HomeMy WebLinkAboutBates 08537-08633 Staff Report - Item 2 - SPEC-0143-2017 (Froom Ranch Specific Plan)CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE REPORT
FROM:Brian Leveille,Senior Planner BY:Emily Creel,Contract Planner
PROJECT ADDRESS:12165 and 12393 Los Osos
Valley Road
FILE NUMBER:SPEC 0143 2017,SBDV 0955
2017,GENP 0737 2019,ANNX 0335 2020,
EID 0738 2019
APPLICANT:John Madonna REPRESENTATIVE:RRM Design Group
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SETTING
The project includes a Specific Plan,General Plan Amendment,Vesting Tenative Tract Map,and
related actions that would allow for development of the 109.7 acre Froom Ranch Specific Plan area.
The Draft Specific Plan includes a mix of land uses,including a Life Plan Community with 404 units of
independent and assisted senior housing units known as Villaggio),up to 174 multi family residential
units,approximately 100,000 square feet of commercial/retail,open space over 60%of the Specific
Plan area),and a 3.6 acre public trailhead park that would incorporate four relocated historic
structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex.
General Location:The approximately 110 acre
Specific Plan area is generally located west of Los
Osos Valley Road LOVR)between the Irish Hills
Plaza and Calle Joaquin Road.
Present Use:Grazing;construction staging and
materials storage;John Madonna Construction
Co.,Inc.offices;stormwater retention facilities;
permitted quarry area
Proposed Zoning/General Plan:SP 3 Madonna
on LOVR would require pre zoning for the
Specific Plan.Proposed designations include
Medium High Density Residential,High Density
Residential,Commercial Retail,
Conservation/Open Space,and Public Facilities.
Surrounding Uses:
East:LOVR,auto dealerships
West:Irish Hills Natural Reserve,open space
North:Irish Hills Plaza Home Depot
shopping center)
South:hotels along Calle Joaquin,
Mountainbrook Church
Meeting Date:July 27,2020
Item Number:2
Figure 1:Specific Plan Area
Existing Historic
Complex
Item 2
Packet Page 5
08537
2.0 FOCUS OF REVIEW
The CHC’s role is to review the relevant portions of the Specific Plan and the applicant’s proposed
approach to addressing historic resources within Froom Ranch Dairy Complex historic district.In
addition,a Final EIR has been prepared,which includes evaluation of Cultural Resources and Tribal
Cultural Resources affected by the proposed project.The relevant portions of the Specific Plan and
Final EIR have been referred to the CHC to determine consistency with the Historic Preservation
Ordinance and Historic Preservation Guidelines.
The CHC’s recommendations will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and City Council when
they consider certification of the Final EIR and project approval.Staff has provided links to relevant
sections of the Final EIR,including the Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources section,and relevant,
non confidential technical reports included in the Final EIR Appendix.
Links to Key Documents Online:
Draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department directory/community development/planning
zoning/specific area plans/froom ranch
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department directory/community development/documents
online/environmental review documents/folder 2086
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Chapter:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=27502
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Final EIR Cultural Resources Appendix:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=27428
Applicable Planning Documents and Standards
Historic Preservation Ordinance:https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4142
Historic Preservation Guidelines:https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144
Secretary of Interior Standards:https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=16940
3.0 BACKGROUND
3.1 Conceptual Review by the CHC
The applicant presented preliminary park concepts to the Parks and Recreation Commission PRC)on
August 3,2016 and the Cultural Heritage Committee CHC)on September 26,2016.At the time of
conceptual review in 2016,the applicant had identified an adjacent 7.4 acre parcel located behind
west of)Home Depot within the City limits as the potential site for a park,which was conceptually
proposed as a receiver site for two relocated historic structures the Main Residence and Bunkhouse)
Item 2
Packet Page 6
08538
and other interpretive elements.During CHC’s previous conceptual review,the Dairy Round Nose)
Barn was identified as a vital component of historical value and options for relocation and adaptive
re use of the Round Nose Barn were discussed.Committee members considered the initially proposed
relocation to be incongruous in proximity to Home Depot and noted concerns that relocation will
destroy the historic narrative.The CHC made a motion indicating CHC is in favor of the preservation
of structures intact and in situ,in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
Secretary of Interior’s Standards,and toward maintaining the historic narrative and meaning of the
complex”.1
Based on preliminary feedback received from the CHC during the September 26,2016 pre application
review,the applicant incorporated the proposed public park into the 110 acre Specific Plan area and
developed a preliminary plan for reconstruction and reuse of certain key”historic structures within
the park.The revised preliminary plan for reconstruction and reuse of key historic structures was again
presented to the CHC for conceptual review on August 28,2017.Because the Round Nose Barn is
currently located on a potentially active fault line,the key structures were proposed to be relocated
approximately 200 feet downhill east)to facilitate occupied future use of the structure.The CHC
provided directive comments to be incorporated into the Environmental Impact Report EIR)analysis
and generally provided support for the project to move through the environmental review process.
3.2 Draft EIR Review
On November 18,2019,the CHC reviewed and provided comments on the Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources section of the Draft EIR.Committee members provided five recommendations for
completion of the EIR,which are discussed in detail in Section 6.0 below.Written responses to CHC
comments made during review of the Draft EIR have been included in the Final EIR and are included
in Attachment 3.
3.3 Final EIR and Revised Draft Specific Plan Preparation
Preparation of the Final EIR and a revised Draft Specific Plan was commenced upon receipt of public
comments on the Draft EIR and following review by City advisory bodies and the Planning Commission
in November/December 2019.During the course of public meetings on the Draft EIR,the project
applicant publicly stated that it was their intent to move forward with EIR Alternative 1 the
actionable alternative”),or a variation of it,as the proposed project,given the extent of significant
environmental impacts identified through review of the initially proposed project.Most notably,this
change would mean the project would no longer propose development in areas above the 150 foot
elevation on the Villaggio southern)portion of the Specific Plan area which the EIR refers to as the
Upper Terrace”).The Draft Specific Plan was revised to reflect a slightly modified version of
Alternative 1 and to incorporate the mitigation requirements identified in the EIR.The currently
proposed project as reflected in the revised draft Froom Ranch Specific Plan)is described in the
sections below.Notable design changes are as follows and are described in further detail below:
The project proposes multi family residential development R 3)above the 150 foot
elevation adjacent to the proposed public trailhead park;and
The Villaggio portion of the project has been redesigned to incorporate the 300 foot wide
wildlife corridor buffer required by Mitigation Measure MM BIO 13 in the Final EIR.
1 CHC Minutes,September 26,2016 Attachment 1)
Item 2
Packet Page 7
08539
The project no longer proposes a third emergency vehicle access connection to Calle Joaquin
Road,based on additional review by the City Fire Marshall.
4.0 GENERAL PLAN GUIDANCE
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area SP 3)was one of three Specific Plan areas designated for
development in the General Plan Land Use Element LUE)and Circulation Element update adopted
by the City Council in December 2014).The project is intended to be predominantly consistent with
policy direction for the area included in the General Plan,specifically Land Use Element Policy 8.1.5,
which sets forth the policies for development of the Specific Plan and identifies certain broad
development parameters and principles.The relevant portions of this policy that relate to cultural
resources are provided below:
Policy 8.1.5:SP 3,Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area.The purpose of the specific plan is to
provide design flexibility that will secure the appropriate development of the site while protecting
sensitive environmental resources on the site.Development on the site should be a compact,
mixed use project that provides workforce housing options and neighborhood commercial uses
that support pedestrian and bicycle access.
The specific plan for this area should consider and address the following land use and design
issues.
a. Develop a design that is sensitive to environmental constraints and adjusts accordingly
through design.Constraints include wetland protection,slope protection,historic
structures,and open space protection.
The project is intended to be predominantly consistent with Policy 8.1.5,including by providing a
mixed use project that provides workforce housing options and preserves at least 50%of the site as
open space.However,the applicant has requested modifications to the range of land uses currently
designated in the LUE for the Specific Plan area,including an increase in the maximum number of
residential units including 404 senior units within Villaggio)and a requested modification to allow
some development above the 150 foot elevation,subject to certain performance standards.
The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan addresses historic and archaeological
resources within the City.New development is evaluated for consistency with the following adopted
goals and policies relating to historic and archaeological resources:
Goal 3.2.Historic and Architectural Resources.The City will expand community understanding,
appreciation,and support for historic and architectural resource preservation to ensure long term
protection of cultural resources.
Policy 3.3.1.Historic Preservation.Significant historic and architectural resources should be
identified,preserved,and rehabilitated.
Policy 3.3.2.Demolitions.Historically or architecturally significant buildings shall not be
demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance,unless doing so is necessary to
remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to
acceptable levels are infeasible.
Policy 3.3.3.Historical Documentation.Buildings and other cultural features that are not
historically significant but which have historical or architectural value should be preserved or
Item 2
Packet Page 8
08540
relocated where feasible.Where preservation or relocation is not feasible,the resources shall be
documented and the information retained in a secure but publicly accessible location.An
acknowledgement of the resources should be incorporated within the site through historic signage
and the reuse or display of historic material and artifacts.
Policy 3.3.4.Changes to Historic Buildings.Changes or additions to historically or architecturally
significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure and follow the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings.New buildings in historical
districts,or on historically significant sites,should reflect the form,spacing and materials of nearby
historic structures.The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's
architectural character should be maintained.
Goal 3.4.Architectural Resources.The City will expand community understanding,appreciation,
and support for archaeological resource preservation.
Policy 3.5.2.Native American Sites.All Native American cultural and archaeological sites shall be
protected as open space wherever possible.
Policy 3.5.3.Non Development Activities.Activities other than development which could damage
or destroy archaeological sites,including off road vehicle use on or adjacent to known sites,or
unauthorized collection of artifacts,shall be prohibited.
Policy 3.5.4.Archaeologically Sensitive Areas.Development within an archaeologically sensitive
area shall require a preliminary site survey by a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native
American cultures,prior to a determination of the potential environmental impacts of the project.
Policy 3.5.12.Cultural Resources and Open Space.Within the city limits the City should require,
and outside the city limits should encourage the County to require,public or private development
to do the following where archaeological or historical resources are protected as open space or
parkland:
1. Preserve such resources through easements or dedications.Subdivision parcel lines or
easements shall be located to optimize resource protection.Easements as a condition of
development approval shall be required only for structural additions or new structures,not
for accessory structures or tree removal permits.If a historic or archaeological resource is
located within an open space parcel or easement,allowed uses and maintenance
responsibilities within that parcel or easement shall be clearly defined and conditioned
prior to map or project approval.
2. Designate such easements or dedication areas as open space or parkland as appropriate.
3. Maintain such resources by prohibiting activities that may significantly degrade the
resource.
5.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Froom Ranch is a primarily residential project with some commercial development in the northeast
corner of the site closest to the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza.The project is divided into main components:
1)the Madonna Froom Ranch;and 2)the Life Plan Community Villaggio).The draft Froom Ranch
Specific Plan proposes a mix of land uses,including the following:
Item 2
Packet Page 9
08541
a Life Plan Community with 404 units of
independent and assisted senior housing
known as Villaggio;
up to 174 multi family residential units;
approximately 100,000 square feet of
retail commercial uses,which is
envisioned to include a 70,000 square
foot hotel as well as 30,000 square feet of
retail with offices above;
open space over 60%of the project site),
and;
a 3.6 acre trailhead park,which would
incorporate four relocated historic
structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy
complex to be adaptively reused as City
facilities refer to Figure 2).
5.1 Relocation of Historic Structures
The project site is historically associated with
the Froom family,which operated a dairy onsite
beginning in 1890.By 1905,the ranch consisted
of approximately 413 acres.Supported by the
cattle and creamery,the Froom family lived
within the structure attached to the creamery the Creamery/House)until approximately 1915,when
the modern craftsman style residence within the northwestern portion of the property the Main
Residence)was built.The Froom family operated the dairy for several decades until the Madonna
family purchased the site in 1976.The Froom Ranch Dairy Complex P 40 040991)has been identified
as a historic resource and an eligible historic district.2
As described in the Final EIR,the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex was determined eligible for
consideration as a local historic resource,meets California Register criteria as a historic resource,and
meets National Register criteria for a historic district.The Historic Resource Assessment determined
that the complex is an excellent example of early 20th century ranching and dairy industry
development in San Luis Obispo County,is associated with the pioneering Froom family including Bill
Froom and his local contributions,and the contributing structures represent predominant Craftsman
and Vernacular styles of the early 20th century.For additional eligibility information,refer to the
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources section of the EIR and non confidential supporting technical
studies Appendix F of the Draft EIR),linked above.
Consistent with Alternative 1,the revised Draft Specific Plan proposes to reconstruct,relocate,and
reuse four historic structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex including the Main Residence,
Creamery/House,Dairy Round Nose]Barn,and Granary)within a new public trailhead park located
above the 150 foot elevation on the Madonna Froom Ranch portion of the Specific Plan area refer to
2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment FirstCarbon Solutions 2017;EIR Appendix F.4,linked above)
Figure 2.Conceptual Land Use Plan
PROPOSED
PARK SITE
Item 2
Packet Page 10
08542
Figure 2).However,as described above,unlike Alternative 1,this area of the Specific Plan has been
revised in the current draft to also allow some multi family R 3)development above the 150 foot
elevation adjacent to the park.Refer to Figure 3.It is important to note that the proposed location of
the public trailhead park and relocated historic structures has changed;however,the general
approach to the treatment of historic structures described in the Conformance Review Final EIR
Appendix F.3,linked above)is similarly proposed with the revised Specific Plan and is,therefore,still
considered relevant.As described in the Final EIR,the historic structures would be relocated and
reconstructed on graded terrain to maintain the historic configuration and proportional relationship
of the buildings to each other consistent with the analysis in the Conformance Report).
The relocated historic structures are proposed to be used as offices and storage areas for the City’s
Parks and Recreation Department,and more specifically ranger staff,as described below:
1) Main Residence the historic
building would be rehabilitated per
Secretary of the Interior SOI)standards
and improvements would include the
structural reinforcement of the roof and
walls,installation of a new foundation,
and installation of utilities to the
building.The Main Residence would
potentially be used as a ranger
station/interpretive center.A small
parking area is provided through a
maintenance driveway that would
provide a place for guests and ranger
service vehicles.
2) Creamery/House the proposed
treatment of this historic building is
more interpretive,rather than a full
reconstruction.The main goal is to
preserve the overall building form and
rooflines.The western portion of the
building would be rebuilt to provide
public restrooms within a custom
footprint with the same dimensions as
the existing building.The eastern
portion of the building would be
reimagined to capture the silhouette of the existing building but be more open.The
area is envisioned as a covered picnic area within the park.Refer to Figure 4.
Figure 3.Conceptual Trailhead Park Plan
Item 2
Packet Page 11
08543
3) Dairy Round Nose)Barn this historic
building would be reconstructed to SOI
standards and adaptively reused.The
building would not be fully sealed and
would have open beams without
internal drywall.Some existing siding
would be harvested and reused for
rebuilt facades.The building is
proposed to be used for storage and a
mini corporation yard.To
accommodate the City’s Park and
Recreation Department’s maintenance
vehicles,a separate driveway is provided off the public street cul de sac.
4) Granary this historic building would be reconstructed to SOI standards and adaptively reused,
likely for storage purposes in the vicinity of the Dairy Round Nose)Barn.
The Main Residence,Creamery/House,Dairy Round Nose)Barn,and Granary were determined to be
individually eligible for National Register listing,given their association with the dairy industry
Criterion A)and the Froom family Criterion B).3 The goals of the site plan are to keep these most
significant historic buildings the Dairy Round Nose]Barn,Main Residence,and Creamery/House)
grouped together in the same relative horizontal configuration,and create grade changes between
buildings to mimic proportionately the existing vertical relationship,but also provide for required
accessibility.The Granary is proposed to be kept in close proximity to the Dairy Round Nose)Barn as
it currently is.
5.2 Prehistoric Context and Onsite Resources
As described in the Final EIR,previous investigations conducted within the project site,and additional
investigations conducted during preparation of the EIR,resulted in the recordation of two prehistoric
sites and two historic period sites including the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex).Additional isolate
artifacts,including a cluster of three isolates that the EIR determined could constitute an additional
site,were also identified within the Specific Plan area.This potential new site has not been further
evaluated or recorded because no project related disturbances are proposed within 300 feet of the
site.For purposes of the EIR analysis,the site was assumed to be potentially significant.
The City consulted with Native American tribes as required by Assembly Bill AB)52 and Senate Bill
SB)18.No specific tribal cultural resources were identified beyond those identified above.
6.0 PREVIOUS CHC DIRECTION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
At the November 18,2019 CHC meeting,the CHC provided five recommendations for development of
the Final EIR.The applicant has updated the Specific Plan and City staff have made the following
changes in the Final EIR in response to the directional items see also Attachment 3):
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.
Response:The unrecorded potential site comprising three mapped stone isolates was
3 Froom Ranch Specific Plan Historic Resource Assessment FirstCarbon Solutions 2017,Final EIR Appendix F.4,linked above)
Figure 4.Creamery/House Proposed Perspective
Item 2
Packet Page 12
08544
identified through EIR analysis and potential impacts are addressed through Mitigation
Measures MM CR 1 and MM CR 2,which would require 50 foot buffers to protect the potential
site during construction.However,development under the proposed draft Specific Plan would
avoid potential impacts to the potential unrecorded site by eliminating development above
the 150 foot elevation line in the Upper Terrace of Villaggio.Under the current Specific Plan,
no disturbance is proposed within over 300 feet of the potential site.Therefore,additional
work to record this site is not necessary to support the findings of the EIR.
Clarify the determination whether it’s a historical district or individual historical resources.
Response:Four structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex i.e.,Main Residence,
Creamery/House,Dairy Round Nose)Barn,and Granary)are considered significant historic
resources as individual structures.These four structures together with the three other
contributing structures i.e.,the Old Barn,Shed/Storage Building,and Bunkhouse)constitute
an eligible historic district under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the California
Register of Historical Resources CRHR)refer to discussion in Section 5.1 above).The
landscape and layout of these seven buildings comprising the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex is
historically significant under CEQA.
Request that the landscaping include plants that are native to the area.
Response:Mitigation Measure MM CR 8 of the Final EIR has been revised to clarify native”
vegetation shall be required within proximity to known prehistoric or tribal cultural sites.In
addition,Mitigation Measure MM VIS 1 requires native landscaping plantings and Mitigation
Measure MM BIO 6 requires use of appropriate native species for all restoration and habitat
enhancement activities.
Clear graphic showing the set back from the fault line.
Response:Identified fault line setbacks are shown in Figure 3 1 of the draft Specific Plan.As no
specific development plans are being considered at this time,no additional detail is available
showing these setbacks;however,Goal 3.2.e Policy 3.2.3 and Program 3.2.3 prohibit habitable
structures defined as structures occupied more than 2,000 hours per year)within required
fault setbacks.
Develop an interpretive plan to describe the history of the complex rather than just handing out
brochures.
Response:Based on this comment,language has been added to Mitigation Measure MM CR
11 to require the Applicant to document the potential historic district and its cultural and
architectural heritage by additional means e.g.,signage,interpretive plan,mobile friendly
content),if deemed mandatory by the City.As discussed in MM CR 11,digital copies of the
pamphlets would be available to ensure information is available permanently to the public and
decision makers.
7.0 FINAL EIR FINDINGS RELEVANT TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Final EIR determined that Alternative 1 would avoid or reduce several significant impacts that
would result from the proposed project.Overall,the EIR determined that impacts to archaeological
resources would be reduced under Alternative 1.Soil disturbance would still occur within areas
considered to be sensitive for cultural resources but required grading and excavation would avoid the
Upper Terrace,which has a higher potential for discovery of unknown buried archeological resources
Item 2
Packet Page 13
08545
and a higher potential for operational impacts related to illicit artifact collection or disturbance.
Retaining the four historic structures that contribute to the potential historic district within the public
park and in a natural setting more reminiscent of their historic past than the project i.e.,set atop a
rise against the natural hillside of the Irish Hills rather than set amongst multi family housing units and
commercial buildings as proposed under the original project)would lessen the potential impact to
historic resources as well.However,similar to the originally proposed project and Alternative 1,
proposed relocation of historic structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex would adversely
affect significant historic resources,including through the significant and unavoidable loss of three
structures contributing to the historic district a Class I impact).Mitigation measures would continue
to be implemented to minimize potential impacts of development and operation on archaeological
and prehistoric resources,as well as historic resources.
The EIR identified Alternative 1 as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.Alternative 1 would
achieve all of the project objectives,would be largely consistent with the General Plan,and would
reduce potentially significant impacts to Aesthetics and Visual Resources,Biological Resources,
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources,Hazards and Wildfire,Land Use and Planning,and Noise refer
to Table 5 17 in the EIR).
7.3 Consistency with City Policies and Municipal Code
Currently requested entitlements include a Specific Plan,General Plan Amendment,Vesting Tentative
Tract Map,pre zoning,and annexation;no specific development is being proposed at this time.Future
applications to develop the proposed public trailhead park including the relocation of historic
structures)would be subject to further review by the CHC to ensure consistency with SOI standards.
In particular,Mitigation Measure MM CR 9 in the Final EIR requires that the Applicant retain a qualified
professional historic architect meeting the SOI’s Professional Qualifications Standards to review and
comment on design and construction drawings and to monitor construction to ensure conformance
with SOI standards prior to any relocation of historic structures.Mitigation Measure MM CR 9 requires
that the historic architect submit a report to the City documenting compliance with SOI standards
prior to issuance of building permits for this phase of the project.
Portions of the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code are relevant to the protection of historic
resources on the site.Table 1 evaluates the project’s consistency with relevant General Plan policies
and provisions of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
Table 1.Policy Consistency Evaluation
Policy/Provision Consistency Evaluation
General Plan Land Use Element
Policy 8.1.5:SP 3,Madonna on LOVR
Specific Plan Area.The purpose of the
specific plan is to provide design
flexibility that will secure the
appropriate development of the site
while protecting sensitive
environmental resources on the site.
Development on the site should be a
compact,mixed use project that
provides workforce housing options
Consistent.The project would include compact mixed use
workforce housing and commercial development within
Madonna Froom Ranch.Senior housing and support facilities
and private neighborhood commercial would be dispersed
within the Lower Area of Villaggio.Conceptual circulation plans
are also designed to support pedestrian and bicycle access
within,to,and from Madonna Froom Ranch and adjacent
commercial development.However,the Project would include
a General Plan Amendment to allow for development above the
150 foot elevation,which was not initially contemplated in the
Item 2
Packet Page 14
08546
and neighborhood commercial uses
that support pedestrian and bicycle
access.
The specific plan for this area should
consider and address the following land
use and design issues.
a. Develop a design that is
sensitive to environmental
constraints and adjusts
accordingly through design.
Constraints include wetland
protection,slope protection,
historic structures,and open
space protection.
LUE.Development above the 150 foot elevation would be
limited to the quarry area on the Madonna Froom Ranch
portion of the project and would avoid substantial effects on
environmental resources in the Upper Terrace.
General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
Goal 3.2.Historic and Architectural
Resources.The City will expand
community understanding,
appreciation,and support for historic
and architectural resource preservation
to ensure long term protection of
cultural resources.
Consistent.The project would preserve historic buildings within
the Froom Ranch Historic District.Consistent with Mitigation
Measure MM CR 11,the project applicant would develop an
interpretive project that documents the potential historic
district and its cultural and architectural heritage by means of a
pamphlet and/or additional means e.g.,signage,interpretive
plan,mobile friendly content),subject to approval by the City.
The interpretive project would highlight social Froom family)
and industrial dairy industry)factors relevant to the property
and region,and 500 free copies would be distributed in local
museums,heritage organizations,and the trailhead park.After
distribution of physical copies,a digital copy of the information
would remain available.
Policy 3.3.1.Historic Preservation.
Significant historic and architectural
resources should be identified,
preserved,and rehabilitated.
Consistent.Implementation of MM CR 9 through 13 would
ensure relocation and restoration and/or reconstruction of the
four individually eligible historical resources would conform
with the Secretary’s Standards,and MM CR 14 would address
potential for construction vibration to disturb these buildings.
Additionally,these measures would lessen impacts to the
potential historic district by ensuring that relocation and
reconstruction of the Main Residence,Dairy Round Nose)
Barn,Creamery/House,and Granary would retain character
defining features that convey the district’s historical
significance,and that demolished historic structures would be
thoroughly documented and curated.
Policy 3.3.2.Demolitions.Historically
or architecturally significant buildings
shall not be demolished or substantially
changed in outward appearance,unless
doing so is necessary to remove a
threat to health and safety and other
means to eliminate or reduce the
threat to acceptable levels are
Consistent.Implementation of MM CR 9 through 13 would
ensure relocation and restoration and/or reconstruction of the
four individually eligible historical resources would conform
with the Secretary’s Standards,and MM CR 14 would address
potential for construction vibration to disturb these buildings.
Additionally,these measures would lessen impacts to the
potential historic district by ensuring that relocation and
reconstruction of the Main Residence,Dairy Round Nose)
Item 2
Packet Page 15
08547
infeasible.Barn,Creamery/House,and Granary would retain character
defining features that convey the district’s historical
significance,and that demolished historic structures would be
thoroughly documented and curated.Left unattended,the
historic structures present a safety risk and will ultimately
collapse.
Policy 3.3.3.Historical Documentation.
Buildings and other cultural features
that are not historically significant but
which have historical or architectural
value should be preserved or relocated
where feasible.Where preservation or
relocation is not feasible,the resources
shall be documented and the
information retained in a secure but
publicly accessible location.An
acknowledgement of the resources
should be incorporated within the site
through historic signage and the reuse
or display of historic material and
artifacts.
Consistent.Implementation of MM CR 9 through 13 would
ensure relocation and restoration and/or reconstruction of the
four individually eligible historical resources would conform
with the Secretary’s Standards,and MM CR 14 would address
potential for construction vibration to disturb these buildings.
Additionally,these measures would lessen impacts to the
potential historic district by ensuring that relocation and
reconstruction of the Main Residence,Dairy Round Nose)
Barn,Creamery/House,and Granary would retain character
defining features that convey the district’s historical
significance,and that demolished historic structures would be
thoroughly documented and curated.
Policy 3.3.4.Changes to Historic
Buildings.Changes or additions to
historically or architecturally significant
buildings should be consistent with the
original structure and follow the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Buildings.
New buildings in historical districts,or
on historically significant sites,should
reflect the form,spacing and materials
of nearby historic structures.The street
appearance of buildings which
contribute to a neighborhood's
architectural character should be
maintained.
Consistent.Implementation of MM CR 9 through 13 would
ensure relocation and restoration and/or reconstruction of the
four individually eligible historical resources would conform
with the Secretary’s Standards,and MM CR 14 would address
potential for construction vibration to disturb these buildings.
Additionally,these measures would lessen impacts to the
potential historic district by ensuring that relocation and
reconstruction of the Main Residence,Dairy Round Nose)
Barn,Creamery/House,and Granary would retain character
defining features that convey the district’s historical
significance,and that demolished historic structures would be
thoroughly documented and curated.
Goal 3.4.Architectural Resources.The
City will expand community
understanding,appreciation,and
support for archaeological resource
preservation.
Consistent.The Specific Plan includes policies for the protection
of known and unknown pre historic cultural and archaeological
resources.Policy 3.3.4 of the Specific Plan,once adopted,would
incorporate Section 4.30 of the City’s Archaeological Resource
Preservation Guidelines,Mitigation Measures,and Avoidance
by reference to ensure the identification,protection,and
mitigation of archaeological resources occurs consistent with
adopted City standards.With mitigation included in Section 3.4,
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources,the project would have
less than significant effects on cultural resources and the
project would be consistent with these policies.
Policy 3.5.2.Native American Sites.All
Native American cultural and
Consistent.The Specific Plan includes policies for the protection
of known and unknown pre historic cultural and archaeological
Item 2
Packet Page 16
08548
archaeological sites shall be protected
as open space wherever possible.
resources.Policy 3.3.4 of the Specific Plan,once adopted,would
incorporate Section 4.30 of the City’s Archaeological Resource
Preservation Guidelines,Mitigation Measures,and Avoidance
by reference to ensure the identification,protection,and
mitigation of archaeological resources occurs consistent with
adopted City standards.In addition,known archaeologically
sensitive areas in the Upper Terrace would be avoided and
protected as open space.With mitigation included in Section
3.4,Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources,the project would
have less than significant effects on cultural resources and the
project would be consistent with these policies.
Policy 3.5.3.Non Development
Activities.Activities other than
development which could damage or
destroy archaeological sites,including
off road vehicle use on or adjacent to
known sites,or unauthorized collection
of artifacts,shall be prohibited.
Consistent.Mitigation Measure MM CR 8 addresses the
potential for recreational activities in proximity to
archaeological sites by prohibiting trails or other pedestrian
paths within 50 feet of known resource sites.The Specific Plan
includes policies for the protection of known and unknown pre
historic cultural and archaeological resources.Policy 3.3.4 of
the Specific Plan,once adopted,would incorporate Section 4.30
of the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,
Mitigation Measures,and Avoidance by reference to ensure the
identification,protection,and mitigation of archaeological
resources occurs consistent with adopted City standards.With
mitigation included in Section 3.4,Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources,the project would have less than significant effects
on cultural resources and the project would be consistent with
these policies.
Policy 3.5.4.Archaeologically Sensitive
Areas.Development within an
archaeologically sensitive area shall
require a preliminary site survey by a
qualified archaeologist knowledgeable
in Native American cultures,prior to a
determination of the potential
environmental impacts of the project.
Consistent.All archaeologically sensitive areas within 300 feet
of proposed development have been surveyed and
documented.The Specific Plan includes policies for the
protection of known and unknown pre historic cultural and
archaeological resources.Policy 3.3.4 of the Specific Plan,once
adopted,would incorporate Section 4.30 of the City’s
Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines,Mitigation
Measures,and Avoidance by reference to ensure the
identification,protection,and mitigation of archaeological
resources occurs consistent with adopted City standards.With
mitigation included in Section 3.4,Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources,the project would have less than significant effects
on cultural resources and the project would be consistent with
these policies.
Policy 3.5.12.Cultural Resources and
Open Space.Within the city limits the
City should require,and outside the
city limits should encourage the County
to require,public or private
development to do the following where
archaeological or historical resources
are protected as open space or
parkland:
Consistent.The Specific Plan includes policies for the protection
of known and unknown pre historic cultural and archaeological
resources.Policy 3.3.4 of the Specific Plan,once adopted,would
incorporate Section 4.30 of the City’s Archaeological Resource
Preservation Guidelines,Mitigation Measures,and Avoidance
by reference to ensure the identification,protection,and
mitigation of archaeological resources occurs consistent with
adopted City standards.In addition,known archaeologically
sensitive areas in the Upper Terrace would be avoided and
protected as open space.With mitigation included in Section
Item 2
Packet Page 17
08549
1. Preserve such resources
through easements or
dedications.Subdivision parcel
lines or easements shall be
located to optimize resource
protection.Easements as a
condition of development
approval shall be required only
for structural additions or new
structures,not for accessory
structures or tree removal
permits.If a historic or
archaeological resource is
located within an open space
parcel or easement,allowed
uses and maintenance
responsibilities within that
parcel or easement shall be
clearly defined and conditioned
prior to map or project
approval.
2. Designate such easements or
dedication areas as open space
or parkland as appropriate.
3. Maintain such resources by
prohibiting activities that may
significantly degrade the
resource.
3.4,Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources,the project would
have less than significant effects on cultural resources and the
project would be consistent with these policies.
Municipal Code
14.01.100 Demolition of historic
resources.Key provisions are described
below]
A.Intent.Listed historic resources are
an irreplaceable community resource
that merit special protection to
preserve them for future generations,
and shall not be demolished unless the
city council makes all of the findings
specified in subsection D of this
section;provided,however,that these
thresholds shall not apply to repairs to
listed historic resources that do not
require a building permit,or where the
CHC or the director has determined
such work is consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties
and with the Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines.
Consistent.The project is a large multi faceted Specific Plan,
which seeks to balance historic preservation with many other
equally important municipal goals,including housing,public
safety,open space,circulation,and economic sustainability.In
that context,the Specific Plan must include a feasible and
effective means of addressing historic preservation,which
necessarily could involve demolitions of dilapidated structures
while relocating others to preserve or enhance the overall
historical context of the site.
A key project component is development of a public trailhead
park,which will incorporate and rehabilitate four historic
structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex historic
district,and provide context for these structures by creating an
interpretive project that documents the historic district and its
cultural and architectural heritage by means of a pamphlet
and/or additional means e.g.,signage,interpretive plan,
mobile friendly content),subject to approval by the City.The
interpretive project will highlight the former Froom Ranch Dairy
Complex,both primary and secondary contributors,in a social
Froom family)and industrial dairy industry)context,with an
Item 2
Packet Page 18
08550
B.Demolition Review.The CHC shall
review and make recommendation to
the city council concerning demolition
applications for structures listed in the
inventory of historic resources.
C.Demolition Thresholds.Demolition
permits for structures which are
included on the inventory of historic
resources shall be required for:
1. Alterations to or removal of
greater than twenty five
percent of the original building
framework,roof structure,and
exterior walls;and
2. Relocation of such resources to
a site outside the city limits.
D.Required Findings for Demolition of
a Historic Resource.The decision
making body shall approve an
application for demolition of a
structure listed in the inventory of
historic resources only if it determines
that the proposed demolition is
consistent with the general plan and:
1. The historic resource is a
hazard to public health or
safety,and repair or
stabilization is not structurally
feasible.Deterioration resulting
from the property owner’s
neglect or failure to maintain
the property should not be a
justification for demolition.The
applicant may be required to
provide structural reports,to
the approval of the community
development director or city
council,to document that
repairs or stabilization are not
feasible;or
2. Denial of the application will
constitute an economic
hardship as described under
subsections J)(1)through 3)of
this section.
F.Historic and Architectural
Documentation.Before the issuance of
a demolition permit for structures
listed in the inventory of historic
resources,the resource and its site
emphasis on how these buildings were used on the dairy farm,
and how this property relates to the larger dairy farm context in
San Luis Obispo,the Central Coast,and California.Throughout
the proposed public trailhead park,interpretive signs that
provide information on building history and function extant
and demolished)will also be incorporated.
The proposed location of the buildings at the proposed public
trailhead park will provide a setting adjacent to the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve and open space.Although most of the existing
dairy structures are in poor structural condition and cannot be
safely relocated or even preserved in place,all relocations,
reconstructions,and rehabilitations will be per the Secretary of
Interior Standards to maintain the historic significance of the
structure.
Four of the most significant and largest character defining
structures of the historic district will be
preserved/reconstructed on site.Although the overall setting
and context of the complex will be altered with the proposed
development of the Specific Plan area,the relocation of the
most distinctive buildings in the complex to the public trailhead
park presents a feasible option to preserve the character and
context of these agricultural buildings at the edge of the open
space.
Item 2
Packet Page 19
08551
shall be documented as specified in city
standards,to the satisfaction of the
CHC and the director.The
documentation shall be retained in a
secure,but publicly accessible,
location.
G.Historic Acknowledgement.An
acknowledgment of demolished
resources shall be provided through
historic signage and/or the reuse or
display of historic materials and
artifacts on site,at the owner’s
expense,to the director’s approval.
14.01.110 Relocation of historic
resources.Key provisions are described
below]
Relocation has the potential to
adversely affect the significance of a
historic resource and is discouraged.
Relocation applications shall be
evaluated as follows:
A.Review.The CHC and ARC shall
review applications to relocate
structures listed on the inventory of
historic resources.
B.Criteria for Relocation.Relocation of
structures included on the inventory of
historic resources,or those that are
determined by the CHC or the director
to be potentially historic,is the least
preferred preservation method and
shall be permitted only when
relocation is consistent with the goals
and policies of the general plan,any
applicable area or specific plans,and
the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines,and:
1. The relocation will not
significantly change,destroy,or
adversely affect the historic,
architectural or aesthetic value
of the resource;and
2. Relocation will not have a
significant adverse effect on
the character of the historic
district or neighborhood,or
surrounding properties where
the resource is located or at its
proposed location;and
Consistent.As discussed with respect to the discussion for
Municipal Code Section 14.01.100,this provision of the Code
did not anticipate a procedure to effectively implement of a
large multi faceted Specific Plan,which seeks to balance
historic preservation with many other equally important
municipal goals,including housing,public safety,open space,
circulation,and economic sustainability.In that context,the
Specific Plan must include a feasible and effective means of
addressing historic preservation,which necessarily could
involve demolitions of dilapidated structures while relocating
others to preserve or enhance the overall historical context of
the site.
As noted above,the project will incorporate and rehabilitate
four historic structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy Complex
historic district within a proposed public trailhead park.
Mitigation in the Final EIR requires the applicant to provide
context for these structures by creating an interpretive project
that documents the historic district and its cultural and
architectural heritage by means of a pamphlet and/or
additional means e.g.,signage,interpretive plan,mobile
friendly content),subject to approval by the City.The
interpretive project will highlight the former Froom Ranch Dairy
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
San Luis Obispo,the Central Coast,and California.Throughout
the proposed public trailhead park,interpretive signs that
provide information on building history and function extant
and demolished)will also be incorporated.
The proposed location of the buildings at the proposed public
trailhead park will provide a setting adjacent to the Irish Hills
Natural Reserve and open space.Although most of the existing
dairy structures are in poor structural condition and cannot be
safely relocated or even preserved in place,all relocations,
reconstructions,and rehabilitations will be per the Secretary of
Interior Standards to maintain the historic significance of the
Item 2
Packet Page 20
08552
3. The original site and the
proposed receiving site are
controlled through ownership,
long term lease or similar
assurance by the person(s)
proposing relocation,to the
director’s approval;and
4. The proposed receiving site is
relevant to the resource’s
historic significance;or
5. The relocation is necessary to
correct an unsafe or dangerous
condition on the site and no
other measures for correcting
the condition are feasible;or
6. The proposed relocation meets
the findings required under
Section 14.01.100(J)for
demolition of a historic
resource.
C.Relocation Timing.The historic
resource shall not be relocated unless
the chief building official issues a
permit for relocation and all permit or
impact fees for new development are
paid;or,where no new development is
proposed,an appropriate security is
posted to guarantee that relocation
plans are implemented,to the
director’s approval.
D.Historical and Architectural
Documentation.Prior to issuance of a
construction permit for relocation,the
resource and its site shall be historically
documented as specified herein,to the
satisfaction of the CHC and the
director.An acknowledgment of the
resource,such as a permanent,
weatherproof historic plaque,shall be
incorporated on the resource’s original
site as provided by the applicant or
property owner,subject to the
approval of the CHC.
E.Relocation Plan and Procedures.
Relocations shall follow a plan
approved by the CHC or the director,
standards and procedures in the
demolition and building relocation
code,the California Building Code,and
the following:
structure,except the Creamery/House,which will be
reimagined to provide public restroom and picnic facilities.
Four of the most significant and largest character defining
structures of the historic district will be
preserved/reconstructed on site.Although the overall setting
and context of the complex will be altered with the proposed
development of the Specific Plan area,the relocation of the
most distinctive buildings in the complex to the public trailhead
park presents a feasible option to preserve the character and
context of these agricultural buildings at the edge of the open
space.
Although most of the existing dairy structures are in poor
structural condition and cannot be safely relocated or even
preserved in place,all relocations,reconstructions,and
rehabilitations will be per the Secretary of Interior Standards to
maintain the historic significance of the structure.
Mitigation Measure MM CR 9 required the applicant to retain a
qualified professional historic architect to review design and
construction drawings and monitor construction to ensure
conformance with SOI standards.MM CR 9 also requires that:
Deteriorated historic features be repaired to the
greatest extent feasible.Where features are
deteriorated beyond repair,they will be replaced to
exactly match the old;
All character defining features are retained;
Physical treatments to historic material will use the
gentlest means possible,so as not to damage the
material;and
Interpretive signage will clearly provide information
regarding the history of the buildings and their
reconstruction.
This approach to relocation and rehabilitation of the most
significant structures is consistent with the relevant findings
included in Section 14.01.110.B.of the Municipal Code,notably
those criteria related to maintaining overall historic context
while preserving public safety.The historic district buildings
have lost their functionality,and most are in very poor physical
condition.The new location and adaptive reuse will place the
relocated buildings back into a functional use,and will place
them in direct proximity to open space trails,as well as improve
their safety and utility,with the opportunity to promote public
education of the property’s history and the community’s
overall agricultural heritage.
Item 2
Packet Page 21
08553
1. Application for relocation shall
be made on forms provided by
the department and shall
include information to respond
to the criteria in subsection B
of this section.
2. The CHC shall hold a noticed
public hearing and recommend
action to the ARC or city
council on the application for
relocation of a historic
resource,and the ARC or
council shall consider the CHC’s
recommendation in making the
final determination to approve
or deny the permit.
3. The ARC or the city council will
not grant an approval for the
relocation of a listed historic
resource unless the criteria for
relocation under subsection B
of this section can be met.
Ord.1557 3 part),2010).
8.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
7.1 Recommend that the Planning Commission find the project consistent with the General Plan
and Municipal Code.The recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning Commission,
and final action will proceed to the City Council.This action may include recommendations
for conditions to address consistency with the General Plan and Municipal Code.
7.2 Recommend that the Planning Commission find the project inconsistent with the City’s
General Plan and Municipal Code.The recommendation of inconsistency should include
findings that cite the basis for the action and should reference relevant sections within the
General Plan,Historic Preservation Program Guidelines,or other policy documents.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
9.1 Conceptual CHC Report and Minutes September 26,2016)
9.2 Draft EIR CHC Report and Minutes November 18,2019)
9.3 Final EIR Responses to Comments made during November 18,2019 CHC meeting
Item 2
Packet Page 22
08554
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes
Monday, September 26, 2016
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Monday, September 26, 2016 at 5:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Hill.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp,
Leah Walthert, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich and Chair Jaime Hill
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Senior Planner Brian Leveille,
Parks & Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck, Planning Technician Kip Morais,
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Associate Planner Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
Rachel Cohen, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
Shannon Larrabee, San Luis Obispo, spoke from the dais and provided an update on the Leadership
SLO Water-Wise Demonstration Garden.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Minutes for Cultural Heritage Committee Regular Meeting of July 25, 2016:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the CHC Minutes of July 25, 2016 were approved with the
following amendments:
1.) Page 3, Finding #4, end punctuation change (from; to .)
2.) Page 4, third paragraph to read: " ... provided local examples of painted wall signs from the
early 1900's ... "
3.) Page 5, seventh paragraph to read: Union Hardware Building; Miner's minor sign exception
on the following 7:0:0 vote
A YES: Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, Vice-Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Hill
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 23
08555
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1.Utility Box Art in Historic District locations. OTHR-3827-2016: Review of proposed
artwork designs and traffic signal locations for the 2016 Utility Box Art project at three
locations within the Old Town and Downtown Historic Districts with a categorical exemption
from environmental review, C-D-H & R-2-H zones; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Director Stanwyck spoke about the Utility Box Art Program and provided updates on the
downtown beautification effort with the Historic Districts.
Committee Member Kincaid inquired whether the front of any given utility box is determined by
it being street side or pedestrian side view.
Committee Member Baer discussed her experience as one of the fourteen (14) participants on the
Art Jury.
Chair Hill inquired about a traffic safety enhancement project being undertaken at the comer of
Monterey & Osos Streets; acknowledged that the Committee was in receipt of two pieces of public
correspondence.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Walthert commented that the art does not readily represent the historic nature
of the City's inhabitants or the heritage; Committee Member Baer responded by differentiating
between art as specifically commissioned and art rendered via an open call to artists.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LARRABEE, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the Cultural Heritage Committee adopted a draft Resolution
which provides the determination for City Council that the CHC finds the box art design for the
traffic signal utility boxes located in the Old Town and Downtown Historic Districts, as part of the
2016 Box Art Project, consistent with its Historical Preservation Program; on the following 7: 0:0
vote:
AYES: Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, Vice-Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Hill
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
2.840 Monterey Street. ARCH-3534-2016: Review of request to place a wall sign on an
elevation without a public entrance on a Contributing Historic Structure (Blackstone Hotel),
with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-D-H zone; Coast Monument
Signs, applicant.
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 2
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 24
08556
Technician Morais presented a project description, historical background, and PowerPoint slides
of the proposed wall sign.
Committee Member Papp inquired about the frequencyofvariance requests forsigns on elevations
without entrances; inquired about the necessity of placing a sign on the western fa<;;ade, given the
existence and placement of the Monterey Street sign, and whether having a secondary sign is a
commercial imperative.
Committee Member Baer qualifiedthat the Committee was considering the sign that facesChorro
Street, as opposed to the Monterey Street sign with same logo, but also dissimilar in terms of size,
proportion, and placement.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Steve Fear, Coast Monument Signs, Arroyo Grande, discussed the sign installation being low-
impacted and Chorro Street being a major pedestrian thoroughfare.
Jennifer Kurtz, LuluLemon Athletica, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, discussed the
location and proportions of the proposed sign; requested that the Committee disregard the banner
sign indicated in the presentation materials, as it was part of an earlier sign submission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Papp indicated that a request for a sign of this size and discretion was
reasonable unless the City was adamant that there should not be signs on sides of buildings without
entrances; Director Codron informed that the City is currently in the midst of updating sign
regulations and that this type of exception request is of frequent occurrence, and intent of current
sign regulations is to prevent sign proliferation.
Vice-Chair Brajkovich commented that the proposed sign does not detract from the Historical
Preservation Standards; commented favorably on its positioning and its repetitive use of the
architecture's round elements.
Committee Member Baer commented unfavorably on the marketing signage commercializing the
Mission across the street with its placement.
Chair Hill commented further on sign's inappropriateness in fronting Mission being sufficient
reason for not granting exception; pointed out excessive signage on Court Street as exemplary of
what is beginning to transpire in the downtown and is also inconsistent with the Guidelines.
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 3
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 25
08557
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LARRABEE, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the Cultural Heritage Committee recommended the
Community Development Director deny approval of the project, as the sign at this location is not
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and adds sign clutter at a critically sensitive
location facing the Mission; on the following6: l :0:0 vote:
AYES: Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, and Chair Hill
NOES: Vice-Chair Brajkovich
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
3.1119 Garden Street. ARCH-2588-2016: Review of proposed modifications to the fa9adeof
the Union Hardware Building, a Master List Historic Structure, with a categorical exemption
fromenvironmental review; C-D-H zone; Garden Street SLO Partners, applicant.
The Committee discussed particulars of a conflict-of-interest recusal with Community
Development Director Codron; based on the discussion, Committee Member Larrabee determined
she would not recuse forGarden Street Item 3.
Director Codron introduced the project as a part of recently approved Garden Street Terraces and
requested feedback; Planner Oetzell provided the staff report with PowerPoint slides displaying
the proposed fa9ademodificationsand character-defining architectural features.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Carol Florence, Principal Planner, Oasis Associates, presented the PowerPoint presentation which
provided a historic overview and site perspectives, while underscoring the public-private
partnership between the City and the project owners.
Beverly and Shaun Matthews, project partners and hoteliers, displayed PowerPoint slides of the
proposed reconfigurations on Garden Street and noted the projected complete restoration of two
buildings, and concepts forsignage.
Robert Chattel, project preservation architect, discussed the initial Environmental Impact Report
and the updated design development documents; reported that both Master List Buildings will
undergo seismic retrofitas part of the project.
Chair Hill requested that the images be displayed of the windows being added to the site; Vice-
Chair Brajkovich inquired whether location of delivery door would remain the same.
Committee Member Papp inquired whether the Committee was to consider the windows on the
building's side elevation, the street fa9ade solely, or both; inquired whether the bulkhead removal
would be reversible; inquired about the reasoning behind shifting the original location of the
traditional ingress/egress from the building's center to its side.
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 4
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 26
08558
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Papp commented favorably on the removal of awnings, restoration of the
transom, and retention of the structural and linear elements of the fac;ade.
Vice-Chair Brajkovich indicated that the project's having maintained the consistency of the fa9ade
trumps the perceived small problem he initially had with the building being overly symmetrical.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECONDED BY VICE-
CHAIR BRAJKOVICH, the Cultural Heritage Committee found the proposed storefront
modifications to be consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and adopted the draft
resolution recommending the director find the modifications consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior Standards forthe Rehabilitation of Historic Properties; on the following 7:0:0 vote:
A YES: Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, Vice-Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Hill
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chair Hill calledfor afive-minute recess.
4.12165 Los Osos Valley Road. PRE-1293-2015: Pre-application review of the conceptual
plan for the multiple structures comprising the Froom Ranch Historic Complex, including
structure demolition, and structure relocation and adaptive reuse within a proposed proximate
park, in association with the Froom Ranch I II Villagio Specific Plan (Madonna on Los Osos
Valley Road Specific Plan); John Madonna, applicant.
Associate Planner Shawna Scott provided the background of the pre-application review of the
conceptual proposal for the multiple structures comprising the Froom Ranch historic complex;
requested that the CHC provide collective directional items and feedback.
Chair Hill disclosed that the Committee Members toured the site with the Applicant.
Committee Member Papp inquired about a historic survey and indicated the site was eligible for
National, California and Local Historical Registers.
Committee Member Kincaid inquired whether an advisory body had authority to discuss any
criteria since the property has not yet been annexed to the City; Planner Leveille indicated that the
site has been evaluated as part of the General Plan and as part of one of the Specific Plan Areas;
Director Codron added that none of the approvals granted by the City would apply until the site
was under City jurisdiction, but would be those consulted and relied upon prior to construction.
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 5
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 27
08559
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Victor Montgomery, architect with RRM Design Group, spoke on behalf of the John & Susan
Madonna Trust; presented PowerPoint slides of the project site's resources to either be relocated,
demolished, harvested, or adaptively re-used; shared that structural analysis had not been done to
determine viability forrehabilitation.
Vice-Chair Brajkovich inquired about the accumulation of historical artifactsinside the dairy barn;
Chair Hill requested dimensional comparisons with the Octagon Barn.
PUBLIC COMMENT
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, stressed the present-day obligation to retain communicated
insights from the past, via the resources of remaining artifacts; urged for greater preservation
efforts.
Neil Havlik, San Luis Obispo, spoke about his concernswith the development above the 150-foot
elevation line; related that any such development should be strictly for public purpose, such as a
trailhead park.
Ray Walters, San Luis Obispo, opined that the best location fora trailhead park is adjacent to the
trailheads and that this property is better suited forsome development above the 150-foot elevation
line.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Walthert shared how enamored she had become with the majestic nature of
the dairy barn; lobbied formaintaining its rounded comer as a vital component of historical value.
Committee Member Kincaid commented favorably on the concept of an adaptive re-use of the
property.
Committee Member Larrabee spoke favorably on the direction of the project; spoke of her
uncertainty for any type of restoration on site that could provide any degree of safe access;
suggested that the trailhead park using established infrastructure was of sound reasoning.
Committee Member Papp indicated that the historic survey provided sufficient differentiationof
structures' status but that it is a task better suited for structural engineers to analyze toward
decision-making; indicated that the Committee is faced with the possibility of "demolition by
neglect" and further indicated that determining a commercially viable method to maintain
buildings is both an imperative aspect in preventing it and incumbent upon the developer and the
City to find creative, viable ways to salvage agricultural buildings of significance; indicated that
the first option should not have to be demolition.
Vice-Chair Brajkovich discussed replication and adaptive re-use options for the dairy barn.
Committee Member Baer considered the relocation of a main house as being incongruous in
proximity to a Home Depot and suggested alternative sites to be considered; urged recognition of
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 6
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 28
08560
the circular part of a dairy barnas a design motif that could be represented in other structures as a
valuable reminder of architectural history.
Chair Hill commented favorably on the organization of the structures on site and that any
relocation will destroy the historical narrative.
Committee Member Papp qualifiedthat it would be difficultto arrive at a rating foreach respective
structure; supposed that the Committee's predominant interest in salvaging structures, to the extent
that they can be, is the overriding message to be conveyed.
Chair Hill indicated she based her own discussion points solely on informationprovided by the
First Carbon Solution, none of which states anything about any of the structures being non-
salvageable.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the Cultural Heritage Committee provided feedback on the
applicant's conceptual plan for the multiple structures comprising the Froom Ranch Historic
Complex, including structure demolition, structure relocation, and adaptive reuse within a
proposed proximate park; made Motion indicating CHC is in favorof the preservation of structures
intact and in situ, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Secretary of
Interior's Standards, and toward maintaining the historic narrative and meaning of the complex;
on the following 6: I :0:0 vote:
AYES: Baer, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, Vice-Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Hill
NOES: Kincaid
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
5. 1027 Nipomo Street. ARCH-3216-2016: Review of a new four-story mixed-use
development proposed in the Downtown Historic District that includes 8, 131 square-feet of
commercial/retail space, 23 residential units and hotel use (7 rooms), with a categorical
exemption fromenvironmental review; C-D-H zone; Creekside Lofts, applicant.
Planner Cohen provided the Staff Report on the new four-story mixed-use structure.
In response to Committee Member Larrabee's inquiry, Director Codron mentioned that the project
is subject to the City's inclusionary housing requirements such that it will be paying a fee as a
percentage of the total project valuation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Damien Mavis, Applicant representative, provided the historical and evolutionary context leading
to the third iteration of the project.
Chair Hill inquired about the trash enclosure and the building code allowance forthe sign across
property lines between the project and Ciopinot.
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 7
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 29
08561
Vice-Chair Brajkovich inquired how the building's height qualified and met Design Guidelines in
the low-scale neighborhood.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mary Mitchell, Soda Water Works, San Luis Obispo; qualified that her building is zoned in a
Community Commercial Historic District with a Planned Development overlay (CC-HPD) area
and in fullconformance of the Historic Preservation Guidelines; stated her opposition to the project
as presented for a variety of reasons, including that the modem and monolithic building violates
City guidelines relating to infill projects adjacent to properties on the Master List of Historic
Buildings.
Donna Duerk, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project's massing; lamented how the
project not stepping back its upper levels fromthe street infringes on her neighborhood's privacy.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, opined that the project does not conform with either Downtown
Guidelines or Historic Preservation Guidelines.
Mary Neal, Sandy's Liquor, San Luis Obispo; voiced objection to the project due to parking issues.
Nancy Hubbard, San Luis Obispo, spoke as member of development team and in favorof project;
discussed how established zoning regulations are set by civic leaders and then stringently adhered
to by developers in order to facilitate needs and requests for growth; discussed how the creek
creates a natural setback bufferbetween uses.
Thom Jess, Arris Studio Architects, San Luis Obispo; addressed an insulting comment provided
by a member of the public.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Papp discussed the current state of various Downtown projects severely
overshadowing the historic spatial nature of the Downtown Historic District and how to decide to
respond to it accordingly.
Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Larrabee, and Hill commented unfavorably on the
project's scale, massing, and incompatibility with neighboring structures.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY CHAIR HILL, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER
KINCAID, the Cultural Heritage Committee continued the item to a date uncertain with direction
to the Applicant to re-evaluate height, scale, massing and detailing for greater consistency with
neighboring historic structures within the Downtown Historic District; on the following7:0:0 roll
call vote:
AYES: Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, Vice-Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Hill
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 8
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 30
08562
AGENDA FORECAST AND STAFF UPDATES
Planner Leveille provided the Agenda Forecast:
October 24th : Two-story addition on Master List structure at 752 Buchon; sign on
Chinatown project
Informal discussion ensued on the following:
A.) Length and breadth of this and future CHC Hearings;
B.) The difficulty in producing and using three-dimensional physical models forcontext in
scale forprojects but potentially using GIS mapping and form-based code as alternatives;
C.) The recent Chinatown archaeological fiasco prompted need for matrix for identifying
cultural resource mitigation measures
ADJOURNMENT: 9:51 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: 11/28/2016
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 9
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 31
08563
CITY OF
SHU LUIS OBISPO
Meeting Date: September 26, 2016
Item Number: 4
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Pre-application review of conceptual plans for the multiple structures comprising
the Froom Ranch Historic Complex, in association with the Froom Ranch/Il Villagio Specific
Plan
ADDRESS: 12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd. BY:Shawna Scott, Associate Planner SS
Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
FILE NUMBER: PRE 1293-2015
e-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner -ft1,
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
Provide feedback on the applicant's conceptual plan for the multiple structures comprising the
Froom Ranch Historic Complex, including structure demolition, structure relocation, and adaptive
reuse within a proposed proximate park.
Applicant John Madonna
Representative Victor Montgomery,
RRM Design Group
Zoning Park Site: Retail Commercial (City)
Would require pre-zoning for Specific i......:::
Plan
General Plan Park Site: General Retail (City)
Site Area
Environmental
Status
SP-3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan
Area
117.1 acres
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
will be prepared to evaluate the
Specific Plan.
1.0 SUMMARY /BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2016, the City Council authorized initiation of the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road
LOVR) Specific Plan ( currently referred to as the Froom I Il Villagio Specific Plan). The applicant
conceptually proposed a mix of land uses including a Continuing Care Retirement Community
CCRC), approximately 275 residential units, approximately 25,000 to 45,000 square feet of
commercial uses, open space (50% of the project site), and park land. The applicant has identified
an additional, adjacent, 7.4-acre parcel located within the City limits as the potential site fora park,
which is conceptually proposed to include some historic and interpretive elements (refer to Section
4.1 Conceptual Proposal for Froom Ranch Historic Complex, below).
CHC4-1
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 32
08564
CHC PRE 1293-2015 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 2
This is the first review of the project by the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). At this time, the
applicant has not submitted a Draft Specific Plan for City review. The applicant is seeking early
feedback from the CHC before completing the Draft Specific Plan for the project.
2.0 CHC PURVIEW
The CHC should provide feedback on the applicant's conceptual plans for the historically
significant structures identified on the site based on the Historic Preservation Ordinance, City
policies, Historic Preservation Guidelines, and Secretary of Interior Standards. The intention of
referring this item to the CHC at this early stage in the process is to allow the applicant to receive
and consider collective CHC feedback prior to finalizing the Specific Plan and submitting the
project for formal City review.
3.0 PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site consists of three parcels totaling approximately 117 acres located immediately
west of Los Osos Valley Road. Two parcels (totaling 109.7 acres) are located within the
County of San Luis Obispo's jurisdiction, and adjacent to the City limits (APNs 067-241-030
and 067-241-031); these parcels are identified for future annexation in the Land Use Element
LUE) as the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Specific Plan Area (SP-3). One 7.4-
acre parcel is located within the City limits (APN 053-510-012).
The current land use and natural setting includes livestock grazing, unpaved agricultural roads,
stormwater basins, the Froom Ranch Historic Complex, John Madonna Construction office
within the historic complex), staging and materials storage, quarry area, wetlands, grasslands,
stands of mature trees, Froom Creek and associated tributaries, and vacant land. The 7.4-acre
parcel proposed as a trailhead plaza and park site where two of the structures from the historic
complex are proposed for relocation includes an existing drainage basin, wetlands, and vacant
land. Currently, this area is informally used by the public to gain access to the established Irish
Hills Natural Area trail system. Surrounding uses include the Costco/Home Depot shopping
center to the north, auto dealerships and commercial uses to the east, hotels and Mountainbrook
Church to the south, and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and associated trails and open space
to the west.
3.2 Specific Plan
Project entitlements will include a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendments, Annexation, and
related entitlements that would allow for the proposed development of the property. The
applicant's proposal includes a mix of commercial and residential land uses and a Continuing
Care Retirement Community (CCRC). The project also includes a park, and a minimum of
50% of the site area would be designated as open space, as required by the LUE.1 The
configuration of land uses and types of commercial and residential development are in the early
stages of planning, and will be identified in detail in when the Specific Plan is formally
submitted for review.
I LUE Section 8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
CHC4-2
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 33
08565
CHC PRE 1293-2015 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 3
3.3 Froom Ranch Historic Complex
The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is
located within the northern portion of the
project site, immediately south and
southeast of Home Depot (refer to Figure
1.Historic Complex Location). The subject
property was initially purchased in the late
19th century by the Froom family, who
operated the Froom Ranch until the 1970s.
Alex Madonna purchased the property in
1976, and Bill Froom continued to live on
the ranch until 1998. The ranch was
developed by John Froom, a Canada
native, who came to the area in the 1870s
as a laborer; he purchased the ranch in the
1890s and began dairy operations. 2 The
applicant submitted an evaluation of
historic resources present on the project
site (Attachment 4, Historic Report
prepared by First Carbon Solutions, 2015). Figure 1. Historic Complex Location
Based on this historic analysis, the complex consists of ten structures; seven of these structures
contribute to the historical significance determination. These structures are described below,
based on information provided in the historic report.
Main Residence (Historically Significant) -Proposed for Relocation
The main residence was built in 1915 by Hans Peterson, and is noted to be a Craftsman;
however, the structure also presents elements of a neo-classic, row house architectural style.
The building is in good condition, and is currently used for the John Madonna Construction
offices. Alterations to the building over the years have included removal of rotted redwood sill
foundations and replacement with concrete; water damaged floors have been leveled, sanded,
and repaired; and some interior walls and the kitchen sink and stove were removed. Additional
improvements included removal of paint and soot from the building interior, repainting, re-
wiring and air circulation improvements, plumbing repairs, installation of new ceilings and a
new roof, and construction of a rear building addition.
Old Barn (Historically Significant) -Proposed for Demolition
The Old Barn was constructed at an unknown time early in the 201h century on unknown
property, reportedly southeast of the current ranch complex. The structure is estimated to be
125 years old, and presents a Vernacular architectural style. The building is noted to be in good
condition. Noted alterations include replacement of a rotted out rear wall, installation of a new
concrete floor ( over dirt), and stabilization of the structure. The barn has been renovated
extensively.
2 First Carbon Solutions 2015
CHC4-3
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 34
08566
CHC PRE 1293-2015 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 4
Bunkhouse (Historically Significant) -Proposed for Relocation
The Bunkhouse was constructed by Hans Peterson for ranch workers in 1915, at the same time
the main residence was built. The structure presents Craftsman style, and was known to be
occupied by Bill Froom's brother. The building is in good condition, with no major exterior
alterations documented. Noted alterations include painting and installation of a new roof and
floor.
Dairy Barn (Historically Significant) -Proposed for Demolition
The Dairy Barn was built in 1913 by Jim Aiken, who also built the Granary (see below) and a
horse barn (no longer present). The historic report notes that the Dairy Barn is the only round
barn in San Luis Obispo County, which is rare; this barn was in use until dairy operations
ceased in 1977. The Vernacular-style barn is in fair condition. Structural stabilization
alterations have included installation of support beams and replacement of vertical wall boards,
and a small addition was constructed on the north end of the fac;:ade.
Creamery/House (Historically Significant) -Proposed for Demolition
The Creamery/House consists of two connected structures, which were built in several stages
at unknown times with a Vernacular architectural style. John Froom lived in the
Creamery/House prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in 1902, and the Frooms lived in this
structure until the Main Residence was constructed. Bill Froom was born in this structure.
Noted alterations include an addition on the south wall (which deteriorated and was removed);
a porch was added to the north wall; floors and ceiling areas were replaced by plywood
sheeting; vertical siding was replaced; and walls and foundations were stabilized.
Granary (Historically Significant) -Proposed for Demolition
The Granary was built in 1913 by Jim Aiken, with a Vernacular, utilitarian style. The structure
was built on stilts with tongue and groove double walls to prevent rats from getting into the
structure to eat the grain. The structure is in poor condition.
Shed (Historically Significant) -Proposed for Demolition
The storage shed was constructed at an unknown time by an unknown person, although the
construction date is assumed to be 1913. The Vernacular-style structure was noted to be in
extremely poor condition and is "barely standing."
Modem Structures (NotHistorically Significant)
Modem structures not considered to contribute to the historical significance of the
complex/district include the outhouse, storage building, and faux water tower
telecommunications facility).
CHC4-4
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 35
08567
CHC PRE 1293-2015 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 5
According to the historic evaluation, the complex appears eligible for consideration as a local
historic resource and meets National Register 15 criteria for a historic district3; the complex is
an excellent example of early 20th century ranching and dairy industry development in San
Luis Obispo County, is associated with the pioneering Froom family including Bill Froom and
his local contributions, and the contributing structures represent predominant Craftsman and
Vernacular styles of the early 20th century (First Carbon Solutions 2015).
City Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
The historic evaluation assessed the Froom Ranch complex's eligibility for the City's Master
List or Contributing List of Historic Resources. The eligibility discussion below is based on
the report provided by the applicant; please note that peer review of this report would occur
during preparation of the Environmental Impact Report for the Specific Plan and associated
entitlements. The Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) contains the below historic
significance criteria4 (refer to Attachment 2, General Plan Policies and Historic Preservation
Ordinance). In order for a property to qualify for historic resource listing the property shall
exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty ( 50) years old (less than 50 if it can be
demonstrated enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at
least one of the following criteria5:
1.Architectural Criteria (Style, Design, and/or Architect)
The Froom Ranch complex includes intact and good examples of Craftsman architecture,
including the Main Residence (1915) and Bunkhouse (1915). The complex contains a
unique example of Vernacular architecture: Dairy Barn (1913) with the rare rounded
front. Additional Vernacular-style structures include the Creamery/House (unknown
date), Granary (1913) and Shed (1913). The buildings represent the local farming and
dairy industry development and the predominant architectural styles of the early 20th
century.
2.Historic Criteria (Person, Event, and/or Context)
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 20thcenturyranchingandthedairyindustry. The complex exemplifies the Early 20th Century
Agricultural Development theme.
3.Integrity
The Froom Ranch complex has retained its overall integrity of design, location, setting,
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.
3 A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united
historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district can comprise 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 its
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 (National Park Service 1997).
4 14.01.060 Listing Procedures for Historic Resources & 14.01.070 Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
5 HPO Section 14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
CHC4-5
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 36
08568
CHC PRE 1293-2015 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 6
Based on the historic report, the complex appears eligible for consideration as a local historic
resource.
National Criteria for Evaluation and California Criteria for Designation
The historic evaluation assessed the Froom Ranch complex's eligibility for the National and
California Registers, and determined that the Froom Ranch complex appears eligible for these
Registers as a historic district (refer to Attachment 3, Summary of Federal and State Criteria
Evaluation, and Attachment 4, Historic Report).
4.0 DISCUSSION
The discussion below includes a summary of the applicant's conceptual proposal and a list of
applicable policies and regulations for the CHC to consider when reviewing the applicant's
conceptual plan for the Froom Ranch Historic Complex.
4.1 Conceptual Proposal for Froom Ranch Historic Complex
The applicant'spreliminary concept includes the demolition of five historic resources within
the identified historic district, and relocation and adaptive re-use of two historic structures
refer to Table 1. Froom Ranch Historic Complex and Attachment 5, Cultural Heritage
Committee Meeting: Response to April 28, 2016 Letter and Applicant Attachments; Applicant
Proposed Parkland Concept).
Table 1. Froom Ranch Historic Complex
STRUCTURE YEAR SIGNIFICANT APPLICANT PROPOSED CONCEPT
BUILT STRUCTURE*
Main Residence 1915 Yes Relocate into proposed park, re-use as a park
ranger station
Old" Barn Moved to Yes Demolish
site in early
1900s
Bunkhouse 1915 Yes Relocate into proposed park, re-use as a storage
building
Dairy Barn 1913 Yes Demolish
Creamery /House Unknown Yes Demolish; harvest siding and incorporate into
proposed park restroom building
Granary 1913 Yes Demolish
Shed 1913 Yes Demolish
Outhouse 2000 No Remove or demolish
Storage Building 2010 No Remove or demolish
Water Tower 2013 No Assume remain in place
Structure contributes to the historic character and significance of the identified historic district.
CHC4-6
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 37
08569
CHC PRE 1293-2015 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 7
The applicant proposes to complete historic and photographic documentation of the historic
district and structures proposed for demolition through preparation of a Historic American
Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) or similar
docurnent(s). Historic dairy equipment would be donated to a local agency. Where feasible,
materials (e.g., siding, roofing, iron) would be salvaged for re-use within the park, and
potentially the overall Specific Plan area (refer to Attachment 5, Cultural Heritage Committee
Meeting: Response to April 28, 2016 Letter and Applicant Attachments; Applicant Proposed
Parkland Concept).
The applicant's conceptual plan includes: moving the Main Residence and Bunkhouse to new
locations within the proposed park, approximately 650 feet northwest of their current location,
and immediately west of the Horne Depot rear wall/loading dock (refer to Figure 2.
Comparative Conceptual Relocation of Main Residence and Bunkhouse, below); placement of
the structures on permanent foundations; provision of utilities; and refurbishment of exterior
finishes to reflect the relative historic period of construction, roof repair, and accessibility
improvements in compliance with Secretary of Interior Standards and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation (refer to Attachment 5, Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting: Response to
April 28, 2016 Letter and Applicant Attachments; Applicant Proposed Parkland Concept). It
is the applicant's stated intention to relocate the Main Residence and Bunkhouse to a highly
visible and publically accessible location. These structures would be part of the applicant's
proposed "historic plaza" component of the park, including interpretive signage.
Proposed for Demolition
Figure 2. Comparative Conceptual Relocation of Main Residence and Bunkhouse
CHC4-7
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 38
08570
CHC PRE 1293-2015 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 8
Staffand the applicant are requesting feedback from the CHC regarding the proposed concept
for the historic complex. Some key issues on which the CHC should provide feedback include
the following:
1.The proposed demolition of the historic Old Barn, Dairy Barn, Creamery/House,
Granary, and Shed.
2.The loss of the historic complex resulting from proposed demolitions and relocation of
the Main Residence and Bunkhouse.
3.Re-use of materials salvaged from structures proposed for demolition within the
proposed park.
4.Proposed relocation and adaptive reuse of the Main Residence and Bunkhouse within
the proposed park, including consideration of context and feeling ( existing location
compared to the proposed location).
4.2 General Plan Guidance
The LUE states that the Specific Plan design should be sensitive to environmental constraints,
including historic structures, and adjust accordingly through design. 6 The COSE provides more
specific policy direction, which is provided in Attachment 2, General Plan Policies and Historic
Preservation Ordinance. These policies promote the identification, preservation, and
rehabilitation of significant historic and architectural resources, and adaptive reuse of historic
buildings, including, but not limited to the following:
COSE Policy 3.3.1. Historic preservation. Significant historic and architectural
resources should be identified, preserved and rehabilitated.
COSE Policy 3.3.2. Demolitions. Historically or architecturally significant buildings
shall not be demolished or substantially changed in outward appearance, unless doing
so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or
reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible.
COSE Policy 3.3.3. Historical documentation. Buildings and other cultural features
that are not historically significant but which have historical or architectural value
should be preserved or relocated where feasible. Where preservation or relocation is
not feasible, the resource shall be documented and the information retained in a secure
but publicly accessible location. An acknowledgment of the resource should be
incorporated within the site through historic signage and the reuse or display of
historic materials and artifacts.
COSE Policy 3.3.4. Changes to historic buildings. Changes or additions to historically
or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent with the original structure
and follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Buildings. New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites,
should reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic structures. The street
6 LUE Section 8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
CHC4-8
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 39
08571
CHC PRE 1293-2015 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 9
appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character
should be maintained."7
4.3 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines document includes guidelines for construction
on properties with historic resources, including conformance with design standards identified
in the HPO, General Plan, Community Design Guidelines, and Secretary of Interior's
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.8 This document also identifies preservation
tools and incentives intended to "support and encourage the identification, preservation,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction and continued use of historic and cultural
resources. "9
4.4 Historic Preservation Ordinance
The HPO states that "listed historic resources are in irreplaceable community resource that
merit special protection to preserve them for future generations. "10 The City's consideration
of a request to demolish a resource which has been evaluated as eligible for local, state and
National Register listing is subject to review by the CHC and Council and adoption of the
following findings:
D. Required findings for demolition of a historic resource. The decision-making body
shall approve an application for demolition of a structure listed in the Inventory of
Historic Resources only if it determines that the proposed demolition is consistent with
the General Plan and:
I)The historic resource is a hazard to public health or safety, and repair or
stabilization is not structurally feasible. Deterioration resulting from the property
owner's neglect or failure to maintain the property should not be a justification for
demolition. The applicant may be required to provide structural reports, to the
approval of the Community Development Director or City Council, to document that
repairs or stabilization are not feasible; or
2)Denial of the application will constitute an economic hardship as described under
findings 1-3 of Section J. "
Economic hardship findings are identified in the HPO as follows:
I) Denial of the application will diminish the value of the subject property so as to
leave substantially no economic value, after considering other means of offsetting the
costs of retaining the historic resource, including, but not limited to, tax abatements,
financial assistance, building code modifications, changes in allowed uses, grants; or
2)Sale or rental of the property is impractical, when compared to the cost of holding
such property for uses permitted in the zoning district; or
3)Utilization of the property for lawful purposes is prohibited or impractical. "
7 Conservation and Open Space Element Policies 3.3.1 through 3.3.4, Policy 3.5.12, Policy 3.6.1, and Policies 3.6.6
through 3.6.8
8 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Chapter 3: Treatment of Historic Resources
9 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Chapter 4: Preservation Tools and Incentives
10 HPO Section 14.01.100 Demolition of Historic Resources
CHC4-9
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 40
08572
CHC PRE 1293-2015 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 10
Prevention of unpermitted active demolition or demolition by neglect is also regulated by the
HP0:11
A. Preservation of listed historic resources. The purpose of this Section is to prevent
unpermitted active demolition or demolition by neglect by ensuring that listed historic
resources are maintained in good repair, and free from structural defects and safety
hazards, consistent with the International Property Maintenance Code, Property
Maintenance Standards (SLO MC Ch.17.17), and standards as specified herein.
Alteration or demolition in whole or part, ofany significant features or characteristics
of a listed historic property or resource requires City authorization, pursuant to [HPO]
Section 14.01.100 [Demolition of Historic Resources]."
The HPO states that "relocation has the potential to adversely affect the significance of a
historic resource and is discouraged. "12 Relocation of historic resources would be subject to
review by the CHC and Architectural Review Commission, and would be subject to the
following criteria:
B. Criteria for relocation. Relocation of structures included on the Inventory of
Historic Resources, or those that are determined by the CHC or the Director to be
potentially historic, is the least preferred preservation method and shall be permitted
only when relocation is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, any
applicable area or specific plans, and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines,
and:
1)The relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the
historic, architectural or aesthetic value of the resource; and
2)Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the historic
district or neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the resource is located or
at its proposed location, and
3)The original site and the proposed receiving site are controlled through ownership
long term lease or similar assurance by the person(s) proposing relocation, to the
Director's approval, and
4) The proposed receiving site is relevant to the resource's historic significance; and
moved to 2 above}; OR
5)The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the site
and no other measures for correcting the condition are feasible, OR
6)The proposed relocation meets the findings required under Section J for
demolition of a historic resource. "
4.5 StaffResponse Regarding Policy and Ordinance Consistency
The proposal to demolish 5 of 7 structures found significant in the historic complex and
relocate the remaining Main House and Bunkhouse would be inconsistent with the above
referenced Ordinance sections unless the applicant can demonstrate the infeasibility of
preservation of the structures (rehabilitation or reconstruction) found significant within the
complex. If pursued in the formal Specific Plan application, the applicant's current conceptual
11 HPO Section 14.01.120 Un permitted Demolition or Destruction of Resources
12 HPO Sections 14.01.100 Demolition of Historic Resources and 14.01.110 Relocation of Historic Resources
CHC4-10
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 41
08573
CHC PRE 1293-2015 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 11
plans will have to include justification of infeasibility or economic hardship in support of the
proposal as outlined in the HPO above. As a part of the Cultural Resources evaluation in the
EIR that will be prepared forthe Specific Plan, the historic report will be peer reviewed through
the EIR process. Once the Specific Plan is finalized, formal ordinance and policy evaluation
will be conducted. As a part of the formal review of the Specific Plan and EIR evaluation,
feasible alternatives to the proposed demolition and relocation will be evaluated.
Consideration of a project which includes preservation of the Froom Ranch complex including
rehabilitation and/or reconstruction, and adaptive reuse of the structures in place, while
maintaining the context and feel of the historic district, would move the project in a direction
to be consistent with the intent and regulations identified in the HPO, Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines, and General Plan Policy stating that the design should be sensitive to
environmental constraints including historic resources.
As described in the LUE, the purpose of the Specific Plan for this project site is to "provide
design flexibility that will secure the appropriate development of the site while protecting
sensitive environmental resources on the site. "13 Preparation of the Specific Plan presents a
unique opportunity to protect environmental and community resources and maintain project
flexibility and innovation through the development of site planning, guidelines, and standards,
while achieving the objectives and performance standards identified in the General Plan.
5.0 RECOMMENDATION AND NEXT STEPS
Provide input and directional items to the applicant on the proposed conceptual treatment of the
Froom Ranch Historic complex for the applicant to consider prior to finalizing plans and formally
submitting the Specific Plan for City review.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1.Vicinity Map
2.General Plan Policies and Historic Preservation Ordinance
3.Summary of Federal and State Criteria Evaluation
4.Historic Report (First Carbon Solutions, February 20, 2015)
5.Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting: Response to April 28, 2016 Letter and Applicant
Attachments; Applicant Proposed Parkland Concept
13 LUE Section 8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
CHC4-11
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 42
08574
ATTACHMENT 1
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Project Site
M-p
CHC4-12
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 43
08575
ATTACHMENT 2
Chapter 6
3.Cultural Heritage
Cultural Background
3.0. Background
San Luis Obispo is blessed with a rich heritage, as
evidenced by many noteworthy archaeological
sites and historical buildings. These cultural
resources constitute a precious, yet fragile, legacy
which contributes to San Luis Obispo's unique
sense of place."
Before Europeans arrived on the central coast,
native Chumash and Salinan people had lived in
the area for centuries. While most reminders of
these peoples are now gone, evidence of their
presence remains in various archaeological,
historical and spiritual sites throughout the City.
These sites should be respectfully protected,
preserved and studied. The Town of San Luis
San Luis Obispo, circa 1890
Obispo began with the founding of Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa in 1772. Since then, the community has
experienced many changes. The older buildings, historic sites and landscape features that remain help us
understand the changes and maintain a sense of continuity. The City wants to preserve these cultural resources -
tangible reminders of earlier days in San Luis Obispo.
Starting in the early 1980s, the City of San Luis Obispo inaugurated a program formalizing and adopting policies to
address historic and prehistoric cultural resources. The first of the City's historic districts was formed, and the
City Council created the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC). The City subsequently adopted numerous policies in
its General Plan that addressed the preservation and protection of historic and prehistoric resources. About 700
historic residential and commercial buildings continue to give the community its "historic" character and charm,
The historic Carnegie Library in Mission Plaza was
rehabilitated in 2001.
while adapting to owners' changing uses and needs.
After two decades, the City has made important strides
with its historic preservation efforts. It has purchased and
rehabilitated several historic structures, including the Jack
House, the Southern Pacific Railroad Water Tower and the
Southern Pacific Railroad Depot, and begun rehabilitation
of several other historic railroad or adobe structures.
Through the Mills Act program, the City and County of San
Luis Obispo have helped owners of historic buildings
maintain and improve their properties through property
tax benefits.
Nevertheless, many cultural resources are under increasing
threats due to development pressures, benign neglect and
lack of funding for maintenance or rehabilitation.
Throughout California, older established neighborhoods are
Page 6-14 CHC4-13
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 44
08576
ATTACHME
Conservation and Open Space Element
feeling the effects of growth and intensification due to contemporary development which often dwarfs or lacks
the grace of older homes it replaces. Commercial areas are also feeling the impact of a changing economy with
new uses, development patterns and economic realities.
Underutilized sites with historic resources are often prime targets for redevelopment projects, with the resulting
loss of those resources. Moreover, some cultural resources have been lost due to unclear or conflicting public
policies, incomplete information and the lack of funding. The loss of significant historic, cultural and
archaeological resources can reduce the community's uniqueness and make it a less desirable place in which to
live, work or visit.
As San Luis Obispo enters the 21st century, it is prudent to look into the future to anticipate problems which may
lie ahead. We have already experienced some of these same pressures, and it is reasonable to expect that we
will continue to face similar challenges in the near future. Through its General Plan policies and related
implementation measures, the City intends to help balance cultural resource preservation with other community
goals.
3.1. Goals and Policies
3.2. Historical and architectural resources.
The City will expand community understanding, appreciation and support for historic and architectural resource
preservation to ensure long-term protection of cultural resources.
3.3. Policies
3.3.1. Historic preservation.
Significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved and rehabilitated.
3.3.2. Demolitions.
Historically or architecturally significant buildings shall not be demolished or substantially changed in
outward appearance, unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety and other means
to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are infeasible.
3.3.3. Historical documentation.
Buildings and other cultural features that are not historically significant but which have historical or
architectural value should be preserved or relocated where feasible. Where preservation or relocation is not
feasible, the resource shall be documented and the information retained in a secure but publicly accessible
location. An acknowledgment of the resource should be incorporated within the site through historic signage
and the reuse or display of historic materials and artifacts.
3.3.4. Changes to historic buildings.
Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings should be consistent with the
original structure and follow the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings.
New buildings in historical districts, or on historically significant sites, should reflect the form, spacing and
materials of nearby historic structures. The street appearance of buildings which contribute to a
neighborhood's architectural character should be maintained.
3.3.5. Historic districts and neighborhoods.
In evaluating new public or private development, the City shall identify and protect neighborhoods or
districts having historical character due to the collective effect of Contributing or Master List historic
properties.
Page 6-15 CHC4-14
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 45
08577
Chapter 6
3.4. Archeological resources.
ATTACHMENT 2
The City will expand community understanding, appreciation and support for archaeological resource
preservation.
3.5. Policies
3.5.1. Archaeological resource protection.
The City shall provide for the protection of both known and
potential archaeological resources. To avoid significant damage
to important archaeological sites, all available measures,
including purchase of the property in fee or easement, shall be
explored at the time of a development proposal. Where such
measures are not feasible and development would adversely
affect identified archaeological or paleontological resources,
mitigation shall be required pursuant to the Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
3.5.2. Native American sites.
All Native American cultural and archaeological sites shall be
protected as open space wherever possible.
3.5.3. Non-development activities.
Activities other than development which could damage or
destroy archaeological sites, including off-road vehicle use on or
adjacent to known sites, or unauthorized collection of artifacts,
shall be prohibited. Rehabilitation of the Historic Michael Righetti
House
3.5.4. Archaeologically sensitive areas.
Development within an archaeologically sensitive area shall require a preliminary site survey by a qualified
archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American cultures, prior to a determination of the potential
environmental impacts of the project.
3.5.5. Archaeological resources present.
Where a preliminary site survey finds substantial archaeological resources, before permitting construction,
the City shall require a mitigation plan to protect the resources. Possible mitigation measures include:
presence of a qualified professional during initial grading or trenching; project redesign; covering with a layer
of fill; excavation, removal and curation in an appropriate facility under the direction of a qualified
professional.
3.5.6. Qualified archaeologist present.
Where substantial archaeological resources are discovered during construction or grading activities, all such
activities in the immediate area of the find shall cease until a qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native
American cultures can determine the significance of the resource and recommend alternative mitigation
measures.
3.5.7. Native American participation.
Native American participation shall be included in the City's guidelines for resource assessment and impact
mitigation. Native American representatives should be present during archaeological excavation and during
construction in an area likely to contain cultural resources. The Native American community shall be
consulted as knowledge of cultural resources expands and as the City considers updates or significant
changes to its General Plan.
Page 6-16 CHC4-15
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 46
08578
ATTACHME
Conservation and Open Space Element
3.5.8. Protection of Native American cultural sites.
The City will ensure the protection of archaeological sites that may be culturally significant to Native
Americans, even if they have lost their scientific or archaeological integrity through previous disturbance;
sites that may have religious value, even though no artifacts are present; and sites that contain artifacts
which may have intrinsic value, even though their archaeological context has been disturbed.
3.5.9. Archaeological site records.
The City shall establish and maintain archaeological site records about known sites. Specific archaeological
site information will be kept confidential to protect the resources. The City will maintain, for public use,
generalized maps showing known areas of archaeological sensitivity.
3.5.10. Sunny Acres.
Sufficient acreage should be provided around Sunny Acres to enable use of the property for a community
center, urban garden, natural history museum and adjoining botanical garden, or similar uses.
3.5.11. Southern Pacific Water Tower.
The historic Southern Pacific Water Tower and adjoining City-owned land shall be maintained as open space
or parkland.
3.5.12. Cultural resources and open space.
Within the city limits the City should require, and outside the city limits should encourage the County to
require, public or private development to do the following where archaeological or historical resources are
protected as open space or parkland:
1.Preserve such resources through easements or dedications. Subdivision parcel lines or easements shall
be located to optimize resource protection. Easements as a condition of development approval shall
be required only for structural additions or new structures, not for accessory structures or tree
removal permits. If a historic or archaeological resource is located within an open space parcel or
easement, allowed uses and maintenance responsibilities within that parcel or easement shall be
clearly defined and conditioned prior to map or project approval.
2.Designate such easements or dedication areas as open space or parkland as appropriate.
3.Maintain such resources by prohibiting activities that may significantly degrade the resource.
3.6. Programs.
The City will do the following to protect cultural resources, and will encourage others to do so, as appropriate.
3.6.1. Cultural Heritage Committee.
A.The City's Cultural Heritage Committee will:
1.Help identify, and advise on suitable treatment for archaeological and historical resources.
2.Develop information on historic resources.
3.Foster public awareness and appreciation of cultural resources through means such as tours, a web
site, identification plaques and awards.
4.Provide recognition for preservation and restoration efforts.
5.Communicate with other City bodies and staff concerning cultural resource issues.
6.Provide guidance to owners to help preservation and restoration efforts.
7.Review new development to determine consistency with cultural resource preservation guidelines or
standards.
Page 6-17 CHC4-16
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 47
08579
Chapter 6
3.6.2. Financial assistance and incentives.
ATTACHMENT 2
The City will participate in financial assistance programs, such as low-interest loans and property tax
reduction programs that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties.
3.6.3. Construction within historic districts.
The Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural Review Commission will provide specific guidance on the
construction of new buildings within historic districts.
3.6.4. Post-disaster Historic Preservation.
The City will be prepared to assess the condition of historic buildings that may be damaged by disasters and
to foster their restoration whenever feasible.
3.6.5. Archaeological resource preservation standards.
The City will maintain standards concerning when and how to conduct archaeological surveys, and the
preferred methods of preserving artifacts.
3.6.6. Educational programs.
The City will foster public awareness and appreciation of cultural resources by sponsoring educational
programs, by helping to display artifacts that illuminate past cultures and by encouraging private
development to include historical and archaeological displays where feasible and appropriate.
3.6.7. Partnering for preservation.
The City will partner with agencies, non-profit organizations and citizens groups to help identify, preserve,
rehabilitate and maintain cultural resources.
3.6.8. Promote adaptive reuse of historic buildings.
The City will, consistent with health, safety and basic land-use policies, apply building and zoning standards
within allowed ranges of flexibility, to foster continued use and adaptive reuse of historic buildings.
3.6.9. City-owned adobes and historic structures.
The City will preserve and, as resources permit, rehabilitate City-owned historic adobes and other historic
structures by aggressively seeking grants, donations, private-sector participation or other techniques that
help fund rehabilitation and adaptive reuse.
3.6.10. Cultural Heritage Committee Whitepaper.
The City will implement the recommendations of the Cultural Heritage Committee's "Whitepaper", including
the adoption of a historic preservation ordinance.
Page 6-18 CHC4-17
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 48
08580
ATTACHMENT 2
c1tyo
san LUIS OBISPO 6-11
CHC4-18
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 49
08581
ATTACHMENT 2
Municipal Code Chapter 14.01 Historic Preservation Ordinance
Sections:
14.01.010 Findings and purpose............................................................... 1
14.01.020 Definitions............................................................................ 2
14.01.030 Cultural Heritage Committee -Appointment, Duties, and Actions......... 8
14.01.040 Community Director role............................................................................ 10
14.01.050 Historic Resource Designation................................................... 10
14.01.055 Historic Gardens, Features, Signs, and other cultural resources........... 10
14.01.060 Listing Procedures for Historic Resources.................................... 11
14.01.070 Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing........................... 12
14.01.080 Historic District Designation Purpose and Application..................... 14
14.01.090 Process for establishing or amending a Historic District......................... 15
14.01.100 Demolition of Historic Resources............................................................... 17
14.01.1 10 Relocation of Historic Resources................................................ 19
14.01.120 Unpermitted Demolition or Destruction of Historic Resources.............. 20
14.01.1 30 Historic Preservation Fund......................................................................... 21
14.01.14 0 Enforcement................................................................................................. 22
14.01.150 Appeals............................................................................... 23
14.01.1 60 Severability........................................................................... 23
14.01.010 Findings and Purpose.
A.Findings.
1.The City of San Luis Obispo has a distinctive physical character and rich history that
are reflected in its many cultural resources, such as historic structures and sites. These
irreplaceable resources are important to the community's economic vitality, quality of life, and
sense of place, and need protection from deterioration, damage, and inappropriate alteration or
demolition.
2.The City of San Luis Obispo has been fortunate to have owners who care about
the history of their community and have undertaken the costly and time-consuming task of
restoring, maintaining and enhancing their historic homes and commercial buildings. Their
efforts have enhanced the distinctive character and sense of place of the community.
3.The California Environmental Quality Act requires special treatment of historic
resources and the establishment of clear local guidance for the identification and preservation of
such resources lends clarity and certainty to the review of development applications involving
historic resources. See Section 3 .1.4 of the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
CHC4-19
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 50
08582
ATTACHMENT 2
B.Purpose. The broad purpose of this ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and
welfare through the identification, protection, enhancement and preservation of those properties,
structures, sites, artifacts and other cultural resources that represent distinctive elements of San
Luis Obispo's cultural, educational, social, economic, political and architectural history.
Specifically, this ordinance sets forth regulations and procedures to:
1.Identify, protect, preserve, and promote the continuing use and upkeep of San Luis
Obispo' s historic structures, sites and districts.
2.Foster the retention and restoration of historic buildings and other cultural resources
that promote tourism, economic vitality, sense of place, and diversity.
3.Encourage private stewardship of historic buildings and other cultural resources
through incentives where possible.
4.Implement the historic preservation goals and policies of the Conservation and Open
Space Element of the General Plan.
5.Promote the conservation of valuable material and embodied energy in historic
structures through their continued use, restoration and repair, and on-going maintenance
of historic resources.
6.Promote the knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City's distinctive
character, cultural resources, and history.
7.Establish the procedures and significance criteria to be applied when evaluating
development project effects on historic resources.
8.Fulfill the City's responsibilities as a Certified Local Government under State and Federal
regulations and for Federal Section 106 reviews.
9.Establish the policy of the City to pursue all reasonable alternatives to achieve compliance
with the Ordinance for the protection of historic resources prior to initiating penalty proceedings
as set forth m Section 14.01.140 of this Ordinance.
14.01.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this ordinance, certain terms, words and their
derivatives are used as follows:
1.Accessory Structure: a structure which is subordinate or incidental and directly related to a
permitted use or structure on the same parcel. "Accessory structures" that include habitable
space, as defined by the California Building Code, shall be no larger than 450 square feet. (Ord.
941-l(part), 1982: prior code -9204.11 (part)) "Accessory structures" are located on the same
parcel and are related to the primary structure but are subordinate or incidental, but may include
2
CHC4-20
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 51
08583
ATTACHMENT 2
structures that have achieved historic significance in their own right, as determined by the
Director, Committee or Council. (see "primary structure").
2.Adjacent: located on property which abuts the subject property on at least one point of the
property line, on the same property, or located on property directly across right-of-way from
subject property and able to viewed concurrently.
3.Adverse Effects: effects, impacts or actions that are detrimental or potentially detrimental to a
historic resource's condition, architectural or historical integrity.
4.Alteration: change, repair, replacement, remodel, modification, or new construction to:
1)the exterior of an historic resource or adjacent building, (2) the structural elements which
support the exterior walls, roof, or exterior elements of the historic resource or adjacent
building, (3) other construction on a lot, or ( 4) character defining features of the interior of a
historic resource if the structure's significance is wholly or partially based on interior
features and the resource is publicly-accessible. "Alteration" does not include ordinary
landscape maintenance, unless the landscaping is identified as significant at the time a
property is listed. "Alteration" also does not include ordinary property maintenance or repair
that is exempt from a building permit, or is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.
5.Archaeological Site: those areas where archaeological resources are present and may be larger
or smaller than the project site. An archaeological site may include prehistoric Native American
archaeological site, Historic archaeological sites; sites or natural landscapes associated with
important human events; and Native American Sacred Places and Cultural landscapes.
6.ARC: the Architectural Review Commission as appointed by the City Council.
7.California Register: California Register of Historical Resources defined in California PRC
5024.1 and in CCR Title 14 Chap 11.5, Sec 4850 et seq. as it may be amended.
8.CHC: the Cultural Heritage Committee as appointed by the City Council.
9.Character Defining Features: as outlined in the U.S. Department of the Interior's National
Register Bulletin 15 and Preservation Brief 17: "How to Identify Character Defining Features",
the architectural character and general composition of a resource, including, but not limited to,
type and texture of building material; type, design, and character of all windows, doors, stairs,
porches, railings, molding and other appurtenant elements; and fenestration, ornamental
detailing, elements of craftsmanship, finishes, etc.
10.City: the City of San Luis Obispo.
11.Community Design Guidelines: the most recent version of the City's Community
Design Guidelines as adopted and amended from time to time.
3
CHC4-21
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 52
08584
ATTACHMENT 2
12.Contributing List Resource or Property: a designation that may be applied to 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. In some cases, buildings or other resources that are
less than 50 years old, but are nonetheless significant based on architecture, craftsmanship or
other criteria as described herein may be designated as a Contributing List resource.
13.Council: the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo.
14.Cultural Resource: any prehistoric or historic district, site, landscape, building, structure, or
object included in, or potentially eligible for local, State or National historic designation,
including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property or resource.
15.Demolition: for the purpose of this ordinance, "demolition" refers to any act or failure to act
that destroys, removes, or relocates, in whole or part a historical resource such that its historic or
architectural character and significance are materially altered.
16.Deterioration: the significant worsening of a structure's condition, architectural or historic
integrity, due to lack of maintenance, organisms, neglect, weathering and other natural forces.
17.Director: the Director of the Community Development Department, or another person
authorized by the Director to act on his or her behalf.
18.Feasible: capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period
of time, taking into account cultural, economic, environmental, historic, legal, social and
technological factors. Structural feasibility means that a building or other structure can be
repaired or rehabilitated so as to be safe and usable without significant loss of historic fabric.
Factors to be considered when making this determination include the existence of technology
that will allow the design of the work and the ability to repair, supplement or replace load-
bearing members and the thermal and moisture protection systems required for continued use of
the structure; and the physical capacity of the structure to withstand the repair and/or
rehabilitation process without the danger of further damage.
19.Historic Building Code: the most recent version of the California Historical Building Code,
Title 25, Part, 8, as defined in Sections 18950 to 18961 of Division 12, Part 2.7 of Health and
Safety Code (H&SC), a part of California State law.
20.Historic Context: Historic context are those patterns, themes or trends in history by
which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning and significance
is made clear.
21.Historic District/Historical Preservation District: 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
4
CHC4-22
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 53
08585
ATTACHMENT 2
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.
22.Historic Preservation Program Guidelines: the most recent version of the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, as adopted and amended from time to time.
23.Historic Preservation Report: a document which describes preservation, rehabilitation,
restoration, or reconstruction measures for a historic resource, based on the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, and which includes standards and
guidelines for recommended treatments for preservmg the resource.
24.Historic Property: a property, including land and buildings, which possesses aesthetic,
architectural, cultural, historic or scientific significance, and which is included in, or potentially
eligible forlocal, State or National historic designation.
25.Historic Resource: any building, site, improvement, area or object of aesthetic, architectural,
cultural, historic or scientific significance, and which is included in, or potentially eligible for
local, State or National historic designation.
26.Historic Status: historic designation of a listed resource or property as approved by Council.
27.Improvement: any building, structure, fence, gate, landscaping, hardscaping, wall, work of
art, or other object constituting a physical feature of real property or any part of such feature.
28.Inappropriate Alteration: alterations to historic resources which are inconsistent with these
provisions and/or the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
29.Integrity, Architectural or Historical: the ability of a property, structure, site, building,
improvement or natural feature to convey its identity and authenticity, including but not limited
to its original location, period(s) of construction, setting, scale, design, materials, detailing,
workmanship, uses and association.
30.Inventory of Historic Resources: the list of historically designated resources and properties
consisting of Master List and Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources, and any
properties, objects, sites, gardens, sacred places and resources subsequently added to the
inventory as determined to meet criteria outlined herein and approved by the City Council.
31.Listed Resource: properties and resources included in the Inventory of Historic Resources.
32.Massing: the spatial relationships, arrangement and organization of a building's physical
bulk or volume.
5
CHC4-23
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 54
08586
ATTACHMENT 2
33.Master List Resource: designation which may be applied to the most unique and important
historic properties and resources in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or
association with important persons or events in the City's past meeting criteria outlined herein.
34.Minor Alteration. Any structural or exterior change to a historic resource which the
Director determines to be consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines,
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties and other applicable
standards.
35.Modern Contributing Resources: designation which may be applied to properties and
resources which are less than 50 years old, but which exemplify or include significant works of
architecture or craftsmanship or are associated with a person or event significant to the City's
history.
36.National Register of Historic Places: the official inventory of districts, sites, buildings,
structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, engineering, archaeology
and culture which is maintained by the Secretary of the Interior under the authority of the
Historic Sites Act of 1935 and the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
37.Neglect: the lack of maintenance, repair or protection of a listed property, resource, site or
structure, which results in significant deterioration, as determined by the Director or City
Council based on visual and physical evidence.
38.Non-Contributing Resource: designation which may be applied to properties and resources
in historic districts which are typically less than 50 years old and do not support the prevailing
historic character of the district or other listing criteria as outlined herein.
39.Preservation: the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain a historic site,
building or other structure's historically significant existing form, integrity, and materials
through stabilization, repair and maintenance.
40.Property Owner: the person or entity (public or private) holding fee title interest or legal
custody and control of a property.
41.Primary Structure: the most important building or other structural feature on a parcel in
terms of size, scale, architectural or historical significance, as determined by the Committee.
42.Qualified Professional: an individual meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional
Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61 Appendix A) in history, architectural history, historic
architecture and other designated categories, or an individual determined by the CHC to have the
qualifications generally equivalent to the above standards based on demonstrated experience.
43.Reconstruction: the act or process of recreating the features, form and detailing of a non-
surviving building or portion of building, structure, object, landscape, or site for the purpose of
replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.
6
CHC4-24
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 55
08587
ATTACHMENT 2
44.Rehabilitation: 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 architectural, cultural, or historic values.
45.Relocation: removal of a resource from its original site and its re-establishment in essentially
the same form, appearance and architectural detailing at another location.
46.Responsible party: any person, business, corporation or entity, and the parent or legal
guardian of any person under the age of eighteen (18) years, who has committed, permitted,
directed or controlled any act constituting a violation of this ordinance.
47.Restoration 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.
48.Scale: the proportions of architectural design that relate to human size or other relative size
measure.
49.Secretary of the Interior's Standards: the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties as published by the U.S. Department of the Interior and as
amended from time to time.
50.Setting: the physical area, environment or neighborhood in which a resource is located.
51.Sensitive Site: a site determined by the Community Development Director, Planning
Commission, Architectural Review Commission or Council, upon recommendation of the
Cultural Heritage Committee, to have special characteristics, constraints or community value
such as: historic significance, historic context, creek side location or visual prominence,
requiring more detailed development review than would otherwise be required for other similarly
zoned lots.
52.Site: as used in this ordinance, the location of a significant event, a prehistoric or historic
occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where
the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value regardless of the value of
any existing structure.
53.Siting: the placement of structures and improvements on a property or site.
54.Stabilization: the act or process of applying measures designed to reestablish a weather
resistant enclosure and the structural stability of an unsafe or deteriorated property while
maintaining the essential form as it exists at present.
7
CHC4-25
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 56
08588
ATTACHMENT 2
55.Statement of Historic Significance: An explanation of why a resource is important within
its historic context. It explains how the resource meets the eligibility criteria and integrity
thresholds as established by local, state or federal government.
56.Structure: as used here, "structure" includes anything assembled or constructed on the
ground, or attached to anything with a foundation on the ground, including walls, fences,
buildings, signs, bridges, monuments, and similar features.
57.Survey: a systematic process for identifying and evaluating a community's historic resources
using established criteria. "Survey" may also refer to the documentation resulting from a survey
project.
58.Threatened Resource: properties or resources at risk of loss of architectural, cultural or
historic value due to physical alteration, relocation or demolition.
59.Zoning Code: Title 17 of the City's Municipal Code, as amended from time to time.
14.01.030 Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC).
A.Committee membership and terms.
The City shall have a Cultural Heritage Committee (the "CHC" or "Committee"), consisting of
seven members who shall be appointed by the City Council ("Council") for terms of up to four
years, which shall commence immediately upon appointment by the Council consistent with
Resolutions 6157 (1987 Series) and 6593 (1989 Series), and CHC Bylaws or as subsequently
amended. The CHC shall function within the guidelines and policies of the Advisory Body
Handbook and perform other duties as assigned by Council.
B.Duties.
The CHC shall make recommendations to decision-making bodies on the following:
1.Historic and Archaeological Resource Preservation Program guidelines that implement this
ordinance and provide guidance to persons planning development projects subject to Cultural
Heritage Committee review, and for City and property owner decisions regarding cultural
resources in San Luis Obispo. Once adopted by the City Council, a record copy of the guidelines
shall be maintained in the office of the City Clerk and in the Community Development
Department. Copies shall be available on the City's website and printed versions will be
available at cost.
2.Properties for inclusion on the City's List of Historic Resources -those properties, areas, sites,
buildings, structures or other features having significant historical, cultural, architectural,
community, scientific or aesthetic value to the citizens of San Luis Obispo.
8
CHC4-26
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 57
08589
ATTACHMENT 2
3.The Master and Contributing Properties Lists of Historic Resources, and Historic Property and
Archaeological Site Inventories.
4.Actions subject to discretionary City review and approval that may affect significant
archaeological, cultural or historic resources.
5.The application of architectural, historic, and cultural preservation standards and guidelines to
projects and approvals involving historic sites, districts, and structures.
6.Consolidation of information about cultural resources and promotion, part1c1pation in, or
sponsorship of educational and interpretive programs that foster public awareness and
appreciation of cultural resources.
7.Alterations related to development or demolition applications involving listed resources and
properties within historic preservation districts.
8.Incentive programs approved by the Council that are directed at preserving and maintaining
cultural resources.
9 Information for property owners preparing local, state and federal historic nominations to
utilize preservation incentives, including the Mills Act and federal tax incentives, such as
rehabilitation tax credits.
C.Actions Subject to Cultural Heritage Committee Review.
The Committee shall review and make recommendations to the Director, Architectural Review
Commission, Planning Commission or City Council on applications and development review
projects which include any of the following:
1.Changes to the Inventory of Historic Resources.
2.Changes to historic districts and applications to establish new historic districts.
3.Statements of historic significance and historic inventories for existing and proposed historic
districts.
4.New construction, additions or alterations located in historic districts, or on historically listed
properties, or sensitive archaeological sites.
5.Applications to demolish or relocate listed historic resources or structures.
6.Referrals to the Committee by the Community Development Director (" Director"),
Architectural Review Commission, Planning Commission, or Council.
9
CHC4-27
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 58
08590
ATTACHMENT 2
7.Proposed actions of public agencies that may affect historic or cultural resources within the
City.
14.01.040 Community Development Director Role
The CHC is assisted by staff of the Community Development Department. The Community
Development Director ("Director") is responsible for interpreting and implementing this
ordinance and helping the CHC carry out its duties. Notwithstanding Section 14.01.030C 1-5
and 7 of this ordinance, the Director may determine that CHC review is not required for actions
or projects that: 1) do not adversely affect historic resources, or 2) are consistent with this
ordinance, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines and no public purpose would be served by requiring CHC review.
14.01.050 Historic Resource Designation
The following classifications shall be used to designate historic resources and properties. The
primary categories of historic significance are "Master List" and "Contributing" properties.
Contributing properties include those properties that by virtue of their age, design and
appearance, contribute to and embody the historic character of the neighborhood or historic
district in which they are located.
A.Master List Resources. 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, which meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.070.
B.Contributing List Resources or Properties. 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.
In some cases, buildings or other resources that are less than 50 years old, but are nonetheless
significant based on architecture, craftsmanship or other criteria as described in Section
14.01.070 may be designated as a Contributing Resource.
C.Non-Contributing. Buildings, properties and other features in historic districts which are less
than 50 years old, have not retained their original architectural character, or which do not support
the prevailing historic character of the district.
14.01.055 Historic Gardens, Site Features, Signs, and Other Cultural
Resources
A.Historic Site and landscape features. Historic gardens, site features and improvements,
accessory structures, signs, Native American Sacred Places, cultural landscapes and areas or
objects of archaeological, architectural, cultural or historic significance not part of a designated
10
CHC4-28
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 59
08591
ATTACHMENT 2
property may be added to the Inventory of Historic Resources through CHC review and Council
approval as specified herein.
B.Cultural Resources on public property. Cultural and historic features on public property,
such as Bishop's Peak granite walls and curbing, sidewalk embossing, ornamental manhole
covers and hitching posts, may be added to the Inventory of Historic Resources through CHC
review and Council approval as specified herein.
C.Sign. A sign which contributes to the unique architectural or historic character of a
building, site or historic district may be designated as a historic sign. Signs that meet at least
one of the following criteria may be designated historic:
1 )The sign is exemplary of technology, craftsmanship or design of the period when it
was constructed, uses historic sign materials and means of illumination, and is not
significantly altered from its historic period. Historic sign materials shall include metal or
wood facings, or paint directly on the fa9ade of a building. Historic means of illumination
shall include incandescent light fixtures or neon tubing on the exterior of the sign. If the
sign has been altered, it must be restorable to its historic function and appearance.
2)The sign is well integrated with the site and/or architecture of the building.
3)A sign not meeting either criterion may be considered for inclusion in the inventory if
it demonstrates extraordinary aesthetic quality, creativity, or innovation.
14.01.060 Listing Procedures for Historic Resources
A.Application for historic listing. The property owner may request that a resource to be added
to the Master or Contributing List of Historic resources by submitting a completed application to
the Community Development Department ("Department"), accompanied by all available
information documenting the historic significance and architectural character of the resource.
The CHC, ARC, Planning Commission may also recommend, or City Council may directly
request, the addition of a resource to the Master or Contributing List of Historic Resources.
B.Review process. The CHC shall review all applications for historic listing, whether initiated
by the City or a property owner, to determine if a property proposed for listing meets eligibility
criteria for historic listing. The CHC will review the eligibility criteria for a proposed listing at a
noticed public hearing. The Director shall provide notification to the property owner and public,
as required by City standards. At the public hearing, or in no case more than 60 days from the
hearing date, the CHC shall forward a recommendation on the application to the City Council.
The City Council will take an action on the application to add or not add the resource to the
Master or Contributing List of Historic Resources. The decision of the City Council is final.
C.Removal from historic listing. It is the general intention of the City not to remove a property
from historic listing. Council may, however, rezone a property to remove Historic Overlay
11
CHC4-29
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 60
08592
ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning, or remove the property from historic listing if the structure on the property no longer
meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the process for listing set forth herein.
14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource,
the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office
SHPO") standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high
level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated
that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the
following criteria:
A.Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values.
1)Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details
within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building
style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a.The relative purity of a traditional style;
b.Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the
structure reflects a once popular style;
c.Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how
these styles are put together.
2)Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic
merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or
combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements.
Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately
interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a.Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and
craftsmanship ( even if not necessarily unique);
b.An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders,
although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior.
1) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for
the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a
reference to:
12
CHC4-30
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 61
08593
ATTACHMENT 2
a.A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made
significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced
development of the city, state or nation.
b.An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San
Luis Obispo ( e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at
810 Osos -Frank Avila's father's home -built between 1927 -30).
B.Historic Criteria
1)History-Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California,
or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which
a person or group was:
a.Significant to the community as a public leader ( e.g., mayor, congress member,
etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition -locally, regionally, or
nationally.
b.Significant to the community as a public servant or person_who made early, unique,
or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions
e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad
officials).
2)History -Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
i)A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city -regardless of whether
the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
ii)A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city ( e.g., the Ah
Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis
Obispo history).
3)History-Context: Associated with and also a pnme illustration of predominant
patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental,
military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure
of the degree to which it reflects:
a.Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic
effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building ( e.g.,
County Museum).
b.Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building ( e.g.,
Park Hotel).
13
CHC4-31
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 62
08594
ATTACHMENT 2
C.Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the
survival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Integrity
will be evaluated by a measure of:
1)Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the
original foundation has been changed, if known.
2)The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character
or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s)
for its significance.
3)The degree to which the resource has retained its desi gn, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association.
14.01.080 Historic District Designation, Purpose and Application
A.Historic (H) District designation. All properties within historic districts shall be desi gnated
by an "H" zoning. Properties zoned "H" shall be subject to the provisions and standards as
provided in Ordinance 17.54 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code.
B.Purposes of Historic Districts. The purposes of historic districts and H zone designation are
to:
1)Implement cultural resource preservation policies of the General Plan, the
preservation provisions of adopted area plans, the Historic Preservation and
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, and
2)Identify and preserve_definable, unified geographical entities that possess a significant
concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united
historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development;
3)Implement historic preservation provisions of adopted area and neighborhood
improvement plans;
4)Enhance and preserve the setting of historic resources so that surrounding land uses
and structures do not detract from the historic or architectural integrity of designated
historic resources and districts; and
5)Promote the public understanding and appreciation of historic resources.
C.Eligibility for incentives. Properties zoned as Historic Preservation (H) shall be eligible for
preservation incentive and benefit programs as established herein, in the Guidelines and other
local, state and federal programs.
14
CHC4-32
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 63
08595
ATTACHMENT 2
D.Where applied. The (H) designation may be applied to areas or neighborhoods with a
collection or concentration of listed historic properties or archaeologically significant sites, or
where historic properties help define an area or neighborhood's unique architectural and historic
character or sense of place.
E."H" district combined. A Historic Preservation Overlay District (H) may be combined with
any zoning district, and shall be shown by adding an "H" to the base zone designation. H district
boundaries shall be drawn to follow property lines or right-of-way lines, and as set forth in the
Zoning Regulations.
14.01.090 Process for Establishing or Amending Historic Districts:
A.Initiating or amending Historic Districts. Any person may initiate the process to establish
or alter the boundaries of a Historic Preservation District. The process can also be initiated by
the CHC, ARC, Planning Commission or City Council.
B.Application. An application to establish or alter the boundaries of a Historic Preservation
District shall be submitted to the Department. The application shall meet the requirements for
rezoning as described in the Zoning Regulations. The application and supporting information
and plans shall be submitted to the Department and shall include:
1)A map (8-1/2" x 11 ") from the official zoning map, with the area to be changed
shaded or outlined in a heavy, black line, with the proposed area to be changed
clearly labeled, and
2)Information showing how the application meets the criteria to establish or alter a
historic district designation.
3)A Statement of historic significance. A statement of historic significance shall be
prepared by a qualified professional, as listed in the City's List of Qualified Historians. The
Director may waive the requirement that the statement be prepared by a qualified
professional if the applicant provides adequate information to enable informed review of the
proposed district.
C.Contents. Statements of Historic Significance shall include, but not be limited to the
following;
1)A visual and written description of the district's boundaries.
2)A description of the district's architectural, historic, and cultural resources, character
and significance, including a historic survey documenting the period of significance and
how historic properties meet adopted local, state and where applicable, federal criteria for
historic listing.
3)Preservation goals and concerns for the district including but not limited to;
15
CHC4-33
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 64
08596
ATTACHMENT 2
q Identification of preservation priorities, important features, goals and objectives,
and
b.Identification of potential obstacles to preservation, and
c.Identification of historic land use policies and goals for future land use, and
d.Special considerations for development review of projects both involving and not
involving historic resources.
4)Graphic and written design guidelines applicable to the district's preservation goals,
historic character and features which shall include, but not be limited to:
a)Guidelines for projects involving historic resources, focused on preserving the
district's character and significant archeological, architectural, and historic features;
and
b)Guidelines for projects within the district but not involving historically designated
properties, focused on maintaining street character and compatibility with the
district's historic character while not necessarily mimicking historic styles.
D.Review. The CHC shall review the application and make a recommendation to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission shall review the CHC recommendation and rezoning
application and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council shall review the
application and the recommendations of the CHC and Planning Commission, and approve or
disapprove the application. The CHC, Planning Commission and the City Council shall each
conduct a public hearing on the application and the notice of such hearings shall be completed as
provided in the City's Notification Procedures.
E. Review criteria. When considering a Historic Preservation District application, the
reviewing body shall consider the both of the following criteria:
1)Environmental Design Continuity: The inter-relationship of structures and their
relationship to a common environment; The continuity, spatial relationship, and visual
character of a street, neighborhood, or area. Environmental design continuity is
comprised of:
a.Symbolic importance to the community of a key structure in the area_and the
degree to which it serves as a conspicuous and pivotal landmark ( e.g., easily
accessible to the public, helps to establish a sense of time and place); or
b.Compatibility of structures with neighboring structures in their setting on the basis of
period, style (form, height, roof lines), design elements, landscapes, and natural features;
and how these combine together to create an integral cultural, historic, or stylistic setting;
or
16
CHC4-34
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 65
08597
ATTACHMENT 2
c.Similarity to and/or compatibility of structures over 50 years of age which,
collectively, combine to form a geographically definable area with its own distinctive
character.
2)Whether the proposed district contains structures which meet criteria for inclusion on
the City's List of Historic Resources.
14.01.100 Demolition of Historic Resources
A.Intent. Listed historic resources are an irreplaceable community resource that merit
special protection to preserve them for future generations, and shall not be demolished unless
the City Council makes all of the findings specified in Section 14.01.100 D, provided
however, that these thresholds shall not apply to repairs to listed historic resources that do not
require a building permit, or where the CHC or the Director has determined such work is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties and with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
B.Demolition review. The CHC shall review and make recommendation to the City Council
concerning demolition applications for structures listed in the Inventory of Historic resources.
C.Demolition thresholds. Demolition permits for structures which are included on the
Inventory of Historic resources shall be required for:
1)Alterations to or removal of greater than 25% of the original building framework, roof
structure, and exterior walls; and
2)Relocation of such resources to a site outside the city limits.
D.Required findings for demolition of a historic resource. The decision-making body shall
approve an application for demolition of a structure listed in the Inventory of Historic Resources
only if it determines that the proposed demolition is consistent with the General Plan and:
1)The historic resource is a hazard to public health or safety, and repair or stabilization is not
structurally feasible. Deterioration resulting from the property owner's neglect or failure to
maintain the property should not be a justification for demolition. The applicant may be required
to provide structural reports, to the approval of the Community Development Director or City
Council, to document that repairs or stabilization are not feasible; or
2)Denial of the application will constitute an economic hardship as described under findings 1-
3 of Section J.
E.Demolition timing. , City regulations provide for a 90-day waiting period before demolition
of a listed historic resource to allow consideration of alternatives to preserve the building through
relocation and/or property trades. The Chief Building Official shall not issue a permit for
17
CHC4-35
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 66
08598
ATTACHMENT 2
demolishing a historic resource, except where the Chief Building Official determines a listed
historic resource may pose an imminent demonstrable threat to human life and safety, until:
1)public notice requirements in the City's Demolition and Building Relocation Code have been
met; and
2)) a construction permit is issued for a replacement building; and
3)all permit fees for the new development are paid. Where no new development is proposed,
the property owner shall provide to the Director's satisfaction, financial guarantees to ensure
demolition plans and conditions of approval are implemented.
F.Historic and architectural documentation. Before the issuance of a demolition permit for
structures listed in the Inventory of Historic Resources, the resource and its site shall be
documented as specified in City standards, to the satisfaction of the CHC and the Director. The
documentation shall be retained in a secure, but publicly accessible, location.
G.Historic acknowledgement. An acknowledgment of demolished resources shall be provided
through historic signage and/or the reuse or display of historic materials and artifacts on site, at
the owner's expense, to the Director's approval.
H.Code requirements. Demolitions shall follow standards and procedures in the Demolition
and Building Relocation Code and California Building Code as locally amended.
I.Expiration of demolition approval. Demolition approval of a listed historic resource shall
expire two years after its date of approval, unless a building permit has been issued and
construction has begun. A one year extension may be granted by the Director. Additional time
extensions shall require reapplication to, and approval by the CHC.
J.Economic Hardship. An economic hardship provision is established to ensure that denial of
a demolition permit does not impose undue hardship on the owner of a historical resource. If the
applicant presents evidence clearly demonstrating to the satisfaction of the CHC or the City
Council that the action will cause an extreme hardship, the CHC may recommend approval, and
the Council may approve or conditionally approve a demolition or other application to modify a
listed historic resource even though it does not meet one or more standards set forth herein. The
applicant shall be responsible for providing substantiation of the claim to the Director, who shall
review the information with the Director of Finance and make a joint recommendation to the
CHC on the hardship request. The CHC shall consider and make a recommendation to the
Council regarding the financial impacts of denial of the demolition permit. Private financial
information shall be maintained in confidence by the City. The CHC is authorized to request
that the applicant furnish information, documentation and/or expert testimony, the cost of which
shall be paid by the applicant, to be considered by the Committee in its related findings. All
additional required information shall be provided by a qualified individual or firm approved by
the Director. In determining whether extreme hardship exists, the Committee and Council shall
consider evidence that demonstrates:
18
CHC4-36
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 67
08599
ATTACHMENT 2
1 )Denial of the application will diminish the value of the subject property so as to leave
substantially no economic value, after considering other means of offsetting the costs of retaining
the historic resource, including, but not limited to, tax abatements, financial assistance, building
code modifications, changes in allowed uses, grants,; or
2)Sale or rental of the property is impractical, when compared to the cost of holding such
property for uses permitted in the zoning district; or
3)Utilization of the property for lawful purposes is prohibited or impractical;
14.01.110 Relocation of Historic Resources.
Relocation has the potential to adversely affect the significance of a historic resource and is
discouraged. Relocation applications shall be evaluated as follows:
A.Review. The CHC and ARCH shall review applications to relocate structures listed on the
Inventory of Historic Resources.
B.Criteria for relocation. Relocation of structures included on the Inventory of Historic
Resources, or those that are determined by the CHC or the Director to be potentially
historic, is the least preferred preservation method and shall be permitted only when
relocation is consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan, any applicable area or
specific plans, and the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and:
1)The relocation will not significantly change, destroy, or adversely affect the
historic, architectural or aesthetic value of the resource; and
2)Relocation will not have a significant adverse effect on the character of the
historic district or neighborhood, or surrounding properties where the resource 1s
located or at its proposed location, and
3)The original site and the proposed receiving site are controlled through ownership
long term lease or similar assurance by the person(s) proposing relocation, to the
Director's approval, and
4)The proposed receiving site is relevant to the resource's historic significance; and
moved to 2 above]; OR
5)The relocation is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition on the site
and no other measures for correcting the condition are feasible, OR
6)The proposed relocation meets the findings required under Section J for
demolition of a historic resource.
19
CHC4-37
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 68
08600
ATTACHMENT 2
C.Relocation timing. The historic resource shall not be relocated unless the Chief Building
Official issues a permit for relocation and all permit or impact fees for new development are
paid; or where no new development is proposed, an appropriate security is posted to guarantee
that relocation plans are implemented, to the Director's approval.
D.Historical and architectural documentation. Prior to issuance of a construction permit for
relocation, the resource and its site shall be historically documented as specified herein, to the
satisfaction of the CHC and the Director. An acknowledgment of the resource, such as a
permanent, weatherproof historic plaque shall be incorporated on the resource's original site as
provided by the applicant or property owner, subject to the approval of the CHC.
E.Relocation plan and procedures. Relocations shall follow a plan approved by the CHC or
the Director, standards and procedures in the Demolition and Building Relocation Code, the
California Building Code, and the following:
1)Application for relocation shall be made on forms provided by the Department and
shall include information to respond to the criteria in subsection B of this Section.
2)The CHC shall hold a noticed public hearing and recommend action to the ARC or
City Council on the application for relocation of a historic resource, and the ARC or
Council shall consider the CHC's recommendation in making the final determination
to approve or deny the permit.
3)The ARC or the City Council will not grant an approval for the relocation of a
listed historic resource unless the criteria for relocation under subsection B of
this Section can be met.
14.01.120 Unpermitted Demolition or Destruction of Resources
A.Preservation of listed historic resources. The purpose of this Section is to prevent
unpermitted active demolition or demolition by neglect by ensuring that listed historic resources
are maintained in good repair, and free from structural defects and safety hazards, consistent with
the International Property Maintenance Code, Property Maintenance Standards (SLO MC Ch.
17.17), and standards as specified herein. Alteration or demolition in whole or part, of any
significant features or characteristics of a listed historic property or resource requires City
authorization, pursuant to Section 14.01.100.
B.Enhanced Penalties for Unpermitted Demolition. In addition to penalties otherwise
provided for violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and this Chapter, the City
Council, following notice and a public hearing, may impose the following enhanced penalties for
unpermitted demolition of a listed resource, as defined herein, where a property owner has
willfully demolished, or directed, or allowed the demolition of a listed resource, or where the
property owner has failed to comply with notices to correct violations of this Code, such that the
continuance of such violations may result in the unpermitted demolition of the listed historic
resource ( either active or by neglect):
20
CHC4-38
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 69
08601
ATTACHMENT 2
1)Restoration: The owner may be required to restore the property or structure to its
appearance pnor to the violation to the satisfaction of the Director.
2)Building permit restriction. City may prohibit the owner(s), successors, or assigns
from obtaining a building permit for development of the subject property for a period of
up to five (5) years from the date of violation, unless such permit(s) is for the purpose of
complying with provisions of this ordinance. In cases where this penalty is imposed, the
City shall:
a.Initiate proceedings to place a deed restriction on the property to ensure
enforcement of this restriction.
b.Require the property owner to maintain the property during the period of
development restriction in conformance with standards set forth in this ordinance.
c.Initiate action to remove any such deed restriction within ten (10) days of
correction or compliance. Subsequent development applications shall be subject
to CEQA review and conditions of development shall address the demolition of
the historic resource.
3)Loss of preservation benefits. Any historic preservation benefits previously
granted to the affected property may be subject to revocation.
4)Other remedies. These enhanced penalties are non-exclusive, in addition to and not
in lieu of, penalties otherwise provided for violations of the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code and this Chapter, including, but not limited to, administrative citations, criminal
prosecution, civil fines, and public nuisance proceedings.
14.01.130 Historic and cultural resource preservation fund established.
The Historic and Cultural Resource Preservation Fund (" Fund") is hereby established to
provide for the conservation, preservation, restoration and rehabilitation of historic and
cultural resources in the City of San Luis Obispo. The Council shall provide the policy
direction for funding and expenditures from the Fund.
A.Program Administration. The Director shall administer the Fund, following
specific procedures and funding priorities adopted by the Council.
B.Purpose. The purpose of the Fund is to provide funds for historic preservation
projects within the City. All funds deposited in the Fund shall be used for the
conservation, preservation, restoration and rehabilitation of historic or cultural
resources, as provided in this section and as directed by the Council
1.Financial Administration. Financial administration of the Fund shall be by the
City Finance Director or designee, in accordance with State and local law.
21
CHC4-39
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 70
08602
ATTACHMENT 2
Any interest earned on the fund shall accrue to the funds, unless Council
specifically designates such funds for another purpose.
2.Grants, Gifts and Donations. The Finance Director shall deposit into the fund
any grants, gifts, donations, rents, royalties, or other financial support
earmarked by Council for historic or cultural resource preservation.
C.Cultural Heritage Committee Role. The Committee shall advise the Council on
the Fund regarding:
1.Criteria for use and award of funds;
2.Entering into any contract, lease, agreement, etc. for use of funds;
3.Any other action or activity necessary or appropriate to achieve the Fund
purposes and the intent of this ordinance.
D.Uses of Fund. The Fund may be used for: 1) the identification and protection of
cultural resources, including preparation of historic surveys and design guidelines,
2)for the repair, restoration, rehabilitation, preservation and maintenance of
historical buildings, features, or archaeological sites, 3) for public education on
cultural resources, 4) for real property acquisition if there is a willing property
owner, including lease, purchase, sale, exchange or other forms of real property
transfer or acquisition to protect significant historic resources, or 5) any other
historic preservation related purpose approved by the Council. Council decisions on
the use of funds are final.
E.Loans and Grants. The Fund may be used, upon Council approval and
recommendation by the Committee, for loans and grants to public agencies,
nonprofit organizations and private entities to carry out the purposes of this
ordinance.
F.Preservation Agreements. Loans, grants or other financial assistance shall require
execution of an agreement between the City and the recipient to ensure that such
award or assistance carries out the purposes of this ordinance and is consistent with
applicable State and local standards.
G.Funding Eligibility: The Fund shall be used to benefit properties on the Master or
Contributing Properties List, or for other properties or uses deemed eligible by the
Council upon recommendation by the Committee.
14.01.140 Enforcement.
A.The Director, Chief Building Official and City Attorney and their designees are hereby
authorized to enforce the provisions of this ordinance.
22
CHC4-40
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 71
08603
ATTACHMENT 2
B.Time to correct. Prior to assessment of any penalty or initiation of any prosecution for any
violation of this Chapter, the Director shall provide written notice of non-compliance to property
owners. Notice shall be by certified and regular mail. Following mailing of notice, property
owner shall have 60 days to correct the violation or to inform the City why an extension is
warranted. Additional time to correct the violation may be allowed where the property owner is
exercising due diligence in acting to correct noticed violations. The Director shall have the
authority to place reasonable conditions on such an extension. Notwithstanding these provisions,
if the Director or the Chief Building Official determines there is an imminent threat to a listed
historic or cultural resource, the Director shall notify the property owner of the imminent threat
and property owner shall be required to provide urgent measures deemed reasonable and
necessary to protect the public health and safety and for the protection of the resource within 72
hours of notification.
C.Work stoppage. In addition to any other fines, penalties or enforcement provisions set forth
in this ordinance, failure to comply with an approved application shall constitute grounds for
immediate stoppage of the work involved in the noncompliance until the matter is resolved.
D.Violation -Penalty. Every property owner and/or responsible party, as defined in this
chapter who violates provisions of this chapter is subject to penalty as set forth in chapter 1.12 or
administrative enforcement as set forth under chapter 1.24 of the Municipal Code.
14.01.150 Appeals
Decisions of any city official or body under the provisions of this chapter are appealable in
accordance with the provisions of Ordinance 1.20 of the Municipal Code, except that fees for
appeals under this Chapter by the property owner concerning the Master or Contributing list
property in which said owner is residing at the time of appeal, shall be waived.
14.01.160 Severability.
Should any section or other portion of this ordinance be determined unlawful or unenforceable
by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining section(s) and portion(s) of this ordinance
shall be considered severable and shall remain in full force and effect.
23
CHC4-41
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 72
08604
ATTACHMENT 3
Attachment 3. Federal and State Criteria Evaluation
FEDERAL AND STATE CRITERIA EXPLANATION 1
Federal Criterion A (Event): Property is Meets Criteria A/ (1)
associated with events that have made a significant Historical evidence was found that would supportcontributiontothebroadpatternsofourhistory.
1--------------''-----------"----i the determination that the property was associated
State Criterion (1) (Association with Events): with events that made a significant contribution to
Property is associated with events that have made the broad patterns of local or regional history, the
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of development of San Luis Obispo County and the
local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of dairy industry.
California or the United States. The Froom Ranch, is one of the oldest dairy
properties in the history of San Luis Obispo
County. The Froom family was a p10neenng
ranching family and was part of the overall
development of the important dairy industry in the
San Luis Obispo area.
Federal Criterion B (Person): Property 1s Meets Criteria BI (2)
associated with the lives of persons significant in Historical evidence was found that would support
our past. the determination that the property was associated
State Criterion (2) (Association with Persons):
Property is associated with the lives of persons
important to local, California or National History.
Federal Criterion C (Design/Construction):
Properties that 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.
State Criterion (3) (Design/Construction):
Property 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.
with the lives of persons important to local history.
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.
Meets Criteria C I (3)
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 exterior of the Main Residence remains
similar to 1915 appearance, and possesses
character defining features.-
The Dairy Barn is a Vernacular-style
structure. The barn is unusual, the only one
in the County with a rounded front.-
The Creamery/House structure is a local
Vernacular-style building with a history
indicative of the local area. 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 tum of the 20th century.
CHC4-42
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 73
08605
ATTACHMENT 3
FEDERAL AND STATE CRITERIA EXPLANATION 1
Federal Criterion D (Information Potential): Does Not Meet Criteria DI (4}
Properties have yielded or are likely to yield These criteria are not applicable within the area
information important in prehistory or history. This of the Froom Ranch Historic complex.
criterion is intended to address archaeological
resources.
State Criterion (4) (Archaeology): Property has
yielded or has the potential to yield information
important to the prehistory or history of the local
area, California or the nation.
CHC4-43
ATTACHMENT1Item2
Packet Page 74
08606
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Minutes
Monday, November 18, 2019
Special Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Monday, November 18, 2019 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Haydu.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Shannon Larrabee, Glen Matteson, James Papp, Eva Ulz,
Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Damon Haydu
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Deputy City Clerk
Megan Wilbanks
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
End of Public Comment--
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1.12165 and 12393 Los Osos Valley Road. Review of the Cultural and Tribal Cultural
Resources evaluation in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan during the 45-day public review period (State Clearinghouse No.
2017071033). Project Address: 12165 and 12393 Los Osos Valley Road; Case#: SPEC 0143-
2017 I GENP 0737-2019 I EID 0738-2019; General Plan (Land Use Element) designated:
Specific Plan Area SP-3 (Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road Specific Plan); JM Development
Group, Inc., applicant.
Senior Planner Shawna Scott and Emily Creel, contract planner, presented the staff report and
responded to Committee inquiries.
Applicant representatives, Victor Montgomery, Robert Chattel and Pam Ricci with RRM
Design Group, provided a presentation and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Minutes -Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of December 18, 2019 Page 1
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 75
08607
Public Comment
None
End ofPublic Comment--
ACTION: COMMITTEE MEMBERS PROVIDED THE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EIR:
FOLLOWING
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.
Clarify the determination whether it's a historical district or individual historical resources
Request that the landscaping include plants that are native to the area
Clear graphic showing the set-back from the fault line
Develop an interpretive plan to describe the history of the complex rather than simply
handing out brochures
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. The next rescheduled Regular Cultural Heritage
Committee meeting is scheduled for Monday, December 16, 2019 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council
Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: 01/ 27 /2020
Minutes -Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of October 28, 2019 Page 2
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 76
08608
CITY OF
SHU LUIS OBISPO
Meeting Date: November 18, 2019
Item Number: 1
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Discussion of the Cultural Resources evaluation in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the Froom Ranch Specific Plan project.
ADDRESS: 12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd. BY:Emily Creel, Contract Planner
Phone Number: (805) 543-7095 x6814
e-mail: ecreel@swca.com
VIA: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
e-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: SPEC-0143-2017 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
Provide comments to staff on any additional analysis or information needed to adequately evaluate
cultural resource impacts in the EIR for the proposed project.
Applicant
Representatives
Proposed
Zoning/General
Plan
Site Area
Environmental
Status
John Madonna
Pam Ricci and Victor Montgomery,
RRM Design Group
SP-3 Madonna on LOVR, would
require pre-zoning for Specific Plan.
Proposes Medium-High Density
Residential, High Density Residential,
Commercial Retail,
Conservation/Open Space, and Public
Facilities
Approximately 110 acres
A Draft EIR is now under public
review. The public review period will
extend through December 23, 2019.
2.0 SUMMARY/BACKGROUND
On April 5, 2016, the City Council authorized initiation of the Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road
LOVR) Specific Plan (currently referred to as the Froom Ranch Specific Plan). 1 The project
includes a Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, and related actions that would allow for
development of approximatley 50 acres of the 109.7-acre Froom Ranch Specific Plan area.
Amendments to the General Plan would include a change in the land uses to include a senior
residential community (Villaggio) and to allow development above 150 feet in elevation, since
hillside development is regulated by several General Plan policies and programs, including Policy
I Froom Ranch Specific Plan available online: https://www.slocity.org/govemment/department-directory/community-
development/planning-zoning/specific-area-plans/froom-ranch
Packet Page 1
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 77
08609
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 2
6.4.7(H), which specifies that no building sites should be allowed above the 150-foot elevation
line in the Irish Hills area. As part of its initiation of the Specific Plan, the City Council required
that the project applicant also develop a feasible "actionable alternative" that located all
development below the 150-foot elevation. Both the proposed project and the actionable
alternative are evaluted in the Draft EIR; the actionable alternative is discussed under Section 8.0,
Alternatives Analysis, below.
Following initiation by the City Council and prior to submittal of the Specific Plan, the applicant
presented preliminary park concepts to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) on August 3,
2016 and the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on September 26, 2016. At the time of
conceptual review in 2016, the applicant had identified an adjacent 7.4-acre parcel located behind
west of) Home Depot within the City limits as the potential site for a park, which was conceptually
proposed as a receiver site for two relocated historic structures (the main residence and bunkhouse)
and other interpretive elements. During CHC's previous conceptual review, the dairy (round-nose)
barn was identified as a vital component of historical value and options for replication and adaptive
re-use of the dairy barn were discussed. Committee members considered the initially proposed
relocation to be incongruous in proximity to Home Depot and noted concerns that "any relocation
will destroy the historic narrative". The CHC made a motion "indicating CHC is in favor of the
preservation of structures intact and in situ, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and Secretary of Interior's Standards, and toward maintaining the historic narrative
and meaning of the complex".
Based on preliminary feedback received from the CHC during the September 26, 2016 pre-
application review, the applicant incorporated the public park into the 110-acre Specific Plan area
and developed a preliminary plan for reconstruction and reuse of certain "key" historic structures
within the park (refer to Figure 3, Comparative Conceptual Relocation of Dairy Barn,
Creamery/House, Main Residence, and Granary). The actionable alternative assumes a similar
relocation and reuse of these four buildings at public park located to the west, adjacent to the Irish
Hills Natural Reserve. The revised preliminary plan for reconstruction and reuse of key historic
structures was again presented to the CHC for conceptual review on August 28, 2017. The CHC
was generally supportive of the proposal moving through the environmental review process but
noted that there was general discomfort with making a commitment prior to completion of the EIR
Attachment 1, CHC Meeting Minutes August 28, 2017).
Packet Page 2
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 78
08610
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 3
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan
proposes a mix of land uses,
including a Life Plan
Community with 404 units of
independent and assisted senior
housing known as Villaggio,
approximately 130 multi-
family residential units, 30,000
square feet of retail-
commercial uses, a 70,000-
square foot hotel, open space
54% of the project site), and a
neighborhood trailhead park
see Figure 1 Conceptual Land
Use Plan).
Both the proposed project and
the actionable alternative
propose to reconstruct,
relocate, and reuse four historic
structures within the Froom
Ranch Dairy complex to a new
public park, including the main
residence, creamery/house,
dairy (round-nose) barn, and
granary. The location of the
public park under the proposed
LIFE PLAN
COMMUNITY
LEGEND
project is shown in Figure 1; the ... _.,_ Property B-Ounclary
Home
Depot
Proposed
Drainage
Basin--+
r-1;;,:-1c!'rl:.llr
location Of the public park """'"'"" Boundary between Project Components
under the actionable alternative Figure 1. Conceptual Land UsePlanwouldbelocatedtothewestof
this location adjacent to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve (refer to Figure 5-1 of the Draft EIR).
The Draft EIR includes evaluation of Cultural Resources affected by the proposed project,
including the Froom Ranch Dairy complex. The Draft EIR has been referred to the Cultural
Heritage Committee in order to receive focused comments on Cultural Resources analysis which
can be incorporated into the Final EIR and included with the discussion when the Planning
Commission and City Council consider certification of the Final EIR and project approval.
Relevant sections of the EIR, including the Cultural Resources section and supporting technical
reports are available on the City's website: https://www.slocity.org/govemment/department-
directory/ community-development/ documents-online/ environmental-review-documents/-folder-
2018
Packet Page 3
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 79
08611
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 4
3.0 CHC PURVIEW
The CHC' s role is to review the Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR and provide any
feedback regarding the adequacy of the cultural resources evaluation and additional needed
information or modifications or issues which should be addressed in mitigation measures.
Direct link to Draft EIR Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources section:
https ://www.slocity.org/Home/Show Document?i d=24494
Direct link to Draft EIR Appendix F (Historic and Cultural Resources Studies):
https://www .slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=24515
Staff will be available to clarify information contained in the Draft EIR, or to respond to
straightforward questions, but comments related to technical analysis are more appropriately
responded to in the Final EIR, once staffand the EIR consultant are able to accurately perform any
needed technical review or evaluation. Response in the Final EIR also provides fulldisclosure for
all interested parties instead of the information only being provided to members of the public in
attendance at the meeting. All comments received in this CHC review will be responded to and
included in the Final EIR. The public comment period for the EIR closes on December 23, 2019.
4.0 SITE INFORMATION
The project site consists of two parcels
totaling approximately 109.7 acres (APNs
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.
Highway 101 and the Irish Hills Plaza. These
parcels are identified forfuture annexation in
the Land Use Element (LUE) as the
Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR)
Specific Plan Area (SP-3).
Dominant features at the site include the
Froom Ranch Dairy complex, stormwater
basins, John Madonna Construction office
within the dairy complex), staging and
materials storage, quarry area, wetlands
adjacent to Calle Joaquin, grasslands, and
Froom Creek and associated tributaries.
Surrounding uses include Irish Hills Plaza
including the Costco/Home Depot shopping
center) to the north, Los Osos Valley Road
and auto dealerships to the east, hotels along Figure 2. Location of Froom Ranch Historic Complex
Calle Joaquin and Mountainbrook Church to
the south, and the Irish Hills Natural Reserve and associated trails and open space to the west.
Packet Page 4
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 80
08612
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 5
5.0 GENERAL PLAN GUIDANCE
The Froom Ranch Specific Plan area was one of three Specific Plan areas designated for
development in the General Plan Land Use (LUE) and Circulation Elements update (adopted by
the City Council in December 2014). The project is intended to be predominantly consistent with
policy direction for the area included in the General Plan by providing a mixed use project that
provides workforce housing options and preserves at least 50% of the site as open space. However,
the applicant has requested modifications to the range of land uses currently designated in the LUE
for the Specific Plan area, including the proposed Villaggio life plan community and a requested
modification to allow some development above the 150-foot elevation, subject to certain
performance standards.
6.0 HISTORICAL CONTEXT
6.1 Prehistoric Context and Onsite Resources
As described in the Draft EIR, the project site was historically occupied by the Obispefio
Chumash. Obispefio Chumash northern neighbors were the Southern (Miguelifio) Salinan, also
known as Te'po'ta'ahl. The Obispefio Chumash and the Miguelifio Salinan tribes subsisted
within several ecological settings, including coastal resources, oak studded valleys, foothill
areas, and extensive grasslands.
Previous investigations conducted within the project site, and additional investigations
conducted during preparation of the Draft EIR, resulted in the recordation of two prehistoric
sites and two historic-period sites (including the Froom Ranch Dairy complex described
below).
Table 1. Cultural Resources Recorded within the Project Site
Resource Age Date DescriptionNumberRecorded
P-40-000783 Prehistoric 1987 Bedrock mortars
P-40-001195 Prehistoric 1987 Stone tool manufacturing flakes, shellfish and
animal bone fragment scatter, hearths/pits
P-40-040991 Historic-1998 Froom Ranch Dairy complexperiod
P-40-001780 Historic-1996 Building foundations/structure pads,
period privies/dumps/trash scatters
Additional isolate artifacts, including a cluster of three isolates that the EIR determined could
constitute an additional site, were also identified within the project area. This potential new
site has not been further evaluated or recorded because no project-related disturbances are
proposed within 100 feet of the site. For purposes of the EIR analysis, the site was potentially
significant. The City consulted with Native American tribes as required by Assembly Bill (AB)
52.No specific tribal cultural resources were identified beyond those identified above.
Packet Page 5
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 81
08613
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 6
6.2 Historical Context and Onsite Resources
The Project site is historically associated with theFroom family, which operated a dairy onsite
beginning in 1890. By 1905, the ranch consisted of approximately 413 acres. Supported by the
cattle and creamery, theFroom family lived within the structure attached to the creamery until
approximately 1915, when the modem craftsman-style residence within the northwestern
portion of the property was built. The Froom family operated the dairy for several decades
until the Madonna family purchased the site in 1976. Dairy operations ceased in 1977 and the
Madonna family raised beef cattle on the site for several years after that date, eventually using
the site primarily as an office and equipment storage area, as well as operating a small onsite
quarry.
The Froom Ranch Dairy complex (P-40-040991) has been identified as a historic resource.
The complex is located in the northern portion of the project site, south/southeast of Home
Depot (refer to Figure 2, Location ofFroom Ranch Complex). The following seven structures
have been identified as contributing to the historic significance of the complex: main residence,
old" barn, bunkhouse, dairy barn, creamery/house, granary, and shed. Non-contributing
structures within the complex include a repurposed kiosk/outhouse, storage building, and faux
water tower (telecommunications facility). Additional information about each of the existing
structures within the Froom Ranch Dairy complex is available in the Draft EIR and Cultural
Resources Appendix F, on the City's website (see links above).
7.0 EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION
7.1 Froom Ranch Dairy Complex -Federal, State, and Local Criteria
Based on the EIR consultant's peer review of existing documentation and prior records
associated with the project site, additional technical reporting, and analysis conducted to
support the Draft EIR, the complex is eligible for consideration as a local historic resource,
meets California Register criteria as a historic resource, and meets National Register criteria
for a historic district 2. The complex is an excellent example of early 20th century ranching and
dairy industry development in San Luis Obispo County, is associated with the pioneering
Froom family including Bill Froom and his local contributions, and the contributing structures
represent predominant Craftsman and Vernacular styles of the early 20th century. For
additional eligibility information, refer to the Cultural Resources section of the Draft EIR and
non-confidential supporting technical studies (Appendix F of the Draft EIR), available on the
City's website (see link above).
7.2 Current Conceptual Proposal for Froom Ranch Historic Complex
The project would relocate and/or reconstruct four key contributing historic structures roughly
100 feet east of their current locations. Based on earthquake fault mapping and a Subsurface
2 A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united
historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district can comprise 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 its
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 (National Park Service 1997).
Packet Page 6
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 82
08614
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 7
Fault Investigation and Development Setback Map prepared for the project, a portion of the
dairy barn is currently located directly on top of the Los Osos earthquake fault and, therefore,
per building code requirements, could not be utilized for habitable purposes (structures
occupied more than 2,000 hours per year) if left in its current location. The project would
relocate this structure to a new location outside of the identified setback of the fault line so that
it could be reconstructed and used for habitable (public park) purposes. In addition, the main
residence, creamery, and granary structures would be similarly relocated eastward and
reconstructed on graded terrain to maintain the historic configuration and proportional
relationship of the buildings to one another (refer to Table 2 and Figure 3).
Table 2. Froom Ranch Historic Complex Conceptual Approach
STRUCTURE YEAR APPLICANT PROPOSED CONCEPTBUILT
Relocate and rehabilitate as building for City Parks and
Recreation:
Main residence 1915 •Structurally reinforce roof and walls;•
Provide new foundation; and•
Install utilities to building .
Unknown,
Old" barn est. 125 Remove and document per SOI standards.
years old
Bunkhouse 1915 Remove and document per SOI standards.
Round-nose 1913 Relocate out of fault setback and reconstruct consistent with SOI
dairy barn standards for adaptive reuse in public park.
Unknown, Relocate and reconstruct western portion of building as public
Creamery/house est. prior to park restrooms; repurpose eastern portion for use as a covered area
1900 for picnics and events.
Granary 1913 Relocate and reconstruct in public park
Shed 1913 Remove and document per SOI standards.
Outhouse 2000 Remove.
Storage 2010 Remove. building
Faux water 2013 Retain in place. tower
The four buildings to be retained would each be relocated to maintain their same relative
horizontal spacing with the goal of maintaining the visual hierarchy of the buildings. Grade
changes would be created between the structures with the goal to approximate their existing
vertical relationship, though vertical separation from the existing configuration would be
reduced by approximately 50%. The main residence is proposed to be relocated and
rehabilitated per SOI rehabilitation standards. The dairy barn is proposed to be reconstructed
to SOI standards and adaptively reused. The building would not be fully sealed and would have
Packet Page 7
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 83
08615
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 8
open beams without internal drywall, similar to existing conditions. Some existing siding
would be harvested and reused for rebuilt facades.
EXISTING STRUCTURES
Signrticant Structures
1 Main Residence
2 Creamery
3 Dairy Barn
4 Granary
D Relocated Significant StructuresOMainResidence
@ Creamery8DairyBarn
l Granary
Figure 3. Comparative Conceptual Relocation of Dairy Barn, Creamery/House, Main
Residence, and Granary.
The creamery/house is proposed to be relocated and partially reconstructed/partially re-
imagined through a more creative interpretation, rather than a full reconstruction (refer to
Figure 4 Creamery/House Proposed Perspective). The applicant's main goal of re-imagining
the building is to preserve the overall building form and rooflines while providing flexibility
for adaptive reuse in the public park setting. The western portion of the building (the creamery
portion) would be rebuilt with the same dimensions as the existing building to house public
restrooms. The eastern portion of the building (the house portion) would retain the silhouette
and framing of the existing structure, but would not be entirely enclosed. This portion of the
structure would be more open and would include an open trellis area to facilitate a sheltered
picnic and gathering space. The open trellis area will contain steps to mimic the existing grade
differential between the building areas.
Packet Page 8
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 84
08616
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 9
Figure 4. Creamery/House Proposed Perspective
The applicant proposes to complete historic and photographic documentation of the historic
district and structures proposed for demolition through preparation of a Historic American
Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) or similar
document(s). Historic dairy equipment would be donated to a local agency. Where feasible,
materials (e.g., siding, roofing, iron) would be salvaged for re-use within the park, and
potentially the overall Specific Plan area.
7.3 Cultural Resource Impacts
Table 3 summarizes the project's potential impacts on cultural resources and associated
mitigation measures. The complete analysis is available on the City's website (see links above).
Table 3. Summary of Impacts to Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Impacts Mitigation Residual ImpactMeasures
CR-1. Project grading and construction would occur MM CR-1
within areas of prehistoric archaeological sensitivity MMCR-2 Less than Significant
with the potential to impact subsurface cultural MMCR-3 with Mitigation
resources. MMCR-4
CR-2. Future resident recreational activities could Less than SignificantimpactarchaeologicalresourceslocatedwithinMMCR-5
proposed open space. with Mitigation
MMCR-6
CR-3. The Project would result in relocation, MMCR-7
demolition, disturbance, and/or removal of historic MMCR-8 Significant and
resources onsite, including individually eligible MMCR-9 Unavoidable
historic resources and a historic district. MM CR-10
MMCR-11
Packet Page 9
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 85
08617
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 10
Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources. The Cultural Resources section of the EIR
determined that direct and/or indirect impacts to cultural resources may occur from disturbance
or destruction during project construction. The project would involve extensive ground
disturbance to support development of Villaggio and Madonna Froom Ranch, including
excavation of subterranean parking garages, building foundations, utility installations, and
construction of the stormwater basin. The project's proposed conceptual site plan would avoid
direct disturbance to the known prehistoric sites within the Specific Plan area; these are all
located in proposed Open Space areas. However, the project site is considered archaeologically
sensitive and unknown resources associated with these sites or other prehistoric use of the
project vicinity would be vulnerable to impacts during construction. Impacts may also occur
during operation through illicit artifact collection and site disturbances resulting from increased
access to open space areas containing cultural resources.
Mitigation measures were identified to avoid, reduce, and mitigate potentially significant
impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources, including through preparation of an
archaeological monitoring plan, construction monitoring by a City-approved archaeologist and
Native American monitor during ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to
encounter previously unidentified archaeological resources, exclusionary fencing around
environmentally sensitive areas, and requirements for preparation of a Phase II -Subsurface
Archaeological Resource Evaluation (SARE) investigation prior to any grading or
development proposed within 200-feet of a recorded site or the unrecorded site comprising
three mapped stone artifacts.
The Draft EIR determined that, with implementation of identified mitigation measures,
potential impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources would be mitigated to less than
significant.
Historic Resources. The project would relocate and adaptively reuse (within the proposed
public park) four Froom Ranch Dairy buildings (i.e., main residence, creamery, dairy barn, and
granary) that are eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, and City's Master List of Historic
Resources. The EIR determined that the proposed relocation and reconstruction of four of the
Froom Ranch Dairy complex buildings would maintain the character-defining features of the
four structures to be retained, 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 main residence would be rehabilitated
consistent with the Rehabilitation Standards of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
the creamery, dairy barn, and granary would be reconstructed consistent with the
Reconstruction Standards of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, requiring minimal
changes to the distinctive materials, finishes, features, or construction techniques.
However, the EIR identified impacts associated to the potential for conflict between the design
and character of the surrounding commercial development within Madonna Froom Ranch and
the rehabilitated main residence. Incompatible design of adjacent new development has the
potential to reduce or inhibit the historic quality, character, and context of the relocated and
rehabilitated main residence. The project would also result in the demolition and permanent
loss of three contributors to the Froom Ranch Dairy historic district (i.e., the shed, bunkhouse,
Packet Page 10
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 86
08618
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 11
and old barn). These structures contribute to the historic setting and integrity of the Froom
Ranch Dairy complex based upon their association with the Froom family, connection to the
historic dairy operation, character-defining features of Craftsman-style or vernacular
architecture, and good integrity (condition) of location, design, materials, workmanship,
feeling, association, and overall historic integrity.
The integrity of the other identified historic-period site (P-40-001780) consisting of historic
building foundations and structure pads was found to be substantially damaged, such that these
materials were not found to constitute historical resources or historical properties pursuant to
Section 15064.5 ofCEQA or under Section 106 ofNHPA.
Mitigation measures were identified to avoid, reduce, and mitigate potentially significant
impacts to archaeological and tribal cultural resources, including design and construction
drawing review and monitoring by a qualified professional historic architect, Historic
American Building Survey (HABS) documentation of all seven contributing structures of the
Froom Ranch Dairy complex, requirements for the reuse of original material, and preparation
of design guidelines and a review process for new construction adjacent to the main residence.
The EIR identified aClass I significant and unavoidable impact associated with the loss of the
shed, bunkhouse, and old barn, which would reduce the concentration of physical features that
make up the character and appearance of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex. While the proposal
for relocation and reconstruction of the Froom Ranch Dairy complex would continue to retain
sufficient integrity to convey its significant association with the dairy industry and the Froom
family, the Project would result in the loss of historic materials and character defining features
that existed during the resource's period of significance. With implementation of identified
mitigation, all other impacts to historic resources were determined to be mitigated to less than
significant.
8.0 DRAFT EIR ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The Draft EIR presents an analysis of four alternatives (Draft EIR Chapter 5), including the
actionable alternative" required by the City Council as part of its initiation of the Specific Plan.
The complete alternatives analysis can be found in Chapter 5 of the Draft EIR:
https ://www. sloci ty. org/Home/Show Document?id=24 506
This discussion focuses on Alternative 1: Clustered Development Below the 150-foot Elevation
Alternative (the actionable alternative), which was evaluated at a similar level of detail in the Draft
EIR as the proposed project to allow project review and decision-making through a detailed
comparison of both alternatives.
8.1 Alternative 1 Project Summary
Alternative 1 proposes the same type, number, and mix of land uses as the proposed project;
however, Alternative 1 would include a major reconfiguration of the proposed land use plan to
cluster proposed land uses into a smaller development footprint on the lower elevations of the
site. Consistent with the 2014 General Plan LUE, under Alternative 1, all new urban
development would occur below the 150-foot elevation line. All residential land uses under
Alternative 1 would be relocated to areas within the Project site that are below the 150-
Packet Page 11
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 87
08619
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 12
foot elevation line and all development within the Upper Terrace would be removed.
The only development that would occur above the 150-foot elevation line would be the
proposed public park containing the same four Froom Ranch Dairy structures proposed to be
retained by the proposed project. The proposed Alternative 1 land use plan is shown in Figure
5-1 of the Draft EIR.
The cultural context, onsite resources, and proposed treatment and reuse of the Froom Ranch
Dairy structures is the same as described above for the proposed project.
8.2 Alternative 1 Cultural Resources Impacts
While the Draft EIR determined that Alternative 1 would avoid or reduce several significant
impacts that would result from the proposed project, impacts to cultural resources under
Alternative 1 would be similar to that of the proposed project. Impacts (compared to the
proposed project) are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Summary of Impacts to Cultural Resources
Cultural Resources Impacts Mitigation Residual ImpactMeasures
CR-1. Project grading and construction would occur MM CR-1
within areas of prehistoric archaeological sensitivity MMCR-2 Less than Significant
with MitigationwiththepotentialtoimpactsubsurfaceculturalMMCR-3 (Incrementally Less) resources. MMCR-4
CR-2. Future resident recreational activities could Less than Significant
impact archaeological resources located within MMCR-5 with Mitigation
proposed open space. (Less)
MMCR-6
CR-3. The Project would result in relocation, MMCR-7
demolition, disturbance, and/or removal of historic MMCR-8 Significant and
Unavoidableresourcesonsite, including individually eligible MMCR-9 (Similar) historic resources and a historic district. MM CR-10
MMCR-11
Overall, the Draft EIR determined that impacts to archaelogical resources would be reduced
under Alternative 1. Soil disturbance would still occur within areas considered to be sensitive
for cultural resources but required grading and excavation would avoid the Upper Terrace,
which has a higher potential for discovery of unknown buried archeological resources and a
higher potential for operational impacts related to illicit artifact collection or disturbance.
Retaining the four historic structures that contribute to the potential historic district within the
public park and in a natural setting more reminiscent of their historic past than the project (i.e.,
set atop a rise against the natural hillside of the Irish Hills rather than set amongst multi-family
housing units and commercial buildings) would lessen the potential impact to historic
resources as well. However, similar to the project, proposed relocation of historic structures
within the Froom Ranch Dairy complex would adversely affect significant historic resources,
Packet Page 12
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 88
08620
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 13
including through the significant and unavoidabe loss of three structures contributing to the
historic district (a Class I impact). Mitigation measures would continue to be implemented to
minimize potential impacts of development and operation on archaeological and prehistoric
resources, as well as historic resources.
Overall, the Draft EIR identified Alternative 1 as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Alternative 1 would achieve all of the project objectives, would be largely consistent with the
General Plan, and would reduce potentially significant impacts to Aesthetics and Visual
Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, Hazards and
Wildfire, Land Use and Planning, and Noise (refer to Table 5-17 in the Draft EIR).
9.0 NEXT STEPS
Provide any feedback regarding the adequacy of the cultural resources evaluation and additional
needed information or modifications or issues which should be addressed in mitigation measures
and/or the Final EIR. All comments received in this CHC review will be responded to and included
in the Final EIR. When the Final EIR is complete, the CHC will consider the Final EIR, Specific
Plan, and associated entitlements, and provide a recommendation to the Planning Commission and
City Council. The Planning Commission and City Council will consider the following
entitlements: Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment, Pre-Zoning, Vesting Tentative Map,
Annexation, and certification of the FEIR.
10.0 ATTACHMENT
1.CHC Minutes, August 28, 2017
Packet Page 13
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 89
08621
Attachment 1
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Minutes
l\1onday,August28,2017
Regular l\1eeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5 :30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Papp.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff:
Committee Members Sandy Baer, Thom Brajkovich, Damon Haydu, Craig Kincaid,
Glen Matteson, Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee, and Chair James Papp
None
Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Contract Planner
Emily Creel, and Recording Secretary Jennifer Hooper
APPROVAL OF l\1INUTES
Consideration of l\1inutes of the Regular Cultural Heritage Committee l\1eeting of July 24,
2017 and Special l\1eeting of August 14, 2017:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BEAR, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, CARRIED BY A 7-0 CONSENSUS, the Cultural Heritage
Committee approved the Minutes of the Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of July 24,
2017 as presented.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BEAR, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, CARRIED BY A 7-0 CONSENSUS, the Cultural Heritage
Committee approved the Minutes of the Regular Cultural Heritage Committee Special Meeting of
August 14, 2017, as amended:
Page 3: Clarify Committee Member who motioned Agenda Item 2, "MOTION BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER MATTESON ... "
PUBLIC C01\11\1ENT
None.
Packet Page 14
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 90
08622
Attachment 1
End of Public Comment--
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1.862 ISLAY STREET. ARCH-0852-2017; Construction of a new garage and utility building
to replace an existing non-historic garage (to be demolished) at the rear of property
designated as a Contributing List Historic Resource in the Old Town Historic District
Exempt from environmental review); R-2-H zone; Jerry & Kim Scott, applicants.
Associate Planner Walter Oetzell provided a PowerPoint presentation.
Applicant Representative, Ken Haggard, Architect, made a brief presentation and provided
a visual guide for Committee Members. He subsequently responded to Committee Member
mqumes.
Public Comment
None.
End of Public Comment--
Committee Members discussed the project.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LARRABEE, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BRAJKOVICH, CARRIED BY A 7-0 CONSENSUS, to adopt a
Resolution entitled, "A Resolution of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee finding
the demolition of an accessory structure and its replacement with a new garage and utility
building on a contributing list property at 862 Islay Street to be consistent with the City's
Historic Preservation Ordinance and with the Secretary Of The Interior Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties (ARCH-0852-2017)."
2.12165 AND 12393 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD. SPEC-0143-2017; Conceptual review
of plans for the multiple structures comprising the Froom Ranch Historic Complex, in
association with the Froom Ranch Specific Plan; Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area 3;
John Madonna, applicant.
Contract Planner Emily Creel provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Applicant Representatives, Pam Ricci and Victor Montgomery of RRM Design Group, and
Robert Chattel of Chattel, Inc., provided a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Applicant, John Madonna, provided brief commentary.
Minutes -Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of August 28, 2017 Page 2
Packet Page 15
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 91
08623
Attachment 1
Public Comment
Resident, Neil Havlik commented that he appreciated the study effort that has gone into the
structures, but does not support the concept. He stated the historic preservation effort is part of a
much larger effort and is in the context of other policies and that the concept falls short since
development is proposed above 150 feet, the Urban Reserve Line, and is inconsistent with
policies to protect and enhance Froom Creek. He stated that the rural character of the historic
complex would be impacted since development would be right around the complex and would be
next to a busy street. Mr. Havlik stated that the applicant's request to go above 150 feet could be
justified as a public amenity if the complex were moved higher up the hill to provide a setting
that is less busy and would protect the rural character while also providing access to the
trailhead. He stated that the relocation of the complex should be integrated with other City
policies and be informed by the EIR analysis.
End of Public Comment--
Chair Papp asked for clarification on the project alternative analysis in the EIR which includes
an "actionable alternative" for keeping development below the 150 foot elevation within the
existing URL.
Emily Creel responded that the Council-authorized initiation included direction to include the
alternative to evaluate development below 150 feet.
Committee Member Larrabee summarized the CHC's purview to provide feedback and
commented that the buildings are clearly in bad shape and that previously the CHC focused on
the Dairy Barn and the more significant features. She commented that she appreciated the
direction of the project in keeping the spacing of the structures, and that is a respectful
reimagining of the structures and the plan helps ensure they will be utilized for years to come.
Committee Member Baer stated that the revised plan from the previous conceptual review was
much improved and progress has been made although there are still issues. She noted concerns
about integrity with moving the buildings. She liked the open arbor plan for the house end of the
creamery.
Committee Member Brajkovich commended the applicants for the revised plan. And he stated
agreement with the three most significant structures being retained. He noted the common
features with other farm complexes and how changes are made to accommodate. He wanted to
wait for EIR analysis and peer review to provide final comments. He stated he appreciates the
proposed new location due to easy access from LOVR and proximity to trailhead.
Committee Member Matteson noted he was not on the CHC during previous review but he
thought that the response appeared adequate. He stated that he would not support moving the
historic complex above the 150 foot elevation line and that keeping development below the
urban reserve line is very important. He also inquired on a motion to endorse the general
Minutes -Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of August 28, 2017 Page 3
Packet Page 16
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 92
08624
Attachment 1
proposal of the historic complex but that it does not include endorsement of the overall project
proposal.
Chair Papp noted that the CHC's was being asked for conceptual feedback and asked staff
whether the CHC should pass a formal motion.
Brian Leveille noted that based on the current discussion it would be possible to just take the
CHC's comments into account in the minutes and move forward.
Committee Member Kincaid appreciated the response to previous CHC comments and noted that
he thought Neil Havlik's comments were important and should be considered in future
discussions.
Committee Member Haydu also said he thought Neil Havlik's comments were important. He
also stated he really wants to see the EIR, peer review, and technical studies. He brought up the
importance of cumulative impact analysis of impacts to historic complexes.
Committee Member Papp referenced the Long-Bonetti Ranch project which was considered
significant as a ranch complex and that in this case for Froom Ranch there were individually
significant buildings and significance as a complex. He noted that with Dalidio there was an
issue with setting but because the agricultural buildings were going to be moved next to the
agriculture area and would not be surrounded by development that they would be able to retain
their setting. He commended the applicant for focusing on the most historically significant
buildings and retaining their configuration. He noted his concern that the buildings will lose their
setting as a ranch complex with their proposed location adjacent to development and that there
are options to preserve the setting by relocating the complex in a location that would preserve the
rural character. Chair Papp stated the granary is also important to understanding the function of
the dairy.
John Madonna, applicant, said the granary was for planting and is not feed for the dairy.
In response to John Madonna's question, Chair Papp explained the ranch could be moved
slightly higher close to the existing location to preserve the rural character and be closer to the
existing trailhead. He explained that it shouldn't be a huge expense to also preserve the granary
and that it is relevant. Chair Papp noted he thought that the proposal would impact its ability to
qualify for the National Register.
Committee Member Haydu noted his experience with similar projects and that loss of
contributing elements may have an impact on its eligibility.
Chair Papp noted that all of the things said by different Committee Members should be adequate
for staffand the applicants and asked if staff could sum up the feedback or if single direction
would be preferred.
Brian Leveille stated he heard some helpful comments that could go into the EIR analysis for
cultural resources and that there was general support for the proposal to move through the review
Minutes -Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of August 28, 2017 Page4
Packet Page 17
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 93
08625
Attachment 1
process and the CHC had provided some helpful suggestions for elements that could be included
in the project and alternatives to explore which may be feasible. Chair Papp confirmed that he
also heard from the CHC that there was general discomfort with making a commitment without
the EIR.
Emily Creel confirmed that it was understood the CHC's feedback is support in moving the
proposal forward into the EIR process and that there could be changes in the CHC's evaluation
based on the analysis in the EIR.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
1.Appointment of a subcommittee to assist staff in the preparation of ministerial review
criteria for accessory dwelling units on historic properties and in historic districts and
explore the scope of needed updates to the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
Committee Members:
Chair JAMES PAPP
Committee Member DAMON HAYDU
Committee Member GLEN MATTESON
2.Agenda Forecast & StaffUpdates
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. The next Regular Cultural Heritage Committee meeting
is scheduled for Monday, September 25, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room, 990
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: 10/23/2017
Minutes -Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of August 28, 2017 Page 5
Packet Page 18
ATTACHMENT2Item2
Packet Page 94
08626
8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 8-1
Final EIR
8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Comments received during the 45-day public comment period for the Draft EIR for the Froom
Ranch Specific Plan (Project), starting on November 8, 2019 and ending December 23, 2019
included written comments from 4 state agencies, 4 local agencies, 8 organizations, and 10
individuals. A total of 20 oral testimonies were received from individuals during the City Advisory
Committee and Planning Commission Hearings held on November 18, 2109, December 4, 2019,
December 10, 2019, and December 11, 2019. In accordance with the State Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this chapter provides a
written response to each of these comments and describes any revisions to the EIR made in
response to comments. These responses provide a reasoned analysis as to why no changes were
made to the EIR, or where changes to the EIR in response to comments were incorporated.
8.2 FORMAT OF THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Comments received on the Draft EIR are organized by written comments, then oral testimonies.
Each comment letter or e-mail, and testimony is assigned a unique identification with each
comment individually numbered as well, in alphabetical order. Individual comments and issues
within each comment letter or e-mail are numbered individually along the margins in Section 8.3.
8.3 INDEX OF COMMENTS RECEIVED
Table 8-1 lists all agencies, organizations, and individuals that provided written and oral comments
on the Draft EIR. As described above, each comment letter was assigned a unique nomenclature
based on commenter name or organization, and each comment was assigned a number with a
corresponding letter signifying which commenter/organization the comment letter is associated
with, as detailed within the table.
ATTACHMENT3Item2
Packet Page 95
08627
8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
8-2 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Final EIR
Table 8-1. Index of Comments Received on the Draft EIR
Comment Set/
Number of
Comments
Name of Commenter Date Received Response
Location
STATE AGENCIES
S.1 1-6 California Department of Fish and Wildlife December 23, 2019 8-15
S.2 1-11 California Department of Transportation December 20, 2019 8-28
S.3 1-3 California Wildlife Foundation December 16, 2019 8-33
S.4 1-7 Department of Toxic Substances Control December 18, 2019 8-38
LOCAL AGENCIES
L.1 1–5 Air Pollution Control District San Luis
Obispo County
December 23, 2019 8-50
L.2 1-4 County of San Luis Obispo Department of
Agriculture/ Weights & Measures
December 18, 2019 8-57
L.3 1-19 San Luis Obispo Council of Governments December 20, 2019 8-65
L.4 1-7 San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation
Commission
December 16, 2019 8-72
ORGANIZATIONS
O.1 1-12 California Native Plant Society (1) December 11, 2019 8-85
O.2 1-14 California Native Plant Society (2) December 23, 2019 8-103
O.3 1-5 Friends of Bob Jones Trail December 22, 2019 8-114
O.4 1-4 Healthy Communities Work Group December 20, 2019 8-118
O.5 1-4 Los Verdes Park 1 December 11, 2019 8-123
O.6 1-3 Preserve the SLO Life December 10, 2019 8-127
O.7 1-8 Preserve the SLO Life and Los Verdes Park
Unit 1 Homeowners Association
December 23, 2019 8-133
O.8 1-5 Sierra Club Santa Lucia Chapter December 23, 2019 8-143
INDIVIDUALS
I.1 1-12 David Chipping December 22, 2019 8-152
I.2 1-5 Garrett Otto December 9, 2019 8-159
I.3 1-2 Jeff Whitener December 4, 2019 8-162
I.4 1-1 Judy Riener December 10, 2019 8-164
I.5 1-13 Kim Murry December 11, 2019 8-167
I.6 1-8 Lea Brooks December 24, 2019 8-176
I.7 1 Neil Havlik (1) November 18, 2019 8-176
I.8 1 Neil Havlik (2) December 2, 2019 8-181
I.9 1-5 Neil Havlik (3) December 4, 2019 8-183
APPLICANT
A.1 1-171 RRM Design Group December 23, 2019 8-236
ATTACHMENT3Item2
Packet Page 96
08628
8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 8-3
Final EIR
Table 8-1. Index of Comments Received on the Draft EIR (Cont.)
Comment Set/
Number of
Comments
Name of Commenter Date Received Response
Location
ORAL TESTIMONIES
Cultural Heritage
Commission
Hearing
Commissioner Ulz
Commissioner Papp
Commissioner Matteson
Commission Haydu
Commissioner Larrabee
Commissioner Brajkovich
November 18, 2019 8-280
Parks and
Recreation
Commission
Hearing
Parks and Recreation Commission December 4, 2019 8-284
Active
Transportation
Hearing
Active Transportation Committee December 10, 2019 8-284
Planning
Commission
Hearing
Public Comments Sherry Eisenlen, David
Richards
Public Comment Gary Havas
Public Comments (Lisa Schott, Los Verdes)
Public Comment (Bill Waycott, CNPS)
Public Comment David Chipping
Public Comment Neil Havlik
Public Comment Brian Ackerman
Commissioner McKenzie
Commission McKenzie /Wulkan
Commissioner Stevenson
Commissioner Jorgensen
Commissioner Wulkan
Commissioner Kohn
Commissioner Jorgensen/Stevenson
December 11, 2019 8-287
8.4 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The following pages contain copies of the comment letters. Presented first is a copy of the
comment letter with vertical lines indicating the extent of specific numbered comments, and on
the subsequent pages are the corresponding numbered responses to individual comments.
ATTACHMENT3Item2
Packet Page 97
08629
8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
8-280 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Final EIR
8.4.6 Oral Responses
8.4.6.1 Cultural Heritage Commission Hearing – November 18, 2019
Public Commenter – Commissioner Ulz
Comment OT.1-1
Commission Ulz requests clarification on whether historic resources are considered as a district,
individual resources, or as a multi-component resource in the FRSP and EIR. Commission Ulz
suggests multi-component resource consideration may be the most effective classification.
Response
Thank you for your comments regarding the FRSP and EIR. As described in EIR Section 3.5,
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, the Project site contains the historic Froom Ranch Dairy
Farm (P-40-040991), including seven existing contributing structures associated with the historic
dairy and Froom family. Four structures (i.e., main residence, creamery, dairy barn, and granary)
are considered significant historic resources as individual structures. These four structures together
with the three other contributing structures (i.e., the old barn, shed/storage building, and
bunkhouse) constitute an eligible historic district under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance
and the CRHR. The landscape and layout of these seven buildings comprising the Froom Ranch
Dairy complex is historically significant under CEQA. The Froom Ranch Dairy complex, as
described in the EIR complies with applicable guidelines for historical resources, including the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, and
CRHR so the EIR’s analysis is consistent with existing City policy and regulations. Per City
guidelines, it appears as the Froom Ranch Dairy complex may be classified as a historic district;
however, the City has discretion of classification under the Project approval process.
Comment OT.1-2
Commission Ulz recommends MM CR-8 require native plantings and seek consultation guidance
from tribal representatives. The comment states monitoring is not a mitigation, so the EIR should
more clearly state how the City is working with Native Americans.
Response
Based on the comment’s recommendation, the word “native” has been incorporated to describe
the vegetation requirements in the MM CR-8 of the EIR. The Applicant as well as the City will
continue to consult Native American tribal representation to protect sensitive resources throughout
the ongoing process. Regarding consultation with local tribes on the proposed Project, please refer
ATTACHMENT3Item2
Packet Page 98
08630
8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 8-281
Final EIR
to Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources. Presented therein is a detailed summary
of the Native American consultation process conducted by the City for the proposed Project, as
well as the results of the consultation process.
Comment OT.1-3 Commissioner Ulz states MM CR-10 does not provide a HABS level, and
photography alone is not sufficient to meet HABS guidelines. Commissioner Ulz recommends
selecting an appropriate HABS level based on the significant of each resource to be documented
and follow the NPS recommendations. Additionally, the comment states the HABs documentation
should be treated as pertaining to the entire complex to shore functional relationships between
buildings.
Response
As described in Section 3.5, Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources, MM CR-10 requires a HABS
Level II documentation to be completed by a qualified professional photographer. Further, all
documentation components under MM CR-10 would be completed in accordance with applicable
guidelines including the Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation, which is
consistent with photograph-based HABS. The Project would additionally be required to provide
the National Park Service with original, archivally-sound negatives and prints of the HABS.
Comment OT.1-4 Commission Ulz recommends the Project include documentary tools
beyond HABS, including oral histories and/or LIDAR/photogrammetry via drones to generate 3D
documentation.
Response
MM CR-10 is in alignment with applicable HABS documentation standards as defined under the
Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. Nevertheless, language has been
incorporated to MM CR-10 to identify additional surveys such as oral histories, LIDAR surveys,
and/or photogrammetry may be complete.
Comment OT.1-5 Commissioner Ulz states under MM CR-11 pamphlets are an ancillary vehicle
for distributing an interpretive message, whose primary form should be semi-permanent and
presented onsite. The comment recommends focusing on the development of an interpretive plan
for the Froom Ranch Dairy complex and/or traditional tribal uses that encompass a multi-
disciplinary approach to interpretation, as well as installation of signage for mitigation.
Additionally, the comment suggests the measure should be the interpretive plan, not simply the
pamphlet. If digital content will be available, consider reconfiguration into a mobile-friendly form
to accompany physical signage.
ATTACHMENT3Item2
Packet Page 99
08631
8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
8-282 Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Final EIR
Response
Based on the comment, language has been added to MM CR-11 to require the Applicant to
document the potential historic district and its cultural and architectural heritage by additional
means (e.g., signage, interpretive plan, mobile-friendly content), if deemed mandatory by the City.
As discussed in MM CR-11, digital copies of the pamphlets would be available to ensure
information is available permanently to the public and decision makers.
Public Commenter – Commissioner Papp
Comment OT.2-1 Commissioner Papp recommends clarification in the EIR of how the elevation
changes at the quarry location.
Response
The FRSP is a programmatic analysis of potential impacts related to changes in land uses based
on the City’s LUE requirement for adoption of a Specific Plan prior to development; therefore, the
EIR does not need to include specific site elevation analysis. However, based on information
provided by the property owner and Applicant, John Madonna, the quarry operation pre-dates the
Madonna purchase of the property. The quarry operational elevations appear to have varied by
approximately 50 feet over time since the Madonna purchase in 1976. It is estimated that, since
that time, the maximum elevation was approximately 190 feet and the lowest elevation of the
quarry was approximately 135 feet.
Public Commenter – Commissioner Matteson
Comment OT.3-1 Commissioner Matteson recommends overlaying site plans over satellite or
aerial imagery to visually identify where buildings would be located in comparison to their existing
location.
Response
As described in Comment Response OT.2-1, the FRSP would serve as a programmatic analysis of
potential impacts related to changes in land uses. The current locations of the existing buildings
are shown in Figure 2-2 of the EIR. Under Alternative 1, the buildings would be relocated to the
west approximately 400 feet up the hill. They would be reconstructed above the 150-foot elevation
in the area shown on Figure 2-2 as the quarry. A detailed park plan has not yet been developed and
the EIR analysis is programmatic. Therefore, the proposed locations of the structures are intended
to be approximate.
ATTACHMENT3Item2
Packet Page 100
08632
8.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Froom Ranch Specific Plan 8-283
Final EIR
Public Commenter- Commissioner Haydu
Comment OT.4-1 Commissioner Haydu recommended having the third unrecorded site evaluated
to the same level as the previous two sites through the preparation of a Phase 1. The comment
states further evaluation may be necessary to provide a clear and accurate baseline to identify
appropriate mitigation and confirm the site would be avoided.
Response
The unrecorded potential site comprising three mapped stone isolates was identified through EIR
analysis and is addressed through MM CR-1 and MM CR-2, which would require 50-foot buffers
to protect the potential site during construction. The location of the potential site outside the
FRSP’s proposed development footprint makes this mitigation program feasible. However,
Alternative 1, which is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, would avoid impacts to the
potential unrecorded site by eliminating development above the 150-foot elevation line in the
Upper Terrace of Villaggio. Under Alternative 1, no earthwork is proposed within 50 feet of the
site. As such, additional work to record this site is not required to support the findings of the EIR.
Public Commenter – Commissioner Papp
Comment OT.5-1 Commission Papp requests discussion of the impacts of a modified
Alternative 1 that proposes keeping the proposed public park at the Applicant’s preferred location.
Commissioner Papp asks if this discussion should be included in the EIR.
Response Impacts associated with the location of the proposed park in the Applicant’s
preferred location is evaluated throughout the EIR as a component of the proposed Project.
Additional evaluation of the relocation of the proposed park to the Applicant’s preferred location
as a changed component of Alternative 1 (which the Applicant has publicly stated they intend to
pursue) is not necessary to include in the Final EIR because impacts associated with its location
have already been fully analyzed and disclosed in the document, both at the Applicant’s preferred
location under the proposed Project and in the area above the 150-foot elevation under Alternative
1. Any variation of Alternative 1 that relocates the park to the Applicant’s preferred location is not
required to be added to the EIR because both park locations have already been evaluated and
disclosed in the document.
ATTACHMENT3Item2
Packet Page 101
08633