HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4b. Review of the request to designate the property at 1811 Chorro Street as a Landmark Historic Resource
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE REQUEST TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY AT 1811
CHORRO STREET AS A LANDMARK HISTORIC RESOURCE ON THE CITY’S
INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES, REFERRED TO AS THE CHARLES AND
IDA PALMER HOUSE.
BY: Eva Wynn, Assistant Planner FROM: Brian Leveille, Principal Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7172 Phone Number: (805) 781-7166
Email: ewynn@slocity.org Email: bleveille@slocity.org
APPLICATION NUMBER(S): HIST-0339-2026
PROJECT ADDRESS(ES): 1811 Chorro Street
APPLICANT: Jennifer and Lucas Pierce REPRESENTATIVE: James Papp, PhD
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the City Council designate the property at 1811 Chorro Street as a
Landmark in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, in accordance with the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance.
1.0 BACKGROUND
The property owner(s) have requested
that the property at 1811 Chorro Street
be designated as a Landmark in the
City’s Inventory of Historic Resources,
as the Charles and Ida Palmer House
(Palmer House). The applicant has
provided a historic evaluation
documenting the property’s eligibility
for Landmark designation (Attachment
A), prepared by James Papp, PhD,
Historian and Architectural Historian.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The property at 1811 Chorro Street is located at the southern end of Chorro Street,
between Church Street and Upham Street. The property is located outside any historic
district, and the surrounding neighborhood is characterized by medium density residential
properties.
Meeting Date: 8/24/2026
Item Number: 4b
Time Estimate: 30 minutes
Figure 1 - 1811 Chorro Street
Page 45 of 76
Item 4b
HIST-0339-2026 (1811 Chorro Street)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – August 24, 2026
2.2 The Charles and Ida Palmer House
According to the submitted evaluation (Attachment
A), the Palmer House was constructed in 1903 for
County District Attorney Charles A. Palmer and his
wife, Ida Louise Blodgett Palmer. The property is
noted as significant for its embodiment of the San
Francisco Bay Area Dutch Colonial style, as well as
its association with Charles and Ida Palmer during
an important period in their respective careers and
civic activities.
The period of significance identified in Attachment A
extends from 1903 through 1921, encompassing the
Palmers' occupation of the residence, including
Charles Palmer's service as District Attorney and
Ida Palmer's leadership during the 1911 women's
suffrage campaign.
3.0 EVALUATION
Pursuant to §14.01.030 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), the Cultural
Heritage Committee makes recommendations to the City Council on applications for
designation of Landmarks. A Landmark, as defined in §14.01.020.28 of the HPO, is the
highest level of individual local designation and may be applied to a historic resource that
has been found significant at the local, state, or national level . In order to be eligible for
designation, a Landmark shall be at least fifty years old, demonstrate signifi cance under
at least one of the criteria outlined in §14.01.060, and retain a high degree of integrity.
The HPO indicates that the National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National
Register Criteria for Evaluation should be consulted when evaluating and determining
significance. Additionally, the designation of Landmark is reserved to those properties
that are of the greatest importance at the local, regional, state, or national level in terms
of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons
or events in the City’s past that meet the eligibility criteria.
3.1 Significance Criteria
The submitted evaluation (Attachment A) requests that the residence at 1811 Chorro
Street be designated as a Landmark for its rare architecture and association with
important persons. Designation of the Palmer House is not requested for its association
with Events or Information Potential. Staff has reviewed the information provided in the
evaluation and under the applicable HPO criteria:
Figure 2 - Location of 1811
Chorro Street
Page 46 of 76
Item 4b
HIST-0339-2026 (1811 Chorro Street)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – August 24, 2026
Significance Criteria - Architecture
The analysis of architectural significance (pgs. 19 -21) in Attachment A provides that the
Palmer House is one of only two known houses in San Luis Obispo to embody the
characteristics of the San Francisco Bay Area -specific Dutch Colonial Style, also
described as High-Peaked Colonial Style. The style was invented in the East Bay in 1898
and is distinguished by extending the roof to a high peak, generally reaching an almost
unused third-story height and allowing the second half -story to contain normally
proportioned rooms rather than spaces constrained by a low roof slope. The later of t he
two San Luis Obispo examples is the Landmark 1906 LeRoy Smith House at 1306 Mill
Street, in the Mill Street Historic District. The architectural significance of the Palmer
House is expressed through distinctive and well-preserved character-defining features,
including:
The high roof peak and acute gable angle characteristic of the High -Peaked
Colonial (Dutch Colonial) form;
Dormers and rare, possibly unique, closet accent windows adapted to the high -
peaked design;
The rare and well-preserved tea or living hall, expressed externally through
stained-glass and diamond-paned fenestration and a Colonial Revival door;
Additional original fenestration;
The Tuscan-columned, high-peaked entry porch;
Novelty wall siding and shingle siding at the gables;
Eave modillions; and
The rare Bishop Peak granite foundation.
These documented characteristics represent a distinctive architectural type and
demonstrate the property's architectural significance and rarity under §14.01.060. The
property's identification as one of only two known local examples, as supported by the
evaluation, further establishes its rarity within San Luis Obispo. Based on the submitted
documentation, staff finds that the Palmer House meets the Architecture criterion.
Significance Criteria - Persons
Attachment A identifies the Palmer House as significant for its association with Charles
A. Palmer, a local elected official, and Ida Louise Blodgett Palmer, a local women’s
suffrage leader. Charles and Ida Palmer occupied the residence while Charles served as
a County District Attorney during three four-year terms, including terms from 1903–1907
and 1911–1919. His association with the property therefore encompasses a significant
portion of his public career. Meanwhile, Ida Palmer served as president of the Women’s
Political Equality League during the 1911 campaign for women's suffrage. California
women obtained the right to vote in 1911, making Ida Palmer's role in the local suffrage
campaign an important aspect of the property's historical significance. The association is
particularly noteworthy because properties associated with historically significant women,
and especially first-wave feminists and suffrage activists, are extremely rare (Attachment
A, pgs. 1, 16-18).
Page 47 of 76
Item 4b
HIST-0339-2026 (1811 Chorro Street)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – August 24, 2026
The National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation, cited by the HPO, explains that properties considered under the Persons
criterion should be associated with individuals whose specific contributions can be
identified and documented and should illustrate those accomplishments (pg. 14-15). In
this case, the submitted evaluation identifies the Palmer House as the residence occupied
by Charles and Ida Palmer during the period associated with their documented civic and
professional activities. Staff concurs that the association is sufficiently direct to support
consideration of the property under the Persons criterion. The evaluation also states that
historic properties associated with significant women, particularly first-wave feminists and
suffrage activists, as extremely rare (Attachment A, pg. 2). Staff considers this rarity,
together with the documented association with Ida Palmer's leadership in the 1911
suffrage campaign, to strengthen the property's local historical significance. Based on the
submitted documentation and the applicable HPO criterion, staff finds that the Palmer
House meets the Persons criterion.
3.2 Integrity
According to the HPO and consistent with the National Register Bulletin No. 15, integrity
is defined as “the ability of a historic resource to convey its significance, typically
evidenced by the retention of attributes that existed during a resource’s period of
significance and including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and
association” (HPO 14.01.020 (26)). To be included in the City’s Inventory as a Landmark,
1811 Chorro Street must meet at least one significance criteria, be among the resources
with the greatest importance at the local, regional, state, or national level, and retain a
high degree of integrity to communicate its significance.
Attachment A provides that some additions and alterations have occurred at the Palmer
House but concludes that the Palmer House retains a high degree of integrity. The
property retains its original location, high-peaked design, materials, workmanship, turn-
of-the-century suburban setting, feeling, and association with Charles and Ida Palmer.
The surrounding residential context continues to include early twentieth -century Colonial
Bungalows, Eastlake cottages, and later low-built California Bungalows. The property
also retains many of the features and materials that characterized it during its 1903 –1921
period of significance, including the original foundation of Bishop Peak granite. The
evaluation notes that some additions obscure portions of the original design, particularly
at the sides and rear and at the porch. However, these additions (some later removed)
did not destroy the character-defining features. The survival of the high-peaked
architectural form and its associated character-defining features is particularly important
because the property's architectural significance depends substantially on its ability to
convey the distinctive Bay Area Dutch Colonial design (pgs. 22-25).
Overall, the submitted evaluation documents that the Palmer House retains integrity as
demonstrated by retention of the essential physical features and materials necessary to
convey its significance. Although additions have altered portions of the building (primarily
in the rear), they have not substantially compromised the pro perty's dominant high-
peaked form, principal character-defining features, or ability to communicate its
architectural and historical associations. Staff concurs that the integrity of the resource is
sufficient for the property’s inclusion in the Inventory of Historic Resources.
Page 48 of 76
Item 4b
HIST-0339-2026 (1811 Chorro Street)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – August 24, 2026
3.3 Conclusion
The submitted application requests designation of the Charles and Ida Palmer House at
1811 Chorro Street as a Landmark in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. The
submitted evaluation identifies the property as significant for its architectural character
and rarity and for its association with Charles A. Palmer and Ida Louise Blodgett Palmer,
and provides an analysis of the integrity of the Palmer House.
Based on the submitted evaluation, staff's analysis, and the applicable criteria established
by the Historic Preservation Ordinance, staff recommends that the Cultural Heritage
Committee deliberate and forward a recommendation to the City Council on the property’s
eligibility for Landmark designation as a resource among those of the greatest importance
to the City, State, or Nation with a high degree of integrity. Staff has prepared the following
findings for the Committee’s consideration:
The Palmer House is eligible for historic designation for its architect ural
significance and rarity because it represents one of only two known San Luis
Obispo examples of the San Francisco Bay Area Dutch Colonial (or High -Peaked
Colonial) style. Furthermore, the property is significant for its association with
Charles A. Palmer, an early county official who served multiple terms as County
District Attorney, and Ida Louise Blodgett Palmer, who the submitted evaluation
identifies as president of the Women's Political Equality League during the 1911
campaign for women's suffrage. The association with Ida Palmer is particularly
notable in light of the documented rarity of properties associated with historically
significant women and suffrage activists. Finally, the Palmer House retains
sufficient integrity to convey its architectural and historical significance.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). Inclusion of the subject property on the Landmark list of the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources does not have the potential for causing a significant effect
on the environment and so is covered by the general rule described in §15061(b)(3) of
the CEQA Guidelines.
5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Staff Recommendation: Recommend the City Council designate the property at
1811 Chorro Street as a Landmark in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources,
including Staff’s findings and noted elements of the property which satisfy
Evaluation Criteria for Landmark listing as a resource of the greatest level of
importance at the local, regional, state, or national level and that the property
retains a high degree of integrity.
Page 49 of 76
Item 4b
HIST-0339-2026 (1811 Chorro Street)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – August 24, 2026
2. Recommend to the City Council that the property not be designated as a Landmark
in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, based on the finding that the property
does not satisfy Evaluation Criteria to be a Landmark Historic Resource as there
is not sufficient information to support that the property is of the greatest
importance at the local, regional, state, or national level, and/or does not retain a
high degree of integrity.
3. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff on
any needed information or analysis in order to reach a recommendation.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Historic Resource Evaluation - 1811 Chorro Street
Page 50 of 76
1
The Charles and Ida Palmer House
1811 Chorro Street
Historic Resource Evaluation and Master List Application
Summary Conclusion
The 1903 Charles A. Palmer House at 1811 Chorro is “of the greatest importance at the local level
… in terms of architectural … significance, rarity … and association with important persons in the
City’s past.” It retains the high degree of integrity to convey its significance. As such it is eligible as a
San Luis Obispo Landmark.
Architectural significance The Palmer House is of the greatest importance in terms of
architectural significance and rarity for being the first of only two houses in San Luis Obispo to
embody the characteristics of the San Francisco Bay Area–specific Dutch Colonial Style, more
recently known as High-Peaked Colonial. (The later of the two houses is the Landmark 1906
LeRoy Smith House at 1306 Mill in the Mill Street Historic District.) The style, innovated in the
East Bay in 1898, extended the roof to a high peak at an almost always unused third-story height,
allowing the second half story to contain normal rooms rather than ones cramped by a low slope.
Page 51 of 76
2
Association with important persons in the City’s past The Palmer House is of the greatest
importance locally for being for being built for, and occupied by, County District Attorney Charles
A. Palmer, a reforming early county official, during the period of his significance—including his
three four-year terms as DA—and his wife Ida Louise Blodgett Palmer, president of the Women’s
Political Equality League during the 1911 campaign for women’s suffrage, when California women
finally gained the right to vote. Houses associated with historically significant women, particularly
first-wave feminists, are extremely rare.
Period of Significance The period of significance extends through C. A. Palmer and Ida
Palmer’s occupation, 1903–1921, while he served as District Attorney in 1903–1907 and 1911–
1919 and while she led the local women’s suffrage campaign in 1911.
Character-Defining Features The architectural significance of the Palmer House resides in its
high peak and acute gable angle; dormers and rare —possibly unique—closet accent windows that
adapt to this design; the rare and well preserved tea or living hall, expressed externally in stained-
glass and diamond-paned fenestration and Colonial Revival door; additional original fenestration;
Tuscan-columned and high-peaked entry porch; novelty wall siding and shingle gable siding; eave
modillions; and rare Bishop Peak granite foundation.
The historic significance is expressed through the association of these features with Charles and
Ida Palmer.
High Degree of Integrity The Palmer House “possesses […] most if not all seven aspects of
integrity, … retains nearly all of those features and materials that would have characterized it during
its period of significance, [… and] still possess[es] those essential physical features necessary to tell
[its] story,” as “high degree of integrity” is defined by the Secretary of the Interio r for the National
Historic Landmarks Program since 2023—though the secretary adds that these are not to be taken
as “one-size-fits-all” or “rigid” standards.
The Palmer House retains its location, high-peaked design, materials, workmanship, turn-of-the-
century suburban setting, and feeling and association with Charles and Ida Palmer, who would
clearly recognize it if they returned from their well earned rest .
James Papp, PhD • Historian & Architectural Historian, City & County of San Luis Obispo
964 Chorro St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • 805 -470-0983 •
papp.architectural.history@gmail.com
Research assistance by N. Y. North.
Submitted 1 June 2026 on behalf of Jennifer and Lucas Pierce
Page 52 of 76
3
Contents
Summary Conclusion 1
Timeline: Occupancy 4
Timeline: Alterations 5
A Brief Historiographic Context for Evaluating Landmark Applications 9
Palmer House Construction and Preservation History 14
Historic Significance 16
Historic Association: Event 16
Historic Association: Persons, Charles and Ida Palmer 11
Architectural Significance 19
Embodiment of Distinctive Characteristics of a Type 12
Work of a Master 21
High Artistic Standards 21
Information Potential 21
Integrity to Convey Significance 22
Conclusion 26
Page 53 of 76
4
Timeline: Occupancy
1903 Feb. 28 The house of District Attorney C. A. Palmer (1862–1926) is “well along toward
completion” (“Rubble Stone Foundations,” San Luis Obispo Tribune, p. 4).
1909 C. A. Palmer’s house is advertised for rent (“For Rent—C. A. Palmer’s house,”
Daily Telegram, 6 July–10 Sep., pp. 4, 7, and 16).
1913–1921 Charles A. Palmer, his wife Ida, and family continue to be located at 1811 Chorro
in news items by the Telegram (“Entertaining Guest,” 14 June 1913, p. 5; “March
11—WCTU at Mrs. C. A. Palmer’s Home,” 10 Mar. 1921, p. 5). They
subsequently move to 1134 Palm Street.
1922 Frederick and Mary Willut are living at 1811 Chorro when Mary dies in hospital
and Frederick dies at home (“Frederick Willut and Wife Die in Same Hour
Sunday,” Telegram, 9 Oct. 1922, p. 8).
1923 Ewell and Ida Cox transfer a house on High Street to George P. Kegel in exchange
for the Palmer House at 1811 Chorro (“Property Transferred,” Telegram, 7 Apr.
1923, p. 5).
1924–1958 Ewell Cox (1885–1956), Southern Pacific signalman, is living at 1811 Chorro (“To
Share in Patent Money,” Telegram, 12 Feb. 1924, p. 1). Despite rumors of
accession to a large oil fortune from his brother, he continues to live at 1811 with
his wife Ida through 1954 (Polk’s San Luis Obispo City Directory) and presumably
to his 1956 death (tombstone, San Luis Cemetery, findagrave.com), renting
furnished rooms and a furnished apartment, with two to three lodgers appearing in
each of the 1930, 1940, and 1950 censuses (and the Coxes’ son and daughter in
1930). Ida Cox continues in residence through 1958 (Polk’s) as a widow.
1960–1976 Residents recorded at 1811 Chorro in Polk’s change too often to establish
association.
Page 54 of 76
5
Timeline: Alterations
1903 Construction of the Palmer House at 1811 Chorro on a Bishop Peak granite
foundation.
1905 The 1905 Sanborn Map reveals a one-story, three-space lean-to attached to the rear
of the house and most of its width. The two side spaces are likely porches; the
dotted lines signifying this are clearer on the 1909 map. The rear lean -to with
porches was presumably added between 1903 and 1905, as the Bishop Peak granite
perimeter foundation ends with the 1½-story house. The front entry porch has not
yet been added in 1905.
Orientation: 1811 Chorro in 1905, 1909, 1926, and today, showing lot changes
1905 Sanborn Map
1926 Sanborn Map
1909 Sanborn Map
Current Google Satellite view
1906 An anonymous 1906 panoramic three-part photograph taken from Terrace Hill
(Special Collections and Archives, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo; detail on page 1)
shows the columned entry porch and south porch of the rear lean-to. The entry
Page 55 of 76
6
Top left to right: 1905 Sanborn
Map, showing rear lean-to with
side porches; 1909 Sanborn,
showing entry porch and canted
bay; and 1926 Sanborn,
showing extended but open
front porch, southeast nearly
full-length lean-to and the
removal of the original rear
lean-to and its replacement by
the current extension and side-
porch. Bottom left to right:
1963 aerial photo, showing an
entry extension to the southeast
addition extending to the right;
and current Google Satellite
image, showing the 1998 rear
glass extension. The glass
extension has since been
removed, along with its
neighboring bedroom
extension to the left.
Page 56 of 76
7
porch does not yet have its Chinese Chippendale railing. The photograph also
shows the southeast dormer, which currently accommodates a bathroom (and likely
did then) and is probably original. The northwest dormer is necessary to
accommodate the stairs to the second story so is certainly original
1909 The 1909 Sanborn Map shows a canted bay has been added to the northwest side.
It currently has no center window. This was a common form in the era, though not
the most typical form, and is likely original. This is the last documented addition of
the Palmer era, though the family continued to live there for another 12 years.
1923 During 9–13 February, furnished rooms and a furnished apartment are being
offered at 1811 Chorro, which suggests that the house has been expanded at the
ground level either to the side or rear (or both) (“For Rent,” p. 4). No such ads
appear in the Palmer era, and Ida and Charles Palmer, according to the 1920 US
Census, were living only with their two daughters, which suggests the house was
expanded soon after sale. By 7 Apr., Ewell and Ida Cox have acquired the
property. By 9 Apr., they begin to advertise bedrooms with bath; Apr. 14, furnished
rooms with bath (“For Rent,” Telegram, p. 4); and 28 Apr.–5 May, “Lot, corner of
Church and Chorro,” the undeveloped half of the property (“For Sale,” Telegram,
p. 4).
1926 The 1926–1956 Sanborn Map book (History Center of San Luis Obispo County)
shows an open porch extended south from the entry porch on the front of the
house and lean-to on the south side almost the length of the house. The original
lean-to on the rear appears to have been removed and replaced with a longer,
narrower extension with an open side porch. This appears to be the same
dimensions as the current extension, including a bedroom and bath. The side lean -
to currently holds three rooms divided by two walls: a front kitchen and bedroom
as part of the same suite (with a wall between them, the connection being a room in
the main house with a side door on the now-enclosed front entry porch for ingress)
and a rear kitchen connected to the main part of the house (with another
interposing wall in the lean-to).
1929 Ewell Cox applies for a four-stall garage permit and in 1930 begins to advertise
“Bedroom with bath; garage” (16 Sep. 1929, San Luis Obispo Building Permits
Collection, 1906–1937, Special Collections and Archives, Cal Poly San Luis
Obispo; “For Rent Rooms,” Telegram, 20 Feb. 1930, p. 5).
1930 Ewell Cox applies for a permit for “frame remodel to convert to 3 rm. Apt” (14
Apr. 1930, collection cited). On 13 July 1931 he begins to advertise, “Cool
downstairs 4 rm unfur apt” (“Apartments for Rent, Telegram, p. 7). This is likely
the southeast side addition, possibly including enclosure of the front porch.
1932 Ewell Cox applies on 11 February for an “8’ by 8’ sun-rm addition of siding and
glass” (collection cited). This is likely a rear addition on the southeast lean-to, which
is eight feet deep. It goes unrecorded on the Sanborn Map.
1940 “Cosy 3 room apartment with fireplace, garage” is being advertised at 1811 Chorro,
suggesting the entry hall is included in this configuration or has been walled in. The
Cox children are no longer living in the house, according to the US Census for that
year.
Page 57 of 76
8
1954 Ewell Cox receives a permit to repair and remodel front porch at 1811 Chorro
(“City Permits $30,000; Two New Homes,” Telegram-Tribune, 26 Mar. p. 5).
1963 Aerial photo shows the addition of an entry porch (6’ x 6.5’) on the southeast
addition extending toward the southeast (Flight IMC-349, frame 17-122B, 20–24
July 1963, Blaine Thompson Aerial Photography, UCSB Aerial Photography
Collection)
1998 The next permit for an addition appears to be for the glass “patio room at rear
deck, permitted 17 Feb. 1998.
2026 The 1998 glass extension, a fire hazard from reflection, and the circa 1923 rear
bedroom extension are removed.
Page 58 of 76
9
A Brief Historiographic Context for Evaluating Landmark Applications
At the dawn of the formally organized preservation movement, the federal government, through
the National Register of Historic Places, created a set of criteria that would allow any small
community to document and celebrate its local built history, through
• association with the community’s important events or historic trends;
• association with leaders of their profession, industry, or community, or with significant
artists of inventors; or
• as displaying the characteristics of particular architectural types or construction methods or
periods, as examples of the work of master builders or architects, or examples of high
artistic values.
Integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association had to be
sufficient to convey the resource’s significance: as a rule of thumb, it had to retain “the features
without which a property can no longer be identified as, for instance, a late-nineteenth-century
dairy barn or an early-twentieth-century commercial district” (How To Apply the National Register
Criteria for Evaluation, p. 46).
These criteria gave wide leeway for communities to landmark their historic buildings and districts
in terms of their local significance, including resources that had suffered considerable decay or had
undergone (or could ideally undergo) considerable adaptive reuse—for the historic preservation
movement went hand in hand, for federal purposes, with the urban renewal movement.
Nonetheless, San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program began in the 1980s with such an
acute inferiority complex that it established guidelines of significance even more lenient than those
of the National Register and never mentioned integrity at all. Where the NRHP defined a
historically significant person as a community leader or someone significant in their professional
field, San Luis Obispo’s 1987 guidelines included as a significant person anyone who had made
“[c]ontributions which, though minor, directly or indirectly, had a beneficial effect on the
community (i.e., firemen, law enforcement officers, postal workers, businessmen/shopkeepers, city
employees, etc.).” Clearly, the Historic Resource Evaluation’s researchers were relieved to find any
past occupants of buildings they wanted to save, and any occupant would have to do. Where past
occupants were found, however, the vast majority of DPR [California Department of Parks and
Recreation form] 523 evaluations from the 1980s gave no clue as to whether it was the occupant,
historic trend, architecture, or construction method that was the source of significance.
Historic Preservation in San Luis Obispo (and America in general) does not exist in an idealized
vacuum but has always been a function of social , political, and economic goals confronting
practical realities. Preservation—whether in the sense of the maintenance of older properties or the
idea that older properties are important to our sense of community history —has often been the
preserve of the wealthy. The federal push for historic preservation in the late 1960s and early
1970s was, conversely, justified with the goal of urban renewal of once grand, by then decayed,
even ghettoized areas. Conversely again, such preserved and restored areas usually then became
gentrified and unaffordable to their then occupants. San Luis Obispo’s historic properties, once
available unrestored for a few tens of thousands of dollars, now go for multiple millions.
The City of San Luis Obispo first identified potential historic properties and districts in the 1970s
as part of federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grants. The criteria used for inclusion
and ranking have not been preserved.
Page 59 of 76
10
San Luis Obispo’s Historic Resources Survey followed in 1982 –1983, with the establishment in
1987 of the Master List of 151 historic resources and 130 “Contributing Properties within
Historical Preservation Districts.” The grandly named Master List was not a list of masterworks but
merely a master list of resources of five degrees: properties on the National Register, “determined
to be eligible” for the National Register, “eligible” for the National Register, “potentially eligible”
for the National Register, and “not eligible” for the National Register.
It is not clear how these ratings were made and why properties were put on or left off the list. For
instance, of the city’s four Double -Bay-Front Eastlake cottages, all in historic districts, the Goldtree -
McCaffrey Building, converted into as building and the least integrity, was rated potentially eligible
for the National Register and the Lewin House not eligible; while the McCabe House was not
included on the Master List and Dana-Barneberg House (with the highest degree of integrity) not
even on the Contributing List. The 1987 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines that
established the Master List never mentioned integrity, and it was rarely cited in the state DPR 523
form that was filled out for each resource on the Master List.
The Master List reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the National Register as a national
register of locally significant resources. In reality, most Contributing List properties—which San
Luis considered not even eligible to be “not eligible for the National Register”—would qualify.
The one statistical difference between the Master List and the Contributing List were that those
buildings on the former were bigger and those on the latter were smaller. I have discerned no
other consistent difference over a decade of comparing the two lists.
In 2010 San Luis seems to have engaged in bout o f reactive pearl-clutching, as, with the passage of
Historic Preservation Ordinance in 2010, it caromed to the opposite extreme of exclusivity,
imposing integrity standards that bizarrely matched those of National Historic Landmarks (the
highest standard of federal designation) and significance standards of rarity and uniqueness , which
are absent, for good reason, from any criteria at the national level. NRHP and National Landmark
resources are supposed to be representative, not eccentric one-offs.
The result was an unsustainably bifurcated system torn between old-lax and new-rigid—and an
instantaneous return to earth. The first Master Listing after passage of the 2010 ordinance was the
1874 Norcross House, the significance of which was attributed to its construction and occupation
by then–county sheriff D. C. Norcross (1872–1876), clearly a leader of his law enforcement
profession and community but scarcely a rare or unique one: in fact, little is known of him. The
integrity of the Norcross House had been severely compromised by the replacement of its original
two-over-two 1870s street façade windows with early-twentieth-century Colonial Revival diamond
pane and plate glass windows, the replacement of its original balcony French window with a
Colonial Revival window, and the replacement of its balcony and supporting front porch with a
pergola-style porch sometime after the 1930s. Subsequently, the CHC further compromised its
integrity by allowing demolition of the original rear wing, documented in Carleton Watkins’ iconic
1876 panoramic photograph of San Luis Obispo from the west , two years after the house was built
and during Norcross’s occupation. (The present author voted against this inexplicable act of
vandalism, passed to suit a developer who has since fled the state under threat of indictment.)
Through the 2010s and early 2020s, CHC practice and precedent accepted that a property’s
association with an early official or other professional leader (in line with NRHP Criteria) or status
as a unique, earliest, or best exemplification of an architectural style within a historic district
justified Master Listing.
Page 60 of 76
11
Master Listings from this period include the
• 1876 Robert Pollard House, whose significance was shared by Pollard’s service as County
Coroner, daughter Frances Pollard’s involvement as the only woman in the founding of the
local of the International Typographical Union, and later resident Pauline Bray Martin’s work
as the first woman bank clerk in San Luis Obispo
• 1874 Lozelle and Katie Flickinger Graham House, as the oldest documented house in its
original condition and location in the Railroad District and an embodiment of Italianate
architecture at cottage scale
• 1936 Edla Muir House and Garage for their design by leading California woman architect Edla
Muir, rare San Luis construction by F. C. Stolte (the contractor for Hearst Castle), and
embodiment the distinctive characteristics of Lutyensesque Late Georgian Revival
• Circa 1888 Virginia Levering Latimer House, as the surviving Italianate house with the best
integrity in the Mill Street Historic District
• 1907 Thomas and May Brecheen House, for embodying the distinctive characteristics of
Colonial Bungalow form with a unique attention to simplicity and geometry
• 1931–1932 E. E. Christopher House, embodying the transition from revival to abstract
aesthetics in the Minimal Traditional, with high artistic standards shown in its rhythmic gables,
rare barrel-vaulted living room, and extremely rare tower -room swagged ceiling
• 1962 Ken and Martha Schwartz, 1962 Pimentel -Orth, and 1966 Page-Selkirk Houses, for their
Modernist and Futurist design by local master architect Ken Schwartz, FAIA, and the first for
its association with Ken Schwartz as a professional and community leader .
• 1926 Tiny Mart (now High Street Deli), as the first Black-owned business in San Luis Obispo
where the owners (Frank and Alberta Bell) were also allowed, in 1966, to purchase the
premises
• circa 1880s D. M. and Carrie Proper Meredith House for D. M. Meredith’s early roles in
education and finance and for its Swiss Revival architecture
• Theresa Torres True House (between 1891 and 1905), for being the only Queen Anne cottage
in the Mill Street Historic District (though it is, in fact, Eastlake, and there are other Eastlake
and Queen Anne cottages in the district)
• Leonard Hill House, despite a half-story addition to the roof, judged significant as John
Chapek’s first project as a professional contractor (not true: Chapek’s surviving John T.
Anderson House at 1946 Chorro [Tribune: “Proceedings in County Offices,” 24 Oct. 1902, p.
3, and 25 Dec. 1902, p. 2; “John T. Anderson Buys,” 19 Feb. 1903, p. 4], Chapek Cottage at
1041 Leff [Tribune: 25 Feb. 1903, “Will Build Two Houses,” p. 1; “Recorder’s Office: Wm
Duff to John Chapek,” 25 Feb. 1903, p. 4], and William Alberts House at 865 Buchon [“Buys
to Build,” Tribune, 23 Apr. 1904, p. 4], all unlisted, and Landmark Hourihan House at 860
Buchon [“Work to Begin,” Tribune, 15 Sep. 1904, p. 1] predate the Hill House, as well as
several since demolished)
• Dana-Barneberg House (between 1886 and 1891) for its “Victorian vernacular” (in fact Eastlake
double-bay-front) architecture and association with early county clerk Charles William Dana,
businessman John Wesley Barneberg, and social activist Grace Barneberg (though the house
Page 61 of 76
12
was constructed years after Dana sold the property, and Grace Barneberg did not inhabit it
during the period of her significance )
As for the high level of integrity demanded by the 2010 HPO, the US Department of the Interior
helpfully defined “integrity” for National Register nominations and “high degree of integrity” for
National Landmark nominations in 1997 and 1999, respectively, as seen below:
How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation (Washington, DC: Department of
the Interior, 1997)
Assessing Integrity in Properties (pp. 45–49)
A property that is significant for its historic
association is eligible if it retains the essential
physical features that made up its character or
appearance during the period of its association
with the important event, historical pattern, or
person(s). If the property is a site (such as a
treaty site) where there are no material cultural
remains, the setting must be intact. (p. 46)
A property important for illustrating a particular
architectural style or construction technique
must retain most of the physical features that
constitute that style or technique. A property
that has lost some historic materials or details
can be eligible if it retains the majority of the
features that illustrate its style [my italics] in
terms of the massing, spatial relationships,
proportion, pattern of windows and doors,
texture of materials, and ornamentation. The
property is not eligible, however, if it retains
some basic features conveying massing but has
lost the majority of the features that once
characterized its style. (p. 46)
How to Prepare National Historic Landmark
Nominations (Washington, DC: US
Department of the Interior, 1999)
Defining a High Degree of Integrity (pp. 36–37)
A property that is significant for its historical
association should retain the essential physical
features that made up its character or
appearance during the period of its association
with the important event, historical pattern, or
person(s). If the property is a site where there
are no material cultural remains, such as a
battlefield, the setting must be intact. If the
historic building associated with the event,
pattern, or person no longer exists, the property
has lost its historical integrity. (p. 37)
A property important for illustrating a particular
architectural style or construction technique
must retain the physical features that constitute
that style or technique. A property that has lost
some historic materials or details can be
considered if it retains the majority of the
features that illustrate its style [my italics] in
terms of the massing, spatial relationships,
proportion, pattern of windows and doors,
texture of materials, and ornamentation. A
property should not be considered if it retains
some basic features conveying massing but has
lost the majority of the features that once
characterized its style. (p. 37)
If these two definitions look the same, it is because they are. In 2023 “High degree of integrity” was
loosened with a “qualitative framework” to allow more nontraditional (non -White) resources as
National Landmarks. Yet Manzanar has long been a National Landmark with only three of its 830
original buildings surviving, while the Theodore Roosevelt is a reconstruction built after his death ,
and as someone who has visited and been moved by both, I would argue for the expulsion of
neither.
The reality is that what is chosen to be historically preserved rarely replicates a great chain of being
of significance and integrity. Historic preservation is motivated sometimes by the cultural interest,
Page 62 of 76
13
sometimes the economic interests, and sometimes by the emotions of property owners, sometimes
by the interests of NIMBYs (i.e., nearby property owners), most rarely by professional or amateur
preservationists or government officials when they see important and irreplaceable resources
threatened with irreversible destruction. As well, historic resource surveys and historic resource
evaluations are imperfect documents, often subsequently contradicted by newly available data and
more rigorous analysis.
There are currently about 15,000 structures in the City of San Luis Obispo. Around 200 of these
are Landmarks, or about 1.3 percent, and 500 are Local Register Resources, or about 3.3 percent ,
concentrated in the roughly one square mile that was originally historically surveyed in our now-
thirteen-square-mile city. Add Landmarks, Local Register Resources, and a few dozen overlooked
unlisted resources together, and they still comprise less than 5 percent of the city’s building stock—
hence are “of the greatest importance” locally, if “greatest importance” is understood in its
technical, grammatical sense as a comparative rather than its rhetorical, Barnumesque sense as a
superlative phrase. Old buildings, let alone architecturally or historically significant buildings,
represent a tiny sliver of our resources.
Most Local Register Resources already fulfill the significance and integrity criteria of the National
Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources (and, under the new
SLO HPO, if placed on either of these registers, they would automatically become City
Landmarks). Probably only one or two dozen resources in the city fulfill the significance and
integrity standards of National Historic Landmarks for “exceptional value in illustrating or
interpreting the heritage of the United States” or California Historical Landmarks for being th e
first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state; associated with profound influence on
California history; or prototypes or outstanding examples of architecture or construction or of
master architects or builders. But in the City of San Luis Obispo there are currently no National
Historic Landmarks and only three California Historical Landmarks (the Mission, Dallidet Adobe,
and Ah Louis Store, the most recent designated in 1965). It would be a useful CHC discussion to
identify additional candidates and plan their nomination.
Nevertheless, for the most part, it is our local events, locally prominent figures, and locally
significant architecture and building methods that tell our story—explain our meaning—as a
community. With fewer than 5 percent of our structures protected, and the state legislature
parroting the YIMBY/developer thesis that the cause of the housing crisis is not accelerating
polarization of wealth and poverty but too many old buildings —with their already-embodied
carbon, cost, and culture—standing in the way of unaffordable new ones, San Luis Obispo seems in
little danger of over-preserving. Yes, the CHC’s job is to police preservation, but its founding
purpose is also to promote preservation, the stories it sustains, and the meaning it enhances.
Page 63 of 76
14
Palmer House Construction and Preservation History
The primary residence at 1811 Chorro Street was constructed in 1903 on a foundation of Bishop
Peak granite for then–District Attorney Charles A. Palmer and suffragist Ida Palmer by John
Horton, assisted by Albert and Harry Lyman—the first documented construction project of Harry
Lyman, who would go on to be a master San Luis Obispo builder-architect.
Left: The San Luis Obispo Tribune, 28 February 1903, p. 4, on
the use of Bishop Peak granite in the construction of the
Palmer House and documenting for the first time Harry
Lyman’s involvement in a construction project. Above: The
Palmer House in 1906 (detail from a panorama from Terrace
Hill, Cal Poly Special Collections). Below: The Palmer House
in 1982, photographed for the Historic Resources Survey,
showing a front porch added and enclosed.
Page 64 of 76
15
In the city’s 1983 Historic Resources Survey it was identified as the “‘old’ Cox home,” referencing
its long occupation (1923–1958) by Southern Pacific signalman Ewell Cox and his wife, also Ida.
Its Bishop Peak granite foundation was noted and its style denominated “Eastern Shingle.”
“Eastern Shingle” is not a category that occurs in 1970s or
1980s historic architecture guides, and it is puzzling why San
Luis’s surveyors should have used it for buildings in the West,
but they did for Eastlake and Colonial Revival buildings that
were fully shingled (the LeRoy Smith House), gable shingled
(the Aston House), or even minimally shingled in the gable
peak (the Brooks House). “Shingle Style” (neither Eastern nor
Western) is a term invented by Yale architectural historian for
his 1955 book The Shingle Style: Architectural Theory and
Design from Richardson to the Origins of Wright.
The phrase took hold of the public imagination (or the
imaginations of authors of American architectural guidebooks)
in the early preservation era, though it was never how architects
and builders of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
thought of their own work. For them, Queen Anne, Eastlake,
Elizabethan, Colonial, etc. were styles, whereas shingle,
clapboard, brick, stone, stucco, etc., were cladding. What Scully
suggested, which is that America’s predominant wood
construction materials influenced our popular architecture, is a
reasonable conclusion, but what his less careful readers
concluded, which is that every building with shingle-clad walls is
a style distinct from other styles, falls apart as soon as you
replace the shingles with clapboard or novelty siding—or
remove the shingles to find (as with the aforementioned Aston
House) original clapboard beneath—yet realize that it’s as Swiss,
Queen Anne, Colonial, Eastlake, or Prairie as it ever was.
In fact, the Palmer House is an example of a style at the time
called Dutch Colonial in the Bay Area (article at right),
consisting of houses with a usually street-facing gable of
extremely acute angle and drawn up to a third story in height
(though only the first and the second half story were generally
habitable). It may well have evolved from the gambrel roofs
commonly considered characteristic of wood Dutch Colonial
Revival in the rest of the United States.
Oakland Enquirer, 12 June
1899, p. 3
Conservation Area #1 from the city’s 1979 Historical and Architectural Conservation Element was
originally drawn to include 1811 Chorro, but when it ultimately became the Old Town Historic
District, it looped, for unknown reasons, away that section of Chorro and Garden. Hence 1811
Chorro was never Contributing or (unlike the cater-corner Aston House) Master Listed.
Page 65 of 76
16
Historic Significance
Historic Association: Event Contemporary newspapers report no significant event at 1811
Chorro Street.
Historic Association: Person The house is “of the greatest importance at the local level” for
its association with C. A. Palmer, an early local official, who lived there from 1903 to 1921, during
his three terms as county district attorney: 1903–1907, 1911–1915, and 1915–1919, and for its
association with Ida Palmer, who was a local women’s suffrage leader during the successful
campaign to extend the vote to women in California in 1911. Ida Palmer also lived in the house
from 1903 to 1921, including the period of her significance as a suffragist
The subsequent long-term residents, Southern Pacific signalman Ewell Cox and his wife Ida, from
1923 to (respectively) 1956 and 1958, do not rise to the level of historic significance, as neither had
a leadership role in profession or community.
Charles A. Palmer (right, from 28 May 1910 p. 1 Telegram
article, “Mr. Palmer to Make the Race Against Nelson”) was
born in 1862 in Nevada County, graduated from the University
of Michigan law school in 1890, came to San Luis Obispo to
practice law in 1894, and was nominated on the Republican
ticket for county district attorney in 1898 and elected in 1902,
1910, and 1914 to four-year terms. He ran again in 1918 and
1922 and was not elected but served as assistant district attorney
1924–1926, dying 25 January 1926 at age 63. He also served 15
years on the city school board, including as president
(“Attorney Charles A. Palmer Expires Here: Pioneer in County
Law Dies at Noon,” Morning Tribune, 26 Jan. 1926, p. 1). The
Herald-Recorder noted his reputation for mercy and leniency
(“C. A. Palmer Passes to Last Rest,” 28 Jan. 1926, p. 1 ). As an
early local official who resided at 1811 Chorro during his
period of significance, he lends historical significance to the
property under the terms of the city’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
In the new age of the automobile, and at the beginning of his second term, Palmer called for
enforcement of the state’s new legislation making intoxicated driving a misdemeanor: “District
Attorney Urges Enforcement of New Law” (Telegram, 26 Sep. 1911, p. 2). He criticized the laxity
of police in enforcement and urged the law’s universal benefit. At the beginning of his third term,
he started an investigation of local reckless driving in concert with the Highway Commission and
again promised prosecutions. He followed up by spending a day with the sheriff at Templeton and
Paso Robles investigating a drunk driving incident and made front page news by prosecuting the
driver, ranch hand Glenn Heaton, who pleaded guilty and apparently had no subsequent run -ins
with the law (“Glenn Heaton to Be Prosecuted,” Telegram, 7 Mar. 1917, p.1).
Hands-on and hard-charging, Palmer pursued investigations for illegal gambling and bootlegging,
accompanying officers on nighttime raids in remote sections of the county and charging prominent
Page 66 of 76
17
citizens, such as Jake See, a candidate for sheriff.1 He even charged a peace officer with murder,
though the jury quickly acquitted (“Frank Bardin Not Guilty Says Jury after Thirty Minutes
Deliberation,” Telegram, 8 Sep. 1913, p. 1).
Scrupulous about the law, Palmer could also show up to city council meetings to support aggrieved
citizens, suggesting ways to keep steam laundries and creameries out of residential districts
(“Doings of City Trustees,” 8 Aug. 1905, p. 4), and he repeatedl y consulted the state attorney
general on local legal dilemmas. On one occasion, he prosecuted a couple on a motorcycle trip
from Los Angeles to Marysville for setting a grassfire, then helped pay their $25 judgment when
the woman burst into tears (“Secures Conviction; Chips in on Fine,” Telegram, 10 Aug. 1912, p.
1).
Meanwhile, Ida Palmer became an organizer for women’s suffrage. Having come to California as
an infant by covered wagon, she worked as a teacher in Yolo and San Joaquin Counties and, after
marrying Charles Palmer and arriving here in 1894, also taught in the one -room schools of rural
San Luis as late as 1907, well after her husband became district attorney, so it was clearly a labor of
love or duty, as with other privileged women teaching in our one-room schools, like Grace
Barneberg (“School Notes,” Telegram, 11 Feb. 1908, p. 6).
Ida Palmer was documentably a competent committeewoman. For instance, 1904 saw her become
secretary of the Southside Improvement Club, during a meeting held in the Palmer House, while
she was also serving as president of the Ladies Aid Society of the Congregational Church.2 But it
was as a local suffrage leader, when votes for women was finally to pass in California, that she
became documentably historically significant, a community leader intersecting with a historic trend.
Fifteen years earlier, in 1896, California had voted on women’s suffrage. Susan B. Anthony
tirelessly canvassed the state and stayed a night in San Luis with the wife of the Southern Pacific
stationmaster (address unknown; the family did not preserve the s ite but built a new house the next
year). She spoke at the Männerchorhalle at 742 Marsh (more recently the site of the Bluebird and
LS Co. hair salons). Rural areas, dominated by the sexually egalitarian Grange, ended up voting for
women’s suffrage, while the big cities (San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles), dominated by
the political machines that had the most to lose, voted against. San Luis Obispo County voted for,
the city very slightly against. In the end, Idaho passed votes for women that year, and California’s
campaign went down to defeat. Ida Palmer had just moved to San Luis two years before, but we
have no documentation of her involvement.
Fifteen years later, however, Ida Palmer was appointed chair of the first meeting of “the ladies who
are actively interested in the progress of the movement for the enfranchisement of women,” held at
the Congregational Church August 23, 1911, which made front page news above the fold in the
Telegram, which supported the movement. She soon became the league’s founding president.3
The Women’s Political Equality League was a San Luis–based group that was affiliated with the
1. “50 Years Ago,” Telegram-Tribune, 16 July 1962, p. 6; “Charges Jake See with Complicity,” 22 July
1918, p. 1
2. (“Organized for Business,” Tribune, 16 Apr. 1904, p. 4; “Aid Society’s Report,” Tribune, 3 Feb. 1904, p.
1.
3. Telegram: “Organize League of Suffrage,” 24 Aug. 1911, p. 1; “Notice,” 28 Sep. 1911, p. 5.
Page 67 of 76
18
Central Equality League in Los Angeles, bringing guest speakers from that city. It made news for
large attendance, and soon spread to Paso Robles.4
This time, the referendum in October passed, in San Luis County, San Luis City, and California as
a whole, changing the political landscape not only for women but also for men and their political
parties. Not content with leading the local women’s suffrage movement, the following year Ida
Palmer was representing the Congregational Church in women’s effort to educate new voters
(“Women to Study Political Needs through New Class,” Telegram, 23 Feb. 1912, p. 8).
4. Telegram:; “Political Equality League Has Meeting,” 26 Aug. 1911, p. 4; “Political Equality League Has
Meeting This Afternoon," Sep 14, 1911, p. 8; “Political Equality League Organized in Paso Robles,” 11
Sep. 1911, p. 1.
Page 68 of 76
19
Architectural Significance
Embodiment of Type The Charles and Ida Palmer House
is one of two in San Luis Obispo that embody the popular San
Francisco Bay Area style known, at the turn of the twentieth
century, when it was being built, as Dutch Colonial but, since
the turn of the twenty-first century, as High-Peaked Colonial
(see p. 15, “Realty and Building: Remarkable Popularity of the
Dutch Colonial Style,” from the Oakland Enquirer, 12 June
1899). Absent some compelling reason, using the historic rather
than a modern term for an architectural style should be the
default, as this communicates the contemporary content and
understanding. The Oakland Enquirer records J. H. Simpson
introducing Dutch Colonial in the East Bay and putting up 10
houses, with A. W. Smith building 27 from the beginning of
1898 through mid 1899. Berkeley has some 200 survivors,
according to berkeleyheritage.com; they also populate Oakland
and San Francisco.
The 1½-story Dutch Colonial Bungalow was known elsewhere
in the United States but was much more likely to be gambrel
roofed. Below, a plain peaked roof—squatter than the Bay Area
version—is sandwiched between gambrels in Tonawanda, NY,
all three with later roof lines expanding their cubic footage in
strikingly inelegant fashion.
J. H. Simpson House by A. W.
Smith, Oakland, 1898 (Daniella
Thompson, “High-Peaked
Colonial, a Bay Area
Phenomenon,” 14 Mar. 2006,
berkeleyheritage.com)
Bay Area Dutch Colonials
almost always occupy narrow
suburban lots with street-facing
gables. San Luis’s other example,
however—the LeRoy Smith
House (architect William H.
Weeks, 1906), above—occupies a
corner, where its long side on
Mill becomes its entrance façade.
(Its shed dormers are original.)
San Luis has a non–Bay Area–style, gambrel-roofed Dutch Colonial with street-facing gable (the
circa 1908–1912 Landmark Bullard House, 1624 Morro); two Colonial Revival corner houses,
with both gambrel and plain gables in cruciform (the 1903º1904 Landmark Aston House [1746
Chorro, and 1903–1904 Landmark Judge Unangst House [1720 Johnson {both built designed and
by R. S. Aston, newly arrived Bakersfield builder, the latter with changes by Unangst, according to
his daughter}]); and a cruciform plain-gable corner house (the 1902 Charles Porter House, 844
Upham, unlisted) near the Palmer House. Yet none of these has the high-peaked effect of the
Smith and Palmer Houses, with their three-story height, acute gable angles, and single roof ridge
echoing Bay Area examples. The architect of the Smith House, William Weeks, was based in
Watsonville, did much work in the Bay Area, and would have been familiar with its Dutch
Colonial style, as would his client LeRoy Smith, who had worked in San Francisco. I have been
Page 69 of 76
20
able to find no information on John Horton, the Palmer House contractor, other than the 1903
article so do not know if he had Bay Area connections that would have led to this design, or if it
was the Palmers’ initiative.
Top: Bullard, Aston, and
Porter Houses. Bottom: 3
“High-Peaked Colonials” of
estimated 200 in Berkeley
(Thompson, op. cit.)
Note the steep pitches and (non-functioning) second partial story of the Berkeley examples above—
emphasized even with multi-level dormers (whose upper levels appear also to have been non-
functioning). 2709 Dana and 2716 Telegraph, the Berkeley examples at left and right above, have
acute gable peak angles of 65° and 60°, respectively. The two photographs below show the Palmer
and Smith Houses with peak angles of 75°. In contrast, the Aston House, with crossed peaked and
gambrel roofs, and the Porter House, with crossed peaked roofs, each with their simple gables 90°,
are Colonial Bungalows but outside the realm of the higher, more acute, and single -axis aesthetic
that is specific to the turn-of-the-century Bay Area Dutch Colonial.
Page 70 of 76
21
The Smith House (previous page, right) adds a jetty and window on the narrow third level, but it
was built with nearly full-length shed dormers to make the half-story space function as nearly like a
full story as possible. The smaller peaked dormers of the Palmer House (above left) are more in
line with Bay Area models, which reflect the exterior structure on the interior. It does not have a
gable-peak window or decoration, but it does have closet windows (previous page, center) in both
corners of the gable base, front and back, a delightful and practical touch I have not seen
elsewhere. The one in the right rear was originally incorporated in an ell bedroom but later
separated. The Pierces are restoring the original configuration.
Below: Dutch Colonial houses in San Francisco. Note the double peaks at left and right, as well as
the center example with Tuscan columns characteristic of Colonial Bungalows, Ionic pilasters
typical of Queen Anne, an Eastlake-style square bay, and an oversized Eastlake sunburst pattern in
the gable.
Work of a Master Though Harry Lyman would go on to be a master of the California
Bungalow form, in 1903 he was just beginning his career in house building as an assistant
carpenter, having passed his medical exam to enter the Southern Pacific machine shops two years
before (“Harry Lyman,” San Luis Obispo Tribune, 8 Feb. 1901, p. 2). Thus the Palmer House
would not qualify as the work of a master through Lyman. There is no other contemporary
documentation on John Horton as a builder and none of an architect other than Horton, hence
the building would not appear to be significant as the work of a master.
High Artistic Standards The Palmer House has some admirable design touches, such as the
closet windows in the gable base corners, but does not hav e unusually high artistic standards for
Colonial Bungalows of the era.
Information Potential
There is no indication of potential for information important in history or prehistory in the
property, though the owners continue to discover details on such features as single -sided pocket
doors, paint, and wallpaper of interest to an architectural historian.
Page 71 of 76
22
Integrity to Convey Significance
NHL Bulletin: Guidelines for for Preparing National Historic Landmark Nominations
(Washington, DC: National Parks Service, 2023 ), p. 64:
The process of evaluating high integrity is not a matter of meeting or failing to meet a one-size-
fits-all threshold, and should not be interpreted as, in the language of the federal regulations,
establishing “a rigid standard for quality.” […]
A property retaining a sufficiently high degree of overall integrity […] will possess most if not all
seven aspects of integrity. Broadly speaking, having a high degree of integrity means that a
property retains nearly all of those features and materials that would have characterized it
during its period of significance. It is reasonable to expect that properties recognized for their
[…] significant stories would still possess those essential physical features necessary to tell these
stories […]. Nevertheless, the qualitative framework provides some flexibility in how integrity is
interpreted for a particular property.
This replaces the definition that, for decades, made “high degree of integrity” for National
Landmarks absolutely identical to “integrity” for the many -times-larger National Register (about
1,500 properties versus about 100,000) and was much ignored in practice, just as San Luis’s first
admission to the Master List after imposing National Landmark standards, the Norcross House,
had lost porch and fenestration and would go on to lose an original wing. Even the National Parks
Service 2023 definition imposes three conflicting standards:
• “most … aspects of integrity”
• “nearly all of those features and materials that would have characterized it during its period of
significance,” and
• “those essential physical features necessary to tell these stories”
As well, it hedges all three with “not … a one -size-fits-all threshold … [or] ‘a rigid standard for
quality.’”
With these varying definitions—and San Luis Obispo Landmarks’ and National Historic
Landmarks’ varying precedents—in mind, the Palmer House retains those essential physical
features necessary to tell its stories, nearly all of those features and materials that would have
characterized it during its period of significance, and all seven aspects of integrity.
Location The Palmer House occupies its original location.
Design The original Bay Area Dutch Colonial Palmer House rises on two and a half sides
(rear, southeast side, and partial street) somewhat like an ocean liner from the waves of low-pitch-
roofed, one-story additions. The street view from the north corner (next page left) is exactly as the
Palmers left it in 1921 and would be instantly recognizable to them, including the entry porch
added by 1906 and dining-room canted bay by 1909. The 1982 photograph (next page, right, the
same configuration as today but useful for the lack of obscuring shrubbery) reveals the extension
and subsequent enclosure of the porch. The porch may well have been extended after the 1909
Sanborn Map and before the Palmers sold in 1921 but can only be documented by 1926. These
additions tell the story of twentieth-century housing in San Luis, when three households occupied a
building built for one, but they are not the story of the house’s significance related to its Dutch
Colonial design and construction and occupation by District Attorney Charles and suffragist Ida
Palmer.
Page 72 of 76
23
That said, the Dutch Colonial profile still dominates, details like the dormers, Tuscan columns,
diamond panes, and unique closet windows have been retained, and the design clearly retains its
ability to convey its architectural and historical significance, particularly given that it has
experienced addition rather than destruction. Jennifer and Lucas Pierce have, in fact already
removed two anachronistic additions from the rear, one from the 1920s and one from the 1990s,
and there is the restoration potential to remove more additions in the future, which is not the case
(as in the Norcross House) with destruction of character-defining features.
Materials The main house’s materials—
including its novelty siding, casement windows
on the second floor street facade, modillions,
diamond-pane closet windows, Tuscan columns,
etc.—have largely been retained. New sash
windows have been installed on the second
floor, but the ground floor original walls appear
to have their original windows, as well as the
original Colonial Revival front door.
Above: The northwest façade’s original
diamond-pane casement windows lighting the
sitting hall (a revival of the baronial hall and
intended exclusively for serving tea). Left: the
hall’s original stained glass window.
Page 73 of 76
24
Some of their diamond-pane-topped sash windows, characteristically Colonial Revival , may be
originals that were reused on the additions; the 1906 photo is too distant to tell other than that they
had similar dimensions and crown molding. The long rear addition also uses the se windows,
however, which suggests they were still available in the 1920s and may not be original.
The additions have covered original materials
but have been clad in matching novelty siding.
With the exception of a Streamline Moderne –
style window in the front porch enclosure , the
additions would all appear to the observer as
original to the Colonial Revival era (and
Colonial Revival in modified forms continued
into the 1920s and 1930s). This would follow
modern SOI Standards of compatibility of
materials, features, size, scale, and massing but
not of differentiation. (The 1983 surveyor did
not note so probably did not notice the
additions as such.)
Above left: The shrunken baronial hall for tea-taking next to the fireplace, whose extant stained
glass and diamond-pane casement windows beautifully express its function to the exterior. A
similar room—borrowed from late-nineteenth-century nostalgic English country houses—exists in
the 1906 Page House, 1344 Mill.
The Bishop Peak granite perimeter foundation is in good shape, while the foundation of the rear
bedroom addition—characteristically of early-twentieth-century San Luis concrete—crumbled to the
touch. This is one of the additions removed by the Pierces.
In order to restore the shingled gables to their original unfinished appearance, the old painted
redwood shingles will have to be replaced by new cedar ones, as was the case with the entire wall
surface of the LeRoy Smith House some years ago, which had been painted white by previous
owners.
Workmanship Like materials, much of the detailed original workmanship is retained , and
much has been covered up on the ground floor by additions . In both cases, the effect is somewhat
lenticular: original from some views, nonoriginal from others. In aggregate, however, there is
clearly enough of the original materials and workmanship to convey the building’s significance.
Setting The early-twentieth-century suburban setting has largely been retained, including
Colonial Bungalows like the Aston and Porter Houses, Eastlake cottages like 1703 Chorro, and
later low-built California Bungalows. The Palmer House originally occupied a corner lot, but it was
built in narrow configuration on the interior half, presumably with the expectation that the lot
would be subdivided (as it was after the Palmers sold it).
Feeling As a combination of the previous five aspects of physical integrity, the feeling of the
Palmer House remains intact. Despite the additions on the side and porch, its profile and details
communicate its Colonial and high-peaked architectural significance.
Association There is no question that, if District Attorney C. A. Palmer and his suffragist wife
Ida Blodgett Palmer were dropped through time on the street in front of 1811 Chorro Street, they
Page 74 of 76
25
would instantly recognize their house, though they might look askance at one side. The exterior
and interior, through form and decorative detail, strongly convey their association with the Palmers
and their activities.
Page 75 of 76
26
Conclusion
The Charles and Ida Palmer House is significant and rare as the earlier of two Bay Area Dutch
Colonial houses in San Luis Obispo and as the residence of three-term County District Attorney
C. A. Palmer and suffragist Ida Blodgett Palmer during their period of significance. Landmarkings
for association with historically significant women have been exceedingly rare.
Changes to integrity of design, workmanship, and materials outside its 1903–1921 period of
significance are not substantial enough to prevent it from conveying its historical and architectural
significance, and by the latest National Landmark definition it retains the high degree of integrity to
convey its significance.
As such, it is eligible for the Landmark status that will, for the future, preserve and tell its stories of
early-twentieth-century progressive law enforcement, California’s successful 1911 women’s suffrage
campaign, and the innovation of high-peaked Bay Area Dutch Colonial architecture.
Page 76 of 76