HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-24-2022 CHC Agenda Packet
Cultural Heritage Committee
AGENDA
Monday, October 24, 2022, 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
The City of San Luis Obispo has returned to in-person meetings. Zoom participation will not be
supported. For those attending in-person, City facilities will be at limited capacity and masks are
strongly recommended.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:
Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting):
Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401.
Email - Submit Public Comments via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org. In the body of your
email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not
be read aloud during the meeting.
Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the
agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment. Verbal comments must be
limited to 3 minutes. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.
*All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received
after the deadline will not be processed until the following day.
Public Comment during the meeting:
Meetings have returned to an in-person format. To provide public comment during the meeting,
you must be present in the Council Chambers. Zoom participation will not be supported. The
Council Chambers are located in City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy,
Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire
to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation are encouraged to provide
display-ready material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the
City Clerk's Office at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7100.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Ulz will call the Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee to
order.
2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The public is encouraged to submit comments on any subject within the
jurisdiction of the Cultural Heritage Committee that does not appear on this
agenda. Although the Committee will not take action on items presented during
the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a
future agenda for discussion.
3.CONSENT
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-
controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may
request the Cultural Heritage Committee to pull an item for discussion. The
public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three-minute time limit.
3.a.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 26, 2022 CULTURAL
HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES
5
Recommendation:
To approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26,
2022.
4.PUBLIC HEARINGS
Note: The action of the Cultural Heritage Committee is a recommendation to the
Community Development Director, another advisory body, or to City Council
and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed.
44.a.1720 MORRO STREET (HIST-0495-2022) REVIEW OF A REQUEST
TO REMOVE PROPERTY FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES
9
Recommendation:
Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the
property continues to meet eligibility criteria for historic listing in the
City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a.2023-2025 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE GOAL SETTING
AND THE FINANCIAL PLAN/BUDGET PROCESS
27
Recommendation:
Review the 2021-2023 Cultural Heritage Committee goals, take public
testimony, and identify Committee goals and work program items for the
2023-2023 Financial Plan.
5.b.APPOINTMENT OF A SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THE PRELIMINARY
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE HISTORIC
RESOURCES UPDATE PROJECT
Recommendation:
Appoint members of the Cultural Heritage Committee to serve on a
Subcommittee for the Preliminary Review and Recommendations
component of the Historic Inventory Update Project.
5.c.STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Receive a brief update from Senior Planner Brian Leveille.
66.ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for
January 23, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo. The Regular Meeting of November 28, 2022 will be
canceled due to the Thanksgiving Holiday. The Regular Meeting of December
26, 2022 will be canceled due to the Christmas Holiday.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available -- see the Clerk
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible
to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate
alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who
requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting
should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least
48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the
Deaf (805) 781-7410.
Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Cultural Heritage
Committee are available for public inspection on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-
minutes. Meeting video recordings can be found on the City’s website:
http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=60971&dbid=0&repo=CityCl
erk
1
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes
September 26, 2022, 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Committee Members
Present:
Committee Members John Ashbaugh and John Tischler, Vice
Chair Karen Edwards, and Chair Eva Ulz (one vacant seat)
Committee Members
Absent:
Committee Members Chuck Crotser and Leslie Terry
City Staff Present: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant Planner Graham
Bultema, Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was
called to order on September 26, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Ulz.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment--
3. CONSENT
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - AUGUST 22, 2022, CULTURAL
HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion By Member Ashbaugh
Second By Vice Chair Edwards
To approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of August 22, 2022.
Ayes (3): Member Ashbaugh, Vice Chair Edwards, and Chair Ulz
Abstained (1): Member Tischler (per bylaws, abstentions count as Ayes)
Absent (2): Members Crotser and Terry
CARRIED (4 to 0)
Page 5 of 33
2
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.a 1133 PISMO ST. (HIST-0171-2022) DESIGNATION OF PROPERTY AS
MASTER LIST HISTORIC RESOURCE
Assistant Planner Graham Bultema presented the staff report and
responded to Committee inquiries.
Applicant representative, James Papp, presented a review of the unique
qualities and characteristics of the project as requested by the Committee
on May 24, 2022, and responded to questions raised.
Chair Ulz opened the Public Hearing
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Ulz closed the Public Hearing
Motion By Vice Chair Edwards
Second By Chair Ulz
Recommend to the City Council that 1133 Pismo Street (known as the
Thomas and May Brecheen House) is qualified to be included in the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources as a Master List Resource as one of the
most unique and important resources in the City, exhibiting the following
unique character-defining features of the Neo-Classical Cottage style:
x Asymmetric unenclosed porch with single Tuscan column
x Low-pitched bellcast roof
x Geometric fenestration design
Ayes (4): Committee Members Ashbaugh and Tischler, Vice Chair
Edwards, and Chair Ulz
Absent (2): Committee Members Crotser and Terry
CARRIED (4 to 0)
Page 6 of 33
3
5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a HISTORIC RESOURCES PROJECT UPDATE
Senior Planner Brian Leveille apprised the Committee on the Historic
Inventory Update Project and received Committee comments for inclusion.
5.b STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an update of upcoming projects.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:48 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the
Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for October 24, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
_________________________
APPROVED BY CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2022
Page 7 of 33
Page 8 of 33
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 1720 MORRO STREET (HIST-0495-2022) REVIEW OF A REQUEST TO
REMOVE PROPERTY FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593
Email: woetzell@slocity.org
APPLICANT: Niels Udsen REPRESENTATIVE: James Papp
RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the property continues
to meet eligibility criteria for historic listing in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
1.0 BACKGROUND
The owner of the property at 1720 Morro Street has submitted an Historic Preservation
Review application, requesting that the property be removed from the City’s Inventory of
Historic Resources, as ineligible for listing, based primarily on the compromised historical
integrity of the building on the site. An evaluation of the property and its eligibility for listing
as an historic resource has been prepared by James Papp, PhD, historian and
architectural historian, to inform consideration of this request (see Attachment A). This
request is being referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for recommendation
to the City Council, as provided in § 14.01.030 (B) (2) of the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The property is a residential parcel on the
east side of Morro Street, about 150 feet
south of Leff Street, within the Old Town
Historic District, one of the City’s oldest
residential neighborhoods, built up
historically around the turn of the
20th Century, with older structures dating
back to the 1880s (see description of
district, Attachment B).
Meeting Date: 10/24/2022
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 30 Minutes
Figure 1: 1720 Morro (1982)
Page 9 of 33
Item 4a
HIST-0495-2022 (1720 Morro)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – October 24, 2022
The site is developed with a single-family dwelling (see Figure 1). As described in the
applicant’s Historic Resource Evaluation, the dwelling appears on a 1905 Sanborn Map,
and is visible in a 1906 panoramic photograph of the City (Papp, pg. 13). No permit record
establishing a construction date has been found, nor is the architect of the building known.
City records (see Historic Resource Information, Attachment C) describe the building as
Neo-Colonial or Colonial Bungalow in style, noting several architectural elements
including:
Shiplap siding
Multi-gable single-hip roof with wood shingles
Box cornice, simple frieze
Recessed porch with tapered corner columns and square capitals
10-over-1 sash window (right side of façade)
Pedimented dormer above entry
Pedimented gable (left side of façade) with fishscale, diamond, and half-round shingles
Large stained glass windows, with trim and lugsills
Wood shingle shed awning above front window bay
Side dormer with stained glass window below
The applicant’s evaluation more specifically describes the style as “Colonial Revival
Bungalow.” Several examples of this modest style are found in the district, as shown in a
series of photographs on page 9 of the applicant’s evaluation.
2.2 Historic Listing
The property was included as a Contributing List Resource in the City’s Inventory of
Historic Resources in 1987, by adoption of Council Resolution 6424. Historic preservation
policies are set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s
General Plan, and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01)
implements these policies. Property may be designated as a Contributing List resource
where a building on it maintains its historic and architectural character, and contributes,
by itself or in conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of a
neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole, and satisfies at least one of the historic
significance criteria listed in the Ordinance (see Historic Preservation Ordinance
§§ 14.01.060 & 14.01.070).
3.0 EVALUATION
3.1 Architecture
Style and Design: The primary residence on this property is described in the applicant’s
evaluation as a Colonial Revival Bungalow, with historical context for the style provided
from page 6 of the document. As executed in the Old Town District, modest bungalows
in this style commonly had a pyramidal hipped roof with a ridge oriented perpendicular to
the street frontage, and an asymmetric façade with a windowed bay and a front porch
topped by a pedimented front gable (Attachment A, pg. 1, with example photos pp. 9-11).
Page 10 of 33
Item 4a
HIST-0495-2022 (1720 Morro)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – October 24, 2022
These basic character-defining features were originally present on this home, but have
been impacted by a series of modifications to the building since its construction, including:
Oversized front dormer (by 1949)
Large Post-Modern style dormer on rear
South facing pedimented dormer (1965-1982)
Porch enclosure (by 2017), including modification and fluting of porch columns
Removal of 10-over-1 sash window from front façade (behind porch enclosure)
Replacement window in front bay (also now removed)
North-facing “push-out” addition and window (attached to rear porch enclosure)
New window opening in north-facing pediment
New window opening (now boarded) between originals on south elevation
Full width back porch enclosure
With all of these modifications, the Papp evaluation describes loss of the original
appearance and character-defining features:
In addition to the loss or major alteration of all three character-defining
features of the street façade, the rear and side façades have been altered
by various eras of expedient pushouts, enclosures, and added and
removed fenestration, such that, among the chronological clutter, only
two windows in the entire house—both on the south façade, separated
by a stained glass window that was added and later removed —appear
to be original. (Papp, pg. 2)
Figure 2: Modifications - bay (left), porch (center), and south elevation (right)
Figure 3: Addition to north elevation (left), added dormer window (center), rear dormer (right)
Page 11 of 33
Item 4a
HIST-0495-2022 (1720 Morro)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – October 24, 2022
The most visible elevation, the front façade, has been subjected to loss of character-
defining features by enclosure of the front porch, loss of the 10-over-1 sash window and
modification of porch columns, the addition of an oversize dormer to the hipped roof form,
and addition of the shed awning over the large window bay and removal of the original
window. Today, observable original elements of the building at large are limited to the
pedimented gable and window bay (missing the window from the opening) on the façade,
siding on the south elevation (interrupted with a new window opening), siding remaining
on some portions of the north elevation, the north-facing dormer (compromised by the
added window), and the box cornice and frieze details.
Work undertaken with these subsequent modifications would not be considered to be
consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historical Properties,
mainly because it resulted in the removal and destruction of character-defining features,
introduced incompatible new features, and substantially changed a roof form that was
important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Together these changes
have diminished the architectural and historic character of the building, as described in
the applicant’s evaluation.
3.2 Integrity
As defined in the Historical Preservation Ordinance, integrity is measured in large part by
the degree to which an historical resource has maintained its historic character or
appearance, to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reasons for its
significance, and the degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting,
materials, workmanship, feeling and association (§ 14.01.070 (C)). A discussion of the
historic integrity of the property, and in particular the cumulative effects of modifications
to the building since its construction, is provided in the applicant’s eva luation
(Attachment A, from pg. 20).
The loss of integrity discussed in the evaluation centers around the “cluttered and jarring”
effect that the modifications have had on the design, materials, workmanship, and feeling
of the building in its current state. The upper-floor additions and related outsize dormers
and have obscured and complicated the original simple pyramid roof form. A recent porch
enclosure and modification of porch columns has effectively eliminated the original
characteristic porch and entry feature. Removal of the window from the front bay and
addition of a canopy has altered this feature, with no remaining documentation to aid in
its accurate reconstruction.
And enclosures at the front and rear have altered the original building form with significant
removal of original wall material. As summarized in the applicant’s evaluation:
In short, loss of 4 of the 7 Aspects of Integrity—design, workmanship,
and materials of the street façade and all secondary façades, and the
resultant feeling into which these three aspects of integrity aggregate—
has been so global and severe that 1720 Morro’s exterior no longer
Page 12 of 33
Item 4a
HIST-0495-2022 (1720 Morro)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – October 24, 2022
communicates the streamlined and open nature of its original Colonial
Revival architecture or its consistency with the other 27 examples of the
subtype in the district. It is not eligible for historic resource listing ...
(Papp, pg. 2)
3.3 Conclusion
The applicant’s evaluation provides a basis for finding that the dwelling on the property
does not possess notable significance under the Ci ty’s Criteria for Historic Resource
Listing. The original Colonial Revival Bungalow architectural style has been obscured and
altered by modifications to the building, and the building’s historical integrity has been
significantly compromised, inhibiting its ability to convey its significance. It is not known
to be associated with notable architects or craftsmen, persons prominent in history, or
unique events or patterns of history. Because the property does not appear to be
important in contributing to the historic character of the Old Town Historic District or the
City as a whole, and does not meet significance criteria, the Committee could recommend
that the Council remove the property from the Inventory of Historic Resources.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is does not have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the
general rule described in CEQA Guidelines § 15061 (b) (3). The determination of
continued eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of whether the subject site
remains eligible for historic resource listing according to the criteria set forth in the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance.
5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff.
2. Recommend to the City Council that the property not be removed from historic listing,
based on findings describing the property’s continuing eligibility for listing.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Historic Resource Evaluation (James Papp, PhD)
B - Old Town Historic District (Historic Context Statement)
C - Historic Resource Information (City “Yellow File”)
Page 13 of 33
Page 14 of 33
=RQLQJRUUHPRYHWKHSURSHUW\IURPKLVWRULFOLVWLQJLIWKHVWUXFWXUHRQWKHSURSHUW\QRORQJHU
PHHWVHOLJLELOLW\FULWHULDIRUOLVWLQJIROORZLQJWKHSURFHVVIRUOLVWLQJVHWIRUWKKHUHLQ
(YDOXDWLRQ&ULWHULDIRU+LVWRULF5HVRXUFH/LVWLQJ
:KHQGHWHUPLQLQJLIDSURSHUW\VKRXOGEHGHVLJQDWHGDVDOLVWHG+LVWRULFRU&XOWXUDO5HVRXUFH
WKH&+&DQG&LW\&RXQFLOVKDOOFRQVLGHUWKLVRUGLQDQFHDQG6WDWH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2IILFH
³6+32´ VWDQGDUGV,QRUGHUWREHHOLJLEOHIRUGHVLJQDWLRQWKHUHVRXUFHVKDOOH[KLELWDKLJK
OHYHORIKLVWRULFLQWHJULW\EHDWOHDVWILIW\ \HDUVROG OHVVWKDQLILWFDQEHGHPRQVWUDWHG
WKDWHQRXJKWLPHKDVSDVVHGWRXQGHUVWDQGLWVKLVWRULFDOLPSRUWDQFH DQGVDWLVI\DWOHDVWRQHRIWKH
IROORZLQJFULWHULD
$$UFKLWHFWXUDO&ULWHULD (PERGLHVWKHGLVWLQFWLYHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIDW\SHSHULRGUHJLRQRU
PHWKRGRIFRQVWUXFWLRQRUUHSUHVHQWVWKHZRUNRIDPDVWHURUSRVVHVVHVKLJKDUWLVWLFYDOXHV
6W\OH 'HVFULEHVWKHIRUPRIDEXLOGLQJVXFKDVVL]HVWUXFWXUDOVKDSHDQGGHWDLOV
ZLWKLQWKDWIRUP HJDUUDQJHPHQWRIZLQGRZVDQGGRRUVRUQDPHQWDWLRQHWF %XLOGLQJ
VW\OHZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRI
D 7KHUHODWLYHSXULW\RIDWUDGLWLRQDOVW\OH
E 5DULW\RIH[LVWHQFHDWDQ\WLPHLQWKHORFDOH DQGRUFXUUHQWUDULW\DOWKRXJKWKH
VWUXFWXUHUHIOHFWVDRQFHSRSXODUVW\OH
F 7UDGLWLRQDOYHUQDFXODUDQGRUHFOHFWLFLQIOXHQFHVWKDWUHSUHVHQWDSDUWLFXODUVRFLDO
PLOLHXDQGSHULRGRIWKHFRPPXQLW\ DQGRUWKHXQLTXHQHVVRIK\EULGVW\OHVDQGKRZ
WKHVHVW\OHVDUHSXWWRJHWKHU
'HVLJQ 'HVFULEHVWKHDUFKLWHFWXUDOFRQFHSWRIDVWUXFWXUHDQGWKHTXDOLW\RIDUWLVWLF
PHULWDQGFUDIWVPDQVKLSRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOSDUWV5HIOHFWVKRZZHOODSDUWLFXODUVW\OHRU
FRPELQDWLRQ RI VW\OHV DUH H[SUHVVHG WKURXJK FRPSDWLELOLW\ DQG GHWDLOLQJ RI HOHPHQWV
$OVR VXJJHVWV GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH GHVLJQHU HJ FDUSHQWHUEXLOGHU DFFXUDWHO\
LQWHUSUHWHGDQGFRQYH\HGWKHVW\OH V %XLOGLQJGHVLJQZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRI
D 1RWDEOHDWWUDFWLYHQHVVZLWKDHVWKHWLFDSSHDOEHFDXVHRILWVDUWLVWLFPHULWGHWDLOVDQG
FUDIWVPDQVKLS HYHQLIQRWQHFHVVDULO\XQLTXH
E $Q H[SUHVVLRQ RI LQWHUHVWLQJ GHWDLOV DQG HFOHFWLFLVP DPRQJ FDUSHQWHUEXLOGHUV
DOWKRXJKWKHFUDIWVPDQVKLSDQGDUWLVWLFTXDOLW\PD\QRWEHVXSHULRU
$UFKLWHFW 'HVFULEHVWKHSURIHVVLRQDO DQLQGLYLGXDORUILUP GLUHFWO\UHVSRQVLEOHIRU
WKH EXLOGLQJ GHVLJQ DQG SODQV RI WKH VWUXFWXUH 7KH DUFKLWHFWZLOO EH HYDOXDWHG DV D
UHIHUHQFHWR
Page 15 of 33
D $ QRWDEOH DUFKLWHFW HJ :ULJKW 0RUJDQ LQFOXGLQJ DUFKLWHFWV ZKR PDGH
VLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQVWRWKHVWDWHRUUHJLRQRUDQDUFKLWHFWZKRVHZRUNLQIOXHQFHG
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHFLW\VWDWHRUQDWLRQ
E $QDUFKLWHFWZKRLQWHUPVRIFUDIWVPDQVKLSPDGHVLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQVWR6DQ
/XLV2ELVSR HJ$EUDKDPVZKRDFFRUGLQJWRORFDOVRXUFHVGHVLJQHGWKHKRXVHDW
2VRV)UDQN$YLOD
VIDWKHU
VKRPHEXLOWEHWZHHQ ±
%+LVWRULF&ULWHULD
+LVWRU\±3HUVRQ $VVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHOLYHVRISHUVRQVLPSRUWDQWWRORFDO&DOLIRUQLD
RUQDWLRQDOKLVWRU\+LVWRULFSHUVRQZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRIWKHGHJUHHWRZKLFK
DSHUVRQRUJURXSZDV
D 6LJQLILFDQWWRWKHFRPPXQLW\DVDSXEOLFOHDGHU HJPD\RUFRQJUHVVPHPEHU
HWF RU IRU KLV RU KHU IDPH DQG RXWVWDQGLQJ UHFRJQLWLRQ ORFDOO\ UHJLRQDOO\ RU
QDWLRQDOO\
E 6LJQLILFDQWWRWKHFRPPXQLW\DVDSXEOLFVHUYDQWRUSHUVRQZKRPDGHHDUO\XQLTXH
RURXWVWDQGLQJFRQWULEXWLRQVWRWKHFRPPXQLW\LPSRUWDQWORFDODIIDLUVRULQVWLWXWLRQV
HJ FRXQFLO PHPEHUV HGXFDWRUV PHGLFDO SURIHVVLRQDOV FOHUJ\PHQ UDLOURDG
RIILFLDOV
+LVWRU\±(YHQW $VVRFLDWHGZLWKHYHQWVWKDWKDYHPDGHDVLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQWR
WKHEURDGSDWWHUQVRIORFDORUUHJLRQDOKLVWRU\RUWKHFXOWXUDOKHULWDJHRI&DOLIRUQLDRUWKH
8QLWHG6WDWHV+LVWRULFHYHQWZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRI
L $ODQGPDUNIDPRXVRUILUVWRILWVNLQGHYHQWIRUWKHFLW\UHJDUGOHVVRIZKHWKHU
WKHLPSDFWRIWKHHYHQWVSUHDGEH\RQGWKHFLW\
LL $UHODWLYHO\XQLTXHLPSRUWDQWRULQWHUHVWLQJFRQWULEXWLRQWRWKHFLW\ HJWKH$K
/RXLV6WRUHDVWKHFHQWHUIRU&KLQHVH$PHULFDQFXOWXUDODFWLYLWLHVLQHDUO\6DQ/XLV
2ELVSRKLVWRU\
+LVWRU\&RQWH[W $VVRFLDWHG ZLWK DQG DOVR D SULPH LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI SUHGRPLQDQW
SDWWHUQV RI SROLWLFDO VRFLDO HFRQRPLF FXOWXUDO PHGLFDO HGXFDWLRQDO JRYHUQPHQWDO
PLOLWDU\LQGXVWULDORUUHOLJLRXVKLVWRU\+LVWRULFFRQWH[WZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUH
RIWKHGHJUHHWRZKLFKLWUHIOHFWV
D (DUO\ILUVWRUPDMRUSDWWHUQVRIORFDOKLVWRU\UHJDUGOHVVRIZKHWKHUWKHKLVWRULF
HIIHFWVJREH\RQGWKHFLW\OHYHOWKDWDUHLQWLPDWHO\FRQQHFWHGZLWKWKHEXLOGLQJ HJ
&RXQW\0XVHXP
E 6HFRQGDU\SDWWHUQVRIORFDOKLVWRU\EXWFORVHO\DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHEXLOGLQJ HJ
3DUN+RWHO
Page 16 of 33
&,QWHJULW\ $XWKHQWLFLW\ RI DQ KLVWRULFDO UHVRXUFH¶V SK\VLFDO LGHQWLW\ HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH
VXUYLYDORIFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWH[LVWHGGXULQJWKHUHVRXUFH¶VSHULRGRIVLJQLILFDQFH,QWHJULW\
ZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGE\DPHDVXUHRI
:KHWKHURUQRWDVWUXFWXUHRFFXSLHVLWVRULJLQDOVLWHDQGRUZKHWKHURUQRWWKH
RULJLQDOIRXQGDWLRQKDVEHHQFKDQJHGLINQRZQ
7KHGHJUHHWRZKLFKWKHVWUXFWXUHKDVPDLQWDLQHGHQRXJKRILWVKLVWRULFFKDUDFWHU
RUDSSHDUDQFHWREHUHFRJQL]DEOHDVDQKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHDQGWRFRQYH\WKHUHDVRQ V
IRULWVVLJQLILFDQFH
7KH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH UHVRXUFH KDV UHWDLQHG LWV GHVLJQ VHWWLQJ PDWHULDOV
ZRUNPDQVKLSIHHOLQJDQGDVVRFLDWLRQ
+LVWRULF'LVWULFW'HVLJQDWLRQ3XUSRVHDQG$SSOLFDWLRQ
$+LVWRULF + 'LVWULFWGHVLJQDWLRQ$OOSURSHUWLHVZLWKLQKLVWRULFGLVWULFWVVKDOOEHGHVLJQDWHG
E\DQ³+´]RQLQJ3URSHUWLHV]RQHG³+´VKDOOEHVXEMHFWWRWKHSURYLVLRQVDQGVWDQGDUGVDV
SURYLGHGLQ2UGLQDQFH =RQLQJ RIWKH0XQLFLSDO&RGH
%3XUSRVHVRI+LVWRULF'LVWULFWV7KHSXUSRVHVRIKLVWRULFGLVWULFWVDQG+]RQHGHVLJQDWLRQDUH
WR
,PSOHPHQW FXOWXUDO UHVRXUFH SUHVHUYDWLRQ SROLFLHV RI WKH *HQHUDO 3ODQ WKH
SUHVHUYDWLRQ SURYLVLRQV RI DGRSWHG DUHD SODQV WKH +LVWRULF 3UHVHUYDWLRQ DQG
$UFKDHRORJLFDO5HVRXUFH3UHVHUYDWLRQ3URJUDP*XLGHOLQHVDQG
,GHQWLI\DQGSUHVHUYHGHILQDEOHXQLILHGJHRJUDSKLFDOHQWLWLHVWKDWSRVVHVVDVLJQLILFDQW
FRQFHQWUDWLRQOLQNDJHRUFRQWLQXLW\RIVLWHVEXLOGLQJVVWUXFWXUHVRUREMHFWVXQLWHG
KLVWRULFDOO\RUDHVWKHWLFDOO\E\SODQRUSK\VLFDOGHYHORSPHQW
,PSOHPHQW KLVWRULF SUHVHUYDWLRQ SURYLVLRQV RI DGRSWHG DUHDDQG QHLJKERUKRRG
LPSURYHPHQWSODQV
(QKDQFHDQGSUHVHUYHWKHVHWWLQJRIKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHVVRWKDWVXUURXQGLQJODQGXVHV
DQGVWUXFWXUHVGRQRWGHWUDFWIURPWKHKLVWRULFRUDUFKLWHFWXUDOLQWHJULW\RIGHVLJQDWHG
KLVWRULFUHVRXUFHVDQGGLVWULFWV DQG
3URPRWHWKHSXEOLFXQGHUVWDQGLQJDQGDSSUHFLDWLRQRIKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHV
&(OLJLELOLW\IRULQFHQWLYHV3URSHUWLHV]RQHGDV+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ + VKDOOEHHOLJLEOHIRU
SUHVHUYDWLRQLQFHQWLYHDQGEHQHILWSURJUDPVDVHVWDEOLVKHGKHUHLQLQWKH*XLGHOLQHVDQGRWKHU
ORFDOVWDWHDQGIHGHUDOSURJUDPV
Page 17 of 33
Page 18 of 33
34
5.2.1 Old Town Historic District
Setting
Established in 1987, the Old Town Historic District abuts the Railroad district on the southeast
and is generally bounded by Pacific and Islay streets on the north and south, and by Santa Rosa
and Beach streets on the east and west. As one of the City’s oldest residential neighborhoods,
Old Town was built up historically around the turn of the twentieth century, with older structures
dating back to the 1880s. It consists of five subdivisions: the Mission Vineyard Tract recorded
in March 1873, the Dallidet Tract recorded in 1876, the Murray Church Tract recorded in 1876,
the Ingleside Homestead Tract, recorded in 1887, and the La Vina Homestead Tract, recorded in
1903. The District encompasses 86.1 acres, or 0.13 square miles.
The District’s prominent location, located just south of and uphill from the Downtown
commercial district, made it a desirable neighborhood for the City’s emerging merchant class
and leading citizens. Here, residents were close to businesses and commerce, but could avoid the
flooding and mud that plagued the Downtown. Home sites were laid out in regular grid
patterns, with relatively wide (60 foot right-of-way) streets and 60 foot wide lots. The resultant
wide streets and lot frontages allowed deep (20+ feet) setbacks and ample landscaping,
reinforcing the district’s prosperous image. Today the high concentration of 100 year old or
older residences establishes the District’s predominant architectural and visual character.
Site Features and Characteristics
Common site features and characteristics
include:
A. Prominent street yard setbacks of 20
feet or more
B. Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear
yard
C. Finish floors raised 2 3 above finish
grade
D. Front entries oriented toward street,
with prominent walk, stairs and porch
E. Front building facades oriented
parallel to street
1060 Pismo Street, South Elevation
Page 19 of 33
35
Architectural Character
In keeping with its peak period of development between 1880 and 1920, the Old Town District
has many examples of High Victorian architecture, a style popular in California during that time
period that reflected prosperity, power and discriminating taste. This included several style
variations, such as Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences, especially along
the top of the hill within the district roughly aligned with Buchon Street. Other, more modest
structures with simpler styles abound in other areas of the district. These buildings were first
home to the burgeoning merchant class in San Luis Obispo that emerged during the turn of the
century. These styles include Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman Bungalow,
with many homes borrowing architectural details from several styles. Most of the houses in this
district were designed and constructed by the homes’ first occupants or by local builders and
were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period. The shared first story porches
along Pismo Street are a good example of a common design feature linking buildings.
Predominant architectural features include:
A. Two- and rarely three-story houses
B. Mostly gable and hip roof types
C. Highly ornamented roof features,
including prominent fascias,
bargeboards, gable end treatments,
decorative shingles, prominent
pediments or cornices
D. Traditional fenestration, such as
double-hung, wood sash windows,
divided light windows, ornamental
front doors, wood screen doors
E. Painted wood surface material,
including siding and decorative
moldings
Although many of the buildings were built at separate times, the pattern, rhythm and repetition of
common design elements or detailing of historic building facades along Old Town streets creates
a prevailing theme and character for the
district.
Individually Contributing Elements in the
Old Town District
Some buildings within the bounds of the Old
Town District, constructed outside of the
period of significance for the district, 1880-
1920, do not share the elements outlined in the
above description, but have achieved
historical significance on their own and
1543 Morro Street, East Elevation
M.F. Avila House, 1443 Osos Street, East
Elevation Page 20 of 33
36
therefore individually contribute to the historic character of San Luis Obispo.
The M.F. Avila House at 1443 Osos Street is an example of a Spanish Revival style building
built in the late 1920s that has been placed on the City’s Master List as a significant resource, in
this case for its craftsmanship as well as its association with a historically significant local
person. St. Stephens Episcopal Church at 1344 Nipomo Street built in 1873 is an example of
Carpenter Gothic style. The first Episcopal church in San Luis Obispo County, St. Stephens is
historically significant both its architecture and its association with the pioneer period of San
Luis Obispo.
Non-Contributing Elements in the Old Town District
Non-contributing buildings are those buildings that both do not meet the criteria outlined above
and have not achieved historical significance. Most of the contemporary buildings in the district
fall into this category.
Non-contributing architectural styles,
materials or site features include:
A. Contemporary stucco or other material
exterior siding
B. Flat or extremely low pitched roof
C. Aluminum sliding windows
D. Rectilinear, “boxy” shape or very
horizontal massing
E. Unarticulated wall surfaces
The Vista Grande Apartments, 1415 Morro
Street, East Elevation.
Page 21 of 33
37
***
1059 Leff Street; Biddle House, 559 Pismo Street; 1624, 1636, 1642 Morro Street; and
Pismo Buchon Alley from Santa Rosa Street
Page 22 of 33
Page 23 of 33
Page 24 of 33
Page 25 of 33
Page 26 of 33
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 2023-2025 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE GOAL SETTING AND
THE FINANCIAL PLAN/BUDGET PROCESS
BY: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
Phone Number: 805-781-7166
Email: bleveille@slocity.org
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
Review the 2021-2023 Cultural Heritage Committee goals, take public testimony, and
identify Committee goals and work program items for the 2023-2023 Financial Plan.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Every two years the City adopts a budget and financial plan. To prepare for the budget
process, all City departments and advisory bodies are asked to identify their goals and
major work programs for the next two years. The City Council then uses this information,
along with public comment and other input to set community priorities and allocate
resources to accomplish the most important City goals.
Advisory body members are involved in the goal setting process to provide important input
as representatives of the community, with special expertise and experience working
locally within their specific area of representation. Below are some key points to consider
as the City embarks on the goal-setting process:
1. The Council is seeking advisory body input focused on the purview of the advisory
body, but is also interested in input on other issues important to the community.
2. Advisory body input is highly valued by the Council and the staff.
3. Goals can include completing projects from a previous work program.
4. Identifying priorities implies recommending fewer rather than more goals to the
Council. The CHC should recommend only those activities that can reasonably be
accomplished in the two-year budget period and can reasonably be accomplished
with limited resources.
2.1 Objective
This is a public process and citizens are encouraged to contribute. Tonight’s meeting will
result in two items: 1) a list of CHC goals and implementation programs; and 2) a letter
from the CHC Chair to the City Council outlining recommended goals and programs, and
if necessary, requesting resources for specific activities (staff will prepare the letter for the
Chair’s signature).
Meeting Date: 10/24/2022
Item Number: 5a
Time Estimate: 45 minutes
Page 27 of 33
Item 5a
2023-2025 Budget Goal Setting Advisory Body Input
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – October 24, 2022
2.2 Current Recommended Goals: 2021-2023
Provided below are the goals the CHC recommended during the 2021-2023 budget cycle:
1. Contributing Historic Properties list - Evaluate the existing Contributing properties
list to determine if certain properties should be re-evaluated and potentially
removed from the historic properties list.
2. Historic Significance Criteria - Complete an update of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance historic property significance criteria to include considerations of
Diversity, Equity and Inclusivity.
3. Provide public information (website, publications, brochures, etc.) - to increase
public awareness of the Historic Preservation program and include information and
resources on the criteria and potential for a neighborhood to form a new historic
district and to add properties to the Contributing and Master List of Historic
resources. Information and resources will include guidance and supporting
documents from the City’s Historic Preservation Program.
3.0 DISCUSSION
In discussing goal setting for the upcoming financial plan, the CHC should consider the
current effort towards completion of the preliminary phase of an update to the City’s
Historic Resources Inventory update (Attachment A, RFP). Since this effort sets the future
direction for a potential comprehensive update of the City’s Historic Resources Inventory
which the CHC has previously requested in previous goal setting discussions, staff
recommends continuing the focus on the update of the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory. At the meeting, staff will provide an update on the selected consultant for the
preliminary phase and next steps in the project. Based on discussions at the September
26, 2022, CHC meeting, appointment of a subcommittee to participate in the preliminary
phase effort is also on the agenda.
3.1 Future Recommended Goals: 2023-2025
As the City begins the 2023-2025 financial planning and budget cycle, the CHC has the
opportunity to review their current goals, update them as necessary, and identify any new
goals, programs and/or project.
Goal Setting Process
At the meeting, staff will provide a brief presentation introducing the budget process,
advisory body role, and status of previous recommended goals. Staff, advisory bodies,
and Council members are now preparing for the next Financial Plan cycle: 2023-2025.
During past goal-setting sessions, the CHC has generally followed the steps outlined
below.
1. Review and understand the goal-setting and Financial Plan/Budget process.
2. Evaluate previous goals and work programs. Determine which goals and programs
were accomplished and can be deleted or ones that no longer reflect the aims of
the CHC.
Page 28 of 33
Item 5a
2023-2025 Budget Goal Setting Advisory Body Input
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – October 24, 2022
3. Determine which goals or programs have not been completed and should be
carried forward.
4. Identify new goals or programs for possible inclusion in the work program.
5. Prioritize the goals and program s, based on the CHC’s goals, community needs
and input, opportunities, or special or urgent conditions; and
6. Identify activities which may require additional resources to accomplish, including
special funding for specific survey, tasks or consultant work (i.e. historic inventories
or research), construction or other implementation costs, additional staff time, etc.
This may include references to possible community partnerships or outside funding
sources.
The Committee will establish goals for the next two years and identify three to five key
tasks or programs it intends to complete in the period. The Committee should discuss
how these goals and activities relate to important Council goals and at the same time,
consider the fiscal context for the goal-setting process, including resources needed to
accomplish the task.
3.2 Next Steps
Advisory body goals are due by December 15, 2022. All advisory bodies will receive a
consolidated listing of all recommended advisory body goals. This provides an opportunity
to review what other advisory bodies see as high community priorities. The Council will
receive the final report with all advisory body recommendations before they begin the
goal-setting process in January 2023.
4.0 ATTACHMENTS
A – RFP for Preliminary Review and Recommendations for the Historic Inventory Update
project.
Page 29 of 33
Page 30 of 33
Request for proposals for City of San Luis Obispo preliminary assessment and resource requirement
estimates in preparation for upcoming Historic Resource Inventory Update
The City of San Luis Obispo is requesting proposals for recommendations and estimated resource needs
for an anticipated comprehensive update of the City’s Historic Resource Inventory. Please provide
qualifications and a proposal via email to Senior Planner, Brian Leveille at: bleveille@slocity.org by 5:00
p.m. on October 14, 2022. Please email or contact by phone at 805-781-7166 with any questions.
Scope of Work
x Complete a review of the City’s current Historic Resource Inventory, Historic Context Statement,
and related provisions of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
x Conduct meetings with City staff and the Cultural Heritage Committee ad hoc committee
x Provide a final report including recommendations for an improved process to identify the City’s
historic resources and prioritize their significance.
x The draft report should provide the following information from this review and evaluation:
- Major deficiencies with the current list and the most important priorities to examine
in the future work effort to bring the inventory and any related historic ordinance
provisions into consistency and up to date.
- Current best practices at other jurisdictions with historic lists and Certified Local
Government status and steps the City of SLO should take to be consistent.
- Assess and make recommendations on how the City should approach and consider
possible amendments to the program’s current two category resource designations
(Contributing and Master List) within the context of the City’s Historic Districts.
Provide recommendations on how the City could examine the meaning of the
Contributing designation within the City which are also classified as individual
resources versus how the Contributing designation is typically applied in other
jurisdictions (applied solely as contributors to Districts).
- Include recommendations for incorporation of new technologies (e.g., cell phone
app for window surveys, GIS, crowd sourcing).
- Include any recommendations on how the City can integrate tribal resources
- Identify opportunities and best practices for training and use of community
volunteers to assist with the effort and include recommendations on the
appropriate level of oversight and management that is anticipated to be needed by
qualified historic experts and City staff.
Page 31 of 33
Page | 1
- Based on all recommendations, provide an assessment of the resources needed and
anticipated cost of a future work effort to complete the Historic Resource Inventory
Update Project.
Staff and Cultural Heritage Committee collaboration
x As noted in the schedule below there is one anticipated public meeting (in person) with the
Cultural Heritage Committee and CHC ad hoc subcommittee meetings are anticipated (in person
or virtual option).
x Senior Planner Brian Leveille is the staff CHC liaison responsible for the project and will be the
main point of contact for the effort. Brian Leveille will be assisting in all phases of the effort
including ad hoc committee communication, consultant and City staff communication, meeting
preparation and presentation, providing resources for the effort, background, etc.
Public Hearings
x One public hearing with the Cultural Heritage Committee to discuss the draft recommendations.
This will be an opportunity to receive feedback and to make any needed revisions in the final
report.
Schedule
x Proposals due October 14, 2023 (A summary proposal, letter, or memorandum is acceptable as
the contract amount for this effort does not require a formal bid/proposal review and selection
process).
x Contract awarded October 21, 2023
x Initial meetings with City staff (virtual or in person) – week of Oct. 24-28, 2023. There is also
ongoing staff availability to provide resources and provide feedback. Additional meetings can
be arranged as needed and as budget allows.
x CHC subcommittee meeting (virtual or in person) – one to two meetings or as needed and as
budget allows.
x Draft report/recommendations by January 6, 2023, in advance of the January 23, 2023, CHC
meeting.
x Complete final report by February 24, 20231.
Budget
x The Community Development Department has allocated a budget of up to $40,000 for this
effort.
Deliverables/Final Work product
1 This is an estimated date intended to allow sufficient time for the City to complete the Budget Goal setting
process for the 23-25 Financial plan. The timeline for the draft and final reports may be extended and staff will
work with the consultant to arrive at estimated costs and resources which are needed within the budget goal
setting timeframe.
Page 32 of 33
Page | 2
x Final Report with assessment and recommendations described in Scope of Work and schedule
(above)
x Estimated cost and resources needed to complete the future effort including staff time, and
historic consultant work (This information will be used to resource a future effort as part of the
City’s 23-25 Budget Goal Setting process). Options will be helpful based on alternatives and
potential phasing options recommended to the City.
Qualifications/Experience/Proposal content:
Please include information on similar projects completed and provide references. Please include
information on the manager of the project and all personnel who would be working on the assignment
and include professional qualifications, and experience.
Government Code Section 1090 and the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)
Please note that consultant recommendations are intended to provide general guidance to the City in
arriving at a project plan and approach for the main work effort anticipated to be included in the 23-25
Financial Plan. The proposal content, draft recommendations, and final deliverables shall include
recommendations that can be applied generally to any historic consultant. The selected consultant will
have no authority and will not be involved in the preparation of the scope of work and RFP for the
future work effort, will have no role in consultant selection for the main effort to update the Historic
Resources Inventory, and City staff will be solely responsible.
Resources:
City Historic Preservation website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/historic-and-
archeological-preservation
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/historic-and-
archeological-preservation/historic-preservation
Historic Context Statement:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/4042/635497615471370000
Master and Contributing Historic Properties list: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/historic-and-archeological-preservation
Page 33 of 33