The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-08-2021 CHC Agenda Packet - Special Meeting - AMENDED Cultural Heritage Committee REVISED AGENDA Monday, November 8, 2021, 4:00 p.m. Teleconference - Broadcast via Webinar Pursuant to Executive Orders N-60-20 and N-08-21 executed by the Governor of California, and subsequently Assembly Bill 361, enacted in response to the state of emergency relating to novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and enabling teleconferencing accommodations by suspending or waiving specified provisions in the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code § 54950 et seq.), commissioners and members of the public may participate in this regular meeting by teleconference. Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are encouraged to participate in Cultural Heritage Committee meetings in the following ways: Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can: View the Webinar: URL: https://slocity- org.zoom.us/j/81146112156?pwd=YnB1cjFKWEtWUE42SWpvVzNwU1dGZz09 Telephone Attendee: +1 (669) 900-6833 Webinar ID: 811 4611 2156; Passcode: 815457 Note: The City utilizes Zoom Webinar for public meetings. All attendees will enter the meeting muted. An Attendee tutorial is available on YouTube; test your audio settings. 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 advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. All emails will be archived/distributed to Committee Members, however, submissions after 3:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting may not be archived/distributed until the following day. Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting. Verbal Public Comment In Advance 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 Committee Members and saved as Agenda Correspondence. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting. During the meeting – Join the webinar (instructions above). Once public comment for the item you would like to speak on is called, please raise your virtual hand, your name will be called, and your microphone will be unmuted. If you have questions, contact the office of the City Clerk at cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7100. Pages 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Larrabee will call the Special Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee to order. 2.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA The public is encouraged to submit comments on any subject within the jurisdiction of the Cultural Heritage Committee that does not appear on this agenda. Although the Committee will not take action on items presented during the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a future agenda for discussion. 3.CONSENT 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 Cultural Heritage Committee to pull an item for discussion. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute time limit. Recommendation: To approve Consent Item 3a. 3.a.CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - OCTOBER 25, 2021 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES 5 Consideration of the Culture Heritage Committee Minutes of October 25, 2021. 4.PUBLIC HEARINGS Note: The action of the Cultural Heritage Committee is a recommendation to the Community Development Director, another advisory body, or to City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed. 4.a.201 BUENA VISTA AVE. (HIST-0748-2021) HISTORICAL PROPERTY PRESERVATION CONTRACT (KENNETH AND MARTHA SCHWARTZ HOUSE) 9 Recommendation: Recommend the City Council enter into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract with the property owners of 201 Buena Vista Ave., the Kenneth and Martha Schwartz House. 4.b.211 CHORRO ST (HIST-0608-2021) DESIGNATE AS A MASTER LIST RESOURCE (THE MULLER-NOGGLE HOUSE AND GARAGE) 25 Recommendation: Recommend the City Council include the property located at 211 Chorro Street, the Muller-Noggle House and Garage, in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources as a Master List Resource. 5.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5.a.STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST Receive a brief update from Senior Planner Brian Leveille. *5.b.DISCUSSION ITEM: HISTORIC ALLY PLAQUE DESIGN 71 Senior Planner Brian Leveille will lead the Committee in a discussion about historic ally plaque design and content, as prepared by Pierre Rademaker. 6.ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting is scheduled for January 24, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference. The Regular Meetings on November 22, 2021 and December 27, 2021 have been cancelled. LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available -- see the 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. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee are available for public inspection on the City’s website: http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies. Meeting video recordings can be found on the City’s website: http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/Browse.aspx?startid=26289&row=1&dbid=1 1 Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes October 25, 2021, 5:30 p.m. Teleconference - Broadcast via Webinar Cultural Heritage Committee Members Present: Committee Member John Ashbaugh, Committee Member Chuck Crotser, Committee Member Karen Edwards, Vice Chair Eva Ulz, Chair Shannon Larrabee City Staff Present: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, and Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian _____________________________________________________________________ 1. CALL TO ORDER A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on October 25, 2021 at 5:32 p.m. by Chair Larrabee with Members present via teleconference. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Public Comment: None --End of Public Comment-- 3. CONSENT 3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 27, 2021 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES Approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 27, 2021. Motion By Member Crotser Second By Vice Chair Ulz Ayes (5): Member Ashbaugh, Member Crotser, Member Edwards, Vice Chair Ulz, and Chair Larrabee CARRIED (5 to 0) Page 5 of 73 2 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.a 531 DANA ST. (HIST-0572-2021) REVIEW OF A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY CONTRACT FOR THE DANA/BARNEBERG HOUSE Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded to Committee inquiries. Applicant representative, Brian Tuohy, provided a brief statement concerning the more significant updates that are needed to maintain the property and responded to questions raised. Chair Larrabee opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Laura Gaither --End of Public Comment-- Chair Larrabee closed the public hearing. Motion By Member Crotser Second By Vice Chair Ulz Recommend to the City Council that the City enter into a Mills Act Historic Property Contract with the property owners, to encourage maintenance and restoration of the historic property at 531 Dana Street (Dana/Barneberg House). Ayes (5): Member Ashbaugh, Member Crotser, Member Edwards, Vice Chair Ulz, and Chair Larrabee CARRIED (5 to 0) 4.b 1156 PEACH ST. (ARCH-0541-2021) CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE MILL STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report and responded to Committee inquiries. Applicant representative, Steven Puglisi, responded to concerns and questions raised by the Committee. Page 6 of 73 3 Chair Larrabee opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Laura Gaither Kelley Abbas --End of Public Comment-- Chair Larrabee closed the public hearing. Motion By Member Ashbaugh Second By Member Crotser Recommend to the Community Development Director that the proposed new construction is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01). Ayes (3): Member Ashbaugh, Member Crotser, and Chair Larrabee Noes (2): Member Edwards, and Vice Chair Ulz CARRIED (3 to 2) 5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided an update of upcoming projects and discussed options for a Special Meeting in November. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:37. The next Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for January 24, 2022 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference. The Regular Meetings on November 22, 2021 and December 27, 2021 have been cancelled. _________________________ APPROVED BY CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/202X Page 7 of 73 Page 8 of 73 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: HISTORICAL PROPERTY PRESERVATION CONTRACT FOR 201 BUENA VISTA AVE. (KENNETH AND MARTHA SCHWARTZ HOUSE) PROJECT ADDRESS: 201 Buena Vista Ave BY: Walter Oetzell Phone Number: 781-7593 Email: woetzell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: HIST-0748-2021 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council that the City enter into a Mills Act historic property contract with the property owners, to encourage maintenance and restoration of the historic property at 201 Buena Vista Avenue (Kenneth and Martha Schwartz House). 1.0 BACKGROUND The owner of the Kenneth and Martha Schwartz House at 201 Buena Vista Avenue (Figure 1) submitted an application to enter into a Mills Act historical property contract with the City. The Committee will make a recommendation to the City Council about the request, as provided in § 14.01.030(B) (8) of the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance 2.0 SITE AND SETTING The property is on the north side of Buena Vista Avenue, at its intersection with San Miguel Avenue. It is developed with a single-family dwelling built in 1962, designed by Kenneth Schwartz, an active local architect and public servant, and occupied by him and his family, from its construction until shortly before his death in 2019. It was designated as a “Master List Resource” by the City Council in September 2021 (by Resolution No. 11274). 3.0 MILLS ACT CONTRACTS The Mills Act Program is a property tax reduction program for protection of cultural resources that encourages their maintenance and restoration (§ 3.6.2 of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element). Participation in the program is limited to M aster List Resources; the most unique and important historic resources in terms of age, Meeting Date: 11/8/2021 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 30 Minutes Figure 1: The Kenneth & Martha Schwartz House Page 9 of 73 Item 3a HIST-0748-2021 (201 Buena Vista) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – November 8, 2021 architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past (HPO § 14.01.050 (A)). The City and owners of a Master List Resource enter into an historical property contract under which the owners agree to restore, maintain, and protect the property in accordance with historical preservation standards. Owners may qualify for property tax relief, potentially realizing tax savings of between 40% and 60% per year. Contracts have a minimum term of ten years, and contain standard elements set out in the Mills Act (Govt. Code §§ 50280 – 50290), including: a provision for preservation (or, where necessary, restoration and rehabilitation) of the property in conformance with state historic preservation guidelines; periodic examination of the property for compliance with the contract; and a provision binding the contract upon successive owners. Automatic one - year extensions are provided, unless either party gives notice of non-renewal of the contract. On acceptance and recordation of the contract, the property is assessed using an “income approach” that values the property by an income capitalization method, following guidelines provided by the State Board of Equalization. 4.0 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS Several improvements and maintenance items are identified by the applicant (Attachment 1) for completion during the term of the proposed contract. All of the items discussed appear to be relevant to the preservation and maintenance of this property and are included in Exhibit A of the proposed contract (Attachment 2). Additionally, any work undertaken on the property must, under the terms of the contract, be carried out in a manner consistent with the City’s historical preservation standards and guidelines and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, so as to retain and preserve original, character-defining architectural features and the historical character of the property. 5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Staff Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council that the City enter into a Mills Act historic property contract with the property owners, to encourage maintenance and restoration of the historic property at 201 Buena Vista Avenue. 2. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff. 3. Recommend to the City Council that the City not enter into the proposed historical property contract. This action is not recommended because the City participates in incentive programs that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties, (General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, Program 3.6.2), and as a Master List Resource, this property is eligible for this program. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS A – Applicant Request Letter and List of Improvements (Oct 26, 2021) B – Draft Historic Property Contract (201 Buena Vista) Page 10 of 73 Page 11 of 73 Page 12 of 73 Mills Act Contract / List of Improvements SCOPE OF FUTURE AND PRESENT WORK PROPOSED FOR 201 BUENA VISTA AVE. INSIDE Fix leaks in plate glass windows Replace wood floors in Kitchen & Living Room Install laminated safety film on non-tempered windows Install new curtain coverings Repair/replace low-voltage lighting Paint walls and re-stain original wood work. Replace or update lighting fixtures Electrical wiring repair Update HVAC system and water heater OUTSIDE Replace warped or dry rotted wood: siding Repair/replace tile on front steps to match entry Repair: Section 1 termite work Repair termite-ridden deck outside of the house (on west) Replace roof, add solar and photo-voltaics Replace rear patio Repair retaining walls Replace dead plants Renew landscaping Adjust and add new irrigation Page 13 of 73 Page 14 of 73 HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNER OF THE HISTORIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT 201 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this ________ day of ________ , 2021, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), and Thom Brajkovich (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”), and collectively referred to as the “parties.” WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of that certain real property commonly known as 201 Buena Vista Avenue (APN 052-131-010), and legally described as shown in the attached “Exhibit B” (“Owner’s Property”); and WHEREAS, Owner has agreed to enter into an Historical Property Contract with the City for the preservation, maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of Owner’s 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 Owner, his heirs, or assigns hereby agree to undertake and complete, at their 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 Owner or the City desire in any year not to renew the agreement, the Owner or the City shall serve written notice of non-renewal of the agreement on the other party. Unless such notice is served by the Owner to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owner 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. c. The Owner 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 Owner of non-renewal. Page 15 of 73 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 201 Buena Vista Avenue Page 2 d. If either the City or the Owner serves 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. Owner agrees 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 Owner 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 Owner agrees to secure all necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to changing the building’s use or commencing construction work. d. Owner agrees 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 standard s 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 historic character, significance, and design as determined by the Community Development Director. Page 16 of 73 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 201 Buena Vista Avenue Page 3 f. Owner 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 Owner’s compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement. Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owner hereby agrees 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 Owner has 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 Owner has 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 Owner to preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the historic property as specified above, the Owner 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 Owner, the City shall give written notice of violation to the Owner 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 Owner); 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 Owner growing out of the terms of this agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by the Owner or apply for such relief as may be appropriate. Page 17 of 73 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 201 Buena Vista Avenue Page 4 b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owner 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 Owner may enter into mediation or binding arbitration to resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this contract. Section 8. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owner hereby subjects the historic building located at 201 Buena Vista Avenue, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessor’s Parcel Number 052-131-010, and legally described as shown in the attached “Exhibit B”, to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The City and Owner 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 Owner’s 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 agreement 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 Owner: Thom Brajkovich 201 Buena Vista Ave San Luis Obispo CA 93405 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. Page 18 of 73 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 201 Buena Vista Avenue Page 5 b. The Owner agrees 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 Owner, or from those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee, or other person acting on the Owner’s behalf which relates to the use, operation, maintenance, or improvement of the historic property. The Owner hereby agrees 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 Owner’s 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 prevailing 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. Section 11. Amendments. This agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto. Page 19 of 73 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 201 Buena Vista Avenue Page 6 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 Owner; 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 Owner have executed this agreement on the day and year written above. OWNER ____________________________________ ______________________________ Thom Brajkovich Date CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ____________________________________ ______________________________ Mayor Erica A. Stewart Date Pursuant to authority conferred by Resolution No. XXXX (2021 Series) ATTEST: ____________________________________ Teresa Purrington City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED Page 20 of 73 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 201 Buena Vista Avenue Page 7 EXHIBIT “A” MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR THE DANA//BARNEBERG HOUSE LOCATED AT 201 BUENA VISTA AVENUE, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Owner 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 with the City of San Luis Obispo for property located at 201 Buena Vista Avenue. 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. Owner agrees 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:  Floor and carpet replacement  Window safety film and curtain coverings  Lighting repair and replacement  Painting interior walls; re-stain woodwork  Replacement of termite-damaged siding  Tile replacement  Roof replacement; solar and photo-voltaic installation  Patio replacement; retaining wall repair  Landscape replacements and renewal, including irrigation Page 21 of 73 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 201 Buena Vista Avenue Page 8 EXHIBIT “B” Legal Description For APN/Parcel ID(s): 052-131-010 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: [FINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION PENDING]. APN: 052-131-010 Page 22 of 73 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 201 Buena Vista Avenue 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. Page 23 of 73 Historic Property Preservation Agreement 201 Buena Vista Avenue 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 vali dity of that document. Page 24 of 73 CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: DESIGNATE 211 CHORRO STREET AS A MASTER LIST RESOURCE PROJECT ADDRESS: 211 Chorro St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner Phone Number: 781-7593 Email: woetzell@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: HIST-0608-2021 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner RECOMMENDATION Make a recommendation to the City Council on the property’s qualification to be included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Master List Resource. 1.0 BACKGROUND James & Mai Haselman, represented by James Papp, have requested that the property at 211 Chorro be designated as a Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, as The Muller-Noggle House and Garage, and have provided an evaluation of the property and its eligibility for historic listing (Historical Evaluation, Attachment A), prepared by James Papp, PhD, Historian and Architectural Historian. As set out in § 14.01.060 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Committee will determine if property meets eligibility criteria for listing and forward a recommendation to City Council, for final action on the application 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 Site and Setting The property is at the southwest corner of Mission and Chorro Streets, in the Mount Pleasanton Square / Anholm Neighborhood, a low-density residential area northwest of Downtown between the base of Cerro San Luis Obispo and Stenner Creek, developed in the 1920s and 1930s. Craftsman, California Bungalow, and various Revival styles predominate in the area, 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. It 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 City has in the past considered whether the neighborhood may merit historic district status, but ultimately did not designate the area as such. Meeting Date: 11/8/2021 Item Number: 4b Time Estimate: 30 Minutes Page 25 of 73 Item 3b HIST-0608-2021 (211 Chorro) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – November 8, 2021 2.2 The Muller-Noggle House and Garage City records (see Attachment B) indicate that the property was developed with a single-story dwelling in 1936, “built for attorney A.V. Muller and his wife Elizabeth by the Los Angeles-based woman architect Edla Muir and local builder F.C. Stolte,” noting it as “handsome, unusual for the area, and well-maintained.” It is described as having an L-shaped plan and a French Provincial stylistic influence, with several characteristic features highlighted:  Wood shingle hipped roof (long leg), truncated hip roof (short leg)  Projecting eaves, plain boxed cornice  Shiplap siding and stucco exterior material  Rectangular windows, various types, including three window bays, plain surrounds  Chimney, shutters, turret with bay window  Detached two-car garage The property was added, as one of a group of 17 properties in the area, to the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Contributing List Resource in 1999 (Council Resolution 8890). Minutes of the Council meeting show that 211 Chorro Street was noted as “possibly eligible for the Master List.” The applicant’s Historical Evaluation describes the property’s history and the building itself in further detail,1 attributing its style as “an extremely rare Minimal Traditional design characterized by a pyramidal roof with a central chimney…”. Whatever the source, the Muller-Noggle House embodies the drama and streamlining of the Minimal Traditional. Even more unusually, it has a detached but matching pyramid-roof garage, one of the most architecturally significant garages surviving in San Luis Obispo. (Papp, pg. 1) The City’s Historic Context Statement describes the Minimal Traditional style as having its origins in the principles of the Modern movement and reflecting a desire for greater efficiency and reduced costs to keep homes affordable to the middle class (see Attachment C). 1 A description of the home’s architecture is provided from pg. 14 of the Historical Evaluation (Attachment 1). Figure 1: Muller-Noggle House Page 26 of 73 Item 3b HIST-0608-2021 (211 Chorro) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – November 8, 2021 3.0 EVALUATION To be eligible for listing as an historic resource, a building must exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least 50 years old, and meet one or more of the eligibility cr iteria described in § 14.01.070 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance (see Attachment D). Those resources that maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character and contribute either by themselves or in conjunction with other struct ures to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole may be designated as a “Contributing List Resource” (HPO § 14.01.050). The most unique and important resources and properties in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past may be designated as “Master List Resources.” The applicant’s Historical Evaluation (Attachment A) provides a description of the architectural significance of the house and garage (Papp, from pg. 11) in support of designation as a Master List Resource. 3.1 Architectural Criteria Character-defining features of the Minimal Traditional Style are described in the City’s Historic Context Statement (Attachment C) to include:  One-story  Simple rectangular plan  Medium or low-pitched hip or side-gable roof with shallow eaves  Smooth stucco wall cladding, often with wood lap or stone veneer accents  Shallow entry porch with slender wood supports  Fixed wooden shutters  Minimal decorative exterior detailing As described and depicted in pages 18-25 of the applicant’s Historical Evaluation, the dwelling exhibits many of these characteristic features, : The resource exemplifies the afore-mentioned Minimal Traditional’s close- clipped rakes, minimized windows, decluttered walls, broad expanse of steeply pitched roof, prominent chimney, curvilinear features, and smooth transitions. (Papp, pg. 16) This section of the Historical Evaluation also details notable interior features of the home: Interior features include paneling, coves on the bedroom wing’s exterior walls, reception room crown molding, and octagon dining room (formed by built-in cabinets in two corners topped with arches, faux keystones, and interior coves and a recessed ironing board in a third corner). (Papp, pg. 16) In addition, The Muller-Noggle House and Garage are noted as “one of only two residential projects in the City documented to have been built by the F. C. Stolte Company, contractor for Hearst Castle […] supervised by Carl Daniels, who oversaw work in the rest of the county while his colleague and sometime collaborator George Loorz managed construction for W. R. Hearst and Julia Morgan.” (Papp, pg. 2). Page 27 of 73 Item 3b HIST-0608-2021 (211 Chorro) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – November 8, 2021 3.2 Historic Criteria A timeline of the property, including a brief listing of its historical occupants is provided from page 3 of the Historical Evaluation. The house was built for A. V. Mueller, “a remarkable example of a self-made man in an era of self-made men” (Papp, pg. 6) who, in addition to conducting a successful private law practice, served as Assistant District Attorney for the County. It was later owned and occupied by John and Neva Noggle, John a top salesman at Standard Motors on Monterey Street, and the family operating the Little Chef restaurant (Papp, pg. 5). The evaluation, however, does not indicate a relevant association with singular and important historical events and patterns or significance to the community rising to a level of significance that would satisfy Historic Criteria described in § 14.01.070 (B) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. 3.3 Integrity The dwelling remains in its original location, and in the discussion of the integrity of its design2 the various character-defining elements of the home are discussed, concluding that, notwithstanding minor subsequent modif ications, including a 1963 bedroom wing extension and some non-original brickwork, the buildings and property satisfy the criteria for Integrity set out in § 14.01.070 (C) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance: It retains the integrity of the six applicable aspects (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling) to communicate its significance. (Papp, pg. 2) 3.3 Conclusion The information in the Historical Evaluation prepared for this application, documenting the architectural character and integrity of the house, provides a basis for the Committee to potentially find that the dwelling satisfies Evaluation Criteria for Architectural Style and Design described in §§ 14.01.070 (A) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01). The Committee should whether, as described in the Historical Evaluation provided with the application, the property qualifies as one of the most unique and important resources in the City, in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, or rarity, to a degree that qualifies the property for designation as a Master List Historic Resource. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Inclusion of the subject properties on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described in § 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines. 5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Staff Recommendation: Make a recommendation to the City Council on the property’s qualification to be included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Master 2 Historical Evaluation (Attachment 1), from pg. 19 Page 28 of 73 Item 3b HIST-0608-2021 (211 Chorro) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – November 8, 2021 List Resource, noting the elements of the property which satisfy Evaluation Criteria to a degree warranting such designation, as being among the most unique and important resources and properties in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past. 2. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues. 3. Recommend to the City Council that the property should not be designated as a Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, based on finding that the property does not satisfy Evaluation Criteria for historic listing to a degree warranting such designation. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS A – Historic Resource Evaluation (Historical Evaluation, James Papp, PhD) B – Historic Resource Inventory, 211 Chorro (City “Yellow File”) C – Minimal Traditional Style (excerpt from Historic Context Statement) D – Evaluation Criteria (Historic Preservation Ordinance) Page 29 of 73 Page 30 of 73 1 The Muller–Noggle House and Garage A. V. and Elizabeth Biehl Muller and Johnny and Neva Noggle 211 Chorro Street Historic Resource Evaluation and Master List Application 1. Summary Conclusion of Eligibility 2. Timeline 3. Historic Context 4. Architectural Significance 5. Period of Significance 6. Integrity and Character-Defining Features 7. Conclusion 1. Summary Conclusion of Eligibility The 1936 Muller-Noggle House is an extremely rare Minimal Traditional design characterized by a single-story main block topped by a pyramid roof with a central chimney—a costly and aesthetically daring approach apparently originated with the British architect Sir Edwin Lutyens or American perceptions of his work. The Lee family’s Stratford Hall, built in the 1730s in Westmoreland County, Virginia is another possible model: in 1929, the Robert E. Lee Memorial Association formed to preserve the house and open it to the public. Sources in the 1920s and ’30s attribute it as a Neo-Georgian style. Whatever the source, the Muller-Noggle House embodies the drama and streamlining of the Minimal Traditional. Even more unusually, it has a detached but matching pyramid-roof garage, one of the most architecturally significant garages surviving in San Luis Obispo. Page 31 of 73 2 The Muller-Noggle House and Garage are also one of only two residential projects in San Luis documented to have been built by the F. C. Stolte Company, contractor for Hearst Castle, the other being 391 Chorro Street. Both date from the same year and were supervised by Carl Daniels, who oversaw work in the rest of the county while his colleague and sometime collaborator George Loorz managed construction for W. R. Hearst and Julia Morgan (Taylor Coffman, Building for Hearst and Morgan: Voices from the George Loorz Papers [Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 2003], pp. 201–202 and passim). As such, the Muller-Noggle House qualifies for the Master List as one of “the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of architectural or historical significance [or] rarity” as defined by the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. It also qualifies for the less demanding National Register of Historic Places as possessing architectural significance for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type of construction and high artistic values. It retains the integrity of the six applicable aspects (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling) to communicate its significance. Presented on behalf of Jim and Mai Haselman by James Papp, PhD, Historian & Architectural Historian, Historicities LLC, 6 September 2021 Page 32 of 73 3 2. Timeline 1899 Apr 29 Albert Venlow Mueller is born in Texas to Leo Mueller and Josephine Zimmer Mueller from Alsace (1910 United States Census, 1918 draft registration, and 1993 death records). By 1910 the family is living in Lincoln, Placer County, California, where Leo is working as a laborer in a pottery. 1917 Mueller graduates from Lincoln Union High School, Placer County (“Lincoln Union High School Exercises, Lincoln News-Messenger, 21 June 1917, p. 1). 1918 Sep 12 Mueller is a cannery worker in Lincoln when he registers for the draft. He serves as a private in St. Louis, Missouri. 1920 John “Johnny” Noggle is born in Ohio (United States Public Records, 1970– 2009). 1921 Neva Negranti is born in Cayucos, where her parents own the Fairview Ranch (“Neva Noggle,” San Luis Obispo Tribune, 10 Jan 2021, 4A). 1923 A. V. Mueller receives his juris doctor degree from Stanford and moves to Paso Robles, where he forms the partnership of Muller and Mandl with Judge J. P. Mandl (“To Receive Degrees,” Sacramento Bee, 2 May 1923, p. 8; “Around the Town,” San Luis Obispo Tribune (weekly), 5 Oct. 1923, p. 4; “A. V. Muller Is Named Assistant District Attorney,” Arroyo Grande Herald-Recorder, 10 Jan. 1930, p. 6). 1924 Albert Mueller marries Elizabeth Anna Biehl, daughter of a retail salesman and “prominent in Paso Robles as a leader of the younger set” (“One Ceremony, Two Weddings, Four Happy,” San Francisco Examiner, 15 June 1924, p. 83). He joins the Masons and becomes associated with the Bank of Italy. 1929 Muller is elected a city judge in Paso Robles (“A. V. Muller Is Named Assistant District Attorney”). (From the mid 1920s through the early 1930s, both spellings of his name are being used in the press.) 1930 Jan 6 Muller, still living in Paso Robles, is named assistant district attorney for San Luis Obispo County to replace H. J. Dubin, who has been promoted to district attorney (“A. V. Muller Is Named Assistant District Attorney”). Apr 3 The US Census shows A. V. and Elizabeth Muller renting at 650 Upham Street. 1935 Jan 11 A. V. Muller announces the opening of his law office in the Wickenden Building, San Luis Obispo (advertisement, Arroyo Grande Herald-Recorder). Muller leads San Luis efforts to attract State Emergency Relief Administration aid under the New Deal National Housing Act (“House Survey Is Proposed,” Herald-Recorder, 25 Jan. 1935, p. 1). 1936 Nov 7 George and Kirstine Anholm transfer title of lots 4, 3, and part of 2 on block 13 of the Anholm Addition to the Mullers. On the same day, Carl Daniels petitions for a building permit on behalf of A. V. Muller for a one-story frame and stucco 6-room house and garage, at $5,500 the second most expensive Page 33 of 73 4 residence permitted that year, after a $6,000 house on Cerro San Luis which is twice the size. 1937 Feb 26 Stolte has completed work on 211 Chorro, and the Mullers have moved in (“Notice of Completion of Work,” 27 Feb 1937). Photos: Mai Haselman 1937 Apr 12 The Mullers convey their property to the Veterans’ Welfare Board of the State of California (County Land Records). 1940 Apr 2 The US Census lists A. V. and Elizabeth Muller living at 211 Chorro with their daughters Helen (14) and Jacqueline (7), as owners, with the house valued at $6,500. July 24 John Noggle, working in automobile manufacturing, enlists in the US Army at Fort Hayes, Columbus, Ohio (United States World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1938-1946). 1941 Apr 8 A. V. Muller is re-elected trustee of the San Luis Obispo School Board (“Parks Plan Voted in San Luis Obispo,” San Francisco Examiner, 9 April 1941, p. 12). 1946 Neva Negranti marries John Noggle (“Neva Noggle”). 1948 June 8 Chris and Johanna Anholm convey 211 Chorro to the Title Insurance and Trust Company (County Land Records). 1948 June 28 The Title Insurance and Trust Company conveys 211 Chorro to David and Marjorie Fair (ibid.). 1950 Mar 9 The Fairs convey 211 Chorro to L. H. and Bertha Ellsworth (ibid.). Page 34 of 73 5 1953 Aug 12 The Ellsworths convey 211 Chorro to John and Neva Noggle (ibid.). From 1957 John spends several decades as a top salesman at Standard Motors on Monterey Street (“Salesman Hits Top of Cadillac Crest,” Five Cities Times- Press-Recorder, 10 Aug. 1990, p. 4D), and the family will own and manage San Luis Obispo’s Little Chef restaurant (“Neva Noggle”). They are active in Catholic organizations and John as a bell ringer and historian at the Mission. 1968 The law firm of A. H. Brazil and James Duenow merges with A. V. Muller, Wickson Woolpert and William P. McWhinney (“Two Law Firms Plan Merger,” Pismo Times, 11 Jan. 1968, p. 3). Muller had served as assistant district attorney while Brazil served as district attorney in the early 1930s. 1987 A. V. Muller continues to practice as an attorney (“Public Notices,” Five Cities Times-Press-Recorder, 8 April 1987, p. 8D). 1993 Mar 19 Muller dies in San Luis Obispo at age 92. 2000 John Noggle dies in San Luis Obispo (Social Security Death Index). 2020 Dec 31 Neva Noggle dies at 211 Chorro at age 99 (“Neva Noggle”). Photo: Mai Haselman Page 35 of 73 6 3. Historic Context A. V. Mueller is a remarkable example of a self-made man in an era of self-made men, though in an era when that possibility was largely reserved for Whites. The son of an immigrant pottery laborer in a small town nestled at the edge of the Sierra foothills, a cannery worker when he registered for the draft at nineteen, and subsequently serving in the US Army as a private, by twenty-four he had his JD from Stanford and had formed a legal partnership with a judge. By age thirty he had been elected a city judge himself and appointed assistant district attorney for San Luis Obispo County. By thirty-four he had entered private practice in the City of San Luis Obispo and by thirty-six built the second most expensive and certainly most luxurious house permitted in the city that year. He built it in the Anholm Tract, restricted to Whites only on land that had been previously occupied by Chinese truck farmers. Tract housing in San Luis Obispo The earliest tract in San Luis was built between 1801 and 1810 by enslaved yak tityu tityu yak tilhini/Northern Chumash: 80 adobe and tile houses with windows, 17’ wide by 20’ deep in two rows on either side of Chorro Street, (Paul H. Kocher, Mission San Luis Obispo: A Historical Sketch [San Luis Obispo: Blake, 1972], p. 34; Edith Webb, “Pages from the History of Mission San Luis Obispo,” California History Nugget, Jan. 1938, p. 117). Some or all would appear to have been detached, with front windows and side entries. Of this linear and permanent housing development, meant to displace indigenous wickiups, only three structures survive: the two ground floor interior rooms of the Sauer-Adams Adobe and the Sauer Adobe next door. Sauer-Adams Adobe and Sauer Adobe, 964 and 970 Chorro, after 1907 The mission was also behind the next tract housing in San Luis Obispo: the Mission Vineyard Tract. The mission’s building, vineyard, and orchard were returned by the American government to the Catholic Church, which sold off the 160 or so acres of the Page 36 of 73 7 vineyard for business and housing, comprising most of today’s downtown from San Luis Creek south to approximately Buchon Street and between Broad and Santa Rosa. In the 1870 R. R. Harris and H. D. Ward map of San Luis commissioned by the Board of Trustees (detail above), the vineyard was yet to be mapped for city blocks, along with most other areas south of San Luis Creek, including Walter Murray and Pierre Dallidet’s lands. In the 1894 map by city engineer C. W. Henderson (detail above), these areas had become the Vineyard, Murray and Church, and Dallidet Tracts. They were joined by Reed’s, South Side, Buena Vista, La Belle, the Phillips Addition, Phillips and Beebe, Phillips Syndicate, Central Addition, Schwartz, Loomis and Osgood, Imperial, Isabel, Maymont, Fairview, Harford, South Side, Brizzolara, Hathway, Arlington, Deleissiguez, Buckley, and Fixlini. The town was ready for expansion from local farmers and speculators. Page 37 of 73 8 The slump of the 1890s put off much of this anticipated development. In 1888, for instance, Captain Charles Goodall and former California governor George Perkins, owners of the Pacific Coast Steamship Company and Pacific Coast Railway, built a horse-drawn street railway from the PCR depot on the west end of town to their grand new Hotel Ramona—“as beautiful as the heroine after whom it is named”—on the east end of town and subdivided, sewered, and macadamized the area around it, which they called the Central Addition. Their Buena Vista Addition was anticipated to rise to the top of Terrace (then Terraced) Hill. Buena Vista also had a trolley extension, was near the PCR’s route south, and was next to the surveyed Southern Pacific Line, which would finally be completed in 1894. Goodall and Perkins simultaneously marketed the Phillips Addition around Mill Street between Johnson and Grand, for which they had the street railway franchise but as yet no track. The street railway was never built on Grand. The Hotel Ramona closed in December 1894, seven months after the Southern Pacific arrived, for lack of business. The next year it reopened under the management of one of Goodall and Perkins’ minority partners, R. E. Jack. He bought the street railway system, still only two and a half miles long, five years later and shut it down the following year. The Ramona burned down in 1905, seventeen years after it was built, causing Jack and the Goldtrees’ County Bank of San Luis Obispo to fail. There is no photographic, cartographic, or built evidence, that any of these areas had been successfully developed during those years, apart from a few scattered cottages at the base of Terrace Hill, despite San Luis Obispo’s population rising by 71 percent between 1900—when the SP’s line to Los Angeles was completed—and 1910. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, tracts in the western United States tended to offer individuals lots to build on rather than ready-built housing in rows. It’s not clear whether this was because of a lack of necessity to house large numbers, a lack of capital to build for them, an Old West tendency toward individualism, or all three. The absence of building developments, however, has given late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century San Luis Obispo its characteristic architectural variety. In the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas there was more tendency to build housing developments than in California’s smaller towns, but even there, substantial developer built tracts only arrived after World War I, with, for instance, Henry Doelger and Carl and Fred Gellert (the latter Joan Gellert-Sargen’s father) in San Francisco’s Sunset District, where a cheerful Eclecticism relieved mass production. After World War II, Doelger and the Gellerts moved their efforts to Daly City. Mid-Century Modernism did less to allay the sense of sameness the hillside tracts gave, and Malvina Reynolds got the inspiration for her hit song “Little Boxes” driving by Daly City in 1962. In late 1923, San Luis Obispans were able to buy lots in Mount Pleasanton Square (Broad, Benton, and Mount Pleasanton (now Chorro) between Murray and Meinecke, and by 1927 in the Anholm Addition (directly south, Lincoln to Broad and Murray). George and Chris Anholm were ethnic Danes from the village Fole (German Fohl) near Haderslev (German Hadersleben) in Schleswig-Holstein, whose disputed ownership between Denmark and Germany inspired the observation apocryphally attributed to Lord Palmerston: “Only three people have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it” (Lytton Strachey, Queen Victoria [New York: Harcourt, 1921], p. 364). Page 38 of 73 9 The Anholms were born within the decade after the Second Schleswig War, which assigned Holstein to Austria and Schleswig to Prussia, which two years later seized Holstein from Austria in the Austro-Prussian War. Hence George had good reason to go to America at fifteen and Chris to join him three years later, AWOL from the German Army. Fole and Haderslev returned to Denmark in the Scheswig plebiscite of 1920, but by then George and Chris were in their late forties, American citizens, successful farmers, and had already embarked on a property development that would occupy them for three decades. In 1918—Chris having just returned from Denmark with his new wife and child—the two brothers bought from Judge McDowell Reid Venable’s widow Alice equal shares of ranchland between Cerro San Luis and Stenner Creek, for $10,500 each. The Telegram much later referred to the Anholm Tract being built in the area known as Chinese Gardens. According to a map at the History Center, it had held Ah Louis’s first brickyard circa 1872– 87 and his vegetable and seed gardens, so presumably Ah Louis rented from Venable. George Anholm lived and farmed nearby. First advertisement for the Anholm Addition, noting in the phrase “Building restrictions protect your investment” that it was racially covenanted (San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 8 June 1928) In 1921 James A. Stebbins, a prominent Fresno real estate man who had relocated to Sacramento and opened his own tire and automobile accessories store, subdivided a thirty-acre tract across the southeast limits of the state capital at what is now 58th Street below 14th Avenue. For $75 down and $10 a month, people tired of renting—“Mr. Rent Payer … use judgment like your landlord did—build a home”—could become owners of an acre lot with all city services and no city taxes (Stebbins Tract advertisement, Sacramento Union, Apr. 1921; Stebbins Tract advertisement, Sacramento Bee, 23 Apr. 1921). This promise was somewhat illusory, as Sacramento insisted on annexation if the tract wanted water from its mains (Bee, 20 Jan. 1922). By June Stebbins and his family Page 39 of 73 10 moved into a bungalow on the tract, and he turned his attention to selling built homes for $300 down and $45 a month. In 1927 he began to advertise houses on half acres. (There are few acre lots; they may have been a teaser.) The same year Stebbins visited San Luis Obispo and in January 1928 sold his tire store in Sacramento, in March went on an extended holiday with his wife in Hawaii, and in June was promoting lots and houses in the forty-acre Anholm Addition with full-page ads (L. F. Gould advertisement, Bee, 1 Feb. 1928; “Mrs. Stebbins Is Honored on Eve of Departure,” Bee, 10 Mar. 1928; Anholm Tract advertisements, San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 8 and 9 June 1928). The Telegram touted Stebbins as having been “for the past twenty years connected with California subdivisions in various parts of the state” (9 June 1928), though there is evidence only of his having rather slowly sold somewhat undistinguished houses on a small tract in Sacramento. Stebbins did not stick with the Anholm Tract as long as he stuck with the Stebbins Tract. His last advertisement was nine months later in March 1929, promising a four-room furnished house at $350 down and $30 a month. From San Luis Obispo he and Mrs. Stebbins went to Caspar, Wyoming, and thence to Alhambra in Southern California. In 1932 he was back trying to sell houses in the Stebbins tract, moving into it again in 1933. His last advertisement there was in 1935. George and Chris Anholm, who listed themselves as dairy farmers in the 1930 census, continued to sell lots and houses in their tract, Chris recording sales as late as 1948 and George taking out building permits as late as 1952. They also lived in their tract, selling off houses and moving to new ones. Their children lived there, too. George and Chris and their wives hosted Danish gatherings at their houses, served as precinct officer in elections, and otherwise participated in the new, White, suburban community they had created from the old Chinese Gardens. Page 40 of 73 11 4. Architectural Significance Minimal Tradition: History Sir Edwin Lutyens’ Munstead Wood is the ur-house for Minimal Traditional, begun 1889 and completed 1897 for garden designer Gertrude Jekyll, Lutyens’ lifelong collaborator. Munstead has not only the close-clipped rakes of Minimal Traditional but minimized windows, decluttered walls, broad expanses of steeply pitched roofs, prominent chimneys, curvilinear features, and smooth transitions. Actual Tudor architecture in Surrey (Losely Hall above left and farmhouse near Charlwood at right): busier, more angular, less sweeping than Lutyens’ work. At Munstead (below) he regularized bays, integrated them into walls and roof, reduced windows, flared eaves, and used the chimney as a vertical plane to interact with horizontal ones. It was a smoother modernization than Wright’s. Minimal rakes (in grand houses like Losely, parapets) were a Tudor feature fitting well in Lutyens’ streamlined vision, while Wright used wide rakes and jettied upper floors of other Tudor houses in both Tudor Revival and some Prairie structures like the Meyer May (1908–09) and Emil Bach (1915) Houses. (Photograph of Munstead Wood from Sir Lawrence Weaver’s Lutyens Houses and Gardens [London: Country Life, 1921].) Page 41 of 73 12 Unlike many Minimal Traditional houses, the Muller-Noggle House was built on a commodious lot (or series of lots), so it retained the horizontality of Lutyens’ county house work. But it also adopted or adapted another aspect, the pyramid roof with central chimney. This form appears to have been borrowed by American Minimal Traditional architects soon after Lawrence Weaver’s elephant folio Houses and Gardens by E. L. Lutyens was published by Charles Scribner’s Sons in the United States in 1914. Lutyens’ hipped roofs with central chimneys were not true pyramids, but the photography created a close enough effect to inspire what was to become the Muller-Noggle House’s form. The Dormy House, Walton Heath, entrance front; figure 279, Houses and Gardens by E. L. Lutyens There is no one obvious model for Lutyens’ innovation: a hipped roof with a central chimney (seen here in an 1820 Gotho-Palladian farmhouse in Wiltshire) is extremely rare but not unknown in English architecture. It’s possible Lutyens had seen an image of the Lees’ Stratford Hall in Virginia. It is more likely that American architects were ready to adopt the form because of their familiarity with Stratford. Littlecroft, Guildford, entrance front; figure 279, Houses and Gardens by E. L. Lutyens Page 42 of 73 13 At any event, it was a form that captured architects’ imaginations for the multiplying and expanding suburbs after World War I, when the shady and airy California Bungalow, never really suited for much of the United States, had become passé. The new suburb would reverse the Asian influence of the bungalow, adapted from the traditional Bengali village house of simple design surrounded by wide eaves of a thatched hip roof. The inspirations of the Minimal Traditional were European and colonial styles, emphasizing White history, gentility, and overlordship. The great Black Los Angeles architect Paul Williams designing a Plantation-style Minimal Traditional house for a White client in a restricted neighborhood in the 1920s is a distillation of the moment. Stratford Hall, circa 1730s, Westmoreland County, Virginia, architect unknown. Nineteenth- century photograph. Pyramidal English Cottage styles, from Henry Atterbury Smith, ed., Books of a Thousand Homes (New York: Home Owners Service Institute, 1923) Page 43 of 73 14 Late Georgian Revival from Books of a Thousand Homes From Home Builder’s Plan Book (New York: Building Plan Holding Corporation, 1921). Note garage with matching pyramidal roof, as in the Muller property. Morgan Bulkeley House, Hartford, Connecticut, from Ethel B. Power, The Smaller American House: Fifty-Five Houses of the Less Expensive Type Selected from the Recent Work of Architects in All Parts of the Country (Boston: Little, Brown, 1927). Note the bell-cast eaves of the window and door extensions, as seen at left on a Muller-Noggle bay window: a characteristic of Georgian Revival though not particularly of Georgian architecture. The Muller-Noggle House The permit for the house and garage lists contractor but not architect; it is likely the Stolte Company had in-house architects with knowledge of the many pattern books of the new suburban architecture, who could assemble the desires of clients and anticipate them with inventions. The Muller-Noggle House is notable for its numerous unusual features: not only the reception pavilion’s pyramidal roof with central chimney and bay windows with bell-cast eaves, but a projecting south wing for bedrooms, necessitated by the house’s being a single story; a curved quarter-bay connecting reception room pavilion and bedroom wing in the interior angle, fronting a nook inside; pilastered Page 44 of 73 15 Guide to Minimal Traditional revival types from the 1939 San Luis Obispo County City and Telephone Directory, identifying the Georgian style not with English squires but Southern planters. Page 45 of 73 16 front door with sidelights; and matching garage with pyramidal finialed roof, like a pigeonnier. The resource exemplifies the afore-mentioned Minimal Traditional’s close- clipped rakes, minimized windows, decluttered walls, broad expanse of steeply pitched roof, prominent chimney, curvilinear features, and smooth transitions. Interior features include paneling, coves on the bedroom wing’s exterior walls, reception room crown molding, and octagon dining room (formed by built-in cabinets in two corners topped with arches, faux keystones, and interior coves and a recessed ironing board in a third corner). The Haselmans have been painstaking in retaining and restoring interior details. The overall style—including such decorative details as the built-in cabinets, crown moldings, sconces, and front door pilasters and sidelights—is Late Georgian Revival. Photos above and right: Mai Haselman Page 46 of 73 17 Pigeonnier, Whitney Plantation, Louisiana. The right to build towers was reserved in France for the nobility. For practical purposes, these usually took the form of stair towers on houses or pigeonniers. Page 47 of 73 18 5. Period of Significance The Muller-Noggle House and Garage are significant for their Minimal Traditional Late Georgian Revival architecture as constructed by the F. C. Stolte Company from late 1936 to early 1937. Their period of significance is therefore the year of their construction. Page 48 of 73 19 6. Integrity and Character-Defining Features Location The Muller-Noggle House and Garage retain their original locations. Design The bedroom wing of the house was extended after its original construction and period of significance. The addition is undetectable on the front façade, however, and though the proportion between the reception room pavilion and bedroom wing are slightly altered by it, their relationship to each other and the resultant stylized proportions that define the character of the Minimal Traditional survive. The house’s pyramidal roof and central chimney, north-facing bell-cast bay windows and south-east-facing rounded quarter bay, pilastered and side-lighted front door, and muntined fenestration, as well as the pyramidal roof and finial of the garage, are all character-defining features of the Minimal Traditional Late Georgian Revival design. The garage doors are not character-defining features of the design. The brick posts and white fence, with their wrought iron gates, including a steel silhouette front gate that references the Mission Era, adds greatly to the charm of the resource, but there is no documentation as to whether it is original or not. The brick differs from that of the base of the bedroom front façade, whether earlier or later. Johnny Noggle was a Mission historian and bell ringer, and it is plausible the Mission- themed front gate was added by him, given that it doesn’t match the Neo-Georgian theme of the house. Setting The Muller-Noggle House and Garage retain their original suburban setting dominated by Minimal Traditional houses and its relationship to Cerro San Luis and the Brizzolara Creek tributary. Materials The variegated brick border that runs along the base of the bedroom wing’s front façade is likely a later addition, possibly added at the time of the wing’s extension, and not a character-defining feature. A separate brick structure on the Mission Street frontage, by the driveway, is of varying materials and ages; it and the connected structure of corrugated translucent fiberglass panels are not from the period of significance and need not be protected for the resource’s integrity. The master extension of the bedroom wing is also not of original materials. Otherwise, the exterior materials of the Muller-Noggle House appear to be original, including fenestration. Asphalt shingles on the house are recent. Wood shingles on the garage appear to be original but are unlikely to survive. The matching stucco skin of both structures is a character-defining feature. Workmanship The workmanship of the framers, stuccadores, and finish carpenters of the period of significance retains its integrity. Page 49 of 73 20 Feeling There is no doubt that Albert and Elizabeth Muller would recognize their house through the minor changes as the young lawyer’s showpiece built as America emerged from the Great Depression. Johnny and Neva Noggle served as long and dedicated conservators. Page 50 of 73 21 7. Conclusion A. V. and Elizabeth Biehl Muller and Johnny and Neva Noggle House and Garage are of Minimal Traditional Late Georgian Revival design rare in the United States and unique in San Luis Obispo, with the reception pavilion’s extraordinary pyramidal roof echoed by the garage, plus a plethora of elegant Georgian Revival features—including ones never used in the Georgian era but defining the exaggerated but streamlined aesthetic of the Minimal Traditional. The resource is one of only two documented houses in San Luis by the F. C. Stolte Company, the historically significant builders of Hearst Castle. The Muller-Noggle House and Garage qualify for the Master List as one of “the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of architectural or historical significance [or] rarity” and retain the high degree of integrity to communicate their significance. Photo: Mai Haselman Page 51 of 73 Page 52 of 73 Page 53 of 73 Page 54 of 73 Page 55 of 73 Page 56 of 73 Page 57 of 73 Page 58 of 73 Page 59 of 73 Page 60 of 73 Page 61 of 73 Page 62 of 73 Page 63 of 73 Page 64 of 73 City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character Citywide Historic Context Statement HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP 150 MINIMAL TRADITIONAL The Minimal Traditional style is defined by simple exterior forms and a restrained use of traditional architectural detailing. The Minimal Traditional house was immensely popular in large suburban residential developments throughout the United States during the World War II and postwar periods. The style had its origins in the principles of the Modern movement and the requirements of the FHA and other Federal programs of the 1930s. Its open plan reflected the developer’s desire for greater efficiency. Modern construction methods addressed the builder’s need to reduce costs and keep homes affordable to the middle class. Conventional detailing appealed to conservative home buyers and mortgage companies. Character-defining features include:  One-story  Simple rectangular plan  Medium or low-pitched hip or side-gable roof with shallow eaves  Smooth stucco wall cladding, often with wood lap or stone veneer accents  Wood multi-light windows (picture, double-hung sash, casement)  Projecting three-sided oriel  Shallow entry porch with slender wood supports  Fixed wooden shutters  Minimal decorative exterior detailing Example of a Minimal Traditional House. Source: Historic Resources Group. Page 65 of 73 Page 66 of 73 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: Page 67 of 73 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). Page 68 of 73