Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Appendix F-Historic and Cultural Resources Studies
APPENDIX F Historic and Cultural Resources Studies F.1 – Froom Ranch/El Villaggio Specific Plan Section 106 Prehistoric Report (CONFIDENTIAL) F.2 – Analysis of Historic Structures at Froom Ranch F.3 – Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review F.4 – Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment F.5 – Froom Ranch Specific Plan Cultural Resources Assessment (CONFIDENTIAL) F.6 – Froom Ranch Retention Basin and Land Exchange Areas Supplemental Phase I Cultural Resources Report (CONFIDENTIAL) F.7 – Froom Ranch Limited Phase II Cultural Resources Assessment (CONFIDENTIAL) F.8 – Linear Rock Features Historical Resource Evaluation F.9 – Assembly Bill 52 Native American Consultation Letters F.10 – Senate Bill 18 Native American Consultation Letters Froom Ranch Specific Plan Project Draft EIR This Page Intentionally Left Blank. APPENDIX F.1 Froom Ranch/El Villaggio Specific Plan Section 106 Prehistoric Report CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This technical report contains sensitive information regarding archaeological resources and is maintained on file at the office of the City of San Luis Obispo. This Page Intentionally Left Blank. CONFIDENTIAL This Technical Report contains sensitive information and is deemed confidential. The contents of this report have been excluded from public review of this EIR. Physical copies of this report are available and can be reviewed at the City. APPENDIX F.2 Analysis of Historic Structures at Froom Ranch This Page Intentionally Left Blank. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES AT FROOM RANCH 12165 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA STORK, WOLFE & ASSOCIATES 599 HIGUERA STREET, SUITE H SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 (805) 548-8600 June 30, 2017 INDEX Introduction & Methodology 1 – 2 Main Residence 2 – 4 Dairy Barn 5 – 7 Old Barn 8 – 10 Creamery House 10 List of Figures Figure 1 – Main House 13 Figure 2 – Main House roof joists w/ mid-span bracing 13 Figure 3 – Unbraced wood cripple wall with redwood sill 14 Figure 4 – Dairy (Round-Nosed) Barn 14 Figure 5 – Dairy Barn roof framing 15 Figure 6 – Dairy Barn exterior wall framing 15 Figure 7 – Western entrance to the Dairy Barn 16 Figure 8 – Bracing at interior line of wood posts 17 Figure 9 – Interior Dairy Barn posts bearing on soil 18 Figure 10 – Old Barn 19 Figure 11 – Old Barn roof framing 19 Figure 12 – Old Barn exterior wall framing 20 Figure 13 – Full-height plywood shear walls 20 Figure 14 – Creamery House 21 Figure 15 – Deterioration of Creamery House 21 Figure 16 – Deterioration of Creamery House 22 Figure 17 – Creamery House foundation 22 Figure 18 – Deterioration of Creamery House 23 Dairy (Round-Nosed Barn) Schematic Structural Drawings S2.1 – Foundation Plan S2.2 – Roof Framing Plan S3.1 – Structural Elevation ‘A’ S3.2 – Structural Elevation ‘B’ S3.3 – Structural Elevation ‘C’ S3.4 – Structural Section ‘D’ S3.5 – Structural Section ‘E’ Structural Calculations A1 – C9 ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 1 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY John and Susan Madonna wish to study the feasibility of preserving and/or renovating several existing structures of historic significance at the Froom Ranch property in San Luis Obispo. The structures included in this analysis are the Main Residence, the Dairy Barn, the Old Barn, and the Creamery House. All structures consist of wood-framed walls and roofs, wood siding, and either a wood or concrete foundation. Construction of these buildings took place between the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. As part of the preservation, it is necessary to assess both the gravity and lateral load resisting systems of the buildings in order to ensure life-safety of the occupants. For existing structures of historic significance, the structural analysis is to be per the 2016 California Historic Building Code (CHBC). In order to balance structural safety with historic preservation, this code allows for a 25% reduction in current building code design wind & seismic load levels. In addition, it also provides strength capacities for structural systems that would typically not be allowed for new structures. Where design gravity loads are not being increased, the CHBC also allows that the vertical load resisting system may be assumed adequate by having withstood the test of time, where no distress is evident, and a complete load path is present. Guidelines for determining the feasibility of historic preservation is given in the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, December 7, 2010. Feasibility is defined by this document as the ability of a building or other structure to “be repaired or rehabilitated so as to be safe and usable without significant loss of historic fabric,” and that the structure has the “physical capacity…to withstand the repair and/or rehabilitation process without the danger of further damage.” Both the structural integrity and the feasibility of rehabilitation have been addressed in this report for the structures noted above. The study considers multiple building-use scenarios, including continued commercial use as well as the conversion to public space. For continued commercial use, the building code does not require any structural upgrades to be done. However, we have included in our recommendation the items that pose a significant risk to the structure, or to the life-safety of the occupants. Where the conversion to public space is considered, we have included all structural deficiencies, as well as potential increases to design live loads, and long-term performance improvements. Our scope of work for this project involved the following tasks: ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 2 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO 1. Review of the Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan Section 106 Prehistoric Report dated February 20, 2015. 2. Review of the Seismic Analysis Map provided by Geosolutions. The map shows the local fault zone, in which it is recommended that no structure with an occupancy of 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year may be within this zone. 3. Visually survey each building to verify the original construction, past alteration, and the current conditions. 4. Perform a structural analysis of each building for CHBC-level gravity, seismic and wind loads. 5. Prepare a report that includes an outline of the major structural deficiencies, as well as a general description of the proposed structural retrofit work. MAIN RESIDENCE The Main Residence [Figure 1] was constructed in 1915, and has been occupied continuously for use as both a residence and an office building. The approximately 1,600 SF one-story wood-framed structure appears to be in good condition, and has undergone several renovations and repairs throughout its history. The majority of the structural framing is original, however concrete foundations have been added at certain locations around the perimeter where excessive settlement has occurred. The lateral load-resisting system consists of wood siding over straight-sheathed exterior wood stud shear walls. Roof Framing The roof framing consists of consists of composite shingles over the original wood shakes over 1x6 skip sheathing supported by 2x4 roof joists at 30” spacing. The roof joists are braced mid-span with kickers down to interior stud walls below [Figure 2]. Although the existing roof framing appears to be in good condition, there is no recognized diaphragm system needed to resist lateral loads. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the roof framing system. It is recommended, however that the next time the roof is replaced, the original wood shakes be removed, and a layer of plywood added over the existing 1x skip sheathing. The layer of plywood, if detailed and nailed properly, will act as a structural diaphragm. Additional wood blocking and metal framing clips will also be required to tie the roof diaphragm to the exterior walls below. It should also be noted that if a new roofing material is selected that is ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 3 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO heavier than the existing roofing material, strengthen of the roof rafters will be required. For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, the existing roofing shall be removed and the plywood, blocking and framing clips added as described above. Exterior Walls The exterior walls are constructed of horizontal 2”x4” wood studs at 24” spacing. The exterior is sheathed with 1x shiplap siding over 1x straight sheathing, which provides lateral stiffness for the structure in resisting wind and seismic loads. The wall framing and siding appear to be in good condition. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the existing exterior walls. Although the walls are overstressed for CHBC-level design loads, one-story wood framed structures typically perform well in earthquakes, and no strengthening is recommended. For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, it is recommended that plywood shear walls be added. Plywood, when detailed and nailed properly provides significantly greater lateral strength and stiffness for wood shear walls than the existing 1x straight sheathing. For existing structures, the interior drywall in specific locations can be removed, plywood installed directly over the existing studs, and then the drywall reinstalled. Holdowns anchoring the shear wall boundaries to the foundation are also typically required. First Floor The first floor is constructed of wood flooring over 1x6 diagonal sheathing over 2”x5-1/2” wood floor joists spaced at 24”. The wood floor joists span across unbraced wood cripple walls below spaced at approximately 7’-6” [Figure 3]. The 2x redwood sill of the cripple wall bears directly on grade. Releveling of the first floor has been performed several times throughout the life of the structure. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the existing floor structure. The existing floor joists are adequate to resist code- level office live loads. It should be noted, however, that if future unevenness in ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 4 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO the floor surface is encountered, it could be an indication of excessive settlement in the foundation. See the foundation section below for potential strengthening recommendation. For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, strengthening of the floor joists may be required. The existing floor joists do not have the capacity to resist code-level design live loads when considering areas of assemblies. If space is to be made within the structure for meeting or conference areas, the floor joists below that area are required to be doubled up. Foundation The foundation consists of interior and exterior 2x wood stud cripple walls bearing on an existing wood sill placed directly on grade [Figure 3]. Where past excessive settlement has occurred, an undocumented concrete foundation was poured below the sill to provide a greater bearing surface and better long-term durability. The exterior cripple walls are lightly braced with occasional 1x diagonal boards, while the interior cripple walls are completely unbraced. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, as a minimum both the exterior and interior cripple wall systems should be strengthened. This can be done with either a system of properly detailed diagonal boards or a pattern of plywood sheathing. Where concrete foundations have been added in previous repairs, it should be verified that the wood sills are properly anchored to the concrete. Because the existing structure bears directly on top of the soil and proper concrete foundation embedded into the soil are not present, sliding of the structure during a large earthquake could occur. Although life-safety does not appear to be a significant risk assuming the cripple wall bracing is installed, non-structural damage to interior furnishings and equipment is likely. In addition, attention should be given if future unevenness in the floor surface is encountered. This could be an indication of excessive settlement in the foundation. For better long-term structural performance, see “For Use as Public Space” below. For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, a proper concrete foundation should be installed. To install the concrete foundation, the structure is jacked up, continuous trenches are dug below the exterior and interior cripple walls, and concrete footings are poured. The structure is then lowered and bolted to the concrete. In addition to the footings, all cripple walls require bracing as described above. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 5 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO DAIRY BARN The Dairy Barn [Figure 4] is an approximately 4,200 SF wood-framed farming facility built in 1913 to house livestock and hay. Weather and neglect has severely deteriorated many of the barn’s key structural elements over the course of its history. In addition, a significant portion of the barn is located within the rupture zone setback of a potentially active trace fault. These items are discussed below and shall be addressed in the renovation along with the strengthening of the lateral load-resisting system. Local Seismic Hazard Mitigation Because the Dairy Barn is situated within the rupture zone setback of a potentially active trace fault, there is a high risk of significant damage to the structure due to ground rupture. If the barn is to be used in any way other than being fenced off and left in a state of arrested decay, significant alterations to the building footprint are required. Required Remediation: If left in its current location, it is recommended that the round-nosed portion of the barn be removed, in addition to the next three adjacent bays of framing, essentially cutting the structure in half. Also requiring demolition due to its proximity to the fault line is the northern masonry addition to the barn. Because the round-nosed portion of the building is unique and has historical significance, a portion of the demolished materials may be salvaged to rebuild the round- nosed portion at the eastern end of the structure. It is estimated that approximately 75% of the roof framing and 50% of the floor framing will be good for re-use. Nearly all the exterior siding is in such a state of decay that it will have no structural value. This remediation is required to ensure the safety of the occupants during a large seismic event. The rebuilt round-nosed portion will require a modern concrete foundation system to prevent they type of settling and deterioration that is currently present. Relocation Option: Another option for the Dairy Barn is to demolish and rebuild the structure at another location. In order to preserve the historic aspect of the barn, the framing system should remain the same as the existing framing system, but with consideration of the strengthening requirements outlined in the sections below. It is also possible to re-use a portion of the lumber as noted above. Please refer to the schematic structural drawings provided for reference at the end of this document. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 6 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Roof Framing The existing roof framing [Figure 5] consists of wood shingles over 1x6 skip sheathing supported by 2”x6” roof joists at 30” spacing. A collar tie system consisting of tension rods at 10’-0” spacing thru the double top plate at the two interior post lines is present to resist the horizontal thrust. The majority of the roof framing has the capacity to resist code-level dead and live loads. The existing skip sheathing provides minimal lateral stiffness lateral stiffness, and will not act as a proper roof diaphragm. Required Strengthening: Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.) – Because the existing wood shingles are in a serious state of deterioration, much of the roof framing is exposed to weather. It is recommended that the existing roofing be removed and all framing be inspected for damage. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the roof framing will need replacing. It is possible that lumber salvaged from the seismic remediation described above may be reused for this purpose. Additionally, a layer of plywood will be required over the skip sheathing in order to create a roof diaphragm. The entire roof shall be re-roofed with a light weight standing seam or corrugated metal roof with better long-term performance. Occupancy greater than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (public use, meeting space, etc.) – Same as above. Exterior Walls The exterior walls [Figure 6] are typically constructed with 1x12 vertical siding spanning from the double top plate to the wood sill, with an intermediate horizontal 2”x4” girt mid span. The double top plate and girt span horizontally to 4”x4” wood posts at 10’-0” spacing around the perimeter. Required Strengthening: Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.) – The exterior vertical siding is required to be in good condition to allow for adequate nailing. Proper nailing is essential for shear wall performance. Because of years of neglect, it is estimated that up to 75% of the wood siding will need to be removed and replaced for the wood shear wall system. It is also estimated that approximately 10% of the wall framing will require replacement due to weather intrusion at the damaged siding. The entire exterior will require re-painting to help preserve the condition of the wood. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 7 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Occupancy greater than 2,000 man hours per year (public use, meeting space, etc.) – Same as above. Wall Bracing At the main western entrance to the Dairy Barn, not enough wall length existing to provide adequate lateral stiffness [Figure 7]. At this location, as well as at the two interior lines of posts [Figure 8], diagonal wood wall bracing will be required. All connections will be designed to be bolted and hidden. The bottom ends of the bracing will be required to be anchored to the existing foundation Required Strengthening: Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.) – Install new 4x4 wall braces at the western wall and at the two interior lines of posts. Strengthen all brace connections and splices with steel plates and bolts. Anchor braced connections to new concrete pad foundation. Occupancy greater than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (public use, meeting space, etc.) – Same as above. Foundations The majority of the perimeter foundation consists of a 24” high concrete stem or retaining wall [Figure 6] with an undetermined footing depth. The concrete foundation appears to be in good condition for the age of the structure. The majority of the foundation damage has occurred at the eastern downhill portion of the structure at the round-nosed area of the barn. The foundation system at the interior post line appears to be a redwood sill bearing directly on the soil, or else the wood posts are embedded directly into the soil [Figure 9]. The posts appear to have settled over time approximately 2”. Required Strengthening: Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.) – Provide a modern concrete foundation system to support the re-built round- nosed portion of the structure. This is included in the Seismic Remediation section above. Additionally, concrete pad footings will be required below the posts. These pad footings have been included in the Wall Bracing section above. Occupancy greater than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (public use, meeting space, etc.) – Same as above. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 8 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO OLD BARN The old barn [Figure 10] is an approximately 1,300 SF wood structure with a corrugated metal roof, vertical wood siding, and a concrete slab-on-grade foundation. It is estimated that the barn is 125 year old, and has been moved from its original site. The barn appears to be in very good shape for its age due to the fact that it remains in use. However, its constant use has led to a number of undocumented alterations that have inadvertently compromised the historic fabric of the Old Barn significantly. Roof Framing The existing roof framing [Figure 11] consists of corrugated metal roofing over existing wood shingles, over 1x6 skip sheathing, supported by 2”x4” roof joists at 32” spacing. A collar tie system consisting of 2x4 struts near the ridge is present to resist the horizontal thrust. This appears to have been added at a later date, most likely to combat a sagging ridge. The majority of the roof framing has the capacity to resist code-level dead and live loads. The existing skip sheathing provides minimal lateral stiffness lateral stiffness, and will not act as a proper roof diaphragm. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the roof framing system. It is recommended, however that the next time the roof is replaced, the original wood shakes be removed, and a layer of plywood added over the existing 1x skip sheathing. The layer of plywood, if detailed and nailed properly, will act as a structural diaphragm. Additional wood blocking and metal framing clips will also be required to tie the roof diaphragm to the exterior walls below. It should also be noted that if a new roofing material is selected that is heavier than the existing roofing material, strengthen of the roof rafters may be required. For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, the existing roofing shall be removed and the plywood, blocking and framing clips added as described above. Exterior Walls ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 9 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO At some point in the history of the barn, the exterior walls were reframed with a more modern system of 2x4 vertical studs spaced at 16” o.c. [Figure 12]. This system likely replaced a post-and-beam system with horizontal wall girts, similar to the Dairy Barn described above. Blocking between the vertical studs is used to support the 1x12 vertical siding. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the existing exterior walls. However, because of the three large door openings at the north elevation of the structure, a wood bracing system is recommended along this line. For Use as Public Space – Same as above. Additionally, the exterior vertical siding is required to be in good condition to allow for adequate nailing. Proper nailing is essential for shear wall performance. It is estimated that up to 50% of the wood siding will need to be removed and replaced for the wood shear wall system. It is also estimated that approximately 5% of the wall framing will require replacement due to weather intrusion at the damaged siding. The entire exterior will require re-painting to help preserve the condition of the wood Wall Bracing At each of the two interior lines of posts, a shear wall has been added [Figure 13]. It is unclear as to when and why the shear walls were added, however they do provide a significant amount of stiffness to the structure. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the existing exterior walls. However, if a plywood roof diaphragm is added at a later date, proper blocking and shear transfer detailing will be required. For Use as Public Space – Same as above. Foundations The Old Barn bears on an undocumented concrete slab-on-grade foundation. The slab-on-grade appears to be in good shape, and no differential building settlement is noticeable. Required Strengthening: ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 10 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Continued Private Commercial Use – In order to resist the design lateral loads at the new bracing elements required at the north elevation, it is likely that several pad footings underpinning the existing slab-on-grade will be required. For Use as Public Space – Same as above. CREAMERY HOUSE The Creamery House [Figure 14] is an existing wood-framed structure in a state of disrepair. Years of abandonment have made it unfeasible for renovation [Figures 15 through 18]. Among the issues are the following: All exterior siding requires replacement There are no wood studs in the majority of the walls. The siding, which has no bearing capacity, is currently supporting the majority of the roof loads. The roof framing is undersized and severely damaged. The floor framing is undersized and severely damaged. The wood post-and-beam foundation system is supported on rocks or soil and has failed. Required Strengthening: The Creamery House is an unsafe building in a state of disrepair, and the materials are unsalvageable for structure purposes. It is recommended that the structure be properly documented and demolished. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 11 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO This page intentionally left blank. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 12 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO This page intentionally left blank. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 13 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 1 – Main House Figure 2 – Main House roof joists w/ mid-span bracing ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 14 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 3 – Unbraced wood cripple wall with redwood sill Figure 4 – Dairy (Round-Nosed) Barn ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 15 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 5 – Dairy Barn roof framing Figure 6 – Dairy Barn exterior wall framing ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 16 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 7 – Lack of wood bracing at main western entrance to the Dairy Barn ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 17 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 8 – Bracing at interior line of wood posts ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 18 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 9 – Interior Dairy Barn posts bearing on soil ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 19 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 10 – Old Barn Figure 11 – Old Barn roof framing ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 20 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 12 – Old Barn exterior wall framing Figure 13 – Full-height plywood shear wall (left & right of photo) ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 21 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 14 – Creamery House Figure 15 – Deterioration of Creamery House ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 22 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 16 – Deterioration of Creamery House Figure 17 – Creamery House foundation ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 23 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 18 – Deterioration of Creamery House APPENDIX F.3 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review This Page Intentionally Left Blank. FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN CONFORMANCE REVIEW Prepared for: John Madonna P.O. Box 5310 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Prepared by: Chattel, Inc. | Historic Preservation Consultants 13417 Ventura Blvd Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 FINAL DRAFT: December 14, 2017 2 Page intentionally left blank 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................. 5 II. QUALIFICATIONS ..................................................................................................... 7 III. METHODOLOGY AND EVALUATION ............................................................................ 9 IV. SETTING ............................................................................................................... 11 Historic Background .......................................................................................................... 11 Period of Significance........................................................................................................ 13 Regulatory Setting ............................................................................................................. 13 Historic Resource Assessment and Physical Descriptions .............................................. 19 V. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................. 39 VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, IMPACTS ANALYSIS, AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES ......................................................................................... 43 Project Description ............................................................................................................ 43 Impacts Analysis ............................................................................................................... 46 Mitigation Measures .......................................................................................................... 53 VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................... 57 VIII. ATTACHMENTS ..................................................................................................... 59 Attachment A: Historic Images Attachment B: Contemporary Images Attachment C: Inspiration Images Attachment D: Froom Ranch – Historical Buildings Cultural Heritage Committee Hearing Drawing Package, November 14, 2017 Attachment E: Froom Ranch – Historical Buildings Cultural Heritage Committee Hearing PowerPoint, August 28, 2017 Attachment F: Froom Ranch – County Assessor Records and Historical Buildings Dimensions Attachment G: “Analysis of Historic Structures at Froom Ranch,” Stork, Wolfe & Associates, June 30, 2017 Attachment H: “Moving Historic Buildings,” National Park Service, John Obed Curtis, 1979 Attachment I: “Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Building Complex,” Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants, March 14, 1998 4 Page intentionally left blank 5 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area consisting of an approximately 109.7- acre development with a mix of land uses including residential, commercial and open space (proposed project). The proposed project also includes dedication of approximately 3.6 acres of the subject property to the City of San Luis Obispo (City) as the Froom Ranch Trailhead Public Park (Park). The Park would consist of approximately 2.9 acres of space for park facilities reusing identified historic resources, and approximately 0.7 acres of open space including a drainage channel. The Froom Ranch complex (subject property) was found eligible for listing as a potential National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and City Master List historic district consisting of seven contributors, Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn. These contributors were all constructed during the period of significance when the property was in use as a dairy farm and when Bill Froom did his important work, which corresponds to the subject property period of significance from 1900 to 1950s. There are three non-historic, non-contributors for a total of 10 buildings and structures at the subject property. Primary, individually eligible, historic resources existing on the subject property would be retained and adaptively reused: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary. The Main Residence would be relocated and rehabilitated, and the Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary would be disassembled, relocated, and reconstructed. Secondary historic resources existing on the subject property would be demolished: Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn. Non-historic resources on the subject property, with the exception of the Cell Tower, would also be demolished: Storage Building, and Outhouse. Refer to Attachment A for historic images and Attachment B for contemporary images of the 10 buildings and structures. Due to the presence of a trace of the Los Osos fault which runs beneath the Dairy Barn, the proposed work would reconstruct and relocate the Dairy Barn at a new location slightly downhill and to the east, which is outside the required setback from the fault. The Main Residence and Creamery would also be relocated, both further to the east, to maintain their same horizontal spacing in relation to Dairy Barn. The Main Residence would be rehabilitated, and the Creamery would be reconstructed. To maintain the visual hierarchy of these three buildings, grade changes would be created between them to mimic their existing vertical relationship. The Granary would be reconstructed and relocated proximate to the Dairy Barn to reflect the functional relationship between these two structures. Refer to Attachment C for Creamery reconstruction inspiration images, and Attachments D and E for proposed project images. Refer to Attachment F for County Assessor Records and building dimensions, Attachment G for structural engineer report “Analysis of Historic Structures at Froom Ranch,” Stork, Wolfe & Associates (June 30, 2017), and Attachment H, “Moving Historic Buildings,” John Obed Curtis (1979) for Main Residence relocation approach. This conformance review (report) uses primary sources including Assessor’s records and historic photographs, secondary sources including the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions (HRA), and site visits and consultation with the design and Applicant team. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidance on impacts to historical resources were used to evaluate the proposed project and prepare recommended mitigation measures to reduce historical resources impacts to a level of less than significant. Refer to Attachment I, “Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Building Complex,” Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants for a historic assessment of the Froom Ranch complex (March 14, 1998). 6 Under CEQA, a project that results in physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of an historical resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be “materially impaired” would have a significant impact. Materially impaired is defined as demolishing or materially altering in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for listing. This report evaluates whether the proposed project would result in material impairment, and thus have an impact, to individually eligible resources or the potential historic district. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the proposed work on the Froom Ranch complex, including rehabilitation, reconstruction, and relocation of four individually eligible contributors to the identified potential historic district, was found to conform with the Secretary’s Standards. The loss of secondary contributors was found not to cause material impairment of the district because the secondary contributors are not necessary to convey the historic district’s potential historical significance. With mitigation, impacts to individually eligible resources and the potential district would be less than significant. 7 II. QUALIFICATIONS Chattel is a full service historic preservation consulting firm with practice throughout the western United States. The firm represents governmental agencies and private ventures, successfully balancing project goals with a myriad of historic preservation regulations without sacrificing principles on either side. Comprised of professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in history, architecture, architectural history, and historic architecture, the firm offers professional services including historical resources evaluation and project impacts analysis, in addition to consultation on federal, state, and local historic preservation statutes and regulations. Staff engage in a collaborative process and work together as a team on individual projects. This evaluation was prepared by President Robert Chattel, historic architect, Associate II Caroline Raftery, architectural historian, and Principal Associate Christine di Iorio, AICP, professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for historic architecture, architecture and architectural history. Additional input was provided by Consulting Principal Associate Susan O’Carroll, Ph.D., a CEQA specialist. Since its founding in 1994, Chattel has successfully completed a number of historic resources projects in the City, including the Bowden Ranch and Railroad Square developments, as well as projects planned for Long Bonetti Ranch and in construction for Garden Street Terraces (Hotel Serra). 8 Page intentionally left blank 9 III. METHODOLOGY AND EVALUATION To complete this conformance review, Chattel: • Reviewed and evaluated FirstCarbon Solution’s 2015 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment (HRA), and provided minor edits included in the revised 2017 version of the HRA. • Reviewed and evaluated the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Draft (July 2017). • Reviewed County of San Luis Obispo Assessor’s (Assessor’s) records and Joan Sulllivan archives. • Conducted additional research including with National Register staff Paul Lusignan on similar dairy properties, and the San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau on Bill Froom as co- founder. • Researched dairy farm layout history and planning. • Conducted site visits and completed photographic documentation on May 1, 2017, August 1, 2017, and October 1, 2017. • Met with City of San Luis Obispo staff on May 22, 2017 and August 1, 2017. • Provided on-going design consultation with the design and applicant team. • Applied CEQA guidance to the proposed project including conformance with the Secretary’s Standards and material impairment provisions, and recommended mitigation measures to reduce historical resources impacts to a level of less than significant. 10 Page intentionally left blank 11 IV. SETTING The following provides a summary history of the Froom Ranch complex, describes the regulatory setting for determining whether a property qualifies as historic, and uses this guidance to evaluate whether the subject property contains historic resources. This evaluation identifies the period of significance and describes each building and structure in terms of history, physical description, character-defining features, and integrity.1 The historic background summaries and physical descriptions are paraphrased from the FirstCarbon Solutions HRA. Refer to Attachment A and B for images referenced. SUBJECT PROPERTY The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area is approximately 109.7 acres, includes two parcels (Assessors’ Parcel Numbers, APNs 067-241-030 and 067-241-031), and is located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road in County of San Luis Obispo (County). The subject property occupies approximately 2.9 acres in the northern portion of the larger Specific Plan Area and includes 10 buildings and structures. Of the 10 buildings and structures, seven are associated with the dairy industry and Froom family: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Shed, Bunkhouse, Old Barn, and Granary.2 The Outhouse, Storage Building, and Cell Tower are more recent additions and are not associated with the dairy use of the subject property or Froom family. HISTORIC BACKGROUND The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area was originally part of the Rancho Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna subdivisions surveyed and mapped by James Stanton in 1869. This land consists of Lots 60, 67, 68, and 69 and totaled approximately 868 acres at one time. The subject property is contained within Lot 68 of the original subdivision. History of Dairy Farming in California and the Central Coast When California became a state in 1850, the Central Coast was already an important agricultural area for the region. Many of the ranchos developed during the Spanish and Mexican periods were subdivided under new American land and title laws once the area came under American control. In the mid-19th century, the primary agricultural products from the Central Coast area were cash crops, including potatoes and wheat.3 Following a drought between 1862 and 1864, the agricultural economy of the region moved away from these crops, which relied on a consistent supply of water, to cattle production. By 1866, dairy was the second largest agricultural product in the County, outranked only by wheat. The Steele brothers from Delhi, New York, were said to have brought the dairy industry to the County, and early on were the largest owners of milk cows in California after Shafter & Howard in Marin County.4 E.W. Steele first came to the City in 1864, and after declaring it “cow heaven,” purchased 45,000 acres of land to farm.5 1 For the purposes of this section, integrity is defined as the ability of a building’s or structure’s physical features to relate and convey historical significance. 2 Based on the FirstCarbon Solutions findings, the Froom Ranch complex potential historic district would be assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code of 3S. The four contributors would be assigned status codes of 3B, if significant both as an individual resource and as a district contributor or 3D, if significant solely as a district contributor. 3 Cuesa Cultivating A Healthy Food System. October 28, 2005. https://cuesa.org/article/california -farming- regions-central-coast-and-southern-california. 4 History of San Luis Obispo, California; with illustrations and biographical sketches of its prominent men and pioneers, (Oakland: Thompson & West, 1883), 226. 5 Ibid., 63. 12 In 1868, the City became the County seat. The dairy industry experienced a large expansion during the mid-19th century and continued into the 20th century, supported by improved transportation connections with the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the 1880s. Union Oil of California focused its operations in the County, which further supported growth of the dairy industry. In 1901, California Polytechnic Institute, a vocational and agricultural institution, established a campus in San Luis Obispo (now California Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, Cal Poly). Establishment of Cal Poly both reflected the growing dairy industry, as well as helped to support it. Cal Poly, along with San Simeon Ranch, established by newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst, influenced agricultural development of the area around the turn of the 20th century. History of the Froom Family In 1886, John R. Froom came to work on the land that would become Froom Ranch. By 1890 he had leased 500 acres and had begun dairying with 50 cows. By 1904 John Froom married Harriet Perry, and in 1915, as the family expanded to include seven children, the Froom family moved from the Creamery into the Main Residence. John Froom died in 1929, and his son Bill Froom would run the farm until 1977. Bill Froom co-founded the San Luis Obispo County Farm Bureau (Farm Bureau) and served as a director for the Cattlemen’s Association.6 Dairy Farm Layout and Planning The buildings and structures that comprise a dairy farm historically needed to be arranged in such a way as to make operations on the farm efficient. The first determination made was the location of a dairy farm, which needed to be a flat area close to a water source and a grazing area.7 Froom Ranch sits on a relatively flat grade, with hills to the west, and Froom Creek running west to south of the farm buildings. The first structures typically constructed on a dairy farm were “a house or two, a barn for hay and horses, fences and corrals, and the creamery.”8 These would be typically followed by larger barns and houses, if necessary. At Froom Ranch, the first buildings constructed were the Dairy Barn, Horse Barn (not extant), Creamery, Granary, and Main Residence, which were followed by accessory structures and additions. While it was important to build on a relatively flat grade, natural drainage necessary for dairy farming operations was also a consideration. 9 It was also important for dairy farms to have the barn and corral located close to each other to make it easier to rotate pastures.10 In addition, it was desirable to have the farm buildings face north-south to allow for the best light and ventilation.11 The Dairy Barn nearly follows this arrangement, with the entrances to the barn facing northwest. The main factor in determining the layout of a dairy farm was efficiency of labor. The farther away buildings were for each other, the longer it took the farmer to travel between buildings, and subsequently complete daily tasks.12 It was advised that the farm house be between 100-150 feet from any barns, and that the other outbuildings be at least 50 feet away from each other for fire 6 While FirstCarbon Solutions noted that Bill Froom was founder of the Farm Bureau, according to correrspondence with James Green, Government Affairs Specialist I, he was a co-founder. Green stated their archive facility burned down a few years ago, and thus no primary records were available for review. 7 D.S. Livingston. A Good Life: dairy farming in the Olema Valley: a history of the dairy and beef ranches of the Olema and Lagunitas Canyon Golden Gate National Recreation Area and Point Reyes National Seashore, 40. 8 Ibid. 9 H.R. Sinnard, H.P Ewalt, M.G. Huber, “Dairy Buildings,” Extension Bulletin 711, Federal Cooperative Extension Service, Oregon State College, November 1950, 4. 10 A.L. Pulliam, “Farm Layout and Farmstead Planning,” Extension Bulletin 685, Federal Cooperative Extension Service, Oregon State College, January 1948, 16. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid., 17. 13 protection.13 At Froom Ranch, the Creamery is located approximately 125 feet from the Main Residence, and the Dairy Barn is almost 300 feet from the Main Residence. The granary needed to be closer to the barn because it would take less time to deliver the feed.14 Froom Ranch follows this model as the Granary is located northwest of the Dairy Barn by approximately 25 feet, making it easier to deliver grain. Period of Significance Froom Ranch complex operated as a dairy farm from approximately 1883 to the 1950s, when the local dairy economy began to fade due to the high cost of dairy farming. The Froom family operated the dairy farm from 1890 to the 1950s, and Bill Froom’s involvement in the Farm Bureau was prior to the 1950s. The extant buildings and structures identified as significant were constructed from approximately 1900 to 1915. As a result, the period of significance of the subject property is 1900 to 1950s. REGULATORY SETTING National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s official list of historic and cultural resources worthy of preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the National Register is part of a federal program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the country’s historic and archaeological resources. Properties listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. A district “possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.”15 The National Register is administered by the National Park Service (NPS), which is part of the United States Department of the Interior. Resources are eligible for National Register listing if they: A) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B) are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or C) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D) have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.16 Once a resource has been determined to satisfy one of the above-referenced criteria, then it must be assessed for integrity. Integrity refers to the ability of a property to convey its significance, and the degree to which the property retains the identity, including physical and visual attributes, for which it is significant under the four basic criteria listed above. The National Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain its historic integrity, a property must possess several, and usually most, of these aspects. 13 Ibid., 18. 14 Ibid. 15 National Register. IV. How to Define Categories of Historic Properties. “District.” https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_4.htm#district 16 National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002). 14 The National Register includes only those properties that retain sufficient integrity to accurately convey their physical and visual appearance from their identified period of significance. Period of significance describes the period in time during which a property’s importance is established. It can refer simply to the date of construction, or it can span multiple years, depending on the reason the property is important. The period of significance is established based on the property’s relevant historic context and as supported by facts contained in the historic context statement. Evaluation of integrity is founded on “an understanding of a property’s physical features and how they relate to its significance.”17 A property significant under criterion A or B for its association with a pattern or history of significant persons may still retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance even if it retains a low degree of integrity of design, materials or workmanship. Conversely, a property that derives its significance exclusively for its architecture under criterion C must retain a high degree of integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. For some properties, comparison with similar properties is considered during the evaluation of integrity, especially when a property type is particularly rare. While integrity is important in evaluating and determining significance, a property’s physical condition, whether it is in a deteriorated or pristine state, has relatively little influence on its significance. A property that is in good condition may lack the requisite level of integrity to convey its significance due to alterations or other factors. Likewise, a property in extremely poor condition may still retain substantial integrity from its period of significance and clearly convey its significance. National Register Bulletin 15 includes the following information regarding historic districts: A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of site, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a wide variety of resources. The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties. For example, a district can reflect one principal activity, such as a mill or a ranch, or it can encompass several interrelated activities, such as an area that includes industrial, residential or commercial buildings, sites, structures, or objects. A district can also be a grouping of archaeological sites related primarily by their common components; these types of districts often will not visually present a specific historic environment. A district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity. It must be important for historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural values. Therefore, districts that are significant will usually meet the last portion of Criterion C plus Criterion A, Criterion B, other portions of Criterion C, or Criterion D. A district can encompass both features that lack individual distinction and individually distinctive features that serve as focal points. It may even be considered eligible if all of the components lack individual distinction, provided that the grouping achieves significance as a whole within the historic context. In either case, the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character, even if they are individually undistinguished, must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A district can contain buildings, structures, sites, objects, or open spaces that do not contribute to the significance of the district. The number of non-contributing properties a 17 Ibid. 15 district can contain yet still convey the sense of time and place and historical development depends on how these properties affect the district’s integrity. Relationship to Project - Summary The Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary are individually eligible for National Register listing, given their association with the dairy industry (Criterion A) and the Froom family (Criterion B). The Main Residence does not appear individually eligible for National Register listing as an example of modest Late Queen Anne Cottage architecture (Criterion C), but the Creamery, Dairy Barn and Granary were identified as individually eligible as vernacular examples of agrarian buildings (Criterion C). Additionally, as a National Register historic district “possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development”, the Froom Ranch complex18 was identified as eligible for listing as a potential National Register historic district consisting of seven contributors, Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn, eligible for listing in the National Register at the local level of significance (Criteria A, B). These contributors were all constructed during the period of significance. There are three non-contributors, for a total of 10 buildings and structures. California Register of Historical Resources The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) was established to serve as an authoritative guide to the state’s significant historical and archaeological resources (Public Resources Code (PCR) §5024.1). State law provides that in order for a property to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found by the State Historical Resources Commission to be significant under any of the following four criteria, if the resource is: 1) 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; or 2) Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history; or 3) 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; or 4) Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. The primary difference between eligibility for listing in the National and California Registers is integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the National Register generally have a higher degree of integrity than those only eligible for listing in the California Register. There is, however, no difference with regard to significance. A property that meets the significance criteria for California Register eligibility would also be eligible for listing in the National Register unless there are issues of integrity that decrease the ability of the property to convey its significance. The California Register also includes properties which: have been formally determined eligible for listing in, or are listed in the National Register; are registered State Historical Landmark Number 770, and all consecutively numbered landmarks above Number 770; points of historical interest, which have been reviewed and recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for listing; and city and county-designated landmarks or districts (if criteria for designation are determined by State of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) to be consistent with California Register criteria). PRC §5024.1(g) also states: 18 Based on correspondence with Paul R. Lusignan, Historian, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, “there really is no material difference in the NR documentation for a complex or a district, except for the block selected for ‘Category of Property.’” August 29, 2017. 16 A resource identified as significant in an historical resource survey may be listed in the California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria: 1) The survey has been or will be included in the State Historical Resources Inventory. 2) The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with [OHP]… procedures and requirements. 3) The resource is evaluated and determined by the office to have a significance rating of category 1-5 on DPR [Department of Parks and Recreation] form 523. 4) If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical resources which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further documentation and those which have been demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource. Resources are eligible as a California Register historic districts if they meet National Register historic district criteria. Relationship to Project – Summary The Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary are individually eligible for California Register listing, given their association with the dairy industry (Criterion 1) and the Froom family (Criterion 2). The Main Residence does not appear individually eligible for California Register listing as an example of modest Late Queen Anne Cottage architecture (Criterion 3), but the Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary were identified as individually eligible as vernacular examples of agrarian buildings (Criterion 3). Additionally, the Froom Ranch complex was identified as eligible for listing as a potential California Register historic district consisting of seven contributors, the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn (Criterion 1, 2). These contributors were all constructed during the period of significance. There are three non-contributors, for a total of 10 buildings and structures. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) According to CEQA, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources..., or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant (PRC §21084.1). If the proposed Project were expected to cause substantial adverse change in an historical resource, environmental clearance for the project would require mitigation measures to reduce impacts. “Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(1)). The CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5 (b)(2)) describe material impairment taking place when a project: 17 A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register… or B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register... or its identification in an historical resources survey... unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or C) Demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register... as determined by a lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. According to the CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5 (b)(3)), “Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.” The Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Secretary’s Standards) is published by the National Park Service (NPS), and was recently updated and reissued in July 2017.19 Relationship to Project – Summary The Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary, were identified as individually eligible given their association with the dairy industry and the Froom family (Criteria 1 and 2), and the Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary were identified as individually eligible as vernacular examples of agrarian buildings under architecture (Criterion 3). Additionally, the Froom Ranch complex has been identified as a potential National Register and California Register historic district consisting of seven contributors, the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn, eligible for listing in the California Register for significance at the local level (Criterion 1, 2). These contributors were all constructed during the period of significance. Therefore, the potential historic district with seven contributing structures are historical resources under CEQA. There are three non-contributors, for a total of 10 buildings and structures. City of San Luis Obispo Master List In 2010, the City adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.01) that formally codified City Historic Preservation definitions,evaluation criteria, and review procedures. This ordinance references the “Inventory of Historic Resources” which is the City’s listing of two categories of historic resources and properties. Master List Resources are the “most unique and important resources and properties in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past.” Contributing List Resources are: “Buildings or other resources at least 50 years old that maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character, and contribute, either by themselves or in conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole. They need not be located in a historic district. 19 Anne E. Grimmer. “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Prope rties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstruction Historic Buildings.” Rev. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2017. 18 The ordinance outlines the process and criteria for the inclusion of historic properties on the City Master List or Contributing List of Historic Resources. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource must exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least 50 years old, 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 possess high artistic values. 1. Style: Describes the form of a building, architectural details within the 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. 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 quality may not be superior. 3. Architect: Describe the professional (individual or firm) responsible for the building design and plans for 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 the development of the city, state, or nation; b. An architect, who in terms of craftsmanship made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abraham who according to local sources designed the house at 810 Osos—Frank Avila’s father’s home—built between 1927 and 1930). B. Historic Criteria 1. History – Persons associated with the lives of persons important to local, state, or national history. 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 leader, etc.) and for his or her fame and outstanding recognition—locally, regionally or nationally; b. Significant to the community as a public servant or as a person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, local affairs or institutions (e.g., Council member, education, medical professional, clergymen, public 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 events will be evaluated as a measure of: 19 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 activities in early San Luis Obispo history). 3. History – Context. Associated with and also a prime illustration of prominent patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as to the 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 immediately 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 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 reasons for its historic significance; 3. The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workman- ship, feeling and association. The City defines historic districts as “areas or neighborhoods with a collection or concentration of listed or potentially contributing historic properties or archaeologically significant sites, where historic properties help define the area or neighborhood’s unique architectural, cultural, and historic character or sense of place.” Historic districts are delineated on the official zoning map as Historic (H) overlay zone under San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.54.”20 Relationship to Project – Summary The Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary are individually eligible for City Master List listing, given their association with the Froom Family (Criterion B1b) and dairy industry (Criterion B2b, B3a). The Main Residence appears individually eligible for City Master List listing as example of modest Late Queen Anne Cottage architecture (Criterion A2a), and the Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary were identified as individually eligible as vernacular examples of agrarian buildings (Criterion A1c). The Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary have retained integrity (Criterion C1, C2, C3). Additionally, the Froom Ranch complex was identified as eligible for listing as a potential City Master List historic district consisting of seven contributors, the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn.21 These contributors were all constructed during the period of significance. There are three non-contributors, for a total of 10 buildings and structures. 20 Section 14.01.090 E of the ordinance. 21 The eligible historic district is not currentlty delineated on the official City zoning map as Historic (H) overlay zone under San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Chapter 17.54. 20 HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT AND PHYSICAL DESCRIPTIONS A Historic Resource Assessment (HRA) prepared by FirstCarbon Solutions included a historical and architectural significance evaluation of the subject property and survey of buildings and structures on the subject property was recently completed. The HRA documented 10 buildings and structures: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, Old Barn, Outhouse, Storage Building, and Cell Tower.22 This section describes each building or structure, and identifies: character-defining features, alterations, integrity, and eligibility for listing as historic resources at the national, state and local levels. Individual Resources Main Residence (Attachment B; Images 18-26) Description and Character-Defining Features – The County Assessor’s building record indicates the Main Residence was constructed in 1915 and measures approximately 30 feet by 54 feet. It was occupied by members of the Froom family until 1998. Because there does not appear to be any other building that might have served as a business office for dairy operations, it is likely the Main Residence functioned in this capacity as well. The Main Residence is a modest example of Late Queen Anne Cottage, which is common locally.23 The single-story wood-frame Main Residence is L-shaped in plan and contains approximately 1,600 square feet. It is oriented with its principal elevation or façade facing east toward the street. The building has a hipped roof with boxed eaves, a wood stoop, and a slightly inset front porch under a front-facing gable roof. The gable end contains a fish scale pattern of wood shingles. The porch roof is supported on three simple Tuscan columns set on a solid low wall. The Main Residence has a raised foundation covered in wood vertical boards, with horizontal wood (shiplap) siding above extending to a flat wood frieze. Windows vary in size and shape, and include a number of paired, wood double-hung windows. The north elevation features a rectangular, cantilevered bay window with a hipped roof dormer above. The south and west elevations consist of an infilled porch, aligned with the west elevation, and projecting on the south elevation to form the L-shape in plan. A Phoenix canariensis (palm tree) is located southeast of the porch. 22 FirstCarbon Solutions. “Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment.” July 21, 2017 . 23 While the FirstCarbon Solutions HRA identifies the Main Residence to be Craftsman, Chattel disagrees as the Main Residence has the character-defining features of Queen Anne. The character-defining features of Queen Anne are detailed in Virginia Savage McAlester’s A Field Guide to American Houses and Janet Foster’s The Queen Anne House America’s Victorian Vernacular. 21 Alterations – A rectangular-shaped, front-facing gable roofed non-significant addition is located at the northwest corner of the building. Its attachment to the Main Residence is limited to the outside corner northwest corner of the Main Residence, and thus no internal connection or entry door exists. This addition has been used as a cleaning and storage space, and is clad in both horizontal (shiplap) wood siding and unlike the residence is clad in vertical (board and batten) wood siding. The pattern of windows and entry doors appears to have been unaltered, however the rear porch appears to have been infilled with windows on the south elevation and screens on the west elevation. Although no longer extant, historically the roof ridge has cresting (Attachment A, Image 3). It is possible that some or all of the wood vertical board skirt on the raised foundation has been replaced. Condition – The Main Residence appears to be structurally sound, and the siding and wall framing are in good condition. However, the building lacks a structural system necessaryto fully resist lateral loads. Therefore, the building is in good condition. Integrity Analysis – The Main Residence retains integrity as described below: Location – The Main Residence has not been relocated, and thus retains integrity of location. Design – The Main Residence retains its late Queen Anne era Cottage design, particularly as expressed in the hip and gable roof forms, as well as fish scale shingles in the gable end. The pattern of windows and entry doors appears to have been unaltered, however the rear porch appears to have been infilled with windows on the south elevation and screens on the west elevation. The northwest addition has not taken on significance over time because it is secondary to the Main Residence, is not connected to it internally, nor is it functionally related. Despite minor alterations, particularly the infilled porch and northwest addition, the Main Residence retains character-defining features of the Queen Anne era style and thus integrity of design. Setting – The Main Residence maintains its orientation to the street and relationship to other key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex. The northwest addition does not detract from the setting. The Main Residence thus retains integrity of setting. Materials – The Main Residence retains the majority of its wood horizontal siding, boxed eaves, and pattern of windows and entry doors. It is possible that some or all of the wood vertical board skirt on the raised foundation has been replaced. The northwest addition, given how it minimally connects only at the corner, does not appear to have compromised materials. Therefore, the Main Residence retains integrity of materials. Workmanship – Because the Main Residence retains the majority of its design and materials, it retains integrity of workmanship from its original construction. Feeling – Given the relationship of the Main Residence to other key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex, particularly the Creamery and Dairy Barn, and its relationship to the street, it retains integrity of feeling. Association – As the Main Residence served the Froom family, and likely served both residential and office dairy farm uses, it retains integrity of association with dairy operations and Froom family. Eligibility – Because the Main Residence dates from the period of significance, is demonstrably associated with dairy farm operations and was integral to the functionality of the Froom Ranch, and retains integrity, it is individually eligible under National Register Criterion A (association with an 22 event or pattern of events—dairy industry). As the Main Residence is individually National Register eligible under Criterion A, it would be eligible under California Register Criterion 1. It would also be eligible for the City Master List, under Criterion B3a for an association with prominent patterns of economic and industrial development of the regional dairy industry. The Main Residence is individually eligible under National Register Criterion B (association with important persons—Froom family), and California Register Criterion 2, because Bill Froom was co- founder of the Farm Bureau. Under City criterion B1b and B2b for persons important to local history, particularly Bill Froom’s contributions to the Farm Bureau and regional dairy industry, the Main Residence is eligible for individual inclusion on the City Master List (Criterion B1b, B3a). The Main Residence does not appear individually eligible under National Register or California Register Criterion C/1 (architecture—Queen Anne) because it is a modest example of the late Queen Anne style and does not “embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” Under City criterion A2a for design “evaluated as a measure of: notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details, and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique),” the Main Residence is eligible for individual inclusion on the City Master List. Main Residence eligibility description in relation to Froom Ranch complex potential historic district is described following the individual descriptions. Creamery (Attachment B; Images 27-34) Description and Character-Defining Features – The County Assessor’s building record does not appear to describe the Creamery. The Creamery is composed of two buildings separated by approximately one foot: a west portion and an east portion. The west portion was built at an unknown date during the period of significance, and was used as a creamery that housed a horse powered churn and a butter brake table. The east portion was built later and was occupied by members of the Froom family until 1915. The Creamery is an example of vernacular architecture associated with the dairy industry. The single-story wood-frame Creamery is rectangular in plan, irregular in shape and asymmetrical in massing. The visual profile of the Creamery, composed of the irregularly shaped and asymmetrical massing, when viewed from a lower elevation is the most significant character-defining feature. The Creamery is a combination of horizontal and vertical (board and batten) wood siding and contains approximately 1,950 square feet. It is oriented with its entrance elevation facing north. The west portion of the Creamery is at a slightly higher elevation and has a higher ceiling and larger volume than the east portion, with a combination of shed, north-south facing gable, and east-west facing 23 gable roofs. The shed portion at the west elevation faces the Dairy Barn. The east portion of the Creamery has an east-west facing gable roof. The gable end at the east elevation faces the Main Residence. The Creamery has a stone foundation. The pattern of window and entry door openings vary in size and shape. Alterations – A rectangular-shaped, shed-roofed, minimally supported lean-to, non-significant addition is located near the northeast corner of the east portion of the building. At one time, an addition was present at the south wall of the west portion, however as it was in extremely poor condition was removed. Condition – The Creamery is structurally unsound, and paint has almost entirely weathered away. Therefore, the building is in poor condition. Integrity Analysis – The Creamery retains integrity as described below: Location – The Creamery has not been relocated, and thus retains integrity of location. Design – The Creamery retains the character-defining features that reflect vernacular architecture, particularly expressed in the shed and gable roof forms and combination of horizontal and vertical (board and batten) wood siding. The pattern of window and entry door openings appears to have been unaltered. The northeast addition has not taken on significance over time because it is secondary to the Creamery and is not structurally attached. Despite minor alterations, particularly the non-significant addition, the Creamery retains character-defining features of vernacular architecture and thus integrity of design. Setting – The Creamery maintains its relationship to other key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex. The non-significant addition does not detract from the setting. The Creamery thus retains integrity of setting. Materials – The Creamery retains the majority of its horizontal and vertical (board and batten) wood siding and pattern of window and entry door openings. However, most of the materials are rotted and likely not salvageable. The construction of the non-significant addition did not compromise historic materials. Therefore, the Creamery retains integrity of materials. Workmanship – Because the Creamery retains the majority of its design and materials, it retains integrity of workmanship from its original construction. Feeling – Given the relationship of the Creamery to other key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex, particularly the Main Residence and Dairy Barn, it retains integrity of feeling. Association – As the Creamery served the Froom family, and served both dairy farm and residential uses, it retains integrity of association with dairy operations and the Froom family. Eligibility – As the Creamery dates from the period of significance, is demonstrably associated with dairy farm operations and was integral to the functionality of the Froom Ranch, and retains integrity, it is individually eligible under National Register Criteria A (association with an event or pattern of events—dairy industry). As the Creamery is individually National Register eligible under Criterion A, it would be eligible under California Register Criterion 1. Under City Criterion B3a for an association with prominent patterns of economic and industrial development of the regional dairy industry, the Creamery would be eligible for the City Master List. 24 The Creamery is individually eligible under National Register Criterion B (association with important persons—Froom family), and California Register Criterion 2, because Bill Froom was co-founder of the Farm Bureau. Under City criterion B1b for persons important to local history, particularly Bill Froom’s contributions to the Farm Bureau and regional dairy industry, the Creamery is eligible for individual inclusion on the Master List (Criterion B1b, B3a). The Creamery appears individually eligible under National Register or California Register Criterion C/1 (architecture—vernacular) as a vernacular example of an agrarian building. The Creamery aslo appears eligible under City Criterion A1c, “traditional, vernacular, and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community…” as a vernacular example of an agrarian building. Creamery eligibility description in relation to Froom Ranch complex potential historic district is described following the individual descriptions. Dairy Barn (Attachment B; Images 35-51) Description and Character-Defining Features – The County Assessor’s building record indicates the Milk Barn (Dairy Barn) was constructed in 1913, and measures approximately 76 feet by 56 feet. It was constructed to hold 10 cows at the north and south ends, and 10 cows at the west and east sides. The Dairy Barn is an example of vernacular architecture associated with the dairy industry, and is the only extant barn in the County exhibiting this design. The wood-frame Dairy Barn is rectangular in plan, irregular in shape and asymmetrical in massing. The Dairy Barn has a north-facing gable roof, high volume ceilings and is clad in vertical wood siding, and contains approximately 4,200 square feet. It is oriented with its entrance elevation facing north. The north elevation contains two sliding entry doors, one at the east and one at the west. The west elevation contains an opening at the south. The south elevation is curved at the west and east ends, has no foundation, and cantilevers above the natural slope. The curved (“rounded”) south elevation was strategically constructed above the natural slope to facilitate movement of cow manure and is the most significant character-defining feature. The Dairy Barn has a wood pier and concrete block foundation. Windows openings of generally the same size are located at the east, west and south elevations. The east elevation contains an entry door at the south end that opens to a sloped concrete ramp. This ramp was designed to remove mud from cows’ hooves. Alterations – A rectangular-shaped, shed-roofed minimally supported lean-to non-significant addition is located on the east elevation of the Dairy Barn. This addition contains partition walls. An original east elevation window was enlarged at the addition interior. New structural members have also been installed for stabilization. 25 Condition – The Dairy Barn, given some recent stabilization measures, is relatively structurally sound, and the building has experienced some loss of original material. Therefore, the buildling is in fair condition. Integrity Analysis – The Dairy Barn retains integrity as described below: Location – The Dairy Barn has not been relocated, and thus retains integrity of location. Design – The Dairy Barn retains the character-defining features that reflect vernacular architecture, particularly expressed in the curved south elevation that was strategically constructed above the natural slope to facilitate movement of cow manure. Despite minor alterations, particularly the non-significant addition, the Dairy Barn, retains character-defining features of its vernacular architecture and thus integrity of design. Setting – The Dairy Barn maintains its relationship to other key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex. The non-significant addition does not detract from the setting. The Dairy Barn thus retains integrity of setting. Materials – The Dairy Barn retains the majority of its vertical wood siding and pattern of window and entry door openings. The non-significant addition, given how it minimally connects to the Dairy Barn, does not appear to have compromised materials. Therefore, the Dairy Barn retains integrity of materials. Workmanship – Because the Dairy Barn retains the majority of its design and materials, it retains integrity of workmanship from its original construction. Feeling – Given the relationship of the Dairy Barn to other key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex, particularly the Main Residence and Creamery, it retains integrity of feeling. Association – As the Dairy Barn served dairy farm uses for the Froom family, it retains integrity of association with dairy operations and the Froom family. Eligibility – As the Dairy Barn dates from the period of significance, is demonstrably associated with dairy farm operations and was integral to the functionality of the Froom Ranch, and retains integrity, it is individually eligible under National Register Criteria A (association with an event or pattern of events—dairy industry). As the Dairy Barn is individually National Register eligible under Criterion A, it would be eligible under California Register Criterion 1. Under City Criterion B3 for an association with prominent patterns of economic and industrial development of the regional dairy industry, it would eligible for the City’s Master List. The Dairy Barn is individually eligible under National Register Criterion B (association with important persons—Froom family), and California Register Criterion 2, because Bill Froom was co-founder of the Farm Bureau. Under City Master List Criterion B1b for persons important to local history, particularly Bill Froom’s contributions to the Farm Bureau and regional dairy industry, the Dairy Barn is eligible for individual inclusion on the City Master List. The Dairy Barn appears individually eligible under National Register or California Register Criterion C/1 (architecture—vernacular) as a vernacular example of an agrarian building. The Dairy Barn aslo appears eligible under City Criterion A1c, “traditional, vernacular, and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community…” as a vernacular example of an agrarian building. 26 Dairy Barn eligibility description in relation to Froom Ranch complex potential historic district is described following the individual descriptions. Granary (Attachment B; Images 52-57) Description and Character-Defining Features – The County Assessor’s building record indicates Grain Storage (Granary) was constructed in 1913, and measures approximately 12 feet by 16 feet. The single-story wood-frame one-story building has vertical (board and batten) exterior wood siding, a gabled moderately pitched roof and a wood pier foundation. It has one window on the south elevation, and a single entry door on the east elevation. The roof is clad in wood shingles. The interior walls are clad in horizontal (tongue and groove) interior wood siding designed specifically to prevent rats from eating the grain inside, and was the only such granary in the County. Alterations – There have not been any significant alterations to the building. Condition – The Granary appears to be structurally sound, but features evidence of termite damage, and paint and shingle loss due to weathering. Therefore, the building is in poor condition. Integrity Analysis – The Granary retains integrity as described below: Location – The Granary has not been relocated, and thus retains integrity of location. Design – A simple building in design and plan, the most important character-defining features of the building are its wood-frame construction with vertical (board and batten) exterior wood siding, horizontal (tongue and groove) interior wood siding, and gabled roof, thus the building retains integrity of design. Setting – The Granary maintains its relationship to the Dairy Barn, and thus retains integrity of setting. Materials – The Granary retains its integrity of materials, all of which appear to be original. Workmanship – Because the Granary retains its original design and materials, it retains integrity of workmanship from its original construction. Feeling – Given the relationship of the Granary to the Dairy Barn, it retains integrity of feeling. Association – The Granary is located in its historic location and retains integrity of association with the functions of the operation of the Froom Ranch. 27 Eligibility – Because the Granary dates from the period of significance, is demonstrably associated with dairy farm operations and was integral to the functionality of the Froom Ranch, and retains integrity, it is individually eligible under National Register Criterion A (association with an event or pattern of events—dairy industry). As the Granary is individually National Register eligible under Criterion A, it would be eligible under California Register Criterion 1. It would also be eligible for the City’s Master List, under City Criterion B3 for an association with prominent patterns of economic and industrial development of the regional dairy industry. The Granary is individually eligible under National Register Criterion B (association with important persons—Froom family), and California Register Criterion 2, because Bill Froom was co-founder of the Farm Bureau. Under City Criterion B1b for persons important to local history, particularly Bill Froom’s contributions to the Farm Bureau and regional dairy industry, the Granary is eligible for individual inclusion on the Master List. The Granary appears individually eligible under National Register or California Register Criterion C/1 (architecture—vernacular) as a vernacular example of an agrarian building. The Granary aslo appears eligible under City Criterion A1c, “traditional, vernacular, and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community…” as a vernacular example of an agrarian building. Granary eligibility description in relation to Froom Ranch complex potential historic district is described following the individual descriptions. Shed (Attachment B; Image 58) Description and Character-Defining Features – The County Assessor’s building record indicates the Wood Shed (Shed) was constructed in 1915. The building measures approximately 12 feet by 15 feet. The building currently contains a seeder machine that is helping the structure remain vertical. The Shed is a one-story structure irregularly shaped and asymmetrical in plan. The building lacks a foundation, features vertical wood siding walls and has a steeply slanted shed roof. The entrance to the shed is at the north elevation. The Shed features a small addition that has a flat roof and an entry door. The vertical wood siding and steeply slanted roof distinguish the structure as a shed. Alterations – Aside from the small addition there have not been any significant alterations to the structure. Condition – The Shed appears to be structurally unsound, the vertical wood siding has deteriorated, and the paint has almost entirely chipped away. Therefore, the structure is in poor condition. 28 Integrity Analysis – The Shed retains integrity as described below: Location – The Shed has not been relocated, and thus retains integrity of location. Design – A simple building in design and plan, its character-defining features are its asymmetrical plan, vertical wood siding, and steep shed roof. Despite the small addition, the building has remained relatively unchanged since its time of construction, and thus retains integrity of design. Setting – The Shed maintains its relationship to the key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex. The non-significant addition does not detract from the setting. The Shed Building thus retains integrity of setting. Materials – The Shed retains the majority of its vertical wood siding as well as its entry door pattern. The addition, completed in the same materials, has not compromised the materials of the original structure. Therefore, the Shed Building retains integrity of materials. Workmanship – Because the Shed retains the majority of its design and materials, it retains integrity of workmanship. Feeling – Given the relationship of the Shed to other key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex, it retains integrity of feeling. Association – The Shed was used by the Froom family, and thus has integrity of association. Eligibility – While the Shed dates from the period of significance and retains integrity, and was associated with dairy farm operations, it was not integral to dairy farm functionality and is not a dairy farm-specific building type but rather is a building type used in many agricultural and industrial operations, and therefore does not appear individually eligible for the National Register and California Register. In addition, the Shed would not be eligible for the City Master List under Criterion B3 because dairy use is not “closely associated with the building” given a shed is a building type used in many agricultural and industrial operations. Shed eligibility description in relation to Froom Ranch complex potential historic district is described following the individual descriptions. 29 Bunkhouse (Attachment B; Images 59-60) Description and Character-Defining Features – The County Assessor’s building record indicates the Bunkhouse was constructed in 1900. The Bunkhouse measures approximately 12 feet by 12 feet. The building is a single-room, one-story building rectangular in shape and symmetrical in plan. The building has a concrete foundation, horizontal (shiplap) wood siding, and a gabled roof clad in asphalt shingles. The building has an entry door on the east elevation accessed by a concrete stoop. The south and west elevations both feature a wood-frame double-hung sash windows, and the east elevation has a wood sash window. Alterations – Over the course of its history the building has been painted, received a new roof, and a new floor. There does not appear to be any other alterations to the building. Condition – The Bunkhouse appears to be structurally sound, but most of the exterior paint has weathered away. Therefore, the building is in fair condition. Integrity Analysis – The Bunkhouse retains integrity as described below: Location – The Bunkhouse has not been relocated, and thus retains integrity of location. Design – A simple building in design and plan, its character-defining features include its symmetrical plan, wood shiplap siding, gabled roof, and original wood windows. The building retains integrity of design. Setting – The Bunkhouse maintains its relationship to the key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex, and thus retains integrity of setting. Materials – The Bunkhouse retains the majority of its horizontal (shiplap) wood siding. Therefore, the Bunkhouse retains integrity of materials. Workmanship – Because the Bunkhouse retains the majority of its design and materials, it retains integrity of workmanship from its original construction. Feeling – Given the relationship of the Bunkhouse to key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex, it retains integrity of feeling. Association – The Bunkhouse was constructed to house additional members of the Froom family, and its primary occupant was Bill Froom’s brother. Thus, the Bunkhouse retains integrity of association. 30 Eligibility – While the Bunkhouse dates from the period of significance and retains integrity, and was associated with the Froom family, this small building could have been used for a variety of purposes. There is nothing in the design of the building that would indicate to the observer that the building functioned as bunkhouse. Therefore, it does not appear to have been integral to dairy farm functionality and is not a dairy farm specific building, but rather is a building that could have been used in many agricultural and industrial operations, and thus does not appear individually eligible for the National Register and California Register. In addition, the Bunkhouse would not be eligible for the City Master List under Criterion B3 because dairy use is not “closely associated with the building” given there is nothing in the design of the Bunkhouse that indicates its dairy farm specific use. Bunkhouse eligibility description in relation to Froom Ranch complex potential historic district is described following the individual descriptions. Old Barn (Attachment B; Images 61-68) Description and Character-Defining Features – The County Assessor’s building record indicates the Barn (Old Barn) was constructed in 1900, and measures approximately 40 feet by 32 feet. The building has a concrete floor, vertical wood siding, and a gabled roof clad in corrugated metal. It was reportedly moved to the present location prior to 1949. On the east elevation, the building has a set of wood sliding doors at the ground level, with a door to the hayloft located directly above it. Alterations – The Old Barn has been altered numerous times, particularly at the interior. One visible alteration is replaced vertical wood siding on the west elevation. The roof has likely been replaced. Condition – The Old Barn appears to be structurally sound, but most of the exterior paint has weathered away. Therefore, the building is in fair condition. Integrity Analysis – The Old Barn retains integrity as described below: Location – Though the Old Barn was not originally constructed where it is today, it was relocated during the period of significance, giving this building sufficient integrity of location. Design – A simple building in design and plan, its character-defining features are its vertical wood siding, and gabled roof clad in corrugated metal. As the building retains these features it retains integrity of design. Setting – The Old Barn maintains its relationship to the key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex, and thus retains integrity of setting. 31 Materials – The materials of the Old Barn have been replaced throughout its history. The Old Barn does not retain integrity of materials. Workmanship – Since the Old Barn was moved to the present site, and its materials have been replaced, the barn does not retain integrity of workmanship. Feeling – Given the relationship of the Old Barn to other key buildings and structures in the Froom Ranch complex, it retains integrity of feeling. Association – The Old Barn retains its association with daily operations of the dairy farm, and thus retains integrity of association. Eligibility – While the Old Barn dates from the period of significance and retains integrity, and was associated with dairy farm operations, unlike the Dairy Barn which was designed specifically to accommodate dairy use, this specific barn is utilitarian in nature and could function as a barn or storage building for any agricultural or industrial use, as evidenced by the fact that it was moved from another site. There is nothing in the design of this barn that is integral to dairy farm functionality. Therefore, it does not appear to have been integral to dairy farm functionality and is not a dairy farm specific building, but rather is a building that could have been used in many agricultural and industrial operations, and thus does not appear individually eligible for the National Register and California Register. In addition, the Old Barn would not be eligible for the City Master List under Criterion B3 because dairy use is not “closely associated with the building” given there is nothing in the design of the Old Barn that indicates its dairy farm specific use. Old Barn eligibility description in relation to Froom Ranch complex potential historic district is described following the individual descriptions. Outhouse (Attachment B; Image 69) Description and Character-Defining Features – The Outhouse is located west of the Old Barn and has an unknown date of construction. It is a one-story rectangular building asymmetrical in plan. The building has horizontal (tongue and groove) wood siding, and a gabled roof with a shed roof extension on the east. The roof is clad in wood shingles. The restroom has a wood entry door with a half moon cutout. East of the restroom is a small wood porch. The building was originally designed as a parking kiosk, and was located in downtown San Luis Obispo. John Madonna had the building moved to its current location and altered to becomea restroom. The building was placed where it is because of its proximity to an existing septic tank. The outhouse is less than 50 years old. 32 Alterations – When it was moved to Froom Ranch, the former parking kiosk was converted to an outhouse. There have not been any significant alterations since. Condition – The building is in fair condition. Integrity Analysis – No integrity analysis is required because the Outhouse was constructed after the period of significance. Eligibility – The Outhouse was constructed after the period of significance, and was moved to its current location from an offsite location. Upon relocation the structure was converted into a restroom, therefore, the building does not appear eligible for the National Register, California Register, or City’s Master List. Storage Building (Attachment B; Image 70) Description and Character-Defining Features – The Storage Building is located north of the Old Barn and has an unknown date of construction. It is a one-story rectangular building asymmetrical in plan. The building lacks a foundation, and has vertical (T1-11) plywood siding, and a gabled roof clad in wood shingles. The building has an entry door centered on the south elevation, and aluminum windows on the east and west elevations. John Madonna acquired the building from a friend and moved it to its current location. The County Assessor building records do not document this building; therefore, it appears to be less than 50 years old. Alterations – There do not appear to have been any significant alterations to the Storage Building. Condition – The building is in good condition. Integrity Analysis - No integrity analysis is required because the Storage Building was constructed after the period of significance. Eligibility – The Storage Building was constructed after the period of significance, therefore, the building does not appear eligible for the National Register, California Register, or City’s Master List. 33 Cell Tower (Attachment B; Image 71) Description and Character-Defining Features – The Cell Tower is located north of the Granary and was constructed within the last five years by Verizon Wireless. At first glance the Cell Tower appears to be a water tower, an intentional design choice to make the Cell Tower blend in with the surrounding architecture. The base of the tower is composed of metal posts. On top of the beams is a metal base that supports a circular, metal barrel with a dome-shaped roof. The metal barrel is finished to give the appearance of wood with metal rings. The Cell Tower is surrounded by a fence comprised of vertical wood boards. Alterations – There have not been any alterations to the Cell Tower. Condition – The structure is in good condition. Integrity Analysis – No integrity analysis is required because the Cell Tower was constructed after the period of significance. Eligibility – The Cell Tower was constructed after the period of significance, therefore, the building does not appear eligible for the National Register, California Register, or City Master List. 34 Eligibility Summary The following table summarizes the findings regarding the 10 buildings/structures present on the site: SUMMARY OF ELIGIBILITY BUILDING/ STRUCTURE NATIONAL REGISTER (Individually Eligible or as Contributor to Historic District) CALIFORNIA REGISTER (Individually Eligible or as Contributor to Historic District) LOCAL (Individually Eligible or as Contributor to Historic District) Main Residence Individually Eligible: Criteria A & B Primary Contributor* to Historic District Individually Eligible: Criteria 1 & 2 Primary Contributor to Historic District Individually Eligible: Criteria B1b, B3a, A2a) Primary Contributor to Historic District Creamery Individually Eligible: Criteria A & B & C Primary Contributor* to Historic District Individually Eligible: Criteria 1 & 2 & 3 Primary Contributor to Historic District Individually Eligible: Criteria B1b, B3a, A1c) Primary Contributor to Historic District Dairy Barn Individually Eligible: Criteria A & B & C Primary Contributor* to Historic District Individually Eligible: Criteria 1 & 2 & 3 Primary Contributor to Historic District Individually Eligible: Criteria B1b, B3a, A1c) Primary Contributor to Historic District Granary Individually Eligible: Criteria A & B & C Primary Contributor* to Historic District Individually Eligible: Criteria 1 & 2 & 3 Primary Contributor to Historic District Individually Eligible: Criteria B1b, B3a, A1c) Primary Contributor to Historic District Shed Not individually eligible Secondary Contributor* to Historic District Not individually eligible Secondary Contributor* to Historic District Not individually eligible Secondary Contributor* to Historic District Bunkhouse Not individually eligible Secondary Contributor* to Historic District Not individually eligible Secondary Contributor* to Historic District Not individually eligible Secondary Contributor* to Historic District 35 SUMMARY OF ELIGIBILITY BUILDING/ STRUCTURE NATIONAL REGISTER (Individually Eligible or as Contributor to Historic District) CALIFORNIA REGISTER (Individually Eligible or as Contributor to Historic District) LOCAL (Individually Eligible or as Contributor to Historic District) Old Barn Not individually eligible Secondary Contributor* to Historic District Not individually eligible Secondary Contributor* to Historic District Not individually eligible Secondary Contributor* to Historic District Outhouse Not Individually Eligible Not Contributor to District Not individually eligible Not Contributor to District Not individually eligible Not Contributor to District Storage Building Not Individually Eligible Not A Contributor to District Not Individually Eligible Not Contributor to District Not individually eligible Not Contributor to District Cell Tower Not Individually Eligible Not Contributor to District Not Individually Eligible Not Contributor to District Not individually eligible Not Contributor to District Historic District District Eligible: Criteria A, B & C District Eligible: Criteria 1, 2 & 3 District Eligible *Primary Contributor is defined as an individually eligible historic resource. **Secondary Contributors are not individually eligible historic resources and are not integral to dairy farm functionality, but date to the period of significance and contribute to the setting. Froom Ranch Complex Description and Character-Defining Features – The Froom Ranch complex occupies approximately 2.9 acres in the northern portion of the approximately 109.7-acre subject property and includes 10 buildings and structures: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, Old Barn, Outhouse, Storage Building, and Cell Tower. Of these 10 structures, seven were constructed during the period of significance: the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn. Four buildings which are individually eligible as historic resources are considered primary contributors, as they are individually eligible historic resources: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary. Three buildings are considered secondary contributors, as they are not individually eligible historic resources and are not integral to dairy farm functionality, but date to the period of significance and contribute to the setting: Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn. The character-defining features of these seven contributors are described in the individual building descriptions. The Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn, while they provide a context for the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary, are not necessary to convey the significance of the overall complex. 36 The Froom Ranch complex’s topography is moderately sloping and contains mostly non-native grasses and weedy species. As such, the type of landscape and open space contributes to the visual relationship between the buildings and is thus a character-defining feature. The relationship of the four individually eligible buildings, the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary within the Froom Ranch complex facilitated the dairy use. The Dairy Barn is at the highest elevation and the Main Residence is at the lowest elevation. The Dairy Barn’s curved south elevation is located above the natural slope to facilitate movement of cow manure, and conveys its relationship to the dairy industry. The Creamery’s location east and slightly downhill from the Dairy Barn also facilitated the milking of cows and other creamery tasks. The Main Residence’s location east of the Creamery, and downhill from the Dairy Barn, was strategic for work purposes, but also maintained a level of distance for domestic comfort. The relationship of the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary, in terms of form and use is critical in conveying the significance of the Froom Ranch complex. Thus, the existence, orientation, horizontal and vertical relationship of the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary and the relative open space and minimally landscaped setting are character-defining features of the Froom Ranch complex. Alterations – Refer to the individual building descriptions for alterations. Integrity Analysis – The Froom Ranch complex retains integrity as described below: Location – The spatial relationship of the four primary contributors is a critical character- defining feature of the Froom Ranch complex, and has not changed over time. They thus retain integrity of location. The spatial relationship between the three secondary contributors and the four primary contributors is not character-defining, since these buildings could have been located elsewhere within the complex without altering the functionality of the dairy farm. Although the relationship between the secondary and primary contributors is not character- defining, the location of the secondary contributors has not changed over time. The Froom Ranch complex therefore retains integrity of location. Design – The Froom Ranch complex retains its character-defining features and key geographic and structural relationships, and thus integrity of design. Setting – The Froom Ranch complex maintains the orientation of its buildings and structures, particularly the relationship between the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary. The Froom Ranch complex thus retains integrity of setting. Materials – While overall condition ranges from good to poor, the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, and Bunkhouse all retain the majority of their historic material. The Old Barn retains the majority of its siding but the interior has been heavily altered. Thus, while the Froom Ranch complex has lost some historic material, it retains the majority of its historic material and thus integrity of material. Workmanship – While the Froom Ranch complex has lost historic material, the majority of its design and materials, particularly exhibited in the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary retain integrity of workmanship from the time of original construction. Therefore, the Froom Ranch complex retains integrity of workmanship. Feeling – Given the retained relationships, particularly exhibited by the primary contributors, the Froom Ranch complex retains integrity of feeling. 37 Association – As the four primary contributors, Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary and three secondary contributors, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn, within the Froom Ranch complex, are associated with the Froom family and the dairy industry, the complex retains integrity of association with dairy operations and Froom family. Eligibility – The Froom Ranch complex “possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of site, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development” in terms of its association with dairy farm operations. The Froom Ranch complex also retains integrity and each contributor (Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn) dates from the period of significance. The Main Residence (individually eligible for National Register (Criteria A & B) and California Register (Criteria 1 & 2), Creamery (individually eligible for National Register (Criteria A, B & C) and California Register (Criteria 1, 2, & 3), Dairy Barn (individually eligible for National Register (Criteria A, B & C) and California Register (Criteria 1, 2, & 3), and Granary (individually eligible for National Register (Criteria A, B & C) and California Register (Criteria 1, 2, & 3), are primary contributors to the Froom Ranch complex. The Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn because they are not individually eligible historic resources and are not integral to dairy farm functionality, but date to the period of significance and contribute to the setting, are secondary contributors. Therefore, the Froom Ranch complex is eligible as a National Register and California Register historic district. The Main Residence (individually eligible for City Master List under Criteria B1b, B3a & A2a), Creamery (individually eligible for City Master List under Criteria B1b, B3a & A1c), Dairy Barn (individually eligible for City Master List under Criteria B1b, B3a & A1c), and Granary (individually eligible for City Master List under Criteria B1b, B3a & A1c), are primary contributors to the Froom Ranch complex. The Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn, as they are not individually eligible historic resources and are not integral to dairy farm functionality, but date to the period of significance and contribute to the setting, are secondary contributors. Therefore, the Froom Ranch complex is eligible as a City Master List historic district. 38 Page intentionally left blank 39 V. THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE According to the CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5 (b)(3)), “Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.” The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) contains four treatments for historic properties. The Secretary’s Standards are promulgated pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq. and provide general guidance on treatments for historical resources and their immediate surroundings or setting. State environmental law utilizes the Secretary’s Standards as a means of evaluating proposed projects and potential impacts on historical resources. A project that conforms with the Secretary’s Standards has a less than significant impact under CEQA. The Secretary’s Standards are not prescriptive or technical, but “are intended to promote responsible preservation practices” and “provide a consistent philosophical approach” to treatments for historical resources.24 NPS identifies four treatment approaches, which include preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. These treatments, in hierarchical order, are defined as follows: The first treatment, Preservation, is defined as, the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project.25 The second treatment, Rehabilitation, is defined as, the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.26 The third treatment, Restoration, is defined as, the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.27 24 Grimmer, 3. 25 Ibid., 27. 26 Ibid., 75 27 Ibid., 163 40 The fourth treatment, 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.28 As the Secretary’s Standards are not intended to be prescriptive, they are intended to be flexible and adaptable to specific project conditions to balance continuity and change while retaining historic building fabric to the maximum extent feasible. Their interpretation requires exercise of professional judgment and balance of the various opportunities and constraints of any given project based on use, materials retention and treatment, and compatibility of new construction. Not every standard necessarily applies to every aspect of a project, nor is it necessary to comply with every standard to achieve conformance. The proposed work involves rehabilitation and reconstruction. The Rehabilitation Standards are as follows: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment will be unimpaired. The Reconstruction Standards are: 1. Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non-surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with 28 Ibid., 225. 41 minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. 2. Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 3. Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. 4. Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. 5. A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. 6. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. Compliance with the Secretary’s Standards indicates that a project may have a less than significant impact on an historical resource. The converse of this does not hold; that is, failure to comply with the Secretary’s Standards is not, by definition, a significant impact under CEQA. According to CEQA Guidelines, a project would result in a significant impact to historical resources if it would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource as defined in §15064.5(b). “Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(1)). The CEQA Guidelines (§15064.5 (b)(2)) describe material impairment taking place when a project: A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register… or B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register... or its identification in an historical resources survey... unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or C) Demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register... as determined by a lead agency for the purposes of CEQA. 42 Page intentionally left blank 43 VI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION, IMPACTS ANALYSIS, AND PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is the Froom Ranch Specific Plan which includes a development proposal for the approximately 109.7-acre site with a mix of land uses including residential, commercial, park and open space. The proposed project also includes the dedication of approximately 3.6 acres of the subject property to the City as the Froom Ranch Trailhead Public Park (Park). The Park would consist of approximately 2.9 acres of space for park facilities, and approximately 0.7 acres of open space including a drainage channel. Within the Park, the primary historic resources existing on the subject property would be retained and adaptively reused: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary. The Main Residence would be relocated and rehabilitated, and the Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary would be disassembled, relocated, and reconstructed. Secondary historic resources existing on the subject property would be demolished: Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn, Non-historic resources on the subject property with the exception of the Cell Tower would also be demolished: Storage Building, and Outhouse. Due to the presence of a trace of the Los Osos fault which runs beneath the Dairy Barn, the proposed project would reconstruct and relocate the Dairy Barn at a new location slightly downhill and to the east, which is outside of the required setback from the fault. The Main Residence and Creamery would also be relocated, both further to the east to maintain their same relative horizontal spacing in relation to the Dairy Barn. To maintain the visual hierarchy of these three buildings, grade changes would be created between them to mimic their existing vertical relationship. The Granary would be relocated proximate to the Dairy Barn to maintain a functional relationship. The following includes a summary of proposed work to the Froom Ranch complex potential historic district, Main Residence rehabilitation, and Dairy Barn, Creamery, and Granary reconstruction. Review of the proposed project is based on the FirstCarbon Solutions HRA, “Analysis of Historic Structures at Froom Ranch” report (Stork, Wolfe, & Associates, 2017), and as-builts, existing, proposed and composite site plans and sections, and renderings from RRM Design Group. Proposed Froom Ranch Trailhead Public Park The “Tea Stain Map” contained in Attachment F shows the Froom Ranch complex located along the northern boundary on a relatively small portion of the overall Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. The proposed siting of the four primary historic resources would retain on-site and off-site views of these structures with a similar horizontal and vertical relationship to one another that now exists. Interpretive and directional signs are proposed throughout the Park to educate and direct visitors. A commercial building would be located north of the Main Residence, and a surface parking lot would be located to the north and west of the Dairy Barn. These features would be designed to complement historic resources and not detract from the natural and cultural setting as visitors approach the Park. Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary Because a portion of the Dairy Barn is currently located above a trace of the Los Osos fault, the four primary contributing structures, the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary would be relocated down slope to the east. The existing relative horizontal configuration between each of them would be retained. As such, the Main Residence would move approximately 224 feet, the Creamery approximately 215 feet, and the Dairy Barn approximately 222 feet to the east. The Granary would be located proximate to the Dairy Barn. The compass orientation of each building remains relatively the same, as each building would be shifted in the same direction. 44 The grade would change between the four structures to mimic the vertical proportions of their existing relationships and improve accessibility. The Main Residence is currently at an elevation of approximately 127 feet and would be at an elevation of approximately 130 feet, the Creamery is currently at an elevation of approximately 136 feet and would be at an elevation of approximately 137 feet, and the Dairy Barn is currently at an elevation of approximately 142.5 feet and would be at an elevation of approximately 142 feet. The Granary would be located at an elevation proximate to the Dairy Barn. While the overall vertical relationship would slightly change, the relationship of the Main Residence at the lowest elevation, the Dairy Barn and Granary at the highest elevation, and the Creamery in between would be retained. Landscaping would consist of low-growing and drought tolerant native grasses in keeping with the historic setting and to avoid detracting from its historic interpretation. The relocated or a new palm tree would be planted proximate the east elevation of the Main Residence. Main Residence The Main Residence would be relocated and rehabilitated. The proposed use is currently unknown, and final details would be developed in consultation with the City Parks and Recreation Department. The proposed work would maintain all character-defining features, including the single-story, asymmetrical massing, horizontal (shiplap) wood siding, slightly inset front porch, and hipped roof with a front-facing gable with wood shingles, and modest eave overhang. The existing front wood stoop would be reconstructed, and a sloped walk, ramp or lift would provide accessibility, preferably on a secondary elevation. The palm tree would be relocated, or a new palm tree would be planted proximate to the east elevation. The non-significant addition at the northwest corner would be removed, and replaced with a plaza. This plaza would contain an interpretive sign that provides information on building history and function, and could also incorporate decorative paving, public art, bike racks, and benches and/or a seat wall. The Main Residence scope of work includes: • New foundation would be installed. • Plywood over existing 1x skip sheathing at the roof and new wood shingle roof cladding would be added. • Floor joists would be doubled up (sistered). • Interior plywood shear walls would be added. • New mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems would be installed. Creamery The Creamery would be reconstructed and relocated. The proposed use would be restrooms in the west portion and a picnic shelter in the east portion. The proposed work would reconstruct all character-defining features, including asymmetrical form, combination of horizontal and vertical (board and batten) wood siding, and wood shingled roofs. The non-significant addition at the northeast corner would be removed. A plaza is proposed at the northwest corner and would contain an interpretive sign that provides information on building history and function, and could also incorporate decorative paving, public art, bike racks, and benches and/or a seat wall. The Creamery scope of work includes: • New wood foundation would be installed. 45 • New concrete floor would be installed. • New wood stud walls, plywood and exterior siding would be replaced. • New wood roof framing and wood shingle roof cladding would be installed. • New mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems would be installed. The proposed work would reconstruct the Creamery using new in-kind materials in the same exterior form and dimension as the existing historic building. The west portion would be fully finished on the interior. The east portion includes interpretive “ghost” elements29, where walls, fenestration, and roof are framed but not cladded. Dairy Barn The Dairy Barn would be reconstructed and relocated. The proposed use would be a multi-purpose space. The proposed work would include a plaza at the north elevation of the building. This plaza would contain an interpretive sign that provides information on building history and function, and could also incorporate decorative paving, public art, bike racks, and benches and/or a seat wall. The proposed work would reconstruct all character-defining features, including the rounded south elevation atop a slope, vertical wood siding, and wood shingled roof. The structure would not be fully finished and would have open beams without insulation or interior wall finishes such as drywall. The Dairy Barn scope of work includes: • New foundation would be installed. • New concrete floor would be installed. • New wood stud walls, plywood and exterior siding would be replaced. • New wood roof framing and wood shingle roof cladding would be installed. • New mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems would be installed. • Additional wood diagonal bracing would be installed. Granary The Granary would be reconstructed and relocated. The proposed use would be storage space. The proposed work would reconstruct all character-defining features, including the wood pier foundation, doubled walled with vertical tongue-and-groove wood siding, and front-gabled moderately pitched roof. The Granary scope of work includes: • New foundation would be installed. • New concrete floor would be installed. • New stud walls, plywood, interior and exterior siding would be replaced. • New roof framing and roof cladding would be installed. • New mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems would be installed. 29 “Ghost” elements or “ghost structures,” such as the Benjamin Franklin Museum and Franklin Court in Philadeliphia, where “ghost” reconstructions of the form of the house and print shop interpret these lost buildings. The reconstructions often take the form of steel beams that mimick the structural dimensions of the lost buildings. 46 Storage Building and Outhouse Two non-contributors, Storage Building and Outhouse, would be demolished; one non-contributor, the Cell Tower, would be retained. Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn The three secondary contributors, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn, would be demolished. IMPACTS ANALYSIS The following is an evaluation of the proposed project for conformance with the Rehabilitation Standards for the Main Residence, and the Reconstruction Standards for the Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary. The relocation of the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary would utilize methodology contained in “Moving Historic Buildings,” (1979), John Obed Curtis is published by NPS (Attachment H). Individual Resource Impacts - Primary Contributors: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary The proposed work involves relocating the four primary contributing historic buildings, the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary, within the Park. Each of the four buildings have unique characteristics, and different structural and condition issues. As the Main Residence is in good condition, the appropriate treatment is rehabilitation, defined as the “process of returning a property to a state of utility…while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.”30 As the Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary are in poor condition, the appropriate treatment is reconstruction, defined as the “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 its historic location.”31 Main Residence As further explained below, the proposed work is found to conform with the Secretary’s Standards with implementation of Mitigation Measures 1, 2, and 5: Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation Conformance Standard 1 A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. In conformance with Standard 1, the proposed work requires minimal change to the distinctive materials and features of the historic building, including horizontal massing, a hipped roof, wood horizontal siding, projecting partial width front porch with a front-facing gable roof, and wood double-hung windows. As the use is currently unknown, no change to the interior spaces is proposed. The spatial relationships between the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary will be retained. The proposed work to the Main Residence would be in conformance with Standard 1 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 which is designed to document existing appearance. 30 Grimmer, 75 31 Ibid., 225. 47 Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation Conformance Standard 2 The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. In conformance with Standard 2, the proposed work retains historic character by preserving historic materials that characterize the subject property. The proposed work includes removal of the non-significant addition at the northwest corner, retention of late Queen Anne Cottage characteristics, and reconstruct the existing wood vertical board skirt and front concrete stoop in-kind. Standard 3 Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. In conformance with Standard 3, the proposed work would not create a false sense of historical development, as the proposed work would not introduce new materials, and the original design would be retained. While there would be a new foundation, it was not identified as character-defining. Standard 4 Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. With the exception of the porch infill at the south elevation which appears to be an alteration that has taken on significance, no other changes and alterations have acquired significance, thus the proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 4. Standard 5 Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. In conformance with Standard 5, the proposed work would not alter distinctive materials, features, finishes, or construction techniques that characterize the property. The construction of a new foundation is necessary to ensure the structural soundness of the building. With the exception of the reconstructed wood vertical board skirt and concrete front stoop, historic materials would be retained. The proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 5 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 which is designed to ensure compliance with the Secretary’s Standards from design through construction. Standard 6 Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. In conformance with Standard 6, deteriorated historic features would be repaired. Where features are deteriorated beyond repaired, they would be replaced in-kind to match the existing. Standard 7 Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. In conformance with Standard 7, physical treatments would use the gentlest means possible and would not damage historic materials. Standard 8 Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. FirstCarbon Solutions completed a thorough archeological investigation of the subject property in 2015, which was later updated in 2017, and concluded 48 Secretary’s Standards for Rehabilitation Conformance the proposed work does not disturb archeological resources. Standard 9 New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. In conformance with Standard 9, proposed work does not include new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction. New construction is proposed proximate to the north elevation of the Main Residence. The proposed new construction would be in conformance with Standard 9 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 5 which is designed to ensure compliance with the Secretary’s Standards from design through construction. Standard 10 New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment will be unimpaired. In conformance with Standard 10, proposed work would not include new additions. The proposed work on the Main Residence is in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards as noted above. Mitigation Measures 1 and 5 are required to ensure impacts are mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. Creamery As further explained below, the proposed work is found to conform with the Secretary’s Standards with implementation of Mitigation Measures 1, 2, 3, and 4: Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction Conformance Standard 1 Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non- surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. In conformance with Standard 1, as reconstruction would be based on as-builts, physical evidence from on-site surveying, and historic and contemporary photographs, minimal conjecture would occur. The non- significant addition at the northeast corner of the east portion would not be reconstructed. The west portion would be reconstructed, and the east portion would have ghost elements to match historic form and dimension, with the intent of providing interpretation while serving a contemporary use. The proposed work to the Creamery would be in conformance with Standard 1 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 which is designed to ensure compliance with the Secretary’s Standards from design through construction. The proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 1 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 which is designed to document existing appearance. The proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 1 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 which is designed to provide interpretation. 49 Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction Conformance Standard 2 Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. In conformance with Standard 2, FirstCarbon Solutions completed a thorough archeological investigation of the subject property in 2015, which was later updated in 2017, and concluded the proposed work does not disturb archeological resources. Standard 3 Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. As reconstruction would be based on as-builts, physical evidence from on-site surveying, and historic and contemporary photographs, minimal conjecture would occur, and reconstruction would include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. Therefore, proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 3. The proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 3 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 which is designed to reuse historic materials to the greatest extent feasible. Standard 4 Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. In conformance with Standard 4, reconstruction would be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property would re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. The west portion would be reconstructed, and the east portion would have ghost elements to match historic form and dimension, with the intent of providing interpretation. Standard 5 A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. In conformance with Standard 5, reconstruction would be identified as contemporary reconstruction due to a combination of both traditional construction and ghost elements. The ghost elements would assist in identifying the Creamery as a reconstruction, while also accentuating the most significant character-defining feature of the building: the visual profile, composed of irregularly shaped and asymmetrical massing. Interpretative signage would provide information regarding the history of the buildings while also describing the reconstruction. Standard 6 Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. In conformance with Standard 6, designs that were never executed historically would not be constructed. The proposed work on the Creamery is in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards as noted above. Mitigation Measures 1, 2, 3, and 4 are required to ensure impacts are mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. 50 Dairy Barn As further explained below, the proposed work is found to conform with the Secretary’s Standards with implementation of Mitigation Measures 1, 2, 3, and 4: Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction Conformance Standard 1 Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non- surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. In conformance with Standard 1, as reconstruction would be based on as-builts, physical evidence from on-site surveying, and historic and contemporary photographs minimal conjecture would occur. The proposed work to the Dairy Barn would be in conformance with Standard 1 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 which is designed to ensure compliance with the Secretary’s Standards from design through construction. The proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 1 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 which is designed to document existing appearance. The proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 1 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 which is designed to provide interpretation. Standard 2 Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. In conformance with Standard 2, FirstCarbon Solutions completed a thorough archeological investigation of the subject property in 2015, which was later updated in 2017, and concluded the proposed work does not disturb archeological resources. Standard 3 Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. As reconstruction would be based on as-builts, physical evidence from on-site surveying, and historic and contemporary photographs minimal conjecture would occur, and reconstruction would include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. The proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 3 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 which is designed to reuse historic materials to the greatest extent feasible. Standard 4 Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability o f different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. In conformance with Standard 4, reconstruction would be based on the accurate replication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. The reconstructed property would re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. Standard 5 A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. In conformance with Standard 5, reconstruction would be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. 51 Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction Conformance Interpretative signage would also provide information regarding the history of the buildings and their reconstruction. Standard 6 Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. In conformance with Standard 6, designs that were never executed historically would not be constructed. The proposed work on the Dairy Barn is in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards as noted above. Recommended Mitigation Measures 1, 2, 3, and 4 are required to ensure impacts are mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. Granary As further explained below, the proposed work is found to conform with the Secretary’s Standards with implementation of Recommended Mitigation Measures 1, 2, 3, and 4: Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction Conformance Standard 1 Reconstruction will be used to depict vanished or non- surviving portions of a property when documentary and physical evidence is available to permit accurate reconstruction with minimal conjecture, and such reconstruction is essential to the public understanding of the property. In conformance with Standard 1, as reconstruction would be based on physical evidence from on-site surveying, and historic and contemporary photographs minimal conjecture would occur. The proposed treatment to the Granary would be in conformance with Standard 1 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 1 which is designed to ensure compliance with the Secretary’s Standards from design through construction. The proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 1 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 2 which is designed to document existing appearance. The proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 1 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 which is designed to provide interpretation. Standard 2 Reconstruction of a landscape, building, structure, or object in its historic location will be preceded by a thorough archeological investigation to identify and evaluate those features and artifacts which are essential to an accurate reconstruction. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. In conformance with Standard 2, FirstCarbon Solutions completed a thorough archeological investigation of the subject property in 2015, which was later updated in 2017, and concluded the proposed work does not disturb archeological resources. Standard 3 Reconstruction will include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. As reconstruction would be based on physical evidence from on-site surveying, and historic and contemporary photographs minimal conjecture would occur, and reconstruction would include measures to preserve any remaining historic materials, features, and spatial relationships. The proposed work would be in conformance with Standard 3 with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 52 Secretary’s Standards for Reconstruction Conformance which is designed to reuse historic materials to the greatest extent feasible. Standard 4 Reconstruction will be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. A reconstructed property will re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. In conformance with Standard 4, reconstruction would be based on the accurate duplication of historic features and elements substantiated by documentary or physical evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different features from other historic properties. The reconstructed property would re-create the appearance of the non-surviving historic property in materials, design, color, and texture. Standard 5 A reconstruction will be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. In conformance with Standard 5, reconstruction would be accurate. Interpretative signage would provide information regarding the history of the buildings and their reconstruction. Standard 6 Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. In conformance with Standard 6, designs that were never executed historically would not be constructed. The proposed work on the Granary is in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards as noted above. Mitigation Measures 1, 2, 3, and 4 are required to ensure impacts are mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource. Individual Resource Impacts - Secondary Contributors: Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn The Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn where not found to be individually eligible historic resources. Demolition of these structures would therefore not result in a significant historical resource impact. Individual Resource Impacts - Non-Contributors: Storage Building, Outhouse, and Cell Tower As the Storage Building and Outhouse are non-contributors built outside the period of significance, and thus do not have historic significance, their demolition will not result in a significant historical resource impact. The Cell Tower would be retained. Impacts - Potential Historic District - Froom Ranch Complex The proposed work would retain the four individually eligible and thus primary contributing buildings to the potential historic district (Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary) and their contextual relationship through rehabilitation and reconstruction. However, the secondary contributors would be demolished. The Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn, while contributors to the potential historic district, are not individually eligible and do not convey the same level of significance as the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary. As such, they have been identified as secondary contributors to the potential historic district. The Froom Ranch complex was identified as eligible for listing as a potential National Register, California Register, and City Master List historic district consisting of seven contributors, the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn. These contributors were all constructed during the period of significance when it was in use as a dairy and when Bill Froom did his important work. The proposed work would result in the loss of secondary contributors to the potential historic district, the Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn, and thus requires analysis of whether the proposed work would 53 result in material impairment of the potential historic district and have an impact under CEQA. Under CEQA, material impairment occurs when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the National Register, California Register, or City Master List. As detailed in the description of the Froom Ranch complex, the potential historic district’s character- defining features, which convey its historical significance are: 1. The existence, orientation, horizontal and vertical relationship of the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary. 2. The relative open space and minimally landscaped setting. 3. Although the secondary contributors were associated with dairy farm operations, they are not individually eligible, were not integral to dairy farm functionality and are not dairy farm- specific building types. While the Froom Ranch complex would be regraded, the proposed work would maintain the character-defining features, including the existence, orientation, relative horizontal and vertical relationship of the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary, and the relative open space and minimally landscaped setting. The viewshed from the Main Residence to the Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary would also be retained, as it would remain at the lowest elevation, the Creamery at the middle elevation, and the Dairy Barn and Granary at the highest elevation. The Main Residence would be rehabilitated consistent with the Rehabilitation Standards of the Secretary’s Standards and the Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary would be reconstructed consistent with the Reconstruction Standards of the Secretary’s Standards. Demolition of the secondary contributors would not affect the ability of the Froom Ranch complex to convey its significance of association with the dairy industry and Bill Froom, or impact the architectural significance of the Main Residence (local for Queen Anne style) or Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary (National, California Register and locally eligible for vernacular architecture). As the character-defining features of the potential historic district would not be impacted, and therefore “those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for” listing would be retained, material impairment would not occur and impacts to the potential historic district would be less than significant. MITIGATION MEASURES The proposed work to the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, and Granary has been found by a qualified professional historic architect to be in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards based on the available plans, and as currently proposed the project would not result in a significant impact to the potential historic district. In order to ensure conformance with the Secretary’s Standards through final design and construction, a measure for ongoing design review and construction monitoring by a qualified professional historic architect is required, as set forth below. In addition, a measure requiring Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation with respect to all contributing buildings will provide contemporary photographs to document existing appearance. It is industry practice when a portion of a potential historical resource is removed to prepare HABS documentation to provide a high-quality record of the subject property before proposed work. There are some historic photographs that document historic conditions, and HABS photographs would supplement them. Additional measures are provided for interpretative signage and reuse or sale of salvaged materials. These measures would ensure the proposed project has less-than-significant 54 impact on the Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, and Froom Ranch complex and, if agreeable, would be considered Applicant Proposed Measures. 1. Measure for Continued Design Collaboration and Construction Monitoring The Applicant shall continue to retain a qualified professional historic architect meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 61) to review and comment on design and construction drawings and monitor construction to ensure conformance with the Secretary’s Standards. The role of the historic architect shall include collaboration on a range of items relating to materials selection, construction methods, design of exterior and interior alterations, and monitoring of construction activities. The historic architect shall submit a report documenting continued conformance with the Secretary’s Standards to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits for the proposed project. The historic architect shall participate in a pre-construction meeting with the general contractor and subcontractors and periodically monitor construction to completion of construction. The historic architect shall notify the Applicant if any unforeseen circumstance arises during construction that could potentially result in nonconformance with the Secretary’s Standards. The historic architect and Applicant shall resolve any unforeseen circumstance in a manner that conforms with the Secretary’s Standards. The qualified professional historic architect shall work with Applicant team to ensure: • Deteriorated historic features would be repaired to the greatest extent feasible. Where features are deteriorated beyond repair, they would be replaced to exactly match the old. • All character-defining features are retained. • Physical treatments to historic material would use the gentlest means possible and would not damage material. • Reconstruction would be clearly identified as a contemporary re-creation. • Interpretative signage would clearly provide information regarding the history of the buildings and their reconstruction. 2. Measure for Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Documentation The Applicant shall retain a qualified professional photographer to prepare HABS Level II documentation. This documentation shall record the existing appearance of all seven contributing buildings in large and medium format HABS photographs. All documentation components shall be completed in accordance with the Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation (HABS standards). The photographs shall consist primarily of large format, 4-inch by 5-inch, black and white negatives (one set), contact prints (one set) and 8-inch by 10-inch prints (two sets), archivally processed and printed on fiber-based paper. The set of original negatives shall be made at the time the photographs are taken. The original, archivally-sound negatives and prints shall be and distributed as follows: (1) the Library of Congress in Washington, DC through the National Park Service (one set of negatives and contact prints). A digital copy of the HABS documentation shall be submitted to the City. The draft documentation shall be assembled and submitted to the qualified professional historic architect and the Applicant for review and approval prior to submittal to the repository. The HABS documentation shall be completed prior to the start of proposed work. 55 3. Measure For Interpretation Of Froom Ranch Complex, including Primary and Secondary Contributors The Applicant shall work with the City to develop an interpretive project that documents the potential historic district and its cultural and architectural heritage by means of a pamphlet. This pamphlet will highlight the Froom Ranch complex, both primary and secondary contributors, in a social (Froom family) and industrial (dairy industry) context, with an emphasis on how these buildings were used on the dairy farm, and how this property relates to the larger dairy farm context in both San Luis Obispo, Central Coast, and California. Five hundred copies of the pamphlet shall be published. These professionally researched, written and printed materials will be offered at no cost through the local museums and heritage organizations, and at the Park. After the initial distribution of printed brochures, digital copies shall be available. Throughout the Park interpretive signs that provide information on building history and function (extant and demolished) shall also be incorporated. 4. Measure for Reuse or Sale of Historic Building Material The Applicant shall reuse original material to the greatest extent feasible in the proposed work on the primary contributors. The Applicant and historic architect shall work with the City to prepare a marketing plan to offer to the public any salvaged historic materials not used during rehabilitation and reconstruction of the primary contributors, and demolition of the secondary contributors. As appropriate, unused or unretained historic materials will be offered to local historical societies and museums, then offered to architectural recycling before being disposed. 5. Measure for Design Guidelines and Review of New Construction The Applicant and historic architect shall prepare design guildlines and a review process for new construction proximate to the Main Residence. New construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that the essential form and integrity of the Main Residence and its setting would be unimpaired. The design guidelines and review by City Community Development Director shall ensure new construction is compatible with Main Residence in material, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the proposed work on the Froom Ranch complex, including rehabilitation, reconstruction, and relocation of four contributors to the identified potential historic district, was found to conform with the Secretary’s Standards. The effect of the loss of secondary contributors was considered on eligibility of the potential historic district and was found to not cause material impairment. 56 Page intentionally left blank 57 VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY “California Farming Regions: The Central Coast and Southern California.” Cuesa: Cultivating A Healthy Food System. October 28, 2005. https://cuesa.org/article/california-farming-regions- central-coast-and-southern-california. County of San Luis Obispo Assessor. Miscellaneous Building Record. 1949, 1954, 1960, 1965. County of San Luis Obispo Assessor. Residential Building Record. 1949, 1954, 1960, 1965, 1968, 1970. Curtis, John Obed. “Moving Historic Buildings.” National Park Service, 1979. Dandekar, Hemalata C., Adrianna Jordan. “The Railroads and San Luis Obispo’s Urban Form,” Focus 8, no. 1, (2010): 46-55. FirstCarbon Solutions. “Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment.” July 21, 2017. Grimmer, Anne E. “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstruction Historic Buildings.” Rev. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2017. History of San Luis Obispo, California; with illustrations and biographical sketches of its prominent men and pioneers. Oakland: Thompson & West, 1883. H.R. Sinnard, H.P Ewalt, M.G. Huber, “Dairy Buildings,” Extension Bulletin 711, Federal Cooperative Extension Service, Oregon State College, November 1950, 4. Lakovitch, Anna, and Richard Brandi and Richard Sucre, “Hagemann Ranch Historic District.” National Register designation form. November 30, 2007. Livingston, D.S. A Good Life: dairy farming in the Olema Valley: a history of the dairy and beef ranches of the Olema and Lagunitas Canyon. San Francisco: National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1995. Raup, H.P. “The Italian-Swiss Dairymen of San Luis Obispo County, Ca.” Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, 1 (1935): 3-8. Steele, Catherine Baumgarten. “The Steele Brothers: Pioneer’s in California’s Great Dairy Industry.” California Historical Society Quarterly 20, no. 3 (1941) : 259-273. Pulliam, A.L. “Farm Layout and Farmstead Planning.” Federal Cooperative Extension Service, Oregon State College, Extension Bulletin, 685, (1948) : 5-32. National Register Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002). National Register. IV. How to Define Categories of Historic Properties. “District.” https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_4.htm#district. 58 Page intentionally left blank 59 VIII. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Historic Images Attachment B: Contemporary Images Attachment C: Inspiration Images Attachment D: Froom Ranch – Historical Buildings Cultural Heritage Committee Hearing Drawing Package, November 14, 2017 Attachment E: Froom Ranch – Historical Buildings Cultural Heritage Committee Hearing PowerPoint, August 28, 2017 Attachment F: Froom Ranch – County Assessor Records and Historical Buildings Dimensions Attachment G: “Analysis of Historic Structures at Froom Ranch,” Stork, Wolfe & Associates, June 30, 2017 Attachment H: “Moving Historic Buildings,” National Park Service, John Obed Curtis, 1979 Attachment I: “Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Building Complex,” Bertrando and Bertrando Research Consultants, March 14, 1998 ATTACHMENT A: HISTORIC IMAGES FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OVERALL ATTACHMENT A: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 2 Image 1: Aerial view of Froom Ranch complex (John Madonna archives) Image 2: Froom Ranch complex, view northwest (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OVERALL ATTACHMENT A: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 3 Image 3: Froom Ranch complex, view west (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) Image 4: Froom Ranch complex, view west (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OVERALL ATTACHMENT A: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 4 Image 5: Froom Ranch complex, view northwest (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) Image 6: Shed, Creamery, and Dairy Barn, view northwest (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OVERALL ATTACHMENT A: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 5 Image 7: Shed, Creamery, and Dairy Barn, view northwest (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) Image 8: Creamery and Main Residence, view southeast (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OVERALL ATTACHMENT A: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 6 Image 9: Dairy Barn, view north (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) Image 10: Creamery, view west (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OVERALL ATTACHMENT A: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 7 Image 11: Creamery, view southeast (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) Image 12: Creamery, view south (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OVERALL ATTACHMENT A: HISTORIC IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 8 Image 13: Main Residence, interior (Joan Sullivan archives, c1970s) THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OVERALL ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 10 Image 14: Froom Ranch complex, view northwest (Chattel, 2017) Image 15: Froom Ranch complex, view northwest (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OVERALL ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 11 Image 16: Froom Ranch complex, view east (Chattel, 2017) Image 17: Froom Ranch complex, view northeast (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—MAIN RESIDENCE ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 12 Image 18: Main Residence, southeast corner, view northwest (Chattel, 2017) Image 19: Main Residence, northeast corner, view southwest (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—MAIN RESIDENCE ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 13 Image 20: Main Residence, east elevation, view west (Chattel, 2017) Image 21: Main Residence, west elevation, view north (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—MAIN RESIDENCE ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 14 Image 22: Main Residence, addition, view northeast (Chattel, 2017) Image 23: Main Residence, addition, view southeast (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—MAIN RESIDENCE ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 15 Image 24: Main Residence, interior, view east (Chattel, 2017) Image 25: Main Residence, interior, view west (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—MAIN RESIDENCE ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 16 THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Image 26: Main Residence, interior, view east (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—CREAMERY ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 17 Image 27: Creamery, south elevation (left) and east elevation and addition (center), view northwest. Refer to Image 10 for 1970s condition. (Chattel, 2017) Image 28: Creamery, south elevation, view north (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—CREAMERY ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 18 Image 29: Creamery, west elevation, view southeast (Chattel, 2017) Image 30: Creamery, northwest corner, view southeast (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—CREAMERY ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 19 Image 31: Creamery, east elevation, view west. Refer to Image 10 for 1970s condition. (Chattel, 2017) Image 32: Creamery, interior, view south (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—CREAMERY ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 20 Image 33: Creamery, interior, view east (Chattel, 2017) Image 34: Creamery, foundation, view south (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—DAIRY BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 21 Image 35: Dairy Barn, west elevation (left) and right elevation (right), view northeast (Chattel, 2017) Image 36: Dairy Barn, south elevation, view northwest (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—DAIRY BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 22 Image 37: Dairy Barn, south elevation, view northwest (Chattel, 2017) Image 38: Dairy Barn, south elevation detail showing material loss, view northeast (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—DAIRY BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 23 Image 39: Dairy Barn, south elevation detail showing material loss, view northeast (Chattel, 2017) Image 40: Dairy Barn, north elevation, view southeast (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—DAIRY BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 24 Image 41: Dairy Barn, north elevation with addition, view southeast (Chattel, 2017) Image 42: Dairy Barn, east elevation with addition, view northwest (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—DAIRY BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 25 Image 43: Dairy Barn, east elevation addition, view northwest (Chattel, 2017) Image 44: Dairy Barn, southeast corner showing structure’s relationship to topography, view southwest (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—DAIRY BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 26 Image 45: Dairy Barn, interior, view southeast (Chattel, 2017) Image 46: Dairy Barn, interior, view southwest (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—DAIRY BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 27 Image 47: Dairy Barn, interior, view east (Chattel, 2017) Image 48: Dairy Barn, interior, view southwest (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—DAIRY BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 28 Image 49: Dairy Barn, interior, view south (Chattel, 2017) Image 50: Dairy Barn, interior WF (William Froom) wood engraved detail, view east (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—DAIRY BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 29 Image 51: Dairy Barn, addition interior, view northwest (Chattel, 2017) THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—GRANARY ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 30 Image 52: Granary, view northwest (Chattel, 2017) Image 53: Granary, view northeast (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—GRANARY ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 31 Image 54: Granary, interior, wall and roof structure (Chattel, 2017) Image 55: Granary, showing wood frame with tongue and groove interior finish detail (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—GRANARY ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 32 Image 57: Granary, interior, view east (Chattel, 2017) Image 56: Granary, interior, roof structure (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—SHED ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 33 Image 57: Shed, view southeast (Chattel, 2017) THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—BUNKHOUSE ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 34 Image 58: Bunkhouse, northeast corner, view southwest (Chattel, 2017) Image 59: Bunkhouse, southwest corner, view northeast (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OLD BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 35 Image 60: Old Barn, southeast corner, view northwest (Chattel, 2017) Image 61: Old Barn, southwest corner, view southwest (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OLD BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 36 Image 62: Old Barn, northeast corner, view southwest (Chattel, 2017) Image 63: Old Barn, interior (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OLD BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 37 Image 64: Old Barn, interior (Chattel, 2017) Image 65: Old Barn, interior (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OLD BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 38 Image 66: Old Barn, interior (Chattel, 2017) Image 67: Old Barn, interior (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—STORAGE BUILDLING AND OUTHOUSE ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 39 Image 68: Outhouse (Chattel, 2017) Image 69: Storage Building (Chattel, 2017) FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—CELL TOWER ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 40 Image 70: Cell Tower (Chattel, 2017) ATTACHMENT C: INSPIRATION IMAGES THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OLD BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 43 Image 72: Inspiration image of ghost structure, Highland Camrose Park, Hollywood Image 73: Inspiration image of ghost structure, Highland Camrose Park, Hollywood FROOM RANCH COMPLEX—OLD BARN ATTACHMENT B: CONTEMPORARY IMAGES CHATTEL, INC. | HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 44 Image 74: Inspiration image of ghost structure, Benjamin Franklin House, Philadelphia THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT D: FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS, RRM DESIGN GROUP, NOVEMBER 14, 2017 THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SHEET INDEX FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2. EXISTING STRUCTURES 3. TEA STAIN MAP 4. COMPOSITE SITE PLAN 5. PROPOSED SITE PLAN 6. E/W SITE SECTIONS 7. N/S SITE SECTIONS 8. MAIN RESIDENCE - PHOTOS Cultural Heritage Committee Hearing November 14, 2017 9. CREAMERY - FLOOR PLAN 10. CREAMERY - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 11. CREAMERY - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 12. CREAMERY - PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE 13. DAIRY BARN - FLOOR PLAN 14. DAIRY BARN - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 15. DAIRY BARN - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 16. DAIRY BARN - FOUNDATION PLAN 17. DAIRY BARN - ROOF FRAMING PLAN 18. DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATION 19. DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATION 20. DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATION 21. DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL SECTION 22. DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL SECTION 23. EXISTING VIEW 24. PROPOSED VIEW 25. TRAILHEAD PARK PLAN SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 1SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS PROJECT DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND/PROPOSAL The proposed project includes the dedication of 3.6 acres to the City of San Luis Obispo as the Froom Ranch Trailhead Public Park. The main portion of the Park consisting of 2.9 acres would incorporate the most significant historic structures on the property. The remainder of the Park area (0.7 acres) is an open space and drainage channel that will act as a physical and visual buffer between the main park area and the shopping center to the north. A Historic Resource Assessment documented seven existing structures as historically significant for their association with the dairy industry and Froom family and as contributors to a potential historic district referred to as the Froom Ranch Complex: Main Residence, Creamery/House, Round-Nose Dairy Barn, Shed, Bunkhouse, Old Barn, and Granary. Of these seven existing structures, four buildings, the Main Residence, Creamery/House, Round-Nose Dairy Barn, and Granary were deemed to be primary contributors to the potential historic district as they exhibited more unique architectural features and greater historic significance from their association with the Froom family and dairy industry of San Luis Obispo County. The Shed, Bunkhouse, Old Barn, and non-significant additions were identified as secondary contributors in terms of their architectural integrity and ability to convey association with the dairy industry and Froom family. These non-significant structures and additions would be thoroughly documented consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards) prior to demolition. Due to the presence of a trace of the Los Osos earthquake fault which runs beneath the Dairy Barn, the proposed project proposes to reconstruct the architecturally significant Dairy Barn at a new location slightly downhill and to the east, which is outside of the required setback from the fault. In addition, the two other architecturally significant buildings, the Main Residence and Creamery, would also be relocated further to the east to maintain their same relative horizontal spacing. To maintain the visual hierarchy of these three buildings, grade changes would be created between the structures to mimic their existing vertical relationship. OBJECTIVES PRESERVE THE HISTORIC ENVIRONMENT 1. Historic Preservation - Retain the three most significant historic structures, which are the Main Residence, Creamery/House, and Round-Nose Dairy Barn, into the City Trailhead Park for adaptive reuse. 2. Comply with SOI Standards – Follow SOI Standards for Reconstruction for the Creamery/ House, and Round-Nose Dairy Barn, and Rehabilitation for the Main Residence. 3. Retain Physical Relationship Between Buildings – Maintain the same horizontal spacing between buildings with their relocation. 4. Preserve Character-Defining Features of Buildings - Reconstruct all character-defining features using historically accurate materials, including salvaged and reused materials where feasible. MAINTAIN EXISTING HISTORIC VIEWSHED 5. Recreate the Vertical Relationship between Buildings - While the Froom Ranch complex will be re-graded, the existing vertical relationship between the three primary contributing buildings will be mimicked with the Main Residence at the lowest elevation, the Creamery/ House at the middle elevation, and the Round-Nose Dairy Barn at the highest elevation. 6. Provide Accessibility – Grading will maintain the general slope up from east to west across the park site, mimicking existing grades, but also allowing for complying accessibility to and between buildings. 7. Retain the Off-Site View Corridors – Open views will be maintained from the roundabout into the park area of the three historic buildings beyond. 8. Preserve the Open Atmosphere - The landscaping for the park will primarily consist of low-growing and drought-tolerant native grasses to mimic the historic setting of the ranch. Drought-tolerant trees and shrubs will be strategically placed in informal groupings behind the historic structures. 9. Incorporate the Palm Tree - The Main Residence will include one prominently located palm tree near the front of the house to mimic the historic setting. 10. Select Historically Appropriate Site Details - Lighting and fencing should be historically accurate to the Froom Ranch setting. EDUCATE PARK VISITORS 11. Create Plazas to Complement Historic Buildings - A small series of plazas are proposed on the back sides of the buildings to create a sense of entry and gathering spaces, but not detract from the natural setting. 12. Educate Park Visitors - Interpretive and directional signs are proposed throughout the Trailhead Park to educate and direct park visitors. Signage near plazas would contain information on building history and function. FROOMSPECIFIC PLAN3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 ● San Luis Obispo, CA 93401p: (805) 543-1794 ● f: (805) 543-4609www.rrmdesign.coma California corporation ● Lenny Grant, Architect C26973 ● Jerry Michael, PE 36895, LS 6276 ● Jeff Ferber, LA 2844TEA STAIN MAP -EXISTINGL-1 KEY MAP PROJECT SITE EXISTING STRUCTURES Significant Structures Main Residence Creamery Dairy Barn Granary Non-Significant Structures Shed Bunkhouse Old Barn Non-Significant Additions 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 FROOMSPECIFIC PLAN3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 ● San Luis Obispo, CA 93401p: (805) 543-1794 ● f: (805) 543-4609www.rrmdesign.coma California corporation ● Lenny Grant, Architect C26973 ● Jerry Michael, PE 36895, LS 6276 ● Jeff Ferber, LA 2844TEA STAIN MAP -EXISTINGL-1 KEY MAP PROJECT SITE EXISTING STRUCTURES Significant Structures Main Residence Creamery Dairy Barn Granary Non-Significant Structures Shed Bunkhouse Old Barn Non-Significant Additions 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 2SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS EXISTING STRUCTURES JoaquinCalleFROOM/ IL VILLAGIOSPECIFIC PLAN3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 ● San Luis Obispo, CA 93401p: (805) 543-1794 ● f: (805) 543-4609www.rrmdesign.coma California corporation ● Lenny Grant, Architect C26973 ● Jerry Michael, PE 36895, LS 6276 ● Jeff Ferber, LA 2844MAIN RESIDENCESHED BUILDING LATER ADDITION BUNKHOUSE "OLD" BARN OUTHOUSESTORAGE BUILDINGLATER ADDITIONDAIRY BARN CREAMERY/ HOUSE LATER ADDITION SITE PLAN -HISTORIC BUILDINGSL-1.1 CELL TOWER PROJ E CT B O U N D A R Y GRANARY KEY MAP Costco Target Home Depot Mountainbrook Church PROJECT SITE 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 3SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS TEA STAIN MAP FROOMSPECIFIC PLAN3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 ● San Luis Obispo, CA 93401p: (805) 543-1794 ● f: (805) 543-4609www.rrmdesign.coma California corporation ● Lenny Grant, Architect C26973 ● Jerry Michael, PE 36895, LS 6276 ● Jeff Ferber, LA 2844TEA STAIN MAP -EXISTINGL-1 KEY MAP PROJECT SITE EXISTING STRUCTURES Significant Structures Main Residence Creamery Dairy Barn Granary Non-Significant Structures Shed Bunkhouse Old Barn Non-Significant Additions 1 2 3 1 2 3 5 6 7 4 5 6 7 4 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 97'-0"97'-0"132'-6" 132'-6" 1 2 3 1 2 3 Existing Fault Line and Setback Proposed Trailhead Park Area EXISTING STRUCTURES Significant Structures Main Residence Creamery Dairy Barn Granary Relocated Significant Structures Main Residence Creamery Dairy Barn Granary 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 4SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS COMPOSITE SITE PLAN 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 EXISTING STRUCTURES Relocated Significant Structures Main Residence Creamery Dairy Barn Granary 1 2 3 1 2 3 Proposed Trailhead Park 4 4 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 5SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 DAIRY BARN CREAMERY MAIN RESIDENCE15' - 0"9' - 6"ROUND-ABOUTDAIRY BARN CREAMERY MAIN RESIDENCE7' - 0"5' - 0"GRANARY EXISTING MAIN RESIDENCE EXISTING DAIRY BARN EXISTING CREAMERY PROPOSED DAIRY BARN PROPOSED CREAMERY PROPOSED MAIN RESIDENCE 3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 ● San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p: (805) 543-1794 ● f: (805) 543-4609www.rrmdesign.com a California corporation ● Lenny Grant, Architect C26973 ●Jerry Michael, PE 36895, LS 6276 ●Jeff Ferber, LA 2844 N:\2014\1014012-Froom-Ranch-SP-Il-Villaggio\Architecture\Model\SITE SECTIONS.rvt 11/16/2017 8:55:43 AM A1-11014012 - FROOM RANCHSITE SECTIONS - EAST-WEST 07/17/17 1" = 20'-0"A1-1 EXISTING SITE SECTION A1 1" = 20'-0"A1-1 PROPOSED SITE SECTION B2 1" = 20'-0"A1-1 COMPOSITE OF SITE SECTION A & B3 A A B B Composite Section A A Existing Section B B Proposed Section A B A B SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 6SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS E/W SITE SECTIONS 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 CREAMERY DRAINAGE CHANNEL STREET CREAMERY PROPOSED CREAMERY DRAINAGE CHANNEL STREET EXISTING CREAMERY 3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 ● San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 p: (805) 543-1794 ● f: (805) 543-4609www.rrmdesign.com a California corporation ● Lenny Grant, Architect C26973 ●Jerry Michael, PE 36895, LS 6276 ●Jeff Ferber, LA 2844 N:\2014\1014012-Froom-Ranch-SP-Il-Villaggio\Architecture\Model\SITE SECTIONS.rvt 11/16/2017 8:55:47 AM A1-21014012 - FROOM RANCHSITE SECTIONS - NORTH-SOUTH 07/17/17 1" = 20'-0"A1-2 PROPOSED SITE SECTION D2 1" = 20'-0"A1-2 EXISTING SITE SECTION C1 1" = 20'-0"A1-2 COMPOSITE OF SITE SECTION C & D3 D D D C C Composite SectionExisting Section Proposed Section D D C C C D C SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 7SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS N/S SITE SECTIONS 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 John MFroomRHistoric FirstCar Y:\Publicatio 1.3 ‐1.3.1TheMfamilyhadliwest.FroomMadoleave.Descr The M resid e has a porch the ro buildi East F The e conta suppo entra hung , the po adonna ConstructRanchSpecific PlacResourceAssessm rbon Solutions ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503 ‐Structure1‐History oMainResidencywascontinuvedinthehoTheMainRemmovedinwonna, arrange.ription of th Main Residenc ence. The res redwood sill h,and a hippe oof and exten ng was heate Facade ast facade is ins a partial w orted by three nce includes ,focal window orch and the tion Companyanment 10001\Historic Resource Ass e Historiesof the Maincewasbuilt inuingtogrowaouseattachedesidencewaswithhisbrotheementsweremhe Main Resi ce is a one‐sto sidence was c and concrete ed roof with s nds downward ed by a wood the main elev width front po e round colu m a single wood ws are located triangular sp sessment\50310001 Froom R and Descrn Residencen1915byHaandneededbdtotheCreamoccupiedbyerinSan Luismadetoallowidence ory,asymmet constructed in e foundation, hingles and a d into the res stove and the vation for the orch,accesse mns—two at d door with a d south of the ace created b Ranch Historic Resource Asse riptionsensPeterson.better living comerybuildingmembersofObispo.WhwMr.Froom t trical,irregula n approximate wood horizo a modest eave idence,term ere was no in e residence an ed by a short f the entrance wood screen e off center fr by the roof de essment.docx The buildingonditionsforgontheuppetheFroomfaenthepropetoresideinth arly shaped,C ely 1915 by H ntal shiplap s e overhang.A inating about nterior firepla nd faces Los O flight of wood area and one n door.A pair ront door.A esign is infille g was constru citsyoungchirslopesofthamilyuntil199ertywaspurchhe home unti Craftsman‐sty Hans Peterso n siding, a parti A brick chimn t 3 feet from ace. Osos Valley Ro d stairs.The e on the sout r of wood‐fra f ront gable ro d with fish sc Historical BackctedastheFrildren. The fahepropertyto98,when Billhasedbytheil he chose to yle, single‐fa m n. The buildin al width fron ney is present the floor.The oad.The faca front gable ro th end.The m med,double‐ oof is present cale shingles. kground 9 roomamilyotheAlexo mily ng t t on e ade oof is main ‐ t over State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View Southwest:North Side of Main Residence View Southwest:Rear Addition to Main Residence State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View East:Overview of Main Residence View North: South Façade of Main Residence State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View East:Overview of Main Residence View North: South Façade of Main Residence View of the West Facade View of the North FacadeView of the East Facade View of the South Facade SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 8SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS MAIN RESIDENCE - PHOTOS 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 9SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS CREAMERY - FLOOR PLAN 16' - 2"1' - 5"4' - 3"4' - 0" 24' - 5"12' - 4"7' - 2"2' - 0"7' - 0"28' - 10"15' - 10"1' - 5"25' - 5"4' - 3"3' - 0"18' - 2"12' - 7"16' - 3"6' - 6 1/2"2' - 6"6' - 9 1/2"4"2' - 6"3' - 0"2' - 6"16' - 1" 9' - 6"6' - 7"2' - 8"5"6' - 9"2' - 8"12' - 6 1/2"2' - 3"4' - 4 1/2"6' - 7"2' - 3"7' - 3"15' - 9"NO. REVISION DATE PROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2017. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.N:\2014\1014012-Froom-Ranch-SP-Il-Villaggio\Architecture\Model\Historical buildings\1014012_CREAMERY.rvt8/9/2017 1:44:45 PMFLOOR PLANFROOM RANCH- CREAMERYBUILDINGFROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA1014012 A1 8/9/2017 AS-BUILTS 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 A1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - CREAMERY1 A1 ISOMETRIC - EXISTING CREAMERY2 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 10SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS CREAMERY - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS GROUND FLOOR 7'-0" LOW SHED T.O.P 8'-0" LOW FLOOR T.O.P LOW RIDGE LINE 7 3/4"8'-0" LOW FLOOR T.O.P LOW RIDGE LINE 11'-0" HIGH T.O.P HIGH FLOOR 7'-0" HIGH SHED T.O.P 18' 9" HIGH RIDGE LINE 8'-0" LOW FLOOR T.O.P LOW RIDGE LINE 7'-0" HIGH SHED T.O.P 18' 9" HIGH RIDGE LINE GROUND FLOOR 7'-0" LOW SHED T.O.P 11'-0" HIGH T.O.P HIGH FLOOR 18' 9" HIGH RIDGE LINE NO. REVISION DATE PROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2017. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.N:\2014\1014012-Froom-Ranch-SP-Il-Villaggio\Architecture\Model\Historical buildings\1014012_CREAMERY.rvt8/9/2017 1:44:46 PMEXISTING EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSFROOM RANCH- CREAMERYBUILDINGFROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA1014012 A2 8/9/2017 AS-BUILTS 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 EXISTING NE ELEVATION1 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 EXISTING NW ELEVATION2 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 EXISTING SE ELEVATION3 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 EXISTING SW ELEVATION4 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 11SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS CREAMERY - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 24' - 2" MEN’SWOMEN’S COVERED PORCH 28' - 7"15' - 10"1' - 5"25' - 5"OPEN WALL FRAMING CLOSED WALL FRAMING CLOSED WALL FRAMING OPEN WALL FRAMING NO. REVISION DATE PROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2017. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.N:\2014\1014012-Froom-Ranch-SP-Il-Villaggio\Architecture\Model\Historical buildings\1014012_CREAMERY.rvt8/9/2017 10:01:14 AMPROPOSED FLOOR PLANFROOM RANCH- CREAMERYBUILDINGFROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA1014012 A3 8/9/2017 AS-BUILTS 1/4" = 1'-0"A2 A3 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN - RESTROOMS AND PUBLIC SPACES1 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 12SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS CREAMERY - PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 13SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS DAIRY BARN - FLOOR PLAN4A21A31A22A376' - 8"56' - 9"R 16' - 0"R 1 6' - 3" NO. REVISION DATE PROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2017. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.N:\2014\1014012-Froom-Ranch-SP-Il-Villaggio\Architecture\Model\Historical buildings\1014012_ROUND NOSE BARN.rvt8/9/2017 1:56:05 PMFLOOR PLANFROOM RANCH- DAIRY BARNFROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA1014012 A1 8/1/2017 AS-BUILTS 1/8" = 1'-0"A2 A1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN - DAIRY BARN1 A1 ISOMETRIC - EXISTING DAIRY BARN2 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 14SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS DAIRY BARN - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS GROUND FLOOR FIRST LEVEL. T.O.P 7' - 6"TOP OF RIDGE 24' - 11"GROUND FLOOR FIRST LEVEL. T.O.P TOP OF RIDGE NO. REVISION DATE PROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2017. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.N:\2014\1014012-Froom-Ranch-SP-Il-Villaggio\Architecture\Model\Historical buildings\1014012_ROUND NOSE BARN.rvt8/9/2017 1:56:08 PMEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSFROOM RANCH- DAIRY BARNFROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA1014012 A2 8/1/2017 AS-BUILTS 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 A2 EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION1 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 A2 EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION4 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 15SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS DAIRY BARN - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS GROUND FLOOR FIRST LEVEL. T.O.P TOP OF RIDGE GROUND FLOOR FIRST LEVEL. T.O.P TOP OF RIDGE NO. REVISION DATE PROJECT MANAGER DRAWN BY CHECKED BY DATE PROJECT NUMBER SHEET rrmdesign.com | (805) 543-1794 3765 S. Higuera, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 RRM DESIGN GROUP COPYRIGHT 2017. RRM IS A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION THE INCLUDED DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS, IDEAS, DESIGNS AND ARRANGEMENTS REPRESENTED THEREBY ARE AND SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RRM DESIGN GROUP AND NO PART THEREOF SHALL BE COPIED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OR PROJECT OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED AND DEVELOPED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF RRM DESIGN GROUP. VISUAL CONTACT WITH THESE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. SUBMITTAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS FOR PUBLIC AGENCY REVIEW SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED A WAIVER OF RRM DESIGN GROUP'S RIGHTS.N:\2014\1014012-Froom-Ranch-SP-Il-Villaggio\Architecture\Model\Historical buildings\1014012_ROUND NOSE BARN.rvt8/9/2017 1:56:13 PMEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSFROOM RANCH- DAIRY BARNFROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA1014012 A3 8/1/2017 AS-BUILTS 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 A3 EXSTING EAST ELEVATION1 1/4" = 1'-0"A1 A3 EXISTING WEST ELEVATION2 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 16SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS DAIRY BARN - FOUNDATION PLAN 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 17SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS DAIRY BARN - ROOF FRAMING PLAN 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 18SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATIONS 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 19SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATIONS 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 20SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATIONS 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 21SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL SECTION 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 22SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL SECTION 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 23SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS EXISTING VIEW 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 24SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS PROPOSED VIEW 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 Local Road "A "Commer c ia l Co l le c to r "B " 7 8 4 9 5 6 3 2 1 L-2.1CONCEPTUAL TRAILHEAD PARKPLAYGROUND ELEMENTS INTERPRETIVE ELEMENTS AND PLAZA CONCEPTS LEGEND Main Residence with Plaza Creamery with Restrooms & Picnic Shelter Roundnose Dairy Barn with Granary & Entry Plaza Playground Area Trailhead Plaza with Bike Parking & Trail Connections Picnic Area Off-Street Parking (30 spaces) Turnaround & Drop Off Existing Cell Tower NOTE: Refer to Description of Proposed Trailhead Park for additional information. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Links to Froom Creek Trail 8 Emergency Access Road Maintenance Access LANDSCAPE CHARACTER Links to Irish Hills Natural Reserve Trails Froom Creek 9 TRAILHEAD PARK (3.6 acres to be dedicated to the City of San Luis Obispo) Open Space Buffer FROOM RANCHSPECIFIC PLAN3765 S. Higuera St., Ste. 102 ● San Luis Obispo, CA 93401p: (805) 543-1794 ● f: (805) 543-4609www.rrmdesign.coma California corporation ● Lenny Grant, Architect C26973 ● Jerry Michael, PE 36895, LS 6276 ● Jeff Ferber, LA 2844SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 25SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET) FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS TRAILHEAD PARK PLAN 1014012 NOVEMBER 14, 2017 ATTACHMENT E: FROOM RANCH - CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE HEARING POWERPOINT, RRM DESIGN GROUP AUGUST 28, 2017 THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 1 Cultural Heritage Committee August 28, 2017 Historic Photo, c 1970s (Joan Sullivan archives) Approximately 111 acres, and primarily in the County Located on Los Osos Valley Road, just south of the Irish Hills Plaza Majority of the project site is undeveloped Froom Ranch Complex is located near Home Depot Home Depot Mountainbrook Church Costco Target Hampton Inn PROJECT SITE Froom Ranch Complex 2 3 Historic Photo, c 1970s Historic Photo, c 1970s 4 1. Main Residence 2. Creamery 3. Dairy Barn 5 4. Shed 5. Bunkhouse 6. Old Barn 7. Granary 6 7 8 Existing Site Section A Creamery Main Residence Roundabo ut Existing Section Proposed Section A A B B Dairy Barn Proposed Site Section B Main Residence CreameryDairyBarn 15’ 9’6” 5’7’ 9 Composite of Site Section A and B Existing Dairy Barn Composite Section A A B B Existing Creamery Proposed Dairy Barn Proposed Main Residence Proposed Creamery Existing Main Residence Structure Photo Proposed Work 2. Creamery 3. Dairy Barn 1. Main Residence Rehabilitation Reconstruction Reconstruction 10 Historic Photo, c 1970s Contemporary Photos, 2017 Contemporary Photos, 2017 Historic Photo, c 1970s 11 Ahn House, USC (2004) Historic Photos, c 1970s Contemporary Photos, 2017 12 Proposed Rendering As-Built Elevations Proposed Floor Plan Highland Camrose Park, Hollywood Benjamin Franklin House, Philadelphia 13 Historic Photos, c 1970s Contemporary Photos, 2017 Proposed Section Proposed Elevations Proposed Section 14 Proposed Rendering ATTACHMENT F: FROOM RANCH - COUNTY ASSESSOR RECORDS AND HISTORICAL BUILDINGS DIMENSIONS THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK .~:u",r~._n L.iJ.:.f"".,<¥~·t"'~'~":i''''''l '\~\i¥',~ ."~ ••.) '(t;::SIUJ.:IV. tlUILUINfi.·REGORD_ Jb........,.~kiIJ.·......·>flfrrtlt:L" ',?:-4f,;,y~~~~1·.·. "~'l'.~:c.:cJ;;:· ·'·.i?{7:;L:!'i~.,!"~"!,,,,;i;i..": r!,,~c;I.' ... i"': .. ' ' . ...:"'l·.";'i!"","~;~:L1 _._ >. . ... .. . J "'$' c". ,c., ..U';':.·I i~'~"~!,·.;r·f[./J,lji!"~' ..,,"O;,<~e,. L'P-. IT .."..:1: . 'SHEET I OF ..... SHEErS. .~ .' .;! .. ' . ".". •..... '. ; •..... .~t . .~DESCRIPTION OF BU/L.llING cLASS'a1$HAP:ECONSTRIJC.t4ON STRUQ.TIJRAL. EXTERIOR •• ROO' L.UIHTING 'IfIR'CONDITION ROOM AND. FINISH DETAIL .' .••.. . • ..• j 1.I9hf... . ! A' Framtlf . StuccO' 01> A. Flal A Pilch Wiring Heofing. CDiJliIJg ROOMS FLOORS FLOOR FINISH TRIM INTERIOR FINISH <tIP .5' ,.'1' Ik SlJb-stondard }f 1'J.; _P <I/f BoDIe" x.T. Conduif FOf'cet1 '/e(Jllint, B 12 Mo/eriol Grode WOll8 Cei/j,'fJ'S ARCHI,TECTI!!RE Sfo/'J(fOf'd 'ShtlOfAJng X ;Sid/nll c-k'x Hip ··".Y2 B x. IX' !coble 6rovHy HlJmid. All rJ.a. ~ tJ 1"/,/) ,0/1"1 FJ r.tta A/)I)ve-SfoJldifl'd Ccn.:nIrtBlot:k Shtld 4 Fixtures WoIIUnlt I Sloriits.1peclQI 8.&.8·1 Ir.4 & CIJI (lp .x Few )( Cheap Enf. Noll USE~TY"E·'·· .;. IInc/C':' .... S1111191e$ . '.' DOrmers. Avq'. Medium FloOf'lIni/ I..iving I I' fA/a AAYHI<,Jh..lJ;::; -iiI'" .)(.,3":"'I/e.(7 __ 1'O,,INDATU:tN. Ad'ei:le . ....S/tqlte~,) Mfmy . S~cia! ZOl1lIUnl1 /)in/ng { /)()iJbleC.oncntit·~ '.: Floor.:ilo/~.f' ··If.8B. f r. c$C£' )t Gutl<ll'.r Centro/"lliN,f" Duplex HelnlorC'i%;;',;:~ii . .,.."'•.••~'('" ,:.",.... PLUMBING· /!JedJI ..... >I/Jdri'm<tlhf BrlcJr 12"-': ~x ".. ,. .... Briclt Shingle ~I' (Toot:! /Jed Flot I~ Wood .silb F/oQr Slone Sl1alre O/IBurner CoIid Piers .. ·WINDOWS TIle .r-Flx;ures --:. 1 .xaM IIC(lJ'C!!~ TIle Trim .IY WoterHtlarer M.-B,r.U. .'...'-rc;" InsulohdCtilinqs Stifill Sash .It CtJmposifion X AutomaNc Flrep/QC(J Kitchen I L 1)1a Af-'. \. Unif.r I Li9hf·1 JHeavy In~ulofhi WolI~ ..1< Jcreen..r Campo, Shinqle 1)( Gos I IElect I /)min&i. Malerit:rl: /.9111:' . Tt. Sp/osh: .L C,ONSTfllJC,TION RECORD EFFEC. APPR. .NORMAL % G()()D RATING (E,G,A,F,P) BATH fJETA1L. Permit . YEAR YEAR Ii'emoin~ • Arch. Fune. Con-Sforaql Spocc!! I\bI'k-Fl No. FINISHFIXTUR SSHOWER' .j Nc. For Amount ./)ole . .... . ..... '. . Aqe life TobIe Yo Cent!. A ttl'. P/(In ieI'm. Cupb't1 'Ioset ~'n.skip· nool's Walls We. la, bb. Type Gl'at1e 31; Qr.~ .F/ni'$/r. ..... . ···i'J;I.~ 19I,f" 1 q1'l 3.'1. /I P <10· .Ill) A A A A .4:. A .A / I L I/ln n t!jitJ ~ l. L I t"J/d A 1 19'15 : 1'l5'J '1-..2. t,. 12.40..!!lS .... J91.:r 115"1 '14 /.3R-.."1J 'I-:J--' I I':) IS f\XO$,1l?J~/<:2 R-St)..?? 1(1(S-('!'?o dF.:r 7 . laJ""o $;;.-If 11-k A.I1-_ If A SPEOIAL 'EATURES '.' .' " I"" BOok CC.sIlS Buill·11? W'; VeJ'1etl0l181lnds . ShlJlfer..r '. \" ,v' , COMPUTATION"c~~~;!Jr',,': , ApproistlT 8 Date'" fI.'(W.:;".i!'i?.p/: 'RA/' /-/,;-6>'-1 .,s--c; 0 £»5.....:; ~c..s' b.""~Q, f)· }5·&6' {fL .?/i/7t;~i, IJnlt"~re(f .. !·~~gzCOSf.,·~::~· cosflJ~~~~.cosl ~glJ Cos 1 ~i~ Cost }!gJ~ Cost H:B Cost ?!:lJcifsl f '.. tt//$'$./1lt/2,t}(/ 1[do6J,/;tJb., ·:S.00'70<;O .~7c; K()i3. ..7-70. KO?3 ~o.3~SS( . ....... Pelf':', ;/y. d&;j~ ']v;;r) :..j-i{ ·d.~vfo g~f.e, ~,.::,"7,) '1/3 ~.JS ,JtJ'/O .2·r.r-lV"'!? 3.a""/IOz-. \ / \ I \ / \ I \ I \ ! .... '/ [\/ '''~', ' ..... iA .. l \ \ •...... . :. I \ ./ \ / \: I \ I \ .' ... } \ "'TOTALI49~11 11b>~P(:fa9-9/,;13 Cj/;;J 29('s.3 NORMAL % GOOD. if .. ~...• IJ/o\ ~ ~() 32 ;jy ,; ·/tc-L.N.D. '" ·f I.. :: 7?:'.l'lc'.9'iiBp13\ . a.5~'~ .p ''Ir 3 3 f) ~ 36(J .,. AU ".""_ A:-:,', 'I"''[_-~-~-",('':'_--'~'~XD~ .~¥~;.;;': ,:.',,_ '}" _,'-~ .-....·.. v ___ ~ • __.~••_~___~ """" ,__ _,, ___ ""::>Cit.LLANt:.UU:; :; I tfUy IUffc., ~ SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA DIMENSIONS ARE PROVIDED FROM THE ASSESSOR’S OFFICEFROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS Project # 1014012 AUGUST 30, 2017 76’8” 57’ LEGEND CITY LI MIT Dairy Barn Creamery Main Residence Old Barn Bunkhouse Shed Granary 1 1 2 3 6 4 5 36’ 12’ 40’ 16’2” 24’2” 28’7” 41’3” 4’ 10’ 32’ 12’ 12’ 15’ 17’ 13’ 6’ 20’ 43’ 54’ 7 2 3 4 5 6 7 16’12’ ATTACHMENT G: “ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES AT FROOM RANCH,” STORK, WOLFE & ASSOCIATES, JUNE 30, 2017 THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES AT FROOM RANCH 12165 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA STORK, WOLFE & ASSOCIATES 599 HIGUERA STREET, SUITE H SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 (805) 548-8600 June 30, 2017 INDEX Introduction & Methodology 1 – 2 Main Residence 2 – 4 Dairy Barn 5 – 7 Old Barn 8 – 10 Creamery House 10 List of Figures Figure 1 – Main House 13 Figure 2 – Main House roof joists w/ mid-span bracing 13 Figure 3 – Unbraced wood cripple wall with redwood sill 14 Figure 4 – Dairy (Round-Nosed) Barn 14 Figure 5 – Dairy Barn roof framing 15 Figure 6 – Dairy Barn exterior wall framing 15 Figure 7 – Western entrance to the Dairy Barn 16 Figure 8 – Bracing at interior line of wood posts 17 Figure 9 – Interior Dairy Barn posts bearing on soil 18 Figure 10 – Old Barn 19 Figure 11 – Old Barn roof framing 19 Figure 12 – Old Barn exterior wall framing 20 Figure 13 – Full-height plywood shear walls 20 Figure 14 – Creamery House 21 Figure 15 – Deterioration of Creamery House 21 Figure 16 – Deterioration of Creamery House 22 Figure 17 – Creamery House foundation 22 Figure 18 – Deterioration of Creamery House 23 Dairy (Round-Nosed Barn) Schematic Structural Drawings S2.1 – Foundation Plan S2.2 – Roof Framing Plan S3.1 – Structural Elevation ‘A’ S3.2 – Structural Elevation ‘B’ S3.3 – Structural Elevation ‘C’ S3.4 – Structural Section ‘D’ S3.5 – Structural Section ‘E’ Structural Calculations A1 – C9 ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 1 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY John and Susan Madonna wish to study the feasibility of preserving and/or renovating several existing structures of historic significance at the Froom Ranch property in San Luis Obispo. The structures included in this analysis are the Main Residence, the Dairy Barn, the Old Barn, and the Creamery House. All structures consist of wood-framed walls and roofs, wood siding, and either a wood or concrete foundation. Construction of these buildings took place between the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. As part of the preservation, it is necessary to assess both the gravity and lateral load resisting systems of the buildings in order to ensure life-safety of the occupants. For existing structures of historic significance, the structural analysis is to be per the 2016 California Historic Building Code (CHBC). In order to balance structural safety with historic preservation, this code allows for a 25% reduction in current building code design wind & seismic load levels. In addition, it also provides strength capacities for structural systems that would typically not be allowed for new structures. Where design gravity loads are not being increased, the CHBC also allows that the vertical load resisting system may be assumed adequate by having withstood the test of time, where no distress is evident, and a complete load path is present. Guidelines for determining the feasibility of historic preservation is given in the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, December 7, 2010. Feasibility is defined by this document as the ability of a building or other structure to “be repaired or rehabilitated so as to be safe and usable without significant loss of historic fabric,” and that the structure has the “physical capacity…to withstand the repair and/or rehabilitation process without the danger of further damage.” Both the structural integrity and the feasibility of rehabilitation have been addressed in this report for the structures noted above. The study considers multiple building-use scenarios, including continued commercial use as well as the conversion to public space. For continued commercial use, the building code does not require any structural upgrades to be done. However, we have included in our recommendation the items that pose a significant risk to the structure, or to the life-safety of the occupants. Where the conversion to public space is considered, we have included all structural deficiencies, as well as potential increases to design live loads, and long-term performance improvements. Our scope of work for this project involved the following tasks: ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 2 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO 1. Review of the Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan Section 106 Prehistoric Report dated February 20, 2015. 2. Review of the Seismic Analysis Map provided by Geosolutions. The map shows the local fault zone, in which it is recommended that no structure with an occupancy of 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year may be within this zone. 3. Visually survey each building to verify the original construction, past alteration, and the current conditions. 4. Perform a structural analysis of each building for CHBC-level gravity, seismic and wind loads. 5. Prepare a report that includes an outline of the major structural deficiencies, as well as a general description of the proposed structural retrofit work. MAIN RESIDENCE The Main Residence [Figure 1] was constructed in 1915, and has been occupied continuously for use as both a residence and an office building. The approximately 1,600 SF one-story wood-framed structure appears to be in good condition, and has undergone several renovations and repairs throughout its history. The majority of the structural framing is original, however concrete foundations have been added at certain locations around the perimeter where excessive settlement has occurred. The lateral load-resisting system consists of wood siding over straight-sheathed exterior wood stud shear walls. Roof Framing The roof framing consists of consists of composite shingles over the original wood shakes over 1x6 skip sheathing supported by 2x4 roof joists at 30” spacing. The roof joists are braced mid-span with kickers down to interior stud walls below [Figure 2]. Although the existing roof framing appears to be in good condition, there is no recognized diaphragm system needed to resist lateral loads. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the roof framing system. It is recommended, however that the next time the roof is replaced, the original wood shakes be removed, and a layer of plywood added over the existing 1x skip sheathing. The layer of plywood, if detailed and nailed properly, will act as a structural diaphragm. Additional wood blocking and metal framing clips will also be required to tie the roof diaphragm to the exterior walls below. It should also be noted that if a new roofing material is selected that is ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 3 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO heavier than the existing roofing material, strengthen of the roof rafters will be required. For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, the existing roofing shall be removed and the plywood, blocking and framing clips added as described above. Exterior Walls The exterior walls are constructed of horizontal 2”x4” wood studs at 24” spacing. The exterior is sheathed with 1x shiplap siding over 1x straight sheathing, which provides lateral stiffness for the structure in resisting wind and seismic loads. The wall framing and siding appear to be in good condition. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the existing exterior walls. Although the walls are overstressed for CHBC-level design loads, one-story wood framed structures typically perform well in earthquakes, and no strengthening is recommended. For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, it is recommended that plywood shear walls be added. Plywood, when detailed and nailed properly provides significantly greater lateral strength and stiffness for wood shear walls than the existing 1x straight sheathing. For existing structures, the interior drywall in specific locations can be removed, plywood installed directly over the existing studs, and then the drywall reinstalled. Holdowns anchoring the shear wall boundaries to the foundation are also typically required. First Floor The first floor is constructed of wood flooring over 1x6 diagonal sheathing over 2”x5-1/2” wood floor joists spaced at 24”. The wood floor joists span across unbraced wood cripple walls below spaced at approximately 7’-6” [Figure 3]. The 2x redwood sill of the cripple wall bears directly on grade. Releveling of the first floor has been performed several times throughout the life of the structure. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the existing floor structure. The existing floor joists are adequate to resist code- level office live loads. It should be noted, however, that if future unevenness in ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 4 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO the floor surface is encountered, it could be an indication of excessive settlement in the foundation. See the foundation section below for potential strengthening recommendation. For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, strengthening of the floor joists may be required. The existing floor joists do not have the capacity to resist code-level design live loads when considering areas of assemblies. If space is to be made within the structure for meeting or conference areas, the floor joists below that area are required to be doubled up. Foundation The foundation consists of interior and exterior 2x wood stud cripple walls bearing on an existing wood sill placed directly on grade [Figure 3]. Where past excessive settlement has occurred, an undocumented concrete foundation was poured below the sill to provide a greater bearing surface and better long-term durability. The exterior cripple walls are lightly braced with occasional 1x diagonal boards, while the interior cripple walls are completely unbraced. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, as a minimum both the exterior and interior cripple wall systems should be strengthened. This can be done with either a system of properly detailed diagonal boards or a pattern of plywood sheathing. Where concrete foundations have been added in previous repairs, it should be verified that the wood sills are properly anchored to the concrete. Because the existing structure bears directly on top of the soil and proper concrete foundation embedded into the soil are not present, sliding of the structure during a large earthquake could occur. Although life-safety does not appear to be a significant risk assuming the cripple wall bracing is installed, non-structural damage to interior furnishings and equipment is likely. In addition, attention should be given if future unevenness in the floor surface is encountered. This could be an indication of excessive settlement in the foundation. For better long-term structural performance, see “For Use as Public Space” below. For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, a proper concrete foundation should be installed. To install the concrete foundation, the structure is jacked up, continuous trenches are dug below the exterior and interior cripple walls, and concrete footings are poured. The structure is then lowered and bolted to the concrete. In addition to the footings, all cripple walls require bracing as described above. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 5 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO DAIRY BARN The Dairy Barn [Figure 4] is an approximately 4,200 SF wood-framed farming facility built in 1913 to house livestock and hay. Weather and neglect has severely deteriorated many of the barn’s key structural elements over the course of its history. In addition, a significant portion of the barn is located within the rupture zone setback of a potentially active trace fault. These items are discussed below and shall be addressed in the renovation along with the strengthening of the lateral load-resisting system. Local Seismic Hazard Mitigation Because the Dairy Barn is situated within the rupture zone setback of a potentially active trace fault, there is a high risk of significant damage to the structure due to ground rupture. If the barn is to be used in any way other than being fenced off and left in a state of arrested decay, significant alterations to the building footprint are required. Required Remediation: If left in its current location, it is recommended that the round-nosed portion of the barn be removed, in addition to the next three adjacent bays of framing, essentially cutting the structure in half. Also requiring demolition due to its proximity to the fault line is the northern masonry addition to the barn. Because the round-nosed portion of the building is unique and has historical significance, a portion of the demolished materials may be salvaged to rebuild the round- nosed portion at the eastern end of the structure. It is estimated that approximately 75% of the roof framing and 50% of the floor framing will be good for re-use. Nearly all the exterior siding is in such a state of decay that it will have no structural value. This remediation is required to ensure the safety of the occupants during a large seismic event. The rebuilt round-nosed portion will require a modern concrete foundation system to prevent they type of settling and deterioration that is currently present. Relocation Option: Another option for the Dairy Barn is to demolish and rebuild the structure at another location. In order to preserve the historic aspect of the barn, the framing system should remain the same as the existing framing system, but with consideration of the strengthening requirements outlined in the sections below. It is also possible to re-use a portion of the lumber as noted above. Please refer to the schematic structural drawings provided for reference at the end of this document. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 6 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Roof Framing The existing roof framing [Figure 5] consists of wood shingles over 1x6 skip sheathing supported by 2”x6” roof joists at 30” spacing. A collar tie system consisting of tension rods at 10’-0” spacing thru the double top plate at the two interior post lines is present to resist the horizontal thrust. The majority of the roof framing has the capacity to resist code-level dead and live loads. The existing skip sheathing provides minimal lateral stiffness lateral stiffness, and will not act as a proper roof diaphragm. Required Strengthening: Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.) – Because the existing wood shingles are in a serious state of deterioration, much of the roof framing is exposed to weather. It is recommended that the existing roofing be removed and all framing be inspected for damage. It is estimated that approximately 10% of the roof framing will need replacing. It is possible that lumber salvaged from the seismic remediation described above may be reused for this purpose. Additionally, a layer of plywood will be required over the skip sheathing in order to create a roof diaphragm. The entire roof shall be re-roofed with a light weight standing seam or corrugated metal roof with better long-term performance. Occupancy greater than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (public use, meeting space, etc.) – Same as above. Exterior Walls The exterior walls [Figure 6] are typically constructed with 1x12 vertical siding spanning from the double top plate to the wood sill, with an intermediate horizontal 2”x4” girt mid span. The double top plate and girt span horizontally to 4”x4” wood posts at 10’-0” spacing around the perimeter. Required Strengthening: Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.) – The exterior vertical siding is required to be in good condition to allow for adequate nailing. Proper nailing is essential for shear wall performance. Because of years of neglect, it is estimated that up to 75% of the wood siding will need to be removed and replaced for the wood shear wall system. It is also estimated that approximately 10% of the wall framing will require replacement due to weather intrusion at the damaged siding. The entire exterior will require re-painting to help preserve the condition of the wood. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 7 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Occupancy greater than 2,000 man hours per year (public use, meeting space, etc.) – Same as above. Wall Bracing At the main western entrance to the Dairy Barn, not enough wall length existing to provide adequate lateral stiffness [Figure 7]. At this location, as well as at the two interior lines of posts [Figure 8], diagonal wood wall bracing will be required. All connections will be designed to be bolted and hidden. The bottom ends of the bracing will be required to be anchored to the existing foundation Required Strengthening: Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.) – Install new 4x4 wall braces at the western wall and at the two interior lines of posts. Strengthen all brace connections and splices with steel plates and bolts. Anchor braced connections to new concrete pad foundation. Occupancy greater than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (public use, meeting space, etc.) – Same as above. Foundations The majority of the perimeter foundation consists of a 24” high concrete stem or retaining wall [Figure 6] with an undetermined footing depth. The concrete foundation appears to be in good condition for the age of the structure. The majority of the foundation damage has occurred at the eastern downhill portion of the structure at the round-nosed area of the barn. The foundation system at the interior post line appears to be a redwood sill bearing directly on the soil, or else the wood posts are embedded directly into the soil [Figure 9]. The posts appear to have settled over time approximately 2”. Required Strengthening: Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.) – Provide a modern concrete foundation system to support the re-built round- nosed portion of the structure. This is included in the Seismic Remediation section above. Additionally, concrete pad footings will be required below the posts. These pad footings have been included in the Wall Bracing section above. Occupancy greater than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (public use, meeting space, etc.) – Same as above. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 8 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO OLD BARN The old barn [Figure 10] is an approximately 1,300 SF wood structure with a corrugated metal roof, vertical wood siding, and a concrete slab-on-grade foundation. It is estimated that the barn is 125 year old, and has been moved from its original site. The barn appears to be in very good shape for its age due to the fact that it remains in use. However, its constant use has led to a number of undocumented alterations that have inadvertently compromised the historic fabric of the Old Barn significantly. Roof Framing The existing roof framing [Figure 11] consists of corrugated metal roofing over existing wood shingles, over 1x6 skip sheathing, supported by 2”x4” roof joists at 32” spacing. A collar tie system consisting of 2x4 struts near the ridge is present to resist the horizontal thrust. This appears to have been added at a later date, most likely to combat a sagging ridge. The majority of the roof framing has the capacity to resist code-level dead and live loads. The existing skip sheathing provides minimal lateral stiffness lateral stiffness, and will not act as a proper roof diaphragm. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the roof framing system. It is recommended, however that the next time the roof is replaced, the original wood shakes be removed, and a layer of plywood added over the existing 1x skip sheathing. The layer of plywood, if detailed and nailed properly, will act as a structural diaphragm. Additional wood blocking and metal framing clips will also be required to tie the roof diaphragm to the exterior walls below. It should also be noted that if a new roofing material is selected that is heavier than the existing roofing material, strengthen of the roof rafters may be required. For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, the existing roofing shall be removed and the plywood, blocking and framing clips added as described above. Exterior Walls ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 9 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO At some point in the history of the barn, the exterior walls were reframed with a more modern system of 2x4 vertical studs spaced at 16” o.c. [Figure 12]. This system likely replaced a post-and-beam system with horizontal wall girts, similar to the Dairy Barn described above. Blocking between the vertical studs is used to support the 1x12 vertical siding. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the existing exterior walls. However, because of the three large door openings at the north elevation of the structure, a wood bracing system is recommended along this line. For Use as Public Space – Same as above. Additionally, the exterior vertical siding is required to be in good condition to allow for adequate nailing. Proper nailing is essential for shear wall performance. It is estimated that up to 50% of the wood siding will need to be removed and replaced for the wood shear wall system. It is also estimated that approximately 5% of the wall framing will require replacement due to weather intrusion at the damaged siding. The entire exterior will require re-painting to help preserve the condition of the wood Wall Bracing At each of the two interior lines of posts, a shear wall has been added [Figure 13]. It is unclear as to when and why the shear walls were added, however they do provide a significant amount of stiffness to the structure. Required Strengthening: Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to the existing exterior walls. However, if a plywood roof diaphragm is added at a later date, proper blocking and shear transfer detailing will be required. For Use as Public Space – Same as above. Foundations The Old Barn bears on an undocumented concrete slab-on-grade foundation. The slab-on-grade appears to be in good shape, and no differential building settlement is noticeable. Required Strengthening: ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 10 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Continued Private Commercial Use – In order to resist the design lateral loads at the new bracing elements required at the north elevation, it is likely that several pad footings underpinning the existing slab-on-grade will be required. For Use as Public Space – Same as above. CREAMERY HOUSE The Creamery House [Figure 14] is an existing wood-framed structure in a state of disrepair. Years of abandonment have made it unfeasible for renovation [Figures 15 through 18]. Among the issues are the following: All exterior siding requires replacement There are no wood studs in the majority of the walls. The siding, which has no bearing capacity, is currently supporting the majority of the roof loads. The roof framing is undersized and severely damaged. The floor framing is undersized and severely damaged. The wood post-and-beam foundation system is supported on rocks or soil and has failed. Required Strengthening: The Creamery House is an unsafe building in a state of disrepair, and the materials are unsalvageable for structure purposes. It is recommended that the structure be properly documented and demolished. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 11 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO This page intentionally left blank. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 12 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO This page intentionally left blank. ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 13 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 1 – Main House Figure 2 – Main House roof joists w/ mid-span bracing ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 14 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 3 – Unbraced wood cripple wall with redwood sill Figure 4 – Dairy (Round-Nosed) Barn ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 15 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 5 – Dairy Barn roof framing Figure 6 – Dairy Barn exterior wall framing ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 16 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 7 – Lack of wood bracing at main western entrance to the Dairy Barn ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 17 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 8 – Bracing at interior line of wood posts ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 18 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 9 – Interior Dairy Barn posts bearing on soil ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 19 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 10 – Old Barn Figure 11 – Old Barn roof framing ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 20 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 12 – Old Barn exterior wall framing Figure 13 – Full-height plywood shear wall (left & right of photo) ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 21 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 14 – Creamery House Figure 15 – Deterioration of Creamery House ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 22 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 16 – Deterioration of Creamery House Figure 17 – Creamery House foundation ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 23 OF 23 FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO Figure 18 – Deterioration of Creamery House ATTACHMENT H: “MOVING HISTORIC BUILDINGS,” NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, JOHN OBED CURTIS, 1979 THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ATTACHMENT I: “HISTORICAL EVALUATION FOR THE FROOM RANCH BUILDING COMPLEX,” BERTRANDO AND BERTRANDO RESEARCH CONSULTANTS, MARCH 14, 1998 THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK METHODS The archives of Bertrando &Bertrando Research Consultants were reviewed for the project.Included in the researched material were interviews with Bill Froom conducted in February 1993 and July 1997.The original Plat for the Laguna Rancho in 1858 and the 1868 subdivision map,as well as several later maps,were studied for evidence of early structures. Texts and reports on file for the area were also reviewed.A record search was conducted at the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC)at UCSB on February 18,1998.Only one report from the CCIC,Cultural Resource Investigation of the Periera (sic)-Garcia Property APN 053-161-010 and 067-241-021 (Parker 1996),was found to contribute to the research project. On February 27,1998 an on site review of the existing structures was conducted.Written descriptions and photography of the complex were completed at this time. Joan Sullivan,historian,artist and writer from Los Osos,was generous and forthcoming in a request for information regarding the Froom Ranch.Several visits to the Ranch by Sullivan took place over a period of time commencing in 1977.During this period,she video taped Bill Froom at the Ranch,recorded five cassette tape interviews with Froom and wrote several articles for The Bay News that resulted in the publication of Touring the Froom Ranch (Sullivan 1993). Initially,her visits were as part of a watercolor class that regularly visited picturesque sites in the county to paint.Also part of her collections were sketches of dairy equipment,photographs and slides of the Froom Ranch.This provided an invaluable contribution to this report as at this time Bill Froom is not living on the Ranch. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA Appendix K),and the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP Section 106)were used to determine potential Significance of the Froom Ranch.The National Register criteria for evaluation states; "the quality of significance in American history,architecture,archaeology, engineering,and culture is present in districts,sites,buildings,structures,and objects that possess integrity of location,design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,and association and (a)that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;or (b)that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;or Froom Ranch Historical Evaluation 4 addition.The shed was in the process of being emptied of great piles of tin cans.One cleared area had exposed a piece of farm equipment in good condition.It was a horse drawn seeder labeled "California Gem Seed Sower".It appeared there maybe other pieces of equipment amongst and under the remaining tin cans although it was difficult to tell. E.Old Creamery/House One of the two most interesting structures within the ranch,the Old Creamery/House is also complex,having been built in at least three episodes.The west side of the wood shingled creamery structure includes a room that was home to Bill Froom's father for many years.The board and batten creamery housed a horse powered chum and a butter break table.Only the corn sheller remains.Most of the equipment is gone.The author remembers visiting this site in the 1970s and noticing piles of old bottles under the floor boards on the ground.This time it was clean and no bottles remained. The middle of the structure was built with shiplap and may have been an addition to the creamery.The west side appears to be attached to the creamery but is actually separated by a space about a foot wide.The living space consisted of two rooms that had been muslin over single wall board and batten construction.Currently,the north facing room is stripped of boards. A later porch addition is on the south side.The condition of the structure is very weathered and the flooring is unstable. F.Dairy Bam Another structure of interest is the dairy bam.This structure has an unusual rounded end on the south side that hangs along the edge of a slope.The dairy barn,as well as the granary and the horse bam,were constructed by Jim Aiken in 1913 for $1800.The bam roof has wood shingles and the walls of vertical planks rest on formed concrete. G.Granary The small rectangular granary is in fairly good condition and is composed of vertical plank walls that rest on concrete and wood block posts.The granary was constructed by Jim Aiken in 1913. H.Horse Bam This bam is constructed of vertical boards on a concrete foundation.The wood shingle roof is missing approximately 12%of the shingles.The bam doors open to the north side and was used for wagons,horses and hay storage.The horse bam was constructed by Jim Aiken in 1913.The bam is a style typical for the period. Froom Ranch Historical Evaluation 6 "this ranch complex may also be eligible for the National Register based on its setting,design, and high degree ofintegrity"(Triem 1990). Not mentioned by Triem was an interesting building on the property.A part of the old grandstand that was part of a one mile racetrack is easily seen from Madonna Road.The horse racetrack was formerly located on Los Osos Valley Road across from the Froom Ranch and was constructed in the late l800s.When the grandstand was moved to the Dalidio property the track was shortened a half mile (Bill Froom pers.comm.). An archaeological investigation was conducted by John Parker in 1996 of the Pereira- Garcia property,adjacent to the Froom Ranch on the south side.As a result of that report, Cultural Resource Investigation of the Peri era (sic)-Garcia Property APN 053-161-010 and 067- 241-021,historic remains were identified and recorded as site CA-SLO-1780H.The remains were found in the vicinity near a spring that was described by Bill Froom as the original location of the old barn (Structure A)and included concrete slab,water tank,trash and structural remains. Several of the buildings have been altered,added to and in the case of the old barn (A) moved.The annex of the rear of the house ©has been built of "spare parts"to take care of particular needs,for example;storage,washing room and garage.The creamery/residence (E)is probably the oldest structure remaining on its original site.The addition of the small residence to the creamery was soon after 1900.The original home of the Nelsons was not located but may be under the existing residence (C).Parts of the original house were probably reused during the construction effort that took place in 1915 and for example used for the bunkhouse (B). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Froom Ranch has been a part of the cultural landscape of San Luis Obispo County since the 1800s,both as a dairy and later as a cattle ranch.The National Register of Historic Places has formed status codes for evaluating resources.The Froom Ranch is not eligible for the National Register but fits the National Register category of places of local interest and the resource is eligible therefore,for listing as an historic local site. Some elements of the Froom Ranch need further attention.The proposed adjacent development has the opportunity to enhance our understanding of times past through the following suggested mitigation due to the results of the secondary impact on the Froom Ranch. 1.It is recommended that the old creamery/residence and the unusual rounded dairy barn be further documented with rudimentary floor plans and style of construction notation before they completely disintegrate. 2.The voice of Bill Froom is recorded on several audio cassettes as well as appearing on a video tape.These antidotal recordings offer a glimpse into our past. Froom Ranch Historical Evaluation 8 Some of the audio cassettes have been transcribed.As part of the mitigation the rest should be completed as well and made available through the San Luis Obispo City/County Library reference,Cal Poly Special Collections or another similar agency with the permission of Joan Sullivan of course. 3.The old buildings have been enjoyed by some county residents who have been invited to visit Bill Froom while he was still in residence.The rest of the community knows nothing of the ranch buildings as little can be distinguished from the distance of Los Osos Valley Road.If the proposed project goes through the planning process,the buildings will have an enhanced viewing area from the southwest corner of the parking area.It is recommended that the development process include a type of wayside information stand for the public to view and learn about the dairy heritage of our county. This station should provide information on the various structures and their uses as well as a brief history of the ranch.A similar solution was successfully implemented at the Dairy Creek Golf Course. The particular significance of the Froom Ranch structures is as remnants of the dairy industry from the viewpoint of two generations of an Irish family.They are illustrative of a life on the Central Coast that only the few remaining dairymen truly understand. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to especially thank two people that were of assistance in the preparation of this report.Over the years I have had the occasion to interview Bill Froom regarding other properties and the dairy industry.He has always obliged with a keen wit and enthusiasm.Joan Sullivan,an artist as well as a writer of history,has over the years developed a special relationship with Bill Froom and the dairy.She very generously made available for this report her taped interviews with Bill,photographs of Bill and the dairy,and the paper that she produced that included her sketches of the dairy and its history. Froom Ranch Historical Evaluation 9 REFERENCES CITED Bibliography Angel,Myron 1883 History of San Luis Obispo County.California.with Biographical Sketches of its Prominent Men and Pioneers.Facsimile Reprint 1979,Valley Publishers,Fresno, CA. Bertrando,Betsy 1997 History of the De Vaul Ranch.Report prepared for Robert Gibson,archaeologist, Paso Robles,CA. Engelhardt O.F.M.,Fr.Zephyr in 1963 Mission San Luis Obispo in the Valley of the Bears.W.T.GleIUls,Santa Barbara. Gibson,Robert O. 1993 Results of Phase One Archaeological Surface Survey of the Froom Ranch Property.Los Osos Valley Road.San Luis Obispo County,CA.Report prepared for Central Coast Engineering,San Luis Obispo,CA. Kocher,Paul H. 1972 Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa 1772-1972.Blake Printing and Publishing, Inc.,San Luis Obispo,CA. Morrison,AIUlie L.and John H.Haydon 1917 History of San Luis Obispo County and Environs.Historic Record Company,Los Angeles,CA. Parker &Associates 1996 Cultural Investigation of the Peri era (sic)-Garcia Property APN 053-161-010 and 067-241-021.Report prepared for John Franks,Mutual Assets,San Luis Obispo, CA. Sullivan,Joan 1993 Touring the Froom Ranch or the "Wild West"in La Canada de los Osos.Selected articles from the Bay News republished for the La Canada de Los Osos Historical Group,Los Osos,CA. Tognazzini,Wilmar 1992 100 Years A~o;1892.Excerpts from the "San Luis Obispo Morning Tribune", compiled by Wilmar Tognazzini. Froom Ranch Historical Evaluation 10 Triem,Judy 1990 Historical Evaluation of the Lon~/Bonetti Ranch.San Buenaventura Research Associates,Santa Paula,CA. Records Reviewed 1884 Coast Director)'Lists Ludwig Nelson,farmer. 1892 Great Re~ister of San Luis Obispo County Ludwig Nelson is listed as 62 yrs and from Norway. 1989 4-SLO-AS-I002H/P40-00102 Site form for Octagon Barn on South Higuera,C.E.Dills. Tapes from Joan Sullivan 1977 Audio with Bill Froom and A.Gamboni at Froom Ranch -transcribed 1978 Audio with Bill Froom at Froom Ranch (Tape 1 of2)-transcribed 1978 Audio with Bill Froom at Froom Ranch (Tape 2 of 2) 1979 Audio with Bill Froom 1987 Audio with Bill Froom -subject Dalidio Race Track 1993 Video tape with Bill Froom and the Los Osos Historical Group -picnic and tour of the Froom Ranch. Phone Interviews Conducted by Betsy Bertrando 1993 and 1997 Conversations with Bill Fro om Froom Ranch Historical Evaluation 11 APPENDIX I Project Location Maps USGS 7.5 Pismo Beach,California quadrangle map,1965,photorevised 1978. Froom Ranch Project Location Map Detail APPENDIXD Historical Maps 1907 Map of the Arroyo Grande Oil Field surveyed by A.F.Parsons View facing west, from the end of the driveway. Structure A Old Barn Structure B Bunkhouse Structure C 1915 House View facing west APPENDIX IV Site Record;P-40-040991 APPENDIX F.4 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment This Page Intentionally Left Blank. NORTH WWW.F AMERICA | EURO FIRSTCARBONSOL OPE | AFRICA | UTIONS.COM San AUSTRALIA | ASI Luis Obis A spo, San Carrie D. W Froom Historic R Luis Obis John Mado C 1 Conta Wills, MA, RPA m Ranch Resource spo Count onna Constr 12165 Lo San Luis Contact: John FirstC 1350 Treat Bo Waln u I 13 Sherm act: Mary Bea A, Senior Scie Report Date: Rev Specific P e Assessm ty, Califo Prepare ruction Com os Osos Valley s Obispo, CA 9 n Madonna, O Prepare Carbon Solu oulevard, Suit ut Creek, CA 9 925.357 n association Chattel 3417 Ventura an Oaks, CA 9 818.788 an, Project Dir entist, Archae February 20, vised: July 21, Plan ment rnia ed for: mpany y Road 93405 Owner ed by: utions te 380 94597 7.2562 with: l, Inc. a Blvd. 91423 8.7954 rector eology , 2015 , 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Table of Contents FirstCarbon Solutions iii Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx Table of Contents Section 1: Management Summary, Property History, and Structure Histories and Descriptions ...... 1 1.1 ‐ Management Summary ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 ‐ Property History ................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 ‐ Structure Histories and Descriptions ................................................................................. 9 Section 2: Historic Background ..................................................................................................... 23 2.1 ‐ History of San Luis Obispo County .................................................................................. 23 2.2 ‐ History of the City of San Luis Obispo ............................................................................. 24 2.3 ‐ Methods and Results of Historic Assessment ................................................................. 30 Section 3: Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch ...................................................... 35 3.1 ‐ Application of National Register of Historical Places Criteria .......................................... 35 3.2 ‐ Application of California Register of Historical Resources Criteria .................................. 36 3.3 ‐ City of San Luis Obispo Criteria ....................................................................................... 38 3.4 ‐ Integrity ........................................................................................................................... 40 3.5 ‐ Historic Themes ............................................................................................................... 42 Section 4: Findings and conclusions ............................................................................................. 45 4.1 ‐ Potential Historic District ................................................................................................. 45 4.2 ‐ Contributing Structures ................................................................................................... 46 4.3 ‐ Non‐Contributing Structures ........................................................................................... 47 Section 5: References ................................................................................................................... 49 Appendix A: Personnel Qualifications Appendix B: Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Specific Plan Area Map ........................................................................................................... 3 Exhibit 2: Regional Location Map ........................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Map, Topographic Base .................................................................................... 7 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Management Summary, Property History, and Historic Resource Assessment Structure Histories and Descriptions FirstCarbon Solutions 1 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx SECTION 1: MANAGEMENT SUMMARY, PROPERTY HISTORY, AND STRUCTURE HISTORIES AND DESCRIPTIONS 1.1 ‐ Management Summary At the request of John Madonna Construction Company (Madonna), FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) prepared a Historic Resource Assessment for the Froom Ranch/Villaggio Specific Plan (Specific Plan area) project that included record search reviews and a field survey of the proposed Specific Plan area located in San Luis Obispo County, California. The subject property (or property) was evaluated for historical and architectural significance by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) Architectural Historian, Kathleen A. Crawford, MA. Ms. Crawford meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Architectural Historian and is also listed on the City of San Luis Obispo Consultants List (Appendix A). The Froom Ranch complex portion of the Specific Plan area was identified as a potential historic district. California Department of Parks and Recreation survey forms document the contributing and non‐contributing structures. On April 24, 2017, John Madonna hired historic preservation consulting firm Chattel, Inc. (Chattel) to provide consulting services related to the Specific Plan area. As part of this work, Chattel President Robert Chattel, AIA, historic architect, and Associate II Caroline Raftery, architectural historian, reviewed the February 20, 2015 version of this report, and on May 1, 2017 conducted a site visit with RRM Design Group Principal Victor Montgomery, AIA, and Principal Planner Pam Ricci, AICP, and CEO John Madonna and CFO Connie Walter. Based on the site visit and subsequent research, Chattel provided minor edits to Project Director Mary Bean and the edits have been incorporated into this Historic Resource Assessment. 1.2 ‐ Property History The property is located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3). The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers for the property are 067‐241‐030 and 067‐241‐031. According to Brian Leveille, Senior Planner for the City of San Luis Obispo, the property is currently located just outside the city limits. However, for the purposes of the evaluation, Mr. Leveille suggested the property be evaluated under City of San Luis Obispo criteria, as the property will be eventually annexed by the City. The property contains a flat level area that extends along Los Osos Valley Road. A long driveway leads into the property. The front portion of the property is unused and is currently fenced. At the end of the driveway is a large, flat, open space that contains the Main Residence, “Old” Barn, Bunkhouse, Dairy Barn, Creamery, Granary, Outhouse, Storage Building, and Shed with slated roof. This group of buildings and structures (structures) comprises the Froom Ranch complex. The area around these buildings is currently used for equipment storage for the John Madonna Construction Company. Alex Madonna purchased the property in a tax lien sale in 1976. According to Mr. Madonna’s son, John (the current owner), Alex Madonna purchased numerous old ranches in the area. The Madonna family is one of the pioneering families in San Luis Obispo County, and Mr. Madonna was interested in preserving the heritage of the area. John Madonna stated that his father had a policy John Madonna Construction Company Management Summary, Property History, and Froom Ranch Specific Plan Structure Histories and Descriptions Historic Resource Assessment 2 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx of lifetime tenancy for any of the properties he purchased. In accordance with his policy, Mr. Froom resided on the ranch property until ill health required that he move in to San Luis Obispo to live with his brother in 1998. The Main Residence is currently used as office space by the John Madonna Construction Company. The John Madonna Construction Company was responsible for the construction of many buildings in the area, and the buildings that were to be demolished still had valuable materials in them. Mr. Madonna salvaged these materials and stored them on his various properties. In addition, Alex Madonna was friends with William Randolph Hearst and shared his love of old buildings and the preservation of the local heritage. Some of the materials came from various Hearst structures that were also salvaged over the years. John Madonna has continued this family tradition and used much of this salvaged material to repair the buildings on the Froom Ranch. The land rises west of the house complex and contains the Dairy Barn, the Creamery/Old House, the Granary, the Water Tower, and the foundation of the Horse Barn. The remainder of the property is currently open space with no buildings. Froom Creek runs through the property, and some of the land is considered possible wetlands. The area contains two recorded prehistoric sites, which are discussed in the Cultural Resource Assessment. L o s O s o s V a ll e y R d CalleJoaquin·|}þ1 50310001 • 07/2017 | 1_spec ific _plan_area_map.mxd Exhibit 1Spec ific Plan Area MapI Sou rc e: ESRI Imagery 650 0 650325 Feet JOHN MADONNA CONSTRUCTION • FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Legend Spec ific Plan Area THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK ! £¤101 £¤101·|}þ41 ·|}þ1 ·|}þ1 ·|}þ227·|}þ1 ·|}þ58 Morro Bay Pismo Beach SantaMargarita Atascadero Grover City San Luis Obispo Baywood-Los Osos SantaMargaritaLake P a c i f i c O c e a n LosPadres NF Los Padres NF 50310001 • 07/2017 | 2_ region al.mxd Exhibit 2Region al Location Map 5 0 52.5 Miles ! Text Project Site JOHN MADONNA CONSTRUCTION • FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT Source: Cen sus 2000 Data, The CaSIL, FCS GIS 2013. I Project Site THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 50310001 • 07/2017 | 3_to po .mxd Exhibit 3Lo cal Vicin ity MapTo po graphic Base So urce: U SGS Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo 7.5" Quadran gles JOHN MADONNA CONSTRU CTION • FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN HISTORIC RESOU RCE ASSESSMENT I 2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet Legend Pro ject Bo un dary THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK John M Froom R Historic FirstCar Y:\Publicatio 1.3 ‐ 1.3.1 The M family had li west. Froom Mado leave. Descr The M reside has a porch the ro buildi East F The e conta suppo entra hung, the po adonna Construct Ranch Specific Pla c Resource Assessm rbon Solutions ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503 ‐ Structure 1 ‐ History o Main Residenc y was continu ved in the ho The Main Re m moved in w onna, arrange . ription of th Main Residenc ence. The res redwood sill h, and a hippe oof and exten ng was heate Facade ast facade is ins a partial w orted by three nce includes , focal window orch and the tion Company an ment 10001\Historic Resource Ass e Histories of the Main ce was built in uing to grow a ouse attached esidence was with his brothe ements were m he Main Resi ce is a one‐sto sidence was c and concrete ed roof with s nds downward ed by a wood the main elev width front po e round colum a single wood ws are located triangular sp sessment\50310001 Froom R and Descr n Residence n 1915 by Ha and needed b d to the Cream occupied by er in San Luis made to allow idence ory, asymmet constructed in e foundation, hingles and a d into the res stove and the vation for the orch, accesse mns—two at d door with a d south of the ace created b Ranch Historic Resource Asse riptions e ns Peterson. better living co mery building members of Obispo. Wh w Mr. Froom t trical, irregula n approximate wood horizo a modest eave idence, term ere was no in e residence an ed by a short f the entrance wood screen e off center fr by the roof de essment.docx The building onditions for g on the uppe the Froom fa en the prope to reside in th arly shaped, C ely 1915 by H ntal shiplap s e overhang. A inating about nterior firepla nd faces Los O flight of wood area and one n door. A pair ront door. A esign is infille g was construc its young chi r slopes of th amily until 199 erty was purch he home unti Craftsman‐sty Hans Peterson siding, a parti A brick chimn t 3 feet from ace. Osos Valley Ro d stairs. The e on the sout r of wood‐fra front gable ro d with fish sc Historical Back cted as the Fr ildren. The fa he property to 98, when Bill hased by the il he chose to yle, single‐fam n. The buildin al width fron ney is present the floor. The oad. The faca front gable ro th end. The m med, double‐ oof is present cale shingles. kground 9 room amily o the Alex o mily ng t t on e ade oof is main ‐ t over John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment 10 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx Windows vary in size, shape, and placement around the facades and include wood‐framed, double‐ hung, sash‐style windows. North Facade The north facade is the side of the residence that includes multiple wood‐framed double‐hung sash‐ style windows. A bay section projects forward from the main mass of the structure. A dormer section is present on the side of the roof directly above the bay section. A rectangular‐shaped addition is located on the northwest corner of the building. The addition was constructed in two parts at two different times. The front portion of the addition has wood shiplap siding and was built by Bill Froom to store firewood. The rear portion of the addition has vertical board and batten siding and was built by John Madonna to house electronic equipment. Several single doors are present around the three facades. West Facade The rear of the residence contains a screened porch with a screen door and screened window openings. The porch wraps around the house, extending onto the south facade. A single wood and glass door leads into the rear of the house. The back wall of the house contains wood‐framed windows. South Facade The south facade is the side of the house facing the open area. Multiple window openings are present. The building is in good condition and is currently used as offices for the John Madonna Construction Company. Alterations According to John Madonna, the house has undergone a number of alterations. Both John Madonna and his father, Alex, have made many changes to restore the building. The original foundation was redwood sills. Portions of the north and south redwood sill foundations were completely rotted, and these were removed and replaced with concrete foundations. The house was then leveled, as it had sunk significantly. At some point, the house flooded and the floors were uneven and buckled. The floors were leveled, sanded, and repaired. Several interior walls were removed to form larger office spaces. The kitchen sink and stove were removed and the area was converted to general office use. The only heat in the house was provided by a wood stove that produced significant amounts of soot. The walls had been painted over the years and the soot was sealed into the layers of paint. The walls were scraped, the soot and paint were removed, and they were completely repainted. The house was rewired for all new electrical service, plumbing repairs were made, an HVAC system was installed, new ceilings were put in, a new roof was put on, and general tenant improvements were conducted. John M Froom R Historic FirstCar Y:\Publicatio The re sectio Histo The b other placin horse the 20 to be Descr The “O shape front East F The m is pre North The n West The w replac adonna Construct Ranch Specific Pla c Resource Assessm rbon Solutions ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503 ear addition w on is used by t ory of the “O arn was cons property wa ng it on logs a es) until it was 0th century, a over 125 yea ription of th Old” Barn is l ed, Vernacula gable roof wi Facade main doors are sent on the u h and South F orth and sou Facade west facade co ced with histo tion Company an ment 10001\Historic Resource Ass was altered b the John Mad Old” Barn structed at an s reportedly s and rolling it o s located on it nd the barn h ars old. he “Old” Bar ocated west o r‐style barn b ith corrugated e located on t upper portion Facades th facades co ontains vertic oric boards sa sessment\50310001 Froom R y adding an e donna Constr n unknown tim southeast of t over the land ts new site. T has been in it rn of the main re building. The d metal roofin the east facad of the buildi ontain vertica cal wood sidin alvaged from Ranch Historic Resource Asse extra section ruction Comp me on anothe the current ra and the cree The relocation s present loca esidence. Th barn has a co ng. de and includ ng. The build l wood siding ng. The rear w nearby barns essment.docx at the rear of any to store i er property ow anch complex k (presumabl n took place a ation since th e barn struct oncrete floor, de sets of slid ding does not g. No window wall was rotte s. f the addition its electronic wned by the x. The buildin ly with the ai at an unknow hat time. The ture is a one‐s , vertical woo ing doors. A t contain any ws are presen ed and the bo Historical Back n. This new equipment. Froom family ng was moved d of a team o wn time early e barn is estim story, rectang od siding, and door for a ha window open t. oards were kground 11 y. The d by of in mated gular‐ a ayloft nings. Historical Bac 12 The buildi Alteratio John Mad when it w rotted, an dirt floor. site. Mr. F rot and ve Considera History o The buildi 1915. Ho Froom’s b Descripti The small building h shingles. East Faca A set of co steps have other buil metal slid ckground ing is in good ns donna made a was moved to nd the barn w The building Froom used t ertical boards able expense of the Bunkh ing was const wever, accord brother, who ion of the Bu bunkhouse i has a concrete The building ade oncrete steps e the Froom “ ldings as well er‐style wind condition. a wide range o its current lo was twisted. M g had original the barn to st s from other l was incurred house tructed as a b ding to John M lived in the sm unkhouse s a one‐story, e foundation, was construc s leads to the “brand” press . A single wo dow is presen Y:\Publications\Client of changes to ocation. The b Mr. Madonna ly been set do ore his pickup ocal farm bui to stabilize t bunkhouse fo Madonna, the mall residenc , Craftsman‐s wood horizo cted by Hans single wood sed into the w ood entrance t. (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\His o the barn str barn was lean poured a new own directly o p truck. The ildings were u he barn and r r the workers e building is o e for many ye style building ontal shiplap s Peterson in 1 entrance doo wet concrete. door provide Jo storic Resource Assessment\ ucture. The b ning more tha w concrete fl on the dirt w rear wall was used to replac restore it to a s on the prop one small roo ears. used as a res siding and a f 1915 when he or on the east . This detail is es access to th ohn Madonna Con Froom Historic R Fi \50310001 Froom Ranch Hist barn was in p an 2 feet, the oor, replacing when it was m s replaced bec ce the rotted a stable condi erty by Hans om that was u sidential struc front gable ro e built the ma t elevation. T s seen on ma he interior an nstruction Compa Ranch Specific Pla Resource Asessme irstCarbon Solutio toric Resource Assessment.d poor condition rear wall was g the original oved to the cause of dry boards. ition. Peterson in used by Bill cture. The of with ain residence. The concrete any of the nd a small ny an ent ons docx n s . John M Froom R Historic FirstCar Y:\Publicatio South The so West The w North The n condi Altera Accor painti proble Histo Jim A horse to hol design Descr The D barn u siding adonna Construct Ranch Specific Pla c Resource Assessm rbon Solutions ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503 h Facade outh facade c Facade west facade al h Facade orth facade is tion. ations rding to John ing, a new roo em; to solve t ory of the Da iken lived in a e barn in 1913 ld 10 cows at ned to bring h ription of th Dairy Barn is a used for milk g walls, and a tion Company an ment 10001\Historic Resource Ass contains a wo so contains a s blank with a Madonna, th of, and a new the problem, airy Barn a tent by the c 3 for $1,800.0 either end a hay into the b he Dairy Barn a 60‐foot x 80 ing cows. The gabled roof. sessment\50310001 Froom R ood‐framed, d a wood‐frame a large metal he building ha w floor. The b a new floor w creek on the 00, which incl nd 10 at each barn. n ‐foot, one‐sto e barn has a w Ranch Historic Resource Asse double‐hung, ed, double‐hu sign propped as been altere uilding was u was installed. property and uded labor an h side. The ba ory, asymmet wood pier an essment.docx sash‐style wi ung, sash‐style d up against t ed by general used for pape . d built the dai nd materials. arn contained trical, irregula d concrete bl indow. e window. he wall. The tenant maint r file storage iry barn, the g The dairy ba d a 4‐inch car arly shaped, V lock foundati Historical Back building is in tenance, inclu and rats were granary, and arn was desig rrier track Vernacular‐sty on, vertical w kground 13 good uding e a the gned yle wood John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment 14 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx East Facade The east facade contains a door at the south end of the facade that opens to a slanting concrete ramp. The ramp area includes a wide concrete apron covering the ground, located between the Dairy Barn and the Creamery/House structures. The concrete apron had a specific function that allowed mud to be removed from the cows’ feet prior to entering the barn for milking. The east wall contains a small addition on the north end of the facade that houses a variety of windows that appear to be remnants from other structures. The windows are of wood frame construction in various shapes and sizes. Each of the three walls contains a single door opening. A concrete trough is present on the east wall near the addition. North Facade The north facade contains two door openings. The east door opening is a single sliding door. The other door is the main door into the space and includes a wide opening with a sliding door. The west end of the facade slopes steeply down to the ground. A large metal hook is present at the peak of the gable roof. West Facade The west facade contains an open entrance on the south end of the facade and a concrete entrance area that leads into the interior space. The shed roof slopes steeply down to the lower level of the wall. South Facade The south facade contains a unique feature. The facade is curved and a portion of the curved section has no foundation and hangs out over the slope. The wall has vertical siding and a sloping curved roof. The wall was specifically constructed in this manner to accommodate the movement of the cows within the interior space. Because their size and breadth, it was easier to move the cows through a round space. The building is in fair condition. Corrals are present on the south side of the slope near the barn. Alterations The barn has been altered by both Alex and John Madonna over the years to stabilize the building. New support beams replaced unstable sections, portions were propped up and repaired, beams were placed in portions of the roof system to keep the roof in place, vertical wallboards were replaced, and overall general maintenance has kept the structure standing over the years. Archival research indicates the barn is the only round barn in San Luis Obispo County. A variety of early dairy farm equipment is still located within the barn structure. The barn was used to milk the cows, and start the butter and cheese production, and it was utilized until the dairy operations ceased in 1977. John M Froom R Historic FirstCar Y:\Publicatio Histo The e Accor opera marri buildi house family as add Descr The C was b gable The e buildi one fo South The so single buildi The so wood adonna Construct Ranch Specific Pla c Resource Assessm rbon Solutions ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503 ory of the Cr ast portion o rding to Bill Fr ate the dairy. age to Harrie ng until 1915 e, and presum y moved into ditional living ription of th Creamery/Hou built in severa d roof. The w ast portion o ngs separatin oot. h Facade outh facade c e door openin ngs. outh facade c pier foundat tion Company an ment 10001\Historic Resource Ass eamery/Ho f the building room, his fath The residenc et and the nee 5, when Hans mably, any of t the “new” re g space for the he Creamery use is a one‐s l stages at un west portion o f the structur ng the east wa contains the t ng, and a wind contains a com tion with rock sessment\50310001 Froom R use Building g was used as her lived in th ce was constr ed for more s Peterson bui the children b esidence built e workers on y/House tory, irregula nknown times of the buildin re was used a all of the Crea two buildings dow is presen mbination of k footings and Ranch Historic Resource Asse g the Creamer he Creamery f ructed at an u pace. The yo lt the Main R born before 1 t by Hans Pete the ranch. rly shaped, as s. The buildin g faces the D as a residence amery from t —the Creame nt in each of t vertical and h d infill of the o essment.docx ry, an essentia for a period o unknown time oung family liv Residence. Bi 1915 were als erson in 1915 symmetrical, ng is divided i airy Barn and e. The overall the west wall ery and the H the three sect horizontal wo open areas. al part of the of time when e, possibly aft ved in the ho ll Froom was so born in the 5, the space w Vernacular ‐s nto three sec d was used as l structure co of the House House. Each s tions that com ood siding. Th Historical Back dairy operat he first began ter John Froo use portion o born in the e house. Afte was possibly u style building ctions, each w s the Creamer omprises two e by approxim section conta mprise the tw he building ha kground 15 ions. n to om’s of the er the used that with a ry. mately ains a wo as a John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment 16 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx An addition was constructed on the south wall on the house portion but deteriorated to the point where it was removed. West Facade A single wood entrance opening faces the Dairy Barn on the west wall. The interior contains two small rooms. A root cellar is present under the building and the adjoining structure. The roof on this portion of the structure slopes down to a low level and is covered with shingles. North Facade The north facade contains vertical and horizontal siding. The entrance to the cellar area is located at the base of the north wall under the Creamery portion of the building. A secondary entrance is located further down the wall. A small, narrow door is present in the area where the two buildings are separated. The door is located on the north wall and there is no corresponding door on the south wall. An open porch was added to the east end of the north wall of the house structure at an unknown time. East Facade The east facade serves as the end wall of the residential portion of the structure. A rectangular‐ shaped window opening is present. Alterations The building has been altered by additions to the structure. At one time, an addition was present on the south wall of the house portion but was in extremely poor condition and was removed by Alex Madonna. The porch on the north wall of the house was added at an unknown time. Alex and John Madonna undertook a series of changes to the building because of its instability. Floors and ceiling areas were replaced with plywood sheeting, vertical siding was replaced, walls and foundations were stabilized, and general maintenance kept the building standing over the years. History of the Granary The Granary was built in 1913 by Jim Aiken in a way that eliminated the rat problem that was destroying other buildings on the Ranch. The building was secure and many of the local farmers stored their grain in the building to keep it safe from rats. John M Froom R Historic FirstCar Y:\Publicatio Descr The G small, buildi and a facad from cover Altera None Histo The O Obisp replac an ou locate septic adonna Construct Ranch Specific Pla c Resource Assessm rbon Solutions ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503 ription of th Granary is loca , one‐story, d ng. The build gabled roof. e. The interio being eaten b ed with horse ations noted. ory of the Ou Outhouse was po. Alex Mad cement build tdoor bathro ed near the b c tank. tion Company an ment 10001\Historic Resource Ass he Granary ated on the h ouble‐walled ding has a wo One window or contains st by animals. N e harnesses a uthouse s originally the onna obtaine ing, so he mo oom, so John arn, and the sessment\50310001 Froom R ill close to th d, rectangular ood pier found w is present o torage areas. No grain was p and equipmen e parking kios ed the contrac oved the kiosk Madonna con parking kiosk Ranch Historic Resource Asse e Dairy Barn ‐shaped, asym dation, vertic n the south fa Tongue‐and‐ present durin nt. The buildi sk at Reilly’s D ct to demolis k structure to nverted the b k was repurpo essment.docx and the Crea mmetrical, Ve cal tongue‐an acade. A sing ‐groove siding ng the site vis ing is in poor Department S h the building o the Ranch. T building into a osed and mov mery/House. ernacular‐sty d‐groove woo gle door is pre g was used to it, and the flo condition. Store in down g and constru The ranch wo an outhouse. ved to the loc Historical Back . The Granary le utilitarian od siding wal esent on the o prevent the oor and walls ntown San Lu uct the orkers reques A septic tank cation over th kground 17 y is a ls, east grain were is sted k was he Historical Bac 18 Descripti The Outho shiplap sid has a sing appears to moved to Departme Alteratio Conversio History o The Stora unit obtai ckground ion of the O ouse is a sma ding walls and gle door with o be in good its current lo ent of Parks a ns on of the build of the Storag ge Building w ined by Mr. M uthouse all, one‐story, d a front gabl a moon cuto condition. Be ocation, it was nd Recreatio ding from a p ge Building was moved to Madonna from Y:\Publications\Client asymmetrica led roof with ut in the doo ecause the O s not evaluate n (DPR) form arking kiosk t this location m a local frien (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\His al, Vernacular a shed roof e r. A small toi uthouse is mo ed for historic . to a bathroom by John Mad d and brough Jo storic Resource Assessment\ r‐style buildin extension on t let room is pr odern (less th c significance m. donna. It was ht to the site. ohn Madonna Con Froom Historic R Fi \50310001 Froom Ranch Hist ng. The buildi the east wall resent. The b han 45 years e or recorded s a simple, mo nstruction Compa Ranch Specific Pla Resource Asessme irstCarbon Solutio toric Resource Assessment.d ing has wood . The buildin building old) and was on a obile storage ny an ent ons docx g John M Froom R Historic FirstCar Y:\Publicatio Descr The S that is are ho small buildi evalu Altera None Histo The b perso habits severa allow adonna Construct Ranch Specific Pla c Resource Assessm rbon Solutions ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503 ription of th torage Buildin s located curr orizontal woo windows are ng is modern ated for histo ations noted. ory of the Sh uilding is loca on. John Mad s of thrift. At al trips to rem ed to remain tion Company an ment 10001\Historic Resource Ass he Storage B ng is a one‐st rently to the n od shiplap sid e present on t n (less than 45 oric significan hed ated north of onna stated t one point, th move them al in the structu sessment\50310001 Froom R uilding tory, rectangu north of the O ing and it has the elevations 5 years old) a ce or recorde the Main ho that Bill Froom he shed build l. The buildin ure, since it h Ranch Historic Resource Asse ular‐shaped, a Old Barn. The s a gable roof s. The buildin nd was move ed on a DPR fo use and was m lived throu ing was full o ng contains a holds up the b essment.docx asymmetrical e building has f with shingle ng is in good c ed to its curre orm. built at an un ugh the Great of so many ca seeder mach building. , Vernacular‐ s no true foun s. A single do condition. Be ent location, it nknown time t Depression a ns of dog foo hine that Mr. M Historical Back style structur ndation; its w oor is present ecause the t was not by an unknow and cultivated od that it took Madonna has kground 19 re walls t and wn d k s Historical Bac 20 Descripti The Shed The shed wood sidin a flat roof Alteratio No signific History o The water historic im ckground ion of the Sh Building is a o roof has a ste ng walls and a and a single e ns cant changes of the Water r tower was c mportance be hed Building one‐story, irreg ep slant. The a steeply slant entrance door have been m r Tower constructed b ecause it was Y:\Publications\Client g with Slante gularly shape building has ted shed roof. r. The building made to the b y Verizon Wir constructed i (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\His ed Roof d, asymmetric no true found Entrance doo g is in extreme uilding. reless for use in the last 2 y Jo storic Resource Assessment\ cal, Vernacul a dation; it was ors are on the ely poor condi e as a cell tow years. ohn Madonna Con Froom Historic R Fi \50310001 Froom Ranch Hist ar‐style storag constructed w e north wall. A tion and is ba wer. The struc nstruction Compa Ranch Specific Pla Resource Asessme irstCarbon Solutio toric Resource Assessment.d ge building. with vertical An addition ha rely standing. cture has no ny an ent ons docx as John M Froom R Historic FirstCar Y:\Publicatio Descr The W design on me old), i Altera None adonna Construct Ranch Specific Pla c Resource Assessm rbon Solutions ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503 ription of th Water Tower a ned to appea etal legs, and it was not eva ations noted. tion Company an ment 10001\Historic Resource Ass he Water Tow appears to be r to be a stru has metal sid aluated for hi sessment\50310001 Froom R wer e a water towe cture compat ding and a do storic signific Ranch Historic Resource Asse er, but it is ac tible with farm ome roof. Bec cance or recor essment.docx ctually a steal m landscapes cause the Wa rded on a DP lth cell tower s. The circula ater Tower is m R form. Historical Back r site that was ar structure st modern (2 ye kground 21 s tands ears THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background FirstCarbon Solutions 23 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx SECTION 2: HISTORIC BACKGROUND 2.1 ‐ History of San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo is located along the Central Coast of California, approximately 200 miles north of Los Angeles and 230 miles south of San Francisco. The area is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Santa Lucia mountain range to the north, east, and south. The mountains are the source of San Luis Obispo Creek, which runs through the City of San Luis Obispo and empties into the Pacific Ocean. The San Luis Obispo County area was first settled by the Chumash tribes who built a series of villages along the local creeks. The region was largely unexplored by Europeans until the arrival of the Spanish in the late 1700s. The Spanish government had begun exploration of the New World in the late 1400s, and its process of settlement and development in the Americas continued into the late 1700s. During this period, the Russian government had created settlements along the coast of Canada and into the Northern California area. The establishment of a settlement at Fort Ross led the Spanish crown to consider a more active presence in California to halt the encroachment of Russia into the western portion of the Spanish empire in the Americas. In 1769, a joint military and religious expedition led by Gaspar de Portolá was sent to the Alta California area in conjunction with Franciscan missionary Father Junipero Serra to create a chain of missions and presidios to control Alta California for Spain. The group first journeyed to the San Diego area, establishing the Mission San Diego de Alcala, the first in a chain of 21 missions extending northward into Alta California. In addition to his other duties, Portolá was tasked with finding Monterey Bay and establishing a presidio in Monterey. After accomplishing this process, the expedition proceeded to the San Luis Obispo area to continue exploring the region. In 1772, the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was founded in the Valley de Los Osos (Valley of the Bears) near the banks of San Luis Obispo Creek. The mission became the fifth mission founded in California by Father Serra. The Spanish crown granted numerous land grants to the soldiers who accompanied Portolá and Father Serra, thus enabling the overall settlement of the region. Large ranchos were established and California’s cattle‐based economy developed over the next decades. After the independence movement by Mexico, Alta California, and other parts of the Southwest, became part of the Mexican empire. Transition from Spanish control to Mexican control did not result in major changes in the early years of the 1820s. However, as time went on, the overall system of government and settlement changed. American traders, fur trappers, explorers, and settlers gradually filtered into California. Many of these men married daughters of the old Spanish families, thus acquiring title to many of the ranchos. As the United States was expanding across the continent, eyes were turning to California as a necessary access to the China trade. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment 24 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx A variety of governmental and economic changes in California during the first half of the 1800s led to a decline in the mission system. Secularization was officially declared in 1833: the mission system was disbanded, lands were sold, the priests left the missions, and the local tribes were left to fend for themselves. In 1845, Governor Pio Pico decreed that the Mission lands were for sale. All the land of Mission San Luis Obispo was sold except for the church, which still stands today. The church fell into ruins during secularization and the priests left the mission grounds. California became a state in 1850, and, as the County of San Luis Obispo developed, the church property served as the first courthouse and jail in the county. Some restoration on the building began in the 1870s but full restoration was not accomplished until 1933. The Mission serves as a parish church in the Monterey Diocese at the present time. 2.1.1 ‐ Rancho Canada de Los Osos y Pecho y Islay Rancho Canada de Los Osos y Pecho y Islay was a 32,341‐acre Mexican land grant in the Los Osos Valley in San Luis Obispo County. The grant consisted of Rancho Canada de Los Osos (northern portion) granted to Victor Linares by Governor Juan B. Alvarado in 1842, and Rancho Pecho y Islay (southern portion) was granted to Francisco Badillo by Governor Manuel Micheltorena in 1843. The grants were consolidated by Governor Pio Pico in 1845. The grant extended from the Pacific Coast to along Los Osos Creek and the Los Osos Valley to the outer boundaries of present‐day City of San Luis Obispo. The Rancho Canada de Los Osos land was purchased from Linares in 1844 by Scottish Captain John (Juan) Wilson and his Scottish business partner, James (Diego) Scott. Wilson married into the Carrillo family, linking him to the prominent Spanish families, including the Vallejos. Wilson, a sea captain and trader, had come to California in 1837 and with his business partner, James Scott, purchased other rancho lands in San Luis Obispo County and Sonoma County. After California’s statehood in 1850, one of the major issues was the ownership of Hispanic land grants. The Land Act of 1851 required owners to file paperwork to prove their claim; Wilson’s claim to the Rancho Canada de Los Osos grant was patented in 1869. After Wilson’s death in 1861, the land passed to his widow, Ramona Carrillo Wilson and their children. Over the next forty years, the land was gradually sold and a new era began on the former rancho lands. 2.2 ‐ History of the City of San Luis Obispo The development of the City of San Luis Obispo grew out of the overall settlement of the County. In 1850, California became a state and fell under the control of the United States government. Sorting out the old Spanish and Mexican land grants, ranchos, and mission lands was an arduous process. Little formal paperwork existed, land boundaries were vague and unclear, and many of the old Hispanic families had no way to prove title to the lands that had been in their families for decades. With the implementation of the California Land Act of 1851, attempts were made to sort out the ownership and sale of the valuable land. Many of the old ranchos were subdivided into smaller parcels, and farms and ranches began to develop under the new system. Many families moved into John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background FirstCarbon Solutions 25 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx San Luis Obispo and the City began to grow and develop. San Luis Obispo was officially designated the San Luis Obispo county seat in 1868. Following a major drought in 1862 to 1864, the local economy shifted from cash crops to cattle production. A booming dairy industry was established that continued well into the mid‐20th century. Improvements in the development of the railroad system brought increased expansion to the area. New lines connected the isolated region to the coast and the area soon became a central hub for trade moving both north and south to the major centers and to the coast. With the arrival of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the 1880s, the town and county areas expanded greatly. Union Oil of California established centers of operation in the County, and the agricultural and dairy development within the county thrived. In 1901, California Polytechnic Institute was established in the City. The Institute created a strong focus on vocational and agricultural training and over the decades provided an important fundamental training for local residents. The implementation of the Institute and its influence on the community greatly influenced the development of San Luis Obispo during the 20th century. Another significant influence on the local area was the development of San Simeon Ranch (known as Hearst Castle) by newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst. The development of these two important landmarks, in addition to the Mission San Luis Obispo, served to stimulate the regional economy and influence the growth in and around San Luis Obispo. In the 20th century, the development of the automobile made it possible to expand the growth of the City beyond the downtown core area. City services, roads, and utilities expanded and improved to meet the needs of the expanded city. Tourism, and particularly automobile tourism, added another element to the local economy. The Great Depression of the 1930s slowed the local economy, as it did with the rest of the county. The establishment of Camp San Luis Obispo, a military training camp, helped to improve the local economy. Military preparation increased as World War II loomed, and the population of the City grew significantly, providing an economic boost well into mid‐century. During the post‐war period of the 1950s and 1960s, the demand for single‐family homes rose dramatically and the City expanded by annexing areas in the County. Large residential subdivisions were constructed outside of the city core, and some of the former agricultural land began to transition to residential and commercial use. The City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context Statement includes the following information regarding the agricultural development of the area. The development of ranching and agriculture as the region’s main commercial enterprises influenced the development of San Luis Obispo. In the early 20th century, the primary agricultural crops ranged from flower seeds to winter peas, bush beans, pole beans, and celery. Japanese farmers were particularly successful with these crops through the 1930s. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment 26 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx With the United States entrance into World War I in 1917, there was an enormous demand for agricultural products, which provided an economic boom to Central California. During the War, many farmers turned to the production of navy beans, since these were subsidized by the War Relief Administration. Before reliable refrigeration, navy beans could be shipped to the troops in Europe without spoiling and San Luis Obispo’s economy boomed. In the early 20th century, oil derricks were erected in the area and drilling for oil began. The first lucrative oil fields were located south of San Luis Obispo and were controlled by families outside of the region, including the Doheny family from Los Angeles. The Producers Transportation Company represented the largest oil interest in San Luis Obispo County, accommodating the transport of oil from the Union Oil Company and the Independent Production Agency via 500 miles of pipeline to the Port of San Luis . . . . 2.2.1 ‐ History of Froom Ranch The history of the Froom Ranch was compiled from a variety of sources. The ranch property lies within the boundaries of the former La Laguna or Laguna Rancho. The following information was taken from the 1998 report, Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Complex, San Luis Obispo, written by San Luis Obispo County historian Betsy Bertrando. The area known as the Froom Ranch originally contained Lost 60, 67, 68, and 69 as portrayed on the 1869 map—Subdivisions of the Rancho Canada de Los Osos and La Laguna, surveyed by James Stanton. A total of 867.87 acres made up the original Froom Ranch parcel. Today, the Ranch consists of approximately 500 acres. The ranch/farm complex sits on Lot 68 of the original subdivision bordering the southwest boundary of the Laguna Rancho. The Laguna Rancho was originally part of the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa lands. In 1844, after the Mission rancho lands had been regranted by the Mexican government, Governor Micheltorena granted the church “one square league (4157 acres) in the place called ‘Laguna’” (Engledhardt 1964). This was included with two garden plots and the church in San Luis Obispo. In 1845, the new governor, Pio Pico, sold off all the remaining mission lands and buildings. Captain John Wilson, and two partners, Scott and McKinley, bought the San Luis Obispo Mission and the Laguna Rancho for $500 (Angel 1883). The properties were later claimed by the church and confirmed by the American government in 1855 (Koeber 1972). In 1859, Bishop Alemany sold the Laguna property to Captain John Wilson. W.W. Stow, from San Francisco, eventually acquired the Wilson estate. Stow was known locally as a major benefactor of the first library in San Luis Obispo. Contributing books not money, Stow felt ‘there was too much reading of fiction, which might be stopped if history and biographical works were placed on the shelf ’ and wanted to make the selections himself (Togazzani 1992). John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background FirstCarbon Solutions 27 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx In 1875, Stow sold the property to S.W. (Henry) Foreman, a surveyor. Henry and his wife built a rather elaborate house (for the time) that remains today at the end of Madonna Road and is known as the De Vaul Ranch House (Bertrando 1997). In 1884, Ludwig Nelson purchased Lot 60 of the La Laguna subdivision from Foreman. Nelson came from Norway to California in 1859 and arrived in the county in 1868. By 1883, the land acquired a dairy and 856 acres in the Harmony District. Nelson is listed as a farmer in 1884 and as a dairyman in the 1982 San Luis Obispo Great Register. The ranch eventually grew to contain Lots 67, 68, and 69 as well, for a total of 867.87 acres. When Ludwig died, the property was run by his wife Annie Nelson. Annie Nelson owned four ranches; one in Estero, two in Cambria/Harmony, and the Froom Ranch on Los Osos Valley Road (Bill Froom pers. comm.). John R. Froom was born in Prescott, Grantville County, Canada in 1864. When he was sixteen years old he left Canada for Iowa. After six months he made his way to California and did ranch work for a year near Santa Rosa. Then in 1886, he came to work for Ludwig Nelson in Laguna, living in a little room attached to the creamery (Structure E; See Results Section). In 1890, he leased 500 acres and began dairying with fifty cows. Harriet Perry was a native of Ireland who first came to Illinois with her brother and later to San Luis Obispo where she settled. Harriet and John Froom were married on December 14, 1904 and had seven children: Harry, Annie, Minnie, Willie, Robert, Bunny and John (Morrison 1917). From the estate of Annie Nelson, Harriet Perry Froom acquired Lots 60, 67, 68, and 69 in 1904. In 1905, the H.P. Froom Ranch consisted of 412.65 acres. They lived in the small addition at the east end of the creamery that appears to be, but is not, attached to the creamery (Structure E). In 1915, they moved into the ‘new’ four bedroom house (Structure C). According to Bill Froom, a dairy had been on the property since the 1850s. The subdivision map of 1868 gives no information regarding land use or existing structures. The plat map of 1858 shows one house near the eastern border of the Laguna Rancho. A ‘thatched’ house is shown just to the outside of the southern point of the rancho. For several years the ranch has been owned by Alex Madonna and used as an equipment storage yard. Madonna ran cattle on the ranch as well. He has been responsible for the upkeep of the ranch structures and has painted most of the buildings. Bill Froom, until this fall, continued to reside in the house he has spent most of his life in. Health problems have recently necessitated Bill living with his brother in San Luis Obispo. Currently no one resides on the ranch. A variety of local sources obtained from the files of the Local History Room at the San Luis Obispo County Library were used to add information to the overall history of the ranch. Local newspapers interviewed Bill Froom many times and some of his stories about the ranch were recounted in the articles. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment 28 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx Local San Luis Obispo historian Joan Sullivan conducted a series of interviews with Bill Froom, which were published in The Bay News in 1993. An article entitled “The Froom Family Ranch” included the following information: Mr. Froom stated that his father had originally leased the ranch for $1500. His lease included the ranch lands (much larger than today’s ranch property), the harnesses for the horses, wagon and hay. Bill retained the receipt his entire life. His father worked the ranch for 31 years and lived in the Creamery house for the first ten years. Froom said his father “bached it” until 1902 when he married his mother, Harriet Perry, when she was 18. The Frooms began having seven children and Bill was the middle child born in 1910 in the house attached to the Creamery building. As the family expanded, a new house was needed. Hans Peterson built the Craftsman‐style residence in 1915 and boarded with the family while it was under construction. Peterson also built a woodshed, the washing room, the storeroom, and the bunkhouse. Bill Froom first attended the Laguna Elementary School when he was six years old. He attended the school for 8 years and was also hired to care for the grounds for one dollar. Many years later, from 1948 to 1966, he served as a Trustee for the Laguna School District that had been formed in 1877. The school was constructed in 1870 on land donated by Harry Forma. John Froom worked for Forma as a hired hand prior to buying the Froom Ranch property. In 1870, John Froom planted cypress trees around the schoolhouse that Froom had traveled to Monterey to obtain. Some of the trees were still standing in the 1990s. When Bill Froom was 8 years old, his father asked him if he could milk a cow and that is when he began helping with feeding and milking the family herd of Durham cows. Bill Froom continued to milk cows by hand until 1945, when the milking machine was installed. By age 15, Bill was taking teams of horses out to track hay and farm. John Froom died when Bill was 17, during the Great Depression in 1929. Bill took over the farm and ran it until 1977. Like most ranch families, the family weathered the hard times of the 1930s. Bill took work outside the farm and worked for local families making 15 cents an hour. He recounted that the most money he ever made during that period was 50 cents an hour. The ranch was an ideal location for dairy cows and the Froom family owned Durham cows, which produced milk with a high butter fat content. The cows were milked twice a day and produced 200 gallons of milk a day. Eventually the family switched to Guernsey cows. The dairy was profitable until the 1950s, when the local dairy economy began to fade. The high cost of operating the dairy led the family to slowly reduce the herd. They decided to switch over to raising beef cattle. Bill commented in the Bay News article that “we could always pay our taxes ($160 per acre) dairying and I found out the hard way that one good dairy cow was worth much more than any beef cow. One year cattle brought in $11,000 and cost me $13,000.” John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background FirstCarbon Solutions 29 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx Bill Froom told Joan Sullivan the story of the barns on the property. Jim Aiken lived in a tent by the creek on the property and built the dairy barn, the granary, and the horse barn in 1913 for $1,800.00, which included labor and materials. Every day he came up from his tent by the creek and worked on the buildings. The dairy barn was 80 feet by 60 feet and was designed to hold 10 cows at either end and 10 at each side. The barn contained a 4‐inch carrier track designed to bring hay into the barn. Froom told the story of how difficult it had been to learn to use the milking machine when it was first installed. It took him 4 hours to do the milking on the first day because the noise of the machine made the cows nervous. By the second day, the cows were leaking and uncomfortable so they were much more agreeable to the machine. Froom eventually purchased four milking machines. Each machine could milk one cow at a time, the most modern method at the time. Froom stated that “everyone says it would spoil my cows but they liked them better than hand milking . . . .” Apparently, the cows felt it was more like a calf than a machine. Froom’s farm was considered one of the most modern in the area, and he routinely gave tours to college classes that learned his techniques and operation. His horse‐powered churn fascinated his students. Froom started the County Farm Bureau and served as a director for the Cattlemen’s Association. He volunteered as a docent at the local history museum. In addition, he traveled around the County giving demonstrations of how to sharpen tools, explained the production process for butter and cream, and demonstrated a wide range of farm skills that were being lost. More information about the buildings was included in the article. The Granary was double walled and rat free, the only one in the County. A bull pen, built in 1930, had been constructed on the property after John Froom died, since he had objected to the idea. The horse barn was originally divided into three sections: wagons were on the left, horse stalls were on the right (two horses to a stall), and the hay wagon was placed in the middle of the barn. An article in the San Luis Obispo Telegram ‐Tribune, dated July 11, 1989, detailed an interview with Bill Froom. Froom had been hired as a teenager in the mid‐1920s by a local banker and worked for only 3 days. He had to wear a “necktie and nice shoes” and he discovered very quickly he was not cut out for banking. He listened to his father and returned to the ranching life, which sustained him for the next 50 years. Froom took over the farm in 1927 when his father became sick and he was only a junior in high school. Bill was chosen to take over the farm because the older brother who was first in line to take the farm was not home, working in the oil fields making $4 a day—big money in those days. Froom stated that “I had already made my letter in track and so I could skip athletics and come home in the afternoon to deal with the cows.” During the difficult years of the Great Depression, the farm did not produce enough income. Bill went to work as a farm hand on the Dalidlio property across the road from the ranch. He made 15 cents an hour working for the neighbors and was glad to have it, as that wage was considered good money during the hard times. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment 30 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx During the World War II years of the 1940s, chromium was mined on the ranch property. The deposit was a large one and has been untouched since the war years. Chromium is mixed with other ores to make a high‐grade steel. The expense of extraction and transportation of the ore proved too costly for any further production after the war. Froom told a story about the Creamery building. Apparently, one of the workers on the ranch liked to drink during the day crawled under the Creamery building to do this. He shifted the rock foundation stones around so that he could sleep in the shade. When John Froom saw what he had done, he decided to dig out a cellar under the building. John Froom’s ingenuity led to the design of the Granary building. Rats would chew through the burlap sacks in which grain was stored, so John Froom built the Granary on stilts with tongue and groove double walls to prevent rat damage. Farmers from all over the valley brought their grain to the Froom Ranch for rat‐free storage. An oral interview was conducted with John Madonna, current owner of the property (Madonna pers. comm.). The Madonna family is one of the oldest pioneer families in the area and owns the Madonna Inn, a local landmark, and numerous ranches in the San Luis Obispo County area. John Madonna stated that Bill Froom had been a boxer in the United States Army during World War II. He said that Froom had never married and had no children. However, Bill Froom had been heavily involved with the local school system, contributing a great deal of his time to local education. John Madonna commented that Bill Froom had named all his cows over the years—names such as Rosie and Betsy. The dairy operation had approximately 50 cows, though possibly not all at the same time. Mr. Madonna stated that his father, Alex Madonna, had purchased the property in a tax lien sale in 1976. Dairy operations ceased in 1977 when Bill Froom retired after having run the ranch since 1927. Mr. Madonna raised beef cattle on the property for several years. The property is currently used as the office and equipment storage area for the John Madonna Construction Company. 2.3 ‐ Methods and Results of Historic Assessment 2.3.1 ‐ Introduction The subject property was evaluated for historic and architectural significance and its potential to meet National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and local City of San Luis Obispo criteria. This report presents the results of the assessment. The Froom Ranch complex was assessed for its historic and architectural significance by FCS Architectural Historian, Kathleen A. Crawford, MA. Ms. Crawford conducted the archival research and on January 6, 2015 visited the property. During the site visit, Ms. Crawford personally inspected and photographed each structure on the property for this report. 2.3.2 ‐ Archival Research In order to fully assess the Froom Ranch complex, varieties of archival sources were accessed for information related to the property and its history. Sources consulted include the San Luis Obispo John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background FirstCarbon Solutions 31 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx County Assessor’s Office records; the San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office records; the City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department files, including an interview with Senior Planner Brian Leveille; the City of San Luis Obispo Building Department building permit files and additional records; the San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files; the History Center of San Luis Obispo files; a variety of internet sources; two films about the Froom Ranch produced by Joan Sullivan, local San Luis Obispo historian; miscellaneous documents, including Environmental Impact Reports and previous assessments; and an oral interview conducted on January 27, 2015 with John Madonna, current owner of the property. One of the most important documents regarding the history of the Froom Ranch is the report written by local San Luis Obispo historian, Betsy Bertrando, in 1998. Ms. Bertrando’s report was a valuable source of information, as she had personally interviewed Mr. Bill Froom, owner of the property, and reviewed a wide range of local maps, oral interviews, historic documents, and other local sources to complete her assessment of the property. She visited the site at various times over the years and was able to observe the changes to the property. Her observations were important in the current assessment of the remaining buildings on the Froom Ranch property. In addition, invaluable information was obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context Statement, written in 2013. This document provided important historic context information for fully assessing the Froom Ranch complex. 2.3.3 ‐ Froom Ranch Historic and Architectural Survey Results The 1998 Bertrando report provided a base of information to compare the current conditions with the previous developments on the Froom Ranch property. Conditions on the Froom Ranch have changed since the report was written: buildings have been removed and the remaining structures are in various states of repair. The property currently contains the buildings/structures described below. 1. Main Residence (c. 1915) The building is a one‐story, Craftsman‐style, single‐family residence located on the lower level near the front of the property. Bertrando Report: House/Structure C The four bedroom house was built by Hans Peterson in 1915. Peterson also built a wood shed, the washing room, store room and bunkhouse during the same period. The washing room and store room were added to the rear of the house in a long addition that is partially of board and batten construction. The main part of the house has shiplap siding. The building sits on a redwood sill foundation. The entrance is from a porch supported by three columns that face the east. Above the porch are decorative shingles under the eaves. 2. “Old” Barn (date unknown) The building was moved to its current location at an unknown time from another location in the Los Osos Valley. The “Old” Barn is a one‐story, wood barn structure. The building is over 100 years old. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment 32 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx Bertrando Report: Old Barn/Structure A The barn near the house was moved to its present location and is over 100 years old. The original location was on the south east (sic) side of the ranch until it was moved slowly over logs over the creek to the present site. The barn has a corrugated roof and is formed from vertical boards. There is no foundation. Double entry doors face east at the end of the long driveway. 3. Bunkhouse (c. 1915) The Bunkhouse is a small Craftsman‐style, residential building located between the Main Residence and the “Old” Barn on the lower level. Bertrando Report: Bunkhouse/Structure B A small structure in good condition sits between the old barn (A) and the house (C). It is built of the same shiplap boards as the house (C). It has sash windows and a door opening onto a corner stoop on the east side. It was built by Hans Peterson in 1915 at the same time as the house (Sullivan 1993). 4. Shed with slanted roof (date unknown) The Shed is a small wooden shed with a small addition. The Shed is located to the north of the Main Residence on the lower level of the property. Bertrando Report: Wood Shed/Structure D The shed has a corrugated roof and vertical board siding. There is a door on the east and north sides of the structure. A shed roof that abuts a flat roof suggest the flat roof was a later addition. The shed was in the process of being emptied of great piles of tin cans. One cleared area has exposed a piece of farm equipment in good condition. It was a horse drawn seeder labeled ‘California Green Seed Sower.’ It appeared there may be other pieces of equipment amongst and under the remaining cans although it was difficult to tell. 5. Outhouse (date unknown) The Outhouse is a small, one‐story structure located behind the “Old” Barn. Bertrando Report Not included. 6. Storage Building (date unknown) The Storage Building is a small, one‐story wood structure that is located on the lower level north of the “Old” Barn. The building was probably moved to this location from an unknown location. Bertrando Report Not included. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background FirstCarbon Solutions 33 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx 7. Creamery/House (date unknown) The Creamery/House structure is composed of two wood buildings. The west structure is the Creamery building; the east portion is the house that the family lived in prior the construction of the Main Residence. The Creamery/House structure is located on the hillside on the upper level. Bertrando Report: Old Creamery/House/Structure E One of the most interesting structures within the ranch, the Old Creamery/House is also complex, having been built in at least three episodes. The west side of the wood shingled structure includes a room that was home to Bill Froom’s father for many years. The board and batten creamery housed a horse powered churn and a butter break table. Only the corn sheller remains. Most of the equipment is now gone. The author remembers visiting this site in the 1970s and noticing piles of old bottles under the floor boards on the ground floor. This time it was clean and no bottles remained. The middle of the structure was built with shiplap and may have been an addition to the creamery. The west side appears to be attached to the creamery but is actually separated by a space about a foot wide. The living space consisted of two rooms that had been muslin over board and batten construction. Currently the north facing room is stripped of boards. A later porch addition is on the south side. The condition of the structure is very weathered and the flooring is unstable. 8. Dairy Barn (c. 1913) The Dairy Barn is a large, wood barn building with a curved front wall. The Dairy Barn is sited on the hillside above the house complex. Bertrando Report: Dairy Barn/Structure F Another structure of interest is the Dairy Barn. This structure has an unusual rounded end on the south side that hangs along the edge of the slope. The dairy barn, as well as the granary and the horse barn, were constructed by Jim Aiken in 1913 for $1800. The barn roof has wood shingles and the walls of vertical planks rest on formed concrete. 9. Granary (c. 1913) The Granary is a small, wood structure located on the hillside north of the Dairy Barn and west of the Horse Barn foundation. Bertrando Report: Granary/Structure G The small rectangular granary is in fairly good condition and is composed of vertical plank walls that rest on concrete and block wood posts. The granary was constructed by Jim Aiken in 1913. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment 34 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx 10. Horse Barn (date unknown) The Horse Barn is no longer extant; only the foundation remains. The Horse Barn was located north of the Dairy Barn and Creamery/House buildings and east of the Granary. Bertrando Report: Horse Barn/Structure H The barn is constructed of vertical boards on a concrete foundation. The wood shingle roof is missing approximately 12% of the shingles. The barn doors open on the north side and was used for wagons, horses and hay storage. The horse barn was constructed by Jim Aiken in 1913. The barn is a style typical of the period. Additional information John Madonna stated that the Horse Barn had been used for storage of salvaged materials during the period of ownership by the Madonna family. Alex Madonna collected salvaged materials from local ranches, businesses, and homes and stored some of these materials in the barn. The barn was in extremely poor condition and the sides were falling down. John Madonna attempted to stabilize and prop up the building but eventually the deterioration was too great. The building collapsed and the materials were hauled away. 11. Water Tower (2013) The Water Tower structure is located on the hillside above the Granary area. It is a Verizon Wireless cell tower site and was constructed within the last 2 years. The Bertrando report did not address this structure, as it had not been built at the time of the 1998 evaluation. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch FirstCarbon Solutions 35 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx SECTION 3: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND EVALUATIONS: FROOM RANCH 3.1 ‐ Application of National Register of Historical Places Criteria Criterion A: Event: Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The subject property, the Froom Ranch, is one of the oldest dairy properties in the history of San Luis Obispo County. The Froom family was a pioneering ranching family and was part of the overall development of the important dairy industry in the San Luis Obispo area. The subject property does merit designation under National Register Criterion A: Event at the local level. Criterion B: Person: Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was associated with persons significant in our past. The property is associated with the Froom family and Bill Froom in particular. The Froom family purchased the ranch in the late 19th century as one of the area’s pioneering families. Bill Froom, son of John Froom, inherited the property in 1929 and continued to operate a dairy and ranching operation for the next 50 years. Bill Froom was also an important local leader and made many contributions to the development of the local school system and community. The subject property does merit designation under National Register Criterion B: Person. Criterion C: Design/Construction: Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Evidence was found that would support the determination that the property embodied the distinctive characteristics of a significant style of architecture, which this criterion includes within the term “type.” A property is eligible as a specimen of its type or period of construction under this criterion if it is an important example of building practices of a particular time in history. The Main Residence is a typical example of the Craftsman‐style of architecture and the interior has been altered extensively over the years. The building was transitioned to an office use over the last two decades. However, its exterior appearance has remained essentially the same since it was constructed by Hans Peterson in 1915. Its appearance includes the following character defining features as listed in the San Luis Obispo Historic Context Statement: Horizontal massing Low‐pitched gable roof Wood exterior wall cladding John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment 36 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx Projecting partial‐width front porch Wood‐frame double‐hung sash windows Extensive use of natural materials—wood Therefore, the Main Residence is considered to meet the criteria under style. The Dairy Barn is a Vernacular‐style structure. The barn is unusual, the only one in the County with a rounded front. The rounded front was designed to facilitate the milking process and move the cows through the barn efficiently. The Creamery/House structure is also a local Vernacular‐style building with a history indicative of the local area. The building was constructed as a creamery and a residence. The building displays the features of local building styles and its utilitarian function. The Dairy Barn and Creamery/House buildings are examples of the type of local Vernacular architecture and their period of construction at the turn of the 20th century. The remaining buildings are not considered to retain, or embody, enough of the distinctive features, type or method of construction to be considered significant. A “master” under this criterion is a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field. Hans Peterson and Jim Aiken were responsible for the construction of the majority of the current buildings on the site. Neither has been identified as a master builder, architect, or craftsman. “High artistic values” under this criterion refers to properties that so fully articulate a particular concept of design that they express an aesthetic ideal, which is not the case here. The terminology referring to “components of an entity” are intended to address historic districts. The subject property does merit designation under National Register Criterion C: Architecture at the local level. Criterion D: Information Potential: Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they have yielded or are likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. This criterion is intended to address archaeological resources. To be designated under this criterion the property must have information to contribute to our understanding of human history and prehistory and that information must be important. This criterion is not applicable to this property. The subject property may merit designation under National Register Criterion D: Information Potential at the local level, see FirstCarbon Solutions Cultural Resource Assessment. 3.2 ‐ Application of California Register of Historical Resources Criteria Properties that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be evaluated for historical significance under the California Register of Historical Resources. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch FirstCarbon Solutions 37 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx The criteria for evaluating the significance of historical resources require that the resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria: (1) Association with Events: It is 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. Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, the development of San Luis Obispo County and the dairy industry. The subject property does merit designation under California Register Criterion (1). (2) Association with Persons: It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or National History. Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was associated with the lives of persons important to local history. The property is associated with the pioneering Froom family and Bill Froom in particular. The subject property does merit designation under California Register Criterion (2). (3) Design/Construction: It 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. Evidence was found that would support the determination that the property embodied the distinctive characteristics of a significant type, period, region or method of construction. The Main Residence is a good example of local Craftsman architecture and the Dairy Barn and Creamery/House buildings exemplify local Vernacular architecture and building techniques. The buildings were not constructed by master builders or architects, as Hans Peterson and Jim Aiken have not been identified as masters in these fields. None of the buildings on the property possessed high artistic values. The subject property does merit designation under California Register Criterion (3). (4) Archaeology: It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. To be designated under this criterion, the property must have information to contribute to our understanding of human history and prehistory and that information must be important. The subject property may merit designation under California Register Criterion (4), see FirstCarbon Solutions Cultural Resource Assessment. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment 38 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx 3.3 ‐ City of San Luis Obispo Criteria The following criteria and guidelines for evaluation were taken from the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context Statement. Local Designation Guidelines In 2010, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance that outlines the process and criteria for the inclusion of historic resources on the City’s Master List or Contributing List of Historic Resources. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource must exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old 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 possess high artistic values. 1. Style: Describes the form of a building, architectural details within the 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 suggest degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter‐builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style. 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 quality may not be superior. 3. Architect: Describe the professional (individual or firm) responsible for the building design and plans for 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 the development of the city, state, or nation; b. An architect, who in terms of craftsmanship made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abraham who according to local sources designed the house at 810 Osos—Frank Avila’s father’s home—built between 1927 and 1930). John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch FirstCarbon Solutions 39 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx B. Historic Criteria 1. History—Persons associated with the lives of persons important to local, state, or national history. 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 leader, etc.) and for his or her fame and outstanding recognition—locally, regionally or nationally; b. Significant to the community as a public servant or as a person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, local affairs or institutions (e.g., Council member, education, medical professional, clergymen, public 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 events will be evaluated as a measure of: i. A landmark, famous, or first of its kind event for the city—regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city; ii. A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., The Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese‐American activities in early San Luis Obispo history). 3. History—Context. Associated with and also a prime illustration of prominent patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as to the 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 immediately 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 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 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 reasons for its historic significance; 3. The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workman‐ ship, feeling and association. In assessing a property’s integrity, the National Park Service recognizes that properties change over time. National Register Bulletin 15 states: John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment 40 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. It is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. The property must retain, however, the essential physical features that allow it to convey its historic identity. A property that has lost some of its historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible if it retains some basic features conveying massing, but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style. For properties that are considered significant under National Register Criteria A and B, National Register Bulletin 15 states: A property is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that make up the character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person. A property important for illustrating an architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute the style or technique. A property that has sufficient integrity for listing at the national, state or local level will typically retain a majority of the character defining features, and will retain sufficient integrity to convey its significance. The required aspects of integrity are dependent on the reasons for a property’s significance. Increased age and rarity of the property type are also considerations when assessing integrity thresholds. For example, for properties that are significant for their architectural merit (Criterion C3, A1‐A3) a higher priority is placed on integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. For properties that are significant for events or persons, integrity of feeling and/or association may be more important. The Froom Ranch complex was assessed for all aspects of its historical significance and historic integrity. The property meets six of the seven criteria for integrity. The following integrity criteria were applied to the buildings and the complex as a whole. 3.4 ‐ Integrity In addition to determining the significance of a property under local, state, and federal criteria, it is necessary to assess whether the property has integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to convey and maintain its significance. A property must not only be shown to be significant under the established criteria, it must also have integrity. In order to retain historic integrity, a property must possess several, and usually most, of the seven key aspects of integrity, which are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch FirstCarbon Solutions 41 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx Application of the City’s Guidelines for Finding Integrity 1. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical integrity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. 2. Integrity relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character defining features. Application of the Seven Aspects of Integrity Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The subject buildings remain at their original location. The “Old” Barn was moved to the current location but has remained in this location for over 100 years. Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. The buildings retain their basic original design and, therefore, have retained this aspect of integrity. Setting: The physical environment of a historic property. Review of historic maps, archival materials, and aerial photographs, as well as physical inspection of the surrounding area, indicates that the majority of the Froom Ranch has retained its original appearance. However, the surrounding neighborhood has changed from its original agricultural setting to a mixed‐use commercial and residential setting. The property has not retained its overall setting. Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The buildings have retained their original appearance with no significant changes to their overall materials component. Alex and John Madonna undertook a series of repairs on the buildings over the decades. Because they were able to salvage materials from old local barns and other sources, they were able to use old, appropriate materials to do the repairs and renovations. Therefore, the overall integrity has been retained. Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. The quality of the original workmanship has basically been maintained from the original construction. Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. The Froom Ranch farm complex has basically maintained the original feeling of the property. Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. The property has been determined to be directly linked to an important historic event, the development of agriculture and the dairy industry in the Los Osos Valley; and a person important in local San Luis Obispo history, Bill Froom. Therefore, it has an associative element. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment 42 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx 3.4.1 ‐ Conclusion Of the seven aspects of integrity, the property retains all but one: Setting. Therefore, it passes the integrity test. 3.5 ‐ Historic Themes In addition to the above City of San Luis Obispo standards and guidelines, the City has created historic context themes that allow further evaluation of the property and is historic significance. The property was evaluated under the City of San Luis Obispo Theme: Early 20th Century Agriculture and Industrial Development. In general, agriculture and industrial properties are generally not associated with particular architectural styles. Vernacular industrial buildings of brick and reinforced concrete are the predominate form, and significance is frequently derived from historic association, rather than aesthetic qualities. Agricultural and industrial resources from this period may be eligible under several 20th‐century themes. 3.5.1 ‐ Early 20th Century Agriculture and Industrial Development Associated Property Types, Integrity Consideration & Eligibility Standards Property Types Examples of industrial properties from this period include railroad‐related warehouse, rail yards, rail lines, and rail spurs. Agricultural property types include: warehouses, farmhouses, and related outbuildings. An agricultural or industrial building from this period may be significant: As a rare, intact example of a particular type of agricultural or industrial development; or for its association with the development of an important local industry—Criterion 1A, B2 (Event). As a rare example of a specific agricultural or industrial property type—Criterion C3, A1, A2 (Design/Construction). As a property type that has a direct association with the railroad—Criterion C3, A1, A2 (Design/Construction). Integrity Considerations 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 Early 20th Century Agricultural and Industrial themes: Agricultural and industrial properties from this period eligible under Criteria A1,B2 (Event) should retain integrity of location, design, feeling and association. Agricultural and industrial properties significant under Criterion C3, A1, A2 (Design/Construction) should retain integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship and feeling. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch FirstCarbon Solutions 43 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx Eligibility Standards To be eligible, a property must: Date from the period of significance; Display most of the character‐defining features of the type; and Retain the essential aspects of integrity. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Findings and Conclusions FirstCarbon Solutions 45 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx SECTION 4: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 4.1 ‐ Potential Historic District Upon application of National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and local City of San Luis Obispo criteria, standards, and guidelines, the conclusion was reached that the Froom Ranch complex portion of the subject property is considered eligible as a potential historic district. The following City of San Luis Obispo criteria apply to the Froom Ranch complex. These criteria parallel National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources criteria. 4.1.1 ‐ Architecture: A1, A2 The Froom Ranch complex includes examples of Craftsman architecture: the Main Residence and the Bunkhouse. The structures are both intact and good examples of the style and contain the main character defining features of the Craftsman style. In addition, the Froom Ranch complex contains a unique example of Vernacular architecture: the Dairy Barn with the rounded front, the only such structure in San Luis Obispo County. Additional Vernacular‐style structures include the Creamery/House building, Granary and Shed. The structures represent the local farming and dairy industry development and the predominant architectural styles of the early 20th century. 4.1.2 ‐ Historic Criteria—Person and Event: B1, B2 The Froom Ranch complex is considered to have historic significance for its connection with the Froom family and Bill Froom and the development of early 20th century ranching and the dairy industry. The complex exemplifies the Early 20th Century Agricultural Development theme. 4.1.3 ‐ Integrity: C1, C2, C3 The Froom Ranch complex has retained its overall integrity of design, location, feeling, association, materials, workmanship, and overall historic integrity. As such, the Froom Ranch complex exemplifies the early 20th century agricultural development of San Luis Obispo County. The Froom Ranch complex is also locally significant under Criteria 1, 2, and 3 of the State of California Historical Register and the National Register of Historic Places Criteria A, B, and C. The property is significant for its association with the overall development of the San Luis Obispo area and the dairy industry; for its association with the pioneering Froom family and for Bill Froom and his local contributions; and for the Craftsman and Vernacular architecture of the buildings located on the property. In addition, the Froom Ranch complex is considered to meet the criteria for a historic district, since the various buildings and structures comprise a significant entity. National Register Bulletin 15 includes the following information regarding historic districts: John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Findings and Conclusions Historic Resource Assessment 46 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of site, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a wide variety of resources The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties. For example, a district can reflect one principal activity, such as a mill or a ranch, or it can encompass several interrelated activities, such as an area that includes industrial, residential or commercial buildings, sites, structures, or objects. A district can also be a grouping of archaeological sites related primarily by their common components; these types of districts often will not visually present a specific historic environment. A district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity. It must be important for historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural values. Therefore, districts that are significant will usually meet the last portion of Criterion C plus Criterion A, Criterion B, other portions of Criterion C, or Criterion D. A district can encompass both features that lack individual distinction and individually distinctive features that serve as focal points. It may even be considered eligible if all of the components lack individual distinction, provided that the grouping achieves significance as a whole within the historic context. In either case, the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character, even if they are individually undistinguished, must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A district can contain buildings, structures, sites, objects, or open spaces that do not contribute to the significance of the district. The number of non‐contributing properties a district can contain yet still convey the sense of time and place and historical development depends on how these properties affect the district’s integrity . . . The Froom Ranch complex is considered to meet the necessary criteria as a historic district. The Froom Ranch complex contains seven contributing structures and three non‐contributing structures. The Froom Ranch complex is considered an excellent example of early 20th century ranching and dairy industry development in San Luis Obispo County; its association with the pioneering Froom family and Bill Froom and his local contributions; and for its examples of Craftsman and Vernacular architecture. 4.2 ‐ Contributing Structures 4.2.1 ‐ Main Residence The c. 1915 Craftsman‐style residence served as the Froom family home from 1915 to 1998. The building is a good example of Craftsman architecture in the San Luis Obispo area. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment Findings and Conclusions FirstCarbon Solutions 47 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx 4.2.2 ‐ “Old” Barn The “Old” Barn was built at an unknown time, possibly c. 1900, and moved to the current location early 20th century. The barn has been renovated extensively. 4.2.3 ‐ Bunkhouse The c. 1915 Bunkhouse is a Craftsman‐style residential building once occupied by Bill Froom’s brother. 4.2.4 ‐ Dairy Barn The c. 1913 Dairy Barn is a unique example of local dairy industry Vernacular construction. The barn is the only barn in San Luis Obispo County with a rounded facade. 4.2.5 ‐ Creamery/House The Creamery/House building dates to the early period of the Froom Ranch construction. It served as both the dairy production area and the first residence on the site. 4.2.6 ‐ Granary The c. 1913 Granary building was used for grain storage. The building has a unique construction to pre‐vent damage from animals. 4.2.7 ‐ Storage Building The c. 1913 Storage Building was built as part of the early Froom Ranch development and has served as a storage shed for the property. 4.3 ‐ Non‐Contributing Structures 4.3.1 ‐ Outhouse The Outhouse is a Modern parking kiosk structure repurposed as an outhouse for the John Madonna Construction Company staff and has no historic significance. 4.3.2 ‐ Storage Building The Storage Building is a Modern mobile storage unit moved to the site for use by the John Madonna Construction Company and has no historic significance. 4.3.3 ‐ Water Tower The Water Tower is a Modern‐style Verizon stealth cell tower site and has no historic significance. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment References FirstCarbon Solutions 49 Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx SECTION 5: REFERENCES Angel, Myron. 1979. History of San Luis Obispo County with Illustrations, Oakland, CA: Thompson and West, 1883. Reprinted from Fresno Valley Publishers, CA. Bay News, The. 1993. Numerous articles on Froom Ranch. Bertrando, Betsy. 1998. “Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Building Complex, San Luis Obispo County,” Central Coast Engineering, San Luis Obispo. Ching, Francis. 2002. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York. City of San Luis Obispo, Building Department. 2015. Building Permit Records for 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, January. County of San Luis Obispo, Assessor’s Office. N.D. Property Records for 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo. Historic Aerials.com. 2015. “12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA.” Historic Resources Group. 2013. City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement. Prepared for City of San Luis Obispo. September 30. History Center of San Luis Obispo. 2015. Froom Ranch. January. Leveille, Brian. Senior Planner, City of San Luis Obispo. Personal communication. January 16, 2015. Madonna, John. Owner, John Madonna Construction Company. Personal communication: interview. January 27, 2015. McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester. 2003. A Field Guide to American Homes. Alfred A. Knopf: New York. Morro Group, Inc. 1998. Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for County of San Luis Obispo. October. Morro Group, Inc. 2003. Draft Costco/Froom Ranch Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for City of San Luis Obispo. March. Nava, Julian and Bob Berger. 1986. California: Five Centuries of Contrast. MacMillan Publishing Company: New York. San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room. 2015. Froom Ranch Vertical Files. Miscellaneous documents. San Luis Obispo Telegram‐Tribune (now The Tribune). 1989. “Bill Froom: A Man Who Never Left,” July 15. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan References Historic Resource Assessment 50 FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx Sullivan, Joan. 1993. Touring the Froom Ranch or the Wild West in La Canada de Los Osos. On file at San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room. Sullivan, Joan. The Froom Ranch. Videos produced in 1994 and 2007. On file at San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room. United States Department of the Interior. 1991. National Register Bulletin 15. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C. John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx Appendix A: Personnel Qualifications THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Page 1 Carrie D. Wills, M.A., RPA Senior Project Archeologist Overview 23 Years Experience Master’s degree, Anthropology – California State University, Hayward Bachelor’s degree, Anthropology – California State University, Hayward Registered Professional Archaeologist #11138 Carrie Wills, RPA, M.A. has worked in the areas of prehistoric and historic archaeology on tasks that included pre-field assessments, archival research, pedestrian field surveys, site evaluation and testing, and data recovery and analysis since 1991. She has extensive experience conducting field research, evaluating sites and features for historic significance and preparing reports that comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. Her experience includes evaluating and assessing historic structures and resources for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources. In addition, Ms. Wills has conducted numerous consultations with Native American tribal representatives and has good working relationships with numerous governmental agencies. She has provided feasible mitigation that protects significant resources while staying within budgetary constraints. Related Experience Historic American Buildings Survey Documentation – Larkspur 16.8-Acre Project, City of Larkspur, Marin County. Serving as project archaeologist, conducted a field survey, records and map review, and historic building evaluation for more than 20 buildings and structures associated with the circa 1920–1980 Niven Nursery in the City of Larkspur. The existing buildings and greenhouses that retained their historic integrity were evaluated for historic significance, recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms, and documented to Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards. Additionally, two prehistoric sites were previously recorded and archaeologically tested within the project area, and although neither of the sites was found during the pedestrian survey, to ensure site protection, construction monitoring was recommended during all ground-disturbing activities in these areas. Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment – DSRSD Central Dublin Recycled Water Distribution and Retrofit Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. As project archaeologist/manager, conducted a cultural resource investigation that included record search reviews, historic map reviews, and a limited field survey of the proposed Central Dublin Recycled Water Distribution and Retrofit Project Area of Potential Effect (APE) that fulfilled the protocols associated with Section 106 of NHPA. The results of the investigation were submitted to archaeological staff at the Bureau of Reclamation and received concurrence with MBA’s findings of effect. Lake Solano Regional Park Visitor’s Center Project, County of Solano. As project archaeologist, Ms. Wills conducted a cultural resource investigation that included record search reviews and a pedestrian field survey. As the project had a federal nexus, the work included a comprehensive report that met the criteria in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The lead agency was the Bureau of Reclamation which has specific procedures that must be followed when unanticipated human remains or cultural resources are discovered. In addition to complying with the Bureau of Reclamation procedures, the results of the research Carrie Wills Page 2 and field survey were submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for concurrence with the stated recommendations. KB Home Monte Vista, Historic American Buildings Survey, City of San Jose. Served as project manager for the KB Home Monte Vista Project. Conducted Historic American Buildings Survey Level III documentation for a large multi-structure canning facility, Del Monte Plant #3, in San Jose. Tasks included producing over 200 large-format, black, and white photographs of exterior and interior views of the existing structures. The MBA historic report augments the photographic documentation by placing the structures within the appropriate historic context and addressing both the architectural and historical aspects of the site’s significance. Specifically, the historical report focused on the Plant’s contribution to the growth of the canning industry in San José. The plant was also assessed for historic significance and found to meet the criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as a District along with two other local Del Monte canneries. MBA coordinated with state, federal, and city agencies including, but not limited to, City of San Jose Department of Planning and the National Park Service HABS/Historic American Engineering Record coordinator. Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment/HABS Documentation – St. Regis Napa Valley Project, City of Napa, Napa County. Served as the lead technical consultant for a historical and architectural analysis of a historic structure in the County of Napa. Also served as the project archaeologist. Following the evaluation of the historic significance of the building and recording it to HABS standards, the results were sent to SHPO and received concurrence with MBA’s findings of no effect to historic resources. Section 106 Evaluation – Dixon Veterans Memorial Hall Project and the Benicia Veterans Memorial Hall Project, County of Solano. Served as the lead technical consultant for a historical and architectural analysis of two historic structures in the County of Solano. After evaluating and recording the buildings to Section 106 standards, the results were sent to SHPO and received concurrence with MBA’s findings of no effect to historic resources. Section 106 Evaluation – Solano County Free Library Center Project, County of Solano. Served as the lead technical consultant for a historical and architectural analysis of an historic structure in the County of Solano. Also served as the senior project archaeologist. After evaluating and recording the building to Section 106 standards, the results were sent to SHPO and received concurrence with MBA’s findings of no effect to historic resources. Section 106 Evaluation – Suisun Veterans Memorial Building Project, Suisun City. Served as the lead technical consultant for a historical and architectural analysis of an older structure in the City of Suisun City. After evaluating and recording the building to Section 106 standards, the results were sent to SHPO and received concurrence with MBA’s findings of no effect to historic resources. Cultural Resources Assessment – Zone 3A, Line D Capacity Improvements Project and Zone 5, Line A West Levee Improvements Projects, County of Alameda. Served as project manager and senior archaeologist, conducting a cultural resource assessment for the Zone 3A Line D Capacity Improvements Project, Hayward, and the Zone 5 Line A West Levee Improvements Project, Union City. The assessment consisted of record searches, review of historic literature, and more than 20 historic aerials to provide an understanding of development within the project areas and a historical context for the projects. Off-road Vehicle Park, City of Bakersfield. As senior project archaeologist, conducted an intensive field survey of 2,500 acres outside the City of Bakersfield. The project area included rolling hills, large flat valleys, and steep ravines. The survey resulted in discovery of over 150 prehistoric resources including bedrock mortars, grinding slicks, and rock art. The resources were recorded and evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Following the evaluation, a comprehensive report detailing the findings was produced. Bel Lago Project, City of Moreno Valley. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a site specific field assessment of the Kerr Ranch and recorded 23 extant buildings and structures on Department of Parks and Carrie Wills Page 3 Recreation forms; both Primary and Building, Structure and Object forms. Detailed descriptions and measurements were taken as part of the assessment process and each building and structure was evaluated individually for listing to the California Register of Historical Places or local registers or landmarks. Westlake Shopping Center, City of Daly City. As senior project archaeologist for this major refurbishing effort for a shopping center located in Daly City, assessed the shopping center for historic significance under CEQA Section 150.64 by reviewing historic maps, photos, and record and archival search results obtained from the Northwest Information Center and the Daly City Planning Department. Scope included conducting a visual appraisal of the existing buildings, structures, and signage. San Demas Project, City of Sacramento. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a record search and field investigation for a built environment covering one city block in downtown Sacramento. As this was a built environment, there was no native ground surface to be surveyed; the investigation consisted of comprehensive research to determine the possibility of historic structures. Cabrillo Corners Commercial Project, City of Half Moon Bay. As cultural resources specialist, conducted a record search at the Northwest Information Center and a pedestrian field survey of the proposed project area that borders Pilarcitos Creek in Half Moon Bay to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources prior to project development. Gustine Municipal Airport Project, County of Merced. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a record search and pedestrian field survey of a 45-acre parcel located in Merced County to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources prior to improvements to the Airport. Scheiber/White Projects, County of El Dorado. As senior project archaeologist, conducted record searches and field investigations for a 226-acre parcel and a 286-acre parcel of undeveloped land and completed Phase I Reports detailing the record search and field survey results. Protzel Project, County of El Dorado. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a record search and field investigation for a 35-acre parcel of land. The field survey resulted in discovery of a site that contained both prehistoric and historic components located adjacent to one another. Miller Ranch Property, City of Lincoln. As senior project archaeologist for this 130-acre residential development, reviewed record search results from the North Central Information Center, Sacramento and conducted a pedestrian field survey. A negative survey report was prepared detailing the record search and survey results to meet CEQA requirements. Fahren’s Creek Development Project, County of Merced. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a record search and field investigation on a parcel of undeveloped land, a portion of which was immediately adjacent to Fahren’s Creek. A negative survey report was prepared detailing the record search and survey results to meet CEQA requirements. McBride R.V. and Self Storage Project, City of Chino. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a record search and pedestrian field survey of a 21.15-acre parcel of land to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources prior to project development. Prepared a negative survey report detailing the record search and survey results to meet CEQA requirements. Brehm Communities, City of Chino. As senior project archaeologist for this 35-acre residential development, conducted a record search at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center and a modified field survey. Performed a visual assessment from various vantage points rather than a typical pedestrian survey and prepared a negative survey report detailing the record search and survey results to meet CEQA requirements. Albers Barnes & Kohler LLP’s Palm Ranch Dairy Project, County of Kern. As senior project archaeologist, was responsible for CEQA compliance issues related to cultural resources on a 120-acre parcel. Conducted a Carrie Wills Page 4 Phase I survey to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources within the project area, resulting in the discovery of artifactual material on the ground surface. Conducted a Phase II testing program to determine the presence or absence of subsurface cultural resources, resulting in inconclusive findings. Provided mitigation measures to protect any previously undiscovered resources during project excavation activities. Albers Barnes & Kohler LLP’s Bonanza Farm Dairy Project, County of Kern. As cultural resources specialist, conducted a record search and pedestrian field survey of two 200-acre parcels to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources prior to project development. Prepared a negative survey report detailing the record search and survey results to meet CEQA requirements. Montezuma Wetlands Project, County of Solano. Served as project manager for Solano County’s Montezuma Wetlands Project. Provided technical direction of a 4,700-acre archeological survey in Solano County, resulting in recording and subsurface testing of 12 sites. Co-authored the technical report that included extensive impacts and mitigation measures. Arizona Pipeline Reconditioning Project, Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona. Project manager for a 45 mile pipeline replacement project located along an existing pipeline route in southern Arizona. Project tasks included archival and record searches, pedestrian field survey, and a comprehensive report detailing the findings. Various types of historic resources were recorded during the course of the field survey and recommendations were provided as part of a larger environmental studies report produced for the project. Costco’s Warehouse Project, City of San Francisco. Served as project manager for Costco’s Warehouse Project. Surveyed, excavated, and monitored the proposed site, located in downtown San Francisco, for a new Costco store. Supervised lab procedures and analysis of over 1,400 artifacts. Mills Associates’ Tassajara Valley Project, County of Solano. As project manager, provided technical direction of a 2,500-acre archeological survey that resulted in recording and subsurface testing of 14 historic and one prehistoric archeological site. Analyzed artifacts and prepared technical reports. Future Urban Areas, Mundie and Associates, County of Contra Costa. As field director, conducted a 4,500- acre archeological survey that resulted in recording of 11 historic archeological sites, including the previously unrecorded historic town sites of West Hartley, Empire, and Star Mine associated with the Mount Diablo coalfield developments of 1850-1885. Recorded features including foundations, privies, cisterns, basements, and dumps. Hundreds of surface artifacts were examined. Also directed artifact analysis and prepared technical reports. Military Projects Cultural Resources Overview Project, Concord Naval Weapons Station. Served as project manager for the Cultural Resource Overview Project at Concord Naval Weapons Station. Tasks included review of archival records and record search results for previously recorded sites within the Station. In addition, more than 500 World War II buildings and structures were evaluated for National Register of Historical Places eligibility and documented on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms. An archaeological site prediction model was developed to determine the likelihood of the presence of cultural resources within specific areas of the Station. An extensive context document was prepared to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the Naval Weapons Station in terms of its historic presence within Contra Costa County and the City of Concord. Following assessment of the Station and its historic components, a Cultural Resource Overview Report for the 13,000-acre facility was developed. NAVFAC Centerville Beach and Point Sur Projects, Counties of Humboldt and Monterey. Served as project archaeologist with responsibilities including a review of archival and site records prior to pedestrian field surveys at each of the locations. Following the surveys, documentation on Department of Parks and Recreation forms was prepared for each of the World War II buildings/structures located within the Station boundaries. Subsequent efforts included development and submittal of a historic context report and structural Carrie Wills Page 5 assessments of the buildings to determine National Register of Historic Places eligibility status. Prepared a preliminary Historic and Archeological Resource Protection Plan evaluating known archeological site locations and preparing maps depicting areas of archaeological sensitivity. Civil Engineering Laboratory Archaeological and Historic Resources Assessment Project, Port Hueneme. Served as project archaeologist for the CBC Port Hueneme Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Archaeological, and Historic Resources Assessment Project. The cultural resource evaluation included review of archival records and historic Port Hueneme documents at the base, review of previously recorded sites records from the South Central Coastal Information Center, CSU, Fullerton, and research at Ventura Historical Society. Architectural documentation was prepared for nine World War II buildings on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms and a single prehistoric site located within the base was assessed. A historic context report was developed and each of the buildings/structures was individually evaluated for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. Following assessment and documentation, an EIR/EIS technical report including a detailed historic setting, an overview of each of the types of buildings within the project area, an impacts assessment section, and appropriate mitigation for the impacts was prepared. Navy Construction Battalion Center Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection Plan Project, Port Hueneme. Served as project manager/archaeologist for the Port Hueneme Navy Construction Battalion Center Overview; Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection Plan Project. The project tasks included archival research of Battalion Center documents a record search review at the South Central Coastal Information Center, CSU, Fullerton, and a pedestrian field survey. Subsequent to the archival research, architectural documentation of 130 World War II buildings/structures was completed on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms. The forms typically included DPR Primary forms for each building or structure although in some instances, e.g., for large non-descript warehouse structures, a representative building was documented and identical buildings were listed on the form as having identical attributes. In addition to the Primary forms, a Building, Structure, Object (BSO) form providing additional descriptive and evaluative information was completed when appropriate. Following the archival research for previously recorded cultural resource sites and the field survey, an archaeological site prediction model was developed for the Battalion Center. Following documentation, a historic context for the Battalion Center was prepared. In addition, each building was assessed for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility and a Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection (HARP) Plan was prepared. H Street Extension Project, Lockheed Missiles, and Space Company Property. The project consisted of an extension of H Street within the western portion of the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company facilities. Archaeological efforts were part of mitigation for construction within a National Register listed prehistoric shell mound. As project archaeologist, the work included pre-construction site testing using various means including shovel and backhoe investigations, surface collection for the entire project area, and a Phase III data recovery program in coordination with the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). Disposition of human remains found within the site was decided upon an agreement with the MLD. A construction-monitoring program was conducted during initial grading activities at the site to ensure protection of previously unknown cultural resources and/or additional human remains. Naval Fuel Depot Point Molate Historic Resources Assessment Project, City of Rohnert Park. As project manager, conducted an archival records review at various repositories as well as a record search at the Northwest Information Center in Rohnert Park for previously recorded cultural resource sites. Conducted a field survey and general site reconnaissance of the project area. Subsequent to the archival research and survey, documentation of ten World War II buildings/structures were completed on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms. The buildings and structures were evaluated for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, one prehistoric archaeological site was assessed within the project area. A preliminary Historic and Archeological Resource Protection Plan was prepared evaluating known archeological site locations with maps depicting areas of archaeological sensitivity. A historic context Carrie Wills Page 6 was prepared for the project area and a technical report detailing all of the research, field survey, building, and structure evaluations, and the assessment of the prehistoric site was provided to the client. Energy, Utilities & Pipelines Santa Cruz Water District’s Pipeline Project, County of Santa Cruz. Served as resource team leader for this project that proposed modifications to the current operation and maintenance of an existing pipeline through implementation of the Santa Cruz North Coast Pipeline Rehabilitation Project. Reviewed compliance issues related to cultural resources found along four major waterways in Santa Cruz County and prepared a CEQA Initial Study to determine environmental impact associated with project implementation. Also provided necessary details to aid in the decision-making process for the project’s next phase. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Relicensing Project, County of Kern. As resource team leader, reviewed cultural resources to meet the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in preparation of a new FERC license application. Directed the Section 106 review and prepared the preliminary draft of the license application, evaluated project impacts, and authored the Historic Properties Management Plan and a Programmatic Agreement. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Relicensing Project, Kilarc-Cow Creek. As resource team leader, provided NHPA Section 106 compliance review in preparation of a new FERC license application. Following the survey effort, prepared the preliminary draft of the license application, evaluated the project impacts, prepared a comprehensive report, and finalized the Historic Properties Management Plan and a Programmatic Agreement. Calypso Project Environmental Impact Statement, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Served as resource team leader for Tractebel North America, Inc.’s Calypso Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a new natural gas pipeline extending from the Exclusive Economic Zone in the Atlantic Ocean to Port Everglades. Conducted the NHPA Section 106 review of both offshore and onshore cultural resources and prepared the preliminary drafts of the third-party EIS for the jurisdictional portion of the pipeline. Rock Creek Hydroelectric Project, Oregon. Served as project archaeologist for Oregon Trail Electric Consumer Cooperative’s Rock Creek Hydroelectric Project. Conducted a reconnaissance survey and evaluation of archaeological and historic resources to meet the requirements of NHPA Section 106. Patriot Natural Gas Pipeline Project, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. Served as resource team leader for a project consisting of the Mainline Expansion and Patriot Extension three states. The Mainline Expansion involved improvement along East Tennessee Natural Gas Company’s existing pipeline in Tennessee and Virginia, including approximately 187 miles of new pipeline, replacement of old pipeline, additional compression at existing facilities, and five new compressor stations. The Patriot Extension involves approximately 100 miles of new pipeline in Virginia and North Carolina, including three new meter stations. Provided third-party review of cultural resources reports and prepared third-party EIS. Northwest Transmission Line Project, Oregon and Washington. Served as project archaeologist for Wallula Generation, LLC’s Northwest Transmission Line Project. Conducted a 28-mile reconnaissance survey in Oregon and Washington along the Columbia River, evaluated and recorded archaeological sites, and completed appropriate forms for submittal to Washington El Paso Energy’s and Broadwing Communications’ Fiber Optic Line, Texas and California. Served as resource team leader for a proposed fiber-optic transmission line reaching from El Paso, Texas, to Los Angeles, California. Prepared a Proponent’s Environmental Assessment demonstrating CEQA compliance that was submitted with an application to the California Public Utilities Commission. Fiber Optic Project, Cities of San Jose, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Served as project manager for a Level Three Communications Fiber Optic Project. Conducted cultural resources studies and supervised construction monitoring to address CPUC mitigation measures during the “city build" portions of the project in Carrie Wills Page 7 San Jose, San Francisco, and the Los Angeles Basin. Prepared workbooks for each construction spread in each city to address potential cultural resources impacts and necessary mitigation required to preclude significant impacts. Fiber Network Project, Northern and Southern California. Served as project manager for 360 Networks’ Fiber Network Project. Responsible for all aspects of project management for this linear project spanning the length of California, including coordination, budget, consultation, and compliance issues. Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline, State of California. As field supervisor for Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline’s Concord-to- Colton Project, performed records search and intensive archaeological survey of a corridor stretching from Fresno, through Bakersfield and Mojave, to San Bernardino. Recorded and evaluated for eligibility for listing on National Register of Historic Places more than 150 historic properties. CPUC Alturas Transmission Line Project, California and Nevada. As archaeological monitor, documented compliance with mandated mitigation measures during the construction of this high-voltage power line reaching from Alturas, California, to Reno, Nevada. Mine Reclamation Plans and Environmental Analysis Abandoned Mine Inventory Project, Washington Bureau of Land Management. As project manager, managed a five-person survey crew who conducted an intensive archaeological survey of 1,700 acres of difficult terrain and conditions in the City of Spokane. Recorded over 100 mining features and archaeological properties on appropriate State of Washington forms and prepared Determination of Eligibility forms for submittal to Washington’s State Historic Preservation Officer. Black Diamond Mine Project, Merced County. As project archaeologist, conducted record search and pedestrian field survey for approximately 29 acres of a 136 acre parcel of land in Merced County. During the field survey, a cemetery with headstones dating back to the mid-1800s was discovered. Although the cemetery had a fence completely around it, it is often the case with cemeteries of this age that burials are located outside the defined cemetery area. Thus, archival research was conducted to determine the actual age and the size of the cemetery as it grew over the years. Recommendations for procedures to be followed if the proposed project moved forward were presented to the County of Merced in the form of an Initial Study report. KRC Aggregates Quarry Expansion Project, San Joaquin County. As project archaeologist, conducted record searches and a pedestrian field survey for approximately 340 acres that would be utilized for aggregate resource extraction. Approved mine land reclamation in accordance with the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act would begin immediately following the completion of aggregate extraction. The field survey resulted in recordation of 4 historic resources and the preparation of a comprehensive report meeting the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. Valley Rock Quarry Project, San Joaquin County. As project archaeologist, conducted record searches and a pedestrian field survey of approximately 315 acres in San Joaquin County. Although no resources were recorded for this project, a small prehistoric site had been previously recorded near the project’s southern border. As the boundaries for this prehistoric site were rather vague, the field survey transects were narrowed to 3 meters in the southern boundary area to determine the presence or absence of the site within the project area. No evidence of the prehistoric site was found. The findings of the record searches, the field survey, and the search for the prehistoric site were detailed in an Initial Study report and presented to San Joaquin County. Environmental Impact Reports for General Plan Updates General Plan Update, County of Monterey. As senior project archaeologist, assisted in updating the General Plan with new policies including archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources. Tasks included a review of existing policies and suggestions for alternatives and updates relevant to current trends. Worked Carrie Wills Page 8 closely with Monterey County staff, agency personnel, and sub-consultants to ensure a high quality, timely Plan Update. Trails Specific Plan Project, City of Livermore. As senior project archaeologist, conducted archival and record searches, including review of the 2000 North Livermore Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report and the 2003 City of Livermore General Plan Update Master Environmental Assessment that specifically focuses on cultural resources within the proposed project area. Conducted a 235-acre pedestrian survey to determine the significance of previously recorded cultural resources and the presence or absence of previously unknown cultural resources, resulting in the recording of five historic resources using California Department of Parks and Recreation forms with context analysis and detailed maps. Prepared a comprehensive report including a detailed setting section with impacts and mitigation measures to ensure protection of significant cultural resources. Educational Facility Environmental Analysis Delta View and Kit Carson Schools Project, Kings County Office of Education. As senior project archaeologist, conducted archaeological and historical resource assessment at two proposed telecommunication tower sites located at two school sites. Conducted a record search at the Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center and pedestrian surveys at both schools to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources. Determined negative survey results, and prepared a report detailing the record search and survey results that was presented to the Kings County Office of Education. High Desert Power Plant Project, County of San Bernardino. As project manager, conducted an approximately 2,000-acre field inventory of block and linear project areas located near the City of Victorville. Recorded and evaluated more than 30 historic and prehistoric sites. Maya Caves Project, Punta Gorda, Belize, Central America. As excavation team member, worked two field seasons examining prehistoric cave deposits. Conducted surveys and excavations, analyzed and cataloged artifacts, and prepared technical report sections. Professional Affiliations Society for Historical Archaeology Society for California Archaeology Register of Professional Archaeologists #11138 Kathleen Crawford, M.A. - Architectural Historian Overview Kathleen has over 28 years of experience in the preparation of a wide range of historical and architectural projects. She meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Architectural History and History (36 CFR Part 61). She also meets the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards as an Architectural Historian. She has extensive experience with 19th- and 20th-century architecture in California and has prepared over 12,000 historic and architectural assessments of structures in California for a variety of historical projects conducted for various types of city, state, and federal agencies. The majority of these projects required compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Ms. Crawford has extensive experience in the implementation of Section 106 in reference to historic buildings from all historic periods and architectural styles. The vast majority of these projects required preparation of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms for submittal to the State Historic Preservation Office. She has prepared several Historic American Building Survey (HABS) surveys and documentation over the years and has worked with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in the course of the historic and architectural evaluations. In addition, Ms. Crawford has participated in the production of numerous cultural resources reports and assessments, environmental impact reports, and historic building surveys of potential historic districts in California, Arizona, and Kentucky. She has been a Lecturer in the History Department at San Diego State University since 1989, and her extensive teaching experience in U.S. History has aided her understanding of the historical assessment and evaluation process. Education • Master’s degree, History – University of San Diego. 1987 • Bachelor’s degree, History – University of San Diego. 1984 • Bachelor’s degree, Anthropology – University of San Diego. 1984 Project Experience Oakland International Airport, Oakland, California. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1960s Airport Structures for National Register of Historic Places eligibility. Standard Aero Buildings, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1940s Airport Structures for Cell Tower construction. California State Capitol Building Complex, Sacramento. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1860s–1950s California State Capitol Building for installation of new cell tower service for entire State Capitol complex. HABS Survey of Niven Nursery, Larkspur. Preparation of Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation of circa 1940s Niven Nursery, Larkspur, California. Independent Order of Odd Fellows Cemetery, Sacramento. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1890s National Register-eligible historic Sacramento cemetery. Leamington Hotel, Oakland. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1920s National Register- eligible hotel in downtown Oakland. www.FirstCarbonSolutions.com CORPORATE RESUME | Kathleen Crawford, M.A. - Architectural Historian East Bay Alliance Chinese Church, Oakland. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1940s church complex. Piedmont Apartments, Oakland. Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1930s apartment complex, Oakland. Oakland Coliseum, Oakland. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1960s sports stadium. Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1900 National Register-listed landmark historic hotel for cell tower construction. University of San Jose Stadium, San Jose. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1950s sports stadium. University of Santa Clara, Swig Hall, San Jose. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1960s residence hall. Swedish American Hall, San Francisco. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1890s National Register-eligible building for proposed cell tower placement. Seton Medical Center, San Francisco. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1950s Seton Medical Center for cell tower construction. United Pipe Foundry, Union City. Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1930s historic water tank on historic foundry property. Palo Alto Apartment Complex, Palo Alto. Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1950s apartment complex. Petaluma Hotel, Petaluma. Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1920s hotel in National Register-listed historic downtown business district. Paramount Studios, Los Angeles. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of several buildings on Paramount Studios lot that dated to earliest development of the Paramount Studios Corporation in the 1920s. St. Mary’s Hospital, Tucson, Arizona. Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1930s hospital in Tucson. Historic Hotel, Elko, Nevada. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1930s hotel in Elko, Nevada. Sunwest Building, Roswell, New Mexico. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of potentially circa 1950s National Register-eligible building in Roswell, New Mexico. San Diego Naval Training Center – Preparation of National Register nomination for property including approximately 400 buildings. Chollas Heights Radio Station – Preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey for radio station for approximately 100 buildings. www.FirstCarbonSolutions.com CORPORATE RESUME | Kathleen Crawford, M.A. - Architectural Historian Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of properties including approximately 300 buildings. Long Beach Naval Station and Shipyard – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of properties including approximately 750 buildings. Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton – Preparation of History of Air Station. Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii – Preparation of History of Air Base. Naval Air Station, Guam – Preparation of Base Closure Documentation for approximately 150 structures. San Diego Naval Air Station, Coronado – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of selected air base facilities. Naval Air Station, El Centro – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of air base properties, including approximately 100 buildings. San Diego Naval Station, 32nd Street – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of properties including approximately 350 buildings. Caltrans – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments for approximately 200 properties in San Diego and Riverside counties. Kentucky Department of Transportation (KDOT) – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments of approximately 100 properties in Louisville, Kentucky. Miramar Naval Air Station – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of properties including approximately 250 buildings. Borrego Springs, San Diego County, California. Preparation of Cultural Resources Report for CA-SDI-20016 and Historic Assessment of former circa 1940s DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation property in Borrego Springs, California for County of San Diego. Hell, Riverside County, California. Preparation of Cultural Resources Report and Historic Assessment of Hell, California for historic documentation of circa 1950s P-33-18794 archaeological site for County of Riverside. Federal Aviation Administration, Quieter Home Program, San Diego County, California. Historical and Architectural Assessment of approximately 1,000 circa 1910–1960 historic homes in Point Loma and San Diego for sound retrofitting program conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration. State of California DPR 523 forms were prepared for each property for submittal to City of San Diego Planning Department and San Diego Historical Resources Board. Cesar Chavez Boulevard, El Centro, San Diego County, - Preparation of Cultural Resources Survey and Historic Assessment of Cesar Chavez Boulevard, El Centro, San Diego County, for California Department of Transportation. World Trade Center, San Diego County - Preparation of National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for World Trade Center Building, San Diego, San Diego County, California. www.FirstCarbonSolutions.com CORPORATE RESUME | Kathleen Crawford, M.A. - Architectural Historian U.S. Post Office, San Diego Station, San Diego County - Preparation of Technical Report for U.S. Post Office, San Diego, San Diego County, California and Determination of Eligibility for National Register of Historic Places Nomination. Coronado Historical Association, Coronado, San Diego County – Historical and Architectural Consultant conducting research for Historic Home Tour, “Wings of Gold, 100 Years of Naval Aviation” exhibit, and “Coronado We Remember” exhibit. Coronado Historical Association, Coronado, San Diego County - Interim Registrar and Archivist. La Jolla Historical Society, La Jolla, San Diego County - Archivist for historical collection. Associations • San Diego Historical Society • Denver Historical Society Publications • Engstrand, Iris H.W. and Kathleen A. Crawford. 1981. Reflections: A History of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company, 1881-1991. Heritage Press, Los Angeles. • Davie, Theodore and Kathleen A. Crawford. 1988. A History of San Diego Trust & Savings Bank, 1888-1988. San Diego Trust and Savings Bank, San Diego. • Crawford, Kathleen A. 1986. A History of the San Diego Transit Corporation, 1886-1986. San Diego Transit Corporation, San Diego. • Crawford, Kathleen A. 1985. A History of Great American First Savings Bank, 1885-1985. Great American First Savings Bank, San Diego. • Crawford, Kathleen A. 1985. God's Garden: A History of the Grossmont Art Colony. Journal of San Diego History, Volume XX, Summer 1985. • Crawford, Kathleen A. and Bruce Kammerling. 1984. The Serra Museum and its Collections, Some Reminiscences of Fray Junipero Serra. Santa Barbara Mission Press, Santa Barbara. • Crawford, Kathleen A. 1984. The General's Lady: Maria Amparo Ruiz Burton. Journal of San Diego History, Volume XIX, Fall, 1984. • Crawford, Kathleen A., “Fifty Years of the Journal of San Diego History,” Journal of San Diego History, Fall 2006. www.FirstCarbonSolutions.com CORPORATE RESUME | John Madonna Construction Company Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment FirstCarbon Solutions Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx Appendix B: Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial *NRHP Status Code: DPR 523D (1/95) *Required information Page 1 of 29 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Froom Ranch Complex D1. Historic Name: Froom Ranch D2. Common Name: Froom Ranch *D3. Detailed Description (Discuss overall coherence of the district, its setting, visual characteristics, and minor features. List all elements of district.): The Froom Ranch complex was developed in the late 19th century by John Froom, a Canadian laborer who purchased the dairy farm in the 1890s. Froom, his wife, Harriet Perry Froom, with their seven children all lived on the Ranch. The ranch was developed as one of the early dairies in San Luis Obispo County. The ranch complex currently contains the Main Residence (c. 1915); the “Old” Barn (date unknown; moved to the site in the early 1900s); the Bunkhouse (c. 1915); the Diary Barn (c. 1913); the Creamery/House (date unknown); the Granary (c. 1913); the Shed (c. 1913); the Outhouse (c. 2000); the Storage Building (c. 2010); and the Water Tower (c. 2013). The buildings are clustered in two groupings: the lower level of the ranch property which contains the Main Residence, Bunkhouse, Shed, “Old” Barn, Outhouse and Storage Building; and the upper level which includes the Dairy Barn, the Creamery/House building, the Granary and the Water Tower. The main buildings date to the early development of the diary complex and represent Craftsman and Vernacular styles which have retained their main character defining features. The buildings have retained their original locations and associations on the site. The buildings have maintained their historic integrity of location, association, materials, design, workmanship, feeling, and association. *D4. Boundary Description (Describe limits of district and attach map showing boundary and district elements.): The boundaries are the current boundaries of the property, Assessor’s Parcel Number 67-241-419, Lots 60, 67, 68, and 69, Township 31 South, Range 12 East, Sections 3 and 10, located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93402. *D5. Boundary Justification: The boundaries are the current boundaries of the historic Froom Ranch complex which has not significantly changed since the 1900s. *D6. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County Period of Significance: 1890-1977 Applicable Criteria: A, B, C (Discuss district's importance in terms of its historical context as defined by theme, period of significance, and geographic scope. Also address the integrity of the district as a whole.) The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in 1902. The family continued to live in the House portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Mian Residence on the lower level and the family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s development. Bill Froom, the middle son, took over the ranching and dairy operations in 1927 when his father became ill and, in 1929, when his father died, Bill Froom inherited the ranch and continued to operate it as one of the dairies in the San Luis Obispo County area until 1977 when he retired. The property was sold to Alex Madonna in a tax lien sale in 1976, and his son, John Madonna uses it as an office and storage space for the Madonna Construction Company. The Outhouse, Storage Building and Water Tower (a Verizon cell tower location) were built by the Madonna Construction Company and have no historic associations. *D7. References (Give full citations including the names and addresses of any informants, where possible.): San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille, Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo, Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67- 241-019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P-40-04-991); Oral Interview with John Madonna, January 2015;. *D8. Evaluator: Kathleen A. Crawford Date: January 30, 2015 Affiliation and Address: Crawford Historic Services, P.O. Box 634, La Mesa, CA 91944 State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 2 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex P1. Other Identifier: None *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D. c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) • e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) The Froom Ranch complex is located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, in the County of San Luis Obispo, California. The ranch complex was developed in the late 19th century by John Froom, his wife, Harriet Perry Froom, with their seven children. The ranch was developed as one of the early dairies in San Luis Obispo County. The ranch complex currently contains the Main Residence (c. 1915); the “Old” Barn (date unknown; moved to the site in the early 1900s); the Bunkhouse (c. 1915); the Diary Barn (c. 1913); the Creamery/House (date unknown); the Granary (c. 1913); the Shed (c. 1913); the Outhouse (c. 2000); the Storage Building (c. 2010); and the Water Tower (c. 2013). The buildings are clustered in two groupings: the lower level of the ranch property which contains the Main Residence, Bunkhouse, Shed, “Old” Barn, Outhouse and Storage Building; and the upper level which includes the Dairy Barn, the Creamery/House building, the Granary and the Water Tower. The main buildings date to the early development of the diary complex and represent Craftsman and Vernacular styles and have retained their main character defining features. The buildings have retained their original locations and associations on the site. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) West/January 6, 2015, #41 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both c. 1900-1915 *P7. Owner and Address: John Madonna/Madonna Construction Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kathleen A. Crawford, MA MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380, Walnut Creek Ca 94597 *P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: Phase I *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) Record Search Map Source: USGS San Luis Obispo (94) and Pismo Beach (94) 7.5' Quadrangles Laguna Land Grant; T31S R12E Secs 3 & 10 RRM DESIGN GROUP FROOM RANCH HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION I 2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet Legend Project Boundary 1/2-mile Buffer HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 4 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex P1. Other Identifier: Froom Ranch Main Residence *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D. c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) • e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch/HP 2: Single-Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) West//January 6, 2015/#22 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both C 1915 *P7. Owner and Address: John Madonna/Madonna Construction Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kathleen A. Crawford, MA MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380, Walnut Creek Ca 94597 *P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: Phase I *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Page 5 of 29 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # Froom Ranch Main Residence B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: Main Residence B3. Original Use: Main Residence B4. Present Use: Living Space *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman *B6. Construction History: 1915 The Main Residence was built in 1915 by Hans Peterson. The building was constructed as the Froom family was continuing to grow and needed better living conditions for the young children in the family. The family had lived in the house attached to the Creamery building on the upper slopes of the property to the west. The Main Residence was lived in by members of the Froom family until 1998 when Bill Froom moved in with his brother in San Luis Obispo. When the property was purchased by the Madonna Construction Company, arrangements were made to allow Mr. Froom to reside in the home until he chose to leave. The Main Residence is a one‐story, asymmetrical, irregular shaped, Craftsman style, single‐family residence. The building has a redwood sill and concrete foundation, wood horizontal shiplap siding, a partial width front porch, and a hipped roof with shingles and a modest eave overhang. A brick chimney is present on the roof and extends downward into the residence, terminating about three feet from the floor. The building was heated by a wood stove and there was no interior fireplace. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: None The east façade is the main elevation for the residence and faces Los Osos Valley Road. The façade contains a partial width front porch, accessed by a short flight of wood stairs. The front gable roof is supported by three round columns – two at the entrance area and one on the south end. The main entrance includes a single wood door with a wood screen door. A pair of wood framed. Double hung sash, focal windows are located south of the off center front door. A front gable roof is present over the porch and the triangular space created by the roof design is infilled with fish scale shingles. Windows vary in size, shape and placement around the facades and include wood framed, double hung sash style windows. The north façade is the side of the residence and includes multiple wood framed double hung sash style windows. A bay section projects forward from the main mass of the structure. A dormer section is present on the side of the roof directly above the bay section. A rectangular shaped addition is located on the northwest corner of the building. The addition was constructed in two parts at two different times. The front portion of the addition has wood shiplap siding and was built by Bill Froom to store firewood. The rear portion of the addition has vertical board and batten siding and was built by John Madonna to house electronic equipment. Several single doors are present around the three facades. The rear of the residence contains a screened porch with a screen door and screed window openings. The porch wraps around the house, extending on to the south façade. A single wood and glass door leads into the rear of the house The south façade contains two single wood doors. The back wall of the house contains wood framed windows. The south façade is the side of the house facing the open area. Multiple window openings are present. The building is in good condition and is currently in use as offices for the Madonna Construction Company. Alterations: According to John Madonna, the house has undergone a number of alterations. Both John Madonna and his father, Alex, have made many changes to restore the building. The original foundation was redwood sills. Portions of the north and south redwood sill foundations were completely rotted. The rotted portions were removed and replaced with concrete foundations. The house was then leveled as it had sunk significantly. At some point, the house had been flooded and the floors were all uneven and buckled. The floors were leveled, sanded and repaired. Several interior walls were removed to form larger office spaces. The kitchen sink and stove were removed and the area was converted to general office use. The only heating in the house was provided by a wood stove and the stove produced significant amounts of soot. The walls had been painted over the years and the soot was sealed into the layers of paint. The walls were scraped, the soot and paint removed, and completely repainted. The house was rewired for all new electrical service, plumbing repairs were made, an HVAC system was installed, new ceilings were put in, a new roof was put on the house, and general tenant improvements were conducted. The rear addition was altered by adding an extra section at the rear of the addition. This new section is used by the Madonna Company to store their electronic equipment. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson *B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria: (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in 1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s development. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) B12. References: San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille, Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo, Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral Interview with John Madonna, January 2015 B13. Remarks: B14. Evaluator: Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015 State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View Southwest: North Side of Main Residence View Southwest: Rear Addition to Main Residence State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View East: Overview of Main Residence View North: South Façade of Main Residence State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 9 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex P1. Other Identifier: Bunkhouse *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D. c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) • e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch/hHP 2: Single-family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) West/January 6, 2015, #47 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both c. 1915 *P7. Owner and Address: John Madonna/Madonna Construction Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kathleen A. Crawford, MA RPA MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380, Walnut Creek Ca 94597 *P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: Phase I *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Page 10 of 29 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # Bunkhouse B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: Bunkhouse B3. Original Use: Bunkhouse B4. Present Use: Storage *B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman *B6. Construction History: 1915 The building was constructed as a bunkhouse for the workers on the Froom property by Hans Peterson in 1915. However, according to John Madonna, the building is one small room which was used by Bill Froom’s brother. The brother lived in the small residence for many years. The small bunkhouse is a one‐story, Craftsman style building used as a residential structure. The building has a concrete foundation, wood horizontal shiplap siding and a front gable roof with shingles. The building was constructed by Hans Peterson in 1915 when he built the main residence. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: None A set of concrete steps leads to the single wood entrance door on the east elevation. The concrete steps have the Froom “brand” pressed into the wet concrete. This detail is seen on many of the other buildings as well. A single wood entrance door provides access to the interior. A small metal slider style window is present. The south façade contains a wood framed double hung sash style window. The west façade also contains a wood framed double hung sash style window. The north façade is blank. A large metal sign is propped up against the wall. The building is in good condition with no major exterior alterations noted. Alterations: According to John Madonna, the building has been altered by general tenant maintenance, including painting, a new roof, and a new floor. The building was used for storage of files and rats were a problem; a new floor was installed to solve the problem. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson *B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria: (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in 1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s development. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) B12. References: San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille, Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo, Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral Interview with John Madonna, January 2015 B13. Remarks: B14. Evaluator: Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2014 State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View North: West and South Facades of Bunkhouse View South: North Façade of Bunkhouse State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View of Froom Ranch Brand, Located on steps of Bunkhouse State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 13 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex P1. Other Identifier: “Old” Barn *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D. c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) • e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) West/January 6, 2015, #15 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both Unknown *P7. Owner and Address: John Madonna/Madonna Construction Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kathleen A. Crawford, MA RPA MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380, Walnut Creek Ca 94597 *P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: Phase I *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Page 14 of 29 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # Froom Ranch “Old” Barn B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: “Old” Barn B3. Original Use: “Old” Barn B4. Present Use: Storage *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular *B6. Construction History: Over 25 years old The barn was constructed at an unknown time on another property owned by the Froom family. The property was reportedly southeast of the current ranch complex. The building was moved by placing it on logs and rolling over the land and the creek (presumably with the aid of a team of horses) until it was located on its new site. The relocation took place at an unknown time early in the 20th century and the barn has been in its present location since that time. The barn is estimated to be over 125 years old. The “Old” Barn is located west of the main residence. The barn structure is a one‐story, rectangular shaped, Vernacular style barn building. The barn has a concrete floor, vertical wood siding and a front gable roof with corrugated metal roofing. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: Another property owned by the Froom family, located southeast of the current ranch complex *B8. Related Features: None The main doors are located on the east façade and include sets of sliding doors. A door for a hay loft is present on the upper portion of the building. The building does not contain any window openings. The north and south facades contain vertical wood siding. No windows are present. The west façade contains vertical wood siding. The rear wall was rotted and the boards were replaced with historic boards salvaged from nearby barns. The building is in good condition. Alterations: John Madonna made a wide range of changes to the barn structure. The barn was in poor condition when he received the property. The barn was leaning more than two feet to the side, the rear wall was rotted, and the barn was twisted. He poured a new concrete floor, the original floor had been dirt. The building had originally been set down on the dirt when it was moved to the site. Mr. Froom had used it to store his pickup truck. The rear wall was replaced due to dry rot and vertical boards from other local farm buildings were used to replace the rotted boards. Considerable expense was undertaken to stabilize the barn and restore it in stable condition. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson *B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria: (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in 1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s development. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) B12. References: San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille, Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo, Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral Interview with John Madonna, January 2015 B13. Remarks: B14. Evaluator: Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015 State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View North: South Façade of “Old” Barn View Southwest: East and North Facades of “Old” Barn State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 16 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex P1. Other Identifier: Shed *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D. c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) • e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) Southeast/January 6, 2015, #40 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both c. 1913 *P7. Owner and Address: John Madonna/Madonna Construction Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kathleen A. Crawford, MA MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380, Walnut Creek Ca 94597 *P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: Phase I *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Page 17 of 29 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # Froom Ranch Shed B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: Shed B3. Original Use: Shed B4. Present Use: Storage *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular *B6. Construction History: Unknown date of construction The building is located north of the house and was built at an unknown time by an unknown person. At the time of the Bertrando investigation, the shed was full of tin cans. John Madonna stated that Bill Froom had lived through the Great Depression and cultivated habits of thrift. The building was full of cans of dog food which take several trips to remove them all. The building contains a seeder machine which Mr. Madonna has allowed to remain in the structure as it holds up the building. The Shed Building is a one‐story, irregular shaped, asymmetrical, Vernacular style, storage building. The shed roof has a steep slant. The building has no true foundation, was constructed with vertical wood siding walls, and a steeply slanted shed roof. Entrance doors are on the north wall. An addition has a flat roof and a single entrance door. The building is in extremely poor condition and is barely standing. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: None Alterations: No significant changes have been made to the building. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson *B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria: (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in 1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s development. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) B12. References: San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille, Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo, Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral Interview with John Madonna, January 2015 B13. Remarks: B14. Evaluator: Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015 State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View North: West and South Facades of Shed View West: South and East Facades of Shed State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 19 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex P1. Other Identifier: Diary Barn *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D. c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) • e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) West/January 6, 2015, #32 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both c. 1913 *P7. Owner and Address: John Madonna/Madonna Construction Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kathleen A. Crawford, MA MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380, Walnut Creek Ca 94597 *P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: Phase I *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Page 20 of 29 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # Froom Ranch Dairy Barn B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: Dairy Barn B3. Original Use: Dairy Barn B4. Present Use: Storage *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular *B6. Construction History: 1913 The dairy barn was built in 1913 by Jim Aiken who lived in a tent by the creek on the property and built the dairy barn, the granary and the horse barn in 1913 for $1800.00 which included labor and materials. Every day he came up from his tent by the creek and worked on the buildings. The dairy barn was designed to hold ten cows at either end and ten at each side. The barn contained a four‐inch carrier track designed to bring hay into the barn. Research indicates the barn is the only round barn in San Luis Obispo County. A variety of early dairy farm equipment is still located within the barn structure. The barn was used to milk the cows, start the butter and cheese production, and was used until the dairy operations ceased in 1977. The Dairy Barn is a 60’ x 80’, one‐story, asymmetrical, irregular shaped, Vernacular style barn. The barn has a wood pier and concrete block foundation, vertical wood siding walls, and a gabled roof. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: None The east façade contains a door at the south end of the façade that opens to a slanting concrete ramp. The ramp area includes a wide concrete apron located between the Dairy Barn and the Creamery/House structures. The concrete apron had a specific function in that the hard surface allowed the cows to remove mud from their feet prior to entering the barn for milking. The east wall contains a small addition on the north end of the façade. The addition contains a variety of windows which appear to be remnants from other structures. The windows are wood framed in various shapes and sizes. Each of the three walls contains a single door opening. A concrete trough is present on the east wall near the addition. The north façade contains two door openings. The east door opening is a single sliding door. The other door is the main door into the space and includes a wide opening with a sliding door. The west end of the façade slopes steeply down to the ground area. A large metal hook is present at the peak of the gable roof. The west façade contains an open entrance on the south end of the façade. A concrete entrance area leads into the interior space. The shed roof slopes steeply down to the lower level of the wall. The south façade contains a unique feature. The façade is curved and a portion of the curved section has no foundation and hangs out over the slope. The wall has vertical siding and a sloping curved roof. The wall was specifically constructed in this manner to accommodate the movement of the cows within the interior space. Due to their size and breadth, it was easier to move the cows through the space if it was rounded. The building is in fair condition. Corrals are present on the south side of the slope near the barn. Alterations: The barn has been altered by a variety of renovations by both Alex and John Madonna over the years to stabilize the building. New support beams have replaced unstable sections, portions have been propped up and repaired, beams were placed in portions of the roof system to keep the roof in place, vertical wall boards have been replaced and overall general maintenance has taken place to keep the structure standing over the years. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson *B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria: (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in 1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s development. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) B12. References: San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille, Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo, Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral Interview with John Madonna, January 2015 B13. Remarks: B14. Evaluator: Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015 State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View North: South Façade of Dairy Barn View Northwest: East Façade of Dairy Bar State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View South: East Façade of Dairy Barn View West: East Façade of Dairy Barn State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View Southwest/East and North Facades of Dairy Barn View North: West Façade of Dairy Barn State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 24 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex P1. Other Identifier: Creamery/House *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec; 3, 10 B.M. M.D. c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) • e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch/HP 2: Single-Family Residence *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) West/January 6, 2015, #58 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both c. 1900-1915 *P7. Owner and Address: John Madonna/Madonna Construction Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kathleen A. Crawford, MA MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380, Walnut Creek Ca 94597 *P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: Phase I *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Page 25 of 29 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # Froom Ranch Creamery/House B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: Creamery/House B3. Original Use: Milk Processing and Residential B4. Present Use: Not in use *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular *B6. Construction History: The Creamery/House are two connected structures; the west portion of the building was used as the Creamery and the east portion was the residence. According to Bill Froom, his father lived in the Creamery for a period of time when he first began to operate the dairy. The residence was constructed at an unknown time, possibly after John Froom’s marriage to Harriet and the need for more space. The young family lived in the house portion of the building until 1915 when Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level. Bill Froom was born in the house and presumably any of the children born before 1915 were also born in the house on the upper level. After the family moved into the “new” residence built by Hans Peterson in 1915, the space was possibly used as additional living space for the workers on the ranch. The Creamery/House is a one‐story, irregular shaped, asymmetrical, Vernacular style building that was built in several stages at unknown times. The building is divided into three sections, each with gabled roofs. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: None The south façade contains the two buildings – the Creamery and the House. Each of the sections contains a single door opening and a window is present in each of the three sections that comprise the two buildings. The south façade contains a combination of vertical and horizontal wood siding. The building has a wood pier foundation with rock footings and infill of the open areas. The overall structure is composed of two buildings which are separated by approximately one foot of space separating the east wall of the Creamery from the west wall of the House. An addition was constructed on the south wall on the house portion but deteriorated to the point where it was removed. A single wood entrance opening faces the Dairy Barn on the west wall. The interior contains two small rooms. A cellar area is present under the building and the adjoining structure. The roof on this portion of the structure slopes down to a low level and is covered with shingles. The north façade contains vertical and horizontal siding. The entrance to the cellar area is located at the base of the north wall under the Creamery portion of the building. A secondary entrance is located further down the wall. A small, narrow door is present in the area where the two buildings are separated. The door is located on the north wall and there is no corresponding door on the south wall. An open porch was added to the east end of the north wall of the house structure at an unknown time. The east façade serves as the end wall of the residential portion of the structure. A rectangular shaped window opening is present. Alterations: The building has been altered by additions to the structure. At one time, an addition was present on the south wall of the house portion but was in extremely poor condition and was removed by Alex Madonna. The porch on the north wall of the house was added at an unknown time. Alex and John Madonna undertook a series of changes to the building because of its instability. Floors and ceiling areas were replaced with plywood sheeting, vertical siding was replaced, walls and foundations were stabilized, and overall general maintenance was undertaken to keep the building standing over the years. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson *B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria: A and C (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in 1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s development. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *B12. References: San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille, Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo, Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral Interview with John Madonna, January 2015 B13. Remarks: B14. Evaluator: Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015 State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View Northwest: East and South Façade of Creamery/house State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information Page 27 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex P1. Other Identifier: Granary *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D. c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405 d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) • e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation: Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019 *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description *P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #) West/January 6, 2015, #46 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: Historic Prehistoric Both c. 1913 *P7. Owner and Address: John Madonna/Madonna Construction Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA *P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Kathleen A. Crawford, MA MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380, Walnut Creek Ca 94597 *P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015 *P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive *P11. Report Citation: Phase I *Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.) State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information Page 28 of 29 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # Granary B1. Historic Name: B2. Common Name: Granary B3. Original Use: Granary B4. Present Use: Storage *B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular *B6. Construction History: 1913 The Granary was built in 1913 by Jim Aiken. The Granary was constructed in a way that eliminated the rat problem. The building was secure and many of the local farmers stored their grain in the building to keep it safe from rats. *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: None The Granary is located on the hill in close proximity to the Dairy Barn and the Creamery. The Granary is a small, one‐story, double walled, rectangular shaped, asymmetrical, Vernacular style utilitarian building. The building has a wood pier foundation, vertical tongue and groove wood siding walls and a gabled roof. One window is present on the south façade. A single door is present on the east façade. The interior contains storage areas. Tongue and groove siding was used as this prevented he grain from being eaten by animals. No grain was present during the site visit and the floor was covered in horse harnesses and equipment. The building is in poor condition. B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Jim Aiken *B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County Period of Significance: 1913--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria: (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.) The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in 1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s development. B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) B12. References: San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille, Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo, Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral Interview with John Madonna, January 2015 B13. Remarks: B14. Evaluator: Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015 State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information View Northeast: West and South Facades of the Granary View Southeast: North and West Facades of the Granary THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX F.5 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Cultural Resources Assessment (CONFIDENTIAL) CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This technical report contains sensitive information regarding archaeological resources and is maintained on file at the office of the City of San Luis Obispo. This Page Intentionally Left Blank. CONFIDENTIAL This Technical Report contains sensitive information and is deemed confidential. The contents of this report have been excluded from public review of this EIR. Physical copies of this report are available and can be reviewed at the City. APPENDIX F.6 Froom Ranch Retention Basin and Land Exchange Areas Supplemental Phase I Cultural Resources Report (CONFIDENTIAL) CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This technical report contains sensitive information regarding archaeological resources and is maintained on file at the office of the City of San Luis Obispo. This Page Intentionally Left Blank. CONFIDENTIAL This Technical Report contains sensitive information and is deemed confidential. The contents of this report have been excluded from public review of this EIR. Physical copies of this report are available and can be reviewed at the City. APPENDIX F.7 Froom Ranch Limited Phase II Cultural Resources Assessment (CONFIDENTIAL) CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This technical report contains sensitive information regarding archaeological resources and is maintained on file at the office of the City of San Luis Obispo. This Page Intentionally Left Blank. CONFIDENTIAL This Technical Report contains sensitive information and is deemed confidential. The contents of this report have been excluded from public review of this EIR. Physical copies of this report are available and can be reviewed at the City. APPENDIX F.8 Linear Rock Features Historical Resource Evaluation This Page Intentionally Left Blank. MEMORANDUM DATE: July 9, 2018 TO: John Madonna JM Development Group, Inc. FROM: Robert Chattel, AIA, President Caroline Raftery, Associate II Chattel, Inc. CC: Victor Montgomery, Principal RRM Design Group Dana DiPietro, Cultural Resources Division Lead FirstCarbon Solutions RE: Froom Ranch, 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, California Linear rock features historical resource evaluation This memorandum serves as a historical resource evaluation of six linear rock features (see Attachment A) located within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area (SPA), an approximately 109.7- acre development site composed of a mix of land uses including residential, commercial, and open space located within the County of San Luis Obispo. Revised in 2017, FirstCarbon Solutions, with Chattel, Inc. (Chattel), prepared a historic resource assessment (HRA) of the SPA, and this evaluation serves to supplement the HRA. This evaluation concludes none of the six linear rock features are eligible as historical resources. A site visit on May 4, 2018 with John Madonna, Dana DiPietro, and Robert Chattel informed this conclusion. Chattel authored the “Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review” report dated December 14, 2017 (2017 Chattel report). The 2017 Chattel report concluded that approximately 2.9 acres of the SPA is eligible for listing as a potential National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and City Master List historic district known as the Froom Ranch complex. The Froom Ranch complex consists of a grouping of seven former dairy farm buildings: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn (contributors). The Froom Ranch complex operated as a dairy farm from approximately 1883 to the 1950s, and as detailed in the 2017 Chattel report, extant buildings date to as early as 1900. Therefore, the Froom Ranch complex period of significance is 1900-1950s. For a potential resource within the SPA to be considered a historical resource, it would need to have been constructed or used within the 1900 to 1959 timeframe and be clearly associated with dairy farming. To determine whether the linear rock features are historical resources, it is necessary to determine if they date from the period of significance and/or were used in dairy farming. While some rocks may have been intentionally placed, it is unclear for what purpose. In contrast, some rocks appear to be natural outcroppings and thus, not intentionally placed. In addition to appearing to be either intentionally placed or naturally occurring, two of the linear rock features are paired (12 and 13, and 70 and 71), each with two parallel or convergent lines. Froom Ranch July 9, 2018 Page 2 None of the linear rock features appear to be have been used as building foundations. There is evidence, as shown in the images of feature 71, that the rocks were used originally or later to secure wooden and/or metal channel stakes of a barbed wire fence. While possible, there is no evidence the rocks or the fence was used to corral dairy cows. The parallel linear rock features may be collapsed rock walls. Regardless of whether the rocks were intentionally placed or natural outcroppings, the linear rock features are at such a great distance from the concentration of contributors in the Froom Ranch complex to not be associated with dairy farm operations. Therefore, as there is no evidence associating the linear rock features to the Froom Ranch complex, dairy farm operations, or its period of significance, the linear rock features should not be considered historical resources. In addition, to be eligible for the National Register (NR), California Register (CR), or local City Master List (ML), a resource must at least meet one of the criteria below. As the linear rock features do not meet any of the criterion, they are not eligible for the NR, CR, or ML. See Attachment A for Linear Feature Record DPR 523E forms for each linear rock feature. Criterion NR A /CR 1 / MLB2-MLB3 Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and cultural heritage. There is no evidence associating the linear rock features to the Froom Ranch complex, dairy farm operations, or its period of significance, nor is there evidence the linear rock features are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history and cultural heritage, therefore they are not eligible under Criterion NR A /CR 1 / MLB2-MLB3. Criterion NR B / CR2 / MLB1 Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. There is no evidence associating the linear rock features to the Froom Ranch complex, dairy farm operations, or its period of significance, nor is there evidence the linear rock features are associated with the lives of person important in our past, therefore they are not eligible under Criterion NR B / CR2 / MLB1. Criterion NR C / CR3 / MLA 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. There is no evidence associating the linear rock features to the Froom Ranch complex, dairy farm operations, or its period of significance, nor is there evidence the linear rock features embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, therefore they are not eligible under Criterion NR B / CR2 / MLB1. Criterion NR D / CR4 Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. There is no evidence associating the linear rock features to the Froom Ranch complex, dairy farm operations, or its period of significance, nor is there evidence the linear rock features have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history, therefore they are not eligible under Criterion NR D / CR4. Attachment A: Linear Feature Record DPR 523 forms AttAchment A: LineAr rock record dPr 523 forms Froom ranch This page intentionally left blank. Page 1 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L1. Historic and/or Common Name: Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12 L2a. Portion Described: Entire Resource Segment Point Observation Designation: 6C b. Location of point or segment: (Provide UTM coordinates, decimal degrees, legal description, and any other useful locational data. Show the area that has been field inspected on a Location Map.) UTM: Zone 10; T: 31S R:12E Sec; 3,10 Assessor’s Parcel No.: 067-241-031 L3. Description: (Describe construction details, materials, and artifacts found at this segment/point. Provide plans/sections as appropriate.) Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12 is composed of above grade and subterranean rocks. The linear placement of the rocks and parallel relationship to Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13 suggests the rocks may have been intentionally placed. Rocks that are now subterranean were probably once above grade, but over time have been covered with soil due to natural erosion of the sloped terrain. See L9 for more description, and L8a Images 1-3. L4. Dimensions: (In feet for historic features and meters for prehistoric features) a. Top Width 6-8’ b. Bottom Width 6-8’ c. Height or Depth 1-2’ d. Length of Segment 336’ L5. Associated Resources: FirstCarbon Solutions, and Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment. February 20, 2015, Revised July 21, 2017. Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review. December 14, 2017. L6. Setting: (Describe natural features, landscape characteristics, slope, etc., as appropriate.): Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12 is in an area primarily composed of natural grasses and low vegetation. The northernmost point of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12 is approximately 10 feet north, up-grade at a higher elevation from the southernmost point. See L8a Image 3 for photograph of setting. L7. Integrity Considerations: n/a L4e. Sketch of Cross-Section (include scale) Facing: n/a As excavation was not completed, an accurate section cannot be developed. Refer to L8a Images 2 and 3. Page 2 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8a. Photograph, Map or Drawing Image 1. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12, denoted in red (RRM Design Group) Image 2. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12, view west (John Madonna) Image 3. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12, setting, view north (FirstCarbon Solutions) 12 12 12 Page 3 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8b. Description of Photo, Map, or Drawing (View, scale, etc.) Image 1 denotes Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12 in red, and location of feature within Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. Image 2 is an aerial of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12, view west. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13 is visible to the east (below). Image 3 shows the setting of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12, view north. L9. Remarks: This Linear Rock Feature DPR 523E form (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12) serves as a continuation of Primary Record DPR 523A (Resource Name: Froom Ranch Complex). Six linear rock features (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Features 12, 13, 88, 70, 71, and 72) exist within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area (SPA), an approximately 109.7-acre development site composed of a mix of land uses including residential, commercial, and open space located within the County of San Luis Obispo. Revised in 2017, FirstCarbon Solutions, with Chattel, Inc. (Chattel), prepared a historic resource assessment (HRA) of the SPA. As documented in DPR 523E forms for each linear rock feature, none of the linear rock features, including Froom Ranch – Linear Rock Feature 12, are eligible as historical resources. A site visit on May 4, 2018 with John Madonna, Dana DiPietro, and Robert Chattel informed this conclusion. Chattel authored the “Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review” report dated December 14, 2017 (2017 Chattel report). The 2017 Chattel report concluded that approximately 2.9 acres of the SPA is eligible for listing as a potential National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and City Master List historic district known as the Froom Ranch complex. The Froom Ranch complex consists of a grouping of seven former dairy farm buildings: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn (contributors). The Froom Ranch complex operated as a dairy farm from approximately 1883 to the 1950s, and as detailed in the 2017 Chattel report, extant buildings date to as early as 1900. Therefore, the Froom Ranch complex period of significance is 1900-1950s. For a potential resource within the SPA to be considered a historical resource, it would need to have been constructed or used within the 1900 to 1959 timeframe and be clearly associated with dairy farming. To determine whether the linear rock features are historical resources, it is necessary to determine if they date from the period of significance and/or were used in dairy farming. While some rocks may have been intentionally placed, it is unclear for what purpose. In contrast, some rocks appear to be natural outcroppings and thus, not intentionally placed. In addition to appearing to be either intentionally placed or naturally occurring, two of the linear rock features are paired (12 and 13, and 70 and 71), each with two parallel or convergent lines. None of the linear rock features appear to be have been used as building foundations. There is evidence, that the rocks were used originally or later to secure wooden and/or metal channel stakes of a barbed wire fence. While possible, there is no evidence the rocks or the fence was used to corral dairy cows. The parallel linear rock features may be collapsed rock walls. Regardless of whether the rocks were intentionally placed or natural outcroppings, the linear rock features are at such a great distance from the concentration of contributors in the Froom Ranch complex so as to not be associated with dairy farm operations. Therefore, as there is no evidence associating the linear rock features to the Froom Ranch complex, dairy farm operations, or its period of significance, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12 should not be considered a historical resource. As such, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12 is not eligible for the California Register (Status Code: 6C). L10. Form Prepared by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Caroline Raftery Chattel, Inc. 13417 Ventura Blvd Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 L11. Date: July 6, 2018 Page 1 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L1. Historic and/or Common Name: Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13 L2a. Portion Described: Entire Resource Segment Point Observation Designation: 6C b. Location of point or segment: (Provide UTM coordinates, decimal degrees, legal description, and any other useful locational data. Show the area that has been field inspected on a Location Map.) UTM: Zone 10; T: 31S R:12E Sec; 3,10 Assessor’s Parcel No.: 067-241-031 L3. Description: (Describe construction details, materials, and artifacts found at this segment/point. Provide plans/sections as appropriate.) Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13 is composed of above grade and subterranean rocks. The linear placement of the rocks and parallel relationship to Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 12 suggests the rocks may have been intentionally placed. Rocks that are now subterranean were probably once above grade, but over time have been covered with soil due to natural erosion of the sloped terrain. See L9 for more description, and L8a Images 1-3. L4. Dimensions: (In feet for historic features and meters for prehistoric features) a. Top Width 6-8’ b. Bottom Width 6-8’ c. Height or Depth 1-2’ d. Length of Segment 278’ L5. Associated Resources: FirstCarbon Solutions, and Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment. February 20, 2015, Revised July 21, 2017. Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review. December 14, 2017. L6. Setting: (Describe natural features, landscape characteristics, slope, etc., as appropriate.): Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13 is in an area primarily composed of natural grasses and low vegetation. The northernmost point of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13 is approximately 10 feet north, up-grade at a higher elevation from the southernmost point. See L8a Image 3 for photograph of setting. L7. Integrity Considerations: n/a L4e. Sketch of Cross-Section (include scale) Facing: n/a As excavation was not completed, an accurate section cannot be developed. Refer to L8a Images 2 and 3. Page 2 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8a. Photograph, Map or Drawing Image 1. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13, denoted in red (RRM Design Group) Image 2. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13, view west (John Madonna) Image 3. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13, setting, view north (FirstCarbon Solutions) 13 13 13 Page 3 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8b. Description of Photo, Map, or Drawing (View, scale, etc.) Image 1 denotes Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13 in red, and location of feature within Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. Image 2 is an aerial of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13, view west. Froom Ranch – Linear Rock Feature 12 is visible to the west (above). Image 3 shows the setting of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13. L9. Remarks: This Linear Rock Feature DPR 523E form (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13) serves as a continuation of Primary Record DPR 523A (Resource Name: Froom Ranch Complex). Six linear rock features (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Features 12, 13, 88, 70, 71, and 72) exist within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area (SPA), an approximately 109.7-acre development site composed of a mix of land uses including residential, commercial, and open space located within the County of San Luis Obispo. Revised in 2017, FirstCarbon Solutions, with Chattel, Inc. (Chattel), prepared a historic resource assessment (HRA) of the SPA. As documented in DPR 523E forms for each linear rock feature, none of the linear rock features, including Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13, are eligible as historical resources. A site visit on May 4, 2018 with John Madonna, Dana DiPietro, and Robert Chattel informed this conclusion. Chattel authored the “Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review” report dated December 14, 2017 (2017 Chattel report). The 2017 Chattel report concluded that approximately 2.9 acres of the SPA is eligible for listing as a potential National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and City Master List historic district known as the Froom Ranch complex. The Froom Ranch complex consists of a grouping of seven former dairy farm buildings: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn (contributors). The Froom Ranch complex operated as a dairy farm from approximately 1883 to the 1950s, and as detailed in the 2017 Chattel report, extant buildings date to as early as 1900. Therefore, the Froom Ranch complex period of significance is 1900-1950s. For a potential resource within the SPA to be considered a historical resource, it would need to have been constructed or used within the 1900 to 1959 timeframe and be clearly associated with dairy farming. To determine whether the linear rock features are historical resources, it is necessary to determine if they date from the period of significance and/or were used in dairy farming. While some rocks may have been intentionally placed, it is unclear for what purpose. In contrast, some rocks appear to be natural outcroppings and thus, not intentionally placed. In addition to appearing to be either intentionally placed or naturally occurring, two of the linear rock features are paired (12 and 13, and 70 and 71), each with two parallel or convergent lines. None of the linear rock features appear to be have been used as building foundations. There is evidence, that the rocks were used originally or later to secure wooden and/or metal channel stakes of a barbed wire fence. While possible, there is no evidence the rocks or the fence was used to corral dairy cows. The parallel linear rock features may be collapsed rock walls. Regardless of whether the rocks were intentionally placed or natural outcroppings, the linear rock features are at such a great distance from the concentration of contributors in the Froom Ranch complex so as to not be associated with dairy farm operations. Therefore, as there is no evidence associating the linear rock features to the Froom Ranch complex, dairy farm operations, or its period of significance, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13 should not be considered a historical resource. As such, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 13 is not eligible for the California Register (Status Code: 6C). L10. Form Prepared by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Caroline Raftery Chattel, Inc. 13417 Ventura Blvd Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 L11. Date: July 6, 2018 Page 1 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L1. Historic and/or Common Name: Froom Ranch – Linear Rock Feature 70 L2a. Portion Described: Entire Resource Segment Point Observation Designation: 6C b. Location of point or segment: (Provide UTM coordinates, decimal degrees, legal description, and any other useful locational data. Show the area that has been field inspected on a Location Map.) UTM: Zone 10; T: 31S R:12E Sec; 3,10 Assessor’s Parcel No.: 067-241-032 L3. Description: (Describe construction details, materials, and artifacts found at this segment/point. Provide plans/sections as appropriate.) Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70 is composed of above grade and subterranean rocks. The linear placement of the rocks and parallel relationship to Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71 suggests the rocks may have been intentionally placed. Rocks that are now subterranean were probably once above grade, but over time have been covered with soil due to natural erosion of the sloped terrain. See L9 for more description, and L8a Images 1-3. L4. Dimensions: (In feet for historic features and meters for prehistoric features) a. Top Width 6-8’ b. Bottom Width 6-8’ c. Height or Depth 1-2’ d. Length of Segment 158’ L5. Associated Resources: FirstCarbon Solutions, and Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment. February 20, 2015, Revised July 21, 2017. Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review. December 14, 2017. L6. Setting: (Describe natural features, landscape characteristics, slope, etc., as appropriate.): Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70 is in an area primarily composed of natural grasses and low vegetation. The northernmost point of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70 is approximately 14 feet north, up-grade at a higher elevation from the southernmost point. See L8a, Image 3 for photograph of setting. L7. Integrity Considerations: n/a L4e. Sketch of Cross-Section (include scale) Facing: n/a As excavation was not completed, an accurate section cannot be developed. Refer to L8a Images 2 and 3. Page 2 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8a. Photograph, Map or Drawing Image 1. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70, denoted in red (RRM Design Group) Image 2. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70, view north (John Madonna) Image 3. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70, setting, view northwest (FirstCarbon Solutions) 70 70 70 Page 3 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8b. Description of Photo, Map, or Drawing (View, scale, etc.) Image 1 denotes Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70 in red, and location of feature within Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. Image 2 is an aerial of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70, view north. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Features 70, 71, and 72 visible to the east (right). Image 3 shows the setting of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70, view northwest. L9. Remarks: This Linear Rock Feature DPR 523E form (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70) serves as a continuation of Primary Record DPR 523A (Resource Name: Froom Ranch Complex). Six linear rock features (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Features 12, 13, 88, 70, 71, and 72) exist within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area (SPA), an approximately 109.7-acre development site composed of a mix of land uses including residential, commercial, and open space located within the County of San Luis Obispo. Revised in 2017, FirstCarbon Solutions, with Chattel, Inc. (Chattel), prepared a historic resource assessment (HRA) of the SPA. As documented in DPR 523E forms for each linear rock feature, none of the linear rock features, including Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70, are eligible as historical resources. A site visit on May 4, 2018 with John Madonna, Dana DiPietro, and Robert Chattel informed this conclusion. Chattel authored the “Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review” report dated December 14, 2017 (2017 Chattel report). The 2017 Chattel report concluded that approximately 2.9 acres of the SPA is eligible for listing as a potential National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and City Master List historic district known as the Froom Ranch complex. The Froom Ranch complex consists of a grouping of seven former dairy farm buildings: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn (contributors). The Froom Ranch complex operated as a dairy farm from approximately 1883 to the 1950s, and as detailed in the 2017 Chattel report, extant buildings date to as early as 1900. Therefore, the Froom Ranch complex period of significance is 1900-1950s. For a potential resource within the SPA to be considered a historical resource, it would need to have been constructed or used within the 1900 to 1959 timeframe and be clearly associated with dairy farming. To determine whether the linear rock features are historical resources, it is necessary to determine if they date from the period of significance and/or were used in dairy farming. While some rocks may have been intentionally placed, it is unclear for what purpose. In contrast, some rocks appear to be natural outcroppings and thus, not intentionally placed. In addition to appearing to be either intentionally placed or naturally occurring, two of the linear rock features are paired (12 and 13, and 70 and 71), each with two parallel or convergent lines. None of the linear rock features appear to be have been used as building foundations. There is evidence, that the rocks were used originally or later to secure wooden and/or metal channel stakes of a barbed wire fence. While possible, there is no evidence the rocks or the fence was used to corral dairy cows. The parallel linear rock features may be collapsed rock walls. Regardless of whether the rocks were intentionally placed or natural outcroppings, the linear rock features are at such a great distance from the concentration of contributors in the Froom Ranch complex so as to not be associated with dairy farm operations. Therefore, as there is no evidence associating the linear rock features to the Froom Ranch complex, dairy farm operations, or its period of significance, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70 should not be considered a historical resource. As such, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70 is not eligible for the California Register (Status Code: 6C). L10. Form Prepared by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Caroline Raftery Chattel, Inc. 13417 Ventura Blvd Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 L11. Date: July 6, 2018 Page 1 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L1. Historic and/or Common Name: Froom Ranch – Linear Rock Feature 71 L2a. Portion Described: Entire Resource Segment Point Observation Designation: 6C b. Location of point or segment: (Provide UTM coordinates, decimal degrees, legal description, and any other useful locational data. Show the area that has been field inspected on a Location Map.) UTM: Zone 10; T: 31S R:12E Sec; 3,10 Assessor’s Parcel No.: 067-241-030 L3. Description: (Describe construction details, materials, and artifacts found at this segment/point. Provide plans/sections as appropriate.) Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71 is composed of above grade and subterranean rocks. The linear placement of the rocks and parallel relationship to Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 70 suggests the rocks may have been intentionally placed. Rocks that are now subterranean were probably once above grade, but over time have been covered with soil due to natural erosion of the sloped terrain. See L9 for more description, and L8a Images 1-3. L4. Dimensions: (In feet for historic features and meters for prehistoric features) a. Top Width 6-8’ b. Bottom Width 6-8’ c. Height or Depth 1-2’ d. Length of Segment 380’ L5. Associated Resources: FirstCarbon Solutions, and Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment. February 20, 2015, Revised July 21, 2017. Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review. December 14, 2017. L6. Setting: (Describe natural features, landscape characteristics, slope, etc., as appropriate.): Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71 is in an area primarily composed of natural grasses and low vegetation. The northernmost point of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71 is approximately 20 feet north, up-grade at a higher elevation from the southernmost point. See L8a, Image 3 for photograph of setting. L7. Integrity Considerations: n/a L4e. Sketch of Cross-Section (include scale) Facing: n/a As excavation was not completed, an accurate section cannot be developed. Refer to L8a Images 2 and 3. Page 2 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8a. Photograph, Map or Drawing Image 1. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71, denoted in red (RRM Design Group) Image 2. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71, view north (John Madonna) Image 3. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71, setting, view northwest (FirstCarbon Solutions) 71 71 71 Page 3 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8b. Description of Photo, Map, or Drawing (View, scale, etc.) Image 1 denotes Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71 in red, and location of feature within Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. Image 2 is an aerial of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71, view north. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Features 70, and 72 visible to the west (left) and east (right). Image 3 shows the setting of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71, view northwest. L9. Remarks: This Linear Rock Feature DPR 523E form (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71) serves as a continuation of Primary Record DPR 523A (Resource Name: Froom Ranch Complex). Six linear rock features (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Features 12, 13, 88, 70, 71, and 72) exist within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area (SPA), an approximately 109.7-acre development site composed of a mix of land uses including residential, commercial, and open space located within the County of San Luis Obispo. Revised in 2017, FirstCarbon Solutions, with Chattel, Inc. (Chattel), prepared a historic resource assessment (HRA) of the SPA. As documented in DPR 523E forms for each linear rock feature, none of the linear rock features, including Froom Ranch – Linear Rock Feature 12, are eligible as historical resources. A site visit on May 4, 2018 with John Madonna, Dana DiPietro, and Robert Chattel informed this conclusion. Chattel authored the “Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review” report dated December 14, 2017 (2017 Chattel report). The 2017 Chattel report concluded that approximately 2.9 acres of the SPA is eligible for listing as a potential National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and City Master List historic district known as the Froom Ranch complex. The Froom Ranch complex consists of a grouping of seven former dairy farm buildings: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn (contributors). The Froom Ranch complex operated as a dairy farm from approximately 1883 to the 1950s, and as detailed in the 2017 Chattel report, extant buildings date to as early as 1900. Therefore, the Froom Ranch complex period of significance is 1900-1950s. For a potential resource within the SPA to be considered a historical resource, it would need to have been constructed or used within the 1900 to 1959 timeframe and be clearly associated with dairy farming. To determine whether the linear rock features are historical resources, it is necessary to determine if they date from the period of significance and/or were used in dairy farming. While some rocks may have been intentionally placed, it is unclear for what purpose. In contrast, some rocks appear to be natural outcroppings and thus, not intentionally placed. In addition to appearing to be either intentionally placed or naturally occurring, two of the linear rock features are paired (12 and 13, and 70 and 71), each with two parallel or convergent lines. None of the linear rock features appear to be have been used as building foundations. There is evidence, that the rocks were used originally or later to secure wooden and/or metal channel stakes of a barbed wire fence. While possible, there is no evidence the rocks or the fence was used to corral dairy cows. The parallel linear rock features may be collapsed rock walls. Regardless of whether the rocks were intentionally placed or natural outcroppings, the linear rock features are at such a great distance from the concentration of contributors in the Froom Ranch complex so as to not be associated with dairy farm operations. Therefore, as there is no evidence associating the linear rock features to the Froom Ranch complex, dairy farm operations, or its period of significance, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71 should not be considered a historical resource. As such, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 71 is not eligible for the California Register (Status Code: 6C). L10. Form Prepared by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Caroline Raftery Chattel, Inc. 13417 Ventura Blvd Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 L11. Date: July 6, 2018 Page 1 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L1. Historic and/or Common Name: Froom Ranch – Linear Rock Feature 72 L2a. Portion Described: Entire Resource Segment Point Observation Designation: 6C b. Location of point or segment: (Provide UTM coordinates, decimal degrees, legal description, and any other useful locational data. Show the area that has been field inspected on a Location Map.) UTM: Zone 10; T: 31S R:12E Sec; 3,10 Assessor’s Parcel No.: 067-241-030 L3. Description: (Describe construction details, materials, and artifacts found at this segment/point. Provide plans/sections as appropriate.) Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72 is composed of above grade and subterranean rocks. See L9 for more description, and L8a Images 1-3. L4. Dimensions: (In feet for historic features and meters for prehistoric features) a. Top Width 6-8’ b. Bottom Width 6-8’ c. Height or Depth 1-2’ d. Length of Segment 248’ L5. Associated Resources: FirstCarbon Solutions, and Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment. February 20, 2015, Revised July 21, 2017. Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review. December 14, 2017. L6. Setting: (Describe natural features, landscape characteristics, slope, etc., as appropriate.): Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72 is in an area primarily composed of natural grasses and low vegetation. The northernmost point of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72 is approximately 20 feet north, up-grade at a higher elevation from the southernmost point. See L8a, Image 3 for photograph of setting. L7. Integrity Considerations: n/a L4e. Sketch of Cross-Section (include scale) Facing: n/a As excavation was not completed, an accurate section cannot be developed. Refer to L8a Images 2 and 3. Page 2 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8a. Photograph, Map or Drawing Image 1. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72, denoted in red (RRM Design Group) Image 2. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72, view north (John Madonna) Image 3. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72, setting, view northwest (FirstCarbon Solutions) 72 72 72 Page 3 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8b. Description of Photo, Map, or Drawing (View, scale, etc.) Image 1 denotes Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72 in red, and location of feature within Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. Image 2 is an aerial of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72, view north. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Features 70, and 71 visible to the west (left) and east (right). Image 3 shows the setting of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72, view northwest. L9. Remarks: This Linear Rock Feature DPR 523E form (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72) serves as a continuation of Primary Record DPR 523A (Resource Name: Froom Ranch Complex). Six linear rock features (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Features 12, 13, 88, 70, 71, and 72) exist within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area (SPA), an approximately 109.7-acre development site composed of a mix of land uses including residential, commercial, and open space located within the County of San Luis Obispo. Revised in 2017, FirstCarbon Solutions, with Chattel, Inc. (Chattel), prepared a historic resource assessment (HRA) of the SPA. As documented in DPR 523E forms for each linear rock feature, none of the linear rock features, including Froom Ranch – Linear Rock Feature 12, are eligible as historical resources. A site visit on May 4, 2018 with John Madonna, Dana DiPietro, and Robert Chattel informed this conclusion. Chattel authored the “Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review” report dated December 14, 2017 (2017 Chattel report). The 2017 Chattel report concluded that approximately 2.9 acres of the SPA is eligible for listing as a potential National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and City Master List historic district known as the Froom Ranch complex. The Froom Ranch complex consists of a grouping of seven former dairy farm buildings: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn (contributors). The Froom Ranch complex operated as a dairy farm from approximately 1883 to the 1950s, and as detailed in the 2017 Chattel report, extant buildings date to as early as 1900. Therefore, the Froom Ranch complex period of significance is 1900-1950s. For a potential resource within the SPA to be considered a historical resource, it would need to have been constructed or used within the 1900 to 1959 timeframe and be clearly associated with dairy farming. To determine whether the linear rock features are historical resources, it is necessary to determine if they date from the period of significance and/or were used in dairy farming. While some rocks may have been intentionally placed, it is unclear for what purpose. In contrast, some rocks appear to be natural outcroppings and thus, not intentionally placed. In addition to appearing to be either intentionally placed or naturally occurring, two of the linear rock features are paired (12 and 13, and 70 and 71), each with two parallel or convergent lines. None of the linear rock features appear to be have been used as building foundations. There is evidence, that the rocks were used originally or later to secure wooden and/or metal channel stakes of a barbed wire fence. While possible, there is no evidence the rocks or the fence was used to corral dairy cows. The parallel linear rock features may be collapsed rock walls. Regardless of whether the rocks were intentionally placed or natural outcroppings, the linear rock features are at such a great distance from the concentration of contributors in the Froom Ranch complex so as to not be associated with dairy farm operations. Therefore, as there is no evidence associating the linear rock features to the Froom Ranch complex, dairy farm operations, or its period of significance, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72 should not be considered a historical resource. As such, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 72 is not eligible for the California Register (Status Code: 6C). L10. Form Prepared by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Caroline Raftery Chattel, Inc. 13417 Ventura Blvd Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 L11. Date: July 6, 2018 Page 1 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L1. Historic and/or Common Name: Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88 L2a. Portion Described: Entire Resource Segment Point Observation Designation: 6C b. Location of point or segment: (Provide UTM coordinates, decimal degrees, legal description, and any other useful locational data. Show the area that has been field inspected on a Location Map.) UTM: Zone 10; T: 31S R:12E Sec; 3,10 Assessor’s Parcel No.: 067-241-031 L3. Description: (Describe construction details, materials, and artifacts found at this segment/point. Provide plans/sections as appropriate.) Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88 is composed of above grade and subterranean rocks. See L9 for more description, and L8a Images 1 and 2. L4. Dimensions: (In feet for historic features and meters for prehistoric features) a. Top Width 6-8’ b. Bottom Width 6-8’ c. Height or Depth 1-2’ d. Length of Segment 254’ L5. Associated Resources: FirstCarbon Solutions, and Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment. February 20, 2015, Revised July 21, 2017. Chattel, Inc. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review. December 14, 2017. L6. Setting: (Describe natural features, landscape characteristics, slope, etc., as appropriate.): Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88 is in an area primarily composed of natural grasses and low vegetation. The northernmost point of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88 is approximately 20 feet north, up-grade at a higher elevation from the southernmost point. See L8a Image 2 for photograph of setting. L7. Integrity Considerations: n/a L4e. Sketch of Cross-Section (include scale) Facing: n/a As excavation was not completed, an accurate section cannot be developed. Refer to L8a Image 2. Page 2 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8a. Photograph, Map or Drawing Image 1. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88, denoted in red (RRM Design Group) Image 2. Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88, setting, view northwest (FirstCarbon Solutions) 88 88 Page 3 of 3 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) DPR 523E (Rev. 1/1995)(Word 9/2013) State of California Natural Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # LINEAR FEATURE RECORD Trinomial L8b. Description of Photo, Map, or Drawing (View, scale, etc.) Image 1 denotes Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88 in red, and location of feature within Froom Ranch Specific Plan area. Image 2 shows the setting of Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88, view northwest. L9. Remarks: This Linear Rock Feature DPR 523E form (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88) serves as a continuation of Primary Record DPR 523A (Resource Name: Froom Ranch Complex). Six linear rock features (Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Features 12, 13, 88, 70, 71, and 72) exist within the Froom Ranch Specific Plan area (SPA), an approximately 109.7-acre development site composed of a mix of land uses including residential, commercial, and open space located within the County of San Luis Obispo. Revised in 2017, FirstCarbon Solutions, with Chattel, Inc. (Chattel), prepared a historic resource assessment (HRA) of the SPA. As documented in DPR 523E forms for each linear rock feature, none of the linear rock features, including Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88, are eligible as historical resources. A site visit on May 4, 2018 with John Madonna, Dana DiPietro, and Robert Chattel informed this conclusion. Chattel authored the “Froom Ranch Specific Plan Conformance Review” report dated December 14, 2017 (2017 Chattel report). The 2017 Chattel report concluded that approximately 2.9 acres of the SPA is eligible for listing as a potential National Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) and City Master List historic district known as the Froom Ranch complex. The Froom Ranch complex consists of a grouping of seven former dairy farm buildings: Main Residence, Creamery, Dairy Barn, Granary, Shed, Bunkhouse, and Old Barn (contributors). The Froom Ranch complex operated as a dairy farm from approximately 1883 to the 1950s, and as detailed in the 2017 Chattel report, extant buildings date to as early as 1900. Therefore, the Froom Ranch complex period of significance is 1900-1950s. For a potential resource within the SPA to be considered a historical resource, it would need to have been constructed or used within the 1900 to 1959 timeframe and be clearly associated with dairy farming. To determine whether the linear rock features are historical resources, it is necessary to determine if they date from the period of significance and/or were used in dairy farming. While some rocks may have been intentionally placed, it is unclear for what purpose. In contrast, some rocks appear to be natural outcroppings and thus, not intentionally placed. In addition to appearing to be either intentionally placed or naturally occurring, two of the linear rock features are paired (12 and 13, and 70 and 71), each with two parallel or convergent lines. None of the linear rock features appear to be have been used as building foundations. There is evidence, that the rocks were used originally or later to secure wooden and/or metal channel stakes of a barbed wire fence. While possible, there is no evidence the rocks or the fence was used to corral dairy cows. The parallel linear rock features may be collapsed rock walls. Regardless of whether the rocks were intentionally placed or natural outcroppings, the linear rock features are at such a great distance from the concentration of contributors in the Froom Ranch complex so as to not be associated with dairy farm operations. Therefore, as there is no evidence associating the linear rock features to the Froom Ranch complex, dairy farm operations, or its period of significance, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88 should not be considered a historical resource. As such, Froom Ranch - Linear Rock Feature 88 is not eligible for the California Register (Status Code: 6C). L10. Form Prepared by: (Name, affiliation, and address) Caroline Raftery Chattel, Inc. 13417 Ventura Blvd Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 L11. Date: July 6, 2018 APPENDIX F.9 Assembly Bill 52 Native American Consultation Letters This Page Intentionally Left Blank. December 22, 2017 Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians Eleanor Arrellanes P.O. Box 5687 Ventura, CA 93005 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Eleanor: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org December 22, 2017 Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians Julie Lynn Tumamait-Stennslie, Chair 365 North Poli Avenue Ojai, CA 93023 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Julie Lynn: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org December 22, 2017 Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians Raudel Joe Banuelos, Jr. 331 Mira Flores Court Camarillo, CA 93012 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Raudel Joe: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org December 22, 2017 Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation Mia Lopez, Chairperson cbcntribalchair@gmail.com FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Mia: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org December 22, 2017 Northern Chumash Tribal Council Fred Collins, Spokesperson 67 South Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Fred: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org December 22, 2017 Northern Chumash Tribal Council Fred Collins, Spokesperson P.O. Box 6533 Los Osos, CA 93412 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Fred: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org December 22, 2017 Salinan Tribe of San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and San Benito Counties Patti Dunton, Tribal Administrator 7070 Morro Road, Suite A Atascadero, CA 93422 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Patti: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org December 22, 2017 Salinan Tribe of San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and San Benito Counties Fred Segobia, MLD Lead 46451 Little Creek Court King City, CA 93930-9781 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Fred: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org December 22, 2017 Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians Kenneth Kahn, Chairperson PO Box 517 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Kenneth: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org December 22, 2017 Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Michael Mirelez, Cultural Resource Coordinator P.O. Box 1160 Thermal, CA 92274 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Michael: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org December 22, 2017 Xolon-Salinan Tribe Karen White, Council Chairperson P.O. Box 7045 Spreckles, CA 93962 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Karen: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org December 22, 2017 Yak Tityu Tityu – Northern Chumash Tribe Mona Olivas Tucker, Chairwoman 660 Camino Del Rey Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52 (Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC). Dear Mona: The City of San Luis Obispo has determined that a project application is complete for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan. Below please find a description of the proposed project, a map showing the project location, and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (d). Description of the Proposed Project: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels totaling approximately 110 acres within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to the City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) Page 2 Project Location: Lead Agency Point of Contact: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner, City of San Luis Obispo Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo. Very Respectfully, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org APPENDIX F.10 Senate Bill 18 Native American Consultation Letters This Page Intentionally Left Blank. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org December 26, 2017 Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians Julie Lynn Tumamait-Stennslie, Chair 365 North Poli Avenue Ojai, CA 93023 RE: Invitation for Tribal Consultation; GC 65352.3 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area (Application #: SPEC-0143-2017) Dear Julie Lynn Tumamait-Stennslie: I am contacting you on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning an invitation for Tribal Consultation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65352.3. As you know, you have up to 90 days to respond to this request, but we hope by reaching out to you early, we could invite your participation at your earliest convenience. We are including a Project Description, a vicinity map and a copy of our request to NAHC to identify all tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within this portion of San Luis Obispo. Based on past interactions with your Tribe, we are also contacting you directly to inquire if you would like to meet and discuss these applications. Project Description: The City of San Luis Obispo is preparing a Specific Plan that would allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, totaling approximately 110 acres (ANP 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 2 You can contact me directly at (805) 781-7176, or via email at sscott@slocity.org. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Enclosures: Attachment 1: Project Vicinity Map Attachment 2: NAHC contact list Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Boudaries Image of the City of San Luis Obispo (City limits outlined in black). The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is outlined in red. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org December 26, 2017 Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians Raudel Joe Banuelos, Jr. 331 Mira Flores Court Camarillo, CA 93012 RE: Invitation for Tribal Consultation; GC 65352.3 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area (Application #: SPEC-0143-2017) Dear Raudel Joe Banuelos: I am contacting you on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning an invitation for Tribal Consultation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65352.3. As you know, you have up to 90 days to respond to this request, but we hope by reaching out to you early, we could invite your participation at your earliest convenience. We are including a Project Description, a vicinity map and a copy of our request to NAHC to identify all tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within this portion of San Luis Obispo. Based on past interactions with your Tribe, we are also contacting you directly to inquire if you would like to meet and discuss these applications. Project Description: The City of San Luis Obispo is preparing a Specific Plan that would allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, totaling approximately 110 acres (ANP 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 2 You can contact me directly at (805) 781-7176, or via email at sscott@slocity.org. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Enclosures: Attachment 1: Project Vicinity Map Attachment 2: NAHC contact list Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Boudaries Image of the City of San Luis Obispo (City limits outlined in black). The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is outlined in red. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org December 26, 2017 Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians Eleanor Arrellanes P.O. Box 5687 Ventura, CA 93005 RE: Invitation for Tribal Consultation; GC 65352.3 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area (Application #: SPEC-0143-2017) Dear Eleanor Arrellanes: I am contacting you on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning an invitation for Tribal Consultation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65352.3. As you know, you have up to 90 days to respond to this request, but we hope by reaching out to you early, we could invite your participation at your earliest convenience. We are including a Project Description, a vicinity map and a copy of our request to NAHC to identify all tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within this portion of San Luis Obispo. Based on past interactions with your Tribe, we are also contacting you directly to inquire if you would like to meet and discuss these applications. Project Description: The City of San Luis Obispo is preparing a Specific Plan that would allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, totaling approximately 110 acres (ANP 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 2 You can contact me directly at (805) 781-7176, or via email at sscott@slocity.org. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Enclosures: Attachment 1: Project Vicinity Map Attachment 2: NAHC contact list Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Boudaries Image of the City of San Luis Obispo (City limits outlined in black). The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is outlined in red. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org December 26, 2017 Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation Mia Lopez, Chairperson cbcntribalchair@gmail.com RE: Invitation for Tribal Consultation; GC 65352.3 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area (Application #: SPEC-0143-2017) Dear Mia Lopez: I am contacting you on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning an invitation for Tribal Consultation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65352.3. As you know, you have up to 90 days to respond to this request, but we hope by reaching out to you early, we could invite your participation at your earliest convenience. We are including a Project Description, a vicinity map and a copy of our request to NAHC to identify all tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within this portion of San Luis Obispo. Based on past interactions with your Tribe, we are also contacting you directly to inquire if you would like to meet and discuss these applications. Project Description: The City of San Luis Obispo is preparing a Specific Plan that would allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, totaling approximately 110 acres (ANP 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 2 You can contact me directly at (805) 781-7176, or via email at sscott@slocity.org. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Enclosures: Attachment 1: Project Vicinity Map Attachment 2: NAHC contact list Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Boudaries Image of the City of San Luis Obispo (City limits outlined in black). The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is outlined in red. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org December 26, 2017 Northern Chumash Tribal Council Fred Collins, Spokesperson P.O. Box 6533 Los Osos, CA 93412 RE: Invitation for Tribal Consultation; GC 65352.3 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area (Application #: SPEC-0143-2017) Dear Fred Collins: I am contacting you on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning an invitation for Tribal Consultation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65352.3. As you know, you have up to 90 days to respond to this request, but we hope by reaching out to you early, we could invite your participation at your earliest convenience. We are including a Project Description, a vicinity map and a copy of our request to NAHC to identify all tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within this portion of San Luis Obispo. Based on past interactions with your Tribe, we are also contacting you directly to inquire if you would like to meet and discuss these applications. Project Description: The City of San Luis Obispo is preparing a Specific Plan that would allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, totaling approximately 110 acres (ANP 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 2 You can contact me directly at (805) 781-7176, or via email at sscott@slocity.org. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Enclosures: Attachment 1: Project Vicinity Map Attachment 2: NAHC contact list Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Boudaries Image of the City of San Luis Obispo (City limits outlined in black). The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is outlined in red. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org December 26, 2017 Salinan Tribe of Monterey, San Luis Obispo Counties Patti Dunton, Tribal Administrator 7070 Morro Road, Suite A Atascadero, CA 93422 RE: Invitation for Tribal Consultation; GC 65352.3 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area (Application #: SPEC-0143-2017) Dear Patti Dunton: I am contacting you on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning an invitation for Tribal Consultation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65352.3. As you know, you have up to 90 days to respond to this request, but we hope by reaching out to you early, we could invite your participation at your earliest convenience. We are including a Project Description, a vicinity map and a copy of our request to NAHC to identify all tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within this portion of San Luis Obispo. Based on past interactions with your Tribe, we are also contacting you directly to inquire if you would like to meet and discuss these applications. Project Description: The City of San Luis Obispo is preparing a Specific Plan that would allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, totaling approximately 110 acres (ANP 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 2 You can contact me directly at (805) 781-7176, or via email at sscott@slocity.org. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Enclosures: Attachment 1: Project Vicinity Map Attachment 2: NAHC contact list Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Boudaries Image of the City of San Luis Obispo (City limits outlined in black). The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is outlined in red. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org December 26, 2017 Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians Kenneth Kahn, Chairperson P.O. Box 517 Santa Ynez, CA 93460 RE: Invitation for Tribal Consultation; GC 65352.3 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area (Application #: SPEC-0143-2017) Dear Kenneth Kahn: I am contacting you on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning an invitation for Tribal Consultation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65352.3. As you know, you have up to 90 days to respond to this request, but we hope by reaching out to you early, we could invite your participation at your earliest convenience. We are including a Project Description, a vicinity map and a copy of our request to NAHC to identify all tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within this portion of San Luis Obispo. Based on past interactions with your Tribe, we are also contacting you directly to inquire if you would like to meet and discuss these applications. Project Description: The City of San Luis Obispo is preparing a Specific Plan that would allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, totaling approximately 110 acres (ANP 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 2 You can contact me directly at (805) 781-7176, or via email at sscott@slocity.org. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Enclosures: Attachment 1: Project Vicinity Map Attachment 2: NAHC contact list Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Boudaries Image of the City of San Luis Obispo (City limits outlined in black). The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is outlined in red. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org December 26, 2017 Xolon-Salinan Tribe Karen White, Council Chairperson P.O. Box 7045 Spreckles, CA 93962 RE: Invitation for Tribal Consultation; GC 65352.3 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area (Application #: SPEC-0143-2017) Dear Karen White: I am contacting you on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning an invitation for Tribal Consultation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65352.3. As you know, you have up to 90 days to respond to this request, but we hope by reaching out to you early, we could invite your participation at your earliest convenience. We are including a Project Description, a vicinity map and a copy of our request to NAHC to identify all tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within this portion of San Luis Obispo. Based on past interactions with your Tribe, we are also contacting you directly to inquire if you would like to meet and discuss these applications. Project Description: The City of San Luis Obispo is preparing a Specific Plan that would allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, totaling approximately 110 acres (ANP 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 2 You can contact me directly at (805) 781-7176, or via email at sscott@slocity.org. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Enclosures: Attachment 1: Project Vicinity Map Attachment 2: NAHC contact list Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Boudaries Image of the City of San Luis Obispo (City limits outlined in black). The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is outlined in red. City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org December 26, 2017 Yak tityu tityu – Northern Chumash Tribe Mona Olivas Tucker, Chairwoman 660 Camino Del Rey Arroyo Grande, CA 93420 RE: Invitation for Tribal Consultation; GC 65352.3 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area (Application #: SPEC-0143-2017) Dear Mona Olivas Tucker: I am contacting you on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning an invitation for Tribal Consultation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65352.3. As you know, you have up to 90 days to respond to this request, but we hope by reaching out to you early, we could invite your participation at your earliest convenience. We are including a Project Description, a vicinity map and a copy of our request to NAHC to identify all tribes with traditional lands or cultural places within this portion of San Luis Obispo. Based on past interactions with your Tribe, we are also contacting you directly to inquire if you would like to meet and discuss these applications. Project Description: The City of San Luis Obispo is preparing a Specific Plan that would allow for the development of the Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area. The Froom Ranch Specific Plan Area consists of two parcels located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, totaling approximately 110 acres (ANP 067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within unincorporated San Luis Obispo County, and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo city limits. The site is located immediately west of Los Osos Valley Road between U.S. 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. The project will be primarily residential with some commercial development in the northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza. A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community (LPC) known as Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the project site must be designated Open Space; the current Plan designates approximately 51% of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a Neighborhood Trailhead Park to connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which may incorporate onsite historic structures. Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 2 You can contact me directly at (805) 781-7176, or via email at sscott@slocity.org. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Sincerely, Shawna Scott Associate Planner Community Development 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 E sscott@slocity.org T 805.781.7176 slocity.org Enclosures: Attachment 1: Project Vicinity Map Attachment 2: NAHC contact list Froom Ranch Specific Plan SB 18 Page 3 ATTACHMENT 1: Froom Ranch Specific Plan Boudaries Image of the City of San Luis Obispo (City limits outlined in black). The Froom Ranch Specific Plan is outlined in red.