HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/2004, PH. 2 - CONSIDERATION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE PROPERTY AT 581 DANA STRE r
° °;
council ,�
OA agenda REpoRt �mN off 2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct
Prepared By: Buzz Kalkowski, AICP, Associate P er
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE PROPERTY AT 581 DANA STREET
FROM LISTING OF "CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC RESOURCES"
(ARC 167-03).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) at a public hearing on February 23,
2004, remove the property at 581 Dana Street from the listing of contributing historic properties.
DISCUSSION
Background
On November 17, 2003, the City received a request from the property owner, Brian Roth, to
demolish the existing dwelling at 581 Dana Street and to construct a new replacement dwelling.
Because the property is on the City's Listing of Contributing Historic Properties and because it is
within the Downtown Historic District, the application was subject to review by the CHC..
The CHC held two public hearings concerning the 581 Dana Street property, the first on January
26, 2004 and the second on February 23, 2004, to determine their recommendation. At their
January 26, 2004 meeting, the CHC continued the item with directions to staff to work with the
applicant to provide additional information on financial feasibility and structural condition and
safety of the house, comparing rehabilitation and replacement options (See CHC Minutes,
Attachment.No. 3).
On February 23, 2004, the CHC made a determination to recommend to the City Council that the
property located at 581 Dana Street be removed from the Contributing Properties List of
Historical Resources (See CHC Minutes, Attachment No. 4, and CHC Action Letter, Attachment
No. 5).
Analysis
The attached CHC Staff Reports (Attachments No. 6 and No. 7) contain a complete analysis of
the property and the existing residence. At this time the property is considered a "Contributing"
Historic Property. A contributing property is defined in the City's Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines as a building "built before 1941 that has retained its original architectural style as
viewed in the context of its surroundings, and contributes to the historical character of the area."
(City Council Resolution No. 6424 (1988 Series))
.;2
Council Agenda Report— Property owner, Brian Roth, request to remove property from Listing of
Contributing Historic Resources(ARC MI 167-03) Page 2
The house was likely built during the 1880s. The building's footprint of the house remains much
as it did on the 1886 Sanborn Insurance Map. A Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants'
report (Attachment No. 9), dated October 2003, prepared for the applicant, provides property
history and present condition, and finds that the house is not a significant historic resource.
Structural condition and structural pest reports, prepared for the applicant, are attached
(Attachment No. 10).
Upon reviewing the property, the CHC made a recommendation to remove the residence from
the contributing list based upon the following findings:
I. The house and accessory building have not retained their original architectural character.
2. The property's historic character has been adversely affected by changes to its setting and
environmental context.
3. The property no longer contributes to the historical or architectural character of the
neighborhood in which it is located.
4. Adaptive rehabilitation is not a feasible option due to the exceptionally poor structural
condition of the house.
5. No evidence has been presented that the property is historically significant.
The property owner agrees with the CHC's findings and wishes to remove the property from the
"Contributing" List to allow the planned construction of a new residence. The CHC has
reviewed the plans for the new construction and determined that as conditioned the structure will
be compatible with the Downtown Historic District in which it is located.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the item for additional information or study, and specify the additional information
or analysis needed.
2. Determine that the existing residence is a significant historic resource and maintain the
properties contributing status.
ATTACHMENTS
I. Vicinity Map
2. Photos of 581 Dana Street"Contributing" house proposed for demolition
3. Roth Item portion of January 26, 2004 CHC meeting minutes
4. Roth Item portion of February 23, 2004 CHC meeting minutes
5. CHC Action Letter
6.. January 26, 2004 CHC staff report
7. February 23, 2004 CHC staff report
8. Draft resolution removing 581 Dana Street from the contributing properties list
9. Historic Resource Inventory and House Evaluation, 581 Dana Street, by Betsey Bertrando
10. Scott Jay Smaby Inspection Report and Key Termite and pest Control Report
C2 .,;7-
Council Agenda Report— Property owner, Brian Roth, request to remove property from Listing of
Contributing Historic Resources(ARC MI 167-03) Page 3
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Council Reading File:
1. Attachments to February 23, 2004 CHC Staff Report
2. Copy of February 22, 2004 letter from Brian and Sheila Roth, and front page of grant deed
3. Historic Resource Inventory and House Evaluation, 581 Dana Street, by Betsey Bertrando
(With color photographs)
G: Cd-planBkalkowski/Council/ARCMI167-03(581Dana)RothRpt
a - 3
ISS
Attachment 2
Area Map & Master List Properties Front View 581 Dana Street
O qr
BmmOwY-AMrwn-IOOF FIaB-BIQIOIC Ada6e
581 Dan Street With Commercial Bldgs in Background Southeast View of 581 Dana St.
581 Rear&Adjacent Bldg Front of Fish Market Building
1
2- .�
Attachment 3
MINUTES
SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Regular Meeting of Monday,January 26,2004
The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, San Luis Obispo City Hall,
990 Palm Street.
ROLL CALL: Present: Chairperson Paula Juelke Carr, Sandy Baer,-Barbara Breska, Bob
Schrage, and Tom Wheeler.
Absent: Committee members Crotser and Scotti.
Staff Jeff Hook and Buzz Kalkowski, Associate Planners; Michael Draze, Deputy Community
Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1.581 Dana Street. ARCMI 167-03. Consideration of removal of an existing residence
from the Contributing Properties list, demolition of the existing residence, and
construction of a new house in the Downtown Historic District, R-3-H zone; Brian
Roth, applicant.
Buzz Kalkowski presented a slide show and staff report, and reviewed the Committee's past
action on this project. Tim Becher, architect, and Brian and Sheila Roth, property owners,
explained the project and described the development options they had considered. One neighbor,
Mary Mitchell Leitcher, spoke in support of the demolition request. Committee member Breska
supported the request, based on information provided in the Bertrando historic report, and on the
proposed design which she felt was compatible with the neighborhood. Committee member
Schrage was "torn" between allowing demolition and preserving and rehabilitating the historic
house. Committee member Wheeler asked staff to clarify "historic significance" and
"feasibility" in the context of historic rehabilitation. Chairperson Carr felt the house still
contributed to the character of the Historic District and the architecturally, the proposed house
design was not compatible with the existing house design or with the predominant neighborhood
character. She felt its design was "car-oriented" due to the location of the garage toward the
front of the lot. Committee member Baer felt an engineering report was needed to document the
house's safety and structural condition.
On a motion by Committee member Baer, seconded by Committee member Carr, the item was
continued with direction to staff to work with the applicant to provide additional information on
financial feasibility and structural condition and safety of the house, comparing rehabilitation
and replacement options. The motion carried, 4-1 (Committee member Breska).
02
Attachment 4
Meeting Update
Cultural Heritage Committee
February 23, 2004
Monday
5:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Chairperson Paula Juelke Can-, Vice-Chair Tom Wheeler, Sandy Baer,
Barbara Breska, Chuck Crotser, Bob Schrage, and Frank Scotti.
All members were present.
STAFF: Jeff Hook and Buzz.Kalkowski, Associate Planners.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. 581 Dana Street ARCMI 167-03. Consideration of removal of an existing
residence from the Contributing Properties list, demolition of the existing
residence, and construction of a new house in the Downtown Historic District, R=
3-H zone; Brian Roth, applicant.
Buzz Kalkowski presented a slide show and staff report, and reviewed the Committee's
past action on this project. Tim Becher, architect, and Brian and Sheila Roth, property
owners, responded to the staff report and addressed rehabilitation feasibility questions
raised at the January meeting. Betsy Bertrando explained the historic resource
evaluation report that she had prepared for the applicants. There was no public
comment.
On a motion by Committee member Scotti; seconded by Committee member Breska,
the Committee:
A. Recommended that the City Council remove property located at 581 Dana Street
from the Contributing Properties List of Historical Resources, with the following
findings:
1. The house and accessory building have not retained their original
architectural character.
2. The property's historic character has been adversely affected by changes
to its setting and environmental context.
3. The property no longer contributes to the historical or architectural
character of the neighborhood in which it is located.
4. Adaptive rehabilitation is not a feasible option due to the exceptionally
poor structural condition of the house.
5. No evidence has been presented that the property is historically
significant.
o? 7
CHC 167-03 February 23,2004 Pa,,.2 of 2 Attachmant 4
The motion carried on a 6-1 vote (Committee member Schrage voted no).
And on a motion by Committee member Baer, seconded by Committee member
Crotser:
B. Determined that the proposed replacement house was consistent with the
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (for new development in Historic
Districts), provided the following changes were incorporated into the project:
1. The applicants should reuse existing architectural features where
possible.
2. New garage doors and architectural details should be designed to reduce
the garage's visual prominence from the street, and the garage should be
setback from the plane of the front of the house, and if possible, detached
from the house. Carriage-type garage doors should be used.
3. The proposed house design should incorporate the architectural character
and details, including original window and door details.
The motion carried, 7-0 (Commr. Breska).
ag
►�����������i►►�III��II►Illllllllln►u11 °►►IiI► III `
city of sAn hAs oaspo
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
March 11, 2004 Attachment 5
Brian Roth
581 Dana Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: 581 Dana Street. ARCMI 167-03.
Consideration of removal of an existing residence from the
Contributing Properties list, demolition of the existing residence, and
construction of a new house in the Downtown Historic District.
Dear Brian Roth:
The Cultural Heritage Committee, at its meeting of February 23, 2004, recommended
that the City Council remove property located at 581 Dana Street from the Contributing
Properties List of Historical Resources, with the following findings:
1. The house and accessory building have not retained their original
architectural character.
2. The property's historic character has been adversely affected by changes to
its setting and environmental context.
3. The property no longer contributes to the historical or architectural character
of the neighborhood in which it is located.
4. Adaptive rehabilitation is not a feasible option due to the exceptionally poor
structural condition of the house.
5. No evidence has been presented that the property is historically significant.
This determination of the CHC will be forwarded to the City Council. This matter has
been tentatively scheduled for public hearing before the City Council on April 6, 2004.
This date, however, should be verified with the project planner.
On a separate motion, the Committee determined that the proposed replacement
house was consistent with the Historic Preservation Program. Guidelines (for new
development in Historic Districts), provided the following changes were incorporated
into the project:
1. The applicants should reuse existing architectural features where possible.
2. New garage doors and architectural details should be designed to reduce
the garage's visual prominence from the street, and the garage should be
set back from the plane of the front of the house, and if possible, detached
from the house. Carriage-type garage doors should be used.
3. The proposed house design should incorporate the architectural character
and details, including original window and door details.
(✓� The 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. )
Attachment 5
The proposed replacement house will be reviewed as an Architectural Review
Commission, Minor or Incidental.
The side yard setback exceptions requested will be heard as an Administrative Hearing
set for March 19, 2004. This date, however, should be verified with the project planner.
If you have questions, please contact Buzz Kalkowski at (805) 781-7166.
Sincerely,
Michael Draze
Deputy Director of Community Development
Long Range Planning
cc: County of SLO Assessor's Office
Tim Becher
793 Higuera St., Suite #1
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Susanne B. Roth, TRE
579 Dana St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
x'10
Attachment 6
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Community Development
TO: Cultural Heritage Committee
VIA: Michael Draze, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
FROM: Buzz Kalkowski, Associate Planner
MEETING DATE: January 26, 2004
SUBJECT: Item# 1: 581 Dana Street ARCMI 167-03
Susanne B. Roth, trustee for the owner; Brian Roth, applicant;
Tim Becher, representative.
SUBJECT: Request to remove the existing dwelling from the Listing of Contributing Historic
Properties, with demolition of the existing dwelling proposed, and to construct a
new replacement dwelling, within the Downtown Historic District; 581 Dana
Street, ARCMI 167-03.
SITUATION:
The Community Development Department received an architectural review application for a
proposed new dwelling structure, replacing the existing 581 Dana dwelling, which is a listed
Contributing Historic Resource. The proposal does not include demolition or modification of the
accessory structure at the rear of the property (Listed on City records as a garage, artist studio,
residence, and formerly as a fish market,possibly San Luis Obispo's first fish market).
The plans are being forwarded to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) because the dwelling
proposed for demolition is a listed Contributing Historic Resource, and the proposed replacement
dwelling is in the Downtown Historic District.
A copy of the Historic Resource Inventory and House Evaluation; 581 Dana Street, report by
Betsey Bertrando, Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants, dated October 2003, prepared
for the applicant, accompanies this report. The report provides the history of the dwelling,
findings that the house is not a significant historic resource (As defined by Public Resources
Code and City of San Luis Obispo Guidelines), a recommendation that the house be removed
from the Listing of Contributing Properties within Historic Districts (Pages 8-9), and a statement
that should demolition and construction of a new dwelling occur, "that the new dwelling should
be cognizant of the surrounding historic area and maintain the feeling of structures built one
hundred years ago in the City of San Luis Obispo." In addition,the report suggests an awareness
of possible subsurface archaeological deposits on the property.
561 Dana Street Attachment 6
ARCi6TW(Roth)
Page 2 of 7
The CHC is being asked to make a determination as to whether or not the structure proposed for
demolition has the "contributing" historic significance, and if the determination is that it has no
historic significance, that a recommendation be made to the City Council to remove it from the
Listing of Contributing Properties.
If the CHC determines the property is not historical and recommends the removal from the list to
the Council, and Council removes the property from the list, the demolition permit could be
issued upon satisfaction of Building Code 114.3(2) requirements. This requires additional CHC
action at the January 26, 2004 Hearing. The CHC needs to make a determination as to the
compatibility of the proposed new dwelling in the context of the historic neighborhood.
Data Summary
Applicant: Brian Roth
Project Address: 581 Dana Street
Zoning: R-3-H, High-Density Residential with the Historical Preservation Zone
overlay
General Plan: Medium-High Density Residential
Site Description
The elongated-rectangular site fronts historic Dana Street, slopes to and butts against San Luis
Creek at the rear, and is within 2.5 feet of a warehouse building (On the side closest to Nipomo
Street. The warehouse is within the Downtown Commercial Historic Preservation Planned
Development District (C-D-H-PD) and has a General Plan "General Retail' land use
designation). The 581 Dana Street lot has 7,470 sq. ft. and is located in one of the oldest areas
of the City.
BACKGROUND:
The property (dwelling) was placed on the Contributing Historical Resource List on February 3,
1987 (P-41-041148). The site is within the Downtown Historic District.
Contributing Property
A "Contributing" property is defined in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines as a
building "built before 1941 that has retained its original architectural style and, viewed in the
context of its surroundings, contributes to the historical character of the area (City Council
Resolution No. 6424 (1988 Series)).
Cd-planlBua KalkowskYCHCICHC167-03 Dana St Roth
581 Dana Street -.i
ARC167-03(Roth) Attachment 6
Page 3 of 7
Historical background
Summary: The house was likely built during the 1880s. The footprint of the remains much as it
did on the 1886 Sanborn Insurance Map. Over the years some of the residence's owners and, or,
occupants were: 1) Hanna McHenry, the McHenry family members were proprietors of the
Commercial and Ramona Hotels, firemen, dairymen, and liverymen; 2) Bowles Family, which
operated a fish market in the building behind the house; 3) Joaquin Craveiro Family, which
operated the Joaquin Grocery at 420 High Street. The house was at times occupied as a duplex.
Refer to the Bertrando Report for a detailed historical perspective, pages 1-2 (History ) and pages
4-6 Archival Research).
Dwelling Condition
Summary: The house is in poor condition and has no special features.
Refer to the Bertrando Report for a determination of the building's current condition, pages 6-8
(Field Investigation).
EVALUATION:
Historic Significance Determination
Summary: The Bertrando Report finds the dwelling to not have historical significance.
Refer to the Bertrando Report for the criteria determining historical significance, pages 3-4
(Significance Criteria) and page 8 (Criteria for Building Evaluations).
Effects of Historic Listing
Once a building is added to the Listing of Contributing Properties, physical changes or changes
in use are possible, provided the changes promote the structure's original architectural style and
character. Significant exterior architectural changes are referred to the Cultural Heritage
Committee to determine whether the changes are consistent with City standards and to meet
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. If listed as a Contributing
Property, the property is deemed historically significant pursuant to the CEQA. Demolition,
reconstruction, or relocation of historically significant structures may be considered a significant
adverse environmental impact. Significant adverse impacts can be avoided if 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 Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings
(1995, Weeks and Grimmer) are followed.
Contributing properties are not eligible for the Mills Act Program. As designated historic
resources, however, they may be eligible for other preservation incentives including flexible
zoning and building standards,tax credits, and historic rehabilitation loan programs.
Cd-plan/Buzz KalkowskYCHVCHC167-03 Dana St Roth
�-13
581 Dana SVeet Attachment 6
ARC167-03(Roth)
Page 4 of 7
City Principals of Historic Preservation
The city promotes the long-term maintenance and restoration of designated Historical Resources
and buildings in Historic Districts. The City wants to work with property owners to explore
alternative to demolition, such as rehabilitation and reuse of the building, use of alternative
building code's provisions to make rehabilitation more feasible, or possible relocation of the
structure to a more suitable site.
The demolition of a Historical Resource is the least favored option and should be done only
when:
1. The condition of the building poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of community
residents or people living or working on or near the site;
2. The project sponsor demonstrates that it is financially infeasible to rehabilitate the structure
or preserve the historic nature of the site.
(Historic Preservation Program Guidelines,pages 7-8).
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
Changes to historic buildings, including demolition and replacement, should follow the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The intent of the Standards is to assist the long-
term preservation. The Standards pertain to historic buildings of all materials, construction types,
sizes, and occupancy, and encompass the exterior (and interior) of the buildings. They also
encompass related landscape features and the building's site and environment.
"Rehabilitation" is defined as "the process of returning a property to a state of utility,'through
repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those
portions and features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural, and
cultural values." "Rehabilitation" assumes that at least some repair or alteration of the historic
building will be needed in order to provide for an efficient contemporary use; however, these
repairs and alterations must not damage or destroy materials, features or finishes that are
important in defining the building's historic character.
The four Standards specific to rehabilitation projects are important points to consider in
evaluating this proposed project, both in light of the Contributing Property designation, and, if
determined to not have historical significance, the character of the proposed replacement
dwelling and how it fits within the Downtown Historic District.
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires
minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
Minimal change is best.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. Are
Cd-planBua KalkowskUCHUCHC167-03 Dana St Roth
561 Dana Street
ARC167-03(Roth) Attachment 6
Page 5 of 7
there historic materials, features or spaces to protect that preserve the historic character of
the dwelling and the neighborhood?
3. Each property shall 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
architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. Would the demolition
erase anything that represents a historical period in time? Would the proposed replacement
dwelling truly represent the land use history, personality history, and historical character of
this site?
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in
their own right shall be retained and preserved. Are there modifications to the building
proposed for removal from the Contributing List and for demolition that are historical in their
own existence?
The last two guidelines,No. 9 and No. 10 are also important in reviewing the proposal:
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old
and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the
historic integrity of the property and its environment. If a new dwelling is constructed, are
the proposed windows, siding, and roofing materials representative of what existed during
early development? Would the replacement dwelling be compatible in size, scale and
architectural features with the historic neighborhood?
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner
that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic.property and its
environment would be unimpaired. Do each of the proposed changes maintain the essential
form and integrity of the historic property and neighborhood?
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)
A court case, League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and Historic Resources v. City of
Oakland [(1997) 52 Cal. App. 4t' 60], ruled that the demolition of an identified historic structure
is a significant environmental impact. The court established three criteria as to whether a
historic resource is significant:
1. Mandatory Significance — if the resource is on or is eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources;
2. Presumptive Significance — if a resource is listed on a local register of historical resources
unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates otherwise;
3. Discretionary Significance — a historical resource may be considered significant even if it is
not on a federal, state or local list if substantial evidence demonstrates its significance.
The 581 Dana Street dwelling is a listed San Luis Obispo Contributing Historic Resource,
Cd-plan/Buzz KalkowskUCHGCHC167-03 Dana St Roth
02 6
581 Dana Street — -.
Attachment 6
ARC167-03(Roth)
Page 6 of 7
therefore it falls within the Presumptive Significance. A preponderance of the evidence must
demonstrate that the property is not a historical resource under CEQA.
If the CHC determines that the structure has no historical significance and recommends the City
Council remove the property from the Listing of Contributing Properties, and the Council agrees,
the Presumptive Significance would not exist. An environmental review for demolition of the
building would need to assess the project's potential impacts on the Downtown Historic District
and its historic resources, and to develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce significant
impacts to less than significant, will be required. The question of significant impact would then
need to be based on Discretionary Significance with the requirement to show substantial
evidence that the resource is significant.
Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation are
considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource
(CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(b)(C)(3)).
Action Alternatives.
The CHC's action is advisory to the ARC, the Community Development Director, and, if
recommending removal from the Contributing Properties, the City Council. The CHC should
consider the following alternatives before forwarding a recommendation:
1. Determine that the 581 Dana Street dwelling is not historically significant based on findings
provided in the Bertrando Report and recommend to the City Council that the dwelling be .
removed from the listing of Contributing Properties, and find that the proposed replacement
dwelling is compatible with the Downtown Historic District consistent with the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties;
2. Determine that the existing 581 Dana Street dwelling is historically significant and recommend
to the Architectural Review Commission to deny the demolition request. This
recommendation eliminates the possibility of constructing the proposed new dwelling, except
for an appeal to the City Council to act against the determination of historical significance and
to remove the dwelling from the Listing Contributing Properties being granted. Determine that
the proposed replacement dwelling is compatible with the historical character of the Downtown
Historic District consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of
Historic Properties, in the event an appeal is filed and is granted by the Council, provide
findings in support of the compatibility;
3. Determine that the 581 Dana Street dwelling is historically significant and recommend to the
Architectural Review Commission to deny the demolition request. Determine that the
proposed replacement dwelling is not compatible with the historical character of the
Downtown Historic District because it is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, recommending a denial to the Architectural
Review Commission. The only exception to this is the granting of an appeal to both the CHC
historical significance determination, and the ARC denial,to the Council;
4. Continue the item for additional discussion or with direction to provide additional information..
Cd-plaNBua KalkowskUGHUCHC167-03 Dana St Roth
�"AO
581 Dana Street —% Attachment 6
ARC167-03(Roth)
Page 7 of 7
Attached: Vicinity Map
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation
Enclosed: Copies of Historic Resource Inventory and House Evaluation, 581 Dana Street, by
Betsey Bertrando
Reduced architectural plans
Cd-plan/Buzz KalkowskYCHGCHC167-03 Dana SL Roth
-/7
Attachment 7
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
Community Development
TO: Cultural Heritage Committee
VIA: Michael Draze, Deputy Director, Long Range Planning
FROM: Buzz Kalkowski,Associate Planner
MEETING DATE: February 23, 2004
SUBJECT: CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26,2004
Item # : 581 Dana Street ARCMI 167-03
Susanne B. Roth, trustee for the owner; Brian Roth, applicant;
Tim Becher, representative.
SUBJECT: Request to remove the existing dwelling from the Listing of Contributing Historic
Properties, with demolition of the existing dwelling proposed, and to construct a
new replacement dwelling, within the Downtown Historic District; 581 Dana
Street, ARCMI 167-03.
Please refer to the attached copy of the January 26, 2004 staff report.
SITUATION:
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) continued this item at their January 26, 2004 meeting
with directions to staff to work with the applicant to provide additional information on financial
feasibility and structural condition and safety of the house, comparing rehabilitation and
replacement options.
The house at 581 Dana Street is both within the Downtown Historic District and is a
Contributing Historic Resource. The Betsey Bertrando Report recommends that the house be
removed from the Contributing Historic Resource list.
The Committee appeared to favor maintaining the existing house on the Contributing list,
preferring rehabilitation of the existing house against demolishing the house and building a new
house in its place.
The Committee heard the condition of the house was poor, but wished to learn more about the
condition and the cost of rehabilitation, including the feasibility of rehabilitation.
A letter requesting the appropriate information was delivered to Tim Becher, the
,2 '��'
581 Dana Street Febwary 23,2004 Attachment 7
ARC167-03(Roth)
Page 2 of 6
architect/representative, with copies to the property applicant/owner and Betsey Bertrando on
February 9, 2004. A copy of the letter is attached to this report.
The applicant submitted structural report by Scott Jay Smaby, architect, dated February 2, 2004,
and a pest report by Key Termite and Pest Control, dated February 5, 2004, were submitted
February 9, 2004. Both reports are attached to this report.
The CHC report due date for the February 23, 2004 meeting is February 10, 2004. All additional
reports received from the applicant will be distributed at the February 23, 2004 meeting, earlier if
possible.
FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE:
What is financially feasible when considering the rehabilitation of a designated historical
property? This discussion is limited to properties that are residences, not used for business
purposes, and occupied by the owners as a residence. Financial feasibility is first discussed in
terms of preservation value to the property owner and the City, as well as the City's guiding
residential preservation policies, followed by the owner's financial considerations..
First, a historical property has value to both the owner and the City. Historical properties that are
preserved promote the community's prosperity, safety, enrichment and general welfare. It
preserves the community's pattern of cultural development, encourages the public's
understanding and appreciation of the historic past and unique sense of, place, promotes
neighborhood pride and sense of identity, enhances the community's attraction to residents,
visitors and tourists, and identifies the owner's sense of community participation and pride.
Historic preservation is similar to zoning, though it places requirements on the owner for the
benefit of the community as a whole, it does not prevent the owner's use of property (in this
case, single-family residential use in a multiple family zone), and it promotes the community's
general welfare and prosperity. It prevents the destruction and demolition by neglect of useful
historical resources. It helps to maintain property values.
In the San Luis Obispo Downtown area, combined with the Community Design Guidelines,
Historical Preservation Guidelines have been major contributors to the maintenance of property
values and the desirability of the area as a place to live, do business and visit.
The City's Principles of Historic Preservation state "The [C]ity promotes the long-term
maintenance and restoration of designated Historical Resources and buildings in historic
districts." It further states: "demolition of a Historical Resource is the least favored option..."
(The Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, pages 7 & 8).
The General Plan Housing Element discourages the demolition of sound or rehabilitable existing
housing (H3.2.1) and states that the City shall preserve historic residential buildings (H3.2.6).
The land Use Element states: "In downtown residential areas, the City should encourage the
rehabilitation of and maintenance of existing housing. Additional dwellings may be permitted,
in keeping with density limits, providing that the existing character of the area is not significantly
changed. Demolition of structurally sound dwellings shall be strongly discouraged" (LU 2.9:
Cd-plaNBua Ka1kowsk9CHCICHC167-03 Dana St Roth
a-i�
Attachment 7
581 Dana Street February 23,2004
ARC167-03(Roth)
Page 3 of 6
Old Town). In addition, the Land Use Element states that "New buildings should respect the
existing buildings which contribute to the neighborhood historical or architectural character, in
terms of size, spacing, and variety" (LU 2.2.10: Compatible Development A) Architectural
Character).
The owner's financial considerations are also considered. Is preservation a financial hardship to
the property owner? This is a difficult task because of variables. The City's Historical
Preservation Program Guidelines do not define financial feasibility, nor does it discuss owner's
financial hardship limiting the owner's ability to pay for rehabilitation.
Below is a summary of what was found in the American Planning Association's Preparing a
Historic Preservation Ordinance and in several California cities' historic preservation ordinances.
1. What is the structural condition of the property?
2. What is the appropriate preservation treatment for the property: Preservation?
Rehabilitation? Restoration? Reconstruction? (Attached are copies of California Office of
Historic'Preservation Technical Assistance Series 41, Appendix E: Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, pages 32 through.38)
3. What is the estimated cost for rehabilitation that fits within the Secretary of Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation?
-'.4. What is the owner's purchase cost of the property? .Was there a relationshipassociated with
the past and present owners?
5. What is the owner's financial capacity to pay for the rehabilitation?
6. What is the current fair market value of the property as it exists? What would the estimated
value be with approved rehabilitation?
7. In this proposal, what is the estimated cost of the proposed demolition and the building of the
proposed, large house? What is the increase of floor area(living area)?
8. What is the value of a rehabilitated property to the City? What is the value.to the City if the
existing house is demolished and is replaced by a new and larger house, a house that may or
may not fit the historical character of the Downtown Historic District and Dana Street?
9. What is the cost of a potential CEQA environmental impact report that could result from the
demolition of a property on a historical list?
No established formula exists to determine financial feasibility for rehabilitating historical
resources in San Luis Obispo. If an owner's financial hardship exists, in this CHC
determination, it should relate only to the cost of rehabilitation of the house, and should not
consider personal, family or business difficulties, loss or potential loss of profits, poor quality
maintenance and neighborhood conditions (borrowed from the Monrovia, California Historic
Preservation Ordinance, Section 17.44.100 Economic Hardship (F)(7)).
Does that property have a current value and a reasonable use to the owner? Would a
determination to keep the house as a Contributing Property diminish the value of the property so
as to leave substantially not value? Would the cost of rehabilitation prohibit the owner use of the
property? Would rehabilitation increase the value of the property? Would rehabilitation of the
property benefit the City?
Cd-planlBua KalkowskVCHUCHC167-03 Dana St Roth
a2�Q
581 Dana Street - February 23,2OD4 Attachment 7
ARC167-03(Roth)
Page 4 of 6
SECRETARY OF INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION:
The Standards are to be applied to specific rehabilitation projects in a reasonable manner. taking
into consideration economic and technical feasibility.
I. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires
minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
;. Each property shall 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
architectural elements from other buildings. shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in
their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features. finishes. and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a property shall be presen ed.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement ora distinctive feature. the new feature shall match the old
in deshm, color, texture, and other visual qualities and. where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary. physical. or pictorial
evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting. that cause damage to historic materials
shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures. if appropriate. shall be undertaken using
the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If
such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions. exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and
shall be compatible with the massing. size, scale, and architectural features to protect the
historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner
that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its
environment would be unimpaired.
Standards No.I through 4, and No. 8 through 10 have importance to the issues being considered.
In particular, the context of a property (structure) within the historical neighborhood, the
avoidance of a "false sense of historical development," the strong possibility of subsurface
Cd-pianlf3ua Ka1kowskVCHGCHC167-03 Dana St Roth
581 Dana street February 23,2004 Attachment 7
ARC167-03(Roth)
Page 5 of 6
artifacts from prehistoric and historic land uses on the site, and the additions and new
constructions, weigh heavily in determinations to be made.
CHC DETERMINATIONS) REQUESTED:
The determinations necessary are modified from what appeared on the January Staff Report to
allow for ease of decision making,to maintain focus by appropriate sequence.
I. Should the house be recommended for removal from the Downtown Historical District
Contributing List?
The house at 581 Dana Street does not have recognized significant historical or architectural
value. However, Contributing Properties support the historical character of the district.
A "Contributing" property is defined in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines as a
building "built before 1941 that has retained its original architectural style and, viewed in the
context of its surroundings, contributes to the historical character of the area (City Council.
Resolution No. 6424 (1988 Series)).
DISCUSSION: It appears that the house was built in the 1870s or 1880s, along one of the
City's earliest streets, and in astyle that might be referred to as an early California.Ranch.
wood frame dwelling. The early California Ranch is a simple one-story structure with a:
gable roof running parallel to the front, with:a shed-roof front porch covering.the entire front
width, and a shed roof living-area addition to the rear. The house resembles what many
people would call a bunkhouse. It might be the house style that came after the building of
early simple adobe homes; being built during the time of.initial wealth accumulation and .,
before the arrival of skilled.European craftsmen capable of building homes with greater ". .: .
detail finishes.
In addition, the house exterior front wall has been modified over time. Ms Bertrando's report
suggests the possibility that the house became a duplex around 1912.
2. If the determination of No. 1 is that the CHC does not recommend removal of the 581 Dana
Street House from the listing of Contributing Properties, is rehabilitation of the existing
house financially feasible?
DISCUSSION: Consider the information requested in the February 9, 2004 letter sent by the
project planner to the project architect and copied to the property owner. Does the owner
currently have an economic use of the property? Would the cost of rehabilitation prohibit the
owner's use of the property? Would rehabilitation increase the value of the property? Would
rehabilitation of the property benefit the City?
3. If the CHC determination is a recommendation to the City Council to remove the house as a
Contributing Property to a Historical District, findings in support of the recommendation are
necessary.
DISCUSSION: The Bertrando Report provides a criteria for architecture and historical
Gd-plan/Buzz KalkowskBCHC/CHC167-03 Dana St.Roth
—�
581 Dana street - February 23,2004 Attachment 7
ARC167-03(Roth)
Page 6 of 6
context. This determination accepts the brief statements made in support of the structure not
having a contributing historical context to the Historic District and the Dana Street
neighborhood.
The report, in the "Criteria for building Evaluations, VIII. History — Context," mentions the
possibility of the existing garage having historical significance because of the 1920-30s fish
market being located in it. The garage has significant physical modifications and has also
been used as an apartment and a studio. In determining the historical significance of the
garage as an early fish market, it would be important to know the history of the City's early
fish, meat and grocery markets. Were any historically significant people or events associated
with the garage/fish market?
4. If the CHC determination is to recommend to the Council that the existing house be removed
as a Contributing Historic Property, the CHC should evaluate:the attributes of the proposed
house to replace the existing house (demolition requested) to determine if it fits within the
historical character :of the . Downtown Historic District and the historic Dana Street
neighborhood. ,
DISCUSSION: The proposed house has pleasant features, it is a two-story structure, more..
representative of a later California development time, and more in .character with
development of Eastern.USA development of earlier times.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
1. Continue the item for additional discussion or.with direction to provide additional information.
ATTACHMENTS &'ENCLOSURES:
Attached:
L. Copy of the January 26, 2004 Staff Report.
2. Copy of the February 9, 2004 letter to the architect and applicant requesting information.
3. Copies of Historic Resource Inventory and House Evaluation, 581 Dana Street, by Betsey
Bertrando.
4. Excerpts of the American Planning Association Preparing a Historic Preservation Ordinance,
pages 25 through 29.
5. Excerpts of the "California Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Series #1,
Appendix E: Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties"pages
32 through 38.
6. Excerpts from "Economic Hardship" sections of California local preservation ordinances.
7. Excerpts from "Hazardous or Unsafe Conditions" sections of California local preservation
ordinances.
Enclosure:
1. Architectural plans of proposed replacement house.
2. Scott Jay Smaby Structural Report.
3. Key Termite and Pest Control Report.
Cd-planlBua KalkowskYNCICHC167-03 Dana st Roth
2-z�
- Attachment 8
RESOLUTION NO. (2004 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
REMOVING 581 DANA STREET FROM THE CITY'S LIST OF
CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, at a public hearing on February 23, 2004 the Cultural Heritage Committee
recommended the City Council remove the property known as 581 Dana Street from the City's
Contributing List of Historic Resources; and '
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 6, 2004 and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the. Cultural Heritage Committee
hearing and action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
BE IT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the 581 Dana Street
property, finds that it does not meet the Historic Resource Criteria For Building Evaluation and
Recommendations as listed in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Criteria for Building
Evaluations, based on the following findings:
1. The house and accessory building have not retained their original architectural character.
2. The property's historic character has been adversely affected by changes to its setting and
environmental context.
3. The property no longer contributes to the historical or architectural character of the
neighborhood in which it located.
4. Adaptive rehabilitation is not a feasible option due to the exceptionally poor structural
condition of the house.
5. No evidence has been presented that the property is historically significant.
SECTION 2. Removal of Contributing status. The property at 581 Dana Street is
hereby removed from the City's Contributing Historic Properties list.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this Sixth day of April, 2004.
Mayor David F. Romero
1=21
Attachment 8
Resolution No. (2004 Series)
Page 2
ATTEST:
Lee Price C.M.C.
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City tto ey Jonathan P. Lowell
G:\GROUPS\COMDEV\CD-PLAN\bkalkowski\Council 167 03(581 Dana)\Roth Reso.doc
�/
Attachment 9
HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY and HOUSE EVALUATION
1
581 DANA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA
P-40-041148
APN 002-402-014
Prepared for:
Timothy B. Becher
793 Higuera Street, #2
' San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Prepared by:
Betsy Bertrando
Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants
267 Foothill Boulevard
San Luis Obispo,CA 93405
October 2003
Attachment 9
ABSTRACT
In September; 2003 a request was made by Tim Becher for a history and
evaluation of a house at 581 Dana Street, San Luis Obispo. The house is listed on
the"Contributing Properties within Historical Preservation.Districts" in the
"Historical Preservation Program Guidelines" for the City of San Luis Obispo
(1987). This study finds the structure not significant as defined in the Public
Resources Code and City of San Luis Obispo Guidelines and recommends that no
further cultural resource or historical work is needed prior to impacts or removal
of the house. This evaluation applies only:to the house fronting on 58.1 Dana
Street.and not to the structure formerly known as the"fish market"that is located .
at the rear of the property nor any archaeological potential that may arise for any
future development of the parcel.
INTRODUCTION
The work carried out as part of this study was conducted by Betsy Bertrando, of
Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants(BBRQ, who was assisted by Luther Bertrando.
Betsy Bertrando has over twenty years experience researching the cultural resources of the
central coast. The field work took place on October 17, 2003. The project property is depicted
on the San Luis Obispo 7.5' USGS quadrangle topographic map as existing in the City of San
Luis Obispo at 581 Dana Street. This study was carried out to determine if significant historic
resources are attributed to the residence at 581 Dana Street.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
History
The first known recorded European contact in San Luis Obispo occurred on September 6,
1769 when the Spanish land expedition led by Gaspar de Portola arrived from San Diego. Fr.
Crespi gave the name La Canada de ]a Natividad de Nuestra Sefiora to the place that three years
later would be near the location where Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded. It was
the beginning of the chain of missions that was to connect the outposts at San Diego and
Monterey.
Dana Street was part of early San Luis Obispo that was influenced by proximity to the
mission as well as early development of the town. It had two known adobe structures along its
short street as well as possibly the first brick residence in the city.
In 1850, Surveyor William Hutton laid out the grid pattern of streets that remains today in
older sections of San Luis Obispo. From the survey, a map was made of the town in 1862.
581 Dana SL,San Luis Obispo,CA-1
a-27
Attachment 9
Rejected as a pueblo by the United States Govenuncnt, the town was finally given title to 640
acres in 1867. With this award,title claims could then be considered.
A petition for a land grant in the town of San Luis Obispo was presented by William
Berryman Haley for 0.55 acres. This was for the south comer of Nipomo and Dana Streets to the
San Luis Obispo Creek and includes the project area. Haley had improved and settled on the
land in 1869 and so title was issued by the town in October 8, 1870. The following contains a
description of the town of San Luis Obispo adjacent to and including the project area. Itis part
of a longer and more thorough description that was written in 1870 by Walter Murray whose
office was in a little adobe which remains across from the mission in the plaza.
"It is our purpose now to speak more particularly of recent improvements
on the line of street beyond our office. Three houses have been built, one by W.
Haley, one by Henry Able,.for a saddlery and dwelling,and the third by Mr. Boll,
for a residence." (Angel 1883:360)
The property of Henry Able was located on Monterey Street across from the current
Hays/Latimer Adobe. The location of Mr. Boll's residence is unknown and not listed in the
Petitions for Land in the Town of San Luis Obispo. William Haley's house was at the comer of
Dana and Nipomo Streets. Also on Dana Street,adjacent to the Haley parcel on property
originally owned by Ramona Wilson,were two commercial plants.
"The original gas supply plant was on Dana Street. It was made from coal
and one could smell the coal fumes as one went by a house that was using gas to
cook with. There was no heating by gas nor gas lights in the city, There was only
one electric light:in San Luis Obispo in 1905." (Main n.d.:6)
In 1886,between the gas plant(San Luis Obispo Gas Works) and 581 Dana Street was a
brewery that by 1888 was known as the Pacific Brewery. By 1903,both the gas works and the
brewery had closed.
In the 1920s, life on Dana Street was recounted by Peter Andre who lived with his family
on an acre at the end of the street. At the other, 581 Dana Street was occupied by the Bowles.
"In the old days'in San Luis Obispo, there was only one fish market in
town. It was on the other end of Dana Street.from our house. The Bowles family
lived in the house in front and had the fish in the back building. Every Friday, my
mother would buy her fresh fish there except for the few times in Lent when she
made a macaroni and cheese casserole. How I hated both of them.
One time I was sitting on the front porch of the Bowles' house when one
of the kids got out and opened his pocket knife with the small blade sticking out at
a right angle. I had just gotten up and didn't realize that he had set the knife down
- where I had been sitting. When I sat down on the open blade, I can tell you I went
home crying." (Andre 1995:20)
581 Dana St.,San Luis Obispo,CA-2
- Attachment 9
METHODS
Archival Research
To establish the historical significance of the residence at 581 Dana Street, a search of the
historical literature, maps, directories,newspapers; unpublished manuscripts and ephemera were
conducted at the San Luis Obispo County Historical Society, Carnegie Library Archive (October
17, 2003) and the private archive of Bertrando & Bertrando Research Consultants. Brief
interviews with the house occupant,Brian Roth and Jean Martin,who has lived nearby most of
her life,were conducted as well. On October 22, 2003 the house history files at the City of San
Luis Obispo Community Development Department were studied for both 581 and 579 Dana
Street to determine if any permits had been requested and what was noted on the historical
inventory. Both addresses were once on the same parcel and currently have the same owner.
Field Investigation
The exterior of the house was viewed on October 17,2003. The architectural integrity
was studied and the overall type of construction was identified. Photographs were taken of three
sides of the house as well as the"fish market" structure at the rear of the parcel.
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Effective in February 1999,changes made to the California Environmental Quality Act of
1970 (CEQA)removed thresholds of significance from the main document and relied upon
criteria set forth in Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1 Title 14 CCR Section 4852. These
revisions to qualifying criteria for determining the significance of a resource include the
following;
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 possesses high
artistic value.
4. Has yielded, or may be likely.to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Cultural resources displaying one or more of these criteria,may be considered significant
and thereby subject to special measures of avoidance or evaluation prior to any potential impacts.
If impacts cannot be avoided then a.mitigation plan is normally developed. CEQA directives
regarding mitigation of cultural resources are also addressed in the Public Resources Code.
In addition, the City of San Luis Obispo has produced The Historical Preservation .
Guidelines which were adopted by the City Council, (resolution No. 6158) in 1987. This was
581 Dana St,San Luis Obispo,CA-3
i
�.a9
Attachment 9
amended by City Council resolution No. 6857 to incorporate U.S. Secretary of the Interior
standards for rehabilitation as informational guidelines.
RESULTS
Archival Research
House History for 581 Dana Street
No building permit was located for the house at 581 Dana Street. A check of the
activity/history files at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department gave
little information; a plumbing permit in 1976, a Home Occupation Permit(HOP) for an Artist's
Studio, and in 1986 another HOP for Parker Construction Business.
A check of the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps revealed coverage for the area beginning in
1886. A house with a shed roofed veranda and a shed in the rear is depicted for the property.
There is no change on the maps for 1888, 1891, and 1903. The 1926 map depicts the rear
structure as a little larger and noted as a fish market. Today the footprint for the two structures
remains the same.
/�yrJ;;CC�� iii//. . .y•• Via.:•
Figure 1:Haley Request for Land in San Luis Obispo
Occupant History
A petition for a grant of land was presented by William B. Haley to the town in May 23,
1870 for 0.55 acre parcel on the southeast comer of Nipomo and Dana Streets. The petition
states that he settled on the parcel in 1869 (Figure 1). The Great Register of 1867 lists Haley as
being a 32 year old farmer originating from Illinois. The Coast Directory lists him as a miner and
581 Dana St.,San Luis Obispo,CA-4
I
Attachment 9
he appears again in the 1892 Great Register as a laborer. The newspaper announced the city
trustees had unanimously declared Haley to the post of poundkeeper(Tognazzini• 1891). Later he
excused himself from the position as he had found abetter job. An obituary later announced his
death in 1898 (Tognazzini 1898).
It is doubtful that the William Haley residence still exists at 581 Dana Street as the old
frame house currently occupying the lot. It is true that 581 Dana Street was formerly a part of the
,Haley parcel (B. Bertrando and E. Bertrando 1998). However,the lot was split from the original
parcel of.55 acres prior to 1886 and a residence already appears on the corner lot. This residence
was recently demolished during the Soda Works development project that removed three very
historic structures.
The house at 581 Dana Street was later owned by Mrs. Hanna McHenry. The McHenry
family appears in San Luis Obispo during the 1880s. At various times the McHenry's were
proprietors for the Commercial and Ramona Hotels as well as a liveryman,dairyman and
fireman.
In 1904,John Honn,a lineman and Mrs:Lama Honn were listed at that address. Several
names were listed by 1912 suggesting a duplex at that address. They were Susan J. Stockton,
housewife; Lola E. Wade, stenographer, Myrtle E. Wade, saleslady; and David H. Wade,
teamster. Only Susan Stockton,widow of James, is shown on the property in 1914.
In the 1920s,the Bowles family resided in the front house and ran a fish market out of the
back shed(Figure 2). This continued through the 1930s with Mrs. Lou Bowles eventually
running the fish market herself. By the early 1940s,Joaquin Craveiro, whose wife worked at the
Golden West Restaurant,lived there with T. Souza whose wife, Evangeline,also worked at the
same restaurant Later in 1947,only the Craveiro's are listed on the property. During the early
1950s the Craveiro's ran the Joaquin Grocery which was on 420 High Street By 1960 Joaquin
was a school crossing guard and only his widow Francisca Craveiro was on the premises in the
early 1970s.
22 ?T•�h,-r
L-
1.
Figure 2: Former Fish Market
581 Dana St,San Luis Obispo,CA-5
Attachment 9
Later owners were Mildred Brown from Shandon who rented the house. One renter in
1976 was Billy Parker who ran a business using the rear former fish market as the Sunbird
Design Studio Artists. By 1991,.the current occupant Brian Roth was sharing the property with
Billy Parker.
The property as well as the neighboring house and lot at 579 Dana Street was acquired
over twenty years ago by Marie Bowman who is Brian Roth's grandmother. Both properties
have stayed in the family ever since. Currently, Sue Roth, who is Brian's mother, lives at 579
and Brian lives at 581. His sister Heidi Roth Hale is owner as well.
Field Investigation
Although,the house appears in the same location since 1886, much of the materials
viewed do not relate to that time frame. The house is in poor condition and has no special
features. It seems the morning glory vine is holding up the walls. For a period of time it was
used as a duplex.
The high gable roof is covered with tar paper that has a skylight punched through on the
rear side of the rectangular structure. Windows are double hung single pane sash that appear to
have slight variations. The front has two windows that are on either side of a large jalousie
window. They are a more recent addition. Most windows have aluminum screens, including the
primary door. The house is sheathed in six inch clapboard and rests on concrete piers.
TM'R
. A.
7
Figure 3: Front Veranda
Rudimentary wood steps lead up to the veranda that is under a shed roof. There is an
open and unadorned railing on either side of the steps and across the veranda(Figure 3). There
are six posts supporting the railing and roof. Neither the steps, railing or posts appear to be of an
1880s vintage. Plywood covers the veranda floor and lattice covers the open crawl space across
the front. The two doors off the front veranda are older but unmatched and from different time
periods. One has three lower wood panels with a square glass above and the other has two
581 Dana St.,San Luis Obispo,CA-6
,2-3Z
Attachment 9
recessed vertical panels with glass above that is divided into six panes (two on each side are
narrower than the two center panes). Old style doorknobs remain. The wiring running above the
door is of the knob and tube variety.
There is a shed addition that runs across the rear of the house that is made of various
materials(Figure 4). Most is plywood covered with the exception of the northeast corner that has
a small window that is surrounded by board and batten construction. It was difficult to see if it
was originally a veranda that had later been enclosed. The shed currently contains a water heater.
_ - s
Figure 4:Rear of House
The northeast wall of the house is very close to the commercial structure that runs along
the adjacent property and was difficult to view. The southwest wall allowed a peek at the
windows with the foundation and walls being covered with morning glory vine(Figure 5). The
property has a high wood fence that runs across the front of the property and up to the house next
to the driveway where there is a gate leading into the front yard area.
Figure 5:Southeast Corner
581 Dana St.,San Luis Obispo,CA-7
Attachment 9
RECOMMENDATIONS
The 581 Dana Street address is listed on the City of San Luis Obispo's "Contributing
Properties within Historical Preservation Districts (City of San Luis Obispo 1987). The four
Public Resources Code criteria listed above in the Significance Criteria section were applied to
the house at 581 Dana Street. None were applicable to the residence. In addition, the City of San
Luis Obispo guidelines.for evaluating historic resources contain further criteria for architecture,
building and history.
Architectural Criteria
I. Style-No longer applicable with loss of integrity replacing the original structure.
II. Design -Artistic merit and craftsmanship do not apply.
III. Age-Modifications make it difficult to determine if anything is original to thefirst
footprint depicted in 1886.
Criteria for Building Evaluations
IV. Architect -n/a
V. Environmental Design Continuity Although several historic structures still exist.along
Dana Street. This house was compromised when the commercial structure was built
within one foot of the northeast side along the property line. As the commercial structure
begins at the sidewalk and a wood fence continues along the sidewalk in front of the
house. The house is hidden from view and across the street from the mortuary parking
lot.
VI. . History- Person Many people have lived in the house as it was a rental for many years,
and at times a duplex. The occupants who were on the property the longest amount of.
time were Joaquin and Francisca Craveiro who maintained the house for approximately
thirty years. During the early 1950s they owned the Joaquin Grocery that was at 420
High Street.
VII. History - Event-No associations with an event contributing to local history was
uncovered regarding the house during this investigation.
VIII.. History - Context -To some extent, the structure in the rear has some interest as an early
and perhaps first fish market in the town. Both the house and former fish market have
remained within an early footprint for the parcel. Both have been modified.
581 Dana St.,San Luis Obispo,CA-8
a-3�l
Attachment 9
CONCLUSION
Although the footprint for the front house at 581 Dana Street(recorded as P-41-041148)
suggests a construction date of the mid 1880s, based on the Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps,the
current construction does not visibly concur with the type of materials that would have been used
from that time period but instead displays a variety of materials used up until the 1950s. Bits and
pieces may still exist from that earlier time amongst the patchwork, however,not enough to
sustain any integrity. The house is in poor condition as well. A level of significance as a
contributing structure to a historic district should not apply to this house. However, any planned
replacement residence design should be cognizant of the surrounding historic area and maintain
the feeling of structures built one hundred years ago in the City of San Luis Obispo.
This report does not address the rear structure that has been at various times a shed,
garage, fish market, artist studio and residence. .No evaluation has been made of that structure
and none was requested. It also does not cover possible subsurface disturbances which may
occur during any future planned reconstruction,addition,house removal or demolition. Because
of historic activity for at least 150 years on the project parcel and its proximity to the Mission, it
may be likely that subsurface archaeological deposits exist on the property.
581 Dana St.,San Luis Obispo,CA-9
Y
Attachment 9
REFERENCES
Bibliography
Andre, Peter R
1995 Memoirs of a Small Town Boy. Unpublished manuscript.
Angel, Myron
1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, California. Facsmile 1979 Reprint by Valley
Publishers,Fresno, Ca
Bertrando,Betsy and Ethan Bertrando
1998 Cultural Resource Investigation of the Soda Water Works and Tullman Residence
Complex. Prepared by Bertrando &Bertrando Research Consultants.
City of San Luis Obispo
1987 The Historical Preservation Program Guidelines produced by the Community
Development Department.
Maino, Charles A .
n.d. Old Times (1887-1981). Manuscript edited by Jeanette Gould Maino, Charles R.
Maino,M.D. and Vernon J. Maino, M.D.
Tognazcini, Wilmar
1991 100 Years Ago. Articles from the"Morning Tribune"compiled by Wilmar
Tognazzini
1998 100 Years Ago. Articles.from the "Morning Tribune"compiled by Wilmar.
Tognazzini.
Maps
1870 Map of the Town of San Luis Obispo. Surveyed by Hams and Ward.
W. Haley shown as property owner.
1874 Map of the County of San Luis Obispo. Published by R.R. Hams.
W. Haley shown as property owner.
1886 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
1888 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
1891 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
1903 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
1926 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
1956 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map
581 Dana St.,San Luis Obispo,CA-10
=' Attachment 9
Documents and Directories
Petition for Land Grants in the City of San Luis Obispo
1870 William Bergman Haley request for land containing .55 acres,Dana and Nipomo
Streets. Settled on land in 1869.
1892 Great Register
City Directories for 1867, 1884, 1891, 1904, 1912, 1914, 1916, 1920, 1928, 1938, 1942
and 1950.
Interviewed
Brian Roth 10-17-2003
Jean Martin 10-17-2003
581 Dana SL,San Luis Obispo,CA- 11
1
7
-- Attachment 9
-.Nati fly " 'Cayl-:>iJ.J' :`�! i • L�"T ��p fi �.'. `_-e� ., `i \ '1 is
Uh
I'B —y,OR TeeCt '�B��c-- ,� ���•� 7 7 '�: - .,� \ ��Zd•.•�'l .i\., �q� `{I y�1�`4`�� \ 11`1, filll�,l
_ I NO I
Y ' 39
BT /
r P ,
o`�,•IErw p� _ ', _ .R pio FMe� tr ��•• ;v Jr
ST �. � .•�. is i
I, •
�...� ��iWdLeL�•� � •'� A BM '�/ :•2B' � ''%.5•( 7BOi� '` � �((L_/' t,,' t1i
ice• \11� .�� '9 . alio ^ i, p 1. {:��`
`.r`.';� ����� �� /•.. .e i h 111 �(;'�._ .:U
�\ . .�t.:e,. I��•/ .,:�'� � � IqR at urate �� I
,: J _. y
r o�,r � 9` _ �, ;��4•` 1111,
-., I L 9' PSS _•.[:. ilae.�•� i ft�I``� 11!�
246
-��'^�`-� t'�'�:\,_.,t,. Vii/ � 6^ • i•lio �• •.,6b y'•,', vIr'.•.,.
�e \�.'�'-'`�'' i c-'i a.ax - .'S�' S S /% �;• Jou •••e.`.\.
9r. �''�\♦♦, R o j.. ,�IIr�'�%9 •.♦�• � t\
and i ' .... .`"b`-' •♦ • ♦ r
`156\ ''`•� �. \ ' SOVTIL_—__ E�- __'_ _ _I __{,' ••'•�''•• �•
4rrgr 1
�•��%\` �' t � �ka__l r�� �• .� �_.�L__:_�I.Q♦ti •'.` ,1�) �:•-'9itiah
h mert�F
�� iy, :ii i Ir •I .a ----M°nd-iw' I' Y••\ .•. '9ej
Park
r C�; •/ Ir ' '..''db. ', ,- r' , ark •
' '\ // ��` P f � rn a �" -.�---- '♦ � y`
O ��` '�`��►� ��• Itr•_o gaJ<t.J�`.:�I�I '..'`\<--�-_— ..._�r• i•/• „ _•'. L �. T ~
' 1l y.r
\4• �'i= 4 i ' iso;\ .. `\ \�i �` '.•. '. : _ . . ti►
h1VI%�.�\••,', _\�•4.�. \�1' ll"a .I\�\.t4 _.�\�`•rti .. I' 8�_m %
rive-.n V\eheAter YtM�
f --•____ -;•�-!(li7it .rL_.y...,.'d c�.'•414 _ {�, •t':c;359= ;�J
USGS 7.5' San Luis Obispo, California quadrangle map, revised 1994
581 Dana St.,San Luis Obispo,CA- 12
�3OV,
Attachment 9
EXISTING 10' SIDEWALK
524'
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
. I 1
I
I
I
EXISTING I '
RESIDENCE
1
I
1
I
I
I
31
I
y � n
i ql I�
z1
i
I.
I
I
i I 1
� I
. I EXISTING
GARAGE
I
I
1
I
I
V Cp�SITE PLAN
vss•.iia � ..
Project Location Map: 581 Dana Street, San Luis Obispo, California
581 Dana SL,San Luis Obispo,CA- 13
s
��J
Attachment 9
State of Calif omia—The Resources Agency Primary. # 9-40-U-•a1148:
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # .
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRKP Status Code 7
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
Page_ of 2 *Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 581 Dana Street
P1. Other Identifier: Roth House
*P2. Location: o Not for Publication 0 Unrestricted •a. County Gan Luis Obispo
and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or Ptd. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
•b. USGS 7.5' Quad San Luis Obispo Date Revised 1994 T 33S; R ]2E; ISE '/. ofNE '/. of Sec 4; t�p�B.M.
c. Address 581 Dana Street City San Luis Obis_ Zip 93401
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone mE/ mN
e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries)
The high gable roof that has a skylight punched through the rear side of the rectangular structure is covered with tar paper.
Windows are double hung sash that have slight variations. The front two are on either side of a large jalousie window. Most
have aluminum screens,including the primary door. The house is covered with 6 inch clapboard and rests on concrete piers.
Wooden steps lead up to the shed roof veranda that fronts the house. Open and unadorned railings and posts support the
plywood floored veranda The two doors leading into the house are unmatched. A shed addition made of various materials
runs across the rear of the house. It is mostly plywood covered with the exception of the northeast end that has a small
window and board and batten construction. The house is in poor condition and held up by a moming glory vine. The rear
of the lot contains a small building that has been used in the past as a shed,fish market and artist studio.
•P3b.Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) (HF2) sinctle family property
•P4.Resources Present: ® Building
❑ Structure ❑ Object ❑ Site ❑
District ❑ Element of District ❑
Other (Isolates, etc.)
:l P5b. Description of Photo: Iview,date,
accession #) Front of building
lookin south. Oct. 2003.
•P6. Date Constructed/Age and
r
Source: ® Historic
r ❑ Prehistoric ❑ Both
est Pre 1900
•P7. Owner and Address:
Roth Family
C �
579 Dana Street
Can Luis Obispo. ,CA 93401_
+' v$ *P8.Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and
address) Betsy Bertrando.
Bertrando & Bertrando
Research Consultants 267
Foothill Blvd. , San Luis
Obispo, CA 93405
*P9.Date Recorded: October 2003
•P10.Survey Type: (Describe) Reconnaissance
*P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter"none.") Historic Resource Inventory and House
Evaluation 581 Dana Street San Luis Obispo CA
*Attachments: ❑NONE ®Location Map ❑Continuation Sheet ❑Building, Structure, and Object Record
❑Archaeological Record ❑District Record ❑Linear Feature Record ❑Milling Station Record ❑Rock ArtRecord
❑Artifact Record ❑Photograph Record ❑ Other (List):
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
a-�v
Attachment 9
State'ofCalifornia—The:Resoun lgency Primary # 2. 40-0 18 .;
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAR Trinomial
Page _2 of 2 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) 581 Dana Street
*Map Name: San Luis Obispo *Scale: 7 .51 *Date of map: Rev. 1994
\ 10\+\{Iweq. II, +♦ 11'! ■ t t I, '., .`II(\•,1
NCP NO 1 8 r �,'.1 �;S 'p� •�jd. 1\.. \�1��9�� 1 \ �•�.I '.ISI �1„ \\. \ .
.78 �.. Taa! � : _ 1 1 1 :.` .�. �' I y Ih c. `\..`•^�1 ��Dect�I i�� i'
,° R - aLDO"'•.. OD in ''�'• paehe -�.\ �/I -' ly.°`�:i`79 x �c
' k .
8r
( ..Era O- I \R gim IMG tr _._..�1'-- Jy' i,..•
1.- '� 1 a ♦ _ - M•. +�'!� i J.J`l; �1�/ LN�\.i
.��;�: •'�)WatPl\ I ° I 'i 5�`ZBO. l l�'•1 �``. ..
1i2°-�1a['OI .• M 1 `I2T5—
+�< �� � d M 252' � �► ```lt\ `� ; �,I
ti
,9 r�a�n �jt '•rA♦II ..11. �7 :
�� ° ,I�� ^' � � "I!• a°k use 23 '�ti0 246 • ,. M I�-�'�• i`. •' LL;
•'� -.-^-__. \.�.^ i�' I era �.. � ' a t 'C^�\ ������`-_ `-\.
.90
r '
,�-`�` ���` ,\� �:' r � /i ej w oma �� \ ,+'• f' \J
'�'1`, ;;1 •\. \, � I oI �•.. :� ,. •+fir .• . ;p .•
sourk.—_ .._. ai_-_' zo`s IJ f•� LQ
-r L,� 1 ♦ '.•,� ♦•,.
.�\ . �`\`': 'I ;, ✓ kt_: pj -3`Tnalr mer ) •..
^ / I __Nlendm7 fir• S-- P. r •• .
II'mF'= 'j .. ww I'. ,'J011tt ,� • ';�-V
•\,! / '1 i6$i •.> ff / 'S ' .! y; Park
'• Imo'`'•\ o :t^� �` 1 i \ w�:- \°b�.,'\4-..l ��''• �• I 71.:riAk
iii• '• \ /..:C7 `w\ '�"���` 1 \'ti \.J` '' `�' •:�• Q'RCUTT•.
•`TheAte�%Il•i�e ��'�„�; ''q;� ;� `' 'I,. �•?[irt�Yink• :�~ �•� •`'�'j�\!s��1 ��a%��e
%� ' _•___ J�� I 1 :-..rp....y.�I � l 1� l��c����'�J''' SAY '�
:fti. ,J .... •/��`�-�Si:a':'•II:SIE'1Io••^-!Ia \-'`� . .�\ _ ��'�.Y'•t. �\: .. iiw,�:� �.:.' 1 .^.
DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information
-ql
SCOTT JAY SMABY Attachment 1
A R C H I T E C T
SPECIAL INSPECTION REPORT
Date: February 2,2004 Inspection Date: February 2, 2004
Client. Brian Roth
581 Dana Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Subject: Special Inspection—Single.Family Residence
Location: 581 Dana Street,San Luis Obispo,CA
Investigation: Inspection and Investigation of a single family residence to determine the structural
continuity of the structure and review health and safety issues.
Introduction:
This house is an old house on Dana Street that backs up to the San Luis Obispo creek. This house was
built at some time around the tum of the century and has been added onto several times.The lot is a flat
lot that slopes to the creek in the back It has a nonconforming set back at the left side yard. There is a
secondary structure at the rear of the property that was not inspected. Upon initial inspection of the
property I would like to note that the house in very overgrown with vegetation,the roof is substandard
and exterior is in bad need of repairs. Please refer to the Home Inspection Report preformed by Real
Estate Inspection Services dated February 2,2004 for an in depth review of this residence.
Observations:
1. Exterior. The exterior is covered and overgrown with vegetation. The roof is substandard rolled
composition roofing material over Manu other roofs.There appears to be several leaks.Damaged roof joist
and roof sheathing were noted due to fungus rot, and insect damage. a ri"�f o0 of is are sagging at the
back of the house and could potentially�'al'1�'i waIked on. The exterior wood-w are m
Qondition and have been patched many times, the complete back o e Ouse Lias been sheeted with
plywood and the house has various styles of siding materials used over a long period of time. There is
extensive moistur a�sect damage to all the wood siding,porch and substructure. The substructure is
in y= voor condition. There appears to be no exterior foundation system, to wood contact_is
REMLaJea Most of the structure is wood on earth and there are some post and piers with substandard
concrete piers. The floor has severe sIap,3ng at various places due to the lack of proper footings,rotted and
insect damaged floor joists and posts, and piers that have settled. The front porch is severely lead to
the.street. The plumbin and e s are both substandard and m very poor condition. The
electrical system is QeroL lntith many hazardous conditions and in need o er review.
2. Interior. This structure has been added onto several times, many in a substandard fashion. The interior
has been, altered, modified and added too. There are two lofts in the attic with two substandard ladders
7 6 5 5 BELLA V IST A DR . A T A S C A D E R O , CA 9 3 4
605 - 466 - 6594 Aax 805 - 466 - 6522
1 - 800 - 521 - 6599
a yz
-SCOTT JAY SMAIE IL Attachment 10
A R C H I T E C T
that have lowered the bedroom ceilings to substandard heights. There appears to be no original wall
materials remaining on the interior and what w materials there are, most is_substandard drywall or
plywood and boards. There are large gaps in the walls where framing can be observed and plant material
is growing through out the interior comin om the outside through cracks and holes in the:walls. The
floor slopes severely at the back of the house and all doors do not close ro rl or at all There is
noticeable insect damage in various places especially not cosi a 'tchen cabinets. The beam at the
ceiling in the back of the kitchen is sagging as well as the ceiling/roof structure. There are many
substandard plumbing and electrical conditions prevalent through out the interior.
Conclusion:
From my observations and inspection, this structure is in terrible disrepair and has irreversible and non
repairable structural damage. There are extreme health and safety hazLdstoo many to mention,p ease
refer to a ome pection Report dated February 2,2004.
In my opinion this struchue is uniernrthy of any repairs or uygm es due to its condition This structure
is of structurally or :that
ularic*all lea ibl o air or res moisturean geto wood members and sidinadditionsellasavingreal foundaticodition ofrepair there is no portion of this structure that is worthy of salvaging at any cost See
attached photos.
I appreciate the opportunity to have been of assistance to you. If you have any further questions, or need
additional assistance,please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
SCOTT JAY SMABY ARCHITECT
Scott Jay Smaby,ARA
Architect-C 22684
2
I -5
Fl �
-
.44
.em
,e`�
Ott oda
_ - -
o�
I Y�
e
ni• �� 5�'''ryL SJ' t > � Vin - _
.... •lC'Yat' 1'I>�Y�?utia4 v' t I
e t
a
Sc`„ae'V4
.y t
ow
im
�x f c ,f I � 1•� ra�i�n_ .. �. �•, �` /'I �; ..r' ar .4 � , �
�X� yYY M�
rt 2�C•-'�
Z
'� 1'.:J ::�.: +.1< � .✓•M�w.• *✓ryi - ;' _
,-Are srn Pi
12•lJ`6s, /
GG rr.
,
. 1 1
r
r
SCOTT JAY SMAL .&'.& Attachment 10
A R C H I T E C T
b
Y
a
4
13. Interior back Bathroom 14.Wall&Ceiling at Bedroom
Note the sag and bow in the roof Note substandard wall&ceiling materials
and mold on walls&ceiling. Vegetation growing through walls
Vegetation growing through walls
.:j
15. Interior Back of Kitchen 16. Sub Area Framing
Note the bow in the yellow beam Note excessive moisture and vegetation
And the sag in the ceiling beyond
Moisture damage noted at ceiling
6
,2-U7
SCOTT I > > SMAL I( Attachment lo
17. Interior Living Room 18. In dnr Bedroom
Note the loft,ladder&wall materials
19. Interior bedroom
{{ t
} t
Y' t
s
1 �
WOOD DESTROW � . STS AND ORGANISMS Ir'-F ;TIQN REFb_whment 10
Building No. Street,City,Zip Date of Inspection No.of Pages
581 Dana, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 02/05/04 3
MEN
TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL. INC.
P.O: BOX 969 ATASCADEROr CA 93423
(805)466-2451 (805) 543-7856 (600) 548-5599
Firm Registration No. PR 2103 Report No. 32543 Escrow No.
Ordered y: Property wner/Party or lntere.t: Report Sant To:
Brian Roth Brian Roth Brian Roth
581 Dana 581 Darty 581 Dana
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 San Luis Obispo CA 93401 San Luis Obispo CA 93401
COMPLETE REPORT ❑ LIMITED PtE'PURT N SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT ❑ REINSPECI ON REPORT ❑
General esenption: Inspection Tag Postid:
Single story;Single family residence;
Wood siding;Composition shingle roof; Furnished and purer ag:Posted:
An inopeeben has-been made of the structure(s) shown on the diagram in accordance with tructura Pont- Control Act.
Detached porches, detached steps, detached decks and any other structures not on the diagram were not inspected.
Subterranean Termites ® Drywood Termites ® Ftmgus/Dryrot ® Other Findings IN Further Inspection ❑
if any of above boxes are checked,it indicates that there ware visible problems in accessible groes. Read the report for details an checked items.
Diagram not to scall?
3A
r t
Joseph Swiontek FR 23685 !'
Inepoeted By License No. Signature -
You are entitled to obtain Copies of all reports zW completion nodces on this property reported to the Structural Peat Ceri6al!o do reuse_ �- -ears.
To obtain copies eontsct.:.Strueturai Post Control Board. 1410.Mowe Avenue.Suite 18.Sacramento.Calaoinia 95029-4112OCI
NOTE' aucstion.or problems concemino the above,apart should ba d4aeted to the manager el the coogarw. Urvsanblrauasllonq o,p,abbma with cervi s
performed may be dbaeted to the Structural Peet Control Board at(91 G)Wl-0708. (800)737-8108 or www.0satboard.ea.eov. 43M-41 (Rev..io/ol i
2- y9
tad PAGE OF STAND/ ?ECTION REPORT ON PROPERTY AT' Attachment 10
581 Dana, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401 02/05/04 32543
BUILDING NO. STREET, CiTY, STATE, ZIP INSPECTION DATE REPORT NO.
1. ***THIS INSPECTION iS LiMiTED TO THE VISIBLE AND ACCESSIBLE PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE AS NOTED ON DIAGRAM DNLT.••'•
"& `(SEE.THE NOTE AT THE BEGINNING OF PAGE 3 FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE SCOPE OF THIS INSPECTION REPORT)" -•*" W"
A 'COMPLETE" INSPECTION INCLUDES ALL ACCESSIBLE AREAS OF THE STRUCTURE NOTED ON THE DiAGRAM. A "LIMITED" INSPECTION
INCLUDES INSPECTION OF AREAS AS NOTED ON DiAGRAM AND AS DESCRIBED IN THE REPORT ONLY, ALTHOUGH A FULL DiAGRAM MAY BE
DRAWN. A "SUPPLEMENTAL" INSPECTION WILL DISCLOSE FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THE ORIGINAL INSPECTION REPORT AND WILL
REFERENCE THE ORIGINAL REPORT 0 AND DATE. A "REINSPECTION" REPORT WILL DESCRIBE WORK COMPLETED BY OTHERS AND WILL
REFERENCE THE ORIGINAL REPORT IN AND DATE. ALL FINDINGS WILL PERTAIN TO INFESTATION ANO/OR INFECTION BY WOOD DESTROYING
PESTS AHD/OR ORGANISMS AND DOES NOT INCLUDE REFERENCE TO OTHER STRUCTURAL PESTS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LiMiTED TO, RATS,
MICE, BATS, FLEAS, COCKROACHES, ANTS ETC.. THIS INSPECTION DOES NOT INCLUDE OPINIONS AS TO THE CONDITION OF PLUMBING,
ROOFING, ELECTRICAL, GAS, HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING, ROOFING OR OTHER SUCH.STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS. If SUCH INFORMATION IS
DESiERED, WE SUGGEST THAT A OUAIiFTED HONE TNSPECTOR BE CONTACTED TO PERFORM THIS INSPECTION, INSPECTION OF FENCES lS
NOT INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT. THE EXTERIOR OF THE ROOF SURFACE WiLL NOT BE INSPECTED. IF YOU WANT THE WATER TIGHTNESS
OF THE ROOF DETERMINED, YOU SHOULD CONTACT A ROOFING CONTRACTOR WHO IS LICENSED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S LiCENSE BOARD.
2. The following areas were not inspected, as indicated in Section 111990, paragraph (j) of the Structural Pest Control
Act and Rules and Regulations: Furnished interiors, inaccessible attics, insulated attics, and portions thereof; the
interior of hollow walls: spaces between a floor or porch deck and the ceiling or soffit below: stall showers over
finished ceilings: such structural segments as Porte cocheres, enclosed bey windows, buttresses and similar areas to
which there is no access without defacing or tearing out lumber, masonry and finished work, built-in cabinet work,
floor beneath coverings, areas where storage conditions or locks makes inspection impractical. The inspector did not
move storage or furnishings during inspection. NEITHER KEY TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL, INC. NOR IT'S EMPLOYEES OR
SUUMNTRACTORS MAKES ANYGUARANTEE AGAINST FUTURE OR HIDDEN INFESTATIDN(S), INFECTION($), OR ADVERSE CONDITIONS)
PRESENT BUT NOT EVIDENT AT THE T114E OF INSPECTION(S). Routine inspection does not include opening opening windows,
opening all exterior doers or inupeetin interior of cabinets. Further inspection of these areas may be completed upon
request and at additional expense.
3. CERTIFICATION applies to visible and accessible areas of the structure observed at the time of original inspection.
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that parties in interest Will not inherit, hidden infestations,
infections or adverse conditions. KeyTermite and Pest Control, Inc. assumes no liability for such hidden conditions.
if a problem is discovered that was not disclosed during our inspection; do riot disturb the area. Contact our office
immediately to inspect the problem area and allow proper determination.
6. REINSPECTIONS OF WORK COMPLETED BY OTHERS will be performed upon request within < months of the Original inspection
report. An inspection fee of (50.00 minimum to a maximun of the Original report fee Will be charged for each
Reinspection. Consultation appointments Witt be mpde upon request. On site appointments will be bitted-at a minimum of
535,00 per appointment. Telephone calls to discuss the report findings are no charge.
5. The structure was inspected from the ground level only. Portions of the structure that extend more than 10 feet
from the ground level were visually inspected only. Accuracy above this point cannot be guaranteed. Wood members
showing visible signs of infestation or infection were pick tested to determine the nature and extent of the finding.
The inspector did not get up an the roof to inspect wood members accessible from the roof.
6. NOTICE: The structural Pest Control Board encourages competative business practices among registered companies.
Reports an this structure prepared by various companies should gist the same findings (e.i. termite infestations,
termite damage, fungus damage, etc.). However, recenmendations to correct these findings may vary company to company.
You have a right to seek a second opinion from another company.
7. NOTICE: The charge for service that this company subcontracts to another person or entity may include the company's
charges for arranging and administering such services that are in addition to the direct costs associated with paying
the aubcontractor.
B. This property WAS NOT inspected for the presence or absence of health related molds or fungi. By California Law we
are neither qualified, authorized nor licensed to inspect for health related molds. Ifyou desire information about
the presence or absence of health related molds, contact the California Department of Health Related Services. A link
may be found In the "Realtor" section of our web site at ww.keytermite.cam
9. In addition to the breakdown listed below, "INFORMATIONAL ITEMS" may also be listed in the report and on diagram
concerning items where the inspector wishes to inform parties in interest concerning questionable conditions found
that may be of concern but did not qualify as a required finding or correction as defined by the Structural Pest
Control Act.
SECTION I SECTION 11 FURTHER INSPECTION
Section is Contains items where Section [I: Contains items where Further Inspection: Contains Item
evidence of active infestation, there are conditions dearrcd likely to where further inspection is required
infection or conditions that have lead to infestation or infection, but to determine the absence or presence
resulted in or from infestation or where no visible evidence of such was of infestation, infection or adverse
infection found. conditions.
KEY TERMITE AND PEST CONTROL, INC. —License No. PR 2103
3rd- PAGE OF STAN,r-'U SPECTION REPORT ON PROPERTY AT:_,
Attachment 10
581 Dan*, San Luis Obispo, CA,_93401 02/05/04 32543
BUILDING NO. STREET, CITY, STATE, ZIP INSPECTION DATE REPORT NO.
+* *+ TICS IS A LINb= INSFEMON IWORT
This inspection report is limited to the structure as noted on the diagram
only at the request of the owner. Other portions of the structure were not
inspected. if the aowr wishes to be advised of the c=plete extent /
activity of infestations, infections, damags and advr =e conditions of the
prvpezty, a corrplete inspection should be performed. There will be a fee for
this type of ixtpect on.
FUNGUS/DRYROT:
Item --4: Earth to wood contact, fungus damage, svbterranea*+ termite damage and
drywcod termite damage were rioted thi&igbout the structure due to lark of a
proper foundation and many yea= of deferred maintenance:
R MMON; Replacerent of the rioted damage does not appear to be
feasable. Demolition of the structure. and zeccnstn=icn of a new stzuctuze
would be _ -
tra**,e This is a Section 1 Item w*,rvrtw
SECTION 1 SECTION"2 FURTHER INSEyEM
3A: No bid
KEY 1T:MM AND PEST CONTROL,INC. —License No.PR 2103