Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-2017 CHC Special Meeting Agenda Packet City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo Agenda Cultural Heritage Committee Monday, May 15, 2017 5:30 p.m. SPECIAL MEETING Council Chamber 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA CALL TO ORDER: Chair Papp ROLL CALL: Committee Members Thom Brajkovich, Damon Haydu, Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Glen Matteson, Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee, and Chair James Papp ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, the public may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff, and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS NOTE: The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director, another advisory body, or City Council, and therefore, is not final, and cannot be appealed. 1. 1035 Madonna Road. SPEC/ANNX/ER 1502-2015: Review of the cultural resource components of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project, including the relocation/reconstruction of two structures in the Dalidio Farm complex to the proposed Agricultural Heritage & Learning Center; and demolition of remaining historic farm complex structures; Final EIR will be available for review pursuant to CEQA, which includes mitigation to address identified impacts that relate to these actions; Specific Plan Area 2; Coastal Community Builders, applicant. (John Rickenbach) COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 1. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates San Luis Obispo – Cultural Heritage Committee Special Meeting Agenda of May 15, 2017 Page 2 ADJOURNMENT The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such requests to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805)781-7107. CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of the cultural resource components of the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project, including proposed plans for the relocation of historic structures; and review of the cultural resource components of the Final EIR. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035 Madonna Road BY: John Rickenbach, Contract Planner Phone Number: 805-610-1109 Email: JFRickenbach@aol.com FILE NUMBER: SPEC/ANNX/ER-1502-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner 1.0 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City Council find the proposed San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project consistent with General Plan policies and provisions of the Municipal Code related to historic preservation; and, recommend the City Council find mitigation measures included in the Final EIR adequately characterize impacts to cultural resources and mitigation measures appropriately mitigate impacts to the extent feasible. SITE DATA Applicant Representative General Plan and Zoning Site Area Environmental Status Coastal Community Builders Marshall Ochylski and Brian Schwartz Specific Plan Area (various land use designations including— residential, commercial, office, open space and agriculture consistent with the Land Use Element) 131.3 acres A Final EIR is available for public review, but it has not yet been certified by the City Council. 2.0 BACKGROUND Coastal Community Builders has proposed a project that includes several entitlements for the development of approximately 70 acres of the 131.3-acre property. The project would include a mixture of residential and non-residential uses, as well as the preservation of approximately 53 acres to remain in agricultural use and open space. The project site is currently outside the City, but within its Sphere of Influence, and would require annexation for development. The project as proposed is envisioned to implement the policies for development of the site as articulated in the Meeting Date: May 15, 2017 Item Number: 1 CHC 1-1 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 2 2014 Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update, and be consistent with the broad development parameters set forth in the LUCE for this designated specific plan location. The Final EIR includes evaluation of Cultural Resources (Attachment 2) affected by the project proposal including the Dalidio Ranch complex of structures. The Final EIR has been referred to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) in order to evaluate the adequacy of the applicant’s proposed approach to address potential impacts to cultural resources in the context of required mitigation measures, notably with respect to the historic San Luis Ranch farm complex. The CHC’s recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council when they consider certification of the Final EIR and project approval. Staff has attached relevant sections of the EIR including the Cultural Resources evaluation section and the Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation (Attachments 2 and 3). On January 23, 2017, the CHC provided comments on the Draft EIR and the adequacy of the analysis and mitigation measures included in that document. Substantive changes as a result of CHC input is discussed in section 7.2, and as the full response to comments from the CHC Draft EIR discussion is included in Attachment 4. 3.0 CHC PURVIEW The CHC’s role is to review the relevant portions of the Specific Plan and the applicant’s approach to addressing historic resources (Attachment 5) in order to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed approach to address potential impacts to cultural resources in the context of required mitigation measures, notably with respect to the historic San Luis Ranch farm complex. The CHC also should determine the consistency of the project with relevant provisions of the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code that relate to cultural and historic resources. 4.0 GENERAL PLAN GUIDANCE The San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area was one of three Specific Plan areas designated for development when the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements update which was adopted by the City Council in December, 2014. The project is intended to be consistent with policy direction for the area included in the General Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4, which identifies the San Luis Ranch area as a Special Focus Area (SP-2), subject to policies for the development of a specific plan and certain broad development parameters and principles. The relevant portion of this policy that relates to cultural resources is included below: Policy 8.1.4: SP-2, San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area. The project site should be developed as a mixed use project that maintains the agricultural heritage of the site, provides a commercial/ office transition to the existing commercial center to the north, and provides a diverse housing experience. Protection of the adjacent creek and a well- planned integration into the existing circulation system will be required. CHC 1-2 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 3 The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design issues: n. Historic evaluation of the existing farm house and associated structures shall be included. The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan addresses historic resources within the City. New development is evaluated for consistency with the following adopted goals and policies relating to historic resources: Goal 3.2. Historic and Architectural Resources. The City will expand community understanding, appreciation, and support for historic and architectural resource preservation to ensure long-term protection of cultural resources. Policy 3.3.1. Historic Preservation. Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved, and rehabilitated. Policy 3.3.2. Demolitions. Historically or architecturally significant buildings shall not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible. Policy 3.3.3. Historical Documentation. Buildings and other cultural features that are not historically significant but which have historical or architectural value should be preserved or relocated where feasible. Where preservation or relocation is not feasible, the resources shall be documented and the information retained in a secure but publicly accessible location. An acknowledgement of the resources should be incorporated within the site through historic signage and the reuse or display of historic material and artifacts. Goal 3.4. Historic and Architectural Resources. The City will expand community understanding, appreciation, and support for archaeological resource preservation. Policy 3.6.3. Construction within Historic Districts. The Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission will provide specific guidance on the construction of new buildings within historic districts. 5.0 SITE INFORMATION The site is comprised of approximately 131 contiguous acres in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, surrounded by areas within the City of San Luis Obispo, and within the City’s Sphere of Influence, generally bounded by Madonna Road, Dalidio Drive and U.S. Highway 101. Dominant features at the site are the predominantly flat landform seasonally planted with row crops, an existing stand of eucalyptus trees in the southwest portion of the site, and the Dalidio farm home in the northwest portion of the site. CHC 1-3 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 4 Table 1: Site Information Site Size ~131 acres Present Use & Development Agriculture Topography Flat Access Madonna Road, Dalidio Drive and Froom Ranch Road Surrounding Use/Zoning West: R-1 (low density residential) North: PF, C/OS-40, R-1, C-R-PD (Laguna Lake Park and surrounding open space, low density residential, and the U.S. post office) East: PF, O-PD (U.S. Highway 101, the City’s wastewater treatment plant and a drive-in theater) South: C/OS-20, C-S, C-S-PD, C-T-SF, C-R (SLO City Farm, Target, variety of commercial service uses, and auto dealerships) 6.0 PROJECT SUMMARY AND HISTORICAL CONTEXT 6.1 Project Description Summary The project is a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related actions that would allow for the development of the San Luis Ranch (formerly referred to as Dalidio) area as identified in the City’s General Plan. The project includes a mix of residential, commercial, and office uses while preserving nearly half of the site as open space and agriculture on a 131.3-acre property. The intent is for the project to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s recently updated Land Use Element, which envisions up to 500 residential units, 200,000 square feet of commercial uses, 150,000 square feet of office, 200 hotel rooms, at least 5.8 acres of parks, with a goal of preserving 50% of the site in agriculture and open space. 6.2 Historical Context and Onsite Resources The project site is comprised of several lots that were subdivided in 1875, when the Laguna Rancho was sold off into plots for small family farms. Each property consisted of a farm complex with a home (Bertrando 1999a). A horse race track originally located in the vicinity of Madonna Plaza was moved onto the project site. The track facility included stables and a spectators’ barn/viewing stand that provided seating for town people to watch the races. A small house was originally connected to the spectator barn/viewing stand in its original location, but was detached and moved it to its present location on the project site. The stables that had been associated with the race track were removed from the site and the spectators’ barn/viewing stand was further altered by the addition of a dairy, stables and conversion of the spectator seating area to hay storage. In approximately 1921 ownership of the project site changed and the site was converted to farmed crops such as onions, artichokes, and garbanzo beans, as well as flowers for seed CHC 1-4 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 5 (Bertrando 1999a1; Stewart 19992). The agricultural business on the project site was known as Zapata Farms starting in the early 1980s (Bertrando 1999a; Stewart 1999). The property changed ownership again in 2014 and it has recently been known as the San Luis Ranch. The Dalidio/San Luis Ranch Complex (P-40-041000) has been identified as an historic resource. The complex is located on the northwest portion of the project site, near Madonna Road. Singer and Atwood (1988)3 conducted a cultural resources survey of the project site in 1988, and identified “two wood frame structures, a large, two-story house and a barn” as having potential historical significance. Betsy Bertrando recorded and evaluated the Complex in 1999 and identified eight historic built environment resources including the Dalidio home, a bungalow, a small shed/bunkhouse, a garage, a water tower, a barn, a large equipment storage building, and the race track viewing stand. The San Luis Ranch Complex presentl y includes nine structures, described in detail below. The water tower that was recorded on the project site in the 1999 Bertrando analysis was not observed during the investigation for the current project. As shown in Figure 1, below, the project site currently contains a grouping of nine structures at the northwest end of the property, collectively known as the San Luis Ranch Complex. The San Luis Ranch Complex includes three single-family residences, a garage/shed, a smaller shed, the main barn, a large equipment storage building, a warehouse, and the former spectators’ barn/viewing stand, which was converted to farm use (Figures 4.5-2a through 4.5- 2e in the Final EIR, Attachment 2). 1 Bertrando and Bertrando Consultants, Historic Inventory and Evaluation for the San Luis Marketplace Annexation, 1999. 2 “The Dalidios”, SLO Magazine, September 14, 1999. 3 Singer, C. and Atwood, J. Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for the Dalidio, Madonna, and McBride Properties near the City of San Luis Obispo, SLO County, 1988. CHC 1-5 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 6 Figure 1. Existing Onsite Buildings – San Luis Ranch Complex CHC 1-6 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 7 The following is a summarized description of each of the structures within the San Luis Ranch Complex:  Main Residence (Residence #1). The main residence is a single-family residence estimated to have been built ca. 1910. It is irregular in plan and built in th e Craftsman style. This structure features a high pitched, front-gabled roof, with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. The roof is clad in composition shingles. There is a shed dormer on the northeast side of the roof. On the southwest side a hipped roof extension covers the wrap-around porch and a cantilevered box bay window. The home is clad with shiplap and clapboard siding as well as shingles on the gable face.  Residence #2. This single-family home is estimated to have been built ca. 1900-1910. It is rectangular in plan and appears to have a small addition on the east elevation as well as a shed extension on the south. The eastern addition includes a chimney. Both the main portion of the home and the addition feature medium pitched front-gabled roofs and an open eave overhang with fascia boards. The roof is clad with composite shingles. The shed extension features a nearly flat roof partially clad with corrugated panels.  Residence #3. This single-family home is estimated to have been built in the 1960s. It is roughly square in plan, clad with reverse board and batten and has a side-gabled roof clad with composition shingles. There are horizontally slatted vents under the gable peaks. The home features aluminum sliding windows surrounded by wood framing on the north and east elevations.  Garage/Shed. This garage/shed is the larger of two sheds on the property. Estimated to have been built in the 1930s, it is rectangular in plan and is clad with flush, vertical wooden boards. It is covered with a shed roof that has exposed rafter tails and is clad with corrugated metal panels.  Shed #2. Shed #2 is a small rectangular shed. Estimated to have been built in the 1930s, it is clad with vertical wooden boards and has a shed roof clad with corrugated panels.  Main Barn. The main barn in a raised-center-aisle barn estimated to have been built in 1900. It is clad with vertical wooden boards. The roof is clad with corrugated metal panels. The north elevation has a large centered opening with chamfered corners as well as a sliding barn door. The south elevation has a sliding barn door and a large hinged door, as well as a hay carrier and hay doors under the gable peak. The east elevation features four open bays supported by square wooden posts.  Equipment Storage Building. This large building is estimated to have been built in 1938. It has a rectangular footprint and has four open bays on one side. The building is clad with vertical wooden boards. The shed roof is covered with corrugated aluminum panels and is supported by poles enhanced with Y braces. CHC 1-7 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 8  Warehouse. The large warehouse is estimated to have been built in the 1960s. It is rectangular in plan and is clad with vertical aluminum panels. It has a very low pitched, gabled roof. The east elevation features a single entry door (possibly metal), as well as a metal roll-up garage door and a rectangular vent with horizontal slats. The south elevation also has a metal roll-up garage door. Across the width of the north elevation is a shed supported by round metal poles. It has a flat roof clad with corrugated metal panels.  Former Spectators’ Barn/Viewing Stand. The former spectators’ barn/viewing stand has been converted to other farm uses. It is estimated to have been built ca. 1887 and is a two-story wood framed building clad with shiplap siding. It has a rectangular plan and a high pitched, side-gabled roof with boxed eaves. The northwest elevation features a strip of angled window openings that indicate the prior use as a race track viewing stand; the slant is likely a result of row seating and the open seating/viewing area was likely enclosed. Beneath this are two window openings which have been boarded over. Under the gable peak is a hay carrier and a pair of hay doors on hinges. A large concrete loading dock wraps around the southeast and southwest sides of the building. Along the southwest side of the building there is an addition that appears to have been constructed at a later date. The structure is clad with vertical wood boards and has a steeply pitched shed roof. 7.0 EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION A key project concept is to create an Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center, which will incorporate and rehabilitate three of the main historic structures in the existing farm complex. The proposed San Luis Ranch Specific Plan describes the center as a community and visitor serving cultural destination that will provide a venue for locally grown and produced products, educational and hands-on learning opportunities, and seasonal community gathering spaces4. The San Luis Ranch project proposes to relocate and rehabilitate three structures from the Dalido/San Luis Ranch Farm complex. Two of the structures proposed for relocation were identified individually as historically significant, including the main barn, and main residence. The proposal also includes the relocation and rehabilitation of the Former Spectators’ Barn/Viewing Stand. Although this building was not identified individually as significant, it is an important historic and visual component of the overall complex. The relevant portions of the proposed Specific Plan that address this concept are included as Attachment 5. This approach is evaluated below in the context of the Final EIR and relevant City policies and regulations. 7.1 Historic Significance California Register (CRHR) The Final EIR evaluated the complex as a whole, and the significance of buildings individually. The evaluation found the complex significant locally under City historic significance criteria (discussed below), and under the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). The Dalidio (San Luis) Ranch Complex was found eligible for listing in the CRHR for its 4 San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, Section 3.9, Agricultural Heritage Facilities a nd Learning Center Overview CHC 1-8 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 9 association with the early agricultural development of San Luis Obispo and as a representative of the 20th century vernacular architecture (Criteria 1 & 3). The main residence (Residence # 1) and main barn were found individually eligible under the CRHR. The main residence is constructed in a Craftsman style and retains many of its character -defining features such as clapboard and shiplap siding, shingles in the gable face, overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails, decoratively cut knee braces and rafter tails, a wrap-around porch supported by square pillars, a shed-roofed dormer window, and various original wood windows. The main barn also embodies the raised center-aisle type of barn. This structure retains its barn doors, hay doors, hay carriers and hardware, thus retaining much of its integrity. Therefore, the main residence and main barn are individually eligible for listing in the CRHR since they embod y distinctive characteristics of Craftsman and vernacular architecture. Local Significance Criteria The project site is not currently within the City limits. Therefore, neither the project site nor any structures on the site are currently listed as historic resources. The Cultural Resources Evaluation found that the farm complex would be eligible under City Criterion B.2 (Event) and Criterion B.3 (Context) since the property exemplifies an important period of local history, being established as a family farm and developing into a valuable local agribusiness industry. The property is representative of early 20th century agricultural and industrial development. The Dalidio Ranch Complex, as well as cultivated fields, has existed on the property for over a century. The assemblage of ranch structures is a rare remaining and intact example of a farm complex representing the early agricultural history of San Luis Obispo. The main Craftsman style residence (Residence #1) and the main barn both embody the distinctive characteristics of Craftsman and vernacular agricultural architecture, retaining the majority of their character-defining features and integrity. As such, these two structures are individually eligible for designation as City of San Luis Obispo historic resources under Criterion A.1 (Style). 7.2 Historic Resource Impact Evaluation The proposed project includes relocation and adaptive reuse of the existing main residence, main barn, and the former spectators’ barn/viewing stand to new locations on the site within the Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center adjacent to the open space area to be preserved for agriculture. The Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center is intended to promote the region’s agricultural history. Uses proposed in the area include educational uses, urban agriculture, crop production, agriculture accessory uses, produce stands and temporary events. Following relocation of the three structures, at the site of the Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center, the main residence, main barn, and former spectators’ barn/viewing stand are proposed to be preserved in accordance with the appropriate Secretary of Interior Standards treatment methods as required in the below mitigation measure CR-1(a). The proposed project would result in the demolition of the remaining structures included in the ranch complex. The Final EIR Cultural Resources Evaluation concluded the project proposal would result in Class I, Significant and Unavoidable Impacts to Historic Resources. The Draft EIR evaluation CHC 1-9 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 10 included identified impacts to the individually significant main barn in addition to the complex as a whole. The applicant has now modified plans to preserve the main barn and include it i n plans for incorporation into the Agriculture Heritage Center. The project would eliminate the San Luis Ranch Complex, which is eligible for listing as a historic resource. Relocation, demolition, and/or removal of these historic resources would permanently alter the historic context of the site and on-site structures. 7.3 Modifications to the Draft EIR Included in the Final EIR. A Final EIR has been prepared for the project, which is pending review and certification by the City Council. The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, responses to public comments on the Draft EIR, and any changes to the Draft EIR necessitated as a result of those responses. The Draft EIR was circulated for a 52-day public review period that began December 9, 2016 and concluded on January 31, 2017. The City held a public Planning Commission hearing on January 11, 2017, which was continued on January 25, 2017, to receive public testimony in the form of verbal comments on the Draft EIR. As a result of public testimony at the Planning Commission, minor changes were made to the Cultural Resources section in the Final EIR, but none affect the analysis, conclusions, or mitigation measures that were described in the Draft EIR. On January 23, 2017 the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) conducted a public hearing to review the cultural resource evaluation in the Draft EIR. The hearing provided an opportunity for members of the Committee and the public to receive a summary presentation of the project as well as the major findings of the Draft EIR related to cultural and historical resources. In addition to input from the Committee members, there was one speaker during the hearing. The complete response to comments is provided in Attachment 4. As a result of CHC input, and because the project already proposed to construct a new barn in the project’s proposed Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center using salvageable materials from the historically significant main barn, Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) has been modified for the Final EIR to incorporate the main barn as follows: CR-1(a) Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan. In order to implement Specific Plan Policy 2.5, a relocation and reconstruction plan for the former spectator’s barn/viewing stand, and main residence, and main barn shall be developed by a qualified historic architect. The plan shall include a structural/architectural report documenting existing integrity and conditions and include detailed treatment methods and measures to ensure that historic integrity is retained and that all identified character defining features will be preserved. The applicant has already revised the Specific Plan to preserve the main barn and incorporate it into the Agriculture Heritage Center. In addition, a portion of the Draft EIR was recirculated for a 45-day public review period that began March 3, 2017 and concluded on April 17, 2017. The recirculation was focused on the issue of energy use, and not on issues related to cultural CHC 1-10 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 11 resources, so no there were no public comments related to cultural resources that required responses. The following mitigation measures were not modified in the Final EIR, but are the same as the ones included in the Draft EIR: CR-1(b) Archival Documentation of Historic Buildings. The applicant shall provide archival documentation of the San Luis Ranch Complex in as-built and as-found condition in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II documentation. The documentation shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990), and shall include large-format photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as donated material to the History Center of San Luis Obispo County. Archival copies of the documentation shall also be submitted to the San Luis Obispo County Library. CR-1(c) Informational Display of Historic Resources. A retrospective interpretive display detailing the history of the San Luis Ranch Complex and the project site, its significance, and its important details and features shall be developed by the applicant. The information should be incorporated into a publicly-accessed building on the project site, such as the proposed Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center, or a publicly-accessed outdoor location. The display shall include images and details from the HABS documentation described in Mitigation Measure CR-1(b) and any collected research pertaining to the historic property. The content shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). 7.2.2 Consistency with City Policies and Municipal Code Portions of the General Plan and City’s Municipal Code are relevant to the protection of historic resources on the site. Table 2 evaluates the project’s consistency with relevant General Plan policies and provisions of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. Table 2. Policy Consistency Evaluation Policy/Municipal Code Provision Consistency Evaluation General Plan Land Use Element Policy 8.1.4: SP-2, San Luis Ranch (Dalidio) Specific Plan Area. Item n. Historic evaluation of the existing Consistent. The Final EIR includes an historic evaluation of the farm house and associated structures, and appropriate mitigation measures are required to address potential impacts. CHC 1-11 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 12 Table 2. Policy Consistency Evaluation Policy/Municipal Code Provision Consistency Evaluation farm house and associated structures shall be included. General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.1. Historic Preservation. Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved, and rehabilitated Consistent. Mitigation Measures CR-1(a) through CR-1(c) require a Historical Structure Relocation and Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Plan, archival documentation of historic buildings, and an informational display of historic resources. Collectively, these measures fulfill the intent of the City policy. Policy 3.3.2. Demolitions. Historically or architecturally significant buildings shall not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible. Consistent. The three main structures of the complex including the main residence, main barn, and spectators’ barn/viewing stand will be preserved in accordance with the appropriate treatments under the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Preservation of Historic Properties. By relocating key structures consistent with the required Historical Structure Relocation and Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Plan, public safety will be promoted while maintaining the historical context of the complex to the extent feasible. It should also be noted that General Plan Policy 8.1.4, which requires a Specific Plan for the site, inherently recognized that this portion of the site was suitable for future development, notably housing, which would be needed to implement key Housing Element goals. The relocation of certain structures, and demolition of those that contribute less to the overall historic context of the ranch complex, is consistent with this balanced approach to achieving goals related to good site planning and public safety. Policy 3.3.3. Historical Documentation. Buildings and other cultural features that are not historically significant but which have historical or architectural value should be preserved or relocated where feasible. Where preservation or relocation is not feasible, the resources shall be documented and the information retained in a secure but publicly accessible location. An acknowledgement of the resources should be incorporated within the site through historic signage and Consistent. Mitigation Measures CR-1(a) through CR-1(c) require a Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan, archival documentation of historic buildings, and an informational display of historic resources. Collectively, these measures fulfill the intent of the City policy. CHC 1-12 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 13 Table 2. Policy Consistency Evaluation Policy/Municipal Code Provision Consistency Evaluation the reuse or display of historic material and artifacts. Municipal Code 14.01.100 Demolition of historic resources. [Key provisions are described below] A. Intent. Listed historic resources are an irreplaceable community resource that merit special protection to preserve them for future generations, and shall not be demolished unless the city council makes all of the findings specified in subsection D of this section; provided, however, that these thresholds shall not apply to repairs to listed historic resources that do not require a building permit, or where the CHC or the director has determined such work is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. B. Demolition Review. The CHC shall review and make recommendation to the city council concerning demolition applications for structures listed in the inventory of historic resources. C. Demolition Thresholds. Demolition permits for structures which are included on the inventory of historic resources shall be required for: Consistent. The project is a large multi-faceted Specific Plan, which seeks to balance historic preservation with many other equally important municipal goals, including housing, public safety, agricultural preservation, open space, circulation, and economic sustainability. In that context, the Specific Plan must include a feasible and effective means of addressing historic preservation, which necessarily could involve demolitions of dilapidated structures while relocating others to preserve or enhance the overall historical context of the site. A key project concept is to create an Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center, which will incorporate and rehabilitate historic structures, and provide context for these structures by creating a complex that promotes agriculture through public education, as well as providing a center for limited agricultural commerce. The San Luis Ranch project proposes to relocate and rehabilitate two of the individually identified historic resources in the complex and the Spectators’ Viewing Barn/viewing stand. The proposed location of the buildings at the Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center will provide a setting adjacent to the portion of the project site to be kept in open space with continuing agricultural use. The proposed Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center also proposed constructing a barn on the site, which reflects the main barn that was identified as an individually significant resource. Although the existing main barn is in poor structural condition and likely cannot be safely relocated or even preserved in place, Secretary of Interior Standards provide for reconstruction5 as a treatment option to maintain the historic significance of the structure. The project now includes the main barn as a part of the Agriculture center. The FEIR addressed CHC comments and added the main barn to mitigation measure CR-1(a) which will ensure its preservation. 5 Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting by means of new construction the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site., landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location. CHC 1-13 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 14 Table 2. Policy Consistency Evaluation Policy/Municipal Code Provision Consistency Evaluation 1. Alterations to or removal of greater than twenty-five percent of the original building framework, roof structure, and exterior walls; and 2. Relocation of such resources to a site outside the city limits. D. Required Findings for Demolition of a Historic Resource. The decision-making body shall approve an application for demolition of a structure listed in the inventory of historic resources only if it determines that the proposed demolition is consistent with the general plan and: 1. The historic resource is a hazard to public health or safety, and repair or stabilization is not structurally feasible. Deterioration resulting from the property owner’s neglect or failure to maintain the property should not be a justification for demolition. The applicant may be required to provide structural reports, to the approval of the community development director or city council, to document that repairs or stabilization are not feasible; or 2. Denial of the application will constitute an economic hardship as described under subsections (J)(1) through (3) of this section. F. Historic and Architectural Documentation. Before the issuance of a demolition permit for structures With incorporation of the main barn into this mitigation measure, all three of the most significant and largest character defining structures of the complex will be preserved on site. Although the overall setting and context of the complex will be altered with the proposed relocation, the relocation of the three largest and distinctive buildings in the complex to the Agricultural Heritage Center presents a feasible option to preserve the character and context of these agricultural buildings at the edge of the open space. CHC 1-14 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 15 Table 2. Policy Consistency Evaluation Policy/Municipal Code Provision Consistency Evaluation listed in the inventory of historic resources, the resource and its site shall be documented as specified in city standards, to the satisfaction of the CHC and the director. The documentation shall be retained in a secure, but publicly accessible, location. G. Historic Acknowledgement. An acknowledgment of demolished resources shall be provided through historic signage and/or the reuse or display of historic materials and artifacts on site, at the owner’s expense, to the director’s approval. 14.01.110 Relocation of historic resources. [Key provisions are described below] Relocation has the potential to adversely affect the significance of a historic resource and is discouraged. Relocation applications shall be evaluated as follows: A. Review. The CHC and ARC shall review applications to relocate structures listed on the inventory of historic resources. B. Criteria for Relocation. Relocation of structures included on the inventory of historic resources, or those that are determined by the CHC or the director to be potentially historic, is the least preferred preservation method and shall be permitted only when relocation is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan, any applicable area or specific plans, and the Historic Consistent. As discussed with respect to the discussion for Municipal Code Section 14.01.100, this provision of the Code did not anticipate a procedure to effectively implement of a large multi-faceted Specific Plan, which seeks to balance historic preservation with many other equally important municipal goals, including housing, public safety, agricultural preservation, open space, circulation, and economic sustainability. In that context, the Specific Plan must include a feasible and effective means of addressing historic preservation, which necessarily could involve demolitions of dilapidated structures while relocating others to preserve or enhance the overall historical context of the site. As noted above, consistent with City General Plan policy 8.1.4., the Specific Plan must include an historic evaluation of the existing farm house and associated structures. The Final EIR provides the framework for this evaluation, identifies potential impacts to the complex, and includes Mitigation Measures CR-1(a) through CR-1(c). Collectively, these require a Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan, archival documentation of historic buildings, and an informational display of historic resources. The relocation plan for the former spectator’s barn/viewing stand and main residence must meet certain standards and performance criteria, including:  It shall be developed by a qualified historic architect; CHC 1-15 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 16 Table 2. Policy Consistency Evaluation Policy/Municipal Code Provision Consistency Evaluation Preservation Program Guidelines, and: 1. The relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the historic, architectural or aesthetic value of the resource; and 2. Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the historic district or neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the resource is located or at its proposed location; and 3. The original site and the proposed receiving site are controlled through ownership, long-term lease or similar assurance by the person(s) proposing relocation, to the director’s approval; and 4. The proposed receiving site is relevant to the resource’s historic significance; or 5. The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the site and no other measures for correcting the condition are feasible; or 6. The proposed relocation meets the findings required under Section 14.01.100(J) for demolition of a historic resource. C. Relocation Timing. The historic resource shall not be relocated unless the chief building official issues a permit for relocation and all permit or impact fees for new development are paid; or, where no new development is proposed, an appropriate security is posted to  It shall include a structural/architectural report documenting existing integrity and conditions; and  It shall include detailed treatment methods and measures to ensure that historic integrity is retained and that all identified character defining features will be preserved. This approach to relocation and rehabilitation of the most significant structures is consistent with the relevant findings included in Section 14.01.110.B. of the Municipal Code, notably those criteria related to maintaining overall historic context while preserving public safety. The Spectators’ barn/viewing stand has been moved from its original location, and would be relocated back in closer proximity to its location near the historic racetrack location. The complex buildings have lost their functionality, and most are in very poor physical condition. The new location and adaptive reuse will place the relocated buildings back into a functional use, and will place them in direct proximity to active agricultural land use, as well as improve their safety and utility, with the opportunity to promote public education of the property’s history and the community’s overall agricultural heritage. CHC 1-16 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 17 Table 2. Policy Consistency Evaluation Policy/Municipal Code Provision Consistency Evaluation guarantee that relocation plans are implemented, to the director’s approval. D. Historical and Architectural Documentation. Prior to issuance of a construction permit for relocation, the resource and its site shall be historically documented as specified herein, to the satisfaction of the CHC and the director. An acknowledgment of the resource, such as a permanent, weatherproof historic plaque, shall be incorporated on the resource’s original site as provided by the applicant or property owner, subject to the approval of the CHC. E. Relocation Plan and Procedures. Relocations shall follow a plan approved by the CHC or the director, standards and procedures in the demolition and building relocation code, the California Building Code, and the following: 1. Application for relocation shall be made on forms provided by the department and shall include information to respond to the criteria in subsection B of this section. 2. The CHC shall hold a noticed public hearing and recommend action to the ARC or city council on the application for relocation of a historic resource, and the ARC or council shall consider the CHC’s recommendation in making the final determination to approve or deny the permit. 3. The ARC or the city council will not grant an approval for CHC 1-17 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 18 Table 2. Policy Consistency Evaluation Policy/Municipal Code Provision Consistency Evaluation the relocation of a listed historic resource unless the criteria for relocation under subsection B of this section can be met. (Ord. 1557 § 3 (part), 2010) 7.3 Archaeological Resources As described in the Final EIR, one prehistoric archaeological site (SLR-S-01) has been identified and recorded on the project site. SLR-S-01 is highly disturbed by repeated plowing, planting, harvesting, and other activities associated with crop cultivation. Although subsurface artifacts are present, they are limited to disturbed sediments above 40 centimeters below the surface, and do not represent an intact deposit. Based on the finding of the Cultural Resources Study, it is likely that the subsurface component consists of artifacts that were previously located on the surface scatter and have been redeposited due to remixing of sediments caused by agricultural activities. SLR-S-01 is not directly associated with important events or any persons significant in our past and, due to the absence of an intact subsurface component and lack of specific, interpretable context, the site is unlikely to yield important information about prehistory or history. As such, SLR-S-01 is not significant under CRHR Criteria 1, 2, 3 or 4. Therefore, the site is ineligible for listing in the CRHR and NRHP and requires no further management consideration under CEQA or the NHPA. Two prehistoric isolated artifacts (SLR-I-01 and SLR-I-02) have also been identified and recorded on the project site. Under CEQA, the isolates are not eligible for listing in the CRHR. The information potential of isolates SLR-I-01 and SLR-I-02 and site SLR-S-01 has been exhausted by their recordation and analysis as part of the Cultural Resources Study. The surface of the project site has been previously disturbed by over 100 years of agricultural activities including planting, harvesting, and other activities associated with crop cultivation and thus the possibility of encountering undisturbed archaeological resources during construction is unlikely. Identified archaeological resources on the project site are ineligible for listing in the CRHR and NRHP, and disturbance of these resources would not constitute a significant impact. However, the potential remains for the project to result in impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources. Appropriate standard mitigation measures have been included in the Draft EIR to monitor grading and construction activities, and to take appropriate actions in the event a previously unidentified resource is discovered during such activities. CHC 1-18 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 19 7.3.1 Required Mitigation Measures. As described in the Final EIR, the following mitigation measures would reduce project impacts on prehistoric resources to a less than significant level. CR-2(a) Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. In accordance with Conservation and Open Space Policies 3.5.6 and 3.5.7, a qualified principal investigator, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological and historical resources. Monitoring shall involve inspection of subsurface construction disturbance at or in the immediate vicinity of known sites, or at locations that may harbor buried resources that were not identified on the site surface. A Native American monitor shall also be present because the area is a culturally sensitive location. The monitor(s) shall be on-site on a full- time basis during earthmoving activities, including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities. CR-2(b) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are exposed during construction, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until a qualified archaeologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the cultural resource. In the event that any artifact or an unusual amount of bone or shell is encountered during construction, work shall be immediately stopped and relocated to another area. The lead agency shall stop construction within 100 feet of the exposed resource until a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the find (see 36 CFR 800.11.1 and CCR, Title 14, Section 15064.5[f]). Examples of such cultural materials might include: ground stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and manos; chipped stone tools such as projectile points or choppers; flakes of stone not consistent with the immediate geology such as obsidian or fused shale; historic trash pits containing bottles and/or ceramics; or structural remains. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or will be mitigated consistent with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Guidelines. 8.0 SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS The Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) should provide comment and make recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding the adequacy of the proposed approach to addressing potential impacts to cultural resources on the site, particularly to the San Luis Ranch farm complex. The CHC should also determine whether the project is consistent with relevant City General Plan policies and provisions of the Municipal Code. The Planning Commission and City Council will consider these recommendations as they consider certification of the Final EIR and possible project approval. At the time of implementation, the final site plan details, and relocation/reconstruction plans for the Agricultural Heritage Center would return to the CHC for review of conformance with cultural resources mitigation measures and specific plan concepts for the center. CHC 1-19 SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015; 1035 Madonna Road (San Luis Ranch Project) Cultural Heritage Committee Report – May 15, 2017 Page 20 9.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. The San Luis Ranch Final EIR Section 4.5, Cultural Resources 3. Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation, Rincon Consultants, November 2016 4. Response to comments from the CHC Meeting of January 23, 2017 5. Agricultural Heritage Center sections of Specific Plan CHC 1-20 RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL FIND THE SAN LUIS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND RELEVANT HISTORIC PRESERVATION POLICIES INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL PLAN (SPEC/ANNX/ER 1502-2015; 1035 MADONNA ROAD) WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 15, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application #SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502- 2015, Coastal Community Builders, applicant; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. Findings. 1. The proposed San Luis Ranch Specific Plan is consistent with General Plan Policy 8.1.4 since the Final EIR includes a historic evaluation of the existing farm house and associated complex structures. 2. The project is consistent with General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element policies on 3.3.1-3.3.3 since mitigation measures will be applied to the project which require a relocation plan including reconstruction/rehabilitation details consistent with Secretary of Interior Standards, archival documentation of historic buildings, and an informational display of historic resources. 3. The proposed relocation and rehabilitation/reconstruction of the identified individually significant structures is consistent with Municipal Code sections 14.01.100 & 14.01.110 since in the context of the review of the Specific Plan, the proposal for the Agricultural Heritage Center presents a feasible option to preserve the character and significance of these agricultural buildings in the proposed relocation area where they will be located at the edge of open space and adjacent to agricultural land. The agricultural complex has lost its historical functionality, are in a dilapidated state, and the proposed relocation and reuse plan provides the opportunity to improve their safety, restore a functional use, and promote public education and interest in the history of the site and the community’s overall agricultural heritage. 4. With required mitigation, the project is consistent with Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines since the project will be required to include an excavation monitoring and data recovery plan to document and preserve any artifacts found during construction. Attachment 1 Resolution No. XXXX-17 CHC SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015 (1035 Madonna Road) Page 2 Section 2. Environmental Review. The Cultural Heritage Committee recommends the City Council find that the Final Environmental Impact Report properly characterizes the project’s potentially significant impacts relative to historic/cultural resources, and that the incorporated mitigation measures appropriately ensure that potentially significant impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible. Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends the City Council find the project consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and cultural resources General Plan policies, subject to the following conditions. Conditions 1. The project shall be in accordance with the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR including the following: CR-1(a) Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan. In order to implement Specific Plan Policy 2.5, a relocation and reconstruction plan for the former spectator’s barn/viewing stand and main residence shall be developed by a qualified historic architect. The plan shall include a structural/architectural report documenting existing integrity and conditions and include detailed treatment methods and measures to ensure that historic integrity is retained and that all identified character defining features will be preserved. CR-1(b) Archival Documentation of Historic Buildings. The applicant shall provide archival documentation of the San Luis Ranch Complex in as-built and as-found condition in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II documentation. The documentation shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990), and shall include large-format photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as donated material to the History Center of San Luis Obispo County. Archival copies of the documentation shall also be submitted to the San Luis Obispo County Library. CR-1(c) Informational Display of Historic Resources. A retrospective interpretive display detailing the history of the San Luis Ranch Complex and the project site, its significance, and its important details and features shall be developed by the applicant. The information should be incorporated into a publicly-accessed building on the project site, such as the proposed Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center, or a publicly-accessed outdoor location. The display shall include images and details from the HABS documentation described in Mitigation Measure CR-1(b) and any collected research pertaining to the historic property. The content shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). CR-2(a) Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. In accordance with Conservation and Attachment 1 Resolution No. XXXX-17 CHC SPEC/ANNX/EIR-1502-2015 (1035 Madonna Road) Page 3 Open Space Policies 3.5.6 and 3.5.7, a qualified principal investigator, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological and historical resources. Monitoring shall involve inspection of subsurface construction disturbance at or in the immediate vicinity of known sites, or at locations that may harbor buried resources that were not identified on the site surface. A Native American monitor shall also be present because the area is a culturally sensitive location. The monitor(s) shall be on-site on a full- time basis during earthmoving activities, including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities. CR-2(b) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are exposed during construction, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until a qualified archaeologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the cultural resource. In the event that any artifact or an unusual amount of bone or shell is encountered during construction, work shall be immediately stopped and relocated to another area. The lead agency shall stop construction within 100 feet of the exposed resource until a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the find (see 36 CFR 800.11.1 and CCR, Title 14, Section 15064.5[f]). Examples of such cultural materials might include: ground stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and manos; chipped stone tools such as projectile points or choppers; flakes of stone not consistent with the immediate geology such as obsidian or fused shale; historic trash pits containing bottles and/or ceramics; or structural remains. If the resources are found to be significant, they must be avoided or will be mitigated consistent with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Guidelines. On motion by Committee member, , seconded by Committee member, , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 15th day of May, 2017. _____________________________ Brian Leveille, Secretary Cultural Heritage Committee Attachment 1 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES The information in this section is based on the San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Study prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) in August 2016 (Appendix G) and the 2014 LUCE Update EIR. 4.5.1 Setting a. Prehistoric Setting. The project site is located within what is generally described as the Central Coast archaeological region, which one of eight organizational divisions of California (Jones and Klar 2007, Moratto 1984). The Central Coast archaeological region extends from Monterey Bay to Morro Bay, and includes the County of San Luis Obispo. The prehistoric cultural chronology for the Central Coast is generally divided into six periods: Paleo-Indian (ca. 10,000 – 6,000 B.C.), Milling Stone (6,000 - 3,000 B.C.), Early and Early-Middle Transition (3,000 - 600 B.C.), Middle (600 B.C. - A.D. 1000), Middle-Late Transition (A.D. 1000 - A.D. 1250), and Late (A.D. 1250 - historic contact [ca. A.D. 1769]) (Jones and Klar 2007). Several chronological sequences have been devised to understand cultural changes along the Central Coast from the Millingstone Period to contact. Jones (1993) and Jones and Waugh (1995) presented a Central Coast sequence that integrates data from archaeological studies conducted since the 1980s. Three periods, including the Early, Middle, and Late periods, are presented in their prehistoric sequence subsequent to the Millingstone Period. More recently, Jones and Ferneau (2002) updated the sequence following the Millingstone Period as follows: Early, Early- Middle Transition, Middle, Middle-Late Transition, and Late periods. The archaeology of the Central Coast subsequent to the Millingstone Period is distinct from that of the Bay Area to the north and Central Valley to the east. The region has more in common with the Santa Barbara Channel area during the Middle and Middle-Late Transition periods, but few similarities during the Late period (Jones & Ferneau 2002). b. Historical Setting. Post-European contact history for California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), the Mexican Period (1822–1848), and the American Period (1848–present). The Spanish Period brought the establishment of the California mission system, while the Mexican Period is largely known for the division of the land of California into private land holdings. Following the Mexican-American war, the United States purchased California from Mexico; population of the state subsequently increased, particularly during the Gold Rush. Following the arrival of the first Europeans, Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded in 1772 by Padre Junipero Serra. The population of native people at the mission declined rapidly. In 1803, there was a peak of 919 Native Americans residing at the mission, but by 1838 the population had declined to 170. In 1822 California became a Mexican Territory, and the mission lands gradually became private ranchos through Mexican land grants. In 1846, the Bear Flag Rebellion resulted in California’s independence from Mexico, and control of the territory soon fell into the hands of the United States. Beginning in 1873, the County experienced a steady change in land use and recorded more acreage under cultivation each year. The California State Board of Agriculture reported that in 1910 the County had 1,566,660 acres of farmland. Over the following decades, the San Luis Obispo area continued to operate as agricultural and ranching property. CHC 1-21 Attachment 2 Agriculture in San Luis Obispo. By the early 20th century, the land surrounding Laguna Lake developed into farms, dairies, and ranches (Bertrando 1999a). Wool, flour, and dairy were important income-generating products in the area. Some of the most important agricultural crops in the late 1800s were wheat, barley, and beans. Grain from area ranchos was processed at local mills. Production increased when steam-powered mills were constructed starting in the 1870s. Ranching and agriculture were the region’s main commercial enterprises at one time and thus had an impact on the development of the city (Historic Resources Group [HRG] 2013). Because San Luis Obispo was the largest settlement in the area, some ranchers would travel from up to forty miles away to bring their grains into the city to be milled. As a result, roads were constructed throughout the County in the 1870s, primarily by Chinese laborers, leading to increased mobility in the region. In 1872, Captain John Harford began construction on the Pacific Coast Railway which ran just to the east of the Specific Plan Area. The railway improved shipping methods of local crops and products, advancing the economy (HRG 2013). A dairy industry began developing in San Luis Obispo County in the late 1860s after the drought years of 1862-64. During the 1880s, beans were the primary crop grown south of the city and continued into the early years of the 20th century (Bertrando 1999b). Other significant agricultural crops in the area in the early 20th century included winter peas, celery and flower seed. Japanese farmers in particular were successful with these crops through the 1930s. Horse Racing in San Luis Obispo. Horse racing was documented to be a popular sport in the region since the time of the Mexican ranchos in the first half of the 19th century (Angel 1883). Historical newspaper articles discuss the establishment of horse racing tracks in the San Luis Obispo area from 1874 through 1887. During this period a halfone-mile race track was located in the vicinity of Madonna Plaza, which would be slightly to the northeast of the project site (Bertrando 1999a). After 1901, ownership of the portion of the project site with the spectators’ barn/viewing stand changed hands, and the spectators’ barn/viewing stand was reportedly moved to its current location on the northwest portion of the project site, near Madonna Road. It was reported that when the spectators’ barn/viewing stand was moved into the project site, the track was shortened by a half mile (Froom in Bertrando, 1998). c. Project Site Historic Context. The project site is comprised of several lots that were subdivided in 1875, when the Laguna Rancho was sold off into plots for small family farms. Each property consisted of a farm complex with a home (Bertrando 1999a). A horse race track facility, which included stables and a spectators’ barn/viewing stand, was originally located in the current agricultural area of the site. After 1910, the horse race track facility was moved to its current location on the northwest portion of the project site, near Madonna Road. A kitchen and cocktail lounge that once existed on opposite ends of the viewing stand were removed and utilized for the construction of a small family residence. The stables that had been associated with the race track were removed from the site and the spectators’ barn/viewing stand was further altered by the addition of a dairy, stables and conversion of the spectator seating area to hay storage. In approximately 1921, the Dalidio family purchased the project site and converted the site to farmed crops such as onions, artichokes, and garbanzo beans, as well as flowers for seed (Bertrando 1999a; Stewart 1999). The agricultural business on the project site was known as Zapata Farms starting in the early 1980s (Bertrando 1999a; Stewart 1999). The property changed ownership again in 2014 and it has recently been known as the San Luis Ranch. For a detailed CHC 1-22 Attachment 2 history of the region and the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area, refer to the Cultural Resources Study in Appendix G to this EIR. The former spectators’ barn/viewing stand, as well as other on-site structures, is described in detail in Section 4.5.1(d). d. Documented Cultural Resources. Previously Documented Archaeological and Historical Resources. On January 25, 2016 Rincon requested a search of the cultural resource records housed at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Central Coast Information Center (CCIC) located at University of California, Santa Barbara. The search included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the California State Historical Landmarks list, the California Points of Historical Interest list, historic building surveys, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California Inventory of Historical Resources list. The records search provided information about archaeological resources, historic resources, and reports within the project site as well as within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. The records search identified 51 reports of studies previously conducted within the project site as well as within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. Of these records, eight previous studies overlap with or were located within the project site. The National Archaeological Database listing summary for these studies is presented in Appendix B of the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the project by Rincon in August 2016 (refer to Appendix G to this EIR). The previous studies conducted within and in the vicinity of the project site did not identify any archaeological resources on the project site. In addition, the CCIC did not list any historic addresses on the project site, nor does the CCIC possess any historical maps that indicate the presence of historic resources on the project site. However, the CCIC records search identified nine previously recorded archaeological and historical resources located within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site, described in detail in Appendix G to this EIR. Of these resources, one identified historic resource is located on the project site: the San Luis Ranch Complex (P-40- 041000). The San Luis Ranch Complex, formerly known as the Dalidio Ranch Complex, is located on the northwest portion of the project site, near Madonna Road. Singer and Atwood (1988) conducted a cultural resources survey of the project site in 1988, and identified “two wood frame structures, a large, two-story house and a barn” as having potential historical significance. Betsy Bertrando recorded and evaluated the Complex in 1999 and identified eight historic built environment resources including the Dalidio home, a bungalow, a small shed/bunkhouse, a garage, a water tower, the main barn, a large equipment storage building, and the spectators’ barn/viewing stand. The San Luis Ranch Complex presently includes nine structures, described in detail below. The water tower that was recorded on the project site in the 1999 Bertrando analysis was not observed during the investigation for the current project. Archaeological and Historical Resources on the Project Site. Archaeological Resources. Rincon staff conducted a pedestrian field survey of the project site for archaeological resources between March 14, 2016 and March 16, 2016. During this field survey, Rincon identified and recorded three prehistoric archaeological resources on the project site. These resources include one prehistoric archaeological site (SLR-S-01) and two isolated prehistoric artifacts (SLR-I-01 and SLR-I-02). Between August 1, 2016 and August 16, 2016, CHC 1-23 Attachment 2 Rincon conducted test excavations, including one test unit, two shovel test pits, and 21 auger tests, of archaeological site SLR-S-01 to evaluate the CRHR eligibility of the site. The three resources identified on the project site include: • SLR-S-01. SLR-S-01 is a prehistoric lithic scatter. The site measures 170 × 315 feet and consists of a surface scatter of lithic artifacts and one fragment of shell, with a subsurface component of redeposited lithic debitage (waste material from stone tool production) extending to 40 centimeters below the surface. During the pedestrian survey, Rincon identified the site as a surface scatter of flaked stone debitage, all composed of cryptocrystalline silicate (CCS) materials including Franciscan and Monterey cherts. • SLR-I-01. SLR-I-01 consists of an isolated prehistoric grayish-brown cortical CCS flake measuring 4.8 x 3.6 x 1 centimeters. The flake exhibits moderate post-depositional damage. • SLR-I-02. SLR-I-02 consists of an isolated prehistoric brownish-red cortical CCS flake measuring 3.0 x 2.3 x 0.7 centimeters. The flake exhibits moderate post-depositional damage. Built Environment Resources. As shown in Figure 4.5-1, the project site currently contains a grouping of nine structures at the northwest end of the property, collectively known as the San Luis Ranch Complex. The San Luis Ranch Complex includes three single-family residences, a garage/shed, a smaller shed, the main barn, a large equipment storage building, a warehouse, and the former spectators’ barn/viewing stand, which was converted to farm use. Figures 4.5- 2a through 4.5-2e provide photographs of each of these structures. The following is a summarized description of each of the structures within the San Luis Ranch Complex: • Main Residence (Residence #1). The main residence is a single-family residence estimated to have been built ca. 1910. It is irregular in plan and built in the Craftsman style. This structure features a high pitched, front-gabled roof, with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. The roof is clad in composition shingles. There is a shed dormer on the northeast side of the roof. On the southwest side a hipped roof extension covers the wrap-around porch and a cantilevered box bay window. The home is clad with shiplap and clapboard siding as well as shingles on the gable face. • Residence #2. This single family home is estimated to have been built ca. 1900-1910. It is rectangular in plan and appears to have a small addition on the east elevation as well as a shed extension on the south. The eastern addition includes a chimney. Both the main portion of the home and the addition feature medium pitched front-gabled roofs and an open eave overhang with fascia boards. The roof is clad with composite shingles. The shed extension features a nearly flat roof partially clad with corrugated panels. Residence #3. This single family home is estimated to have been built in the 1960s. It is roughly square in plan, clad with reverse board and batten and has a side-gabled roof clad with composition shingles. There are horizontally slatted vents under the gable peaks. The home features aluminum sliding windows surrounded by wood framing on the north and east elevations. CHC 1-24 Attachment 2 !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !> Main Barn Warehouse Residence #3 Residence #2 Shed #2 Main Residence (Residence #1) Garage/Shed Spectators' Barn/Viewing Stand #9 - Equipment Storage Building Madonna R d City of San Luis Obispo Built Environment Resources Figure 4.5-1 Imagery provided by Google and its licensors, 2016. San Luis Ranch Project EIRSection 4.5 Cultural Resources ±0 16080 Feet Project Boundary !>San Luis RanchComplex Structures CHC 1-25 Attachment 2 San Luis Ranch Project EIR Section 4.5 Cultural Resources San Luis Ranch Complex Structure Photographs Figure 4.5-2a City of San Luis Obispo Photo 1: Main Residence (Residence #1), northwest elevation, view to the southeast. Photo 2: Residence #2, view to the east. CHC 1-26 Attachment 2 San Luis Ranch Project EIR Section 4.5 Cultural Resources San Luis Ranch Complex Structure Photographs Figure 4.5-2b City of San Luis Obispo Photo 3: Residence #3, view to the south. Photo 4: Garage/Shed, northwest elevation, view to the southeast. CHC 1-27 Attachment 2 San Luis Ranch Project EIR Section 4.5 Cultural Resources San Luis Ranch Complex Structure Photographs Figure 4.5-2c City of San Luis Obispo Photo 5: Shed #2, northwest elevation, view to the southeast. Photo 6: Main barn, north elevation, view to the southwest. CHC 1-28 Attachment 2 San Luis Ranch Project EIR Section 4.5 Cultural Resources San Luis Ranch Complex Structure Photographs Figure 4.5-2d City of San Luis Obispo Photo 7: Equipment storage building, north elevation, view to the south. Photo 8: Warehouse, east elevation, view to the southwest. CHC 1-29 Attachment 2 Sa n L u i s R a n c h C o m p l e x S t r u c t u r e P h o t o g r a p h s Figure 4.5-2e City of San Luis Obispo Sa n L u i s R a n c h P r o j e c t E I R Se c t i o n 4 . 5 C u l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s Ph o t o 9 : F o r m e r s p e c t a t o r ’ s b a r n / v i e w i n g s t a n d , n o r t h w e s t e l e v a t i o n , v i e w t o t h e s o u t h e a s t . CHC 1-30Attachment 2 • Garage/Shed. This garage/shed is the larger of two sheds on the property. Estimated to have been built in the 1930s, it is rectangular in plan and is clad with flush, vertical wooden boards. It is covered with a shed roof that has exposed rafter tails and is clad with corrugated metal panels. • Shed #2. Shed #2 is a small rectangular shed. Estimated to have been built in the 1930s, it is clad with vertical wooden boards and has a shed roof clad with corrugated panels. • Main Barn. The main barn in a raised-center-aisle barn estimated to have been built in 1900. It is clad with vertical wooden boards. The roof is clad with corrugated metal panels. The north elevation has a large centered opening with chamfered corners as well as a sliding barn door. The south elevation has a sliding barn door and a large hinged door, as well as a hay carrier and hay doors under the gable peak. The east elevation features four open bays supported by square wooden posts. • Equipment Storage Building. This large building is estimated to have been built in 1938. It has a rectangular footprint and has four open bays on one side. The building is clad with vertical wooden boards. The shed roof is covered with corrugated aluminum panels and is supported by poles enhanced with Y braces. • Warehouse. The large warehouse is estimated to have been built in the 1960s. It is rectangular in plan and is clad with vertical aluminum panels. It has a very low pitched, gabled roof. The east elevation features a single entry door (possibly metal), as well as a metal roll-up garage door and a rectangular vent with horizontal slats. The south elevation also has a metal roll-up garage door. Across the width of the north elevation is a shed supported by round metal poles. It has a flat roof clad with corrugated metal panels. • Former Spectators’ Barn/Viewing Stand. The former spectators’ barn/viewing stand has been converted to other farm uses. It is estimated to have been built ca. 1887 and is a two-story wood framed building clad with shiplap siding. It has a rectangular plan and a high pitched, side-gabled roof with boxed eaves. The northwest elevation features a strip of angled window openings that indicate the prior use as a race track viewing stand; the slant is likely a result of row seating and the open seating/viewing area was likely enclosed. Beneath this are two window openings which have been boarded over. Under the gable peak is a hay carrier and a pair of hay doors on hinges. A large concrete loading dock wraps around the southeast and southwest sides of the building. Along the southwest side of the building there is an addition that appears to have been constructed at a later date. The structure is clad with vertical wood boards and has a steeply pitched shed roof. e. Regulatory Setting Federal Regulations. The project does not involve federal funding or permitting, and as a result, does not have a federal nexus. Therefore, compliance with reference to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) and other federal laws is provided here for informational purposes only. National Register of Historic Places. The NRHP was established by the NHPA to help identify properties that are significant cultural resources at the national, state, and/or local level. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, CHC 1-31 Attachment 2 materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it meets one or more of the following criteria: A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past; C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. As described in the Cultural Resources Study (see Appendix G), San Luis Ranch (formerly Dalidio Ranch) began as a family farm and expanded into a larger agribusiness. The property has retained a complex of ranch buildings and cultivated fields for over a century. The property was owned for many decades by the Dalidio family, who has been involved in the regional dairy industry and agribusiness. Their contributions are believed to be of local significance, not statewide or nationwide. Thus, the Dalidio family’s contributions do not make the property or complex eligible for listing in the NRHP. The property and the structures on the property are also not expected to yield important information about prehistory or history and do not demonstrate sufficient historical significance in national, state, or local agricultural development or as a unique property type to warrant listing in the NRHP. State Regulations. Assembly Bill 52. Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) amends Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.94 (CEQA) and adds eight new sections to the PRC relating to Native Americans. It was passed and signed into law in 2014 and took effect on July 1, 2015. This law establishes a new category of resource called tribal cultural resources (PRC Section 21074) and establishes a process for consulting with Native American tribes and groups regarding those resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Native American tribes to be included in the process are identified through consultation with the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) (PRC Section 21080.3.1). Tribal cultural resources are “[s]ites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe…” (PRC Section 21074.1). A tribal cultural resource must be on, or eligible for, the CRHR as described above for historical resources, or must be included in a local register of historical resources. Also as discussed above for historical resources, the lead agency can determine that a tribal cultural resource is significant even if it has not been evaluated as eligible for the CRHR or is not on a local register. Assembly Bill 52 establishes that “A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3). The City conducted Native American consultation consistent with Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52 for the project, which is described in Section 4.5.3(a), Methodology. CHC 1-32 Attachment 2 Senate Bill 18. Passed in 2004, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18) requires cities and counties to consult with Native American tribes to help protect traditional tribal cultural places through the land use planning process. Unlike AB 52, SB 18 is not an amendment to, or otherwise associated with, CEQA. Instead, SB 18 requires cities and counties to consult with Native American tribes early during broad land use planning efforts on both public and private lands, prior to site- and project-specific land use decisions. The bill applies to general plan adoption or amendments and to specific plan adoption or amendments. A Native American tribe is defined as “a federally recognized California Native American tribe or a non-federally recognized California Native American tribe that is on the contact list maintained by the Native American Heritage Commission” (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2005). Traditional tribal cultural places are defined in PRC Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 to include sanctified cemeteries, places of worship, religious or ceremonial sites, or sacred shrines, or any historic, cultural, or sacred site that is listed on or eligible for the CRHR including any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, or archaeological site (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2005). Under SB 18, cities and counties must notify the appropriate Native American tribe(s) of intended adoption or amendments to general plans or specific plans, and offer the opportunity for the tribe(s) to consult regarding traditional tribal cultural places within the proposed plan area. Consultation is intended to encourage preservation and protection of traditional tribal cultural places by developing treatment and management plans that might include incorporating the cultural places into designated open spaces (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 2005). California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21084.1). A historical resource is a resource listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the CRHR; a resource included in a local register of historical resources; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a][1-3]). A resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it meets one or more of the following criteria: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The San Luis Ranch Complex is eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its association with the early agricultural development of San Luis Obispo. The San Luis Ranch property has retained the complex of ranch buildings and cultivated fields for over a century. The property is also representative of an early 20th century farm with its associated buildings, agricultural fields and ancillary structures. The buildings reflect the distinctive characteristics of the early 20th century vernacular agricultural architecture, making the San Luis Ranch Complex also eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3. CHC 1-33 Attachment 2 Individual buildings within the San Luis Ranch Complex also embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. The main residence (Residence # 1) is constructed in a Craftsman style and retains many of its character-defining features such as clapboard and shiplap siding, shingles in the gable face, overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails, decoratively cut knee braces and rafter tails, a wrap-around porch supported by square pillars, a shed-roofed dormer window, and various original wood windows. The main barn also embodies the raised-center-aisle type of barn. This structure retains its barn doors, hay doors, hay carriers and hardware, thus retaining much of its integrity. Therefore, the main residence and main barn are individually eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 3. In addition, if a project can be demonstrated to cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC, Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]). PRC, Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; or 2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or 3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. According to CEQA, all buildings constructed over 50 years ago and that possess architectural or historical significance may be considered potential historic resources. Most resources must meet the 50-year threshold for historic significance; however, resources less than 50 years in age may be eligible for listing on the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand their historical importance. Codes Governing Human Remains. Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines also assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. The disposition of human remains is governed by Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98, and falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC. If human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be no further disturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible for contacting the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, will immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native Americans so they can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposal. Local Regulations. The project is subject to local measures, including the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the City’s General Plan, and the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. These regulations are discussed below. CHC 1-34 Attachment 2 Historic Preservation Ordinance. In 2010, the City of San Luis Obispo passed a Historic Preservation Ordinance to identify and protect important historic resources within the city (City of San Luis Obispo 2010). When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource, the Cultural Heritage Commission and City Council are to consider this ordinance and SHPO standards. To be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least 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: 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. CHC 1-35 Attachment 2 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: a. A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city. b. 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). 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. The project site is not currently within the City limit. Therefore, neither the project site nor any structures on the site are currently listed as a Historic or Cultural Resource according to the above criteria. However, the San Luis Ranch property exemplifies an important period of local history, being established as a family farm and developing into a valuable local agribusiness industry. The property is representative of early 20th century agricultural and industrial development. The San Luis Ranch Complex, as well as cultivated fields, has existed on the property for over a century. The San Luis Ranch Complex is a rare remaining and intact example of a farm complex representing the early agricultural history of San Luis Obispo. Therefore, it is eligible for designation as a City of San Luis Obispo historic resource under Criterion B.2 (Event) and Criterion B.3 (Context). The main Craftsman style residence (Residence #1) and the main barn both embody the distinctive characteristics of Craftsman and vernacular agricultural architecture, retaining the majority of their character-defining features and integrity. As such, these two structures are individually eligible for designation as City of San Luis Obispo historic resources under Criterion A.1 (Style). CHC 1-36 Attachment 2 City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan addresses historic and architectural Resources within the City. New development is evaluated for consistency with the following adopted goals and policies relating to archaeological and historical resources: Goal 3.2. Historic and Architectural Resources. The City will expand community understanding, appreciation, and support for historic and architectural resource preservation to ensure long-term protection of cultural resources. Policy 3.3.1. Historic Preservation. Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved, and rehabilitated. Policy 3.3.2. Demolitions. Historically or architecturally significant buildings shall not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible. Policy 3.3.3. Historical Documentation. Buildings and other cultural features that are not historically significant but which have historical or architectural value should be preserved or relocated where feasible. Where preservation or relocation is not feasible, the resources shall be documented and the information retained in a secure but publicly accessible location. An acknowledgement of the resources should be incorporated within the site through historic signage and the reuse or display of historic material and artifacts. Goal 3.4. Historic and Architectural Resources. The City will expand community understanding, appreciation, and support for archaeological resource preservation. Policy 3.5.1. Archaeological Resource Protection. The City shall provide for the protection of both known and potential archaeological resources. To avoid significant damage to important archaeological sites, all available measures, including purchase of the property in fee or easement, shall be explored at the time of a development proposal. Where such measures are not feasible and development would adversely affect identified archaeological or paleontological resources, mitigation shall be required pursuant to the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Policy 3.5.2. Native American Sites. All Native American cultural and archaeological sites shall be protected as open space wherever possible. Policy 3.5.3. Non-Development Activities. Activities other than development which could damage or destroy archaeological sites, including off-road vehicle use on or adjacent to known sites, or unauthorized collection of artifacts, shall be prohibited. Policy 3.5.4. Archaeological Sensitive Areas. Development within an archaeologically sensitive area shall require a preliminary site survey by a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American cultures, prior to a determination of the potential environmental impacts of the project. Policy 3.5.5. Archaeological Resources Present. Where a preliminary site survey finds substantial archaeological resources, before permitting construction, the City shall require a mitigation plan to protect the resources. Possible mitigation measures include: presence of a CHC 1-37 Attachment 2 qualified professional during initial grading or trenching; project redesign; covering with a layer of fill; excavation removal and curation in an appropriate facility under the direction of a qualified professional. Policy 3.5.6. Qualified Archaeologist Present. Where substantial archaeological resources are discovered during construction or grading activities, all such activities in the immediate area of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American cultures can determine the significance of the resource and recommend alternative mitigation measures. Policy 3.5.7. Native American Participation. Native American participation shall be included in the City’s Guidelines for resource assessment and impact mitigation. Native American representatives should be present during archaeological excavation and during construction in an area likely to contain cultural resources. The Native American community shall be consulted as knowledge of cultural resources expands and as the City considered updates or significant changes to its General Plan. Policy 3.6.3. Construction within Historic Districts. The Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission will provide specific guidance on the construction of new buildings within historic districts. Municipal Code. In addition to the City of San Luis Obispo’s requirements to designate a Historic or Cultural Resource, the City Municipal Code contains specific requirements for the demolition and relocation of structures listed in the inventory of historic resources. These requirements are stated in Municipal Code sections 14.01.100 and 14.01.110. The City Municipal Code states that the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) shall review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding demolition applications for structures listed in the inventory of historic resources. An application for demolition of a listed historic resource shall be approved only if the proposed demolition is found consistent with the general plan and 1) the historic resource is a hazard to public health of safety, and repair or stabilization is not structurally feasible; or 2) denial of the application will constitute an economic hardship as described in section 14.01.100(J)(1-3) of the municipal code. Additional procedures regarding the timing of the demolition, documentation and acknowledgment of the historic resource are also delineated. Likewise, the relocation of a structure listed on the inventory of historic resources is subject to review by the CHC and Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Relocation shall be permitted only when relocation is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan, any applicable area or specific plans, and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, as well as additional criteria defined in Municipal Code Section 14.01.110(B)(1-6). The timing, plan, procedures and documentation are also delineated. City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines. The Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines (part of the City’s Environmental Guidelines) developed by the San Luis Obispo CHC are used to determine whether a project complies with CEQA, as well as the information needed to evaluate a project’s effects on archaeological sites and artifacts. The Guidelines call for a three-step approach to historical resources: preparation of an Archaeological and Architectural Resource Inventory (ARI); Subsurface Archaeological CHC 1-38 Attachment 2 Resource Evaluation (SARE); and Archaeological Resource Impact Mitigation (ARIM). These steps parallel the CEQA process. 4.5.2 Previous Program-Level Environmental Review The 2014 Land Use and Circulation Elements Update EIR (LUCE Update EIR) previously analyzed Citywide impacts to cultural resources, including those associated with development on the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan Area, related to the adoption and implementation of the Land Use and Circulation Element policies and programs. The LUCE Update EIR cultural resources analysis determined that the intensification of land uses anticipated to occur in certain areas of the City under the Land Use and Circulation Element update, including the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area, could have an adverse effect on historic structures, as well as identified and previously unidentified archaeological and paleontological resources, including human remains. However, the LUCE Update EIR concluded that implementation of LUCE Update EIR Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3, which changed the language of General Plan Conservation and Open Space Policies 3.3.2, 3.3.5, 3.5.10 to be more stringent in order to better facilitate the protection of the City’s historical resources, as well as various other General Plan policies regarding cultural and paleontological resources, would reduce impacts to historic structures and archaeological and paleontological resources to a less than significant level. 4.5.3 Impact Analysis a. Methodology and Significance Thresholds for Cultural Resources. If a project may cause a substantial adverse change in the characteristics of a resource that convey its significance or justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR or a local register, either through demolition, destruction, relocation, alteration, or other means, then the project is judged to have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[b]). The following thresholds are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. Impacts would be significant if the project would: 1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5; 2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5; 3. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; or 4. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The Initial Study determined that the project would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Therefore, Threshold 3 is not discussed further in this section. Refer to Section 4.14, Issues Addressed in the Initial Study, for a discussion of this issue. Direct impacts can be assessed by identifying the types and locations of proposed development, determining the exact locations of cultural resources within the project area, assessing the significance of the resources that may be affected, and determining the appropriate mitigation. Removal, demolition, or alteration of historical resources can permanently impact the historic fabric of an archaeological site, structure, or historic district. CHC 1-39 Attachment 2 Methodology. The analysis within this section builds upon the conclusions identified in the LUCE Update EIR, as described in Section 4.5.2. Where applicable, this analysis includes mitigation that implements applicable City policies for the protection of archaeological and historical resources. A Cultural Resources Study of the project site and vicinity was completed in August 2016 (Appendix G). As described in Section 4.5.1(d), as part of the Cultural Resources Study, a records search was obtained from the CCIC. The search was conducted to identify previous cultural resources evaluations and previously recorded cultural resources on the project site as well as within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. In addition to the records search, the Cultural Resources Study included archival research for the project site. The methodology for the archival research focused on the review of primary and secondary source materials related to the history and development of the project site and vicinity. Sources for this research included historic maps, aerial photographs, and written histories of the area. In addition, Rincon staff conducted a pedestrian survey of the project site for archaeological resources between March 14, 2016 and March 16, 2016. On March 15, 2016 Rincon staff also conducted survey of the project site for historic resources, which included examination, documentation, photographing, and evaluating the built environment features on the project site. Between August 1, 2016 and August 16, 2016, Rincon staff conducted test excavations to evaluate the CRHR eligibility of the prehistoric lithic scatter located on the western edge of the project site (SLR-S-01). During archaeological testing all identified surface artifacts were also collected for temporary storage, cataloging, and analysis. All data was recorded on standard archaeological forms. All excavations were backfilled upon completion of testing. Rincon conducted Native American consultation consistent with Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52 for the project to identify potential concerns or issues associated with Native American cultural resources within the project vicinity. Rincon contacted the NAHC to determine whether any sites recorded in the NAHC’s Sacred Lands File occur in or near the project site. The NAHC responded on January 27, 2016 stating that the search of the sacred land files “failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area.” In addition, the NAHC provided a list of Native American groups and individuals who may have knowledge of cultural resources within the project site. The Native American scoping did not identify any identify any specific resources important to the consulted groups within the project site. However, several contacts noted that the area is sensitive. All Native American parties contacted about the project site are described in the Cultural Resource Study (Appendix G). b. Impacts and Mitigation Measures. Threshold 1 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5? Impact CR-1 The project would result in the relocation, demolition, and removal of structures on the San Luis Ranch property which are individually identified as historic resources. In addition, the project would eliminate the San Luis Ranch Complex, which is eligible for listing as a historic resource. Relocation, demolition, and/or removal of these historic resources would permanently alter the historic context of the project site and on-site CHC 1-40 Attachment 2 structures. This impact would be Class I, significant and unavoidable. As described in Section 4.5.1(d), the San Luis Ranch property, which includes the San Luis Ranch Complex, is eligible for listing as a City landmark, and is eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 (association with early agricultural development in San Luis Obispo) and Criterion 3 (distinctive characteristics of early 20th century vernacular agricultural architecture). The characteristics and history of the San Luis Ranch property make it eligible for designation as a City of San Luis Obispo landmark property under Criterion B.2 (event) or B.3 (context). In addition, the main residence and the main barn that are within the San Luis Ranch Complex are individually eligible for listing as City landmarks, and are eligible for listing under CRHR Criterion 3 (distinctive characteristics of early 20th century vernacular agricultural and Craftsman architecture). In addition, the characteristics and history of the main residence and main barn make these structures eligible for designation as City landmark properties under Criterion A.1 (style). As such, the San Luis Ranch Complex, as well as the individual main residence and main barn structures are considered historic resources under CEQA. The project includes the adaptive reuse and relocation of the existing main residence and the former spectators’ barn/viewing stand to new locations on the site within the Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center. The project would also result in the demolition or off-site relocation of the remaining building and structures included in the San Luis Ranch Complex, including the historic main barn. Salvageable materials from the main barn are proposed to be reused to the greatest extent possible in the construction of a new barn in the project’s proposed Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center. The main residence and former spectators’ barn/viewing stand are proposed to be restored and adaptively reused following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. These proposed actions of the project would be subject to the requirements of the City Municipal Code Sections 14.01.100 and 14.01.110, which include requirements for the demolition and relocation of structures listed in the inventory of historic resources. Although the project site is not currently listed by the City as a historic resource because the project site is currently outside of the City limit, the project applicant seeks annexation by the City. Therefore, with annexation of the project site into the City, Municipal Code Sections 14.01.100 and 14.01.110 would apply to removal of the San Luis Ranch Complex and relocation of the main residence and spectators’ barn/viewing stand structure. Mitigative Components of the Specific Plan and Impact Conclusion. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan proposes programs and policies intended to reduce impacts to historical resources to the maximum extent practicable. Specific Plan Policy 2.5 states that the Specific plan would “Protect associated structures such as the Dalidio Home, Laguna Race Track viewing stand, barn, and water tower.” Specific Plan Program 2.5.1 would require evaluation of the historic structures on the site for the purposes of preservation and protective reuse. The Specific Plan proposes relocation of the main residence and spectators’ barn/viewing stand to the Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center area for permanent preservation, and specifies that both structures would be subject to historic documentation by a qualified historian prior to relocation, including being photographed and recorded consistent with professional historical standards, and a qualified historic preservation architect would be consulted during relocation planning to ensure that significant historic materials and fabric are retained and reconstructed CHC 1-41 Attachment 2 appropriately. The Specific Plan also specifies that the associated structures in the San Luis Ranch Complex would be photographed and recorded before they are removed from the site. Removal of the San Luis Ranch Complex and relocation, demolition, and/or removal of the historic main residence and main barn as part of the project would result in adverse changes to individually identified historic structures as well as the historic context of the San Luis Ranch property, which is collectively identified as historically significant. Additionally, demolition of the historic main barn, which is part of the San Luis Ranch Complex, would conflict with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.1, Historic Preservation, which states that significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved, and rehabilitated, as well as Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.2, Demolitions, which prohibits demolition or substantial changes in outward appearance of historically or architecturally significant buildings, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible. For these reasons, the project would result in a potentially significant impact to historic resources and mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures would reduce project impacts on historical resources to the maximum extent practicable. CR-1(a) Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan. In order to implement Specific Plan Policy 2.5, a relocation and reconstruction plan for the former spectator’s barn/viewing stand, and main residence, and main barn shall be developed by a qualified historic architect. The plan shall include a structural/architectural report documenting existing integrity and conditions and include detailed treatment methods and measures to ensure that historic integrity is retained and that all identified character defining features will be preserved. CR-1(b) Archival Documentation of Historic Buildings. The applicant shall provide archival documentation of the San Luis Ranch Complex in as- built and as-found condition in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II documentation. The documentation shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990), and shall include large-format photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as donated material to the History Center of San Luis Obispo County. Archival copies of the documentation shall also be submitted to the San Luis Obispo County Library. CR-1(c) Informational Display of Historic Resources. A retrospective interpretive display detailing the history of the San Luis Ranch CHC 1-42 Attachment 2 Complex and the project site, its significance, and its important details and features shall be developed by the applicant. The information should be incorporated into a publicly-accessed building on the project site, such as the proposed Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center, or a publicly-accessed outdoor location. The display shall include images and details from the HABS documentation described in Mitigation Measure CR-1(b) and any collected research pertaining to the historic property. The content shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). Plan Requirements and Timing. The project applicant shall prepare the relocation and reconstruction plan for the main residence and the spectators’ barn/viewing stand to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of project grading permits. Project grading plans shall detail phasing and include sufficient detail to demonstrate the sequencing and completion of the relocation and reconstruction plan. The applicant shall complete archival documentation of the San Luis Ranch Complex prior to the removal, relocation, reconstruction, and/or demolition of the structures on the project site to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The applicant shall develop and install an informational display of the site’s identified historical resources prior to opening of the Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center to the public. Monitoring. The City shall confirm completion of and approve the relocation and reconstruction plan and archival documentation. The City shall confirm submittal of the documentation to the History Center of San Luis Obispo County and the San Luis Obispo County Library. The City shall also review applicable plans for compliance with recommendations of the relocation and reconstruction plan and periodically inspect the site to ensure compliance. The information display shall be prepared in accordance with recommendations of a qualified historic consultant and shall be approved by the Community Development Director. Residual Impacts. Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) would ensure that the main residence and barn/viewing stand would retain their individual integrity and character defining features. Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) would mitigate impacts to this individually significant resource to the maximum extent feasible. In addition, Mitigation Measures CR-1(b) and CR-1(c) would reduce significant direct impacts to the remainder of the historically significant San Luis Ranch Complex, including the individually significant historic main barn, to the maximum extent feasible. However, the removal and/or demolition of the historically significant main barn and the relocation, demolition, and removal of other structures in the San Luis Ranch Complex would change the CHC 1-43 Attachment 2 historic context of the San Luis Ranch property. Furthermore, mitigation would not avoid the removal of the main barn, despite the proposed reuse of salvageable materials from the structure to the greatest extent possible in the construction of a new barn in the project’s proposed Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center. Therefore, the potential impact to the San Luis Ranch Complex and the main barn individually would remain significant and unavoidable despite implementation of the required mitigation. Threshold 2 Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Threshold 4 Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Impact CR-2 Identified archaeological resources on the project site are ineligible for listing in the CRHR and NRHP, and disturbance of these resources would not constitute a significant impact. However, the potential remains for the project to result in impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources. Therefore, this impact would be Class II, significant but mitigable. As described in Section 4.5.1(d), one prehistoric archaeological site (SLR-S-01) has been identified and recorded on the project site. SLR-S-01 is highly disturbed by repeated plowing, planting, harvesting, and other activities associated with crop cultivation. Although subsurface artifacts are present, they are limited to disturbed sediments above 40 centimeters below the surface, and do not represent an intact deposit. Based on the finding of the Cultural Resources Study (Appendix G), it is likely that the subsurface component consists of artifacts that were previously located on the surface scatter and have been redeposited due to remixing of sediments caused by agricultural activities. SLR-S-01 is not directly associated with important events or any persons significant in our past and, due to the absence of an intact subsurface component and lack of specific, interpretable context, the site is unlikely to yield important information about prehistory or history. As such, SLR-S-01 is not significant under CRHR Criteria 1, 2, 3 or 4. Therefore, the site is ineligible for listing in the CRHR and NRHP and requires no further management consideration under CEQA or the NHPA. Two prehistoric isolated artifacts (SLR-I-01 and SLR-I-02) have also been identified and recorded on the project site. Under CEQA, the isolates are not eligible for listing in the CRHR. The information potential of isolates SLR-I-01 and SLR-I-02 and site SLR-S-01 has been exhausted by their recordation and analysis as part of the Cultural Resources Study. The surface of the project site has been previously disturbed by over 100 years of agricultural activities including planting, harvesting, and other activities associated with crop cultivation and thus the possibility of encountering undisturbed archaeological resources during construction is unlikely. However, prehistoric archaeological deposits could be preserved at depth beneath the project site. Construction of the project involves grading and excavation in areas that could contain subsurface archaeological remains. Unanticipated discovery of human remains during project excavation would require compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98. Compliance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 5097.94 and 5097.98 would ensure that unanticipated discovery CHC 1-44 Attachment 2 of human remains during project excavation would be addressed appropriately by the County Coroner and NAHC (if required), and would not constitute a significant impact. Mitigative Components of the Specific Plan and Impact Conclusion. The San Luis Ranch Specific Plan includes requirements intended to protect archaeological resources. Specific Plan Policy 3.5.4 requires a preliminary site survey for development within archaeologically sensitive areas. As described in Section 4.5.1(d), the Cultural Resources Study (Appendix G) includes an evaluation of known archaeological resources on the project site, and determined that these resources are not intact or otherwise archaeologically significant. However, excavation associated with the project grading plan would have the potential to encounter buried archaeological deposits. Therefore, mitigation is required to ensure that any discovered resources would be protected and curated if encountered during project construction. Mitigation Measures. The following measures would reduce potential impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level. CR-2(a) Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. In accordance with Conservation and Open Space Policies 3.5.6 and 3.5.7, a qualified principal investigator, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources. Monitoring shall involve inspection of subsurface construction disturbance at or in the immediate vicinity of known sites, or at locations that may harbor buried resources that were not identified on the site surface. A Native American monitor shall also be present because the area is a culturally sensitive location. The monitor(s) shall be on-site on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities, including grading, trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities. CR-2(b) Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources. In the event that archaeological resources are exposed during construction, all work shall be halted in the vicinity of the archaeological discovery until a qualified archaeologist can visit the site of discovery and assess the significance of the cultural resource. In the event that any artifact or an unusual amount of bone or shell is encountered during construction, work shall be immediately stopped and relocated to another area. The lead agency shall stop construction within 100 feet of the exposed resource until a qualified archaeologist/paleontologist can evaluate the find (see 36 CFR 800.11.1 and CCR, Title 14, Section 15064.5[f]). Examples of such cultural materials might include: ground stone tools such as mortars, bowls, pestles, and manos; chipped stone tools such as projectile points or choppers; flakes of stone not consistent with the immediate geology such as obsidian or fused shale; historic trash pits containing bottles and/or ceramics; or structural remains. If the resources are found to be significant, they CHC 1-45 Attachment 2 must be avoided or will be mitigated consistent with State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Guidelines. Plan Requirements and Timing. The project applicant shall retain a qualified principal investigator and Native American monitor prior to the issuance of grading permits. The requirement that construction work be stopped in the event of discovery of archaeological resources shall be included on construction plans prior to the issuance of grading permits. Monitoring. The City shall confirm the qualifications of and approve the applicant’s choice of a qualified principal investigator and Native American monitor. The City shall also inspect the site periodically during grading and demolition to ensure compliance with this measure. The City shall review construction plans and periodically inspect project construction to ensure compliance with this measure. Residual Impacts. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) and CR-2(b) would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level. c. Cumulative Impacts. Planned buildout of the City of San Luis Obispo under the General Plan, including buildout of previously approved (Margarita and Orcutt) or proposed (San Luis Ranch, Avila Ranch, Madonna) specific plans, would cumulatively increase the potential for adverse effects on historic and archaeological resources in the City. The project would incrementally contribute to this cumulative effect. Impacts to historic and archaeological resources are generally site-specific. Accordingly, as required under applicable laws and regulations, potential impacts associated with cumulative developments would be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As discussed in Section 4.5.2, the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan, as well as other approved and proposed plans in the City, is required to comply with existing General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policies 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, 3.5.4, 3.5.5, 3.5.6, 3.5.7, and 3.6.3, which address the protection of historical and archaeological resources within the City. As described in Impact CR-2, the project would not result in the loss of any significant archaeological resources and, therefore, would not contribute substantially to the cumulative loss of archaeological resources in the City. However, the project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact associated with the removal, relocation, or reconstruction of individually historic structures that are part of the historically significant San Luis Ranch Complex. As such, the project would contribute to the cumulative loss of historic resources in the City. Therefore, the project would also result in a Class I, significant and unavoidable, cumulative impact to historical resources. CHC 1-46 Attachment 2 City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation U.S.G.S. San Luis Obispo, CA quadrangle Prepared for: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Prepared by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Authors: Ashlee M. Bailey, M.A., RPA Susan Zamudio-Gurrola, M.H.P, Shannon Carmack, B.A., and Christopher Duran, M.A., RPA November 2016 Keywords: San Luis Obispo, CA quadrangle; San Luis Obispo County; intensive pedestrian survey; positive; prehistoric resources; historic resources impacted CHC 1-47 Attachment 3 Bailey, A., S. Zamudio-Gurrola, S. Carmack, and C. Duran 2016 Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation for the San Luis Ranch Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Rincon Consultants Project No. 14-01011. Report to be filed at the Central Coast Information Center, University of California, Santa Barbara. CHC 1-48 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo i San Luis Ranch Project Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................... 5  1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 8  1.1 Project Site ................................................................................................................................... 8  1.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................... 11  1.3 Personnel ................................................................................................................................... 12  2.0 Regulatory Setting ........................................................................................................................ 13  2.1 Federal ....................................................................................................................................... 13  2.1.1 National Register of Historic Places .............................................................................. 13  2.2 State ............................................................................................................................................ 14  2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act .......................................................................... 14  2.3 City of San Luis Obispo ........................................................................................................... 15  2.3.1 Historic Preservation Ordinance.................................................................................... 15  2.3.2 Municipal Code ................................................................................................................ 17  3.0 Setting ............................................................................................................................................ 18  3.1 Environmental Setting ............................................................................................................. 18  3.2 Prehistory .................................................................................................................................. 18  3.2.1 Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 10,000 – 6000 B.C.) ................................................................. 18  3.2.2 Milling Stone Horizon (6000 – 3000 B.C.) ..................................................................... 19  3.2.3 Early Period and Early-Middle Transition Period (3000 B.C. – 600 B.C.) ................ 20  3.2.4 Middle Period (600 B.C. – A.D. 1000) ............................................................................ 21  3.2.5 Middle-Late Transition Period (A.D. 1000 - 1250) ....................................................... 21  3.2.6 Late Period (A.D. 1250 – Historic Contact) ................................................................... 21  3.3 Ethnographic Overview .......................................................................................................... 22  3.4 Historical Overview ................................................................................................................. 23  3.4.1 Spanish Period (1769–1822) ............................................................................................ 23  3.4.2 Mexican Period (1822–1848) ........................................................................................... 24  3.4.3 American Period (1848–Present) .................................................................................... 24  3.4.4 Dalidio Ranch Complex .................................................................................................. 25  3.4.5 Agriculture in San Luis Obispo ...................................................................................... 26  3.4.6 Horse Racing in San Luis Obispo .................................................................................. 27  4.0 Background Research .................................................................................................................. 30  CHC 1-49 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo ii 4.1 Native American Scoping ....................................................................................................... 30  4.2 California Historical Resources Information System .......................................................... 31  4.2.1 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................... 31  4.2.2 Previously Recorded Resources ..................................................................................... 34  4.3 Archival Research .................................................................................................................... 35  5.0 Research Design ........................................................................................................................... 36  6.0 Methods ......................................................................................................................................... 37  6.1 Archival Research .................................................................................................................... 37  6.2 City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context Statement .......................................................... 37  6.2.1 Context: Early 20th Century Development .................................................................. 37  6.2.2 Theme: Early 20th Century Agricultural & Industrial Development ....................... 37  6.2.3 Property Types & Eligibility Standards ........................................................................ 38  6.3 Cultural Resources Surveys .................................................................................................... 38  6.3.1 Archaeological Survey ..................................................................................................... 38  6.3.2 Built Environment Survey .............................................................................................. 39  6.4 Archaeological Testing ............................................................................................................ 39  6.5 Laboratory ................................................................................................................................. 39  6.6 Artifact Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 41  6.6.1 Lithic Analysis .................................................................................................................. 41  7.0 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................ 46  7.1 Archaeological Resources ....................................................................................................... 46  7.1.1 CA-SLO-2825 .................................................................................................................... 46  7.1.2 Isolated Artifacts .............................................................................................................. 55  7.2 Archaeological Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 56  7.3 Built Environment Resources ................................................................................................. 57  7.3.1 Main Residence (Residence No. 1) ................................................................................. 59  7.3.2 Residence No. 2 ................................................................................................................ 60  7.3.3 Residence No. 3 ................................................................................................................ 61  7.3.4 Garage/Shed ..................................................................................................................... 62  7.3.5 Shed No. 2 ......................................................................................................................... 63  7.3.6 Main Barn .......................................................................................................................... 64  7.3.7 Equipment Storage Building .......................................................................................... 65  7.3.8 Warehouse ......................................................................................................................... 66  7.3.9 Former Spectators’ Barn/Viewing Stand ..................................................................... 67  7.4 Historic Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 68  CHC 1-50 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo iii 7.4.1 National and California Registers .................................................................................. 69  7.4.2 City of San Luis Obispo Designation ............................................................................ 70  8.0 Project Impacts and Recommendations .................................................................................... 71  8.1 Archaeological Resources ....................................................................................................... 71  8.1.1 Archaeological Resources Mitigation Measures .......................................................... 71  8.2 Archaeological Resources Level of Significance after Mitigation ..................................... 72  8.3 Built Environment/Historic Resources ................................................................................ 72  8.3.1 Built Environment/Historic Resources Mitigation Measures ................................... 73  8.4 Built Environment/ Historic Resources Level of Significance After Mitigation ............ 74  9.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 75  Figures Figure 1. Project Location Map. ............................................................................................................... 9  Figure 2. Project Site Map. ...................................................................................................................... 10  Figure 3. Grandstand at Deerfield Valley Agricultural Society Fairgrounds, Charlemont, MA. Source: Magicpiano, “National Register of Historic Places listings in Franklin County, MA”, Wikipedia. ................................................................................................................................................. 29  Figure 4. CA-SLO-2825 Excavation Locations ..................................................................................... 40  Figure 5. CA-SLO-2825 Surface Artifact Locations ............................................................................. 48  Figure 6. CA-SLO-2825 TU-01 North Wall Profile .............................................................................. 50  Figure 7. Pie chart displaying the breaks present on the SLR-S-1 fragmented bifaces. ................. 52  Figure 8. Pie chart displaying the overall debitage category distribution for SLR-S-1. ................. 54  Figure 9. Relative frequencies of cryptocrystalline silicate toolstone sources in the SLR-S-1 debitage assemblage. ............................................................................................................................... 54  Figure 10. Built Environment Resources .............................................................................................. 58  Tables Table 1. Previous Studies Within the Project Site. ............................................................................... 31  Table 2. Previous Studies Within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site. .......................................................... 32  Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site. ................. 34  Table 4. Summary of Cultural Materials Recovered from TU-01 ...................................................... 49  Table 5. Summary of Materials Recovered from STPs and AUGs .................................................... 51  Photographs Photograph 1. CA-SLO-2825 site overview with flags on artifacts, view toward west. .......... 47  Photograph 2. Overview of TU-01, view toward north. ............................................................... 49  Photograph 3. P-40-038327, plan view. ........................................................................................... 56  Photograph 4. P-40-038328, plan view. ........................................................................................... 56  CHC 1-51 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo iv Photograph 5. Main residence, northwest elevation, view to the southeast. ............................ 60  Photograph 6. Residence No. 2, view to the east. .......................................................................... 61  Photograph 7. Residence No. 3, view to the south. ....................................................................... 62  Photograph 8. Garage/shed, northwest elevation, view to the southeast. ................................ 63  Photograph 9. Shed No. 2, northwest elevation, view to the southeast. .................................... 64  Photograph 10. Barn, north elevation, view to the southwest. ...................................................... 65  Photograph 11. Equipment storage building, north elevation, view to the south. ..................... 66  Photograph 12. Warehouse, east elevation, view to the southwest. ............................................. 67  Photograph 13. Former spectator’s barn/viewing stand, northwest elevation, view to the southeast. 68  Appendices Appendix A Native American Correspondence Appendix B Background Records Search Summary Appendix C Archaeological Resource Records Appendix D Built Environment Resource Record Appendix E Artifact Catalog Appendix F Lithic Analysis Data CHC 1-52 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of San Luis Obispo to conduct a cultural resources study in support of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Luis Ranch Project (project). The project site is approximately 131-acres of land on in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, surrounded by the corporate boundary of San Luis Obispo. This study has been prepared to provide the required analysis for the project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This cultural resources study includes background environmental and cultural context of the project site, Native American scoping, background research, an intensive pedestrian survey of the project site, archaeological testing, evaluation of archaeological and built environment resources, and preparation of this report. All work was prepared in accordance with the CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, Section 15064.5 of the Guidelines; and Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1 of the Statutes of CEQA (Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 1998); and in accordance with regulations set forth in the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Native American Heritage Commission conducted a Sacred Lands File search with negative results on January 27, 2016. Rincon conducted Native American scoping, which did not identify any identify any specific resources important to the consulted groups within the project site. However, several contacts noted that the area is sensitive. The review of cultural resource records at the California Historical Resources Information System Central Coast Information Center identified one previously recorded cultural resource within the project site: the Dalidio Ranch/San Luis Ranch complex (P-40-041000), a complex of historic buildings. Rincon identified and recorded three archaeological resources during the pedestrian survey: two prehistoric isolated artifacts (P-40-038327 and P-40-038328) and one prehistoric archaeological site (CA-SLO-2825). Archaeological site CA-SLO-2825 comprises a prehistoric surface artifact scatter with a shallow subsurface component and is located in the western portion of the project site near the modern alignment of Prefumo Creek. The discovery of this site prompted a Phase II archaeological investigation to determine the site boundaries and to assess if this CA-SLO-2825 is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources and National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Site CA-SLO-2825 is recommended ineligible for listing in the CRHR and NRHP and thus requires no further management consideration under CEQA. Due to the assemblage’s lack of association with specific people or discrete events and because the recovered artifacts have little potential to contribute to future research, Rincon recommends no further work for the recovered items, and we do not recommend permanent curation. In lieu of curation, Rincon recommends donation of collected artifacts to a local Native American Tribe. Rincon recommends implementation of the following measures to reduce potential impacts to unanticipated archaeological resources: retain a qualified archaeologist to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological and historical resources; stop work within immediate vicinity of the find if unanticipated cultural deposits or human remains are discovered; and comply with existing regulations. The resource record for one previously recorded built environment resource complex, the Dalidio Ranch, was updated and the ranch reevaluated as part of the project. The ranch CHC 1-53 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 6 complex includes three single-family residences, a garage/shed, a smaller shed, a barn, a large equipment storage building, a warehouse, and the former spectator’s barn (viewing stand) which was converted to farm use. The Dalidio Ranch appears eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources as a property, under Criteria 1 and 3. It also appears eligible for designation as a City of San Luis Obispo landmark property (B.2 and B.3). Residence No. 1 and the main barn also appear individually eligible for listing in the CRHR and as City of San Luis Obispo landmark properties for their construction and design (Criteria 3 and A.1). The project would result in the relocation and adaptive reuse of two of the buildings contributing to the historic district (the main residence and former spectators’ barn/ viewing stand), and the demolition or off-site relocation of the remainder of the contributing buildings and structures that comprise the Dalidio Ranch complex. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource. Although not capable of reducing impacts to below the level of significance, three mitigation measures were identified that would reduce project impacts related to the demolition to the maximum extent practicable: 1) A relocation plan should be developed and implemented for the main Craftsman residence (residence No.1) and former spectators’ barn/viewing stand. The comprehensive relocation plan should include a structural/architectural condition and feasibility assessment to provide the necessary existing conditions data required to substantiate the relocation. If relocation is found feasible, the plan should identify a suitable relocation site that is compatible with the existing setting of the property; such as the proposed project’s agricultural center. The plan must also include detailed measures that demonstrate that the buildings will retain their historic significance following their relocation. Completion of this mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by the City of San Luis Obispo. 2) Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the lead agency shall ensure that documentation of the buildings and structures proposed for relocation and/or demolition is completed that follows the general guidelines of Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II documentation. The documentation shall include large-format photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). 3) Impacts related to the loss of the Dalidio Ranch complex shall be reduced through the development of a retrospective interpretive display detailing the history of the project site, its significance, and its important details and features. The information can be incorporated into a publicly-accessed building on the project site or a publicly-accessed outdoor location. The display shall include images and details from the HABS documentation and any collected research pertaining to the historic property. Implementation of these three historical mitigation measures would reduce significant direct and cumulative impacts to the historical resource planned for demolition to the maximum extent feasible. Nevertheless, the relocation, demolition and removal of the buildings and structures comprising the Dalidio Ranch complex would eliminate the historic district and would remain a significant adverse impact. CHC 1-54 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 7 This page intentionally left blank. CHC 1-55 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 8 1.0 INTRODUCTION Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of San Luis Obispo to conduct a cultural resources study in support of the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the San Luis Ranch Project (project). The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and development plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the site into the City of San Luis Obispo. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with a portion of the site preserved for agriculture and open space uses. The project requires an environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and has thus been prepared in accordance with CEQA statutes and guidelines. The City of San Luis Obispo is the lead agency for CEQA review of the project. This cultural resources study includes an overview of the regulatory setting for the project, background environmental and cultural context of the project site, Native American scoping, background research, a description of the methods employed in this study, the results of the intensive pedestrian survey of the project site, a summary of Phase II archaeological testing and evaluation, a built environment evaluation, and preparation of this report. 1.1 PROJECT SITE The site is located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, completely surrounded by the corporate boundary of San Luis Obispo; it is also within the city’s Sphere of Influence. The project site is generally bounded by residential uses and Madonna Road to the west, commercial uses and Dalidio Drive to the north, United States Highway 101 (U.S. 101) to the east and the San Luis Obispo City Farm to the south (Figures 1 and 2). Prefumo Creek is located south of the site. The site is identified by assessor’s parcel number (APN) 067-121-022. The project proposes to provide or pay fair share fees for such public improvements as a widening of Madonna Road along project frontage, additions to Dalidio Drive/Prado Road, an extension of Froom Ranch Way across Prefumo Creek in the southwest corner of the site, and to contribute in fair share towards an overpass or interchange connection for Prado Road. The proposed extension of Froom Ranch Way was included as part of the current investigation. CHC 1-56 Attachment 3 City of San Luis Obispo Project Location Map Figure 1 ± Basemap Source: ESRI Data, 2004, and USGS/CDFG, 2002. ^_ 0 2,0001,000 Feet ± Imagery provided by National Geographic Society, ESRI and its licensors © 2016. El Cajon Quadrangle. T15S R01W S22. The topographic representationdepicted in this map may not portray all of the features currently found in thevicinity today and/or features depicted in this map may have changed since theoriginal topographic map was assembled. Project Site 1:24,000 Cultural Resources Survey and EvaluationSan Luis Ranch Project CHC 1-57 Attachment 3 £¤101 E l k s L n Ma d o n n a R d O c e a n a i r e D r E l M e r c a d o City of San Luis Obispo Project Site Map Figure 2Imagery provided by Google and its licensors, 2016. San Luis Ranch ProjectCultural Resources Survey and Evaluation ±0 500250 Feet Project Boundary CHC 1-58 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 11 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The San Luis Ranch Project (project) consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and development plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the site into the City of San Luis Obispo. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element (adopted in December of 2014). The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with a portion of the site preserved for agriculture and open space uses. The Dalidio Ranch complex, which includes a farm house and outbuildings, is located in the western portion of the property adjacent to Madonna Road. Project development would result in the adaptive reuse and relocation of the existing main residence and the former spectators’ barn/viewing stand to new locations on the site within the Agricultural Heritage Center, and the demolition or off-site relocation of the remaining buildings and structures. Salvageable materials from the main barn are proposed to be reused to the greatest extent possible in the construction of a new barn in the project’s Agricultural Heritage Center. The main residence and former spectators’ barn/viewing stand are proposed to be restored and adaptively reused following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The project includes a mix of 580 low-medium, medium, and high-density residences that would be located primarily on the northwestern and central portion of the project site. Housing would range from detached single-family units to attached multi-family dwellings. The neighborhoods would be connected with a local street and trail system, and would contain recreational areas. The project includes 150,000 square feet of commercial development, 100,000 square feet of office development, and a 200 room hotel. The commercial and hotel components are proposed on the area of land fronting the extended Prado Road/Dalidio Drive and Froom Ranch Way. Commercial uses proposed for the project may include retail anchors, neighborhood retail, restaurants, offices, and a hotel. The project would preserve approximately 52.7 acres of the site in agriculture adjacent to the San Luis Obispo City Farm. The project would also preserve approximately 7.6 acres of the site in open space. Collectively, this would comprise 46.6 percent of the net site acreage (when major roadways and right of way for the future Prado Road interchange are discounted). As part of the proposed agricultural uses, the project also includes an Agricultural Heritage Facilities & Learning Center, which would be intended as an educational center for local residents and an agricultural tourism destination. The farmland adjacent to U.S. 101 would be preserved in perpetuity for its agricultural and view shed value. The Specific Plan includes a transit center that would provide direct transit access between the project site and downtown San Luis Obispo. The location of the proposed transit center would be coordinated with SLO Transit and the Regional Transit Authority upon submittal of individual project plans. The project site is relatively level, with a gentle slope to the south and southwest. The medium and high density residential areas would be graded using standard methods. Through the placement of fill, the proposed single-family and commercial areas would be graded such that, CHC 1-59 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 12 at a minimum, all structures would be removed from the flood plain. Grading in the Agricultural Heritage Facilities & Learning Center area would include the placement of fill to protect the proposed structures from flooding. Grading of agricultural areas would include the preservation of high quality topsoil through stockpiling and redistribution in order to enhance agricultural viability. The project would be constructed in six phases. Phases 1, 2, and 3 would consist of residential buildout and construction are planned to begin in 2017 and be completed in 2020. Phases 4 and 5 would consist of office and hotel buildout. Construction is expected to begin in 2017 and be completed in 2023. Phase 6 would consist of commercial buildout and is planned to begin in 2018 and be completed in 2023. 1.3 PERSONNEL Cultural Resources Principal Investigator Christopher Duran, M.A., RPA, managed this cultural resources study and served as the archaeological principal investigator for the study. Mr. Duran meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology (NPS 1983). Rincon Senior Architectural Historian Shannon Carmack served as the architectural historian principal investigator for this study. Ms. Carmack meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for history and architectural history (NPS 1983). Rincon Archaeologist Ashlee Bailey, M.A. served as the primary author of this report, assisted with Native American consultation, conducted the pedestrian survey, led archaeological testing, and catalogued and evaluated the artifacts recovered from the testing phase. Rincon Architectural Historian Susan Zamudio-Gurrola, M.H.P., conducted the architectural history survey for the project and prepared the historic resources analysis. Rincon Cultural Resources Program GIS Analysts Allysen Valencia and Jon Montgomery prepared the figures in this report. Rincon Principal Joe Power, M.A., AICP CEP, reviewed this report for quality control. CHC 1-60 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 13 2.0 REGULATORY SETTING This section discusses the laws, ordinances, and codes governing cultural resources, which must be adhered to before and during implementation of the proposed project. The project is subject to state and local laws, ordinances, and codes, including CEQA, the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo, and the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. The project does not have a federal nexus and, therefore, compliance with reference to the NHPA and other federal laws is provided here for informational purposes only. 2.1 FEDERAL Projects that involve federal funding or permitting (i.e., have a federal nexus) must comply with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 470f). Cultural resources are considered during federal undertakings chiefly under Section 106 of the NHPA through one of its implementing regulations, 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 800 (Protection of Historic Properties), as well as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to Native Americans are considered under Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA. Other relevant federal laws include the Archaeological Data Preservation Act of 1974, American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1989. 2.1.1 National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was established by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment" (CFR 36 CFR 60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for listing in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria: Criterion A: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Criterion B: It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past; Criterion C: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or Criterion D: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. CHC 1-61 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 14 2.2 STATE A public agency must comply with CEQA when it undertakes an activity defined by CEQA as a “project.” A project is an activity that, when undertaken by a public agency or private party, must receive discretionary approval. The project requires discretionary local and county permits, obtained from public agencies. Therefore, the undertaking is considered a project and is subject to CEQA. 2.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires a lead agency to determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21084.1). A historical resource is a resource listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); a resource included in a local register of historical resources; or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a][1-3]). A resource shall be considered historically significant if it: 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; 2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition, if a project can be demonstrated to cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC, Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]). PRC, Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; 2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or 3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. 50 Year Threshold for the CRHR According to CEQA, all buildings constructed over 50 years ago and that possess architectural or historical significance may be considered potential historic resources. Most resources must meet the 50-year threshold for historic significance; however, resources less than 50 years in age CHC 1-62 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 15 may be eligible for listing on the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand their historical importance. 2.3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO The project is also subject to local measures, including the Historic Preservation Ordinance of the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. These regulations are discussed below. 2.3.1 Historic Preservation Ordinance In 2010, the City of San Luis Obispo passed a Historic Preservation Ordinance to identify and protect important historic resources within the city (City of San Luis Obispo 2010). When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource, the Cultural Heritage Commission and City Council are to consider this ordinance and SHPO standards. To be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least 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: CHC 1-63 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 16 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: a. A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city. b. 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). 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. CHC 1-64 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 17 (3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. 2.3.2 Municipal Code In addition to the City of San Luis Obispo’s requirements to designate a Historic or Cultural Resource, the city’s municipal code contains specific requirements for the demolition and relocation of structures listed in the inventory of historic resources. These requirements are stated in Municipal Code sections 14.01.100 and 14.01.110. Although the project site is not currently listed by the city as a historic resource, the project applicant seeks annexation by the city; thus, the project would be subject to these requirements in the future. The City of San Luis Obispo municipal code states that the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) shall review and make recommendations to the City Council regarding demolition applications for structures listed in the inventory of historic resources. An application for demolition of a listed historic resource shall be approved only if the proposed demolition is found consistent with the general plan and 1) the historic resource is a hazard to public health of safety, and repair or stabilization is not structurally feasible; or 2) denial of the application will constitute an economic hardship as described in section 14.01.100(J)(1-3) of the municipal code. Additional procedures regarding the timing of the demolition, documentation and acknowledgment of the historic resource are also delineated. Likewise, the relocation of a structure listed on the inventory of historic resources is subject to review by the CHC and Architectural Review Commission (ARC). Relocation shall be permitted only when relocation is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan, any applicable area or specific plans, and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, as well as additional criteria defined in Municipal Code Section 14.01.110(B)(1-6). The timing, plan, procedures and documentation are also delineated. CHC 1-65 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 18 3.0 SETTING 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, completely surrounded by the corporate boundary of San Luis Obispo at an approximate elevation of 36-42 meters (118- 138 feet) above mean sea level. The project site is within San Luis Valley northeast of the Irish Hills and southwest of the southern extent of the Santa Lucia Mountain Range. The project site is currently used for agricultural purposes, primarily as cultivated row crops and has been farmed for approximately 100 years (Martin 2015; Bertrando 1999a). Dry and partially irrigated field crops, including garbanzo beans, dry beans, cabbage and lettuce, have been produced on the property. A single broad swale bisects the western portion of the property. This system drains toward Prefumo Creek at the project site’s southern edge. Prefumo Creek is lined with multiple rows of mature blue gum Eucalyptus trees and other vegetation, including arroyo willow, red willow, sycamore, and cottonwood trees; mulefat, poison oak, and toyon; and wild oats, foxtail chess, and fescue. 3.2 PREHISTORY The project site lies in what is generally described as the Central Coast archaeological region, one of eight organizational divisions of the state (Jones and Klar 2007, Moratto 1984:Fig. 1). The Central Coast archaeological region extends from Monterey Bay to Morro Bay, and includes the County of San Luis Obispo. Following Jones and Klar (2007:137), the prehistoric cultural chronology for the Central Coast can be generally divided into six periods: Paleo-Indian (ca. 10,000–6,000 B.C.), Milling Stone (6,000-3,000 B.C.), Early and Early-Middle Transition (3,000- 600 B.C.), Middle (600 B.C.- A.D. 1000), Middle-Late Transition (A.D. 1000-A.D. 1250), and Late (A.D. 1250-historic contact [ca. A.D. 1769]). Several chronological sequences have been devised to understand cultural changes along the Central Coast from the Millingstone Period to contact. Jones (1993) and Jones and Waugh (1995) presented a Central Coast sequence that integrated data from archaeological studies conducted since the 1980s. Three periods, including the Early, Middle, and Late periods, are presented in their prehistoric sequence subsequent to the Millingstone Period. More recently, Jones and Ferneau (2002:213) updated the sequence following the Millingstone Period as follows: Early, Early-Middle Transition, Middle, Middle-Late Transition, and Late periods. The archaeology of the Central Coast subsequent to the Millingstone Period is distinct from that of the Bay Area and Central Valley. The region has more in common with the Santa Barbara Channel area during the Middle and Middle-Late Transition periods, but few similarities during the Late period (Jones & Ferneau 2002:213). 3.2.1 Paleo-Indian Period (ca. 10,000 – 6000 B.C.) When Wallace (1955, 1978) developed the Early Man horizon in the 1950s (referred to herein as the Paleo-Indian Period), little evidence of human presence was known for the southern California coast prior to 6000 B.C. Archaeological work in the intervening years has identified a number of older sites, including coastal and Channel Islands sites (e.g., Erlandson 1991; Johnson et al. 2002; Moratto 1984). CHC 1-66 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 19 The earliest accepted dates for human occupation along the Central Coast were recovered from archaeological sites on two of the Northern Channel Islands, located off the southern coast of Santa Barbara County. On San Miguel Island, archaeological evidence from the Daisy Cave site establishes the presence of people in this area approximately 10,000 years ago (Erlandson 1991:105). On Santa Rosa Island, human remains have been dated from the Arlington Springs site to approximately 13,000 years ago (Johnson et al. 2002). In San Luis Obispo County, archaeological sites CA-SLO-1764 (Lebow et al. 2001), Cross Creek (CA-SLO-1797; Fitzgerald 2000), and CA-SLO-832 (Jones et al. 2001) yielded radiocarbon dates from approximately 9,000 years ago (Jones and Ferneau 2002). Recent data from Paleo-Indian sites in southern California indicate that the economy was a diverse mixture of hunting and gathering, with a major emphasis on aquatic resources in many coastal areas (e.g., Jones and Ferneau 2002). Although few Clovis-like or Folsom-like fluted projectile points have been found in southern California (e.g., Erlandson et al. 1987), the emphasis on hunting may have been greater during the Paleo-Indian period than during later periods. A fluted projectile point fragment was recovered from site CA-SBA-1951 on the Santa Barbara Channel coastal plain (Erlandson 1994:44; Erlandson et al. 1987). Another fluted projectile point was reportedly found on the surface in Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County (Mills et al. 2005; Jones and Klar 2007). Large side-notched projectile points of the Central Coast Stemmed series in this area date to as early as 8,000 years ago (Justice 2002). Points of this type have been recovered along the Central Coast from sites such as Diablo Canyon (CA-SLO-2; Greenwood 1972), Cross Creek (CA-SLO- 1797; Fitzgerald 2000), Little Pico Creek (CA-SLO-175; Jones and Waugh 1995), and the Honda Beach site (CA-SBA-530; Glassow 1997), among others. The Metcalf site (CA-SCL-178; Hildebrandt 1983), in southern Santa Clara Valley, yielded two large side-notched projectile points associated with charcoal dates ranging from 9,960 – 8,500 years ago. 3.2.2 Milling Stone Horizon (6000 – 3000 B.C.) The Milling Stone Horizon, as described by Wallace (1955, 1978), is characterized by an ecological adaptation to collecting plant resources, such as seeds and nuts, suggested by the appearance and abundance of well-made milling (ground stone) implements. The dominance of milling implements is generally associated with the horizontal motion of grinding small seeds and nuts and lends to the name Milling Stone Horizon. Rogers (1929) originally identified the Milling Stone Horizon along the Santa Barbara Channel in 1929. Excavations at the Tank Site (CA-LAN-1) in Topanga Canyon from 1947 to 1948 (Treganza and Bierman 1958) confirmed the presence of a significant number of milling implements that correspond with the Milling Stone Horizon identified by Rogers in 1929. Wallace (1955, 1978) further defined the Horizon, which was recognized on the Central Coast by Greenwood (1972). The Cross Creek site (CA-SLO-1797) is a Milling Stone occupation site in San Luis Obispo County that returned radiocarbon dates ranging between 9,500 – 4,700 years ago. This site represents one of the oldest expressions of the pattern (Jones et al. 2007; Fitzgerald 2000:58). Wallace (1955, 1978) and Warren (1968) identify ground stone implements including milling stones (e.g., metates, milling slabs, or mortars) and hand stones (e.g., manos, mullers, or CHC 1-67 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 20 pestles). Milling stones occur in high frequencies for the first time in the archaeological record of the Central Coast region, and become even more prevalent near the end of the Milling Stone Horizon. Flaked stone assemblages, which include crude core and cobble-core tools, flake tools, large side-notched projectile points, and pitted stones (Jones et al. 2007), and shell middens in coastal sites suggest that people during this period practiced a mixed food procurement strategy. Faunal remains identified at Milling Stone sites point to broad-spectrum hunting and gathering of shellfish, fish, birds, and mammals, though large faunal assemblages are uncommon. This mixed food procurement strategy demonstrates adaptation to regional and local environments. Along the Central Coast, Milling Stone Horizon sites are most common on terraces and knolls, typically set back from the current coastline (Erlandson 1994:46). However, 42 sites have been identified in various settings, including rocky coasts, estuaries, and nearshore interior valleys (Jones and Klar 2007). The larger sites usually contain extensive midden deposits, possible subterranean house pits, and cemeteries. Most of these sites probably reflect intermittent use over many years of local cultural habitation and resource exploitation. 3.2.3 Early Period and Early-Middle Transition Period (3000 B.C. – 600 B.C.) Although Jones and Ferneau (2002:213) have distinguished an Early-Middle Transition period, it is not well defined and is difficult to observe. Thus, the transition phase is included in the following discussion of the sites and characteristics recognized for the Early Period in the Central Coast region. A high frequency of shoreline midden deposits has been identified in the Central Coast region dating to the Early Period. This suggests that population numbers increased from the Milling Stone Horizon to the Early Period along the Central Coast (Jones 1995; Jones and Waugh 1995, 1997). Archaeological sites dating to the Early Period include CA-SLO-165 in Estero Bay, and CA-MNT-73, CA-MNT-108, and CA-MNT-1228 in Monterey Bay. The material culture recovered from Early Period sites within the Central Coast region provides evidence for continued exploitation of inland plant and coastal marine resources. Artifacts include milling slabs and handstones, as well as mortars and pestles, which were used for processing a variety of plant resources. Bipointed bone gorge hooks were used for fishing. Assemblages also include a suite of Olivella beads, bone tools, and pendants made from talc schist. Square abalone shell (Haliotis spp.) beads have been found in Monterey Bay (Jones and Waugh 1997:122). Shell beads and obsidian are hallmarks of the trade and exchange networks of the central and southern California coasts. The archaeological record indicates that there was a substantial increase in the abundance of obsidian at Early Period sites in the Monterey Bay and San Luis Obispo areas (Jones and Waugh 1997:124–126). Obsidian trade continued to increase during the following Middle period. Flaked stone artifact assemblages from Early Period sites include Central Coast Stemmed Series and side-notched projectile points. Square-stemmed and side- notched points were recovered from deposits at Willow Creek (CA-MNT-282) in Big Sur and Little Pico II (CA-SLO-175) on the San Luis Obispo coast (Jones and Ferneau 2002). This projectile point style trend, first identified by David Banks Rogers in 1929, was confirmed by Greenwood (1972) at Diablo Canyon. The projectile point trend has become apparent at CHC 1-68 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 21 numerous sites throughout the Central Coast. In many cases, manifestations of this trend are associated with the establishment of new settlements (Jones et al. 2007). 3.2.4 Middle Period (600 B.C. – A.D. 1000) A pronounced trend toward greater adaptation to regional or local resources occurred during the Middle period. The remains of fish, land mammals, and sea mammals are increasingly abundant and diverse in archaeological deposits along the coast. Flaked stone tools used for hunting and processing—such as large side-notched, stemmed, lanceolate or leaf-shaped projectile points, large knives, edge modified flakes, and drill-like implements—occurred in archaeological deposits in higher frequencies and are more morphologically diversified during the Middle Period. Bone tools, including awls, are more numerous than in the preceding period, and the use of asphaltum adhesive became common. Shell fishhooks also became part of the toolkit during this period. Complex maritime technology, such as circular fish hooks, compound bone fish hooks, and the tule reed or balsa raft, also proliferated during this period. Notable technological introductions include circular shell fishhooks that date from between 1000 and 500 B.C. (Jones and Klar 2005:466). Compound bone fishhooks appear in deposits dating between A.D. 300 and 900 (Arnold 1995; Jones and Klar 2005:466; Kennett 1998:357; King 1990:87–88). Populations continued to follow a seasonal settlement pattern until the end of the Middle Period. Large, permanently occupied settlements, particularly in coastal areas, appear to have been the norm by the end of the Middle Period (Kennett 1998). 3.2.5 Middle-Late Transition Period (A.D. 1000 - 1250) The Middle-Late Transition period is marked by relative instability and change, with major changes in diet, settlement patterns, and interregional exchange. The relatively ubiquitous Middle period shell midden sites found along the Central Coast were abandoned by the end of the Middle-Late Transition period, so most Transition period and Late period sites were first occupied during those periods (Jones and Ferneau 2002:213, 219). Site CA-SLO-239 has been tentatively dated to the Middle-Late Transition Period, and contains the only residential feature, a circular house floor, dating to this time period (Jones et al. 2007; Mikkelsen et al. 2000). During the Middle to Late Transition period, projectile points diagnostic of both the Middle and Late periods are found within the Central Coast region (Jones and Ferneau 2002:217). These projectile points include large, contracting-stemmed types typical of the Middle Period, as well as small, leaf-shaped Late Period projectile points, which likely reflect the introduction of the bow and arrow. 3.2.6 Late Period (A.D. 1250 – Historic Contact) Late Period sites are distinguished by small, finely-worked projectile points and temporally diagnostic shell beads. Although shell beads were typical of coastal sites, trade brought many of these maritime artifacts to inland locations, especially during the latter part of the Late Period. Small, finely-worked projectile points are typically associated with bow and arrow technology, which is believed to have been introduced to the area by the Takic migration from the deserts into southern California. CHC 1-69 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 22 Common artifacts identified at Late Period sites include bifacial bead drills, bedrock mortars, hopper mortars, lipped and cupped Olivella shell beads, and steatite disk beads. The presence of beads and bead drills suggest that low-level bead production was widespread throughout the Central Coast region (Jones and Klar 2007). Unlike the large Middle period shell middens, Late Period sites are more frequently single- component deposits. There are also more inland sites, with fewer and less visible sites along the Pacific shore during the Late Period. The settlement pattern and dietary reconstructions indicate a lesser reliance on marine resources than observed for the Middle and Middle-Late Transition periods, as well as an increased preference for deer and rabbit (Jones 1995). An increase in the number of sites with bedrock mortar features that date to the Late Period suggests that nuts and seeds began to take on a more significant dietary role in Late Period populations. 3.3 ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW The project site was historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, so called after their historic period association with Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa (Gibson 1983; Kroeber 1925). The precise location of the boundary between the Chumashan-speaking Obispeño Chumash and their northern neighbors, the Hokan-speaking Salinan, is debatable (Milliken and Johnson 2005); however, Jones and Waugh (1995:8) note that “those boundaries may well have fluctuated through time in response to possible shifts in economic strategies and population movement.” The Chumash spoke six closely related Chumashan languages, which have been divided into two broad groups—Northern Chumash (consisting only of Obispeño) and Southern Chumash (Purisimeño, Ineseño, Barbareño, Ventureño, and Island Chumash) (Mithun 2004:389). One Spanish manuscript containing known text of the Obispeño dialect is housed within the special collections archives at the Bancroft Library (Allen et al. 1954). The Chumashan language currently is considered an isolate stock with a long history in the Santa Barbara region (Mithun 2004:304). Groups neighboring the Chumash included the Salinan to the north, the Southern Valley Yokuts and Tataviam to the east, and the Gabrielino (Tongva) to the south. Chumash place names in the project vicinity include Pismu (Pismo Beach), Tematatimi (along Los Berros Creek), and Tilhini (near San Luis Obispo) (Greenwood 1978:520). Only a general outline of the lifeways of the Obispeño Chumash is known based on the little ethnographic information available (Greenwood 1978). Although their language was closer to Southern Chumash groups, the material culture and lifeways of the Northern Chumash appear to have been more similar to their northern neighbors, the Salinan. Accordingly, their populations in this area are thought to have been substantially lower than in the Santa Barbara Channel area, their villages smaller, and their livelihood less based on intensive use of marine fisheries (Glassow et al. 1988; Greenwood 1978). Permanent Chumash villages included hemispherical dwellings arranged in close groups, with the chief having the largest for social obligations (Crespi 2001). Each Chumash village had a formal cemetery marked by tall painted poles and often with a defined entrance area (Gamble CHC 1-70 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 23 et al. 2001:191). Archaeological studies have identified separate sections for elite and commoner families within the cemetery grounds (King 1969). The acorn was a dietary staple for the mainland Chumash, though its dominance varied by coastal or inland location. Chumash diet also included cattail roots, fruits and pads from cactus, and bulbs and tubers of plants such as amole (Miller 1988:89). On the coast, the wooden plank canoe (tomol) was employed in the pursuit of marine mammals and fish. The tomol not only facilitated marine resource procurement but also facilitated an active trade network maintained by frequent crossings between the mainland and the Channel Islands. Chumash populations were decimated by the effects of European colonization and missionization (Johnson 1987). Traditional lifeways largely gave way to laborer jobs on ranches and farms in the Mexican and early American periods. Today, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians is the only federally recognized Chumash tribe, though many people of Chumash descent continue to live throughout their traditional territory. 3.4 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Post-European contact history for California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), the Mexican Period (1822–1848), and the American Period (1848–present). The Spanish Period brought the establishment of the California mission system, while the Mexican Period is largely known for the division of the land of California into private land holdings. Following the Mexican-American war, the United States purchased California from Mexico; population of the state subsequently increased, particularly during the Gold Rush. 3.4.1 Spanish Period (1769–1822) Initial European entry into the San Luis Obispo region began with the Juan Rodrigues Cabrillo Expedition in 1542. Cabrillo sailed along the coast, possibly landing in Morro Bay, and then continued as far north as San Francisco Bay (Chesnut 1993). In 1587, Pedro de Unamuno landed in what was most likely Morro Bay, but suffered casualties during an attack by Native Americans and left (Bean 1968). Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeño entered the San Luis Obispo region in 1595 as part of his exploration of the Alta California coast (Jones et al. 1994). The earliest detailed descriptions of the area come from members of Gaspar de Portolá’s land expedition, which passed through the region in 1769 (Squibb 1984). Early travelers in the Central Coast region reported seeing no large Native American villages like those noted in the Santa Barbara Channel area. Gaspar de Portolá and Franciscan Father Junípero Serra established the first Spanish settlement in Alta California at Mission San Diego de Alcalá in 1769. This was the first of 21 missions erected by the Spanish between 1769 and 1823. Portolá continued north, passing through the project vicinity and reaching San Francisco Bay in 1769. Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded in 1772, the fifth of 21 missions established by the Spanish in Alta California (Rolle 2003). CHC 1-71 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 24 3.4.2 Mexican Period (1822–1848) The Mexican Period commenced when news of the success of the Mexican Revolution (1810- 1821) against the Spanish crown reached California in 1822. This period saw the federalization of mission lands in California with the passage of the Secularization Act of 1833. This Act enabled Mexican governors in California to distribute former mission lands to individuals in the form of land grants. Successive Mexican governors made more than 700 land grants between 1833 and 1846, putting most of the state’s lands into private ownership for the first time (Shumway 2007). The land around Laguna Lake was originally part of a rancho associated with the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa. In 1844 Governor Manuel Micheltorena granted the Church one square league or approximately 4,157 acres of land in the place called Laguna (Engelhardt 1915). In 1845 Governor Pio Pico sold the remaining mission lands and buildings to Captain John Wilson and his partners Scott and McKinley $500 (Angel 1883 and Mission San Luis Obispo, n.d.). The distribution of lands following secularization of the missions resulted in the granting of 40 ranchos in what is today San Luis Obispo County (San Luis Obispo County Genealogical Society, n.d.). The Mexican ranchos were primarily utilized to raise cattle herds and for farming (HRG 2013). 3.4.3 American Period (1848–Present) The American Period began with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, which marked the end of the United States’ war with Mexico. The United States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million for the conquered territory, including California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. The existing Mexican land grants were expected to be recognized, but over time, as settlement increased throughout the state, disputes arose between rancheros and settlers. Rancho owners expended much money and effort attempting to defend their land holdings. The California territory officially became a state in 1850 and the County of San Luis Obispo was established as one of the state’s original 27 counties. That same year, William Hutton was authorized to survey and lay out the town of San Luis Obispo (Angel 1883). The region suffered a severe drought between the years of 1862 and 1864 which decimated the cattle herds (HRG 2013). Rancheros struggled with this loss of income, debt, and costs incurred from legally defending their land under the new American law. As a result, many of the rancho lands were sold or lost. Most were subdivided into agricultural parcels or towns. Bishop Joseph Alemany petitioned the U.S. government to return a portion of the mission lands back to the Church. In the mid-1850s approximately 53 acres of the former mission lands were returned to the Church as well as the 4,157 acre Laguna Rancho (Mission San Luis Obispo, n.d.; California Office of Surveyor-General 1886; Morrison, et al 1917). Bishop Alemany sold the Laguna property to Captain John Wilson in late 1859 (Kocher 1972). In the early 1860s, W.W. Stow, an attorney and politician from San Francisco, purchased the Laguna Rancho from Wilson (The San Francisco Call 1895). The rancho was subdivided in 1868 when it was surveyed by James Stratton along with Rancho Cañada de los Osos (Bertrando 1999a). CHC 1-72 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 25 By April 1887, an estimated 3,000 to 4,000 people inhabited the region, and land prices increased dramatically. In 1894, the Southern Pacific Railroad completed a line from San Jose to San Luis Obispo encouraging trade and further settlement of the region. As the population increased in the town, Laguna Lake became a popular area for duck hunting and black bass were stocked in the lake. By 1896 farmers around the lake, growing mostly barley at that time, posted “No Hunting Allowed” signs throughout the area, as the popularity of the lake became troublesome to the surrounding landowners (Tognazzini 1996). In the early twentieth century Port Harford was renamed Port San Luis, and oil from the Santa Maria and Taft-Coalinga fields was shipped beginning in 1907 and 1913, respectively. The California Polytechnic School was established in 1901 as a high school and eventually became California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly). The county’s agriculture and ranching production supplied U.S troops during World War I and helped its residents weather the Great Depression of the 1930s. At the start of World War II, the U.S. War Department transferred nearly 100,000 military personnel to bases at Morro Bay, Camp San Luis Obispo, Camp Roberts, and Cambria. 3.4.4 Dalidio Ranch Complex The subject property is comprised of several lots that were subdivided in 1875, when the Laguna Rancho was sold off into plots for small family farms. These lots were designated as 64, 65 and K, L, M and N (Bertrando 1999a). Lucian Garcia and Domingo Machado collectively owned 55 acres on the eastern end of lots 64 and 65. Each property consisted of a farm complex with a home. In 1887, H.M. Warden acquired Machado’s land. Warden deeded part of the property to George Steele in August of 1897 (Bertrando 1999a). A portion of the subject property was transferred to W. F. Wood from Samuel Look in 1894, and another portion was deeded to Wood by George Steele in 1900 (Bertrando 1999a). A horse race track existed below the Wood ranch, along with stables and a structure that provided seating for town people to watch the races. The track was located in what today is the agricultural field south of the ranch complex (Martin 2015; Froom in Bertrando 1999a). The building that held the spectators has been referred to as a “spectator’s barn”, “viewing stand” or “grand stand.” A local newspaper reported in November of 1900 that William Wood had purchased the race track property and was converting the grandstand into a residence. The article stated that the race track would probably be a thing of the past since Wood was a farmer and was considering destroying the track to make a grain field (SLO Semi Weekly Breeze 1900). In 1910 part of the ranch was deeded to Forest W. Wood as a wedding gift from his parents (Bertrando 1999a; Martin 2015). Forest’s father, William F. Wood, had moved part of the family to Glendale in late 1909 in order to be closer to two of their children attending a university there. Forest Wood remained in San Luis Obispo to continue farming (Oxnard Courier 1909). Forest reportedly moved the spectator barn/viewing stand, on rollers, to its current location on the ranch property. A small house that exists on the property was originally connected to the spectator barn. Forest removed this portion of the building, moved it to its present location and constructed a side wall on the building. It became part of Forest’s and his wife Ann’s original home before their new ranch house was constructed. Forest and Ann raised five children while operating a farm and small dairy (Martin 2015; Bertrando 1999a). The stables that had been CHC 1-73 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 26 associated with the race track may have been moved to the Pacific Beach School area (near present-day Los Osos Valley Road and Froom Ranch Way) and later torn down when the school was started (Froom in Bertrando 1999a). The spectator’s barn/viewing stand was further altered by the addition of a dairy, stables and conversion of the spectator seating area to hay storage. Florino and Katie Dalidio purchased the 150-acre property from the Wood family and farmed crops such as onions, artichokes, and garbanzo beans, as well as flowers for seed in 1921 (Bertrando 1999a; Stewart 1999). Florino Dalidio had immigrated to the United States from Switzerland in 1888 (Ancestry 2004) and after had married Katie Filipponi in 1907. They settled in Cayucos and had three children: Ernest, Melvin and Thelma. In 1917, Florino and Katie purchased 776 acres on Toro Creek, between Morro Bay and Cayucos, to the northwest of San Luis Obispo where they farmed, raised dairy cattle, and operated dairies along the coast. Following the purchase of the Wood family property they switched to row crop farming (Bertrando 1999a; Stewart 1999). Florino and Katie’s son Ernest eventually took over the family business. The Dalidio’s acquired additional land in the area either by purchase or leasing, including property in Harmony Valley (Bertrando 1999a; Stewart 1999). Ernest married Rose Navoni and they had one son: Ernest Jr. or Ernie. Ernie was raised in the secondary residence on the property (981 Madonna Road). After graduating from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, he also went into the family business, dividing his time between the various family properties for many years. The Dalidio’s agricultural business was known as Zapata Farms starting in the early 1980s (Bertrando 1999a; Stewart 1999). Ernie sold the property in 2014 and the property has been renamed San Luis Ranch. 3.4.5 Agriculture in San Luis Obispo The Laguna area developed into farms, dairies and ranches (Bertrando 1999a). Wool, flour, and dairy were important income generating products in the area. Some of the most significant agricultural crops in the late 1800s were wheat, barley and beans. Grain from area ranchos was processed at local mills. Since San Luis Obispo was the major settlement in the area, some ranchers would travel from up to forty miles away to bring their grains into the city to be milled. Production increased when steam-powered mills were constructed starting in the 1870s. Ranching and agriculture were the region’s main commercial enterprises at one time and thus had an impact on the development of the city (HRG 2013). Roads were also constructed throughout the county in the 1870s, primarily by Chinese laborers, leading to increased mobility throughout the county. In 1872, Captain John Harford began construction on the Pacific Coast Railway which ran just to the east of the subject property. The railway improved shipping methods of local crops and products, advancing the economy (HRG 2013). In 1882, a project was undertaken to reclaim part of the Laguna Lake to allow for cultivation of the land. A ditch was dug from the lake’s outlet to Foreman Creek and tules were cut down to eliminate the black birds who resided in them because the birds destroyed the grain crop. Chinese laborers were utilized on the project (Tribune 1882; Bertrando 1999a). A dairy industry began developing in San Luis Obispo County in the late 1860s after the drought years of 1862-64. A well-known and sizeable dairy operation was George and Edgar Steele’s 45,000 acre property in Edna Valley stocked with more than 600 milking cows. The CHC 1-74 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 27 Steeles employed more than 100 men to build fences, milking sheds and maintain the hay fields. Their success started the dairy boom between Point Sal to the south of San Luis Obispo and Point Piedras Blancas to the north (Krieger 2012; Krieger 2014). Immigrants of Portuguese and Italian Swiss descent made a significant contribution to the development of the dairy industry in the region (Krieger 2012; Krieger 2014). The Italian wars of independence (the third war taking place in 1866) had disrupted the traditional routes of commerce and young men from dairying families began immigrating to the United States. Historian Glenn S. Dumke (1944) described San Luis Obispo County during the California land boom of the 1880s as “the great butter and cheese belt of southern California,” initially with land affordably priced between $18 and $25 per acre. Several prominent creameries and cheese factories were established in San Luis Obispo, many of which continued to flourish throughout the early 1900s (HRG 2013). During the 1880s beans were the primary crop grown south of the city of San Luis Obispo and continued into the early years of the 20th century (Bertrando 1999b). Other significant agricultural crops in the area in the early 20th century included winter peas, celery and flower seed. Japanese farmers in particular were successful with these crops through the 1930s. During World War I the demand for agricultural products increased, benefiting California farmers. Many area farmers began growing navy beans since this product was subsidized by the War Relief Administration (HRG 2013). 3.4.6 Horse Racing in San Luis Obispo Horse racing was documented to be a popular sport in the region since the time of the Mexican ranchos in the first half of the 19th century. In his history of San Luis Obispo County, Myron Angel described the California rancheros – descendants of the Mexican colonists – as being excellent horsemen. Horse-racing was one of the main sources of entertainment at the time, along with bull fighting and dancing (Angel 1883:56). A number of newspaper articles discuss horse racing tracks in the area, including a track that was prepared by a Mr. Gerhard Leff in 1874. Described as a permanent half-mile track approximately 2 to 3 miles south of town, it was something that had never before existed in the county (Tribune 1874a; Tribune 1874b). A mile long track was reportedly put in by a Mr. N.A. Cook on the Harford property in late 1875, and in 1885 Charley Woods established a training school and a half-mile track (Tribune Weekly 1875; SLO Tribune 1885). In 1887 the property of a Mr. McCoppin was being assessed to locate a site for a race track. McCoppin was willing to sell any amount of land to the Fair Association for $250.00 an acre. His property appears to have been in the vicinity of Lots 17 and 26 of the Foreman Survey, as that was the location that he reportedly would give the right-of-way (SLO Tribune 1887). It is unknown if the Fair Association ultimately developed a race track on McCoppin’s property. Over the summer and fall months of 1887 newspaper articles mention the Fair Association, the SLO County Agricultural Association and the SLO Park Association as being involved in establishing the race track for the local fair. It seems that it was the SLO Park Association which ultimately purchased 100 acres of land approximately 1 ¼ mile southwest of the city. A one- mile long race track, a grand stand, judges’ stand and stalls were completed in October of 1887 (SLO Tribune 1887; Tribune Weekly 1887). CHC 1-75 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 28 Bill Froom, a long-time resident of the area, was quoted as saying that he recalled hearing about another half-mile race track in the vicinity of Madonna Plaza, which would be slightly to the northeast of the Wood/Dalidio property (Bertrando 1999a). Horse races were still taking place in the area during the county fair in the fall of 1900, as mentioned in the local newspaper. The location of the fair’s track, however, was not specified at the time (Semi Weekly Breeze 1900a). In November of 1900 the local newspaper reported that William Wood had purchased “the race track property” and was converting the grand stand building into a residence. The article speculated that the race track would “probably be a thing of the past” since Wood was a farmer and was considering making the area of the track into a grain field (Semi Weekly Breeze, 1900b). In an oral interview, local Bill Froom stated that when the viewing stand was moved into the Wood farm complex the track was shortened by a half mile (Froom in Bertrando, 1998). It is not known for certain whether the race track established for the SLO Park Association in 1887 for use during that year’s fair is the same race track that existed on the Wood/Dalidio ranch property. However, the description of the race track being located 1 ¼ miles southwest of the city and having a grand stand and stables suggest it could be the same since the race track on the Wood/Dalidio property had those amenities. Besides being a popular sport which involved horse owners, trainers, riders and undoubtedly wagering spectators, the races also functioned as a social event. As described by Bill Froom, crowds of people would park under the trees and have picnics before the races started (Froom in Bertrando, 1999a). Horse races were also held in conjunction with the local fair. A horse racing facility could typically include the race track, stables, a judge’s stand, and a viewing stand for spectators. The former viewing stand on the Dalidio Ranch property was likely similar to a known existing late 19th century grandstand located on the Deerfield Valley Agricultural Society Fairgrounds in Charlemont, Massachusetts (Figure 3). The two structures, both built in the same time period, are similar in size, design, and plan. The diagonally slanted window openings on the Dalidio Ranch structure can be explained by the open seating/ viewing area seen on the intact Charlemont grandstand. The viewing stand at the Dalidio Ranch no longer has this open seating/viewing area. It appears to have been enclosed as the structure was repurposed into a dairy, stable, and hay barn. With the increased popularity of the automobile, horse racing eventually died out in San Luis Obispo. By the 1920s automobile races were held locally on a large track located off of South Street (Bertrando, 1999a). CHC 1-76 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 29 Figure 3. Grandstand at Deerfield Valley Agricultural Society Fairgrounds, Charlemont, MA. Source: Magicpiano, “National Register of Historic Places listings in Franklin County, MA”, Wikipedia. CHC 1-77 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 30 4.0 BACKGROUND RESEARCH Background research for the current study encompassed both the project site and a half-mile radius surrounding the project site. Background research was conducted to determine if cultural resources are present within the project area. The background research conducted for this study includes Native American scoping, a review of cultural resource records at the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), and archival research. 4.1 NATIVE AMERICAN SCOPING Rincon conducted Native American scoping for the San Luis Ranch Project to identify potential concerns or issues associated with Native American cultural resources within the project vicinity. Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request a review of the Sacred Lands File (SLF) on January 6, 2016. The NAHC responded by email on January 27, 2016 stating that the search of the sacred land files has “failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area.” The NAHC also provided a list of Native American groups and individuals who may have knowledge of cultural resources within the project site. Rincon prepared and mailed letters to each of these contacts requesting any information they may have regarding Native American cultural resources within the project site on February 8, 2016. On March 3, 2016, Rincon Archaeologist Breana Campbell conducted follow-up consultation by telephone. Voicemail messages were left for each of the consultants who did not answer. The NAHC correspondence and Native American communication is documented in Appendix A. The following responses were received as a result of the Native American scoping process. Ms. Julie Lynn Tumamait-Stenslie, Chair of the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, requested that extended Phase I testing of the project site with trenching up to a depth of four to five feet be conducted by a qualified archaeologist with a qualified Native American monitor present, due to the proximity of Native American sites and the proximity of Prefumo Creek to the project site. If no testing occurs prior to the project initiation, Ms. Tumamait-Stenslie recommended that an archaeologist be present for any ground disturbing activities. Mr. Raudel Joe Banuelos, Jr. of the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians requested to be contacted following the intensive pedestrian survey and informed of the results. Ms. Mona Olivas Tucker, Chairwoman of the yak tityu tityu – Northern Chumash Tribe, responded via email and inquired about the background records search results, following a discussion with Rincon staff, Ms. Tucker noted that encountering cultural resources within the project boundaries is likely. As of October 2016, no additional responses have been received. CHC 1-78 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 31 4.2 CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM Rincon requested a search of the cultural resource records housed at the CHRIS CCIC located at the University of California, Santa Barbara on January 25, 2016. The search was conducted to identify previous cultural resources work and previously recorded cultural resources within the project site as well as within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. The CHRIS search included a review of the NRHP, the CRHR, the California State Historical Landmarks list, the California Points of Historical Interest list, historic building surveys, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, and the California Inventory of Historical Resources list. It provided information about archaeological resources, historic resources, and reports within the project site as well as within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. Rincon received the cultural resource record search results from the CCIC on February 2, 2016. The cultural resource records search of the CCIC inventory identifies 51 reports from projects previously conducted within the project site as well as within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. No archaeological or historic resources were identified within the project area, but two historic resources, four archaeological sites, and two isolated cultural resources have been identified within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. The CCIC does not list any historic addresses within the search radius, nor does the CCIC possess any historical maps depicting the project site. The cultural resource records search conducted at the CCIC yield no additional information. 4.2.1 Previous Studies The CCIC records search identified 51 reports for studies previously conducted within the project site as well as within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site. Of these, eight previous studies overlap with or were located within the project site area (Table 1). The remaining 43 studies were conducted outside the project site (Table 2). The National Archaeological Database listing summary for these studies is presented in Appendix B. Table 1. Previous Studies Within the Project Site. Study No. Author Year Title SL-00052 Hoover, R. L. 1977 Cultural Resources Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo Sewage Treatment Project SL-00437 Smith, C. 1981 Archaeological Survey Along Highway 101, from Marsh Road South to approximately .5 miles South of Madonna Road SL-01245 Singer, C. and J. Atwood 1988 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for the Dalidio, Madonna, and McBride Properties near the City of San Luis Obispo, SLO County, CA SL-02386 Levulett, V. 1991 Caltrans Archaeological Survey Report, Project SLO-101 26.0/26.9 Fence Installation SL-02391 Anastasio, R. 1993 Re: Archaeological Monitoring of Subsurface Construction at 293 El Portal, Lot 13, Block 7, Tract 57, El Pismo Manor #1 (APN 010-184- 002) CHC 1-79 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 32 Table 1. Previous Studies Within the Project Site. Study No. Author Year Title SL-03711 Bertrando, B. 1999 Historical Resources Inventory and Evaluation for the San Luis Marketplace Annexation: The Dalidio Property, San Luis Obispo, California SL-03804 Bertrando, B. 1999 Historical Evaluation for the Existing Structures on the Proposed San Luis Obispo Marketplace Annexation SL-05350 Singer, C. 2004 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for a +/- acre Property in the City of San Luis Obispo County, California Source: Central Coast Information Center, February 2016. Table 2. Previous Studies Within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site. Study No. Author Year Title SL-00138 Dills, C. 1975 Information to Aid in Interpretive Planning Map for San Luis Obispo and Environs SL-00311 Dills, C. 1975 Proposed Expansion of SLO Wastewater Treatment Plant and Repair of Arroyo Grande-Grover City-Oceano Wastewater Facility – Archaeological Impact SL-00135 Dills, C. 1976 Archaeological Potential of Fire Station and Swimming Pool Areas, Proposed for San Luis Obispo SL-00091 Dills, C. 1977 San Luis Mall, Archaeological Potential SL-00095 Dills, C. 1978 Archaeological Potential at Elks Lane Bridge Project SL-00086 Dills, C. 1980 Unidentified Trailer Park on Higuera between Creekside Park and Los Verdes Estates, an Archaeological Estimate SL-00339 Gibson, R. 1981 Archaeological Element of Environmental Impact Report for the San Luis Obispo Creek Modification Study SL-00349 Osland, K. 1981 Proposed Project- An Extension of Los Osos Road, From Its Intersection with Highway 101 to an Existing Portion of Los Osos Road SL-00352 Osland, K. 1981 Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Los Osos Valley Road Extension Project near San Luis Obispo 05-SLO-101- 25.6/26.0 SL-00719 Brock, J. and R. Wall 1986 A Cultural Resources Assessment of Selected Study Areas within the City of San Luis Obispo SL-00590 Gibson, R. 1987 Results of Archaeological Surface Survey for the Los Osos Valley Road Business Park, San Luis Obispo County, CA SL-01643 Engineering- Science, Inc. 1988 Draft Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Environmental Impact Report SL-01305 Singer, C. and J. Atwood 1989 Cultural resources survey and impact assessment for the City of San Luis Obispo wastewater plant, San Luis Obispo County, California. SL-01686 Dills, C. 1990 Archaeological Potential of Parcel at Prado Road and Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo SL-02320 Parker, J. 1991 Archaeological Investigation of APN 053-041-034, San Luis Obispo, CA SL-02363 Gibson, R. 1993 Inventory of Cultural Resources for the Water Reclamation Project, City of San Luis Obispo, CA CHC 1-80 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 33 Table 2. Previous Studies Within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site. Study No. Author Year Title SL-02723 Gibson, R. 1993 Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey of the Froom Ranch Property, Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo County, CA SL-02529 Singer, C., J. Atwood, and J. Frierman 1993 It Came From Beneath the Streets: An Archaeological Report on the Expansion of the City of San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment System SL-02917 Orlins, R., E. Barter, B. Rivers, and R. Gibson 1994 Coastal Branch, Phase II State Water Project Cultural Resources Survey Reach 3 San Luis Obispo County, California 94296-0001 SL-03333 Conway, T. 1997 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Spice Hunter Property, Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo SL-04378 Gibson R. 1997 Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey of the Devaul Ranch Property, Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA SL-03708 Bertrando, B. 1998 Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67-241-019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P-40-040991) SL-03662 Parker, J. 1998 Cultural Resource Investigation of the San Simeon Creek Road Storm Damage Repair Project, P12K136 SL-03934 Avina, M. 1999 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. Fiber Optic Cable Installation Project, San Luis Obispo to Bakersfield Volume I SL-03899 Cuevas, K. 1999 Cultural Resource Inventory Report, Calf Canyon Prescribed Fire SL-03922 McGowan, D. 1999 Cultural Resource Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. Fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, San Luis Obispo to Los Osos Loop SL-04136 Singer, C. A. 2000 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for a Commercial Property on South Higuera Street in the City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California SL-04031 Wilson, K. 2000 Cultural Resources Study, State Route 101 Fence Replacement SL-04053 Nettles, W. 2000 Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Prado Road/Highway 101 Interchange, San Luis Obispo County, CA SL-04110 Gibson, R. 2000 Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey and Records Search for the McBride Parcels, San Luis Obispo Auto Park Plaza Project along Highway 101, City of San Luis Obispo, CA SL-04299 Parker, J. 2001 Archaeological Monitoring of the Trash Pile Removal at the Long/Bonetti Ranch, 3897 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo SL-04663 Conway, T. 2002 Cultural Resources Survey for the Costco/Froom Ranch EIR, San Luis Obispo, CA SL-04706 Conway, T. 2002 Archaeological Background for the Los Osos Valley Road/Highway 101 Interchange PEAR Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, San Luis Obispo, CA SL-04818 Parker, J. 2002 South Higuera Street, Proposed Peoples Self Help Housing Project, Cultural Resource Investigation APN 053-034-002 and -003 SL-05043 Martinez, A. 2002 Project Design Change for Sprint Facility SN45XC088F, “Elks Lodge,” San Luis Obispo SL-05699 Ogden, A. and T. Joslin 2002 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Changeable Message Signs Project CHC 1-81 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 34 Table 2. Previous Studies Within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site. Study No. Author Year Title SL-05066 Maki, M. 2003 Cultural Resources Constraints Analysis for the Templeton- Atascadero Bikeway Project, San Luis Obispo County, California SL-05125 Baloian, R. 2004 Cultural Resources Studies for the City of San Luis Obispo Waste Water Treatment Plant Bypass Silt Removal Project near San Luis Obispo Creek SL-05332 Conway, T. 2004 An Archaeological Surface Survey for the Ocean Park Hotels Project, 1625 Calle Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California SL-05589 Conway, T. 2005 An Archaeological Survey of the Long-Bonetti Ranch Commercial Project, Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo County, California SL-05729 Gibson, R.O. 2005 Archaeological Survey Report for the Bob Jones City to the Sea Bike Trail Segment 3 Project in the City of San Luis Obispo Area, San Luis Obispo County, CA SL-06133 Conway, T. 2007 Archaeological Surface Survey for the Prefumo Creek Commons Project, Los Osos Valley Road and Froom Ranch Way, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California SL-00139 Dills, C. Unknown Dutch Barn Source: Central Coast Information Center, February 2016. 4.2.2 Previously Recorded Resources The CCIC records search identified nine previously recorded resources located within a 0.5-mile radius of the project site (Table 3). Of these, one is located within the project site: Dalidio Ranch/San Luis Ranch complex (P-40-041000), a complex of historic buildings; this resource is discussed in more detail below. The remaining eight resources are located outside of the project site and consist of three prehistoric archaeological sites (P-40-000124, P-40-000400, P-40-001406), one historic archaeological site (P-40-001449), two historic built environment resources (P-40- 040139, P-40-040991), and two prehistoric isolated artifacts (P-40-038206, P-40-038212). Table 3. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 0.5 Miles of the Project Site. Resource Designation Description CRHR/NRHP Eligibility Status Recorder Year P-40-000124 Prehistoric midden Insufficient information C. N. G. 1952 P-40-000400 Prehistoric bedrock milling site Insufficient information Robert O. Gibson 1987 P-40-001406 Prehistoric midden Insufficient information G. Fleshman 1987 P-40-001449 Historic San Luis Obispo City Dump Insufficient information Clay A. Singer 1992 P-40-040139 Historic Madonna Inn Locally significant Historic Res. Survey Staff 1983 P-40-040991 Historic Froom Ranch Locally significant Betsy Bertrando 1998 P-40-038206 Prehistoric projectile point Ineligible Josh O. Gibson and Robert O. Gibson 1997 P-40-038212 Prehistoric assayed cobble Ineligible Wendy Nettles 2000 CHC 1-82 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 35 P-40-041000 This resource, formerly known as Dalidio Ranch, is now known as the San Luis Ranch complex. Singer and Atwood (1988) conducted a cultural resources survey of the project site in 1988, and identified “two wood frame structures, a large, two-story house and a barn” as having potential historical significance. Betsy Bertrando recorded and evaluated the complex in 1999 for the Dalidio Marketplace project concept (see 1.2 Project Background). The complex, as recorded by Bertrando (1999b), comprises eight historic built environment resources: the Dalidio Home, a bungalow, a small shed/bunkhouse, a garage, a water tower, a barn, a large equipment storage building, and the former race track spectators’ barn/viewing stand. The resources are located at the northwest end of the property. 4.3 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH Rincon reviewed historic aerial photographs, topographic maps, and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) General Land Office (GLO) Records from internet sources to better understand the land use history of the project site; 31 historic maps were available for review. The earliest available historic aerial photograph that depicts the project site is from 1960, but the resolution is too low to better understand the land use history of the project site (Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC 2016, USGS 2016). 31 historic topographic maps were available for review. Three plat maps from the BLM GLO Records were available for review. The 1867 plat map of San Luis Obispo depicts the project area as “Part of the Laguna Rancho Lot No. 37.” This map also depicts a “Road to the Port of San Luis Obispo,” which appears consistent with the current alignment of U.S. Route 101. The 1872 and 1875 plat maps of San Luis Obispo also depict the project site at part of the Laguna Rancho Lot No. 37. The Master Title Plat map of 1877 depicts the project site as the “Laguna Grant 332.” While plots of land surrounding the project site were divided in the late nineteenth century, the project site itself remained as one large parcel. The earliest USGS map of the area is the 1903 reprint of the 1897 San Luis Obispo, CA 15-minute topographic map, accessed through the online USGS US Topo and Historical Map Collection. This map depicts the historic race track located in the current project site. The Pacific Coast Railroad alignment, which is currently used as the alignment for US Route 101, is also depicted on this map. The historic race track is present on the 1931 reprint of this map, but does not appear on the 1942 San Luis Obispo, CA 15-minute topographic map or its 1948 reprinted edition. No other features were identified within the project site from historic topographic maps. CHC 1-83 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 36 5.0 RESEARCH DESIGN The current study included the archaeological testing of site SLR-S-1 for CRHR/NRHP eligibility evaluation. Rincon archaeologists determined that the site could be eligible for the CRHR/NRHP under Criterion 4/D for the site’s potential to provide pertinent information to local prehistory. Therefore, Rincon conducted a Phase II investigation to determine if site SLR-S- 1 retains intact deposits and significant data potential. The following research questions were considered to aid in this determination.  Are subsurface deposits present and, if so, do they retain integrity? Can discrete features or temporal episodes be identified in the vertical and/or horizontal layout of the site?  Are any discrete concentrations of artifacts present across the site?  When was the site occupied?  What temporal period/cultural complex does the use of the site correspond with?  How does the site relate to broader patterns of subsistence/settlement established for the Central Coast?  What resources were utilized? What was the primary subsistence activity? (hunting vs. foraging; large game vs. small game; roots vs. seeds, etc.)  What was the function of the site? Is there evidence of distinct artifact types or styles at the site?  What types of lithic artifacts are present and what activities do the artifact types represent?  Are there any non-local material or artifacts present at the site representing evidence of mobility and/or interregional interaction? CHC 1-84 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 37 6.0 METHODS Rincon conducted archival research and examined the City of San Luis Obispo’s Historic Context Statement prior to completing the intensive archaeological and built environment surveys. Archival research included an examination of historic maps, aerial photographs, and written histories of the area as well as consultation with repositories, publications, and individuals who may have additional knowledge of the project site. 6.1 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH Archival research was completed between February and March 2016. Research methodology focused on the review of a variety of primary and secondary source materials relating to the history and development of the project area. Sources included, but were not limited to, historic maps, aerial photographs, and written histories of the area. The following repositories, publications, and individuals were contacted to identify known historical land uses and the locations of research materials pertinent to the project site: • History Center of San Luis Obispo County • Historic aerial photographs • United States Geological Survey Maps • Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps • City of San Luis Obispo, Utilities Department • County of San Luis Obispo Planning and Building • County of San Luis Obispo Public Works • Other sources as noted in the references list 6.2 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT The City of San Luis Obispo developed a Citywide Historic Context Statement in 2013 to identify and evaluate potential historic resources. Potential historic resources are examined within a series of contexts. Early 20th Century Development and Early 20th Century Agricultural & Industrial Development are examined in further detail below. 6.2.1 Context: Early 20th Century Development Development of the project site into a farm complex began in 1900, which falls under the context of Early 20th Century Development (1900-1929). The city’s development during this time was characterized by the introduction of the Southern Pacific Railroad, population growth, increased use of the automobile, and the city’s expansion. 6.2.2 Theme: Early 20th Century Agricultural & Industrial Development The Dalidio Ranch is representative of the theme of Early 20th Century Agricultural and Industrial Development. During this time period ranching and agriculture were the main commercial enterprises in the region, directly influencing the development of San Luis Obispo. The Dalidio Ranch property has been in agricultural use for over 100 years. The proposed project calls for annexation into the City of San Luis Obispo; thus, the Dalidio Ranch would be a rare, intact example of an early 20th century family farm complex with its associated buildings CHC 1-85 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 38 and agricultural fields within the city limits. Agricultural and industrial properties are typically not associated with particular architectural styles and often contain vernacular buildings. A property’s significance under this theme is frequently derived from historic association rather than aesthetic qualities. 6.2.3 Property Types & Eligibility Standards Examples of agricultural property types from this period include farmhouses, warehouses and related outbuildings. An agricultural or industrial property from this period may be considered significant under the following criteria:  Criterion A/1/B.2 (Event). As a rare example of a specific agricultural or industrial property type - Criterion C/3/A.1, A.2 (Design/Construction).  As a property type that has a direct association with the railroad – Criterion C/3/A.1, A.2 (Design/Construction). In addition, in order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state or local levels, a property must retain sufficient integrity to convey its historic significance under the Early 20th Century Agricultural and Industrial Development theme including:.  Agricultural and industrial properties from this period eligible under Criteria A/1/B.2 (Event) should retain integrity of location, design, feeling, and association.  Agricultural and industrial properties significant under Criterion C/3/A.1, A.2 (Design/Construction) should retain integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. The following eligibility standards must also be met. The property must:  date from the period of significance;  display most of the character-defining features of the type;  retain the essential aspects of integrity. 6.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEYS Rincon Cultural Resources Specialist Ashlee M. Bailey, M.A., conducted the intensive pedestrian survey of the project site for archaeological resources between March 14, 2016 and March 16, 2016. Ms. Bailey examined the ground using transects spaced no greater than 15 meters apart and oriented northeast to southwest for the entire project site. Rincon Architectural Historian Susan Zamudio-Gurrola, M.H.P., conducted an intensive-level built environment survey of the project site on March 15, 2016. Ms. Zamudio-Gurrola examined, documented, photographed, and evaluated all of the built environment features for the project site. 6.3.1 Archaeological Survey Ms. Bailey examined all exposed ground surface for artifacts (e.g. flaked stone tools, tool- making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire-affected rock [FAR]), ecofacts (marine shell and bone), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil CHC 1-86 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 39 depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g. standing exterior walls, postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g. metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances, such as animal burrows and drainages, were visually inspected because these disturbances can expose subsurface deposits. 6.3.2 Built Environment Survey The purpose of the built environment survey was to identify and photograph any built environment resources that may be impacted by the proposed project. Ms. Zamudio-Gurrola conducted a visual inspection of all built environment features of the property, including buildings, structures, and associated features to assess the overall condition and integrity, and to identify and document any potential character-defining features. Field documentation included digital photographs of the property to support field observations. 6.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING Upon identification of SLR-S-1 within the project site, Rincon recommended a Phase II investigation to evaluate the CRHR/NRHP eligibility of the site between August 1 and 16, 2016. The Phase II investigation was meant to establish the vertical and horizontal limits of site SLR-S- 1 within the project site and to determine if intact deposits are present. To complete the Phase II investigation, Rincon pin flagged the outmost surface expression (i.e., extent of surface artifacts) and excavated one test unit (TU), 21 auger tests (AUG), and two shovel test pits (STP) to appropriately determine the site boundaries and collected surface artifacts (Figure 4). Rincon placed the STPs and AUGs within the surface scatter identified during survey and extending outward in 10 to 15 m intervals in order to determine the site boundaries and the presence or absence of buried cultural material. STPs and AUGs were excavated in approximately 10- to 15- centimeter (cm) levels as measured from the ground surface. TU-01 was placed in the center of a cluster of STPs/AUGs that were positive for cultural material and was excavated in 10-cm levels as measured from an arbitrary datum set at the ground surface. Excavated soils were screened through 3-millimeter (mm) (1/8-inch) wire mesh. All data was recorded on standard archaeological forms. Artifacts and ecofacts recovered were collected and bagged with pertinent data recorded (e.g., provenience data), as appropriate. All excavations were backfilled upon completion of testing. 6.5 LABORATORY Rincon transported all collected materials to the San Luis Obispo office laboratory for temporary storage, cataloging, and analysis. Rincon archaeologists used the following laboratory methods to process and analyze cultural materials recovered during the Phase II site evaluation to generate data that could be used to address questions posed in the Research Design and create a database for future research. Field records and photographs were digitally saved to the project archive. Rincon archaeologists cataloged all artifacts, ecofacts, and sample materials recovered from the Phase II investigation as individual items or in lots, where appropriate (e.g., debitage of the same material class and stage of reduction from the same provenience). All collected materials were cataloged as part of site CA-SLO-2825. CHC 1-87 Attachment 3 Confidential information has been removed from this document. CHC 1-88 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 41 Cataloged items were enumerated sequentially with the provenience serving as the accession number. All catalog information was stored in a Microsoft (MS) Excel spreadsheet. The spreadsheet recorded provenience information (location and depth); date collected; and descriptive information such as artifact class, artifact type, material type, condition, count, and weight. In addition, all cataloged flakes were assigned a size grade to assess the variety of flakes present, and the various potential activities that took place at the site. 6.6 ARTIFACT ANALYSIS The type and extent of analytical studies appropriate for the Phase II evaluation was determined by the nature and size of the site collection. The small prehistoric assemblage consists of flaked stone, primarily debitage, and one fragmented Pismo clam shell. Methods used during the analytical studies are summarized below. Results are presented in the Section 6.0, Results. 6.6.1 Lithic Analysis Following cataloguing, Rincon conducted specialized analysis for flaked stone artifacts recovered from SLR-S-1. Artifacts were studied to determine their age, evidence of use wear, and other traits that may contribute to addressing the research questions. Comparisons were made to cross date the artifacts in relation to other similar regional occurrences of the artifact type. Projectile Points Projectile points are typically manufactured through percussion reduction. Many projectile points are bifacial and exhibit a hafting element, with the caveat that not all hafted stone tools were used as projectiles. Many points exhibit use-wear from multiple activities, including cutting and scraping (Andrefsky 2007:204). Further, some projectile points are unifacial and/or do not exhibit a hafting element, but were hafted and used as projectile points. Classification and chronological interpretation of the projectile point in the CA-SLO-2825 collection are based on comparisons with those points along the California Central Coast (Justice 2002). Metric attributes were recorded as defined by Thomas (1970, 1981). Bifacial tool fragments that might be projectile point parts, such as distal tips and medial sections, were classified as biface fragments for the current analysis. Bifaces The identification of bifaces in the CA-SLO-2825 collection follows Andrefsky (2007), who defines bifaces as stone artifacts exhibiting flake removals from both surfaces and which cannot be morphologically classified as another type of flaked stone artifact such as a core, projectile point, or drill. Many non-diagnostic bifacially flaked stone artifacts are likely preforms for the manufacture of projectile points or other bifacial tools such as knives. The 10 bifaces in the site collection are classified by manufacture stage to facilitate the study of flaked stone tool production and maintenance at CA-SLO-2825. Bifaces recovered from CA-SLO-2825 are classified into 10 manufacture stage categories, which include the five stage classification system as well as five general classifications. Biface manufacture stage classifications follow a five stage adaptation (Andrefsky 2007:Figure 7.33) of Callahan's (1979) more comprehensive stage classification system. Stage 1 consists of a flake blank or cobble without further modification. Stage 2 bifaces exhibit flake removals along the margins of the blank, typically CHC 1-89 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 42 referred to as an edged biface. Additional shaping and biface thinning occur during Stage 3. Stage 4 consists of a nearly complete artifact with additional thinning flakes removed, which are often referred to as preforms. Stage 5 consists of either completed, thinned bifaces or completed, thinned projectile points. Additional categories refer to more general classifications, and include Early, early/mid, mid, mid/late, and late stages; these categories subsume bifaces that cannot be clearly defined as one stage versus another. Edge Modified Flake Edge modified flakes (EMFs) are reduction flakes that have been intentionally modified by percussion or pressure as well as flakes with less invasive microflake edge modifications that could have been produced directly by use. Attributes recorded specifically for the EMF include the number of modified edges, the number of faces on which modification occurs, and the primary flake scar pattern. The number of edges available for modification (intentional or unintentional) varies from flake to flake. Here, continuous modification describes modification that begins on one margin, continues along the distal end of the flake, and extends onto the opposing margin. Bimarginal modification indicates modification that occurs on both of the lateral margins of the flake. Bimarginal modification includes two sub-groups: bimarginal continuous and bimarginal clustered. Bimarginal continuous modification describes an edge modified flake that exhibits continuous modification along the lateral margins, but not along the end, of the flake. Bimarginal clustered modification describes an edge modified flake that exhibits generally small, discontinuous clusters of flake removals in one or more isolated locations along both margins of the flake. Unimarginal modification indicates modification that occurs on only one margin of the flake; unimarginal modification is also separated into continuous and clustered variants. Cores Cores are masses of toolstone from which useable flakes were removed by percussion or bipolar reduction. Patterned flake removal maximizes the number of flakes that can be removed from the core. Patterned flake removals typically occur on cores of rare, non-local, and/or high quality lithic material. Patterned cores include unidirectional, bifacial, or bipolar cores. Multidirectional cores exhibit non-patterned flake removals and are typically made from local or relatively local lithic materials, such as Franciscan or Monterey chert. The quality of Franciscan chert varies throughout the Franciscan Complex with cobbles that typically exhibit coarse to fine-grained texture allowing the material to fracture conchoidally. Franciscan chert exhibits a range of texture that results in low to medium-high quality flaking properties. Some nodules contain inclusions that affect the workability of the material. Many multidirectional cores, especially those made from readily available sources, are discarded prior to exhaustion, because local lithic material (e.g. basalt), though abundant, is often of lower quality for the production of useful flakes. Cores made from higher quality lithic material are often reduced into very small forms, and sometimes are exhausted. An exhausted core is a core from which no additional useful flakes can be removed. This means the nodule has been maximized to yield as many useful flakes as possible until the core can yield no more useful flakes prior to discard. The face and direction from which the flakes were removed was recorded during the analysis of the cores in the CA-SLO-2825 assemblage. Andrefsky (2007) discusses problems with consistency in the comparison of cores, but offers a solution for the lithic analyst: the maximum linear dimension multiplied by the weight of the core provides a consistent unit of measurement for comparison. This consistent unit of CHC 1-90 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 43 measurement for the comparison of cores depends on the hypothesis that raw material quality and availability affects the patterns of use and discard of cores, and thus these measurements were recorded and as part of the analysis of cores in the CA-SLO-2825 assemblage. If raw materials influence the reduction technology of cores, then we should expect cores of quality, non-local lithic material to be small and/or exhausted. On the other hand, cores made from locally available, and generally lower-quality, toolstone are expected to be larger in size and typically discarded prior to exhaustion. Debitage Debitage are the waste flakes generated during the manufacture of flaked stone tools. A technological analysis of all the debitage in the CA-SLO-2825 collection was conducted to characterize predominant flaked stone reduction patterns. Reduction technologies are reflected by the relative proportions of diagnostic flake types present within a study area. Analysis of debitage recovered form CA-SLO-2825 included classifying individual specimens following the typological definitions by Andrefsky (1998:120 and 2001:6), Bloomer (2009), and Smiley (2007). The technological classification of each flake and the total count and weight of the debitage was recorded in order to characterize the predominant flaked stone reduction patterns. Core reduction and the initial reduction of flake blanks produce relatively high percentages of cortical and dorsally-simple interior flakes, a low frequency of edge preparation flakes, and no biface thinning or pressure flakes. Biface reduction, through the entire continuum of early (stage 2 and 3) to late stages (3 and 4) and pressure flaking (stage 5), results in a more varied flake assemblage. An assemblage entirely composed of late stage biface reduction debris will be dominated by late stage biface thinning flakes and pressure flakes, evincing only small frequencies of cortical flakes, interior flakes, edge preparation flakes, and early biface thinning flakes. The sizes of objective stage 5 bifaces also must be considered, because archaeological recovery methods (e.g., use of 1/4-inch screen) may preclude the recovery of small-size debitage produced by small bifaces and tools. Recorded attributes for the CA-SLO-2825 debitage include material, count, and weight by provenience (unit, level, screen size). Specific methods were used for the detailed debitage analysis, as follows. The debitage was sorted into lithic material classes and analyzed by provenience. The debitage was sorted through a set of nested wire mesh screens, sized from ½ in. (12.7 mm) and ¼ in. (6.35 mm), with a tray at the bottom to catch flakes smaller than ¼ inch but no smaller than ⅛ inch, since removed soils from the field units were dry-screened through ⅛ inch mesh. This separated the debitage into four size categories: between 2 inches and 1 inch; between 1 inch and ½ inch; between ½ inch and ¼ inch; and between ¼ inch and ⅛ inch. The reduction technology evident for any given debitage assemblage is characterized by the variable proportions of diagnostic flake types. Nine flake type categories are considered technologically diagnostic for analysis in the CA-SLO-2825 collection. These are defined below, and are followed by descriptions of less diagnostic flake types. Debitage - Diagnostic Flake Types Cortical. A flake with cortex, generally covering over 25 percent of its dorsal surface. Other flake types with small amounts of cortex, such as biface thinning flakes, are not classified as cortical flakes. CHC 1-91 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 44 Simple Interior. A non-cortical flake with three or fewer negative flake scars on its dorsal surface, not including platform preparation scars. Negative flake scar patterning on the dorsal surface is typically linear along the axis of the flake. Simple, single-facet platforms are typical. Simple Interior/Complex Platform. Same as a simple interior flake but with a complex platform with multiple facets. Complex Interior. A non-cortical flake with three or more negative flake scars on its dorsal surface, not including platform preparation scars. Negative flake scar patterning on the dorsal surface is not typically linear along the axis of the flake, but shows a complexity of scars emanating from various and opposing directions. Platforms are usually complex with multiple facets. Complex Interior/Simple Platform. Same as a complex interior flake but the platform is simple, usually with a single facet. Edge Preparation. A group of several distinct flake types which result from shaping an unworked edge of a flake blank. These flakes include edge preparation flakes, which are wider than they are long, with pronounced bulbs of percussion and large dorsal areas with few or no negative flake scars; bulb removal flakes, which retain a remnant of the flake blank’s ventral bulb of percussion; and alternate flakes, which are wider than long, and wedge shaped, resulting from the reduction of a thick square edge. Gull Wing. A flake that exhibits the appearance of a “gull wing” when viewed from the top of the striking platform. Gull wing flakes result from an impact that applies force directly behind the negative bulb of percussion from a previously removed flake. These flakes can be produced during platform preparation or unintentionally from the percussor impacting the objective piece more than once during a single stroke. Early Biface Thinning. An often slightly curved flake with a simple or complex bifacial platform and a few dorsal flake scars which emanate generally from the flake’s platform. Late Biface Thinning. A curved or flat flake with a bifacial platform and multiple dorsal flake scars, which may reveal a complex pattern of previous flake removals. Typical late stage thinning flakes retain partial dorsal scars showing previous flake removals from the opposite edge of the biface. Pressure. Typically small, thin flakes with few to multiple dorsal flake scars removed from prior pressure reduction. Platforms may be perpendicular or oblique to the longitudinal axis of the flake. Shapes vary from wide and short to long and narrow. Notching Pressure. Notching flakes result from notching a projectile point. Notching flakes are fan shaped, short and round, with the platform set into a depression. Rejuvenation. A flake that exhibits a complex and/or heavily abraded platform as well as multiple flake scars on the dorsal surface of the flake. Rejuvenation flakes indicate the CHC 1-92 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 45 resharpening of an edge of a tool that has become dull from heavy use. Rejuvenation flakes are typically removed alternately from each face of the tool. Bipolar. These flakes are a result of percussion from opposite directions at the same time, typically from placing the toolstone mass on an anvil and then down striking with a hard hammerstone from above. Flake attributes include crushing at opposite ends, with distinct cones of percussion and straight ventral and dorsal surfaces. Debitage - Flake Types of Less Diagnostic Value Platform Preparation/Pressure. Platform preparation flakes typically result from the light percussion of a bifacial edge to prepare a flake detachment platform. Pressure flakes are often indistinguishable from light percussion platform preparation flakes, and so this category subsumes less distinctive flakes, which may have resulted from pressure reduction. Eraillure. Typically small, thin flakes with no flake scars on the dorsal surface, as the dorsal surface of these flakes is the ventral surface of the objective piece (parent flake). These flakes leave a negative impression on the bulb of percussion on the ventral surface of the parent flake, and result from the percussor impacting the objective piece more than once during a single stroke. Cortical Fragment. Cortical flake fragments demonstrate a high percentage of cortex present on the dorsal surface, but cannot be definitively classified as cortical flakes, as the flake could demonstrate a differing reduction stage if complete. Simple Fragment. Simple flake fragments demonstrate morphological attributes of secondary flakes, but are incomplete; the flake cannot be classified definitively as a secondary flake, however, due to a missing platform, flake termination, or both, and could belong to another flake category. Complex Fragment. Complex flake fragments demonstrate morphological attributes of biface thinning or pressure flakes, such as a thin cross-section and multiple dorsal flake scars resulting from previous flake removals; the flake cannot be classified definitively, however, because the flake is incomplete. Shatter. Shatter results from flaked stone reduction, but demonstrates no typical flake attributes and the ventral or dorsal surfaces and proximal or distal ends cannot be determined. CHC 1-93 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 46 7.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Three archaeological resources and one historic complex of buildings were identified within the project site. Rincon Archaeologist Ashlee Bailey, M.A., RPA, identified and recorded one prehistoric archaeological site (CA-SLO-2825) and two isolated prehistoric archaeological artifacts Rincon archaeologists recorded, tested, and evaluated CA-SLO-2825 to determine the eligibility for listing in the CRHR/NRHP). Rincon Architectural Historian Susan Zamudio- Gurrola, M.H.P., recorded and evaluated the historic San Luis Ranch complex, which includes three single-family residences, a garage/shed, a smaller shed, the main barn, a large equipment storage building, a warehouse, and the former spectator’s barn (viewing stand). State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 forms were prepared for all cultural resources within the project site (Appendix C). No other cultural resources were identified within the project site during the field survey. 7.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Rincon recorded three newly identified prehistoric archaeological resources during the course of the intensive pedestrian survey. These include one prehistoric archaeological site (CA-SLO- 2825) and two isolated prehistoric artifacts (P-40-038327 and P-40-038328), located along the western edge of the San Luis Ranch agricultural field approximately 40 m east of the modern Prefumo Creek. Soils show minimal variation in composition, consisting primarily of 10 YR 4/3 brown clay with approximately 30 percent small rounded and gravel inclusions. Ground visibility in the agricultural field was good, estimated at approximately 75 percent during the survey. While the area has little to no slope, the aspect of San Luis Valley is generally to the south. State of California DPR Series 523 forms were prepared for the archaeological resources within the project site (Appendix C). Rincon conducted archaeological testing of the site to evaluate the CRHR/NRHP eligibility of the site. 7.1.1 CA-SLO-2825 Newly identified site CA-SLO-2825 is a discrete, low-density prehistoric lithic scatter located on the western edge of the San Luis Ranch agricultural field approximately 40 m east of Prefumo Creek (Photograph 1). The site measures 55 × 100 m (180 × 330 feet), encompassing both individually point plotted surface artifacts and subsurface test units positive for cultural materials (Figures 4 and 5). A total of 407 artifacts were recovered from the site, including 385 pieces of debitage, 21 flaked stone tools, and one fragmented Pismo clam shell. Of these, 84 artifacts were collected from the site surface while the remaining 323 artifacts were recovered from test excavation units. The subsurface component of redeposited lithic debitage extends to 40 cm below surface (cmbs). Surface Collection Rincon archaeologists conducted an intensive pedestrian survey of the site to identify its extent. A total of 84 artifacts were collected by individual point plot from the site surface. The artifacts include 64 pieces of debitage, one projectile point fragment, eight bifaces, one edge-modified flake, three assayed cobbles, four cores, two core fragments, and one fragmented Pismo clam shell. Some of the surface artifacts were identified in the unpaved road adjacent to the CHC 1-94 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 47 Confidential information has been removed from this document. Photograph 1. CA-SLO-2825 site overview with flags on artifacts, view toward west. agricultural field on the south; these artifacts were likely dragged and redeposited during plowing or other activities associated with crop cultivation and are thus not included within the mapped site boundary. Subsurface Testing Rincon archaeologists excavated a total of 24 subsurface test units, including one 1.0 × 1.0 m test unit (TU-01), two shovel test pits (STPs), and 21 auger tests (AUGs), within and around site CA- SLO-2825 between August 1 and 16, 2016. A total of 323 artifacts, primarily debitage, were recovered from 16 of the 24 test excavation units. Test Unit TU-01 Size: 1.0 × 1.0 m (north–south × east–west) Number of Levels: 05 Total Depth: 50 cmbs Reason for Termination: Sterile sediments Disturbances: Agricultural activities Rincon archaeologists excavated TU-01 to a depth of 50 cmbs (Photograph 2) and recovered 91 pieces of debitage to a depth of 40 cmbs. All artifacts were pieces of flaked stone debitage; no cores or formal tools were present (Table 4).Stratigraphy consisted of approximately 30 cm of loosely compacted 10 YR 4/3 brown clay (Stratum I) and approximately 10 cm of highly compacted 10 YR 3/3 brown fine-grained plastic clay (Stratum II) over 10 cm of 10 YR 4/6 dark yellowish brown sandy clay (Stratum III). Strata I and II are disturbed sediments that have been repeatedly mixed from the use of the area for agriculture over the past 100 years (Figure 6). CHC 1-95 Attachment 3 Confidential information has been removed from this document. CHC 1-96 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 49 Table 4. Summary of Cultural Materials Recovered from TU-01 Level Soil Type Disturbances Cultural Constituents Surface Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=20) 1 (0-10cm) Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=37) 2 (10-20cm) Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=17) 3 (20-30cm) Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=9) 4 (30-40cm) Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=8) 5 (40-50cm) Clay, Sandy Clay Agricultural activities None Confidential information has been removed from this document. Photograph 2. Overview of TU-01, view toward north. Shovel Test Pits and Auger Test Units Rincon excavated two STPs (STPs 1 and 2) and 21 auger test units (AUGs 1 – 21). Of these, 17 were positive for cultural materials (Table 5). STP 1 yielded and contained a total of 91 and 53 pieces of lithic debitage, respectively. No other artifact types were identified within the STPs. All artifacts were recovered from less than 45 cmbs. Rincon also excavated 21 hand-excavated augers (AUG 1-21). Of these, 16 (AUG 1-7, 10-13, 16-17, and 19-21) were positive for cultural materials and the remaining five (AUG 8, 9, 14, 15, and 18) were negative for cultural materials. Rincon recovered a total of 98 pieces of lithic debitage and a small amount of yellow and red ochre. All artifacts were recovered from above 40 cmbs. Soils within each of the augers were consistent with those present in TU-01. CHC 1-97 Attachment 3 SL R - S - 1 T U - 0 1 N o r t h W a l l P r o f i l e Figure 6 City of San Luis Obispo Sa n L u i s R a n c h P r o j e c t Cu l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s S ur v e y a n d E v a l u a t i o n 50 40 30 20 10 01 0 60 S tr i n g l i n e 1 c m = 1 0 c m I Lo o s e 1 0 Y R 4 / 3 b r o w n c l a y w i t h c o m p a c t c l a y p e d s II Co m p a c t 1 0 Y R 4 / 3 b r o w n c l a y II I V e r y C o m p ac t 1 0 Y R 4 / 6 d a r k y e l l o w i s h b r o w n c l a y Ro o t Pe b b l e St r i n g l i n e h e i g h t a t 1 0 c m a b o v e p r es e n t g r o u n d s u r f a c e II II I I CHC 1-98Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 51 Table 5. Summary of Materials Recovered from STPs and AUGs STP/AUG Max Depth Soil Type Disturbances Cultural Constituents STP 1 43cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=91) STP 2 42cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=53) AUG 1 45cm Clay, Sandy Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=1); red ochre AUG 2 50cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=3) AUG 3 75cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=6) AUG 4 69cm Clay, Sandy Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=1) AUG 5 45cm Clay Agricultural activities Yellow ochre AUG 6 75cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=6) AUG7 45cm Clay, Sandy Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=6) AUG 8 45cm Clay Agricultural activities None AUG 9 45cm Clay Agricultural activities None AUG 10 45cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=5) AUG 11 45cm Clay Agricultural activities None AUG 12 45cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=2) AUG 13 60cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=3) AUG 14 45cm Clay Agricultural activities None AUG 15 45cm Clay Agricultural activities None AUG 16 45cm Clay Agricultural activities Red ochre AUG 17 60cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=1) AUG 18 45cm Clay Agricultural activities None AUG 19 40cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=20) AUG 20 40cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=16) AUG 21 40cm Clay Agricultural activities Lithic debitage (n=28) Summary With the exception of one shell fragment identified on the surface and a small amount of red and yellow ochre, the artifact assemblage of CA-SLO-2825 consists entirely of flaked stone tools and debitage. All subsurface artifacts were recovered from the upper 40 cm of the deposit, within disturbed sediments in the plow zone. CA-SLO-2825 Flaked Stone Analysis The flaked stone assemblage comprises 406 artifacts, of which 95 percent is debitage (n=385). Flaked stone tools (n=21) include one projectile point fragment, ten bifaces, one edge modified flake, and nine cores. The tools and debitage recovered during the current investigation are discussed in further detail below. Projectile Point The projectile point collected from CA-SLO-2825 consists of a reddish brown Franciscan cryptocrystalline silicate proximal/medial fragment. The tool was manufactured using non- patterned percussion reduction and exhibits a plano-convex cross section, convex margins, and a contracting stem. A snapping break removed the distal end of the point. Previous studies (cf. Bettinger and Eerkens 1999) suggest that projectile points heavier than three grams tend to be dart points, whereas points lighter than three grams are probably arrow points. The weight exceeding 3.0 g and its remnant neck width of 16.1 mm (which is >10 mm) are both measures that often have been used as thresholds for distinguishing arrow from dart points in the Great Basin (Bettinger and Eerkens 1999). Although the Bettinger and Eerkens (1999) study was based on western Great Basin projectile points, physical requirements and limitations of dart versus arrow points logically apply to all geographic areas. The application of these measures on the California coast cannot be considered definitive, but there are relationships between weight and CHC 1-99 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 52 neck width in distinguishing arrow from dart points. The point is morphologically most similar to the Houx Contracting Stem point type in the Coastal Contracting Stem Cluster (Justice 2002:265-269) or the Gypsum point type in the Gypsum Cluster (Justice 2002:290-298). Neither of these categories ideally fits the projectile point recovered from SLR-S-1. The point does not exhibit pressure flaking, which is a common attribute of both Houx and Gypsum points, and Justice (2002) does not provide metric attributes with which to compare the specimen. Bifaces The artifact assemblage includes ten bifaces recovered from the site surface and excavation units. By provenience, they consist of eight bifaces from the site surface (00-00-06, 00-00-07, 00- 00-11, 00-00-26, 00-00-27, 00-00-33, 00-00-57, and 00-00-60) and two from STP 1 (30-02-06 and 30- 02-07). All of the bifaces were manufactured through percussion reduction from opaque CCS. The majority exhibit non-patterned flake scars and plano-convex cross-section shapes, while two exhibit a chevron flake scar pattern and flat cross-section shapes. Six of the bifaces are manufactured from Franciscan chert, while four are made from indeterminate CCS toolstone. The bifaces are evenly distributed along the reduction continuum. None exhibit pressure flaking, and the majority (n=7) are fragmented. Five of the fragmented bifaces exhibit perverse breaks, one exhibits both one perverse break and one bending break, and one exhibits only a bending break. Perverse fractures are most common during stone tool manufacture so that their combined relative frequency of 86 percent should be considered a significant indicator of on-site biface manufacture (Figure 7). Eight of these bifaces were manufactured on flake blanks, while one was manufactured from a core, and one is indeterminate. Figure 7. Pie chart displaying the breaks present on the SLR-S-1 fragmented bifaces. Edge Modified Flake One edge-modified flake made from opaque dark reddish brown Franciscan chert was recovered from the site surface. Light, continual, and non-intrusive percussion flaking is present along the majority of one face of one margin. Cores The core assemblage includes three assayed cobbles, four complete cores, and two core fragments. Core reduction patterns identified in the assemblage include informal, Perverse 72% Bending 14% Both 14% CHC 1-100 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 53 multidirectional assayed cobbles and cores and one formal, bidirectional core. These reduction patterns are briefly defined as follows. Multidirectional cores exhibit flake removals taken from more than one striking platform (Andrefsky 2007: 16, 82, 145). Multidirectional cores without patterning are considered informal. Informal cores exhibit opportunistic flake removals from numerous directions, multiple platforms, and on several faces of the objective piece. Multidirectional cores can exhibit patterning; patterned flake removal can produce flakes of similar proportions and can maximize the number of flakes that can be removed from the core. Bidirectional cores exhibit flake removals from only two directions and are considered formal. Andrefsky (2007) explains that no comprehensive method for the comparison of core size and type has been developed, but proposes a method to compare the size class of cores. Andrefsky’s (2007:145-147) formula for calculating size value to explore potential patterning between core size and type is used for the CA-SLO-2825 assemblage. The size value of a core is the product of the maximum linear dimension multiplied by the weight of the core. The cores in the present assemblage are all made from locally-derived cryptocrystalline silicate sources, including the Franciscan Complex and the Monterey Formation (Bertrando and Harro 1997). Andrefsky (2007) postulates that cores made from higher quality toolstone will be formally reduced and tend to be exhausted. For example, high quality, non-local toolstone, such as obsidian, will tend to be formally reduced. Formal reduction and reuse extends the use of a single piece of high quality toolstone. Moreover, specimens of high quality toolstone left behind by previous occupants, such as obsidian flakes or bifaces, may be curated (collected, reworked, and/or reused) by later groups (Whittaker 1994:264). Locally available, lower quality toolstone, however, will tend to be informally reduced and discarded prior to exhaustion. Consequently, the average size value for patterned, formally reduced cores of high quality, non-local toolstone will tend to be smaller than the non-patterned, informally reduced and often easily discarded cores made from lower quality, locally-available toolstone. Analysis of toolstone material type and size class indicates that the CA-SLO-2825 cores have relatively similar size values, although the core classified as a bidirectional, formal core is much smaller. The average core size value (n=9) is 244.5, whereas the size value for the formal core (n=1) is 76. The flake removals as well as the size values calculated for the cores recovered from CA-SLO-2825 follow the expected pattern—non-patterned cores made from locally-derived materials are large and discarded prior to exhaustion. Debitage All debitage in the SLR-S-1 assemblage was subject to technological analysis (n=385), including debitage collected from the site surface as well as the auger tests, shovel test pits, and test unit and extracted from ⅛-inch mesh screens. The debitage classifies as 111 (29 percent) technologically diagnostic flakes and 274 (71 percent) less diagnostic debitage. Simple interior flakes (n=72, 19 percent) and simple fragments (n=214, 56 percent) dominate the assemblage. As shown in Figure 8, shatter (n=49, 13 percent) and cortical flakes (n=23, 6 percent) represent the next most frequent debitage types. These flake types, without the presence of biface thinning flakes, typically indicate early to mid-stage flaked stone reduction activities. CHC 1-101 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 54 Figure 8. Pie chart displaying the overall debitage category distribution for SLR-S-1. The flaked stone assemblage is composed entirely of cryptocrystalline silicate toolstone. The primary toolstone used to produce flaked stone artifacts was visually sourced to locally- available Franciscan and Monterey cherts. Figure 9 shows the frequency of each toolstone source represented in the flaked stone assemblage. Figure 9. Relative frequencies of cryptocrystalline silicate toolstone sources in the SLR-S-1 debitage assemblage. Cortical Simple Interior Simple Interior/Complex Platform Complex Interior Edge Preparation Platform Preparation/Pressure Simple Fragment Complex Fragment Cortical Fragment Shatter Franciscan 75% Monterey 19% Indeterminate 6% CHC 1-102 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 55 Flaked Stone Interpretive Summary The SLR-S-1 flaked stone assemblage does not contain a sufficiently large sample to allow anything but very general observations concerning the nature of flaked stone technology and tool manufacture practiced at the site. Individual, technologically relevant flakes may suggest the application of specific stone working techniques, but the relative frequency of those techniques cannot be determined from available information. For example, a late biface thinning flake indicates that late stage biface manufacture may have occurred at a site at least once. However, the spectrum of reduction stages and techniques represented by that single flake remain unknown without a much larger and temporally controlled assemblage. As such, the Phase II assemblage provides only general interpretations in the approach to stone tool manufacture at SLR-S-1. The debitage present in the assemblage comprises 111 diagnostic flakes and 274 less diagnostic pieces. The relatively small technologically diagnostic debitage sample indicates that percussion flake production is the most archaeologically visible and possibly the most common flaked stone reduction activity that took place at SLR-S-1. Relatively low frequencies of cortical debitage (6 percent) indicate that toolstone procurement and cortex removal primarily occurred off-site. The proportion of simple interior flakes (19 percent) and simple flake fragments (56 percent) to later-stage reduction flakes suggests an emphasis on flake production as the objective of stone working rather than biface manufacture at the site. The majority of the debitage is also fragmented (60 percent). If the sample had included a higher proportion of complete diagnostic flakes (e.g. complex interior, biface thinning, pressure flakes) to less diagnostic flakes and flake fragments, then the sample might more closely reflect biface thinning at SLR-S-1. Some minor formal tool production (e.g., projectile point and biface manufacture) and shaping activities are indicated by the presence of biface fragments and a projectile point. Further, roughly three-quarters of the bifaces (n=5; 72 percent) indicate on-site biface manufacture as evidenced by perverse fractures that result from manufacturing failures. Debitage in the SLR-S-1 assemblage is dominated by CCS visually sourced to two local geological formations along the central coast: the Franciscan Complex and the Monterey Formation. The CCS toolstone in the assemblage is suspected to be more readily available from regional sources (i.e., closer) rather than more distant sources, although investigation regarding the location and distribution of such sources is beyond the scope of this study. CCS sources are likely more proximate to the site than other toolstone materials (see Bertrando and Harro 1997), as the import of unreduced raw material and earlier stage cores and bifaces may be more practical from local sources such as chert from the Franciscan Complex and Monterey Formation. The comparatively high proportions of simple interior flakes and simple flake fragments suggest an emphasis on percussion flake production at SLR-S-1. 7.1.2 Isolated Artifacts P-40-038327 P-40-038327 consists of an isolated prehistoric grayish-brown cortical CCS flake measuring 4.8 x 3.6 x 1 cm (Photograph 3). The flake exhibits moderate post-depositional damage. CHC 1-103 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 56 Photograph 3. P-40-038327, plan view. P-40-038328 P-40-038328 consists of an isolated prehistoric brownish-red cortical CCS flake measuring 3.0 x 2.3 x 0.7 cm (Photograph 4). The flake exhibits moderate post-depositional damage. Photograph 4. P-40-038328, plan view. 7.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION Isolated finds typically do not qualify as historical resources under CEQA and thus isolates P- 40-038327 and P-40-038328 were determined ineligible for listing in the CRHR/NRHP. Rincon evaluated archaeological site CA-SLO-2825 to determine the eligibility for listing in the CRHR/NRHP. Archaeological site CA-SLO-2825 is a prehistoric surface artifact scatter with a CHC 1-104 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 57 shallow subsurface component. The artifact assemblage consists almost entirely of flaked stone tools and debitage. CA-SLO-2825 represents a lithic production location where tools were manufactured. Such locations were components of a larger procurement strategy and were likely associated with unknown temporary camps or habitation sites in the vicinity, although none were identified as part of the current study. The site is highly disturbed by repeated plowing, planting, harvesting, and other activities associated with crop cultivation. Although subsurface artifacts are present, they are limited to disturbed sediments above 40 cmbs and do not represent an intact deposit. It is likely the subsurface component consists of artifacts that were previously located on the surface scatter and have been redeposited due to remixing of sediments caused by agricultural activities. The site is not directly associated with important events or any persons significant in our past (Criteria A/1 and B/2). Criterion C/3 is not relevant to archaeological deposits of this type. Due to the absence of an intact subsurface component and lack of specific, interpretable context the site is unlikely yield important information about prehistory or history (Criterion D/4). Thus site CA-SLO-2825 is recommended ineligible for listing in the CRHR/NRHP and requires no further management consideration under CEQA or the NHPA. Due to the assemblage’s lack of association with specific people or discrete events and because the recovered artifacts have little potential to contribute to future research, Rincon recommends that no further work is needed for the recovered items, and we do not recommend their permanent curation. In lieu of curation, Rincon recommends donation of collected artifacts to a local Native American Tribe. 7.3 BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES An evaluation update of the buildings that comprise the San Luis Ranch complex, historically known as the Dalidio Ranch (P-40-04-1000), is provided in the following section. The property contains a grouping of buildings at the northwest end of the property and agricultural fields to the south and east. The ranch complex presently includes three single-family residences, a garage/shed, a smaller shed, the main barn, a large equipment storage building, a warehouse, and the former spectator’s barn (viewing stand), which was converted to farm use. A water tower that was previously recorded on the property in 1999 was not observed during the investigation for the current report. It may have been demolished since it was documented to be in very poor condition in 1999 (Figure 10). CHC 1-105 Attachment 3 !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !> !> #2 - Barn #5 - Warehouse #6 - Residence #3 #4 - Residence #2 #7 - Northern Shed #1 - Main Residence #8 - Southern Shed/Garage#3 - Former Viewing Stand #9 - Equipment Storage Building Madonna R d City of San Luis Obispo Built Environment Resources Figure 10 Imagery provided by Google and its licensors, 2016. San Luis Ranch ProjectCultural Resources Study ±0 16080 Feet Project Boundary !>Resources CHC 1-106 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 59 7.3.1 Main Residence (Residence No. 1) This one and one-half story, single-family residence is estimated to have been built ca. 1910. It is irregular in plan and built in the Craftsman style (Photograph 5). It features a high pitched, front-gabled roof, with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails. The roof is clad in composition shingles. There is a shed dormer on the northeast side of the roof. On the southwest side a hipped roof extension covers the wrap-around porch and a cantilevered box bay window. The home is clad with shiplap and clapboard siding as well as shingles on the gable face. The primary entry is on the northwest elevation accessed via a wrap-around porch and a set of wooden steps. The porch supports are square pillars with plain bases and capitals. The single, solid wood entry door is surrounded by wood framing. An additional single entry door is east of the primary entry. At the end of the wrap-around porch, on the southwest side of the home, is a single, wooden door with a single pane of glass over two horizontal panels. The northwest elevation also contains a cantilevered three-window bay. There are decoratively carved knee braces in the gable face as well as a pair of double-hung, wooden 8/1 windows. Across the bottom of the gable is a plain horizontal band supported by carved brackets or exposed beam ends. The home has a variety of windows, including double-hung 1/1 windows, hopper windows, and fixed 14/1, 12/1 and 10/1 windows. The southwest elevation has a short railing giving the appearance of a partial widow’s walk. The majority of the southwest elevation was unpainted at the time of the site visit. There is a small addition projecting to the south. It has a shed roof with overhanging eaves and exposed, carved rafter tails, covered with composition shingle. It has a double-hung 1/1 window, fixed and casement windows. The wooden entry door has a rectangular opening with decorative brackets at each corner above two horizontal panels. A screen obscures any glazing that it may contain. The entry is accessed via a set of concrete steps. CHC 1-107 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 60 Photograph 5. Main residence, northwest elevation, view to the southeast. 7.3.2 Residence No. 2 This one-story single family home is estimated to have been built ca. 1900-1910 (Photograph 6). It is located at the northeast end of the property, near Madonna Road. It is rectangular in plan and appears to have a small addition on the east elevation as well as a shed extension on the south. The eastern addition contains a chimney. Both the main portion of the home and the addition feature medium pitched front-gabled roofs and an open eave overhang with fascia boards. The roof is clad with composite shingles. The shed extension features a nearly flat roof partially clad with corrugated panels. The home’s primary entrance is on the west elevation and features an entry door with a single light above and a single panel below. It is flanked by dual glazed sidelights. The entire entry is surrounded by wood framing. A set of three concrete steps with simple wood railings lead to the entrance. The dwelling is clad in shiplap siding. All windows were boarded at the time of evaluation, but appear to be surrounded by wood framing. The south elevation was not clearly visible due to a tall wooden fence. North of the home, against the tree line is a group of shed-like structures, the largest of which is constructed with vertical wood boards and has a variety of utility and storage double-doors. It has a shed roof covered with corrugated panels. CHC 1-108 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 61 Photograph 6. Residence No. 2, view to the east. 7.3.3 Residence No. 3 Adjacent to and east of the warehouse is a small single family home estimated to have been built in the 1960s (Photograph 7). It does not appear in 1963 aerial photography, but appears by 1989. It is roughly square in plan, clad with reverse board and batten and has a side-gabled roof clad with composition shingles. There are horizontally slatted vents under the gable peaks. The home features aluminum sliding windows surrounded by wood framing on the north and east elevations. The primary entry on the north elevation is a wooden, four-panel entry door. The south elevation was largely obscured by a fence and vegetation but a shed roof was noted to be attached across the width of the residence. It is supported by wood posts with Y braces and is clad with corrugated panels. The west elevation is very close to the warehouse and has no fenestration. CHC 1-109 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 62 Photograph 7. Residence No. 3, view to the south. 7.3.4 Garage/Shed Situated south of the shed discussed below is a larger shed or garage (Photograph 8). Estimated to have been built in the 1930s, it is rectangular in plan and is clad with flush, vertical wooden boards. It is covered with a shed roof that has exposed rafter tails and is clad with corrugated metal panels. The eastern half of the shed has wood flooring and contains large openings on both the north and south elevations that align so vehicles or equipment can pass through the building. The western half of the shed contains a similar opening on the north elevation. CHC 1-110 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 63 Photograph 8. Garage/shed, northwest elevation, view to the southeast. 7.3.5 Shed No. 2 Situated directly south of the primary dwelling is a small rectangular shed (Photograph 9). Estimated to have been built in the 1930s, it is clad with vertical wooden boards and has a shed roof clad with corrugated panels. The east elevation contains a square window opening covered with mesh wire. The north elevation contains a centered, arched opening and an additional single entry door, which is wooden with horizontal slats. A wooden fence is attached to and projects off the southern elevation. CHC 1-111 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 64 Photograph 9. Shed No. 2, northwest elevation, view to the southeast. 7.3.6 Main Barn To the west of the primary dwelling is a raised-center-aisle barn estimated to have been built in 1900 per the county assessor records (Photograph 10). It is clad with vertical wooden boards. The roof is clad with corrugated metal panels. The north elevation has a large centered opening with chamfered corners as well as a sliding barn door. The south elevation has a sliding barn door and a large hinged door, as well as a hay carrier and hay doors under the gable peak. The east elevation features four open bays supported by square wooden posts. There is no fenestration on the west elevation. The barn is situated near Madonna Road at the northwest end of the property. CHC 1-112 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 65 Photograph 10. Barn, north elevation, view to the southwest. 7.3.7 Equipment Storage Building Situated to the south of the former spectator’s barn/viewing stand is a large building, likely used to store farm equipment (Photograph 11). It is estimated to have been built in 1938 per the county assessor records. It has a rectangular footprint and has four open bays on one side. The building is clad with vertical wooden boards. The shed roof is covered with corrugated aluminum panels and is supported by poles that appear to be salvaged utility poles, enhanced with Y braces. CHC 1-113 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 66 Photograph 11. Equipment storage building, north elevation, view to the south. 7.3.8 Warehouse South of the main barn is a large warehouse estimated to have been built in the 1960s (Photograph 12). It does not appear in 1963 aerial photography but does by 1989. It is rectangular in plan and is clad with vertical aluminum panels. It has a very low pitched, gabled roof. The east elevation features a single entry door (possibly metal), as well as a metal roll-up garage door and a rectangular vent with horizontal slats. The south elevation also has a metal roll-up garage door. There is no fenestration on the west elevation. Across the width of the north elevation is a shed supported by round metal poles. It has a flat roof clad with corrugated metal panels. A covered hoop house was stored beneath it at the time of evaluation. CHC 1-114 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 67 Photograph 12. Warehouse, east elevation, view to the southwest. 7.3.9 Former Spectators’ Barn/Viewing Stand To the southwest of the main residence is the former spectators’ barn/viewing stand that has been converted to other farm uses (Photograph 13). It is estimated to have been built ca. 1887. It is a two-story wood framed building clad with shiplap siding. It has a rectangular plan and a high pitched, side-gabled roof with boxed eaves. The northwest elevation features a strip of angled window openings that indicate the building’s prior use as a race track viewing stand - the slant is likely a result of row seating and the open seating/viewing area was likely enclosed. Beneath this are two window openings which have been boarded over. Under the gable peak is a hay carrier and a pair of hay doors on hinges. The northeast elevation features a centered entry comprised of a pair of large arched openings with chamfered edges at the top. There is also a single entry door which appears to be plyboard, accessed by three concrete steps, and an additional wooden, four-paneled, single entry door that is missing the steps leading up to it. Two rectangular window openings have been boarded over. Across approximately 1/3 of the northeast elevation there is a railing that may have once held a sliding barn door. The southeast elevation shows evidence of the same angled openings as the northwest elevation, but the openings have been closed/boarded over from the interior and painted. The shiplap siding exists only on the gable face – the lower approximately 2/3 of the building is clad with vertical boards. Attached to the southeast elevation are shed roofs of varying pitch, supported by wood posts and covered with corrugated aluminum. The southeast elevation also has a set of concrete steps and metal railings leading to a single solid entry door. Various CHC 1-115 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 68 Photograph 13. Former spectator’s barn/viewing stand, northwest elevation, view to the southeast. windows have been boarded over. A set of doors on hinges is located about halfway up the wall. A large concrete loading dock wraps around the southeast and southwest sides of the building. Along the southwest side of the building there is an addition that appears to have been constructed at a later date. It is clad with vertical wood boards and has a steeply pitched shed roof. On the southwest elevation it has six square cut window openings cut into the wood and hung on hinges like casement windows. On the north elevation it has a single door opening as well as a window that has been boarded over. Attached to the addition and projecting to the north is a slanted shed roof over a concrete platform. It is supported by square wood posts and clad with corrugated aluminum sheets. 7.4 HISTORIC EVALUATION The Dalidio Ranch is comprised of three residences, the main barn, a farm equipment storage building, a garage/shed, a warehouse, a smaller shed, and the former spectator’s barn/viewing stand. These buildings were constructed between ca. 1887 and the mid-1960s. The ranch complex retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Despite commercial and residential development to the east and west, the property maintains integrity of setting, feeling and association due to its large size, the expanse of agricultural fields to the south and the lake site to the north, as well as the mature row of trees screening the property from the road. The main residence, main barn, and farm equipment storage building retain integrity of location, design, materials and workmanship. The main CHC 1-116 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 69 residence (a Craftsman style home) and the main (raised-center-aisle) barn retain the majority of the character-defining features associated with their style and/or construction method. The ancillary buildings such as the smaller shed and garage are vernacular in construction and may have been moved from one part of the property to another as needed for the agricultural business; however, they remained on the property and have contributed to its agricultural function. Residence No. 2 appears to have additions; oral histories relate that the building was pieced together using parts from the former spectator’s barn/viewing stand. The warehouse and residence No. 3 appear to be more recent construction estimated to be built in the 1960s. The former horse race track spectator's barn/viewing stand has been moved from its original location and repurposed for use on the farm. The building was originally located near the race track and stables, where the cultivated fields are today, south of the ranch complex. A kitchen and cocktail lounge that once existed on opposite ends of the viewing stand were removed by the Wood family. Parts of the kitchen were utilized for the construction of the original Wood family residence. A dairy and a stable were added onto the viewing stand building by the Woods. The seating in the upstairs viewing area was removed and the space was used as a hay loft. The Dalidio family subsequently removed the dairy addition that the Woods had constructed. Since the race track has not existed since approximately the year 1900 when William Wood owned the property and the viewing stand has been moved and heavily altered, the building does not retain integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship or feeling as a race track viewing stand. However, the building has been an integral component of the ranch complex since the Woods began repurposing parts of the building and converted it to a dairy, stable and hay barn. Over the years the former viewing stand has served as a utilitarian agricultural building on the ranch property. The Dalidio Ranch appears eligible for listing in the CRHR as a property, under Criteria 1 and 3. It also appears eligible for designation as a City of San Luis Obispo landmark property (B.2 and B.3). The main residence and the main barn also appear individually eligible for listing in the CRHR and as City of San Luis Obispo landmark properties for their construction and design (Criteria 3 and A.1). The period of significance for the Dalidio Ranch is 1900 – 1940, or, the early part of the 20th century, when ranching and agriculture were the region’s main enterprises and influenced the development of the San Luis Obispo. William Wood and his son Forest Wood developed and operated a family farm between 1900 and approximately 1921, after which the Dalidio family acquired the property and increased agricultural production. The buildings constructed during the period of significance (residences No. 1 and No. 2, the garage/shed, shed No. 2, main barn, equipment storage building, and the former spectators’ barn/viewing stand) retain sufficient integrity to convey their importance as a property. Although the former spectator’s barn/viewing stand has been moved and altered over the years to accommodate its change in use from equestrian related activities to agriculture, the building retains sufficient integrity as a barn to convey its use and function during its subsequent use. 7.4.1 National and California Registers The San Luis Obispo Ranch appears eligible for listing in the CRHR for its association with the early agricultural development of San Luis Obispo (Criterion 1). Beginning as a family farm and expanding into a larger agribusiness, the property has retained a complex of ranch buildings CHC 1-117 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 70 and cultivated fields for over a century. The property was owned for many decades by the Dalidio family, who has been involved in the regional dairy industry and agribusiness. Their contributions are believed to be of local significance, not statewide or nationwide, thus the property is not eligible under Criterion 2. The property is representative of an early 20th century farm with its associated buildings, agricultural fields and ancillary structures. The buildings reflect the distinctive characteristics of the early twentieth century vernacular agricultural architecture (Criterion 3). The property is not expected to yield important information about prehistory or history, as part of the Dalidio property (Criterion 4). Although eligible for the CRHR, the property does not appear to demonstrate sufficient historical significance in national, state or local agricultural development or as a unique property type to warrant listing in the National Register of Historic Places (Criteria A-D) as a property or as individual resources. The main Craftsman style residence (residence No. 1) and the main barn also appear individually eligible for listing in the CRHR, as they both embody the distinctive characteristics of Craftsman and vernacular agricultural architecture (Criterion 3). The main Craftsman style residence from ca. 1910 and the main (raised-center-aisle) barn retain the majority of their character-defining features and integrity. 7.4.2 City of San Luis Obispo Designation The Dalidio Ranch property exemplifies an important period of local history, being established as a family farm and developing into a valuable local industry, agribusiness. The property is representative of the historical theme of Early 20th Century Agricultural and Industrial Development. The property is known to have been in agricultural use by the year 1900 when William Wood acquired the land, did away with the race track that existed on the property to create a grain field, and began re-purposing the race track structures for use on his farm. The Dalidio family acquired the property by the early 1920s and kept it in agricultural use, retaining buildings that the Woods had constructed and adding other structures. A complex of farm buildings and cultivated fields has existed on the property for over a century. The Dalidio Ranch is a rare remaining and intact example of a farm complex representing the early agricultural history of San Luis Obispo. Therefore it is eligible for designation as a City of San Luis Obispo historic resource under criterion B.2 (Event) and B.3 (Context). Besides embodying an early 20th century farm complex when assessed as a whole, individual buildings on the Dalidio Ranch also embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction. The main residence is constructed in a Craftsman style and retains many of its character-defining features such as clapboard and shiplap siding, shingles in the gable face, overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails, decoratively cut knee braces and rafter tails, a wrap-around porch supported by square pillars, a shed-roofed dormer window, and various original wood windows. The main barn also embodies the raised-center-aisle type of barn. It retains its barn doors, hay doors, hay carriers and hardware, thus retaining much of its integrity. The main residence and main barn are therefore eligible for designation as City of San Luis Obispo historic resources under criterion A.1 (Style). CHC 1-118 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 71 8.0 PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The CEQA Guidelines state that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it can be expected to “cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 (b)). Such changes can include physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]). 8.1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES Rincon identified and recorded one prehistoric archaeological site (CA-SLO-2825) and two prehistoric isolated artifacts (P-40-038327 and P-40-038328). Under CEQA, isolates are not eligible for listing in the CRHR. Archaeological site CA-SLO-2825 has been found not eligible for listing in the CRHR and NRHP, and it is not a unique archaeological resource. The information potential of site CA-SLO-2825 and isolates P-40-038327 and P-40-038328 has been exhausted by their recordation and analysis as part of the current study, and relevant site records will be submitted to the CHRIS information center. As such, disturbance of these resources would not constitute a significant impact under CEQA. 8.1.1 Archaeological Resources Mitigation Measures All archaeological resources identified in the project site have been found ineligible for listing in the CRHR/NRHP. The surface of the project site has been previously disturbed by 100 years of agricultural activities including planting, harvesting, and other activities associated with crop cultivation and thus the possibility of encountering undisturbed archaeological resources during construction is unlikely. Rincon recommends implementation of the following measures to reduce potential impacts to previously unidentified archaeological resources. CR MM-1 Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator A qualified principal investigator, defined as an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for professional archaeology, shall be retained to carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological and historical resources (hereafter qualified archaeologist). CR MM-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the event that archaeological resources are exposed during construction, work in the immediate vicinity of the find must stop until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. Construction activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA (Section 15064.5f; PRC 21082), additional work such as testing or data recovery may be warranted. CHC 1-119 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 72 CR MM-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbances; State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials. 8.2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of mitigation measures CR MM-1 through CR MM-3 would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to a less than significant level. 8.3 BUILT ENVIRONMENT/HISTORIC RESOURCES Rincon Consultants finds that the Dalidio Ranch complex (main residence, secondary residence, main barn, equipment storage building, garage/shed, shed No. 2, and former race track spectators’ barn/viewing stand) is eligible for listing in the CRHR and as a City landmark. Further, residence No. 1 and the main barn are also considered individually eligible for the CRHR and as a City landmark. These properties are considered historical resources under CEQA. According to CEQA (Section 21084.1) a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. Substantial adverse change is defined as demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration activities that would impair the significance of the historic resource. A project that has been determined to conform with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties can generally be considered to be a project that will not cause a significant impact (14 CCR Section 15126.4(b)(1)). In most cases where a project meets the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, it can be categorically exempt from CEQA (14 CCR Section 15331). Relocation of an historical resource may also constitute an adverse impact to the resource. However, in situations where relocation is the only feasible alternative to demolition, relocation may mitigate to below a level of significance provided that the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource and the resource retains its eligibility for listing on the California Register (14 CCR Section 4852(d)(1)). As currently proposed, the project would result in the relocation and adaptive reuse of the main residence (residence No. 1) and former spectators’ barn/viewing stand to another part of the site, and the demolition or off-site relocation of the remaining buildings and structures on the ranch, thus eliminating the historic district. The relocation, demolition and off-site relocation of CHC 1-120 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 73 buildings and structures comprising the Dalidio Ranch historic district would constitute a significant direct impact to cultural resources related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of historical resources. 8.3.1 Built Environment/Historic Resources Mitigation Measures Although not capable of reducing impacts to below the level of significance, three mitigation measures have been identified that would reduce project impacts on historical resources to the maximum extent practicable. These are listed below. CR MM-4 A relocation plan should be developed and implemented for the main Craftsman residence (residence No. 1) and the former race track spectators’ barn/viewing stand. The comprehensive relocation plan should include a structural/architectural condition and feasibility assessment to provide the necessary existing conditions data required to substantiate the relocation. If relocation is found feasible, the plan should identify a suitable relocation site that is compatible with the existing setting of the property; such as the proposed project’s agricultural center. The plan must also include detailed measures that demonstrate that the buildings will retain their historic significance following their relocation. Completion of this mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by the City of San Luis Obispo. CR MM-5 Impacts resulting from the demolition and relocation of the buildings shall be minimized through archival documentation of the entire historic building complex in as-built and as-found condition. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the lead agency shall ensure that documentation of the buildings and structures proposed for demolition is completed in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level II documentation that shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (NPS 1990). The documentation shall include large-format photographic recordation, detailed historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as donated material to the History Center of San Luis Obispo County where it will be available for current and future generations. Archival copies of the documentation also would be submitted to the San Luis Obispo County Library where it would be available to local researchers. Completion of this mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by the City of San Luis Obispo. CR MM-6 Impacts related to the loss of the Dalidio Ranch complex shall be reduced through the development of a retrospective interpretive display detailing the history of the project site, its significance, and its important details and features. The information can be incorporated into a publicly-accessed building on the project site or a publicly-accessed outdoor location. The display shall include images and details from the HABS documentation and any collected research pertaining to the historic property. The content shall be prepared by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History (NPS 1983). The display shall CHC 1-121 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 74 be completed within one year of the date of completion of the proposed project. Completion of this mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by City of San Luis Obispo. 8.4 BUILT ENVIRONMENT/ HISTORIC RESOURCES LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of mitigation measures CR MM-5 and CR MM-6 would reduce significant direct and cumulative impacts to historical resources scheduled for demolition to the maximum extent feasible. However, the demolition of these historical resources would still remain a significant adverse impact. Implementation of mitigation measure CR MM-4 would reduce impacts to the main Craftsman residence (residence No. 1), former race track spectators’ barn/viewing stand to the maximum extent feasible, however demolition or removal of the remaining buildings and structures comprising the Dalidio Ranch historic district would still result in a significant direct impact to the property as a whole and result in cumulative impacts. CHC 1-122 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 75 9.0 REFERENCES Ancestry 2004 1900 United States Federal Census [database on-line]. Electronic document, Ancestry.com, accessed October 3, 2016. Operations Inc., Provo, UT. Andrefsky, William 2001 Emerging Directions in Debitage Analysis. In Lithic Debitage: Context, Form, Meaning, edited by W. Andrefsky Jr., pp. 2-14. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2007 Lithics: Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis. Reprinted. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology Series. Cambridge University Press, New York. Originally published 1998, Cambridge University Press, New York. Angel, Myron. 1883 History of San Luis Obispo County, California. Thompson & West, Oakland, CA. Arnold, Jeanne E. 1995 Transportation Innovation and Social Complexity among Maritime Hunter-Gatherer Societies. American Anthropologist 97: 733-747. Bean, Walton 1968 California: An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants 1998 Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Building Complex, San Luis Obispo County, CA. Bertrando Research Consultants. Submitted to Dennis Schmidt of Central Coast Engineering. 1999a Historical Resources Inventory and Evaluation for the San Luis Marketplace Annexation: The Dalidio Property, San Luis Obispo, CA. Bertrando Research Consultants. Submitted to Applied EarthWorks, Inc. 1999b Historical Evaluation for the Existing Structures on the Proposed San Luis Obispo Marketplace Annexation: The Dalidio Property, San Luis Obispo, CA. Bertrando Research Consultants. Submitted to Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Bertrando, Ethan and Douglas R. Harro 1997 Correlations between Lithic Raw Material Quality and Availability and the Formation of Flaked Stone Tool Assemblages: Examples from the Chorro Valley, San Luis Obispo County. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 10, Bakersfield, California. Bettinger, Robert L. and Jelmer Eerkens 1999 Point Typologies, Cultural Transmission, and the Spread of Bow-and-Arrow Technology in the Prehistoric Great Basin. American Antiquity 64(2): 231-242. Bloomer, William W. 2009 In-Field Flaked Stone Analysis Manual. Manuscript on file, Lithic Arts, Markleeville, CA. Crespi, Juan 2001 A Description of Distant Roads: Original Journals of the First Expedition into California, 1769-1770. Translated by Alan K. Brown. San Diego State University Press, San Diego. CHC 1-123 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 76 California Office of Historic Preservation 2003 California Historical Resources Status Codes. Electronic document, http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/tab8.pdf, accessed November 2, 2015. California Office of Surveyor-General 1886 Corrected Report of Spanish and Mexican Grants in California, Complete to February 25, 1886. California Office of Surveyor-General, Sacramento, CA. Callahan, E. 1979 The Basics of Biface Knapping in the Eastern Fluted Point Tradition: A Manual for Flint Knappers and Lithic Analysts. Archaeology of Eastern North America 9(1):1-180. Chesnut, Merlyn 1993 The Gaviota Land: A Glimpse into California History. Fithian Press, Santa Barbara, California. City of San Luis Obispo 2010 Historic Preservation Ordinance. Electronic Document, http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4142, accessed November 2, 2015. Dumke, Glenn S. 1944 The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library Publications, San Marino, California. Engelhardt, Zephyrin 1915 The Missions and Missionaries of California vol. IV Upper California Part III General History. The James H. Barry Company, San Francisco, CA. Erlandson, Jon M. 1991 Early Maritime Adaptations on the Northern Channel Islands. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. Colten. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York. Erlandson, Jon M., Theodore Cooley, and Richard Carrico 1987 A Fluted Projectile Point Fragment from the Southern California Coast: Chronology and Context at CA-SBA-1951. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9:120– 128. Family Search 2012 United States Census, 1940. Electronic document, https://familysearch.org/1940census, accessed October 3, 2016. Fitzgerald, Richard T. 2000 Cross Creek: An Early Holocene/Millingstone Site. California State Water Project, Coastal Branch Series Paper Number 12. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society, San Luis Obispo, California. CHC 1-124 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 77 Gamble, Lynn H., Philip L. Walker, and Glenn S. Russell 2001 Integrative Approach to Mortuary Analysis: Social and Symbolic Dimensions of Chumash Burial Practices. American Antiquity 66:185–212. Gibson, R. O. 1983 Ethnography of the Salinan People: A Systems Approach. Master’s Thesis, California State University, Hayward. Glassow, Michael A. 1997 Middle Holocene Cultural Development in the Central Santa Barbara Channel Region. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, pp. 73–90. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Glassow, Michael A, L. Wilcoxen, and J. M. Erlandson 1988 Cultural and Environmental Change during the Early Period of Santa Barbara Channel Prehistory. In The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines, edited by G. Bailey and J. Parkington pp. 64–77. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Greenwood, Roberta S. 1972 9000 Years of Prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California. San Luis Obispo Historical Society Occasional Paper No. 7. 1978 Obispeño and Purisimeño Chumash. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 520–523. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Hildebrandt, William 1983 Archaeological Research of the Southern Santa Clara Valley Project. California Department of Transportation, District 4, San Francisco. Historic Resources Group (HRG) 2013 City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement. Prepared for the City of San Luis Obispo. Johnson, John R. 1987 Chumash Social Organization: An Ethnohistoric Perspective. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara. Johnson, J. R., T. W. Stafford, Jr., H. O. Ajie, and D. P. Morris 2002 Arlington Springs Revisited. In Proceedings of the Fifth California Islands Symposium, edited by D. Browne, K. Mitchell, and H. Chaney, pp. 541–545. USDI Minerals Management Service and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, California. Jones, Terry L. 1993 Big Sur: A Keystone in Central California Cultural History. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 29(1):1–78. 1995 Transitions in Prehistoric Diet, Mobility, Exchange, and Social Organization along California’s Big Sur Coast. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Davis. CHC 1-125 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 78 Jones, Terry L., K. Davis, G. Farris, S.D. Grantham, T.W. Fung, and B. Rivers 1994 Toward a Prehistory of Morro Bay: Phase II Archaeological Investigations for the Highway 41 Widening Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Report prepared for Caltrans District 5, San Luis Obispo, California. Jones, D.A., C. Young, and W.R. Hildebrandt 2001 Phase II Archaeological Test Excavation at CA-SLO-832 and CA-SLO-1420, for the James Way/Price Street Road Improvement Project, San Luis Obispo County, California. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis California. Submitted to California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo. Jones, Terry L., and Jennifer A. Ferneau 2002 Deintensification along the Central California Coast. In Catalysts to Complexity, Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp. 205-232. Perspectives in California Archaeology Vol. 6. Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Jones, Terry L., Richard T. Fitzgerald, Douglas J. Kennett, Charles Miksicek, John L. Fagan, John Sharp, and Jon M. Erlandson 2002 The Cross Creek Site and Its Implications for New World Colonization. American Antiquity 67:213–230. Jones, Terry L. and Kathryn A. Klar 2007 California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Jones, Terry L., Nathan E. Stevens, Deborah A. Jones, Richard T. Fitzgerald, and Mark G. Hylkema 2007 The Central Coast: A Midlatitude Milieu. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 125–146. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Jones, Terry L. and Georgie Waugh 1995 Central California Prehistory: A View from Little Pico Creek. Perspectives in California Archaeology 3. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1997 Climatic Consequences of Population Pragmatism? A Middle Holocene Prehistory of the Central Coast. In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, pp. 111–128. Perspectives in California Archaeology 4. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Justice, Noel D. 2002 Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin. Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana. Kennett, Douglas J. 1998 Behavioral Ecology and the Evolution of Hunter-Gatherer Societies on the Northern Channel Islands, California. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara. CHC 1-126 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 79 King, Chester D. 1969 Approximate 1769 Chumash Village Locations and Populations. Annual Reports of the University of California Archaeological Survey 11:3. Los Angeles, California. Krieger, Dan 2012 “Times Past: Cheesemakers make home here”. The Tribune. August 19, 2012. 2014 “Dairy farming booms in SLO County after the Great Drought of 1862-64”. The Tribune. March 15, 2014. Kocher, Paul H. 1972 Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, 1772-1972. Blake Printing & Publishing, San Luis Obispo, CA, 1972. Kroeber, Alfred J. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Reprinted 1976 by Dover Publications, Inc., New York. Lebow , C., M.C. Baloian, D.R. Harro, R.L. Mckim, C. Denardo, J. Onken, E. Romanski, and B.A. Price 2001 Final Report of Archaeological Investigations for Reaches 5B and 6 Coastal Branch Aqueduct, Phase II. Applied EarthWorks Inc., Fresno, California. Submitted to Central Coast Water Authority, Buellton, California. Martin, Jean A. 2015 SLO Life Magazine, February/March 2015. Mikkelsen, P., W.R. Hildebrandt, and D. A. Jones 2000 Prehistoric Adaptations on the Shores of Morro Bay Estuary: Excavations at Site CA- SLO-165, Morro Bay, California. San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society Occasional Papers no. 14. Miller, Bruce W. 1988 Chumash: A Picture of Their World. Sand River Press, Los Osos, California. Milliken, R. T. and J. R. Johnson 2005 An Ethnography of Salinan and Northern Chumash-1769 to 1810. Report prepared for Caltrans District 5. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Davis. Copies available from California Department of Transportation, San Luis Obispo. Mills, Wayne, Michael F. Rondeau, and Terry L. Jones 2005 A Fluted Point from Nipomo, San Luis Obispo County, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Archaeology 25(2): 68-74. Mission San Luis Obispo n.d. “Mission History”. Electronic document, http://www.missionsanluisobispo.org/?page_id=207, accessed March 2, 2016. Mithun, Marianne 2004 The Languages of Native North America. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Originally published 1999. Moratto, Michael 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. CHC 1-127 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 80 Morrison, Annie L. and John H. Haydon 1917 History of San Luis Obispo County and Environs. Historic Record Company, Los Angeles, CA, 1917. National Park Service (NPS) 1983 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Electronic document accessed December 6, 2011. Electronic document, http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/Arch_Standards.htm, accessed October 3, 2016. 1990 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. HABS/HAER Standards. Washington DC. Available at https://www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/standards.pdf Nationwide Environmental Title Research LLC 2016 Historic Aerials. Electronic document, http://www.historicaerials.com/, accessed February 12, 2016. Oxnard Courier 1909 “W.F. Wood and Family Going South”. October 15, 1909 Rick C., Torben, R. Vellanoweth, Jon M. Erlandson, and Douglas J. Kennett 2002 On the Antiquity of the Single-Piece Shell Fishhook: AMS Radiocarbon Evidence from the Southern California Coast. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:933–942. Rolle, Andrew 2003 California: A History. Revised and expanded sixth edition. Harlan Davidson, Inc., Wheeling, Illinois. San Luis Tribune 1881 "That Nasty Creek." Oct. 15, 1881, San Luis Tribune, San Luis Obispo. San Luis Obispo, City of 2006 A Brief History. Electronic document, www.ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us/briefhistory.asp accessed May 10, 2006. 2015 Treatment Plant History. Electronic document, http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities- department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment/treatment-plant-history, accessed September 25, 2015. San Luis Obispo County Genealogical Society n.d. Electronic document, http://www.slocgs.org/carpenter/LandGrants.html, accessed October 3, 2016. San Luis Obispo Semi Weekly Breeze 1900a September 28, 1900, p. 8 1900b “Goodbye to the race track”. November 9, 1900, p. 2 San Luis Obispo Tribune 1885 September 4, 1885, p.1 1887 August 19, 1887, p. 3 Shumway, Burgess McK. 2007 California Ranchos. Second Edition. The Borgo Press. CHC 1-128 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 81 Smiley, Francis E. 2007 The Lithomatic: Lithic Artifact Baseline Sort Techno-Morphological Categories, original unpublished lecture. Manuscript on file, Department of Anthropology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. Squibb, Paul 1984 Captain Portola in San Luis Obispo County in 1769. Tabula Rasa Press, Morro Bay, California. Stewart, Susan 1999 “The Dalidios”, SLO Magazine, September 14, 1999, pgs.14-15. Templeton Chamber of Commerce 2015 Templeton History. Electronic document, https://www.templetonchamber.com/content/templeton-history, accessed January 5, 2015. Templeton Historical Museum Society 2014 Early Templeton History. Electronic document, http://www.templetonmuseum.com/history.html, accessed January 5, 2014. The San Francisco Call 1895 “Death of W.W. Stow”, February 12, 1895. Thomas, David Hurst 1970 Archaeology’s Operational Imperative: Great Basin Projectile Points as a Test Case. University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Report 12:27-60, Los Angeles. 1981 How to Classify the Projectile Points from Monitor Valley, Nevada. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 3:7. Tribune 1874a December 5, 1874, p. 3 1874b December 12, 1874, p.3 1882 November 3, 1882 Tribune Weekly 1875 November 13, 1875, p. 1 1887 October 14, 1887, p.1 United States Census Bureau 2002 1930 Census Schedules T626. Electronic document, https://www.census.gov/history/pdf/t626.pdf, accessed October 3, 2016. United States Geological Survey (USGS) 2016 Aerial Photography. Electronic document, http://eros.usgs.gov/aerial- photography, accessed February 12, 2016. Wallace, William 1955 Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230. CHC 1-129 Attachment 3 San Luis Ranch Project Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo 82 1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 25–36. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. Warren, Claude N. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams, pp. 1–14. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology No. 1. Portales. Whittaker, John C. 1994 Flintknapping: Making and understanding stone tools. University of Texas Press, Austin. CHC 1-130 Attachment 3 This page intentionally left blank. CHC 1-131 Attachment 3 Appendix A Native American Consultation CHC 1-132 Attachment 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 1550 Harbor Blvd., ROOM 100 West SACRAMENTO, CA 95691 (916) 373-3710 Fax (916) 373-5471 January 26, 2016 Christopher Duran Rincon Consultants, Inc. 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D San Luis Obispo, CA 94612 Email to: cduran@rinconconsultants.com Re: San Luis Ranch Project Dear Mr. Duran, A record search of the sacred land file has failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The absence of specific site information in the sacred lands file does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Enclosed is a list of Native Americans individuals/organizations who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. The Commission makes no recommendation or preference of a single individual, or group over another. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated, if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe or group. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call to ensure that the project information has been received. If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from any of these individuals or groups, please notify me. With your assistance we are able to assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (916) 373-3712. Sincerely, Joshua Standing Horse Associate Governmental Program Analyst CHC 1-133 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Julie Lynn Tumamait-Stenslie 365 North Poli Ave Ojai, CA 93023 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Chairperson Julie Lynn Tumamait-Stenslie: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-134 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Fred Collins 67 South Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Spokesperson Fred Collins: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-135 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Xielolixii 3901 Q Street, Suite 31B Bakersfield, CA 93301 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Xielolixii: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-136 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Patti Dunton 7070 Morro Road, Suite A Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Tribal Administrator Patti Dunton: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-137 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Fred Segobia 46451 Little Creek Court King City, CA 93930 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Chairperson Fred Segobia: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-138 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Kathleen Pappo 2762 Mesa Drive Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Kathleen Pappo: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-139 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Raudel Joe Banuelos, Jr. 331 Mira Flores Court Camarillo, CA 93012 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Raudel Joe Banuelos, Jr.: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-140 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Karen White PO Box 7045 Spreckels, CA 93962 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Council Chairperson Karen White: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-141 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Chief Mark Steven Vigil 1030 Ritchie Road Grover Beach, CA 93433 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Chief Mark Steven Vigil: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-142 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Mona Olivas Tucker 660 Camino Del Rey Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Chairwoman Mona Olivas Tucker: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-143 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Vincent Armenta PO Box 517 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Chairperson Vincent Armenta: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-144 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Sam Cohen PO Box 517 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Tribal Admin/Counsel Sam Cohen: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-145 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Antonio Flores PO Box 365 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Chairperson Antonio Flores: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-146 Attachment 3 February 8, 2016 Freddie Romero PO Box 365 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 RE: Cultural Resources Study for the San Luis Ranch Project, Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, California Dear Cultural Resources Coordinator Freddie Romero: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) is preparing environmental documentation for the proposed San Luis Ranch Project (project) for the City of San Luis Obispo. The project consists of a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and Development Plan for the 131-acre project site, including annexation of the project site into the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is currently located in unincorporated San Luis Obispo County and is identified by assessor’s parcel number 067-121-022. The project is intended to be consistent with the development parameters described in the City’s Updated Land Use and Circulation Element, adopted in December of 2014. The project includes a mixture of residential, commercial, office, and hotel uses, with 50 percent of the net site acreage preserved for agriculture and open space uses. As part of the process of identifying cultural resources issues for this project, Rincon contacted the Native American Heritage Commission and requested a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search and a list of Native American tribal organizations and individuals who may have knowledge of sensitive cultural resources in or near a nearby project area. Rincon is consulting with you directly regarding your knowledge of the presence of cultural resources that may be impacted by this project. Rincon understands that this letter may be redundant to consultation initiated by the City of San Luis Obispo. If you have knowledge of cultural resources that may exist within or near the project area, please contact me in writing at the above address or abailey@rinconconsultants.com, or by telephone at (805) 547-0900, extension 120. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Ashlee Bailey Archaeologist Enclosure: Project Location Map CHC 1-147 Attachment 3 Sa n L u i s R a n c h E I R Na t i v e A m e r i c a n I n d i v i d u a l s / O r g a n i z a t i o n s f o r S c o p i n g Co n t a c t L i s t R e c e i v e d f r o m t h e N A H C o n J a n u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 1 6   Na t i v e  Am e r i c a n  Co n t a c t  an d  Af f i l i a t i o n   Ma i l i n g  Ad d r e s s   Em a i l  Ad d r e s s   Ph o n e   Le t t e r  Se n t   Fo l l o w ‐Up   Ph o n e  Ca l l   Results   1.   Mi a  Lo p e z ,  Ch a i r p e r s o n   Co a s t a l  Ba n d  of  th e  Ch u m a s h  Na t i o n   No n e ;  se n d  em a i l  an d  ph o n e   cb c n . n a h c . s b @ g m a i l . c o m    Vo i c e :  (8 0 5 )  32 4 ‐01 3 5   Em a i l ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 2 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 6   Le f t  voicemail.  2.   Gi n o  Al t a r m i r a n o   Co a s t a l  Ba n d  of  th e  Ch u m a s h  Na t i o n   No n e ;  se n d  em a i l  an d  ph o n e    cb c n . n a h c . s l o @ g m a i l . c o m   Vo i c e :  (5 1 0 )  86 2 ‐76 1 5   Em a i l ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 2/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 6 Le f t  voicemail.  3.    Is a b e l  Ay a l a   Co a s t a l  Ba n d  of  th e  Ch u m a s h  Na t i o n   No n e ;  se n d  em a i l  an d  ph o n e   cb c n . n a h c . v e n t u r a @ g m a i l . c o m   Vo i c e :  (6 6 1 )  34 0 ‐69 9 7   Em a i l ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 2 / 2 6 / 2 0 1 6 Phone  does  not  accept  incoming  calls. Was  unable  to  leave  a  voicemail.  4.    Ju l i e  Ly n n  Tu m a m a i t ‐St e n s l i e ,  Ch a i r    Ba r b a r e ñ o / V e n t u r e ñ o  Ba n d  of  Mi s s i o n  In d i a n s   Ju l i e  Ly n n  Tu m a m a i t ‐St e n s l i e   36 5  No r t h  Po l i  Av e   Oj a i ,  CA  93 0 2 3   jt u m a m a i t @ h o t m a i l . c o m    Vo i c e :  (8 0 5 )  64 6 ‐62 1 4   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6   3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Due  to  the  proximity  of  the  other  sites  and  nearby  creek, would  like  to  see  an  extended  Phase  I  take  place  with  trenching  of  4 ‐5  feet, with  a  qualified  NAM  and  archaeologist  monitor  present.  If  no  testing, an  archaeologist  should  be  present  for  ground  disturbance     5.    Fr e d  Co l l i n s ,  Sp o k e s p e r s o n   No r t h e r n  Ch u m a s h  Tr i b a l  Co u n c i l   Fr e d  Co l l i n s   67  So u t h  St r e e t   Sa n  Lu i s  Ob i s p o ,  CA  93 4 0 1   fc o l l i n s @ n o r t h e r n c h u m a s h . c o m   Ce l l :  (8 0 5 )  80 1 ‐03 4 7   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Le f t  voicemail.  6.    Xi e l o l i x i i   Sa l i n a n ‐Ch u m a s h  Na t i o n   Xi e l o l i x i i   39 0 1  Q  St r e e t ,  Su i t e  31 B   Ba k e r s f i e l d ,  CA  93 3 0 1   No n e   Ce l l :  (4 0 8 )  96 6 ‐88 0 7   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Le f t  voicemail.  7.    Pa t t i  Du n t o n ,  Tr i b a l  Ad m i n i s t r a t o r   Sa l i n a n  Tr i b e  of  Mo n t e r e y ,  Sa n  Lu i s  Ob i s p o   Pa t t i  Du n t o n    70 7 0  Mo r r o  Ro a d ,  Su i t e  A   At a s c a d e r o ,  CA  93 4 2 2   sa l i n a n t r i b e @ a o l . c o m   Vo i c e :  (8 0 5 )  46 4 ‐26 5 0   Ce l l :  (8 0 5 )  23 5 ‐27 3 0   (8 0 5 )  46 0 ‐92 0 4   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Le f t  voicemail.  8.    Fr e d  Se g o b i a   Sa l i n a n  Tr i b e  of  Mo n t e r e y ,  Sa n  Lu i s  Ob i s p o   Fr e d  Se g o b i a   46 4 5 1  Li t t l e  Cr e e k  Co u r t   Ki n g  Ci t y ,  CA  93 9 3 0   No n e   Vo i c e :  (8 3 1 )  38 5 ‐14 9 0   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Le f t  voicemail.  9.   Ka t h l e e n  Pa p p o    Ba r b a r e ñ o / V e n t u r e ñ o  Ba n d  of  Mi s s i o n  In d i a n s   Ka t h l e e n  Pa p p o   27 6 2  Me s a  Dr i v e   Ra n c h o  Pa l o s  Ve r d e s ,  CA  90 2 7 5   No n e   Vo i c e :  (3 1 0 )  83 1 ‐52 9 5   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 No  voicemail; unable  to  leave  message.  10 .   Ra u d e l  Jo e  Ba n u e l o s ,  Jr .   Ba r b a r e ñ o / V e n t u r e ñ o  Ba n d  of  Mi s s i o n  In d i a n s   Ra u d e l  Jo e  Ba n u e l o s ,  Jr .   33 1  Mi r a  Fl o r e s  Co u r t   Ca m a r i l l o ,  CA  93 0 1 2   No n e   Vo i c e :  (8 0 5 )  98 7 ‐53 1 4   Ce l l :  (8 0 5 )  42 7 ‐00 1 5   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Would  like  to  be  called  after  the  survey  and  notified  of  results.  11 .   Ka r e n  Wh i t e ,  Co u n c i l  Ch a i r p e r s o n   Xo l o n ‐Sa l i n a n  Tr i b e   Ka r e n  Wh i t e   PO  Bo x  70 4 5   Sp r e c k e l s ,  CA  93 9 6 2   bl u k a t 4 1 @ y a h o o . c o m   Vo i c e :  (8 3 1 )  23 8 ‐14 8 8   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Le f t  voicemail.  12 .   Ch i e f  Ma r k  St e v e n  Vi g i l    Sa n  Lu i s  Ob i s p o  Co u n t y  Ch u m a s h  Co u n c i l   Ch i e f  Ma r k  St e v e n  Vi g i l   10 3 0  Ri t c h i e  Ro a d   Gr o v e r  Be a c h ,  CA  93 4 3 3   No n e   Vo i c e :  (8 0 5 )  48 1 ‐24 6 1   Fa x :  (8 0 5 )  47 4 ‐47 2 9   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Le f t  voicemail.  13 .   Mo n a  Ol i v a s  Tu c k e r ,  Ch a i r w o m a n   ya k  ti t y u  ti t y u  – No r t h e r n  Ch u m a s h  Tr i b e   Mo n a  Ol i v a s  Tu c k e r   66 0  Ca m i n o  De l  Re y   Ar r o y o  Gr a n d e ,  CA  93 4 2 0   ol i v a s . m o n a @ g m a i l . c o m   Vo i c e :  (8 0 5 )  48 9 ‐10 5 2   Ce l l :  (8 0 5 )  74 8 ‐21 2 1   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Em a i l  response: “Good  afternoon  Ms. Bailey: Regarding  the  proposed  San  Luis  Ranch  Project:  Have   th e r e  been  any  archaeological  survey, testing  or  reports  for  this  area?  If  so, were  there  any  findings  of   cu l t u r a l  resources. It  is  likely  that  cultural  resources  would  be  found  within  the  project  boundaries.   Thank  you, Mona  Olivas  Tucker, Chairwoman, yak  tityu  tityu  ‐ Northern  Chumash  Tribe   14 .   Vi n c e n t  Ar m e n t a ,  Ch a i r p e r s o n   Sa n t a  Yn e z  Ba n d  of  Mi s s i o n  In d i a n s   Vi n c e n t  Ar m e n t a   PO  Bo x  51 7   Sa n t a  Yn e z ,  CA  93 4 6 0   va r m e n t a @ s a n t a y n e z c h u m a s h . o r g   Vo i c e :  (8 0 5 )  68 8 ‐79 9 7   Fa x :  (8 0 5 )  68 6 ‐95 7 8   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Le f t  message  with  receptionist.   15 .   Sa m  Co h e n ,  Tr i b a l  Ad m i n / C o u n s e l   Sa n t a  Yn e z  Ba n d  of  Mi s s i o n  In d i a n s   Sa m  Co h e n   PO  Bo x  51 7   Sa n t a  Yn e z ,  CA  93 4 6 0   in f o @ s a n t a y n e z c h u m a s h . o r g Vo i c e :  (8 0 5 )  68 8 ‐79 9 7   Fa x :  (8 0 5 )  68 6 ‐95 7 8   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Se e  note  above.  16 .   An t o n i o  Fl o r e s ,  Ch a i r p e r s o n   Sa n t a  Yn e z  Tr i b a l  El d e r s  Co u n c i l   An t o n i o  Fl o r e s   PO  Bo x  36 5   Sa n t a  Yn e z ,  CA  93 4 6 0   el d e r s @ s a n t a y n e z c h u m a s h . o r g     Vo i c e :  (8 0 5 )  68 8 ‐79 9 7   Fa x :  (8 0 5 )  69 3 ‐17 6 8   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6 3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Se e  note  above. CHC 1-148Attachment 3 Sa n L u i s R a n c h E I R Na t i v e A m e r i c a n I n d i v i d u a l s / O r g a n i z a t i o n s f o r S c o p i n g Co n t a c t L i s t R e c e i v e d f r o m t h e N A H C o n J a n u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 1 6   Na t i v e  Am e r i c a n  Co n t a c t  an d  Af f i l i a t i o n   Ma i l i n g  Ad d r e s s   Em a i l  Ad d r e s s   Ph o n e   Le t t e r  Se n t   Fo l l o w ‐Up   Ph o n e  Ca l l   Results   17 .   Fr e d d i e  Ro m e r o ,  Cu l t u r a l  Re s o u r c e s   Co o r d i n a t o r   Sa n t a  Yn e z  Tr i b a l  El d e r s  Co u n c i l   Fr e d d i e  Ro m e r o   PO  Bo x  36 5   Sa n t a  Yn e z ,  CA  93 4 6 0   fr e d d y r o m e r o 1 9 5 9 @ y a h o o . c o m Vo i c e :  (8 0 5 )  68 8 ‐79 9 7  ex t .  37   US P S ,  2/ 8 / 2 0 1 6   3/ 3 / 2 0 1 6 Se e  not  above.    CHC 1-149Attachment 3 Appendix B Records Search Summary CHC 1-150 Attachment 3 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs SL-00052 1977 Cultural Resources Evaluation City of San Luis Obispo Sewage Treatment Project None givenHoover, R.L. SL-00086 1980 Unidentified Trailer Park on Higuera between Creekside Park and Los Verdes Estates, an archaeological Estimate Dills, C. SL-00091 1977 San Luis Mall, Archaeological PotentialDills, C. SL-00095 1978 Archaeological Potential at Elks Lane Bridge Project Dills, C. SL-00135 1976 Archaeological Potential of Fire Station and Swimming Pool Areas, Proposed for San Luis Obispo Dills, C. SL-00138 1975 Information to aid in Interpretive Planning Map for San Luis Obispo (city) and Environs Dills, C. SL-00139 Dutch BarnDills, C.40-000971 SL-00311 1975 Proposed Expansion of SLO Wastewater Treatment Plant and Repair of Arroyo Grande- Grover City-Oceano Wastewater Facility -- Archaeological Impact. Dills, C. SL-00339 1981 Archaeological Element of Environmental Impact Report for the San Luis Obispo Creek Modification Study Gibson, R. SL-00349 1981 Proposed project -- an extension of Los Osos Road, from its intersection with Highway 101 to an existing portion of Los Osos Road. Osland, K. SL-00352 1981 Archaeological Survey Report for the Proposed Los Osos Valley Road Extension Project near San Luis Obispo 05-SLO-101- 25.6/26.0 Osland, K. SL-00437 1981 Archaeological Survey Along Highway 101, From Marsh Road. South to Approximately .5 miles South of Madonna Road. Smith, C. SL-00590 1987 Results of Archaeological Surface Survey for the Los Osos Valley Road Business Park, San Luis Obispo County, CA Gibson, R.40-000783, 40-001195 SL-00719 1986 A Cultural Resources Assessment of Selected Study Areas within the City of San Luis Obispo Brock, J. and Wall, R.40-000064, 40-000124, 40-000914 Page 1 of 5 CCoIC 2/1/2016 9:28:10 AM CHC 1-151 Attachment 3 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs SL-01245 1988 Cultural Resources Survey and Impact Assessment for the Dalidio, Madonna, and McBride Properties near the city of San Luis Obispo, SLO County, CA Singer, C. and Atwood, J.40-000124 SL-01305 1989 Cultural resources survey and impact assessment for the City of San Luis Obispo wastewater plant, San Luis Obispo County, California. Singer, C. and Atwood, J. SL-01643 1988 Draft Hazardous Waste Management Plan, Environmental Impact Report Engineering-Science, Inc.40-000093, 40-000094, 40-000299, 40-000491, 40-000576, 40-000578, 40-000579, 40-000580, 40-000581, 40-000582, 40-000583, 40-000615, 40-000616, 40-000785, 40-001113, 40-001114, 40-001115, 40-001140, 40-001141, 40-001142, 40-001143, 40-001149, 40-001150, 40-001153, 40-001189, 40-001190, 40-001194 SL-01686 1990 Archaeological potential of parcel at Prado Road and Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo. Dills, C. SL-02320 1991 Archeolgical Investigation of APN 053-041- 034 San Luis Obispo, CA Parker, J. SL-02363 1993 Inventory of Cultural Resources for the Water Reclamation Project, City of San Luis Obispo, CA. Gibson, Robert O.40-000030, 40-000044, 40-000064, 40-000124, 40-000400, 40-000785, 40-000891, 40-000914, 40-001262, 40-001406, 40-001419, 40-001427, 40-001449, 40-001493 SL-02386 1991 Caltrans Archaeological Survey Report, Project SLO-101 26.0/26.9Fence Installation Levulett, V. SL-02391 1993 Re: Archaeological Monitoring of Suubsurface Construction at 293 El Portal, Lot 13, Block 7, Tract 57, El Pismo Manor #1 (APN 010-184-002) Anastasio, R.40-000801 SL-02529 1993 It Came From Beneath the Streets: An Archaeological Report on the Expansion of the City of San Luis Obispo Wastewater Treatment System Singer, C., J. Atwood, and J. Frierman 40-001449 SL-02723 1993 Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey of the Froom Ranch Property, Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obisbo County, Ca Gibson, R. Page 2 of 5 CCoIC 2/1/2016 9:28:11 AM CHC 1-152 Attachment 3 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs SL-02917 1994 Coastal Branch, Phase II State Water Project Cultural Resources Survey Reach 3 San Luis Obispo County, Caliornia 94296-0001 Orlins, R, Barter, E, Rivers, B, and Gibson, R 40-001314, 40-001634, 40-001635, 40-001636, 40-001637, 40-001638, 40-001639 SL-03333 1997 Phase 1 Archaeological Survey of the Spice Hunter Property, Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo Conway, Thor SL-03662 1998 Cultural Resource Investigation of the San Simeon Creek Road Storm Damage Repair Project, P12K136 Parker, John SL-03708 1998 Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Building complex APN 67-241-019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P-40-040991) Bertrando, Betsy 40-040991 SL-03711 1999 Historical Resources Inventory and Evaluation for the San Luis Marketplace Annexation: The Dalidio Property, San Luis Obispo, California Besty Bertrando SL-03804 1999 Historical Evaluation for the Existing Structures on the Proposed San Luis Obispo Marketplace Annexation Bertrando, Betsy 40-041000 SL-03899 1999 Cultural Resource Inventory Report, Calf Canyon Prescribed Fire Cuevas, Kimberly SL-03922 1999 Cultural Resource Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. fiber Optic Cable System Installation Project, San Luis Obispo to Los Osos Loop McGowan, Dana 40-000004, 40-001795, 40-001807, 40-002007 SL-03934 1999 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Williams Communications, Inc. Fiber Optic Cable Installation Project, San Luis Obispo to Bakersfield Volume I Avina, Mike 40-000587, 40-001559 SL-04031 2000 Cultural Resources Study, State Route 101 Fence Replacement Department of Transportation/San Luis Obispo Wilson, Kelda SL-04053 2000 Phase-1 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Prado Road/Highway 101 Interchange, San Luis Obispo County, CA Applied Earth Works, IncNettles, Wendy. SL-04110 2000 Results of phase one archaeological surface survey and records search for the McBride parcels, San Luis Obispo Auto Park Plaza Project along Highway 101, City of San Luis Obispo, CA Gibson, R. Page 3 of 5 CCoIC 2/1/2016 9:28:11 AM CHC 1-153 Attachment 3 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs SL-04136 2000 Cultural resources survery and impact assessment for a commercial proprty on South Higuera St. in the city of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo county, California Singer, Clay A. SL-04299 2001 Archaeological Monitoring of the Trash Pile Removal at the Long/Bonetti Ranch, 3897 Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo Parker, J. SL-04378 1997 Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey of the Devaul Ranch Property, Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA Gibson, Robert O.40-002145 SL-04663 2002 Cultural Resources Survey for the Costco / Froom Ranch EIR, San Luis Obispo, CA Conway, Thor SL-04706 2002 Archaeological Background for the Los Osos Valley Road / Highway 101 Interchange PEAR Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey, San Luis Obispo, CA Conway, Thor SL-04818 2002 South Higuera Street, Proposed Peoples Self Help Housing Project Cultural Resource Investigation APN 053-034-002 and 003 Parker, John SL-05043 2002 Project Design Change for Sprint Facility SN45XC088F, "Elks Lodge", San Luis Obispo Martinez, A. SL-05066 2003 Cultural Resources Constraints Analysis for the Templeton-Atascadero Bikeway Project San Luis Obispo County, California Conejo Archaeological Consultants Mary K. Maki 40-001075, 40-001076, 40-001077 SL-05125 2004 Cultural Resources Studies for the City of San Luis Obispo Waste Water Treatment Plant Bypass Silt Removal Project near San Luis Obispo Creek Applied EarthWorks, Inc.Baloian, Randy SL-05332 2004 An Archaeological Surface Survey for the Ocean Park Hotels Project, 1625 Calle Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California Conway, T. SL-05350 2004 Cultural resources survey and impact assessment for a +/- acre property in the City of San Luis Obispo (APN 067-242-012/013) Singer, C. SL-05589 2005 An Archaeological Survey of the Long-Bonetti Ranch Commercial Project, Tank Farm Road, San Luis Obispo County, California Conway, Thor Page 4 of 5 CCoIC 2/1/2016 9:28:11 AM CHC 1-154 Attachment 3 Report List Report No.Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s)ResourcesOther IDs SL-05699 2002 Negative Archaeological Survey Report for the Changeable Message Signs Project Ogden, Allyson and Terry Joslin SL-05729 2005 Archaeological Survey Report for the Bob Jones City to the Sea Bike Trail Segment 3 Project in the City of San Luis Obispo Area, San Luis Obispo County, CA Gibson, R.O. SL-06133 2007 Archaeological Surface Survey for the Prefumo Creek Commons Project, Los Osos Valley Road & Froom Rancy Way, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California Conway, Thor.40-000205, 40-001002, 40-001195, 40-001365, 40-001780 Page 5 of 5 CCoIC 2/1/2016 9:28:11 AM CHC 1-155 Attachment 3 Primary No.Trinomial Resource List Other IDs ReportsTypeAgeAttribute codes Recorded by P-40-000124 CA-SLO-000124 SL-00719, SL- 01245, SL-02363, SL-06877 Site P-40-000400 CA-SLO-000400 SL-02363Site P-40-001406 CA-SLO-001406 SL-02363, SL-06406Site P-40-001449 CA-SLO-001449 SL-02363, SL-02529Site P-40-038206 Other P-40-038212 Other P-40-040189 OHP PRN - 3446-0001-0001; OHP Property Number - 18698 Historic P-40-040991 Other - Froom Ranch390 SL-03708Historic Page 1 of 1 CCoIC 2/1/2016 9:31:58 AM CHC 1-156 Attachment 3 Appendix C Resource Records CHC 1-157 Attachment 3 Confidential information has been removed from this document. CHC 1-158 Attachment 3 8.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR CHC Review Comments On January 23, 2017 the Cultural Heritage Committee conducted a public hearing regarding the Draft EIR for the San Luis Ranch Project. The hearing provided an opportunity for members of the Commission and the public to receive a summary presentation of the project as well as the major findings of the Draft EIR related to cultural and historical resources. In addition to Cultural Heritage Committee staff, there was one speaker during the hearing. Table 8-1 summarizes the topics of comments made by each speaker. The City’s response to each comment follows Table 8-1. Table 8-1 Public Hearing Comment Summary Num. Speaker/Affiliation Topics Presented in Comments January 23, 2017 Cultural Heritage Committee Hearing Cultural Heritage Commissioner Comments 1 Jaime Hill, Cultural Heritage Committee Figure/photodocumentation clarification, cumulative impacts, historic resource relocation plan, historical resources mitigation, eucalyptus trees 2 Craig Kincaid, Cultural Heritage Committee Trees 3 Leah Walthert, Cultural Heritage Committee Historical structures, alternatives 4 Shannon Larrabee, Cultural Heritage Committee Thoroughness of environmental review 5 Thom Brajkovich, Cultural Heritage Committee Historical structures Public Comments 1 Theodora Jones, Private Citizen Eucalyptus trees, historical structures, alternatives January 23, 2017 Cultural Heritage Commissioner Comments 1. Jamie Hill, Cultural Heritage Committee. The commenter states that Figure 10 in the Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation (Appendix G to the Draft EIR) should be clarified to describe which structures would be relocated or removed. The commenter requests that the discussion of cumulative impacts should be expanded to include the Bonetti Ranch, Froom Ranch, and San Luis Ranch complexes. The commenter asks whether there are historical photographs of the eucalyptus trees on the site, and requests that photographs be added to the Draft EIR, if available. The commenter states that the Draft EIR needs more analysis of the historic value of the eucalyptus trees, and their potential significance as a cultural landscape for the San Luis Ranch Complex. The commenter states that the plan to relocate two existing on-site structures is inadequate mitigation for impacts to the San Luis Ranch Complex, and recommends that the main barn be included in Mitigation Measure CR-1(a). The commenter states that there would be better public access to the San Luis Ranch Complex in its current location, rather than the proposed relocation, adding that it is more important that the complex be visible to people in town, not freeway travelers. Figure 10 in the Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation depicts CHC 1-1 Attachment 4 the location and name of the structures in the San Luis Ranch Complex. The structures are described in detail on pages 58 through 67 of the Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation. Proposed changes on the project site, including existing structures that would be relocated or removed, and the resulting impacts to the build environment resources are described on pages 72 through 74 of the Cultural Resources Survey and Evaluation. The Draft EIR cumulative impact analysis is based on City-wide cumulative projections that establish conditions that would exist due to the build-out of the City’s General Plan. Table 3-1 in the Draft EIR shows the potential future development in the Land Use Element Planning Subarea at buildout as envisioned by the Land Use Element (including the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan area) and includes the ‘Madonna Site on Los Osos Valley Road,’ which includes the Froom Ranch Way Complex as a potential development area in the City. The Tank Farm Center project, which includes the Long-Bonetti Farm Complex, began construction in February 2015 and, as such, was not included as a “Planned or Recently Approved Project” in Table 3-1. Nonetheless, this project is included in the City’s General Plan Buildout projection. As such, the analysis of cumulative impacts considers the cumulative effects of the project in combination with other projects and historical resources in the City, and finds that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to historical resources. Historical photographs of the eucalyptus trees on the project site were not identified during the preparation of the Draft EIR or the Cultural Resources Study (Appendix G). Trees on the project site, and their relationship with the project site history and the cultural landscape for the San Luis Ranch Complex, are described in the Cultural Resources Study. The eucalyptus trees on the site are a part of the historic setting and contribute to the significance of the San Luis Ranch Complex. However, the trees were not found to be an individually significant historic resource in the Cultural Resources Study or the Draft EIR. As described in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the potential impact to the San Luis Ranch Complex as a historic district remains significant and unavoidable as a result of the permanent removal and relocation of the structures that comprise the historically significant district. Because the project proposes to construct a new barn in the project’s proposed Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center using salvageable materials from the historically significant main barn, the commenter’s recommendation that the main barn be included in Mitigation Measure CR-1(a) has been addressed with the following revision: CR-1(a) Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan. In order to implement Specific Plan Policy 2.5, a relocation and reconstruction plan for the former spectator’s barn/viewing stand, and main residence, and main barn shall be developed by a qualified historic architect. The plan shall include a structural/architectural report documenting existing integrity and conditions and include detailed treatment methods and measures to ensure that historic integrity is retained and that all identified character defining features will be preserved. The commenter’s preference that the San Luis Ranch Complex structures be retained in their current location will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and CHC 1-2 Attachment 4 consideration. The potential impacts to these historic resources is described in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, and Alternative 3, which would retain these resources in their current location, is evaluated in Section 6.0, Alternatives. 2. Craig Kincaid, Cultural Heritage Committee. The commenter states that the Draft EIR evaluation is a thorough first step, and that the CHC will provide additional comments on the project when the time comes. The commenter asks whether the project will be considered by the City’s Tree Committee. The project is not required to be reviewed by the City’s Tree Committee since removals associated with development projects are reviewed through the City review process along with the overall consideration of the Specific Plan. The Draft EIR requires in-kind replacement of riparian trees four inches or greater measured at diameter-at- breast-height (DBH) at a ratio of 10:1 (replaced: removed), and in-kind replacement of riparian trees 24 inches or greater measured at diameter-at-breast-height (DBH) at a ratio of 10:1. The Draft EIR also includes mitigation for sensitive species that use on-site trees for roosting or nesting habitat, including great blue heron, monarch butterfly, bats, and nesting birds. 3. Leah Walthert, Cultural Heritage Committee. The commenter recommends that the existing San Luis Ranch Complex be retained in its current state, and states that its original location better indicates the agricultural heritage of the complex. The commenter states that they support Alternative 3. The commenter’s recommendation will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration. Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, describes the potential historical resource impact from the proposed relocation and removal of the existing San Luis Ranch Complex structures. Project alternatives, and their relative impacts on cultural and historic resources, are discussed in Section 6.0, Alternatives. 4. Shannon Larrabee, Cultural Heritage Committee. The commenter states that the Draft EIR evaluation is a thorough first step, and that the CHC will provide additional comments on the project when the time comes. The commenter’s support of the Draft EIR evaluation and statement regarding providing additional comments will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration. 5. Thom Brajkovich, Cultural Heritage Committee. The commenter states that they support the proposal to retain some of the existing structures associated with the San Luis Ranch Complex and the relocation of these structures to the proposed new location. The commenter states that they do not identify any large flaws with the Draft EIR, and recommends that the adaptive reuse of materials from existing structures be done carefully. The commenter’s support for the proposed relocation of structures within the San Luis Ranch Complex and support for the conclusions of the Draft EIR will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration. As described in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, the specific requirements of the proposed relocation, reuse, and reconstruction associated with the San Luis Ranch Complex and the proposed Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center, will be described in a Historical Structure Relocation and Reconstruction Plan, consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measure CR-1(a). January 23, 2017 Cultural Heritage Committee Hearing, Public Comments CHC 1-3 Attachment 4 1. Theodora Jones, Private Citizen. The commenter states that the eucalyptus trees on the site are part of the historic agricultural landscape, and that they must be preserved. The commenter states that the proposed Agriculture Heritage Facilities & Learning Center is more of a market than a learning center, and recommends that historical buildings be retained in their current locations to preserve history. The commenter states that Alternative 3 is the most realistic. Refer to the response to Comment 1 under the Cultural Heritage Commissioner Comments, which addresses concerns related to the relationship of the eucalyptus trees on the project site to the cultural landscape. Section 4.2, Agricultural Resources, and Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, analyze and discuss the significance of the San Luis Ranch Complex, and the development of an Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center as part of the project. Section 4.9, Land Use/Policy Consistency, discusses relevant General Plan and Specific Plan policies pertaining to the preservation of agricultural heritage on the project site. The development of the Agricultural Heritage and Learning Center is potentially consistent with policies pertaining to cultural heritage, conservation and open space, and land use. Mitigation Measure CR-1(c) requires that the Agriculture Heritage Facilities & Learning Center include interpretive signage detailing the history of the San Luis Ranch Complex and the project site, its significance, and its important details and features, including images and details from the HABS documentation described in Mitigation Measure CR-1(b) and any collected research pertaining to the historic property. Also, refer to Master Response 1 for discussion the adequacy of project alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR. The commenter’s recommendation will be forwarded to the appropriate decision-makers for review and consideration. CHC 1-4 Attachment 4 SAN LUIS RANCH | SPECIFIC PLAN | City of San Luis Obispo, CA | April 2017 Public Hearing Draft 3-49 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & DESIGN GUIDELINES Agricultural Heritage & Learning Center CHC 1-163 Attachment 5 3-50 SAN LUIS RANCH | SPECIFIC PLAN | City of San Luis Obispo, CA | April 2017 Public Hearing Draft The Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center includes a learning center, market/farm stand, agricultural processing center, food services, and agricultural accessory structures. This community and visitor serving cultural destination will provide a venue for locally grown and produced products, educational and hands-on learning opportunities, and seasonal community gathering spaces. With a major portion of the site remaining in agricultural production, agricultural operations will be supported by an appropriately scaled agricultural processing center and a limited amount of accessory structures. Historic structures identified on-site will be integrated into the site plan design as part of the Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center operations. Any historic structures that cannot be integrated into the site design shall be subject to a Historical Structure Relocation Plan, as specified in Mitigation Meaure CR-1. Archival documentation of the historic structures on-site and informational displays of historic resources will also be completed and included in the site plan when appropriate. 3.9.1. Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center Development Standards Table 3-14 includes development standards to guide development of the Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center. Plan view illustrative of Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center Site Birdseye view of Agricultural Heritage Facility 3.9 Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center Overview Table 3-14 Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center Standards Development Standards LAND USE Zone AG Allowable Uses See Table 3-13 DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Learning Center 3,000 sf maximum Market/Farm Stand 3,000 sf maximum Ag Processing Center 10,000 sf maximum Food Services 5,000 sf maximum Ag Accessory Structures 10,000 sf maximum with no structure greater than 1,500 sf BUILDING HEIGHT Building Height 35’ maximum; Historical structures may exceed height limit up to 45’ maximum. SETBACKS Street Front 20’ minimum Side Interior Lot 20’ minimum Street Side Corner Lot 20’ minimum Rear 20’ minimum OTHER Automobile Parking 1 space per 500 sf Bicycle Parking See SLOMC Section 17.16.060 Landscaping Landscape plantings shall be comprised of native, drought tolerant, and/or edible plant varietals. Lighting All lighting shall be downward focused except for ambient string-style patio lights. Signs See Table 3.15 Fences/Walls/Hedges See SLOMC Section 17.16.050 CHC 1-164 Attachment 5 SAN LUIS RANCH | SPECIFIC PLAN | City of San Luis Obispo, CA | April 2017 Public Hearing Draft 3-51 Site Planning and Design A. Site design should consider the highly visible character of this site and place loading/delivery/back of house uses in various inconspicuous locations. B. Buildings should be aesthetically pleasing from all angles, especially for buildings that have high visibility from Highway 101. C. Site design should incorporate pedestrian walkways, outdoor seating, and landscape areas. D. Outdoor spaces should reflect careful planning and provide plaza spaces with defined edges, benches, and lighting that establish a sense of place. E. Building forms, materials, and finishes should reflect the agrarian heritage of the site. F. Murals, trellises, or vines should be placed on large expanses of walls at the rear or sides of buildings to soften the appearance and create visual interest. G. A series of pedestrian promenades and plazas should link the various structures placed on-site for the Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center. H. A variety of outdoor seating areas should be incorporated to encourage formal and informal on-site dining. I. Site amenities, including benches, drinking fountains, provisions for bicyclists, water features, and public art, should be utilized and should complement the project’s architectural character. J. Flexible spacing for use by food trucks, formal and informal events, live music, and other agricultural related activities should be incorporated adjacent to the planned Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center. K. Lighting should be designed to provide ambiance, safety, and security without unnecessary spillover or glare onto adjacent properties. L. Building light fixtures, such as barn style or gooseneck, should be designed or selected to be architecturally compatible with the main structures, which should complement the agrarian theme of the site. M. Signs should be in scale with and in proportion to the primary building facade so that the signs do not dominate the appearance. N. Building materials should consist of materials commonly associated with the architectural style of the building. Highly reflective or tinted glass, imitation stone or brick, corrugated fiberglass, plastic roof tiles, and undecorated concrete block should be avoided. Building materials such as barn wood were consistent with character of this building Site design of highly visible areas should reflect mountain viewsheds Pedestrian promenades link various uses Site amenities such as a public gardens complement the project’s character 3.9.2. Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center Design Guidelines The following design guidelines apply to the Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center within San Luis Ranch. CHC 1-165 Attachment 5 3-52 SAN LUIS RANCH | SPECIFIC PLAN | City of San Luis Obispo, CA | April 2017 Public Hearing Draft O. Exterior colors should be consistent with the architectural style of the building. Color schemes that involve a minimum of three (3) colors should be utilized. P. Different colors accentuating different aspects and details of the building architecture should be utilized. Except for accenting different aspects and details of a building, bright colors should be avoided. Q. Landscaping should be comprised of edible, production, drought- tolerant, or native plant and tree varietals. R. Trees and shrubs should be located and spaced to allow for mature and long-term growth. S. Trees should be selected based on performance basis with the objective of producing fruit, minimizing water use, providing shade, minimizing hazardous litter, minimizing root intrusion, and providing color and contrast. T. Vines and potted plants should be incorporated to provide wall, column, and post texture and color, as well as for accentuating entryways, courtyards, and sidewalks. U. Plantings should be used to screen or separate less desirable areas from public view, such as trash enclosures, parking areas, storage areas, loading areas, and public utilities. The color red was selected to be reminiscent of its barn-like inspiration Trees were selected that produce fruit and minimize water use CHC 1-166 Attachment 5 SAN LUIS RANCH | SPECIFIC PLAN | City of San Luis Obispo, CA | April 2017 Public Hearing Draft 4-7 Benefits of the Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center Convenient location: The agricultural land will be contiguous with the adjacent San Luis Obispo City Farm and will serve as a buffer between housing and the freeway. The Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center will be visible from Highway 101 and add to the City’s southern gateway. Close to home: The Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center will be integrated within San Luis Ranch neighborhood and the greater San Luis Obispo community. Neighborhood residents will have convenient access through the various bike paths and pedestrian trails. Visitors to the Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center from outside the neighborhood can access the facility via the Bob Jones Bike Path, transit, or car. Experience for children and adults: Children and adults will enjoy the Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center. There will be various learning opportunities and activities, such as shopping for local produce, visiting farm animals, getting involved in communal farming, and attending special events. See where food is grown: At the Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center, all produce is grown locally on the Central Coast. Amenities Learning Center: The Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center hopes to provide information, activities, and tours about local produce, farm animals, building a compost pile, and food labeling. More intensive programs may include activities or workshops on nutrition, cooking, and sustainable agriculture. Programs will be suitable for adults, families, children, and groups. Market/Farm Stand: There will be a market/farm stand to sell products sourced from local farms. Whenever possible, the market will carry products that are organic, pesticide free, and/or preservative free. The market will sell seasonal fruits and vegetables including cherries, peaches, tomatoes, onions, squash, green beans, and much more. The market may also carry local wine and beer, gourmet cheeses, nuts, and locally produced food and beverage. Community Garden: The community garden can be a public space intended for communal farming. This garden can promote local food production, as well as maintain the historical agricultural tradition. The community garden hopes to encourage community interaction and access to healthy foods. Hay Rides: Hay rides may be offered to allow visitors of San Luis Ranch to hop on board and head out into the fields to get a tour and pick fresh fruits such as peaches and apples. Hayrides are a perfect family activity and promote local agriculture and healthy eating. Agricultural Processing Center: The Agricultural Heritage Facilities and Learning Center may include an agricultural processing center to support the production of local produce. Farm Animals: There may be various farm animals at the facility, such as goats, chickens, and sheep. Children may be able to pet and feed the animals. Food Services: May include a restaurant or café that offers delicious home-grown and fresh-picked produce. All offerings will be Central Coast inspired and grown and will be handcrafted using the freshest, all-natural ingredients. 4.2.2 Agricultural Heritage Facility and Learning Center CHC 1-167 Attachment 5 0 30 60 120 SCALE: 1:60 (On 11x17 sheet)ILLUSTRATIVE AGRICULTURE HERITAGE CENTERSAN LUIS RANCH MAY 3, 2017 #1014024 APPROX. 45 SPACES HISTORIC HOUSE OUTDOOR SEATING VIEWING BARN BUS STOP BUS STOP DG DG ALL PURPOSE BARN WHITE BARN FARMSTAND CHC 1-168 Attachment 5