The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/05/2007, PH 4 - APPEAL OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S DETERMINATION THAT THE WOOD ADDITIONS TO THE ADOBE RESI r , council MmwgD. O 1 acEnaa RepoRt lNb.�W C I T Y OF SAN LU I S OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director PREPARED BY: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE'S DETERMINATION THAT THE WOOD ADDITIONS TO THE ADOBE RESIDENCE AT 868 CHORRO STREET ARE NOT PART OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE. (ARC 201-06) CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution denying the appeal filed by David Brodie, thereby adopting the Cultural Heritage Committee's action to allow removal of the wood additions surrounding the Frietas Adobe at 868 Chorro Street and direct staff to modify the historic resources survey consistent with this action. DISCUSSION Situation/Previous Review The property owner, Larry Hoyt, is proposing the construction of a 7-unit condominium project on the site with the adobe residence known as the Frietas Adobe at 868 Chorro Street. Mr. Hoyt began his investigations of the property by hiring an archeologist, Dr. John Parker, to prepare a report on the historic resources and archeology of the property (Attachment 5). Prior to preparing a development plan for the site, Mr. Hoyt asked City staff to review Dr. Parker's report with the CHC to determine the appropriate treatment of the historic site. On April 24, 2006, the CHC reviewed the archeology report at a regularly scheduled CHC hearing. The CHC commented on the report (see Attachments 6 and 7, CHC meeting minutes and staff report) and asked the applicant to return to CHC with a development plan and a report from an architectural historian that would clarify the adobe's historical and architectural significance. The historical and architectural significance of the existing structures are central to the type of environmental review process that will be required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If significant parts of the existing structure are to be removed, CEQA will require the preparation of an environmental impact report (EIR). On March 26, 2007, Mr. Hoyt returned to the CHC with a development plan for a 7-unit condominium project and a report prepared by Alexandra Cole, an architectural historian (Attachment 8). Cole's report expanded on Dr. Parker's earlier analysis and focused on the significance of the existing structures on the property. In particular, Ms. Cole's report found that only the adobe portions of the residence qualified as a historic resource and that.the later wood-clad additions did not contain features that qualify as a historic resource. Following a comprehensive review of the development plan, and after two failed motions, the CHC voted 4-3 to determine that the reports by Dr. Parker and Ms. Cole accurately described the historic 4 , 1 Council Agenda Report—'.,AC Appeal of the historic determination for 868 Chorro Street Page 2 features of the property and that the applicant could demolish the wood-clad additions on the adobe residence at 868 Chorro Street without creating an adverse impact to the structures architectural and historic significance. On a separate motion, the CHC recommended the applicant modify the project to enhance the public view of the adobe structure prior to proceeding to the ARC (see Attachments 9, 10 and 11 March 26, 2007 CHC meeting minutes, action letter and staff report). The City's Master List of Historic Resources lists the entire structure. If the Council agrees with the three detailed studies done for this application, the description on the Master list should be updated. On April 4, 2007, David Brodie filed an appeal of the CHC's determination. Mr. Brodie disagrees with the CHC's determination that the later wood additions do not qualify as a historic resource (see Attachment 2, appeal letter). Mr. Brodie also disagrees with the CHC's recommendation to the ARC on the project design. However, this second action is not an appealable decision since it is only a recommendation to the ARC and Mr. Brodie can appeal that issue directly to the ARC when they consider the application. The Council needs to determine whether the CHC's determination regarding the wood additions surrounding the Frietas Adobe is consistent with City policies on historic properties and whether the City's Historic resources report for the property should be modified to reflect the CHC's determination. Additionally, the Council needs to determine whether the removal of the wood additions would cause a significant adverse impact to a historic resource. This part of the determination would be used to determine the level of environmental review as discussed below. Analysis of Historic Resource The attached CHC reports (Attachments 7 and 11) describe the project site and history in great detail. The reports prepared by Dr. Parker and Ms. Cole also provide a significant amount of information for this property (Attachments 5 and 8). According to the City's Historic Resources Survey, 868 Chorro Street is on the City's Master List of Historic Resources and may qualify for listing on the National Register. The adobe portion of the structure was constructed around 1800 and the wood additions that surround it were constructed between 1890 and the early 1900s. It is the wood additions to this structure that are the crux of this discussion and the primary basis of the appeal. 1. Reason for wood structure: Similar to all of the other adobe structures in the San Luis Obispo vicinity, the adobe was surrounded by a wood structure to protect the adobe walls from weathering and to update the style to reflect the "Folk Victorian" style that was common in San Luis Obispo towards the turn of the century. At one time, even the Mission was clad in a wood exterior. According to Sanborn maps that are available for the property as far back as 1887, some wood additions and porches have continuously been a part of this adobe. These early maps were created for fire insurance purposes and identify the outlines of structures and property lines. The 1887 map clearly shows the boundary of the structure in a very similar form as it exists today. However, the form and shape of the additions appear to change over time as evidenced by Sanborn maps from 1891, 1903 and 1926. �� Council Agenda Report—,.._[C Appeal of the historic determinaLva for 868 Chorro Street Page 3 2. Independent Analysis on Behalf of the City: Due to the potential significance of this particular resource and the concern regarding the historic status of the entire structure, staff contracted with another Architectural Historian to prepare an independent analysis on whether the entire structure qualifies as a historic resource under the California Public Resources Code. The Architectural Historian hired by staff was directed to determine the level of environmental review that will be necessary should the City Council determine that the applicant may demolish portions of the structure. Wendy Nettles with Applied Earthworks, a qualified architectural historian, prepared a complete, independent analysis of the property on May 15, 2007 (Attachment 12). Similar to Dr. Parker's report and Ms. Cole's report, Wendy Nettle confirmed that the adobe structure qualifies as a historic resource under state adopted criteria. More importantly, Ms. Nettle also confirmed that the later wood additions are not considered historical resources and do not meet the state adopted criteria for significance. The following excerpt from the May 2007 report prepared by Wendy Nettles summarizes the findings: "The wooden addition that surrounds the adobe's eastern, western, and southern sides appears to have been built between 1900 and 1903. Historical photographs, Sanborn Insurance maps, architectural details, and construction materials all support this conclusion. The wooden addition is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; is not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and will not yield information important in prehistory or history. It therefore is not eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR. Under local criteria, the wooden addition is more than 100 years old, meeting the age requirement. The Freitas family, who were local shopkeepers lived there for over 80 years. However, these are minor subcriteria in the overall evaluation of the structure, and do not appear strong enough to support eligibility. Therefore the wooden additions of the MancillalFreitas Adobe are not considered historical resources." The primary reason behind Ms. Nettles' determination rests with the fact that the wood additions have been demolished, reconstructed and modified over time. The type of construction, including wood and nailing patterns of the existing wood structure are indicative of early 1900's construction. Additionally, changes over time, including new windows and additions that likely occurred in the 1950's have further detracted from the historic potential of the wood structure. Based on this final analysis, the findings of Dr. Parker and Ms. Cole and the conclusions of the City's CHC, there is substantial evidence that the removal of the wood clad additions and the restoration of the adobe are not significant impacts to a historic resource. Due to the sensitivity of the site, the potential for significant archeological discoveries and concern for the long term maintenance of the historic resource, specific project conditions and a security bond for the restoration of the resource should be required components of any future project approval for this site. � � 3 Council Agenda Report �_1C Appeal of the historic determinat..,n for 868 Chorro Street Page 4 General Plan Analysis The attached CHC report from March 26, 2007 (Attachment 11) contains a General Plan Analysis, highlighting some of the policies that are relevant to this proposal. These policies are found in the City's Conservation and Open Space Element and discuss historic preservation, demolitions, and changes to historic buildings: 3.21.1. Historic preservation. Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified,preserved and rehabilitated. 3.21.2. Demolitions. Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible. 3.21.4. Changes to historic buildings. Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure and follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained In summary, the policies stress the importance of maintaining significant historic resources in their present form and avoiding changing the outward appearance of such resources. The determination of what is significant is crucial. Additionally, these policies reference the Secretary of Interior Standards as the document that should guide changes or restorations to historic resources. The findings of the professional consultants hired for the analysis of this structure, in addition to the findings of the CHC conclude that the project can be developed consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards if specific modifications are made to the proposed development project. These modifications include eliminating or relocating proposed residential units to allow the adobe to be the focal point of the site as viewed from the public right of way. City's Historic Resources Survev Currently, the entire structure is identified in the City's Historic Records as a historic resource (Attachment 3). The action by the CHC changes the City Council adopted definition of the resource. Therefore, the CHC's decision needs Council action even without an appeal. The City Council is responsible for taking final action on the status of a historic resource, and for amending the description of a historic resource. If the Council agrees that the wood-clad additions are not a significant historic resource, and that the applicant may demolish the additions in order to complete a development project, then the City Council will need to direct staff to modify the historic resources survey for this property. Environmental Review In accordance with CEQA, a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA Z+, 4 Council Agenda Report—,,,-AC Appeal of the historic determinatk,a for 868 Chorro Street Page 5 also describes demolition, alteration, or changes to the surroundings of a historic resource to be a substantial adverse change. As discussed above, the historical evaluations prepared by three separate qualified professionals claim that the wood additions to the adobe do not qualify as a historic resource. Based on this evidence, if the project contains appropriate mitigations consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standard for the treatment of a historic property, the potential environmental impacts may be reduced to a level of less than significant, therefore not requiring an EIR. However, it could be argued that changing the context of the resource could create a significant impact to the resource, therefore, as mentioned earlier, if the Council decides to allow the applicant to move forward, a project condition should be included that holds the City harmless from potential challenges to the environmental determination. Conclusion The reports prepared by three independent private consultants and the findings of the CHC have confirmed that the original adobe structure is a significant historic resource and that the later wood additions do not qualify as a historic resource. The Council needs to consider the three reports, public testimony, the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (as outlined in the attached CHC reports), the City's General Plan Policies relating to historic resources, and the testimony of staff and the applicant prior to making a decision on the changes to the City's current description of this significant historic resource. CONCURRENCES The proposed development project was reviewed by other City Departments including Public Works, Utilities, and Fire. However, at this time the design of the project is being modified in accordance with CHC comments and the applicants are awaiting the outcome of the City Council action prior to proceeding with the design of the project.. FISCAL IMPACT The determination on what constitutes the significant resources on this site does not have a direct fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVES 1. Uphold the appeal, thereby overturning the determination of Cultural Heritage Committee and confirming the existing Historic Resources Survey which includes the entire structure as a historic resource. If this alternative is provided, the Council should also recommend how the applicant shall proceed. The Council may provide direction to staff and the applicant to redesign the project to respect the existing footprint of the project and the project could proceed to the ARC after the applicant modifies the plans. If the applicant still desires to demolish the wood additions surrounding the adobe, this could be done through an EIR process if the Council agrees that this should be a component of the project. 2. Continue the item for additional analysis or research. 4,5 5 Council Agenda Report—L..0 Appeal of the historic determinatio.,'for 868 Chorro Street Page 6 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Vicinity Map Attachment 2: Appeal statement Attachment 3: City adopted Historic Resource Survey for 868 Chorro Attachment 4: Applicants letter and reduced scale site plan/photos. Attachment 5: Cultural Resource Investigation,John Parker, Ph. D., RPA February 8, 2006 Attachment 6: CHC meeting minutes, April 24, 2006 Attachment 7: CHC staff report, April 24, 2006 Attachment 8: Report by Alexandra C. Cole, Preservation Planning Associates, October 19, 2006 Attachment 9: CHC meeting minutes March 26, 2007 Attachment 10: CHC action letter from March 26, 2007 Attachment 11: CHC staff report from March 26, 2007 Attachment 12: Historic Resource Evaluation by Wendy Nettles (Applied Earthworks)May 2007 Attachment 13: Draft Resolution denying appeal and upholding the March 26 CHC action. GACD-PLANMPdunsmore\CH0ARC 201-06(868 Chorro)1AP CC 201-06 6-5-07.doc iuo� � �IIIIII Attachment 2 The existing residence at 868 Chorro Street is an mgQAional historical building. Originally built as an adobe circa 1800,this residence has been identified as one of the few remaining"out-buildings"belonging to the Mission. Having the same orientation to Chorro Street as the nave of the Mission further ties the residence both physically and historically to the Mission. The history of the adobe is further evident through the clapboard additions which accommodated subsequent growing families. These clapboard additions did not adhere to a specific style but responded to the individual and authentic needs of the families who occupied this structure through the second half of the nineteenth century. What is historically significant is how this residence evolved over the past 200 years. The age of these clapboard additions,dating back to at least 125 years, places them in an historical context which is as significant as the original adobe. The role of the Cultural Heritage Commission is to recognize our cultural heritage. Their decision, by a vote of 4 to 3,to permit demolition of these wooden structures is in direct conflict with their charge as a committee.The Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historical properties directs all decision-making in these cases and should be adhered to by the Cultural Heritage Commission. The CHC also decided to allow the remaining adobe to be partially surrounded by a three-story apartment building. This structure, in its entirety, should remain visible from Chorro Street as it contributes to the historical fabric of this part of town. Two Issues. One is the way the building is being evaluated. The additions, since they are over 50 years old, are by definition historic. The historic integrity and significance should not be evaluated as free-standing examples in comparison to other free-standing examples. They should be evaluated in the context of the entire building,to whose historic significance they contribute in an organic and historically predictable way when compared to other historic adobes. The second issue is the choice of appropriate treatment, whether it is going to be preservation, rehabilitation,restoration,or reconstruction as defined by the Secretary's Standards. The choice here seems to be restoration, which requires that the historic significance of restoring a building to a particular moment in time, in terms of historic events,people, styles, etc., outweighs the loss of other historic and possibly significant features. This has to be documented. Lastly,the CHC's recent decision will establish an unhealthy precedent with regards to all remaining historically-listed and contributing properties in San Luis Obispo. If this unprecedented decision becomes the rule, rather than the exception,all the qualities that distinguish San Luis Obispo from other communities will disappear forever.The bottom line is that, if the Cultural Heritage Commission is to have any credibility,nationally accepted standards published by the Park Service must be used in making this and other decisions. ,OG-t � �- 99 A"Zesbucces ^"ency c No. 0028-03R *4NO REI MON HAGS_ HAER ri 3 SHL ?tCCGVfY I�t 3 52 _ UTM: A 10/7120/3906640 B . HISTORIIC RESOURCES INVENTORY C D j NTI:FICATION 1. Common name: Freitas Adobe -` ,. 2. Historic name: Freitas Adobe - 3. Street or rural address: 868 Chorro Street i' `n Citv San Luis Obispo Zipg3401 County San Luis Obispo i ' 4. Parcel number: 02-415-08 5. Present Owner: Louis, W.Y. , et al. , c/o H. Louis Address: 800 Palm Street City San Luis Obispo Zip93401 Ownership is: Public Private X 6. Present Use: Original use: DESCRIPTION 7a. Architectural style: Adobe with wood frame 7b. Briefly describe the present physical description of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from its original condition: A vernacularized interpretation of the Greek Revival, this structure is set. back from the road. The left rear portion of the house is adobe with pro- jecting exposed rafter eaves. The remainder of the house appears to have been built later. The addition (substantial size) is covered with shiplap siding, double hung windows (1/.1) with two separate doors - front center (as if for a duplex) . The composition shingled roof is hipped. The porch extends out approximately four feet from the first floor door left to three feet short of the right side of the building. It is of simple design with barge board ornamentation. Landscaping is nicely kept up as is overall condition: There is a screened porch in the back which might have been added after the major addition. 8. Construction date: Estimated 1850 Factual 9. Architect Unknown 10. Builder Unknown `I 11. Approx. property size (in feet) `I Frontage 110' Depth 230' or approx. acreage 12. Date(s) of enclosed photogroph(s) l December 1982 Attachment 3 13. Condition: Excellent _Good X Fair_ Deteriorated No longer in existence 14. Alterations: 15. Surroundings: (Check more than one if necessary) Open land _Scattered buildings_Densely built-up Residential X Industrial _Commercial Other: 16. Threats to site: None known%Private development_ Zoning _ Vandalism Public Works project Other: 17. Is the structure: On its original site? YeS Moved? Unknown? 18. Related features: SIGNIFICANCE 19. Briefly state historical and/or architectural importance (include dates,events,and persons associated with the site.) Known historically as the Freitas Adobe, this old home may have been built as early as 1800 with the original two rooms composed of adobe brick. Early title deed records show that the property was transferred from Ferdinand Martinez to V. Manivalla, representing the City of San Luis Obispo Trustees, in 1864. with frequent shifts of ownership, the home was owned by such individuals as Dolores Herrera, a former New Mexico resident who came to San Luis Obispo in 1840, and the J.P. Andrews Estate (J.P. Andrews was a leading banker in early San Luis Obispo history) in *1915. In 1919, George and Rosa Freitas, local shopkeepers, bought the adobe and wood frame house. Only a few such adobe or part—adobe residences exist in San Luis Obispo today. Most cannot be dated with certainty farther back than the 1860's, but historic local sources suggest that these homes or at least their foundations were constructed in the early 1800's during the Spanish period. Locational sketch map (draw and label site and surrounding streets, roads, and prominent landmarks): 20. Main theme of the historic resource: (if more than one is ANORTH checked, number in order of importance.) ! Architecture 1 Arts& Leisure Economic/Industrial 2 Exploration/Settlement j Government Military Religion Social/Education 21. Sources (List books,documents, surveys,personal interviews and their dates). Deed Title Records 22. Date form prepared. AIN 17 ��E3 By (name) wi st Res c,,,-,.oy Staff Organizatio^r''ty of San Luis Obispo Address: P.O. Box 321 City San Luis Obispo Zip 93401 Phone: (805) 541-1000 ' Attachment 4 ARCHITECTS REA RICHMOND LUKE R January 18, 2007 Re: Freitas Adobe Restoration The Freitas Adobe located at 868 Chorro Street is a significant historical resource. Currently the original adobe structure is concealed within a wood framed residence. The proposed development of this site will make possible the restoration of this important structure. Once complete, the restored Freitas Adobe, long hidden from public view, will become an integral piece in the story of local and regional history. Two separate reports have been prepared regarding this adobe structure. A Cultural resource investigation was prepared in February 2006 by the archeologist Dr. John Parker of Parker Associates. Based on a recommendation in this report, a historical resource report was prepared in October 2006 by the architectural historian, Alexandra Cole of Preservation Planning Associates. The recommendations in both of these reports form the basis of this outline. I. The wood framed additions and exterior stucco will be carefully removed to reveal the original adobe structure. This work will take place under the supervision of an architectural historian and/or a qualified archeologist. 2. Once the original adobe structure is exposed, an evaluation of its condition will be prepared by an architectural historian. 3. Based on this evaluation, a detailed restoration plan will be prepared. This plan will be prepared by an architectural historian and will describe, in detail, the specific requirements and procedures of the restoration. 4. The general concept is to restore the adobe structure as close as possible to it original state. This will include the repair or replacement of any damaged or deteriorated adobe bricks, reconstruction of the roof structure in a historically accurate manner. Windows, doors and other important features will also be addressed. The exterior walls will be covered with a mud plaster and receive a whitewash coating consistent with the original building techniques. 5. During development of the site the adobe will be protected from potential damage from construction equipment as well from the natural elements. REA . RICHMOND & LUKER.. ARCHITECTS , LLP ^ I l 444 Higuera Street, suite 201 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel: 805.541.6294 fax: 805.541.2739 www.t21architects.com Attachment 4 6. Per Dr. Parker's recommendation, the remainder of the grounds will be protected from potential damage caused by the development. The exact method of protection has yet to be determined. However, Dr. Parker will be consulted regarding the specifics of the protection methods. 7. In order to allow the restoration of the adobe to be carried out accurately and without disturbance, the restoration will occur after the bulk of the construction is complete. 8. Once complete, the restored adobe structure will be incorporated prominently into the proposed development. The structure will be visible from Chorro Street and the public will have access within the site for up close viewing of the structure. In addition, a commemorative plaque describing the Freitas Adobe and its significance to local and regional history will be added in front of the restored structure. Due to seismic safety concerns and in order to better preserve the structure, interior access will not be provided to the public. Sincerely, Thomas Jess, AIA - Arachme, 1t 4 n � 711 C• w n,H µ View of Restored Freitas Adobe Ili r. w_; JA 1 Freitas Adobe 00000 � r U L _ f i + - fl 11 G �l a nl o Proposed Site Plan SHEETTITLE.- DATE' Site Plan & View of Adobe January 19,2007 PROJECT TITtE: SHEET NUMBER: ,JARCHITECTSj Hoyt Development RBA RICHMOND L U K B R San Luis Obispo,California 1 111 HICUERA. SUITE 701 SAM LUIS 09ISP0. CA 16401 T.(905) 641-6714 E:(601) 641-7751 ea2AMmomeedm ( a REA. RICHMOND AND LUKER. ARCHITECTS, LLP /' J Attachme,[t 4 most likely represent Illinois Oval or Bi- Metallic flasks used for liquor (Putnam , 1965). ` Outbuildings Two small outbuildings were discovered on the parcel. At the southeast corner was a simple one-room garage measuring -26 x 17 feet. This structure does not appear in 1905, however, it seems to be represented on the 1926 Sanborn Map. This would correspond with the increased use of automobiles in the 1920's. A small shed was located immediately ,-. south of the main house and measured -13 x 18 feet. This shed doesn't show up on any of the Sanborn maps and is reported to have been moved to the property in the 1950's (Hoyt 2006). The Freitas Adobe The Freitas Adobe and the wooden structure that has protected it over the years is the main structure on the parcel. The whole structure measures -54 x 34 feet. Within this wooden structure, the adobe section measures -15.5 x 33.5 feet. Present-day Configuration A Photo location Original Ado Livingroom Bedroom gedsnom Li,I om H F nt L K Back Po ';> nBedmo Porch A Bedroom Bath KitcheKitchen 0 C Scale in feet (aPprox) o 16 4- iq Attachment 4 r A FB r, �O. I. , � T , M f I - KJ ir it ELLA . e E ja rQ �' i ; r-- G JE 11 i � i - ��,�•_ � - r sc. f Attl 4 CL1P��cit G H n7V-1 � ,- ❑K L 11 %"mob J I _ •O 18 Attachment 4 J ALT Photos C through E show the exterior and interior of the rear of the structure. The board and batten siding, bead-board interior walls and high ceilings suggest an early period of construction for this addition. The earliest Sanborn Insurance map indicates that wooden rooms had already been added to the adobe before 1886. It is likely that these rooms were created from what was originally a wrap-around porch (typical on most adobes). The rear bathroom (E) still contains the oval pipe curtain hanger that would have encircled a claw-foot tub. At this time, the structure would have looked like a vernacular ranch house style. Photos A through G depict the more recent historical wooden portion of the structure. The Queen Ann Cottage style front porch (A) displays a typical Victorian architecture that was popular throughout San Luis Obispo from the 1880's through 1910. The drop siding, cut gingerbread trim at the comers of the porch roof, multiple light doors and double-hung windows were traits found in San Francisco Stick and Queen Ann Cottages throughout the west coast (Prentice et al. 1986). Picture "G" shows one of the front doors and windows from the inside. Sanborn Insurance maps indicate that this Victorian addition was added to the adobe between 1891 and 1903. New interior plywood paneling and a lowered ceiling are changes that have occurred to the front portion of the house much later (1940's and later). Photo "1' shows the larger of the two kitchens. The counter and cupboard styles suggest that this kitchen interior was constructed in the late 1940's or early 1950's. Photos H through N and exterior shot "B° show the adobe portion of the house. It appears to have originally had 3 or 4 doors and 3 or 4 windows. One of the original doors still serves as a door to the outside (see photo B). Photo "H" shows what may have been an original exterior door that now opens eastward into a part of the wooden structure. Photos "IA and "J" show 19 _ Attcachmert 4 windows across from each other on the north and south sides of the structure (one has been converted into a cupboard). Photo "M" shows a second window on the north wall. All window and door openings have the characteristic trapezoid or angled walls (small at the exterior and opening wider at the interior portion of the wall). Photo °N" shows the wide-board heart-pine flooring that likely exists throughout the adobe portion of the house. The major change noted in the original adobe structure is shown in photos "IC' and "U. This large walk-through opening between the front wooden living room and the adobe portion of the house would not have existed in the original adobe structure. It is likely that this opening was an enlargement of an existing adobe door created during the Queen - Ann Cottage additions that were - - added 1891 and 1903. An examination of the top of the adobe section of the house from the attic area indicated that the walls were two adobe bricks - wide. Each brick was 10 x 20 x 3.5" and courses alternated in direction. In many places thee of adobe bricks seen in attic brick walls were still covered plaster on interior wall). with the original white-washed mud plaster. For the most part, vertical studs were placed against the exterior of the adobe walls to allow for the nailing of wall siding during the construction of the walls of the wooden additions. Beams were laid across the top of the adobe structure to support the new roof. Neither of these construction techniques appears to have done any damage to the original adobe structure. Lb t , � y`� t�� --._ � � 0.'��-ice..• �� ^ice t__�� l- �• � �. L/n`.V:Y.. VV --�-...�-�..r�'� tib.\ ��, • L - 20 PARKER & ASSr- VIATES PO Box 462 > Attachment 5 Cayucos, CA 93430 Phone: (805) 772-0117 Fax. (805) 772-8178 Email. crm@tcsn.net CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATION OF THE HOYT PARCEL 868 CHORRO STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO APN 002-415-004 ` �. '3{�5ry.1 •.µ41.1 � .a � .. fro ddd}•LLL""��}}}A.iy� nL. Prepared at the request of: Larry Hoyt Management 530 Loch Lomond Turlock, CA 95382 Prepared by: John Parker, Ph.D., RPA USGS Quad San Luis Obispo 7.5' February 8, 2006 FIELD AND RESEARCH ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES "ed ProAs9ional A-chaeologW www.tcsn.net/sloarchaeology 19 d2-1 CONTENTS SUMMARY...........:........................................ ...............2 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND.....................................................3 Historical Background....................................................................4 Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa.................................................4 FreitasAdobe .................................................................................6 1886-88 ................... ......................8 ................................:............... 1891 ..............................................................................................9 1903-05 ......................................................................:....:.............9 1926 ..............................................................................................9 1950 ............................................................:............................... 10 San Luis Obispo's Chinatown....................................................... 10 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY............................................................... 11 STUDYRESULTS ................................................................................. 12 The Grounds around the Structure............................................... 12 TheFreitas Adobe.............................................................:........... 16 OtherResources...........................................................................21 POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CULTURAL FEATURES AND ARTIFACTS.....................................................................................21 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................. 23 The Freitas Adobe.................................................... ............................................23 Resources Likely to be Encountered..............................................23 Recommendations................................................. .23 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................24 1 -Attactment SUMMARY On January 30th, Larry Hoyt requested that the author conduct a cultural resource investigation of a parcel on Chorro Street. The purpose of the investigation was to locate, describe, and evaluate.any.archaeological or historical resources that may be present on the parcel. In addition,the author was to assess the impact that might occur as a result of proposed construction on the parcel. The entire parcel exists within the boundaries of recorded archaeological site CA-SLO-64H. SLO-64H is a historic archaeological sitethat encompasses most of the original grounds of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa and San Luis Obispo's Chinatown. Included within the project area are a single- family residence and two outbuildings. The nucleus of the residence at 868 Chorro Street is the "Freitas Adobe" to which wooden additions have been added over the years. Due to its ties to California's Spanish Mission and Mexican Rancho eras,and its excellent state of preservation, the Freitas Adobe should be considered a significant historical resource as defined by the Calif. Pub. Res. Code, 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Sect. 4852. The wooden additions built around the original Freitas Adobe over the years were an attempt to create the look of a Victorian era residence as city styles and tastes changed. Subsequent remodels and alterations to these additions have severely changed their original character. As there are several unaltered and well maintained Victorian era residences in the immediate vicinity, it is this author's opinion that the wooden additions to the residence at 868 Chorro Street may not be considered historically significant. Historical maps and drawings indicate that no other major structures have existed within the project area since the 1886. When parking lot asphalt was removedfrom the adjacent parcels to the south, archaeologists encountered 35 significant Mission and Chinese period features. Dating from the 1770's through the 1920's, these historic foundation footings, trash deposits, and privy_pits contained thousands of artifacts that are currently being used to reconstruct the history of both the Mission and Chinatown. Though the Hoyt parcel is a smaller area, it is likely that similar buried historic features will be encountered. Mission San Luis Obispo and its related structures are considered historically significant cultural resources as defined in the Calif. Pub. Res. Code (5024.1; Title 14 CCR, Sect. 4852). Both the Mission and the nearby San Luis Obispo Chinatown represent critical periods in California's economic and cultural growth. Any intact cultural features representing 2 �-R r Attachment 5 these two time periods would be considered asignificant" archaeological resources. It is recommended that the Freitas Adobe portion of the residence at 868 Chorro Street be preserved in its original form and location. It is also recommended that prior to any demolition of the wooden additions, a qualified architectural historian be retained to document those additions and, along with a qualified archaeologist, direct the demolition process. It is recommended that any construction planned for the parcel be designed to avoid damage to buried archaeological resources. This can often be accomplished by capping the area with a layer of fill and building atop the fill. If project design and construction techniques cannot avoid excavation into the existing ground, a qualified historic archaeologist should be retained to conduct subsurface (Phase 11) testing prior to any project related ground disturbance activity. If significant historical features are encountered that cannot be preserved,in place, then Phase III data recovery work will need to be performed to recover the "scientifically consequential information from or about the resource" as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Sec. 15026.4 (C). Following the data recovery phase, it is recommended that a qualified historic archaeologist be retained to monitor all ground disturbance activities related to the proposed project. This will insure that any additional features or artifacts can be properly mapped and collected prior to disturbance. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND The background research carried out as part of this study-was conducted by John and Cheyanne Parker. Dr. Parker holds a Ph.D. in Archaeology, and is a Registered Professional Archaeologist. Cheyanne has 8 years of archaeological field and lab experience. The fieldwork took place February 2nd, 2006. The parcel covered -17,575 sq. ft. of gently sloping terrain on the ridge top separating Stenner and San Luis Creeks. The property is depicted on the San Luis Obispo 7.5'.USGS topographic map as existing in section 26, T30S, R12E (see attached map for area inspected). The project area was situated on the east side of Chorro Street, one lot north of the intersection of Chorro and Palm Streets. It is listed as 868 Chorro Street. No development plans have yet been finalized. 3 4 .� O A:li~chmnnt 3 Historical Background The project area lies within the boundaries of historic archaeological site CA- SLO-64/H. This cultural site includes Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, all it's related features and structures as well as San Luis Obispo's Chinatown. This archaeological area has already been determined a °significant' cultural resource as defined by the Public Resources Code (Title 14, sec. 21083.2). Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa Founded in concept in 1772, the mission structure as it now stands was not constructed until 1788 following the destruction by fire of less permanent structures (Krieger 1988). The population of neophytes (baptized :. Native Americans) reached its peak at the mission in 1804. In addition to the mission sanctuary and immediate compound, several large adobe structures had been erected around the mission to serve as dormitories for the neophytes and other mission support activities. The mission was already in serious decline before secularization occurred in 1833. Mission drawn in 1856 r. Possible depiction of Freitas Adobe J Ira�v _�..�..��t,�✓�/sl�' �!'k=, a�� d�'d' ' � ° "' _ 4 ! 1R�. sG ^.z— '�•^ f / r /+`�> n { �I/l1''�r tl�+�j(((' E.Iji` V' V , d:�,/ •lyltli ltll I {{ 14�i11 �� rr. — dw ,r MisiSn San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 4 ) 3 .2-11 Mission draws ifs ® >1 ` ssible rooflio�fC ePtt 5 Freitas Ado Y t � � <k• 121`Y;M1r .'7'✓ � . , � � 1�•' ••'� q � 1. � �` . 7 J - } 777 Unfortunately, a lack of mission period maps makes it difficult to determine the numbers and location of mission structures and features. This means that such items can potentially turn up anywhere in a radius of several blocks from the sanctuary structure. Interestingly, there are many more pictures and maps of Mission San Miguel than of Mission San Luis Obispo. The picture above and on the previous page show that there were several adobe structures located north and east of the mission sanctuary building (in the vicinity of the current project area). Adobe structural remains were discovered during archaeological investigations on the parcel immediately south of the current project area. These materials appeared to represent one of the two north-south oriented structures seen just right of the sanctuary building in the historical drawings. Materials discovered on the floor of this collapsed structure suggest that it may have served as a Native American dormitory. It appears that this structure collapsed during a major earthquake that struck the area in the late 1800's (Parker 2005). This photo and map (see next page) of archaeological 1987 Palm Street Garage excavation area. work on the Current project area is behind adjacent parcel yellow dotted line in upper right show the cobble adobe foundation and its ' relationship to the current project area. • Exposed Mission Era cobble footings. 5 .2-/1 t� 1956 Sanborn -- - Attaci iment 5 Ynsurance Map a CL r � L5 !k 'k ' Current Project Area r r ' d Excavated Mission I ii Period foundation viap A " L � � r r _ ;r .4w- , . o iFw Freitas Adobe The structure at 868 Chorro sits back from the road and is at a slight angle to the road. An examination of old lot lines, the Mission era foundation footings discovered on the adjacent lot and satellite photos of Mission San Luis Obispo (see next page) have revealed that the Freitas Adobe is oriented along the same construction lines as the Mission. If the alignment of present-day city streets is ignored and an imaginary straight line is drawn northward from the missionsanctuary, that line would pass directly in front of the Freitas Adobe. 6 �- r3 gent 5 Project Area Freitas Adobe Imaginary roadway on Mission alignment Mission Sanctuary A title search provided by Mr. Hoyt lists the Freitas Adobe as having been constructed sometime around 1800. The first transfer record indicates that it was sold by Ferdinand Martinez to Valentin Mancillas in 1864. Both Fernando Martinez and Valentin Mancillas were members of the San Luis Obispo Vigilance Committee (Angel 1883:303). In 1876 the property was transferred by Valentin Mancillas to Delores Herrera. Ms. Herrera was also a member of the Vigilance Committee and in 1851 was appointed 2nd Judge of the Plains"for the Town of San Luis Obispo. Ms. Herrera transferred the property to Paul Isola in 1903 who in turn transferred it to Joseph Keys. In 1908, the property was transferred to Neil Cook and in 1909, Mr. Cook transferred the property to Jerome P. Andrews_. In 1873, Mr. Andrews helped fund the construction of the Methodist Episcopal Church in San Luis Obispo. In 1883, Mr. Andrews was a member of the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Society (Angel 1883:208, 283). The Andrews Estate sold the property to Alice Morton in 1915. Mrs. Morton 7 z-i4 Attachment 5 sold the property to G.H. Andrews in 1917 and it was eventually purchased by George and Rosa Freitas in 19.19. Margaret Hoyt (daughter of George and Rosa Freitas) lived in the house her whole life until her recent passing. 1886-1888 The earliest Sanborn Insurance Company map of the block was compiled in 1886. This map depicts the Freitas Adobe as a single story structure with a covered porch along its south side. Within the rectangle representing the structure is another rectangle. It is likely that this smaller rectangle represents the actual adobe structure and that this adobe had additional wooden structural additions on the north, east, and west sides. An open . porch is depicted on the south side. This configuration is typical of stand- alone adobe structures. In order to protect the adobe brick walls from deterioration, often full wrap-around porches were built around the structure to carry water away from the walls and foundation. These porches were often walled in to enlarge the structures as families grew and more rooms were needed. 1886-1888 Sanborn q Insurance Map u ;NJ ' aJ. .a •� �.j '' I� Project location 4 p � P 4 s 4 � vraw 4 V P P 'k-T 8 a-�s i Attachment 5 1891 The 1891 map shows the Freitas Adobe in its correct orientation and appears to indicate no changes to the structure as it was depicted in 1886. 1903-05 = 1891 Sanborn Am. Insurance Map Between 1891 and 1903, the structure h changed. The rooms surrounding the a a r adobe on the north and west sides appear to have been removed. The M. room on the east side appears to have -A remained (likely the board and batten -q addition noted during the Meld q ` inspection). New additions on the + project location ' south and east sides along with a new ® y. porch (facing Chorro Street) were e added and are likely the additions that were made to give the structure a ® s _-f 's Queen Ann Cottage look. 1903-05 Saabora OUNOR Insurance Map ! + Ar Ar i• 9 r . 0 i M Prrjectlocation I eo ¢o c< xc r9 e� rs R ,..� uo I�" OZIaOH�_ } 1926 (see nest page) ♦ • ®� I Between 1905 and 1926, the only change to the Freitas Adobe appears to be the addition of a porch along the back of the IF + I structure (opposite Chorro Street). Two outbuildings are also at the + I back end of the parcel. The a I a Insurance map also depicts the Iparcel in its current form for the fust time. 9 d b �-lb Attachment 5 1926 Sanborn 5 1950 Insurance Map Cp Between 1926 and 1950, the only a jaiI change noted within the project area is the loss of one of the outbuildings Project location A at the rear of the parcel. There are -- ® no further map changes on the parcel after this date. e y ' 1926-50 Sanborn © . Insurance Map � 1 F i a . : . aF ------ --- .• , - � �,- Project location 14 e e -Son Luis Obispo's Chinatown Immediately south of the project area is a section of San Luis Obispo - known as Chinatown. A review of the Sanborn Maps indicates that the a Palm Street Block was considered China Town as early as 1886. r 4 4 Initially most Chinese came to California "Gum Sahn (Gold Mountain)" for two reasons: 1. the gold rush of 1850 attracted people from all over the world, and 2. to escape the turmoil of the Taiping Rebellion which raged in China from 1850 to 1864. Most Chinese in San Luis Obispo County came from the south coastal Chinese province of Kwangtung (Guangdong). Although the 1860 census lists no Chinese in San Luis Obispo County it is. likely that Chinese families.were already here, living along the coast, 10 Attachment 5 harvesting and drying seafood for export to China. At the height of the Chinese pioneer period, at least 2,000 lived and worked in the county. In 1873 a depression hit California brought about by a surplus of labor and lack of jobs. Looking for a scapegoat, many recent European immigrants to California blamed the Chinese. Here were people who ate different food, spoke a different language, dressed differently, and had different cultural ways. It was most likely a fear of the unknown that caused many Californians and eventually the U.S. Congress to turn against their own Chinese Pioneers. State and Federal laws were passed limiting and eventually ending all immigration from China. The 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act cut off immigration and denied Chinese the right to become U.S. citizens. In 1888,, the Scott Act prevented any Chinese person.from returning to the U.S. after traveling to China for a visit. The 1892 Geary Act required that all Chinese legally in U.S. must carry certificates of residence. State laws such as the 1881 law that made opium smoking illegal and the 1905 California ban on the export of dried shrimp further discouraged Chinese families from remaining in California. The economic burden imposed on the Chinese pioneers by these state and federal laws prompted most to return to China. Only three families from that period still reside m San Luis Obispo; the Gin family, the.Chong family and the Louis family. San Luis Obispo's Chinese pioneers established the first brick kiln in the county (1872), mined gold and quicksilver (1874-1882), built the narrow gage railroad from Avila to San Luis Obispo and beyond (1875), built two Cuesta Grade stage roads, the Paso-Cambria Road (HWY 46) and the Arroyo Grande-Huasna Road (1876), reclaimed land around Laguna Lake (1882), built the Southern Pacific Railroad (1886-1894), ran commercial vegetable gardens throughout the county were restaurant owners and cooks, dry- goods shop-keepers, ran impow/export businesses, were doctors, owned laundry companies and had a host of other.professions both on the ranches and in the towns (Parker 2002). Due to the close proximity of the Chinatown area to the current project location, it is likely that Chinese related archaeological features will be found within the project are. RESEARCH M=HODS The research conducted for this report included a record search at the Regional Archaeological Information Center (Dept. of Anthropology, U.C. 11 Attachment Santa Barbara). This record review revealed that the parcel had not been the subject of an archaeological inspection in the past. However, the project area was listed as within the boundaries of historic archaeological site CA- SLO-64H. Fieldwork consisted of a surface inspection of the project area and an inspection of the structure that contains the Freitas Adobe. With the exception of a front and side lawn, most of the project area was open and easy to inspect. Information gained from background research, review of Sanborn Insurance maps, and intimate knowledge of the archaeological work conducted for the Palm Street Parking Garage was coupled with observations in the field to predict what is likely to be encountered within the project area. STUDY RESULTS The Grounds Around the Structure Mission roof tiles ® Itriar and 2 pestles ♦ Blown liquor flasks A Cut siltstone (l0x18x2.5'100- ) - Concrete!rfr Cactus walk ! Rock Adobe alignment 75 + Woo e +r tructure Brick 1+1 t 50 walk +! & N 11 shed ) + t r ble footing�� Gravel drive LL o garage /Scale Possible ine p foundation brick-linedPalm St. Garage 7 10 � � 0 5 0 t5 � Mission Era Materials The field inspection turned up evidence of Mission era archaeological materials. Mission roof tile fragments were recovered in three locations. In addition, one of these locations contained a cluster of large cobbles eroding out of the gravel driveway. The cobbles cut across the driveway north to 12 a-ig Pz 1r4 it a a j.2x• /" r t b. � - � a .x��l'F q ", ait S -t .`. Y' J-�.��Ia\� " .' yf,�t,•dN , .� � `�i ��s'p$ic '^� �IY! ' � 1 � • • �l r �a�xbn->. � r 'f'. \ x. Yt f "} t �t..� t ,' i .e 1 1r. � d •y,1' ,1 5 s F • • • �� f� ti �'��=.r�'d� F� z wr AN � 1 • �•� ,t L r!` Icy �"'!!! ti X ,y'� ; 1 v s lM TO fk _ L x S. '�1 • • il at - S I 1 t5 Behind the garage was a cut stone r . slab of a size and thickness similar 111 to that of a traditional adobe brick. Next to the shed were a bowl Y mortar and two pestles. Although these could be from the Mission era, it is also possible that these were collected more recently from another location and simply used as garden ornaments by more recent residents. r. Euro-Aameriaan Era Materials A square arrangement of mortared brick was discovered southeast of t Y the house. The courses were two bricks wide and the structure was 4 x 4 feet square. It is possible thatVk this feature represents the remains :. of a well or other type of water .. fi ^�-w Ai r j .. • w b. cistern. It may also have been the base for an incinerator or bar-b-que. , q J•^i.C•.4 M Y' . y ` d� c* ' A wide range of glass, ceramics and s r shell from the Euro-American era ' 't p, were also discovered. Shell included mussel, Pismo clam tivela), gaper � t clam (tresus), abalone (haliotis rufescens), and `_ `` ` �' � y broware Pacific littleneck clam (protothaca). All of these �a species were popular and consumed by Euro- Americans after 1900. Euro-American stoneware "w blue- on-white porcelain Ceramics were mostly fragments of tableware and included an assortment of Euro-American stoneware in addition to Chinese porcelain. One piece of Chinese brownware was recovered that most likely represents the wall �. fL of a food jar or spouted jar. The large white piece in the photo appears to be the rim of a soup ``� -' ` • nw terrine or washbasin. ~ Y Glass items included both hand blown and machine made h pieces. Included in the collection were the black glass" base of a wine bottle (pre 1880), y' sun-altered purple glass (1880- 1914), and a machine-made blue base of a large demijohn (post 1900). t. The rectangular base of a hand- blown patent medicine bottle can be seen in the center of the photo. The two purple glass -' screw-top necks at the top of the photo are hand-blown and 15 � _1 ��az 1 J most likely represent Illinois Oval or Bi- f� Metallic flasks used for liquor (Putnam 1965). : Outbuildings Two small outbuildings were discovered on the parcel. At the southeast corner was a simple one-room garage measuring -26 x 17 feet. This structure does not appear in 1905, however, it seems to be represented on the 1926 Sanborn Map. This would correspond with the increased use of automobiles in the 1920's. A small shed was located immediately south of the main house and measured -13 x 18 feet. This shed doesn't show up on any of the Sanborn maps and is reported to have been moved to the `— property in the 1950's (Hoyt 2006). The metas Adobe The Freitas Adobe and the wooden structure that has protected it over the years is the main structure on the parcel. The whole structure measures -54 x 34 feet. Within this wooden structure, the adobe section measures --15.5 x 33.5 feet. Present-day Configumfion A Photo location Original Ado Livingioom BedroomBedroom G N Lfvingsvom L K D F ntBack Po z<>.:;>'jh'� Porch Bedroom p' Kitchen Bedroom Bath Kitchen a 0 C Scale in feet (appy) 0 lb 2b 3b 4b sb ab 7b 8b 16 2-a3 .,u a '"�✓l's. i N�m 1�h) is-M1'd ' $fir � - n". �!� r� I`��Y 1 g ,1°`7�`iX � �•Y. w�°�31, e Fx iL'p '. n C'c . + .k f •$:H1Z r v >1 '}�F� k ._ !' �� _.4.,� !'>'aC:.• IY j�"' dY � I+�Y�4A { .�,�',��,Ar i Wr" � + q ill �tr" �;y'J s �f y r l ' .'-•�.:' ';lpri gyp' .. .. .., .gin: Ri rr 'r"i�'• t irJ.S 1 Y l' �i i},( {,j r t'�'J -14 ly r L1 _ r © E n v Va °1�+kv)f tr- =L�� '.3 Iy.x•��P"Y ' A jS )'26f ylgi i�^ f I 1 5 S t {s fl tiK! w� t rl s r f Vit, - ` i . LY�3s Ll L t. I r 71. Tl -:ter W• :�F �.T•�,s l 1 !d i'� /i i x s' �,i�^X�y�3 i.• j 1 I.� t i Yll 1—r— rl i r y�' r c n ;.ty a i s`x tin i '1q •.dl ��`�•^ •:f, h X��Ir' (��j+a�.�r � � ..� a � rj�Fa...--ate'— � _ 3 • � r M 5 i t i L 1's iy- Photos C through E show the exterior and interior of the rear of the structure. The board and batten siding, bead-board interior walls and high ceilings suggest an early period of construction for this addition. The earliest Sanborn Insurance map indicates that wooden rooms had already been added to the adobe before 1886. It is likely that these rooms were created from what was originally a wrap-around porch (typical on most adobes). The rear bathroom (E) still contains the oval pipe curtain hanger that would have encircled a claw-foot tub. At this time, the structure would have looked like a vernacular ranch house style. Photos A through G depict the more recent historical wooden portion of the structure. The Queen Ann Cottage style front porch (A) displays a typical Victorian architecture that was popular throughout San Luis Obispo from the 1880's through 1910. The drop siding, cut gingerbread trim at the comers of the porch roof, multiple light doors and double-hung windows were traits found in San Francisco Stick and Queen Ann Cottages throughout the west coast(Prentice et al. 1986). Picture "G° shows one of the front doors and windows from the inside. Sanborn Insurance maps indicate that this Victorian addition was added to the adobe between 1891 and 1903. New interior plywood paneling and a lowered ceiling are changes that have occurred to the front portion of the house much later (1940's and later). Photo "F" shows the larger of the two kitchens. The counter and cupboard styles suggest that this kitchen interior was constructed in the late 1940's or early 1950's. Photos H through N and exterior,shot "B' show the adobe portion of the house. It appears to have originally had 3 or 4 doors and 3 or 4 windows. One of the original doors still serves as a door to the outside (see photo B). Photo "H" shows what may have been an original exterior door that now opens eastward into a part of the wooden structure. Photos "P and "X show 19 4-' 3'b a-�b Attachment 5 windows across from each other on the north and south sides of the structure (one has been converted into a cupboard). Photo `Mn shows a second window on the north wall. All window and door openings have the characteristic trapezoid or angled walls (small at the exterior.and opening wider at the interior portion of the wall). Photo "NA shows the wide-board heart-pine flooring that likely exists throughout the adobe portion of the house. The major change noted in the original adobe structure is shown in photos "10 and "U. This large walk-through opening between the front wooden living room and the adobe portion of the house would not have existed in the original adobe structure. It is likely that this opening was an enlargement of an existing adobe door created during the Queen Ann Cottage additions that were added 1891 and 1903. An examination of the top of the adobe section of the house from the attic area indicated that the walls were two adobe bricks wide. Each brick was 10 x 20 x 3.5" and courses alternated in direction. In many places the Top course of adobe bricks seen in attic brick walls were still covered (note white plaster on interior wall). with the original white-washed mud plaster. For the most part, vertical studs were placed against the exterior of the adobe walls to allow for the nailing of wall siding during the construction of the walls of the wooden additions. Beams were laid across the top of the adobe structure to support the new roof. Neither of these construction techniques appears to have done any damage to the original adobe structure. t ,Y 20 Y a-a.� A+tachment 5 The panorama of photos on the previous page was taken in the attic showing top of adobe structure. Attic photos also show original two-strand electrical . wiring throughout much of the house. Other Resources Due to the unique location of the project area, and the fact that it has remained relatively undeveloped when compared to other parcels near the Mission, it is likely that any buried historical features will be iri extremely good condition. Because of the high number of historic features discovered beneath the parking asphalt on the adjacent parcels in 1987, it is assumed that similar historic features will be encountered within the Hoyt Parcel. It is likely that both wooden and cobble foundations, trash pits, and privy pits relating to the Mission, Mexican, and Chinatown eras will have been preserved. . POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF CULTURAL FEATURES AND ARTIFACTS The Freitas Adobe has already been listed by the City Cultural Heritage Commission as "Eligible for the National Register". The "significance of a historic resource is tied to its content and/or association. A cultural resource is deemed significant' for land use planning purposes if it meets one of the following criteria: A. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; A. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; C. Embodies 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 value; or D. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prep}story. (36 CFR Part 60.4 and Calif. Pub. Res. Code Sec. 5024:1, Tide 14 CCR, Sec. 4852) In the case of Mission era structures or features that may be encountered, these fall uOder p{iteria"A" due to their association with the Spanish IylisSioil 00'later Mexican Rancho Periods. In gdditipn, if any pf these frAWres a{r Otact and have integrity, they would also fall under criteria "D" 2.1 D. so-As Attachment 5 for their ability to provide information important to the study of the Mission Period. Intact Chinese-associated features would also fall under both criteria "A" and "D" listed above for the same reasons. Both Mission San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo's Chinatown have been determined significant historical resources worthy of preservation and study. This is evidenced by the inclusion of all California Missions in the State Register of Historic Places and the fact that the Ah Louis Store has been listed as a State Historic landmark. Due to the economic and cultural importance of these resources to the development of San Luis Obispo and California, any intact cultural features and/or artifacts representing these cultural periods would also be considered 'significant" cultural resources as defined in the Public Resources Code (5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Sect. 4852). Although a superficial history of Mission San Luis Obispo is known, very little is known about the layout and function of the various Mission structures and almost nothing is known about the daily lives of the Native American neophytes that lived and worked at the Mission. The mapping and analysis of structural remains and trash deposits relating to the Mission period can be used to provide that portion of the unwritten history of Mission life. Due to.the prejudice of the late 1800's and the fact that most of the Chinese Pioneers that came to San Luis Obispo were forced to return to China following the passage of anti-Chinese laws, there is a gaping hole in our understanding of these people and their culture. This historical vacuum is made obvious when one picks.up the official `History of San Luis Obispo County* (Angel 1883). Although the Chinese Pioneers made up at least 10% of the population in San Luis Obispo and contributed to the economic, technological, agricultural, medical, and infrastructure development of the county, there is not one mention of a Chinese person, activity, or accomplishment in that historical publication. It is as if this community never existed. Although descendants of the Ah Louis, Chong, and Gin families still reside in the community and collectively have memories and family stories of the Chinese community, the day-to-day history of Chinatown exists only in the structural and artifactual.remains that.lay buried on the Chorro Street block (Gin 1998, Louis 1998). For the Chinese community, these buried resources are one of the few places left that contain information about San Luis Obispo's Chinese history. 22 4 4 AtItacf�ment 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Freitas Adobe The adobe portion of 868 Chorro St. is in excellent condition relative.to the other adobes in San Luis Obispo. Its condition has been protected by having a wooden structure built around it, by having suffered very few alterations, and by being inhabited throughout.its lifetime. It is this author's opinion that the adobe portion of the structure meets the criteria for `significance as outlined in the Calif. Pub. Res. Code, 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Sect. 4852. The wooden additions that have been made to enlarge the adobe represent several periods of expansion and later alteration. Although the structure is old, the lowered ceilings,renovated kitchens, updated wall paneling and bathroom fixtures have all served to dilute the historical character of these additions. Within one block of the project area there are several well- preserved examples of the Victorian Queen Ann Cottage style (see 871 and 863 Chorro Street, 756 Palm Street, and 868 Mill Street). With the exception of possible preserved remnants of the original wrap-around porch roof and support beams, it.is this author's opinion that the wooden.additions surrounding the adobe portion of the structure do not meet the criteria for . `significance as outlined in the Calif. Pub. Res. Code, 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Sect. 4852. Resources Likely to be Encountered Due.to the fact that a high number of historical artifacts and features were observed during the field inspection, and the fact that adjacent parcels contained buried trash deposits, structural remains, and significant artifacts; it is likely that intact historic cultural features will exist buried on the Hoyt Parcel. Examination of the Sanborn Maps and historical photographs suggest that Mission related features (adobe foundations, trash deposits, etc.), Mexican era related features and Chinese related features will be discovered. Although the structural adobe is important in providing a cultural footprint of use during the Spanish and Mexican periods, the discovery and analysis of hollow features such as trash deposits, filled privy pits, and wells are the key to learning about both the business and residential activities that took place. Recommendation It is recommended that the Freitas Adobe portion of the residence at 868 Chorro Street be preserved in its original form and location. It is also recommended that prior to any demolition of the wooden additions, a 23 y . `"l_ -4a a a- 30 5 ;. Attachment � qualified architectural historian be retained to document those additions and, along with a qualified archaeologist, direct the demolition process. It is recommended that any construction planned for the parcel be designed to avoid damage to buried archaeological resources. This can often be accomplished by capping the area with a layer of fill and building atop the fill. If project design and construction techniques cannot avoid excavation into the existing ground, a qualified historic archaeologist should be retained to conduct subsurface (Phase II) testing prior to any project related ground disturbance activity. If significant historical features are encountered that cannot be preserved in place, then Phase III data recovery work will need to be performed to recover the "scientifically consequential information from or about the resource" as required by CEQA (Sec. 15026.4 (C). Following the data recovery phase, it is recommended that a qualified historic archaeologist be retained to monitor all ground disturbance activities related to the proposed project. This will insure that any additional features or artifacts can be properly mapped and collected prior to disturbance. REFEYtEMCES USED Angel, Myron 1883 Htstory of San Luis Obispo County, Thompson & West, Oakland, CA Gin, Sam 1998 Unpublished Interview conducted by Dr. John Parker Hoyt, Larry 2006 Personal communication from property owner. Krieger, Daniel E. 1988 Looking Backward into the ]Diddle Stngdom: San Luis Obispo County, Windsor Publications, Northridge, CA. Louis, Howard 1998 Unpublished Interview conducted by Dr. John Parker Munz, Philip A. 1970 A California Flora, University of California Press, Berkeley, California 24 a-3� Parker, John W. 2002 Chinese Contributions to San Luis Obispo County, Unpublished flyer developed for public awareness purposes. 2005 Ongoing current research of the Palm Street Parking Garage Archaeological Collection. Prentice, Helaine Kaplan and Blair Prentice 1986 Rehab Right, City of Oakland Planning Dept., Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, Calif. Putnam, H.E. 1965 Bottle Identification, Self published, Duarte, Calif. Robinson, W.W. 1957 The Story of San Luis Obispo County, Published by Title Insurance and Trust Co., Los Angeles, CA. GENERAL PROJECT LOCATION SAN LUIS OBISPO 7.5' USGS QUAD IM Wo .': »' ,�• sofa Ro r res b. w !a z ,'yYal6F•., � j n^ • � ' �..V r i. a , I I �. �Y r r I�( I 'fr I I � w 1 ( ) O i I• rJy( e '�'.' r 1111 ��1 �? — \_.-` �. ,�ila � r � rib � • .': 2� Meadow r r '( 0..768. ,, • •_^ \'.. \'`\ ar • • Radio 7Pari, ik 25 2-31 A*tachment 5 PARCEL INSPECTED 002- 41 Ml LL ST. o so AS 3 b I 3 a 1 3 l2 4l b 60 7 IB 9 IG bO ► 076I .9x3 n'a7 I ! 14 1 I 1 1 8 r t. , b 6 ; 4 ; is 8 8 , =� I a •. ' a. •w �'. .m ale ST. 2 w. -aa•s.,aie � .�. Pan 1 1 L(�Ft i --7; 'n ift 41 6J • 1 o: i per` o �Q'• o I S aC C •h O 1 loss • x bO i s0 ST. GTI' OF SAN LUIS OBISPO oouxrr of LUIS OSISPO. R.M. ft A , Pg. 168. " PACE 41A 26 a-33 Attachment 6 Draft MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Regular Meeting of Monday,April 24,2006 The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, San Luis Obispo City Hall, 990 Palm Street. OATHS OF OFFICE: Deputy City Clerk Julie O'Connor administered oaths of office to reappointed Committee Member Chuck Crotser and Tom Wheeler. ROLL CALL: Present:Committee Members Sandy Baer, Dan Carpenter, Robert Pavlik. Lynne Landwehr,Tom Wheeler, Vice Chair Barbara Breska and Chairperson Chuck Crotser Absent: None Staff: Senior Planner Pam Ricci and Associate Planner Whitney Mcllvaine ELECTIONS: On a voice vote, Committee Member Crotser was unanimously elected as Chairperson. On a voice vote, Committee Member Breska was unanimously elected as Vice-Chairperson. MINUTES: Minutes of January 23, 2006 and February 27, 2006. The minutes of January 23, 2006 were approved as submitted. The minutes of February 27, 2006 were approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM: 1. 868 Chorro Street. CHC 51-06; Review of Historic Resource Investigation of the historic Mancilla/Frietas Adobe; R-4 zone;Lary Hoyt, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Pam Ricci explained that the CHC had previously provided Larry Hoyt with direction to have a cultural resource investigation prepared. She noted that the CHC's purview was limited to reviewing and commenting on the submitted report. Lang Hoyt, applicant, explained his vision for the property and provided a historic overview. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the submitted historic resource investigation prepared by Dr. John Parker. Larry Hoyt further discussed the opportunity to complete restoration of the small adobe and the possible use as a Native American Museum. Attachment 6 CHC Meeting Minutes, April 24, 2006 Page 2 Glen Wood, R2L Architects, introduced himself and explained that he was working with the applicant on a development plan for the property. During public comment, David Brodie retired Cal Poly architecture professor stated his concerns with the deterioration of cities and loss of historical resources. Brodie further stated that artifacts relocated are a token and lose their impact, and that timelines are what give cities a sense of place. Allan Cooper referenced that the structure dates back to 1874; and that significant changes occurred between 1893 and 1905. He provided a series of photos and book excerpts as supporting documentation. Cooper also pointed out that the frame of the structure could be retained with changes made to the interior to provide a more livable house. Committee Member Landwehr stated that Mr. Cooper's information was germane, Committee member Pavlik agreed and suggested that the report should be expanded to include a qualified architectural historian to evaluate the building and research the necessary information to evaluate the age of the building, the additions and the overall integrity. Buildings associated with the Mission gain significance in their own right and removal of wood additions could affect the historical status and integrity. Other Committee Members agreed, with Committee Member Wheeler added that Mr. Cooper's amendments should be added to the report. Committee Member Carpenter stated that it was unfortunate that issues with the parkingstructure were not brought up with review at the time. The CHC concluded that the study was well done; however, a qualified architectural historian should be retained by the applicant to properly evaluate changes and additions that have been made to the adobe structure over time. 2. 1135 Roundhouse. ARC 15-06; Architectural review for new dispatch center on the site of Fire Station No. 1; PF-H zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Jaime Hill) Pam Ricci presented the staff report and Candice Wong and Margaret Arnbrosavaage, RRM Design, explained the firm's expertise and involvement in refining the design for the much needed facility. They continued with the explanation of the site plan and reasons for the location, the functions of the floor plan, and stated that Fire Station 1 was built to more intensive standards. No public comments were made. Committee member Wheeler stated his concerns regarding the building design and materials and their consistency with the Railroad District Plan. Committee member Carpenter was impressed with the whole proposal and that it was important to have the new structure blend in with the Fire Station, Vice Chairperson Breska and Committee member Landwehr agreed. Committee member Baer motioned for approval, Committee member Carpenter seconded. On a 7:0 vote the Committee determined that the proposed structure and site improvements are architecturally compatible with the surrounding area and referred the item to the Architectural Review Commission with a recommendation to approve the plans as submitted, based on the following findings: 1.. The proposed materials and architectural detailing will complement the adjacent City facility and will add to the historic character of the surrounding neighborhood. +,41 Attachment 7 MEMORANDUM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO: Cultural Heritage Committee VIA: Jeff Hook, Senior Planner FROM: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: April 24, 2006 SUBJECT: Item #1: CHC 51-06 (868 Chorro) — Review of the Cultural Resource Investigation prepared for 868 Chorro Street(Frietas Adobe,Larry Hoyt). Upon the recommendation of the CHC, the new owner of the historic Mancilla/Freitas Adobe has submitted a cultural resource investigation report and has asked for CHC comment. This report is being forwarded to the CHC for review and comment. The property is already included on the Master List of Historic Resources and is eligible for the National Register. At this time, the scope of the CHC's review is to review and comment on the report's accuracy and completeness. The owner is considering development options; however there is no development plan currently proposed so no CHC action is required. Historic Background The property at 868 Chorro Street contains a hidden gem that constitutes one of the most significant historic residential structures in the City. Its historic name is the Mancilla/Frietas Adobe, named after the previous owners, Valentin Mancillas, and George and Rosa Frietas who occupied the residence from 1919. Margaret Hoyt, the daughter of Rosa Frietas, occupied the house her entire life until she recently passed away. The property is now owned by Margaret Hoyt's son, Larry Hoyt. The original adobe portion of the residence is believed to have been constructed sometime around 1800 and the first transfer records indicate it was sold by Ferdinand Martinez to Valentin Mancillas in 1864. The Cultural Resource Investigation (CRI) prepared by Dr. John Parker on February 8, 2006 describes the ownership and historic background of the property in greater detail (Attachment 2). Although the property appears to be an unadorned early 1900's vernacular style Victorian era residence, a well preserved adobe structure is hidden within the later wooden additions. In the early part of the century it was common for adobe structures to be covered with wood siding, not only to preserve the adobe walls, but to create the look of a modernized residence as styles changed. The interesting characteristic about this particular property is the skewed angle of the residence on the property. Its angle matches that of the Mission and is the only existing structure on Chorro Street other than the Mission with such an angle. In fact, early renderings of the mission grounds depict what may actually be the adobe residence at 868 Chorro (see pages 4 and 5 of the CRI). Since this property has remained virtually undisturbed, contains a well preserved adobe structure, and is within the former Mission grounds, it constitutes an extremely valuable historic and archeological site. As evidenced by adjacent archeological discoveries associated with construction of the City's parking garage, the site may contain adobe structural remains that may have served as Native American dormitories during the late 1700's. As Parker notes in the report, the site has the potential to reveal extensive archeological and historical remains. Page 2 of the report affirms the properties historic status: L�- CHC 51-06 % Attachment 7 868 Chorro April 24, 2006 "Due to its ties to California's Spanish Mission and Mexican Ranch eras, and its excellent state of preservation, the Frietas Adobe should be considered a significant historical resource as defined by the Calif. Pub. Res. Code" Applicant's Request At this time, Mr. Hoyt has not submitted a development plan for the property but has indicated he would like to explore development options for the site. In the letter submitted to the City regarding the status of the property (Attachment 3), Mr. Hoyt has asked the City to exclude the frame portion of the residence from historic significance. As mentioned above, the frame portion of the residence was likely constructed in the early 1900's. Dr. Parker believes that the adobe portion of the structure meets the criteria for significance while the later wood additions do not meet the criteria (page 23 of the CRI). In the final recommendation,Dr. Parker recommends that the adobe structure be preserved in its original form and location. He also recommends that prior to any demolition of the wood structures that an architectural historian be retained to document those additions and direct any demolition. Evaluation Since there is no development or demolition plan for the property, it is premature for the CHC to take any action. Instead, staff is asking the CHC to discuss the historic status of the property and the findings of Dr. Parker's report; specifically, whether any structure or part thereof should be considered non-historic. It is important to note that Dr. Parker's report is only one of several sources of information the CHC must consider, and ultimately, the CHC has the final responsibility to recommend what portions of the property constitute a historic resource. Staff notes the following factors to consider when discussing the property's historic status: 1. The wooden additions are estimated to have been built in the late 1800s, reflect the architectural and historical influences of the late Victorian period, and in and of themselves, are likely to meet one or more of the eligibility criteria for State and Local historic listing due to age, architectural style and historic associations (see attached criteria). 2. The wooden additions have helped to preserve the adobe over the years and likely play a significant role and reinforcing the structural support of the .adobe while protecting it from erosion. 3. As noted in the Cultural Resource Investigation, the property itself is a significant archeological resource and is likely to contain significant cultural and archeological resources from both the Chinatown era, the Mission and Native Americans. Conclusion Since the property is already listed as a Master List Historic Property within the City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, no action is necessary unless the CHC wishes to change the property's status. If the CHC believes the adobe, related additions and outbuildings are (q, A CHC 51-06 Attachment 7 868 Chorro April 24,2006 historically significant, they should reaffirm that and "receive and file" the cultural resource investigation report. If the applicant wishes to develop or modify the property or structures, a planning application and development plans will be required. At that time, , this item will return to the CHC for detailed review. Projects which may disturb significant cultural/archeological sites are subject to environmental review. Any new construction or demolition, including any change to the historic status of the property will require an initial study of environmental review. The initial study will identify mitigation measures that are designed to reduce the impacts of the project to a less than significant level. If the project cannot be designed to reduce the impacts to the existing historic resource or potential archeological resources to a less than significant level than an EIR will be required. Because of the adobe's age, rarity and historic/archaeological significance, it is unlikely that the loss or significant alteration of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe could be mitigated to a level of non-significance. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Cultural Resource Investigation prepared by John Parker, Ph.D., RPA February 8, 2006 3. March 6, 2006 letter from Larry Hoyt 4. Eligibility Criteria,Master List of Historic Resources GAPdunsmore\CHCWRC 187-05(Watson)WRC.187-05.CHC.Watson.PJD.doc - Attachment-8- PRESERVATION PLANNING ASSOCIATES 519 Fig Avenue. Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone and FAX (805) 969-4183 Accole5@cs.com October 19, 2006 Mr. Larry Hoyt 530 Loch Lomond Court Turlock, CA 95382 Re:Adobe at 868 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo Dear Mr. Hoyt: As an architectural historian,I have been hired by you to review the historic resources report prepared for you by Dr.Parker and to make comments upon lus findings that the significance of your building lies in the adobe portion and not in the later wood siding attached to it.This letter report analyzes the changes to the building over time and makes a comment on whether the building is significant as it is or as the original adobe. My investigation to find answers to these questions focused on both archival research and on-site research of the house itself. Archival.research According to Dr. Parker,the adobe portion of the building may date to the period of the Mission and be attached to it contextually as an outbuilding(Parker 2006: 2). After the Mission period ended and Americans began to settle San Luis Obispo in the late 1800s, they brought with them different architectural styles, based on redwood,imported from the East coast and the Midwest;styles with name such as Italianate,Queen Anne,and Folk Victorian. At this time,many adobe buildings were considered out of fashion and their owners tried to make them seem up to date by cladding them with redwood siding. This treatment was used on the Freitas adobe. A Birds Eye Map of San Luis Obispo in 1877 shows the adobe with a central flat-roof section with two doors on the west (Chorro Street) side,flanked by two shed-roof additions on the north and south sides, presumably of wood. The south addition is an open porch and the north addition has three windows within a solid wall.It is curious that this map shows the house at the edge of the street(see Plate 1). This scene is compatible with the earliest Sanborn Maps of 1886-1888,reviewed by Dr. Parker,which show the adobe portion at the center of the house with an open porch on the south and the additions on the north, west,and east (see Plate 2). It would make sense that the porch faced south, towards the Mission,for many of the early adobes were contextually related to the Mission . a-.� AWNnent 8 Page 2 Vr b � Y Plate 1.Detail of 1877 Birds Eye Map of San Luis Obispo, showing Freitas adobe. Courtesy San Luis Obispo County Historical Museum The next iteration of the house is seen in a c. 1900 photograph which shows the open porch on the south side, a hipped roof center section with a door and two windows on the west side,and a lower hipped roof portion on the north side with a central entrance (see Plate 3).This alteration appears compatible with the Sanborn Map of 1891 (see Plate 4). By the early 1900s, a number of changes were made to the adobe. According to the photograph entitled "Turning the Century-San Luis Obispo" (see Plate 5),as well as the Sanborn Map of 1903-1905 (see Plate 6),the porch was removed from the south side, the additions on the north and west sides were removed,new additions were made on the south and west sides,a new porch was added on the west side, and the new roof over the additions was hipped. Another photograph,facing north and dated to c. 1906, shows the south and east sides of the house.There is a hipped roof,with possibly a widow's walk,and four windows on the south side,which shows that the south side porch had been removed (VF1.0479 01.01.3434.1906. San Luis Obispo-County Historical Museum). The reorientation of the porch from the south facing the Mission to the west side may indicate that in the Americanization period,the house was oriented towards Chorro street,to match the redwood Victorian houses which had been built on that block across the street. a-3S ::: .. . . e a Y V Y�� tip� Frd 'kry rp 3Rti '7wV'4Nn'�k4�yr{ ? p Y^ n(4"�Nt.h '-Fr r 'kY�jS at1ry ti wy,.t r a'2"lx w�A f ns ar a G r it' f . £f S � .�°�]<,f+•iYy.� 4e+v1d s r g*.•�6+ Yui f '1 '3 .l 0 t .r. J .......Y �� tt n FW, j .Jrc><'r Fnw. ".�yf /ah.1�'M"4 s ++.h[+C*W amu✓. JXn� j-'°`'.' '. r t u r } �'( My � AM ��: a.pr •ee +.ft+-rP'txf .r x i t rt J ""'.� .e•$'"ta� N.Favurt, r ^&`} �.+ w.tt- { a° a_ 45_ f,.'•�i 1 yy Y r`!�<. t '+.y�T+.e- Tr=4r�N ..b tt"fyb-x�,h.yw r�� \•��2 Yrr,,,tf^v��4'�. ,izr{i y��_".i�—�i�0.°Pi>x. � �C .!'t, � 1 r:`T rty�f r ep yrs .r?s'H }� - N t +ir�n� ♦ '6,� jtvEF °-cN K jTOW — sa J xa.j.�F��i✓.J �4 4.i v3�.s y t� °v {F r• } t,- Y ° .F .t x r,+[ �fCc, I�5t Y� :sr ywi t �' �. i"st.�.l#� �"'°' c n "`�"' y ) ,.sr.;'AX°-,t S ri ...e:.�t x•�°,'.""�'8' ' "'?'. ' • ''ll • • . � • • r. . • • . • r . .. . . r I s e �e up a FES Sian"; '� : cT - 4..$•s-+.i-7 C-+. a. -.d:' J tL.. i.: TA� r � OF!ol > ( : :K.t`' �y�.�.�"I' •1ta�.'�.y 7 7 ':r�W ..n =fi•;ya j�x�jt'✓°� FT p •�-._ t Tt -..tg..� � x y! �y .a'7 V". !} �yU�'�7r `-...lY�`..ytl � 1j�^.7h��.F7.-. Hhiment 8 Page 5 O t1 ti 0 W 1903-05 Sanborn I Insurance Map EM Project location I;o� a a 3 r. ti I Plate 6. 1903-1905 Sanborn Map. Parker 2006 The photographs and Sanborn Maps show that the wood siding,front porch,and present roof configuration were in place by 1906. On-site research The wood additions to the house can be dated to the c.1901-1903 period not only by the above photographs but also by the building materials themselves. The wide beveled tongue and groove siding on the west and south sides would date from that period (as differentiated from the shiplap siding of the earlier 1870s-1880 period), as well as the window configuration of one over one light in wood sash(as differentiated from the two over two light sash of the earlier 1897-1890 period). The front porch is a simplified version of the earlier scroll saw work most often seen in the 1870s and 18805 in San Luis Obispo. The chamfered posts are simple with no base or capital,and the flat scroll work is not ornate.The style of the house could be termed folk Victorian(c.1870-1910),a style in which a few Victorian architectural decorative details were added to a simple house form(in this case a rectangle),usually on the front porch, to mimic the more elaborate Italianate or Queen Anne styles(McAlester 1984:309). • a-ss `- FOftgenment 8 Page 6 The L-shaped addition on the south and west sides with beveled tongue and groove siding wraps to the end of the adobe,while a board and batten section runs across the east (rear) elevation. These additions of the c. 1901-1903 period surround the adobe but are not attached to it. There is a space of several inches between the wood additions and the adobe,with the whitewashed adobe walls showing behind the later additions. The glass doors on the west,north,and south sides appear to date from the 1880s,as well as the wood-paneled Eastlake doors on the c. 1905-1926 rear addition,which leads one to.believe that these earlier period doors were reused when the house was remodeled c. 1901-1903. The hipped roof comes from the Victorian tradition,akin to the pyramidal roofs of the Victorian neighbors across Chorro Street,but because it had to cover not only the original adobe but also the additions,the proportions of it are not the same as for a Victorian house. Itis wider and more rectangular and of necessity has a truncated top. There have been a number of alterations to the house since its c. 1901-03 remodel.These include: West elevation: . The wooden front porch steps have been replaced with concrete steps South elevation: One of the long windows has been shortened and possibly two other shorter windows were added,a side porch with a concrete pad was added,a c.1950 metal sash fixed window flanked by two metal sash casement windows was added East elevation: The rear shed roof addition was added c.1905-1926, according to the 1926 Sanborn Map. It is constructed of a number of different materials,such as clapboard siding on the south side,tongue and groove siding on the east side,and buttjointed planks on the north side. North elevation: The adobe rafter tails have been cut off and a wider overhang added over the adobe portion, supported on simple wood brackets. The adobe wall has been gunited up to the lintels of the windows and door, presumably as a stabilizing measure for the adobe walls. A continuous concrete foundation has been added. H MWkment 8 Page 7 Conclusion: The Freitas adobe has been listed by the Cultural Heritage Committee as eligible for the National Register. According to Dr. Parker,the house is eligible for the National Register under Criteria A and D. As a Mission-era building, the adobe is significant under Criterion A for its association with the Spanish Mission and later Mexican Rancho periods. If the adobe features are intact,and have integrity, they are also significant under Criterion for their ability to provide information important to the study of the Mission period. It was Dr. Parker's professional opinion that the wooden additions surrounding the adobe do not meet the criteria for significance as set forth in California Public Resources Code,5024.1,Title 14 CCR,Section 4852,and that therefore these later elements do not contribute to the significance of the building(Parker 2006: 21 23). It is my professional opinion that because there have been so many alterations over the years, the later wooden additions do not have the integrity of materials and style to be considered significant under National.Register Criterion C.The house as it now exists does not embody the distinctive characteristics of the Italianate or Queen Anne style. It is a hybrid resulting from owners wishing to modernize the adobe with elements of the Victorian style,presumably in response to proliferation of Italianate and Queen Anne cottages during the Americanization of San Luis Obispo. It does not represent the work of an important creative individual.,The architect for these changes is not.known, and very probably was a local carpenter. It does not possess high artistic value.Its alterations were added over time as the owners' needs and tastes changed,and the resulting building is a combination of disparate materials and architectural elements which do not have.a cohesive whole. Because of its many alterations between 1901-1903 and the present,the architectural integrity of the building has been lost and it no longer is able to convey sense of itself as a turn of the century building. As a result,I believe that its significance rests not on its Victorian elements but on its original adobe configuration. Sources consulted: Dunmore,Philip. 2006. Memorandum to Cultural Heritage Committee,April 24. Subject CHC 51-06(868 Chorro Street)(Freitas Adobe,Larry Hoyt). McAlester,Virginia and Lee. 1984.A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Parker,John. Ph. D. 2005."Cultural Resources Investigation of the Hoyt Parcel,868 Chorro Street,San Luis Obispo,%Report prepared for Larry Hoyt February 8. a-4a Attachment 8 Hoyt/PPA Page 8 Archives consulted: County of San Luis Obispo Historical Museum If you have any questions, please call me at(805) 969-4183. Sincerely, (!, - Cel_ Alexandra C. Cole Attachments: Photographs 1-4l Y y ..°' n` �'r �J'.J'-r�y'•��Q'ILyM � i ^Y� Y•n wot iv u . .• • '• . . • • r • • • - • • i • • • r • i r� •a . 21 *01 r paiy� .plF.alb f• Rp1�.F ' 1`J �, � C2F _ M b79i1+a7y. (y .4f Y'. •�W.I O•� 14 ;��' r ��a• e -.� ..fir� Ae eap3�` w r • Y i� 'yC % Ay ON • 11. fig Lk�ff� " 1 YM MW�r�. ��" q�','�'rs'�"9y.✓'"y��'a;��..arr'Sv��r � "^k raa'' � �}yam Iln'v '�� .,y,�:"�C��i••.i�i��.'•— �•` 4 -44 11 '� ' DIY �•C1 CYJ'�N •111i6LR SIM iy ,76 j =. w n A.R.J• YY t 1 r \ 0 all s s a 1 :J • t A _ c WA ��`�,�ix8"..� ry KF.•'r k •. r�,y .ar�"-� h:'.- -�_ Y I ,�f�..� . �Y.' .Y � � ✓:T .3U a CSS �b' - 't Ls�� .F t� •I'L'L%�r� �+.M.�-.'q w rpt. ,�lv� n4 n••� '�fa:'. f --{;V7�•S,':h Ya".t is "� i,evy'r'�n Y Y .�1 - r � �; , i ert 3 Page l 1 - - - ___ if Plate 5.Detail of south elevation showing porch and typical 1/1 light window. Facing north.A.C.Cole,June 2o06 ti r u � .w�.- ...� .+_�.•...�w....'-..v-X.. ✓.rte -- ..--s`_ skiff ♦a .Std Plate 6.Detail of south elevation showing shorter windows added or modified. Facing northeast.A.C.Cole,June 2006 4 4 0 a-44- HA tachment 8 Page 12 � �+� '� -,.0 -'�, �.i`s.. a.'F.ky a'EY"t ��'^'�.�,eiy a:.ri ° •�,P� Pfl`TM•�Y > -... 'i s .,�"�n 7e�«t- '3�"A,r nt ":'34�•✓•l � "w �`X+.PttY r r}}ft / �� < '2' '� 4rr�k''x r -s7..�y"' x �`' �+'°s, 3c s.✓ N. •« eFY'LQy%"r��I°—R'y)"A`�r+ �( T^ .N/' A h•+}' f Plate 7.Detail of south elevation showing central tall window cut down.Facing north. A.C Cole,June 2006 � y Y fM ✓ LL f d. .r NY 'T i t ` - yesu 5 e L S•,a 'i-'Y"�. '' ,', Y„< ,l_ n, q� ,," Y Plate 8.Detail showing 1880s entry door on south elevation.Facing north A.C.Cole.June 2006 a-4S HoyhMchmen$..E Page 13 vw—.+r.�v`M(�•:..Ty ... _4 .�,4�,�.,_°`�. j F Y:(.f 19fi r�,��j1 5 -" p 141?a� +I•,v 4 f A a t�yr "�;,.nt I V'ry, T � +x'�F{'�W"-44,•AK 1-'Nc ?w� ° F i5• ' m I�pC• ..! g rr ' r� `�� may'{>�r„ � °wr i �•p'"°^r �� `y^"�I^' t Im `C.n+.r..._�.•.a.,r Yl � Yied•'stA Wiy�0�5yt.. >,.Rr i ?,x o '4` .� 7 1 i I ' I ' I . 4 Plate 9.Detail of steel sash window added in the 1950s on the south elevation Facing north.A.C.Cole.June 2006 ...r_ r .r -TAS F� w.'_': l ..a�— "-• Plate 10.Detail of west shed roof addition showing clapboard siding on south elevation,and tongue and groove siding and screens on the east elevation.Facing northwest A.C.Cole.June 20% H }b s *t menf 8 Page 14 L �t 1' 3 I Plate 11.Detail of board and batten on west wall of house encapsulated within the later west shed roof addition Facing south.A.C.Cole.June 2006 4 t 4',y�..tc�{ 1aJ.....i- sLl�fu]'il 1�Fa C'�rr +7r6•:3� F i A K' r 3T h> �1 .j Plate 12.Detail of north elevation showing plank wall and board and batten siding. Facing south.A.C.Cole.June 2006 .1 a-41 - My en4 8 Page 15 p oeC 4 0 8 ^ 'SI 9 2 > L M 3 n_m yp c t t! �_{' �c�. �iv4%—a.5.a� �•.. 2 �.'. n t nD5 . Plate 13.Detail of north elevation showing relationship of board and batten addition to original adobe wall on right.Facing southeast A.C.Cole.June 2005 y Plate 14 Detail of north elevation showing original adobe portion with extended roof overhang.Facing southeast A.C.Cole.June 2006 Hhthlttment Page 16 e O Plate 15.Detail of north elevation of original adobe portion and c.1301-1303 front wood frame addition.Facing southwest.A C Cole.June 2006 • 4.� C V l 'i e w e Plate 16.Detail of roof interface between west wood addition and original adobe portion with extended roofline.Facing southeast.A C Cole.June 2006 Le a-meq AMRent 8 Page 17 rb,,,1,i� ��s :"iaP lnf.,i i i�•5 ry+,uvy.}Ndy, s�` i rf -. t s ',/�:�ix/P'�4yy r °j -W...0 :rwhnnji,•%�c£. .}".�v '�.«e^= -- .`M'2'..,. °1 gP7`@� ~ sY•t "'uJ `� iL* t�„�a•.v-•,i�*4��' !t � Y1 �:5", ,r `"4 z IRNIR Y„ ��vQ 0 ''AAr�['a$u.��y''}M1•� �f.. "E. tc 8Y Lx,�"�'� S f uh Y �$*g"',.,_ .v �0' a 13Y� '� ^� �✓P 3iJ p.�yQ 1 r y�f ° ft 'v.-�,sl`4,r,'�,/e '�' d,.�r•-,.•'��"�. °�� ^5�yu o �. + � ° � t - J'vV Py wL �Y ✓• ''271 .3'x 2w �', ��. > V x; 4. �qqm f 5Y ,,.?Cf• 0 P.'s.µ' 4 Q.T' p m �, - r, keV, {�, G •. '� °� F '�Og° Dr�S! 9 M1 ✓�Y °� � � C ttc - �Q Plate 17.Detail of central front door in adobe portion on north elevation. Facing south.A.C.Cole.June 2006 a-so Page 18 .rK. Plate 18.Interior of attic showing gap between original adobe wall on right and wall of wood frame addition on left Facing west A.C.Cole.June 2006 ti -y c Plate 19.Folk Victorian house at 863 Chorro Street across from subject property.Facing west A.C Cole.June 2006 a-sl 1 - - Ift9ftnent 8 Page 19 3- I; oR c iW Plate 20. Folk Victorian at 1306 Chorro Street.Larry Hoyt,August 2006 8p1 4 �I 1p la r.,i. l �m4 4 •v7 4.4: h.w.k ! r M�-fH"'r. ['Me([. c•MR w 'IMP { M r^ t'. Plate 21.Folk Victorian at 752 Palm Street.Larry Hoyt.August 2006 i a-sa Atg"�nt 8 Page 20 4. r„ Ye EM iI r 1 i t ,^,ick�.}�°'i,fit, q.+ r � ��:, ..s � `x„ �t'- t✓ ..eK xcykacs>. �,. _ ... _ .�. _ .. �. ..�.. � •:.div .A1�1..w al'T Plate 22 Folk Victorian at 871 Buchon Street Larry Hoyt August 2006 r) a-s3 - Attachment 9 CHC Meeting Minutes, March 26, 2007 Page 3 resources and to recommend that the Community Development Director make such a determination in the Initial Study of Environmental Impact for the project. 3. 868 Chorro Street. ARC 201-06; Review of a 7-unit residential project and proposed modification of the historic Mancillas/Freitas Adobe; R-4 zone; Larry Hoyt, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report and explained General Plan policies that applied to the project. Bob Richmond, applicant's representative, introduced Tom Jess and Alexandra Cole, project architect and historian, respectively. Mr. Jess described the project and Ms. Cole explained her historical findings and recommendations regarding the adobe's historic significance. The property owner,Larry Hoyt, spoke in support of the project. Chairperson Crotser opened the public hearing and Diane Duenow, David Brodie, Diane Orrell (owner, 863 Mill), Elizabeth Abrahms and Paul Barrie spoke in opposition to the proposed changes to the adobe. Dr. William Watson, 800 Palm Street (Ah Louis Store owner), urged the CHC to support the project. Diane Orrell said people now notice and admire the adobe building from Chorro Street. This project would change the neighborhood's character and noted that it would reduce the adobe's size from about 1800 square feet to 600 square feet. Dr. Brodie said he was speaking on behalf of Allen Cooper who couldn't attend the meeting. He suggested making the dwelling units in front smaller to preserve views of the adobe from Chorro Street. He added his own view that the adobe has historically been visually prominent from Chorro, but that lately the landscaping has become overgrown and obscures views of the adobe. He felt it was the whole history of a building that's important, not just one period, and that adobe additions have become historically significant in their own right over time. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards are important here and removing the wood additions could adversely affect the adobe portion. Diane Duenow was concerned about changes to the scale and setting of historic neighborhoods and non-historically designated neighborhoods. This entire building shows San Luis Obispo's history and marks a place in time. She urged the Committee to honor that importance. She felt the project proposal felt like "arm twisting." Paul Barrie, neighbor across Chorro Street from the project site, was concerned about the changes to the historic building and site. Elizabeth Abrahms agreed with Ms. Duenow and felt the entire building was historic and part of the historic character of the Mission San Luis Obispo. She said the wooden portion of the adobe was proposed for removal just to facilitate the project. Ryan Tippel liked the project idea but felt three story building scale was too large. Chairperson Crotser closed the public hearing. - Attachment 9 CHC Meeting Minutes, March 26, 2007 Page 4 Committee members discussed the historic significance of the adobe and associated wood building,reviewed the slides and historic documentation and offered the following comments: Committee member Baer felt the adobe building was "hodgepodge" because of building additions and changes, but that the entire building was quite old. Committee member Breska tended to agree with the historical consultants regarding historic significance. She liked the project and felt changes to the historic adobe have reduced its historic significance. Committee member Carpenter agreed with Dr. Brodie. He felt it was the entire structure that was significant and wanted to see as much of the structure preserved as possible. He noted that the proposed development would essentially obscure public views of the adobe and that we will "lose the adobe." The adobe has been set aside in favor of the project. Chairperson Crotser supported eliminating dwelling unit 1 and designing the driveway paving to show the original adobe footprint and orientation. He could support the consultant's recommendation to remove the wood portions of the building. Committee members Breska and Landwehr commented reflecting support for photo-documentation and xerophytic landscaping. Committee member Wheeler noted this is not a "classic Victorian" but felt the wood building portion was an example of a San Luis Obispo Victorian bungalow, and represented a transitional period in the City's history. He was appalled the adobe would be hidden by the proposed project and felt the entire structure should be preserved. It is of a similar historic period of historic significance as the Old Mission. Committee member Pavlik noted this is probably a 200-year old structure and even the wood portions are over 100 years old. It's the existing structure and the site on which it sits that comprise the historic resource and Master List property. It's dramatic and wonderful. He understands the development approach and tradeoffs, but felt the CHC's charge was to preserve the community's heritage. Chairperson Crotser still had questions about what's original and still remaining. He agreed that the entire building could be deemed historic based on its age but was relying on the consultant for a period of historic significance. Elimination of proposed dwelling unit 1 is at least a minimum, realigning the driveway, possibly showing the original outline of the entire adobe building in the new paving. He felt a compromise was needed. Dr. Brodie added that the project, as proposed, would create a three-story solid block stretching along the north side of Chorro Street between Palm and Mill (if and when approved adjacent projects are built). After two motions failed, the Committee took two actions: Attachment 9 CHC Meeting Minutes,March 26, 2007 Page 5 1. On a motion by Committee member Breska and seconded by Committee member Baer, the Committee voted 4-3 (Carpenter, Pavlik, Wheeler) to determine that the reports presented by Dr. John Parker and Alexandra Cole accurately describe the significant portions of the historic adobe and to recommend the applicant be allowed to proceed with a development plan that includes demolition of the later wood additions and restoration of the adobe structure. 2. On a motion by Committee member Baer, seconded by Committee Breska, the Committee voted 4-3 (Carpenter, Pavlik, Wheeler) to direct the applicant to return to the Committee with a complete adobe restoration plan, including a structural assessment and recommendations from a registered engineer, to delete Unit 1 and reduce the height and massing of Unit 2, to reconfigure the site plan to maximize open space around the adobe, to consider relocation of the proposed driveway and acknowledge the original outline of the entire structure through paving and site work, to provide direct and separate pedestrian access from Chorro Street to the adobe, to provide photo-documentation for the wood-clad structures, and to use xerophytic landscaping around the adobe. COMMUNICATIONS: A. Agenda Forecast—Staff Staff gave a brief forecast of upcoming meetings and pending projects. Due to the lateness of the hour, no additional communication items were discussed. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. to the Special Meeting on Wednesday, March 28, 2007, at 5:30 p.m., at Caf6 Roma Restaurant, 1020 Railroad Avenue, San Luis Obispo. Respectfully Submitted, Jeff Hook, Senior Planner g/cd-pLw/minutes/chct2007/chc3-26-07min Attachment 10 I�i�INllllh �IIIII�� IIIIIIaIill �� city o� san tuis oB�s o P Public Works Department • 919 Palm Street • San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 April 16, 2007 REVISED Larry Hoyt 530 Loch Lomond Court Turlock, CA 95382 SUBJECT: ARC 201-06: 868 Chorro Street 7-unit residential project and proposed modification of the historic Mancillas/Freitas Adobe Dear Mr. Hoyt: The previous follow-up letter to the March 26, 2007 Cultural Heritage Meeting (CHC) which was sent on March 30, 2007 was not inclusive of the two actions taken on your agenda item. Please note clarification in this revised letter. The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its meeting of March 26, 2007 took two actions: 1. The CHC determined that the reports presented by Dr. John Parker and Alexandra Cole accurately describe the significant portions of the historic adobe and recommended the applicant be allowed to proceed with a development plan that includes demolition of the later wood additions and restoration of the adobe structure. 2. The applicant shall incorporate the following project changes prior to proceeding to ARC: A. Delete Unit 1 and reduce the height and massing of Unit 2. B. Reconfigure the site plan to maximize open space around the adobe. C. Consider relocation of the proposed driveway and acknowledge the original outline of the entire structure through paving and site work. D. Provide direct and separate pedestrian access from Chorro Street to the adobe. E. Provide photo-documentation for the wood-clad structures. F. Use xerophytic landscaping around the adobe. 3. Prior to any Demolition work, the applicant shall return to the Committee with a complete adobe restoration plan, including a structural assessment and recommendations from a O registered engineer.The City of San Luis Obispo is committto include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. 201-06: 868 Cho*rro Strt Attachment 10 Page 2 The CHC's determination of historic significance is final and appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the action. All other decisions relative to the development proposal are recommendations to the Architectural Review Commission and, therefore, are not final. If you have questions, please contact Phil Dunsmore at (805) 781-7522. Sincerely, Kim Murry Deputy Community Development Director Long Range Planning cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office Tom Jess 444 Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Attachment 11 �Iilll I l llll MEMORANDUM CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TO: Cultural HeritageCor VIA: Jeff Hook, Senior Plann� FROM: Philip Dunsmore, Associate Planner MEETING DATE: March 26, 2007 SUBJECT: Item ilk; CHC 201-06 (868 Chorro) —Review of 1) historic evaluations of the Mancillas/Frietas adobe, and 2) a proposed residential condominium development in the R-4 zone and restoration/demolition of the Master List Historic resource (Manillas Freitas Adobe) at 868 Chorro Street (Larry Hoyt). The purpose of the CHC's review of this project is to evaluate the project's consistency with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines in relation to the treatment of this Master List Property. This property is already included on the Master List of Historic Resources and is eligible for the National Register. The property's historic status was reviewed on April 24, 2006. At that time, the CHC asked the applicant to hire an architectural historian to report on the adobe's historical and architectural significance. The applicant has submitted a report from an architectural historian and proposes a 7-unit condominium project on the property. The project includes demolition of the Victorian era wood additions that surround the adobe structure. Historic Background The property at 868 Chorro Street is the site of the Mancilla/Frietas Adobe. The residence was named after the previous owners, Valentin Mantillas, and George and Rosa Frietas who occupied the residence in its early years. Margaret Hoyt, the daughter of Rosa Frietas, occupied the house her entire life until she recently passed away. The property is now owned by Margaret Hoyt's son, Lang Hoyt. The original adobe portion of the residence is believed to have been constructed sometime around 1800 and the first transfer records indicate it was sold by Ferdinand Martinez to Valentin Mantillas in 1864. The Cultural Resource Investigation (CRI) prepared by Dr. John Parker on February 8, 2006 describes the ownership and historic background of the property in greater detail (Attachment 2). Historic Analysis Although the property appears to be an unadorned "folk Victorian" residence, a well preserved adobe structure is hidden within the wood clad structure. In the early part of the century it was common for adobe structures to be covered with wood siding, not only to preserve the adobe walls, but to create the look of a modern residence as styles changed. The wood sided adobe has existed in its current configuration for at least 120 years as shown in Sanborn maps. The interesting characteristic about this particular property is the skewed angle of the residence on the property. Its angle matches that of the Mission and is the only existing structure on Chorro Street other than the Mission with such an angle. In fact, early renderings of the mission grounds depict what may actually be the adobe residence at 868 Chorro (see pages 4 and 5 of the CRI). Since this property has remained virtually undisturbed, contains a well preserved adobe structure, and L4P CHC 201-06 868 Chorro Attachment 11 March 26,2007 is within the former Mission grounds, it constitutes an extremely valuable historic and archeological site. As evidenced by adjacent archeological discoveries associated with construction of the City's parking garage, the site may contain adobe structural remains that may have served as Native American dormitories during the late 1700's. As Parker notes in the report, the site has the potential to reveal extensive archeological and historical remains. However, Parker feels that only the adobe portion of the residential structure is eligible for historic status according to the Public Resources Code. "With the exception of possible preserved remnants of the original wrap-around porch roof and support beams, it is this author's opinion that the wooden additions surrounding the adobe portion of the structure do not meet the criteria for significance as outlined in the Calif. Pub. Res. Code, 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Sect. 4852" As.requested by the CHC at the April 2006 hearing, the applicant has also hired Alexandra Cole (Preservation Planning Associates), an architectural historian, to prepare a report on the property and, in particular, discuss the significance of the adobe portion of the structure vs. the Victorian era additions. This report has been attached as Attachment 3. In her conclusion on page 7 of the report, Ms. Cole indicates that the later wood additions do not meet the criteria to be considered a significant historic resource: "It is my professional opinion that because there have been so many alterations over the years, the later wood additions do not have the integrity of materials and style to be considered significant under National Register Criterion C. The house as it now exists does not embody the distinctive characteristics of the Italianate or Queen Anne style. It is a hybrid resulting from owners wishing to modernize the adobe with elements of the Victorian style, presumably in response to proliferation of Italianate and Queen Anne cottages during the Americanization of San Luis Obispo. In summary, the report concludes that: "...it's significance rests not on its Victorian elements but on its original adobe configuration." Applicant's Request The applicant would like to construct a 7-unit condominium project and partially demolish and rehabilitate the adobe residence (Attachment 4 R2L letter). The plan to modify the residence is described in Attachment 4 and includes removal of the wood framed additions, and stucco on the exterior of the adobe structure. The adobe portion of the structure is not proposed to be modified or demolished. At this time, the applicant is awaiting additional analysis and direction to formulate a detailed restoration plan of the structure; however the intended concept is to restore the adobe as close as possible to its original state, prior to the wood clad additions. The remainder of the development project includes the development of 7 two and three bedroom condominium units, each with two-car garages. Site improvements include a new driveway, parking areas, and a common open space. The design of the units represents a mission style with off-white plaster exterior and clay tile roofs. The adobe is not proposed to become a habitable unit, but instead would become a project amenity designed to be viewed by the public. q a- a CHC 201-06 868 Chorro Attachment 11 March 26,2007 Evaluation The applicant's proposal represents an enthusiastic approach to combining R-4 development with a significant historic resource; however staff has concerns regarding the historic evaluations and proposed treatment of the existing residence. Looking at Sanborn maps that date back as far as 1886 (see Attachment 2), it is clear the adobe structure was surrounded by a wood addition in a very similar size and form that presently exists. Due to the lack of early historic photos or documentation regarding this property, it is unknown exactly when the additions were constructed; however they are at least 120 years old. It is staff's opinion that the wood clad additions are an important part of the historic resource. In fact, most of the City's significant adobe structures have wood exteriors and wood additions. Even the mission was clad in wood at one time. It is the wood exterior that has helped to preserve this adobe over the years. Additionally, the Victorian era additions can be considered locally important in terms of reflecting a particular style of vernacular architecture. It is important to note that Dr. Parker's and Ms. Cole's, reports are only part of the information the CHC must consider; and the CHC has the final responsibility to recommend what portions of the property constitute a historic resource. The demolition of these additions may be inconsistent with City Policies, including the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element and the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Furthermore, the removal of these features may lead to the eventual erosion or damage of the more significant adobe portions of the structure, especially given its proposed use as an unoccupied landscape feature. The following policies from the City's new Conservation and Open Space Element are relevant to the historic residence: 3.21.1. Historic preservation. Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified,preserved and rehabilitated. Staff Response: The existing structure has already been identified as a significant historic resource. It should be rehabilitated in its current form. 3.21.2. Demolitions. Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible. Staff Response: There is no evidence that the existing structure poses a threat to health or safety; therefore the outward appearance should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. 3.21.4. Changes to historic buildings. Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure and follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained. "[ - a� 3 CHC 201-06 868 Chorro Attachment 11 March 26, 2007 Staff Response: The street appearance of the existing structure (although it is currently obscured by overgrown landscape) contributes to the historic character of the neighborhood. Modifying the current street appearance will alter the historic appearance of the structure. The following policies from the Conservation and Open Space Element are relevant to the site development:. 3.22.1. Archaeological resource protection. The City shall provide for the protection of both known and potential archaeological resources. To avoid significant damage to important archaeological sites, all available measures, including purchase of the property in fee or easement, shall be explored at the time of a development proposal. Where such measures are not feasible and development would adversely affect identified archaeological or paleontological resources, mitigation shall be required pursuant to the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. 3.22.5. Archaeological resources present. Where a preliminary site survey finds substantial archaeological resources, before permitting construction, the City shall require a mitigation plan to protect the resources. Possible mitigation measures include: presence of a qualified professional during initial grading or trenching; project redesign; covering with a layer of fill; excavation, removal and curation in an appropriate facility under the direction of a qualified professional. Staff Response: The site has been identified as a potentially significant archeological site. Excavation and construction of the site will require mitigation in the form of archeological recovery or preservation. Since a subsurface analysis of the resources has not occurred yet, staff has not determined the appropriate mitigation. Staff notes the following factors to consider when discussing the property's historic status: 1. The wooden additions are estimated to have been built in the mid to late 1800s, reflect the architectural and historical influences of the late Victorian period, and in and of themselves, are likely to meet one or more of-the eligibility criteria for State and Local historic listing due to age, architectural style and historic associations (see attached criteria). 2. The wooden additions have helped to preserve the adobe over the years and likely play a significant role and reinforcing the structural support of the adobe while protecting it from erosion. 3. As noted in the Cultural Resource Investigation, the property itself is a significant archeological resource and is likely to contain significant cultural and archeological resources from both the Chinatown era, the Mission and Native Americans. Conclusion The proposed condominium project is conceptually consistent with the City's Community Design Guidelines and fits within the limitations of the Zoning Regulations for the R-4 district at this location, however the site plan will need to be modified to respect the existing footprint of the historic structure: This is a Master List Historic Property and should be treated consistent o2-4 2ol-06 868 chorro Attachment 11 s68 March 26, 2007 with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines: "A building may reflect a combination of styles or might have been modified one or more times in the past. Changes to the outside of such a building should not introduce some new or conflicting element and should complement the prevailing architecture of the surrounding area." If the adobe did not exist behind the wooden walls of the 1880's structure would the CHC endorse demolition of the structure to allow a new development project? Staff agrees that the. adobe may be more significant (due to age and history) than the wood additions, however the wood additions are an integral part of the historic resource. Construction of a new project around the resource may also affect the public visibility of the resource. Any projects which may disturb significant cultural/archeological sites are subject to environmental review. Any development of this site will require an initial study of environmental review. Staff is preparing the initial study and formulating mitigation measures. If the CHC determines that the entire existing structure is a historical resource (locally significant) than demolition of this resource may be deemed a significant impact according to CEQA. If the project cannot be designed to reduce the impacts to the existing historic resource or potential archeological resources to a less than significant level, an EIR will be required. Because of the adobe's age, rarity and historic/archaeological significance, it is unlikely that the loss or significant alteration of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe could be mitigated to a level of non- significance. Action Alternatives 1. Determine that the Master List Property description includes the entire structure including the wood additions. Recommend that the project be refined to preserve and restore the entire residence and modify the proposed condominium project to preserve and maintain public visibility of the historic resource. Refer the matter to the Architectural Review Commission for review of the project. The project would not proceed to ARC until the applicant modifies the proposal to eliminate any demolition or impacts to the existing residence. 2. Determine that the reports presented by Dr. John Parker and Alexandria Cole accurately describe the significant portions of the historic adobe and allow the applicant to proceed with a development plan that includes the demolition of the later wood additions and restoration of the adobe structure. Ask the applicant to return to the CHC with a complete restoration plan of the adobe following approval of the development project by the ARC. 3. Continue the item to a date certain for additional discussion or research. Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Cultural Resource Investigation prepared by John Parker,Ph.D.,RPA February 8, 2006 3. Report prepared by Alexandria Cole, Preservation Planning Associates, October 19, 2006. 4. Applicant Letter: Restoration of Adobe structure. 5. Reduced scale project drawings. GACD-PLAN\Pdunsmore\CHC\ARC 201-06(868 Chorro)\CHC 201-06.3-26-06(868 Chorro).doc Cf ^,r Attachment 12 Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe, 868 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, California Wendy M. Nettles Prepared By Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 5090 N.Fruit Avenue, Suite 101 Fresno,California 93711 Prepared For City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 May 2007 �-g I Attachment 12 ABSTRACT Larry. Hoyt is exploring options to develop his property at 868 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, California. The property, located on Lot 1 in Block 15, is bounded by Chorro, Palm, Morro, and Mill streets and contains several important elements of San Luis Obispo history. The residence that currently occupies the lot, known as the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe, is included on the City of San Luis Obispo's Master List of Historic Resources. It was also found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places(NRNP) during the city's 1983 Historic Resources Survey (City of San Luis Obispo 1983). The residence is built around an adobe core that dates to the early or middle nineteenth century,with later wood frame additions. Additionally, the parcel is located within the boundaries of CA-SLO-64H, an archaeological site that encompasses the grounds of Mission San Luis Obispo as well as historic Chinatown. Parker&Associates recently conducted a cultural resource investigation of the parcel and concluded that the adobe portion of the residence meets the criteria of significance for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and is thus a significant historical resource according to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) (Parker 2006). However,he found that the wooden additions, did not meet the criteria of significance for the CRHR. He recommended that the wooden additions could be removed but the adobe portion of the structure be preserved in its original form and location. In October 2006, Preservation Planning Associates reviewed the report prepared by Parker&Associates, conducted additional on-site analysis and research, and commented on the historical significance of the structure(Cole 2006). Cole concurred with Parker's findings. Subsequently, the City of San Luis Obispo requested that Applied EarthWorks, Inc. conduct an independent evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe.. )E concurs with prior determinations (City of San Luis Obispo 1983; Parker 2006)that the adobe core qualifies as a significant historical resource under Criterion A and D. The wooden addition that surrounds the adobe's eastern,western, and southern sides appears to have been built between 1900 and 1903. Historical photographs, Sanborn Insurance maps, architectural details, and construction materials all support this conclusion. The wooden addition is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; is not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and will not yield information important in prehistory or history. It therefore is not eligible for the NRNP or the CRHR Under local criteria, the wooden addition is more than 100 years old, meeting the age requirement. The Freitas family, who were local shopkeepers lived there for over 80 years. However, these are minor sub- criteria in the overall evaluation of the structure, and do not appear strong enough to support eligibility. Therefore the wooden additions of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe are not considered historical resources. Historic Resource Evaluation of the Manciffa/Freitas Adobe H Ll_94p:)_ - - Attachment 12 CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION........................:.:..............:....................................................................1 2 RESEARCH METHODS.........................................:........................................................3 3 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION.............................................................................4 3.1 EXTERIOR EXAMINATION................................................................................4 3.2 INTERIOR EXAMINATION .................................................................................4 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND SITE-SPECIFIC HISTORY....................................5 4.1 SPANISH INCURSION—THE MISSION AND HISTORICAL NATIVE AMERICAN OCCUPATION (1772-1834)............................................5 4.2 EARLY SETTLEMENT (1835-1875)....................................................................6 4.3 GROWTH OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE(1875-1900) .............................7 4.4 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION GROWTH (1900-1920)............................................:.............................................8 4.5 MODERNIZATION: FROM TOWN TO CITY (1920-1945)...............................8 4.6 DOWNTOWN GROWTH: COMMERCE DREAMS AND PARKING HEADACHES (1945–PRESENT)..........................................................................9 4.7 SITE-SPECIFIC HISTORIC CONTEXT OF 868 CHORRO STREET...............10 4.8 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF 868 CHORRO STREET .............................12 5 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION..................................................................................16 5.1 CRITERIA.............................................................................................................16 5.1.1 National Register of Historic Places Criteria.............................................16 5.1.2 California Register of Historic Resources Criteria....................................17 5.1.3 Local Criteria.............................................................................................17 5.2 HISTORICAL THEMES AND PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE...........................17 5.3 NRHP AND CRHR SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA...............................................18 5.3.1 Criterion A.................................................................................................18 5.3.2 Criterion B .................................................................................................18 5.3.3 Criterion C .............,...............................................................--.--...........--..19 5.3.4 Criterion D................................................................. .............................19 5.4 INTEGRITY OF THE WOODEN ADDITIONS OF THE MANCILLA/FREITAS ADOBE..........................................................................19 5.5 LOCAL CRITERIA.........................................:.....................................................20 5.5.1 Style...........................................................................................................20 5.5.2 Design..................................................................................................:.....20 5.5.3 Age.............................................................................................................21 5.5.4 Architect.....................................................................................................21 5.5.5 Environmental Design Continuity.............................................................21 5.5.6 History—Person.............................................:...........................................22 5.5.7 History—Event..........................................................................................22 5.5.8 History—Context.....................................................................:...:.............22 Historic Resource Evaluation of the Manciiia/Freitas Adobe �..._ ' Attachment 12 6 CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................23 7 REFERENCES.................................................................................................................24 FIGURES 1-1 Location of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe in San Luis Obispo, California............................2 4-1 Circa 1870 land petition map showing relationship of the reservoir to the Mancillaproperty.........................................................................................................13 4-2 1895 photograph with the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe circled................................................15 4-3 "Turning of the Century"photograph with Mancilla/Freitas Adobe circled.....................15 Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe iv Attachment 12 1 INTRODUCTION Larry Hoyt is exploring options to develop his property at 868 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, California. The property, located on Lot 1 in Block 15,is bounded by Chorro, Palm, Morro, and Mill streets and contains several important elements of San Luis Obispo history. The residence that currently occupies the lot, known as the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe, is included on the City of San Luis Obispo's Master List of Historic Resources. It was also found to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places(NRHP) during the city's 1983 Historic Resources Survey (City of San Luis Obispo 1983). The residence is built around an adobe core that dates to the early or middle nineteenth century, with later wood frame additions. Additionally, the parcel is located within the boundaries of CA-SLO-64H, an archaeological site that encompasses the grounds of Mission San Luis Obispo as well as historic Chinatown. Parker& Associates recently conducted a cultural resource investigation of the parcel and concluded that the adobe portion of the residence meets the criteria of significance for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), and is thus a significant historical resource according to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) (Parker 2006). However, he found that the wooden additions, did not meet the criteria of significance for the CRHR. He recommended that the wooden additions could be removed but the adobe portion of the structure be preserved in its original form and location. Parker further explained the high potential for significant archaeological remains to be located within the parcel. He recommended that any development be designed to avoid archaeological materials, or, if that was infeasible, that a qualified archaeologist be retained to conduct archaeological testing and, if necessary,data recovery. In October 2006, Preservation Planning Associates reviewed the report prepared by Parker& Associates, conducted additional on-site analysis and research, and commented on the historical significance of the structure(Cole 2006). Cole concurred with Parker's findings. The current report constitutes an independent evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe, as requested by the City of San Luis Obispo. The report is divided into seven sections. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 lists the study's principal sources of information and discusses other methodological issues. Chapter 3 is an analysis of the architectural qualities of the subject buildings. Chapter 4 provides the historical context for the evaluation, focusing on site-specific history. Based on these findings, Chapter 5 applies the NRNP, CRHR, and City of San Luis Obispo criteria in evaluating the significance of the Mancilla/Freitas residence. Conclusions are presented in Chapter 6, and Chapter 7 lists-references cited in the text. Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 4 - k J Attachment 12 ate'. Team _s'--_— -�i• r•� ... •• - '.�� + t `'l\ t 7• ,� < v i sem•• r � -)dt OMUALDO O 10 � � • � ( � aehec0 I'• +. TMILL aLva � •=+��. �' i� r ++ i • �, S80 Lr+u�is.O.��b�ispo OR �~= i i y�••a'O. % FREO /cKs ST A _ J `•`•"'••1 rra Vi so 771 ti a � f' Y , c• r ,\Water27l ti, ° 17 I ' ?e ec g `aeo:/ 7 ri� ! }1�11f Tank i n O % i 7 r '�i' 7 \\1 ' \ 'jR84JO,Stat+on' �\� y (KSB'Y FVI� _I/ i 'J ��i - ;1�� t� �•,� 60 dnjWS�i5 ,�a ++� •;y. �. �o 251/ I +�_�:.� \• ren ies�j ci i � � rl.� @� 1 �i\�,` ( �(. ;uU'/�I�C ea •aa+3 - JrH Scb",; + I' .J"�• � � v •� .t�,m a6 do � � •� sa,I �f��r � , \ ``- .II`• - l rk ,.�_ti `,�. `1 im�a5anita�� I tes I 'tib S+' r' racU"i plot e Hl �� .•iti. Jam: _✓`' • , oa ,I rarer 1 Meadow, +� i't�•r•1��..+~'F:�i�!`...•.�.• ••:�... itPant SiairXai'm �•• oRadio Tow r b f °h�% pa n �a // `r I •t. I I� a `�- t`Bth r J;J• j�• t.•. •Sinsheimer•-zao' i%"-•1 O, '.w n Par •a.,yJ�,i� - B 1. later. 4p• �,.. j-� ;.—�._`I" --^. __ a9 � •.� Confidential:Not for Public Distribution Prepared by Applied EarthWorks,Inc. U.S.G.S. 7.5 Minute 1 N Topographic Quadrangle San Luis Obispo, CA 0 Y 1 T 30 S-R 12 E Miles 1965,Photorevised 1979 Contour Interval:40 Feet Figure 1-1 Location of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe in San Luis Obispo,California. Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe Attachment 12 2 RESEARCH METHODS To perform this independent evaluation, Applied EarthWorks, Inc. (lE)conducted background archival research, compiled a detailed history of the property,performed a field inspection, and assessed the significance and integrity of the residence according to national, state, and local criteria and with reference to historic themes described herein. Archival research on the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe sought to obtain two types of information: materials needed to develop the relevant historical contexts, which included mostly secondary sources (e.g., county histories); and materials about the specific history of the parcel, which included maps,photographs, chain of title, land petitions, local newspapers, city directories, and census records. Additionally, the two previous evaluation reports (Cole 2006; Parker 2006)were reviewed to assess their historical contexts and the evaluations. Information about the history of the project area was acquired from several local repositories, including the San Luis Obispo County Historical Society (SLOCHS), the Local History Room of the San Luis Obispo City-County Library,the County Assessors Office, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, and City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department history collection. Additionally, AE maintains a large collection of documents relating to the history of San Luis Obispo in our in-house library. Wendy M. Nettles,M.A., RPA, conducted the historical research and evaluated the building for this report. Nettles meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for an architectural historian. On May 8,2007, she visited the property to inspect the interior and exterior of the building and gather additional information about the structure. Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 3 4 -?t l Attachment 12 3 ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION On-site examination of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe included exterior and interior inspection. 3.1 EXTERIOR EXAMINATION This Folk Victorian residence is identified by its hipped roof, simplified scroll work, and the symmetrical front faeade. A U-shaped wooden addition,which surrounds the south, east, and west sides of the original adobe, appears to have been constructed in one phase. The addition at the rear of the building was clearly constructed during a later phase. Wire nails, which postdate 1891, were used in all of the wood-frame construction. The western faeade faces Chorro Street and is considered the front of the residence. Concrete steps lead to a full length porch with wooden floor. The shed porch roof is supported by simple chamfered posts with no base or capital. Porch brackets are flat,jigsaw-cut trim. The symmetrical fenestrations consist of two 1/1 wood sash windows and two doors with glazed panels in a simplified Queen Anne style. The asymmetrical fenestrations of the southern facade include 1/1 wood sash windows, a metal sash fixed pane window flanked by casement windows, and a fixed pane window. A small, covered concrete porch was constructed around 1950. The rear addition, completed sometime between 1926 and 1950 contains a mixture of materials. Clapboard siding was used on the southern side of the addition, while buttjointed planks were used on the northern side. The eastem side of the addition has a ribbon of windows and a set of 1/1 wooden windows. The northern and southern ends of the rear addition can be accessed on either the northern or western facades through Eastlake doors. The northern wall of the adobe core of the building is visible on the northern fagade. At an unknown time, gunite was sprayed on the exposed adobe wall up to the top of the window lintels. Simple wooden brackets are present under the eaves. The original adobe rafter tailings have been cut off,but they are still partially visible where they are embedded into the adobe. The doors of this structure are of an earlier vintage than the addition itself,indicating reuse or salvage of older materials. 3.2 INTERIOR EXAMINATION The interior of the adobe was accurately depicted in the sketch map published in Parker 2006. To gain a better perspective on the building, the attic was also accessed during)E's field visit This space clearly shows the relationship between the adobe and the wooden additions. Vertical studs were placed against the adobe walls, and siding was attached to them to create interior walls. One-by-six boards were placed around the perimeter of the top of the adobe walls. Attached to those boards were horizontal two-by-four boards that span the adobe in a north-south direction. A four by six beam spans the center of the adobe in an east-west direction. All of these boards are used to support rafter framing. Imbedded within the northem wall of the adobe,portions of the original rafters are still present. They have been sawed offjust inside the wall. A careful examination of the rafters and roof found that all construction was accomplished with wire nails. This dates the roof construction to after 1891. Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 4 �I D 0 Attachment 12 4 HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND SITE-SPECIFIC HISTORY The Mancilla/Freitas Adobe dates to the early period of San Luis Obispo. This chapter summarizes the important historical periods in the city's history and then specifically addresses the 868 Chorro Street parcel. 4.1 SPANISH INCURSION—THE MISSION AND HISTORICAL NATIVE AMERICAN OCCUPATION (1772-1834) The era of Chumash contact with Europeans began with initial Spanish exploration of California in 1542 (Landberg 1965). In 1769 the Portola expedition traveled overland from San Diego to Monterey,journeying inland to Morro Bay, and passed through the project area again on their return voyage in 1770. Euro-American settlement in the area began with the establishment of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa in 1772. This site was selected for its level lands and"two little arroyos which contained water with sufficient lands that with little trouble . . . could be irrigated from them" (Pal6u 1926). Father Joseph Caveller quickly constructed a small wooden chapel that also served as a shelter(Palou 1926). In 1774 a more permanent church with adobe foundations and a superstructure of shaved limbs and tules was erected. In 1776 a fire destroyed most of this structure as well as many supplies. Two more fires in 1776 and 1781 caused similar destruction. Construction of the current mission began in 1788. Despite the previous setbacks, 877 baptisms had taken place at the time of this mission construction, and there were regular surpluses of crops and livestock. In the 1790s an auxiliary rancho with more than 17,000 acres of prime farmland was established at Santa Margarita (Krieger 1988). The Indian population at Mission San Luis Obispo reached its peak of 919 in 1803; by 1804 native villages in the area were abandoned and most of the Obispeflo were living at the mission or its outposts. Historical and archaeological evidence indicates that the general population density in the northern Chumash region was far less at the time of contact than in earlier prehistoric times, and the Chumash population at Mission San Luis Obispo was never as high as at the more southerly missions at Santa Barbara, Lompoc, and Santa Ynez (Greenwood 1978). By the time of secularization,missionization, disease, and destruction of the native subsistence base had forced the Chumash to abandon most of their traditional lifeways. By 1838 only 170 Chumash remained at the mission (Greenwood 1978). California became a Mexican territory in 1822, and the Mexican government was intent on secularizing the missions. In essence, successful production of material resources at the missions was their doom, as"the covetous eyes of thousands of landless Mexicans [were] cast upon the missions"(Krieger 1988:32). With Native populations declining every year,the missions had no basis for occupying the large expanses of mission lands and could not defend themselves in political arenas. Additionally,political, economic, and social factors made it difficult for the Mexican government to maintain the mission chain. When a proclamation for secularization was Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe (� 5 I V ' Attachment 12 issued in 1834,the government appointed Innocente Garcia as the administrator for Mission San Luis Obispo. 4.2 EARLY SETTLEMENT (1835-1875) In 1846 the mission was sold to Petronillo Rios, ending the Franciscan era. That same year the Bear Flag Rebellion occurred and California gained independence from Mexico; control of the territory soon fell into the hands of the United States (Krieger 1988). The County of San Luis Obispo was officially established when California achieved statehood in 1850. The Spanish pueblo surrounding the mission had grown without a formal plan. The layout conformed to the local topography, and Monterey Street had developed into the main transportation corridor. In August 1850, William R. Hutton was authorized to survey and lay out the town of San Luis Obispo in the typical American grid pattern. The main street was to be 20 yards wide and all others 15 yards. This survey is shown on the 1862 map made by civil engineer William C. Park. Park's map shows streets, but none are labeled,and some of them had yet to exist except in the imagination of the draftsman. Land southeast of SanLuis Obispo Creek is marked"Priest's Garden,""Corral,""Marsh Land," and"Cultivated Land."Ultimately, development boomed along Higuera and Monterey streets around Chorro Street. When California joined the United States in 1850, immigrants were mainly interested in the riches to be found in the gold fields of the Sierra Nevada..Newcomers were able to find some semblance of the culture they left behind in the northern part of the state and the San Francisco Bay area,but southern California was seen as a wild,untamed country full of lawlessness. As a result, the population grew slowly and Spanish/Mexican families remained in the majority. Only 10 residences existed in San Luis Obispo in 1853. Disaster hit the county from 1862 to 1864 when great droughts caused the death of hundreds of thousands of sheep and cattle,bankrupting the Hispanic families who had acquired large ranchos. The families were forced to sell out to Euro-American entrepreneurs who were quickly arriving in the area(Krieger 1988). Those new arrivals spurred development within the sleepy town. With the influx of Euro-American landholders, growth came rapidly, and by 1868 housing demand far exceeded supply. The first bridge across San Luis Obispo Creek was built in 1868 and the town grew rapidly (Angel 1883:360). Visitors complimented the level topography, cold water, and rich soil,but complained of the"miserable plan of streets"which were narrow and ran at"all but right angles" (La Vista 1969). Even citizens complained of the dusty streets (San Luis Obispo Tribune 1868). The year 1868 also marked the printing of the first local newspaper,the San Luis Obispo Pioneer. The first few editions of that paper indicate that The Eagle Hotel, S. H. Parsons proprietor,is the stage house,and only hotel in San Luis Obispo.A.Blockman&Co.,Goldtree Bros.,L. Swartz,C. Glaser&Co.,B. Brizzolara, and E. Kessler&Co.,were the merchants; S. B. Call was saddle and harness maker, Alexander Murray kept books, stationary,etc.,D.P.Mallagh was in the lumber business, T.Bayer&H. B. Palmer were wagon makers,Juan Cappe was proprietor of the saloon, and G.F. Sauer of the bakery,and S. A. Pollard advertised land for sale. The steamer Active,J. C. Bogart,Commander,and Hollady&Brenham,agents of the California, Oregon,and Mexican Steamship Company,was advertised to touch twice a month at the Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe , ( 6 t r90 O Attachment 12 port of San Luis Obispo, and the Al clipper schooner Joseph Wooley,Ingalls,Master, advertised to run regularly, carrying passengers and freight between San Luis Obispo, San Simeon, Santa Cruz,and San Francisco [Angel 1883:271-272]. By the time authorities finally received a certificate of purchase for the town site from the U.S. Land Office in February 1871,many public improvements had taken place. Bridges spanned San Luis Obispo Creek at Mill, Court,Morro, Chorro,Nipomo, and Broad streets. Sidewalks had been constructed and trees planted. Gas and water works were established, the fire department was on call, a brick city hall was in use,the Bank of San Luis Obispo was open for deposits, and three weekly and two daily papers were available (Angel 1883:357, 361). 4.3 GROWTH OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE (1875-1900) In 1875, DeGuy Cooper expounded on the resources of San Luis Obispo County and provided a glimpse of the town. At that time 2,500 people were concentrated in a 4-square-mile area,with the outskirts sparsely settled. The city waterworks maintained a 2-mile open flume that carried water from springs above the town to a stone and cement reservoir. This water was then distributed through 5 miles of pipes that ran below all principle streets. The architecture was described as"rather primitive but of late marked improvement" (Cooper 1875:17). There were more buildings of a more permanent nature, and many who had been renting were now building. Rental housing was in demand, and there was a limited supply; these had"reasonable rents at $10-25/month according to size and location"(Cooper 1875:23). The city waterworks serviced residences near the town center and those elsewhere were supplied from individual wells. In 1875, Paulson reported four hotels, six livery stables, and one paper—the Weekly Tribune. He told how the city "commands trade up and down the coast and at least 100 miles to the interior" (Paulson 1875:23). Access to the outside world was through the Coast Line Stage. This company carred U.S. mail for Wells Fargo & Company to points north and south of the city. There also were passenger coaches that ran from the city to the harbor and a tri-weekly stage between the city and Cambria, connecting with the communities of Monro, Old Creek, and Cayucos. Additionally, a telegraph from San Francisco to Santa Barbara ran through San Luis Obispo, with an additional line from the city to the port(Cooper 1875:18). The narrow-gauge Pacific Coast Railway from Port Harford to Los Alamos, which first ran in 1876, made San Luis Obispo the commercial center of the region and provided access for passenger steamer service (Angel 1883:361). Wool was a large source of income to the county, as were flour and dairy products, and this railway offered excellent access for shipping these products to other markets(Cooper 1875:39,41-44). San Luis Obispo was incorporated on March 20, 1876, and a codified system of ordinances was prepared and enacted(Angel 1883:358). At the time of the 1880 census there were 2,500 residents in the city. Just 3 years later,the number was said to have increased to 3,000(Angel 1883:361). Horse-drawn streetcar service started in 1887. The 3-foot-gauge railway ran along Higuera Street from the Pacific Coast Railway Depot to Chorro Street. It then proceeded up Chorro to Monterey,along Monterrey to Essex (Johnson), and along Essex almost to Pismo. There were Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 7 4-q ( 'n Tn ' n L- Attachment 12 also two spur lines--one up Marsh Street to the Ramona Hotel, and one up and down Osos Street from Palm to the Southern Pacific Railroad depot(Curry 1968:16). Between 1894 and 1901 the streetcars provided an important transportation link between the Ramona Hotel, the Southern Pacific depot, and the narrow-gauge Pacific Coast Railway. The Southern Pacific Railroad did not reach the city until 1894. This new link to the outside world allowed a flow of manufactured goods into the city and gave access to additional markets for local agricultural products. 4.4 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION GROWTH (1900-1920) In 1900,Monterey and Higuera streets were lined with a combination of old wood false fronts and boarded-over adobes with a scattering of stone and brick buildings. To meet the growing needs of horse-drawn traffic, the city began improving Marsh Street by grading the road and filling in low places with gravel. Many residents were developing nice yards. Some thought Marsh Street would become the center of the city and its main thoroughfare, but Monterey Street seems to have captured that title (Curry 1968:18). Several events spurred growth of the city in the early twentieth century. By 1901 the city was served by the Pacific Coast Railway and mainline Southern Pacific (Krieger 1988:72). The completion of a rail line that allowed travel and shipment of goods to the south meant greater opportunities for selling and buying of commodities. The establishment of California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) in 1903 as a vocational school on 281 acres also was a great draw for the city. By this time San Luis Obispo had a population of 4,500. Shortly after the turn of the century, the automobile began replacing horse-drawn vehicles and the city was changing once again. The first state motorway through the county was open for travel in 1915, and San Luis Obispo was a prime location for travelers to rest on the long trip between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Commercial ventures catering to travelers, including hotels,motels,restaurants, and service stations, cropped up along Monterey Street. The comers of Monterey, Santa Rosa, and Higuera streets hosted gas stations and automobile sales and repair facilities. Paving of these streets in the 1920s aided this trend(City of San Luis Obispo 1983:22; Krieger 1988). The railroads became increasingly important as agricultural crops from the area were freighted overseas during World War I. The war was in some ways a boon for San Luis Obispo, as its vast pastureland was turned into bean fields subsidized by the federal government. This was a short- lived period of wealth, because after the war the subsidies ended(Krieger 1988). The city was also touched by the perils experienced by the rest of the country. The influx of visitors to the city may have been responsible for the outbreak of Spanish influenza in the region. More than 30 people in San Luis Obispo died when this epidemic swept through the United States in 1918 (Krieger 1988). 4.5 MODERNIZATION: FROM TOWN TO CITY(1920-1945) As car ownership became more common, more people were traveling than ever before. The businesses needed to accommodate these travelers increased exponentially. In the 1920s and 1930s, transportation-oriented businesses characterized the Monterey Street landscape.Auto storage,greasing, gas, oil,refinishing, and painting were all available for the traveler. Nearby, Historic Resource Evaluation of the Manciila/Freitas Adobe 8 4_a a Attachment 12 the Greyhound Bus Terminal and the Anderson Hotel added to the study area's transportation- related function and emphasized San Luis Obispo's role as a resting place for motorists traveling between San Francisco and Los Angeles(Gebhard and Winter 1977:589). The increase in travel also increased the exchange of ideas. Architecture and imagery were evolving and the ease of travel allowed people to see the new Streamline Moderne and Art Deco movement of the 1920s and 1930s firsthand. This movement quickly spread throughout California, and many storefronts along the main streets of San Luis Obispo were updated to follow this trend. Amazingly,with all this progress, in the 1930s San Luis Obispo was said to be the last city of its size still burning old gas lights—a trademark of the 1890s (Curry 1968:15). The city's population grew from 4;500 in 1903 to 8,500 in 1926. Perhaps the most visible growth occurred at the end of World War II when military installations established in response to the war artificially inflated the local economy. Between 1940 and 1941, the U.S. Army converted Camp Merriam, a 2,000-acre National Guard base founded in 1927,to an infantry and artillery training camp known as Camp San Luis. In 1944, the population topped 16,000. Many of those soldiers,who remembered the mild climate and gentle hills of the Central Coast, returned permanently to San Luis Obispo after the war(Krieger 1988:102-104). 4.6 DOWNTOWN GROWTH: COMMERCE DREAMS AND PARKING HEADACHES (1945–PRESENT) Many of the returning soldiers were the dreamers and doers that modernized San Luis Obispo in the second half of the twentieth century. Joe Navoni and a group of veterans took over the City Garbage Company and bought trucks that could handle dumpsters. Archie Stinson,who used the GI Bill to study at Cal Poly, started a poultry processing plant that soon supplied most stores in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties. Alex Madonna and his wife Phyllis fulfilled all of their fantasies when they built the Madonna Inn. On December 2, 1946, Southwest Airlines established airmail and passenger service out of the small county airport on the edge of town (McKeen 1988). The influx of new commerce meant that the landscape of downtown was changing. Older buildings, including many residences, were demolished to make way for more modem structures. City landmarks, such as the Clock Tower at Chorro and Higuera, the "monkey tree"at Broad and Marsh streets, and the Mission Mill guest house, were demolished in the 1950s and 1960s. Many of the remaining adobes were also lost during this period. Citizens, government,and downtown businesses spent a considerable amount of the 1950s arguing about what to do about San Luis Obispo Creek. Many citizens believed that the creek, then a trash-filled eyesore, could be cleaned up and a lovely plaza could be developed in front of the mission. Downtown businessmen,hungry for parking spaces for their customers, thought the creek a waste of space and encouraged the city to pave it over(McKeen 1988). The issue would not be decided until 1968, when voters approved the closing of Monterey Street and creation of the plaza that exists today (McKeen 1988; Tritenbach 1989). Even though business leaders lost out on parking spaces at the mission,many other city parking lots were developed in the 1950s. These include the Court Street Lot(recently converted to a new multi-use development), the Chinatown parking lot(which is now the location of the Palm Street Parking Garage), and the parking lot in the block bounded by Monterey, Palm, Morro, and Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe L4 — k 3 Attachment 12 Chorro streets. Construction of these lots was to the detriment of many older buildings, including the majority of the original Chinatown structures. 4.7 SITE-SPECIFIC HISTORIC CONTEXT OF 868 CHORRO STREET There are no early documents or maps that show Mission era buildings in San Luis Obispo, and the precise date of construction of the original Mancilla/Freitas Adobe is uncertain. The first known recorded document about the Mancilla/Freitas lot is a land petition made to the city by Fernando Martinez: To the Honorable Board of Trustees of the Town of San Luis Obispo. Gentlemen,the undersigned a resident of the Town&County of San Luis Obispo respectfully asks your Honorable Body to grant to him in fee the following lot of land lying and being within the limits of said Town viz: Commencing at the North West Comer of LotNo.4 in Block 15 and running thence in a North West direction 50 yards along Chorro St to Mill St. thence in a NE direction along Mill St. 45 yards.Thence in a SW direction 45 yards to the place of beginning,the same being Lot No 1 in Block 15 as laid down on Hutton's Map of said Town.And your petitioner would further represent to your Hon. Body that he has recently erected improvements upon said lot to the value of sum 400 or 500 dollars and that it is his intention to reside with his family upon the same. And your petitioner will ever pray Fernando Martinez, San Luis Obispo,Oct.21, 1861 This document notes recently erected improvements on the lot. This statement may be referring to the adobe, suggesting that it may not be Mission vintage. The construction date of the original adobe may never be resolved. However, whether the adobe structure was built as part of the Mission complex, or as an early residence in San Luis Obispo, it is still a very important element of the city's early history. Fernando Martinez was a saddler from Mexico. In 1860, he was 33 years old and lived with his wife Pascuala(25 years old), and children Carolina(age 6),Andrea(age 5),Francisco (age 3), and Hipolito (age 1). His estate was valued at$200 (1860 U.S. Census). Martinez sold the lot to Valentine Mancilla in 1864. Mancilla,who was born in Mexico, landed in San Francisco in 1849. After searching for gold for a few years, he moved to San Luis Obispo in 1855. Mancilla was a pioneer merchant who operated a saloon and a general merchandise store. He moved to Pozo in 1884 (Storke 1891:611). The 1870 census lists Mancilla as a 41-year- old saloonkeeper with $1,000 in personal wealth and $1,000 in real estate. In 1876, the property was transferred to Dolores Herrera. The Hererra family owned much property in the town of San Luis Obispo. The 1874-1875 County Tax Assessment roll lists the following: • Basilio Herrera: 160 acres by public road, SLO to San Jose Valley • Thomas Herrera Sr.: 162 acres by Monterey Street and 120 acres by SLO Creek • Thomas Herrera Jr.: 160 acres bound by Basilio Herrera Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 10 Z+'-4�i Attachment 12 • Antonio Herrera: Block and lots in SLO • Dolores Herrera- Section 7, Township 30S R15E, and other acreage—total 678 Dolores Herrera was bom in New Mexico in 1831, but moved on California in 1840. After one year at the San Gabriel Mission,the Herrera family moved to San Luis Obispo. The family resided in San Luis for 12 years,with Dolores assisting in his father's saloon(Storke 1891:385). In 1851, Herrera was named as 2nd Judge of the Court of Sessions for the township of San Luis Obispo (Angel 1883:133). In 1853, he moved to the San Jose Valley, a more rural part of San Luis Obispo County, where he settled on a 400 acre ranch(Storke 1891:386). Even though Herrera lived outside of town it appears that he was still active in the San Luis Obispo church. Worried about the quality of education for his daughters, Herrera donated some of his land near the Mission for construction of a convent school in 1857. Construction of the school did not begin until 1872 (Parker 2006b). Census records from 1880 and Voter Registration rolls from 1890 both list Herrera as residing in San Jose Township. Additionally,Herrera is not listed in the 1884-1885 city directory. Although he may have stayed in town for extended periods to attend to business, Herrera owned many other lots concurrently, and could have stayed on any one of them. Therefore, it appears that Dolores Herrera did not live in the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe on a permanent basis and may have never resided there. The 1901 city directory does list Dolores's brother Basilio and his family as residing in the adobe in that year. Basilio, who prior to 1901 was listed as residing in various places, was 54 years old at the time. He was enumerated as a cattleman who had been married for 31 years. His 47 year old wife,who was bom in Mexico, had birthed 12 children, of which only six were living. All six were living with their parents. Thirty-year-old Bramlio was a saloon keeper. Maggie, 28, was a seamstress. Refugio,25,was a housekeeper, while 19 year old Victoria was an artist. Lorina, 17, and Guadalupe, 12, were both in school (1900 U.S. Census). It is unclear how long Basilio's family lived at 868 Chorro Street. However, they would have moved there after 1890,when voter registration rolls list them in Morro Township. Herrera transferred the subject parcel to the Commercial Bank of San Luis Obispo in 1900. In 1903, the property was transferred from the Bank to Paul Isola. Although addresses are not noted on the 1900 census, Isola and Basilio Herrera are listed adjacent to one another, strongly suggesting that they were neighbors. Also nearby was Isola's older brother, Charles, who was a carpenter, and his family. Paul Isola was an insurance agent when he acquired the 868 Chorro Street property. Strangely, Isola transferred the subject property to Joseph Keys on the same day that he acquired it. This suggests speculative activity on Isola's part. Joseph Keys emigrated from the Azores in 1878 (19 10 census). Whether or not he lived here is not known. At that time, Keys was single, but he did wed wife Mary in 1906, which was during his ownership of the home. Keys transferred the property to Neil Cook in 1908. Cook was a Canadian farmer with a wife and three children (1910 census). Jerome P.Andrews acquired the property in 1909. The Andrews estate sold the property to Alice Morton in 1915. A few months later, George H. Andrews acquired the property. In 1917, Mary Rideout acquired the property. It is not clear if any of those owners actually resided at 868 Chorro Street. Finally, in 1919, George and Rosa Freitas bought the property. Their daughter, Margaret Hoyt, lived in the home until she passed away recently. Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe �f - C S - ' Attachment 12 4.8 ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY OF 868 CHORRO STREET Parker(2006) indicates that the adobe portion of the Macilla/Freitas property was constructed around 1800—during the Mission era. He further suggests that the peculiar alignment of the structure is further testament to its Mission ties,noting that: An examination of old lot lines,the Mission era foundation footings discovered on the adjacent lot,and satellite photos of Mission San Luis Obispo have revealed that the Freitas Adobe is oriented along the same construction lines as the Mission. If the alignment of present-day city streets is ignored and an imaginary straight line is drawn northward from the mission sanctuary,that line would pass directly in front of the Freitas Adobe [Parker 2006:7]. EE examined this theory. When assessing the angle of the sanctuary, Parker used the easternmost wall of the church that abuts Chorro Street. However, that wall is an addition. The first"L" addition to the church was made in 1893 (Tognazzini 1993). In 1948, that addition was enlarged into the present configuration (Kocher 1972). Therefore, to be historically accurate, the original church wall, not the addition, must be assessed. The eastern wall of the original church sanctuary is aligned at 327 degrees. The adobe portion of the Mancilla/Freitas property is aligned at 335 degrees. This difference in alignments shows no real correlation between the two structures. Additionally, Parker suggests that the setback of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe is due to the orientation of the mission buildings. He suggested that a grid based on the Mission church alignment would have resulted in the location of the adobe. When the American street grid was imposed, it was at a different orientation,thus explaining the current setback from Chorro Street. Again, he bases this explanation on the church addition, not the original Mission-era walls. A grid based on the original church walls would not have brought a path north of the church anywhere close to the adobe. However, early land petition maps indicate that a Mission-era reservoir was once located in what became the Chorro Street alignment in front of the Mancilla/Freitas residence(Figure 4-1). This feature may explain the set-back of the adobe. As a side note, there is at least one other structure in the Mission area that is not aligned with the current city grid. The small adobe at 970 Chorro Street, adjacent to the Sauer Adams Adobe, is aligned at 327 degrees, the same as the Mission church. Parker(2006) also suggests that the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe may be depicted on two early lithographs of the city. Adobe structural remains were discovered during fieldwork for the Palm Street Garage. Parker equates this north-south oriented structure to the structures seen just to the right of the Mission church in an 1850 rendering. Closer inspection of these documents shows that the north-south structures in the 1850 lithograph are located southwest of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe. During archaeological work, the north-south oriented foundations were located to the southeast of the adobe. This difference of location suggests either the adobe and/or the archaeological remains are not the structures depicted on the lithograph or that the lithograph is not historically accurate. The structure that Parker highlights on the 1856 map may indeed be the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe. However, this lithograph is not completely accurate, with the most glaring inaccuracy being a large fort drawn on the eastern outskirts of town. Such a fort never existed. Even if this drawing Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 12 4 - 94 Attachment 12 i 1 b I ��h I � /PESE :vain 1 0 ' la 05 1 1 I � #(,1I �p . 1 SES o4f.ARA 4 164? r . - 1 3 i �j PALM ST_ o zo ao Feet Figure 41 Circa 1870 land petition map showing relationship of the reservoir to the Mancilla property. Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 13 ,L+ -9 Attachment 12 is accurate, very little information can be garnered. There appears to be a porch and three windows on the south facade. The fust definitive depiction of the adobe is the 1877 Bird's Eye View of San Luis Obispo. Although this lithograph appears to be fairly accurate,there are some errors. Most notably, the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe is depicted as being right at the Chorro Street line and aligned square to the city grid. As discussed earlier,the adobe is actually set back and at an angle from the street. The subject structure appears to have a central section with a flat roof flanked by two shed roof additions on the north and south sides. The southern addition appears to be a porch while the northern addition appears to have three openings. It is difficult to tell if these are doors or windows. Researches must use caution when analyzing historic lithographs,because details are not always portrayed accurately. For example, when the 1877 lithograph is compared to later historic photographs, the St. Mary's school fagade appears to be accurately drawn,but the French Hotel was given far too many windows. Therefore, details of structures on this map cannot be taken as fact. The 1886 Sanborn map is the next known rendering of the structure. On this map, a one-story structure with an adobe core is surrounded on the north, east, and west sides by wooden additions. The southern fagade of the adobe is protected by an open porch. The structure is incorrectly depicted as being square to the city grid. The 1888 Sanborn map has the same rendering. On the 1891 Sanborn map, the adobe was redrawn at its correct orientation. The structure remains essentially the same, except that the northern addition has been divided to create an additional room. A photograph from circa 1895 gives a clear picture of the structure(Figure 4-2). It has a hipped roof that terminates in a ridge. An open porch is located along the south fagade. The western fagade appears to have a door and two windows. The openings on the northern fagade are obscured in the photograph by an addition that projects from the front northwestern comer. This projection, which has a lower hipped roof and a central entrance on the west fagade, appears to have been added after 1891, as it is not depicted on the Sanborn map from that.year. Sanborn maps and a circa 1900 photograph indicate that substantial alterations were made to the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe between 1895 and 1903. The photograph"Turning the Century"in the Carpenter Collection at SLOCHS clearly shows that great changes have occurred(Figure 4-3). The most noticeable difference in the property in this photograph is the change to the roofline. Instead of terminating in a ridge as shown in previous photographs,the hipped roof is truncated and has a flat top. The hipped projection off the northwestern corner has been removed, as has the porch on the southern side. A new porch supported by pillars has been constructed on the western fagade. One window is easily seen on the northern fagade by the front porch. Other openings on that fagade are present, but details are hard to discern. These alterations match changes depicted on the Sanborn maps. Previous Sanborn maps indicated that the southern facade of the adobe core of the building was an exterior wall. The 1903 Sanborn map depicts the northern fagade as an exterior wall, indication that the wooden addition on the northern fagade had been removed. Previous Sanborn maps indicate that early western and eastern additions were of equal width. On the 1903 Sanborn map,the western Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 14 q -9 g Attachment 12 addition is noticeably larger than the eastern addition, again indicating that new additions had been made. Between 1905 and 1909, a porch that spanned the width of the structure was added to the eastern, or rear, facade, and a small porch was built in the center of the southern fagade. A shed roof addition was constructed on the eastern side of the house between 1926 and 1950. s. f. 1 • �� Iy 1 y • Figure 4-2 1895 photograph with the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe circled(from)£files). �... i `"+"+•r�r..-•ails.• := i 1 Figure 4-3 "Turning of the Century"photograph with Mancilla/Freitas Adobe circled(on Me,San Luis Obispo County Historical Society). Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 15 4 ef..9 / - Attachment 12 5 SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION This chapter presents AE's evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe. The structure is evaluated for eligibility to the NRNP,the CRHR, and by local guidelines. 5.1 CRITERIA 5.1.1 National Register of Historic Places Criteria The NRHP criteria are set forth in 36 CFR 60.4 and guidance provided by the National Park Service in National Register Bulletin 15,How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service [NPS] 2002). The National Register eligibility criteria, as described in 36 CFR 60.4, state: The quality of significance in American history,architecture,archeology,engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites,buildings, structures;and objects that possess integrity of location,design, setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,and association and (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past,or (c) that 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) that have yielded,or may be likely to yield,information important in prehistory or history. Prior to assessing a resource's potential for listing on the NRNP, it is important to understand the subtleties of the seven aspects of integrity,which are defined as follows: Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. . . . Design is the combination of elements that create the form,plan,space,structure,and style of a property. . . . Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. . . . Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. . . . Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. . . . Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe t 6 4- - lob Attachment 12 Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. . . . Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. . . [NPS 2002:Part VIII]. "Integrity is based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important"(NPS 2002:Part VIII). Only after significance is fully established is the issue of integrity addressed. Ultimately,the question of integrity is answered by whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant. 5.1.2 California Register of Historic Resources Criteria The criteria for the CRHR"are consistent with National Register criteria,but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources which better reflect the history of California." (CCR §4852) Public Resource Code §5024.1(c) states that A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the California Register if it meets any of the following National Register of Historic Places criteria: (1)Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage. (2)Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (3)Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,period,region,or method of construction,or represents the work of an important creative individual,or possess high artistic values. (4)Has yielded,or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. For a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register it must meet one or more of these criteria and retain integrity. There are seven elements of integrity by which properties are evaluated. These include location, design, setting,materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 5.1.3 Local Criteria The City of San Luis Obispo has a large list of Historic Resource Criteria for Building Evaluations. It takes into account architectural style, architectural design, age, architect, environmental design continuity,association with a person, event, or historical context. 5.2 HISTORICAL THEMES AND PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE The adobe core of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe was constructed during either the Mission era (1772-1834) or during the Early Development Period, which spans 1835 through 1875. Archival Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 17 - J.O Attachment 12 research, as well as an examination of building materials,revealed that the wooden portion of the residence was constructed sometime between 1900 and 1903, during the period of Transportation Development and Population Growth(1900-1920). Unfortunately, photographs and maps from both before and after 1900 clearly indicate that that the wooden additions that were constructed during the Early Development period(1835-1875) and the Growth of Industry and Commerce period(1875-1900)were entirely removed to make way for the early 1900 additions. The shape of the home, as well as the roof, is entirely different in these photographs. Except for the adobe core,the residence was essentially a new structure. The adobe portion of the structure has been found eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with the Mexican period, and possibly Mission era of San Luis Obispo(City of San Luis Obispo 1983; Parker 2006). It is also eligible under Criterion D for its ability to provide information about early construction techniques and materials. )E concurs that the adobe itself is a significant historical resource. Therefore, the following evaluation will focus only on the wooden portions of the structure. 5.3 NRNP AND CRHR SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Because the CRHR criteria are consistent with the NRHP criteria, this section evaluates the eligibility of the wooden additions the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe under both of those criteria. 53.1 Criterion A A property can qualify under Criterion A (association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history) through a connection with important historical events and themes. As discussed above, the wooden additions were built during the city's period of Transportation Development and Population Growth(1900-1920),the era when the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad and the establishment of Cal Poly attracted many new residents.Nearly 200 new homes were constructed in the city between 1902 and 1904 (City of San Luis Obispo 1983). The wooden additions appear to be associated with this broad pattern of population growth. However, the NRHP guidelines state that"mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify under Criterion A: the property's specific association must be considered important as well" (NPS 1997:12). Such associations could include"a railroad station that served as the focus of a community's transportation system and commerce"or"a building used by an important local social organization"(NPS 1997:12). The additions cannot be associated with a specific event in history and thus are not eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR under Criterion A. 5.3.2 Criterion B Criterion B applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. Although the property was owned by Dolores Mancilla, an important member of the San Luis Obispo community, there is no documentary evidence that he ever resided in the structure. Mancilla owned many lots in town, and documents show that his main residence was his ranch in the San Jose Valley in the northern part of San Luis Obispo County. Although Dolores Herrera owned the parcel,his lack of residence there provides very weak association between Herrera and the adobe. The short term residency of his Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe "[,[ 18 -- ((7a Attachment 12 brother, Basilio, does not make that association any stronger. Additionally,the wooden additions were made after Mancilla sold the property. It appears that when the circa 1900 addition was made, the old frame portions of the home were demolished, further weakening the association with the Mancilla family. The additions apparently were made between 1900 and 1903, when the Commercial Bank owned the property. It is unclear if any owners between 1903 and 1919 actually lived in the structure, and it may have been a rental. The Freitas family moved in after purchasing the home in 1919. This is the only family that can be definitively associated with the wooden additions. This family of local shopkeepers is not mentioned in any of the histories of the city, and therefore their significance in the community appears to be limited. For that reason the wooden additions are not eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR under Criterion B. 5.3.3 Criterion C Resources are eligible under Criterion C if they(1) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,period, or method of construction, or(2)represent the work of a master, or(3)possess high artistic values, or(4)represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. The first requirement"refers to the way in which a property was conceived, designed, or fabricated by a people or culture in past periods of history"(NPS 1997:17). "The work of a master"refers to the technical or aesthetic achievements of an architect or craftsman. "High artistic values" concerns the expression of aesthetic ideals or preferences and applies to aesthetic achievement. The fourth factor refers only to districts. Nearly 200 homes were constructed in the city between 1902 and 1904. Many of these homes incorporated Queen Anne or Italianate embellishments or styling, as did the wooden additions of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe (City of San Luis Obispo 1983). It appears that the nominal detailing on the subject building was used so the home could pass for a stylish new residence with a minimal amount of work and funds. However,the wooden additions do not embody the distinctive characteristics of the Italianate or Queen Anne styles that were popular at the tum of the 20th century.Neither do these additions represent the work of a master, and they do not posses high artistic value. Therefore, the wooden additions of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe do not appear to be eligible for the NRHP or CRHR under Criterion C. 5.3.4 Criterion D A property is eligible under Criterion D if it contains or may yield information important in prehistory or history. The wooden additions themselves are not eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR under Criterion D. The adobe core, on the other hand, has substantial potential to provide. information on early construction methods. Additionally, as Dr. Parker(2006) also pointed out, there is a considerable archeological deposit on the parcel.k located Mission era artifacts and Victorian period ceramics in the front and rear yards. It is important to note that the archaeological deposit is eligible for the NRHP and the CRHR under Criterion D. 5.4 INTEGRITY OF THE WOODEN ADDITIONS OF THE MANCILLA/FREITAS ADOBE To be considered a historic property eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR, a resource must not only meet on or more of the significance criteria but also must retain integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its association with important historical themes,persons, designs, Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 19 4-- 1 ©3 Attachment 12 or technology(NPS 2002). Because the wooden additions do not meet any of the NRHP or CRHR criteria, integrity need not be examined. 5.5 LOCAL CRITERIA The local significance criteria examine properties in a number of ways. Many of these parallel the NRHP and CRHR criteria,but some are crafted to be locally specific. In the following sections,the city criteria are presented in underlined text, followed by and an evaluation of the structure. 5.5.1 Style Style describes "the form of buildings such as size, structural shape, and details within that form" (City of San Luis Obispo 1983). Building style is evaluated by: Relative purity of a traditional style(as compared to building styles in San Luis Obispo). This structure is simplified Folk Victorian. It is not a pure style, as the addition was constructed with salvaged materials from earlier architectural styles. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style. The Folk Victorian style was never a rare style and other much better examples are present in the city today. 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 where styles are put together. The wooden additions do not really represent a particular setting or period in the community.Even though architecture details from different styles are used, this structure cannot be considered hybrid. These different styles were used in the house without much thought to overall design. The degree to which the structure has maintained integrity (i.e., assessment of alterations and structural condition, if known).Alterations have only minimally affected the structure. However, structural condition of the wooden alterations is deteriorating. The foundation of the southern addition has noticeably shifted, as evidenced by the uneven floor and the slumping eaves. The wooden addition does not appear to meet the Style criterion. 5.5.2 Design 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; and also suggest the degree to which the architect(i.e., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s)" (City of San Luis Obispo 1983). Building design is evaluated as a measure of: Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 20�'�C�J 4' l D 1 - Attachment 12 Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its uniqueness, artistic merit, details and craftsmanship. While the house has clean lines and styling, it does not possess artistic merit, details, or craftsmanship that is of notable attractiveness. Overall attractiveness because of craftsmanship and aesthetic value,though not necessarily unique. The wooden addition does not exhibit outstanding craftsmanship or aesthetic value. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. There is very little detailing on the structure. The reuse of materials suggests cost-saving methods, not an attempt on the part of the carpenter-builder to exhibit interesting or eclectic details. The wooden addition does not appear to meet the Design criterion. 5.5.3 Age Age is a measure of how old a structure is in the context of the history of San Luis Obispo. The wooden addition was made between 1900 and 1903. A structure that is over 100 years old would appear to meet the age criterion. 5.5.4 Architect This criterion is used to identify if a professional was directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. There is no evidence that the wooden additions were designed or constructed by a professional architect, so the structure does not meet this criterion. 5.5.5 Environmental Design Continuity This criterion describes the inter-relationship of structures and their relationship to a common environment. It refers to the continuity, spatial relationship, and visual character of a street, neighborhood; or area. Environmental design is evaluated as a measure of • Symbolic importance of a structure to the community and the degree to which it serves as a conspicuous and pivotal landmark(i.e., easily accessible to the public, helps to establish a sense of time and place). • Compatibility of a structure with neighboring structure in its setting on the basis of period, style (form, height,rooflines), design elements, landscapes, and natural features; and how these combine together to create an integral cultural,historic, or stylistic setting. • Similarity to and/or compatibility of a structure with its neighboring structures which, collectively,although of no particular aesthetic value, combine to form a geographically definable area with its own distinctive character. This criterion appears to refer to historic districts. The adobe was recorded during 1983 citywide survey and placed on the City's Master List of Historic Resources. The Downtown Historic Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 21 4- [uS Attachment 12 District was established on the basis of this survey. The Downtown Historic District boundary follows the lot line between the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe and the Ah Louis Store. However, the community support against removal of the wooden additions indicates that the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe holds some type of symbolic importance to the community. Community members view the structure as encapsulating the history of San Luis Obispo. The roots of the city's architectural history lie in adobe structures which include not only the Mission buildings, but also residences of early Hispanic settlers. As San Luis Obispo grew, wooden additions were placed on many early adobes to allow more room for growing families. As the town became a city,the adobes were viewed as ugly reminders of the uncivilized past, and most were demolished or covered with more modem architectural detailing. Some of these structures and their original additions have survived. These structures should be viewed as time capsules of architectural evolution of the City of San Luis Obispo that are of great historical significance. The Mancilla/Freitas Adobe does not retain that evolution of architectural history. Examination of maps, documents, photographs, and the additions themselves, strongly suggest that the additions that were present during the 19''century were totally removed to make way for the current wooden addition. 5.5.6 History—Person This criterion describes a person,group, organization, or institution that has been connected with the structure, either intimately or secondarily for at least two generation (i.e.,40 years). It parallels Criterion B of the NRHP and CRHR,but can be include people such as shopkeepers and businessmen whose contributions, although minor, had a beneficial effect on the community. The Freitas family,which are associated with the residence from 1919 to the present, were shopkeepers. The family is never mentioned in city histories, so it is difficult to determine if they had a beneficial effect on the community. 5.5.7 History—Event This criterion judges association of the structure with a social, political, economic, governmental, educational, or other institutional event that has been important to the community. It parallels Criterion A of the NRHP and CRHR. The wooden addition does not appear to meet this criterion. 5.5.8 History—Context This criterion evaluates the degree to which the building is associated with patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educations, governmental,military, industrial, or religious history. Again, this criterion parallels Criterion A of the NRHP and CRHR. The structure, constructed in the early 1900s, does not appear to meet this criterion. Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 2 q. - lb(p J Attachment 12 6 CONCLUSIONS The adobe core of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe was constructed in the 1800s. It is unaltered, and k concurs with prior determinations (City of San Luis Obispo 1983; Parker 2006) that the adobe core qualifies as a significant historical resource under Criterion A and D. The wooden addition that surrounds the adobe's eastern,western, and southern sides appears to have been built between 1900 and 1903. Historical photographs, Sanborn Insurance maps, architectural details, and construction materials all support this conclusion. The wooden addition is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; is not associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and will not yield information important in prehistory or history. It therefore is not eligible for the NRHP or the CRHR. The wooden addition is more than 100 years old. The Freitas family, who were local shopkeepers lived there for over 80 years. However, these are minor sub-criteria in the overall evaluation of the structure, and do not appear strong enough to support eligibility. Therefore the wooden additions of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe are not considered historical resources. Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 23 �- I or) Attachment 12 7 REFERENCES Angel,Myron 1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, California, with Illustrations. Thompson and West, Oakland, California. 1966 facsimile ed. Howell-North Books, Berkeley, California. City of San Luis Obispo 1983 Completion Report:Historic Resources Survey. 3 vols. City of San Luis Obispo, California. Cole, Alexandra 2006 Letter Report. Adobe at 868 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo. Submitted to Larry Hoyt, Turlock, California. Cooper, DeGuy 1875 Resources of San Luis Obispo County, California. In A Vast Pastoral Domain: San Luis Obispo County in the 1870s. Published 1993 by The Library Associates, Companion Press, Santa Barbara, California. Curry, Elliot 1968 Streets and Lanes of Early San Luis Obispo. In La Vista 1(1):13-19. San Luis Obispo County Historical Society. Gebhard, David, and Robert Winter 1977 A Guide to Architecture in Los Angeles & Southern California. Peregrine Smith, Inc., Santa Barbara, California, and Salt Lake City, Utah. Greenwood, Roberta S. 1978 Obispeno and Purisimeno Chumash. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 520-523. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Krieger,Daniel F. 1988 Looking Backward into the Middle Kingdom:San Luis Obispo County. I st ed. Windsor Publications,Northridge, California. Landberg, Leif 1965 The Chumash Indians of Southern California. Southwest Museum Papers No. 19. Los Angeles. La Vista 1969 A Visitor's Impressions in 1868.La Vista 1(2):13-14. San Luis Obispo County Historical Society, San Luis Obispo, California. Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adob24 e �- co 8 Attachment 12 McKeen, Rose 1988 Parade along the Creek: San Luis Obispo Memories of the 1920s through `60s. Blake Printery, San Luis Obispo, California. Palou, Francisco 1926 Historical Memoirs of New California by Fray Francisco Palou, O.F.M. Translated and edited from the archives of New Mexico by Herbert Eugene Bolton. Atheneum House, Boston. Parker&Associates 2006 Cultural Resource Investigation of the Hoyt Parcel, 868 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo (APN 002-415-004). Prepared for Larry Hoyt Management,Turlock, California. Prepared by John Parker. Paulson, L. L. 1875 Handbook and Directory of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Bernardino,Los Angeles, and San Diego Counties. Francis &Valentine Commercial Steam Press, San Francisco. Storke, Yda Addis 1891 A Memorial and Biographical History of the Counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura, California: containing a history of this important section of the Pacific Coast from the earliest period of its occupancy to the present time, together with glimpses of its prospective future: with full page steel portraits of its most eminent men, and biographical mention of many of its pioneers and also of prominent citizens of to-day. Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois. Tognazzini, Wilmar N. (compiler) 1993 100 Years Ago, 1893:Excerpts from the San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune. W.N. Tognazzini, San Luis Obispo, California. Tritenbach, Paul 1989 San Luis Obispo Discoveries. Excellence Press, San Luis Obispo, California. Other Sources Consulted 1860 U.S. Population Census 1870 U.S. Population Census 1880 U.S. Population Census 1900 U.S. Population Census 1910 U.S. Population Census 1920 U.S. Population Census 1890 California Voter Registration 1883-1884 City Directory 1901 City Directory 1912 City Directory 1922 City Directory Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe 25 ATTACHMENT t3 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING AN APPEAL AND APPROVING THE CHC DETERMINATION ON THE HISTORIC DETERMINATION OF THE RESIDENCE AT 868 CHORRO STREET; APPLICATION NO.A 201-06 WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 26, 2007, for the purpose of considering an application for a development project that includes demolition of a portion of the historic structure at 868 Chorro Street, Application No. ARC 201-06; and WHEREAS, The Cultural Heritage Committee reccomended that the existing wood additions surrounding the historic adobe at 868 Chorro Street do not constitute a historic resource and that the development project could include demolition of the wood portion of the structure subject to conditions; and WHEREAS, An appeal of the Cultural Heritage Committee's action was received by the City on April 4, 2007; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Action. The appeal is denied. The Council upholds the recommended action of the CHC on March 26, 2007, and makes the following findings and imposes the following conditions: 1. The background reports prepared by Dr. John Parker, Alexandra Cole and Wendy M. Nettles accurately describe the property at 868 Chorro Street and the components of the residential structure that meet the characteristics of a historic resource. 2. As conditioned, the proposed demolition of the wood-clad additions to the residence at 868 Chorro Street is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment of a historic structure since the Secretary of Interior Standards recommend the restoration of historic structures and recommend the removal of additions that are not original to the historic fabric of the structure. 3. As conditioned, the removal of the wood-clad additions is consistent with the City's policies regarding the treatment of historic properties, specifically the General Plan Conservation and Open Space policies because the wood additions do not represent a historic resource and the removal of these additions, as conditioned, will not affect the historic integrity of the original adobe structure. 0I v Resolution No. [ ATTACHMENT,'-13 Page 2 4. As conditioned, the removal of the wood-clad additions is consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because the removal of these later additions is consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment of a historic building. 5. If a plan to restore and preserve the existing adobe structure is implemented and the adobe structure remains the focal point of a future development project as viewed from the public right of way,than potential environmental impacts of the development project may be reduced to a level of less than significant because the historic resource will not be impacted. Conditions 1. No site work, demolition of any portion of the existing residential structure or any other construction that is eligible for a City building permit shall occur on the site until the development project has received final architectural review approval and the following conditions have been met: A. A construction permit has been issued implementing all of the conditions imposed by this resolution and including any conditions of the architectural approval of the development project. B. A complete restoration plan prepared under the supervision of a qualified architectural historian must be presented to and approved by the City. C. A security bond (letter of credit or other form acceptable to the Community Development Department) shall be secured by the City from the applicant to ensure appropriate treatment and restoration of the historic resource during the demolition and construction process. The amount of the security shall be determined under the direction of a qualified architectural historian. 2. A draft environmental determination shall be completed by the City prior to scheduling the item for the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The ARC shall take action on the environmental determination including any mitigation measures that may be necessary to reduce potential environmental impacts or to implement the requirements of the Secretary of Interior Standards for the treatment of a historic property. 3. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this determination, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. 4. The following recommendations from the CHC shall be forwarded to the ARC (any project changes shall be implemented into a revised planning set prior to scheduling the ARC hearing): A. Delete Unit 1 and reduce the height and massing of Unit 2. B. Reconfigure the site plan to maximize open space around the adobe. Resolution No. [ Page 3 C. Consider relocation of the proposed driveway and acknowledge the original outline of the entire structure through paving and site work. D. Provide direct and separate pedestrian access from Chorro Street to the adobe. E. Provide photo-documentation for the wood-clad structures. F. Use xerophytic landscaping around the adobe. Section 2. Staff is directed to modify the Historic Resources Survey for 868 Chorro Street consistent with the above section. On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2007. Mayor David F. Romero ATTEST: Audrey Hooper,City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Lowell, City Attorney �c �c The "Conclusions" contained in Wendy M. Nettles May 2007 Historic Resource Evaluation of the Mancilla/Freitas Adobe contain three. erroneous and/or misleading statements: "The wooden addition is not associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history;..." It no small accident that this property is presently on the San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resource. Back in April 24, 2006, Allan Cooper provided public testimony to the Cultural Heritage Commission where he provided the applicant, Larry Hoyt, with two photos and one graphic depiction of the subject. property. These have ultimately figured prominently in both the October 2006 Preservation Planning Asociates report and the May 2007 Wendy M. Nettles Historic Resource Report (p. 15, Attachment 12). These graphics included a "Bird's Eye View of San Luis Obispo, Cal." This view of San Luis Obispo, California in 1877 was drawn and published by E.S. Glover and printed by A.L. Bancroft & Co. San Francisco. ACMW-FW. Note that the wooden addition to the adobe has already been made as indicated by the Chorro Street fagade having 1 door and 3 windows. The second photo was taken after the Old Mission Orchard & Higuera Tracts were developed —circa 1893 — and before the Hotel Ramona burned to the ground in 1905. Mr. Cooper noted the change in roof configuration from a low-pitched hip roof to a steeper-pitched hip roof with a modified widow's walk and rail. The following conclusion is as follows, as pictures (see attached) do not lie. The overall appearance of the structure has not changed significantly since 1877. Between 1877 and 1900, a number of prominent San Luis Obispo families have occupied this structure including the Mancillas, the Herreras and the Andrews families. ..the wooden addition is not associated with.the lives of persons significant in our past;..." Even if we discounted the importance of the families who occupied this structure before 1900, one should not underestimate the importance of the Freitas family that occupied the 868 Chorro Street house for over 80 years and who were prominent California Azorean immigrants. For example, local historian and Cultural Heritage Commission member, Sandy Baer, in an official June 2006 San Luis Obispo Sesquicentennial article, mentioned that a Mr. Freitas first purchased and then moved the 3-story Convent School to Mill Street and converted it into a grocery store and boarding house back in 1925. "...the wooden addition...does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction..." The Cultural Resource Investigation report, prepared by John Parker Ph.D., states "The Queen Ann Cottage style front porch displays a typical Victorian I architecture that was popular throughout San Luis Obispo from the 1880's through 1910. The drop siding, cut gingerbread trim at the corners of the porch roof, multiple light doors and double-hung windows were traits found in San Francisco Stick and Queen Ann Cottages through the west coast." Submitted by: Allan Cooper 756 Broad St. San Luis Obispo, CA June 4, 2007 t H 'r ` e y oje E c w 9 I, v ° a v S to CU 3 .12 i�` .r •O IL r � 3 a �'r ,' i ,' :, '► a v vCU b lz g }} CU i s. � IL d 44 (f cu y Ib 40 t{ l I y � �II��y �YI :/�� I• > i m C a v E $ .o ,o3toto oy �5' / /r��:� /; 'rW .' ' ' 6, l0' �..• s w C 'C •a Ism, w aj ob o s o c / o0 � ; .;i. �•�;'`{ �It r' r� ? � ti oma, 3 1� 7 40, 4z, 5&% MM M .E M <w 04 4 i +a s y P i� y F � sx .-..r+.. r.....N..—• � ,+'gyp � 7.. 1. � c ry i Page 1 of 2 Settle, Allen From: Barbara Breska [breska@tvltm.com] Sent: Tue 6/5/2007 5:43 PM To: Mulholland,Christine; Brown, Paul; Carter,Andrew; Settle,Allen; Romero, Dave Cc: Subject: FW: Freitas Adobe Attachments: RECEIVED JUN 0 6 2007 -----Original Message---- SLO CITY CLERK From; Bob Pavlik fmailto:bob pavlik@dot.ca.govl Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 8:34 AM To: ccrotser@calpoly.edu; Barbara Breska O Subject: Fw: Freitas Adobe .C,.Ou�t—ZG ---- Forwarded by Bob Pavlik/D05/Caltrans/CAGov on 06/05/2007 08:33 AM "John Parker" rn/Q'�IJC(J1 <crm@tcsn.net> b U./%.iZ /VIAP4!5 To 05/31/2007 07:54 "Tom Wheeler" PM <1wheeler@charter.net>, "Paula Carr" <paula_carr@dot.ca.gov>, "Bob Pavlik" <Bob_Pavlik@dot.ca.gov> cc "Bob Vessely" <rvessely@ccaccess.net>, "Susan Devine" <sdevine@emlaw.us> Subject Freitas Adobe Hi all, I just received a copy of the proposed development plan for Larry Hoyt's parcel on Chorro St. When I did my initial archaeological inspection of the parcel, I was not given any proposed plans and suspected that the plans were in flux. Mr. Hoyt indicated that he wanted to save the adobe and restore it as an integral part of his development. Since the adobe sits in the north central portion of the parcel, I assumed that he intended to develop the rear portion of the parcel, leaving the area around the adobe and between the adobe and Chorro Street open. I assume that you all have seen his plans. I had not seen them until this https:Hmail.sloci ty.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/FW:%2OFrei tas%2OAdobe.ENIL?Cmd=open 6/6/2007 Page 2 of 2 afternoon. His rendition of the "Site Plan and View of Adobe" (sheet #1 Jan 19, 2007) is NOT"preservation" or "restoration" in any sense of the word, and certainly does not meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings as is required by SLO City's General Plan (sec. 3.21.4). Part of what makes a structure "historically significant" is its surroundings and setting. Adobe's of the Mission period all had wrap-around porches that extended 6 to 8 feet out from the walls of the structure. I am sure that you have all seen these porches whenever you visited missions or adobes around the state. These porches were not only the style, but were necessary to protect the adobe's fragile walls from rain and sun. An adobe without such a porch is not an accurate restoration. Mr. Hoyt's plans place the adobe within 2 feet of a paved road and behind a housing unit that fronts on Chorro Street. These two facts not only destroy the historical setting of the adobe, but also prevent the accurate restoration of the structure. Although these plans do not require the demolition of the adobe structure, they do nothing to restore or preserve the adobe according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. According to Mr. Hoyt's plans, the adobe will not have to be tom down, however, there is a big difference between "not being demolished" and being "restored".. Yes the adobe will be "preserved...... much the same way that a stream running through Los Angeles is "preserved" by providing it with concrete banks and a concrete floor. Upon reviewing his plans, I realized that the adobe received the same consideration and had the same.status in his development as the location of the trash bins. I had heard that there was an argument over whether or not.to preserve the wooden additions to the adobe. I had no idea that the adobe itself was in jeopardy as a historic structure. Sincerely, John Parker ---------_------------------------------- John Parker, Ph.D., RPA Registered Professional Archaeologist crm@tcsn.net www.tcsn.net/sloarchaeo[ogy (805) 772-0117 FAX (805) 772-8178 ------------------------------------------- Admit it, an all-capitalistic system doesn't work. https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/asettle/Inbox/FW:%20Freitas%20Adobe.EML?Cmd=open 6/6/2007 RED FILE ERECEIVED MEETING AGENDA 2007 DATED-s-OITEM #� LERK Memo May 24, 2007 To: Mayor Dave Romero and City Council Members 990 Palm Street COUNCIL To�CDD DIR San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 CAA IL' FIN DIR ACAO R FIRE CHIEF IPATTORNEY [$PW DIR CLERK/ORIG p POLICE CHF From: Larry Hoyt DE;eT HEADS AEC DIR UTIL DIR 868 Chorro Street T HR DIR Oficn-004G San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 ,P c,¢o - t G GE•4rt RE: A response to the attached appeal by Mr.Brodie and others: The appeal authored by Mr. Brodie and others is replete with misinterpretations of the guides and documents that serve as the authority for the preservation of historic resources in San Luis Obispo. A more careful reading of these documents,even by a non-expert like me,reveals a much less dogmatic and fundamentalist approach to historical preservation. Below I have responded to some of the appellant's statements: 1. "...their decision,by a vote 4 to 3, to permit demolition of these wooden structures is in direct conflict with their charge as a commUlm The Secretary of Interior's standards for the treatment of kistorical properties...should be adhered to by the Cultural Heritage Commission." The most important statutory charge of the Cultural Heritage Committee is to "...Review the Inventory of Historical Resources and recommend to the City Council any amendments." (City Resolution 6158 Sec. 3 C (3)). The committee voted to amend the City Historic Resource Master List to reflect new knowledge brought to its attention. Further,decisions of what should be or should not be on the Master List of Historic Resources are not based on the "Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historical Properties". That document has nothing to do with the identification of historic properties. Identification of what buildings or parts of buildings should be placed on the City's Master List and what amendments should be made to that list, is based on criteria found in the National Park Service's National Rester Criteria for Evaluation and on Archeology and Historic Preservation: The Secretary of Interior's Standards — Guidelines for Identification. 1 Based on their understanding of the criteria,found in these guides,two qualified professionals disagreed with the conclusions.of the initial survey completed by volunteers in 1986. Both decided that the later wood structure that surround the encapsulated Mission era adobe did not meet Secretary of Interior Standards for identification criteria and should not have been considered eligible for listing in the City's Master List of Historic Resources. If the Committee members had not considered new information it would have been irresponsible on their part and would have represented a complete avoidance of their "charge". 2. "The Secretary of the Interior's Stmdards for the treatment of historical properties directs all decision-making in these cases and should be adhered to by the Cultural Heritage Commission" Of the 177 pages of the document The Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties only page(Page 1)addressed the topic of my application. (The rest of the documents give directions on how to use the four treatment options for preservation.)On page I the following statement is found: "The Standards(for the Treatment of Historic Properties) are neither technical nor prescriptive,but are intended to promote responsible preservation practices..... They cannot in and of themselves,be used to make essential decisions about which features of the historic building should be saved and which can be changed...." In.its decision to consider the restoration of the encapsulated adobe,the CHC acted well within its statutory authority and responsibility to "Provide advice and guidance for the restoration,alteration ...of Historical Resources ..."(Resolution 6158 Section 3 C (2)) The committee,after due consideration recommended to remove newer and less significant parts of the structure to allow for a"Restoration"treatment of the more significant part of the structure—the Mission era adobe. 3. "What is historically signijkant is how this residence evolved over the past 200 years." This statement is a reference to similar statements found in all standards for preservation treatments. (Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Pro 'es. That Standard for Rehabilitation reads as follows: 2 "Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time,place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken." At several meetings Mr. Brodie has made use of this concept as if it must apply to all treatments of properties. He then argues that there is a historically based prohibition. against the changing of a resource. This is a complete misapplication of the Standards and their Purpose. The wording and intent of this standard changes according to the specific treatment applied. The "Restoration"version reads as follows: "Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time,place, and use. Work needed to stabilize,consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restorationyeriod will be physically and visually...." In this case the physical record in time refers to the period to be restored not to the complete stricture and not to the additions made to the house over time. In the case,of my house, rehabilitation would not even be possible due to the numerous reconstructions that occurred over time and its structural condition. Mr. Brodie may also argue that Rehabilitation is a qualitatively better historical treatment that restoration. According to the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, few buildings that are rehabilitated are eligible for listing in the National Register. The structure at 868 Chorro Street is far more likely to,qualify for that honor if it is restored to the Mission era form. 4. "The age of these clapboard additions,dating back to at least 125 years,places them in a historical context." To say that the existing wooden portion of the house dates to 1880-85 or earlier is misleading. The house was extensively re-built not long(1903-1908)before my grandfather purchased it in 1919. While the house looks similar to the house shown in pictures prior-to-that,many of the materials were replaced and the style was changed- from a New England seashore style house with a widow's walk ala a Skipper's seafood restaurant, to a style that is now indefinable. Many additions were made even after 1919 by my family and are documented in the reports by Parker and Cole. A number of changes occurred in the late 1950s. 3 The phrase"...places them in a historical context." represents an attempt to use jargon to confer credence to their argument. The discussion of historical context is much more complex than the idea that the building changed over time and people lived there. A full discussion of the topic and allowable treatments can be found in the Secretary r of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Plannin LStandard L.Preservation Planninu Establishes Historic Contexts. "Historic Context-a unit created for planning purposes that groups information about historic properties based on a shared theme, specific time period and geographical area" My intention is to restore the structure. The adobe would be viewed in the specific context of the Mission 1780-1800 complex and would denote the important role the Native Americans played in that context. The physical context would be the Mission compound. This is a completely acceptable contextual treatment for the property. (See: The Secretary of Interior.Standards and Guidelines: Integrating Individual Contexts— Creating a ontexts—Creatinga Preservation Plan.) 5. "The additions,since they are over 50 years old,are by definition historic. This is a backward interpretation of the National Reeister Criteria for Evaluation. The Criteria exclude structures that are less than fifty years old unless something is exceptionally historic about them. It does not mean that everything else qualifies for inclusion as a historic resource. All resources must meet NPS criteria for inclusion. 6. "The choice here seems to be restoration,which requires that the historic significance of restoring a building to a particular moment in time,in terms of historic events,people,styles,etc.,outweighs the loss of other historic and possibly significant features.. This has to be documented." "Require" and"outweigh" are not words taken from any of the NPS documents. The NPS guides abundantly make it clear that the choice of a treatment is based on choices which include relative importance in history,physical condition,proposed use, mandated code requirements and many other factors both historic and practical. I quote what is actually said about the restoration treatment: 4 i ) "Restoration,the third treatment,focuses on the retention of materials from the most significant time in the properties history, while permitting the removal of materials from other periods." Paradoxically,the appellants say that they agree that the adobe was an outbuilding of the Mission but then say that this must be documented. The city survey states that the adobe was built during the.Mission era and this finding was confirmed by Dr. Parker. This and the condition of the structure is ample documentation to make-a decision regarding treatment of the resource. 7. "The CHC also decided to allow the remaining adobe.to be partially surrounded by a three story apartment building." The CHC actually made a second recommendation to the ARC to not allow the building of my own personal retirement home in the front portion of my property to allow for better viewing of the adobe. This concern of the appellants is baffling. Presently,the adobe is completely hidden inside the wooden structure. In its present position it would remain unseen until it falls down. 8. "...the CHC's ...decision will establish an unhealthy precedent with regards to all remaining historically-listed and contributing properties in San Luis Obispo. ..-..The bottom line is that,'if the Cultural Heritage Commission(committee) is to have any credibility, nationally accepted standards published by Park Service must be used in making this and other decisions." The guidelines of the National Park Service have been considered and a decision indicated by those standards and guidelines has been made. It is the appellants who are ignoring or do not understand what is permitted by The Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines. If the appellants were_honest they would simply state that they don't want any old houses removed. The Standards are irrelevant to them. They,in an attempt to promote their fundamentalist view point ignore the requirement that each historical resource be considered separately. (Note: This house is not in an H-zone and must be evaluated separately.) 5 The problem'with the dogmatic approach advocated by the appellants is that it inevitably leads to blight and unsafe housing not good preservation planning. A successful appeal in this case will not result in the protection of a resource; it will result in the complete loss of one. These complex factors illustrate why the Secretary of Interior's Standards provide reasonable alternative treatments for historic structures. Everything must be considered when deciding what to do with a historic resource including "Relative importance in history.... Physical condition....Proposed use and Mandated code requirements...." Hopefully common sense and even the owner's preference might also be considered. Regarding the CHC's"credibility" --The CHC correctly applied NPS criteria and considered new information brought to their attention by two professionals who exceed the Secretary of Interior's Professional Qualification Standards- If the CHC had refused to duly consider the matter or had disregarded expert opinion,they would have completely lacked credibility. 6 r RECEIVED Filing Fee: $100.0 � Paid V'- CITY Cate Receivifo— APR 1 L92007 r ;.. . 0 CITY CLERK wa C1 APR u 4 'M7 *REFER TO SECTION 4 san lues oBlspo COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION 1. APPELLANT INFORMATION CA 9340 DAV LU 13k IE 1575 CAORRO, 5AN W15 OB15R� Name Mailing.Address and Zip Code S05 54.4 0409 - Phone Fax Chi Representative's Name 590NO RT-1 . Mailing Address and Zip Code AO5 54!1 %022. Title Phone Fax SECTION 2. SUBJECT OF APPEAL 1. In accordance with the procedures set forth in Title 1, Chapter 1.20 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (copy attached), I hereby appeal the decision of the: GULTUR.AL I.4ERMAGE COMM(SS- 109 (Name of Officer, Committee or Commission decision being appealed) 2. The date the decision being appealed was rendered: 3 2.6-707 3. The application or project was entitled: -"M II L AS— FRET FS A=Fsa C440P2R>> S L.0. 4. 1 discussed the matter with the following City staff member: 151-Alf-D _aT THE MEETING 7'7K T. WOULJz1ongF— AFMAIJN,G (Staff Member's Name and Department) (Date) 5. Has this matter been the subject of a previous appeal? If so, when was it heard and by whom: Nn SECTION 3. REASON FOR APPEAL Explain specifically what action/s you are appealing and.why you believe the Council should consider your appeal. Include what evidence you have that supporWyour appeal. You may attach additional pages, if necessary. This form continues on the other side. Page 1 of 3 I 1 Reason for Appeal continued SM AITA"E.D . SECTION 4. APPELLANTS RESPONSIBILITY The San Luis Obispo City Council values public participation in local government and encourages all forms of citizen involvement. However, due to real costs associated with City Council consideration of an appeal, including public notification, all appeals pertaining to a planning application or project are subject to a filing fee of$100',which must accompany the appeal form. Your right to exercise an appeal comes with certain responsibilities. If you file an appeal, please understand that it must be heard within 45 days from filing this form. You will be notified in writing of the exact date your appeal will be heard before the Council. You or your representative will be expected to attend the public hearing, and to be prepared to make your case. Your testimony is limited to 10 minutes. A continuance may be granted under certain and unusual circumstances. If you feel you need to request a continuance, you must submit your request in writing to the City Clerk. Please be advised that if your request for continuance is received after the appeal is noticed to the public,the Council may not be able to grant the request for continuance. Submitting a request for continuance does not guarantee that it will be granted,that action is at the discretion of the City Council. I hereby agree to appear and/or send a representative to appear on my behalf when said appeal is scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. 96VL X4 '0 (Signature of Appella (Date) Exceptions to the fee: 1)Appeals of Tree Committee decisions. 2)The above-named appellant has already paid the City$100 to appeal this same matter to a City official or Council advisory body. This item is hereby calendared for �✓��E �7, -Z d c: City Attorney City Administrative Officer Department Head —�l7.Q.vdEu.ct.E Advisory Body Chairperson C. eAO7-sEa- City Clerk(originaQ .l c1GF A& Page 2 of 3 8/03 AOv& 1>44/!AsbI✓ e 1 The existing residence at 868 Chorro Street is an except►onal historical building. Originally built as an adobe circa 1800,this residence has been identified as one of the few remaining"out-buildings"belonging to the Mission. Having the same orientation to Chorro Street as the nave of the Mission further ties the residence both physically and historically to the Mission. The history of the adobe is further evident through the clapboard additions which accommodated subsequent growing families. These clapboard additions did not adhere to a specific style but responded to the individual and authentic needs of the families who occupied this structure through the second half of the nineteenth century. What is historically significant is how this residence evolved over the past 200 years. The age of . these clapboard additions, dating back to at least 125 years, places them in an historical context which is as significant as the original adobe. The role of the Cultural Heritage Commission is to recognize our cultural heritage. Their decision,by a vote of 4 to 3,to permit demolition of these wooden structures is in direct conflict with their charge as a committee. The Secretary of the Interior's standards for the treatment of historical properties directs all decision-making in these cases and should be adhered to by the Cultural Heritage Commission. The CHC also decided to allow the remaining adobe to be partially surrounded by a three-story apartment building. This structure, in its entirety, should remain visible from Chorro Street as it contributes to the historical fabric of this part of town. Two Issues. One is the way the building is being evaluated The additions, since they are over 50 years old, are by definition historic. The historic integrity and significance should not be evaluated as free-standing examples in comparison to other free-standing examples. They should be evaluated in the context of the entire building,to whose historic significance they contribute in an organic and historically predictable way when compared to other historic adobes. The second issue is the choice of appropriate treatment, whether it is going to be preservation,rehabilitation,restoration,or reconstruction as defined by the Secretary's Standards. The choice here seems to be restoration, which requires that the historic significance of restoring a building to a particular moment in time, in terms of historic events, people, styles, etc., outweighs the loss of other historic and possibly significant features. This has to be documented. Lastly, the CHC's recent decision will establish an unhealthy precedent with regards to all remaining historically-listed and contributing properties in San Luis Obispo. If this unprecedented decision becomes the rule,rather than the exception, all the qualities that distinguish San Luis Obispo from other communities will disappear forever. The bottom line is that,if the Cultural Heritage Commission is to have any credibility,nationally accepted standards published by the Park Service must be used in making this and other decisions. National Park Service, Interior and materials of an historic property. spaces and spatial relationships. Where Work, including preliminary measures a treatment and use have not been to protect and stabilize the property, identified, a property.will be protected generally focuses upon the ongoing and, if necessary, stabilized until addi- maintenance and repair of historic ma- tional work may be undertaken. 'terials and features rather than exten- (2) The historic character of a prop- sive replacement and new construction. erty will be retained and preserved. New exterior additions are not within The replacement of intact or repairable the scope of this treatment; however, historic materials or alteration of fea- the limited and sensitive upgrading of tures, spaces and spatial relationships mechanical, electrical and plumbing that characterize a property will be systems and other code-required work avoided. to make properties functional is appro- (3) Each property will be recognized priate within a preservation project. as a physical record of its time, place (b) Rehabilitation means the act or and use. Work needed to stabilize, con- process of making possible an efficient solidate and conserve existing historic compatible use for a property through materials and features will be phys- repair, alterations and additions while ically and visually compatible, identi- preserving those portions or features fiable upon close inspection and prop- that convey its historical, cultural or erly documented for future research. architectural values. (4) Changes to a property that have (c) Restoration means the act or proc- acquired historic significance in their ess of accurately depicting the form, own right will be retained and pre- features and character of a property as served. it appeared at a particular period of (5) Distinctive materials, features. time by means of the removal of fea- finishes and construction techniques or tures from other periods in its history examples of craftsmanship that charac- and reconstruction of missing features terize a property will be preserved. from the restoration period. The lim- (6) The existing condition of historic ited and sensitive upgrading of me- features will be evaluated to determine chanical, electrical and plumbing sys- the appropriate level of intervention tems and other code-required work to needed. Where the severity of deterio- make properties functional is appro- ration requires repair or limited re- priate within a restoration project. placement of a distinctive feature, the (d) Reconstruction means the act or new material will match the old in process of depicting, by means of new composition, design, color and texture. construction, the form, features and (7) Chemical or physical treatments, detailing of a non-surviving site, land- if appropriate, will be undertaken sca.pe, building, structure or object for using the gentlest means possible. the purpose of replicating its appear- Treatments that cause damage to his- ance at a specific period,'of time and in toric materials will not be used. its historic location. (8) Archeological resources will be §68 3 Standards. protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, miti- One set of standards—preservation, gation measures will be undertaken. rehabilitation, restoration or recon- (b) Rehabilitation. (1) A property will struction—will apply to a property un- be used as it was historically or be dergoing treatment, depending upon given a new use that requires minimal the property's significance, existing change to its distinctive materials, fea- physical condition, the extent of docu- tures, spaces and spatial relationships. mentation available and interpretive (2) The historic character of a prop- goals, when applicable. The standards erty will be retained and preserved. will be applied taking into consider- The removal of distinctive materials or ation the economic and technical feasi- alteration of features, spaces and spa- bility of each project. tial relationships that characterize a (a)Preservation. (1)A property will be property will be avoided. used as it was historically, or be given (3) Each property will be recognized a new use that maximizes the retention as a physical record of its time, place of distinctive materials, features, and use. Changes that create a false 363 §68.3 36 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-02 Edition) sense of historical development, such (3) Each property will be recognized as adding conjectural features or ele- as a physical record of its time, place ments from other historic properties, and use. Work needed to stabilize, con- will not be undertaken. solidate and conserve materials and (4) Changes to a property that have features from the restoration period acquired historic significance in their will be physically and visually compat- own right will be retained and pre- ible, identifiable upon close inspection served. and properly documented for future re- (5) Distinctive materials, features, search. finishes and construction techniques or (4) Materials, features, spaces and examples of craftsmanship that charac- finishes that characterize other histor- terize a property will be preserved. ical periods will be documented prior (6)Deteriorated historic features will to their alteration or removal. be repaired rather than replaced. (5) Distinctive materials, features, Where the severity of deterioration re- finishes and construction techniques or quires replacement of a distinctive fea- examples of craftsmanship that charac- ture, the new feature will match the terize the restoration period will be old in design, color, texture and, where preserved. possible, materials. Replacement of (6) Deteriorated features from the missing features will be substantiated restoration period will be repaired by documentary and physical evidence. rather than replaced. Where the sever- ity of deterioration requires .replace- if appropriate, will be undertaken ment of a distinctive feature, the new using the gentlest means possible. feature will match the old sdesign. Treatments that cause damage to his- color, texture and, where possible, ma- toric materials will not be used. finals" (8) Archeological resources will be (7) Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be sub- protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, miti stanti by documentary and ical evidence. A false sense of history gation measures will be undertaken. will not be created by adding conjec- (9) New additions, exterior alter- tural features, features from other ations or related new construction will properties, or by combining features not destroy historic materials, features that never existed together histori- and spatial relationships that charac- may. terize the property. The new work will (8) Chemical or physical treatments, be differentiated from the old and will if appropriate, will be undertaken be compatible with the historic mate- using the gentlest means possible. rials, features, size, scale and propor- Treatments that cause damage to his- tion, and massing to protect the integ- toric materials will not be used. rity of the property and its environ- (9) Archeological resources affected ment. by a project will be protected and pre- (10)New additions and adjacent or re- served in place. If such resources must lated new construction will be under- be disturbed, mitigation measures will taken in such a manner that, if re- be undertaken. moved in the future, the essential form (10)Designs that were never executed and integrity of the historic property historically will not be constructed. and its environment would be (d) Reconstruction. (1) Reconstruction unimpaired. will be used to depict vanished or non- (c) Restoration. (1) A property will be surviving portions of a property when used as it was historically or be given documentary and physical evidence is a new use that interprets the property available to permit accurate recon- and its restoration period. struction with minimal conjecture and (2) Materials and features from the such reconstruction is essential to the restoration period will be retained and public understanding of the property. preserved. The removal of materials or (2) Reconstruction of a landscape, alteration of features, spaces and'spa- building, structure or object in its his- tial relationships that characterize the toric location will be preceded by a period will not be undertaken. thorough archeological investigation 364 National Park Service, Interior §71.3 to identify and evaluate those features §71.1 Application. and artifacts that are essential to an This part is promulgated pursuant to accurate reconstruction. If such re- section 4, Land and Water Conserva- sources must be disturbed, mitigation tion Fund Act of 1885, 16 U.S.C.A. 4601- measures will be undertaken. 6a (Supp., 1974), and section 3, Act of (3)Reconstruction will include meas- July U, 1972, 86 Stat. 461..Any Federal ures to preserve any remaining historic recreation fee charged by any bureau of materials, features, and spatial rela- the Department of the Interior shall be tionships. charged according to criteria set forth (4).Reconstruction will be based on in this part. the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by §71.2 Types of Federal recreation fees. documentary or physical evidence There shall be three types of Federal rather than on conjectural designs or recreation fees: the availability of different features (a) Entrance fees, charged either on from other historic properties. A recon- an annual or single-visit basis, for ad- structed property will re-create the ap- mission to any Designated Entrance pearance of the non-surviving historic Fee Area; property in materials, design, color and (b) Daily recreation use fees for the texture. use of specialized sites, facilities, (5) A reconstruction will be clearly equipment or services furnished at Fed- identified as a contemporary re-cre- eral expense; and ation. (cj Special recreation permit fees for specialized recreation uses, such as, (6) Designs that were never executed but not limited to, group activities, historically will not be constructed. recreation events, and the use of mo- torized recreation vehicles. PART 71—RECREATION FEES §71.3 Designation. Sec. (a) An area or closely related group 71.1 Application. of areas shall be designated as an area 71.2 Types of Federal recreation fees. at which entrance fees shall be charged 71.3 Designation. (hereinafter "Designated Entrance Fee 71.4 Posting. Area") if,the following conditions are 71.5 Golden Eagle Passport. found to exist concurrently: 71.6 Golden Age Passport. (1)The area is a unit of the National 71.7 Entrance fees for single-visit permits. Park System administered by the De- 71.8 Validation and display of entrance per- partment of the Interior,. mics. (2) The area is administered pri- 71.9 Establishment of recreation use fees. marily for scenic, scientific, historical, 71.10 Special recreation permits and special cultural, or recreation purposes; recreation permit fees. (3) The area has recreation facilities 71.11 Collection of Federal recreation fees. or services provided at Federal ex- 71.12 Enforcement. pease; and 71.13 Exceptions, exclusions, and exemp- (4) The nature of the area is such tions, that entrance fee collection is adminis- 71.14 Public notification. tratively and economically practical. 71.15 The Golden Eagle.Insignia. (b) Any specialized site, facility, AUTHORITY: Sec. 4. Land and Water Con- equipment or service related to out- servation Fund Act of 1965 (16 U.S.C.A. 4601- door recreation (hereinafter "facility") 6a (Supp., 1974)), as amended by Pub. L. 93- shall be designated as a facility for 303; and sec. 3, Act of July Il, 1972, 86 Stat. which a recreation use fee shall be 461; sec. 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 3 of charged (hereinafter "Designated 1950(64 Stat.1262). Recreation Use Facility")if: SOURCE:39 FR 33217, Sept. 16, 1974.Redesig- (1) For each Designated Recreation nated at 44 FR 7143, Feb. 6, 1979, and 46 FR Use Facility, at least one of the fol- 34329, July 1, 1981: correctly redesignated at lowing criteria is satisfied: 46 FR 43045, Aug. 26, 1981, unless otherwise (i) A substantial Federal investment noted. has been made in the facility, 365 ' `," n gag �" �• b � sem• � � � � �po b 'r � � O rD b w ,fs44 7-79T. zi Lif: ea[t�•dkrV.�� t :;iAllilli fig 1 Y. } F wow _ F j r 00 nj a a. •� cn �p a a uoSQ P IQ w CD eb CD fb cl- E CD ai CD Lk 6 ' 6 rL p' g RK � pnp FD o �D tno � RUQ ai � '� �• ° 0. �' o.. �' ``1' �' � Fns' o � � C f17 Ro c fn O fb 0. In- CD C~D G CS 0. w CD co OQ n '� n CD "'�'y��• � 0. .'7 ^n A) eb cr rb 0, � o- ^ �• Yd �'- c�. � �. � �' o � � 5' `� c o B 9 c v' � �e` � y' � 5 �" R d0 w O' p' O' 7' vi' "CS td CL-rL ps C• w '' w w - �J 'O °,. r° �•'R 0.f yV �i O C �• p„ ^ Os ff• p' y =r el ^ rL Pr CA ig rL ^ o � E � , a 3ffDw9 � p�� `° oa' rsa w tl0 �r`i FiT �d^a091. � � O• �' � w' D 0 M. E!', n �j �h nL n p Q a , a O 5' o.v � 5o � „ o ^ co!. �- vo R Cj :'• a w O- p �' w 9^, eb ^. 0.� R � 60 0., A- oo C. � ' �. � t '^ tea o c ^ rt LE tt a o aro o y o ao o Cbz Aa � w GwS390Ei' � 1.30u v' g �° � E. a o" � a o :; ce B arcc n.^ �o w ^ a o f� R a s M fe w M. � a CD a ^ y o p S pj p to O 'TJ G. �j•• �' �An o a a w p.,.0 ' 't7 $p a• fE O �' dQ ° O '.'T_ n i O 'C� VO O SP C� ��-e C" ° �'• A- ,{*f' "O. a. C O a `�f➢• w a �u-e '*� ^. [`D 'U �'' G �.'-`� 0�,,. ^ O ' O O p, to �. o_ � � fi "O a fn � FF��MM 0 � :(p0 5• ;• a � fyy, a � o yy��Iyyy1 ° N ° O. O ^ w fly y ►� y • o Epp R o w .a o Y m M- °w o� w eLW= � ao . oa `oa ie0 �. ° ,n � � bo EG � •, `�� y p. � a � f° � G' ° EE. ° a ° oO5' op elAcra � w � � c H ma eia �• fin' a ..• Q fp to w. w^ �..., a ryp�i'D� cc: ; = � _ o O ,0D_ W ' aw p' R - N' GO d`5wOSo O o `' y n . � fT nO . OO �D C ' wFo o p a a -., pELf, 6c m ^ 0. O rz tog 4. o- Rc Oa p C � b � Cl- S' =zr d ' a eb El KPCD = �• R po -aQ �k�+ a t5. ��'DD* c_ o o `G� ao do ,f^D L': �j• (��. ,7� ��, p V� r 0. (D fY' Gam' n !QC' �.aq El uo O '.7 CD ^.'C 'p'^ �' (gyp p' j 't �C' " « • y "}�G�• •.D t`A CD (� �(fp. O O.O o a a P6 n tom/ in- p ,.� N 'G r�ry0 .1�.' 0 `G b 'O r�i �' '+ r'1 e! Ap� y "' rL N� ° "3 W `� p r-L IM- 0- _. N N R y meg ' °: `^° ° � o o 8 " o c. c °' . � ° `� o O O n r1 VF''i, ' T"� !D• «`p3 CL °•� '+ w o �r 'Cy o . o A"GQQ n 0 0 0 ... Rg °- b ii�3 ins A I f * oa c o0. °0_ Cb Bt 8o ] R ,�- 0 � � 2 wl N. �' n0 - A Y ZI N E 5 0 Vp �• w ?' �l.' .n .F"'i 'o o •3 0 .fYFCf' F "°"'' Com'•� � `� "h n A:13 EEL aq ED- tr3L �p �b ] w oro o ti `] CA- ro r^o 0.- w r-Lr v,, N m '� �4'Fryy < 0' �-r O }� 8 �D !g O y e ° RD OF 0. 7 V p .��• t� �. A R. fD -T A• D y N O n 6- 8 Pte' ei + w � yy n rP .� ` p O fA .q ti.. " � R Q. 1�T, �]. /1 a• ...•�. �. ] n ¢ o• '. �'� C �• ��]' RD 03. $4 O• G0. /' 'C7 ,� 0.'D = .� �'' � °°o � ] ° � o UO " von' � �• A �l �, �a ° SC7k ' om 00 < ro 0. N ? n . 0 ' w � � . 0 =r ] m ' T 00 O" ° Ea0 �� ' " ' to w p. n ((apST ^ 61� rc o �� "� �+ !c fA P� C r• ��•' s sr a c °' rs w v $ w �. a9 o � . . f14 " D- 0,SQ `J ri a3' oo T p ] ' y cro �]' w =' n �III�IIII�111118I� ��,��III �IIIIIIIIIIII l �` ~ II I(I OBISPOc, o san 1�u�s 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 April 20, 2007 David Brodie 873 Chorro San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: APPEAL OF CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE HISTORICAL DETERMINATION—ARC 201-06 (868 CHORRO). Dear Mr. Brodie: In reference to your appeal being heard by the City Council, City code requires an appeal to be set for the next reasonably available council meeting, but in no event later than forty-five calendar days after the date of the filing of such notice of appeal with the City Clerk. Although you have agreed by phone to permit us to schedule your appeal after the 45 day deadline (i.e. May 19, 2007), we require a signed acknowledgement. Therefore, please sign and return this letter to the City Clerk's Office no later than May 151. An envelope has been enclosed for your convenience. If you have any questions, please give me a call at 781-7104. 2af, David Brodie Sincerely, tyoper . City Clerk OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. city of Sm Luis 0hlepo June 18, 2007 Admfntatredon Mayor Dave Romero HR Din San Luis Obispo City Council JUN 2 5 ;WJ PwnIQ 990 Palm Street _7 San Luis Obispo, California 93401 -d FYA ;V -AF ROUTE HANDLE CC: City Council Members Ken Hampian, CAO SLO Dear Mayor Romero, Thank you for reviewing the appeal of my application at the June 5th, 2007 council meeting. I know the issue was difficult. As someone who has been involved in local government,I understand the difficulties of your position. I would also like to apologize for speaking out of turn at the meeting. Frustration is not an excuse for rudeness. I was less frustrated with the new list of contradictory justifications coming from the appellants than I was with the underlying insinuationsre arding my respect for my family,my intentions for the property, and even my character. Council member Mulholland's comments were reflective of those made by the appellants at previous meetings and in their conversations with other people in the community. Coming from people who don't know the house, my family, or me, their statements have been difficult to handle. Below I address these subjects,not because I want sympathy or to court your vote, but to help you understand why I don't share the appellant's reverence for this old, moldy, dilapidated, falling-down house. I also want to correct the asides regarding my respect for my family and my intentions for the property. I take my reputation seriously. My experience and my family's experience have nothing in common with those_:whospoke at the meeting. It is very apparent when these people compare my house to Montice I llo,"4nd berate me for not keeping the place up to their standards, that they have no idea what the neighborhood or the house was like when I grew up there. If they were to have visited my neighborhood fifty years ago, they would have found over-grown,unpainted, deteriorating dwellings. My grandmother's house had a black tar paper roof, shabby paint, and was in need of structural repair even then. MY grandfather,that prominent businessman George Freitas you learned about at the meeting, didn't live at that house. Today we would say he had substance abuse and anger control issues. He lived behind his bar down town: He had left my grandmother very early in their marriage and she raised her three children alone in the house after they had moved from Santa Maria. My grandmother worked as a waitress and at the laundry and farmed the property to make ends meet. The front of the property,now called over-grown by some, was even more overgrown at that time. It had a large crop garden and numerous fruit trees in front of the house. The appellant's romantic vision of the house never existed. Maintenance of the house beyond what was absolutely necessary was not a priority or even financially possible for my grandmother. Until she became sick, my grandmother was a bright,happy,positive person who would be laughing at the appellant's erudite reverence for her house. It was just a place to live. r My mother also had to support two children as a single mother much of her life. She worked for Cal Poly as the Foundation post mistress and then as a secretary earning a modest wage all of those years. She lived in the house, not because she wanted to, but because it cost little. After my grandmother became ill with cancer and heart problems,my mom became my grandmother's primary care giver and took care of her and supported her for almost two decades. Not until after her mother died and her children were out of the house,did my mother have the chance to do what she had wanted to do all her life--travel. She went on tours all over the country and to Europe. She probably could have sunk money into the house. I am glad she didn't Again, maintenance was never a priority because the task was financially overwhehnng to a person on a fixed and modest income who might want to do other things. We knew in the early nineties that the adobe portion of the house was failing due to earth movement. The whole frame roof was splitting and part of the wood portion's foundation had rotted away. There was no question at that point of trying to "rehabilitate" the house. The idea had always been to tear down the house and rebuild on the property. Mom knew and concurred with this plan. We made minimal repairs including roofing,painting and plumbing but nothing beyond what was absolutely needed to allow my mother to live there. My mother was never saw the 1980's Historic Resources Inventory or knew that the house was on the City Master List. I didn't learn that until 2005, after she died. Today,the house is still listed on the City Master List and state historical survey records as being owned by W.Y.Louis. Because of this error, among many others made by the CHC volunteers in the 80s, no notification was sent from either the City or the State to my mother. I made this point at a CHC meeting but was told that this was irrelevant This house and its history since 1800 have been aggrandized well beyond the bounds of reality by the appellants. After being built as a house or dormitory it became a barn or store house for much of its early history. After frame additions were added,it changed hands over and over again serving as a rental or transitional house for people until it was purchased by my family in 1919. The fact that the house was in a blighted condition well before I inherited it is conveniently overlooked by the appellants. The fact that no one in the right mind would spend the $900,000-$1,200,000 to rehabilitate the whole house is also overlooked by the appellants. They haven't demanded that the city purchase this historic property and rehabilitated it under the new C.O.S.E. guidelines because that path would be a politically dead end. The tax payer wouldn't stand for it They, instead,were demanding that I do it. What is considered to be a threat by me to allow the house to deteriorate into the ground isn't a threat at all; it is a rational decision based on priorities, fiscal realities, and family goals. This is exactly why the Secretary of Interior Standards allows many forms of preservation--feasibility and common sense. That is why restoring the adobe makes such good historical and practical sense. The insinuation that I am some how not respectful of my family or am greedy is defamatory. The two people who had the most influence on my life were my grandmother and my mother. They were all about character, social conscience and responsibility. They imparted some of those traits on me. This takes us to today. Based on the information I received after the meeting which includes the hint of more restrictions and directions, I am no longer convinced that this project will be fiscally prudent for my family. Frankly, I am tired of the whole mess. No matter what is proposed, we will be sent back to revise over and over again and I will be subjected to unhealthy and infuriating condescension. At this point,I have spent well over$40,000 trying to follow the city's directions and placate people like the appellants. I am not willing to go ahead with something that isn't a sure deal and isn't totally supported and valued by the city. I don't plan on spending my retirement savings on a project that will not benefit my family and I won't spend a cent on a development plan that isn't unique and beautiful. I have contacted a well known firm that restores adobes and will have a cost analysis conducted. I will approach the city when that research is concluded. Hopefully this will lead to a good conclusion for all. I hope you receive this letter in the spirit that it was sent and I hope that it gives you a better idea of my family's perspective. I hope that the city will take a long hard look at some of its policies regarding the restrictions you are putting on private property. As I said at the meeting,you may not be preserving anything,you may be encouraging blight and unsafe housing. As a native of San Luis Obispo, I am impressed with what has been done with the city in general. The creek where I used to spend many hours as a child and the rebuilding of the downtown is spectacular. But some of the attempts to meld the old with new to appease people like the appellants have failed disastrously. The new complex on Marsh and Peach and the ersatz Chinese styling of the garage next to my house come to mind. I would much rather see creative and excellent architecture befitting the seat of a growing and progressive county than poor attempts to mimic past eras. What is being presented as history by the appellants is more like nostalgia. It isn't very reflective of the people who actually lived here,not the people I knew. As a History major and long time history student,the idea that history is always lost if structures or parts of structures are removed, doesn't ring true. History is tied to the written word far more than it is to artifacts. It is understandable that a group of architects, and some one who makes his living in the rehabilitation industry, would value structures. However,the idea that all old houses,no matter what their condition, significance,or status as an exemplars,need to be preserved, leads to contradictory situations such as this one and to policies not supportable over time. Once you open the door to all vernacular(ordinary)houses older than 50 years,the whole impact and purpose of a preservation program is lost. Again, I apologize for talking out of turn at the meeting. I know better and there was no excuse or purpose in taking my frustrations out on the Council. Sincer ly, L