HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/04/2001, PH3 - REVIEW OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE WHITE PAPER RESPONSE AND REVISIONS TO THE BUILDING DEMOLI Council M.. DA� q-4- 01
j ac En oA RepoRt Itw Number PH
3
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Director
Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Plannei-,..
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE WHITE
PAPER RESPONSE AND REVISIONS TO THE BUILDING
DEMOLITION AND RELOCATION CODE.
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), receive the White Paper Response
and introduce an ordinance to print amending the City's Building Demolition and Relocation
Code to provide a discretionary review procedure for demolition or relocation of structures 50
years old or older, with additional changes to the code to insure consistency with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
DISCUSSION
Background
On June 20, 2000, the CHC presented the White Paper (see Council Reading File) to the City
Council, outlining a series of issues relative to historic preservation and providing
recommendations for changes to the City's Historic Preservation Program and building
demolition procedures. The Council directed Community Development Department staff to
address the concerns of the CHC and prepare a response to the White Paper. Since the White
Paper was first submitted to the City Council, the Community Development Department has
been working to address many of the issues raised by the CHC. Staff has recently completed the
White Paper Response (Attachment 1), which discusses steps that the Department is taking to
implement continued improvements to the City's Historic Preservation Program.
CHC Review
On July 23, 2001 the Community Development Department presented the White Paper Response
to the CHC. Overall, the CHC thinks that the White Paper Response is well thought out and
shows that the Community Development Department has a high regard for the City's Historic
Preservation Program. The Response, which the CHC endorsed on a 6-0 vote (Pavlik absent),
addresses the six main issue areas in the White Paper, which are Demolition Regulations,
Historic Resource Inventories, Local/State Rules, Education of Staff and Commissions, Heritage
Tourism/Public Education, and Recognition Awards. The CHC asked for further work on two
issues, sanctions for violating the revised demo regulations and local standards for determining
9—
Council Agenda Report _
CHC White Paper Response
Page 2
impacts to contributing historic structures. The CHC also asked that all of the City's goals and
policies for historic preservation be compiled and included in the next update to the Historical.
Preservation Program Guidelines. Although the CHC will continue discussion of these items,
they believe the most important aspect of the White Paper Response is the proposed amendment
of the Demolition and Building Relocation Code, and they forwarded the revisions to Council to
be enacted as soon as possible.
Evaluation
A. Building Demolition and Relocation Code Revisions
Appendix 1 of the White Paper Response includes a legislative draft of the proposed code
revisions. The changes simplify the code language significantly. As a result, the code should be
easier to understand and use.
One of the most effective requirements of the current code is a 90-day relocation period prior to
the demolition of structures that are over 50 years old. During this 90-day period the applicant is
required to advertise the structures as available for relocation at least three times in a local paper.
The current code also requires photo-documentation of these structures. These requirements do
not change.
The revised code keeps the 90-day relocation period in place and implements a Community
Development Director review during this period to determine if the structure or structures
proposed for demolition are potentially historic resources. Staff and the CHC believe that this
review for potentially historic resources is necessary because there may be structures within the
City that are historic resources, but that are not currently listed in the Historic Preservation
Program's Inventory of Historic Resources. The change is also intended to address the CHC's
concern that developers have been using the demolition permit process to avoid a thorough
evaluation of historic resources on development sites by demolishing or relocating structures
prior to submittal of a development application.
B. Sanctions
The CHC discussed the concept of attaching sanctions to the proposed revisions of the Building
Demolition and Relocation Code. The CHC discussed sanctions with respect to two scenarios.
The first situation the Committee was concerned about was an outright violation of the code,
involving unauthorized demolitions. The other scenario involves a circumstance called benign
neglect, where a property owner chooses to let their property fall into disrepair over time. The
Committee was concerned about both situations and asked staff to research the issue by finding
out if any other cities with historic preservation programs have had success with sanctions. Staff
will follow-up on the CHC's request by contacting other Cities and by consulting other
professional resources. Staff will return to the CHC in the fall of this year to continue the
discussion regarding sanctions.
3-Z
Council Agenda Report
CHC White Paper Response
Page 3
C. Thresholds of Significance for Environmental Review
The thresholds that are attached to the White Paper Response (Appendix III)have been compiled
to guide planning staff in determining the impact of a project proposal on a historic resource.
The thresholds represent a compilation of the City's current standards and the standards
contained in the California Environmental Quality Act for determining impacts to historic
resources. Under the CEQA standard, all properties on the City's Inventory of Historic
Resources are considered significant historic resources "unless the preponderance of evidence
demonstrates that (the structure) is not historically or culturally significant" (CEQA Guidelines
15064.5(2), see Attachment 3). In compliance with this standard, the CHC reviews all
modifications to structures on the City's Contributing and Master List historic properties.
In general, CHC review is intended to insure that projects are designed in a manner that is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
CEQA uses the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as its standard for insuring that projects do
not impact historic resources. Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines provides a categorical
exemption for projects that are consistent with the Standards. Section 15064.5(b)(3) states that
projects that are consistent with the Standards"shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less
than a significant impact on the historical resource."
If the CHC finds that a project on a historic resource site is inconsistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards, then the project would not qualify fora categorical exemption to CEQA and
a potentially significant impact would exist.- Mitigation would be required through the adoption
of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. If the CHC finds that a project on a historic resource site
would create a substantial adverse change in the significance of the historic resource which
cannot be mitigated, for instance if demolition is proposed, then an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR)would be required.
The CHC is interested in further discussion regarding thresholds of significance. Staff believes
that an important aspect of this discussion is deciding where the City's Inventory of Historic
Resources falls with respect to the CEQA definition of a historic resource. Is every property on
the City's Contributing List and Master List a historic resource by the CEQA definition? The
CHC would like to discuss this question and determine if properties should be evaluated on a
case by case basis, as development is proposed, or if thresholds of significance can be used to
develop a more definitive standard.
CONCURRENCES
The White Paper Response has been a Community Development Department project, with
coordination between the Planning Division and Building Division of the Department.
3 -3
Council Agenda Report
CHC White Paper Response
Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed revisions to the Building Demolition and Relocation Code will result in nominal
staff time costs in order to develop a new supplemental application form and implement new
procedures in the Community Development Department. In fiscal year 2000-2001, the Building
Division processed 19 demolition permits. Approximately half of these involved structures over
50 years old. As a result, existing funding is adequate to support the proposed code amendment.
The Community Development Department will prepare a fee analysis to determine an
appropriate fee for the ongoing expenses created by this new review procedure. If funding is
required to support Fiscal Year 2003-2005 costs, the amount will be included as part of the
Recommended 2003-2005 Budget.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the White Paper Response and the proposed revisions to the
Building Demolition and Relocation Code and provide direction to staff regarding
additional information necessary to make a decision.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: CHC Memorandum and the White Paper Response
Attachment 2: Draft minutes from the July 23, 2001 CHC meeting
Attachment 3: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5
Attachment 4: Draft Ordinance Amending the Building Demolition and Relocation Code
Council Reading File:
"Status of Historic Preservation in the City of San Luis Obispo," Cultural Heritage
Committee (White Paper)
�r`7'
Attachment 1
11j' 11 '' '' I
i MEMORANDUM
' CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO: Cultural Heritage Committee
VIA: John Mandeville, Community Development Dire(Zf9A
FROM: Michael Codron, Associate Plann44e
MEETING DATE: July 23, 2001
SUBJECT: Item#4: Staff response to the CHC Whitepaper.
The CHC's White Paper has been a valuable and effective tool for the Community Development
Department in evaluating the effectiveness of our current historic preservation program. Overall,
the Community Development Department and the CHC has experienced a great deal of success
through the establishment of the Inventory of Historic Resources and the creation of four historic
districts. The White Paper has brought to light the importance of having an accurate and up to
date historic resources survey, among other important issues. In the absence of a reliable survey,
the Community Development Department is recommending changes to certain codes, policies
and procedures.
The attached report provides an overview of the problems identified by the CHC in the White
Paper and provides the CDD response to each issue area. Revisions are suggested to the
Demolition and Building Relocation Code (DBRC) to insure that the Code is consistent with
CEQA. These changes will naturally improve the City's ability to protect historic resources in
the absence of a"perfectly accurate" Inventory of Historic Resources.
The revisions to the DBRC would enact a discretionary permit process for proposed demos or
relocations of buildings over 50 years old. The process should be able to be accommodated well
within the 90 day time frame for advertising demolitions, which is currently required by the
ordinance. The process would prevent the situation, described in the CHC's Whitepaper, that
allowed the Jesperson House to be relocated without a qualitative evaluation of the potential
impacts. It does this by triggering Architectural Review for demolition requests involving
potentially historic resources.
The concept of a"potentially historic resource" is discussed in the revised ordinance. This
phrase is meant to describe a structure that is not listed in the current Inventory of Historic
Resources,but that meets one or more of the criteria listed in CEQA or in the Historical
Resource Preservation Guidelines for delineation of historic resources. The revised DBRC gives
staff the opportunity to evaluate every demolition request to determine whether or not the
structure is potentially a historic resource.
a
CHC White Paper Response`._ Attachment 1
July 23, 2001
The revised code section will be implemented by a new set of procedures for processing
demolition application requests. These procedures are described in the revised CHC Policies and
Procedures (Appendix 11 of the White Paper Response), which is the part of the Planning
Division's Policies and Procedure Manual.
In addition to the Demolition Regulations, the White Paper Response discusses historic resource
inventories, local and state rules for historic preservation, education of staff and commissions in
the practice of historic preservation, heritage tourism and public education, and recognition
awards.
The CHC should discuss the analysis and recommendations provided in the White Paper
Response. If the document is acceptable to the CHC, the report will be presented to the City
Council in September, along with any necessary code changes to implement the
recommendations in the report. The CHC should provide direction to staff regarding any
changes or suggested revisions to the White Paper Response.
Attachments:
The White Paper Response: An Analysis of Historic Resource Preservation Policy in the City of
San Luis Obispo
-- Attachment t
The White Paper Response:
An Analysis of Historic Resource Preservation
Policy in the City of San Luis Obispo
Prepared by:
John Mandeville, Community Development Director
Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager
Tom Baasch, Chief Building Official
Michael Codron, Associate Planner
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
July 10, 2001
r �
- Attachment 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION TO THE WHITE PAPER RESPONSE ....................................... 2
Overview_of the Problem..........................................................:................................2
DevelopmentTrends..................................................................................................2
The White Paper Response...........................................................................:...........:3
THE WHITE PAPER RESPONSE..................................................................... 3
DemolitionRegulations.....:...........:...........................................................................3
Overview...........................:..........................................................:...............:.......A
CHCRecommendation....................:...............:...........:...........:...........:...:.............4
Communi , Development Department Response....................:....,......:.................4
Historic Resource Inventories....................................................................................4
Overview...................:............................................................................................4
CHCRecommendation.:..........:...........:.................................................................5
Community Development Department Response.................
LocallStateRules.......................................................................................................5
Identifying Potential Impacts to Historic Resources During Proiect Review........5
CHCRecommendation................................:.........................................................6
Community Development Department Response..................................................6
Education ofSLgjand Commissions......................................................................... 7
CHCRecommendation..........................................................................................7
Community Development Department Response..................................................7
Thresholds of Significance.................................................................................8
CEOA Environmental Resource Maps..............................................................8
Land Use Inventory Updates..............................................................................8
Commission Training.......
. ...... ..,..
Heritage Tourism/Public Education..........................................................................9
Overview................................................................................................................9
CHCRecommendation..........................................................................................9
Community Development Department Response...................
RecognitionAwards.................................................................................................10
Overview..............................................................................................................10
CHCRecommendation........................:.......:...:...................................................10
Community Development Department Response.................................
CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 11
Appendix I - Revised Text for the Demolition and Building Relocation Code
Appendix I.a. - Revised Text for the Demolition and Building Relocation Code
(showing deleted or modified text)
Appendix II- Revised Planning Division CHC Policies and Procedures
Appendix III - Draft Thresholds of Significance for Determining Potential
Impacts to Historic Resources
l
CHC White Paper Resr_�ise—Page 2 _ Attachment I
Introduction to the White Paper Response
Overview of the Problem
The City of San Luis Obispo has actively pursued historic preservation since the early
1980's when the first historic districts were formed and the Cultural Heritage Committee
(CHC) was established. Since that time, historic preservation has become an issue of
greater statewide importance and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has
been amended so that historic significance is considered an important environmental
factor. The City is now in a position where some of its policies and procedures need to be
updated so that they are consistent with the State law.
For instance, the City's Demolition and Building Relocation Code (DBRC) seem to
provide a procedure whereby a structure on the City's Master List of Historic Resources
could be demolished if the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) were to approve its
replacement structure. This is an oversimplification of the procedure since the demolition
of a Master List property would, in most cases, constitute a significant and unavoidable
environmental impact. The City's Demolition Regulations also provide a ministerial
process for the demolition of structures that are over 50 years old, if they are not listed by
the City as a historic resource. This process does not give staff an adequate opportunity
to evaluate demolition requests for their potential impact on historic resources.
The Cultural Heritage Committee has brought these and other issues to light with their
"White Paper". The White Paper identifies the problems that the City is currently faced
with and suggests the importance of looking to the future to anticipate problems that may
lie ahead. The White Paper has been a focus of staff discussions with respect to historic
resource preservation and this response is intended to be a step forward in resolving the
problems that have been identified.
Development Trends
The City is at a critical time with respect to the preservation of historic resources. Office
and commercial space, as well as residentially zoned land, are scarce and at a premium,
especially in the Downtown Planning Area where most of the City's historic resources are
located. As a result, developers are looking to combine underdeveloped properties in
order to develop new homes or large office and mixed-use projects. This often involves
demolition or relocation of structures that are anywhere from 50 to 120 years old. The
City has successfully allowed smaller office projects that involve the conversion of a
structure, such as a dwelling, from a residential use to an office use. These projects can
often be accommodated in a way that is consistent with the City's desire to preserve
historic resources. However, larger redevelopment projects are becoming more common
and present a significant challenge in terms of historic preservation. In order to meet this
challenge, the City should adopt a clear strategy for insuring that our policies and
procedures are consistent with State law and that our historic resource inventories are
accurate and complete.
3-9
CHC White Paper Resp. a'se—Page 3 Attachment 1
The White Paper Response
The White Paper Response provides an overview of the policy areas identified by the
CHC as problematic and recommends changes to current policies and procedures that are
no longer effective or applicable. The White Paper Response is intended to be a program
with recommendations that promote the continued identification and preservation of
historic resources within the City. The report provides recommendations for CEQA
thresholds of significance and presents revised text for the Community Development
Department's CHC Policies and.Procedures. In short, the White Paper Response is both
an analysis of the challenges that face the City in its efforts to preserve its past and a
program for making the changes necessary to insure that the City has the tools to protect
its historic resources.
The White Paper Response
Demolition Regulations
Overview
The City's Demolition and Building Relocation Code (DBRC) appears to be in conflict
with CEQA because it presents findings that the Architectural Review Commission
(ARC) could make to approve the demolition of a historic resource (DBRC 114.4.2).
According to CEQA, a project that may have a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 (b)). As a result, a project that includes the
demolition of a historic resource will trigger the requirement to prepare an Environmental
Impact Report. Thus, the findings provided by DBRC 114.4.2 may be appropriate for a
Statement of Overriding Consideration by the City Council, but they are not appropriate
for an ARC approval.
The Demolition and Building Relocation Code provides little protection for potentially
historic resources. Potentially historic resources are structures over 50 years old that
exhibit some of the qualities of contributing or Master List historic resources but that
have never been surveyed or evaluated for inclusion in the City's Inventory of Historic
Resources. CEQA gives the City the ability to determine that potentially historic
resources are, in fact, historic resources. However, the DBRC provides a ministerial
process for the demolition of any structure that is over 50 years old that is not listed in the
Inventory of Historic Resources. Ministerial actions are exempt from CEQA and the City
exercises no discretion when processing these demolition or relocation permits. This has
created a loophole whereby developers have been able to avoid discretionary review of
proposed building demolitions and relocations by applying for the demolition permit prior
to submitting a development application.
3/�
1
CHC White Paper Respwise—Page 4 AttaChnlent 1
CHC Recommendation
The CHC has recommended two actions with respect to the City's Demolition
Regulations as follows:
1) Direct the Community Development Director and the City Attorney to examine City
regulations and policies in light of current state regulations. If necessary, amendments in
regulations should be recommended to the appropriate bodies to rectify any conflicts.
2) Direct the Community Development Director to prepare revisions to the Demolition
Regulations that provide more consistent protection to potentially.historic structures.
Community Development Department Response
Appendix I includes revised text for the DBRC. The proposed revisions are intended to
simplify the DBRC and eliminate any potential conflicts with CEQA. The revisions
simplify the text of the ordinance and clarify the procedure for demolitions. Appendix U
includes the Department's revised CHC Policies and.Procedures that detail how staff will
implement the revisions to the regulations.
Historic Resource Inventories
Overview
The basis for determining whether or not a property is a historic resource is a survey or
inventory of potential resources. Many of the older parts of town were surveyed in the
1980's by planning staff and by Community Development Department interns and
volunteers. Since that time there has not been a comprehensive update. Although, there
has not been a comprehensive update to the City's survey, properties have continued to be
added to the Inventory of Historic Resources. Sites within the recently established
Railroad Historic District have been added, as well as within the Mt. Pleasonton/Anholm
neighborhood. Properties within survey areas have been added based on
recommendations from property owners, CHC members, and staff.
The CHC has raised a valid concern regarding the status of the City's survey of historic
resources. The issue highlighted by the CI4C is that in order for the City to avoid
demolitions of historic resources, our survey and Inventory of Historic Resources must be
as accurate and up to date as possible. The reason for this partly goes back to the current
DBRC. Demolition or relocation of buildings that are not listed on the City's historic
resources inventory is a ministerial process. The proposed revisions to the DBRC will
help this situation by providing a process to insure that potentially historic resources are
brought before the CHC. However, continuously and systematically updating our surveys
should be an essential part of the City's Historic Resources Preservation Program.
Maintaining an accurate list of resources will help insure preservation by providing for
notification of property owners and developers and will help City staff to react less and
plan more.
3-11
CHC White Paper Respunse—Page 5 Attachment 1
CHC Recommendation
The CHC recommends that additional funding be provided for a consultant to help
inventory the City's potentially historic resources.
Community Development Department Response
The Community Development Department has actively been pursuing funding for a
consultant to prepare a revised survey. Funds were allocated for the program in the 1999-
2001 budget, however the amount of funding was insufficient and the City did not receive
any responses to its Request for Proposals. In the 2001-2003 budget process, the
Department submitted a Significant Operating Program Change (SOPA request and
asked for additional funding for the project. The SOPC was denied by the Budget
Review Committee due to other priorities and a lack of resources.. As a result, funding
will not be available for the project in the 2001-2003 budget.
The recommended changes to the Demolition and Building Relocation Code were made
with the understanding that the survey would not be completed in the immediate future.
The changes are intended to insure that the current Inventory of Historic Resources does
not remain the sole criteria for determining whether or not a structure represents a historic
resource.
Local/State Rules
Identifyina Potential Impacts to Historic Resources During Project Review
When a new planning application is submitted, CEQA requires an evaluation of potential
impacts on historic resources. The first step in this evaluation is to determine if the
project site includes any historic resources, or if there are any historic resources in the
area of the project site that may be impacted. If the project site is not on the City's
Inventory of Historic Resources, but existing structures on the site are more than 50 years
old, then staff evaluates the potential of the property to be considered a historic resource
by reviewing the CHC file to see if the property has been surveyed, and by researching
pertinent facts about the property.
Even if a property is not listed on the City's Inventory, CEQA does not preclude the City
from determining that a project ,site contains locally significant historic resources.
Furthermore, CEQA requires the lead agency to determine that the site is a historic
resource if the site meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical
Resources. As a result, all projects must be evaluated for their potential to impact historic
resources.
A project, which may otherwise be categorically exempt from CEQA, must be processed
under CEQA if the project may have an impact a historic resource. The only categorical
exemption that applies to historic resource sites is the Class 32 exemption,which requires
a determination that the project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties. If a project involving a historic resource is not
proposed in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, then a
—/C�
CHC White Paper Resjtplise—Page 6
Attachment 1
potentially significant impact exists, which may require mitigation, or, if mitigation is not
possible, will trigger the requirement to prepare an EIR.
CEQA requires that the whole of an action be evaluated when any project is reviewed
under the law. Segmenting projects (in other words evaluating only the portion of the
project on the table instead of including all obvious and necessary subsequent actions) is
prohibited. The CHC has raised the concern that the City's DBRC provides a loophole
for developers because it provides a process whereby a site can be "prepared" for
development (prior to a development application) through the DBRC process. In other
words the developer can use the current City process to avoid an evaluation of the
potentially historic resources on the project site.
The New Times development provides an example. The developer of this project applied
through the Demolition and Building Relocation Code to have two buildings relocated
and two buildings demolished on the project site, prior to submitting development
applications: The demo and relocation applications were processed as a ministerial (non-
discretionary) permit, per the ordinance requirements. Had the developer proposed
demolition and relocation of the buildings as part of his development application, an
evaluation of the potential for historic resources on the site would have been possible.
The current structure of the ordinance does not provide for this review.
CHC Recommendation
1) Direct the Community Development Director and City Attorney to examine city
regulations and policies in light of current State regulations. If necessary, amendments in
regulations should be recommended to the appropriate bodies to rectify any conflicts.
2) Consider preparation of a Historic Resources Element, or Historic Preservation
Ordinance as a vehicle to clarify the process and policies.
3) Direct the Community Development Department to fully evaluate potential historic
resources as required by CEQA.
Community Development Department Response
The Community Development Department believes that the proposed revisions to the
Demolition and Building Relocation Code will insure that the loophole described above
is closed. If the proposed revisions are enacted, there would be no incentive for
developer's to use the DBRC to "prepare"a project site for development. The same level
of evaluation would occur whether in the context of the demolition permit application
process or the planning application process.
The City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines were originally adopted by City
Council resolution in 1987. This document contains the policy framework for the City's
Historical Preservation Program and includes a listing of the City's Inventory of Historic
Resources. Community Development Department staff is currently revising and updating
these guidelines. Rather than develop a new document, staff recommends that this
document remain the focus of our preservation efforts. Ordinances to implement the
policies laid out in the guidelines are typically found in the City's Zoning Ordinance or in
3 -13
Attachment 1
CHC White Paper Resp,nse—Page 7
the City's Uniform Building Code amendments, where other applicable development
related ordinances are located.
The Community Development Department has always done its best to provide complete
evaluations of potential impacts to historic resources in its environmental documents.
The problem that has been identified is that the DBRC has created a situation where
demolitions of potentially historic resources are ministerial actions. Ministerial actions
are exempt from CEQA even when they may impact historic resources (CEQA and
Historical Resources, OPR, 1996). Education of staff and commissions, as discussed in
the following section, is the best way to insure that staff continues to fully evaluate
potential impacts to historic resources in the development review process.
Education of Staff and Commissions
Community Development Department staff includes a group of professional planners that
collectively have over 100 years of experience in land use planning. Being a professional
planner requires a commitment to continued education, as laws in all aspects of the
planning and development process are subject to change. Planning division staff have a
wide range of training and continued education options open to them. The Community
Development Director, Development Review Manager, and Long-Range Planning
Manager all encourage their staff to take advantage of courses offered by the University
of California Extension as well as other educational opportunities. Department
representatives annually attend the State and national American Planning Association
conferences where training sessions and informative seminars are available covering
virtually every aspect of the planning process. Historic preservation is one the most
challenging elements of land use planning in the 2151 century and training opportunities
abound.
CHC Recommendation
1) Direct the Community Development Director to institute training for staff and
decision making bodies (i.e. Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission).
Community Development Department Response
The Community Development Department has developed several resources for research
available in the department. Recently efforts have been taken to add new resources and to
update resources that have not been maintained. Development and maintenance of these
resources for historic research insures that planning staff has access to information to
properly evaluate projects that may have an impact on historic resources, and to evaluate
whether or not old buildings are potentially historic resources.
The Community Development Director will continue to identify and encourage staff to
attend seminars and workshops offered by the University of California and other
educational entities that will be help staff keep their knowledge of changing State laws
current.
3/�
CHC White Paper Rest, ase—Page 8 Attachment 1
Thresholds of Significance
Appendix III of this report includes draft Thresholds of Significance. These thresholds
have been developed to be used in conjunction with the revisions to the DBRC and as a
staff resource for preparing environmental documents. The thresholds should be adopted
by Council resolution and amended to the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines.
The thresholds clarify when a project may be considered to have a significant impact on
historic resources. They are also useful for evaluating potential historic resources.
CEQA Environmental Resource Maps
The Community Development Department has developed a series of CEQA
Environmental Resource Maps using the City's Geographic Information System (GIS).
These maps are intended to provide a good reference for planners preparing
environmental studies and include information on the City's historically and
archeologically sensitive sites and areas. The information available within the GIS
include Historic District Boundaries, Burial Sensitivity Areas, known archeological sites,
sensitive archeological areas, and properties listed in the Inventory of Historic Resources.
These maps are maintained by staff and updated as new information becomes available.
Land Use Inventory Updates
The Community Development Department hired a student intern during the Fall of 2000
who has since been working to complete updates to the City's online historic data. The
City's Land Use Inventory (InfoSLO) has specific information on historic resource sites.
Until now, this information has not been updated in a comprehensive manner. With the
assistance of the intern, the Department has been able to accomplish a significant task in
completely updating and verifying information on the City's Master List resources. This
work has included the following:
• At least one photograph of every Master List property has been linked to its land
use record in InfoSLO. Many properties have multiple views.
• Every Master List property record has been checked for accuracy and augmented
when necessary with additional factual information from the CHC file.
• Addresses have been verified and cross-referenceshave been added where
multiple address records exist on a property with a historic resource.
• Work has begun on photographing Contributing Historic Resources.
• Work has begun to add information into InfoSLO from all existing Historical
Resource Surveys for Contributing Historic Resources.
Commission Training
Community Development Department staff recently organized a trip for the Cultural
Heritage Committee to Santa Barbara where they met with Professor Michael Glassow
who made a presentation on curation of urban archaeological artifacts. The CHC then
met with members of the Santa Barbara Landmarks Commission and toured a live dig in
Attachment 1
CHC White Paper Res'p., ise—Page 9
downtown Santa Barbara. The CHC also toured downtown historic sites in Ventura with
Ventura city staff. Community Development Department staff and the CHC felt that the
field trip was an educational and worthwhile experience.
The Community Development Department would like to offer similar types of
educational opportunities to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review
Commission. As development of our downtown continues, City decision makers will
need to be made aware of what is possible with historic preservation. Other
opportunities, such as presentations by local archeological consultants to the.
Commissions will also be explored.
Heritage Tourism/Public Education
Overview
The CHC believes that heritage tourism should be used to promote San Luis Obispo,
especially in light of the recent awards the City has received from the National Trust for
Historic Preservation and Sunset Magazine. An emphasis on heritage tourism is a way to
increase the visibility and importance of historic resources in the minds of the public,
including business owners, developers and civic organizations that might benefit from a
heritage tourism campaign. As significant development project are proposed Downtown,
more opportunities will become available to increase the focus on heritage tourism.
CHC Recommendation
1) Request the Downtown Association and Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC)
include heritage tourism and a focus on historic resources as potential "selling" points of
the City.
2) Direct the Community Development Department to consider heritage tourism
opportunities as potential mitigation measures for large projects that may affect cultural
resources.
Community Development Department.Response
The Community Development Department agrees that. heritage tourism can be an
effective strategy for increasing the community's stock in the preservation of historic
resources. As major development projects are brought through the planning process, staff
will continue to look for opportunities to promote San Luis Obispo's heritage. If the
Copeland's project is developed, there will likely be many opportunities to share the
discoveries with the public, particularly with our educational institutions. Any project
that involves getting under the surface of our downtown will likely present these
opportunities. The more that we learn about our heritage and pre-history, the more likely
we will be to preserve these important features.
The Community Development Department also feels that there are opportunities to
convey a sense of our history to visitors with the character of our public improvements.
Currently the CHC, ARC and PCC are working to develop a program for historic lighting
3-ld
Attachment 1
CHC White Paper Respwi'se—Page 10 _\
Downtown. Opportunities for informational signage have also been presented that could
convey a sense of the City's Mission era. The Council has recently adopted a new
standard for street signs with the City's Libra font.
The PCC recently funded a new walking tour brochure, titled Points of Interest in
Historic San Luis Obispo. The brochure provides walking routes through the downtow
area with a focus on the City's historic and cultural resources. The success of thin
s
ongoing program is an the
of how important heritage tourism can be for raising the
general awareness of historic resources in the City..
Recognition Awards
Overview
The CHC has identified a City reward and recognition program as a way to encourage
future projects to make the extra effortto deal sensitively with historic resources.
CHC Recommendation
1) Direct staff to work with the CHC and appropriate City Departments to develop a
recognition aware program for contributions to protect historic resources.
Community Development Department Response
The CHC has been working on developing a reward program to recognize individuals,
groups and projects that are exemplary for their contributions to historic preservation. .
Suggested categories for awards include:
• Historic Preservation of a Property
• Ongoing Historical Contribution by an Individual or a Group
• Special Cultural Heritage Event by an Individual ora Group
• Local Historical or Archaeological Publication
• Media Coverage Recognizing Local History
The Community Development Department will continue to support the CHC in its effort
to develop this award program. The Community Development Department has display
space in City Hall that could be dedicated to a display that would highlight award winners
or other examples of historic preservation, restoration or rehabilitation in development
projects.
Community Development Department staff has contacted representatives from the
Downtown Association and the Obispo Beautiful Association who both expressed
interest in such an award program. Both organizations have recently awarded categories
for restoration projects and would be open to recommendations on specific categories to
reward in the future. The restoration of the County Historical Museum received awards
from both groups this year.
3��
Attachment 1
CHC White Paper Respwise—Page 11
Conclusion
The Community Development Department is committed to insuring the preservation of
the City's historic resources to insure that future generations benefit from an awareness of
the past. The Land Use Element of the General Plan includes the following specific goals
relative to historic preservation that planning staff uses to evaluate proposed development
projects.
• Land Use Element Goal 32: Foster an awareness of past residents and ways of
life, and preserve our heritage of historic buildings and places.
• Land Use Element Goal 33: Develop buildings and facilities which will
contribute to our sense of place and architectural heritage.
Community Development Department staff has considered the CHC's White Paper and
this response as an opportunity to improve our practices to insure that our actions are
furthering these goals.
The changes that are recommended to the Demolition and Building Relocation
Regulations will fix an ordinance that has essentially provided a loophole for developers
to avoid a qualitative analysis .of project sites for the presence of potentially historic
resources. These changes will also insure that the City's regulations are consistent with
State law and that our environmental determinations, with respect to historic resources,
have a strong basis.
In conjunction with the revisions to the DBRC, staff is recommending thresholds of
significance to guide decisions on potential impacts to historic resources. The thresholds,
together with revised CHC Policies and Procedures, give staff a sound framework for
making recommendations to decision makers. The thresholds create a direct link between
development review and the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, making the.
Guidelines more relevant to planners during the planning application review process. In
conclusion, staff believes that the proposed changes will make the DBRC and Historical
Preservation Program Guidelines vital, working documents that will contribute to the
continued success of the City's preservation program.
C
3/�
1
Attachment 1
Appendix I—Revised Text for the Demolition and Building Relocation Code
114.3 Procedure for Permit Application Processing.
Upon receipt of a permit application to demolish or move a building or structure, the building
official shall,prior to permit issuance,process the application subject to the following:
1. Demolition or Relocation of Historical Resource. An application for Architectural Review is
required for demolition or relocation of any structure located on a property listed in the Inventory
of Historical Resources. The application shall include plans for replacement structures, to the
discretion of the Community Development Director.
2. Demolition or Relocation of Structure Not Designated Historical. For any structure that is not
located on a property listed in the City's Inventory of Historical Resources and is over 50 years
old,the building official may issue the permit if:
1. The applicant provides evidence that, for a period of not less than 90 days from date of
permit application, the building was advertised in a local newspaper on at least three
separate occasions not less than 15 days apart, as available to any interested person to be
moved; and
2. The applicant submits historic documentation for the structure in accordance with the
criteria established by the Community Development Director and the CHC;and
3. The Community Development Director determines that the structure or structures
proposed for demolition are not potential historic resources.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. A building or structure determined by the building official to be a dangerous.
building as defined in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings which poses an imminent, serious threat to the health, safety or welfare
of community residents or people living or working on or near the site, and for
which photographic documentation acceptable to the community development
director has been submitted.
2. Accessory buildings, sheds, garages, and similar structures unless determined
to be a potential historic resources by the Community Development Director.
3. If under section 114.3.2, the Community Development Director determines that the structure
or structures proposed for demolition or relocation are potentially historic resources then the
applicant shall submit an application for Architectural Review pursuant to subsection 114.3.1.
114.4 Approval Process for Demolition or Moving of Structures on Historic Properties (Deleted)
3-�9
Attachment 1
Appendix I.a. —Revised Text for the Demolition and Building Relocation Code (with
changes highlighted)
114.3 Procedure for Permit Application Processing. .
Upon receipt of a permit application to demolish or move a building or structure, the
building official shall, prior to permit issuance, process the application subject to the
following:
1. Demolition or Relocation of Historical Resource. An application for Architectural Review is
required for demolition or relocation of any structure located on a property listed in the Inventory
of Historical Resources. The application shall include plans for replacement structures, to the
discretion of the Communitv Development Director.
r.,yentefy of Hi4..,•ieal Resetifees the building eff•:eial shall ..efer the apphe tien-to
0
next open agenda. The C14C shall fvview iind pfeeess the applieaiien as fallewsi
1. if the C14C detemiifies that the stfuetur-e to be demolished has no hisier-icah
.i , tele
te the building official with dir-ection te issue the defiieji
ef eith.,t;e s ni fi ..,nee to the r;t.. itshall difeet the applie nt to submit Plans
Commissionyreview pursumit to Seetion 114.4efes
e 2.49 G-Phe^M'ntrielpT1fCode. Theivicr •hsrl scctic the azixaxnt.T
2. Demolition or Relocation of Structure Not Designated Historical. For any structure that is not
located on a property listed in the,Cites Inventory of Historical Resources and is ever 50 years
old, the building official may issue the permit if:
2. Deffle4itiefl Of SiftietHFe Net Designated
pfepet4y listed on the ifiventefy ,f Hist o al ResouFees.the builds official shall,j AT-CT
.,A;t; Of— ;tHiStiaftee, e that the pli nt p .ide the f ll
I. The applicant provides evidence that, for a period of not less than 90 days from date of
permit application, the building xaas advertised in a local newspaper on at least three
stearate occasions not less than 15 days apart, as available to any interested person to be
moved: and
?. The applicant submits_historic documentation for the structure in accordance with the
criteria established by the Community Development Director and the CHC: and
aW
Attachment 1
Appendix I.a. —Revised Text for the Demolition and Building Relocation Code (with
changes highlighted)
3. The Communitv Development Director determines that the structure or structures proposed
for demolition are not potential historic resources.
i. ivrrra,rarze rracxr,ivr-cr-Pi.Trvcrvrrrvr less�rarr
buildingthe
not less than 15 days apart. as available .---d per-san to be moved; and
-2. b ter4a established
EXCEPTIONS:
1. A building or structure determined by the building official to be a dangerous building
as defined in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings which poses
an imminent, serious threat to the health, safety or welfare of community residents or
people living or working on or near the site, and for which photographic documentation
acceptable to the eery ttrity-Community develep�Development diree-ter-Director
has been submitted.
2. Accessory buildings,, sheds, garages and similar buildings, unless determined to be a
potential historic resource by the Community Development Director.
s:it til..r s. Fuetufes ,.less h-.e
. f
3
ve asEFueitffe to a
the
effieW shall
. f b .9 -1144-of
3. If under section 114.3.2, the Corblmunity Development Director determines that the structure
or structures proposed for demolition orrelocation...tire. potentially historic resources then the
appliewit shall submit an application for Architectural Reviewpursuant to subsection 1 14.3.1.
114.4 Approval Process for Demolition or Moving of Structures on Historic Properties (Deleted)
Movingof S6-uetures n Histefie .
114.4.1 Generah
ARC feview shall he Feqaifed for the deFaaji of a,b
Eletes:nined neeessafy by See-tion 114.3 of thi,a- 'rt— ---E..
321
�. Attachment 1
Appendix I.a.—Revised Text for the Demolition and Building Relocation Code (with
changes highlighted)
in the ease of de.. ..hien The plieatio , ar..hiteettiral .,1,,.,� and plie.. a CHC
ll� 131Y YG{JL V3 <iY3S1Vr3lS Vr3-1116 6FJ�Jr1 • .
shall he reviewed and acted on by the ARG.
iaivirrirlir
114.4.2 Findings Requifed
The buildifig Offieial shall not issue the peffflit unless the ARC determines
,
eampatiblewith e a n�than a ,
isten! with.
ARC auideliaes� and either.the eenditien of the stfuetur-e poses a threat to the health,
safety or welf&e of the eetiuiiunky i-esidents or-people„
aer wediing
en e;neai- the
with the n site and other buildings in the n ghhheed
. Y ....
,3-22
Appendix H-Revised Planning Divis.! CHC Policies and Procedures Attachment
community development aepaRtment
Planning Division Policies & Procedures
Subject Cultural Heritage_Coi tri.1 teeReview ,
These policies and procedures are revised and in draft format. They are consistent with proposed
revisions to the City's Demolition and Building Relocation Code. Section H.4 describes specific
new procedures that are intended to implement suggested Code revisions.
A. DEFINITION
The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviews actions that change historical buildings or the character
of historical districts and submits recommendations to the City Council, ARC, Planning Commission and
Community Development Director.
B. PURPOSE AND APPLICATION
The CHC is involved in the development review process to better ensure that important community
historical resources are preserved. The CHC provides advice and recommendations to all city advisory
bodies and departments and the City Council when a proposed action affects historical resources.
C. AFFECTED AGENCIES
Community Development Department; Public Works Department; All other city departments that propose
capital projects.
D. PERTINENT REGULATIONS
SLOMCC 17.54 Historic Zone (Zoning Regulations)
Demolition and Building Relocation Code
Historical Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (Resolution No. 6158, 1987 Series)
Archeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (Resolution No. 8459, 1995 Series)
Cultural Heritage Committee Roles (Resolution No. 6157, 1987 Series)
General Plan Land Use, Housing, Conservation, and Open Space Elements
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
E. POLICIES
1) All properties on the Inventory of Historic Resources are considered "sensitive sites" requiring
Architectural Review.
2) The CHC reviews all applications for Architectural Review that may have an impact on historic
resources in the City.
3) Staff recommendations to the ARC should always follow the CHC's determination on project
consistency with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
4) Applicants and their representatives should be notified as soon as possible when CHC review is
required.
5) CHC review should occur within the normal time frame for ARC review of a development project.
' 3�3
Subject: Cultural Heritage Cc._ ..nittee Review _ Page 2_ ttachment 1
F. DEFINITIONS
1) Inventory of Historic Resources. The Inventory of Historic Resources includes both Master List
and Contributing Historic Properties, and is published in the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines. Master List properties are the most important historic properties in the city and are
individually significant due to architecture, history, or historical context. There are about 175
residential and commercial properties on the Master List. Each property has a historic name,
such as"the Jack House." Each property is given a number code (I through 5) that refers to its
'National Register' rating. (For more information, see the preservation guidelines). Contributing
Properties are properties that, while not individually unique or of major importance, contribute to
the historic and architectural character of a neighborhood. Contributing historic properties occur
both within and outside of historic districts.
2) Historical Preservation (H) Districts,There are four of these shown on the zoning map. Properties
in the district have an"H"attached to the base zone.
3) Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic.Properties are used to
determine whether or not a project might have a significant impact on a historic.resource. They
include guidelines for preserving, rehabilitating, restoring and reconstructing historic buildings.
CEQA uses the Secretary of the Interior's Standards as a de facto threshold of significance, if a
project is consistent with the standards, it is either considered to be categorically exempt for
CEQA(Class 31), or impacts are considered to be mitigated to a level of less than significant.
Copies are available for sale to the public.
G. CHC MEETINGS
The CHC holds its meeting on the fourth Monday of each month in the Council Hearing Room, beginning
at 5:30 p.m. Only major projects (where timing is critical) may warrant the scheduling of a second CHC
meeting. Scheduling is at the discretion of the CHC Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson.
H. PROCEDURES
1) Projects Identified for CHC Review. Table A identifies the types of projects that the CHC reviews.
Staff should identify these projects as early as possible.
A. Development Review. When the processing planner and management staff review new
planning applications, they should identify projects located in historic districts, or projects that
may affect listed historic properties or sensitive archaeological sites. Properties which are
already designated in the City's land use data as "potentially historic"or"potentially
contributing"should be identified and referred to the CHC for a significance determination. A
CHC agenda board card should be prepared. The project planner should notify applicants
and request additional materials if needed (refer to CHC application checklist).
B. Plan Check Review. When checking plans, planners should identify new construction,
remodeling or demolition projects that affect historic properties or sensitive archaeological
sites. These projects are subject to Architectural Review. The planner should check with the
Development Review Manager, Long-Range Planning Manager or Community Development
Director to verify the need for CHC review, then notify the applicant and identify the CHC
meeting date and the need for additional information.
C. Counter/Telephone Contacts, When talking with potential applicants, planners and building
division staff should note whether the project affects historical properties. People should be
told about CHC review and given the CHC's materials checklist along with other application
materials (e.g. for Architectural Review). Applicants should be referred to the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (copies are available for purchase
from the Planning document shelf) and should be encouraged to propose projects that are
consistent with these standards.
�a�
_ _ _ _—
Subject Cultural.Her._ itag- 6
e —.imittee Review Pagg 3 Alachment 1
2) Project Assigned. CHC review will be handled by the project planner when discretionary planning
approvals (e.g. ARC, use permits, variances, subdivisions) are required. In other instances, CHC
review will be coordinated by the CHC liaison planner. When a project requires CHC review, a
note should be made in the comment section of the planning application. No fee or separate
application number is needed for CHC review.
3) CHC Report Prepared. The project planner or CHC liaison planner prepares a one or two page
report that includes the following:
• Subject
• Situation (describe what the applicant wants to do).
• Data Summary(name of applicant, address of project, zone district).
• Site Description and Project Description (historic classification and description of existing
buildings, other known historic features of the site).
• Historical Background (including architectural character of surroundings and their historic
value).
• Secretary of the Interior's Standards (when applicable), include a brief evaluation of the
project in terms of consistency with the standards.
• Action Alternatives (optional findings or actions that the CHC can take).
• Attachments
A. Action Alternatives
The Cultural Heritage Committee should consider the following alternatives when forwarding
recommendations to the ARC (or the Director). These alternatives are general suggestions
and the language should vary depending on the specific project.
1. Proposed changes to the site or structure are consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and do not adversely
affect its historic or architectural character; or
2. Proposed changes to the site or structure are in consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and will adversely affect
its historic or architectural character. The following design changes should be
considered to mitigate these concerns: (CHC to specify suggested changes)
3. Proposed changes to the site or structure will adversely affect its historic or
architectural character and the proposal should be denied because: (CHC to specify
reasons)
B. Attachments to the CHC Report,Attachments should include materials identified on the CHC materials
checklist and information contained within the Historical Address Files(e.g. Historical inventory,historic
and current photos, excerpts from Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of the
Interior's Standards, other historical documentation.
C. Report Deadline and Agenda Close. All CHC reports shall be submitted in final form to the CHC liaison
planner by 5:00 p.m.of the second Thursday before the CHC meeting date. The CHC agenda closes
at 12:00 noon on the second Monday before the CHC meeting date.
D. Public Notice and Agendas. Notice shall be provided as shown on the accompanying table. A legal
advertisement identifying the time,date and place of the CHC meeting will be placed in the Tribune on
the Saturday before the meeting. Notification for CHC public hearing is the same as for the
Architectural Review Commission. Agendas will be posted and distributed following routine
procedures. Agendas will also be sent to: County Historical Society,the County Archaeological
Society and other groups expressing an interest in being notified.
E. Attending CHC Meetings and Follow-up. The CHC liaison planner will attend the CHC meeting and
agenda items. For complicated or controversial projects, the project planner may be asked to attend
the meeting. After the meeting,the presenting planner will prepare a meeting update that specifies the
committee's actions and recommendations. The memo should include the outcome of any role call
vote and should be given the project planner within one week of the CHC meeting. The project planner
should make a copy of the update available to the applicant.
3-as
Subject: Cultural Heritage Co,__.nittee Review Page 4Alachment 1
4) Building Demolitions and Relocations (SLO Amendments to UBC: Section 114.3). The City's
Demolition and Building Relocation Code requires an application for Architectural Review for any
proposed demolition or relocation of a structure on a property listed in the Inventory of Historic
Resources. The CHC shall review each of these proposals and make a recommendation to the
Architectural Review Commission or Community Development Director.
When demolitions or relocations are proposed of structures that are over 50 years old, but that
are not on the City s Inventory of Historic Resources, the Director, or his designee must determine
if the project site includes any potentially historic resources. If potentially historic resources are
discovered, then an application for Architectural Review is required. In order for the Director to
make this determination,the following procedure shall be applied:
A. Supplemental Questionnaire: Applicants fora demolition or building relocation permit shall submit a
supplemental questionnaire to include general information about the condition and character of the
structures. Staff shall complete any unfinished portions of the questionnaire and the staff portion of the
questionnaire. In order to complete the staff portion of the questionnaire research will be required to
determine if the property has been surveyed in a past historic resource survey and if a CHC file exists.
The staff planner will also have to answer qualitative questions based on the Departments Thresholds
of Significance for Determining Potential Impacts to Historic Resources.
B. Action: The Director, or his designee,will consider any com,ments provided by the CHC Chairperson,
who is notified of the demolition request,and the Supplemental Questionnaire with any attachments to
determine whether or not the project site includes potentially historic resources. The decision of the
Director is subject to appeal to the Cultural Heritage Committee.
C. Time Frames: The decision of the Director should occur well within the time frame of the Ordinance,
which requires a 90 day period between permit application and issuance in order for the structures to
be advertised as available for relocation. The Ordinance also requires photo-documentation of
structures, per CHC photo-documentation standards. The applicant should be notified of the Director's
determination as soon as possible.
5) New Structures in Historical Districts. When significant development projects are proposed in
historical districts, and Architectural Review is required, the application shall be forwarded to the
CHC for review. The Cultural Heritage Committee should consider the following alternatives when
forwarding recommendations to the ARC or Director:
1. The project is consistent with the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards. No changes to the project are recommended.
2. The project is consistent with the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards,provided that the following changes or mitigation
measures are incorporated into the project: (CHC to specify). Or
3. The project is not consistent with the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines and/or the
Secretary of the Interior's Standards and should be denied.
6) Environmental Review. The CHC's determination on whether or not a project is consistent with
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is a critical step in
determining potential impacts to historic resources during environmental review. The
Departments Thresholds of Significance for determining impacts to historic resources shall be
used to determine the level of impact that a project may have on a resource.
TABLE A: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
Activity Staff Response Who Notified Notification CHC Comments
Type To
Additions or changes Architectural Review Property owner, Postcards,letter to ARC or Director
to historic resources Required;Staff applicant,interest applicant,public
memo to CHC; groups,public notice,legal ad
present report at
CHC meeting.
3 oC
__._ achment 1
Subject: Cultural Heritage C.._,rnittee.Review Page s
New buildings or Architectural Review Property owner, Postcards,letter to ARC
significant remodels Required(except applicant,interest applicant,public
within historic single-family homes) groups,public notice,legal ad
districts Staff memo to CHC;
present report at
CHC meeting
Demolition or Architectural Review Property owner, Letter,public notice, ARC
relocation of Required; applicant,interest legal ad
historical resources Environmental groups,public
as defined by CEQA Review Required;
Staff memo to CHC;
present report at
CHC meeting
Director determines Architectural Review Property owner, Postcards,letter to CHC to determine if
proposed demolition Required;Staff applicant,interest property owner, structure is a historic
or relocation of memo to CHC; groups,public public notice,legal ad resource; action
building may impact present report at taken by Director if
a potentially historic CHC meeting; not a resource;
resource. Environmental project referred to
Review Required if ARC with
CHC determines environmental review
structure is historic if structure is a
resource. historic resource.
Comment on action Staff memo to CHC; Property owner, Letter to agency, City Council or
of external public present report at applicant,interest public notice,legal ad External Agency
agencies CHC meeting groups,public
Changes to the Staff memo to CHC; Property owner, Letter to property City Council
Inventory of Historic present report at applicant,interest owner,public notice,
Resources CHC meeting groups,public legal ad
Changing boundaries Staff memo to CHC; Property owner(s), Letter to property Planning
of historic districts; present report at applicant,interest owners,public notice, Commission
establishing new CHC meeting;reports groups,public legal ad
historic districts to PC and CC
General request for Staff memo to CHC; Property owner, Letter to property Applicant
CHC assistance(e.g. present report at applicant,interest owner,public notice,
Nat.Register CHC meeting groups,public legal ad
application,research)
Attachment 1
Appendix HI—Draft Thresholds of Significance for Determining Potential Impacts
to Historic Resources
A. The following thresholds are intended to guide the decisions of the Community
Development Director in determining the potential for significant impacts to historic
resources.. These thresholds are also intended to be used by Community Development
Department Staff when evaluating projects within the Planning Application process.
These thresholds are useful for determining whether or not a project site contains
potentialhistoric resources. If the Director determines that a project site does contain
potential historic resources then the project should be brought to the CHC to determine
whether or not the potential historic resources are, in fact, historic resources.
In general, a project that contains historic resources may be categorically exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act if the project is determined by the CHC to be
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15331,Historical Resource
Restoration/Rehabilitation). If environmental review is otherwise required for a project,
and that project may have an impact on historic resources, then the impact may be
considered to have a less than significant impact if the project is determined by the CHC
to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(b)(3).
B. Thresholds of Significance for Determining Potential Impacts to Historic Resources
1. A project may have a significant impact on a historic resource if...
a) The project site or structures on the project site are historical resources as defined
by CEQA, Section 15064.5(a), including properties listed on the City's Inventory
of Historic Resources; and
b) The project is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties.
c) The project is within a historic district and may have a significant impact on
historic resources within the district because of characteristics of the project,
including but not limited to the following:
• An architectural style that is not compatible or consistent with the character of
historic resources within the historic district or with historic resources in the
immediate vicinity of the project site.
• The size, scale and/or massing of the structure in inconsistent with the
character of historic resources in the district or with historic resources in the
immediate vicinity of the project site.
Attachment 1
Appendix HI—Draft Thresholds of Significance for Determining Potential Impacts
to Historic Resources
2. A project may have a significant impact on a historic resource if ..
a) Structures on the project site are over 50 years old; and
b) the project site includes potentially historic resources; and
c) the project is inherently inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
C. A project site may be determined to contain potentially historic resources, to the
discretion of the Community Development Director, if any of the following conditions
apply.
a) A reasonable argument could be made that the project site includes historical
resources as defined by CEQA, Section 15064.5(a).
b) The project site or structures on the project site meet one or more of the Historic
Criteria for Building Evaluation and Recommendations delineated by the City's
Historical Preservation Program Guidelines.
D. A project that contains potential historic resources may still be exempt from CEQA,
or impacts to the potential resource may be considered less than significant, under either
of the following circumstances.
a) The project is determined by the CHC to be consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Resources.
b) The CHC determines that the potential historic resources on the project site do not
represent actual historic resources.
3a9
Attachment 2
CHC Minutes, Regular Meeting of July 23, 2001
Page 4
Dan Carpenter explain the results okhis research into the history of his home at 2030
Johnson Ave He heli the house as originally built as a 1-room classroom and used
for the Home Ec omics pro at the original San Luis Obispo High School when it was
located on Marsh S t. He prov additional�historical information and photos, and said he
would like to see the bu ing presery through hist 'c listing.
Chairperson Schrage felt tha everal fact may make a property eligible for historic
listing: 1) age, 2) retention o is original chitectural aracter, and .3) its possible
association with the original San Luis bispo High ool.
Committee member McMasters agreed, an• moved to staff to sch ule the item for a
public hearing to consider possible nomination, or historic gnation. C ttee member
McDonald seconded the motion. The motion carried, 5-1 (Whitt l sey voted no).
4. Staff Response to the CHC White Paper. City of San Luis Obispo, Applicant.
Michael Codron presented the staff report and briefly explained proposed changes to the
Building Relocation and Demolition Regulations and to city staff's historical and environmental
review procedures. He noted that one important change was that non-listed properties over 50
years old would now be reviewed for potential historic significance prior to demolition.
Committee member McMasters suggested that the City compile all of its historic preservation
policies into one document, in lieu of a historic preservation ordinance or element, to make it
easier to cross reference City policies. He also suggested including these policies in the
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the White Paper response.
Committee member Carr was gratified to see that the CRC's comments and concerns were
being addressed and that the White Paper was having a positive effect on preservation in San
Luis Obispo. She did not have any changes or questions on the staff response.
Committee member Wheeler agreed with Committee member Carr, and liked the emphasis in
the response placed on Heritage Tourism.
Committee member McMasters suggested that Historic Preservation Awards be timed to
coincide with National Historic Preservation Week that happens each year in May.
Committee member Whittlesey asked if the problem of "benign neglect" was addressed in the
new procedures and whether builders, equipment rental companies and others would be
notified of the revised demolition procedures.
Mr. Codron said the issue of "benign neglect" was not addressed at this time but could come
back for CHC discussion at a later date. The issue of penalties or sanctions for not complying
3-30
Attachment 2
CHC Minutes, Regular Meeting of July 23, 2001
Page 5
with the demolition regulations had not yet been addressed. Another issue was environmental
impact thresholds for historic impacts may also merit further discussion.
Mark Godfrey, 963 Broad Street, supported case-by-case review of properties to determine
historic significance or impacts by getting development projects to the CHC earlier in the
development review process.. He suggested the possibility of the CHC meeting twice a month
rather than once a month as they do currently. He emphasized that incentives, rather than
regulations, are the best way to encourage historic preservation projects.
On a motion by Committee member McMasters, seconded by Committee member Wheeler, the
Committee endorsed the CHC White Paper response and recommended approval of the
Community Development Department-recommended implementation measures, with a request
that thresholds of environmental impact/significance and penalties for non-compliance with
demolition regulations come back to the Committee for further discussion.
ORMATIO ITEMS:
• verview the Council-ap oved 2001-2003 Budget. This item was continued to the
A st 27th eeting to allow Mandeville to be present for the discussion.
• Result of the J e 7, 2001 Advt ry Body Training Session. Mr. Hook noted a
summary the trat ' g session eval tions was attached. He said staff and advisory
body me mb gener felt the sessio was less effective than hoped, and explained
that staff was king to • rove and exp d advisory body training.
The Committee adjourned a 8:30 p.m. to the regul CHC meeting on Monday, August 27,
2001.
These minutes were approved at the ommittee August 27, 01 meeting.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeff Hook, Associate Planner
jh/L/chc/chc7-01.min
3 3/
� hmerrt 3
I
in the 1 (4) A lead agency may determine that the incremental impacts of a project are
I meets not cumulatively considerable when they are so small that they make only a de minimis
contribution to a significant cumulative impact caused by other projects that would exist
[ermine in the absence of the proposed project. Such de minimus incremental impacts, by
stantial themselves,do not trigger the obligation to prepare an EIR. A de minimus contribution
means that the environmental conditions would essentially be the same whether or not the
on the I proposed project is implemented.
opriate (5) The mere existence of significant cumulative impacts caused by other
V shall projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that the proposed project's
rction, incremental effects are cumulatively considerable.
e lead 15064.5. Determining the Significance of Impacts on Historical
y this and Unique Archeological Resources.
(a) For purposes of this section, the term "historical resources" shall include
eneral the following:
(1) A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical
acute, Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources
(Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1,Title 14 CCR, Section 4850 et seq.).
(2) A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in
ment, section 5020.1(k)of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in an historical
resource survey meeting the requirements section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources
n the Code,shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must
treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates
that it is not historically or culturally significant.
xrcies (3) Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript
which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the
lead
architectural,engineering,scientific,economic,agricultural, educational, social, political,
B-ects military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource,
lative provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of
ually the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be
the "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California
ction Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code SS5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section
is of 4852) including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
iect's broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
vely (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
cant (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type,period,region, or method
vely of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
the high artistic values;or
less (D) Has yielded,or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory
or history.
to a (4) The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for
the listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register
ific of historical resources (pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code), or
ater identified in an historical resources survey(meeting the criteria in section 5024.1(g)of the
the Public Resources Code) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the
fled resource may be an historical resource as defined in Public Resources Code sections
-ces
5020.10) or 5024.1.
law (b) A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
environment.
95
�; +uu+ v...-.. _..... ..
CYe(.i`6'�.:K�A ....
.. . .. .. .. ...
3 3a
Attachment 3 At#ac+�me t 3
(1) Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource sil
means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its of
immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be
of
materially impaired.
(2) The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a of
project: ap
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical as
characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that ag
justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register of an
�I Historical Resources;or as
(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical an
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources
pursuant to section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or its identification in an re
historical resources survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(8) of the Public Se
Resources Code,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 rei
(C) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical tal
characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that i
justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources as an
determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
(3) Generally,a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for co
the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating,
Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), wi
Weeks and Grimmer,shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant
impact on the historical resource.
. (4) A lead agency shall identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate pe
I; significant adverse changes in the significance of an historical resource. The lead agency or
shall ensure that any adopted measures to mitigate or avoid significant adverse changes are wi
{! fully enforceable through permit conditions,agreements,or other measures. in
(5) When a project will affect state-owned historical resources, as described in
Public Resources Code Section 5024, and the lead agency is a state agency, the lead rel
agency shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer as provided in Public
Resources Code Section 5024.5. Consultation should be coordinated in a timely fashion go 90
Sul
with the preparation of environmental documents.
(c) CEQA applies to effects on archaeological sites. lik
(1) When a project will impact an archaeological site, a lead agency shall first 24
determine whether the site is an historical resource,as defined in subsection(a).
(2) If a lead agency determines that the archaeological site is an historical
resource, it shall refer to the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources of
Code, and this section, Section 15126.4 of the Guidelines, and the limits contained in to
Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code do not apply.
(3) If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria defined in subsection (a), of
but does meet the definition of a unique archeological resource in Section 21083.2 of the un
Public Resources Code, the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of pr(
' section 21083.2. The time and cost limitations described in Public Resources Code If i
Section 21083.2 (c-f) do not apply to surveys and site evaluation activities intended to ful
determine whether the project location contains unique archaeological resources. me
(4) If an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological nor an pa:
historical resource,the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered a tab
96
.. _ .. .. .. '...\\Yi.YMVfu^.,NLl..��MCOV'].�.[M VIM'l,.\l�'Y'•Wn^' .
Attachment 3
resource significant effect on the environment. It shall be sufficient that both the resource and the
rce or its effect on it are noted in the Initial Study or EIR, if one is prepared to address impacts on
would be other resources,but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process.
(d) When an initial study identifies the existence of,or the probable likelihood,
d when a of Native American human remains within the project,a lead agency shall work with the
appropriate native americans as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission
physical as provided in Public Resources Code SS5097.98. The applicant may develop an
and that agreement for treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and
egister of any items associated with Native American burials with the appropriate Native Americans
as identified by the Native American Heritage Commission." Action implementing such
physical an agreement is exempt from:
resources (1) The general prohibition on disinterring, disturbing, or removing human
ion in an remains from any location other than a dedicated cemetery (Health and Safety Code
to Public Section 7050.5).
itablishes (2) The requirements of CEQA and the Coastal Act.
culturally (e) In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human
remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be
physical taken:
and that (1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby
:)urces as area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
(A) The coroner of the county in which the remains are discovered must be
dards for contacted to determine that no investigation of the cause of death is required,and
>ilitating, (B) If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American:
Interiors 1. The coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission
s (1995), within 24 hours.
ignificant 2. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or
persons it believes to be the most likely descended from the deceased native american.
mitigate 3. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner
d agency or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of,
angel are with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided
in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98,or
;cn'bed in (2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his authorized
the lead representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave
n Public goods with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to further
fashion subsurface disturbance.
(A) The Native American Heritage Commission is unable to identify a most
likely descendant or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within
hall first 24 hours after being notified by the commission.
(B) The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation;or
historical (C) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation
resources of the descendant,and the mediation by the Native American Heritage Commission fails
rained in to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.
(f) As part of the objectives,criteria,and procedures required by Section 21082
.tion (a), of the Public Resources Code, a lead agency should make provisions for historical or
.2 of the unique archaeological resources accidentally discovered during construction. These
isions of provisions should include an immediate evaluation of the find by a qualified archaeologist.
es Code If the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, contingency
ended to funding and a time allotment sufficient to allow for implementation of avoidance
measures or appropriate mitigation should be available. Work could continue on other
nor an parts of the building site while historical or unique archaeological resource mitigation
sidered a takes place.
97
�Vii,•.•,•'-
ATTACHMENT 4
Draft
ORDINANCE NO. (2001 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO AMENDING SECTION 114.3 AND
DELETING SECTION 114.4 OF APPENDIX CHAPTER I OF
THE 1998 CALIFORNIA STANDARDS CODE (MUNICIPAL
CODE CHAPTER 15.04,CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS) AS
ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee conducted a public hearing on July 23,
2001, and has recommended approval of amendments to the Building Demolition and Relocation
Code in order to further implement the goals of the City's Historical Preservation Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on September 4, 2001, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Cultural Heritage Committee
hearings and actions, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the
General Plan, the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, and applicable City ordinances;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the project is categorically exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act because the code is being revised in order to protect the
environment, which includes historic resources (CEQA Guidelines Section 15308; Actions by
Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
��3s
ATTACHMENT 4
Ordinance No. (2001 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 1. Section 114.3 of Appendix Chapter I contained in Section 15.04,020 of the
San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
114.3 Procedure for Permit Application Processing.
Upon receipt of a permit application to demolish or move a building or structure, the building
official shall,prior to permit issuance,process the application subject to the following:
1. Demolition or Relocation of Historical Resource. An application for Architectural Review is
required for demolition or relocation of any structure located on a property listed in the Inventory
of Historical Resources. The application shall include plans for replacement structures, to the
discretion of the Community Development.Director.
2. Demolition or Relocation of Structure Not Designated Historical. For.any structure that is not
located on a property listed in the City's Inventory of Historical Resources and is over 50 years
old, the building official may issue the permit if:
1. The applicant provides evidence that, for a period of not less than 90 days from date of
permit application, the building was advertised in a local newspaper on at least three
separate occasions not less than 15 days apart, as available to any interested person to be
moved, and
2. The applicant submits historic documentation for the structure in accordance with the
criteria established by the Community Development Director and the CHC; and
3. The Community Development Director determines that the structure or structures
proposed for demolition are not potential historic resources.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. A building or structure determined by the building official to be a dangerous
building as defined in the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous
Buildings which poses an imminent, serious threat to the health, safety or welfare
of community residents or people living or working on or near the site; and for
which photographic documentation acceptable to the community development
director has been submitted.
2. Accessory buildings, sheds, garages, and similar structures unless determined
to be potential historic resources by the Community Development Director.
3-3b
ATTACHMENT 4
Ordinance No. (2001 Series)
Page 3
3. If under section 114.3.2, the Community Development Director determines that the
structure or structures proposed for demolition or relocation are potentially historic
resources then the applicant shall submit an application for Architectural Review
pursuant to subsection 114.3.1.
SECTION 2. Section 114.4 entitled "Approval Process for Demolition or Moving of
Structures on Historic Properties," Section 114.4.1 entitled "General," and Section 114.4.2
entitled"Findings Required"are hereby repealed in their entirety.
SECTION 3. If any provision of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that it would have
passed each and every remaining provision irrespective of such holding in order to accomplish the
intent of this ordinance..
SECTION 4. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council
members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage,
in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into
effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.
INTRODUCED on the day of , 2001, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of ,
2001, on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3��
i
ATTACHMENT 4
Ordinance No. (2001 Series)
Page 4
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
7VED AS;T0,0
i
RM:
/
City Attomey effrey&Iorgensen
�U
ei I, I
Cultural Heritage Committee
The Status of Historic Preservation
in the City of San Luis Obispo
May 22, 2000
I. Summary
Beginning in the early 1980s, the City of San Luis Obispo inaugurated a program
formalizing and adopting policies that addressed historic and prehistoric cultural
resources. The first of the City's historic districts were formed, and the City
Council created the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). The City subsequently
adopted numerous policies in its General Plan that addressed the preservation
and protection of historic and prehistoric resources.
Today, after the lapse of nearly 20 years, if can be said that the City of San Luis
Obispo has experienced measurable success with its historic preservation
efforts. Most notably, the City has purchased and partnered in preservation of
the Butron, La Loma and Rodriguez Adobes, and has initiated a Mills Act
Program. However, the City continues to lose historic resources because
inconsistencies and loopholes in City ordinances fail to protect them fully. Nor is
the City taking full advantage of its cultural resources, which are often viewed as
"standing in the way of progress" rather than being considered valuable and
significant factors that contribute to the City's character, livability, and economic
vitality. Ultimately, it is the loss of historic, cultural and archaeological resources
that will result in a decline in the uniqueness of this community and make it less
desirable as a place in which to reside, work or visit. While there are numerous
considerations including economic development, housing, recreation, the
environment, transportation, and the like, a development model cannot be based
on what might be successful in other communities that lack the historic and
unique character of this city.
As we proceed into the twenty-first century, it is prudent to look beyond the
horizon to anticipate problems may lie ahead. Throughout California, older
established neighborhoods are feeling the pressure of growth and witnessing the
creation of"monster houses." Commercial areas are feeling the impact of an
expanding economy and booming development. "Underutilized" sites with
historic resources are often prime targets for redevelopment projects; with the
resulting loss of those resources. San Luis Obispo has already experienced
some of these same pressures, and it is logical to predict that we will continue to
face similar challenges in the near future. Actions can and should be taken to
address these issues today, so that the City can avoid the heated conflict and
controversy that is often generated when ambiguous or unresolved issues
proceed unchecked.
RECEIVED
AUG `? .rt 2001
SLO CITY COUNCIL
_l
To help prepare for these challenges, we recommend that the City council take
the following actions:
1. Revise the City's regulations and policies to comply with current State
laws and regulations.
2. Institute training for staff and advisory bodies regarding the provisions of
CEQA regarding Historic resources and the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards.
3. Promote and advocate "Heritage Tourism" as a valuable asset in
marketing the City..
4. Develop a recognition award program for contributions to protect Historic
resources.
5. Provide additional funding for consultant assistance to inventory the City's
potentially Historic resources.
ll. Background
San Luis Obispo has a rich cultural heritage and an informed citizenry who have
valued and protected that heritage. As with many areas of the country in the
1970s and 80s, the issues of historic preservation in San Luis Obispo found a
larger voice as several projects threatened the fabric of some of the historic
areas and neighborhoods. Special interest was focused on the commercial
downtown area and the "old town" Victorian neighborhoods. The historic
preservation movement in the City focused on the creation of"historic districts"
and the first three were created: Downtown, Old Town and Mill Street. In the
1990s a portion of the Downtown District was re-designated as the Chinatown
Historic District and a portion of the Old Town District was combined with an
additional area to create the Railroad Historic District.
The City also created two lists of historic properties—the.Master List of Historic
Properties, and the Contributing Property List. The Master List contains the most
important examples of San Luis Obispo's archaeological, cultural, and historic
resources, and also contains structures associated with important personages,
designers, or periods of our history. The Contributing Property list contains
properties that are important due to their contribution to the character of a historic
district, neighborhood, or the City as a whole, but in and of themselves are not
individually significant.
The City Council also created the CHC as an advisory body whose purpose was
to identify and protect the historic resources of the city. At that time the primary
duty of the CHC was to inventory historicresources in the City and to
2
• • 1
recommend formation of new historic districts. This remains a major component
of the CHC's work today.
The City also underscored the importance of historic and pre-historic resources
in its General Plan by including specific policies aimed at protecting these
resources including provisions in the: Land Use, Housing, Open Space,
Conservation and Parks & Recreation Elements.
III. Recommendations
The City has established plans and policies regarding historic preservation. The
process for dealing with properties within Historic Districts or on the City's historic
lists is clearly defined. The process for nominating and including properties on
the City's lists stresses cooperation from property owners, and thus receives
substantial support from property owners.
However, there are also some weaknesses in the City's current procedures:
A. Local / State.Rules Inconsistencies— Recent court cases and changes in
state law, primarily the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have
created a situation in which local and state law may not be consistent. CEQA
now requires that any structure over 50 years old that may be affected by a
project, be evaluated to determine if it is "historic" based on the criteria
presented in the CEQA Guidelines. If it is, the effects of a project must be
evaluated and the impacts mitigated. State law provides that local "lists" of
historic properties can be used as a short list to determine if a structure is
historic, but the absence of a structure from such a list does not mean it is not
considered historic (it may mean it has never been evaluated). In addition,
the definition used to place a structure on a local list may not reflect the
current definition in CEQA.
The City regularly relies on its lists to determine if a project may affect historic
resources, but often stops at-that step in its evaluation. The CHC is
sometimes consulted to determine if an unlisted structure may have historic
significance. However, in these cases, the information presented is often
minimal. Rather than the CHC reviewing information prepared for an Initial
Study (e.g. historic resource analysis), the CHC is used in lieu of doing the
primary historic research and analysis.
A second conflict may exist with the demolition regulations when a process is
laid out that would seem to allow demolition of a Master list structure.
Demolition of a Master List Structure, assumed to be a "historic" resource by
the State's guidelines, would by the State's rules seem to require preparation
of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in most.cases. This is not reflected
in the current demolition regulations and may mislead some property owners
as to a significant "hidden" step in the process.
3
A third conflict revolves around the requirement in CEQA that the "...whole of
an action..." be considered in the evaluation of a project. Since demolition of
non-listed properties is ministerial (thus exempt from CEQA), a process has
evolved where new development is occurring in a two-step process. First the
application for demolition of affected structures is received (and eventually
approved), and then the application for the new development is submitted.
This exempts the review of the demolition of any potentially historic structures
from review and protection of the CEQA requirements. Two recent examples
of this process are the Pacific Home Do-It redevelopment, and the New
Times development. This raises a potential legal question as to whether the
City is allowing a project to be "split"thus violating the requirement in CEQA
to review the whole of an action.
Recommended Actions:
1. Direct the Community Development Director and City Attorney to examine
city regulations, policies and procedures in light of current state
regulations. If necessary, amendments in regulations should be
recommended to the appropriate bodies to rectify any conflicts.
2. Consider preparation of a Historic Resources Element, or Historic
Preservation Ordinance as a vehicle to clarify process and policies.
3. Direct the Community Development Department to fully evaluate potential
historic resources as required by CEQA.
B. Demolition Regulations—The City's demolition regulations set procedures
that must be followed by property owners wishing to demolish any building
over 50 years old. If a building is over 50 years old, the CHC is notified of the
request for a demolition permit, and the property owner must advertise the
structure as available for possible relocation and photo-document the
structure per the City standards. If a property is on the Master or Contributing
Property List, a plan must be submitted for review of the CHC and ARC with a
required finding of the ARC regarding the feasibility of rehabilitation of the
structure, and compatibility of the new structure within the neighborhood. The
regulations provide a measure of certainty of the process for property owners
and developers but provide little protection for structures that may be historic,
but have not yet been evaluated for nomination to either of the City's lists.
Recommended Actions:
1. Direct the Community Development Director and City Attorney to examine
City regulations, policies, and procedures in light of current state
regulations. If necessary, amendments in regulations should be
recommended to the appropriate bodies to rectify any conflicts.
2. Direct the Community Development Director to prepare revisions to the
demolition regulations that provide more consistent protection to
potentially historic structures..
4
C. Inventories — Many of the older parts of town were inventoried in the 1980s,
and structures that at that time met the criteria were added to the lists. Since
then no comprehensive survey has been conducted, with the exception of the
Mt. Pleasanton —Anholm neighborhood. Properties were added through
recommendation of property owners, CHC members, or staff. However,
related to the demolition regulation discussion above, the CHC has found
itself repeatedly faced with demolition requests of structures that have never
been inventoried or evaluated for historic listing. This has created a "reactive"
mode rather than a "proactive" mode. A situation has been created in which
the CHC is constantly wondering where the next demolition request will arise
and has had the effect of diluting the time necessary to complete any
comprehensive survey. Much of the time is spent evaluating the next
"emergency." If the demolition regulations as currently written are to provide
some protection for historic resources, the inventory (and review of previous
inventories), and subsequent nomination to the City lists become increasingly
important.
Recommended Actions:
1. Provide additional funding for consultant help to inventory the City's
potentially historic resources.
D. Education of Staff.and Commissions —The recent changes in State law
have, in effect, created a "new" set of rules for dealing with historic resources.
The State and many communities are recognizing a broader definition of
"historic" including streetscapes, signage, and landscaping. There is
increased focus on use of the Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation of Historic Structures (SOI Standards) to analyze changes to
historic structures and to develop adequate mitigation measures. Staff and
decision-making bodies are currently basing decisions and findings on a
limited understanding of the requirements and provisions of these laws. In
addition, historic resource regulations have become and will continue to
become increasingly complex, especially as State and local regulations
collide.
Recommended Actions:
1. Direct the Community Development Director to institute training for staff
and decision-making bodies (i.e., Architectural Review Commission,
Planning Commission) on the provisions of CEQA and the SOI Standards.
E. Heritage Tourism / Education—The City has recently received the Great
American Main Street Award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
In addition, Sunset magazine's recent designation of San Luis Obispo as
"Best Downtown" (in the West) Was awarded in part because of its "historic
fabric." Yet, those in charge of promoting the City seem, at best, to ignore this
aspect of the City and, at worst, seem willing to sacrifice it if development or
5
. i
parking interests are at stake. The focus on heritage tourism should be
increased. Incorporating this even into development projects such as the
Copeland's project should be encouraged.
With the Copeland's example, if the project proceeds as planned, the project
will unearth (for all to see) the.largest slice of the City's that has yet been
seen. Significant historic and prehistoric artifacts will be encountered. With
help from local groups,the necessary archaeological investigations could
become a major draw for tourists as well as local residents and school
groups. The entire community should be educated as to how the historic
fabric of the community plays an important role in the character of the city we
all cherish.
Recommended Actions:
1. Request that the Downtown Association and Promotional Coordinating
Commission include heritage tourism and a-focus on historic resources as
potential "selling" points of the City.
2. Direct the Community Development Department to consider heritage
tourism opportunities as potential mitigation measures for large projects
that may affect cultural resources.
F. Recoanition Awards —The City may want to consider recognizing projects
and individuals who have made the extra effort-to contribute to the
preservation of historic resources. This would be a way of encouraging future
projects to make the extra effort in dealing sensitively with historic resources.
Recommended Actions:
1. Direct staff to work with the CHC and appropriate City departments to
develop a recognition award program for contributions to protect historic
resources.
V. Conclusion
The National Trust for Historic Preservation has recognized San Luis Obispo as
a "Distinctive Destination", the only in California so recognized. The revival of the
City's economy and its increasing popularity as a tourist destination is due, at
least in part, to its historic nature, character and appearance. The resources that
contain these qualities are becoming increasingly valuable as time and progress
take their toll. It is critical to keep in mind that these resources are non-
renewable. When they are gone, they're gone forever.
The time has come to preserve and protect the City's significant historical
resources of all types: residential, commercial, and industrial. We should assure
that these resources reflect the full spectrum of San Luis Obispo's cultural
heritage—from the ornate Victorian residences of prominent citizens to the
modest structures of the working classes. The Cultural Heritage Committee's
6
recommendations will go a long way toward ensuring the continuing quality of life
that we have come to associate with visiting, living in and doing business in San
Luis Obispo. We should err on the side of conservatism in the fate of historic
structures so San Luis Obispo continues to be in the words of the National Trust,
"...a striking alternative to Anyplace, USA."
Smlh/Uchdwhitepape r3.doc
7