The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutItem 4a. 749-751 Higuera St. (HIST-0450-2023) CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: 749-751 HIGUERA (HIST-0450-2023) REMOVE THE PROPERTY FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Phone Number: (805) 781-7166 Email: woetzell@slocity.org Email: bleveille@slocity.org APPLICANT: Shawn Jarolimek REPRESENTATIVE: Alvin-Christian Nuval RECOMMENDATION Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the property should be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources 1.0 BACKGROUND The owner of the property at 749 and 751 Higuera Street has requested that the property be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. An evaluation of the property and its eligibility for historic listing has been prepared by Chattel, Inc., Historic Preservation Consultants to inform consideration of this request (see Attachment A). The City Council will make a final decision on this application and as provided by Section 14.01.030 (B) (2) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance the Committee will make a recommendation to the City Council regarding removal of the property from the Inventory. 2.0 DISCUSSION Site and Setting. The property is at the southwest corner of Higuera and Garden Streets, in the Downtown Historic District. The District was developed along the City’s earliest commercial corridors and has retained its historical use as the City’s commercial and civic center. It is more completely described in the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines,1 and in Section VI (Historic Contexts) of the applicant’s Historic Resource Assessment (Attachment A). 1 Historic Districts are described in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines available online at: www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/4144 (beginning at pg. 33) Meeting Date: 9/25/2023 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 30 Minutes Figure 1: 749-751 Higuera Page 7 of 198 Item 4a HIST-0450-2023 (749 Higuera) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 25, 2023 The site is developed with a commercial building (see Figure 1) originally designed in 1958 by local architect John R. Ross, AIA for Lacterman’s, a woman’s apparel shop, in a Modern style (Chattel, pg. 17). Clifford Chapman, owner of Marshall’s Jewelry, purchased the property in 1975 and initiated a remodel of the building, dividing it into two tenant spaces and transforming the exterior with the Spanish-derived theme observed today, employing stucco walls, tilework, window hoods and canopies, and decorative wrought iron (Chattel, pg. 17). Historic Listing. Historic preservation policies are set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s General Plan. Significant historic and architectural resources are to be preserved and rehabilitated, and their demolition, or substantial change to them, is to be avoided (COSE § 3.3). 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,2 and satisfies at least one of the historic significance criteria listed in §14.01.070. The subject property first appears as a “Contributing Property”3 in the listing of properties attached (as “Exhibit C”) to Resolution 6424 adopted in April 1988, establishing a comprehensive listing of historic properties within the City. 3.0 EVALUATION In order to be eligible for designation, a resource must exhibit a high level of his toric integrity and satisfy at least one of the Evaluation Criteria listed in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Ordinance also provides that, while it is the general intent that property not be removed from historic listing, property may be removed if the structure on it is found to no longer meet eligibility (historic significance) criteria for listing (§14.01.060(C)). For convenience, these criteria have been provided as Attachment B. The applicant’s Historic Resource Assessment evaluates the property against the Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing (see Section VII, Attachment A), and concludes that the property is not eligible for individual listing in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, either as a Master List Resource or as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District. Architectural Criteria (§14.01.070(A)). The Spanish-themed appearance of the building on this property retains few, if any, of the elements of its original Modern design. Neither the original design nor the subsequent renovation serves as a noteworthy expression of either style and neither achieved an age of 50 years old, which is a primary criterion for listing. Although John R. Ross, the architect of its original Modern design, was a skilled local architect, this building has not been demonstrated to be among his most noteworthy work and does not qualify the property for listing under these criteria. 2 See Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 for definition of Contributing List Resource or Property 3 A Contributing Property, as defined in the listing (Exhibit “C”) attached to Resolution 6424, is: A structure built before 1941 that has retained its original architectural style and, when viewed in the context of its surroundings, contributes to the historic character of the area. Page 8 of 198 Item 4a HIST-0450-2023 (749 Higuera) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 25, 2023 Historic Criteria (§14.01.070(B)). The Assessment describes the association of the property with Harry and Tillie Lacterman, operators of Lacterman’s, the apparel store, and with Clifford Chapman, owner of Marshall’s Jewelry, all active in and important to the local community. However, the subject property is not representative of their lives or significance, as, for example, it was not the original location of either business (Chattel, pg. 28). Research for the Assessment established no association with significant historical events or patterns, and the Downtown had been largely developed by the time the building was constructed (Chattel, pg. 29). Integrity. Renovation of the building in the 1970s altered much of its original integrity, affecting most of its elements, including its storefront, windows, br eezeblocks and tile, concrete block walls, and configuration of its entry, and has not achieved 50 years of age or significance of its own (Chattel, pg. 29). Conclusion. The building on the property does not appear to possess notable historic significance under the City’s Criteria for Historic Resource Listing. Its original Modern style was thoroughly transformed by 1970s renovation. Its current form is not a significant work of a notable architect or craftsman, and the property is not strongly associated with persons prominent in history, nor with unique events or patterns of history. Because the property and the structure on it do not appear to be important in contributing to the historic character of the City as a whole and do not meet significance crite ria, the Committee could recommend that the City Council remove the property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described in CEQA Guidelines Section 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. 5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Recommend to the City Council that the property be removed from historic listing 2. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff. 3. Recommend to the City Council that the property not be removed from historic listing, based on findings describing the property’s continuing eligibility for listing. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Historic Resource Assessment: 749-751 Higuera Street (Chattel, Inc.) B - Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing Page 9 of 198 Page 10 of 198 HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT 749-751 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, California Prepared for: Shawn Jarolimek 428 Ruby Street Redwood City, CA 94062 Prepared by: Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants 13417 Ventura Boulevard Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 August 22, 2023 Page 11 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 12 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction and Executive Summary ........................................................................... 3 II Qualifications .................................................................................................................. 4 III. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 5 IV. Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................... 6 City of San Luis Obispo .................................................................................................... 6 National Register of Historic Places .................................................................................. 9 California Register of Historical Resources ..................................................................... 11 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .................................................................. 13 V. Description .................................................................................................................... 14 Physical Description........................................................................................................ 14 Alterations ....................................................................................................................... 15 Subject Property History ................................................................................................. 17 VI. Historic Contexts .......................................................................................................... 19 Mid-20th Century Commercial Development in San Luis Obispo ...................................... 19 Downtown Historic District .............................................................................................. 21 Harry and Tillie Lacterman and Lacterman’s Women’s Apparel....................................... 23 Clifford Chapman and Marshalls Jewelers ...................................................................... 24 John R. Ross, AIA .......................................................................................................... 26 Selected Architectural Styles in San Luis Obispo ............................................................ 27 VII. Historic Resource Assessment ................................................................................... 28 City Master Resources List ............................................................................................. 28 National Register and California Register ........................................................................ 29 City Contributing List ....................................................................................................... 30 National Register and California Register Historic District ............................................... 31 VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 32 IX. Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 33 X. Attachments Attachment A: Maps and Aerials Attachment B: Historic Images Attachment C: Contemporary Photos Attachment D: Selected Building Permits Attachment E: 1958 Original Drawings Attachment F: 1975 Alteration Drawings Attachment G: 1979 Alteration Drawings Page 13 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 3 I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this Historic Resource Assessment (HRA) is to determine if the property located at 749-751 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California (Assessor Parcel Number: 002-424-010) is a historic resource under the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Historic Preservation Ordinance. The HRA evaluates whether the subject property is individually eligible for listing in the City Master List of Historic Resources and re-evaluates eligibility locally as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District and inclusion in the City Contributing List. The HRA further evaluates if the subject property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), either individually or as a contributor to a listed or potential National Register or California Register historic district. Note that properties that are eligible for listing in the California Register are considered historical resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The subject property contains a one- and two-story commercial building designed by John R. Ross Architect, AIA in 1958. It was previously identified by the City Cultural Heritage Committee as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District on February 2, 1987, and is listed as “751 Higuera” in the City Contributing List identifying contributing historic resources to local historic districts. No historic resources survey documentation appears to be available with additional information on its significance for listing. This HRA uses site-specific and contextual research in primary and secondary sources, applications of criteria of significance within the appropriate historic context(s), and direct observations of the subject property made by professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interiors’ Professional Qualifications Standards. For the reasons stated in this HRA, the subject property does not appear eligible for individual listing in the City Master List of Historic Resources and, upon re-evaluation, does not appear eligible locally as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District under any historical or architectural criteria significance described in the City Historic Preservation Ordinance. Chattel recommends its removal from the City Contributing List. Furthermore, the subject property is not eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register, either individually or as a contributor to a listed or potential National Register or California Register historic district. Thus, the subject property is not a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Refer to Attachment A for maps and aerials, Attachment B for historic images, Attachment C for contemporary photos, Attachment D for selected building permits, Attachment E for 1958 original drawings, Attachment F for 1975 alteration drawings, and Attachment G for 1979 alteration drawings. Page 14 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 4 II. QUALIFICATIONS Chattel, Inc. (Chattel) is a full-service historic preservation-consulting firm with practice throughout the western United States. The firm represents governmental agencies and private ventures, successfully balancing project goals with a myriad of historic preservation regulations without sacrificing principles on either side. Consisting of professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in history, architecture, architectural history, and historic architecture, the firm offers professional services including historical resources evaluation and project effects analysis, in addition to consultation on federal, state, and local historic preservation statutes and regulations. Chattel staff engage in a collaborative process and work together as a team on individual projects. This evaluation was prepared by President Robert Jay Chattel, architectural historian and preservation architect, and Senior Associate Alvin-Christia n Nuval, planner. Additional review was provided by Principal Associate Leslie Heumann, architectural historian. Page 15 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 5 III. METHODOLOGY Primary and secondary source materials were consulted for the development of applicable historic contexts. For a complete list of sources, see bibliography. Sources generally included: x Original and alteration building permits and drawings. x Records and documentation from the County of San Luis Obispo Assessor’s Office and InfoSLO digital archive. x Newspaper articles (including from the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune available online through Newspapers.com). x Online photo collection of the History Center of San Luis Obispo. x Historic and current aerials from NETR Historic Aerials; University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) FrameFinder; and Google Earth. Page 16 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 6 IV. REGULATORY SETTING City of San Luis Obispo Section 14.01.050 of the City Historic Preservation Ordinance describes the two primary categories used to designate historic resources: A. Master List Resources. The most unique and important resources and properties in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past, which meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.070. B. Contributing List Resources or Properties. Buildings or other resources at least 50 years old that maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character, and contribute, either by themselves or in conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole. They need not be located in a historic district. In some cases, buildings or other resources that are less than 50 years old, but are nonetheless significant based on architecture, craftsmanship or other criteria as described in Section 14.01.070 may be designated as a Contributing Resource. As further outlined in Section 14.01.070, in order to be eligible for designation, “the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the following criteria: A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. (1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure of: a. The relative purity of a traditional style; b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style; c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together. (2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of: a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique); b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter- builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. Page 17 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 7 (3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to: a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced development of the city, state or nation. b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos – Frank Avila’s father’s home – built 1927-30). B. Historic Criteria (1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was: a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition – locally, regionally, or nationally. b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials). (2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of: a. A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city – regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city. b. A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history). (3) History – Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects: a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g., County Museum) b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Park Hotel) C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of: (1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the original foundation has been changed, if known. (2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance. (3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Page 18 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 8 Relationship to Subject Property The subject property is not currently listed in the City Master List of Historic Resources, though is included in the City Contributing List as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District. Based on the findings of this HRA, the subject property does not appear individually eligible for listing in the City Master List of Historic Resources. Furthermore, the subject property has been re-evaluated and found not to be eligible locally as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District. Chattel recommends its removal from the City Contributing List. Page 19 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 9 National Register of Historic Places The National Register is the nation’s official list of historic and cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the National Register is part of a federal program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the country’s historic and archaeological resources. Properties listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service (NPS), which is part of the United States Department of the Interior. Resources are eligible for National Register listing if they: A) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B) are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or C) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D) have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.1 Once a resource has been determined to satisfy one of the above-referenced criteria, then it must be assessed for integrity. Integrity refers to the ability of a property to convey its significance, and the degree to which the property retains the identity, including physical and visual attributes, for which it is significant under the four basic criteria listed above. The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain its historic integrity, a property must possess several, and usually most, of these aspects. The National Register includes only those properties that retain sufficient integrity to accurately convey their physical and visual appearance from their identified period of significance. Period of significance describes the period during which a property’s importance is established. It can refer simply to the date of construction, or it can span multiple years, depending on the reason the property is important. The period of significance is established based on the property’s relevant historic context and as supported by facts contained in the historic context statement. Evaluation of integrity is founded on “an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.”2 A property significant under Criterion A or B may still retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance even if it retains a low degree of integrity of design, materials, or workmanship. Conversely, a property that derives its significance exclusively for its architecture under Criterion C must retain a high degree of integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. For some properties, comparison with similar properties is considered during the evaluation of integrity, especially when a property type is particularly rare. While integrity is important in evaluating and determining significance, a property’s physical condition, whether it is in a deteriorated or pristine state, has relatively little influence on its 1 National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002). 2 Ibid. Page 20 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 10 significance. A property that is in good condition may lack the requisite level of integrity to convey its significance due to alterations or other factors. Likewise, a property in extremely poor condition may still retain substantial integrity from its period of significance and clearly convey its significance. Relationship to Subject Property The subject property is not currently listed in the National Register. Based on the findings of this HRA, the subject property is not eligible for individual listing in the National Register and is not eligible as a contributor to a listed or potential National Register historic district. Page 21 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 11 California Register of Historical Resources The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) was established to serve as an authoritative guide to the state’s significant historical and archaeological resources (Public Resources Code (PCR) §5024.1). State law provides that in order for a property to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found by the State Historical Resources Commission to be significant under any of the following four criteria of significance, which are modeled on National Register criteria: 1) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; 3) Embodies distinctive characteristic of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; 4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. The primary difference between eligibility for listing in the National and California Registers is integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the National Register generally have a higher degree of integrity than those only eligible for listing in the California Register. There is, however, no difference with regard to significance. A property that meets the significance criteria for California Register eligibility would also be eligible for listing in the National Register unless there are issues of integrity that decrease the ability of the property to convey its significance. The California Register also includes properties which: have been formally determined eligible for listing in, or are listed in the National Register; are registered State Historical Landmark Number 770, and all consecutiv ely numbered landmarks above Number 770; points of historical interest, which have been reviewed and recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for listing; and city and county-designated landmarks or districts (if criteria for designation are determined by State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) to be consistent with California Register criteria). Public Resources Code (PRC) §5024.1(g) also states: A resource identified as significant in an historical resource survey may be listed in the California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria: 1) The survey has been or will be included in the State Historical Resources Inventory. 2) The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with [OHP]… procedures and requirements. 3) The resource is evaluated and determined by the office to have a significance rating of category 1-5 on DPR [Department of Parks and Recreation] form 523. 4) If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical resources which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those which have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource. Page 22 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 12 Resources can be eligible as a California Register historic districts if they meet National Register historic district criteria. Relationship to Subject Property The subject property is not currently listed in the California Register. Based on the findings of this HRA, the subject property is not eligible for individual listing in the California Register and is not eligible as a contributor to a listed or potential California Register historic district. Page 23 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 13 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) According to CEQA, a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources..., or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant (Public Records Code §21084.1). If a proposed project were expected to cause substantial adverse change in an historical resource, environmental clearance for the project would require mitigation measures to reduce impacts. “Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.”3 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 §15064.5 (b)(2) describes material impairment taking place when a project: A) demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register… or B) demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical; characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register... or its identification in an historical resources survey... unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or C) demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register... as determined by a lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. Relationship to Subject Property As described, the subject property is not eligible for listing in the California Register, either individually or as a contributor to a listed or potential California Register historic district. Based on the findings of this HRA, the subject property is not a historical resource under CEQA. 3 CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(1)) Page 24 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 14 V. DESCRIPTION The following description is based on review of historic documentation and inspection. See Attachment A for maps and aerials, Attachment B for historic images, Attachment C for contemporary photos, Attachment D for selected building permits, Attachment E for 1958 original drawings, Attachment F for 1975 alteration drawings, and Attachment G for 1979 alteration drawings. Physical Description The subject property consists of a one- and two-story commercial building with a mostly rectangular plan that sits at the corner of Higuera Street (Higuera) and Garden Street (Garden) in the Downtown Historic District. Higuera is a large commercial corridor with storefronts to the north and south. The primary north elevation (façade) of the subject property faces Higuera, the secondary east elevation faces Garden, and the rear south elevation faces Garden Alley. The west elevation abuts an adjacent commercial building, although it is partially visible at the rear. Most of the building is one story, though there is a second story accessed by interior stairs located at the south portion of the building. The subject property is divided into two main retail spaces: 749 Higuera at the west (west retail space) and 751 Higuera at the east (east retail space). Beneath a flat roof with a molded cornice, exterior walls are clad in textured stucco and feature a linear, single row of glazed tile trim near the base of the north and east elevations. At the north elevation, low planter walls topped with wrought iron fencing border the sidewalk, and two wrought iron gates provide access to small outdoor courtyards at the east and west retail spaces. The wrought iron gates are identical, with an arched top and elaborate patterning. The top of the gate at the west retail space is obscured by a fabric canopy that stretches from the inset entrance wall. The planters at the north elevation hold various low shrubs. The north elevation of the west retail space consists of a plate glass door beneath the previously mentioned fabric canopy that is flanked on either side by a fixed single-pane window ornamented with a plaster hood and accented by a projecting sill. This facade is more symmetrical than the facade of the east retail space, which takes an L-shaped plan due to a portion extending directly to the sidewalk between the courtyards. A window with hood and sill similar to those at the west retail space is centered in the north wall of the east retail space where it abuts the sidewalk. At the inset portion of the north wall in the east retail space courtyard, a bay window projects outward with a similar plaster hood and sill. The entrance to the east retail space is on the east wall in the courtyard and has an elaborate design etched into the glass door. The door is flanked on either side by iron sconces. The east elevation is largely plain with various-sized inset rectangular fixed glass windows underneath two fabric canopies. The canopies are held in place with decorative wrought iron framing to match the gates and fence. There are remnant shadows from where individual letter signs appear to have been removed. The east elevation of the second floor is partially visible from the street. Original windows at the second floor have been covered or infilled. At the south elevation, there are several vents and glass block windows at the first and second floors. A door provides back access to the west retail space. The west elevation is only partially visible at the rear and has no ornamentation. Mechanical equipment is located on the flat roof, which is enclosed by a low parapet with sheet metal coping. Page 25 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 15 Originally one large retail space, the interior has been divided into two smaller retail spaces as previously described. The west retail space also includes small offices and closets and a series of changing rooms. Stairs lead to a second floor space that also provides roof access. The east retail space only spans a portion of the first floor and includes offices, a vault, and a back room. Both retail spaces are vacant and there do not appear to be original finishes. Alterations The subject property was substantially remodeled in 1975 following purchase by Clifford Chapman, who converted the building from a Mid-century Modern architectural style to one reminiscent of Spanish Colonial Revival. The extant building bears no resemblance to the original one (see Attachment B, Historic Images, Images 1, 2, and 5). Originally a single retail space, the building was bisected at the interior to allow for two smaller retail spaces, each with its own small courtyard entrance. Alterations were completed at the exterior associated with the east retail space first, with alterations to the west retail space happening later in 1979 to be consistent with the east. A portion of the east retail space was brought out towards Higuera, slightly changing the original footprint of the building. The originally exposed concrete block exterior walls were clad in stucco and painted, with tile trim added along the base at the north and east elevations. Plate glass storefront windows, decorative breeze block screens, and a flat extension of the roof to form a canopy supported by pipe columns at the primary north elevation were removed. Courtyards were created in space below the canopy and at the northeast corner, with wrought iron gates and fences with planters installed. A new entrance door was added for the east retail space facing Garden rather than Higuera. New elaborate windows with wrought iron bars (the wrought iron grilles have been removed) were added to the north elevation. At the east elevation, the original plate glass display windows with ceramic tile base were removed and infilled. New smaller, inset windows were added along with new fabric canopies with decorative wrought iron frames. Windows at the east elevation at the second floor were also covered or i nfilled. Decorative concrete block exterior surfaces were covered with stucco. A flat canopy beneath the roof parapet was also removed. At the rear elevation, a vent appears to have been infilled. A molded cornice was added to the edge of the roof parapet. The interior walls were reconfigured to accommodate the new smaller size of each retail space. The following table provides a summary of building permits available through the City’s digital records platform, InfoSLO. Images of selected building permits are included in Attachment D. Address Permit Number Description Issued Date 749 Higuera BLDG-L02171-1-1958 Clothing store 11/5/1958 749 Higuera BLDG-L01298-3-1964 Repair fire damage 9/22/1964 749 Higuera BLDG-L05455-1975 Remodel store 9/25/1975 749 Higuera BLDG-L07638-1979 Remodel store 5/9/1979 751 Higuera BLDG-L10654-1996 Replacement heating- cooling unit 3/20/1996 751 Higuera BLDG-L11243-1996 Replace rooftop HVAC unit 11/25/1996 749 Higuera BLDG-L17568-2003 Non-illuminated sign for Central Coast Wedding Center 1/14/2003 Page 26 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 16 Address Permit Number Description Issued Date 751 Higuera BLDG-1893-2017 Waterproofing of building due to street improvements 10/11/2017 749 Higuera BLDG-0798-2022 Replace packing units and replace ducting 3/28/2022 The figures below show a comparison of the street-facing north and east elevations in the 1958 original drawings with the same elevations in the 1975 alteration drawings. Figure 1: North elevation in 1958 (left) and 1975 (right) drawings. Figure 2: East elevation in 1958 (top) and 1975 (bottom) drawings. Page 27 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 17 Subject Property History In 1959, owners Harry and Tillie Lacterman opened a women’s apparel shop at the subject property after seeking to expand their existing retail business known as Lacterman’s. Plans had been drawn the year prior by local architect John R. Ross, AIA. The new Lacterman’s replaced an earlier building demolished in 1956 that had long housed a Riley’s department store. Though advertisements for the new shop appeared in the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune as early as March 12, 1959, Lacterman’s held its grand opening ribbon cutting ceremony on April 30, 1959.4 The Lactermans operated their shop at the subject property for only six years before retiring in 1965 and selling their business to Gordon E. Magnuson.5,6 The store was renamed Magnuson’s, and continued to primarily sell women’s clothing. The business was again sold in 1975, to Sam and Jo Ann Trett, who retained the Magnuson’s name and began emphasizing bridal wear and wedding apparel in advertisements.7 Though ownership of the businesses changed, the Lactermans retained ownership of the subject property as landlords until 1975, when it was purchased by Clifford Chapman, owner of Marshalls Jewelers. Chapman sought to remodel the building, engaging General Engineering Co. to prepare the drawing set. The remodel would bisect the existing building into two separate retail spaces, with Magnuson’s at 749 Higuera and Marshalls Jewelers moving into the corner space at 751 Higuera abutting Garden. A San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune newspaper article described the changes proposed: In the proposal, designed by a Southern California architectural firm, a portion of the corner space will be brought out to the sidewalk line, and a Spanish terrace entrance created at the corner. Extensive use will be made of ornamental wrought iron around the landscaped terrace and for window bars on Garden Street. Spanish tile will be unglazed on the terrace, and glazed for exterior wall trim. Exterior stucco will be Spanish-textured finish, and glass facing on the terrace will have an etched design. Brass entry lamps are planned on either side of the store entrance door. Detailing on the door will include the jewelry firm’s logogram. Exterior walls, both on the ground floor and upper level; wind ow detailing, canopy trim and coping will be white opal. Canopies will be monarch blue. The proposal lists California Ceanothus and philodendron for terrace plantings.8 Remodel at the exterior of the 751 Higuera side of the property was completed first, though alteration of the 749 Higuera side would follow, with the article noting “Sam and Joann Trett, owners of Magnuson’s, also will remodel the exterior and interi or of the space allotted to their store, using the Spanish theme in keeping with Chapman’s plans.”9 In 1979, it was reported that Clifford Chapman was remodeling the Magnuson’s storefront with a design by Steve Puglisi and Richard Yaco “using New Orleans style iron grille work, paving and ceramic tiles, and a rolled 4 “Advertisement: Lacterman’s Grand Opening,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder, April 24, 1959: 6. 5 “NO! It’s not Paul Revere, It’s Harry Lacterman,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 21, 1965: 13. 6 “Magnuson new owner of Lacterman’s,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 2, 1965: 12. 7 “Public Notice,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, April 28, 1975: 14. 8 “Spanish theme influencing proposed remodeling work,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 2, 1975: 8. 9 Ibid. Page 28 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 18 form of plastering.”10 The building permit and project drawings for the remodel of the west retail space are instead attributed to Richard H. Dodd & Associates. Marshalls Jewelers operated at 751 Higuera until 2018, with the retail space taken over by Anastasia Fine Jewelry. The ret ail space at 749 Higuera continued to house various women’s clothing shops after Magnuson’s left in 1981, including Ms. Kelley’s, Palm Street & Co. Women’s Clothiers, Kelley’s Bridal Salon, Everyone’s Favorite Wedding Center, and Central Coast Wedding Center. At the time of writing, both retail spaces at the subject property are vacant. 10 “Business areas to show changes,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 12, 1979: 14. Page 29 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 19 VI. HISTORIC CONTEXTS Historic contexts or significant historical themes provide the relevant framework within which to evaluate significance of the subject property. The subject property has been evaluated under the following historic contexts: mid-20th century commercial development in San Luis Obispo; Downtown Historic District; Harry and Tillie Lacterman and Lacterman’s Women’s Apparel; Clifford Chapman and Marshalls Jewelers; John R. Ross, AIA; and selected architectural styles in San Luis Obispo, including Mid-century Modern and Spanish Colonial Revival. Mid-20th Century Commercial Development in San Luis Obispo The following context is excerpted from the “Mid-20th Century Commercial Development” theme of the Citywide Historic Context Statement prepared in 2013.11 In 1958, the U. S. Highway 101 was completed, which became a major thoroughfare for automobile tourism in the area. San Luis Obispo’s location near California’s Central Coast and at the mid-point between San Francisco and Los Angeles continued to make it an attractive destination for automobile tourism. The first roadside motel was established in San Luis Obispo in 1925; additional motels were developed that were easily accessible from the freeway in the 1950s and 1960s. The most prominent example is the Madonna Inn, developed by local construction magnate and entrepreneur, Alex Madonna. Madonna opened the Madonna Inn in 1961 and ran the hotel until his death in 2004; the inn is still owned and operated by the Madonna family today. The Madonna Inn exemplifies the eyecatching designs and prominent signage that characterized roadside motel design of the 1950s and 1960s. In 1950, the Sunset Drive-In opened in San Luis Obispo. The first drive-in theater opened in New Jersey in 1933. The drive-in reached the height of its popularity in the 1950s and 1960s, as over 4,000 outdoor theaters were opened across the country, accounting for 25% of the nation's movie screens. By the late 1980s, more than three-quarters of the country’s drive-ins closed as multiplexes proliferated. As of January 2013, drive-ins only accounted for 1.5% of the nation’s theaters. In California, fewer than twenty of the state’s more than two hundred theaters remain. Of those that are extant, many have been substantially altered or no longer operate as theaters. The Sunset Drive-In still operates as a drive-in theater today, representing a rare remaining example in California. Many existing commercial buildings in the original downtown core were modified with contemporary storefronts during this period. New commercial development during this period included a small number of low-density commercial retail and office buildings located outside of the historic core. Many of these low-density office buildings were developed for use as medical offices and health services. The most prominent of these is the Kundert Medical Building, which was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and completed in 1956. During the 1950s, San Luis Obispo saw its share of suburban sprawl within geographically defined borders, and the first mall was built just a few miles from downtown. In the 1970s, another mall was added. But unlike in other communities in California, the two shopping centers proved to be little competition for downtown San Luis Obispo as the major commercial center. 11 Historic Resources Group, City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement, September 30, 2013, 125-127. Page 30 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 20 During the postwar economic boom, several San Luis Obispo families established long- running enterprises. In 1947, brothers William and Pino Cattaneo founded the Cattaneo Brothers sausage company, and William Cattaneo’s wife, Mary (Piantanida) Cattaneo, worked as the company’s bookkeeper. Paul Piantanida built an auto repair shop, Paul’s Garage, in 1948 which now serves as the San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum. Today, Cattaneo Brothers is run by descendants of the Piantanida and Cattaneo families. Architectural styles associated with this period include Mid-century Modern. Architects who are represented in San Luis Obispo during this period include Frank Lloyd Wright and Craig Ellwood, along with local architects Mackey Deasy, Homer Delawie, George Hasslein, Warren Leopold, Paul Neel, and Piercy K. Notable local builders include Stan Bell, Leonard Blazer, Roger Brown, Alex Madonna, Patrick Smith, Arnold Volney, and Jack Westerman. Page 31 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 21 Downtown Historic District The following context is excerpted from the City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines published in 2010.12 Setting The Downtown Historic District encompasses the oldest part of the City of San Luis Obispo and contains one of the City’s highest concentrations of historic sites and structures. The historic Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa is at the geographic and historic center of the district, which is bounded roughly by Palm and Marsh Streets on the north and south, Osos and Nipomo Streets on the east and west, plus Dana Street as the northwest corner. Although some structures date to the Spanish and Mexican eras (1772- 1850) and the American pioneer settlement era (1850s-1870), the majority of surviving structures date from the 1870s to the 1920s. The district is comprised of two subdivisions: the Town of San Luis Obispo, recorded 1878 and the Mission Vineyard Tract recorded in March of 1873. The Downtown Historic District has an area of 61.5 acres and in 2010 includes 98 designated historic structures. The Downtown Historic District was developed along the City’s earliest commercial corridors along Monterey, Higuera, Chorro, Garden and Marsh Streets, and has retained its historical use as San Luis Obispo’s commercial and civic center. Commer cial structures were laid out in a regular grid pattern, with buildings set at the back of sidewalks and relatively narrow (60 foot right-of-way) streets. The resultant narrow streets and zero building setbacks reinforce the district’s human scale and vibrant Main Street image. Site Features and Characteristics Common site features and characteristics include: A. Buildings located at back of sidewalk with zero street and side setbacks B. Finish floors at grade C. Recessed front entries oriented toward the street D. Front facades oriented toward the street E. Trees placed at regular intervals along the street Architectural Character Built during the San Luis Obispo’s boom time circa 1870s -1910s (when the Town’s population increased over 800 percent from 600 people in 1868 to 5,157 in 1910), the district’s commercial architectural styles reflect the increasing wealth of the times. Architectural styles present in the Downtown District include examples of Classical Revival, Italianate and Romanesque structures, and more modest early American commercial. Although a few structures were designed by outside architects (specifically from San Francisco and Los Angeles), the majority of Downtown buildings were designed and built by local builders, including the Maino family, John Chapek, and Frank Mitchell. 12 City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, November 2010, 38-42. Page 32 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 22 Predominant architectural features include: A. One to two stories (occasionally three) B. Flat or low pitched roof, often with a parapet C. Wide entablature or projecting cornice that often includes classical architectural details such as dentils, brackets and molding D. First floor windows are horizontally oriented storefront windows, often with display space facing street. In multi-story structures, windows are vertically oriented, typically with double hung, wood sashes, and symmetrically arranged so that they are dimensionally taller than their width E. Structures follow simple rectilinear or “boxy” buildings forms F. Masonry or smooth stucco wall siding G. Contrasting bulkheads along base of street façade H. Use of awnings, historic signs, second-story overhangs and canopies I. Use of transom windows above storefronts Individually Contributing Elements in the Downtown District Not all historic resources in the Downtown Historic District were built during the district’s period of significance of 1870-1930. These buildings 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 Doton Building is an example of Streamline Moderne architecture from the 1930s. This building was placed on the Master List as a significant resource due to its craftsmanship and the rarity of this particular style in San Luis Obispo. Additional examples include the Laird building at 1023 Garden. Built in the 1880s, the Laird building is one of the City’s last remaining Pioneer False front buildings. The Golden State Creamery building at 570 Higuera is historically significant to San Luis Obispo for its association with the dairy industry, an industry integral to the City’s development. Non-Contributing Elements in Downtown 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. Buildings setback from street or side property lines B. Building height, form or massing which contrasts markedly with the prevailing 2-3 story pattern C. Wood, metal or other contemporary material siding, or “faux” architectural materials or features D. Asymmetrical arrangement of doors and windows E. Raised, non-recessed or offset street entries to buildings Page 33 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 23 Harry and Tillie Lacterman and Lacterman’s Women’s Apparel Harry (1907-1982) and Tillie (1910-1999) Lacterman were entrepr eneurs who owned and operated Lacterman’s, a retail business specializing in women’s apparel. The couple married in 1932, just before moving from Canada to San Francisco where they operated a similar apparel business.13 The Lactermans moved to San Luis Obispo in 1936 and opened Advance Suit and Cloak Co. at 977 Higuera.14 In 1939, they established Lacterman’s at 955 Higuera “with an up-to- date line of ladies wearing apparel.”15 The business would stay at that location for only four years before moving to 728 Higuera in 1943, when its success and growth necessitated a larger retail space.16 As operations grew even further, the Lactermans sought to construct a new retail building to house their business. In 1958, they engaged local architect John. R. Ross to develop the design that would replace an existing building at 749 Higuera, the subject property. Lacterman’s would celebrate its grand reopening in the new building on April 30, 1959, with a ribbon cutting ceremony.17 After six years at the subject property, Harry and Tillie would announce their retirement, closing the business and selling the remaining stock to Gordon E. Magnuson.18,19 The Lactermans retained ownership of the subject property until 197 5, when they sold it to Clifford Chapman, owner of Marshalls Jewelers, who would later heavily alter and bisect the commercial building.20 Within the local community, the Lactermans were involved in various groups and organizations. Harry was a founding member and builder of the Congregation Beth David Temple, serving as president of the congregation from 1966-1967.21 He was also a member of the San Luis Obispo Lions Club, Elks Club, Country Club, Caballeros Riding Club, and Sierra Club. Tillie was active in the Business and Professional Womens Club and the Lady Lions.22 After over 45 years in the community, Harry would die in 1982, with Tillie following more than ten years later in 1999. They were survived by their daughter Rita Jean Zidell. 13 “Temple founder dies in SLO,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 19, 1982: 17. 14 “Operations Of Factory Suspended,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 19, 1937: 2. 15 “Lacterman’s Improvements,” Pismo Times, March 28, 1941: 5. 16 “Lacterman to Move to New Quarters,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder, February 12, 1943: 4. 17 “Advertisement: Lacterman’s Grand Opening,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder, April 24, 1959: 6. 18 “NO! It’s not Paul Revere, It’s Harry Lacterman,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 21, 1965: 13. 19 “Magnuson new owner of Lacterman’s,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 2, 1965: 12. 20 “Spanish theme influencing proposed remodeling work,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 2, 1975: 8. 21 “Temple founder dies in SLO,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 19, 1982: 17. 22 “Guest Speaker at BPW Dinner,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 19, 1950: 2. Page 34 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 24 Clifford Chapman and Marshalls Jewelers Clifford Wayne Chapman (Chapman) was born in Guadalupe, California in May 1930.23 A sixth- generation resident of San Luis Obispo County, Chapman studied electrical engineering at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, but ultimately made his career working for and later owning Marshalls Jewelers, a jewelry store that has operated in Downtown San Luis Obispo for over a century. Marshalls Jewelers first opened in 1889 as Marshall & Oppliger, a partnership between founders Manuel Marshall and Leo Oppliger.24 Marshall, an Azorean immigrant, bought out Oppliger’s interest in the business in 1897, retaining sole ownership as Oppliger returned to Europe.25 At the time, historic newspaper articles noted the store as located on Monterey Street. Address locations were not included in the available historic newspaper advertisements from the early twentieth century, but by 1968, Marshalls Jewelers was operating at 790 Higuera.26 By then, ownership had changed several times, with Art Marshall taking over for his father, before eventually selling to his cousin, Chapman, in the early 1960s.27 Chapman had first begun working at Marshalls Jewelers in the 1950s as a janitor.28 In 1975, Chapman purchased the subject property from Harry and Tillie Lacterman, remodeling and bisecting the building before moving the jewelry store into the east retail space at 751 Higuera. Chapman continued to own and operate the store until he sold it to employee Jeff McKeegan in 1993.29 After 129 years of business, Marshalls Jewelers closed in 2018.30 Chapman met his life partner, Gene “Don” Shidler, in the 1960s, around the time he became the third owner of Marshalls Jewelers.31 The couple were active enthusiasts of the local arts community, supporting the San Luis Obispo Symphony, Mozart Festival, Pacific Repertory Opera, San Luis Obispo Little Theater, and Performing Arts Center San Luis Obispo.32 Chapman died in his sleep at the age of 82 on June 14, 2012. As part of his will, Chapman directed that his approximately 1.5-acre estate at 1243 Ocean Boulevard in Pismo Beach be donated to the City of Pismo Beach for public benefit, instructing that Shidler be able to live at the house for as long as he like and that community events by certain non-profit groups continue to 23 “Clifford Chapman Obituary (2012) – San Luis Obispo, CA,” Legacy.com, <https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sanluisobispo/name/clifford-chapman-obituary?id=8912961> accessed July 12, 2023. 24 “Marshalls Jewelers,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, January 30, 2016, BB17. 25 “Morning Tribune,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, December 29, 1897, 2. 26 “Advertisement: Newlyweds,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, March 26, 1968, 2. 27 Linn, Sarah, “Clifford Chapman, local philanthropist and arts patron, has died,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, June 15, 2012. <https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39205239.html> accessed July 12, 2023. 28 Lazier, Matt, “Estate worth $4 million promised to Cal Poly,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, May 24, 2002: 9. 29 Wilton, Nick, “Marshalls Jewelers is closing after 129 years in San Luis Obispo – and four owners,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, December 14, 2018, A3. 30 Ibid. 31 Linn, Sarah, “Clifford Chapman, local philanthropist and arts patron, has died,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, June 15, 2012. <https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39205239.html> accessed July 12, 2023. 32 Lazier, Matt, “Estate worth $4 million promised to Cal Poly,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, May 24, 2002: 9. Page 35 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 25 be held at the location for free.33 The Chapman Estate continues to be managed by the City of Pismo Beach with support from the Chapman Estate Foundation. 33 Strickland, Tonya, “Local arts patron gifts mansion to city of Pismo Beach,” San Luis Obispo Telegram- Tribune, October 10, 2013. <https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39457851.html> accessed July 12, 2023. Page 36 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 26 John R. Ross, AIA John R. Ross (Ross) was born on March 27, 1923, in Minneapolis, Minnesota and received his architecture degree from the University of Southern California (USC) in 1949.34 His studies at USC and his post-graduate career were interrupted by both World War II and the Korean War, where he served as an Army infantry officer and captain in the Army engineer corps, respectively. Ross came to San Luis Obispo in 1956 to work with local architect William Holdredge before embarking on his own practice, taking on projects across the County.35 Local newspapers reference Ross’ work through the 1950s and 1960s on such projects as additions to the San Luis Obispo County Hospital, additions to the San Luis Obispo Veterans Building, design of the Eldorado Garden Apartments, and remodel of the McMahan Furniture Company’s headquarters. His obituary in the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune noted that “his architectural creations include the Our Lady of the Nativity Church and Sebastian’s Restaurant” and “Ross is also responsible for designing the Elks Clu b, the San Luis Obispo Golf and Country Club, General Hospital, the Pacific Bell facility on Mill Street, and the Inn at Morro Bay.”36 Based on historic newspaper articles, Ross appears to have worked under a few different firm names, including John R. Ross, Associates, Architects in 1967; Ross & Levin Associates, Architects in 1974; and Ross Levin MacIntyre Varner in 1981, wh en he retired. Outside of designing buildings, Ross was involved in several different organizations, serving as the Chairman of the Foundation for Responsible Environmental and Economic Development (FREED) lobby group in 1981.37 Ross was also appointed to the state Board of Architectural Examiners in 1968, reappointed in 1972, and appointed to the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards in 1969, serving as president in 1979.38 Ross was a fellow of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) and a visiting lecturer at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo for 10 years.39 Ross died in San Luis Obispo on June 6, 1990, with his obituary recognizing his career of 30 years designing buildings in the city.40 34 Kenyon, Ken, “San Luis Obispo architect John R. Ross dies,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, June 7, 1990: 4. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Bauman, Larry, “Conservatives start war chest,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, October 27, 1981: 1. 38 Kenyon, Ken, “San Luis Obispo architect John R. Ross dies,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, June 7, 1990: 4. 39 Ibid. 40 Ibid. Page 37 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 27 Selected Architectural Styles in San Luis Obispo The following context is excerpted from the “Architectural Character” chapter of the Citywide Historic Context Statement prepared in 2013.41 Mid-century Modern Mid-century Modern is a term used to describe a post-World War II iteration of the International Style in both residential and commercial design. The International Style was characterized by geometric forms, smooth wall surfaces, and an absence of exterior decoration. Mid-century Modern represents the adaptation of these elements to the local climate and topography, as well as to the postwar need for efficiently-built, moderately- priced homes and buildings. The Mid-century Modern building is characterized by its clear expression of structure and materials, large expanses of glass, and open interior plan. Character-defining features include: x One or two-story configuration x Simple geometric forms x Expressed post-and-beam construction, in wood or steel x Flat roof with wide overhanging eaves and cantilevered canopies x Unadorned wall surfaces x Exterior panels of wood, stucco, brick or stone x Flush-mounted metal frame full-height and clerestory windows x Exterior staircases, decks, patios and balconies x Little or no exterior decorative detailing x Expressionistic/Organic subtype: sculptural forms and geometric shapes, including butterfly, Aframe, folded plate or barrel vault roofs Spanish Colonial Revival Enormously popular in Southern California from the late 1910s through the late 1930s, the Spanish Colonial Revival style emerged from a conscious effort by architects to emulate older Spanish architectural traditions, and break with Eastern colonial influences. At the peak of its popularity, design features of other regions of the Mediterranean were often creatively incorporated, including those of Italy, France, and North Africa. The result was a pan-Mediterranean mélange of eclectic variations on Spanish Revival styles. Character-defining features include: x Asymmetrical facade x Red clay tile hip or side-gable roof, or flat roof with a tile-clad parapet x Stucco exterior cladding, forming uninterrupted wall planes x Wood-frame casement or double-hung windows, typically with divided lights x Arched colonnades, window or door openings x Decorative grilles of wood, wrought iron, or plaster x Balconies, patios or towers x Decorative terra cotta or tile work 41 Historic Resources Group, City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement, September 30, 2013, 132-153. Page 38 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 28 VII. HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT This section evaluates eligibility of the subject property for individual listing in the City Master List of Historic Resources, National Register, and California Register, with respect to the historic contexts described in the preceding section of the report. In addition, this section re-evaluates eligibility of the subject property for listing in the City Contributor List as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District and provides additional evaluation for eligibility as a contributor to a listed or potential National Register or California historic district. City Master List of Historic Resources Criterion A - Architecture Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values (in terms of style, design, and/or architect) The subject property was originally constructed in 1958 and featured a modest Mid-century Modern design consisting of exposed concrete block walls, decorative breezeblocks at the primary north elevation, a plate glass storefront and display windows, and glass block at the rear south elevation. In 1975 and 1979, the subject property was extensively remodeled, changing the original style to one reminiscent of Spanish Colonial Revival. Much of the original elements were altered, with the primary north elevation completely changed with the integration of two new small courtyards. Original windows at the secondary east elevation were replaced and the concrete block walls were fully clad in stucco. As such, it no longer embodies the distinctive characteristics of its original style and design. As a Spanish Colonial Revival building, the subject property is a selective pastiche of somewhat Spanish elements and does not ex hibit the proportions or craftsmanship associated with the better Spanish-influenced buildings from the last quarter of the 20th century. Local architect John R. Ross provided the original 1958 design of the subject property. Though he completed extensive work in the city, including the Eldorado Garden Apartments and Elks Club, it does not appear to be a particularly noteworthy example of his work based on his obituary and there is no evidence that his work influenced development of the city, state, or nation. Alterations completed in 1975 and 1979 changed the original architectural character of the subject property, are not yet 50 years of age, and do not appear to have taken significance over time. The subject property is ineligible under Criterion A. Criterion B - Historic Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. History – Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Though the subject property was owned by Harry and Tillie Lacterman and Clifford Chapman, it is not representative of their lives or significance to the local community. The Lactermans did not found their women’s apparel store at the subject property and only operated for six years before retiring. Clifford Chapman purchased the property from the Lactermans to serve as the new Page 39 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 29 location for Marshalls Jewelers, but it was also not the original location of the business and Chapman’s tenure at the property lasted 18 years. Chapman was also the fourth owner of Marshalls Jewelers, not its founder, and is more significant for his philanthropic efforts in the arts. He is best associated with his home in Pismo Beach. Research does not support that the subject property is associated with any significant events or predominant patterns of history. When the subject property was constructed in 1958, Downtown San Luis Obispo was already very developed as a commercial district. As described in the City historic context, most development in Downtown had occurred by the 1930s. Review of Sanborn maps from 1950 show that there were already many extant buildings, and the subject property did not contribute to the pattern of development of the area. Research also did not support that the subject property is a prime illustration of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Because of alterations in 1975-1979, the subject property no longer is able to convey the role it may have had from that time period and instead would be evaluated as a building from the late 1970s. Based on the information provided, there is no evidence that the subject property played an exceptional role in downtown commercial life during this later period. The subject property is ineligible under Criterion B. Criterion C - Integrity Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. The subject property no longer retains the original integrity from its construction in 1958. Much of the original design intent of the building has been altered as part of work in 1975 and 1979, including removal of original storefronts and windows, removal of original decorative elements such as breezeblocks and tile, and cladding of the originally exposed concrete block wall in stucco. An addition at the primary north elevation altered the original footprint of the building. The subject property no longer retains integrity of design, workmanship, materials, association, and feeling from 1958. The property retains integrity from its 1975-1979 remodel, though work has not met the 50 years of age threshold and, as described, is not exceptional under the other criteria. The subject property is ineligible under Criterion C. National Register and California Register For the reasons previously described, under Criterion A/1, the subject property is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and cultural heritage. Under Criterion B/2, the subject property is not associated with the lives of persons important in our past. Under Criterion C/3, the subject property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values. Under Criterion D/4, the subject property is unlikely to yield information important in prehistory or history. Furthermore, as described, the subject property does not retain from its original 1958 construction. The subject property is ineligible for individual listing in the National Register and California Register. Page 40 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 30 City Contributing List The subject property was listed in the City Contributing List on February 3, 1987, when City Council adopted Resolution No. 6158 approving Historical Preservation Program Guidelines (Guidelines). Appendix D of the Guide lines included the subject property as “751 Higuera” among other contributing properties to historic districts, amending an earlier list from 1983 which did not include the subject property. Later lists by the City would identify the subject property as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District (District). No documentation, such as a historic resources survey form for the subject property, was available describing why it was included as a contributor. The revised 2010 Guidelines include further description of the District, noting a period of significance of 1870-1930. While the Guidelines note that not all historic resources in the District were built during the period of significance and some may still merit preservation, it also comments that most of the post-1950 contemporary buildings do not meet eligibility criteria and have not achieved historical significance. The subject property was constructed in 1958, outside of the period of significance for the District. When it was added to the Contributing List in 1987, it was only 29 years old, outside of the 50- year threshold now commonly used for evaluation. Furthermore, substantial work altering both the interior and exterior of the property was completed in 1975-1979, only 8 to 12 years prior to its listing. Consistent with the features of non-contributors, the subject property is set back from the street (albeit with planters that abut the sidewalk); displays a projecting and receding massing and set back second story rather than a façade flush with the sidewalk typical of a simple rectilinear or boxy building; introduces wrought iron fencing and window surrounds derived from the Spanish Colonial Revival as a prominent (“faux”) architectural features; has an asymmetrical arrangement of doors and windows; and its entries do not conform to the prevailing pattern of recessed doorways flanked by bulkheads. As described in the assessment in the previous sections, the subject property does not appear to meet significance as a historic resource at the national, state, and local levels and does not retain its integrity. As such, this HRA finds that the subject property is not eligible for inclusion in the Contributing List and should be removed. While it remains unclear why the subject property was included in the Contributing List in 1987, it is possible that it was mistaken for an earlier building that was located on the property and demolished in 1956. Review of Sanborn maps from 1950 show the footprint of the original building that occupied the subject property and had previously housed a Riley’s department store. This would be consistent with efforts to focus identification of pre-1941 buildings in the original development of the historic districts. Figure 3: 1950 Sanborn map showing previous building at subject property, demolished in 1956. Page 41 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 31 National Register and California Register Historic District Because the subject property is not eligible for listing in the City Contributing List, it is also assumed to be ineligible for listing as a contributor to a listed or potential National Register and California Register Historic District. Page 42 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 32 VIII. CONCLUSION This HRA evaluated the subject property at 749-751 Higuera Street to determine if it is a historic resource under the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Historic Preservation Ordinance. As described in this HRA, the subject property does not appear eligible for individual listing in the City Master List of Historic Resources and, upon re-evaluation, does not appear eligible locally as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District under any historical or architectural criteria significance described in the City Historic Preservation Ordinance. Chattel recommends its removal from the City Contributing List. Furthermore, the subject property is not eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register, either individually or as a contributor to a listed or potential National Register or California Register historic district. Thus, the subject property is not a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Page 43 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 33 IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder newspaper articles: “Lacterman to Move to New Quarters,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder, February 12, 1943: 4. “Advertisement: Lacterman’s Grand Opening,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder, April 24, 1959: 6. CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(1)) City of San Luis Obispo, “Historic Preservation Program Guidelines,” November 2010. “Clifford Chapman Obituary (2012) – San Luis Obispo, CA,” Legacy.com, <https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sanluisobispo/name/clifford-chapman- obituary?id=8912961> accessed July 12, 2023. Historic Resources Group, “City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement,” September 30, 2013. National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002). Pismo Times newspaper articles: “Lacterman’s Improvements,” Pismo Times, March 28, 1941: 5. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune newspaper articles: “Morning Tribune,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, December 29, 1897, 2. “Operations Of Factory Suspended,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 19, 1937: 2. “Guest Speaker at BPW Dinner,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 19, 1950: 2. “NO! It’s not Paul Revere, It’s Harry Lacterman,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 21, 1965: 13. “Magnuson new owner of Lacterman’s,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 2, 1965: 12. “Advertisement: Newlyweds,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, March 26, 1968, 2. “Public Notice,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, April 28, 1975: 14. “Spanish theme influencing proposed remodeling work,” San Luis Obispo Telegram- Tribune, July 2, 1975: 8. Page 44 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 34 “Business areas to show changes,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 12, 1979: 14. Bauman, Larry, “Conservatives start war chest,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, October 27, 1981: 1. “Temple founder dies in SLO,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 19, 1982: 17. Kenyon, Ken, “San Luis Obispo architect John R. Ross dies,” San Luis Obispo Telegram- Tribune, June 7, 1990: 4. Lazier, Matt, “Estate worth $4 million promised to Cal Poly,” San Luis Obispo Telegram- Tribune, May 24, 2002: 9. Linn, Sarah, “Clifford Chapman, local philanthropist and arts patron, has died,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, June 15, 2012. <https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39205239.html> accessed July 12, 2023. Strickland, Tonya, “Local arts patron gifts mansion to city of Pismo Beach,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, October 10, 2013. <https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39457851.html> accessed July 12, 2023. “Marshalls Jewelers,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, January 30, 2016, BB17. Wilton, Nick, “Marshalls Jewelers is closing after 129 years in San Luis Obispo – and four owners,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, December 14, 2018, A3. Page 45 of 198 Page 46 of 198 ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS 749-751 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Page 47 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 48 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 1: Downtown Historical Preservation District outlined in blue with subject property marked in red (City of San Luis Obispo, 1987) Page 49 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 2: Assessor parcel map with subject property outlined in red (County of 6DQ/XLV2ELVSR$VVHVVRU¶V2I¿FH THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 50 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 3: Subject property in 1956 outlined in red, note parcel is empty after demolition of previous building that year (NETR Historic Aerials) Image 4: Subject property in 1963 outlined in red (UCSB FrameFinder) N N Page 51 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 5: Subject property in 1959 outlined in red with neighborhood context (UCSB Frame Finder) Image 6: Subject property in 1981 following 1975 and 1979 remodel outlined in red (NETR Historic Aerials) N N Page 52 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 7: Subject property in 1994 outlined in red (NETR Historic Aerials) Image 8: 6XEMHFWSURSHUW\LQRXWOLQHGLQUHG1(75+LVWRULF$HULDOV N N Page 53 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 9: 6XEMHFWSURSHUW\LQRXWOLQHGLQUHG*RRJOH0DSV N THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 54 of 198 ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES 749-751 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Page 55 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 56 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 1: Decorative concrete block wall at north elevation, view southeast (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, March 12, 1959) Page 57 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 2: Advertisement showing graphic of original north elevation (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 31, 1959) Page 58 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 3: Article with drawing describing remodeling work at subject property (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 2, 1975) Image 4: Zoom of drawing in article describing remodeling work at subject property (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 2, 1975) Page 59 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 5: North elevation, view south (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, June 17, 1975) Image 6: East (left) and north (right) elevations after remodel, view southwest (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 17, 1976) Page 60 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 7: Advertisement showing graphic after remodel of 751 Higuera, note 749 Higuera at right has not yet been altered (Times-Press-Recorder, February 18, 1976) Page 61 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 8: North elevation in 1977 (History Center of San Luis Obispo County) Image 9: East (left) and north (right) elevations in 1985 (History Center of San Luis Obispo County) Page 62 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 10: East (left) and north (right) elevation, view southwest (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, January 30, 2016) THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 63 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 64 of 198 ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS 749-751 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Page 65 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 66 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 1: East (left) and north (right) elevations, view southwest (Goodwin Design, 2023) Image 2: East elevation, view west (Goodwin Design, 2023) Page 67 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 3: North elevation at west retail space, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023) Image 4: North elevation entrance to west retail space from courtyard, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023) Page 68 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 5: East wall of adjacent building from west retail space courtyard, view west (Goodwin Design, 2022) Image 6: West wall of east retail space from west retail space courtyard, view east (Goodwin Design, 2022) Page 69 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 7: North elevation of east retail space, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023) Image 8: North elevation of east retail space, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023) Page 70 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 9: Detail of window at east retail space courtyard, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023) Image 10: Detail of door at east retail space courtyard, view west (Goodwin Design, 2023) Page 71 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 11: East (left) and north (right) elevations, view southwest (Goodwin Design, 2023) Image 12: East elevation, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023) Page 72 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 13: Altered east elevation windows, view west (Goodwin Design, 2023) Image 14: Altered east elevation windows, view west (Goodwin Design, 2023) Page 73 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 15: South (left) and east (right) elevations, view west (Goodwin Design, 2023) Image 16: South (left) and east (right) elevations, view northwest (Goodwin Design, 2023) Page 74 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 17: South elevation, view north (Goodwin Design, 2023) Image 18: West (left) and south (right) elevations, view northeast (Goodwin Design, 2023) Page 75 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 19: 'RRUIURPVHFRQGÀRRUWRURRIYLHZVRXWK*RRGZLQ'HVLJQ Image 20: 6HFRQGÀRRUZDOOVDWURRIYLHZVRXWKZHVW*RRGZLQ'HVLJQ Page 76 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 21: 6HFRQGÀRRUZDOOVDWURRIYLHZVRXWKZHVW*RRGZLQ'HVLJQ Image 22: 6HFRQGÀRRUZDOOVDWURRIQRWHLQ¿OOHGZLQGRZVYLHZVRXWKZHVW (Goodwin Design, 2022) Page 77 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 23: Roof, view south (Goodwin Design, 2022) Image 24: Roof, view north (Goodwin Design, 2022) Page 78 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 25: Coping at roof, view north (Goodwin Design, 2022) Image 26: Coping at roof, view west (Goodwin Design, 2022) Page 79 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 27: Interior of west retail space, view east (Goodwin Design, 2022) Image 28: Interior of west retail space, view west (Goodwin Design, 2022) Page 80 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 29: Interior of west retail space, view southeast (Goodwin Design, 2022) Image 30: Interior of west retail space, view north (Goodwin Design, 2022) Page 81 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 31: Interior of west retail space, view west (Goodwin Design, 2022) Image 32: Interior of west retail space, view south (Goodwin Design, 2022) Page 82 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 33: Interior of west retail space, view southwest (Goodwin Design, 2022) Image 34: Interior of west retail space, door to rear south elevation, view south (Goodwin Design, 2022) Page 83 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 35: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVWDLUVWRVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZVRXWK*RRGZLQ Design, 2022) Image 36: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUZLWKJODVVEORFNZLQGRZYLHZ south (Goodwin Design, 2022) Page 84 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 37: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVWDLUVWR¿UVWÀRRUYLHZQRUWK*RRGZLQ Design, 2022) Image 38: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZQRUWKQRWHGRRUWRURRI at center (Goodwin Design, 2022) Page 85 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 39: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZZHVW*RRGZLQ'HVLJQ 2022) Image 40: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZVRXWK*RRGZLQ'HVLJQ 2022) Page 86 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 41: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZVRXWK*RRGZLQ'HVLJQ 2022) Image 42: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZVRXWK*RRGZLQ'HVLJQ 2022) Page 87 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 43: Interior of east retail space, view northwest (Goodwin Design, 2023) Image 44: Interior of east retail space, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023) Page 88 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 45: Interior of east retail space, view southwest (Goodwin Design, 2023) Image 46: Interior of east retail space, view north (Goodwin Design, 2023) Page 89 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 47: Interior of east retail space facing altered windows, view east (Goodwin Design, 2023) Image 48: Interior of east retail space facing altered windows, view east (Goodwin Design, 2023) Page 90 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 49: ,QWHULRURIHDVWUHWDLOVSDFHRI¿FHYLHZVRXWKZHVW*RRGZLQ'HVLJQ 2023) Image 50: ,QWHULRURIHDVWUHWDLOVSDFHKDOOZD\WREDFNURRPYLHZVRXWK*RRGZLQ Design, 2023) Page 91 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 51: ,QWHULRURIHDVWUHWDLOVSDFHEDFNURRPYLHZHDVW*RRGZLQ'HVLJQ 2023) Image 52: ,QWHULRURIHDVWUHWDLOVSDFHEDFNURRPYLHZZHVW*RRGZLQ'HVLJQ 2023) Page 92 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 53: ,QWHULRURIHDVWUHWDLOVSDFHEDFNURRPYLHZVRXWKHDVW*RRGZLQ Design, 2023) THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 93 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 94 of 198 ATTACHMENT D: SELECTED BUILDING PERMITS 749-751 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Page 95 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 96 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT D: SELECTED BUILDING PERMITS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 1: Original building permit for construction of new building (City of San Luis Obispo Department of Building, 1958) Image 2: Permit for remodel of east retail space (City of San Luis Obispo, 1975) Page 97 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT D: SELECTED BUILDING PERMITS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 3: Application for structure permit for remodel of east retail space (City of San Luis Obispo Planning and Building Department, 1975) Page 98 of 198 749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT D: SELECTED BUILDING PERMITS CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS Image 4: Permit for remodel of west retail space (City of San Luis Obispo Department of Community Development, 1979) Page 99 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 100 of 198 ATTACHMENT E: 1958 ORIGINAL DRAWINGS 749-751 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Page 101 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 102 of 198 Page 103 of 198 Page 104 of 198 Page 105 of 198 Page 106 of 198 Page 107 of 198 Page 108 of 198 Page 109 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 110 of 198 ATTACHMENT F: 1975 ALTERATION DRAWINGS 749-751 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Page 111 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 112 of 198 Page 113 of 198 Page 114 of 198 Page 115 of 198 Page 116 of 198 Page 117 of 198 Page 118 of 198 Page 119 of 198 Page 120 of 198 Page 121 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 122 of 198 ATTACHMENT G: 1979 ALTERATION DRAWINGS 749-751 HIGUERA STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Page 123 of 198 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 124 of 198 Page 125 of 198 Page 126 of 198 =RQLQJRUUHPRYHWKHSURSHUW\IURPKLVWRULFOLVWLQJLIWKHVWUXFWXUHRQWKHSURSHUW\QRORQJHU PHHWVHOLJLELOLW\FULWHULDIRUOLVWLQJIROORZLQJWKHSURFHVVIRUOLVWLQJVHWIRUWKKHUHLQ (YDOXDWLRQ&ULWHULDIRU+LVWRULF5HVRXUFH/LVWLQJ :KHQGHWHUPLQLQJLIDSURSHUW\VKRXOGEHGHVLJQDWHGDVDOLVWHG+LVWRULFRU&XOWXUDO5HVRXUFH WKH&+&DQG&LW\&RXQFLOVKDOOFRQVLGHUWKLVRUGLQDQFHDQG6WDWH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2IILFH ³6+32´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age 127 of 198 D $ QRWDEOH DUFKLWHFW HJ :ULJKW 0RUJDQ LQFOXGLQJ DUFKLWHFWV ZKR PDGH VLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQVWRWKHVWDWHRUUHJLRQRUDQDUFKLWHFWZKRVHZRUNLQIOXHQFHG GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHFLW\VWDWHRUQDWLRQ E $QDUFKLWHFWZKRLQWHUPVRIFUDIWVPDQVKLSPDGHVLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQVWR6DQ /XLV2ELVSRHJ$EUDKDPVZKRDFFRUGLQJWRORFDOVRXUFHVGHVLJQHGWKHKRXVHDW 2VRV)UDQN$YLOD VIDWKHU VKRPHEXLOWEHWZHHQ± %+LVWRULF&ULWHULD +LVWRU\±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±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age 128 of 198 &,QWHJULW\ $XWKHQWLFLW\ RI DQ KLVWRULFDO UHVRXUFH¶V SK\VLFDO LGHQWLW\ HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH VXUYLYDORIFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWH[LVWHGGXULQJWKHUHVRXUFH¶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³+´]RQLQJ3URSHUWLHV]RQHG³+´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age 129 of 198 Page 130 of 198 09‐25‐2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 1 HIST-0450-2023 (749-751 Higuera) Removal of property from the Inventory of Historic Resources (Contributing List) 09-25-2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 09‐25‐2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 1 2 09‐25‐2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 2 09‐25‐2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 09-25-2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 3 4 09‐25‐2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 3 09‐25‐2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 09‐25‐2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 5 6 09‐25‐2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 4 Architectural Criteria (§14.01.070(A)) Few, if any, elements of the original design Neither design serves as a noteworthy expression of its style Neither achieved an age of 50 years old (a primary criteria for listing) Architect: John R. Ross (architect of its original Modern design) Historic Criteria (§14.01.070(B)) Harry and Tillie Lacterman, operators of Lacterman’s (apparel store) Clifford Chapman (owner of Marshall’s Jewelry) Not representative of their lives or significance e.g. not original location of either business No known association with significant historical events or patterns Downtown was already largely developed (period of significance) Integrity Most elements affected Storefront, windows, breezeblocks / tile, block walls, entry configuration Current design has not achieved 50 years of age or significance of its own 09-25-2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation ARCH-0333-2023 (1601 Osos) Construction of two new residential buildings within the Old Town Historic District Action Forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding the consistency of the proposed new construction with the City’s historical preservation policies…09-25-2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 7 8 09‐25‐2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 5 HIST-0450-2023 (749-751 Higuera) Removal of property from the Inventory of Historic Resources (Contributing List) Action Forward a recommendation to the City Council regarding the continued eligibility of the property for including in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources …09-25-2023 Item 4a Staff Presentation 9