HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-25-2023 CHC Agenda Packet
Cultural Heritage Committee
AGENDA
Monday, September 25, 2023, 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
The Cultural Heritage Committee holds in-person meetings. Zoom participation will not be supported
at this time.
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 may not be processed until the following day.
Public Comment during the meeting:
Meetings are held in-person. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be
present at the meeting location.
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 Crotser 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 - AUGUST 28, 2023 CULTURAL
HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES
5
Recommendation:
To approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of August 28,
2023.
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 749-751 HIGUERA STREET (HIST-0450-2023) REMOVE THE
PROPERTY FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
7
Recommendation:
Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the
property should be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic
Resources
4.b 1601 OSOS STREET (ARCH-0333-2022) CONSTRUCTION OF TWO
NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE RAILROAD HISTORIC
DISTRICT
131
Recommendation:
Provide a recommendation to the Community Development Director as
to the consistency of the proposed project with historic preservation
guidelines and architectural standards for construction in the Railroad
Historic District.
5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST 177
Receive a brief update from Senior Planner Brian Leveille on the
following topic:
Update on the draft Request for Proposals scope for Phase 1 of
the Historic Resources Inventory Update Project
•
Introduction of the new Assistant City Manager, Whitney
McDonald.
•
6.ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for
October 23, 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
August 28, 2023, 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
CHC Members
Present:
Member John Ashbaugh, Member Sabin Gray, Member Leslie
Terry, Vice Chair John Tischler, Chair Chuck Crotser
CHC Members Absent: Member Benjamin Arrona, Member Eva Ulz
City Staff Present: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, City Clerk Teresa Purrington,
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was
called to order on August 28, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City
Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Crotser.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment--
3. CONSENT
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - JULY 24, 2023 CULTURAL HERITAGE
COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion By Member Ashbaugh
Second By Vice Chair Tischler
To approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of July 24, 2023.
Ayes (5): Member Ashbaugh, Member Gray, Member Terry, Vice Chair
Tischler, and Chair Crotser
Absent (2): Member Arrona, and Member Ulz
CARRIED (5 to 0)
Page 5 of 198
2
4. PUBLIC HEARING
4.a 559 PISMO STREET (MOD-0353-2023) REVISION OF THE DESIGN
FOR AN ADDITION TO THE BIDDLE HOUSE (MASTER LIST HISTORIC
RESOURCE)
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded
to Commission inquiries.
Applicant representative, Tim Becher, provided a brief overview of the
project and responded to questions raised.
Chair Crotser opened the Public Hearing
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Crotser closed the Public Hearing
Motion By Member Ashbaugh
Second By Member Gray
Recommend that the Community Development Director find the proposed
new construction, as revised, consistent with the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01).
Ayes (5): Member Ashbaugh, Member Gray, Member Terry, Vice Chair
Tischler, and Chair Crotser
Absent (2): Member Arrona, and Member Ulz
CARRIED (5 to 0)
5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an update of upcoming projects.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:01 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the
Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for September 25, 2023 at 5:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
APPROVED BY CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2023
Page 6 of 198
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 749-751 HIGUERA (HIST-0450-2023) REMOVE THE PROPERTY FROM
THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Phone Number: (805) 781-7166
Email: woetzell@slocity.org Email: bleveille@slocity.org
APPLICANT: Shawn Jarolimek REPRESENTATIVE: Alvin-Christian Nuval
RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding whether the property should be
removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
1.0 BACKGROUND
The owner of the property at 749 and 751
Higuera Street has requested that the
property be removed from the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources. An
evaluation of the property and its eligibility
for historic listing has been prepared by
Chattel, Inc., Historic Preservation
Consultants to inform consideration of this
request (see Attachment A). The City
Council will make a final decision on this
application and as provided by Section
14.01.030 (B) (2) of the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance the Committee will
make a recommendation to the City
Council regarding removal of the property
from the Inventory.
2.0 DISCUSSION
Site and Setting. The property is at the southwest corner of Higuera and Garden Streets,
in the Downtown Historic District. The District was developed along the City’s earliest
commercial corridors and has retained its historical use as the City’s commercial and civic
center. It is more completely described in the City’s Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines,1 and in Section VI (Historic Contexts) of the applicant’s Historic Resource
Assessment (Attachment A).
1 Historic Districts are described in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines available online at:
www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/4144 (beginning at pg. 33)
Meeting Date: 9/25/2023
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 30 Minutes
Figure 1: 749-751 Higuera
Page 7 of 198
Item 4a
HIST-0450-2023 (749 Higuera)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 25, 2023
The site is developed with a commercial building (see Figure 1) originally designed in
1958 by local architect John R. Ross, AIA for Lacterman’s, a woman’s apparel shop, in a
Modern style (Chattel, pg. 17). Clifford Chapman, owner of Marshall’s Jewelry, purchased
the property in 1975 and initiated a remodel of the building, dividing it into two tenant
spaces and transforming the exterior with the Spanish-derived theme observed today,
employing stucco walls, tilework, window hoods and canopies, and decorative wrought
iron (Chattel, pg. 17).
Historic Listing. Historic preservation policies are set out in the Conservation and Open
Space Element (COSE) of the City’s General Plan. Significant historic and architectural
resources are to be preserved and rehabilitated, and their demolition, or substantial
change to them, is to be avoided (COSE § 3.3). The City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01) implements these policies. Property may be designated
as a Contributing List resource where a building on it maintains its historic and
architectural character, and contributes, by itself or in conjunction with other structures,
to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole,2
and satisfies at least one of the historic significance criteria listed in §14.01.070.
The subject property first appears as a “Contributing Property”3 in the listing of properties
attached (as “Exhibit C”) to Resolution 6424 adopted in April 1988, establishing a
comprehensive listing of historic properties within the City.
3.0 EVALUATION
In order to be eligible for designation, a resource must exhibit a high level of his toric
integrity and satisfy at least one of the Evaluation Criteria listed in the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance. The Ordinance also provides that, while it is the general intent
that property not be removed from historic listing, property may be removed if the structure
on it is found to no longer meet eligibility (historic significance) criteria for listing
(§14.01.060(C)). For convenience, these criteria have been provided as Attachment B.
The applicant’s Historic Resource Assessment evaluates the property against the
Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing (see Section VII, Attachment A), and
concludes that the property is not eligible for individual listing in the City’s Inventory of
Historic Resources, either as a Master List Resource or as a contributor to the Downtown
Historic District.
Architectural Criteria (§14.01.070(A)). The Spanish-themed appearance of the building
on this property retains few, if any, of the elements of its original Modern design. Neither
the original design nor the subsequent renovation serves as a noteworthy expression of
either style and neither achieved an age of 50 years old, which is a primary criterion for
listing. Although John R. Ross, the architect of its original Modern design, was a skilled
local architect, this building has not been demonstrated to be among his most noteworthy
work and does not qualify the property for listing under these criteria.
2 See Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 for definition of Contributing List Resource or Property
3 A Contributing Property, as defined in the listing (Exhibit “C”) attached to Resolution 6424, is: A structure
built before 1941 that has retained its original architectural style and, when viewed in the context of its
surroundings, contributes to the historic character of the area.
Page 8 of 198
Item 4a
HIST-0450-2023 (749 Higuera)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 25, 2023
Historic Criteria (§14.01.070(B)). The Assessment describes the association of the
property with Harry and Tillie Lacterman, operators of Lacterman’s, the apparel store, and
with Clifford Chapman, owner of Marshall’s Jewelry, all active in and important to the local
community. However, the subject property is not representative of their lives or
significance, as, for example, it was not the original location of either business (Chattel,
pg. 28). Research for the Assessment established no association with significant
historical events or patterns, and the Downtown had been largely developed by the time
the building was constructed (Chattel, pg. 29).
Integrity. Renovation of the building in the 1970s altered much of its original integrity,
affecting most of its elements, including its storefront, windows, br eezeblocks and tile,
concrete block walls, and configuration of its entry, and has not achieved 50 years of age
or significance of its own (Chattel, pg. 29).
Conclusion. The building on the property does not appear to possess notable historic
significance under the City’s Criteria for Historic Resource Listing. Its original Modern
style was thoroughly transformed by 1970s renovation. Its current form is not a significant
work of a notable architect or craftsman, and the property is not strongly associated with
persons prominent in history, nor with unique events or patterns of history. Because the
property and the structure on it do not appear to be important in contributing to the historic
character of the City as a whole and do not meet significance crite ria, the Committee
could recommend that the City Council remove the property from the Contributing
Properties List of Historic Resources.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is does not have the
potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the
general rule described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The determination of
continued eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of whether the subject site
remains eligible for historic resource listing according to the criteria set forth in the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance.
5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend to the City Council that the property be removed from historic listing
2. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff.
3. Recommend to the City Council that the property not be removed from historic listing,
based on findings describing the property’s continuing eligibility for listing.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Historic Resource Assessment: 749-751 Higuera Street (Chattel, Inc.)
B - Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
Page 9 of 198
Page 10 of 198
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
749-751 Higuera Street
San Luis Obispo, California
Prepared for:
Shawn Jarolimek
428 Ruby Street
Redwood City, CA 94062
Prepared by:
Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants
13417 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
August 22, 2023
Page 11 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
1
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 12 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction and Executive Summary ........................................................................... 3
II Qualifications .................................................................................................................. 4
III. Methodology ................................................................................................................... 5
IV. Regulatory Setting .......................................................................................................... 6
City of San Luis Obispo .................................................................................................... 6
National Register of Historic Places .................................................................................. 9
California Register of Historical Resources ..................................................................... 11
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .................................................................. 13
V. Description .................................................................................................................... 14
Physical Description........................................................................................................ 14
Alterations ....................................................................................................................... 15
Subject Property History ................................................................................................. 17
VI. Historic Contexts .......................................................................................................... 19
Mid-20th Century Commercial Development in San Luis Obispo ...................................... 19
Downtown Historic District .............................................................................................. 21
Harry and Tillie Lacterman and Lacterman’s Women’s Apparel....................................... 23
Clifford Chapman and Marshalls Jewelers ...................................................................... 24
John R. Ross, AIA .......................................................................................................... 26
Selected Architectural Styles in San Luis Obispo ............................................................ 27
VII. Historic Resource Assessment ................................................................................... 28
City Master Resources List ............................................................................................. 28
National Register and California Register ........................................................................ 29
City Contributing List ....................................................................................................... 30
National Register and California Register Historic District ............................................... 31
VIII. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 32
IX. Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 33
X. Attachments
Attachment A: Maps and Aerials
Attachment B: Historic Images
Attachment C: Contemporary Photos
Attachment D: Selected Building Permits
Attachment E: 1958 Original Drawings
Attachment F: 1975 Alteration Drawings
Attachment G: 1979 Alteration Drawings
Page 13 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
3
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this Historic Resource Assessment (HRA) is to determine if the property located
at 749-751 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California (Assessor Parcel Number: 002-424-010)
is a historic resource under the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Historic Preservation Ordinance.
The HRA evaluates whether the subject property is individually eligible for listing in the City
Master List of Historic Resources and re-evaluates eligibility locally as a contributor to the
Downtown Historic District and inclusion in the City Contributing List. The HRA further evaluates if
the subject property is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National
Register) or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), either individually or
as a contributor to a listed or potential National Register or California Register historic district.
Note that properties that are eligible for listing in the California Register are considered historical
resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The subject property contains a one- and two-story commercial building designed by John R.
Ross Architect, AIA in 1958. It was previously identified by the City Cultural Heritage Committee
as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District on February 2, 1987, and is listed as “751
Higuera” in the City Contributing List identifying contributing historic resources to local historic
districts. No historic resources survey documentation appears to be available with additional
information on its significance for listing.
This HRA uses site-specific and contextual research in primary and secondary sources,
applications of criteria of significance within the appropriate historic context(s), and direct
observations of the subject property made by professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interiors’
Professional Qualifications Standards.
For the reasons stated in this HRA, the subject property does not appear eligible for individual
listing in the City Master List of Historic Resources and, upon re-evaluation, does not appear
eligible locally as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District under any historical or
architectural criteria significance described in the City Historic Preservation Ordinance. Chattel
recommends its removal from the City Contributing List. Furthermore, the subject property is not
eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register, either individually or as a
contributor to a listed or potential National Register or California Register historic district. Thus,
the subject property is not a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
Refer to Attachment A for maps and aerials, Attachment B for historic images, Attachment C for
contemporary photos, Attachment D for selected building permits, Attachment E for 1958 original
drawings, Attachment F for 1975 alteration drawings, and Attachment G for 1979 alteration
drawings.
Page 14 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
4
II. QUALIFICATIONS
Chattel, Inc. (Chattel) is a full-service historic preservation-consulting firm with practice throughout
the western United States. The firm represents governmental agencies and private ventures,
successfully balancing project goals with a myriad of historic preservation regulations without
sacrificing principles on either side. Consisting of professionals meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in history, architecture, architectural history, and
historic architecture, the firm offers professional services including historical resources evaluation
and project effects analysis, in addition to consultation on federal, state, and local historic
preservation statutes and regulations.
Chattel staff engage in a collaborative process and work together as a team on individual
projects. This evaluation was prepared by President Robert Jay Chattel, architectural historian
and preservation architect, and Senior Associate Alvin-Christia n Nuval, planner. Additional review
was provided by Principal Associate Leslie Heumann, architectural historian.
Page 15 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
5
III. METHODOLOGY
Primary and secondary source materials were consulted for the development of applicable
historic contexts. For a complete list of sources, see bibliography. Sources generally included:
x Original and alteration building permits and drawings.
x Records and documentation from the County of San Luis Obispo Assessor’s Office and
InfoSLO digital archive.
x Newspaper articles (including from the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune available
online through Newspapers.com).
x Online photo collection of the History Center of San Luis Obispo.
x Historic and current aerials from NETR Historic Aerials; University of California, Santa
Barbara (UCSB) FrameFinder; and Google Earth.
Page 16 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
6
IV. REGULATORY SETTING
City of San Luis Obispo
Section 14.01.050 of the City Historic Preservation Ordinance describes the two primary
categories used to designate historic resources:
A. Master List Resources. The most unique and important resources and properties in
terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with
important persons or events in the City’s past, which meet one or more of the criteria
outlined in Section 14.01.070.
B. Contributing List Resources or Properties. Buildings or other resources at least 50
years old that maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character,
and contribute, either by themselves or in conjunction with other structures, to the
unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole. They
need not be located in a historic district. In some cases, buildings or other resources
that are less than 50 years old, but are nonetheless significant based on architecture,
craftsmanship or other criteria as described in Section 14.01.070 may be designated
as a Contributing Resource.
As further outlined in Section 14.01.070, in order to be eligible for designation, “the resource shall
exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be
demonstrated that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at
least one of the following criteria:
A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region,
or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high
artistic values.
(1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details
within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.).
Building style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although
the structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a
particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the
uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together.
(2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of
artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a
particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and
detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g.,
carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building
design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit,
details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-
builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be
superior.
Page 17 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
7
(3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for
the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a
reference to:
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made
significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work
influenced development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions
to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources,
designed the house at 810 Osos – Frank Avila’s father’s home – built
1927-30).
B. Historic Criteria
(1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local,
California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of
the degree to which a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress
member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition – locally,
regionally, or nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made
early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important
local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical
professionals, clergymen, railroad officials).
(2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of
California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city – regardless of
whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
b. A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g.,
the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in
early San Luis Obispo history).
(3) History – Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant
patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational,
governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be
evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the
historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with
the building (e.g., County Museum)
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the
building (e.g., Park Hotel)
C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the
survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the
original foundation has been changed, if known.
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character
or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the
reason(s) for its significance.
(3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association.
Page 18 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
8
Relationship to Subject Property
The subject property is not currently listed in the City Master List of Historic Resources, though is
included in the City Contributing List as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District. Based on
the findings of this HRA, the subject property does not appear individually eligible for listing in the
City Master List of Historic Resources. Furthermore, the subject property has been re-evaluated
and found not to be eligible locally as a contributor to the Downtown Historic District. Chattel
recommends its removal from the City Contributing List.
Page 19 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
9
National Register of Historic Places
The National Register is the nation’s official list of historic and cultural resources worthy of
preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the
National Register is part of a federal program to coordinate and support public and private efforts
to identify, evaluate, and protect the country’s historic and archaeological resources. Properties
listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are
significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The National
Register is administered by the National Park Service (NPS), which is part of the United States
Department of the Interior.
Resources are eligible for National Register listing if they:
A) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B) are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or
C) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction,
or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that
represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction; or
D) have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory.1
Once a resource has been determined to satisfy one of the above-referenced criteria, then it must
be assessed for integrity. Integrity refers to the ability of a property to convey its significance, and
the degree to which the property retains the identity, including physical and visual attributes, for
which it is significant under the four basic criteria listed above. The National Register recognizes
seven aspects or qualities of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling,
and association. To retain its historic integrity, a property must possess several, and usually most,
of these aspects.
The National Register includes only those properties that retain sufficient integrity to accurately
convey their physical and visual appearance from their identified period of significance. Period of
significance describes the period during which a property’s importance is established. It can refer
simply to the date of construction, or it can span multiple years, depending on the reason the
property is important. The period of significance is established based on the property’s relevant
historic context and as supported by facts contained in the historic context statement.
Evaluation of integrity is founded on “an understanding of a property’s physical features and how
they relate to its significance.”2 A property significant under Criterion A or B may still retain
sufficient integrity to convey its significance even if it retains a low degree of integrity of design,
materials, or workmanship. Conversely, a property that derives its significance exclusively for its
architecture under Criterion C must retain a high degree of integrity of design, materials, and
workmanship. For some properties, comparison with similar properties is considered during the
evaluation of integrity, especially when a property type is particularly rare.
While integrity is important in evaluating and determining significance, a property’s physical
condition, whether it is in a deteriorated or pristine state, has relatively little influence on its
1 National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park
Service, 1990, revised 2002).
2 Ibid.
Page 20 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
10
significance. A property that is in good condition may lack the requisite level of integrity to convey
its significance due to alterations or other factors. Likewise, a property in extremely poor
condition may still retain substantial integrity from its period of significance and clearly convey its
significance.
Relationship to Subject Property
The subject property is not currently listed in the National Register. Based on the findings of this
HRA, the subject property is not eligible for individual listing in the National Register and is not
eligible as a contributor to a listed or potential National Register historic district.
Page 21 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
11
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) was established to serve as
an authoritative guide to the state’s significant historical and archaeological resources (Public
Resources Code (PCR) §5024.1). State law provides that in order for a property to be considered
eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found by the State Historical Resources
Commission to be significant under any of the following four criteria of significance, which are
modeled on National Register criteria:
1) Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States;
2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national
history;
3) Embodies distinctive characteristic of a type, period, region or method of
construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values;
4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or
history of the local area, California or the nation.
The primary difference between eligibility for listing in the National and California Registers is
integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the National Register generally have a higher degree of
integrity than those only eligible for listing in the California Register. There is, however, no
difference with regard to significance. A property that meets the significance criteria for California
Register eligibility would also be eligible for listing in the National Register unless there are issues
of integrity that decrease the ability of the property to convey its significance.
The California Register also includes properties which: have been formally determined eligible for
listing in, or are listed in the National Register; are registered State Historical Landmark Number
770, and all consecutiv ely numbered landmarks above Number 770; points of historical interest,
which have been reviewed and recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for
listing; and city and county-designated landmarks or districts (if criteria for designation are
determined by State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) to be consistent with
California Register criteria). Public Resources Code (PRC) §5024.1(g) also states:
A resource identified as significant in an historical resource survey may be listed in the
California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria:
1) The survey has been or will be included in the State Historical Resources
Inventory.
2) The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with
[OHP]… procedures and requirements.
3) The resource is evaluated and determined by the office to have a significance
rating of category 1-5 on DPR [Department of Parks and Recreation] form 523.
4) If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in
the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical resources which
have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further
documentation and those which have been demolished or altered in a manner that
substantially diminishes the significance of the resource.
Page 22 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
12
Resources can be eligible as a California Register historic districts if they meet National Register
historic district criteria.
Relationship to Subject Property
The subject property is not currently listed in the California Register. Based on the findings of this
HRA, the subject property is not eligible for individual listing in the California Register and is not
eligible as a contributor to a listed or potential California Register historic district.
Page 23 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
13
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
According to CEQA,
a historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the
California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local
register of historical resources..., or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant
for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that
the resource is not historically or culturally significant (Public Records Code §21084.1).
If a proposed project were expected to cause substantial adverse change in an historical
resource, environmental clearance for the project would require mitigation measures to reduce
impacts. “Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the
physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired.”3
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 §15064.5 (b)(2) describes material impairment
taking place when a project:
A) demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register… or
B) demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical;
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register... or its identification
in an historical resources survey... unless the public agency reviewing the effects
of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not
historically or culturally significant; or
C) demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics of an historical
resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or
eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register... as determined by a lead agency
for the purposes of CEQA.
Relationship to Subject Property
As described, the subject property is not eligible for listing in the California Register, either
individually or as a contributor to a listed or potential California Register historic district. Based on
the findings of this HRA, the subject property is not a historical resource under CEQA.
3 CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(1))
Page 24 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
14
V. DESCRIPTION
The following description is based on review of historic documentation and inspection. See
Attachment A for maps and aerials, Attachment B for historic images, Attachment C for
contemporary photos, Attachment D for selected building permits, Attachment E for 1958 original
drawings, Attachment F for 1975 alteration drawings, and Attachment G for 1979 alteration
drawings.
Physical Description
The subject property consists of a one- and two-story commercial building with a mostly
rectangular plan that sits at the corner of Higuera Street (Higuera) and Garden Street (Garden) in
the Downtown Historic District. Higuera is a large commercial corridor with storefronts to the north
and south. The primary north elevation (façade) of the subject property faces Higuera, the
secondary east elevation faces Garden, and the rear south elevation faces Garden Alley. The
west elevation abuts an adjacent commercial building, although it is partially visible at the rear.
Most of the building is one story, though there is a second story accessed by interior stairs
located at the south portion of the building. The subject property is divided into two main retail
spaces: 749 Higuera at the west (west retail space) and 751 Higuera at the east (east retail
space).
Beneath a flat roof with a molded cornice, exterior walls are clad in textured stucco and feature a
linear, single row of glazed tile trim near the base of the north and east elevations. At the north
elevation, low planter walls topped with wrought iron fencing border the sidewalk, and two
wrought iron gates provide access to small outdoor courtyards at the east and west retail spaces.
The wrought iron gates are identical, with an arched top and elaborate patterning. The top of the
gate at the west retail space is obscured by a fabric canopy that stretches from the inset entrance
wall. The planters at the north elevation hold various low shrubs.
The north elevation of the west retail space consists of a plate glass door beneath the previously
mentioned fabric canopy that is flanked on either side by a fixed single-pane window ornamented
with a plaster hood and accented by a projecting sill. This facade is more symmetrical than the
facade of the east retail space, which takes an L-shaped plan due to a portion extending directly
to the sidewalk between the courtyards. A window with hood and sill similar to those at the west
retail space is centered in the north wall of the east retail space where it abuts the sidewalk. At
the inset portion of the north wall in the east retail space courtyard, a bay window projects
outward with a similar plaster hood and sill. The entrance to the east retail space is on the east
wall in the courtyard and has an elaborate design etched into the glass door. The door is flanked
on either side by iron sconces.
The east elevation is largely plain with various-sized inset rectangular fixed glass windows
underneath two fabric canopies. The canopies are held in place with decorative wrought iron
framing to match the gates and fence. There are remnant shadows from where individual letter
signs appear to have been removed. The east elevation of the second floor is partially visible from
the street. Original windows at the second floor have been covered or infilled.
At the south elevation, there are several vents and glass block windows at the first and second
floors. A door provides back access to the west retail space. The west elevation is only partially
visible at the rear and has no ornamentation. Mechanical equipment is located on the flat roof,
which is enclosed by a low parapet with sheet metal coping.
Page 25 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
15
Originally one large retail space, the interior has been divided into two smaller retail spaces as
previously described. The west retail space also includes small offices and closets and a series of
changing rooms. Stairs lead to a second floor space that also provides roof access. The east
retail space only spans a portion of the first floor and includes offices, a vault, and a back room.
Both retail spaces are vacant and there do not appear to be original finishes.
Alterations
The subject property was substantially remodeled in 1975 following purchase by Clifford
Chapman, who converted the building from a Mid-century Modern architectural style to one
reminiscent of Spanish Colonial Revival. The extant building bears no resemblance to the original
one (see Attachment B, Historic Images, Images 1, 2, and 5). Originally a single retail space, the
building was bisected at the interior to allow for two smaller retail spaces, each with its own small
courtyard entrance. Alterations were completed at the exterior associated with the east retail
space first, with alterations to the west retail space happening later in 1979 to be consistent with
the east. A portion of the east retail space was brought out towards Higuera, slightly changing the
original footprint of the building. The originally exposed concrete block exterior walls were clad in
stucco and painted, with tile trim added along the base at the north and east elevations.
Plate glass storefront windows, decorative breeze block screens, and a flat extension of the roof
to form a canopy supported by pipe columns at the primary north elevation were removed.
Courtyards were created in space below the canopy and at the northeast corner, with wrought
iron gates and fences with planters installed. A new entrance door was added for the east retail
space facing Garden rather than Higuera. New elaborate windows with wrought iron bars (the
wrought iron grilles have been removed) were added to the north elevation. At the east elevation,
the original plate glass display windows with ceramic tile base were removed and infilled. New
smaller, inset windows were added along with new fabric canopies with decorative wrought iron
frames. Windows at the east elevation at the second floor were also covered or i nfilled.
Decorative concrete block exterior surfaces were covered with stucco. A flat canopy beneath the
roof parapet was also removed. At the rear elevation, a vent appears to have been infilled. A
molded cornice was added to the edge of the roof parapet. The interior walls were reconfigured to
accommodate the new smaller size of each retail space.
The following table provides a summary of building permits available through the City’s digital
records platform, InfoSLO. Images of selected building permits are included in Attachment D.
Address Permit Number Description Issued Date
749 Higuera BLDG-L02171-1-1958 Clothing store 11/5/1958
749 Higuera BLDG-L01298-3-1964 Repair fire damage 9/22/1964
749 Higuera BLDG-L05455-1975 Remodel store 9/25/1975
749 Higuera BLDG-L07638-1979 Remodel store 5/9/1979
751 Higuera BLDG-L10654-1996 Replacement heating-
cooling unit 3/20/1996
751 Higuera BLDG-L11243-1996 Replace rooftop HVAC
unit 11/25/1996
749 Higuera BLDG-L17568-2003
Non-illuminated sign for
Central Coast Wedding
Center
1/14/2003
Page 26 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
16
Address Permit Number Description Issued Date
751 Higuera BLDG-1893-2017
Waterproofing of
building due to street
improvements
10/11/2017
749 Higuera BLDG-0798-2022 Replace packing units
and replace ducting 3/28/2022
The figures below show a comparison of the street-facing north and east elevations in the 1958
original drawings with the same elevations in the 1975 alteration drawings.
Figure 1: North elevation in 1958 (left) and 1975 (right) drawings.
Figure 2: East elevation in 1958 (top) and 1975 (bottom) drawings.
Page 27 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
17
Subject Property History
In 1959, owners Harry and Tillie Lacterman opened a women’s apparel shop at the subject
property after seeking to expand their existing retail business known as Lacterman’s. Plans had
been drawn the year prior by local architect John R. Ross, AIA. The new Lacterman’s replaced an
earlier building demolished in 1956 that had long housed a Riley’s department store. Though
advertisements for the new shop appeared in the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune as early as
March 12, 1959, Lacterman’s held its grand opening ribbon cutting ceremony on April 30, 1959.4
The Lactermans operated their shop at the subject property for only six years before retiring in
1965 and selling their business to Gordon E. Magnuson.5,6 The store was renamed Magnuson’s,
and continued to primarily sell women’s clothing. The business was again sold in 1975, to Sam
and Jo Ann Trett, who retained the Magnuson’s name and began emphasizing bridal wear and
wedding apparel in advertisements.7
Though ownership of the businesses changed, the Lactermans retained ownership of the subject
property as landlords until 1975, when it was purchased by Clifford Chapman, owner of Marshalls
Jewelers. Chapman sought to remodel the building, engaging General Engineering Co. to
prepare the drawing set. The remodel would bisect the existing building into two separate retail
spaces, with Magnuson’s at 749 Higuera and Marshalls Jewelers moving into the corner space at
751 Higuera abutting Garden. A San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune newspaper article described
the changes proposed:
In the proposal, designed by a Southern California architectural firm, a portion of the
corner space will be brought out to the sidewalk line, and a Spanish terrace entrance
created at the corner. Extensive use will be made of ornamental wrought iron around the
landscaped terrace and for window bars on Garden Street. Spanish tile will be unglazed
on the terrace, and glazed for exterior wall trim. Exterior stucco will be Spanish-textured
finish, and glass facing on the terrace will have an etched design. Brass entry lamps are
planned on either side of the store entrance door. Detailing on the door will include the
jewelry firm’s logogram. Exterior walls, both on the ground floor and upper level; wind ow
detailing, canopy trim and coping will be white opal. Canopies will be monarch blue. The
proposal lists California Ceanothus and philodendron for terrace plantings.8
Remodel at the exterior of the 751 Higuera side of the property was completed first, though
alteration of the 749 Higuera side would follow, with the article noting “Sam and Joann Trett,
owners of Magnuson’s, also will remodel the exterior and interi or of the space allotted to their
store, using the Spanish theme in keeping with Chapman’s plans.”9 In 1979, it was reported that
Clifford Chapman was remodeling the Magnuson’s storefront with a design by Steve Puglisi and
Richard Yaco “using New Orleans style iron grille work, paving and ceramic tiles, and a rolled
4 “Advertisement: Lacterman’s Grand Opening,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder, April 24, 1959:
6.
5 “NO! It’s not Paul Revere, It’s Harry Lacterman,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 21, 1965: 13.
6 “Magnuson new owner of Lacterman’s,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 2, 1965: 12.
7 “Public Notice,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, April 28, 1975: 14.
8 “Spanish theme influencing proposed remodeling work,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 2,
1975: 8.
9 Ibid.
Page 28 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
18
form of plastering.”10 The building permit and project drawings for the remodel of the west retail
space are instead attributed to Richard H. Dodd & Associates.
Marshalls Jewelers operated at 751 Higuera until 2018, with the retail space taken over by
Anastasia Fine Jewelry. The ret ail space at 749 Higuera continued to house various women’s
clothing shops after Magnuson’s left in 1981, including Ms. Kelley’s, Palm Street & Co. Women’s
Clothiers, Kelley’s Bridal Salon, Everyone’s Favorite Wedding Center, and Central Coast
Wedding Center. At the time of writing, both retail spaces at the subject property are vacant.
10 “Business areas to show changes,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 12, 1979: 14.
Page 29 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
19
VI. HISTORIC CONTEXTS
Historic contexts or significant historical themes provide the relevant framework within which to
evaluate significance of the subject property. The subject property has been evaluated under the
following historic contexts: mid-20th century commercial development in San Luis Obispo;
Downtown Historic District; Harry and Tillie Lacterman and Lacterman’s Women’s Apparel;
Clifford Chapman and Marshalls Jewelers; John R. Ross, AIA; and selected architectural styles in
San Luis Obispo, including Mid-century Modern and Spanish Colonial Revival.
Mid-20th Century Commercial Development in San Luis Obispo
The following context is excerpted from the “Mid-20th Century Commercial Development” theme
of the Citywide Historic Context Statement prepared in 2013.11
In 1958, the U. S. Highway 101 was completed, which became a major thoroughfare for
automobile tourism in the area. San Luis Obispo’s location near California’s Central Coast
and at the mid-point between San Francisco and Los Angeles continued to make it an
attractive destination for automobile tourism. The first roadside motel was established in
San Luis Obispo in 1925; additional motels were developed that were easily accessible
from the freeway in the 1950s and 1960s. The most prominent example is the Madonna
Inn, developed by local construction magnate and entrepreneur, Alex Madonna. Madonna
opened the Madonna Inn in 1961 and ran the hotel until his death in 2004; the inn is still
owned and operated by the Madonna family today. The Madonna Inn exemplifies the
eyecatching designs and prominent signage that characterized roadside motel design of
the 1950s and 1960s.
In 1950, the Sunset Drive-In opened in San Luis Obispo. The first drive-in theater opened
in New Jersey in 1933. The drive-in reached the height of its popularity in the 1950s and
1960s, as over 4,000 outdoor theaters were opened across the country, accounting for
25% of the nation's movie screens. By the late 1980s, more than three-quarters of the
country’s drive-ins closed as multiplexes proliferated. As of January 2013, drive-ins only
accounted for 1.5% of the nation’s theaters. In California, fewer than twenty of the state’s
more than two hundred theaters remain. Of those that are extant, many have been
substantially altered or no longer operate as theaters. The Sunset Drive-In still operates
as a drive-in theater today, representing a rare remaining example in California.
Many existing commercial buildings in the original downtown core were modified with
contemporary storefronts during this period. New commercial development during this
period included a small number of low-density commercial retail and office buildings
located outside of the historic core. Many of these low-density office buildings were
developed for use as medical offices and health services. The most prominent of these is
the Kundert Medical Building, which was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and completed
in 1956. During the 1950s, San Luis Obispo saw its share of suburban sprawl within
geographically defined borders, and the first mall was built just a few miles from
downtown. In the 1970s, another mall was added. But unlike in other communities in
California, the two shopping centers proved to be little competition for downtown San Luis
Obispo as the major commercial center.
11 Historic Resources Group, City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement, September
30, 2013, 125-127.
Page 30 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
20
During the postwar economic boom, several San Luis Obispo families established long-
running enterprises. In 1947, brothers William and Pino Cattaneo founded the Cattaneo
Brothers sausage company, and William Cattaneo’s wife, Mary (Piantanida) Cattaneo,
worked as the company’s bookkeeper. Paul Piantanida built an auto repair shop, Paul’s
Garage, in 1948 which now serves as the San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum. Today,
Cattaneo Brothers is run by descendants of the Piantanida and Cattaneo families.
Architectural styles associated with this period include Mid-century Modern. Architects
who are represented in San Luis Obispo during this period include Frank Lloyd Wright and
Craig Ellwood, along with local architects Mackey Deasy, Homer Delawie, George
Hasslein, Warren Leopold, Paul Neel, and Piercy K. Notable local builders include Stan
Bell, Leonard Blazer, Roger Brown, Alex Madonna, Patrick Smith, Arnold Volney, and
Jack Westerman.
Page 31 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
21
Downtown Historic District
The following context is excerpted from the City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
published in 2010.12
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. Commer cial
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, and Frank Mitchell.
12 City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, November 2010, 38-42.
Page 32 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
22
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 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
Page 33 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
23
Harry and Tillie Lacterman and Lacterman’s Women’s Apparel
Harry (1907-1982) and Tillie (1910-1999) Lacterman were entrepr eneurs who owned and
operated Lacterman’s, a retail business specializing in women’s apparel. The couple married in
1932, just before moving from Canada to San Francisco where they operated a similar apparel
business.13 The Lactermans moved to San Luis Obispo in 1936 and opened Advance Suit and
Cloak Co. at 977 Higuera.14 In 1939, they established Lacterman’s at 955 Higuera “with an up-to-
date line of ladies wearing apparel.”15 The business would stay at that location for only four years
before moving to 728 Higuera in 1943, when its success and growth necessitated a larger retail
space.16
As operations grew even further, the Lactermans sought to construct a new retail building to
house their business. In 1958, they engaged local architect John. R. Ross to develop the design
that would replace an existing building at 749 Higuera, the subject property. Lacterman’s would
celebrate its grand reopening in the new building on April 30, 1959, with a ribbon cutting
ceremony.17 After six years at the subject property, Harry and Tillie would announce their
retirement, closing the business and selling the remaining stock to Gordon E. Magnuson.18,19 The
Lactermans retained ownership of the subject property until 197 5, when they sold it to Clifford
Chapman, owner of Marshalls Jewelers, who would later heavily alter and bisect the commercial
building.20
Within the local community, the Lactermans were involved in various groups and organizations.
Harry was a founding member and builder of the Congregation Beth David Temple, serving as
president of the congregation from 1966-1967.21 He was also a member of the San Luis Obispo
Lions Club, Elks Club, Country Club, Caballeros Riding Club, and Sierra Club. Tillie was active in
the Business and Professional Womens Club and the Lady Lions.22 After over 45 years in the
community, Harry would die in 1982, with Tillie following more than ten years later in 1999. They
were survived by their daughter Rita Jean Zidell.
13 “Temple founder dies in SLO,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 19, 1982: 17.
14 “Operations Of Factory Suspended,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 19, 1937: 2.
15 “Lacterman’s Improvements,” Pismo Times, March 28, 1941: 5.
16 “Lacterman to Move to New Quarters,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder, February 12, 1943: 4.
17 “Advertisement: Lacterman’s Grand Opening,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder, April 24, 1959:
6.
18 “NO! It’s not Paul Revere, It’s Harry Lacterman,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 21, 1965:
13.
19 “Magnuson new owner of Lacterman’s,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 2, 1965: 12.
20 “Spanish theme influencing proposed remodeling work,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 2,
1975: 8.
21 “Temple founder dies in SLO,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 19, 1982: 17.
22 “Guest Speaker at BPW Dinner,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 19, 1950: 2.
Page 34 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
24
Clifford Chapman and Marshalls Jewelers
Clifford Wayne Chapman (Chapman) was born in Guadalupe, California in May 1930.23 A sixth-
generation resident of San Luis Obispo County, Chapman studied electrical engineering at Cal
Poly San Luis Obispo, but ultimately made his career working for and later owning Marshalls
Jewelers, a jewelry store that has operated in Downtown San Luis Obispo for over a century.
Marshalls Jewelers first opened in 1889 as Marshall & Oppliger, a partnership between founders
Manuel Marshall and Leo Oppliger.24 Marshall, an Azorean immigrant, bought out Oppliger’s
interest in the business in 1897, retaining sole ownership as Oppliger returned to Europe.25 At the
time, historic newspaper articles noted the store as located on Monterey Street. Address locations
were not included in the available historic newspaper advertisements from the early twentieth
century, but by 1968, Marshalls Jewelers was operating at 790 Higuera.26
By then, ownership had changed several times, with Art Marshall taking over for his father, before
eventually selling to his cousin, Chapman, in the early 1960s.27 Chapman had first begun working
at Marshalls Jewelers in the 1950s as a janitor.28 In 1975, Chapman purchased the subject
property from Harry and Tillie Lacterman, remodeling and bisecting the building before moving
the jewelry store into the east retail space at 751 Higuera. Chapman continued to own and
operate the store until he sold it to employee Jeff McKeegan in 1993.29 After 129 years of
business, Marshalls Jewelers closed in 2018.30
Chapman met his life partner, Gene “Don” Shidler, in the 1960s, around the time he became the
third owner of Marshalls Jewelers.31 The couple were active enthusiasts of the local arts
community, supporting the San Luis Obispo Symphony, Mozart Festival, Pacific Repertory Opera,
San Luis Obispo Little Theater, and Performing Arts Center San Luis Obispo.32
Chapman died in his sleep at the age of 82 on June 14, 2012. As part of his will, Chapman
directed that his approximately 1.5-acre estate at 1243 Ocean Boulevard in Pismo Beach be
donated to the City of Pismo Beach for public benefit, instructing that Shidler be able to live at the
house for as long as he like and that community events by certain non-profit groups continue to
23 “Clifford Chapman Obituary (2012) – San Luis Obispo, CA,” Legacy.com,
<https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sanluisobispo/name/clifford-chapman-obituary?id=8912961> accessed
July 12, 2023.
24 “Marshalls Jewelers,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, January 30, 2016, BB17.
25 “Morning Tribune,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, December 29, 1897, 2.
26 “Advertisement: Newlyweds,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, March 26, 1968, 2.
27 Linn, Sarah, “Clifford Chapman, local philanthropist and arts patron, has died,” San Luis Obispo
Telegram-Tribune, June 15, 2012. <https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39205239.html> accessed
July 12, 2023.
28 Lazier, Matt, “Estate worth $4 million promised to Cal Poly,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, May
24, 2002: 9.
29 Wilton, Nick, “Marshalls Jewelers is closing after 129 years in San Luis Obispo – and four owners,”
San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, December 14, 2018, A3.
30 Ibid.
31 Linn, Sarah, “Clifford Chapman, local philanthropist and arts patron, has died,” San Luis Obispo
Telegram-Tribune, June 15, 2012. <https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39205239.html> accessed
July 12, 2023.
32 Lazier, Matt, “Estate worth $4 million promised to Cal Poly,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, May
24, 2002: 9.
Page 35 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
25
be held at the location for free.33 The Chapman Estate continues to be managed by the City of
Pismo Beach with support from the Chapman Estate Foundation.
33 Strickland, Tonya, “Local arts patron gifts mansion to city of Pismo Beach,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-
Tribune, October 10, 2013. <https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39457851.html> accessed July 12,
2023.
Page 36 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
26
John R. Ross, AIA
John R. Ross (Ross) was born on March 27, 1923, in Minneapolis, Minnesota and received his
architecture degree from the University of Southern California (USC) in 1949.34 His studies at
USC and his post-graduate career were interrupted by both World War II and the Korean War,
where he served as an Army infantry officer and captain in the Army engineer corps, respectively.
Ross came to San Luis Obispo in 1956 to work with local architect William Holdredge before
embarking on his own practice, taking on projects across the County.35
Local newspapers reference Ross’ work through the 1950s and 1960s on such projects as
additions to the San Luis Obispo County Hospital, additions to the San Luis Obispo Veterans
Building, design of the Eldorado Garden Apartments, and remodel of the McMahan Furniture
Company’s headquarters. His obituary in the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune noted that “his
architectural creations include the Our Lady of the Nativity Church and Sebastian’s Restaurant”
and “Ross is also responsible for designing the Elks Clu b, the San Luis Obispo Golf and Country
Club, General Hospital, the Pacific Bell facility on Mill Street, and the Inn at Morro Bay.”36
Based on historic newspaper articles, Ross appears to have worked under a few different firm
names, including John R. Ross, Associates, Architects in 1967; Ross & Levin Associates,
Architects in 1974; and Ross Levin MacIntyre Varner in 1981, wh en he retired. Outside of
designing buildings, Ross was involved in several different organizations, serving as the
Chairman of the Foundation for Responsible Environmental and Economic Development
(FREED) lobby group in 1981.37 Ross was also appointed to the state Board of Architectural
Examiners in 1968, reappointed in 1972, and appointed to the National Council of Architectural
Registration Boards in 1969, serving as president in 1979.38 Ross was a fellow of the American
Institute of Architects (AIA) and a visiting lecturer at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo for 10 years.39
Ross died in San Luis Obispo on June 6, 1990, with his obituary recognizing his career of 30
years designing buildings in the city.40
34 Kenyon, Ken, “San Luis Obispo architect John R. Ross dies,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune,
June 7, 1990: 4.
35 Ibid.
36 Ibid.
37 Bauman, Larry, “Conservatives start war chest,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, October 27,
1981: 1.
38 Kenyon, Ken, “San Luis Obispo architect John R. Ross dies,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune,
June 7, 1990: 4.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
Page 37 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
27
Selected Architectural Styles in San Luis Obispo
The following context is excerpted from the “Architectural Character” chapter of the Citywide
Historic Context Statement prepared in 2013.41
Mid-century Modern
Mid-century Modern is a term used to describe a post-World War II iteration of the
International Style in both residential and commercial design. The International Style was
characterized by geometric forms, smooth wall surfaces, and an absence of exterior
decoration. Mid-century Modern represents the adaptation of these elements to the local
climate and topography, as well as to the postwar need for efficiently-built, moderately-
priced homes and buildings. The Mid-century Modern building is characterized by its clear
expression of structure and materials, large expanses of glass, and open interior plan.
Character-defining features include:
x One or two-story configuration
x Simple geometric forms
x Expressed post-and-beam construction, in wood or steel
x Flat roof with wide overhanging eaves and cantilevered canopies
x Unadorned wall surfaces
x Exterior panels of wood, stucco, brick or stone
x Flush-mounted metal frame full-height and clerestory windows
x Exterior staircases, decks, patios and balconies
x Little or no exterior decorative detailing
x Expressionistic/Organic subtype: sculptural forms and geometric shapes,
including butterfly, Aframe, folded plate or barrel vault roofs
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:
x Asymmetrical facade
x Red clay tile hip or side-gable roof, or flat roof with a tile-clad parapet
x Stucco exterior cladding, forming uninterrupted wall planes
x Wood-frame casement or double-hung windows, typically with divided lights
x Arched colonnades, window or door openings
x Decorative grilles of wood, wrought iron, or plaster
x Balconies, patios or towers
x Decorative terra cotta or tile work
41 Historic Resources Group, City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement, September
30, 2013, 132-153.
Page 38 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
28
VII. HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
This section evaluates eligibility of the subject property for individual listing in the City Master List
of Historic Resources, National Register, and California Register, with respect to the historic
contexts described in the preceding section of the report. In addition, this section re-evaluates
eligibility of the subject property for listing in the City Contributor List as a contributor to the
Downtown Historic District and provides additional evaluation for eligibility as a contributor to a
listed or potential National Register or California historic district.
City Master List of Historic Resources
Criterion A - Architecture
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values (in terms of style, design,
and/or architect)
The subject property was originally constructed in 1958 and featured a modest Mid-century
Modern design consisting of exposed concrete block walls, decorative breezeblocks at the
primary north elevation, a plate glass storefront and display windows, and glass block at the rear
south elevation. In 1975 and 1979, the subject property was extensively remodeled, changing the
original style to one reminiscent of Spanish Colonial Revival. Much of the original elements were
altered, with the primary north elevation completely changed with the integration of two new small
courtyards. Original windows at the secondary east elevation were replaced and the concrete
block walls were fully clad in stucco. As such, it no longer embodies the distinctive characteristics
of its original style and design. As a Spanish Colonial Revival building, the subject property is a
selective pastiche of somewhat Spanish elements and does not ex hibit the proportions or
craftsmanship associated with the better Spanish-influenced buildings from the last quarter of the
20th century.
Local architect John R. Ross provided the original 1958 design of the subject property. Though he
completed extensive work in the city, including the Eldorado Garden Apartments and Elks Club, it
does not appear to be a particularly noteworthy example of his work based on his obituary and
there is no evidence that his work influenced development of the city, state, or nation. Alterations
completed in 1975 and 1979 changed the original architectural character of the subject property,
are not yet 50 years of age, and do not appear to have taken significance over time.
The subject property is ineligible under Criterion A.
Criterion B - Historic
Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
History – Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of
political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or
religious history.
Though the subject property was owned by Harry and Tillie Lacterman and Clifford Chapman, it is
not representative of their lives or significance to the local community. The Lactermans did not
found their women’s apparel store at the subject property and only operated for six years before
retiring. Clifford Chapman purchased the property from the Lactermans to serve as the new
Page 39 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
29
location for Marshalls Jewelers, but it was also not the original location of the business and
Chapman’s tenure at the property lasted 18 years. Chapman was also the fourth owner of
Marshalls Jewelers, not its founder, and is more significant for his philanthropic efforts in the arts.
He is best associated with his home in Pismo Beach.
Research does not support that the subject property is associated with any significant events or
predominant patterns of history. When the subject property was constructed in 1958, Downtown
San Luis Obispo was already very developed as a commercial district. As described in the City
historic context, most development in Downtown had occurred by the 1930s. Review of Sanborn
maps from 1950 show that there were already many extant buildings, and the subject property did
not contribute to the pattern of development of the area. Research also did not support that the
subject property is a prime illustration of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational,
governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Because of alterations in 1975-1979, the
subject property no longer is able to convey the role it may have had from that time period and
instead would be evaluated as a building from the late 1970s. Based on the information provided,
there is no evidence that the subject property played an exceptional role in downtown commercial
life during this later period.
The subject property is ineligible under Criterion B.
Criterion C - Integrity
Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
The subject property no longer retains the original integrity from its construction in 1958. Much of
the original design intent of the building has been altered as part of work in 1975 and 1979,
including removal of original storefronts and windows, removal of original decorative elements
such as breezeblocks and tile, and cladding of the originally exposed concrete block wall in
stucco. An addition at the primary north elevation altered the original footprint of the building. The
subject property no longer retains integrity of design, workmanship, materials, association, and
feeling from 1958. The property retains integrity from its 1975-1979 remodel, though work has not
met the 50 years of age threshold and, as described, is not exceptional under the other criteria.
The subject property is ineligible under Criterion C.
National Register and California Register
For the reasons previously described, under Criterion A/1, the subject property is not associated
with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and
cultural heritage. Under Criterion B/2, the subject property is not associated with the lives of
persons important in our past. Under Criterion C/3, the subject property does not embody the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the
work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values. Under Criterion D/4, the
subject property is unlikely to yield information important in prehistory or history. Furthermore, as
described, the subject property does not retain from its original 1958 construction. The subject
property is ineligible for individual listing in the National Register and California Register.
Page 40 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
30
City Contributing List
The subject property was listed in the City Contributing List on February 3, 1987, when City
Council adopted Resolution No. 6158 approving Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
(Guidelines). Appendix D of the Guide lines included the subject property as “751 Higuera” among
other contributing properties to historic districts, amending an earlier list from 1983 which did not
include the subject property. Later lists by the City would identify the subject property as a
contributor to the Downtown Historic District (District). No documentation, such as a historic
resources survey form for the subject property, was available describing why it was included as a
contributor.
The revised 2010 Guidelines include further description of the District, noting a period of
significance of 1870-1930. While the Guidelines note that not all historic resources in the District
were built during the period of significance and some may still merit preservation, it also
comments that most of the post-1950 contemporary buildings do not meet eligibility criteria and
have not achieved historical significance.
The subject property was constructed in 1958, outside of the period of significance for the District.
When it was added to the Contributing List in 1987, it was only 29 years old, outside of the 50-
year threshold now commonly used for evaluation. Furthermore, substantial work altering both the
interior and exterior of the property was completed in 1975-1979, only 8 to 12 years prior to its
listing. Consistent with the features of non-contributors, the subject property is set back from the
street (albeit with planters that abut the sidewalk); displays a projecting and receding massing
and set back second story rather than a façade flush with the sidewalk typical of a simple
rectilinear or boxy building; introduces wrought iron fencing and window surrounds derived from
the Spanish Colonial Revival as a prominent (“faux”) architectural features; has an asymmetrical
arrangement of doors and windows; and its entries do not conform to the prevailing pattern of
recessed doorways flanked by bulkheads.
As described in the assessment in the previous sections, the subject property does not appear to
meet significance as a historic resource at the national, state, and local levels and does not retain
its integrity. As such, this HRA finds that the subject property is not eligible for inclusion in the
Contributing List and should be removed. While it remains unclear why the subject property was
included in the Contributing List in 1987, it is possible that it was mistaken for an earlier building
that was located on the property and demolished in 1956. Review of Sanborn maps from 1950
show the footprint of the original building that occupied the subject property and had previously
housed a Riley’s department store. This would be consistent with efforts to focus identification of
pre-1941 buildings in the original development of the historic districts.
Figure 3: 1950 Sanborn map showing previous building at subject property, demolished in 1956.
Page 41 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
31
National Register and California Register Historic District
Because the subject property is not eligible for listing in the City Contributing List, it is also
assumed to be ineligible for listing as a contributor to a listed or potential National Register and
California Register Historic District.
Page 42 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
32
VIII. CONCLUSION
This HRA evaluated the subject property at 749-751 Higuera Street to determine if it is a historic
resource under the City of San Luis Obispo (City) Historic Preservation Ordinance. As described
in this HRA, the subject property does not appear eligible for individual listing in the City Master
List of Historic Resources and, upon re-evaluation, does not appear eligible locally as a
contributor to the Downtown Historic District under any historical or architectural criteria
significance described in the City Historic Preservation Ordinance. Chattel recommends its
removal from the City Contributing List. Furthermore, the subject property is not eligible for listing
in the National Register or California Register, either individually or as a contributor to a listed or
potential National Register or California Register historic district. Thus, the subject property is not
a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.
Page 43 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
33
IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder newspaper articles:
“Lacterman to Move to New Quarters,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder, February
12, 1943: 4.
“Advertisement: Lacterman’s Grand Opening,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald Recorder,
April 24, 1959: 6.
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(1))
City of San Luis Obispo, “Historic Preservation Program Guidelines,” November 2010.
“Clifford Chapman Obituary (2012) – San Luis Obispo, CA,” Legacy.com,
<https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/sanluisobispo/name/clifford-chapman-
obituary?id=8912961> accessed July 12, 2023.
Historic Resources Group, “City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement,”
September 30, 2013.
National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation
(National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002).
Pismo Times newspaper articles:
“Lacterman’s Improvements,” Pismo Times, March 28, 1941: 5.
San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune newspaper articles:
“Morning Tribune,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, December 29, 1897, 2.
“Operations Of Factory Suspended,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 19,
1937: 2.
“Guest Speaker at BPW Dinner,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 19, 1950: 2.
“NO! It’s not Paul Revere, It’s Harry Lacterman,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July
21, 1965: 13.
“Magnuson new owner of Lacterman’s,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 2,
1965: 12.
“Advertisement: Newlyweds,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, March 26, 1968, 2.
“Public Notice,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, April 28, 1975: 14.
“Spanish theme influencing proposed remodeling work,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-
Tribune, July 2, 1975: 8.
Page 44 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET , SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
34
“Business areas to show changes,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 12, 1979: 14.
Bauman, Larry, “Conservatives start war chest,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune,
October 27, 1981: 1.
“Temple founder dies in SLO,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 19, 1982:
17.
Kenyon, Ken, “San Luis Obispo architect John R. Ross dies,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-
Tribune, June 7, 1990: 4.
Lazier, Matt, “Estate worth $4 million promised to Cal Poly,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-
Tribune, May 24, 2002: 9.
Linn, Sarah, “Clifford Chapman, local philanthropist and arts patron, has died,” San Luis
Obispo Telegram-Tribune, June 15, 2012.
<https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39205239.html> accessed July 12,
2023.
Strickland, Tonya, “Local arts patron gifts mansion to city of Pismo Beach,” San Luis
Obispo Telegram-Tribune, October 10, 2013.
<https://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/article39457851.html> accessed July 12,
2023.
“Marshalls Jewelers,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, January 30, 2016, BB17.
Wilton, Nick, “Marshalls Jewelers is closing after 129 years in San Luis Obispo – and four
owners,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, December 14, 2018, A3.
Page 45 of 198
Page 46 of 198
ATTACHMENT A:
MAPS AND A ERIALS
749-751 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Page 47 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 48 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 1: Downtown Historical Preservation District outlined in blue with subject
property marked in red (City of San Luis Obispo, 1987)
Page 49 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 2: Assessor parcel map with subject property outlined in red (County of
6DQ/XLV2ELVSR$VVHVVRU¶V2I¿FH
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 50 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 3: Subject property in 1956 outlined in red, note parcel is empty after
demolition of previous building that year (NETR Historic Aerials)
Image 4: Subject property in 1963 outlined in red (UCSB FrameFinder)
N
N
Page 51 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 5: Subject property in 1959 outlined in red with neighborhood context
(UCSB Frame Finder)
Image 6: Subject property in 1981 following 1975 and 1979 remodel outlined in
red (NETR Historic Aerials)
N
N
Page 52 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 7: Subject property in 1994 outlined in red (NETR Historic Aerials)
Image 8: 6XEMHFWSURSHUW\LQRXWOLQHGLQUHG 1(75+LVWRULF$HULDOV
N
N
Page 53 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT A: MAPS AND A ERIALS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 9: 6XEMHFWSURSHUW\LQRXWOLQHGLQUHG *RRJOH0DSV
N
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 54 of 198
ATTACHMENT B:
HISTORIC IMAGES
749-751 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Page 55 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 56 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 1: Decorative concrete block wall at north elevation, view southeast (San
Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, March 12, 1959)
Page 57 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 2: Advertisement showing graphic of original north elevation (San Luis
Obispo Telegram-Tribune, August 31, 1959)
Page 58 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 3: Article with drawing describing remodeling work at subject property (San
Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 2, 1975)
Image 4: Zoom of drawing in article describing remodeling work at subject
property (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, July 2, 1975)
Page 59 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 5: North elevation, view south (San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, June
17, 1975)
Image 6: East (left) and north (right) elevations after remodel, view southwest
(San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, February 17, 1976)
Page 60 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 7: Advertisement showing graphic after remodel of 751 Higuera, note 749
Higuera at right has not yet been altered (Times-Press-Recorder, February 18,
1976)
Page 61 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 8: North elevation in 1977 (History Center of San Luis Obispo County)
Image 9: East (left) and north (right) elevations in 1985 (History Center of San
Luis Obispo County)
Page 62 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT B: HISTORIC IMAGES
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 10: East (left) and north (right) elevation, view southwest (San Luis Obispo
Telegram-Tribune, January 30, 2016)
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 63 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 64 of 198
ATTACHMENT C:
CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
749-751 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Page 65 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 66 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 1: East (left) and north (right) elevations, view southwest (Goodwin Design,
2023)
Image 2: East elevation, view west (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Page 67 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 3: North elevation at west retail space, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Image 4: North elevation entrance to west retail space from courtyard, view south
(Goodwin Design, 2023)
Page 68 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 5: East wall of adjacent building from west retail space courtyard, view
west (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Image 6: West wall of east retail space from west retail space courtyard, view east
(Goodwin Design, 2022)
Page 69 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 7: North elevation of east retail space, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Image 8: North elevation of east retail space, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Page 70 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 9: Detail of window at east retail space courtyard, view south (Goodwin
Design, 2023)
Image 10: Detail of door at east retail space courtyard, view west (Goodwin
Design, 2023)
Page 71 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 11: East (left) and north (right) elevations, view southwest (Goodwin
Design, 2023)
Image 12: East elevation, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Page 72 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 13: Altered east elevation windows, view west (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Image 14: Altered east elevation windows, view west (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Page 73 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 15: South (left) and east (right) elevations, view west (Goodwin Design,
2023)
Image 16: South (left) and east (right) elevations, view northwest (Goodwin
Design, 2023)
Page 74 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 17: South elevation, view north (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Image 18: West (left) and south (right) elevations, view northeast (Goodwin
Design, 2023)
Page 75 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 19: 'RRUIURPVHFRQGÀRRUWRURRIYLHZVRXWK *RRGZLQ'HVLJQ
Image 20: 6HFRQGÀRRUZDOOVDWURRIYLHZVRXWKZHVW *RRGZLQ'HVLJQ
Page 76 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 21: 6HFRQGÀRRUZDOOVDWURRIYLHZVRXWKZHVW *RRGZLQ'HVLJQ
Image 22: 6HFRQGÀRRUZDOOVDWURRIQRWHLQ¿OOHGZLQGRZVYLHZVRXWKZHVW
(Goodwin Design, 2022)
Page 77 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 23: Roof, view south (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Image 24: Roof, view north (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Page 78 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 25: Coping at roof, view north (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Image 26: Coping at roof, view west (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Page 79 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 27: Interior of west retail space, view east (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Image 28: Interior of west retail space, view west (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Page 80 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 29: Interior of west retail space, view southeast (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Image 30: Interior of west retail space, view north (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Page 81 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 31: Interior of west retail space, view west (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Image 32: Interior of west retail space, view south (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Page 82 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 33: Interior of west retail space, view southwest (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Image 34: Interior of west retail space, door to rear south elevation, view south
(Goodwin Design, 2022)
Page 83 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 35: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVWDLUVWRVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZVRXWK *RRGZLQ
Design, 2022)
Image 36: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUZLWKJODVVEORFNZLQGRZYLHZ
south (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Page 84 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 37: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVWDLUVWR¿UVWÀRRUYLHZQRUWK *RRGZLQ
Design, 2022)
Image 38: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZQRUWKQRWHGRRUWRURRI
at center (Goodwin Design, 2022)
Page 85 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 39: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZZHVW *RRGZLQ'HVLJQ
2022)
Image 40: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZVRXWK *RRGZLQ'HVLJQ
2022)
Page 86 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 41: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZVRXWK *RRGZLQ'HVLJQ
2022)
Image 42: ,QWHULRURIZHVWUHWDLOVSDFHVHFRQGÀRRUYLHZVRXWK *RRGZLQ'HVLJQ
2022)
Page 87 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 43: Interior of east retail space, view northwest (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Image 44: Interior of east retail space, view south (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Page 88 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 45: Interior of east retail space, view southwest (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Image 46: Interior of east retail space, view north (Goodwin Design, 2023)
Page 89 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 47: Interior of east retail space facing altered windows, view east (Goodwin
Design, 2023)
Image 48: Interior of east retail space facing altered windows, view east (Goodwin
Design, 2023)
Page 90 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 49: ,QWHULRURIHDVWUHWDLOVSDFHRI¿FHYLHZVRXWKZHVW *RRGZLQ'HVLJQ
2023)
Image 50: ,QWHULRURIHDVWUHWDLOVSDFHKDOOZD\WREDFNURRPYLHZVRXWK *RRGZLQ
Design, 2023)
Page 91 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 51: ,QWHULRURIHDVWUHWDLOVSDFHEDFNURRPYLHZHDVW *RRGZLQ'HVLJQ
2023)
Image 52: ,QWHULRURIHDVWUHWDLOVSDFHEDFNURRPYLHZZHVW *RRGZLQ'HVLJQ
2023)
Page 92 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT C: CONTEMPORARY PHOTOS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 53: ,QWHULRURIHDVWUHWDLOVSDFHEDFNURRPYLHZVRXWKHDVW *RRGZLQ
Design, 2023)
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 93 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 94 of 198
ATTACHMENT D:
SELECTED BUILDING PERMITS
749-751 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Page 95 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 96 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT D: SELECTED BUILDING PERMITS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 1: Original building permit for construction of new building (City of San Luis
Obispo Department of Building, 1958)
Image 2: Permit for remodel of east retail space (City of San Luis Obispo, 1975)
Page 97 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT D: SELECTED BUILDING PERMITS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 3: Application for structure permit for remodel of east retail space (City of
San Luis Obispo Planning and Building Department, 1975)
Page 98 of 198
749-751 HIGUERA STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
ATTACHMENT D: SELECTED BUILDING PERMITS
CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
Image 4: Permit for remodel of west retail space (City of San Luis Obispo
Department of Community Development, 1979)
Page 99 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 100 of 198
ATTACHMENT E:
1958 ORIGINAL DRAWINGS
749-751 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Page 101 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 102 of 198
Page 103 of 198
Page 104 of 198
Page 105 of 198
Page 106 of 198
Page 107 of 198
Page 108 of 198
Page 109 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 110 of 198
ATTACHMENT F:
1975 ALTERATION DRAWINGS
749-751 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Page 111 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 112 of 198
Page 113 of 198
Page 114 of 198
Page 115 of 198
Page 116 of 198
Page 117 of 198
Page 118 of 198
Page 119 of 198
Page 120 of 198
Page 121 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 122 of 198
ATTACHMENT G:
1979 ALTERATION DRAWINGS
749-751 HIGUERA STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Page 123 of 198
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Page 124 of 198
Page 125 of 198
Page 126 of 198
=RQLQJRUUHPRYHWKHSURSHUW\IURPKLVWRULFOLVWLQJLIWKHVWUXFWXUHRQWKHSURSHUW\QRORQJHU
PHHWVHOLJLELOLW\FULWHULDIRUOLVWLQJIROORZLQJWKHSURFHVVIRUOLVWLQJVHWIRUWKKHUHLQ
(YDOXDWLRQ&ULWHULDIRU+LVWRULF5HVRXUFH/LVWLQJ
:KHQGHWHUPLQLQJLIDSURSHUW\VKRXOGEHGHVLJQDWHGDVDOLVWHG+LVWRULFRU&XOWXUDO5HVRXUFH
WKH&+&DQG&LW\&RXQFLOVKDOOFRQVLGHUWKLVRUGLQDQFHDQG6WDWH+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ2IILFH
³6+32´ VWDQGDUGV,QRUGHUWREHHOLJLEOHIRUGHVLJQDWLRQWKHUHVRXUFHVKDOOH[KLELWDKLJK
OHYHORIKLVWRULFLQWHJULW\EHDWOHDVWILIW\ \HDUVROG OHVVWKDQLILWFDQEHGHPRQVWUDWHG
WKDWHQRXJKWLPHKDVSDVVHGWRXQGHUVWDQGLWVKLVWRULFDOLPSRUWDQFH DQGVDWLVI\DWOHDVWRQHRIWKH
IROORZLQJFULWHULD
$$UFKLWHFWXUDO&ULWHULD (PERGLHVWKHGLVWLQFWLYHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIDW\SHSHULRGUHJLRQRU
PHWKRGRIFRQVWUXFWLRQRUUHSUHVHQWVWKHZRUNRIDPDVWHURUSRVVHVVHVKLJKDUWLVWLFYDOXHV
6W\OH 'HVFULEHVWKHIRUPRIDEXLOGLQJVXFKDVVL]HVWUXFWXUDOVKDSHDQGGHWDLOV
ZLWKLQWKDWIRUP HJDUUDQJHPHQWRIZLQGRZVDQGGRRUVRUQDPHQWDWLRQHWF %XLOGLQJ
VW\OHZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRI
D 7KHUHODWLYHSXULW\RIDWUDGLWLRQDOVW\OH
E 5DULW\RIH[LVWHQFHDWDQ\WLPHLQWKHORFDOH DQGRUFXUUHQWUDULW\DOWKRXJKWKH
VWUXFWXUHUHIOHFWVDRQFHSRSXODUVW\OH
F 7UDGLWLRQDOYHUQDFXODUDQGRUHFOHFWLFLQIOXHQFHVWKDWUHSUHVHQWDSDUWLFXODUVRFLDO
PLOLHXDQGSHULRGRIWKHFRPPXQLW\ DQGRUWKHXQLTXHQHVVRIK\EULGVW\OHVDQGKRZ
WKHVHVW\OHVDUHSXWWRJHWKHU
'HVLJQ 'HVFULEHVWKHDUFKLWHFWXUDOFRQFHSWRIDVWUXFWXUHDQGWKHTXDOLW\RIDUWLVWLF
PHULWDQGFUDIWVPDQVKLSRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOSDUWV5HIOHFWVKRZZHOODSDUWLFXODUVW\OHRU
FRPELQDWLRQ RI VW\OHV DUH H[SUHVVHG WKURXJK FRPSDWLELOLW\ DQG GHWDLOLQJ RI HOHPHQWV
$OVR VXJJHVWV GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH GHVLJQHU HJ FDUSHQWHUEXLOGHU DFFXUDWHO\
LQWHUSUHWHGDQGFRQYH\HGWKHVW\OH V %XLOGLQJGHVLJQZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRI
D 1RWDEOHDWWUDFWLYHQHVVZLWKDHVWKHWLFDSSHDOEHFDXVHRILWVDUWLVWLFPHULWGHWDLOVDQG
FUDIWVPDQVKLS HYHQLIQRWQHFHVVDULO\XQLTXH
E $Q H[SUHVVLRQ RI LQWHUHVWLQJ GHWDLOV DQG HFOHFWLFLVP DPRQJ FDUSHQWHUEXLOGHUV
DOWKRXJKWKHFUDIWVPDQVKLSDQGDUWLVWLFTXDOLW\PD\QRWEHVXSHULRU
$UFKLWHFW 'HVFULEHVWKHSURIHVVLRQDO DQLQGLYLGXDORUILUP GLUHFWO\UHVSRQVLEOHIRU
WKH EXLOGLQJ GHVLJQ DQG SODQV RI WKH VWUXFWXUH 7KH DUFKLWHFWZLOO EH HYDOXDWHG DV D
UHIHUHQFHWR
Page 127 of 198
D $ QRWDEOH DUFKLWHFW HJ :ULJKW 0RUJDQ LQFOXGLQJ DUFKLWHFWV ZKR PDGH
VLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQVWRWKHVWDWHRUUHJLRQRUDQDUFKLWHFWZKRVHZRUNLQIOXHQFHG
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHFLW\VWDWHRUQDWLRQ
E $QDUFKLWHFWZKRLQWHUPVRIFUDIWVPDQVKLSPDGHVLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQVWR6DQ
/XLV2ELVSR HJ$EUDKDPVZKRDFFRUGLQJWRORFDOVRXUFHVGHVLJQHGWKHKRXVHDW
2VRV)UDQN$YLOD
VIDWKHU
VKRPHEXLOWEHWZHHQ ±
%+LVWRULF&ULWHULD
+LVWRU\±3HUVRQ $VVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHOLYHVRISHUVRQVLPSRUWDQWWRORFDO&DOLIRUQLD
RUQDWLRQDOKLVWRU\+LVWRULFSHUVRQZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRIWKHGHJUHHWRZKLFK
DSHUVRQRUJURXSZDV
D 6LJQLILFDQWWRWKHFRPPXQLW\DVDSXEOLFOHDGHU HJPD\RUFRQJUHVVPHPEHU
HWF RU IRU KLV RU KHU IDPH DQG RXWVWDQGLQJ UHFRJQLWLRQ ORFDOO\ UHJLRQDOO\ RU
QDWLRQDOO\
E 6LJQLILFDQWWRWKHFRPPXQLW\DVDSXEOLFVHUYDQWRUSHUVRQZKRPDGHHDUO\XQLTXH
RURXWVWDQGLQJFRQWULEXWLRQVWRWKHFRPPXQLW\LPSRUWDQWORFDODIIDLUVRULQVWLWXWLRQV
HJ FRXQFLO PHPEHUV HGXFDWRUV PHGLFDO SURIHVVLRQDOV FOHUJ\PHQ UDLOURDG
RIILFLDOV
+LVWRU\±(YHQW $VVRFLDWHGZLWKHYHQWVWKDWKDYHPDGHDVLJQLILFDQWFRQWULEXWLRQWR
WKHEURDGSDWWHUQVRIORFDORUUHJLRQDOKLVWRU\RUWKHFXOWXUDOKHULWDJHRI&DOLIRUQLDRUWKH
8QLWHG6WDWHV+LVWRULFHYHQWZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUHRI
L $ODQGPDUNIDPRXVRUILUVWRILWVNLQGHYHQWIRUWKHFLW\UHJDUGOHVVRIZKHWKHU
WKHLPSDFWRIWKHHYHQWVSUHDGEH\RQGWKHFLW\
LL $UHODWLYHO\XQLTXHLPSRUWDQWRULQWHUHVWLQJFRQWULEXWLRQWRWKHFLW\ HJWKH$K
/RXLV6WRUHDVWKHFHQWHUIRU&KLQHVH$PHULFDQFXOWXUDODFWLYLWLHVLQHDUO\6DQ/XLV
2ELVSRKLVWRU\
+LVWRU\&RQWH[W $VVRFLDWHG ZLWK DQG DOVR D SULPH LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI SUHGRPLQDQW
SDWWHUQV RI SROLWLFDO VRFLDO HFRQRPLF FXOWXUDO PHGLFDO HGXFDWLRQDO JRYHUQPHQWDO
PLOLWDU\LQGXVWULDORUUHOLJLRXVKLVWRU\+LVWRULFFRQWH[WZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGDVDPHDVXUH
RIWKHGHJUHHWRZKLFKLWUHIOHFWV
D (DUO\ILUVWRUPDMRUSDWWHUQVRIORFDOKLVWRU\UHJDUGOHVVRIZKHWKHUWKHKLVWRULF
HIIHFWVJREH\RQGWKHFLW\OHYHOWKDWDUHLQWLPDWHO\FRQQHFWHGZLWKWKHEXLOGLQJ HJ
&RXQW\0XVHXP
E 6HFRQGDU\SDWWHUQVRIORFDOKLVWRU\EXWFORVHO\DVVRFLDWHGZLWKWKHEXLOGLQJ HJ
3DUN+RWHO
Page 128 of 198
&,QWHJULW\ $XWKHQWLFLW\ RI DQ KLVWRULFDO UHVRXUFH¶V SK\VLFDO LGHQWLW\ HYLGHQFHG E\ WKH
VXUYLYDORIFKDUDFWHULVWLFVWKDWH[LVWHGGXULQJWKHUHVRXUFH¶VSHULRGRIVLJQLILFDQFH,QWHJULW\
ZLOOEHHYDOXDWHGE\DPHDVXUHRI
:KHWKHURUQRWDVWUXFWXUHRFFXSLHVLWVRULJLQDOVLWHDQGRUZKHWKHURUQRWWKH
RULJLQDOIRXQGDWLRQKDVEHHQFKDQJHGLINQRZQ
7KHGHJUHHWRZKLFKWKHVWUXFWXUHKDVPDLQWDLQHGHQRXJKRILWVKLVWRULFFKDUDFWHU
RUDSSHDUDQFHWREHUHFRJQL]DEOHDVDQKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHDQGWRFRQYH\WKHUHDVRQ V
IRULWVVLJQLILFDQFH
7KH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH UHVRXUFH KDV UHWDLQHG LWV GHVLJQ VHWWLQJ PDWHULDOV
ZRUNPDQVKLSIHHOLQJDQGDVVRFLDWLRQ
+LVWRULF'LVWULFW'HVLJQDWLRQ3XUSRVHDQG$SSOLFDWLRQ
$+LVWRULF + 'LVWULFWGHVLJQDWLRQ$OOSURSHUWLHVZLWKLQKLVWRULFGLVWULFWVVKDOOEHGHVLJQDWHG
E\DQ³+´]RQLQJ3URSHUWLHV]RQHG³+´VKDOOEHVXEMHFWWRWKHSURYLVLRQVDQGVWDQGDUGVDV
SURYLGHGLQ2UGLQDQFH =RQLQJ RIWKH0XQLFLSDO&RGH
%3XUSRVHVRI+LVWRULF'LVWULFWV7KHSXUSRVHVRIKLVWRULFGLVWULFWVDQG+]RQHGHVLJQDWLRQDUH
WR
,PSOHPHQW FXOWXUDO UHVRXUFH SUHVHUYDWLRQ SROLFLHV RI WKH *HQHUDO 3ODQ WKH
SUHVHUYDWLRQ SURYLVLRQV RI DGRSWHG DUHD SODQV WKH +LVWRULF 3UHVHUYDWLRQ DQG
$UFKDHRORJLFDO5HVRXUFH3UHVHUYDWLRQ3URJUDP*XLGHOLQHVDQG
,GHQWLI\DQGSUHVHUYHGHILQDEOHXQLILHGJHRJUDSKLFDOHQWLWLHVWKDWSRVVHVVDVLJQLILFDQW
FRQFHQWUDWLRQOLQNDJHRUFRQWLQXLW\RIVLWHVEXLOGLQJVVWUXFWXUHVRUREMHFWVXQLWHG
KLVWRULFDOO\RUDHVWKHWLFDOO\E\SODQRUSK\VLFDOGHYHORSPHQW
,PSOHPHQW KLVWRULF SUHVHUYDWLRQ SURYLVLRQV RI DGRSWHG DUHDDQG QHLJKERUKRRG
LPSURYHPHQWSODQV
(QKDQFHDQGSUHVHUYHWKHVHWWLQJRIKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHVVRWKDWVXUURXQGLQJODQGXVHV
DQGVWUXFWXUHVGRQRWGHWUDFWIURPWKHKLVWRULFRUDUFKLWHFWXUDOLQWHJULW\RIGHVLJQDWHG
KLVWRULFUHVRXUFHVDQGGLVWULFWV DQG
3URPRWHWKHSXEOLFXQGHUVWDQGLQJDQGDSSUHFLDWLRQRIKLVWRULFUHVRXUFHV
&(OLJLELOLW\IRULQFHQWLYHV3URSHUWLHV]RQHGDV+LVWRULF3UHVHUYDWLRQ + VKDOOEHHOLJLEOHIRU
SUHVHUYDWLRQLQFHQWLYHDQGEHQHILWSURJUDPVDVHVWDEOLVKHGKHUHLQLQWKH*XLGHOLQHVDQGRWKHU
ORFDOVWDWHDQGIHGHUDOSURJUDPV
Page 129 of 198
Page 130 of 198
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 1601 OSOS STREET (ARCH-0333-2022) CONSTRUCTION OF TWO NEW
RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WITHIN THE RAILROAD HISTORIC DISTRICT
BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Phone Number: (805) 781-7166
Email: woetzell@slocity.org Email: bleveille@slocity.org
APPLICANT: John Tricamo REPRESENTATIVE: Jennifer Korge, Ten Over Studio
RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the Community
Development Director as to the consistency
of the proposed project with historic
preservation guidelines and architectural
standards for construction in the Railroad
Historic District
1.0 BACKGROUND
The applicant proposes to construct two new
residential buildings: a two-story duplex and
a three-story building with five dwellings, on
a property located within the Railroad Historic
District. A portion of an existing commercial
building will be demolished to accommodate
the duplex building.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The property is located on the southwest corner of Islay and Osos Streets, in a Medium
High Density Residential (R-3) Zone and within the Railroad Historic District. The District’s
development corresponded to that of the Southern Pacific Railroad yard, with buildings
constructed to accommodate railway workers, freight and passengers, and employees of
Southern Pacific and related businesses. Surviving historic structures date from 1894 to
1945, the peak activity of the rail yard and the district’s period of significance. The
predominant architectural style is Railroad Vernacular, characterized by simplicity of form
and detailing, favored for its easy construction, and buildings are a mix of simple , yet
elegant houses and practical, industrial-oriented commercial buildings. A description of
the District and its characteristics is provided in the City’s Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines (Excerpt as Attachment A).
Meeting Date: 9/25/2023
Item Number: 4b
Time Estimate: 45 Minutes
Figure 1: 1601 Osos St
Page 131 of 198
Item 4b
ARCH-0333-2022 (1601 Osos)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 25, 2023
The property is developed with a commercial building, originally two, now joined, dating
from the early 20th Century. It is of a simple rectangular form, clad in vertical wood board
siding, with plain wood window trim and metal awnings. It is a corner building with an
extensive plate glass storefront entry. Following a 1980’s survey of properties within
historic preservation districts, the structure at 1601 Osos was coded as a “Non -
Contributing Property” (a structure that does not contribute to the historic character of the
area) in the listing adopted by the City Council in 1988 (under Resolution 6424), and the
property is not currently included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.
Demolition. As part of this project, a 750 square-foot portion of the existing commercial
building, at the rear of the building, is proposed to be demolished, to provide room for
the new duplex building. As described above, neither the building nor the property have
been determined to be historically or architecturally significant.
2.2 Proposed New Construction
New Construction. Behind the remaining portion of the commercial building at the west
side of the site, a two-story duplex building just under 25 feet tall will be constructed. It
will accommodate two one-bedroom dwellings, each 375 square feet in area. Exterior
material is vertical fiber cement board and batten, accented with a “belly band” between
floors, with rectangular windows, metal awnings, and a flat roof with rounded cornice.
At the east side of the site a new three-story residential building just under 35 feet tall will
be constructed. It will accommodate five new dwellings (three 1 -bedroom units and two
2-bedroom units) each 500 to 560 square feet in area. This building has a rectangular
form with a gently sloping shed roof. Smooth stucco and vertically oriented fiber cement
board are the primary exterior materials. Articulation is provided by reglets within the
stucco walls, a board and batten pattern for the cement board, inset balconies (on the
north elevation) with “wood-look” accent siding, and a regularly spaced pattern of
rectangular windows.
Figure 2: 1601 Osos - East Elevation (left), North Elevation (center, right)
Page 132 of 198
Item 4b
ARCH-0333-2022 (1601 Osos)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 25, 2023
3.0 EVALUATION
Guidance for construction within historic districts is provided in the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties.1 In addition, the Railroad District Plan includes
architectural guidelines that supplement the City’s existing architectural guidelines, for
new development within the Railroad District. Relevant applicable guidelines, standards,
and recommendations from these documents are outlined below.
3.1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
Alterations to Historic Resources
§ 3.2.1 (c)
Architecturally
compatible
development within
Historic Districts
New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be
architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic
character as measured by their consistency with the scale, massing,
rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting
and street yard setbacks of the district's historic structures. New
structures are not required to copy or imitate historic structures, or
seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic..
§ 3.2.2
Architectural
compatibility
The CHC reviews development in historic districts for architectural
compatibility with nearby historic resources, and for consistency with
applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic
district descriptions in Section 5.2. New development should not
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 duplex (left) and three-story residential building (right) [Credit: 10-Over Studio]
Page 133 of 198
Item 4b
ARCH-0333-2022 (1601 Osos)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 25, 2023
sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually
detract from, the historic architectural character of historically
designated structures located adjacent to the property to be
developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural
character of the historic district.
Discussion: The proposed new construction is two- and three-stories in height, consistent
with the scale of existing residential and commercial development in the vicinity. Facades
and entries are oriented to the street, in keeping with common site characteristics noted
for the Railroad Historic District in the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
(Attachment A). The new buildings exhibit simplicity in form and detailing and do not
sharply contrast with the characteristic architectural styles in the District. Although they
depart from traditional residential styles to some extent, they are consistent overall with
the Architectural Guidelines for the Railroad Historic District (discussed below, §3.3) and
do not detract from the District’s prevailing character.
3.2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (Rehabilitation)
Standards for Rehabilitation
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.
Setting (District / Neighborhood)
Recommended Not Recommended
Identifying, retaining, and preserving building
and landscape features that are important in
defining the overall historic character of the
setting. Such features can include circulation
systems (roads and streets); furnishings and
fixtures (light posts or benches); vegetation,
gardens and yards; adjacent open space
(fields, parks, commons, or woodlands); and
important views or visual relationships.
Removing or substantially changing those
building and landscape features in the setting
which are important in defining the historic
character so that, as a result, the character is
diminished.
Discussion: The Secretary of Interior’s Standards provide guidance on rehabilitation of
historic buildings, including approaches to work treatments and techniques that are either
consistent (“Recommended”) or inconsistent (“Not Recommended”) with the Standards,
specific to various features of historic buildings and sites. New construction will not
materially alter historical characteristics of the subject property since, as noted above, the
property is not included in the Inventory of Historic Resources.
Page 134 of 198
Item 4b
ARCH-0333-2022 (1601 Osos)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 25, 2023
3.3 Railroad District Plan (Architectural Guidelines)
The Railroad District Plan includes Architectural
Guidelines for new development within the Railroad
District. Some of the more common architectural
elements exemplifying the Railroad Vernacular
architectural style are illustrated in the Plan, providing a
“menu” of elements that can be incorporated into new
development projects. The style of new buildings is to be
consistent with these guidelines and should complement
the District’s historic character, but new buildings need not include all of the described
elements, nor be designed to be a replica of a historic building. These guidelines are also
provided as an attachment to this report, for reference (Attachment), and the consistency
of elements of the project design with these guidelines is summarized below.
Building Form, Massing, and Roof Lines. Both new buildings employ simple, rectilinear
forms. Massing on the site is concentrated at the ground level, with lesser volume at the
second and third levels of site development. The taller building exhibits a gently sloping
roof form with modest overhang, in contrast to the flat roof forms of the duplex and existing
commercial building. While this form does not replicate the steeper bracketed roof forms
of some commercial and residential Railroad Vernacular buildings it does echo a simpler
and more gently-sloped industrial shed roof form observed elsewhere in the District.
Doors and Windows. Doors and windows for the duplex building largely continue the
simple pattern of the existing commercial building it is situated behind. The larger building
exhibits a more interesting design, with plans showing symmetrical multi-panel door and
window forms, including the balcony doors that dominate the b uilding’s north elevation
(see Fig. 4) and divided lite windows on all sides of the building. Windows here are
essentially vertically oriented, but with the shape of openings closer to square, and are
largely arranged in pairs. Windows within board and batten walls are given fiber cement
trim and those on stucco walls are slightly recessed.
Figure 4: Three-story building (building 2), south and west elevations
Page 135 of 198
Item 4b
ARCH-0333-2022 (1601 Osos)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 25, 2023
Surface Treatment and Colors (Plaster / Masonry Buildings). As with doors and windows,
the smaller duplex building utilizes a design that echoes the commercial building in front
of it, using vertical board and batten fiber cement that relates closely to the existing
building’s vertical wood board siding. The larger new building picks up this pattern on its
east side, transitioning to smooth stucco wall surfaces on its western half. Although stucco
is used, it is smooth in texture and articulated with vertical and horizontal reglets to provide
additional visual interest.
Architectural Details. The new buildings have simple detailing with little opportunity for
decoration, ornamentation, or other details of elaborate workmanship. Nevertheless, the
design and treatment of exterior surfaces, use of metal awnings and inset metal
balconies, and simple fiber cement door and window trim provide an appropriate level of
visual interest and quality of design. The need to address the base flood level provides
for a raised ground floor level, entry, and deck areas.
Residential Buildings. New buildings proposed for this site comply with the development
standards applicable to the Medium-High Residential (R-3) Zone (notwithstanding a
request for upper-level setback encroachments for the taller building), maintaining the
prevailing spacing, scale, setbacks and character of existing development in the vicinity.
Although new construction is not in a traditional architectural house style, the site is
situated at a transition to a block of Osos Street (between Islay and Leff) that is
characterized by a mix of commercial buildings and larger residential buildings of more
vernacular styles. Durable, easily maintained metal and wood materials are used for
fencing, railing, and similar site features, and utility, trash enclosure, and parking areas
are located interior to the site, screened by fencing and structures.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). It consists of Infill Development consistent
with the Medium High Density land use designation
and applicable policies described in the City’s
General Plan, consistent with standards and
limitations described in Zoning Regulations for the
Medium-High Density (R-3) Zone, occurs on a project
site of less than five acres substantially surrounded
by urban uses with no value as habitat for
endangered, rare or threatened species, would not
result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and
can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services , as described in
CEQA Guidelines § 15332.
Page 136 of 198
Item 4b
ARCH-0333-2022 (1601 Osos)
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – September 25, 2023
5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the Community Development Director find the project consistent
with historic preservation guidelines and architectural standards for construction in the
Railroad Historic District (this is the action recommended by staff, based on the
evaluation provided above);
2. Continue review to another date with direction to staff and applicant; or
3. Recommend that the Community Development Director deny the application, based
on specific findings describing inconsistency with historical preservation policies,
standards, and guidelines.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Railroad Historic District (Railroad District Plan)
B - Project Plans (ARCH-0333-2023)
C - Architectural Guidelines (Railroad District Plan)
Page 137 of 198
Page 138 of 198
51
5.2.5 Railroad Historic District
Setting
Established in 1998, the Railroad Historic District boundaries follow the historic boundaries of
the Southern Pacific rail yard. The district is bounded by railroad right-of-way on the east, from
Johnson Avenue on the north to Orcutt Road on the south, on the northwest generally by Leff
Street, and on the west by Broad Street and the railroad right-of-way. The district includes a
residential and commercial area on the west side of the tracks, and abuts the Old Town Historic
District along its northwest and north boundary. The Southern Pacific (or “Espee”) standard
gauge railroad arrived in San Luis Obispo on May 4th, 1894. By 1901, San Luis Obispo was a
part of the completed railroad line from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and served as the main
layover and maintenance yard for the coastal route. The SP railroad operated in tandem with the
older, narrow gauge railroad, the Pacific Coast Railway, or PCR. The PCR was a regional
railway with a station on South and Higuera - the development of a spur line along South
connected the PCR with the Southern Pacific rail yard. The Railroad District is a part of nine
older subdivisions: the Beebee Phillips Tract recorded in 1874, Fairview Addition recorded in
1887, Haskins Tract recorded in 1887, Ingleside Homestead Tract recorded in 1887, the McBride
Tract recorded in 1887, the Loomis Addition recorded in 1887, Maymont Addition recorded in
1888, Loomis and Osgood Re-subdivision recorded in 1894 and the Imperial Addition recorded
in 1897. The Railroad District has an area of 80.7 acres or 0.126 square miles and 38 designated
historic structures.
Development in the Railroad Historic District corresponded to the development of the Southern
Pacific Railroad yard. Commercial and residential buildings were constructed to accommodate
railway workers, freight and passengers, and employees of Southern Pacific and related
businesses. Surviving historic structures date from 1894 to 1945, corresponding with the peak
activity of the rail yard and the district’s period of significance, and most were constructed from
1894 to 1920. The buildings were laid out in a fairly regular grid near the station,
accommodating the curve of the rail line and the diagonal path of Santa Barbara. South of
Upham the lots are much larger to accommodate the railroad structures.
Site Features and Characteristics
Common site features/characteristics
include:
A. Commercial buildings located at
back of sidewalk with zero street
setbacks
B. Front building facades oriented
parallel to street
C. Finish floors at grade
D. Recessed front entries oriented
toward the street
Channel Commercial Company, 1880
Santa Barbara Avenue, West Elevation
Page 139 of 198
52
Architectural Character
The predominant architectural style within the Railroad Historic District is Railroad Vernacular.
Railroad Vernacular is characterized by simplicity of form and detailing, with wood, brick or
plaster siding, and is a style favored by railroad construction for its easy construction. As a
practical vernacular style it also incorporates other elements of other architectural styles
including Classical Revival and Mission Revival. Although many of the buildings within the
district were not constructed by the railroad, their use of Railroad Vernacular styles design
reflects the unifying focus of the district. The buildings in the Railroad District are a mix of
simple, yet elegant houses and practical, industrial-oriented commercial buildings, which create a
distinctive neighborhood. The architectural character and important historical elements are
described in the Railroad District Plan. The Plan includes design guidelines that illustrate
architecturally compatible design treatments for new development.
Predominant architectural details include:
A. One- and two-story buildings
predominate
B. Gable and some hip roof types of low to
medium pitch, occasionally with
parapets
C. Predominantly painted wood siding,
with some masonry or smooth plaster
wall siding
D. Traditional fenestration, such as double-
hung, wood sash windows, and fixed
divided light windows
E. Rectilinear massing, with equal or lesser
volume on second floor
F. Simple detailing often along the roof
line including brackets
1901 Santa Barbara, East Elevation
Tribune Republic Building, east elevation
1263 Santa Barbara Avenue
Page 140 of 198
53
Individually Contributing Elements in the Railroad District
Not all designated historic resources in the Railroad Historic District were built during the
District’s period of significance, 1894-1945. These buildings were constructed outside of the
period of significance, 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 Tribune Republic Building, built in 1873, is believed to be the earliest
surviving wood commercial building in San Luis Obispo and has been placed on the City’s
Master List and the National Register of Historic Places for its association with the City’s first
newspaper.
Non-Contributing Elements in the Railroad District
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. Building height, form, scale or
massing which contrasts markedly
with the district’s prevailing 1 and 2-
story buildings
B. Metal, contemporary stucco or other
contemporary siding, including “faux”
architectural details or features that
contrast markedly with traditional
railroad vernacular forms, details and
materials
C. Asymmetrical arrangement of doors or
windows
D. Non-recessed or offset street entries to buildings
Residential
Although the majority of the Railroad District is commercial, there is a small residential area
within it which runs along Church Street and Santa Barbara Avenue from Osos to Upham
Streets. This area was home to many railroad employees and their families.
Modern addition to 1880 Santa Barbara,
West Elevation
Page 141 of 198
54
Site features and characteristics- Residential:
A. Residential buildings with modest street
setbacks of 10 feet
B. Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear
yard
C. Front building facades oriented parallel
to street.
D. Finish floors raised 2-3 above finish
grade
E. Front entries oriented toward street,
with prominent walk, stairs and porch
The houses within the residential district are
modest, which reflects their early working class
occupants. Within the district are two hotels,
the Call/Parkview Hotel at 1703 Santa Barbara and the Park/Reidy Hotel at 1815 Osos which
once served as boarding houses for railroad workers. These vernacular buildings have decorative
elements from several styles including Craftsman Bungalow, Classical Revival and Folk
Victorian.
Architectural features- Residential:
A. One and two story buildings
B. Gable and some hip roof types of low
to medium pitch
C. Painted wood surface material,
occasionally smooth stucco wall
siding
D. Traditional fenestration, such as
double-hung, wood sash windows,
ornamental front doors, wood screen
doors
1034 Church St, South Elevation
1724 Osos, East Elevation
Page 142 of 198
55
***
Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, 1011 Railroad Avenue; Park/Reidy Hotel 1815
Osos Street; Southern Pacific Railroad Warehouse,1940 Santa Barbara Avenue; and
house located at 1789 Santa Barbara Avenue.
Page 143 of 198
Page 144 of 198
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW (MINOR), 08/23/23Prepared by TEN OVER STUDIO1601 OSOS STThe project aims to maximize the usability of .1 acre lot by integrating seven new dwelling units into a mixed use neighborhood in the core of San Luis Obipso's Historic Railroad District. The propsed residential building's simple, rectilinear, modern carraige house style design creates a sensitive intersection between the site's commercial and residential surroundings. The two story Duplex addition takes design influence from the existing commercial unit and creates a smooth transition in building scale from the exsiting single story commerical to the new three story residential building.Page 145 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23T1.0VICINITY MAPPROJECT LOCATION1601 OSOS STREETNOSOS ST.MORRO ST.CHORRO ST.LEFF ST.ISLAY ST.BUCHON ST.CHURCH ST.SANTA BARBARA AVE.PISMO ST.SANTA ROSA ST.PROJECT INFO & DATA T1.0PROJECT INFO & DATA T1.1PRELIMINARY GRADING C1.0PRELIMINARY UTILITY C2.0PROPERTY INFO C3.0LANDSCAPE PLAN L1.0PLANT SCHEDULE L2.0IRRIGATION CALCULATIONS L3.0EXISTING/DEMO SITE PLAN A1.0PROPOSED SITE PLAN A1.1BUILDING 1 FLOOR PLANS A2.0BUILDING 2 FLOOR PLANS A2.1EXISTING BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS A3.0EXISTING BUILDING 1 ELEVATIONS A3.1PROPOSED BUILDINGS 1 ELEVATIONS A3.2PROPOSED BUILDINGS 2 ELEVATIONS A3.3 MATERIAL BOARD A3.4MODEL IMAGES A4.0-A4.1EXHIBITS & STUDIES EX.1-EX.3sheet index352-(&7'(6&5,37,21The project proposes ONLY residential uses in a Medium-High Density Residential Zone (R-3) The Construction Office Space (Office Professional Use) was previously permitted under Administrative Use Permit USE-0055-2021. The proposed current project consists of: a portion of the existing office building to be demolished to create space for a Duplex with (2) 1-BD units less than 600 SF. The project also proposes a new residential building that includes (3) 1-BD units less than 600 SF and (2) 2-BD units. (2) standard parking spaces, (1) compact space and (1) accessible van space have been provided to comply with commercial parking requirements. No motorcycle parking is required. (10) long-term bicycle spaces and (8) short term bicycle spaces have also been provided. No provisions of Administrative Use Permit USE-0055-2021 are proposed to be modified except: (1) portion of the existing 2,164 sf commercial building will be demolished to provide space for the Duplex. The new square footage of the commercial building will be 1198 SF.The project site is located within the City's Historical Railroad District. Therefore, the project is subject to review by the City's Cultural Heritage Committee and has been designed consistent with both the City's Railroad District Plan and Historical Preservation Ordinance. The elements of the project design that address relevant historical preservation policies, standards and guidelines include but are not limited to the following: preserving the existing granite curbing, selecting materials and colors that prevent the proposed structure from detracting from the historic or architectural integrity of designated historic resources within the district and has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the district's historic character (Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 3.2.1). The building is in alignment with the defined 'Railroad Vernacular' which is characterized by simplicity of form and detailing, with wood or plaster siding, and is a style favored by railroad construction for its easy construction. (Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 3.2.1) Modest street setbacks of 10', roof types of low to medium pitch, painted wood surface material, traditional fenestrations have all been incorporated into the building and site design.DENSITY BONUS24% LOW INCOME AFFORDABLE = 50% DENSITY BONUS24% X 3DUs = .72 DUs AFFORDABLE TO ACHIEVE DENSITY BONUS.72 DUs ROUNDS UP TO 1 DU OF AFFORDABLE REQUIREDTOTAL DENSITY ALLOWED3DUs + 50% DENSITY BONUS = 4.5DUs ALLOWED4.5 DUs ROUNDS UP TO 5 DUs ALLOWEDDENSITY CALC UNIT TYPE1 BED 5 0.5 2.52 BEDROOM 2 1 2TOTAL PROPOSED 7 4.5AFFORDABLE UNITS(1) 2-BD UNIT = 1 DU OF AFFORDABLE HOUSINGDENSITY CALCULATIONSUNIT COUNTDU FACTORDENSITYBASE DENSITY ALLOWED3 DUs / PARCEL1601 Osos Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401APN003-551-003CURRENT USEIndustrial Commercial5947 SF .14 ACRE(E) COMMERCIAL TO REMAIN1198 SF2-STORY ADU AREA1066 SF(N) 3-STORY MULTIFAMILY BUILDING AREA3680 SFTOTAL PROPOSED GROSS BUILDING AREA5944 SFMAX SITE COVERAGEALLOWABLE60%PROPOSED42%DENSITYALLOWABLE3 DENSITY UNITS/PARCELPROPOSED5 DUs +50% DENISTY BONUS PER CA DENSITY BONUS LAWTOTAL ALLOWABLE4.5 DUs (ROUNDS UP TO 5 NEW DWELLING UNITS(3) 1-BEDROOM UNITS (<600 SF)(2) 2-BEDROOM UNITS(2) 1-BEDROOM @ DUPLEX (<600 SF)HEIGHT LIMITALLOWABLE35'PROPOSED34'-0"ADJACENT ZONESNORTHR3-HSOUTHR3-HWESTR3-HSETBACKSFRONT10'SIDE10' (Islay)INTERIOR SIDEREARPARKING REQUIRED11 (SEE T1.1)PROPOSED5PARKING DIMENSIONSTANDARD STALL9.5'x18.4'BAY WIDTH56.1' PER CITY OF SLO STANDARDS WITH 9.5' WIDE PARKING STALLSENTITLEMENTS/USE PERMIT REQUIREDMinor Architectural and Cultural Heritage Committee ReviewVARIES PER CITY OF SLO ZONING CODE: R-3 Zone Minimum Interior Side and Rear SetbacksVARIES PER CITY OF SLO ZONING CODE: R-3 Zone Minimum Interior Side and Rear SetbacksLAND USE REQUIREMENTS ZONINGOVERLAY ZONESLOT SIZER3-HHistoric District, Capacity Constrained AreaADDRESSPROPOSED USEIndustrial Commercial / ResidentialALLOWED USE IN ZONEYesNUMBER OF ALLOWED INCENTIVES:3NUMBER OF REQUESTED INCENTIVES:2INCENTIVE DESCRIPTIONALTERNATE PARKINGHEIGHT LIMIT SETBACK EXCEPTIONQUALIFYING INCENTIVES/CONCESSIONSThis project proposes a 100% vehicular parking reduction for the residential units. The project has met the parking requirements for the commercial portion of the project. See Alternate Parking Summary letter dated 06/16/2023 for further information.The project proposes a height limit exception as it relates to building height at setbacks. The building setbacks will maintain a minimum 5'-0" setback per city standards at the ground floor, but will exceed the setback reductions as the building height increases as indicated in Table 2-11, Figure 2-6 of the SLO Zoning Code Section 17.22.020. At it's maximum, the 3rd floor will extend 5'-0" into the 10'-0" setback required at the higher height. The height limit exceptions being requested is required to achieve the allowable density on the site.Page 146 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23T1.1PARKING REQUIRED USEUNIT COUNT (OR SF) PARKING FACTOR SPACES REQUIRED BUSINESS11981/300 SF41 BED UNITS3132 BED UNITS21.53DUPLEX212TOTAL REQUIRED12TOTAL PROVIDED4 (2 STD, 1 COMP. 1 VAN ADA)ADA SPACESUSE# OF SPACES ADA FACTORADA REQUIREDBUSINESS41 @ 1-25 SPCS 1REQ'D TOTAL 1PROVIDED TOTAL1 VANEV REQUIREDUSE# OF SPACES EV FACTOREV REQUIREDBUSINESS40REQ'D TOTAL 0PROVIDED TOTAL0CLEAN AIRUSE# OF SPACES CLNR AIR FACTOR CLEAN AIR REQ'DBUSINESS40 @ 0-9 SPCS 0REQ'D TOTAL 0PROVIDED TOTAL0MOTORCYCLEUSE# OF SPACES PARKING FACTOR MOTORCYCLE REQ'DBUSINESS41 / 20 @ 10+SPCS 0REQ'D TOTAL 0PROVIDED TOTAL0BICYCLE PARKING REQUIRED UNITS OR AREASHORT TERM LONG TERMTOTAL SPACES REQUIRED BUSINESS1198 SF1/1500 SF1RESIDENTIAL (NOT INCLUDING DUPLEX)51 : 5 UNITS2 / UNIT11DUPLEX21 : 5 UNITS2 / UNIT5TOTAL REQUIRED 17TOTAL PROVIDED18*VEHICLE PARKING CALCULATIONS*NOTE: PARKING FACTORS ARE BASED ON CA DENISITY BONUS STATUE 65915 SECTION (p). PARKING FOR THE (E) COMMERICAL SPACE IS PROVIDED. AN ALTERNATE PARKING REQUIREMENT WITH 100% PARKING REDUCTION FOR RESIDNETIAL UNITS IS REQUESTED AND IS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT AT THE ALLOWED DENSITY. *(2) LONG TERM BIKE STORAGE SPACES WILL BE PROVIDED IN EACH UNIT (10 TOTAL) AND (8) SHORT TERM SPACES WILL BE PROVIDED ON OSOS STREET.UNIT#SIZE (SF)<600SF >600SF 2-BD 3-BD 4-BD+BLDG 1 - 1ST FLOOR 1-BD375 XBLDG 1 - 2ND FLOOR 1-BD375 XBLDG 2 - 1ST FLOOR 1-BD ADAPTABLE 500 XBLDG 2 - 2ND FLOOR 1-BD 560 X2-BD 561XBLDG 2 - 3RD FLOOR 1-BD 560 X2-BD 561XTOTAL3492 5 0 2 0 0AFFORDABLE UNITS UNIT#SIZE (SF)<600SF600-1000S2-BD 3-BD 4-BD+BLDG 2 - 2ND FLOOR 2-BD 561 XTOTAL 0 0 1 0 0ACCESSIBLE UNITSUNIT TYPESAVERAGE UNIT SIZETOTAL UNIT SF: 3492TOTAL # UNITS: 7AVERAGE UNIT SF: 499GROUND FLOOR UNIT (EXLCUDING DUPLEX) SHALL BE ADAPTABLE AND ON AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTEPage 147 of 198
ISLAY STREETEETETGREERRRGRRRGGGWAGMGMGMGMMMMMGMGMMMMMGMGMGMGMMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMGMFF ELEV.=217.71'FF ELEXISTING BUILDINGSSPARAPETELEV.=232.82'ROOFELEV.=231.89'E98989'ENEIGHBORINGROOF ELEV.=231.8CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERCURB & GUTTEERERERECONCRETENNNREREREEEEEECRCOCONCCETE DRDDDDEEDRIVEWAYEWEWEWEWWEWYYYYYYYVEAWARIVVRYDRYCONCRETE DRIVEWAYCBOLLARDBOLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLLLOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOLLOLLOLOLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLLLLOLLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBOBOBOBOOBOBOOBOBOOBOBOOOOOOERRRRRRPAVEAAAAAAAAVVVAAVRRPAVEAAECONCRETECOEEEEEEEOOORERERENEETERETCRONRCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOEEKING LOTPAVED PARKIKINKINRKIRKIRKIRKIRKIRKIGATE TRTRACKSTRACKRARAGATATATATE TRATATE TRRAGATE TRAGATE TRARARARARAGATETETETE TRTETE TRRARARARAGATETETETE TRTETETERGATE TRARARAGATEGATETETETETE TRATETETETETETETE TRATETERARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARAETETETEEEETETETETETEETETETEEEEETETECONCRETE PADRETE DRROTORTORWITH GATE MOTOWOTMOTOMOTOWWWWWWWRRRRTORLARCELLACEALALALALALAOVERHEAD CABLEFOR NEIGHBOROVERHEAD CABLEVETO NEIGHBORINGTBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGTEREETEETEEEEETETET4.4%4%45%5%1.557.4%474%7747444
(215.58 EC)EC)()48 FSSSS88888SSS15.444444421121215.421121211YDRDDD215.30 TCTC214.63 FL6633FFLL46363(214.57 TC)C)7 T))(214.44 FL)14.4()C))(215.95 TC)C)1 FL)L)(215.31 F31 F))(EREEE215.86 TCTC19 FL99 215.1915.19 ON215.64 TC4 TC.97 FLFLLLL214.14.9LLLFLFLFL215.08 TCC215.00 FL00 FCCCCCC215.24 TC4TTT22115.2244 TTTCT44422TTTC215.16 FLFLFL1516FLFLFL(216.32 EC)2()215.84 FS21S11SS212484444S88488881511155884848844SSSS215.74 FS77777FF7215.74 FS2221211FSSSSSCCCC5.9 FSFS5215.555.5212121SS215.68 FSS6SS66S2FFF1S658FFFFFS5.566888FFFFFFFSSSSWWFSSSFSSSSSSSSSSSS215.74 FS2115.74 FS57744F2215511.7744 4FFSSSS215.95 FSS22125ELEVELEVEVEVEEELEV.E218.83 FF215.34 TCTC214.67 FL.6215.49 FS2222222222225S2912122111552216.07 FS2FFS215.92 TCTC215.25 FL25 LURBR215.51 FSS215.51 FS217.50 FF2217.50 FF50 217.46 FS27.4217.43 FS217.38 FS217.38 FS218.83 FF218.25 FSFSSS218.25 FS2188252255 FS217.67 FS177.66677 667217.4 FS217.67 FS217.65 FS2 212111777777277F62222FFFFFFSSRRRRPAVEAAAAAE217.55 FS55555522222SS17 55 F555555SSSSSS2222222212222217.5555555515F55555SSSSSFFSSSSSS217.28 FS28FFSSS2127.2288 FSS217.0 FS217.6 FS6 F216.95 FS216.87 FSSSOTOTOT216.67 FSD CABLED CABLE216.01 FSFSSS216.87 FS216.67 FS677 7F7FS216.65 FS216.28 FS6.28 822222222228CONCRETE215.50 TCTC214.83 FL.83 F4838215.65 FS215.60 FS5555555S20F217.95 FS7717955 FFSS77777211221111217.95 FS.952.3%17%%1.7171717%%7%%1.5%5%1.5%5%5%55%5%5%5%%5%%1.5%1115%%%%1.5%55555551.3%3331%.%%SSS2222SSSS22217.33 FS33 337.177.33333 3217.06 FS4.5%%%%%%44%%SSSS5TCTCCTTTSS21212121SS2SSDTOR666DDRR11111Y33333333RIVRIVVVVVVVVV455555555555511222266ELCEEEEEEEE777777781"=10'PRELIMINARY GRADINGSPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION NOTES:1CONSTRUCT CONCRETE FLATWORK.2CONSTRUCT SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER PER CITY DETAILS.3CONSTRUCT DRIVEWAY APRON PER CITY DETAILS.4CONSTRUCT 6" CONCRETE CURB.5PROVIDE ADA ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE & STRIPING PER ARCHITECT.6CONSTRUCT ASPHALT DRIVEWAY.7CONSTRUCT PERMEABLE PAVER.8CONSTRUCT CURB RAMP.#( IN FEET )1 INCH = FT.51010 200SHEET:DATE:C1.0JOB NUMBER:SCALE:22015BY:1601 OSOS ST.GEWADLL06-20-2023Page 148 of 198
ISLAY STREETEETETTGRWGMGMGMGMMMMMMMMMGGFF ELEV.=217.71'FF ELEV.=217.62'EXISTING BUILDINGSSPARAPETELEV.=232.82'ROOFLEV.=231.89'EV98989'ELNEIGHBORINGROOF ELEV.=231.89'CONCRETE CURB & GUTTERCURB & GUTTEERERCOCONCOONCONNCRCNCNNNCRECRCRETEREREREEEEEEETE DRDDDDEEDRDDRIVEWAYEWEWEWEWWEWYYYYYYYVEAWARIVVRYDRDRIVEWAYBOLLARDBOLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOLLOOLLOLLOLLOOLLOOLLOOOLLOLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBOBBOBOBOBOBOBBOBOERRRRRRRPAVEAAAAAAAAAVVVAEAVECONCRETECOOOORERERENEETETCRONRCOCOCOCOCOCOCOTEEEEEEEEKING LOTPAVED PARKIKINKINRKIKINRKIRKIRKIRKIGATE TRTRACKSTRACKRARAGATATATATTE TRATTE TRRAGATE TRAGATE TRARARARARAGATETETETETE TRTETE TRRARARARAGATETETETETE TRTETETERGATE TRARARAGATEGATETETETETE TRATETETETETETETETETE TRATETERARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARARATETETETETEETETETEEEETETETETEEEEETETECONCRETE PADRETE RRMOTORTORWITH GATE MOOWMOTMOOMOTOWWWWWWWWWWWWRRWWWWWWWWWWWWWWITHLARCELLAEALALALALALACCOVERHEAD CABLEFOR NEIGHBOROVERHEAD CABLEVEBLETO NEIGHBORINGTBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGBUILDINGTEREETEETETSSS
SS SSSS SS
RIVRIVIVSSSSS
EEEETETET209.9 INVV(±209.2 INV 8")NV1.2 INV).2(2111.)(FWFWFWWFWFWWWWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWWFWFWWFWFW FW FWW FWFWFWFWW FWF FWWWW FWFWF FWWWWWWWW
FWWW
FWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFWFW
FWFFFW FWWDRDDD VVLVVLVLLVVVLVVLVLVLVLVLVLVLVLVLVLVLLLLLLVLVLVVVVLVVVLVLLVLVLVLVLVLVOF
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWVVWWWWW 218.83 FF217.50 FF2COWWWW
WWW
W
W
W ONW
W
WWWWW
WWWWWW
NCNCWW
WW
WW
WWWWWWWWWWWW))))WWWSSSSSSSSFW
ETEETEEFWFWFWFWFWWWWFWWFWFWFWWFWFWFWBFWFFFFWFWFWFWFWFW FWW FW FW FWFW
FW
FW
1CRCRCRRCRERRCCCCCCRNCCNCNC24333333335555BLE6LL77S811CCCCECCC10ROROL339G111111111" WM FOR ADU1233331"=10'PRELIMINARY UTILITYSHEET:DATE:C2.0JOB NUMBER:SCALE:22015BY:1601 OSOS ST.RWDLL06-20-2023SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION NOTES:1INSTALL NEW WATER SERVICE LINE AND WATER METER PER CITY STANDARDS.2INSTALL NEW SANITARY SEWER LATERAL PER CITY STANDARDS.3INSTALL FIRE WATER LINE.4INSTALL DOUBLE CHECK VALVE. FDC INCORPORATED.5EXISTING GAS METER TO BE RELOCATED.6EXISTING OVERHEAD LINES TO BE REMOVED.7PROTECT-IN-PLACE EXISTING POLE AND GUY WIRE.8PROTECT-IN-PLACE EXISTING WATER METER.9EXISTING DOWNSPOUTS OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO BE ROUTED TOEXISTING BACK OF SIDEWALK.10NEW PAD MOUNTED TRANSFORMER PER PG&E.11INSTALL ELECTRICAL CONDUIT UNDERGROUND TO NEW & EXISTING BUILDINGS.12EXISTING SEWER LATERAL TO REMAIN FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE USE.#( IN FEET )1 INCH = FT.51010 200Page 149 of 198
ISLAY STREEY STRY STRETGREENWAYGMGMGMGMMMMMGMMMMGGGGMMSTO
P
OSOS STE
ETTEESCON
C
R
E
T
E
C
U
R
B
SSTTETESTSTSTTTTYSYSYS218.83 FF217.50 FF2SSWWWWWWOWOWOW
30.00' ROWROWROWOWOWOWOWOWOWWWWWRORORORORORO30.00' ROW3020.00' TOO URBRBRBRBRB
FACE-
OF-
C
U
CURRBRBRB
OM C
U
R
B
M
C
U
R
B
M
C
U
R
B
CCC UU RRRR BBBB
CUCOMMOM C
UMC
FROMFFFFFFFFFFFFRFRFFFFFFFR00' F0000000'F0F10.0000000000000000000000000001011111110010100' FFFFFFFFFFF00'00000000''OM
TO PLTOTOTOTOPL00'000000000000000000000000000000000000'00444.004.00000000'010.00' SW
1000'SW00'0'SWSW
W
(E) POLEPOLE()(E) GUYUUUUUUUEGYGGGYYEEEEEEGGGYYUY)GGGGUGGUYYUUGYYU(E)((E(E(E(EE)(E(E(E(E)(E) ()(((E) C.O.()()ET)(E) 5/8" WM TO BEETTGG 5/8EABANDONEDEETEET()ET)(E) FH(E) FH
PP ()(E) STOP SIGNSTSTT()STST (E) POLE()(E) D.I.()(3) (N) 1" WM[6260]()()(E) CURB RAMPCUCU()(E) RED CURB(E) RED CUR()(E) D.I.PP()P
(E) WVV()(E) SSMH) ())(E) CURB, GUTTER(((& SIDEWALK() ,()(E) CURB, GUTTERR& SIDEWALKKWAWAAALKK() ,(E) DRIVEWAY APRONY APROE) D()VEWAAYAY(N) DRSLAYLAYWAAAAAARON [2110]0]0]APISLISL000]]]()SLASLAURB, GUTTERUTT) CUR(N) CCUCURB GUTTERCUR) CN) CCCN) C) C) C) CCCC(NCURB)CUCCCCCC(NN))RRR4110]4410]0]0]4111041WALK [4030 & 40 & & SIDEWA0]0]0]0]&&0& SIDEWALK [400&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&WA0]00&&&&&&&&&&44441444)())))(N) PAD MOUNTEDTRANSFORMER()(19.94')CL TO CURB(10.15')CURB TO PLLFIRE RISERRRRROOM1"=20'PROPERTY INFO( IN FEET )1 INCH = FT.102020 400SHEET:DATE:C3.0JOB NUMBER:SCALE:22015BY:1601 OSOS ST.DLL06-20-2023Page 150 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23(E) OFFICE TO REMAINADDITION OF NEW FIREWALLNO
PARKING
65G65G95G95G95G65G65G95G95G95G12123344456747'-11"(E) OFFICE(N) DUPLEX(N) MULTIFAMILYBUILDINGISLAY STREETOSOS STREETL1.0proposed landscape PLANSCALE: 1” = 10’-0”NKEYNOTES1. (E) PROPERTY LINE2. (N) ADA PATH OF TRAVEL3. (E) 6'-0" TALL WOOD PRIVACY FENCE & GATE4. (N) RESIDENTIAL ENTRANCE5. (N) STREET TREE IN TREE WELL, TYP.6. (E) POLE GUY ANCHOR7. (N) DOUBLE CHECK DETECTOR VALVESITE PLAN NOTES1. REFER TO CIVIL SHEETS FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES AND EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE.SITE PLAN LEGEND(E) PROPERTY LINEBUILDING SETBACKACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVELPage 151 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23L2.0PLANT PALETTETREESQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZEREMARKS1 Garrya elliptica 'Evie' / Evie Coast Silktassel 15 gal Size: to 15' Tall x 8'-12' WideWUCOLS PF: .1-.31 Olea europaea 'Swan Hill' / Swan Hill Olive 24"box Size: to 25' Tall & WideWUCOLS PF: < .1SHRUBSQTYBOTANICAL / COMMON NAMESIZEREMARKS10 Calamagrostis x acutiflora 'Karl Foerster' / Karl Foerster Feather Reed Grass 1 gal Size: 1-3' Tall & WideWUCOLS PF: .4-.64 Ficus pumila / Creeping Fig 1 gal Size: Climbing / SpreadingWUCOLS PF: .4-.62 Myoporum parvifolium 'Pink' / Pink Trailing Myoporum 1 gal Size: <1' Tall x 6-12' WideWUCOLS PF: .1-.34 Salvia apiana compacta / Compact White Sage 1 gal Size: 4-5' Tall & WideWUCOLS PF: >.122 Sesleria autumnalis 'Campo Verde' / Campo Verde Autumn Moor Grass 1 gal Size: 1-3' Tall & WideWUCOLS PF: .4-.66 Trachelospermum jasminoides / Star Jasmine Trellis 1 gal Size: Climbing/SpreadingWUCOLS PF: .4-.6PLANT SCHEDULEEVIE COAST SILKTASSELSWAN HILL OLIVEKARL FOERSTER FEATHER REED GRASSCREEPING FIGPINK TRAILING MYOPORUMCOMPACT WHITE SAGESTAR JASMINE TRELLISCAMPO VERDE AUTUMN MOOR GRASSPage 152 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com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
DQG:DWHU6RXUFH5HVLGHQWLDO3RWDEOH:DWHU(7RRI&LW\IURP0:(/2GDWD(7R LQFKHV\HDU 2YHUKHDG/DQGVFDSH$UHD IW 'ULS/DQGVFDSH$UHD IW 6/$ IW 7RWDO/DQGVFDSH$UHD /$ IW
5HVLGHQWLDOSURMHFWVZLOOKDYHDQ(YDSRWUDQVSLUDWLRQ$GMXVWPHQW)DFWRU (7$) RI1RQUHVLGHQWLDOSURMHFWVZLOO KDYH DQ (7$)RI 5HVXOWV (7R [ [> (7$)[/$ (7$) [6/$@*DOORQVSHU\HDU+&) +XQGUHG&XELF)HHW SHU\HDU$FUHIHHWSHU\HDU6DQ/XLV2ELVSR7DQ&HOOV6KRZ5HVXOWV(QWHU9DOXHLQ%OXH&HOOV0D[LPXP$SSOLHG:DWHU$OORZDQFH&DOFXODWLRQVPage 153 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23A1.0EXISTING/DEMO SITE PLANNTRUE NORTHF.H.J.P.WATERMETERC.O.*02+2+2+2+2+
2+2+2+
2+2+2+2+2+2+12345(E) COMMERCIAL BUILDING678SCALE: 1” = 10’-0”KEYNOTES1. (E) CURB CUT TO BE DEMOLISHED, REPLACED AND RELOCATED PER CITY OF SLO ENGINEERING STANDARDS 2. PORTION OF (E) BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED3. OVERHEAD CABLE FOR NEIGHBORING DATA TO BE RELOCATED4. (E) 4" DIA. OLIVE TREE TO BE REMOVED5. (E) 7" DIA. PLUM TREE TO BE REMOVED6. (E) UTILITY POLE TO REMAIN, REFER TO CIVIL7. (E) GUY WIRE ANCHOR TO REMAIN, REFER TO CIVIL8. (E) GUY WIRE ABOVE TO REMAIN, REFER TO CIVILDEMOLITION SITE PLAN NOTES1. ASPHALT PARKING AREA TO BE RE-SEALED AND RE-STRIPED PER PROPOSED SITE PLAN ON SEET A1.1SITE PLAN LEGEND(E) BUILDING TO REMAIN(E) PROPERTY LINE(E) TO BE DEMOLISHEDPage 154 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23A1.1PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 1” = 10’-0”NTRUE NORTHKEYNOTES1. (N) CMU TRASH STORAGE SHALL MEET CITY OF SLO ENGINEER STANDARDS AND ZONE CODE 17.70.200 COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL REFUSE SERVICES SHALL BE SEPARATE2. (N) ACCESSIBLE PARKING STALL3. (E) PAVING TO BE RE-SEALED AND RE-STRIPED4. (N) CONCRETE WALKWAY5. (N) STREET TREE WELL, REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN6. (N) CONCRETE SLAB7. (N) LANDSCAPING AREA8. (E) FIRE HYDRANT9. (N) PRE-FABRICATED SHORT-TERM "PEAK STYLE" BICYCLE PARKING FOR AND RETAIL CUSTOMERS, TYP. OF (8) SPACES PER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO'S ENGINEERING STANDARDS #793010. (N) CURB, GUTTER AND DRIVEWAY APPROACH PER CITY ENGINEERING STANDARDS. REFER TO CIVIL SHEETS FOR MORE DETAILS11. TRASH BIN COLLECTION LOCATIONSITE PLAN NOTES1. REFER TO CIVIL SHEETS FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE, STORM DRAIN INLETS, UTILITIES, FIRE SPRINKLER WATER LATERAL IF REQUIRED AND STORM WATER PLAN FOR POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.SITE PLAN LEGENDBUILDINGS(E) PROPERTY LINEBUILDING SETBACKACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL(E) 6' TALL WOOD FENCETO REMAINS#VAN#STANDARD PARKING STALLEXTERIOR GRADE CAN LIGHT RECESSED INTO GROUND LEVEL CEILING TO CONFORM WITH CITY OF SLO NIGHT SKY GUIDELINESEXTERIOR GRADE WALL MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE TO CONFORM WITH CITY OF SLO NIGHT SKY GUIDELINSTANDARD ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKING STALL(E) OFFICE TO REMAINADDITION OF NEW FIREWALL1 BEDROOM UNIT374 SF1 BED UNIT500 SFNO
PARKING
TRASHPATIOPATH OF TRAVELS2S3C1VAN1
ELEC.ROOMFIRERISERDRIVE AISLEWHUP5'-0"SETBACK5'-0"SETBACK10'-0"SETBACK9'-6"8'-0"9'-6"9'-6"1'-2"8'-0"9'-6"8'-0"N. 53° 07'E110.00'N.36°53'W 54.07'N. 53° 07'E 110.00'N.36°53'W 54.07'38'-8"37'-8"23'-11"7'-3"17'-5"123467F.H.1081165G65G65G65G65G65GUPUP56.1' BAY WIDTH PER CITY OF SLO STANDARDSTWO WAY TRAFFIC W/ 9'-6" PARKING STALL WIDTH18.4' TYP.951'-6"UPDN95G95G95G65G65G95G95G95G95G95G95G95G95G95GWHUPFIRERISERC#COMPACT PARKING STALLPage 155 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23BEDROOMLIVINGROOMBATHKITCHEN4'-11"9'-9"2'-9"7'-3"10'-5"13'-6"5'-11"7'-6"19'-5"2'-4"2'-9"7'-10"21DN ( 2)),&(522)'83/(;375 SFBALCONY3'-0"(E) OFFICE TO REMAINADDITION OF NEW FIREWALLBEDROOMLIVINGROOMBATHKITCHENWH9'-9"2'-9"7'-3"10'-5"13'-6"5'-11"6'-9"4'-11"12'-7"2'-9"4'-6"3'-6"7'-10"2134UPDUPLEX375 SF4'-4"7"UP8'-7"5A2.0building 1 - DUPLEX 2nd floor planbuilding 1 - DUPLEX 1st floor planSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”NFLOOR PLAN LEGEND(E) BUILDING NOT IN SCOPE(E) WALLS TO BEDEMOLISHED(E) WALLS TO REMAIN(N) 2X WALL KEYNOTES1. (N) FIRE RISER2. FIRE SEPARATION WALL3. BALCONY ABOVE4. CANOPY ABOVE5. (N) ELECTRICAL METERSPage 156 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23A2.1LINE OF BUILDING/ROOF ABOVEFLOOR PLAN LEGENDKEYNOTES1. (N) LONG TERM, WALL MOUNTED DOUBLE BIKE STORAGE TYP.2. (N) ELECTRICAL METERS, SINGLE STACKED METER SET3. WALL MOUNTED CONDENSER UNITS FOR IN UNIT MINI-SPLIT SYSTEMS 4. ADJACENT RAMPDN
UP
BEDROOMBATHKITCHENLIVINGROOMBALCONY1-BED560 SFBEDROOMBEDROOMLIVINGROOMBALCONY2-BED581 SFBATHKITCHENWH WHUTIL./STOR.UTIL./STOR.WDWD1'-9"10'-6"10'-11"10'-6"4'-0"2'-10"23'-4"2'-7"9'-11"10'-712"7'-1"6'-712"10'-7"2'-9"2'-10"15'-312"10'-312"2'-7"7'-8"2'-6"2'-6"111 BED UNITADAPTABLE500 SFBALCONYELEC.ROOMFIRERISERWHTRASH13'-0"6'-0"18'-8"5'-0"5'-6"12'-8"19'-6"8'-6"28'-6"1'-8"W/D1239'-10"23'-10"9'-11"7'-312"4UPDNUPUPbuilding 2 - MULTIFAMILY BUILDING2nd floor plan (3RD SIM.)building 2 - MULTIFAMILY BUILDING1st floor planSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”NPage 157 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23A3.0EXISTING building 1 EAST ELEVATIONEXISTING building 1 NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”TO BE DEMOLISHED12APPROX. TOP OF BUILDING15'-8" EXISTING TO REMAIN121. NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTING, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIGNAGEEXISTING ELEVATION NOTESKEYNOTES1. (E)VERTICAL SIDING2. (E)WHITE TRIMPage 158 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23A3.1EXISTING building 1 WEST ELEVATIONEXISTING building 1 SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”TO BE DEMOLISHED13TO BE DEMOLISHED1331. NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTING, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SIGNAGEEXISTING ELEVATION NOTESKEYNOTES1. (E)VERTICAL SIDING2. (E)WHITE TRIM3. (E)CMU WALLPage 159 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23DUPLEX 1ST FLOOR0'-0"DUPLEX 2ND FLOOR10'-6"TOP OF ROOF PARAPET23'-6"122 building 1 SOUTH ELEVATIONbuilding 1 WEST ELEVATIONbuilding 1 EAST ELEVATIONbuilding 1 NORTH ELEVATION3124512A3.2KEYNOTES1. VEVRTICAL SIDING (MATCH EXISTING COLOR WHERE NEW)2. 1X12 WHITE TRIM3. (E)CMU WALL - NO CHANGE4. (N)METAL AWNING5. (N) METAL JULIET BALCONYSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”, TYP.Page 160 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23A3.3building 2 EAST ELEVATIONbuilding 2 NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”67)/225
1')/225
5')/225
7232)522)
building 2 SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”building 2 west ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”, TYP.SCALE: 1/8”KEYNOTES1. STUCCO EXTERIOR FINISH2. BOARD & BATTEN SIDING3. WOOD LOOK FIBER CEMENT4. SIDING TRIM5. WINDOW6. METAL BALCONY7. METAL AWNINGPage 161 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23MULTIFAMILY BUILDING MATERIALSEXISTING MATERIALSNO PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTING SIGNAGE. NO NEW SIGNAGE PROPOSEDWINDOWSW 6258 TRICORN BLACKEXISTING AWNING TO REMAINCORRUGATED METALEXISTING CMU BLOCKPAINTED GRAYTO REMAINEXISTING WOOD 1X4 TRIMPAINTED WHITETO REMAINFIBER CEMENTBOARD & BATTEN SIDINGSW 7562 ROMAN COLUMNEXISTING WOOD VERTICAL SIDINGPAINTED GRAYTO REMAINNEW BUILDINGS CITYWIDE SHALL INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING CONTRUCTION METHODS AND MATERIALS: IGNITION RESISTANT EXTERIOR WALL COVERINGS; FIRE SPRINKLER PROTECTION IN ATTIC AREAS (AT LEAST ONE "PILOT HEAD"); EMBER RESISTANT VENT SYSTEMS FOR ATTICS AND UNDER FLOOR AREAS, PROTECTED EAVES, AND CLASS 'A' ROOF COVERINGS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CHAPTER 7Aall new buildings shall have exterior construction materials that conform to chapter 7a of the building code or r337 of the crc for exposure to wildfireFIBER CEMENT TRIMSW 6258 TRICORN BLACKCONCRETE LOOK, SMOOTH STUCCO EXTERIOR FINISHWOOD LOOK FIBER CEMENT HORIZONTAL SIDING MATERIAL BOARDA3.4AWNINGS, PAINTED BLACK SW 6258 TRICORN BLACKEXISTING WOOD 1X12 TRIMPAINTED WHITETO REMAINFIBER CEMENT BOARD & BATTEN SIDING, PAINTED GRAYTO MATCH EXISTING BUILDINGDUPLEX MATERIALSSMOOTH STUCCO EXTERIOR FINISHPage 162 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23A4.0VIEW FROM ISLAY STREET - (N) DUPLEX & MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGTHE PROPOSED BUILDINGS MAINTAIN THE PREVAILING CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EXISTING HOUSES SURROUNDING THE SITE AND IN THE HISTORIC RAILROAD DISTRICT DISTINGUISHED BY:• SIMPLICITY OF FORM/DETAILING• painted wood siding• FLAT/SHED ROOFPage 163 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23A4.1VIEW FROM ISLAY STREET - (N) DUPLEX & MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGPage 164 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23EX.1Residential Site context976 ISLAY1626 OSOS1604 MORRO981 BUCHON1703 SANTA BARBARA many surrounding homes have exterior parking board and batten siding and stucco are prevalent materials throughout the neighborhood flat roofs & shed roof buildings are seen within the neighborhood Page 165 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/231638 OSOS976 LEFF1601 OSOSEX.2surrounding commercial buildings have flat roofscommercial Site contextPage 166 of 198
539 Marsh StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA805.541.1010info@tenoverstudio.com1601 OSOS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CADATE:08/23/23EX.3ELEVATION FROM ISLAY STREET ELEVATION EXHIBIT FROM DESIGN GUIDELINES VISUAL STUDY from osos street, the new buildingS STEP UP IN SCALE FROM 1 TO 3 STORIESPage 167 of 198
Page 168 of 198
railroad district plan
page
architectural guidelines
Architectural Guidelines for the Railroad District
San Luis Obispo has adopted citywide architectural guidelines which apply to new buildings, significant remodels, site improvements, and public area im-
provements. The Railroad District Architectural Guidelines are to supplement the citywide architectural guidelines and are to be applied in a similar manner,
except that they apply only to the Railroad District as shown in Figure 4. Within this area, new development, remodels and additions, site improvements,
and publicly-funded projects should follow these guidelines. Property owners, developers, designers, City staff and advisory bodies, such as the Cultural
Heritage Committee, Architectural Review Commission and the Planning Commission will use these guidelines to review development projects, consistent
with Municipal Code Chapter 2.48.
Many of the older buildings in the Railroad District are generally described as “Railroad Vernacular” buildings. A variety of architectural styles fall under this
category. Some of the more common architectural elements exemplifying this architectural style are illustrated in this document. These examples provide a
“menu” of architectural elements which can be incorporated into new development projects in the Railroad District. New buildings need not include all of these
elements, nor be designed to be a replica of a historic building. The Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission interpret the guidelines
and will consider contemporary architectural styles which are consistent with these guidelines and which complement the District’s historic character.
Examples of different architectural styles that may generally be referred to as Railroad Vernacular.
Page 169 of 198
railroad district plan
page
architectural guidelines
1. Simple, rectilinear building forms should
predominate.
2. Lower building level (ground floor) massing
should be horizontal with equal or lesser volume
on upper levels.
3. Use medium-sloping roofs, generally 4:12 - 8:12
pitch.
4. False-front buildings with shed roofs and parapets
may be used.
5. Gable, hip, and shed roof forms are typical, with
some combinations and minor variations.
6. Deep roof overhangs are common, particularly
for commercial buildings, at ground floor level.
7. Roof overhangs are typically supported with
exposed, diagonal support braces or decorative
brackets.
8. Simple gable, hipped, or Dutch hipped dormers
can be used for light or ventilation.
Building Form, Massing, and
Roof Lines
Shed roofed buildings help increase light and ventilation in
industrial buildings and contribute to the character of the
District.
Roof lines and details.Simple, rectilinear building forms.
Page 170 of 198
railroad district plan
page
Doors and Windows
1. Doors and windows should emphasize
symmetry and be vertically oriented.
2. Doors should typically be single or multi-
panel, occasionally with glazing and transom
windows above doors.
3. Windows are typically fixed, or double hung,
often with divided lites.
4. Windows are often grouped in multiples of
two or three, side by side.
5. Horizontal windows may be used with
divided lites and may be grouped.
6. Doors and windows should generally have
wood or plaster trim.
7. Windows in plaster buildings may be arched
and recessed, sometimes with wood trim.
architectural guidelines
Single and multi-panel doors emphasizing
symmetry.
Various windows, single and grouped, with
divided lites.
This rendering shows many of the elements which
contribute to the Railroad Vernacular style, including eaves
with exposed rafters, a single panel door, and recessed
windows with divided lites.
Page 171 of 198
railroad district plan
page
architectural guidelines
Surface Treatment and Colors
Wood Buildings
1. Horizontal and vertical shiplap, “V-rustic” siding, or board and batten siding are common.
2. Shingles are often used as infill siding for gable ends or above doors and windows, away
from people contact areas.
3. Wood trim is commonly used to create decorative patterns.
4. Siding may change direction in the same plane to provide variety in surface pattern and
texture.
5. Horizontal trim may be used to separate board patterns or to create a wainscot effect.
6. Emphasize lighter earthtones such as tan and ochre, with contrasting trim and roof colors.
Accent colors are generally low chroma and relatively neutral colors.
7. Common roof materials include composition shingle, rolled asphalt roofing, built-up roofing,
low profile corrugated metal, and barrel tile. Barrel tile is occasionally used to accent ridges
on composition shingle roofs.
8. If chimneys are used, they are generally of brick with simple ornamentation at the cap.
9. Foundations are commonly emphasized with brick, stone, or plaster wainscot.
Plaster/Masonry Buildings
1. Brick is commonly used as an exterior building material.
2. Plaster should have a smooth, hand-finished appearance. Stucco or heavily-troweled finishes
should be avoided.
3. Plaster buildings are usually white or off-white with accent plaster colors at wainscot or in
accent areas. Accent colors should be pastel or low chroma.
4. Plaster building wainscots at lower walls may be flush and painted simply, or dimensional.
5. Roof material is generally barrel tile, or sometimes “diamond pattern” or similar decorative
composition shingle roofing with accent tiles. Built-up roofing is also common.
Auxiliary Buildings
1. Auxiliary buildings may be sided with the same material as adjacent principle buildings on
the same lot; or if solitary, wood or unpainted corrugated metal panel siding is common.
2. Roofs should generally consist of composition shingles or corrugated metal panels.
Wood or corrugated metal panel siding, or plaster are
common surfaces. Stucco should be avoided.
Page 172 of 198
railroad district plan
page
Architectural Details
1. Commercial buildings generally have simple detailing with little decoration or ornamentation.
2. Some carved shapes are used for rafter tiles, brackets, roof eave bracing, and roof gutters.
3. More elaborate ornamentation is common on masonry buildings, including parapet details, towers or decorative cornices or quoins.
4. Finials and decorative wood work is sometimes used at roof ridges.
5. Plaster corners are typically rounded.
6. Connection details, particularly for large structures, are visually emphasized, sometimes with timber connectors, bolts, brackets or other similar
hardware.
7. Linear raised decks or platforms common with structures with raised floors.
8. Exterior-mounted mechanical equipment, including HVAC units, fire suppression equipment, and antennas should be architecturally
screened.
Signs and Awnings
1. Signage should generally be non-illuminated. Spot lighting should be used where lighting is needed.
2. Signs should either be monument type, or painted or applied individual letters directly on building walls.
3. The City will consider exceptions to Sign Regulations to encourage historic sign designs and placement.
4. Signs within the Railroad right-of-way should be simple, clearly legible, and reflect historical railroad graphic standards and colors.
architectural guidelines
Elaborate ornamentation is common on masonry buildings. The City will consider exceptions to the Sign Regulations to encourage historic sign designs.
Page 173 of 198
railroad district plan
page 0
architectural guidelines
Site and Public Area Improvements
1. Site improvements, such as seating areas, bollards, stairs, ramps and
walkways should be designed to complement the railroad architectural
character. Public improvements such as, but not limited to, traffic controls,
street lights, signs, benches and trash containers should be designed
in a historic character similar to styles prevalent in the Railroad District
before 1950, and they shall be approved by the Architectural Review
Commission before the final design is completed.
2. Lighting in the depot area should closely resemble the design of the
railroad era downlights used in the passenger platform area. All lighting
should be shielded to prevent glare onto adjacent properties.
3. Pole lights, bollards, information signs, trees and other vertical landscape
features should be used to create repetitive, linear, rhythmic elements along
the railroad corridor to complement the District’s historic character.
4. In the passenger depot and other high traffic areas, an open-style,
decorative fencing and/or rails should be used. In non-traffic areas
abutting the railroad right-of-way, storage areas, construction yards and
similar uses should be visually screened from the railroad right-of-way.
Appropriate fencing materials include vinyl-clad chainlink, steel picket,
wrought iron and other similar, low-maintenance open fences which
discourage graffiti. Combination wood and metal rails may also be
appropriate. Solid, plain masonry and concrete, walls; and residential-style
wood fencing should generally be avoided or accompanied by climbing
vines to discourage graffiti.
5. Security fencing, such as barbed or concertina wire, should be minimized
where visible from the railroad yard or a public way. The Architectural
Review Commission may approve the use of security fencing when
such materials are visually compatible with their surroundings and used
sparingly.
6. Public sidewalks along portions of Osos, Santa Barbara, Church, Emily,
High, and Roundhouse streets within the Railroad District should be a
City-approved wood boardwalk design.
7. Decorative paving using patterns or integral color is encouraged in specific
areas to define or clarify circulation or activity areas.
8. Pedestrian bridges, underpasses and other transportation- or rail-related
structures should use historic materials and design elements. Possible
elements include: metal and heavy timber structural supports with
exposed connectors; local stone or brick foundations or bases; and use
of spur track, railroad ties or other railroad equipment and materials.
Figure 26: Railroad District
pedestrian lighting, typical
Page 174 of 198
railroad district plan
page 1
Landscape Design
1. Planting areas should be provided: 1)
in or adjacent to outdoor public use
areas; 2) along the railroad right-of-way
to screen storage yards, solid walls or
fences, or unsightly views; and along
public street parkways.
2. Planting should be used sparingly to
define pedestrian use areas, waiting
areas, and other high visibility/high traffic
areas that can be regularly maintained.
3. Planting within the railroad right-of-way
should be low-profile, generally not over
12-15 feet tall, to provide screening and
color.
4. Tree planting within or immediately
adjacent to the railroad right-of-way
should emphasize open, medium-
height canopy trees; and trees should
be selected and placed to preserve and
frame scenic vistas of the Morros and
surrounding hillsides. Within the historic
Railroad Yard, Canary Island Date Palms
or equal should be used to extend the
Southern Pacific theme as an entry
statement for the Railroad District.
architectural guidelines
Railroad District boardwalk.
Page 175 of 198
railroad district plan
page 2
Residential Buildings
1. New residential buildings should generally maintain the prevailing
spacing, scale, setbacks and character of older houses and
apartments along Osos, Santa Barbara, and Church streets.
2. New houses and apartments should generally reflect the District’s
predominant architectural styles, which include, but are not limited
to California Bungalow, Spanish Revival, Italianate, and Victorian.
New development should include architectural features common to
the particular architectural style.
3. Raised foundations, covered front porches, and recessed front entries
are common residential architectural features.
4. Architectural detailing at roof gable ends, roof eaves, windows, doors,
railings, foundations, and chimneys should be emphasized, and be
used consistently on all building elevations.
5. Site features such as exterior lighting, paving, walls, fences, railings
and landscaping should be selected for ease of maintenance and for
compatibility with traditional designs and materials.
6. Utility areas, trash enclosures, and uncovered parking spaces (except
in driveways) should generally be screened with landscaping and/or
low walls or fencing.
Remodels and Additions
1. Remodels and additions should be sensitive to the building’s original
character and to the character of adjacent buildings. Roof pitch,
building form and materials, windows and doors, and architectural
detailing should, where possible, match existing building features
and be compatible with the scale, spacing, setbacks and massing
of adjacent buildings within the Railroad Historic District.
2. Building colors and materials should complement the building’s
historic character. When remodeling designated historic structures,
materials and details should be used honestly such as wood sash
windows to replace existing wood windows. Simulated or veneer
products should generally be avoided.
3. When remodeling or adding on to designated historic structures,
property owners and designers are encouraged to follow the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
architectural guidelines
Figure 27: Residential Remodel and Addition
Above: This rendering shows the potential for remodelling and expanding residential structures while
maintaining the architectural character of the Railroad District. Below: A photograph of the structure.
Page 176 of 198
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
Staff Memorandum
CHC meeting of September 25, 2023
TO: Cultural Heritage Committee
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: (Discussion Item # 5a) – Draft Request for Proposals scope for Phase
1 of the Historic Resources Inventory Update project
On February 27, 2023, staff provided a brief overview of a consultant provided
recommendation on how the City should proceed with an update to the Historic
Resources Inventory. The CHC endorsed the recommended approach to update
the Historic Resources Inventory with minor comments and corrections to be
included in the final recommendations memo (attached). Subsequently, the effort to
update the Historic Resources Inventory was funded in the FY23-25 budget in two
phases consistent with recommendations. The attached draft Request for Proposals
(RFP) document includes a scope intended to result in consultant proposals
consistent with recommendations on needed updates of the Historic Preservation
Ordinance and Historic Context statement to guide future efforts to update the
historic inventory.
Staff will provide a brief overview of the RFP scope at the meeting. Please review
the attached documents for discussion at the meeting.
Attachments: Preliminary assessments and recommendations
selected pages for RFP
Item 5a
Page 177 of 198
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 March 9, 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 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 178 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 2 of 18
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 179 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 3 of 18
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 180 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 4 of 18
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 prope rties 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 181 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 5 of 18
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 19 th 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 hi story
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 dis trict 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 182 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 6 of 18
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 183 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 7 of 18
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 19 th- 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 184 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 8 of 18
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 desc ribed
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 designatio n 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 185 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 9 of 18
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Calabasas, properties listed on the National Registe r 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 186 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 10 of 18
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 187 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 11 of 18
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 188 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 12 of 18
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
$24,000 - $45,000 6 months
Phase 2 – Add to Inventory of Historic Resources
2.1 – Inventory Update Survey Plan $15,000 - $25,000. 5 months
2.2 – Inventory Update Survey Implementation $71,000 - $98,000 9 months
Total Estimated Fee Range and Duration $154,000 - $235,000 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 C HC 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.
Page 189 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 13 of 18
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) In collaboration with the City’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, i dentify 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 groups and individuals affiliated with the
Northern Chumash, Salinan Tribe, and other 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, an d
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 ac cordingly for
administrative review, public review, CHC review, and final adoption.
Page 190 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 14 of 18
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
Page 191 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 15 of 18
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
• Assessment of integrity
• 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: $15,500 - $25,000
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 192 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 16 of 18
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 peri ods
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; ot her 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.
e) Develop a Volunteer Surveyor Training Plan for instruction of volunteers who may include
students from California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, public and private
secondary schools in San Luis Obispo, and local historical societies. The training plan will
include brief a brief description of basic reconnaissance and intensive survey methods,
visual references for common architectural styles and building types, and guidelines for field
photography. The training plan will be prepared as an appendix to the survey plan, such that
it may be utilized as a standalone document during 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.
Page 193 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 17 of 18
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
Task 2.2 – Survey and Evaluation of Potential Resources
Estimated Resource Commitment: $71,000 - $98,000
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
descriptions and estimates represent typical approaches and scales that may be implemented. Each
of these survey subtasks could be repeated as needed for different areas of the city, with the
estimated resource commitment dependent on the number of properties included in each survey
area and intensity of the survey.
The total estimated resource commitment for Task 2.2 assumes one Type 1 reconnaissance survey
of up to 500 properties, one Type 2 intensive survey of 25 potential individually eligible properties,
and two Type 3 surveys for new historic districts.. This estimated number of resources, and thus the
estimated resource commitment, is preliminary, and would be refined through completion of Phase
1 and Task 2.1.
Type 1 Survey: Reconnaissance
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. Field survey would include training and supervision of volunteer survey crew
members, based on the Volunteer Surveyor Training Plan prepared as part of Task 2.1. The
deliverable would include lists and maps of potential historic resources and districts for further
review. Estimated Resource Commitment: $22,000 - $32,000 for each survey of approximately 500
properties.
Type 2 Survey: Intensive Recording and Evaluation – 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 fie ld 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. Field survey
would include training and supervision of volunteer survey crew members, based on the Volunteer
Surveyor Training Plan prepared as part of Task 2.1. The time estimate for research and form
preparation assumes the use of pre-prepared context, basic architectural description, and limited
Page 194 of 198
Preliminary Assessment - San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources [22288]
Page 18 of 18
PAGE & TURNBULL 170 MAIDEN LANE, 5TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108 TEL 415-362-5154
property-specific research. Resource Commitment: $27,000 - $36,000 for each survey of up to 25
individually eligible properties.
Type 3 Survey: Intensive Recording and Evaluation – 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 t he National Register, California
Register, and local criteria. Field survey would include training and supervision of volunteer survey
crew members, based on the Volunteer Surveyor Training Plan prepared as part of Task 2.1. 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:
$11,000 - $15,000 for each survey of one district with 10 to 25 contributors.
Page 195 of 198
-1-
A. INTRODUCTION
Background and Project Purpose
The City of San Luis Obispo is pursuing a two-phase project to accomplish an update of its Inventory of
Historic Resources. The first phase of the effort is the subject of this RFP which includes necessary updates
to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) and Historic Context Statement (HCS) to guide the update
to the City’s list of historic resources. The City’s historic inventory was established in 1983 and has been
updated with subsequent surveys and individual actions to add (list) or remove (delist) properties from
the City’s inventory. The majority of the properties on the list were added prior to the City’s adoption of
the HPO in 2010 and the City’s HCS which was adopted in 2013. The HPO includes the eligibility criteria
for listing as a Master List of Contributing List Resource and the City’s Historic Context Statement is a key
document for establishing preservation priorities and significant context themes to guide evaluations of
eligibility for additions or removal of existing resources from the historic resource inventory. The scope
and deliverables included in this RFP (Phase 1) to update the HPO and HCS will provide the updated
definitions/criteria and preservation priorities and significant context themes to guide subsequent work
to update the full inventory.
Historic Preservation Program Overview
The City of San Luis Obispo is a Certified Local Government (CLG) with the Cultural Heritage Committee
(CHC) serving as its Historic Preservation Commission. The City has four historic districts and there are
currently 760 locally designated properties including 198 Master List properties and 562 Contributing
properties. The City also has an active Mills Act program with 52 properties under Historic Preservation
contracts with the City.
For more information and links to the City’s HPO, HCS and Historic Districts, please view the City’s Historic
and Archaeological Preservation Program website: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/historic-and-archeological-preservation
B. SCOPE OF WORK
Historic Preservation Ordinance - Regulatory Framework
Prepare a comprehensive update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) related to the evaluation
and designation of historic resources which includes the following:
(1) Update the HPO to be more consistent with guidance on definitions and evaluation of significant
historic resources from the National Park Service and State of California Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP) including guidance in the OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin #14 – Drafting
Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances: A Manual for California’s Local Governments.
(2) Definitions: Update and clarify current classifications of “Contributing” and “Master List” historic
resources to communicate a clear difference in significance or levels of protection between the
two categories.
Page 196 of 198
-2-
(3) Update or revise definitions for “Historic Property,” “Historic Resource,” and “Sensitive Site,” to
more clearly convey how these terms are differently applied with respect to implementation of
the City’s Historic Preservation Policies.
(4) Revise inaccurately referenced Zoning Chapter 17.54 for Historic district/historic
preservation district (Sections 14.01.020 and 14.01.080 - Should be 17.56)
(5) Update “non-contributing” resource classification to clearly apply to only within the context of
historic districts. Definitions should also be added which may include “non-historic property” or
“age ineligible” for properties outside districts which do not meet significance criteria.
(6) Remove the redundant partial definition of “Contributing properties” in 14.01.050.
(7) Review and recommend potential updates for notification and consent by owners of individual
properties nominated by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) in 14.01.050.
(8) Amend 14.01.55 to clarify 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” maybe listed on the Inventory of
Historic Resources as either individual properties or contributors to historic districts.
(9) Revise the current criteria of 14.01.070 (has sixteen different potential aspects of significance) to
simplify and more closely reflect the NRHP and CRHR criteria. This should also include revision of
“integrity” currently listed by itself as a potential criterion of significance.
(10) Update 14.01.080 to clearly refer to criteria for designation of Historic districts similar to “H”
overlay discussion in Zoning Chapter 17.56.010.B
(11) Update 14.01.090 to clarify only the Council or CHC may initiate a process to establish or alter
the boundaries of a Historic Preservation District and remove the requirement to develop
“graphic or written design guidelines” which should be a separate process.
(12) Explore and recommend potential updates to 14.01.090.E.2. for more clarity or review criterion
for numbers or proportions of individually eligible properties which should be in a proposed
district.
(13) Recommend any other updates or amendments which would improve the HPO’s regulatory
framework for determining historic resource significance.
Please note that City staff will be concurrently working to update the HPO to clarify review procedures
and other needed updates outside the scope of the above items. It is anticipated that the HPO update will
include both the updates in the scope of consultant services noted herein that relate to the evaluation
and designation of historic resources, and other staff recommended updates to clarify review procedures
and other updates to add necessary cross references. City staff will be fully responsible for all aspects of
the update that fall outside the scope noted above in items 1-13 or that are contained in the consultant
proposal.
Historic Context Statement
Prepare an update to the Historic Context Statement which includes the following:
(1) Update the discussion and evaluate and recommend resource types regarding the contribution of
Chumash and other Native American Tribal groups to include traditional cultural properties and
other resource types (in addition to archaeological resources) associated with the area’s historic
and current Native American residents and communities.
(2) Evaluate, recommend, and include needed updates to the “Ethnic Communities” discussion to
potentially include more detail on distinct cultural groups and their contributions and associations
with San Luis Obispo’s past.
Page 197 of 198
-3-
(3) Evaluate, recommend, and include updates to transportation related development that include
later changes (currently limited to late 19th Century) in the use of rail lines and the growth of
automobile focused routes and infrastructure.
(4) Evaluate, recommend, and include updates for groups and themes that are not included in the
current context statement including but not limited to LGBTQ+ communities, African
American/Black communities, Latinx communities, and labor history.
(5) Complete a comprehensive review of the Historic Context Statement and evaluate, recommend,
and include any other updates needed for a fully up to date document that can more effectively
guide decisions on resource eligibility in the upcoming historic resource inventory update.
Completion date: early calendar year 2025 (see draft/preliminary schedule below)
Presentations/Public Hearings: The consultant should be available for two hearings at the CHC (one study
session and one final review for recommendation to Council) and one hearing for the City Council to
consider final adoption of the updated documents. The consultant will be ready to present the
recommended updates and answer questions from the CHC, City Council and the public. There will also
be periodic meetings either virtual or in person with a CHC subcommittee to provide guidance on the
updates as the project progresses.
Deliverables: Products include administrative draft documents, public draft documents, versions ready for
final CHC review and a final document that responds to CHC and final staff feedback for Council review.
Personnel: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner and Cultural Heritage Committee Liaison is the project lead and
will be assisted by City staff.
C. PROJECT SCHEDULE
Preliminary
Schedule*
Tasks
October 16, 2023 • RFP Sent to qualified consultants
November 17, 2023 • Consultant proposals due
December 8, 2023 • Consultant selection and contract execution
December 15, 2023 • Kick-off meeting with staff team
April-May 2024 • CHC Study session
September-October
2024
• Administrative Draft update documents to City
November 2024 • City comments/edits on admin draft documents
December 2024 • Final Draft for CHC review
January 2025 • CHC Review Public Hearing
February 2025 • Updated draft based on any needed updates from CHC review
March-April 2025 • City Council review for approval Historic Context Statement update and
Ordinance introduction for Historic Preservation Ordinance
*estimate/rough schedule only - schedule may be updated based on consultant recommended changes
and additional detail included in the proposal including outreach, subcommittee meetings, staff
collaboration, etc.
Page 198 of 198