HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5h. Request to Remove 1720 Morro Street From Contributing Properties List (HIST-0495-2022) Item 5h
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: 11/15/2022
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY AT 1720 MORRO STREET
FROM THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF THE CITY’S
INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled, “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, removing the
property at 1720 Morro Street from the Inventory of Historic Resources.”
POLICY CONTEXT
The recommended action on this item is supported by historical preservation policies in
section 3.0 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’ s General Plan, and
with procedures and standards for listing of historic resources of The City’ s Historic
Preservation Ordinance San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (“SLOMC”) Sections 14.01.060
& 14.01.070. The Historic Preservation Ordinance states that to qualify as a resource, a
high degree of integrity must be maintained and that at least one of the historic
significance criteria is satisfied.
DISCUSSION
The owner of the property at 1720 Morro
Street has submitted an Historic
Preservation Review application, requesting
that the property be removed from the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources, as ineligible
for listing, based primarily on the
compromised historical integrity of the
building on the site. An evaluation of the
property and its eligibility for listing as an
historic resource has been prepared by
James Papp, PhD, historian and
architectural historian, to inform
consideration of this request (see
Attachment B).
Figure 1: 1720 Morro (1982)
Page 271 of 697
Item 5h
Site and Setting
The property is a residential parcel on the east side of Morro Street, about 150 feet south
of Leff Street, within the Old Town Historic District, one of the City’s oldest residential
neighborhoods, built up historically around the turn of the 20th Century, with older
structures dating back to the 1880s (see description of district, Attachment C).
The site is developed with a single-family dwelling (see Figure 1). As described in the
applicant’s Historic Resource Evaluation, the dwelling appears on a 1905 Sanborn Map,
but no permit record establishing a construction date has been found, nor is the architect
of the building known. City records (see Historic Resource Information, Attachment D)
describe the building as Neo-Colonial or Colonial Bungalow in style and discusses various
architectural elements of the building. The applicant’s evaluation more specifically
describes the style as “Colonial Revival Bungalow.”
Historic Listing
The property was included as a Contributing List Resource in the City’s Inventory of
Historic Resources in 1987, by adoption of Council Resolution 6424. Historic preservation
policies are set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s
General Plan, and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01)
implements these policies. Property may be designated as a Contributing List resource
where a building on it maintains its historic and architectural character, and contributes,
by itself or in conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of a
neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole, and satisfies at least one of the historic
significance criteria listed in the Ordinance (see Attachment E).
Architecture
Style and Design: The primary residence on this property is described in the applicant’s
evaluation as a Colonial Revival Bungalow, with historical context for the style provided
from page 6 of the document. As executed in the Old Town District, modest bungalows
in this style commonly had a pyramidal hipped roof with a ridge oriented perpendicular to
the street frontage, and an asymmetric façade with a windowed bay and a front porch
topped by a pedimented front gable (Attachment B, pg. 1, with example photos pp. 9 11).
These basic character-defining features were originally present on this home, but have
been impacted by a series of modifications to the building since its construction, including:
1. Oversized front dormer (by 1949)
2. Large Post-Modern style dormer on rear
3. South facing pedimented dormer (1965-1982)
4. Porch enclosure (by 2017), including modification and fluting of porch columns
5. Removal of 10-over-1 sash window from front façade (behind porch enclosure)
6. Replacement window in front bay (also now removed)
7. North-facing “push-out” addition and window (attached to rear porch enclosure)
8. New window opening in north-facing pediment
9. New window opening (now boarded) between originals on south elevation
10. Full width back porch enclosure
Page 272 of 697
Item 5h
With all of these modifications, the Papp evaluation describes loss of the original
appearance and character-defining features:
In addition to the loss or major alteration of all three character-defining
features of the street façade, the rear and side façades have been altered
by various eras of expedient pushouts, enclosures, and added and
removed fenestration, such that, among the chronological clutter, only
two windows in the entire house—both on the south façade, separated
by a stained glass window that was added and later removed—appear
to be original. (Papp, pg. 2)
The most visible elevation, the front façade, has been subjected to loss of character-
defining features by enclosure of the front porch, loss of the 10 over 1 sash window and
modification of porch columns, the addition of an oversize dormer to the hipped roof form,
and addition of the shed awning over the large window bay and removal of the original
window. Today, observable original elements of the building at large are limited to the
pedimented gable and window bay (missing the window from the opening) on the façade,
siding on the south elevation (interrupted with a new window opening), siding remaining
on some portions of the north elevation, the north-facing dormer (compromised by the
added window), and the box cornice and frieze details.
Work undertaken with these subsequent modifications would not be considered to be
consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historical Properties,
mainly because it resulted in the removal and destruction of character-defining features,
introduced incompatible new features, and substantially changed a roof form that was
important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Together these changes
have diminished the architectural and historic character of the building, as described in
the applicant’s evaluation
Figure 3: Addition to north elevation (left), added dormer window (center), rear dormer (right)
Figure 2: Modifications - bay (left), porch (center), and south elevation (right)
Page 273 of 697
Item 5h
Integrity
As defined in the Historical Preservation Ordinance, integrity is measured in large part by
the degree to which an historical resource has maintained its historic character or
appearance, to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reasons for its
significance, and the degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and association (§ 14.01.070 (C)). A discussion of the
historic integrity of the property, and in particular the cumulative effects of modifications
to the building since its construction, is provided in the applicant’s evaluation (Attachment
B, from pg. 20).
The loss of integrity discussed in the evaluation centers around the “cluttered and jarring”
effect that the modifications have had on the design, materials, workmanship, and feeling
of the building in its current state. The upper-floor additions and related outsize dormers
have obscured and complicated the original simple pyramid roof form. A recent porch
enclosure and modification of porch columns has effectively eliminated the original
characteristic porch and entry feature. Removal of the window from the front bay and
addition of a canopy has altered this feature, with no remaining documentation to aid in
its accurate reconstruction. And enclosures at the front and rear have altered the original
building form with significant removal of original wall material. As summarized in the
applicant’s evaluation:
In short, loss of 4 of the 7 Aspects of Integrity—design, workmanship,
and materials of the street façade and all secondary façades, and the
resultant feeling into which these three aspects of integrity aggregate—
has been so global and severe that 1720 Morro’s exterior no longer
communicates the streamlined and open nature of its original Colonial
Revival architecture or its consistency with the other 27 examples of the
subtype in the district. It is not eligible for historic resource listing ...
(Papp, pg. 2)
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed this Historical Preservation application,
requesting removal of the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, at a
public hearing on October 24th, 2022 and recommended by a vote of 5-1 that the Council
remove the property from the Contributing Properties List, finding that the orig inal dwelling
has lost integrity due to alterations and additions to the primary residence, such that it is
no longer eligible for listing as a Contributing List Resource.
Public Engagement
Public notice of this hearing has been provided to owners and occupants of property near
the subject site, and published in a widely circulated local newspaper, and hearing
agendas for this meeting have been posted at City Hall, consistent with adopted
notification procedures for development projects
Page 274 of 697
Item 5h
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.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2022-23
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $N/A $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $ $0 $ $0
The property on 1720 Morro Street is not a Mills Act approved property and hence does
not receive any property tax incentives. The cost for the consultant is borne by the
property owner through the application process.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Maintain 1720 Morro Street on the City’ s Inventory of Historic Resources, based
on findings that the property continues to satisfy the criteria for Historic
Resource Listing of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. This alternative
is not recommended because the Historic Resources Evaluation prepared for this
property indicates that the property is not eligible for listing as an historical resource.
2. Continue consideration of the request to a future date for additional information
or discussion.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution removing 1720 Morro from the Inventory of Historic Resources
B - Historical Resource Evaluation (James Papp, PhD)
C - Old Town Historic District (Historic Context Statement)
D - Historic Resource Information (City “Yellow File”)
E - Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
Page 275 of 697
Page 276 of 697
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2022 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REMOVING THE PROPERTY AT 1720 MORRO
STREET FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
(HIST-0495-2022)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Niels Udsen, submitted on August 31, 2022 an
application to remove the property located at 1720 Morro Street (“the Property”) from the
Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources (HIST-0495-2022); and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California on October 24, 2022 and recommended that the City Council
remove the property at 1720 Morro Street from the Contributing List of Historic
Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing on November 15, 2022 for the purpose of considering the request to remove the
property from the Inventory of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record
of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony of the
applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation presented by
staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
a) The property is not historically significant under the Integrity Criteria set out
in § 14.01.070 (C) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The
primary dwelling on the property does not possess the historic and
architectural integrity to qualify as a Contributing Historic Resource due to
previous alterations that have impaired the integrity of the Streamline
Colonial dwelling on the property.
Page 277 of 697
Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
R ______
b) The removal of the property from the City’s Contributing Properties List of
Historic Resources is consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance
because the building on the property lacks significance within the historical
contexts addressed by the Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
set out in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The
eligibility of the property for inclusion in the City’s Inventory of Historic
Resources has been evaluated by an architectural historian. As
summarized in the applicant’s statement submitted with application
HIST-0495-2022, that evaluation concluded that the primary structure on
the property no longer has the integrity to qualify as a Contributing Historic
Resource due to previous alterations, and that the property is not a
candidate for inclusion on the City’s Inventory.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. Consideration of continuing eligibility
of this property for historic listing is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 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. A
determination that the property is not eligible for historic listing will cause the removal of
the property from the City's Inventory of Historic Resources, but will have no direct
physical effect on the environment, as the determination does not approve any physical
site development. As such, it is does not have the potential for causing a significant effect
on the environment, and is covered by the general rule described in CEQA Guidelines
§15061(b)(3).
Page 278 of 697
Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 3
R ______
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby
determine that the structure located on the Property does not meet eligibility criteria for
listing as an Historic Resource and removes the Property from the Contributing Properties
List of Historic Resources.
Upon motion of ____________________, seconded by ____________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of ____________ 2022.
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________.
___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Page 279 of 697
Page 280 of 697
1
1720 Morro Street
Historic Resource Evaluation & Application to Remove from the Contributing List
Summary Conclusion
1720 Morro Street, added to the Contributing List in 1987, was, when built, an example of 1 of
2 closely related subtypes represented by 28 Contributing List Colonial Revival bungalows in
the Old Town Historic District. Their character-defining features are (1) a hip roof whose ridge
runs perpendicular to the street, giving a pyramidal appearance from the front, and (2) an
asymmetric façade with a porch on one side and windowed bay on the other, with (3) a
pediment (closed gable) above porch or bay.
In 27 of those 28 listed bungalows, the roof is in its original form, in 23 cases bare and in 4
cases with a small dormer in the form of an attic vent or light. In 27 of those 28 bungalows, the
bay is in its original form, with its original window or windows. In 22 of those 28 bungalows, the
porch is in its original form, unenclosed, and in a further 4, the primarily glass enclosure
continues to communicate that it is a porch rather than an integrated part of the house.
In this high average of integrity for the two subtypes, 1720 Morro Street is the singular
exception:
• Oversized, pedimented front- and south-facing dormers have been added to its roof, forming
a habitable half story but altering the façade and profile of the character-defining pyramidal
roof
• The original window of the character-defining bay was replaced by a huge stained glass
window with a structural canopy above. The stained glass window has been returned to the
previous owner, but lack of documentation of the original window renders reconstruction to
Secretary of the Interior Standards impossible.
Page 281 of 697
2
• In 2017, the character-defining porch was enclosed with a wall and window, so it is no longer
apparent it ever was a porch
• In addition to the loss or major alteration of all three character-defining features of the street
façade, the rear and side façades have been altered by various eras of expedient pushouts,
enclosures, and added and removed fenestration, such that, among the chronological clutter,
only two windows in the entire house—both on the south façade, separated by a stained glass
window that was added and later removed—appear to be original.
In short, loss of 4 of the 7 Aspects of Integrity—design, workmanship, and materials of the
street façade and all secondary façades, and the resultant feeling into which these three
aspects of integrity aggregate—has been so global and severe that 1720 Morro’s exterior no
longer communicates the streamlined and open nature of its original Colonial Revival
architecture or its consistency with the other 27 examples of the subtype in the district. It is
not eligible for historic resource listing, as it does not “exhibit a high level of historic integrity”
(14.01.070 Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing, San Luis Obispo Historic
Preservation Ordinance) and has not “maintained enough of its historic character or
appearance to be recognizable as a historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its
significance” (14.01.070.C.1). It should be removed from the Contributing List in order to
preserve the integrity of that list.
Fortunately, at least 22, at most 26, of the other 27 Contributing List examples of this subtype
of Colonial Revival architecture in the Old Town Historic District do retain the high level of
historic integrity to communicate their significance and remain eligible for the list.
Submitted by James Papp, PhD, historian and architectural historian, SOI Professional Qualification
Standards, on behalf of Niels and Bimmer Udsen, Max Udsen and Malina Wiebe
Page 282 of 697
3
Contents
Summary Conclusion 1
Chronology of 1720 Morro Street 4
Historic Context 6
Contributing List Asymmetric Pedimented Colonial Revival Bungalows in the
Old Town Historic District 9
Absence of Association with Historic Events or Persons 12
Period of Significance 12
Documentation of 1720 Morro Street, 1905–present 13
Loss of Integrity for 1720 Morro to Communicate Its Significance 20
Conclusion 22
Page 283 of 697
4
Chronology of 1720 Morro Street
1903–1908 The William J. Morris family is documented living at 1720 Morro Street.1
1906 A photograph from Terrace Hill records the roof of 1720 Morro with roof
cresting above the pediment gable but without dormers, consistent with
contemporary Colonial Revival bungalows with pyramidal roofs and pedimented
bays or pedimented porches in the immediate area.
1917 Mr. and Mrs. Charles Kinney move to 1720 Morro from British Columbia.2
1918 Mr. and Mrs. A. F. Mangless are living at 1720 Morro.3
1925–1927 Mr. and Mrs. Harry Eker are living at 1720 Morro.4
1933 Mr. and Mrs. F. D. Silva move to 1720 Morro.5
1936 Eric Luttropp is living at 1720 Morro.6
1941 Corp. Rolly C. Platte is living at 1720 Morro.7
1942 Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Fischer are living at 1720 Morro.8
1949 The street-facing dormer window appears clearly in an aerial photograph.
1954 Mr. and Mrs. Marvin C. Adams are living at 1720 Morro.9
1956 Mr. and Mrs Jack Hubbs are living at 1720 Morro.10
1968 Edward Stanley Salas owns and is living at 1720 Morro and adds a section of back
porch.11
1969 Earl Wayne Stanley, a college student arrested for possession for sale of
marijuana, is living at 1720 Morro.12
1975 W. L. Davidson owns 1720 Morro and receives a permit for a bedroom addition
(1720 Morro Address File).
1. “Personal Mention,” San Luis Obispo Tribune, 28 Mar. 1903, p. 4; “Births, Deaths, Marriages: MARTIN,” Daily
Telegram, 20 June 1908, p. 1.
2. “Chooses This City,” Daily Telegram, 14 Feb. 1917, p. 5.
3. “Local News Notes: To Valley,” Daily Telegram, 27 Aug. 1918, p. 5.
4. Daily Telegram: “Jewell Eker Dies at Fillmore,” 27 July 1925, p. 4; “Sunday School Fetes Teacher,” 3 Sep. 1927, p.
3. “To Valley,” Daily Telegram, 27 Aug. 1918, p. 5.
5. “About Town,” San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 1 May 1933, p. 2.
6. “Around the Town,” San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 27 Aug. 1936, p. 8.
7. “Obispan Released from Army Duty,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, 14 Nov. 1941, p. 5.
8. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune: “Churches: Zion English Lutheran, 25 Apr. 1942, p. 3; “Honor Fischers on
Golden Anniversary,” 26 Oct. 1943, p. 2.
9. “SLO County Men in Service,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, 24 June 1954, p. 4.
10. “18 Babies Make Their Debuts, Only Seven of Them Are Boys,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, 19 June 1956,
p. 4.
11. “Christmas Party Ends with Crash,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, 20 Dec. 1968, p. 2; 1720 Morro Address
File, Community Development Department.
12. “Marijuana Suspects Arrested,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald-Recorder, 29 May 1969, . p. 13.
Page 284 of 697
5
1982 1720 Morro is recorded by Chuck Crotser in the Historic Resources Survey,
including both dormers and the stained glass window and canopy on the bay
(ibid.).
1983 The Old Town Historic District is created.
1986 1720 Morro Street is assessed by R. Wall (ibid.)
1987 Added to the Contributing List.13
2017 Construction of the front porch enclosure is recorded in a Google Map street
view.
13. 1720 Morro, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
Page 285 of 697
6
Historic Context
The Colonial Revival style in architecture began during the interest and excitement around the
first American centennial. The legendary genesis was an 1877 sketching expedition of Colonial
architecture in Marblehead, Salem, and Newburyport, MA and Portsmouth, NH by William
Bigelow, Charles McKim, William Mead, and Stanford White, but Harper’s in 1875 had already
published illustrated articles on Colonial towns, whose old buildings were part of the attraction
of the new oceanside resorts.14 In January 1875, the journal New York Sketchbook of Architecture,
in the first mechanical reproduction of a photograph of an American building, had published a
view (below) of the shingled rear addition to Bishop Berkeley’s clapboard house, White Hall,
part of a series of photographs of Colonial Newport, RI buildings that McKim had
commissioned from William James Stillman in 1874.
Shortly after the 1877 sketching party, the firm of McKim, Mead, and Bigelow became McKim,
Mead, and White. It would dominate experimentation in Colonial Revival architecture, both in
the Shingle style and clapboard variant, the latter of which Virginia and Lee McAlester, in their
Field Guide to American Houses, call “asymmetrical form with superimposed Colonial details” but
I will refer to as Streamline Colonial, a term that captures its consistent modernizing aesthetic,
including in examples that are quite often symmetric.
McKim, Mead, and White catered to the plutocratic class of New York and New England, but
by the 1890s, the patriotic style was being adapted by architects and builders for the nation’s
developing suburbs. High-Peaked Colonial Revival was a 1½-story San Francisco Bay Area
variant, tucked into narrow suburban lots, of which the best San Luis example is the LeRoy
Smith House at the corner of Johnson and Mill, designed by Watsonville- and later Palo Alto–
based architect William H. Weeks, who also designed the high school, Carnegie Library, first
two buildings at Cal Poly, and Crocker and Marshall Houses.
14. Vincent J. Scully, Jr., The Shingle Style and the Stick Style, revised edition [New Haven: Yale University Press,
1971], p. 30, note 36.
Page 286 of 697
7
Smith, who would later become director of Cal Poly, had money of his own. Others needed
more modest accommodation.
One-story Colonial Revival bungalows would proliferate in Fremont Heights (later the Mill
Street Historic District) and particularly in the Vineyard, La Vina, and surrounding tracts that
would in 1983 be designated the Old Town Historic District.
McKim, Mead, and White’s Appleton (1883–1884) and Taylor Houses (1885–1886), both
asymmetric (to accommodate service wings) and streamlined (the Taylor House’s wraparound terrace
invisible because balustraded only at left and covered periodically). Most significant for the birth of
Streamline Colonial: both used clapboard instead of shingle siding.
These one-story Streamline Colonial bungalows were built in San Luis Obispo in a half dozen
common subtypes, with a few outlying subtypes of one or two examples. Some are clearly
Page 287 of 697
8
Colonial clones from plans or pattern books, but others seem to be on-the-spot adaptations of
a common vocabulary of expected features. The previously mentioned 27 Old Town Historic
District Colonial Revival bungalows similar to 1720 Morro are only those of two closely-related
subtypes on the Contributing List, with more examples on the Master List. The heyday of
Streamline Colonial bungalows in San Luis was 1900–1913, which overlaps with the Prairie style
and California Bungalow (aka, American Craftsman). But the Colonial Revival bungalow projects
an East Coast rather than Midwest or West Coast aesthetic—except where it subsumed a
japoniste aesthetic in a subtype with irimoya roofs. The extent to which that sybtype exists
outside of San Luis Obispo will require more research.
Streamline Colonial, Prairie style, and the California Bungalow—which all spread throughout
the United States—were destined to be swept away immediately after World War I by Minimal
Traditional revival styles, whose characteristic (and often impractical) shallow eaves,
emphasized roofs, and limited windows appear to have been inspired by the work of English
architect Sir Edwin Lutyens. Modernism and Mid-Century Modernism would hearken back to
many of the precepts of the California Bungalow, Prairie, and Streamline Colonial in their
treatment of linearity, horizontality, and shadow.
Left: W. H. Weeks’ 1905–1906 Smith House. In
the Bay Area, High-Peaked Colonial had its
narrow end facing the street; here a corner lot
allows a broad street façade. Above: Colonial
portico and Japanese irimoya roof in the ca.
1906–1907 Strickland House, 1152 Buchon, one
of two surviving irimoya-roofed Streamline
Colonial bungalows built by contractor Charles
Strickland.
Page 288 of 697
9
Contributing List Asymmetric Pedimented Colonial Revival Bungalows in the Old
Town Historic District
I. Asymmetric with pyramidal roof and pediment-topped porch
1. 641 Buchon
4. 985 Pismo
7. 1045 Islay
Original pyramidal dormer
10. 1512 Santa Rosa
2. 1132 Buchon
5. 663 Pismo|Chapek 1913
8. 572 Islay
Original pyramidal dormer
11. 1160 Buchon
3. 1137 Buchon
6. 657 Pismo|Chapek ca 1913
9. 1035 Islay
Later porch enclosure
12. 481 Islay
Page 289 of 697
10
II. Asymmetric with pyramidal roof and pediment-topped window bay
13. 578 Buchon|Esplin 1910
16. 1190 Buchon
19. 1627 Santa Rosa
22. 1428 Morro|Storz 1908
Later porch enclosure
24. 1035 Leff
14. 1051 Buchon
17. 683 Pismo
20. 1606 Santa Rosa
23. 1543 Morro
Later porch enclosure
25. 1520 Morro
15. 1165 Buchon
18. 1005 Islay
21. 1504 Santa Rosa|1900
Later pedimented dormers
Altered bay fenestration
Later porch enclosure
26. 1720 Morro
Page 290 of 697
11
Original pyramidal dormer
Later porch enclosure
27. 1624 Santa Rosa
Original pyramidal dormer
Later porch enclosure
28. 972 Church
Page 291 of 697
12
Absence of Association with Historic Events or Persons
No historic event at 1720 Morro Street is recorded in the contemporary press.
The chronology of 1720 Morro shows that it was primarily used as a rental property before
1972 (the fifty-year cut-off before which historic association would normally be considered),
and no tenants occupied it for long enough to establish association. William J. Morris, the first
known and probable original owner-occupant of the house, was, during his residence, a
Southern Pacific engineer or boilermaker and did not have the leadership in his profession or
the community that a historic figure requires under National Register Criteria.
Period of Significance
Given the absence of historic association, the significance of the primary dwelling at 1720
Morro Street is presumptively its embodiment of Colonial Revival bungalow architecture and
thus the period of significance its date of construction, circa 1903.
Page 292 of 697
13
Documentation of 1720 Morro Street, 1905–present
William J. Morris of Seattle, referred to as a new railroad engineer, subsequently boilermaker,
for the Southern Pacific arrived in San Luis in early 1903. By late 1903 the Wm. J. Morris his
residence was said to be on “southerly Morro Street.”15 In 1908 the residence of Mrs. W. J.
Morris was referred to as 1720 Morro, confirming the house as the same, i.e., on lot 5, block
176, in Cocke’s—later Graham’s—Addition.16
In a 1906 panoramic photograph of San Luis Obispo from Terrace Hill, 1720 Morro is visible
beyond the Graham House and old Tribune Building (1789 and Santa Barbara Avenue), with
the stable building of 1730 Morro to the south, south of that the Jones House facing Church
Street (972), and nothing to the north.17 The 1905 Sanborn Map confirms the placement.
Above: 1720 Morro’s roof appears behind trees at center rear of this 1906 detail from Terrace Hill.
Center front are the 1885 Lozelle and Katie Graham House and the Tribune-Republic Building, moved
to the site in 1905. The 1885 William and Lydia Graham House is at right. At left is the 1903 James
and Alice Herron Jones House, with the stable at 1730 Morro behind it. 1720’s roof (below right)
shows ridge cresting on its front gable but no dormers on the hip roof.
15. San Luis Obispo Tribune: “Personal Mention,” 28 Mar. 1903, p. 4; “Native Missourian Dies,” 24 Nov. 1903, p. 4.
16. “Births, Deaths, Marriages: MARTIN,” Daily Telegram, 20 June 1908, p. 1.
17. “San Luis Obispo, panoramic view from Terrace Hill, 1907,” 168-1-b-01-35-01, San Luis Obispo County
Regional Photograph Collection, Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives.
At left: 1905 Sanborn Map, with a faint outline where the
Tribune-Republic Building will go, between the two Graham
Houses at bottom right. 1720 Morro is the left topmost
building. 1730 has a non-dwelling, possibly an open shed, and
stable. The Jones House is at bottom left, the Chicago Hotel,
now The Establishment, at top right.
Page 293 of 697
14
Above: 1926–1956 Sanborn Map, block 176 and
Triangle Park, backlit to show alterations. 1720
Morro appears as it did on the 1905 map, with
an asymmetric porch in front and full-width porch
in back. Top right: 3 May 1965 aerial photo of
block 176. Second from top right: 1720 from the
1 Jan. 1949 aerial photo, with a shadow showing
the presence of the front dormer. Second from
bottom right: 1720 from the 1965 aerial photo.
Bottom right: Current Google Satellite view
showing the front, south, and rear dormers.
Below: 1720 from the 1926–1956 Sanborn Map.
Page 294 of 697
15
Above: 1720 Morro at the time of the 1982 Historic Resources Survey, when it was recorded with
great detail and accuracy by Chuck Crotser, who did not make judgments on what was and was not
original. The original window or windows on the bay had already been replaced with stained glass, the
canopy above the window added, and the two dormers added, at different times, to the roof. Thirty-five
years later, the porch would be enclosed and the mullioned porch window, noted by Crotser, would be
destroyed or obscured from view, with one and a half of the elephant leg columns disappearing and the
remainder being fluted on their street side. Below: the 2017 Google Map street view shows construction
in progress on the enclosure of the front porch to the right, with a modern window added.
Page 295 of 697
16
Above: enclosed front porch, revealing no clue as to the original function. Below left: likely original door
with later glazing. Below right: Later falsely historicist French door leading to deck, north façade.
Page 296 of 697
17
Above: later pushout, in part possibly dating before 1965, with modern bay window, north façade.
Below: The north façade pediment gable, with original diamond and scalloped wall shingle, altered by
the insertion of a later window to make the attic habitable. The chimney is also a later addition.
Page 297 of 697
18
Above: the rear of the house, with a Postmodern dormer looming over a full-width ground-floor addition
that is probably an enclosure of the original porch, extended on both sides, on the right before 1965
and the left in 1968, the latter according to one of the few extant permits connected to the house in
the city’s address file. Enclosure to the right may have included a 1936 permitted bathroom (City of
San Luis Obispo Historic Building Permit Collection, Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives). Below:
South façade, showing the house’s only two surviving original windows, plus the boarding up of an
added but subsequently removed stained glass window between.
Page 298 of 697
19
Street view of the street and south façades shows how the two added dormers and enclosure of the
porch have completely changed the profile and fabric of the house for the public. The half-columns on
either side of the front door and the window and shiplap at lower center are the only original design,
materials, or workmanship visible.
1720 Morro was first described by Chuck Crotser in the 1982 Historic Resources Survey,
where he was scrupulous in detail but did not speculate on the age or originality of the various
elements of the house. In 1986 a one-page report signed by R. Wall noted that the stained glass
window and canopy on the bay were not original but “add to the beauty of this home” and
opined, incorrectly, that “their addition does not constitute an irreversible change to the
façade” (1720 Morro Address File, Community Development Department). The loss of the
original windows and the lack of documentation to reconstruct them to Secretary of the
Interior Standards do constitute an irreversible change.
The report inaccurately accepted the dormers as original with stick elements. It emphasized the
transitional significance of the ten-over-one porch window and the elephant leg columns, which
have both subsequently been lost. The “beauty and unusual features” that the report concluded
would “assure its position as an important part of the Old Town Historic District” were either
not original or transitory.
The property was added to the Contributing List in 1987.
Page 299 of 697
20
Loss of Integrity for 1720 Morro to Communicate Its Significance
1720 Morro Street is in the same location as when it was built. The suburban setting is
adequately consistent: The house was the first on the 1700 block of Morro, and apart from the
Jones House at 972 Church Street, the buildings that flank and face it all postdate 1720 Morro’s
construction. But the area had been subdivided for suburban development, and a number of
pre-existing buildings on block 176, facing Santa Barbara Avenue (The Establishment [Chicago
Hotel], the Tribune-Republic Building, the two Graham Houses, and the Jones House) still
survive. Association is not relevant here, as no link between the property and a historic
person or event can be found.
Street façade: only the shingle-faced pediment above the bay, the small amount of remaining shiplap on
the bay, and the flanking door columns and door (apart from its glass) are original; the rest is falsely
historicist alteration and addition
The loss of integrity is found in design, materials, workmanship, and the feeling that is the
aggregate of these qualities and setting.
The changes include, on the street façade:
• addition of an oversize front-facing dormer by 1949 and south-facing pedimented dormer
between 1965 and 1982
• enclosure of the front porch in 2017, so that it no longer communicates having been a
porch, loss of one and a half porch columns, and addition of falsely historicist fluting on
the one and a half columns remaining
Page 300 of 697
21
• replacement of the fenestration in the pedimented bay with a large stained glass window,
which itself was removed in 2022, with no documentation to allow reconstruction to
Secretary of the Interior Standards
• structural canopy over the bay’s windows
• non-period glass in the original door
on the north façade:
• pushout with modern bay window, attached to the enclosure of the back porch
• falsely historicist French door leading to a late-twentieth-century deck
• insertion of an ahistoric sash window into the pediment
on the south façade:
• installation of a stained glass window (now removed and the space boarded up) between
the only two original windows of the house
• installation of the previously mentioned oversize south-facing dormer
on the rear façade:
• apparent enclosure and extension of the full-width back porch with variable wall and
windows, topped by a monumental Postmodern dormer
It is possible—with expert knowledge of the Colonial Revival bungalow subtype that 1720
Morro originally embodied, along with early photographic documentation—to imagine what the
house looked like in its period of significance. But it no longer communicates what it looked like
to the ordinary observer on the street, for whom historic preservation is intended. The false
historicism of its dormers, French and bay windows, fluted columns, and modern shiplap siding
violate Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and may mislead both amateur and
expert. It certainly misled those who placed the house on the Contributing List in 1987.
Page 301 of 697
22
Conclusion
1720 Morro having been redesigned for interior accommodation, the exterior effect is
cluttered and jarring, the opposite of the streamlining that made clapboard Colonial Revival
bungalows historically significant. There is no façade, least of all the street façade, that
predominately communicates the original design, materials, workmanship, or feeling of the
house. The house’s lack of integrity to communicate its significance makes it ineligible for listing
under the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, which requires a historic resource to “exhibit
a high level of historic integrity” and to have “maintained enough of its historic character or
appearance to be recognizable as a historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its
significance.” There is insufficient documentation for reconstruction to Secretary of the Interior
Standards, even if the city had the power to require such reconstruction. Removal from the
Contributing List is the only reasonable solution.
Fortunately, the vast majority of the 28 examples of the two subtypes of asymmetric,
pedimented Colonial Revival bungalows on the Contributing List in the Old Town Historic
District exhibit a high level of integrity. The removal of 1720 Morro Street from the
Contributing List will give the list as a whole more validity.
Page 302 of 697
34
5.2.1 Old Town Historic District
Setting
Established in 1987, the Old Town Historic District abuts the Railroad district on the southeast
and is generally bounded by Pacific and Islay streets on the north and south, and by Santa Rosa
and Beach streets on the east and west. As one of the City’s oldest residential neighborhoods,
Old Town was built up historically around the turn of the twentieth century, with older structures
dating back to the 1880s. It consists of five subdivisions: the Mission Vineyard Tract recorded
in March 1873, the Dallidet Tract recorded in 1876, the Murray Church Tract recorded in 1876,
the Ingleside Homestead Tract, recorded in 1887, and the La Vina Homestead Tract, recorded in
1903. The District encompasses 86.1 acres, or 0.13 square miles.
The District’s prominent location, located just south of and uphill from the Downtown
commercial district, made it a desirable neighborhood for the City’s emerging merchant class
and leading citizens. Here, residents were close to businesses and commerce, but could avoid the
flooding and mud that plagued the Downtown. Home sites were laid out in regular grid
patterns, with relatively wide (60 foot right-of-way) streets and 60 foot wide lots. The resultant
wide streets and lot frontages allowed deep (20+ feet) setbacks and ample landscaping,
reinforcing the district’s prosperous image. Today the high concentration of 100 year old or
older residences establishes the District’s predominant architectural and visual character.
Site Features and Characteristics
Common site features and characteristics
include:
A. Prominent street yard setbacks of 20
feet or more
B. Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear
yard
C. Finish floors raised 2 3 above finish
grade
D. Front entries oriented toward street,
with prominent walk, stairs and porch
E. Front building facades oriented
parallel to street
1060 Pismo Street, South Elevation
Page 303 of 697
35
Architectural Character
In keeping with its peak period of development between 1880 and 1920, the Old Town District
has many examples of High Victorian architecture, a style popular in California during that time
period that reflected prosperity, power and discriminating taste. This included several style
variations, such as Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences, especially along
the top of the hill within the district roughly aligned with Buchon Street. Other, more modest
structures with simpler styles abound in other areas of the district. These buildings were first
home to the burgeoning merchant class in San Luis Obispo that emerged during the turn of the
century. These styles include Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman Bungalow,
with many homes borrowing architectural details from several styles. Most of the houses in this
district were designed and constructed by the homes’ first occupants or by local builders and
were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period. The shared first story porches
along Pismo Street are a good example of a common design feature linking buildings.
Predominant architectural features include:
A. Two- and rarely three-story houses
B. Mostly gable and hip roof types
C. Highly ornamented roof features,
including prominent fascias,
bargeboards, gable end treatments,
decorative shingles, prominent
pediments or cornices
D. Traditional fenestration, such as
double-hung, wood sash windows,
divided light windows, ornamental
front doors, wood screen doors
E. Painted wood surface material,
including siding and decorative
moldings
Although many of the buildings were built at separate times, the pattern, rhythm and repetition of
common design elements or detailing of historic building facades along Old Town streets creates
a prevailing theme and character for the
district.
Individually Contributing Elements in the
Old Town District
Some buildings within the bounds of the Old
Town District, constructed outside of the
period of significance for the district, 1880-
1920, do not share the elements outlined in the
above description, but have achieved
historical significance on their own and
1543 Morro Street, East Elevation
M.F. Avila House, 1443 Osos Street, East
Elevation Page 304 of 697
36
therefore individually contribute to the historic character of San Luis Obispo.
The M.F. Avila House at 1443 Osos Street is an example of a Spanish Revival style building
built in the late 1920s that has been placed on the City’s Master List as a significant resource, in
this case for its craftsmanship as well as its association with a historically significant local
person. St. Stephens Episcopal Church at 1344 Nipomo Street built in 1873 is an example of
Carpenter Gothic style. The first Episcopal church in San Luis Obispo County, St. Stephens is
historically significant both its architecture and its association with the pioneer period of San
Luis Obispo.
Non-Contributing Elements in the Old Town District
Non-contributing buildings are those buildings that both do not meet the criteria outlined above
and have not achieved historical significance. Most of the contemporary buildings in the district
fall into this category.
Non-contributing architectural styles,
materials or site features include:
A. Contemporary stucco or other material
exterior siding
B. Flat or extremely low pitched roof
C. Aluminum sliding windows
D. Rectilinear, “boxy” shape or very
horizontal massing
E. Unarticulated wall surfaces
The Vista Grande Apartments, 1415 Morro
Street, East Elevation.
Page 305 of 697
37
***
1059 Leff Street; Biddle House, 559 Pismo Street; 1624, 1636, 1642 Morro Street; and
Pismo Buchon Alley from Santa Rosa Street
Page 306 of 697
Page 307 of 697
Page 308 of 697
Page 309 of 697
Page 310 of 697
=RQLQJRUUHPRYHWKHSURSHUW\IURPKLVWRULFOLVWLQJLIWKHVWUXFWXUHRQWKHSURSHUW\QRORQJHU
PHHWVHOLJLELOLW\FULWHULDIRUOLVWLQJIROORZLQJWKHSURFHVVIRUOLVWLQJVHWIRUWKKHUHLQ
(YDOXDWLRQ&ULWHULDIRU+LVWRULF5HVRXUFH/LVWLQJ
:KHQGHWHUPLQLQJLIDSURSHUW\VKRXOGEHGHVLJQDWHGDVDOLVWHG+LVWRULFRU&XOWXUDO5HVRXUFH
WKH&+&DQG&LW\&RXQFLOVKDOOFRQVLGHUWKLVRUGLQDQFHDQG6WDWH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2IILFH
³6+32´ VWDQGDUGV,QRUGHUWREHHOLJLEOHIRUGHVLJQDWLRQWKHUHVRXUFHVKDOOH[KLELWDKLJK
OHYHORIKLVWRULFLQWHJULW\EHDWOHDVWILIW\ \HDUVROG OHVVWKDQLILWFDQEHGHPRQVWUDWHG
WKDWHQRXJKWLPHKDVSDVVHGWRXQGHUVWDQGLWVKLVWRULFDOLPSRUWDQFH DQGVDWLVI\DWOHDVWRQHRIWKH
IROORZLQJFULWHULD
$$UFKLWHFWXUDO&ULWHULD (PERGLHVWKHGLVWLQFWLYHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIDW\SHSHULRGUHJLRQRU
PHWKRGRIFRQVWUXFWLRQRUUHSUHVHQWVWKHZRUNRIDPDVWHURUSRVVHVVHVKLJKDUWLVWLFYDOXHV
6W\OH 'HVFULEHVWKHIRUPRIDEXLOGLQJVXFKDVVL]HVWUXFWXUDOVKDSHDQGGHWDLOV
ZLWKLQWKDWIRUP HJDUUDQJHPHQWRIZLQGRZVDQGGRRUVRUQDPHQWDWLRQHWF %XLOGLQJ
VW\OHZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRI
D 7KHUHODWLYHSXULW\RIDWUDGLWLRQDOVW\OH
E 5DULW\RIH[LVWHQFHDWDQ\WLPHLQWKHORFDOH DQGRUFXUUHQWUDULW\DOWKRXJKWKH
VWUXFWXUHUHIOHFWVDRQFHSRSXODUVW\OH
F 7UDGLWLRQDOYHUQDFXODUDQGRUHFOHFWLFLQIOXHQFHVWKDWUHSUHVHQWDSDUWLFXODUVRFLDO
PLOLHXDQGSHULRGRIWKHFRPPXQLW\ DQGRUWKHXQLTXHQHVVRIK\EULGVW\OHVDQGKRZ
WKHVHVW\OHVDUHSXWWRJHWKHU
'HVLJQ 'HVFULEHVWKHDUFKLWHFWXUDOFRQFHSWRIDVWUXFWXUHDQGWKHTXDOLW\RIDUWLVWLF
PHULWDQGFUDIWVPDQVKLSRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOSDUWV5HIOHFWVKRZZHOODSDUWLFXODUVW\OHRU
FRPELQDWLRQ RI VW\OHV DUH H[SUHVVHG WKURXJK FRPSDWLELOLW\ DQG GHWDLOLQJ RI HOHPHQWV
$OVR VXJJHVWV GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH GHVLJQHU HJ FDUSHQWHUEXLOGHU DFFXUDWHO\
LQWHUSUHWHGDQGFRQYH\HGWKHVW\OH V %XLOGLQJGHVLJQZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRI
D 1RWDEOHDWWUDFWLYHQHVVZLWKDHVWKHWLFDSSHDOEHFDXVHRILWVDUWLVWLFPHULWGHWDLOVDQG
FUDIWVPDQVKLS HYHQLIQRWQHFHVVDULO\XQLTXH
E $Q H[SUHVVLRQ RI LQWHUHVWLQJ GHWDLOV DQG HFOHFWLFLVP DPRQJ FDUSHQWHUEXLOGHUV
DOWKRXJKWKHFUDIWVPDQVKLSDQGDUWLVWLFTXDOLW\PD\QRWEHVXSHULRU
$UFKLWHFW 'HVFULEHVWKHSURIHVVLRQDO DQLQGLYLGXDORUILUP GLUHFWO\UHVSRQVLEOHIRU
WKH EXLOGLQJ GHVLJQ DQG SODQV RI WKH VWUXFWXUH 7KH DUFKLWHFWZLOO EH HYDOXDWHG DV D
UHIHUHQFHWR
Page 311 of 697
D $ QRWDEOH DUFKLWHFW HJ :ULJKW 0RUJDQ LQFOXGLQJ DUFKLWHFWV ZKR PDGH
VLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQVWRWKHVWDWHRUUHJLRQRUDQDUFKLWHFWZKRVHZRUNLQIOXHQFHG
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHFLW\VWDWHRUQDWLRQ
E $QDUFKLWHFWZKRLQWHUPVRIFUDIWVPDQVKLSPDGHVLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQVWR6DQ
/XLV2ELVSR HJ$EUDKDPVZKRDFFRUGLQJWRORFDOVRXUFHVGHVLJQHGWKHKRXVHDW
2VRV)UDQN$YLOD
VIDWKHU
VKRPHEXLOWEHWZHHQ ±
%+LVWRULF&ULWHULD
+LVWRU\±3HUVRQ $VVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHOLYHVRISHUVRQVLPSRUWDQWWRORFDO&DOLIRUQLD
RUQDWLRQDOKLVWRU\+LVWRULFSHUVRQZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRIWKHGHJUHHWRZKLFK
DSHUVRQRUJURXSZDV
D 6LJQLILFDQWWRWKHFRPPXQLW\DVDSXEOLFOHDGHU HJPD\RUFRQJUHVVPHPEHU
HWF RU IRU KLV RU KHU IDPH DQG RXWVWDQGLQJ UHFRJQLWLRQ ORFDOO\ UHJLRQDOO\ RU
QDWLRQDOO\
E 6LJQLILFDQWWRWKHFRPPXQLW\DVDSXEOLFVHUYDQWRUSHUVRQZKRPDGHHDUO\XQLTXH
RURXWVWDQGLQJFRQWULEXWLRQVWRWKHFRPPXQLW\LPSRUWDQWORFDODIIDLUVRULQVWLWXWLRQV
HJ FRXQFLO PHPEHUV HGXFDWRUV PHGLFDO SURIHVVLRQDOV FOHUJ\PHQ UDLOURDG
RIILFLDOV
+LVWRU\±(YHQW $VVRFLDWHGZLWKHYHQWVWKDWKDYHPDGHDVLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQWR
WKHEURDGSDWWHUQVRIORFDORUUHJLRQDOKLVWRU\RUWKHFXOWXUDOKHULWDJHRI&DOLIRUQLDRUWKH
8QLWHG6WDWHV+LVWRULFHYHQWZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRI
L $ODQGPDUNIDPRXVRUILUVWRILWVNLQGHYHQWIRUWKHFLW\UHJDUGOHVVRIZKHWKHU
WKHLPSDFWRIWKHHYHQWVSUHDGEH\RQGWKHFLW\
LL $UHODWLYHO\XQLTXHLPSRUWDQWRULQWHUHVWLQJFRQWULEXWLRQWRWKHFLW\ HJWKH$K
/RXLV6WRUHDVWKHFHQWHUIRU&KLQHVH$PHULFDQFXOWXUDODFWLYLWLHVLQHDUO\6DQ/XLV
2ELVSRKLVWRU\
+LVWRU\&RQWH[W $VVRFLDWHG ZLWK DQG DOVR D SULPH LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI SUHGRPLQDQW
SDWWHUQV RI SROLWLFDO VRFLDO HFRQRPLF FXOWXUDO PHGLFDO HGXFDWLRQDO JRYHUQPHQWDO
PLOLWDU\LQGXVWULDORUUHOLJLRXVKLVWRU\+LVWRULFFRQWH[WZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUH
RIWKHGHJUHHWRZKLFKLWUHIOHFWV
D (DUO\ILUVWRUPDMRUSDWWHUQVRIORFDOKLVWRU\UHJDUGOHVVRIZKHWKHUWKHKLVWRULF
HIIHFWVJREH\RQGWKHFLW\OHYHOWKDWDUHLQWLPDWHO\FRQQHFWHGZLWKWKHEXLOGLQJ HJ
&RXQW\0XVHXP
E 6HFRQGDU\SDWWHUQVRIORFDOKLVWRU\EXWFORVHO\DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHEXLOGLQJ HJ
3DUN+RWHO
Page 312 of 697
&,QWHJULW\ $XWKHQWLFLW\ RI DQ KLVWRULFDO UHVRXUFH¶V SK\VLFDO LGHQWLW\ HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH
VXUYLYDORIFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWH[LVWHGGXULQJWKHUHVRXUFH¶VSHULRGRIVLJQLILFDQFH,QWHJULW\
ZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGE\DPHDVXUHRI
:KHWKHURUQRWDVWUXFWXUHRFFXSLHVLWVRULJLQDOVLWHDQGRUZKHWKHURUQRWWKH
RULJLQDOIRXQGDWLRQKDVEHHQFKDQJHGLINQRZQ
7KHGHJUHHWRZKLFKWKHVWUXFWXUHKDVPDLQWDLQHGHQRXJKRILWVKLVWRULFFKDUDFWHU
RUDSSHDUDQFHWREHUHFRJQL]DEOHDVDQKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHDQGWRFRQYH\WKHUHDVRQ V
IRULWVVLJQLILFDQFH
7KH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH UHVRXUFH KDV UHWDLQHG LWV GHVLJQ VHWWLQJ PDWHULDOV
ZRUNPDQVKLSIHHOLQJDQGDVVRFLDWLRQ
+LVWRULF'LVWULFW'HVLJQDWLRQ3XUSRVHDQG$SSOLFDWLRQ
$+LVWRULF + 'LVWULFWGHVLJQDWLRQ$OOSURSHUWLHVZLWKLQKLVWRULFGLVWULFWVVKDOOEHGHVLJQDWHG
E\DQ³+´]RQLQJ3URSHUWLHV]RQHG³+´VKDOOEHVXEMHFWWRWKHSURYLVLRQVDQGVWDQGDUGVDV
SURYLGHGLQ2UGLQDQFH =RQLQJ RIWKH0XQLFLSDO&RGH
%3XUSRVHVRI+LVWRULF'LVWULFWV7KHSXUSRVHVRIKLVWRULFGLVWULFWVDQG+]RQHGHVLJQDWLRQDUH
WR
,PSOHPHQW FXOWXUDO UHVRXUFH SUHVHUYDWLRQ SROLFLHV RI WKH *HQHUDO 3ODQ WKH
SUHVHUYDWLRQ SURYLVLRQV RI DGRSWHG DUHD SODQV WKH +LVWRULF 3UHVHUYDWLRQ DQG
$UFKDHRORJLFDO5HVRXUFH3UHVHUYDWLRQ3URJUDP*XLGHOLQHVDQG
,GHQWLI\DQGSUHVHUYHGHILQDEOHXQLILHGJHRJUDSKLFDOHQWLWLHVWKDWSRVVHVVDVLJQLILFDQW
FRQFHQWUDWLRQOLQNDJHRUFRQWLQXLW\RIVLWHVEXLOGLQJVVWUXFWXUHVRUREMHFWVXQLWHG
KLVWRULFDOO\RUDHVWKHWLFDOO\E\SODQRUSK\VLFDOGHYHORSPHQW
,PSOHPHQW KLVWRULF SUHVHUYDWLRQ SURYLVLRQV RI DGRSWHG DUHDDQG QHLJKERUKRRG
LPSURYHPHQWSODQV
(QKDQFHDQGSUHVHUYHWKHVHWWLQJRIKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHVVRWKDWVXUURXQGLQJODQGXVHV
DQGVWUXFWXUHVGRQRWGHWUDFWIURPWKHKLVWRULFRUDUFKLWHFWXUDOLQWHJULW\RIGHVLJQDWHG
KLVWRULFUHVRXUFHVDQGGLVWULFWV DQG
3URPRWHWKHSXEOLFXQGHUVWDQGLQJDQGDSSUHFLDWLRQRIKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHV
&(OLJLELOLW\IRULQFHQWLYHV3URSHUWLHV]RQHGDV+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ + VKDOOEHHOLJLEOHIRU
SUHVHUYDWLRQLQFHQWLYHDQGEHQHILWSURJUDPVDVHVWDEOLVKHGKHUHLQLQWKH*XLGHOLQHVDQGRWKHU
ORFDOVWDWHDQGIHGHUDOSURJUDPV
Page 313 of 697
Page 314 of 697
1010 Marsh St., San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 546-8208 e FAX (805) 546-8641
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
County of San Luis Obispo,
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the county aforesaid; I am over the age of
eighteen years, and not a party interested in the
above entitled matter. I am the principal clerk
of the printer of the New Times, a newspaper
of general circulation, printed and published
weekly in the City of San Luis Obispo, County
of San Luis Obispo, and which has been
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by
the Superior Court of the County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, under the date of
February 5, 1993, Case number CV72789: that
notice of which the annexed is a printed copy
(set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been
published in each regular and entire issue of said
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on
the following dates, to -wit:
��
yQL, 1�Jlair 'J
in the year 2022.
I certify (or declare) under the the penalty of
perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Date c�gt San Luis Obispo, California, this day
T of 0V 2022.
A&Y—Vkz
Michael Gould, New Times Legals
Proof of Publication of
SAN LUIS OBISPO
0 CITY COUNCIL
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The San Luis Obispo City Council invites all interested persons
to attend a public hearing on Tuesday, November 15, 2022 M
5:30 p.m. held in the Council Chambers at Ciry Hall, , palm
Street, San Luis Obispo. Please note that Zoom participator,
will not be supported, as this will be an i
iewetln-person meeting.
Meetings can be vremotely on Government Access
Channel 20 or streamed live from the Cinve YouTube cet
hannel htto7/v�� public comment, prior, the start oft,m meeting, may be submitted in writing via U.S. Mail delivered to
the City Clerk's office at 990 palm Street, San Lois Obispo, CA
93401 or by email to ama'Ico��
PUBLIC NEARING ITEMS: As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee,
adopt a resolution removing the property of 1720 Morro
Street from the Cardinal , Prap¢rties Us[ at Historic
Resources in the Gigs Inventory of Historic Resources.
Consideration of eligibility for historic listing is exempt
from the provisions of the Celdomie Environmmrtal
Quality Act ICEOAI under the general rule described in
CEOA Guideline, § 15061 (b) (3), as it is does not have
the potential for causing a significant effect an the
environment. (1720 Moran Street, RIST-04g5.2g22)
For more information, you are invited m contact Wltaer
Oa¢ell ofthe Ciry's Communily0evelopment 0eparhnenl
aH805/781J5a8 or wo¢p lgbal iry
• As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee,
adopt a resolution adding the property at 1133 Pismo Street known as the Thomas and May Brechem
House, to the City's Inventory of Historic Resources as
a Master List Resource. This Project is emarieri'a_
Far more information you are invited to com et
Graham 8u8ema at the Calyi, Community Develnpmem
Oepamnentat(805)781-7111arabuitma®sl irv,O.
The CityCouncilCouncil may also discuss other hearings business
items before or after the items listed above. If you challenge
the proposed project in court, you may be limited to raising
Only those issues you or someone else raised at the public
hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence'
delivered to the City Council at or prior to, the public hearing.
Council Agenda Reports for this meeting will be available
for review one weak in advance of the meeting date on the
CitysJlwebsite, under the Public Meeting Agendas web e:
4GgslNStw sl "N / pagI/
Sg. Please call the C Office 180.81781-7114 for mare information. The City Council meeting
will be televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20 and li
streaming on the Cry's YouTube channel h
November 3, 2022
Pdmin & pe,niul/.NiMG AdNn/NTM4�4e/BUSINESS/ WNk Nm4.n/prvdd Wb