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