Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-2017 CHC Correspondence - Item 2 (Papp)  1   Architectural  History  Evaluation  of  the  Norcross  House   SUMMARY   At  its  22  May  2017  meeting,  the  Cultural  Heritage  Committee  asked  for  an  evaluation  of  the   David  Norcross  House  by  an  independent  architectural  historian,  focusing  on  the  historic   eligibility  of  the  rear  sections  of  the  house  that  had  been  proposed  for  demolition.  In  2014   applicant  had  presented  reports  to  the  CHC  (from  general  contractor  Steve  Molnar  on  the   cost  ineffectiveness  of  restoration  and  architectural  historian  Michael  Hibma  on  the   absence  of  historic  significance)  that  would  allow  for  the  demolition  of  all  of  the  house.   Believing  the  Hibma  report  flawed,  the  CHC  solicited  a  report  from  historian  Betsy   Bertrando  that  produced  additional  evidence  and  reached  a  radically  different  conclusion,   that  the  house  was  an  early  and  significant  city  building  and  eligible  for  historic  listing.  This   master  listing  the  CHC  recommended  and  the  City  Council  confirmed  on  18  November   2014.  In  2015  and  2017,  applicant  submitted  a  Paragon  Design  report  proposing   demolition  of  most  of  the  house,  justifying  it  based  on  the  rejected  Molnar  and  Hibma   reports,  as  well  as  a  report  by  real  estate  inspector  Barry  Stone  that  had  not  addressed  the   house’s  viability  or  historicity.  Hence  the  need  for  an  independent  evaluation.   Since  the  CHC’s  request  has  been  rejected  by  applicant,  I  respectfully  submit  an  evaluation   of  the  historicity  of  the  house  and  its  different  sections  as  documented  in  photographs,   Sanborn  maps,  contemporary  architectural  history,  and  on-­‐site  inspection  of  building   materials  and  techniques,  as  a  historian  and  architectural  historian  qualified  to  Secretary  of   the  Interior  professional  standards.  The  results  of  this  evaluation  indicate  that     •  the  first  story  of  the  northwest  wing  and  entirety  of  its  further  extension  are  documented   extant  within  2  years  of  the  1874  construction  of  the  Norcross  House  and  may  have  been   built  simultaneously  with  the  front  section  or  preceded  it;  there  is  no  documentary  or   structural  evidence  that  any  of  these  three  sections  is  the  “original”  house   •  the  2-­‐story  northeast  wing  and  its  rear  porch  (since  enclosed)  are  documented  extant  by   1886,  12  years  from  construction  of  the  house  and  within  the  period  of  significance  implied   in  City  Council’s  citation  of  the  house’s  historic  association  with  Sheriff  David  Norcross   (1874–1889)  and  Dr.  James  Sinclair  (1901–1906)   •  the  northwest  wing  and  its  extension  and  the  northeast  wing  are  character-­‐defining   features,  in  that  plainer  and  smaller  rear  or  side  wings,  often  constructed  of  different   materials,  were  integral  to  nineteenth-­‐century  house  design,  as  represented  by   contemporary  pattern  books,  and  integral  to  the  Norcross  House’s  design,  as  evidenced  by   their  early  and  persisting  presence  and  their  appearance  in  contemporary  photography   These  conclusions  present  the  CHC  with  the  issue  of  whether  the  demolition  of  these   character-­‐defining  features  would     •  violate  Secretary  of  the  Interior  standards  and  threaten  the  Norcross  House’s  eligibility   for  master  listing   •  disqualify  the  project  from  a  Class  31  exemption  from  environmental  review  and  trigger   an  exception  to  a  Class  32  exemption,  for  “substantial  adverse  change  in  the  significance  of   a  historic  resource,”  the  focus  of  the  22  May  2017  review    2   ARCHITECTURAL  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  THE  NORCROSS  HOUSE   Carpenter  Gothic                    The  only  surviving  Carpenter  Gothic  buildings  in  San  Luis  Obispo   are  the  1872  St.  Stephen’s  Episcopal  Church  (from  Richard  Upjohn’s  pattern  book  design)   and  1874  Norcross  House,  both  shown  in  Carleton  Watkins’  1876  inaugural  photograph  of   the  town  and,  with  the  Jack  Carriage  House,  two  of  the  three  wood  buildings  in  that   photograph  that  survive.  The  six  San  Luis  houses  Hibma  references  in  his  eligibility   evaluation  as  better  examples  of  Carpenter  Gothic  are  Stick,  Eastlake,  and  Queen  Anne   styles  from  1889–1900,  after  the  Gothic  Revival  in  domestic  architecture  was  over.   Gothic  cottage  from  Woodward’s   Architecture  and  Rural  Art.  Unlike  the   facade,  the  rear  wing  has  plain  window   frames  and  lacks  corbels  and  finials.     Seaside  cottage  from  Woodward’s   Architecture  and  Rural  Art.  Note  the   diminution  in  size  and  decoration  of  the   rear  wing. Rear  Wings  and  Additions                    Stylistic  characteristics  were  commonly  modified  in  the   nineteenth  century  (as  they  are  today)  in  rear  and  side  wings,  including  ones  built   simultaneously  with  street  facades.  Pattern  books  such  as  Samuel  Sloan’s  The  Model   Architect  (Philadelphia,  1852–53  to  1873)  and  Woodward’s  Architecture  and  Rural  Art   (New  York,  1867—68  )  show  that  rear  wings  in  a  T  or  L  configuration  were  common  in   nineteenth-­‐century  American  architecture  and  were  left  plainer  in  decoration  than  street   facades.  E.g.,  both  Sloan  (plates  32,  39,  and  56)  and  Woodward  (vol.  1,  fig.  186;  vol.  2,  figs.   24  and  26)  show  Gothic  and  Roman  arched  windows  replaced  by  rectangular  ones  in   ancillary  extensions,  while  roof  heights  recede.  A  difference  in  height  or  absence  of   decorative  elements  does  not  mean  a  wing  is  later  or  less  stylistically  “authentic”  if  it  is.  The   nineteenth-­‐century  architect  Andrew  Jackson  Downing  recommended  Italianate  over   Neoclassical  houses  as  being  asymmetric,  hence  more  amenable  to  additions  over  time.   Evolution  was  a  feature  of  nineteenth-­‐century  houses.  3     A  Woodward  villa.  The  side  service  wing,   though  visible  from  the  front,  is  rendered  in   different  materials,  possibly  intended  to   represent  vertical  board,  as  on  the   northwest  wing  of  the  Norcross  House.   Our  first  photographic  documentation  of   the  Norcross  House,  in  the  1876  Carleton   Watkins  panorama,  shows  the  front   section,  northwest  wing,  and  that  wing’s   extension.  We  have  no  means  of  knowing   which  part  was  built  first  or  whether  all   were  built  together,  though  we  do  know   that  the  arrangement  depicted—of  more   stylistically  elaborated  street  facade  and   less  elaborated  rear  wing—was  common   in  contemporary  architectural  pattern   books  and  that  within  two  years  of  initial   construction  all  were  extant.  Major   additions  to  a  building  within  two  years   of  its  construction  would  be  unusual   though  certainly  possible.   Below:  Southern  mansion  from  The  Model   Architect.  Decoration  decreases  as  the  rear   wing  extends  further  from  the  front  facade   into  the  family  and  service  areas.        4   PERIOD  OF  SIGNIFICANCE   The  period  of  significance  for  the  Norcross  House’s  historic  associations  extends  from   1874,  when  it  was  occupied  by  Sheriff  David  Norcross,  to  1906,  when  Dr.  James  Sinclair  is   recorded  by  the  Pacific  Coast  Journal  of  Homeopathy  as  having  moved  from  San  Luis  Obispo   to  Berkeley.  All  elements  of  the  current  house  were  extant  by  1906  except  the  second  story   on  the  northwest  wing,  the  lean-­‐to  at  the  end  of  its  extension,  the  porch  along  the   extension’s  northeast  flank,  the  bathroom  bay  on  the  southwest  wall,  and  the  enclosure  of   the  northeast  wing’s  porch.  This  is  true  by  1886,  3  years  before  Norcross’s  death.   Historic  houses  have  one  period  of  significance.  A  contradictory  period  of  “architectural   significance”  would  be  uncommon  practice.  However,  setting  a  period  of  architectural   significance  is  often  based  on  the  expedient  of  available  of  documentation,  and  the   Norcross  House  has  photographic  documentation  bookending  the  period  1876–1904,   which  is  a  near  match  to  our  period  of  significance  for  historic  association.  Within  2  years   of  initial  construction  we  have  some  and  within  12  years  virtually  all  of  the  currently  extant   sections  of  the  house  built,  according  to  the  1876  Watkins  photograph  and  1886  Sanborn   map.  Given  the  evolution  of  houses,  it  would  be  unusual  to  set  the  period  of  significance  for   the  initial  year  of  construction,  even  if  we  knew  what  had  been  constructed  first,  which,  in   the  case  of  the  Norcross  House,  we  do  not.  The  period  of  significance  of  Hearst  Castle,  for   instance,  is  set  at  1947,  the  year  construction  of  the  various  sections  was  ended.   The  repeated  reference  by  applicant  to  the  front  section  of  the  house  being  “original”  and   other  sections  not  is  irrelevant,  as  Sanborn  maps  and  photographs  show  virtually  all  of  the   rear  wings  extant  during  the  period  of  significance,  whether  that  is  taken  as  ending  in  1889   (as  applicant’s  architectural  historian  proposes)  or  1906  (as  the  City  Council  has  implied  in   its  ruling).  That  said,  applicant  has  presented  no  documentary  evidence  of  which  section  of   the  house  is  “original”  and  no  documentary,  structural,  or  socio-­‐historical  evidence  that  the   front  section  of  the  house  “was  built  to  stand  alone.”  Photographic  and  contemporary   socio-­‐historical  evidence,  in  fact,  lead  to  the  opposite  conclusion.   Additionally,  there  is  structural  evidence  that  the  front  section  and  rear  wing  shown  in  the   1876  photograph  were  built  at  the  same  or  almost  the  same  time,  given  that,  for  instance,   •  stylistically  identical  Rumford  fireplaces,  which  are  characteristic  of  mid-­‐nineteenth-­‐ century  fireplace  technology  and  soon  outmoded  after  1874  (the  1878  Jack  House  has   enclosed  coal  fireplaces)  exist  in  both  the  front  section  and  northwest  wing  of  the  house   •  the  windows  of  the  front  section  and  the  first  floor  of  the  northwest  wing  are  identical  in   size,  proportions,  and  construction   •  the  unusual  or  perhaps  unique  baseboards  are  also  identical  between  the  two  sections   Evidence  presented  by  applicant  for  different  eras  in  the  different  sections  is  ambiguous  at   best,  e.g.,  the  fact  that  an  upstairs  bedroom  fireplace  in  the  front  section  is  smaller  than  a   downstairs  fireplace  in  the  northwest  wing.  This  is  to  be  expected;  fireplaces  were  hand   built  to  the  owner’s  requirements,  not  mass  produced.  The  superior  brick  quality  of  the   fireplace  in  the  front  section  may  have  been  a  function  of  supply  or  may  even  mean  it  was   built  later,  after  inferior  brick  performed  poorly.  Naturally  the  floor  joists  are  of  different   orientation  between  front  and  rear  sections  because  of  the  different  orientations  of  the    5   sections  (the  joists  running  lengthwise).  Differing  size  of  joists  (2x8  in  the  front  section   versus  2x6  in  the  northwest  wing)  can  be  explained  by  their  relative  load-­‐bearing   necessities.  All  joists  have  true  rather  than  modern  finished  dimensions,  which  places   them,  even  absent  photographic  and  cartographic  evidence,  in  the  early  era  of  construction.   The  foundation  has  plenty  of  jury  rigging  in  both  the  front  and  rear  sections  (as  pointed  out   in  Barry  Stone’s  inspection),  and  much  of  the  jury  rigging  clearly  dates  from  later  periods.   More  notable  than  any  differences  between  the  construction  in  the  front  section,  on  the  one   hand,  and  the  northwest  wing  and  its  further  extension,  on  the  other—since  we  know  from   the  Watkins  photograph  that  all  were  extant  within  two  years  of  each  other—are  the   differences  between  the  first  and  second  story  of  the  northwest  wing.  A  section  of  studs  are   currently  exposed  in  the  first-­‐  and  second-­‐floor  walls.  Studs  in  the  first-­‐floor  wall  are  true   2x3s  and  on  the  second  floor  kiln  dried  and  finished  to  modern  dimensions,  matching  the   photographic  and  Sanborn  map  evidence  the  first  floor  was  extant  in  the  nineteenth   century  and  the  second  floor  added  probably  after  1956  and  certainly  after  1919.     Significantly,  on  the  first  floor  the  studs  support  exterior  siding  of  vertical  redwood  planks,   also  to  true  sizes,  closely  resembling  those  in  the  pre-­‐1876  Jack  Carriage  House.  On  the   later  second  floor  addition  there  are  no  such  planks.  The  current  horizontal  exterior  siding,   which  the  26  June  2017  Hibma  memorandum  points  out  does  not  match  between  sections,   was  added  later  on  top  of  the  planks,  possibly  when  the  second  floor  was  added.  The   presence  of  the  planks  (not  to  mention  the  true  2x3  studs)  under  the  siding  contradicts   Hibma’s  suggestion  that  only  the  windows  are  original  to  this  section.   Finally,  however,  what  part  of  the  house  was  built  first  and  how  soon  the  other  parts  were   added  is  irrelevant  given  their  documented  presence  in  the  period  of  significance.  All   sections  of  the  house  built  within  that  period  are  character-­‐defining  of  the  lives  of  Sheriff   Norcross  and  Dr.  Sinclair  and  the  nature  of  Victorian  design  with  articulated  street  facades   and  plainer,  more  functional  rear  wings,  whether  built  contemporaneously  or  not.  To   demolish  the  majority  of  the  house  in  order  to  present  a  reduced  version  that  we  have  no   means  of  knowing  ever  existed  in  that  form,  and  certainly  did  not  for  longer  than  two  years,   introduces  false  historicism  and  diminishes  understanding  of  the  structure  and  the  way  it   was  used  and  evolved.  The  City  Council  explicitly  recognized  the  integrity  of  the  house  and   master  listed  it  as  a  whole,  not  just  the  “original”  part—whatever  the  original  part  is.   HISTORIC  DOCUMENTATION   The  Norcross  House  is  well  documented  in  early  records  of  San  Luis  Obispo,  including     •  R.  R.  Harris’s  San  Luis  Obispo  County  map  of  1874,  showing  the  lot  owned  by  Norcross   •  a  25  April  1874  Tribune  piece  on  Sheriff  Norcross’s  “new  residence  in  this  town”   •  Carleton  Watkins’  iconic  1876  photograph,  the  more  famous  of  the  first  two  panoramic   photographs  of  San  Luis  Obispo,  both  by  the  noted  California  landscape  photographer   •  E.  S.  Glover’s  1877  engraving  Bird’s  Eye  View  of  San  Luis  Obispo,  Cal.   •  Sanborn  maps  dating  from  1886  through  1956   •  L.  M.  Fitzhugh’s  photograph  in  J.  H.  Tigner’s  1904  Souvenir  San  Luis  Obispo  Fire   Department    6   •  a  circa  1919  photograph  taken  from  the  front  yard  of  the  Robert  Pollard  House.   THE  1876  CARLETON  WATKINS  PHOTOGRAPH     Carleton  Watkins,  San  Luis  Obispo,  1876  (Courtesy  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art)     Detail  from  the  1876  Carleton  Watkins  photograph,  showing  the  Norcross  House  in  profile   As  Betsy  Bertrando  points  out  in  her  report,  the  Norcross  House  “appears  today  much  as  it   was  in  the  Watkins  photograph  of  1876”  (detail  above).  Today,  the  northwest  wing  has  the   same  fenestration  on  the  ground  floor,  and  the  further  wing  attached  to  it  retains  the  same   proportions  and  fenestration,  apart  from  one  window  having  been  replaced  with  a  door.  7   BIRD’S  EYE  VIEW  OF  SAN  LUIS  OBISPO,  CAL.     This  detail  from  the  1877  engraving   shows  the  same  arrangement  of  front   section,  northwest  wing,  and  further   more  diminutive  wing  attached  to  it,  as  in   the  Watkins  photograph  a  year  earlier.   SANBORN  MAPS   1886  and  1888                    The  1886  map,  the  first  to  show  the  west  end  of  San  Luis  Obispo,   shows  the  front  section  of  the  Norcross  House  at  approximately  30’  wide  and  16’  deep,  a   rear  wing  approximately  26’  wide  and  14’  deep,  undifferentiated  from  the  front  section  as   two  stories.  A  further  1-­‐story  wing  approximately  12’  wide  and  31’  deep  extends  back  from   the  northwest  corner.  A  front  porch  about  7’  deep  spans  the  entire  width  of  the  house;  a   back  porch,  approximately  12’  wide  and  8’  deep,  is  tucked  in  the  corner  formed  by  the  rear   wing  and  the  long  1-­‐story  wing  off  the  back.     The  1888  Sanborn  reproduces  the  same  footprint  and  dimensions.   1891  and  1903/5                    The  1891  map  makes  some  emendations  to  the  Norcross  House.   The  front  section  of  the  house  is  described  as  1½  stories  rather  than  2,  given  that  the   second  story  is  built  into  the  front  and  side  gables,  and  it  measures  approximately  30’  wide   and  16’  deep.  The  northeastern  side  of  the  rear  wing  is  labeled  2  stories,  the  northwestern   side  labeled  1  story.  The  furthest  rear  extension  continues  to  be  labeled  1  story.  The  2-­‐ story  northeast  wing  is  shown  approximately  14’  wide  and  14’  deep,  the  1-­‐story  northwest   wing  14’  wide  and  21’  deep,  and  the  furthest  rear  wing  13’  wide  and  21’  deep.     The  1903/5  map  reproduces  the  same  footprint  and  dimensions,  detail  shown  above.   The  total  depth  of  the  rear  and  furthest  rear  wings  in  the  1891  and  1903/5  maps,  42’,   compared  to  the  45’  in  the  1886  map,  may  be  a  mapping  error  or  represent  construction  at   the  far  end  of  the  furthest  wing.   The  1886  and  1891  Maps  and  the  Carleton  Watkins  and  L.  M.  Fitzhugh  Photographs                     The  representation  of  the  rear  wing  as  a  unified  2  stories  in  the  1886  and  1888  Sanborn   seems  to  be  a  cartographical  elision  or  error,  given  that  the  1876  Carleton  Watkins   photograph  and  Glover  engraving  show  a  1-­‐story  wing  and  the  1891  map  shows  a  1-­‐story   wing  that  matches  it  in  position  and  dimensions.  The  1891  correction  is  continued  in   1903/5,  1909,  and  1926.     The  1891–1926  Maps  Compared  with  the  L.  M.  Fitzhugh  Photograph                    The   photograph  of  the  Norcross  House  in  the  1904  Souvenir  San  Luis  Obispo  Fire  Department  is   taken  from  slightly  to  the  east  of  the  facade,  hence  makes  the  2-­‐story  northeast  wing  clearly   visible.  8   Norcross  House  in   the1886  Sanborn  map       Norcross  House  in  the   1926  Sanborn  map     Norcross  House  in  the   1903/5  Sanborn  map         Aerial  view  of  Norcross   House  today           1926                    Rather  than  produce  new  maps  of  San  Luis  Obispo  after  1926,  the  Sanborn   company  pasted  over  the  original  map  to  represent  additions  and  demolitions  as  late  as   1956.  The  Norcross  House,  however,  shows  no  changes  over  those  three  decades.  The  1926    9   map  continues  to  represent  the  house  as  1½  stories  in  the  front  section,  2  stories  in  the   northeast  wing,  1  story  in  the  northwest  wing,  and  1  story  in  the  furthest  rear  wing.     The  1-­‐story  northwest  wing  is  shown  approximately  19’  deep,  the  two-­‐story  northeast   wing  13’  deep,  with  a  5’-­‐deep  porch  behind  it  (currently  walled  in).  The  furthest  rear  wing   is  shown  34’  deep,  with  a  5’  porch  running  22’  along  it.  This  porch  is  extant  today  alongside   the  entire  length  of  the  gabled  part  of  the  furthest  wing,  the  part  represented  in  the  1903/5   map.  The  further  9–10’  in  depth  of  this  wing  in  the  1926  map  could  be  provided  by  the   lean-­‐to  currently  extant  at  the  end,  suggesting  it  was  added  after  1905  but  before  1926.  By   1926  a  1-­‐story  bay  has  been  added  to  the  southwest  side  of  the  house,  between  the  front   and  rear  sections.   The  1926  Map  Compared  with  the  Circa  1919  Photograph   The  photograph  (below)  confirms  the  northwest  wing  remained  single-­‐story  till  a  later   period.  It  was  taken  before  the  addition  of  the  southwest  bay.       CONCLUSION                       The  Norcross  House,  as  established  by  Betsy  Bertrando  (see  appendix)  was  built  in  1874,   and  by  1876  the  1½-­‐story  front  section,  1-­‐story  northwest  rear  wing,  and  further  1-­‐story   wing  extending  from  that  were  all  photographically  documented  as  extant.  Matching   elements  suggest  the  front  section  and  northwest  wing  may  have  been  built  at  more  or  less   the  same  time;  there  is  no  evidence  which  was  built  first.  By  1886,  3  years  before  the  death   of  Sheriff  Norcross,  the  2-­‐story  northeast  wing  was  extant,  documented  through  the   Sanborn  map  of  that  year.  It  appears  in  a  photograph  in  1904,  during  Dr.  Sinclair’s   residence.  A  more  accurate  view  of  the  relationship  between  the  1½-­‐story  front  section   and  1-­‐  and  2-­‐story  rear  wings—consistent  with  the  footprint  shown  in  1886—occurs  in  the    10   1891  Sanborn  map.  The  porch  on  the  furthest  wing  was  added  between  1905  and  1926,  the   southwest  bay  between  1919  and  1926.  In  1956,  the  northwest  wing  is  recorded  by  the   Sanborn  map  as  being  1-­‐story  and  is  1-­‐story  in  a  photograph  circa  1919.     Within  the  period  of  historical  significance  of  the  Norcross  House  as  established  by  the  City   Council,  i.e.,  the  residence  of  Sheriff  Norcross  and  Dr.  Sinclair,  all  current  sections  of  the   house  are  documented  to  have  been  extant  with  the  exception  of  the  second  story  of  the   northwest  wing,  lean-­‐to  and  porch  of  the  furthest  wing,  and  southwest  bay.  Thus  the   council’s  master  listing  of  the  entire  house,  not  just  one  section  of  it,  was  appropriate.   The  Norcross  House’s  rear  wings  were  not  “scabbed  on”  at  an  indeterminate  time  but  are   early,  integral,  persistent,  and  character-­‐defining  features  of  its  mid-­‐  to  late-­‐nineteenth-­‐ century  architectural  organization  and  appearance.     —James  Papp,  Chair,  Cultural  Heritage  Committee     APPENDIX  :  TIMELINE  OF  REPORTS  ON  THE  NORCROSS  HOUSE   Barry  Stone,  12  March  2014                    A  report  by  a  member  of  the  California  Real  Estate   Inspection  Association  for  John  Belsher,  PB  Properties,  identified  examples  of  deferred   maintenance,  deterioration,  and  substandard  construction  ranging  from  foundation  to   painting,  roofing,  and  fencing  and  recommended  further  evaluation  by  a  licensed  structural   engineer.   Steve  Molnar,  29  May  2014                    This  three-­‐page  letter  from  the  general  contractor  to   Higuera  Commons  LLC  concluded  “there  is  simply  no  efficient  way  to  restore  this  building,”   given  that  it  would  cost  at  least  $500  per  square  foot  and  be  more  expensive  than  new   construction.     Michael  Hibma,  July  2014                    The  historian  and  architectural  historian  from  LSA’s   Richmond,  California  office,  contracted  by  John  Belsher,  PB  Companies,  prepared  a  July   2014  eligibility  evaluation  for  historic  listing  of  546  Higuera  Street,  as  well  as  a  9  July  2014   DPR  523.  Hibma’s  report  concluded  that  546  Higuera  was  not  eligible  for  historic  listing,   but  he  made  a  number  of  assumptions  that  would  turn  out  to  be  incorrect  and  undermine   his  conclusion,  including  that   •    the  house  was  built  in  the  year  1886,  the  year  it  first  appeared  on  a  Sanborn  map,  though   there  had  been  no  Sanborn  map  of  the  west  end  of  San  Luis  Obispo  previously   •    hence  the  Carpenter  Gothic  style  in  domestic  architecture  was  used  atypically  later  in  this   case  than  elsewhere   •    the  Carleton  Watkins  photograph  of  San  Luis  Obispo  from  the  west,  in  which  546  Higuera   appears  and  which  is  known  to  have  been  taken  in  1876,  actually  dates  to  circa  1900   •    San  Luis  Obispo  has  other  and  superior  Carpenter  Gothic  domestic  buildings   •    the  rear  wings  of  the  house  were  “alterations  to  the  original  function  and  historic  fabric”   of  the  building,  though  they  are  present  in  the  1886  Sanborn  map  and  no  subsequent   permits  turned  up  for  them  in  the  historic  permit  record    11   Bertrando  Report,  October  2014                    At  the  request  of  the  Cultural  Heritage  Committee,   historian  Betsy  Bertrando  prepared  a  report  on  the  building  that  identified  the  correct   date1  of  the  Watkins  panorama  as  1876,  establishing  photographic  evidence  of  the  house— including  front  section  and  two  rear  wings—by  that  date.  She  also  connected  the  lot  to   Sheriff  David  Copeland  Norcross  through  the  R.  R.  Harris  county  map  and  a  2  March  1874   deed,  additionally  finding  a  25  April  1874  Tribune  reference  to  Norcross’s  “new  residence   in  this  town.”     Master  Listing,  18  November  2014                    The  City  Council  subsequently  added  the   building  to  San  Luis  Obispo’s  Master  List  of  Historic  Resources  as  (1)  “a  rare  and  unique   example  of  a  late-­‐nineteenth-­‐century  owner-­‐built  residence  that  exhibits  the  Gothic  Revival   style,”  (2)  a  house  “at  least  140  years  old,”  (3)  the  residence  of  Sheriff  David  Norcross  and   county  hospital  lead  physician  Dr.  James  Sinclair,  and  (4)  a  “house  [that]  exhibits  historic   integrity”  and  whose  “historic  character  and  appearance  have  been  maintained.”  Notably,   the  council  did  not  distinguished  different  sections  of  the  house  from  one  another  in  its   ruling  of  historic  integrity.     Paragon  Design  Report,  27  April  2015  and  30  July  2015                    This  report,  contracted  to   John  Belsher  and  presented  to  the  CHC  at  its  27  April  2015  meeting  and  again,  with  the   same  analytical  content  but  modifications  to  the  proposed  design,  at  its  22  May  2017   meeting,  posits  that  the  front  section  of  the  house  is  “ORIGINAL”  and  that  the  rear  wings   “were  done  over  a  period  of  time  since  the  original  Norcross/Sinclair  House  was  built  and   are  of  shoddy  construction,  as  documented  in  the  Hibma,  Molnar,  and  Stone  reports.”     Hibma  indeed  claimed  that  the  rear  portions  were  added  on  later,  though  he  did  specify   when  and  did  not  document  his  claim.  The  real  estate  inspector  Barry  Stone  did  not   distinguish  between  the  different  sections  of  the  house;  neither  did  the  general  contractor   Steve  Molnar,  who  proposed  none  of  the  structure  was  eligible  for  restoration.   The  Paragon  Design  report  also  refers  to  the  rear  wings  as  “scabbed  on,”  which  is  a  term   referring  to  the  expedient  addition  of  a  board  into  wall  frame  for  attaching  such  things  as   paneling  or  electrical  boxes.  Inspection  shows  the  rear  wings  of  the  Norcross  House  have   their  own  foundations,  joists,  and  structural  systems  and  are  not  scabbed  on.   Hibma  Memorandum,  26  June  2017                    In  response  to  a  22  May  2017  CHC  request  for   an  evaluation  by  an  independent  architectural  historian  of  the  historicity  of  the  rear  wings   of  the  Norcross  House,  applicant  has  submitted  a  26  June  2017  memorandum  by  Michael   Hibma,  author  of  the  original  rejected  eligibility  evaluation,  focusing  on  “supplemental   technical  analysis.”  Hibma  proposes  as  the  period  of  significance  the  dates  Sheriff  Norcross   lived  in  the  house,  1874–89,  despite  the  fact  that  the  City  Council  equally  cited  in  the   house’s  master  listing  Dr.  Sinclair,  who  appears  to  have  occupied  the  house  till  1906.  The   memorandum  continues  to  refer  to  the  front  section  as  the  “original”  house,  without   documentation,  and  references  Molnar  and  Stone,  who  neither  reached  nor  were  qualified   to  reach  any  such  conclusions,  and  the  author’s  own  earlier  report,  which  also  provided  no   documentation.  There  is  no  discussion  of  the  rear  wings’  appearance  in  historic                                                                                                                   1.  See  Metropolitan  Museum  of  Art,  accession  number  1986.1189.79,   metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/264974.    12   photographic  evidence,  the  earliest  Sanborn  maps  (dating  within  Norcross’s  residence),  or   later  ones  (dating  within  Sinclair’s).  There  is  a  discussion  of  comparative  building  materials   and  features  between  the  front  and  rear  sections  of  the  house  based  on  photographs.