HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 09 - Historic Significance Determination for 644 Mountain View Street
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: December 3, 2019
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A CONTRIBUTING
LIST PROPERTY AT 644 MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), adopt a Resolution
(Attachment A) determining that the structure at 644 Mountain View Street does not meet
eligibility criteria for listing as an Historic Resource and removing the property from the
Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources.
DISCUSSION
The owner of the property at 644 Mountain View Street has applied for a determination of
historical significance of the property and requests that the property be removed from the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources, as provided in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
(SLOMC § 14.01.060 (C)).
Site and Setting
The property is a residential parcel on the north side of
Mountain View Street (Attachment B), at its
intersection with Hill Street. It lies within the Mt.
Pleasanton/Anholm neighborhood, characterized by
modest single-family dwellings built in the early 20th
Century. The area has not been established as a
Historical Preservation District.
The site is developed with two single-family
dwellings: the primary dwelling, built around 1925,
described as Colonial Revival Bungalow in style, and
a second dwelling behind it, of unknown construction
date (this second building does not have significance as a historic resource and is not the subject
of this application). The architect of the primary dwelling is unknown. Historic Survey file
records (Attachment C)1 provide limited architectural information about the property, noting ship
lap siding and hip roof.
1 CDD Historic Property Record (“Yellow File”) for 644 Mountain View St.
Figure 1: 644 Mountain View
Packet Page 85
Item 9
Historic Listing
Historic preservation policies are set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
of the City’s General Plan. Significant historic and architectural resource s are to be preserved
and rehabilitated, and their demolition, or substantial change to them, is to be avoided (COSE §
3.3). The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01) implements these policies.
Property may be designated as a Contributing List Resource where buildings or other resources
maintain their historic and architectural character, and contribute, 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.2
In 1999 this property was added to the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Contributing
List Resource (Attachment D) as part of a group of 28 properties within the Mt. Pleasanton/
Anholm neighborhood. No further findings about the significance of the property were set out in
the adopted resolution.
EVALUATION
A narrative report3 discussing the property’s history and the architectural characteristics of the
primary dwelling on the property was submitted with this application (Attachment E) The report
discusses the City’s historical context and the history of the property, including interesting and
notable people and times, but does not identify significant associations with singularly important
persons or events that would serve as a basis for historical listing.
The report briefly discusses the architectural style and elements of the primary dwelling on the
property, as primarily “a utilitarian bungalow with mostly nondescript features,” noting the
compromised integrity of the structure resulting from subsequent alterations and additions. Based
on the evaluation in the report, the author concludes that the primary dwelling does not embody a
particular architectural style in a consistent or substantial fashion, lacks integrity of design,
workmanship, and materials, and “has neither the architectural significance nor the integrity to
qualify it for the Contributing List.”4
Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
To be eligible for historical designation, a resource must exhibit a high le vel of historic integrity
and satisfy at least one of the evaluation criteria listed in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance. The Ordinance also provides that, while it is the general intent that
properties not be removed from historic listing, a property may be removed if it is found to no
longer meet eligibility criteria for listing (§ 14.01.060 (C)). In evaluating the historic significance
of the property, the CHC considered whether, and to what degree, the property satisfies these
criteria. For convenience, these criteria have been provided for reference as Attachment F to this
report. The following sections are a summary of the assessment of the historical status of 644
Mountain View, as provided in the narrative report prepared for the property.
2 See Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 for definition of Contributing List Resource or Property
3 Papp, James (2019). Application to Remove from the Contributing List 644 Mountain View Street.
4 Ibid., pg. 1
Packet Page 86
Item 9
Architectural Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (A))
Style and Design. The primary dwelling on the property is described in City records as Colonial
Revival Bungalow in style. The City’s Historic Context Statement describes the American
Colonial Revival style, a style that proliferated in the first half of the 20th Century and notes
several character-defining features of the style (Attachment G). While the dwelling exhibits
some of these features, such as gabled roofs and the appearance of shiplap siding, it does not
embody the characteristics of the style in a successfully integrated manner, and in fact the
structure is clad in aluminum siding.
Architect. The submitted report includes a history of the property, and notes that the architect of
the building is unknown (Papp, pg. 14).
Historic Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (B))
The history of the property, including its owners and occupants over time, is described in the
report submitted with this application. Though participants in the broad patterns of local history,
and individually interesting, none of the prior owners or occupants are shown to have been
prominent in, or to have made unique or distinctly outstanding contributions significant to, local,
state, or national history. There is no evidence that this property was associated with any famous
or “first-of-its-kind” event or with a notably important, unique, or distinctly interesting
contribution to the City. Nor does the property constitute a prime illustration of, or intimate
connection with, the residential growth of the City, rising to a level of historical significance.
Integrity
As discussed on page 16 of the Papp evaluation, the integrity of the building has been diminished
by modifications made to it, including two “lean-tos,” window wings, and a later porch enclosure
of a different style5 across the Mountain View frontage that obscures the building’s original
façade.
Previous Advisory Body Action
On October 28, 2019 the CHC reviewed the request and on a vote of 4-0-1-1 (with Chair Haydu
absent and Committee Member Papp recused, as the author of the applicant’s evaluation report),
recommended that the City Council remove the property from the Contributing Properties List of
Historic Resources.
Policy Context
The recommended action on this item is supported by historical preservation policies set out
section 3.0 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan, and with
procedures and standards for listing of historic resources set out in §§ 14.01.060 & 14.01.070 of
the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
5 “[…] a stylistically later porch enclosure, one that by its near -Streamline evocation is antithetical to the folk
Heimastil references, […] (Papp, pg. 16)
Packet Page 87
Item 9
Public Engagement
Public notice of this hearing has been provided to owners and occupants of property near the
subject site, and published in a widely circulated local newspaper, and hearing agendas for this
meeting have been posted at City Hall, consistent with adopted notification procedures for
development projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The determination of continued
eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of whether the subject site remains eligible for
historic resource listing according to the criteria set forth in the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance. A determination that the property is not eligible for historic listing will cause the
removal of the property from the City's Inventory of Historic Resources but will have no direct
physical effect on the environment, as the determination does not approve any physical site
development. As such, it is does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment, and so is covered by the general rule described in CEQA Guidelines
§ 15061 (b) (3).
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2019
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
State $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Federal $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Fees $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Other: $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The project will have no fiscal impacts since the property is not currently eligible for historic
preservation benefits (i.e. Mills Act) and the historic designation of the property has no bearing
on City fiscal resources.
Packet Page 88
Item 9
ALTERNATIVES
1. Maintain 644 Mountain View on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, based on
findings that satisfy the criteria for Historic Resource Listing set out in the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
2. Continue the item for additional information or discussion.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - Vicinity Map
c - Historical Preservation Record
d - Resolution No. 8963 (1999 Series)
e - COUNCIL READING FILE - Property Description (Papp)
f - Colonial Revival
g - Evaluation Criteria
Packet Page 89
Item 9
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2019 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REMOVING THE PROPERTY AT 644
MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET FROM THE CONTRIBUTING
PROPERTIES LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES (644 MOUNTAIN VIEW
ST, HIST-0531-2019)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Kimberly Snyder, submitted on August 5, 2019, an application
to remove the property located at 644 Mountain View Street (“the Property”) from the
Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources (HIST-0531-2019); and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room, Room 9, of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California on October 28, 2019 to consider the application, and recommended that the
City Council remove the Property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources; 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 3,
2019 for the purpose of considering removal of the Property from the Contributing Properties List
of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing and meeting were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of
the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony of the applicant and
interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Council makes the following
findings:
a) The property is not historically significant under the Architectural Criteria set out in
§ 14.01.070 (A) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. Modifications to the
primary structure on the property have diminished the ability of the building to convey
a pure form of its architectural style. The building is not a rare example of the Colonial
Revival style, nor does this style represent a particular social milieu or period of the
community, as it was widely popular in the region and across the country during the
early 20th Century. The building does not exhibit any particular expression of artistic
merit, details, or craftsmanship. No significant architect is associated with the building.
Packet Page 90
Item 9
Resolution No. _____ (2019 Series) Page 2
R ______
b) The property is not historically significant under the Historic Criteria set out in
§ 14.01.070 (B) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The property is not
associated with persons significant to the community as public leaders, public servants,
famous persons, or persons making outstanding contributions to local affairs or
institutions, whose contributions stand above other active and successful persons of the
era. It was not associated with any landmark, famous, or first-of-kind event or unique,
important, or interesting contribution to the City. It is associated with ongoing
residential development of the City, but not with early, first, secondary, or major
patterns of local history.
c) The removal of the property from the City’s Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources is consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance because the buildings
on the property lack significance within the historical contexts addressed by the
Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing set out in § 14.01.070 of the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance. The eligibility of the property for inclusion in the
California Register of Historical Resources and in the City’s Inventory of Historic
Resources has been formally evaluated by an architectural historian. As described in
historic resource evaluation prepared for the property, the primary structure on the
property does not appear eligible for inclusion in the California Register, and the
evaluation supports the conclusion that the property is not a candidate for inclusion on
the City’s Inventory, and is not a historical resource for the purposes of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Consideration of continuing eligibility of this
property for historic listing is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The determination of continued eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of
whether the subject site remains eligible for historic resource listing according to the criteria set
forth in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. A determination that the property is not eligible
for historic listing will cause the removal of the property from the City's Inventory of Historic
Resources but will have no direct physical effect on the environment, as the determination does
not approve any physical site development. As such, it is does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment and is covered by the general rule described in CEQA
Guidelines §15061(b)(3).
Packet Page 91
Item 9
Resolution No. _____ (2019 Series) Page 3
R ______
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby
determine that the structures located on the Property do not meet eligibility criteria for listing as
Historic Resources and removes the Property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources.
Upon motion of Council Member ______________, seconded by Council Member
_____________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this ______ day of ____________, 2019.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
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, this ______ day of ______________, 2019.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Packet Page 92
Item 9
R-1
R-1
R-1-S
R-1
R-1
H
I
L
L
B
R
O
A
D
MOUNTAIN VIEWVICINITY MAP HIST-0531-2019644 Mountain View ¯
Packet Page 93
Item 9
Packet Page 94
Item 9
Packet Page 95
Item 9
Packet Page 96
Item 9
Packet Page 97
Item 9
RESOLUTION NO. 8963 ( 1999 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ADDING PROPERTIES AT 491 HILL STREET; 249 MISSION LANE; 728, 734, AND
752 MISSION STREET; 501, 644, AND 676 MOUNTAIN VIEW; 764, 807, 814, 815, 822,
8239 8299 836, 851, 8549 8599 8699 8719 8839 8849 AND 894 MURRAY AVENUE; 747, 7509
7629 AND 783 ROUGEOT PLACE TO THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES
WHEREAS, in 1983 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5197 establishing the
Master List of Historic Resources" and "Contributing Properties List" (collectively referred to as
Historic Resources "), along with procedures for adding properties to the listing; and
WHEREAS, on May 24, 1999, June 28, 1999, and August 23, 1999, following such
procedures the Cultural Heritage Committee held public hearings to consider recommending to the
City Council the addition of several properties in the City of San Luis Obispo to the Contributing
Properties List due to their historical and/or architectural significance to their neighborhood and to
the community; and
WHEREAS, at said meetings, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the historical
documentation on the following properties and recommended that the City Council add these
properties to the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources:
491 Hill Street;
249 Mission Lane;
728, 734, and 752 Mission Street;
501, 644, and 676 Mountain View;
764, 807, 814, 815, 822, 823, 829, 836, 851, 854, 859, 869, 871, 883, 884, and 894 Murray
Avenue;
747, 750, 762 and 783 Rougeot Place..
WHEREAS, this City Council considered this recommendation at an advertised public
hearing on September 7, 1999 pursuant to historic preservation guidelines established by Council
Resolution No. 6157 (1987 Series).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
that based on the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendation, documentation as described in
the Historical Resource Inventory for each property, on file in the Community Development
Department, public testimony, the staff report, and on the City's Historical Preservation Program
Guidelines the following:
SECTION 1. Addition to Contributing Properties List. The following properties have been
found to contribute to the historic and architectural character of the City, meet the criteria for
inclusion on the Contributing Properties List, and are hereby deemed Contributing Properties:
Packet Page 98
Item 9
I
I
Resolution No. 8963 (1999 Series)
Page 2
491 Hill Street;
249 Mission Lane;
728, 734, and 752 Mission Street;
501, 644, and 676 Mountain View;
764, 807, 814, 815, 822, 823, 829, 836, 851, 854, 859, 869, 871, 883, 884, and 894 Murray
Avenue;
747, 750, 762 and 783 Rougeot Place.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council hereby determines that this
action is not a "project" as defined in Article 20 of the California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA) since it does not have the potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment,
and therefore, is not subject to environmental review requirements.
SECTION 3. Publish Revised Contributing Properties List. The Community Development
Director is hereby directed to amend the Contributing Properties List to include the properties listed
above and to publish revised historic resource listings for public distribution.
On motion of Council Member Schwartz, seconded by Vice Mayor Romero and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members Ewan, Marx, Schwartz, Vice Mayor Romero, and Mayor
Settle
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of September, 1999.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Packet Page 99
Item 9
v
Packet Page 100
Item 9
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
143
AMERICAN COLONIAL REVIVAL
The Colonial Revival style proliferated during the first half of the 20th century. This style incorporates
traditions from the Georgian, Adam and early Classical Revival styles that were prevalent during the
English colonial period. Dutch colonial influences were also incorporated, which often include a
gambrel roof. Earlier examples were rarely accurate recreations but were instead free interpretations
with details inspired by colonial precedents, while later examples shifted to more historically correct
proportions and details.
Character-defining features include:
Side gable or hipped roofs
Wood exterior wall cladding, typically horizontal
Accentuated front entry or portico, featuring decorative pediments supported by pilasters or
slender columns
Wood double-hung sash windows with multi-pane glazing
Front doors flanked by sidelights with fanlights above
Fixed wooden shutters
1318 Mill Street, 1906. Source: Historic Resources Group.
1727 Corralitos Avenue, c.1940. Source: Historic Resources
Group
1624 Morro Street.Source: Historic
Resources Group.
Packet Page 101
Item 9
12
Zoning, or remove the property from historic listing if the structure on the property no longer
meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the process for listing set forth herein.
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 ordinance 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 (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated
that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the
following criteria:
A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
(1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details
within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building
style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the
structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how
these styles are put together.
(2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic
merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or
combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements.
Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately
interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and
craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders,
although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
(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:
Packet Page 102
Item 9
13
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 – 30).
B. Historic Criteria
(1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California,
or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which
a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member,
etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or
nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique,
or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions
(e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad
officials).
(2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
(i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether
the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
(ii) 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).
Packet Page 103
Item 9