1 CPMS Agenda Item C.1
PUBLIC HEARI PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Peter Imhof, Planning and Environmental Review Director
CONTACT: Lisa Prasse, Current Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing on the proposed Historic Preservation and Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance; Case Number 16 -092 OA; City Wide
RECOMMENDATION
After considering the evidence presented during the public hearing:
A. Adopt City Council Resolution No. 2 2-___, entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, adopting the proposed General Plan Amendment to the Visual and Historic Resources Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan; Case No. 20-0004-GPA”;
B. Introduce and conduct the first reading (by title only and waive further reading) of City Council Ordinance No. 22-__ entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, adding Chapter 2.16, entitled Historic Preservation Commission, Chapter 17.33, entitled Historic Resource Preservation, Chapter 17.43, entitled Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources, and various Amendments to Titles 12 and 17 of the Goleta Municipal Code; Case No. 16-092OA”; and
C. Adopt Council Resolution No. 22-___, entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, adopting the Historic Context Statement and designating the Historic Landmarks List and Historic Resources Inventory; Case No. 16-092OA.”
BACKGROUND
Project Background
On June 21, 2016, the City Council approved a contract with Historic Resources Group (HRG) to assist staff with the development of a Historic Preservation program, including the development of a citywide context statement, a historic resources survey, and an ordinance. To assist with the work, Greenwood Associates (an archaeological firm) , 1 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
Carlberg Associates ( horticultural/registered consulting arborist firm) , and later Paleo Solutions, were included as part of the team.
Survey and Research Methods
As reminder, the following actions and methods have been undertaken by HRG in the preparation of the Context Statement and the Ordinance:
Review of properties located within Goleta considered to have historical significance, including properties:
That are on the Santa Barbara County’s Historic List. That are on the State of California Historic Resources Inventory (now referred to as the Built Environment Resources Directory or BERD).
That are identified in Goleta’s General Plan as having been identified as historic. Other properties identified by the community or through research for the Historic Context Statement.
Performance of a reconnaissance survey of the entire city to review all of the previously identified properties and to identify additional properties, neighborhoods, and features that may be historically significant. All field work was performed from the public right of way.
Performed additional research and analysis on neighborhoods and individual properties in order to make preliminary recommendations for potentially eligible properties.
Evaluated pr operties under criteria for designation according to the contexts, themes, and eligibility standards outlined in the City of Goleta Historic Context Statement.
Conducted additional p roperty-specific research on properties identified as potentially eligible through the development of the historic context statement, during the reconnaissance/windshield study for the survey, or based on recommendations received during community outreach efforts. The property -specific research supplemented efforts to confirm construction dates (when possible), identify significant architects and buildings, identify original or potentially significant owners, and confirm site history and alterations.
Approximate construction dates were determined using information from historic aerial photographs, the 1930 Sanborn Fire Insurance map of Goleta, planning permits, and visual observation. In all cases, approximate construction dates were based on the best available information.
Revised the preliminary recommendations based on additional research, input from the community and property owners, and feedback from the Planning Commission.
Research sources include:
2 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
Planning permits (as available from the Planning Department; many properties did not have permits on file with the City and building permits were not available). Historic aerial photographs.
Search of local newspapers for key developments, owners, architects, and other historic personages.
Archival research at local repositories.
Online and manual search of Goleta city directories up to 1970, as available. This primarily consisted of business directories housed in Special Collections at UCSB.
Context Statement
One of the first processes undertaken was t he development of a Conte xt Statement. A Context Statement is not a comprehensive history of the community but instead highlights the trends and patterns critical to understanding the setting of development within the appropriate historic, social, architectural and cultural resource context. The cultural resource context portion provides insights from the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians along with input from the scientific community regarding the archaeological importance of Goleta. As the chapters of the Context Statement were completed, each was made available for public comment as follows:
Built Environment: September 2017
Archaeological Resources: November 2017
Tree and Landscape Study: November 2017
Planning Commission Review of Revised
Comprehensive Context Statement: January 2019
City Council Acceptance of
Context Statement: February 2019
The Context Statement was purposely not formally adopted at that time pending development of Eligibility Criteria (a component of the Ordinance). Following the Council acceptance of the Context Statement in February 2019, the Planning Commission held three workshops/study sessions (between April – June 2019) to provide staff with guidance regarding the topics to be covered in the Ordinance.
While HRG was able to prepare a draft ordinance following the Planning Commission workshops in the summer/fall of 2019, the assigned City staff for this project was diverted to the Vehicle Miles Traveled California Environmental Quality Act Threshold Project (VMT CEQA Thresholds). The VMT CEQA Threshold project took precedence as it had a firm deadline for implementation of July 1, 2020.
Recent Council Review
On December 7, 2021, the City Council commenced review of the proposed Ordinance and Resolutions. The staff report for that meeting is provided as Attachment 1 0. Most of 3 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
the discussion focused on the proposed Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources regulations and what types of activities would be exempted. There also was discuss ion related to potential historic resources on the Bishop Ranch property. After a four-hour hearing and expressing general support for the proposed Ordinance and Resolutions, the City Council continued the matter for additional information to this meeting date. The requested additional information/changes were:
1. Provide i nformation regarding the estimated costs associated with Preliminary Archaeological Assessments (PAA), Phase 1 Archaeological Reports, and Extended Phase 1 Archaeological Reports.
2. Provide an estimate regarding the anticipated number of projects that could warrant a PAA, a Phase 1 Archaeological Report, and Extended Phase 1 Archaeological Report.
3. Review Section 17.43.020 to clarify what types of projects would be exempt.
4. Add findings to justify the adoption of the proposed Goleta Landmarks.
5. Pursue the possibility of an onsite visit of Bishop Ranch to provide a dditional information and analysis based on the site visit.
6. Clarify whether the information collected regarding tribal cultural resources is protected from public disclosure
This item was originally continued to February 15, 2022; however it was not heard on February 15th and continued to April 5, 2022.
Planning Commission Review
Since December 2020, the Planning Commission has reviewed the regulations and associated documents in the resolution and ordinance provided in Attachments 2 and 3 over five meetings . On December 14, 2020, and March 29, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed the materials related to Historic Resources and properties that could be designated as Goleta Historic Landmarks and properties that could be placed on the Historic Resources Inventory for future designation consideration. O n June 21, 2021 and August 23, 2021, the Planning Commission review ed the Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources provisions proposed to be adopted as Chapter 17.43. At each meeting, input was received from the Planning Commissioners and the public. Following each meeting, revisions were made in responses to the comments.
On October 25, 2021, the Planning Commission was scheduled to review the Ordinance, but the scheduled hearing did not occur given the lateness of the hour. The Planning Commission continued the matter to November 8, 2021, at which time the Commission reviewed the ordinance provisions comprehensively. After conducting the public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Ordinance (Attachment 2) and the Resolution adopting the Context Statement and the Historic Resources Inventory (Attachment 3).
Following the November 8th meeting, staff made a minor addition to Section 17.43.020(A) to add clarity relating to irrigation, landscaping and minor accessory uses as this was a topic of discussion. More detail regarding this change is discussed below under Chapter
17.43. 4
Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
General Plan Amendment
As prepared, the draft Ordinance deviates from the specific wording of a few policies in the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (General Plan) Visual and Historic Resources Element. This deviation is a result of how detailed and specific the adopted General Plan Policy language is. While the work done on the Ordinance has used the General Plan as the guiding document and fulfills its intent, minor changes to the specific language of a few General Plan policies were identified (VH 5.1 , VH 5.2, VH 5.5, and VH 5.6). Given the differences (albeit minor), an amendment to the General Plan (GPA) was initiated by the City Council on April 4, 2021.
On June 14, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed GPA and recommended Council adoption of the minor language change to the above referenced General Plan Policies. Planning Commission Resolution No. 21 -05 is provided as Attachment 4. In conformance with Senate Bill 18, letters were sent to seven tribal groups offering consultation on t he proposed General Plan Amendment on May 2 1, 2021. The consultation period concluded on August 2 1, 2021, with no requests for consultation.
Attachment 1 is the Resolution adopting the General Plan Amendment.
JURISDICTION
Final action on the Ordinance Amendment and General Plan Amendment is the responsibility of the City Council (Subsection 17.50.030(A)). Chapters 17.66 (Amendments to Zoning Regulations and Zoning Maps ) and 17.67 (Amendments to the General Plan) require the Planning Commission to provide recommendations to the City Council on all proposed Ordinance Amendments and GPAs.
DISCUSSION
The discussion and information regarding the proposed General Plan Amendment (Attachment 1), the Ordinance (Attachment 2), and the Context Statement, H istoric Resources Inventory, and Historic Landmarks Resolution, (Attachment 3) is not repeated here. Please refer to Attachment 10 for that information. This section focuses on the information requested by the City Council in addition to other refinements/information that have occurred since December 7th.
City Council Requested Information
Council Request #1 : Information regarding the estimated costs associated with Preliminary Archaeological Assessments (PAA), Phase 1 Archaeological Reports, and Extended Phase 1 Archaeological Reports.
Response #1 : Staff contacted four local firms/ individuals, who provide archaeological services in the Goleta area (Applied Earthworks Inc., Dudek, Rincon Consultants, Inc. and Stone Archaeological Consulting ) for ballpark estimates in terms of costs . Each respondent shared that the actual costs a property owner may face may differ from the 5 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
cost estimates provided , since each site, its location in relationship to documented archaeological/tribal cultural sites, and project scope are different. In addition, the cost to secure information provided by the Central Coast Information Center can vary between $200 - 2,000 depending on staffing, location of the site, and timing needs.
In order to have reasonable comparison of costs, staff provided the following assumptions for the cost exercise:
“For a PAA , assume the project area is less than 0.25 acre in size and is currently developed and landscaped. The proposed project will include ground disturbance to a depth of 4 feet. No field survey is required for a PAA. For a Phase 1 or Extended Phase, the site the same parcel size and depth of disturbance is assumed but the site could be developed, or undeveloped and field work would be needed.”
Cost A: A PAA study with a records search. It would include:
1) A records search with the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC) for the project area and 0.25-mile buffer area.
2) Review of historic maps, aerial photos, and applicable on-line sources. 3) Buried site sensitivity analysis ( this is not a formal geoarchaeological assessment, but a desktop review of the potential for buried sites based on environmental factors and the data from Items 1 and 2). 4) Letter report with methods and results of the study and recommendations.
Cost B: A PAA study without a records search. It would include:
1) A review of available CCIC records search data (to be provided by the City).
2) Review of historic maps, aerial photos, and applicable on-line sources 3) Buried site sensitivity analysis ( this is not a formal geoarchaeological assessment, but a desktop review of the potential for buried sites based on environmental factors and the data from Items 1 and 2). 4) Letter report with methods and results of the study and recommendations.
Cost C: A Phase 1 Archaeological Report
Same items as Cost A with a field survey of the project area and preparation of a Phase I survey report in lieu of the letter report.
Cost D: An Extended Phase 1 Archaeological
Same items as Cost C with limited on -site testing of a small archeological site to test for the presence/absence of subsurface materials (assume excavation of 3 -5 Shovel Test Pits only) and preparation of an Extended Phase I Report in lieu of the letter report.
6 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
The cost estimates’ ranges and averages are shown in Table 1 below along with the cost estimate provided by the City’s consultant (this information was included in the August 23, 2021, Planning Commission Report).
Table 1
Archaeological Report Cost Estimates
Cost A
(PAA with
Records
Search)
Cost B
(PAA without
Records
Search)
Cost C
(Phase 1)
Cost D
(Extended
Phase 1)
Range of
estimates
provided by
firms contacted
$1,000-$5,500 $550-$4,700 $2,000-$6,510 $5,000-
$11,000
Average of
estimates
provided by
firms contacted
$3,500 $3,000 $4,900 $8,500
City
Consultant’s
Estimate
$1,500 -
$2,500
--- $2,500 -
$5,000
$5,000-7,000
Council Request #2 : Provide an estimate on the a nticipated number of projects each year that could warrant a PAA, a Phase 1 Archaeological Report, and Extended Phase 1 Archaeological Report.
Response #2: Table 2 below provides information regarding the type and number of building permits issued over the last two years associated with ministerial level projects involving earth -disturbing activities . Staff projects that a similar type and number of permits are expected to occur during the next two years.
Table 2
Ministerial Permits involving Earth Disturbance Between Jan. 2020- Dec. 2021
PERMIT TYPE NUMBER
Additions 96
Foundations 10
Grading 25 (Feb. 2020 – Present)
Patio Covers 10
Sewer Lines 59
Swimming Pools 10 (between July 2020- Present)
Water Lines 42
Total 252
7 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
The City issued a total of 2,260 permits (plumbing, mechanical, electrical, and building) for the same time period.
Council Request #3 : Review Section 17.43.020 to make it clearer what would be exempt.
Response #3: Upon reflection on the input received at the Council meeting on December 7, 2021, staff has proposed further refinements to Section 17.43.020 to exempt certain ground-disturbing activities regardless of native or non -native soils that may not require building permits , except for block walls and retaining walls , and to clarify under what circumstance the measuring of four () cubic feet is cumulative. The proposed revision to this section is provided below and is reflected in Attachment 2. The revised text developed since December 7, 2021 is shown in underlined text below and in Attachment 2.
17.43.020 Applicability
Unless exempted, new development that requires earth -disturbing activities shall be subject to the regulations and reporting requirements of this Chapter. This Section outlines the Exempt and Non-Exempt project types.
A. Exempt Development. The following development is exempt from the requirements of this Chapter unless development is determined to be subject to 17.43.020(B):
1. Improvements/work that do not require or are expressly exempt from a building permit as provided in Section 105.2 of the 2019 Califor nia Building Code , as amended, regardless of the presence of native soils. This subsection shall not apply to block and retaining walls and tree plantings that disturb native soils of greater than 4 cubic feet of native soils. As of the 2019 California Building Code, the following improvements/work involving soil disturbance are exempt from building permit requirements include but are not limited to:
a. One-story detached accessory structures of less than 120 square feet without foundation.
b. Fences not over 7 feet high, excluding block walls and retaining walls. c. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjacent grade and not over any basement or story below and area not part of an accessible route.
d. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Gro up R-3 occupancy that are less than 24 inches deep, are not greater than 5,000 gallons and are installed entirely above ground level.
e. Swings and other playground equipment accessory to detached one - and two-family dwellings.
f. Temporary motion picture, television, and theater stage sets and scenery, g. Shade cloth structures constructed for nursery or agricultural purposes, not including service systems.
h. Oil derricks.
i. Water tanks supported directly on grade if the capacity is not greater than 5,000 gallons and the ratio of the height to diameter or width is not greater than 2:1.
8 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
2. Unless exempted by 17.43.020(A)(1), earth-disturbing activities affecting four (4) cubic feet or less of native soils unless located within a documented archaeological site and/or Tribal Cultural Resource. Four cubic feet of disturbance is measured individually unless each disturbance occurs less than eight (8) feet apart (typical distance for footings).
3. Earth-disturbing activities that will not disturb native soils, unless located within a documented archaeological site and/or Tribal Cultural Resource, including:
a. Ongoing, active agricultural operations in areas continuously used for crop cultivation.
b. A city project that does not involve earth disturbance beyond the footprint (width, length, and depth) of the existing facility or plant/tree. c. A utility project within an existing road right-of-way that does not exceed the depth of the lowest utility line found within the affected block of road right - of-way where the project is located.
d. Irrigation lines, landscaping, and footings for fences, patio covers, and similar minor accessory improvements that reuse previously excavated/disturbed areas.
4. The proposed earth-disturbing area is located within a previously disturbed area where evidence, as documented in as-built plans, previous grading plans, or other documentary evidence, is provided that the previous earth disturbance affected depths equal to or greater than the development being considered; or
5. Interior alterations and improvements to existing structures that do not involve earth-disturbing activities.
6. Proposed areas of earth disturbance of more than four (4) cubic feet of native soils that meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. Emergency Projects as defined by Public Reso urces Code §21060.3 undertaken by the city, another public agency, or utility. b. A previous Preliminary Archaeological Assessment (PAA) or a Phase 1 Report was prepared within the last five years by a Qualified Archaeologist that includes the proposed disturbance area and documents that there are no documented resources within the proposed earth-disturbing area and the proposed earth -disturbing area has little to no potential to contain subsurface Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resources.
B. Non-Exempt Development. The following development is not exempt and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter.
1. Earth-disturbing activities of any depth or size that are located within a documented archaeological site and/or Tribal Cultural Resource; and
2. Earth-disturbing activities of more than four (4) cubic feet of native soils that are not located within a documented archaeological site and/or Tribal Cultural Resource and do not meet the exemptions listed above in subsection
17.43.020(A).
The purpose behind adding the exemption for improvements that do not require a building permit is to avoid confusion as to when a property owner would need to contact the City and to exempt projects involving de minimis amounts of grading that are not likely to affect protected cultural resources. According to the City’s Building Official Stephanie Spieler, 9 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
individual footings for a chain link fence disturb about one ( 1) cubic feet of soil, and individual footings for wood fences and play equipment disturb about 3.375 cubic feet of soil. Unlike footings for chain link/wood fences and play equipment, footings for block walls and retaining walls go down at least 24 inches or two feet (greater than the frost zone) and are continuous for the length of the wall , not just in discrete points. At least 200 cubic feet of soil is disturbed for a 50’ length of block wall with footings 24 inches deep (24”x24”x50’). The rest of the list of exempt items are placed on top of existing soils and therefore would not involve disturbing the ground.
Staff has not revised the list of exemptions found in 17.43.020 to include tree plantings in general (they may be exempt if the work is occurring in previously disturbed soils) . This is because of the amount of soils disturbance necessary to plant a tree. The amount of soils disturbance is directly linked to the size of the tree to be planted. The standard for tree planting is to create a hole that is 2-3 times wider than the diameter for the tree’s root ball and about 2-3 inches less in depth than the height of the root ball. For a 15-gallon tree, this could mean a hole disturbed approximately 64 cubic feet (4-foot x 4-foot x 4-foot hole).
As has been shared previously, m ost archaeological resources are found within inches to a few feet of the ground surface in areas where there are native soils (previously undisturbed soils). The proposed four (4) cubic foot exemption for disturbing native soil is an attempt to strike a b alance between allowing common small projects consistent with the adopted City General Plan goals and protection of cultural resources. Both the threshold volume of native soils (in cubic feet) that may be disturbed and whether to allow tree planting as exempt are policy questions for the City Council to decide. This decision will depend on how conservative the City want s to be regarding allowing excavation of soils that may not have been disturbed in the past without the property owner doing additional studies. Section 17.43.020 can be changed to add a tree planting exemption or to modify the cubic foot exemption threshold based on City Council determ ination of policy consistency.
Council Request # 4: Add findings to justify the adoption of the proposed Goleta Landmarks.
Response #4: The Resolution adopting the Context Statement, establishing the Historic Resources Inventory, and adopting Goleta Landmarks has been revised to add twenty- nine additional sections to Attachment 3 that include the requested f indings. These findings are provided in Sections D-AF of Attachment 3.
Staff has included findings to place the Bishop Ranch property on the Historic Resources Inventory and to designate the property as a Goleta Landmark as provided in Section E of Attachment 3. If the City Council chooses to include Bishop Ranch only on the Historic Resources Inventory, then Council would need to adopt Finding 1 of Section E and forego adopting Findings 2-3 of Section E. If the Council chooses to place Bishop Ranch on the Historic Resources Inventory and designate the property as a Goleta Landmark at this time, then Council would adopt Findings 1-3 of Section E. Depending on what City Council 10 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
chooses to do regarding Bishop Ranch, Section AG of the Resolution, the action section, may need to be modified.
Council Request #5: Conduct an onsite visit of Bishop Ranch, if possible.
Response #5: Staff contacted Bishop Ranch representatives regarding the request to conduct a field visit. The Bishop Ranch representative that staff spoke with express ed doubt that permission would be granted, and no further communications from the Bishop Ranch representative have been received to date. As such , access to the property was not possible and no additional information has been gathered regarding on-site buildings/facilities.
Council Request #6 : Clarify whether the information collected regarding tribal cultural resources are protected from public disclosure.
Response #6: At its previous hearing meeting, Council expressed a desire to ensure that the information collected about the location o f tribal cultural resources through implementation of this ordinance be kept confidential so as to prevent any illegal vandalism, des truction, theft and collection of sacred artifacts. Staff has conducted research and found that the Public Records Act exempts from public disclosure records of Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places and records of Native American places, features, and objects maintained by a local agency. (Government Code section 6254(r).) In addition, the Public Records Act specifically exempts from disclosure of any records related to archeological site information and reports maintained by a local agency through a consultation process. ( Government Code section 6254 .10.) These Government Code sections are the same confidentiality provisions in AB 52 (Public Resources Code section 21802.3(c)) that protects information shared by tribes during the consultation process associated with a local agency’s CEQA analysis of a development project that may impact archeological resources. Therefore, records that the City compile through implementation of the Historic Preservation Ordinance regarding archeological sites and artifacts would be protected under the Public Records Act.
Other Related Issues that have arisen since December 7, 2021, Meeting
Archdiocese of Los Angeles
Since the City Council meeting, the City has received a letter from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles requesting that property at 5444 Hollister Avenue (St. Raphael’s Church and classroom buildings) not be placed on the Historic Resources Inventory (Attachment 12).
The letter does not give a reason for the request. The facilities are proposed to be placed on the HRI because the sanctuary and classroom buildings are good local examp les of Mid-century Modern ecclesiastical architecture. As proposed, property owner permission is not required for the City to place a structure/site on the HRI or to designate a property.
This request is similar to the one made by the owners of Bishop Ranch prior to the December 7, 2021, meeting.
11 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
If the City Council is inclined to grant the request to not include the property at 5444 Hollister on the Historic Resources Inventory, then Council would forego adopting Section Q of Attachment 3 and adjust Section AG, the action section, to remove the 5444 Hollister from the list of properties to be included in the Historic Resources Inventory.
295 (290) Ellwood Canyon Road
Since the last Council meeting, the community has become aware of the change of ownership for the above property and interest has been expressed regarding the property’s historic status along with protection of a large, 134-year-old lemon -scented gum tree present on the site, known as the “Ellwood Queen,” planted by Ellwood Cooper in 1887. Given this interest, staff directed HRG to update their research on this property.
The full , 54-page report is provided as Attachment 11. Below is a n excerpt from Attachment 11 (without the footnotes) regarding the history of the property and HRG ’s recommendation regarding its status in relationship to the Historic Resources Inventory.
The property at 290/295 Ellwood Canyon Road was part of Rancho Los Dos Pueblos, granted to Goleta pioneer Nicolas Den in 1842. Den used the property as a cattle ranch until his death in 1862. After his death, Den’s ranch was subdivided into smaller parcels for his heirs, including his wife, Rosa, and each of their ten children. The portions of the ranch set aside for Den's children were to be held in trust until each child came of age.
In the late 1860s, Charles E. Huse, the executor of Nicolas Den’s estate, arranged for the sale of several tracts of land in the former Den estate. Ellwood Cooper, a Goleta pioneer known for introducin g exotic flora to the area, became convinced that Santa Barbara olive oil could compete commercially with Italian oil, and in 1869, purchased 2,000 acres of the former Den estate, creating a ranch seven - eighths of a mile wide, running along the coast betwe en Winchester and Glen Annie canyons. He named it Ellwood Ranch.
Cooper intended for his family to live in Santa Barbara while he traveled to and from his ranch daily. However, after a year of traveling the twelve -mile round trip on horseback, Cooper became frustrated with this arrangement, and built a small redwood board and batten house for overnight use. His wife, Sarah, moved with him, and additions were made to the house as needed. The house became the focus of a complex of barns, machine shops, an olive mill, and other outbuildings, most of which were removed by subsequent owners. Cooper also planted seven different orchards of olive trees, as well as English walnuts, wheat, and Japanese persimmons.
In the mid-1870s, Cooper’s claim to former Den lands was contested. The portion of the Den estate on which Ellwood Ranch was located had been held in trust for a Den heir who had not yet come of age in 1869, when Cooper purchased the land. Because the sale went against Den’s will, the Santa Barbara Probate Court did not approve the sale. After initially fighting the lawsuit, Cooper settled with the Dens, surrendering all of his property west of Goleta and south of Hollister Avenue.
Cooper retained the portions of the ranch comprising 160 acres of eucalyptus 12 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
seedlings; his persimmon, olive, and walnut orchards; his olive mill; his residence; and the other buildings on the property.
In 1912, Ellwood Cooper sold Ellwood Ranch to Major Charles J.M. McGill - Crichton and Francis H. Greene. On January 25, 1914, a “br ief but devastating flood” caused extensive damage to the ranch, obliterating the “valuable orchard of Japanese persimmons,” and “Cooper’s historic olive orchards, an irrigation system, the engine house, a fine graded road […] and a total of fifteen privat e bridges.” Greene and Crichton retained joint ownership of the property until 1915, when Crichton was killed while fighting in World War I. In 1920, Greene died of pneumonia.
In 1921, Crichton’s and Greene’s wives sold Ellwood Ranch to Joseph Archambault and J.E. Doty at public auction. The partnership lasted until approximately 1927, when Archambault left the partnership. By 1939, the property was home to Ellwood Ranch, Ellwood Dairies, and Bob & Curl Salon. The ranch and dairy operations, run by brothers Frank, Lawrence, Russell, and Fred Doty, employed numerous laborers, many of whom lived on the property with their spouses.
In 1949, “sparks from a brush fire […] destroyed the old ‘boarding house’ on the Ellwood ranch.” In 1961, a 453-acre tract of Ellwood Ranch was sold to Roy Eaton, Jack Schwartz, Herbert H. Braun, Walker -Built Homes, Inc. Ellwood Ranch remained the property of the Doty family into the 21st century.
At an unknown date, the parcel now known as 290/295 Ellwood Canyon Road was subdivided from the main Ellwood Ranch property. The parcel comprises 23.44 acres. As of 2021, 290/295 Ellwood Canyon Road contains the built resources identified from aerials listed below; dates are based on available documentation:
Barn (constructed prior to 1928).
Single-family residence (constructed prior to 1938).
Metal outbuilding (constructed prior to 1928).
Metal outbuilding (constructed c. 1995).
Metal outbuilding (constructed prior to 1938).
Metal outbuilding (constructed c. 1955); and
Metal outbuilding (constructed c. 1955).
The property also contains numerous temporary structures (greenhouses and sheds), as well as several cultivated fields. There are also numerous mature trees and shrubs, including a gum tree known locally as the “Ellwood Quee n,” believed to have been planted by Ellwood Cooper in 1887.
No original building permits or any subsequent permits were found for any building on the property. As a result, approximate construction dates listed above are based on available historic aerial photographs of the property. The barn on the property 13 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
may have been constructed in the 19 th century by Ellwood Cooper; however, no evidence has been found to substantiate that claim.
The metal outbuilding at 295 Ellwood Canyon Road may have been used as Indio Farms in 1993 by Gregg Carlile and Kenyon Fink. No additional information about the business was found; it does not appear to be in operation at the property.” While data exists about the property as noted above, a dditional information, including a site visit to view existing conditions on the property, would be necessary to complete an assessment of the property at 290/295 Ellwood Canyon Road to determine if the property should be placed on the Historic Resources Inventory or proposed for designation .
Although there are buildings visible from aerial recognizance, HRG could not ascertain if these are the same buildings shown on historical imagery and Sanborn maps and what state these structures are in. Corroboration of information and more in-depth research into the property’s ownership history and the subdivision of this parcel are necessary to determine the property’s potential historical significance and its historic integrity.
Based on the survey methodology used for the Historic Pr eservation project (see background section above) , HRG recommends that 290/295 Ellwood Canyon Road remain on the Study List (suggested in the Context Statement) pending additional information about the property’s association with Ellwood Cooper and its historic integrity.
However, if the City Council feels that there is sufficient information available, staff can prepare findings to include this property on the Historic Resources Inventory.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REVIEW
Attachment 1 - General Plan Amendment
The proposed GPA project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; “CEQA”) and CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.). Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the following CEQA Guidelines:
No possibility of significant effect [Section 15061(b)(3)] Not a project [Section 15378]
It can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the General Plan Amendment would have potential for causing a significant effect on the environment given the nature of the project. Further, the GPA would not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment as the project revises the language of four existing General Plan policies, does not change the intent of the policies that are the subject of this amendment, and will not result in new development.
The City will continue to recognize the structures and sites listed in General Plan pol icy VH 5.1. as important historical resources along with those structures formally placed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. In addition, the City will continue to have policies regarding the establishment of eligibility criteria (VH 5.2), process and considerations for alteration proposals to historic resources (VH 5.5.), and process and range of alternatives 14 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
and mitigations associated with demolition requests (VH 5.6) . Any subsequent requests that would be affected by these Historic Resources policies would be subject to their own individual CEQA analysis.
Attachments 2 and 3 – Ordinance and the Context Statement Resolution
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.3 and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 151 83, projects that are consistent with the development density of existing zoning, community plan, or General Plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified , shall be exempt from additional CEQA analysis except as may be necessar y to determine whether there are project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or site that would otherwise require additional CEQA review. There is no new substantial information indicating that the impacts of the project will be more severe than described in the General Plan EIR when the Visual and Historic Resources Element was adopted and there are no cumulative or off-site impacts from the proposed project that were not addressed in the General Plan EIR. As such, the Ordinance is exempt from further CEQA review.
In addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5), the proposed Ordinance does not qualify as a "project" for the purposes of CEQA because the Ordinance does not result in direct or indirect p hysical changes in the environment.
The amendments proposed do not, by themselves, have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Any subsequent development project will be separately examined in accordance with CEQA. As such, the adoption of the documents related to the Historic Preservation and Cultural Resource Ordinance are exempt from CEQA review.
A draft of the proposed Notice of Exemption is provided as Attachment 8.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
As of January 18, 2022 , $160,606 has been spent of the $201,350 appropriation associated with this project (Account Number 101 -40-4100-51209). There is no new appropriation needed to complete this project.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Notice for the public hearing held on December 7, 2021, was provided in the following manner:
An advertisement was published in the Santa Barbara Independent in both English and Spanish on November 24, 2021.
On November 23, 2021, mailed notice was provided to property owners whose property could be placed on the Historic Resources Inventory and to those who have requested mailing for Citywide projects.
On November 23, 2021, a) Gov Delivery email notice was sent to approximately 8600 emails addresses on the News and Announcements, City Council meetings, Historic 15 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
Preservation, Interested Parties, and Spanish lists; and b) and the information was shared on various social media platforms (Facebook, Twitter, etc.).
Since City Council continued its review of the materials from December 7, 2021, specifically to February 15, 2022 and then to April 5, 2022 , no additional advertisement or mailed notice has been given. A general Gov Delivery email notice was sent on or before March 30, 2022, regarding this upcoming meeting.
ALTERNATIVES:
The alternatives are 1) continue the matter for additional information/revision. If additional work is needed, an additional budget allocation may be needed ; 2) not adopt the proposed Ordinance and General Plan Amendment; or 3) approve the General Plan Amendment and not adopt the Ordinance.
Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By:
___________________ ___________________ _________________ Kristine Schmidt Megan Garibaldi Michelle Greene
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, adopting the proposed General Plan Amendment to the Visual and Historic Resources Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan; Case No. 20-0004-GPA
2. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, adding Chapter 2.16, entitled Historic Preservation Commission, Chapter 17.33, entitled Historic Resource Preservation, Chapter 17.43, entitled Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources, and various Amendments to Titles 12 and 17 of the Goleta Municipal Code; Case No. 16-092OA
3. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, adopting the Historic Context Statement and designating the Historic Landmarks List and Historic Resources Inventory; Case No. 16-092
4. Planning Commission Resolution 21 -05 regarding the General Plan Amendment
5. Historic Resources Inventory
6. Points of Historical Interest
7. Draft Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Decision Tree/Flow Chart
16 Meeting Date: April 5, 2022
8. Notice of Exemption
9. Power Point Presentation
10. December 7, 2021, City Council Report (without attachments)
11. January 12, 2022, Memo from HRG regarding Ellwood Cooper Ranch property at 290/295 Ellwood Canyon Road.
12. Letter from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles
17 ATTACHMENT 1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
THE VISUAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN/COASTAL LAND USE PLAN; CASE NO. 20-0004-GPA.
18 RESOLUTION NO. 22-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO
THE VISUAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN/COASTAL LAND USE PLAN; CASE NO. 20-0004-GPA
The City Council of the City of Goleta does resolve as follows:
SECTION A: Recitals: The City Council finds and declares that:
1. The Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan ( “General Plan ”) is the City ’s official policy that guides land use and phy sical development of the geograph ic area of the incorporated City limits.
2. California Government Code Section 65350 et seq. authorize cities and counties to prepare, adopt and amend General Plans and their elements.
3. California Government Code Section 65358(a) reads , “If it deems it to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted general plan. An amendment to the general plan shall be initiated in the manner specified by the legi slative body. Notwithstanding Section 66016, a leg islative body that permits persons to request an amendment of the general plan may require that an amount equal to the estimated cost of preparing the amendment be deposited with the planning agency prior to the preparation of the amendment”.
4. The General Plan contains several General Plan policies related to Historic Resources in the Visual and Historic Resources Element.
5. On April 4, 2021, the City Council init iated General Plan Amendm ent 20-0004- GPA at a noticed public hearing.
6. On May 20, 202 1, City st aff sent requests for consultation with local Native American Tribal groups and no Native American Tribal groups requested consultation during the 90-day period.
7. On June 14, 2021 , the Planning Commission recommended approval at a duly noticed pub lic hearing at which all inter ested parties were heard. Further, the Planning Commission considered the entire adm inistrative r ecord including, without limitation, staff reports, and evidence submitted during the public hearing.
8. On December 7, 2021, the City Cou ncil con ducted a notice pub lic hearing at which all interested parties were heard and continued its review until February 15, 2022. The matter was further continued without discussion to April 5, 2022
19 City Council Resolution 22- _____
General Plan Amendment to the Visual and Historic Resources Element
9. On April 5, 2022, the City Council conducted a continued public hearing. Further, the City Council considered the enti re administrative record includin g, without limitation, staff reports, and evidence submitted during the public hearing.
SECTION B. Factual Findings and Conclusions: The City Council finds as follows:
A. The City Council adopted the Goleta General Plan/Co astal Land Use Plan (General Plan) on October 2, 2006.
B. The General Plan has been amended twenty -two times previously with the latest occurring on January 19, 2021.
C. The General Plan contai ns Chapter 5 the Visual and H istoric Resources Element, which has a number of policies relating to the Historic Resources.
D. On June 21, 2016, the City Council approve d a contract with Hi storic Resources Group (HRG) for the development of a Historic Preservation Ordinance and , to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Ordinance , refinements to some o f the Visual and Historic Policies have been id entified that do not change the intent of the adopted policies.
E. On April 6, 2021, the City Council initiated General P lan Amendment Case No. 20-0004-GPA.
F. On June 14, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the GPA case No. 20-004-GPA.
G. The factual findings and conclusions in this Se ction are based upon substantial evidence found within the entirety of the administrative record.
SECTION C: Environmental Assessment for the Project. The City Council makes the following environmental findings:
1. The proposed pr oject is exempt fr om environmental review pursuant to State CEQA Gu idelines § 15061(b)(3). Specifically, it can be seen with cer tainty that there is no possibility that the General Plan text amendment would have potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The proposal is to update the existing language of four existing General Plan policies and does not change t he intent of these policies . The City will continue to recognize the structures an d sites listed in General Plan policy VH 5.1 as important historical resources along with those structures formall y placed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
In addition, the City will continue to have policies regarding the establishment of eligibility criteria (VH 5.2), process and considera tions associated with alteration proposals to historic resources (VH 5.5.), and process and range of alternatives and mitigations associated with demolition requests (VH 5.6). For these reasons, there is no possibility that the activit y in question can have a significant effect on 20 City Council Resolution 22- _____
General Plan Amendment to the Visual and Historic Resources Element
the environment and thus the activity is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). (State CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).)
Further, the GPA would not result in a direct or indirect physi cal change in the environment at this is a General Plan tex t amendment , the activity do es not satisfy the definition of a project in State CEQA Guidelines Section 1 5378 and thus is not subject to CEQA review.
2. There is s ubstantial evidence in the record showing that the General Plan text amendment is not an activity subject to CEQA.
SECTION D: General Plan Amendment Findings . The City Council makes the following Findings pursuant to Subsection 17.67.040(C) of the Goleta Municipal Code:
1. The amend ment i s cons istent with t he gu iding principles an d goals of the General Plan.
The proposed G PA is consi stent with the Guiding Principles and Goals of th e City’s General Plan. The applicable Visual and Historic Resources Element Guiding Principles and Goals are:
Guiding Princip le VH -4 (preserve links to Goleta’s architectural past whenever possible to avoid loss of community character). Guiding Principle VH-5 (preserve the city’s historic structures and sites as irreplaceable resources and protect these resources from deteriora tion, inappropriate alterations, and demolition).
Guiding Principle VH-6 (encourage owners of historic structures and sites to inv est in maintenanc e and restoration efforts, and, if eligible, seek historic landmark status).
Guiding Principle VH-7 (strengthen the character of Goleta Old Town [old Town] to reflect its position as the historic hub of the community. Guiding P rinciple VH -8 (ensure that ne w construction and additions to existing buildings maintain the cha racter and livabi lity o f existing neighborhoods and are designed to fit appropriately within the context of the surrounding area); and
General Plan Goal VH -5 H istoric Reso urces (to identif y, protect, and encourage preservation of significant architectural, historic, and prehistoric sites, structures, and properties that comprise Goleta’s heritage).
The proposed G PA would be in keeping with the above -referenced Guiding Principles and Goals as the purpose of this amendment is to create harmony between the General Plan and Ordinance. The proposed changes are based on the work done to create regulations and standards to implemen t the General Plan and on the recent survey work to identify local historic resources. The GPA 21 City Council Resolution 22- _____
General Plan Amendment to the Visual and Historic Resources Element
will not alter the intent of the abov e-referenced Guiding Principles and Policie s, but will strengthen, enhance, and implement what has previously been adopted.
2. The amendment is deemed to be in the public interest.
The proposed GPA is deemed to be in the public interest. The amendment will have no material effect on the community or the General Plan. The GPA will not change the intent of the Visual and Historic Resources Element policies but w ill foster c larity and harmony between the General Plan and the proposed Ordinance. The amendment will make revisions and updates to the General Plan Policies related to historic and cultural resources based on the additio nal information resulting from th e work of th e City’s historic r esources consultant .
The historic and cultural resources policies were adopted ov er 14 years ago without the benefit of a detailed study of the City by a historic consultant.
Further, the amen dment will make revisions and up dates to the General Plan policies related to historic and cultural resources based on the additional information resulting from the work of the City’s historic resources consultant.
These policies were adopted ov er 14 years ago without the benefit of a d etailed study of the City by a historic consultant. The benefit to the City is to have updated policies that are in keeping w ith both Nation al a nd St ate historic resource practices.
SECTION E: Recommendation. The City Council takes the following actions:
A. Based on the findings outlined i n Sections above, the City Council amends the Visual and Historic Resource Element of the Goleta General Plan as provided in Exhibit 1 (Policies VH 5.1, VH 5.2, VH 5.5 and VH 5.6) and removes Table 6 -1 and Figure 6-2 from the General Plan; and
B. Directs staff to fil e the Notice of Exemption (NOE) within five (5) business days after Council action.
SECTION F: Reliance on Record . Every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution is based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entir e record relati ng to the Project. The findings an d determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of th e City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial eviden ce in t he record as a whole.
SECTION G: Limitations. The Planning Commission’s analysis and evaluation of th e Project is based on the best information c urrently availa ble. It is inevita ble that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge o f all p ossible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on an alysis of the P roject is the 22 City Council Resolution 22- _____
General Plan Amendment to the Visual and Historic Resources Element
Planning Commission’s lack of knowle dge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat rel ated t o t his are the limitations on the City’s ability to solve what are in effec t regional, state, and national problems and issues. The city must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.
SECTION H: Summaries of Information . All summaries of information in the fin dings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial e vidence in the record. The absence of any p articular fact from any such summary is not an indication th at a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
SECTION I: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent Resolution.
SECTION J: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.
SECTION K: The City Clerk will certify to the pass age and adoption of this r esolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of _____ 2022.
__________________________
PAULA PEROTTE
MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ __________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ MEGAN GARIBALDI
CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
23 City Council Resolution 22- _____
General Plan Amendment to the Visual and Historic Resources Element
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.
CITY OF GOLETA )
I, DEBORAH S. LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 22-__ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Golet a at a regu lar meeting held on the ___ day of ______, 2022 by the following vote of the City Council.:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
(SEAL)
_________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ
CITY CLERK
24 City Council Resolution 22- _____
General Plan Amendment to the Visual and Historic Resources Element
Exhibit 1
1. General Plan Policy VH 5.1 (GP). At the time of incorpor ation, the locally significant historic sites or st ructures that were designated as Landmarks by the County included: Stow House, Sexton Ho use, Gole ta De pot, Barn sdall-Rio Grande Gas oline Station, and the Shrode Produce Company Tomat o Packing House. In 200 6, locally significant hi storic sites or structures that were designated as Places of Historic Merit included the Daniel Hill Adobe, a portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad (engineered cut representing the former site of a portion of the Southern Pacifi c Railroad) , and Bishop R anch. Stow House, Sexton House, and the Goleta Depot are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The City will maintain a local list of historic r esources, the Goleta Historic Resources Inventory, which includes the historic resources referenced in this policy, to ensure that local resources are protected and preserved.
2. General Plan Policy VH 5.2 : Locally Significant Historic Resources [GP] .
Structures or sites, including landscaping, have sp ecial historic, aesthetic, or cultural value to Goleta shall be designated as locally significant histor ic resources. A locally si gnificant historic re source ma y include those resources listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register for Historic Places, State Historic Landmarks, or the Santa Barbara County Landmarks/Places of Historical Merit inve ntories, as well as resour ces des ignated by the City. The City shall establish eligibility criteria including but not limited to age of the structure; exceptional importance in the c ommunity; significant contribution from a historical, arch itectural, so cial, cultural perspective; r epresentation as a un ique architectural style or workmanship; associat ion with an important historical event or person etc. Eligibility criteria will be used by the City Council when considering a site or structure, i ncluding landscaping, for designation as a local ly significant historic resource.
3. General Plan Policy VH 5.5 : Alterations to Historic Resources. [GP] Any proposed alterations to a design ated historic resource or property listed in the City’s Historic Resources Invent ory shall respect the character- defining features of the building, its setting, and maintain architectural consistency with the original site or structu re. Such p roposals ma y req uire the su bmittal of an historic evaluation from a recognized professional a s part of th e design revie w process, that, depending upon the nature of the proposed alternation, may incl ude review by the Historic Preservation Commis sion or Design Review Board prior to approval. To encourage rehabil itation, maintenance, and sensitivity in addition s and remodels , the City encourages and supports adaptive reu se of structures listed on the Hi storic Resources Inventory and may consider a llowing for flexibility when applying building code regulations, including use of the California Historic Building Co de, in order to facilitate the rete ntion of character-defining features and maintaining historical significance.
25 City Council Resolution 22- _____
General Plan Amendment to the Visual and Historic Resources Element
4. General Plan Policy VH 5.6: Demolition of Historic Structures [GP] The City strives to prevent the d emolition of structures list ed on the Hi storic Resour ces Inventory. If demolition is proposed, the property owner must demonstrate that all efforts have been made to relocate or adaptively reuse the structure including but not limited to the submittal of a historic evaluation, a cost s analysis, and a structural evaluation of the property justifying the demolition request. In the event the City determines that adaptive reuse on si te or relocation is not fe asible, appropriate mitigation and documentation measures must be undertaken by the applicant. Such measures that may be require d of the applicant, include but not be limited to the following:
a) Offering the structure for reloc ation and providing public notice of the availability of the structure through advertisements or other means. b) Salvage and r euse buildin g elements that have va lue and m ay be irreplaceable such as cornices, colum ns, mantels, doors, hardware, and lighting fixtures.
c) Prepare written and photographic/ video-graphic documentation of the structure in archival quality format for retention by the City or designated Historical Archive before demolition or relocation. 26 ATTACHMENT 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 2.16, ENTITLED HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION, CHAPTER 17.33, ENTITLED
HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION, CHAPTER 17.43, ENTITLED
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES, AND
VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO TITLES 12 AND 17 OF THE GOLETA
MUNICIPAL CODE; CASE NO. 16-092OA
27 Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO. 22-______
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 2.16, ENTITLED
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, CHAPTER 17. 33,
ENTITLED HISTORIC RESOURCE PRESERVATION, CHAPTER
17.43, ENTITLED ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES, AND VARIOUS AMENDMENTS TO TITLES 12
AND 17 OF THE GOLETA MUNIC IPAL CODE ; CASE NO. 16 -
092OA
SECTION A. RECITALS
1. California Government Code Sections 65850 and 37361 enable city legislative bodie s to provide for “the protection, enhancement; perpet uation, or use of places, site s, buildings, structures, works of art , and oth er objects having a special character or special histori cal or aesthetic interest or value”; and
2. Historic and cultural resources are i mportant to the City o f Goleta as encapsulated within the Vis ual and Historic Resources Element of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan; and
3. The City ha s conducted 15 public workshops and public hearings over the course of three years in the development of an ordinance to preserve historic resources (“Ordinance”) and associated Historic Context Statement; and
4. On December 14, 2020, March 29, 2021, June 21,2021, August 23, 2021, October 25, 2021, and November 8, 20 21, the Planning Commission of the City of Goleta conducted noticed public hearings, at which time all interested parties were heard; and
5. On November 8, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council of the City of Goleta adopt the Ordinance; and
6. On December 7, 2021, the City Council of the City of Goleta conducted a noticed public hearing , at which time all interested parties were heard and continued the hearing to February 15, 2022. The matter was further continued without discussion to April 5, 2022; and
7. On April 5, 2022, the City Cou ncil of the City of Goleta conducte d a continued public hearing, at which time all interested parties were heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
28 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 2 SECTION B. Recital
The City Cou ncil hereby finds and determines that t he foregoing re citals, which are incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct.
SECTION C. Findings for Ordinance
Pursuant to sub section 17.66.050 (B) of the Goleta Mun icipal Code, the City Council makes the following findings:
1. The amendment is consistent with the General Plan, the requirements of State planning and zoning laws, and Title 17 o f the Goleta Municipal Code.
The Ordinance, whic h amends the Goleta Municipal Code Title 17 , is consistent with all applicable p rovisions of the City’s General Plan for the preservation of historic and cu ltural resources thro ughout the City.
Furthermore, th e provisions of this Ordinance will implement m any of the policies and implementation measures of the Visual and Historic R esources Element. The processing of the Ordinance was conducted in compliance with the codified regulations of Title 17 Chapter 17.66 (Amendments to Zoning Regulations and Zoning Map) of the Goleta Municipal Code . Therefore, this finding can be made.
2. The amendment is in the interests of the general community welfare.
The Ordinance A , which ame nds Goleta Municipal Code Title 1 7, will allow the City to continue to effectiv ely exercise its police power rig hts over privately-owned real property . T hese poli ce po wer rights ensure the Cit y’s ability to implement the goals, objectives, and p olicies of the General Plan , which protect t he health, safety, and gen eral welfare of the community.
Therefore, the Ordinance is in the interest of t he general community welfare and this finding can be made.
3. The amendment is consistent with good zoning and planning practices.
The Ordinance A, which amends Goleta Municipal Code Titles 2 and 17, will help the City continue to implement the commu nity goals, objecti ves, and policies of the General Plan. Furthermore, the Ordinance will enable the City to have better control over existing and future land uses and development on real property in regard to historic and cul tural r esources throughout Gol eta and ensure full compliance with S tate law controlling the review of certain types of development. Therefore, the Ordinance is consistent with good zoning and planning practices and this finding can be made.
SECTION D. Environmental Assessment
29 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 3
Pursuant to Public Resourc es Co de Secti on 210 83.3 and Cali fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline s Sec tion 1518 3, projects that are consistent with the development density o f existing zoning, co mmunity plan, or General Plan policies for which an Environmental Impact Repor t (EI R) was certified shall be e xempt from additional CEQA analys is, except as ma y be necessary to determine whether t here are proj ect-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the proj ect or site that would otherwise requ ire additional CEQA review. There is no new substantial information indicating that the impa cts of the project w ill be mo re severe than describe d in the Gene ral Plan E IR when the Visual and Historic Resources Element was adopted and there are no cumulative or off -site impacts from t he proposed p roject that were n ot addr essed in the General Plan EIR. As such, the Ordinance is exempt from further CEQA review.
In addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5), the proposed Ordinance does not qualify as a "project" for the purposes of CEQA because the Ordinance does not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. The Ordinance proposed do not, by itself, have the potential to cause a significant eff ect on the envi ronment. Any subsequent dev elopment project w ill be separately ex amined in accordance with CEQA. As such, the proposed Ordinance is exempt from CEQA review.
SECTION E. Title 2 of the Golet a Mu nicipal Cod e, Administration and Personnel is amended to add Chapter 2.1 6 entitled Historic Preservation Commission, to read in its entirety:
Chapter 2.16 Historic Preservation Commission
Sections:
2.16.010 Purpose
2.16.020 Created
2.16.030 Members
2.16.040 Appointment
2.16.050 Qualifications of Members
2.16.060 Term of Office
2.16.070 Removal from Office
2.16.080 Vacancy
2.16.090 Organization
2.16.100 Meetings
2.16.110 Compensation
2.16.120 Responsibilities
2.16.010 Purpose.
30 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 4 The purpose of the His toric Prese rvation C ommission is to act as an advisory body to the staff, the Design Review Boar d, and City Council on all matters pertaining to historic preservation.
2.16.020 Created.
A Historic Preservation Commission for the City is created.
2.16.030 Members.
The Historic Preservation Commission shall consist of five members.
2.16.040 Appointment.
The Mayor shall , in his or he r discretion and subject to City Council a pproval, appoint the members.
2.16.050 Qualification of Members.
A. The Historic Preservation Commission shall be composed of professional and lay m embers with demonstrated interest , competence, or know ledge in historic preservation. Historic Preservation Commission members may be appointed from amo ng the di sciplines of a rchitecture, h istory, architectural history, planning, archaeology, or other related disciplines, such as American studies, landscape architecture, cultural geography, or cul tural anthropology, to the extent that such professionals a re available in the community. Historic Preservation Commission membe rship may also include la y members who have demonstrated spe cial int erest/expertise, com petence, expe rience, or knowledge of Goleta history and historic preservation, and/or are members of local Chumash tribal group(s).
B. A majority of the members shall be residents of the City during incumbency.
2.16.060 Term of Office.
A. The members of the first appointed Historic Preservation Commission shall so classify themselves by lot that one of their number shall term out of office on June 30, 2024, two on June 30, 2025, and two on June 30, 2026.
B. Terms shall be for four years thereafter, with no limit on the number of terms to which members may be appointed.
C. Members shall serve until their successor has been appointed.
2.16.070 Removal from Office.
A Historic Preservation Commission member is aut omatically removed fr om office if the member i s absent f rom three consecuti ve regular meetings of th e Historic Preservation Commission. A member shal l serve at the pleasure of the 31 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 5 Mayor and may be removed by the Mayor at any time w ithout cause. The member may also be removed by a majority vote of the City Council at any time and for any reason.
2.16.080 Vacancy in Office.
Vacancies, other than by expir ation of a term, shall be filled by appointment by the Mayor subject to City Council approval and shall serve the remainder of the previous term.
2.16.090 Organization.
A. Each calendar year, at its first regular meeting or as soon as practicable thereafter, the Historic Preservation Commission shall elec t from its membership a Chair and a Vice-Chair.
B. The Historic Preservation Commission shall adopt rules for the transaction of its business. It shall also keep a public record of its resolutions, transactions, findings, and determinations.
C. The Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee shall serve as the Secre tary to th e Historic Preservation Commission an d shall have no vote.
2.16.100 Meetings.
The Historic Preservation Commission shall hold at le ast one regular meeting every other month subject to the agenda calendar.
2.16.110 Compensation.
The City C ouncil may establish by resolut ion the co mpensation to be paid to members of the Historic Preservation Commission.
2.16.120 Responsibilities.
The Historic Preservation Commission shall have such duties as are prescribed in Section 17.50.080.
32 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 6 SECTION F. Chapter 17.29, entitled Demolition, Relocation and Loss of Dwelling Units of Title 17, is amended as follows:
17.29.010 Applicability
No structure in the City may be demolished, rem oved, or re located, e xcept as authorized under the provisions of this chapter and no dwelling units may be lost except in compliance with Section 17.29.030.
A. Removal Considered Development. For purposes of this chapter, the removal of a structure for reloca tion to ano ther lot i s considered a demolition on the origin sit e and new development on the receiving site. Structures may be relocated su bject to th e requirements of Section 17.29.050, Relocation of Structures.
B. Exemptions. The following structures are ex empt from t he provisions of this chapter, except for subsection 17.29.030 (B):
1. Any building, structure, object, or site that is less than 5 0 years old that is not:
a. Located wit hin the Coastal Zone or within the Old Town Heri tage Overlay District; or
b. A historic resource; or
c. Identified as a historical resource under the C alifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2. Any building structure, object, or site that is 50 years or more in age that is not a historic resource
3. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, if a building, structure, or object is determined by the City’s Building Official to be unsafe, presents a public hazard, is not secura ble, or is in immin ent danger of collapse so as to endanger persons or property, it must be demolished . The Building Official’s determination in this matter will be governed by applicable law.
17.29.020 Permit Requirements
Demolition or relocation of his toric resources subject to this chapter mu st obtain the following permit types:
A. Coastal Zone. All buildings, structures, or objects proposed for demolition or relocation that are located on property within the Coastal Zone of the City are subject to the pe rmit req uirements o f Chapter 17.61., Coast al Development Permits.
1. Exception. Demolition or relocation of any historic resou rce requires the approval of a Major Conditional Use Permit.
B. Inland A rea. All buildings, structures or objects proposed for demolitio n or relocation that are located on proper ty within the Inland Area of the City are subject to the following:
1. Zoning Clearance. Any demolition of a structure that is 50 years or more in age and is neither a historic resource nor within a buffer of any othe r 33 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 7 protected resourc e (e.g., ESHA, Cultural , oak tree CRZ, etc.) and structures less than 50 years in the Old Town Heritage Overlay District.
2. Land Use Permit. Any demolition of a structure that is 50 years or more in age and is not a historic resource but i s within the buffer area of a protected resource.
3. Discretionary Action . A discretionary action is required under the following circumstances:
a. Any demolition associated with a permit appli cation that involves other development that requires discretionary re view and approval. The demolition must be concurrently processed as part of the overall project.
b. Historic Resources. Demoli tion or rel ocation of any historic resource requires the approval of a Major Conditional Use Permit.
17.29.030 Loss of Dwelling Units
A. Demolition of Multi-Unit Dwellings. The City will not allow the demolition of any multiple unit dwelling structures unl ess the pro ject will create at least as many residential dwelli ngs as will be demolished, or the building or structure is exempt from this requirement pursuant to Section 17.29.010, Applicability.
B. Loss of Residential Units . In accordance with Government Co de Section 66300(d), no housing development project, as defined by C alifornia Government Code Section 65589.5(h)(2), that will require the demolition or other loss of legally e stablished residential dwelling units shall be appr oved unless the project will create at least as many residential dwellings as will be demolished or otherwise lost. When this subsection applies, all appli cable requirements of Government Code Section 66300(d) must be met.
C. Timing of Replacement. The City shall not issue a Certificate of Occupancy for an y other Building Permits for the project unt il all C ertificates of Occupancy have been issued for the replacement unit(s). (Ord. 20 -09 § 5; Ord. 20-03 § 6)
17.29.040 Relocation of Structures
Structures may be relocated within the City if the following requirements are met:
A. The relocated structure must comply with all regulations of this Title, including all applicable development standards for the base zoning district of the property upon which the structure is proposed to be relocated.
B. Prior to relocating oversized structures using the public roadway, the approval of a City Encroachment Permit or a Single Trip Transportation Permit is also required by the Public Works Department. (Ord. 20-09 § 5; Ord. 20-03 § 6)
SECTION G. Chapter 17.33 Historic Resource Preservation of Title 17 is added as follows:
Chapter 17.33 Historic Resource Preservation
34 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 8 Sections:
17.33.010 Purpose
17.33.020 Applicability
17.33.030 Historic Resources Inventory
17.33.040 Historic Landmarks
17.33.050 Amendment to or Rescission of the Status of an individual Historic Resource
17.33.060 Historic Districts
17.33.070 Points of Historical Interest
17.33.080 Design Review of Alterations to Historic Resources
17.33.090 Demolition of Historic Resources
17.33.100 Review of Projects Affecting City-Owned Historic Resources
17.33.110 Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
17.33.120 Maintenance of Historic Resources
17.33.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to provide for the recognition and preservation of historic resource s that ref lect the social, cultural, historical, an d a rchitectural heritage of the City by establishing procedures and regulations that are necessary to:
A. Assist the City in identifying and protecting its historic resources; B. Encourage public education and appreciation of the City’s heritage; C. Ensure that ne w d evelopment ma intains continuity with the City’s historic character and scale;
D. Maintain historic resources as community assets;
E. Integrate the preservation of historic resources into the publi c and priva te development process;
F. Implement the goals and pol icies of the Vis ual and Historic Resources Element of the General Plan; and
G. Fulfill the City’s responsibilit ies unde r applicable state an d federal laws, including the California Environmental Qu ality Act ( CEQA), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
17.33.020 Applicability
The provisions of this Chapter apply to historic resources located within the City.
17.33.030 Historic Resources Inventory
A. Establishment. The City shall create and maintain a list of properties known as the His toric Resources Inventory (HRI) adopted by City Council Resolution. The HRI shall collectively consist of bu ildings, structures, objects, or sites that satisfy one or more of the following:
1. Are identified as potenti ally eli gible for designation through his toric resources survey or other evaluation conducted by a Qualified 35 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 9 Preservation Professional using accepted professional practices and formally adopted for inclusion on the HRI by the City Council; or
2. Are listed in or form ally determined eligible for list ing in the Natio nal Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historical Resources, either i ndividually or as a Contribut or to a designated Historic District; or
3. Are designated a s a County of Santa B arbara Landmark or County of Santa Barbara Place of Historic Merit; or
4. Are designated Historic Landmarks or contributors to designated Historic Districts by the City Council.
B. Purpose. The HRI may be used for reference for future determinations for the designation of Historic Landmarks or Histori c D istricts. In addition,all properties on the H RI are subject to provisions of this Chapter including the standards and review processes associated with alterations to or demolition of histor ic resource s. All pr operties on th e HRI are considered historical resources as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act and may be eligible to use alternative building code provisions as determined by the Building Official.
17.33.040 Historic Landmarks
A. Criteria for Designating a Historic Landmark. A building, structure, object, or site shall be designated a Historic Landmark, if th e City Council finds that the following criteria are met:
1. The proposed Historic Landmark is at least 50 year s ol d or exhibits Exceptional Importance; and
2. The proposed Historic Landmark meets one or more of the following:
a. The proposed Historic Landmark is a ssociated with important events or broad patterns of development that have made a significant contribution t o th e hi storical, archaeo logical, cultu ral, social, historical, economic, a esthetic, engineering, or architectu ral development of the City, State, or nation; or
b. The proposed Historic Landmark is associated with persons significant in local, State, or national history; or
c. The propo sed Historic L andmark embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, o r method of construction, or is an example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or it is a significant example of the work of a n otable b uilder, designer, or architect; or
d. The proposed Historic Landmark has yielded or has the potential to yield, information important to the hi story or prehistory of the City, State, or nation.
3. The proposed Historic Landmark retains those aspects of historic integrity that convey the reason for its significance.
B. Procedure f or Desi gnating a Historic Landmark . The designation of Historic Landmarks shall be processed in the following manner:
36 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 10
1. Application. A nomination for designation as a Historic Landmar k may be initiated by any resident of t he City. If the Applicant is not the Property Owner, the Director shall, w ithin 10 days of receipt of the nom ination, notify the Property Owner in writing that a nomination for designation has been submitted.
2. Historic Preservation C ommission Hearing. The D irector shall schedule a public hear ing bef ore the Historic Preservation Commission on nominations for Histor ic Landmark designation within 90 days of the application being deemed complete, or as reasonable. The Histo ric Preservation Commissi on s hall make a recommendation to the City Council on the listing of the property for Historic Landmark designation based o n the criteria for designating a Historic Landmark.
3. Interim Protection. No on -site activities, other than ro utine maintenance and rep air, that coul d affect any character -defining feature or the historic integrity of the p roposed Historic Landmark, shall be permitted during the time period from nomination submittal through City Council consideration.
4. City Counci l He aring. As s oon as is feasible after receiving the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission, the City Council shall consider the pr oposed Historic Landmark
designation. Within 180 days from the application being deemed complete, the City C ouncil m ust decide on the proposed designation. Failure by the City Council to act within 180 days will result in the nomination request being automatically denied without prejudice.
5. Notice of Designation. If the City Council approves a proposed Historic Landmark design ation, not ice of the Cit y Council’s decision shall be sent to the Applicant and Property Owner.
C. Automatic Designation of Historic Landmarks. Any property in the City listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the Cali fornia Register of Historical Resources, or as a County of Santa Barbara Historic La ndmark or County of Santa Barbara Place of Historic Merit as of January 1, 2021, shall be automatically designated a City Historic Landmark.
17.33.050 Amendment to or Resci ssion of the Status of an ind ividual Historic Resource
A. Procedure. Amendment to or rescission of the status of an individual historic resource shall be processed in the same manner as provided for in Section
17.33.040(B).
B. Required Findings. In order to ame nd or re scind a Histori c Land mark designation, or remove or amend a historic resource listed in the HRI, the City Council must make the finding that the historic resource no longer meets the finding for designation or inclusion in the HRI due to:
37 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 11
1. New info rmation that was not av ailable at the time of t he evaluation or historic designatio n that compromises the historic significance of the property; or
2. Destruction of the historic resource through a catastrophic event that has rendered the building, structure, or object a hazard to public health, safety, or welfare; or
3. Demolition of the historic resource.
17.33.060 Historic Districts
A. Criteria for Design ating a H istoric District. A contiguous grouping of properties that relate to each other in a distinguishabl e way or in a geographically definable area shall be designated as a Historic Distr ict, if the City Council finds that the grouping of properties meets the following criteria:
1. It possesses a significant concentration of properties united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development; and
2. It meets one or more of the crite ria for designation in Section
17.33.040(A)(2); and
3. A minimum of 60 percen t of the properties within the proposed Historic District are identified as Contributors to the His toric District’s significance; and
4. The Historic District collectively retains those aspects of historic integrity that convey the reason for its significance.
B. Criteria for Identifying Contributors to a Historic District. The City Council designation of a H istoric District shall include a list of contri buting properties within the Histori c Distr ict. All contributors must satisfy the following three requirements:
1. The property adds to the historic associations or historic architectural qualities for which the Historic District is significant; and
2. The property was present during the period of significance for the Historic District; and
3. The property retains sufficient historic integrity to convey its significance.
C. Procedure for Designating a Historic District and Contributors. The designation of Historic Dist ricts and contributors shall be proc essed i n the following manner:
1. Application. A nomination for desi gnation o f a H istoric District may be initiated by any resident of the city.
2. Owner Consent. At the time the nomination is submitte d, the Applicant shall s ubmit documentation by letter or pet ition t hat a minimum of 51 percent of the Property Owners within the propo sed H istoric District support the nomination.
3. Owner Notification. The Director shall, within 10 day s of rec eipt of a nomination, notify all Property Owners within the proposed Historic District in writing that a nomination for designation has been submitted.
4. Historic Preservation Commission Hearing. The Director shall schedule a public hearing before the Historic Preservation Commission on 38 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 12 nominations for Historic District designation within 90 days of the nomination being deemed complete, or as re asonable. The Historic Preservation Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the eligib ility of the potential Historic D istrict and th e list of contributors for historic designation based on the criteria for designating a Historic District and the criteria for identifying contributors.
5. Interim Protection. No on-site activities, other than ro utine maintenance and repair, that could affect any character-defining feature or t he historic integrity of any property within the potential Histor ic Distri ct, s hall be permitted during the time period from nomination submittal through City Council consideration.
6. City Council Hearing. As soon as is f easible after receiving the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Commission, the City Council shall co nsider approval of the Historic District and the specific contributors within the Historic District . Within 180 days from the nomination being dee med complete, the City Council must decide on the proposed designation. Failure by the City Council to act withi n 180 days will result in the nomination request being automatically denied without prejudice.
7. Notice of Des ignation. If the City Council approves a proposed Historic District designation, notice of the City Council's decision shall be sent to the Applicant and all Property Owners within the Historic District.
D. Amendment or Rescission of a Historic District Designation.
1. Procedure. Amendment to o r rescission of the status of a Hist oric District shall be processed in the same manner as pr ovided fo r in Section 17.33.060(C).
2. Required Finding. In order to rescind or amend the designation of a Historic D istrict or a contributor, the City Council must make at least one of the following findings:
a. New information that was not available at the time of t he historic designation compromises the historic significance of the Historic District or the contributor; or
b. Destruction of th e H istoric Di strict or cont ributor through a catastrophic event has rendered it a hazard to public health, safety, or general welfare; or
c. A contributor has been demolished or relocated outside of the Historic District.
17.33.070 Points of Historical Interest
A. Criteria for Identifying a Point of Historical Interest. A building, structure, object, or site may be identified as a Point of Historical Interest, which is not a historic resource, if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. It is the site of a building, structure, or object that no longer exists or has been al tered, but was associated with historic events or important persons, or otherwise has significant cultural or historic significance; or 39 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 13
2. It is the site of a h istoric event which h as no di stinguishable physical characteristics.
B. Procedure for Identifyi ng a Po int of Historical Interest. A Point of Historical Interest shall be identified by the Historic Preservation Commission in the manner identified in Section 17 .33.0470(A)(1-2) and adopted by the City Council. The Hi storic Preservation Commission shall maintain the listing of identified Points of Historical Interest.
C. Rescission of a Point of Historical Interest. Rescission of the listing of a Point of Historical Interest shall be pro cessed i n t he same ma nner as the original identification and shall be b ased on a determination that the criterion of original identification is no longer met.
17.33.080 Design Review of Alterations to Historic Resources This Section e stablishes the review process for proposed alterations to historic resources.
A. Compliance wi th Sect ion. It shall be unlawful for any person, Proper ty Owner, or entity t o alter any historic resource directly or indirectly except as provided herein. Alterat ions to historic resou rces to add an attach ed Accessory D welling Unit are subject to t he requ irements of Section
17.41.030(F)(8) only.
B. Alterations that are Exempt from Design Review. The provisions for the Design Review of proposed alterations to histori c resour ces shall not b e construed to prevent ordinary maintenance and repair which does not change the design, materials, architectural features, o r character-defining features of a historic resource. The exemptions outlined in Section 17.58.020 apply to historic resources, with the following exceptions:
1. The proposed alteration will affec t an ide ntified character-defining feature of the historic resource.
2. All proposed additions to historic resources are subject to Design Review.
C. Criteria and Procedure for Director Review of Alterations.
1. Required Fi ndings. The Di rector shall approve the pla ns and D esign Review Board review is not required if the following findings are made:
a. The proposed alteration is minor and clearly meets any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City Council; or
b. In the absence of applicable design guidelines, the proposed alteration is minor and clearly meets the relevant Sec retary of the Interior ’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; and c. The proposed alteration will not diminish, eliminate, or adversely affect the charac ter, character -defining feat ures, or historic integrity of the historic resource; and
d. Any changes to the propose d alteration requested by the Director are agreed to by the Applicant.
2. Changes to the Plans. No changes shall be made to the project once the Director has approved the plans withou t resub mitting to the Director for approval of the changes.
40 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 14 D. Criteria and Pro cedure for Historic Preservation Commission and Design Review Board Review of Alterations.
1. Historic Preservation Commission Review. The review and decision on the design review for projects involving historic resources will be undertaken by the Design Review Board as outlined in Section 17.58.060, with a recommendation from the Historic Pre servation Commission. T he Historic Preservation Commission will review the application materials and make a recommendation to the Design Review Boar d for con sideration prior to Preliminary Review as outlined in subsection 17.58.060(B).
2. Required Findings. The Hi storic Preservatio n Comm ission shall ma ke recommendations, and the Design Review Board sh all decide based on one of the following findings:
a. The proposed alteration i s found to be consistent with any applicable design standards or guidelines adopted by the City Council; or b. In the absen ce of appl icable design standards or guidelines, the proposed alter ation is found to be consistent w ith the r elevant Secretary of the In terior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; or
c. There is sufficient evidence, includi ng evide nce provide d by the Applicant, that denial of the proposed alteration w ould ca use an immediate hardship because of condi tions unique to the specifi c property.
17.33.090 Demolition of Historic Resources
A. Process. Demolition o f a historic resource may be pe rmitted onl y with the issuance of a Major Conditional Use Permit unless determined necessary by the Building Official as outlined in subsection 17.29.010(B)(3).
B. Additional Requirements. The Applicant shall submit a cost analysis for the rehabilitation and reuse of t he property and a report by a structural engineer on the feasibility of relocation.
C. Findings. The fin dings of Section 17.52.070 are not applicable for the demolition of a historic resource. In order to approve the demolition of a historic resource, the Hi storic Pre servation Comm ission must make a recommendation, a nd the Planning Commission must decide, based on the following findings:
1. The proposed action is consistent with the intent of this Ordi nance and is supportive of the identified goals and policies of the General Plan; and
2. Any significant environmental impa cts are mitigated to the max imum extent feasible; and
3. The demolition will no t have a significant negative effect on the achievement of the purposes of this Title; and
4. One of the following:
41 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 15 a. The potential negative effects are outweighed by the benefits of th e associated replacement project, as applicable; or
b. There is sufficient evid ence, including evidence provided by the Applicant, that the historic resource retains no reasonable economic use and re tention of the historic resource would cause undue economic hardship, considering the his toric resource’s condition, location, the curre nt mar ket value, and the costs of rehabilitation to meet the requirements of the building code or other City, state, or federal law; or
c. There is sufficient evidence, including evid ence pr ovided by the Applicant, that relocation of the historic resource is infeasible; or d. The demolition is necessary to protec t or pro mote the health, safety, or welfare of the reside nts of the city, including the need to eliminate blight or nuisance, or correct an unsafe o r dangero us condition of the property.
D. Demolition of Po tential Historic Resources . If structure is more t han 50 years old but not listed in the HRI is proposed for demolition, the Director may require a historic resources assessment re port pr epared by a Q ualified Preservation Professional to determine whether the re al property should be considered for potential inclusion in the HR I and therefore subject to the provisions of 17.33.040(A-C).
E. Demolition Permits.
1. Zoning Permit associated with the demolition of a hist oric resource shall not be issued until develop ment p lans for that site have secured plan check approval unless the demolition is approved to abate an unsaf e or dangerous condition.
2. If a hist oric resource is demolished without approval of both a Zoning Permit and demolition permit, no building or construction -related permits shall be issued and no permits or use of the property shall be allowed from the date of demolition for a period of three years for residential properties, and five years for non-residential properties.
17.33.100 Review of Projects Affecting City-Owned Historic Resources The Historic Preservation Commission shall review projec ts affecting City-owned historic resources and make an advisory recommendation to City Council.
17.33.110 Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
In addition to any other incentive of f ederal or State law, Property Owners of designated Historic Landmarks or contributors to a designated Histori c District may apply for a Mills Ac t contract under Government Code Sec tions 5 0280- 50290.
A. Historic Preservation Commission Review. The Historic Pre servation Commission will review Mills A ct applications and make recom mendations to the City Council.
B. City C ouncil Auth orization. The City Coun cil may, in its sole discretion, authorize the execution of all Mills Act contracts.
42 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 16 C. Cancellation or Modificati on. A Mills Act contract may be cancelle d or modified if the City Coun cil finds, after written notice to the Property Owner, either of the following conditions:
1. The Property Owner is responsible for noncompliance with any terms or conditions in the contrac t, or any provision in this Chapter, or misrepresentation or fraud was used in the process of obtaining the contract; or
2. The prope rty has been d estroyed by fire, earthquake, floodi ng, or other calamity, or it has been taken by eminent domain.
D. Penalty for C ancellation Due to Noncompli ance. If a M ills Act contract is cancelled due to Section 17.33.110(C)(1), the Pr operty Owner shall be liable to the City for a cancellation fee equal t o 12.5 percent of the curre nt fair market value of the property or as provided for in applicable State law.
17.33.120 Maintenance of Historic Resources
A. Maintenance Requirements . Histori c resources shall be maintained in a state that clearly furthers the co ntinued availability of the historic resource for lawful reasonable uses and prevents deterioration, di lapidation, decay, an d neglect of such resource, including demolition by neglect.
B. Failure to Meet the M aintenance Req uirements. In addition to any other penalty authorized by law, failure to maintain a historic resource as specif ied in this Section shall constitute a public nuisance pursuant to Chapter 12.13 of the GMC.
C. Economic Hardshi p. The Dire ctor may d elay the enfor cement of the maintenance requirements in this Section if the following conditions are met:
1. There is sufficient evidence provided by the P roperty Owner that th e maintenance requirements would cause an undue hardship, considering the property ’s condition, current market value, and the costs of maintenance; and
2. The delay in enforcing the maintenance requirements will not result in the loss of character-defining features of the property; and
3. The delay in enforcing the maint enance requirements will not result in an unsafe or dangerous condition or create a blight or nuisance.
SECTION H. Chapter 17.43 Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources is added to Title 17 as follows:
Chapter 17.43 Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Sections:
17.43.010 Purpose and Intent
17.43.020 Applicability
17.43.030 Site Assessment and Permit Requirements for Non-Exempt Development
17.43.040 Development Standards
17.43.050 Native American Communication
43 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 17
17.43.010 Purpose and Intent
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish standards for new development that is subject to discretionary or ministerial review and that could impact sensitive and protected Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resources including sites, places, and landscapes of docume nted tradition al cultural significance, within the City.
This Chapt er outlines the procedures and criteria for the identificat ion and protection of these resources. Specifically, this Chapter is intended to:
A. Preserve and protect Arc haeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resources in accordance with PRC § 21084.3(b)(2), including:
1. Protect the cultural character and integrity of th e Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resource.
2. Protect the tra ditional use of the Archaeological a nd/or Tribal Cultural Resource.
3. Protect the confidentiality of the Archaeologic al and /or Tribal Cultural Resource.
B. Foster awareness, recognition, and stewa rdship of the City’s Archaeologic al and/or Tribal Cultural Resources; and
C. Protect, restore, and enhance significant Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resources, such as native villages; seasona l campsit es; burial site s; stone tool quarry sites; hunting sites; traditional trails; sites with rock carvings or paintings; documented sacred sites and places of traditional cultural value, as identified by local Tribes including areas t raditionally used to gather plants for food, medicinal, or economic purposes ; an d objects, features, and artifact scatters, including agricultural, ranch ing, mining, irrigation, utilit y, an d transportation-related featur es (e.g., canals, fences, roads, ref use sca tters, etc.).
Consistent with Government Code section 6254(r) (the “Public Records Act”) and Public Resources Code 21 802.3(c) (“AB 52”) , Native American archeological resources and tribal cultural resources records collected from trib es and the Native American Heritage Commission pursuant to this Chapter are exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act.
17.43.020 Applicability
Unless exempted, new development that requires earth-disturbing activities shall be subject to the regulati ons and reporting requirements o f th is Chapter . This Section outlines the Exempt and Non-Exempt project types.
A. Exempt Development. The following development is exempt from the requirements of this Chapter unless development is determined to be subject to 17.43.020(B):
1. Improvements/work that do not require or are expressly exempt from a building permit as provided in Section 105 .2 of the 2019 California Building Code as amended irrespective of the presen ce of native or disturbed soils. This subsection does not apply to block or retaini ng 44 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 18 walls or tree plantings that dis turb native soils of greater than four (4) cubic feet of native soils. As of the 2019 California Buil ding Code, the following improvements/work are exempt from building permit requirements include but are not limited to:
a. One-story detached accessory structures of less than 120 square feet without foundation.
b. Fences not over 7 feet high , ex cluding block walls and retaining walls.
c. Sidewalks and driveways not more than 30 inches above adjacent grade and not over any baseme nt or story below and area not part of an accessible route.
d. Prefabricated swimming pools accessory to a Group R -3 occupancy that are le ss than 24 inches deep , are not grea ter than 5,000 gallons and are installed entirely above ground level. e. Swings and other playground equipmen t ac cessory to detached one- and two-family dwellings.
f. Temporary motion picture, television, and th eater stage se ts and scenery,
g. Shade cloth structur es constructed for nurser y or agric ultural purposes, not including service systems.
h. Oil derricks.
i. Water tanks supported directly on g rade if the capacity is not greater than 5,000 gallons and the ratio of the height to diameter or width is not greater than 2:1.
2. Earth-disturbing activities affecting four cubic feet or less of native soils or no native soils and not located within a do cumented archaeological site and/or Tribal Cultural Resourc e. Four cubic feet of disturbance of native soils is measured indi vidually unless each disturbance occurs less than e ight (8) feet apar t (typical distance for footings). Examples include but are not limited to:
a. Ongoing, active agricu ltural operations in areas continuous ly used for crop cultivation.
b. A city project that does not involve earth disturbance beyond the footprint (width, length, and depth) of the existing facility or plant or tree.
c. A utility project within a n existing road rig ht-of-way that does not exceed the depth of the lowest utility line found within the affected block of road right-of-way where the project is located. d. Irrigation lines, landscaping, and footings for fences, patio covers, and similar minor acc essory improv ements that reuse previously excavated/disturbed areas.
3. Unless exempted b y 17.43.020(A)(1), earth-disturbing area is located within a p reviously disturbed area where evidence, as documented in as-builts plans, previous grading p lans, or other documentary evidence, is provided that the previous earth disturbance aff ected depths equal to or greater than the development being considered; or 45 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 19
4. Interior alterations and improvements to existing structures that do not involve earth-disturbing activities.
5. Proposed areas of earth disturbance of more than 4 (four) cubic feet of native soils that meet at least one of the following criteria:
a. Emergency Proj ects as defi ned by Public Resources Code §21060.3 undertaken by the city, another public agency, or utility. b. A previous Preliminary Archaeolog ical Assessment (PAA) or a Phase 1 Repo rt was prepared within the last five years by a Qualified Archaeologist that includes t he proposed di sturbance area and documents that there are no documen ted resources within the proposed earth-disturbing area and the proposed earth- disturbing area has lit tle t o no potenti al to con tain subsurface Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resources.
B. Non-Exempt D evelopment. The following development is not exemp t and shall comply with the requirements of this Chapter.
1. Earth-disturbing activities of any depth or size that are located within a documented archaeological site and/or Tribal Cultural Resource; and
2. Earth-disturbing activities of more than four (4) cubic feet of native soils that are not located within a documented a rchaeological site and/or Tribal Cultural Resource and do not meet the exemptions listed above in subsection 17.43.020(A).
17.43.030 Site Assessment and P ermit Requirements fo r Non -Exempt Development
A. Assessment Level Requi rements. Non-exempt developments are subject to the following:
1. A PAA shall be required when the proposed earth-disturbing area is located within a paved, developed, or ornamental landscaped area. a. If the PAA reveals that the p roposed distu rbance area does not contain a documented Archaeo logical and/or Tribal Cultural Resource and the propose d area where earth-disturbing activities are propo sed has little or n o potential to contain subsurfa ce Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultura l Resources as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist, no further review is necessary, and the development is subj ect to the permit outl ined in subsection
17.43.030(B)(1).
b. If the PAA reveals that the pr oposed area where earth-disturbing activities are proposed cont ains or potential ly contains Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resources as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist, then the development sh all be subject to the req uirements outlin ed in subsections 17.43.030(A)(3) and (B)(2).
2. A Phase 1 Report shall be required when the proposed earth- disturbing area is located within an area that is no t paved, developed, or is not located in an ornamental la ndscaped area. This applies even 46 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 20 if the earth surface has sustained previous disturbances from gr ading, vegetation clearance, or other modifications.
a. If the P hase 1 report reveals that the proposed earth disturbance area does not contain a documented Arch aeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resourc e and the proposed earth disturbance area has little or no potential to contain subsur face Archaeological and/or Tribal Cu ltural Resources, no further review is necessary an d subject to the permit outlined in subsection 17.43.030(B)(1). b. If the Phase 1 rep ort reveals that the proposed earth disturbance contains or potential ly contains Archa eological and/or Tr ibal Cultural Resources, then the development shall b e s ubject to th e requirements outlined in subsections 17.43.030(A)(3) and (B)(2).
3. An Extended Phase 1 Report shall be required, if it is determined in the judgment of Qualified Archaeologist when preparing a PAA or Phase 1 report, that A rchaeological and/or Tribal Cultu ral Resources could be present. A local Chumash monitor s hall be invi ted to observe the Extended Phase 1 field work at the applicant’s expense.
a. If the Extended Phase 1 report rev eals that the propose d ea rth disturbance area does not contai n a documented Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resource and the proposed earth disturbance area has little or no potential to contain subsurface Archaeological and/or Tribal Cult ural Resour ces, no further revie w is necessary, and the development is s ubject to the permit outlined in subsection
17.43.030(B)(1).
b. If the Ext ended Phase 1 report revea ls tha t the proposed earth disturbance are a contains or potentially c ontains Archaeolo gical and/or Tribal Cultural Res ources, then the development shall be subject to th e pe rmit requirements outlined in subsection
17.43.030(B)(2).
B. Permit Requirements. In addition to any other permits/approval needed pursuant to the provisions of Title 17, the following permits are required of non-exempt development:
1. Zoning C learance. A Zoning Clearance shall be required for development subjec t to the sit e assessment p rovisions of
17.43.030(A)(1)(a), 17.43.030(A)(2)(a), 17.43.030(A)(3)(a)
2. Minor Conditio nal Use Per mit. A Minor CUP is required for development on a site that h as Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resources as ide ntified in subs ection 17.43 .030(A)(1)(b),
17.43.030(A)(2)(b), and 17.43.030(A)(3)(b).
17.43.040 Development Standards
A. The fo llowing sta ndards are applicable to all permits issued under this chapter:
47 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 21
1. If unanticipated discovery of Archaeo logical and/or Tr ibal Cultural Resources occ urs during earth-disturbing activities, earth-disturbing activities must be stopped immediately until a Qualified Archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the Archaeo logical and/or Tribal Cultural Reso urce pursuant to stand ards set forth in Council Resolution No. 08-40, Environmental Thresh olds and Guidelines Manual as amended, and local Chumash Tribal Representative(s) can evaluate the importance of the find.
2. If human r emains are uncovered as a result of e arth-disturbing activities, wo rk must stop i mmediately and the P lanning and Environmental Review Department mu st b e contacted, and the Applicant must follow the procedures iden tified by Public Resources Code § 5097.98.
3. As applicable, recommendations ident ified in the Prel iminary Archaeological Asse ssment, Phase 1 repo rt, or Extended Phase 1 report and agreed upon by the City, must be implemented and printed on the approved building plans.
B. For development that is sub ject t o the Minor CUP requirement of subsection 17.43.030 (B)(2), on -site monitoring by a qua lified Archaeological Monitor and local Chumash Native Ame rican consultant/monitor shall be required for all grading, excava tion, and site preparation that involves earth-disturbing activity.
17.43.050 Native American Communication
Development that is subject to the requirements of this Chapter shall be subject to the following requirements.
A. For all development requiring a Mi nor CUP and subject to California Environmental Quality Act review, the City shall consult with C alifornia Native American Tribes in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1.
B. For al l de velopment req uiring ministeria l approval for which a Prelimina ry Archaeological Asses sment or a Phase 1 R eport is prepared, th e City will make the studies available to Native American Tribes upon request.
SECTION I. Chapter 17.50 Revie w Authorities of Title 17 is amend ed as follows:
A. Section 17.50.030 is hereby amended to add subsections I and J:
I. Acts as the Review Authority to designate eligible properties a s Historic Landmarks, Histo ric Dis tricts, and P oints of Historical Interest within the City. Also acts as the Review Authority for rescission of or amendment t o a historic designation.
J. Acts as Review Authority to grant Mills Act Contracts.
B. Section 17.50.070 is hereby amended to add subsection D:
48 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 22 D. Act as the Review Authority to grant Desig n Rev iew to Histor ic Resources upon recommendation of the Historic Preservation Commission.
C. Section 17.50.080 is hereby added to read as follows:
The Hi storic Pre servation Commission has th e following po wers a nd duties under this Title in addition to the responsibilities established in Ti tle 2 of the Goleta Municipal Co de. The Historic Preservation Commissi on shall be an advisory bo ard to the City Council , Planning Commission, Design Review Board, City Ma nager, and all City departments on all matters rela ted t o historic pr eservation. The H istoric Preservation Commission shall have the power and it shall be its duty to perform the following acts:
1. Review historic resources surveys and make recommendations to the City Council on periodic updates to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
2. Review nominations for historic desi gnations and make recommendations to t he City Council t hat certa in sites, buildings, s tructures, objects, or districts meeting one or more of the eligibility criteria in Sections 17.33.040 and 17.33.060 be designated as Historic Landmarks or Historic Districts.
3. Review properties identified for listing as Points of Hist orical Interest and make recommendations to the City Council.
4. Review and m ake re commendations on any proposed design guidelin es that may be dev eloped by the city for project review or review o f appropriate alterations or new construction within Historic Districts.
5. Review and recommend to the City Council the amendment or recission of any historic designation.
6. Make recommendations to the Design Review Board on projects involving alterations to historic resources.
7. Review and make adv isory recommendations on p rojects affecting City - owned historic resources.
8. Review Mill s Act a pplications a nd make recommendations to the City Council.
9. Make recommendations to the Planning Commission and the City Counci l on policies related to historic preservation in the General Plan.
10. Advise the City Council and other commissions, as reques ted, on historic preservation issues.
11. Perform any other functions as may be designated by the City Council.
SECTION J. Section 17.50.060(A)(15) of Title 17 is amended as followings
A. The following tasks is added to the Director’s duties and responsibilities:
15. Develop a li sting and map of parcels within the city that are known to contain all or a port ion of a documented Archaeologic al and/or Tribal Cultural Resource. This list and map shall:
a) Be used by the c ity to advise applic ants and their qualified archaeological c onsultants whether the site of a proposed development is within an area that has been identified as sensitive for Arch aeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resour ces. The list and 49 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 23 map of documented resources shall be ke pt confidential, only used by the cit y, local tribal members, and qualified archaeologists, and shall not be r eleased to the pu blic or individual landowners/ applicants/developers.
b) Include i nformation available f rom the ap propriate Information Center (IC) for Santa Barbara County and other relevant sources. c) Be developed in consultation with the Tribal Chair of the Barbareño Band of Mission Indians , Coastal Band of Chu mash Nation, Santa Ynez Band of C humash Indians, and Ventureño Band of Mi ssion Indians, and a Qualified Archaeologist.
d) Be upda ted as the city receives new rele vant inform ation from archaeological studies, m onitoring reports, and other related communications and consultations.
SECTION K. Chapter 17.73 L ist of T erms and Definitions of Title 17 is amended as follows:
The following terms are a dded to the List o f Terms (Sectio n 17.73.010) and to Definitions (17.73.020):
1. Archaeological Resource. An artif act, object , or site constitutin g m aterial remains of past human life or activities.
2. California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). A system of records that consists of data from the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Informati on Centers (ICs), and the State Historical Re sources Commission (SHRC).
3. California Register of Historical Resources (CR HR). A State register that includes build ings, sites, st ructures, objects , and dis tricts significant in the architectural, engineering, s cientific, economic, agricultura l, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California that meet the criteria for designation in the CRHR as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1, as amended.
4. California Sta te Historical Building Code (SHBC). Title 24, Building Standards, Part 8, California Code of Regulations.
5. California Register of Historical Resources. Buildings, si tes, structures, objects, and dis tricts significan t in the architectural, eng ineering, scien tific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California that meet the criteria for designat ion in the California Register as defined in California Public Resources Code Sect ion 50 20.1, as it may be amended.
6. Character-Defining Fe atures. The essential physical f eatures t hat convey why a building, structure, object, site, or Historic District is so cially, culturally, or architecturally si gnificant based on the applicabl e criteri a for designation and when it was significant (period of significance).
50 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 24
7. Contributor. Any property located within a Historic District, which adds to the historic associations or histo ric ar chitectural qualities for w hich the Histor ic District is si gnificant; was present duri ng the period o f significance for the Historic D istrict; and retain s sufficient hi storic integrity t o conve y its significance. Contributors to designated Hi storic D istricts are co nsidered historic resources, as is the Historic District overall.
8. Demolition. When either: (1) more than 50 perce nt of the e xterior walls of a building or structure are removed or are no longer necessary and integral structural components of the overall building; or (2) mo re than 50 perc ent of the exteri or wall e lements are remove d, including, w ithout limitation, the cladding, columns, studs, cri pple walls, or similar vertical l oad-bearing elements and associated footings, windows, o r doors. Existing exterior walls supporting a roof that is being modified to accommodate a new floor level or roofline will continue to b e considered necessary and int egral structural components, providing the existing wall elements remain in place and pro vide necessary structural support to the building upon c ompletion of the roofline modifications. Dem olition as spec ifically applied to hi storic reso urces is destruction or alteration that is so extensive that significant character-defining features are los t, the h istoric charact er of a historic r esource is comp letely removed an d cannot be rep aired or rep laced, and the resource no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance.
9. Discretionary Review. The review of a project that requires the e xercise of judgment or deliberation and a s distinguished from situations where the City merely has t o determine wh ether there has been co nformity wi th objective standards i n a pplicable st atutes, ordin ances, or regulations. Discretionary Review includes rev iew by a Review Author ity on any of the f ollowing:
Coastal Development Pe rmits wit hin th e Appeals Ju risdiction, Co nditional Use Permits, Demolition of a historic resou rce, Design Review a nd Overall Sign Plan s reviewed by the Design Review Board, Developmen t Plans, General Plan Amendments, Modific ations, Government Code Consistency Determination, Specific Plans, Time E xtensions, Variances, Z oning Ordinance Amendments, and Zoning Map Amendments.
10. Earth-Disturbing Activities. All activities that require disturb ance of earth, dirt, ground, or soils (na tive and non -native soils), including but not limited to grading, grubbin g, trenching, post -hole digging, a nd excavation for foundations, fencing, utilities, and other infrastructure.
11. Exceptional Importance . A measure of a property’s im portance within the appropriate hi storic context. T he term m ay be applied to t he extraordina ry importance of an eve nt or to an entire category of r esources so fragile that survivors of any age are unusual. A property that has achieved significance within t he past fifty years can be evaluat ed only when suff icient hi storical perspective exists to d etermine that the prope rty is exce ptionally important.
The necessary pers pective can b e provi ded by scholarly research and evaluation and must consider both the his toric context and t he specific property’s role in t hat conte xt. In justifying exceptional im portance, it is necessary to identify other properties within the geographical area that reflect 51 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 25 the same significance or historic association s and to determine whi ch properties best represent the historic context in question.
12. Historic Distri ct. A signific ant concentration, link age, or con tinuity of properties united historically or aesthet ically in a distinguishable way or in a geographically d efinable area that mee t the criteria for designation. Hi storic Districts are composed of contributors and non-contributors.
13. Historic Inte grity. The ability of an individ ual historic resource or Histor ic District to convey its significance, with considerati on of th e following aspects of historic i ntegrity as def ined by the Natio nal Park Service: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association as defined below. a. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or th e place where the historic event occurred.
b. Design is the combination of e lements that create the for m, plan, space , structure, and style of a property.
c. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. d. Materials are the physical elements that wer e combin ed or deposited during a particul ar period of ti me and in a parti cular pat tern o r configuration to form a historic property.
e. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. f. Feeling is a property’s expre ssion of the ae sthetic or histor ic sense of a particular period of time.
g. Association is the dire ct link bet ween an important his toric event or person and a historic property.
14. Historic Landmark . A building, structur e, objec t, or site tha t has been officially designated through City Council action.
15. Historic Resourc e. A Historic Landmark designated by the City Co uncil, a Historic District and the identified contributors designated by the City Council, and any building, structure, object, or site listed in the City Historic Resources Inventory as adopted by the City Council.
16. Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). The list of buildings, s tructures, objects, sites, Hist oric Di stricts and their contributors that are formally adopted by City Council Resolution.
17. Historic Resources Survey. The syste matic and standardized proc ess conducted by a Qualified Preserva tion Profes sional, including his torical research a nd field work , for i dentifying and gathering data on the City’s potential his toric resources for the purpose o f evaluating th e resources per City, State, and/or federal criteria.
18. Information Centers (ICs). The offici al repository for a g iven c ounty for cultural resources reports and site records as part of CHRIS.
19. National Register Of H istoric Places. The nation’ s official inve ntory of districts, sites, buildings, struct ures and objec ts significant in Ameri can history, architecture, arche ology and culture which is main tained by the Secretary of the Interior under the author ity of t he Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq., 36 C.F.R. Sections 60, 63).
52 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 26
20. Native American Consultant/Monitor. A person who has been d esignated or authorized by a Chumash Native American Tri be to mo nitor construction activities and to serve as an on-site represen tative of the T ribe; has be en trained to work around constructio n equipment; and has been traine d t o recognize potential Tribal Cultural Resources.
21. Native Soils. The original (i.e., non-fill) sedi ments th at have not been previously disturbed from past grading or excavation activities.
22. Non-Contributor. Any property lo cated within a Historic District which does not add to the hist oric associations or historic architectural qualities fo r which the Hi storic D istrict is signific ant; was not pr esent during the period of significance for the Historic D istrict; or does not re tain suffic ient historic integrity to convey its s ignificance. Non-contributors to designated Historic Districts are not considered historic resources.
23. Period Of Significance . The length of t ime durin g which a property was associated with important events , activities, or persons, or att ained the characteristics which qualify it for designation. A period of significance us ually begins w ith the date when significa nt activities o r events began at the property; this is ofte n the date of construction. A histori c place may have multiple periods of significance, but those periods must be strictly demarcated by year.
24. Phase 1 Report. A study prepared by a Qualified Archaeologist, that consists of an analysis of the property’s potential for surface and buried Archaeological and Tribal Cultural reso urces and identification of the location, b oundaries, and extent of any cultural resour ces located on the property, and a review of all of the following fo r the sub ject parcel and surrounding area: (1) city -wide archaeological sensitiv ity map; (2) environm ental factors incl uding geology ; geomorphology; ecotones; water sources; availability a nd types of potentially exploited or used resources; and potential f or caves, rock shelters, and mountain peaks; and (3) aerial phot ographs and hist oric maps to determin e presence of other potential factors affecting the presence or absence of either a pre historic or hi storical site (e.g., parcel is in a r iver bottom). A P hase 1 Report requires a records search with the appropriate IC for Santa Barbara County to identify documented Archaeo logical Resources an d previous studies in and near the project site a nd requires on -site examination of the property by the Archaeologist, including a surface survey on foot.
25. Phase 1 Report, Extended. A report that includes all of the components of a Phase 1 Report, al ong wit h e xcavation of limited shovel test pits or other subsurface survey, as determined necessa ry by the Qualified Archaeologist for a co mplete analysis o f the pro perty to contain buried archaeological resources.
26. Point Of Historical Interes t. A building, struc ture, object, or site that no longer exists or ha s been altered and therefore does not mee t the criteria for designation as a Historic La ndmark, but which was associated with histor ic events or imp ortant persons, or ot herwise has signif icant cultura l or hi storic associations; or is the site of a historic event w hich h as no distinguishable physical characteristics.
53 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 27
27. Preliminary Archaeological Assessment. A site-specific report prepared by a qualified Archaeologist to assess the potential for the project area to contain Archaeological and Tribal Cultural re sources and will determine the necessity for a Phase 1 Report. The assessment includes a review of all of the following for sub ject parcel and surro unding area: (1) prio r archaeological s urvey(s) and reports; (2) resources listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and/or the CRHR; (3) known archaeological site(s) including distance to subject pa rcel, natur e, and typ e; (4) city -wide archaeological sensiti vity map; (5) environmental factors including geology; geomorphology; ecotones; water sources; availability an d types of potentially exploited or used r esources; and pot ential f or caves, rock shel ters, and mountain pe aks; (6) known and po tential h istorical resources in cluding distance to subject parcel; nature; location rel ative to historical town core and historical t ransportation rou tes, incl uding rail, road, and trails ; po tential for privies bas ed on date of sewer l ine installation; and locations of stru ctures and in frastructure assessed by inspection of historical map; a nd (7) a erial photographs and historic ma ps to determine presen ce of oth er potentia l factors affecting the presence or absence of either a prehistoric or historical site (e.g., parcel is in a river bottom).
28. Preservation. The act or process of applying mea sures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic resource.
29. Qualified Archaeologist. A person who meets the minimum education and qualifications in arch aeology, anthropology, or closely related field to qualify as a Principal Investigator for Archaeology, as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CF R Part 61, h as a t least five years of p rofessional archaeology experience in Sant a Barbara County, and is famili ar with the local Chumash culture.
30. Qualified Archaeological Monitor. A person who has a bachelor’s degree in Anthropology, Archa eology, or related field; ha s at least one year of experience in c onducting archaeological fieldw ork in California and is experienced in the recognition of prehistoric and histori c-age archaeological materials; has been train ed to work around construction equipment; and who is actively supervised by a qualified Archaeologist.
31. Qualified Preservatio n P rofessional. A per son who meets the mi nimum qualifications in history, archaeology, arc hitectural his tory, architecture, or historic architecture as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61.
32. Rehabilitation. As it app lies to historic r esources, the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property w hich are significant to it s historic, archit ectural, and cultural values.
33. Traditional Cultural Significance. This refers to the value of a p lace or object for its aesthetic, historic, social, or spiritual value for p ast, present, or future generations Traditional cultural significance is embodied in the place or 54 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 28 object, its fabric, setting, use, association, and meaning and differs from scientific value.
34. Tribal Cultural Resou rce. Cultural Res ources in clude Native Ame rican archaeological sites and area of natural landscap e that hav e t raditional cultural significance. Further, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21074(a), a resource that consists of un ique or non -unique sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacr ed pl aces, and objects with cultural va lue to a California Native American Tribe and that are:
a. Included in or determi ned to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR);
b. Included in a local register of historical resources; or c. Determined by the lead agenc y, in its discre tion and s upported with substantial evidence, to be significant on the basis of criteria for listing in the CRHR after the l ead agen cy takes into consideratio n the significance to the Tribe(s).
SECTION L. Amendment to Section 12.13.030 Public Nuisance Designated.
A. Section 12.13.030 is hereby amended to add Subsection Q as follows:
Q. Failure to adequately maintain a designated historic resource as specified in Chapter 17.33 shall constitute a public nuisance.
SECTION M. Effect of Amendment
To t he extent any provision of th is O rdinance repeals, amends, or sup ersedes any previous approvals, such re peal or replacement will n ot affect any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred before, o r preclud e prosecution and imposition of penalties for any violation occurring before, this Ordinance’s effective date. Any such repealed or superseded part of previ ous approvals will remain in full force and effect for sustaining action or prosec uting vio lations o ccurring before t he effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION N. Severability
If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed inva lid by a cou rt of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are severable.
SECTION O. Codification
The City Clerk shall cause these ame ndments to be appropriately renumbered and codified in Titles 2, 12 and 17 of the Goleta Municipal Code on the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION P. Certification of City Clerk
55 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 29
The City Clerk shall ce rtify to the adop tion of this ordinance and, within 15 days after its adoption, shall cause it to be published in accord with California Law.
SECTION Q. Effective Date
This o rdinance shall t ake effect on t he 31st day f ollowing adoption by the City Council.
56 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 30
INTRODUCED ON the ___ day of ________, 2022.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this ________day of ______ 2022.
_________________________
PAULA PEROTTE
MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________ _________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ MEGAN GARIBALDI
CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
57 Ordinance No. 22-__ Historic Preservation & Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance 31
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.
CITY OF GOLETA )
I, DEBORAH S. LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 22-__ was introduced on _______, and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, held on the ___________, by the following roll-call vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
(SEAL)
_________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ
CITY CLERK
58 ATTACHMENT 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
AND DESIGNATING THE HISTORIC LANDMARKS LIST AND
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY (CASE NO. 16-092)
59 RESOLUTION NO. 22-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE HISTORIC CONTEXT
STATEMENT AND DESIGNATING THE HISTORIC LANDMARKS
LIST AND HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY (CASE NO. 16-
092)
SECTION A. Recitals
1. California Government Code Sections 65850 and 37361 enable ci ty legislative bodie s to provide for “the protection, enh ancement; perpetuation, or use of places, sites, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects having a special character or special historical or aesthetic interest or value”; and
2. Historic, archaeological and tribal cultural resources are important to the City of Goleta as encapsulated within the Visual and Historic Resources Element of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan; and
3. The City has conducted 15 public workshops/meetings over the course of several years in the development of an ordinance implementing the General Plan poli cies on the protection of historic, arch aeological and tribal cultural resources and associated Historic Context Statement; and
4. On December 14, 202 0, March 29, 2021, June 28, 2021, August 23, 2021 , October 25, 2021 , and November 8, 2021 , the Planning Commission of the City of Goleta conducted noticed pu blic hear ings on the Historic Resource Preservation and the Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Ordinance at which time all interested parties were heard.
5. On November 8, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council of th e City of Goleta ado pt the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance and Archaeological and Tribal Cu ltural Resources Ordinance, Context Statement, Designation of Historic Landmarks, and Historic Resources Inventory; and
6. On December 7, 2021, the City Counci l of the Cit y of Goleta conducted a noticed p ublic hearing, a t which time all interested parties were h eard and continued its discussion until February 15, 2022 . The matter was further continued without discussion to April 5, 2022
7. On April 5, 2022, the City Council conducted a continued public hearing at which time all interested parties were heard.
60 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 2 | P a g e
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RES OLVED BY THE CITY C OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION B. Findings
1. Adoption of this Resolution will allow th e City the ability to implement the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, which protect the health, safety, and general welfare of t he community. Therefore, the Resolution is in the interest of the general community welfare.
2. The adoption of this Resolution will help the City continue to implement the community goals, obj ectives, and policies of the Gene ral Plan. Furthermore, the adoption of the Historic Resources Inventory and designation of Historic Landmarks will enable the City to have better control over existing and future land uses and development on real property in regard to historic, archaeological and tribal cultural resources throughout Goleta and ensure full compliance with S tate la w controlling the r eview of certain types of development. Therefore, the designation of Historic Landmarks and adoption of the Hist oric Resources Inventory is consistent with good zoning and planning practices.
SECTION C. Environmental Assessment.
Ordinance No. 22-__ adopted a Notice of Exemption, which among other things, properly assesses th e environ mental impac t of the Project i n accordance with CEQA. This Resolution incorporates by reference the environmental findings and analysis set forth in Ordinance No. 22-__ as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION D. Findings to Add 7825 Ho llister Avenue (Barnsdall-Rio Grande Gasoline station) to the Historic Resources In ventory and desi gnate the property as a Goleta Landmark (Sections 17.33.020 and 17.33.040).
1) The Barnsdall-Rio Grande Gasoline Station located at 7825 Hollister Avenue has been identified as a his toric resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, cond ucted u sing accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic R esources Group. Further, the Barnsdall-Rio G rande Gasoline Station was previously des ignated as Landmark #29 by the County of Santa Barbara prior to January 1 , 2 021. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the property meets the criteria established by the City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
61 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 3 | P a g e
2) Built in 1927, t he Barnsdall Rio Grand e Gasoline Station is 92 years old and exceeds the mini mum 5 0-year threshold in acc ordance with Section 17.33.040(A)(1).
3) The Barnsdall Rio Grand Gas oline Station is associated with important event in Goleta ’s history na mely the development of the oil and gas industry. Further the structure is an excellent local example of Spanish Colonial Revival Architecture by master architects, Morgan, Walls, and Clements. In addition, the Barnsdale Rio Gasoline S tation was previously designated by the County of Santa Barbara and is eligible for au tomatic local de signation. For these reasons, the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gasoline Station meets the findings stated in Section s
17.33.040(A)(2)(a) and (c) and 17.33.040(C).
SECTION E. Findings to Add 96 Glen Annie Road (Bishop Ranch) to the Historic Resources Inventory and to the designate the property as a Goleta Landmark
1) Bishop Ranch property has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Su rvey, cond ucted using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Prese rvation Professional s at Historic R esources Group. Further, Bishop Ranch was previ ously designated as a Place of Historic Merit by the Coun ty of Santa Barbara prior to January 1, 2021. The County designation included the following features on the property: one-story bungalow, adjacent s andstone arbor, Red Gum tree northeast of the dwelling and surrounding specimen trees.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the p roperty meet s the criteria established by the City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
2) Established around 1890, t he Bishop Ranch property at approximately 132 years old exceeds the mini mum 50-year threshold in accordance with Section 17.33.040(A)(1).
3) The Bishop Ranch property is the largest remaining tract of former farming and ranch land in the City of Goleta . Further, this parcel is a rem nant of the Rancho Los Dos Pueblos Land grant awarded to Nicholas Den. It is an early and rare example of Goleta’s former extensive agricultural lands and illustrates Goleta ’s early history of farming and cattle ranching . The property is also associated with early Goleta notables , including Nicholas Den and Colonel William Hollister. In ad dition, the Bishop Ranch was previously designated by the Cou nty of San ta Barbara and is eligible for automatic local de signation. For these reasons, the identified contributing 62 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 4 | P a g e
@[email protected]
features to Bishop Ranch meet the findings stated in Section s
17.33.040(A)(2)(a) and (b) and 17.33.040(C).
SECTION F. Findings to Add 33 S. La Patera Lane (Daniel Hill Adobe) to the Historic Resources In ventory and to designate the property as a Goleta Landmark
1) The Daniel Hill Adobe has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conduct ed using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic Resources Group. F urther, the Daniel Hill Adobe was previously designated as a Place of Historic Me rit by the County of Santa Barbara prior to January 1 , 2021. Therefore, in accordance with Section
17.33.020(A), the prop erty meets the criteria established by the City of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
2) Built in approximately 1850, t he Daniel H ill Adobe at approximately 172 years old exceeds t he mini mum 50 -year thr eshold in acc ordance with Section 17.33.040(A)(1).
3) The Daniel Hill Adobe is the earliest known extant residence in Goleta and is associated with early pioneer Daniel Hill. Mr. Hill was the r ecipient of the La Goleta land grant and the structure is a rare existing example of adobe construction in Goleta. In addition, the Daniel Hill Adobe was previously designated by the County of Santa Barbara and is eligible for automatic local de signation. For these reasons, the Daniel Hill Adobe meets the findings stated in Section s 17.33.040(A)(2)(a) and (c) and
17.33.040(C).
SECTION G. Findings to Add 300 N. L os Carneros Road (Goleta Depot) to the Historic Resources Inventory and to designate the property as a Goleta Landmark
1) The Goleta Train Depot located at 300 N. Los Carneros Avenue has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide Historic Resource Survey, conducted using accepted professional prac tices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic R esources Group. Further, the Goleta Train Depot was previously designated as Landmark #22 by the County of Santa B arbara prior to January 1 , 2021. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33. 020(A), the pro perty meets the criteria established by the City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Hi storic Resources Inventory.
2) Built in 19 01, t he Goleta Train Depot is 121 years old and exceeds the minimum 50-year threshold in accordance with Section 17.33.040(A)(1). 63 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 5 | P a g e
3) The Goleta Train Depot is listed in the National Register of Historic places and is important for its association with transportation in t he region. The building is most clos ely associated with the railroad in Goleta and is the last remaining examp le of the standard design depot type ( Combination Station No. 22) in S anta Barbara County. It is also one of the oldest existing commercial building s in Goleta. In addition, the Goleta T rain Depot was previously designated by the County of Santa Barbara and is eligible for aut omatic local de signation. For these re asons, the Goleta Train Depot meets the findings stated in Sections 17.33.040(A)(2)(a) and (c) and 17.33.040(C).
SECTION H. Findings to Add 5490 Hollister Avenue (Sexton House) to the Historic Resources In ventory and to designate the property as a Golet a Landmark
1) The Sexton House located at 5490 Hollister Avenue has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conducted using accepted professional pr actices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Histor ic R esources Group. Further, the Sexton House property was previously designated as Landmark #14 by the County of Santa Barbara prior to January 1, 2021. Features within the designated boundary include the Sexton House, pum phouse, retai ning wall/step, two pools, cistern, sundial platform and specimen trees/plants.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the prop erty meets the criteria established by the City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
2) Built in 1880, the Sexton House property is 142 years old and exceeds the minimum 50-year threshold in accordance with Section 17.33.040(A)(1).
3) The Sexton House is associated with important person in Goleta’s history namely Joseph Sexton who was a local horticultur ist. The building is an excellent local example of Italianate architecture designed Peter Barber. In addition, the Sext on House was previously designated by the County of Santa Barbar a and is eligible for aut omatic local de signation. For these reasons, the Sexton House and the identifi ed contributing features meets the findings stated in Section s 17.33.040(A)(2)(b) and (c) and
17.43.040(C).
SECTION I. Findings to Add 26 S. La Patera Road (Shrode Packing House) to the Historic Resources In ventory and to designate the property as a Goleta Landmark
64 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 6 | P a g e
1) The Shrode Packing House located at 26 S. L a Patera Road has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Survey, conducted using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic R esources Group. Further, the Shrode Packing House (partially demolished) was previously designated as Landmark #40 by the Coun ty of Santa B arbara prior to January 1 , 2021. The Packing house was partially demolis hed in 2001; the west end of the building was re tained, and this portion of the building remains eligible as a historic packing house. Therefore, in accordance with Section
17.33.020(A), the prop erty meets the criteria established by the City of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
2) Built in 1944, the Shrode Packing House is 78 years old and exceeds the minimum 50-year threshold in accordance with Section 17.33.040(A)(1).
3) The remaining portion of the Shrode Packing House has an i mportant association with the agri culture industry in Goleta and is significant for its association with the dry f arming technique employed by the Shrode Company. In addition, the packing house was previously designated by the County of Santa Barbara and is eligible for aut omatic local designation. For these reaso ns, the remaining po rtion of th e Shrode Packing House meets the findings stated in Sectio ns 17.33.040(A)(2)(a) and 17.33.040(C).
SECTION J. Findings to Add 304 N. Los Carneros Road (Stow House) to the Historic Resources In ventory and to designate the property a s a Goleta Landmark
1) The Stow House located at 304 N. Los Carneros Road has been identified as a historic resource as part of t he Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conducted using accept ed professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic R esources Group. Further, the Stow House was previously designated as Landmark # 6 by the County of Santa Barbara prior to January 1 , 2021, Register of Historic Pla ces. The designation includes the house and the plan tings associated with the house when it was Edgar Stow ’s primary residence. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the prop erty meets the c riteria established by the City of Go leta to be placed on th e Goleta’s Hi storic Resources Inventory.
2) Built in 1872, the Stow House is 150 years old and exceeds the minimum 50-year threshold in accordance with Section 17.33.040(A)(1).
65 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 7 | P a g e
@[email protected]
3) The Stow House is associated with important person in Goleta ’s history namely the Edgar Whitney Stow consistent with its National Register listing. It is also an early example of a residence associated wit h the agricultural history and early development of Goleta. Further, it is a good local example of Gothic Revival architecture. In addition, the Stow House was previously designated by the County of Santa Barbara and is eligible for aut omatic local de signation. For these reasons, the Stow House meets th e findings stated in Section s 17.33.040(A)(2)(a)(b), and (c) and
17.33.040(C).
SECTION K. Finding to Add 5728 Aguila Avenue to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 5728 Aguila Avenue has been identified as a his toric resource a s part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, cond ucted u sing accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic Resources Group. This residence is a rare remnant example of Goleta’s early reside ntial development. This 1918 residence represents a n example of original residential neighborhood that developed adjacent to commercial corridor between the two towns of La Goleta and La Patera. It also is a r are local example of Craftsman bungalow in Goleta. Therefore, in accordance with Section
17.33.020(A), the property meets the criteria established by the City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION L. Finding to Add 550 C ambridge Drive (Cambridge Community Church) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The pro perty loc ated at 5 50 Cambridge Drive has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conduct ed using accepted professi onal practices by the Qualified Preservati on Professional s at Historic Resources Group. The church building on this property, built in 1963, is an excellent example of Mid-century Modern ecclesiastical architecture in Goleta designed by K ruger-Bensen Architects. Therefore, in acco rdance with Sect ion
17.33.020(A), the church bui lding meets the criteria est ablished by the City of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION M. Finding to Add 175 Cha pel Street to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 175 Chapel Street h as been identified as a historic resource as part of t he Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conduct ed using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic R esources Group. This residence , built about 1915, is a r are remnant example of Goleta’s early residentia l development. This property represents a n 66 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 8 | P a g e
@[email protected]
example of origi nal residential neighb orhood that devel oped adjacent to commercial corridor between the two t owns of La Goleta and La Patera. It also is a r are local example of Neoclassical Cottage style . Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the property meets the criteria established by the Ci ty of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION N. Finding to Add 75 Coromar Drive (Raytheon) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 75 Coromar Drive has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, condu cted using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic R esources Group. This evaluation is for the two 1957 buildings at the east side of the R aytheon campus , which are s ignificant as an example of industrial dev elopment associated with the aerospace industry fro m the post- World War II period. The buildings have a strong association with the aerospace industry wh ich quickly became Goleta ’s dominant industry . Raytheon made significant contribution s to the aerospa ce industry and influenced the post war development of Goleta. The buildings are good local examples of M id-century Modern industrial architecture. Therefore, in accordance with Section
17.33.020(A), the two 1957 bui ldings at the east end of the property meets the criteria established by the City of Go leta to be p laced on the Goleta’s Hi storic Resources Inventory.
SECTION O. Finding to Add 6595 Covington Drive (Christ Lutheran Church) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 6595 Covington Drive has been identified as a h istoric resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, con ducted using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic Resources Group. The 1965 church building is a good local example of Mid-century Modern ecclesiastical architecture designed by architect Robert G.
Johnson. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the prop erty meets the criteria established by the City of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION P. Finding to Add 598 N. Fa irview Avenue (Fairview Gardens) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 598 N. Fairview Avenue has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource S urvey, co nducted using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic R esources Group. The 1895 farmhouse on the property is a r are remnant example of 19 th century residential development associated wit h Goleta’s agricultural history. It is one of the few remaining properties dating to 67 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 9 | P a g e
@[email protected]
the late 19 th century. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the property meets the criteri a established b y the City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION Q. Finding to Add 5444 Hollister Avenue (St. Raphael’s Catholic Church) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 5444 Hollister Avenue has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conduct ed using accepted prof essional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic R esources Group. The 1961 sanctuary and classroo m buildings are good loca l examples of Mid -century Mod ern ecclesiastical architecture.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.0 20(A), the prop erty meets the criteria established by the City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Hi storic Resources Inventory.
SECTION R. Finding to Add 5555 Hollister Avenue to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property lo cated at 5555 Hollister Avenue has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conducted using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic Resources Group. This 1967 building is an example of post-World War II commercial development representing increased development along Hollister Avenue. It represents significant local growth in the postwar per iod and is good and rare local example of Googie architecture designed by architect Louis Mazzetti. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the prop erty meets the criteria established by the City of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION S. Finding to Add 5681 Hollister Avenue (Goleta Valley Community Center/Goleta Union School) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 5681 Hollister Avenue has been identified as a h istoric resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conduct ed using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic Resources Group. The 1926 Goleta Union School Building is an important example of continued institutional growth in Goleta during the 1920s. It is also a r are example of Mediterr anean Revival institutional architecture. This building is eligible for listing in the National and California Registers for its role in the development of Goleta’s education system as well as in the growth of the town center. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the property meets the criteria established by the C ity of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
68 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 10 | P a g e
SECTION T. Finding to Add 5757 Hollister Avenue (Santa Cruz Market) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 5757 Hollister Avenue has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conducted using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professionals at Historic R esources Group. This 1939 building is an exa mple of commercial development from the 1930 s during a period of continued g rowth and development of the to wns of La Goleta and La Patera. It represents the continued expansion of Hollister Avenue as Goleta’s primary commercial corridor during the Great Depression. The building was c onstructed around 1928 as an airplane hangar by Earle Ovington, the first air mail pi lot in the United States.
The building was relocated to its present site from the Casa Loma airfield in Santa Barbara (now the municipal golf course) in 1939. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the property meets the criteria esta blished by the City of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION U. Finding to Add 5784 Hollister Avenue to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 5784 Hollister A venue has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Su rvey, conduct ed using accepted professional prac tices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic R esources Group. This 1932 building is an example of commercial development from the 1930 ’s during a period of continued g rowth and development o f the towns of La Goleta and La Patera. It repr esents the continued expansion of Hollister Avenue as Goleta’s primary commercial corridor during the Great D epression. Therefore, in accordance with Section
17.33.020(A), the property meets the criteria esta blished by the City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION V. Finding to Add 5838 Hollister Avenue to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 5838 Hollister Avenue has been identified as a histor ic resource as part of th e Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conduct ed using accepted professional pr actices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic Resources Group. This building constructed around 1930 is an example of commercial development fr om the 1930 s during a period of continued g rowth and development of the towns o f La Goleta and La Pa tera. It represents the continued expansion of Hollister Avenue as Goleta’s primary commercial corridor during the Great D epression. Therefore, in accorda nce with Section
17.33.020(A), the property meets the criteria established by th e City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory. 69 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 11 | P a g e
SECTION W. Finding to Add 6769 Hollister Avenue (Delco Building) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 6769 Hollister Avenue has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Survey, conduct ed using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Pres ervation Professio nals at Historic Resources Group. This evaluation is for the primary building (built 1957) on the De lco (n ow Flir) campus located adjacent to the sou thwest corn er of Hollister Avenue and Corom ar D rive as an example of industri al developm ent associated with the aerospace industry fro m the post-World War II period and its association with D elco Systems Ope rations. The building has a strong association with the aerospace industry which quickly became Goleta’s dominant industry. Delco Systems Oper ations made significant contributions to the aerospace industry and influenced the post war devel opment of Goleta . The building is good local examples of M id-century M odern industrial architecture designed by Howe ll, Arendt, Mosher and Gr ant. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the primary building on the property meets the criteria established by the City of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION X. Finding to Add 110 S. Kellogg Avenue (Kellogg Ranch) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 110 S. Kellogg Avenue has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conduct ed using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professionals at Historic Resources Group. This 1914 single-family residence is a remnant of the original neighborhood that developed a djacent to the commercial co rridor between La Go leta and La Patera. Additionally, this property was associated with th e Kellogg family, which made a significant impac t on the early development of Goleta. This re sidence is a good and rare loc al example of a Craftsman bung alow. There are very few intact examples of this s tyle architectural in Goleta from this period. Therefore, in accordance with Section
17.33.020(A), the property meets the criteria established by the City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION Y. Finding to Add 170 Magnolia Avenue (Ellwood Hotel) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 170 Magnolia Av enue has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conduct ed using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Pro fessionals at Historic R esources Group. This 1915 building is a rare example of early commercial development near the origin al t own center of La Patera. The 70 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 12 | P a g e
@[email protected]
Ellwood Hotel was established in 1915 to serve visitors to the growing commercial corridor between La Patera and La Goleta. It later catered to the growing number of automobi le tourists trav eling along the California coa st.
Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the prop erty mee ts the criteria established by the City of Go leta to be plac ed on the Goleta’s Hi storic Resources Inventory.
SECTION Z. Finding to Add 170 Nectarine Avenue to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 170 Nectarine Avenue has been identified as a historic resource as part of th e Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conduct ed using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professio nals at Historic R esources Group. This 1920 residence is a r are example residential development from early 1920s. This is a remnant of the original residential neighborhood that developed adjacent to commercial corridor bet ween the two towns of La Goleta and La Patera. It also is a rare local example of Craftsman bungalow in Goleta. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A) , the property meets the criteria established by the City of Go leta to be pla ced on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION AA. Finding to Add 171 Nectarine Avenue (Camel Motor Court) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 171 Nectarine Avenue has been identified as a histori c resource as pa rt of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, cond ucted using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic Resources Group. This 1920 Auto Court is a rare early example of auto- related commercial de velopment in Go leta. The Camel M otor Court was developed a longside a gasolin e station. This early predecessor to the motel represents a collection of modest cabins designed to offer lodgings to auto tourists traveling through Goleta long the commercial th oroughfare of Ho llister Avenue. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the property meets the criteria established by the City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION AB. Finding to Add 5399 Overpass Road (Beck House) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 5899 Overpass Road has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Cit ywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conduct ed using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professionals at Historic R esources Group. The 1 887 Beck House is one of the earliest remaining residences in Goleta and is a rare example of a residence associated with the agricultural industry. Therefore, in accordance w ith Section 71 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 13 | P a g e
17.33.020(A), the property meets the criteria established by the City of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION AC. Finding to Add 195 S. Patterson Avenue (Telephone Exchange Building) to the Historic Resour ces In ventory (Section
17.33.030).
The property located at 195 S. Patterson Avenue has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conducted using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Professionals at Historic Resources Group. This building, constructed around 1925, is associated with the development of infrastructure in the 1920s and is a good and rare local example of Mediterranean Revival architecture. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the property meets the crit eria established by the City of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION AD. Finding to Add 130 Robin Hill Road to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The prope rty lo cated at 130 Robin Hill Road has be en identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Sur vey, conduct ed using accepted professional practice s by the Qualified Preservation Professional s at Historic Resources Group. This building, constructed around 1960, is an example of industrial developm ent associated with the aerospace industry from the pos t- World War II period. It has a strong associa tion with the aerospace industry which qu ickly became Goleta ’s dom inant indust ry in the postwa r period. The owners of the building, Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier Inc, made significant contributions to the aerospace industry and influenced the postwar de velopment of Goleta. Further the building is a good local example of Mid -century Modern industrial architecture by Stice and Takayama Associates, architects. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the prop erty meets the criteria established by the City of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION AE. Finding to Add 6260 Sha mrock Avenue to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 6260 Shamrock Avenue has been identified as a historic resource as part of th e City wide H istoric Resource Sur vey, cond ucted using accepted professional practices by the Qualified Preservation Pr ofessionals at Historic Resources Group. This 1930 residence is a rare example of residential development from the 1930s . This residence predates the surrounding area by several d ecades and may h ave a historic association with t he agriculture industry. Therefore, in accordance with Section 17.33.020(A), the property meets 72 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 14 | P a g e
@[email protected]
the criteria established by the City of Goleta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION AF. Finding to Add 10 Winchester Canyon Road (Timbers) to the Historic Resources Inventory (Section 17.33.030).
The property located at 10 Winchester Canyon Road has been identified as a historic resource as part of the Citywide H istoric Resource Su rvey, conduct ed using accepted professional practic es by the Qualified Prese rvation Professionals at Historic R esources Group. This 1959 commercial building is an example of post -World War II commercial development along the highway. It is the long -term ho me of the legacy businesses operated between 1959 through 2004 and may inclu de timbers from a p ier destroyed by Japanese shelling along the Goleta coast during World War II. Therefore, in ac cordance with Section
17.33.020(A), the property meets the criter ia established by the City of Go leta to be placed on the Goleta’s Historic Resources Inventory.
SECTION AG. Actions.
Based on the provisions of Sections A -AF above, the City Council takes the following actions:
1. Adopts the Historic Context Statement attached as Exhibit A to this Resolution.
2. Designates the following seven (7) properties listed as Historic Landmarks as provided in Exhibit B to this Resolution:
a) Barnsdall-Rio Grande Gasoline Station located at 7825 Hollister A venue; APN 079-210-059
b) Bishop Ranch located at 96 Glen Annie Road: APN 077-020-045 c) Daniel Hill Adobe located at 33 S. La Patera Lane; APN 073-050-034 d) Goleta Depot located at 300 N. Los Carneros Road; APN 077-210-059 e) Sexton House located at 5490 Hollister Avenue; APN 071-330-009 f) Shrode Produce Packing House located at 26 S. La Patera Lane (partially demolished); APN 073-010-005
g) Stow House located at 304 N. Los Carneros Road; APN 077-1660-057
3. Designates the Historic Resources Inventory to be composed of the following properties as provided in Exhibit C to this Resolution:
a) 5728 Aguila Avenue; APN 071-003-012
b) 550 Cambridge Drive; APN 069-560-030
c) 175 Chapel Street; APN 071-101-013
d) 75 Coromar Drive; APN 073-150-014
e) 6595 Covington Way; APN 077-160-022
f) 598 N. Fairview Avenue; APN069-090-052
g) 96 Glen Annie Road; APN077-020-045 (Bishop Ranch)
h) 5444 Hollister Avenue; APN 071-330-003
73 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 15 | P a g e
@[email protected]
i) 5490 Hollister Avenue; APN 071-330-009 (Sexton House) j) 5555 Hollister Avenue; APN 071-140-056
k) 5681 Hollister Avenue; APN 071-130-009
l) 5757 Hollister Avenue; APN 071-121-003
m) 5784 Hollister Avenue; APN 071-061-013
n) 5838 Hollister Avenue; APN 071-053-014
o) 6769 Hollister Avenue; APN 073-610-001
p) 7825 Hollister Avenue; APN 079-210-059 (Barnsdall-Rio Gasoline Station) q) 110 S. Kellogg Avenue; APN 071-340-001
r) 26 S. La Patera Lane; APN 073-010-005 (Shrode Produce Packing House – partially demolished)
s) 33 S. La Patera Lane (APN 073-050-034 (Daniel Hill Adobe) t) 300 N. Los Carneros Road; APN 077-210-059 (Goleta Depot) u) 304 N. Los Carneros Road; APN 077-1660-057 (Stow House) v) 170 Magnolia Avenue; APN 071-053-017
w) 170 Nectarine Avenue; APN 071-061-015
x) 171 Nectarine Avenue; APN 071-053-010
y) 5399 Overpass Road; APN 071-220-036
z) 195 S. Patterson Avenue; APN 071-102-005
aa) 130 Robin Hill Road; APN 073-050-015
bb) 6260 Shamrock Avenue; APN 077-222-007
cc) 10 Winchester Canyon Road; APN 079-121-007
4. Directs staff to file the Notice of Exemption within five (5) business days.
SECTION AH: Reliance on Record.
Each and every one of the f indings and d eterminations in this Resolution is based on the competent and substantial evi dence, bot h oral and written, contained in the enti re record relating to the Project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely su pported by subst antial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION AI: Limitations.
The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of t he P roject is based on the be st information curren tly available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a proj ect t hat absolute and perfect kn owledge of all possibl e aspects of the proj ect will no t exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the P roject is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City’s ability to solve what are in effect regional, s tate and national problems and issues. The city m ust work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.
74 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 16 | P a g e
SECTION AJ: Summaries of Information.
All summaries of i nformation in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the s ubstantial evidence in th e record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indicati on that a pa rticular finding is not based in part on that fact.
SECTION AK: Effective Date.
This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent Resolution.
SECTION AL: Certification
The City Clerk will certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this __ day of _____ 2022.
__________________________
PAULA PEROTTE, MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ __________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ MEGAN GARIBALDI
CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
75 Resolution 22-__,
Historic Context Statement and Designation/Eligibility List 17 | P a g e
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.
CITY OF GOLETA )
I, DEBORAH S. LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, Califor nia, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 22-__ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Goleta at a regular meeting held on the ___ day of ______, 2022 by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
(SEAL)
_________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ
CITY CLERK
76 ATTACHMENT 3 EXHIBIT A
Context Statement
77 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
March 2021
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
12 S. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91105-3816 Telephone 626-793-2400
www.historicresourcesgroup.com
78 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
PREPARED FOR
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive B
Goleta, CA 93117
79 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 7
Chapter 1: Built Environment 9
Purpose 11
Methodology 12
Organization 13
Context: Mexican Independence and the Rancho Period (1821-1865) 17
Theme: The Rancho Period (1821-1865) 17
Context: Late 19
th/Early 20th Century Development (1866-1918) 24
Theme: The Development of Two Towns (1869-1918) 24
Theme: Early Industrial Development (1866-1918) 27
Theme: Agricultural Development (1866-1918) 32
Theme: Early Civic and Institutional Development (1866-1918) 42
Context: Development Between the Wars (1919-1940) 47
Theme: Residential Development (1919-1940) 47
Theme: Commercial Development (1919-1940) 49
Theme: Civic & Institutional Development (1919-1940) 53
Theme: Agriculture (1919-1940) 55
Theme: Industrial Development (1919-1940) 58
Sub-theme: Goleta Oil Fields 58
Sub-theme: Development of the Airport 64
Context: Goleta During World War II (1941-1945) 67 80 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Context: Post-World War II Development (1946-1969) 74 Introduction 74
Theme: Post-World War II Residential Development 77
Sub-theme: Multi-Family Residential Development 80
Theme: Post-World War II Commercial Development 81
Theme: Post-World War II Agricultural Development 82 Theme: Oil and Gas Industry in the Post-World War II Era 86 Theme: Aerospace Industry 87
Theme: Post-World War II Industrial Development 90
Theme: Post-World War II Civic & Institutional Development 91 Conclusion 94
Context: Architecture and Design 95
Chapter 2: Archaeological Resources 111
Introduction 113
Purpose 113
Concepts and Time Periods 113
Project Location and Description 114
Organization of the Document 114
Context Statement from the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians 117
Archaeological Background 129
Prehistory 129
Ethnography 131
81 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Histo
ry 132
Site Info
rmation 135
Previou
sly Identified Resources 135
Site Summ
ary 140
Field Ins
pection 141
Property Types and Eligibility Standards 141
Expect
ed Integrity/Condition 143
Evaluati
on 143
Basis for Site Evaluation 143
Researc
h Domains 145
Site Assessments 147
Summary 156
Goals and Priorities 157
Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians Goals and Priorities 157 Archae
ological Goals and Priorities 158
Chapter 3: Tree Study 159
Backg
round/Introduction 161
Clim
ate Overview 161
Street
Tree Plantings 162
Neighbor
hood Characteristics and Themes 163
Individua
l Trees 163
82 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Conclusion 164
Tree Study 165
Bibliography 197
Built Environment: Appendices
Appendix A: Guidelines for Evaluation & Eligibility Standards 229 Appendix B: Survey Report & Recommendations 265
Appendix C: Map of Tract/Subdivision Development 331 Appendix D: Post-World War II Subdivisions 331
Index 339
83 7
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
INTRODUCTION
As part of the ongoing efforts to identify and protect the City’s historic resources, in 2016 the City of Goleta embarked on a citywide historic resources survey and development of a comprehensive historic context statement . The historic context statement for the city’s built environment was developed by Historic Resources Group, including Christine Lazzaretto, Managing Principal; and Molly Iker -Johnson, Architectural Historian, both of whom meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Standards in history and architectural history .1 The archaeological study was completed by John M. Foster, RPA of Greenwood and Associates, with input from David Stone, RPA of Wood Group Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. and the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians. The tr ee study was completed by Carlberg Associates, including Cy Carlberg, Principal; and Christy Cuba, Senior Arborist, both of whom are certified arborists with the International Society of Arboriculture (#WE- 0575A and #WE -1982A, respectively) and registered consulting arborists with the American Society of Consulting Arborists (#405 and #502, respectively) . T he City’s Planning and Environmental Review Department was responsible for management and coordination of the project.
The City of Goleta was incorporated in 2002 and comprises approximately eight square miles.
As of the 2010 United States Federal Census, the City of Goleta had a population of 29,888.
Goleta is located in Santa Barbara County, California, approximately ten miles northwest of the City of Santa Barbara, and approximately 100 miles southeast of the City of San Luis Obispo .
Access to Goleta is via the US 101 Freeway. Situated on the Pacific Ocean, Goleta is bordered by unincorporated Santa Barbara County on the north, east, and west; and to the south by unincorporated Santa Barbara County, the University of California Santa Barbara, the Santa Barbara Municipal airport, and the Pacific Ocean. The geography and topography in the region created a natural barrier for the City, which influenced the way it developed.
The historic context statement is divided into three chapters:
Chapter 1: Built Environment
Chapter 2: Archaeological Study
Chapter 3: Tree Study
The area of study for all three chapters is the current boundary of the City of Goleta.
1 Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190, p. 44738-44739, September 29, 1983. 84 8
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
85 9
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Chapter 1
Built Environment
Aerial view of Old Town Goleta, 1952. Source: Goleta Valley Historical Society 86 10
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
87 11
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT
Purpose
In order to understand the significance of the historic and architectural resources in the City of Goleta, it is necessary to examine those resources within a series of contexts. The purpose of a historic context statement is to place built resources in the appropriate historic, social, and architectural context so that the relationship between an area’s physical environment and its broader history can be established.
A historic context statement analyzes the historical development of a community according to guidelines written by the California Office of Historic Preservation and the National Park Service, as specified in
National Register Bulletin 16A : How to Complete the National Register Registration Form and National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys. Bulletin 16A describes a historic context as follows:
Historic context is information about historic trends and properties grouped by an important theme in pre-history or history of a community, state, or the nation during a particular period of time. Because historic contexts are organized by theme, place, and time, they link historic properties to important historic trends. In this way, they provide a framework for determining the significance of a property. 2 A historic con text statement is linked with tangible built resources through the concept of “property type ,” which is a grouping of individual properties based on shared physical or associative characteristics.3
This historic context is not intended to be a comprehensive history of the City of Goleta.
Rather, its purpose is to highlight trends and patterns critical to the understanding of the built environment . It identifies the various historical factors that shaped the development of the area, including historic activities or events, important people, building types, architectural styles, and patterns of physical development. The historic context provides a framework for the continuing process of identifying historic, architectural, and cultural resources in the city. It is meant to serve as a guide to enable citizens, planners, and decision -makers to evaluate the relative significance and integrity of potential historic resources and to provide a framework for the development of a comprehensive preservation program.
2 National Park Service, “National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1997. 3 National Park Service , “National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1977; revised 1985.
88 12
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Methodology
The historic context statement uses the National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submission (MPS) approach, and covers each significant phase of the city’s built environment , from the 19 th century through 1969. Existing studies were used in the development of this document; where possible, information provided by secondary sources was corroborated by primary source materials. Information in existing studies was supplemented by additional research using both primary and secondary sources and consultation with local experts to develop the historical narrative and obtain additional information about significant individual properties and neighborhoods. Special thanks to Fermina Murray and Ron Nye, who reviewed a draft of the context statement and provided valuable insights and commentary.
Research efforts to inform both the context and field study included:
• Literature review o f published and online sources for property -specific information about potentially architecturally or culturally significant properties in Goleta. • Review of building permits, tax assessor data, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (available for select areas in 1930), and aerial photographs.
• Development of study map s illustrating the growth of Goleta by decade in order to review development and settlement patterns.
• Mapping of residential tracts in Goleta subdivided prior to 1969 using information from tract maps and survey records. Map included in Appendix C for reference. • Research on ownership of all tracts to confirm individuals , developer s, or investor consortia.
• Search of local newspapers for key developments, owners, architects, and other historic personages.
• Search of the archives at the Goleta Valley Historical Society. • Search of the archives at the Santa Barbara Historical Society. • Search of the archives at the University of California, Santa Barbara. • Online and manual search of Goleta city directories up to 1970, as available. • Online searches of the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals and review of articles generated.
• ProQuest searches of newspapers and other publications, including period trade publications.
• Review of American Institute of Architects (AIA) membership files. • Outreach (email/in person) with stakeholders and local experts: Fermina Murray, Ron Nye, Amanda de Lucia, and Bruce Morden.
• Kickoff meeting with City planning staff.
• Meetings and correspondence with the Goleta Valley Historical Society, South Coast Railroad Museum, and members of the community.
• Two meetings with the Planning Commission.
89 13
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Organization
There are several overarching forces that influenced the development of Goleta . These include the area’s proximity to the Mission Santa Barbara, which formerly owned the lands which now comprise the City of Goleta; the early and continued development of Goleta as an agricultural area; the development of a strong industrial center anchored by the oil and aerospace industries; and a racially and economically diverse population . These factors influenced all types of development in the city (residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial).
The historic context statement provides a narrative historical overview of the major forces that shaped land use patterns and development of the built environment of the city and provides a framework for the identification and evaluation of potent ial historic resources. Within each context is an identification of the relevant themes associated with that context . The themes outline the historical development patterns, significant events or activities, and significant individuals and groups in Goleta ’s history , including early pioneers whose landholdings or activities influenced how Goleta developed, in order to establish the potential historical significance of properties associated with each context and theme.
The context is organized chronologically, and the relevant themes are organized by type of development (single- and multi-family residential, commercial, industrial, and civic/institutional) within each chronological period. A discussion of each architectural style identified in the city, including an identification of character-defining features, is included in the Architecture Context.
Five broad periods have been identified to provide the framework for evaluating built resources within the City of Goleta prior to 1970; see Chapter 2 for a discussion of Goleta’s pre-Colonial history and potential archaeological resources. For some of the early development periods associated with Goleta’s built environment, there may be limited extant resources. Within each period are themes relative to the development of the built environment in Goleta during that period:
• Context: Mexican Settlement and the Rancho Period (1821-1865) o Theme: The Rancho Period (1821-1865)
This context addresses the development of the Goleta Valley after Mexico achieved independence from Spain, the evolution of the Rancho period, and the transition from Mexican to American sovereignty after the Mexican-American War. • Context: Late 19th/Early 20th Century Development (1866-1918) o Theme: The Development of Two Towns (1869-1918)
o Theme: Early Industrial Development (1866-1918)
o Theme: Agricultural Development (1866-1918)
o Theme: Early Civic and Institutional Development (1866-1918) 90 14
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This c
ontext explores the development of the Goleta Valley after the close of the Rancho period in 1865, and the founding of the towns of La Patera and La Goleta in 1869. • Context: Development Between the Wars (1919-1940)
o Theme: Residential Development (1919-1940)
o Theme: Commercial Development (1919-1940)
o Theme: Civic & Institutional Development (1919-1940)
o Theme: Agriculture (1919-1940)
o Theme: Industrial Development (1919-1940)
This c
ontext explores the transformation of Goleta from two neighboring towns and a scattered grouping of ranches and farms into a booming citrus producer and oil town in the years between the First and Second World Wars.
• Context: Goleta During World War II (1941-1945)
This context explores the development of World War II-related military facilities in and around Goleta, and the commercial, industrial, and institutional development of the town during the War.
• Context: Post-World War II Development (1946-1969)
o Theme: Post-World War II Residential Development
o Theme: Post-World War II Commercial Development
o Theme: Post-World War II Agricultural Development
o Theme: Oil and Gas Industry in the Post-World War II Era o Theme: Aerospace Industry
o Theme: Post-World War II Industrial Development
o Theme: Post-World War II Civic & Institutional Development This c
ontext addresses the population and economic changes in the Goleta area after World War II, and the town’s transformation from a small agricultural town in 1945 to a booming industrial zone and single-family residential area in 1969. • Context: Architecture & Design
This context discusses each construction method and architectural style identified in the city, including an identification of character-defining features. Present-day Goleta is home to a variety of buildings exhibiting an array of architectural styles, including a collection of simply- designed 91 15
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
bungalows; large tracts of Ranch houses; commercial vernacular, Spanish Colonial Revival, and Googie commercial buildings; and Mid-century Modern tract homes and institutional buildings.
Eligibility Standards
In addition to the historical narrative and identification of contexts and themes, the historic context statement is intended to provide guidance on evaluating properties that may be eligible for historic designation. Eligibility standards for evaluating potential historic resources in the City of Goleta are included in Appendix A . The eligibility standards include a discussion of the relevant criteria, integrity considerations, and registration requirements for determining whether a property may be eligible for designation at the federal, state, or local levels. The eligibility standards for local designation conform to the Goleta Historic Preservation Ordinance (Chapter
17.33 of the City of Goleta Zoning Code); Overlay Districts are included in Title 17, Part III.4 Survey Report & Recommendations
The survey report, documenting the field methodology and identifying properties and neighborhoods that have potential historic significance , is included as Appendix B. Within the survey report are recommendations for properties for inclusion in the City’s first Historic Resources Inventory.
4 Note that trees in Goleta are regul ated under the Goleta Urban Forest Management Plan, adopted June 7, 2011 and amended February 21, 2017. Therefore, the Tree Study is included here for information and reference for the City and the community and there are no specific eligibility standards developed for the designation of trees, outside of those that are contributing features to potential historic districts or have already been designated. 92 16
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
93 17
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
CONTEXT: MEXICAN INDEPENDENCE AND THE RANCHO PERIOD (1821-1865) The Goleta Valley continued to develop after Mexico achieved independence from Spain , through the evolution of the Rancho period and the transition from Mexican to American sovereignty after the Mexican -American War. Important figures associated with this period include Don Nicolas Den, holder of the first land grant in Goleta; and Daniel Hill, Goleta’s first American settler, Nicolas Den’s father-in-law, and recipient of the Rancho La Goleta land grant.
During this period, the Goleta Valley was predominately composed of cattle ranches. Though most resources from this period are no longer extant, Goleta’s development during the Rancho period provided the foundation for future growth and contributed to Goleta’s continued agricultural character.
Theme: The Rancho Period (1821-1865)
In 1821, Mexico won its independence from Spain, assumed control of present-day California, and began to secularize the mission properties. The process, completed in 1833, converted the missions into parish churches and established regional commissions to dispose of associated land and resettle Native Americans previously affiliated with the missions. 5 As part of this process , Mission Santa Barbara was secularized, and its lands granted to private landholders .
Approximately 40 land grants were made in Santa Barbara County during the Rancho period, two of which lie within the present boundaries of the City of Goleta : Rancho Los Dos Pueblos and Rancho La Goleta. 6 Thus began the Rancho period, when rancheros controlled California.
Daniel Hill (1797-1865) was the Goleta Valley’s first American settler. Born on a farm in South Billerica, a suburb of Boston, Massachusetts, Hill left home at an early age to begin a seafaring life. In 1823, Hill arrived at Refugio Beach, then the property of Don José Vincente Ortega.
There he met Ortega’s daughter Rafaela , and decided to settle in the area. He was offered a position as a vaquero on Don Ortega’s Refugio Ranch , but instead decided to open Santa Barbara’s first American trading post.
Hill’s trading post was so successful that before the end of his first week in business, his shelves were completely empty of stock, which he could not replace until another Boston ship arrived at Santa Barbara. Having “sold himself out of the mercantile business,” Hill turned to carpentry, soap making, and stone masonry for his living.
7 He also built himself the one-story Hill-Carrillo
Adobe (11 E. Carrillo Street, Santa Barbara), and worked toward achieving Mexican citizenship
5 “4.11.1.1.3 Historic Background,” Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comstock Homes Development and Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan, 4.11-6.
6 “4.11.1.1.3 Historic Background,” Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comstock Homes Development and Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan, 4.11-6.
7 Walker A. Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land (Goleta, CA: Goleta Amvets Post No. 55, 1966), 22. 94 18
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
by learning Spanish and converting to Catholicism. Hill and Ra faela Ortega were married in 1826.
Nicholas Den (1812-1862), another prominent early Goleta citizen, traveled from Ireland to America after financial ruin devastated his family. He briefly took a job with a merchant cousin in Nova Scotia, but later traveled to Boston to book passage back to Ireland. Upon learning that the Mexican government, as an inducement to colonize its California provinces, was giving away 48,000-acre cattle ranchos to qualified Catholic citizens, Den signed on as a forecastle hand with the Kent on its journey to California. He arrived in Santa Barbara in December 1836, where he was befriended by Daniel Hill. Den focused on becoming a Californio, speaking only Spanish and changing the spelling of his name to “ Nicolas,” and was embraced by the Californians as a result.
In 1837, the Mexican government granted large swaths of land to prominent families across California. Several large grants were located near Santa Barbara, and Den began to worry that someone would claim Dos Pueblos before he was able to do so . Father Narciso Duran at the Mission Santa Barbara lent Den the money to buy 500 head of cattle . Den knew that the best way to establish priority to a given piece of ex -mission land was to run cattle on it, and Duran knew that if private ownership of the mission lands was inevitable, it would be best for a devout Catholic (such as Den) to become the owner.
In 1841, Den formally became a naturalized Mexican citizen, and applied to the Mexican government for a land grant of 15,534 acres: Rancho Los Dos Pueblos. His request was granted on April 18, 1842, and he formally took possession of the rancho on December 21, 1842. As originally surveyed, Rancho Los Dos Pueblos included the entire Goleta Slough area (now occupied by part of the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport). 8 The deed described the grant as
follows:
Los Dos Pueblos [Rancho is] located in the neighborhood of the Mission of Santa Barbara, and is bounded as follows: by the beach of the Channel of the same name; by the high hills in the direction of the sierra; by Cañada del Corral, a boundary of the rancho of Antonio Maria Ortega ; and by the place called La Cochera, in the direction of the presidio.9
8 When a U.S. Patent was issued for the property in February 1877, the Slough was excluded for an unknown reason. This became the crux of a 1930s litigation between the federal government and the T.B. Bishop Company over ownership of the potentially oil-rich Goleta Sandspit, with the U.S. Supreme Court finding in favor of the original land grant. 9 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 34.
95 19
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
However, in March 1843, Manuel Micheltorena replaced Juan Bautista Alvarado as Governor, repealed Secularization laws, and restored the missions to Franciscan control. In 1843, at an official hearing before the governor, a compromise was reached that gave the church the area now known as Ellwood Canyon, while Den retained the rest of the rancho. This effectively reduced Den’s grant by half, including the La Patera tract north of the Slough. The loss was only temporary, however : Micheltorena was soon ousted from power, and the Franciscans permanently lost control of the mission lands.
In March 1 845, James K. Polk, a statesman dedicated to the annexation of California b y the United States, became President of the United States. Less than a week later, California Governor Micheltorena abdicated his office and sailed for Mexico. His successor, Pio Pico, began to give thousands of acres of real estate to eligible Mexicans, either by grant or sale.10 He also accepted bids for the sale or rental of various California missions, which were later declared null by American courts. Desperate not to lose mission lands to non -Catholic landowners, Fr. Duran turned to Nicolas Den and Daniel Hill. In November 1845, they struck a deal allowing Den and Hill to lease the mission for nine years at $1,200 annually. Governor Pico approved the lease in December 1845.
By this time, Daniel Hill feared he had postponed his petition for a grant of the remaining acres of the Goleta Valley too long. Knowing that an American takeover of California would bring land-hungry Americans with it, Hill sketched a map of the land he wanted and dispatched it to Governor Pico. He proposed boundaries for Rancho La Goleta as:
…bounded on the south by the seashore; on the north by the foot of the ledge of mountains about one league distant from said shore; on the east by the lands known as the Mission Lands of Santa Barbara; and on the west by the lands of Don Nicolas Den, called Dos Pueblos.11
Governor Pico granted Hill the 4,426- acre Rancho La Goleta on June 10, 1846. For the first time in history, all the land in the Goleta Valley was privately owned.12
10 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 37.
11 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 38.
12 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 40.
96 20
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Confirmation of the Rancho Los Dos Pueblos by the United States Government, 1867. Source: Santa Barbara County Surveyor’s Office. 97 21
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Four days after Hill received confirmation of his land grant, the Bear Flag Revolt occurred at Sonoma, foreshadowing the American annexation of California. By this time, though the news had not ye t reached California, the United States and Mexico were already at war over the annexation of Texas.
In 1848, to end the Mexican- American War, the countries signed the Treaty of Guadalupe - Hidalgo, in which Mexico ceded California to the United States. The annexation of California by the United States “dislocated the dominant Hispanic culture” due to the change in government and subsequent influx of Americans. 13 The transition between Hispanic and early American settlement began when Santa Barbara County was created as one of the original counties into which the new state of California was divided in 1850. 14 In approximately 1850, Hill built an adobe at 35 S. La Patera Lane (Santa Barbara County Place of Historic Merit).15 The following September, Den deeded Hill the Cochera tract, on which Hill’s adobe stood, for 50 cents an acre. Also in 1851, the United States passed a land act that required both Mexican and American courts to confirm Spanish land grants. Hill’s claim to Rancho La Goleta and Den’s claim to Rancho Los Dos Pueblos were confirmed in 1854. Not all landowners were so fortunate, however: many ranchos were broken up as owners were unable to produce sufficient documentation to satisfy the courts.16
In January 1854, Colonel William Welles Hollister of Hanover, Ohio, drove his flock of 6,000 sheep 2 ,500 miles from central Ohio to the Goleta Valley. 17 Though Hollister’s intended destination was the San Benito Valley, by the time they reached the Goleta Valley, his flock was severely diminished and could be driven no further. Hollister arranged grazing privileges for his sheep in Nicolas Den’s Tecolotito Arroyo (present-day Glen Annie Canyon). Hollister fell in love with the land, promising Den that he would soon return to buy Tecolotito Arroyo at such a high price that there could be no refusal.
13 “4.11.1.1.3 Historic Background,” Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comstock Homes Development and Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan, 4.11-6.
14 Morro Group, Inc., “E. Cultural Resources,” Draft Environmental Impact Report for the AT&T Fiber Optic Cable Project San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles, June 2002, V-153.
15 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 52. Various historians cite differing dates for the adobe’s construction, ranging from 1832 to 1854. However, when he applied for a homestead on the property in 1864, Hill noted that he had been living in the house for 14 years, thereby lending credibility to the assertion that the adobe was built in 1850. 16 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 52.
17 Col. Hollister’s title came from a brief tenure with a neighborhood militia. 98 22
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Hill Adobe, 35 S. La Patera Lane (Santa Barbara County Place of Historic Merit), n.d. Source: goletahistory.com.
After Den’s death in March 1862, Rancho Los Dos Pueblos was subdivided into a number of smaller ranches. 18 Per Den’s will, his personal property and the portion of Dos Pueblos Ranch lying west of Tecolotito Arroyo was left to his widow, Rosa, while the remaining half of the ranch, extending into the Goleta Valley to Carneros Creek, was to be held in trust for his heirs, each to receive a one- tenth portion of the estate as he or she came of age. Unfortunately for Hollister, who returned to buy it less than a month after Den’s death, Tecolotito Arroyo lay inside the portion of the Den estate which was tied up in a trust agreement until the last minor heir came of age in 1882, when Hollister would be 70 years old.
A major drought, which lasted from 1863 to 1865, resulted in the death of Daniel Hill’s cattle, and ultimately, the end of the rancho way of life. To raise money to buy more cattle in an attempt to save his rancho and continue his livelihood, Hill borrowed $8,000, giving Rancho La Goleta as security to Juan Camarillo . As a term of the loan, Hill had to cancel his homestead rights. To meet his payments, Hill sold 1,000 acres of choice ranchland lying south of Hollister Avenue, including the area now known as More Mesa and the asphalt outcrop on the beach, to his son-in-law, T. Wallace More. Hill sold the oil and gas rights under La Goleta Ranch to Russell Heath, the walnut king of the Carpinteria Valley, for $6,000.19 When Hill died in 1865, his land was subdivided between his widow Rafaela and their thirteen children. To raise money, the family had the rancho surveyed and divided into 38 smalle r
18 “4.11.1.1.3 Historic Background,” Final Environmental Impact Report for the Comstock Homes Development and Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan, 4.11-6.
19 Justin Ruhge, “Looking Back: Tree stands witness to notorious drought,” Goleta Sun, May 9, 1991. Unfortunately for Heath, he never recovered any of that money.
99 23
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
farmsteads, thirteen chosen by lot by the heirs, and the remainder advertised for sale in San Francisco and Los Angeles newspapers. This sale was the first time that any of the rancho land in the Goleta Valley was opened for sale to those not associated with the Mission or P residio, and marked a transition in land use from cattle ranching to small crop farming.20
20 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 1.
100
24 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Birabent Hotel, n.d. The Birabent Hotel
(1870; demolished) was for many years the
largest building in La Patera. Source:
Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land.
CONTEXT: LATE 19TH/EARLY 20TH CENTURY DEVELOPMENT (1866-1918) The drought that ended the rancho era played a major role in the development of the Goleta Valley in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Former ranchos were subdivided into individual farms, and farmers focused their efforts on drought- tolerant crops, such as lemons, walnuts , olives, and lima beans. The subdivision of rancho lands into individual farms influenced the establishment of small towns to provide the necessary goods and services for farmers, such as blacksmith shops and general stores. Important figures associated with this period include W.W.
Hollister, a rancher and entrepreneur who in 1869 purchased 5,000 acres of land from the estate of Goleta pioneer Nicolas Den and established Glen Annie Ranch; Ellwood Cooper, who purchased 2,000 acres of the former Den estate in 1869 and made groundbreaking environmental discoveries; Joseph Sexton, who operated Sexton’s Nursery and introduced exotic plants to the area; and Sherman P. Stow, one of the first commercial lemon ranchers in California.
Theme: The Development of Two Towns (1869-1918)
During the 1870s, the character of the Goleta area began to shift from sparsely populated cattle ranches to farmsteads and towns. The new farmers required goods and services such as farm machinery, wagons and buggies, blacksmithing, and general supplies. To serve their needs, two towns grew up along the County Road (present -day Hollister Avenue), the main road linking the isolated farms with Santa Barbara, More’s Landing, and points north. 21 La Patera, named for the gathering of ducks in the adjacent marshy slough, was located at the corner of Fairview and Hollister Avenues, and was established in 1869 with the opening of Hiram Hill’s blacksmith shop. Jean Marie Birabent’s Birabent Hotel and saloon followed, as well as a store and saloon run by Jean Baptiste Deu.
22 St. Raphael Catholic Church was built in La
Patera in 1890. 23
21 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 2.
22 According to Walker A. Tompkins in his text Goleta: The Good Land, the wood from the demolished Birabent Hotel was used to build the Ellwood Hotel. (170 Magnolia Avenue, 1915). 23 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 2.
101
25 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
La Goleta, located on the north side of Hollister Avenue at Patterson Avenue,24 was situated on the southwestern portion of the La Goleta land grant . It too was founded in 1869, with the establishment of a general store by Isaac G. Foster. Benjamin Pettit’s blacksmith shop followed in 1872, along with Rafaela School, Methodist and Baptist churches, and a post office.25 The post office, situated in Foster’s store (which also served as the town dance hall), was the focal point of La Goleta. I.G. Foster served as the town’s first postmaster until his death in 1880.26 In 1898, after two others served in the position, blacksmith Benjamin Pettis sold his blacksmith shop and became postmaster, moving the post office from the store to a new building on his property, a quarter block east of Patterson Avenue on Hollister Avenue.27 Between 1870 and 1890, the population of the Goleta Valley increased from 200 to 700 people.28 The two towns continued to serve the farming community as separate entities for approximately 60 years. Though the Valley’s population grew steadily, the towns themselves saw little development . In 1887, a brief growth spurt occurred at La Patera when engineer George F. Wright platted the “Town Site of La Goleta” there. The subdivision was located south of Hollister Avenue and includ ed Lemon, Orange, and Mag nolia Avenues, and Gaviota, Rutherford, Fremont, and Thompson Streets. However, other than a few new dwellings and shops, the town did not develop further at that time. 29 By 1891, Goleta was still described as “nothing more than a trading post for outlying ranches,” with “a couple of dairy ranches and a flourishing creamery,” a railroad depot, a post office , “one store, a hall, Methodist and Baptist churches.”30
New amenities and services were established in the Goleta Valley in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among these were the telegraph, telephone, and railroad, which paved the way for the two towns to grow from small trading posts and into slightly larger commercial and residential centers. However, a lack of available water prevented significant residential development, a problem that would persist until after World War II.
24 At this time, Patterson Avenue was a county road leading over the Santa Ynez Mountains, on land belonging to J.D. Patterson, a developer from Geneva, New York.
25 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 2.
26 Foster’s store and dance hall burned down in 1891.
27 Walker A. Tompkins and Horace A. Sexton, Fourteen at the Table: An Informal History of the Life and Good Times of the Sexton Family of Old Goleta (Goleta, California: Goleta Valley Historical Society and Institute for American Research, 1983), 21-
22. 28 “4.4 Cultural Resources,” Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Heritage Ridge Residential Project, n.d., 151. 29 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 1.
30 “Santa Barbara County,” Los Angeles Times, October 21, 1891; “Sketching the Principal Valleys, Ranchos, and Districts,” Los Angeles Times, September 5, 1891.
102
26 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Map of Goleta and La Patera, 1895. Drawn by Horace Sexton, 1960. Source: Walker A. Tompkins and Horace A. Sexton, Fourteen at the Table: An Informal History of the Life and Good Times of the Sexton Family of Old Goleta (Goleta, California: Goleta Valley Historical Society and Institute for American Research, 1983).
The telegraph reached Goleta in September 1870, and the telephone arrived later in the 19 th century.31 The first phone service in the area was provided by the Sunset Telephone Company .
However, after Sunset’s complete monopoly on phone service alienated customers, a new company, Home Telephone Company, was formed to force improvements in service. 32 Home Telephone Company, headquartered on Carrillo Street in Santa Barbara, installed Goleta’s first telephone exchange in Edgar Blakeway ’s general store on Hollister Avenue , east of Patterson Avenue, in August 1910. During World War I, Home and Sunset merged into Santa Barbara Telephone Company, and were absorbed by the Associated Telephone Company. 33
31 Justin Ruhge, “Looking Back: Telephones First Arrived in the Late 1800s,” Goleta Sun, June 13, 1991. All telephone records before 1910 were lost.
32 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Telephones First Arrived in the Late 1800s.” 33 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Telephones First Arrived in the Late 1800s.” 103
27 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Whaling skiff with Greener’s Gun. Source: Walker A.
Tompkins Collection, Department of Special
Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara,
Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
Theme: Early Industrial Development (1866-1918)
A number of industrial endeavors took hold in the Goleta Valley in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These included a variety of agricultural practices, shore whaling, and asphalt mining.
Shore whaling in California began in Monterey. The enterprise proved so profitable that whaling stations were established at various points along the California coast, beginning in approximately 1855.
34 In December 1871, A. Von Doress established a whaling station at Goleta Sandspit , joining many such establishments along the California coast .35 Men from Jamaica, the Azores, and New England, who had spent long years at sea on whaling ships, were drawn to shore whaling, which offered them the opportunity to settle on land with their families and still ply their trade. The spring and winter migrations of whales along the California coast provided a steady source of income. Six Jamaican whalers and a Chinese cook were the residents of a two- building establishment on the S andspit at the foot of the bluffs (near present -day University of California, Santa Barbara).
Shore whaling was conducted from a skiff with sail, manned by six men. The bow of the boat carried a Greener’s Gun (harpoon). When a whale was harpooned, the skiff pulled up to it, and one of the men thrust a bomb lance into the whale, the explosion which would usually kill the whale. After towing the whale to shore, the men cut it up to remove the blubber, which would
34 Edwin C. Starks, “A History of California Shore Whaling,” State of California Fish and Game Commission Fish Bulletin No. 6 (Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1923), 18. 35 Information on shore whaling adapted from Justin Ruhge Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. 104
28 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Alcatraz Asphalt Mine, c. 1890. Source: Walker A.
Tompkins Collection, Department of Special
Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara,
Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
then be rendered down to whale oil for heating and lamps. Because the rendering process required large quantities of wood, Goleta lost many of its oak trees. Work at the Goleta whaling station was suspended in approximately 1880.36
In the 17th and 18th centuries, ships passing by Goleta were commonly greeted by miles of tar and oil floating on the water. Local Chumash used the tar to caulk their tomals, to attach shells to stone bowls, and to waterproof baskets. These tar flows indicated nearby asphalt deposits, which were mined at the Alcatraz Asphalt Mine near the slough , on the present-day University of California at Santa Barbara campus. Asphalt was shipped by coastal steamer from More’s Landing to San Francisco and points south during the late 1800s. 37 The asphalt mine operated at full capacity for eight years. Each week, five wagons hauled 420 tons of asphalt to the siding at La Patera to await pickup. 38 To increase production, the company built a second installation in present-day Isla Vista.39
Shore whaling and asphalt mining were short-lived industrial endeavors in the Goleta Valley ; both eventually gave way to the significantly more profitable oil and natural gas industry. Oil, gas, and agriculture would remain the primary industries in Goleta until the post -World War II period, and all relied on the railroad to transport their goods to the ports.
The railroad history of the Goleta Valley began in the late 1880s, when the Southern Pacific Railroad completed the southern quarter of the Coast Line, from Saugus to Ellwood. The first train from Los Angeles arrived in Santa Barbara on August 19, 1887. Four months later, tracks
36 Starks, “A History of California Shore Whaling,” 30. 37 Justin Ruhge, “History runs deep at the slough,” Goleta Valley Voice, September 13, 2007. 38 Justin Ruhge, “Looking Back: When ‘asfelt’ was the town industry,” Goleta Sun, October 3, 1991. 39 Ruhge, “Looking Back: When ‘asfelt’ was the town industry.” In 1898, the company decided to close the mine to concentrate its efforts on a more profitable mine, located forty miles away at Break Canyon on the Sisquoc Ranch. 105
29 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
were extended to Goleta, where the “Ventura Division” of the Southern Pacific was opened to Ellwood (11 miles west of Santa Barbara) on December 21, 1887. Between the Goleta and Ellwood depots “lay a scant four miles of track.” 40 In between them, the Southern Pacific built a third station at La Patera. The original 1887 route from Santa Barbara into the Goleta area followed a meandering course, more level and requiring less cuts, fills, and bridges than a shorter, more direct route.
41 Construction of the Coast Line from the south was halted at Ellwood in December 1887, while the progress from the north had reached as far south as Templeton, 137 mi les from Ellwood.
Track building was slowed by an economic recession and daunting geographical challenges. It took another 14 years for the railroad to close the gap between Templeton and Ellwood. 42 In 1896, after bridging the Santa Ynez River, the Southern Pacific Railroad reached as far south as Surf, 56 miles from Ellwood . Three years later, Southern Pacific planners resumed work in the south, and on April 7, 1900, the first construction train pulled into Naples, approximately four miles west of Ellwood. The 661-foot-long bridge over Dos Pueblos Canyon was completed in May 1900, while track-building continued north. Finally, on December 31, 1900, the gap was closed. However, the Coast Line needed much work before it could handle regular rail traffic. 43 During the race to close the gap, the Southern Pacific also focused on improving and straightening the original 1887 rail line from the south. After three months of ballasting and surfacing, the track was officially opened for service, causing a stampede for ticke ts on the first trains. The realigned route through the Goleta Valley was located well north of the original alignment, and most of the bends and curves had been eliminated in favor of a greater dependence on engineered cuts and fills to maintain a relatively level grade. 44 40 Gary B. Coombs, Goleta Depot: The History of a Rural Railroad Station (Goleta, CA: Institute for American Research, 2015), 7. 41 Coombs, Goleta Depot., 7.
42 Coombs, Goleta Depot.
43 Coombs, Goleta Depot.
44 Coombs, Goleta Depot.
106
30 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Railroad routes and stations in the Goleta Valley. Source: South Coast Railroad Museum.
107
31 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Goleta Depot, 1912. Source: South
Coast Railroad Museum.
The initial Goleta Depot, a one-story building with a freight -loading platform, was located near the present-day intersection of Ward Drive and Ekwill Street. 45 However, after the railroad was realigned in 1900, only the Ellwood depot remained along the railroad right-of-way.46 In 1900, Goleta citizens and the Southern Pacific Railroad agreed on a new depot site on the Kellogg estate, with the intention of making the station the centerpiece of the town center (relocated to 300 N. Los Carneros Road in 1981, Santa Barbara County Landmark #22, listed in the National Register of Historic Places). The Goleta Depot served both the railroad and the local community in a variety of functions, such as handling freight, passengers, and communications, all of which were performed by the station agent, who lived in the Depot’s second-story apartment. 47 The Southern Pacific coastal route came to have a major impact on patterns of settlement, tourism, agriculture , and other forms of social and economic development in Santa Barbara County throughout much of the 20 th century. Scores of depots and ancillary buildings were erected in the county during the final years of the construction of the Coast Line. A number of new roads were established linking commercial areas in La Goleta and La Patera to the station.
When the railroad was completed in 1901, Goleta had “a good train, express and telegraph service.”48 Train service into the Goleta Valley consisted of mixed trains (trains carrying both passengers and freight) operating on Wednesdays and Sundays. At harvest time, rail traffic increased, as special freight trains transported Goleta Valley produce to market. 49
45 Coombs, Goleta Depot. The original depot building was shipped north by rail to become the depot in Sunnyvale, California. 46 Coombs, Goleta Depot. The Ellwood depot was retired in 1936. 47 Information about Goleta Depot adapted from “History & Architecture,” South Coast Railroad Museum, http://goletadepot.org/depot_history.php, accessed May 2017. 48 “Santa Barbara County: Goleta’s Depot Site,” Los Angeles Times, February 21, 1900. In 1901, the first automobile passed through the Goleta Valley.
49 Coombs, Goleta Depot.
108
32 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Numerous two-story, wood-frame railroad depots based on the Combination Station Plan No. 22, like the Goleta Depot, were built by the Southern Pacific Railroad from approximately 1890 to 1920. Because of the plan’s popularity during the rush to close the Coast Line gap, eight depots were built according to Plan 22 in Santa Barbara County, more than any other county or state. 50 Character-defining features of this plan include wood sash divided-light double-hung windows, clapboard exterior wall cladding with shingled gable ends, prominent freight-office bay window, and the Railroad’s standard Colonial Yellow paint.51 Theme: Agricultural Development (1866-1918)
Farmers and homesteaders from the east ern and midwestern United States moved into the former La Goleta rancho between the 1860s and 1880s. They initially grew grains, fruits, and vegetables. Later, the Goleta Valley became a major producer and exporter of walnuts, lemons, and lima beans, transforming the region into a considerable force in the agricultural industry.52 In 1882, the Goleta area was described as having “some of the richest of California soils,” as well as “pleasant homes” and a “good wharf, where much shipping is done.”53 The Hollister, Cooper, and Stow ranches were lauded as “abounding in fruits of all kinds, in corn, grain, olives, nuts and oil.”54 The following year, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Goleta is the only section of Santa Barbara county which reports good crops of all kinds. The grain is good, fruit is good and the Goletans are happy.”55
By 1891, Goleta comprised “one league of land – 4444 acres,” which did not include Rancho Los Dos Pueblos.56 In one newspaper account, Goleta was noted as “the ‘garden spot’ of Santa Barbara bounty [sic].” 57 The writer went on to describe Goleta’s agricultural landscape:
The great staple of Goleta is the English walnut. Formerly the hard-shell nuts were cultivated, but now the soft- shell variety is exclusively put out ...It is the habit at Goleta to plant summer crops between the walnut rows up to the third year of their growth…Beans are quite a feature of Goleta productions, and formerly the
50 Coombs, Goleta Depot.
51 Information about typical Southern Pacific Railroad depots adapted from “History & Architecture,” South Coast Railroad Museum, http://goletadepot.org/depot_history.php, accessed May 2017. Because it was constructed approximately five years before the Southern Pacific began to use Colonial Yellow as their standard depot color, the depot would originally have been painted slate grey.
52 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 1.
53 “Santa Barbara: The Zenith City by the Shore of the Sunset Sea,” Los Angeles Times, September 8, 1882. 54 “Santa Barbara: The Zenith City by the Shore of the Sunset Sea.” 55 “The State and the Coast,” Los Angeles Times, July 31, 1883. 56 “Sketching the Principal Valleys, Ranchos, and Districts,” Los Angeles Times, September 5, 1891. 57 “Sketching the Principal Valleys, Ranchos, and Districts.” 109
33 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
pampas occupied considerable of the land, but is now being rapidly superseded by other and more profitable crops …The hills and mesas are devoted to barley and wheat…Oranges, lemons and limes do well in the canons some distance back from the sea, yielding a fair profit, the lemons being excellent.58 Settlers who would have an enduring impact on the development of the area came to Goleta during this period. Some of the city’s most well- known resources are related to this period of settlement. Horticulturalist Joseph Sexton established one of California’s early plant nurseries at his home in Goleta, introducing exotic plants to the area. Col. W.W. Hollister brought English walnut trees to the area, planting the Goleta Valley’s first walnut grove at his Glen Annie Ranch.
Ellwood Cooper introduced ladybugs to the area, along with several varieties of eucalyptus trees.
As property owners sought viable commercial crops to raise on former cattle grazing lands, walnut growing became the first major commercial agricultural business in Goleta. Joseph Sexton developed a soft-shell walnut using Chilean nuts he had imported from San Francisco, and W.W.
Hollister introduced English walnut trees on his Glen Annie Ranch. The Santa Barbara County Walnut Growers Association, a cooperative designed to serve the financial interests of the farmers, was formed in 1896.59 In 1899, Goleta walnut farmers shipped 33 carloads of walnuts via the Southern Pacific Railroad.60
Lima beans, another successful crop, were often planted in new walnut orchards, providing a cash crop until the walnut trees were old enough to produce. In the 1880s, Goleta and La Patera provided most of the lima beans on the market, with growers realizing “gross returns of from $66 and $110 per acre.”61
Joseph Sexton moved to California at age ten, when his parents relocated the family from Ohio to join the Gold Rush in 1852. 62 In November 1866, Sexton followed his parents, who had moved several years previously, to Santa Barbara, bringing with him enough stock to establish a nursery. He constructed a board and batten structure (demolished) near his parents’ house (229 Castillo Street, Santa Barbara, demolished), and set up his first nursery nearby . Soon thereafter, Sexton bought his father’s property in the Goleta Valley for $2,200, and built a two-story house
58 “Sketching the Principal Valleys, Ranchos, and Districts.” 59 The first walnut packing house in Goleta was built by Florentine Kellogg near his creamery south of Hollister Avenue and east of Ward Drive.
60 “All Along the Line,” Los Angeles Times, December 3, 1899. 61 “Lima Beans,” Los Angeles Times, September 7, 1882.
62 History of Sexton Nursery adapted from Walker A. Tompkins and Horace A. Sexton, Fourteen at the Table: An Informal History of the Life and Good Times of the Sexton Family of Old Goleta (Goleta, California: Goleta Valley Historical Society and Institute for American Research, 1983).
110
34 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Sexton House, 1898. Source: Walker A. Tompkins
Collection, Department of Special Collections,
University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson
Library, Santa Barbara, California.
on the property, one of ten houses constructed in the Goleta Valley in 1869.63 Sexton established a nursery at his Goleta Valley home the same year. It was known for its ornamental plants, such as pampas grass and soft-shelled walnut trees.64
Per Sexton’s writings, in the winter of 1868, the area south of present-day Hollister Avenue was alive with blackberry vines, willow thickets, and a few creek bank sycamore trees. North of Hollister, extending as far as the foothills, the land was covered with clusters of oak trees and giant mustard. Eleven years later, Sexton and his family had outgrown their first home ; Sexton engaged Santa Barbara architect Peter Barber to design a two-story Italianate home 150 feet southeast of their current house (5490 Hollister Avenue, 1880; Santa Barbara County Landmark #14, listed in the National Register of Historic Places).65 In the late 1860s, Charles E. Huse, the executor of Nicolas Den’s estate, arranged for the sale of several tracts of land in the former Den estate . W.W. Hollister offered Huse $10 an acre for 5,000 acres of the former Den estate bisected by Tecolotito Creek , between the east ridge of Ellwood Canyon and Carneros Creek. Hollister took immediate possession of Glen Annie Ranch (present-day Bishop Ranch, Santa Barbara County Place of Historic Merit). However, because the sale went against Den’s will, the Santa Barbara Probate Court did not approve the sale, foreshadowing a future legal battle.
Hollister established the first large walnut grove in the Goleta Valley with 3,000 English walnut trees, and also planted an almond grove, planted with 10,000 trees obtained from a nursery in
63 Sexton’s father had purchased the land from the heirs of Nicolas Den for $2,200 several years prior. Sexton sold the north sixty acres of his holdings to J.D. Patterson for $2,200, thereby retaining his 40-acre farmstead free of cost. 64 Justin Ruhge, “Looking Back: Farmhouse Tradition Remains in Goleta,” Goleta Sun, June 6, 1991. 65 “Sexton Inn,” Justin Ruhge Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
111
35 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
San Jose.66 A “serpentine avenue bordered by cypress and pines” was laid out to the county road, later re -named Hollister Avenue in the Colonel’s honor. 67 At the entrance to the ranch, a monumental white archway was installed, equipped with trundle gates powered by a counterweight in a 30-foot dry well, allowing drivers to operate the gates without alighting from their vehicles. 68 The landscaping in front of the ranch house featured such exotic plants as weeping acacias, gingko, Moreton Bay figs, Abyssinian bananas, Korean cinnamon, and California redwoods.
69 Another Goleta settler known for introducing exotic flora to the area, Ellwood Cooper, became convinced that Santa Barbara olive oil could compete commercially with Italian oil. In 1869, he purchased 2,000 acres of the former Den estate, seven-eighths of a mile wide, running along the coast between Winchester and Glen Annie canyons. 70
Cooper intended for his family to live in Santa Barbara while he traveled to and from his ranch daily. However, after a year of traveling the twelve-mile round trip on horseback, Cooper became frustrated with this arrangement, and built a board and batten shack for overnight use. His wife, Sarah, moved with him, and additions were made as needed. The house became the focus of a complex of barns, machine shops, an olive mill, and other outbuildings, most of which were removed by subsequent owners. 71
66 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 85.
67 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 85. Around 1900, Hollister’s avenue of cypress and pines was replaced with palm trees, some of which were later transplanted along the north side of Hollister Avenue with varying success. 68 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 85. The arch remained in its original location until 1962, when it was moved to the Howard Goldman ranch at 570 Glen Annie Road, beyond the present boundaries of the City of Goleta. 69 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 86.
70 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 114.
71 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 115-116.
Glen Annie Ranch house (demolished),
n.d. Source: goletahistory.com
112
36 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Ellwood Ranch house, painting
by Ellen Cooper. Source: “Some
Incidents in the Life of Ellwood
Cooper,” NOTICIAS: Quarterly
Magazine of the Santa Barbara
Historical Museums XXXIX, no.
2 (Summer 1993).
In 1872, Cooper’s orchards contained 7,000 olive trees and 12,500 walnut trees, making Ellwood Ranch the largest olive and walnut ranch in California .72 Cooper’s olive mill was the largest in the coun try, and featured vertically-mounted eight-foot iron cogwheels which drove the millstones.
Cooper’s oil operation was a financial failure due to competition provided by Sicilian oil, which was imported at a fraction of the cost of Cooper’s product. 73 However, Cooper was successful in other endeavors. The eucalyptus “was transplanted up from the Southern Hemisphere through the promotional efforts, initially, of Santa Barbara rancher and college president Ellwood Cooper.”74 Alarmed by the deforestation of the United States and foreseeing a solution in eucalyptus, i n 1870, Coo per “commenced large planting operations to test many species.” 75 Cooper imported 50 varieties of eucalyptus from Australia, planting “some fifty thousand” trees.76 His primary eucalyptus nursery was situated south of the Gaviota stage road, on a plot near present-day Ellwood School. “By the 1880s the planting of eucalyptus had become a California crusade, cheered on by Cooper, the Los Angeles -based Forest Grove Association , and Abbot Kinney, the state forester.” 77 By 1907, Cooper had planted 200 acres of eucalyptus trees on his 2,000-acre ranch.78 With the exception of the Santa Maria Valley, where most of the existing
72 Kevin Starr, Material Dreams: Southern California through the 1920s (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990), 246. 73 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 118.
74 Starr, Material Dreams, 184.
75 Starr, Material Dreams, 184; Jean Broadhurst, “The Eucalyptus Trees of California,” Torreya 10 no. 4 (April 1910), 85. 76 Starr, Material Dreams, 184.
77 Starr, Material Dreams, 184.
78 California State Board of Forestry, A Handbook for Eucalyptus Planters (Sacramento, CA: Superintendent State Printing, 1908), 37; Starr, Material Dreams, 246.
113
37 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Former entrance to Glen Annie Ranch,
including Hollister Arch, n.d. Source:
goletahistory.com.
eucalyptus trees were grown from seedlings sold by Joseph Sexton’s nursery, most of Santa Barbara County’s eucalyptus trees originated with Ellwood Cooper.79 In the early 1880s, Cooper’s almond trees became infected with cottony cushion scale , and, soon after, his walnut groves were threatened by black scale . Searching for solutions to his problem, Cooper learned of a natural parasite that fed on the scale – the ladybug. He sent to China for a supply of the insects, and turned them loose in Ellwood Canyon. Within weeks, the scale had disappeared. 80 Following Cooper’s example, farmers throughout the state imported ladybugs and eradicated black scale from their orchards. To honor his accomplishment, Cooper was elected president of the California State Board of Horticulture in 1883, and held t he post for several successive terms.81
In the mid- 1870s, Hollister and Cooper’s claims to former Den lands were contested. This resulted in Cooper settling with the Dens, surrendering all of his property west of Goleta, south of Hollister Avenue ; and an 1890 California Supreme Court ruling returned the Glen Annie Ranch to the Den family.82 Thomas Bishop received the Sturgis brothers’ property and most of Hollister’s property as payment for his successful prosecution of the Dens’ case. Now known as Bishop Ranch (96 Glen Annie Road; Santa Barbara County Place of Historic Merit), the property remained in the Bishop family until 1959. 83
79 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 119.
80 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 119.
81 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 119.
82 Colonel Hollister died in August 1886, before the courts reached their decision. Minutes after Hollister’s widow, Annie James Hollister, vacated the premises on November 20, 1890, the ranch house burned to the ground. 83 “The Den Vs. Hollister Case.”
114
38 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Kellogg Dairy, c. 1900 (demolished). Source: Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land.
In 1877, Frank E. Kellogg purchased 20 acres of property west of Joseph Sexton’s nursery , and “engaged quite extensively in bean culture.” 84 By 1882, he established a d airy (demolished) at the south side of Hollister Avenue at the intersection with present-day Ward Memorial Boulevard as part of his 150-acre property. Twenty-five acres of the tract were dedicated to soft-shell English walnut trees, while other areas were dedicated to Pampas grass for market. The dairy produced a majority of the dairy products sold in the Goleta area in the 1890s. 85 In 1892, Kellogg constructed a steam- power creamery on his property, soon “one of the most important institutions of its kind in Southern California.”86 It was the first creamery erected in Santa Barbara County, and produced 150 pounds of butter daily, using about 2,000 pounds of milk from 150 local cows.87
Stow Ranch, another significant agricultural establishment in 19th century Goleta, was established in 1871 when W.W. Stow purchased 1,043 acres of the La Patera tract from Rafaela Hill and
84 Yda Addis Storke, A Memorial and Biographical History of the Counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura, California (Chicago: Lewis Publishing Company, 1891), 500. 85 “Goleta’s Forgotten Past: The Dairy Industry That Once Flourished in Goleta and Santa Barbara,” unpublished essay, Goleta Valley Historical Society archives.
86 Storke, A Memorial and Biographical History, 500-501. 87 Storke, A Memorial and Biographical History, 500-501. Per Justin Ruhge, there were eight dairies in the Goleta Valley, most of which were operated by Italian families.
115
39 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Stow House, c. 1925. Source: Goleta Valley Historical Society. her second husband, German Senter. The land lay between Carneros and San Pe dro creeks, from the foothills to the north boundary of George Williams’ ranch (now the railroad).
W.W. Stow constructed the Gothic Revival style ranch house at 304 N. Los Carneros Road (attributed to Frank Walker; Santa Barbara County Landmark #6, listed in the National Register of Historic Places) in 1872. Upon completion of the main house, Walker was engaged to design a single-walled summer cottage (demolished) for W.W. Stow, on a hill overlooking the pond north of the main house.88 In 1876, W.W. Stow deeded his son, Sherman P. Stow, who ran the farm and lived on the land, a portion of La Patera Ranch . In 1883, W.W. Stow mortgaged the entire ranch to Sherman for $40,000.
One of the first crops planted at Stow Ranch was tobacco, which was unsuccessful due to the Goleta Valley’s mild climate and an influx of grasshoppers. Sherman P. Stow bought enough walnut and almond trees to make a 100-acre orchard, “planting at a ratio of five almonds to four walnuts, with a scattering of pecans.” 89 W.W. Stow later added another 1,500 walnut trees to his son’s orchards. However, Stow Ranch became known for its lemons. W.W. Stow obtained a number of grafting shoots from a Lisbon lemon tree in Alameda, California, which were shipped to Los Angeles for grafting to sweet orange rootstock. Crews of Italian woodchoppers were set to clearing oak trees from Stow Ranch, which were then replaced by 1,000 lemon trees, alongside orange and walnut trees, in 1875. 90 This lemon grove, located just east of present-day Stow Grove Park, was the first commercial lemon grove in the Goleta Valley.
88 This house was later occupied by blacksmith Jim Smith and family. It was demolished in the 1920s. 89 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 125.
90 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 126.
116
40 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Lemons became such a successful crop on Stow Ranch that the packing and marketing of the crop was turned over to Harleigh Johnston of San Ysidro Ranch in Montecito. Ultimately, Johnston’s private packing house could not handle the growing volume of lemons, so growers from Goleta to Carpinteria joined together to form the Johnston Fruit Company in 1897.
Between 1889 and 1892, Johnston packed lemons on the Stow Ranch under the “Mission Brand” label. 91
Consistent with development patterns throughout Southern California in the mid - to late-19th century, residents of the Goleta Valley were increasingly diverse . Immigrants from France, Mexico, Ireland, and Germany ha d moved into the area by 1870, working as laborers, retail merchants, and farmers .92 The 1870s witnessed a further influx of immigrants to the area, including farmers, shopkeepers, laborers, cooks, stock raisers, and other workers from Ireland, Mexico, Germany, Prussia, Wales, China, Spain, Italy, France, and England. As local ranchers hired new arrivals to plant trees and pick produce throughout the 1880s and 1890s, still more immigrants from North America, Asia, and Europe arrived in the Goleta Valley. 93 Immigrants from China worked primarily as cooks, laundrymen, and farm laborers, and often lived on their employers’ land, while workers of Mexican descent found work in Goleta in the early 20 th century as farm laborers, slaughterhouse employees, produce pickers, and railroad workers, living at or near their places of work.94 In Goleta: The Good Land, specific information about European immigrant groups coming to the area is included based on oral histories conducted with descendants of those groups , providing greater detail about the arrival and settlement of those families than is typically available. This includes immigrants of Scottish and Italian descent, who arrived in Goleta in the late 19
th century.
In 1874, Stephen Rutherford purchased a 100 -acre tract located south of Hollister Avenue between San Jose Creek and Fairview Avenue, and built a two -story house on present -day Rutherford Avenue (demolished). Rutherford later purchased five sections of land perpendicular to Dos Pueblos Canyon, and began raising potatoes, corn, and hay. In 1888, he built a large
91 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 127-128.
92 1870 United States Census data.
93 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 171-178, 203-213. Although people from many different ethnicities came to the area in the late 19th century, a majority of immigrants to Goleta at the end of the 19th century came from Scotland and Italy. The 1920 United States census is the first to record Japanese immigrants living in Goleta. Per the 1920 United States census, the Japanese inhabitants of La Patera worked as farmers and farm laborers in the area’s agricultural industry. 94 United States census data, 1880-1940. Most families of Mexican descent lived in enclaves along Fairview Avenue or Hollister Avenue, near their places of employment.
117
41 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
L: Fritz Maiers and his original walnut huller, n.d. R: Goleta Walnut Grower’s Warehouse, c. 1915. Source for both:
Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land.
redwood home (extensively altered) on the property. He operated the ranch until 1917, when he sold it to oil tycoon Herbert G. Wylie. 95
Between 1866 and 1918, many resources related to the agric ultural industry were established in the Goleta Valley. These include walnut-, lima bean-, and lemon-packing warehouses, lemon orchards, and machine shops. Cooperative organizations focused on the packing and distribution of walnuts, lima beans, and lemons were also founded during this period, allowing farmers to more easily sell their produce at higher prices.
Despite the local success of the citrus industry, walnuts continued to dominate the Goleta Valley’s agricultural production throughout the early 20 th century. In 1903, Goleta wainwright George “Fritz” Maiers invented a labor-saving mechanical walnut huller, and later established a walnut hulling operation at 5970 Hollister Avenue (1915). In 1913, a new, expanded walnut packing warehouse measuring 110 feet by 40 feet (demolished) was built on Kellogg Avenue east of Depot Road near the Southern Pacific Depot and railroad tracks, to store walnuts for shipping.96
In August 1913, Goleta Valley lima bean growers, led by Edgar Stow (son of Sherman P. Stow), formed a cooperative named Goleta Farmers, Inc. (renamed the Goleta Lima Bean Growers’ Association in 1916). In October of the same year, they built a large warehouse and processing facility (demolished) measuring 120 feet by 150 feet on Kellogg Avenue, adjacent to the walnut
95 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 172.
96 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 1; Justin Ruhge, “Looking Back: Goleta was the home of the soft-shell walnut,” Goleta Sun, May 2, 1991.
118
42 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Goleta Methodist Church, 1875. Source:
Goleta Valley Historical Society.
packing warehouse. 97 During the co- op’s first year of operation, the associated farmers raised, harvested, and sold 2.6 million pounds of lima beans. 98 In 1915, Goleta experienced a large increase in agricultural activity, notably in the setting out of lemon orchards, doubling the acreage of citrus fruits in the area. As the United States entered World War I, agricultural growth in the Goleta Valley continued. Walnuts, lima beans, and lemons continued to be the Goleta Valley’s main products, exported via cooperative associations to large markets.
Theme: Early Civic and Institutional Development (1866-1918) As the Goleta Valley transformed from scattered cattle ranches into farms and town settlements, public services and infrastructure, schools, churches, and other local institutions were established in La Goleta and La Patera to meet the needs of the growing population. Though no civic or institutional resources from this period remain extant, these amenities formed part of the cultural fabric of the early Goleta Valley.
Churches
Several religious buildings were constructed during this period to provide a gathering place and a place of worship for Goleta Valley residents. Though the original buildings are no longer extant, most of the institutions remain active in the City of Goleta.
97 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 1-2; Justin Ruhge, “Looking Back: Goleta was the home of the soft-shell walnut,” Goleta Sun, May 2, 1991. Both the lima bean and walnut co-op buildings were destroyed by fire on March 22, 1966. 98 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Goleta was the home of the soft-shell walnut.” 119
43 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
When Goleta Valley pioneer Florentine Kellogg arrived in 1872, he immediately began to campaign for the construction of a Methodist church. On October 11, 1875, a board of five trustees was chosen, and a building committee was appointed; in less than two months services took place in the new church.99
St. Raphael Catholic Church was founded in June 1896 by Fr. Polydore Stockman on land donated by Rafaela Hill, widow of Goleta pioneer Daniel Hill. The church stood at 6015 Hollister Avenue (demolished) until 1929, when it moved to Mandarin Avenue.100 New religious organizations formed in the early 20 th century, fracturing the Methodist congregation. These groups attempted to erase the boundaries between Protestant denominations, allowing for greater religious freedom and harmony among Goleta residents.
On August 12, 1912, 85 Goleta Valley Protestants organized into the “United Church.” However, because the Methodist Conference would not allow their church to become independent, nearly 60 of the members reorganized into “The Federated Church” on September 22, 1913. While waiting for their church (5320 Hollister Avenue; demolished) to be constructed, members of the Federated Church met at Sexton Hall.101 After approximately eight months, the congregation moved into their new church on May 10, 1914.
Only a small congregation remained at the original Methodist church when the denomination maintained that the church could not become independent as a “United Church” of the Protestant people of the valley. Subsequently the Methodist Conference sent some of their ablest ministers to the Goleta Methodist Church. Regardless, the church had lost the majority of its congregation. The church building and property was sold in 1921 to the Goleta Farm Center.102 The building then became a meeting hall and community center.103
99 “Goleta Community Church,” Justin Ruhge Papers, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
100 “History of Saint Raphael Catholic Church,” St. Raphael Catholic Church, Santa Barbara, CA, http://straphaelsb.org/history-of- saint-raphael-catholic-church/, accessed February 2017. 101 “Goleta Community Church,” Justin Ruhge Papers, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. See below discussion of Sexton’s Hall. Although the Federated Church (now Goleta Community Church) had invited all Goleta Valley Protestants to join, local Baptists maintained their own church. 102 “Goleta Community Church.”
103 “Goleta Community Church.” By 1948 the need for both the Farm Center Organization and its meeting place had run out. At that time the membership of the Farm Center voted collectively and had an attorney draw up a petition to be signed individually by the members and owners of the shares to transfer over and give their vested interest to the Federated Church next door for its growing needs.
120
44 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Rafaela School. Source: Tompkins, Goleta
the Good Land.
Schools
Early Goleta Valley children were schooled at home or in Santa Barbara. However, after the Rancho period, the growing populations of La Goleta and La Patera necessitated the creation of local schools and school districts.
In 1875, the first school in the area, Rafaela School, was constructed on the southwest corner of Hollister and Patterson Avenues (later moved across the street and one block north on Patterson Avenue; demolished).104 Approximately 25 children attended the school, which employed one teacher.105 Meanwhile, the farm population continued to grow in the foothills north of Goleta and west toward La Patera. In keeping with the desire for locally run schools, districts were established at Cathedral Oaks and old San Marcos roads in 1877. A third school dist rict was established that same year at La Patera along present -day Fairview. 106 Two school buildings
(demolished) served the district, one of which was moved from Fairview to La Patera Lane at Momouth Avenue and completely remodeled in 1895. 107
In 1883, after growing attendance overwhelmed the original school building, the Rafaela School building was replaced by the Two-Story School, located on S outh Patterson Avenue north of Hollister Avenue (demolished). As a result of a petition, the school’s name was changed in 1909
104 Dr. Lou Hale Smitheram, “A Chronology of Goleta Valley. History,” Goleta Historical Notes, 3(2), Fall 1988; Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land.
105 Justin Ruhge, “Looking Back: Schools went up and down with population.,” Goleta Sun, April 25, 1991. 106 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Schools went up and down with population.” 107 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Schools went up and down with population.” 121
45 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
from Rafaela to Goleta School. 108 In 1911, the student population again outgrew its building. To remedy the situation, a one-story structure of two wings with a two-story belfry at the left of an arched stone entrance was erected on the same site as the Two-Story School (demolished).
Civic Development
The Goleta Valley’s first civic amenities were established during this period, facilitating the area’s transformation from a scattering of cattle ranches to farms and town settlements. These establishments allowed La Patera and La Goleta to function collectively as a modern settlement, as opposed to collections of individual farms, businesses, and residential areas.
In 1875, the first post office opened in the town of La Goleta. Although there was disagreement among residents about the name of the town, with some preferring Oakdale and others advocating for La Goleta, the United States Postal Service assigned the name “Goleta” to the local post office, settling the debate.109
The Goleta Valley volunteer fire department organized after the minister’s residence at the Federated Church burned to the ground in 1914. A campaign was launched to raise funds with which they bought a 50 -gallon soda- acid tank, cart, and hose. To celebrate the purchase of firefighting equipment, trash and fuel were piled in the schoolyard, and a bonfire was set . The soda-acid cart was placed for duty at the blacksmith shop at the corner of Patterson and Hollister Avenues. 110 No firehouses were established during this period.
108 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Schools went up and down with population.” 109 Smitheram, “A Chronology of Goleta Valley History.” 110 “Goleta Community Church.”
122
46 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Social Institutions
There were no social institutions in La Patera or La
Goleta for the majority of the 19 th century. To
provide a safe place for young people to socialize,
Joseph Sexton established Sexton Hall (5410 Hollister
Avenue; demolished) in May 1890. The hall, which
housed a 38 --by-80-foot auditorium, served as the
center of Goleta social life for several decades. 111
Elections, weddings, funerals, dances, graduations,
parties, and lodge meetings were held there. The first
movie was shown at Sexton Hall in 1897 , and two
years later, cartoonist, vaudeville comedian, and actor Leo Carrillo is rumored to have made his theatrical
debut in the hall.112
In 1895, the Philomathic Club of Goleta was formed. Renamed the Goleta Woman’s Club in 1904, the club campaigned for the establishment of a library, and championed educational, religious, and other, similar causes. Charter members included Elizabeth Sevoy Warren, Serepta Hardcastle Campbell, Lucy Foster Sexton, and Mollie Miller Baker.113
111 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 225.
112 Smitheram, “A Chronology of Goleta Valley History,”; Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land. 113 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 228.
Sexton Hall, 5410 Hollister Avenue. Source:
Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land.
123
47 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
CONTEXT: DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE WARS (1919-1940)
Between the First and Second World Wars, Goleta transformed from two towns and a scattered grouping of ranches and farms into a booming citrus producer and oil town. Agriculture continued to be a major economic engine in the Goleta Valley during this period, with major crops including lemons , walnuts , tomatoes , and lima beans. Both oil and natural gas were extracted in the Goleta Valley during the period between the wars, which impacted the development of the early settlements of La Patera and La Goleta.
Development in the town of La Patera took precedence over La Goleta in the 1920s and 1930s for a number of reasons, including the construction of Goleta Union School in 1927 on a ten - acre parcel at the La Patera end of Hollister Avenue , the oil strike in 1928 at the Ellwood oil field to the west, and the creation of an airfield and hangar near the intersection of Fairview and Hollister Avenues. 114 In 1933, the United States Postal Service moved the post office from Hollister and Patterson Avenues in La Goleta to a new building developed by realtor Robert E.
Smith at the corner of Hollister Street and Orange Avenue in La Patera, bringing with it the name “Goleta.” Thus, La Patera officially became Goleta.
Theme: Residential Development (1919-1940)
This theme explores the transition from ranch and agricultural properties to the early growth of the city and the development of residential neighborhoods. Many residences from this period are located near the town of La Patera, which became the commercial center of Goleta in 1933, when the United States Postal Service established the Goleta post office there. Residences from this period may be eligible as rare examples of the development of the township, or as remnant residences in areas that were later redeveloped or subdivided. Residential properties associated with this context are typically in the Craftsman or Spanish Colonial Revival style, with many vernacular examples. Residential tract development is discussed in a separate sub-theme, below.
Multi-family residential development was limited during this period; most multi-family residential development occurred after World War II.
Residential development was disorganized during this period. Several housing tracts were laid out in the 1920s but were generally not highly developed due to the area’s lack of available water. Most surviving residences from this period originated as a result of scattered development within these subdivisions . A map of Goleta residential tracts and subdivisions is included in Appendix C.
114 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 2-3.
124
48 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
PRE-WORLD WAR II SUBDIVISIONS
NAME DATE DEVELOPER
Elwood Acres115 1927 W.A. Potter & Son
Goleta Center 1927 Los Angeles First National Trust & Savings Bank; Margaret O’Brien; Katie Kelly
In the late 1920s, there was a decided effort to further develop La Patera. In 1927, W.A. Potter and his son, Julius Potter, laid out Elwood Acres No. 1 and No. 2 on a portion of Rancho Los Dos Pueblos. The tract consisted of 154 parcels laid out along a portion of Hollister Avenue , Ellwood Beach Drive, Mathilda Drive, and Strehle Lane.116 Though the subdivision map was filed with the County of Santa Barbara in May 1927, the tract was not developed until the post - World War II period, likely because a pipeline carrying oil from the Ellwood oil field to the Ellwood Railroad Depot was routed through the tract in the late 1920s. Aerial photographs of the tract in 1947 show the northern portion of the subdivision occupied by orchards.117 Also in 1927, Santa Barbara realtor Robert E. Smith and Goleta landowner Frank Dow laid out a tract north of Hollister Avenue , extending from Fairview Avenue to Nectarine Avenue, with three north/south streets (Orange, Magnolia, and Nectarine, matching the names of those streets laid out south of Hollister in 1887) and one east/west street (Mandarin). 118 The same year, the adjacent property to the east was platted, with one north/south street (Tecolote) and three east/west streets (Gato, Aguila, and Armitos).
119 The owners were listed as the Los Angeles First
National Trust & Savings Bank, Margaret O’Brien , and Katie Kelley . Residences constructed in this subdivision during this period were scattered. Those that remain are characterized by simple, rectangular, one- and two-story massing, wo od clapboard or textured cement plaster exterior wall cladding, and gabled roofs.
115 This context statement utilizes the spelling “Ellwood” to refer to both Ellwood Cooper and the places named after him, with the exception of Elwood Acres No. 1 and No. 2, which was listed as such on the tract map filed with Santa Barbara County. 116 Elwood Acres No. 1 and No. 2 map, County of Santa Barbara, May 1927. 117 1947 aerial photograph of Goleta, historicaerials.com, accessed February 2017. 118 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 2.
119 Goleta Center map, County of Santa Barbara, November 1927. 125
49 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Map of Goleta Center, 1927. Source: County of Santa Barbara.
At about the same time, a hog and poultry farm along south Fairview Avenue was subdivided into nine cul -de-sacs (Daley, Matthews, Olney, Cloer, Carson, Avion, Payara, Placencia, and Corta Streets), with 40- foot-wide lots laid out in a development called Fa irfield. A few houses were constructed; however, due to frequent flooding of the adjacent San Jose Creek , the subdivision was never fully developed.
120
Theme: Commercial Development (1919-1940)
The period between World War I and World War II witnessed a number of changes in the Goleta Valley’s commercial centers. At the beginning of the 1920s, the towns of La Goleta and La Patera formed Goleta’s original commercial districts, centered on Hollister and Patterson Avenues, and Hollister and Fairview Avenues, respectively. The advent and rise in popularity of
120 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 2.
126
50 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Looking west on Hollister from Patterson Avenue, 1925. Source: Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land. the automobile led to many changes, while the budding oil industry necessitated new businesses and provided a growing clientele for established enterprises. Goleta and La Patera’s commercial districts combined to become one commercial center in 1933, when the United States Postal Service established the Goleta post office in La Patera, changing that town’s name and effectively combining the neighboring settlements.
In the 1920s, the automobile was the leading consumer product in the country, and by 1925 there was one automobile for every six Americans (compared to one for every 100 in Great Britain).121 The automobile and the freedom it represented touched the American spirit of individualism and exploration, and the new motor tourist – upper and middle class alike – was lured by the adventure of the open road, unencumbered by the routes and schedules of the railroads. To cater to this new phenomenon, the first auto garages in Goleta were established in 1921 by Ernie Vogel and Fred and Frank Acres.
Osborne “Bud” and Josephine Coffey bought a building at 5968 Hollister Avenue in 1923 and began a café and soda fountain catering to truckers traveling the state highway to Santa Barbara.
After oil was struck in 1928, the Coffeys gradually changed their business to a general store ,
121 “Transportation – General 1923-28: Automobiles and the Highways,” Calvin Coolidge papers, Library of Congress, American Memory Collection.
127
51 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Ellwood Hotel, 1954. Source:
Goleta Valley Historical Society.
stocking gloves and clothes for oil workers, and then into a grocery store, becoming the first self- service store in Goleta.122
On June 29, 1925, a large earthquake struck the Santa Barbara area , damaging or destroying many properties in Goleta, including: 175 Chapel Street (demolished) ; the Goleta Walnut Association packing house (demolished), shifted several feet off its foundation; the Goleta School on South Patterson Avenue (demolished), considerably damaged; Simpson’s Garage on Hollister Avenue, partially collapsed during the initial earthquake and fully demolished during an aftershock; and most masonry chimneys and brick veneer walls.123 By 1930, the north side of Hollister Avenue between Fairview Avenue and Pine Street contained eighteen businesses, the majority of which served local needs. These included a carpenter, an auto repair shop, a grocery store, a blacksmith and machine shop, a lumber yard, a barber, a restaurant, a pool hall, a butcher, a baker, a drugstore, and a beauty parlor. 124 However, several
businesses catered to the new breed of automobile tourists, including the Camel Auto Court and gasoline station (171 Nectarine Avenue; c. 1920) and the Ellwood Hotel (170 Magnolia Avenue; 1915).125 The south side of Hollister Avenue remained predominately the domain of walnut and lemon fields, except for the areas located within the 1888 subdivision of the Town Site of La Goleta.
122 Science Applications International Corporation, “Evaluation of Historic Buildings within the Goleta Project Area,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 7. 123 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 269-270.
124 1930 Sanborn Fire Insurance map of Goleta.
125 The Ellwood Hotel has since been converted into a multi-family residential building. 128
52 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of
Goleta, 1930. State Highway
(present-day Hollister Avenue) was
the focus of Goleta’s early
commercial district.
The Great Depression all but halted building development in Goleta. Nevertheless, by 1939, the town had grown to the extent that boosters producing the first Goleta directory called the town “The Most Prosperous Community in the Wealthiest County of the Richest State in the World.”
126 There was some limited development during this period, including a one-story Spanish Colonial Revival building at 5890 Hollister Avenue (1934) built by Frank Dow and Richard E.
Smith. The north side of the building housed the Bank of America, and the newly relocated post office was located on the south side. As Goleta began to emerge from the Great Depression, Associated Telephone replaced the operator at the telephone exchange in Edgar Blakeway ’s store with modern switching equipment at a small building at 195 Patterson Avenue. This became the Goleta Central Office for Associated Telephone. 127
126 Goleta Valley Directory, 1939, Goleta Valley Leader. 127 Justin Ruhge, “Looking Back: Telephones First Arrived in the Late 1800s,” Goleta Sun, June 13, 1991. All telephone records before 1910 were lost.
129
53 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Theme: Civic & Institutional Development (1919-1940)
As La Patera and La Goleta continued to grow, public services and infrastructure, schools, churches, and other cultural institutions were established to meet the needs of the growing population. These institutions became part of the social and cultural fabric of the city. During this period, the two towns established in 1869 became one when the post office was moved from Patterson to Fairview in 1933, bringing with it the name Goleta. Publicly accessible picnic grounds, like the redwood grove now called Stow Grove Park, were also established in the Goleta Valley.
Goleta was home to a succession of newspapers, most of which published weekly or bi-weekly, though at least one was published daily. Marshall Selover began the Goleta Valley Leader, the first local paper and the only one founded before World War II , in 1936. 128 The Leader was located in a two- story building at 5876 Hollister Avenue (demolished). Marshall’s wife, Esther, worked at the newspaper, and, later, Mrs. H.C. Hammond served as news and society editor.
The Leader operated with this staff until about 1943, when Marshall Selover decided to join the war effort by going to work at the Port Hueneme Naval Base. The paper was then taken over by Stanley Lucas, who operated the paper until about 1945, when it went out of circulation.
Schools
By the early 1920s, Goleta Valley schoolhouses were struggling to accommodate the 200 students in the district. T o address the situation, the former Cathedral Oaks, La Patera, and Goleta Districts combined to form the Goleta Union School District in 1925. Construction of the Goleta Union School (5679 Hollister Avenue) at La Patera began the following year, spurring the shift of the center of influence from La Goleta to La Patera.
The new school required an $85,000 bond issue to purchase a 10- acre lot situated near the business district in La Patera, and to construct the Mediterranean Revival style schoolhouse designed by Santa Maria architect Louis N. Crawford. 129 The new schoolhouse had six classrooms, an administration office, teacher and student restrooms, special rooms for cooking and manual arts instruction, a library, kitchen, and 390-seat auditorium. The building was promoted as “earthquake resistant,” with “fireproof walls and roof.” 130 The former Goleta School,
128 Information about the Goleta Valley Leader adapted from Justin Ruhge Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. 129 Stella Haverland Rouse, “Goleta Union School: The Center of Things,” Those Were the Days: Landmarks of Old Goleta, ed.
Gary B. Coombs (Goleta, CA: Institute for American Research, Kimberly Press, 1986), 50; “Goleta Union School,” pamphlet, 1926, Walker A. Tompkins Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
130 “Goleta Union School,” pamphlet.
130
54 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Goleta Union School (5679 Hollister Avenue; 1926), c. 1930. Source: goletahistory.com. built in 1884, was moved to the rear of the Goleta Union School in 1928.131 It was used as an auxiliary classroom for many years, and served as a segregated school room for children of Mexican braceros in the early 1940s.132
To address overcrowding further west along Hollister Avenue , the Den School (1878; demolished) and Tecolote School (1891; demolished) formed the Ellwood Union School District in 1929, and a new schoolhouse was dedicated in 1933 (Ellwood School , 7686 Hollister Avenue, demolished). The Ellwood School District would not merge with the Goleta Union School District until the mid-1960s. No new school buildings were required until the post -war period, as development in the Goleta Valley stagnated between 1930 and 1955.
Social Institutions
The Goleta Valley remained limited in its social institutions. Sexton Hall closed and another dance hall opened on Fairview Avenue in the 1920s. The Goleta East 4-H Club, which promoted hands-on experimental learning for youth ages 10 to 20, was established in 1930 by the Agricultural Extension Service of the United States Department of Agriculture , the State
131 Rouse, “Goleta Union School: The Center of Things,” 46. The building was demolished in 1951. 132 Gilardo Garcia, interview by David Russell, January 15, 2001, Old Town Goleta Oral History Collection, c. 2000, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California; Albert Jaramillo, interview by David E. Russell, transcribed by Laura Funkhouser, November 4, 2000, Old Town Goleta Oral History Collection, c. 2000, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
According to Dr. Ian Crow, principal of the school in 1946, in the fall, the school rented a room in the church on Chapel Street “for walnut pickers’ children.” Playgrounds were also segregated. Mexican-American schoolchildren were integrated with the other Goleta schoolchildren at Goleta Union School in grades 6 and 7, and attended Santa Barbara High School for grades 9 through
12. 131
55 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Walnut trees near La Patera
School, no date. Source:
Black and Gold Cooperative
Library System.
University, and co -operating volunteer local lenders and parents. Most club activities revolved around the interests of the farm and rural communities. Club members learned all-around farm work, ranging from food preservation to machine work.133 Theme: Agriculture (1919- 1940)
Lemons, walnuts, and lima beans, continued to be profitable crops in the period before World War II, and drew in new settlers, who established farms and built houses in the area.134 In 1925, the first carload of lettuce ever sent from the Goleta Valley was dispatched to Los Angel es for shipment east, marking the beginning of vegetable growing on a commercial scale throughout the Goleta Valley.135
By 1925, despite the increase in lemon growing in Santa Barbara County around the turn of the 20th century, only 1 ,560 acres of land was dedicated to citrus crops. By comparison, walnut orchards “occupied 5,500 acres of land, although significantly, the annual value of the citrus crop exceeded that of walnuts by over $100,000.”136 Lima beans were “sown on over 49,000 acres in 1925.”137
133 “Goleta East 4-H Club, 1930-1972,” Community Development and Conservation Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. 134 “Oil Development in Santa Barbara County,” Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1921. 135 “Farm News of the Great Southwest,” Los Angeles Times, February 22, 1925. 136 Ronald L. Nye, “The Lemon: Symbol of Goleta Valley History,” Goleta Valley History: The Journal of the Goleta Valley Historical Society 12, no. 1 (Winter 2004), 9.
137 Nye, “The Lemon,” 9.
132
56 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Lemon orchard at Rancho La Patera, 1954. Source:
Goleta Valley Historical Society.
During the Great Depression, Goleta Valley’s agricultural landscape was transformed. In the 1930s, a fungus began destroying Goleta’s walnut trees, prompting a surge in the acreage devoted to lemons. The reduction in acreage devoted to walnuts also led to a decline in lima bean farming. Though the national economy took a major hit during the Great Depression, lemons continued to command high prices, keeping Goleta’s agricultural industry afloat.
The rapid expansion of lemon production in the Goleta Valley created a need for a local lemon packing facility. In 1935, 60 growers, who collectively represented 600 acres of lemon groves, formed the Goleta Lemon Association. 138 During its first six months of operation, the Goleta Lemon Association shipped 306 carloads of lemons across the United States. 139 In 1936, the
138 Nye, “The Lemon,” 9-10. Per Justin Ruhge, the Goleta Lemon Association continued to operate until 1976, when it was dissolved and purchased by interests in the Central Valley, who operated it as the Goleta Lemon Company. In 1977, the buildings were sold and became the Santa Barbara Lemon Association, which operated them as a lemon packing house. until 1986, when the organization left, ending the lemon packing business in the Goleta Valley. 139 Nye, “The Lemon,” 9-10.
133
57 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Earl Painter milking cows at Ellwood
Dairy, 1942. Source: Goleta Valley
Historical Society.
association built a lemon packing plant on La Patera Lane ( destroyed by fire, 1950; rebuilt 1951).140 The all-wood structure, designed by William W. Ache, spanned 80,000 square feet, and included a 120-foot by 300-foot washing and packing section and a two-story, 120-foot by 154-foot storage area. 141 The storage rooms were insulated with “ thick redwood planks, while the exterior of the building was covered in aluminum paint to increase solar reflectivity.”142 Tomatoes also transformed the agricultural landscape in the Goleta Valley during the Great Depression. In the late 1930s, Marvin Shrode and his son Earl , both experienced farmers , experimented with various crops that could be dry farmed (not irrigated) along the coast. 143 Tomatoes proved the best crop for Goleta’s mild climate and adobe-type soil. Marvin Shrode presented dry farming 144 as a technique for growing tomatoes to local farmers, who agreed to plant a portion of their land (ordinarily planted with lima beans) with dry-farmed tomatoes. Over 2,000 acres of tomatoes were grown on farmable land between Gaviota and Carpinteria.
Contract farmers prepared the soil, and the Shrodes handled planting, pest control, harvesting, and shipping the tomato crop.145 The tomato business quickly became a major employer between June and September, and provided year -round employment for several hundred farm workers who worked in the fields and in the packing house.146
140 Science Applications International Corporation, “Historic Context,” Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old Town Revitalization Plan, January 1997, 2.
141 Nye, “The Lemon,” 10-11.
142 Nye, “The Lemon,” 11.
143 The Shrode Family, Shrode Produce Company Landmark Proposal, August 1998, 3. Earl and Marvin Shrode came to the Goleta Valley in 1933 to oversee the farming and general operation of the 3,000-acre El Capitan Ranch for the San Diego Fruit and Produce Company.
144 The dry-farming technique was to give each plant one gallon of water at the time of planting, and no further moisture during the growing season. Tomatoes flourished under these conditions along the coast. 145 Shrode Produce Company Landmark Proposal, 3-4.
146 Shrode Produce Company Landmark Proposal, 4.
134
58 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
The dairy industry continued in Goleta during this period as well. The Doty family ran Ellwood Dairy from 1937 to 1958. The dairy, housed on the former Ellwood Ranch, boasted 300 cows and a bottling facility. Other area dairies included the Golden State Dairy (400 W. Carrillo Street, Santa Barbara), the Mission Dairy, the Riviera Dairy, and the San Marcos and Montecito Dairy, all of which operated outside of the present -day City of Goleta, but proved ample competition for the Ellwood Dairy. 147 Ultimately, however, the dairy industry in the Goleta Valley disappeared as a result of a 1950s California state law requiring dairies to lower the butterfat content in their milk products. This lowered the usable product of each milking, which meant that smaller dairies such as those in the Goleta Valley could no longer compete with the larger dairies of the Central Valley. Additionally, the cost of hauling feed into the Goleta Valley was costly, and ultimately proved too steep for small dairies in the area.
148
Theme: Industrial Development (1919-1940)
Sub-Theme: Goleta Oil Fields149
Oil played a significant part in Goleta’s development between the wars. The Goleta area had long seemed likely for oil extraction: a natural offshore seep had allowed for the harvesting of tar from surface strata since the mid-1800s, asphalt was mined in the late 1800s, and a petroleum strike in Summerland in 1894 triggered a dramatic boom in population and land speculation .
However, early explorations west of Santa Barbara had failed.150 In 1920, Kate Den Bell, daughter of Nicolas Den, noted at a family gathering on Ellwood Terrace (present-day Sandpiper Golf Course ) that, if an oil well was sunk there, oil would be struck.
However, she would not allow drilling to commence during her lifetime, because an oil strike would only mean escalated property values, and therefore astronomically higher inheritance taxes for her children.
151
Meanwhile, others continued to search for oil in Goleta. In 1927, E.J. Miley sunk test wells in Tecolote Canyon. The effort yielded both oil and gas for a brief time, but then salt water was encountered, and the effort was abandoned. At about the same time, Frank A. Morgan , a geologist, became convinced that Kate Bell (who died in 1927) had been correct in her
147 “Goleta’s Forgotten Past: The Dairy Industry That Once Flourished In Goleta and Santa Barbara,” unpublished essay, Goleta Valley Historical Society archives.
148 “Goleta’s Forgotten Past.”
149 History of the oil industry in the Goleta Valley largely adapted from Gary B. Coombs and Phyllis J. Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood: The Barnsdall-Rio Grande Gasoline Station (Goleta, CA: Institute for American Research, Kinko’s Graphics by Cole, 1985).
150 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 3.
151 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 3.
135
59 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Luton-Bell No. 1. Source: Gary B. Coombs and Phyllis J.
Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood: The Barnsdall-Rio Grande
Gasoline Station (Goleta, CA: Institute for American
Research, Kinko’s Graphics by Cole, 1985), 5.
assessment of Ellwood Terrace. He convinced his employer, Rio Grande Oil Company, to obtain exploration rights from Bell’s heirs. 152 Rio Grande formed a partnership with Barnsda ll Oil Company, which had just abandoned testing on the neighboring Edwards Ranch. The pact called for Barnsdall to sink a well to 3,000 feet, with Rio Grande paying half of the drilling costs and relinquishing a one-half interest in its oil rights.153
The first well sunk on the property, Luton- Bell No. 1 , was named in honor of the property owners. The well was begun on June 1, 1928. In three weeks, Barnsdall had gone 160 feet beyond the agreed-upon limit, with no signs of oil or gas. Barnsdall notified Rio Grande that they would remove the rig, or Rio Grande could rent Barnsdall’s machinery for $100 a day to continue drilling. Before Rio Grande responded to the offer, Frank Morgan visited Ellwood for a
152 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 3-4.
153 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 4.
136
60 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
final inspection, where he detected faint signs of petroleum in the last coring from the well. He reported his findings to Rio Grande , which attempted to contact Barnsdall to formally dissolve the partnership. However, Barnsdall’s geologist ordered a final coring before abandoni ng work.
The coring broke into an oil -rich deposit less than ten feet below the bottom of the well. The partnership continued.154
Luton-Bell No. 1 produced crude oil at 180 barrels per hour during its first hours of production. “It was unusually high gravity oil , coming in under extremely high pressure, with no water present, and only a trace of sulfur.”155 The companies, which did not have enough equipment to handle the volume of flow from the well, worked quickly to secure all of the apparatus of the Santa Barbara Oil Company , which had been drilling unsuccessfully on Hollister Ranch .
Production was reduced to 100 bar rels per hour, and additional storage facilities were built. A 1,000-barrel tank was quickly completed, and several others of 500-barrel capacity or more were constructed soon thereafter.156 After a month, the Barnsdall-Rio Grande well was under control.
Plans called for oil to be shipped by rail to Rio Grande’s Vinvale refinery , located near Los Angeles. A trenching crew began laying an 8,000-foot-long oil pipeline west from the Barnsdall- Rio Grande well, through Ellwood Acres No. 1, to the Ellwood railroad station, where carpenters assembled a special loading platform.157 While these facilities were under construction, Barnsdall and Rio Grande arranged for the Seaside Oil Co mpany to take the surplus flow. On July 27, 1928, “a fleet of six Seaside trucks drove through town […], hauling the Goleta Valley ’s first captured oil to the company’s Ventura refinery.”158 Two days later, workers finished the pipeline and loading dock, and the Southern Pacific Company had side-tracked a string of Rio Grande tank cars at the Ellwood depot . That day, “a train pulling eight of the cars carried the first rail shipment of petroleum to the Rio Grande processing plant.”159
154 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 4-5.
155 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 6.
156 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 6-7.
157 Howard C. Kegley, “Oil News,” Los Angeles Times, October 2, 1928. 158 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 7.
159 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 7.
137
61 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Map of oil fields and pier placements, 1930. Source: Scott-McIntosh Petroleum, Incorporated Collection, circa 1928-1930, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. 138
62 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Barnsdall-Rio Grande Gasoline
Station (1929, Morgan Walls &
Clements), 1931. Source:
Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at
Ellwood, 13.
Barnsdall and Rio Grande quickly announced their plans to sink a series of companion wells near Luton- Bell No. 1 . In early August, they began Luton -Bell No. 2, 3,000 feet east of the discovery well. 160 However, the companies were no longer alone in their efforts, as news of their success had spread. Geologists and negotiators from oil companies large and small scoured the area in search of likely drilling sites. Soon, dozens of oil leases throughout much of the Goleta Valley were signed, including one giving the Reservoir Hill Gasoline Company exploration rights on 60 acres of Ellwood Ranch and 300 acres of Bishop Ranch . 161 By April 1930, the Ellwood oil field was home to 28 oil wells, netting about 42,000 barrels of oil per week, or 1,500 barrels per well.162
Goleta’s burgeoning oil industry needed buildings to support their operations. Ellwood leaseholders built administrative offices , field workers’ housing, and maintenance sheds and equipment storage warehouses. Many of these buildings were located on the state highway near the Southern Pacific Railroad crossing. The “strategic spot along the western approach into the Goleta Valley” was also an ideal location for a filling station. 163
Located beside the vast oil field, the Barnsdall-Rio Grande Gasoline Station (1929, Morgan, Walls & Clements; S anta Barbara County Landmark #29) was the product of the oil strike, which quickly made the Barnsdall -Rio Grande oil company a major player on the New York Stock Exchange. Almost overnight, they were Goleta’s biggest taxpayer. W hen Barnsdall and Rio Grande decided to build a filling station at the entrance to their oil field, they wanted it to be a
160 “Luton Bell Well Controlled,” Los Angeles Times, August 6, 1928. 161 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 7.
162 Scott-McIntosh Petroleum, Incorporated Collection, circa 1928-1930, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. 163 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 9.
139
63 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Wheeler Inn and Barnsdall-Rio Grande
Service Station, c. 1940. Source: Coombs
and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 19.
showpiece. Taking direction from the architectural aesthetic promoted in Santa Barbara by Pearl Chase, which emphasized Spanish Colonial and Mediterranean Revival styles, the companies hired Los Angeles-based master architects Morgan, Walls & Clements, who had designed service stations in Santa Barbara, to design their service station in the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The station building, once finished, was flanked by two flag poles (one each for the American and Californian flags), and sheltered by a curved, five-foot-high masonry wall with octagonal piers to hold spotlights and hoses for water and compressed air. Landscaping included two japonica hedges and flower beds, one of which also featured a sign designed in the form of an oil derrick, emblazoned with the words “Barnsdall & Rio Grande” in paint and neon lettering. 164 The Barnsdall-Rio Grande service station, situated at the entrance to the companies’ oil field, served as a corporate showpiece. Before long, the companies added a restaurant ne xt to the filling station. The Spanish Colonial Revival-style restaurant (demolished) housed the Spud Inn, a play on the term for beginning an oil well. By 1931, the diner had become El Bar Rio Café .
Shortly thereafter, Goleta restauranteurs Laurence and Hilda Wheeler took over the operation, and changed the name to Wheeler Inn. They expanded the facility, adding a family apartment and, following the repeal of Prohibition, a liquor store.165
Ellwood was at one time the most productive oil field in the world, yielding more than 100 million barrels o f oil in over 3 decades. Goleta’s oil fields remained among the largest in the United States from the 1920s to 1937, when oil production in Goleta began to decline.166
164 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 12-13.
165 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 15.
166 1930 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Goleta.
140
64 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Amelia Earhart at the Santa Barbara Airport, c. 1934. Photographer: Jessie Bundy. Burt Bundy and his wife Jessie founded the Santa Barbara Flying Service in the early 1930s. After a break during World War II, they continued with the business into the 1950s. Source: Santa Barbara County Sheriff Aero Squadron, Burt Bundy Collection, courtesy Tom Smothermon, www.guppyphotos.com.
Sub-Theme: Development of the Airport (1928-1967)
Though the airport is not situated within the boundary of the City of Goleta,167 it influenced the development of the city, as businesses were established to serve the airport and its clientele. A brief overview of its historical development fr om the 1920s through the 1960s is therefore included here.
In 1928, Gordon Sackett and Royce Stetson established a flight school in a cow pasture near the corner of Hollister and Fairview Avenues . The 3,000-foot dirt airstrip marked the beginning of Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. In the 1920s, Earle Ovington , who became the first pilot to carry U.S. mail by air in 1911, constructed a private hangar for his biplane on the present -day Santa Barbara Community Golf Course. 168 Ovington hosted visits from aviation luminaries including Amelia Earhart and Charles Lindbergh.169
167 In 1961, the City of Santa Barbara annexed the airport property by a 37,000-foot by 300-foot ocean strip from the Santa Barbara harbor to the south end of the airfield. Source: Santa Barbara Airport, Santa Barbara – A Rich Aviation History, 2004, 2. 168 Justin Ruhge Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. In 1938, after Ovington’s death, the hangar was dismantled and sold to Robert O. Giffin. Giffin reconstructed it the following year at 5757 Hollister Avenue (now Santa Cruz Market), where it served as the Goleta Caterpillar tractor showroom until 1955, when it was converted to a market. 169 Julia McHugh, “Santa Barbara’s ‘soaring’ Aviation History,” Santa Ynez Valley News, updated June 19, 2020:
https://syvnews.com/lifestyles/columns/south-on-101/julia-mchugh-santa-barbara-s-soaring-aviation-history/article_32808f50- dd21-534a-b4b8-ea5ff7bb2751.html (accessed September 2020). 141
65 Left: Santa Barbara Municipal Airport, 1934. Source: Walker A. Tompkins Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. Right: First official United Airlines flight into Santa Barbara, October 1936. Source: Santa Barbara County Sheriff Aero Squadron, Burt Bundy Collection. Courtesy Tom Smothermon, www.guppyphotos.com.
As airplane manufacturing grew in the late 1930s, the airstrip developed into an airfield. 170 In 1930,
Frederick Stearns II established Santa Barbara Airways, built the first paved runways, and installed the first radio equipment at the airfield. General W estern Aircraft Corporation manufactured the Meteor, an open cockpit monoplane, at the airport. Air travel was expanded when the General Western Aero Corp. Ltd. bui lt two hangars adjacent to the existing airfield at Fairview Avenue in 1931, and initiated service to San Francisco, Los Angeles, Tucson, and San Diego. In 1932, Century Pacific Airlines began the first commercial airline passenger service at the airport, followed in 1936 by United Airlines, which was the first major national airline to serve the area.
In 1941, Santa Barbara citizens passed a bond measure to develop a commercial airport. The City of Santa Barbara purchased land in the Goleta Valley, and invested $1 million in the airport under an agreement with the Civil Aeronautics Administration. They began a building program, constructing hangars and runways, and filling in the marshland on which the airport sat with land from Mescalitan Island (also known as Quwa’ ), a former Chumash village site in the Goleta Slough.171 During World War II, the U.S. Navy leased the airport for a Marine Corps Air Station Base, and constructed putting up more than 100 buildings, including housing for 2,000 personnel on a nearby mesa, now the site of UCSB. It reverted back to a civilian airport in 1946.172 In 1949, 170 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 289.
171 More information on this island can be found on page 122 in Chapter 2, in the Context Statement from the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians.
172 McHugh, “Santa Barbara’s ‘soaring’ Aviation History.”
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
142
66 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
the U.S. government deeds the airport property to the City of Santa Barbara, which officially annexed the property into the city in 1961 by a 37,000’ by 300’ ocean strip from the Santa Barbara harbor to the south end of the airfield. 173 In 1966, Jack Conroy brought the Guppy airplane operations to Santa Barbara. 174 Jack Conroy was a part time actor, a bomber pilot in World War II, and worked as an airline pilot and served in the Air National Guard after the war.
In the 1960s, NASA was having trouble transporting rocket boosters through the Panama Canal.
Conroy envisioned modifying a Stratocruiser with an enlarged cargo area to fly the boosters from California to Cape Canaveral, Florida. Conroy presented his plan for the modified plane to NASA, where an official said it lo oked like a pregnant guppy , and the name stuck. Conroy mortgaged his house and started a company called Aero Spacelines to pursue the project. The aircraft successfully departed on September 19, 1962 from Van Nuys Airport. One year later, the Guppy carried rockets for NASA , trimming three weeks off the transit time and allowing NASA to significantly advance the space program . In 1966, Conroy relocated Aero Spacelines from Van Nuys to the Santa Barbara Airport. In 1967, Conroy was forced to sell Aero Spacelines due to financial difficulties, and production of the Guppy was assumed by Airbus Industries.
173 “Santa Barbara – A Rich Aviation History,”
https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=41153 (accessed September 2020). 174 History of the Guppy adapted from Tom Modugno, “The Guppies,” Goleta History, February 15, 2015:
https://goletahistory.com/the-guppies/ (accessed September 2020).
Left: Guppy aircraft at Santa Barbara Airport with terminal in the background. Right: Guppy aircraft at Santa Barbara Airport. Identification of aircraft from left to right: The original Super Guppy N1038V based on a Boeing YC‐97J airframe with a swing nose design. Built in Van Nuys, CA, first flight August 31, 1965. This aircraft is now on display at the Pima Museum in Arizona. The Mini Guppy N1037V based on a Boeing B‐337 airframe had a swing tail for loading. The first Guppy built at Santa Barbara; constructed across Hollister Avenue off the airport proper. First flew on May 24, 1967. This aircraft is now on display at the Tillamook Museum in Oregon. Source for both: Tom Smothermon, www.guppyphotos.com.
143
67 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
CONTEXT: GOLETA DURING WORLD WAR II (1941-1945)
During World War II, industrial and commercial activity in Southern California all but halted as all resources were directed toward the war effort. Near Goleta, war-related activities ranged from the establishment of a Marine base at the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport to the establishment of a prisoner -of-war camp west of the present City limits. The population of the Marine base brought new business to Goleta’s commercial core, while the prisoners of war housed at the nearby camp picked and packed lemons and walnuts , helping the local agricultural industry remain afloat while local landowners and laborers were fighting overseas. The Japanese bombing of the Ellwood oil field generated a burst of publicity for the area, briefly transforming Goleta into a tourist destination. However, despite its wartime population increase and momentary surge in tourism , the permanent population of Goleta remained relatively small, with an agriculture-based economy throughout the 1940s.
As noted above, in 1941, Santa Barbara citizens passed a bond measure to develop a commercial airport. The City of Santa Barbara purchased land in the Goleta Valley, and invested $1 million in the airport under an agreement with the Civil Aeronautics Administration. They began a building program, constructing hangars and runways, and filling in the marshland on which the airport sat with land from Mescalitan Island (also known as Quwa’), a former Chumash village site in the Goleta Slough.175
On December 7, 1941, the Empire of Japan launched a surprise attack on the U nited States Navy at Pearl Harbor, setting in motion a wave of anti-Japanese sentiment in America that would ultimately disrespect, incarcerate, and economically devastate Japanese American families and communities. Fear and prejudice against the Japanese community surged in the aftermath of the attack. Hundreds of Japanese American workers were fired from their jobs throughout Southern California, including those who worked for the Union Pacific Railroad.
In 1942, the United States Navy leased the airport property from Santa Barbara for a Marine pilot training base. At the time, the airport consisted of two hangars, a new United Airlines terminal, and four 4,000- foot runways on 580 acres. In June 1942, the first contingent of contractors arrived in Goleta to begin construction of the new Marine Corps Air Station. A railroad spur was constructed to handle the influx of materials needed to lengthen the runways to 4500 feet each, and to construct 103 temporary wooden buildings. The base, which was activated in August 1942, contained mess halls, chapels, post exchanges, theaters, a laundry, administration buildings, a control tower, maintenance shops, hangars, an Olympic -sized
175 More information on this island can be found in Chapter 2, in the Context Statement from the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians.
144
68 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Aerial photograph of barracks at the Marine base, c. 1942. Source: goletahistory.com. swimming pool, libraries, a sewer system and disposal plant, telephone and electrical systems, and approximately 40 barracks.176 The Marine base was intended to be used for training Marine pilots, who would then be deployed overseas.
On February 18, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 that authorized the Secretary of War and any military commander designated by him “ to prescribe military areas…from which any or all persons may be excluded. ”177 Although the order did not specify the exclusion of Japanese Americans, the intention was clear . On March 18, 1942, the War Relocation Authority (WRA) was established by Executive Order 9102 to administer the incarceration camps and Executive Order 9066.
“Civil control stations,” the first step in the incarceration process, were established around Southern California. Japanese residents first registered at one of the control stations and then
176 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 307-309.
177 “Executive Order 9066,” Densho Encyclopedia, http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Executive_Order_9066/, accessed August 2017.
145
69 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
reported on their designated day of travel. For the Goleta Valley area, the Veterans Memorial Building (112 W. Cabrillo Boulevard, Santa Barbara) served as the civil control station.178 Before they were incarcerated, the twelve Japanese Americans noted on the 1940 United States census in Goleta worked primarily as farm laborers or domestic servants, and lived on their employers’ land.179 Other Japanese Americans worked in Goleta, but lived in nearby Santa Barbara.
As an interim step on the way to their final destinations, most Japanese Americans were taken to temporary detention centers (historically called assembly centers). Those from Santa Barbara County (approximately 450 in total) were taken first to the Tulare Assembly Center in the San Joaquin Valley, where “a county fairground had been converted to a prison, with high barbed wire fencing, tall towers with guards, and floodlights.” 180 The majority of Santa Barbara Count y Japanese American residents were then bused to Manzanar Camp near Lone Pine, California , or Gila River, Arizona.
Between 1942 and 1945, approximately 120,000 Japanese Americans were incarcerated in ten remote concentration camps. 181 To comply with the incarceration mandate, many Japanese Americans were forced to sell their businesses or property for pennies on the dollar. Others turned to trusted non- Japanese friends or religious organizations to store their possessions and look after their property. On December 17, 1944, President Roosevelt issued Public Proclamation Number 21, which rescinded the exclusion order.
At sundown on February 23, 1942, a large Japanese submarine surfaced off Ellwood Mesa and fired its deck cannon at the oil production facilities clustered along the shore. Goleta resident s reported between 16 and 29 shells fired. At least three shells struck near the Bankline Company’s oil refinery.182 Rigging and pumping equipment at an oil well approximately 1,000 yards inland were destroyed, but no other damage was incurred. One shell overshot its target by three miles and landed on the Tecolote Ranch, w here it exploded. Another landed on the nearby Staniff Ranch, failing to explode but creating a five-foot deep crater. Numerous shells dropped into the sea, landed on the beach, or hit nearby cliffs.183
178 Barney Brantingham, “When Fear Reigned in Santa Barbara,” Santa Barbara Independent, July 21, 2016. 179 United States census data, 1940. One man is listed in the census as a produce salesman, but it is not clear whether he owned his business.
180 Frank Miori, “Manzanar ID Card,” Manzanar National Historic Site visitor booklet, National Park Service; “Tulare Detention Facility,” Densho Encyclopedia, http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Tulare_%28detention_facility%29/, accessed August 2017. 181 Greg Robinson, After Camp, Portraits in Midcentury Japanese American Life and Politics (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2012), 60.
182 “’Avenge Ellwood!’ The Japanese Attack on CA,” The Stow House, http://stowhouse.com/past-exhibitions/, accessed August 2016.
183 “’Avenge Ellwood!’ The Japanese Attack on CA.”
146
70 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Left: Water tower, Goleta prisoner of war camp, no date. Top: Quonset hut (demolished), Goleta prisoner of war camp, no date. Source for both: goletahistory.com.
Immediately after the attack on Ellwood, the Goleta Valley experienced an increase in tourism, and businesses thrived. However, soon thereafter, a steady decline in sales, brought on by fear of another attack, local blackouts, and gasoline rationing, halted economic growth in the Ellwood area. This “boom-and-bust” was devastating for Wheeler Inn, which was closed shortly after the shelling.184 The Barnsdall-Rio Grande gasoline station also suffered from a decline in business but continued to operate until the early 1950s. 185
During World War II, the U.S. Army captured hundreds of thousands of prisoners in North Africa and Europe. Rather than house prisoners in local camps where resources were limited, the Army moved German and Italian detainees to the United States in empty Liberty ships. Large prisoner- of-war camps were scattered all over the country, but were primarily located in the Sou thern states and California. Approximately 9,000 prisoners were shipped to Camp Cooke (Vandenberg Air Force Base) near Santa Maria, and from there, distributed to sixteen branch camps up to 300 miles away.
186
One such branch camp was located in the Goleta Valley in 1944. The camp, specifically for German soldiers, was situated at the edge of Gatos Canyon, approximately 9 miles west of
184 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 19-20.
185 Coombs and Olsen, Sentinel at Ellwood, 20.
186 Justin M. Ruhge, “Looking Back: POW camp begins historic sightseeing,” Goleta Sun, October 3, 1990. 147
71 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Fairview Avenue along Highway 101. 187 The camp operated from October 1944 to December 1945, consisted of about 20 Quonset huts and canvas buildings, and was managed and guarded by two of ficers and 30 enlisted men. It housed a pproximately 250 prisoners. Placing the prisoners in local towns gave them a glimpse into American life. Because prisoners could not engage in war-related work by terms of the Geneva Convention , they were used as laborers in nearby farms, harvesting lemons, walnuts, and other crops, or processing walnuts at the packing house on Kellogg Avenue. Some were assigned road work. Prisoners earned an income while temporarily replacing American laborers who were fighting in the war. 188 Apart from the lemon and walnut harvesting and packing duties performed by inmates at the nearby prisoner -of-war camp, few agricultural activities continued in Goleta during the war.
Among these was the Shrode family’s continued practice of dry-farming tomatoes. In 1944, the Shrodes formed the Shrode -Nelson Produce Company to pack and ship their tomatoes, and began to process their produce at a space in the Goleta Depot building. Because tomatoes are fragile and perishable, a properly equipped, centrally-located packing house was imperative. After investigating several locations, they decided in 1944 to relocate on the Southern Pacific Railroad property at 26 S. La Patera Lane, the site of the Goleta Lemon Association packing house.
Shrode-Nelson added onto an existing 2,000- square-foot utilitarian packing house on the property, formerly used by the Goleta Lemon Association. They ultimately created a 12,000- square-foot wood frame packing house clad in corrugated metal siding (Santa Barbara County Landmark #40). The Southern Pacific Railroad installed a spur line leading to the packing house, and a separate spur for the Goleta Lemon Association facility next door. 189 At peak production, approximately 150 railroad cars of tomatoes were shipped each season under the “Barbara Coast” and “S-N Tomatoes” labels.
On August 4, 1942, the United States instituted the Mexican Farm Labor Program, a temporary intergovernmental agreement for the use of Mexican agricultural labor on United States farms.
From 1942 to 1964, the program, also referred to as the Bracero Program , brought millions of migrant Mexican farm laborers to the United States.
190
Under the program, the federal government assumed the transportation costs to and from Mexico, as well as medical and other expenses, and employers agreed to pay workers a minimum wage, and provide housing and transportation to the
187 Though the prisoner-of-war camp was not located within the present boundaries of the City of Goleta, the presence of the camp nearby affected the town of Goleta during the war. 188 Ruhge, “Looking Back: POW camp begins historic sightseeing.” 189 Shrode Produce Company Landmark Proposal, 4.
190 “About,” Bracero History Archive, http://braceroarchive.org/about, accessed August 2017. 148
72 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
fields. The workers in turn agreed to fulfill a term of employment not to exceed ten months, and then return to their native country …In 1951 it was estimated that there were 2,500 workers, including an unknown number of braceros , employed in [Santa Barbara County’s] four lemon packing plants and 588 groves, 2,000 of whom were employed year-round.191
Groups of braceros moved through Goleta, living on or near the land where they worked. Other workers of Mexican descent were employed by farmers , the local slaughterhouse, the railroad , or produce cooperatives, and lived in enclaves near their places of employment. 192 Children of braceros and local Mexican workers attended school in a building behind the Goleta Union School.
During the 1940s and 1950s, the agricultural industry employed about half of the population in the coastal area. The tomato business accounted for over 25% of the total agricultural employment. Goleta’s tomato industry slowly faded away in the late 1950s due to rising labor and leased land costs, increasing scarcity of land due to competition for housing developments, and new automated harvesting machines capable of picking tons of tomatoes per acre on the flatlands of the San Joaquin Valley.
193
World War II also spurred institutional development in the Goleta area, while civic spending remained stagnant. In 1942, local women organized to set up a completely equipped Disaster Center in the Farm Center Hall on Chapel Street. There they conducted classes in first aid, created a casualty station with a stand- by staff of registered nurses on 24- hour call, and established a surgery room with professional operating table, autoclave, and anesthesia equipment. This effort led to the establishment of the Junior Women’s Club of Goleta in April 1943 by a group of women interested in helping the war effort. 194 The club, the only known
institution formed in Goleta during World War II, took on numerous projects. These included collecting for the Red Cross, providing refreshments at the USO Center at the Goleta Union School, sponsoring Community Chest campaigns, decorating the mess hall at the Marine base (present-day Santa Barbara Municipal Airport), organizing dances for servicemen, and sewing slippers for veteran patients at Hoff Hospital in Santa Barbara. The club later became a Junior - Senior club, changing its name to “the Woman’s Service Club of Goleta,” and joining the General
Federation of Women’s Clubs in 1948. 195 The club was instrumental in the establishment of the
191 Nye, “The Lemon,” 16.
192 United States census data, 1940.
193 Shrode Produce Company Landmark Proposal, 5.
194 Stories of Goleta Valley Pioneers (Goleta, CA: Golden Coast Publishing, 1971). 195 Goleta Historical Notes, Goleta Valley Historical Society 8 (Fall 1993). 149
73 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Goleta Valley Library, initially housed in a store near the corner of Hollister and Patterson Avenues. 196 The club also helped to establish the Girls Club of Goleta Valley in 1955, and provided trees for each new school site in the Goleta Valley. 197
196 The library was moved to Goleta Union School by 1950, then to a shopping center off South Fairview Avenue in 1960, and, ultimately, to its present location at 500 N. Fairview Avenue. 197 Goleta Historical Notes, Goleta Valley Historical Society 8 (Fall 1993). 150
74 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
CONTEXT: POST-WORLD WAR II DEVELOPMENT (1946-1969)
Introduction
The Goleta area underwent dramatic changes during and after World War II. The creation of a Marine base at the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport temporarily increased the local population and created new business for local commercial enterprises. The Goleta Valley also housed a prisoner-of-war camp during World War II, and the inmates were used to pick and pack produce while local farmers and laborers were overseas fighting in the war. This practice served to buoy Goleta’s agriculturally based economy during the war, and helped the area to remain relatively prosperous during wartime rationing. The nearby Ellwood oil field also proved pivotal in the war effort, providing some of the oil and gasoline necessary for military ships, planes, and vehicles.
The Southern California phenomenon of a postwar population boom and concurrent housing shortage experienced by returning GIs and their families largely bypassed Goleta, which remained a small farming community into the mid-1950s. Many factors contributed to the area’s slow development after the war, including a lack of sufficient water to support population growth in the area . Additionally, t he Highway 10 1 bypass, constructed in 1947, drew traffic to the freeway instead of the city’s surface streets, isolating downtown Goleta during this period, and hampering commercial development immediately after the war.
Agriculture continued to be the driving economic force in Goleta during the 1940s and early 1950s. However, the farming industry was threatened by a lack of water in 1948. It was not until the Cachuma Dam was completed in 1953 that Goleta experienced significant post-World War II growth. Its subsequent development was so rapid that only a few commercial buildings constructed prior to 1946 remain on Hollister Avenue, the town’s original commercial corridor.
New industries flooded Goleta, including aerospace and manufacturing corporations, which would play a significant role in the city’s growth in the decades after the war.
In the mid- 1950s, the completion of the Cachuma Dam project and the arrival of aerospace companies radically changed Goleta’s economic structure and built landscape. The newly completed dam and reservoir provided a new and reliable water source for Goleta, allowing for rapid development in the area. Companies such as Raytheon, Aerophys ics, and Delco moved to Goleta after the completion of the dam, as Fortune-500 companies headquartered on the east coast realized the prudence of developing high- tech divisions or subsidiaries on the west coast.
Tracts of single- family residences were frantically subdivided to cater to the rapid population increase caused by the arrival of the aerospace companies, each of which brought several hundred employees to the area. The establishment of the University of California at Santa Barbara campus in 1954 on the former Marine base also increased local demand for housing and amenities in Goleta. As the only available land in Goleta was dedicated to agriculture , the creation of residential subdivisions necessarily caused a decrease in the area’s agricultural activity. 151
75 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
By 1969, Goleta had transformed from a small agricultural town to a booming industrial zone and accompanying residential suburb.
Prior to World War II, Goleta’s residential development consisted of isolated farmhouses and a neighborhood of small single- and multi-family homes. The neighborhood, situated to the north of Goleta’s commercial center, was laid out on a grid pattern, with narrow lots and few sidewalks.
Property owners purchased parcels and subsequently constructed their own homes. During the postwar era, Goleta’s residential subdivisions were developed on land formerly dedicated to walnut and lemon orchards. Developers offered three to four Ranch- or Mid-century Modern- style models, which were constructed prior to sale. These subdivisions typically reflect postwar planning patterns, including curvilinear streets, cul -de-sacs, concrete curbs and sidewalks, and integrated two-car garages. By 1969, former agricultural land in the northeastern and western sections of Goleta was developed with the single-family subdivisions, industrial and commercial expansion, and institutional buildings necessitated by the rapid surge in population caused by the arrival of aerospace companies and the University of California at Santa Barbara in the mid- 1950s.
In the two decades after the war, Goleta was transformed with new commercial and institutional buildings and several large housing tracts. Between 1956 and 1958, nearly $30 million in construction occurred i n the Goleta Valley, including nearly 1,000 new homes in seven subdivisions, as well as stores, industrial buildings, and schools. The dollar figure excluded the millions of dollars being spent on building improvements at the nearby University of California at Santa Barbara. 198 By 1959, the Goleta Valley was described as the “greenland of the lemon and bustling home of electronics establishments.” 199 At that time, work on the El Sueno to Ellwood freeway extension had begun, and several tracts of homes, a new elementary school, and new commercial buildings were under construction.200
198 “New Homes, Plants Mark Goleta Gain,” Santa Barbara News-Press, 1958. 199 Steve Sullivan, “Goleta Valley Booming with Developments,” Santa Barbara News-Press, August 27, 1959. 200 Sullivan, “Goleta Valley Booming with Developments.” 152
76 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Aerial view of Old Town Goleta, 1952. Source: Goleta Valley Historical Society.
153
77 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Theme: Post-World War II Residential Development
The aerospace companies flooding into the Goleta Valley in the mid-1950s each brought with them several hundred employees and their families, quickly exceeding the limited housing stock available in the area. A projected 166 people per month were expected to move to the Goleta Valley from the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, “an increase of 34,000 people” from the estimated population of 28,000 in the mid-1950s.201 The new residents of the Goleta Valley created intense demand for housing, prompting the subdivision of almost 100 tracts between 1955 and 1969.
The University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) also spurred residential development in Goleta when it was established on the former Marine base in the Goleta Valley in 1954. Between 1955 and 1959, at least 12 new residential subdivisions were platted. For reference and to aid future research, a map of residential subdivisions/tracts is included in Appendix C; a list of the postwar subdivisions is included in Appendix D.202
The promise of profit in Goleta drew many developers to the area, including Paul and Elias Miller, R.A. Watt, William Koart, and perhaps the most well -known, Harry Cecil “H.C.” Elliott (1913-2009). Heralded as “one of California’s true pioneer builders,” and the “largest homebuilder in the [Santa Barbara] area,” Elliott was credited with building over 20,000 homes in California and Arizona over the course of his 40 -year career. 203 Between 1960 and 1965, Elliott was responsible for the development of five tracts in the northeastern portion of Goleta.204 Goleta’s postwar housing tracts were developed on land formerly dedicated to walnut and lemon orchards. As the demand for housing in Goleta increased, agricultural land rapidly gained value, until it had escalated to the point that many ranch owners felt they would make more money selling their proper ty to developers than they “could hope to make in twenty years of hard work.”205 Examples include Corona del Mar Ranch (also known as Bishop Ranch , County of Santa Barbara Place of Historic Merit ), which was sold to Chicago financier Henry Crown in 1957. Two years later, Crown’s Exchange Building Corporation hired William L. Pereira & Associates to prepare a master plan for the future development of the ranch. The plan included industrial parks near Hollister Avenue and golf courses in the foothills. St ow Ranch sold 156
201 Steve Sullivan, “Goleta Master Plan Gives Idea How Area Will Develop,” Santa Barbara News-Press, no date (c. 1956). 202 This narrative discussion is intended to provide an overview of residential development during this period, including the tracts that appear eligible as potential historic districts. A list of known post-World War II residential tracts and subdivisions is included in Appendix D. The information included in the table is intended to provide additional data about residential development in Goleta and inform future researchers about this facet of Goleta history; a complete history of each tract is outside the scope of this project.
203 “1987 Honoree: H.C. Elliott: Elliott Homes, Inc.,” California Homebuilding Foundation, http://www.mychf.org/elliott-hc.html, accessed March 2017.
204 Elliott developed tracts 10,111 (1960); 10,124 (1960); 10,141 (1960-1961); 10,225 (1962); and 10,402 (1965), all of which were located north of Calle Real between La Patera Lane and Patterson Avenue. 205 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 341.
154
78 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Left: 6255 Newcastle Avenue, 1959 (Tract 10,051, Paul and Elias Miller); Right: 235 Saratoga Ct, 1965 (Tract 10,358, Carodale, Inc.). Source for both: Historic Resources Group. acres from La Patera Lane to Carneros Creek, between the freeway and Cathedral Oaks Road, where a new subdivision was established above Los Carneros Lake (the former Stow Pond).206
Most postwar subdivisions in Goleta featured three to four Ranch- style models. Developers employed postwar planning techniques, including curvilinear streets, cul-de-sacs, concrete curbs and sidewalks, consistent setbacks, and integrated two- car garages accessed by concrete driveways. Models were generally characterized by their one-to-two-story height; asymmetrical massing in L-shaped plans; low-pitched hipped or gabled roofs with wide overhanging eaves; a variety of materials for exterior cladding, including plaster and board -and-batten; and divided light wood sash windows, sometimes with diamond- shaped panes. Decorative details include scalloped bargeboards and shutters. Goleta subdivisions of this type include El Encanto Heights No. 1 and No. 2 (1957 -1959), Holiday Park (1957-1958), Lake Los Carneros North (1964), and Fairview Gardens No. 1 and No. 2 (1957).
Kellogg Park, subdivided by the Goleta Development Corporation (owned by Garfield Sorensen and Ralph Beckman ) in 1955, was the first post -World War II subdivision in Goleta, and the only one with Mid- century Modern style residences.
207 Construction of the 118 -home tract,
roughly bounded by the railroad on the north, Mallard Avenue on the west, Hollister Avenue on the south, and Kinman Avenue on the east, began in November 1956, and was completed
206 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 336. Pereira & Associates was also hired to do a master plan of Stow Ranch. 207 “Work Will Begin on Kellogg Tract,” Santa Barbara News-Press, November 4, 1956; Santa Barbara County tract maps. 155
79 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Examples of Kellogg Park homes. Left: 87 Mallard Avenue, August 2016; Right: 84 Mallard Avenue, February 2016. Source for both: Historic Resources Group. in August 1957. 208 The models, designed by Los Angeles- based master architects Jones & Emmons, each featured three bedrooms and one -and-one-half bathrooms. 209 Built-in ranges, ovens, and fireplaces were optional. The homes were situated on approximately 6,500 square foot lots, and ranged in price from $13,300 to $16,200.210 Neighborhood shopping facilities were provided at the intersection of the tract’s main st reet, Kinman Avenue, at Hollister Avenue. 211 Most buyers for the homes were employees of Aerophysics Development Corporation or Raytheon Manufacturing company, or faculty members at University of California at Santa Barbara.212
Goleta reported a 122% in crease in population between April 1960 and October 1965. By 1966, the town boasted fifteen physicians and surgeons, twelve dentists, two optometrists, four chiropractors, three attorneys, two mortuaries, “five banks, one savings and loan institution, two finance companies, a weekly newspaper, a branch library, three movie theaters,” eight parks and playgrounds, two discount department stores, and several shopping centers. 213 Tract
development continued at a rapid pace through 1969. Most of Goleta’s building stock today consists of one - and two -story, single -family tract homes, many of which were constructed between 1955 and 1969 in response to the increased demand for housing brought about by the arrival of aerospace companies in Goleta and the establishment of the UCSB campus nearby.
208 “118-Home Project Nearing Completion,” Los Angeles Times, August 3, 1957. 209 “Kellogg Park Goleta Subdivision Due Soon,” Santa Barbara News-Press, June 23, 1956. 210 “Kellogg Park Goleta Subdivision Due Soon.”
211 “Work Will Begin on Kellogg Tract.”
212 “118-Home Project Nearing Completion.”
213 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 337.
156
80 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
An example of multi-family housing constructed in the post-World War II era in the prewar neighborhood north of Goleta’s commercial center is 150 Orange Avenue (1950). Source: Historic Resources Group.
Sub-theme: Multi-Family Residential Development
During the postwar period, multi-family residences were constructed as infill in older tracts. Many multi-family residences were constructed in the prewar neighborhood north of Goleta’s commercial center. Additional multi-family residences were constructed as infill in the industrial area south of Goleta’s commercial center, and mobile home parks were also established, likely first serving as temporary housing for newly-arrived employees in the aerospace industry. Small subdivisions of Ranch style multi -family residences can be found at the outskirts of Goleta, primarily near Mills Road and Whittier Drive. However, Goleta primarily catered to single-family residential developments during the postwar period.
157
81 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
View looking west on Hollister Avenue from
approximately Magnolia Avenue, 1957.
Source: Community Development and
Conservation Collection, Department of
Special Collections, University of California,
Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa
Barbara, California.
Theme: Post-World War II Commercial Development
There was limited commercial growth in Goleta in the years immediately following World War II, as the city remained primarily an industrial town during that period. In addition, the construction of the Highway 101 bypass in 1947 drew commercial traffic away from downtown Goleta. The commercial district established in the prewar period along Hollister Avenue between Patterson and Fairview Avenues continued to be the main commercial thoroughfare after the war, and commercial activity along Hollister and Fairview Avenues grew starting in the 1950s.
Many existing businesses along Hollister constructed new buildings or remodeled their existing storefronts after the war. New commercial corridors were also established in the 1950s and 1960s, including along Calle Real.
Several new businesses were established in Goleta between 1950 and 1951. The area boasted three cafes and a bakery, along with barber and beauty shops, three auto repair shops, a department store, five groc ers, four service stations, a mortuary, a pharmacy, several clothing stores, and numerous agricultural and petroleum supply stores. 214 By 1967, the Goleta Valley
had 30 restaurants and three bakeries, seven barber and eight beauty shops, four department stores, eight grocery stores, 21 service stations, a mortuary, four pharmacies, numerous clothing stores, and dozens of construction-related businesses. The area was also home to a travel agency, two golf courses, three motels, and a surfboard shop.215
214 Goleta Guide: A Business and Professional Directory of Goleta, 1951-1952 (Goleta, CA: Barker Advertising Sales and Service, 1951).
215 1967 Goleta Valley Business Directory (Goleta, CA: Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce, 1967). 158
82 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Goleta Lemon Association Packing House,
1952. Source: Walker A. Tompkins Papers,
Department of Special Collections,
University of California at Santa Barbara,
Santa Barbara, CA.
Theme: Post-World War II Agricultural Development
Walnuts, lima beans, and lemons remained profitable for Goleta ranchers in the postwar years.216 However, several factors contributed to the ultimate demise of agriculture in the region. Among these were the oak root fungus that killed many of the region’s walnut trees and thereby removed the ability of farmers to raise lima beans while waiting for their trees to mature; the growing population necessitating the construction of new housing stock on formerly agricultural land; and fires destroying packing houses of each of the area’s three farming cooperatives. Walnut growers left the Goleta Valley for the Santa Ynez Valley , and lima bean production halted as well.217
On January 26, 1950, there was a fire at the Goleta Lemon Association Packing House, which destroyed the packing house and the lemons stored within. 218 The building was replaced in November 1950 by a new, larger facility able to “process 12 carloads of lemons per eight hour day,” increasing its output from 300 to 1200 carloads of lemons per year. 219 “Advances in automation” allowed the Goleta Lemon Association to reduce its packing force from 300 to 125.220
216 During the postwar period, Goleta ranchers employed Mexican braceros, farm workers guaranteed food, shelter, sanitation, and a minimum wage under the Mexican Farm Labor Act (1942-1964), to pick and pack their produce. However, because braceros lived in one place only so long as they had work, they did not remain in Goleta. Their housing consisted of temporary camps along the railroad or in the fields, which are no longer extant. 217 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Goleta was the home of the soft-shell walnut.” 218 Justin M. Ruhge, “Looking Back: Goleta once known as major lemon producer,” Goleta Sun, February 7, 1991. 219 “New Million Dollar Lemon Packing Plant Under Construction,” Goleta Valley Leader, September 7, 1950. 220 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Goleta once known as major lemon producer.” 159
83 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
During the 1960s, the Goleta Lima Bean Growers’ Association’s packing house, no longer used by the organization, was leased to Valley Merchandise Mart, one of the first discount stores in the region. However, Valley Merchandise Mart’s tenure in the building was short-lived, because, on March 22, 1966, both the lima bean and walnut packing houses were destroyed in a fire. 221 Neither was replaced.
At about the same time, the last local train along the Coast Route passed through Goleta. On May 20, 1965, passenger rail service in Goleta came to an end. Electronic signaling and the eventual computerization of the Southern Pacific system eliminated the need for order- issuing stations along the line. Beginning in the late 1950s, Southern Pacific began to close many of its Santa Barbara County depots. With the closures of the Naples, Concepcion, and Gaviota depots, Goleta Depot inherited much of the business of the depots lying to the west along the coast. By 1973, however, though train orders were still issued from Goleta and the depot continued to handle freight, business had dropped substantially, and the Southern Pacific decided it had no further need of the Goleta Depot.
222 After defending the building against vandalism and threats of demolition, Goleta Beautiful ’s Depot Committee successfully found a new location for the structure in 1981, at 300 North Los Carneros Road , near the Stow House. The depot was moved on November 18, 1981 and was subsequently rehabilitated and adaptively reused as the South Coast Railroad Museum. It was named Santa Barbara County Landmark #22 in October of 1982. 223
During the postwar period, the Goleta Valley’s predominately agriculture-based economy faced ruin due to a prolonged drought. The local water table dropped from twenty -four feet to forty- eight feet in 1948. Nearby Santa Barbara made washing cars and watering lawns misdemeanors, and the federal government proposed a reclamation dam be built on the Santa Ynez River . 224 Planning for the Cachuma Dam project had begun in the early 1940s, when the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County requested that the Bureau of Reclamation investigate a county-wide plan to utilize local water resources for maximum benefit. The Goleta Water District formed in 1944 to establish a legal entity representing the Goleta Valley area that could enter into contracts for a water supply from the Cachuma Water Project.225 On November 22, 1949, county voters overwhelmingly approved the contract for the Cachuma Dam, along with the
221 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Goleta was the home of the soft-shell walnut,” The walnut packing house had ceased operations in 1960.
222 Combs, Goleta Depot: The History of a Rural Railroad Station, 77. 223 Combs, Goleta Depot: The History of a Rural Railroad Station. 224 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 318.
225 “Goleta Water District, 1944,” Goleta Magazine, 1988-1990. Organizations – Smaller Holdings: Community Development and Conservation Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
160
84 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
connecting Tecolote Tunnel and South Coast Conduit . The dam, an earth and rock filled structure standing 206 feet tall by 2975 feet wide, was located on the Santa Ynez River approximately twenty-five miles northwest of the City of Santa Barbara. The dam was built by Mittry Constructors, Inc.; construction began in August 1950 and was completed in 1953. The reservoir formed by the dam had a normal capacity of 205,000 acre- feet and covered an area of 3250 acres when full. 226 The dam provided a steady water supply for Goleta and the surrounding area, which paved the way for future progress.
226 Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, Santa Barbara County, California, United States Department of the Interior, 1956.
Goleta was served by the South Coast Conduit of the Tecolote Tunnel. The area was also served by the Glen Annie reservoir, an earth dam, 102 feet tall by 240 feet wide, which could hold 500 acre-feet of water. 161
85 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Cachuma Project concept drawing, 1956. Source: Bureau of Reclamation, Cachuma Project, Santa Barbra County, California, United States Department of the Interior, 1956. Local History Files, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
162
86 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Theme: Oil and Gas Industry in the Post-World War II Era Although the local onshore oil and gas industry began to decline in the late 1930s, the oil and gas industry continued to influence economic development in Goleta during the postwar era , when oil and gas exploration shifted focus offshore. In 1947, the La Goleta oil field, located four miles east of the Ellwood oil field, overtook the Ellwood oil field in oil and gas production. 227 Onshore oil wells were replaced with offshore facilities, including the two intertidal zone oil piers (Piers 421-1 and 421- 2) adjacent to the present -day Sandpiper Golf Course and the several offshore oil platforms constructed in the Santa Barbara Channel in the 1960s. In 1966, production from the South Ellwood Field (offshore) began using Platform Holly, subsea pipelines, and the Ellwood Onshore Oil and Gas Processing Facility.228 Boats to and from the offshore rigs cast off from a pier at Haskell’s Beach.
ARCO and Mobil established the Ellwood Onshore Oil and Gas Processing Facility (known as the Ellwood Onshore Facility, or EOF) on a 4.5 -acre site at the western boundary of Goleta in 1966. It was constructed to process oil and gas pumped at Platform Holly, which was installed in 1965 two miles off the coast of Goleta. The Ellwood Onshore Facility conducted oil -water separation, oil treatment, and treatment of raw gas.
229
On January 28, 1969, Union Oil Co. Platform A, approximately six miles off the coast of Santa Barbara, punctured a high-pressure pocket of petroleum. 230 The resulting explosion cracked the
227 “Drillings Provide Large Contribution to Local Resources,” Santa Barbara News Press, November 2, 1947. 228 California State Lands Commission, “Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Ellwood Field Project,” September 2016, 1-5.
229 “Venoco,” County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development, Energy Division, http://www.sbcountyplanning.org/energy/projects/venoco.asp (accessed February 2019). 230 Harry Trimborn, “Battle Shaping up over Offshore Oil,” Los Angeles Times, February 2, 1969.
Aerial photograph of the Ellwood Onshore
Facility. Source: County of Santa Barbara
Planning and Development, Energy Division.
163
87 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
sea floor, and crude oil spilled out at a rate of 1,000 gallons per hour for a month until the spill could be slowed, releasing approximately three million gallons of oil into the ocean and creating a 35-mile-long oil slick from Rincon Point to Goleta.
The Santa Barbara Oil Spill, as it came to be known, was the worst in the nation until the Exxon Valdez spill 20 years later, and served as a catalyst for the nascent environmental movement.231 For three years after the spill, the California State Lands Commission placed a moratorium on all new offshore drilling in state waters, even on existing leases, and a federal moratorium banned new offshore drilling in federal waters off California for de cades. In 1969, President Richard Nixon signed the National Environmental Policy Act, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was adopted in 1970. Earth Day was first celebrated in 1970. 232
Theme: Aerospace Industry
The aerospace industry became a significant factor in Goleta’s development starting in the mid- 1950s, with Aerophysics, Raytheon, and Hughes each establishing a presence in the city.233 The space needed to house both the industries and their employees radically transformed Goleta’s landscape. No longer was Goleta a small agricultural town, but a booming industrial center.
Former walnut and lemon orchards gave way to industrial development and dozens of new, single-family residential subdivisions.
In 1950, the Goleta Valley had a population of 7,000 people, 1,800 of which resided in the town of Goleta.
234 By 1960, the Goleta Valley’s population had grown to 19,000, and by 1966, had increased to 47,000. Twenty -nine manufacturing and research corporations were listed in the 1967 Goleta Valley business directory. Many of these corporations manufactured plastic containers, while others specialized in electronics or aerospace . Several aircraft manufacturing plants and automobile repair businesses had been established at the nearby airport. 235
During the early 1950s, Fortune -500 companies headquartered on the east coast realized the prudence of developing high-tech divisions or subsidiaries on the west coast. As a result, in 1956, the aerospace industry began to move into the Goleta Valley. While a few small aerospace companies were already in operation at the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport, the mass influx of
231 Shelby Grad, “The environmental disaster that changed California – and started the movement against offshore drilling,” Los Angeles Times, April 28, 2017; Christine Mai-Duc, “The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill that changed oil and gas exploration forever,” Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2015.
232 Grad, “The environmental disaster that changed California – and started the movement against offshore drilling;” Mai-Duc, “The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill that changed oil and gas exploration forever.” 233 Other industries were established in Goleta during the postwar period as well, including Applied Magnetics. 234 Goleta Guide: A Business and Professional Directory of Goleta, 1951-1952 (Goleta, CA: Barker Advertising Sales and Service, 1951).
235 1967 Goleta Valley Business Directory (Goleta, CA: Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce, 1967). 164
88 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
aerospace companies marked the first major planned development in the Goleta Valley by east coast corporations.236
By September 1956, Aerophysics, Raytheon, Ratel, and Josten were located in the Goleta Valley.
Aerophysics, a division of the Studebaker -Packard Corporation, was the first in the area.
Aerophysics was the outgrowth of the Aerophysics Development Corporat ion, founded by Dr.
W. Bollay in 1951 in the basement of his Pacific Palisades home. Bollay ultimately moved the company to Santa Monica and was doing work on the Dart missile237 when he sold the business to Studebaker-Packard in 1955. Bollay and his employees moved with the business to Goleta in 1956, where ground was broken for their new facility (6745 Los Carneros Road, 1957; Howell, Arendt, Mosher & Grant ) on March 30 .238 Studebaker-Packard purchased a 104- acre site, formerly part of Rancho Los Dos Pueblos, in February 1956. In September 1956, Curtiss-Wright acquired Aerophysics, its 300 employees, and its 103,000-square-foot facility from Studebaker- Packard.239 Curtiss-Wright completed the four building Aerophysics campus in April 1958.
With the Aerophysics facility as a nucleus, companies such as Hughes’ Santa Barbara Research Center (SBRC); Raytheon; Burroughs; Applied Magnetics; Tracor; Edgerton, Germeshausen & Grier, Inc. (EG&G); and more built facilities of their own along Hollister Avenue, forming a high- tech aerospace center in the Goleta Valley. 240 By 1956, Raytheon employed 150 people in a 36,000-square-foot plant on 15 acres, Ratel employed 300 people in a 18,000- square-foot facility on 6 acres, and Josten employed 285 people in a 37,000- square-foot facility on 18 acres.241
In October 1960, General Motors (GM ) purchased the former Aerophysics facility for its Defense Systems Division. 242 Two years later , GM created the G M Research Laboratories to conduct research and development activities on defense system s. GM Research Laboratories later merged with Delco Electronics, and was renamed Delco Systems Operations. The company was involved in developing early missile guidance systems during the Cold War , guidance systems for NASA's Apollo lunar program, and systems engineering for the Apollo Lunar Roving
236 Justin M. Ruhge, “Looking Back: Since the 1950s, high-tech industries have dominated Goleta’s economy,” Goleta Sun, December 20, 1990.
237 The Dart was an early anti-tank missile. Development was slow, and the project was cancelled in 1958. 238 “Ceremony Marks Aerophysics Ground Breaking at Goleta,” Santa Barbara News-Press, March 31, 1956. 239 “Industrial Zoning in the Master Plan for Goleta Valley,” Santa Barbara News-Press, September 21, 1956. 240 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Since the 1950s, high-tech industries have dominated Goleta’s economy.” 241 “Industrial Zoning in the Master Plan for Goleta Valley.” 242 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Since the 1950s, high-tech industries have dominated Goleta’s economy.” 165
89 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Rendering of Raytheon building (75
Coromar Drive, 1957; Howell,
Arendt, Mosher and Grant), 1958.
The building does not appear to have
been constructed to plan. Source:
Local History Collection, Department
of Special Collections, University of
California at Santa Barbara, Santa
Barbara, CA.
Aerial view of Delco, 1961. Source:
Walker A. Tompkins Papers,
Department of Special Collections,
University of California at Santa
Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA.
Vehicle.243 To test the maneuverability of the rovers, a moonscape was built behind the engineering building.244
By the mid -1960s, such firms as GM , Raytheon , EG&G, Hughes Aircraft, Joslyn Electronic Systems, Defense Research Corporation, Ratel, Inc., and Bausch & Lomb had established think tanks in the Goleta Valley. The employees the companies brought with them to the area, who in turn brought their families, significantly increased the local population. Between the massive facilities constructed to house aerospace companies and the sprawling subdivisions constructed to accommodate their employees, aerospace dramatically transformed Goleta’s built landscape from bucolic farmland to a busy industrial town.
243 Per Justin M. Ruhge, three lunar rovers built in Goleta remained on the moon as of 1990, and two others were in museums. 244 Ruhge, “Looking Back: Since the 1950s, high-tech industries have dominated Goleta’s economy.” 166
90 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
L: Surfers on Goleta Beach, c. 1930. Source: Local History Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of California at Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA. Center: Marc Andreini, 1971. R: Dave Johnson, 1978. Source for both: goletasurfing.com.
Theme: Post-World War II Industrial Development
Aerospace was not Goleta’s only new industry during the postwar period. Goleta’s postwar economy “showed a marked shift from primarily agricultural to residential -industrial.”245 Manufacturing firms ranging from one -man shops in wooden buildings at the airport to large, modern plants with up to 700 employees were established around the Goleta Valley . The factories manufactured a diverse array of products, including electronic components, truck bodies, plastic model kits, food dispensers, magnetic recording heads, meteorological instruments, parts for guided missiles, and toys.
246 By the end of the 1960s, these included Applied Magnetics Corporation (75 Robin Hill Road), Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. (26 Coromar Drive), and Santa Barbara Research Center (75 Coromar Drive) .247 These companies also brought employees and their families to the Goleta Valley , significantly increasing the local population and prompting further residential development in and around Goleta.
In addition, due to Goleta’s beach -front location, a local surfing and surfboard industry developed. Surfing in the Goleta area began on Goleta Beach in the late 1930s and early 1940s.
Early Goleta Valley surfers used 9- to 11-foot balsa wood boards. However, after World War II, surfboard manufacturers had access to new materials, such as fiberglass, plastic, and polyurethane foam, radically changing surfboard construction and manufacturing, though the surfboards remained between 9 and 11 feet in length. In the late 1960s, the “shortboard revolution” occurred, and the average length of a surfboard went from ten to six feet. At the same time,
245 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 335.
246 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 335.
247 Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce, Goleta Valley Community Guide & Business Directory (Goleta, CA: Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce, Feb. 1971).
167
91 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
local surfboard shapers began to move into the Goleta area. Among these were Reynolds Yater (Yater Surfboards, 10 State Street, Santa Barbara), John Bradbury (Creative Freedom Surfboards), Jeff White (White Owl Surfboards), Al Merrick (Channel Islands Surfboards, 36 Anacapa Street, Santa Barbara), Marc Andreini (Andreini Surfboards), and Dave Johnson (Progressive Surfboards, 286 S. Fairview Avenue).248
Theme: Post-World War II Civic & Institutional Development In the years after World War II, Coast Highway (U.S. 101) underwent a major improvement. In October 1945, construction began on a new two -lane highway between Hollister Wye and Tecolote Creek.249 The new right-of-way opened in January 1947 and had an immediate effect on the Goleta Valley . It “siphon[ed] a tremendous flow of cars away from Hollister Avenue ” from State Street in Santa Barbara to its western terminus in Ellwood, drawing the “steady flow of post-war traffic” away from Goleta businesses. 250 Concerned that Goleta’s economy would suffer due to the new freeway, local businessmen formed the area’s first cohesive booster organization to meet the need for an “organized promotional and advertising program.” 251 The Goleta Valley C hamber of Commerce formed in 1947, when the highway was moved from Hollister to north of the railroad. The Chamber offices were in downtown Goleta.252 Other local institutions were established in the postwar period to cater to the local population.
One such institution was the Goleta Valley Review, begun in 1949 by R. Barker to fill the void left by the Goleta Valley Leader after it closed in approxim ately 1945. The Review was headquartered at 5840 Hollister Avenue. Another Goleta Valley newspaper, the Goleta Gazette, was run by Richard R. Buffum from 1960 to 1968. Thomas Maurice began the Goleta Coast News, a tri-county business paper, in 1968, followed by the Goleta Valley Sun in 1969. Alvin Remmenga took over the Goleta Advisor (founded in 1967 by Frank Morales and J. Paul Jewkes) in 1969. 253
The Marine air base at the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport went on a caretaker status in March 1946. Two months later, the Navy declared the facility surplus, and turned it over to the War
248 Progressive Surfboards was founded in 1975 at the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport, after the close of the period of significance for this study. However, Progressive is the only custom surfboard manufacturer remaining in present-day Goleta. 249 This is referred to as Hollister Wye in Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 312. Hollister Wye is also referenced in a City of Goleta Staff Report regarding a revised Caltrans freeway agreement dated April 1, 2008. 250 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 312-313.
251 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 313.
252 “Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce,” Goleta Magazine, 1988-1990. Organizations – Smaller Holdings: Community Development and Conservation Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
253 Information about postwar Goleta newspapers adapted from Justin Ruhge Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. 168
92 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Cambridge Community Church, 1963,
550 Cambridge Drive. Source: Goleta
Valley Historical Society.
Assets Administration (WAA).254 In June 1948, the WAA awarded the deactivated Marine base, excepting the airport (which had been returned to the City of Santa Barbara), to the Regents of the University of California for use as a college campus. The library and geology buildings were the first buildings constructed to supplant the barracks. 255 After implementing an aggressive building program, the school, then called the University of California, Santa Barbara College, opened its doors for the 1954 autumn semester. Its initial student population was 1,725, and there were 152 faculty members. The Regents’ original maximum enrollment number of 3,500 students was met in 1960. By the fall of 1965, enrollment had grown to 9,750, and plans were in progress for an eventual enrollment of 15,000 students.256 The exponential growth of UCSB’s student body necessitated growth in faculty as well. The rapid influx of UCSB faculty and staff, along with their families, strained the already limited housing stock of the Goleta Valley , and prompted the development of still more single-family residential subdivisions in the area.
In the 1950s and early 1960s, many religious institutions in Goleta constructed new sanctuaries.
The Goleta Federated Church moved to a new sanctuary in 1950. Goleta area Baptists built a new sanctuary in 1963 (550 Cambridge Drive), as did the local Lutheran congregation (Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, 380 Fairview Avenue, c. 1960). In 1959, St. Raphael Catholic Church moved from its firs t building on Mandarin Avenue to a new church building on the
254 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 312.
255 Smitheram, “A Chronology of Goleta Valley History.” 256 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 332.
169
93 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
northeast corner of Hollister Avenue and St. Josephs Street. 257 The new property, purchased by the Archdiocese in March 1958, was also home to a rectory, and St. Raphael School , which opened its doors with three classrooms in September 1963. Four classrooms were added to the school in August 1965.258
In the mid- 1950s, the Goleta Valley ’s population growth necessitated the establishment of several new schools. In February 1962, the Fairview School opened (401 N. Fairview Avenue), joining Goleta Union School in the Goleta Union School District . 259 Quickly thereafter, Kellogg
School (1963) was constructed at 475 Cambridge Drive, and La Patera School (1964) was built at 555 N. La Patera Lane. 260 In 1969, Ellwood School joined Goleta Union School District. In 1963, after “soaring enrollment” forced nearby La Colina Junior High School to operate year- round, Goleta Valley Junior High (6100 Stow Canyon Road, 1964) was built on the former Fairview (Walora) Ranch north of Stow Canyon Road and west of Fairview Avenue. 261 Goleta Valley’s first four -year high school, Dos Pueblos High School (7266 Alameda Avenue, 1966; Cooke, Frost, Greer, and Schmandt), opened three years later.
Goleta’s postwar population growth also created a need for reliable medical care. As a result, several doctors moved to the area in the mid-1950s. In 1959, five doctors purchased 1.25 acres of land on Storke Road for a medical center, medical laboratory, and pharmacy. 262 This served the Goleta area for several years but could not fully meet the demands of the growing town. By 1966, the town boasted 15 physicians and surgeons, 12 dentists, two optometrists, and four chiropractors.
263 The same year, several area doctors joined together to found the 118-bed Goleta Valley Hospital at the corner of Hollister and Patterson Avenues. 264 The hospital, built in tw o phases, consisted of five buildings on an eleven-acre site. The first phase, which consisted of the hospital and a 26- suite medical center “of Spanish modern architecture,” was scheduled to be completed in February 1964.265 The second phase comprised two medical buildings and nurses’
257 The original sanctuary, constructed in 1896, had been moved to Mandarin Avenue from the southwest corner of Hollister and Fairview Avenues (present-day Jiffy Lube) when the property was sold to Seaside Oil in 1929. 258 “History of Saint Raphael Catholic Church,” St. Raphael Catholic Church, Santa Barbara, CA, http://straphaelsb.org/history-of- saint-raphael-catholic-church/, accessed February 2017. 259 Cathedral Oaks and Isla Vista Schools were also constructed in the late 1950s or early 1960s. 260 “Goleta Union School District – And How It Grew,” Your Schools 2 (13), June 1969. Other schools, such as Hollister, El Camino, El Rancho, Brandon, and Mountain View, joined the Goleta Union School District during this time, but are not located within the boundaries of the City of Goleta.
261 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 337; Smitheram, “A Chronology of Goleta Valley History.” Per Tompkins, this site was the cheapest that the Board of Education could find.
262 “New Goleta Area Medical Center Slated,” Santa Barbara News-Press, August 12, 1959. 263 Tompkins, Goleta: The Good Land, 337.
264 Smitheram, “A Chronology of Goleta Valley History,”; “At Hollister, Patterson Avenues: Hospital Ground-Breaking Set for Thursday,” Santa Barbara News-Press, December 16, 1962. 265 “At Hollister, Patterson Avenues: Hospital Ground-Breaking Set for Thursday.” 170
94 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Rendering of the postwar hospital
complex at Hollister and Patterson
Avenues, 1962. Source: “At Hollister,
Patterson Avenues: Hospital Ground-
Breaking Set for Thursday,” Santa
Barbara News-Press, December 16,
1962.
quarters. This state -of-the-art hospital met the needs of the Goleta Valley’s expanded postwar population, further transforming Goleta’s formerly agricultural landscape.
CONCLUSION
Goleta’s economy and built landscape both changed dramatically after World War II . The Cachuma Dam, completed in 1953, provided Goleta with a new reliable water source, which allowed for rapid suburban and industrial development. Former walnut and lemon orchards were transformed into residential and industrial subdivisions to cater to the rapid population increase caused by the arrival of aerospace companies with several hundred employees apiece, as well as the establishment of the University of California at Santa Barbara campus on the former Marine base . By 1969, Goleta was no longer the small, agricultural town it had been prior to World War II, but rather, a booming industrial city.
171
95 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
CONTEXT: ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN
Present-day Goleta is home to a variety of buildings exhibiting an array of construction methods and architectural styles, including a collection of simply-designed bungalows; large tracts of Ranch houses; commercial vernacular, Spanish Colonial Revival , and Googie -style commercial buildings; and Mid-century Modern tract homes and institutional buildings.
The accompanying table identifies the architectural styles found in Goleta and includes a brief discussion of the origins of the style and a list of character-defining features intrinsic to each. A property that is eligible for designation as a good or excellent example of its architectural style typically exhibits most - though not necessarily all - of the character-defining features of the style and continues to exhibit its historic appearance. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.266 A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.267
266 National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995. 267National Register Bulletin 15.
172
96 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
173
97 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Adobe Construction Early adobe buildings were typically small, single-story structures, with thick adobe walls, flat roofs framed with vigas, and usually a long, covered porch supported on wood posts, called a corredor, along one or more sides. Adobe construction consists of thick walls composed of large sun-dried bricks, usually made from mud and straw and covered with earth plaster to protect the unfired bricks. The unreinforced adobe walls typically vary from one and one-half to six feet thick, resting on a dirt or rock foundation. Door and window openings are usually framed with heavy timber lintels, often left exposed. Adobe construction demonstrates a continuation of indigenous building traditions that were passed down from generation to generation of craftsmen. Adobe construction used locally available resources and was appropriate for the climate in the Southwest, staying cool in the summer and warm in the winter. Following California’s cession to the United States in 1850 there was a migration of settlers from the east. During this period, many adobe structures were destroyed to make way for new development. Others were altered with the addition of steep gable or hipped roofs, usually clad in wood shakes but occasionally in clay tiles, and wood framed wings. Some adobes were clad in clapboard siding with Federal or Greek Revival decorative details and double hung windows to create a more Anglicized appearance. In some cases, adobes were covered with a cement plaster finish. • Rectangular or L-shaped plan with simply
arranged interior spaces
• Thick masonry walls of adobe brick
• Simple, unadorned exteriors (often with cement
plaster veneer)
• Few, small window and door openings with
wood lintels
• Double hung, wood sash windows
• May have
corredores along one or more sides
Daniel Hill Adobe, 35 S. La Patera Lane (c. 1850; Santa Barbara County Place of Historic Merit).
174
98 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Residential Vernacular The term “Residential Vernacular” is used to describe residential buildings with little or no distinguishing decorative features, including modest wood-frame houses or cottages. They were widely constructed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by builders without design input from professional architects. Many were built from “plan books” or kits.
These buildings are characterized by their simplicity and lack of any characteristics of recognizable styles, but frequently feature prefabricated wood trim such as brackets, porch posts, and spindles. The “Shotgun” building sub-type consists of a linear organization of rooms, front to back, opening one to the other without intervening corridors. • One- or two-story height
• Rectangular or L-shaped plan and simple
massing
• Wood frame construction
• Gabled or hipped roof with boxed or open
eaves
• Horizontal wood siding
• Full- or partial-width porch, sometimes with
decorative brackets, posts, or spindles
• Double-hung, wood sash windows
• Simple window and door surrounds
Beck House, 5399 Overpass Road (1887)
175
99 FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Commercial Vernacular Although not an officially recognized style, “commercial vernacular” describes simple commercial buildings with little decorative ornamentation, common in American cities and towns of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They are typically brick in construction, with minimal decorative detailing.
• Simple square or rectangular form
• Flat roof with a flat or stepped parapet
• Brick exterior wall surfaces, with face brick
on the primary facade
• First-story storefronts, typically with a
continuous transom window above
• Wood double-hung sash upper-story
windows, often in pairs
• Segmental arch window and door openings
on side and rear elevations
• Decorative detailing, if any, may include
cornices, friezes, quoins, or stringcourses
Comfort Zone Furniture, 5968 Hollister Avenue, c. 1925.
176
100
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Industrial Vernacular The term “Industrial Vernacular” is used to describe simple industrial buildings with little or no distinguishing decorative features. These buildings are characterized by their utilitarian design, prosaic materials, and lack of any characteristics of recognizable styles. This term encompasses buildings constructed as airport structures (i.e., hangars), factories, and packing houses.
Prior to the widespread use of electric lighting, controlling and capitalizing on daylight was a necessary component of the design of manufacturing buildings. Daylight was brought into the building using a variety of methods, including expansive industrial sash windows, orientation of intensive hand work next to the exterior walls of the building, skylights, and specialized roof forms to bring light into the interior. With the development of better illumination from fluorescent bulbs, manufacturers changed their focus in design from capitalizing on available light to controlling lighting and ventilation through closed systems. Controlled conditions factories are distinguished by their minimal use of windows for light and ventilation. While some windows may be located on the front-facing façade or on an attached office, the building relies on internal systems for circulation and climate control.
• Square or rectangular plan and simple
massing
• One- or two-story height
• Flat, truss, or sawtooth roof, usually with
parapet
• Roof monitors,268 skylights, or clerestory
windows
• Brick masonry construction, expressed or
veneered in cement plaster
• Divided-light, steel-sash awning, hopper, or
double-hung windows
• Oversized bays of continuous industrial steel
sash on two or more façades (daylight
factory)
• Lack of fenestration or sky-lighting
(controlled conditions factory)
• Architecturally notable entrance or overall
design (controlled conditions factory)
• Loading docks and doors
Santa Cruz Market, 5757 Hollister Avenue (former Earle
Ovington plane hangar, dismantled and moved to site in
1939)
268 A roof monitor is a raised structure running along the ridge of a double-pitched roof. 177
101
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Agricultural Vernacular The term “Agricultural Vernacular” is used to describe simple agricultural support structures (i.e., barns, corncribs). They are typically of wood construction with little or no distinguishing decorative features. These buildings are characterized by their utilitarian design, prosaic materials, and lack of any characteristics of recognizable styles.
• Square or rectangular plan and simple
massing
• One- or two-story height
• Wood frame construction
• Gabled or hipped roof with boxed or open
eaves
• Wood exterior wall cladding
• Little or no fenestration
• Simple window and door surrounds
Barn at 290 Ellwood Canyon Road (c. 1920).
178
102
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Quonset Hut A Quonset hut is a semi-cylindrical structure constructed of corrugated steel sheeting placed atop arched wood or metal rib framing. Typical features include oversized door and steel-frame industrial windows. Due to the portability and versatility of this building type, these structures can be found throughout the city and adapted to a variety of uses, though they are most commonly found in industrial areas. A Quonset hut is significant as an important World War II-era building type and method of construction, notable for its simple construction, distinctive shape, use of prefabricated materials, and flexible interior plan. Intact examples represent the design and development of a low-cost and highly versatile structure by the U.S. Navy for military use during World War II, and its adaptive reuse for housing and other uses during the postwar years.
• Half-cylinder shape, with wood or metal rib
framing
• Rectangular plan
• Clad in corrugated metal sheeting
• Oversized doors
• Steel-frame industrial windows, typically with
divided-lights
903 S. Kellogg Avenue (c. 1945)
Quonset hut (demolished), Goleta prisoner of war camp, no date. Source: goletahistory.com
179
103
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Italianate269 The Italianate style was first developed in Britain. In 1802, architect John Nash designed Cronkhill, a small country house in Shropshire that resembled an Italian villa. This house became the model for what was known as the Italianate Villa style during the early Victorian era. The first Italianate style buildings in the United States were constructed in the late 1830s, and most surviving examples in Southern California date from the 1870s through the 1890s.
The Italianate style in the United States grew out of the Picturesque movement, which was a reaction to the classical revival styles popular in the 18th and early 19th centuries.
The style was promoted by the architectural pattern books of Andrew Jackson Downing.
It was Downing's friend and follower, Henry W. Cleveland, who brought the Italianate style to the West Coast. Cleveland designed the Bidwell Mansion for John and Annie Bidwell in 1868. Located in Chico, it became the social and cultural center of the Sacramento Valley. While most Italianate style houses on the East Coast were constructed of masonry, those on the West Coast were constructed of wood.
The people of Southern California may have embraced the Italianate style because of the similarities between the area’s topography and climate and that of southern Europe. The style became popular for domestic architecture in Southern California, but was applied equally to commercial architecture.
• Vertical emphasis
• Two stories in height
• Wood, masonry, or concrete construction
• Brick or shiplap exterior wall cladding,
occasionally with quoined corners
• Low-pitched roofs, sometimes with towers
• Projecting eaves supported by elaborate
brackets
• Frequent use of angular bays
• Narrow front porches and second-story
balconies with thin columns and spindled
balustrades
• Heavy articulation of headers over windows
and doors
Sexton House, 5490 Hollister Avenue (Peter Barber, 1880; Santa Barbara County Landmark #14, listed in the National Register of Historic Places).
269 Adapted from City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning. “Architecture and Design,” SurveyLA: Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey Project, Draft Historic Context Statement, 2011. 180
104
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Gothic Revival270 Like the Italianate style, the Gothic Revival style grew out of the Picturesque movement, which was a reaction to the severe classical revival styles of the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The style gained popularity in Britain in the late 18th century and remained the preferred style of ecclesiastical, educational, and other institutional architecture through the 19th century. The style spread across the United States in the 19th century, initially as a style for ecclesiastical buildings. Its visual references to old world roots also made it a popular style for educational and institutional buildings that needed to convey continuity with tradition. The style’s popularity continued into the 20th century, until the 1930s when Gothic forms were abstracted into the geometric style of Art Deco. In Southern California, the Gothic Style tended to be simpler in massing and ornament than earlier interpretations across the United States. Silhouettes were more compact, with abstracted references to buttresses hugging close to façades. Gothic Revival style domestic buildings were typically constructed of wood; ecclesiastical and institutional examples were typically of wood or masonry, and later of concrete, sometimes scored to resemble stone.
• Vertical emphasis
• Wood, masonry, or concrete construction
• Steeply pitched front or cross gable roof,
often with corbeled or crenellated gable
ends and overhanging eaves
• Towers, spires, pinnacles, and finials
• Buttresses, usually engaged
• Windows and doors set in pointed arched
openings
• Leaded and stained-glass windows,
sometimes with tracery
Stow House, 304 N. Los Carneros Road (Frank Walker,
1872; Santa Barbara County Landmark #6, listed in the
National Register of Historic Places).
Neoclassical Cottage One-story, hipped roof or Neoclassical cottages are a common subtype of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. These are modest one-story houses or cottages with simplified forms and hipped roofs with minimal decorative features. Neoclassical cottages usually have hipped roofs with prominent central dormers. The portico featured on grander Neoclassical buildings is here reduced to a simple porch that may be either full- or partial-width. The porch may be included under the main roof or have a separate flat or shed roof supported on classical columns.
• One-story height
• Square or rectangular plan and simple massing
• Frequently symmetrical composition
• Hipped roof with prominent central dormer
and boxed eaves with cornice; sometimes
front gable roof with open eaves
• Horizontal wood siding
• Full- or partial-width front porch with classical
columns
• Double-hung wood-sash windows
• Simple window and door surrounds
175 Chapel Street (c. 1915)
270 Adapted from City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning. “Architecture and Design,” SurveyLA: Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey Project, Draft Historic Context Statement, 2011. 181
105
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Craftsman Craftsman architecture grew out of the late-19th century English Arts and Crafts movement.
A reaction against industrialization and the excesses of the Victorian era, the movement stressed simplicity of design, hand-craftsmanship, and the relationship of the building to the climate and landscape. Craftsman architecture developed in the first decade of the 20th century as an indigenous California version of the American Arts and Crafts movement, incorporating Southern California’s unique qualities. Constructed primarily of stained wood, with wide overhanging eaves, balconies, and terraces extending the living space outdoors, the style embodied the goals of the Arts and Crafts movement.
The Craftsman bungalow dates from the early 1900s through the 1920s. The bungalow’s simplicity of form, informal character, direct response to site, and extensive use of natural materials, particularly wood and stone, was a regional interpretation of the reforms espoused by the Arts and Crafts movement’s founder, William Morris. Craftsman bungalows generally have rectangular or irregular plans, and are one to one-and-a-half stories tall. They have wood clapboard or shingle exteriors and a pronounced horizontal emphasis, with broad front porches, often composed with stone, clinker brick, or plastered porch piers. Other character-defining features include low-pitched front-facing gable roofs, and overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails.
As opposed to smaller developer-built or prefabricated bungalows, two-story Craftsman houses were often commissioned for wealthy residents and designed specifically with the homeowner’s needs and the physical site in mind. They generally feature a low-pitched gable roof, wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails, and windows grouped in horizontal bands. A high-style Craftsman house is distinguished by the quality of the materials and complexity of design and may feature elaborate, custom-designed woodwork, stained glass, and other fixtures.
By World War I, the Craftsman style declined in popularity and was largely replaced by Period Revival styles. The Craftsman bungalow continued to be built into the 1920s, but was often painted in lighter colors, stripped of its dark wood interiors, or blended with characteristics of various revival styles.
• Horizontal massing
• Low-pitched gable roof with rolled or
composition shingle roofing
• Wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter
tails, outriggers, or knee braces
• Exterior walls clad in wood shingle, shake, or
clapboard siding
• Projecting partial- or full-width, or wrap-
around front porch
• Heavy porch piers, often of river stone or
masonry
• Wood sash casement or double-hung
windows, often grouped in multiples
• Wide front doors, often with a beveled light
• Wide, plain window and door surrounds,
often with extended lintels
• Extensive use of natural materials (wood, brick
or river stone)
Kellogg House, 110 S. Kellogg Avenue (1914)
182
106
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Spanish Colonial Revival The Spanish Colonial Revival style attained widespread popularity throughout Southern California following the 1915 Panama-California Exposition in San Diego, which was housed in a series of buildings designed by chief architect Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue in the late Baroque Churrigueresque style of Spain and Mexico. The Churrigueresque style, with areas of intricate ornamentation juxtaposed against plain stucco wall surfaces and accented with towers and domes, lent itself to monumental public edifices, churches and exuberant commercial buildings and theaters, but was less suited to residential or smaller scale commercial architecture. For that, architects drew inspiration from provincial Spain, particularly the arid southern region of Andalusia, where many young American architects were diverted while World War I prevented their traditional post-graduate “grand tour” of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany. The resulting style was based on infinitely creative combinations of plaster, tile, wood, and iron, featuring plaster-clad volumes arranged around patios, low-pitched tile roofs, and a spreading, horizontal orientation. It was a deliberate attempt to develop a “native” California architectural style and romanticize the area’s colonial past, though it drew directly from Spanish and other Mediterranean precedents and bore little resemblance to the missions and rustic adobe ranch houses that comprised the state’s actual colonial- era buildings.
The popularity of the Spanish Colonial Revival style extended across nearly all property types, including a range of residential, commercial, and institutional buildings, and coincided with Southern California’s population boom of the 1920s, with the result that large expanses of Santa Monica, Los Angeles, and surrounding cities were developed in the style. Some towns, such as Santa Barbara, even passed ordinances requiring its use in new construction. It shaped the region’s expansion for nearly two decades, reaching a high point in 1929 and tapering off through the 1930s as the Great Depression gradually took hold. Like other revival styles, the Spanish Colonial Revival style was often simplified, reduced to its signature elements, or creatively combined with design features of other Mediterranean regions such as Italy, southern France, and North Africa, resulting in a pan-Mediterranean mélange of eclectic variations (see Mediterranean Revival Style). It was also sometimes combined, much less frequently, with the emerging Art Deco and Moderne styles. • Asymmetrical façade
• Irregular plan and horizontal massing
• Varied gable or hipped roofs with clay barrel
tiles
• Plaster veneered exterior walls forming
wide, uninterrupted expanses
• Wood-sash casement or double-hung
windows, typically with divided lights
• Round, pointed, or parabolic arched
openings
• Arcades or colonnades
• Decorative grilles of wood, wrought iron, or
plaster
• Balconies, patios or towers
• Decorative terra cotta or glazed ceramic tile
work
5811 Mandarin Drive (c. 1930)
183
107
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Mediterranean Revival The Mediterranean Revival style is distinguished by its eclectic mix of architectural elements from several regions around the Mediterranean Sea, including Spain, Italy, southern France, and North Africa. Much of the American architecture of the late 19th and early 20th centuries can be broadly classified as ultimately Mediterranean in origin, including the Beaux Arts, Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, and Italian Renaissance Revival styles. But by the 1920s, the lines between these individual styles were frequently blurred and their distinguishing characteristics blended by architects who drew inspiration from throughout the Mediterranean region. These imaginative combinations of details from varied architectural traditions resulted in the emergence of a distinct Mediterranean Revival style.
In contrast to the more academic and more literal interpretations such as the Andalusian-influenced Spanish Colonial Revival style or the restrained, dignified Italian Renaissance Revival style, the broader Mediterranean Revival frequently incorporated elements of Italian and Spanish Renaissance, Provençal, Venetian Gothic, and Moorish architecture into otherwise Spanish Colonial Revival designs. The Mediterranean Revival style is sometimes more formal and usually more elaborately composed and ornamented than the simpler, more rustic Spanish Colonial Revival style, and often more flamboyant than the sober Italian Renaissance Revival style. Typical features of the Mediterranean Revival style include arched entrance doorways with richly detailed surrounds; arcades and loggias; stairways and terraces with cast stone balustrades; and Classical decorative elements in cast stone or plaster, including architraves, stringcourses, cornices, pilasters, columns, and quoins. • Frequently symmetrical façade
• Rectangular plan and two-story height
• Hipped roof with clay barrel tiles and wide
boxed or bracketed eaves, or eave cornice
• Exterior walls veneered in smooth plaster
• Wood-sash casement windows, typically
with divided lights; sometimes double-
hung windows
• Palladian windows or other accent
windows
• Arched door or window openings
• Elaborate door surrounds
• Arcades, colonnades, or loggias
• Terraces and stairs with cast stone
balustrades
• Cast stone or plaster decorative elements
including architraves, stringcourses,
cornices, pilasters, columns, and quoins
• Decorative grilles of wood, wrought iron,
or plaster
• Balconies, patios or towers
• Decorative terra cotta or glazed ceramic
tile work
Goleta Valley Community Center, 5681 Hollister Avenue
(Louis N. Crawford, 1926)
5890 Hollister Avenue (c. 1930)
184
108
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Mid-century Modern Mid-century Modern is a term used to describe the post-World War II iteration of the International Style in both residential and commercial design. The International Style was characterized by geometric forms, smooth wall surfaces, and an absence of exterior decoration. Mid-century Modern represents the adaptation of these elements to the local climate and topography, as well as to the postwar need for efficiently built, moderately priced homes. In Southern California, this often meant the use of wood post-and-beam construction. Mid-century Modernism is often characterized by a clear expression of structure and materials, large expanses of glass, and open interior plans.
The roots of the style can be traced to early Modernists like Richard Neutra and Rudolph Schindler, whose local work inspired “second generation” Modern architects like Gregory Ain, Craig Ellwood, Harwell Hamilton Harris, Pierre Koenig, Raphael Soriano, and many more. These post-war architects developed an indigenous Modernism that was born from the International Style but matured into a fundamentally regional style, fostered in part by
Art and Architecture magazine’s
pivotal Case Study Program (1945-1966). The style gained popularity because its use of standardized, prefabricated materials permitted quick and economical construction.
It became the predominant architectural style in the postwar years and is represented in almost every property type, from single-family residences to commercial buildings to gas stations.
• One or two-story configuration
• Horizontal massing (for small-scale
buildings)
• Simple geometric forms
• Expressed post-and-beam construction,
in wood or steel
• Flat roof or low-pitched gable roof with
wide overhanging eaves and cantilevered
canopies
• Unadorned wall surfaces
• Wood, plaster, brick or stone used as
exterior wall panels or accent materials
• Flush-mounted metal frame fixed
windows and sliding doors, and
clerestory windows
• Exterior staircases, decks, patios and
balconies
• Little or no exterior decorative detailing
87 Mallard Avenue (Jones & Emmons, 1957)
Former Aerophysics Development Corporation, 6769
Hollister Avenue (1957, Howell, Arendt, Mosher & Grant)
185
109
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Ranch The Ranch style emerged from the 1930s designs of Southern California architect Cliff May, who merged modernist ideas with traditional notions of the working ranches of the American West and in particular, the rustic adobe houses of California’s Spanish- and Mexican-era ranchos. The resulting architectural style – characterized by its low horizontal massing, sprawling interior plan, and wood exterior detailing - embodied the mid-century ideal of “California living.” The Ranch style enjoyed enormous popularity throughout the United States from the 1940s to 1970s. It epitomized unpretentious architecture and dominated the suburbs of the post-World War II period. It was more conservative than other modern residential architecture of the period, often using decorative elements based on historical forms and capitalizing on the national fascination with the “Old West.” The underlying philosophy of the Ranch house was informality, outdoor living, gracious entertaining, and natural materials.
The most common style of Ranch house is the California Ranch. It is characterized by its one-story height; asymmetrical massing in L- or U-shaped plans; low-pitched hipped or gabled roofs with wide overhanging eaves; a variety of materials for exterior cladding, including plaster and board-and-batten; divided light wood sash windows, sometimes with diamond-shaped panes; and large picture windows. Decorative details commonly seen in California Ranch houses include scalloped bargeboards, false cupolas and dovecotes, shutters, and iron or wood porch supports. The California Ranch house accommodated America’s adoption of the automobile as the primary means of transportation with a two-car garage that was a prominent architectural feature on the front of the house, and a sprawling layout on a large lot. Floor plans for the tracts of Ranch houses were usually designed to meet the FHA standards, so that the developer could receive guaranteed loans.
Another variation on the Ranch house was the Modern Ranch, which was influenced by Mid-century Modernism. Modern Ranches emphasized horizontal planes more than the California Ranch, and included modern instead of traditional stylistic details.
Character-defining features included low-pitched hipped or flat roofs, prominent rectangular chimneys, recessed entryways, and wood or concrete block privacy screens.
Other stylistic elements resulted in Asian variations.
• One-story height
• Sprawling L- or U-shaped plan, often
with radiating wings
• Low, horizontal massing with wide
street façade
• Low-pitched hipped or gable roof with
open overhanging eaves and wood
shakes
• Plaster, wood lap, or board-and-batten
siding, often with brick or stone accents
• Divided light wood sash windows
(picture, double-hung sash, diamond-
pane)
• Wide, covered front porch with wood
posts
• Attached garage, sometimes linked with
open-sided breezeway
• Details such as wood shutters, attic vents
in gable ends, dovecotes, extended
gables, or scalloped barge boards
• Modern Ranch sub-type may feature flat
or low-pitched hipped roof with
composition shingle or gravel roofing;
metal framed windows; wood or
concrete block privacy screens
7102 Del Norte Drive (1959)
6586 Camino Venturoso (1967)
186
110
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STYLE/TYPE DESCRIPTION/SIGNIFICANCE CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES LOCAL EXAMPLE Googie Googie has been described as Modernism for the masses. With its swooping lines and organic shapes, the style attempted to capture the playful exuberance of postwar America. Named for the John Lautner-designed Googie’s Restaurant in Los Angeles, the style was widely employed in roadside commercial architecture of the 1950s, including coffee shops, bowling alleys, and car washes. It exaggerated the vocabulary of Mid-century Modern design to catch the eye of passing motorists with dramatic sculptural rooflines, shimmering walls of glass, abstract shapes, and prominent integral signage.
• Expressive rooflines, including
butterfly, folded plate, and
cantilevers
• Organic, abstract, and parabolic
shapes
• Clear expression of materials,
including concrete, steel, asbestos,
cement, glass block, plastic, and
plywood
• Large expanses of plate glass
• Thematic ornamentation, including
tiki and space age motifs
• Primacy of signage, including the
pervasive use of neon
Butler Event Center, 5555 Hollister Avenue (Louis Mazzetti, 1967)
Zodo’s Bowl, 5925 Calle Real (c. 1960). Source: cosmicool.com.
187
111
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Chapter 2
Archaeological Resources
This chapter prepared by:
GREENWOOD AND ASSOCIATES
1512 S. Curson Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90019
John M. Foster, RPA
With contributions by:
BARBAREÑO BAND OF CHUMASH INDIANS
and
DAVID STONE, RPA
Wood Group Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.
188
112
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
189
113
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
The City of Goleta has significant archaeological resources within its borders and intends to manage those resources in a responsible and sensitive manner. As part of that effort an archaeological context statement was mandated to become one aspect of the City’s historic preservation program. Preparation of the context statement was undertaken in order provide an updated context for the results of archaeological research associated with preservation planning efforts that have been completed before and since the founding of the City. The results will be used by the City of Goleta for such project planning purposes as developing a mitigation program to minimize impacts to significant cultural resources, and in recommending project and land use alternatives.
This document presents the results of cultural resources investigations completed in Goleta from prehistory to the middle of the American Period to demonstrate the regional understanding of archaeological properties throughout the city, as well as to inform future planning decisions. The document identifies important periods, events, themes, and patterns of development, and provides a framework for evaluating individual cultural resources relative to National Register of Historic Plac es, California Register of Historical Resources, and Goleta Historic Resources Inventory eligibility criteria. Historic property types associated with these periods and themes are also identified and described in the archaeological resources context statement, and significance and integrity considerations are included for each.
It is important to note that while the context statement identifies key archaeological and historical themes in Goleta’s development, it is not a comprehensive history of the city, nor is it a definitive listing of all the city’s significant resources. Instead, it provides a general discussion of cultural factors that influenced the location and settlement of Goleta’s archaeological sites, why sites associated with that settlement pattern are important, and what characteristics are necessary to be identified to qualify them as significant, “historic” resources.
Concepts and Time Periods
Cultural resources include prehistoric and historical archaeological sites, historical structures and buildings, and sites of ethnic significance. Prehistoric archaeological sites may consist of surface and subsurface deposits containing human related artifacts, burial interments, food refuse and/or food preparation features such as hearths, and bedrock associated features containing milling elements, rock art, or living shelters. Historical archaeological sites may consist of surface or subsurface refuse deposits containing artifacts or food refuse and surface-exposed features such as building foundations, wall footings, and other features associated with former historic dwellings and related structures, as well as commercial, agricultural, or other facilities. Historical archaeological sites are distinguished from historic buildings and structures, which consist of 190
114
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
standing homes or other buildings related to commercial or agricultural activities. Ethnic resources may consist of locations that hold a particular significance to groups such as Native American, Spanish, Mexican, or early Anglo residents who have prehistoric or historic ties to the local area. In some instances, these ethnic resources are also archaeological or built architectural sites.
Project Location and Description
The “Goleta Valley” is a coastal plain between the Santa Ynez Mountains and the ocean , approximately three miles across (Figure 1). It consists of Holocene and Pleistocene alluvium, colluvium, estuarine deposits, as well as marine terraces created during interglacial high sea level episodes (Minor et al. 2009).
The area has been subject to rapid geologic uplift, as evidenced by its coastal bluffs and narrow beaches. Between th e flattest part of the Goleta Valley and the ocean is an area of uplift paralleling the shore which includes, from west to east, Isla Vista, Mescalitan Island, More Mesa, and the Hope Ranch Hills. The elevation of this block of land relative to Goleta Valley increases from 40 to 300 feet along this length. The uplift was caused by motion along the More Ranch Fault, one of the most geologically active faults in the area. This fault roughly follows a line along El Colegio Road, through the southern part of the airport, along Atascadero Creek, and then continues east into Santa Barbara as the Mission Ridge Fault Zone. Soils in Goleta are mostly well drained fine brown sandy loam of the Milpitas series (Minor et al. 2009).
Some of the underlying sedimentary units contain economically recoverable quantities of oil and gas. The Ellwood Oil Field was worked beginning in the 1920s, with its onshore portions only being dismantled in the 1970s (Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Department 2013).
The Santa Ynez Mountains form a scenic backdrop to Goleta. They consist of multiple layers of sandstone and conglomerate units dating from the Jurassic Age to the present, uplifted rapidly since the Pliocene . Rapid uplift has given them their craggy, scenic character, and numerous landslides and debris flows, which form some of the urban and suburban lowland area, are testament to their geologically active nature (Minor et al. 2009).
Organization of the Document
One of the goals of this document is to provide a comprehensive treatment of the archaeological resources in the City of Goleta. In order to make this an inclusive document, the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians, local archaeologists, and members of the public have provided pertinent and important contributions to these discussions. The following materials provide a synthesis of this information.
191
115
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This 1995/6 USGS map is the last of the paper updates, which is the standard that is used at the Central Coastal Information Center.
192
116
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
193
117
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
CONTEXT STATEMENT FROM THE BARBAREÑO BAND OF CHUMASH INDIANS We are the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians, the Band of the Land, and the area which today you call ‘Goleta’ and ‘Santa Barbara’ is our ancestral homeland! How can we convey to you what our homeland means to us?
This we know: Our family members who came before us, the hul-mol-moloq-iʼwaš hul-kuh- kuʼ, the ‘ancient ones ’, have passed on to us the knowledge of the cultural, historical and spiritual value of our homeland. On this land, over the span of hundreds and thousands of years, our family members were born, lived out their lives, and died. The spirits of those famil y members are still with us, forever connected to this land they love. We honor them even as we honor the land as sacred. For us, the sacredness of the land will never be derived from the financial value of the land nor what we can built upon it for our financial gain.
We remember the stories that have been passed down to us, because they connect us to our nohnonočwaš, our ancestors, and to the land they lived on. These stories are important to us, because though we may live in this modern world, we derive much of our meaning from the people’s wisdom and experiences of the past contained in the stories. In this way it can be said, we are the past, which ties us to the present and to the future.
These stories from our ancestors are not typically stories that you will read in any history book; those books have not been written by our people. Though we continually strive for healing, these are stories we keep locked in hearts scarred from the memory of a thousand and more injustices visited upon our people by the invaders. But still, the stories long to be told.
Our stories are the spirit of the land, speaking through the ancestors and touching our hearts.
They begin in the time from before memory, from the mists of time from whence our people came. And even if your ancestors are not from this land, if you truly love this land and feel a deep connection to it, perhaps you too may know the deep and true wisdom of these stories.
As you read the following stories and thoughts, remember that the great number of cultural resource sites in the Goleta Valley are intimately connected to the present day Barbareño Chumash descendants. These cultural resource sites were the places our ancestors, or to be more precise - our family members, lived out their lives on, and when they died, these sites are where they were buried. Through the unfeeling and objective scientific jargon with which these sites are associated today, it is easy to forget that they are the final resting places of our family members. But never forget that these sites, and human remains and cultural items found at these sites, deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.
How did this land become our ancestral homeland? It is said that our people originated from the islands and came later to this mainland. The following was a story told by a family member many years ago.
194
118
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Saxipak’a….
Once upon a time long, long ago, the ancient Chumash people were living on Limuw - Santa Cruz Island, and Hutash – the earth goddess, lived there too.
Every year the island became noisier and more crowded because of all the babies being born there. Hutash could not sleep because of all the noise, so she decided some of the Chumash would have to move from the island to the mainland. No people were living on the mainland in those days. But how was Hutash going to get the people from the island to the mainland?
Hutash thought and thought and finally had an idea: she would make a bridge made from a wištoyo – a rainbow- and the people would be able to cross safely from the island to the mainland. So Hutash made the Rainbow Bridge, and she made it tall and long until it stretched to the heavens and out to the horizon.
Hutash told the people to gather all their belongings and their animals and cross the Rainbow Bridge to the mainland.
The Rainbow Bridge stretched high into the sky and far above t he water. The people started out and began to cross over the Rainbow Bridge to the mainland. Many of the people were able to safely cross over to the mainland.
But some of the people felt dizzy from being so high above the water. Some of these people lost their balance and fell far down to the water below.
Hutash was watching the people cross the Rainbow Bridge . She saw people fall from the rainbow bridge into the water, and she became sad. After all, she had told them to cross the Rainbow Bridge.
In her sadness and compassion for her people, and because she didn’t want them to drown, Hutash turned those people who had fallen off the bridge into ʼalolkʼoy, porpoises. This is why, these many years later, the Chumash still say the porpoises are their people.
That is the story of the Rainbow Bridge and how our people came to this land.
There is another story of how our people came to this land. This story was also passed down over and over, throughout many years and across countless fires, during the time after dinner and prayers in the villages when the stories would be told, maʼli siyʼalašalwaš i ka siysaqutiʼnan, when the ol d ones would teach the young ones the history of our people. The telling of this 195
119
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
takes place at the Santa Barbara Mission, but remember it is much older than anything the Spanish brought. This is the story:
When the Chumash people from the islands would come to Santa Barbara Mission, the mainland Indians here would make fun of them, probably they considered them unsophisticated country bumpkins. But the island Chumash would merely answer that all the Indians are Chumash even the people from the Tulare country and all. Then the island Chumash would remind the Indians at the Santa Barbara Mission that all the peoples of the mainland started at the islands, and like fog creeping across the water, came to their respective villages on the mainland here, though many have already forgotten this and do not remember.
These are the origins of our people on this land. Remember that our history did not begin with the arrival of the Spanish, the Mexicans and the Americans. Our people lived her e for many, many years before the invaders came.
The families of the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians are the people who have traditionally inhabited coastal Santa Barbara County and parts of the backcountry. Our family members were those whose cultural and linguistic knowledge preserved a record of Barbareño heritage resources by working with anthropologists John P. Harrington, Alfred Kroeber, and others. Our family members and relatives are the well -known sources of Barbareño traditional knowledge as they are the individuals who provided the information cited in all of the articles and books published on Barbareño language and culture.
Ancient cultural and linguistic knowledge of our Chumash ancestors have been preserved, written and published by non-native historians, linguists and archaeologists. However, during this same time , the Chumash ancestors and family members continued to carry -on our cultural knowledge, safeguarding our language, oral traditions and cultural practices for future generations. These cultural gifts carried across many generations are received with an open heart.
Oral traditions and stories are one of the strongest threads we have in our native tapestry.
Our ancestors' stories contain elements of surprise, challenge, conflict, suspense, resolution, and consequences. All these elements serve a purpose withi n our Chumash world, tying us to the land and to each other, securing our cultural future.
Our ancestors suffered from colonization, resulting in forced suppression of identity, and to survive - compliance. The fallout has resulted in transgenerational trauma and cultural deprivation. Cultural deprivation occurred in our family, when our childre n were taken to be educated and raised in a boarding school setting by those who thought that residential institutionalization was better than being raised in a family. This wound of a fractured past for 196
120
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
many families is revisited when recounting stories of our ancestors for non-natives that think this past defines an indigenous person.
Yet, within our family, we have tangible items as well. The sacred abalone shell passed from Chumash Grandmother to granddaughter. This represents our ties to the past while continuing as a living contemporary representation of our cultural continuity. It also epitomizes our physical ties to nature and respect to the earth which has always nourished us from the past to the future.
Our family also has the repre sentation of social injustice and inequality, and what some locals have called ‘the farming out of Chumash children as soon as they were able to work. ’ An old oil lantern, used by a child of only 4 years old at the Santa Ynez Ranch, is another tie to the past. It was her job every morning at 4 AM, to walk to each of the workers shacks, light their lanterns and wake them to start the day. Saved for so many years and passed from elderly mother to son. The story is sad, but only one of many.
Our oral traditions are the memories of the past and connect us to the present. Our stories become the narrative of our people, and our old ways will never be a forgotten period in our history.
Tangible items passed down by family members are treasures. But we have lost so much over the years, including the sacred and precious land, so more often we have only the stories, the timoloqinaš, the tales of the old timers, the memories of the ancestors.
You already know part of our story well. When the Spanish invaders came , they took most everyone into the Mission. The diseases and the heartbreak from being separated from the land did the rest.
Did we have warning that these times of tribulations, which continue to the present, would come upon us?
There is at least one story of a warning, told years ago by a family member. At some time before the Spanish came, at a certain trail between the villages, a mysterious man in silver clothes would appear. When the curious villagers would approach, the man would always disappear behind a rock, never to be found. Did this foretell the coming of the Spanish conquistadores and their armor? Perhaps, but the appearances did not help to save the villages.
You have your stories, from the culture and experiences of your f orefathers. You have ‘Goldilocks and the Three Bears,’ ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ and ‘Hansel and Gretel. ’ You have your songs such as “Ring Around the Rosy,” which your children sing and which tells of a time of hardship for your forefathers.
197
121
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
We have our stories too, like the following story that comes from the time when animals were people. It takes place at our village of S’axpi’lil, near the heart of present day Goleta. It was told by a family member who as a young girl in the 1840s lived at the place known as ‘Alwat’alam, said to mean ‘choked with weeds. ’ You know the area today as Lake Los Carneros. She told this story more than one hundred years ago but of course the story is much older than that. I t is called ‘Coyote Goes to War.’
‘There were three fishermen at the site which in the future would be called More’s Landing (half a mile down the coast from Goleta Beach), and Coyote was there too. He was singing that he was cold, and the fishermen heard his song. One of them said to him, “Well, if you’re cold and hungry, why don’t you put on an otter-skin blanket like the Indians do?” Another fisherman threw some fish guts to Coyote and asked him why he didn’t eat them. Coyote got very angry and said that he would get the fisherman’s guts pretty soon. ‘Coyote was living at S’axpi’lil, a large town situated where Goleta is now, and Slo’w (Eagle), Xelex (Prairie Falcon), and Qaq’ (Raven) were there also. The three fishermen lived there too. Coyote was very quick to anger, and he got mad because they made fun of him. The next day he prepared to go to war. He went away to the Tulare country to get carrizo for his arrows, and he made many arrows. And all night he spent his time making arrows and bows and other weapons. By dawn the next morning he had everything ready. Now us ually when they are going to have a war they make a big fire as a signal, but the fishermen didn’t know there was going to be a war. Coyote began to shoot at the village. The captain, Eagle, said, “What is wrong with Coyote – has he gone crazy?” He told some men to go and tell Coyote to stop, because he might injure someone in the village. But Coyote paid no attention and kept on shooting, and he killed the men Eagle had sent out to talk with him. The captain was afraid, so he sent the bravest men he had, Qaq’ and Xelex, who were also captains.
But still Coyote paid no attention to them, and the war went on until everyone in the village was fighting. Coyote formed companies of men from Ventura, La Purisima, and the Tulare. At last all were killed, including Qaq’ and Xelex, and only Slo’w was left, and Coyote. And Slo’w made a motion like he was shooting and said, “I am a captain too, and I can die as well as any.” So he escaped.
This is what our homeland means to us: Stand upon the estuary land now covered by asphalt and concrete that you know as the Santa Barbara Airport. Long ago our people knew it as Tiptip, the estuary that was once one of the most densely populated areas in California before the Spanish came to stay. Around the estuary were our villages of ʼAlkaʼaš and Helo' and Heliyik and other settlements whose names have passed now from memory. In the distance are the 198
122
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
remnants of our ancestral island, Quwaʼ. The Spanish renamed it as Mescalitan Island and it was destroyed in the 1940s to construct the airport. Those who destroyed the island also disturbed and destroyed the resting places of our ancestors on the island. In the morning, stand looking to the east, and you will see ališaw, the s un, illuminating the tallest mountain behind Santa Barbara, Tiptipšup. You know it as La Cumbre Peak. In the evening, look to the west and you will see nipolomol, the mountains, including Senek, Santa Ynez Peak, turning purple in the setting sun. And if the land means anything to you as sacred, your heart will ache with its beauty! The eastern outskirts of the Goleta city limits run along a stream called Maria Ygnacio Creek .
Maria Ygnacia was a family member who lived during bitter times in our people’s history when first the Spanish, then the M exicans, and finally the Americans came to stay. Yet through it all she endured and passed down her knowledge and wisdom to us, her descendants.
Maria Ygnacia was Chumash. She spent most of her life in the area we call today Goleta/Santa Barbara. What we know about her has been passed down to her descendants in stories told by her son’s wife and recorded by a linguist studying the native language who came to this area in the early 20 th century. The written records of the Santa Barbara Mission also tell part of her story because the Mission played an important part in her and her family’s lives.
Her story begins in 1769, the year her mother was born. The same year the Portolà expedition made its way overland from Baja California, passing through the present day Goleta/Santa Barbara area and eventually reaching the San Francisco Bay area. Her mother married the man who was to become Maria’s father, and they lived over the mountains in the village of Shniwax
along the Santa Ynez River.
Some years later, Maria Ygnacia’s father assumed the inheritance of his mother’s lineage, and he and his wife moved to the coastal town of
Syuxtun so he could take up his position as a wot, a
chief. The large town of Syuxtun, a political capital, was located west of the mouth of Mission Creek in what today is within the city of Santa Barbara. The chief of this town also had authority over several other villages in the surrounding area.
Maria Ygnacia was born at Syuxtun on April 17, 1803. When Maria was young, she became sick from a respiratory infection. Many young people died from this infection said by some to be caused by witchcraft from their enemies. The padre at the mission said to her parents that, if their baby were baptized, God would heal her. By this time, half of the people living at Syuxtun had been baptized. So at the padre’s urging, Maria was baptized. And in fact she was healed.
Eventually, her family moved back over the mountains to Shniwax . Because M aria had been baptized, her parents would come once a year to visit the padre at the mission. There they would receive their annual allotment of a blanket and a dress. 199
123
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
A number of dry years forced the remaining people into the missions for survival, including Maria’s family. At this time, many Indians along the coast were being brought into the mission in order to build it. A family member related the story:
“Malinasya ‘i nohnowaš hi ‘al eneq i
wašwaš…When Maria was a very old woman, she used to talk about the time when she was very little. She was old enough to have seen when they dug ground at the place where there was going to be the mission here in Santa Barbara. She remembered running along the edge of where they were digging and she was very happy. There had been another mission. And then afterwards they built the mission that’s there now.”
The people at the mission lived in crowded compounds in rows of adobe apartments. White man’s diseases took many lives, for the Chumash had no natural resistance to them. The measles epidemic in the winter of 1806 especially, took many Indian lives all over California. The soldiers and guards were cruel, oftentimes mistreating the Chumash and taking advantage of the young women.
Her brother was born at the mission and baptized in 1808. His name was Pedro. When Maria was 14, a terrible earthquake struck the Santa Barbara area and aftershocks continued for 3 days. From cracks made in the m ountainsides people could see a bright luminescence.
Everybody slept in the open. Chumash elders said the quakes were caused by giant serpents moving beneath the ground. They said the serpents were unhappy because the Chumash had given up their old religious beliefs.
In 1824 there was a revolt at the mission against mistreatment by the soldiers and the unhealthy living conditions. The Indians fought the Spanish soldiers in Mission Canyon. At night Maria Ygnacia and her people escaped over the Santa Ynez Mountains back to Shniwax, along the
Santa Ynez River. From there they made their way through the mountains to the Tulare swamps in the Central Valley, where the Yokuts people welcomed them. The Chumash from Santa Barbara finally agreed to return to the mission if they would not be punished.
Maria Ygnacia obtained a grant of land in a canyon next to the mission vineyard which was then on San Jose Creek. The land grant was at the place named the Alikon. The creek which flowed down from the mountains and through the property was later renamed Maria Ygnacio Creek. Today if you drive up Old San Marcos Pass Road, you can see the site of the Alikon ranch where she used to live. Drive past the new housing tracts and as the road curves to the left and the view opens up, down below on the right you can see where the Alikon ranch used to be. Later, that place became known as the Indian Orchard.
At the Alikon, Maria lived with her mother, close relatives, and her 2 young children. Without this land grant, her family would have lost their language, they would have been split apart. But at the Alikon they had their own foods, they spoke their own language. And for that reason, the 200
124
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
language came down to her descendants and the present-day Chumash of Goleta/Santa Barbara and still exists, although we have no fluent speakers left.
On Sundays, Maria Ygnacia and her family traveled by wagon to the small chapel built by the Indians on the reservation at Kaswa’, La Cieneguita, near the present- day Modoc Road/Hope Ranch area. Yes, there was once a reservation for the Chumash in that area. But like so much else that has disappeared, that has, too.
As the daughter of the wot, the chief, Maria Ygnacia would gather her people at the beach near La Goleta for ceremonies under the full moon. There they would sing their ancient songs and make offerings to the sea. Even now, if you walk along these beaches under the light of the full moon, listen to the sound of the waves. And if you listen closely enough, maybe you can hear the voices of the old Chumash, mourning all that has been lost.
Maria Ygnacia died in June 1865. Out of the thousands of Chumash born at Syuxtun over the
many years it was occupied, she outlived all those born at that village on the Santa Barbara waterfront.
The Alikon was sold some years later and so passed out of the family. But Maria Ygnacia’s most important legacies continue in the language and the stories that she passed down to her descendants. And the Catholic faith for which our ancestors paid such a heavy price to receive, and which many of her descendants still hold to tightly. This is the story of Maria Ygnacia.
Every hill and contour of the land, every tree and every insect on every leaf and blade of grass, every mountain peak and rock upon the shore is sacred in the estimation of our people. Every place in the Goleta Valley and beyond in our ancestral homeland has been the scene of events, happy and sad, eventful and mundane in the lives of our people and how could it be otherwise since we have lived here for hundreds and thousands of years! When I walk through the fields, the dried grass brushes my legs as I pass, and as I listen closely, the spirit of the land whispers to me. The spirit of the land tells me that the resting places of our ancestors are in danger as their resting places are dug into, built upon, and exploited for gain.
As I walk along the beach at La Goleta , I can hear the melody of the waves and I know that too, is the spirit of the land. It tells me that in the beautiful sea our grandmothers once made offerings to and danced the Seaweed Dance for, the creatures in it are dying and being reduced to extinction. In my dreams and in my waking moments, the s pirit of the land tells me things I once knew and things I have forgotten, that we were a proud people with our songs, dances , and stories, which told the wisdom of the ancestors.
201
125
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
And the spirit of the land reminds me that we had our language! Our beautiful and simple, flowing and elegant language that contained in it all the feelings and thoughts and emotions that we wanted to express when words were called for.
We danced around our fires during ceremony, and our songs expressed our prayers in the language, and we taught the language to our young people. They in turn became of age and they taught the language to their young ones, and like our beautiful and famous Chumash baskets, the language held the things we esteemed most highly in our c ulture, such as wisdom and our history and the hopes and dreams of the people; all of it was contained in the basket of our language. Through the hundreds and thousands of years of our people’s existence, our language basket remained a constant for us, a basket with the most beautiful designs, elegant in its simplicity. The weaves curving into lines, carrying balance and perfection.
Then the invaders came and at first we welcomed them, but they overstayed their welcome and they snatched the basket of our language from our hands and threw it upon the ground hoping to smash it. Then they stomped all over it with their boots, hoping to stamp it out of existence because they knew that the language tied us together and gave us an identity as a proud and strong people.
The language lay smashed on the ground but there were those families such as Maria Ygnacia’s that nurtured it through those lean years, when our language held on by a heartbeat and a thread while bitter winds howled at the door and threatened to extinguish even the memory of it.
For long lonely years the land cried out to hear our language expressed in song and speech again. The animals that walked upon the ground and the birds that flew in the sky longed to hear the sweet sou nds of our precious language. But there the basket lay for many years all smashed to pieces and in ruins almost.
Just when all seemed lost and when the occupiers had all but forgotten us, we knelt in the dirt and gathered up all the pieces of this beautiful basket, and we carefully and lovingly stitched the pieces back together again.
Now the basket is becoming whole again, it will become strong in the hearts of the people and bring pride and comfort to them. Once more it is taking its rightful place as the center around which the people gather.
The language is bringing healing and joy to this land which strains under the weight of the occupiers. The animals on the ground and the birds in the sky are hearing the sweet sounds of the language again as they had before for hundreds and thousands of years. This is the story of our language. The spirit of the land speaking through our stories and the ancestors. 202
126
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Do you still not understand what this land means to us? Then open your heart and let the following lines from the ancient language of the land and the people guide you towards an understanding of why the land is sacred:
Napašnipit hihe'it'i he'lšup,
'ipwakapi hiptayašnipit,
k'ayke swil 'it'i hisiywe',
hikiynohnotšwaš.
Walk softly over the land, beneath it the ancestors sleep.
Napeša 'aqšmul hipitaq,
'ikapsa'alaqwa'y hipitaqus hisiyašiw
hihel'a'aha'š,
hisiyto'n hima'm hihe'it'i he'lšup.
Be still. Listen to the quiet; the spirit of the land speaks.
This then is what our homeland means to us. But remember, this is not the whole story. For how can you tell the complete story of a people who existed on the land for hundreds and thousands of years?
Remember that this is not the end of the story. It is only the beginning of the next chapter. For the people are coming together again to form the circle, the language is being revitalized, the culture is being renewed and remembered. And the ancestors are being honored once again.
A fire brought close to the brink,
Now rising from the ashes.
The hopes and dreams of the people burning bright again.
This is the story at this moment, the story that the land and the ancestors wish to tell at this time. The story of a proud people connected to the land and their ancestors forever. 203
127
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
We are the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians!
Kiy k ǝ ’i ka šiš-kuhkʼúʼ hi ‘itil šup o kiya nu na!
We are the people of this land!
204
128
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
205
129
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
ARCHAEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND
Prehistory
The majority of the background information was derived from Goleta General Plan /Coastal Land Use Plan FEIR prepared by Theodore Cooley and Stacie Wilson (2006) and acknowledgment is hereby made.
Evidence exists for the presence of humans in the Santa Barbara coastal area for thousands of years. The period in California prehistory prior to 10,000 years ago has been labeled the Paleoindian Horizon (Erlandson 1994). Even though evidence for the earliest unquestioned evidence of human occupation in southern Santa Barbara County is dated to between 10,000 to 8,000 B.P. (Erlandson and Colten 1991), human prehistory along the Santa Barbara channel area coast may extend back at least some 12,000 years (Erlandson et al. 1987, 1996).
Paleoindian groups during this time focused on hunting Pleistocene megafauna, including mammoth and bison. Plants and smaller animals were undoubtedly part of the Paleoindian diet as well, and when the availability of large game was reduced by climatic shifts near the end of the Pleistocene, the subsistence strategy changed to a greater reliance on these resources.
Subsequent to the Early Man or Paleoindian Horizon, beginning circa 9,000 to 8,000 years ago, a distinctive artifact assemblage, labeled the Milling Stone Horizon by Wallace (1955), became ubiquitous in California. In the Santa Barbara area, this assemblage was first designated as the Oak Grove by Rogers (1929) and is now termed the Early Period (King 1990). Beginning approximately 7,500 years ago, prehistoric human settlement in the local area apparently increased rapidly with a number of sites dating to approximately this time, and many more dating subsequent to it (Colten 1987; Erlandson 1988, 1997; Glassow 1997). Analysis of pollen from this period of time indicates that a relatively dry climate prevailed . The people who produced this assemblage predominated for nearly 4,000 years, or until approximately 5,000 years ago, in most areas of the state. They practiced a mostly gathering subsistence economy, focusing mainly on natural vegetal resources, small animals, and marine resources such as shellfish. One of the major tool types evident in their a ssemblage was the milling stone and muller (also referred to as mano and metate). These tools were used primarily to process (grind) various kinds of seeds, and vegetal foodstuffs. The large quantities of these tools found by archaeologists in such sites resulted in the designation of the period as the Milling Stone Horizon.
Shellfish gathering has been determined to represent an important component of the Early Period diet (Erlandson 1994). Hunting appears to have emphasized the exploitation of larger terrestrial game using large projectile points tied to spears. Toward the end of the Early Period, sea mammal hunting appears to have supplemented subsistence strategies (Glassow et al. 1990) The earliest Early Period sites in the Santa Barbara area date to circa 8,000 years ago (Erlandson 1994). In Santa Barbara coastal areas, Milling Stone sites tend to occur on upper elevation 206
130
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
landforms such as bluffs, terraces, or knolls, often at some distance from the current sho reline.
The sea level at this point time in time, however, was approximately 65 feet lower than present (Masters and Gallegos 1997). Subsequent sea level rise throughout the Holocene Period resulted in erosion of the landforms adjacent to the Pacific Ocean . It is reasonable to assume that numerous Early Period settlements that were located adjacent to the coastline have been lost to these natural forces . Early Period coastal sites are often large with extensive midden deposits, cemeteries, and possible subterranean house pits. The Early Period inhabitants may represent the first inhabitants of the Goleta area.
Beginning with sites dating to approximately 5,000 years ago, archaeologists began to notice differences between some site assemblages. These differences involved changes in the tool inventory with new tool types indicative of new subsistence technologies. Identified as the Hunting Period by Rogers (1929), this is called the Middle Period of Santa Barbara Channel prehistory (King 1990). Pollen samples dated to this time period indicate that the climate was substantially wetter than before. This wetter climate supported the spread of oak woodland and riparian habitats. Populations adapted to this wetter climate and increased variety o f vegetable resources by adopting the mortar and pestle to process readily available coast live oak acorns.
Large projectile points indicate the hunting of large and medi um-sized land animals. Increased fishing activity exploiting a greater range of habitats and hunting of marine mammals occurred.
Toward the end of this period, the plank canoe was developed, making ocean fishing and trade with the Channel Islands safer and more efficient (Arnold 1987). Based on the number of sites that have been dated, prehistoric habitation increased considerably in the Goleta area during the Middle Period, considered to have been a function of a favorable cooler climate and abundance of plant and animal resources.
Between approximately 800 years to 1350 AD, a period of dryer and warmer climate called the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (Stine 1994) resulted in import ant changes prehistoric lifestyles. Numerous researchers beginning with Moratto et al (1978) have associated increased prehistoric population violence, reduced trade, and a possible upheaval of political authority during this time (Schwitalla and Jones 2012). Reduced rainfall resulting in decreased access to animal foods has been particularly noted between 1210 and 1390 AD, resulting in greater competition for these resources (Schwitalla and Jones 2012:110).
Rogers identified this as the Canalino Period, but it is now called the Late Period (King 1990).
Included in these new technologies were the bow and arrow that appears to have been introduced by populations spreading east from the Great Basin. The bow and arrow, using small projectile points, were necessary to hunt the preponderance of smaller terrestrial animals as the drier climate and changes in leafy vegetation resulted reduction in the numbers of larger game to hunt. The period is characterized as a time of cultural elaboration and increased sophistication including artistic, technological, and sociological changes (Erlandson and Rick 2002). An 207
131
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
increased number of permanent and semi-permanent villages clustered along the Santa Barbara Channel and on the Channel Islands , and the diversity of environmental site settings in which sites have been identified, indicates a substantial increase in prehistoric population. Intensification of terrestrial as well as marine resources occurred. Acorns continued to be processed, and land mammals were hunted with the bow and arrow, rather than exclusively by spear. Trade networks, controlled by village chiefs (evident locally in the villages of S’axpi’lil and Helo around the Goleta Slough) expanded and played an important part in local Chumash culture, reinforcing status differences and encouraging craft specialization. Shell beads, found throughout the Early and Middle Periods, increased in number and variety, and were used in monetary exchange as well as distinguishing status and social value . Rogers identified the culture of the period as Canalino, which is now called the Late Period (King 1990). The protohistoric culture of the Chumash was terminated by the arrival of a Spanish expedition led by Gaspar d e Portolà in 1769. Chumash culture changed dramatically with the establishment of Mission Santa Barbara in 1782.
Ethnography
The period between the first documented European interaction with the Chumash in 1542 and the Portolà overland expedition in 1769 is known as the protohistoric period (Gamble 2008).
At the time of first European contact in 1542, the Goleta area was occupied by a Native American group speaking a distinct dialect of the Chumash language. Historically, this group became known as the Barbareño Chumash (Landberg 1965), the name deriving from the Mission Santa Barbara whose jurisdiction incorporated many local Chumash after its founding in 1776. The Chumash were hunters and gatherers who lived in an area with many potentially useful natural resources. They had developed a number of technologies and subsistence strategies that allowed them to maximize the exploitation of these natural resources.
Consequently, prior to a drastic change caused by disease and other forms of cultural disruption introduced by the Spaniards, Chumash settlements were numerous, with some containing large residential areas, semi-subterranean houses, and large cemeteries. At the time of Spanish contact, the Goleta area and immediate vicinity was densely populated with at least 10 Chumash villages (Johnson et al. 1982). A number of these settlements were situated around the Goleta Slough , the estuary that extended beyond Hollister Avenue to the north, beyond Los Carneros Road to the west, beyond Ward Memorial Boulevard to the east, and as far south as Goleta Beach. At high tide, the slough was as deep as 12 feet and was navigated by boat (Stone 1982), and contained an abunda nce of marine resources including shellfish, fish, birds, and marine mammals. Early Spanish explorers, missionaries, and administrators characterized the ethnohistoric Chumash as having a strong propensity for trade, commerce, and craft specialization, as well as for intervillage warfare (Erlandson 1994). 208
132
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
History
The first European contact to the Santa Barbara coastal region was in 1542 by the Portuguese explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, whose voyage up the California coast under the flag of Spain was the first expedition to explore what is now the west coast of the United States. It was, however, Spanish explorer Sebastian Vizcaino, sailing though the region in December 1602, retracing Cabrillo’s voyage, who christened the channel Santa Barbara in honor of Saint Santa Barbara, whose day in the Catholic calendar is December 4. After 1602, there is no verified documentation of European contact in the region until Portol à’s expedition along the coast of California in route to Monterey Bay in 1769. The goal of his voyage was to relocate the port of Monterey for the establishment of a Presidio to complement the newly founded Presidio of San Diego and to explore the coastline in between. Accompanying Portolà was Sergeant José Francisco Ortega, who would become the first
comandante of the Santa Barbara Presidio,
constructed in 1781–1782.
Although the Santa Barbara region was not initially identified as a recommended site for the establishment of a mission, it was situated along the main route leading from the newly founded missions in the north to the mission in San Diego, and Spanish colonial officials were worried that a Chumash uprising could jeopardize this route. Therefore, it was decided that the establishment of a Presidio and several missions among the Chumash was needed to secure a safe passage (Johnson et al. 1982). Mission Santa Barbara was founded on December 4, 1786, and in the first year of commission, 186 Chumash people were baptized, 83 of whom were from the Goleta regi on (Johnson et al. 1982:20). In 1803, a proportionally large number of baptisms occurred throughout the five missions located within the Chumash territory, putting such a strain on the missions that the newly baptized were allowed to remain in certain nati ve villages which were renamed after saints. In the Goleta area, there were at least two of such communities, San Miguel and San Francisco, the native villages of Mescalitan ( S’axpi’lil) and
Cieniguitas (Kaswa’s), respectively (Johnson et al. 1982:21).
In the time between the establishment of the Santa Barbara Mission and Presidio (1786) and the end of Spanish rule in California in 1822, the Goleta area was primarily used by the Franciscan fathers for grazing cattle and sheep. In 1806, a measles epidemic took many lives and marked the beginning of the decline of both Mission Santa Barbara and the native population (Johnson et al. 1982). In 1822 and 1823, the most severe drought in mission history occurred, resulting in two very poor harvest years. A Chumash revolt occurred in 1824, possibly influenced by the lack in food supply (Johnson et al. 1982:25). Many of the Chumash population dispersed into the mountains and to the southern San Joaquin Valley . After two Mexican expeditions into the interior, many of them were persuaded to return to Santa Barbara.
Although Mexico had gained independence from Spain in 1822, it was not until 1835 that secularization of the missions occurred, the mission became a parish church, and the Chumash 209
133
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
were made free c itizens (Johnson et al. 1982). The 1824 Secularization Proclamation of Governor José Figueroa decreed that half of the mission lands were to be divided between the Native Americans and the colonists; however, much of the land became available to private persons, as no provisions were made in how the mission properties were to be disposed (King 1990). The policy of the Mexican government was to grant the mission lands and oth er unclaimed property to prominent citizens who were required to develop the properties and to build homes on them. The City of Goleta encompasses parts of two of these land grants: Los Dos Pueblos Rancho, granted to Nicholas Den in 1842, and La Goleta, granted to Daniel Hill in 1846 (King 1990; Tompkins 1960). Nicholas Den, a native of Ireland, and Daniel Hill , a native of Massachusetts, had migrated to the Santa Barbara area in the 1820s and 1830s, respectively, and had become citizens of Mexico and converts to Catholicism. The ranchos were used by Den and Hill primarily to raise cattle for hide and tallow production (King 1990; Tompkins1960).
The American period began in 1848, when Mexico signed a treaty ceding California to the United States. Santa Barbara County was one of the original counties of California, formed in 1850 at the time of statehood. In 1851, a land act was passed that required the confirmation of ownership of Spanish land grants, although the process took many years to complete. Daniel Hill received a patent for La Goleta on March 10, 1865, and Los Dos Pueblos was patented to N. A. Den on February 23, 1877, fifteen years after his death.
The 1850s were prosperous for the owners of the ranchos, as the price of beef was inflated greatly due to the gold rush. However, droughts in the early 1860s proved devastating to the cattle ranchers, and the ranchos saw change in ownership for the first time (King 1990; Tompkins1960). Daniel Hill first sold 400 acres of La Goleta to his son-in-law, T. Wallace More, in 1856 and an additional 1,000 acres in 1864, a year before his death. William Hollister acquired more than 5,000 acres of Los Dos Pueblos in 1869 and 1870. The 1870s saw the characterization of the Goleta area began to shift from sparsely populated cattle ranches to farmsteads and towns. The area of La Goleta north of Hollister Avenue was subdivided into 38 parcels, ranging from 31 to 258 acres each (King 1990:51), and a town taking on the name of Goleta was established in the southwestern portion of the old La Goleta land grant. Early pioneers during this time include J. D. Patterson, Richard Sexton, B. A. Hicks, Ira A. Martin, John Edwards, and Isaac Foster (King 1990). By 1890, the population of Goleta had grown from 200 in 1870 to 700 people (King 1990:51). In a legal battle that began in 1877 and lasted until 1885, the sale of Los Dos Pueblos was deemed illegal based on Nicholas Den’s will, and the land was transferred back to Den’s children and the lawyer, Thomas B. Bishop, who had represented them. During Hollister’s ownership, however, Los Dos Pueblos had changed dramatically. Hollister established Glen Annie Ranch , and, along with Ellwood Cooper , turned the area into the productive agriculture enterprise that is still seen today (Tompkins 1960). 210
134
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
In 1887, the Southern Pacific Railroad connected Santa Barbara County to Los Angeles and in 1901 to San Francisco, bringing with it the expansion and growth of ranching and agriculture in the Goleta Valley. Goleta in the early 1900s was described by J. M. Guinn as “a small village eight miles to the northwest of Santa Barbara. The country around to a considerable extent is devoted to walnut-growing and olive culture” (1907:422). Joseph Sexton , who had developed the softshell walnut, inspired many additional local farmers to plant their land with walnuts and a grower’s association was formed (King 1990). In the early 1870s, Sherman Stow planted lemon, walnut, and almond orchards; th e lemon orchards were the first commercial lemon planting in California (Tompkins 1960). The lemon industry continued to develop, and in the 1930s, a lemon packing plant was constructed. Today agriculture in the Goleta foothills consists mainly of lemons and avocados (King 1990).
Oil production along the Goleta coast began in the 1920s and boomed in 1928 with the discovery of the Ellwood oil fields. After 1937, oil production began to decline; however, natural gas was also discovered along the coast and is still being tapped today. Suggestions that the Goleta Slough be turned into a harbor first originated in the early 1920s and persiste d into the 1960s, although this plan eventually disintegrated with the infilling of marshlands in 1930s and 1940s in order to accommodate an airport. In 1941, the City of Santa Barbara bought Mescalitan Island (also known as
Quwaʼ) and the surrounding tide flats (King 1990). The 1950s and 1960s brought tremendous change to the Goleta area, as the construction of Cachuma Dam provided a relief to the area’s problem of a reliable water source and fueled rapid growth with commercial and residential development.
211
135
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
SITE INFORMATION
Previously Identified Resources
A record and literature search was undertaken at the Central Coast Information Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara by staff archaeologist Dana N. Slawson, M.A. The summary of archaeological site characteristics in Table 1 is limit ed to information provided in site records accessed at the C entral Coastal Information Center (CCIC) . Nonetheless all of the available site records were obtained and the information is summarized below in T ables 1 and 2.
TABLE 1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SUMMARY
SITE CA-
SBA-
GENERAL TIME PERIOD SITE TYPE ARTIFACTS FEATURES BURIALS 46 Prehistoric/Ethnohistoric Ethnohistoric
Village (Helo)
Yes House floors Yes
52 Prehistoric Habitation Yes Hearths Two cemeteries
53 Prehistoric Habitation Yes Rock clusters ~17
54 Prehistoric Habitation Yes Oval pit 1
55 Prehistoric Habitation Yes None
observed
None recorded
56 Prehistoric Habitation Yes None
recorded
Human
remains
observed
during
monitoring of
brushing Single
intact burial.
Other isolated
remains were
identified.
57 Prehistoric Habitation Yes House pits 27, two
components
58 Prehistoric Habitation Yes Substantially
disturbed;
unknown
Two
cemeteries
59 Prehistoric Habitation Yes Substantially
disturbed;
unknown
Unknown
60 Prehistoric\Historical Ethnohistoric
Village
(S’axpi’lil)
Yes Rock features
and cache
>100 flexed
61 Prehistoric Habitation Yes None
recorded
None recorded
212
136
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE 1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SUMMARY
SITE CA-
SBA-
GENERAL TIME PERIOD SITE TYPE ARTIFACTS FEATURES BURIALS 62 Prehistoric Habitation Yes None
recorded
Reported
63 Prehistoric Habitation None
recorded
None
recorded
None recorded
64 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
Reported
69 Prehistoric Midden? Yes None
recorded
Yes
70 Prehistoric Habitation Yes House pits Yes
71 Prehistoric Habitation Yes Dance
platform
Yes
72 Prehistoric Habitation Yes Dance
floor/temescal
Yes
73 Prehistoric Habitation Yes Dance
floor/temescal
Yes
74 Prehistoric Habitation Yes None
recorded
None recorded
75 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
106 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
137 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
142 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
Burials reported
143 Prehistoric Habitation Yes None
recorded
Burials reported
168 Prehistoric Cave Yes Basket None recorded
1093 Historical Structures Yes Refuse
deposits
None recorded
1194 Prehistoric Midden None
observed
None
recorded
None recorded
1195 Prehistoric Midden None
observed
None
recorded
None recorded
1203 Prehistoric Habitation Yes Rock clusters None recorded 1207 Prehistoric Midden Yes None None recorded
1321 Prehistoric Processing
site
Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1326 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Yes None
recorded
None recorded
213
137
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE 1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SUMMARY
SITE CA-
SBA-
GENERAL TIME PERIOD SITE TYPE ARTIFACTS FEATURES BURIALS 1568 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1574 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1575 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1576 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1577 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1663 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1655 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1656 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1657 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1672 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1673 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1674 Prehistoric Shell and
lithic scatter
Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1688 Prehistoric? Faunal
remains
None
recorded
None
recorded
None recorded
1689 Prehistoric Shell and
lithic scatter
Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1703 Prehistoric Midden Yes Rock features Single tooth
1717 Prehistoric Shell scatter None
recorded
None
recorded
None recorded
1735 Prehistoric Shell and
lithic scatter
Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1744 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Yes Possible
quarry
None recorded
1745 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
1750 Historical Refuse
deposit
Yes None
recorded
None recorded
2153 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
214
138
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE 1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SUMMARY
SITE CA-
SBA-
GENERAL TIME PERIOD SITE TYPE ARTIFACTS FEATURES BURIALS 2204/H Historical House Yes 27 features None recorded
2433 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
2499 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Yes None
recorded
None recorded
2586 Prehistoric Lithic scatter Yes None
recorded
None recorded
2588 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
2674 Historical? Shell scatter No None
recorded
None recorded
2768 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
3380 Prehistoric Shell scatter No None
recorded
None recorded
3384 Prehistoric Shell scatter No None
recorded
None recorded
3493 Prehistoric Habitation Yes Fire altered
rock
Burials reported
3495 Prehistoric Shell and
lithic scatter
Yes None
recorded
None recorded
3496 Prehistoric Shell and
lithic scatter
Yes None
recorded
None recorded
3634H Historical Paving stones Yes None
recorded
None recorded
3636 Prehistoric Midden Yes None
recorded
None recorded
3715 Historical Channelized
creek
No Additional
water ways
None recorded
215
139
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE 1. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE SUMMARY
NO. SPECIFIC REMAINS SITE TYPE ARTIFACTS FEATURES BURIALS 038282 Prehistoric isolate Flake Yes None
recorded
None recorded
038283 Two shell fragments,
Prehistoric? isolate
Shell
fragments
No None
recorded
None recorded
038623 One shell fragment
isolate
Shell
fragment
No None
recorded
None recorded
038624 Shell fragment isolate Shell
fragment
No None
recorded
None recorded
038627 Shell fragment isolate Shell
fragment
No None
recorded
None recorded
038628 Shell fragment isolate Shell
fragment
No None
recorded
None recorded
038629 Shell fragment isolate Shell
fragment
No None
recorded
None recorded
038630 Shell fragment isolate Shell
fragment
No None
recorded
None recorded
038631 Shell fragment isolate Shell
fragment
No None
recorded
None recorded
038632 Shell fragments isolate Shell
fragments
No None
recorded
None recorded
038644 Prehistoric Point isolate Yes None
recorded
None recorded
038646 Prehistoric Core Yes None
recorded
None recorded
040911 Historical – NRHP Stow House N.A. N.A.
040913 Historical – NRHP Goleta Depot N.A. N.A. N.A.
040959 Historical Southern
Pacific
Railroad
line/Bridge
N.A. N.A. N.A.
040960 Historical Southern
Pacific
Railroad
line/Bridge
N.A. N.A. N.A.
02033 Historical Sexton
House
Yes N.A. N.A.
216
140
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Site Summary
There are 67 recorded archaeological sites, 12 isolates, and two National Register sites within the city boundaries of Goleta. Of the 67 recorded sites , 60 are classified as prehistoric, 6 historical, and one noted as both prehistoric and historical. A total of 17 sites have been recorded as presenting one or more burials with one conta ining as many as 100 individuals. Features noted were highly variable and included house floors, rock clusters, hearths, oval pits, house pits, rock features, dance floors/platforms (3), a basket, and a lithic quarry.
Of the prehistoric sites 19 have been characterized as habitation/villages, 26 as midden, 5 as lithic and shell scatters, 5 as lithic scatters, 4 as shell scatters, one processing site, and one faunal scatter. Of the recorded historical archaeological sites, one is describ ed as consisting of paving stones, a channelized creek, shell scatter, refuse deposit, house, and various structures.
Of the sites characterized as midden, three are reported to include burials while no features were recorded for the others.
Results of the records search confirm that Goleta has an extensive record of human occupation from the prehistoric era to modern times. While early archaeologists such as D.B. Rogers began recording archaeological sites during the 1920s, the intensity of his efforts did not always include careful mapping of site boundaries; his attention was directed to the most extensive village sites that offered the greatest opportunity for artifact characterization and exploration of cemeteries.
Systematic excavation and recording of archaeological sites has occurred only over a period of approximately the last 50 years, when several resources were threatened by development of US 101 and major overpasses such as St orke Road/Glen Annie Road, Los Carneros Road, and Fairview Road. Archaeologists associated with the University of California, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles conducted “salvage” excavations to characterize cult ural deposits before their construction. The passage of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA ) in 1970 regulated that systematic significance assessments and mitigation programs be undertaken when project impacts were unavoidable, increasing substantially opportunities for archaeological exploration and the number of archaeological sites that have been recorded.
These investigations are focused exclusively within individual project development footprints, and therefore have not been comprehensive nor necessarily coordinated with previous efforts in a cohesive manner. Continued urbanization of the Goleta Valley has resulted in some level of disturbance to nearly all archaeological sites and loss of information about the past. When an archaeological site is impacted, it is the required that the archaeologist update an existing site record with the current condition of the resource and include additional data gathered during the mitigation excavation. While the status of a given site record can be revised, these updates do not occur in any systematic or regular way. Consequently, site records may not contain any updates from when they were originally mapped and described, even if they may have been 217
141
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
substantially disturbed or destroyed. The records search results indicated 67 prehistoric and/or historic archaeological sites have been previously recorded within, or partially within, the current City limits. Research also revealed that four sites are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Three are historic buildings: the Stow House, the Sexton House, and the Goleta Depot; and one is a prehistoric site, CA-SBA-52. No State Historic Landmarks are recorded in Goleta.
Most of the pr ehistoric sites present in the city represent either major villages, places of less substantial habitation such as temporary or seasonal campsites, or resource procurement and/or processing locations. A substantial number of the village or larger habitation sites in the Goleta included one or more cemeteries . Historic archaeological sites consist mostly of historic trash deposits, some likely associated with a former dwelling, commercial structure, or other specific activity location.
The records search also revealed that approximately 50 percent of the area within the City limits has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. Most of these surveys have been conducted since the inception of CEQA in 1970. However, these previous surveys were not necessarily of the same intensity , as standards for completing the investigations were not standardized .
Depending on the intended purpose of the survey, different levels of intensity or professionalism were sometimes employed. Cultural Resource Guidelines were developed in 1986 by the County of Santa Barbara that governed the completion of studies throughout the Goleta Valley.
These continue to be used by the City of Goleta. The intensity and efforts to evaluate for the presence of buried archaeological deposits, howe ver, has been less consistent. In general, if existing archaeological survey reports are older than ten years, the results may not reflect current standards for the accurate identification of subsurface archaeological deposits in areas where prehistoric living surfaces could be buried be alluvial erosion processes (i.e., adjacent slope wash, flooding, etc.).
Field Inspection
The primary purpose of the field investigation was to assess the archaeological potential of the documented cultural resources within the study area. In conjunction with additional research, a summary of the known attributes of each site was prepared (Table 1). The tabulation provides the site number, general time period, the type of site, features present or recorded, and whether burials were observed. During this investigation, 22 of the sites were inspected.
Property Types and Eligibility Standards
A property type is a grouping of individual properties based on shared physical or associative characteristics. Property types link the ideas incorporated in the theoretical historic context with actual historic properties that illustrate those ideas. 218
142
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Prehistoric Sites
Habitation (Complex Sites). These sites are characterized by multiple categories of artifact types, food remains, burials, and cultural features. They may be called villages, base camps, and habitation sites.
Processing Sites. The primary aspects of such sites include food remains, limited artifact types, and absence of burials and features suggesting occupation. These resources are identified as middens, lithic and shell scatters, or special purpose sites.
Site Locational Patterns
Plotting of the two site types within the City limits revealed a surprisingly clear spatial distribution. The primary locational attribute was the presence of water, particularly around the sloughs and main water courses (creeks and streams). The habitation sites are located in close proximity to the Goleta or Devereux sloughs, where substantial shellfish and fishing opportunities were available. The processing sites were in close proximity o f the habitation site zones but were clustered in well-defined areas and tended to be inland. The processing sites are associated with hunting and gathering resources that were not readily available within the immediate vicinity of the estuary environments , such as seeds from coastal sage scrub habitat, acorns from oak woodlands, and terrestrial animals that would use riparian habitats and streams as movement corridors. Archaeologists studying the Barbareñ o Chumash consider that prehistoric populations along the Santa Barbara Channel, including occupying sites now with the City limits, congregated in the communal villages during the summer and fall when food resources were most abundant (including off -shore fishing in tule balsas and later in plank canoes), and then split off into smaller extended family groups during the winter in smaller camps dispersed inland when resources were less abundant. Therefore, the spatial patterning of larger settlements capable of supporting populations in the several hundreds, as were described by Spanish explorers associated with the spread of Franciscan missionization was dependent upon available resources surrounding the Goleta and Devereux sloughs. Smaller temporary camps and processing areas were strategically located to exploit vegetable and animal resources needed to supplement the villages surrounding the sloughs and the coastline, and to accommodate the seasonal migration from the larger sites during periods when coastal resources were not sufficiently plentiful to support the community village. It is important to note that limiting the focus of this prehistoric settlement pattern to only those resources within the City limits artificially constrains the extent to which populations living in these sites gathered and hunting in a settlement pattern extending throughout the Santa Ynez Mountain foothills and ridgeline, and included a complex social interaction with their Chumash Samala neighbors in
the Santa Ynez Valley (Johnson 1982, Johnson et al. 1982). 219
143
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Historic Sites
Recorded historical archaeological resources are limited to several farm structures, canals, paving stones, and refuse deposits. There is insufficient information to suggest any patterning. It is probable that the primary reason that there are not more historical archaeological sites is that historical development in Goleta was primarily agricultural until the mid-20th century, unlike the 19th and early 20th century urbanization in Santa Barbara. Agricultural parcels in these rural areas are generally large s o that evidence of refuse deposits is associated with the few farm houses that have survived modern development. The illicit exploration and collection of historical deposits such as bottle collecting could influence the extent to which these resources still survive as well. It is reasonable to assume however, that locations of 19 th and early 20 th century
agricultural ranches are likely to contain refuse deposits in close proximity to the activity’s main ranch house, as municipal waste pick up and disposal would not have been available until after 1930.
Expected Integrity/Condition
Historical processes that contribute to the degradation of archaeological sites in the Goleta area include railroad and freeways transportation corridors, agricultural activities including citrus, row crops, other associated tasks including plowing, tree replacement, excavation for irrigation lines, and diversion of waterways. By far the greatest impact to cultural resources is residential, commercial, and industrial development. Other activities that have degraded the integrity of archaeological resources directly or indirectly include: channelization of streams ; utility infrastructure such as fiber optic cable excavation; recreational facilities including parks and trails; erosion resulting from landform alterations, and illicit artifact collection.
EVALUATION
Basis for Site Evaluation
Although the City of Goleta is ultimately responsible for determining which cultural resources properties are significant, this study was requested to provide a professional opinion about the integrity and scientific importance of the known sites. Not all of the cultural resources can be assessed because some still require subsurface testing to confirm their locations and boundaries, evaluate their integrity, and ascertain their cultural context and complexity. Some are buried, and little to no surface evidence can be presently observed.
California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state's significant historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.
220
144
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
To the extent possible, therefore, the sites have been eval uated according to the criteria for eligibility to the CRHR. The criteria for listing a resource on the CRHR are important because impacts to such a site are considered significant under CEQA whenever such properties are impacted directly or indirectly by an undertaking.
The CRHR shall include historical resources (these include both prehistoric and historic- period cultural res ources) determined by the commission, according to procedures adopted by the commission, to be significant and to meet the criteria in subdivision (c).
A resource may be listed as an historical resource in the CRHR if it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The scientific significance of individual cultural resources is best judged with reference to a broad regional context. This is because individual sites, or even collections of sites from a single inter - related locality, do not possibly reflect the full range of cultural pattering present in a particular region. The role a particular site may have played in the prehistoric hunter and gatherer settlement system and specific research value are relevant aspects of a site’s significance. A knowledge of site structure, content, and integrity (the extent to which the site has been previously disturbed by modern development) is required to appropriately evaluate its research potential relative to local research questions considered to be “important in prehistory and history.”
Assessing scientific significance thus involves the examination of a large array of possible articulations between data gathered from a site and these local research issues--- issues which might include studies of chronology (changes in lifestyles through time), technology, subsistence, settlement patterns, exchange systems, demography, and other research domains in the prehistoric and historical periods.
An important consideration when evaluating a site’s potential to yield significant information is the integrity of its deposits and features. During this study and previous investigations, prior impacts to site deposits were noted. However, a site’s research potential still exists even when it 221
145
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
has been substantially disturbed; for examp le, portions of an impacted site may still provide valuable data on chronology, technology and settlement pattern; thus all sites regardless of evidence of previous disturbance require careful assessment.
In addition to scientific significance, historical cultural resources may possess public and ethnic heritage values. For instance, persons associated with a particular site (or their descendants) may retain strong connections with that place through memories or folklore. The importance of this aspect of s ignificance lies not only in the strength of these associations as they contribute to broad patterns of history, but also in the valuable yet very ephemeral source of information such memories represent. As well, cultural resources may have broader public significance insofar as they can serve to educate the general populace about important aspects of national, state, and local history.
The scientific or research significance is approached at two levels:
1. Does the site contain the data needed, in a condition of integrity , to address important research questions? Or
2. If the site does not meet the criteria by itself, does it contain data which, when considered together with information from other sites, may contribute to scientific research? Research Domains
Data that archaeological sites must contain to satisfy the criteria for significance fall within broad themes or domains which may related to human behavior, factors which influence human behavior, or to topi cs concerned with improving the archaeologist’s ability to generate information about human behavior. Within each of the domains discussed, a number of questions were advanced which merit investigation. These were purposefully formulated to address a wide range of cultural resources with varying condition and degrees of disturbance, of different age and complexity, diverse functions and ethnic/national associations. Research questions posed include chronology, settlement patterns, subsistence patterns, technology, regional exchange, and mortuary treatments and human osteology.
These research questions are linked to the archaeological sites through a set of questions followed by a specific listing of archaeological evidence that is needed to address each question, and thus provides a guide for assessing the historic significance of archeological deposits that may be exposed within the project area (Price and Lichtenstein 2008). The existing Archaeological Element of the City’s Cultural Resource Guidelines, as adopted from the County of Santa Barbara, provides a list of conceptual research topics that researchers who have focused their attention on the prehistory of Goleta regularly address. There are a number of research questions that already exist that are used to focus Santa Barbara Channel prehistory 222
146
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
investigations. The general categories of research are defined herein, but are not at all exclusive to the range of questions that can be addressed.
For example, questions of trade representing economic and social exchange between Chumash populations occupying sites within the City’s jurisdiction and outlying Chumash areas to the west, north, east and south (among Channel Island settlements and throughout the state) are a critical area of research.
Shifting strategies of subsistence in villages surrounding the Goleta Slough have been addressed, considering multiple factors including:
• changes in sea level- increasing in the past 12,000 years and affecting access to coastal shellfish species;
• climate change- (periods of drier and wetter weather determined by studies of pollen in Santa Barbara Channel cores samples. These changes substantially affected the types of plant and animal resources within the villagers’ vicinity; • population pressure (the number and size of villages increased throughout the Early to Late Periods, leading to increased competition for food resources and warfare); and • sociopolitical complexity (the manufacturing and exchange of shell beads between Chumash living on Santa Cruz Island and villages on the mainland, as well as intermarriage between villagers on the islands, the Santa Barbara Channel, and villages within the Santa Ynez and Cuyama Valley).
These potential research questions can be addressed by archaeo logical site data as identified below.
1. Chronology
Data Requirements:
a. Temporally discrete components;
b. Materials suitable for radiocarbon dating and obsidian hydration; c. Stratigraphically discrete strata; and
d. Discrete archaeological features or sufficient quantities of artifacts to allow for analysis and interpretation.
2. Settlement Patterns
223
147
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Data Requirements:
a. Sufficient testing to determine site boundaries; and b. Discrete archaeological features or sufficient quantities of artifacts to allow for analysis and interpretation.
3. Subsistence Patterns
Data Requirements:
a. Floral and faunal data;
b. Artifact analysis with specific emphasis on procurement and processing tools; and c. Evidence of seasonality.
The presence of these tools can indicate the types of plants being utilized and processed at particular sites. Some plants, which were important prehistorically, were stored after processing. Presumably, some types of vessels or storage pits were used to store these foods.
4. Technology
Data Requirements:
a. Temporal control; and
b. Discrete archaeological features or sufficient quantities of artifacts to allow for analysis and interpretation.
5. Mortuary Treatment and Human Osteology
Data Requirements:
a. Temporal control;
b. Human remains; and
c. DNA analysis
Site Assessments
While most of the sites will require additional effort to define boundaries, confirm the presence of subsurface deposits, correlate physical remains with documentary information, determine the nature of the deposit, and evaluate integrity , tentative assessments are offered to provide the 224
148
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
City of Goleta with data needed for management decisions, and to suggest avenues of continuing research.
Sites which were deemed ineligible for nomination to the CRHR were so assessed for three basic reasons. Category A sites were said to be no longer intact and the remaining content not associated with significant events or persons of the past; lacking in significant architectural remains; and not likely to yield important historical information. Category B consisted of sites believed to have “little or no physical remains.” The third category of ineligible sites included those “known to have been destroyed by extensive land modifications associated with construction or agricultural activity.”
The data potential of the individual sites is here evaluated based on the context developed earlier in this document, whether each has yielded, or may be likely to yield, the specific classes of information required to address the explicit research questions. For historic-period sites, the data requirements may be acquired through archival research, archaeological excavation and analysis, technical studies such as palynology that can inform on climate change and adaptations to over time, or any combination of these approaches.
The potential CRHR eligibility of the 67 cultural resources documented during this study is evaluated in relation to the various considerations discussed above. Table 2 provides data regarding the research domains defined above that might be addressed by information present at each site, other forms of significance that are represented, and a preliminary evaluation of the site’s CRHR eligibility. Since the significance of many archaeological sites cannot be evaluated adequately from surface observations alone, several sites will require additional assessment should planned developments result in potential direct or indirect impacts.
TABLE 2. SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY.
Site No.
SBA-
Tested/Data
Recovery
Research
Domains Significance Site Integrity
52 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 NRHP Estimated that 85% was still intact as of 1991 (P.
Snethkamp 1991).
53 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE 90% estimated to have been disturbed (Harrison 1956). Recent data recovery identified limited
portions of intact deposits that provided
significant research potential (Stone and Victorino
2017)
54 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE Destroyed (Schwartz 1957); Possible intact midden (Erlandson and Wilcoxon 1981a);
Possible intact portions of site (Foster 1991a);
Potential intact portions of site (Fulton 2001a).
Extended Phase 1 excavations identified intact
deposits on the periphery of the cultural deposit
225
149
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE 2. SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY.
Site No.
SBA-
Tested/Data
Recovery
Research
Domains Significance Site Integrity
that were not destroyed by grading in the 1960s
(Wilcoxon 1998; Victorino 2018)
55 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Destroyed (Chartkoff, Chartkoff, and Kona 1967a). This site was explored in support of Los
Carneros Road improvements. Sparse cultural
materials were recovered during data recovery
excavations (D. Stone, personal communication
2018).
56 Yes (Chartkoff,
Chartkoff, and
Kona 1967b)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE Site record suggests “bulldozing top part of site” Chartkoff, Chartkoff, and Kona 1967b) but also
indicates “lower part of site may be still
salvageable” (ibid). Extensively pot-hunted and
agriculturally related disturbance (Erlandson and
Wilcoxon 1981b). Illicit excavation confined to
the upper levels of site (Wilcoxon 1981a).
Portions of intact midden were found (Fulton
2001b). Data recovery was conducted for the
Willow Springs I and II projects. Significant intact
cultural resources were identified during both
data recovery phases (Gerstle and Serena 1982;
Stone and Victorino 2014).
57 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE Appears to have been destroyed (Erlandson and Wilcoxon 1981c).
58 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE “The rest of the site is, to our knowledge at this time being completely destroyed (D.S. Miller
(1961). “Much of the site has been graded and
compacted. Some areas are intact and have not
been badly damaged (Craig 1979). Substantial
intact significant deposits were identified during
Marriott Residence Inn project Extended Phase 1
and Phase 3 investigations (Stone, Victorino, and
McDaniel 2017).
59 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE Substantial damage from development since 1960s, but intact, significant deposits identified at
the edge of the Goleta Slough (Hess et al 1998;
Lebow et al. 2003; Stone, Victorino, and
McDaniel 2018)
60 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE “All of site surface is developed” (Chartkoff, Chartkoff, and Kona 1967c). “Few undisturbed
sections of site remain; Canal widening by USA
226
150
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE 2. SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY.
Site No.
SBA-
Tested/Data
Recovery
Research
Domains Significance Site Integrity
Corps of Engineers will destroy more” (Spanne
1968). Virtually entire site area has been
developed, although intact portions undoubtedly
remain (Erlandson and Wilcoxon 1981d). Site
extensively disturbed but evidence of intact
buried deposits below Fairview Overhead and
SPRR (D.B. Rogers 1926). Dense midden buried
1.5 to 1.8 m below present surface (Chalmers
1994). Extensive Data Recovery associated with
improvements to the Fairview Road/US 101
Overpass, Las Vegas/San Pedro Creek capacity
improvements, were conducted providing
significant new data (Bowser and Stone 1994;
Munns et al. 2004).
61 Yes (?) 1, 2, 3, 4 ? “60-65% destroyed by land development” (Anonymous n.d.); Housing tract covers site; will
be affected by channel – as far as undamaged
portions of site (below surface) are concerned
(Chartkoff, Chartkoff, and Kona 1967d).
Disturbance is extensive by housing and flood
channel work (Erlandson and Wilcoxon 1981e).
62 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ? “Housing tract covers most of site. Will be affected by channel improvements” (Chartkoff,
Chartkoff, and Kona 1967e). Extensive by
housing and stream channelization (Erlandson
and Wilcoxon 1981f).
63 Yes 1, 2 ? “Housing tract covers most of site. Will be affected by channel improvements” (Chartkoff,
Chartkoff, and Kona 1967f). Associated with
agriculture and housing (Erlandson and Wilcoxon
1981g).
64 No 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ? 90% destroyed; knoll has been leveled for orchard; Whether intact deposits still exist is
unknown (Wilcoxon 1981b). May be largely
destroyed (Spanne 1982).
69 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE Cattle pasture on top (Miller and Klug (1961). 70 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE Sparse, yet intact, subsurface deposits were found in both loci and that the data extracted has
exhausted its research potential. It should be
noted that while the majority of the site has been
227
151
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE 2. SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY.
Site No.
SBA-
Tested/Data
Recovery
Research
Domains Significance Site Integrity
destroyed, it is unknown if additional intact
remains are present north of US 101 (Kaijankoski
2013).
71 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE Not mentioned in site records.
72 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE Not mentioned in site records.
73 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE Relatively good because it’s a large site.
Numerous alterations including pipelines and
roads (Swenson, Osland, and Peterson 1984).
Good to fair though formal testing is needed (De
Barros 1986).
74 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? 50 to 100 feet of site removed for widening of Highway 101 and Frontage Road (Miller 1961a).
75 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Cultivation, Frontage Road (Miller 1961b). 106 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Now largely destroyed (Heizer 1948). Could not be relocated in 1999 (Ruby 1999).
137 None 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Road cuts and cultivation (WMH 1956).
Development planned (Macko 1979a).
142 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE An estimated two-thirds of the site has already been cut out by housing and roads. Most of the
remainder has approximately 1’ graded off the
top (Lyon and Pierce 1959). Extensive
mechanical disturbance while some areas may
retain integrity (Foster 1991b).
143 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE Probably half the site has been leveled (P. Lyons 1959). Agricultural usage (Wilcoxon 1981c).
Extensively disturbed but still contains large
amounts of important data (Colten 1985).
168 Yes 1, 2, 3?, 4 ? “Cleaned out” (Orr 1954).
1093H No? 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Standing structures removed (Craig 1980). Area of former structure has been damaged by housing
tract construction (Craig 1980).
1194 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Site is disturbed from erosion and off-road traffic (Moore 1980a).
228
152
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE 2. SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY.
Site No.
SBA-
Tested/Data
Recovery
Research
Domains Significance Site Integrity
1195 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Site is disturbed from erosion and off-road traffic (Moore 1980b).
1203 No 1, 2, 3, 4 PE Erosion, stream realignment, ca. 1974 (Serena 1981).
1207 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Erosion, pothunting, school, and roads (Horne 1972). Top of knoll graded off, apron remains
intact (Erlandson and Wilcoxon 1981h).
1321 No 1, 2, 3, 4 PE Dirt road around and through site (Spanne 1974). 1326 Yes 2, 3, 4 PE Disturbed by railroad cut, buried pipeline, and access roads (Ehmann, Perez, and Poussan 1975).
Has been heavily impacted by paved road and
the Southern Pacific Railroad as well as a gas
pipeline and earth moving equipment (De Barros
1986b).
1568 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Considerable (Erlandson and Heinzen 1978a).
May consist of secondary fill deposit (Erlandson
and Wilcoxon 1981i).
1574 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Planned development for this area should have little effect or no effect on the sites (Heinzen
1978).
1575 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Nothing noted (Erlandson and Heinzen 1978b). 1576 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Nothing noted (Erlandson and Heinzen 1978c). 1577 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Nothing noted (Erlandson and Heinzen 1978d). 1653 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Rodents, disking, spiking, orchards, grazing, terrace construction, and archaeological testing
(Macko 1979b).
1655 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Reservoir construction on approximately 6 acres of site and archaeological testing (Macko 1979c).
1656 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Construction, cultivation, grazing, rodents, and planned development (Macko et al. 1979a).
1657 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Grazing, rodents, berm construction, proposed construction (Macko et al. 1979b).
229
153
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE 2. SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY.
Site No.
SBA-
Tested/Data
Recovery
Research
Domains Significance Site Integrity
1672 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Extensive with road construction and recontouring. Site may be secondary deposition
(Erlandson and Garnica 1979).
1673 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Erosion along coastal bluff and some historic structures. Mentions imported fill but no
explanation (Erlandson 1980a).
1674 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 PE Erosion and some historic disturbance, possibly extensive (Erlandson 1980b).
1688H Unknown 1, 2, 3 PE Road construction and erosion (Serena 1980a). 1689 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 PE Site bisected by old oil facility road (Serena 1980b).
1703 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 PE Damaged by stream rechannelization (Erlandson and Wilcoxon 1981j). Site area substantially
impacted by previous residential development,
flood control channelization (Victorino 2009).
Intact cultural resources were tested and mitigated
associated with Las Vegas/San Pedro Creek
capacity improvements within the Caltrans ROW
(Ruby and Mikkelsen 2016).
1717 Unknown 1, 2, 3 ? Discing, portion of site to N. destroyed in mobile home park construction (Pence 1981).
1735 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Cultivated, eroded, and disturbed by tree roots (Spanne 1972).
1744 Unknown 1, 2, 4 ? Some disturbance from trails through the site and Santa Lucia Canyon Road; may cut across the
northern edge (O’Halloran and English 1982).
1745 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Portions of the site removed for fill; low intensity agriculture. Proposed development would remove
remainder (Erlandson 1982a).
1750H Unknown 1, 2, 4 ? Extensive associated with road building and utilities (Erlandson 1982b)
2153 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Site appears to have been impacted by continuous agricultural activity and filling and
recontouring of small tributary drainage adjacent.
Unclear whether site is primary or secondary
230
154
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE 2. SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY.
Site No.
SBA-
Tested/Data
Recovery
Research
Domains Significance Site Integrity
deposit. Must be tested to determine (Wilcoxon
1987).
2204/H Yes 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Some early features (1880s) disturbed by later installation of leach field. Some features to be
impacted by future rehabilitation of house,
redevelopment of grounds (Brock 1987)
2433 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? The site area has been modified in the recent past by construction activities. The only potential area
that may be undisturbed is near the western end,
where the site abuts the Glen Annie Road and
there are patches of natural vegetation.
Considering the nature of the surrounding area,
highway, roads, and channel, it is possible that the
site represents redeposited midden, possibly from
CA-SBA-54 or CA-SBA-142 (Foster 1991c).
2499 Phase 2 testing 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Entire parcel has been graded/disked for agricultural operation. Revisit to site February
1993, reported most of Concentration A disked.
When site was mapped 3/24/93, area had been
disked again (Mann 1993). Agricultural
disturbance in area (Pfeiffer 1998).
2586 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Site may be a redeposit from elsewhere (Peak 1991).
2588 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Badly eroded by erosions of tracks (Peak, Gerry, and Oglesby 1991). Potentially intact cultural
deposits (Fulton and Strudwick 2001). It is
possible that subsurface materials might still be
present (Ruby 1999).
2674H Yes Unknown NE Recently deposited marine shell (Sheets 1994). 2768 Yes, Phase 2
test
1, 2, 3, 4 ? Testing in the area indicates fill over a disturbed deposit containing culturally derived shell. Most
of the site appears to lie within an orchard with
impacts from roads, water line, and fiber optic
line. Site area to the north may be more intact
(Toren 1995).
231
155
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TABLE 2. SITE SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY.
Site No.
SBA-
Tested/Data
Recovery
Research
Domains Significance Site Integrity
3380 Unknown 1, 2, 3 ? Disced, plowed, bladed. Cathedral Oaks Road may have impacted portions of the site (Dugger
1992a).
3384 Unknown 1, 2, 3 ? Construction of housing, roads, sewer, etc. Site consists of relatively intact deposits as well as
redeposited loci (Dugger 1992b).
3493 Yes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 PE Paved road and possible fill may have covered deposits along eastern boundary (Esteban,
Fleming, and Rockey 1998a).
3495 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 PE Dirt road runs through site and landscaping for golf course and Hollister Avenue has taken place.
Site is highly disturbed (Pfeiffer and Eerkens
1998).
3496 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 ? Grading and landscaping activities during golf course construction may have impacted site in the
past. Sea cliff erosion continues to affect seaward
edge of site (Pfeiffer and Munns 1998).
3634H Unknown None NE Displaced pavers (Strudwick and Knight 2001). 3636 Unknown 1, 2, 3, 4 PE Site has been heavily disturbed by previous UPRR and US 101 construction. Possible impact by
construction of modern industrial complex just
south of the site. Testing indicates a highly
disturbed area. Subsequent to testing the site area
was completely graded away during UPRR
maintenance (Haslouer and Kay 2001).
3715H Unknown Not
determined
NE Channel largely retains its structural integrity
although there is some deterioration evident
(Munns 2003).
Data Potential Key: 1. Chronology; 2. Settlement Patterns; 3. Subsistence; 4. Technology; 5. Mortuary.
Significance Key: NRHP = National Register of Historic Places site; PE = Potentially eligible; NE = Not eligible (probably); ? = Unknown.
232
156
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Summary
The opinions expressed about CRHR eligibility in Table 2 are, in most cases, tentative and subjective. At least 22 sites are regarded as potentially eligible based on observed remains with the potential to address questions of importance to the region. Three are probably not eligible.
One prehistoric site is on the National Register of Historic Places.
The remaining sites (41) were not evaluated because of inadequate data. Many are currently buried under sediment or under water; for others, structures, some of considerable age, were demolished or relocated when various buildings were constru cted. Although it is certainly possible that obscured, submerged, or cleared sites may lack integrity and significant remains, the test excavations conducted to date suggest that it would be premature to assume that they are necessarily destroyed or lack scientific research potential.
233
157
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
GOALS AND PRIORITIES
Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians Goals and Priorities
Our views regarding the cultural resources landscape in the City of Goleta:
1. All Prehistoric archaeological sites are significant to our band.
Regarding Significance:
• Local Chumash consider all prehistoric and historical archaeological sites mapped and unmapped to be sensitive and significant.
• Our heritage is linked spiritually and culturally to Prehistoric and Historical and former and current resources on sites found within the City of Goleta and its jurisdiction.
• Procedures for identifying and prote cting tribal resources should always address degrees of sensitivity of the sites implementing CEQA guidelines and SB 18 and AB 52 compliance procedures, including identification, evaluation (analysis) and mitigation as part of the environmental review.
2. Preservation/Disturbance:
• Preservation and conservation of open-space land and natural resources, are immediate concerns of the local Chumash.
• Local Chumash today continue to carry on the stewardship of preserving cultural sites, features, and landscapes as our Chumash ancestors had for thousands of years. If our ancestral sites are disturbed and destroyed, our lasting legacy of having occupied these homelands will be lost. Therefore, consultation with the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians can be an important tool to understand the impact of development on cultural resources in the City of Goleta.
• Long term preservation/proper scientific investigation • Ensure City, State and Federal laws and regulatory guidelines are followed.
3. Local Chumash monitors shall be present for all ground disturbing activities on projects that we deem important to our band.
4. Burial excavation policy
234
158
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
• If human remains are exposed, no further excavation or site disturbance in the area.
• Follow Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and associated/applicable California State regulations
• Ensure Native American burial sites and remains are protected pending the identification of Most Likely Descendent (MLD) if burial located.
5. Artifact Policy
• All archaeological materials removed from a project site shall be curated at a local qualified institution that would grant our band access to local collections.
6. Sacred Lands File
• Contact and consult with the Native American Heritage Commission on documentation
7. Reburial
• Allow a cultural ceremony to be performed revering our ancestors. • Make sure all burial items are held with the utmost respect.
Archaeological Goals and Priorities
One of the most obvious factors regarding archaeological resources in Goleta is the extremely high density of sites within city boundaries. It can be said, with little exaggeration, that the entire city is archaeologically sensitive. Another pertinent factor is the extremely high number of discreet “villages” or “habitation” sites within the city. This is due to the presence of the numerous environmentally favorable habitats and topography. Many of the “village” sites also contain numerous burial components (12) which highlights the need for sensitive treatment. Appropriate recommendations will be developed with the input of the public, archaeologists, and Native Americans as the ordinance process continues.
235
159
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Chapter 3
Tree Study
This chapter prepared by:
CARLBERG ASSOCIATES
828 5th Street, Suite 3
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Telephone 310-451-4804
www.cycarlberg.com
236
160
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
237
161
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
BACKGROUND/INTRODUCTION
This component of the Historic Context Statement comprises sites (trees in City rights- of-way, parks, schools, and open spaces) that were either developed prior to 1969 or otherwise held historic value. As part of this study, Carlberg Associates drove the entire City and where access was available, walked these sites and photographed the trees. Historic Resources Group provided a map of the City of Goleta showing properties and neighborhoods coded by decade of development through 1969, and potential landscape features or sites of interest in the City. This study concentrated on these sites as well as those found during our travels through the City.
The purpose of this study is to document the presence of historic and heritage- quality tree species throughout the City and encourage the preservation of those trees that have thus far resisted development around them. The objective of this report is to enhance the City’s urban forest management efforts and provide awareness to this rich diversity of specimen trees.
CLIMATE OVERVIEW
Goleta’s climate and weather patterns are unsurpassed for an almost year-round growing season.
The mild climate comprises high temperatures normally within ten degrees of 70° year -round; low temperatures rarely fall below 40°, with an average precipitation of 19.41 inches.271 Sudden hot winds, locally referred to as “sundowners,” can result in temperatures well over 100°, and are caused by high-pressure systems drawing dry air from the inland side of the Santa Ynez Mountains. Such winds can suddenly desiccate (dehydrate) plant material, especially plants that are unprotected from the strong winds and not recharged soon after by some form of application of water (rainfall or irrigation).
Historic drought conditions have beset the community’s trees, most notably the planted and naturalized eucalyptus trees in the Ellwood Grove. A number of native California coast redwood trees, literal sentries in the Kellogg Park Residential District, are also not at peak performance.
California native oaks and sycamores are prominent in Goleta’s parks and historic space s; the obvious success of these trees and those from similar climates (Mediterranean and Australian trees – jacaranda, lacebark, paperbark ) attests to the sophistication of Goleta’s preservation strategies and plant palette. The latter exhibit excellent health and appear to have withstood the many years of severe drought.
271 “Climate Santa Barbara - California,” U.S. Climate Data, https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate.php?location=USCA1017, (accessed February 2018). 238
162
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
STREET TREE PLANTINGS
Public rights-of-way trees are typically planted in “parkways,” the strip of land located between the sidewalk and curb. Parkways in Goleta can vary in width between 2 to about 10 feet, with the wider parkways supporting larger trees (e.g., American sweetgum ). Golet a’s street tree plantings were presumably launched as subdivisions were completed. Found throughout the world, street tree plantings are particularly appealing to homebuyers and those who gravitate toward an aesthetic only trees can provide. They provide way-finding, sense of place, shade, and habitat. Street layouts, particularly in the northeast section of town, are more ru ral in character and do not have a curb/gutter and sidewalk system; therefore , there are no parkways. In these situations, public easements and parkways are rare – hence no regular form of street tree plantings.
Parkway plantings in Goleta give us a glimpse into the history of the City’s urban forest and trees popular at the time of subdivision development. Among the tree species in vogue at that time were American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Indian laurel fig (Ficus microcarpa), Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei), Modesto ash (Fraxinus velutina), and paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia). Different neighborhoods have their own unique patterns and associations of different species. The northeast residential neighborhoods east of Fairview are characterized by American sweetgum and shamel ash, while many of the north/south streets in the southwest residential area are planted primarily with queen palms and a collection of blooming evergreen pears, and the El Encanto Heights Residential District contains a majority of shamel ash . Many of the streets in these neighborhoods have suffered attrition and the presence of a uniform planting is lacking.
Two notable street tree plantings are:
Lake Los Carneros North Residential District
Some of the most striking street tree plantings are in the Lake Los Carneros North Residential District, with a predominance of one species (paperbark) and few vacant planting sites, with the trees exhibiting excellent health and high -quality maintenance. Camino Talavera had some of the oldest and noteworthy specimens. These two species – paperbark and bottlebrush – are undoubtedly well suited to Goleta’s environment. These Australian species, along with lacebark (Brachychiton discolor), are abundant in the City’s parks.
Orange Avenue
This planting – creating an allée – of queen palms ( Syagrus romanzoffianum ) is southern California at its most recognizable. Note the consistency and lack of empty planting sites. This is likely one of the oldest intact street tree plantings in the City. 239
163
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Neighborhood Characteristics and Themes
Some of the ori ginal species (e.g., American sweetgum and shamel ash ) have outgrown their planting sites and aggressive root systems have damaged hardscape and other infrastructure.
Recognizing this, Goleta’s urban foresters h ave interplanted with newly introduced, sometimes smaller species, such as Australian willow (Geijera parviflora). This is only effective when most or all of the vacant planting sites contain trees, there are no more than two species per block, and homeowners are dissuaded from planting other species in the parkways in front of their homes. Public education and outreach are clearly essential to maintaining consistency and uniformity.
The preponderance of one species throughout an entire neighborhood is referred to as a monoculture. The disadvantages of monocultural plantings are many-fold, the primary drawback being that a disease or pest epidemic could destroy an entire neighborhood.
In the last 25 years, designing streetscapes with an eye toward species, size, class, and age diversity has become standard. Urban Forestry best management practices encourage, for example, limiting any genus to 10% of the to tal tree population (recommendations vary) to reduce the risk of damage from an epidemic of pests or disease. Although retaining uniformity in species per block or number of blocks is still an appropriate approach – and definitely more aesthetically pleasing – some cities are interplanting with different species. This is most effective in downtown areas, where large trees provide shade and presence, and smaller trees offer a more intimate scale and pleasant walking and shopping experience.
Goleta’s Urban Forest Management Plan discourages this type of monoculture planting. Besides monocultural planting, streets can comprise a mature mixed plantings, various ages/mixed plantings, or various ages/monoculture.
INDIVIDUAL TREES
Goleta has two (of 207) officially designated “California Big Trees” (a database maintained by the Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo): a California sycamore and an Australian willow located at the Goleta Valley Community Center.272 By virtue of its status as a California native tree, the sycamore is also one of 769 national champions as set forth by American Forests.
273
272 “California Sycamore,” Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute, http://californiabigtrees.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/platanus- racemosa/380 (accessed April 1, 2017); “Australian Willow,” Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute, http://californiabigtrees.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/geijera-parviflora/379 (accessed April 1, 2017). 273 “American Forests,” www.americanforests.org/ (accessed April 1, 2017). 240
164
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
CONCLUSION
The City of Goleta has an unparalleled collection of historic trees. Carlberg Associates applauds the community for developing an Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) that sets forth current industry standards for the management of public street trees. With such valuable resources in parks and open spaces, the opportunities for conservation and preservation are limitless. Goleta’s UFMP sets forth a five-year policy framework for how trees within public areas will be managed.
As with all public-owned trees, the City’s Arborist recommends care of the urban forest and the City conducts all maintenance activities. Partnerships with non -profits regarding the care and watering of historic trees, such as with the Goleta Valley Historical Society, demonstrates the value the community places on significant trees.
The UFMP and existing City Municipal Code provisions provide legal guidance to City staff in managing public trees. The UFMP established a list of trees permitted in City public rights-of way, established guidelines for ho w they are to be planted and maintained. The UFMP establishes the framework for policies for ordinances and regulations and provides direction regarding administering the UFMP. 274
Individual trees may be considered important community resources because of unique or noteworthy characteristics or values. The UFMP contains provisions regarding nominating such a tree as a “Heritage Tree”. (However. the City Council directed that Heritage Trees nomination process not be used until the Historic Preservation ordinance is adopted.) A tree may qualify as a Heritage Tree if it has a documented history that reflects Goleta’s cultural heritage. Cultural heritage would include an association with or contribution to a historic structure, site, or street, or a connection to a person of historical note or historic event. If designated as a Heritage tree, such as tree would not b e removed unless it is dead, dying or in a dangerous/hazardous condition as determined by the City.
275
Special status could also be recognized for tree size (trunk diameter, height, maximum canopy spread), tree species (such as the drooping melaleuca at the Goleta Valley Community Center, which is an unusual species in California), age, ecological value, or location. In addition to the continuing implementation of the UFMP, the City may want to consider establishing a process for conservation of trees in open spaces, such as along creeks, as these areas may not be located in rights of way areas covered by the UFMP.
274 Goleta Urban Forest Management Plan, February 21, 2017. See the Urban Forest Management Plan for more information.
275 Goleta Urban Forest Management Plan, February 21, 2017. 241
165
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TREE STUDY
The accompanying table is not a comprehensive inventory of the trees within the City of Goleta, but is rather intended to inform the City’s decision -making process in conjunction with the Urban Forest Management Plan . Trees in Goleta are regulated under the Goleta Urban Forest Management Plan, adopted June 7, 2011 and amended February 21, 2017.
A map depicting the trees identified in the following table is included at the end of this chapter.
242
166
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
243
167
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
TREE STUDY
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Winchester Open Space I
This space is characterized by a grove of red gum (eucalyptus) and pine trees.
Winchester Open Space II
83 Warwick Place
Characterized by mature paperbark, lacebark, and different species of eucalyptus.
Evergreen Park and Open Space
(1995)
7524 Padova Drive
This well-maintained park contains a Frisbee-golf course, baseball and soccer fields. There are large multi-stemmed red gum (eucalyptus), stone pine, and coast live oak.
Eucalyptus,
Eucalyptus, lacebark
Red river
Coast live oak
Red river
244
168
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Evergreen Park and Open Space
(continued)
Bella Vista Park
Placer Drive and Mirano Drive
This park contains many exotic species; the groves of Canary Island pines and olive trees are notable.
Coast live oaks; eucalyptus
Canary Island pines
Olive trees
245
169
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Bishop Ranch
96 Glen Annie Road (no access)
Although we were not granted access to Bishop Ranch, the large, skyline, heritage-quality trees are visible from Glen Annie Road. We feature a photograph of an English walnut tree, a remnant of the walnut groves that all succumbed to root rot and were replaced by citrus and avocado groves.
Lake Los Carneros North
Residential District
Some of the most striking street tree plantings are in the Lake Los Carneros North Residential District. We attribute this to a predominance of one species (paperbark) and few vacant planting sites, with the trees exhibiting excellent health and high-quality maintenance.
Camino Talavera had some of the oldest and noteworthy specimens we saw. These two species – paperbark and bottlebrush – are undoubtedly well suited to Goleta’s environment.
These Australian species, along with lacebark (Brachychiton discolor), are abundant in the City’s parks.
There are lovely examples of paperbark (Melaleuca quinquenervia) and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) as street trees in this district. Both of these species perform well in Goleta.
English walnut
paperbark paperbark
246
170
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Lake Los Carneros North
Residential District (continued)
paperbark
Brazilian pepper
Paperbark
247
171
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Lake Los Carneros Park This public park, adjacent to the entrance to the Stow House, contains a windrow of red gum (eucalyptus) star pine, coral trees, lacebark (Brachychiton), sycamores, and coast live oak.
Goleta
248
172
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Stow House – 1886
304 N. Los Carneros Road
Excerpted from “Our History,” Goleta Valley Historical Society, http://goletahistory.org/about/ (accessed April 1, 2017):
The founder of Rancho La Patera, William Whitney Stow, was legal counsel for the Southern Pacific Railroad and an influential political figure at the state level. Among his most notable achievements was the creation of Golden Gate Park in San Francisco.
This approximate 1,100-acre property comprises rich soils, and in the late 1890s supported lemon, almond, and walnut groves. Sherman Stow, William’s son, a founding member of the Johnston Fruit Company, and his wife Ida had six children and began their life on one of California’s most lovely historic ranches.
Later, during the tenure of Sherman’s son, Edgar Stow (1915-1949) the ranch was expanded. Edgar played a leading role in helping to expand the area’s citrus industry, as well as developing a disease resistant variety of lemon that subsequently was cultivated statewide.
The ranch stayed in the Stow (and later Van Horne) family until the 1960s. A portion of the property, La Patera Rancho, still operates as one of Goleta Valley’s most productive ranches.
The collection of specimen, heritage-quality trees include titoki, Lagunaria pattersonnii, star pine, eucalyptus, bunya-bunya, Moreton Bay chestnut, Victorian box, and an extraordinarily large eugenia (brush cherry).
eucalyptus coast live oaks
249
173
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Stow House (continued) • Brush cherry (Syzygium australe) – likely depicted in a 1890-1910 photograph.
Nominated by Ken Knight in 2016. It measures 71 feet high, with a trunk circumference of 187 inches and a crown spread of 62 feet for a total of 274 points. (“Brush Cherry,” Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute, http://californiabigtrees.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/syzygium-australe/424, accessed April 1, 2017).
• Cow Itch or Primrose Tree (Lagunaria pattersonnii) – likely planted 1913-1920. • Star Pine (Araucaria heterophylla) – Circa 1880.
• Titoki (Alectryon excelsus) – Australian tree. Very rare in the United States.
coast live oaks
eucalyptu
facing back to the Stow House from the open space
Titoki
Primros
Star pine
Brush cherry
250
174
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Stow House (continued) • Chilean wine palm (Jubea chilensis) – late 19th or early 20th century. • Bunya-Bunya tree (Araucaria bidwillii) – 19th century. • Monterey cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) – Likely depicted in a circa 1890-1910 photograph.
• Red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis)
• Queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffianum) – early 20th century. • Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) – Circa 1913-1920.
Chilean wine palm
Bunya-Bunya
Red gum
Monterey cypress
Queen palm
Coast redwood
251
175
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Stow Grove Park
580 N. La Patera Lane
Of particular note are the hedgerow of Victorian box in the parking lot, lacebark (Brachychiton), coast live oak, eucalyptus, coral tree, and California sycamore. Most of the coast redwoods are declining.
Victorian box
(Pittosporum undulatum)
coast redwoods, Victorian
California sycamore coast redwoods
lacebark trees
252
176
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Stow Grove Park (continued)
coast redwoods California sycamore
coast live oak
coast live oak
coast redwoods, coast live oak Eucalyptus, lacebark
253
177
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Stow Grove Park (continued)
Stow Canyon Open Space
Muirfield Drive and Valez
Avenue
Coast live oaks, California sycamores, lacebark.
6230 Stow Canyon Road
~1-acre farm/ranch (1925)
Lovely examples of avocado, deodar cedar, California sycamore – all likely dating to 1920s.
Coral trees
coral tree, lacebark
deodar cedar
254
178
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
6230 Stow Canyon Road
(continued)
Berkeley Park and Kellogg
Elementary School
Good examples of native California sycamore and coast live oak at the park, and a wonderful London plane tree specimen at the school.
California
sycamore
avocado
California sycamore, coast live oak
London plane tree
255
179
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Sexton House
5490 Hollister Avenue
The Sexton House in Goleta, California is a two-story Italianate style house that was built in 1880. It was designed by architect Peter J. Barber.
The original owner, Joseph Sexton, was a horticulturist who planted trees and shrubs on the property that, in 1991, partially screened the house from Hollister Avenue. Pacifica Suites Hotel was developed on the property as a hotel with 87 suites (“Joseph and Lucy Foster Sexton House,” Wikipedia,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_and_Lucy_Foster_Sexton_House, accessed August 30, 2017).
There is an exceptional collection of mature trees, including Queensland kauri, star pine, flame tree, Mexican blue palm, dragon tree, Canary Island date palm, Guadalupe palm, and Chilean wine palm.
Senegal date palm
shamel ash
Coast redwood
Queen palm
shamel ash
Hybrid
Phoenix palm
Hybrid Phoenix palm
shamel ash
shamel ash
Canary Island date
256
180
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Sexton House (continued)
Orange tree
queen palm
Norfolk Island pine
angel’s
257
181
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Sycamore tree
110 S. Kellogg Avenue
On the northeastern edge of Old Town Goleta is the largest California sycamore tree (Platanus racemose) ever measured anywhere on the planet. It is referred to locally as the Sister Witness Tree, although there is no DNA evidence to support the connection. Located partially on the grounds of Jonny D. Wallis Park, the tree is officially recognized as a National Champion Tree through American Forests. The tree is 94 feet tall with a trunk circumference of 52.2 feet and a canopy of 95.5 feet ( Matt Kettmann, “Sister Witne ss Tree, Queen of Sycamores,” Santa Barbara Independent, October 2, 2012).
258
182
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Kellogg Ranch
110 S. Kellogg Avenue
There are many examples of heritage-quality coast live oak and coast redwood in this residential complex.
Coast redwood
Coast live oak trees
Coast redwood
259
183
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Butler Event Center
5555 Hollister Avenue
“The Witness Tree, a 250-year old California sycamore located in the patio of the Butler Event Center on Hollister Avenue , was designated as a Historical Landmark prior to the City incorporating. The Witness Tree is actually a substitute: the original Witness Tree was cut down in the 1800s to build Hollister Avenue ” (State of the Goleta Urban Forest Report , November 17, 2009).
Goleta Valley Community
Center
5681 Hollister Avenue
This facility is rich with mature plantings of jacaranda, melaleuca, deodar cedar, and the “California Big Tree” Australian willow.
• National Champion: This tree, in Goleta, was nominated by Randy Baldwin in 2012. It measures 49 feet high, with a trunk circumference of 82 inches and a crown spread of 64 feet for a total of 147 points. (“Australian Willow,” Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute, http://californiabigtrees.calpoly.edu/tree-detail/geijera- parviflora/379, accessed April 1, 2017).
deodar cedar
260
184
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Goleta Valley Community
Center (continued)
Ellwood Main Monarch
Aggregation Site (Goleta
Butterfly Grove)
This area is named after Ellwood Cooper, who settled in Goleta with his family in 1870.
Cooper grew olives, walnuts, grapes, almonds, oranges, lemons and Japanese persimmons on his large ranch. This created a very favorable setting for the yearly visitation of monarch butterflies to the region (“City of Goleta Monarch Butterfly website,” http://www.goletabutterflygrove.com/, accessed April 1, 2017).
Blue gums (Eucalyptus globulus) are considered the preferred trees for overwintering monarch butterflies. The past few years have seen the decline of many of the trees as a result of drought stress and associated pest infestation.
drooping
drooping melaleuca jacaranda (out of flower)
jacaranda (in flower)
261
185
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Ellwood Main Monarch
Aggregation Site (continued)
Barnsdall-Rio Grande Gasoline
Station
There are lovely examples of old specimens of narrow -leaved paperbark ( Melaleuca linariifolia) at this property.
262
186
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Barnsdall-Rio Grande Gasoline
Station (continued)
San Jose Creek Open Space Lovely examples of mature coast live oak and California sycamore.
coast live oak and California sycamore (east end
of Berkeley Road; west edge of San Jose Creek).
Beautiful examples of California sycamore on the east edge of San Jose Creek
Heritage-quality California sycamore east edge of
Berkeley Road
263
187
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
San Jose Creek Open Space
(continued)
San Jose Creek Many mature exotic trees thrive in this space located between Kellogg Way and Pine Avenue, south of the Goleta Boys and Girls Club.
264
188
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
608 Torrey Place Cooks Pine (Araucaria columnaris)
5939 Mandarin Street Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
265
189
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
5853 Mandarin Street Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
Southeast corner Mandarin
Drive and Orange Avenue
Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
266
190
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
31 Orange Avenue Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)
Southeast corner Mandarin
Drive and Orange Avenue
Camphor (Cinnamomum camphora)
267
191
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Orange Avenue north of
Mandarin Drive
This planting – creating an allée – of queen palms (Syagrus romanzoffianum ) is southern California at its most recognizable. Note the consistency and lack of empty planting sites. This is likely one of the oldest intact street tree plantings in the City.
Pomona Court north of
Armstrong Road
Queen palm street tree planting (Syagrus romanzoffianum)
268
192
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Pepperdine Court north of
Armstrong Road
Queen palm street tree planting (Syagrus romanzoffianum)
Cathedral Oaks Road north of
Bishop Ranch
Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), about 50 years old
269
193
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Ekwill Street east of Patterson
Avenue
Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia)
York Place American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Brandon Street Weeping bottlebrush (Callistemon viminalis)
270
194
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
LOCATION DESCRIPTION PHOTOGRAPHS
Armstrong Road west of Pacific
Oaks Road
Evergreen pear (Pyrus kawakamii)
El Encanto Heights
neighborhood
Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei)
Agricultural Plantings The region is historically rich in agriculture and once supported English walnut, lemon, olive, and avocado trees. The walnuts succumbed to root rot and only individual remnants can be found. Citrus and avocadoes are widely planted.
271
195
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
272
196
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
273
197
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Bibliography
274
198
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
275
199
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chapter 1: Built Environment
“118-Home Project Nearing Completion.” Los Angeles Times. August 3, 1957. "15164 Addendum to 91-EIR-003: Ellwood Beach - Santa Barbara Shores Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report for the Monarch Point Reserve Soil Remediation Project.” June 26, 1998.
1967 Goleta Valley Business Directory. Goleta, CA: Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce, 1967.
“1987 Honoree: H.C. Elliott: Elliott Homes, Inc.” California Homebuilding Foundation. http://www.mychf.org/elliott-hc.html. Accessed March 2017. "2.0 Project Description." Final Environmental Impact Report for the Rincon Palms Revised Hotel/Conference Center, July 2013.
"2.1.7 Cultural Resources." Ekwill Street and Fowler Road Extensions Project Final Environmental Impact Report, November 16, 2011. 80-89.
"3.4 Cultural Resources." Taylor T entative Parcel Map Final Environmental Impact Report, July 2009. 3.4-1-4.
"3.5 Cultural Resources (Includes Paleontological Resources)." Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan FEIR, September 2006. 3.5-1-3.5-17.
"3.5 Cultural Resources." Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, n.d. 3.5-1-5.
"3.5 Cultural Resources." Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report: General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, July 2009.
"4.3 Archaeological Resources." Draft Environmental Impact Report Cabrillo Business Park, 2002. 4.3-1-4.3-23.
"4.11 Cultural Resources." Comstock Homes Development and Ellwood Mesa Open Space Plan FEIR, n.d. 4.11-1-4.11-12.
"4.4 Cultural Resources." Environmental Impact Report for the Cortona Apartments Project, n.d. 4.4-1-4.4-16.
"4.4 Cultural Resources." Final Environmental Impact Report for the Camino Real Project, January 1997. 4.4-1-4.
276
200
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
"4.4 Cultural Resources." Final Environmental Impact Report for the Marriott Project, October 2013. 4.4-1-4.4-36.
"4.4 Cultural Resources." Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Heritage Ridge Residential Project, n.d. 149-64.
"4.4 Cultural Resources." Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Shelby Residential Project, October 2015. 4.4-1-4.4-14.
"4.4 Cultural Resources." Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Residences at Sandpiper Project, 2001. 4.4-1--6
"4.4 Cultural Resources." Village at Los Carneros Project Final Environmental Impact Report, June 2, 2014. 4.4-1-4.4-14
"4.4 Cultural Resources." Westar Mixed-Use Village Final EIR, July 2012. 4.4-1-4.4-25. "4.4 Cultural Resources." Willow Springs II Final EIR, May 2012. 4.4-1-4.4-21. "4.4 Historic Resources." Draft Supplement to the Goleta Old T own Revitalization Plan Environmental Impact Report (Prepared for the Goleta Old T own Hotel & Village), August 2002.
"4.6 Cultural, Historical, and Paleontological Resources." Ellwood Pipeline Company: Line 96 Modification Project FEIR, July 2011. 4.6-1-4.6-38.
"4.7 Archaeology." Final Environmental Impact Report for the K Mart Center Goleta, September 1982. 52-54.
"5.4 Cultural Resources." Environmental Impact Report for the Kenwood Village Project, n.d.
5.4-1-5.4-16.
“6.0 Visual and Historic Resources Element.” Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, September 2006.
A2S/PHR. Photographic and Historical Documentation: Shrode Produce Company, November 30, 2001.
“About.” Bracero History Archive. http://braceroarchive.org/about. Accessed August 2017.
"Addendum to the Camino Real Environmental Impact Report for the McDonald's Drive- Through Project Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan Amendment." July 3, 2013.
277
201
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Aerial photographs of Goleta. historicaerials.com.
Aerial photographs of Goleta. Santa Barbara County.
“All Along the Line.” Los Angeles Times. December 3, 1899.
AMEC Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. "4.5 Cultural Resources." Final Environmental Impact Report for the Goleta Beach County Park Managed Retreat Project 2.0, March 2014. 4.5-1-4.5-19.
-----. "Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Ellwood Mesa Coastal Trails & Habitat Restoration Project." June 2014.
“At Hollister, Patterson Avenues: Hospital Ground-Breaking Set for Thursday.” Santa Barbara News-Press. December 16, 1962.
“’Avenge Ellwood!’ The Japanese Attack on CA.” The Stow House. http://stowhouse.com/past- exhibitions/. Accessed August 2016.
"B. Cultural Resources." Final Environmental Impact Report for the Goleta Community Plan, November 1994. V.B.-1-V.B.-18.
Brantingham, Barney. “When Fear Reigned in Santa Barbara.” Santa Barbara Independent. July 21, 2016.
Broadhurst, Jean. “The Eucalyptus Trees of California.” T orreya 10 no. 4. April 1910.
Bureau of Reclamation. Cachuma Project, Santa Barbara County, California. United States Department of the Interior, 1956.
California State Board of Forestry. A Handbook for Eucalyptus Planters. Sacramento, CA:
Superintendent State Printing, 1908.
California State Lands Commission. "Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Venoco Ellwood Full Field Development Project." February 2008. -----. “Draft Environmental Impact Report for the South Ellwood Field Project.” September 2016.
“Ceremony Marks Aerophysics Ground Breaking at Goleta.” Santa Barbara News-Press. March 31, 1956.
City of Los Angeles, Department of City Planning. “Architecture and Design.” SurveyLA: Los Angeles Historic Resources Survey Project, Draft Historic Context Statement. 2011.
278
202
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Cole, Alexandra C. Architectural Historical Survey of Vernacular Homesteads in the Goleta Valley. July 3, 1986.
Community Development and Conservation Collection. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
Coombs, Gary B. Goleta Depot: The History of a Rural Railroad Station. Goleta, CA: Institute for American Research, 2015. 2nd ed.
Coombs, Gary B., ed. Those were the Days: Landmarks of Old Goleta. Goleta, CA: Institute for American Research, 1986.
Coombs, Gary B., and Phyllis J. Olsen. Cathedral Oaks: Last of the Pioneer Schools. Goleta, CA: Institute for American Research, 1990.
-----. Sentinel at Ellwood: The Barnsdall-Rio Grande Gasoline Station. Goleta, CA: Institute for American Research, 1985.
Cox, Vic. “Ellwood Bombing.” Santa Barbara Independent. March 20, 2012. -----. “Goleta History Event Opens Windows on Past.” Santa Barbara Independent. February 5, 2012.
-----. “Submarine Shelling of Ellwood Oil Field in 1942.” Santa Barbara Independent. October 2, 2011.
"Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 11-MND- 001 for the Los Carneros Road Overhead Bridge Replacement Project." July 2011.
"Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for the Fuel Depot Gas Station and Convenience Store New Development Plan Project." July 21, 2016. "Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Medical Office Building for the Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital." September 20, 2010.
“Drillings Provide Large Contribution to Local Resources.” Santa Barbara News Press.
November 2, 1947.
Envicom Corporation. "Citrus Village Final Mitigated Negative Declaration." August 15, 2008. "Environmental Checklist Form and Initial Study for Cortona Apartments." January 4, 2011. "Environmental Checklist Form and Initial Study for the Harvest Hill Ranch Residential Subdivision Project." March 3, 2014.
279
203
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
"Environmental Checklist Form and Initial Study for the Somera Medical Building Project." January 2014.
“Executive Order 9066.” Densho Encyclopedia.
http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Executive_Order_9066/. Accessed August 2017. “Farm News of the Great Southwest.” Los Angeles Times. February 22, 1925.
Federal Register. Vol. 48, No. 190. 44738-44739. September 29, 1983. "Final Addendum to the Camino Real Environmental Impact Report for the Camino Real Hotel Project." October 31, 2008.
"Final Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hollister Avenue Bridge Replacement Project." August 18, 2015.
"Final Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact for Hollister/Kellogg Park and the San Jose Creek Bike Path." August 13, 2013.
"Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Caisson Wall Repair Project." October 9, 2006. "Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mariposa @ Ellwood Shores Assisted Living Facility Project." April 13, 2012.
"Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Marriott Residence Inn and Hollister Center." April 2008.
"Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Montecito Bank and Trust Project." December 2010.
"Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rincon Palms Hotel & Restaurant." July 11, 2008.
"Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Schwan Self Storage Project." October 14, 2011. "Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South Fairview Commercial Center Project." March 4, 2011.
"Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South Kellogg Recycling Facility Project." October 14, 2011.
"Final Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Venoco Platform Holly Power Cable Replacement Project." November 2012.
280
204
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Glen Annie Homes Development, November 1994.
Garcia, Gilardo. Interview by David Russell. January 15, 2001. Old T own Goleta Oral History Collection, c. 2000. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
Goleta Gazette.
“Goleta Growth: Phone Important in Valley History.” Santa Barbara News-Press. October 14, 1962.
Goleta Guide: A Business and Professional Directory of Goleta, 1951-1952. Goleta, CA:
Barker Advertising Sales and Service, 1951.
Goleta Historical Notes. Goleta Valley Historical Society 8 (Fall 1993).
Goleta Sun.
“Goleta Union School District – And How It Grew.” Y our Schools 2 (13). June 1969. “Goleta Valley Directory, 1939,” Goleta Valley Leader.
Goleta Valley Leader.
Goleta Valley News.
Goleta Valley Review.
“Goleta Water District, 1944.” Goleta Magazine. 1988-1990. Organizations – Smaller Holdings: Community Development and Conservation Collection. Department of Special Collections, Davidson Library, University of California, Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara, California.
"Goleta West Sanitary District Trunk Improvements Project - Mesa Road Trunk Sewer." January 4, 2011.
“Goleta’s Forgotten Past: The Dairy Industry That Once Flourished in Goleta and Santa Barbara.” Unpublished essay. Goleta Valley Historical Society archives.
Grad, Shelby. “The environmental disaster that changed California – and started the movement against offshore drilling.” Los Angeles Times. April 28, 2017. "H. Cultural Resources." Final Environmental Impact Report for the Santa Barbara News-Press Production Facility Development Plan and T entative Parcel Map, July 1987. VI.60—61. 281
205
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
"H. Cultural Resources." Final Environmental Impact Report for the Storke/Hollister Research Center Development Plan and T entative Parcel Map, July 1987. VI.60.
Hart, Gary K., Collection. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
“History & Architecture.” South Coast Railroad Museum.
http://goletadepot.org/depot_history.php. Accessed May 2017. “History of Saint Raphael Catholic Church.” St. Raphael Catholic Church, Santa Barbara, CA. http://straphaelsb.org/history-of-saint-raphael-catholic-church/. Accessed February 2017. “Industrial Zoning in the Master Plan for Goleta Valley.” Santa Barbara News-Press. September 21, 1956.
"Initial Study/Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Taylor T entative Parcel Map." September 2006.
"Initial Study/Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Islamic Center Project." November 15, 2013.
"Initial Study/Final Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment Addendum." April 2008.
"Initial Study: Bacara Resort and Spa Completion Phase Project." March 12, 2009. "IV. B Site-Specific Issues; 4. Archaeological Resources." Final Environmental Impact Report for the Raytheon Industrial Project, March 1984. 135-40
Jaramillo, Albert. Interview by David E. Russell. Transcribed by Laura Funkhouser. November 4, 2000. Old T own Goleta Oral History Collection, c. 2000. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
Kegley, Howard C. “Oil News.” Los Angeles Times. October 2, 1928.
Kellogg, Marjorie, Papers. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
“Kellogg Park Goleta Subdivision Due Soon.” Santa Barbara News-Press. June 23, 1956. "Kenwood Village Residential Project Scoping Document." July 18, 2012.
Lawler, Nan. Closing the Gap: The Coast Line and its Bridges in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties. Goleta, CA: Institute for American Research, 1981. 282
206
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
“Lima Beans.” Los Angeles Times. September 7, 1882.
Local History Files, c. 1970-1999. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. “Luton Bell Well Controlled.” Los Angeles Times. August 6, 1928.
Mai-Duc, Christine. “The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill that changed oil and gas exploration forever.” Los Angeles Times. May 20, 2015.
McHugh, Julia. “Santa Barbara’s ‘soaring’ Aviation History.” Santa Ynez Valley News, updated June 19, 2020. https://syvnews.com/lifestyles/columns/south-on-101/julia- mchugh-santa-barbara-s-soaring-aviation-history/article_32808f50-dd21-534a-b4b8- ea5ff7bb2751.html (accessed September 2020).
Miori, Frank. “Manzanar ID Card.” Manzanar National Historic Site visitor booklet.
National Park Service.
“Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrade Project.” September 2009.
Modugno, T om. Goleta History. Goletahistory.com. Accessed October 2016. -----. Goleta Surfing Goletasurfing.com. Accessed February 2017.
Morro Group, Inc. Volume 1 Draft Environmental Impact Report for the AT&T Fiber Optic Cable Project San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles, June 2002. V-1-V-192.
National Park Service. “National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1995.
-----. “National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1997. -----. “National Register Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys.” Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1977; revised 1985. “New Goleta Area Medical Center Slated.” Santa Barbara News-Press. August 12, 1959. “New Homes, Plants Mark Goleta Gain.” Santa Barbara News-Press. 1958. “New Million Dollar Lemon Packing Plant Under Construction.” Goleta Valley Leader.
September 7, 1950.
283
207
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Nye, Ronald L. “The Lemon: Symbol of Goleta Valley History.” Goleta Valley History: The Journal of the Goleta Valley Historical Society 12, no. 1. Winter 2004. “Oil Development in Santa Barbara County.” Los Angeles Times. January 1, 1921.
Old T own Goleta oral history project, c. 2000. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
Olsen, Phyllis J. Stow House: Threshold to Valley History. 2nd ed. Goleta, CA: Institute for American Research, 2011.
PHR Environmental Consultants, Inc. Historic Significance Assessment: Shrode Produce Company, October 7, 1998.
Post/Hazeltine Associates. "4.3 Archaeological Resources." Draft Environmental Impact Report Cabrillo Business Park, 2002. 4.3-1-4.3-23.
-----. "Historic Resources Report for 590 Kellogg Avenue." Goleta Valley Voice, April 30, 2004.
Preservation Planning Associates. "G. History and Archaeology." Goleta Community Plan, June 24, 1990.
-----. "Historic Resources." Exhibit A: Draft Update of Goleta Land Use Plan, June 24, 1990. "Proposed Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Fire Station #10 Conceptual Site Feasibility/Site Selection Plan." November 2010.
"Proposed Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Jordano's Master Plan Project." December 14, 2009.
"Revised Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the South Fairview Commercial Center Project." September 24, 2010.
"Revised Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the T owbes/ATK Space Systems Project." January 21, 2009.
Rincon Consultants, Inc. "Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Line 96 Decommissioning Project." July 2014.
-----. "Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Old T own Village Mixed-Use Project." July 2015.
-----. "Final Mitigated Negative Declaration for the PRC 421 Access Road Maintenance and Repair Project." February 2016.
284
208
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Robinson, Greg. After Camp, Portraits in Midcentury Japanese American Life and Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2012.
Ruhge, Justin. "History runs deep at the slough." Goleta Valley Voice, September 13, 2007. -----. “Looking Back: Farmhouse Tradition Remains in Goleta.” Goleta Sun. June 6, 1991. -----. “Looking Back: Schools went up and down with population.” Goleta Sun. April 25, 1991. -----. “Looking Back: T elephones First Arrived in the Late 1800s.” Goleta Sun. June 13, 1991. -----. “Looking Back: When ‘asfelt’ was the town industry.” Goleta Sun. October 3, 1991.
Ruhge, Justin M. Goleta: Pueblo de Las Islas. Goleta, CA: Kimberly Press, 1984. -----. Looking Back: A History of Goleta’s Historic Structures and Sites and the Pioneer Families Who Made Them: Getting in T ouch with our Heritage. Goleta, CA: Quantum Imaging Associates, 1991.
-----. “Looking Back: Goleta once known as major lemon producer.” Goleta Sun. February 7, 1991.
-----. “Looking Back: Goleta was the home of the soft shell walnut.” Goleta Sun. May 2, 1991. -----. “Looking Back: POW camp begins historic sightseeing.” Goleta Sun. October 3, 1990. -----. “Looking Back: Since the 1950s, high-tech industries have dominated Goleta’s economy.” Goleta Sun. December 20, 1990.
-----. “Looking Back: Tree stands witness to notorious drought.” Goleta Sun. May 9, 1991.
Ruhge, Justin, Papers, c. 1970s-2007. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of Goleta, 1930.
Santa Barbara Airport. “Santa Barbara – A Rich Aviation History.” 2004.
Santa Barbara Area Newspapers, c. 1870-1992. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. “Santa Barbara County.” Los Angeles Times. October 21, 1891.
Santa Barbara County Area survey maps collection. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. 285
209
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
“Santa Barbara County: Goleta’s Depot Site.” Los Angeles Times. February 21, 1900.
Santa Barbara News-Press.
“Santa Barbara: The Zenith City by the Shore of the Sunset Sea.” Los Angeles Times.
September 8, 1882.
Santa Barbara County tract maps.
Science Applications International Corporation. "Final Historic Resources Study: Goleta Old T own Revitalization Plan." Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan FEIR, January 1997.
Scott-McIntosh Petroleum, Incorporated Collection, circa 1928-1930. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
"Section 4.8 Cultural Resources." Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Costco Gasoline Station, April 2007. 4.8-1—3.
"Shelby Trust Residential Subdivision Project Environmental Impact Report Scoping Document." July 19, 2012.
"Shelby Trust Subdivision/Kenwood Village LLC Project General Plan Amendments Scoping Document." July 17, 2012.
“Sketching the Principal Valleys, Ranchos, and Districts.” Los Angeles Times. September 5, 1891.
Smitheram, Dr. Lou Hale. “A Chronology of Goleta Valley History.” Goleta Historical Notes 3, no. 2 (Fall 1998).
“Some Incidents in the Life of Ellwood Cooper.” NOTICIAS: Quarterly Magazine of the Santa Barbara Historical Museums XXXIX, no. 2 (Summer 1993).
Starks, Edwin C. “A History of California Shore Whaling.” State of California Fish and Game Commission Fish Bulletin No. 6. Sacramento: California State Printing Office, 1923.
Starr, Kevin. Material Dreams: Southern California through the 1920s. New Y ork:
Oxford University Press, 1990.
Stories of Goleta Valley Pioneers. Goleta, CA: Golden Coast Publishing, 1971.
Storke, Yda Addis. A Memorial and Biographical History of the Counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura, California. Chicago: Lewis Publishing Company, 1891. 286
210
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Sullivan, Steve. “Goleta Master Plan Gives Idea How Area Will Develop.” Santa Barbara News- Press. No date (c. 1956).
-----. “Goleta Valley Booming with Developments.” Santa Barbara News-Press. August 27, 1959.
“The Den Vs. Hollister Case.” Price, Postel & Parma LLP. http://www.ppplaw.com/history/the- den-vs.-hollister-case, Accessed February 2017.
“The Goleta Valley Story.” Santa Barbara News-Press. December 7, 1964.
The Shrode Family. Shrode Produce Company Landmark Proposal. August 1998. “The State and the Coast.” Los Angeles Times. July 31, 1883.
T ompkins, Walker A. Goleta: The Good Land. Goleta, CA: Goleta Amvets Post No. 55, 1966.
T ompkins, Walker A., and Horace A. Sexton. Fourteen at the Table: An Informal History of the Life and Good Times of the Sexton Family of Old Goleta. Goleta, CA: Kimberly Press, 1964.
T ompkins, Walker A., Collection. Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California. “Transportation – General 1923-28: Automobiles and the Highways.” Calvin Coolidge papers.
Library of Congress. American Memory Collection.
Trimborn, Harry. “Battle Shaping up over Offshore Oil.” Los Angeles Times. February 2, 1969.
“Tulare Detention Facility.” Densho Encyclopedia.
http://encyclopedia.densho.org/Tulare_%28detention_facility%29/. Accessed August 2017.
University of California, Santa Barbara, Office of Public Information Subject Files, 1933-2008.
Department of Special Collections, University of California, Santa Barbara, Davidson Library, Santa Barbara, California.
United States Census Data, 1870-1940. Ancestry.com. Accessed August 2017.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. "Final Environmental Assessment/Negative Declaration for Section 227 National Shoreline Erosion Control Development and Demonstration Program at Oil Piers." December 2004.
287
211
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
“Venoco.” County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development, Energy Division. http://www.sbcountyplanning.org/energy/projects/venoco.asp. Accessed February 2019. "VI. Environmental Setting, Impact and Mitigation: Proposed Specific Plan; J. Archaeology." Environmental Impact Report for the Ellwood Beach - Santa Barbara Shores Specific Plan Area, March 1992. VI.J.1-VI.J.17.
"Village at Los Carneros Project Scoping Document." November 1, 2011. “Work Will Begin on Kellogg Tract.” Santa Barbara News-Press. November 4, 1956. 288
212
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
This page intentionally left blank.
289
213
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Chapter 2: Archaeological Resources
Anonymous
n.d. Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-61. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Bowser, Brenda, and David F. Stone
1994 Extended Phase 1 Archaeological Report for the Proposed Fairview Overhead and Overcrossing on Route 101, Santa Barbara County, California. Science Applications International Corporation, Santa Barbara, California. Submitted to County of Santa Barbara Public Works Department, Santa Barbara, California, and California Department of Transportation, District 5, Environmental Planning Branch, San Luis Obispo . On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Brock, J.
1987 Archaeological Site Record for CA- SBA-2204/H. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Chalmers, L.
1994 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-60. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Chartkoff, J., K. Chartkoff, and L. Kona
1967a Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-55. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1967b Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-56. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1967c Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-60. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1967d Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-61. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1967e Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-62. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1967f Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-63. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Colten, R.
290
214
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
1985 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-143. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1987 Intrasite Variability in Early and Middle Period Subsistence Remains from CA-SBa-143, Goleta, Santa Barbara County, California. Coyote Press, Salinas.
Cooley, Theodore, and Stacie Wilson
2006 Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan FEIR. City of Goleta.
Craig, S.
1978 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-53. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1979 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-58. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1980 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1093. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1980 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1093. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
De Barros, P.
1986a Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-73. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1986b Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1326. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Dugger, R.
1992a Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-3380. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1992b Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-3384. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Ehmann, ?, M. Perez, and ? Pousson
1975 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1326. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Erlandson, J.
1980a Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1673. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
291
215
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
1980b Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1674. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1982a Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1745. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1982b Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1750H. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1988 The Role of Shellfish in P rehistoric Economies: A Protein Perspective.
American
Antiquity 52:102-109.
1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York. 1997 The Middle Holocene Along the California Coast. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, ed. J. Erlandson and M. Glassow , pp. 1-10. Perspectives in California Archaeology 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles.
Erlandson, J., T. Cooley, and R. Carrico
1987 A Fluted Projectile Point from the Southern California Coast: Chronology and Context at CA-SBA-1951. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9:120-129.
Erlandson, J., and L. Garnica
1979 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1672. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Erlandson, J., and J. Heinzen
1978a Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1568. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1978b Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1575. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1978c Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1576. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1978d Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1577. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Erlandson, J., D. Kennett, B. Ingram, D. Guthrie, D. Morris, M. Tveskov, G. West, and P. Walker 1996 An archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI-261), San Miguel Island, California.
Radiocarbon 38:355-373.
Erlandson, J., and T. Rick
292
216
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
2002 Late Holocene Cultural Developments Along the Santa Barbara Coast. In Complexity:
Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast , ed. J. Erlandson and T., Jones, pp. 166-82.
Perspectives in California Archaeology 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeo logy, University of California Los Angeles.
Erlandson, J., and L. Wilcoxon
1981a Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-54. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1981b Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-56. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1981c Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-57. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1981d Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-60. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1981e Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-61. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1981f Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-62. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1981g Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-63. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1981h Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1207. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1981i Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1568. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1981j Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1703. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Esteban, M., V. Fleming, and D. Rockey
1998 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-3493. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1998 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-3493. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Foster, J.
293
217
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
1991a Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-54. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1991b Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-142. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1991c Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-2433. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Fulton, P.
2001a Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-54. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
2001b Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-55. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Fulton, P., and I. Strudwick
2001 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-2588. On file, Ce ntral Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Gamble, Lynn
2008
The Chumash World at European Contact: Power, Trade, and Feasting Among Complex Hunter -Gatherers. University of California Pr ess Foundation, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Gerstle, Andrea and Jeff Serena
1982 Phase 2 Significance Assessment for CA -SBA-56, Lot 10, the Central Midden Area.
Office of Public Archaeology, Social Process Research Institute, UCSB. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Glassow, M. A.
1997 Middle Holocene Cultural Development in the Central Santa Barbara Channel Region.
In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, ed. J. Erlandson and M.
Glassow, pp. 73-90. Perspectives in California Archaeology 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California Los Angeles.
Guinn, J.
1907 A History of California And An Extended History Of Its Southern Coast Counties: Also Containing Biographies Of Well -Known Citizens Of The Past And Present . Historical Record, Chicago.
Harrison, W.
294
218
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
1956 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-53. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Haslouer, L., and D. Kay
2001 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-3636. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Heinzen, J.
1978 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1574. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Heizer, R.
1948 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-106. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Hess, Sean, Craig Woodman, and Karen Foster
1998. Middle Holocene Adaptations at CA -SBA-59, A Prehistoric Residential Site on the Goleta, Extended Phase 1 Survey and Phase II Significance Assessment. Prepared for Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Horne, S.
1972 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1207. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
WMH
1956 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-137. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Johnson, J.
1982
An Ethnohistoric Study of the Island Chumash . Master’s Thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Johnson, John, Claude Warren, and Susan Warren
1982 Ethnohistoric Overview of Native American Culture in the Goleta Valley (1542-1835).
In
Intensive Cultural Resources Survey for the Goleta Flood Protection Program, Santa Barbara County, California, edited by Larry Wilcoxon. Archaeological Systems Management, Inc. San Diego. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District.
Kaijankoski, P.
2013 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-70. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
295
219
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
King, C.
1990 Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used in Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before A.D. 1804 . Garland Publishing, Inc.
New York.
Landberg, L.
1965 The Chumash Indians of Southern California. Southwest Museum Papers 19. Los Angeles.
Lebow, Clayton G., Rebecca L. McKim, Douglas R. Harro, Ann M. Munns, Charles M. Hodges, and Carole A. Denardo
2003 Archaeological Investigations at CA -SBA-59 in the Vicinity of Goleta Slough , Santa Barbara County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Lompoc, California. Submitted to Airport Department, City of Santa Barbara, California. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Lyon, P.
1959 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-143. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Lyon, P., and D. Pierce
1959 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-142. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Macko, M.
1979a Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-137. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1979b Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1653. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1979c Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1655. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Macko, M., et al.
1979a Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1656. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1979b Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1657. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
296
220
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Mann, T.
1993 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-2499. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Masters, Patricia and Dennis Gallegos
1997 Environmental Change and Coastal Adaptations in San Diego County during the Middle Holocene. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene. Perspectives In California Archaeology, Volume 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Miller, D.
1962 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-53. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Miller, D. S.
1961 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-58. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Miller, D.
1961a Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-74. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1961b Archaeological Site Record for CA- SBA-75. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Miller ? and Klug ?
1961 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-69. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Minor, Scott, Karl S. Kellogg, Richard G. Stanley, Larry D. Gurrola, Edward A. Keller, and Theodore R. Brandt
2009 Geologic Map of The Santa Barbara Coastal Plain Area, San ta Barbara County , California. United States Geologic Service.
Moore, L.
1980a Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1194. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1980b Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1195. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
297
221
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Moratto, M.J., T.F. King, and W.F. Woolfenden
1978 Archaeology and California’s Climate. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 5:147-161.
Munns, A.
2003 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-3715H. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Munns, Ann M., Clayton G. Lebow, Rebecca L. McKim, Douglas R. Harro, Carole Denardo, and Jill Onken
2004 Archaeological Data Recovery and Construction Monitoring at S’axpi’lil (CA-SBA-60) for the Fairview Avenue Overcrossing/Goleta Overhead Replacement Project in Santa Barbara County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California. Submitted to California Department of Transportation, District 5, San Luis Obispo. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
O’Halloran, S., and J. English
1982 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1744. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Orr, P.
1954 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-168. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1968
Prehistory of Santa Rosa Island. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Peak, M.
1991 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-2586. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Peak, M., R. Gerry, and J. Oglesby
1991 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-2588. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Pence, R.
1981 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1717. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Pfeiffer, L.
1998 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-2499. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
298
222
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Pfeiffer, L., and J. Eerkens
1998 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-3495. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Pfeiffer, L., and A. Munns
1998 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-3496. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Price, Barry, and Robert J. Lichtenstein
2008 Archaeological Treatment Plan for t he Proposed San Juan Capistrano Non- Domestic/Recycled Water Master Plan Update, Orange County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Prepared for ESA | Water, Los Angeles.
Rogers, D. B.
1926 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-60. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1929
Prehistoric Man of the Santa Barbara Coast. Santa Barbara, California. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Ruby, Alika and Patricia Mikkelsen
2016 Salvaging the Past. A Case Study in Archaeological Inquiry. CA-SBA-1703. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Ruby, J.
1999a Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-106. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1999b Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-2588. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Department [SB2013] 2013 FINAL Environmental Impact Report Southern California Gas Company La Goleta Storage Field Enhancement Project, Santa Barbara County.
Schwitalla, Al W. and Terry L. Jones
2012 A Land of Many Seasons: Bioarchaeology and the Medieval Climactic Anomaly Hypothesis in Central California. In
Contemporary Issues in California Archaeology , edited by Terry L. Jones and Jennifer E. Perry, pp. 93-114. Left Coast Press, Inc. Walnut Creek, CA.
299
223
FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT
City of Goleta
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
Schwartz, K.
1957 Archaeological Site Record for CA-SBA-54. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Serena, J.
1980a Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1688. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1980b Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1689. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
1981 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-1203. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Sheets, R.
1994 Archaeological Site Record for CA -SBA-2674. On file, Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara.