Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-2018 Agenda PacketTuesday, January 9, 2018 5:30 PM RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Council Hearing Room 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo Page 1 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon ROLL CALL: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Carlyn Christianson and Mayor Heidi Harmon PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS CLOSED SESSION A. CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8 Property: 1042 Pacific Street, APN 002-443-017 Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grigsby, Greg Hermann, Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn, Michael McGuire, Cathy Springford Negotiating Parties: 1042 Pacific Street, G.P. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment B. CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8 Property: 1043 Marsh Street, APN 002-443-016 Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grigsby, Greg Hermann, Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn, Michael McGuire, Cathy Springford Negotiating Parties: Elizabeth Lucille Zanoli, Trustee Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment C. CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8 Property: 1080 Marsh Street, APN 002-435-023 Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grigsby, Greg Hermann, Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn, Michael McGuire, Cathy Springford Negotiating Parties: Maino Family Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment Packet Pg 1 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 9, 2018 Page 2 D. CONFERENCE REGARDING PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS Pursuant to Government Code §54956.8 Property: 1020 Marsh Street, APN 002-435-024 Agency Negotiators: Derek Johnson, Christine Dietrick, Daryl Grigsby, Greg Hermann, Jon Ansolabehere, Matt Horn, Michael McGuire, Cathy Springford Negotiating Parties: Maino Family Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment ADJOURNED TO THE RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 9, 2018 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 PM Packet Pg 2 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 9, 2018 Page 3 6:00 PM RESCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon ROLL CALL: Council Members Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor Carlyn Christianson and Mayor Heidi Harmon PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Aaron Gomez CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION PRESENTATIONS 1.PROCLAMATION - WOMEN'S MARCH SAN LUIS OBISPO MONTH (HARMON – 5 MINUTES) APPOINTMENTS 2.COUNCIL LIAISON SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 2018 (HARMON / CHRISTIANSON / GALLAGHER – 10 MINUTES) Recommendation: Approve Council Liaison Subcommittee assignments for calendar year 2018 as outlined in 2018 Subcommittee Worksheet. 3.APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) – (HERMANN / GALLAGHER / GOODWIN – 5 MINUTES) Recommendation: In accordance with the recommendation of the Council Subcommittee: Confirm the appointment of Mike Wulkan to the Planning Commission to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2021. Packet Pg 3 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 9, 2018 Page 4 PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA (not to exceed 15 minutes total) The Council welcomes your input. You may address the Council by completing a speaker slip and giving it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. At this time, you may address the Council on items that are not on the agenda. Time limit is three minutes. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items CONSENT AGENDA Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three minute time limit. 4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (GALLAGHER) Recommendation: Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 5. MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2017 (GALLAGHER) Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of December 12, 2017. 6. FY 2016-17 ANNUAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (BRADFORD / PARDO) Recommendation: 1. Review the 2016-17 Fiscal Year Report on Development Impact Fees; and 2. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, accepting the 2016-17 Annual Report on Development Impact Fees and reaffirming the necessity of Development Impact Fees” accepting the report and making findings related to impact fee balances and in-lieu fees. Packet Pg 4 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 9, 2018 Page 5 7. 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING RESERVATION LETTER TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION (CODRON / VERESCHAGIN) Recommendation: As recommended by the Human Relations Commission (HRC), authorize the Community Development Director to execute the attached Reservation Letter, authorizing the City to reserve $288,847 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds awarded to the San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation for property acquisition for the Courtyard at the Meadows affordable housing project. 8. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A CONTRIBUTING LIST PROPERTY AT 676 MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET (CODRON / OETZELL) Recommendation: As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, removing the property at 676 Mountain View Street from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources (676 Mountain View St, HIST-1138-2017)” determining that the structures at 676 Mountain View Street do not meet eligibility criteria for listing as Historic Resources and removing the property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. 9. UNREPRESENTED CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES RESOLUTION (IRONS / SUTTER) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, regarding compensation for the Unrepresented Confidential Employees and superseding previous Resolutions in conflict” with a six-month term (January 1, 2018-June 30, 2018) and continuing Unrepresented Confidential Employee compensation without changes. Packet Pg 5 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 9, 2018 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 10. PUBLIC HEARING - REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY RENTON PARTNERS, LLC) OF THE TREE COMMITTEE’S DECISION TO DENY REMOVAL OF ONE FICUS STREET TREE LOCATED IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 435 MARSH STREET ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY (CODRON / BELL – 30 MINUTES) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, upholding an appeal to the Tree Committee decision to deny a tree removal request as represented in the City Council agenda report and attachments dated January 9, 2018 (435 Marsh Street APPL-1250-2017),” thereby granting final approval to remove the street tree based on findings of consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations and applicable City Standards. 11. WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE STRUCTURE REVIEW (MATTINGLY / METZ – 60 MINUTES) Recommendation: Direct staff to incorporate the updated water and wastewater rate structures into the Water and Wastewater Rate Study and fund analyses. STUDY SESSION 12. PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM NEXUS STUDY: STUDY SESSION #2 (CODRON / FOWLER – 90 MINUTES) Recommendation: 1. Participate in a study session and receive a presentation on the revised preliminary results of the Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study and the Water and Wastewate r Capacity and Connection Fee Program Study; and 2. Receive public input and provide guidance to staff regarding fee options and policy considerations for implementation; and 3. Direct staff to return on March 6, 2018, with applicable ordinances and resolutions to implement the updated Capital Facilities Fee Program based on the options endorsed by City Council. Packet Pg 6 San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda January 9, 2018 Page 7 COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS (Not to exceed 15 minutes) Council Members report on conferences or other City activities. At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on his or her activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter, or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2). ADJOURNMENT The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 16, 2018 at 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, California. LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see City Clerk. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107. City Council regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal business hours, and on the City’s website www.slocity.org. Persons with questions concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100. Packet Pg 7 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 8 Meeting Date: 1/9/2018 FROM: Mayor Heidi Harmon and Vice Mayor Carlyn Christianson Prepared by: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk SUBJECT: COUNCIL LIAISON SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS 2018 RECOMMENDATION Approve Council Liaison Subcommittee assignments for calendar year 2018 as outlined in 2018 Subcommittee Worksheet (Attachment A). DISCUSSION Council Policies and Procedures (“CP&P”) and the Advisory Body Handbook prescribe the method of Council Liaison Subcommittee assignments: The Mayor and Vice Mayor shall submit recommendations to the full Council rotating nominations for Council Member Subcommittees, thereby ensuring an opportunity for each member to serve as liaison at least once on each advisory body, when possible. When terms of office do not allow each member to serve once, members with greatest seniority shall have first right of selection. (CP&P 6.1) Council Policies and Procedures defines the role and purpose of the Council Liaison as: Council liaisons do not serve as ex-officio members of the advisory bodies, but rather as a conduit to express the position of the Council and to gain a better understanding of the issues considered by the advisory body. (CP&P 6.1.2) The purpose of the liaison assignment is to facilitate communication between the Council and advisory body. (CP&P 6.1.3) As in past years, automatic rotation for all technical and regional committees is not being recommended. The recommended appointments allow for continuity where appropriate as well as permitting Council Members to develop a higher level o f expertise for some of the more complex committees. Mayor Harmon and Vice Mayor Christianson met on December 18th to review Council Member preferences for serving on liaison subcommittees and regional committees. The recommended assignments are set forth in the attached worksheets (Attachments A and B). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The recommended actions are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Packet Pg 9 2 ALTERNATIVES Council may decide to forego the recommendations of the Mayor and Vice Mayor subcommittee and request that individual recommendations be considered. Attachments: a - 2018 Council Subcommittee Recommendations Worksheet b - 2018 Council Subcommittee Assignments Packet Pg 10 2 COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 2018City Advisory BodiesInterview/Rec. Appointment/Facilitate Comm.CHAIR MEMBER CHAIR MEMBER CHAIR MEMBER CHAIR MEMBERAdministrative Review Board ARBChristianson Carpenter Gomez Christianson Pease GomezArchitectural Review Commission ARCMarx Rivoire Rivoire Ashbaugh Christianson PeasePease ChristiansonBicycle Committee BACRivoire Christianson Rivoire Ashbaugh Pease GomezPease RivoireConstruction Board of Appeals CBOAChristianson Carpenter Ashbaugh Christianson Christianson PeasePease GomezCultural Heritage Committee CHCRivoire Marx Ashbaugh Carpenter Gomez PeasePease GomezHousing Authority (Mayor by state mandate)HAMayor MarxMayor MarxMayor HarmonHarmonHuman Relations CommissionHRCAshbaugh Rivoire Carpenter Rivoire Harmon RivoireHarmon RivoireInvestment Oversight Committee(This is not an advisory committee)IOCMarx Marx HarmonHarmonJack House Committee JHCCarpenter Ashbaugh Christianson Ashbaugh Pease RivoireRivoire GomezMass Transportation Committee MTCRivoire Carpenter Rivoire Christianson Pease GomezRivoire PeaseParks & Recreation Commission PRCAshbaugh Rivoire Rivoire Marx Gomez RivoireRivoire GomezPersonnel Board PBCarpenter Christianson Carpenter Rivoire Harmon GomezHarmon GomezPlanning Commission PCAshbaugh Christianson Christianson Rivoire Christianson RivoireChristianson RivoirePromotional Coordinating Committee PCCRivoire Carpenter Ashbaugh Rivoire Christianson RivoireHarmon RivoreRevenue Enhancement Oversight Commission REOCAshbaugh Christianson Pease ChristiansonChristianson PeaseTourism Business Improvement District Board TBIDChristianson Carpenter Carpenter Rivoire Gomez RivoireHarmon RivoreTree Committee TCAshbaugh Carpenter Ashbaugh Christianson Christianson RivoireRivoire Pease2015 20162017RecommendationPage 1 of 3Packet Pg 112 COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 2018COUNTY/REGIONALServes as voting representative2015REP ALT REP ALT REP ALTREP ALTAir Pollution Control District (APCD) APCDMarx Rivoire Marx Rivoire Harmon Christianson Harmon PeaseArea Agency on Aging (Mayor) AAAMarx Marx Harmon HarmonCity Selection Committee (Mayor / V. Mayor Alternate)CSCMarx Christianson Marx Carpenter Harmon Rivoire Harmon ChristiansonCitizen's Transportation Advisory (CTAC) A SLOCOG Regional Committee (Mayor)CTACMarx Marx Harmon HarmonCMC Citizens Advisory Committee CMC CACCarpenter Rivoire Ashbaugh Harmon Pease Harmon PeaseCommunity Action PartnershipCAPChristianson Rivoire Christianson Ashbaugh Christianson Harmon Christianson HarmonCounty Water Resources Adv. Committee (Board of Supervisors ratifies)CWRACAshbaugh Carpenter Ashbaugh Carpenter Pease Gomez Pease GomezCounty Regional Water Management Group (CRWMG)CRWMGPease Gomez Pease GomezHomeless Services Oversight Committee (HSOC)HSOCAshbaugh Rivoire Ashbaugh Marx Harmon Gomez Harmon GomezIntegrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)IWMAAshbaugh Carpenter Ashbaugh Rivoire Gomez Christianson Gomez ChristiansonLAFCO (Liaison only) LAFCOChristianson Rivoire Christianson Carpenter Christianson Gomez Christianson RivorieNacimiento Water Project NWPChristianson Carpenter Christianson Carpenter Christianson Pease Christianson PeasePerforming Arts Center Commission(Mayor / V. Mayor Alternate)PACCMayor MarxVice Mayor ChristiansonMayor MarxVice Mayor Carpenter Mayor HarmonVice Mayor RivoireHarmon ChristiansonPerforming Arts Center Commission(City Manager / Assist. City Manager Alternate)PACFSCLichtig Codron Lichtig Johnson Lichtig Johnson Johnson HermannPAC Facilities Standing Committee (Quarterly)PACFSCAshbaughPrincipal AnalystAshbaugh Principal Analyst GomezPrincipal AnalystChristianson HermannSan Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Same Council Rep. as SLORTASLOCOGMarx Christianson Marx Christianson Rivoire Christianson Rivoire ChristiansonSan Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA) Same Council Rep. as SLOCOGSLORTAMarx Christianson Marx Christianson Rivoire Christianson Rivoire ChristiansonSan Luis Obispo Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) - NEW 2017GSAPease Mattingly Pease MattinglyWhale Rock Commission (Mayor / V. Mayor Alternate)WRCMayor MarxVice Mayor ChristiansonMarx Carpenter Harmon Rivoire Harmon ChristiansonZone 9 Advisory CommitteeZone 9 ACAshbaugh Christianson Ashbaugh Christianson Pease Gomez Pease RivorieVisit SLO County Adv. Com. (Mayor/ V. Mayor Alt.)VSLO CACMarx Carpenter Harmon Rivoire Harmon ChristiansonVisit SLO County Adv. Com. (CM/ Asst. CM)VSLO CACLichtig Johnson Lichtig Johnson Johnson Hermann2016 2017RecommendationPage 2 of 3Packet Pg 122 COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 2018SPECIAL PURPOSE SUBCOMMITTEESServes as liaison representativeMEMBER ALT MEMBER ALT MEMBER ALTMEMBER ALTCal Poly Campus Planning Committee(Quarterly)CPCPCAshbaugh N/A Marx N/A Rivoire N/A GomezCity/University(Quarterly, Mayor / Rotation)C/UMayor Marx Rotation Mayor Marx Rotation Harmon Rotation Harmon RotationDowntown Association Board (Monthly)DABCarpenter Rivoire Gomez HarmonGomez RivoireEconomic Vitality Corporation (EVC) EVCAshbaugh Carpenter Carpenter Ashbaugh Pease GomezHarmon PeaseMayor's Advisory Body Chair Quarterly Meeting (Mayor / Rotation)MABCQMayor Marx Rotation Mayor Marx Rotation Mayor Harmon Rotation Harmon RotationStudent Community Liaison Committee(Monthly, Mayor / Rotation) SCLCMayor Marx Rotation Marx Rotation Harmon Rotation Harmon RotationAD HOC SUBCOMMITTEESAppointed by Council for a limited purposeMEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBERMEMBER MEMBERAirport Land Use Council Subcommittee SLUCSMarx Christianson Marx Christianson Christianson RivoireChristianson RivoireCommunity Choice Aggregation Exploration Advisory CommitteeCCA EACRivoireChristianson (Alternate)Rivoire Christianson Harmon PeaseGomez Harmon2015 2016 2017Recommendation2015 2016 2017RecommendationPage 3 of 3Packet Pg 132 Representative AlternateRepresentative AlternateRepresentative AlternateRepresentative AlternateRepresentative AlternateHACAPJHBACPCCSCIWMAARBARBMTCAAACCA EACMTCHRCREOCPACCCPCPCCBOAARCREOCCSCPRCPCCAPWRCDABCHCBACTCCTACTCPCCLAFCOVSLO CACCCA EACJHCBOAAPCDPACCSLOCOGTBIDNWPARCPRCCHCCMC CACWRCSLORTALAFCOPACFSCIWMAPBCWRACNWPVSLO CACZone 9 ACSLUCSSLOCOGCWRACCRWMGEVCC/UDABSLORTACRWMGGSASCLSSLUCSHSOCZone 9 ACMABQCHRCIOCPBPCCTBIDAPCDCMC CACHSOCEVCMayor Required to ChairVice Mayor Required AlternateCommunity Choice Aggregation Exploration Advisory Committee (CCA EAC)Cal Poly Campus Planning Committee (CPCPC)City/University (C/U)Downtown Association Board (DBA)Economic Vitality Corporation (EVC)Student Community Liaison Committee (SCLC)Area Agency on Aging (AAA)Citizen's Transportation Advisory Committee (CTAC)Mayor's Advisory Body Chair Quarterly(MABCQ)Airport Land Use Council Subcommittee (ALUCS)San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (SLORTA)Visit SLO County Advisory Committee (VSLOCAC)Whale Rock Commission (WRC)Zone 9 Advisory Committee (Zone 9 AC)Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA)Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)Nacimeiento Water Project (NWP)Performing Arts Center Commission (PACC)Performing Arts Center Facilities Standing Committee (PACFSC)Tree Committee (TC)Air Pollution Control District (APCD)City Selection Committee (CSC)CMC Citizens Advisory Committee (CMC CAC)Community Action Partnership (CAP)County Water Resources Advisory Committee (CWRAC)County Regional Water Management Group (CRWMG)Homeless Services Oversight Committee (HSOC)Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)Housing Authority (HA)Human Relations Commission (HRC)Investment Oversight Committee (IOC)Jack House Committee (JHC)Mass Transportation Committee (MTC)Parks & Recreation Committee (PRC)Personnel Board (PB)Planning Commission (PC)Promotional Coordinating Committee (PCC)Tourism Business Improvement District Board (TBID)Administrative Review Board (ARB)Architectural Review Commission (ARC)Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)Construction Board of Appeals (CBOA)Citizens' Revenue Enhancement Oversight Commission (REOC)2018 Council Subcommittee AssignmentsMayor HarmonCouncil Member RivoireVice Mayor ChristiansonCouncil Member GomezCouncil Member PeasePacket Pg 142 Meeting Date: 1/9/2018 FROM: Greg Hermann, Acting Assistant City Manager Prepared By: Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk Heather Goodwin, Deputy City Clerk SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION (PC) RECOMMENDATION In accordance with the recommendation of the Council Subcommittee: Confirm the appointment of Mike Wulkan to the Planning Commission to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2021. DISCUSSION Planning Commission (Council Liaison Subcommittee Members (Christianson and Rivoire) Due to the resignation of Scott Mann, effective November 15, 2017, an unscheduled vacancy occurred on the Planning Commission. Mr. Mann’s term would have expired on March 31, 2021. The Council Liaison Subcommittee recommends the appointment of Mike Wulkan, effective January 9, 2018, to a term expiring March 31, 2021. RECRUITMENT Currently, the following Advisory Bodies have vacancies and interested individuals are encouraged to apply. 1. Area Agency on Aging (1) 2. Construction Board of Appeals (1 citizen at large and 1 representative with disability) CONCURRENCES The Council Liaison Subcommittee concurs with the recommendation. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended actions in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines sec. 15378. Packet Pg 15 3 FISCAL IMPACT The City Council has approved a stipend of $60 per meeting (not to exceed $240 monthly) for each member of the PC (Resolution No. 10516 (2014 Series) and is in the adopted budget for Community Development. AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE A hard copy of the Mr. Wulkan’s Advisory Body application has been provided to the City Council and is available for public review in the Clerk’s office. Packet Pg 16 3 San Luis Obispo Page 1 Tuesday, December 12, 2017 Special Meeting of the City Council CALL TO ORDER A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Greg Hermann, Acting Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. STUDY SESSION 1. COMMUNITY CHOICE ENERGY STUDY SESSION Acting Assistant City Manager Hermann and Community Development Director Codron provided an in-depth staff report with the user of a Power Point presentation and responded to Council questions. Marc Adato, Community Outreach Coordinator Jen Greigor, County of Santa Barbara County Energy and Sustainability Initiatives, provided feasibility study information. Eric Veium, SLO Clean Energy, clarified resolution language. Chris Reed, County of San Luis Obispo. Benjamin Eichert, Director of Green Power, State Wide Non-Profit. Public Comments: Robert Wolfe Packet Pg 17 5 San Luis Obispo Special City Council Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 2 Pete Schwartz Eric Veium John Smigecski Benjamin Eichert Justin Bradshaw Eric Meyer Andrew Folick ---End of Public Comment--- By consensus, Council received, filed and provided staff direction on the following: 1. Receive and file the Technical Feasibility Study on Community Choice Energy (CCE) for the Tri-County area including San Luis Obispo County, Santa Barbara County, and Ventura County; and 2. Receive and file an initial feasibility study prepared by Pilot Power Group for the intra - county region – City of San Luis Obispo and County of San Luis Obispo; and 3. Provide staff with direction regarding whether or not to continue to pursue community choice energy options as follows: a. Form a new CCE program; or b. Solicit proposals to identify an existing CCE program to join; or c. Discontinue or pause the pursuit of a CCE program at this time. ADJOURNED AT 5: 40 PM TO THE SPECIAL MEETING OF DECEMBER 12, 2017 TO BEGIN AT 6:00 PM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER Packet Pg 18 5 San Luis Obispo Special City Council Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 3 CALL TO ORDER A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, December 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon. ROLL CALL Council Members Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon. Council Members Absent: None City Staff Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Greg Hermann, Acting Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council Member Pease led the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENTATIONS 2. PROCLAMATION - COMMENDATION TO SLO SAFE SPACE INITIATIVE Mayor Harmon provided a presentation of a proclamation to Duskin Hobbs and Courtney Haile Co-Coordinators of the SLO Safe Space Initiative, commending them for taking a pro- active step to promote and encourage inclusion and diversity in San Luis Obispo and beyond. 3. PRESENTATION - CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO OUTGOING VICE MAYOR DAN RIVOIRE Mayor Harmon presented a Certificate of Recognition in the form of a plaque to outgoing Vice Mayor Dan Rivoire. APPOINTMENTS 4. VICE MAYOR APPOINTMENT FOR 2018 City Clerk Gallagher presented the contents of the report. Public Comments: None Packet Pg 19 5 San Luis Obispo Special City Council Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 4 ---End of Public Comments--- ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR RIVOIRE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to appoint Council Member Carlyn Christianson as Vice Mayor to serve a one-year term commencing upon appointment. 5. APPOINTMENT TO THE PROMOTIONAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE (PCC) City Clerk Gallagher presented the contents of the report. Public Comments: None ---End of Public Comments--- ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER RIVOIRE, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to confirm the appointment of John Thomas to the Promotional Coordinating Committee to complete an unexpired term through March 31, 2019. PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA None ---End of Public Comment--- CONSENT AGENDA ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 6 thru 15. 6. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate. 7. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 2017 CARRIED 5-0, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting of November 21, 2017. 8. APPROVE CORRECTIONS TO THE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PARK FEES CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10850 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving corrections to the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Park fees.” Packet Pg 20 5 San Luis Obispo Special City Council Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 5 9. QUITCLAIM DEED FOR EASEMENTS ACROSS THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4450 BROAD STREET CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10851 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, authorizing the Mayor to execute a quitclaim deed for easements across the property located at 4450 Broad Street.” 10. 2017 WATER RESOURCES STATUS REPORT CARRIED 5-0, to receive and file the 2017 Water Resources Status Report. 11. SMALL BORE ASSOCIATION LEAD REMEDIATION, SPECIFICATION NO. 91219 CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Approve construction documents for “Small Bore Association Lead Remediation”; and 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $221,500; and 3. Authorize allocation of $209,000 from the General Capital Fund and $70,000 from the Sewer Fund for a total of $279,000, with $244,000 to the construction account and $35,000 to the construction management account of the project. 12. AUTHORIZE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR PARKING LOTS AND STRUCTURES SWEEPING AND JANITORIAL SERVICES, SPECIFICATION NO. 91624 CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Authorize the release of the Request for Proposals (RFP) for Parking Lots and Structures Sweeping and Janitorial Services, Specification No. 91624; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract(s) with the successful bidder(s) if within authorized project budget of $250,000; and 3. Authorize the City Attorney to approve modifications to the form of the contract with the successful bidder(s). 13. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE MISSION OF THE CENTRAL COAST DISTRACTED DRIVING AWARENESS PARTNERSHIP CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Resolution No. 10852 (2017 Series) entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, endorsing the Mission of the Central Coast Distracted Driving Awareness Partnership.” Packet Pg 21 5 San Luis Obispo Special City Council Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 6 Public Comments: Mike Bennett, Director of the Central Coast Distracted Driver Organization ---End of Public Comments--- 14. ORDINANCE ADOPTION - AMENDING AND REAFFIRMING THE CURRENT ELECTION CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS CARRIED 5-0, to adopt Ordinance No. 1643 (2017 Series) entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, readopting and amending Chapter 2.40 of the Municipal Code related to Election Campaign Regulations.” 15. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) MARSH STREET CURB RAMPS PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 91544 CARRIED 5-0, to: 1. Approve Plans and Specifications for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Marsh Street Curb Ramps project, Specification No. 91544; and 2. Authorize staff to advertise for bids and authorize the City Manager to award the contract if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $195,500. At the request of Mayor Harmon, Fire Chief Olson provided an update on the current fire situation in the Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS 16. BUDGET FOUNDATION: FISCAL HEALTH RESPONSE PLAN Finance Director Bradford introduced the new Budget Manager, Alex Ferreira. City Manager Johnson, Finance Director Bradford, and Parks and Recreation Director Stanwyck provided an in-depth staff report with the use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Council questions. Public Comments: Steve Barasch Leslie Halls ---End of Public Comment--- By consensus, Council received, filed and provided staff direction on the following: 1. Review and provide general direction to staff regarding proposed components and allocations for the development of a Fiscal Health Response Plan (FHRP) with final Packet Pg 22 5 San Luis Obispo Special City Council Minutes of December 12, 2017 Page 7 adoption of the FHRP in April 2018; and 2. Provide direction to staff to return in April 2018 with specific recommendations on the use of one-time fund balance above policy reserve including dollar allocation to fund a Section 115 Pension Trust to address long-term variability in pension costs and address unfunded liability; and 3. Review a preliminary 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and provide general direction to staff to return to Council in January 2018 for final review including recommendations to allocate reserves in excess of policy requirements towards community safety project. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS AND LIAISON REPORTS Council Member Rivoire reported having attended the recent SLOCOG hearing, he provided an overview of hearing discussions. Council Member Gomez reported having attended the monthly meeting of Downtown SLO, he provided brief details of the meeting discussions. Mayor Harmon reported having attended a NAACP meeting, the Homeless Oversight Committee Meeting, and she noted having spoken at the Urban Forest Council Meeting along with City Arborist, Ron Combs. Vice Mayor Christianson reported having attended the CAPSLO Board Meeting and provided a brief description of the meeting discussions. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The Regular City Council Meetings of December 19, 2017 and January 2, 2018 was previously cancelled. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 5:30 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Hearing Room and Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo, California. __________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg 23 5 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 24 5 Meeting Date: 1/9/2018 FROM: Xenia Bradford, Director of Finance Prepared By: Rico Pardo, Accounting Manager/Controller SUBJECT: FY 2016-17 ANNUAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES RECOMMENDATION 1. Review the 2016-17 Fiscal Year Report on Development Impact Fees; and 2. Adopt a Resolution accepting the report and making findings related to impact fee balances and in-lieu fees. DISCUSSION Staff has prepared this report in compliance with the requirements of AB 1600 and the required disclosures in the attached report. This report, as required by AB 1600, identifies the amount of each fee collected, the disbursements made from each fee type and the amount of interest apportioned to each fee balance during the 2016-17 fiscal year. Also, a report has been prepared that reflects, for each fee type, the aging of the balance held by the City. This report has been available for public inspection prior to tonight’s meeting in the Finance Department. Notice was posted on the City Clerk’s bulletin board in front of City Hall on December 22, 2017. The schedules referred to above provide a breakdown of the individual fee balances on hand as of June 30, 2017, based on unaudited information. The statutes specify that this report shall include the following information: 1. The amount of each fee. 2. The amount of developer fees disbursed on each project for the year just ended. 3. The amount of developer fees collected for the year just ended. 4. The amount of interest earned by the developer fees for the year just ended. 5. Any other income received that is related to the projects, if applicable. 6. The beginning and ending fund balance for each development fee account. 7. The total cost of projects undertaken during the last year and the percentage of the project cost paid out of developer fees. 8. The identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and t he public improvement remains incomplete. 9. The amount and purpose of all inter-fund transfers during the last year. 10. The following is a brief description of the purpose of the fee and the nature of projects funded in the current year. Packet Pg 25 6 Transportation Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities and travel lanes within the City. There were six active projects funded by this fee during the most recent fiscal year. Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange - The largest of the six projects partially funded by impact fees over the years has been the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Project. In prior year, $3,422,400 was expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for the project while $73,868 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year. Major construction on the project is now complete however expenditures on the project will continue as additional items remain to complete - such as landscaping improvements. LOVR Interchange Landscaping - $23,680 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year for the project. Bike Bridge/Phillips - $97,646 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year for the project. Prado Road Bridge Widening - $41,532 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year for the project. Mid-Higuera Improvement Project - $30,800 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year for the project. Calle Joaquin Park and Ride - $2,741 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year for the project. As of June 30, 2017, $6,075,561 in funds were available for projects and $669,838 were held longer than five years. Margarita Area Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and around the Margarita area. As of June 30, 2017, $417,347 was collected in Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) transportation fees. Airport Area Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and around the airport area. The only project funded during the fiscal year from these fees was the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) design services. As of June 30, 2017, $1,103,970 in funds were available for projects and $327,272 in Airport Area Impact Fees have been held longer than five years and the collected funds are not sufficient to initiate and complete projects identified in the AASP fee program and therefore need to be retained until adequate funding is available to fund needed improvements. Specifically, there are not funds available to commence projects identified in the AASP program, such as the financing of full improvements on Tank Farm Road. The City has commenced advance development work on upgrading and replacing the Santa Fe Bridge located south of Tank Farm Road and will be Packet Pg 26 6 programming much of this available funding for environmental and design of that project. Additionally, AASP funds will be used to fund intersection improvements at the intersection of Prado Road/South Higuera in tandem with the rehabilitation and widening of the SLO Creek bridge on Prado Road west of Higuera. Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of capacity for Los Osos Valley Road interchange at US 101. Los Osos Valley Road and Highway 101 Interchange Improvements occurred during the fiscal year with expenses for construction, project management and inspection. In addition, the Fund recorded a liability for the reimbursement owed to a developer for an amount equal to the impact fees collected for the year. The City has an existing reimbursement agreement with Costco for improvements already constructed at the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) interchange. As of June 30, 2017, $129,434 in funds were available. Parkland Development Impact Fees This impact fee was established for the purpose of acquisition and development of community parks and existing park facilities intended for access and use by the entire city. As of June 30, 2017, $1,355,445 in fund are available for projects and $10,313 of Parkland Development Impact Fees have been held longer than five years. Open Space Protection This impact fee was established to address the need to acquire new open space lands commensurate with similar land lost to development projects within the Airport Area Specific Plan area, and will be added to the City’s existing open space inventory. As of June 30, 2017, $75,769 in funds are were available for projects and $0 have been held longer than 5 years. Water Impact Fees This fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for water supply, water treatment, and water distribution. The fees are used for debt service for the following projects: 1. Nacimiento Pipeline 2. Water Reuse Project Loan 3. 2006 Water Treatment Plant 4. Tank Farm Lift Station As of June 30, 2017, available funds were ($2,583,916). As future development occurs, and, in turn, future impact fees are collected, more funds will become available to fund future projects and offset the negative balance. This reflects the fact that improvements were needed for the orderly development of the City and the negative balance will adjust with future impact fee payments. No funds were held longer than five years. Packet Pg 27 6 Affordable Housing Inclusionary Fees This impact fee was established for funding affordable housing inclusionary programs in the City and is also not an impact fee as defined by AB 1600. There were six expenditures for the fiscal year in this account. The first was a contribution to the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund which was authorized by the City Council for an amount of $30,000. The second expenditure was an operating transfer to the City’s General Fund for staff salaries related to administration and oversight of all housing programs. Third was a $920,000 award to the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) for the construction of Iron Works Apartments, 46 affordable housing units located at 3680 Broad. Fourth was a $35,000 award to Habitat for Humanity of San Luis Obispo County to rehabilitate an affordable housing unit located at 214 Highland Drive. Fifth was a transfer of $300,000 to the City’s General Fund for the purchase of 867 Humbert Avenue, an affordable housing unit that was in default. That property was re -sold to a qualified income eligible first-time homebuyer and the revenue from the sale was transferred back to the account. Last was the re-use of $222,020 towards down payment assistance loans for income eligible first-time homebuyers purchasing homes. As of June 30, 2017, $3,254,444 in funds were available for affordable housing projects and no funds were held longer than five years. CONCURRENCES The Public Works and Utilities Departments concur with the recommendations contained within this report. FISCAL IMPACT The Staff recommends the City Council making the findings called for as set forth in the resolution in order to allow the impact to be retained by the City to fund identified projects. The in-lieu fees which have balances are not subject to the same finding requirement to allow their retention, but staff has included a finding in the resolution affirming the need for retention of these monies. ALTERNATIVE Council could choose not to make the findings called for in this report. This report is required by State law. Attachments: a - Resolution b - DIF Annual Report Packet Pg 28 6 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2018 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE 2016-17 ANNUAL REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES AND REAFFIRMING THE NECESSITY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”) is required to make certain findings every five years with respect to the unexpended fund balance of certain development impact fee funds pursuant to California Government Code section 66001; and WHEREAS, the documents reflecting the balance in each development impact fee fund or account, accrued interest in said fund or account and the amount of expenditure by public facility for the fiscal year have been made available for public review as required by California Government Code section 66006. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Recitals. All of the above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. Acceptance. The 2016-17 Annual Report on Development Impact Fees is hereby accepted. SECTION 3. Findings. The following findings are made as required under Government Code section 66001: 1. The purpose to which each Development Impact Fee is to be put has been identified. 2. There is a continued need for the improvements and that there is a reasonable relationship between the fee and the impacts for development for which the fees are collected. 3. The sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete the financing of capital projects have been identified and will be deposited into the appropriate account upon receipt or during the normal capital improvement program budget cycle. 4. A copy of the approved resolution shall be forwarded to the Interim Director of Finance for use in overseeing these monies. SECTION 4. These findings are based, in part, on information provided in the City of San Luis Obispo’s 2015-17 Capital Improvement Plan. Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: Packet Pg 29 6 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2 R ______ AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2018. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher 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 ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 30 6 City of San Luis Obispo This report as required by AB 1600 identifies the amount of each fee collected, the disbursements made from each fee type and the amount of interest apportioned to each fee balance during the 2016-17 fiscal year. Also, a report has been prepared that reflects, for each fee type, the aging of the balance held by the City. This report has been available for public inspection prior to tonight’s meeting in the Finance Department. Notice was posted on the City Clerk’s bulletin board in front of City Hall on December 22, 2017. The schedules referred to above provide a breakdown of the individual fee balances on hand as of June 30, 2017 based on unaudited information. The statutes specify that this report shall include the following information: 1. The amount of each fee. 2. The amount of developer fees disbursed on each project for the year just ended. 3. The amount of developer fees collected for the year just ended. 4. The amount of interest earned by the developer fees for the year just ended. 5. Any other income received that is related to the projects, if applicable. 6. The beginning and ending fund balance for each development fee account. 7. The total cost of projects undertaken during the last year and the percentage of the project cost paid out of developer fees. 8. The identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete. 9. The amount and purpose of all interfund transfers during the last year. 10. The following is a brief description of the purpose of the fee and the nature of projects funded in the current year. Transportation Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities and travel lanes within the City. There were six active projects funded by this fee during the most recent fiscal year. Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange – The largest of the six projects partially funded by impact fees over the years has been the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 Interchange Project. In prior year, $3,422,400 was expended during the 2015-16 fiscal year for the project while $73,868 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year. Major construction on the project is now complete however expenditures on the project will continue as additional items remain to complete – such as landscaping improvements. LOVR Interchange Landscaping – $23,680 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year for the project. Bike Bridge/Phillips – $97,646 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year for the project. Prado Road Bridge Widening – $41,532 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year for the project. Mid-Higuera Improvement Project - $30,800 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year for the project. Packet Pg 31 6 Calle Joaquin Park and Ride - $2,741 was expended during the 2016-17 fiscal year for the project. As of June 30, 2017, $6,075,561 in funds were available for projects and $669,838 were held longer than five years. Margarita Area Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and around the Margarita area. As of June 30, 2017, $417,347 was collected in Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) transportation fees. Airport Area Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of transportation facilities in and around the airport area. The only project funded during the fiscal year from these fees was the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) design services. As of June 30, 2017, $1,103,970 in funds were available for projects and $327,272 in Airport Area Impact Fees have been held longer than five years and the collected funds are not sufficient to initiate and complete projects identified in the AASP fee program and therefore need to be retained until adequate funding is available to fund needed improvements. Specifically, there are not funds available to commence projects identified in the AASP program, such as the financing of full improvements on Tank Farm Road. The City has commenced advance development work on upgrading and replacing the Santa Fe Bridge located south of Tank Farm Road and will be programming much of this available funding for environmental and design of that project. Additionally, AASP funds will be used to fund intersection improvements at the intersection of Prado Road/South Higuera in tandem with the rehabilitation and widening of the SLO Creek bridge on Prado Road west of Higuera. Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion of capacity for Los Osos Valley Road interchange at US 101. Los Osos Valley Road and Highway 101 Interchange Improvements occurred during the fiscal year with expenses for construction, project management and inspection. In addition, the Fund recorded a liability for the reimbursement owed to a developer for an amount equal to the impact fees collected for the year. The City has an existing reimbursement agreement with Costco for improvements already constructed at the Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) interchange. As of June 30, 2017, $129,434 in funds were available. Parkland Development Impact Fees This impact fee was established for the purpose of acquisition and development of community parks and existing park facilities intended for access and use by the entire city. As of June 30, 2017, $1,355,445 in fund are available for projects and $10,313 of Parkland Development Impact Fees have been held longer than five years. Open Space Protection This impact fee was established to address the need to acquire new open space lands commensurate with similar land lost to development projects within the Airport Area Specific Plan area, and will be added to the City’s existing open space inventory. Packet Pg 32 6 As of June 30, 2017, $75,769 in funds are were available for projects and $0 have been held longer than 5 years. Water Impact Fees This fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for water supply, water treatment and water distribution. The fees are used for debt service for the following projects: 1. Nacimiento Pipeline 2. Water Reuse Project Loan 3. 2006 Water Treatment Plant Debt Service 4. 2012 Water Refunding Debt Service Fees collected and retained were used for debt service to pay for new development’s fair share for upgrades to the water treatment plant, the recycled water system, as well as the pipeline serving the City from Nacimiento Lake. In fiscal year 2016-17, $1,266,674 was collected in impact fees, while $2,605,220 was expended. No funds were held longer than five years as payments are for debt service which is expensed upon receipt. Sewer Impact Fee This impact fee was established for the expansion and improvement of facilities used for sewer collection and sewer treatment. The fees were used for the following projects: 1. Calle Joaquin Lift Station 2. Margarita Lift Station 3. Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) Upgrade 4. Tank Farm Lift Station As of June 30, 2017, available funds are ($2,583,916). As future development occurs and, in turn, future impact fees are collected, more funds will become available to fund future projects and offset the negative balance. This reflects the fact that improvements were needed for the orderly development of the City and the negative balance will adjust with future impact fee payments. No funds were held longer than five years. Affordable Housing Inclusionary Fees This impact fee was established for funding affordable housing inclusionary programs in the City and is also not an impact fee as defined by AB 1600. There were six expenditures for the fiscal year in this account. The first was a contribution to the San Luis Obispo County Housing Trust Fund which was authorized by the City Council for an amount of $30,000. The second expenditure was an operating transfer to the City’s General Fund for staff salaries related to administration and oversight of all housing programs. Third was a $920,000 award to the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO) for the construction of Iron Works Apartments, 46 affordable housing units located at 3680 Broad. Fourth was a $35,000 award to Habitat for Humanity of San Luis Obispo County to rehabilitate an affordable housing unit located at 214 Highland Drive. Fifth was a transfer of $300,000 to the City’s General Fund for the purchase of 867 Humbert Avenue, an affordable housing unit that was in default. That property was re-sold to a qualified income eligible first-time homebuyer and the revenue from the sale was Packet Pg 33 6 transferred back to the account. Last was the re-use of $222,020 towards down payment assistance loans for income eligible first-time homebuyers purchasing homes. As of June 30, 2017, $3,254,444 in funds were available for affordable housing projects and no funds were held longer than five years. CONCURRENCES The Public Works and Utilities Departments concur with the recommendations contained within this report. FISCAL IMPACT This report recommends making the findings called for in the resolution in order to allow the impact to be retained by the City to fund identified projects. The in-lieu fees which have balances are not subject to the same finding requirement to allow their retention, but staff has included a finding in the resolution affirming the need for retention of these monies. ALTERNATIVE Council could choose not to make the findings called for in this report. This report is required by State law. Packet Pg 34 6 City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2017Transportation Impact Fee Fund 405 Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees Interest Non AB 1600 Interest Revenue Other Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In AB 1600 Expenses Other Expenses AB 1600 Transfers Out Total Ending Balance 2008-09 4,041,419$ 498,385 197,387 - 668,853 - - 1,829,260 - - 3,576,784$ 2009-10 3,576,784$ 51,942 107,553 - 399,911 87,221 74,000 864,670 28,700 - 3,404,041$ 2010-11 3,404,041$ 889,128 72,051 - 647,363 - - 671,057 114,698 - 4,226,828$ 2011-12 4,226,828$ 414,282 66,373 - 212,085 - - 780,961 621,064 - 3,517,543$ 2012-13 3,517,543$ 221,213 13,190 - 1,059,704 - - 1,059,188 818,897 - 2,933,565$ 2013-14 2,933,565$ 1,002,592 28,352 - 287,949 - - 421,651 236,955 - 3,593,852$ 2014-15 3,593,852$ 898,574 51,872 - 350,172 63,791 49,388 628,826 - - 4,378,822$ 2015-16 4,378,822$ 1,356,158 107,807 - - - - 422,269 - 320,000 5,100,519$ 2016-17 5,100,519$ 1,198,038 47,272 - - - - 270,267 - - 6,075,561$ Aging of Funds Held Current Yr Funds FY 2016-17 1 yr old Funds FY 2015-16 2 yr old Funds FY 2014-15 3 yr old Funds FY 2013-14 4 yr old Funds FY 2012-13 5 yr old Funds FY 2011-12 Funds attributed to recent 6 years If Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refund Total Ending Balance 1,245,310 1,463,965 950,446 1,030,944 234,403 480,655 5,405,723 669,838$ 6,075,561$ Fund 405 - Margarita Area TIF Fee Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees Interest Non AB 1600 Interest Revenue Other Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In AB 1600 Expenses Other Expenses AB 1600 Transfers Out Total Ending Balance 2016-17 -$ 417,347 16,468 - - - - - - - 433,815$ Aging of Funds Held Current Yr Funds FY 2016-17 1 yr old Funds FY 2015-16 2 yr old Funds FY 2014-15 3 yr old Funds FY 2013-14 4 yr old Funds FY 2012-13 5 yr old Funds FY 2011-12 Funds attributed to recent 6 years If Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refund Total Ending Balance 433,815 - - - - - 433,815 -$ 433,815$ Packet Pg 35 6 City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Citywide Transportation Impact Fee (Fund 405) Project Number Project Name Budget Encumbrance Project Amount Expended Percent Funded by Impact Fees Impact Fee Expenditures Non Impact Fee Expenditures Developer Impact Fees Collected Impact Fee Interest Income Other Income90073Mid-Higuera improvement Project $ 42,724 $ - $ 30,800 100% $ 30,800 -$ 90398 Traffic Safety Report $ 210 $ - $ - 0% $ - -$ 90572 Bicycle Facility Improvements $ 34,634 $ - $ - 0% $ - -$ 90653 Traffic Volume Counts $ 19,148 $ - $ - 0% $ - -$ 90741 RRST Highway 101 Bridge $ 10,909 $ - $ - 0% $ - -$ 90949 Traffic Model Update $ 139,515 $ 5,574 $ - 0% $ - -$ 91111 RR SFTY TRL Taft/Pepr -$ -$ -$ 0% $ - -$ 91252 FY Prado Rd Bridge Widen 336,901$ -$ 41,532$ 100%41,532$ -$ 91288 Calle Joaquin Park and Ride 158,251$ 8,358$ 2,741$ 100%2,741$ -$ 91375 Bike Bridge/Phillips 732,454$ 568,101$ 97,646$ 100%97,646$ -$ 91420 Transportation Monitoring -$ -$ -$ 0%-$ -$ 91435 LOVR Interchange Landscaping 35,000$ 5,790$ 23,680$ 100%23,680$ -$ 99615 Bicycle Projects 15,099$ -$ -$ 0%-$ -$ 99821 Los Osos Valley Road/US101 Interchange 2,192,549$ -$ 73,868$ 100%73,868$ -$ 99899 Completed Projects 16,646$ -$ -$ 0%-$ -$ Totals 3,734,040$ 587,823$ 270,267$ 270,267$ -$ 1,198,038$ 47,272$ -$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 5,100,519$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 6,075,561$ Funds Collected in recent year and prior 5 years 5,405,723$ Funds held longer than 5 years 669,838 Margarita Area Traffic Impact Fee (Fund 405) Project Number Project Name Budget Encumbrance Project Amount Expended Percent Funded by Impact Fees Impact Fee Expenditures Non Impact Fee Expenditures Developer Impact Fees Collected Impact Fee Interest Income Other Income-$ -$ -$ 0%-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 433,815$ Funds Collected in recent year and prior 5 years 433,815$ Funds held longer than 5 years - Packet Pg 36 6 City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2017Parkland Impact Fee Fund 420 Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees Interest Non AB 1600 Interest Revenue Other Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In AB 1600 Expenses Developer Reimb AB 1600 Transfers Out Total Ending Balance 2007-08 200,679$ 861,834 38,135 - - - - 84,326 - - 1,016,322$ 2008-09 1,016,322$ 176,579 54,896 - 94,781 - - 22,705 - - 1,319,873$ 2009-10 1,319,873$ 36,378 41,787 - - - - 66,981 - - 1,331,057$ 2010-11 1,331,057$ 35,805 23,628 - 25,583 - - 169,411 - - 1,246,662$ 2011-12 1,246,662$ 40,135 19,130 - - - - 214,309 - - 1,091,618$ 2012-13 1,091,618$ 152,217 4,697 - - - - 11,746 - - 1,236,786$ 2013-14 1,236,786$ 97,535 9,500 - - - - 173,120 - - 1,170,701$ 2014-15 1,170,701$ 273,647 3,110 - - - - 822,521 - - 618,591$ 2015-16 618,591$ 217,069 5,756 - - - - 4,165 - - 837,251$ 2016-17 837,251$ 505,886 16,450 - - - - 4,142 - - 1,355,445$ Aging of Funds Held Current Yr Funds FY 2016-17 1 yr old Funds FY 2015-16 2 yr old Funds FY 2014-15 3 yr old Funds FY 2013-14 4 yr old Funds FY 2012-13 5 yr old Funds FY 2011-12 Funds attributed to recent 6 years If Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refund Total Ending Balance 522,336 222,825 276,757 107,035 156,914 59,265 1,345,132 10,313$ 1,355,445$ Packet Pg 37 6 City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Parkland Impact Fee (Fund 420)Enacted using the Quimby Act. See note below. Project Number Project Name Project Amount Expended Percent Funded by Impact Fees Impact Fee Expenditures Non Impact Fee Expenditures Developer Impact Fees Collected Impact Fee Interest Income Other Income 90752 Skate Park Improcement -$ 100%-$ -$ 91388 Laguna Lake ADA Trail 4,142$ 100%4,142$ -$ Totals 4,142$ 4,142$ -$ 505,886$ 16,450$ -$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 837,251$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 1,355,445$ Fees and Interest Collected in Prior 5 Years 1,345,132$ Funds held Longer Than 5 Years 10,313 Packet Pg 38 6 City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2017Open Space Impact Fee Fund 430 Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees Interest Non AB 1600 Interest Revenue Other Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In Impact Fee Expenditures Other Expenses AB 1600 Transfers Out Total Ending Balance 2007-08 81,559$ - 11,997 - - - 323,000 22,772 - 5,000 388,784$ 2008-09 388,784$ - 16,221 - 6,436 100 234,000 383,991 - - 261,550$ 2009-10 261,550$ - 12,706 - 314,824 10,500 260,378 370,498 - - 489,460$ 2010-11 489,460$ - (807) - 186,809 153 - 560,516 - - 115,099$ 2011-12 115,099$ - 3,336 - - - 305,000 240,069 - - 183,366$ 2012-13 183,366$ - 726 - - - 22,500 11,566 - - 195,026$ 2013-14 195,026$ 20,981 3,833 - 50,204 - 200,000 - 58,452 - 411,592$ 2014-15 411,592$ - 2,289 - - - 275,000 38,258 - 35,000 530,622$ 2015-16 530,622$ 47,369 4,101 - - - - 32,743 - - 549,349$ 2016-17 549,349$ 7,419 4,697 - - - - - - - 561,465$ Aging of Funds Held Current Yr Funds FY 2016-17 1 yr old Funds FY 2015-16 2 yr old Funds FY 2014-15 3 yr old Funds FY 2013-14 4 yr old Funds FY 2012-13 5 yr old Funds FY 2011-12 Funds attributed to recent 6 years If Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refund Total Ending Balance 12,116 51,470 2,289 24,814 726 3,336 94,751 466,714$ 561,465$ Balances from Transfers 497,500 Balances attributed to Impact Fees - Packet Pg 39 6 City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Open Space Impact Fee (Fund 430) Project Number Project Name Project Amount Expended Percent Funded by Impact Fees Impact Fee Expenditures Non Impact Fee Expenditures Developer Impact Fees Collected Impact Fee Interest Income Other Income -$ 100%-$ -$ -$ 100%-$ -$ Totals -$ -$ -$ 7,419$ 4,697$ -$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 549,349$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 561,465$ Fees and Interest Collected in Prior 5 years 94,751$ Funds Held Longer Than 5 Years 0 ** **Note: Funds accumulated in Fund 430 thru 6/30/17 stem from transfers from other funds Packet Pg 40 6 City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2017Airport Area Impact Fee Fund 450 Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees Interest Non AB 1600 Interest Revenue Other Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In AB 1600 Expenses Developer Reimb AB 1600 Transfers Out Total Ending Balance 2008-09 966,198$ - 48,509 - - - - 20,991 - - 993,716$ 2009-10 993,716$ 3,599 31,393 - - - - - - - 1,028,708$ 2010-11 1,028,708$ - 19,147 - - - - 19,383 - - 1,028,472$ 2011-12 1,028,472$ 11,280 16,993 - - - - 35,173 - - 1,021,572$ 2012-13 1,021,572$ 134,210 8,248 - - - - 317,712 - - 846,318$ 2013-14 846,318$ 255,011 3,668 - - - - 9,845 - - 1,095,152$ 2014-15 1,095,152$ - 4,344 - - - - 23,487 - - 937,498$ 2015-16 937,498$ 134,210 8,248 - - - - 5,000 - - 1,074,956$ 2016-17 1,074,956$ 24,437 9,577 - - - - 5,000 - - 1,103,970$ Aging of Funds Held Current Yr Funds FY 2016-17 1 Yr Old Funds FY 2015-16 2 yr old Funds FY 2014-15 3 yr old Funds FY 2013-14 4 yr old Funds FY 2012-13 5 yr old Funds FY 2011-12 Funds attributed to recent 6 years If Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refund Total Ending Balance 34,014 142,458 4,344 258,679 142,458 28,273 610,226 327,272$ 1,103,970$ Packet Pg 41 6 City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Airport Area Impact Fee (Fund 450) Project Number Project Name Budget Encumbrances Project Amount Expended Percent Funded by Impact Fees Impact Fee Expenditures Non Impact Fee Expenditures Developer Impact Fees Collected Impact Fee Interest Income 91301 Tank Farm Road & Broad Intersection 6,669$ -$ -$ 100%-$ -$ 91378 Santa Fe Bridge Replacement 50,000$ -$ 5,000$ 100%5,000$ -$ Totals 56,669$ 5,000$ 5,000$ -$ 24,437$ 9,577$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 1,074,956$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 1,103,970$ Funds Collected in recent year and prior 5 years 610,226$ Funds Held Longer than 5 Years 327,272$ Packet Pg 42 6 City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2017Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee Fund 460 Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees Interest Non AB 1600 Interest Revenue Other Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In AB 1600 Expenses Developer Reimb AB 1600 Transfers Out Total Ending Balance 2008-09 282,240$ - 48,311 - - - - 229,058 8,875 - 92,618$ 2009-10 92,618$ 79,719 15,084 - - - - - 4,043 - 183,378$ 2010-11 183,378$ 11,166 8,599 - - - - - 18,963 - 184,180$ 2011-12 184,180$ 1,797,650 18,233 - - - - 1,622,651 1,576 375,836$ 2012-13 375,836$ - 1,166 - - - - 49,577 179,809 - 147,616$ 2013-14 147,616$ 3,097 7,573 - - - - 9,979 3,097 - 145,210$ 2014-15 145,210$ - 1,514 - - - - - - - 146,724$ 2015-16 146,724$ 14,661 2,585 - - - - - - - 163,970$ 2016-17 163,970$ 423,344 5,946 - - - - 40,482 423,344 - 129,434$ Aging of Funds Held Current Yr Funds FY 2016-17 1 Yr Old Funds FY 2015-16 2 yr old Funds FY 2014-15 3 yr old Funds FY 2013-14 4 yr old Funds FY 2012-13 5 yr old Funds FY 2011-12 Funds attributed to recent 5 years If Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refund Total Ending Balance 429,289.61 16,175 1,514 10,670 1,166 1,815,883 2,274,698 (2,145,264)$ 129,434$ Packet Pg 43 6 City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Los Osos Valley Road Impact Fee (Fund 460) Project Number Project Name Project Amount Expended Percent Funded by Impact Fees Impact Fee Expenditures Developer Reimbursements Developer Impact Fees Collected Impact Fee Interest Income Other Income 90668 Costco Reimbursement 423,344$ 100%- 423,344 91288 Calle Joaquin Park and Ride 40,482$ 100% 40,482 - Totals 40,482$ 40,482$ 423,344$ 423,344$ 5,946$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 163,970$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 129,434$ Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 2,274,698$ Funds Held Longer than 5 Years - Packet Pg 44 6 City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2017Affordable Housing Inclusionary Impact Fee Fund 470 Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees Interest Non AB 1600 Interest Revenue Other Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In AB 1600 Expenses Developer Reimb AB 1600 Transfers Out Total Ending Balance 2007-08 3,811,662$ 682,418 155,631 - - - - 630,000 - - 4,019,711$ 2008-09 4,019,711$ 465,726 199,625 - - 1,450 - 892,462 - - 3,794,050$ 2009-10 3,794,050$ - 32,584 - 270,000 9,000 - 3,416,692 21,286 - 667,656$ 2010-11 667,656$ 332,841 15,988 - 30,000 3,929 - 39,854 - - 1,010,560$ 2011-12 1,010,560$ 848,788 21,915 - - - - 112,696 - - 1,768,567$ 2012-13 1,768,567$ 182,685 7,417 - - - - 30,000 - - 1,928,669$ 2013-14 1,928,669$ 793,655 52,712 - - - - 30,000 - 17,000 2,728,036$ 2014-15 2,728,036$ 159,602 12,882 - - 179,552 - 697,000 - 17,000 2,366,072$ 2015-16 2,366,072$ 625,506 34,414 - - - - 698,978 - - 2,562,826$ 2016-17 2,562,826$ 1,130,587 24,197 - - - - 698,978 - - 3,254,444$ Aging of Funds Held Current Yr Funds FY 2016-17 1 yr old Funds FY 2015-16 2 yr old Funds FY 2014-15 3 yr old Funds FY 2013-14 4 yr old Funds FY 2012-13 5 yr old Funds FY 2011-12 Funds attributed to recent 6 years If Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refund Total Ending Balance 1,154,784 659,920 172,484 846,367 190,102 870,703 3,894,360 (639,916)$ 3,254,444$ Packet Pg 45 6 City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Affordable Housing Inclusionary Impact Fee (Fund 470) Project Number Project Name Project Amount Expended Percent Funded by Impact Fees Impact Fee Expenditures Non Impact Fee Expenditures Developer Fees Collected Impact Fee Interest Income Other Income 90496 SLO County Housing Trust Fund 30,000$ 100%30,000$ -$ 90812 1st Time Homebuyer Program 222,020$ 100% 222,020$ -$ 91461 Iron Works 920,000$ 100% 920,000$ -$ 91490 214 Highland 35,000$ 100%35,000$ -$ Transfers Out General Fund -$ 100%-$ -$ Totals 1,207,020$ 1,207,020$ -$ 1,130,587$ 24,197$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 2,562,826$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 3,254,444$ Fees and Interest Collected in Prior 5 Years 3,894,360$ Fees Held Longer Than 5 Years - Packet Pg 46 6 City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2017Water Impact Fee Fund 500 Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees Interest Non AB 1600 Interest Revenue Other Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In AB 1600 Expenses Developer Reimb AB 1600 Transfers Out Total Ending Balance 2008-09 4,426,570$ 663,000 40,922 - - - - 895,190 122,259 - 4,357,561$ 2009-10 4,357,561$ 448,200 21,717 - - - - 970,096 14,918 - 3,872,300$ 2010-11 3,872,300$ 639,600 15,322 - - - - 803,305 59,772 - 3,783,689$ 2011-12 3,783,689$ 643,160 12,999 - - - - 703,006 - - 3,736,842$ 2012-13 3,736,842$ 1,625,113 26,300 - - - - 3,906,320 41,330 - 1,523,265$ 2013-14 1,523,265$ 819,477 5,650 - - - - 2,865,321 - - (516,929)$ 2014-15 (516,929)$ 2,471,502 1,972 - - - - 280,830 - - 1,675,715$ 2015-16 1,675,715$ 1,542,268 - - - - - 2,572,741 - - 645,242$ 2016-17 645,242$ 1,266,674 15,200 - - - - 2,605,220 - - (678,104)$ Aging of Funds Held Current Year FY 2016-17 1 yr old Funds FY 2015-16 2 yr old Funds FY 2014-15 3 yr old Funds FY 2013-14 4 yr old Funds FY 2012-13 5 yr old Funds FY 2011-12 Funds attributed to recent 6 years If Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refund Total Ending Balance 1,281,874 1,542,268 2,473,474 825,127 1,651,413 656,159 8,430,315 (7,785,073)$ 645,242$ Packet Pg 47 6 City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Water Impact Fee (Fund 500) Project Number Project Name Project Amount Expended Percent Funded by Impact Fees Impact Fee Expenditures Developer Reimbursements Developer Fees Collected Impact Fee Interest Income Other Income 55110 Nacimiento 4,781,194$ 39%1,864,666$ -$ 89350 Water Reuse Project Loan Debt Service 525,457$ 59% 310,020$ -$ 89350 2006 Water Treatment Plant Debt Service 1,030,948$ 29% 298,975$ -$ 89350 2012 Water Refunding Debt Service 572,000$ 23% 131,560$ -$ Totals 6,909,598$ 2,605,220$ -$ 1,266,674$ 15,200$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 645,242$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 (678,104)$ Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 8,430,315$ Funds Held Longer than 5 Years - Packet Pg 48 6 City of San Luis ObispoDeveloper Impact Fee Compliance 2017Sewer Impact Fee Fund 520 & 285 Fiscal Year Beginning Balance Impact Fees Interest Non AB 1600 Interest Revenue Other Agencies Other Revenue Transfers In AB 1600 Expenses Developer Reimb AB 1600 Transfers Out Total Ending Balance 2008-09 1,229,684$ 171,000 4,919 - - - - 528,164 49,055 - 926,494$ 2009-10 926,494$ 98,600 3,063 - - - - 854,235 3,733 - 177,655$ 2010-11 177,655$ 169,800 2,632 - - - - 849,584 14,956 - (484,541)$ 2011-12 (484,541)$ 141,237 1,990 - - - - 655,355 - - (996,669)$ 2012-13 (996,669)$ 355,395 - - - - - 1,308,687 9,430 - (1,959,391)$ 2013-14 (1,959,391)$ 268,132 2,934 - - - - 608,432 - - (2,296,757)$ 2014-15 (2,296,757)$ 1,160,654 1,092 - - - - 1,393,810 - - (2,528,821)$ 2015-16 (2,528,821)$ 674,831 7,056 - - - - 700,632 - - (2,547,566)$ 2016-17 (2,547,566)$ 653,821 11,232 - - - - 700,632 - - (2,583,145)$ Aging of Funds Held Current Yr Funds FY 2016-17 1 yr old Funds FY 2015-16 2 yr old Funds FY 2014-15 3 yr old Funds FY 2013-14 4 yr old Funds FY 2012-13 5 yr old Funds FY 2011-12 Funds attributed to recent 6 years If Number is Positive, then Funds subject to findings or refund Total Ending Balance 665,053 681,887 1,161,746 271,066 355,395 143,227 3,278,374 (5,825,940)$ (2,547,566)$ Packet Pg 49 6 City of San Luis ObispoSummary of Local Agency Improvement Fees(AB 1600 Development Impact Fees)Report for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017 Sewer Impact Fee (Fund 520 & 285) Project Number Project Name Project Amount Expended Percent Funded by Impact Fees Impact Fee Expenditures Developer Reimb Developer Fees Collected Impact Fee Interest Income Other Income 91118 Calle Joaquin Lift Station 47,280$ 28.0%13,238$ -$ 91214 Margarita Lift Station 51,246$ 51.0%26,136$ -$ 91219 WRRF Upgrade 2,423,957$ 20.5% 496,911$ -$ 89351 Tank Farm Lift Station Debt Service 742,874$ 58.0% 430,867$ -$ Totals 3,265,357$ 967,152$ -$ 653,821$ 11,232$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2016 (2,547,566)$ Available Funds as of June 30, 2017 (2,583,145)$ Fees collected in recent year and prior 5 years 3,278,374$ Funds held longer than 5 years - Packet Pg 50 6 Current Fee 7/1/2016 Use Category AASP Base Trans AASP Base TransSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit None NoneMulti-family Residential Dwelling Unit None NoneRetail1,000 Square Feet None NoneOffice1,000 Square Feet None NoneService Commercial 1,000 Square Feet $3,543 $3,568Business Park 1,000 Square Feet $4,707 $4,740Industrial1,000 Square Feet $707 $712Hospital1,000 Square Feet None NoneMotel/Hotel Room None NoneService Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump None NoneOtherAverage Daily Trip None None Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 Plan Preparation Fee Current Fee 7/1/2016 AASP Base Plan AASP Base Plan Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit None NoneMulti-family Residential Dwelling Unit None NoneRetail1,000 Square Feet None NoneOffice1,000 Square Feet None NoneService Commercial 1,000 Square Feet 139$ $140Business Park 1,000 Square Feet 95$ $96Industrial1,000 Square Feet 127$ $128Hospital1,000 Square Feet None NoneMotel/Hotel Room None NoneService Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump None NoneOtherAverage Daily Trip None None Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 Transportation Plus Plan Preparation Fee Current Fee 7/1/2016 AASP Combined AASP Combined Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit None NoneMulti-family Residential Dwelling Unit None NoneRetail1,000 Square Feet None NoneOffice1,000 Square Feet None NoneService Commercial 1,000 Square Feet $3,682 $3,707Business Park 1,000 Square Feet $4,802 $4,836Industrial1,000 Square Feet $834 $840Hospital1,000 Square Feet None NoneMotel/Hotel Room None NoneService Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump None NoneOtherAverage Daily Trip None None Airport Area Transportation Impact FeesProposed Fees 7/1/2016 Packet Pg 51 6 Current Fee 7/12/2016Use Category Base TIF Base TIFSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,597$ 3,622$ Multi-family Residential 1,000 Square Feet 3,192$ 3,214$ Retail 1,000 Square Feet 7,576$ 7,629$ Office 1,000 Square Feet 7,213$ 7,263$ Service Commercial 1,000 Square Feet 3,912$ 3,939$ Business Park 1,000 Square Feet None NoneIndustrial1,000 Square Feet 2,083$ 2,098$ Hospital 1,000 Square Feet 6,114$ 6,157$ Motel/Hotel Room 1,670$ 1,681$ Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.) Pump 8,496$ 8,555$ Other Average Daily Trip 336$ 338$ Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 **Base AA Fees should be the same as the Citywide Base Base Airport Area FeesProposed Fees 7/1/2016 Packet Pg 52 6 LOVR Base TIF Fee as Adopted on 5-02-2006 Council (as part of the Citywide TIF update) - this is the base to be added to the LOVR Sub Area Fee Current Fee 7/1/2016 LOVR Base TIF LOVR Base TIFSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit 2,965$ $2,986Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 2,631$ $2,650Retail1,000 Square Feet 6,240$ $6,284Office1,000 Square Feet 5,947$ $5,989Service Commercial 1,000 Square Feet 3,225$ $3,248Business Park 1,000 Square Feet None NoneIndustrial1,000 Square Feet 1,717$ $1,729Hospital1,000 Square Feet 5,041$ $5,077Motel/Hotel Room 1,377$ $1,386Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump 7,005$ $7,054OtherAverage Daily Trip 276$ $278 Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 Proposed Fees 7/1/2016Base LOVR Transportation Impact Fees Packet Pg 53 6 Current Fee 7/1/2016 Base TIF Base TIFSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit $2,651 $2,669Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit $2,350 $2,367Retail1,000 Square Feet $5,568 $5,607Office1,000 Square Feet $5,314 $5,351Service Commercial 1,000 Square Feet $2,882 $2,902Business Park 1,000 Square Feet None NoneIndustrial1,000 Square Feet $1,534 $1,545Hospital1,000 Square Feet $4,505 $4,537Motel/Hotel Room $1,230 $1,239Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump $6,258 $6,302OtherAverage Daily Trip $248 $250 Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 Base Margarita Area Transportation Impact FeesProposed Fees 7/1/2016 Packet Pg 54 6 Citywide Base TIF (except LOVR, Margarita, Prado) Adopted 5/2/06 Current Fee 7/1/2016Use Category Base TIF Base TIFSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,597$ 3,622$ Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,192$ 3,214$ Retail 1,000 Square Feet 7,576$ 7,629$ Office 1,000 Square Feet 7,213$ 7,263$ Service Commercial 1,000 Square Feet 3,911$ 3,938$ Business Park 1,000 Square Feet None noneIndustrial1,000 Square Feet 2,083$ 2,098$ Hospital 1,000 Square Feet 6,115$ 6,158$ Motel/Hotel Room 1,670$ 1,682$ Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump 8,496$ 8,555$ Other Average Daily Trip 335$ 337$ Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 Citywide Base TIF (except LOVR, Margarita, Prado) Adopted 5/2/06 Citywide Base Transportation Impact FeesProposed Fees 7/1/2016 Packet Pg 55 6 Current Fee 7/1/2016 Use Category LOVR Sub Area Fee LOVR Sub Area FeeSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit $6,127 $6,170Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit $4,025 $4,053Retail1,000 Square Feet $14,789 $14,892Retail Auto 1,000 Square Feet $12,052 $12,136Office1,000 Square Feet None NoneService Commercial 1,000 Square Feet $9,008 $9,071Business Park 1,000 Square Feet None NoneIndustrial1,000 Square Feet $4,449 $4,480Hospital1,000 Square Feet None NoneMotel/Hotel Room $3,340 $3,363Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump $0 $0OtherPM Trip $6,006 $6,048 Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 Adopted 9/6/05 LOVR Sub Area Transportation Impact FeesProposed Fees 7/1/2016 Packet Pg 56 6 Current Fee 7/1/2016 MASP Base Fee MASP Add On MASP Add OnSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit 9,936$ $10,006Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 6,131$ $6,173Retail1,000 Square Feet 44,794$ $45,107Office1,000 Square Feet 18,797$ $18,929Service Commercial 1,000 Square Feet None NoneBusiness Park 1,000 Square Feet 18,797$ $18,929Industrial1,000 Square Feet 18,797$ $18,929Hospital1,000 Square Feet None NoneMotel/Hotel Room None NoneService Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump None NOneOtherAverage Daily Trip -$ -$ Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 MASP Plan Preparation Current Fee 7/1/2016 MASP Add On MASP Add OnSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit 205$ $206Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 195$ $196Retail1,000 Square Feet 180$ $181Office1,000 Square Feet 180$ $181Service Commercial 1,000 Square Feet None NoneBusiness Park 1,000 Square Feet 180$ $181Industrial1,000 Square Feet 180$ $181Hospital1,000 Square Feet None NoneMotel/Hotel Room None NoneService Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump None NoneOtherAverage Daily Trip -$ -$ Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 MASP Transportation and Plan Preparation Combined Current Fee 7/1/2016 MASP Combined MASP CombinedSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit 10,141$ 10,212$ Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 6,325$ 6,369$ Retail 1,000 Square Feet 44,974$ 45,288$ Office 1,000 Square Feet 18,977$ 19,110$ Service Commercial 1,000 Square Feet None NoneBusiness Park 1,000 Square Feet 18,977$ 19,110$ Industrial 1,000 Square Feet 18,977$ 19,110$ Hospital 1,000 Square Feet None NoneMotel/Hotel Room None NoneService Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump None NoneOtherAverage Daily Trip -$ -$ MASP Park In Lieu Fee Current Fee 7/1/2016 MASP Park In Lieu MASP Park In LieuSingle Family Residential 8,580$ 8,640$ Multi-family Residential 7,225$ 7,276$ Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 Proposed Fees 7/1/2016Margarita Area Fees Packet Pg 57 6 Current Fee 7/1/2016Business Park $470 $473Service Commercial $696 $701Manufacturing$633 $637 1.023 1.007 Open Space In-Lieu FeesProposed Fees 7/1/2016 Annual CPI Adjustment: Packet Pg 58 6 Current Fee 7/1/2016Use Category Add OnSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit $7,917 $7,793.17Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit $5,530 $5,444Retail1,000 Square Feet None NoneOffice1,000 Square Feet None NoneService Commercial 1,000 Square Feet None NoneBusiness Park 1,000 Square Feet None NoneIndustrial1,000 Square Feet None NoneHospital1,000 Square Feet None NoneMotel/Hotel Room None NoneService Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump None NoneOtherAverage Daily Trip None None Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007Plan Preparation Fee Current Fee 7/1/2016 Plan Prep Add On Plan Prep Add OnSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit $802 $807Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit $300 $307Retail1,000 Square Feet NoneOffice1,000 Square Feet NoneService Commercial 1,000 Square Feet NoneBusiness Park 1,000 Square Feet NoneIndustrial1,000 Square Feet NoneHospital1,000 Square Feet NoneMotel/Hotel Room NoneService Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump NoneOtherAverage Daily Trip None Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 OASP Park Fee Current Fee 7/1/2016 OASP Park Imp Fee OASP Park Imp FeeSingle Family Residential Dwelling Unit $13,012 $13,103Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit $9,575 $9,642Retail1,000 Square Feet NoneOffice1,000 Square Feet NoneService Commercial 1,000 Square Feet NoneBusiness Park 1,000 Square Feet NoneIndustrial1,000 Square Feet NoneHospital1,000 Square Feet NoneMotel/Hotel Room NoneService Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.)Pump NoneOtherAverage Daily Trip None Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 Orcutt Area Transportation Impact FeesProposed Fees 7/1/2016 Packet Pg 59 6 Current Fee 7/1/2016Park In-Lieu FeesEach potential additional single family dwelling unit in $5,799 $5,839C/OS and R-1 zones within the subdivided area Each potential additional mult-family dwelling unit in $4,598 $4,630zones other than C/OS and R-1, within the subdivided area Annual CPI Adjustment:1.023 1.007 Park In-Lieu FeesProposed Fees 7/1/2016 Packet Pg 60 6 Parking In-Lieu Fees Current Fee 7/1/2016New Construction Community Partners $9,535 $9,602Per vehicle space required by zoning regulations for the new All Others $19,070 $19,204construction and not otherwise provided.Additions to Existing Buildings Community Partners $9,535 $9,602Per vehicle space required by zoning regulations for the addition All Others $19,070 $19,204and not otherwise provided.Change in Occupancy Requiring Additional Parking Community Partners $2,384 $2,400Per vehicle space required by zoning regulations and not otherwise All Others $4,768 $4,801and not otherwise provided. The number of spaces required by thechange shall be the difference between the number required by thenew use and the number required by the previous occupancy.1.023 1.007 Parking In-Lieu FeesProposed Fees 7/1/2016 Annual CPI Adjustment: Packet Pg 61 6 1.007 Land Use Type Margarita Tank Farm Silver City Calle Joaquin Laguna EDU* Citywide ResidentialPer Unit Single Family Residential 1.0 3,755$ 2,764$ 3,655$ 1,365$ 1,842$ Multi-Family Residential 0.7 2,629$ 1,935$ 2,559$ 956$ 1,289$ $345Mobile Home 0.6 2,253$ 1,659$ 2,193$ 819$ 1,105$ $296Studio Unit (450 sf or less)0.3 1,127$ 829$ 1,097$ 410$ 553$ $148Non-Residential Meter Size 5/8" to 3/4"1.0 3,755$ 2,764$ 3,655$ 1,365$ 1,842$ $4931 Inch 1.7 6,384$ 4,699$ 6,214$ 2,321$ 3,131$ $8391-1/2 Inch 3.4 12,767$ 9,398$ 12,428$ 4,642$ 6,263$ $1,6782 Inch 5.4 20,278$ 14,927$ 19,739$ 7,373$ 9,946$ $2,6653 Inch 10.7 40,180$ 29,577$ 39,113$ 14,611$ 19,707$ $5,2804 Inch 16.7 62,710$ 46,162$ 61,045$ 22,804$ 30,758$ $8,2406 Inch 33.4 125,420$ 92,325$ 122,091$ 45,607$ 61,517$ $16,481 WASTEWATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE * Equivalent dwelling unit Proposed Fees 7/1/2016 Additional Catchment Area Charges Impact Fee $493 Packet Pg 62 6 1.007 Current Fee 7/1/2016EDU*Citywide Residential: Per UnitSingle Family Residential 1.0 $11,023 $11,100.16Multi-Family Residential 0.7 7,716 7,770Mobile Home 0.6 6,614 6,660Studio Unit, 450 square feet or less 0.3 3,307 3,330Non-Residential: Meter Size3/4 Inch 1.0 11,023 11,1001 Inch 1.7 18,739 18,8701 1/2 Inch 3.4 37,478 37,7412 Inch 5.4 59,523 59,9413 Inch 10.7 117,944 118,7724 Inch 16.7 184,081 185,3736 Inch 33.4 368,162 370,745 * Equivalent Dwelling Unit WATER DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULEProposed Fees 7/1/2016 Water Development Impact Fee Packet Pg 63 6 Page intentionally left blank. Packet Pg 64 6 Meeting Date: 1/9/2018 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Cara Vereschagin, Planning Technician SUBJECT: 2018 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING RESERVATION LETTER TO THE SAN LUIS OBISPO NON-PROFIT HOUSING CORPORATION. RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Human Relations Commission (HRC), authorize the Community Development Director to execute the attached Reservation Letter, authorizing the City to reserve $288,847 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds awarded to the San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation for property acquisition for the Courtyard at the Meadows affordable housing project. DISCUSSION Community Development Block Grant Background The City’s annual CDBG review process provides Council and the public with an opportunity to provide early input in the grant award process and assist the City Council with direct input to prioritize community needs. One of the main purposes of the process is to maintain an open, inclusive, and fair grant application process. The HRC advises the Council on community needs and funding recommendations, which the Council adopted on November 7th. On December 6, 2017, the HRC held a public hearing to review the 2018 CDBG draft funding recommendations with respect to the Council’s adopted funding priorities. With a preliminary allocation of $444,380.00, the HRC recommends priority funding two projects in addition to the necessary administrative costs. In the case that the two projects are not approved by the County of San Luis Obispo, the HRC recommends any residual funding to be allocated to the remaining CDBG application received. Those recommendations were forwarded to the County to be included in the Draft 2018 Urban County of San Luis Obispo Community Participation Plan where a 30-day public review process is required. After the public review process, those recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council and a public hearing has been scheduled for March 6, 2018. San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation’s 2018 CDBG Application Of the two projects recommended for priority funding by the HRC, one recommendation is for the San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation (SLONP) for property acquisition for the Courtyard at the Meadows affordable housing project (“Project”) located in the Serra Meadows neighborhood (see Attachment B). The HRC recommends funding the full allocation of $288,847 to SLONP for building and construction of 36 new affordable housing units to very low and low-income residents. SLONP’s Project meets the second funding priority adopted by Council, to develop and enhance affordable housing for low and very low-income persons. Packet Pg 65 7 Courtyard at the Meadows Property Acquisition Costs San Luis Obispo Nonprofit Housing Corporation’s Courtyard at the Meadows Project is a partnership with the Housing Authority of San Luis Obispo (HASLO). While the Project is in early stages of gathering and finalizing funding; a wide range of funding sources will be needed, including: Low Income Housing Tax Credits, funding from local jurisdictions, and CDBG and HOME funding. An initial Project budget is outlined within SLONP’s CDBG application, provided in Attachment B. The first stage of the Project, property acquisition, is being funded through CDBG funds. HASLO is the current owner of the property and is working to complete all offsite improvements, which is estimated to cost $350,000. Once complete, SLONP will purchase the land from HASLO for $350,000, of which $288,847 has been requested in CDBG funds from the City of San Luis Obispo. The request of CDBG funds makes up just 3 percent of the total cost to construct this $12 million Project. Need for Reservation Letter For the Project to be financially viable, SLONP is applying for Low Income Housing Tax Credits, in addition to the wide range of public funding sources mentioned above. Prior to Low Income Housing Tax Credit application submittal all funding sources must be established and committed. A successful allocation of tax credits will result in millions of dollars committed by an outside investor for development of the Project. Since Low Income Housing Tax Credit applications are due February 28, 2018, one week before Council’s final review, the City is following a new expedited timeline set by the County to ensure any tax credit eligible projects that are granted CDBG funds can secure those commitments prior to the February 28th deadline. This process requires the Council to show reserved support and earmark those CDBG funds for this Project through a Reservation Letter, provided in Attachment A. Additionally, the project site is in an area that is classified as a Difficult to Develop Area (DDA), which means that the Project is eligible for Tax Credits at 130% of qualified basis. This means that more of the development costs are borne by the Tax Credit funding than in areas not designated a DDA. If the Project is not funded this year, it will lose this benefit; resulting in a 30% reduction in tax credit eligibility. This translates to a loss of $1 million, funding that would otherwise need to be raised from local sources, thus potentially delaying the development of this Project for years. SLONP has until March 16, 2018 to gain necessary funding commitments and apply for additional tax-exempt bonds and credits to be eligible to receive this 30% boost. Next Steps Once the Council has authorized the Reservation Letter to San Luis Nonprofit Housing Corporation, SLONP will be able to apply for Low Income Housing Tax Credits and other tax - exempt sources. On March 6th, the Council will hold a public hearing to review all 2018 CDBG funding recommendations. Once the final 2018 CDBG funding recommendations are adopted by the City Council in March, those recommendations will be forwarded to the County Board of Supervisors for inclusion in Packet Pg 66 7 the 2018 Urban County Action Plan in April, which includes funding allocations for all the participating jurisdictions. Although the CDBG fiscal year begins on July 1, 2018, funds for projects awarded by the City Council are not expected to be available until October. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The authorization to submit a Reservation Letter to SLONP for 2018 CDBG funds is exempt from environmental review per Section 15061 (b)(3) General Rule of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Project is an action to award funding, and is located within the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP). The City Council certified the Final Program EIR for the MASP on October 12, 2004. On April 15, 2014, the City Council adopted the Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) which addressed the changes and revisions to Tract #2342 and #2353. Lot 108 of Tract #2353 was to be dedicated for affordable housing, thus it was determined through the entitlement process that Courtyard and the Meadows was consistent with the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all mitigation measures adopted as part of the MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND were applicable to the Project are carried forward and applied to the Project to effectively mitigate the impacts previously identified. FISCAL IMPACT Decisions made regarding CDBG funding determine how the limited pool of funds the City receives through the Urban County allocation process is spent. To the extent that projects are funded through CDBG, the burden on the City’s General Fund or Affordable Housing Fund to pay for those projects is reduced. While the Applicant has not yet officially submitted a letter for an Affordable Housing Fund award, the City anticipates a request for approximately $17,500 per unit, for a total of up to $630,000, to be submitted to Council for approval; the City’s Affordable Housing Fund has over $1.6 million currently available for new projects. As a result, projects that receive CDBG funding have a positive fiscal impact on the City if they otherwise would have been paid for out of other City funds. ALTERNATIVES 1. The Council may deny the Reservation Letter and wait until March 6th to approve any CDBG funds for SLONP’s Courtyard at the Meadows Project. Staff does not recommend this alternative since without a CDBG reserved commitment, SLONP will lose its Difficult to Develop Area status; resulting in a 30% reduction in tax credit basis in which the Project would otherwise be eligible. This action could potentially delay the Project for years. 2. The Council may continue consideration of authorizing the Reservation Letter. Staff does not recommend this action because the delay in time would not allow SLONP to include the City’s CDBG allocation in their Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Application. Packet Pg 67 7 Attachments: a - CDBG Reservation Letter SLONP b - CDBG - SLONP - Courtyard at the Meadows - 2018 Packet Pg 68 7 City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org January 10, 2018 Mr. Ken Litzinger San Luis Nonprofit Housing Corporation 487 Leff Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Reservation of City of San Luis Obispo CDBG Funds to Courtyard at the Meadows Dear Mr. Litzinger, On December 6, 2017, the City’s Human Relations Commission reviewed the 2018 City Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications and developed recommendations based on the approved funding priorities. The Commission recommended to reserve City CDBG funds in the amount of $288,847, to the Courtyard at the Meadows project (“Project”). The funds will be set aside until December 6, 2018 for the purpose of completing the financing for the Project. A firm commitment of CDBG funds by the City must be approved by the City Council, tentatively scheduled for March 6, 2018. Once officially approved by the Council, recommendations will be forwarded to the County of San Luis Obispo’s 2018 Urban County Community Participation Plan, to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. The following are required in order to receive a firm commitment: 1. Success obtaining a tax credit award; 2. All financing sources must be confirmed; 3. All planning and zoning approvals; 4. All planning and zoning approvals; Please contact Cara Vereschagin, Planning Technician, at (805) 781-7596 or cveresch@slocity.org should you have questions. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Michael Codron Community Development Director City of San Luis Obispo Packet Pg 69 7 Packet Pg 70 7 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & BUILDING HSG-1003 09/08/2017 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Year 2018 Application 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 1 OF 21 www.sloplanning.org | actionplan@co.slo.ca.us The County of San Luis Obispo is pleased to announce the availability of funds for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Applications MUST address one of the three national objectives set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), or they will NOT be considered for CDBG funding (see the section on Qualifying Criteria for detailed information on the objectives). Furthermore, completed applications should provide the necessary exhibits, budgets, or requested information on targeted populations. Please email grant applications to ActionPlan@co.slo.ca.us by the application deadline of 5:00 P.M., Friday, October 20, 2017. Please label your email subject with the grant program name and the agency name (Example: CDBG – CAPSLO). *Note: Supplemental documents and information or answers which exceed the allotted space or character limit may be added as attachments. APPLICANT INFORMATION (1-1) Organization Name DUNS Number Contact Person/Title Phone/Fax Numbers Email Address City, State, Zip PROJECT SUMMARY (2-1) Project/Program Title Project/Program Address Jurisdiction/Area Served Targeted clientele Project type (select one): Public Service Public Facilities Economic Development Housing (2-2) Brief Project Description: (2-3) Total CDBG Funding Requested Total Cost to Complete Project Anticipated Start Date:Anticipated End Date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acket Pg 71 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 2 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org AGENCY DETAILS, CAPACITY, AND EXPERIENCE (25 points) (3-1) Type of Agency 501 (c)(3) For Profit Gov’t/Public Faith-based Other: Date of Incorporation Annual Operating Budget Number of Paid Staff Number of Volunteers (3-2) Agency Mission Statement: (3-3) Please describe your organization’s capacity to implement the proposed project/program. Who will be involved in the project/program? (In-house employees, contractors, other agency partners, etc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acket Pg 72 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 3 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org (3-4) Briefly describe your agency’s record keeping system with relevance to the proposed project/program: (3-5) Briefly describe your agency’s auditing requirements, including those for the proposed project/program, and attach a copy of your most recent audit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acket Pg 73 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 4 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org (3-6) Will the services offered by your organization increase or expand as a result of CDBG assistance? If YES, please answer the following two questions. Yes No What new programs or services will be provided? Describe how existing programs or services will be expanded and what percentage of an increase is expected? (3-7) If your program serves homeless households, please describe how your program coordinates with other homeless service providers to connect homeless individuals and families to resources.  GPMIRXW [MPP FI TVSZMHIH [MXL RI[ TIVQERIRX EJJSVHEFPI VIRXEP LSYWMRK8LI TVSNIGX LEW E GSQQYRMX] VSSQ [LMGL [MPP FI YWIH XS SJJIV ZEVMSYW IRVMGLMRK TVSKVEQW ERH WIVZMGIW 8LMW MW RSX E WIVZMGIW TVSNIGX -X MW PERH EGUYMWMXMSR MR WYTTSVX SJ E RI[ GSRWXVYGXMSR EJJSVHEFPI VIRXEP TVSNIGX 2% Packet Pg 74 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 5 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org QUALIFYING CRITERIA (10 points) The Community Development Block Grant program was established by Congress in 1974 with passage of the Housing and Community Development Act and is administered by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This program provides funds to municipalities and other units of government around the country to develop viable urban communities. This is accomplished by providing affordable, decent housing, a suitable living environment and by expanding economic opportunities principally for low and moderate income persons. Although local units of government develop their own programs and funding priorities, all activities must be consistent with one or more of the following HUD national objectives: Principally benefits low- and moderate-income persons Prevents or eliminates slum or blight Addresses an urgent need or problem in the community (e.g., natural disaster) As an entitlement Urban County under the CDBG program, the County of San Luis Obispo receives annual funding allocations from the federal government to fund activities to address these national objectives. As a funding recipient, San Luis Obispo County is required to submit an Annual Action Plan that describes how the Urban County will utilize federal funds to address the national objectives in a manner that will produce the greatest measurable impact on the Urban County communities. The lead agency responsible for submission of this Plan to HUD is the Planning and Building Department of the County of San Luis Obispo. (4-1) Please identify the appropriate CDBG objective that applies to the proposed project/program by checking the box next to A, B, or C. In addition, please provide a corresponding explanation of how the proposed activity meets the national objective. A.Objective One – Low/Moderate Income (check one): Note: To meet this national objective, the proposed activity must benefit a specific clientele or residents in a particular area of the County or participating city, of which at least 51 percent of who are low- and moderate-income persons. Select one: Area Benefit – The project serves only a limited geographic area which is proven by 2010 Census data or survey to be a predominately (51% or more) low/moderate-income area. Applicants choosing this category must be able to prove their project/activity primarily benefits low/moderate-income households. Clientele – The project benefits a specific group of people, at least 51% of whom are low/moderate-income persons. Note: Income verification for clients must be provided for this category; however, the following groups are presumed to be low/moderate-income: abused   Packet Pg 75 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 6 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org children; elderly persons; battered spouses; homeless persons; illiterate adults; adults meeting census definition of severely disabled; persons living with AIDS; and migrant farm workers. Housing – The project adds or improves permanent residential structures that will be/are occupied by low/moderate-income households upon completion. Jobs – The project creates or retains permanents jobs, at least 51% of which are taken by low/moderate-income persons or considered to be available to low/moderate-income persons. Assistance to Microenterprises – The project provides technical assistance to microenterprises owned by low/moderate-income persons. B.Objective Two – Slums or Blight Assists in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight. Note: To meet this national objective, the proposed activity must be within a designated slum or blighted area and must be designed to address one or more conditions that contributed to the deterioration of the area. Select one: Addressing Slums or Blight on an Area Basis Addressing Slums or Blight on a Spot Basis - This project will prevent or eliminate specific conditions of blight or physical decay. Activities are limited to clearance, historic preservation, rehabilitation of buildings, but only to the extent necessary to eliminate conditions detrimental to public health and safety. C.Objective Three – Urgent Need Meets community development needs having a particular urgency where existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and no other funding sources are available, i.e., a major catastrophe such as a flood or earthquake. Note: To meet this national objective, the proposed activity must deal with major catastrophes or emergencies such as floods or earthquakes. Please explain how the proposed activity meets the selected National Objective:  %PP GPMIRXW [MPP FI EX SV FIPS[ PS[ SV ZIV] PS[ MRGSQI YTSR IRXV] XS XLMW TIVQERIRX LSYWMRK Packet Pg 76 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 7 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org (4-2) Which of the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan goal(s) does your project/program plan to address? Check all that apply. Create housing opportunities for residents Preserve and maintain existing affordable housing Reduce and end homelessness Create a suitable living environment through public services Stabilize and revitalize diverse neighborhoods (public facility improvements) Improve educational and job readiness (4-3) Check any of the following eligible activity categories that apply to the proposed project or program:(Refer to CDBG regulations and https://www.hudexchange.info/resources/documents/Basically-CDBG-Chapter-2-Activity.pdf ) Acquisition of real property* Disposition of real property Public facilities and improvements (may include acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation or installation)*† Privately owned utilities Public services Relocation of individuals, families, businesses, non-profit organizations, and/or farms Removal of architectural barriers Housing rehabilitation† Homeownership assistance Technical assistance to businesses/micro-enterprise development Administrative technical assistance and planning studies (specified) PROJECT DETAILS/DESCRIPTION (25 points) (5-1) Targeted Clientele: Individuals or households? Identify the projected target population your proposed activity will serve. (Include age, race, residency, handicap status, income level or other unit characteristics or subgroup information) * See relocation provisions in Exhibit A † See lead-based paint provisions in Exhibit A     'SYVX]EVH EX XLI 1IEHS[W [MPP TVSZMHI  RI[ EJJSVHEFPI VIRXEP ETEVXQIRXW JSV  PS[ MRGSQI LSYWILSPHW EX SV FIPS[  %VIE 1IHMER -RGSQI  ERH  ZIV] PS[ MRGSQI LSYWILSPHW EX SV FIPS[  %VIE 1IHMER -RGSQI Packet Pg 77 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 8 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org (5-2) If the project or program is designed specifically to provide benefit to low- and moderate-income persons, please estimate the number of unduplicated persons (or households) to benefit from the project, and break that estimate down by income group. Note: Unduplicated means the number who are served, i.e., the grant will allow 25 children to participate in preschool – not 25 children x 5 days x 52 weeks = 6,500. (Check box if project serves households or individual persons) Number Households Persons TOTAL Number of Persons or Households (regardless of income): Of the total number of persons or households entered above, how many will be low-income: (earning 51% - 80% or less of the County median-income) Of the total number of persons or households entered above, how many will be very low-income: (earning 50% or less of the County median-income) (5-3) Please describe the proposed project or program in detail.Make a case for why your project should be funded. Describe the need and the degree of urgency for the proposed project or program. What would the consequences be if the proposed project or program is not funded in the next year?Please attach a timeline of the project/program milestones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acket Pg 78 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 9 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org (5-4) Does the project require the issuance of a permit? (State, local, or federal) Yes No If YES, please respond to the following: Have the necessary permits been issued? Please provide proof of issuance: If permits are required but not yet obtained, when will the permits be issued? Identify the permits necessary: 8LI '(&+ EGXMZMX] PERH EGUYMWMXMSR HSIW RSX VIUYMVI E TIVQMX ,S[IZIV XLI TVSNIGX LEW VIGIMZIH EPP SJ MX W IRXMXPIQIRXW ;I I\TIGX XS WYFQMX JSV FYMPHMRK TIVQMX MR 1EVGL SJ  See attached exhibit. ;I SFXEMRIH %6' ETTVSZEP SR  JSV XLI HIZIPSTQIRX TPER ;I I\TIGX XS ETTP] JSV FYMPHMRK TIVQMX MR 1EVGL  ERH SFXEMR TIVQMX MWWYERGI F] 3GXSFIV SJ  ;I SFXEMRIH %6' ETTVSZEP SR  JSV XLI HIZIPSTQIRX TPER ;I I\TIGX XS ETTP] JSV FYMPHMRK TIVQMX MR 1EVGL  ERH SFXEMR TIVQMX MWWYERGI F] 3GXSFIV SJ  Packet Pg 79 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 10 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org BENEFICIARY DATA (15 points) Organizations will be asked to provide detailed data regarding race, ethnicity, gender, income, etc. If they cannot provide data, they may not be eligible for funding. (6-1) How do you document and maintain income status of each client in compliance with HUD regulations?(Example: very low ( AMI), low ( AMI) and moderate-income AMI)) Area Median Income (AMI). Please provide a sample of your intake process as an attachment if possible. (6-2) How do you collect demographic data on the beneficiaries of the proposed project or program? (Example: racial/ethnic characteristics) Please provide a sample of your intake process as an attachment if possible. )ZIV] GPMIRX [MPP FI GIVXMJMIH ,%703 [MPP TIVJSVQ EPP MRGSQI GIVXMJMGEXMSRW  ,%703 LEW GIVXMJMIH GSQTPMERGI WTIGMEPMWXW SR WXEJJ [MXL ]IEVW SJ I\TIVMIRGI %X XLI LSYWMRK ETTPMGEXMSRMRXEOI WXEKI MRGSQI ERH EWWIX MRJSVQEXMSR [MPP FI GSPPIGXIH JVSQ IEGL GPMIRX [MXL FEGO YT HSGYQIRXEXMSR *MPIW [MPP FI QEMRXEMRIH ERH EZEMPEFPI JSV GSYRX] MRWTIGXMSR ,%703 GYVVIRXP] TIVJSVQW MRGSQI ERH GSQTPMERGI GIVXMJMGEXMSRW JSV  GPMIRXW ERRYEPP] -RJSVQEXMSR MW GSPPIGXIH EX XLI ETTPMGEXMSR WXEKI ,S[IZIV MX MW QEHI GPIEV XLEX HIQSKVETLMG MRJSVQEXMSR WYGL EW VEGI ERH IXLRMGMX] EVI JSV ,9( TYVTSWIW SRP] ERH LEZI RSX FIEVMRK SR EGGITXERGI MRXS XLI LSYWMRK Packet Pg 80 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 11 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org FINANCIAL INFORMATION (20 points) For CDBG applications to the County of San Luis Obispo involving acquisition, construction, or rehabilitation projects, the County will require additional information on financial source and use of funds and other budget details prior to the draft Action Plan funding recommendations. (7-1) How do you plan to fund the operation and maintenance costs (if any) associated with this project? Are these funds available now? If not, when will they be available? Will the project be required to pay a prevailing wage? (7-2) Do you have any CDBG funds remaining from prior Fiscal Year allocations? Yes No If YES, answer the following: What fiscal year did you receive funding? What project did you receive funding for? How much is remaining? 8LI VIRXW GSPPIGXIH [MPP JYRH EPP STIVEXMRK GSWXW MRGPYHMRK VITEMVW QEMRXIRERGI ERH QSVXKEKI TE]QIRXW -X MW RSX ERXMGMTEXIH XLEX XLI TVSNIGX [MPP FI VIUYMVIH XS TE] TVIZEMPMRK [EKI  &MWLST 7XVIIX 7XYHMSW 232,000. Funds will be spent March 2018 per TCAC schedule Packet Pg 81 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 12 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org (7-3) Itemize all sources of funding expected to be available for each category, if applicable (please include commitment letters if available): CDBG Funds Requested Other Federal Fund(s) State Source(s) Local Source(s) Applicants Matching Funds Other: (7-4) Will CDBG funds be used to match/leverage other funds from other sources? List below funding sources and amounts and identify award dates of these sources. Source(s):Amount: TOTAL (7-5) Identify all jurisdictions you are applying to for CDBG funds. Indicate the amount applied for at each jurisdiction, and the total amount requested. Note: Any project/program being recommended less than $8,000 total will not be funded per the Cooperation Agreement. City of Arroyo Grande City of Atascadero City of Morro Bay City of Paso Robles City of Pismo Beach City of San Luis Obispo County of San Luis Obispo TOTAL   ,31)    0S[-RGSQI ,SYWMRK 8E\ 'VIHMXW     Packet Pg 82 7 Packet Pg 83 7 Packet Pg 84 7 Packet Pg 85 7 Packet Pg 86 7 Packet Pg 87 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 18 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org Exhibit A – Housing Rehab and Construction Projects Will the affordable housing project be applying for tax credits? Yes No If yes, what round? March June If March was selected and if your project is identified to receive funds, will your project require a Reservation Letter for the state tax creditors Yes No Has NEPA been completed on this project? Yes No How old is the property/building in terms of years? Has a property inspection report been completed if undertaking rehab? Yes No For buildings/structures constructed prior to 1978: Have asbestos and lead hazard risk assessment reports been issued for the facility? Yes No Has the facility been abated for asbestos and lead paint? Yes No Will children occupy the facility? Yes No If yes, indicate the age range of children: Has a Phase I or Phase II environmental assessment been conducted for the property? If so, please provide a copy. Yes No List and describe any known hazards (e.g. asbestos, storage tanks – underground, aboveground):   2%  2I[ GSRWXVYGXMSR 2% Packet Pg 88 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 19 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org Has the property been designated or been determined to be potentially eligible for designation as a local, state, or national historic site? If Yes, describe below: Yes No Is the building/structure located on a Historic Site? Yes No Is the building/structure located in a Historic District? Yes No Is the building/structure in a Flood Zone? Yes No Is the building/structure in a Flood Plain? Yes No Does your agency have flood insurance? Yes No Will there be demolition required? Yes No The questions below ask about zoning. If zoning information is not known, contact the local municipality to request assistance. What is the project structure type? Residential Commercial Public facility Public right-of-way What is the current zoning of the project site? Is the project site zoned correctly for the proposed activity? Yes No If no, provide below an explanation of efforts and a timetable to change the zoning or obtain a variance: 674 Packet Pg 89 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 20 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org B.15. Does the project require temporary/permanent relocation of occupants?Yes No If yes, this project is subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URA). Describe the relocation plans, including timetable and notifications to occupants. List how many of the occupied units are: (a) owner-occupied; (b) renter-occupied; or (c) businesses. Indicate whether temporary and/or permanent displacement is required. [NOTE: This will be for site information only. Relocation activities will not be eligible for funding with Fiscal Year 2018 CDBG funds.] Packet Pg 90 7 HSG-1003 09/08/2017 2018 CDBG APPLICATION 976 OSOS STREET, ROOM 300 | SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 | (805) 781-5600 | TTY/TRS 7-1-1 PAGE 21 OF 21 planning@co.slo.ca.us | www.sloplanning.org Federal regulations require that all facilities and/or services assisted with CDBG funds be accessible to the disabled. Accessibility includes such things as: entrance ramps, parking with universal logo signage, grab bars around commodes and showers, top of toilet seats that meet required height from the floor, drain lines under lavatory sink either wrapped or insulated, space for wheelchair maneuverability, accessible water fountains, access between floors (elevators, ramps, lifts), and other improvements needed to assure full access to funded facilities/programs, including serving the blind and deaf. Describe below whether the project currently meets ADA standards for accessibility by the disabled. If not, describe the accessibility problems and methods to be utilized to address the problems, including funding and timetable. NOTE: The project site must first be fully ADA-compliant before other construction activities can be implemented with CDBG funding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acket Pg 91 7 5-4 Permits Necessary Architectural Review Commission Approval Courtyard at the Meadows Packet Pg 92 7 Community Development 919 Palm Street . San Luis Obispo . CA 93401-3218 805 .781 .7170 slocity org September 29, 2016 HAS LO PO Box 1289 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 SUBJECT: ARCH-3370-2016 (3175 Violet Street) Gentlemen: Review of a new affordable housing project within the Serra Meadows development Lot 108 The Architectural Review Commission, at its meeting of September 12, 2016, approved your request, based on the findings and subject to the conditions, as noted in the attached resolution. The Architectural Review Commission's approval expires after three years if construction has not started, unless the Commission designated a different time period. On request, the Community Development Director may grant a single, one-year extension. If you have any questions, please contact Kyle Bell at (805) 781-7524. Sincerely, T~:/ Principal Planner Community Development Attachment: Resolution No. ARC-1018-16 cc: San Luis Obispo County Assessor's Office Packet Pg 93 7 RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1018-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION APPROVING A NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT THAT CONSISTS OF FOUR NEW BUILDINGS THAT INCLUDE 36 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE STREET YARD TO 10 FEET FOR A PORTION OF THE BUILDING ALONG VIOLET STREET, WHERE 15 FEET IS NORMALLY REQUIRED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ER-120-13 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 10512 (2014 SERIES), AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2016 (3175 VIOLET STREET ARCH-3370-2016) 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 April 15, 2014, approving the proposed revised map and modified conditions of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 2353 adopted through City Council Resolution No. 10512 (2014 Series) originally approved through City Council Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series) pursuant to a proceeding instituted under MOD/TR/ER 120-13, Mangano Homes Inc., applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on March 21, 2016, for the purpose of considering a conceptual review of the project, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-2663-2016, SLO Non-Profit Housing Corp., applicant; and · WHEREAS, the Airport Land Use Commission of the County of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Board of Supervisors Chambers of the County Government Center, 1055 Monterey Street, Room Dl 70, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 20, 2016, which determined that the proposed density bonus is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under, HASLO Project, SLO Non-Profit Housing Corp., applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on September 12, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH- 3370-2016, SLO Non-Profit Housing Corp., applicant; and WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of Packet Pg 94 7 Resolution No. ARC-I 018-16 3175 Violet Street (ARCH-3370-2016) Page 2 the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants final approval to the project (ARCH-3370-2016), based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with site constraints and the scale and character of the neighborhood. 2. The project is consistent with the Housing Element because the project provides a variety of residential types, sizes, and styles of dwellings (HE 5.4). The project supports Housing Element Policies related to inclusion and expansion of affordable housing units within the City (HE 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 7.1, 7.2, and 8.1) 3. The project is consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element policy 4.4.3 because the project promotes higher-density, compact housing to achieve more efficient use of public facilities and services and to improve the City's jobs/housing balance. 4. The project is consistent with the Margarita Area Specific Plan because the project site is one of two sites dedicated to provide a minimum of 40 affordable dwellings within the housing tracts of the western enclave of the Margarita Area (Tract 2343, 2353, & 2428). 5. The design of the project is consistent with the Community Design standards of the Margarita Area Specific Plan and has been designed in accordance with the Spanish architectural style which is an appropriate architectural style for all land use types within the Margarita Area. The project design incorporates articulation, massing, and a mix of color/finish materials that are compatible with the neighborhood and complementary to other development within the immediate vicinity. Density Bonus 6. The proposed project will provide quality affordable housing consistent with the intent of Chapter 17. 90 of the Municipal Code, and the requested density bonus and reduction to site development standards is necessary to facilitate the production of affordable housing units. 7. The Margarita Area Specific Plan limits the locations of density bonuses within Residential Development Areas due to the need of consistency with the County Airport Land Use Plan, density bonuses are only available in the areas identified in Figure 5 of the Plan. On April 20, 2016 the Airport Land Use Commission held a pre-application review and unanimously determined that the proposed density bonus for the project site was consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. The proposed density bonus of 35 percent is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element 2.4.2 for providing density bonuses on a receiving site within an expansion area. Building Height, Mass and Scale 8. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project will not negatively alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the streets appearance because the site is physically suited Packet Pg 95 7 Resolution No. ARC-I 018-16 3175 Violet Street (ARCH-3370-2016) Page 3 for the proposed type of development allowed in the R-3-SP zone. The project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because the development is designed in a manner that does not deprive reasonable solar access to adjacent properties by providing greater setbacks than what is required for majority of the buildings mass along the street frontage that also incorporates vertical and horizontal wall plan offsets that provide high-quality and aesthetically pleasing architectural design. 9. The proposed height, mass and scale of the project is necessary to provide additional dwelling units to be dedicated affordable for "low & very low" income households. Setback Exception 10. The setback reduction will not constitute a grant of special privilege of an entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity as the setback reduction is consistent with the · development pattern of adjacent properties with the similar zoning which allow 10-foot street yard setbacks for front porches. 11. Granting of the five-foot setback reduction for Building 3 will not alter the overall character of the neighborhood or the streets appearance because the proposal is minor and the setback reduction will allow reasonable development of the project site. 12. The project will not deprive adjacent properties ofreasonable solar access because the portion of the structure requiring a setback reduction will cast no greater shadow as the highest point of the structure is setback from the property line of the closest adjacent structure greater than what is required by the setback/height requirements of the Margarita Area Specific Plan. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring full setbacks because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. On October 12, 2004, the City Council certified the Final Program EIR for the Margarita Area Specific Plan through Council Resolution 9615 (2004 Series). On April 15, 2014 the City Council adopted the Tiered Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ER-120-13) which addressed the changes and revisions to Tract #2342 & #2353. The City Council Resolution No. 10512 (2014 Series) incorporates all revised mitigation measures and supersedes in their entirety the previously approved mitigation measures approved by Council Resolution No. 9777 (2006 Series). The City Council Resolution No. 10512 includes Condition #48 which requires that Lot 108 of Tract #2353 is to be dedicated for affordable housing to provide for the required affordable units for both Tract #2342 & #2353. The project is consistent with the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, all mitigation measures adopted as part of the MASP EIR and Subsequent Tiered MND that are applicable to the proposed project are carried forward and applied to the proposed project to effectively mitigate the impacts that were previously identified. SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions: Planning 1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers Packet Pg 96 7 Resolution No. ARC-1018-16 3175 Violet Street (ARCH-3370-2016) Page 4 and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review ("Indemnified Claims"). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. 2. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions and code requirements of project approval listed as sheet number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 3. The project shall comply with all mitigation measures and conditions, applicable to the project site, established under City Council Resolution No. 10512 (2014 Series). 4. In order to qualify for the parking requirements established in the Zoning Regulations Section l 7.16.060K (Low-Income Housing Parking) the proposed residential units are limited to "low & very low" income households. To provide housing for "moderate" income households the applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the parking requirements provided in Chapter 17.90 of the Zoning Regulations or request an Alternative Incentive for parking requirements. 5. Continued affordability provisions shall be developed to assure units remain affordable to residents that earn low and very low incomes. The continuance of affordability shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the project's Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions (CC & R's) to demonstrate compliance with notification requirements related to noise associated with the San Luis Obispo Airport, as discussed by the Airport Land Use Commission on April 20, 2016, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 7. The applicant shall submit building plans that include a trash enclosure design that is finished with high quality materials to match the architecture of the project buildings; design of the enclosure is subject to the Community Design Guidelines and to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 8. The project shall be constructed to meet the maximum outdoor and indoor noise exposure levels of Noise Element Table 1 (60 dB for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor spaces). 9. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed Packet Pg 97 7 Resolution No. ARC-1018-16 3175 Violet Street (ARCH-3370-2016) Page 5 building surfaces and other improvements. Colors and materials shall be as shown on the color elevation submitted with Architectural Review application. The applicant is encouraged to further explore the opportunity to include more articulation on the surfaces of the elevations through additional tilework, accent pieces, accent colors, decorative iron, trellises and "Juliet balconies" where neighborhood privacy is not an issue, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 10. The proposed stucco walls shall have a smooth, hand-troweled or sand finish appearance, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. This shall be noted on plans submitted for a building permit. 11. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. 12. Plans submitted for construction permits will include elevation and detail drawings of all walls and fences. Fences, walls, and hedges will comply with the development standards described in the Zoning Regulations (§17.16.050-Fences, Walls, and Hedges). 13. The locations of all lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings. All wall- mounted lighting shall complement building architecture. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets on the submitted building plans. The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light is directed downward consistent with the requirements of the City's Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23 of the Zoning Regulations. 14. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally to the building. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line-of-sight diagram shall be included to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements. 15. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. The applicant shall meet with the City Arborist to identify and implement best methods for successful future screening of the sloped planting areas, including but not limited to, tree size, tree species, soil amendments and irrigation, with the performance goal of fast maturity of screening on the steeper slope, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Community Development Director. I ' I Packet Pg 98 7 Resolution No. ARC-I 018-16 3175 Violet Street (ARCH-3370-2016) Page 6 16. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. Engineering Division -Public Works/Community Development Department 17. Projects involving the construction of new structures requires that complete frontage improvements be installed or that existing improvements be upgraded per city standard. MC 12.16.050 18. The building plan submittal shall include the dimensions and bearings for all property lines for reference. 19. The building plan submittal shall show the existing driveway approach to be abandoned and replaced with curb and gutter per City Engineering Standards. 20. The new driveway approaches shall be designed to comply with current standards . The current City and ADA standard requires a 4' accessible sidewalk extension behind the ramp. 21. The building plan submittal shall show and dimension the 60' right-of-way width for both Violet St. and Plum St. on the site plan. Show the 30' dimension of the centerline to property line, 18' centerline to face of curb, and 12' from face of curb to property line dimensions for reference. 22. The building plan submittal shall show the development of the driveway and parking areas to comply with the Parking and Driveway Standards for dimension , maneuverability, slopes, drainage, and materials. Alternate paving materials are recommended for water quantity and/or quality control purposes and in the area of existing or proposed trees and where the driveway or parking area may occur within the drip line of any tree. Alternate paving material shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 23. Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. The respective refuse storage area and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience, aesthetics, safety, and functionality. The design of the trash enclosure shall show compliance with Engineering Standards 101 O.B for drainage requirements. 24. The building plan submittal shall include a complete site utility plan. All existing and proposed utilities along with utility company meters shall be shown. Existing underground \ ' Packet Pg 99 7 Resolution No . ARC-I 018-16 3175 Violet Street (ARCH-3370-2016) Page 7 and overhead services shall be shown along with any proposed alterations or upgrades. Services to the new structures shall be underground. All work in the public right-of-way shall be shown or noted. 25. The building plan submittal shall verify the location of all existing utilities stubbed into the site in accordance with the approved Tract 2353 Improvement Plans . Any existing utility connections that are not proposed to be used shall be abandoned per City Engineering Standards. 26. The building plan submittal shall show the separation between the recycled water hydrant and driveway approach off of Plum Street to be in compliance with City Engineering Standards and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Utilities Department. 27. The building plan submittal shall show the recycled water landscape meter and service to be installed per City Engineering Standards and to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Utilities Department. 28. The building plan submittal shall show the location of the fire service lateral, double-check assembly, and fire department connection (FDC) on the site utility plan. Show the location of the fire riser room and interior fire riser in accordance with the ARC approvals and/or the Planning Divisions architectural guidelines. Provide access to the fire riser and appurtenances in accordance with the UFC and as approved by the Fire Marshal. Clarify to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal whether an FDC should be provided at the double-check assembly or on the building. 29. This development shall comply with the Waterway Management Plan. The building plan submittal shall include a final drainage report in accordance with the Waterway Management Plan Volume III, Drainage Design Manual and the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The drainage report shall consider the upslope historic drainage tributary to the property that may need to be accepted and conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage . 30. The building plan submittal shall include a complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan. The grading and drainage plan shall show existing structures and grades located within 15' of the property lines in accordance with the grading ordinance. The plan shall consider historic offsite drainage tributary to this property that may need to be accepted and conveyed along with the improved on-site drainage. This development may alter and/or increase the storm water runoff from this site or adjoining sites. The improved or altered drainage shall be directed to the street and not across adjoining property lines unless the drainage is conveyed within recorded easements or existing waterways. 31. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped sites, to the approval of the Public Works Director. Include a complete Post Construction Stormwater Control Plan Template as available on the City's Website. ,, ' Packet Pg 100 7 7-3 Project Budget Courtyard at the Meadows Packet Pg 101 7 2018 CDBG Application Courtyard at the Meadows 7-1 Project Budget Summary Site Acquisition 900,000 Construction Costs Site Work ­ Structures 5,233,650 General Requirements 344,100 Contractor Overhead 216,450 Contractor Profit 216,450 Other: Construction Contingency 316,350 Total Construction Costs 6,327,000 Soft Costs Architectural Fees 184,000 Survey & Engineering 75,000 Construction Loan Fees & Interest 726,367 Permenant Loan Origination Fee 257,500 Legal Fees 160,000 Appraisal Costs 9,000 Construction Contingency 316,350 TCAC Monitoring Fees 37,755 Permit & Impact Fees 1,296,862 Marketing 15,000 Furnishings 35,000 Soft Cost Contingency/Other 121,750 Accrued Interest 135,357 Consulting/Other Professional Fees 55,000 Total Soft Costs 3,424,941 Capitalized Reserves 223,647 Developer Fee 1,388,706 Total Rehab & Related Costs 11,364,294 Total Project Costs 12,264,294 Packet Pg 102 7 2018 CDBG Application Courtyard at the Meadows 7­1 Project Budget Summary Construction Sources Tax Exempt Construction Loan 7,515,000 City of San Luis Obispo Affordable Housing Funds 630,000 Fee Waivers 1,053,924 CDBG Funds 350,000 Accrued Interest 81,357 County of San Luis Obispo HOME Funds 450,000 Accrued Interest 18,000 HASLO HASLO Public Funds Loan 900,000 Deferred Developer Fee 685,000 Accrued Interest 36,000 Limited Partner Tax Credit Equity 545,013 Total Construction Sources 12,264,294 Permanent Sources Tax Exempt Permanent Loan 4,112,013 City of San Luis Obispo Affordable Housing Funds 630,000 Fee Waivers 1,053,924 CDBG Funds 350,000 Accrued Interest 81,357 County of San Luis Obispo ­ HOME Funds 450,000 Accrued Interest 18,000 HASLO HASLO Public Funds Loan 900,000 Deferred Developer Fee 451,702 Accrued Interest 36,000 Limited Partner Tax Credit Equity 4,181,298 Total Permanent Sources 12,264,294 Packet Pg 103 7 2018 CDBG Application Courtyard at the Meadows Project Narrative Project: Courtyard at the Meadows Courtyard at the Meadows will be a new construction affordable housing project consisting of 36 residential units located within the Serra Meadows development in San Luis Obispo, California. The project will feature 9 one bedroom, 18 two bedroom, and 9 three bedroom units, including a managers unit. There is a high demand for all bedroom types in this market as there is a critical shortage of affordable housing. The project has been designed with a Spanish architectural style that includes features such as stucco walls, low slope roof, mission tile, recessed exterior window faces, and arched openings. The proposed layout of the project site provides for efficient use of the available site area and existing topography by maximizing the number of residential units for the site, concealing required parking behind structures. The site plan provides outdoor courtyard space and adequate landscaping between the structures and parking areas. The site provides sufficient access and internal circulation for vehicles and pedestrians. The project’s parking area is not a dominant visual element of the site and is screened by buildings that are oriented toward the street providing private outdoor space interior to the project site for the residential units that respect the privacy of the adjacent lower density residential structures. There are no offsite improvements required as the utilities have already been brought to the site. The land is owned by the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo. The Housing Authority will lease the land on a long term ground lease to the to-be formed Limited Partnership that will own the building improvements. Packet Pg 104 7 Meeting Date: 1/9/2018 FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A CONTRIBUTING LIST PROPERTY AT 676 MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) determining that the structures at 676 Mountain View Street do not meet eligibility criteria for listing as Historic Resources and removing the property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The owner of the property at 676 Mountain View Street has applied for a determination of the historical significance of the property, which includes a single-family dwelling with a detached garage built in 1928, and requests that it be removed from historic listing, as provided in § 14.01.060 (C) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. On November 27, 2017 the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the request and recommended that the City Council remove the property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources (see Attachment D). DISCUSSION Site and Setting The property is a 5,000 square-foot parcel on the north side of Mountain View Street, between Hill and Broad Streets, in the Mt. Pleasanton/Anholm neighborhood. The neighborhood is characterized by modest single-family dwellings built in the early 20th Century. It is not within any historic district, but there are twelve Contributing List Properties within 300 feet of the property. The site is developed with a single-family dwelling and single-car garage, built in 1928 (see Figure 1) in an architectural style described in the historic evaluation prepared for the property (Attachment F) as Minimalist Traditional. The architect of the building is unknown. City records1 provide sparse information about the property, noting stucco, wood ship-lap siding, 1 Historic Resources Inventory Form; CDD Historic Property Record (“Yellow File”) for 676 Mountain View Figure 1: 676 Mountain View Street Packet Pg 105 8 gable roof, and lack of distinctive features (see Attachment E). Historic Listing Historic preservation policies are set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s General Plan. Significant historic and architectural resources are to be preserved and rehabilitated, and their demolition, or substantial change to them, is to be avoided (COSE § 3.3). The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01) implements these policies. Property may be designated as a Contributing List resource where a building on it maintains its historic and architectural character, and contributes, by itself or in conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole,2 and satisfies at least one of the historic significance criteria listed in § 14.01.070. The subject property was designated by the City Council as a Contributing List Resource, as part of a group of 28 properties within the Mt. Pleasanton/Anholm neighborhood, in September 1999 (see Attachment G). The properties were “found to contribute to the historic and architectural character of the City, meet the criteria for inclusion on the Contributing Properties List […]” and were “deemed Contributing Properties,” but no further findings about their significance were set out in the resolution. This group was among 111 properties surveyed in the neighborhood in the year prior; an effort resulting in nomination of a total of 84 properties for historic designation. EVALUATION A Historic Resource Evaluation for this property (Attachment E) was prepared in September 2017, by Amber Long, M.A., a Cultural Resources Anal yst and Architectural Historian with LSA Associates. The report evaluates the eligibility of the residence and detached garage on the property for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources and the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources,3 following relevant evaluation criteria, including the Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing provided in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The report concludes that the buildings on the property do not appear eligible for inclusion in the California Register. Furthermore, the evaluation supports the conclusion that they are not candidates for inclusion on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, and are not historical resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).4 Criteria for Historic Resource Listing In order to be eligible for designation, a resource must exhibit a high level 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 property not be removed from historic listing, property may be removed if the structure on it is found to no longer meet eligibility (historic significance) criteria for listing (§ 14.01.060 (C)). In evaluating the historic significance of this building, the Cultural Heritage Committee considered whether, and to what degree, it satisfies these criteria. For convenience, these criteria have been provided for reference as Attachment H to this report. Following is a summary of the assessment 2 See Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 for definition of Contributing List Resource or Property 3 Wong, Historic Resource Evaluation of 676 Mountain View Street, Summary, pg. 3. 4 Ibid. Conclusion, pg. 32. Packet Pg 106 8 of the historical status of 676 Mountain View as provided in the Historic Property Evaluation prepared for the property.5 Architectural Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (A)) Style and Design. The buildings on the property are examples of the Minimal Traditional architectural style, an economical style defined by simple exterior forms and minimal exterior detailing (see Attachment I), popular during the Great Depression, World War II, and post-war years.6 While the residence exhibits the simple plan, single-story massing, and restrained detailing of this style, later modifications have diminished it ability to convey this style in a pure manner: shed-style awnings have been added over windows, multi-pane windows were replaced with full glass panes. Buildings in this style are not rare in their existence, and several better examples exist in the neighborhood.7 This style was popular across the country and the local region during the early 20th Century, and its presence does not represent a particular social milieu or period of the community, nor a uniqueness of hybrid styles.8 Architect. The Historical Resource Evaluation for the property includes a search of permit records related to the construction of the buildings on it. The residence and garage were built by Rex K. Fuller using day labor,9 but the architect is not known, and Mr. Fuller himself is not known to be a notable architect or important creative individual. Historic Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (B)) Person.10 Soon after construction of the residence, the property was purchased by Cecil Evans, of the Evans Brokerage Company, and his wife Alma. They occupied it for 3 years and sold it on, but ownership reverted back to the Evans family, who maintained ownership until 1946. The Silacci family briefly owned the property (1931-1935), but there is no evidence that they occupied the residence. Earl and Cecilia Miller took up residence in 1938, with Cecilia Miller remaining in the home until 2000. Earl Miller was an employee of the Golden State Dairy. Cecil Evans was a successful businessman active in the local community. He operated a brokerage and served on the first Board of Directors for the City’s Chamber of Commerce. Through his work and his involvement with the Kiwanis Club he focused on increasing development, business prospects, and tourism in the local area, and helped to establish Reservoir Canyon Park. Though clearly a notable individual in civic life, there is no evidence that he rose to a level of prominence or made unique or distinctly outstanding contributions significant to local, state, or national history, and his residence at 676 Mountain View was brief. Event. Though the buildings on this property are an example of the Minimal Traditional style which is associated with early 20th Century residential development in the City, this period of 5 Ibid. § 6.3.2 (City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Criteria), pg. 27. 6 Ibid. § 6.2.1 (Architectural Context), pg. 24. 7 e.g. 2426 Lawton (1930); 191 Chorro (1935); 388 Chorro (1941); and 756 Rougeot Place (1947). 8 Wong, Historic Resource Evaluation of 676 Mountain View Street, § 6.2.1 (Minimal Traditional), pg. 24; § 6.3.2 (A)(1)(c) (Style), pg. 27 9 Ibid.§ 6.1 (Historic Context), pg. 23. 10 Ibid. § 6.1.3 (676 Mountain View Street), pg. 23 Packet Pg 107 8 development is not considered a landmark event. There is no evidence that the property was associated with any famous or “first-of-its-kind” event and its construction is not considered to be a notably important, unique, or distinctly interesting contribution to the City. Context. As part of the Anholm Tract, the property is associated with residential growth of the City in the early 20th Century. However, this pattern of growth was common for this time, and does not constitute a notable early, first, or major pattern of local history rising to the level of historic significance. Integrity As discussed in the Architectural Criteria section above, the integrity of the buildings has been somewhat diminished by minor modifications made to the residence, including the window awnings, window replacements, and construction of a rear porch addition. The integrity of these structures was not formally evaluated in the Historical Resource Evaluation because the buildings were not found to be historically significant under any of the other Criteria for Historic Resource Listing set out in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described in CEQA Guidelines § 15061 (b) (3). The determination of continued eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of whether the subject site remains eligible for historic resource listing according to the criteria set forth in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT 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. ALTERNATIVES 1. Maintain 676 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. Packet Pg 108 8 Attachments: a - Council Resolution b - Vicinity Map c - Historic Resource Evaluation (LSA Associates) d - CHC Resolution and Minutes (Nov 27) e - Historic Resource Inventory Form f - Council Agenda Report and Resolution (Sept 1999) g - Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing h - Historic Context Statement Excerpt (Minimal Traditional Style) Packet Pg 109 8 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2018 SERIES) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REMOVING THE PROPERTY AT 676 MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET FROM THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES (676 MOUNTAIN VIEW ST, HIST-1138-2017) WHEREAS, the applicant, Candace Wong, submitted on October 20, 2017, an application to remove the property located at 676 Mountain View Street (“the Property”) from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources (HIST-1138-2017); 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 November 27, 2017 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 Obisp o, California on January 9, 2018 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 buildings are not rare examples of the Minimal Traditional 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 style avoids ornamentation and detail, and these buildings do not exhibit any particular expression of artistic merit, details, or craftsmanship. No significant architect is associated with the buildings. Packet Pg 110 8 Resolution No. _____ (2018 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 the Historical Resource Evaluation prepared for the property, the buildings on the property do not appear eligible for inclusion in the California Register, and the evaluation supports the conclusion that they are not candidates for inclusion on the City’s Inventory, and are not historical resources 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), as 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). 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: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 9th day of January 2018. ____________________________________ Mayor Heidi Harmon Packet Pg 111 8 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3 R ______ ATTEST: ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher 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 ______________, _________. ____________________________________ Carrie Gallagher City Clerk Packet Pg 112 8 R-1 R-1 R-1 R-1-S R-1 R-1 R-1 C-N C-N H I L L B R O A D CENTER MOUNTAIN VIEWVICINITY MAP HIST-1138-2017676 Mountain View ¯ Packet Pg 113 8 HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION OF 676 MOUNTAIN VIEW STREET SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: Candice Wong 676 Mountain View Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Prepared by: Amber Long, M.A. Cultural Resources Analyst/Architectural Historian LSA 285 South Street, Suite P San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 782-0745 Project No. CWO1701 Packet Pg 114 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 3 2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT ......................................................................................... 6 2.1 California Environmental Quality Act ...................................................................................... 6 2.2 City of San Luis Obispo ............................................................................................................ 7 3.0 METHODS ........................................................................................................... 11 3.1 Records Search ...................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 11 3.3 Archival Research .................................................................................................................. 12 3.4 Field Survey ........................................................................................................................... 12 4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................... 13 4.1 Site and Setting...................................................................................................................... 13 4.2 property summary ................................................................................................................. 13 5.0 RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEY RESULTS ............................................................... 14 5.1 Records Search ...................................................................................................................... 14 5.2 Map Review ........................................................................................................................... 15 5.3 Archival Research .................................................................................................................. 17 5.3.1 Local Governmental Archives .................................................................................................. 17 5.3.2 City Directories and Occupancy History .................................................................................. 18 5.4 Field Survey ........................................................................................................................... 20 6.0 ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION ..................................................................................... 21 6.1 Historic Context ..................................................................................................................... 21 6.1.1 San Luis Obispo ........................................................................................................................ 21 6.1.2 Anholm Addition...................................................................................................................... 22 6.1.3 676 Mountain View Street ...................................................................................................... 23 6.2 Architectural Context ............................................................................................................ 24 6.3 Application of Significance Criteria ....................................................................................... 24 6.3.1 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria ................................................................. 25 6.3.2 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Criteria ........................................... 27 7.0 CONCLUSION....................................................................................................... 32 8.0 REFERENCES CONSULTED .................................................................................... 33 APPENDICES A: California Department of Parks and Recreation 523 Series Form Record Packet Pg 115 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 2 FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURES Figure 1: Regional Location and Project Site .......................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Project Site .............................................................................................................................. 5 TABLES Table 1: Plat Maps of Township 31 South, Range 12 East.................................................................... 16 Table 2: U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps, San Luis Obispo, California ................................. 16 Table 3: City and County Directory Information .................................................................................. 18 Packet Pg 116 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 3 1.0 SUMMARY LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA), prepared a Historical Resource Evaluation (HRE) of the property located at 676 Mountain View Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 001-182-005 (Figures 1 and 2). This HRE evaluates the eligibility of the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), as well as the City of San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resources or the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. LSA conducted background research, a field survey, and resource evaluation and recordation to prepare this HRE. This report includes (1) a description of the regulatory context for cultural resources in San Luis Obispo; (2) a summary of the methods used to conduct the analysis; (3) a description of the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street, including historic and architectural contexts; and (4) an eligibility evaluation. Based on the results of this HRE, LSA concludes that the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are associated with early-20th century residential development in San Luis Obispo and the Minimal Traditional architectural style. Despite these associations, however, LSA did not identify any evidence that elevates the buildings in associative stature; they do not possess specific, important associations with the historic and architectural contexts, and do not appear eligible for inclusion in the California Register. On the basis of this conclusion, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street also do not appear to be candidates for inclusion in the City of San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resources or the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. Based on the results of this study, LSA concludes that the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not historical resources for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, as defined at California Public Resources Code §21084.1. Packet Pg 117 8 676 Mountain View Street SOURCE: ESRI (2014) I:\CWO1701 - 676 Mountain View\GIS\HRE_Figure1.mxd (8/18/2017) FIGURE 1 Historical Resource Evaluation of 676 Mountain View StreetSan Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California Regional Location and Project Site 0 1000 2000 FEET 676 MountainView Street Packet Pg 118 8 676 Mountain View Street SOURCE: National Geographic Society, i-cubed (2013) I:\CWO1701 - 676 Mountain View\GIS\HRE_Figure2.mxd (8/18/2017) FIGURE 2 Historical Resource Evaluation of 676 Mountain View StreetSan Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California Project Site 0 1000 2000 FEET Packet Pg 119 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 6 2.0 REGULATORY CONTEXT 2.1 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Discretionary project approvals must comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The term CEQA uses for significant cultural resources is “historical resource,” which is defined as any resource that meets one or more of the following criteria: • Listed in, or eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources; • Listed in a local register of historical resources; • Identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code; or • Determined to be an historical resource by a project's lead agency. An historical resource consists of “Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California . . . Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be ‘historically significant’ if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources” (California Public Resources Code [PRC] §21084.1). For a cultural resource to qualify for listing in the California Register it must be significant under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition to being significant under one or more criteria, a resource must retain enough of its historic character and appearance to be recognizable as an historical resource and retain integrity, which is defined as the ability of a resource to convey the reasons for its significance (CCR Title 14 §4852(c)). Generally, a cultural resource must be 50 years old or older to qualify for the California Register. National Register Bulletin 16: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service 1997:2) states that the quality of significance is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity. There are seven aspects of integrity to consider when Packet Pg 120 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 7 evaluating a cultural resource: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association: • Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. • Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. • Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. Physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, including topographic features, vegetation, paths or fences, or relationships between buildings and other features or open space. • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of the artisan's labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. • Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. • Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. “To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects” (National Park Service 1997:44). 2.2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Chapter 14.01 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code contains the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO). Enacted by the San Luis Obispo City Council in 2010, the HPO authorized the creation of a Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) to implement the ordinance, which is tasked with making recommendations to decision-making bodies regarding: • Development of guidelines to implement the HPO to assist persons planning development projects subject to CHC review; and for city and property-owners decisions regarding cultural resources in the city; Packet Pg 121 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 8 • Develop and maintain the city’s Master List of Historic Resources and Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources which are those properties, area, sites, buildings, structures, or other features having significant historical, cultural, architectural, community, scientific or aesthetic value to the citizens of San Luis Obispo; • Actions subject to discretionary city review and approval which may affect significant archaeological, cultural or historic resources; • Apply architectural, historic, and cultural preservation standards and guidelines to projects and approvals involving historic sites, districts, and structures; • Develop and participate in public education outreach efforts; • Provide recommendations to decision-makers regarding alterations and demolitions of listed resources and properties within historic preservation districts; • Provide recommendations in developing incentive programs directed at preserving and maintaining cultural resources; and • Assist property owners in preparing local, state, and federal historical resource nominations to utilize preservation incentives, including Mill’s Act and federal tax incentives. In addition to its policy development, resource management, public outreach, and documentation assistance duties, the CHC is authorized to review, comment, and make recommendations on applications that may result in a change to a resource listed in the Master List of Historic Resources or Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources, or potentially affect an existing or proposed historic district. Examples include applications to alter, demolish, or relocate listed buildings or structures, and for new construction within historic districts. The CHC is also authorized to review and comment on statements of historic significance and on proposed actions by public agencies that may affect cultural resources. The CHC also reviews and comments on applications for inclusion in the Master List of Historic Resource or Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. Designation requests may originate from the property owner, the CHC, the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, or the San Luis Obispo City Council. In considering designation applications, the resource must be at least 50 years old, exhibit a high level of historic integrity, and satisfy at least one of the following criteria set forth by the HPO beginning at § 14.01.070 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code: 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; Packet Pg 122 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 9 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 Street - 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). Packet Pg 123 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 10 (2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of: a. A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city; b. A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history). (3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects: a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g., County Museum); b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Park Hotel). C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of: 1. Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the original foundation has been changed, if known. 2. The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance. 3. The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Packet Pg 124 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 11 3.0 METHODS LSA conducted a records search, literature review, archival research, and field survey to prepare this study. Each task is described below. 3.1 RECORDS SEARCH On July 14, 2017, LSA requested that staff at the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC) conduct a cultural resources records search of the project site and a 0.25-mile radius. The CCIC is an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation and the official state repository of cultural resource records and reports for San Luis Obispo County (County). The records search was done to identify cultural resource records and studies in and adjacent to the project site. As part of the records search, LSA reviewed the following federal, state, and local inventories: • California Points of Historical Interest (California Office of Historic Preservation 1992); • California Historical Landmarks (California Office of Historic Preservation 1996); • Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California (California Office of Historic Preservation 1988); • City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement (Historic Resources Group 2013); • City of San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resources (City of San Luis Obispo 2016); • City of San Luis Obispo Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources (City of San Luis Obispo 2016); and • Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Luis Obispo County (California Office of Historic Preservation, April 5, 2012). The directory includes the listings of the National Register of Historic Places, National Historic Landmarks, and the California Register. 3.2 LITERATURE REVIEW LSA reviewed the following publications, maps, and websites for historic-period information about the project site and its vicinity: • California Place Names (Gudde 1998); • Historic Spots in California (Hoover et al. 2002); • California 1850: A Snapshot in Time (Marschner 2002); • Historical Atlas of California (Hayes 2007); • 75 SLO City Sites: An Informative Self-Guided Architectural Tour in Historic San Luis Obispo (Taylor and Lees 2010); and • Calisphere at http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu. Packet Pg 125 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 12 Please see Section 8 (References Consulted) for a full list of sources consulted. 3.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH In August 2017, LSA conducted research at the San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; the County Clerk-Recorder’s Office; the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department; the Research Room at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County; the University Archives and Special Collections at the Robert E. Kennedy Library at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo; and the San Luis Obispo branch of the San Luis Obispo County Library. Archival research included an examination of local histories, maps, images, government records, newspapers, city directories, and previous surveys for historic-period information about 676 Mountain View Street. Information identified included former ownership history, past land use activity, permit history, construction dates, and the architectural context of the area. 3.4 FIELD SURVEY LSA Cultural Resources Analyst/Architectural Historian Amber Long, M.A., conducted a field survey of the property at 676 Mountain View Street on July 17, 2017. The survey was conducted to determine the nature and condition of buildings present, as well landscaping and other potential property improvements. Ms. Long reviewed and photographed the exteriors of the buildings, as well as the context of the surrounding area. Packet Pg 126 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 13 4.0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 4.1 SITE AND SETTING The project site is located in Section 27 of Township 30 South, Range 12 East, Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian, as depicted on the USGS San Luis Obispo, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (USGS 1995). The project site is located on Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 001-182-005, a 0.115- acre/5,000-square-foot rectangular parcel on Block 6 of the Anholm Addition, in northwest San Luis Obispo, and consists of a single-story, single-family residence and a detached garage. The project site is bordered on the northeast by two parcels: (1) APN 001-182-008, which contains a single- family residence at 397 Broad Street, with an unknown build date; and (2) APN 001-182-007, which contains a single-family residence at 389 Broad Street built circa 1926. The project site is bordered on the northwest by a single-family residence at 381 Broad Street, APN 001-182-006, built circa 1925, and on the southwest by a single-family residence at 668 Mountain View Street built circa 1922. The project site is located within the Anholm Addition, which was identified as a possible historic district in a report completed for the City in 1992 by Margaret Lovell (Bertrando and Bertrando 2009:14). However, because residents did not favor it, the district was never formally and designated. 4.2 PROPERTY SUMMARY The property at 676 Mountain View Street contains a single-family residence with a detached single- car garage, both built in 1928 in the Minimal Traditional style. The single-family residence is set back approximately 40 feet from the street, and the garage is set approximately 20 feet behind the residence. The parcel is situated in an urban setting with low-density residential land uses (City of San Luis Obispo 2017). The residence has a medium-pitched, cross-gabled roof with no eaves. The walls are clad in horizontal, wood clapboard siding. The796 square foot, irregularly shaped residence sits on a raised concrete foundation with no basement or cellar. The front yard landscaping consists of hedges at the street and along the driveway, a lawn, and large ornamental plantings in front of the house. The back yard consists of lawn, ornamental plants near the rear wall of the residence, and a bougainvillea along the back fence. The detached single-car garage is situated in the back yard and is accessed via a long, narrow dirt and grass drive. Access to the garage is through a small wood fence at the end of the drive. The rectangular 288 square foot garage has a medium-pitched, front- gabled roof and is clad in horizontal wood clapboard siding on a concrete slab foundation. Packet Pg 127 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 14 5.0 RESEARCH AND FIELD SURVEY RESULTS 5.1 RECORDS SEARCH The records search conducted by the CCIC did not identify any previously recorded or listed cultural resources in or adjacent to the project site. Two cultural resources were identified within 0.25 miles of the project site: P-40-000835, a precontact archaeological site recorded in 1978; and P-40- 041203, the Chris Anholm House recorded in 2009 by Betsy Bertrando. No further information regarding the precontact site or the Chris Anholm house was provided by the CCIC. The records search identified 13 cultural resource surveys conducted adjacent to the project site. These surveys and their findings are presented below, chronologically. • The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) (1981) prepared an Archaeological Survey Report for the construction of a median barrier on U. S. 101, southeast of the project site. The report consisted of a field survey and records search. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (Caltrans 1981). • C.A. Singer & Associates, Inc. (1993), prepared an archaeological study for the City of San Luis Obispo for the expansion of the city’s wastewater treatment system. The report consisted of a summary of monitoring and excavation results along the proposed sewer treatment system expansion path. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (C.A. Singer & Associates, Inc. 1993). • Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants (1997) prepared a cultural resources investigation and inventory of the Mission Orchard for the Menehune Company southeast of the project site. The investigation and inventory included a records search and field surveys. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (Bertrando and Bertrando 1997). • Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants (1998a) prepared a cultural resources investigation of the 600 and 800 blocks of Walnut and Morro streets for the City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department east of the project site. The investigation included archival research and field surveys. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (Bertrando and Bertrando 1998a). • Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants (1998b) prepared a cultural resource significance evaluation of the Mission Orchard Wall for the Menehune Company. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (Bertrando and Bertrando 1998b). • Jones & Stokes Associates (1999) prepared a cultural resource inventory of a fiber optic cable system for Williams Communications. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (Jones & Stokes Associates 1999). Packet Pg 128 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 15 • Caltrans (2000) prepared a noise barrier report for a portion of U.S. 101. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (Caltrans 2000). • Heritage Discoveries (2000a) prepared a Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Scarry Office Building for Steven Stewart Architects. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (Heritage Discoveries 2000a). • Heritage Discoveries (2000b) prepared a Phase I Archaeological Survey for the Leopold & Murphy project for Steven Stewart Architects. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (Heritage Discoveries 2000b). • Gibson’s Archaeological Consulting (2005) prepared an archaeological monitoring report for the Old Mission School Pavilion Project for Fraser Seiple Architects south of the project site. The report consisted of records search and construction monitoring. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (Gibson’s Archaeological Consulting 2005). • Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants (2006) prepared a structure history and evaluation for 460 Broad Street for Great Outdoors Construction, east of the project site. The evaluation consisted of archival research and a field survey. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (Bertrando and Bertrando 2006). • Applied EarthWorks (2006) prepared an archaeological resources inventory of various areas in downtown San Luis Obispo for a water line replacement project, for the City of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works. The inventory included a records search, archival research and a field survey. No cultural resources were identified in or adjacent to the project site (Applied EarthWorks 2006). 5.2 MAP REVIEW LSA reviewed the following maps for historic-period information about the project site: • Plat Maps of Township 31 South, Range 12 East (United States General Land Office 1867, 1887, 1889, and 1890); • Map of the County of San Luis Obispo, California (Britton & Rey 1874); • Plat of the Venable Tract Map, (San Luis Obispo County, 1918) • Map of the Anholm Addition, (San Luis Obispo County, 1927); • San Luis Obispo, Calif., 15-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1897, 1903, 1916, 1931, 1942); • San Luis Obispo, Calif., 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (U.S. Geological Survey 1967, 1995) and; Packet Pg 129 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 16 • Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps for San Luis Obispo, California (Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd., 1886, 1888, 1891, 1903, 1905, 1909, 1926, 1950). The 1874 map of the County depicts the project site within the Township of San Luis Obispo and the Mission School District, adjacent to Cerro San Luis. The 1918 Venable Tract map shows the extent of the Venable Ranch with Broad Street and Stenner Creek represented. The 1927 Anholm Addition Map shows the project site as part of Block 6. The southeast quadrant of Block 6, where the project site is located, is not subdivided into lots and is shown as one large unnumbered lot. Block 6 is irregularly shaped; however, the rest of the block is subdivided into 6 lots. The Anholm Addition was not depicted in the Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps until 1926. In the 1926 map the area is only depicted in the key; the area is not in the index, and there is no detailed sheet for that section of the city. The 1950 revision to the 1926 Sanborn map does not depict any additional information.. Table 1: Plat Maps of Township 31 South, Range 12 East Date Results 1867 The project site is depicted as vacant in the northeast ¼ of the southeast ¼ of Section 27, adjacent to Mission Orchard. 1887 The project is located within the area marked as Mission Lands of San Luis Obispo. The Mission Orchard is more defined and shown as Lot 42. 1888/1889 No changes are apparent from the 1867 and 1887 plats; the Mission lands are shown. Source: United States General Land Office Table 2: U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps, San Luis Obispo, California USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle Date Results 1897 The project site is not developed. Broad Street is depicted on the map to the east of the project site. 1903 No changes are depicted from the 1897 map. 1916 No changes are depicted from the 1903 map. 1931 No changes are depicted from the 1916 map.. 1942 The area of the city comprising the Anholm Addition is depicted by this time. Mountain View Street is shown, and four residential structures are depicted along the north side of Mountain View Street. Hill Street is not represented, and Lincoln Street ends at Broad Street 1948 No changes are depicted from the 1942 map. 1954 Hill Street is depicted by this time, and Lincoln Street now extends from Broad Street to Lincoln Street. The project site and surrounding area is shaded in pink without individual building footprints depicted, indicating a high density of development in the area. 1960 No changes are depicted form the 1954 map USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle Date Results 1967 Mountain View Street and Hill Street extend up into Cerro San Luis Obispo at this time. The project site is shaded in pink, indicating a high density of development in the area. Packet Pg 130 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 17 Table 2: U.S. Geological Survey Topographic Maps, San Luis Obispo, California 1995 No changes. Source: U.S. Geological Survey 5.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH 5.3.1 Local Governmental Archives A review of city and county historic resource inventories, government records, photographs, and newspaper articles indicate that 676 Mountain View Street is not listed in the City Master List of Historic Resources; however, it is listed in the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. It was added to the list in 1999 as part of City Resolution 8963, which added a total of 28 properties to the Contributing Properties List (San Luis Obispo 2010a, 2010b, 2014, 2016). At LSA’s request, First American Title of San Luis Obispo conducted a chain of title search, and LSA conducted supplemental research at the County Clerk Recorders office to complete the title search. The single-family residence and garage at 676 Mountain View Street were built in 1928 by Rex K. Fuller. His wife, Evabelle Long-Fuller, was given the land by her parents, Ruben and Hazel Long, in 1927. Evabelle filed a Notice of Completion for the house in March 1928, and in November of the same year, she sold the house to Cecil and Alma Evans. In 1931, the Evans family sold the property to the Silacci family, acting as the lender and receiving payments from the Silaccis. In 1935, the Silacci family filed a quitclaim deed, reverting ownership to the Evans family. County assessor records show that the Evans sold the property to Earl and Cecilia Miller in July 1936, and the Miller family sold it back to the Evans in August of the same year. No further information was identified to explain the brief transaction. In 1946, the Evans sold the property back the Millers. In 1970, Earl Miller passed away, and the property was transferred to his wife’s name. In 2000, Cecelia passed away, and the property was sold to Thomas Rosplock and Candice Wong. In 2006, Thomas filed a quitclaim deed, gifting the property solely to his wife, Candice. 5.3.1.1 Building Permits LSA reviewed building permits on file at the City Community Development Department (CDD); and the San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection, which is housed in Special Collections at the Robert E. Kennedy Library at California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) in San Luis Obispo. From the Cal Poly collection it was determined that on December 12, 1927 Rex K. Fuller petitioned for a building permit for Block 6, Lot 2 and 3 (parts) on Mountain View Street near Broad Street (now known as 676 Mountain View Street) to build a residence with a garage. The permit described a 22’ x 34’ deep, single-story, frame-siding house with five rooms and a bath. The CDD had one permit on file, permit #15057 from December 4, 2000 for upgrading the electrical service (City of San Luis Obispo 2000). No further permits were discovered in relation to 676 Mountain View Street. Packet Pg 131 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 18 5.3.2 City Directories and Occupancy History LSA reviewed City and County directories available at the San Luis Obispo branch of the San Luis Obispo County Library, and the archives at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County. Not every year was represented by a directory, resulting in data gaps for particular years. A summary of building occupants is presented below. Table 3: City and County Directory Information Date Name Address Occupation Citation 1928 Rex K. Fuller Cecil Evans Mountain View Mountain View n/a Broker San Luis Obispo County Directory, Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company. 1930 Cecil Evans 676 Mountain View Broker San Luis Obispo County Directory, Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company. 1931/1932 Cecil Evans Alma Evans 676 Mountain View Broker San Luis Obispo City and County Directory, A to Z Publishers. 1938 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Salesman for Golden State Dairy San Luis Obispo City and County Directory, General Directories. 1939 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Salesman for Golden State Dairy San Luis Obispo County, City and Telephone Directory, California Directories. 1942 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Salesman for Golden State Dairy Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1946/1947 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Route Supervisor for Golden State Dairy San Luis Obispo, California, County Directory; J.E. Casey Publishers. 1950 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Route Supervisor for Golden State Dairy Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1953 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Foreman for Golden State Dairy Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1954 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Salesman for Golden State Dairy Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1956 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Salesman for Mother’s Cookies Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1957 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Salesman for Mother’s Cookies Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1958 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Salesman for Mother’s Cookies Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1960 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Salesman for Mother’s Cookies Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1961 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Salesman for Mother’s Cookies Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1962 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View n/a Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1964 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Driver for San Luis Obispo City Schools Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1965 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Driver for San Luis Obispo City Schools Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. Packet Pg 132 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 19 Table 3: City and County Directory Information Date Name Address Occupation Citation 1967 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Mechanic for San Luis Obispo City Schools Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1968 Earl Miller Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Retired Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. 1970 Cecelia Miller 676 Mountain View Widow, Retired Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. Source: Compiled from San Luis Obispo City and County Directories on file at the San Luis Obispo County Library and the History Center of San Luis Obispo The land containing 676 Mountain View Street was part of the Venable Ranch and the Venable Tract, as depicted in the 1918 County Surveyor’s map. In 1918, George and Chris Anholm purchased the Venable Ranch, which included land rented by prominent Chinese businessman, Ah Louis, known as the “Chinese Gardens” (Anholm n.d.). In 1923, Chris and Johanne Anholm sold a large tract of land containing the project site, to Ruben and Hazel Long. In 1927, the Longs subdivided the current parcel and gave the land to their daughter, Evabelle Long-Fuller, wife of Rex K. Fuller, a local contractor. Building permits from the Permits Collection at the Robert E. Kennedy Library at Cal Poly indicate that Rex Fuller built three houses on Mountain View Street: 676 Mountain View, 668 Mountain View, and his family home at 644 Mountain View. Rex filed for a building permit for the project site in December 1927, and the residence and garage were completed in March 1928. In November 1928, Evabelle sold the house to Cecil and Alma Evans; Mr. Evans was a manager for the Lompoc Produce and Real Estate Company. When he moved to San Luis Obispo from Lompoc in 1928, Evans opened his own firm, the Evans Brokerage Company. In 1931, Cecil and Alma Evans sold 676 Mountain View to William and Irene Silacci. The 1933-34 city and county directory indicates the Silacci family was living on Peach Street and not at the project site. In 1935, the Silacci family filed a quitclaim deed, giving up any claim to the property at 676 Mountain View Street and returning ownership to the Evans family. Directory information was not available for 1935-1937, but the county records show there was a brief transaction in 1936 when the Evans family sold the property to the Miller family, who in turn sold it back to the Evans family the next month. The 1938 and 1942 directories indicate that the Miller family was living at 676 Mountain View Street, while Earl Miller was employed as a salesman for the Golden State Company, a dairy located on Higuera Street. In 1946, the Evans family sold the property to Miller family for a second time. By that time, Earl Miller was a route supervisor for Golden State Company. The Miller family retained ownership of the property until 2000. During their tenure, Earl Miller held various positions at the dairy, including foreman, according to the 1953 Polk’s Directory. Between 1956 and 1961, Earl was a salesman for Mother’s Cookies. Between 1964 and 1967, Earl worked for the San Luis Obispo City Schools Division of Business Services as a bus driver and mechanic. Earl retired in 1968 and passed away in 1970, leaving his retired widow, Cecelia, as owner of the property. Cecelia passed away in 2000 and the property was sold to Thomas Rosplock and Candice Wong. In 2006 Thomas filed a quitclaim deed, gifting the property to his wife. Packet Pg 133 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 20 5.4 FIELD SURVEY The single-story single-family residence at 676 Mountain View Street is 796 square feet with wood framing and an irregular plan, built in 1928. The single-car garage was also built in 1928. The residence was built in the Minimal Traditional style and is covered by a medium-pitched, cross- gabled roof clad in composition shingles with no eaves. The walls are clad in horizontal wood clapboard siding. The residence rests on a raised concrete foundation, with no basement or cellar. The main southeast-facing, asymmetrical façade features a front gable with two large double light fixed windows with wood sashing and lower wood panels. Each window is covered by a shed-style awning with exposed rafters. Shed style awnings appear to have been added sometime after the original construction. The front-facing gable consists of vertical flush shiplap siding. The main entrance to the residence is set along the inside edge of the front gable, and consists of a six-light wood paneled door with a wood screen. The entrance is reached by a set of four concrete steps with a metal rail, which leads to a small covered entryway. The southwest-facing façade is clad in horizontal clapboard siding that extends to the top of the gable. There is one double-hung, six-over-one wood sash window, and one smaller double-hung three-over-one wood sash window with a corrugated metal awning. Both windows have modern metals screens. At the peak of the gable is a metal vent with a wood trim surround. A small wood framed vent is visible at the foundation level. The northwest-facing façade consists of one tall double-hung six-over-one wood sash window, and two smaller double-hung three-over-one wood sash windows; all have modern window screens. There is a large vent at the foundation level of the façade covered by landscaping. The partial width back porch is enclosed and clad in wide vertical wood shiplap siding. The porch was added on to the back of the house at the time of construction according to county assessor records. The difference in building materials suggests it was not part of the original design plan. The porch has a shed style roof, and two six-light, wood paned corner windows. The porch door has been removed and a wood screen door remains. The back porch is reached by one concrete step with a metal rail made from pipe. The northeast-facing façade consists of two gables and two six-over-one double-hung wood sash windows with modern screens. The horizontal siding extends to the top of both gables. There is a wood framed vent at the top of the northernmost gable and another vent at the base of the foundation of the southern gable. The detached garage sits behind the residence. It has a medium-pitched, front-gabled roof with narrow eaves and horizontal wood clapboard siding on three sides. The rear northwest façade of the garage is not visible due to landscaping. The rear of the garage sits on the northern property line. The front southeast façade consists of two sets of shed-style doors made of plywood with vertical grooves. Horizontal siding continues to the top of the gable. The southwest façade consists of a secondary entrance and a plywood door. The rest of the façade is covered by landscaping. The northeast façade is on the eastern property line and was exposed due to construction work in the neighboring yard. The façade consists of horizontal siding and a small six light wood sash window. Packet Pg 134 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 21 6.0 ELIGIBILITY EVALUATION This section presents the historic and architectural context of the project site and evaluates the eligibility of the buildings (residence and garage) at 676 Mountain View Street under the California Register and the City’s HPO significance criteria. 6.1 HISTORIC CONTEXT 1 This section describes the Early 20th Century Residential Development context of the project site and its property-specific development, as well as aspects of the Minimal Traditional architectural style. 6.1.1 San Luis Obispo Recorded European activity in what would become San Luis Obispo began in September 1769, when a military and settlement expedition headed by Captain Gaspar de Portolá left San Diego to solidify Spain’s hold on California. Called the “Sacred Expedition,” it consisted of settlers, soldiers, and a group of Franciscan missionaries led by Father Junípero Serra, who had been ordered to establish a chain of missions in California.2 In 1772, Father Serra returned to the area and established Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, named for Saint Louis of Toulouse, a 13th century Catholic Bishop and son of Charles II, King of Naples. The land and favorable climate surrounding the mission made it one of the more prosperous in Alta California. At its height in the early 1810s, the mission was home to 961 Native American converts and produced over 11,000 bushels of produce; over half was wheat, and the remaining consisted of barley, corns, beans, and peas. The mission’s herds of cattle, sheep, and horses grazed openly over tens of thousands of acres surrounding the mission. However, within 20 years, the mission was nearly destitute (Bloomquist 2003:8). By the 1860s, one traveler described the crumbling mission and quiet town as “more South American or Spanish than any of the others we have seen. It is a small, miserable place” (Brewer 1966:83). Following Mexican independence from Spain in 1821, the Franciscan missions and other royal landholdings were gradually transferred into private ownership under provisions of the Secularization Act passed in 1833 by the Mexican government. Secularization of the missions began in 1834, which made large tracts of former mission lands available for settlement and touched off a land rush. In what would become San Luis Obispo County, 28 ranchos were granted between 1837 and 1845 by Mexican Governors to secure large tracts of land in the hands of Mexican citizens and counter the growing influence of Anglo-American settlers (Marschner 2000:4-6, 87; Robinson 1948:29-31). In the period following the Mexican-American War, California statehood, and the establishment of San Luis Obispo County, a growing number of Anglo-American migrants began arriving in the San Luis Obispo area, an influx also accompanied by regional cultural and economic changes. Anglo- American culture expanded at the expense of the established Hispanic culture. Farmsteads slowly encroached on the immense Mexican ranchos, while the cultivation of various crops replaced cattle 1 Unless noted, this section is adapted from City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement, Historic Resources Group 2013. 2 Father Junípero Serra was beatified by Pope John Paul II on September 25, 1988, and canonized by Pope Francis on September 23, 2015. Packet Pg 135 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 22 ranching as the primary regional economic activity, due in no small part to a severe drought that started in 1862 and lasted for three years (Monroy 1990:123-132). The drought killed off most cattle herds and destroyed a majority of the crops in the region. When rancheros could not afford to purchase more livestock or replant their crops, they sold their land at a loss to dairy farmers from out of the area, who were looking for grazing land for their herds. By the late 1860s, the population increase in San Luis Obispo required an increase in residential housing. A number of civic improvements accompanied new residential subdivisions, such as new bridges across San Luis Obispo Creek, the installation of sidewalks, and the planting of street trees (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). The city of San Luis Obispo was incorporated in 1876, the same year the Pacific Coast Railway opened from Port Harford to Los Alamos. In the 1880s and 1890s, commercial and residential development continued to increase; Port San Luis Lighthouse was put into service in 1890, and the southbound extension of the Southern Pacific Railroad was completed in 1894. Growth in the city continued in the early 20th century. In 1903, California Polytechnic School opened, followed by the Carnegie Library in 1904 and the first state highway can through the county in 1915. Following World War I, veterans returned to the area to take advantage of California Polytechnic University’s vocational training, bringing families with them. Advancements in transportation allowed for a diversification in the local economy. The popularity of automobile tourism brought more visitors to the area and sparked the concept of the first motor hotel, or motel. 6.1.2 Anholm Addition The population boom of the late 19th and early 20th centuries drove the need for more residential housing, and new additions were annexed to the city. Residential subdivision of the city began in the late 19th century, clustered around downtown and the southern side of the city (Historic Resources Group 2013:16). In the 1920s seven areas were subdivided, primarily to the north and east of the downtown core, including the Anholm Addition. The Anholm Addition was coterminous with the boundary of the Venable Ranch, which was purchased by Judge McDowell Venable in 1879 (Anholm n.d., Bertrando and Bertrando 2009). In 1918, the Venable Ranch was purchased by George and Chris Anholm, brothers and immigrants from Denmark. The ranch consisted of 162 acres of land from “Stenner Creek to the fence by the brushline on San Luis Mountain and to where Serrano Drive is now and to Mt. Pleasanton subdivision.” The flat land had been rented by Ah Louis, a Chinese immigrant, for many years for vegetable and see farming” (Anholm n.d.). Chris and George divided the land between them, with George taking the Venable ranch house and Chris building a new house on Garden Creek (Bertrando and Bertrando 2009). In 1922 and 1929, the Anholm brothers sold roughly 77 acres on the west side of the ranch to Carlos Serrano. The remaining land constituted the Anholm Addition, in its current configuration, which was delineated in 1927, when the Anholm brothers were granted permission to subdivide the area. They laid out the streets with a horse-drawn scraper, according to the Anholm family papers on file at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County (Anholm n.d.). Gravel quarried from a hill of red rock on Lincoln Street near Broad Street was used to for the streets. In 1928, the “Anholm Tract” was heavily advertised in local papers. J.A. Stebbins became the exclusive broker for the tract, taking out full page ads in the San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram to advertise a large sale that was held on June Packet Pg 136 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 23 10, 1928 (Daily Telegram 1928). In April 1929, a bond issue was approved to build a bridge over Stenner Creek, extending Chorro Street into the tract. Plans to pave North Broad Street were also announced. In May 1929, Loomis & Loomis and the Evans Brokerage Company were named the new tract agents for the Anholm tract (Daily Telegram May 5, 1929). 6.1.3 676 Mountain View Street The residence and garage at 676 Mountain View Street were built by Rex K. Fuller. Rex was the husband of Evabelle Long-Fuller, whose parents had bought the land as part of a larger land purchase from the Anholm brothers3. Building permit information from the Cal Poly archives indicates that Rex Fuller used day labor to build the house at 676 Mountain View Street. Rex built two other houses 1927, just up the street from the project site (California Polytechnic State University 2017). Eight months after the residence and garage were built, Cecil Evans, of the Evans Brokerage Company, purchased the house with his wife Alma. Cecil was born in Missouri and came to California at the age of three; he attended Emerson Grammar School in San Luis Obispo and quit high school to work as a telegraph operator for the Pacific Coast Railroad in 1916 (Telegraph Tribune 1965). Cecil briefly worked with Chester Loomis in his brokerage business before he went to work as a manager for the Lompoc Produce and Real Estate Company. In 1928, he and his family moved back to San Luis Obispo, where he opened his own firm, the Evans Brokerage Company, located in the P. A. Arata real estate office at 1028 Chorro Street (Daily Telegram August 30, 1928). Cecil handled real estate, insurance, and the buying and selling of produce and navy beans. In 1929, Cecil helped to establish Reservoir Canyon Park with the Kiwanis Club, moved his business to a new location at in the Long Building at 783 Marsh Street (Daily Telegram May 1, 1929), and was named one of the tract agents from the Anholm Addition. He continued to build his brokerage business, and, in 1930, joined a group of civic-minded businessmen to bring the county Chamber of Commerce to the city level in June of that year. Cecil was on the first Board of Directors for city Chamber of Commerce and was elected board secretary. In 1931, Cecil and Alma moved to a home at 1610 Phillips Lane (A to Z Publishers 1931; Fidelity National Title 2017). They sold the residence to the Silacci family; however, there is no evidence that the Silacci family actually occupied the residence. In 1935, the Silacci family filed a quitclaim deed reverting ownership of the residence to the Evans family. While no further information was identified to explain why the Silacci defaulted on the property, the country was in the full grasp of the Depression. While the San Luis Obispo area was shielded somewhat because of its thriving agricultural industry, not everyone evaded the effects of the economic downturn (Historic Resources Group 2013). The Evans family continued to own the residence until 1946, but city and county directories indicate that Earl and Cecilia Miller were living in the residence as early as 1938 (General Directories 1938). Earl worked for Golden State Dairy, which was located on Higuera Street. In 1946, the Miller family purchased the residence from the Evans and lived there until 1970, when Earl Miller passed away. His wife, Cecilia, remained in the home until she passed away in 2000. 3 While the Chris and George Anholm are important to the local history of San Luis Obispo, as indicated by the subdivision that bears their name, their direct association with 676 Mountain View Street ended prior to the construction of the residence in 1928. Therefore, the Anholm brothers and their contributions are not discusses in further detail. Packet Pg 137 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 24 6.2 ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT This section describes the Minimal Traditional architectural style. 6.2.1 Minimal Traditional (1925 to 1950) The Minimal Traditional style of architecture evolved as a response to a number of influences. The popular revival styles of the 1920s and the emergence of the Modern architectural movement led to a type of architecture that borrowed from revival styles, while at the same time eliminating decorative architectural detailing and relying on simple exterior forms (Historic Resources Group 2013). Often considered a “non-style,” Minimal Traditional homes became very popular during the Great Depression, World War II, and the post war years, as their small scale and simple styling made them ideal for Federal Housing Authority (FHA) loan programs. These homes were affordable, making them popular with families and builders. An FHA pamphlet from 1940, Principles for Planning Small Houses, described the style as “Simplicity in exterior design gives the small house the appearance of maximum size” (McAlester 2013). The style was popular throughout the United States particularly as housing for war industry workers and returning veterans. LSA conducted an online review of subdivisions created within the city in the 1920s using Google Streetview in an effort to review the current stock of Minimal Traditional residences. The review resulted in the identification of seven Minimal Traditional homes, all built in the 1930s and 1940s. No review was made of later subdivisions. Some character defining features of Minimal Traditional style architecture include: • Single story; • Simple rectangular plan; • Medium or low-pitched hipped or gabled roof with little or no eaves; • Shallow entry porch; • Minimal decorative exterior detailing, • Double-hung windows, typically multi-pane or 1/1; and • Garages, either detached or part of the main house. 6.3 APPLICATION OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA This section contains a two-part presentation of the evaluation results under the California Register and the San Luis Obispo HPO. Packet Pg 138 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 25 6.3.1 California Register of Historical Resources Criteria The project site does not contain any built environment resources that were previously listed or determined eligible for inclusion in the California Register; however, the buildings were added to the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources in the City. Criterion 1: Is it associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage? Research indicates that the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are associated with early 20th century residential development. This development made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of San Luis Obispo, an important center of economic, social, and local government administration in the county. However, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not associated with specific events within this context that would differentiate it from other residential developments with similar design, construction history, and uses in the city during the same period. As such, they are not associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under Criterion 1. Criterion 2: Is it associated with the lives of persons important in our past? Background research in local history publications, newspaper collections, and previous cultural resource surveys revealed that Cecil Evans was a notable businessman in San Luis Obispo, who started his brokerage firm in 1928 when he bought the residence at 676 Mountain View Drive. He was an active member of the local Kiwanis club, and helped to develop ways to promote San Luis Obispo to the rest of the state. In 1930, along with a number of other active businessmen in the city, he helped to establish the city’s Chamber of Commerce. The County of San Luis Obispo established a Chamber of Commerce in 1905, and the city desired to have similar representation. A detailed history of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce was not identified in archival research; however, a 2001 article in the SLO County Journal recounts the initiation of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce as the Board of Trade, which was established in 1887 and would later change its name to the Chamber of Commerce (Nicholson 2001). A 1985 article in the Telegram-Tribune honored the founding members of the Chamber of Commerce, stating a charter was signed in September 1905 to found the chamber. The article attributes the founding of the chamber to Lonnie C. Bell, J.P Andrews, Tamezo Eto, and Robert E. Jack (Telegram-Tribune 1985). Cecil Evans was one of a number of community and civic oriented businessmen in the 1920s, and would continue his brokerage firm until his retirement in 1965. He recounted to the newspaper that he considered 1961 as the high point of his career when he completed two transactions worth $3 million (Telegram-Tribune 1965). While Cecil Evans was a real estate broker, a review of newspaper collections indicates that his civic focus was on bringing people to the area in order to increase residential development, business prospects, and tourism. In the context of Early 20th Century Packet Pg 139 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 26 Residential Development, Evans was among a group of people trying to bring about growth in the area, through the development of new subdivisions and the creations of services. Over his 37 year career, only three years were spent at 676 Mountain View Street. Sometime around 1933, he moved to 1610 Phillips Lane, where he would reside for most of his career. There is no evidence to indicate that Cecil Evans’ residential brokerage or civic activities distinguished him as more than a member of a cadre of business leaders with the common goal of economic development and boosterism. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under Criterion 2. Criterion 3: Does it embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values? The buildings at 676 Mountain View Street possess some of the general architectural characteristics of the Minimal Traditional style, an architectural style well represented in the existing building stock of the City, the County, California, and nationwide. Later examples which better represent the style and have equal or greater architectural expressiveness include: • 2646 Lawton (built in 1930); • 191 Chorro Street (built in 1935); • 388 Chorro Street (built in 1941); and • 756 Rougeot Place (built in 1947). Building permits from the Cal Poly archives indicate that Rex Fuller applied for the building permit for 676 Mountain View Street and used day labor to construct it. He built two other residences in the general vicinity: 668 and 644 Mountain View Street, the latter being the Fuller family home. No records were found that to indicate that Rex Fuller was an important creative individual. The residence at 676 Mountain View Street is an early modest example of Minimal Traditional architecture and does not represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under Criterion 3 Criterion 4: Has it yielded, or may it be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history? This criterion is usually used to evaluate the potential of archaeological deposits to contain information important in understanding the past lifeways the City’s early historic-period and precontact inhabitants. Its application to architecture is less common in eligibility assessments due to the prevalence of multiple media that thoroughly document the form, materials, and design of a given building type. The Minimal Traditional style is well Packet Pg 140 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 27 documented in architectural literature and further documentation is not likely to yield information important in history. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under Criterion 4. 6.3.2 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Criteria This section assesses the status of 676 Mountain View Street under § 14.01.070 of the HPO outlined above. 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: a. The relative purity of a traditional style; The buildings are associated with the Minimal Traditional architectural style, a style that gained popularity during the Depression and years following World War II. The style embodies simple forms and massing, and minimal details. At some point after the construction of the residence, shed style awnings were added to the front facing façade, over the windows. The windows appear to have been replaced or altered because they are full glass panes, versus the multi-pane windows that were popular to the style. These alterations have diminished its ability to convey the purer form of it architectural qualities from the time of construction in 1928. Therefore the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style; While the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are an early example of Minimal Traditional style, they are not rare in their existence. Research indicates that other examples of the style still exist in the neighborhood and convey the style more fully as they were built during the heyday of the architectural trend (1930s and 1940s). These examples include: • 191 Chorro Street (built in 1935); • 388 Chorro Street (built in 1941); and • 756 Rougeot Place (built in 1947). Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Road are not significant under this criterion. Packet Pg 141 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 28 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. The buildings at 676 Mountain View retain some character-defining features of the Minimal Traditional style, which was an architectural style long popular in the United States for its practicality and economic design. This style is associated with the residential development of the City during the early 20th century and was found in both rural and urban areas in San Luis Obispo County and statewide. Its presence does not represent a particular social milieu or period, or a uniqueness of hybrid styles. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. (2) Design: a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique); Minimal Traditional design is not notable for its artistic merit, as it was an effort to streamline revival styles and save on costs and materials. Artistic and architectural details were discouraged. Because it was a very simple style, the addition of the shed style awnings over the front windows diminishes the representation of the residence as a Minimal Traditional design. Other extant examples of the style which better convey the character defining features include: • 191 Chorro Street (built in 1935); • 388 Chorro Street (built in 1941); and • 756 Rougeot Place (built in 1947). Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. A field survey of the buildings and review of the building permits indicate that the buildings were built using day laborers. There are no interesting details or eclecticism in the construction of the buildings. There is no architect associated with the buildings to which any expression of details or eclecticism could be attributed, such as they exist. Packet Pg 142 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 29 Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. (3) Architect: 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. Background research did not identify an architect associated with the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street. No connections can be made to a notable architect. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo Please refer to discussion under Criterion A(3)a above. B. Historic Criteria (1) History – Person: 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. Background research indicates that the buildings were built by Rex Fuller and sold to Cecil Evans in 1928. Evans was a broker of real estate, insurance, and produce, and was active in the Kiwanis Club and the Chamber of Commerce. He was one of a large group of civic minded businessmen during the period, and there is no evidence to indicate he rose to a level of notable prominence in the history of the City, the State of California, or the nation. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. 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). Background research at local archives and online resources indicated that Cecil Evans was a local businessman who was involved in a number of civic organizations. While he and his fellow businessmen worked diligently to promote San Luis Obispo Packet Pg 143 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 30 as a destination, there is no evidence to suggest his action led to unique or outstanding contributions to the community, or that would raise him to a level of significance above other active businessmen of the era. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. (2) History – Event: 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. The buildings at 676 Mountain View Drive are associated with the context of Early 20th Century Residential Development in San Luis Obispo and subdivision of the Anholm Tract in 1928. The 1920s was a decade of residential growth for the city and subdivisions were added in a number of areas across town. This growth, while important for the city, was not indicative of a famous or first-of-its-kind event for the city. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. b. A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city. Background research indicates that the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not the only resources associated with the context of Early-20th Century Residential Development of San Luis Obispo, and are not the only extant examples of the Minimal Traditional style. The buildings 676 Mountain View Street do not constitute a unique, important, or interesting contribution to the city. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. (3) History-Context: 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. The buildings at 676 Mountain View Street were built in 1928 when the Anholm Tract was subdivided. For the next few years, Cecil Evans and others would advertise the development and attempt to sell lots for development. These patterns of growth were common between the 1900s and 1920s. Residential growth slowed in the 1930s and 1940s due to the Depression and World War II, but picked back up again in the 1950s. There is no evidence to indicate that residential development that spurred the building of 676 Mountain View Street are intimately connected to the buildings as early, first, or major patterns of local history. Packet Pg 144 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 31 Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building. No secondary patterns of local history were identified in relation to the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. C. Integrity: The buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under any of the preceding criterion. Therefore, integrity was not addressed. Packet Pg 145 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 32 7.0 CONCLUSION Background research and field survey identified a single-family residence and detached garage in the project site at 676 Mountain View Drive. Both buildings were built in the Minimal Traditional style in 1928. The buildings are associated with the early-20th century residential development in San Luis Obispo; however, their association with these patterns of events is not prominent or important. Research did not reveal associations with important people or events from the past and buildings possess design characteristics of the Minimal Traditional architectural styles, they do not possess any outstanding or unique characteristic’s to raise them to a level of significance. For the reasons documented in the report, LSA concludes that the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street do not appear eligible for inclusion in the California Register under any of the criteria, due to a lack of significance in association with the historical contexts. This reasoning also supports the conclusion that the buildings are not candidates for inclusion in the City of San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resources or the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (California Public Resources Code §21084.1). In addition, they are not historical resources under the HPO, § 14.01.070 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. Packet Pg 146 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 33 8.0 REFERENCES CONSULTED A to Z Directories 1931-1934 San Luis Obispo City and County Directory. A to Z Publishers. On file at Local History Room, San Luis Obispo County Library, San Luis Obispo, California. Anholm, Einar P. n.d. Anholm Family History: About the Anholm Tract. Manuscript on file archives at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County. San Luis Obispo, California. Ancestry.com 1910 United States Federal Census. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed July 2017. 1930 United States Federal Census. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed July 2017. 1940 United States Federal Census. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed July 2017. Angel, Myron 1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers. Thompson & West, Oakland, California, republished 1979 Valley Publishers, Fresno, California. Baloian, Randy 2006 Archaeological Resources Inventory for Water Line Replacement on Five Streets in Downtown San Luis Obispo, California. Applied Earth Works, Inc. Fresno, California. Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants 1997 Cultural Resource Investigation and Inventory of 626 Broad Street. San Luis Obispo, California. 1998a Cultural Resource Investigation for Proposed Utility Trenching at the 800 and 600 Blocks of Walnut and Morro Streets in the City of San Luis Obispo, CA. San Luis Obispo, California. 1998b Cultural Resource Significance Evaluation of CA-SLO-64/H. San Luis Obispo, California. 2006 Structure History and Evaluation: 460 Broad Street, City of San Luis Obispo, CA. San Luis Obispo, California. 2009 Historic Resource Evaluation: The Chris Anholm House. San Luis Obispo, California. Blomquist, Leonard Rudolph 2003 California in Transition: The San Luis Obispo District, 1830-1850. History Center of San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo, California. Brewer, William H. 1966 Up and Down California in 1860-1864: The Journal of William H. Brewer. Edited by Francis P. Farquhar. University of California Press, Berkeley. Packet Pg 147 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 34 Britton & Rey 1874 Map of the County of San Luis Obispo, California. R.R. Harris, County Surveyor, publisher. http://imgzoom.cdlib.org/Fullscreen.ics?ark=ark:/13030/hb638nb737/z1&&brand=calispher e C. A. Singer & Associates, Inc. 1993 It Came From Beneath the Streets: An Archaeological Report on the Expansion of the City of San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment System. Cambria, California. California Department of Transportation 1981 Archaeological Survey Report for Route 101. On file at the Central Coast Information Center. University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California. 2000 Archaeological Survey Report for a Noise Barrier. On file at the Central Coast Information Center. University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California. California Digital Library 2012 Calisphere. The Regents of the University of California. Electronic document <http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu> accessed July 27, 2017. California Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1992 California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1996 California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2009 California Historical Landmarks: San Luis Obispo. Electronic document http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21484, accessed July 19, 2017. 2012 Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Luis Obispo County, April 5, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. California Polytechnic State University 2017 San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection. On file at the Special Collections and Archives, Robert E. Kennedy Library, San Luis Obispo, California. Packet Pg 148 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 35 City of San Luis Obispo 1983 Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey, Volumes 1, 2 and3. City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee, San Luis Obispo, California. On file at the Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California. 2000 Building Permit Information for 676 Mountain View Street, San Luis Obispo. On file at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department. 2010a San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance. Electronic document, http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4142, accessed July 25, 2017. 2010b City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Electronic document http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144, accessed July 25, 2017. 2014a San Luis Obispo Municipal Code- Chapter 14.01. Electronic document, http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanLuisObispo/#!/sanluisobispo14/SanLuisObispo1401 .html#14.01, accessed July 19, 2017. 2014b San Luis Obispo General Plan: Land Use and Circulation Update. Electronic document, http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community- development/planning-zoning/general-plan, accessed August 23, 2017. 2016a City of San Luis Obispo Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources, updated December 2016. Electronic document, http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=14557, accessed July 19, 2017. 2016b City of San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resources, updated December 2016. Electronic document, http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=14555, accessed July 19, 2017. 2017 City of San Luis Obispo GIS Parcel Viewer. Interactive map, http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=516bdd31ca9 84b7cae364939dd72de39, accessed August, 2017. Conway, Thor 2000a Phase I Archaeological Surface Survey for the Scarry Office Building, 956 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Heritage Discoveries, Inc. San Luis Obispo, California. 2000b Phase I Archaeological Surface Survey for the Leopold & Murphy Project, Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Heritage Discoveries, Inc. San Luis Obispo, California. Daily Telegram 1928 Advertisement “Lots in the Anholm Tract Now On Sale” placed by J. A. Stebbins. 9 June. San Luis Obispo, California. Mention “Cecil Evans Opens Office”. 30 August. San Luis Obispo, California Packet Pg 149 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 36 1929 Mention “Evans Opens New Offices”. 1 May. San Luis Obispo, California. Mention “Names Anholm Tract Agents”. 4 May. San Luis Obispo, California. Fidelity National Title 2017 Title Search Results for 676 Mountain View Street, San Luis Obispo, California. General Directories 1938 San Luis Obispo County and City Telephone Directory. Local Chamber of Commerce, California Directories, San Francisco, California. Gibson, Robert O. 2005 Report of Archaeological Monitoring for the Old Mission School Pavilion Project. Gibson’s Archaeological Consulting. Paso Robles, California. Gottfried, Herbert and Jan Jennings 2009 American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors, 1870-1960. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, New York. Gudde, Erwin G. 1998 California Place Names. The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. Fourth edition revised and enlarged by William Bright. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hayes, Derek 2007 Historical Atlas of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Historic Resources Group 2013 City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement. Electronic document, http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4042, accessed July 20, 2017. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Rensch, and William N. Abeloe 2002 Historic Spots in California. Fifth edition, revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. J. E. Casey Publishers 1946 County Directory. San Luis Obispo, California. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff 1984 Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1999 Draft Cultural Resource Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, San Luis Obispo to Los Osos Loop. Sacramento, California. McAlester, Virginia 2013 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York. Packet Pg 150 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 37 Marschner, Janice 2002 California, 1850: A Snapshot in Time. Coleman Ranch Press, Sacramento, California. Monroy, Douglas 1990 Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture in Frontier California. University of California Press, Berkeley. National Park Service 1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Nicholson, Loren 2001 Birth of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. SLO County Journal. November. San Luis Obispo, California. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph 1919-1939 San Luis Obispo County Telephone Directory. The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company. On file at Local History Room, San Luis Obispo County Library, San Luis Obispo, California. Polk’s City Directories 1942-1962 Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. R.L. Polk & Company, San Francisco, California. Robinson, W.W. 1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. San Luis Obispo County 1918 Plat of the Venable Tract in the City of San Luis Obispo. On file at the San Luis Obispo County Assessor, San Luis Obispo, California. 1927 Map of the Anholm Addition. On file at the San Luis Obispo County Assessor, San Luis Obispo, California. 1928-2000 Residential Building Record for 676 Mountain View Street, San Luis Obispo. On file at San Luis Obispo County Assessor, San Luis Obispo, California. Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd. 1886 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1888 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1891 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. Packet Pg 151 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 38 1903 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1905 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1909 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1926 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1950 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. Taylor, Patti and Suzette Lees 2010 75 SLO City Sites: An Informative Self-Guided Architectural Tour in Historic San Luis Obispo. Graphic Communication Institute, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California. Telegraph Tribune 1965 Article “Cecil Evans says he is now really retired”. May. San Luis Obispo, California. 1985 Article. “SLO chamber to honor founding members”. 19 June. San Luis Obispo, California. United States General Land Office (US-GLO) 1867 Plat Map, Township 31 South, Range 12 East. 1872 Plat Map, Township 31 South, Range 12 East. 1875 Plat Map, Township 31 South, Range 12 East. U.S. Geological Survey 1897 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1903 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1916 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1931 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1942 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Packet Pg 152 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA 39 1965 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Packet Pg 153 8 H ISTORICAL R ESOURCE E VALUATION S EPTEMBER 2017 676 M OUNTAIN V IEW S TREET S AN L UIS O BISPO, C ALIFORNIA APPENDIX A CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 523 SERIES FORM RECORD 676 Mountain View Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California Packet Pg 154 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code: Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street P1. Other Identifier: N/A P2. Location Not for Publication Unrestricted: a. County: San Luis Obispo b. USGS 7.5' Quad: San Luis Obispo Date: 1995; T30S/R12E; Section 27. c. Address: 676 Mountain View Street City San Luis Obispo Zip 93401 d. UTM: Zone 10S; 3907175mW/711908mN e. Other Locational Data: Assessor’s Parcel Number 001-182-005. P3a. Description:. This resource is a single-family residence with a detached single-car garage, both built in 1928 in the Minimal Traditional style. The single-family residence is situated on a 5,000 square foot rectangular lot, and is set back approximately 40 feet from the street, while the garage is set approximately 20 feet behind the residence. The parcel is situated in an urban setting with low-density residential land uses (City of San Luis Obispo 2017). The residence has a medium-pitched, cross- gabled roof with no eaves. The walls are clad in horizontal, wood clapboard siding. The796 square foot, irregularly shaped residence sits on a raised concrete foundation with no basement or cellar. The front yard landscaping consists of hedges at the street and along the driveway, a lawn, and large ornamental plantings in front of the house. The back yard consists of lawn, ornamental plants near the rear wall of the residence, and a bougainvillea along the back fence. The detached single-car garage is situated in the back yard and is accessed via a long, narrow dirt and grass drive. Access to the garage is through a small wood fence at the end of the drive. The rectangular 288 square foot garage has a medium-pitched, front-gabled roof and is clad in horizontal wood clapboard siding on a concrete slab foundation. (see Continuation Sheets) P3b. Resource Attributes: (HP2) Single-family property, (HP4) Ancillary building, (HP30) Trees/vegetation P4. Resources Present:  Building P5a. Photograph: P5b. Description of Photo: 676 Mountain View Street, View northwest. LSA photograph, 7/17/17 P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:  Historic Built 1928. San Luis Obispo County Assessor. P7. Owner and Address: Candice Wong 676 Mountain View Street San Luis Obispo, California 93401 P8. Recorded by: Amber Long LSA 285 South Street, Suite P San Luis Obispo, California 93401 P9. Date recorded: July 17, 2017 P10. Survey Type: Intensive P11. Report Citation: Long, Amber. 2017. Historical Resource Evaluation of 676 Mountain View Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. LSA, San Luis Obispo, California. Attachments: Location Map Continuation Sheet(s) Building, Structure, and Object Record DPR 523A (1/95) Packet Pg 155 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 19 NRHP Status Code: 6Z Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street B1. Historic Name: N/A B2. Common Name: 676 Mountain View Road B3. Original Use: Single-family residence B4. Present Use: Singe-family residence B5. Architectural Style: Minimal Traditional B6. Construction History: San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office records indicate that the residence and garage were built in 1928. The architect is unknown, however the building permit was located in the Special Collections at California Polytechnic State University’s Robert E. Kennedy Library in San Luis Obispo. The building permit identifies Rex Fuller as the builder and the he used day labor. Records on file at the City of San Luis Obispo’s Community Development Department indicate that one permit was drawn for an electrical upgrade in 2000. No other information regarding the construction history of the buildingswas found. B7. Moved? No B8. Related Features: Detached garage, vegetation B9. a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Rex Fuller, day labor B10. Significance: Theme s: Early-20th Century Residential Development Area: San Luis Obispo Period of Significance: 1928-1931 Property Type: Single family residence Applicable Criteria: N/A Historic Context: See Continuation Sheets. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (HP2)--Single-family property, (HP4)--Ancillary building, (HP30)--Trees/Vegetation B12. References: A to Z Directories 1931-1934 San Luis Obispo City and County Directory. A to Z Publishers. On file at Local History Room, San Luis Obispo County Library, San Luis Obispo, California. Anholm, Einar P. n.d. Anholm Family History: About the Anholm Tract. Manuscript on file archives at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County. San Luis Obispo, California. See Continuation Sheets. B13. Remarks: None B14. Evaluator: Amber Long, M.A. LSA 285 South Street, Suite P San Luis Obispo, California 93401 Date of Evaluation: July 17, 2017 DPR 523B (1/95) (This space reserved for official comments.) 676 Mountain View Packet Pg 156 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# LOCATION MAP Trinomial Page 3 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Drive Map Names: USGS 7.5-minute San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Scale: 1:24,000 Date of Maps: 1997 DPR 523J (1/95) Packet Pg 157 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 B10. Significance (continued) San Luis Obispo. Recorded European activity in what would become San Luis Obispo began in September 1769, when a military and settlement expedition headed by Captain Gaspar de Portolá left San Diego to solidify Spain’s hold on California. Called the “Sacred Expedition,” it consisted of settlers, soldiers, and a group of Franciscan missionaries led by Father Junípero Serra, who had been ordered to establish a chain of missions in California. In 1772, Father Serra returned to the area and established Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, named for Saint Louis of Toulouse, a 13th century Catholic Bishop and son of Charles II, King of Naples. The land and favorable climate surrounding the mission made it one of the more prosperous in Alta California. At its height in the early 1810s, the mission was home to 961 Native American converts and produced over 11,000 bushels of produce; over half was wheat, and the remaining consisted of barley, corns, beans, and peas. The mission’s herds of cattle, sheep, and horses grazed openly over tens of thousands of acres surrounding the mission. However, within 20 years, the mission was nearly destitute (Bloomquist 2003:8). By the 1860s, one traveler described the crumbling mission and quiet town as “more South American or Spanish than any of the others we have seen. It is a small, miserable place” (Brewer 1966:83). Following Mexican independence from Spain in 1821, the Franciscan missions and other royal landholdings were gradually transferred into private ownership under provisions of the Secularization Act passed in 1833 by the Mexican government. Secularization of the missions began in 1834, which made large tracts of former mission lands available for settlement and touched off a land rush. In what would become San Luis Obispo County, 28 ranchos were granted between 1837 and 1845 by Mexican Governors to secure large tracts of land in the hands of Mexican citizens and counter the growing influence of Anglo-American settlers (Marschner 2000:4-6, 87; Robinson 1948:29-31). In the period following the Mexican-American War, California statehood, and the establishment of San Luis Obispo County, a growing number of Anglo-American migrants began arriving in the San Luis Obispo area, an influx also accompanied by regional cultural and economic changes. Anglo-American culture expanded at the expense of the established Hispanic culture. Farmsteads slowly encroached on the immense Mexican ranchos, while the cultivation of various crops replaced cattle ranching as the primary regional economic activity, due in no small part to a severe drought that started in 1862 and lasted for three years (Monroy 1990:123- 132). The drought killed off most cattle herds and destroyed a majority of the crops in the region. When rancheros could not afford to purchase more livestock or replant their crops, they sold their land at a loss to dairy farmers from out of the area, who were looking for grazing land for their herds. By the late 1860s, the population increase in San Luis Obispo required an increase in residential housing. A number of civic improvements accompanied new residential subdivisions, such as new bridges across San Luis Obispo Creek, the installation of sidewalks, and the planting of street trees (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). The city of San Luis Obispo was incorporated in 1876, the same year the Pacific Coast Railway opened from Port Harford to Los Alamos. In the 1880s and 1890s, commercial and residential development continued to increase; Port San Luis Lighthouse was put into service in 1890, and the southbound extension of the Southern Pacific Railroad was completed in 1894. Growth in the city continued in the early 20th century. In 1903, California Polytechnic School opened, followed by the Carnegie Library in 1904 and the first state highway can through the county in 1915. Following World War I, veterans returned to the area to take advantage of California Polytechnic University’s vocational training, bringing families with them. Advancements in transportation allowed for a diversification in the local economy. The popularity of automobile tourism brought more visitors to the area and sparked the concept of the first motor hotel, or motel. Anholm Addition. The population boom of the late 19th and early 20th centuries drove the need for more residential housing, and new additions were annexed to the city. Residential subdivision of the city began in the late 19th century, clustered around downtown and the southern side of the city (Historic Resources Group 2013:16). In the 1920s seven areas were subdivided, primarily to the north and east of the downtown core, including the Anholm Addition. The Anholm Addition was coterminous with the boundary of the Venable Ranch, which was purchased by Judge McDowell Venable in 1879 (Anholm n.d., Bertrando and Bertrando 2009). In 1918, the Venable Ranch was purchased by George and Chris Anholm, brothers and immigrants from Denmark. The ranch consisted of 162 acres of land from “Stenner Creek to the fence by the brushline on San Luis Mountain and to where Serrano Drive is now and to Mt. Pleasanton subdivision.” The flat land had been rented by Ah Louis, a Chinese immigrant, for many years for vegetable and see farming” (Anholm n.d.). Chris and George divided the land between them, with George taking the Venable ranch house and Chris building a new house on Garden Creek (Bertrando and Bertrando 2009). DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 158 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 5 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July17, 2017 B10. Significance (continued) In 1922 and 1929, the Anholm brothers sold roughly 77 acres on the west side of the ranch to Carlos Serrano. The remaining land constituted the Anholm Addition, in its current configuration, which was delineated in 1927, when the Anholm brothers were granted permission to subdivide the area. They laid out the streets with a horse-drawn scraper, according to the Anholm family papers on file at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County (Anholm n.d.). Gravel quarried from a hill of red rock on Lincoln Street near Broad Street was used to for the streets. In 1928, the “Anholm Tract” was heavily advertised in local papers. J.A. Stebbins became the exclusive broker for the tract, taking out full page ads in the San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram to advertise a large sale that was held on June 10, 1928 (Daily Telegram 1928). In April 1929, a bond issue was approved to build a bridge over Stenner Creek, extending Chorro Street into the tract. Plans to pave North Broad Street were also announced. In May 1929, Loomis & Loomis and the Evans Brokerage Company were named the new tract agents for the Anholm tract (Daily Telegram May 5, 1929). 676 Mountain View Street. The residence and garage at 676 Mountain View Street were built by Rex K. Fuller. Rex was the husband of Evabelle Long-Fuller, whose parents had bought the land as part of a larger land purchase from the Anholm brothers . Building permit information from the Cal Poly archives indicates that Rex Fuller used day labor to build the house at 676 Mountain View Street. Rex built two other houses 1927, just up the street from the project site (California Polytechnic State University 2017). Eight months after the residence and garage were built, Cecil Evans, of the Evans Brokerage Company, purchased the house with his wife Alma. Cecil was born in Missouri and came to California at the age of three; he attended Emerson Grammar School in San Luis Obispo and quit high school to work as a telegraph operator for the Pacific Coast Railroad in 1916 (Telegraph Tribune 1965). Cecil briefly worked with Chester Loomis in his brokerage business before he went to work as a manager for the Lompoc Produce and Real Estate Company. In 1928, he and his family moved back to San Luis Obispo, where he opened his own firm, the Evans Brokerage Company, located in the P. A. Arata real estate office at 1028 Chorro Street (Daily Telegram August 30, 1928). Cecil handled real estate, insurance, and the buying and selling of produce and navy beans. In 1929, Cecil helped to establish Reservoir Canyon Park with the Kiwanis Club, moved his business to a new location at in the Long Building at 783 Marsh Street (Daily Telegram May 1, 1929), and was named one of the tract agents from the Anholm Addition. He continued to build his brokerage business, and, in 1930, joined a group of civic-minded businessmen to bring the county Chamber of Commerce to the city level in June of that year. Cecil was on the first Board of Directors for city Chamber of Commerce and was elected board secretary. In 1931, Cecil and Alma moved to a home at 1610 Phillips Lane (A to Z Publishers 1931; Fidelity National Title 2017). They sold the residence to the Silacci family; however, there is no evidence that the Silacci family actually occupied the residence. In 1935, the Silacci family filed a quitclaim deed reverting ownership of the residence to the Evans family. While no further information was identified to explain why the Silacci defaulted on the property, the country was in the full grasp of the Depression. While the San Luis Obispo area was shielded somewhat because of its thriving agricultural industry, not everyone evaded the effects of the economic downturn (Historic Resources Group 2013). The Evans family continued to own the residence until 1946, but city and county directories indicate that Earl and Cecilia Miller were living in the residence as early as 1938 (General Directories 1938). Earl worked for Golden State Dairy, which was located on Higuera Street. In 1946, the Miller family purchased the residence from the Evans and lived there until 1970, when Earl Miller passed away. His wife, Cecilia, remained in the home until she passed away in 2000. Architectural Context Minimal Traditional (1925 to 1950). The Minimal Traditional style of architecture evolved as a response to a number of influences. The popular revival styles of the 1920s and the emergence of the Modern architectural movement led to a type of architecture that borrowed from revival styles, while at the same time eliminating decorative architectural detailing and relying on simple exterior forms (Historic Resources Group 2013). Often considered a “non-style,” Minimal Traditional homes became very popular during the Great Depression, World War II, and the post war years, as their small scale and simple styling made them ideal for Federal Housing Authority (FHA) loan programs. These homes were affordable, making them popular with families and builders. An FHA pamphlet from 1940, Principles for Planning Small Houses, described the style as “Simplicity in exterior design gives the small house the appearance of maximum size” (McAlester 2013). DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 159 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 6 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 B10. Significance (continued) Architectural Context (continued). The style was popular throughout the United States particularly as housing for war industry workers and returning veterans. LSA conducted an online review of subdivisions created within the city in the 1920s using Google Streetview in an effort to review the current stock of Minimal Traditional residences. The review resulted in the identification of seven Minimal Traditional homes, all built in the 1930s and 1940s. No review was made of later subdivisions. Some character defining features of Minimal Traditional style architecture include: 1) single story; 2) simple rectangular plan; 3) medium or low- pitched hipped or gabled roof with little or no eaves; 4) shallow entry porch; 5) minimal decorative exterior detailing; 5) double-hung windows, typically multi-pane or 1/1; and 6) garages, either detached or part of the main house. California Register of Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation Under CRHR Criterion 1, research indicates that the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are associated with early 20th century residential development. This development made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history of San Luis Obispo, an important center of economic, social, and local government administration in the county. However, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not associated with specific events within this context that would differentiate it from other residential developments with similar design, construction history, and uses in the city during the same period. As such, they are not associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under Criterion 1. Under CRHR Criterion 2, background research in local history publications, newspaper collections, and previous cultural resource surveys revealed that Cecil Evans was a notable businessman in San Luis Obispo, who started his brokerage firm in 1928 when he bought the residence at 676 Mountain View Drive. He was an active member of the local Kiwanis club, and helped to develop ways to promote San Luis Obispo to the rest of the state. In 1930, along with a number of other active businessmen in the city, he helped to establish the city’s Chamber of Commerce. The County of San Luis Obispo established a Chamber of Commerce in 1905, and the city desired to have similar representation. A detailed history of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce was not identified in archival research; however, a 2001 article in the SLO County Journal recounts the initiation of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce as the Board of Trade, which was established in 1887 and would later change its name to the Chamber of Commerce (Nicholson 2001). A 1985 article in the Telegram-Tribune honored the founding members of the Chamber of Commerce, stating a charter was signed in September 1905 to found the chamber. The article attributes the founding of the chamber to Lonnie C. Bell, J.P Andrews, Tamezo Eto, and Robert E. Jack (Telegram-Tribune 1985). Cecil Evans was one of a number of community and civic oriented businessmen in the 1920s, and would continue his brokerage firm until his retirement in 1965. He recounted to the newspaper that he considered 1961 as the high point of his career when he completed two transactions worth $3 million (Telegram-Tribune 1965). While Cecil Evans was a real estate broker, a review of newspaper collections indicates that his civic focus was on bringing people to the area in order to increase residential development, business prospects, and tourism. In the context of Early 20th Century Residential Development, Evans was among a group of people trying to bring about growth in the area, through the development of new subdivisions and the creations of services. Over his 37 year career, only three years were spent at 676 Mountain View Street. Sometime around 1933, he moved to 1610 Phillips Lane, where he would reside for most of his career. There is no evidence to indicate that Cecil Evans’ residential brokerage or civic activities distinguished him as more than a member of a cadre of business leaders with the common goal of economic development and boosterism. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under Criterion 2. Under CRHR Criterion 3, The buildings at 676 Mountain View Street possess some of the general architectural characteristics of the Minimal Traditional style, an architectural style well represented in the existing building stock of the City, the County, California, and nationwide. Later examples which better represent the style and have equal or greater architectural expressiveness include 2646 Lawton (built in 1930); 191 Chorro Street (built in 1935); 388 Chorro Street (built in 1941); and 756 Rougeot Place (built in 1947). Building permits from the Cal Poly archives indicate that Rex Fuller applied for the building permit for 676 Mountain View Street and used day labor to construct it. He built two other residences in the general vicinity: 668 and 644 Mountain View Street, the latter being the Fuller family home. No records were found that to indicate that Rex Fuller was an important creative individual. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 160 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 7 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 B10. Significance (continued) California Register of Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation The residence at 676 Mountain View Street is an early modest example of Minimal Traditional architecture and does not represent the work of an important creative individual, or possess high artistic values. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under Criterion 3. Under CRHR Criterion 4, he Minimal Traditional style is well documented in architectural literature and further documentation is not likely to yield information important in history. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under Criterion 4. City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Criteria The section below provides a discussion of the building’s status under Section 14.01.070 of the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance. 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: a. The relative purity of a traditional style; The buildings are associated with the Minimal Traditional architectural style, a style that gained popularity during the Depression and years following World War II. The style embodies simple forms and massing, and minimal details. At some point after the construction of the residence, shed style awnings were added to the front facing façade, over the windows. The windows appear to have been replaced or altered because they are full glass panes, versus the multi-pane windows that were popular to the style. These alterations have diminished its ability to convey the purer form of it architectural qualities from the time of construction in 1928. Therefore the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style; While the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are an early example of Minimal Traditional style, they are not rare in their existence. Research indicates that other examples of the style still exist in the neighborhood and convey the style more fully as they were built during the heyday of the architectural trend (1930s and 1940s). These examples include 191 Chorro Street (built in 1935); 388 Chorro Street (built in 1941); and 756 Rougeot Place (built in 1947). Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Road are not significant under this criterion. 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. The buildings at 676 Mountain View retain some character-defining features of the Minimal Traditional style, which was an architectural style long popular in the United States for its practicality and economic design. This style is associated with the residential development of the City during the early 20th century and was found in both rural and urban areas in San Luis Obispo County and statewide. Its presence does not represent a particular social milieu or period, or a uniqueness of hybrid styles. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. (2) Design: a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique); Minimal Traditional design is not notable for its artistic merit, as it was an effort to streamline revival styles and save DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 161 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 8 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 B10. Significance (continued) City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance Criteria (continued) on costs and materials. Artistic and architectural details were discouraged. Because it was a very simple style, the addition of the shed style awnings over the front windows diminishes the representation of the residence as a Minimal Traditional design. Other extant examples of the style which better convey the character defining features include 191 Chorro Street (built in 1935); 388 Chorro Street (built in 1941); and 756 Rougeot Place (built in 1947). Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. A field survey of the buildings and review of the building permits indicate that the buildings were built using day laborers. There are no interesting details or eclecticism in the construction of the buildings. There is no architect associated with the buildings to which any expression of details or eclecticism could be attributed, such as they exist. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. (3) Architect: 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. Background research did not identify an architect associated with the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street. No connections can be made to a notable architect. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo. Please refer to discussion under Criterion A(3)a above. B. Historic Criteria (1) History – Person: 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. Background research indicates that the buildings were built by Rex Fuller and sold to Cecil Evans in 1928. Evans was a broker of real estate, insurance, and produce, and was active in the Kiwanis Club and the Chamber of Commerce. He was one of a large group of civic minded businessmen during the period, and there is no evidence to indicate he rose to a level of notable prominence in the history of the City, the State of California, or the nation. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. 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). Background research at local archives and online resources indicated that Cecil Evans was a local businessman who was involved in a number of civic organizations. While he and his fellow businessmen worked diligently to promote San Luis Obispo as a destination, there is no evidence to suggest his action led to unique or outstanding contributions to the community, or that would raise him to a level of significance above other active businessmen of the era. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. (2) History – Event: (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. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 162 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 9 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 B10. Significance (continued) The buildings at 676 Mountain View Drive are associated with the context of Early 20th Century Residential Development in San Luis Obispo and subdivision of the Anholm Tract in 1928. The 1920s was a decade of residential growth for the city and subdivisions were added in a number of areas across town. This growth, while important for the city, was not indicative of a famous or first-of-its- kind event for the city. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. (ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city. Background research indicates that the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not the only resources associated with the context of Early-20th Century Residential Development of San Luis Obispo, and are not the only extant examples of the Minimal Traditional style. The buildings 676 Mountain View Street do not constitute a unique, important, or interesting contribution to the city. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. B. Historic Criteria (3) History Context: 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. The buildings at 676 Mountain View Street were built in 1928 when the Anholm Tract was subdivided. For the next few years, Cecil Evans and others would advertise the development and attempt to sell lots for development. These patterns of growth were common between the 1900s and 1920s. Residential growth slowed in the 1930s and 1940s due to the Depression and World War II, but picked back up again in the 1950s. There is no evidence to indicate that residential development that spurred the building of 676 Mountain View Street are intimately connected to the buildings as early, first, or major patterns of local history. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building. No secondary patterns of local history were identified in relation to the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street. Therefore, the buildings 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under this criterion. C. Integrity The buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not significant under any of the preceding criterion. Therefore, integrity was not addressed. Conclusion Background research and field survey identified a single-family residence and detached garage in the project site at 676 Mountain View Drive. Both buildings were built in the Minimal Traditional style in 1928. The buildings are associated with the early-20th century residential development in San Luis Obispo; however, their association with these patterns of events is not prominent or important. Research did not reveal associations with important people or events from the past and buildings possess design characteristics of the Minimal Traditional architectural styles, they do not possess any outstanding or unique characteristic’s to raise them to a level of significance. For the reasons documented in the report, LSA concludes that the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street do not appear eligible for inclusion in the California Register under any of the criteria, due to a lack of significance in association with the historical contexts. This reasoning also supports the conclusion that the buildings are not candidates for inclusion in the City of San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resources or the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources. Therefore, the buildings at 676 Mountain View Street are not historical resources for the purposes of CEQA (California Public Resources Code §21084.1). In addition, they are not historical resources under the HPO, § 14.01.070 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 163 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 10 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 B12. References (continued) Ancestry.com 1910 United States Federal Census. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed July 2017. 1930 United States Federal Census. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed July 2017. 1940 United States Federal Census. Electronic document, www.ancestry.com, accessed July 2017. Angel, Myron 1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, of Its Prominent Men and Pioneers. Thompson & West, Oakland, California, republished 1979 Valley Publishers, Fresno, California. Baloian, Randy 2006 Archaeological Resources Inventory for Water Line Replacement on Five Streets in Downtown San Luis Obispo, California. Applied Earth Works, Inc. Fresno, California. Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants 1997 Cultural Resource Investigation and Inventory of 626 Broad Street. San Luis Obispo, California. 1998a Cultural Resource Investigation for Proposed Utility Trenching at the 800 and 600 Blocks of Walnut and Morro Streets in the City of San Luis Obispo, CA. San Luis Obispo, California. 1998b Cultural Resource Significance Evaluation of CA-SLO-64/H. San Luis Obispo, California. 2006 Structure History and Evaluation: 460 Broad Street, City of San Luis Obispo, CA. San Luis Obispo, California. 2009 Historic Resource Evaluation: The Chris Anholm House. San Luis Obispo, California. Blomquist, Leonard Rudolph 2003 California in Transition: The San Luis Obispo District, 1830-1850. History Center of San Luis Obispo County, San Luis Obispo, California. Brewer, William H. 1966 Up and Down California in 1860-1864: The Journal of William H. Brewer. Edited by Francis P. Farquhar. University of California Press, Berkeley. Britton & Rey 1874 Map of the County of San Luis Obispo, California. R.R. Harris, County Surveyor, publisher. http://imgzoom.cdlib.org/Fullscreen.ics?ark=ark:/13030/hb638nb737/z1&&brand=calisphere C. A. Singer & Associates, Inc. 1993 It Came From Beneath the Streets: An Archaeological Report on the Expansion of the City of San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment System. Cambria, California. California Department of Transportation 1981 Archaeological Survey Report for Route 101. On file at the Central Coast Information Center. University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 164 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 11 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 B12. References (continued) 2000 Archaeological Survey Report for a Noise Barrier. On file at the Central Coast Information Center. University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California. California Digital Library 2012 Calisphere. The Regents of the University of California. Electronic document <http://www.calisphere.universityofcalifornia.edu> accessed July 27, 2017. California Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1992 California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 1996 California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2001 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 2009 California Historical Landmarks: San Luis Obispo. Electronic document http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21484, accessed July 19, 2017. 2012 Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for San Luis Obispo County, April 5, 2012. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. California Polytechnic State University 2017 San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection. On file at the Special Collections and Archives, Robert E. Kennedy Library, San Luis Obispo, California. City of San Luis Obispo 1983 Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey, Volumes 1, 2 and3. City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee, San Luis Obispo, California. On file at the Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, California. 2000 Building Permit Information for 676 Mountain View Street, San Luis Obispo. On file at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department. 2010a San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance. Electronic document, http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4142, accessed July 25, 2017. 2010b City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. Electronic document http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144, accessed July 25, 2017. 2014a San Luis Obispo Municipal Code- Chapter 14.01. Electronic document, http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/SanLuisObispo/#!/sanluisobispo14/SanLuisObispo1401.html#14.01, accessed July 19, 2017. 2014b San Luis Obispo General Plan: Land Use and Circulation Update. Electronic document, http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan, accessed August 23, 2017. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 165 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 12 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 B12. References (continued) 2016a City of San Luis Obispo Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources, updated December 2016. Electronic document, http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=14557, accessed July 19, 2017. 2016b City of San Luis Obispo Master List of Historic Resources, updated December 2016. Electronic document, http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=14555, accessed July 19, 2017. 2017 City of San Luis Obispo GIS Parcel Viewer. Interactive map, http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=516bdd31ca984b7cae364939dd72de39, accessed August, 2017. Conway, Thor 2000a Phase I Archaeological Surface Survey for the Scarry Office Building, 956 Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Heritage Discoveries, Inc. San Luis Obispo, California. 2000b Phase I Archaeological Surface Survey for the Leopold & Murphy Project, Walnut Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Heritage Discoveries, Inc. San Luis Obispo, California. Daily Telegram 1928 Advertisement “Lots in the Anholm Tract Now On Sale” placed by J. A. Stebbins. 9 June. San Luis Obispo, California. Mention “Cecil Evans Opens Office”. 30 August. San Luis Obispo, California 1929 Mention “Evans Opens New Offices”. 1 May. San Luis Obispo, California. Mention “Names Anholm Tract Agents”. 4 May. San Luis Obispo, California. Fidelity National Title 2017 Title Search Results for 676 Mountain View Street, San Luis Obispo, California. General Directories 1938 San Luis Obispo County and City Telephone Directory. Local Chamber of Commerce, California Directories, San Francisco, California. Gibson, Robert O. 2005 Report of Archaeological Monitoring for the Old Mission School Pavilion Project. Gibson’s Archaeological Consulting. Paso Robles, California. Gottfried, Herbert and Jan Jennings 2009 American Vernacular Buildings and Interiors, 1870-1960. W.W. Norton & Company, New York, New York. Gudde, Erwin G. 1998 California Place Names. The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. Fourth edition revised and enlarged by William Bright. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hayes, Derek 2007 Historical Atlas of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 166 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 13 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 B12. References (continued) Historic Resources Group 2013 City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement. Electronic document, http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4042, accessed July 20, 2017. Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Rensch, and William N. Abeloe 2002 Historic Spots in California. Fifth edition, revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. J. E. Casey Publishers 1946 County Directory. San Luis Obispo, California. Jackson, John Brinckerhoff 1984 Discovering the Vernacular Landscape. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 1999 Draft Cultural Resource Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, San Luis Obispo to Los Osos Loop. Sacramento, California. McAlester, Virginia 2013 A Field Guide to American Houses. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York. Marschner, Janice 2002 California, 1850: A Snapshot in Time. Coleman Ranch Press, Sacramento, California. Monroy, Douglas 1990 Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mexican Culture in Frontier California. University of California Press, Berkeley. National Park Service 1997 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Nicholson, Loren 2001 Birth of the San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce. SLO County Journal. November. San Luis Obispo, California. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph 1919-1939 San Luis Obispo County Telephone Directory. The Pacific Telephone and Telegraph Company. On file at Local History Room, San Luis Obispo County Library, San Luis Obispo, California. Polk’s City Directories 1942-1962 Polk’s Directory for San Luis Obispo County, California. R.L. Polk & Company, San Francisco, California. Robinson, W.W. 1948 Land in California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. San Luis Obispo County 1918 Plat of the Venable Tract in the City of San Luis Obispo. On file at the San Luis Obispo County Assessor, San Luis Obispo, California. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 167 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 14 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 B12. References (continued) 1927 Map of the Anholm Addition. On file at the San Luis Obispo County Assessor, San Luis Obispo, California. 1928-2000 Residential Building Record for 676 Mountain View Street, San Luis Obispo. On file at San Luis Obispo County Assessor, San Luis Obispo, California. Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd. 1886 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1888 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1891 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1903 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1905 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1909 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1926 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1950 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. Taylor, Patti and Suzette Lees 2010 75 SLO City Sites: An Informative Self-Guided Architectural Tour in Historic San Luis Obispo. Graphic Communication Institute, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California. Telegraph Tribune 1965 Article “Cecil Evans says he is now really retired”. May. San Luis Obispo, California. 1985 Article. “SLO chamber to honor founding members”. 19 June. San Luis Obispo, California. United States General Land Office (US-GLO) 1867 Plat Map, Township 31 South, Range 12 East. 1872 Plat Map, Township 31 South, Range 12 East. 1875 Plat Map, Township 31 South, Range 12 East. U.S. Geological Survey 1897 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1903 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1916 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1931 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 168 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 15 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 B12. References (continued) 1927 Map of the Anholm Addition. On file at the San Luis Obispo County Assessor, San Luis Obispo, California. 1928-2000 Residential Building Record for 676 Mountain View Street, San Luis Obispo. On file at San Luis Obispo County Assessor, San Luis Obispo, California. Sanborn-Perris Map Co., Ltd. 1886 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1888 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1891 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1903 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1905 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1909 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1926 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. 1950 San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Sanborn Map and Publishing Company, Pelham, New York. Taylor, Patti and Suzette Lees 2010 75 SLO City Sites: An Informative Self-Guided Architectural Tour in Historic San Luis Obispo. Graphic Communication Institute, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California. Telegraph Tribune 1965 Article “Cecil Evans says he is now really retired”. May. San Luis Obispo, California. 1985 Article. “SLO chamber to honor founding members”. 19 June. San Luis Obispo, California. United States General Land Office (US-GLO) 1867 Plat Map, Township 31 South, Range 12 East. 1872 Plat Map, Township 31 South, Range 12 East. 1875 Plat Map, Township 31 South, Range 12 East. U.S. Geological Survey 1897 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1903 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1916 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1931 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1942 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 15-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 1965 San Luis Obispo, Calif. 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 169 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 16 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 P5a. Photograph: 676 Mountain View Street, front (southeast) façade and northeast façade, view to the northwest. LSA Photograph 7/17/17. 676 Mountain View Street, front porch detail, northeast façade, view to the southwest. LSA Photograph 7/17/17. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 170 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 17 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 P5a. Photograph: 676 Mountain View Street, southwest façade, view to the northeast. LSA Photograph 7/17/17. 676 Mountain View Street, rear (northwest) façade, view to the southeast. LSA Photograph 7/17/17. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 171 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 18 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 P5a. Photograph: 676 Mountain View Street, northeast façade, view to the northwest. LSA Photograph 7/17/17. 676 Mountain View Street, garage, southeast façade, view to the northwest. LSA Photograph 7/17/17. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 172 8 State of California C The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 19 of 19 Resource Name: 676 Mountain View Street Recorded by: Amber Long Date: July 17, 2017 P5a. Photograph: 676 Mountain View Street, garage, southwest façade, view to the northeast. LSA Photograph 7/17/17. 676 Mountain View Street, garage, northeast façade, view to the southwest. LSA Photograph 7/17/17. DPR 523L (1/95) Packet Pg 173 8 RESOLUTION NO. CHC-####-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL REMOVE THE PROPERTY AT 676 MOUNTAIN VIEW FROM THE CITY’S INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES (HIST-1138-2017) 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 November 27, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application HIST-1138-2017, Candice Wong, applicant and owner; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. 1. 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 buildings are not rare examples of the Minimal Traditional 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 style avoids ornamentation and detail, and these buildings do not exhibit any particular expression of artistic merit, details, or craftsmanship. No significant architect is associated with the buildings. 2. 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. 3. 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 Packet Pg 174 8 Resolution No. CHC-XXXX-17 HIST-1138-2017 (676 Mountain View) Page 2 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 the Historical Resource Evaluation prepared for the property, the buildings on the property do not appear eligible for inclusion in the California Register, and the evaluation supports the conclusion that they are not candidates for inclusion on the City’s Inventory, and are not historical resources 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), as 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). Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends to the City Council that the property at 676 Mountain View Street be removed from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. On motion by Committee Member Kincaid, seconded by Committee Member Matteson, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Brajkovich, Haydu, Kincaid, Matteson, Papp NOES: Larrabee REFRAIN: (None) ABSENT: Baer The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 27th day of November 2017. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee Packet Pg 175 8 Minutes - DRAFT CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Monday, NOVEMBER 27, 2017 Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, November 27, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Papp. ROLL CALL Present: Committee Members Craig Kincaid, Thom Brajkovich, Damon Haydu, Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee, and Chair James Papp Absent: Committee Members Sandy Baer Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille and Recording Secretary Jennifer Hooper APPROVAL OF MINUTES Consideration of Minutes of the Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of October 23, 2017: ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, CARRIED 6-0-1, the Cultural Heritage Committee approved the Minutes of the Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of October 23, 2017, as presented. PUBLIC COMMENT None. --End of Public Comment-- PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2. 676 Mountain View; A request that the property at 676 Mountain View be removed from the City's Contributing List of Historic Resources. This project is exempt from environmental review, per CEQA Guidelines § 15061 (b) (3) (General Rule); Case #: HIST-1138-2017; R- 1 Zone; Candice Wong, applicant. (Walter Oetzell) Packet Pg 176 8 DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of November 27, 2017 Page 2 Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Committee inquiries. Amber Long, Architectural Historian, provided brief comment and responded to Committee inquiries. Public Comment Kevin McReynolds. --End of Public Comment-- Commission discussion followed. ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, CARRIED 5-1-1, to adopt a resolution entitled “A Resolution of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee recommending that the City Council remove the property at 676 Mountain View from the City’s inventory of historic resources (HIST-1138-2017)” as presented. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting scheduled for Monday, December 25, 2018 has been cancelled. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 22, 2018 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2017 Packet Pg 177 8 ATTACHMENT E Packet Pg 178 8 ATTACHMENT E Packet Pg 179 8 ATTACHMENT E Packet Pg 180 8 ATTACHMENT E Packet Pg 181 8 jCouncil M , ti9 acEnaa wporzt 4 N= C I T Y OF SAN LU IS O B I S P O FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir tnr Prepared By: Jeff Hook, Associate P1anr,L:, SUBJECT: CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE NOMINATION OF PROPERTIES TO THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES. CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution adding 28 properties to the ContributingPropertiesList. DISCUSSION Advisory Bodv Recommendation. At advertised public hearings on May 24', June 28' and August 23d, 1999, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) voted unanimously to nominate thefollowingpropertiestotheContributingPropertiesList: 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 894MurrayAvenue; 747, 750, 762 and 783 Rougeot Place. Situation. One of the CRC's 1997-99 workprogram priorities is updating the City's MasterListofHistoricResources. Last year the CHC began its update by reviewing properties in the Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm neighborhood for architectural or historical significance. This is the fourth and final group of properties nominated for historic status from that neighborhood. The City Council has previously designated 55 Contributing historic properties and one Master List property in this neighborhood. Of 111 properties surveyed, a total of 84 76 percent) were nominated for historic designation, including the above properties.Contributing properties are nominated based on their age, (at least 50 years old), condition, and the degree to which the building has retained its original architectural style. City Council approval is required to add properties to the Master or Contributing List of Historic Resources. The purposes of the historic listing are: 1) to recognize buildings which contribute to the City's architectural, cultural and historical diversity, 2) to help preserve and restore buildings which arehistoricallyorarchitecturallysignificant; 3) to help preserve the historic character of neighborhoods, and 4) to make certain historic properties eligible for preservation incentives, such as rehabilitation loans, tax incentives, or more flexible building or zoning codes. Based on the properties' historic documentation, advisory body recommendations, and public testimony,the City Council should decide whether the properties meet the eligibility criteria for adding 4-1 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 182 8 Council Staff Report - CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 2 them to the Contributing Properties List. These criteria were adopted by the City Council and are listed in the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (criteria attached). If the Council concurs with the CHC's nomination, it should adopt the attached resolution adding the properties to the Contributing Properties List. Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm Neighborhood. All of the properties are located within the Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm neighborhood, an area comprised of two residential subdivisions developed in the 1920s and 1930s and located northwest of Downtown between the base of Cerro San Luis Obispo and Stenner Creek. Predominant architectural styles are Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial revival, Tudor Revival, Craftsman, and California Bungalow, reflecting popular architectural styles of that time. The area's popularity was due, in part, to its proximity to Downtown and sheltered location on the lee side of Cerro San Luis. Early residents include many prominent educators, business owners and professionals. This continues to be an attractive, recognizable neighborhood, with most homes in good condition and many in original or near-original architectural character. Because of the apparent concentration of architecturally and historically important homes, the CHC has discussed the possibility that the Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm neighborhood may merit historic district status. As an initial step, the CHC is reviewing all properties within these two subdivisions for their architectural and historical significance. G q AV! SY'.• Y Master and Contributing Properties Lists. Procedures for historic nomination are found in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. There are two categories of historic resources: Master List properties and Contributing properties. The Master List of Historic Resources consists of 167 of the City's most important residential and commercial structures which have significant historic or architectural value to the community and which merit f special preservation and recognition. Figure 1: A Master List Property - Myron Angel Master List properties are eligible to Home, 1886 receive a historic plaque, commemorating the historic name and date of the building. Some of these properties are also eligible for State or Federal historic designation, and may qualify for tax incentives such as the federal tax credits or the Mills Act Program. Once added to the Master List, exterior building changes are possible, provided that such changes promote the structure's original architectural style and character. Demolition is also possible, subject to Architectural Review Commission approval. According to the Historical Preservation Program Guidelines, demolition of a historical resource should be done only when: "1) the condition of the building poses a threat to the health, safety or welfare of community residents or people living or working 4-2 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 183 8 Council Staff Report - CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 3 on or near the site, or 2) the project sponsor demonstrates that it financially infeasible to rehabilitate the structure or preserve the historic nature of the site." The Contributing Properties List contains r .• J hw about 400 properties, most of which are houses within designated historic districts. Contributing properties consist of structures, gardens or other features which are at least 50 years old and which, while not necessarily unique or associated with an important person or w historical event, contribute to the architectural or historical character of their neighborhood. Contributing r Properties listing is primarily an honorary designation. Changes to Contributing properties do not require any architectural or historical review beyond that which would normally be Figure 2: Contributing Historic Property - 829 required (none, for additions and Murray Street, 1928. remodels to single dwellings or duplexes), although city policies encourage their preservation. Both Master List and Contributing List properties are considered "historic" and may qualify for more flexible zoning and building codes to encourage their preservation and upkeep. General Plan Policy. Policy 6.6.1 of the General Plan Land Use Element says that the City should identify, preserve and where possible restore historic resources. By designating eligible properties as historic, the City helps preserve important buildings and features of the community's heritage. In so doing, the City and property owners work together to maintain the distinctive architectural character and "sense of place" of both residential and commercial neighborhoods. Contributing Properties List Nominations 491 Bill Street Property Owner: Anthony Bramwell Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story, Spanish Colonial Revival style house on a 1.4 acre lot. Date Built: HRS estimate 1935. 249 Mission Lane Property Owner: Karen A. Diefenderfer Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential 4-3 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 184 8 Council Staff Report - CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 4 Description: One-story Spanish Colonial Revival style house on an . 57 acre lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. 728 Mission Street Property Owner: Susan C. Webster, Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival style house on an 8685 square foot lot. Date Built- HRS estimated 1930. 734 Mission Street Property Owner: Lavin Margaroli, Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival-style house on a 8,415 sq. ft. lot.. Date Built: HRS estimate 1930.. 752 Mission Street Property Owners: Mark and Amy Sensenbach Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Tudor Revival style house on a 8,004 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1932. 501 Mountain View Property Owners: Rodney and Shirley Keif Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: Two-story Spanish Colonial Revival-style house on a 2.06 acre lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1936. 644 Mountain View Property Owner: Bonnie Snyder Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Colonial Revival Bungalow on a 7;500 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimate 1925. 676.Mountain View Property Owner: C. G. Miller Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description:. One-story Rowhouse on.a 5,000 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1931.. 4-4 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 185 8 Council Staff Report - CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 5 764 Murray Avenue Property Owners: T.A. and B. C Wheeler Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: Two-story Spanish Colonial Revival-style house on a 7,500 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimate 1935. 807 Murray Avenue Property Owners: Berkeley M. and Jacqueline L. Johnston Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Cape Cod Shingle house on a 8,389 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1937. 814 Murray Avenue Property Owners: Terry C. and Camille A. Turney Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story, Mission Revival-style house on a 6,245 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1930. 815 Murray Avenue Property Owner: August F. Hoenack, Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story, Tudor Revival-style house on a 6,205 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1937. 822 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Patricia Farrow Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Tudor Revival style house on 6,245 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1931. 823 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Robert E. Metz Jr. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Tudor Revival style house on 6,205 sq. ft. lot Date Built: HRS factual 1931. 829 Murray Avenue Zoning: R-1 4-5 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 186 8 Council Staff Report -CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 6 Property Owner: Deborah B. Schlanser General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Tudor Revival style house on 6,205 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1928. 836 Murray Avenue Property Owner: LaVerne Osborne, Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Colonial Revival Cottage on a 6,245 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1923. 851 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Russell H. Marks Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival-style house on a 7,725 sq. ft. corner lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1932. 854 Murray Avenue Property Owner: B. Sparks Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Vernacular Bungalow on a 6,245 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimate 1935. 859 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Theodore F. Hiltel, Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Spanish Colonial Revival style house on a 9,225 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1931. 869 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Kenneth R. San Filippo, Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Neoclassic Rowhouse on a 7,725 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimate 1920. 871 Murray Avenue Property Owners: Peter C. and R. B. Grow, Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential 4-6 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 187 8 Council Staff Report- CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 7 Description: One-story Mission Revival style house on a 7,725 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1927. 883 Murray Avenue Property Owners: Mark and Margaret A. Roberts Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival style house on a 7,725 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. 884 Murray Avenue Property Owner: Maino Brothers Corporation Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Craftsman Bungalow on a 6,245 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1927. 894 Murray Avenue Property Owner: C.R. Maino, Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: Two-story Tudor Revival style house on a 9,300 sq. ft. corner lot. Date Built: HRS factual 1926. 747 Rougeot Place Property Owners: Herbert M. Bailey, Tre Etal. Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival style house on a 5,500 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. 750 Rougeot Place Property Owners: Heirs of Alfred Damaso, % Virginia A Damaso Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival style house on a 5,600 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. 762 Rougeot Place Property Owners: Terry and Julee Bauer Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Mission Revival on a 4,300 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. 4-7 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 188 8 Council Staff Report - CHC Historic Resource Nominations Page 8- 783 Rougeot Place Property Owners: Christopher P. and Ann M. Slate Zoning: R-1 General Plan: Low-Density Residential Description: One-story Spanish Colonial Revival on a 5,500 sq. ft. lot. Date Built: HRS estimated 1930. ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not adopt a resolution adding_ one or more of the candidate properties to the . Contributing List. 2. Continue the nominations item for additional information or study, and specify the the additional information or analysis needed. There is no mandated.deadline for action on this item. Attachments: 1. Draft resolution 2. Vicinity Map 3. Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm Neighborhood 4. CHC minutes 5. Excerpt, Historical Preservation Program Guidelines (Appendix C) 6. Historical Designation Criteria Council Reading File: Historic.Resource Inventories ih/L:Ws=m9=99.ccrpt 4-8 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 189 8 b Fierra CHC Historic Property Nominations VICINITY MAP f El r Proposed Historic properties Q N a-1z ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 190 8 Mt. Pleasanton Square/Anholm Neighborhood IL 1000 0 1000 2000 Feet N E S 4-13 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 191 8 MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Regular Meeting of Monday,June 28, 1999 The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room ( Room 9), San Luis Obispo City Hall, 990 Palm Street. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Steve McMasters, Paula Carr, Margot McDonald, Bob Schrage, and Matt Whittlesey. Absent: Amy Kardel and Bob Pavlik. Staff: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner. PUBLIC COMMENTS Chris Collins, 715 Grand Avenue #3, felt the proposed Marsh Street Parking Structure expansion would detract from the Downtown's cultural resources and historic character. He hoped the CHC could address the issue in its review of the proposed garage expansion. Chairman McMasters explained the CHC's review role in connection with historic resources and districts and suggested Mr. Collins also attend Architectural Review Commission and City Council meetings when this project is discussed. Astrid Gallagher announced a historic information program on the town and Hearst Castle in San Simeon, sponsored by Heritage Shared, to be held Saturday and Sunday, September 11' and 12`h, 1999. She said the event would be free to the public. She also expressed concerns that a report entitled the Santa Barbara Street Operational Study was not provided to the CHC for a "courtesy review", in that the study area is within a historic district. She added that road work and excavation may disturb cultural resources and provided a copy of the report to the CHC staff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of the May 24, 1999 meeting were approved as submitted, on a motion by Committee member Schrage, seconded by Committee member McDonald, on a 5-0 vote. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 1. Consider nominating the following properties to the Contributing Properties List: 501 Mountain View; 249 Mission Lane; 829, 836, 851, 854, 859, 869, 871, 883, 884, and 894 Murray Avenue; and 747, 750, 762 and 783 Rougeot Place. (501 Mountain View and 249 Mission Lane continued from May 24, 1999 meeting). 4-14 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 192 8 Jeff Hook introduced the item and presented slides of the candidate historic properties. He also reviewed the categories of historic properties (Contributing and Master List) and explained property owner benefits and responsibilities of historic listing. Chairperson McMasters opened the public hearing. Hearing no comment, the hearing was closed and discussion by Committee members followed. Committee member McDonald noted that she had not had a chance to revisit and photograph 501 Mountain View and 249 Mission Lane and suggested continuing these properties to the next CHC meeting. On a motion by Committee member Schrage, seconded by Committee member McDonald, the Committee nominated the following properties to the Contributing Properties List: 829, 836, 851, 854, 859, 869, 871, 883, 884, and 894 Murray Avenue; 747, 750, 762 and 783 Rougeot Place. Consideration of properties located at 501 Mountain View and 249 Mission Lane was continued to the July CHC meeting to allow subcommittee members to revisit and photograph the homes. The motion carried, 5-0. 4-15 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 193 8 MINUTES SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE Regular Meeting of Monday,May 24, 1999 The meeting convened at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9), San Luis Obispo City Hall, 990 Palm Street. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Steve McMasters, Paula Carr, Margot McDonald, Bob Pavlik, Bob Schrage, and Matt Whittlesey. Absent: Amy Kardel (arrived late). Staff: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The minutes of April 26, 1999 were approved as submitted, on a motion by Committee member Whittlesey, seconded by Committee member McDonald, on a 6-0 vote (Committee member Kardel absent). Committee member Kardel arrived at the meeting. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:Elect a Chair and Vice-Chair to serve one-year terms. This item was moved to the end of the agenda to allow the Committee to consider the public hearing item first. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 1. Consider nominating the following properties to the Contributing Properties List: 501 formerly 610), 644, 654, and 676 Mountain View; 249 Mission Lane; 728, 734, and 752 Mission Street; 764, 807, 814, 815, 822, and 823 Murray Avenue. Jeff Hook introduced the item and presented slides of the candidate historic properties. He also reviewed the categories of historic properties (Contributing and Master List) and explained property owner benefits and responsibilities of historic listing. Chairperson McMasters opened the public hearing. Ernest Rhode, 654 Mountain View, asked that his property not be included on the Contributing Properties list. Chairperson McMasters explained that it was the CHC's policy to abide by property owners' wishes 4-16 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 194 8 regarding listing of contributing properties, and that the minutes should reflect that this property, while eligible for listing, was being removed from further consideration at the property owner's request. Mr. Rhode thanked the Committee and left the meeting. Mr. and Mrs. Keif, 501 Mountain View, observed that their property appeared to be the "mystery house" since there was no current photo of the property available to the CHC. They stated that the house appearance had not changed from the older photo included in the CHC's agenda packet. They did not object to Contributing Property listing and invited CHC members to come to their home to see it and take a photo for the June CHC meeting. Chairperson McMasters closed the public hearing. On a motion by Committee member Schrage, seconded by Committee member Carr, the Committee nominated the following properties to the Contributing Properties List: 644 and 676 Mountain View; 728, 734, and 752 Mission Street; and 764, 807, 814, 815, 822, and 823 Murray Avenue. Consideration of properties located at 501 Mountain View and 249 Mission Lane was continued to the June CHC meeting to allow subcommittee members to revisit and photograph the homes. The motion carried, 7-0. Committee members noted that property located 654 Mountain View, while potentially eligible for the Contributing Properties List, was being removed from consideration at the owner's request. 4-17 ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 195 8 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: ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 196 8 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: ATTACHMENT F Packet Pg 197 8 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: ATTACHMENT G Packet Pg 198 8 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). ATTACHMENT G Packet Pg 199 8