HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6a. 1220 Mill Street (ARCH-0613-2022)
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 1220 MILL STREET (ARCH-0613-2022) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF
THE REHABILITATION OF, AND ADDITION TO, A DW ELLING, AND CONSTRUCTION
OF A GARAGE AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (CONTRIBUTING LIST
PROPERTY; MILL STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT)
BY: Walter Oetzell FROM: Brian Leveille
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Phone Number: (805) 781-7166
Email: woetzell@slocity.org Email: bleveille@slocity.org
APPLICANT: Tricia and Michael Mitchell REPRESENTATIVE: Dana Hunter
RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director as to the consistency
of the proposed work with applicable historical preservation policies, standards, and
guidelines.
1.0 BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes modifications and a
two-story addition to the primary dwelling on
a Contributing List Property, along with
construction of a new two-story building
behind the dwelling, accommodating a
garage and Accessory Dwelling Unit. One
dwelling and one garage structure will be
demolished to make way for the proposed
new building.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The property is located on the north side of
Mill Street, 140 feet east of Toro Street, in a
Medium High Density Residential (R-3) Zone characterized by single family dwellings. It
is also within the Mill Street Historic District, which developed at the turn of the 20th
century on high ground in response to seasonal flooding and fires that plagued early
development in the City, with the majority of the existing buildings dating from the 1900s
to 1920s. (see description of the District, Attachment A). The property was designated as
Contributing within the Mill Street District in the 1983 Completion Report for the City’s
Historic Resources Survey.
The site is developed with two dwellings and a garage structure, with the primary dwelling
situated at the front of the property. County Assessor records indicate 1910 as the year
Meeting Date: 7/24/2023
Item Number: 6a
Time Estimate: 30 Minutes
Page 11 of 90
Item 6a
ARCH-0613-2022 (1220 Mill)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 24, 2023
this structure was built. An Architectural
Worksheet prepared in 1983
(Attachment B) describes the architectural
style as “Classic Row,” noting its open
front porch with steps and single turned
column, and a modified projecting bay on
the side of the building (center window
removed, covered in clapboard). The style
of the building most closely corresponds to
the “Neo-Classical Cottage style
described in the City Historic Context
Statement (Attachment C), and the
building exhibits the characteristic
features of the style as described, such as
its simple square form, wood cladding, simple trim, and porch support post.
A Historic Resource Evaluation and Certificate of Appropriateness was prepared on
behalf of the applicant by James Papp, PhD, a historian and Architectural Historian,
discussing the history of the property and buildings on it (Attachment D). The historical
context around the period of significance of the primary dwelling is described, along with
the building’s character-defining features:
[The dwelling] embodies the Colonial Revival type of construction, with low-pitched
hip roof, asymmetric entry porch supported by a single Tuscan column, triple and
double windows, front accent window, canted bay, and novelty siding with shingle
dado. (Evaluation pg. 3)
2.2 Proposed Work
Demolition. As part of this project, the two structures behind the primary dwelling are
proposed to be demolished: a second dwelling built in 1922 and a garage built in 1923.
The applicant’s Historic Resource Evaluation concludes (Atta chment D, pp. 2-5) that
neither the second dwelling nor the garage on the site are historically or architecturally
significant. The second dwelling emulated aspects of the California Bungalow style (which
by 1922 had already passed its peak), but only referentially, and lacked the spatial
characteristics of the style. And although the garage exhibits an interesting hybrid of box
frame and clapboard front, it is not a notable example of box frame construction and is
not architecturally or historically significant (Attachment D, pp. 20-21).
Rehabilitation – Existing Dwelling. The applicant’s historical evaluation and project plans
(Attachments D & E) depict and describe rehabilitation work to be done to the existing
dwelling, consisting primarily of:
Adding a window to the canted bay on the west façade
Shifting the position four windows: two on the west façade, two on the east façade
Replacement of sash windows (not original) with replicas of the original windows
Figure 1: 1220 Mill Street
Page 12 of 90
Item 6a
ARCH-0613-2022 (1220 Mill)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 24, 2023
The intent of the rehabilitation work is to preserve the character -defining features of the
dwelling to the maximum extent practicable. Closer evaluation of the condition of wood,
window, and porch features could, however, uncover the need for repair or repla cement
of damaged or deteriorating wood features. The treatment of these elements is discussed
in more detail in section 3.2 of this report below, regarding consistency with the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Addition to the Existing Dwelling. As depicted in project plans, the applicant proposes to
construct a two-story addition (about 29 feet in height) to the rear of the existing dwelling.
The addition will provide additional space to remodel the home into a three -bedroom
dwelling (see Attachment E).
At the lower floor, the building’s horizontal siding and the distinctive skirting along the
base of the house (“canted shingle dado”) will be carried around the addition by use of
new wood siding and dado designed to match dimension and appearance of the existing
features. On the upper floor the addition will be clad in wood siding of a wider dimension,
to visually differentiate this portion of the addition from the original construction. Door,
window, and decorative building trim,
including the cornice under the roof, are
described as matching that of the existing
dwelling, on both the lower and upper floors of
the addition (see Elevation Drawings, Sheets
A-9.0, A-9.1, Attachment E). While the design
and configuration of the front porch will be
retained, plans note that the porch and railing
are to be rebuilt.
New Construction. Behind the expanded
dwelling, at the rear of the property, a new
two-story building (27 feet in height) is
proposed, accommodating a two-car garage
Figure 2: Addition and rehabilitation (West Elevation)
Figure 3: Garage and ADU (Front)
Page 13 of 90
Item 6a
ARCH-0613-2022 (1220 Mill)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 24, 2023
on the ground floor and an 850 square-foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) on the upper
floor (see Attachment E, and Figure 3). It is square in plan, with a hipped roof of
composition shingle. As with the upper floor of the addition, the cornice and decorative
trim are modeled on that of the primary dwelling, but window forms vary, and the siding
of the new building is of larger dimension to differentiate it from original construction.
3.0 EVALUATION
Guidance for additions to, and new construction associated with, historical resources is
provided in the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secre tary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.1 Relevant applicable
guidelines, standards, and recommendations from these documents are outlined below.
3.1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
Alterations to Historic Resources
§ 3.4.1 (c)
Accessory Structures
New accessory structures should complement the primary
structure’s historic character through compatibility with its form,
massing, color, and materials.
§ 3.4.1 (d)
Additions
Additions to listed historic structures should maintain the structure’s
original architectural integrity and closely match the building’s
original architecture, or match additions that have achieved historic
significance in their own right, in terms of scale, form, massing,
rhythm, fenestration, materials, color and architectural details
§ 3.4.3
Retention of
character-defining
features
Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain character
defining features. New features […] should be completed in a
manner that preserves the original architectural character, form,
scale, and appearance of the building.
§ 3.4.4
Exterior building
changes
Exterior changes to historically-listed buildings or resources should
not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be
architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing
architectural character of the building […]. Additions to historic
buildings shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
to complement and be consistent with the original style of the
structure. Building materials used to replicate character-defining
features shall be consistent with the original materials in terms of
size, shape, quality and appearance. However, original materials are
not required.
Discussion: The proposed addition is sited and designed in a manner intended to
preserve the integrity of the historical primary dwelling. It is placed behind the existing
1 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic
Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the In terior National Park Service; Technical
Preservation Services, 2017
Page 14 of 90
Item 6a
ARCH-0613-2022 (1220 Mill)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 24, 2023
building, is two stories in height, and is connected to the existing dwelling by a “roof ridge
hyphen” as a reversible means to provide visual separation from the historic building. As
noted in the summary conclusion of the applicant’s Historic Resource Evaluation
(Attachment E, pp. 4-5), the character-defining hipped roof and front façade of the building
are preserved. The addition is two stories in height and provides an additional 1,500
square feet of floor area (for a total of about 2,400 square feet) to the primary dwelling,
appropriate to single-family residential use and compatible in scale with buildings in the
vicinity. The horizontal wood siding, composition shingle roof material, and matching trim
and restrained decorative detail of the addition exhibit a form and character that are
compatible with the that of the original primary dwelling on the property. The existing
windows (which are not original windows) are proposed to be replaced with appropriate
reproductions of the original window forms, and the porch reconstructed in its same form
and appearance.
Plans note the potential need for repair or replacement of extensively damaged wood
features, such as siding, window trim, and porch elements, which could be uncovered
with closer evaluation of the condition of these features. Further discussion of the
treatment of the wood elements is discussed in more detail the following section of this
report, regarding consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties.
3.2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Rehabilitation)
Standards for Rehabilitation
2: The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of
distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces and spatial relationships that
characterize a property will be avoided.
5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.
6: Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old
in design, color, texture and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will
be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will
be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size,
scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Discussion: The Secretary of Interior’s Standards provide guidance on rehabilitation of
historic buildings, including approaches to work treatments and techniques that are either
consistent (“Recommended”) or inconsistent (“Not Recommended”) with the Standards,
specific to various features of historic buildings and sites. The applicant’s Historic
Evaluation provides discussion about the consiste ncy of the proposed work with these
Standards and their supporting Guidelines (Attachment E, pp. 26-29).
Page 15 of 90
Item 6a
ARCH-0613-2022 (1220 Mill)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 24, 2023
New Exterior Additions
Recommended Not Recommended
Constructing a new addition on a secondary
or non-characterdefining elevation and
limiting its size and scale in relationship to
the historic building.
Constructing a new addition on or adjacent to
a primary elevation
Discussion. As discussed above, and as noted in the applicant’s Historical Evaluation,
the proposed addition to the historic dwelling on this property has been situated at the
rear of the dwelling, to minimize its visual impact to the primary elevations of the building,
and to preserve its physical integrity and architectural and historical character
(Attachment E, pg. 27). It is of a height and scale appropriate to a single-family dwelling,
as well as to the historic building.
Wood
Recommended Not Recommended
Identifying, retaining and preserving wood
features that are important in defining the
overall historic character of the building (such
as siding, cornices, brackets, window and
door surrounds, and steps) and their paints,
finishes, and colors..
Removing or substantially changing wood
features which are important in defining the
overall historic character of the building so
that, as a result, the character is diminished.
Removing a major portion of the historic
wood from a façade instead of repairing or
replacing only the deteriorated wood, then
reconstructing the façade with new material
to achieve a uniform or “improved”
appearance.
Replacing a deteriorated wood feature or
wood siding on a primary or other highly-
visible elevation with a new matching wood
feature.
Replacing a deteriorated wood feature or
wood siding on a primary or other highly-
visible elevation with a composite substitute
material.
Discussion. Plans depict retention of original siding, shingle skirting, cornice, and other
wood features, but also note the potential replacement of such features where they may
be damaged beyond repair. Where siding may need replacement, it will be matched in
dimension, texture, and appearance to the original material. The applicant’s Historic
Evaluation notes the consistency of this approach with Guidelines for wood features
(Attachment E, pg. 27).
Page 16 of 90
Item 6a
ARCH-0613-2022 (1220 Mill)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 24, 2023
Windows
Recommended Not Recommended
Designing and installing a new window or its
components, such as frames, sash, and
glazing, when the historic feature is
completeley missing. It may be an accurate
restoration based on documentary and
physical evidence, but only when the historic
feature to be replaced coexisted with the
features currently on the building. Or, it may
be a new design that is compatible with the
size, scale, material, and color of the historic
building.
Creating an inaccurate appearance because
the replacement for the missing window is
based upon insufficient physical or historic
documentation, is not a compatible design, or
because the feature to be replaced did not
coexist with the features currently on the
building.
Adding new window openings on rear or
other secondary, less- visible elevations, if
required by a new use. The new openings
and the windows in them should be
compatible with the overall design of the
building but, in most cases, not duplicate the
historic fenestration.
Changing the number, location, size, or
glazing pattern of windows on primary or
highly-visible elevations which will alter the
historic character of the building.
Cutting new openings on character-defining
elevations or cutting new openings that
damage or destroy significant features.
Discussion. Plans also indicate that existing replacement sash windows will in turn be
replaced by replicas of original windows, according to available photographic evidence.
A new window opening will be added to the center of the canted bay on the west façade,
and the location of a pair of windows on both the west and east facades will be shifted
slightly, noted in the applicant’s Historic Resource Evaluation as minor interventions that
will not alter the ability of the house to communicate its architectural significance
(Attachment E, pg. 27). Staff suggests a condition of approval directing that final plans
include a detailed window schedule , sufficient to demonstrate the appropriateness of
new and replacement windows to the historic character of the building:
Final plans for the project shall include a window schedule describing all new and
replacement windows, including window type, operation, and dimensions of window
elements (sashes, muntins and sills, mullions, etc.), sufficient to evaluate their
consistency with the historical character of the property.
Entrances and Porches
Recommended Not Recommended
Identifying, retaining, and preserving
entrances and porches and their functional
and decorative features that are important in
defining the overall historic character of the
Removing or substantially changing
entrances and porches which are important
in defining the overall historic character of the
Page 17 of 90
Item 6a
ARCH-0613-2022 (1220 Mill)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 24, 2023
building. The materials themselves (including
masonry, wood, and metal) are significant, as
are their features, such as doors, transoms,
pilasters, columns, balustrades, stairs, roofs,
and projecting canopies.
building so that, as a result, the character is
diminished.
Repairing entrances and porches by
patching, splicing, consolidating, and
otherwise reinforcing them using recognized
preservation methods. Repair may include
the limited replacement in kind or with a
compatible substitute material of those
extensively deteriorated features or missing
components of features when there are
surviving prototypes, such as balustrades,
columns, and stairs.
Removing entrances and porches that could
be stabilized, repaired, and conserved […]
Replacing an entire entrance or porch feature
when repair of the feature and limited
replacement of deteriorated or missing
components are feasible."
Discussion. Plans also depict reconstruction of the front porch, noting retention of its
Tuscan column (Attachment E, Sheet A-9.0), one of the elements of the preserved
character-defining façade discussed in the applicant’s Evaluation (Attachment D, pg. 27),
retained in a manner consistent with these guidelines.
Related New Construction
Recommended Not Recommended
Locating new construction far enough away
from the historic building, when possible,
where it will be minimally visible and will not
negatively affect the building’s character, the
site, or setting.
Placing new construction too close to the
historic building so that it negatively impacts
the building’s character, the site, or setting.
Designing new construction on a historic site
or in a historic setting that it is compatible but
differentiated from the historic building or
buildings.
Replicating the features of the historic
building when designing a new building, with
the result that it may be confused as historic
or original to the site or setting.
Ensuring that new construction is secondary
to the historic building and does not detract
from its significance
Adding new construction that results in the
diminution or loss of the historic character of
the building, including its design, materials,
location, or setting.
Constructing a new building on a historic
property or on an adjacent site that is much
larger than the historic building.
Discussion. The proposed new garage and ADU are situated behind the expanded
primary dwelling, such that its visibility is largely obscured by the dwelling. While executed
Page 18 of 90
Item 6a
ARCH-0613-2022 (1220 Mill)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 24, 2023
in a form, style, and appearance that is compatible with the primary dwelling, with
horizontal siding, hipped roof, restrained decorative trim, and conventional but varied
window forms, its exterior siding material is of a larger dimension that differentiates it from
the dwelling. The placement of the new building at the rear of the site and its two -story
height, hip roof, wood siding, and conventional window forms also harmonize with the
predominant architectural elements of the Mill Street Historic District described in the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (see Attachment A).
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California E nvironmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It consists of the minor alteration of an existing facility, as described
in CEQA Guidelines § 15301, with negligible expansion of the existing use.
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project consistent
with applicable historical preservation policies, standards, and guidelines, subject to
certain conditions of approval for the evaluation and preservation of character-defining
features of the building
2. Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant
3. Recommend that the Community Development Director deny the application, based
on specific findings describing inconsistency with historical preservation policies,
standards, and guidelines
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Mill Street Historic District (Historic Preservation Program Guidelines)
B - Architectural Worksheet (1220 Mill)
C - Neo-Classical Cottage (Historic Context Statement)
D - Historic Report and Certificate of Appropriateness (James Papp, PhD)
E - Project Plans (Hunter Smith Architecture)
Page 19 of 90
Page 20 of 90
47
5.2.4 Mill Street Historic District
Setting
Established in 1987, the Mill Street Historic District is a residential neighborhood bounded by
Pepper and Toro Streets on the east and west, and Peach and Palm Streets on the north and south.
The Mill Street District is part of one subdivision, The Town of San Luis Obispo, recorded in
1878, although the area informally has been referred to as Fremont Heights. For its land area,
Mill Street Historic District has the highest concentration of historic structures of the City’s five
Historic districts. It is a relatively small district, with an area of 20 acres or 0.03125 square
miles, and as of January of 2010 had 84 listed historic properties.
The Mill Street district was developed at the turn of the 20th century, with the majority of the
existing buildings dating from the 1900s to 1920s, the district’s primary period of historical and
architectural significance. The district was developed on high ground with originally very wide
(100 ft) lots in response to both the seasonal flooding and fires that plagued early development in
San Luis Obispo. A few of these wide lots remain in the 1300 block of both Mill Street and Palm
Street, but the majority of them were later re-subdivided into 50-60 foot wide lots.
Site Features and Characteristics
Common site features and characteristics include:
A. Trees spaced at regular intervals along
the street (especially on Mill Street)
B. Distinctive Camphor Trees lining both
sides of Mill Street between Johnson and
Pepper, a key entry corridor for the
district
C. Consistent street yard setbacks of 20 feet
or more
D. Coach barns (garages) recessed into rear
yard
E. Finish floors raised 2-3 above finish
grade
F. Front entries oriented toward street, with
prominent walk, stairs and entry porches.
G. Front building facades oriented parallel
to street
Architectural Character
Developed during a population boom in San Luis Obispo circa 1900s-1920s, the district’s
residential architectural styles reflect the prosperity of its residents. While older and more
elaborate residences are located on the 1300 block of both Palm and Mill Streets, the majority of
1344 Mill Street, South Elevation
Page 21 of 90
48
historic homes were more modest residences. The close proximity to the court house meant that
Mill Street was home to many county employees, including county assessors, attorneys, and
county clerks. The Mill Street District encompasses many different architectural styles, including
revival styles popular at the turn of the twentieth century. These styles include Neo-classic Row
House, Victorian (with elements of Gothic Revival, Queen Anne, Stick and Eastern Shingle),
Tudor Revival, Mission Revival, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing
architectural details from more than one style. Most buildings in this district were built by local
builders, including E.D. Bray and James Maino and were influenced by architectural pattern
books of the time period.
Predominant architectural features include:
A. One- and occasionally two-story
houses
B. Mostly gable and hip roof types
C. Traditional fenestration, such as
double-hung, wood sash windows,
ornamental front doors, wood screen
doors
D. Ornamental roof features, including
prominent fascias, bargeboards,
prominent pediments or cornices
E. Painted wood or stucco surface
material, including siding and molding
Individually Contributing Elements in the Mill Street District
Not all historic resources in the Mill Street
Historic District were built during the
district’s period of significance. Those
buildings date from the late 1800s, generally
do not exhibit the signature architectural
elements described above, but do contribute
to the historic character of San Luis Obispo
in their own right based on age, architectural
style or historical association. By virtue of
their significance, these resources also merit
preservation.
For example, the Buckley House at 777
Johnson Avenue is a converted carriage
house built in the 1880s and is significant for
its design, specifically the board and batten siding, of which there very few examples are left in
the City. The Shipsey House at 1266 Mill Street, a National Register property, is an example of
Eastern Stick and significant for both its architectural style and its association with William
1264 and 1270 Palm Street, South Elevation
777 Johnson Avenue, East Elevation
Page 22 of 90
49
Shipsey, attorney and mayor of San Luis Obispo from 1898 to1901.
Non-Contributing Elements in the Mill Street District
Non -contributing buildings are those that both do not meet the criteria outlined above and have
not achieved historical significance. Most of the post—1950 contemporary buildings in the
district fall into this latter category.
Non-contributing architectural styles, materials or site features include:
A. Aluminum sliding windows
B. Rectilinear, “boxy” shape
C. Metal or other contemporary material
siding, or “faux” architectural
materials or features.
D. Unarticulated wall surfaces
E. Non-recessed or offset street entries to
buildings
1243 Mill Street, North Elevation
Page 23 of 90
50
***
1262 Mill Street; 1261 Mill Street; 1143, 1137 and 1127 Peach Street;
Righetti House, 1314 Palm Street
Page 24 of 90
Page 25 of 90
Page 26 of 90
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
138
NEO-CLASSICAL COTTAGE
The term “Neo-Classical Cottage” is used to describe simple house forms or cottages with fewer
decorative features than other styles from the period. While vernacular residences may display certain
characteristics of recognizable styles, decorative detailing is typically confined to the porch or cornice
line.
Character-defining features include:
Symmetrical façade
Simple square or rectangular form
Gabled or hipped roof with boxed or open eaves
Wood exterior cladding
Simple window and door surrounds
Details may include cornice line brackets
Porch support with turned spindles or square posts
1203 Pismo Street, c.1900. Source: Historic Resources
Group.
1211 Pismo Street, 1908.Source: Historic Resources
Group.
Page 27 of 90
Page 28 of 90
1
1220 Mill Street
Historic Resource Evaluation and Certificate of Appropriateness
Introduction
The proposed project at 1220 Mill Street is a complex effort to sustain a Contributing List
property in the Mill Street Historic District through
1. stabilization and restoration of the historically significant primary residence
2. demolition of the historically insignificant ADU (1220½ Mill) and garage to the rear
3. increase of density through construction of a two-story rear addition on the rear of
the primary residence and a separate two-story combined garage and upstairs
dwelling unit
The analysis and planning for the project has been equally complex, involving a historic
resource evaluation of each of the three structures currently on the property
1. under the Criteria of Significance A–C of the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) and
2. the NRHP’s seven Aspects of Integrity
and certificate of appropriateness of the proposed restoration, alterations, and
construction under
3. the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards for Rehabilitation
4. the City of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
Application of these criteria and standards are intended to make sure that fulfilling the goal
for increased housing density in San Luis does not threaten the historically significant
resources that define the rich fabric of the city’s life for its residents. Though the proposed
rear addition and separate garage and dwelling unit would necessarily be visible from
some perspectives on the street, they have been evaluated and design influenced so that
the historic resource, surrounding historic resources, and historic district as a whole will
continue to communicate their significance.
Page 29 of 90
2
Summary Conclusion
1220 Mill with 1220½ visible behind, photographed by J. Barron Wiley, ca. late 1980s. Wiley, a
professor at Cal Poly, donated his photographs of more than a thousand historic and
contemporary San Luis buildings to the History Center of San Luis Obispo County.
Summary Conclusion of Historic Resource Evaluation
Description of Property 1220 Mill Street, a Contributing List resource in the Mill
Street Historic District, comprises three structures:
1. the primary residence facing the street, a circa 1908–1909 Colonial Revival bungalow of
the hip roof subtype with asymmetric façade, whose walls are sheathed in novelty siding
with a wood shingle dado
2. a 1922 clapboard cottage with superficial California Bungalow references, located
behind the primary residence
3. a 1923 garage at the rear of the lot with single-wall load-bearing structure as its back
and sides and balloon frame and clapboard front façade
Page 30 of 90
3
The 1982 Historic Resources Survey suggests only the primary residence was evaluated for
historic listing and was the basis for the property’s Contributing Listing. This report
evaluates all three structures for both historic and architectural significance and the
integrity to communicate any significance.
Historic significance Review of documentation reveals that both dwellings—primary
residence 1220 and ADU 1220½—functioned mostly as rentals, with tenants living there
too briefly to establish historic association. Pioneering newspaper editor Martha Tiernan
and Chinatown underworld figure Jack Wong, who co-founded Shanghai Low, might be
argued as historic figures, but their association with 1220 and 1220½, respectively, can be
documented at only two years each. Although a dramatic gun battle involving Jack Wong,
the co-founder of Shanghai Low, took place on the property’s driveway in 1931, it was not
an important moment in local history, representative of any historic trends, or associated
with any of the structures. Therefore none of the structures is significant under NRHP
Criteria A (association with a significant event) or B (association with a significant person).
Period of Significance In absence of historic association, the period of significance
would default to the date of construction of each building: circa 1908–1909 (primary
residence), 1922 (ADU), and 1923 (garage), respectively.
Architectural Significance Structure 1 embodies the Colonial Revival type of
construction, with low-pitched hip roof, asymmetric entry porch supported by a single
Tuscan column, triple and double windows, front accent window, canted bay, and novelty
siding with shingle dado. It is therefore architecturally significant under NRHP Criterion C.
Later additions on the rear, one mimicking the cladding of the original bungalow on a more
diminutive scale and one of board and batten are outside the period of significance and do
not embody the compact bungalow structure characteristic of the Colonial Revival.
Structure 2, the ADU, was constructed in 1922 as a rectangular cottage with apparent
references to the California Bungalow but with neither the indoor-outdoor spatial
characteristics nor the muscular, crafted details and fabric that embody the type. Built by
anonymous day labor, according to the permit application, it is not associated with a
master architect. It is therefore not architecturally significant under Criterion C.
Structure 3, the garage, employs on three sides the method of single-wall load-bearing
construction—still common on period outbuildings of the 1920s—with balloon frame and
clapboard on the front façade. It is possible this façade was added later, more likely that it
Page 31 of 90
4
is original, to serve as the show side of a board and batten structure. It is an interesting
example of hybridization of two methods of construction. Hybridization of two methods,
however, does not lead to embodiment of either. Built by day labor of Walter Floyd, it is not
associated with a master architect. It is therefore not architecturally significant under
Criterion C.
Integrity The integrity of Structure 1, the primary residence, is high in the six relevant
of seven aspects (all but historic association), with the exception of the replacement of
window sashes sometime after the late 1980s and two additions, by 1926, on the rear.
The integrity of Structure 2, the ADU, is—in design, materials, and workmanship—poor,
with the original 12’x24’ cottage having been expanded along nearly all of its more visible
western façade and all of its rear façade by the 1940s and having its front façade altered by
a large window likely in the 1960s or 1970s but before the late 1980s.
Assuming the clapboard façade of Structure 3, the garage, is original, which seems likely, its
integrity in the six relevant aspects is good, though its roof structure has been entirely
replaced, and an interior post and beam structure has been added for stabilization. This
integrity, however, does not communicate architectural significance.
Combination of significance and integrity None of the structures has significance
from historic association. Structure 1 has architectural significance and the integrity to
communicate that significance. Structure 2 has neither architectural significance nor
integrity. Structure 3 has integrity but no architectural significance for the integrity to
communicate.
Therefore only Structure 1 qualifies as a historic resource under the city’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance and would be subject to Contributing List protection—consistent
with the assumptions of the 1982 Historic Resources Survey.
Summary Conclusion of Certificate of Appropriateness
Proposed changes Applicants Michael and Tricia Mitchell wish to enlarge the primary
residence by adding a two-story extension to the rear of that building and building an
accessory dwelling unit over a new garage at the rear of the lot. To achieve this, it would be
necessary to demolish the 1922 ADU, 1923 garage, and additions on the rear of the primary
residence.
The Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation Demolition of later
additions to the primary residence, the ADU, and garage would not violate SOI Standards
for Rehabilitation, as these are neither historically nor architecturally significant
structures.
To fulfill SOI Standards on Rehabilitation regarding the architecturally significant Colonial
Revival bungalow, applicants propose to
• preserve the character-defining front façade of the bungalow as is
• make only minor alterations to the west façade by adding a window to the previously
blank center of the canted bay and shifting the elevation and location of the twin window
to accommodate interior reconfiguration
Page 32 of 90
5
• make only a minor alteration to the east façade by shifting two singleton windows to
accommodate interior reconfiguration
• reduce the visibility and impact of the two-story bungalow addition by matching original
floor heights, massing the addition at the rear, and limiting it to the original bungalow’s
width and a similar footprint
• preserve the bungalow’s character-defining hip roof, distinguish it from the non-historic
two-story addition, and increase the addition’s compatibility with a rear roof-slope
structural hyphen
• distinguish new construction from old through differentiated siding
• reduce the visibility and impact of the new garage and second-story dwelling unit by
massing it at the rear of the lot at maximum distance from the primary residence, one-
story Master List Teresa Torres True House next door, and one-story Virginia Levering
Latimer House across the street
In addition, applicants propose to replace the poor replacement sash windows with higher
quality replicas of the originals based on the late 1980s Barron Wiley photograph. These
measures address both the letter and spirit of SOI Standards to preserve the integrity of the
Colonial Revival bungalow to communicate its significance.
City of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Paragraph
3.4.2, “Percent of historic resource to be preserved,” states that “alterations of historically-
listed buildings shall retain at least 75 percent of the original building framework, roof, and
exterior bearing walls and cladding, in total, and reuse original materials as feasible.”
The roof hyphen will be a reversible addition to the original roof structure; the current roof
cladding is not original. The framework of the Colonial Revival bungalow is almost
certainly a perimeter balloon frame, hence identical to the bearing walls. The extant
original perimeter structure and wall cladding (i.e., minus the non-historic rear additions)
is approximately 100 linear feet, of which approximately 8 percent at the rear will be
removed. An additional 3 percent of cladding will be removed for shifted windows—at
approximately 11 percent, well below the 25 percent maximum.
James Papp, PhD | Historian & Architectural Historian
964 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo | 13 April 2023
Page 33 of 90
6
Contents
Introduction 1
Summary Conclusion 2
Timeline 7
Historic Context of the Mill Street Historic District 11
Ownership and Construction 13
Aerial Views 15
Historic Significance 16
Architectural Significance 19
Period of Significance 22
Integrity 23
Appropriateness of Proposed Changes to SOI Standards and 26
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines
Conclusion 30
Page 34 of 90
7
Timeline
1870 Lot 4, block 39 appears on the Harris and Ward Map, the earliest extant
map of San Luis Obispo subdivisions. The owner unrecorded, it appears to
belong to the township.
1889 May 28 Viola B. Fletcher transfers to William Buckley lot 4, block 39 (“At the
Recorder’s Office: Tuesday,” Tribune, 30 May 1889, p. 4).
1899 Sinsheimer Brothers are taxed on easterly third of lot 4, block 39 (later
1220 Mill Street) (Tribune, 4 Feb. 1899, p. 3).
1907 Panoramic photograph of San Luis Obispo from Terrace Hill shows no
structure at 1220 Mill.
1910 US Census records telephone electrician John Charles Dunn, his wife
Genevieve, and their daughter Helen as living at 1220 Mill, next door to the
the Teresa Torres True family at 1214 and Julius and Louisa Torres
Robasciotti at 1202. Dunn, chief of wires of the district for Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph, has resided in San Luis Obispo at least from
1907 (“Return from Eastern Visit,” Telegram, 12 July 1907, p. 8).
1912 A “five-room modern cottage, close in; good location” is advertised for sale:
“apply at 1220 Mill St.” (Telegram, 1 Mar., p. 4).
J. C. and Mrs. Dunn reported as living at 1220 Mill, when his cousin, a
female physician in Los Angeles, removes their infant son’s adenoids
(“Southern Doctor Here,” Telegram, 5 June, p. 5).
1916 Teresa True of 2014 Mill is offering 1220 Mill for rent as five-room
furnished house (“For Rent,” Telegram, 22 Mar., p. 1).
1917 Mr. and Mrs. H. J. Lawton are living at 1220 Mill (“Going North,” Daily
Telegram, 15 Feb., p. 5).
1919 Victor Torres—Teresa True and Louisa Robasciotti’s brother—moves from
the Foxen Apartments to 1220 Mill with his family (“Move Into New Home,”
San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 4 Mar., p. 7). Victor, operator of an auto
passenger and freight stage between Simmler and Santa Margarita, later in
the year extends the service to San Luis Obispo (“County Supervisors:
Official Proceedings of the Board,” Telegram, 14 July, p. 6).
Aug. 3 Hazel, youngest daughter of Teresa Torres True, marries bookkeeper
Harold Stewart of San Francisco (“Mission is Scene of Sunday Wedding,”
Telegram, 4 Aug. 1919, p. 5).
1921 1220 Mill is advertised for rent (Telegram, 5 Mar., p. 5)
1922 Aug. 17 Hazel Stewart, now of San Francisco, is listed as owner and petitioner on an
application for a $500 10’x20’ frame residence, “2 rooms & kitchenette,” on
lot 4, block 39, “Mill & Toro.” This appears to be the ADU at 1220 Mill.
Page 35 of 90
8
1923 Aug. 27 A building permit application for a $200 16’x24’ one-story frame garage on
“E[aster]ly 1/3 of lot” 4, roughly matching the dimensions and materials of
the current garage, lists the property owner as Hazel Stewart.
1924 The five-room furnished primary residence at 1220 Mill is advertised for
rent (Telegram, 9 Jan., p. 4).
1925 A three-room furnished bungalow at 1220 Mill is advertised for rent,
suggesting the ADU has been widened (Telegram, 25 June, p. 7). “Mr. and
Mrs. L. H. Penland} (possibly plasterer and laundry owner E. H. Penlands)
rent the front house in June (“Take House,” Telegram, 29 June, p. 4).
1926 The Sanborn Map shows the rear additions to the primary residence; the
ADU with an eastern section of approximately 12’x24’ and western
extension approximately 6’ wide; and an approximately 16’x24’ garage.
1927 Sep. 22 A permit application listing Victor Torres as owner of 1220 Mill seeks a
12’x12’ addition of a room, most plausibly to the rear of the ADU.
1929 Jan. 31 Victor and Eva Torres take out a $3,000 mortgage on part lot 4, block 39.
1930 The US Census lists Victor Torres as the owner of 1220 Mill. Victor, by now
a laundry wringer man, and his wife Eva, a laundry finisher, live there with
their two children. In the rear bungalow live Chinese-born bookkeeper Jack
Wong, his California-born wife Bessie Chin, and their infant son Henry.
1931 Sep. 7 During a failed holdup, Wong is coshed and gagged in the driveway of 1220
Mill, shoots Filipino John Inego, one of his assailants, in the back, and
neighbors summon the police. Inego engages the police in a gun fight and is
further wounded in the leg and arm but survives. His accomplice escapes.
By November, Wong founds Shanghai
Low restaurant at 830 Palm with W. H.
Harry. Wong sells out in 1934 and
leaves town, but Shanghai Low endures
till 1990. (10 Nov. Telegram ad [with
wrong address] at right.)
1932 The Wongs are living in Chinatown (“Milestones,” Pismo Times, 1 July, p. 8).
Page 36 of 90
9
1937 Feb. 1 US Army aerial photograph shows ADU extended back as far as the garage.
3 Victor and Eva Torres transfer deed of part lot 4, block 39 to Anna Buechler
(county land records). It will be an investment property: Leonard (elected
county coroner 1939–1955) and Anna Buechler never live there.
1938 Hearst Castle Deputy Sheriff John Nolan, wife Annie, and children are living
at 1220 Mill; nurseryman Jene Yocum, wife Louise at 1220½ (City
Directory).
1939 Mrs. Lulu Lewis, cook at the General Hospital, is living at 1220 Mill (“Whist
Games Diversion for Paso Tiempo Club,” Telegram, 2 Mar., p. 2).
1939–1942 City Directory and US Census show hotel bellman and later sheet metal
worker Steve G. Collins and wife Verla living at 1220½.
1940–1942 US Census and City Directory show Lloyd E. and Martha Tiernan living at
1220 Mill. Lloyd is publisher, Martha editor of weekly San Luis Obispo
Independent. In 1944 Lloyd will lose a squeaker election for State Assembly.
1947 Deputy Sheriff Schuyler Wiley and wife are living at 1220½ (“Deputy Wiley
Dies at Vet Hospital,” Telegram, 12 Feb., p. 2).
1948–1951 The Winters family is living at 1220 Mill
(Telegram: “Miss Mallory and John Maes
Wed in Mission Ceremony,” 9 Feb. 1948, p.
2; “Marriage Licenses,” 7 Nov. 1951, p. 7).
1950 US Census shows fifth grade schoolteacher
Daniel Winters and wife Ruth living at
1220 Mill; feed store clerk Bernard Silva,
wife Sophia, daughter Elaine, and son
Bernard, Jr. at 1220½.
1953 Campbell’s Restaurant Supply salesman
Ronald Johns and wife Barbara are living
at 1220 (City Directory); student William
Boone and wife Bernice, secretary, at
1220½.
1954 Mr. and Mrs. Jesus Benitez and new son
Jay Edward are living at 1220½ (Sammy
Luis, “Sammy Is Busy as an Atomic Bee
Greeting 26 Arrivals,” Telegram, 16 Feb.
1954, p. 4).
1954–1955 Salesman Carl Legg (Peerless Baking), wife
Reneen, and daughter Michelle (right) are
at 1220 (Telegram: “Theta Psi Chapter
Will Hold Dinner Dance,” 10 June 1954, p.
6; “Biggest Doll,” 25 July 1955, p. 5).
Page 37 of 90
10
1957 Mr. and Mrs. James Leonard and new son are living at 1220½ Mill (Sammy
Luis, “Little Miss Schwabenland’s New Brother Born This Week,” Telegram,
4 Nov. 1957, p. 5).
1956–1958 Junior high school teacher Robert W. Thomsen and wife Rose and children
are living at 1220 Mill (City Directory and Sammy Luis, “Girls Take 14–8
Win Over Boys in Sammy’s Junior Olympics,” Telegram, 4 Sep. 1956, p. 4).
1958–1960 Student Gregory Lighthouse, Jr. and wife Mildred are at 1220½ (City
Directory).
1960 Mrs. Eleanor Vega is living at 1220
1961 Vega and widow Cecilia Isola are living at 1220; student James Stireman
and wife Linda at 1220½.
1967–1973 Widow Irene Garcia is living at 1220 and Cecilia Isola at 1220½; Garcia
occupies 1220 into the 1980s.
Page 38 of 90
11
Historic Context of the Mill Street Historic District
The Mill Street Historic District occupies part of what was called, during the twentieth
century, Fremont Heights, based on earthworks thrown up by John C. Frémont’s battalion
at (according to Myron Angel) Mill and Morro (History of San Luis Obispo County [Berkeley:
Howell-North, 1966], p. 88). The Fremont Heights Professional Center, now Fremont
Plaza—built in 1968 on part of the campus of the former Fremont Elementary School on
Peach between Toro Street and Johnson Avenue—is the last reference to this name.
Fremont Heights in the 1870 Harris and Ward Map. Sycamore would become Walnut; Fig, the
freeway. Block 39 corners the edge of town, later extended by the Hathway and Phillips
Additions.
The 1886 Sanborn Map includes only a small, sparsely built part of Palm Street east of
Santa Rosa from this area. The 1891 Sanborn shows extensive construction on Palm but
little on Peach or Mill. (The block bound by Mill, Toro, Peach, and Johnson—where 1220
Mill is located—had only two dwelling, both now demolished. A few others of the area
survive, however, including the 1889 Eastlake–Colonial Revival Righetti (Graves) House (at
the northeast corner of Palm and Johnson) and circa 1888 Italianate Virginia Levering
Latimer House (at the southeast corner of Mill and Toro).
The 1905 Sanborn shows nine dwellings on the 1200 block of Mill. The north side of the
1300 block would boom about this time, with the 1905 japoniste Shingle style Page House
(1344), 1906 Shingle High Peak Colonial Smith and Prairie School Anderson Houses of the
first two directors of Cal Poly (1306 and 1318), and Chalet style Muscio House (1909).
Page 39 of 90
12
The area continued to fill in through the 1940s with an eclectic collection of Colonial
Revival, California Bungalow, Mission and Spanish Revival, Greek Revival, Normandy
Revival, Art Deco, and Streamline Moderne houses and small apartment buildings. More
than any other historic district in San Luis Obispo, Mill Street is defined by its dense
architectural eclecticism. The one-sixth-block lots originally envisaged in the 1870 Harris
and Ward Map—possibly based on the William Hutton and William Parker maps of the
early 1850s)—would be chopped into thirds, fourths, and fifths, each packed with houses,
cottages, and garages.
Page 40 of 90
13
Ownership and Construction
Early ownership of the lot at 1220 Mill The property is the eastern of three parts of
lot 4, block 39. Lot 4 consists of the southwest sixth of the block between Toro, Peach,
Essex (now Johnson), and Mill, at the northeast corner of Toro and Mill. It now comprises
1202, 1214, and 1220 Mill Street and 780 and 780½ Toro.
The first newspaper record of ownership appears in 1889 when Viola Burris Fletcher
transferred the lot to William Buckley. Fletcher, of Paso Robles, was involved in numerous
property transactions in San Luis Obispo and Pismo in the late 1880s and early 1890s,
including suing John Price. Sinsheimer Brothers had the lot by the 1890s. Though the
Sinsheimers are historically significant, they disposed of the land before any of the
structures at 1220 Mill were built. They sold part of the lot, possibly the western two-
thirds, to Nellie Estrada in 1896 (“Recorder’s Office,” Tribune, 20 Mar. 1896, p. 2), being
taxed on the easterly third—1220 Mill—in 1899 (see Timeline).
The Torres family—at least Louisa Torres Robasciotti and Teresa Torres True—probably
acquired the western part of lot 4 from Estrada. At any rate, by the 1900 US Census, Louisa
and her husband Julius Robasciotti were living at 1202 (then 1200) and Teresa True at
1214 Mill Street (US Census). Louisa (born 1867) and Julius married in 1890; Teresa (born
1860) divorced her husband H. M. True in 1893. The Torreses were supposed to be a
Californio family, their mother Isabel born in San Luis Obispo in 1844 and accorded the
honorific Doña by the Telegram at her death (“Pioneer Resident Dies,” 20 Nov. 1913, p. 1).
Their father may have been Victor M. Torres, a Pozo rancher.
In 1910, the Robasciottis were still at 1202 and Teresa True and her thirteen-year-old
daughter Hazel at 1214. 1220 was offered for sale in March 1912, when the Dunns were
still living there; in 1916, Teresa True was advertising 1220 as a furnished rental, so if she
had not owned it before, she owned it by then. In 1919 their brother Victor R. Torres and
his family moved from the Foxen Apartments to 1220, but in 1922 and 1923 permit
applications, Teresa’s daughter Hazel was listed as owner and petitioner. Circa 1921 Teresa
moved to San Francisco to live with Hazel and died in 1924, at which time Teresa’s son
Harry J. True listed 1214 as his home (“Death Claims Old Resident,” San Luis Obispo Daily
Telegram, 15 Sep. 1924, p. 8).
A 1927 permit application and the 1930 US Census describe Victor Torres as the owner,
but though he is documented as moving there in 1919 and living there in 1930, the primary
residence was advertised for rent in 1925, and the county telephone directory has him
living at 752 Buchon in 1928. Victor and Eva Torres sold the property in 1937 to Ann
Buechler, who appears to have used it purely as an income investment, living elsewhere
with her husband, the county coroner.
The Torreses are interesting illustrations of their class but not historically significant as
having gained importance in their profession or group, a fact established when the Teresa
Torres True House at 1214 Mill Street was Master Listed for architectural embodiment
rather than, as was applied for, historic association with Teresa as a single mother and self-
employed seamstress. In addition, the Torres connection to 1220 is irregular, as even the
primary residence was more often being rented than occupied by the family.
Page 41 of 90
14
Dates of construction at 1220 Mill None of the structures at 1220 Mill appears on
the August 1905 Sanborn Map, though the Julius and Louisa Robasciotti and Teresa Torres
True Houses, 1202 and 1214 Mill, do. The early 1907 four-part panoramic photograph of
San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives) shows the Robasciotti and True
houses, but there is still no structure at 1220.
• Primary residence In the 1910 census, however, John Charles Dunn, a
telephone electrician, chief of wires for Pacific Telephone and Telegraph of the
district; his wife Genevieve; and their daughter Helen are listed as living at 1220
Mill, next door to the True family at 1214. Thus a construction date of circa 1908–
1909 is established, and this is consistent with the Colonial Revival bungalow style
of the house.
• Accessory dwelling unit Hazel Stewart, daughter of Teresa Torres True, is
listed as owner and petitioner on a 17 August 1922 application for a $500 10’x20’
frame residence, “2 rooms & kitchenette,” on block 39, lot 4, “Mill & Toro.” This
diminutive bungalow, which seems to have ended up as closer to 12’x24’, appears to
be the original section of the unit behind the primary dwelling at 1220 Mill along the
east property line, its roof ridge now asymmetric as additions have accrued to the
west. The 1926–1956 Sanborn Map shows the first addition by 1926, and a 1927
permit application by then owner Victor R. Torres and 1937 aerial photograph
document extension toward the back, originally of 12’x12’ feet but ultimately
widened to the roughly 18’ width of the house.
• Garage The 27 August 1923 building permit application for a $200 16’x24’
one-story frame garage on “E[aster]ly 1/3 of lot” 4 roughly matches the dimensions
and materials of the current garage. The garage shows no documentary or physical
evidence of subsequent addition or subtraction.
Page 42 of 90
15
Aerial Views
1220 Mill Street
1926–1956 Sanborn Map. A
paste-over without evidence
of previous building showing
through may record the entry
porch or merely the 1222
address.
1 Feb. 1937 aerial photograph,
showing the rear extension of
the ADU (2) toward the corner
of the garage (AXH-1937
frame 40, US Army for USDA).
1 Jan. 1949 (AXH-1949 frame
3F-163 Park Aerial Surveys for
USDA). The full width of the
ADU’s rear extension is now
apparent. No further changes
are recorded after 1949.
1965
Current Google Satellite view,
consistent with aerial views
from 1949 and 1965.
Page 43 of 90
16
Historic Significance
Events The only notable event recorded at 1220 Mill was
a shootout in 1931 involving ADU tenant Jack Wong, his
attacker John Inego, and the San Luis Obispo Police
Department. (Wong was later reported by the Monday Club
Pageant of Nations (Telegram, 25 June 1934, p. 5) to be a
cousin of the family of Ah Louis [Wong On], but film star Anna
May Wong was also accorded this distinction.)
Jack Wong’s first introduction to Telegram readers was in
1929 on his arrest and trial for running a Chinatown lottery
game where a ticket had been sold to the chief of police. This
was the start of what was billed as a “cleanup of Chinatown,”
but it ultimately resulted in a hung jury (“Gambling, Blind
Pigs Face Drive,” Daily Telegram, 14 Jan. 1929, p. 1; “Jury
Disagrees,” Daily Telegram, 27 Feb. 1929, p. 1).
On 6 September 1931, Jack Wong was coshed and gagged in
the driveway of 1220 Mill by two assailants disguised,
remarkably, with ink mustaches. Wong drew a gun and shot
one in the back, neighbors summoned the police, and a
gunfight ensued in which the already wounded assailant was
shot in the leg and arm and the other fled (“Filipino Is
Wounded by Own Victim,” Daily Telegram, 8 Sep. 1931, p. 1).
The fact that Jack Wong was targeted, packing a gun, and had
the presence of mind after being coshed and gagged to shoot
one assailant in the back confirms his underworld bonafides.
By 1932 the Wong family, perhaps too hot for Fremont
Heights, was living in Chinatown. Two months after the
shooting, Wong and lottery co-defendant W. H. Harry opened
Shanghai Low, named after the legendary San Francisco
restaurant. The humility of the Western False Front
Commercial venue and grandeur of the neon sign (preserved
from Shanghai Low’s demolished second home and now
suspended from the Hotel SLO) suggest that the sign may
have been acquired second hand and dictated the name of the
restaurant. The original Shanghai Low was a byword for
elegance in San Francisco’s Chinatown since the 1910s, and
there were Shanghai Lows throughout the West.
Wong sold out in 1934 and subsequently dropped out of San
Luis Obispo reportage (“Notice,” Daily Telegram, 9 June 1934,
p. 5). The Gin family ran Shanghai Low till 1990, when it
became Wild Billy Wong’s Chinese barbeque (Gardiner
Harris, “East Meets West at New SLO Eatery,” Telegram-
Tribune, 8 Nov. 1990, p. 26).
Page 44 of 90
17
Shanghai Low had moved to the south side of Palm in 1950 after the city tore down the
north side for a parking lot. When the city wanted to tear down the south side for a parking
structure, George Gin refused to move a second time, forcing the city to build the parking
structure on the north side.
Shanghai Low sign, advertising chop suey, looming above its premises, left of center. To its
immediate right is the Luzon Co., demonstrating Chinatown’s Filipino presence. The Ah Louis
Store is at the end of the block, with Addison Chong’s Chow Mein (later Richard Chong’s candy
store) across Chorro.
The 1220 Mill Shooting is a dramatic event in San Luis Obispo’s underreported Asian
American history. The city’s newer neighborhoods (Mount Pleasanton Square, Anholm,
Fixlini, and Monterey Heights) were officially covenanted against Asian residents, but that
did not prevent informal discrimination in other neighborhoods, so it is notable that the
Wongs were living several blocks from Chinatown. Significantly, all the African Americans
in San Luis Obispo in 1940 appear to have been living in Japantown, and many of
Chinatown’s occupants in the 1920s and 1930s, as well as its businesses, were Japanese
and Filipino. San Luis Obispo was highly ghettoized—though its Asian residents had never
been slaughtered (San Miguel), driven out (Arroyo Grande), or covenanted out of the entire
town (Atascadero).
Wong’s connection to the Chinatown underworld and his co-founding of Shanghai Low, a
pillar of Chinatown for nearly sixty years, also add interest. But as interesting as the Mill
Street Shootout is, it is not a specific event marking an important moment in local history,
neither is it part of a pattern of events or historic trend that made a significant contribution
to the development of the community. It is a one-off with no trend-setting results. Shanghai
Low was certainly a historically significant institution, but Wong’s association with it was
less than three years, his documented association with 1220½ Mill even more brief. Finally,
Page 45 of 90
18
the assault and shooting are documented to have taken place in the driveway, not in any of
the lot’s three structures.
Persons The bungalows at 1220 and 1220½ Mill Street, like most modest bungalows
in San Luis Obispo, were generally not occupied by leaders of professions or groups—i.e.,
historically significant persons—during the period of their leadership. In addition, given
that both these bungalows generally functioned as rentals, no occupants seem to have
stayed long enough—usually considered about fifteen years—to establish historic
association, even if they had been historically significant.
Teachers, salesmen, service workers, widows, and married students formed the tenants of
the property. One exception is Martha Tiernan, pioneering woman editor of the Barstow
Printer from 1916 to 1936 and editor and co-owner of the weekly San Luis Obispo
Independent, later SLO Reporter, from 1937 to 1957 (“SLO Woman Editor Mrs. Tiernan
Passes,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald-Recorder, 26 Feb. 1958, p. 2). Her husband, Lloyd
Tiernan, editor and publisher of the weekly Reedley Exponent 1910–1913, served as
publisher of the Independent and Reporter and ran as the Republican candidate for State
Assembly in 1944, losing by 78 votes out of 37,476 cast. There is no documentation,
however, that they lived at 1220 Mill beyond 1940–1942, and other tenants are
documented to have lived there in 1939 and 1948, which means the Tiernans could at most
have spent seven years there, generally not long enough to establish historic association.
Another potentially historic connection is Jack Wong, co-founder of Shanghai Low, a
Chinatown institution for almost sixty years. But Wong was connected with Shanghai Low
only from 1931 to 1934 and is documented as having moved from 1220½ Mill seven
months after he co-founded the restaurant: again, too brief a connection to constitute
historic association.
Page 46 of 90
19
Architectural Significance
Structure 1: Primary Residence (1220 Mill) The circa 1908–1909 bungalow at 1220
Mill exhibits defining characteristics of the Colonial Revival style, including
• low-pitched hip roof
• blank frieze and corner boards on all sides
• sash windows with broad, flat, undecorated frames on all sides
• asymmetric street façade with entry porch supported by, in this case, a single Tuscan
column; tripartite flat front window, echoing a canted bay; accent window; and single-
paned door with window molding and panels
• west façade with canted bay at dado height displaying blank central panel and twinned
windows above dado height
• east façade with singleton windows at dado- and above-dado height
• rear façade with singleton window descended from frieze
1220 Mill from the street, from southwest and southeast
The unusual element of 1220 is the combination of novelty siding (narrow clapboard) with
a shingle dado. Novelty siding is characteristic of Colonial Revival bungalows. Shingle
siding is also characteristic of Colonial Revival bungalows. The combination of shingle
siding with clapboard is rare, though such an exemplar as McKim, Meade, and White’s 1886
Oakswood has this. Local examples include the Master List Dutton House (1426 Broad),
with first floor novelty siding and second floor shingle siding, and Marshall (Naylor) House
(785 Buchon), with clapboard base, novelty siding on the first floor, and shingled gables.
Where shingles are used as a partial siding in Colonial Revival architecture, it is usually
with a base of stone, brick, or clapboard, the upper wall shingles then transitioning to roof
shingles. It is quite unusual for shingles to form the base rather than the upper siding.
But the 1905 Pismo Inn, in its time a notable local Colonial Revival edifice, combined a
stone base, shiplap wings, shingle towers, and composition roof. Closer to home, the Master
List 1905 Stanton House (752 Buchon), 1908 Kaiser House (751 Buchon), and 1910
Bradbury House (745 Buchon) all have novelty siding with shingle dados. Architectural
embodiment does not entail slavish conformity to a particular pattern, and certainly 1220
Page 47 of 90
20
Mill is significant for embodying the spatial and decorative elements of Colonial Revival in
one of the rarer combinations of exterior fabric.
Structure 2: Accessory Dwelling Unit (1220½ Mill) The core of 1220½, the 12’x24’
two-room cottage, likely had a low-pitched front gable, deep eaves, bargeboards, and knee
brackets in emulation of the California Bungalow (aka American Craftsman), but 1922 was
well past the California Bungalow’s circa 1905–1918 heyday. Virtually overnight in early
1918, Lutyensesque revival styles replaced Craftsman plans in newspaper building
sections, and William Randolph Hearst, who asked Julia Morgan in April 1919 to design him
a “Jappo-Swisso bungalow,” immediately changed his mind for the Lutyensesque Hearst
Castle. Subsequently, California Bungalow decorative reference was used to spruce up
cheaply built spec houses (like 1013 Ella Street, removed from the Contributing List in
2019) and linear cottages with railroad interiors.
Central to architectural embodiment are not only canonical decorative reference and
repertoire of materials but spatial expression. In other words, each different architectural
style has a different treatment of space, fabric, and the decorative forms of functional
elements.
At left, typical Contributing List California Bungalow at 2020 Ruth Street, with large
entry/lounging porch echoing the main gable, stylized attic vent, full set of knee brackets,
muscular square columns and bases, and rhythmically arranged muntined windows
embodying the style. Compare 1220½ Mill at right, with only low-pitched gable, deep eaves,
and flimsy knee brackets in superficial reference.
The spatial essence of the California Bungalow is the transition of interior to exterior space
in the form of lounging and sleeping porches and pergolas that showed adaptation to the
California climate. This is what 1220½ most conspicuously lacked (and lacks) as a
rectangular cottage. Another spatial feature—a Japanese variation on the original Swiss
chalet–inspired mass—was the juxtaposition of gables. The pre-1926 west-facing pushout
on the original front-to-back linear cottage mimics this (above) and also allows of a small
entry porch. Then came the 1927 12’x12’ rear addition, which was then extended west with
a six-foot lean-to. Plus a utility closet added to the gable pushout. The overall effect is not of
intentional design, as with Contributing List California Bungalows, but agglutinative clutter.
The clapboard siding and porch lack the deep shaping characteristic of these fabrics in
embodied California Bungalows, and other features are equally perfunctory, with rafter
tails and bargeboards unshaped, attic vents missing, knee braces chintzy and the crest
Page 48 of 90
21
brace absent, and the sole support (Craftsman favored pairs and triplets) a four-by-four
post rather than elephant leg column. Even humble California Bungalows of the core
period—like these circa 1910 in Avila, with shaped siding (right), birdsmouth bargeboards
(left), rounded rafter tails (right), knee-braced window box (right), and loungeable
elephant-leg-columned entry porches (left and right)—made an honest attempt to capture
the spatial, fabric, and decorative characteristics of the style in the way 1220½ doesn’t
bother with.
Structure 3: Garage An unknown number of single-wall load-bearing or box frame
houses and additions, and even one apartment house, survive in San Luis, built from circa
1865 (the Simmler Adobe wings) to the 1890s (the so-called Call [Chicago] Hotel). Box
frame garages and other outbuildings were commonly built well into the 1920s, and a
much larger number of these survive, though they have also never been surveyed, and the
CHC has shown no past interest in preserving them (despite my encouragement). The box
frame’s vertical boards and battens and connective two-by-fours at top and base were the
workhorses of the boomtown.
The clapboard front and board and batten east side of the garage
In the Western False Front Commercial Style, it was fairly common to have a box frame
structure and more respectable clapboard shiplap front, often with both equally visible to
the viewer but with the claim for respectability having been established. This garage is not
in the Western False Front style, however—though the motivation of its clapboard front is
probably similar. The combination of building methods is an oddity in this type of
structure. Were the CHC in future to take an interest in surveying box frame outbuildings,
examples that embodied the method of construction, rather than unusual hybrids, would
be the ones to focus on preserving.
Page 49 of 90
22
Period of Significance
Absent association with a historic event or person, the architectural significance of 1220
Mill, the primary residence, would be its date of construction, circa 1908–1909. 1202½
Mill, the ADU, and the garage do not appear to be architecturally significant, but if they
were judged to be, absent of historic association, their periods of significance would also be
their 1922 and 1923 dates of construction, respectively.
Page 50 of 90
23
Integrity
Structure 1: Primary Residence (1220 Mill)
Location 1220 Mill retains its original location, at least as documented by 1926.
Design 1220 Mill largely retains its original design, apart from two additions to the
back, one with the same novelty and shingle siding and a further extension of board and
batten.
Setting The low-built suburban setting is largely the same though somewhat more
dense than circa 1908–1909. The neighboring Torres True and Robasciotti houses survive,
as do the Latimer House and 1165 Mill across the street, the Shipsey and Smith Houses
down the block, and a number of others predating 1220 Mill and visible to a street observer
of the bungalow.
Materials The novelty and shingle siding, window and door frames, and front door all
appear to be original. South and west facing sashes have been replaced with new ones.
Workmanship Integrity of workmanship reflects integrity of materials.
Feeling Feeling, as a combination of the aspects above, is intact. The house gives the
same impression as it would in 1910.
Association Absent association with a historic person or event, association is not
relevant.
Structure 2: Accessory Dwelling Unit (1220½ Mill)
Location The position of the 1922 dwelling on the 1926 Sanborn Map shows the same
location as today.
Page 51 of 90
24
Design The 1922 permit application describes a rectangular cottage, which appears
to have been built 12’x24’ rather than the 10’x20’ applied for. The fact that the current roof
crest, parallel to the lot, is off-center confirms this was the original configuration. By the
1926 Sanborn Map, the cottage had been widened with its cross gable, as a northwest
section with no paste-over clearly attests. Given that no alternate structure shows through
the backlit page, it appears the paste-over was done for the purpose of adding a 1222
address for the ADU, conceivably also for adding the entry porch, which was not atypical of
the detail of Sanborn Map alteration.
The 1927 permit was to add a 12’x12’ extension at the rear. The 1937 aerial photograph is
not crisp, but it may record this narrow extension. By the time of the 1949 aerial photo,
however, the extension has clearly been widened to match the rest of the structure.
(Neither of these changes are recorded on the Sanborn Map.) An exterior utility closet has
also since been added to the cross gable front. The facts that the front window is of
exaggerated size for a California Bungalow and that it lacks the same slightly extended
lintel bar of the other windows suggests it is a 1960s or 1970s alteration, given the window
hardware. It dates before Barron Wiley’s 1980s photograph.
In short, the integrity of the original design has been severely compromised spatially,
though the four-light and vertically paneled front door may be original, and the deep
overhang of the front gable is likely original, as are the bargeboards and sole remaining of
originally paired faux knee braces.
Setting The setting integrity of 1220½ is consistent with that of 1220, as this section
of Mill Street did not undergo dramatic change between circa 1908–1909 and 1922.
Materials Clapboard fabric of the
original ADU appears original on the east
side and front, and the front bargeboards
and remaining front knee brace are likely
original as well. The west and rear fabric
dates from the times of addition. The rear
bargeboards and three knee braces (right)
may be recycled from the rear of the cottage
before extension, But given that these
bargeboards are cut to accommodate the
traditional three knee braces rather than the
front’s minimally performative two, this
seems unlikely.
Workmanship As with materials, half of the original has been replaced, including the
more visible west and rear façades and the front façade window.
Feeling Though location and setting remain, design, materials, and workmanship
have been so extensively changed that the feeling of the original 1922 cottage—since
doubled in size—does not remain.
Association Absent association with a historic person or event, association is not
relevant.
Page 52 of 90
25
Structure 3: Garage
Location The location of the 1923 garage matches that in the 1926 Sanborn map.
Design The size and configuration of the garage does not appear to have changed
from the 1926 Sanborn, and given that it was a utilitarian structure at the back of the lot, it
seems unlikely that its design would have changed. Given the history of False Front
Commercial buildings in the Old West, the combination of a balloon frame clapboard front
with box frame back is easily conceivable as the original design.
Setting As with the 1922 ADU and circa 1908–1909 primary residence, the garage
largely retains its original setting.
Materials The garage appears to retain its original exterior materials, including walls
(which on sides and rear function as both structure and fabric) and doors. Later additions
of plywood floor and underflooring and interior posts and beams for shoring do not detract
from this. The roof has been replaced with modern plywood.
Single-wall load-bearing vertical boards with connecting upper two-by-four in background,
plus added post and beams in foreground
Workmanship As with materials, exterior workmanship appears to be predominately
original.
Feeling In the combination of the previous five aspects, feeling is intact.
Association Absent association with a historic person or event, association is not
relevant.
Absent significance, however, the garage’s integrity cannot communicate significance.
Page 53 of 90
26
Appropriateness of Proposed Changes to SOI Standards
Applicants Tricia and Michael Mitchell’s proposal is to
• enlarge the five-room primary residence by adding a two-story extension of the same
width on the rear, and
• build an accessory dwelling unit above a new garage at the rear of the lot
The necessity is to accomplish this to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation and the City of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation To extend the historic
resource to the rear and build a modern ADU and garage will require demolition of the
1922 ADU, 1923 garage, and later additions to the rear of the ca 1908–1909 Colonial
Revival bungalow. Neither the ADU, garage, nor the novelty/shingle and board and batten
rear extensions qualify through significance as historic resources; therefore, SOI Standards
do not prevent their demolition.
Under SOI Standards for Rehabilitation, however, it is necessary to
• retain and preserve the historic character of the historic property [the Colonial Revival
bungalow] through avoiding the removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features,
spaces and spatial relationships that characterize the historic property
• make the new additions compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and
proportion, and massing
• differentiate the new from the old
• make the additions reversible, to leave the form and integrity of the resource and its
environment unimpaired should the additions be reversed in the future
Retention and preservation of historic character Professional analysis of and
recommendations for repair to fabric and features of the primary residence, e.g., porch
Page 54 of 90
27
structure and soffits, have followed SOI Standards of repair and minimal replacement of
damaged materials only, rather than wholesale replacement.
The Mitchells will not be altering the street façade, whose character-defining features
include the asymmetric entry porch with single Tuscan column, original side-facing entry
door, accent window, and tripartite window. Nor will they be altering the character-
defining features of blank frieze, novelty siding, shingle dado, and dado rail around the
front and sides of the house, except by extending the back of the house.
In order to accommodate interior alteration, they propose to move the positions of the
west façade’s twinned window and one of the east façade’s singleton windows, which will
not alter the ability of the house to communicate its architectural significance. In order to
bring more light into the house, they propose replacing the blank central panel of the west
façade’s canted bay with a window. This is a minimal intervention that will also not alter
the ability of the house to communicate its architectural significance.
Compatibility To achieve compatibility with the historic bungalow, the two-story
addition—with a slightly smaller footprint than the original bungalow on the ground floor,
slightly larger on the second floor—will be massed toward the rear, employing the same
width as the original bungalow and the same floor heights. It will also echo some window
forms (sash and singleton, twinned, and tripartite windows) and, like the original, use a hip
roof.
So the addition will not rise, as it were, like a sore thumb, it will employ a transitional roof
ridge of reduced height and width behind the original hip roof (see p. 24). This elegant
solution was suggested by the Contributing List 641 Buchon.
Page 55 of 90
28
Compatibility of the garage-ADU will come from its massing at the rear of the lot, as far as
possible from the historic resource; the blocking of its view by the two-story rear addition;
its echo of window forms; and hip roof.
Differentiation The two-story rear addition and garage-ADU will be differentiated by
siding form. This can be seen used effectively on the rear apartment extension of the
Contributing List Colonial Revival bungalow at 1160 Leff (below).
Repair Limited areas of wood have been recommended by experts for replacement
because of dry rot. The novelty siding and dado shingles of the east and west façades
appear to be in a good state of preservation. The street façade, facing south, shows more
degradation of both materials, though, under SOI Standards, these distinctive features “will
be repaired rather than replaced,” except where “severity of deterioration requires
replacement,” when “the new feature[s] will match the old in design, color, texture, and,
where possible, materials.”
Reversibility The historic bungalow’s front façade will not be altered. Repositioning
of the twinned and singleton windows and addition of a new window in the center of the
canted bay will be feasibly reversible, as will be the two-story addition and roof ridge
hyphen and the ADU-garage. The circa eight feet of original rear wall removal will not be
reversible, but most of the rear wall is already altered with additions.
City of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Paragraph
3.4.2, “Percent of historic resource to be preserved,” states that “alterations of historically-
listed buildings shall retain at least 75 percent of the original building framework, roof, and
exterior bearing walls and cladding, in total, and reuse original materials as feasible.”
The roof hyphen will be a reversible addition to the original roof structure; the current roof
cladding is not original. The framework of the Colonial Revival bungalow is almost
certainly a perimeter balloon frame, hence identical to the bearing walls. The extant
original perimeter structure and wall cladding (i.e., minus the non-historic rear additions)
is approximately 100 linear feet, of which approximately 8 percent at the rear will be
removed. An additional 3 percent of cladding will be removed for shifted windows—at
approximately 11 percent, well below the 25 percent maximum.
Page 56 of 90
29
Fenestration In addition, applicants propose to replace the poor replacement sash
windows with higher quality replicas of the originals based on the late 1980s Barron Wiley
photograph. These measures address both the letter and spirit of SOI Standards to preserve
the integrity of the Colonial Revival bungalow to communicate its significance.
Page 57 of 90
30
Conclusion
1220 Mill Street is a sensitive site: a Contributing List property in a historic district
adjacent to recently Master Listed one-story properties next door and across the street: the
Teresa Torres True House, which I approved for Master List status while on the CHC, and
the Virginia Levering Latimer House, for which I wrote the application for Master List
status. Therefore, as a historic resource consultant, I have treated the site with particular
care and thoroughness. I am happy to say the applicants, Michael and Tricia Mitchell, and
the architects, Dana and Logan Hunter, have been extraordinarily responsive to my
concerns.
The primary residence at 1220 Mill embodies the hip roofed, asymmetric, streamlined
Colonial Revival bungalow. The unusual combination of novelty siding and shingle dado
echoes the Master List Stanton, Kaiser, and Bradbury Houses of San Luis Obispo’s Nob Hill
while contributing significantly to the eclecticism of Fremont Heights. It even caught the
eye in the 1980s of that indefatigable recorder of the city’s architectural history, Professor
Barron Wiley, and its integrity has suffered little over the intervening forty years.
The job of an architectural historian is to distinguish the historic from the merely old. The
1922 ADU and 1923 garage are old but do not meet the objective standards of historic or
architectural significance.
It is not the job of an architectural historian to consider the goals of greater housing density
but rather to make sure that the Secretary of the Interior Standards and, in San Luis, the
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines are complied with under the precedents and
practice of the community. In the proposed design, however, the architects have achieved
that compliance while also achieving density. The Colonial Revival bungalow at 1220 Mill
will retain the ability to communicate its significance, and should a future generation
choose to reverse the changes, this would be eminently feasible.
Page 58 of 90
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Staff Presentation
1
ARCH-0613-2022 (1220 Mill)
Addition to an existing single-family dwelling, and construction of a new garage and
Accessory Dwelling Unit (Contributing List Property, Mill Street Historic District)
1
2
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Staff Presentation
2
Mill Street Historic District
Architectural Character
Styles: Neo-classic Row House, Victorian
(elements of Gothic Revival, Queen Anne, Stick
and Eastern Shingle), Tudor Revival, Mission
Revival, Craftsman Bungalow
One- and occasionally two-story houses
Mostly gable and hip roof types
Traditional fenestration (double-hung, wood sash
windows, ornamental front doors, etc.)
Ornamental roof features, including prominent
fascias, bargeboards, prominent pediments or
cornices
Painted wood or stucco surface material,
including siding and molding
1220 Mill Street
Architectural Worksheet
Style: Classic Row
Wooden steps to open porch with
turned wood column
Three-panel window (front)
Projecting Bay (west side)
1220 Mill, in 2007
in 2023
3
4
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Staff Presentation
3
Historical Evaluation (Papp)
Summary Conclusion
Only the primary dwelling exhibits both high
integrity and architectural significance
None of the structures on the property is
significant under criteria regarding association
with a significant event or person
Later additions on the rear of the primary dwelling
are outside the period of significance, do not
embody the compact bungalow structure
characteristic of the Colonial Revival.
Demolition of the second dwelling, garage, and
later additions to the primary residence would not
violate SOI Standards for Rehabilitation
Nearly all (89%) of the original structure of the
primary dwelling is retained, consistent with
Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
5
6
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Staff Presentation
4
Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
Alterations to Historic Resources
New accessory structures should complement the primary
structure’s historic character through compatibility with its form, massing, color, and materials.
§ 3.4.1 (c)
Accessory
Structures
Additions to listed historic structures should maintain the structure’s original architectural integrity and
closely match the building’s original architecture, or match additions that have achieved historic
significance in their own right, in terms of scale, form, massing, rhythm, fenestration, materials, color and
architectural details
§ 3.4.1 (d)
Additions
Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall retain character defining features. New features […] should
be completed in a manner that preserves the original architectural character, form, scale, and appearance
of the building.
§ 3.4.3
Retention of
character-
defining
features
Exterior changes to historically-listed buildings or resources should not introduce new or conflicting
architectural elements and should be architecturally compatible with the original and/or prevailing
architectural character of the building […]. Additions to historic buildings shall comply with the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards to complement and be consistent with the original style of the structure. Building
materials used to replicate character-defining features shall be consistent with the original materials in
terms of size, shape, quality and appearance. However, original materials are not required.
§ 3.4.4
Exterior
building
changes
7
8
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Staff Presentation
5
ARCH-0613-2022 (1220 Mill)
Addition to an existing single-family dwelling, and construction of a new garage and
Accessory Dwelling Unit (Contributing List Property, Mill Street Historic District)
Recommendation
Provide a recommendation to City Council as to the eligibility of the property for historical listing
9
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
1
Historic Resource Evaluation and
Certificate of Appropriateness
1220 Mill Street
Complex of six Contributing and Master List Robasciotti-
Torres houses in Queen Anne, Colonial Revival,
Craftsman, Art Deco, and Streamline Moderne, visible at
one corner of the Mill Street Historic District
1
2
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
2
Contributing List J. R. and Louisa Torres Robasciotti
House, 1202 Mill, American Queen Anne,1893
Master List Teresa Torres True House, 1214 Mill,
American Queen Anne, 1899
3
4
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
3
Contributing List 1220 Mill built by Torres True,
Colonial Revival, ca. 1908–1909
Robasciotti’s Contributing List E. D. Bray–built 770 Toro,
American Craftsman/California Bungalow, 1920
5
6
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
4
Robasciotti’s Contributing List E. D. Bray–built 778 Toro,
Art Deco Mission Revival, 1923
Robasciotti’s Contributing List 780 Toro,
proto-Streamline Moderne, 1933
7
8
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
5
Morganti Complex,
Monterey and Palm Streets, 1907–1931
Master List LeRoy Smith
and Contributing List
Leroy Anderson Houses,
1306 and 1318 Mill,
High-Peak Colonial and
Prairie School,
1906–1907
9
10
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
6
Current configuration of the property at 1220 Mill
Colonial Revival
bungalow
demonstrating
streamlining and
asymmetry under
pyramidal roof
11
12
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
7
Rear railroad house
showing references
to California
Bungalow but not
structural
embodiment
Extensive changes to original railroad structure with
a side wing and flat-roof rear extension
13
14
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
8
Clapboard front
and board and
batten sides of
garage
Structural changes to the garage
15
16
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
9
Novelty siding, shingle, and board and batten lean-tos on the
rear of the Colonial Revival bungalow
Proposed new additions
17
18
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
10
Front and side elevations
Front elevation
19
20
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
11
West elevation
East
elevation
21
22
10/2/2023 Item 6a ‐ Applicant Presentation
12
Model for the roof hyphen
The two-story addition and separate two-story garage-
residential building will rise behind the original Colonial
Revival bungalow, adding density while the historically
significant bungalow is preserved and stabilized
23
24