HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 5a. Draft Preliminary Assessment for the Historic Resource Inventory UpdateCity 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