San Luis Obispo City Council
January 11, 2022

City Council Ordinance No. 1504 ( 2011 Series)
Grantee not make payment within thirty ( 30) days of written notice by certified mail by the City that the following amount s are due for the following concerns:

1. Failure to provide data, documents, or reports within ten ( 10) business days after receipt of written request by the City, by certified mail, or such longer time as may be specified in said request: Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 250. 00) per day for each day, or part thereof that each violation continues.

2. Failure to provide to the City within ten ( 10) business days after receipt of written request by the City, by certified mail, current evidence of insurance and bonding: Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 250 . 00) per day for each day, or part thereof, that each noncompliance continues. Nothing in this Section shall preclude immediate termination or suspension of this franchise as provided for under Article 1513, supra.

3. Failure by Grantee to timely restore public or private property after performance of work, and following Grantee' s receipt of written request by the City to do so within ten ( 10) business days thereafter by certified mail: Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 250.00) per day or part thereof, that each non - compliance continues. Any fines paid pursuant to this Subsection 3 shall be paid solely to the Street Fund of the City Public Works Department.

B. If the City Public Works Department determines that Grantee is liable for liquidated damages, the City Public Works Department shall issue to Grantee by certified mail written notice of intention to charge liquidated damages. Liquidated damages shall begin to accrue as of the date of the written notice and as set forth in said notice. The notice shall set forth the basis for the liquidated damages and give Grantee a reasonable time in which to remedy the violation.

C. Grantee shall have the right to appeal any notice to the City Public Works Department by certified mail, within twenty ( 20) days after issuance of the notice by the City Public Works Department. The City Public Works Department shall hold an administrative hearing within sixty ( 60) days after receipt of an appeal. The City Public Works Director' s decision shall be the final decision of the City.

D. If Grantee does not appeal the notice within said twenty ( 20) day period, Grantee shall pay the amount( s) of liquidated damages as stated in the notice. If payment is not paid as provided for in this Article, the City may withdraw against the bond provided for in Article 14 herein.

ARTICLE 26

ATTORNEYS' FEES
In the event the City or Grantee brings legal action against the other, or against Grantee' s bonding companies or insurance carriers to compel performance of, or to recover for breach of any covenant, agreement or condition contained in this franchise, or for damages, the prevailing party shall be entitled to, in addition to any other relief obtained, such reasonable attorneys' fees Mol

City Council Ordinance No. 1504 ( 2011 Series)
ARTICLE 27

CONDEMNATION
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein and in accordance with San Luis Obispo City Charter Article X, Section 1005, this Ordinance shall not in any way affect the right of the City to acquire the property of the Grantee thereof either by purchase or through the exercise of the right of eminent domain, and nothing herein contained shall be construed to contract away or to modify or to abridge either for a term or in perpetuity the City' s right of eminent domain with respect to any public utility. The City reserves the right to purchase the property of such utility at an agreed price. In fixing the price to be paid by the City for any utility, no allowance shall be made for franchise value ( other than the actual amount paid to the City at the time of the franchise acquisition), goodwill, going concern, earning power, increased cost of reproduction, severance damage, or increased value of right -of -way.

SECTION 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that they would have adopted this ordinance and each sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty ( 30) days after its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen ( 15) days after passage of this ordinance, it shall be published once with the names of the members of the City Council voting for and against the ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of San Luis Obispo, State of California.

SECTION 4. A synopsis of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes shall be published once in full at least five ( 5) days prior to its final passage, in a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and at the same time shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty ( 30) days after its said final passage. A copy of the full final text of this ordinance shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following the introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any interested member of the public. 27

City Council Ordinance No. 1504 ( 2011 Series)
INTRODUCED on the 7th day of June 2011 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 21" day of June 2011, on the following vote:

AYES: Council Member Carpenter, Carter and Smith, Vice Mayor Ashbaugh and Mayor Marx
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:

XL
Elaina Cano 1 he GWWy that; this " aanant N.a VW
City Clerk * W amwats 0110 d0kWW oe No.
ane4, Vo the ae N w-ce wapOWed puwadnt
to Charter See bw 007.

APPROVED AS TO FORM: 2 za
istine Dietrick
City Attorney
28

FRANCHISE MILEAGE
8 —INCH PIPELINE
18, 812 FEET

3. 56 MILES
12 —INCH PIPELINE
5, 848 FEET

1. 10 MILES

INDEX TO SAN LUIS OBISPO

FRANCHISE MAPS
OJA , ConocoPhillips ORDINANCE No. P P
i

CONOCOPHILLIPS PIPE LINE COMPANY
r
Pipe Line Company RIGHT —OF —WAY No. 086243

y.

SEE SHEET 3 HIGH ST.

MAT LINE
1 I x
2 r
BRANCH ST.

SOUTH
1 g
st
SOUTH ST.

N
i>
I
m
r
I
I Q
BRIDGE ST.
i
3245'— 8" LINE # 400

COAST VALLEY TRUNK
No. 2
IrI
rr '
T
3 3245'— 8" LINE # 400

COAST VALLEY TRUNK
No. 1
NA174, D2A340

REV DATE

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FRANCHISE MAP

DRAWN FGIII
1 04 27 11 APP' D.

O
SCALE I°= 4/ 08
ORDINANCE NO. GATE 5/ 20/ 98
ConocoPhillips RW086243
s Pipe Line Company 4 SHEETS SHEET z

BROAD " ST. ( HWY. 227)
2717'— 8° LINE # 400

COAST VALLEY TRUNK
No.

NIPOMO ST.

BEACH
CARMEL
V)
U
N
a
a
ARCHER
7 N
0V)
j No.

WALKER
I S
y
11 L
Gi / cGF
I S H
1 O
1 2702' 8" LINE # 400

COAST VALLEY TRUNK
No. 2
ST.

ST.

ST, V/ry
D2A340, NAM

REV DATE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FRANCHISE MAP
DRAWN r
1 04/ 27/ 11 SCALE 1° s 400'
ORDINANCE NO.

SCALE
DATE 5/ 20/ 98
ConocoPhillips RWO86243
PPL
Pipe Line Company 4 SHEETS SHEET 3

REV I
DATE
1 1 04/ 27
mHNSON I
ST.

ST.

TORO
3450'— 8" LINE # 400

COAST VALLEY TRUNK
No. 2
li
SANTA ROSA ST.

OSOS ST.
3453'— 8" LINE # 400
COAST VALLEY TRUNK a
No. 1 D
m
MORRO ST.

W
CHORRO ST.
0 a
GARDEN ST.

BROAD ST. ( HWY. 227)

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FRANCHISE MAP
ORDINANCE NO.

ConocoPhillips
Pipe Line Company
NAM, D2A339
DRAWN r5ii
APP' D.

SCALE 1 "= 400'
DATE 5/ 20/ 98
R W086243
4 SHEETS I
SHEET 4

counci ljagenOa RepoRt
Fleetin g Date
tern Numberr2•

C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Prepared By : Claudia Prows, Paralega l
SUBJECT : ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO . 1587 APPROVING THE TRANSFER OF FRANCHISE ORDINANCE NO . 1564 FROM CONOCOPHILLIPS PIPELIN E LLC TO PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LL C

RECOMMENDATIO N
Adopt Ordinance No . 1587 (2013 Series).

DISCUSSION
On January 22, 2013 the Council voted 5-0 to introduce Ordinance No . 1587 that approves the transfer of the rights and obligations under Franchise Ordinance No . 1564 from ConocoPhillips Pipeline LLC to Phillips 66 Company . The ordinance is now ready for final adoption .

ATTACHMEN T
Ordinance No . 1587 (2013 Series )
T:\Council Agenda Reports\ 20I3\ 20I3- 02- 05\ ConocoPhillips Franchise Ord 1587 - Adoption ( Dietrick- Visveshwara)\ Counci l Agenda Report. docx
C2-1

ORDINANCE NO . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING TRANSFER O F FRANCHISE ORDINANCE NO . 1564 TO PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE, LLC, A

DELAWARE COMPANY, TO CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN COMMO N

CARRIER PIPELINES FOR THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL, AND OTHE R

SPECIFIED MATERIALS IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance No . 1564 on June 21, 201 1 granting a franchise to ConocoPhillips Pipeline Company(" Conoco') for a term of 10 years t o maintain common carrier pipelines for the transportation and distribution of oil and othe r specified materials in the City of San Luis Obispo ; and WHEREAS, as a result of a company reorganization, Phillips 66 Pipeline, LL C Phillips 66 PLLC") has requested the City of San Luis Obispo consent to its assumption of th e existing franchise agreement for common carrier oil transportation and distribution pipelines ; and
WHEREAS, on December 4, 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo passed Resolution No . 10411, a resolution of intention to approve the transfer of Franchise Ordinance No . 1564 to Phillips 66 ; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing i n the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on January 22 , 2012, for the purpose of considering approval of the franchise agreement ; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manne r required by law : an d
WHEREAS, the proposed transfer of the franchise ordinance agreement serves th e public interest, because the pipelines have already been transferred to Phillips 66 PLLC and th e California Public Utilities Commission found that there would be no change in day to da y operations or management as a result of the transfer .

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Lui s Obispo to approve the transfer of franchise Ordinance 1564, to Phillips 66 PLLC, a Delawar e company, effective retroactively to April 12, 2012, to construct, operate, and maintain commo n carrier pipelines for the transportation of oil, and other specified materials in the City of San Lui s Obispo, for term expiring June 20, 2021, subject to all the other terms and conditions of th e franchise, as follows :

SECTION 1 : Terms and Conditions of Franchise ( Table of Contents begins on page 2):
0 1587

Ordinance No . 1587 (2013 Series)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ARTICLE I NATURE OF FRANCHISE 4
A . Grant of Franchise 4
B . Limitations Upon Grant 5
C . Rights Reserved to the City of San Luis Obispo 6
ARTICLE 2 APPURTENANCES 6
ARTICLE 3 LOCATION OF PIPELINES 6
ARTICLE 4 CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINES 7
A. Terms of Construction 7
B . Restoration of Streets 7
ARTICLE 5 COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION 7
ARTICLE 6 MAPS AND REPORTS TO BE FURNISHED 8
ARTICLE 7 COMPENSATION TO THE CITY 8
ARTICLE 8 EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AND CREWS 1 0
ARTICLE 9 REPAIR OF DEFECTIVE FACILITIES AND REPAI R
OF DAMAGE TO CITY STREETS 1 0
ARTICLE 10 REARRANGEMENT OF FACILITIES 1 1
A . Expense of Grantee 1 1
B . Expense of Others 1 2
C . Rearrangement of the Facilities of Others 1 3
D . Notice 1 3

ARTICLE II GRANTEE' S REMOVAL OR ABANDONMEN T
OF FACILITIES 1 3
ARTICLE 12 COMPLETION OF WORK 1 5
ARTICLE 13 RECOVERY OF COSTS OF REPAIR S
AND UNPAID FEES 16
ARTICLE 14 BOND 1 8
ARTICLE 15 INSURANCE 19

Ordinance No . 1587 (2013 Series )

ARTICLE 16 INDEMNIFICATION BY GRANTEE 20
ARTICLE 17 CHANGES IN CONTROL OF FRANCHISE 20
ARTICLE 18 WAIVER OF BREACH 23
ARTICLE 19 DEFAULT 24
ARTICLE 20 SCOPE OF RESERVATION 24
ARTICLE 21 NOTICE 24
ARTICLE 22 SUCCESSORS 25
ARTICLE 23 ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHISE 25
ARTICLE 24 FORCE MAJEURE 25
ARTICLE 25 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES 2 6
ARTICLE 26 ATTORNEYS' FEES 2 7
ARTICLE 27 CONDEMNATION 27

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

ARTICLEI

NATURE OF FRANCHISE
A . Grant of Franchise .

1. The City of San Luis Obispo ( hereinafter referred to as " City"), hereby grants t o Phillips 66 Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware company, ( hereinafter referred to as " Grantee") pursuan t to the provisions of Article X of the San Luis Obispo City Charter, Article XI, Section 9(b) of th e California Constitution, and Section 39732( b) of the California Government Code, the non - exclusive right, privilege and franchise, subject, however, to all the limitations and restriction s herein contained, to construct, erect, maintain, operate, repair, renew, abandon, and change th e size of and remove pipelines, not to exceed twelve ( 12) inches nominal internal diameter, for the transportation of oil, products thereof, hydrocarbon gases and other gas necessary for th e operation and maintenance of the pipelines, water and mixtures thereof, movable by pipeline, in , under, along, and across the public streets, ways, alleys and places within the City of San Lui s Obispo ( hereinafter collectively referred to as " streets"), as described in Exhibit No . 1, attache d hereto and made a part hereof.

2. The term of the franchise granted under this Ordinance shall be for a term of te n 10) years, commencing with the date on which it is accepted by Grantee .

3. Unless otherwise specifically stated, the following provisions shall govern th e interpretation and construction of the franchise granted herein :
a) This franchise shall include the right, for the period and subject to th e conditions hereof, to construct, erect, maintain, operate, repair, renew, abandon and change th e size and remove the said pipelines, if any, of Grantee, as laid and constructed in said streets . b) The terms and conditions of this franchise shall also apply to any pipe or othe r facilities of Grantee which are located within the right of way of any existing public road o r street at the time such road or street becomes a City street through annexation or otherwise , subject to any other existing rights enjoyed by Grantee . c) Grantee shall not be relieved of its obligation to promptly comply with an y provision of this franchise by failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance . d) Any right or power conferred, or duty imposed upon any officer, employee , department, or other City entity, by the terms of this franchise, may be legally transferred to an y other City officer, employee, department, or other City entity. e) Grantee shall have no recourse whatsoever against the City for any loss, cost, expense, or damage suffered by Grantee and arising out of any provision or requirement of thi s franchise or its lawful enforcement by the City .
f) This franchise does not relieve Grantee of any applicable requirements of th e San Luis Obispo Municipal Code or of any federal, state, or City law, ordinance, rule, regulation,

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

or specification, including, but not limited to, any requirement relating to street work, stree t excavation permits, or the use, removal or relocation of property in streets, except as specificall y prescribed herein.
g) This franchise is non- exclusive . Neither the granting of this franchise nor any of the provisions contained herein shall be construed to prevent the City from granting an y identical or similar franchise to any other person .
h) The compensation provided for in this franchise is for (i) the rights an d privileges granted by this franchise, and (ii) the right and privilege granted to the Grantee to construct, erect, maintain, operate, repair, renew, abandon and change the size of and remove th e said pipelines pursuant to this franchise within the City's streets . The City expressly reserves the right to impose and collect from Grantee, on a non-discriminatory basis, its normal dul y established processing and inspection fees from street cutting and excavation permits to th e extent such fees are imposed generally on all non- governmental applicants for such permit s within the City .
i)Any activities involving the use of a pipeline system for the transmitting of oil , products thereof, hydrocarbon gases and other gas necessary for the operation and maintenanc e of the pipelines, water and mixtures thereof, which are not specifically authorized under thi s franchise are prohibited under this franchise . Except as provided in Article 2, an y telecommunication or other uses not authorized in this franchise Ordinance must be approved b y the City under a separate franchise .

W If any provision of this franchise, or the application of this franchise to an y person or circumstance is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction or is not i n compliance with any requirement of the Public Utilities Commission, the City, or any othe r federal or state body or agency having jurisdiction over Grantee' s franchise activities, th e remainder of this franchise Ordinance, or the application of this franchise to persons o r circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid or not in such compliance, shall not b e affected thereby .

B . Limitations Upon Grant .

1. No privilege or exemption is granted or conferred by this franchise except thos e specifically prescribed herein .

2. Any privilege claimed under this franchise by Grantee in any street shall b e subordinate to any prior lawful occupancy of the street .

3. The rights and privileges of this franchise are granted solely to Grantee except as provided within this franchise Ordinance . This franchise is not be to sold, transferred, lease d assigned, or disposed of as a whole or in part, either by forced sale, merger, consolidation, or otherwise, without the City's prior consent as described in Article 17, infra, or as otherwis e expressly provided herein . The City agrees that such prior consent shall not be unreasonabl y withheld or conditioned .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

C . Rights Reserved to the City .

1. The rights reserved to the City under this franchise Ordinance are in addition to all other rights of the City, whether authorized by the San Luis Obispo City Charter, San Lui s Obispo City Municipal Code, or any other federal, state, or City law, rule, or regulation . No action, proceeding or exercise of a right shall affect any other rights that may be held by the City .

Grantee, by acceptance of this franchise, shall be bound thereby and shall comply with an y action or requirement of the City in its exercise of any such right or power .

2. The City shall have the power and right at all times during the term of thi s franchise to require Grantee to conform to the laws, rules and regulations governing th e operation of pipelines now or hereafter adopted by the City Council to the extent permitted b y law .

3. The City may enforce, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the inspectio n and testing of pipelines, pursuant to state and federal standards and require appropriat e remuneration and fees to cover such enforcement activities .

ARTICLE2

APPURTENANCE S
The Grantee shall have the right, subject to the prior approval of the City Public Work s Department, to construct and maintain such traps, manholes, conduits, valves, appliances , attachments, and appurtenances ( hereinafter for convenience collectively referred to as appurtenances"), as may be necessary or convenient for the proper maintenance and operatio n of the pipelines under said franchise . Said appurtenances shall be so located as to conform to an y order of the City Public Works Department in regard thereto and not to interfere with the use o f the streets for travel . The Grantee shall have the right, subject to such ordinances, rules, o r regulation as are now or may hereafter be in force, to make all necessary excavations in sai d street for the construction and repair of said pipelines and appurtenances subject to the prior approval of the City Public Works Department . " Appurtenances" shall also include any adjunc t communications lines and/ or conduits as coaxial cable, optical fiber, wire, or other transmissio n lines or forms of transmission, and associated equipment and devices located in, upon, along , across, under or over the streets of the City, the sole function of which is to monitor or contro l the operation or safety of the pipeline system via the distribution of video, audio, voice, or dat a signals . An adjunct communications line shall not include any facility which distributes, throug h any means, to subscribers or persons other than Grantee, the signal of one or more broadcas t television or radio stations or other sources of video, audio, voice, or data signals .

ARTICLE3

LOCATION OF PIPELINE S
So far as is practicable and within the requirements of the California State Fire Marshall , any pipeline hereinafter laid shall be located along the edge or shoulder of the streets or in the

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

parking areas adjacent thereto so as not unreasonably to disturb the flow of traffic an d wher e possible shall be laid in the unpaved portion of the street .

ARTICLE4

CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINE S
A. Terms of Construction . The pipelines and appurtenances laid, constructed o r maintained under the provisions of this franchise shall be installed, maintained, and inspected by the Grantee in a satisfactory, safe, and workmanlike manner, of good material, and in conformit y with all ordinances, rules, or regulations now or hereafter adopted or prescribed by the Cit y Council, State, or Federal authorities .

B. Restoration of Streets . The work of laying, constructing, maintaining, operating , renewing, repairing, changing size and moving any of the pipeline system contemplated by thi s franchise and all other work in exercise of this franchise shall be conducted according to the provisions of the City's encroachment ordinances from time to time prevailing, and otherwise i n accordance with federal and state law and applicable City ordinances, and with the least possibl e hindrance or interference to the use of City roads by the public or by the City of San Lui s Obispo, and Grantee shall provide all necessary warning, safety and traffic control devices as ar e or may be required by City, State or Federal regulations . All excavations shall be back filled and adequately compacted . As part of any work completed under provisions of this franchis e agreement, the surface of City streets shall be repaired and replaced to meet current City standards and specifications . Under no circumstances shall the surface of City streets be place d in a manner less than as good and serviceable condition as existed at the beginning of said work , to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department .

ARTICLE5

COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTIO N
The Grantee, in good faith, shall commence with work of laying the pipelines and appurtenances within four (4) months from the date of passage of the approval of this franchise , and if any such pipelines be not so commenced within said time, this franchise shall be declare d forfeited ; provided, however, that if the Grantee is maintaining and operating an existing pipelin e system over the route referred to in Article I herein, it shall be deemed to be in compliance wit h the foregoing . The Grantee shall not commence the construction of any new pipelines under the provision of this franchise or add to such existing pipeline system, if any there be, until it firs t shall have applied for and obtained a permit therefore from the City Public Works Department .

The application of the Grantee shall show the following facts : the length, approximat e depth and proposed location of the pipeline proposed to be laid or constructed, the size an d description of the pipeline intended to be used, and such other relevant facts as the City Publi c Works Department may require . The Grantee shall pay any and all encroachment permit fees of the City. Upon the completion of the construction of any pipelines constructed pursuant to sai d franchise, the Grantee shall render a statement to the City of San Luis Obispo showing in detai l the permit or permits issued and the total length of pipeline, the construction of which was authorized under such permit, or permits, and the total length of pipeline actually laid, and the

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

Grantee shall make payment to the City for the pipelines which have actually been constructe d under said franchise as provided in Article 7, Section C .

ARTICLE6

MAPS AND REPORTS TO BE FURNISHE D
A. Within six (6) months of the effective date of this franchise for existing pipelines , and within ninety ( 90) days following the date in which any additional pipelines have been lai d or constructed under this franchise, the Grantee shall file a map in such form as may be require d by the City Public Works Department showing the accurate location and size of all its facilitie s then in place, and shall, upon installation of any additional facilities or upon removal, change o r abandonment of all or any portion thereof, file a revised map or maps showing the location an d size of all such additional and/or abandoned facilities as of this date . Cathodic protection is to b e used for all facilities installed or maintained pursuant to this franchise . For facilities previousl y in liquid service and where the liquids have been removed and the facilities inerted, or fo r facilities previously in gas service that are not pressurized, cathodic protection shall b e maintained consistent with State Fire Marshall or other agency requirements . A description of al l the protective devices shall be furnished to the City Public Works Department which shall sho w the location and types of anodes, including a description of methods to be used as a protectio n against corrosion and electrolytic leakage .

B. Grantee shall file with the City Finance Director, within thirty ( 30) days after the expiration of the calendar year, or fractional calendar year, following the date of the granting o f this franchise and within thirty ( 30) days after the expiration of each calendar year thereafter, tw o copies of a report verified by the oath of Grantee or by the oath of a duly authorize d representative of Grantee, showing, for the immediately preceding franchise period, the length o f main lines in streets, the nominal internal diameter of such main lines, the rate per foot per yea r when applicable) and the total amount due to the City . In this report, Grantee shall also sho w any change in franchise footage since the last franchise report, segregating such footage as t o new main lines and adjunct communications lines laid, old main lines and adjunc t communications lines removed, old main lines and adjunct communications lines abandoned i n place, and the footage of main lines and adjunct communications lines in territory annexed by the City since the last franchise report .

C. Grantee shall file with the City Public Works Department within sixty ( 60) days after the end of the calendar year a report, in duplicate, showing the permit number of each permit obtained for the installation of new main lines during the immediately preceding franchis e report period, together with the length and size of said main lines .

ARTICLE7

COMPENSATION TO THE CITY
A . During the term of this franchise, Grantee shall pay to the City an annual fee fo r this franchise, said fee to be those fees prescribed by the California Public Utilities Code sectio n 6231 . 5, provided that the rate is subject to increase to the maximum rate established i n subsequent amendments of the California Public Utilities Code . Annual payments to be made

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

pursuant to this franchise shall be due and payable in arrears April 1 of each year of thi s franchise . The initial payment hereunder shall be prorated for the remainder of the curren t calendar year based on a 365-day year .

At the time of payment of fees by Grantee, Grantee shall file a verified statement with th e Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo, with a copy to the City Public Works Department showin g in detail the number of lineal feet and the diameter thereof, expressed in inches, of pipeline s covered by this franchise during the previous calendar year, or portion thereof .

The compensation provided for in this Article shall be subject to an increase after the firs t year of the franchise and each subsequent year during the term of this franchise, based on th e provisions of California Public Utilities Code Section 6231 . 5, as amended .

The fees set forth will be adjusted annually each year by the annual percentage change in the U . S . Bureau of Labor Statistics ( or successor agency) consumer price index for all urba n consumers ( CPI-U) all cities average for the prior calendar year .

Notwithstanding the provisions as otherwise stated in this Article and franchise, th e Grantee shall be liable to pay the City the annual fee for the period to and including the date o f either actual removal of the facilities or the effective date of the abandonment " in place," an d until the Grantee shall have fully complied with all of the provisions of law or ordinance s relative to such abandonments .

In the event of partial abandonment of facilities as provided in the Ordinance, or in the event of partial removal of such facilities by the Grantee, the payments otherwise due the Cit y for occupancy of the streets by such facilities shall be reduced by the length and diameter o f pipelines abandoned or the actual pipeline removed beginning with the first day of the nex t succeeding franchise year, and for each franchise year thereafter ; provided, however, that the base rate shall be modified to reflect the adjustment ( per this Article) applicable to suc h abandoned or removed pipeline at the beginning of the next succeeding franchise year followin g abandonment or removal .

Grantee shall pay to the City, upon demand, the cost of all repairs made by the City t o public property arising out of the operations of the Grantee under this franchise . Any fees charged or expenses charged to Grantee by City pursuant to this Article, or any other provisio n of this franchise Ordinance, unless disputed in good faith, shall be paid when due or shall b e deemed delinquent . Any undisputed delinquent amounts shall be charged a 10% penalty and, i n addition, shall accrue interest commencing thirty (30) days after the due date, at a rate of one an d one-half percent ( 1 .5%) per month ( based upon a 30-day calendar month) or any lesser amount if required by law . Any neglect, omission or refusal by said Grantee to pay any undispute d delinquent franchise fee with any late charges, within thirty (30) days of delinquency, at th e times or in the manner herein provided, shall be grounds for a declaration of a forfeiture of thi s franchise and of all rights hereunder .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

Payments are to be made to the City Finance Department, 990 Palm Street, San Lui s Obispo, California 93401, or at such place as the City shall, from time to time, designate in writing .

B. Grantee shall pay the City a granting fee of $5,000 . 00 within thirty (30) days after the date the City Council adopts this franchise Ordinance .

C. Grantee shall pay the City Public Works Department, within sixty (60) days afte r the end of each calendar year, for each year during the life of this franchise, an initia l construction charge calculated at the rate of One Dollar ($1 . 00) per foot for all new main line s laid pursuant to this franchise Ordinance during the preceding year .

D. Right of Inspection . The City shall have the right to inspect Grantee' s pipelin e accounting and other records relating to its annual report and to audit and re-compute any and al l accounts payable under this franchise . Costs of audit shall be borne by Grantee when an audit results in an increase of more than five percent of Grantee' s annual payments to the City .

Acceptance of any payment shall not be construed as a release, waiver, acquiescence, or accor d and satisfaction of any claim the City may have for further or additional sums payable under thi s franchise or for the performance of any other obligation hereunder .

ARTICLE8

EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT AND CREW S
At all times during the term of this franchise, the Grantee shall maintain or arrange for , on a 24-hour-a-day basis, adequate emergency equipment and a properly trained emergency crew within a reasonable distance from any pipelines, appurtenances and facilities installed o r maintained pursuant hereto for the purpose of monitoring the leak detection system and th e communications systems if applicable, and of shutting off the pressure and the flow of content s of such facilities in the event of an emergency resulting from an earthquake, act of war, civi l disturbance, fire, flood, or any other cause or nature whatsoever .

ARTICLE9

REPAIR OF DEFECTIVE FACILITIES AN D

REPAIR OF DAMAGE TO CITY STREET S
If any portion of any street shall be damaged by any reason related to the Grantee' s operations pursuant to this franchise including defective facilities laid or constructed under thi s franchise, Grantee shall, at its own expense, repair any defect of its facilities and put such street in as good condition as it was before such damage was incurred, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department . If Grantee, within ten ( 10) days after receipt of written notice fro m the City Public Works Department instructing it to repair such damage, fails to commence to comply with such instruction, or, thereafter, fails diligently to prosecute such work t o completion, then the City Public Works Director immediately may take any actions which are, i n the sole judgment and discretion of the City Public Works Director, necessary to repair sai d damage . Any and all costs and expenses so incurred shall be the sole responsibility of Grante e including the current rate of overhead being charged by the City for reimbursable work, which

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

cost and expense, by the acceptance of this franchise, Grantee agrees to pay upon demand . If such damage constitutes an immediate danger to public health or safety requiring the immediat e repair thereof, the City Public Works Department, without notice, may repair such damage an d Grantee agrees to pay the cost thereof upon demand .

ARTICLE 1 0

REARRANGEMENT OF FACILITIE S
A . Expense of Grantee .

1. If any of the Grantee' s facilities, in the opinion of the City Public Works Director, shall endanger the public or interfere with the use of any street by the public or, for publi c purposes, the City shall have the right to require the Grantee, and the Grantee shall repair , replace, move, alter or relocate the same ( hereinafter called " rearrangement") to avoid such danger, interference or obstruction, in conformity with the written notice of the City Publi c Works Department, at the Grantee' s sole expense .

2. The City reserves the right to change the grade, to construct grade separatio n facilities, to change the width or to alter or change the location, of any street which is locate d within the service area for which this franchise is granted . If any of the facilities heretofore or hereafter constructed, installed or maintained by Grantee pursuant to this franchise on, along , under, over, in, upon or across any street are located in a manner which prevents or interfere s with the change of grade, traffic needs, operation, maintenance, improvement, repair , construction, reconstruction, widening, grade separation, alteration or relocation of the street, o r any work or improvement upon the street, Grantee shall relocate permanently or temporarily, a s directed at the sole discretion of the City Public Works Director, any such facility at no expens e to the City, upon receipt of a written request from the City Public Works Department to do so , and shall commence such work, by beginning engineering, surveying, or other pre-constructio n activities, on or before the date specified in such written request, which date shall be not les s than sixty ( 60) days from receipt of such written request . Grantee shall thereafter diligently prosecute such work to completion . Should Grantee neglect or fail to relocate its facilities in a timely manner after receipt of any such notice, in addition to the liquidated damages as set fort h in Article 25, Grantee shall be responsible for and shall reimburse the City for any and al l additional costs or expenses incurred by City due to or resulting from such delay in the relocatio n of the facilities plus, where applicable, the current rate of overhead being charged by the City fo r reimbursable work. If such street be subsequently constituted a state highway, while it remains a state highway the rights of the State of California shall be as provided in Section 680 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California .

3. The City reserves the right to lay, construct, repair, alter, relocate and maintai n subsurface, surface or other improvements of any type of description in a governmental but no t proprietary capacity within, over or under the streets over which this franchise is granted . If the City finds that the location or relocation of such subsurface, surface or other improvement s conflicts with the facilities laid, constructed or maintained under this franchise, whether suc h facilities were laid before or after the improvements of the City, Grantee shall relocat e permanently or temporarily, as directed at the sole discretion of the City Public Works Director,

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

any such facility at no expense to the City upon receipt of a written request from the City Publi c Works Department to do so and shall commence such work, by beginning engineering , surveying or other pre-construction activities, on or before the date specified in such writte n request, which date shall not be less than sixty (60) days from receipt of such written request .

The Grantee shall thereafter diligently prosecute such work to completion . Should Grante e neglect or fail to relocate its facilities in a timely manner after receipt of any such notice, i n addition to the liquidated damages as set forth in Article 25, Grantee shall be responsible for an d shall reimburse the City for any and all additional costs or expenses incurred by City due to o r resulting from such delay in the relocation of the facilities plus, where applicable, the current rat e of overhead being charged by the City for reimbursable work . If such street be subsequentl y constituted a state highway, while it remains a state highway the rights of the State of Californi a shall be as provided in Section 680 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California .

4. If Grantee, after the notice provided for herein from the City, fails or refuses to relocate permanently or temporarily its facilities located in, on, upon, along, under, over, across , or above any street, or to pave, surface, grade, repave, resurface, or regrade as required pursuan t to any provision of this franchise, the City may cause the work to be done, and shall keep a n itemized account of the entire costs thereof, and Grantee shall hold harmless the City, its officer s and employees from any liability which may arise or be claimed to arise from the moving , cutting or alteration of any of Grantee' s facilities, or any necessary relocation of the facilities o f other utilities .

5. Grantee agrees to, and shall, reimburse the City for such cost within thirty (30 ) days after presentation to Grantee of an itemized account arising out of the actions taken in thi s Article 10A .

B . Expense of Others .

1. The City shall have the right to require the Grantee to rearrange any part of th e Grantees' facilities for the accommodation of the City when such rearrangement is done for th e accommodation of any water, electric, gas or other utility system now or hereafter owned o r operated by the City .

Except as otherwise provided in Article 10A, such arrangement shall be at the City' s expense .

2. The City shall have the right to require the Grantee to rearrange any part of th e Grantee' s facilities for the accommodation of any person, firm or corporation . When such rearrangement is done for the accommodation of any person, firm or corporation, other than on e of said utility systems owned or operated by the City, the cost of such rearrangement shall b e borne by the accommodated party . Such accommodated party, in advance of such rearrangement , shall deposit with the Grantee or the City Clerk cash or a letter of credit or other cash equivalen t in an amount, as in the reasonable discretion of the City Public Works Department, shall b e required to pay the costs of such rearrangement, and such accommodated party shall execute an instrument agreeing to indemnify and hold harmless the Grantee from any and all damages or claims caused by such rearrangement .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

3. The rearrangement referred to in subsection ( 1) and ( 2) of Section B of thi s Article 10 shall be accomplished in conformity with the written notice of the City Public Work s Department .

C. Rearrangement of the Facilities of Others .

Nothing in this franchise shall be construed to require the City to move, alter or relocat e any of its facilities upon said streets, at its own expense, for the convenience, accommodation or necessity of any other public utility, person, firm or corporation now or hereafter owning a public utility system of any type or nature, to move, alter or relocate any part of its system upon said streets for the convenience, accommodation or necessity of the Grantee .

D. Notice.

The Grantee shall be given not less than sixty ( 60) days written notice of an y rearrangement of facilities which the Grantee is required to make hereunder . Such notice shal l specify in reasonable detail the work to be done by the Grantee and shall specify a reasonabl e time that such work is to be accomplished . In the event that the City shall change the provision s of any such notice given to the Grantee, the Grantee shall be given an additional period of no t less than thirty (30) days to initiate such work .

ARTICLE 1 1

GRANTEE' S REMOVAL OR ABANDONMENT OF FACILITIE S
A. The City reserves the right to require Grantee to remove its facilities from the Cit y streets and City public property in the event of the non-renewal, revocation or termination of thi s franchise or at any time thereafter with respect to those facilities abandoned in place, or for th e facilities affected by the permanent discontinuance of all or a portion of the facilities . Further, so long as any abandoned facilities installed under the authority of this franchise remain in a Cit y street, Grantee shall maintain a performance bond, security fund, or other form of collateral , acceptable to the City, sufficient to cover the cost of the removal of all such facilities from th e City streets .

B. At the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise or of the permanen t discontinuance of the use of all or a portion of its facilities, Grantee shall, within thirty (30) day s thereafter, make written application to the City Public Works Department for authority either :

1. To abandon all or a portion of such facilities in place ; or

2. To remove all or a portion of such facilities . Such application shal l describe the facilities desired to be abandoned, their location with reference to City streets, an d shall describe with reasonable accuracy the physical condition of such facilities . As part of the application for removal or abandonment of these facilities, Grantee shall submit a soil test, take n within thirty (30) days of the submittal of the application, for those materials to be teste d annually pursuant to federal, state and local laws . A soil test shall be taken along that portion o f the pipeline to be removed or abandoned at such intervals as directed in writing by the City

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

Public Works Department and reasonably consistent with established sampling protocols . The City Public Works Department shall determine whether any abandonment or removal which i s thereby proposed may be effected without detriment to the public interest and the condition s under which such proposed abandonment or removal may be effected . The City Public Work s Department shall then notify Grantee of the City' s determinations . Grantee shall also obtain permits to abandon or remove the pipeline from the City Public Works Department for al l pipelines prior to the removal, abandonment or discontinuation of use of all or a portion of Grantee' s facilities . The City also reserves the right to require removal of Grantee' s abandone d facilities in place at any time following the expiration, revocation or termination of thi s franchise . Grantee shall be required to meet the bonding, insurance, indemnification and annua l franchise fee requirements of this franchise, for facilities abandoned in place .

C. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of Notification from the City Public Work s Department pursuant to Article 11 .B .2 above, Grantee shall apply for a permit from the Cit y Public Works Department to abandon or remove the facility .

D. Grantee shall, within sixty (60) days after obtaining such permit, commence an d diligently prosecute to completion the work authorized by the City's permit .

E. In the event Grantee applies to remove its facilities, and the City Public Work s Department determines that any or all of the facilities cannot be removed due to a moratoriu m preventing work in the City streets, the payment of annual franchise fees shall be deferred durin g any such moratorium period, provided that Grantee promptly removes its facilities after notice b y the City Public Works Department of the cessation of the moratorium and direction to remov e such facilities . In the event Grantee does not promptly remove such facilities as directed, an y deferred annual franchise fees shall be due and payable within thirty ( 30) days of notice to pay .

Deferred annual franchise fees shall otherwise be waived .

F. Failure to Comply with City' s Orders Regarding the Removal or Abandonment of Facilities .

1. If any orders or prescribed conditions relating to the abandonment of an y facilities are not complied with, the City Public Works Department may impose such additiona l orders and conditions as the City deems appropriate, including an order that the Grantee remov e any or all of such facilities . Grantee shall comply with such additional orders .

2. In the event that Grantee fails to comply with the terms and conditions o f abandonment or removal as may be required by this franchise Ordinance, and within such time as may be prescribed by the City Public Works Department, then the City may remove or caus e to be removed such facilities at Grantee' s expense . Grantee shall pay to the City all of the cost s of removing and disposing of these facilities, as well as returning the rights- of-way occupie d pursuant to this franchise, including, but not limited to : (a) the cost of all environmental testin g the City must conduct to determine the environmental condition of any rights- of-way occupie d pursuant to this franchise and to ascertain what procedures the City must undertake, if any, t o return any such rights-of-way to the environmental condition required by applicable Federal , State or local environmental laws ; (b) all cleanup costs, disposal costs, and any other costs

i
Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

associated with returning these rights- of-way to such environmental condition ; ( c) all costs of removing, storing, and disposing of the Grantee' s facilities ; ( d) all costs of returning all streets to the structural conditions they were in immediately at the beginning of Grantee' s use of thes e streets pursuant to this franchise agreement ; ( e) plus the current rate of overhead being charge d by the City for reimbursable work .
3 . If, at the nonrenewal, revocation or termination of this franchise, or of th e permanent discontinuance of the use of all or a portion of its facilities, Grantee, within thirty ( 30 ) days thereafter, fails or refuses to make written application for the above- mentioned authority t o remove or abandon its facilities, the City Public Works Department shall make the determinatio n as to whether the facilities shall be abandoned in place or removed . The City Public Work s Department shall then notify Grantee of its determinations . Grantee shall thereafter comply wit h the applicable provisions of this Article 11 .

G . For those facilities Grantee abandons in place, Grantee shall be required to maintain an acceptable performance bond, letter of credit or security fund, as determined by th e City Public Works Department, to cover the costs for the removal of any such abandone d facilities from the City streets for any and all periods of time, including those periods followin g the expiration, revocation or termination of this franchise, that Grantee' s facilities remain in th e City streets . Grantee shall be required to maintain insurance and to indemnify the City pursuan t to this Article during any periods the abandoned facilities remain within the City streets .

Provided, however, that any pipelines which cannot be removed due to a moratorium preventin g work in the City streets, may be deferred from the payment of the annual franchise fee . The payment of annual franchise fees may be deferred during any such moratorium period, provide d that Grantee promptly removes its facilities after notice by the City Public Works Department of the cessation of the moratorium and direction to remove such Facilities . In the event Grante e does not promptly remove such facilities as directed, any deferred annual franchise fees shall b e due and payable within thirty ( 30) days of notice to pay .

ARTICLE 12

COMPLETION OF WORK
In the event that the Grantee fails to commence any work or act and diligently proceed therewith or to complete any such act or work required of the Grantee by the terms of thi s franchise within the time limits required hereby ( and except as is otherwise provided in Article s 10 and 11), the City may cause such act or work to be completed by the City or, at the election o f the City, by a private contractor . The Grantee agrees to pay the City, within thirty (30) days afte r delivery of an itemized bill, the cost of performing such act or work plus an amount equal t o fifteen percent ( 15%) thereof for overhead . If the Grantee is dissatisfied with any decision mad e by the City Public Works Department hereunder or the determination of the cost of any wor k performed by the City pursuant to this Agreement, it may petition the City Council to review th e same within ten (10) days after such decision or determination .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

ARTICLE 13

RECOVERY OF COSTS OF REPAIRS AND UNPAID FEE S
If the Grantee has not paid the City for such fees and expenses and/or liquidated damag e s incurred by or payable to the City as hereinabove set forth, the City may institute the followin g collection procedures ( which procedures are in addition to any other rights, in law or equity , which the City has to correct amounts due under this franchise and to enforce the terms of thi s franchise):

A. The City Public Works Department shall keep an itemized account of the expenses incurred by the City pursuant hereto, or the fees unpaid by the Grantee . Sixty (60) day s after the presentation of the bill to the Grantee therefore, the City Public Works Department shal l prepare and file with the City Clerk a report specifying the work done by the City, or the unpai d fees, the itemized and total cost of the work, a description of the work performed, and the nam e and address of the Grantee entitled to notice pursuant to this Article .

B. Upon receipt of said report, the City Clerk shall present it to the City Council for consideration . The City Council shall fix a time, date and place for hearing said report, and an y protest or objections thereto . The City Clerk shall cause notice of said hearing to be posted in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and served by certified mail, postage prepaid , addressed to the Grantee as set forth herein . Such notice shall be given at least ten (10) day s prior to the date set for hearing and shall specify the day, hour, and place when the City Counci l will hear and pass upon the City Public Works Department' s report, together with any objection s or protests which may be filed as hereinafter provided .

C. The Grantee may file written protests or objections with the City Clerk at any time prior to the time set for the hearing on the report of the City Public Works Department . Any such protest or objection must contain a description of the work or unpaid fee or liquidate d damages in which the Grantee is contesting and the grounds of such protest or objection and th e date it was received by him . He shall present such protest or objection to the City Council at th e time set for the hearing, and no other protest or objection shall be considered, except as determined by the City Council for good cause shown .

D. Upon the day and hour fixed for the hearing, the City Council shall hear and pas s upon the report of the City Public Works Department together with any such objections or protests, make such revision, correction or modification to the charge as it may deem just ; an d when the City Council is satisfied with the correctness of the charge, the report ( as revised , corrected or modified), together with the charge, shall be confirmed or rejected . The decision of the City Council on the report and the charge, and on all protests or objections, shall be the fina l and conclusive decision of the City .

E. The City Council may thereupon order that such charge shall be made a persona l obligation of the Grantee or assess such charge against the property of the Grantee .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

1. If the City Council orders that the charge shall be a personal obligation o f the Grantee, it shall direct the City Attorney to collect the same on behalf of the City by use o f all appropriate legal remedies .

2. If the City Council orders that the charge shall be assessed against th e property of the Grantee, it shall confirm the assessment, cause the same to be recorded on th e assessment roll, and thereafter, said assessment shall constitute a special assessment against a lien upon any property held in the City of San Luis Obispo by the Grantee .

F. The validity of any assessment made under the provisions of this franchise shal l not be contested in any action or proceeding unless the same is commenced within ninety ( 90 ) days after the assessment is placed upon the assessment roll as provided herein .

G. The City Council, in its discretion, may determine that assessments in amounts o f 500 .00 or more shall be payable in not more than five (5) equal annual installments . The City Council' s determination to allow payment of such assessments in installments, the number of installments, whether they shall bear interest, and the rate thereof shall be adopted by a resolution prior to the confirmation of the assessment .

H. Immediately upon its being placed on the assessment roll, the assessment shall b e deemed to be complete, the several amounts assessed shall be payable, and the assessments shal l be liens against the property of the grantee in the City of San Luis Obispo . The lien shall b e subordinate to all existing special assessment liens previously imposed upon the same property , and shall be paramount to all other liens except for state, county, and municipal taxes with whic h it shall be upon a parity . The lien shall continue until the assessment and all interest due an d payable thereon are paid .
1 . All such assessments remaining unpaid after thirty (30) days from the dat e of recording on the assessment roll shall become delinquent and shall bear interest at the highes t rate permitted by law from and after said date .

I. After confirmation of the report, certified copies of the assessment shall be filed with the County Auditor on or before August 10th . The descriptions of the parcels reported shal l be those used for the same parcels on the County Assessors map books for the current year .

J. The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the sam e manner as ordinary county taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties an d procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary county taxes . All laws applicable to the levy collection and enforcement of taxes shall be applicable to such assessment .

If the City Council has determined that the assessment shall be paid in installments, eac h installment and any interest thereon shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary City taxe s is in successive years . If any installment is delinquent, the amount thereof is subject to the same penalties and procedure for sale as provided for ordinary county taxes .

K. All money recovered by payment of the charge or assessment or from the sale o f the property at foreclosure sale shall be paid to the City Finance Director .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

ARTICLE 1 4
BON D
A . Grantee shall, concurrently with the filing of and acceptance of award of thi s franchise, file with the City Clerk, and yearly thereafter, maintain in full force and effect, a bon d guaranteeing to the City of San Luis Obispo the penal sum of Five Million Dollar s 5,000,000 .00), with a surety to be approved by the City Public Works Director and City Risk Manager, conditioned that Grantee shall, well and truly observe, fulfill and perform each an d every term and condition of this franchise, and in a material breach of condition of sai d franchise, at the discretion of the City Public Works Director, a percentage of the amount of th e bond shall be paid to the City according to the following schedule, which cumulative amount for any said breach not cured within the time specified below shall not exceed the full amount of the bond, in addition to any damages recoverable by the City and shall be recoverable from the principal and sureties of the bond :

Following receipt of notice by Certified
Mail sent by the City, failure to cur e
said breach of condition, within : Penal sum paid to City :
10 business days 5% of the amount of the bond
30 calendar days 30% cumulative amount of the bon d
60 calendar days 70% cumulative amount of the bon d
90 calendar days 100% cumulative amount of the bon d
The amount of time specified above shall be tolled while City and Grantee resolve, or until the City Council rules on, any written appeal, protest or objection to the City Public Work s Director' s decision as set forth in Articles 12, 13, 19, and 25, and elsewhere in this agreement ; however, if Grantee' s appeal, protest or objection is found by the City Council to be the result o f bad-faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or intended to cause unnecessary delay, suc h amount of time shall not be tolled .

If said bond is not so filed, the award of this franchise and privileges will be set aside an d any money paid therefore will be forfeited . Whenever a bond is taken and deemed to b e liquidated damages for any breach of a term or condition of this franchise, the Grantee mus t immediately file another bond of like amount and character, and if the Grantee fails to do so within the time set by the City Public Works Director, the City Council may, by resolution , declare said franchise automatically forfeited . Nothing herein shall insulate Grantee from liability in excess of the amount of said bond or shall be construed as a waiver by the City of an y remedy at law against the Grantee for any breach of the terms and conditions of this franchise, o r for any damage, loss or injuries suffered by the City of San Luis Obispo in case of any damage , loss or injury suffered by any person, firm, or corporation by reason of any work done or any activity conducted by the Grantee in exercise of this franchise .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

B . The faithful performance bond shall continue to exist for one ( 1) year followin g the City's approval of any sale, transfer, assignment or other change of ownership of thi s franchise, or of the expiration or termination of this franchise . The City may release said bond prior to the end of the one ( 1) year period upon satisfaction by Grantee of all the obligation s under this franchise .

ARTICLE 15

INSURANC E
A . The Grantee shall procure and shall keep in force for the term of the franchise, at the sole cost and expense of the Grantee, the following insurance . All insurance coverages are to be placed with insurers which have a Best's rating of not less than B+VIII and are admitte d insurance companies in the State of California . Grantee may satisfy the requirements of thi s Article 15 by showing proof of self-insurance reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney an d Risk Manager .

Commercial General Liability Insurance ( CGL): Grantee shall maintain in full force and effect Commercial General Liability Insurance with the following coverages :

1. Personal Injury and Bodily Injury, including death resulting therefrom .

2. Property Damage .

3. Automobile coverage which shall include owned, non-owned and hired vehicles .

The amount of insurance shall not be less than the following : Single limit on the coverag e applying to bodily and personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, property damage , and automobile coverage in the total amount of Ten Million Dollars ($ 10,000,000 .00).

The following endorsements must be provided in the CGL policy :

1. If the insurance policy covers on an " accident" basis, it must be changed to occurrence ."

2. The policy must cover personal injury as well as bodily injury .

3. Blanket contractual liability must be afforded and the policy must contain a cross - liability or severability of interest endorsement .

4. Broad Form Property Damage Liability must be afforded .

5. Products and Completed Operations coverage must be provided .

6. The City, its officers, employees and agents shall be named as additional insure d under the policy . The policy shall include the appropriate insurance company endorsement, a s required under City regulations . The policy shall provide that the insurance will operate as

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

primary insurance . No other insurance effected by the City, whether commercial or self - insurance will be called upon to contribute to a loss hereunder .

The following requirements apply to all insurance to be provided by Grantee :

1. A certificate of insurance shall be furnished to the City . Upon request by the City , Grantee shall provide a certified copy of any insurance policy to the City within forty-fiv e working days of the City' s request .

2. Certificates and policies shall state that the policies will not be canceled o r reduced in coverage or changed in any other material respect without thirty days prior writte n notice to the City .

B . Failure on the part of Grantee to procure or maintain required insurance an d bonding shall constitute a material breach of this franchise upon which the City may immediatel y terminate or suspend this franchise .

ARTICLE 16

INDEMNIFICATION BY GRANTE E
The Grantee, by the acceptance or use of the franchise hereby granted, shall defend , indemnify and shall keep and save free and harmless the City, its officers, agents and/ o r employees against any and all claims, demands or causes of action which may be asserted , prosecuted or established against them, or any of them, for damage to persons, or property, of whatsoever nature, arising out of the use by it of the City streets hereunder or arising out of any of the operations or activities of the Grantee pursuant to this franchise, whether such damage shall be caused by its own sole negligence or negligence concurrent with the City, exceptin g therefrom, however, any claim or demand based on the sole negligence or willful misconduct o f the City and any claim, demand, or cause of action which may be asserted, prosecuted o r established against the City under the provision of the Worker' s Compensation Act for injury to or the death of any of City's officers, agents or employees while acting within the scope of their employment . Grantee shall not be responsible for any criminal, fraudulent or malicious conduct of the City .

ARTICLE 17

CHANGES IN CONTROL OF FRANCHIS E
A . On and after the Grantee' s acceptance of this franchise as provided in Article 2 3 herein, Grantee, its partners, its shareholders, or any other person or persons holding an interes t in Grantee shall not transfer any interest in the franchise where such a transfer would lead t o another person achieving a twenty- five percent ( 25%) or greater interest in this franchise o r change control of this franchise, unless the City approves such a transfer or change in control .

The City shall approve a request for transfer or change in control only if doing so serves the public interest. As used in this franchise Ordinance, " control" includes actual working control i n whatever manner exercised .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

1 .. The City shall deny any such . request for transfer or change in control if the transferor or transferee fails to comply with any applicable provision of this Article of thi s franchise Ordinance, or if the City determines the transferor is in non-compliance with the term s and conditions of this franchise Ordinance, or if a transferee is lacking in experience and/ o r financial ability to operate the pipelines authorized by this franchise Ordinance, or if th e proposed transfer will be detrimental to the public interest .

B . Both the Grantee and the proposed transferee shall inform the City Public Work s Department of any pending change in control of this franchise or of any pending transfer of an interest in the franchise requiring the City's consent pursuant to this Article, and each shal l provide applications containing all documents on which the transfer or change in control i s predicated and all documents which the City Public Works Department determines are necessar y to evaluate the transfer or change of control . These applications shall be signed by dul y authorized representatives of the Grantee and the proposed transferee, with signature s acknowledged by a notary . The appropriate transfer fee described in Article 17(C), infra shal l accompany these applications .
1 . Grantee' s application shall include :
a. Identification and ownership of the proposed transferee in the same detail as i f the proposed transferee were an applicant for an initial grant ; b. Current financial statements showing the financial condition of the Grantee a s of the date of the application . In this application, the Grantee shall also agree to submit financia l statements showing the condition of the franchise as of the closing . Said financial statement s shall have been audited and certified by an independent certified public accountant, and shall b e submitted within ninety ( 90) days of the closing .
2 . The proposed transferee' s application shall contain current financial statements of the proposed transferee and other such information and data, including but not limited to source s of capital, as will demonstrate conclusively that the proposed transferee has all the financia l resources necessary to acquire the pipeline( s), carry out all of the terms an d conditions of th e franchise, remedy any and all defaults and violations of the provisions of this franchise in the Grantee' s past and present operations, make such other improvements an additions as may b e required or proposed to maintain and conduct the services and facilities required under thi s franchise . The proposed transferee will be required to authorize release of financial informatio n to the City from financial institutions relating to information supplied b y the proposed transfere e in support of the application. The proposed transferee' s application shall also include :
a. A construction schedule, describing type and placement of construction, detail phases of construction, and include map(s) correlated to the phases of construction . Map( s) shall include detail on the location, length, depth, and internal diameter of any planned pipelines . b. Copies of any agreements with utility companies for the use of an y facilities including, but not limited to, poles, lines and conduit .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

c . A description of plans for emergency equipment and personnel enabling the transferee to meet the emergency equipment personnel requirements in Article 8 herein . d . Any information indicating as specifically as possible that any principal , manager, or associate of the proposed transferee or a parent entity of the proposed transferee ha s previously been or is currently :
i. A party to a criminal proceeding ( involving felonies o r misdemeanors) in which any of the following offenses have been charged : fraud, embezzlement , tax evasion, bribery, extortion, jury tampering, obstruction of justice ( or other misconduc t affecting public or judicial officers in the performance of their duties), false/misleadin g advertising, perjury, antitrust violations ( state or federal), violation of environmental laws o r regulations, or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing ; ii. A party to a civil proceeding concerning liability for any of th e following : unfair or anticompetitive business practice, antitrust violations ( state or federal ) including instances in which consent decrees were entered, violations of security laws ( state or federal), false/misleading advertising, racketeer influences and corrupt organizations, violation of environmental laws or regulations, or contraband forfeitures ; iii. Subject to any penalty, criminal or civil, involving failure to comply with the requirements of a pipeline franchise ;
iv. Involved in instituting legal action against its franchising authorities ;
v. Involved in revocation/ non-renewal of any other franchise ; e . Any other details, statements, information or references pertinent to the subject matter of such application which shall be required or requested by the City or by an y provision of law .
f. An express and unconditional written acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Franchise Ordinance, in its most current form, as a condition to the transfer .

C . A fee shall be submitted with the applications for the City's consent to transfer o r change of control .

1. Where the City's consent to a transfer or a change of control of this franchis e does not result in the modification of this franchise by adoption of an amending ordinance, thi s fee for each application shall be as set forth in the City's fee ordinance .

2. Where the City's consent to a transfer or a change of control of this franchis e results in the modification of this franchise by adoption of an amending ordinance this fee shal l be as set forth in the City's fee ordinance .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

3 . In the event the costs to process the applications exceed the fees detailed above, the applicants may be required to pay any additional costs incurred by the City in processing th e applicants' requests for the City's consent to the transfer or change of control of this franchise .

Such costs may include the cost incurred for hiring consultants to assist in evaluating th e applications . Such costs shall be paid by the applicants prior to final consideration of the reques t by City Public Works Department, or the City Council, as applicable .

D. Within thirty ( 30) days of the effective date of the City' s approval of the transfe r or change of control, or within thirty (30) days of the date of the close of the transfer or chang e of control, the Grantee shall file with the City Public Works Department : ( 1) a certified copy of each duly executed instrument of such a transfer or change in control ; and ( 2) the submittal of a final accounting and report of all fees due under this franchise . The proposed transferee shall b e responsible for any underpayment, and shall be entitled to a credit for any overpayment . Within ninety ( 90) days of the closing of the transfer or change of control, the Grantee shall submi t financial statements, audited and certified by an independent certified public accountant , showing the condition of the franchise as of the closing . If such duly executed instruments ar e not filed with the City Public Works Department by the deadlines imposed in this Article, or if the final documents are different from the preliminary documents, the City Public Work s Department may inform the proposed transferee that the transfer or change in control is no t deemed to be in force and effect . The City Public Works Department may then administrativel y determine that this franchise is forfeited and the City Council may, without notice, by ordinanc e repeal this franchise .

E. As a condition to the granting of consent to such a transfer or change in control , the City Council may impose such additional terms and conditions upon this franchise and upo n the proposed transferee as are in the public interest . Such additional terms and conditions shall b e imposed by ordinance . Nothing herein contained shall be construed to grant Grantee the right t o transfer or change control of this franchise or any part thereof, except in the manner aforesaid .

This Article 17 applies to any transfer of this franchise, or of any change in control of thi s franchise, whether by operation of law, by voluntary act of Grantee, or otherwise .

ARTICLE 18

WAIVER OF BREAC H
No waiver of the breach of any of the covenants, agreements, restrictions, or condition s of this franchise by the City shall be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach of th e same or other covenant, agreements, restrictions or conditions of this franchise . No delay or omission of the City in exercising the right, power or remedy herein provided in the event o f default shall be construed as a waiver thereof, or acquiescence therein, nor shall the acceptanc e of any payments made in a manner or at a time other than is herein provided be construed as a waiver of or variation in any of the terms of this franchise .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

ARTICLE 19

DEFAUL T
A. In the event that the Grantee shall default in the performance of any of the terms , covenants and conditions herein, the City may give written notice to the Grantee of such defaul t by certified mail . In the event that the Grantee does not commence the work necessary to cur e such default within five (5) business days after such notice is received or prosecute such wor k diligently to completion, the City may declare this franchise forfeited by giving written notic e thereof to the Grantee, whereupon this franchise shall be void and the rights of the Grante e hereunder shall terminate and the Grantee shall execute an instrument of surrender and delive r the same to the City . If the City Council declares this franchise forfeited, it may thereupon an d thereafter exclude the Grantee from further occupancy or use of all City roads and street s authorized under this franchise . A forfeiture of said franchise shall not of itself operate to releas e any bond filed for said franchise . Upon declaring a franchise forfeited, the City Council ma y elect to take and accept any bond as liquidated damages therefore or pursue any other lega l remedy for any damage, loss or injury suffered by the City as a result of such breach or both .

After forfeiture, any bond shall remain in full force and effect for a period of one (1) year unles s exonerated by the City Council . No bond shall be exonerated unless a release is obtained fro m the City Public Works Department and is filed with the City Clerk . The release shall stat e whether all excavations have been back filled, all obstructions removed, and whether the substratum or surface of City streets occupied or used have been placed in good and serviceabl e condition . A release shall not constitute a waiver of any right or remedy which the City of Sa n Luis Obispo may have against the Grantee or any person, firm or corporation for any damage , loss or injury suffered by the City as a result of any work or activity performed by the Grantee i n the exercise of this franchise .

B. No provision herein made for the purpose of securing the enforcement of the ter m s and conditions of this franchise shall be deemed an exclusive remedy, or to afford the exclusiv e procedure, for the enforcement of said terms and conditions, but the remedies and procedur e herein provided, in addition to those provided by law shall be deemed to be cumulative .

ARTICLE 20

SCOPE OF RESERVATIO N
Nothing herein contained shall ever be construed so as to exempt the Grantee fro m compliance with all ordinances of the City now in effect or which may be hereafter adopte d which are not inconsistent with the terms of this franchise . The enumeration herein of specific rights reserved shall not be construed as exclusive, or as limiting the general reservation herei n made or as limiting such rights as the City may now or hereafter have in law .

ARTICLE 2 1

NOTIC E
Any notice required to be given under the terms of this franchise, the manner of servic e of which is not specifically provided for, may be served as follows :

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

Upon the City, by serving the City Clerk, personally or by addressing a written notice to the City Clerk of the City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, an d depositing such notice in the United States mail, postage prepaid .

Upon the Grantee, by addressing a written notice to Grantee addressed to Union Pipelin e Company, c/o Tosco Refining Company, 9645 Santa Fe Springs Road, P . 0 . Box 2628, Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670- 0628, Attn : Supervisor, MW Administration, or such other address as ma y from time to time be furnished in writing by one party to the other and depositing said notice i n the United States mail, postage prepaid . When service of any such notice is made by mail, th e time of such notice shall begin with and run from the date of the deposit of same in the Unite d States mail .

ARTICLE 22

SUCCESSORS
The terms herein shall inure to the benefit of and shall bind, as the case may be, the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, subject, however, to the provisions of Article 17 .

ARTICLE 23

ACCEPTANCE OF FRANCHIS E
A. This franchise is granted and shall be held and enjoyed only upon the terms an d conditions herein contained . By accepting this grant of franchise, Grantee shall agree to be boun d by each and all of the requirements of Article X, Sections 1001 through 1007 of the San Lui s Obispo City Charter .

B. Grantee shall, within ten (10) days after the passage of this franchise Ordinance , file with the City Clerk an express and unconditional written letter of acceptance of, and consen t to, the terms and conditions of this franchise Ordinance, in its current version, and as subsequently amended, pursuant to San Luis Obispo City Charter, Article X, Section 1004 .

C. The parent entity, or entities, if any, of Grantee, shall file a letter with the City , concurrent with Grantee' s letter of acceptance, which guarantees the performance of each an d every term, covenant and condition imposed on Grantee pursuant to the franchise Ordinance .

D. Grantee' s letter of acceptance shall be signed by two ( 2) duly authorize d representatives of Grantee, whose signatures shall be acknowledged by a notary, and shall b e accompanied by the performance bond and evidence of insurance required by this franchis e Ordinance .

ARTICLE 24

FORCE MAJEUR E
The time within which Grantee is obligated hereunder to construct, erect, maintain , operate, repair, renew, change the size of and remove pipelines or other improvements shall be extended for a period of time equal in duration to, and performance in the meantime shall be

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

excused on account of, and for, and during the period of any delay caused by strikes, threats of strikes, lockouts, war, threats of war, insurrection, invasion, acts of God, calamities, violen t action of the elements, fire, action or regulation of any governmental agency law or ordinance , impossibility of obtaining materials, or other things beyond the reasonable control of Grantee .

ARTICLE 25

LIQUIDATED DAMAGE S
A. By acceptance of this franchise, Grantee understands and acknowledges tha t failure to timely comply with any performance requirements stipulated in this franchis e Ordinance will result in damages to the City, and that it is and will be impractical to determin e the actual amount of such damage in the event of delay or nonperformance . Each of the amount s set forth below has been set in recognition of the difficulty of affixing actual damages arisin g from breach of these time of performance requirements . Each of said amounts constitutes a reasonable estimate of these damages . This section does not limit the rights and remedie s available to the City for damages other than the timely compliance with performanc e requirements as describe d in this section . The liquidated damages set forth below shall b e chargeable to the bond, letter of credit or security fund provided for in Article 14, supra, shoul d Grantee not make payment within thirty ( 30) days of written notice by certified mail by the Cit y that the following amount s are due for the following concerns :

1. Failure to provide data, documents, or reports within ten (10) busines s days after receipt of written request by the City, by certified mail, or such longer time as may b e specified in said request : Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 250 .00) per day for each day, or part thereof that each violation continues .

2. Failure to provide to the City within ten (10) business days after receipt of written request by the City, by certified mail, current evidence of insurance and bonding : Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 250 . 00) per day for each day, or part thereof, that each noncomplianc e continues . Nothing in this Section shall preclude immediate termination or suspension of thi s franchise as provided for under Article 15B, supra .

3. Failure by Grantee to timely restore public or private property afte r performance of work, and following Grantee' s receipt of written request by the City to do s o within ten (10) business days thereafter by certified mail : Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($ 250 .00 ) per day or part thereof, that each non-compliance continues . Any fines paid pursuant to thi s Subsection 3 shall be paid solely to the Street Fund of the City Public Works Department .

B . If the City Public Works Department determines that Grantee is liable for liquidated damages, the City Public Works Department shall issue to Grantee by certified mai l written notice of intention to charge liquidated damages . Liquidated damages shall begin to accrue as of the date of the written notice and as set forth in said notice . The notice shall set forth the basis for the liquidated damages and give Grantee a reasonable time in which to remedy th e violation .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series)

C. Grantee shall have the right to appeal any notice to the City Public Work s Department by certified mail, within twenty ( 20) days after issuance of the notice by the City Public Works Department . The City Public Works Department shall hold an administrative hearing within sixty (60) days after receipt of an appeal . The City Public Works Director' s decision shall be the final decision of the City .

D. If Grantee does not appeal the notice within said twenty ( 20) day period, Grante e shall pay the amount( s) of liquidated damages as stated in the notice . If payment is not paid as provided for in this Article, the City may withdraw against the bond provided for in Article 1 4 herein .

ARTICLE 26

ATTORNEYS' FEE S
In the event the City or Grantee brings legal action against the other, or against Grantee' s bonding companies or insurance carriers to compel performance of, or to recover for breach of any covenant, agreement or condition contained in this franchise, or for damages, the prevailin g party shall be entitled to, in addition to any other relief obtained, such reasonable attorneys' fees ARTICLE2 7

CONDEMNATIO N
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein and in accordance with San Luis Obispo City Charter Article X, Section 1005, this Ordinance shall not in any way affect th e right of the City to acquire the property of the Grantee thereof either by purchase or through th e exercise of the right of eminent domain, and nothing herein contained shall be construed t o contract away or to modify or to abridge either for a term or in perpetuity the City's right o f eminent domain with respect to any public utility . The City reserves the right to purchase the property of such utility at an agreed price . In fixing the price to be paid by the City for any utility, no allowance shall be made for franchise value ( other than the actual amount paid to th e City at the time of the franchise acquisition), goodwill, going concern, earning power, increase d cost of reproduction, severance damage, or increased value of right-of-way .

SECTION 2 . If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of thi s ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court o f competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions o f this Ordinance . The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby declares that they woul d have adopted this ordinance and each sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective o f the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions b e declared invalid or unconstitutional .

SECTION 3 . This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect thirty ( 30) days after its passage, and before the expiration of fifteen ( 15) days after passage of thi s ordinance, it shall be published once with the names of the members of the City Council votin g for and against the ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Sa n Luis Obispo, State of California .

Ordinance No . 1587 ( 2013 Series )

SECTION 4 . A synopsis of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney, together with the ayes and noes shall be published once in full at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, i n a newspaper published and circulated in said City, and at the same time shall go into effect at th e expiration of thirty (30) days after its said final passage . A copy of the full final text of thi s ordinance shall be on file in the Office of the City Clerk on and after the date following th e introduction and passage to print and shall be available to any interested member of the public .

INTRODUCED on the 22nd day of January 2013 AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 5 `h day of February 2013 on the following roll cal l vote :

AYES : Council Members Ashbaugh, Carpenter and Carter, Vice Mayor Smith and Mayor Marx
NOES : None
ABSENT : None
ATTEST :

City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM :

City Attorney

Terri James-Barksdale
RES Agent, Western Region
Real Estate Transactions
PHILLIPS 66
3900 Kilroy Airport Way, Ste 210
Long Beach CA 90806
O: 562-290-1529
[email protected]
November 5, 2021
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
RE: Phillips 66 Pipeline Ordinance 1587 – Application Request for Extension Public Works Director:

Phillips66 Pipeline LLC currently operates pipelines within the city limits of San Luis Obispo, CA under the subject pipeline ordinance. Phillips 66 is planning to divest from operations within this San Luis Obispo region, therefore we are seeking only to extend the Ordinance for a term of 3 additional years, with an option to renew for an additional term.

The existing pipelines are located as shown on the attached maps.

We have also provided a copy of our existing pipeline franchise with the neighboring City of Arroyo Grande as requested for reference.

The California Constitution, under Division 3 within the Public Utilities Code (PUC), Chapter 2, Sections 6201- 6302, allows for local governments to grant gas, oil, electric, and water franchises. Complete legislative language can be found on the following website:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=PUC&division=3.&title= &part=&chapter=2.&article=
As in the past, Phillips 66 intends to continue with all safety measures and regulatory practices for the continued safe operations of all our pipelines within the City of San Luis Obispo.

For more information about Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC, and its pipeline safety practices, please visit www.phillips66pipeline.com.

We look forward to working with you on this renewal process.

Sincerely,
Terri J. Barksdale
cc: Tracey Brown

--

FRANCHISE MILEAGE
8-INCH PIPELINE
18,812 FEET

3.56 MILES
12-INCH PIPELINE
5,848 FEET

1.10 MILES

INDEX TO SAN LUIS OBISPO

FRANCHISE MAPS
ORDINANCE No. 1587-2013
PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC
RIGHT-OF-WAY No. 086232Page 156 of 466
CHUPEROSA DR.

LOS VERDES DR.
9::· <:)
w
z

SUBURBAN ROAD
5,848' - 12" PRODUCTS
::5 - 12" PRODUCTS LINE
w
I
0 ----------
I

REV DATE
1 04/27 /11
2 03/09/13

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
- --

COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BUCKLEY ROAD

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FRANCHISE MAP
ORDINANCE NO. 1587-2013

PHILLIPS
�
'r;:r;:J. Phillips 66
. Pipeline LLC
1 0
-- -- z
Ul
15 w
Ul D2A335 w
DRAWN�F=Gll�I ----�
APP'D. ______ _
SCALE 1 "= 400'
DATE 5/20/98
RW086232
4 SHEETS I SHEET 1

REV DATE
04/27 /11
2 03/09/13
V�- o"'
3245' - 8" LINE #400

COAST VALLEY TRUNK
No. 1
SOUTH ST.
>-'
(/)
w
w
CD w
w
CD
HIGH ST.

BRANCH ST.

BRIDGE ST.
3245' - 8" LINE #400

COAST VALLEY TRUNK
No. 2
I

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FRANCHISE MAP
ORDINANCE NO. 1587-2013
D2A174, D2A340
DRAWN �F=Gl�II _____ _
APP'D. _______ _
SCALE 1 "= 400'
DATE 5/20/98
RW086232
4 SHEETS SHEET 2

REV DATE
04/27 /11
2 03/09/13
_JLJLJL
BROAD 1 1 ST. (HWY. 227)
2717'- 8" LINE #400

COAST VALLEY TRUNK
No. 1
NIPOMO
BEACH
ST.

I
2702' - 8" LINE #400

COAST VALLEY TRUNK
No. 2
ST.

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FRANCHISE MAP
ORDINANCE NO. 1587-2013
D2A340, D2A270
DRAWN�FG�III�����
APP'D. ______ _
SCALE 1 "= 400'
DATE 5/20/98
RW086232
4 SHEETS SHEET 3

SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWA
_
Y_�
------

REV DATE
04/27 /11
2 03/09/13
•----+.-3450'- 8" LINE #400

COAST VALLEY TRUNK
No. 2
SANTA ROSA ST.

OSOS ST.

L
COAST
3453'-
VALLEY
8" LINE
TRUNK
400 EJD C5
No. 1 I �
MORRO ST. 1.-----�
CHORRO ST.
�DOC
GARDEN ST.
=1D C
BROAD 11 ST. (HWY. 227) �,-------

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FRANCHISE MAP
ORDINANCE NO. 1587-2013
D2A270, D2A339
DRAWN �FG�lll�----
APP'D. ______ _
SCALE 1 "= 400'
DATE 5/20/98
RW086232
4 SHEETS SHEET 4

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2022 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING THE CITY’S INTENT TO

APPROVE A FRANCHISE ORDINANCE, SUPERSEDING ORDINANCE
1564 (2011 SERIES), TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN PIPELINES FOR

THE TRANSPORTATION OF OIL AND OTHER SPECIFIED MATERIALS IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO BY PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 15, 2022
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance No. 1391 on July 10, 2001 granting a franchise to Union Pipeline Company, a California Corporation for a term of 10 years for the transportation and distribution of oil and other specified materials in the City of San Luis Obispo; and
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2007 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1504 transferring the franchise agreement from Union Pipeline Company to Conoco-Phillips; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2011, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted Ordinance No. 1564 for a new franchise agreement to replace the existing franchise agreement approved by Ordinance No. 1391 and set to expire on July 9, 2011; and WHEREAS, On February 5, 2013 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1587 transferring the franchise from ConocoPhillips to Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC; and WHEREAS, On June 24, 2021 Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC applied to the City of San Luis Obispo for a new franchise agreement to replace the existing franchise agreement approved by Ordinance No. 1564; and
WHEREAS, Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC is currently operating pipelines for the transportation of oil and other specified materials within the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the new franchise agreement will include the following key provisions; Purpose: To maintain and operate pipelines for the transportation of oil and hydrocarbons within the City of San Luis Obispo.

Type: Non-exclusive
Term: 3-years
Fees: Annual franchise fee to the City in accordance with Public Utilities Code Section 6231.5 (a fee ranging from $0.088 to $0.660, adjusted per the Consumer Price Index, per lineal foot based on pipeline diameter)

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
R ______
Bond: One-million dollars faithful performance bond.

Insurance: Ten million dollars liability insurance
Indemnity: Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC to indemnify the City of any and all damages to personas or property arising out of operations under the franchise.

Includes indemnity for joint acts with the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 1002 of the City Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo, the City Council hereby declares its intention to consent to the granting of a franchise to maintain and operate pipelines for the transportation of oil and other specified materials within the City of San Luis Obispo to Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC.

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 3
R ______
SECTION 2. A public hearing will be held on February 15, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. The City Clerk shall publish this resolution within fifteen (15) days of its passage in a newspaper in the City of San Luis Obispo. Any persons having an interest in the franchise approval or any objection to the approval of the franchise may appear before the Council to be heard thereon.

Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by
_______________________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this ____ day of ______________ 2022. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

Item 5e
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: 1/11/2022
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO INCLUDE PROPERTY AT 211 CHORRO IN THE

INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AS A MASTER LIST
RESOURCE (HIST-0608-2021)

RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, adding the property located at 211 Chorro Street to the Master List of Historic Resources as ‘The Muller-Noggle House and Garage’.”

DISCUSSION
Background
James & Mai Haselman, represented by James Papp, have requested that the property at 211 Chorro be designated as a Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, as The Muller-Noggle House and Garage, and have provided an evaluation of the property and its eligibility for historic listing (Historical Evaluation, Attachment B), prepared by James Papp, PhD, Historian and Architectural Historian.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On November 8, 2021 the Cultural Heritage Committee considered this request and found that the property meets eligibility criteria for historical listing to a degree that qualifies it for designation as a Master List Resource and recommended that the City Council designate the property as such in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources.

Site and Setting
The property is at the southwest corner of Mission and Chorro Streets, in the Mount Pleasanton Square / Anholm Neighborhood, a low-density residential area northwest of Downtown between the base of Cerro San Luis Obispo and Stenner Creek, developed in the 1920s and 1930s. Craftsman, California Bungalow, and various Revival styles predominate in the area, reflecting popular architectural styles of that time. The area' s popularity was due, in part, to its proximity to Downtown and sheltered location on the lee side of Cerro San Luis. Early residents include many prominent educators, business owners and professionals.

Item 5e
It continues to be an attractive, recognizable neighborhood, with most homes in good condition and many in original or near-original architectural character. Because of the apparent concentration of architecturally and historically important homes, the City has in the past considered whether the neighborhood may merit historic district status, but ultimately did not designate the area as such.

The Muller-Noggle House and Garage
City records indicate that the property
was developed with a single-story
dwelling in 1936, “built for attorney
A.V. Muller and his wife Elizabeth by
the Los Angeles-based woman
architect Edla Muir and local builder
F.C. Stolte,” noting it as “handsome,
unusual for the area, and wellmaintained.” It is described as having an L-shaped plan and a French
Provincial stylistic influence, with
several characteristic features
highlighted:
 Wood shingle hipped roof (long
leg), truncated hip roof (short leg)
 Projecting eaves, plain boxed cornice
 Shiplap siding and stucco exterior material
 Rectangular windows, various types, including three window bays, plain surrounds  Chimney, shutters, turret with bay window
 Detached two-car garage
The property was added, as one of a group of 17 properties in the area, to the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Contributing List Resource in 1999 (Council Resolution 8890). Minutes of the Council meeting show that 211 Chorro Street was noted as “possibly eligible for the Master List.”
The applicant’s Historical Evaluation describes the property’s history and the building itself in further detail,1 attributing its style as “an extremely rare Minimal Traditional design characterized by a pyramidal roof with a central chimney…”.

Whatever the source, the Muller-Noggle House embodies the drama and streamlining of the Minimal Traditional. Even more unusually, it has a detached but matching pyramid-roof garage, one of the most architecturally significant garages surviving in San Luis Obispo.
(Papp, pg. 1)

1 A description of the home’s architecture is provided from pg. 14 of the Historical Evaluation (Attachment B).

Figure 1: Muller-Noggle House

Item 5e
The City’s Historic Context Statement describes the Minimal Traditional style as having its origins in the principles of the Modern movement and reflecting a desire for greater efficiency and reduced costs to keep homes affordable to the middle class.

Edla Muir, Architect
The applicant’s Historic Resource Evaluation also provides biographical details2 about Edla Muir, the architect of the home, charting her family’s background, from greatgrandfather Thomas Fitch, a figure in early California history, to her early career working for architect John Beyer in the Los Angeles area, through the maturation of her architectural work into examples of “livable Modernism”:

Edla Muir was not just an architect, not just a rare woman architect in an overwhelmingly man’s field in the mid twentieth century, she was a regionally respected designer of revival homes who then became a nationally esteemed exponent of LA Modernism (Papp, pg. 22) Evaluation of Eligibility
Architectural Criteria
Character-defining features of the Minimal Traditional Style are described in the City’s Historic Context Statement to include:
 One-story
 Simple rectangular plan
 Medium or low-pitched hip or side-gable roof with shallow eaves  Smooth stucco wall cladding, often with wood lap or stone veneer accents  Shallow entry porch with slender wood supports
 Fixed wooden shutters
 Minimal decorative exterior detailing
As described and depicted in pages 18-25 of the applicant’s Historical Evaluation, the dwelling exhibits many of these characteristic features:

The resource exemplifies the afore-mentioned Minimal Traditional’s closeclipped rakes, minimized windows, decluttered walls, broad expanse of steeply pitched roof, prominent chimney, curvilinear features, and smooth transitions. (Papp, pg. 16)
This section of the Historical Evaluation also details notable interior features of the home:

Interior features include paneling, coves on the bedroom wing’s exterior walls, reception room crown molding, and octagon dining room (formed by built-in cabinets in two corners topped with arches, faux keystones, and interior coves and a recessed ironing board in a third corner). (Papp, pg. 16)

2 Biographical information about Edla Muir is provided from pg. 22 of the Historical Evaluation (Attachment B)

Item 5e
The dwelling was designed by Edla Muir, a notable architect who was “one of the two pioneer California women architects who mastered Modernism” (Papp, pg. 40). The Muller-Noggle House and Garage are also noted as “one of only two residential projects in the City documented to have been built by the F. C. Stolte Company, contractor for Hearst Castle […] supervised by Carl Daniels, who oversaw work in the rest of the county while his colleague and sometime collaborator George Loorz managed construction for W. R. Hearst and Julia Morgan.” (Papp, pg. 2).

Historic Criteria
A timeline of the property, including a brief listing of its historical occupants is provided from page 3 of the Historical Evaluation. The house was built for A. V. Mueller, “a remarkable example of a self-made man in an era of self-made men” (Papp, pg. 6) who, in addition to conducting a successful private law practice, served as Assistant District Attorney for the County. It was later owned and occupied by John and Neva Noggle, John a top salesman at Standard Motors on Monterey Street, and the family operating the Little Chef restaurant (Papp, pg. 5). The evaluation, however, does not indicate a relevant association with singular and important historical events and patterns or significance to the community rising to a level of significance that would satisfy Historic Criteria described in § 14.01.070 (B) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Integrity
The dwelling remains in its original location, and in the discussion of the integrity of its design the various character-defining elements of the home are discussed, concluding that, notwithstanding minor subsequent modifications, including a 1963 bedroom wing extension and some non-original brickwork, the buildings and property satisfy the criteria for Integrity set out in § 14.01.070 (C) of the Historic Preservation Ordinance:

It retains the integrity of the six applicable aspects (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling) to communicate its significance. (Papp, pg. 2)
Conclusion
The information in the Historical Evaluation prepared for this application, documenting the architectural character and integrity of the house, provides a basis for the Council to find that the dwelling satisfies Evaluation Criteria for Architectural Style, Design, and Architect (§ 14.01.070 (A)) and for Integrity (§ 14.01.070 (C)) to a degree that qualifies the property for designation as a Master List Historic Resource.

Policy Context
The recommended action on this item is supported by historical preservation policies set out in § 3.0 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan, and with procedures and standards for listing of historic resources set out in the City’ s Historic Preservation Ordinance §§ 14.01.060 & 14.01.070.

Item 5e
Public Engagement
Public notice of this hearing has been provided to owners and occupants of property near the subject site, and published in a widely circulated local newspaper, and hearing agendas for this meeting have been posted at City Hall, consistent with adopted notification procedures. Public notice was also previously provided for the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of November 8, 2021.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Inclusion of the subject properties on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described in § 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2022
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund N/A $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $ $0 $ $0
Adding the properties to the Master List of Historic Resources will have no fiscal impacts.

Historic designation of property itself has no bearing on City fiscal resources. As a Master List Resource, however, each property would be eligible for historic preservation incentives under the “Mills Act.” Any subsequent request to enter into a “Mills Act Contract” with the City would be considered under separate application. A separate fiscal analysis would be reviewed by the City Council should any of the properties be proposed for participation in the Mills Act Program.

Item 5e

ALTERNATIVES

1. Decline to designate the property as a Master List Resource in the Inventory of Historic Resources. This decision would be based on finding that the Property is not considered to be sufficiently unique or important, or found to satisfy Evaluation Criteria for listing to a degree warranting such designation. The Property would remain in the Inventory as a Contributing List Resource.

2. Continue consideration of the request for additional information or discussion.

ATTACHMENTS
A – Draft Resolution adding 211 Chorro as a Master List Resource B – Historic Resource Evaluation (Papp)
C – Evaluation Criteria

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2022 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 211

CHORRO STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
AS “THE MULLER-NOGGLE HOUSE AND GARAGE” (HIST-0608-2021) WHEREAS, the applicants, James & Mai Haselman, filed an application on September 8, 2021, for review of the inclusion of the property at 211 Chorro Street on the City’s Master List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing via teleconference from the City of San Luis Obispo, California on November 8, 2021 and recommended that the City Council add the property at 211 Chorro Street to the Master List of Historic Resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on January 11, 2022 for the purpose of considering the request to add the property to the Inventory of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony of the applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation presented by staff.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings:
a) The subject property is eligible for inclusion in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Master List Resource because the dwelling on the property satisfies at least one of the evaluation criteria for historic resource listing described in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), exhibits a high degree of historic integrity, and is more than 50 years old.

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
R ______
b) The dwelling and garage on the subject properties satisfy Architectural Criteria for Style, Design, and Architect (§§ 14.01.070 (A)), and Criteria for Integrity (§§ 14.01.070 (C)) to a degree that qualifies the property for designation as a Master List Historic Resource. They convey a purity of style, exhibit attractiveness through detailing and craftsmanship, and exhibit many characteristic features of the Minimal Traditional style in a manner that expresses interesting details with notable attractiveness. The buildings occupy their original site, with their exterior and interior largely unaltered, and retain their characteristic design and materials. The dwelling and garage were designed by Edla Muir, a pioneering California woman architect noted for her Modernist architectural work.

SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Inclusion of the subject property on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described in § 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 3
R ______
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby include the property located at 211 Chorro Street in the Master List of Historic Resources as “The Muller-Noggle House and Garage.”
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by
_______________________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this ___ day of ___________ 2022. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

1 The Muller–Noggle House and Garage, 211 Chorro Street Designed in 1936 by Pioneer Woman Architect Edla Muir for A. V. and Elizabeth Biehl Muller
Owned by Johnny and Neva Noggle 1953–2020

1. Summary Conclusion of Eligibility 1

2. Timeline 3

3. Historic Context 13

4. Architectural Significance
Minimal Traditional 18
Edla Muir 22
The Muller-Noggle House 41

5. Period of Significance 44

6. Integrity and Character-Defining Features 45

7. Conclusion 47

1. Summary Conclusion of Eligibility
The 1936 Muller-Noggle House was designed by Edla Muir (1906–1971), then of John Byers and Edla Muir, Santa Monica and 1941–1968 in her own practice in Los Angeles and briefly in Ellensburg, Washington. With high-profile commissions, prestigious awards, documentation by the country’s leading architectural photographers, and more than a quarter century of lavish coverage in the Los Angeles press and national architecture journals, Muir reached the top of her profession and in articles and exhibitions since her early death in 1971 has been considered one of the half dozen most important pioneer women architects in California. The Muller-Noggle House would be only the second of almost 200 Master List resource by a woman architect, after Julia Morgan’s Monday Club.

2 The house is an extremely rare—in San Luis Obispo unique—Minimal Traditional design characterized by a single-story main block topped by a pyramid roof with a central chimney—a costly and aesthetically daring approach apparently originating with the British architect Sir Edwin Lutyens or American perceptions of his work. The Lee family’s Stratford Hall, built in the 1730s in Westmoreland County, Virginia is another possible model: in 1929, the Robert E. Lee Memorial Association formed to preserve the house and open it to the public. Sources in the 1920s and ’30s attribute it as a Neo-Georgian style.

Whatever the source, the Muller-Noggle House embodies the drama and streamlining of the Minimal Traditional. Even more unusually, it has a detached but matching pyramid-roof garage, one of the most architecturally significant garages surviving in San Luis Obispo.

Finally, the Muller-Noggle House and Garage are one of only two residential projects in San Luis documented to have been built by the F. C. Stolte Company, contractor for Hearst Castle, the other being 391 Chorro Street. Both date from the same year and were supervised by Carl Daniels, who oversaw work in the rest of the county while his colleague and sometime collaborator George Loorz managed construction for W. R. Hearst and Julia Morgan (Taylor Coffman, Building for Hearst and Morgan: Voices from the George Loorz Papers [Berkeley: Berkeley Hills Books, 2003], pp. 201–202 and passim).

As such, the Muller-Noggle House qualifies for the Master List as one of “the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of architectural or historical significance [or] rarity” as defined by the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

It also qualifies for the less demanding National Register of Historic Places criterion C as possessing architectural significance for embodying the distinctive characteristics of a type of construction and high artistic values and representing the work of a master. It retains the integrity of the six applicable aspects (location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling) to communicate its significance.

Presented on behalf of Jim and Mai Haselman by James Papp, PhD, Historian & Architectural Historian, Historicities LLC, 6 September 2021

3 2. Timeline
1899 Apr 29 Albert Venlow Mueller is born in Texas to Leo Mueller and Josephine Zimmer Mueller from Alsace (1910 United States Census, 1918 draft registration, and 1993 death records). By 1910 the family is living in Lincoln, Placer County, California, where Leo is working as a laborer in a pottery. 1906 Edla Muir is born in San Francisco to doctor and former diplomat Joseph Muir and mezzo-soprano Ethel Fitch Muir, granddaughter (and stepdaughter) of lawyer and former Republican Congressman Thomas Fitch, “the silver-tongued orator of the Golden West.” Dr. Muir is the widower of Edla McPherson, daughter of three-term US Senator John R. McPherson of New Jersey and Edla Gregory McPherson.
1915 After seven years in New
York, Ethel Fitch Muir returns
to Los Angeles to continue her
operatic career.
1917 Mueller graduates from
Lincoln Union High School,
Placer County (“Lincoln Union
High School Exercises, Lincoln
News-Messenger, 21 June
1917, p. 1).
1918 Sep 12 Mueller is a cannery
worker in Lincoln when he
registers for the draft. He
serves as a private in St.

Louis, Missouri.
1919 Edla Muir first works for
architect John Byers summer
and weekends at age thirteen. Los Angeles Express, 25 June 1915 1920 John “Johnny” Noggle is born in Ohio (United States Public Records, 1970– 2009).

Ethel Fitch Muir divorces Dr. Joseph Muir, by now living in New York (“Divorce Is Granted Ethel Fitch, Wife of Dr. Joseph Muir,” New York Tribune, 7 Aug. 1920, p. 5).
1921 Neva Negranti is born in Cayucos, where her parents own the Fairview Ranch (“Neva Noggle,” San Luis Obispo Tribune, 10 Jan 2021, 4A). 1923 A. V. Mueller receives his juris doctor degree from Stanford and moves to Paso Robles, where he forms the partnership of Muller and Mandl with Judge J. P. Mandl (“To Receive Degrees,” Sacramento Bee, 2 May 1923, p. 8; “Around the Town,” San Luis Obispo Tribune [weekly], 5 Oct. 1923, p. 4; “A. V. Muller Is

4 Named Assistant District Attorney,” Arroyo Grande Herald-Recorder, 10 Jan. 1930, p. 6).

Edla Muir graduates from Inglewood High School and goes to work for Byers full-time in a clerical capacity, although she also appears to be doing design work during this period (“Edla Muir: Stoessel House, (Santa Monica, Calif.),” Art, Design, and Architecture Museum, University of California, Santa Barbara, adc-exhibits.museum.ucsb.edu, accessed 15 Nov. 2021).

Edla Muir from her senior
yearbook, Inglewood High
School, Los Angeles
1924 Albert Mueller marries Elizabeth Anna Biehl, daughter of a retail salesman and “prominent in Paso Robles as a leader of the younger set” (“One Ceremony, Two Weddings, Four Happy,” San Francisco Examiner, 15 June 1924, p. 83). He joins the Masons and becomes associated with the Bank of Italy.
1926 Muir is promoted to draftsman at Byers’
practice.
1927 Muir wins second prize of $500 in an
architectural competition for hillside homes
by the Rondith Corporation, from seventy
drawings submitted anonymously to an
American Institute of Architects, Southern
California jury (“Four Win Money in
Designing,” Los Angeles Times, 8 May 1927,
Homes and Builders, part v, p. 3).
1929 Muller is elected a city judge in Paso Robles
(“A. V. Muller Is Named Assistant District
Attorney”). (From the mid 1920s through
the early 1930s, both spellings of his name
are being used in the press.)
Edla Muir in photo accompanying the Los
Angeles Times article about her1927 hillside
architecture award

5 1930 Jan 6 Muller, living in Paso Robles, replaces H. J.

Dubin, promoted to county district attorney
(“A. V. Muller Is Named Assistant District
Attorney”).

Apr 3 US Census shows A. V. and Elizabeth Muller
renting at 650 Upham Street.
1934 Muir gains her architecture license, becomes
partner in John Byers and Edla Muir.

Edla Muir in 1935. Courtesy UCSB
Architecture and Design Collection.
1935 Jan 11 A. V. Muller announces the opening of his law office in the Wickenden Building, San Luis Obispo (advertisement, Arroyo Grande Herald-Recorder).

Muller leads San Luis efforts to attract State Emergency Relief Administration aid under the New Deal National Housing Act (“House Survey Is Proposed,” Herald-Recorder, 25 Jan. 1935, p. 1).

Edla Muir is the only woman of fourteen exhibitors in Modeltown, an FHA exhibition at the California International Exposition in San Diego that later travels the country. She enters individually, not with Byers (“Home Plans Win Favor,” Los Angeles Times,, 1 Nov. 1936, Homes and Builders, p. 2). 1936 Apr 3 The California House and Garden Exhibition opens at 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, with six demonstration houses: Richard Neutra’s plywood “Moderne” house; a steel frame French house by African American architect Paul R. Williams; a house with steel frame, steel siding, and metal roof; a California house of hollow tile by Winchton Risley; an English cottage of reinforced groutlock brick by Arthur Kelley and Joe Estep, and a New Orleans frame house with brick veneer and wood siding by John Byers and Edla Muir (“ Unique ‘Village’ Rises to Demonstrate Homes, Los Angeles Times, Homes and Builders, part v, pp. 1 and 4, 2 Feb. 1936). It runs through 1938.

6 John Byers and Edla
Muir’s New Orleans
House from the
California House and
Garden Exhibition,
Los Angeles, 1936–
1938. Photo:

Architectural Digest,
vol. 9, no. 3, 1935.

Nov 7 George and Kirstine Anholm transfer title of lots 4, 3, and part of 2 on block 13 of the Anholm Addition to the Mullers. On the same day, Carl Daniels petitions for a building permit on behalf of A. V. Muller for a one-story frame and stucco 6-room house and garage, at $5,500 the second most expensive residence permitted that year, after a $6,000 house on Cerro San Luis that is twice the size.

Edla Muir of Byers and Muir designs the Mullers’ house. 1937 Feb 26 Stolte has completed work on 211 Chorro, and the Mullers have moved in (“Notice of Completion of Work,” 27 Feb 1937).

Muller-Noggle House. Photos: Mai Haselman
1937 Apr 12 The Mullers convey their property to the Veterans’ Welfare Board of the State of California (County Land Records).

7 1938 Edla Muir marries Englishman Clyde Lambie in Clark County, Nevada. 1940 Apr 2 US Census lists A. V. and Elizabeth Muller living at 211 Chorro with their daughters Helen (14) and Jacqueline (7), owners, the house valued at $6,500.

July 24 John Noggle, working in automobile manufacturing, enlists in the US Army at Fort Hayes, Columbus, Ohio (United States World War II Army Enlistment Records, 1938-1946).
1941 Edla Muir starts to publish work under her name alone (“Two Versions of Colonial Styles,” Los Angeles Times Home Magazine, 4 May 1941, p. 7; “A Ranch Home in Traditional Style,” Los Angeles Times Home Magazine, 21 Dec. 1941, p. 7), though simultaneously Byers-Muir works continue to appear.

Apr 8 A. V. Muller is re-elected trustee of the San Luis Obispo School Board (“Parks Plan Voted in San Luis Obispo,” San Francisco Examiner, 9 April 1941, p. 12). 1942 Muir publishes her first two Mid Century Modern houses, the first nominally in collaboration with John Byers (“Design for Sloping Lot,” Los Angeles Times, 4 Jan. 1942), the second on her own (“Modern,” Los Angeles Times, 5 Apr. 1942). The January 4 article is the last pairing of her name with Byers. With wartime constrictions—and the birth of her son—a Muir project will not be published in the Times again till 11 February 1945 (“Postwar Project”).

Dec 19 Muir’s only child Alec Lambie is born.

Howard House, Malibu, 1949. Photo by Julius Shulman.
1945–1949 The Los Angeles Times and its new Home Magazine publish almost a dozen Muir projects, including twelve-room house for film couple Barbara Stanwyck and Robert Taylor. Local real estate ads begin to feature “designed by Edla Muir.” Most projects are traditional, but in 1949 she debuts two

8 stunning Mid Century Moderns: the George and Eleanor Howard House in Malibu, with a stone fireplace set in coastal view glass wall, and the Ilsley House, 12835 Mulholland Drive, on Beverly Hills hilltop with ivy leaf–shaped pool extending into house and underwater viewing room.
1946 Neva Negranti marries John Noggle (“Neva Noggle”). 1946–1947 Edla Muir designs offices and warehouse for Paddock Engineering, a swimming pool builder, apparently her first commercial commissions. She has designed houses for Paddock chair Philip Ilsley, and “father of the modern swimming pool,” having introduced sprayed Gunite and the kidney shape (“Lost Hollywood—A Swimmingly Grand Estate in Brentwood Heights,” Paradise Leased, 3 Jan. 2011, accessed 18 Nov. 2021). Muir will design more facilities for Paddock in the 1950s, including in Mexico City. 1948 Mar Architectural Record, in “A Thousand Women in Architecture,” a survey of trained woman architects in the United States, includes Muir as one of just ten featured with bios and photos; her Stanwyck-Taylor House is pictured.

June 8 Chris and Johanna Anholm convey 211 Chorro to the Title Insurance and Trust Company (County Land Records).
1948 June 28 Title Insurance and Trust Company conveys 211 Chorro to David and Marjorie Fair (ibid.).
1949 Dec Edla Muir is elected secretary of the American Institute of Architects Southern California chapter.
1949–1950 Muir designs Brentwood Heights house for George and Selma Sturges so they can leave nearby Usonian they commissioned from Frank Lloyd Wright ten years earlier for a “more practical home” (Eve M. Kahn, “Frank Lloyd Wright House in Los Angeles Will Be Auctioned,” New York Times, 21 Jan. 2016). 1950 Mar 9 The Fairs convey 211 Chorro to L. H. and Bertha Ellsworth (ibid.).

June Edla Muir’s O’Flaherty House in Brentwood Heights makes the cover story of The American Home with Julius Shulman photographs.
1951 Dec 9 The Los Angeles Times Home Magazine runs a two-page spread—“Four Houses and Our Future”—featuring Richard Neutra’s Warren Tremaine House, Spaulding-Rex’s Arch Ekdale House, Henry L. Eggers’ Arthur O.

Hanisches House, and Edla Muir’s Zola Hall House.

9 1952 Muir wins Honor Award from
American Institute of
Architects, Southern
California chapter, for Zola
Hall House, 1888 Mandeville
Canyon Road. John Rex—with
Sumner Spaulding architect of
Case Study House #2—
marries Hall the same year
and moves into her house.

The only non-partnered
woman architect in 82
Distinctive Houses from
“Architectural Record”, Muir
appears for Zola Hall House.

Zola Hall House skylight. Photo
by Maynard L. Parker.

Muir appears on local radio and television (“famed woman architect will be guest on Norvell Gillespie’s HOME AND GARDEN show on KHJ-TV at 5:30,” Long Beach Press Telegram, 22 Mar. 1952).
1953 Aug 12 The Ellsworths convey 211 Chorro to John and Neva Noggle (ibid.). From 1957 John spends several decades as a top salesman at Standard Motors on Monterey Street (“Salesman Hits Top of Cadillac Crest,” Five Cities TimesPress-Recorder, 10 Aug. 1990, p. 4D). The family will own and manage San Luis Obispo’s Little Chef restaurant (“Neva Noggle”). They are active in Catholic organizations and John as a bell ringer and historian at the Mission.

Muir and family leave LA for cattle ranch outside Ellensburg, Central Washington, where she moves further into non-domestic architecture, including commercial buildings and Happy’s Food supermarket (extant). 1957 Muir returns to LA and joins Charles O. Matcham, Stewart S. Granger and Associates as one of two unnamed associates (“Charles O. Matcham, FAIA, Expands Organization,” Architect and Engineer, June 1957, p. 33). No one in firm, which designs anodyne institutional and commercial architecture, has the local experience of Muir, and the association does not last. By 11 August 1957, Muir’s is the cover house of Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine feature “4 Houses Designed by Women”; no mention is made of Matcham, Granger. 1962 Mar Muir is part of an exhibition of architects with offices in Brentwood Village (“Brentwood Architects’ Work Now on Display,” Citizen News, 26 Mar. 1962).

10 Street façade of 2020 West Ridge, Muir’s 1962 house for herself and husband Clyde Lambie, with saw-surfaced plywood and fin-shaped battens. Photo by Julius Shulman.

Apr 22 The Los Angeles Times Home Magazine gives Edla Muir the cover and a threepage spread of Julius Shulman photos for her own Mandeville Canyon house at 2020 West Ridge Road, finished the previous year in steel posts and beam and plywood siding—ideas perhaps retained from Williams’ steel frame house and Neutra’s plywood house in the 1936 California House and Garden Exhibition. This will be the last Times articles featuring Muir’s designs after a twenty-six-year run beginning with that exhibition.

Nov A national syndicated article on skylights features Muir’s work on the Zola Hall House ten years before and its dramatic Maynard Parker photo (Pauline Graves, Nov. & Dec.).
1968 The law firm of A. H. Brazil and James Duenow merges with A. V. Muller, Wickson Woolpert and William P. McWhinney (“Two Law Firms Plan Merger,” Pismo Times, 11 Jan. 1968, p. 3). Muller had served as assistant district attorney while Brazil served as district attorney in the early 1930s. 1970–1980s Edla Muir continues to be mentioned as architect in real estate advertisements in Los Angeles, though in the 1980s increasingly rendered as “Edna Muir.”
1971 Edla Muir dies age 65, unnoticed by the press that once lionized her.

11 Photo: Mai Haselman
1972 Muir’s widower Clyde Lambie donates her papers to the UC Santa Barbara Architecture and Design Collection, Art, Design, and Architecture Museum. 1977 Aug The AIA Journal publishes Harriet Rochlin’s “A Distinguished Generation of Women Architects in California,” featuring Muir.

UCSB Art, Design, and Architecture Museum shows Edla Muir and John Byers/Architectural Drawings, August–September.
1987 A. V. Muller continues to practice as an attorney (“Public Notices,” Five Cities Times-Press-Recorder, 8 April 1987, p. 8D).
1989–1992 Edla Muir is included in the traveling exhibition That Exceptional One:

Women in Architecture 1888–1989.
1990–1991 A Life in Architecture: Four Women in Los Angeles, 1900–1950, featuring Muir, Constance Austin, Edith Northman, and Julia Morgan shows at UCLA’s Graduate School of Architecture and Urban Planning and UC Riverside’s University Art Gallery, occasioning the Los Angeles Times to write briefly about Muir for the first time in nearly thirty years (“Works of Women Architects Shown,” 29 Apr. 1990).

Sara Holmes Boutelle lectures on Muir, Austin, Northman, Morgan, Hazel Waterman, and Lillian Rice.
1993 Mar 19 Muller dies in San Luis Obispo at age 92.

12 2000 John Noggle dies in San Luis Obispo (Social Security Death Index). 2005 & 2019 The Los Angeles Times mentions Edla Muir briefly in architectural overviews (Steven Barrie-Anthony, “Landscape of Constant Change, 7 July 2005; Steve Carney, “Architectural Spotlight: Colonial,” 23 Feb. 2019, J44 and J13/J15) 2020 Dec 31 Neva Noggle dies at 211 Chorro at age 99 (“Neva Noggle”).

13 3. Historic Context
A. V. Muller was a remarkable self-made man in an era of self-made men, though when that possibility was largely reserved for Whites. Son of an immigrant pottery laborer in a small town nestled at the edge of the Sierra foothills, a cannery worker when he registered for the draft at nineteen, and subsequently serving in the US Army as a private, by twenty-four he had his JD from Stanford and had formed a legal partnership with a local judge.

By age thirty Muller was elected a city judge himself and appointed assistant district attorney for San Luis Obispo County. By thirty-four he entered private practice in the City of San Luis Obispo and by thirty-six built the second most expensive house permitted in the city that year, designed by prominent LA architect Edla Miller, who was featured that year in the California House and Garden Exhibition and its press. Constructed by the Stolte Company, contractors for Hearst Castle, Muller’s house centered the Whites only Anholm Tract, on land that had been previously occupied by Chinese truck farmers.

Tract housing in San Luis Obispo The earliest tract in San Luis was built between 1801 and 1810 by enslaved yak tityu tityu yak tilhini/Northern Chumash: 80 adobe and tile houses with windows, 17’ wide by 20’ deep in two rows on either side of Chorro Street, (Paul H. Kocher, Mission San Luis Obispo: A Historical Sketch [San Luis Obispo: Blake, 1972], p. 34; Edith Webb, “Pages from the History of Mission San Luis Obispo,” California History Nugget, Jan. 1938, p. 117). Some or all would appear to have been detached, with front windows and side entries. Of this linear and permanent housing development, meant to displace indigenous wickiups, only three structures survive: the two ground floor interior rooms of the Sauer-Adams Adobe and the Sauer Adobe next door.

Sauer-Adams Adobe and Sauer Adobe, 964 and 970 Chorro, after 1907 The mission was also behind the next tract housing in San Luis Obispo: the Mission Vineyard Tract. The mission’s building, vineyard, and orchard were returned by the

14 American government to the Catholic Church, which sold off the 160 or so acres of the vineyard for business and housing, comprising most of today’s downtown from San Luis Creek south to approximately Buchon Street and between Broad and Santa Rosa.

In the 1870 R. R. Harris and H. D. Ward map of San Luis commissioned by the Board of Trustees (detail above), the vineyard was yet to be mapped for city blocks, along with most other areas south of San Luis Creek, including Walter Murray and Pierre Dallidet’s lands.

In 1894 map by city engineer C. W. Henderson (detail above), these areas had become the Vineyard, Murray and Church, and Dallidet Tracts. They were joined by Reed’s, South Side, Buena Vista, La Belle, the Phillips Addition, Phillips and Beebe, Phillips Syndicate, Central Addition, Schwartz, Loomis and Osgood, Imperial, Isabel, Maymont, Fairview, Harford, South Side, Brizzolara, Hathway, Arlington, Deleissiguez, Buckley, and Fixlini. The town was ready for expansion from local farmers and speculators.

15 The slump of the 1890s put off much of this anticipated development. In 1888, for instance, Captain Charles Goodall and former California governor George Perkins, owners of the Pacific Coast Steamship Company and Pacific Coast Railway, built a horse-drawn street railway from the PCR depot on the west end of town to their grand new Hotel Ramona—“as beautiful as the heroine after whom it is named”—on the east end of town and subdivided, sewered, and macadamized the area around it, which they called the Central Addition.

Their Buena Vista Addition was anticipated to rise to the top of Terrace (then Terraced) Hill. Buena Vista also had a trolley extension, was near the PCR’s route south, and was next to the surveyed Southern Pacific Line, which would finally be completed in 1894. Goodall and Perkins simultaneously marketed the Phillips Addition around Mill Street between Johnson and Grand, for which they had the street railway franchise but as yet no track.

The street railway was never built on Grand. The Hotel Ramona closed in December 1894, seven months after the Southern Pacific arrived, for lack of business. The next year it reopened under the management of one of Goodall and Perkins’ minority partners, R. E.

Jack. He bought the street railway system, still only two and a half miles long, five years later and shut it down the following year. The Ramona burned down in 1905, seventeen years after it was built, causing Jack and the Goldtrees’ County Bank of San Luis Obispo to fail. There is no photographic, cartographic, or built evidence, that any of these areas had been successfully developed during those years, apart from a few scattered cottages at the base of Terrace Hill, despite San Luis Obispo’s population rising by 71 percent between 1900—when the SP’s line to Los Angeles was completed—and 1910.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, tracts in the western United States tended to offer individuals lots to build on rather than ready-built housing in rows. It’s not clear whether this was because of a lack of necessity to house large numbers, a lack of capital to build for them, an Old West tendency toward individualism, or all three. The absence of building developments, however, has given late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century San Luis Obispo its characteristic architectural variety.

In the San Francisco Bay and Los Angeles areas there was more tendency to build housing developments than in California’s smaller towns, but even there, substantial developer built tracts only arrived after World War I, with, for instance, Henry Doelger and Carl and Fred Gellert (the latter Joan Gellert-Sargen’s father) in San Francisco’s Sunset District, where a cheerful Eclecticism relieved mass production. After World War II, Doelger and the Gellerts moved their efforts to Daly City. Mid-Century Modernism did less to allay the sense of sameness the hillside tracts gave, and Malvina Reynolds got the inspiration for her hit song “Little Boxes” driving by Daly City in 1962.

In late 1923, San Luis Obispans were able to buy lots in Mount Pleasanton Square (Broad, Benton, and Mount Pleasanton (now Chorro) between Murray and Meinecke, and by 1927 in the Anholm Addition (directly south, Lincoln to Broad and Murray). George and Chris Anholm were ethnic Danes from the village Fole (German Fohl) near Haderslev (German Hadersleben) in Schleswig-Holstein, whose disputed ownership between Denmark and Germany inspired the observation apocryphally attributed to Lord Palmerston: “Only three people have ever really understood the Schleswig-Holstein business—the Prince Consort, who is dead—a German professor, who has gone mad—and I, who have forgotten all about it” (Lytton Strachey, Queen Victoria [New York: Harcourt, 1921], p. 364).

16 The Anholms were born within the decade after the Second Schleswig War, which assigned Holstein to Austria and Schleswig to Prussia, which two years later seized Holstein from Austria in the Austro-Prussian War. Hence George had good reason to go to America at fifteen and Chris to join him three years later, AWOL from the German Army. Fole and Haderslev returned to Denmark in the Scheswig plebiscite of 1920, but by then George and Chris were in their late forties, American citizens, successful farmers, and had already embarked on a property development that would occupy them for three decades. In 1918—Chris having just returned from Denmark with his new wife and child—the two brothers bought from Judge McDowell Reid Venable’s widow Alice equal shares of ranchland between Cerro San Luis and Stenner Creek, for $10,500 each. The Telegram much later referred to the Anholm Tract being built in the area known as Chinese Gardens.

According to a map at the History Center, it had held Ah Louis’s first brickyard circa 1872– 87 and his vegetable and seed gardens, so presumably Ah Louis rented from Venable.

George Anholm lived and farmed nearby.

First advertisement for the Anholm Addition, noting in the phrase “Building restrictions protect your investment” that it was racially covenanted (San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 8 June 1928)
In 1921 James A. Stebbins, a
prominent Fresno real estate
man who had relocated to
Sacramento and opened his
own tire and automobile
accessories store, subdivided
a thirty-acre tract across the
southeast limits of the state
capital at what is now 58th
Street below 14th Avenue.

For $75 down and $10 a
month, people tired of
renting—“Mr. Rent Payer …
use judgment like your
landlord did—build a
home”—could become
owners of an acre lot
with all city services and no
city taxes (Stebbins Tract
advertisement, Sacramento
Union, Apr. 1921; Stebbins
Tract advertisement,
Sacramento Bee, 23 Apr.
1921).

This promise was somewhat
illusory, as Sacramento
insisted on annexation if the
tract wanted water from its
mains (Bee, 20 Jan. 1922). By
June Stebbins and his family

17 moved into a bungalow on the tract, and he turned his attention to selling built homes for $300 down and $45 a month. In 1927 he began to advertise houses on half acres. (There are few acre lots; they may have been a teaser.)
The same year Stebbins visited San Luis Obispo and in January 1928 sold his tire store in Sacramento, in March went on an extended holiday with his wife in Hawaii, and in June was promoting lots and houses in the forty-acre Anholm Addition with full-page ads (L. F. Gould advertisement, Bee, 1 Feb. 1928; “Mrs. Stebbins Is Honored on Eve of Departure,” Bee, 10 Mar. 1928; Anholm Tract advertisements, San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 8 and 9 June 1928). The Telegram touted Stebbins as having been “for the past twenty years connected with California subdivisions in various parts of the state” (9 June 1928), though there is evidence only of his having rather slowly sold somewhat undistinguished houses on a small tract in Sacramento.

Stebbins did not stick with the Anholm Tract as long as he stuck with the Stebbins Tract.

His last advertisement was nine months later in March 1929, promising a four-room furnished house at $350 down and $30 a month. From San Luis Obispo he and Mrs.

Stebbins went to Caspar, Wyoming, and thence to Alhambra in Southern California. In 1932 he was back trying to sell houses in the Stebbins tract, moving into it again in 1933. His last advertisement there was in 1935.

George and Chris Anholm, who listed themselves as dairy farmers in the 1930 census, continued to sell lots and houses in their tract, Chris recording sales as late as 1948 and George taking out building permits as late as 1952. They also lived in their tract, selling off houses and moving to new ones. Their children lived there, too. George and Chris and their wives hosted Danish gatherings at their houses, served as precinct officer in elections, and otherwise participated in the new, White, suburban community they had created from the old Chinese Gardens.

18 4. Architectural Significance
Minimal Tradition Sir Edwin Lutyens’ Munstead Wood is the ur-house for Minimal Traditional, begun 1889 and completed 1897 for garden designer Gertrude Jekyll, Lutyens’ lifelong collaborator. Munstead has not only the close-clipped rakes of Minimal Traditional but minimized windows, decluttered walls, broad expanses of steeply pitched roofs, prominent chimneys, curvilinear features, and smooth transitions.

Actual Tudor architecture in Surrey (Losely Hall above left and farmhouse near Charlwood at right): busier, more angular, less sweeping than Lutyens’ work. At Munstead (below) he regularized bays, integrated them into walls and roof, reduced windows, flared eaves, and used the chimney as a vertical plane to interact with horizontal ones. It was a smoother modernization than Wright’s. Minimal rakes (in grand houses like Losely, parapets) were a Tudor feature fitting well in Lutyens’ streamlined vision, while Wright used wide rakes and jettied upper floors of other Tudor houses in both Tudor Revival and some Prairie structures like the Meyer May (1908–09) and Emil Bach (1915) Houses. (Photograph of Munstead Wood from Sir Lawrence Weaver’s Lutyens Houses and Gardens [London: Country Life, 1921].)

19 Unlike many Minimal Traditional houses, the Muller-Noggle House was built on a commodious lot (or series of lots), so it retained the horizontality of Lutyens’ county house work. But it also adopted or adapted another aspect, the pyramid roof with central chimney. This form appears to have been borrowed by American Minimal Traditional architects soon after Lawrence Weaver’s elephant folio Houses and Gardens by E. L. Lutyens was published by Charles Scribner’s Sons in the United States in 1914. Lutyens’ hipped roofs with central chimneys were not true pyramids, but the photography created a close enough effect to inspire what was to become the Muller-Noggle House’s form.

The Dormy House, Walton
Heath, entrance front; figure
279, Houses and Gardens by E.

L. Lutyens
There is no one obvious model
for Lutyens’ innovation: a
hipped roof with a central
chimney (seen here in an 1820
Gotho-Palladian farmhouse in
Wiltshire) is extremely rare but
not unknown in English
architecture. It’s possible
Lutyens had seen an image of
the Lees’ Stratford Hall in
Virginia. It is more likely that
American architects were ready
to adopt the form because of
their familiarity with Stratford.

Littlecroft, Guildford, entrance front; figure 279, Houses and Gardens by E. L. Lutyens

20 At any event, it was a form that captured architects’ imaginations for the multiplying and expanding suburbs after World War I, when the shady and airy California Bungalow, never really suited for much of the United States, had become passé. Muir would not have adopted it lightly: her papers at UC Santa Barbara show a great deal of research on various architectural forms from different eras and cultures. The new suburb would reverse the Asian influence of the bungalow, adapted from the traditional Bengali village house of simple design surrounded by wide eaves of a thatched hip roof. The inspirations of the Minimal Traditional were European and colonial styles, emphasizing White history, gentility, and overlordship. The great Black Los Angeles architect Paul Williams designing a Plantation-style Minimal Traditional house for a White client in a restricted neighborhood in the 1920s is a distillation of the moment.

Stratford Hall, circa 1730s, Westmoreland County, Virginia, architect unknown. Nineteenthcentury photograph.

Pyramidal English Cottage styles, from Henry Atterbury Smith, ed., Books of a Thousand Homes (New York: Home Owners Service Institute, 1923)

21 Late Georgian Revival from
Books of a Thousand Homes
From Home Builder’s Plan Book (New York: Building
Plan Holding Corporation, 1921). Note garage with
matching pyramidal roof, as in the Muller property.

Morgan Bulkeley House, Hartford, Connecticut, from
Ethel B. Power, The Smaller American House: Fifty-Five
Houses of the Less Expensive Type Selected from the
Recent Work of Architects in All Parts of the Country
(Boston: Little, Brown, 1927). Note the bell-cast eaves of the window and door extensions, as seen at left on a
Muller-Noggle bay window: a characteristic of Georgian
Revival though not particularly of Georgian architecture.

22 Edla Muir (1906–1971)
Edla Muir was not just an architect, not just a rare woman architect in an overwhelmingly man’s field in the mid twentieth century, she was a regionally respected designer of revival homes who then became a nationally esteemed exponent of LA Modernism. Just as Julia Morgan made the transition from First Bay Tradition to Minimal Traditional, Muir made the transition from Minimal Traditional to Modernism. After each mastered their first style, they made their second style their own.

Muir focused—from the age of thirteen and her first work with architect John Byers—on the creation of homes; produced designs as notable for their comfortable and inviting interiors as their elegant and logical exteriors; practiced all but four years in one location, Los Angeles; and settled into a quiet, monogamous family life in three houses designed by herself. None of which could have been predicted by the scandalous and itinerant careers of her immediate family, which included at least eight divorces, three duels, four other shootings, bribery, extortion, embezzlement, malpractice, and countless lies.

The one thing Edla Muir had in common with her family was the ability to generate publicity, but in her case for skilled and carefully researched home designs, in theirs, for the disordered nature of their public and private affairs. Edla went to work for Byers about the time her mother appears to have abandoned the family and was divorcing Edla’s father, who had separated from the family long before. It was also about the time her grandmother, with whom Edla lived, was divorcing her great-grandfather, the father-in-law she had married after her divorce and his widowing. It takes no stretch of the imagination to conclude that the practice of architecture was Edla Muir’s path to sense and stability.

On her mother Ethel Fitch’s side were a trail of corruption and newsworthy domestic ruptures going back to the early 1860s, with great-grandfather Tom Fitch, the SilverTongued Orator of Nevada/the Pacific/the Golden West/ the Sagebrush State. Edla’s father, Dr. Joseph Muir, gambled in high-stakes poker, Broadway shows, experimental medicine that verged on quackery, and marriages with heiresses—the heiress preceding her mother being Edla’s namesake. These two men, the greatest male presences in Edla’s formative years, showed strong psychopathic, narcissistic, and Machiavellian tendencies: the dark triad traits that often lead to success though almost as often of an ephemeral kind.

In contrast, a capstone interview with Edla Muir in the Los Angeles Times Home magazine concluded by emphasizing her self-effacement: “On this page is a picture of one of the architect’s houses which won an honor award from the American Institute of Architects.

Edla Muir modestly said little about it.”1
Dr. Joseph Muir Edla Muir’s father—physician, diplomat, gambler, financial speculator, and fortune-hunter who repeatedly made national news for the wrong reasons—was born in 1864 in Riga, Latvia (then part of Russia), son of Joseph and Sarah Meuer, immigrants to America from Latvia’s large German or possibly German Jewish colony. A turn-of-thecentury newspaper article describing Dr. Muir as “dark-haired, heavy-faced, magneticvoiced” seemed to imply the latter in the language of the day.2

1 . Jean Krenzer, “New Directions: A Quiet Type of Rebellion,” 1960, p 23. 2 . “Gold Tips on Her Cigarettes,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 18 Apr. 1901, p. 3.

23 Several newspapers during an 1898 scandal attributed Dr. Muir’s medical degree to New York University, but others of his published medical qualifications were doubtful. Well before, in 1891, he attracted the attention of the press when, as Dr. A. Joseph Meuer, by his own accounts elsewhere age twenty-six, he set up the Koch tuberculosis hospital in Denver, supposedly funded by the city and a wealthy German woman, based on a sample of tuberculin he had traveled to Berlin to obtain from Dr. Robert Koch. Koch, the discoverer of the tubercle bacillus, had presented tuberculin in 1890 as a miracle tuberculosis cure without rigorous testing. After a flurry of publicity across the Midwest, both Koch’s treatment and Meuer’s hospital failed, though Koch went on to win the Nobel Prize for his other accomplishments.3
Meuer returned to New York and set up a practice as a lung and tuberculosis specialist. The 30-year-old doctor married Maud Kennedy Roseburgh, a 29-year-old widow, in March 1894, by which time he was giving his name as Muir. She had divorced him, retaining custody of their daughter, by July 1898, when he eloped with 23-year-old Edla Coleman McPherson, daughter of a late three-term US Senator, possessor of a $150,000 trust fund ($5 million today) and potential heiress of $750,000 ($24 million today) [“Gold Tips”]). The elopement—they were married against the bride’s mother’s wishes by a part-time justice and full-time barber in Hoboken—made national news.

Edla McPherson Muir’s mother, Edla Gregory McPherson, accused Joseph Muir of mental manipulation, vainly encouraged an annulment, and threatened to disinherit her daughter.

Following their marriage, the Muirs spent extravagantly and as “angels” invested with some success and numerous failures in theatrical ventures. Eventually bill collectors— including for 2,400 gold-tipped cigarettes individually stamped with Edla’s signature “Eddy”—caused them retire from their townhouse on West 36th Street to a suite at the Waldorf. The late Senator McPherson’s contacts were enlisted to get Dr. Muir appointed secretary of legation in Stockholm by William McKinley, though unpaid actors petitioned the US Senate to withhold the appointment until they received their arrears.4 Muir had arrived in America in 1875, according to the statement on his naturalization papers. He was not, however, naturalized until 18 March 1901, on the eve of his departure for Europe to take up his US diplomatic post.

The Muirs had just arrived in Ireland on their way to Stockholm when they were told Edla’s mother had died suddenly. She returned to New York; her husband continued to his post.5 On the voyage over, he had lost nearly $10,000 (a third of a million today) at poker with three confidence tricksters, one of them claiming to be the nephew of the governor of New York. On the voyage back, they informed his wife of the debt, and in New York she paid his $8,000 of IOUs to avoid public scandal. Nevertheless, the incident made the newspapers in

3 . “A Consumptives’ Hospital,” Pittsburg Press, 4 Feb. 1891, p. 1; “Consumption Cured,” Larence, KS Weekly Record, 18 Sep. 1891, p. 1; “Dr. Munn [sic] Is Back on Broadway; Returns Rich with Wife No. 3,” Montgomery Times, 25 Nov. 1908, p. 8. 4
. “Sweden Aghast at Escapades of American Consul,” San Francisco Examiner, Sunday Examiner Magazine, 9 June 1901.
5 . “Mrs. John R. M’Pherson,” Brooklyn Standard Union, 30 Mar. 1901, p. 2; “Muir Goes to Stockholm,” Omaha Daily Bee, 12 Apr. 1901, p. 1.

24 every region of the country, and despite the Pinkertons being called in, the sharpers escaped with the money.6

Architect Edla Muir’s father and her unrelated namesake, his second wife Edla McPherson Muir. San Francisco Examiner, Sunday Examiner Magazine, 9 June 1901.

Next, Edla McPherson Muir discovered that despite a supposed reconciliation, her mother had left her only a life interest in the late Senator’s fortune. The daughter spent the summer filing lawsuits to break the will and reportedly reached a settlement with the executor.

Before she could sign it, however, she died: on 29 December 1901 of measles and pneumonia in the Manhattan Hotel, while her husband was still in Stockholm.7

6 . “Dr. Muir’s Costly Voyage,” New York Times, 22 Apr. 1901, p. 5. 7 . “Ends a Legal Contest,” Indianapolis News, 31 Dec. 1901, p. 8; “Edla Coleman Muir Dead,” Boston Globe, 31 Dec. 1901.

25 Dr. Muir, after accounting for $20,000 of debts, declared the value of his wife’s estate at $11.8 He continued litigation against the will, losing one suit in 1907, but it does not seem to have been finally settled till 1913, with much of the legacy consumed by legal costs.9 Dr. Muir ended his career as legation secretary on 1 June 1902, having started it a year earlier, but he stayed in Stockholm: in July acting as second in duel and in December being fleeced of an unspecified amount of cash and $1,200 in IOUs in a night of dice and poker by a man falsely claiming to be the son of the governor of Kentucky. This time the sharper was arrested and the money recovered.10
Ethel Fitch Muir In January 1905, after Dr. Muir had dropped out of the national news for two years, there was an announcement in the San Bernardino Weekly Sun of the capitalization of the Rancho La Vista company at $50,000, the purpose being construction of a sanitarium and cottages on the Harrison Ranch near the Arrowhead hot springs. The stockholders were R. A. Mack, Rene Fitch, Ethel C. Fitch, Joseph Muir, and Thomas Fitch11.

Eleven days later, the now-40-year-old Dr.

Joseph Muir quietly married the 21-year-old
Ethel Caroline Fitch at the First Methodist
Episcopal Church parsonage in San
Bernardino. Their witnesses, and the only
people in attendance, were Ethel’s mother,
Rene or Rena Fitch, and Ethel’s grandfather,
the legendary “Colonel” Tom Fitch: former
US Congressman from Nevada, California
Assemblyman, Arizona legislator, and
delegate to the Utah constitutional
convention; editor of various frontier
newspapers; legal defender of Brigham
Young against polygamy prosecution and of
Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday for the
gunfight at the OK Corral; the man whom
Mark Twain credited as giving him his “first
really profitable lesson” in composition;
duelist; bribe-taker and extortionist—and
the owner of the Harrison Ranch.12
Right: Edla Muir’s father and mother,
Montgomery Times, 24 November 1908

8 . “Estate Barely Equals Debts,” Washington, DC Evening Star, 23 Jan. 1902, p. 7; “Yale Is Remembered in M’Pherson Will,” Washington, DC Evening Times, 8 Sep. 1902. 9 . “Suit Recalls Old Romance,” New York Times, 13 Nov. 1907, p. 4; “$318,000 for Poor Students at Yale,” Ottawa, KS Evening Herald, 16 Sep. 1913, p. 8. 10. “The Cream of Late Scandinavian News,” Moline Daily Dispatch, 31 July 1902, p. 8; 5 Jan. 1903, p. 8. 11. 20 Jan. 1905, p. 3. 12. Archibald Henderson, Mark Twain (New York: Stokes, 1901), pp. 99–100.

26 There is some confusion in public accounts as to whether Tom Fitch was Ethel Fitch Muir’s father or grandfather. In fact he was both. Eight weeks after they witnessed Ethel’s marriage to Joseph Muir, the 67-year-old and recently widowed Tom Fitch married his 41- year-old daughter-in-law, with Joseph and Ethel Fitch Muir as witnesses.

The peculiarity of the latter marriage, the celebrity of the groom, and the attempt to keep the license secret ended up making news reports across the West, which also drew press attention to the Muirs’ marriage, though the papers did not make the connection to the notorious Dr. Muir of New York or Dr. Meuer of Denver.13 The newspapers all reported— presumably on the bride and groom’s information—that Rena Fitch was also widowed, but in fact her first husband, Tom’s son Francis, was alive and well and living with his second wife Laura Cardwell and second daughter Frances, though where is unclear. He had been practicing law in Medford, Oregon in the mid 1890s, then relocated to San Francisco, then Los Angeles by 1897, Medford in 1900, San Francisco in 1901, but in 1903 the Ways and Means Committee of the Oregon State Legislature included an expense of $112 to Alex Orme “incurred in the pursuit of Francis Fitch, a fugitive from justice.”14 He turned up again in San Francisco in 1908, associated with the Cameraphone Company, incorporated to take advantage of a talking picture invention by his brother Tom Fitch, Jr. In 1909 the collapsed company was suing its five directors for fraud and conspiracy, attempting to lodge responsibility for its debts to them and Francis Fitch, “to whom they transferred the greater part of their stock.” Francis, meanwhile, had moved to New York City.15 Ethel Caroline Fitch, Francis’s first daughter, Joseph Muir’s third bride and the architect Edla Muir’s mother, was born in San Francisco on 19 May 1883 to Francis and Rena Dodds Fitch, who had married a year earlier in Arizona.
16 Francis was Tom Fitch’s elder son, born
in Missouri in 1859, before his father came out West to campaign for Lincoln in California.

Francis’s mother Mary divorced Tom in 1862, eight months pregnant with their younger son, Tom Fitch, Jr., and Tom largely abandoned all three, though the sons ended up on good terms with their father, and like their father Francis became an attorney, appearing to have partnered with him briefly in Denver after first practicing in Arizona and before practicing in San Diego.17
He also, like his father, ended up playing fast and loose with the law and moving (or having to move) often, in December 1888 being arrested in San Francisco for embezzling $500 in San Diego; in January 1889 losing a lawsuit against the proprietress of a disreputable house on Ellis Street; and in April 1889 being indicted by a San Francisco grand jury for felony embezzlement of $50 from a client, though this was later dismissed on the technicality that grand larceny must exceed $50. In the meantime, the district attorney in San Diego, where

13. “Thomas Fitch Takes a Bride,” San Bernardino Daily Sun, 31 Mar. 1905, p. 1, 6. 14. “Francis Fitch, Attorney at Law,” advertisement, Medford Mail, 21 Jan. 1892–24 Apr. 1896; “News of the City,” 21 Feb. 1896, p. 5; “Redondo Arrivals,” Los Angeles Post, 21 June 1897, p. 1; 1900 US Census, Medford; “Purely Personal,” Medford Mail, 1 Mar. 1901, p. 6; “The Report Is Complete,” Daily Orego Statesman, 15 Feb. 1903, p. 5. 15. “Directors Accused of Fraud and Conspiracy,” San Francisco Call, 5 May 1909, p. 16; “Died: [Frances] Fitch,” New York Times, 30 Jan. 1909, p. 9. 16. “Miss Rena Dodds,” Weekly Arizona Miner, 6 Jan. 1882, p. 4. 17 “Frank Fitch,” Globe Arizona Silver Belt, 8 Sep. 1883, p. 3.

27 Fitch had apparently skipped bail, sought his return.18 When he and Rena divorced is unclear, but by 1891 he had relocated to Medford, Oregon and was married to Laura Cardwell, daughter of a wealthy rancher there.

Ethel Fitch was brought up by Rena Fitch, who in 1893 was traveling in the Pacific Northwest with her father-in-law Tom and his second wife Anna Fitch, all listed as being from New York.19 By 1894 Rena had married someone named Goodwin and seems to have been living in Arizona, while Ethel, 11, was at the Ramona Catholic convent school in Shorb (now Alhambra), where she helped found a journal and engaged in musical performances.

Her great aunt in Missouri, Tom’s sister, left a legacy—including property, cash, and diamonds—to pay for her education, and Rena made Tom her trustee. Ethel graduated from Ramona in July 1897, when she was 14. There is no record of further schooling except a stint at the Dobinson School of Expression and Dramatic Art in Los Angeles six years later.20
The summer of her graduation, when Ethel’s father Francis was living in Los Angeles, social news listed Ethel and her mother as living in Beaumont, in Riverside County near the San Bernardino County border, though summering at the Hon. Thomas Fitch’s house in Coronado and at the Hotel Del Coronado while the Francis Fitches visited Redondo Beach and Catalina. By the 1900 US Census, Rena, 37 and using her Fitch surname again, and Ethel, 17—neither with an occupation listed—were staying among middle-class lodgers at 326 S. Hill Street in the then-respectable Bunker Hill neighborhood. By 1902 Rena was sharing a grand stone and wood Queen Anne house at 2666 Menlo in the Rowley Tract of the Adams-Normandie with another woman. In December 1904, just before the plans for the Harrison Ranch were announced and she married Joseph Muir, Ethel was living at the ranch with her grandfather.21
The Muir-Fitch sanitarium and cottages never came to fruition, but Muir was once again successful in marrying a young heiress, though for a smaller sum than Edla McPherson.

Thomas Fitch, as trustee for Ethel, had sold land in the Rowley Tract of the AdamsNormandie neighborhood of Los Angeles for $6,500 in 1899. Tom Fitch deeded Ethel land in San Bernardino County, and Ethel and Joseph Muir sold some San Bernardino land for $15,000 and mortgaged more for $1,500 in 1908 before leaving in the same year for New York City, where Dr. Muir was quoted as having “made a fortune” in ranching, though he did not specify that it was by marrying someone half his age to whom the fortune belonged.
22 In the meantime, Joseph and Ethel Muir had had their first child in San

18. “Francis Fitch,” San Diego Union, 19 Dec. 1888, p. 8; “Lawyer Fitch Gets No Fee,” Daily Alta California, 29 Jan 1889, p. 1; “Fitch Freed,” San Francisco Chronicle, 21 May 1889, p. 6; “Fallen Francis Fitch,” San Diego Union, 27 Apr. 1889, p. 5.

19. “Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Fitch and Mrs. Rene Fitch of New York,” Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 6 Aug. 1893, p. 12. 20. “Local Briefs,” Arizona Republican, 9 Dec. 1894, p. 4; “Probate Court,” St. Louis Daily Globe-Democrat, 25 Oct. 1894, p. 12; “Shorb has an interesting new journalistic venture,” San Francisco Call, 17 Feb. 1896, p. 6; “Shorb,” The Tidings, 3 July 1897, p. 2; “Dramatic Art,” Los Angeles Heral, 8 May 1903, p. 4. 21. “Events of the Week in Society: Coronado,” San Francisco Call, 1 Aug. 1897, p. 26; Los Angeles city directory, 1902–1903, p. 1556; “Personal,” San Bernardino Daily Sun,” 24 Dec. 1904, p. 5. 22. Los Angeles Evening Express, 27 Nov. 1899; Daily Times Index, 19 Apr. 1905; “Official Record, January 3, 14 and 15,” San Bernardino Daily Sun, 4 Jan. 1908, p. 8.

28 Francisco on 23 January 1906 and named her Edla after Joseph Muir’s earlier great catch.

This Edla Muir was to become the master architect.

In the 1910 census, the Muirs were living in a substantial Neoclassical apartment building at 3 West 87th Street, beyond the range of fashion but not of wealth, with Edla; her baby brother Thomas Fitch Muir, generally known as Fitch; and two live-in servants. Francis and Laura Cardwell Fitch, Edla’s grandfather and step-grandmother, were living a fifteenminute walk away on West 18st Street, though Francis would die later that year. His first wife Rena was back in California suing her mother over control of a hotel in Banning that Rena had given her.23
Joseph had recently been running an “inhalatorium” for chorus girls in The Chocolate Soldier backstage at the Casino Theater, which made national news.24 Ethel listed her profession as “none,” but the following year the New York and New Jersey papers began to give Ethel Fitch Muir concert listings and even notices—“sang well” (“Musical Moments,” Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 18 Dec. 1911, p. 13)—as a mezzo-soprano and contralto. These stopped in 1913, and in 1915 the Los Angeles Times announced her return to that city and cited her coaching by Hans Morgenstern. As Morgenstern was director of the Metropolitan Opera’s Chorus School, it suggests Fitch Muir sang in the Met’s chorus as well as appearing as a soloist at recitals in the region.

In the meantime, Dr. Muir, author of the article “Radium for Gout,” gained national press for his new “emanatorium,” “a sort of sealed room where the radium charges the atmosphere, the patients sit idly.”25 He went on to promote radium in various treatments and connect himself with the Radium Company of Colorado as a supplier of the then rare and hugely valuable material, bizarrely claiming both membership in the Royal College of Surgeons and Royal College of Physicians and to have been the model for the profile of the Indian on the Buffalo Nickel.26
Los Angeles press and promotion treated Ethel Fitch Muir as an opera star from the East Coast, but after the initial hype, her career failed to take off, and her last documented appearance under that name was at a Wednesday noontime recital at the Barker Brothers furniture store in downtown Los Angeles in July 1919.27 Her next press notices were in Los Angeles and New York papers from April to August 1920 for her divorce action against Joseph Muir for desertion and failure to provide, asking monthly alimony of $250 and child support of $150 (about $5,500 today).

Ethel Muir alleged that her husband sent her from New York to Los Angeles and refused to send her enough money to return or to acknowledge her letters. The Los Angeles Evening Express also reported that they had separated in 1910, presumably based on information

23. “Mrs. Fisher to Retain Hotel,” San Bernardino Daily Sun, 1 May 1910, p. 9. 24. “Throat Hospital for Chorus in New York,” Los Angeles Herald, 13 Feb. 1910, p. 41. 25 “Radium Treatment Now in Operation,” Plainfield Courier-News, 17 Apr. 1914, p. 23; O. O. McIntyre, “New York Letter: Right from Broadway,” Lima Republican Gazette, 28 Nov. 1914, p. 4. 26. Features on Every American Nickel, Montreal Gazette, 18 Oct. 1921, p. 5. 27. Barker Brothers advertisement, Los Angeles Evening Herald, 31 July 1919, p. 6.

29 given by Ethel, as Joseph neither contested the divorce nor sent legal representation.28 This date of separation seems unlikely, as in March 1912 Ethel and Joseph were dining with Ethel’s step-mother, Laura Cardwell Fitch, in apartment on West 97th Street in New York, when her step-aunt, Rose Cardwell Fitch Hughes, shot herself twice in the chest an attempted but unsuccessful suicide.29
Gunplay was not unusual among the Fitches. When Rose Cardwell had divorced Ethel’s uncle, Thomas Fitch, Jr., in 1898, he shot her attorney in the hand, which later had to be amputated. Francis Fitch—Ethel’s father, who had shot himself in the foot shortly after marrying his first wife Rena Dodds—represented Thomas in the criminal complaint, where he got him off, then in the divorce took the side of Rose, who was his second wife’s sister.

Two years after the divorce, Thomas Fitch’s first wife Susie Shaw, his “girl bride” and “a comely brunette of high connections,” shot in the chest Edward Conway, a tailor’s cutter who she claimed—and he claimed was not—her husband, although he claimed to have been supporting her and Thomas Fitch, Jr.’s son. She was let off when Conway admitted to having attacked her with a knife and declined to press charges. The press initially confused Susie Shaw Fitch and Rose Cardwell Fitch in its salacious reporting.30 Ethel Fitch’s divorce from Joseph Muir, though less violent than her uncle Thomas’s, is interesting to the architect Edla Muir’s development, because according to the 1920 US Census, on January 17, Ethel Muir was cohabiting with Gustav Gottlieb, a dental mechanic, in a rented apartment at 126 Third Street in downtown Los Angeles. Muir seems to have filled in the information, listing the birthplace of Gustav and his parents as New York (it was Austria), his age as 30 (it was 26), herself as his wife (they did not marry till 8 November 1921), and his name as Gustav Muir.

Meanwhile, on January 12, the census recorded Ethel Muir’s 14-year-old daughter Edla and 10-year-old son Fitch as living with their grandmother Rena as head of household at the rented address of 146½ Surf Street in Santa Monica. A few doors down, at 154, Thomas Fitch was living as a boarder. The previous month, Tom Fitch had sued Rena for desertion, claiming she had an income of more than $150 a month (about $2,400 today), and enjoined her from disposing of $5,000 of jewelry and $20,000 in real estate. Rena filed a crosscomplaint for desertion and nonsupport, claiming Tom Fitch had the “brilliant mental attainments” to earn a livelihood (he was still advertising his legal practice and writing newspaper columns). He withdrew the suit after an agreement to settle their property rights.31 Ten days days before the Santa Monica census, Tom was recorded as living in a large rooming house in Lincoln Heights. The family seems to have fallen on hard times with the attendant acrimony.

28. “Wife Seeking Divorce Asks $400 a Month,” Los Angeles Evening Herald, 19 Apr. 1920, p. B1; “Divorce Granted to Dr. Joseph Muir’s Wife,” Los Angeles Evening Express, 26 Aug. 1920, p. 11. 29. “Naval Officer’s Widow Attempts to Kill Self,” Washington, DC Evening Star, 30 Mar. 1912, p. 9. 30. “Was Found Not Guilty,” Oakland Tribune, 6 Dec. 1900, p. 8; “Await Result of Shot She Fired,” San Francisco Call, 4 Dec. 1900, p. 11; “Rose Cardwell Fitch Shoots,” Stockton Daily Record, 3 Dec. 1900, p. 1. 31. “Thomas Fitch, 82, Is Seeking Divorce,” Los Angeles Evening Express, 9 Dec. 1919, p. 13; “Fitch Drops His Divorce Suit,” Los Angeles Evening Herald, 11 Dec. 1919, p. B1.

30 Ethel Gottlieb continued her singing career under her new name though to little press notice.32 In the 1930 and 1940 censuses and at her death in 1942, she and Gustav were living in largely Japanese truck farming areas of Hawthorne.

Joseph Muir’s last two encounters with the national press were when (a) he promoted, to American Academy of Physical Therapy, radiation for the treatment of cancer, finally getting a medical advance right, and (b), simultaneously, a manicurist and former Follies girl, Irma Schubert, sued him for $150,000 for malpractice for leaving a radium seed in her throat during a treatment for tonsillitis, injuring her health and ruining her beauty and stage career. “Then when I became ill, he offered to marry me.” The suit was settled for an undisclosed sum, but Schubert was later pictured boarding a liner for three-week Caribbean cruise.33 The showgirl suit got far more play than the cancer treatment. Muir died in Manhattan on 11 February 1934 to no notice in the press.

Later in the year his daughter Edla was to gain her architecture license and become a partner with John Byers, and the next year design a modest, homey Minimal Traditional Colonial for herself at 455 North Bundy in Brentwood.

Tom Fitch Edla Muir’s cultural DNA stretches back to her great-grandfather, stepgrandfather, and effective in loco patris Tom Fitch—not only because from age nine to seventeen, after she and her mother and brother came to Los Angeles, he was the substitute father figure in her life; not only because his writing, speechmaking, and personal mythmaking continued to resonate through the Los Angeles basin during that time; but because his combination of genius and malfeasance descended, somewhat diluted, through the next two generations and their high rolling, risk taking, rule breaking, and tendency to flee from the consequences. Edla Muir’s career definitively rejected this inheritance, yet she also designed for the people of this world: Hollywood stars and business tycoons.

Despite having reported on the second Lincoln-Douglas debate and advised the young Mark Twain at the beginning of his speaking career, Thomas Fitch lived till 1923, after his great-granddaughter Edla had graduated from high school and gone to work full-time for architect John Byers. Tom Fitch—boarding next to the beach in Santa Monica, two doors down from Edla, her brother and his namesake Fitch, and Edla’s grandmother and his third wife Rena—lived much reduced but with an afterglow of glory in a city whose first lot sales he had graced with his oratory and speculation forty-five years earlier.

In the late 1900s, 1910s, and early 1920s, when Edla was growing up in the Southland, Tom Fitch was still practicing law, giving speeches, and writing regular columns for the Los Angeles Times and other publications. In 1909, he argued a seven-year-old case for the Japanese Merchants’ Union from his time practicing law in Hawaii—whether sake should be taxed as wine, beer, or miscellaneous—before the US Supreme Court. The court ruled against his clients in 1910, depriving him of a $100,000 contingency fee and the restoration

32. “Weekend Concert Sponsored by Silverwood’s,” Los Angeles Daily Times, 7 Feb. 1925, p. 18. 33. “Cancer Control Is Subject of New York Physician,” Montgomery Advertiser, 3 Sep. 1931, p. 2; Jack Miley, “Doctor Says ‘Sue Me,’ So She Sues—for $150,000,” New York Daily News, 22 Nov. 1929, p. 3; “Ex-Follies Girls Settles $150,000 Damage Suit,” Garrett Clipper, 15 Feb. 1932, p. 2; “Radium Suit Winner Starts Trip to West Indies,” Bergen Evening Record, 16 Mar. 1932, p. 3.

31 of the family’s dwindling fortunes.34 Though his columns (and doubtless family narratives) were sanitized versions of his past, he was certainly a looming presence in young Edla’s life.

Tom Fitch in the 1860s Thomas Fitch first came to the notice of Californians in August 1860 as a 23-year-old star, making dozens of stump speeches for Abraham Lincoln around the state as the “eloquent Milwaukian” (Republican papers) or “carpet bag politician” and “imported ‘Milwaukie orator’” talking “soft nonsense” (Democratic).

Throughout a career that spanned the late 1850s to the early 1920s, Fitch attracted a following by being willing to speak truth to power in earthy and eloquent language. In 1864 in Nevada Territory, he brought a criminal complaint against one W. F. Myers for “language derogatory of our fellow citizens of African descent,” with the result that the government of the United States was brought into disrepute and the southern Confederacy encouraged, so Fitch charged Myers should be hanged for treason. (The complaint was dismissed.) Four decades later, Fitch created great offense among white Hawaiians, soon after his arrival in Honolulu to set up a law practice, by defending Chinese labor and averring that “we swiped the Kanakas’ country.”35
But he he found it hard to resist grafting money from
power. While he was campaigning for Lincoln in
California, his pregnant wife and infant son were back in Wisconsin, where in February of that year he had become part owner of the Free Democrat, an abolitionist
newspaper, bringing “to the establishment a liberal
amount of capital.” By June his editorial and proprietary interested in the paper had ended, and he had been
arrested in Milwaukee and taken to Missouri on a charge of obtaining money under false pretenses a year before.36 This combination of trouble and flight to new
opportunities was to become a pattern in his life and that of his eldest son Francis, Edla’s grandfather, and of Edla’s mother Ethel.

Lincoln won California in November, and immediately
after the election, Tom Fitch took over as editor of the San Francisco Gazette, which failed within a month.37
On 11 January 1861 Fitch sailed east, “intending to return at once with his family.” Instead, on February 8, he was meeting with Lincoln in Springfield, Illinois, four days before the president-elect departed for Washington, noted by contemporaries as an inconvenient moment for an importunate office-seeker. Supposedly the California delegation had come

34. “Sake Cases Again Heard,” Honolulu Pacific Commercial Advertiser, 20 Dec. 1909, p. 19; “Half Million Is Lost by Sake Decision,” Honolulu Evening Bulletin, 4 Jan. 1910, p. 1. 35. “Hang Him,” Sacramento Daily Bee, 4 Apr. 1864, p. 1; “Mr. Fitch’s Views,” Pacific Commercial Advertiser, 28 Dec. 1901, p. 4.

36. “The ‘Free Democrat,’” Racine Daily Journal, 18 Feb. 1860, p. 1; “Arrest of One of the Late Editors of the Milwaukee ‘Free Democrat,’” Chicago Press and Tribune, 18 June 1860, p. 2. 37. “San Francisco Gazette,” Sacramento Daily Union, 17 Dec. 1860, p. 8.

32 to press the cause for a Californian in the cabinet, but it was assumed they were actually there to promote their individual interests. After the inauguration in March, Fitch was in Washington, DC and on April 11 boarded a return ship from New York to California, due to arrive May 4—unaccompanied by his family and without a federal appointment.38 Neither Honest Abe nor anyone in his administration seemed to find Fitch suitable for even minor employment, in an era when a vastly greater proportion of federal jobs were in the president’s gift.

But Tom Fitch’s pull in California was greater, and on June 7, a month after his return, he was appointed the cashier at the San Francisco Mint by the mint’s superintendent.

Unfortunately, the Mint’s treasurer appointed a rival candidate at the same time. They trained in tandem under their departing predecessor, but within five days it was announced Fitch would be joining the San Francisco Daily Times, and by mid July it was announced he had resigned from the Mint. In July, announcements of his speaking engagements by the Republican State Central Committee described him as editor of the Daily Times and gave him the honorific Esquire, whether because he had obtained legal credentials or in recognition of his brief government office is unclear.39 By mid August 1861 he is being referred to as the ex-editor of the Daily Times. According to the Republican State Central Committee, the Daily Times, in August, had tried to extort $5,000 not to substitute the name of Union Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Conness for Republican Leland Stanford’s at the head of its columns. Fitch, editor and part owner, disclaimed any knowledge of the extortion. In September Stanford won.40 In October, Fitch purchased the Placerville Republican and became its editor. Almost immediately he was called to the California Regiment with the rank of major and was preparing to leave the Republican for the Civil War, but the news that the regiment’s commander, Major General (and US Senator) Edward Dickinson Baker, had already been killed in action at the Battle of Ball’s Bluff in Virginia, caused Fitch to cancel his departure, his loyalty apparently being political or personal rather than national.41 In November the San Francisco Call broke the story that Fitch had attempted to extort money from a US Post Office clerk for the latter to retain his position.42 So divided and intemperate were the California papers in Republican and Democratic partisanship that the story did not develop legs, but an investigation commenced from Washington on corruption in federal offices in California.

38. “Departures By Today’s Steamer,” Daily Alta California, 11 Jan. 1861, p. 1; “Presidential Gossip,” Sacramento Daily Union, 11 Mar. 1861, p. 4; “Sycamore in Washington,” Sacramento Daily Bee, 25 Apr. 1861, p. 1; “Passengers Coming,” Sacramento Daily Bee, 30 Apr. 1861, p. 4; “Returning Californians,” Daily Alta California, 1 May 1861, p. 1; “Poor Fellow,” Red Bluff Beacon, 23 May 1861, p. 2. 39. “The Troubles in the Mint,” Sacramento Daily Union, 10 June 1861, p. 6; “Exclusive to the Daily Bee,” Sacramento Daily Bee, 12 June 1861, p. 3; “State Stump Speaker,” Daily Alta California, 18 July 1861, p. 2; “Political Speaking—Thomas Fitch,” Sacramento Daily Union, 20 July 1861, p. 4. 40. “Political Meetings,” Daily National Democrat, 14 Aug. 1861; “Card from the Republican State Central Committee,” Daily Alta California, 28 Aug. 1861, p. 2. 41. “Placerville Republican,” Stockton Daily Independent, 21 Oct. 1861, p. 2; “Placerville Republican,” Sacramento Daily Union, 2 Nov. 1861, p. 2. 42. “San Francisco Dispatch,” Stockton Daily Independent, 23 Nov. 1861, p. 2.

33 At the end of April 1862, Fitch’s wife Mary was severely burned on her arm, shoulders, neck, and ear when her ballgown caught a candle flame. In June their one-year-old daughter Camille Louisa died. Despite these two family disasters, the El Dorado County Republican convention elected Tom Fitch delegate to the state Union convention, and he attended it. On his return, Fitch ceased publication of the Republican and offered the presses, type, and office furniture for sale, apparently cleaned out.43 Yet in July, Fitch gave the Independence Day address in Ione City and was nominated for State Assembly on the Union Democratic fusion ticket in El Dorado County. After a vituperative election in which Fitch was accused of many things and, according to the Democratic press, admitted to being a gambler and having been expelled from the Freemasons, he was elected in September, a 25-year-old Assemblyman who had been in California barely two years.44
The next month, Mary Fitch, eight months pregnant, sued Thomas Fitch for divorce for desertion and failure to support, which divorce was granted November 11. On November 30 she gave birth to their younger son, whom she named Thomas Junior. A month later, on New Year’s Day 1863, Tom Fitch married the poet Mrs. Anna Mariska Schultz, a fellow passenger on the Cortes in January 1861, which he had sailed on “to return at once with his family.” Tom and Anna Fitch would stay married till her death in 1904.45 The next few months were uneventful except for votes in the Assembly, where from January 1863 Fitch was sitting as a Republican despite having run on the Union Democratic ticket. In April he was nominated to run for Congress.46 The same month, testimony in the federal investigation of corruption in San Francisco offices hit the newspapers. Fitch was accused of having obtained a Custom House printing contract at so inflated a rate that he was able to farm it out at half the cost; of having accepted a bribe to obtain someone a position at the San Francisco Mint, but the position was worth only two-thirds of what the briber had expected; of having promised to furnish information to bring down Superintendent Stevens, then met with Stevens and come away “flush of money, which was a remarkable circumstance, as he was dead broke when he arrived here from Placerville,” and having subsequently not furnished the promised

43. “A Sad Accident,” Sacramento Daily Union, 2 May 1862, p. 3; “Died,” Sacramento Daily Union, 13 June 1862, p. 2; “The Republican County Convention,” Mountain Democrat, 14 June 1862, p. 2; “Union State Convention,” Sacramento Daily Union, 18 June 1862, p. 1; “Placerville Republican,” 27 June 1862.

44. “News of the Morning,” Sacramento Daily Union, 16 June 1862, p. 2; “El Dorado Nominations,” Nevada Democrat, 2 Aug. 1862, p. 2; “Sanderson and Fitch at Centreville,” Mountain Democrat, 30 Aug. 1862, p. 3. 45. “Items,” Sonoma County Democrat, 23 Oct. 1862, p. 2; “By Telegraph to the Union,” Sacramento Daily Union, 11 Nov. 1862, p. 2; “Births,” Sacramento Daily Union, 11 Dec. 1862, p. 2; “Death of Mrs. Thomas Fitch,” San Diego Union, 16 Apr. 1904, p. 2. 46 “Candidates for the State Offices,” Sacramento Daily Union, 15 Apr. 1863, p. 3.

34 information. Fitch immediately issued a passionate denial in the Assembly and in May filed suit for $15,000 against one of the papers that had printed the charges.47 In June the Sacramento Daily Union printed verbatim testimony to Special Agent Brown from Joseph M. Lord, who had lost the use of his right arm, of how Fitch had sold him for $500 a position at the Mint that Superintendent Stevens had promised to Fitch, to be held during the administration of Lincoln, and how he subsequently discovered that Fitch had already sold it to Harvey Somers, but on demanding his $500 back got another position instead.
48 Mark Twain by Abdullah
Frères, 1867
In July 1863 the Stockton Daily Independent announced that Thomas Fitch was now a resident of Virginia City, Nevada. Not for the first or last time, he had done an expedient bunk.

Fitch became editor of the Virginia City Union and by the end of July had challenged the editor of that city’s Territorial Enterprise, Joseph T. Goodman, to a duel, which was broken up twice by marshal and sheriff and reported on by the Territorial Enterprise’s Mark Twain, a report reprinted in California. (“It was agreed between the two seconds that the battle should transpire at nine o’clock yesterday morning (which would have been late in the day for most duelists, but it was fearfully early for newspapermen to have to get up).”) Fitch and
Goodman gave bonds to keep the peace, but Fitch challenged Goodman again in September, and on the 28th Goodman, who knew how to shoot, while Fitch didn’t, gave Fitch a flesh would in the leg lieu of having to do him more serious injury.49 The two duels played in the press for three months, through October 1863. In January 1864, Fitch began to advertise himself as an attorney and disclaimed editorship of the Union.
50 But the press was not of his blood, for in March, to great fanfare, he started a literary monthly called the Occidental, which Mark Twain was to appear in the third issue of, but which lasted for only one issue. In June Fitch was a delegate to the Nevada constitutional convention. At the beginning of July, he co-founded the Washoe Herald but by the end of the month had sold out to his partner.51
In August he was also admitted to practice as an attorney before the Supreme Court of Nevada Territory and was nominated as the Union Party candidate for Congress in the new

47. “By Telegraph to the Union,” Sacramento Daily Union, 7 Apr. 1863, p. 2. “Disclosures at Washington,” Sacramento Daily Union, 18 Apr. 1863, p. 2. In June, the Sacramento Daily Union. 48. “More About Special Agent Brown’s Investigation,” 9 June 1863, p. 1. 49. “The Fourth in Washoe,” p. 3; [Mark Twain,] “A Duel Prevented,” Sacramento Daily Union, 4 Aug. 1863, p. 2; “Duel in Washoe,” Daily Alta California, 29 Sep. 1863, p. 1; “Thomas Fitch,” Stockton Daily Independent, 6 Oct. 1863, p. 3.

50. “Thomas Fitch Attorney-At-Law,” advertisement, Gold Hill Daily News, 20 Jan. 1864, p. 2; “Correction,” Gold Hill Daily News, 8 Jan. 1864, p. 2. 51. Dan DeQuille, “Reporting with Mark Twain,” California Illustrated Magazine, July 1893; “Delegates from Storey County,” Sacramento Daily Union, 10 June 1864, p. 2; “New Paper in Washoe,” Sacramento Daily Union, 4 July 1864, p 4; “Washoe Herald,” Marysville Daily Appeal, 22 July 1864, p 3.

35 Union-supporting state by an overwhelming majority. The Territorial Enterprise, in opposing the nomination, called Fitch a “putrid and revolting person,” and an independent Union candidate was put forward, in the person of Delos Ashley, a former California assemblyman, state senator, and state treasurer. Delos beat Fitch, but Fitch seems to have taken the defeat cheerfully.52
The following February, 1865, newspapers in California and Nevada reported that Mary Fitch, Tom’s ex-wife, had been discovered in San Francisco, in a miserable room with her two children (6-year-old Francis and 2-year-oldThomas, Jr.), having sold all her possessions and in a dying condition from want, not having eaten in three days. The California Assembly took up a collection, and in the Virginia City Union Tom Fitch published a response questioning the existence of such reports, claiming that if they existed they were malicious, pointing out Mary Fitch divorced him, professing ignorance of her want, and claiming to have sent her $70 a month until he was overtaken with misfortunes.53 Mary Fitch did not die and married a salesman and later wealthy wholesale grocer named Lorenzo Henry Sweeney. In 1897, the San Francisco Chronicle claimed they were married in 1864, which would have been the year before she was supposedly found starving. She changed Thomas Fitch, Jr.’s name to George Arnold Sweeney, which he petitioned to change back after—in his twenties—he met his father. Thomas, Jr. contested his mother’s will in 1897 on the basis of his stepfather’s turning her against him for becoming friendly with his father.

At any rate, the tempest over Mary Fitch passed, and in August 1865, the commissioners of Washoe County appointed Thomas Fitch—who had been arrested in Wisconsin and extradited to Missouri in 1860 and whose investigation by the federal government for extortion, bribes, and graft was published in 1863—district attorney.54 From fall of 1867 to spring of 1868, Fitch was living and practicing law in San Francisco, though announcing he was still a resident of Nevada, but with Rep. Delos Ashley retiring after two terms, Fitch returned in time to run for the Republican Congressional nomination (having in 1867 failed to secure one of its Senatorial seats). At the age of thirty, Fitch triumphed in the general election and served 1869–1871 before being beaten in his reelection bid by a Democrat. The month following the end of his Congressional term representing Nevada, he moved to Salt Lake City and set up as attorney there and a year later was nearly elected US Senator for a state, Deseret, that almost came into existence.55 Edla Muir’s Early Career All sources agree that Edla Muir started working for the architect John Byers part-time in 1919, when she was 13 and Byers was just starting his practice as a self-trained architect. No source explains how they encountered one another,

52. “Thomas Fitch,” Sacramento Daily Bee, 22 Aug. 1863, p. 2; “By Magnetic Telegraph,” Stockton Daily Independent, 16 Aug. 1864, p. 2; “Tom Fitch for Congress,” Placer Herald, 27 Aug. 1864, p. 2. 53. “San Francisco Dispatch: Starving to Death,” Nevada Gold Hill Evening News, 24 Feb. 1865, p. 2; “The members at the Legislature,” Sacramento Daily Union, 27 Feb. 1865, p. 2.; “Card of Thomas Fitch,” Sacramento Daily Union, 3 Mar. 1865, p. 2. 54. “Bay Gleanings,” Sacramento Daily Bee, 20 July 1889, p. 8; “Has an Office,” Sacramento Daily Bee, 31 Aug. 1865, p. 3; “Tom Fitch, Junior, Contesting a Will,” San Francisco Chronicle, 22 Sep. 1897, p. 9. 55. “Thomas Fitch Attorney At Law,” advertisement, Salt Lake Daily Tribune, 28 Apr. 1871, p. 2.

36 Above and right: John Byers’ circa 1930
design for the Unitarian Church of Santa
Monica and a photograph of the finished
product. Courtesy AD&A Museum, UC Santa
Barbara.
but since Muir was living in Santa Monica,
and Byers was teaching languages at Santa
Monica High School, it seems likely that she
was one of his students and recruited into
one of his projects.

Byers was born in Grand Rapids in 1875,
educated at as an electrical engineer at the
University of Michigan and Harvard,
worked as such at the 1900 Paris
Exposition, and then went to teach language
in Montevideo, Uruguay. By 1910 he was
working at Santa Monica High School as
head of the Department of Modern
Languages.56

56. Chris Marino, “Biographical/Historical Note,” Finding Aid for the John Byers Papers, Architecture and Design
Collection, Art, Design, and Architecture Museum,
University of California, Santa Barbara. Accessed 5 Dec. 2021.

37 In 1919 Byers’ wife’s cousin, who had commissioned a house in Brentwood from a Mexican crew of adobe builders but did not know Spanish, asked Byers to supervise construction.

During the process Byers became fascinated with adobe, took a leave of absence from his teaching job, and started a third career designing and building high-end Adobe Revival houses for wealthy clients in the Los Angeles area. He established a kiln and workshop on Johnson’s property for building accessories like roof and floor tile and wrought iron and in the postwar paucity of building materials often scavenged structural materials and architectural features.57
In 1925, two years after Muir came to work for Byers full-time, he became, at age 50, a licensed architect. Up till then, 13 of the 15 documented houses of his professional career had been adobes; now other materials and styles began to dominate, from Tudor to Cape Cod. To what extent this was a result of his new status, Muir’s influence, or a change tastes is a matter of speculation, but it is clear Muir had an unusually pivotal role even before she gained her architecture license and Byers added her name to the partnership.

Muir earned her license in 1934, in her late twenties, but by 1927, when other architects were still in school, she had already won a prestigious award for hillside architecture.

Byers handled the business end of things, solicited new clients, entertained them, and supervised buildings in progress. Edla Muir was in charge of all design and ran the office. Byers kept strict control of all design, although he executed few of the details or final drawings himself. He would make preliminary sketches of what he thought the client would like to see or he would ask Edla Muir to do a rendering of the style of house the client wanted. After the client’s approval, Miss Muir and the staff did the drawings from the sketch stage followed by Byers’ supervision and final approval (Sell, p. 33).

Edla Muir donated the Byers papers to UC Santa Barbara, and Muir’s widower, Clyde Lambie, donated her papers. Muir’s papers start in the 1940s, after her partnership with Byers had dissolved; hence the Muller House drawings are filed in the Byers Papers. Yet this seems to be a result of Muir’s modesty: she would have done the drawings and much if not most of the design of the partnership’s houses, and Elizabeth Biehl Muller was clear in the interview that informed the 1997 DPR523 that her and her husband’s house was designed by a woman architect, Edla Muir.

Edla Muir’s Mature Career The last published design attributed jointly to Byers and Muir is appeared in the Los Angeles Times on 4 January 1942. The exteriors were of oiled redwood, interiors of oiled pine, with open rafters. Furnished with traditional furniture and rugs, it had the atmosphere of the rustic cabin, yet in space and fenestration (including a skylight) it was a transition into the Mid Century Modern that Muir would master after World War II. The Dr. and Mrs. James L. McPherson House, published on April 5 the same year—the first under Muir’s name alone—was a more explicit essay in the contrasting and clustered planes of Modernism and was titled by the Times simply “Modern.” The

57. Margaret Sell, The Residential Architecture of John Byers and Edla Muir, master’s thesis, Home Economics, California State University, Northridge, 1979.

38 contention of some scholarship that Muir only turned to Modernism after the Case Study houses were published is false.

She did, however, go on hiatus, which seems to have been a combination of limited building activity during World War II (at least for domestic architecture) and the birth of her son Alec Lambie on 19 December 1942.

Before VE Day the Times
published her drawing for a
rambling Tudor in Westwood
for the DeHaases, and by late
1945 she was advertising for
an experienced draftsman.
1946 brought Los Angeles
Times photographic spreads
of completed houses, but
they were Minimal
Traditional and Ranch style.

In 1947 film stars Barbara
Stanwyck and Robert Taylor
commissioned a house from
her, also a rambling
Traditional, but the glamour
seems to have prompted her
name to be included for the
first time in real estate ads:
“design by Architect Edla
Muir featured in Home
Section of Times.”
Example of innovative detail in a traditional home. Whitepainted brick fireplace in redwood-paneled room, 1946 Mandeville Canyon house by Edla Muir. “Woodland
Seclusion,” Los Angeles Times Home Magazine, 7 Apr. 1946.

Her big splash into Mid Century Modernism came (quite literally) with a house for Philip Ilsley, “father of the modern swimming pool,” on a hilltop overlooking the San Fernando Valley, with a pool that encroached into the living room. The Mid Century Modernist view house, with its glass expanses, open plans, and integration into a designed landscape, was now in Muir’s repertory. It was a far cry from her “Delightfully Californian” hillside house for Ilsely with hipped roofs, a pergola, fieldstone fireplace, and traditional furniture only three years before. The Southern California style had arrived with a vengeance—and a thirteen-hour-long launch party with Muir, Olympic swimming champions, and Boris Karloff.
58 In the same year, however, Muir proved she could master an almost Zen-like Minimalism with the Mr. and Mrs. George Howard House in Malibu. A wall of books faced a glass wall of ocean and sky, broken by a great stone chimney and fireplace in an inverted T. It was a house as muscular in its simplicity as the Ilsley House seemed evanescent in its exuberance, its manmade pool in the shape of a fallen leaf. Seemed, because the Ilsley House and its pool

58. Belle Meade, “Here and Hear About,” Nashville Banner, 18 Mar. 1949.

39 are still there. But the Howard House received serious attention, with its Times write-up by Modernism proponent Ethel McCall Head and photographs by Julius Shulman, the first time the great photographer of California Modernism had done a Muir house.

Edla Muir had been taken seriously as John Byers’ partner, having been included in the California House and Garden Exhibition in 1936 with Richard Neutra and Paul Revere Williams. She was taken seriously in 1948, when Architectural Record’s “A Thousand Women in Architecture” featured Muir as one of only ten female architects written up, for her Stanwyck-Taylor House. But now she was combining her ability to conjure domestic comfort with Modernism’s cutting edge. She even designed a Brentwood house for George and Selma Sturges to replace their Frank Lloyd Wright house of ten years earlier and a few blocks away. She had already developed a reputation for livable Modernism.

Wall of books facing wall of glass to ocean views, Mr. and Mrs. George Howard House, Malibu.

Photograph by Julius Shulman.

The Los Angeles Times Home Magazine was a key factor in this. Unlike her male forebears, Edla Muir did not gain publicity for scandal, and her architecture career had much greater staying power in the press than her mother’s singing career, but in the post–World War II era, newspapers were looking for content to pad out its real estate and home products ads

40 for a suburbanizing readership. Muir’s designs (apart from the Ilsley House with the swimming pool that came inside the living room and an underwater viewing room) were an imaginable aspiration.

In December of 1951 the Home Magazine The Los Angeles Times Home Magazine ran a twopage spread on “Four Houses and Our Future,” with built designs by Richard Neutra, Spaulding-Rex, Henry L. Eggers, and Edla Muir. Where in 1936 her and Byers’ traditional New Orleans House at the House and Garden Exhibition was a counterpoint to Neutra’s experimentalism, now she was in the Modernist pantheon. Featured was her house for Zola Hall. Not only would this win the Honor Award from the American Institute of Architects, Southern California chapter in 1952; not only would it be the only house by an individual woman architect to be chosen for the 1952 volume 82 Distinctive Houses from “Architectural Record”, but John Rex of Spaulding-Rex, one of the earliest Case Study designers, would shortly after marry Zola Hall and move into the house (which is why it is sometimes known as the John Rex House).

Now, at the height of her reputation, Edla Muir moved with her husband and son, Clyde and Alec Lambie, to rural Washington, where she designed a ranch house for them to live in outside Ellensburg. While they ranched, away from the Los Angeles that had become one of the centers of Modernist architecture, and particularly the center of suburban Modernism, Muir designed local buildings, including a still extant supermarket.

On her return to Los Angeles she joined Matcham, Granger, a new firm that would specialize in sleekly modernish institutional and commercial projects, as an unnamed associate, but the association did not last long. Muir went back into individual practice designing the private houses at which she excelled. In 1962 the Los Angeles Times Home Magazine featured her third house designed and built for herself, this time on the cover. An ingenious hillside house of plywood, hearkening back to her 1936 encounter with Neutra’s plywood house at the House and Garden Exhibition, it yet had the sort of care and detailing that she had learned working with Byers, including saw-surfacing on the plywood and finshaped battens separating the sheets.

This was to be her last house featured in the magazine. Though Muir continued to practice for the rest of the 1960s, LA Modernism had moved on to a flashier variety. After Muir’s early death in 1971, her houses on the resale market continued to be advertised as “designed by Edla Muir,” and a new interest in the history of California’s pioneering women architects focused articles and exhibitions on her in the mid to late 1970s and again in the early 1990s. But interest ebbed, and real estate ads began to refer to “Edna Muir” houses.

It seems time for a re-assessment of Muir, who with Riggs was one of the two pioneer California women architects who mastered Modernism. For Muir, that mastery came from the attention to material, detail, and human comfort that she honed in a twenty-year association with Byers, who entered architecture through his interest in the craft of adobe.

The thoughtful interiors and dramatic exteriors of the Muller House are a precursor to the Modernist work that would bring her a national reputation a decade and a half later.

41 The Muller-Noggle House The permit for the house and garage lists contractor but not architect; it is likely the Stolte Company had in-house architects with knowledge of the many pattern books of the new suburban architecture, who could assemble the desires of clients and anticipate them with inventions. The Muller-Noggle House is notable for its numerous unusual features: not only the reception pavilion’s pyramidal roof with central chimney and bay windows with bell-cast eaves, but a projecting south wing for bedrooms, necessitated by the house’s being a single story; a curved quarter-bay connecting reception room pavilion and bedroom wing in the interior angle, fronting a nook inside; pilastered front door with sidelights; and matching garage with pyramidal finialed roof, like a pigeonnier. The resource exemplifies the afore-mentioned Minimal Traditional’s closeclipped rakes, minimized windows, decluttered walls, broad expanse of steeply pitched roof, prominent chimney, curvilinear features, and smooth transitions. Interior features include paneling, coves on the bedroom wing’s exterior walls, reception room crown molding, and octagon dining room (formed by built-in cabinets in two corners topped with arches, faux keystones, and interior coves and a recessed ironing board in a third corner).

The Haselmans have been painstaking in retaining and restoring interior details.

The overall style—including such decorative details as the built-in cabinets, crown moldings, sconces, and front door pilasters and sidelights—is Late Georgian Revival.

Pigeonnier, Whitney Plantation, Louisiana. The right to build towers was reserved in France for the nobility. For practical purposes, these usually took the form of stair towers on houses or pigeonniers.

42 Guide to Minimal Traditional revival types from the 1939 San Luis Obispo County City and Telephone Directory, identifying the Georgian style not with English squires but Southern planters.

43 Photos above and right: Mai
Haselman

44 5. Period of Significance
The Muller-Noggle House and Garage are significant for their Minimal Traditional Late Georgian Revival architecture as constructed by the F. C. Stolte Company from late 1936 to early 1937. Their period of significance is therefore the year of their construction.

45 6. Integrity and Character-Defining Features
Location The Muller-Noggle House and Garage retain their original locations.

Design The bedroom wing of the house was extended after its original construction and period of significance. The addition is undetectable on the front façade, however, and though the proportion between the reception room pavilion and bedroom wing are slightly altered by it, their relationship to each other and the resultant stylized proportions that define the character of the Minimal Traditional survive.

The house’s pyramidal roof and central chimney, north-facing bell-cast bay windows and south-east-facing rounded quarter bay, pilastered and side-lighted front door, and muntined fenestration, as well as the pyramidal roof and finial of the garage, are all character-defining features of the Minimal Traditional Late Georgian Revival design. The garage doors are not character-defining features of the design.

The brick posts and white fence, with their
wrought iron gates, including a steel
silhouette front gate that references the
Mission Era, adds greatly to the charm of
the resource, but there is no documentation
as to whether it is original or not. The brick
differs from that of the base of the bedroom
front façade, whether earlier or later.

Johnny Noggle was a Mission historian and
bell ringer, and it is plausible the Missionthemed front gate was added by him, given that it doesn’t match the Neo-Georgian
theme of the house.

Setting The Muller-Noggle House and Garage retain their original suburban setting dominated by Minimal Traditional houses and its relationship to Cerro San Luis and the Brizzolara Creek tributary.

Materials The variegated brick border that runs along the base of the bedroom wing’s front façade is likely a later addition, possibly added at the time of the wing’s extension, and not a character-defining feature. A separate brick structure on the Mission Street frontage, by the driveway, is of varying materials and ages; it and the connected structure of corrugated translucent fiberglass panels are not from the period of significance and need not be protected for the resource’s integrity. The master extension of the bedroom wing is also not of original materials.

Otherwise, the exterior materials of the Muller-Noggle House appear to be original, including fenestration. Asphalt shingles on the house are recent. Wood shingles on the garage appear to be original but are unlikely to survive.

The matching stucco skin of both structures is a character-defining feature.

Workmanship The workmanship of the framers, stuccadores, and finish carpenters of the period of significance retains its integrity.

46 Feeling There is no doubt that Albert and Elizabeth Muller would recognize their house through the minor changes as the young lawyer’s showpiece built as America emerged from the Great Depression. Johnny and Neva Noggle served as long and dedicated conservators.

47 7. Conclusion
A. V. and Elizabeth Biehl Muller and Johnny and Neva Noggle House and Garage are of Minimal Traditional Late Georgian Revival design rare in the United States and unique in San Luis Obispo, with the reception pavilion’s extraordinary pyramidal roof echoed by the garage, plus a plethora of elegant Georgian Revival features—including ones never used in the Georgian era but defining the exaggerated but streamlined aesthetic of the Minimal Traditional. The resource is one of only two documented houses in San Luis by the F. C.

Stolte Company, the historically significant builders of Hearst Castle. The Muller-Noggle House and Garage qualify for the Master List as one of “the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of architectural or historical significance [or] rarity” and retain the high degree of integrity to communicate their significance.

Photo: Mai Haselman

12 Zoning, or remove the property from historic listing if the structure on the property no longer meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the process for listing set forth herein.

14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource, the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the following criteria:

A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. (1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together.
(2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements.

Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. (3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to:

13 a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30).

B. Historic Criteria
(1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials).
(2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
(i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
(ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history).
(3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g., County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Park Hotel).

14 C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the original foundation has been changed, if known.
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance.
(3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.

14.01.080 Historic District Designation, Purpose and Application A. Historic (H) District designation. All properties within historic districts shall be designated by an “H” zoning. Properties zoned “H” shall be subject to the provisions and standards as provided in Ordinance 17.54 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code.

B. Purposes of Historic Districts. The purposes of historic districts and H zone designation are to:
(1) Implement cultural resource preservation policies of the General Plan, the preservation provisions of adopted area plans, the Historic Preservation and Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, and (2) Identify and preserve definable, unified geographical entities that possess a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development; (3) Implement historic preservation provisions of adopted area and neighborhood improvement plans;
(4) Enhance and preserve the setting of historic resources so that surrounding land uses and structures do not detract from the historic or architectural integrity of designated historic resources and districts; and
(5) Promote the public understanding and appreciation of historic resources.

C. Eligibility for incentives. Properties zoned as Historic Preservation (H) shall be eligible for preservation incentive and benefit programs as established herein, in the Guidelines and other local, state and federal programs.

Item 6a
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5101
For Agenda of: 1/11/2022
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 60 Minutes
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Alexander Fuchs, Parking Services Supervisor SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY’S PARKING

PERMIT PROGRAM FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES

RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance entitled, “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Title 10, Chapter 36 (Stopping, Standing and Parking for Certain Purposes or in Certain Places), of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code” to revise the City's parking permit program allowing for the formation of preferential permit parking districts in commercial areas to address on-street parking impacts in those areas.

DISCUSSION
Background
The California Vehicle Code and the City’s Municipal Code provide the necessary authority for the City to manage parking in public rights of way. The City uses a system of on-street parking, parking lots and parking structures to provide parking to the community. The City also restricts on-street parking in areas where no parking is allowed, limit time parking is allowed, and preferential parking is allowed. Preferential parking is provided in the form of parking districts and is currently limited to areas that are predominately residential. This report provides a recommendation to Council to expand these preferential parking areas to include predominately commercial areas and provides staff the tools necessary to manage parking in these areas.

The City’s Access and Parking Management Plan (APMP), last updated in 2011, provides the City the guiding principles, policies, and direction for parking in the City. The City is scheduled to release a Request for Proposals in February 2022 to update the APMP.

Implementation of preferential parking district in commercial areas now will allow the City to manage emergent needs in commercial areas as the updated APMP is developed.

The updated APMP will benefit from actual experience with commercial parking districts and recommendations for preferential parking districts refined with this plan that address residential areas, commercial areas, and those areas that function as a transition between residential to commercials areas.

Item 6a
Parking District Historical Overview
The first parking permit district was established in 1979 in what is referred to as the Alta Vista Parking District near the southern boundary of the Cal Poly campus. The purpose of the district was to limit the parking of vehicles not associated with or conducting business at properties in the neighborhood and to improve the overall ‘quality of life’ for the residents. Since then, the City has established ten additional parking districts, expanded existing districts multiple times, and received requests to establish many more.

Parking districts historically have been limited to areas that are predominately residential and participation is restricted to residential properties.

In the Spring of 2021, staff began to receive requests from business owners to establish a parking district in a non-residential area located along and near South Higuera, Tank Farm, and Suburban Road area. These businesses were being faced with limited parking on City streets and an overabundance of dumping in the area. Vehicles, trailers, equipment, and other items were beginning to be stored in the area with no regard to the business that were trying to operate in the area and provide parking for customers and employees alike. After meeting with stakeholders, Staff determined the best path forward was to develop a commercial parking district to address these issues.

Establishment of a district in nonresidential areas is not possible without amending the City’s Municipal Code but it is within the City’s authority in compliance with the California Vehicle Code section 22507. The allowance of commercial parking districts is a means to address the immediate needs of our community while the Parking program works towards updating the APMP which will provide best practices to address these types of issues as they arise. Staff will also be returning in March to address parking issues where residential and commercial areas intersect, like the Dana Street Residential Parking District, and will ensure that any adjustments to accommodate commercial properties does not significantly impact parking for residential properties.

Why allow businesses to participate in the district formation process? The City is encouraging the construction of more mixed-use developments that makes implementation of traditional residential only parking districts difficult and parking invariably spills into commercial parking districts, creating parking management issues.

Additionally, commercial areas throughout the City are now starting to experience a significant increase in parking demand from persons not working or residing in the area.

Allowing businesses to participate in the process creates a more comprehensive program and improves the City’s ability to address parking issues for all community members.

Item 6a
Preferential Parking Permit Areas Needed
The City’s current municipal code requires (unless amended by City Council with this report) that properties that participate in parking districts be residential in nature and be limited to two (2) parking permits regardless of the districts’ parking capacity or the residential properties’ needs. The limit of two parking permits per residential property does not allow for the formation of a preferential parking permit area in a commercial/business area due to the number of employees and customers that would need access to a parking permit and the restriction to residential uses.

It is important to note that the proposed language does not differentiate between commercial properties that have off-street parking versus those that do not have off-street parking. Restricting business participation to only those properties that do not have offstreet parking could impact commercial properties’ ability to conduct business and the City’s ability to implement commercial parking districts in areas that are experiencing significant on-street parking impacts from people that do not work or have business to conduct in the area.

As proposed with this report, commercial properties are recommended to be issued parking permits based upon the individual needs of each property within the preferential parking permit area boundaries as approved by the Public Works Director or their designee.

Amendments to the Municipal Code
Staff reviewed Municipal Code Sections 10.36.170 through 10.36.232 and recommends language changes that would allow for the creation of preferential parking permit district in commercial areas. Existing residential districts would continue as presently formed; however, the term ‘preferential parking permit area’ would apply to both residential and commercial areas. The recommended Municipal Code revisions would not allow for the formation of parking districts with commercial and residential properties mixed together.

The revisions also would not affect the number of permits issued to existing or future residential parking permit districts. Lastly, a process must be followed engaging affected properties, to form a preferential parking permit district.

Previous Council Action
New parking permit districts and changes to existing districts requires Council approval via resolution while changes to the district formation process requires ordinance adoption to amend the applicable Municipal Codes. Below are the dates of previous Council action to amend the district formation process that have occurred over the past two decades:

1. April 16, 2002 – Council adopted an ordinance to allow greater flexibility when considering the merits of proposed districts and increased the required resident support to recommend establishing a district.

Item 6a

2. September 7, 2004 – Council adopted an ordinance to address various interpretations of specific process elements and to add clarifying language.

3. April 6, 2021 – Council adopted an ordinance to allow multi-family properties of five to eight units on Dana Street to participate in the parking district and to receive permits.

Policy Context
The California Vehicle Code section 22507 allows local authorities to restrict or prohibit parking on certain streets except for permitted residents, merchants, and their guests.

The language of this Vehicle Code section has been interpreted to allow cities to establish parking districts exclusively for residents, businesses, or both. The City currently only allows parking districts in residential areas but has the authority to establish parking districts in commercial areas.

Public Engagement
Staff have discussed the recommended changes with businesses in the South Higuera area; both of which support the changes.

CONCURRENCE
The City’s Attorney’s office has reviewed the ordinance and determined that the amendments to the applicable Municipal code sections are within the authority of the City to enact and enforce.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: Ongoing
Funding Identified: N/A

Item 6a
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing Cost
Parking Fund N/A
Total N/A
There are no direct costs associated with adoption of this ordinance. Costs associated with the establishment or expansion of parking permit districts, under these amendments, will be funded through the Parking Fund service rates and incorporated into the annual budget appropriation. The Fund’s current budget can accommodate one-time and ongoing costs associated with the establishment and expansion of parking permit districts.

The Fund receives multiple requests each year and staff has included an annual budget for establishing districts in the non-staffing operating expenditure line items.

If the proposed Municipal Code language changes result in an abnormally high number of district requests that cannot be accommodated within the Fund’s existing budget, then staff will return to Council at future budget hearings or upon Council’s formation of the district to appropriate funds from the Parking Fund’s working capital to fund the cost of parking district formation.

Costs to implement a new parking district or expand an existing district varies based on the size and extent of the approved district boundaries. Recently established or expanded districts including the Dana Street Parking District, Anholm Parking District, and the expansion of the Monterey Heights Parking District have ranged in costs from $5,400 to $10,650 depending on the number of signs needed to properly enforce the district.

On-going costs for the annual hangtag permits run about $2.50 per permit when ordered for all districts. The cost of permits and staff time to administer the parking district program is largely offset by the annual permit cost of $20 per permit which accounted for $35,125 in revenue in FY2021. Staff is pursuing digital permit technology which will reduce ongoing costs and staff time to administer the program. Digital permit technology is anticipated to be implemented by Fall 2022.

ALTERNATIVES
Do not amend the Municipal Code. Staff does not recommend this alternative since the existing Municipal Code sections (10.36.170 et al.) which governs the City’s parking permit district program is outdated and no longer meets the needs of the community.

Denying the amendments restricts the City’s ability to effectively manage on-street parking in commercial areas.

Item 6a

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Ordinance amending the Municipal Code to amend the City’s Parking Permit Program

O ______
ORDINANCE NO. _____ (2022 SERIES)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 10, CHAPTER 36
(STOPPING, STANDING AND PARKING FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES OR

IN CERTAIN PLACES), OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code section 22507 provides cities the authority to restrict stopping, standing, or parking of vehicles on certain streets upon which preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants adjacent to the street for their use and the use of their guests; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo’s Municipal Code contains sections detailing the formation process for residential parking permit districts within city limits; and WHEREAS, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo has determined that the existing formation process is outdated, and revisions are necessary to meet the needs of commercial and residential properties within the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 10.36.170 (designation of residential parking permit areas – Adoption of resolution) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

10.36.170 Designation of residential preferential parking permit areas— Adoption of resolution.

A. The council should, by resolution, designate an area of the city as a residential preferential parking permit area if the council finds that:

1. The area is predominantly residential;

1. 2. The streets in the area are congested with vehicles parked by persons not residing or working in the area and the designation is supported by a sixty percent majority of the affected households addressed units as indicated by a city survey of the affected households addressed units in which a sixty percent majority of participating households is required; or

2. 3. Limiting the parking of vehicles along the streets in the area to vehicles registered or controlled and exclusively used by persons residing in an area or working in the in the area is necessary in order to preserve the character and manage parking demand of the existing neighborhood area as defined in resident petition and approved by a sixty percent majority of households addressed units in the area. Households Addressed units will be determined using the city’s address database (there may be more than one household unit per parcel) and will be

Ordinance No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
O ______
limited to either commercial units or residential units, including non-multifamily units of less than five dwelling units with the exception of the residential preferential parking permit district on Dana Street which allows for multifamily units of five to eight dwelling units to be eligible to receive permits. This exception will be in effect until the completion of construction of the Palm-Nipomo parking structure or until nullified by city council action.

B. In determining whether limiting the parking of vehicles along the streets in the area to vehicles registered to or controlled and used exclusively by persons residing or working in the area is necessary in order to preserve the character of the existing neighborhood area for the persons residing or working in the area, the council shall consider the negative effect of vehicles parked by persons not residing or working in the area on:

1. Environmental characteristics such as ambient noise levels and air pollution levels;

2. Pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety in the area; and

3. The burden on persons residing or working in the area gaining access to their residences or places of employment.

C. The council may, by resolution, designate an area of the city as a residential preferential parking permit area after holding a public hearing and making a finding that the establishment of the district represents the desire of a majority of the households addressed units of the area. The hearing on any such resolution should only be held after the council receives a request, in a form acceptable to the council. (Ord. 1694 § 1, 2021; Ord. 1454 § 1, 2004: Ord. 1412 § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. 1264 § 1, 1994: prior code § 3209.17)
SECTION 2. Section 10.36.180 (designation of residential parking permit areas – Content of resolution) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

10.36.180 Designation of residential preferential parking permit areas— Content of resolution.

The resolution designating an area of the city as a residential preferential permit parking area shall describe the designated area in which parking will be limited to vehicles displaying a parking permit issued by the public works department for that purpose and shall set forth the hours and days, as specified by a sixty percent majority of the households addressed units in the district, when parking will be limited to those vehicles. (Ord. 1454 § 2, 2004: Ord. 1412 § 2 (part), 2002: Ord. 1264 § 2, 1994: prior code § 3209.18)

Ordinance No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 3
O ______
SECTION 3. Section 10.36.190 (designation of residential parking permit areas – Sign posting) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

10.36.190 Designation of residential preferential parking permit areas—Sign posting.

Upon adoption of a resolution by the council designating an area of the city as a residential preferential parking permit area, the public works director Director of Public Works or their designee(s) shall cause appropriate signs to be erected along the streets identified in the resolution which shall give notice of the limitation on the parking of vehicles in the area as provided in Section 10.36.170, and shall indicate the hours and days when such limitations shall be in effect. (Ord. 1628 § 25, 2016:
prior code § 3209.19)
SECTION 4. Section 10.36.200 (Limitations on parking in a residential permit parking area) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

10.36.200 Limitations on parking in a residential preferential permit parking area.

It is unlawful for any person to stop, stand, or park a vehicle on any street identified in a resolution adopted by the council designating a residential preferential permit parking area during the hours and on the days set forth in such resolution except:

A. Those vehicles described in Section 10.36.180 displaying a valid permit issued as provided for by Section 10.36.220 and parked within the street block in front of the household addressed unit to which the permit is issued or within one adjoining district block; or
B. Any emergency vehicle, including, but not limited to, an ambulance, fire engine, or police vehicle; or
C. A vehicle with commercial plates which is under the control of a person, who does not reside within the district, providing service for hire to property located in the designated residential preferential permit parking area, including but not limited to a delivery vehicle. Such vehicles cannot be parked within the area for more than twenty-four consecutive hours; or
D. Preferential permit parking area residents participants wishing to sponsor guests special one-day events which will exceed the number of parking permits available may contact the city parking manager and request a temporary permit, special-event exemption to the residential permit requirement. If the temporary exemption is granted by the parking manager, all vehicles which have as their destination a qualified residential permit preferential permit address, shall display in clear view on the dashboard, written confirmation of the street address and date

Ordinance No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 4
O ______
and time of the event that the permit is valid. Further, special events Issuance of sponsored guest permits shall be deemed infrequent occurrences and any regular requests for parking sponsored guest permits exemption will not be authorized.

This section shall not be interpreted to allow the daily parking of vehicles. Any vehicle not displaying the proper or authorized identification shall be subject to citation. (Ord. 1454 § 3, 2004: Ord. 1264 § 3, 1994: prior code § 3209.20) SECTION 5. Section 10.36.220 (Residential parking permit - Issuance) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

10.36.220 Residential Preferential parking permit—Issuance.

The Director of Public Works, or their designee, will annually issue two preferential parking permits to the registered property owner, or the registered property owner’s representative, as authorized in writing, of each residential property shown with a unique number on the latest county of San Luis Obispo assessment roll within each residential preferential parking permit area established by resolution as set forth in Section 10.36.180. Qualified households parcels that have multiple, separate dwelling addressed units shall be eligible for additional to receive permits for each addressed unit, providing the total number of permits issued to one parcel does not exceed twice the number of residential dwelling units on the parcel. All parking permits may be picked up in person at the office of the city parking manager or will be mailed to the address of the property on written request of the property owner.

The Director of Public Works, or their designee, will annually, issue any number of preferential parking permits requested for commercial properties, to the registered property owner, or the registered property owner’s representative, as authorized in writing, of each property shown with a unique number on the latest county of San Luis Obispo assessment roll within each preferential parking permit area established by resolution as set forth in Section 10.36.180. Qualified parcels that have multiple, separate addressed units shall be eligible to receive permits for each addressed unit.

All parking permits may be picked up in person at the office of the city parking manager or will be mailed to the address of the property on written request of the property owner.

Parking permits may be transferred by the residents occupant to any vehicle that is to be parked on the street and will be recognized by the city, providing they are displayed clearly. The parking permits shall be issued annually. Fees for residential parking permits shall be established by city council resolution. The permits shall be considered part of the residential occupancy of the property and shall be transferred to the new occupant property owner upon sale of the residence property or upon lease of the property. New applicants must present proof of occupancy within the preferential parking district prior to permit issuance. (Ord.

Ordinance No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 5
O ______
1694 § 2, 2021; Ord. 1565 § 1, 2011: Ord. 1454 § 4, 2004: Ord. 1264 § 4, 1994:
prior code § 3209.21)
SECTION 6. Section 10.36.221 (Lost, stolen, or defaced permit replacement) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

10.36.221 Lost, stolen, or defaced permit replacement.

Any permit lost, stolen, defaced or otherwise altered shall be deemed invalid and a replacement permit shall be issued to the qualified property owner for a fee of twenty dollars. If the replacement permit is again lost, stolen, or defaced, a replacement permit will be issued for an additional fee of thirty dollars. No additional replacement permits shall be issued within a twelve-month period. All permits shall be picked up by the property owner or a representative authorized in writing by the registered property owner, with proof of occupancy identification, at the office of the city parking manager. The property owner or a representative authorized in writing by the owner shall certify that the original permit was lost, stolen, or in the case of damaged permits shall submit the damaged permit, stating the permit shall be used by qualified residents occupants and their bona fide visitors.

Any resident occupant and/or property owner found to misrepresent themselves for the purposes of fraudulently obtaining residential preferential parking permits shall lose their right to said permits and no permits will be issued to the household until the beginning of the next permit year and shall be guilty of an infraction. (Ord. 1694 § 3, 2021; Ord. 1454 § 5, 2004: Ord. 1264 § 5, 1994) SECTION 7. Section 10.36.230 (Residential parking permits – Display required) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

10.36.230 Residential Preferential parking permits—Display required.

Parking permits issued under Section 10.36.220 shall be displayed on a vehicle in a manner prescribed by the director of public works Director of Public Works. The method of display shall be clearly stated on the rear of the permit. (Ord. 1264 § 6,1994: prior code § 3209.23)
SECTION 8. Section 10.36.232 (Enforcement) of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

10.36.232 Enforcement.

Enforcement of the residential preferential parking permit district shall be on a regular and routine basis, and may be on a complaint basis by residents occupants within the district boundaries. Enforcement personnel shall be dispatched on an as-available basis as determined by the city parking manager/police department.

All parking citations issued for noncompliance with the parking permit requirement shall be governed by the civil proceedings set forth in the California Vehicle Code. (Ord. 1412 § 2 (part), 2002: Ord. 1264 § 7, 1994)

Ordinance No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 6
O ______
SECTION 9. Severability. If any subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is, for any reason, held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforcement of the remaining portions of this ordinance, or any other provisions of the city' s rules and regulations. It is the city' s express intent that each remaining portion would have been adopted irrespective of the fact that any one or more subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unenforceable.

SECTION 10. Environmental determination. These amendments to Title 10 Chapter 36 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code do not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.

SECTION 11. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage.

INTRODUCED on the ____ day of ____, 2022, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the ____ day of ____, 2022, on the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:
___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
__________________________
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk

Item 6b
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: 1/11/2022
Placement: Public Hearing
Estimated Time: 60 minutes
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner & Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A 192-UNIT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT INCLUDING 7 LIVE/WORK UNITS, A 585 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL

UNIT, ON-SITE PARKING, AND OTHER RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
AMENITIES ON A 10.93-ACRE SITE LOCATED WITHIN THE 231-ACRE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (3580/3584 BULLOCK LANE)

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a Common Interest Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 3136), a 192-unit Mixed-Use Development, including 7 Live/Work Units, a 585 square foot Commercial Unit, on-site parking, and other residential community amenities on a 10.93-acre site located within the 231-Acre Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP), a request to allow Live/Work Units on the ground floor within the first 50 feet of floor area measured from the building face adjacent to a street, a Sign Program, the summary abandonment of 30 feet offer of dedication for public street and utility purposes, and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review as represented in the City Council Agenda Report and attachments dated January 11, 2022 (3580/3584 Bullock Lane File #ARCH-0489-2019, SBDV-0490-2019, EID-0345-2020)” which will:

1. Approve the development plan based on findings and subject to conditions of approval; and

2. Approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 3136) based on findings and subject to conditions of approval; and

3. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Item 6b

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The applicant, Bullock Ranch, LLC, has proposed a Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 3136) that would facilitate mixed residential, live/work, and commercial development within a 10.93-acre portion of the 231-acre Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). The project site is designated as Medium-High Density Residential and Community Commercial (CC) under both the OASP and the General Plan, and zoned R-3-SP and Community Commercial/Mixed Use (CC-MU). The project would include 192 residential units, consisting of 8 townhouses in the southeast corner of the project site along Ranch House Road, 88 bungalows/carriages on the east side of the project site, and 96 townhouse apartments on the west side of the project site along Bullock Lane.  All residential development would be
on airspace condominium lots.

Seven of the 8 townhouses would be
designed as “live/work” units. The
ground floor of the remaining
townhouse would be designed as a
separate 585 square-foot
commercial unit.
 The project design includes San Luis
Obispo Mission, Adobe Ranch, and
Farmhouse architectural styles.

Architectural features include gable
end roof forms, rafter tails, bungalow
style fenestration and porches, tile
roofs, smooth stucco facades, and
mission styled arched openings.
 The project includes construction of several residential community amenities including a 1,766-square foot community center that would include a fitness center, lease office, a 766 square-foot pool building that would include bathrooms, showers, resident mailboxes, a bicycle maintenance room, and an outdoor pool area.

The Tree Committee (October 2020) and the Architectural Review Commission (December 2020) reviewed the proposed project and recommended the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP), Community Design Guidelines, and other applicable City standards. On October 27, 2021, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and the draft initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the project and has recommended approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on the findings and conditions in PC Resolution No. PC-1049- 2021 (Attachment B), including the applicant’s requests that the live/work units be located within the first 50 feet of floor area as measured from the building face adjacent to Round House Road and the summary abandonment of 30 feet offer of dedication for public street and utility purposes.

Figure 1. Project Site Location

Item 6b
In addition, the Planning Commission provided direction that staff was to work with the developer to add a family “tot lot” in an appropriate area and explore the feasibility of deepening the 4-foot-deep balconies within the townhouse apartments. The Planning Commission also provided feedback that Bullock Lane could potentially be designed to have slightly narrower vehicle lanes that still comply with City standards and allow for a 12- foot-wide bike path instead of the proposed 10-foot-wide bike path. The applicant has provided revised plans and drawings (see Attachments H and J) that address the Planning Commission’s direction and feedback.

Based on the analysis set forth below and the revisions made by the applicant in response to Planning Commission direction, staff is recommending the City Council adopt the Final IS/MND, approve the project, and approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM 3136).

DISCUSSION
Background & Project Details
Proposed residential development would consist of three housing product types: 8 townhouses in the southeast corner of the project site along Ranch House Road, 88 bungalows/carriages on the east side of the project site, and 96 townhouse apartments on the west side of the project site along Bullock Lane (see Attachment F). All residential development would be on airspace condominium lots. The bungalows/carriages and the conventional townhouses would be in San Luis Obispo Mission and Adobe Ranch architectural styles and the live/work units in the Farmhouse architectural style. The proposed
bungalows/carriages
would be semidetached housing
organized in clusters
of two bungalows and
one carriage house.

Each of the
bungalows would be
two levels and would
include small back
yards and a detached
two-car garage. Each
of the carriage houses
would be a singlelevel unit on top of its two-car garage and the garages for the two bungalows in the cluster.

Figure 2. Bungalow / Carriage Cluster Rendering

Item 6b
The eight townhouse
apartments (seven of
which are live/work
units) would be located
within the Mixed Use /
Community Commercial
zoned area. Each
townhouse would have
three levels, three
bedrooms, would range
in size between 2,050
and 2,350 square feet,
and would have direct
access two a car garage
in its rear. The ground floor of each live/work unit is designed for commercial or office use. The eighth townhouse apartment would be separated from a ground floor commercial space with a separate entrance. The bungalows would each have 4 bedrooms and range in size between 1,600 square feet and 1,901 square feet. The carriage houses with one bedroom would be 749 square feet and those with three bedrooms 1,412 square feet. The traditional townhouse apartments would range in size between 733 square feet for one-bedroom units up to 1,839 square feet for threebedroom units. These townhouses would be in three level buildings of either 6 units or 12 units. Each townhouse would have direct access to a garage.

The project also includes construction of several residential community amenities, including a 1,766-square foot community center that would include a fitness center and lease office, a 766 square-foot pool building that would include bathrooms, showers, resident mailboxes, a
bicycle maintenance
room, and an outdoor pool
area. Several landscaped
seating areas would be
provided throughout the
residential community
areas, including an open
area with a shade
structure, and an outdoor
kitchen for neighborhood
gatherings and various
“seating nodes”
(Attachment F, Project
Plans, Sheet L5).

Figure 3. Live/Work Units Rendering
Figure 4. Townhouse Apartments Rendering

Item 6b
At the recommendation of the Planning Commission, a tot lot is now proposed in the eastern portion of the project, north of Sponza Lane, between Court 7 and Court 9, adjacent to the proposed Neighborhood Gathering Space (see discussion below in Table 1).

The project will be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 will be to the east of the proposed central recreation area and will include the 88 bungalow and carriage units, 7 live/work townhouses, and 1 additional unit within the live/work building but with a separate entrance from a downstairs 585 SF commercial space. Phase 2 will include the central recreation area and the 96 townhouses. Required infrastructure improvements will be built concurrently with each phase.

Infrastructure Focus
The project would improve Bullock Lane between the project site’s north property line and south property line. Additionally, the project is conditioned to extend an existing regional bike path along the west side of Bullock Lane from the project’s south property line to the southwest corner of the intersection of Orcutt Road and Bullock Lane (Condition No. 83).

The project includes connection to existing City services, including water and wastewater infrastructure. A related aspect of the project includes the summary abandonment of a previous street and utility offer with respect to Bullock Lane in order to facilitate the proposed improvements as described above.

The applicant has also provided a sign program in accordance with City sign regulations (Municipal Code Section 15.40), which is included as Attachment G.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The City Council approved the Orcutt Area Specific Plan in 2009, which formed the basis for various subsequent applications within the Specific Plan area, including the one currently proposed.

Tree Committee - October 26, 2020: Reviewed the proposed tree removal and replacement plantings associated with the project, and recommended approval (Attachment C, Meeting Minutes).

Architectural Review Commission (ARC) - December 7, 2020: Reviewed the project for consistency with the OASP and Community Design Guidelines (CDG). The ARC recommended that the project was consistent with applicable design guidelines (Attachment D, Meeting Minutes).

Planning Commission - October 27, 2021: Reviewed the project and recommended approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on the findings and conditions in PC Resolution No. PC-1049-2021 (Attachment B), and provided the following direction:

Item 6b
 Direct staff to work with the developer to add a family “tot lot” in an appropriate area; and
 Direct staff to work with the developer to explore the feasibility of deepening the 4- foot-deep balconies within the townhouse apartments.

The Planning Commission also provided feedback that Bullock Lane could potentially be designed to have slightly narrower vehicle lanes that still comply with City standards and allow for a 12-foot-wide bike path instead of the proposed 10-foot-wide bike path.

Response to Planning Commission Recommendations
In response to Planning Commission direction and feedback, the project applicant has proposed minor modifications to the project. These are included in Attachments H and J and summarized in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Response to Planning Commission Direction
Planning Commission Direction Applicant/Staff Response
Add a family “tot lot” in an appropriate area. The applicant has identified a location for a tot lot in the eastern portion of the development on a
small site that had previously been programmed to
be passive open space with synthetic turf adjacent
to the proposed Neighborhood Gathering Space
(see Figure 5). The applicant has not proposed a
specific design for the tot lot and is proposing that
the builder of the Bungalows would design and
build that facility.

Staff Analysis: Staff supports the proposed location
of the tot lot, as it is adjacent to the Neighborhood
Gathering Space that includes an outdoor kitchen,
seating, and shade structure. The tot lot area is
easily accessible and adjacent to a pedestrian
walkway along Sponza Place. The size of the lot
would be a minimum of 650 square feet, which is
large enough to be functional and include small
play equipment, especially in the context of being
adjacent to the Neighborhood Gathering Space
described above. As noted above, the applicant is
not proposing to design this facility, nor identify any specific play equipment at this time. For that
reason, staff is recommending Condition of
Approval #34 be included in the Resolution to
establish design parameters when this facility is
built: “Building plans for the project shall include a
tot lot located adjacent and east of the
Neighborhood Gathering Space identified on Sheet
L1 of the project plans that is a minimum of 650
square feet in size and includes play equipment

Item 6b
Table 1. Response to Planning Commission Direction
Planning Commission Direction Applicant/Staff Response
(e.g. slides, climbing apparatus, grassy areas,
etc.), and appropriate safety features (e.g. fencing,
playground mulch, etc.) to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.”
Explore the feasibility of deepening the 4-foot-deep
balconies within the townhouse apartments.

The Commission’s concern was to improve the
functionality of the balconies, which were thought
to be too narrow. The applicant has proposed to
enlarge balconies on plan 1 and plan 2 units within
the three-story townhomes, increasing their
average size from 38 SF to 51 SF. See Figure 6 for
details (see also Attachment F, Project Plans,
Sheets AC 5.0 – 5.3).

Staff Analysis: Staff supports the proposed balcony
redesign because it would increase the overall
area by approximately 34%. The depth of the
balcony, which was the Commission’s primary
concern, would increase from 50 inches to 63
inches, which would improve the functionality of the
balcony, including the ability to allow for chairs and
a small table with some room to maneuver. The
balcony width would also increase slightly (by 8
inches), to 9’10”.

Consider narrowing the lanes of Bullock Lane in
compliance with City standards to allow for a 12-
foot-wide bike path instead of the proposed 10-
foot-wide bike path.

Based on this feedback from the Planning
Commission, the applicant has decided to modify
the proposed design of Bullock Lane to allow for a
12-foot-wide bike path and narrower vehicle lanes.

The revised plans have been submitted as an
update to the project plans and are included as
Attachment H.

Staff Analysis: Staff is supportive of the revisions
as shown on the preliminary plans. Detailed plans
will be required as part of the building and public
improvement plans submittal.

Item 6b
Figure 6. Proposed Balcony Redesign
Figure 5. Proposed Tot Lot Location
New Tot Lot Area
Location of
proposed
Tot Lot
Neighborhood
Gathering Space

Item 6b
Policy Context
The proposed project must conform to the standards and limitations of the General Plan, OASP, and any applicable aspects of the Zoning Regulations, and Engineering Standards that are not otherwise addressed in the OASP which apply to the overall development plan approval including the subdivision component. The Planning Commission found the project to be consistent with all applicable City policies, programs, and standards.

Consistency with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan
Consistency with Medium-High Density Residential Designation Under the OASP, the majority of the project site is designated as R-3, Medium-High Density Residential. The project complies with policies 3.2.11, 3.2.13 -3.2.16, and 3.2.181 of the OASP as they relate to the R-3 zone, as it includes an appropriate mix of unit types, with access to common and public open space, as well as community amenities consistent with OASP policies.

The ARC and the Planning Commission found the design of the project to be consistent with the design guidelines of the OASP and the City’s Community Design Guidelines. The proposed San Luis Obispo Mission, Adobe Ranch, and Farmhouse architectural styles of the residential and commercial structures are consistent with the California Mission and California Bungalow styles described in the OASP because the designs include architectural features such as gable end roof forms, rafter tails, fenestration and porch styles of the bungalow style and tile roofs, smooth stucco facades, end roof forms and arched openings of the mission style.

The project also includes the extension of an existing regional bike path along the west side of Bullock Lane from the project’s south property line to the southwest corner of the intersection of Orcutt Road and Bullock Lane, providing direct connectivity to the rest of the City’s bicycle circulation network (see Attachment H).

1 Policy 3.2.11. The majority of medium-high development (R-3) should be comprised of multiplexes and multi-family apartments or condominiums.

Policy 3.2.13. Multiplex dwelling units may consist of attached units with a maximum of eight units per building. Units either could be available to renters or owned as condominiums.

Policy 3.2.14. Multiplex and multi-family apartment units shall have access to common greens or interior parkways. Ground floor units shall be designed with private, compact outdoor areas.

Policy 3.2.15. All common outdoor areas within multiplexes, manufactured housing parks and multi-family apartment projects shall be privately maintained by a homeowners’ association or other method acceptable to the Community Development Department.

Policy 3.2.16. Multifamily developments shall provide connections to pedestrian/bicycle paths in the Specific Plan Area for access to the mixed-use area, the neighborhood park, and linear park.

Policy 3.2.18. Sites within the medium-high and high density residential zones will be made available to the Housing Authority or private developers to develop units of affordable housing for low income households.

Adequate areas of medium-high density (R-3) and medium density (R-2) will be provided for additional units of affordable housing for low and moderate-income households see Affordable Housing below for further discussion).

Item 6b
Consistency with Mixed Use/Community Commercial Designation OASP policies 3.2.20 and 3.2.21 encourage the inclusion of offices and live/work space as part of multi-family portion of community commercial land use designation. The project would include seven, three-story attached live/work units within the Mixed Use/Community Commercial zoned portion of the site. The ground floor is designed to be used as commercial or office space, while the upper stories would be utilized areas as living space. Each of these units would have direct access to the ground floor commercial space. An eighth residential unit will be located on the second story above a separate 585 SF commercial unit on the first floor.

The live/work units and commercial space would be located along Ranch House Road.

The units front the roadway, providing good visibility for the ground floor commercial component of the project. Although no commercial or office uses have been prescribed, the design of the structures and small floor area would encourage uses that would be consistent and compatible with adjacent residential development.

Consistency with Parking Requirements
The project would include both garages and on onsite parking to serve proposed development. Table 4 summarizes the parking requirements for the site, and how the proposed project meets those requirements.

Consistency with Affordable Housing Requirements
The project is required to provide affordable inclusionary housing based on the City’s Housing Element and Municipal Code. The project requires 27.6 inclusionary units, per Table 2 of the Housing Element. However, per Table 2A, that requirement is adjusted downward to be 0.25 times the nominal requirement based on the average unit size and net density (1,347 SF and 16.25 density units/acre), or 6.9 inclusionary units, rounded up to 7. The applicant proposes to meet this requirement by spreading the inclusionary units throughout the project site and among the various product types, with 2 affordable units in Phase 1, and 5 units in Phase 2 (see Table 2). The number and type of inclusionary units are consistent with the requirements of Housing Element policy 4.1, Municipal Code Section 17.138.040 and policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.7 of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP). Notably, OASP Policy 3.3.5 exempts the Community Commercial Mixed-Use portions of any project from Inclusionary Housing requirements.

Item 6b
Table 2. Inclusionary Housing Proposal
Housing Type Phase No. of Bedrooms No. of Affordable
Bungalow P1 1 1 Low
Bungalow P2 3 1 Moderate
Townhouse P1 1 1 Moderate
Townhouse P2 1 1 Low, 2 Moderate
Townhouse P3 2 1 Moderate
Consistency with the Zoning Regulations
The OASP includes standards and requirements that in many cases supersede those in the Zoning Regulations. In other cases, the OASP defers to the Zoning Regulations or Municipal Code for regulations regarding setbacks, lot coverage, lot configuration, parking, lighting, and signs. Table 4 summarizes the project’s characteristics and consistency with the applicable code requirements.

Consistency with the Mixed-Use Standards
The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations for Mixed-Use Projects (Section

17.70.130), since the proposed building design complies with design and performance standards for mixed-use development and is consistent with all property development standards including height, coverage, access, and setbacks for the Community Commercial (C-C) zone.

The live/work units would be located along Ranch House Road, an interior collector roadway serving the entire Specific Plan area. The units would appropriately front on that roadway, providing good visibility for the ground floor commercial component of the project. The applicant has requested a design exception to allow these structures to be located within 50 feet of the roadway. The Planning Commission supported this request since it would improve street visibility for the commercial components of the live/work units, particularly the one stand-alone commercial unit along this roadway frontage.

Lighting
The applicant has proposed a conceptual lighting plan (Attachment I), which shows the general types of lighting and their location within the project site. These include street and parking lot lighting (pole lights), decorative pedestrian path lighting, signage lighting and bollard lighting. No details on lighting type have been provided except at the conceptual level. However, this is sufficient to understand the applicant’s intent to provide for public safety and visibility at night. Condition of Approval No. 5 (Attachment A) requires a detailed lighting program to demonstrate compliance with the Municipal Code requirements.

Item 6b
Signage
The project includes a sign program (Attachment G) as required by Section 15.40.485 of the Municipal Code. The purpose of sign program is to provide for project specific designs and sign accommodations that consider compatible and appropriate signage which can be reviewed concurrently with the review of building designs and site layout. The sign program includes: 9 wall signs, a residential monument sign, and an apartment community sign (Table 4). The overall scale and form of these signs is consistent with the project design, as well as other monument and community signs of other subdivisions in the City.

Table 3. Proposed Sign Program
Sign Type Quantity Maximum Size and dimensions
Awning Sign 3 18 inches x 6 feet (9 square feet)
Wall Sign 4 18 inches x 6 feet (9 square feet)
Awning Sign 1 18 inches x 8 feet (12 square feet)
Awning Sign 1 18 inches x 12 feet (18 square feet)
Residential Monument Sign 1 Approx. 4 feet x 12 feet (30 square feet) Apartment Community Sign 1 18 inches x 24 feet (36 square feet) Total No. of Signs 11
Consistency with the Subdivision Regulations
The subdivision component of the project (Vesting Tentative Tract Map – VTTM 3136) requires final approval by the City Council. The applicant is requesting a common interest phased subdivision that includes easements for shared driveways and parking spaces.

Per section 16.17.030 of the Municipal Code, common interest subdivisions within the R3 zone shall provide a minimum of one hundred (100) square feet of common open space per unit, a total of 19,200 square feet for the overall project. The project site includes 75,320 SF of publicly accessible landscaped open space area, primarily landscaped courtyards and parkways. In addition, the project includes 41,220 SF of hardscape, mostly sidewalks, paseos, and paved gathering areas associated with the community center. This is approximately 606 SF per unit, or 392 SF if just counting the landscaped areas.

In addition to providing common open space, although not required, the project provides a minimum of 37 to 600 SF of private open space per unit, depending on the size of the unit, in the form of balconies and patios. As proposed, the subdivision and phasing are consistent with the subdivision regulations.

Item 6b
Table 4. Project Consistency Summary
Site Details Proposed Requirement
Land Use Designation R-3-SP Medium-High Density
Residential and Community
Commercial Mixed Use
R-3 policies apply from the OASP
Policies 3.2.11 to 3.2.18; R-3
development standards defer to
Zoning Code (per Table 3.1 of
OASP); OASP policy 3.2.21
encourages live/work units in CCMU
Density & Dwelling Units 169 Density Units; 192 total units (185 + 7 live/work units)
18 units per net acre.
18 x 10.34 net ac = 186 Density
Units
Setbacks Project setbacks vary and comply
with code requirements.

Front – 10 feet;
Side and rear – variable depending
on building height (5-10 feet), per
Table 2-9 of Municipal Code

17.20.020
Maximum Building Height Bungalow Cluster – 27’ 10”
Live/Work Units – 35’
Townhouse Apartments – 35’
Recreation Building – 27’ 8”
(see Project Plan Sheets AA2.9,
AA2.10, AB2.0, AC2.0, AC2.1,
AC2.2, AC2.3 and AC2.4)
35’ (per Table 2-8 of Municipal Code

17.20.020 and Table 2-16 of
Municipal Code 17.28.020)
Maximum Lot Coverage 34.6% 60% in R-3 zone (per Table 2-8 of Municipal Code 17.20.020);
75% in C-C zone (per MC

17.28.020)
Signs

Schematic sign program has been
provided by the applicant; will be
subject to a condition of approval
Project subject to Municipal Code
Section 15.40 (sign regulations).

Sign program will be submitted
separately.

Public Art Payment of in-lieu fees Project subject to Municipal Code

17.70.140, payment of in-lieu fees
Parking
Automobile spaces

Bicycle Parking

Motorcycle Parking

410 (315 in garages); 40 EV Ready
and 200 EV Capable spaces located
in garage spaces
384 long-term (2 per unit); 39 shortterm for guests
20 399 automobile spaces; 40 EV
Ready and 200 EV Capable
384 long-term (2 per unit); 39 shortterm
20 motorcycle spaces

Item 6b
Table 4. Project Consistency Summary
Site Details Proposed Requirement
(see Project Plan Sheet A1.0;
modification documented in staff
memo to Planning Commission on
10-27-21)
(consistent with Municipal Code

17.72.030 and 17.72.040)
Affordable Housing 7 total (2 for low income; 5 for
moderate income households)
7 total (per City inclusionary housing
regulations)
Environmental Status
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has been prepared and has circulated for a 30-day public review. The project site is also addressed in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final EIR, which was certified in 2009.

Public Engagement
As noted under “Previous Council or Advisory Body Action”, the OASP was approved by the City Council in 2009, and the Planning Commission recommended approval of the currently proposed project in October 2021, based on input from the Tree Committee and Architectural Review Commission, which considered the project in October 2020 and December 2020, respectively.

CONCURRENCE
The City’s review of the project involved all City departments in the development review process. Various conditions of approval from these departments were included in the Resolution related to the project approval, based on those conditions set forth in the Planning Commission Resolution related to this action, as modified as a result of Planning Commission recommendations.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and circulated for 30 days beginning November 24, 2020 and ending December 24, 2020. The Draft MND, including all its attachments, are available on the City’s website at: https://www.slocity.org/government/departmentdirectory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/- folder-2123.

The Draft MND tiered off the OASP Final EIR that was certified in 2009, which is available at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/communitydevelopment/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-717.

Item 6b
The Draft MND determined that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts will be less than significant. The following issue areas had associated impacts requiring mitigation measures: aesthetics (minimize lighting), air quality (standard SLOAPCD emissions reductions), biological resources (pre-construction surveys; landscaping review; pet hazards brochure), cultural and tribal cultural resources (construction monitoring), energy (shade trees, telecommuting, ped/bike pathways), geology and soils (grading practices), greenhouse gas emissions (reduction measures), hazards and hazardous materials (past stored materials evaluation and disposal), hydrology and water quality (SWPPP, fair share fee for area drainage improvements), noise (nose reduction measures), and transportation (pedestrian warning signage).

Residual impacts from building onsite recreation facilities and utilities are addressed through the mitigation measures described above.

One comment letter was received regarding the MND from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) of San Luis Obispo County on December 28, 2020. Comments in the letter were reviewed by City staff and the City’s environmental review consultant.

SLOAPCD raised issues with respect to possible health risks from emissions from nearby passing locomotives, impacts from construction-related emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project. Responses to APCD’s comments have been prepared and included as Attachment K. No revisions have been made to either the analysis or required mitigation measures. However, some clarification is provided in the response to APCD relative to the project design, so that agency can better understand the project’s proximity to the nearby railroad tracks, and how that relates to the air quality analysis. The findings from the Draft MND, as well as the Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP), have been included in the draft Resolution for Planning Commission consideration.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $N/A $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $ $ $ $

Item 6b
There will be no net fiscal impact related to approving the proposed project. The applicant will be required to implement a variety of public and private improvements either directly as a result of the project, various conditions of approval, or through mitigation measures.

In some cases, the applicant is eligible for reimbursement for portions of public improvements that are beyond what would otherwise be required to offset the impacts of the proposed project. No previously unanticipated fiscal impacts would occur as a result of this action.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Continue project. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required.

2. Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the basis for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, OASP, Zoning Regulations, Subdivision Regulations, or other policy documents.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Resolution to approve the project and adopt the MND B. PC Resolution No. 1049-21
C. Project Plans & Vesting Tentative Tract Map
D. Sign Program
E. Revised Preliminary Off-site Improvement Plans for Bullock Lane and Bike Path Alignment
F. Lighting Plan
G. Proposed Modifications Addressing Planning Commission Direction H. Response to comment on the MND
I. Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review for Bullock Ranch 3580, 3584, and 3590 Bullock Lane, EID-0345-2020 (available online at https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/communitydevelopment/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-2123)

RESOLUTION NO. ____ (2022 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A COMMON INTEREST VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (VTTM 3136), A 192-UNIT MIXED-USE
DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING 7 LIVE/WORK UNITS, A 585 SQUARE

FOOT COMMERCIAL UNIT, ON-SITE PARKING, AND OTHER
RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AMENITIES ON A 10.93-ACRE SITE
LOCATED WITHIN THE 231-ACRE ORCUTT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
(OASP), A REQUEST TO ALLOW LIVE/WORK UNITS ON THE GROUND FLOOR WITHIN THE FIRST 50 FEET OF FLOOR AREA MEASURED

FROM THE BUILDING FACE ADJACENT TO A STREET, A SIGN
PROGRAM, THE SUMMARY ABANDONMENT OF 30 FEET OFFER OF

DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC STREET AND UTILITY PURPOSES, AND

ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW AS REPRESENTED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 11, 2022 (3580/3584 BULLOCK LANE FILE #ARCH-0489-2019, SBDV-0490-2019, EID-0345-2020) WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web based public hearing on October 26, 2020 and recommended approving the proposed tree removal and replanting plan associated with an development review applications ARCH-0755-2019, Bullock Ranch, LLC, applicant, with the addition of specific conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web based public hearing on December 7, 2020 for the purpose of reviewing a development review application ARCH-0489-2019, Bullock Ranch, LLC, applicant and recommended approving the design with direction regarding metal railing design on balconies to maximize privacy and variation of the use of masonry on porches; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web based public hearing on October 27, 2021 for the purpose of reviewing a development review application ARCH-0489-2019, SBDV-0490-2019 & EID-0345-2020, Bullock Ranch, LLC, applicant, for a mixed-use development project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo recommended approval of the project to the City Council, with conditions; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web based public hearing on January 11, 2022 for the purpose of reviewing a development review application ARCH-0489-2019, SBDV-0490-2019 & EID-0345-2020, Bullock Ranch, LLC, applicant, for a mixed-use development project; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council hereby approves the project (ARCH-0489-2019, SBDV-0490-2019 & EID-0345-2020), based on the following findings:

1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the intention of the site's Medium-High Density Residential and Community Commercial with a Mixed-Use overlay zoning designation and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes.

2. The proposed San Luis Obispo Mission, Adobe Ranch, and Farmhouse architectural styles of the residential and commercial structures are consistent with the California Mission and California Bungalow styles described in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan because the designs include architectural features such as gable end roof forms, rafter tails, fenestration and porch styles of the bungalow style and tile roofs, smooth stucco facades, end roof forms and arched openings of the mission style.

3. The proposed architectural style of the project is consistent with the Design Guidelines described in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan because the project provides architecture that is internally compatible with one another and with adjacent developments and enhances San Luis Obispo’s unique sense of place.

4. The project is consistent with the General Plan because it promotes policies related to compatible development (LUE 2.3.9), residential project objectives (LUE

2.3.11), and housing production (HE 6.10).

5. The project is consistent with the Housing Element because the project provides a variety of residential types, sizes, and styles of dwellings (HE Policy 5.2). The project supports Housing Element policies related to inclusion and expansion of missing middle and affordable housing units within the City (HE Policies 2.4, 4.1,

4.2, & 5.3).

6. The project is consistent with the Orcutt Area Specific Plan’s policy framework, as

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 3
R ______
it relates to land development and project design.

Sign Program Findings

7. The proposed sign program is consistent with Sign Regulations Section 15.40.485 because it includes sign requirements to ensure signage is complementary and compatible within the development and with the surrounding neighborhood.

Mixed-Use Development Findings

8. The request to allow live work units on the ground floor within the first 50 feet of floor area measured from the building face adjacent to a street is consistent with the Zoning Regulations for Mixed-Use Projects (Section 17.70.130.D.1(2)), because the project enhances the pedestrian environment in the surrounding area by placing the commercial space at the sidewalk and fulfills the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Policy 3.2.21 that encourages live work units in the multifamily residential portion of the community commercial zone.

9. The project is consistent with the Zoning Regulations for Mixed-Use Projects (Section 17.70.130), since the proposed building design complies with design and performance standards for mixed-use development and is consistent with all property development standards including height, coverage, access, and setbacks for the Community Commercial (C-C) zone.

Subdivision Findings

10.The design of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the City's residential housing inventory and will be consistent with the density and project amenities established by the Orcutt Area Specific Plan (OASP).

11.The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the medium-high density (R-3-SP) and community commercial (C-C) zones.

12.The design of the subdivision is consistent with the pattern of development prescribed in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan.

13.The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.

Section 2. Environmental Review. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of a Bullock Ranch Residential and Mixed-Use Development Project. The project is consistent with what is described in the CEQA