item Number: 3 Item No. 1 Figure 1: Subject Property Item 3 Packet Page 49 3.0 EVALUATION A Historic Resource Evaluation (Attachment 1) discussing the site history and its historical and architectural characteristics was prepared for this application by Robert C. Pavlik, M.A., Historian and Architectural Historian. It was revised May 4th, in light of additional information about the buildings introduced by Chairman Papp at the April 27th Committee meeting, and is accompanied by the applicant’s response to several points raised in the meeting (Attachment 2). The Evaluation compares the architectural character of buildings on the property against the criteria for historic listing outlined in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The original buildings are estimated to have been built between 1900 and 1904 (Pavlik Evaluation, pg. 22), and described as exhibiting a Commercial Vernacular Style (pg. 9), with minimal decorative ornamentation and detailing (see Attachment 3). Modifications to the buildings over time are depicted in the photographs below (Figures 4-6), in which: two of the original five “bays” of the façade (at the Woolworth Co. store) were covered with stucco (1940s); the transom window pattern was truncated and interrupted by signage (1960s); and the Woolworth Co. portion was substantially remodeled to create “The Network” mall (seen in 2007 view). Figure 2: Subject Property (778-790 Higuera) Figure 3: 1934 Photograph (from Pavlik, Evaluation, pg. 21) Item 3 Packet Page 50 Figure 6: 1940s Photograph (from Pavlik, Supplemental, pg. 2) Figure 4: 2007 Photograph (from Pavlik, Evaluation, pg. 22) Figure 5: 1960s Photograph (from Pavlik, Supplemental, pg. 3) Item 3 Packet Page 51 Finally, in 2009, the façade of 782, 786, and 790 Higuera was again remodeled, to its present appearance (seen in Figure 2, above), intended to closely replicate the original appearance of the building as reflected in early photographs, by removing the stucco plaster, aluminum storefronts, and windows, and installing painted wood storefronts, new face brick to match the adjacent Johnson Building, and copper caps and flashing to finish the parapet roofline (see Figure 7 below, and project description provided in Attachment 4, pg. 1). 3.2 Criteria for Historic Resource Listing In order to be eligible for historical designation, a resource must exhibit a high level of historic integrity and satisfy at least one of the evaluation criteria listed in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Ordinance also provides that, while it is the general intent that property not be removed from historic listing, property may be removed if it is found to no longer meet eligibility criteria for listing (§ 14.01.060 (C)). In evaluating the historic significance of the property, the Committee should consider whether, and to what degree, the property satisfies these criteria, in light of the information and evaluations provided with this application. Architectural Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (A)) Style and Design. The subject buildings are described in the Pavlick Evaluation as being an early and modest example of the Commercial Vernacular Style, not representing the work of an important creative individual, or possessing high artistic values (pg. 18). The author concludes that “alterations over the years have diminished the buildings’ ability to convey the purer form of their architectural qualities from the time of construction…” and that the buildings are not significant under the Architectural Criteria (pg. 17). Figure 7: Elevation drawing of 2009 facade restoration (782-790 Higuera) Item 3 Packet Page 52 At the Committee’s meeting of April 27th, Chairman Papp described additional architectural elements present in the buildings, not considered in the Pavlik Evaluation, that would suggest that the buildings exhibit a style more ambitious than a modest execution of Commercial Vernacular and that would tie the buildings stylistically with the adjacent Master-List Johnson Block (796 Higuera) as a sole example in the City of a crenellated Northern Italian castle style building. Architect. On first review of this proposal, no architect was identified as having been associated with the buildings, either in City records or through background research conducted for the original Pavlick Evaluation. However, two San Luis Obispo Tribune articles, published in 1899 and 1900, were brought to attention at the April 27th Committee meeting, and incorporated into the revised Pavlik Evalution. The articles describe the destruction by fire of the buildings on the site up to that time (known as the Warden Block) and the design of replacement buildings by “Architect Laird”: “…on the corner of Chorro and Higuera streets, where the old Olive Branch stood, will be erected a handsome two-story modern building, and flanking it on either side will be one-story stores. (Pavlik, pg. 12) Presumably the “two-story modern building” is the present-day Johnson Block building at 796 Higuera, with the subject buildings “flanking it” on the west (as with 1035-1039 Chorro, flanking on the north), and Architect Laird is Hilamon Spencer Laird, also architect of the adjacent Johnson Block building. In his revised Evaluation, Mr. Pavlik notes that the actual construction date of the buildings remains unclear, and that the articles do not conclusively confirm that the subject buildings are in fact the one-story stores designed by Mr. Laird, as described in the articles (Pavlik, pg. 19). The applicant’s full response to the CHC discussion on this association is provided in Attachment 2 (see Main Point #3). Historic Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (B)) Person. Information about the association of the subject buildings with Charles H. Johnson, a. person prominent in local history, was similarly augmented by Chairman Papp at the April 27th Committee meeting, noting that he was, in the late 19th Century, a Port of San Luis customs inspector, president of the town’s first Board of Trustees, and a State Assemblyman. The Pavlik Evaluation acknowledges C. H. Johnson as “builder,” but notes that the subject buildings are not personally associated with him in a manner satisfying Historic Criteria, as the buildings did not serve, for example, as his home or studio. Instead, significance based on association with C. H. Johnson as the builder is more appropriately considered under Architectural Criteria (Pavlik, pg. 20). The applicant’s full response to the CHC discussion on this association is provided in Attachment 2 (see Main Point #4). Event and Context. Background research for the Pavlik Evaluation provides no evidence that this property was associated with any famous or “first-of-its-kind” event or with a notably important, unique, or distinctly interesting contribution to the City. The Evaluation notes that “better examples of commercial properties that are associated with important persons and events, and that have architectural significance,” exist within the Downtown Historic District (Pavlik Evaluation, pg. 22), suggesting that the property does not constitute a prime illustration of, or intimate connection with, early commercial development that would rise to a level of historical significance under the criterion for Context. Item 3 Packet Page 53 However, the additional information presented by Chairman Papp, as described above (Architectural Criteria, in this section), presents the subject buildings as an integral component of an assemblage of buildings related to the Master-List Johnson Block building, representing a “wing” of the building flanking its west side. Together the assemblage of buildings that replaced those of the Warden Block which were destroyed by fire in 1899 could, accordingly, be seen as intimately associated with, and a prime early example of, commercial development associated with the City’s commercial core and the context of its Early 20th Century Commercial Development. Integrity (§ 14.01.070 (C)) As defined in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance “integrity” refers to the ability of the resource to convey its identity and authenticity (§14.01.020). The City’s Historic Context Statement notes the existence of numerous extant commercial properties from the period of Early 20th Century Commercial Development, “…so eligible examples should retain a high level of integrity,” “…must date from the period of significance,” and “…must retain the essential aspects of integrity” (Attachment 5, pg. 87). Modifications diminishing integrity (generally). The Pavlik Evaluation concludes that the buildings “do not possess important associations within the historic and architectural contexts” according to local Historic Preservation Ordinance Criteria for Listing “for both architectural and historical integrity” (pg. 3), and provides a Significance Evaluation of the buildings’ integrity (pg. 22). According to this evaluation the author concludes that “… numerous alterations and modifications over the years have further diminished their historicity, design, and physical integrity.” (pg. 26), including:1 ▪ Work on interior brick walls: openings cut in, filled; repointing ▪ Permanent, irreversible change to openings (Rear Elevations and Higuera St. storefronts) ▪ Changes in materials (windows, doors, bulkheads, interiors, parapet); ▪ Reconstructed parapet (Higuera St. frontage) ▪ Elements of seismic strengthening (e.g. concrete beam across Rear Elevations) ▪ Utility Equipment over brickwork (pipes, electrical panels, outlets, conduit, fixtures, etc.) ▪ Loss of signage (Higuera St. storefronts) Façade restoration (2009). The Pavlik Evaluation also discusses the 2009 façade renovation, which aimed to replicate the original appearance of the Higuera frontage, noting that “the face brick is a thin veneer and not original material” (pg. 24); and that the façade and parapet terminate at The Network Mall rather than extending across all of the buildings as in the original design. The author questions the consistency of the 2009 work with current Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Property: The reconstruction is a re-creation; it is a facade, it is not historically accurate because it is smaller in scale than the original, and of different materials and construction techniques. It lends the building and the block a false sense of historicity. (Pavlik Evaluation, pg. 24) 1 Discussion of modifications is found mainly on page 9 and pages 22 -24 of the Pavlik Evaluation. Item 3 Packet Page 54 A diagram indicating the extent of replacement material, and the applicant’s response to CHC discussion on this point, are provided in Attachment 2 (see Main Points 1 and 2). Plans for this work were reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Committee (application ARCMI 5-08) in February 2008. The Committee found that the work was consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and complementary to the Downtown Historic District and adjacent buildings (see Attachment 4). Though it is beyond the scope of this application to determine the consistency of the 2009 façade work with Secretary of the Interior Standards,2 staff notes that the nature of the work is most closely characterized by the “treatment” of Restoration,3 as defined in the Standards, as it involved removal of stucco material covering the façade and reconstructing the missing elements of the façade to depict the original appearance of the buildings. Standards for Restoration (see Attachment 6) do not allow for creation of “a false sense of history” by, for example, adding conjectural features or features which didn’t exist together, or which were never executed, and call for restoration to be based on documentary and physical evidence.4 But the language of the Standards does not explicitly require exact reproduction in all cases, or preclude the use of appropriate substitute materials when replacing features. Although, as noted in the Pavlik Evaluation (pg. 24), the 2009 work is not a precise reproduction of the original façade, it may still be considered a reasonably accurate depiction of the form, features, and character of the original façade. It is based on photographic evidence of the original design, and utilizes a substitute “thinbrick veneer,” as described in the February 2008 CHC Agenda Report (Attachment 4) to closely replicate the the original appearance of the building. 4.0 SUMMARY Based on the discussion and evaluation in the Historic Resource Evaluation and associated information submitted by the applicant for this application, along with additional information presented and discussed at the April 27th Committee meeting, and the summary provided in this staff report, a comparison of the subject property to the City’s Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing (Attachment 7) provides the basis for determining whether the subject buildings continue to satisfy the criteria for designation as an historical resource, or whether satisfaction of the criteria has been impaired or diminished to a degree that would justify their removal from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. Satisfaction of criteria. The buildings are currently included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as Contributing List Resources and are known to be more than 50 years old. Given the attributes of the buildings, as discussed in this report, any evaluation of the buildings could conclude that they continue to satisfy at least one of the Eligibility Criteria for Historic Resource Listing (Attachment 7). In formulating its recommendation, the Committee should consider the 2 It is also noted that while criteria for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, as referenced in applicant materials, may be useful in considering historical integrity of the buildings, a determination of eligibility for the National Register is likewise outside the scope of this application. 3 Restoration is defined in SOI Standards as: the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period 4 See particularly Standards 7 and 10 Item 3 Packet Page 55 degree to which the buildings satisfy the relevant criteria, and also whether they exhibit sufficient integrity to convey that significance. If the Committee determines that the information available does not adequately demonstrate that satisfaction of the criteria has been significantly impaired and finds that the buildings satisfy the criteria to a degree warranting eligibility for historic listing, the Committee may recommend that the City Council retain the property’s designation, keeping the properties in the Inventory as Contributing List Resources. Should the Committee find that available information demonstrates that either or both of the properties, listed in the Inventory as 778 Higuera and 782-290 Higuera, have suffered degradation or impairment of their architectural or physical integrity, or association with historical persons or events, to a degree that makes them ineligible for historic listing, according to the City’s Eligibility Criteria, the Committee may recommend that the Council take an alternative action (as provided in §6 of this report, below); for example, removing one or both of the properties from the Inventory of Historic Resources. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described in CEQA Guidelines § 15061 (b) (3). The determination of continued eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of whether the subject site remains eligible for historic resource listing according to the criteria set forth in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. 6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff. 2. Recommend to the City Council that one or both of the listed properties be removed from historic listing, based on findings describing ineligibility for continued listing. 7.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Historic Resource Evaluation (Robert C. Pavlik, M.A.) a. Evaluation (Revised May 4, 2020) b. Supplemental Information 2. Applicant Responses to Committee Discussion (at Apr 27 Meeting) 3. Commercial Vernacular (Historical Context Statement) 4. Early 20th Century Commercial Development (Historical Context Statement) 5. Planning Application ARCMI 5-08 (782-790 Higuera) 6. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Restoration) 7. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Listing (Historic Preservation Ordinance §14.01.070) 8. Historical Preservation Record (“Yellow File”) 9. Downtown Historic District (Historic Preservation Program Guidelines) Item 3 Packet Page 56 HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION of 778 Higuera Street 782-790 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, California Submitted to: Bill Davis, President & Phillip Lien, CFO N F Drier & Elevator P.O. Box 425 Firebaugh, CA 93622 Prepared by: Robert C. Pavlik, M.A. Historian/Architectural Historian 493 Woodbridge Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 781-9728 February 6, 2020 (revised May 4, 2020) ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 57 ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 58 SUMMARY Robert C. Pavlik prepared a Historical Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the properties located at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County. This HRE evaluates the eligibility of the buildings at this location for their continued listing on the City of San Luis Obispo’s Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. Pavlik conducted background research, a field survey, and resource evaluation and recordation to prepare this HRE. This report includes: (1) a description of the regulatory context for cultural resources in San Luis Obispo; (2) a description of the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street, including historic and architectural contexts; and (3) an eligibility evaluation. Based on the results of this HRE, Pavlik concludes that the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are associated with early-20th century commercial development in San Luis Obispo and the Commercial Vernacular architectural style. Furthermore, Pavlik did not identify any evidence with the current condition of the existing structures that elevates them in associative stature. Specifically, they do not possess important associations within the historic and architectural contexts utilizing § 14.01.070 of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Ordinance Criteria for both architectural and historic integrity. Based on the evaluation with these criteria, the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street do not appear to be candidates for ongoing inclusion on the City of San Luis Obispo Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 59 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK The City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Chapter 14.01 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code contains the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), which was adopted by the San Luis Obispo City Council in 2010. Section 14.01.030 of the HPO codifies the membership, terms, and duties of the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), as well as the actions subject to CHC review. The CHC is tasked with making recommendations to decision-making bodies regarding: •Development of guidelines to implement the HPO to assist persons planning development projects subject to CHC review; and to provide guidance for City staff and property owners regarding cultural resources in the city; •Develop and maintain the City’s Master List of Historic Resources and Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources which are those properties, area, sites, buildings, structures, or other features having significant historical, cultural, architectural, community, scientific or aesthetic value to the citizens of San Luis Obispo; •Actions subject to discretionary city review and approval which may affect significant archaeological, cultural or historic resources; •Apply architectural, historic, and cultural preservation standards and guidelines to projects and approvals involving historic sites, districts, and structures; •Develop and participate in public education outreach efforts; •Provide recommendations to decision-makers regarding alterations and demolitions of listed resources and properties within historic preservation districts; •Provide recommendations in developing incentive programs directed at preserving and maintaining cultural resources; and •Assist property owners in preparing local, state, and federal historical resource nominations to utilize preservation incentives, including Mill’s Act and federal tax incentives. In addition to its policy development, resource management, public outreach, and documentation assistance duties, the CHC is authorized to review, comment, and make recommendations on applications that may result in a change to a resource listed in the Master List of Historic Resources or Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources, or potentially affect an existing or proposed historic district. Examples ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 60 include applications to alter, demolish, or relocate listed buildings or structures, and for new construction within historic districts. The CHC is also authorized to review and comment on statements of historic significance and on proposed actions by public agencies that may affect cultural resources. The CHC also reviews and comments on applications for inclusion in the Master List of Historic Resources or Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. Designation requests may originate from the property owner, the CHC, the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, or the San Luis Obispo City Council. In considering designation applications, the resource must be at least 50 years old, exhibit a high level of historic integrity, and satisfy at least one of the following criteria set forth by the HPO beginning at Section 14.01.070 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code: A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. 1)Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within that form (e.g., arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure of: a.The relative purity of a traditional style; b.Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/ or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style; c.Traditional, vernacular, and/ or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/ or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together. 2)Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter- builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of: a.Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique); b.An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter- builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. 3)Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to: ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 61 a.A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced development of the city, state, or nation; b.An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo. B. Historic Criteria 1)History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was: a.Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally; b.Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials). 2)History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of: a.A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city; b.A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese- American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history). 3)History - Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects: a.Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g., County Museum); b.Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Warden Building). ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 62 C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’ s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of: 1.) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/ or whether or not the original foundation has been changed, if known. 2). The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance. 3). The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 63 EVALUATION METHODS Pavlik conducted a records search, literature review, archival research, and field survey to prepare this study. This research and field survey work informed the evaluation of the architectural criteria, history and integrity of the buildings. Prior to the April 27, 2020 CHC meeting, member James Papp provided some additional information to Pavlik, some of which is incorporated into this revised report. Please see the Bibliography for a full list of sources consulted. Property Description, Field Review, Research The four buildings are located in downtown San Luis Obispo, and consist of four linear structures separated by vertical brick walls. The overall property is bordered on the northeast by San Luis Obispo creek; on the east by the Johnson Building (1903-04), a City of San Luis Obispo Master List building; and on the west by the Warden Building (1897), a Contributing Property List building. The project site is located within the Downtown Historic District. The westernmost building along Higuera Street is identified as The Network and has a street address of 778 Higuera Street. The commercial businesses located within the building are at street level and they also share a basement. The entrance to this building is through glass doors that lead to a common hallway that is paved with ceramic tile. The interior consists of painted dry wall and individual lease spaces that have undergone renovation for the specific tenant improvement requirements. The businesses within this location consist of the Cowboy Cookie & Ice Cream shop, a Hemp clothing retail store, and a large café (Bliss Café) with patio seating. There are kitchens associated with the cookie shop and also the Bliss Café. The adjoining building to the east has a street address of 782 Higuera Street and is occupied by the Creeky Tiki bar and restaurant. The interior consists of wood flooring, wood paneling, and painted dry wall while the exterior is of red brick construction. Creeky Tiki also has a fully equipped kitchen and a large patio and satellite bar that overlooks San Luis Obispo Creek. The next adjoining building to the east has a street address of 786 Higuera Street and is occupied by Cage, a retail clothing store. The interior of this boutique is improved with a sales counter, display racks for shoes and clothing, changing rooms, bathrooms, and a storage closet. The interior has also been improved with wood paneling and molding, decorative metal façade and the exterior walls are constructed with red brick. The next adjoining building is leased to Unique Selections, a rock, gem, and jewelry store having a street address of 790 Higuera Street. Again, the interior walls are constructed of red brick and the site has been improved with numerous glass and metal display cases and shelves. An examination of the interior brick walls of 786 Higuera Street and 790 Higuera Street indicate that the brick walls have been repointed, openings have been cut into ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 64 the brick and/or subsequently filled in, and generally modified in a manner that is inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; that is, the changes are incompatible with the original design and historic fabric, and are irreversible. The exterior walls along Higuera Street have been modified over time, with permanent and irreversible changes to the openings. The parapet along the top of 782-790 Higuera Street was reconstructed in 2009 to more closely resemble the original design, but it is not a renovation or rehabilitation as defined in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Please note that the original parapet extended all the way across both buildings (778 Higuera and 782-790 Higuera), from the Warden Block to the Johnson Building. The replacement parapet now terminates at The Network. The rear elevation of 778 Higuera (“The Network”) has several openings that are incompatible with the original design and construction and are irreversible. The rear elevation of 782-790 Higuera Street shows evidence of seismic strengthening, and also has been modified with the addition of modern plumbing pipes and electrical outlets and panels, with subsequent impacts to the original brickwork. A review of City and County historic resource inventories, government records, photographs, and newspaper articles indicate that 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not listed on the City of San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resources; however, they are listed on the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. 778 Higuera Street was added to the list in 1987; 782-790 Higuera Street was added to the list in 1983. The buildings under study can be classified as “Commercial Vernacular” in style. The City of San Luis Obispo defines “Commercial Vernacular” as follows: “COMMERCIAL VERNACULAR: Although not an officially recognized style, ‘commercial vernacular’ describes simple commercial structures with little decorative ornamentation, common in American cities and towns of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They are typically brick in construction, with minimal decorative detailing. • Character-defining features include: • Simple square or rectangular form • Flat roof with a flat or stepped parapet • Brick exterior wall surfaces, with face brick on the primary facade • First-story storefronts, typically with a continuous transom window above • Wood double-hung sash upper-story windows, often in pairs • Segmental arch window and door openings on side and rear elevations • Decorative detailing, if any, may include cornices, friezes, quoins, or string courses.” ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 65 CULTURAL OVERVIEW Historical Context The Chumash (Native People) lived in this area for thousands of years. Evidence of their presence can be seen in several locations throughout San Luis Obispo County, and their descendants, as well as those of the neighboring Salinan peoples, still live and work in the area. Indian and Indian settlements were noticed by the early Spanish maritime explorers who sailed up the California coast, but the first European explorers to actually travel through the area were members of Don Gaspar de Portola's overland expedition of 1769. Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded in 1772. This is the site where the inhabitants of the San Luis Obispo Coast area were relocated. Good grazing land could be found nearby, where mission livestock were raised. As for the Chumash and nearby Salinan, their subsistence economy was replaced by an agricultural economy. The neophytes worked for the missionaries as vaqueros, tanners, and farmers. Secularization of the missions occurred in 1833. Several Mexican ranchos were created in the region. Cattle grazing was a major economic activity of the Mexican ranchos. Cattle grazed freely on the rolling coastal hills and plains. Round-up occurred in March, when cattle were herded and separated according to ownership, and the slaughter followed. The hides were treated and the fat rendered into tallow for candles. The hides were shipped by boat to the east coast for shoe and other leather-goods manufacturers. In 1848 the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed, ceding what was northern Mexico to the United States. In 1850, one year after the gold rush, California became the 31st state admitted to the union. 
 Early American Era, 1850-1900 San Luis Obispo has long been regarded as a “vast pastoral domain,” a largely rural and agricultural county blessed with abundant sunshine and rainfall; a region of great natural beauty and harmony among its residents. Such was not always the case, however. Prior to the admission of California into the Union in 1850, San Luis Obispo County was designated one of the state’s original 27 counties. The population was just under 350 people, and the County encompassed more than three thousand square miles. The region remained a poor, remote, and sometimes violent outpost for its first two decades. According to W.W. Robinson, in The Story of San Luis Obispo County (1957), “John ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 66 Wilson, Scottish shipmaster and trader who had proved that a sailor could become a great landowner and a successful ranchero, had a town home where the County Museum now is, close by the Mission. In 1850 he was the top taxpayer of the county, his bill being $639.20 in 1856 San Luis Obispo was a growing community. In that year on February 19, it became a town organized under state laws, with a board of trustees as its governing body. This first act of incorporation was later repealed and another one passed on March 20, 1876 San Luis Obispo took another step. By legislative act it was re-incorporated as the ‘city’ of San Luis Obispo.” [pp. 21-22] Following the War with Mexico and California’s admittance into the United States, the need for good overland transportation was readily apparent. California had no reliable road system prior to the war; the population of the state was very small, and the need to convey people, mail, raw materials and information long distances with any frequency and/or regularity was limited. The self-sufficient rancheros were more dependent on oceangoing ships than overland wagons for the delivery of goods from the outside world. As the state’s population increased and its industry and commerce expanded into a complex network spanning the state, the need for a system of interconnecting roads grew accordingly. The railroads filled part of this need, and created an even greater demand for a reliable road system. A severe drought gripped the state in 1862-64, resulting in the devastation of much of the region’s cattle industry. Several seasons of reinvigorating rainfall followed the dry spell, prompting immigration to the county, which resulted in the emergence of the important dairy industry on the Central Coast. The region’s benign climate and rich soils were highly prized by agriculturists, especially the Swiss-Italian settlers of the mid-to-late nineteenth century. Their profits were limited, however, by their great isolation and long distance to markets. Because of the rudimentary nature of the state’s and county’s roads, the local economy was largely dependent on coastal transport to export the region’s agricultural and mineral products, and to import much needed manufactured goods. This situation was somewhat improved with the construction of a local narrow-gauge railroad, the Pacific Coast Railway, in 1876. The “PC,” as it was known, extended from Harford’s Wharf at San Luis Bay north to the city of San Luis Obispo (along what are now Elks Lane, South Higuera, and South Streets) and, by 1887, south to Los Olivos in northern Santa Barbara County. This local rail line further increased the marketability of the region’s agricultural goods, and fueled the additional development of farmland for the production of wheat, barley, beans, and peas, as well as the area’s prized dairy products. Following the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869, and the merger of the Central Pacific with the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, the Espee’s network of rail lines began to extend north and south throughout the state. Southern Pacific decided to build a line through the San Joaquin Valley first (because of the availability of ample government land) before turning their attention to a coast route. By 1886 the Southern Pacific Railroad had reached King City in the Salinas river valley. Residents to the south were eager and hopeful that the giant transportation company would continue to extend its line southward, eventually connecting with the ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 67 coastal line running from Saugus to Ellwood, west of Santa Barbara. Workmen continued to lay track up the Salinas River valley, terminating at Santa Margarita in 1889. A committee of twenty-one prominent citizens was organized to try and persuade their fellow citizens to donate the right-of-way for the railroad, citing the economic benefits that would accrue to the region if the train ran from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the Southern Pacific Railroad Company was in no hurry to further construction. Huntington was later quoted as saying, "The matter is in the hands of the people there. As soon as they have obtained the right-of-way for us, as they have promised, and made any arrangements to give us depot grounds, we will go ahead. Until then, our terminus will be at Santa Margarita." The Committee of 21 raised money to buy the right-of-way through real estate tax assessments and the sale of bonds. An agreement was finally reached between the Southern Pacific Company and San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties on October 23, 1890, to finish the last section of the coastline. After what seemed like an interminable wait to the locals, work on the first Cuesta tunnel began in the fall of 1892. On May 5, 1894, after the last tracks were hastily laid in preparation for the gala celebration, the first steam engine huffed its way into San Luis Obispo. The depot, roundhouse, warehouses, and shops were yet to be completed, but the era of the railroad had arrived, and the citizens showed their appreciation by hosting a three-day celebration. According to research provided by James Papp, an article in the San Luis Obispo Tribune dated 14 February 1899 reads “A $25,000 BLAZE. Higuera Street Swept by Fire. TEN STORES GONE. A Gasoline Stove in the Olive Branch Saloon Starts the Fire and a North Wind Fans it Furiously. STOPPED BY THE WARDEN BLOCK. The Ancient Buildings Known as the Johnson Property Have Gone Up in Smoke.” By April 8, 1899, the Tribune reported “We are pleased to be able to announce that the work of rebuilding on the Johnson property on Chorro and Higuera streets will commence very soon. Architect Laird has the plans drawn, and only a few details remain to be worked out. All the space swept by the fire is to be filled with brick structures, from the creek on the north to the Warden building on the south on the corner of Chorro and Higuera streets, where the old Olive Branch stood, will be erected a handsome two-story modern building, and flanking it on either side will be one-story stores. Mr. Johnson believes in building for the future, and feeling confident that the town will soon outgrow these small buildings, will construct them so that another story can be added when he feels justified in doing so. This improvement is right in line with the feeling that is beginning to be felt here that the better times we have been looking forward to are coming at last. The buildings are to be ready for tenants by July 1st and the tenants are ready to move in when that time comes.” ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 68 By February 17, 1900, the Tribune reported “The Johnson block is finished, and is a great credit to the city. It supplants some ancient rookeries, which were a terror as a firetrap and an eyesore as far as looks went. Luckily for the town they burnt up utterly and completely, and thanks to the architectural skill of Mr. Laird and the enterprise of the owner of the land, Mr. Johnson, the ground is covered with buildings which are in all respects satisfactory.” Architectural Trends In 1875, San Luis Obispo attorney De Guy Cooper wrote, "We can boast of some very fine private residences. Heretofore, the style of architecture has been of a rather primitive nature; but lately there has been a marked improvement in this particular, and the buildings erected within the past year have been of a better nature, and of a more permanent character." As Cooper pointed out, there were some elegant residences being erected throughout the county by its most prominent citizens. A survey of the contemporary literature, as well as the surviving structures that date to the late nineteenth century, indicate a predilection for county residents to build in the styles that were popular in other parts of the state and the nation. These included Italianate, Eastlake, and Queen Anne styles of architecture. In the downtown area, Richardsonian Romanesque was the dominant style, given the presence of local stone quarries on Bishops Peak and the burgeoning brick works in the city, as well as pattern books that transmitted architectural styles across the United States. After the turn of the century architectural styles generally became more eclectic, as a flurry of period revivals (including Colonial, Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial, and English Tudor) came to dominate the building trades. The city of San Luis Obispo was incorporated in 1876, the same year the Pacific Coast Railway opened from Port Harford to Los Alamos. In the 1880s and 1890s, commercial and residential development continued to increase; Port San Luis Lighthouse was put into service in 1890, and the southbound extension of the Southern Pacific Railroad was completed in 1894. Growth in the city continued in the early 20th century. In 1903, California Polytechnic School opened, followed by the Carnegie Library in 1904 and the first state highway can through the county in 1915, which followed Monterey Street in front of the Mission and directly across the creek from the buildings on Higuera Street. Following World War I, veterans returned to the area to take advantage of California Polytechnic University’ s vocational training, bringing families with them. Advancements in transportation allowed for a diversification in the local economy. The popularity of automobile tourism brought more visitors to the area and sparked the concept of the first motor hotel, or motel. An excerpt from the City of San Luis Obispo’s Citywide Historic Context Statement (2013) regarding ”Late Nineteenth Century Commercial Development” reads, ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 69 “Commercial development during this period was in a transitional state: there were still modest adobes being constructed, along with the grand railroad hotels and more elaborate banks and other businesses that were populating the commercial core. Wood frame and brick construction were becoming more prevalent, and more elaborate details and materials were used. Commercial architectural styles represented in San Luis Obispo during this period include Commercial Vernacular, Italianate, and Romanesque Revival. Local architects associated with this period include William Evans, Hilamon Spencer Laird, W.C. Phillips, and Alfred Walker.” In the same document’s section on “Early Twentieth Century Commercial Development” it reads, “During the early 20th century, the commercial center continued to flourish, and there were numerous commercial enterprises established during this period. Improvements in the downtown area included the paving of streets and the replacement of the original wood bridges over the creek with a series of concrete bridges. By this period, the downtown commercial core had grown significantly, and there were numerous commercial establishments organized on several business blocks; the downtown commercial core is recognized by the City as a historic district….There are modest vernacular commercial buildings that may have minimal stylistic detailing and do not represent a particular style. Architects whose work is represented in San Luis Obispo during this period include: Abrahms & Simms, Santa Barbara; E.D. Bray; John Chapek; Orville Clark; W.H. Crias, W.E. Erkes; San Francisco; G.A. Meuss-Dorffer, San Francisco; G.M. Eastman; Thorton Fitzhugh; John Davis Hatch; Alfred and Arthur Heineman, Los Angeles; J.P. Kemble; Fred Logan; Charles McKenzie, San Francisco; Parkinson & Bergstrom; Righetti & Headman, San Francisco; William H. Weeks; James Wetmore; and K.C. Wilson.” The buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street can be seen in photographs and postcards from the turn of the 20th century; the City of San Luis Obispo’s “Historic Resources Inventory” form for 782-790 Higuera Street (dated October 1982) estimates the construction date as 1906; the architect as “unknown,” and the builder as C.H. Johnson. The buildings under study are not the main focus of the photographs; rather, they are included in the images showing the more prominent and architecturally significant Johnson Building and Warden Building. The buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street show large cloth awnings extending over the sidewalk. In the San Luis Obispo Fire Department Souvenir of San Luis Obispo (June 1904) there is an exterior photograph on page 23, showing the buildings, and an interior photograph showing Marshall’s Jewelry Store (p. 28). There do not appear to be any other records showing notably historic businesses associated with the properties. A review of the various city directories in the Reference Room at the San Luis Obispo County Library indict various businesses occupied the buildings in question. For example, in the San Luis Obispo City and County Directory (1912) it shows A.L. Dutton ran a grocery at 786 Higuera; that W.H. Shulze was a clothier at 782 Higuera (“Clothing, Hats, Furnishings. Our Prices the Lowest. Our Values the Best.”); and Manuel Marshall was a jeweler at 778 Higuera. 778 Higuera was remodeled by John King in 1967-71. By 1972 the address was identified as a “shopping center” in the City Directory and included 15 businesses, including clothing, shoes, books, handcrafts, and a “Nut Barrel” with “assorted nuts.” ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 70 The closing of Monterey Street to vehicular traffic and the development of Mission Plaza in 1969-71 does not appear to have had any impact or effect on the physical attributes of the buildings under study. ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 71 SIGNIFICANCE EVALAUTION This section assesses the status of 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street under § 14.01.070 of the City of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Ordinance Criteria for both architectural and historic integrity. A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. According to National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (1997), Criterion C: Design/Reconstruction: UNDERSTANDING CRITERION C: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION This criterion applies to properties significant for their physical design or construction, including such elements as architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and artwork. To be eligible under Criterion C, a property must meet at least one of the following requirements: • Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. • Represent the work of a master. • Possess high artistic value. • Represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. p. 20: WORKS OF A MASTER A master is a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field, a known craftsman of consummate skill, or an anonymous craftsman whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality. The property must express a particular phase in the development of the master's career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular idea or theme in his or her craft. A property is not eligible as the work of a master, however, simply because it was designed by a prominent architect. For example, not every building designed by Frank Lloyd Wright is eligible under this portion of Criterion C, although it might meet other portions of the Criterion, for instance as a representative of the Prairie style. pp. 44-45, “Understanding the Aspects of Integrity: Materials… A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. If the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and significant features must have been preserved. The property must also be an actual historic resource, not a recreation; a recent structure fabricated to look historic is not ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 72 eligible. Likewise, a property whose historic features and materials have been lost and then reconstructed is usually not eligible. 1) Style: a. The relative purity of a traditional style; The buildings are associated with the Commercial Vernacular architectural style, a style that gained popularity at the end of the nineteenth century and employ simple forms and massing, and minimal details. Many alterations over the years have diminished the buildings’ ability to convey the purer form of their architectural qualities from the time of construction in the late nineteenth century. Therefore, the buildings 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/ or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style; While the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are an early example of the Commercial Vernacular style, they are not rare in their existence. Research indicates that other examples of the style still exist in the City. Therefore, the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. c. Traditional, vernacular and/ or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/ or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together. The buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street retain very little of the character- defining features of the Commercial Vernacular style, which was an architectural style popular in the United States for its simple style, adaptability and economy. This style is associated with the commercial development of the City during the early twentieth century and was found in both rural and urban areas in San Luis Obispo County and statewide. Its presence does not represent a particular milieu or period, or a uniqueness of hybrid styles. Therefore, the buildings 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. 2) Design: a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship ( even if not necessarily unique); The buildings at 778 ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 73 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street possess some of the general architectural characteristics of the Commercial Vernacular style, an architectural style well represented in the existing building stock of the City, the County, California, and nationwide. The buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are early and modest examples of the Commercial Vernacular style of architecture and do not represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values. Therefore, the buildings 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter- builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. A field survey of the buildings indicates that there are no interesting details or eclecticism in the construction of the buildings. There is no architect associated with the buildings to which any expression of details or eclecticism could be attributed, such as they exist. Although architect H.S. Laird appears to have been the designer of the buildings, they are of modest design, and there are better examples of his work extant in the City of San Luis Obispo. In addition, the buildings have been extensively modified from their original design and configuration. Therefore, the buildings 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. According to National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (1997), Association with Architects/Artisans: Architects, artisans, artists, and engineers are often represented by their works, which are eligible under Criterion C. Their homes and studios, however, can be eligible for consideration under Criterion B, because these usually are the properties with which they are most personally associated. 3) Architect: a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced development of the city, state, or nation. Background research provided by James Papp indicates that H.S. Laird was the architect for 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street. In a document prepared for submittal to the Cultural Heritage Committee at their April 27, 2020 meeting, Papp wrote, “Hilamon Spencer Laird, referred to in his time as “the leading architect in San Luis Obispo” and “pioneer architect of the city,” is documented to have designed the National Register Shipsey House (1894) and Master List Commercial Bank Building (1891), Kimball House (1903), H. M. ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 74 Warden Junior Tower Building (1904), Hourihan House (1904), and Carnegie Library portico (1909), the extant but altered Call Building (1895), and important buildings since demolished, including the Bank of San Luis Obispo (1877) and Crocker Block (1888).” He goes on to write, “Laird’s Johnson Block was built in 1900 to replace a series of eight one- and two-story structures between the Warden Block and the creek that had burned on 13 February 1899. They were owned by Charles H. Johnson (1826–1915), customs inspector for the Port of San Luis from 1852, president of the Town of San Luis Obispo’s first Board of Trustees from 1859, and elected State Assemblyman in 1860.” Papp cites the 8 April 1899 San Luis Obispo Tribune: “Architect Laird has the plans drawn, and only a few details remain to be worked out. All the space swept by the fire is to be filled with brick structures, from the creek on the north to the Warden building on the south. On the corner of Chorro and Higuera streets, where the old Olive Branch stood, will be erected a handsome two-story modern building, and flanking it on either side will be one-story stores. Mr. Johnson believes in building for the future, and feeling confident that the town will soon outgrow these small buildings, will construct them so that another story can be added when he feels justified in doing so.” It is unclear when the “one-story stores” that flank the Johnson Block were actually constructed; it may have been after the main block was completed, but there is no documentary evidence one way or another. Because of the extensive changes made to 778 Higuera and 782-790 Higuera Street, the buildings have lost integrity. There are other properties, still extant in the City, that were designed by Laird, and that are better examples of his work, including the Johnson Block at the corner of Higuera and Chorro. Therefore, the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. b.An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo Please refer to discussion under Criterion A (3)a above. B. Historic Criteria 1)History – Person: a.Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally. According to National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (1997), Association with the Property: ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 75 ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROPERTY Properties eligible under Criterion B are usually those associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance. In some instances, this may be the person's home; in other cases, a person's business, office, laboratory, or studio may best represent his or her contribution. Properties that pre- or post-date an individual's significant accomplishments are usually not eligible. (See Comparison to Related Properties, below, for exceptions to this rule.) The individual's association with the property must be documented by accepted methods of historical or archeological research, including written or oral history. Speculative associations are not acceptable. … COMPARISON TO RELATED PROPERTIES Each property associated with an important individual should be compared to other associated properties to identify those that best represent the person's historic contributions. The best representatives usually are properties associated with the person's adult or productive life. Properties associated with an individual's formative or later years may also qualify if it can be demonstrated that the person's activities during this period were historically significant or if no properties from the person's productive years survives. Length of association is an important factor when assessing several properties with similar associations. ASSOCIATION WITH ARCHITECTS/ ARTISANS Architects, artisans, artists, and engineers are often represented by their works, which are eligible under Criterion C. Their homes and studios, however, can be eligible for consideration under Criterion B, because these usually are the properties with which they are most personally associated. As stated above, while C.H. Johnson is cited as the “builder” of the properties, there are other, more important resources extant that are associated with Johnson, including the Johnson Block at the corner of Higuera and Chorro. Therefore, the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials). Background research in local history publications, newspaper collections, and previous cultural resource surveys do not reveal associations with any persons ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 76 important in our past. While C. H. Johnson may have been the builder, he is associated with other buildings that retain their historical and architectural integrity and significance. Therefore, the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. 2) History – Event: a. A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city. The buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are associated with the context of early twentieth century commercial development in San Luis Obispo. The 1880s-1890s was a decade of residential and commercial growth for the city. This growth, while important for the city, was not indicative of a famous or first-of-its-kind event. Research indicates that the buildings are associated with early twentieth century commercial development. This development made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of San Luis Obispo, an important center of economic, social, and local government administration in the county. However, the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street, despite their association with Laird and Johnson, are not associated with specific events within this context that would differentiate them from other commercial developments with similar (or better) design, construction history, and uses in the city during the same period. As such, they are not uniquely associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. Therefore, the buildings 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. b. A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city. Background research indicates that the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not the only resources associated with the context of early twentieth century commercial development of downtown San Luis Obispo, and are not the only extant examples of the Commercial Vernacular style. The buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street do not constitute a unique, important, or interesting contribution to the city. Therefore, the buildings 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. 3) History-Context: a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building. ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 77 The buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street were built in the early twentieth century (an exact date could not be determined, but it may be around 1900-1904) when the downtown district was being developed. There are other, better examples of commercial properties that are associated with important persons and events, and that have architectural significance, within the Downtown Historic District. Therefore, the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. b.Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building. No secondary patterns of local history were identified in relation to the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street. Therefore, the buildings 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street are not significant under this criterion. C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’ s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. According to National Register Bulletin Number 15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (1997), “Buildings eligible for the National Register must include all of their basic structural elements. Parts of buildings, such as interiors, facades, or wings, are not eligible independent of the rest of the existing building. The whole building must be considered, and its significant features must be identified. “ The buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street have been modified over the decades to accommodate various types of businesses; the building showing the most amount of change and alteration is 778 Higuera Street, also known as “The Network.” The commercial businesses located within the building are at street level and they also share a basement. The entrance to this building is through glass doors under a modern arched entrance that lead to a common hallway that is paved with ceramic tile. The interior consists of painted dry wall and individual lease spaces that have undergone renovation for the specific tenant improvement requirements. The businesses within this location consist of the Cowboy Cookie & Ice Cream shop, a Hemp clothing retail store, and a large café (Bliss Café) with patio seating. There are kitchens associated with the cookie shop and also the Bliss Café. The rear elevation has been modified with several openings in the brick facade, enlargement of what were (presumably) the original windows and door(s), and a modern arched entranceway. Horizontal concrete beams appear to be elements of seismic strengthening that have been added to the building. The adjoining building to the east has a street address of 782 Higuera Street and is occupied by the Creeky Tiki bar and restaurant. The interior consists of wood flooring, wood paneling, and painted dry wall while the exterior is of red brick construction. Creeky Tiki also has a fully equipped kitchen and a large patio and outdoor bar that overlooks San Luis Obispo Creek. ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 78 The next adjoining building to the east has a street address of 786 Higuera Street and is occupied by Cage, a retail clothing store. The interior of this boutique is improved with a sale counter, display racks for shoes and clothing, changing rooms, bathrooms, and a storage closet. The interior has also been improved with wood paneling and molding, decorative metal façade and the exterior walls are constructed with red brick. The next adjoining building is leased to Unique Selections, a rock, gem, and jewelry store having a street address of 790 Higuera Street. Again, the interior walls are constructed of red brick and the site has been improved with numerous glass and metal display cases and shelves. An examination of the interior brick walls of 786 Higuera Street and 790 Higuera Street indicate that the brick walls have been repointed, openings have been cut into the brick and/or subsequently filled in, and generally modified in a manner that is inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; that is, the changes are incompatible with the original design and historic fabric, and are irreversible. The exterior walls along Higuera Street have been modified over time, with permanent and irreversible changes to the openings. The parapet along the top of 782-790 Higuera Street was reconstructed in 2009 to more closely resemble the original design, but it is not a renovation or rehabilitation. The rear elevation of 782-790 Higuera Street shows evidence of seismic strengthening, and also has been modified with the addition of modern plumbing pipes and electrical outlets and panels, with subsequent impacts to the original brickwork. The changes to 778 Higuera Street, also known as “The Network,” are readily apparent. There does not appear to be any as-built drawings to show the changes from the original design and construction, but the changes are apparent and incongruous with a building of this age. For all of the buildings in this study, the issues are: changes in materials (windows; doors; bulkheads; interiors; parapet); and the quality of craftsmanship and attention to detail (see various historical photos of the exteriors and the recent interior photos of 786 Higuera and 790 Higuera). According to a November 3, 1988 memo from Greg Smith, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo, to the Cultural Heritage Committee, “The CHC recommended approval for plans to remodel the front of the Network Mall on August 5, 1988, subject to review of materials…The applicant…has also submitted a plan for remodeling the rear of the building….The structure’s current form is the result of remodeling done from 1967 through 1971; John King was apparently the contractor. Little other information regarding the building’s history is readily available, since the structure was apparently omitted from the CHC’s earlier survey of the district. The structure was recently listed as being a ‘Contributing Property’, however.” The memo goes on to say “The rear facade would seem to have little to distinguish it from an architectural or cultural point of view, other than use of red brick. Introduction of new materials—as proposed by the applicant—does not seem inappropriate to staff, especially in view of the variety of materials and styles found in nearby buildings facing the Mission Plaza. As with the front facade, staff has concerns with integration of the various design elements…” ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 79 The brick construction is interesting and charming but not unique in downtown San Luis Obispo, and the buildings have been modified over the years and those changes have not been handled in a uniform or sensitive manner. One can see this in the varying types of brick used to patch or fill in openings; the repointing (the reapplication of mortar between the bricks); and the general workmanship in 782-790 Higuera Street (see interior photos). Changes to the Higuera Street elevations include doors; windows; loss of awnings; changes to the parapets over time; and loss of original signage. At the February 25, 2008 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting, the Committee heard and approved the “Facade remodel and accessibility improvements to tenant spaces” at 782 Higuera Street (Public Hearing Item # 1). Pierre Rademaker, applicant, “hoped to find some materials behind stucco to restore….Mr. Rademaker explained that the brick work might need to be recreated to get the correct spacing, depending on what is found when the stucco is removed….Tim Ronda, architect, explained that seismic retrofitting is the primary goal of this plan….The appearance of the building will be upgraded through this retrofitting project.” Based on an examination of photographs from City Community Development staff and RRM, the parapet changed over time, from its original configuration. Mr. Rademaker and Mr. Ronda chose to return to the original parapet design because it is more in keeping with the nature and design of the Johnson Block, and it was a welcome update to the building. The committee approved the proposed remodel with conditions, including “Demolition of the building shall be limited to the removal of exterior windows, storefront and stucco on the Higuera Street side….[and] A sample of the bulkhead tile shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department (Planning Staff) prior to approval of the construction project.” No other agenda items or minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee regarding this undertaking could be found. The 2009 facade remodel succeeded in replacing a missing element, but the addition is of a lightweight material different from the original, and is considered a reconstruction and not a restoration or renovation, nor is it a rehabilitation (all terms defined in “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,” found at https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four- treatments.htm The rear elevations are not primary elevations, but they show the irreversible changes that have been made over time that also result in a loss of historical integrity and fabric. These include: the removal of original fabric; attaching electrical conduit and light fixtures; attaching awnings to masonry; all of these actions result in irreversible damage to the original building materials. The face brick is a thin veneer and not original material. Also, please note that the original parapet extended all the way across both buildings (778 Higuera and 782-790 Higuera), from the Warden Block to the Johnson Building. The replacement parapet now terminates at The Network. The reconstruction is a re-creation; it is a facade, it is not historically accurate because it is smaller in scale than the original, and of different materials and construction techniques. It lends the building and the block a false sense of historicity. ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 80 The four commercial buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street, while they possess some design characteristics of the Commercial Vernacular architectural style, lack integrity and do not possess any outstanding or unique characteristics to raise them to a level of historic and/or architectural significance. ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 81 CONCLUSION For the reasons documented in the report, Pavlik concludes that the buildings at 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street do not appear to warrant continued listing as Contributing Properties on the City of San Luis Obispo List of Historic Resources. The author Pavlik could not find any supporting documentation or justification for their listing as Contributing Properties in 1983 and 1987, and their numerous alterations and modifications over the years have further diminished their historicity, design, and physical integrity. Their ongoing inclusion only serves to dilute the significance of the other buildings on the list, and diminish the commitment that the City has to maintaining the list and to encouraging property owners to strive for their properties’ inclusion on the list. There is no documentation detailing why these buildings were listed. It is recommended that the Cultural Heritage Committee move forward with delisting these properties (778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street). ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 82 Photo 1909 Photo 1934 ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 83 Photo 2007 Remodel Plans - 2009 ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 84 782-790 Storefront Photos 2020 ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 85 778 Higuera Photo 2020 ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 86 BIBLIOGRAPHY Advanced Environmental Concepts, Inc. “Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Naman Properties: The Network Building, Johnson Building & La Paloma Building. 778, 782, 786, 790 & 796 Higuera Street 1035, 1039 & 1041 Chorro Street, County of San Luis Obispo · San Luis Obispo, California,” January 2018. Angel, Myron. History of San Luis Obispo County, of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers. Thompson & West, Oakland, California, 1883; republished 1979 Valley Publishers, Fresno, California. Brewer, William H. Up and Down California in 1860-1864: The Journal of William H. Brewer. Edited by Francis P. Farquhar. University of California Press, Berkeley,1966. Coast County Directory. Including Santa Cruz, San Diego, Ventura, Monterey, San Benito, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Los Angeles Counties. San Francisco: L.M. McKenney & Co., 1884-5. On file at the Reference Room, San Luis Obispo County Library, San Luis Obispo. Dart, Louisiana Clayton. Vignettes of History in San Luis Obispo County. San Luis Obispo, Mission Federal Savings, 1978. Krieger, Daniel, Looking Backward into the Middle Kingdom: San Luis Obispo County. Northridge, CA: Windsor Publications, Inc., 1988. Nicholson, Loren. Loren Nicholson’s Old Picture Postcards. A Historic Journal Along California’s Central Coast. San Luis Obispo: California Heritage—Publishing Associates, 1989. Polk’s San Luis Obispo City Directory 1972. R.L. Polk & Co., Publishers. Monterey Park, CA. On file at the Reference Room, San Luis Obispo County Library, San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo City and County Directory 1933-34. A to Z Directory, published by San Luis Obispo Telegram Press.. On file at the Reference Room, San Luis Obispo County Library, San Luis Obispo, California. San Luis Obispo City and County Directory 1912. Los Angeles City Directory Company, 1912. On file at the Reference Room, San Luis Obispo County Library, San Luis Obispo, California. ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 87 San Luis Obispo Tribune Souvenir Railroad Edition. May 5th, 1894. Centennial Edition. San Luis Obispo: Robert E. Kennedy Library, California Polytechnic State University,1994. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Resources Group. City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo, September 30, 2013. Accessed at https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4042 City Council Agenda Reports, Minutes, and Minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee, accessed at https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-minutes City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, accessed at https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code/14.01 City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee file materials on 782-790 Higuera Street (including the “Historic Resources Inventory” form from October 1982). State of California California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, 1992. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, 1996. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, 2001. National Park Service ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines [As Amended and Annotated] accessed at https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/Arch_Standards.htm ATTACHMENT 1aItem 3 Packet Page 88 1 Date: April 11, 2020 To: Walter Oetzell Organization: City of SLO From: Robert C. Pavlik, M.A. Title: Historian, Architectural Historian Addresses: 778 Higuera Street, 782-790 Higuera Street Topic: Supplemental Historic Information Following up on the discussion with City staff on April 8, 2020, I composed this supplemental statement to provide further information related to the changes to the buildings evaluated in the submitted Historic Resource Evaluation that I prepared dated February 6, 2020. The specific directives of the City staff were: 1. Style & Character of the Original Building Design. Response: The two buildings with addresses from 778 Higuera to 790 Higuera are fairly common in terms of their design and construction, hence the appellation (description) as “Commercial Vernacular.” They appear to have been built as “in-fill” projects between two much more prominent and architecturally significant buildings (the Johnson Block and the Warden Building). Based on historical photographs, they had doors and windows that fronted on the sidewalk, clerestory windows, and large awnings. The building was topped with a crenellated parapet that extended from the Warden Block to the Johnson Building. Photo 1934  ATTACHMENT 1bItem 3 Packet Page 89 2  2. Modifications to Higuera Façade: Effects on Architectural and Historical Character and Significance. Response: A postcard view of the buildings from the late 1940s shows changes to the original parapet. The crenellated top portion of the parapet was removed, and a simple facade placed over 778 Higuera Street. The parapet wall over 782-790 Higuera Street without the crenellated top portion remained in place. Photographs from the 1950s and 1960s show the block of buildings with a monolithic stucco wall erected in the parapets’ place. These changes took place well before the passage of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and the development of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In other words, the buildings were irrevocably changed at that time with the loss of original fabric and changes to the remaining materials. Postcard Late 1940s  ATTACHMENT 1bItem 3 Packet Page 90 3  The following photo from the 1960s shows how the Johnson Building at the corner of Chorro and the subject structures were completely stuccoed over prior to the Network Project. 3. Network Mall Project: Effects on Architectural and Historical Character and Significance. Response: The changes to 778 Higuera Street, also known as “The Network,” are readily apparent. There does not appear to be any as-built drawings to show the changes from the original design and construction, but the changes are apparent and incongruous with a building of this age. For 778 Higuera Street, and for all the buildings in this study, the issues are: changes in materials (windows; doors; bulkheads; interiors; parapet); and the quality of craftsmanship and attention to detail. According to a November 3, 1988 memo from Greg Smith, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo, to the Cultural Heritage Committee, “The CHC recommended approval for plans to remodel the front of the Network Mall on August 5, 1988, subject to review of materials…The applicant…has also submitted a plan for remodeling the rear of the building….The structure’s current form is the result of remodeling done from 1967 through 1971; John King was Photo 1960s  ATTACHMENT 1bItem 3 Packet Page 91 4  apparently the contractor. Little other information regarding the building’s history is readily available, since the structure was apparently omitted from the CHC’s earlier survey of the district. The structure was recently listed as being a ‘Contributing Property’, however.” The memo goes on to say “The rear facade would seem to have little to distinguish it from an architectural or cultural point of view, other than use of red brick. Introduction of new materials—as proposed by the applicant—does not seem inappropriate to staff, especially in view of the variety of materials and styles found in nearby buildings facing the Mission Plaza. As with the front facade, staff has concerns with integration of the various design elements…” 4. 2009 Remodel: Relationship to Original Design and Architectural Elements Response: At the February 25, 2008 Cultural Heritage Committee meeting, the Committee heard and approved the “Facade remodel and accessibility improvements to tenant spaces” at 782 Higuera Street (Public Hearing Item # 1). Pierre Rademaker, applicant, “hoped to find some materials behind stucco to restore….Mr. Rademaker explained that the brick work might need to be recreated to get the correct spacing, depending on what is found when the stucco is removed….Tim Ronda, architect, explained that seismic retrofitting is the primary goal of this plan….The appearance of the building will be upgraded through this retrofitting project.” Based on an examination of photographs from City Community Development staff and RRM, the parapet changed over time, from its original configuration. Mr. Rademaker and Mr. Ronda chose to return to the original parapet design because it is more in keeping with the nature and design of the Johnson Block, and it was a welcome update to the building. The committee approved the proposed remodel with conditions, including “Demolition of the building shall be limited to the removal of exterior windows, storefront and stucco on the Higuera Street side….[and] A sample of the bulkhead tile shall be reviewed by the Community Development Department (Planning Staff) prior to approval of the construction project.” No other agenda items or minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee regarding this undertaking could be found. The 2009 facade remodel succeeded in replacing a missing element, but the addition is of a lightweight material different from the original, and is considered a reconstruction and not a restoration or renovation, nor is it a rehabilitation (all terms defined in “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties,” found at https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments.htm Photo 2007 showing Network façade & pre‐2009 improvements to 782‐790 Higuera tenant spaces   ATTACHMENT 1bItem 3 Packet Page 92 5  The face brick is a thin veneer and not original material. Also, please note that the original parapet extended all the way across both buildings (778 Higuera and 782-790 Higuera), from the Warden Block to the Johnson Building. The replacement parapet now terminates at The Network. The rear elevation is not a primary elevation, but it shows the irreversible changes that have been made over time that also result in a loss of historical integrity and fabric. These include: the removal of original fabric; attaching electrical conduit and light fixtures; attaching awnings to masonry; all these actions result in irreversible damage to the original building materials. 5. Historical Significance of Building - Post-2009 Remodel Response: In conclusion, the two buildings in question: 778 Higuera Street and 782-790 Higuera Street: are not viable candidates for continued inclusion on the City’s Contributing Properties list of Historic Buildings. While they have been serviceable structures for over one hundred years, they were never of such architectural or historical significance to truly warrant the designation. They do not have any associations with important persons or events in the City’s history, they do not possess important design or construction elements, and the various changes made to the buildings over the years, with a resultant loss of original material, have rendered them ineligible for continued listing, and they should be removed from the City’s Contributing Properties List. 782‐790 Storefront Photo 2020  ATTACHMENT 1bItem 3 Packet Page 93 Date: May 4, 2020 To: Walter Oetzell Organization: City of SLO From: Robert C. Pavlik, M.A. & Pamela Ricci, AICP Title: Historian, Architectural Historian Principal Planner Addresses: 778 Higuera Street, 782-790 Higuera Street Topic: Responses to CHC Discussion on April 27, 2020 Situation On April 27, 2020, a public hearing was held before the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) to evaluate the request to remove two properties from the City’s Contributing List of Historic Properties: 787 Higuera Street (The Network) and 782, 786, and 790 Higuera Street. The project team provided a Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) prepared by Robert Pavlik, MA, Historian/Architectural Historian, dated February 6, 2020. The HRE provided a detailed history of the buildings and thoroughly evaluated the buildings in terms of their historic and architectural integrity consistent with the criteria contained in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. In addition, a Supplemental Historic Information memo dated April 11, 2020, as a companion document to the HRE was prepared that described the original building character when first constructed around 1900, the modifications to the Higuera facade over the decades, and the overall impacts of all the remodeling changes on the historical integrity of the structures as t hey exist now. The CHC made a motion to recommend to the City Council that 778 Higuera be removed from the City’s Contributing List of Historic Properties, but continued action on the same request for 782, 786, and 790 Higuera Street. James Papp, newly elected Chairperson for the CHC, provided a lengthy presentation for why the building addressed 782, 786, and 790 Higuera Street was important both architecturally and historically and should be retained on the City’s Contributing List of Historic Properties. This memo provides a summary of the applicant’s submittal for the further evaluation of the proposed delisting of the structures addressed 782, 786, and 790 Higuera Street from the City’s Contributing List of Historic Properties. The original HRE report has been updated to reflect new information brought up at the April 27, 2020 CHC meeting and further document why the structures do not warrant listing on the City’s Contributing List of Historic Properties. Specifically, there are references made to National Register Bulletin # 15 which details the U.S. Department of the Interior’s criteria for the evaluation of the architectural and historical integrity of structures. Main Points 1.The building remodel done in 2009 was not a preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. With the review of the project by the CHC on 2-25-08 there was no documentation in the staff report or meeting minutes regarding the seismic retrofit and remodel meeting SOI ATTACHMENT 2Item 3 Packet Page 94 Responses to 4-27-2020 CHC Discussion Page 2 standards. The staff report evaluated the changes using the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Community Design Guidelines. There is no debate that the changes were an improvement and more in character with the turn-of-the-century storefront motif in the area, but the changes did not rise to the level of an authentic, historically accurate reconstruction consistent with SOI standards (three versus five bays, new and taller parapet, and loss of key character-defining features and materials). In addition, there was not documentation prepared during and after construction to document consistency with SOI guidelines. Rather, it was an appliqué, an homage (skillfully designed) to a heavily modified building, a false front that, while it speaks to the original design that extended across the entire length of the wing, is a scaled down re- creation and does not meet the definitions as outlined in the Standards. 2. The 2009 remodel uncovered some original brick on the façade, but most of the original materials have been replaced. There was discussion at the April 27th CHC meeting about the extent of original materials on the building’s facade. Based on field surveys and discussion with original members of the team that worked on that project, the figure below was developed. It shows that most of the façade has been replaced over time. The original brick is relegated for the most part to the area above storefronts and below the parapet. Ornamental details and the new reconstructed cornice were made of architectural foam core products. ATTACHMENT 2Item 3 Packet Page 95 Responses to 4-27-2020 CHC Discussion Page 3 3. The building’s association with architect H.S. Laird does not in itself meet historical significance criteria. Historical documentation from H.S. Laird himself noted that the small storefronts were of modest design and intended to be remodeled over time and were not designed to be of the same architectural character and integrity as either the Warden or Johnson buildings. Laird even is quoted as noting that the structures were constructed to accommodate the addition of another story. The HRE also notes that the buildings have been extensively modified from their original design and configuration and there are better examples of his work extant in the City of San Luis Obispo. 4. The building’s association with C.H. Johnson does not in itself meet historical significance criteria. James Papp mentioned that C.H. Johnson was a prominent figure in the community and his association with the property was pertinent. The HRE notes that while C.H. Johnson is cited as the “builder” of the properties, there are other, more important resources extant that are associated with Johnson, including the Johnson Block at the corner of Higuera and Chorro. ATTACHMENT 2Item 3 Packet Page 96 City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character Citywide Historic Context Statement HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP 134 COMMERCIAL VERNACULAR Although not an officially recognized style, “commercial vernacular” describes simple commercial structures with little decorative ornamentation, common in American cities and towns of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They are typically brick in construction, with minimal decorative detailing. Character-defining features include: Simple square or rectangular form Flat roof with a flat or stepped parapet Brick exterior wall surfaces, with face brick on the primary facade First-story storefronts, typically with a continuous transom window above Wood double-hung sash upper-story windows, often in pairs Segmental arch window and door openings on side and rear elevations Decorative detailing, if any, may include cornices, friezes, quoins, or stringcourses 1901 Broad Street. Source: Historic Resources Group. 1401 Osos Street. Source: Historic Resources Group. ATTACHMENT 3Item 3 Packet Page 97 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 98 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 99 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 100 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 101 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 102 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 103 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 104 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 105 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 106 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 107 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 108 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 109 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 110 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 111 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 112 ATTACHMENT 4 Item 3Packet Page 113 ATTACHMENT 4Item 3 Packet Page 114 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Early 20th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP 85 THEME: EARLY 20TH CENTURY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT During the early 20th century, the commercial center continued to flourish, and there were numerous commercial enterprises established during this period. Improvements in the downtown area included the paving of streets and the replacement of the original wood bridges over the creek with a series of concrete bridges. By this period, the downtown commercial core had grown significantly, and there were numerous commercial establishments organized on several business blocks; the downtown commercial core is recognized by the City as a historic district. Commercial development continued particularly in the years between World War I and the arrival of the Great Depression. This period also saw a marked increase in automobile use; by 1916 there were five service stations in San Luis Obispo, and by the 1920s all the major roads in town had been paved.63 During this period liveries and alleyways in the original downtown core were converted to accommodate the automobile. Development directly tied to the automobile occurred in the early 1920s, with the establishment of the Exposition Park Race Track whose one-mile course was billed as the fastest in the world. 63 City of San Luis Obispo, “Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey,” July, 1983, 22. Higuera Street, c. 1907. Source Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Special Collections. ATTACHMENT 5Item 3 Packet Page 115 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Early 20th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP 86 Architectural styles represented include Mission Revival, Mediterranean Revival, and Spanish Colonial Revival. There are modest vernacular commercial buildings that may have minimal stylistic detailing and do not represent a particular style. Architects whose work is represented in San Luis Obispo during this period include: Abrahms & Simms, Santa Barbara; E.D. Bray; John Chapek; Orville Clark; W.H. Crias, W.E. Erkes; San Francisco; G.A. Meuss-Dorffer, San Francisco; G.M. Eastman; Thorton Fitzhugh; John Davis Hatch; Alfred and Arthur Heineman, Los Angeles; J.P. Kremple; Fred Logan; Charles McKenzie, San Francisco; Parkinson & Bergstrom; Righetti & Headman, San Francisco; William H. Weeks; James Wetmore; and K.C. Wilson. Exposition Park Race Track, 1923. Left image: 1923, Right image: Filming in 1926; source for both Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Special Collections. ATTACHMENT 5Item 3 Packet Page 116 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Early 20th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP 87 Early 20th Century Commercial Development: Associated Property Types, Integrity Considerations & Eligibility Standards Property Types Commercial building; one- and two-story commercial block; hotels; low-rise storefront buildings; historic district A commercial property from this period may be significant:  As an intact example of early 20th century commercial development; for its association with the City’s original commercial core; or for its direct association with as automobile-related development in San Luis Obispo – Criterion A/1/B.2 (Event).  For its association with a significant person in San Luis Obispo’s early history – Criterion B/2/B.1 (Person).  As an excellent or rare example of a particular architectural style associated with the period, and/or the work of a significant architect or designer – C/3/A.1,A.2,A.3 (Design/Construction).  As a rare intact example of an early commercial property type – C/3/A.1,A.2 (Design/Construction). Integrity Considerations In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under the Early 20th Century Commercial Development theme. There are numerous extant commercial properties from this period, so eligible examples should retain a high level of integrity. Commercial properties from this period eligible under Criteria A/1/B.2 (Event) should retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association.  A commercial property significant under Criterion B/2/B.1 (Person) should retain integrity of design, feeling, and association, at a minimum, in order to convey the historic association with a significant person.  Commercial properties significant under Criterion C/3/A.1,A.2 (Design/Construction) should retain integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling. Eligibility Standards To be eligible, a property must:  date from the period of significance;  display the significant character-defining features of the architectural style or property type; and  retain the essential aspects of integrity. ATTACHMENT 5Item 3 Packet Page 117 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Early 20th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP 88 Extant Examples Johnson Building, 796 Higuera Street, 1903-1904. Photo 2013; source Historic Resources Group. Park/Reidy Hotel, 1815 Osos Street, 1907. Photo 2013; source Historic Resources Group. Anderson Hotel, 955 Monterey Street, 1922-1923. Photo 2013; source City of San Luis Obispo. Union Hardware, 1119 Garden Street, 1912. Photo 2013; source City of San Luis Obispo. ATTACHMENT 5Item 3 Packet Page 118 164 RESTORATION Standards for Restoration 1.A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that interprets the property and its restoration period. 2.Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that charac­ terize the period will not be undertaken. 3.Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection and properly documented for future research. 4.Materials, features, spaces and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. 5.Distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. 6.Deteriorated features from the restoration period 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. 7.Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically. 8.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. 9.Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 10.Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.ATTACHMENT 6Item 3 Packet Page 119 165 RESTORATION GUIDELINES FOR RESTORING HISTORIC BUILDINGS INTRODUCTION Restoration is the treatment that should be followed when the expressed goal of the project is to make the building appear as it did at a particular—and at its most significant—time in its his­ tory. The guidance provided by the Standards for Restoration and Guidelines for Restoring Historic Buildings is to first identify the materials and features from the restoration period. After these materi­ als and features have been identified, they should be maintained, protected, repaired, and replaced, when necessary. Unlike the other treatments in which most, if not all, of the historic elements are retained, restoration will likely include the removal of features from other periods. Missing features from the restoration period should be replaced, based on physical or historic documentation, with either the same or compatible substitute materials. Only those designs that can be documented as having been built should be recreated in a restoration project. Identify, Retain, and Preserve Materials and Features from the Restoration Period The guidance for the treatment Restoration begins with recom­ mendations to identify the form and detailing of those architectural materials and features that are significant to the restoration period as established by historic research and documentation. Therefore, guidance on identifying, retaining, and preserving features from the restoration period is always given first. Protect and Maintain Materials and Features from the Restoration Period After identifying those materials and features from the restoration period that must be retained in the process of Restoration work, then protecting and maintaining them are addressed. Protection generally involves the least degree of intervention and is prepara­ tory to other work. Protection includes the maintenance of materi­ als and features from the restoration period as well as ensuring that the property is protected before and during restoration work. An overall evaluation of the physical condition of the features from the restoration period should always begin at this level. Repair (Stabilize, Consolidate, and Conserve) Materials and Features from the Restoration Period Next, when the physical condition of restoration-period features requires additional work, repairing by stabilizing, consolidating, and conserving is recommended. Restoration guidance focuses on the preservation of those materials and features that are signifi­ cant to the period. In Restoration, repair may include the limited replacement in kind or with a compatible substitute material of extensively deteriorated or missing components of existing restoration-period features when there are surviving prototypes to use as a model. INTRODUCTION ATTACHMENT 6Item 3 Packet Page 120 166 RESTORATION Replace Extensively Deteriorated Features from the Restoration Period In Restoration, replacing an entire feature from the restoration period, such as a porch, that is too deteriorated to repair may be appropriate. Together with documentary evidence, the form and detailing of the historic feature should be used as a model for the replacement. Using the same kind of material is preferred; however, compatible substitute material may be considered. New work may be unobtrusively dated to guide future research and treatment. Remove Existing Features from Other Historic Periods Most buildings change over time, but in Restoration the goal is to depict the building as it appeared at the most significant time in its history. Thus, it may involve removing or altering existing historic features that do not represent the restoration period. Materials, fea­ tures, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods should be documented to guide future research and treatment prior to their alteration or removal. Recreate Missing Features from the Restoration Period Most Restoration projects involve recreating features that were significant to the building during the restoration period, such as a porch, but are now missing. Missing features to be replaced should be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence to ensure the restoration is accurate. Using the same materials to depict lost features is always the preferred approach; however, using compat­ ible substitute material is an acceptable alternative in Restoration because the goal of this treatment is to replicate the appearance of the historic building at a particular time. If documentary and physical evidence are not available to provide an accurate recreation of missing features, the treatment Rehabilitation might be a better overall approach to project work. Code-Required Work: Accessibility and Life Safety Sensitive solutions to meeting code requirements in a Restoration project are an important part of protecting the historic character of the building. Work that must be done to meet accessibility and life- safety requirements must also be assessed for its potential impact on the historic building as it is restored. Resilience to Natural Hazards Resilience to natural hazards should be addressed as part of a Resto­ ration project. A historic building may have existing characteristics or features that help to address or minimize the impacts of natu­ ral hazards. These should always be used to best advantage when planning new adaptive treatments that have the least impact on the historic character of the building, its site, and setting. Sustainability Sustainability should be addressed as part of a Restoration project. Good preservation practice is often synonymous with sustainability. Existing energy-efficient features should be retained and repaired. New sustainability treatments should generally be limited to updat­ ing existing features and systems to have the least impact on the historic character of the building. The topic of sustainability is addressed in detail in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation & Illustrated Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. Although specifi­ cally developed for the treatment Rehabilitation, the Sustainability Guidelines can be used to help guide the other treatments. INTRODUCTION ATTACHMENT 6Item 3 Packet Page 121 167 RESTORATION Restoration as a Treatment. When the property’s design, architectural, or historical significance during a particular period of time outweighs the potential loss of extant materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods; when there is substantial physical and documentary evidence for the work; and when contemporary altera­ tions and additions are not planned, Restoration may be considered as a treatment. Prior to undertaking work, a particular period of time, i.e., the restoration period, should be selected and justified, and a documentation plan for Restoration developed. INTRODUCTION ATTACHMENT 6Item 3 Packet Page 122 12 Zoning, or remove the property from historic listing if the structure on the property no longer meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the process for listing set forth herein. 14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource, the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the following criteria: A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. (1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure of: a. The relative purity of a traditional style; b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style; c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together. (2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of: a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique); b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. (3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to: ATTACHMENT 7Item 3 Packet Page 123 13 a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced development of the city, state or nation. b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30). B. Historic Criteria (1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was: a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally. b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials). (2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of: (i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city. (ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history). (3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects: a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g., County Museum). b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Park Hotel). ATTACHMENT 7Item 3 Packet Page 124