Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-24-2017 CHC Correspondence - Item 2 (LSA, Papp) BERKELEY CARLSBAD FRESNO IRVINE LOS ANGELES PALM SPRINGS POINT RICHMOND RIVERSIDE ROSEVILLE SAN LUIS OBISPO 157 Park Place, Pt. Richmond, California 94801 510.236.6810 www.lsa.net July 21, 2017 Brian Leveille Senior Planner City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Subject: Response to “Architectural History Evaluation of the Norcross House” prepared by Mr. James Papp, July 2017. Dear Mr. Leveille: LSA prepared this letter in response to issues raised by Mr. James Papp, Chair of the City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), in the undated document referenced above. The comments from Mr. Papp are regarding previous documentation prepared by LSA and others for the building at 546 Higuera Street, known historically as the Norcross House. This response provides CHC members with context necessary to understanding the basis for LSA’s technical conclusions regarding the historical status of the Norcross House, the justification of its Period of Significance, and whether or not the rehabilitation of the house (as part of the proposed project) would result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This document will (1) provide a summary of points raised by Mr. Papp; (2) comparatively analyze two proposed periods of significance for the Norcross House, followed by a justification for selecting one and rejecting the other; and (3) assess the historicity of additions/revisions to the Norcross House using photographs, Sanborn maps, and information from on-site surveys. The argument presented herein draws from guidance found in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) as described in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 68. Based on a review of Mr. Papp’s report, the primary concern is demolition or removal of what he argues are character-defining features to the Norcross House that would occur as a result of the proposed project would disqualify the project from proceeding as a Categorical Exemption as described in Title 14, Section 15331, California Code of Regulations (CCR) and that a higher level of environmental review is appropriate. As a courtesy to the reader, Mr. Papp provided (here in verbatim) the following points that summarize his analysis:  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 7/23/17 (C:\Users\PTRWP1\Desktop\Norcross_Report\July_24_Memo\LSA_Papp_response_(7.21.17)(Draft).docx) 2 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. The above bulleted points are addressed in the following analysis. PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE Since every historical resource, such as the Norcross House, is associated in some way and to some degree with some event(s), person(s), and/or architectural style(s) or method(s) of construction, clarification is often needed to refine the identification of which aspects of a specific property justify its eligibility for listing. One of the crucial steps in this process if the identification and elucidation of the resource’s historic context, which according to the California State Office of Historic Preservation, is “an organizational format which groups information about related historical resources based on theme, geographical limits, and chronological period.”1 For the Norcross House, two reports independently prepared by separate architectural historians (LSA July 2014; Bertrando October 2014) provided this context. The findings of these reports are reflected in San Luis Obispo City Council Resolution No. 10579 (2014)2, in which the Norcross House was found eligible for inclusion in the Master List of Historic Resources (Master List). The paraphrased findings and significance criteria are listed below: a. The Norcross House is a Master List property that is over 50 years old and satisfies at least one of the evaluation criteria for listing as described in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. b. The Norcross House is a Master List property for its Carpenter Revival architectural qualities. c. Norcross House is a Master List property for its integrity, specifically the maintenance of the house’s historic character and appearance and retention of materials and workmanship. d. The Norcross House is a Master List property for associations with Dr. James Sinclair and former San Luis Obispo (SLO) County Sheriff David Norcross. 1 Instructions for Recording Historical resources (Office of Historic Preservation, 1995:11). Electronic version available at: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1074/files/attribute%20codes.pdf. 2 Resolution 10579 (2014) was adopted November 25, 2014. Curiously, the house at 546 Higuera Street was not designated as the “Norcross-Sinclair House.” 7/23/17 (C:\Users\PTRWP1\Desktop\Norcross_Report\July_24_Memo\LSA_Papp_response_(7.21.17)(Draft).docx) 3 The Resolution does not specify a Period of Significance, which would frame the time span in which the house would have garnered important, specific association(s) with the events, persons, or design and construction process that support its historical significance. National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form defines Period of Significance as “the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics that qualify it for National Register listing” (National Park Service 1997a:42). The following table contains official guidelines on Period of Significance issued by the National Park Service. Source: National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (National Park Service 1997a:43). In acknowledging the importance of a Period of Significance, subsequent technical documentation prepared by LSA and Mr. Papp for this project propose two potential periods of significance for the Norcross House. Mr. Papp proposes a Period of Significance of 1874-1906, which reflects the period when the house was built and subsequently occupied by Sheriff David Norcross (1874-1889) and Dr. 7/23/17 (C:\Users\PTRWP1\Desktop\Norcross_Report\July_24_Memo\LSA_Papp_response_(7.21.17)(Draft).docx) 4 Sinclair (1901-1906). The basis for this assertion is a reference to the City Council resolution language that mentions (in non-chronological order) the occupancy of Norcross and Sinclair but does not specify in years when they lived there. However, in LSA’s opinion, a proposed Period of Significance of 1874-1906 would include a 10-year gap (1890-1900) following Norcross’ death in 1889 and before the Sinclair family arrived in 1901. Per the National Park Service guidance provided on the previous page, LSA cannot agree that the period from 1890-1900 is part of the property’s history that “. . . made the contributions or achieved the character on which significance is based.” Moreover, the same guidance specifies that for properties that may have one or more overlapping periods of significance, that they should be “combined and enter them as one period of significance” (National Park Service 1997a: 42). As the Norcross House’s associations with David Norcross and Dr. Sinclair are separated by 10 years, combining them is an approach unsupported by official guidelines and professional practice. Alternatively, LSA proposes a Period of Significance of 1874-1889, which reflects the period when the house was built and subsequently occupied by the Norcross family until the death of Sheriff David Norcross 1889. Mr. Papp refutes LSA’s proposed timeframe, stating that “. . . the City Council equally cited in the house’s master listing Dr. Sinclair, who appears to have occupied the house until 1906” (Papp 2017:11). Justification for Period of Significance of 1874-1889 Background research conducted by LSA in 2014 identified that Dr. James Sinclair, a late-19th century San Luis Obispo-based physician, lived with his family in the Norcross House. However, in LSA’s opinion, Dr. Sinclair’s lack of significance as a notable or important person in the history of San Luis Obispo, the State of California, as summarized below, does not support a Period of Significance from 1874-1906, but rather a more defensible period of 1874-1889: 1) According to Mr. Papp, the Sinclair family lived in the Norcross House for a relatively short span of five years (1901-1906). Dr. Sinclair’s wife and children move to Berkeley due to Dr. Sinclair’s struggle with pulmonary tuberculosis, an infection he contracted in 1903 and ultimately succumbed ten years later while a resident at Noyes Lodging House at 667 Monterey Street in San Luis Obispo (extant) and died in 1913 (Hibma 2014:14). 2) Dr. Sinclair was appointed Head Physician of the SLO County Hospital in 1896. He served in that capacity for six years until 1902, thereby making for a one-year overlap as Head Physician and resident of the Norcross House. 3) As Head Physician, Dr. Sinclair was commended in official reports for his efficiency, care, and prudent use of public funds (Hibma 2014:14). 4) A published history of the SLO County Hospital System, on file at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County, does not mention Dr. Sinclair’s six-year tenure as Head Physician (Hibma 2014:21). 7/23/17 (C:\Users\PTRWP1\Desktop\Norcross_Report\July_24_Memo\LSA_Papp_response_(7.21.17)(Draft).docx) 5 5) Dr. Sinclair was one of a few physicians in San Luis Obispo during this time and conducted his private medical practice out of an office on Chorro Street, between Higuera and Marsh. As National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation states, the person(s) associated must be individually significant. “A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned of used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social, or ethnic group.” The Bulletin goes on to say, “It must be shown that the person gained importance within his or her profession or group (National Park Service 1997b:15).3 LSA’s research indicates that Dr. Sinclair and his family lived at the Norcross House for five years and coincide with the final year of his six-year term as Head Physician. He operated a private practice in a separate location, and published histories reviewed by LSA indicate that while he was considered a dutiful public servant while serving a six-year term as Head Physician of the County Hospital, he is not characterized or called out in those local histories as a person who “gained importance within his or her profession or group.” In the context of the Norcross House, it appears that his occupancy was relatively short and occurred at or near the end of his productive years as a physician. In light of this evidence, and absent any contrary information that would support a longer period of significance to include Dr. Sinclair, LSA is confident in the accuracy and defensibility of the conclusion in the 2014 HRE that Sinclair is not an individual important to history, and therefore his association with the Norcross House is peripheral in historical importance. The Period of Significance of 1874-1889 is more supported when viewed through the lens of the National Park Service, the agency that oversees the National Register of Historic Places. Furthermore, a longer Period of Significance is not defensible based on implied language in the Council’s resolution and that Sinclair’s occupancy is on par in terms of importance with Sherriff Norcross. However, in examining the actual language a disproportionate level of importance is evident. Sinclair’s association with the Norcross House is based on his tenure as Head Physician (which included part of or the entire final year of his six-year term), while Sherriff Norcross’ service as County Sheriff and later president of the San Luis Obispo Railroad organization (which occurred while he lived at 546 Higuera) is characterized as “instrumental.”4 No such characterization is applied to Dr. Sinclair. 3 According to the California Office of Historic Preservation the California Register was consciously designed on the model of the National Register, therefore two evaluative programs and criteria are extremely similar. 4 Verbatim resolution language re: Sinclair and Norcross: “d) The house is at least 140 years old and was constructed in 1874 as identified on Sanborn Insurance maps/deed records. The house was published in the 1904 Fireman’s Souvenir book as the residence of Dr. James Sinclair, the lead physician at San Luis Obispo County Hospital. The house was the residence of David Norcross, the Sheriff of San Luis Obispo and the president of the San Luis Obispo Railroad organization, instrumental in linking the Pacific Coast Railroad to San Luis Obispo.” City Council Resolution 10579 (2014) was adopted November 25, 2014. 7/23/17 (C:\Users\PTRWP1\Desktop\Norcross_Report\July_24_Memo\LSA_Papp_response_(7.21.17)(Draft).docx) 6 CONSTRUCTION HISTORY AND ANALYSIS To facilitate discussion this portion of the analysis, the first and third bullet items in Mr. Papp’s report are repeated below, each followed by a response. Where appropriate, the discussion utilizes information prepared by Thom Brajkovich, AIA, a licensed architect who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards as an Architect and for Historic Architecture. Please refer to separate analyses prepared by Mr. Brajkovich for more detailed information. 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. As the above bullet states there is no evidence that calls one section original over another, however, as the picture taken in two years after the Norcross House was built, the configuration shown falls within either Period of Significance, and therefore would need to retain sufficient integrity to convey historical significance. The claim that the rear portions of the house may have preceded the front portion is speculative. No examples are provided of homes in SLO built in such a manner in the source books referenced in the document. It is also interesting that the possibilities of the rear portions of the Norcross House being built concurrently or before the front two-story portion are mentioned, but the possibility that they could have been built after is not. 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. In accordance with the CHC’s request for analysis for differences in details and materiality between the front and rear portions of the house the following outlines observable alteration in integrity, that when viewed collectively, show that this portion of the Norcross House was substantially altered by subsequent owners and, other than maintaining a portion of the original building footprint, no longer retains integrity to convey its significance. These alterations are discussed in a PowerPoint presentation for the July 24, meeting. Identified Alterations As stated in Mr. Papp’s report, the following areas of the Norcross House were altered outside either Period of Significance [clarifying text in brackets]: 1. The second story on the northwest wing [required removal of original roof, chimney, portion of original siding to integrate upper floor, structural alterations to walls and foundation to support increased loads, and modifications to accommodate altered interior circulation patterns]. Similar alterations to the Norcross House were required to accommodate the 7/23/17 (C:\Users\PTRWP1\Desktop\Norcross_Report\July_24_Memo\LSA_Papp_response_(7.21.17)(Draft).docx) 7 second story addition originally depicted on the 1891 Sanborn Map which is after David Norcross died and before the Sinclair family moved in]. 2. The lean-to at the end of the extension [which may have removed any original windows or door at this location]. 3. The [full-width] porch along the extension’s [east-facing façade]. 4. The bathroom bay on the southwest wall [this is also referred to as a washroom/laundry room]. 5. The enclosure of the original porch [at the far left of the north-facing façade when viewed from back of house]. LSA’s field surveys of the Norcross House identified further observable alterations to the single-story extension (or wing): 1. Removal of a window to accommodate installation of a door opening to the western side yard. 2. Replacement of all windows. Although it appears this wing is depicted in the 1876 photograph, large paned, one-over-one windows were not available in the 1870s. Glass manufacturing techniques had not advances to manufacture (and safely transport) large sheets of glass.5 The most common window was a two-over-two, double-hung wood sash.6 3. Installation of a replacement door in the middle of the east-facing façade underneath the aforementioned porch of the single-story extension. 4. Raised wooden planked walkway underneath the aforementioned porch of the single-story extension. 5. Capped chimney – indicating the original fireplace was removed or made inoperable. 6. Interior remodeled to resemble circa 1930-40s kitchen. On the Norcross House’s main, street-facing facade, the following observable alterations were noted: 1. Evidence of patchwork wooden siding repair on the east, north, and west façades. 5 According to the Historic Preservation Education Foundation, “[b]y the end of the nineteenth century, continued improvements in the manufacture and quality of glass, including the elimination of common imperfections, led to the use of one-over-one windows.” Available at: https://www.hpef.us/historic- windows/windows-through-time/20th-century. 6 Virginia Savage McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses 2013: 269. 7/23/17 (C:\Users\PTRWP1\Desktop\Norcross_Report\July_24_Memo\LSA_Papp_response_(7.21.17)(Draft).docx) 8 2. Removal of the original square-shaped wooden, porch supports and balustrade atop the full-width, front porch on the southern, street-facing façade. 3. Replacement of the original large, three-vertical paned square-shaped gable peak window above the front porch. 4. Replacement of the original double-hung wood sash windows that face Higuera Street with large divided light windows. The windows consist of a top narrow band of diamond-shaped lights, over a large, single, fixed-pane window set in enlarged casements.7 5. Repainting the originally white-colored house with red paint. 6. Replacement front door. Integrity Analysis Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s Period of Significance. Integrity is a critical component of historical resources that are listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register and the San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resources and/or the Master List of Contributing Historic Resources. As acknowledged in Mr. Papp’s report, the “rear wings in L or T configuration were common in nineteenth-century American architecture and were left plainer in decoration than street façades” (Papp 2017:2). As roughly one-half of the Norcross House is an example of this pared down or Vernacular architecture, the detrimental impact of alterations on the overall integrity of the resource is greater than if it was a more elaborate example of the style. Under the broader Period of Significance (1874-1906), the twelve alterations listed above (and others that will be discussed during the July 24 CHC meeting), when taken together represent a significant loss of integrity – particularly to the rear portion of the Norcross House and no longer convey historical significance. Altering the Norcross House to the degree that it was required removal of much of the House’s original historical materials and fabric (rooflines, roof systems, siding, fenestration, doors, etc.). A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. However, as Mr. Papp demonstrates in his report, information about Gothic Revival/Carpenter Gothic design and 19th century American construction techniques and methods can be readily obtained from other widely available sources. Additionally, due to substantial alterations and the resultant loss of original historic fabric, further study of the Norcross House will not result in new information about construction techniques or the Gothic Revival/Carpenter Gothic architectural style and design. For these reasons, the Norcross House will not yield information important to the history of the local area, California, or the nation. 7 According to information in American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors (1870-1960), this type of window, called “Diamond Lights” was popular in 1904-1912 (Herbert Gottfried and Jan Jennings, 2009:359). 7/23/17 (C:\Users\PTRWP1\Desktop\Norcross_Report\July_24_Memo\LSA_Papp_response_(7.21.17)(Draft).docx) 9 IMPACTS Impact Threshold According to Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, a proposed project with “an effect 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.” Under CEQA (CCR Section 15064.5(b)(1)) there is a two-pronged test for a project to result in a “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.” Examples of substantial adverse change include “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired. The two prongs that determine if material impairment will result are: 1. When a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources” (CCR Section 15064.5(b)(2)(A)); and 2. When a project “demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code… ” (CCR Section 15064.5(b)(2)(B)). With respect to mitigating such impacts, Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines states: Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Gu idelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (Secretary’s Standards), shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. Therefore, a project’s impact on a historical resource can be considered less than significant if the project is in accordance with the Secretary’s Standards (see discussion below). The Norcross House is a historical resource under CEQA. Therefore a compliance assessment of the proposed project with the Secretary’s Standards is used below as a tool for determining potential significant effects of the proposed project on the significance of the Norcross House. An assessment using the Secretary’s Standards directly informs a determination as to whether the proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historical resource by materially altering in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion as a Master List property (CCR Section 15064.5(b)(3)). Secretary’s Standards The Secretary’s Standards provide guidance for historic preservation and are used by Federal agencies and local governments to evaluate proposed rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, and reconstruction work on or near historical properties (including historical resources, as defined by CEQA); they are applied to a wide variety of resource types, including buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts. As described above, the Secretary’s Standards are not prescriptive in nature, 7/23/17 (C:\Users\PTRWP1\Desktop\Norcross_Report\July_24_Memo\LSA_Papp_response_(7.21.17)(Draft).docx) 10 but they offer a practical means for assessing and describing the potential impacts to historical resources. The measure of a potential impact from new construction may be gauged by the degree to which a proposed project conforms to their guidance. The Secretary’s Standards comprise four sets of standards to guide the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction.8 Typically, one set of standards is chosen for a project based on the project scope. For this project, removal of non- contributing additions and significantly altered portions of the Norcross House would be done to accommodate new construction to add additional floors. This project would also rehabilitate the front, two-story portion and a portion of the west façade of the Norcross House and reuse salvaged materials (wall cladding, windows, etc.) into the new construction, where feasible. For a discussion utilizing relevant technical preservation guidance please see Part II: Compliance with Federal and Local Standards in the Supplemental Technical Analysis of Structural Additions to the David Norcross House, 546 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California prepared June 26, 2017. CONCLUSION The above analysis and in-person meeting presentation demonstrates (1) that former resident Dr. Sinclair is not an individual considered a person “important in our past”, (2) his lack of historical importance requires refining the Period of Significance for the Norcross House to 1874-1889, (3) the Norcross House has sustained many alterations in the 127 years after David Norcross died as shown in photographs, Sanborn Maps, and identified during field surveys. For these reasons, the proposed project will not demolish, destroy, or adversely alter the Norcross House or its surroundings to a degree that this historical resource would sustain a material adverse change in its significance as a historical resource and jeopardizing its continued eligibility as a Master List property. Thank you. Sincerely, LSA Michael Hibma, M.A., RPH #603 Architectural Historian, Senior Cultural Resources Manager 8 Updated version of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings by Anne Grimmer is available at https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf.