Front Page  »  

Could San Luis Obispo lose ownership of Canet Adobe?

February 24, 2025

By KAREN VELIE

The City of San Luis Obispo plans to build a tiny home village for low-income people at the site of the historical Canet Adobe. The lofty goal raises a host of questions that could result in legal action against the city and the loss of the property.

Is the city violating an agreement to utilize the property for parks and recreational services? Has the city failed to properly maintain the property? Because of its alleged violations, could the previous owner’s heirs take the property back?

More than 40 years ago, Mary Gail Black donated 466 Dana Street to the city with the requirement the city maintain the property for park and recreational services. However, if the city were to renege on its word, Black’s heirs have a right to take ownership of the property, according to a July 6, 1989 grant deed.

The Canet Adobe, one of SLO County’s oldest structures

Located on Dana Street alongside Stenner Creek, the Canet Adobe, also known as the Rosa Butron de Canet Adobe, was built circa 1845. It is one of the oldest structures in San Luis Obispo County.

Without a local newspaper, community members would nail legal notices on a wall at the Canet Adobe in the 1850s and the early 1860s.

In the 1920s, Black and Midred Waterman moved into the Canet Adobe. At that time, Black worked as a reporter for the The San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram.

The couple lived together in the adobe until Waterman passed away in 1969.

In 1988, Black offered to bequeath the property to the City of San Luis Obispo with multiple strings attached. In addition to maintaining the property for parks and recreational services, Black required the city fix the roof, perform biweekly gardening and tree trimming services, pay the taxes, pay the utilities, pay for insurance and allow her to live undisturbed at the property until her death.

She also required the park’s name to include Waterman in honor of her former partner.

Black passed away on July 30, 1989 at 91 years old. The city then boarded up the adobe and primarily ignored the property.

San Luis Obispo seeks help restoring and maintaining the Canet Adobe property

More than 30 years after taking ownership of 466 Dana Street, in 2020, the city issued a  solicitation “for community partners that may be interested in working with the city towards restoration, adaptive reuse, and long-term stewardship of the Rosa Butron de Canet Adobe.”

Smart Share Housing Solutions proposed placing 20 tiny homes, ranging in size from 220 to 264 square feet, on the property to serve low and very low income people. The city accepted the offer.

Proposed Waterman Village project

In an attempt to comply with Black’s requirements, the city plans to provide public access hours in which community members can view the historic adobe while naming the low-income housing project Waterman Village.

Even so, neighbors, property owners and descendants of both Black and Waterman argue Black donated the property to be used solely for park and recreation uses.

Aware of the 1988 SLO City Council resolution that 466 Dana would be reserved for park and recreational use, Steve Barasch bought a neighboring property.

“I bought the property on the assurance the neighboring property would become a public park,” Barasch said. “Public trust in the city has been shattered.”

On Dec. 17, 2024, the San Luis Obispo Property and Business Owners Association, Barasch, another neighboring property owner, the member of a local group, and a descendant of Waterman and a descendant of Black appealed the Waterman Village project.

“There is a restrictive covenant in the original deed requiring the 466 Dana Street property to be used solely as a park or for recreational uses,” according to the appeal. Any other use, “exceeds the authorized powers of a city and therefore cannot be enforced in any court.”

If the city fails to abide by the “covenants and conditions” in the grant deed, it forfeits title to the property, at which time it would revert to the previous owner’s descendants, according to the grant deed.

Five of Black and Waterman’s descendants have already asked that city to return the property.

The San Luis Obispo City Council will hold a hearing on the Waterman Village appeal at 5:30 p.m. on March 4.

Because we believe the public needs the facts, the truth, CalCoastNews has not put up a paywall because it limits readership. However, we are seeking qualification as a paper of record, which will allow us to publish public notices, but it requires 5,000 paid subscribers.

Your subscription will help us to continue investigating and reporting the news.

Support CalCoastNews, subscribe today, click here.

 


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


16 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Will the tenets or owners of these tiny homes pay rent or a mortgage? Who do they pay? Who profits? This building was built when James Polk was the 11th President of USA. California was not even a state. SLO is willing to put high class homeless camp on donated historical property. Messed up.


31

Claw it back from that crooked corrupt city of SLO. What an embarrassment SLO! Do better!


34

Looks like the city of SLO is just taking a page from the Grover Beach playbook, GB took a lot on south 13th that was donated and supposed to be turned into a park, they waited decades until they figured out how to turn it into “affordable” housing instead of green space.


28

Most of the current city council members do not think for themselves or represent their constituents. They will meet with the city attorney and city manager to formulate their decision beforehand. If the attorney tells them it is legal to keep the property, they will deny the appeal and take their chance in litigation with the family.


The current city leadership continues to damage our city with expensive pet projects while claiming that the city has no money. They’ve stopped using common sense and are ruining our city.


48

I believe that , little by little, the current city leadership will go a long way in permanently damaging the quality of life in SLO. How?

By filling every nook and cranny with ‘affordable’ housing.

By putting apartments in industrial parks,by green lighting every garage conversion to a ADU.

By allowing landlords to stuff more and more Cal Poly students into dwellings and neighborhoods that were never designed for such volume.

It is already severely adding to traffic and congestion throughout the city. Parking is a big struggle in many areas now too.

This will also run smack into their other nutty policy of “ getting people out of their cars” because of the ever increasing danger of trying to bicycle in this devolving environment.

It’s sometimes hard to watch. The town I have loved most of my life slowly going down the drain-one bad decision after another.

…little by little…


61

NIMBYs need to just be honest, they’d prefer a vacant lot rather than a restored adobe and housing for people who aren’t them. It’s short sighted and selfish.


The opposition is unconditional, doesn’t matter what concessions to historic preservation and community recreation are made. The city is too generous. Maybe one of the relatives would be better though – they could bulldoze the lot and build a 3-4 story apartment housing many more people.


Also, hate to break the news, but 1845 isn’t that old and not particularly worth preserving, build something new and set aside a plaque or small statue.


-82

The will specified, and the city agreed, in a resolution the council adopted, that it would a park. The terms of the donation were drawn up by a lawyer representing the donor, and the city council agreed to these covenants, conditions and restrictions.


End of story.


34

L.B., who says the City will restore or even maintain it? They haven’t so far! Your cavalier attitude to saving a bit of history and honoring the legitimate and legally binding wishes of the family is shocking.


16

The developer will restore it of course, restoring it would be quite expensive for little benefit to community given the large taxpayer cost – there are potholes to fix, firefighters to pay, utilities to upgrade etc.


To be clear I was only suggesting that should the agreement become null, reverting ownership, the family would have the right to sell and develop. We agree that governments at all levels should betray their commitments and treaties agreements. This project is by far the best path to preservation of the adobe.


But abstractly I am admittedly pretty conservative about what is and isn’t historic. Go to the East Coast, or particularly Europe and you’ll see that we Californians don’t understand the concept what is really old. We’re not helping future generations by letting it fall into disuse, there are Roman ruins which enhabit cafes today. Locally look at the Ah Louis Store and The Mission – these are truly pieces of SLO history and we keep them alive through use. Vacant dwellings that are old don’t teach us anything about history and should we freeze in amber everything that is old we’ll someday have people begging not to tear down the “historic” AutoZone and Burger King.


-16

Take it back now the City’s intent has already been noticed. Government routinely fails at keeping agreements through the use of legal maneuvers. Lawyer up and sell it for enough money to keep that property from becoming a derelict attraction and no need to look back.


33

20 “Tiny Homes” is not what Mary Gail Black envisioned. Pretty simply, wake up.


76

Yeah right, I’m just SURE the neighbors and descendants are soooo eager to have the property be used for recreational or park purposes and have noninterets in their own monetary gain… Hope they put a basketball, pickle ball, and skateboard park in the space!


-80

You don’t like the idea of a 20 unit ghetto?


43

NorCounty nailed it.


0
1 2