HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-2023 CHC Agenda Packet
Cultural Heritage Committee
AGENDA
Monday, February 27, 2023, 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) 781-7114.
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 - DECEMBER 12, 2022 CULTURAL
HERITAGE COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
5
Recommendation:
To approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Special Meeting Minutes of
December 12, 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.
4.a 469 DANA STREET (DIR-0075-2021) REVIEW OF A PROPOSED
RECONSTRUCTED GARAGE WITH NEW ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT ABOVE
9
Recommendation:
Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director
regarding the consistency of a proposed new accessory structure with
the City’s historical preservation policies (Accessory Dwelling Unit over
a garage; Contributing List property in the Downtown Historic District)
4.b 889 BUCHON STREET (DIR-0555-2022) REVIEW OF A PROPOSED
RECONSTRUCTED GARAGE AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT
ADDITION
29
Recommendation:
Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director
regarding the consistency of a proposed new addition with the City’s
historical preservation policies (Accessory Dwelling Unit over a garage,
Contributing List property in the Old Town Historic District)
5.BUSINESS ITEM
5.a DRAFT PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT FOR THE HISTORIC
RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE
53
Recommendation:
Review and provide feedback on the Draft Preliminary Assessment and
recommended approach to complete an update of the City’s Historic
Resource Inventory and supporting policy and resource documents.
6.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
6.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Receive a brief update from Senior Planner Brian Leveille.
7.ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for
March 27, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo.
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) 781-7114 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
December 12, 2022, 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Cultural Heritage
Committee Members
Present:
Committee Members John Ashbaugh, Chuck Crotser, Sabin
Gray, Leslie Terry, and John Tischler, Vice Chair Karen
Edwards, and Chair Eva Ulz
City Staff Present: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was
called to order on December 12, 2022 at 5:31 p.m. in the Council Chambers at
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Ulz.
2. OATH OF OFFICE
Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian administered the Oath of Office to newly
appointed Cultural Heritage Committee Member Sabin Gray.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment—
4. CONSENT
4.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 24, 2022 CULTURAL
HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion By Member Crotser
Second By Member Ashbaugh
To approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of October 24, 2022.
Ayes (6): Members Ashbaugh, Crotser, Terry, and Tischler, Vice Chair
Edwards, and Chair Ulz
Abstained (1): Member Gray (Per the Advisory Body bylaws, abstentions
count as “yes” votes.)
CARRIED (6 to 0)
Page 5 of 71
2
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5.a 1043 GEORGE STREET (ARCH-0637-2022) REVIEW OF THE
ADDITION OF AN UPPER-LEVEL ROOF DORMER TO A
CONTRIBUTING LIST HISTORIC RESOURCE
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded
to Commission inquiries.
Applicant representative, Dana Hunter, Principal Architect, Hunter Smith
Architecture, provided an explanation of the needs that drove the
proposed project design and with assistance from Logan Hunter,
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 Chair Ulz
Second By Member Ashbaugh
Continue the item, with direction that the applicant consider an application
to remove the property from the City's Inventory of Historic Resources, or
changes to the design of the proposed addition that respond to the
concerns raised by the Committee regarding rhythm and massing, and
addressing the significance of alteration of the primary façade of a listed
historical resource, to better conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards and the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
Ayes (7): Member Ashbaugh, Member Crotser, Member Gray, Member
Terry, Member Tischler, Vice Chair Edwards, and Chair Ulz
CARRIED (7 to 0)
Page 6 of 71
3
6. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
6.a CONTINUED REVIEW OF THE 2023-2025 CULTURAL HERITAGE
COMMITTEE GOALS
Senior Planner Brian Leveille reviewed the draft goals compiled from
feedback given by the Committee at the October 24, 2022, meeting.
Chair Ulz opened Public Comment
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Ulz closed Public Comment
By consensus, the Committee provided modifications as included in the
final goals presented below:
1. Historic Inventory & Historic Preservation Ordinance Update –
Allocate funds and resources for a comprehensive update of the
City’s inventory of historic resources and associated updates to the
Historic Preservation Ordinance as recommended by the consultant
led preliminary phase assessment and recommendations
completed by historic consultant Page and Turnbull.
2. City Owned Adobes – Support efforts to improve the structural
condition, historic integrity, and appropriate cultural interpretation of
the four City-owned adobes in light of the City’s Diversity, Equity
and Inclusion goals. In particular, support efforts to stabilize,
restore, and rehabilitate the La Loma Adobe.
3. Public Information: Provide information to increase awareness and
support of the Historic Preservation Program and Historic
Resources Inventory update project including opportunities for
participation; and, pursue opportunities for appropriate cultural
interpretation of historic resources with a focus on including City
goals to advance Diversity, Equity, and inclusion.
Page 7 of 71
4
6.b STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an update of upcoming projects.
Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian reminded the Committee that the annual
Advisory Body recruitment is ongoing and encouraged eligible members to
re-apply for an additional term.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. 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 December 26, 2022 will be canceled due to the Christmas
Holiday.
_________________________
APPROVED BY CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2023
Page 8 of 71
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 469 DANA STREET (DIR-0075-2021) REVIEW OF A PROPOSED
RECONSTRUCTED GARAGE WITH NEW ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ABOVE
BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593
Email: woetzell@slocity.org
APPLICANT: Larry Pearson REPRESENTATIVE: Chris Parker, C.P. Parker, Architect
RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the Community
Development Director regarding the
consistency of a proposed new accessory
structure with the City’s historical
preservation policies (Accessory Dwelling
Unit over a garage; Contributing List property
in the Downtown Historic District)
1.0 BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes reconstruction of a
detached garage, with an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) to be added above the
garage, accessory to a single-family dwelling
(see Project Plans, Attachment A), on
property designated as a Contributing List
Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic
Resources and located within the Downtown
Historic District. As provided by § 14.01.030 (C) (4) of the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance, the application is being referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for
its recommendation to the Community Development Director as to the consistency of this
alteration with historical preservation policies, including any relevant conditions of
approval the Committee may recommend.
2.0 DISCUSSION
The subject property is a residential parcel on the south side of Dana Street, about 850
feet west of Nipomo Street, within the Downtown Historic District, which encompasses
the oldest part of the City, with a smaller residential section along Dana Street that
includes a spectrum of settlement from the mid-19th Century to the 1920s (see District
description, Attachment B).
Meeting Date: 2/27/2023
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 30 Minutes
Figure 1: 469 Dana St
Page 9 of 71
Item 4a
DIR-0075-2021 (649 Dana)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – February 27, 2023
It is adjacent to the course of San Luis Obispo Creek, with a portion of the recently
completed Downtown Terrace development visible across the creek channel, to the east
of the property. To the west is a multi-unit apartment complex, and across Dana Street to
the north, is the Rosa Butron Adobe, a modified adobe dwelling originally constructed in
1861.
The site is developed with a one-story single-family dwelling and accessory single-car
garage built in 1941 (Assessor information). The property was designated as a
Contributing List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources in February 1987
(Resolution 6158), a designation applied to buildings that maintain their original historic
and architectural character and contribute to the unique or historic character of a
neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole (Historical Preservation Ordinance
§ 14.01.050(B))
As described in City records, (see Attachment C), the dwelling on this property is
Mediterranean in style with Mission Revival influences. It is clad in stucco, topped by a
medium-slope tile roof. Windows are mostly rectangular, double-hung, but with an arched
picture window in front. An arched entry arcade, stucco chimney, and brick front wall with
wrought-iron fencing are identified as other characteristic elements of the dwelling. The
City’s Historic Context Statement provides summary descriptions of the characteristics of
both the Spanish Colonial Revival and Mission Revival styles, included as Attachment D
to this report.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to construct an expanded garage structure (see Project Plans,
Attachment A, and Figure 3) toward the rear of the property, to provide an additional
parking space in a tandem arrangement, with an 800 square-foot Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU) above the garage.
Figure 2: 469 Dana St (front elevation, Google Map Street View)
Page 10 of 71
Item 4a
DIR-0075-2021 (649 Dana)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – February 27, 2023
The predominant exterior material is stucco, with a Spanish tile roof cap around the
perimeter of the roofline. Windows are aluminum clad and rectangular, apart from an
arched picture window on the upper floor of the front elevation. A side staircase provides
access to the ADU entry under a partial archway. Decorative brackets are set under the
second floor on portions of the side, front, and rear elevations.
3.0 EVALUATION
Proposed work for alterations to listed historical resources must be consistent with
guidelines for Changes to Historic Resources set out in § 3.4 of the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG). As they apply to accessory structures, these
guidelines aim to ensure that new accessory structures complement a primary structure’s
historic character through compatibility with its form, massing, color, and materials
(§ 3.4 (c)), and that work is carried out in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties1 (§ 3.4 (f)).
An Accessory Dwelling Unit consistent with standards set out in § 17.86.020 of the City’s
Zoning Regulations is normally approved ministerially, without discretionary review.
However, the proposed structure encroaches up to two feet into the required side setback,
for which an exception has been requested under this application.
1 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic
Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service; Technical Preservation
Services, 2017
Figure 3: Proposed Garage and ADU; front elevation (left), side elevation (right)
Page 11 of 71
Item 4a
DIR-0075-2021 (649 Dana)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – February 27, 2023
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy
historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new
work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features,
size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its
environment.
Recommended Not Recommended
Related New Construction
Locating new construction far enough away
from the historic building, when possible, where
it will be minimally visible and will not negatively
affect the building’s character, the site, or
setting.
Placing new construction too close to the
historic building so that it negatively impacts
the building’s character, the site, or setting.
Designing new construction on a historic site or
in a historic setting that it is compatible but
differentiated from the historic building or
buildings.
Replicating the features of the historic building
when designing a new building, with the result
that it may be confused as historic or original to
the site or setting.
Ensuring that new construction is secondary to
the historic building and does not detract from
its significance
Adding new construction that results in the
diminution or loss of the historic character of
the building, including its design, materials,
location, or setting.
Constructing a new building on a historic
property or on an adjacent site that is much
larger than the historic building.
Designing new buildings or groups of buildings
to meet a new use that are not compatible in
scale or design with the character of the
historic building and the site …
Discussion: The proposed accessory structure replaces a smaller one-car garage,
providing two parking spaces and an Accessory Dwelling Unit to serve the existing
dwelling on the property. At two stories, it is appropriately scaled in relation to the single-
story dwelling on the site, and the one- and two-story residential structures in the vicinity.
It is situated about 20 feet behind the dwelling, reducing its visibility and apparent scale
as viewed from Dana Street. While it echoes the Spanish Colonial theme and style of the
primary dwelling, it is a separate structure with a two -story form and detailing (e.g.,
braces, stairway, greater variation in window sizing, etc.) that sufficiently distinguish it
from the dwelling, such that it can be d ifferentiated from the original construction. The
compatibility of its forms and materials and consistency of its scale and mass with that of
adjacent structures provide a basis for finding that it is compatible with the property’s
historical character and the character of the Downtown Historic District in terms of scale,
form, massing, materials, and details, as encouraged by Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties.
Page 12 of 71
Item 4a
DIR-0075-2021 (649 Dana)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – February 27, 2023
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Construction of a residential accessory structure is categorically exempt from CEQA
environmental review, as New Construction of Small Structures (Guidelines § 15303).
5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project consistent
with the City's historical preservation policies, with any suggested conditions of
approval necessary to achieve such consistency.
5.2 Continue consideration of the item, with direction to staff and applicant
5.3 Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project
inconsistent with historical preservation policies, citing specific areas of
inconsistency
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Project Plans (DIR-0075-2021 (469 Dana)
B - Downtown Historic District (Historical Preservation Program Guidelines)
C - Historical Preservation Information (469 Dana)
D - Architectural Styles (Historic Context Statement)
Page 13 of 71
Page 14 of 71
AREAS:EXISTING GARAGE: 343 SQ. FT.EXISTING MAIN RESID.: 1,620 SQ. FT.PROPOSED ADU: 800 SQ. FT.PROP. GARAGE ADDIT.: 490 SQ. FT.PROP. GARAGE TOT.: 833 SQ. FT.EXISTING MAIN LEVEL:EXISTING BASEMENT:1,254 SQ. FT.366 SQ. FT.EXISTING LOT SIZE: 15,984 SQ. FT.EXISTING LOT COVERAGE: 1,597 SQ. FT.(10%)PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE: 2,090 SQ. FT.(13%)PROJECT DESCRIPTION:PARCEL INFORMATION:A.P.N.: 002-402-005ZONING: R-3-HEXISTING USE: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCEPROPOSED HEIGHT: A.N.G. = 180.66', ALLOWED = 205.66'VICINITY MAP:PROJECTSITEPARKING: 2 ENCLOSED SPACES, 2 DRIVEWAY SPACESPROPOSED HEIGHT = 205.66'FIRE SPRINKLERS: NOT APPLICABLESHEET INDEX:A1.1A2.1A3.1PROJECT INFORMATION & SITE PLANGARAGE ADDIT. & ADU FLOOR PLANS / ELEVATIONSEXISTING ELEVATIONS OF MAIN RESIDENCEPROPOSED ADU PORCH: 53 SQ. FT.EXISTING GARAGEFOOTPRINTEXISTING TRELLISTO BE REMOVEDSHADED AREA INDICATESFOOTPRINT OF GARAGE& ACCESSORY DWELLING2'-9"5'-3"26'-8 1/2"EXISTING MAINRESIDENCEFOOTPRINT15'-7"3'-9 1/2"15'-10"C. P. PARKERA R C H I T E C TCONSULTANTS9 3 4 4 2 - 1 9 6 26 3 0 Q U I N T A N A R D. # 3 3 0M O R R O B A Y, C A.( 8 0 5 ) 7 7 2 - 5 7 0 0STAMPSPROJECTDRAWING PHASEREVISIONSSHEET TITLESHEET NO.C. P. PARKERA R C H I T E C TC H R I S T O P H E R P. P A R K E RA R C H I T E C TScaleUpdatedDwg. DateDrawn ByProject No.PROJECT INFO.A1.1.NER32-13-80RP.PARKERCHRISTOPHEC 30121FOETATSAINROFILACARCHITECLICENSEDTSITE PLANSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"CPPAS NOTED-DIRECTOR'SACTION-20-11812/17/22DETACHED ADUFORPROPOSEDLARRYPEARSON469 DANA STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF.& GARAGE& SITE PLANADDITIONPage 15 of 71
TWO-CAR GARAGEPWDR.20'-2"19'-10"2'-0"19'-2"6'-6"40'-0"18'-0"11'-0"11'-0"5'-10"20'-8"9'-0"5'-10"2'-6"16'-8"2'-6"2'-0"6"9'-0"1'-6"14'-0"4'-0"3'-11 1/2"2'-6"4'-5 1/2"1'-6"1'-6"WALL LEGEND:9'-6"9'-1"22'-0"BEDROOMBATHTOIL.SHWR.ENTRYLIVINGKITCHEN20'-7 1/2"2'-6"3'-11 1/2"16'-8"20'-8"2'-6"44'-0"20'-0"13'-0"16'-11"6'-3 1/2"5'-8 1/2"15'-1"2'-0"11'-0"2'-6"2'-6 1/2"2'-0"7'-0"2'-0"2'-6"3'-1"16'-11"PORCH5'-11 1/2"4'-0"10'-8 1/2"2'-7"3'-4 1/2"4'-9"5'-11 1/2"3'-7"7'-1 1/2"TWO-CAR GARAGEACCESSORYDWELLING UNIT9'-6"9'-1"22'-0"C. P. PARKERA R C H I T E C TCONSULTANTS9 3 4 4 2 - 1 9 6 26 3 0 Q U I N T A N A R D. # 3 3 0M O R R O B A Y, C A.( 8 0 5 ) 7 7 2 - 5 7 0 0STAMPSPROJECTDRAWING PHASEREVISIONSSHEET TITLESHEET NO.C. P. PARKERA R C H I T E C TC H R I S T O P H E R P. P A R K E RA R C H I T E C TScaleUpdatedDwg. DateDrawn ByProject No.FLOOR PLANSA2.1.NER32-13-80RP.PARKERCHRISTOPHEC 30121FOETATSAINROFILACARCHITECLICENSEDTLOWER FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"CPPAS NOTED-DIRECTOR'SACTION-20-11812/17/22DETACHED ADUFORPROPOSEDLARRYPEARSON469 DANA STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF.SIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH)SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"& GARAGE& ELEVATIONSFRONT ELEVATION (WEST)SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"ADDITIONUPPER FLOOR PLANSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"SIDE ELEVATION (NORTH)SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"REAR ELEVATION (EAST)SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"SECTIONSCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"Page 16 of 71
15'-0"C. P. PARKERA R C H I T E C TCONSULTANTS9 3 4 4 2 - 1 9 6 26 3 0 Q U I N T A N A R D. # 3 3 0M O R R O B A Y, C A.( 8 0 5 ) 7 7 2 - 5 7 0 0STAMPSPROJECTDRAWING PHASEREVISIONSSHEET TITLESHEET NO.C. P. PARKERA R C H I T E C TC H R I S T O P H E R P. P A R K E RA R C H I T E C TScaleUpdatedDwg. DateDrawn ByProject No.EXISTINGA3.1.NER32-13-80RP.PARKERCHRISTOPHEC 30121FOETATSAINROFILACARCHITECLICENSEDTCPPAS NOTED-DIRECTOR'SACTION-20-11812/17/22DETACHED ADUFORPROPOSEDLARRYPEARSON469 DANA STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF.& GARAGEELEVATIONSADDITIONFRONT ELEVATION (WEST)SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING MAIN HOUSESIDE ELEVATION (SOUTH)SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING MAIN HOUSEREAR ELEVATION (EAST)SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING MAIN HOUSESIDE ELEVATION (NORTH)SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTING MAIN HOUSEPage 17 of 71
Page 18 of 71
38
5.2.2 Downtown Historic District
Setting
The Downtown Historic District encompasses the oldest part of the City of San Luis Obispo and
contains one of the City’s highest concentrations of historic sites and structures. The historic
Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa is at the geographic and historic center of the district, which
is bounded roughly by Palm and Marsh Streets on the north and south, Osos and Nipomo Streets
on the east and west, plus Dana Street as the northwest corner. Although some structures date to
the Spanish and Mexican eras (1772-1850) and the American pioneer settlement era (1850s-
1870), the majority of surviving structures date from the 1870s to the 1920s. The district is
comprised of two subdivisions: the Town of San Luis Obispo, recorded 1878 and the Mission
Vineyard Tract recorded in March of 1873. The Downtown Historic District has an area of 61.5
acres and in 2010 includes 98 designated historic structures.
The Downtown Historic District was developed along the City’s earliest commercial corridors
along Monterey, Higuera, Chorro, Garden and Marsh Streets, and has retained its historical use
as San Luis Obispo’s commercial and civic center. Commercial structures were laid out in a
regular grid pattern, with buildings set at the back of sidewalks and relatively narrow (60 foot
right-of-way) streets. The resultant narrow streets and zero building setbacks reinforce the
district’s human scale and vibrant Main Street image.
Site Features and Characteristics
Common site features and characteristics
include:
A. Buildings located at back of sidewalk
with zero street and side setbacks
B. Finish floors at grade
C. Recessed front entries oriented toward
the street
D. Front facades oriented toward the
street
E. Trees placed at regular intervals along
the street
Architectural Character
Built during the San Luis Obispo’s boom time circa 1870s-1910s (when the Town’s population
increased over 800 percent from 600 people in 1868 to 5,157 in 1910), the district’s commercial
architectural styles reflect the increasing wealth of the times. Architectural styles present in the
Downtown District include examples of Classical Revival, Italianate and Romanesque structures,
and more modest early American commercial. Although a few structures were designed by
outside architects (specifically from San Francisco and Los Angeles), the majority of Downtown
buildings were designed and built by local builders, including the Maino family, John Chapek,
721, 717 and 715 Higuera Street, North
Elevation
Page 19 of 71
39
Doton Building, 777 Higuera
Street, North Elevation
and Frank Mitchell.
Predominant architectural features include:
A. One to two stories (occasionally three)
B. Flat or low pitched roof, often with a parapet
C. Wide entablature or projecting cornice that often
includes classical architectural details such as
dentils, brackets and molding
D. First floor windows are horizontally oriented
storefront windows, often with display space
facing street. In multi-story structures, windows
are vertically oriented, typically with double
hung, wood sashes, and symmetrically arranged
so that they are dimensionally taller than their
width
E. Structures follow simple rectilinear or “boxy”
buildings forms
F. Masonry or smooth stucco wall siding
G. Contrasting bulkheads along base of street façade
H. Use of awnings, historic signs, second-story
overhangs and canopies
I. Use of transom windows above storefronts
Individually Contributing Elements in the Downtown District
Not all historic resources in the Downtown Historic
District were built during the district’s period of
significance of 1870-1930. These buildings generally do
not exhibit the signature architectural elements described
above but do contribute to the historic character of San
Luis Obispo in their own right based on age, architectural
style or historical association. By virtue of their
significance, these resources also merit preservation.
For example, the Doton Building is an example of
Streamline Moderne architecture from the 1930s. This
building was placed on the Master List as a significant
resource due to its craftsmanship and the rarity of this
particular style in San Luis Obispo. Additional examples
include the Laird building at 1023 Garden. Built in the
1880s, the Laird building is one of the City’s last
remaining Pioneer False front buildings. The Golden State
Creamery building at 570 Higuera is historically
significant to San Luis Obispo for its association with the
Smith Building and Union
Hardware Building, 1119 and
1129 Garden Street, East
Elevation
Page 20 of 71
40
dairy industry, an industry integral to the City’s development.
Non-Contributing Elements in Downtown
Non -contributing buildings are those that both do not meet the criteria outlined above and have
not achieved historical significance. Most of the post—1950 contemporary buildings in the
district fall into this latter category.
Non-contributing architectural styles,
materials or site features include:
A. Buildings setback from street or side
property lines
B. Building height, form or massing
which contrasts markedly with the
prevailing 2-3 story pattern
C. Wood, metal or other contemporary
material siding, or “faux”
architectural materials or features.
D. Asymmetrical arrangement of doors
and windows
E. Raised, non-recessed or offset street
entries to buildings
Residential
Although the majority of the Downtown District is commercial, within the district is a smaller
residential section, primarily along Dana Street and also down Monterey Street to the west of the
mission. This subsection includes a spectrum of settlement from the mid 19th century to the
1920s. Lots were generally platted in regular grids, although curved along Dana to accommodate
the creek.
Site features and characteristics- Residential:
A. Street yard setbacks of 20 feet or
more, often with low walls (2 feet) and
fences at sidewalk
B. Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear
yard
C. Front entries oriented toward the street
with prominent porch and steps
D. Front facades oriented toward the
street
The architectural styles in the residential area
of the Downtown district are varied and 756 Palm Street, South Elevation
1010 Nipomo Street, South and West
Elevations
Page 21 of 71
41
represent several different periods of development in San Luis Obispo. The oldest, vernacular
Adobe, dates back the early pioneer period. The Rosa Butrón de Canet adobe at 466 Dana is
from this period and is one of the few surviving adobes in San Luis Obispo. Folk and High
Victorian structures built during the population influx at turn of the twentieth century. Finally,
Spanish Revival, a style that achieved popularity in San Luis Obispo during the housing boom of
1920s and 1930s which was itself funded in part by the maturation of war bonds from World
War I.
Architectural features- Residential:
A. One and rarely two story buildings
B. Gable and hip roof types predominate
C. Traditional fenestration, such as
double-hung, wood sash windows,
ornamental front doors, wood screen
doors
D. Painted wood or smooth stucco
siding.
469 Dana Street, North Elevation
Page 22 of 71
42
***
Murray Adobe, 474 Monterey Street; Anderson House, 532 Dana
Street; Hotel Wineman, 849 Higuera Street; 762 Higuera Street
Page 23 of 71
Page 24 of 71
Page 25 of 71
Page 26 of 71
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
140
MISSION REVIVAL
The Mission Revival style is indigenous to California. Drawing upon its own colonial past, Mission
Revival was the Californian counterpart to the Colonial Revival of the Northeastern states. Never
common beyond the Southwest, its regional popularity was spurred by its adoption by the Santa Fe
and Southern Pacific Railways as the preferred style for train stations and resort hotels. Features of the
California Missions were borrowed and freely adapted, often in combination with elements of other
revival styles.
Character-defining features include:
Red clay tile roofs with overhanging eaves and open rafters
Shaped parapets
Stucco exterior wall cladding
Arched window and door openings
Details may include bell towers, quatrefoil openings or patterned tiles
Old Gas Works, 280 Pismo Street, 1902. Source: Historic
Resources Group.
Grace Church, 1350 Osos Street. Source: Historic Resources Group.
Milestone Motel, 2223 Monterey Street, 1925. Source: City of San
Luis Obispo.
Page 27 of 71
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
147
SPANISH COLONIAL REVIVAL
Enormously popular in Southern California from the late 1910s through the late 1930s, the Spanish
Colonial Revival style emerged from a conscious effort by architects to emulate older Spanish
architectural traditions, and break with Eastern colonial influences. At the peak of its popularity, design
features of other regions of the Mediterranean were often creatively incorporated, including those of
Italy, France, and North Africa. The result was a pan-Mediterranean mélange of eclectic variations on
Spanish Revival styles.
Character-defining features include:
Asymmetrical facade
Red clay tile hip or side-gable roof, or flat roof with a tile-clad parapet
Stucco exterior cladding, forming uninterrupted wall planes
Wood-frame casement or double-hung windows, typically with divided lights
Arched colonnades, window or door openings
Decorative grilles of wood, wrought iron, or plaster
Balconies, patios or towers
Decorative terra cotta or tile work
M.F. Avila House, 1443 Osos Street. Source: Historic
Resources Group. Division of Highways District 5 Office, 50 Higuera Street,
1931. Source: City of San Luis Obispo.
U.S. Post Office, 893 Marsh Street, 1925. Source: Historic
Resources Group.Mission College Prep Catholic High School, Palm
& Broad Streets. Source: Historic Resources Group.
Page 28 of 71
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 889 BUCHON STREET (DIR-0555-2022) REVIEW OF A PROPOSED
RECONSTRUCTED GARAGE AND ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ADDITION
BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593
Email: woetzell@slocity.org
APPLICANT: Jessica Lehrbaum, Architect
RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the Community
Development Director regarding the
consistency of a proposed new addition with
the City’s historical preservation policies
(Accessory Dwelling Unit over a garage,
Contributing List property in the Old Town
Historic District)
1.0 BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes construction of a
replacement garage, with an Accessory
Dwelling Unit (ADU) above the garage, and a
small addition joining the new construction to
an existing single-family dwelling (see Project
Plans, Attachment A), on property
designated as a Contributing List Resource in
the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources and located within the Old Town District. As
provided by § 14.01.030 (C) (4) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the
application is being referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) for its
recommendation to the Community Development Director as to the consistency of this
alteration with historical preservation policies, including any relevant conditions of
approval the Committee may recommend.
2.0 DISCUSSION
Site and Setting
The subject property is a residential parcel at the southwest corner of Morro and Buchon
Streets, within the Old Town Historic District, one of the City’s oldest residential
neighborhoods, built up historically around the turn of the twentieth century, with older
structures dating back to the 1880s (see District description, Attachment B).
Meeting Date: 2/27/2023
Item Number: 4b
Time Estimate: 30 Minutes
Page 29 of 71
Item 4b
DIR-0555-2022 (889 Buchon)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – February 27, 2023
The immediate neighborhood is characterized by one- and two-story dwellings in a variety
of styles, including Bungalow, Craftsman, and various Victorian styles.
The site is developed with a one-story single-family dwelling with detached garage and
workshop, built in 1922.1 The property was designated as a Contributing List Resource in
the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources in February 1987 (Resolution 6158), a
designation applied to buildings that maintain their original historic and architectural
character and contribute to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or
to the City as a whole (Historical Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.050(B))
As described in City records, (see Architectural Worksheet, Attachment C), the primary
dwelling on this property is a single story in height, rectangular in plan, with broad
medium-pitch roof forms, a corner porch entry, and groups of rectangular windows with
divided lights, including a distinctive arrangement of five window panels across the
Buchon Street frontage of the building. It exhibits elements of Craftsman Bungalow style
in its use of exposed rafters and support brackets, though it incorporates an arched ceiling
over the porch. The City’s Historic Context Statement provides a summary description of
the characteristics of the Craftsman style, included as Attachment D to this report.
Project Description
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing garage and workshop and construct a
replacement garage (see Project Plans, Attachment A, and Figure 3) in a position that
brings its walls a few feet further from the property line, for conformance to current fire
and building safety standards. A second story will be constructed above the garage to
accommodate an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU). The ADU entry, kitchen, and a “Mud
Room” will connect the new construction to the primary dwelling at its southwest corner.
The predominant exterior material is cement plaster, with wood fascia and window trim,
decorative roof brackets, overhanging eaves, rectangular sash windows, and asphalt
shingle roofing.
1 Counter Assessor records indicate a “Year Built” date of 1920
Figure 1: 889 Buchon St; corner entry (left), garage and workshop (right)
Page 30 of 71
Item 4b
DIR-0555-2022 (889 Buchon)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – February 27, 2023
3.0 EVALUATION
Proposed work for alterations and additions to listed historical resources must be
consistent with guidelines for Changes to Historic Resources set out in § 3.4 of the City’s
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG). As they apply to additions, these
guidelines aim to ensure maintenance of a resource’s original architectural integrity and
a close match to the historical building’s original architecture, in terms of scale, form,
massing, rhythm, fenestration, materials, color, and architectural details. (§ 3.4 (d)), and
that the work is carried out in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties2 (§ 3.4 (f)).
An Accessory Dwelling Unit consistent with standards set out in § 17.86.020 of the City’s
Zoning Regulations is normally approved ministerially, without discretionary review.
However, the proposed new construction encroaches up to five feet into the required side
setbacks, for which an exception has been requested under this application .
2 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic
Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service; Technical Preservation
Services, 2017
Figure 2: Proposed garage reconstruction, ADU addition (right)
Page 31 of 71
Item 4b
DIR-0555-2022 (889 Buchon)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – February 27, 2023
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will
be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size,
scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Recommended Not Recommended
New Additions
Constructing a new addition on a secondary or
non-character defining elevation and limiting its
size and scale in relationship to the historic
building.
Constructing a new addition on or adjacent to
a primary elevation of the building which
negatively impacts the building’s historic
character.
Constructing a new addition that results in the
least possible loss of historic materials so that
character-defining features are not obscured,
damaged, or destroyed.
Attaching a new addition in a manner that
obscures, damages, or destroys character-
defining features of the historic building.
Designing a new addition that is compatible
with the historic building.
Designing a new addition that is significantly
different and, thus, incompatible with the
historic building.
Using the same forms, materials, and color
range of the historic building in a manner that
does not duplicate it but distinguishes the
addition from the original building.
Duplicating the exact form, material, style, and
detailing of the historic building in a new
addition so that the new work appears to be
historic.
Distinguishing the addition from the original
building by setting it back from the wall plane of
the historic building.
Discussion: The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit is placed above a garage that will
serve the primary dwelling on the property, and involves minimal disturbance to the
existing building, resulting only in the removal of two windows and a secondary entry at
its southwest corner. At two stories in height, the addition is appropriately scaled in
relation to the single-story dwelling on the site, and the one - and two-story residential
structures in the vicinity. Although the property’s situation as a corner lot results in
increased visibility into the property from the Buchon street side, the addition is set back
about 25 feet from the property line and about 20 feet behind the wall plane of the
dwelling, reducing its apparent scale as viewed from the street. According to the property
owner’s preference, the new construction closely matches in style and detail the
Craftsman theme of the primary dwelling, though its more vertical two -story form
distinguishes it to some degree from the dwelling, such that it can be differentiated from
the original construction.
Page 32 of 71
Item 4b
DIR-0555-2022 (889 Buchon)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – February 27, 2023
The compatibility of its forms and materials, consistency of its scale and mass with that
of adjacent structures, and minimal alteration of the existing dwelling provide a basis for
finding that it is compatible with the property’s historical character and the character of
the Old Town Historic District in terms of scale, form, massing, materials, and details, as
encouraged by Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Construction of a residential addition is categorically exempt from CEQA environmental
review, as minor alteration of Existing Facilities (Guidelines § 15301).
5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
5.1 Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project consistent
with the City's historical preservation policies, with any suggested conditions of
approval necessary to achieve such consistency.
5.2 Continue consideration of the item, with direction to staff and applicant
5.3 Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project
inconsistent with historical preservation policies, citing specific areas of
inconsistency
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Project Plans (ARCH-0555-2022)
B - Old Town Historic District (Historic Preservation Program Guidelines)
C - Architectural Worksheet (ARCH-0555-2022)
D - Craftsman Style (Context Statement)
Page 33 of 71
Page 34 of 71
1/4/23Date RevisionsPROJECT:TURRENTINEADU889 BUCHONSTREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CASHEET #:T1.1SHEET TITLE:TiTLE SHEET& PROJECTDATAPage 35 of 71
PROJECT:TURRENTINEADU889 BUCHONSTREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CAExistingPrimaryResidenceSHEET #:A1.1Date RevisionsSHEET TITLE:PROPOSED SITE PLANGROUNDCOVER &PLANTINGS1511Morro885Buchon889Buchon ADU Entry (N)Garage(N)Mudroom (N)1/4/23Page 36 of 71
SHEET #:A1.2Date RevisionsPROJECT:TURRENTINEADU889 BUCHONSTREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CAExisting 1224 SFPrimary ResidenceSHEET TITLE:PROPOSEDUTILITIESGRADING &DRAINAGE Proposed 110 sfADU Entry288 sfGarage/Laundry toreplaceExist Proposed 80 sfMudroom1/4/23Page 37 of 71
PROJECT:TURRENTINEADU889 BUCHONSTREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CAKitLRCloCloBdrmBaBdrmDRHallPorchLndryGarageSHEET TITLE:DEMO PLANDate RevisionsSHEET #:A2.0Date Revisionsxxxx1/4/23Page 38 of 71
SHEET #:A2.2SHEET TITLE: PROPOSED1st FLOOR PLAN&2nd FLOOR PLANDate RevisionsSHEET #:A2.2Date RevisionsPROJECT:TURRENTINEADU889 BUCHONSTREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CAKitLRCloCloBdrmBaBdrmDRHallPorchLndry(N)Garage (N)xxxxEntry (N)BathMud Rm(N)NewADUBaPLUMBING FIXTURE UNIT CALCULATIONQUANITY MIN. PIPE SIZEPRIMARY DWELLING (E)TOILETLAVATORYKITCHEN SINK/ DISHWASHBATHSHOWERHOSEBIBPROPOSED ADUTOILETLAVATORYBAR SINKBATH/ SHOWER2211130.50.50.50.50.50.5WSFU/EA.2.511.5422.5/1Subtotal12110.50.50.50.52.5114ADU new fixturesTotal proposed fixturesTOTAL WSFU521.5424.5192.521413.532.5THE EXISTING WATER METER IS 5/8" WITH A 3/4" COPPER SERVICE LATERAL. BOTH THEEXISTING DWELLING AND ADU WILL BE SERVED BY THE EXISTING WATER METER.10.5 4 4CLOTHES WASHER1/4/23Page 39 of 71
SHEET TITLE:EXISTING &PROPOSEDROOF PLANDate RevisionsSHEET #:A2.3’PROJECT:TURRENTINEADU889 BUCHONSTREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA1/4/23Page 40 of 71
PROJECT:TURRENTINEADU889 BUCHONSTREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CASHEET TITLE:EXISTINGELEVATIONSDate RevisionsSHEET #:A3.0Date Revisions885 Buchon1511 Morro885 Buchon1/4/23Page 41 of 71
SHEET #:A3.1SHEET TITLE:PROPOSEDELEVATIONSDate RevisionsPROJECT:TURRENTINEADU889 BUCHONSTREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA1511 Morro885 Buchon1/4/23Page 42 of 71
SHEET #:A3.2SHEET TITLE:PROPOSEDELEVATIONS& SECTIONDate RevisionsPROJECT:TURRENTINEADU889 BUCHONSTREET,SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA885 BuchonADU Entry1/4/23Page 43 of 71
Page 44 of 71
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 45 of 71
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 46 of 71
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 47 of 71
37
***
1059 Leff Street; Biddle House, 559 Pismo Street; 1624, 1636, 1642 Morro Street; and
Pismo Buchon Alley from Santa Rosa Street
Page 48 of 71
Page 49 of 71
Page 50 of 71
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
141
CRAFTSMAN
Craftsman architecture in America grew out of the late-19th century English Arts and Crafts
movement. It stressed simplicity of design, hand-craftsmanship, and the relationship to the climate and
landscape. Craftsman architecture was widely published in architectural journals and pattern books,
popularizing the style throughout the country. Affordable and easily constructed from local materials,
the mostly one- or one-and-a-half-story homes were often referred to as “bungalows” and dominated
middle-class residential design during the first quarter of the 20th century.
Character-defining features include:
Horizontal massing
Low-pitched gabled roof
Widely overhanging eaves with exposed rafters, beams, or braces
Wood exterior wall cladding (shingle, shake, or clapboard)
Projecting partial-, full-width or wrap-around front porch
Heavy porch piers, often of river stone or masonry
Wood-frame casement or double-hung sash windows, often grouped in multiples
Widely-proportioned front doors, often with a beveled light
Wide window and door surrounds, often with extended lintels
Extensive use of natural materials (wood, brick or river stone)
1339 Higuera Street. Source: City of San Luis Obispo.
Burch House, 1333 Mill Street, 1915. Source: Historic
Resources Group.
Residence, 863 Islay Street, c. 1915. Source: Historic
Resources Group.
Page 51 of 71
Page 52 of 71
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of February 27, 2023
TO: Cultural Heritage Committee
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ITEM 5a – DRAFT PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE HISTORIC RESOURCE INVENTORY UPDATE
Please review the attached Draft Preliminary Assessment and recommended
approach to completing an update of the City’s Historic Resource Inventory and
supporting policy and resource documents. At the February 27, 2023 Cultural
Heritage Committee (CHC) Meeting, staff will provide a brief overview of the
recommended approach prior to CHC discussion. CHC feedback will be reviewed
with the consultant team for any necessary revisions prior to finalizing the document.
The final document will be used to guide approaches for the City to begin a phased
approach toward accomplishing a comprehensive update of the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory.
ATTACHMENT
A - Draft Preliminary Assessment
Page 53 of 71
Page 54 of 71
170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Imagining change in historic environments through
design, research, and technology
MEMORANDUM
DATE February 20, 2023 PROJECT
NUMBER
22288
TO Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
PROJECT San Luis Obispo Inventory of
Historic Resources Assessment
OF City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
FROM Stacy Kozakavich, Page & Turnbull
Christina Dikas, Page & Turnbull
CC Ruth Todd, Page & Turnbull VIA Email
REGARDING DRAFT Preliminary Assessment and Recommendations – San Luis Obispo Inventory
of Historic Resources.
I. Introduction
Page & Turnbull has prepared this memorandum at the request of the City of San Luis Obispo (City)
to provide comments on the existing Inventory of Historic Resources, Historic Context Statement,
and Historic Preservation Ordinance, as well as recommendations for potential future updates. The
purpose of this report is to identify deficiencies in these documents, and to recommend a structured
approach to revisions and updates which is consistent with current best practices in historic
preservation.
The central focus of the City’s efforts will be to revise and update the Inventory of Historic
Resources, which was established in 1983 and has been periodically updated based on the findings
of targeted historic resource surveys and individual property evaluations. The structure and content
of the Inventory of Historic Resources relies on the interconnected rules and guidance provided by
two documents, both developed following the establishment of the Inventory of Historic Resources:
the City’s municipal code, particularly the Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 14.01) and the
City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement (Historic Context Statement) adopted in
2013. The Historic Preservation Ordinance provides definitions for categories of historic resources
within the city and criteria and procedures for designation. The Historic Context Statement provides
a chronological and thematic framework within which the significance of the City’s historic resources
can be understood and evaluated.
Page 55 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 2 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
II. Inventory of Historic Resources Framework
Page & Turnbull reviewed the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Context Statement, and
Inventory of Historic Resources to identify possible deficiencies and opportunities for improvement.
The following sections provide these findings, as well as recommendations for sequencing updates
to the regulatory framework and contents of the Inventory of Historic Resources. A brief discussion
of historic preservation practices related to local designation in six other cities with Certified Local
Government status is also included.
Historic Preservation Ordinance
The first task in effectively bringing the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources into alignment with
current best practices in historic preservation should be to update the Historic Preservation
Ordinance. Page & Turnbull reviewed sections related to the evaluation and designation of historic
resources in the current ordinance (Chapter 14.01), and identified several areas for potential
clarification and improvement. In general, we recommend that the overall approach in Chapter
14.01 be more consistent with guidance from the National Park Service and State of California Office
of Historic Preservation (OHP) with respect to the definition and evaluation of significant historic
resources, including the guidance provided in the OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 – Drafting
Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances: A Manual for California’s Local Governments. Specific
potential deficiencies and improvement recommendations for the Historic Preservation Ordinance
include the following:
14.01.20 Definitions
• The definitions of the current classifications of “Contributing List resource or property” and
“Master List resource” (Sections 14.01.020 and 14.01.050) do not communicate a clear
difference in significance or protection between these two categories.
• The definitions of “Cultural resource,” “Historic property,” “Historic resource,” and “Sensitive
site” do not communicate how these terms are or should be differently applied with regard
to implementation of the City’s historic preservation policies.
• The definition of “Historic district/historical preservation district” inaccurately references
Chapter 17.54. The correct chapter is 17.56 - Historical Preservation (H) Overlay Zone
(Sections 14.01.020 and 14.01.080).
• The definition of “Noncontributing resource” inappropriately characterizes this classification
as a “designation,” when it is more accurately a lack of designation. This label is misused in
place of a term such as “Non-historic property” or “Age-ineligible property,” as it corresponds
to the definition that these properties are “typically less than 50 years old.” Since the
appropriate use of the term “Noncontributing resource” is relevant only within the context of
historic districts, the definition accurately provided in 14.01.050 is misplaced in this section.
Page 56 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 3 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
14.01.50 Historic Resource Designations
• The introductory paragraph to Section 14.01.050 includes a partial definition of “Contributing
properties,” which is made redundant by the full definition in subsection B.
• Section 14.01.050 does not include requirements for notification of and consent by property
owners within proposed historic districts or requirements for consent by owners of
individual properties nominated by Cultural Heritage Commission (CHC).
• Section 14.01.050 does not state if and how incentives may be available to owners of listed
properties, as is noted with respect to properties in historic districts (Section 14.01.080).
14.01.55 Historic Gardens, Site Features, Signs, and Other Cultural Resources
• The separation of Section 14.01.055 from those which define individually listed historic
resources does not clearly communicate that “historic gardens, site features and
improvements, accessory structures, signs, Native American sacred places, cultural
landscapes and areas or objects of archaeological, architectural, cultural or historic
significance” as well as signs may be listed on the Inventory of Historic Resources as either
individual properties or contributors to historic districts.
14.01.070 Evaluation Criteria for Historic Listing
• The current evaluation criteria for historic resource designation could require evaluations to
address up to sixteen different potential aspects of significance. Compared with the National
Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources, each of which have
four criteria, the necessity to address all of the City’s criteria in each property evaluation
could be onerous for City reviewers’ time and property owners bearing the cost of
evaluation. Much of the detail provided in the City’s Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource
Listing could be included in written guidance for evaluation according to a simplified set of
criteria, rather than in the ordinance itself.
• “Integrity” is not an appropriate criteria for evaluation of significance. Rather, it is typically a
separate requirement for eligibility for listing.
14.01.080 Historic District Designation, Purpose and Application
• Section 14.01.080 does not include or clearly refer to criteria for designation of Historic
Districts, which is specified with respect to “H” overlay zones in Section 17.56.010.B.
• Land use policies and goals and “special considerations for development review” of projects
within proposed districts (Section 17.56.010.B) are important issues to discuss as part of City
review and hearings regarding applications for designation of historic districts. However,
Page 57 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 4 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
requiring applications to include analyses of these issues may be onerous to applicants not
experienced in planning policy. This may discourage private individuals and groups from
submitting applications.
14.01.090 Process for Establishing or Amending Historic Districts
• Preparation of “graphic and written design guidelines” (14-01-090.C.4) should be developed
as a separate process, to be consistent with and implemented as part of the City’s existing
design review processes.
• While “Environmental Design Continuity” is a required review criterion for historic district
applications (14-01-090.E), this criterion is not mentioned in the application requirements
(14-01-090.C) or characteristics (17.56.010.B) of historic districts/”H” overlay zones.
• The relevance of individually eligible properties within proposed historic districts to CHC and
City Council review is not made clear in Section 14-01-090.E.2. While it may be assumed that
the presence of some proportion of individually eligible properties could benefit a district’s
eligibility, this is not explicitly stated.
Preparation of revised Historic Preservation Ordinance text and meetings with City staff and the CHC
are included as Task 1.1 in the Recommended Scope of Work.
Historic Context Statement
Adopted in 2013, the Historic Context Statement provides a broad overview of the City’s history
spanning chronologically from the 1700s through the mid-20th century. Contextual themes, property
types, eligibility standards, and local examples are presented for each of six time periods between
1772 (the beginning of Spanish Colonization and establishment of Mission San Luis Obispo) and
1970. Though the majority of individual properties listed on the Inventory of Historic Resources were
evaluated and designated prior to adoption of the Historic Context Statement, the document
provides a good foundation for review of currently designated properties and new evaluations.
Page & Turnbull reviewed the Historic Context Statement, and identified the following areas for
potential improvement:
• Discussion of the presence and historical contribution of Chumash and other Native
American tribal groups is limited to sections which discuss the early history of San Luis
Obispo, and “Associated Property Types, Integrity Considerations & Eligibility Standards”
related to Native American peoples acknowledges only archaeological resources. Traditional
cultural properties and other resource types associated with the area’s historic and current
Native American residents and communities are not addressed.
Page 58 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 5 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
• The “Ethnic Communities” themes presented with the contexts for the Late 19th Century,
Early 20th Century, Great Depression, and World War II may encourage the identification of
resources associated with distinct cultural groups who have contributed to the history and
built environment of San Luis Obispo. However, the use of a specific category for “Ethnic
Communities” within a limited number of the larger temporal contexts risks relegating
resources that are not associated with the city’s Anglo-American history to a category of
“other,” separate from the core histories of San Luis Obispo’s past.
• Some groups and themes which have been identified by other municipalities as significant in
local history, as well as to the history of California, are not included in San Luis Obispo’s
Historic Context Statement. Groups and themes which may be significant in the city’s history
include (but are not limited to) LGBTQ+ communities, African American/Black communities,
Latinx communities, and labor history.
• Transportation-related development is limited to the late 19th-century time period, and as
such is limited in focus to the early construction and use of rail lines and related
infrastructure. Later changes in the use of rail lines and the growth of automobile-focused
routes and infrastructure are excluded from the potential significant associations.
Preparation of an addendum to the Historic Context Statement, including public meetings, meetings
with City staff and the CHC are included as Task1.2 in the Recommended Scope of Work.
Inventory of Historic Resources
San Luis Obispo’s Inventory of Historic Resources currently consists of 760 locally designated
individual properties, including 198 “Master List” properties and 562 “Contributing List” properties.
The inventory was established following the City’s first comprehensive historic resource survey,
conducted in 1982-1983, which reviewed over 2,000 pre-1941 properties, primarily near the
downtown core.1 This survey established the basis for the Master List, plus three historic districts:
Downtown, Mill Street, and Old Town. Of the currently listed properties on the Inventory of Historic
Resources, 285 (149 on the Master List and 136 on the Contributing List) were listed on August 15,
1983 as a result of this survey.
The second historic resource survey, completed in 1986, reviewed approximately 500 properties,
mostly single-family residences outside of the downtown area, which had been identified by the
Cultural Heritage Committee. A total of 400 properties were evaluated, 100 for eligibility for the
Master List and National Register, and all 400 as potential district contributors. Of the currently
1 Previous historic resource survey approaches and findings are summarized from: Historic Resources Group,
City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement (Pasadena: Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo,
September 30, 2013), 6-8.
Page 59 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 6 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
listed Inventory of Historic Resources properties, 256 (three on the Master List and 253 on the
Contributing List) were listed on February 2, 1987 as a result of this survey, and the Chinatown and
Railroad historic districts were identified. Three additional districts that were recommended
following the 1987 survey Little Italy, Monterey Heights, and Mount Pleasanton/Anholm, were not
designated, though each area contains a concentration of designated Contributing List properties.
In 2006-2007, City staff surveyed properties in the East Railroad and Monterey Heights potential
districts. Of the currently listed Inventory of Historic Resources properties, 22 were listed on
February 19, 2007 as a result of this survey.
The fourth Inventory of Historic Resources update survey, conducted in 2011-2012, reviewed
properties dating to ca. 1900-1925 in an area recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee
“outside of existing historic districts adjacent to Johnson Avenue between Higuera and Buchon
Streets.”2 Of the currently listed Inventory of Historic Resources properties, 57 Contributing List
properties were designated on December 3, 2012 as a result of this survey.
The majority of properties listed in the Inventory of Historic Resources are within one of the City’s
five designated Historic District Overlay Zones (Table 1). A total of 128 of the 198 Master List
properties are within the boundaries of a Historic District Overlay Zone. Of the 562 Contributing List
properties, 392 are within the five designated Historic District Overlay Zones. There are 234 within
the Old Town District, the largest historic district in the City, consisting primarily of single-family
residential properties.
An additional 110 Contributing List properties are within five concentrations of properties which
appear to have been identified in previous surveys as potential districts during previous surveys, but
which are not designated as Historic District Overlay Zones.3
There are 60 individual Contributing List properties outside of an existing historic district or
neighborhood previously identified as a potential historic district, approximately three quarters of
which are within the 2012 survey area immediately south of Higuera Street and east of Toro Street
and Johnson Avenue.
Table 1. Count of Inventory of Historic Resources-listed properties within historic districts and
neighborhoods.
2 Historic Resources Group, City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement, 6-7.
3 Historic Resources Group, City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement, 171-186.
Page 60 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 7 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
District or Neighborhood Designated as Historic
District Overlay Zone
Number of Master
List Properties
Number of
Contributing List
Properties
Railroad Yes 11 17
Downtown Yes 45 65
Mill Street Yes 12 70
Old Town Yes 58 234
Chinatown Yes 2 6
East Railroad No Not recorded 23
Johnson Avenue No Not recorded 1
Little Italy No Not recorded 3
Monterey Heights No Not recorded 7
Mt. Pleasanton/Anholm No Not recorded 76
The majority of properties included in the Master List were designated prior to development of the
Historic Context Statement, so specific contexts or themes described in the 2013 document were
not formally associated with most properties at the time of their designation. Page & Turnbull
reviewed information available through the City’s GIS system for Master List properties to make
preliminary context theme assignments to each property. While estimated based on limited
information, these assignments provide some insight into which themes are currently represented
in the Inventory of Historic Resources and by designated historic districts, and may provide
opportunities for better representation in future evaluations and designations.
The majority of Master List properties, 128 of the total 198, are related to two themes: late-19th-
Century and Early 20th-Century residential development. The next most frequent are late-19th-
Century and Early 20th-Century commercial development, represented by 31 of 198 Master List
properties. These time periods and themes are also reinforced through association with the
designated historic districts, whose contributors predominantly represent late 19th- and early 20th-
century residential and commercial buildings.
The 17 other themes included in the Historic Context Statement are represented by relatively small
numbers of properties. In the case of Mission-Era Institutional Development and Residential
Development, this is understandable due to the relative rarity of properties dating to this early
period. The small number of properties associated with the Great Depression & World War II (1930-
1945) and Mid-20th-Century Growth (1945-1970) context periods, a total of about 12 Master List
properties across all themes for the periods from the 1930s to 1970, suggests that properties built
during these years may have not been prioritized in previous historic resource surveys. Only one
Master List property, the Ah Louis Store at 800 Palm Street, is explicitly associated with “Ethnic
Page 61 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 8 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Communities” themes across all time periods. The Historic Context Statement notes that 11
properties “were identified in 2008 for their historic association with the local Italian community,”
however, the annotations associated with Master List properties on the City’s publicly available GIS
information do not identify this significant association for any properties.4
Construction dates and historic significance information was not available for Contributing List
properties during preparation of this memorandum. It is therefore not clear if the proportions of
context themes represented in the Contributing List differs from that in the Master List.
A detailed review of property types, context themes, and time periods represented in the Inventory
of Historic Resources, as well as an updated assessment of the integrity of listed properties, is
included as Task1.3 in the Recommended Scope of Work. Development and implementation of a
survey plan for evaluation of new potential individual resources and historic districts are described
in Tasks 2.1 and 2.2 of the Recommended Scope of Work.
III. Comparative Preservation Policies
Page & Turnbull reviewed the preservation ordinances of six Certified Local Governments with
populations between approximately 20,000 and 120,000 to provide comparison and insight into
current and potential approaches for updating San Luis Obispo’s historic preservation program.
Administered by the State of California Office of Historic Preservation, the Certified Local
Government (CLG) program provides funding opportunities for cities with qualifying historic
preservation policies and practices, including maintenance of an inventory of historic resources and
ordinance-guided preservation review commission. Cities whose ordinances were reviewed for this
report include Alameda, Berkeley, Burbank, Calabasas, Monterey, and Palm Springs (Table 2).
While the specific category titles and approaches vary from city to city, in general, each provides
definitions and criteria for the designation of individual resources and districts. In four of the cities
(Burbank, Calabasas, Monterey, and Palm Springs), the criteria for designation of individual
resources and districts are entirely or closely based on the criteria used by the National Register and
California Register. The City of Burbank relatively recently adopted this approach, following the
recommendations of a Historic Context Statement prepared in 2009.5 Four of the cities (Alameda,
Berkeley, Monterey, and Palm Springs) have two separate levels of designation for individual
resources. None of the six cities reviewed uses the term “contributing” or “contributor” in
designation of resources outside of historic districts. In some cities, including Berkeley and
4 Historic Resources Group, City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement, 71.
5 Galvin Preservation Associates, City of Burbank: Citywide Historic Context Report (Redondo Beach: Prepared for
the City of Burbank, September 2009).
Page 62 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 9 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Calabasas, properties listed on the National Register or California Register are automatically added
to the local inventory.
Five of the cities reviewed have Mills Act contract programs. Enacted by the State of California in
1972, this legislation “grants participating local governments (cities and counties) the authority to
enter into contracts with owners of qualified historic properties who actively participate in the
restoration and maintenance of their historic properties while receiving property tax relief.”6 Cities
with Mills Act programs typically limit the number of available Mills Act contracts per year and
establish a local designation threshold required for a property to be eligible (Table 2).The City of San
Luis Obispo currently requires that properties be designated on the “Master List” to be eligible for
Mills Act contracts, and will establish up to 10 new contracts per year. As of 2021, 56 Mils Act
contracts were active in San Luis Obispo. At the state level, the legislation governing the Mills Act
program defines a “qualified historical property” for the purposes of the program as follows:
“Qualified historical property” for purposes of this article, means privately owned
property which is not exempt from property taxation and which meets either of the
following:
(a) Listed in the National Register of Historic Places or located in a registered historic
district, as defined in Section 1.191-2(b) of Title 26 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
(b) Listed in any state, city, county, or city and county official register of historical or
architecturally significant sites, places, or landmarks.7
Table 2. Historic resource designation categories of selected CLG cities.
City (population)
Ordinance
Historic Resource
Designation Categories
Criteria Similar to CR/NR? Published Mills Act
Contract Eligibility
Threshold
Alameda (approx. 76,300)
Article VII, Section 13-21 –
Preservation of Historical
and Cultural Resources
(Ordinance dated 2003)
Historical Monument
(Districts are not a
separate category, but
may be historical
monuments)
Historical Building Study
List
No - Specific to City of
Alameda
No Mills Act program.
Berkeley (approx.
117,100)
Landmark
Structure of Merit
No – Specific to City of
Berkeley
Designated as City of
Berkeley Landmarks
6 State of California Office of Historic Preservation, “Mills Act Program,” electronic resource at
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21412.
7 State of California Government Code Article 12, Section 50280.1, electronic resource at
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum=50280.1.
Page 63 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 10 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Chapter 3.24 – Landmarks
Preservation Commission
(Ordinance dated 1974
and 1985)
Historic District or Structures of
Merit.
Burbank (approx.
105,400)
Article 9, Division 6. Historic
Preservation Regulations
(Ordinances dated 1994,
2010, and 2011)
Designated Historic
Resource
Eligible Historic Resource
Historic District
Yes – Patterned after
CR/NR.
District criteria slightly
different than those for
individual resources.
Designated as a City
of Burbank Historic
Resource or listed on
the National Register
or California Register.
Calabasas (approx. 22,
900)
17.36.010 – Historic
Preservation Ordinance
(Ordinance dated 2010)
Historic Landmarks
Historic District
Historic Landscape
Yes – Patterned after
CR/NR
District criteria slightly
different than those for
individual resources or
landscapes.
Designated as a City
of Calabasas Historic
Landmarks,
contributing
structures in
designated historic
districts, or listed on
the National Register
or the California
Register.
Monterey (approx.
29,900)
Chapter 38 - Article 15 –
Historic Zoning Ordinance
(Ordinances dated 2012
and 2022)
Landmark Overlay Zoning
(H-1)
Historic Resource Overlay
Zoning (H-2)
Historic District Overlay
Zoning
Yes – Explicitly uses NR
and CR criteria.
Designated as a City
of Monterey historic
resource, with an “H”
designation.
Palm Springs (approx.
45,000)
Chapter 8.05 – Historic
Preservation (Ordinance
dated 2019)
Class 1 Historic Resources
Class 2 Historic Resources
Yes - Eligibility based on a
slightly modified version
of the NR/CR criteria, with
lower integrity
requirements for Class 2
Resources.
Designated by the
City of Palm Springs
as a Class 1 historic
site or Class 2 historic
site with the extant
historic resource,
contributing
structures in a locally
designated historic
district, or listed on
the National Register.
Page 64 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 11 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
IV. Recommended Scope of Work
Following review of San Luis Obispo’s Inventory of Historic Resources, Historic Context Statement,
and Historic Preservation Ordinance, Page & Turnbull recommends a two-phased approach to
updating the inventory. Phase 1 would address the existing inventory and its regulatory framework,
and would include revisions to the ordinance and Historic Context Statement (Tasks 1.1 and 1.2) and
assessment of the current inventory (Task 1.3). The definitions and criteria codified in the ordinance,
and the preservation priorities and significant context themes provided by the Historic Context
Statement, must guide evaluations of eligibility for additions to the Inventory of Historic Resources.
Following these tasks, a detailed update to the existing Inventory of Historic Resources should be
undertaken to align the information associated with currently designated properties with the
changes made during Tasks 1 and 2. This would include reclassifying listed properties, removing
individually listed properties that may lack sufficient significance or integrity, and reviewing
previously identified concentrations of properties as potential historic districts.
The three Phase 1 tasks, including the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update, Historic Context
Statement Addendum, and Inventory of Historic Resources Review and Recommendations, could be
completed within approximately 12 months, for an estimated fee within the range of $68,000 -
$112,000. This fee range includes all tasks, plus a 15% contingency. The estimated duration assumes
that Task 1.1 and Task 1.2 would begin concurrently, and that Task 1.3 would be initiated after
submittal of the Administrative Draft Historic Context Statement Addendum (Task 1.2). The
estimated duration also assumes a three-week review period for each draft deliverable. Task
durations may vary based on City staff and stakeholder availability, and the meeting and hearing
schedules.
Phase 2 would develop and implement an approach to evaluating new potential resources for listing
on the Historic Resource Inventory. Guided by a review of the current representation of significant
context themes presented in the Historic Context Statement, a detailed survey plan would be
prepared for identifying new areas and resources for evaluation (Task 2.1). This survey plan would
identify geographic, temporal, and thematic priorities for future survey and nomination efforts
which may then be implemented as a separate task or tasks (Task 2.2).
The Phase 2 tasks, including the Inventory Update Survey Plan, reconnaissance survey of up to 500
properties, individual property evaluation of up to 25 properties, and evaluation of two historic
districts, could be completed within approximately nine months, for an estimated fee within the
range of $70,000 - $110,000, which includes estimated consultant fees plus a 15% contingency.
Page 65 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 12 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Table 3 provides a summary of estimated fee ranges and durations by task. Detailed task
descriptions are provided in the following section.
Table 3. Inventory of Historic Resources Update – Estimated Task Fees and Durations
Task Fee Range 8 Duration
Phase 1 – Revise Current Inventory and Framework
1.1 – Historic Preservation Ordinance Update $19,000 - $29,000 6 months
1.2 – Historic Context Statement Addendum $25,000 - $38,000 8 months
1.3 – Inventory of Historic Resources Review and
Recommendations
$24,0009 - $45,000 6 months
Phase 2 – Add to Inventory of Historic Resources
2.1 – Inventory Update Survey Plan $13,000 - $20,000. 5 months
2.2 – Inventory Update Survey Implementation $57,000 - $90,000 9 months
Total Estimated Fee Range and Duration $138,000 - $222,000 26 months
Phase 1 – Revise Current Inventory and Framework
Task 1.1 – Historic Preservation Ordinance Update
Estimated Resource Commitment: $19,000 - $29,000
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Ordinance provides the legal framework for
recognizing, protecting, and managing changes to the City’s historic resources. To update the
Historic Preservation Ordinance, the consultant will:
a) Review the existing ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.01) and opportunities for
improvement identified in this assessment document.
b) Discuss issues and approaches for potential revisions and updates with the CHC and City
staff in one study session.
c) Using the information from document review and input from the study session, as well as
knowledge of best practices, current laws, and ordinances used by other Certified Local
Governments, draft updates to the City’s historic preservation ordinance. Updates will
include, but may not be limited to, revising the categories of individually listed historical
resources and district contributors, the evaluation criteria for individual resources and
8 Includes estimated consultant staff time at average hourly staff billing rates between $100 and $150, plus a 15% contingency
per task. Cost estimate calculations do not include travel time or mileage costs, nor lodging and per diem costs for
participation in study sessions, outreach workshops, or field surveys, as these will vary based on the location of the
consultant and the number of study sessions or hearings requested.
9 Low estimate assumes use of local volunteer field personnel.
Page 66 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 13 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
historic districts, procedures and requirements for designation of individual resources and
historic districts, and applicability of historic preservation incentives. Revision of local
designation categories may require revision to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Mills Act
program policies and guidance publications.
Updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance will be provided and revised accordingly for
administrative review, public review, CHC review, and final adoption.
Task 1.2 – Historic Context Statement Addendum
Estimated Resource Commitment: $25,000 - $38,000
The City’s Historic Context Statement provides the significant historic contexts and themes within
which potential historic resources are evaluated for significance, identifies property types associated
with these themes, and recommends thresholds for significance. To update the existing Historic
Context Statement, the consultant will:
a) Review the existing Historic Context Statement, adopted in 2013, and opportunities for
improvement identified in this assessment document to develop a preliminary list of
themes, including groups, patterns, or events, which are not yet represented in the Historic
Context Statement.
b) Discuss preliminary findings with CHC and City staff in one study session.
c) Conduct general public outreach to share the preliminary list of contexts and themes, and to
solicit public input into additional areas for context development.
d) Identify and consult with specific community groups to develop approaches for identifying,
recording, and designating intangible cultural resources and traditional cultural properties in
San Luis Obispo. This directed outreach will include Native American tribal groups, and may
include other groups identified through the broader public outreach and study session
described above.
e) Prepare an addendum to the Historic Context Statement which includes historic context
descriptions for new themes, associated property types, thresholds for significance, and
integrity considerations. These themes may be recommended to be integrated as
appropriate into existing temporal and thematic categories, or be considered as new
categories.
The addendum to the Historic Context Statement will be provided and revised accordingly for
administrative review, public review, CHC review, and final adoption.
Page 67 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 14 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Task 1.3 – Inventory of Historic Resources Review and Recommendations
Estimated Resource Commitment: $24,000 - $45,000
The City’s current Inventory of Historic Resources represents four decades of survey efforts and
changing historic preservation priorities and approaches. To review the current condition of listed
resources and update information to align with revised frameworks developed in Tasks 1 and 2, the
consultant will:
a) Obtain and review existing documentation (including survey and/or evaluation forms and
reports) from previous Inventory of Historic Resources surveys, conducted in 1982-1983,
1987, 2006-2007, and 2011. Where possible, the significant themes or associations justifying
original listing of each property and the corresponding context or theme in the 2013 Historic
Context Statement and/or Addendum will be noted in a table or database of all listed
resources.
b) The use of field survey tools for digital data collection is a cost saving measure when used
effectively. The consultant will utilize GIS parcel data provided by the City and/or County
Assessor to map properties that will be surveyed and build a customized mobile survey
application for use in the field with tablets or mobile devices to efficiently collect and export
photographs and field data for each property. The selected survey app should have the
capability to collect customized, geolocated cloud-based data that can be exported to easily
update the City’s existing GIS data.
c) Conduct pedestrian or “windshield” reconnaissance survey of all resources currently listed
on the Inventory of Historic Resources (198 “Master List” and 562 “Contributing List”), using a
survey application for mobile devices. As part of the survey, identify any properties which
have been removed, demolished, or altered to the extent that their integrity appears to have
been diminished such that they are no longer eligible for listing in the Inventory of Historic
Resources.
d) Compile information collected during survey with previous documentation to provide a
database of properties which incudes, at minimum:
• Current digital photograph(s)
• Assessor Parcel Number (APN)
• Address
• Year built
• Property type
• Architect or builder (if known)
• Architectural style
• Architectural features, materials, and alterations
• Assessment of integrity
Page 68 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 15 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
• Associated Historic Context Statement context and theme
• Current Inventory of Historic Resources listing category
• Associated historic district
• Recommended Inventory of Historic Resources category
• California Historical Resource Status Code
e) Prepare an Inventory of Historic Resources Recommendations Report, using collected field
data and previous documentation. Contents will include, but may not be limited to:
i. A description of survey methods,
ii. Analysis of the historic contexts and themes, time periods, and architectural styles
represented in the current Inventory of Historic Resources,
iii. A review and update of historic resource category assignments for listed properties
to those developed during Task 1.0, including:
o A list of individual properties both within and outside of the five existing historic
districts (Downtown, Old Town, Chinatown, Railroad, and Mill Street) which may
qualify for status as individually listed properties on the Inventory of Historic
Resources.
o A list of properties within the five existing historic districts (Downtown, Old Town,
Chinatown, Railroad, and Mill Street) which should be identified as district
contributors only, rather than individually listed resources.
iv. A discussion of existing groupings of properties on the Inventory of Historic
Resources and the neighborhoods identified in the 2013 Historic Context Statement,
such as the Anholm, East Railroad, and Monterey Heights areas, and
recommendations as appropriate for potential historic districts.
The Inventory of Historic Resources Recommendations Report will be provided and revised
accordingly for administrative review, public review, CHC review, and final adoption.
Phase 2 – Add to Inventory of Historic Resources
Task 2.1 – Inventory Update Survey Plan
Estimated Resource Commitment: $13,000 - $20,000
Historic Resources Inventories are necessarily works in progress, and must be periodically updated
to represent the full range of significant contexts and themes, and to incorporate properties not old
enough for evaluation as historic resources during previous surveys. The consultant will work with
Page 69 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 16 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
the CHC and City staff to develop an inventory update survey plan which may be implemented in
phases according to priorities and available funding. To complete this task, the consultant will:
a) Use the findings of the Inventory of Historic Resources Recommendations Report and
existing City and County information about dates of construction and/or tract development
to identify previously unsurveyed areas of San Luis Obispo with a majority of buildings 50
years of age or older. The consultant may also review the State of California Office of Historic
Preservation Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), aerial and historical
photographs, Sanborn Map Company fire insurance maps, and tract maps, which will
additionally inform an understanding of citywide development.
b) Develop preliminary recommendations for potential survey areas. Priority for recommended
reconnaissance survey will be given to areas or property types associated with time periods
and themes described in the Historic Context Statement and Addendum which are not well
represented in the existing Inventory of Historic Resources. Reconnaissance areas may
include neighborhoods with modern architectural styles, such as Greta Place; other planned
tracts which may not contain a large number of individually eligible resources but are
representative of significant periods or types of development; or property types such as
cultural landscapes and tribal resources.
c) Discuss preliminary findings with CHC and City staff in one study session.
d) Based on the findings of document review and discussion with the CHC and City staff,
develop a survey plan which describes areas recommended for additional survey and the
contexts or themes associated with those areas. The survey plan will provide the basic task
structure for a phased approach with estimated resource needs for each proposed survey
area, and will assume the use of mobile data collection applications and the potential use of
volunteers in conducting field surveys.
The Inventory Update Survey Plan will be provided and revised accordingly for administrative review
and CHC review.
As the number of properties and size of survey areas is not yet known, potential fee cannot be
estimated for implementation of the survey plan; however, estimated costs for typical survey sizes
are provided below.
Task 2.2 – Survey and Evaluation of Potential Resources
Estimated Resource Commitment: $57,000 - $90,000
The scope and scale of survey and evaluation undertaken would be dependent on the findings of
the Phase 1 tasks and recommendations of the Inventory Update Survey Plan. The following survey
Page 70 of 71
DRAFT Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 17 of 17
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
descriptions and estimates represent typical approaches and scales that may be implemented. The
total estimated task fee includes one reconnaissance survey of up to 500 properties, intensive
survey of 25 potential individually eligible properties, and survey and recording for two new historic
districts. The estimated number of resources is preliminary, and would be refined through
completion of Phase 1 and Task 2.1.
Reconnaissance Survey
Reconnaissance-level survey of age-eligible (at least 45 years old) properties, undertaken as a street-
by-street windshield survey to identify potential individual resources and districts. This effort would
be guided by the Historic Context Statement’s evaluative criteria as the basis of evaluation, and
would be used to inform the methodology and approach to more intensive survey of potential
resources and districts. The deliverable would include lists and maps of potential historic resources
and districts for further review. Estimated Resource Commitment: $20,000 - $30,000 for surveys of
up to 500 properties.
Intensive Survey and Recording – Individual Resources
Intensive-level survey of properties identified during reconnaissance-level survey as likely to be
eligible as individual historic resources. The estimated budget includes a brief field survey, two
hours of property-specific research, and six hours to prepare basic State of California Department of
Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms for each property. Intensive-level survey evaluates properties
according to the criteria for the National Register, California Register, and local criteria. The time
estimate for research and form preparation assumes the use of pre-prepared context, basic
architectural description, and limited property-specific research. Resource Commitment: $25,000 -
$34,000 for up to 25 individually eligible properties.
Intensive Survey and Recording – Historic District
Intensive-level survey of properties identified during reconnaissance-level survey as likely to be
eligible as contributors to a potential historic district. The estimated budget includes a brief field
survey, neighborhood and district-level research and context development, and preparation of State
of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms for the district. Intensive-level
survey evaluates a historic district according to the criteria for the National Register, California
Register, and local criteria. The time estimate for research and form preparation assumes that forms
will not be prepared for individual properties, and that property-specific research will be limited.
Resource Commitment: $9,000 - $13,000 for one district with 10 to 25 contributors.
Page 71 of 71