SB 3 Senate Bill – CHAPTERED
www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_3_bill_20160404_chaptered.htm 6/7 effective date of this section, shall be considered employees of that taxpayer for purposes of this subdivision.
(c) (1) Following the implementation of the minimum wage increase specified in subparagraph (F) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), on or before August 1 of that year, and on or before each August 1 thereafter, the Director of Finance shall calculate an adjusted minimum wage. The calculation shall increase the minimum wage by the lesser of 3.5 percent and the rate of change in the averages of the most recent July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period over the preceding July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period for the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics nonseasonally adjusted United States Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (U.S. CPI-W). The result shall be rounded to the nearest ten cents ($0.10). Each adjusted minimum wage increase calculated under this subdivision shall take effect on the following January 1. (2) If the rate of change in the averages of the most recent July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period over the preceding July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period for the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics nonseasonally adjusted U.S. CPI-W is negative, there shall be no increase or decrease in the minimum wage pursuant to this subdivision on the following January 1.
(3) (A) Notwithstanding the implementation timing described in paragraph (1) of this subdivision, if the rate of change in the averages of the most recent July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period over the preceding July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period for the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics nonseasonally adjusted U.S. CPI-W exceeds 7 percent in the first year that the minimum wage specified in subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) is implemented, the indexing provisions described in paragraph (1) of this subdivision shall be implemented immediately, such that the indexing will be effective on the following January 1.
(B) If the rate of change in the averages of the most recent July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period over the preceding July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period for the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics nonseasonally adjusted U.S. CPI-W exceeds 7 percent in the first year that the minimum wage specified in subparagraph (F) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) is implemented, notwithstanding any other law, for employers with 25 or fewer employees the minimum wage shall be set equal to the minimum wage for employers with 26 or more employees, effective on the following January 1, and the minimum wage increase specified in subparagraph (F) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) shall be considered to have been implemented for purposes of this subdivision. (d) (1) On or before July 28, 2017, and on or before every July 28 thereafter until the minimum wage is fifteen dollars ($15) per hour pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), to ensure that economic conditions can support a minimum wage increase, the Director of Finance shall annually make a determination and certify to the Governor and the Legislature whether each of the following conditions is met:
(A) Total nonfarm employment for California, seasonally adjusted, decreased over the three-month period from April to June, inclusive, prior to the July 28 determination. This calculation shall compare seasonally adjusted total nonfarm employment in June to seasonally adjusted total nonfarm employment in March, as reported by the Employment Development Department.
(B) Total nonfarm employment for California, seasonally adjusted, decreased over the six-month period from January to June, inclusive, prior to the July 28 determination.
This calculation shall compare seasonally adjusted total nonfarm employment in June to seasonally adjusted total nonfarm employment in December, as reported by the Employment Development Department.
(C) Retail sales and use tax cash receipts from a 3.9375-percent tax rate for the July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period ending one month prior to the July 28 determination is less than retail sales and use tax cash receipts from a 3.9375-percent tax rate for the July 1 to June 30, inclusive, period ending 13 months prior to the July 28 determination.
The calculation for the condition specified in this subparagraph shall be made as follows:
(i) The State Board of Equalization shall publish by the 10th of each month on its Internet Web site the total retail sales (sales before adjustments) for the prior month derived from their daily retail sales and use tax reports.
SB 3 Senate Bill – CHAPTERED
www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_3_bill_20160404_chaptered.htm 7/7 (ii) The State Board of Equalization shall publish by the 10th of each month on its Internet Web site the monthly factor required to convert the prior month’s retail sales and use tax total from all tax rates to a retail sales and use tax total from a 3.9375- percent tax rate.
(iii) The Department of Finance shall multiply the monthly total from clause (i) by the monthly factor from clause (ii) for each month.
(iv) The Department of Finance shall sum the monthly totals calculated in clause (iii) to calculate the 12-month July 1 to June 30, inclusive, totals needed for the comparison in this subparagraph.
(2) (A) On or before July 28, 2017, and on or before every July 28 thereafter until the minimum wage is fifteen dollars ($15) per hour pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), to ensure that the state General Fund fiscal condition can support the next scheduled minimum wage increase, the Director of Finance shall annually make a determination and certify to the Governor and the Legislature whether the state General Fund would be in a deficit in the current fiscal year, or in either of the following two fiscal years.
(B) For purposes of this subdivision, deficit is defined as a negative balance in the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties, as provided for in Section 16418 of the Government Code, that exceeds, in absolute value, 1 percent of total state General Fund revenue and transfers, based on the most recent Department of Finance estimates required by Section 12.5 of Article IV of the California Constitution. For purposes of this subdivision, the estimates shall include the assumption that only the minimum wage increases scheduled for the following calendar year pursuant to subdivision (b) will be implemented.
(3) (A) (i) If, for any year, the condition in either subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) is met, and if the condition in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) is met, the Governor may, on or before August 1 of that year, notify the Legislature of an initial determination to temporarily suspend the minimum wage increases scheduled pursuant to subdivision (b) for the following year.
(ii) If the Director of Finance certifies under paragraph (2) that the state General Fund would be in a deficit in the current fiscal year, or in either of the following two fiscal years, the Governor may, on or before August 1 of that fiscal year, notify the Legislature of an initial determination to temporarily suspend the minimum wage increases scheduled pursuant to subdivision (b) for the following year. (B) If the Governor provides notice to the Legislature pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Governor shall, on September 1 of any such year, make a final determination whether to temporarily suspend the minimum wage increases scheduled pursuant to subdivision (b) for the following year. The determination to temporarily suspend the minimum wage increases scheduled pursuant to subdivision (b) for the following year shall be made by proclamation.
(C) The Governor may temporarily suspend scheduled minimum wage increases pursuant to clause (ii) of subparagraph (A) no more than two times. (D) If the Governor makes a final determination to temporarily suspend the scheduled minimum wage increases pursuant to subdivision (b) for the following year, all dates specified in subdivision (b) that are subsequent to the September 1 final determination date shall be postponed by an additional year.
O
95
Temporary Employee Salary Schedule
Classification EEO
Category
EEO
Function Class Grade Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9 Administrative Aide I 5 1 9172 902 17.50 $ 17.94 $ 18.39 $ 18.85 $ 19.32 $ 19.80 $ 20.30 $ 20.81 $ 21.33 $ Administrative Aide II 6 1 9371 906 19.50 $ 19.99 $ 20.49 $ 21.00 $ 21.53 $ 22.07 $ 22.62 $ 23.19 $ 23.77 $ Administrative Specialist 5 1 9472 906 19.50 $ 19.99 $ 20.49 $ 21.00 $ 21.53 $ 22.07 $ 22.62 $ 23.19 $ 23.77 $ Adult Sports Official 5 6 9265 904 18.50 $ 18.96 $ 19.43 $ 19.92 $ 20.42 $ 20.93 $ 21.45 $ 21.99 $ 22.54 $ Aquatics Specialist* 5 6 9461 908 20.50 $ 21.01 $ 21.54 $ 22.08 $ 22.63 $ 23.20 $ 23.78 $ 24.37 $ 24.98 $ Assistant City Attorney 2 1 9473 360 74.21 $ 92.78 $
Childcare Aide Emergency Sub Afternoon* 5 6 91615 970 21.13 $ 21.65 $ 22.19 $ 22.74 $ 23.30 $ 23.89 $ 24.49 $ 25.10 $ 25.73 $ Childcare Aide Emergency Sub Morning* 5 6 91619 971 25.35 $ 25.98 $ 26.63 $ 27.29 $ 27.96 $ 28.67 $ 29.39 $ 30.12 $ 30.87 $ Childcare Aide* 5 6 9161 900 16.90 $ 17.32 $ 17.75 $ 18.19 $ 18.64 $ 19.11 $ 19.59 $ 20.08 $ 20.58 $ Childcare Teacher Emergency Sub Afternoon* 5 6 92625 972 23.13 $ 23.70 $ 24.29 $ 24.90 $ 25.53 $ 26.16 $ 26.81 $ 27.49 $ 28.18 $ Childcare Teacher Emergency Sub Morning* 5 6 92629 973 27.75 $ 28.44 $ 29.15 $ 29.88 $ 30.63 $ 31.40 $ 32.18 $ 32.99 $ 33.81 $ Childcare Teacher* 5 6 9262 904 18.50 $ 18.96 $ 19.43 $ 19.92 $ 20.42 $ 20.93 $ 21.45 $ 21.99 $ 22.54 $ Commissioner 6 10 9861 990 86.00 $
Engineering Consultant 3 2 9332 980 50.00 $ 51.56 $ 55.00 $ 65.00 $ 75.00 $ Facilities Aide Farmer's Market 8 2 9292 904 18.50 $ 18.96 $ 19.43 $ 19.92 $ 20.42 $ 20.93 $ 21.45 $ 21.99 $ 22.54 $ Facilities Aide Pool 8 6 9293 904 18.50 $ 18.96 $ 19.43 $ 19.92 $ 20.42 $ 20.93 $ 21.45 $ 21.99 $ 22.54 $ Facilities Assistant 5 6 9264 902 17.50 $ 17.94 $ 18.39 $ 18.85 $ 19.32 $ 19.80 $ 20.30 $ 20.81 $ 21.33 $ Facilities Specialist 5 6 9463 906 19.50 $ 19.99 $ 20.49 $ 21.00 $ 21.53 $ 22.07 $ 22.62 $ 23.19 $ 23.77 $ Facility Host 5 6 9162 900 16.90 $ 17.32 $ 17.75 $ 18.19 $ 18.64 $ 19.11 $ 19.59 $ 20.08 $ 20.58 $ Fire Intern 3 5 9151 906 19.50 $ 19.99 $ 20.49 $ 21.00 $ 21.53 $ 22.07 $ 22.62 $ 23.19 $ 23.77 $ Flood Control Technician 8 2 9287 910 21.50 $ 22.04 $ 22.59 $ 23.15 $ 23.73 $ 24.32 $ 24.93 $ 25.55 $ 26.19 $ GIS Technician 3 2 9231 910 21.50 $ 22.04 $ 22.59 $ 23.15 $ 23.73 $ 24.32 $ 24.93 $ 25.55 $ 26.19 $ Head Childcare Teacher Emergency Sub Afternoon* 5 6 93605 974 25.63 $ 26.26 $ 26.93 $ 27.60 $ 28.29 $ 29.00 $ 29.73 $ 30.46 $ 31.23 $ Head Childcare Teacher Emergency Sub Morning* 5 6 93609 975 30.75 $ 31.52 $ 32.31 $ 33.12 $ 33.95 $ 34.80 $ 35.67 $ 36.56 $ 37.47 $ Head Childcare Teacher* 5 6 9360 908 20.50 $ 21.01 $ 21.54 $ 22.08 $ 22.63 $ 23.20 $ 23.78 $ 24.37 $ 24.98 $ Head Lifeguard* 5 6 9351 904 18.50 $ 18.96 $ 19.43 $ 19.92 $ 20.42 $ 20.93 $ 21.45 $ 21.99 $ 22.54 $ Intern I 5 1 9111 900 16.90 $ 17.32 $ 17.75 $ 18.19 $ 18.64 $ 19.11 $ 19.59 $ 20.08 $ 20.58 $ Intern II 5 1 9211 902 17.50 $ 17.94 $ 18.39 $ 18.85 $ 19.32 $ 19.80 $ 20.30 $ 20.81 $ 21.33 $ Intern III 5 1 9311 904 18.50 $ 18.96 $ 19.43 $ 19.92 $ 20.42 $ 20.93 $ 21.45 $ 21.99 $ 22.54 $ Intern IV 6 1 9411 906 19.50 $ 19.99 $ 20.49 $ 21.00 $ 21.53 $ 22.07 $ 22.62 $ 23.19 $ 23.77 $ IT Assistant Help Desk 5 1 9232 910 21.50 $ 22.04 $ 22.59 $ 23.15 $ 23.73 $ 24.32 $ 24.93 $ 25.55 $ 26.19 $ Lifeguard Dock Pay* 5 6 92519 900 16.90 $
Lifeguard* 5 6 9251 902 17.50 $ 17.94 $ 18.39 $ 18.85 $ 19.32 $ 19.80 $ 20.30 $ 20.81 $ 21.33 $ Open Space Technician 8 6 9289 902 17.50 $ 17.94 $ 18.39 $ 18.85 $ 19.32 $ 19.80 $ 20.30 $ 20.81 $ 21.33 $ Parking Ambassador 8 2 9271 904 18.50 $ 18.96 $ 19.43 $ 19.92 $ 20.42 $ 20.93 $ 21.45 $ 21.99 $ 22.54 $ Parking Compliance Officer 3 2 9266 405 26.84 $ 28.25 $ 29.74 $ 31.30 $ 32.95 $ Parks Maintenance Aide I 8 2 9182 902 17.50 $ 17.94 $ 18.39 $ 18.85 $ 19.32 $ 19.80 $ 20.30 $ 20.81 $ 21.33 $ Parks Maintenance Aide II 8 2 9281 906 19.50 $ 19.99 $ 20.49 $ 21.00 $ 21.53 $ 22.07 $ 22.62 $ 23.19 $ 23.77 $ Ranger Service Aide 8 6 9183 908 20.50 $ 21.01 $ 21.54 $ 22.08 $ 22.63 $ 23.20 $ 23.78 $ 24.37 $ 24.98 $ Rec Cashier* 5 6 9171 900 16.90 $ 17.32 $ 17.75 $ 18.19 $ 18.64 $ 19.11 $ 19.59 $ 20.08 $ 20.58 $ Recording Secretary 6 10 9272 902 17.50 $ 17.94 $ 18.39 $ 18.85 $ 19.32 $ 19.80 $ 20.30 $ 20.81 $ 21.33 $ Recreation Services Leader I* 5 6 91600 900 16.90 $ 17.32 $ 17.75 $ 18.19 $ 18.64 $ 19.11 $ 19.59 $ 20.08 $ 20.58 $ Recreation Services Leader II* 5 6 92600 904 18.50 $ 18.96 $ 19.43 $ 19.92 $ 20.42 $ 20.93 $ 21.45 $ 21.99 $ 22.54 $ Special Swim Instructor* 5 6 9369 906 19.50 $ 19.99 $ 20.49 $ 21.00 $ 21.53 $ 22.07 $ 22.62 $ 23.19 $ 23.77 $ Student Neighborhood Assistant Program (SNAP) 3 4 9352 910 21.50 $ 22.04 $ 22.59 $ 23.15 $ 23.73 $ 24.32 $ 24.93 $ 25.55 $ 26.19 $ Swim Instructor* 5 6 9263 904 18.50 $ 18.96 $ 19.43 $ 19.92 $ 20.42 $ 20.93 $ 21.45 $ 21.99 $ 22.54 $ Wastewater Intern 6 1 91301 906 19.50 $ 19.99 $ 20.49 $ 21.00 $ 21.53 $ 22.07 $ 22.62 $ 23.19 $ 23.77 $ Water Intern 6 1 91303 906 19.50 $ 19.99 $ 20.49 $ 21.00 $ 21.53 $ 22.07 $ 22.62 $ 23.19 $ 23.77 $ Water Treatment Plant Intern 6 1 91302 906 19.50 $ 19.99 $ 20.49 $ 21.00 $ 21.53 $ 22.07 $ 22.62 $ 23.19 $ 23.77 $ Youth Sports Official* 5 6 9261 900 16.90 $ 17.32 $ 17.75 $ 18.19 $ 18.64 $ 19.11 $ 19.59 $ 20.08 $ 20.58 $ CalPERS Retired Annuitants will be paid in accordance with the Regular and Limited Trem Salary Schedule per CalPERS Rules and Regulations Effective 01/01/2026 Key
Blue = P&R Positions
* = Classifications that work with children (AB
218 doesn't apply)
Item 5l
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5009
For Agenda of: 12/2/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Public Works & Utlities Director
Prepared By: Morgan Edmunson, Engineer I
SUBJECT: 2025 UPDATE TO CITY STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND
ENGINEERING STANDARDS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving 2025 Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards for Construction” (Attachment A); and
2. Authorize the City Engineer to allow projects currently in design or approved by Council for construction under the 2020 City Standard Specifications to continue referencing the 2020 City Standard Specifications on a case-by-case basis.
POLICY CONTEXT
The adoption of City Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards (Standards) for construction projects in the City of San Luis Obispo is governed by City Council resolution.
The Public Works Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Engineering Division periodically updates the Standards to reflect changes in construction practices, provide clarifications, and adopt new technologies and code requirements. Staff maintains a list of suggested improvements, which are incorporated into the Standards during updates. The City Engineer provides oversight and approves all proposed updates to ensure consistency, quality, and compliance with current regulations. These Standards set forth general guidelines and requirements for design and construction of infrastructure projects throughout the city. Additionally, adopted Standards provide design and plan immunity under Government Code Section 830.6, thereby protecting the City from possible liability.
DISCUSSION
Background
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the City’s Standards. The Standards set forth general guidelines and requirements for design and construction of City projects. In addition, the Standards also apply to private development work within City rightof-way or on City property, and some sections apply to private development work on private property. They establish a level of quality and consistency for infrastructure construction and provide an objective standard for public improvements. When combined with inspection, the Standards help ensure the longevity and functionality of public improvements while reducing
Item 5l
long-term maintenance costs. In addition, the Standards provide contractual language to guide the relationship between contractors and the City during construction activities. In unique situations, licensed judgement by the City Engineer may be required to best apply intent of the Standards.
The City’s Standards work in conjunction with the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Standard Specifications, State Book. The City Standards reference the State Book and modify the State Book where appropriate to satisfy City needs.
The State Book covers many standard contract issues and legal requirements such as labor laws, bidding, payment, and liability. The City Standards also focus on construction guidelines for work that Caltrans does not typically handle such as water, wastewater, and park facilities. Both the City and Caltrans Standards include pictorial construction drawings and details illustrating how facilities are constructed, tailored to their respective needs.
The 2025 update aligns the City Standards with the 2024 State Book, reflecting recent changes in construction regulations, materials, and industry best practices. Incorporating these updates now ensures projects comply with current codes and reduces inconsistencies between City and statewide construction requirements.
2025 Revisions
The 2020 City Standards implement the 2015 State Book. The updated 2025 Standards now implement the 2024 State Book, which is publicly available online to all. The 2024 State Book reflects the most current construction regulations and codes, ensuring greater consistency with statewide practices. All sections present in the 2024 State Book were reviewed prior to incorporation into the City’s 2025 Standards. Major section revisions include those applicable to roadway paving and traffic signal equipment, such as Section 39, “Asphalt Concrete”, and Sections 86 and 87, “Electrical Systems”.
This 2025 update also includes clarifications and revisions to several existing Standard details, including the street tree species standards, tree wells, trash containers, pathway lighting, and downtown pedestrian lighting. The Tree Committee approved the proposed edits to the tree species standards. Further, new standards have been developed, including standards for installation of communication utilities by microtrenching, landscaped medians, and a hydration station. Miscellaneous edits were made to the Uniform Design Criteria, Standard 1010, including reference to the California Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Code for fire lane access road requirements. These additions establish clear expectations of infrastructure improvements that will enhance community cohesiveness, promote design development consistency, and reduce future City review times for similar projects.
To minimize project delivery impacts, staff anticipate projects that are substantially complete with design or were approved by Council for construction bid advertisement using the City’s 2020 Standards to proceed to construction under the 2020 City Standards. All other projects will be converted to the 2025 Standards prior to construction, provided the conversion does not create design conflicts or introduce significant schedule delays or cost impacts (these types of issues are expected to be the exception).
Item 5l
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On August 18, 2020, Council approved the adoption of the previous City Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards update.
The Tree Committee approved the proposed edits to the tree species standards on April 28, 2025.
The City’s Fire Department held a study session for the new Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) Code on October 7, 2025.
Public Engagement
Public Works staff coordinate with local developers, engineers, and contractors to ensure compliance with the City’s Standards. When deficiencies or opportunities for improvements are identified, staff work with these external partners to make the necessary design or field adjustments. Where appropriate, those revisions are incorporated into the next Standards update. With the recommended action, this update reflects those incremental improvements identified through ongoing coordination with the development and construction community.
The Developer’s Roundtable group was notified of the 2025 Standards update at the October 2025 meeting in conjunction with a detailed discussion about the WUI Code requirements, which are scheduled for introduction by Council on November 18th.
Additional email notification to the Developer’s Roundtable, including an overview of the expected Standards revisions and updates, was provided requesting input and questions regarding specific information of interest. Furthermore, at the November 13, 2025 Developer’s Roundtable meeting, staff provided an informational presentation about the update and an opportunity for discussion. No concerns or requests were raised by participants regarding the 2025 Standards update.
Finally, staff engaged with consultants to revise the standards to ensure full compliance with current industry best practices, including those for paving, electrical, and traffic signals. This also included coordination with consultant attorneys most familiar with Public Contract Code requirements, further ensuring that the City is in full compliance with applicable State and Federal Laws, and that the City’s construction contract documents clearly communicate contractual obligations, to the benefit of both the City and contractors that perform work with the City.
CONCURRENCE
The proposed modifications to the Standards were developed collaboratively by staff from the Public Works, Utilities, and Community Development Departments. All participating departments concur that the updates are reasonable and appropriate. The City Engineer has reviewed and approved all proposed changes.
Item 5l
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of the updated City Standards and Specifications can be found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the “common sense exemption” defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The updated Standards and Specifications would not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, because this document solely identifies requirements and provides guidance for design and construction of future projects, and does not commit the City to the construction or implementation of any identified project. Future projects would be subject to the requirements of CEQA, unless otherwise found exempt subject to findings specific to the future project.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: N/A
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $N/A $0 $0 $0
The recommended Standards changes are either minor or will have an insignificant impact on the cost of City or private development projects. This is because most of the changes involve improvements to current construction standards or City infrastructure needs. The changes are not anticipated to result in significant cost impacts on construction or development, including to those projects that will be updated to the 2025 Standards. The recommended Standards update does not obligate funding and there are no direct Capital expenditures associated with the update.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not adopt the 2025 Standards at this time. Under this alternative, projects would continue under the 2020 Standards based on the 2015 State Book. This could result in inconsistencies with current statewide construction practices and regulations and may increase review times for new projects.
2. Direct staff to make further revisions prior to adoption. Council may direct staff to return to Council with requested additions or changes to the proposed design standards. This action would delay implementation and potentially affect upcoming projects that rely on current guidance.
Item 5l
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution Adopting Revised Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards for Construction
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2025 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING 2025 STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR
CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards establishing quality requirements and contract conditions for construction; and
WHEREAS, the Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards must be periodically updated to allow for changes in construction practices and contract law; and WHEREAS, legally adopted Standard Specifications are necessary to provide design and plan immunity thereby protecting the City from possible liability; and, WHEREAS, adoption of the updated City Standards and Specifications can be found exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the “common sense exemption” defined by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Resolution No. 11151 (2020 Series) approving previous editions of the Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards is hereby superseded and the 2025 Standard Specifications and Engineering Specifications approved herein shall be applicable to all projects advertised and approved following the approval of these standards, except as expressly provided below.
SECTION 2. 2025 Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards dated December 2, 2025, and effective December 12, 2025, are hereby approved.
SECTION 3. The City Engineer is authorized to release for advertising under the previous Standard Specifications, currently pending projects that are deemed substantially complete with design at the time of this adoption. The Council expressly affirms its prior approval of the Standard Specifications approved by resolution No. 11151 (2020) as applicable to those projects.
Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2025.
R ______
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: December 2, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Laura Fiedler, Economic Development & Tourism Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM #5m -- FY 2025-26 CULTURAL ARTS AND COMMUNITY
PROMOTIONS GRANT AWARD MODIFICATIONS
Staff received the following question regarding the proposed modifications to the FY 2025-26 Cultural Arts and Community Promotions Grant program. Staff’s response shown in italics:
1) Have we given any thought to limiting the amount that could be changed after PCC approval? What would be considered a “significant” change that would have to go back to PCC?
The recommendation of the Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) to Council did not include a threshold of a specific dollar amount or percentage of the grant amount that could be modified after PCC and Council approval in order to provide flexibility in program administration for reasonable requests. Proposed modifications would be evaluated against the current program specifications, which include the following explanation of what is an allowed expense on page 2:
“4. Use of Grant Funding: Grant funding must exclusively be used to fund marketing expenses and advertising expenses directly related to the event or activity.
a) Acceptable marketing expenses include: graphic design or printing; limited contracted services such as public relations fees, promotional video production expenses, and social media expenses directly relating to the event; expenses relating to enhancements for digital newsletters or email campaigns; and web design services. The applying organization must provide documentation that expenses for these services are directly and exclusively related to the event or activity in which funding is requested.
b) Acceptable advertising expenses are limited to the actual cost of the paid media placement or advertisement.
ITEM #5m -- FY 2025-26 CACP GRANT AWARD MODIFICATIONS Page 2 c) Grants are not given for the following expenses: office overhead, payroll, equipment, scholarships or honoraria, general
organization operating expenses, supplies, décor, venue rental or fees for: event permits, performers, speakers, presenters, vendors, or event production contractor fees.”
Examples of “significant” deviations that would need to be brought back to the PCC for consideration would be an organization that proposes using grant funds for a different event or an organization that proposes an alternative use of grant funds that is not clearly allowed or excluded based on the program specifications.
The PCC expects to update the FY 2026-27 Cultural Arts and Community Promotions program specifications at their January 14, 2026, meeting. An ad hoc committee of the PCC met in November to review the program specifications, application process, and post-event reporting process in detail and discuss any potential areas for modification for next year’s program. As the PCC has not recommended funding for printing expenses in the past grant cycle in alignment with the City’s sustainability goals, one proposed modification would be to explicitly not allow funding to be used for printed materials or promotional “swag” items.
Item 5m
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1007
For Agenda of: 12/2/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Laura Fiedler, Economic Development & Tourism Manager SUBJECT: FY 2025-26 CULTURAL ARTS AND COMMUNITY PROMOTIONS GRANT
AWARD MODIFICATIONS
RECOMMENDATION
1. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to modify allowed uses of grant funding when executing contracts for the FY 2025-26 Cultural Arts and Community Promotions (CACP) grant recipients; and
2. Authorize the City Manager or her designee to use discretion in accepting or rejecting submitted receipts from the FY 2025-26 grant recipients, up to the approved grant amount for each recipient, while ensuring overall purpose and intent remains consistent with recommendations from the Promotional Coordinating Committee and approval by City Council. Grantees must notify staff of any requested deviation in the use of funds in advance of the expenditure, and staff will bring any substantial deviations back to the PCC for consideration.
POLICY CONTEXT
As stated in the Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC) Advisory Body Bylaws:
“The purpose of the PCC is to advise the Council in working to improve the quality of life for all City residents and our visitors. The Committee recommends projects to help promote the City as a regional trade, recreation, and tourist center, consistent with community goals.”
The PCC has been offering promotional grant funding for decades, through which local non-profit organizations can utilize the funding to promote cultural, recreational, or social activities in the San Luis Obispo community.
On July 15, 2025, the City Council approved the PCC’s FY 2025-26 budget, which included $100,000 for the Cultural Arts and Community Promotions (CACP) Grant Program. The CACP Grant Program awards competitive grants to non-profits for marketing and advertising costs related to the promotion of eligible activities and events in San Luis Obispo. Events must occur between July 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026, and have cultural, social, and/or recreational benefit to residents and visitors.
Item 5m
DISCUSSION
Background
The FY 2025-26 CACP grant cycle was opened on January 31, 2025, and applications were due on March 17, 2025. As discussed in the next section in greater detail, the PCC approved recommendations on grant awards on May 14, 2025, and the City Council approved the PCC recommendations on July 15, 2025 (see 07/15/2025 City Council Agenda Item 6i - Attachment E for the list of grant recipients and funding amounts).
Following the City Council approval, staff has been drafting and executing contracts with the grant recipients. Two grant recipients, Downtown SLO and the SLO International Film Festival, contacted staff during this process and requested modifications to their grant awards.
Downtown SLO
Per the recommendation of the PCC, the City Council awarded Downtown SLO $12,000 for the 2025 Concerts in the Plaza series “to be used towards the media plan as presented.” Typically, organizations request that the PCC fund media expenses, however, DSLO has sponsorships with media organizations for Concerts in the Plaza and receives advertising in-kind. Therefore, DSLO has requested that the PCC funding go towards the following expenses instead:
Funding expense description Amount requested
Videographer – capture content at two concerts $2,000
Signage, banners, wayfinding, A-frames $4,500
Print: posters, rack cards, mailers, postage $2,000
Pedestrian banners $1,500
Artwork $750
Social media ads/boosts $1,800
TOTAL $12,550
At a Special Meeting of the PCC on November 17, 2025, the PCC voted to recommend that City Council approve the alternative uses of funds listed above, with the exception of the third item listed as “Print: posters, rack cards, mailers, postage” in the amount of $2,000. As part of its commitment to sustainability, the PCC has not recommended funding for print expenses for other grantees in this cycle. This would reduce the recommended grant award to Downtown SLO from $12,550 to $10,550 and the remainder would be left in the PCC’s budget for use later in the fiscal year for other promotional activities. If the funding is unspent by the end of the fiscal year, it would fall to the general fund unassigned fund balance.
Item 5m
SLO International Film Festival
Per the recommendation of the PCC, the City Council awarded the SLO International Film Festival (SLOIFF) $6,000 “to be used towards Variety Package only” for the festival occurring in April 2026. This was an advertising and marketing package with Variety, a global multi-platform entertainment news company. At the time that the CACP grant application was due in March 2025, the SLOIFF had not yet hosted the April 2025 film festival, which included the use of the Variety promotional package. Following the April 2025 event, the SLOIFF public relations team evaluated the performance of the Variety package and compared it against the increased cost for the same package offered for 2026. The public relations team advised that the Variety package was not recommended for the 2026 SLOIFF and that advertising dollars would be better spent elsewhere.
The SLOIFF is therefore seeking to amend its FY 2025-26 CACP grant award to target audiences where they see opportunity for growth, including the film industry and local younger demographics. Email blasts would encourage people to take advantage of the See + Stay package, which is an offer providing free festival passes with two-night bookings during the festival dates in San Luis Obispo. The See + Stay package is one aspect of the $20,000 sponsorship that the SLO Tourism Business Improvement District (TBID) Board voted to approve at their meeting on November 12, 2025.
The proposed alternative promotional plan would be as follows:
Funding expense description Amount requested
Dedicated MovieMaker Magazine Email Blast (1X) $2,000
Targeted Dedicated Emails to Motion Picture Academy and Writers Guild of America through Vision Media (3X)
$2,250
Hulu Video Ads – targeted to local viewers $1,000
Mustang News (Cal Poly Webpage Ads) $750
TOTAL $6,000
At a Special Meeting of the PCC on November 17, 2025, the PCC voted to recommend that City Council approve the alternative uses of funds listed above for the SLOIFF.
FY 2025-26 Discretion on Reasonable Modifications
As the FY 2024-25 grant cycle concludes, staff has been collecting receipts and final reports from grant recipients, as required in the grant guidelines and grant award agreements. During this process, staff has identified several instances where applicants have deviated from the exact marketing and advertising expenses as outlined in the grant agreements, resulting in the return of funds to the City.
Item 5m
Staff identified that for the Cultural Grants-in-Aid program (the predecessor to the CACP program) in FY 2022-23, one grantee returned $1,125. In FY 2023-24, four grantees in the CACP program returned a total of $5,105. Final reports are still being reviewed for FY 2024-25 grantees, but so far three organizations have been identified as needing to return funds. Such funds are returned to the PCC program budget. If the funding is unspent by the end of the fiscal year, it would fall to the general fund unassigned fund balance.
Staff has identified two main reasons for these deviations: 1) the length of time between when grant applications are due and when events are executed (up to 16 months) during which time the event specifics and advertising/marketing needs and costs may change; and 2) lack of consistency and clarity between the application submissions and the grant agreements.
The intention of the CACP grant program is to support non-profits in advertising and marketing events that have cultural, social, and/or recreational benefit for residents and visitors, and therefore the PCC and staff are aligning on process improvements to achieve this goal. The PCC and staff are undertaking the following three actions with the intention of reducing the instances where grant funds need to be returned to the City:
1) Clarifying communications with grant recipients so that they are better aware of the specific items they are being funded for and the amounts; 2) Requesting that the PCC liaisons to grant recipients and the SLO Chamber PR liaison reiterates those commitments (the PCC has an annual contract with the SLO Chamber of Commerce to provide free marketing and public relations consultations and services to CACP grant recipients);
3) Forming a subcommittee to review the grant guidelines and process for the FY 2026-27 grant cycle, including reviewing for consistency with other City grant programs and determining the appropriate way to document completed work; and 4) Recommending a modification to future agreements to grant authority to the City Manager or her designee to allow modified uses of grant funding while ensuring overall purpose and intent remains consistent with recommendations from the Promotional Coordinating Committee and approval by City Council.
As an interim step to ensure greater efficiency and process improvement for the execution of grants for this current FY 2025-26 grant cycle, the PCC also makes the following recommendation to the City Council:
Authorize the City Manager or her designee to use discretion in accepting or rejecting submitted receipts from the FY 2025-26 grant recipients, up to the approved grant amount for each recipient, while ensuring overall purpose and intent remains consistent with recommendations from the Promotional Coordinating Committee and approval by City Council. Grantees must notify staff of any requested deviation in the use of funds in advance of the expenditure, and staff will bring any substantial deviations back to the PCC for consideration.
Item 5m
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The PCC’s CACP subcommittee met to review the applications, compare the requests to the grant criteria, and allocate funding accordingly. On May 14, 2025, the PCC held a public hearing with all applicants to allow for public comment before the recommendation was forwarded to the City Council for consideration and approval. The committee received four public comments from the grant applicants and ultimately approved the recommendation for the FY 2025-26 funding allocations to 23 organizations.
On July 15, 2025, the City Council authorized the City Manager to enter into various contracts and program expenditures for Community Promotions not to exceed the 2025- 26 program budget of $367,000 (excludes staffing costs) based on the recommendations by the PCC, including the 2025-26 Cultural Arts & Community Promotions (CACP) allocations in the amount of $100,000 and authorization to execute individual agreements with each grant recipient.
On November 17, 2025, the PCC held a special meeting to consider the modifications to the FY 2025-26 CACP grant awards and to make the recommendations noted in this report.
Public Engagement
All PCC meetings were noticed in accordance with Brown Act standards. The public will also have the opportunity to provide public comment before or during the December 2, 2025, City Council meeting. The two affected grantees, Downtown SLO and the SLO International Film Festival, were also made aware of this item.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “project” under CEQA Guidelines sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
The total FY 2025-26 program budget for Community Promotions ( PCC) is $398,545, as can be referenced on page 432 of the City’s adopted FY 25-27 Financial Plan. The CACP Grant Program under discussion is $100,000 out of the total budget of $398,545. The recommendations under consideration do not change the overall funding allocations that have already been approved by Council on July 15, 2025.
Item 5m
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund:
Community
Promotions
$398,545 $0 $398,545 $0
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $398,545 $ $398,545 $0
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Council could choose not to authorize the City Manager or her designee to make the modifications for the FY 2025-26 grant awards. This would mean that Downtown SLO and the SLOIFF would likely not be able to utilize the grant funds as approved and would not execute the contracts nor receive funds. This would mean that up to $18,000 from the CACP grant program for FY 2025-26 would not be awarded. Council may provide direction that staff return to Council with an alternative proposed use of this funding.
2. The Council could choose not to authorize the City Manager or her designee to use discretion in accepting or rejecting submitted receipts from the FY 2025-26 grant recipients, up to the approved grant amount for each recipient, while ensuring overall purpose and intent remains consistent with recommendations from the Promotional Coordinating Committee and approval by City Council.
Per the PCC’s recommendation, grantees would need to notify staff of any requested deviation in the use of funds in advance of the expenditure, and staff would bring any substantial deviations back to the PCC for consideration. If this authorization is not granted, it is possible that additional awarded funding would be returned to the City from other grantees if reasonable modifications to their advertising and marketing expenses are not approved. This may cause additional strain on local non-profits, many of which are experiencing financial constraints from reductions in other sources of funding.
Item 6a
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4006
For Agenda of: 12/2/2025
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Brian Leveille, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION TO ADOPT
UPDATES TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT (CODE 0758-2025)
RECOMMENDATION
1) Introduce an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, repealing Chapter 14.01 (Historic Preservation Ordinance) of the Municipal Code in its entirety and introducing and adopting a replacement Chapter 14.01 to include recommended updates and amendments as reflected in Attachment B - Exhibit A”; and finding that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment; and
2) Adopt a Resolution entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adopting updates to the Historic Context Statement as reflected in the attached Attachment E - Exhibit A”; and finding that the project is categorically exempt from environmental review under Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
An update of the Historic Resources Inventory was included as an implementation task of the City’s Major City Goal for Cultural Vitality, Economic Resilience, and Fiscal Sustainability in the 2023-25 Financial Plan. In order to update the Historic Resources Inventory, the current effort (Phase 1) includes completion of an update of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement prior to proceeding with the update of the Historic Resources Inventory. The City has engaged with the architecture and preservation firm Page and Turnbull to assist with the effort.
Item 6a
The City’s Historic Resources Inventory comprises all the City’s identified historic resources including Contributing and Master List Historic Properties, as well as the City’s five historic districts. The City’s Historic Resources Inventory includes 760 listed properties and was initiated with major surveys in the early 1980’s. Over time, the City’s Historic Preservation Program has evolved with notable changes starting in 2010 with the adoption of a Historic Preservation Ordinance and then with the City’s move to a more formal and structured historic preservation program with membership as a Certified Local Government in 2012. In 2013, the City adopted a Historic Context Statement which supplements the Historic Preservation Ordinance in making decisions on a property’s historic significance.
As discussed further in this report, the Historic Resources Inventory has long needed a comprehensive review to determine the appropriate status of listed properties in light of these updates and due to the significant period of time that has passed since the majority of properties on the Historic Resources Inventory were listed. Therefore, the City Council prioritized this work as a work plan item for the Community Development Department.
Once the Historic Resources Inventory update is completed, the City will have achieved an updated inventory providing certainty that listed properties meet currently adopted criteria, along with more clarity and information to guide decisions when reviewing proposed alterations on historically listed properties. This will result in reduced timeframes for review, more certainty for property owners on how to approach alterations, reduced costs and streamlined project review timeframes.
This item represents the first phase of the project to update the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, and the recommended amendments provide an updated framework and guidance for the City’s review of the current Historic Resources Inventory, future surveys, and for continued effective implementation of the City’s Historic Preservation Program into the future. Once the recommended amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement are completed, staff will initiate Phase 2 of the project, which will include the review of the current Historic Resources Inventory and investigation and surveys for potential new resources.
POLICY CONTEXT
General Plan
Various policies and programs in the Cultural Heritage (Chapter 3) section of the Conservation and Open Space Element support the City’s Historic Preservation Program, including the identification and preservation of historic resources. Land Use Element (LUE) Implementation Policy 12.4 also describes the intended use of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines by the City Council, Cultural Heritage Committee, and other advisory bodies in the review of projects within a historic district or on property with a listed historic resource to ensure protection of historic resources, with the Historic Context Statement also providing the information to support the identification and review of resources. The most relevant policies to the Historic Resources Inventory update effort are listed below:
Item 6a
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) Goal 3.2: The City will expand community understanding, appreciation and support for historic and architectural resource preservation to ensure long-term protection of cultural resources. Land Use Element (LUE) Implementation Policy 12.4: Historic Preservation Ordinance and Guidelines are used by the staff, City Council, Planning Commission, Cultural Heritage Committee, and other advisory bodies in the review of projects within a historic district or on property with a listed historic resource to ensure protection of historic resources. The City’s Historic Context Statement provides information to support the review and identification of resources.
Major City Goals
An update of the Historic Resources Inventory, beginning with updates of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement was included as an implementation task of the City’s Major City Goal for Cultural Vitality, Economic Resilience, and Fiscal Sustainability in the 2023-25 Financial Plan. Continued work to complete the Project was included in the 2025-27 Financial plan.
Municipal Code Chapter 14.01
The Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 14.01 of the Municipal Code) implements General Plan policies for preservation and includes various provisions for the identification and protection of historic resources including significance criteria, historic classifications, review processes, and requirements that apply to proposed alterations to historic resources including the Secretary of Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. For this project, various updates are focused on classifications, significance criteria, and review process for historic significance determinations to set the framework for upcoming update of the Historic Resources Inventory. Review procedures and standards applying to alterations to historic properties including additions, new construction, or rehabilitations to historic resources are not within the scope of this project.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s Historic Resources Inventory identifies properties that have been determined by the City to be important historical resources that should be preserved. The current Historic Resources Inventory comprises the City’s identified historic resources, including Master List properties, Contributing historic properties, and five historic districts.1In order to implement the City’s preservation policies2, proposed alterations and new construction on listed Historic Resources Inventory properties or on properties in historic districts are required to meet standards of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance3. The City’s
1 The City’s Historic Districts include Downtown, Old Town, Mill Street, Chinatown, and Railroad. 2 General Plan Conservation and Open Space (COSE) Policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.5 call for identification, and preservation of historic resources including historic districts through protections from demolition, relocation, and by ensuring alterations are consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards. 3 The Historic Preservation Ordinance implements General Plan policies for the protection of historic resources through review for consistency with the Secretary of Interior Standards and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
Item 6a
Historic Resources Inventory is also important because listed properties are categorized as historic resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)4.
The City’s Historic Resources Inventory has been in place for over 35 years with most of the properties currently on the Historic Resources Inventory having been placed on the inventory as a result of major historic surveys in 1983 and 1987, and then through targeted surveys and individual property evaluations over the years. Currently, there are a total of 760 listed historic properties in the Historic Resources Inventory, comprised of 200 Master List properties5 and 560 Contributing list6 properties.
The City’s Historic Preservation Program has evolved significantly over time with the most notable changes occurring in 2010, when the Historic Preservation Ordinance and amended Historic Preservation Program Guidelines were adopted. The Historic Preservation Ordnance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines added statutory authority and an enforceable framework for the identification and protection of historic resources7. Following this, the City also became a Certified Local Government in 2012.
Becoming a Certified Local Government made the City eligible to apply for historic preservation grants8from the California State Office of Historic Preservation. Certified Local Government status also provides public recognition that the City’s Historic Preservation Program is being run consistent with state guidelines. Consistent with requirements from the State Office of Historic Preservation, Certified Local Government status carries a commitment to meeting ongoing certification requirements,9 which are reported annually including the requirement to maintain a current inventory of historic resources meeting locally adopted criteria.
4 Properties included in a local register of historic resources or determined to be eligible for a local register are presumed historically significant and are historic resources for the purposes of CEQA (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5).
5 Master List Historic properties are distinguished from Contributing properties as the “The most unique and important resources and properties in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the city’s past, which meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.070.” The Master List is the City’s highest standard/designation of historic property listing and properties must be on the Master List in order to be eligible for the Mills Act historic preservation and tax incentive program.
6 Contributing historic resources are described in the Historic Preservation Ordinance as properties that contribute to the historic character of a neighborhood, district, or the City as a whole. Contributing properties include those properties that by virtue of their age, design and appearance, contribute to and embody the historic character of the neighborhood or historic district in which they are located (SLOMC
14.01.050)
7 Adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance implemented General Plan COSE Program 3.6.10 8 In 2012, the City received a $22,500 grant towards preparation of the Historic Context Statement. 9 Certified Local Governments are required to maintain a historic preservation commission and to make preservation decisions based on adopted criteria of a local ordinance consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards. For the full list of Certified Local Government requirements see:
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1072/files/clgrequirements.pdf
Item 6a
In 2013, the City adopted the Historic Context Statement. This was a key element needed to support the Historic Preservation Program. The Historic Context Statement is a reference document that describes broad patterns of historical development in the community, contexts, associated property types, and a thematic framework to help staff, the public, and decision makers understand and evaluate the City’s historic resources. It is a best practice in historic preservation for local jurisdictions to use both the significance criteria (explained below) of an ordinance and the guidance of a context statement to make determinations of a property’s historic status.
Need to Update the Historic Resources Inventory
There are several reasons that the Historic Resources Inventory needs to be updated at this time. Since the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement include the significance criteria and guidance for the determination of what properties should be classified as historic resources, and most properties on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory were listed over 35 years ago, the majority of currently listed resources have never been evaluated comprehensively for their ability to meet current criteria of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement.
The main issue with the City’s inventory and current supporting Historic Preservation Ordinance, continues to be that there is a lack of distinction in the properties on the Contributing list on whether they are contributors to an identified historic district or whether they also have individual significance as a resource. The distinction is critical since alterations to a property that is listed as a Contributor should be evaluated based on the property’s ability to continue to contribute to the historic significance of the district it is located in. If the property is individually significant as a resource, such as with the City’s current Master List of historic resources, there is a higher level of scrutiny and evaluation required to determine that any alterations will be compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties10.
10 The Secretary of Interior Standards include guidance for the appropriate treatment of historic resources and compliance with the standards is required by the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Item 6a
The current Historic Preservation Ordinance is essentially a two-tier system where both Master List and Contributing properties are classified as individual resources. While Master List or Contributing properties may or may not contribute to the significance of a historic district, or the City as a whole, there is no classification or ability to differentiate between individual resources and those that only contribute to the historic significance of a district. This means that since the adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance, owners of both Contributing and Master list properties have had to demonstrate compliance with preservation requirements as if their properties were individual resources. Owners of historic properties (mainly Contributing) have often been left with the difficult choice of the uncertainty, cost, and delay associated with trying to appropriately plan an addition or new construction with outdated and minimal documentation on the property’s historic status and reasons it was initially listed; or they can weigh the possibility that the property shouldn’t be on the list altogether and consider the process of delisting the property11. This situation has also resulted in ongoing difficulties for staff and the Cultural Heritage Committee in effectively implementing the historic preservation program. The current scenario has been unnecessarily impeding opportunities for more housing and for property owners to make modifications for their growing family or changing circumstances.
As discussed further in this report, the recommended updates will set a framework to resolve the issues many owners of historic properties are experiencing as described above, by providing an updated significance criteria, clear distinctions between resource types, and by clarifying the definition and classification of Contributing properties as historic district contributors. At the initiation of Phase 2 of the project, when the inventory is updated, staff intends to prioritize review of the current list of Contributing resources to address the issues for many owners of these properties described above. Once the historic resources inventory project is complete in Phase 2, the City’s Historic Preservation Program will be up to date where properties on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory that remain on the list are correctly classified, based on current property condition, and shown to meet updated criteria based on findings and substantiated evidence.
The City Council has been receiving feedback on the outdated Historic Resources Inventory over the years from members of the public, including former members of the Cultural Heritage Committee, and numerous requests from the Cultural Heritage Committee in budget goal setting sessions to complete the needed update. The City Council included initiation of an update to the Historic Resources Inventory (the “Project”) as an implementation task of the City’s Major City Goal for Cultural Vitality, Economic Resilience, and Fiscal Sustainability in the FY 23-25 Financial Plan. Continued work to complete the Project was included in the FY 25-27 Financial plan.
11 This process requires a historic evaluation report from a qualified historic consultant, review by the Cultural Heritage Committee, and City Council approval.
Item 6a
The City made significant progress towards having an up-to-date historic preservation program consistent with “best practices” of preservation with adoption of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement, and with membership as a Certified Local Government. It is an important next step to complete a comprehensive review of the Historic Resources Inventory along with the needed updated regulatory framework described above to correctly classify historic properties and determine which properties should remain on the list and which properties should be added based on updated criteria consistent with best practices of historic preservation. It is also an ongoing responsibility to property owners to ensure that preservation standards and review requirements are fairly and appropriately applied to properties that have been shown to qualify for listing as resources based on up-to-date information and current standards.
Approach to Updating the Historic Resource Inventory
The City is approaching the Project in two phases, with Phase 1 (current) being updates to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement. The inventory relies on the interconnected rules and guidance of these documents, and their update will provide the definitions, criteria, and themes/context to guide subsequent work in Phase 2 of the Project, which will be initiated once the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement are adopted. Phase 2 will consist of surveys for new candidate properties to be added to the historic inventory, and evaluation for potential reclassification and delisting of properties on the existing Historic Resources Inventory based on the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement updates made in Phase 1. Phase 2 will be initiated in mid 2026. Review of the current inventory and completion of initial surveys for new candidate properties is expected to take 12-18 months. The ongoing maintenance of the Historic Resources Inventory should continue to be conducted with surveys and reviews of listed resources periodically into the future12.
The most significant updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement are discussed below. For a more detailed summary of all changes to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement, see summary tables (Attachments C & F). To view the full text of recommended updates in their entirety, see Attachment B (Exhibit A-Historic Preservation Ordinance Legislative Draft Update) and Attachment E (Exhibit A-2025 Draft Historic Context Statement Update). Additional background documents and Project information can be found on the Project webpage at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/communitydevelopment/historic-and-archeological-preservation/historic-resources-inventoryupdate
12 It is a preservation “best practice”, and the State Office of Historic Preservation recommends updating surveys every five years to ensure that local planning and preservation decisions are based on the most current information available.
Item 6a
Historic Preservation Ordinance
The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is the main regulatory document of the City’s Historic Preservation Program. The Historic Preservation Ordinance includes definitions of resource types, historic resource designation procedures, historic significance criteria, and standards that apply to alterations. The Historic Preservation Ordinance also describes the roles, duties, and authority of the Community Development Director, Cultural Heritage Committee, and City Council related to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and program.
Main updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance include revisions to historic resource designations, and evaluation criteria for historic significance. The recommended updates generally follow an approach to be more consistent with guidance from the National Park Service and State of California Office of Historic Preservation for the definition and evaluation of historic resources13. Minor modifications are also recommended to provisions for the formation and adjustment of Historic Districts. More explanation of changes is provided below.
Proposed Changes to Requirements for Historic Districts (14.01.080) This section of the Historic Preservation Ordinance includes provisions for applications to amend existing historic districts and to establish new districts. Historic Districts are designated in City Zoning with an “H” overlay, and amendments or new proposed historic districts constitute rezone actions which require review by the Planning Commission and final action by the City Council. The intent of historic districts is to identify and preserve geographic areas of the City possessing a concentration of historic resources that define a neighborhood’s architectural character or sense of place. Recommended amendments included in the draft Ordinance revise submittal requirements to amend or establish historic districts to align with best practices in preservation by focusing on the proposed districts significance and its identified contributing elements. Certain existing submittal and review requirements for the establishment of historic districts are recommended for deletion as they have been deemed unnecessary, including requiring the applicant to provide preservation goals/concerns, design guidelines for the historic district, and review criteria. This information was not required for the City’s current historic districts, and it is recommended to remove these requirements for new historic districts since in addition to being unnecessary and inconsistent with current historic districts, the requirements are onerous, as preparation of guidelines and review criteria would require significant expertise and resources that would dissuade property owners from initiating the formation of a district.
13 State Office of Historic Preservation Technical Assistance Bulletin #14-Drafting Effective Historic Preservation Ordinances: A Manual for California’s Local Governments
Item 6a
Proposed Changes for Historic Resource Designations
Current resource designations in the Historic Preservation Ordinance include “Master List” classified properties as the City’s most important and rare resources, and “Contributing” historic properties that meet one or more significance criteria and contribute to the historic significance of a historic district or the City as a whole. Besides the issue that most properties on the Historic Resources Inventory were listed before the City adopted the significance framework and guidance of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement, the current Contributing list does not distinguish between properties that could themselves be considered historic resources, and others which could only be found to contribute to the significance of a historic district. This presents a challenge when reviewing proposals for changes in historic status of a building, or when an alteration is proposed to a listed property. These situations often require professional evaluations and/or review by the Cultural Heritage Committee and extensive work with staff to determine what the historic status of the property should be based on current property condition and significance criteria and guidance of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement.
The updated Historic Preservation Ordinance will provide a framework for reevaluating previously listed resources and will revise classifications in the Historic Resources Inventory to “Landmark” (replaces the current “Master List” designation) and Contributing list resources will be classified as “Local Register Resources.” The City will also continue to have a “Contributing” status designation for properties that are found to be district contributors. The recommended updated classifications are intended to eliminate the current ambiguity in resource status by communicating a clear difference in significance between resource types and will set up the City up for the upcoming update the Historic Resources Inventory, and future survey efforts. In Phase 2, once surveys and review of the Historic Resources Inventory is initiated, the Local Register list (prior Contributing list resources) will be reviewed to determine the properties that should remain on the Historic Resources Inventory (that meet criteria for listing as an individually significant resource as Landmark or Local Register properties) and those that should be designated as district contributors (for their contribution to a historically significant district) or removed from a historic designation altogether.
Evaluation Criteria for Historic Listing and Proposed Changes The Historic Preservation Ordinance outlines the evaluation criteria that is used in order to determine if a property meets historic significance criteria to be a listed historic resource. The current significance criteria are complex and unusual as they could require evaluations to address up to sixteen different potential aspects of significance (see Attachment H, current Historic Preservation Ordinance significance criteria).
Recommended updates would also remove “Integrity” as its own significance criteria.
Retaining sufficient integrity to convey historic significance is a minimum requirement that should apply to all resources and should not by itself be a qualifying criteria for historic significance.
Item 6a
The current framework results in unnecessarily lengthy and complex evaluations which can result in significant expense and difficulty for property owners to find historic consultants available to complete this work. This is an issue that commonly arises as historic evaluations often must be completed for various projects involving alterations or new construction, or when a demolition or change in listing status is proposed. Historic evaluations are also commonly required for various CEQA related actions to provide findings and a sufficient evidentiary record for exemptions and cultural resource discussions in Initial Studies (IS-MND) and Environmental Impact Reports (EIR).
The recommended updates include a simplified set of criteria, which are more consistent with other Certified Local Governments and similar to the National Register and California Register. To maintain consistency with the City’s Mills Act program, which also confers eligibility for the Mills Act tax incentive program to Master List properties, properties with the updated designation of “Landmark” would also be eligible for the Mills Act tax incentive program. Landmark properties would be distinguished from Local Register Resources14 as those resources which meet one of the criteria below and that have a high degree of integrity and the greatest importance at the local, regional, state, or national in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past15. The recommended updated historic resource designation section of the Historic Preservation Ordinance is included below:
14.01.050 Evaluation criteria for historic resource designation.
A. In order to be eligible for designation, a Landmark, Local Register Resource, or Historic District shall be at least fifty years old (if less than fifty it must be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance), demonstrate significance under at least one of the following criteria, and retain integrity as defined in Section 14.01.020.28.
Consult “National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” for guidance on determining significance.
1. Events. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
2. Persons. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
3. Architecture. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an architect or design professional of merit or possesses high artistic values.
14 Determinations of status for “Local Register” properties in the recommended update require a noticed public hearings and a recommendation by the Cultural Heritage Committee and action by the Community Development Director.
15 Determinations for “Landmark” status in the recommended update require noticed public hearings and a recommendation by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) and final determination by the City Council.
Properties on the National Register and California Register also would be automatically included in the Historic Resources Inventory as Landmarks.
Item 6a
4. Information Potential: It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
Amendments are also recommended to provisions on how a historic designation (listing on Historic Resources Inventory) can be initiated (Attachment B, 14.01.070). Similar to the current Historic Preservation Ordinance, the recommended updates provide for the property owner to file an application and for the Cultural Heritage Committee and City Council to initiate an application. Recommended Historic Preservation Ordinance updates would also formalize current practice and remove the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Commission from having the ability to initiate historic listings since these advisory bodies have no purview over individual property historic designations.
Recommended updates also include adding the Community Development Director as having authority to initiate preparation of an application for historic designation as a Landmark or Local Register Resource.
Historic Context Statement and Proposed Changes
The Historic Context Statement has been updated to provide better context for a more inclusive approach to preservation of the City’s varied resources, and to align with the revised resource categories and significance criteria in the updated Historic Preservation Ordinance. The historical overview and context sections of the current Historic Context Statement, adopted in 2013, have largely retained their overall structure of time periods with associated subthemes16. Within this, the revised version reorganizes and expands discussion of minority and ethnic communities within San Luis Obispo to include their contribution as part of the major thematic groupings. In the revised Historic Context Statement, there are not separate “ethnic communities” themes within each temporal context; rather, the significant contributions of San Luis Obispo’s Chinese, Japanese, African American, Filipino, and other communities are integrated into the relevant temporal and thematic contexts. This change recognizes members of these groups as significant contributors to the city’s development whose social, economic, and cultural experiences are relevant to and reflect upon broader themes. The revised Historic Context Statement also includes a brief discussion of San Luis Obispo’s LGBTQ communities. These updates provide a framework where LGBTQ associated properties can be understood as they become age-eligible (over 50 years), or older properties which may be identified in the future can be recognized for their role in these communities’ histories. The revised Historic Context Statement additionally includes discussion of later 20th-century themes and property types which have recently or will soon become ageeligible for evaluation (over 50 years). Lastly, the evaluation criteria and integrity considerations have been revised to utilize the four basic significance criteria included in the Historic Preservation Ordinance update. Along with revisions to the Historic Preservation Ordinance, this change will make the process of evaluation more straightforward for property owners, consultants, and City staff, and the findings more comparable to that of other Certified Local Governments.
16 The Historic Context Statement is formatted with seven overall historical periods in San Luis Obispo’s history ranging from the Early History to Early-Mid 20th Century Growth (1945-1980). Within each broad time period the following themes are discussed relative to the built environment: Residential and Commercial Development, Civic and Institutional Development, Agricultural and Industrial Development, and Transportation and Infrastructure related development
Item 6a
Next Steps
Provided the Council approves the recommended actions to introduce the ordinance and approve a resolution for the updated Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement, a 2nd reading is scheduled for the Council’s consideration to adopt the updated Historic Preservation Ordinance on January 13, 2025. If adopted, the ordinance will become effective on February 13, 2025. Staff will initiate Phase 2 of the project to review the current Historic Resources Inventory and survey for new potential resources in the mid 2026 timeframe.
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
Cultural Heritage Committee Review
The Cultural Heritage Committee has been providing guidance and feedback since the initial planning stages of the Project. The Cultural Heritage Committee appointed a subcommittee and provided early feedback on the consultant recommended two-phase approach on December 12, 2022. Staff also provided an overview of the recommended strategy to update the Historic Resources Inventory at the Cultural Heritage Committee special meeting of December 12, 2022, to confirm the recommended approach prior to submitting final Budget Goal Setting recommendations to the City Council, which included the two-phase approach to completing the Historic Resources Inventory update.
On February 27, 2023, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the consultant recommended draft Preliminary Assessment and Recommendations Memorandum for the Project, which identified the main areas of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement that should be updated prior to beginning Phase 2. A finalized memorandum was prepared following the meeting on March 9, 2023.
On September 25, 2023, staff provided updates and requested any feedback from the CHC on the draft scope of work that would be included in Requests for Proposals (RFP) for assistance with the Project from qualified historic consultants.
The selected historic consultant, Page and Turnbull, held a study session with the Cultural Heritage Committee on April 22, 2024. The consultant provided a presentation with detailed overview of the main recommended updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement and received feedback from the Committee.
At the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of November 18, 2024, a subcommittee was appointed to review administrative draft updates of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement. On May 20, 2025, a meeting was held with the Cultural Heritage Committee subcommittee to hear comments on the administrative draft updates and any needed revisions to be included in the final public review draft update documents.
Item 6a
On September 29, 2025, the Cultural Heritage Committee held a special meeting to review the draft updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement as part of Phase 1 of the Project. The Cultural Heritage Committee voted (5-0) to recommend the updates to the Planning Commission with the following modifications that have been incorporated into the current draft updates:
Retain Historic Preservation Fund Section (14.01.130) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Make correction to reference in relocation section of Historic Preservation Ordinance to refer to required findings for demolition where structures are proposed to be relocated outside the City limits.
Clarify Historic Preservation Ordinance section 14.01.060 (property owners’ ability to object to Landmark listing).
Correct references in the Historic Context Statement to accurately refer to “Cerro San Luis.”
Consider replacement of existing Mission lithograph in Historic Context Statement with alternative photograph options provided by Committee Member Ashbaugh.
Planning Commission Review
The Planning Commission reviewed the recommended updates on October 22, 2025, and on a 4-0 vote, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the recommended updates. No changes were made to the Cultural Heritage Committee recommended updates (Attachment G, Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 1111- 2025).
Public Engagement
According to the Public Engagement and Noticing (PEN) manual, the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement updates fall under the inform/consult outreach category because it is an ongoing implementation effort of the Historic Preservation Program, which implements various policies of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, and has been included in the 2023-25 and 2025-2027 Financial Plan as a task of the Cultural Vitality, Economic Resilience, and Fiscal Sustainability Major City Goal. In collaboration with City Communications, a project landing page was created with key information, including a timeline, draft documents, and an interest form. The City Communications team also designed and mailed postcards with project details and a Cultural Heritage Committee meeting reminder to all property owners of all 760 historically listed properties in the City. Email notifications were also sent to relevant City News subscribers, meeting reminders and recaps on social media were sent and the main Historic Preservation webpage was updated to improve accessibility and clarity. Notification and opportunity to comment also occurred for Cultural Heritage Committee Meetings on April 22, 2024 (study session), September 29, 2025, and at the Planning Commission on October 22, 2025.
Item 6a
In addition, at the initiation of the project, staff reached out to various groups recommended by the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) specifically to gather information and collaborate on the Historic Context Statement update effort. Staff have also been following up with contacts who have expressed interest in the Project and provided notification of the draft updates to various contacts including local developers, engineers, and architects.
CONCURRENCE
The recommended updates were reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office and staff collaborated with the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) for outreach on the Historic Context Statement.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement consists of actions by a regulatory agency authorized by the state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, or protection of the environment, and therefore, are categorically exempt from environmental review (Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment).
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2023-26
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $250,000
Phase 1 and 2
$0 $182,289.78 $0
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total $ 250,000 $0 $ 182,289.78 $0
There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended actions of this report. The cost of the consultant services that were necessary for the update to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement were allocated through the budget process, as this was a Major City Goal workplan item for the Community Development Department. The allocated amount was for both phases of the project including Phase 1, which is the current update of the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement ($100,000) and Phase 2 which includes the update of the Historic Resources Inventory ($150,000) which will be initiated in the 2026 timeframe.
Item 6a
ALTERNATIVES
1. Council could continue review of the recommended updates. Council can continue the item for any additional information needed. An action to continue the item should include a detailed description of list of additional information or analysis required to make a decision so that staff and the consultant can be prepared with additional information.
2. Council could modify the recommended updates. The Council could make modifications to the recommended update with revisions introduced into the ordinance as revised by Council. For comprehensive modifications a continuance will be needed for staff to return with updated documents.
3. Council could decide not to adopt the recommended updates. Completion of phase 1 of the Historic Resources Inventory update would not be accomplished with this Council action.
ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Ordinance introducing replacement updated Municipal Code Chapter 14.01 (Historic Preservation Ordinance)
B - Exhibit A – Draft Historic Preservation Ordinance update Chapter 14.01 (legislative draft)
C - Summary Table - Historic Preservation Ordinance Update D - Draft Resolution adopting updated Historic Context Statement E - Exhibit A – Draft Historic Context Statement Update F - Summary Table - Historic Context Statement Update
G -PC Resolution No. 1111-2025 (2025 Series)
H - Current Historic Preservation Ordinance significance criteria (14.01.070)
O _____
ORDINANCE NO. ____ (2025 SERIES)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 14.01 (HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ORDINANCE) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE IN ITS
ENTIRETY AND INTRODUCING AND ADOPTING A REPLACEMENT
CHAPTER 14.01 TO INCLUDE RECOMMENDED UPDATES AND
AMENDMENTS AS REFLECTED IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A (CODE0758-2025) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on September 29, 2025, to review proposed amendments to the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement and recommended the Planning Commission recommend adoption and approval of the updates to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on October 22, 2025, to review amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and recommended City Council introduction and adoption of the recommended updates; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on December 2, 2025, for the purpose of considering the recommended updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the recommended amendments to the Historic Preservation Ordinance are Phase 1 of the Council authorized Historic Resources Inventory project (Project) and provides updated significance criteria and historic classifications for Phase 2 of the Project, which will include review and update of the existing Historic Resources Inventory and surveys for new potential historic resources; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered public input and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, the Cultural Heritage Committee, and Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Ordinance No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 2
O _____
SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The City Council find that the foregoing recitals and agenda report presented with this ordinance are true and correct and are incorporated in the ordinance by this reference and adopted as the findings of the City Council.
SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings:
1. The proposed updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance are consistent with and implement Land Use Element Implementation Policy
12.4 since the updates support the review and identification of historic resources.
2. The proposed updates are consistent with and implement General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Goal 3.2 since the proposed amendments update the Historic Preservation Ordinance which provides the significance criteria and historic classifications for the determination of properties that are historically significant.
3. The proposed amendments are consistent with and implement General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.1 by updating documents that are used to identify significant historic resources.
4. The proposed amendments are consistent with and implement General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Program 3.6.1 by assisting the Cultural Heritage Committee with the identification and development of information on historical resources.
5. The proposed amendments are consistent with Certified Local Government requirements from the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) to keep and maintain an updated historic resources inventory based on the criteria of a local ordinance.
SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. The recommended updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Context Statement consist of actions by a regulatory agency authorized by the state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, or protection of the environment, and are therefore categorically exempt from environmental review (Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment).
SECTION 4. Action. New Chapter 14.01 (Historic Preservation Ordinance), as set forth in Exhibit A, is hereby introduced to replace existing Chapter 14.01 in its entirety upon adoption. In accordance with the changes made to Chapter 14.01, as fully set forth in Exhibit A, all existing properties in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory with the designation of “Master List” shall be redesignated as “Landmark” historic resources and all existing properties in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory with the designation of
Ordinance No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 3
O _____
“Contributing List” shall be redesignated as “Local Register” historic resources upon the effective date of this ordinance.
SECTION 5. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining portions of this Ordinance, or any other provisions of the city's rules and regulations. It is the city's express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unenforceable.
SECTION 6. Implementation. 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 New Times, 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 ______, 2025, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ___ day of ___, 2026, on the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
__________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
_______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
Ordinance No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 4
O _____
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 1 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 Chapter 14.01
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
14.01.010 Findings and purpose.
A. Findings.
1. The city of San Luis Obispo has a distinctive physical character and rich history that are reflected in its many cultural and historic resources, such as historic structures and sites.
These irreplaceable resources are important to the community’s economic vitality, quality of life, and sense of place, and need protection from deterioration, damage, and inappropriate alteration or demolition.
2. The city of San Luis Obispo has been fortunate to have owners who care about the history of their community and have undertaken the costly and time-consuming task of restoring, maintaining and enhancing their historic homes and commercial buildings. Their efforts have enhanced the distinctive character and sense of place of the community.
3. The California Environmental Quality Act requires special treatment of (“CEQA”) considers historic resources andto be part of the environment that may be adversely affected by projects subject to public agency review. The establishment of clear local guidance for the identification and preservation of such resources lends clarity and certainty to the review of those development applications involving historic resources. See Section 3.1.4 of the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines that are subject to review under CEQA.
B. Purpose. The broad purpose of this chapter is to promote the public health, safety, and welfare through the identification, protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties, structures, sites, artifacts and other cultural and historic resources that represent distinctive elements of San Luis Obispo’s cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history. Specifically, this chapter sets forth regulations and procedures to:
1. Identify, protect, preserve, and promote the continuing use and upkeep of San Luis Obispo’s historic buildings, structures, objects, sites, and districtslandscape features through establishment and maintenance of the Inventory of Historic Resources.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 2 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
2. Foster the retention and restoration of historic buildings and other culturalhistoric resources that promote tourism, economic vitality, sense of place, and diversity.
3. Encourage private stewardship of historic buildings and other culturalhistoric resources through incentives where possible.
4. Implement the historic preservation goals and policies of the conservation and open space element of the general plan.
5. Promote the conservation of valuable material and embodied energy in historic structures through theirthe continued use, restoration and repair, and on-going maintenance of historic resources.
6. Promote the knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City’s distinctive character, culturalhistoric resources, and history.
7. Establish the procedures and significance criteria to be applied when evaluating development project effects on historic resources.
8. Fulfill the City’s responsibilities as a Certified Local Government under state and federal regulations and for federal Section 106 reviews.
9. Establish the policy of the City to pursue all reasonable alternatives to achieve compliance with this chapter for the protection of historic resources prior to initiating penalty proceedings as set forth in Section 14.01.140. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, certain terms, words and their derivatives are used as follows:
1. “Accessory structure” means a structure which is subordinate or incidental and directly related to a permitted use or structure on the same parcel. Accessory structures that include habitable space, as defined by the California Building Code, shall be no larger than four hundred fifty square feet. Accessory structures are located on the same parcel and are related to the primary structure but are subordinate or incidental, but may include structures that have achieved historic significance in their own right, as determined by the director, committee or council. (See “Primary structure.”)
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 3 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
2. “Adjacent” means located on property whichthat abuts the subject property on at least one point of the property line, on the same property, or located on property directly across right-of-way from subject property and able to be viewed concurrently.
32. “Adverse effects” means effects, impacts or actions that are detrimental or potentially detrimental to a historic resource’s condition or architectural or historical integrity and its ability to convey it significance.
43. “Alteration” means change, repair, replacement, remodel, modification, or new construction to: (1) the exterior of a historic resource or adjacent building on the same parcel, (2) the structural elements whichthat support the exterior walls, roof, or exterior elements of the historic resource or adjacent building on the same parcel or within the project site, (3) other construction on a lotparcel shared with a historic resource or within the project site, or (4) character defining features of the interior of a historic resource if the structure’s significance is wholly or partially based on interior features and the resource is publicly accessible. “Alteration” does not include ordinary landscape maintenance, unless the landscaping islandscape features are identified as significantcharacter-defining at the time a property is listed or found eligible. “Alteration” also does not include ordinary property maintenance or repair that is exempt from a building permit, or is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.
4. “ARC” means the Architectural Review Commission as appointed by the City Council.
5. “Archaeological site” means those areas where archaeological resources are present and may be largerinclude precontact or smaller than the project site. Anhistoric-period archaeological site may include prehistoric Native Americanmaterials and deposits.
Archaeological sites; historic archaeological sites; sites may extend horizontally across multiple parcels or natural landscapes associated with important human events; and Native American sacred places and cultural landscapesproperty lines.
6. “ARC” means the architectural review commission as appointed by the city council.
76. “California Register” means the California Register of Historical Resources defined in California PRC 5024.1 and in CCR Title 14, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850, et seq., as it may be amended.
8. “CHC” means the cultural heritage committee as appointed by the city council.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 4 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
97. “Character-defining features” means, as outlined in the U.S. Department of the Interior’s National Register Bulletin 15 and Preservation Brief 17: “Howrefer to Identify Character Defining Features,”those elements of the architectural character and general composition of a resource, including, but not limited to, type and texture of building material; type, design, and character of all windows, doors, stairs, porches, railings, molding and other appurtenant elements; and fenestration, ornamental detailing, elements of craftsmanship, and finishes, etc.
108. “CHC” means the Cultural Heritage Committee as appointed by the City Council.
9. “City” means the City of San Luis Obispo.
11. “Community design guidelines” means the most recent version of the city’s community design guidelines as adopted and amended from time to time.
12. “Contributing list resource or property” means a designation that may be applied to buildings or other resources at least fifty years old that maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character, and contribute either by themselves or in conjunction with other structures to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the city as a whole. They need not be located in a historic district. In some cases, buildings or other resources that are less than fifty years old, but are nonetheless significant based on architecture, craftsmanship or other criteria as described herein may be designated as a contributing list resource.
13.10. “Contributing Resource” means a property that is within the boundaries of and contributes to the significance of a Historic District.
11. “Council” means the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo.
14. “Cultural resource” means any prehistoric or historic district, site, landscape, building, structure, or object included in, or potentially eligible for local, state or national historic designation, including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource.
1512. “Demolition,” for the purpose of this chapter, refers to any act or failure to act that destroys, removes, or relocates, in whole or part, a historical resource such that its historic or architectural character and ability to convey its significance are materially alteredimpaired.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 5 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 1613. “Department” means the Community Development Department, or the staff thereof.
14. “Deterioration” means the significant worsening of a structure’s condition or architectural and/or historic integrity, due to lack of maintenance, organisms, neglect, weathering and other natural forces.
1715. “Director” means the director of the Community Development Department, or another person authorized by the director to act on his or her behalf. 1816. “Eligible resource” means any building, structure, object, site, historic district, or historic district contributor that has been found eligible for designation through a historic resource evaluation prepared by a qualified professional and accepted by the Director and/or City Council, but that has not been formally designated in the Inventory of Historic Resources, California Register of Historical Resources, or National Register of Historic Places.
17. “Feasible” means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account cultural, economic, environmental, historic, legal, social and technological factors. “Structural feasibility” means that a building or other structure can be repaired or rehabilitated so as to be safe and usable without significant loss of historic fabric. Factors to be considered when making this determination include the existence of technology that will allow the design of the work and the ability to repair, supplement or replace load-bearing members and the thermal and moisture protection systems required for continued use of the structure; and the physical capacity of the structure to withstand the repair and/or rehabilitation process without the danger of further damage.
19. “Historic Building Code” means the most recent version of the California Historical Building Code, Title 25, Part 8, as defined in Sections 18950 to 18961 of Division 12, Part 2.7 of Health and Safety Code (H&SC), a part of California state law. 2018. “Historic context” are those patterns, themes or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood, and its meaning and significance is made clear. 2119. “Historic district/historical preservation district” means areas or neighborhoods with an area adopted as a collection orHistorical Preservation “H” Overlay Zone by the City under Chapter 17.56, and that has a concentration of listed or potentially contributing
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 6 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 historic properties or archaeologically significant buildings, structures, objects, sites, where historic propertiesor landscape features that help define the area or neighborhood’s uniquesignificant architectural, cultural, and historic character or sense of place. Historic districts are delineated on the official zoning map as historic (H) overlay zone under Chapter 17.54.
2220. “Historic Preservation Program Guidelines” means the most recent version of the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, as adopted by the City Council and amended from time to time.
23. “Historic preservation report” means a document which describes preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction measures for a historic resource, based on the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, and which includes standards and guidelines for recommended treatments for preserving the resource.
24. “Historic property” means a property, including land and buildings, which possesses aesthetic, architectural, cultural, historic or scientific significance, and which is included in, or potentially eligible for local, state or national historic designation.
25. “Historic resource” means any building, site, improvement, area or object of aesthetic, architectural, cultural, historic or scientific significance, and which is included in, or potentially eligible for local, state or national historic designation.
26.21. “Historic resource” means any building, structure, object, site, property, landscape feature, or district that is designated locally as a Landmark, Local Register Resource, or contributor to a locally designated Historic District, or that has been designated or found eligible for designation in the California Register of Historical Resources or National Register of Historic Places as an individual resource or district contributor. This definition includes, but is not limited to historic gardens, site features and improvements, accessory structures, signs, Traditional Cultural Properties, cultural landscapes and areas or objects of archaeological, architectural, cultural or historic significance. Elsewhere in City publications, the terms “historic property” or “cultural resource” may be used to refer to the same definition.
22. “Historic resource evaluation” means a report prepared by a qualified professional that evaluates the significance of a resource within its historic context. It explains how the
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 7 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 resource meets the eligibility criteria and integrity thresholds as established by local, state or federal government.
23. “Historic status” means historic designation of a listed resource or property as as authorized by the Director or approved by the city council. 2724. “Improvement” means any building, structure, fence, gate, landscaping, hardscaping, walllandscape features (including gardens), permanent site features, work of art, or other object constituting a physical feature of real property or any part of such feature. 2825. “Inappropriate alteration” means alterations to historic resources whichthat are inconsistent with these provisions andthe Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and/or the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. 2926. “Integrity, architectural or historical” means the ability of a property, structure, site, building, improvement or natural featurehistoric resource to convey its identitysignificance, typically evidenced by the retention of attributes that existed during a resource’s period of significance and authenticity, including but not limited to its original location, period(s) of construction, design, setting, scale, design, materials, detailing, workmanship, usesfeeling, and association.
3027. “Inventory of Historic Resources” means the City’s list of historically designated resources and properties, consisting of master listLandmarks, Local Register Resources, and Historic Districts, inclusive of their contributing properties list of resources, and any historic resources, and any properties, objects, sites, gardens, sacred places and resources subsequently added to the inventory as , having been determined to meet criteria outlined herein and approved by the city councilDirector or City Council as described herein. 3128. “Landmark” is the highest level of individual local designation and may be applied to a historic resource that has been found significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the criteria described in Section 14.01.050, and that retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance.
29. “Listed resource” means properties and resources included in the Inventory of Historic Resources.
32. “Massing” means the spatial relationships, arrangement and organization of a building’s physical bulk or volume.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 8 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
33. “Master list resource” is a designation which may be applied to the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the city’s past meeting criteria outlined The term “designated” as used herein.
34. “Minor alteration” means any structural or exterior change refers to a historic resource which the director determines to be consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and other applicable standardsthe same definition.
35. “Modern contributing resources30. “Local Register Resource” is a an individual local designation whichthat may be applied to properties and resources which are less than fifty years old, but which exemplify or includea historic resource that has been found significant worksat the local level under one or more of architecture or craftsmanship or are associatedthe criteria described in Section 14.01.060, and that retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance as defined in Section 14.01.020.26.
31. “Mills Act Program” refers to a program established under State law in which owners of historic buildings may, under a contract with a person or event significant to the city’s history.the City, agree to preserve, maintain, and improve their property in compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and local regulations in exchange for property tax savings.
3632. “National Register” means the National Register of Historic Places” means, the official inventory of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objectsplaces significant in American history, architecture, engineering, archaeology and culture whichthat is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior under the authority of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 3733. “Neglect” means the lack of maintenance, repair or protection of a listed property, resource, site or, structure, or property which resultsmay result in significant deterioration, as determined by the director or city council based on visual and physical evidence.
38. “Noncontributing resource” means designation which may be applied to properties and resources in historic districts which are typically less than fifty years old and do not support the prevailing historic character of the district or other listing criteria as outlined herein.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 9 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
39. “Preservation” means the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain a historic site, building or other structure’s historically significant existing form, integrity, and materials through stabilization, repair and maintenance. 4034. “Non-Contributor” means a property that is located within the boundaries of a Historic District but does not contribute to the significance of that district.
35. “Property owner” means the person or entity (public or private) holding fee title interest or legal custody and control of a property.
41. “Primary structure” means the most important building or other structural feature on a parcel in terms of size, scale, architectural or historical significance, as determined by the committee.
4236. “Qualified professional” means an individual meetingdetermined by the Director to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A) in history, architectural history, historic architecture and other designated categories, or an individual determined by the CHC to have the qualifications generally equivalent to the above standards based on demonstrated experience, or archaeology.
43. “Reconstruction” means the act or process of recreating the features, form and detailing of a non-surviving building or portion of building, structure, object, landscape, or site for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.
44. “Rehabilitation” means the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its architectural, cultural, or historic values. 4537. “Relocation” means removal of a resource from its original site and its reestablishment in essentially the same form, appearance and architectural detailing at another location. Relocation may refer to movement of a resource outside of the parcel within which it was originally built or established, or movement within its original parcel in a manner that alters its spatial relationships and/or orientation. 4638. “Responsible party” means any person, business, corporation or entity, and the parent or legal guardian of any person under the age of eighteen years, who has committed, permitted, directed or controlled any act constituting a violation of this chapter.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 10 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
47. “Restoration” means the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period.
48. “Scale” means the proportions of architectural design that relate to human size or other relative size measure.
4939. “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards” means the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties as published by the U.S. Department of the Interior and as amended from time to time.
5040. “Setting” means the character of the site, physical area, environment, or neighborhood in which a resource is located.
51. “Sensitive site” means a site determined by the community development director, planning commission, architectural review commission or council, upon recommendation of the cultural heritage committee, to have special characteristics, constraints or community value such as: historic significance, historic context, creek-side location or visual prominence, requiring more detailed development review than would otherwise be required for other similarly zoned lots.
5241. “Site,” as used in this chapter, means the location of a significantan event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or of a building or, structure, or object whether standingintact, ruined, or vanishednon-extant, where the location itself possesses known or potential historic, cultural, or archeological value regardless of the value of any existing structurearchaeological significance.
53. “Siting” means the placement of structures and improvements on a property or site. 5442. “Stabilization” means the act or process of applying measures designed to reestablish a weather-resistant enclosure and/or the structural stability of an unsafe or deteriorated property while maintaining the essential form as it exists at present.
55. “Statement of historic significance” means an explanation of why a resource is important within its historic context. It explains how the resource meets the eligibility criteria and integrity thresholds as established by local, state or federal government.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 11 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 5643. “Structure,” as used in this chapter, includes anything assembled or constructed on the ground, or attached to anything with a foundation on the ground, including walls, fences, buildings, signs, bridges, monuments, and similar features.
57. “Survey” means a systematic process for identifying and evaluating a community’s historic resources using established criteria. “Survey” may also refer to the documentation resulting from a survey project.
58. “Threatened resource” means properties or resources at risk of loss of architectural, cultural or historic value due to physical alteration, relocation or demolition. 5944. “Traditional Cultural Property” refers to a site or natural landscape associated with human activities and events, including tribal cultural resources, sacred places and cultural landscapes. Traditional cultural properties that meet one or more of the criteria described in Section 14.01.060 may be designated as historic resources.
45. “Zoning code” means Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code, as amended from time to time. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.030 Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC).
A. Committee membership and terms. The City shall have a Cultural Heritage Committee (the “CHC” or “committee”), consisting of seven members who shall be appointed by the City Council (“council”) for terms of up to four years, which shall commence immediately upon appointment by the council consistent with Resolutions 6157 (1987 Series) and 6593 (1989 Series), and CHC bylaws or as subsequently amended. The CHC shall function within the guidelines and policies of the “Advisory Body Handbook” and perform other duties as assigned by council. The CHC is assisted by the Director and staff of the Community Development Department.
B. Duties. The CHC shall make recommendations to decision-making bodies on the following:
1. Historic and archaeological resource preservation program guidelines that implement this chapter and provide guidance to persons planning development projects subject to cultural heritage committee review, and for city and property owner decisions regarding cultural resources in San Luis Obispo. Once adopted by the city council, a record copy of the guidelines shall be maintained in the office of the city clerk and in the community
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 12 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 development department. Copies shall be available on the city’s website and printed versions will be available at cost.
2. Properties for inclusion on the city’s list of historic resources—those properties, areas, sites, buildings, structures or other features having significant historical, cultural, architectural, community, scientific or aesthetic value to the citizens of San Luis Obispo.
3. The master and contributing properties lists of historic resources, and historic property and archaeological site inventories.
4. Actions subject to discretionary city review and approval that may affect significant archaeological, cultural or historic resources.
5. The application of architectural, historic, and cultural preservation standards and guidelines to projects and approvals involving historic sites, districts, and structures.
1. Amendments to the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
2. Applications for designation of Landmarks, Local Register Resources, and Historic Districts.
3. Requests for removal from designation as Landmarks, Local Register Resources, and Historic Districts (including status of Contributing Resource within Historic Districts).
4. Adoption of historic context statements, historic resource surveys, and design standards or guidelines.
5. Actions referred by the Director that may affect historic resources, including but not limited to new construction, additions or alterations, demolition, or relocation of or to individually designated properties, contributing resources to Historic Districts, or archaeological sites.
6. Consolidation of information about cultural and historic resources and promotion, participation in, or sponsorship of educational and interpretive programs that foster public awareness and appreciation of cultural and historic resources.
7. Alterations related to development or demolitionDevelopment and implementation of, including review of applications involving listed resources and properties within historic preservation districts.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 13 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
8.for incentive programs approved by the council that are directed at preserving and maintaining culturalhistoric resources. (e.g., Mills Act Contracts).
9. Information for8. Providing information to property owners preparing local, state and federal historic nominations to utilize preservation incentives, including the Mills Act and federal or state tax incentives, such as rehabilitation tax credits.
C. Actions Subject to Cultural Heritage Committee Review. The committee shall review and make recommendations to the director, architectural review commission, planning commission or city council on applications and development review projects which include any of the following:
1. Changes to the inventory of historic resources.
2. Changes to historic districts and applications to establish new historic districts.
3. Statements of historic significance and historic inventories for existing and proposed historic districts.
4. New construction, additions or alterations located in historic districts, or on historically listed properties, or sensitive archaeological sites.
5. Applications to demolish or relocate listed historic resources or structures.
6. Referrals to the committee by the community development director (“director”), architectural review commission, planning commission, or council.
7. Proposed actions of public agencies that may affect historic or cultural resources within the city. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.040 Community Development Director role.
The CHC is assisted by staff of the Community Development Department. The Community Development Director (“Director”) is responsible for interpreting and implementing this chapter and helping the CHC carry out its duties. Notwithstanding SectionThe Director may refer applications to the CHC for review consistent with 14.01.030(C)(1) through (5) and (7),)., The Director may determine that CHC review is not required for actions or projects that: (1) dowill
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 14 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 not adversely affect historic resources, or (2) are consistent with this chapter, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and no public purpose would be served by requiring CHC review. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.050 Historic resource designation.
The following classifications shall be used to designate historic resources and properties.. The primary categories of historic significance are master list and contributing properties.
Contributing properties include those properties that by virtue of their age, design and appearance, contribute to and embody the historic character of the neighborhood or historic district in which they are located.
A. Master ListLandmarks, Local Register Resources., and Historic Districts. The most unique and importantDepartment shall make the current list of designated historic resources and propertiesavailable to the public.
1. Landmarks, defined above in 14.01.020.28, are historic resources that are of the greatest importance at the local, regional, state, or national level. in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past, which meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.070that meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.060 and that retain a high degree of integrity.
Landmarks are eligible for participation in the Mills Act program. Individual properties that have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places and/or California Register of Historical Resources, and that have been assigned a California Historical Status Code of 1, are automatically included in the Inventory of Historical Resources as Landmarks.
B. Contributing List Resources or Properties. Buildings or other resources at least fifty years old that maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character, and contribute, either by themselves or in conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the city as a whole. They need not be located in a historic district. In some cases, buildings or other resources that are less than fifty years old, but are nonetheless significant based on architecture, craftsmanship or other criteria as described in Section 14.01.070 may be designated as a contributing resource.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 15 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 C. Noncontributing. Buildings, properties and other features in historic districts which are less than fifty years old, have not retained their original architectural character, or which do not support the prevailing historic character of the district. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.055 Historic gardens, site features, signs, and other cultural resources.
A. Historic Site and Landscape Features. Historic gardens, site features and improvements, accessory structures, signs, Native American sacred places, cultural landscapes and areas or objects of archaeological, architectural, cultural or historic significance not part of a designated property may be added to the inventory of historic resources through CHC review and council approval as specified herein.
B. Cultural Resources on Public Property. Cultural and historic features on public property, such as Bishop’s Peak granite walls and curbing, sidewalk embossing, ornamental manhole covers and hitching posts, may be added to the inventory of historic resources through CHC review and council approval as specified herein.
C. Sign. A sign which contributes to the unique architectural or historic character of a building, site or historic district may be designated as a historic sign. Signs that meet at least one of the following criteria may be designated historic:
1. The sign is exemplary of technology, craftsmanship or design of the period when it was constructed, uses historic sign materials and means of illumination, and is not significantly altered from its historic period. Historic sign materials shall include metal or wood facings, or paint directly on the facade of a building. Historic means of illumination shall include incandescent light fixtures or neon tubing on the exterior of the sign. If the sign has been altered, it must be restorable to its historic function and appearance.
2. The sign is well integrated with the site and/or architecture of the building.
3. A sign not meeting either criterion may be considered for inclusion in the inventory if it demonstrates extraordinary aesthetic quality, creativity, or innovation. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 16 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
14.01.060 Listing2. Local Register Resources, defined above in 14.01.020.30, are historic resources that are important locally for their architectural or historical significance or association with important persons or events in the City’s past, according to the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.060, and that retain sufficient integrity to convey their significance.
3. Historic Districts, as defined above in 14.01.020.19, are discrete areas or neighborhoods with concentrations of buildings, structures, objects, sites, or landscape features that help define an area or neighborhood’s significant architectural, cultural, and historic character or sense of place and that meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.060 and that retain integrity. Historic districts consist of identified contributors and noncontributors within a defined boundary. Landmarks and Local Register Resources within the boundary of a historic district may be contributors or non-contributors to the district’s significance.
14.01.060 Evaluation criteria for historic resource designation.
A. In order to be eligible for designation, a Landmark, Local Register Resource, or Historic District shall be at least fifty years old (if less than fifty it must be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance), demonstrate significance under at least one of the following criteria, and retain integrity as defined in Section 14.01.020.26.
Consult “National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” for guidance on determining significance.
1. Events. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
2. Persons. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history.
3. Architecture. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an architect or design professional of merit or possesses high artistic values.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 17 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
4. Information Potential: It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
B. In addition to eligibility under one or more of these significance criteria, Historic Districts must also demonstrate a sufficient concentration of contributing resources (unless discontiguous) and continuity of design or thematic associations to convey their character and significance.
14.01.070 Designation procedures for historic resources.Landmarks and Local Register Resources
A. Application for historic Listingdesignation. The property owner may request that a resource to be added to the master or contributing list of historic resourcesproperty be designated as a Landmark or Local Register Resource by submitting a completed application to the Community Development Department (“Department”), accompanied by all available information documenting the a historic resource evaluation report that describes the property’s significance with reference to the criteria defined in Section 14.01.060 and architecturalintegrity, identifies the property’s period of significance, and lists character of the resource.-defining features. The CHC, ARC, or planning commissionDirector may also recommend, or City Council may directly request, that the additionCity initiate preparation of a resource to the master or contributing listan application for designation of historic resourcesa property as a Landmark or Local Register Resource.
B. Review process, Landmark. The CHC shall review all applications for historic listingLandmark designation, whether initiated by the City or athe property owner, to determine if a property proposed for listingdesignation meets eligibility criteria for historic listing. The CHC will review the eligibility criteria for a proposed listing at a noticed public hearingdesignation. The Director shall provide notification to the property owner and public, as required by City standards. The CHC will review the eligibility criteria for a proposed designation at a noticed public hearing. At the public hearing, or in no case more than sixty days from the hearing date, the CHC shall forward a recommendation on the application to the City Council. The City Council will take an action on the application to adddesignate or not adddesignate the resource toproperty as a
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 18 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 Landmark in adherence with the master or contributing list of historic resourcesCity’s requirements for noticing and appeal. The decision of the City Council is final.
C. Owner objection, Landmark. The City Council shall not take an action to designate a property as a Landmark against the written objection of the property owner.
D. Review process, Local Register Resource. The CHC shall review all applications for designation as a Local Register Resource, whether initiated by the City or the property owner, to determine if a property proposed for designation meets eligibility criteria for historic designation. The Director shall provide notification to the property owner and public, as required by City standards. The CHC will review the eligibility criteria for a proposed designation at a noticed public hearing. At the public hearing, the CHC shall forward a recommendation to the Director to designate or not designate the property as a Local Register Resource. The Director shall undertake the action to designate the resource in adherence with the City’s requirements for noticing and appeal.
E. Removal from historic Listingdesignation. It is the general intention of the City not to remove a property from historic listing. Councildesignation. However, a property’s designation may, however, rezone a property to be removed if new or additional information supports the finding that the property is not eligible.
1. City Council may remove historic overlay zoning, or remove the property from historic listing if the property no longer meets eligibility criteria for listing,a property’s Landmark status following the process for listingdesignation set forth herein. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.070 Evaluation criteria for historic resource listing.
When determining if a property should be designated as a listed historic or cultural resource, the CHC and city council shall consider this chapter and State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty years old (less than fifty if it can be demonstrated that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the following criteria:
A. Architectural Criteria. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 19 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
1. Style. Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within that form (e.g., arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together.
2. Design. Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements. Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
3. Architect. Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to:
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos—Frank Avila’s father’s home—built between 1927 – 1930).
B. Historic Criteria.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 20 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
1. History—Person. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition—locally, regionally, or nationally. b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials).
2. History—Event. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city—regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
b. A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history).
3. History—Context. Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g., County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Park Hotel).
C. Integrity. Authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of:
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 21 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
1. Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the original foundation has been changed, if known.
2. The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance.
3. The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
2. At the recommendation of the CHC, the Director may remove a property’s Local Register Resource status following the process for designation set forth herein.
14.01.080 Historic district designation—Purpose and application.
A. Historic (H) district designation. All properties within Historic Districts shall be designated by an “H” zoning. Properties zoned “H” shall be subject to the provisions and standards as provided in Chapter 17.5456 (zoning) of the Municipal Code.
B. Purposes of Historic Districts. The purposes of Historic Districts and H zone designation are to:
1. Implement cultural and historic resource preservation policies of the general plan, the preservation provisions of adopted area plans, the historic preservation and archaeological resource preservation program guidelines; and
2. Identify and preserve definable, unified geographical entities that possess a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects, sites, or landscape features united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development;
3. Implement historic preservation provisions of adopted area and neighborhood improvement plans;
4. Enhance and preserve the setting of historic resources so that surrounding land uses and structures do not detract from the historic or architectural integrity of designated historic resources and districts; and
5. Promote the public understanding and appreciation of historic resources.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 22 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 C. Eligibility for Incentives. Properties zoned as historic preservation (H) shall be eligible for preservation incentive and benefit programs as established herein, in the guidelines and other local, state and federal programsWhere Applied. The (H) designation may be applied to areas or neighborhoods that are historically significant according to one or more of the criteria defined in Section 14.01.060, and that include a collection or concentration of contributing historic or archaeological properties that define the district’s architectural and historic character or sense of place, and that possess sufficient integrity to convey their significance.
D. Where Applied. The (H) designation may be applied to areas or neighborhoods with a collection or concentration of listed historic properties or archaeologically significant sites, or where historic properties help define an area or neighborhood’s unique architectural and historic character or sense of place.
ED. “H” District Combined. A historic preservation overlay district (H) may be combined with any zoning district, and shall be shown by adding an “H” to the base zone designation. H district boundaries shall be drawn to follow property lines or right-of-way lines, and as set forth in the zoning regulations. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.090 Process for establishing or amending Historic Districts.
A. Initiating or Amending Historic Districts. Any person may initiate the process to establish or alter the boundaries of a historic preservation district. The process can also be initiated by the CHC, ARC, planning commissionDirector, or city council.
B. Application. An application to establish or alter the boundaries of a historic preservation district shall be submitted to the Department. The application shall meet the requirements for rezoning as described in the zoning regulations. The application and supporting information and plans shall be submitted to the department and shall includeshall be accompanied by a report that:
1. A map (eight and one-half inches by eleven inches) from the official zoning map,Describes the district’s significance with reference to the criteria defined in Section
14.01.060.
2. Describes and provides justification for the district boundary,
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 23 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
3. Identifies the district’s period of significance,
Lists contributing and non-contributing resources; all parcels within the boundaries of the district must be included in the list of contributors and non-contributors. Features within public spaces and rights-of-way, such as street furnishings and landscape features, may be listed as contributors or non-contributors to a historic district.
Lists designated Landmarks and Local Register Resources within the boundary of the district.
Includes a district map with the area to be established or changed shaded or outlined in a heavy, black boundary line,. For Historic Districts with the proposed areaboundary alterations, the original and proposed boundary to be changed must be clearly labeled;.
2. Information showing how the application meets the criteria to establish or alter a historic district designation;
3. A statement of historic significance. A statement of historic significance shall be prepared by a qualified professional, as listed in the city’s list of qualified historians. The director may waive the requirement that the statement be prepared by a qualified professional if the applicant provides adequate information to enable informed review of the proposed district.
C. Contents. Statements of historic significance shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
1. A visual and written description of the district’s boundaries.
2. A description of the district’s architectural, historic, and cultural resources, character and significance, including a historic survey documenting the period of significance and how historic properties meet adopted local, state and, where applicable, federal criteria for historic listing.
3. Preservation goals and concerns for the district including but not limited to:
a. Identification of preservation priorities, important features, goals and objectives; and b. Identification of potential obstacles to preservation; and c. Identification of historic land use policies and goals for future land use; and
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 24 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 d. Special considerations for development review of projects both involving and not involving historic resources.
4. Graphic and written design guidelines applicable to the district’s preservation goals, historic character and features which shall include, but not be limited to:
a. Guidelines for projects involving historic resources, focused on preserving the district’s character and significant archeological, architectural, and historic features; and
b. Guidelines for projects within the district but not involving historically designated properties, focused on maintaining street character and compatibility with the district’s historic character while not necessarily mimicking historic styles.
D. Review. The CHC shall review the application to determine if a district proposed for designation and zoning amendment meets eligibility criteria for historic designation and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Director shall provide notification to all property owners within the proposed district boundary and public, as required by city standards. The Planning Commission shall review the CHC recommendation and rezoning application and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall review the application and the recommendations of the CHC and Planning Commission, and approve or disapprove the application. The CHC, Planning Commission, and the City Council shall each conduct a noticed public hearing on the application and the notice of such hearings shall be completed as provided in the city’s notification procedures.
E. Review Criteria. When considering a historic preservation district application, the reviewing body shall consider both of the following criteria:
1. Environmental Design Continuity. The inter-relationship of structures and their relationship to a common environment; the continuity, spatial relationship, and visual character of a street, neighborhood, or area. Environmental design continuity is comprised of:
a. Symbolic importance to the community of a key structure in the area and the degree to which it serves as a conspicuous and pivotal landmark (e.g., easily accessible to the public, helps to establish a sense of time and place); or b. Compatibility of structures with neighboring structures in their setting on the basis of period, style (form, height, roof lines), design elements, landscapes, and natural
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 25 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 features; and how these combine together to create an integral cultural, historic, or stylistic setting; or
c. Similarity to and/or compatibility of structures over fifty years of age which, collectively, combine to form a geographically definable area with its own distinctive character.
2. Whether the proposed district contains structures which meet criteria for inclusion on the city’s list of historic resources. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.100 Demolition of listed or eligible historic resources.
A. Intent. Listed and eligible historic resources.
A. Intent. Listed historic (as defined in Section 14.01.020), including Landmarks, Local Register Resources, and Historic Districts and their Contributing Resources are an irreplaceable community resourceresources that merit special protection to preserve them for future generations, and. For the purposes of review under CEQA, per title CCR 14 § 15064.5, the demolition of such resources may be found to cause a significant impact to the environment.
Buildings, structures, objects, sites, or landscape features that are listed or eligible historic resources shall not be demolished unless the City Council makes all of the findings specified in subsection DE of this section; provided, however, that these thresholds shall. These findings are additional to the City’s review requirements under CEQA, as applicable, including but not apply to repairs to listed historic resources that do not require a building permit, or where the CHC or the director has determined such work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.limited to preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
B. Demolition review. The CHC shall review and make a recommendation to the City Council concerning demolition applications for buildings, structures, objects, sites, or landscape features listed or eligible for listing in the Inventory of Historic Resources.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 26 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 C. Demolition thresholds. Demolition permits for buildings, structures which, objects, sites, or landscape features that are included on the or that have been found eligible for inclusion on the Inventory of Historic Resources shall be required for:
1. Alterations to or removal of greater than twenty-five percent of the original building framework, roof structure, and exterior walls; and
2. Relocation of such resources to a site outside the City limits.
D. Evaluation required. The Director may require that a historic resource evaluation be submitted with a demolition application for a building or structure that is fifty years old or older and that has not been previously evaluated or listed on the Inventory of Historic Resources. The historic resource evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall evaluate the property’s eligibility for listing in the Inventory of Historic Resources and California Register.
Evaluations shall be reviewed by the Director and CHC for adequacy. Third-party review by a qualified professional may be required by the Director, at the expense of the applicant.
E. Required Findings for Demolition of a Historic Resource. The decision-making body shall approve an application for demolition of a structure listed in or eligible for listing in the Inventory of Historic Resources only if it determines that the proposed demolition is consistent with the general plan and:
1. The historic resource is a hazard to public health or safety, and repair or stabilization is not structurally feasible. Deterioration resulting from the property owner’s neglect or failure to maintain the property should not be a justification for demolition. The applicant may be required to provide structural reports, to the approval of the community development Director or City Council, to document that repairs or stabilization are not feasible; or
2. Denial of the application will constitute an economic hardship as described under subsections (JK)(1) through (3) of this section.
E3. Application of these provisions do not waive the City’s responsibilities for project review under CEQA.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 27 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 F. Demolition Timing. City regulations provide for a ninety-day waiting period before demolition of a listed or eligible historic resource to allow consideration of alternatives to preserve the building through relocation and/or property trades. The chief building official shall not issue a permit for demolishing a listed or eligible historic resource, except where the chief building official determines a listed historicthat resource may pose an imminent demonstrable threat to human life and safety, until:
1. Public notice requirements in the City’s demolition and building relocation code have been met; and
2. A construction permit is issued for a replacement building if one is proposed; and
3. All permit fees for the new development are paid. Where no new development is proposed, the property owner shall provide to the Director’s satisfaction, financial guarantees to ensure demolition plans and conditions of approval are implemented.
FG. Historic and Architectural Documentation. Before the issuance of a demolition permit for structuresa building, structure, object, site, or landscape feature listed in the Inventory of Historic Resources, the resource and its site shall be documented as specified in City standards, to the satisfaction of the CHC and the Director. The documentation shall be retained in a secure, but publicly accessible, location. Documentation prepared for implementation of mitigation measures required as part of the CEQA review process may be sufficient to fulfill this requirement.
G
H. Historic Acknowledgement. An acknowledgment of demolished resources shall be provided through historic signage and/or the reuse or display of historic materials and artifacts on site, at the owner’s expense, to the Director’s approval.
H
I. Code Requirements. Demolitions shall follow standards and procedures in the demolition and building relocation code and California Building Code as locally amended.
I
J. Expiration of Demolition Approval. Demolition approval of a listed historic resource shall expire two years after its date of approval, unless a building permit has been issued and construction has begun. A one-year extension may be granted by the Director. Additional time extensions shall require reapplication to and approval by the CHC.
J
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 28 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 K. Economic Hardship. An economic hardship provision is established to ensure that denial of a demolition permit does not impose undue hardship on the owner of a historicalhistoric resource. If the applicant presents evidence clearly demonstrating to the satisfaction of the CHC or the City Council that the action will cause an extreme hardship, the CHC may recommend approval, and the council may approve or conditionally approve a demolition or other application to modify a listed historic resource even though it does not meet one or more standards set forth herein. The applicant shall be responsible for providing substantiation of the claim to the Director, who shall review the information with the Director of finance and make a joint recommendation to the CHC on the hardship request. The CHC shall consider and make a recommendation to the council regarding the financial impacts of denial of the demolition permit. Private financial information shall be maintained in confidence by the City.
The CHC is authorized to request that the applicant furnish information, documentation and/or expert testimony, the cost of whichthat shall be paid by the applicant, to be considered by the committee in its related findings. All additional required information shall be provided by a qualified individual or firm approved by the Director. In determining whether extreme hardship exists, the committee and council shall consider evidence that demonstrates:
1. Denial of the application will diminish the value of the subject property so as to leave substantially no economic value, after considering other means of offsetting the costs of retaining the historic resource, including, but not limited to, tax abatements, financial assistance, building code modifications, changes in allowed uses, grants; or
2. Sale or rental of the property is impractical, when compared to the cost of holding such property for uses permitted in the zoning district; or
3. Utilization of the property for lawful purposes is prohibited or impractical. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.110 Relocation of listed or eligible historic resources.
A. Intent. Relocation of a property within or outside of its original site or parcel (as defined in Section 14.01.020.37) has the potential to adversely affect the significance of a historic resource and is discouraged. The City Council will not grant approval for the relocation of a listed historic resource unless the criteria for relocation under subsection D of this section can be met.
Relocation applications shall be evaluated as follows:
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 29 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 A
B. Review. The CHC and ARC shall review and make a recommendation to the City Council concerning relocation applications to relocatefor buildings, structures, objects, sites, or landscape features listed or eligible for listing in the Inventory of Historic Resources that would result in removal of the building from its original site or parcel. Minor relocation within a structure’s original parcel may, at the recommendation of the CHC, be reviewed by the Director.
Applications for relocation of buildings or structures listed or eligible for listing on the Inventory of Historic Resources outside of the City limits are subject to the requirements of Section
14.01.100.
B
C. Evaluation required. The Director may require that a historic resource evaluation be submitted with an application for relocation of a building, structure, object, site, or landscape feature that is fifty years old or older and that has not been previously evaluated or listed on the Inventory of Historic Resources. The historic resource evaluation shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall evaluate the property’s eligibility for listing in the Inventory of Historic Resources and California Register. Evaluations shall be reviewed by the Director for adequacy.
Third-party review by a qualified professional may be required by the Director, at the expense of the applicant.
D. Criteria for relocation. Relocation of structures included on or that have been found eligible for listing on the Inventory of Historic Resources, or those that are determined by the CHC or the director to be potentially historic, is the least preferred preservation method and shall be permitted only when relocation is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan, any applicable area or specific plans, and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and. Prior to recommendation of approval for a permit to relocate a listed or eligible resource, CHC must find the following:
1. The relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the historic, architectural or aesthetic value of the resource, as demonstrated to the satisfaction of the CHC and Director by a project analysis report prepared by a qualified professional; and
2. Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the Historic District or neighborhood, or surrounding properties whereat the resource is located or at itsresource’s original and proposed locationreceiving site; and
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 30 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
3. The original site and the proposed receiving site are controlled through ownership, longterm lease or similar assurance by the person(s) proposing relocation, to the Director’s approval; and
4. The proposed receiving site is relevant tocompatible with the original character and use of the resource or eligible resource’s historic significance; orand
5. The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the site and no other measures for correcting the condition are feasible; or
6. The proposed relocation meets the findings for economic hardship required under Section 14.01.100(J) for demolition of a historic resource.K).
CThese findings are additional to the City’s review requirements under CEQA, including but not limited to preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
E. Relocation Timing. The historic resource shall not be relocated unless the chief building official issues a permit for relocation and all permit or impact fees for new development are paid; or, where no new development is proposed, an appropriate security is posted to guarantee that relocation plans are implemented, to the Director’s approval.
D
F. Historical and Architectural Documentation. Prior to issuance of a construction permit for relocation, the resource and its site shall be historically documented as specified herein, to the satisfaction of the CHC and the Director. An acknowledgment of the resource, such as a permanent, weatherproof historic plaque, shall be incorporated on the resource’s original site as provided by the applicant or property owner, subject to the approval of the CHC and Director.
E
G. Relocation Plan and Procedures. Relocations shall follow a plan approved by the CHC or the director,, that adheres to standards and procedures in the demolition and building relocation code,of the California Building Code, and the following:
1. Application for relocation shall be made on forms provided by the Department and shall include information to respond to the criteria in subsection BD of this section.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 31 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
2. The CHC shall hold a noticed public hearing and recommend action to the ARC or City Council on the application for relocation of a historic resource, and the ARC orCity Council shall consider the CHC’s recommendation in making the final determination to approve or deny the permit.
3. The ARC or the city council will not grant an approval for the relocation of a listed historic resource unless the criteria for relocation under subsection B of this section can be met. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.120 Unpermitted demolition or destruction of listed or eligible historic resources.
A. Preservation of listed historic resources. The purpose of this section is to prevent unpermitted active demolition or demolition by neglect by ensuring that listed historic resources are maintained in good repair, and free from structural defects and safety hazards, consistent with the International Property Maintenance Code, Property Maintenance Standards (Chapter
17.17), and standards as specified herein. Alteration or Demolition in whole or part, of any significant features or characteristics of a listed or eligible historic property or resource requires city authorization, pursuant to Section 14.01.100.
B. Enhanced Penalties for Unpermitted Demolition. In addition to penalties otherwise provided for violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and this chapter, the City Council, following notice and a public hearing, may impose the following enhanced penalties for unpermitted demolition of a listed or eligible resource, as defined herein, where athe property owner has willfully demolished, or directed, or allowed the demolition of a listed resource, or where the property owner has failed to comply with notices to correct violations of this code, such that the continuance of such violations may result in the unpermitted demolition of the listed historic resource (either active or by neglect):
1. Restoration. The owner may be required to restore the property or structure to its appearance prior to the violation to the satisfaction of the Director.
2. Building Permit Restriction. The City may prohibit the owner(s), successors, or assigns from obtaining a building permit for development of the subject property for a period of up to
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 32 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 five years from the date of violation, unless such permit(s) is for the purpose of complying with provisions of this chapter. In cases where this penalty is imposed, the City shall:
a. Initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to ensure enforcement of this restriction.
b. Require the property owner to maintain the property during the period of development restriction in conformance with standards set forth in this chapter. c. Initiate action to remove any such deed restriction within ten days of correction or compliance. Subsequent development applications shall be subject to CEQA review and conditions of development shall address the demolition of the historic resource.
3. Loss of Preservation Benefits. Any historic preservation benefits previously granted to the affected property, such as a Mills Act contract, may be subject to revocation.
4. Other Remedies. These enhanced penalties are nonexclusive, in addition to and not in lieu of penalties otherwise provided for violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and this chapter, including, but not limited to, administrative citations, criminal prosecution, civil fines, and public nuisance proceedings. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.130 Historic and cultural resource preservation fund established.
The historic and cultural resource preservation fund (“fund”) is hereby established to provide for the conservation, preservation, restoration and rehabilitation of historic and cultural resources in the city of San Luis Obispo. The council shall provide the policy direction for funding and expenditures from the fund.
A. Program Administration. The director shall administer the fund, following specific procedures and funding priorities adopted by the council.
B. Purpose. The purpose of the fund is to provide funds for historic preservation projects within the city. All funds deposited in the fund shall be used for the conservation, preservation, restoration and rehabilitation of historic or cultural resources, as provided in this section and as directed by the council.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 33 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
1. Financial Administration. Financial administration of the fund shall be by the city finance director or designee, in accordance with state and local law. Any interest earned on the fund shall accrue to the funds, unless council specifically designates such funds for another purpose.
2. Grants, Gifts and Donations. The finance director shall deposit into the fund any grants, gifts, donations, rents, royalties, or other financial support earmarked by council for historic or cultural resource preservation.
C. Cultural Heritage Committee Role. The committee shall advise the council on the fund regarding:
1. Criteria for use and award of funds;
2. Entering into any contract, lease, agreement, etc., for use of funds;
3. Any other action or activity necessary or appropriate to achieve the fund purposes and the intent of this chapter.
D. Uses of Fund. The fund may be used for: (1) the identification and protection of cultural resources, including preparation of historic surveys and design guidelines, (2) for the repair, restoration, rehabilitation, preservation and maintenance of historical buildings, features, or archaeological sites, (3) for public education on cultural resources, (4) for real property acquisition if there is a willing property owner, including lease, purchase, sale, exchange or other forms of real property transfer or acquisition to protect significant historic resources, or (5) any other historic preservation related purpose approved by the council. Council decisions on the use of funds are final.
E. Loans and Grants. The fund may be used, upon council approval and recommendation by the committee, for loans and grants to public agencies, nonprofit organizations and private entities to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
F. Preservation Agreements. Loans, grants or other financial assistance shall require execution of an agreement between the city and the recipient to ensure that such award or assistance carries out the purposes of this chapter and is consistent with applicable state and local standards.
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 34 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025 G. Funding Eligibility. The fund shall be used to benefit properties on the master or contributing properties list, or for other properties or uses deemed eligible by the council upon recommendation by the committee. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.140 Enforcement.
A. The Director, chief building official and city attorney and their designees are hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this chapter.
B. Time to Correct. Prior to assessment of any penalty or initiation of any prosecution for any violation of this chapter, the Director shall provide written notice of noncompliance to property owners. Notice shall be by certified and regular mail. Following mailing of notice, property owner shall have sixty days to correct the violation or to inform the City why an extension is warranted. Additional time to correct the violation may be allowed where the property owner is exercising due diligence in acting to correct noticed violations. The Director shall have the authority to place reasonable conditions on such an extension. Notwithstanding these provisions, if the Director or the chief building official determines there is an imminent threat to a listed or historic or cultural resource, the Director shall notify the property owner of the imminent threat and property owner shall be required to provide urgent measures deemed reasonable and necessary to protect the public health and safety and for the protection of the resource within seventy-two hours of notification.
C. Work Stoppage. In addition to any other fines, penalties or enforcement provisions set forth in this chapter, failure to comply with an approved application shall constitute grounds for immediate stoppage of the work involved in the noncompliance until the matter is resolved.
D. Violation—Penalty. Every property owner and/or responsible party, as defined in this chapter, who violates provisions of this chapter is subject to penalty as set forth in Chapter 1.12 or administrative enforcement as set forth under Chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
Chapter 14.01 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Historic Preservation Ordinance Page 35 of 35 Draft Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance – October 2025
14.01.150 Appeals.
Decisions of any City official or body under the provisions of this chapter are appealable in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.20, except that fees for appeals under this chapter by the property owner concerning the masterLandmark or contributing list propertyLocal Register Resource in which said owner is residing at the time of appeal shall be waived. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
14.01.160 Severability.
Should any section or other portion of this chapter be determined unlawful or, unenforceable, or otherwise invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining section(s) and portion(s) of this chapter shall be considered severable and shall remain in full force and effect. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010)
San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Revisions Summary September 17, 2025
1 of 2
In addition to minor language or terminology clarifications and corrections, the following substantive changes were made in the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance Update:
Original
Section #
New
Section #
Section Name Revisions
14.01.020 14.01.020 Definitions Definitions removed due to redundancy elsewhere in City code, change in procedure, or lack of relevance to the HPO: accessory structure, community design guidelines, contributing list resource or property, cultural resource, historic property, historic preservation report, massing, master list resource, modern contributing resource, noncontributing resource, preservation, primary structure, reconstruction, rehabilitation, restoration, scale, sensitive site, siting, statement of historic significance, survey, threatened resource
Definitions revised for accuracy and clarity: adverse effects, alteration, archaeological site, character-defining features, demolition, deterioration, historic district / historical preservation district, historic resource, historic status, inappropriate alteration, integrity (architectural or historical), inventory of historic resources, listed resource, minor alteration, National Register, neglect, qualified professional, relocation, site Definitions added due to changes in subsequent HPO sections: contributing resource (district), department, eligible resource, historic resource evaluation, landmark, local register resource, Mills Act program, project analysis report, non-contributor, reversible, traditional cultural property
14.01.030 14.01.030 Cultural Heritage
Committee
Section revised to combine previous sections B and C and remove redundancies.
14.01.040 14.01.040 Community Development
Director Role
Section revised to align with changes to 14.01.030.
14.01.050 14.01.050 Historic Resource
Designation
Revised to include “landmarks” (replaces “master list resources”) and “local register properties” (replaces “contributing list resources”) to better communicate the status of highest-level resources and rectify the confusing situation in which “contributing” resources may exist independent of historic districts.
San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Update Revisions Summary September 17, 2025
2 of 2
Original
Section #
New
Section #
Section Name Revisions
14.01.055 None Historic gardens, site
features, signs, and other
cultural resources
Section removed and contents incorporated into definition and designation sections.
14.01.070 14.01.055 Evaluation Criteria for
historic resource
designation
Revised the criteria to align with those used for the National Register and California Register. Removed “integrity” as a criterion for significance, and clarified that it is required for eligibility under any criterion. Provided additional requirements for historic districts.
Extensive guidance and examples removed from the HPO should be incorporated in and update to the HPPG.
14.01.060 14.01.060 Designation procedures
for Landmarks and Local
Register Resources
Changed section title and wording to reflect changed category names, added requirement for historic resource evaluation, revised roles and responsibilities for initiating, reviewing, and acting.
14.01.080 14.01.070 Historic district
designation—Purpose and
application.
Revised “Where Applied” to align with current approaches to historic districts, including requirements for significance under one or more criteria.
14.01.090 14.01.080 Process for establishing or
amending Historic
Districts
Revised report requirements to align with current best practices in preservation.
Removed requirements for preservation goals/concerns, design guidelines. Added property owner notification requirement.
14.01.100 14.01.090 Demolition of listed or
eligible historic resources
Added historic resource evaluation requirement at discretion of Director.
14.01.110 14.01.100 Relocation of listed or
eligible historic resources
Added evaluation and project analysis report requirements at discretion of Director.
Revised language regarding appropriateness of receiving site.
14.01.130 None Historic and cultural
resource preservation
fund established
Removed section, as fund has not been established.
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN UPDATED HISTORIC
CONTEXT STATEMENT AS REFLECTED IN THE ATTACHED
EXHIBIT A (CODE-0758-2025)
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo held a public hearing on September 29, 2025, to review proposed updates to the Historic Context Statement and recommended the Planning Commission recommend adoption and approval of the updates to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on October 22, 2025, to review updates to the Historic Context Statement and recommended the City Council approve the updates; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on December 2, 2025, for the purpose of considering the recommended updates to the Historic Preservation Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the recommended updates to the Historic Context Statement are part of Phase 1 of the Council authorized Historic Resources Inventory Update project (Project) and provides updated community historical context and guidance for determinations of historical significance for Phase 2 of the Project, which will include review and update of the existing Historic Resources Inventory and surveys for new potential historic resources; and,
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence presented by City staff and public commentors at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence presented, the Planning Commission makes the following findings:
1. The proposed updates to the Historic Context Statement are consistent with and implement Land Use Element Implementation Policy 12.4 since the updates support the review and identification of historic resources.
2. The proposed updates are consistent with and implement General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Goal 3.2 since the proposed
Resolution No. XXXX-2025
amendments update the Historic Context Statement, which provides historical community context and guidance for the determination of properties that are historically significant.
3. The proposed amendments are consistent with and implement General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.1 by updating documents that are used to identify significant historic resources.
4. The proposed amendments are consistent with and implement General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Program 3.6.1 by assisting the Cultural Heritage Committee with the identification and development of information on historical resources.
5. The proposed amendments are consistent with Certified Local Government requirements from the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) to keep and maintain an updated historic resources inventory based on the criteria of a local ordinance.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The recommended updates to the Historic Context Statement consist of actions by a regulatory agency authorized by the state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, or protection of the environment, and are therefore categorically exempt from environmental review (Section 15308, Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment).
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby adopt the recommended updated 2025 Historic Context Statement as shown in Exhibit A.
Upon motion of Council Member___________, seconded by Council Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ___________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 2
nd day of December 2025.
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
Resolution No. XXXX-2025
___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
12 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 200
Pasadena, CA 91105-1915
www.historicla.com
Revised by
PAGE & TURNBULL
170 Maiden Lane, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
www.page-turnbull.com
City of San Luis Obispo
Citywide Historic Context Statement
REVISED 2025
Prepared For
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
i
City of San Luis Obispo
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
PROJECT SUMMARY
The following project summary is applicable to the Historic Context Statement developed by Historic Resources Group in 2013:
The September 2013 version of the Citywide Historic Context Statement was prepared at the request of the City of San Luis Obispo, and was funded by a grant through the Certified Local Government (CLG) program. In October 2012, the City contracted with Historic Resources Group for the preparation of the Historic Context Statement. It follows the guidance outlined for the development of historic contexts in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, along with National Register Bulletin 16B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form.
The activity which is the subject of this Historic Context Statement has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation.
Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental federally assisted programs on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to:
Director, Equal Opportunity Program
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
P.O. Box 37127
Washington, D.C. 20013-7127
In 2025, Page & Turnbull prepared an update to the Historic Context Statement at the request of the City of San Luis Obispo. This update includes revised and expanded information on the city’s historic communities and updated approaches and procedures for the evaluation of historic resources.
ii
City of San Luis Obispo
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Summary .......................................................................................................................................................................i Table of Contents..................................................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Methodology......................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Historic Preservation Policy........................................................................................................................................... 4 Historic Resources Surveys ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Guidelines for Evaluation..................................................................................................................................................... 8 Historic Context......................................................................................................................................................................10 Summary of Contexts & Themes ................................................................................................................................11 Historical Overview.........................................................................................................................................................13 Early History.......................................................................................................................................................................17 Spanish Colonization and Mission San Luis Obispo (1772-1821)................................................................18 Mexican Rule (1822-1846)...........................................................................................................................................29 Late 19th Century Americanization & Town Settlement (1846-1900).......................................................33 Early 20th Century Development (1900-1929)...................................................................................................66 The Great Depression and World War II (1930-1945).....................................................................................98 Mid-Late 20th Century Growth (1945-1980)...................................................................................................... 117 Bibliography .........................................................................................................................................................................140 Appendix A: Evaluation Criteria...................................................................................................................................147 National Register of Historic Places....................................................................................................................... 147 California Register of Historical Resources ........................................................................................................ 148 Local Designation .......................................................................................................................................................... 149 Integrity............................................................................................................................................................................. 150 Appendix B: Historic Architectural Styles in San Luis Obispo.........................................................................153 Appendix C: Properties Designated at the State And National Level............................................................ 175
1 City of San Luis Obispo Introduction
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
INTRODUCTION
View of downtown San Luis Obispo . Source: Historic Resources Group (2012).
The City of San Luis Obispo received a State of California Certified Local Government (CLG) grant for the period 2012-2013 to prepare a Citywide Historic Context Statement. This project is part of the City of San Luis Obispo’s ongoing efforts to identify and evaluate potential historic resources.
The Historic Context Statement was developed by Historic Resources Group, including Founding Principal Christy Johnson McAvoy and Principal Christine Lazzaretto, both of whom meet the Secretary of the Interior's professional standards.1 Assistance with field work, research, and content was provided by Robby Aranguren, Planning Associate, and Heather Goers, Architectural Historian.
Coordination of the project was administered by Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner for the City of San Luis Obispo, and it was overseen by the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee. Marie Nelson and Amanda Blosser at the State Office of Historic Preservation served as advisors.
An update of the Historic Context Statement was completed by Page & Turnbull in 2025. Staff responsible for the update included Christina Dikas, Principal; Stacy Kozakavich, Cultural Resources Planner, project manager; and Clare Flynn, Cultural Resources Planner, primary author, all of whom meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History.
Coordination of the project was overseen by Brian Leveille, Principal Planner for the City of San Luis Obispo with review by the Cultural Heritage Committee.
1 Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, p. 44738-44739, September 29, 1983.
2 City of San Luis Obispo Introduction
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
PURPOSE
In order to understand the significance of the historic and architectural resources in the City of San Luis Obispo, it is necessary to examine those resources within a series of contexts. The purpose of a historic context statement is to place built resources in the appropriate historic, social, and architectural context, the relationship between an area’s physical environment and its broader history can be established.
A historic context statement analyzes the historical development of a community according to guidelines written by the National Park Service and specified in National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form and Nation Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys. Bulletin 16A describes a historic context as follows:
Historic context is information about historic trends and properties grouped by an important theme in pre-history or history of a community, state, or the nation during a particular period of time.
Because historic contexts are organized by theme, place, and time, they link historic properties to important historic trends. In this way, they provide a framework for determining the significance of a property.2
A historic context statement is linked with tangible built resources through the concept of “property type,” which is a grouping of individual properties based on shared physical or associative characteristics.3 This report also considers intangible cultural heritage, which includes traditions or living expressions inherited from ancestors and passed on to descendants, and may be linked to a specific property that is owned or occupied by a cultural community.
This historic context is not intended to be a comprehensive history of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Rather, its purpose is to highlight trends and patterns critical to the understanding of the built environment. It identifies the various historical factors that shaped the development of the area, including historic activities or events, important people, building types, architectural styles, and materials, and patterns of physical development. The historic context provides a framework for the continuing process of identifying historic, architectural, and cultural resources in the City. It is meant to serve as a guide to enable citizens, planners, and decision-makers to evaluate the relative significance and integrity of individual properties.
Specific examples referred to in this context statement are included solely to illustrate physical and associative characteristics of each resource type. Inclusion in the context statement does not imply significance or designation at the local, state, or national level. Exclusion from the context statement does not diminish the significance of any individual resource. 2 National Park Service, “National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form,” Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1997. 3 National Park Service, “National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1977; revised 1985.
3 City of San Luis Obispo Introduction
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
METHODOLOGY
The first phase of the project involved collecting and reviewing existing documentation. Several surveys and studies have been conducted in the City of San Luis Obispo which included historic overviews of the City. In particular, the 19th and early 20th centuries have been well documented.
These previous studies largely formed the basis for the discussion of these periods in this context statement.
Background information in this report on state and national trends that generally influenced the development of San Luis Obispo were borrowed and tailored for this report. Additional research was conducted as needed in City archives housed in the Community Development Department, at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County, and through a literature review of sources documenting the history of the area.
This historic context was developed with the assistance of the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee, and included a public outreach component. Progress updates were provided by City staff to the Cultural Heritage Committee throughout the process, providing the opportunity for Committee members to provide direction and feedback. Two public workshops were conducted at critical stages of the project. The first workshop included a discussion of the major periods of development, with attendees providing additional background information, along with property- and neighborhoodspecific details related to each period. At the second workshop, members of the community were updated on the progress of the project, and a discussion of eligibility criteria and integrity thresholds was held. Information gathered from the Committee and the public workshops was used in the development of the historic context.
A citywide street-by-street reconnaissance survey was undertaken to inform the historic context.
Particular attention was given to buildings and neighborhoods from the post-World War II period, as this aspect of the City’s history has not been studied as rigorously as earlier periods. In addition, properties included on the City’s Master List of Historic Resources (individual buildings and historic districts) were reviewed in order to determine the overall integrity thresholds of recognized resources, and to have a better understanding of the population of properties from each period that have already been designated by the City. Properties that are illustrated within this historic context are meant to serve as examples of a particular context, theme, property type, or architectural style; exclusion of a property from the historic context is not an indication that it is not eligible for historic designation.
The update to this Historic Context Statement completed in 2025 included review of additional documentary materials to expand and revise the historic contexts, additional photographs taken during targeted surveys, as well as review of updates to City of San Luis Obispo historic preservation code and policy.
4 City of San Luis Obispo Introduction
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
HISTORIC PRESERVATION POLICY
This Historic Context Statement is part of ongoing historic preservation efforts in the City of San Luis Obispo. The City of San Luis Obispo has an active historic preservation program, and historic preservation is included throughout City policy. Historic Preservation has been part of City policy since the 1980s, when the City established the first set of Historic Preservation Policies; the policy document was soon followed by a City historic resources survey and the formulation of the first historic districts. In 2010, the City adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance and updated the Historic Preservation Guidelines in an effort to stimulate preservation and provide design guidance for new development. In 2025, the City revised the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14.01 of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, to reflect current best practices in historic preservation.
In 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo became a Certified Local Government (CLG). The CLG program is a preservation partnership between local, state, and national governments focused on promoting historic preservation at the grass roots level. The program is jointly administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and the State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) in each state, with each local community working through a certification process to become recognized as a Certified CLG. CLGs then become active partners in the Federal Historic Preservation Program and the opportunities it provides.
The General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) was adopted in 2006 (Reso# 9785- 2006 series). Chapter 3 of the COSE contains various policies for the preservation of the City’s cultural heritage. To implement these policies, the City Council has adopted several documents that help protect these resources. In addition to the Historic Preservation Guidelines and the Historic Preservation Ordinance discussed above, these documents include:
• Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, adopted by Council Resolution No. 10120 (2009 Series) – Updates procedures to be used for the protection of sub-surface cultural resources, both historic and pre-historic features. • Community Design Guidelines, adopted by Council Resolution No. 9391 (2002 Series) and updated in 2004, 2007, and 2010 – Establishes site and architectural design standards for development projects, including projects involving historic resources and historic districts, and demolitions.
• Demolition and Moving of Buildings – Appendix E of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code – Establishes procedures and requirements for the relocation or demolition of historic buildings.
• San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, Chapter 17.56 San Luis Obispo Municipal Code – Establishes the Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (H) and describes its purposes and application, allowed uses and property development standards. • Historic Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14.01 (Ordinance 1557-2010 Series) – established codified regulations for eligibility criteria for historic listings, review procedures and standards for actions on historic properties, and defined actions subject to Cultural Heritage Committee review.
5 City of San Luis Obispo Introduction
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEYS
Lithograph of San Luis Obispo. Source: Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley (1865).
There have been several historic resources surveys documenting the cultural and architectural resources of San Luis Obispo. The first occurred in 1982-1983, when the Cultural Heritage Committee completed an architectural and photographic survey that recorded over 2,000 pre-1941 buildings, sites, and objects within the City. This survey is referred to as Historical Resources Survey I. The surveyed properties were located primarily near the central downtown core. The goals of the survey included the preparation of a master inventory of cultural resources and the identification of “parameters for establishing guidelines for preservation issues and themes.”4 Those sites found to be architecturally or culturally significant formed the basis of the City’s Master List of Historic Resources. Additionally, the City established three Historic Zoning Districts: the Downtown Commercial District (now the Downtown Historic District), the Mill Street District, and the Old Town Neighborhood (now the Old Town District). The Downtown Historic District encompasses the oldest part of the City of San Luis Obispo with the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa at its center.
Contributing buildings in the district date from the Spanish and Mexican eras to 1930. The Mill Street Historic District is a residential neighborhood that contains buildings constructed primarily from the 1900s to 1920s. The Old Town District contains one of the city’s oldest residential neighborhoods that was built up around the turn of the 20th century and has a period of significance of 1880 to 1920.5 The second study took place in 1987, when the Cultural Heritage Committee initiated Historical Resources Survey II. For this study, the Committee identified approximately 500 properties that warranted further research, the majority of which were single-family residences located outside of the downtown area. Following preliminary fieldwork, the list was refined to 400 properties, which 4 City of San Luis Obispo, “Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey,” July 1983, 9. 5 City of San Luis Obispo, “Historic Preservation Program Guidelines,” November 2010, 34-50.
6 City of San Luis Obispo Introduction
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
were evaluated by a qualified historical researcher. The purpose of the evaluation was twofold: 1) to determine the eligibility of approximately 100 properties for inclusion on the City’s Master List of Historic Resources and/or nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, and 2) to determine if any of the 400 initial properties were eligible as contributors to potential Historic Zoning Districts.
At the time, of the 100 properties evaluated by the first criteria, fourteen properties were deemed eligible for addition to the Master List of Historic Resources. Additionally, one of the properties satisfied the criteria for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places. The remaining 300 properties were evaluated for their potential significance as contributors to future Historic Zoning Districts, and the report also recommended that the City establish three additional Historic Zoning Districts: the Little Italy/Railroad District, the Monterey Heights District, and the Mount Pleasanton/Anholm District. In 1987 a Chinatown Historic District and a Railroad District were also identified. The Chinatown Historic District recognizes the important contributions of the Chinese community to San Luis Obispo’s history and development and has a period of significance of 1884 to 1945. The Railroad Historic District contains buildings at the site of the Southern Pacific Railroad railyard, as well as residential and commercial areas to the west which were constructed between 1894 and 1945.
In 2006-2007, City staff surveyed two neighborhoods known as East Railroad and Monterey Heights.
As a result of that survey effort, twenty-five properties were added to the list of Contributing Historic Resources within the East Railroad area, and seven properties were added to the list of Contributing Historic Resources within Monterey Heights.
In 2011, the Cultural Heritage Commission initiated a survey to update the City’s Historic Resources Inventory as directed by the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. Following a careful evaluation of the most critical areas in the City, the Cultural Heritage Committee selected an area outside of existing historic districts adjacent to Johnson Avenue between Higuera and Buchon Streets. The surveyed properties date from approximately 1900 to 1925 and occupy the block between Higuera and Marsh Streets at Johnson Avenue. As a result of this survey effort, fifty-three properties were added to the City’s list of Contributing Historic Resources.
View of Buchon Street.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo (2013).
View of Monterey Street.
Source: Historic Resources Group (2012).
7 City of San Luis Obispo Introduction
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Historic Districts Map. Source: Page & Turnbull, based on City of San Luis Obispo data (2025).
8 City of San Luis Obispo Guidelines for Evaluation
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION
This Historic Context Statement provides guidance for listing at the federal, state, and local levels, according to the established criteria and integrity thresholds.
A property may be designated as historic by National, State, and local authorities. In order for a building to qualify for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the San Luis Obispo Inventory of Historic Resources, it must meet one or more identified criteria of significance. The significance criteria required by the City of San Luis Obispo’s designation program are described in the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 14.01 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Additional guidance is provided by the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. The National Register, California Register , and Local Inventory criteria are provided in full in Appendix A. Typically, properties are considered eligible for evaluation for the National Register when they are 50 years old or older. Properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years must be “exceptionally important” as outlined in National Register Criteria Consideration G.6
In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must also retain sufficient historic integrity to convey its historic significance under the criteria and theme within which it is significant. Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is defined as “the authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic period.”7 Myron Angel House, 714 Buchon Street, 1886-1891.
Source: Page & Turnbull (2025).
Tribune Republic Building, 1763 Santa Barbara Avenue,
1873. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1993 for its association with the early newspaper
business and the railroad industry in San Luis Obispo.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo (2013).
6 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1997).
7 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, (, (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1997).
9 City of San Luis Obispo Guidelines for Evaluation
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL
The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities that comprise integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. These aspects of integrity are defined fully in Appendix A.
In general, a higher integrity threshold is needed for listing in the National Register of Historic Places; properties that may not retain sufficient integrity for listing in the National Register may be eligible for the California Register of for local designation.
In some cases, properties associated with a specific ethnic or cultural group should be evaluated with a lower threshold of integrity, understanding that extant properties are rarer, may have been altered over time to meet the changing needs of the community, and may be associated with intangible cultural heritage. As such, the aspects of integrity that are most important for these properties include location, feeling, and association, and design to a lesser degree. A property may have some alteration to its design but may remain eligible for its association with an ethnic or cultural group so long as the property has enough of its essential physical features to be able to convey its reason for significance. A rule of thumb is that the property would be recognizable to a community member who was familiar with the property during its period of significance.
Within each of the contexts and themes discussed in the following sections, a property must meet the following basic requirements for eligibility for designation at the national, state, or local level.
An individual property must:
• Be demonstrably significant under at least one criterion; • Date from the period of significance for the theme within which it is found eligible; • Represent the property type associated with the theme under which it is significant (e.g. properties significant under the Residential Development theme for a specific period should be residential building types);
• Display most of the significant character-defining features of its type or style it ; and • Retain the essential aspects of integrity appropriate to its property type and significance.
A historic district must:
• Be a definable, unified geographical area that possess a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development;
• Possess a majority (60 percent or more) of the properties or components within the district boundary contribute to the district’s significance.
• Retain overall integrity of design, setting, and feeling to convey the “time and place” of the period of significance. Contributors within the district should retain integrity of location, setting, feeling, and association.
10 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Introduction Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
HISTORIC CONTEXT
The City of San Luis Obispo has a rich and varied
history. This historic context provides a broadbrush historical overview of the overarching forces that shaped land use patterns and
development of the built environment of the City
of San Luis Obispo. It is not meant as a complete
historical narrative of the City, but instead
provides a framework for the identification and
evaluation of historic resources. Much of the
history contained here is drawn from existing
narratives, particularly of the City’s early
development, which has been well documented
by previous studies. Within each context is an
identification of the relevant themes associated
with that context; a description of the associated
property types; a discussion of the relevant
criteria and integrity considerations; and specific
eligibility standards.
The overarching goal of the historic context
statement is to serve as a planning tool that will
assist City staff and officials, residents, and
interested stakeholders identify those properties
that tell the story of San Luis Obispo and
contribute to the architectural, cultural, or social history of the City. San Luis Obispo retains important properties from each significant period of development, from the earliest built resources associated with the establishment of Mission San Luis Obispo, through post-World War II expansion and growth. Properties represent the City’s residential, commercial, institutional, industrial, agricultural, and civic growth throughout history. There are numerous properties that are significant as excellent or rare examples of a particular architectural style, or as the work of a master architect.
Properties may be significant under multiple contexts, but only need to meet criteria under one context or theme in order to be eligible for designation.
Mission San Luis Obispo, 751 Palm Street.
Source: California Views, The Pat Hathaway Photo
Collection (1865).
11 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Introduction Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
SUMMARY OF CONTEXTS & THEMES
For purposes of this historic context, seven broad historical periods in the history of San Luis Obispo are identified:
• Early History
• Spanish Colonization and Mission San Luis Obispo (1772-1821) • Mexican Rule (1822-1846)
• Late 19th Century Americanization and Town Settlement (1846-1900) • Early 20th Century Development (1900-1929)
• The Great Depression and World War II (1930-1945)
• Mid-Late 20th Century Growth (1945-1980)
Within each broad time period, the following themes are discussed relative to the development of the built environment in San Luis Obispo:
• Residential Development
• Commercial Development
• Civic & Institutional Development
• Agricultural & Industrial Development
• Transportation- and Infrastructure-related Development It should be noted that ethnic and cultural diversity is a major thread that runs through all of these themes. As such, the history and contributions of San Luis Obispo’s diverse communities are discussed throughout this Historic Context Statement as they are inextricably woven into the overall history of the city. This report also considers intangible cultural heritage, which includes traditions or living expressions inherited from ancestors, passed on to descendants, and shared within and between communities. Oral traditions, performing arts, social practices, rituals, festive events, knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe or the knowledge and skills to produce traditional crafts are examples of intangible cultural heritage.8 Intangible cultural heritage may be linked to a specific property that is owned or occupied by a cultural community, such as community center, social hall, commercial storefront, or religious property, even if the intangible traditions are not all practiced or executed at that physical location. 8 UNESCO, “What is Intangible Cultural Heritage?” accessed November 14, 2024, https://ich.unesco.org/en/what-isintangibleheritage-00003.
12 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Introduction Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Dallidet Adobe, 1185 Pacific Street. Source: San Luis
Obispo County Historical Society (1860).
Postcard of Monterey Street. Source:
historyinslocounty.org (1930s).
Carnegie Library, 696 Monterey Street. Source:
historyinsanluisobispocounty.org (1905).
Southern Pacific Depot, 1011 Railroad Avenue, built 1943.
Source: Historic Resources Group (2012).
13 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Historic Overview Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
San Luis Obispo is located in the Central Coast region of California, approximately 200 miles north of Los Angeles and 230 miles south of San Francisco. The area is naturally bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Santa Lucia mountain range to the north, east, and south. These mountains are also the source of the San Luis Obispo Creek, which runs through the city of San Luis Obispo and empties into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. The creek flows along the Nine Sisters, a chain of volcanic peaks which originates in San Luis Obispo and extends west to the Pacific Ocean. The chain of hills forms the dominant scenic backdrop to nearly all parts of the city. The serpentine ridge that extends southeast from Cerro San Luis is flanked on the south side by the wetlands of Laguna Lake, much of which is preserved by the City today as a wildlife preserve. The topography of the surrounding mountain ranges forms a natural barrier that generally restricted the development of San Luis Obispo to the flatlands around San Luis Obispo Creek.
Map of San Luis Obispo County. Source: UCLA, Library Special Collections, Charles E. Young Research Library (1874).
14 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Historic Overview Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the area now known as the City of San Luis Obispo was part of a larger territory long inhabited by the yak titʸu titʸu yak tiłhini people (hereafter referred to as the tiłhini) whose name refers to the location of the current city and means “The People of the Full Moon.”9 The tiłhini established a network of villages along the region’s creeks and coast.
The region was not substantially explored by Europeans until the Spanish colonization of Alta California beginning in 1769. In 1772, Father Junipero Serra founded Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa on the banks of the nearby San Luis Obispo Creek. The establishment of the mission system of which this was a part would ultimately have a devastating effect on local indigenous peoples throughout what would become California. Forced relocation and labor, introduced diseases, and intentional suppression of traditional lifeways had far reaching and long-term impacts on San Luis Obispo’s indigenous inhabitants, the tiłhini, and the peoples of neighboring territories.
The Mission, however, prospered and soon became self-sufficient, establishing vineyards and orchards and cultivating the surrounding land for agriculture. Due to its isolated location, the mission became a convenient stopover for those traveling between missions to the north and south, and the settlement soon established itself as a regional market center.
From the late 1700s through the mid-nineteenth century, Spanish and Mexican ranchos had extended across the county. The California Land Act of 1851 prompted a dramatic shift in the residential development of San Luis Obispo during the mid-19th century. Surrounding ranchos were subdivided into smaller parcels of land, forcing many rural landowners to migrate into the city. In 1850, California was admitted to the Union, and in 1868 San Luis Obispo was officially designated as the county seat.
From before the days of mission settlement, the development of San Luis Obispo has been intimately connected with the surrounding landscape. The region’s topography and waterways shaped the land use patterns of the tiłhini, which in turn influenced the locations of Spanish settlements. The first European settlements in the area were located near the San Luis Obispo Creek, whose tributaries provided a framework for the town’s early housing and gardens. The surrounding landscape was largely dedicated to agricultural pursuits, including crops and vineyards cultivated by the mission and later by the adjacent ranchos. Construction materials for early mission buildings and residences, including thatch, wood, and adobe bricks, all originated from local sources. As the community surrounding the mission grew, the demand for construction materials increased and the variety of materials expanded in kind. While the development of San Luis Obispo’s first commercial brickyard in the late 1800s replaced the earlier use of adobe bricks, quarries were developed in the surrounding areas to mine quartz, sandstone, and other rock for commercial construction. Agricultural activities in the surrounding landscape also evolved in the late 1800s. Vineyards, once abandoned following 9 The tiłhini people have been, in the previous edition of this Historic Context Statement and other publications, referred to as the Northern Chumash or Obispeño. The use herein of the name tiłhini recognizes the people’s own linguistic and cultural history.
Anthropologists initially applied the term “Chumash” to the people living on Santa Cruz Island, but it is now often used to refer to the entire linguistic and ethnic group of societies that occupied the coast between San Luis Obispo and northwestern Los Angeles County, including the Santa Barbara Channel Islands, and inland to the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley. For more information see Wendy M. Nettles, “The Copelands Project: Neophytes, Shopkeepers, and the Soiled Doves of San Luis Obispo,” City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, October 2006; YTT Northern Chumash Tribe, “yak titʸu titʸu yak tiłhini Lifeways,” accessed October 10, 2024, https://yttnorthernchumashtribe.com/lifeways; Randall Milliken and John R. Johnson, An Ethnogeography of Salinan and Northern Chumash Communities – 1769 to 1810, (Davis: Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc., March 2005); and John R. Johnson, Descendants of Native Rancherías in the Diablo Lands Vicinity: A Northern Chumash Ethnohistorical Study (Santa Barbara:
Prepared for the PG&E Diablo Canyon Power Plant, September 2020).
15 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Historic Overview Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
the secularization of the mission, were revived and a significant regional winemaking industry subsequently flourished.
Following a major drought in 1862-1864, cultivation of the surrounding land shifted from cash crops to cattle, and a booming regional dairy industry was soon established. San Luis Obispo continued to grow throughout the second half of the 19th century as improvements in transportation increased access to the isolated area and created a direct connection to the coastal maritime industries.
Stagecoach routes were first introduced in the 1860s and railroad lines were extended throughout the 1890s, allowing the area to serve as a regional hub for both trade and tourism. With the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the late 1890s the town and the local environs expanded into a burgeoning county. In the early 20th century San Luis Obispo served as a center of trade and travel in central California with the arrival of the railroad, the development of the Union Oil of California’s (Unocal) oil fields, and the tremendous agricultural and dairy industries.
In 1901, the California Polytechnic Institute (Cal Poly) was established in San Luis Obispo. The presence of Cal Poly, its focus on vocational and agricultural training, and its growing influence on the community significantly impacted the development of San Luis Obispo throughout the 20th century. Another significant influence on the central coast was William Randolph Hearst and his San Simeon Ranch, commonly referred to as Hearst Castle. The development of these two conspicuous landmarks, in addition to the historic Mission San Luis Obispo, served to stimulate the regional economy and influenced the growth in and around San Luis Obispo.
In the 20th century, the advent of the automobile made it possible to expand development in San Luis Obispo beyond the central city. City services, utilities, and roads were also expanded and improved during this period to meet the needs of the growing city. Tourism, and in particular automobile tourism, continued to play a role in the area’s development in the 20th century.
While the economy slowed nationwide during the 1930s due to the Great Depression, the economic effects on San Luis Obispo were mitigated by the establishment of Camp San Luis Obispo, a military training camp. The creation of the camp caused a sudden and dramatic increase in population in the area, which influenced the development of San Luis Obispo throughout the mid-century. As training activity increased in preparation for World War II, more soldiers and their families moved to the area, and many returned after the war to settle permanently. San Luis Obispo evolved dramatically in response to the sudden and significant postwar demand for single-family housing in the 1950s and 1960s. Annexations expanded the city’s boundaries and large residential subdivisions were constructed outside the city center.
16 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Historic Overview Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Map indicating subdivisions recorded in San Luis Obispo from 19th century to 1965.
Source: San Luis Obispo GIS data.
17 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Early History Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
EARLY HISTORY
The earliest residents of what is now known as San Luis Obispo were the tiłhini, who have lived in this area for thousands of years and whose traditional territory extends from the Pacific coast to the Coast Ranges between, approximately, the Santa Maria River and Point Estero.10 The mild climate and abundant resources led to one of the most densely populated areas in California’s pre-history. More than 20,000 people are estimated to have lived along and near this part of the California central coastline prior to European settlement of the area, residing in both coastal and inland villages.
Descendants of the tiłhini who were residents at the time of Spanish settlement continue to live in San Luis Obispo.
Early History: Associated Property Types, Integrity Considerations & Eligibility Standards
There are no known built resources associated with the tiłhini population of what is now San Luis Obispo prior to settlement by European colonists. However, the channel of San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries were significant resources for the area’s inhabitants throughout human history, and are of historical and cultural significance to the tiłhini.
Buried deposits and artifacts discovered from this period are likely to yield information about the past lifeways and culture of the tiłhini. Archaeological and ethnohistorical frameworks for identifying, evaluating, and interpreting the sites and cultural materials of earlier populations are not included in this context statement, which focuses on the identification and evaluation of extant built environment and landscape resources. The exclusion of these approaches to learning about San Luis Obispo’s past from this context statement should not be understood to diminish the significance of their contributions to our understanding of the city’s history. Interested readers are encouraged to consult the City of San Luis Obispo’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines for more information about the City’s policies and practices for the appropriate treatments and mitigation under CEQA for archaeological resources.
10 M. Colleen Hamilton, Kholood Abdo and Keith Warren, From Mission to Commercial District: Archaeological Excavations at CA-SLO1419H, San Luis Obispo, California (San Luis Obispo: Prepared by Applied EarthWorks, Inc. for Copeland Properties, December 2017). YTT Northern Chumash Tribe, “yak titʸu titʸu yak tiłhini Lifeways,” Nettles, “The Copelands Project.”
18 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Spanish Colonization/Mission Era Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
SPANISH COLONIZATION AND MISSION SAN LUIS OBISPO (1772-1821) Late 19th-Century Photograph of Mission San Luis Obispo.
Source: San Luis Obispo County Regional Photograph Collection, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo (ca. 1870-1878).
Spain was the first European nation to achieve a foothold in present-day California. Spanish explorers came to California in the early sixteenth century, and as early as 1542 entered the bay of San Luis Obispo. In 1697, the Order of Jesus, the Jesuits, was given a license to enter the peninsula of Lower California and establish missions for the conversion of the Indians to the Catholic faith. They were given ecclesiastic, military, and civil authority, and for seventy years the Jesuits were undisturbed in their labors of founding missions. In 1767, Charles the Third of Spain, grown jealous of the political power of the Jesuits, determined to supplant them, and in April, 1767, issued a decree ordering their expulsion from all parts of his dominions.11 From that point, the Order of Dominicans was to have charge of the Lower California missions, and the Franciscans were to establish missions in Alta California. In 1769, King Charles III formally authorized the Franciscan missionaries to begin the settlement of Alta California, naming Don Gaspar de Portola as emissary, assisted by Father Junipero Serra.12
The Spanish typically sent small groups of soldiers and clergy to settle new areas, establish missions to convert the indigenous people to Catholicism, and teach them agriculture and animal husbandry.
In theory, the missions were mandated to occupy and make the land fruitful for the benefit of the 11 Annie L. Morrison and John H. Haydon, History of San Luis Obispo County and Environs, California, with Biographical Sketches of the Leading Men and Women of the County and Environs Who Have Been Identified with the Growth and Development of the Section from the Early Days to the Present History, (Los Angeles: Historic Record Company, 1917), 24. 12 Myron Angel, History of San Luis Obispo County with Illustrations, (Oakland, CA: Thompson & West, 1883). Reprinted by Fresno Valley Publishers, 1979, 19.
19 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Spanish Colonization/Mission Era Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Native Californians, but in reality the proliferation of the missions intentionally and violently disrupted the traditional way of life of California’s original inhabitants.13 By design, the Spanish settlements were intended to have three components: a mission to serve as a religious and cultural center, from which to Christianize native peoples; a military presidio; and a commercial pueblo. In reality, few of the settlements developed a fully functional pueblo, particularly those in present-day Northern California, in large part because Spain forbade trade with foreign powers, undercutting the potential for commerce.14
The architectural style of the missions was developed by Serra and the other Franciscan missionaries, who drew on the architectural traditions of Old Spain. California’s climate, geography, and available resources also impacted material and aesthetic choices. General characteristics include a picturesque composition, clear expression of functional elements, large expanses of blank walls marked by ornamentation at a few crucial points such as around openings, and a prominent tower and dome.
There were ultimately twenty-one missions established in California: the first was Mission San Diego in 1769, and the last was Mission San Francisco Solana in Sonoma in 1823. The missions were linked by El Camino Real (“The Royal Road” or “The King’s Highway”) which spanned the 600 miles from San Diego to Sonoma.
Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded on September 1, 1772.15 The mission was originally established near Arroyo de la Huerta Viejo16 (later Brizzolara or Stenner Creek), which flows into San Luis Obispo Creek (near present day Dana Street), and initially consisted of a few shelters made of brush. By 1776, the Mission was relocated to its present-day site due to repeated flooding. The Mission was constructed in the traditional plaza configuration, enclosed to the outside world. The church and other related buildings were originally made of adobe, tulle, and logs, making them susceptible to fires.
In 1776, the Mission suffered the first of three devastating fires that were attributed to outside attacks. The first fire destroyed nearly the entire Mission complex, with only the church building and granary escaping damage. The repeated assaults led to experimentation with clay roof tiles that were widely employed in traditional Spanish architecture. Mission San Luis Obispo was the first Mission to employ tile roofing, which could be made on site. The improved roof material proved so successful that soon all of the California missions followed suit.17 In 1793, the church and convento wing, where priests resided, was constructed of adobe bricks made on site by the local tiłhini people. The convento wing also featured a portico with eleven columns, depicting the twelve Apostles minus Judas. By 1800, additional buildings had been constructed to provide housing, storage facilities, and a water-powered mill. 13 Dorothy Krell, The California Missions (Menlo Park, CA: Sunset Books, 1979), 35. 14 San Francisco Planning Department, City Within a City: Historic Context Statement for San Francisco’s Mission District, (San Francisco, November 2007). 15 Mission San Luis Obispo was the fifth mission chronologically in the chain of 21 missions in the state. 16 Arroyo de la Huerta Viejo refers to the “Old Garden” which was located in near what is now the 700 block of Broad Street; Broad Street was originally known as Garden Street.
17 George Wharton James, The Old Franciscan Missions of California. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Company, 1919, 119.
20 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Spanish Colonization/Mission Era Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Plot Plan Mission San Luis Obispo. Source: Historic American Buildings Survey (1936).
By 1794, the church and most of the related buildings were completed. In 1810, the Mexican War for Independence broke out, leaving the missions with little funding from Spain to aid in their development. However, by that time, all of the California missions were virtually self-sufficient, and the Mission San Luis Obispo in particular had become prosperous enough to not only support itself but to fund additional expansions as well.
Between 1810 and 1820, the Mission site grew to include cabins, mill wheels, and a granary. The quadrangle was also completed and the portico on the convento wing was renovated, changing the shape of the adobe columns from their original square profile to a round column. In 1820, the Mission’s bells were installed. Mission San Luis Obispo’s combination of belfry and vestibule is unique among California missions.
Mission San Luis Obispo flourished from the beginning, and it became one of the most industrious and prosperous of all the missions.18 In 1774 and 1776, expeditions led by Juan Bautista de Anza came through San Luis Obispo, en route to establishing a land route from Sonora, Mexico to Monterey. 18 W.W. Robinson, The Story of San Luis Obispo County (Los Angeles: Title Insurance and Trust Company, 1957), 8.
21 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Spanish Colonization/Mission Era Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
The explorers were welcomed at the Mission, and reported the fertile lands and pretty fields in the region.
Images reflecting the changes in appearance of Mission San Luis Obispo over time.
Source: Bancroft Library, University of California Berkeley (Left c. 1880; Right c. 1909).
The area surrounding the Mission grew and flourished during this period as well. Orchards and vineyards were established, and the land cultivated for agriculture. Other adobe structures were constructed, and by 1805 there were approximately forty residential structures and a hospital in San Luis Obispo.19 The Mission also included a cemetery, which has had three locations in its history. The original cemetery was located immediately outside the Mission quadrangle. The second location fronted Higuera Street, at the end of Carmel and Pacific Streets, and was active after 1860. In 1877, the city passed a law prohibiting burials inside the city limits, and the current Mission Cemetery at Bridge Street and Higuera Street opened that same year.
The establishment of Mission San Luis Obispo had a destabilizing effect on the local tiłhini population.
The development of agriculture and growth of livestock grazing in the area devastated the supply of acorns, seeds, and other plants foods that were a foundational part of the tiłhian people’s subsistence and made it increasingly difficult for the tiłhini to maintain their traditional ways of life. Faced with introduced diseases, land loss, starvation, and the disruption of their leadership systems, craft guilds, religions institutions, and family relationships, many tiłhini individuals eventually entered the mission system, although others fled and became refugees living with other tribes. In 1803, the viceroy of New Spain decreed that converted Native Americans could no longer live in villages and must move into the missions, resulting in a period of heavy recruitment of the tiłhini into the missions until 1805. 20 In 1803, the indigenous population at Mission San Luis Obispo (consisting of tiłhini as well as Salinan and Yokuts people who were brought to the Mission) reached its peak of 919; by 1804 most of the nearby villages had been abandoned and the tiłhinithat remained in the area were living 19 Paul Tritenbach, San Luis Obispo Discoveries, (San Luis Obispo: Excellence Press, 1989), 12. 20 Deana Dartt-Newton and Jon M. Erlandson, “Little Choice for the Chumash: Colonialism, Cattle, and Coercion in Mission Period California,” American Indian Quarterly 30, no. 3-4, Special Issue: Decolonizing Archaeology (Summer-Autumn, 2006): 416-430.
22 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Spanish Colonization/Mission Era Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
at the Mission or one of its outposts.21 At the missions, indigenous people were often forced to work as enslaved laborers and experienced physical, emotional, gendered violence, and forced assimilation.22
Throughout the period of its construction and operation, tiłhini labor and knowledge shaped the mission’s buildings and landscape. As evidenced by recent reports investigating water conveyance features at the Mission San Luis Obispo, the site’s indigenous residents continued traditional practices and approaches to land use while building and residing within the mission.23 21 Nettles, “The Copelands Project,” 53. 22 Sarah Biscarra, ytt Northern Chumash PhD Candidate, "Diablo Ancestral Canyon Homelands Back," YouTube, accessed December 2, 2024, https://yttnorthernchumashtribe.com/lifeways. 23 For example, see Rebecca Allen, Mark Rawson, and Paul D. Zimmer, “Water and Infrastructure as Resources for Native Californians within the Mission Landscape at San Luis Obispo,” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, Volume 38, No. 1, 2018.
23 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Spanish Colonization/Mission Era Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Mission-Era Institutional Development
The establishment of the Mission had a profound effect on the development of San Luis Obispo and the surrounding region. The missions were self-sufficient communities, and each included a church, residences, and support facilities. San Luis Obispo was first planned on a Spanish Grid according to the Laws of the Indies, which were the body of laws and regulations issued by Spain for the governance of its colonies outside Europe. The laws were intended to guide the creation of new communities established by Spanish settlers and missionaries and contained highly detailed regulations on the location, configuration, and construction of settlements. The regulations were based on classical principles of architecture and planning and called for a plan featuring a central plaza surrounded by a rectilinear grid of streets oriented to the prevailing winds. As a result, communities constructed according to the laws are frequently situated on a diagonal orientation rather than a true north-south orientation. In San Luis Obispo, the community was first planned around the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, which served as the town's central plaza, and surrounding streets were constructed on an angle. Although the city center has expanded over time and later development conforms to a rectilinear street grid, the historic core retains its original plan and reflects the influence of these early principles.
San Luis Obispo Street Grid. Source: Adrianna Jordan, The Historical Influence of the Railroads on Urban Development and Future Economic Potential in San Luis Obispo, online version p.33.
In the 1820s, the Mission’s prosperity began to decline and the buildings began to fall into disrepair, aided by heavy rains and insufficient funding and manpower to rebuild. An earthquake in 1830 also caused substantial damage. The front of the Mission Church had to be taken down for fear of collapse, and by 1832 the belfry had already been demolished by rains and had to be reconstructed (this time, of masonry). The decay of the Mission was further compounded by the takeover of the Mission by the Mexican government after the Secularization Act in 1834, which rendered all mission lands property
24 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Spanish Colonization/Mission Era Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
of Mexico and subject to disposition. Mission lands were often sold; if not, they were used for any purpose deemed necessary by the Mexican government. The San Luis Obispo Mission’s convento wing served for a time as a school, as well as a jail and the first county courthouse.
Evaluation Criteria
Associated Property Types: It is unlikely that any previously unrecorded extant institutional structure or portion of a structure directly associated with the Mission will be discovered.
Remnant structures, landscape or hardscape features such as retaining walls, and other infrastructure that was constructed as part of the Mission should also be considered and evaluated under this theme.
Period of Significance: 1772-1821
Criteria for Eligibility: A/1/1 (Events)24
Criteria Significance Integrity Standards
A/1/1 (Events) Associated with Mission San
Luis Obispo
Due to their rarity, any extant
property or feature would be
considered significant under
Criterion 1, regardless of integrity.
24 The criteria for eligibility in each section are expressed as the alphanumeric codes for the National Register (letter)/California Register (number)/Local Inventory (number).
25 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Spanish Colonization/Mission Era Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Extant Examples: Mission-Era Institutional Development
Mission San Luis Obispo, Palm Street, built 1812. Designated as a San Luis Obispo Historic Landmark.
Source Historic Resources Group (2012).
Mission San Luis Obispo Detail Views
Source City of San Luis Obispo (2013).
26 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Spanish Colonization/Mission Era Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Mission-Era Residential Development
The Mission and surrounding settlement was the first populated area in San Luis Obispo County.25 Residential properties from this period are primarily of adobe construction were built by local indigenous people.
In 1991, the Getty Conservation Institute compiled a list of approximately 350 extant adobes, out of more than 2,000 that were estimated to have been constructed in California.26 In the ensuing thirty years, which include the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, additional adobe structures have been lost. Most adobe structures in the Southwest have been abandoned, and only those that have had continuous care have survived. Many of the surviving adobes are in ruins, or heavily altered, and therefore do not retain their authenticity or historic integrity. San Luis Obispo has a collection of extant adobes dating from the mission era through the late 19th century.
Evaluation Criteria
Associated Property Types: Single-family residences, multi-family residences Period of Significance: 1772-1821
Criteria for Eligibility: A/1/1 (Events), B/2/2 (Persons), C/3/3 (Architecture) Integrity Considerations
• Properties from this period are extremely rare and represent the earliest European settlement in San Luis Obispo. Therefore, a greater degree of alteration is acceptable and extant examples which have been substantially altered would likely retain eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register, and Local Inventory.
Criteria Significance Integrity Standards
A/1/1 (Events) • As a rare example of residential
development associated with
the Mission era
• As a rare representation of the
earliest European settlement in
San Luis Obispo
Residential properties from this
period eligible under Criterion
A/1/1 (Events) should retain
integrity of location, design,
feeling, and association.
25 City of San Luis Obispo, “Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey,” July 1983, 16. 26 Steade R. Craigo, “To Do No Harm: Conserving, Preserving, and Maintaining Historic Adobe Structures.” Getty Conservation Institute, accessed December 2, 2024, http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/pdf_publications/pdf/gsap_part2d.pdf.
27 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Spanish Colonization/Mission Era Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Criteria Significance Integrity Standards
B/2/2 (Persons) • As a rare extant property that
has a documented association
with an individual from the
Spanish settlement era, such as
a Franciscan priest or Spanish
official. Since this property type
is extremely rare, any property
associated with such a person
will likely be the only local
representation of the person’s
influence or achievements.
A residential property significant
under Criterion B/2/2 (Persons)
should retain integrity of design,
feeling, and association in order
to convey the historic association
with a significant person.
C/3/3
(Architecture)
• As a rare remaining example of
adobe construction from the
period; any remaining examples
from this period would likely be
individually significant as an
example of this theme due to
the rarity of type
Residential properties significant
under Criterion C/3/3
(Architecture) should retain
integrity of location, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and
association.
In general, the adobe walls should
remain largely intact, and the
residence should retain the
majority of the character-defining
features associated with an adobe
structure of its age. Alterations that
are consistent with upgrades
typically seen in early adobe
structures, including later wood
frame additions and replacement
windows within original window
openings, are acceptable. It is
expected that the setting will have
been compromised by later
development.
28 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Spanish Colonization/Mission Era Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Extant Examples: Mission-Era Residential Development
La Loma Adobe, 1590 Lizzie Street, built c. 1780. Designated as a San Luis Obispo Historic Landmark.
Source: Page & Turnbull (2025).
Sauer-Adams Adobe, 964 Chorro Street, built c. 1800; second story added 1860. Designated as a San Luis Obispo Historic Landmark. Source: City of San Luis Obispo (2013).
29 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Mexican Rule Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
MEXICAN RULE (1822-1846)
After a long struggle, Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, and California land that had been vested in the name of the King of Spain belonged to Mexico. The power of the priests and the vast wealth of the missions were coveted by the new government, so steps were immediately taken to supersede ecclesiastical power with secular authority. In 1824 and 1826, the Mexican government passed laws suspending the pay of the priests and releasing all Native Americans from slavery. This act was premature, as the new government was not equipped to handle the aftermath and the existence of established settlements was threatened. The law was quickly repealed, and many of the Native peoples were induced to return to the missions.
In the 1830s, there was renewed pressure on the Mexican government to secularize the missions. In 1833, the Mexican Congress passed the Act for the Secularization of the Missions of California, and in 1834 the governor issued orders for its enforcement which would take effect in 1835. This act sought to do away with the supreme power of the priests, to release the lands held by the missions for settlement, and to put the missions on the same footing as the parish churches. As a result, between 1834 and 1836 control of the California missions was transferred away from the Church. Lay administrators, along with appointed parish priests, ran Mission San Luis Obispo from 1835-1845.
In 1846, the Mission was sold to Petronillo Rios, ending the Franciscan era.
The secularization act specified that:
To each head of a family and all who were more than twenty years old, though without families, a plot of ground not more than three hundred yards square nor less than one hundred yards square was to be given from the mission lands. Sufficient land in common was to be set aside for watering the cattle. Villages with roads were to be established and corporation lands designated. Half of the movable property of the missions was to be distributed to the Native Americans, and one-half of the seeds and roots and one-half of all implements indispensable for agriculture. The other half of all property mentioned was to be in the care of an agent, or steward, named by the supreme government, and from the common mass of property, the expenses of missionary work, the stewards, churches, schools, cleanliness and health were to be met.27
In the 1830s and 1840s, California governors granted lands for ranchos throughout San Luis Obispo County, as it was determined that vast mission lands were no longer needed for ranching and agricultural purposes. Without their consent, the traditional lands of California’s indigenous peoples were divided and distributed to private owners. The land and villages around Diablo Canyon, for instance, became the Rancheros Pecho y Islay and San Miguelito. By this time, the indigenous population had decreased to 170 living at the mission.28 While some stayed at the mission, others established small villages on or near the rancho land grants.29 27 Morrison and Haydon, History of San Luis Obispo County and Environs, 35. 28 Nettles, “The Copelands Project,” 54. 29 Chester King, "The Names and Locations of Historic Chumash Villages," The Journal of California Anthropology 2, no. 2 (1975), 172.
30 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Mexican Rule Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
The vast Mexican land grants were typically given to wealthy families or military officers as a reward for their service to the Mexican government. However, the conveyance of land from the Mexican government was a complicated process that took years to formalize. The era of Mexican governance proved to be a short transitional phase lasting less than a generation between the earlier Spanish mission period and the American settlement period that followed.
During the era of Mexican rule, there were approximately thirty ranchos within San Luis Obispo County. Several of the owners of surrounding ranchos played significant roles in the development of the City of San Luis Obispo. Miguel Avila was granted Rancho San Miguelito in 1842, and served as one of San Luis Obispo’s earliest alcaldes, or municipal magistrates, in 1849. The ranch land extended to Avila Beach, which now bears his name. William Goodwin Dana was a former Yankee sea captain who became one of the first settlers of San Luis Obispo outside the mission. He became a Mexican citizen in order to marry into a prominent Mexican family and was subsequently granted the deed to Rancho Nipomo in the 1830s. Many of Dana’s thirteen children went on to become prominent members of San Luis Obispo society. Joaquin Estrada received the grant to Rancho Santa Margarita in 1841 and went on to be elected to San Luis Obispo County’s first Board of Supervisors in 1852, later serving as County Treasurer.
Mexican-Era Residential Development
Residential development from this period will largely be associated with the Mexican ranchos.
Residential properties from this period are extremely rare. Due to the relatively narrow time frame, it is not anticipated that there will be a significant number of extant resources associated with the era of Mexican rule.
Evaluation Criteria
Associated Property Types: Residential development during this period largely followed patterns established during the Mission era, and therefore it is anticipated that resources from this period will largely consist of single-family properties constructed of adobe and simple, woodframe structures.
Period of Significance: 1822-1846
Criteria for Eligibility: A/1/1 (Events), B/2/2 (Persons), C/3/3 (Architecture) Integrity Considerations
• Properties from this period are rare and represent some of the earliest development in San Luis Obispo; therefore, a greater degree of alteration may be acceptable.
31 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Mexican Rule Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Criteria Significance Integrity Standards
A/1/1 (Events) • As a rare extant representation
of the early settlement of the
region
• For a specific association with
the development of a Mexican
rancho
Residential properties from this
period eligible under Criterion
A/1/1 (Events) should retain
integrity of location, design,
feeling, and association.
B/2/2 (Persons) • For its association with the life
of a significant early resident.
A residential property significant
under Criterion B/2/2 (Persons)
should retain integrity of design,
feeling, and association in order
to convey the historic association
with a significant person.
C/3/3
(Architecture)
• As a rare remaining example of
adobe construction or an early
wood frame structure
• Any remaining examples from
this period would likely be
individually significant as an
example of this theme.
A residential property significant
under Criterion C/3/3
(Architecture) should retain
integrity of location, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and
association.
Any remaining examples of adobe
construction from this period with
fair integrity would likely be
eligible. In general, the adobe walls
should remain largely intact and
the residence should retain the
majority of the character-defining
features associated with an adobe
structure of its age. Alterations that
are consistent with upgrades
typically seen in early adobe
structures, including later additions
constructed with wood framing and
replacement windows within
original window openings, are
acceptable. It is expected that the
setting will have been
compromised by later
development.
32 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Mexican Rule Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Extant Examples: Mexican-Era Residential Development
Andrews Adobe, 1451 Andrews Street, built c. 1830. Designated as a San Luis Obispo Historic Landmark. Source: San Luis Obispo County Regional Photograph Collection, Cal Poly Special Collections (c. 1890-1906). 1451 Andrews Street. Source: Page & Turnbull (2025).
33 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
LATE 19TH CENTURY AMERICANIZATION & TOWN SETTLEMENT (1846- 1900)
Bird’s Eye View of San Luis Obispo, by Eli Sheldon Glover. Source: California State Library (1877).
The Mexican-American War took place between 1846 and 1848. In the years preceding the war, the United States, fueled by new technological breakthroughs and inspired by the concept of "manifest destiny," confidently expanded its territories westward. A border skirmish along the Rio Grande in the wake of the U.S. annexation of Texas started the fighting, which was quickly followed by a series of U.S. victories. Fighting continued until September of 1847; the war ended in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. As a result of the Treaty, Mexico ceded nearly half of its territory to the United States, including resource-rich California, while promising that existing Mexican land divisions, including the ranchos, would be respected.
In 1850, the California territory became a state. That same year, the County of San Luis Obispo was established as one of the State’s original 27 counties, with a population of 300 people.30 The village of San Luis Obispo remained small. According to the account of a man named S. A. Pollard in the San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune in 1852, San Luis Obispo’s population consisted of “about a dozen white men, half of them Americans, and several hundred Indians” who had been living at the mission.31 The mission’s indigenous population—most of whom lived in the area where the city’s Chinatown later developed—was decimated by diseases brought by the Spanish, European, and American immigrants. Pollard’s account described an incident in which a man from Texas died of cholera shortly after arriving in town, but not before passing the disease on to the tiłhini population. Pollard described the devastating effects on the tiłhini: “[The disease] was a veritable 'scourge.’ [The tiłhini ] went down before it like chaff before the wind. Some 60 or 70 at least died here and the rest scattered 30 Robinson, The Story of San Luis Obispo County. 31 “In 1852," San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune, 31 August 1892.
34 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
like a flock of quail. What became of them I don't know. They had been very numerous about here and about the different ranches but after the cholera came, there was hardly any comparatively and never have been since."32 While 168 Native people were counted as living in San Luis Obispo County in the 1860 federal census (approximately eight percent of the county’s population), by 1890, the number had dropped to 47, just 0.3 percent of the county’s population.33 Although a few Native Americans were able to rise through the new social and economic system to become independent farmers, according to the 1860 census, most worked as housekeepers, servants, or laborers, mostly in the region’s burgeoning agricultural industry. Though their ancestors had lived on the same land for generations, the tiłhini were treated like immigrants. Their treatment set the precedent for the ill treatment of other immigrants who arrived in the San Luis Obispo area over the following decades.34 In 1868, San Luis Obispo was confirmed as the County seat. The City’s population at that time was 600 residents living within one square mile of the town center.35 The City of San Luis Obispo was incorporated in 1876.In 1851, Congress passed the California Land Act, which created a threemember commission charged with reviewing all land claims and settling disputes of land ownership between settlers and Mexican landowners, many of whom had been gifted parcels of land by the Spanish and Mexican governments. Unless landowners could present evidence supporting their claim to the land within two years, the property would automatically pass into the public domain.
However, making a claim for land was an expensive and lengthy process which most Mexican landowners could ill afford. Hampered by the vague and informal systems of record-keeping used in the past, many Mexican landowners were bankrupted by the legal process or compelled to cede the land to their attorney as payment for services rendered in fighting the land claim. The implementation of the Land Act served as one of the catalysts for a “fracturing of rural lands into smaller parcels and the increase of rural in-migration into the City of San Luis Obispo.”36 Mission San Luis Obispo was claimed by John Wilson by right of purchase, but Bishop Joseph Alemany petitioned the government to return approximately 52.72 acres of former mission land to the Church.
In 1855, the United States Land Commission upheld the Church’s claim, and the Church reestablished ownership of the remaining buildings, cemeteries, and gardens associated with the Mission.37 All other acreage previously farmed by the Mission was divided into ranchos, none of which are located within the present City boundary. In 1874, the portion of Mission lands south of the creek was laid out in town lots and sold.
This change in ownership marked a period of dramatic transformation for the Mission, and renovation efforts began in 1872 to repair and “modernize” the Mission buildings. Due to extensive earthquake damage, however, the Church’s portico and belfry could not be saved. The colonnade marking the convento wing was also demolished, and both the convento wing and the church were clad in wooden clapboard siding. A new “New England” style belfry was also added and parts of the tile roof were covered in shingles. In 1893, the Church was enlarged with an annex situated north of the Nave and constructed of concrete and brick.
32 "In 1852,” San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune, 31 August 1892. 33 United States Department of the Interior, The Seventh Census of the United States: 1850 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1864).
34 Douglas P. Jenzen, Growing Conflict: Agriculture, Innovation, and Immigration in San Luis Obispo County, 1837–1937 (Master’s thesis, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, 2011), 57-58. 35 City of San Luis Obispo, “Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey,” July 1983, 18. 36 City of San Luis Obispo, “Draft Historical and Architectural Conservation Element,” n.d., 11. 37 Robinson, The Story of San Luis Obispo County, 8.
35 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Agricultural development during this period was centered around activity on the ranchos. The prosperous ranchos began to decline in the 1850s as a result of the Land Act; this decline continued into the 1860s when the region suffered a severe drought that lasted from 1862 to 1864. Many of the cattle ranches were forced to sell land and stock as a result of the drought, and the primary agricultural activity began to shift to dairy farming. At the same time, the many of the land grant families were forced to sell their land to European-American entrepreneurs who saw opportunity in the region during this period.
As a result, by the late 1860s the population of San Luis Obispo expanded and housing demand outweighed supply.38 The total population of San Luis Obispo in 1870 consisted of 1,579 people, 1,500 of whom were white (95 percent). The remaining five percent included four Black, 15 Chinese, and 60 Native American people.39 To meet the increased demand for housing, additional tracts of land were purchased and improved, and new subdivisions became part of the City. By the early 1880s, there were approximately 3,000 people living within the City limits.40 By this time, gas and water works had been installed and a fire company organized, and several bonds had been issued to erect town buildings.
Institutional development during this period included the establishment of the first newspapers in the region, including The Pioneer of San Luis Obispo. The editor and owner was Rome G. Vickars, and its first issue was January 4, 1868. The Pioneer was a Democratic paper, so the Republicans founded the rival San Luis Obispo Tribune in 1869 under the ownership of H. S. Rembaugh & Company. In 1880, publisher H.H. Doyle debuted The Mirror from offices on Court Street between Higuera and Monterey Streets, which were later used by The Breeze Publishing Company. The Telegram was first published in 1905.
As in other regions of the state, the first Chinese people to arrive in San Luis Obispo came in search of gold during the Gold Rush and to escape poverty in their homeland.41 The construction of the Pacific Coast Railroad’s narrow gauge railroad from Port Harford to San Luis Obispo brought more to the region in the 1870s. Most of the Chinese workers who built the railroads in San Luis Obispo were recruited by Ah Louis (given name Wong On), an early San Luis Obispo businessman and civic leader in the Chinese community, who had arrived in California in the 1860s in search of gold and worked for John Harford. For the Pacific Coast Railroad, Louis recruited 160 Chinese Americans who traveled from San Francisco via schooner.42 These workers blasted tunnels through the Cuesta Grade mountain pass in the Santa Lucia Mountains and helped build wharves at Port San Luis. Ah Louis used the profits from his recruitment work to develop San Luis Obispo’s Chinatown, which was located on the site of former Mission-era Native American dormitories along Palm Street between Chorro and Moro streets, and became the heart of the local Chinese community.43 Many of the railroad workers settled in San Luis Obispo’s growing Chinatown neighborhood. Louis’ store at 800 Palm Street was not just a commercial business but the Louis family’s residence and community gathering space 38 Nettles, “The Copelands Project,” 55. 39 United States Department of the Interior, Ninth Census – Volume I, The Statistics of the Population of the United States (Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, 1872).
40 Angel, History of San Luis Obispo County. 41 Jenzen, Growing Conflict, 60. 42 Emily Pan, “A Timeline of the Chinese Population in San Luis Obispo,” Central Coast Asian American History, January 3, 2021, https://www.centralcoastasianhistory.org/post/a-timeline-of-the-chinese-population-in-san-luis-obispo. 43 Colin Rigley, “The Long, Storied History of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Chinatown and the Artifacts Left Behind,” San Luis Obispo New Times, 1 October 2014, https://www.newtimesslo.com/news/the-long-storied-history-of-san-luis-obispos-historic-chinatown-and-theartifacts-left-behind-2935874.
36 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
where annual Chinese New Year celebrations took place.44 By 1870, San Luis Obispo County contained the largest population of Chinese immigrants in the state.45 Ah Louis (center with beard) with his family in Chinatown.
Source: Cal Poly Library Special Collections (c. 1933-1936).
Racism, an economic depression, and high unemployment led to an increase in anti-Chinese sentiment and racial violence across the country in the late 1870s. In 1882, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which prohibited the entry of Chinese laborers, though it included an exemption for merchants, students, teachers, tourists, and diplomats. The law became permanent in 1902. Additional laws restricted reentry to the United States, preventing those who had already settled in California from visiting their families in China. As a result of these laws, the number of Chinese people living in the country dropped sharply between 1880 and the early 1900s.46 In San Luis Obispo, the number of Chinese residents dropped from a peak of 297 in 1890 to 88 in 1900.47 The decline in Chinese laborers left a vacuum that other immigrant groups quickly filled in the early 20th century to meet the continuing demand for low-wage workers.
Due to the presence of the Mission San Luis Obispo and the recent adoption of San Luis Obispo as the County Seat, the town had become the focal point for economic and administrative activity in the 44 Emily Pan, “Ah Louis Store,” Central Coast Asian American History, January 3, 2021, https://www.centralcoastasianhistory.org/post/ah-louis-store. 45 Emily Pan, “A Timeline of the Chinese Population in San Luis Obispo,” Central Coast Asian American History, 17 June 2020, https://www.centralcoastasianhistory.org/post/a-timeline-of-the-chinese-population-in-san-luis-obispo. 46 Page & Turnbull and Donna Graves, “Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in California, 1850-1970,” National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, 2023, E-257 - E-259. 47 United States Department of the Interior Census Office, Compendium of the Eleventh Census: 1890, Part I – Population (Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, 1892); United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of the Census, Twelfth Census of the United States Taken in the Year 1900 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1901).
37 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
region. Many of its prominent early residents were active in civic and government affairs. One of San Luis Obispo’s most influential early residents was Charles H. Johnson, a successful San Francisco mercantile owner who relocated to San Luis Obispo in 1856. He first worked as Inspector of Customs for the Port San Luis before being elected to the California State Assembly in 1860. When the town government of San Luis Obispo was organized in 1859, he was elected president of the Board of Trustees. Johnson was also a devoted historian of San Luis Obispo history, frequently writing and lecturing on the early days of the county. Many of the significant early histories of San Luis Obispo draw heavily from his work.
Several of San Luis Obispo pioneer William Goodwin Dana’s children became active in the civic of the town during this time. Charles William Dana served in multiple elected offices including the California State Assembly, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors, and as mayor of San Luis Obispo in 1881. William Charles Dana served as County Treasurer and was active in the San Luis Obispo Republican party. Businessman Samuel A. Pollard, son-in-law of William Dana, also served at times as County Recorder, County Clerk, Justice of the Peace, and County Administrator. He was later elected Chairman of the county’s first Board of Supervisors and also served as the county’s first postmaster.
Other influential pioneers included Myron Angel, a historian and journalist who wrote several early regional histories; he was also one of the earliest and most vocal supporters of the effort to establish the California Polytechnic School in San Luis Obispo. J. P. Andrews, an entrepreneurial rancher, made his fortune during the drought of 1862-1864 and later went on to open the Andrews Hotel in 1886, and the Andrews Bank in 1894. Pierre Hypolite Dallidet constructed the Dallidet adobe in 1859 and was also the first commercial vintner on the central coast, producing wine for the mission community. Walter Murray was an attorney, a district court judge, and co-founder of the San Luis Obispo Tribune; he was also instrumental in forming the Vigilance Committee in 1858 to combat the county’s rampant crime. Chauncey Phillips was a tax collector who co-founded San Luis Obispo’s first bank (later known as the Bank of San Luis Obispo) in 1871 and served as its manager. Following his retirement from the banking industry, he became a prominent real estate developer and was instrumental in lobbying Southern Pacific Railroad to extend the line into San Luis Obispo. William Shipsey was an attorney and notary who first served as the City Attorney before being elected mayor in 1900. During his term as mayor, Shipsey revamped the bankrupt City’s finances and spearheaded efforts to locate the California Polytechnic School in San Luis Obispo.
Early retailers and businessmen included brothers George and Andrew Sauer, who operated the A.
Sauer & Company grocery and bakery. The three Sinsheimer brothers, Bernard, Henry, and A. Z., also operated a mercantile in a distinctive building on Monterey Street. William Sandercock operated a drayage company, Sandercock Transfer Company, which delivered freight for the Pacific Coast Railway and made deliveries to local businesses. German immigrant George Kluver founded the Kluver & Sons Pioneer Cigar Factory, marketing the company’s own “Pioneer” brand of cigars. Kluver held one of the earliest federal permits to manufacture cigars in California. Ah Louis, as discussed above, is credited with the development of much of San Luis Obispo’s Chinatown, which included his store and personal residence at 800 Palm Street.
38 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Kluver Cigar Factory, 726 Higuera, 1897. Designated as a San Luis Obispo Historic Landmark.
Source: Page & Turnbull (2025).
Left image: Sandercock Transfer Building, 856 Higuera Street, 1890. Designated as a San Luis Obispo Historic Landmark. Source: Page & Turnbull (2025).
39 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Late 19th Century Residential Development
Snyder House, 1406 Morro Street, 1885. Designated as a San Luis Obispo Historic Landmark.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo (2013).
Residential properties constructed in the last decades of the 19th century represent San Luis Obispo’s establishment and early development as a city. When the county was first organized, San Luis Obispo was its only settlement, with a few small adobe buildings clustered around the Mission. By the early 1850s, the main road running through the San Luis Obispo pueblo ran northeast to southwest, crossing San Luis Obispo Creek below the Mission, at the end of what is now Dana Street. The pueblo became part of the earliest neighborhoods during Americanization in the late 19th century.
Neighborhoods from this period are located close to the downtown commercial center, and include the Mill Street and Old Town historic districts.
Although adobe construction was still common, by the 1860s, wood frame construction was becoming more prevalent. Most wood frame residences built in San Luis Obispo during this period were examples of vernacular hipped roof cottages or Neo-classical cottages. The Mission Orchard Tract, which was laid out in 1888 on land that originally belonged to the mission, is an example of a late 19th century neighborhood largely developed with more modest housing, including cottages and Folk Victorian examples.
In 1875, San Luis Obispo attorney De Guy Cooper wrote:
We can boast of some very fine private residences. Heretofore, the style of architecture has been of a rather primitive nature; but latterly there has been a marked improvement
40 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
in this particular area, and buildings erected within the past year have been of a better nature, and of a more permanent character.48
This period also saw the construction of prominent residences erected in architectural styles representative of the period. Captain W. G. Dana erected the first frame building in the county on Monterey Street from material brought from Chile. Captain John Wilson soon after erected a twostory frame building on the lot where the public library now stands.
Residents who were building more opulent homes during this period often chose styles that were popular in other parts of the country, including Queen Anne, Eastlake, and Italianate styles. These large two- and three-story homes often had elaborate scrollwork and other decorative details. They were constructed beginning in the 1870s, and these styles remained popular until the turn of the 20th century. Local architects associated with this period include William Evans, Hilamon Spencer Laird, W.C. Phillips, and Alfred Walker.49
The introduction of the railroad also brought an influx of new residents to San Luis Obispo and led to the development of new communities. Railroad workers became the impetus for new residential development in the city in the late 1880s. As railroad activity expanded toward the end of the 19th century, the needs of the growing employee population sparked a demand for increased worker housing. Although many workers opted to live in downtown San Luis Obispo, development in general shifted towards the eastern and southern boundaries of the city and focused on tracts adjacent to the Southern Pacific right-of-way. The Loomis, McBride, and Homestead tracts, developed in 1887, were especially popular with railroad workers due to their proximity to the Southern Pacific rail yard and service facilities.50 These neighborhoods were developed with relatively modest single-family residences.
Much of the railroads’ workforce consisted of immigrants. As work on the railroads increased in the late 19th century, several ethnic communities were established in San Luis Obispo. European groups, including Italian, Swiss-Italian, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh settled in the area. The Imperial Addition tract, which was developed in 1891 and was conveniently located near the Southern Pacific roundhouse, eventually became known as “Little Italy” due to the high concentration of Italian railroad workers who resided there. There was also a Portuguese community who were part of the fishing industry at Morro Bay.
48 De Guy Cooper, “Resources of San Luis Obispo County,” reprinted in A Vast Pictorial Domain: San Luis Obispo County in the 1870s, 1993,
17. Quoted in Robert C. Pavlik, “Historical Architectural Survey Report for the Cuesta Grade Project,” California Department of Transportation, October 1994.
49 The vernacular nature of most residential development during this period indicates that most homes were designed without the use of an architect. The architect identified in this section is based on information available in existing surveys; additional research should be conducted to identify other architects from this period. 50 Hemalata Dandekar and Adrianna Jordan, “The Railroads and San Luis Obispo’s Urban Form,” Focus, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, Volume XVII, 2010, 48.
41 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
1. Phillips Addition (1874)
2. Deleissigues Tract (1876)
3. Buena Vista Tract (1885)
4. Loomis Tract (1887)
5. Deleissigues Subdivision (1887)
6. McBride Tract (1887)
7. Homestead Tract (1887)
8. Hathway Addition (1887)
9. Buena Vista Addition (1887)
10. Fairview Addition (1887)
11. Deleissigues Addition (Block 5)
(1887)
12. Central Addition (1888)
13. Maymont Addition (1889)
14. Schwartz Addition (1889)
15. South Side Addition (1891)
16. Imperial Addition (1891)
Map showing land annexations for residential development along the proposed right-of-way for the Southern Pacific Railroad, 1874-1891. Source: Adrianna Jordan, The Historical Influence of the Railroads on Urban Development and Future Economic Potential in San Luis Obispo, 2011, 35.
Evaluation Criteria
Associated Property Types: Residential property types from this period include single- and multi-family residences.
Period of Significance: 1846-1900
Criteria for Eligibility: A/1/1 (Events), B/2/2 (Persons), C/3/3 (Architecture) Criteria Significance Integrity Standards
A/1/1 (Events) • As an increasingly rare example
of late-19th century residential
development.
• A collection of residences from
this period that are linked
geographically may be eligible
as a historic district.
Residential properties from this
period eligible under Criterion
A/1/1 (Events) should retain
integrity of location, design,
feeling, and association.
42 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context: Late 19th Century Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (2013)
REVISED BY PAGE & TURNBULL (2025)
Criteria Significance Integrity Standards
B/2/2 (Persons) • For its association with a
significant person in San Luis
Obispo’s early history.
A residential property significant
under Criterion B/2/2 (Persons)
should retain integrity of design,
feeling, and association, at a
minimum, in order to convey the
historic association with a
significant person.
C/3/3
(Architecture)
• As a rare remaining example of
adobe residential construction.
• As a good or rare example of a
particular architectural style
associated with the period.
• As the work of a significant
architect or designer.
• A collection of residences from
this period that are linked
geographically may be eligible
as a historic district.
In order to be eligible for listing at
the federal, state, or local levels, a
property must retain sufficient
integrity to convey its historic
significance under the Late 19th
Century Residential Development
theme.
Residential properties significant
under Criterion C/3/3
(Architecture) should retain
integrity of location, materials,
workmanship, and feeling. Any
remaining examples of adobe
construction from this period with
fair integrity would likely be
eligible. In general, the adobe walls
should remain largely intact and
the residence should retain the
majority of the character-defining
features associated with an adobe
structure of its age. Alterations that
are consistent with upgrades
typically seen in early adobe
structures, including later additions
constructed with wood framing and
replacement windows within
original window openings, are
acceptable. It is expected that the
setting will have been
compromised by later
development. Wood frame
buildings from this period should
retain good integrity, although
minor alterations are acceptable.