HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/27/2026 Item 4a, Papp
James Papp <papp.architectural.history@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:For today's hearing of the Cultural Heritage Committee, item 4.a.
I take the unusual step of writing to the committee on the day of its hearing because I fear the staff
report may create more confusion than it dispels.
1. I am puzzled by the discussion at the top of page 6 as to whether Cully’s work at Madonna Inn can
be included in the significance of the house. The reason for the application to Landmark the house is
its association “with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.” Cully’s work
at Madonna Inn is part of a substantial amount of evidence that he was important to our built history,
a master craftsman whose work is admired by both locals and visitors from around the world unaware
of its maker, since craftsmen, unlike architects, are rarely documented. He did not then retire but
continued creating masterworks throughout his association with 207 Broad (which may be longer than
suggested by his 1977 divorce; Polk’s City Directory lists him at the house till 1982), including his
collaborations with John Ross, Fred Schott, and Richard Yaco.
Analogously, Eugene O’Neill’s Tao House in Danville, California—a National Historic Landmark—was
occupied by O’Neill for only 7 years, 1937–1944, during which he wrote only 5 of his 30 full-length
plays. Yet his full oeuvre is recognized by the NHL nomination as evidence of his significance, and
the NHL designation of Tao House is in recognition of his residence there during a part of his period
of significance.
2. There may be further confusion from the staff report’s reference to resources that illustrate rather
than commemorate without explaining the difference. Commemorative resources comprise
monuments; illustrative resources, a significant person’s residence or workspace. The report makes
no claim that either the house or patio is a monument, though the latter is certainly monumental. One
is the creation of a master craftsman and the other is the residence of a master craftsman during the
period of his significance.
3. Staff borrows language at the bottom of page 5 from a different part of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance that may be seen as leading or pejorative language, which I only mention because at the
last CHC hearing at least one committee member was led into believing that the staff was
recommending against the application when the department has a policy of not making
recommendations either for or against Landmark applications. Historic Resource Evaluations in the
case of demolitions are reviewed by the Director and CHC for “adequacy,” not HREs for Landmark
applications, which are reviewed for “eligibility.” A bachelor who is “eligible” may be thought of
differently than a bachelor who is “adequate.”
In the dozen years I have been associated with San Luis Obispo’s historic preservation, I believe I am
the only architectural historian to SOI Professional Qualification Standards who has made Master
List/Landmark applications in San Luis Obispo. The reason is: architectural historians can make a
thousand dollars an hour putting together the adequate evidence that a resource may be demolished,
versus about ten dollars an hour for the extensive documentation that a resource is eligible as a
Landmark. Landmark applications are a labor of love for this community and its extraordinary history
and historic resources.
It is worth mentioning here that San Luis Obispo’s Landmarks, previously the Master List, were
conceived in 1987 not as a list of masterworks but as a master list of 151 resources of 5 degrees of
1
quality, from “on the National Register” to “determined eligible,” “eligible,” “potentially eligible,” and
“not eligible.” (To use familiar examples, the Goldtree-McCaffrey Building was considered “potentially
eligible,” the Lewin House “not eligible,” the McCabe House was put on the Contributing List, and the
Dana-Barneberg House was not listed at all.) Integrity was not a criterion till passage of the Historic
Preservation Ordinance 23 years later, and the discussion of significance was made in a single
paragraph of a DPR-523 form, often without any documentation. Architectural interpretations were
made by volunteers with at most a few days of classroom training. I give a typical example here, in its
entirety.
Burriss Saddlery is one of the oldest commercial buildings in San Luis Obispo and may have been
built as early as the 1880s. It once had a classic Western storefront which in later years was covered
and modernized. The original owner is not known. In 1914, the building was used as an office. In the
late teens, George Isola, a local shopkeeper, opened a hardware store there. Isola eventually had a
building constructed next door (1029 Chorro) where an optometrist’s office is located.
Note the absence of any argument for significance, any documentation, and the fact that of the seven
aspects of integrity, only location and (arguably) setting were still present. Yet this was enough to put
1029 and 1033 Chorro on the Master List, and the reality is not much different for 80 percent of San
Luis Obispo’s current Landmarks. It would be easier to back to this time and method but not
necessarily better.
James
--
James Papp, PhD | Historian & Architectural Historian
Call/text 805-470-0983
Sauer Adams Adobe
964 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
2