HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/27/2020 Item 2, Schott
From:Lisa Schott <schottappraisal@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July
To:Advisory Bodies
Subject:Public Comment Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting 7-27-2020
Attachments:Public Comment 7.27.20 Historic Resource Assessment.pdf
Please include the attached comments in the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting today. Please let me know
you have received this email.
Thank you,
Lisa
--
Lisa S. Leverett (Schott)
Phone: (805) 964-0997
1
To: advisorybodies@slocity.org San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee and Emily Creel,
Contract Planner
Re: Item #2: July 27, 2020, Review of 12165 and 12393 Los Osos Valley Road
From: Lisa Schott, Los Verdes Park 1, San Luis Obispo; Kathy Borland, Preserve the SLO Life
Date: July 27, 2020
Hello,
Upon reading the Cultural Heritage Report document, we are concerned about the confusing
language, problems/inconsistencies, and obvious loop-holes within the document. We agree that
significant historical resources should be preserved, and applaud the efforts of the developer to
incorporate them into a public park setting with a trailhead to the Irish Hills. When complete this
park and with its historic buildings will be a great asset to the community and likely very popular
for hikers and other types of recreation.
Some issues we noticed in the Cultural Heritage Committee report are as follows:
Packet Page 11:
"…unlike Alternative 1, this area of the Specific Plan has been revised in the current draft to
also allow some multi‐family (R‐3) development above the 150‐foot elevation adjacent
to the park." Our understanding of the Froom Ranch project was that development would not be
above the 150-foot elevation. If Alternative 1 will be implemented, then this statement makes the
analysis of the document very confusing. Then again on Packet Page 15, the report refences:
“Development above the 150‐foot elevation would be limited to the quarry area on the Madonna
Froom Ranch portion of the project and would avoid substantial effects on environmental resources in
the Upper Terrace.”
Will there be development above the 150-foot elevation?
Re: Packet Page 11:
"Creamery/House – the proposed treatment of this historic building is more interpretive,
rather than a full reconstruction. The main goal is to preserve the overall building
form and rooflines. The western portion of the building would be rebuilt to provide public
restrooms within a custom footprint with the same dimensions as the existing building. The
eastern portion of the building would be reimagined to capture the silhouette of the
existing building but be more open.”
We added bold font for emphasis. Regarding the Creamery/House: How is "interpretive" and
"reimagined" preserving the heritage of a building? The language of this item sounds as if the
building will not resemble the original footprint or characteristics. Additionally, as shown in
Figure 4 the drawing does not show the proposed building with its proposed use as "storage and
mini corporation yard." With the proposed open beam construction, the storage of items and or
vehicles will be unsightly and unprotected from the elements or from the view of park users. At a
minimum, the drawing in Figure 4 should represent the building with the proposed use and
storage of vehicles, so that a realistic view of the structure with its proposed use can be seen and
evaluated. Secondly, per the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 3.3.4, the building should be
maintained in its most original form (not an open beamed structure) to retain character‐
defining features.
Regarding: 7.0 The final EIR findings: With the proposed Alternative 1 development, significant
historic losses will occur. The language in these paragraphs seems to state on one hand,
Alternative 1 is the best option for the developer, and on the other hand, not good for the
preservation of historical resources. See Packet Pages 13 and 14: “Alternative 1,
proposed relocation of historic structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex would adversely
affect significant historic resources, including through the significant and unavoidable loss of three
structures contributing to the historic district (a Class I impact).”
How will these significant historic losses be mitigated?
Confusing and vague language: Packet Page 14: "Mitigation measures would continue
to be implemented to minimize potential impacts of development and operation on archaeological
and prehistoric resources, as well as historic resources." This is a vague statement with no real
value because it lacks specifics of what mitigation measures would be continued.
Packet Page 16:
“Policy 3.3.4. Changes to Historic Buildings. Changes or additions to historically or architecturally
significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure; …that relocation and
reconstruction of the Main Residence, Dairy (Round‐Nose) Barn, Creamery/House, and Granary would
retain character‐ defining features…” As proposed, the drawing in Figure 4 does not retain the
character defining features of the Creamery/House with the open beam addition on the east end
of the building. How can this be corrected?
Conclusion: This report appears to intentionally confuse the issues and minimally preserve the
historic resources. If approved as written, these improvements will attract large numbers of
people from the public who will wish to visit the site, hike in the Irish Hills, and/or use the
playground (Figure 3, Number 6). With these additional users, there will be greater impact on the
congestion at the exit/entrance at Froom Ranch and LOVR. Additionally, there will be extreme
risk of life in the event of a fire due to the danger of being located very near, or in a high-fire-
danger area and because the developer has not secured a vehicle exit/entrance agreement through
the adjacent Home Depot development. The vehicle exit/entrance through the Home Depot
development should be a condition prior to development of Froom Ranch. Additionally, a third
vehicle exit/entrance via Calle Joaquin, would help to mitigate the traffic congestion on LOVR
and provide an alternative exit route in the case of fire and help to protect to the many people
who would be working, visiting, and living in the Froom Ranch Development.
Sincerely,
Lisa Schott
Los Verdes Park 1 President
&
Kathy Borland
Preserve the SLO Life