HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/01/1996, 3 - CITIZENS' REQUEST TO RECONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE HISTORIC PROPERTY TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM. 2 council
aGEnaa aEpout
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold Jo
PREPARED BY: Jeff H
V
SUBJECT: Citizens' request to reconsider adoption of the Historic Property Tax Incentive
Program.
CAO RECOWA ENDATION: Adopt a resolution establishing the historic property tax incentive
program and authorizing the Mayor to send a letter to the San Luis Obispo County Assessor
initiating the program.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Last year the City Council considered the Mills Act program and decided at that time not to adopt
the program. This item is returning to the Council for reconsideration at the request of a citizens'
group -- Citizens For historic Preservation — who have submitted a petition in support of the
program. The Mills Act program allows cities to use a partnership approach to historic
preservation. The City establishes the program, determines which properties are eligible through
its authority to designate locally significant historic properties, and enters into historic preservation
contracts with property owners who choose to participate. The property owner agrees to maintain
(and in some cases, restore) historic properties according to adopted preservation standards in
return for tax benefits. The County participates by assessing participating historic properties
according to methods outlined by State law. The County of San Luis Obispo previously opposed
the program due to concerns with the program's potential fiscal effects. The Assessor suggested
alternatives and requested reimbursement for County staff costs if the program is implemented.
DISCUSSION
Although legally available since 1977, this special tax assessment method has not been applied in
San Luis Obispo County. About 40 California communities have Mills Act programs, including:
La Verne, Long Beach, Redondo Beach, San Diego, Palo Alto, Rancho Cucamonga and
Sacramento. The City of Paso Robles is also considering its own Mills Act program. Following
a presentation at an American Planning Association Conference, staff looked into starting such
a program in San Luis Obispo as part of the City's historic preservation program. After meeting
with the County Assessor last year, staff determined that a tax incentive program was feasible and
that it could promote the City's historic preservation goals by encouraging the preservation and
"listing" of historic properties. The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) held two public hearings
to discuss the incentive, and found that it could have significant public benefits.
On July 2nd Council received a petition with over 60 signatures asking Council to reconsider the
Historic Property Tax Incentive Program, and Council directed to staff to agendize the item. In
February 7, 1995 the City Council considered the earlier CHC recommendation to adopt the
Council Staff Report
Page 2
program, heard public testimony, and referred the item back to the CHC for further study. Then
on March 27, 1995 the CHC voted 5-0 to reaffirm its support for the historic property tax
incentive program and to recommend that the Mayor send a letter to the County Tax Assessor
initiating the program. The CHC found that the public benefits of the program were likely to
outweigh the expected tax revenue losses; and that a significant number of Master List properties
have been under the same ownership since 1978, thus minimizing the program's possible fiscal
effects. After reviewing the additional information at its May 2, 1995 meeting, Council decided
not to adopt the program. Councilmembers supported re-establishing the Historical Preservation
Loan program at budget hearings(minutes attached). Because of a higher priority being assigned
to other major City goals, staff has not yet developed a historic rehabilitation loan program.
General Plan Policy
General Plan policies strongly encourage the preservation of historic structures. For example, the
Land Use Element provides that:
"Historically or architecturally significant buildings should not be demolished or
substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a
threat to health and safety and other means to avoid the threat are infeasible. The street
appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character
should be maintained. '
To implement preservation policies, the Conservation Element recommends that:
'Accommodations for upgrading buildings having historical significance should be
included in the building code. Zoning regulations and tax rate structures should be revised
to encourage renovation of such buildings. "
The Mills Act
The Mills Act (Government Code Sections 50281, 50282) provides cities and counties with an
important historic preservation tool by giving them authority to assess designated historic
properties differently than non-historic properties. It is one of the few preservation incentives
available which provide significant financial benefits to owner-occupants of historic homes as well
as to owners of income properties. This State law allows qualifying historical properties to be
assessed using a "capitalization of income" method, rather than the usual method based on
comparative sales data. This method can result in a lower assessed value for the property, thereby
reducing property taxes.
To qualify, a property must be designated on a Federal, State or local historic listing and must be
covered under a Mills Act contract, as defined in Government Code Section 50280.1. The
minimum term of a Mills Act contact is 10 years, and each year the contract is automatically
renewed for an additional year on a specified date, unless a notice of non-renewal is given. Either
the property owner or the City may elect not to renew for any reason. The effect of non-renewal
Council Staff Report
Page 3
is to terminate the contract at the end of the current ten year term.
The Mills Act contract links individual property tax savings to the public benefits of preserving
historic properties. The contract obligates the property owner to maintain the property in good
condition and comply with specific restoration or rehabilitation measures. Typical requirements
include prohibition on demolition, or allowing exterior building changes only with city approval.
The contract also provides for reasonable public access for viewing the property (building exterior
only in most cases). The contract may also provide for periodic inspection of the property to
assure compliance with the contract terms.
If the property owner breaches the contract, the city has the option of either bringing legal action
against the owner for compliance, or"canceling" the contract. In this case, the City must give the
property owner 60-day notice and hold a public hearing. If the City decides not to renew due to
breach of contract, the owner is assessed a "recapture" fee of 12 1h percent of the property's
market value at the time of cancellation. This amount is paid to the County Assessor for deposit
in the State General Fund.
Cities may collect a fee, in an amount "not to exceed the reasonable cost of administering this
program", as a condition of entering into a historic preservation contract. Cities are not required
to, but may use a portion of the fee to reimburse counties for their costs to administer Mills Act
contracts. State law also provides for recordation of the contract within 20 days of its execution.
Although contracts may be entered into at any time, the new valuation will not take effect until
the assessment date of March 1st in any given year. Mills Act contracts are binding on all
successors in interest to the original owner. A sample contract is attached.
Who is Eligible to Participate?
Property owner participation in the program is completely voluntary. Owners of residential and
commercial properties on the City's Master List of Historic Resources would be eligible to
participate in the program. There are 170 properties on the Master List (91 residential; 65
commercial; 14 other). Additional properties meeting the criteria in the City's Historic
Preservation Prograrn Grddelines could be added by the City Council, on nomination by the CHC.
The criteria can be difficult to meet and the number of properties which could be added to the
Master List is expected to be small.
Of the properties which are currently eligible, not all would benefit from the program. For
example, 14 properties are either govemment-owned or churches and pay little or no property tax.
Many other historic properties have been under the same ownership since the passage of
Proposition 13 in 1978, and consequently, are not likely to benefit from the program.
Approximately one-half of the Master List properties are believed to fall into this category.
There may be a concern that a large number of requests for Mills Act contracts will be made,
resulting in significant tax losses. However, based on responses in other communities since the
act was passed, the number of property owners choosing to participate will remain relatively
S -3
Council Staff Report
Page 4
small. In the unlikely event that demand is higher than expected or desired, the Council could
simply limit the number of contracts to a yearly maximum, set more specific criteria for
participation, or discontinue the program except for existing contracts.
How the Progrmn Woks
Program benefits extend to both individual property owners and the community at large. Property
owners who choose restoration and preservation over demolition are rewarded through reduced
property taxes. The community receives benefits through preservation and improvement of
historic buildings which represent the community's cultural and architectural heritage. To the
extent that Mills Act contracts are tied to specific requirements for upkeep, architectural
restoration, and correction of building code deficiencies, the tax reduction can defray property
owner costs to maintain and improve historic buildings.
At the request of a city, state law requires county assessors to assess historical properties under
contract by a "capitalization of income method" instead of the usual "comparative fair market
value" method, according to Revenue and Tax Code Section 439.1. This alternative assessment
can sometimes result in lower assessed values, and hence, lower property taxes for qualifying
properties. Examples of property tax calculations under the Mills Act are attached. - When a
property is owner occupied, the determination of "income" is based on what a property could
reasonably be expected to yield, or on an amount stipulated in the contract as the minimum
income to be used. The income projected for owner occupied property is based on comparable
rents for similar property in the area or, if sufficient rental information is not available, the
income that could reasonably be expected under prudent management (Rev. and Tax Code,
Section 439.2(x)). In the case of income producing property, the income amount is based on rent
actually received and on typical rentals received for similar property in similar use.
One criticism is that there is no guarantee that property owner's tax savings will translate into
restoration or improved upkeep of historic properties. That is true. However through the
contract, the City can specify property improvements which must be made in return for the tax
benefits received. The tax savings also help offset an owner's existing costs of owning,
maintaining and/or restoring an historic building — costs which tend to be higher than for
comparable, new buildings. Importantly, the program may also achieve other City objectives; for
example, seismic retrofit. Mills Act contracts may be used offset property owner costs to retrofit
historic unreinforced masonry (URM) buildings, or to offset increased property taxes due to
building improvements. The program's overall effect may be to encourage property owners to
preserve an historic building in lieu of demolition and redevelopment with more intensive uses.
The Mills Act contract provides the legal mechanism to tie the program's tax benefits to specific
City expectations regarding preservation and maintenance.
In his 1983 article "Preservation Law and Economics", Richard J. Roddewig compared income
and expenses on newer and older buildings from a 1980 survey of downtown offices in the U.S.
and Canada and pointed out that:
"...gross income per square foot on older buildings is substantially less than on new
Council Staff Report
Page 5
buildings, and expenses -- except for taxes, insurance and energy — are substantially
higher on older buildings. Total income on older buildings is a little more than 70 percent
of new building income. On the average, it costs more to operate the same amount of
space in an older structure than it does in a new buildings. '
It is difficult to quantify the program's public benefits; however other cities' experiences indicate
that incentives such as the Mills Act give property owners (and prospective owners) a financial
incentive to preserve and restore historic buildings and to reinvest in neighborhoods. They also
help create a sense of good will and demonstrate a cities' commitment to historic preservation.
Community Interest
Interested property owners have submitted a petition asldng Council to reconsider the program.
The Chamber of Commerce has also submitted a letter in support of the tax incentive program.
San Luis Coastal Unified School District and the County Tax Assessor were informed about this
most recent citizen-initiated proposal and received a copy of the staff report.
FISCAL IMPACT
Participation in this type of tax incentive program will reduce City and County tax revenues.
Actual fiscal effects are difficult to determine and depend on: the number of properties
participating, current property uses and last reassessment date, property condition, and property
owner response to the program.
City Fiscal Impact
Because it is difficult to predict the number of property owners who would participate in the
program, a worst-case scenario was analyzed. A worst-case approximation of the reduction of
City property tax revenues can be calculated as follows (figures based on 1993-94 tax assessments
and are assumed to be comparable to 1995-96 assessments):
Total assessed valuation of City Master List properties $54,807,482
Total assessed valuation under new assessment method' $27,403.741
New property tax valuation for historic properties $27,403,741
To determine the tax revenue impact on the City, the new assessed valuation is then multiplied
by 1 percent (maximum general purpose tax rate) to calculate property tax, and then by 14 percent
to determine the City's share of the property tax revenue:
$27,403,741 X .01 X .14 = $38,365
'According to a Deputy Assessor for San Luis Obispo County, the program could result in a
reduction in assessed valuation of between 33 and 50 percent per property for qualifying historic
properties which have been sold since the passage of Proposition 13.
2%5.
Council Staff Report
Page 6
Thus, the City could lose about $38,000 in property tax revenue annually assuming that:
1) all of the properties on the Master List participated in the tax incentive program; and 2) the
assessed valuation of all the properties was reduced by 50 percent. This would represent a
reduction of about one percent in the City's total property tax revenue ($38,365/$3,863,800)
based on projections for 1996-97. This "worst-case" assumption is highly unlikely, and the
actual fiscal effects would probably be much less than $38,000. About one-half of the eligible
properties have been under the same ownership since passage of Proposition 13, and are not likely
to participate since they already have relatively low property tax assessments. Other communities
with Mills Act programs in place have experienced participation rates of 10 - 15 percent of the
eligible properties. A more realistic approximation of annual City property tax loss is $3,800 to
$5,700.
County Escal Impacts
A variety of agencies receive a portion of property taxes collected in the City of San Luis Obispo.
These include: San Luis Coastal Unified School District (about 36%); County General Fund
(about 20% after State transfer); Cuesta College (6%); County Schools (4%); Library (1.9%);
Port San Luis Authority (1.6%); Air Pollution Control District (0.1 ft and others. Property tax
collection methods are fairly complex, and actual percentages allocated to each taxing agency vary
depending on where the taxed property is located in the County. Nevertheless, an approximate
"worst case" fiscal impact can be estimated as follows:
General pu=se taxes collected under current method
Total Assessed Valuation of Master List Properties: $54,807,482
Tax Collected (.O1X total assessed valuation) = 548,000
Less 14% taxes allocated to City of SLO [76,0001
Tax revenue available to County taxing agencies $ 472,000
Taxes collected under Mills Act
New Assessed Valuation of Master List Properties: $27,403,741
(reduced by up to 50% due to Mills Act)
Tax Collected (.01 X total assessed valuation) = 2749000
Less taxes allocated to City of SLO [38,000]
Tax revenue available to County taxing agencies $ 236,000
Therefore, the estimated worst case revenue to County taxing agencies is a 50% reduction from
$472,000 to$236,000. This assumes that every property owner in the City eligible to participate
in the program: 1) will benefit from the program; and 2) actually chooses to participate — a highly
unlikely scenario. In other cities which have enacted Mills Act programs, the participation rate
is relatively low — 10 to 15 percent. A more realistic estimate of the program's fiscal impact on
Council Staff Report
Page 7
County revenues is expected to be an annual reduction in property tax revenue of approximately
$71,000 annually, or about three-tenths of 1 percent of the total property taxes collected
countywide($179,000,000). Of this, San Luis Unified School District funding would be reduced
by an estimated$26,000, or about 36 percent of property taxes collected in the City. The County
Tax Assessor's previous estimate of reduced property tax revenue of$400,000 assumed that all
qualified historic properties would receive an average $2,500 tax savings — a scenario that the
Assessor conceded was unlikely.
Additional City and County staff time would be required to implement the program, including
public information services and updating the Tax Assessors' policies, procedures and equipment.
The Tax Assessor provided estimates of County costs to implement the program. Assuming at
least 16 properties participate, County staff costs were estimated at $11,400, plus an annual
maintenance cost of$3,500. The City may, but is not mandated to offset County or City costs
to administer the program. The CHC recommended against charging fees for the program, feeling
that this would be contrary to the program's intent and could discourage participation. If staffing
costs to implement the program prove to be significant, the Mills Act allows the City to charge
reasonable fees to recoup processing costs of Mills Act contracts.
If the City Council wishes to proceed with the program it should adopt a resolution establishing
the program's purpose and intent, and formally request that the County Assessor establish
procedures for assessing historic properties pursuant to State law. Application procedures will be
developed by the CHC and staff, and included in the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines,
due to be updated in 1997.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt a pilot program. The Council may choose to adopt a 1 year pilot program, possibly
limiting the number of Mills Act contracts to be entered into. After 1 year, the Council could
reevaluate the program for its preservation benefits and fiscal effects. If desired, the program
could be discontinued with executed contracts allowed to expire after the minimum 10-year term.
2. Modify the program. The Council could adopt a modified program, possibly including an
application fee to cover staff costs, additional eligibility requirements or incentives. For example,
the City of Vallejo charges an application fee of $1,000 (spread over 3 years), and some
communities limit the Mills Act program only to a designated few "landmark" buildings; or
extend tax'benefits only to those properties which have been restored. The Council may also
establish a fee to offset staffing costs to implement the program. Staff does not recommend
establishing a fee at this time; however it may be appropriate to set a reasonable fee to defray
staffing costs after the City and County have experience with the program and can more accurately
gauge its effects.
3. Do not approve the program. The Mills Act program is voluntary, and the Council may
choose not to participate.
j
Council Staff Report
Page 8
Attachments:. Draft resolution, Master List of.Historic Resources, petition, letter from SLO
Chamber of Commerce, Council minutes, sample tax calculation and Mill's Act Contract.
RESOLUTION NO. (1996 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
ESTABLISHING A HISTORIC PROPERTY TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO INITIATE THE PROGRAM WITH THE COUNTY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO.
WHEREAS, Article 1.9 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code provides for the
differential property tax assessment of certain enforceably restricted properties to encourage
historic restoration and preservation; and
WHEREAS, the City's General Plan policies encourage the use of tax incentives and other
means to encourage property owners to protect, restore and preserve historic buildings; and
WHEREAS, tax incentives for qualifying historic properties benefit the entire community
and improve the City's appearance by encouraging the preservation and restoration of heritage
buildings, fostering pride and reinvestment in neighborhoods, and by defraying a portion of the
costs of restoring and maintaining historic structures; and
WHEREAS, the City's Cultural Heritage Committee has considered the potential costs
and benefits of a property tax incentive program, and has recommended the establishment of such
a program pursuant to State law; and
WHEREAS, this City Council has considered the Committee's recommendation and
desires to establish a tax incentive program in the City of San Luis Obispo, based on the findings
herein described;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION I. Findings. The Council finds the following:
1. The proposed Historic Property Tax Incentive Program is consistent with the
General Plan, and will implement policies therein calling for the protection,
restoration, preservation and maintenance of historically significant structures; and
2. The proposed Program will benefit the Public by enhancing the Community's
appearance and preserving historically significant buildings which help describe
and document the Community's heritage; and
3. Adoption of the proposed Program is exempt from environmental review under the
City's Environmental Guidelines and under Section 15308 of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 2. Historic Property Tax Incentive Program Established. The Council hereby
establishes a tax incentive program known as the "Historic Property Tax Incentive
Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 2
Program", to be administered by the Community Development Director, on advice and
recommendation of Cultural Heritage Committee, subject to State Law and the following
local requirements.
1. The purpose of the program is to encourage the restoration, preservation and
upkeep of historic structures in the City of San Luis Obispo, including both
residential and commercial properties.
2. Participating properties may be located anywhere in the City. Only those
properties listed in the "Master List of Historic Resources" shall be eligible to
participate in the tax incentive program.
3. To qualify for the program, owners of eligible properties must enter into a
Historical Property Contract with the City of San Luis Obispo. The Community
Development Director is hereby authorized to execute such contracts, subject to the
City's Historic Preservation Program goals, policies and preservation guidelines,
and subject to the requirements of State law.
4. The City Council may amend or terminate the program by resolution at any time,
after holding a public hearing and providing appropriate public and property owner
notice, as required by law.
5. The Community Development Director shall establish application and review
procedures to administer the program. Participation in the program is optional,
and shall be at no cost to the property owner. The City may charge reasonable and
necessary fees to recover costs of executing, filing, and administering historical
property contracts.
SECTION 3. Authorization to Initiate the Program. The Mayor is hereby authorized to send
a letter to the County of San Luis Obispo to initiate the program.
On motion of , seconded by and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 1 st day of October, 1996.
Council Resolution No. (1996 Series)
Page 3
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
X5
/it to y
jhfUkxpa.Mt
2-11
MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
09/03/96
Address Historic Name Zane Land ValueImprovements Total
1451 ANDREWS ANDREWS ADOBE R-1-S $24,189 $28,193 $52,382
148 BROAD BRAZIL HOUSE R-1 $20,000 $38,364 $58,364
963 BROAD 14ANDERSCHEID HOUSE R-3-H $32,587 82,626 $35,213
1345 BROAD ANDERSON HOUSE 0-H $96,208 $94,974 $191,182
1411 BROAD MATER HOUSE R-2-H $67,393 $104,466 $171,859
1426 BROAD DUTTON HOUSE R-2-H $41,640 $83,947 5125,587
1435 BROAD MILLER HOUSE R-2-H $79,767 $247,603 $327,370
1445 BROAD FALKENSTEIN HOUSE R-2-H $150,000 $200,000 $350,000
1504 BROAD VETTERLINE HOUSE R-2-H $205,000 $205,000 5410,000
1510 BROAD MCKENNON HOUSE R-2-H $77,061 $171,909 $248,970
1516 BROAD RENETZKY HOUSE R-2-H $79,767 $166,089 $245,856
1530 BROAD TUCKER HOUSE R-2-H $30,000 $52,575 $82,575
714 BUCHON MYRON ANGEL HOUSE R-2-H $11,768 $27,997 $39,765
726 BUCHON JESSIE WRIGHT MATERNITY HOME R-2-H 595,799 $101,277 5197,076
743 BUCHON BRADBURY SANITARIUM R-2-H $31,767 $60,244 $92,011
745 BUCHON BRADBURY HOUSE R-2-H $94,962 $145,238 $240,200
751 BUCHON KAISER HOUSE R-2-H $30,000 894,176 $124,176
752 BUCHON STANTON HOUSE R-2-H $72,710 $154,620 $227,330
771 BUCHON BREW HOUSE R-2-H S49,315 5100,554 $149,869
779 BUCHON UPHAM HOUSE R-2-H 833,789 $96,185 $129,974
785 BUCHON MARSHALL HOUSE R-2-H $79,767 $197,120 $276,887
793 BUCHON CROCKER HOUSE R-2-H $86,341 $206,841 $293,182
794 BUCHON FITZGERALD HOUSE R-2-H $22,268 $54,091 $76,359
850 BUCHON CLARK/NORTON HOUSE R-2-H 5129,697 $292,288 5421,985
860 BUCHON HOURIHAN HOUSE R-2-H $22,586 $44,225 $66,811
890 BUCHON PAULSON HOUSE R-2-H $8,270 $21,154 $29,424
896 BUCHON CROSSETT HOUSE R-2-H $165,000 $115,000 $280,000
1350 CALIFORNIA SLO HIGH SCHOOL GYMNASIUM PF
868 CHORRO MANCILLA/FREITAS ADOBE R-4 5149,867 $19,238 $169,105
941 CHORRO MISSION SAN LUIS OBISPO C-C-S-H $21,460 5157,412 $178,872
964 CHORRO SAUER/ADAMS ADOBE C-C-H $141,162 $142,342 $283,504
1026 CHORRO WADE BUILDING C-C-H $233,828 5110,036 5343,864
1029 CHORRO DUGHI BUILDING C-C-H $74,242 $89,130 $163,372
1033 CHORRO
1306 CHORRO REGAN HOUSE 0 5177,838 $73,504 $251,342
1318 CHORRO MAZZA HOUSE 0 $19,496 $13,268 $32,764
1518 CHORRO BROOKS HOUSE R-2-H $27,359 $44,225 $71,584
1546 CHORRO FLEUGER HOUSE R-2-H 413,590 $31,478 $45,068
1746 CHORRO ASTON HOUSE R-2 $130,000 $95,000 $225,000
1907 CHORRO FINNEY HOUSE R-2 $16,063 $10,176 $26,239
1953 CHORRO OLIVER HOUSE R-2 $97,142 $21,500 $118,642
466 DANA DANA STREET ADOBE R-3-H $15,619 $15,619
532 DANA ANDERSON HOUSE R-3-H 543,575 $37,133 $80,708
550 DANA BARNEBERG HOUSE O-H-PD 527,335 $83,571 $110,906
1119 GARDEN UNION HARDWARE BUILDING C-C-H $252,975 5683,032 $936,007
1123 GARDEN SMITH BUILDING C-C-H $236,875 542,111 $278,986
1129 GARDEN LAIRD BUILDING C-C-H $289,514 $36,847 $326,361
1130 GARDEN STOVER BUILDING C-C-H $67,422 $148,333 $215,755
1212 GARDEN GOLDTREE/MCCAFFREY HOUSE C-C $193,213 $336,787 $530,000
1105 GEORGE EDWARD F. BUSHNELL HOUSE R-2 541,074 5130,684 $171,758
2132 HARRIS WEILL HOUSE R-2 $94,738 $99,860 $194,598
50 HIGUERA DIV. OF HIGHWAYS DIST. 5 OFF. PF
75 HIGUERA LOOMIS FEED CO. WAREHOUSE C-S-S $150 2,420,000 2,420,150
236 HIGUERA H. H. WAITE PLANING MILL C-S $427,489 $543,175 $970,664
570 HIGUERA GOLDEN STATE CREAMERY C-C $372,405 $794,097 1,166,502
719 HIGUERA GREENFIELD BUILDING C-C-H 520,000 $9,175 529,175
726 HIGUERA KLUVER CIGAR FACTORY C-C-H $189,692 $532,331 $722,023
736 HIGUERA CARRISA BUILDING C-C-H $292,141 $525,658 $817,799
740 HIGUERA VOLLMER GROCERY C-C-H $26,568 $11,935 $38,503
767 HIGUERA UNION NATIONAL BANK BUILDING C-C-H $82,603 $131,970 $214,573
777 HIGUERA DOTON BUILDING C-C-H $220,000 5125,000 $345,000
796 HIGUERA JOHNSON BUILDING C-C-H $184,617 $314,186 $498,803
799 HIGUERA COMMERCIAL BANK BUILDING C-C-H 588,674 $59,035 $147,709
�3-/2
ter List of Historic Resources
,e 2
842 HIGUERA WARDEN/TOWER BUILDING C-C-H $404,760 $657,735 1,062,495
849 HIGUERA GOLDTREE BLOCK/HOTEL WINEMAN C-C-H $565,276 5429,921 $995,197
852 HIGUERA A. F. FITZGERALD BUILDING C-C-H 548,367 $48,367 $96,734
856 HIGUERA SANDERCOCK TRANSFER BUILDING C-C-H $75,000 5150,000 $225,000
3897 HIGUERA S LONG/BONETTI RANCH M-SP $852,772 1,700,000 2,552,772
1100 IRIS SOUTHERN PACIFIC WATER TOWER C/OS
461 ISLAY ERICKSON HOUSE R-2 $182,142 $207,439 $389,581
463 ISLAY FUMIGALLI HOUSE R-2 $47,191 $87,424 $134,615
497 ISLAY VOLLMER HOUSE R-2 $195,000 $110,000 $305,000
535 ISLAY SANDERCOCK HOUSE R-2-H $200,000 $160,000 $360,000
591 ISLAY SANDERCOCK HOUSE R-2-H $111,309 5131,547 $242,856
644 ISLAY DANA/PARSONS HOUSE R-2-H $74,005 $115,581 $189,586
670 ISLAY FITZPATRICK HOUSE R-2-H $123,856 $61,928 $185,784
687 ISLAY ERICKSON HOUSE R-2-H $73,592 $82,019 $155,611
690 ISLAY KIMBALL HOUSE R-2-H $13,040 546,613 $59,653
790 ISLAY JACKSON HOUSE R-2-H $18,605 $59,609 $78,214
777 JOHNSON BUCKLEY HOUSE R-2-H $20,000 $28,619 548,619
1720 JOHNSON THE JUDGE'S HOUSE R-2 $90,000 $169,100 $259,100
1019 LEFF POST HOUSE R-3-H $50,000 $190,482 $240,482
1590 LIZZIE BOWDEN ADOBE R-1-SP $130,000 $130,000
100 MADONNA MADONNA INN C-T,C-T-S $660,000 3,373,321 4,033,321
536 MARSH JACK HOUSE C-C
547 MARSH KAETZEL HOUSE C-C $135,000 $200,000 $335,000
774 MARSH SNYDER BUILDING C-C-H $37,406 $105,106 $142,512
859 MARSH MASONIC TEMPLE C-C $73,447 $240,861 $314,308
893 MARSH U.S. POST OFFICE C-C
951 MARSH FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH C-C $239,825 $864,931 1,104,756
981 MARSH
1117 MARSH - ESOUAR HOUSE 0 $173,708 $95,802 $269,510
1129 MARSH RAMAGE HOUSE 0 $71,608 $20,726 $92,334
1135 MARSH SHIPMAN HOUSE 0 $71,608 $20,726 $92,334
141 MARSH THE NURSE'S HOUSE 0 $71,608 $20,726 592,334
45 MARSH FAULKNER HOUSE 0 $71,608 $20,726 $92,334
060 MARSH STOVER'S SANITARIUM 0 $639,292 5674,164 1,313,456
1167 MARSH GRAVES HOUSE 0 $80,000 $130,000 $210,000
1305 MARSH REID HOUSE 0 $309,641 $144,499 $454,140
1266 MILL SHIPSEY HOUSE R-2-H $20,000 $28,619 $48,619
1306 MILL SMITH HOUSE R-2-H $26,143 540,971 $67,114
1330 MILL MUSCIO HOUSE R-2-H $112,628 $237,116 $349,744
1424 MILL MAINO HOUSE R-2 $64,394 $75,841 $140,235
1460 MILL MUGLER HOUSE R-2 $309,641 $433,497 $743,138
1660 MILL DR. LONG HOUSE RESIDENCE R-2 $130,000 $50,000 $180,000
642 MONTEREY HAYS/LATTIMER ADOBE O-H $183,765 $88,916 $272,681
664 MONTEREY MORGANTI HOUSE 0-H 540,000 560,680 $100,680
696 MONTEREY OLD CITY LIBRARY PF-H
747 MONTEREY MURRAY ADOBE PF-H
848 MONTEREY SAUER BAKERY C-C-H $50,000 $31,523 $81,523
849 MONTEREY SINSHEIMER BUILDING C-C-H $60,000 $166,882 $226,882
868 MONTEREY MUZIO'S GROCERY C-C-H $100,000 $247,158 $347,158
951 MONTEREY ANDERSON HOTEL C-C-H 5604,653 1,813,967 2,418,620
962 MONTEREY BRUNNER BUILDING C-C-H $139,926 $452,376 $592,302
969 MONTEREY LOOBLINER BUILDING C-C-H $177,082 5131,547 $308,629
978 MONTEREY ANDREWS BUILDING C-C-H 5251,775 $169,895 5421,670
1035 MONTEREY FREMONT THEATER C-C-H $929,881 $227,910 1,157,791
1815 MONTEREY MONDAY CLUB C-T-S $144,819 $30,568 $175,387
2223 MONTEREY MILESTONE MOTEL INN C-T-S $762,447 $235,083 $997,530
1406 MORRO SNYDER HOUSE R-3-H 557,431 $85,644 $143,075
1511 MORRO MARTHA DUNLAP HOUSE R-2-H $165,000 5102,500 $267,500
1624 MORRO BULLARD HOUSE R-3-H $35,633 $59,819 $95,452
1636 MORRO BAKER HOUSE R-3-H $35,633 $59,819 $95,452
1642 MORRO ALBERT HOUSE R-3-H $35,633 $59,819 $95,452
991 NIPOMO HARMONY CREAMERY 0-H $151,726 $242,859 $394,585
1015 HIPOMO CROWN SODA WORKS C-C-H-PD 590,000 $76,182 $166,182
1204 NIPOMO LOGAN HOUSE C-C $71,285 $58,321 $129,606
1344 NIPOMO ST. STEPHEN'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH R-2-H $70,000 $409,910 $479,910
4407 NIPOMO PATTON HOUSE R-3-H $18,132 $8,110 526,242
28 NIPOMO ROGERS HOUSE R-2-H $47,191 562,529 $109,720
.446 NIPOMO NICHOLS HOUSE R-2-H $13,230 $69,114 $82,344
J -/3
Master List of Historic Resources
Page 3
4025 ORCUTT RODRIGUEZ ADOBE R-1-SP
890 OSOS TEASS HOUSE 0-H $313,378 $427,335 $740,713
976 OSOS COUNTY COURTHOUSE PF-H
1301 OSOS FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH 0 $89,324 $96,771 $186,095
1443 OSOS M. F. AVILA HOUSE R-2-H $29,905 $49,634 $79,539
1700 OSOS ALLEN HOUSE R-3-H $161,904 $103,719 $265,623
1716 OSOS HAGEMAN SANITARIUM R-3-H $104,610 $200,970 $305,580
1815 OSOs REIDY HOTEL C-R-S-H $297,604 1,244,879 1,542,483
863 PACIFIC ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH 0 $396,797 $279,053 $675,850
1106 PACIFIC KUNDERT MEDICAL BUILDING 0 $133,673 $129,978 $263,651
1185 PACIFIC DALLIDET ADOBE 0
800 PALM AN LOUIS STORE C-C-H $172,396 $10,422 $182,818
990 PALM SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY HALL PF-H
1144 PALM PAYNE HOUSE 0 $88,276 $97,346 $185,622
1305 PALM RIGHETTI APARTMENTS R-3-H $21,035 $53,219 $74,254
1314 PALM RIGHETTI HOUSE R-3-H $135,000 $327,000 $462,000
71 PALOMAR SANDFORD HOUSE R-4 $132,747 $21,964 $154,711
1127 PEACH J. MAINO HOUSE R-2-H $19,902 $16,394 $36,296
1128 PEACH MAINO/RIGHETTI HOUSE R-2-H $19,902 $22,585 $42,487
280 PISMO OLD GAS WORKS C-S $87,650 $13,217 $100,867
559 PISMO BIDDLE HOUSE R-3-H $160,000 $115,000 $275,000
649 PISMO MCMANUS HOUSE R-2-H $76,745 $152,236 $228,981
671 PISMO LEWIN HOUSE R-2-H $14,475 $31,835 $46,310
676 PISMO GREENFIELD HOUSE 0-H $11,451 $28,312 $39,763
1116 PISMO VOLLMER HOUSE R-2-H $44,632 $47,149 $91,781
1123 PISMO THORNE HOUSE R-2-H $28,951 $18,766 $47,717
1011 RAILROAD S.P. DEPOT C-S-S-H
1021 RAILROAD SP TRANSPORTATION CO. BLDG. C-S-S-H
1335 ROUNDHOUSE SOUTHERN PACIFIC ROUNDHOUSE C-S-S
1703 SANTA BARBARA CALL HOTEL R-3-H $47,191 $76,189 $123,380
1717 SANTA BARBARA WILLIAM M. DUFF HOUSE R-3-H $74,097 $66,777 $140,874
1725 SANTA BARBARA ALEXANDER GALEWSKI HOUSE R-3-H $53,940 $32,601 $86,541
1763 SANTA BARBARA TRIBUNE BUILDING R-3-H $74,097 $142,125 $216,222
1763 SANTA BARBARA TRIBUNE-REPUBLIC BUILDING R-3-H $74,097 $142,125 $216,222
1880 SANTA BARBARA CHANNEL COMMERCIAL COMPANY C-R-S-H $188,721 1,258,166 1,446,887
1940 SANTA BARBARA SOUTHERN PACIFIC WAREHOUSE C-S-S
1445 SANTA ROSA KINDERGARTEN SCHOOL PF-H
1531 SANTA ROSA ADRIANCE COURT R-3-H $145,111 $278,137 $423,248
txn_Mucr.tsr
Citizens For Historic Preservation
P.O.Box 14110. •SAN LUIS OBISPO,CA 93401 •805542-9286•Fax:805545-9075 •E-MAIL-MCAPLAW@accESs4.coM
July 2, 1996
Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Citizen Support
In June of 1995, a measure came before the City Council to provide tax
Mr. R. Vessley relief to owners of historic homes and buildings for the preservation of
those building. We believe the program was well conceived and would
have received the votes necessary to pass had we, the property owners
Mr. R. Porter and citizens of San Luis Obispo, expressed the support we felt for the
program. Consequently, we ask that the program be placed on the
Ms. P. Pinard agenda for reconsideration by the council. '
Mr. A. Merriam The program's focus on preserving the beauty of the historic architecture
of San Luis Obispo benefits both current and future citizens. Many of the
Mr. A. McVay residential and commercial historic buildings are the architectural gems
that give the city that special feeling we have come to associate with
Mr. D. Krieger being in San Luis Obispo. It is our responsibility as citizens of this area
to preserve these buildings so that future citizens may enjoy that same
Mr. R. Fox sense of history and community that we feel.
Mr. J. Elder The beauty of the residential and commercial historic buildings in San
Luis Obispo is ultimately in the hands of the property owners. Historic
Mr. M. Carlaw buildings bring with them special safety and maintenance considerations.
Ownership can be considered more a labor of love than an shrewd
Mr, R. Belknap financial investment. Upgrading and maintaining historic buildings is very
expensive; in many cases, the owner's equity investment in a property far
exceeds market value. Nevertheless, most owners take pride in their
Association Support buildings and would invest more money in their maintenance if it was
economically feasible.
Cham6er of Commerce Each of us in this community benefits when an owner of a historic
building takes the time and money to preserve it. They deserve our
encouragement and support.
JUL b I",
Crn'COUNCIL
CA
Page 2
July 1, 1996
The economic benefits of this indirect investment in the community is
difficult to quantify but is, nevertheless, quite real. Preservation of our
historic buildings makes San Luis Obispo a more delightful and attractive
town to tourists and business owners looking for new locations. Some
portion of the revenue derived from tourists and new businesses flows
back to the City. While we recognize the potential of a slight revenue
loss to the City as a result of this program, City revenues could actually
increase as a result of the encouragement this program gives to owners
and neighborhoods to beautify their buildings.
In addition to community support, the preservation of historic buildings is
strongly supported in the General Plan. To implement preservation
policies, the Conservation Element recommends that "zoning regulations
and tax rate structures should be revised to encourage renovation of
such(historic) buildings".
Mayor Settle, since provision for this program was granted by the State
in 1977, many cities including Santa Barbara and San Francisco have
implemented similar programs to preserve an protect their community
heritage. We would like to see such a program in this community. We
ask that the measure be placed on the agenda for reconsideration by the
council in the very near future so that we, as a community, can show our
support for its implementation.
Thank you for your help and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mr. ay Elder Mr. Malcolm Carlaw
Citizens of San Luis Obispo
(See attached signatures)
cc: Mr. John Dunn
Mr. Jeff Hook
Petition for the Implementation
of the
Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program
We, the undersigned, believe that the Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program will benefit
current and future citizens of San Luis Obispo by encouraging the owners of historic buildings to
preserve and protect those buildings. This will:
• Encourage the preservation of much of the architectural history that makes San Luis
Obispo a special place to live.
• Increase our sense of neighborhood pride because our historic homes get that extra care
they need to stay beautiful.
• Make San Luis Obispo a more attractive and delightful city for tourists and new
businesses, thereby strengthening the economic foundation of the City.
We ask that the City Council of San Luis Obispo give it's unanimous approval to this program and
support our efforts to preserve and protect the beauty of these historic neighborhoods and
commercial centers for future generations.
Name Street Address Phone#
•- 7
5. x
C _6� 6
6. 6. Z e ,�
s.
9. i. ' -cc S G %�F.�c c.�-�� C 611 )
lo.
11.
IL42,1 o . T 4,4 - 392.8
12.
v14-
2/7
Petition for the Implementation
of the
Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program
We, the undersigned, believe that the Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program will benefit
current and future citizens of San Luis Obispo by encouraging the owners of historic buildings to
preserve and protect those buildings. This will:
• Encourage the preservation of much of the architectural history that makes San Luis
Obispo a special place to live.
• Increase our sense of neighborhood pride because our historic homes get that extra care
they need to stay beautiful.
• Make San Luis Obispo a more attractive and delightful city for tourists and new
businesses, thereby strengthening the economic foundation of the City.
We ask that the City Council of San Luis Obispo give it's unanimous approval to this program and
support our efforts to preserve and protect the beauty of these historic neighborhoods and
commercial centers for future generations.
Name Street Address Phone#
1. c /-3Z�-/
W11
4. GfFTC, C A
5. I 6 a �
6. 766 0 OIL& — ES�
7. 77� �7�_3-ZO27
9. %✓L �vGL J1/ ^YL ^ �uCw� t . .S Ali
lo. ' 1-7(? S43 - 917.5'
1. S +1 q
12. ,�'__ 1 79y Via, s-yJ - 7.s--
Petition for the Implementation
of the
Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program
We, the undersigned, believe that the Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program will benefit
current and future citizens of San Luis Obispo by encouraging the owners of historic buildings to
preserve and protect those buildings. This will:
• Encourage the preservation of much of the architectural history that makes San Luis
Obispo a special place to live.
• Increase our sense of neighborhood pride because our historic homes get that extra care
they need to stay beautiful.
9 Make San Luis Obispo a more attractive and delightful city for tourists and new
businesses, thereby strengthening the economic foundation of the City.
We ask that the City Council of San Luis Obispo give it's unanimous approval to this program and
support our efforts to preserve and protect the beauty of these historic neighborhoods and
commercial centers for future generations.
Name Street Address Phone#
` 1. ,�/r/�/� �x X743 f�u�l-l�,�R� S� ��- .�9Cx✓
z. �os �l04 l-E-ovt l3 Go �u*.t> eJ
4. L v rvq L o L,L ,& y br ve-
s.
7. `T M -2?`P 1 Q* 4eXQS SL.i� .5`�b'0833
Kic�I Sy4- ?7�
8. �
9. ✓ a�� . s�� s -�y 2-
10.
11. �i9 c 4F �i�'i c r ,Z 3 6
12. � � yS� 4o� At, C SYs-6.120
— � O
Petition for the Implementation
of the
Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program
We, the undersigned, believe that the Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program will benefit
current and future citizens of San Luis Obispo by encouraging the owners of historic buildings to
preserve and protect those buildings. This will:
• Encourage the preservation of much of the architectural history that makes San Luis
Obispo a special place to live.
• Increase our sense of neighborhood pride because our historic homes get that extra care
they need to stay beautiful.
• Make San Luis Obispo a more attractive and delightful city for tourists and new
businesses, thereby strengthening the economic foundation of the City.
We ask that the City Council of San Luis Obispo give it's unanimous approval to this program and
support our efforts to preserve and protect the beauty of these historic neighborhoods and
commercial centers for future generations.
N * Street Address Phone#
2.
3.
4.
5.
r,7 _
6.
7. y�.�.1_ - it i�• U
s. 5Y6-Jf�y
9. a c1��►1 ar;�A -3o c.o
10. L/ YI I A a � 5 5�14—42)
12.
3a�
Petition for the Implementation
of the
Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program
We, the undersigned, believe that the Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program will benefit
current and future citizens of San Luis Obispo by encouraging the owners of historic buildings to
preserve and protect those buildings. This will:
• Encourage the preservation of much of the architectural history that makes San Luis
Obispo a special place to live.
• Increase our sense of neighborhood pride because our historic homes get that extra care
they need to stay beautiful.
• Make San Luis Obispo a more attractive and delightful city for tourists and new
businesses, thereby strengthening the economic foundation of the City.
We ask that the City Council of San Luis Obispo give it's unanimous approval to this program and
support our efforts to preserve and protect the beauty of these historic neighborhoods and
commercial centers for future generations.
Name Street Address Phone#
-
1. U sI�N k."\ s c�
2. �,� ,Sa 6L, GF- �IG3 .i�lA.� s'_ 5�•: 544 -3166
4. b t g5a1 .�..L.o. 5q-1 •l oD1
5. q 5-34 Waqu"zv SL6
6. s. Yess�l' �1 FAe4L Ct Sk, • 71M
7. Zo
9.
10. L'. <V) Z 77
11.
12.
Petition for the Implementation
of the
Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program
We, the undersigned, believe that the Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program will benefit
current and future citizens of San Luis Obispo by encouraging the owners of historic buildings to
preserve and protect those buildings. This will:
• Encourage the preservation of much of the architectural history that makes San Luis
Obispo a special place to live.
• Increase our sense of neighborhood pride because our historic homes get that extra care
they need to stay beautiful.
• Make San Luis Obispo a more attractive and delightful city for tourists and new
businesses, thereby strengthening the economic foundation of the City.
We ask that the City Council of San Luis Obispo give it's unanimous approval to this program and
support our efforts to preserve and protect the beauty of these historic neighborhoods and
commercial centers for future generations.
Name Street Address Phone#
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
3 -�
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Ct orro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401.3278
(805) 781.2777 • FAX (805) 543.1255
e-mail: sio-ctiamber@slonet.org
David E. Garth, Executive Director
June 20, 1996
Mayor Allen Settle and Members of the City Council
City of San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo,California 93401
Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
The San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce would like to voice its support of the
proposed Historic Tax Preservation Program that will be coming before you shortly.
The City of San Luis Obispo has repeatedly emphasized its desire to preserve historic
structures. The Chamber wholeheartedly supports these efforts, as the historic nature
of our surroundings directly benefits our quality of life, as well as the sense of place
that it so important in a closely-knit community such as ours.
It is our belief that because historic properties provide a clear, community-wide benefit
to our city's citizenry, incentive programs that allow owners to more effectively
preserve historic properties are a wise investment. Because the cost to the City is
relatively low, and provides such a high return to quality of life,we feel that the
Historic Tax Preservation Program is a particularly good vehicle in this regard.
The Chamber applauds the possibility for creating a "win-win" situation with this
program. The Historic Tax Preservation Program allows property owners and the City
to build a partnership to protect the important historical assets of our community.
Yours very truly,
�� �• TEN TEARS
Robert L. Griffin
President ACCREDITED
...........
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, May 2, 1995 -7:00 p.m. Page 5
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
C.L.R.1. Mayor Settle and Vice Mayor Romero reported that the County Board of Supervisors
adopted CDBG funding; the City's Historical Museum improvement request was not included.
C.L.R.2. Council Member Smith stated that Cal Poly held Poly Forum and is developing a battery
operated bus project Poly Forums will be held four times a year.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. ENHANCED NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION PROGRAM (File No. 422)
Council held a public hearing to consider existing efforts and policies for neighborhood action and
additional measures to further assist neighborhoods with existing resources.
Moved by RomeroNVilliams to continue this item to the meeting of May 16, 1995; motion carried
(5-0).
2. HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM (File No. 458)
Council held a public hearing to consider a recommendation by the Cultural Heritage Committee
to initiate a Historic Property Tax Incentive program that would allow qualifying historical properties
to be assessed based on an income method rather than comparative sales data.
Council Member Smith stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest.
Jeff Hook. Associate Planner, reviewed the proposal based upon the Mills AcL
Mayor Settle declared the public hearing open.
Dan Krieger, 662 Islay, urged Council to adopt the program.
Dick Frank. County Assessor, stated the program would be a burden on his staff and that the tax
savings would not rehabilitate older homes.
Astrid Gallagher. Chair of the Cultural Heritage Commission, spoke in favor of the proposal.
John Edmisten. 3055 Bahia Court, stated the program would enhance the community.
Mayor Settle declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed alternatives,required staffing,terms of contracts,lost tax revenues and property
maintenance.
Moved by Williams/Settle to adopt a resolution establishing a one year pilot program for historic
property tax incentive program and authorizing the Mayor to send a letter to the San Luis Obispo
County Assessor; motion was lost(2-2-1,Council Member Roalman and Vice Mayor Romero voting
no, Council Member Smith not participating).
Council discussed the Historical Preservation Loan Program that the City had offered in the past.
3 •�
City Council Meeting
Tuesday, May 2, 1995 -7:00 p.m. Page 6
Moved by Romero/Roalman to direct staff to prepare a report at budget hearings to re-establish the
Historical Preservation Loan Program; motion carried (4-0-1, Council Member Smith not
participating).
Council Member Smith returned to the dias.
3. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FEE WAIVERS (File No. 425)
Council held a public hearing to consider establishing a fee waiver program to reduce development
review and permit costs for certain affordable housing projects in order to increase their financial
feasibility and reduce sales costs.
Jeff Hook. Associate Planner, reviewed the fee waivers.
Mayor Settle declared the public hearing open.
No one spoke for or against the item.
Mayor Settle declared the public hearing closed.
Council discussed including very-low, low, and moderate income levels in the definition of
affordable housing.
Moved by Smith/Roalman to adopt Resolution No. 8415 amending development review fees for
affordable housing projects, as amended to include only projects that fall within low and very-low
income categories as defined in this report; motion carried (3-2, Council Member Williams and Vice
Mayor Romero voting no).
COMMUNICATIONS
COMMA. Assistant City Administrative Officer Ken Hamoian offered one Junior Giants game ticket
at Candlestick Park.
COMM.2. Council Member Williams stated she presented a proclamation on Sunday night in
remembrance of the Holocaust
COMM.3. Council Member Williams reported on the Chorro Street Neighborhood Group meeting;
they requested that the traffic tables be installed as soon as possible.
BUSINESS ITEMS
4. STATE WATER PROJECT EASEMENTS(File No. 1124)
Council considered a request for easements from the State Department of Water Resources
necessary for the Coastal Branch of the State Water Project
This item was not discussed or acted upon.
3-asp
Figure 1.1: Sample Mills Act property tax calculation, provided by the City of
Rancho Cucamonga
MILLS ACT TAX ADJUSTMENT
The following is a simple example showing the possible tax benefits to the
historical property owner of an owner-occupied single-family dwelling.
. . Let's assume that the current assessed value for a house is $100,000 and
that a fair rent or income is $600 per month (prescribed in Sec. ,439.2 of
the State Revenue and Tax Code) .
First, determine annual income. )600 per month minus approximately * $100
=per month for maintenance, repairs, insurance, water, and gardener gives a
net income of $500 per month. Multiply by 12 months to get an annual
income of $6,000. (* assumption for discussion purpose only).
Second, determine capitalization rate as follows:
Determine home loan mortgage rate. Federal Home Loan Bank
on conventional mortgage as of September 1, 19899 it was
(10.507.) .
The historical property risk component of 4% (as prescribed
in Sec. 439.2 of the State Revenue and Tax Code). The 4%
risk component applies to owner-occupied single-family
dwellings. A 2% risk component applies to .all other
properties (i .e. commercial , 'rental ) .
The Tax rate (Post-prop. 13) of .01 times the assessment ratio
of 100% (3) .
Assume a remaining life of 20 years. Reciprocal of this is 1/20
of 5%.
Add these together: 10.50% + 4.00% + 1.00% + 5.00% - 20.50% Capitalization
rate.
Third, the new assessed value is determined by dividing the annual income
(569000) by the capitalization rate (20.50%) to arrive at the new assessed
value of $29,268.
Last, determine the amount of taxes to be paid by taking 1% of the assessed
value $29,268. Compare with current property tax rate:
Current property tax: 1% of original assessed valuation of
$100,000 is ($100,000 * 1% . $1,000).
Mills Act property tax: 1% of new assessed value of $29,268 is
$292 ($29,268 * 1% = $293)
Savings of $707 in annual property taxes.
�a�
l
RESOLUTION NO. 92-18
2
3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA VERNE, COUNTY
OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, kFF,�Tr.NAT 2478 BONITA
4 AVENUE, LA VERNE, AS A LOCAL CULTURAL LANDMARK AND APPROVING THE
ATTACHED HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING
5 THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNERS OF THE LANDMARK
6 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Verne has
determined that the city' s cultural resources contribute greatly
7 to the city' s character, ambience, and quality of life; and
8 WHEREAS, the City Council has, pursuant to Government
Code Section 65300 et seq. , adopted a general plan that
9 contains a cultural resources chapter establishing a city-wide
strategy for the preservation of significant cultural resources
10 including historical and architectural resources; and
11 WHEREAS, said plan has been adopted as interim zoning,
providing general guidance in preservation matters pending the
12 adoption of specific ordinances for protection of cultural
resources; and
13
WHEREAS, said plan recognizes the original Lordsburg
14 neighborhood as a cultural resource of value to the city and its
residents; and
15
WHEREAS, 2478 Bonita Avenue, located on a prominent
16 corner in the original townsite neighborhood of Lordsburg,
was built in 1921 and later willed to the general conference of
17 the Church of the Brethren; is a well-maintained, handsome
example of Spanish Colonial Revival residential architecture
18 that contributes to the character, charm, architectural variety,
and scale of the neighborhood; and is a reminder of the lives,
19 values, and tastes of the people who created this community; and
20 WHEREAS, the designation of 2478 Bonita as a local
cultural landmark also designates it as a qualified historic
21 property as defined in California Government Code Sec. 50280. 1
for the purposes of executing an historic property agreement
22 (known as a "Mills Act" agreement) ; and
23 WHEREAS, such designation and agreement are categorically
exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as provided
24 by Section 15308;
25 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of La Verne as follows:
26
Section 1. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES
27 that 2478 Bonita Ave. , Parcel No. 8377-007-001 in La Verne, CA
is a local cultural landmark for the following reasons:
28
A. It is a handsome example of Spanish Colonial Revival
29 architecture and contributes to the architectural
quality, interest, scale, and diversity of the street;
30 3 �7
B. It is located on a prominent corner and is important to
31 . the visual quality of the area;
I
I
11 C. It is a structure that helps retain the
character and charm of the original townsite
2 neighborhood;
3 D. It is more than 50 years old.
4 E. It is associated with the historic theme of the growth
and development of the community, and is one of many
5 structures that are physical reminders of the daily life,
the values, and the tastes of the people who established
6 this community.
7 Section 2. The City Council HEREBY DECLARES that 2478
Bonita Avenue is designated as a local cultural landmark because
8 it is significant for the reasons stated above, and therefore is
a qualified historic property, entitling it to those special
9 considerations associated with designation, including
eligibility for the State Historical Building Code and for an
10 Historic Property Preservation Agreement, and consequent
valuation by the County Assessor as an enforceably restricted
11 historical property.
12 Section 3. The City Council HEREBY AUTHORIZES the mayor
to execute the attached historic property preservation agreement
13 between the City Council and the owners of the designated
landmark, 2478 Bonita, La Verne.
14
Section 4. The Mayor shall sign, and the City Clerk
15 shall attest to the adoption of this Resolution, and thereupon
the same shall take effect and be in force.
16
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 1992.
17
18
Mayor of the City of La Verne
19
20 ATTEST:
21
22 City Clerk
23
24
RSCLMKM5
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 ,
I
I I
II
21
3 ,
41,
51
61 HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT
I
71
AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA VERNE,
8
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CYNTHIA C.
YEHLE AND GEORGE E. WEISE, OWNERS OF A DESIGNATED CULTURAL
9 LANDMARK AT 2478 BONITA AVE. LA VERNE.
10 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Verne is
authorized by California Government Code Section 50280 et
11 seq. (known as "the Mills Act") to enter into contracts with
the owners of qualified historical properties to provide for
12 appropriate use, maintenance, and rehabilitation such that
these historic properties retain their historic characteristics;
13 and
14 WHEREAS, the City Council did approve a policy in the
Cultural Resources Chapter of the La Verne General Plan to use
15 Mills Act agreements to encourage historic preservation; and
16 WHEREAS, the owners possess fee title in and to that
certain qualified real property, together with associated
17 structures and improvements thereon, located on Assessor' s
Parcel Number 8377-007-001 at 2478 Bonita Avenue, La Verne, CA
18 91750 , also described as Lordsburg Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 48
(hereinafter referred to as the "historic property") ; and
19
WHEREAS , on January 21 , 1991 , the City Council of the
20 City of La Verne adopted a resolution designating the historic
property as a cultural landmark of the City of La Verne pursuant
21 to the policies in the Cultural Resources chapter of the La
Verne General Plan; and
22
WHEREAS, the City and owners, for their mutual benefit,
23 now desire to enter into this agreement to limit the use of the
property to prevent inappropriate alterations and ensure that
24 character-defining features are preserved and maintained in an
exemplary manner, and to carry out the purposes of California
25i Government Code, Chapter 1 , Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5 ,
Article 12, Sec. 50280 et seq. , and to qualify for an
46 assessment of valuation pursuant to Article 1. 9, Sec. 439 et
seq. , Chapter 3, Part 2 of Division 1 of the California
27i Revenue and Taxation Code.
281 NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of La Verne
29
and the owners of 2478 Bonita Avenue agree as follows:
�I
Section 1. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This
30i agreement shall be effective and commence on February 28, 1992,
11 and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years
31 thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the effective
date, such initial term will automatically be extended as `3-"2 !
it
11 provided in California Government Code Section 50280 through
50290 and in Section 2. , below.
21
Section 2. Renewal.
3
A. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of
4; this agreement , a year shall automatically be added to
j the initial term of this agreement unless written notice
5 of nonrenewal is served as provided herein.
6 B. If the owners or the City desires in any year not to
renew the agreement, owners or City shall serve written
7 notice of nonrenewal of the agreement on the other
party. Unless such notice is served by the owners to the
8 City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual
renewal date, or served by the City to the owners at
q least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date,
one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of
10 the agreement as provided herein.
11 C. The owners may make a written protest of the notice. The
City may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date o:
12 the agreement, withdraw its notice to the owners of
nonrenewal.
13
D. If either the City or the owners' serves notice to the
14 other of nonrenewal in any year, the agreement shall
remain in effect for the balance of the term then
15 remaining, either from its original execution or from the
last renewal of the agreement, whichever may apply.
16
Section 3. Standards and Conditions. During the term of
17 this agreement, the historic property shall be subject to the
following conditions:
18
A. Owners shall preserve, maintain, and, where necessar-,
19restore or rehabilitate the property and its
character-defining features, notably the general
20 architectural form, style, materials, design, scale,
proportions, organization of windows, doors, and other
21 openings, textures, details, mass, roof line, porch and
and other aspects of the appearance of the exterior to
22 the satisfaction of the community development director or
designee.
23
B. All changes shall comply with applicable City specific
24 plans, City regulations and guidelines, and conform to
the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic
25 Preservation of the California Department of Parks and
Recreation, namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's
26 Standards for Rehabilitation and Standards and Guidelines
for Historic Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling
271 shall retain character-defining features such as oak and
mahogany details, pillars and arches, to the greatest
281 extent possible.
291 C. The community development director shall be notified by
the owners of changes to character-defining exterior
301 features prior to their execution, such as major
I landscaping projects, exterior door replacement or
31iexterior alterations requiring a building permit. 3-3 0
1
i
li D. The following are prohibited: Demolition of the house or
garage; exterior alterations or additions not in keeping
2i with the standards listed above; dilapidated,
I deteriorating or unrepaired structures such as fences ,
3' roofs, doors, walls and windows; storage of scrap lumber,
funk, trash, debris, discarded or unused obiects such as
4; cars, appliances or furniture; stagnant water and
I unfilled excavations; any other device, decoration,
5 structure or vegetation which is unsightly by reason of
its height, condition or inappropriate location.
b`
E. Owners shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by
7 prior appointment, of the interior and exterior of the
historic property by representatives of the County
8 Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation,
the State Board of Equalization, and the City, as may be
q necessary to determine the owners' compliance with the
terms and provisions of this agreement.
10
Section 4. Furnishing of Information. The owners hereby
11 agree to furnish the city with any and all information requested
by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine
12 compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement.
13 Section 5. Cancellation.
14 A. The City, following a duly noticed public hearing by the
City Council as set forth in Government Code Section
15 50285, may cancel this agreement if it determines that
the owners have breached any of the conditions of this
16 agreement or have allowed the property to deteriorate to
the point that it no longer meets the standards for a
17 qualified historic property, or if the City determines
that the owners have failed to restore or rehabilitate
18 the property in the manner specified in Section 3. of
this agreement. If a contract is cancelled because of
lq failure of the owners to preserve, maintain, and
rehabilitate the historic property as specified above,
20 the owner shall pay a cancellation feeto the state
Controller as set forth in Government Code Section 50286,
21 which states that the fee shall be 12 1/2B of the full
value of the property at the time of cancellation without
22 regard to any restriction imposed with this agreement.
23 B. If the historic property is acquired by eminent domain
and the City Council determines that the acquisition
24 frustrates the purpose of the agreement, the agreement
shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in
25 Government Code Section 50288.
26 Section 6. Enforcement of Agreement.
i
271 A. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel
i the agreement as referenced herein, the City may
28j specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms
1 of the agreement. In the event of a default, under the
29provisions to cancel the agreement by the owners, the
City shall give written notice to the owner by registered
301 or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this
agreement, and if such a violation is not corrected to
311 the reasonable satisfaction of the community development
director or designee within thirty ( 30) days thereafter,
321 or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may
�i
ll! be required to cure the breach or default of said breach,
or default cannot be cured within thirty ( 30) days
til (provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be
commenced within thirty ( 30) days and shall thereafter be
3 diligently pursued to completion by the owners) , then the
City may, without further notice, declare a default under
4 the terms of this agreement and may bring any action
necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of the
51 owner growing out of the terms of this agreement, apply
to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief
61 against any violation by the owners or apply for such
relief as may be appropriate.
7
B. The City does not waive any claim of default by the owner
8 if the City does not enforce or cancel this agreement.
All other remedies at law or in equity which are not
9 otherwise provided for in this agreement or in the City' s
regulations governing historic properties are available
10 to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach
of this agreement. No waiver by the City of any breach
11 or default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a
waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default
12 hereinunder.
13 Section 7. Binding Effect of Agreement. The owners
hereby subject the historic property located at 2478 Bonita
14 Ave. , La Verne, Lordsburg Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 48, Assessor
Parcel No. 8377-007-001, to the covenants, reservations, and
15 restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The City and
owners hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants,
16 reservations, and restrictions as set forth herein shall be
deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be
17 binding upon the owners ' successors and assigns in title or
interest to the historic property. Every contract, deed, or
18 other instrument herinafter executed, covering or conveying
the historic property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively
191 be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject
to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in
20 this agreement regardless of whether such covenants,
restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract,
21 deed, or other instrument.
22
Section 8. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of
23 this agreement shall be sent to the address of the respective
parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be
24 later specified by the parties hereto.
25I
26
To City: City of La Verne
yi 3660 "D" Street
La Verne, CA 91750
28!1
29iI To Owners: George E. Weise and Cynthia C. Yehle
2478 Bonita Ave.
3011 La Verne, CA 91750
311 3Z
I
11 Section 9. General Provisions.
2i a. None of the terms, provisions , or conditions of this
I agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between
3! the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors or
assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions
4; cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of
any joint enterprise.
5
B. The owners agree to and shall hold the City and its
6 elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and
employees harmless from liability for damage or claims
7 for damage for personal injuries, including death, and
claims for property damage which may arise from the
g direct or indirect use or operations of the owners or
those of their contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee
9 or other person acting on their behalf which relates to
the use, operation, and maintenance of the historic
10 property. The owners hereby agree to and shall defend
the City and its elected and appointed officials,
11 officers, agents, and employees with respect to any and
all actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have
12 been cause by, reason of the owners' activities in
connection with the historic property.
13
C. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and
14 claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been
suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason of the
15 operations referred to in this agreement regardless of
whither or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved
16 the plans, specifications or other documents for the
historic property.
17
D. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations,
18 and restrictions contained in this agreement shall be
binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the
19 parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal
representatives, assigns, and all persons acquiring any
20 part or portion of the historic property, whether by
operation of law or in any manner whatsoever.
21
E. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party
22 or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of
the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained
23 herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any
party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding .
24 may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by
the court, in addition to court costs and other relief
25 ordered by the court.
26I F. In the event that any of the provisions of this agreement
are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of
271 competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive
legislation, the validity and enforceability of the
29i remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be
effected thereby.
29
G. This agreement shall be construed and governed in
301 accordance with the laws of the State of California.
I
31 ;
321
i
i
1
11 Section 10. Recordation. No later than twenty (20)
days after the parties execute and enter into this agreement,
2!j the City shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the office
31! of the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles.
1
4 . Section 11 . Amendments. This agreement may be amended,
in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument
5 executed by the parties hereto.
6I
Section 1.2 . Signatures. The Mayor and the owners shall
7I sign this agreement, which shall be notarized, between the City
of La Verne and the owners of the historic property at 2478
8j Bonita Ave. , La Verne, CA.
9
10
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and owners have executed
11 this agreement on the day and year written above.
12 CITY OF LA VERNE
13
14 Date: aLI �Z By: _ ) ?�
n
15 1 ckensta , or
16 Date:—/ -/ y
J
17
Cyn. hia C. Yehl'
Owner
18 Date: I— By:
19 Giforge A. Weise, Owner
20
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
21 1 ss.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 1
22
23 On this 2zna day of7an,:ary 1992, before me, the
undersigned, a Notary Public in d for said State, personally
24 appeared �7on eiirkPncraff---------. known to me to be the mayor of
the City of La Verne, a municipal corporation existing and
25 organized under the laws of the state of California.
26 Witness my hand and official seal.
i
27
2811 4%1—
Nota y Public in and for said State
29 it
30i :•;..... OFFICIAL SEAL OFFTr.I.ai.SEAL
WPE ESiREEIA !!". 'SNEEEA
3 I NEMY u�ue•WYGNN91 m NOTAR"d,.JLC Gr.raeM
LOSJ EEE9cawrr LOS ANGELESCOLKr
^^ IyMesFa0Yu1y 2.!997 _ VICum Exons Aug 2.1923
INDIVIDUAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT
ra a
State of— r a _ On this the 1 �y of January 92 ;
-� 18 before me.
County of LA SS. _ Laura S . C e r m a k
the undersigned Notary Public.Personalty appeared �
Cynthia C . Yehle and George E. Weise
1 :tt r:'J l'a:v SEAL
.AS :ERMAK
-•-: 91 Personalty ril
yknownt0e ✓
Y(� �h• :r:—cae nut ❑ proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence
la_ANGE_25 COUNTY to be the persons)whose namefsl '
M1 Carrie Expires ,IAN 30.1995 — SubSCnbed to the f
within instrument.and acknowledged that—the v
executed it. f
WITNESS my hand and official seat
Notary's Signature
p r
•� ATTENTION NOTARY:Aanayn the ntamaron raeuastad eatow a Of•Tfoes" 1 cane Woven'"*Mm an
1 ac7nNnt of eq cMihcate to aronyr eecu7yrn �
THIS CERTACATE Tine or Type of Document l
MUST BE ATTACHED Numberof Pa (�
70 THE DOCUMENT 9es Date of Document Vn
DESCRIBED AT RIGHT
Signer(s)Other Than Named Above
0 NA7�AL AprAR7 Ag5ppA7prr.IM PM M A.s•PO OM 7rM•CPcpa rte.CA 9rp 7 r91
35� .
10/01/1996 09: 13 0055436660 GARTH KORNREICH PAGE 01
MEETING AGENDA
September 3i;
DATES ITEM #
Garth Kornreich
1029 Islay Siren
San Luis Obisp(-. ('-\93401
City Council klvmbers
City of San l.0 :• Obispo
Re: Historic 11%-kcr•ation Tax Incentive Program
Dear City CcAungl Members:
As a member nt'the SLO Cultural Heritage Committee and the SLO Chamber of Commerce Seismic Task
Force Commi,ii•L. I .irge you to give the Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program a second look.. This
program wel! •1••Ip to preserve the many historical structures we are so lucky to have in our town. It will
also serve a i+:•:I :-urpose in assisting those that are burdened with the task of completing a seismic retrofit
of their unreov::i;:r:' masonry building.
You arc cot!. -ving so much importance to the preservation of our open spaces around SLO,but you
must also rewt: c . important our downtown is to making San Luis Obispo such a special place to live and
visit. Our hi,t _. d:+w•ntown needs protection and this is one step in doing just that.
You are also c.-urged with trying to come up with a workable solution to the seismic retrofit problem. This
tax program eri,ourages building owners to contract with the City to upgrade their buildings including
completing thi- u:t!lcd seismic retrofits. This can be a part of the overall incentive program the City staff is
currenrly try:.!. I. ,.,,i together to encourage retrofits:
There are so m=:m positives to this program that the City cannot ignore it. The actual cost to the City will
be very little ii:,�u ed to its benefits. 1 urge to really take a second look at what a good program this is.
Thank you.
r
Garth Kornrei•:h
f
/�' FIN DIRCOUNCIL CDD D- UIIIR t
X16
Ii O Q�
i GIr1 C!.RK.�
CAO ❑ FIRECHIEF C.�
'
�TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR J
I CLERKIORIG ❑ POLICE CHF I `
❑ MGMTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
1:3,P RPOFILE 0 UTIL DIR
MEETING AGENDA
September 30, 1996 DATE ITEM #
Mayor Settle and City Council Members
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program
Dear Mayor Settle and Members of the City Council:
I am writing this letter to urge your support of the proposed Historic Preservation Tax Incentive
Program. My wife, two children and I live in a house that is currently listed on the City's Master
List of Historic Properties.
Our home is our first and only real estate investment. Had we known in 1992 how much more
work a historic property is to maintain than a newer home, we would have probably bought a
newer home in the suburbs. However, we love the house and the neighborhood and we want to
stay. If approved, the program could provide financial incentives for us to carry out much-
needed renovations, including seismic retrofitting and removal of architectural inconsistencies.
There will be those critical of the proposal because of the belief that the program will result in a
negative fiscal impact to the City. However, as pointed out in the staff report, the number of
eligible property owners choosing to participate will probably be small, so the fiscal impact is
probably overstated. To safeguard against negative impacts to City resources, your Council
could adopt the Program on a trial basis and review its success after a period of time.
It has also been suggested that the program will benefit those who least need a helping hand.
I can only speak for myself, but my wife and I both work full time and are forced to keep a tight
budget that holds little room for discretionary purchases, let alone funds for home improvements.
In conclusion, your leadership will help my family, but it will also provide funds to improve the
safety and appearance of our neighborhood, and that will benefit the entire City. Thank you for
the opportunity to provide input on this subject. If I can answer any questions about this letter,
please feel free to call me at 542-0478.
Sincerely,
121000NCIL o:i DIR
CKCAO eA AO 'FIN DIR
❑ FIRE CHIEF I.
Randy LaVack j ��ql p ❑ PW DIR
Q
❑ POLICE CHF��
670 Islay ❑ MUTTEAM ❑ REC DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ C READ FILE ❑ UTIL DIRI
❑ PERS DIR k� RECEIVED
cc: Jeff Hook, City Planning Department OCT 1 lyy0
CITY COUNCIL
RAN ' ^OISPO. ;A
M. ANG AGENDA
DATE /D i-9- ITEM #
... ,Mn�S '.c.A-_-Wit•>a..
RIP
1 •
:rABED;cd'BREAKPA3'�1:
May Allen e .
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
Sen Luis Obispo, Calf. 93401 CITv Cl_:_r-K
CA
Dear Mr. Settle, September 30, 1996
The Citizens for Historic Preservation asked me to write to you to request your
support for the Historic Property Tax Incentive program when this issue comes before
the council October 1.
Heritage Inn is a great example of an historic building earning her way in the
business community. This wonderful century-old home attracts visitors from all over
the worid, tourists who shop in our lovely downtown, support the many cultural events
of the region, cline in our fine restaurants, enjoy the theaters and recreational activities
offered locally. The City of San Luis Obispo derives revenue from the Transient
Occupancy Tax— Ten percent of each room rented. Jobs are created, wages paid,
services provided by other businesses, all circulating money through the local
economy.
One benefit, impossible to measure, but still very real , is the lift in spirit felt by
passers-by who view the house.
On a more personal note, the historic architecture of San Luis Obispo cod
indeed influence my decision to relocate to this area and purchase this business. It is
wonderful to live in a community which treasures these grand buildings. Let's do all in
our power to preserve the unique character of our town.
I join the Cultural Heritage Committee, the Citizens for Historic Preservation,
and City Staff in asking you to support this program once again.
Sincerely,
COUNCIL CDD DIR /ZLd� "Z
O��AO H'F1N DIR -�dl�
&Iz AO ❑ FIRE CHIEF Georgia Adrian!/
TTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
VICLERWORIG ❑ POLICE CHF ,
❑ MGMT TEAM ❑ RECOIR DECEIVED
13C READ FILE ❑ U'nPbIR
f •� ❑ PERS bIR .,
SEP 3 0 1996
,�ariC CITY COUNCIL
RAp1 ...� n91SP0 CA
978 Olive Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93405 805/544-7440
MEETING Ar;7-',!DA
DATE :/ ITEM #
100
County of San Luis Obispo , f
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,RM.370■SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408■(805)781-5011
September 27, 1996
Mayor Allen Settle
San Luis Obispo City Council OFFICE OF THE
990 Palm Street COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Re: Historic Property Tax Incentive Program
Dear Honorable Mayor Settle:
Thank you for this opportunity to provide written comments on an item scheduled to be
discussed at your October 1, 1996 Council Meeting. A proposal to create a Historic Property
Tax Incentive Program (Mills Act) will appear for the second time on your meeting agenda.
It last appeared on May 2, 1995 when your Council decided against the Program and directed
staff to reestablish the Historic Preservation Loan Program.
As you revisit this item, please consider, again, the impacts on the County of San Luis
Obispo. The proposed program does, in fact, result in a reduction of property taxes and
degrades the integrity of our taxing system by creating another special privilege class of tax
payer. Additionally, the proposed program would increase County Assessor's workload. It is
likely it will also impact the Tax Collector and Clerk-Recorder.
I respectfully request you defer a decision on the proposed Historic Property Tax Incentive
Program until you've had an opportunity to review staffs Historic Preservation Loan Program.
I also request that, should your Council decide to go forward with implementation of a
Historic Property Tax Incentive Program, sufficient fees be established and earmarked for full
reimbursement to the County for all costs associated with servicing this program.
Thank you, again, for taking the time to consider this point of view.
Sincerely,
ROBERT E. HENDRIX
County Administrator
F COUNCIL CDD DIR
R °ECEIVED C„ o RE DIR
c: Each Council Member SEP v; 0 1996 e'?TT�N� ❑ PW DIR
D. Frank, Assessor CLERKIORIG O POLICE CHFfl
CITY COUNCIL ij 13MGMTTEAM 11REC DIR
SAN nF31sPo. CA ❑ C BRAD FILE ❑ UTIL DIR
I ❑ PERS DIR
DATE ING Q,6 .4GENDA
ITEM #
Citizens For Historic Preservation
P.O.Box 14110. •Sax L[ns OsrsPo,CA 93401 •805542-9286•Fax:805545-9075•E-MAU-Mcaara®@SLO=.o&G
September 23, 1996
Mr. Allen Settle
Mayor
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor Settle:
A few weeks ago we sent you an overview of our position on the Historic
Property Tax Incentive Program. Since then some supporters have sent us
additional arguments in support of the program that I thought would be worth
passing on.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
COUNCIL CDD DIR
Mr. Malcolm Carlaw (a�'g' CAO ❑ FIN DIR
Cdr ❑ FIRE CHIEF E
RNEY ❑ PW DIR
r
LE RIG ❑ POL►CE CHF
I O 3A�1 TEAM
;,���, ^� ❑ REC DIR
Attachments � E0 UTIL D?R )i
�7.71yooK
RECEIVED
SEP 1 '� Ift
CITY COUNCIL
SAN 11I:S 061SP0.C4
Historic Property Tax Incentive Program
City of San Luis Obispo
September 1996
Undue Burden Argument
Position:
Property owners of the one hundred seventy Historic Buildings in the San Luis Obispo
Community are the custodians of these buildings for future generations. The community
advertises the historic charm of San Luis Obispo in its effort to attract tourists. However none of
the money derived from these historic assets are set aside for their maintenance- directly or
indirectly. The City and the State impose regulations on the restoration of these specific buildings
in our community. The State has recognized the undue burden of these regulations and the
contribution historic property owners make to a community through the Mills Act. The City of
San Luis Obispo needs to do its part to protect these historic assets through the implementation of
the Mills Act.
Points to Consider:
• Protection of Historic Buildings ultimately is in the hands of the property owner and the
real estate market. Buildings that cost more to retrofit than to destroy and rebuild will
tend to be destroyed.
• Retrofitting, restoring and maintaining old buildings according to the regulatory guidelines
of the State and the City can be very expensive. It is not uncommon to find historic
residences where the owner has made improvements that exceed the value of the property
by some $100,000 or more.
• The fiscal beneficiaries of these buildings are the citizens of the community at large. The
community (Chamber, Conference Bureau etc.) actively promotes the old buildings as part
of the charm of San Luis Obispo. Citizens take pride in the visible link to past communities
that these buildings represent. Tourists spend their money in hotels, restaurant, shops and
fairs throughout the City partly because of the ambiance of these buildings. The City
derives revenues from these business for reinvestment into the community. However,
none of the money derived from old buildings (albeit secondarily)is returned to maintain
the viability of this valuable part of the community.
• While the City and State have imposed specific regulation to govern the quality of
restoration, there is no program in the City of San Luis Obispo to protect either
commercial or residential buildings from gradual erosion or destruction.
• The Mills Act represents a recognition by the State that Historic Buildings are expensive
to maintain and are valuable to communities. Many Cities have implemented this program
to encourage property owners keep these buildings alive. San Luis Obispo needs a
program to offset the undue burden placed on historic property owners who are interested
in keeping these buildings for future generations. Please implement the Mills Act.
Historic Property Tax Incentive Program
City of San Luis Obispo
September 1996
Fiscal Impact Overview
The City Council will meet on October 1, 1996 to re-hear the matter of reducing property
taxes for those properties within the city due to their historic designation. The Council
heard this issue in May 1995 and the matter was voted down. Mayor Settle and
councilperson Williams supported the motion, with Councilman Romero and Roalman
voting against it and Smith abstaining due to a conflict of interest ( she owns the Garden
Street Inn- a historic building). The following is a summary of the May 9, 1995 staff
report on this matter:
• Historic property owners who sign up for this program are expected to use to money
to maintain and upgrade their old buildings, including those persons who own the
many unreinforced masonry (URM)buildings in town.
• The City's generalIp an policies strongly encourages the preservation of historic
structures, the land use element states:" The street appearance of(historic)buildings
which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained."
To implement preservation policies, the city's Conservation Element recommends
that: "Accommodations for upgrading buildings having historic significance should be
included in the building code. Zoning regulations and the TAX RATE STRUCTURES
SHOULD BE REVISED TO ENCOURAGE RENOVATION of such buildings." This is the
city councils own policies and should be followed.
• "Actual fiscal impact are difficult to determined and depend on: the number of
properties participating, current uses and last reassessment date, property condition
and property owner response to the program".
• Total assessed valuation of city historic properties is $54,807,482 (fifty four million
dollars); which generates $111,952 dollars in revenues to the city(1993/94 dollars).
Total property tax revenues to the City is$3,800,000 million dollars. This revenue is
only 8% of the Cities revenues.
• A worst case approximation of the reduction of City property tax revenues can be
calculated by using a reduction inassessed valuation of 50 percent per property, for
qualifying historic properties which equates to an estimated reduction of$55,976.
Current revenue to City ($111,952) less program adoption revenue ($55,976) results
in a fifty percent reduction of revenues from historic properties tax revenues. This is
less than 1% of all property tax revenues and is only .001 % of the total Cities
revenues ($49.3 million dollars). These savings would most likely be spent by the
property owners within the city to effect repairs to historic buildings, putting the
money back into the local economy. An increase of tourism to the city due to the
historic values would generate both bed tax revenues, as well as sales tax which would
more than offset this reduction in revenues to the Cities general revenue funds.
• Please support and attend at the Council meeting on Tuesday, October 1 at 7 PM.
Historic Preservation Tax Incentive Program
Overview
Description:
Bases on the Mills Act of 1977,this program is designed to encourage historic building owners to
maintain their property. It does this through a property tax incentive program that assesses
property based on " capitalization of income" rather than the usual method of comparative sales.
Current situation:
The program's focus on preserving the beauty of the historic architecture of San Luis Obispo
benefits both current and future citizens. Many ofthe residential and commercial histo-.4c.buildings
are the architectural gems that give the city that special feeling we have come to associate with
being in San Luis Obispo. It is our responsibility as citizens of this area to preserve these
buildings so that future citizens may enjoy that same sense of history and community that we feel.
Benefits:
• Preservation of our historic buildings makes San Luis Obispo a more delightful and
attractive town to tourists and business owners looking for new locations.. Some portion
of the revenue derived from tourists and new businesses flows back to the City.
• Pride in our neighborhoods and community is enhanced when owners keep their homes
and buildings beautiful. This program would encourage that sense of neighborhood pride.
• Each of us in this community benefits when an owner of a historic building takes the time
and money to preserve it. They deserve our encouragement and support.
This program has the unanimous support of the Cultural Heritage Committee and is supported by
City staff(2n11995 Report)who feel that the public benefits of the program would outweigh the
minor tax revenue loss. In addition, the preservation of historic buildings is strongly encouraged
in the General Plan which states that "tax rate structures should be revised to encourage
renovation of such buildings".
Request for Action:
Many Cities including Santa Barbara and San Francisco have implemented similar programs to
preserve and protect their community heritage. We would like to see such a program in this
community. We ask that the City Council of San Luis Obispo give it's unanimous approval to this
program and support our efforts to preserve and protect the beauty of our historic neighborhoods
and commercial centers for future generations.
MEETING AGENDA
DATE A:L.26 ITEM #
office of Dick Frank, County Assessor s _
t,v(JNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER, ROOM 100, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93408 (805)781-5613
October 1, 1996 ---
iY60UNCILD DR y'
Mayor Allen Settle HN DIR
UAO
y CAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF �!
990 Palm StreetCI
A EY ❑ PW DIR
C'
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 CLERKADRIG ❑ POLICE CHF+;
Q MGMT TEAM ❑ REC DIR E i
❑ R WAD FILE D WIL DIR T
❑ PERS 0191RE: Historical Preservation Tax Incentive Program
�._ .
iVk_.. .
Dear Mayor Settle/Members of the Council:
On May 2, 1995, your honorable Council took under consideration a recommendation from the
Cultural Heritage Committee and city staff to initiate an historic property tax incentive program
known as the Mills Act. After hearing testimony and reviewing staffs report, your Council did
not approve participation in the Mills Act program, but instead directed staff to return with a
program to be totally funded by the city which would provide for either grants or loans to those
wishing to maintain/improve historical structures. That motion passed 4 to 0, with Councilwoman
Smith abstaining.
Now, seventeen months later, you are again being asked to reconsider the Mills Act, but staff has
yet to provide you with the requested alternate program.
Although we still find several items in your staffs report that are incorrect or misleading, I believe
those items are minor details and do not address the overall concerns the County has with the
Mills Act program.
1. No one, including your staff, disputes the fact there will be a revenue loss to the city,
county, special districts, and schools.
2. There is no dispute that an additional workload will be thrust upon your staff, the County
Assessor, and possibly the County Clerk, County Auditor, and County Tax Collector. In
the case of the County Assessor, we already have a substantial backlog of work. There is
no staff or funds available for implementation of any additional assessments.
3. Apparently your staff has not contacted the owners of the properties in question to explain
the contract parameters, the possible(but not guaranteed) property tax savings, and the
potential costs should the owner or the city decide to cancel the contract. The cancellation
fees on a $200,000 property would amount to $25,000.
0 � i 96
clTV C!_;-:AK
October 1, 1996
Page Three
In conclusion, I hope your Council realizes that neither the County, nor the Assessor, are opposed
to preserving our historical properties, but we feel that the Mills Act is not the best way to go in
these matters.
Sincerely yours,
DICK FRANK
County Assessor
c: Council Members
DF:dvm