Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - Froom Ranch Specific Plan Staff PresentationFroom Ranch Specific Plan (Los Osos Valley Road) SPEC-0143-2017, SBDV-0955-2017, GENP-0737-2019, EID-0738-2019, ANNX-0335-2020 Discussion of the Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report as they relate to the proposed treatment of Cultural Resources July 27, 2020 Applicant: John Madonna Construction Co., Inc. Introductions 2 ▪City of San Luis Obispo –CEQA Lead Agency ▪Emily Creel, SWCA, Contract Planner ▪Shawna Scott, Project Liaison ▪Applicant –John Madonna Construction Co., Inc. ▪RRM Design Group –Applicant’s agent ▪Chattel, Inc. –historic preservation consultant Project Background –Conceptual Reviews 3 ▪September 26, 2016 ▪Park location behind Home Depot ▪Proposed relocation of Main Residence and Bunkhouse ▪CHC made motion indicating they were in favor of preservation of the structures intact and in situ ▪August 28, 2017 ▪Park location within Specific Plan area ▪Relocate Main Residence, Round- Nose Dairy Barn, and Creamery outside of identified fault setback ▪CHC support for proceeding with EIR Project Background –Draft EIR Review November 18, 2019 4 Project Overview Alternative 1 Current Project 5 Park Plan Overview 6 ▪Alternative 1 ▪Current Project Project Overview –Current Project 7 ▪Residential ▪Villaggio ▪Medium-high and high-density multiple-family units and apartments ▪Commercial / Retail ▪100,000 square feet ▪Public Park ▪Incorporate historic ranch structures ▪Connection to Irish Hills Natural Reserve ▪Open Space (66.2 acres/60%) ▪Offsite improvements Project Overview –Existing Conditions 8 Granary Round-Nose Dairy Barn Creamery/House Main Residence Project Overview –Proposed Park Concept 9 Approach to Treatment of Historic Structures 10 Main Residence Creamery/House Dairy (Round-Nose) Barn Granary Approach to Treatment of Historic Structures 11 Main Residence GranaryCreamery/House Round-Nose Dairy Barn Approach to Treatment of Historic Structures 12 Shed Old Barn Bunkhouse Proposed Treatment of Historic Complex Concept Overview 13 ▪Incorporate 4 historic structures into Public Park ▪Main Residence,Dairy Barn,Granary ▪Relocate and rehabilitate/reconstruct per SOI standards ▪Creamery/House ▪Relocate and reconstruct western portion ▪Re-imagine eastern portion Creamery/House Concept Proposed Treatment of Historic Complex Concept Overview 14 ▪Document per SOI standards and demolish three contributing structures: ▪Old Barn ▪Bunkhouse ▪Shed ▪Remove non-contributing (non-historic) structures ▪Outhouse ▪Storage Building ▪Faux water tower (remain in place) Concept for Relocation 15 Concept for Relocation 16 Environmental Impacts 17 Cultural / Tribal Cultural Resource Impacts Alternative 1 Draft Specific Plan (July 2020) MM CR-1 Grading and construction within archaeologically sensitive areas Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant with Mitigation MM CR-2 Future recreational activities Less than Significant with Mitigation Less than Significant with Mitigation MM CR-3 Relocation and removal of historic structures Significant and Unavoidable Significant and Unavoidable Mitigation Measures 18 •MM CR-1 –a Phase 2 Subsurface Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE) shall be conducted prior to any grading or development proposed within 200 feet of a recorded or unrecorded site, to evaluate the potential for unknown buried resources within these “archaeologically sensitive” areas. •MM CR-2 –if any ground disturbing activities are proposed within 100 feet of a site, construction plans shall delineate a 50-foot buffer around the site, temporary fencing shall be installed, and the area shall be labeled as an “Environmentally Sensitive Area”. If feasible, no construction related activities shall occur within the Environmentally Sensitive Area. Archaeological monitoring shall be required during any construction related activities (foot traffic, materials storage) within the Environmentally Sensitive Area. Mitigation Measures (cont’d) 19 •MM CR-8 –no recreational areas, facilities, pedestrian paths, or roadways shall be located within 50 feet of a known site. All soils within 100 feet of a known site shall be seeded with native shallow rooted vegetation unless existing vegetation can screen the cultural resource from view. Mitigation Measures (cont’d) 20 •MM CR-3 –Preparation of an Archaeological Monitoring Plan •MM CR-4 –Monitoring per the Archaeological Monitoring Plan •MM CR-5 –Protocol for Inadvertent Discovery •MM CR-6 –Construction Worker Training •MM CR-7 –Protocol for Discovery of Human Remains •MM CR-9 –Review of Relocation Design by Architectural Historian •MM CR-10 –HABS Level II Documentation •MM CR-11 –Preparation of an Interpretive Project •MM CR-12 –Reuse of Original Material •MM CR-13 –Design Guidelines / Review of Adjacent Development •MM CR-14 –Preservation Plan to Protect Resources Previous CHC Direction/Discussion Items 21 ▪Lacking a clear and accurate baseline for mitigation on the third site; the mitigation plan should be identified on the same level as the other two sites. ▪Over 250 feet away ▪No longer anticipated to be required by Mitigation Measure MM CR-1 ▪Consistent with results of tribal consultation ▪Avoidance as preferred method of reducing impacts Previous CHC Direction/Discussion Items 22 ▪Clarify whether it’s a historical district or individual resources ▪Both –the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex was identified as an eligible historic district and includes four individually significant structures and three additional contributing resources ▪Request that the landscaping include plants that are native to the area ▪Requirement added to Mitigation Measure MM CR -8 ▪Also required by Measures MM VIS -1 and MM BIO-6 Previous CHC Direction/Discussion Items 23 ▪Clear graphic showing setback from fault line ▪Draft Specific Plan Figure 3 -1 shows concept ▪Goals, policies, and programs prohibit development within the fault setback ▪Develop an interactive plan to describe the history of the complex rather than just handing out brochures ▪MM CR-11 has been revised to include an interpretive project and documentation via a pamphlet and/or additional means (e.g., signage, interpretive plan, mobile-friendly content) subject to City approval. Applicable General Plan Guidelines 24 Applicable General Plan Guidelines 25 Discussion/Action 26 ▪Discuss the Draft Specific Plan’s consistency with the City’s General Plan, Historic Preservation Ordinance, and Historic Preservation Guidelines. ▪Discuss the proposed Final EIR’s adequacy in evaluating cultural resources under CEQA and consistency with the City’s General Plan, Historic Preservation Ordinance, and Historic Preservation Guidelines. ▪The CHC’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council when they consider certification of the Final EIR and project approval. 27 Draft EIR Analysis 28 Proposed Treatment of Historic Complex Conceptual Site Plan 39