HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2020 Agenda Packet
Tuesday, June 2, 2020
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor of
the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating to the
convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will be
holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view the
meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment.
Additionally, members of the City Council are allowed to attend the meeting via teleconference and to participate
in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present.
Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are encouraged
to participate in Council meetings in the following ways:
1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view:
• View the Webinar (recommended for the best viewing quality):
➢ Registration URL: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/866540913566551052
➢ Webinar ID: 140-398-763
➢ Telephone Attendee: (415) 655-0060; Audio Access Code: 900-352-974
• Televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20
• View a livestream of the meeting online at: https://www.slocity.org/channel20
2. Public Comment - The City Council will still be accepting public comment. Public comment can be
submitted in the following ways:
• Mail or Email Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to
emailcouncil@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM and up until public comment is opened on the item – Limited to
one page emailed to cityclerk@slocity.org, which will then be read aloud during the public
comment period on the item specified.
• Verbal Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your
name, the agenda item number you are calling about and leave your comment. The verbal
comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to the Council
Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence.
➢ During the meeting – Comments can be submitted up until the Public Comment period is
opened for the item when joining via the webinar (instructions above). Please contact the City
Clerk’s office at cityclerk@slocity.org to more information.
All comments submitted will be placed into the administrative record of the meeting.
San Luis Obispo Page 2
5:30 PM
CLOSED SESSION
TELECONFERENCE
Not available via Webinar
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Andy Pease, Erica A. Stewart,
Vice Mayor Aaron Gomez and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM
How to provide public comment on this item only:
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/288399253
You can also dial in using your phone.
(For supported devices, tap a one-touch number below to join instantly)
United States: +1 (872) 240-3212
One-touch: tel:+18722403212,,288399253#
Access Code: 288-399-253
Once public comment is over for this item, the meeting will be closed to the public.
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9.
No. of potential cases: Two.
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agency on the
advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure
to litigation against the local agency. The existing facts and circumstances exposing the City to
litigation include the following:
On September 3, 2019, the City Council adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program with the second
reading of the related ordinances planned for the September 17, 2019, Council meeting. On
September 13, 2019, the City received correspondence from legal counsel representing the Utility
Workers Union of America Local 132 alleging violations of conflict-of-interest rules related to the
ordinances, which was followed by notification of a formal complaint being filed with the
California Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) against Councilmember Pease. The
September 13, 2019, letter is on file with the City Clerk.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 3
San Luis Obispo Page 3
On September 20, 2019, the City requested formal advice from the FPPC on behalf of
Councilmember Pease and a majority of the City Council regarding the application of the
commission’s statutes, rules and regulations concerning the City’s adoption of the Clean Energy
Choice Program. On October 12, 2019, the City was notified that the FPPC would not be providing
advice as requested.
On October 28, 2019, the City requested formal advice from the FPPC on behalf of just a majority
of the City Council regarding the application of the commission’s statutes, rules and regulations
concerning the City’s adoption of the Clean Energy Choice Program. On November 14, 2019, the
FPPC issued a formal letter declining to provide advice as requested. That November 14, 2019,
letter is on file with the City Clerk.
Additionally, the City has received correspondence dated October 1, 2019, from Saro G. Rizzo,
Attorney at Law, expressing concerns with the City’s Clean Energy Choice Program ordinances.
The October 1, 2019 letter is on file with the City Clerk.
All letters on file are available for review in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street.
ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 6:00 p.m. via
teleconference.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 4
San Luis Obispo Page 4
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING TELECONFERENCE
Broadcasted via Webinar
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Heidi Harmon
ROLL CALL: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Andy Pease, Erica A. Stewart,
Vice Mayor Aaron Gomez and Mayor Heidi Harmon
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
(Not to exceed 15 minutes total)
The Council welcomes your input. 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.
1.WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
2.MINUTES REVIEW - MAY 5, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND MAY 8, 2020
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL / DISASTER COUNCIL MEETING (PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Approve the minutes of the City Council meetings held on May 5, 2020 and May 8, 2020.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 5
San Luis Obispo Page 5
3. REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY CONTRACT FOR THE
VIRGINIA LEVERING LATIMER HOUSE (A MASTER LIST RESOURCE)
(CODRON / OETZELL)
Recommendation:
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled, “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a
Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City and the owners of the Virginia
Levering Latimer House at 858 Toro Street (Application No. HIST -0048-2020).”
4. AUTHORIZATION TO CONTINUE THE COLLECTION OF MULTI-DWELLING
PROPERTY FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEES (AGGSON / BLATTLER)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, authorizing the San Luis Obispo County Auditor to collect fees for
2020-21 Fire and Life Safety Inspections of Multi-Dwelling Properties containing three or
more dwelling units on the Secured Property Tax Roll pursuant to California Government
Code Section 54988, Et Seq.”
5. HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A CONTRIBUTING LIST
PROPERTY AT 1156 PEACH STREET (CODRON / OETZELL)
Recommendation:
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled, “A
Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, removing the
property at 1156 Peach Street from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resource s
(1156 Peach St, HIST-0036-2020).”
6. AUTHORIZATION TO ADOPT THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN (AGGSON / BLATTLER)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA 2000) County of San Luis
Obispo Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan 2019 Update” and accompanying City
specific annex.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 6
San Luis Obispo Page 6
7. ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ESRI) ENTERPRISE
LICENSE RENEWAL (HERMANN / GUARDADO / WILWAND)
Recommendation:
Approve an agreement with Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Inc. for a
three-year, small Government Enterprise License Agreement (ELA) in the amount of
$112,100 payable on an annual basis at $36,100 for the first year, $37,500 for the second
year, and $38,500 for the third year.
8. ORCUTT / TANK FARM ROUNDABOUT DESIGN BUDGET AMENDMENT
REQUEST (SPEC. #91611) (HORN / RICE)
Recommendation:
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving an Amendment to the Orcutt Tank Farm Roundabout
Design and Related Budgetary Appropriations;” and
2. Appropriate from the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee Fund balance $100,435 to
support the Orcutt/Tank Farm Roundabout (Spec. #91611) design phase; and
3. Authorize the Finance Director to increase the Purchase Order to GHD for design
services in the amount of $100,435.
9. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1682 (2020 SERIES)
AMENDING CHAPTER 2.40 OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL
CODE REQUIRING ELECTRONIC FILING OF CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OF
CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS VIOLATIONS (PURRINGTON)
Recommendation:
Adopt Ordinance No. 1682 (2020 Series) entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Title 2 of the City of San Luis O bispo
Municipal Code adding to Section 2.40.060 – Electronic Signature and Submission of
Campaign Disclosure Documents, and amending Section 2.40.100 (Civil Actions) to provide
for Administrative Enforcement of violations.”
10. FISCAL YEAR 2020-21 CENTRAL SERVICE COST ALLOCATION PLANS, COST
OF SERVICES FEE CALCULATION, AND LABOR RATES (ELKE)
Recommendation:
Approve the 2020-21 Central Service Cost Allocation Plans including the Cost of Services
Fee Calculation, and Labor Rates.
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 7
San Luis Obispo Page 7
PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS
*Item #11 was distributed in advance of publishing the agenda to allow extra time for review.
This item is available separately as a 230-page report and will not be incorporated into the
combined agenda packet.
11. 2019-21 FINANCIAL PLAN SUPPLEMENT AND 2020-21 BUDGET
(ELKE / HARNETT – 60 MINUTES)
1. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, adopting the Appropriation Limits for Fiscal Year 2020-21 and
revising the Appropriation Limits for Fiscal Years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20”
establishing the City’s appropriation limit for 2020-21 in compliance with Article XIII B
of the State Constitutions, Gann Spending Limitation; and
2. Review and approve the 2019-21 Financial Plan Supplement and 2020-21 Budget and
approve a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, approving the 2020-21 Financial Plan Supplement and Budget
Appropriations” and
3. Adopt Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, deferring future parking rates increases, suspending current hourly
parking rates for parking structures, and reducing rates for Monthly Parking Programs” to
defer future parking rate increases and introduce an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of
the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Section 10.52.010
(Parking Meter Zone Rates) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.”
12. REVIEW OF AN APPEAL (FILED BY SAN LUIS ARCHITECTURAL
PROTECTION) OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO APPROVE
A FOUR-STORY MIXED-USE PROJECT (545 HIGUERA STREET, 486 MARSH
STREET, ARCH-0017-2019) (CODRON / SCOTT – 60 MINUTES)
Recommendation:
Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, denying an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 50-foot
tall mixed-use project consisting of 5,241 square feet of ground-floor retail, eight hotel
suites, and 39 residential units, including mechanical parking lifts, and a Categorical
Exemption from Environmental Review, as represented in the staff report and attachments
(545 Higuera Street, 486 Marsh Street, ARCH-0017-2019).”
San Luis Obispo City Council Agenda June 2, 2020 Page 8
San Luis Obispo Page 8
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, June 16, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., via
teleconference.
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) 781-7410.
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.
Tuesday May 5, 2020
Regular Meeting of the City Council/Disaster Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council/Disaster Council was called to order on
Tuesday May 5, 2020 at 6:09 p.m. by Mayor Harmon, with all Council Members teleconferencing.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Andy Pease, Erica A. Stewart,
Vice Mayor Aaron Gomez, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Teresa
Purrington, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call.
PRESENTATIONS
1. NATIONAL NURSES DAY PROCLAMATION
Mayor Harmon presented a Proclamation to Arthur Dominguez, Chief Nursing Officer Sierra
Vista Regional Medical Center declaring May 6, 2020 to be “National Nurses Day.”
DISASTER COUNCIL ACTIONS
2. RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DIRECTOR AND
PROVIDE COVID-19 RELATED DIRECTION BASED ON CURRENT STATUS
City Manager Derek Johnson presented a PowerPoint on the status of the COVID-19
pandemic.
Public Comments:
Chad Lagomarsino
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: No action taken on this item.
Item 2
Packet Page 1
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 5, 2020 Page 2
3. COMPREHENSIVE DISASTER LEADERSHIP PLAN ADOPTION BY THE
DISASTER COUNCIL
Fire Chief Keith Aggson provided a brief report regarding adopting the Comprehensive
Disaster Leadership Plan.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
STEWART, CARRIED 5-0 to approve the Comprehensive Disaster Leadership Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
---End of Public Comment---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY VICE
MAYOR GOMEZ, CARRIED 5-0 to approve Consent Calendar Items 4 thru 8.
4. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
5. MINUTES REVIEW – APRIL 21, 2020 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
CARRIED 5-0, to approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held on April 21, 2020.
6. ADVISORY BODY APPOINTMENTS FOR UNSCHEDULED VACANCIES
CARRIED 5-0, to
1. As recommended by the Council Liaison Subcommittee for the Construction Board of
Appeals, confirm the re-appointment of Armando Garza, to a 4-year term, expiring March
31, 2024; and
2. As recommended by the Council Liaison Subcommittee for the Human Relations
Commission, confirm the appointment of Megan Souza to complete an unexpired term
through March 31, 2023.
7. CONSIDER PARTICIPATING IN THE SAN LUIS OBISPO REGION URBAN
COUNTY, OVERSEEN BY THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, FOR THE 2021-
2023 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FEDERAL ENTITLEMENT
PROGRAM CYCLES
CARRIED 5-0, to Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the participation in the San Luis Obispo Region
Urban County, overseen by the County of San Luis Obispo, for the 2021-2023 Community
Development Block Grant Federal Entitlement Program Cycles; and approving the execution
of a Cooperation Agreement for participation.”
Item 2
Packet Page 2
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 5, 2020 Page 3
8. PUBLIC SAFETY PORTABLE RADIO REPLACEMENT
CARRIED 5-0, to
1. Waive formal bids and authorize use of Los Angeles County Master Agreement MA-IS-
1740313-1 for purchase of equipment from Motorola Solutions as allowed under 3.24.060
E. of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code; and
2. Adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, certifying Lease No. 24831 between the City of San Luis Obispo and
Motorola Solutions Inc., approving same and authorizing staff to execute and deliver the
lease on the City’s behalf,” subject to approval by the City Attorney and Finance Director;
and
3. Award a contract and enter into a three-year lease-purchase agreement with Motorola
Solutions in the amount of $653,014, split into three equal payments of $217,671.27 for
the purchase of Motorola portable radios, associated accessories and programming and
management software for Public Safety radios with payments beginning on June 1, 2021;
and
4. Approve a transfer of $9,337 from the Information Technology Replacement Fund
Undesignated Capital Account to the Public Safety Radio Replacement Account to
augment available funding for the project.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
9. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1680 (2020 SERIES) AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES’
RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Human Resources Director Monica Irons and Human Resources Analyst Brittani Roltgen
provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, SECOND BY
COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, CARRIED 5-0 to adopt Ordinance No. 1680 (2020 Series)
entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,
authorizing an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo, California, and the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’
Retirement System.”
Item 2
Packet Page 3
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 5, 2020 Page 4
10. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2.40 OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRING ELECTRONIC FILING OF
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDING FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT OF CAMPAIGN REGULATIONS
VIOLATIONS
Deputy City Manager Greg Hermann, City Attorney Christine Dietrick and City Clerk Teresa
Purrington provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE MAYOR GOMEZ, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER
CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0 to introduce an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the
City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Title 2 of the City of San
Luis Obispo Municipal Code adding to Section 2.40.060 – Electronic Signature and
Submission of Campaign Disclosure Documents, and amending Section 2.40.100 (Civil
Actions) to provide for Administrative Enforcement of Violations.”
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, May 19, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2020
Item 2
Packet Page 4
Friday May 8, 2020
Continued Special Meeting of the City Council/Disaster Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Continued Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council/Disaster Council was called to
order on Friday May 8, 2020 at 12:32 p.m. by Mayor Harmon, with all Council Members
teleconferencing.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Andy Pease, Erica A. Stewart,
Vice Mayor Aaron Gomez, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Derek Johnson, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; and Teresa
Purrington, City Clerk; were present at Roll Call.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
None
---End of Public Comment---
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. RECEIVE AN UPDATE FROM THE EMERGENCY SERVICES DIRECTOR AND
ADOPT A RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING A CONTINUING LOCAL EMERGENCY
AND SUSPENDING ENFORCEMENT OF CERTAIN CITY CODES TO SUPPORT
SOCIAL DISTANCING AND MITIGATE ECONOMIC IMPACTS FOR THE
PERIOD DURING WHICH STATE AND COUNTY SOCIAL DISTANCING
REQUIREMENTS REMAIN IN PLACE
City Manager/Emergency Services Director Derek Johnson and City Attorney Christine
Dietrick provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PEASE, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 4-1 (MAYOR HARMON voting NO) to adopt
Resolution No. 11116 (2020 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
San Luis Obispo, California, proclaiming the continuing existence of a Local Emergency
regarding the COVID-19 Pandemic and suspending enforcement of certain city codes to
support Public Health Orders and Public Communication and to mitigate economic impacts,”
suspending the enforcement of Section 8.14 Tobacco Retailer License until September 1, 2020;
and partially suspending enforcement of Sections 15.40.200 Exempt Signs, 15.40.300
Item 2
Packet Page 5
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of May 8, 2020 Page 2
Prohibited Sign Types, 15.40.470 Sign Standards by Sign Type and 15.40.500 Permit Required
of the Sign Regulations and 17.72 Parking and Loading until the social distancing
requirements, as specified in health orders or directives, are repealed in their entirety by the
State of California and County of San Luis Obispo.
2. RECEIVE A BRIEFING AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON MANDATORY MASK
REQUIREMENT
City Manager/Emergency Services Director Derek Johnson and City Attorney Christine
Dietrick provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: No action taken.
3. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON CHILD CARE OPTIONS
Parks and Recreation Director Greg Avakian provided an in-depth staff report and responded
to Council questions.
Public Comments:
None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: No action taken.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 1:27 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for
Tuesday, June 2, 2020 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/2020
Item 2
Packet Page 6
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: June 2, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY CONTRACT FOR
THE VIRGINIA LEVERING LATIMER HOUSE (A MASTER LIST
RESOURCE)
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a resolution (Attachment A)
approving a Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City and the owners of the
Virginia Levering Latimer House at 858 Toro Street, under the terms described in the draft
agreement (Attachment B).
DISCUSSION
The owners of the Virginia Levering Latimer
House at 858 Toro Street submitted an
application to enter into a Mills Act historical
property contract with the City.. The property
was designated as a Master List Resource on
March 17, 2020 (Council Resolution 11093), as
a rare example within the City of the Italianate
Style.
The Mills Act Program
The Mills Act Program enables California cities
to enter into contracts with owners of historical property to provide them with tax relief in
exchange for an agreement to actively participate in the restoration and maintenance of historical
resources. A Mills Act contract is effective for an initial 10-year period, and then is
automatically extended annually for an additional year. After the initial term, either the City or
the owner may, by written notice, decide not to renew the contract. During the eff ective term of
the contract, the property owner must improve or rehabilitate the property, maintain the property
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, and provide visibility of the historical
resource from the public right-of-way.
Figure 1: Virginia Levering Latimer House
Item 3
Packet Page 7
The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the General Plan describes the City’s
goals and policies for the protection of cultural resources. It is the City’s policy that significant
historic resources be rehabilitated and preserved (COSE § 3.3). Parti cipation in the Mills Act
Program is one of the means by which the City encourages the maintenance and restoration of
historic properties (COSE § 3.6.2). A property must be on the City’s Master List of Historic
Resources in order to be enrolled in the program. Currently there are 58 properties participating
in the program, with the last request approved by the Council in November 2018.
Previous Advisory Body Action
The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the application and the terms of the draft contract at
a public hearing on April 27, 2020. The Committee, by a vote of 4-0-1 (1 Committee Member
absent), recommended that the Council approve the contract (minutes pending approval).
Policy Context
The recommended action on this item is supported by historical preservation policies set out
section 3.0 of the COSE of the City’s General Plan, particularly Program 3.6.2, regarding
participation in financial incentive programs to encourage maintenance and restoration of
historic properties, and also with the purpose of encouraging private stewardship of historic
buildings through incentives, as provided by § 14.01.010 (B)(3) of the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
Public Engagement
Public notice of this hearing has been provided to owners and occupants of property near the
subject site, and published in a widely circulated local newspaper, and hearing agendas for this
meeting have been posted at City Hall, consistent with adopted notification procedures for
development projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Entering into a “Mills Act Contract” with the owners of historical property is not subject to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as
defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 (Definitions – Project). Implementation of the Mills Act is
a government fiscal activity which does not involve commitment to any specific project resulting
in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment (Guidelines § 15378 (b) (4)).
FISCAL IMPACT
After the contract is agreed, the County Assessor values the property by an income capitalization
method, following guidelines provided by the State Board of Equalization. Because of the timing
and the method of valuing the restricted property, it is difficult to accurately esti mate the tax
savings and resulting fiscal impacts to the City under a particular historical property contract.
However, the Office of Historic Preservation (California Department of Parks and Recreation)
estimates that property owners participating in the program may realize property tax savings of
between 40% and 60% each year for newly improved or purchased older properties.
Item 3
Packet Page 8
ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the request to a future date for additional analysis or research
2. Do not enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the property owner. This
alternative is not recommended. The contract provides a tax relief incentive that is a tool for
achieving the City’s goals for historical preservation.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Draft)
Item 3
Packet Page 9
RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2020 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HISTORIC PROPERTY
PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE
OWNERS OF THE VIRGINIA LEVERING LATIMER HOUSE AT 858
TORO STREET (APPLICATION NO. HIST-0048-2020)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized by California
Government Code § 50280 et seq. (known as “the Mills Act”) to enter into contracts wit h the
owners of qualified historical properties to provide for appropriate use, maintenance, and
rehabilitation such that these historic properties retain their historic characteristics; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 9136 (2000 Series),
establishing the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program as an on-going historic
preservation program to promote the preservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of historic
resources through financial incentives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has designated this
property as a historic resource of the City of San Luis Obispo pursuant to the policies in the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, Eric Blair and Jacqueline J. Blair (hereinafter referred to as the “Owners”)
are the owners of that certain qualified real property, together with associated structures and
improvement thereon, located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 001-221-001, located at 858 Toro
Street, in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, also described as the Virginia Levering
Latimer House; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo and Owners, for their mutual benefit, now
desire to enter into an agreement to limit the use of the property to prevent inappropriate
alterations and to ensure that character-defining features are preserved and maintained in an
exemplary manner, and repairs and improvements are completed as necessary to carry out the
purposes of California Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12,
Sec. 50280 et seq., and to qualify for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439
et seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing via teleconference from the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on April 27,
2020 for the purpose of reviewing the proposed historic property preservation agreement, and
recommended that the City enter into the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing via teleconference from the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, on June 2, 2020 for the purpose of considering approval of
the historic property preservation agreement, and has duly considered all evidence, in cluding the
record of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony of the
applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation by staff, present at said
hearing; and
Item 3
Packet Page 10
Resolution No. ____ (2020 Series)
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law.
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 City Council makes the
following findings:
1. Conservation and Open Space Element Program 3.6.2 states that the City will
participate in financial assistance programs such as property tax reduction programs
that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties.
2. The Virginia Levering Latimer House, located at 858 Toro Street, has been
recognized as a historic asset in the community by its designation as a Master List
Historic Property by the City Council on March 17, 2020 (Resolution 11093). As
such, maintaining the structure will meet the City’s goals for historic preservation
listed in policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element.
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the
above actions do not constitute a project, as defined in California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines § 15378 and are not subject to environmental review.
SECTION 3. Historic Property Preservation Agreement Approved. The City Council
hereby approves the “Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City of San Luis
Obispo and the Owner of the Historic Property Located at 858 Toro Street,” to be entered into by
the City and the property owners, Eric Blair and Jacqueline J. Blair.
SECTION 4. Community Development Director Authorized to Sign Agreement for City.
The City Council hereby authorizes the Community Development Director to execute said
agreement on behalf of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Item 3
Packet Page 11
Resolution No. ____ (2020 Series)
SECTION 5. Recordation of the Agreement. No later than twenty (20) days after the
parties enter into said agreement, the City Clerk shall cause the agreement t o be recorded in the
Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo.
Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member
____________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this ______ day of _______ 2020.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Item 3
Packet Page 12
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNERS OF THE HISTORIC
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 858 TORO STREET, IN THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ________ day of ________ , 2020, by and
between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the
“City”), and Eric Blair and Jacqueline J. Blair, Trustees of the Blair Family Trust Dated May 20,
2003 (hereinafter referred to as “Owners”), and collectively referred to as the “parties.”
WHEREAS, Owners are the owners of that certain real property commonly known as
858 Toro Street (APN 001-221-001), and legally described as shown in the attached “Exhibit B”
(“Owners’ Property”); and
WHEREAS, Owners have agreed to enter into an Historical Property Contract with the
City for the preservation, maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of Owners’ Property, an
historic resource within the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and in further consideration
of the mutual benefits, promises, and agreements set out herein, the parties agree as follows:
Section 1. Description of Preservation Measures. The Owners, their heirs, or assigns hereby
agree to undertake and complete, at his expense, the preservation, maintenance, and improvements
measures described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto.
Section 2. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective and
commence upon recordation and shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten (10) years
thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the agreement’s effective date, such initial term will
automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Section 50280 through
50290 and in Section 3, below.
Section 3. Agreement Renewal and Non-renewal.
a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this agreement (hereinafter
referred to as “annual renewal date”), a year shall automatically be added to the
initial term of this agreement unless written notice of non-renewal is served as
provided herein.
b. If the Owners or the City desire in any year not to renew the agreement, the Owners
or the City shall serve written notice of non-renewal of the agreement on the other
party. Unless such notice is served by the Owners to the City at least ninety (90)
days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owners at least
sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be
added to the term of the agreement as provided herein.
Item 3
Packet Page 13
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 2
c. The Owners may make a written protest of the notice. The City may, at any time
prior to the annual renewal date, withdraw its notice to the Owners of non-renewal.
d. If either the City or the Owners serve notice to the other party of non-renewal in
any year, the agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then
remaining.
Section 4. Standards and Conditions. During the term of this agreement, the historic property
shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Owners agree to preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate
the building and its character-defining features, including: the building’s general
architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of
windows, doors, and other openings; interior architectural elements that are integral
to the building’s historic character or significance; exterior materials, coatings,
textures, details, mass, roof line, porch, and other aspects of the appearance of the
building’s exterior, as described in Exhibit A, to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or his designee.
b. All building changes shall comply with applicable City specific plans, City
regulations and guidelines, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office
of Historic Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation,
namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and
Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling
shall retain original, character-defining architectural features such as oak and
mahogany details, pillars and arches, special tile work, or architectural
ornamentation to the greatest extent possible.
c. The Community Development Director shall be notified by the Owners of changes
to character-defining exterior features prior to their execution, such as major
landscaping projects and tree removals, exterior door or window replacement,
repainting, remodeling, or other exterior alterations requiring a building permit.
The Owners agree to secure all necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to
changing the building’s use or commencing construction work.
d. Owners agree that property tax savings resulting from this agreement shall be used
for property maintenance and improvements as described in Exhibit A.
e. The following are prohibited: demolition or partial demolition of the historic
building; exterior alterations or additions not in keeping with the standards listed
above; dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs,
doors, walls, windows; outdoor storage of junk, trash, debris, appliances, or
furniture visible from a public way; or any device, decoration, structure, or
vegetation which is unsightly due to lack of maintenance or because such feature
adversely affects, or is visually incompatible with, the property’s recognized
Item 3
Packet Page 14
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 3
historic character, significance, and design as determined by the Community
Development Director.
f. Owners shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the
interior and exterior of the historic property by representatives of the County
Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of
Equalization, and the City as may be necessary to determine the owners’
compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owners hereby agree to furnish any and all
information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance
with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
Section 6. Cancellation.
a. The City, following a duly-noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth
in Government Code Section 50285, may cancel this agreement if it determines that
the Owners have breached any of the conditions of this agreement or has allowed
the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a
qualified historic property; or if the City determines that the Owners have failed to
preserve, maintain, or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in Section 4
of this agreement. If a contract is cancelled because of failure of the Owners to
preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the historic property as specified above, the
Owners shall pay a cancellation fee to the State Controller as set forth in
Government Code Section 50286, which states that the fee shall be 12 ½% of the
full value of the property at the time of cancellation without regard to any restriction
imposed with this agreement.
b. If the historic building is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council
determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of the agreement, the
agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government Code
Section 50288.
Section 7. Enforcement of Agreement.
a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the agreement as referenced
herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of the
agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel the agreement
by the Owners, the City shall give written notice of violation to the Owners by
registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this agreement. If
such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community
Development Director or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter; or if not
corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or
default of said breach; or if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days
(provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty
(30) days and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by the Owners);
Item 3
Packet Page 15
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 4
then the City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this
agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the
obligations of the Owners growing out of the terms of this agreement, apply to any
court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by the Owners or
apply for such relief as may be appropriate.
b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owners if the City does not
enforce or cancel this agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are
not otherwise provided for in this agreement or in the City’s regulations governing
historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a
breach or default under this agreement. No waiver by the City of any breach or
default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent
breach thereof or default herein under.
c. By mutual agreement, City and Owners may enter into mediation or binding
arbitration to resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this contract.
Section 8. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owners hereby subject the historic building
located at 858 Toro Street, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number 001-221-001,
to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The City and Owners
hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth
herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the
Owners’ successors and assigns in title or interest to the historic property. Every contract, deed,
or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the historic property or any
portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject
to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this agr eement regardless of whether
such covenants, restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract, deed, or other
instrument.
Section 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this agreement shall be sent to the address
of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later specified by the
parties hereto.
To City: Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To Owners: Eric Blair and Jacqueline J. Blair
Trustees of the Blair Family Trust Dated May 20, 2003
858 Toro Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Item 3
Packet Page 16
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 5
Section 10. General Provisions.
a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this agreement shall be deemed to
create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or
assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered
joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise.
b. The Owners agree to hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers,
agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or from claims for
damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage
which may arise from the direct or indirect use or activities of the Owners, or from
those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee, or other person acting on
the Owners’ behalf which relates to the use, operation, maintenance, or
improvement of the historic property. The Owners hereby agree to and shall defend
the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees with
respect to any and all claims or actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have
been caused by, reason of the Owners’ activities in connection with the historic
property, excepting however any such claims or actions which are the result of the
sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, or employees.
c. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages
suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason
of the operations referred to in this agreement regardless of whether or not the City
prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for
the historic property.
d. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in
this agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties
herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons
acquiring any part or portion of the historic property, whether by operation of law
or in any manner whatsoever.
e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or
restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained
herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevaili ng
party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney’s fees to be fixed by
the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court.
f. In the event that any of the provisions of this agreement are held to be unenforceable
or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive
legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions
thereof, shall not be affected thereby.
g. This agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California.
Item 3
Packet Page 17
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 6
Section 11. Amendments. This agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written
recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.
Section 12. Recordation and Fees. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties enter into this
agreement, the City shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder
of the County of San Luis Obispo. Participation in the program shall be at no cost to the Owners;
however, the City may charge reasonable and necessary fees to recover direct costs of executing,
recording, and administering the historical property contracts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owners have executed this agreement on the day
and year written above.
THE BLAIR FAMILY TRUST DATED MAY 20, 2003
____________________________________ ______________________________
Eric Blair, Trustee Date
____________________________________ ______________________________
Jacqueline J. Blair, Trustee Date
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ ______________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon Date
Pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. __________(2020 Series)
ATTEST:
______________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
Item 3
Packet Page 18
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 7
EXHIBIT “A”
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR
THE VIRGINIA LEVERING LATIMER HOME LOCATED AT 858 TORO STREET,
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
Owners shall preserve, maintain, and repair the historic building, including its character -defining
architectural features in good condition, to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director or designee, pursuant to a Mills Act Preservation Contract wit h the City of San Luis
Obispo for property located at 858 Toro Street. Character-defining features shall include, but are
not limited to: roof, eaves, dormers, trim, porches, walls and siding, architectural detailing, doors
and windows, window screens and shutters, balustrades and railings, foundations, and surface
treatments.
Owners agree to make the following improvements or repairs during the term of this contract but
in no case later than ten (10) years from the contract date. All changes or repairs shall be consistent
with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties:
▪ Add porch handrails
▪ Repair trim details under gutters
▪ Refinish or replace porch deck
▪ Restore details at porch posts to match original design
▪ Exterior painting
▪ Replace roof
Item 3
Packet Page 19
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 8
EXHIBIT “B”
Legal Description
For APN/Parcel ID(s): 001-221-001
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
That portion of Lot 1 in Block 38 of the City of San Luis Obispo, in the City of San Luis
Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to Map recorded
May 1, 1878 in Book A, Page 168 of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said
County, described as follows:
ALL THAT PART OF LOTS 7, 8, 9, AND 10 OF BLOCK 117 OF MURRAY AND
CHURCH’S ADDITION TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS:
Beginning at the point of intersection of the Southeasterly line of Mill Stre et with the
Northeasterly line of Toro Street; thence Southeasterly along said line of Toro Street,
50 feet; thence at right angles Northeasterly parallel with said line of Mill Street, 95 feet;
thence at right angles Northwesterly parallel with said line of Toro Street, 50 feet to said
Southeasterly line of Mill Street; thence at right angles Southwesterly along said street
line, 95 feet to the point of beginning..
Item 3
Packet Page 20
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 9
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
Item 3
Packet Page 21
Historic Property Preservation Agreement
858 Toro Street
Page 10
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On________________, before me __________________________________________,
Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, _____________________________________________________,
Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in
his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the
person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing
paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature __________________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
A Notary Public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the
document to which this certificate is attached and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
Item 3
Packet Page 22
Department Name: Fire
Cost Center: 8503
For Agenda of: June 2, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Keith Aggson, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Rodger Maggio, Fire Marshal/Chief Building Official
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO CONTINUE THE COLLECTION OF MULTI-
DWELLING PROPERTY FIRE AND LIFE SAFETY INSPECTION FEES
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) enabling the continued collection of multi -dwelling property
fire and life safety inspection fees via the secured property tax roll administ ered by the County.
DISCUSSION
In May 2005, the Council approved a cost recovery program for State-mandated fire and life
safety inspections for multi-dwelling properties with three or more units. In June 2017, the
Council approved a change on how fees for apartment buildings, hotel/motels, and sorority/
fraternity inspections are calculated. This change is reflected in Exhibit A to the Resolution. The
result was an increase from approximately $194,000 per year in total revenue to approximately
$260,000 at the time of change in the fee schedule. Since the adoption of the new fee schedule,
revenue under this program has increased to $308,000 for fiscal year 2020-21 due to the increase
in the number of units for each category and the annual CPI adjustment to the fee. Staff is not
recommending any further changes in the current fees for 2020-21. However, the County
requires an annual resolution adopted by the Council authorizing the continued collection of
these fees on the property tax roll. Staff is recommending that the fee collection continue to be
done through the secured property tax roll in 2020-21 and is requesting that Council adopt the
required resolution to authorize that collection.
Policy Context
California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2(b) authorizes cities to charge property owners
in recovering the reasonable costs of providing these annual inspections. As part of this program,
on June 7, 2005, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 1472 authorizing the collection of annual
fees for these inspections through the secured County property tax roll as the most cost- efficient
method for fee collection (City Municipal Code Section 3.50.01(c)).
Public Engagement
The recommended action is not a community project, or service. This resolution does not warrant
any specific public engagement efforts.
Item 4
Packet Page 23
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this
report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2020-21
Funding Identified: N/A
The Finance Department will work with the County of San Luis Obispo to place the fees on the
annual tax rolls.
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:
Total
In fiscal year 2019-20, the City is scheduled to collect $307,000. As of May 6, 2020 the City had
collected $275,031 and may see delays in receiving the remaining $32,000 due to County of San
Luis Obispo waiving late fees for late property tax payments from COVID-19. Projected revenue
for fiscal year 2020-21 is $308,000.
ALTERNATIVE
Do not adopt the Resolution and go to a less cost-effective billing system by the Finance. This
is not recommended as the City continues to navigate the fiscal impacts of COVID-19.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
Item 4
Packet Page 24
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2020 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY AUDITOR TO COLLECT FEES FOR 2020-21 FIRE AND LIFE
SAFETY INSPECTIONS OF MULTI-DWELLING PROPERTIES
CONTAINING THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS ON THE
SECURED PROPERTY TAX ROLL PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54988, ET SEQ.
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo is required by California Health & Safety Code
Section 17921 annually to inspect multi-dwelling properties containing three or more dwelling
units, including apartments, certain residential condominiums, hotels, motels, lodging houses and
congregate residences; and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2 authorizes cities to charge
property owners in recovering the reasonable costs of providing these annual inspections; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with this policy, the Council adopted Resolution Nos. 9799
(2006 Series) and 10790 (2017 Series) updating the master fee schedule, as specifically set forth
in “Exhibit A” hereto, and authorizing the collection of these fees on the secured property tax roll;
and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to continue collection of these fees on the secured
property tax roll for 2020-21.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Item 4
Packet Page 25
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 1. Pursuant to California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.2(b) and
Municipal Code Section 3.50, the Council hereby authorizes and directs that Fire and Life Safety
Inspection fees shall be collected on the secured property tax roll by the San Luis Obispo County
Auditor-Controller for fiscal year 2020-21. A listing of fees by assessor’s parcel number shall be
provided to the County Auditor-Controller for collection on the 2020-21 secured property tax roll
in accordance with their schedule and data format requirements, pursuant to California
Government Code 54988, et seq.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2020.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, on _____________________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Item 4
Packet Page 26
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 3
R ______
EXHIBIT A
Multi-Dwelling Fire and Life Safety Inspection Fee Schedule
Administrative Fee
Processing per facility $86.63
Each Additional Owner $10.28
Apartment Houses
Up to 10 Units $346.52
11- 20 Units $519.78
21- 50 Units $693.04
51- 100 Units $866.30
101- 200 Units $1386.08
Every additional 100
Units over 200 $346.52
Condominiums
Up to 10 Units $346.52
11- 20 Units $519.78
21- 50 Units $693.04
51- 500 Units $1039.56
Fees are waived for units that are built, owned and managed by the San Luis Obispo Housing
Authority, other governmental agencies or not-for-profit housing organizations.
Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Bed & Breakfast Facilities, Youth Hostel Facilities, Senior
Facilities, Sororities, Fraternities and Other Congregate Residences
1 - 20 units $346.52 per year per facility
21 - 50 units $519.78 per year per facility
51-100 units $866.30 per year per facility
101-200 units $1386.08 per year per facility
Sorority, Fraternity,
Congregate house $693.04
These fees are applicable to all multi-dwelling units in the City based on the following definitions
as set forth in the 2016 California Building Code, Chapter 2: Definitions and Abbreviations,
Section 202 and Chapter 3, Section 310.
Apartment house is any building, or portion thereof, which contains three or more dwelling units,
including R-2 residential condominiums.
Item 4
Packet Page 27
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 4
R ______
Congregate residences are any building or portion thereof that contains facilities for living,
sleeping and sanitation, as required by this code, and may include facilities for eating and cooking,
for occupancy by other than a family. A congregate residence may be a shelter, convent,
monastery, dormitory, fraternity or sorority house, but does not include jails, hospitals, nursing
homes, hotels, or lodging houses.
Dwelling unit is any building or portion thereof that contains living facilities, including provisions
for sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation, as required by this code, for not more than one family,
or a congregate residence for ten or less persons.
Hotel is any building containing six or more guest rooms intended or designed to be use, or which
are used, rented or hired out to be occupied, or which are occupied for sleeping purposes by guests.
Lodging house is any building or portion thereof containing not more than five guest rooms where
rent is paid in money, goods, labor or otherwise. (A lodging house includes bed & breakfast
facilities and hostels, but excludes single family dwellings).
Motel shall mean the same as hotel as defined in this code.
Item 4
Packet Page 28
Department Name: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: June 2, 2020
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION FOR A CONTRIBUTING
LIST PROPERTY AT 1156 PEACH STREET
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC), adopt a Resolution
(Attachment A) determining that the structure at 1156 Peach Street does not meet eligibility
criteria for listing as an Historic Resource and removing the property from the Contributing
Properties List of Historic Resources.
DISCUSSION
The owner of the property at 1156 Peach Street has applied for a determination of historical
significance of the property and requests that the property be removed from the City’s Inventory
of Historic Resources, as provided in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC §
14.01.060 (C)).
Site and Setting
The property is a residential parcel on the north side of Pacific Street, just west of Toro Street,
within the Mill Street Historic District. The neighborhood is characterized by modest single-
family dwellings built in the early 20th Century.
The site is developed with a single-family dwelling and detached accessory structure, estimated
to have been built between 1909 and 1926. The buildings on the property exhibit characteristics
of the Residential Vernacular style, characterized by their simplicity and with little or no
distinguishing decorative features, lack of any characteristics of recognizable styles. City records
provide sparse information about the property, summarizing the architectural style as “Modified
Plain Cottage” (Attachment B).
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.
Item 5
Packet Page 29
Property may be designated as a Contributing List Resource where buildings or other resources
maintain their historic and architectural character, and contribute, by themselves or in
conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district,
or to the City as a whole.1 The subject was designated as a “Contributing Property” in 1988
(Resolution 6424).
EVALUATION
The Historic Resource Evaluation prepared for this property by Charles Crotser Architect, AIA,
(Attachment C) evaluates the property against the Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource
Listing provided in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The author
concludes (Crotser, pg. 8) that the although the residence on the property retains a large measure
of its integrity, no evidence was found that the buildings satisfy listing criteria to a degree
warranting designation as a Contributing List Resource:
“…this evaluation found no compelling evidence of architectural importance of
this building through a connection with person, important historical events,
historical context, or as a community or neighborhood landmark.”
Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
In order to be eligible for historical 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 it is found to no
longer meet eligibility criteria for listing (§ 14.01.060 (C)). In evaluating the historic significance
of the property, the CHC considered whether, and to what degree, the property satisfies these
criteria. For convenience, these criteria have been provided for reference as Attachment D to this
report. The following provides a summary of the assessment of the historical status of 1156
Peach Street, as provided in the Crotser Evaluation.
Architectural Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (A))
Style and Design. The structures on this property can be described as an example of the
Residential Vernacular Style: a simple style lacking characteristics of other recognizable styles
(see Attachment E). The Crotser evaluation notes that primary dwelling on the site does not
represent a unique example of architecture for the area, and does not exhibit significant or
distinctive features that distinguish it from other buildings in the area (Crotser, pg. 5).
Architect. The evaluation provided includes a search of permit records related to the construction
of the buildings on the site, which provided no indication of their architect or builder.
1 See Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.020 for definition of Contributing List Resource or Property.
Item 5
Packet Page 30
Historic Criteria (§ 14.01.070 (B))
Similarly, the literature search performed for the evaluation did not uncover evidence of any
association of the property with persons or events significant to local history (Crotser pg. 5).
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. The home can be associated with early residential
development of the City, but this does not constitute a notable early, first, or major pattern of
local history elevating the structure to the level of historic significance
Integrity
The Crotser Evaluation notes that apart from minor modifications and routine wear and tear
commensurate with the age of the structure, much of the original form and basic character of the
dwelling have been retained (Crotser, pg. 7). Nevertheless, the retained integrity of the structure
does not rise to a level that would, alone, qualify the building for historical listing.
Previous Advisory Body Action
On April 27, 2020 the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the request and recommended that
the City Council remove the property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources. The Committee noted that accessory structure at the rear of the property exhibited an
interesting method of construction associated with structures built in the earliest periods of
California’s history as a state, and while they did not find that the method of construction
elevated the structure to a level of historic significance, they did recommend that the shed
structure and its construction be documented, prior to its demolition. A condition of approval
(Condition #1) has been provided in the Draft Resolution (Attachment A).
Policy Context
The recommended action on this item is supported by historical preservation policies set out
section 3.0 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan, and with
procedures and standards for listing of historic resources set out in §§ 14.01.060 & 14.01.070 of
the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Public Engagement
Public notice of this hearing has been provided to owners and occupants of property near the
subject site, and published in a widely circulated local newspaper, and hearing agendas for this
meeting have been posted at City Hall, consistent with adopted notification procedures for
development projects.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), 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 Ordinanc e.
Item 5
Packet Page 31
FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2019-20
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:
Funding Sources Current FY Cost
Annualized
On-going Cost
Total Project
Cost
General Fund $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
State $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Federal $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Fees $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Other: $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
The project will have no fiscal impacts since the property is not currently eligible for historic
preservation benefits (i.e. Mills Act) and the historic designation of the property has no bearing
on City fiscal resources.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Maintain 1156 Peach Street on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, based on findings
that satisfy the criteria for Historic Resource Listing set out in the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance.
2. Continue the item for additional information or discussion.
Attachments:
a - Draft Resolution
b - Architectural Worksheet
c - COUNCIL READING FILE - Historic Resource Evaluation (Crotser)
d - Evaluation Criteria
e - Residential Vernacular (Historic Context Statement)
Item 5
Packet Page 32
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2020 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REMOVING THE PROPERTY AT 1156 PEACH
STREET FROM THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF
HISTORIC RESOURCES (1156 PEACH ST, HIST-0036-2020)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Ivan L. Lapidus, submitted on January 21, 2020 an application
to remove the property located at 1156 Peach Street (“the Property”) from the Contributing
Properties List of Historic Resources (HIST -0036-2020); and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing via teleconference from the City of San Luis Obispo, California on April 27, 2020
to consider the application, and recommended that the City Council remove the Property from the
Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources with the request that documentation be provided
on the shed structure at the rear of the property, prior to demolition ; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing
via teleconference from the City of San Luis Obispo, California on June 2, 2020 for the purpose
of considering removal of the Property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings 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. The primary dwelling
on the property does not represent a unique example of architecture for the area, and
does not exhibit significant or distinctive features that distinguish it from other
buildings in the area, nor does it exhibit any particular expression of artistic merit,
details, or craftsmanship. No significant architect is associated with the building. A
condition of approval (Condition #1) requires that the accessory shed at the rear of the
property be documented in order to record its characteristic construction method.
Item 5
Packet Page 33
Resolution No. _____ (2020 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. It has no known
association with persons or events significant to local history and its construction is not
considered to be a notably important, unique, or distinctly interesting contribution to
the City. Its association with early residential development of the City does not
constitute an association with patterns of local history that would elevate the structures
to the level of historic significance.
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
City’s Inventory of Historic Resources has been formally evaluated by an architectural
historian. As described in historic resource evaluation prepared for the property, the
primary structure on the property does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s criteria
for significance, does not meet the level of significance required by the California
Public Resources Code, and thus does not rise to the level of a significant cultural
resource. The evaluation supports the conclusion that the property is not a candidate
for inclusion on the City’s Inventory and is not a historical resource for the purposes of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Consideration of continuing eligibility of this
property for historic listing is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA). The determination of continued eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of
whether the subject site remains eligible for historic resource listing according to the criteria set
forth in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. A determination that the property is not eligible
for historic listing will cause the removal of the property from the City's Inventory of Historic
Resources, but will have no direct physical effect on the environment, as the determination does
not approve any physical site development. As such, it is does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment and is covered by the general rule described in CEQA
Guidelines §15061(b)(3).
Item 5
Packet Page 34
Resolution No. _____ (2020 Series) Page 3
R _____
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby
determine that the structures located on the Property do not meet eligibility criteria for listing as
Historic Resources and removes the Property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic
Resources, subject to the following condition:
1. Before the issuance of any demolition permit for structures on the property, the
accessory shed at the rear of the property shall be documented as specified in City
standards, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Upon motion of Council Member ______ , seconded by Council Member ______ , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______ 2020.
____________________________________
Mayor Heidi Harmon
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City
of San Luis Obispo, California, on _____________________.
____________________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Item 5
Packet Page 35
Item 5
Packet Page 36
Item 5
Packet Page 37
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:
Item 5
Packet Page 38
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).
Item 5
Packet Page 39