HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-26-2016 CHC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Agenda
Cultural Heritage Committee
Monday, September 26, 2016
5:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
CALL
TO ORDER: Chair Hill
ROLL CALL: Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp, Leah Walthert,
Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of July 25, 2016
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on
the agenda. Items raised are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is
necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
NOTE: The action of the CHC is a recommendation to the Community Development Director,
another advisory body, or City Council and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed.
1. 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
San Luis Obispo – Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of September 26, 2016 Page 2
exemption from environmental review, C-D-H & R-2-H zones; City of San Luis Obispo,
applicant. (Melissa Mudgett)
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. (Kip Morais)
3. 1119 Garden Street. ARCH-2588-2016: Review of proposed modifications to the façade of
the Union Hardware Building, a Master List Historic Structure, with a categorical
exemption from environmental review; C-D-H zone; Garden Street SLO Partners, applicant.
(Walter Oetzell)
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 / Il Villagio Specific Plan (Madonna
on Los Osos Valley Road Specific Plan); John Madonna, applicant. (Shawna Scott)
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 from environmental review; C-D-H zone; Creekside Lofts, applicant. (Rachel
Cohen)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
1. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates
ADJOURNMENT
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes
DRAFT
DRAFT MINUTES
Monday, July 25, 2016
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Monday, July 25th, 2016 at 5:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Hill.
Chair Hill informed that full and current audio of Cultural Heritage Committee Hearings are
available and access-requested through City Clerk’s Office.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp, Leah Walthert,
Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich and Chair Jaime Hill
Absent: Committee Member Sandy Baer
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Assistant Planner Kyle Bell, and Recording Secretary
Brad T. Opstad
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
No comments were made from the Public.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Minutes for Cultural Heritage Committee Regular Meetings of May 23 and June 6, 2016:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER KINCAID, to approve the two sets of meeting minutes of May 23 & June 6, 2016
6:0:0:1 vote:
AYES: Papp, Kincaid, Larrabee, Walthert, Brajkovich, Hill
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Baer
Draft Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes July 25, 2016 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. 849 Monterey Street. ARCH-3347-2016: Review of projecting sign on a Master List Historic
Building (Sinsheimer Building) with an exception to sign regulations for maximum allowable
area, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-D-H zone; Joe DeFronzo,
applicant.
Assistant Planner Bell presented the staff report on the proposed sculpted steel and hand-painted
projecting sign positioned to the primary façade of the Sinsheimer Brothers Building.
Applicant Representative Pierre Rademaker and Planner Bell responded to Chair Hill’s inquiry
about the depth of the sign.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Pierre Rademaker, Applicant Representative, spoke about the built-in complexity of the sign and
the historic nature of the building in C-D Zone; requested feedback on the most recent alteration
of the sign’s design, with the addition of the word “Cocktails”.
Joe DeFronzo, Applicant, discussed his admiration of the Sinsheimer Brothers Building; shared
opinion that the proposed sign is neither overbearing nor obtrusive.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
In response to Committee Member Papp’s inquiry, Sean Beauchamp, owner of the Southpaw Sign
Company, discussed the considerations involved with the placement of the projecting sign on the
façade.
Planner Leveille discussed the unique circumstances of the Building, possessing a sign which
needs to remain on the site intact.
Committee Member Papp shared that, because Sinsheimer Brothers is a National Register eligible
building, he was uncomfortable in introducing a sign that was not of the period and was potentially
detracting from what makes the building significant, namely the façade.
In response to Committee Member Papp’s inquiry, Applicant Representative Rademaker informed
that a projecting sign without the incorporation of neon would indeed be narrower and then would
require exterior lighting which would add more physical encroachment to the building.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY CHAIR HILL, SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP,
the Cultural Heritage Committee recommends the Community Development Director find the
projecting sign on a Master List Historic Resource (Sinsheimer Building) consistent with the
Historic Preservation Ordinance; 849 Monterey Street, Downtown Historic District, C-D-H Zone,
with amendment to SECTION 1 (“Findings”) to read “… hereby finds the project consistent with
the Historic Preservation Ordinance…” and the addition of the following Findings:
Draft Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes July 25, 2016 Page 3
3.) The proposed exception from the Sign Regulations for a projecting sign to exceed the
maximum allowed area is appropriate given the presence of the historic building signage
which precludes opportunities of alternative types of signage on the primary building
façade.
4.) As conditioned, neon lighting for a projecting sign with a larger box depth is appropriate
for the projecting sign because the alternative method of exterior lighting for the sign would
negatively affect views of the unique historic iron façade;
on the following 6:0:0:1 vote:
AYES: Hill, Papp, Kincaid, Larrabee, Walthert, Brajkovich
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Baer
2. 736 Higuera Street. ARCH-3294-2016: Review of new signage on a Master List Historic
Building (Carissa Building) including an exception to place a wall sign on an elevatio n
without a public entrance, with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-D-H
zone; Auzco Development, applicant.
Assistant Planner Bell provided the staff report.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
In response to Committee Member Larrabee’s inquiry, Planner Bell stated that the sign on the
primary façade does meet standards for the wall sign, but the west elevation wall sign does exceed
both the City’s square footage and height for a maximum area and it is included on a side of the
building that does not contain an entrance.
In response to Chair Hill’s inquiry, Planner Bell stipulated that he’d previously discussed with the
Applicant that the “gooseneck” exterior lighting would not be allowed to cross the property line.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No comments were made from the Public.
COMMITTEE DELIBERATION
Vice-Chair Brajkovich shared that he was not enamored of the entry sign insofar as it blocks the
entire continuity of the front of the façade; Planner Bell indicated that the materials behind the
proposed sign were new and had been installed during the remodel, noting the sign would not
obstruct view of the existing historical figures.
Committee Member Larrabee indicated a preference for removing the stand on which the entry
sign rests.
Draft Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes July 25, 2016 Page 4
Committee Member Papp voiced opinion that since the lower area below the proposed sign has
been altered, the sign doesn’t appear to interfere with the historic nature of the building.
Chair Hill spoke about the painted wall signs, noting that massing of entry sign detracts from the
scaling and rhythm of the building and suggested the signs to be downsized or that the masonry-
blocking plinth be removed.
Chair Hill invited Sean Beauchamp to share expert witness sign knowledge with Committee; Mr.
Beauchamp provided local historic examples from the early 1900’s that have been exposed.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY VICE-CHAIR BRAJKOVICH, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER PAPP, the Cultural Heritage Committee recommends the Community Development
Director find the proposed signs on a Master List Historic Resource (Carissa Building) consistent
with the Historic Preservation Ordinance; 736/738 Higuera Street, Downtown Historic District, C-
D-H Zone, with amendment to SECTION 1 (“Findings”) to read “… hereby finds the project
consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance…”; with the following added Conditions:
2.) The plinth or base beneath the entry sign should be reduced in scale and not overhang
the existing cornice molding at the base of the sign. Additionally, the overall height shall
be reduced below the level of the horizontal line of the existing masonry above the transom
windows.
4.) The painted wall sign should be reduced in size to meet the maximum allowed wall sign
area established in the Sign Regulations.
6.) The neon lighting and wall sign light shall not exceed 100 luxes (10 foot-candles) each,
measured at a distance of 10 feet from the sign. The proposed goosene ck lighting for the
painted wall sign shall be eliminated as it overhangs an existing property line.
on the following 6:0:0:1 roll call vote:
AYES: Brajkovich, Papp, Kincaid, Larrabee, Walthert, Hill
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Baer
3. Sign Regulations Update Study Session. OTHR-3466-2016: Discussion of sign guidelines
applicable to historic resources and historic districts which should be included for further
discussion in the draft Sign Regulations Update project; Citywide; Community Development
Department, applicant.
Senior Planner Leveille presented the background, issues, options and overall goals of the project
while displaying a slide show of various local signage examples.
Draft Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes July 25, 2016 Page 5
PUBLIC COMMENT
Sean Beauchamp, San Luis Obispo, spoke as a participant of the stakeholder interviews; shared
expertise on the sign application process, providing multiple suggestions for how to improve the
dialogue between applicants and the Planning Department; and responded to various questions
from Committee Members and Planner Leveille.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Papp shared concern that coding for various grades of Master Listed buildings
appears to be out of date; suggested establishing signage guidelines that recognize that some
buildings are more sensitive in terms of their historical nature than others.
Committee Member Kincaid excused himself from proceedings at 7:21 p.m.
Chair Hill and Vice-Chair Brajkovich discussed the pros and cons in creating a Sign Committee
Advisory Body with Planner Leveille.
Chair Hill discussed multi-tenant buildings being required to have a sign plan; suggested adding
“depth” to the dimension requirements.
STAFF UPDATES & AGENDA FORECAST
Planner Leveille provided the Agenda Forecast for August:
Garden Street Terrace façade project; bulkhead removal and façade remodel on the Union
Hardware Building; Miner's sign exception on Chorro Street in Chinatown.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2016
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review the 2016 Utility Box Art murals proposed for the Old Town and Downtown Historic District locations.
ADDRESS: City-Owned Traffic Signals BY:Melissa Mudgett, Recreation Manager Phone Number: (805) 781-7296 e-mail: mmudgett@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: OTHR-3827-2016 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), which recommends that the City Council approve 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.
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Representative Melissa Mudgett, City Parks and Recreation
Submittal Date 09/26/2016
Complete Date 11/20/2016
Zoning C-D-H (Downtown-Commercial with Historic Overlay) & R-2-H (Medium-Density
Residential with Historic Overlay)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from environmental review, Class 1, Minor Alteration of
Existing Public Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.
2.0 BACKGROUND
Initially conceived as a program to discourage and abate graffiti and to enhance unattractive
utility/traffic signal boxes at various high visibility intersections in the Downtown core, the Utility
Box Art Program received funding from the City Council in 2010 for the painting of sixteen
downtown utility boxes. Widespread popularity of the box art program has grown and today the
Box Art Program has thirty-three painted boxes throughout the City (Map of current box art
locations provided as Attachment 2).
On July 19, 2016, the City Council approved updates to the City’s Public Art Policy to include the
Utility Box Art as a regular and ongoing public art program. The updated Public Art Policy for
the Box Art now addresses ongoing maintenance for the box art murals, the duration of mural
exhibits, expansion of the Box Art program and archival of the mural artwork.
Currently, the City of San Luis Obispo owns and operates a total of sixty-five (65) traffic signal
utility boxes. Of this amount, 32 are available for new art murals and have been prioritized for
Meeting Date: September 26, 2016
Item Number: 1
CHC 1 - 1
CHC OTHR-3827-2016 (Old Town & Downtown Box Art)
Page 2
paintings in future box art phases. It is anticipated that the painting of these new blank utility
boxes could occur in phases over the next three to seven years, as public art funding is available.
On August 31, 2016, a Box Art Selection Jury, consisting of various community members, convened
to review all box art design proposals and present its proposed selection to the appropriate City
Advisory Bodies. The 2016 Box Art Selection Jury included fourteen (14) members who are arts
advocates, professional artists, advisory body representatives, local business owners, an educator,
historians, community members, and representatives from the Downtown Association and the
Chamber of Commerce. The 2016 Box Art Jury group roster is provided as Attachment 3.
The Art Jury reviewed 89 design proposals submitted by local artists and compared these designs for
artistic excellence and appropriateness to the location. Of the 89 design proposals, the Art Jury is
recommending approval of designs (both new artwork and repaired murals) for 11 city-owned
utility/traffic control boxes at various locations throughout the community. A summary including all
of the proposed designs and their respective locations for the 2016 Box Art Project is provided as
Attachment 4.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
Three utility boxes are proposed
for new art murals and are located
in the Old Town and Downtown
Historic Districts. Two utility
boxes are located within the
boundary of Old Town and one in
the Downtown Historic District.
Figure 1 shows the proposed
general locations of the utility
boxes.
3.2 Project Description
2016 Utility Box Art Project
Old Town Locations: Two utility
signal boxes are located in the Old
Town Historic District, as shown
above as number 1 and 2 in the
Figure above. The utility boxes are
located on the public right-of-way sidewalks within the Old Town Historic District. The
location map (Attachment 5), identifies the locations.
LOCATION #1 - Broad Street at Pismo Street (Box Art #6)
LOCATION #2 - Buchon Street at Broad Street (Box #25)
Figure 1: Utility Box Art Locations in Old Town Historic District
3
2 1
CHC 1 - 2
CHC OTHR-3827-2016 (Old Town & Downtown Box Art)
Page 3
Figure 2: Utility Box Art Locations in Old Town Historic District
Location #1 – Broad & Pismo (6) Location #2 – Buchon & Broad (25)
Box Art Mural Descriptions: These traffic signal cabinets have recently undergone box
modifications and repairs to install external battery backup units. These external UPC battery unit
have impacted the artwork completely on the front sides facing the streets. In accordance with the
adopted Public Art Policy, artists receive the first right of refusal in repainting should the artwork
be impacted in advance of its predetermined life-span. The original artist, Alister Dippner, for the
Utility Box located at Broad and Pismo Streets has opted not to repaint the current mural at this
location. After extensive review and consideration based upon this locale, the Box Art Jury is
recommending the proposed design “Jacaranda Deco” for this historic district location.
The Art Jury is recommending the “Jacaranda Deco” design for the location of Broad and Pismo
Streets as it captures the relatively simple but upscale elegance that typified San Luis Obispo’s
most exclusive neighborhood prior to the turn of the 20th century. The illustration style and lively
purple colors were inspired by period examples and local architecture of the neighborhood. The
design is reflective of several purple Victorian home located just a few blocks away from this
traffic signal box location.
This utility signal box at location #2 (Buchon and Broad Streets) has also received the same signal
cabinet modifications to install an external battery backup unit. The original artist, Chris Pederson,
has indicated his desire to repair the current box art mural titled “Roots, Rocks, Right and Left”.
This design was approved by the City Council in 2012.
The proposed designs are provided below in Figure 3 and in a greater detail as Attachment 6.
CHC 1 - 3
CHC OTHR-3827-2016 (Old Town & Downtown Box Art)
Page 4
Figure 3. Box Art Mural Deigns proposed for Old Town Historic District
Location #1 – Proposed New Design (6) Location #2 – Repaired Mural (25)
“Jacaranda Deco” “Roots, Rocks, Right & Left”
Downtown Location: One utility signal box is located in the Downtown Historic District, as shown
above in Figure 1 as Location #3. This utility box is located on the public right-of-way sidewalk
within the Downtown District and within close proximity of the Court Street retail businesses. This
location is identified in Attachment 4.
LOCATION #3 – Osos Street at Monterey Street (Box Art #30)
Figure 4: Utility Box Art Locations in Downtown Historic District
Location #3 – Osos & Monterey (30)
Description: Pending Project Site Work
The intersection of Osos and Monterey is scheduled to receive
significant infrastructure upgrades and reconstruction in the late
fall/early winter. As part of construction efforts, the current signal
box will be replaced with a new, larger signal cabinet. The recently
updated Box Art program policy articulates how box art murals that
are located on signal cabinets will be preserved in the event the
signal cabinet is removed entirely from the City’s traffic signal
system. The physical signal cabinet with the artwork could be
CHC 1 - 4
CHC OTHR-3827-2016 (Old Town & Downtown Box Art)
Page 5
relocated to other city parks, community gardens or pathways to remain on public display.
While considering the possible relocation of this signal cabinet (Box Art #30), it was determined by
City Traffic Signal staff that the signal cabinet is still in working order and in fact, an increasingly
rare piece of signal equipment that could be immediately used as stand-by equipment for when
unscheduled repairs or replacement is necessary. At this time, the current signal cabinet has been
determined to still be in prime working condition. It is the recommendation of City staff to return the
signal cabinet (with its exterior box art mural) to the equipment “inventory” in the Traffic Signals
division for use as a future replacement box when needed.
Box Art Mural Description
After extensive review of designs and this downtown location, the Box Art Jury is recommending
the proposed design “Love of Color” for this historic district location at Osos and Monterey Streets.
The Art Jury recommendation reflects the bustling tourism economy of the downtown core and
the representation of diversity
within the mural design. The
artist’s approach was to depict the
community’s love and
appreciation for art. This box art
mural would serve as a reminder
and offer cheer to those walking
by and experiencing our
community’s creativity and
uniqueness. The design is
provided in greater detail as
Attachment 5.
4.0
EVALUATION/DISCUSSION
The CHC’s purview is to review
the project in terms of its
consistency with the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and to provide recommendations to the City Council. The CHC
should provide feedback on the proposed box art mural designs for compatibility with the Old
Town and the Downtown Historic Districts’ prevailing historic character.
The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines discuss that new structures1 shall be “designed to
be architecturally compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by
their consistency with the scale, massing, rhythm … New structures are not required to copy or
imitate historic structures…”2 Additionally they “should not sharply contrast with, significantly
block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of historically
1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 5.5 Definitions: “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.
2 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.2.1.
Figure 5. Box Art Mural Design proposed for Downtown Historic
District
CHC 1 - 5
CHC OTHR-3827-2016 (Old Town & Downtown Box Art)
Page 6
designated structures … or detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of the
historic district.”3
4.1 Box Art Murals and Locations
The box art mural designs, as proposed by the Art Jury, complement and incorporate much of
the same architectural elements of the historic districts. Overall, staff is in support of the Art
Jury’s findings that the proposed designs are harmonizing to the neighborhoods and to not
visually detract from historically designated structures or detract from the character of the Old
Town and Downtown Historic Districts. The CHC should discuss if the proposed utility box
art murals’ colors or design are consistent with the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
Concurrently, the proposed 2016 Box Art Project designs and locations will be presented to
the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for review and recommendation to the City
Council at its September 19, 2016 meeting.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 1 (Section 15301) Existing Facilities
for Minor Alteration of Existing Private or Public Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines because the
project proposes to install murals on existing public structures (utility boxes) that are consistent
with the applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable City regulations.
6.0 RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to the City Council that the 2016 Utility Box Art project be approved, based on
findings, and subject to the conditions in the attached resolution.
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
1.Recommend that the project be denied based on inconsistency with the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and/or Secretary of Interior Standards.
2.Continue the item with specific direction for additional discussion or research.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Resolution
2.Box Art Map
3.Box Art Jury Roster
4.Proposed 2016 Box Art Project Summary
5.Historical District Location Map
6.Mural Details for Historic District Locations
3 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 3.2.2. CHC 1 - 6
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE,
RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE 2016 UTILITY BOX
ART PROJECT MURAL DESIGNS AND LOCATIONS
(OTHR-3827-2016)
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted
a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on September 26, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
#OTHR-3827-2016, City of San Luis Obispo, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
1.As conditioned, the proposed utility box art mural designs and locations are consistent with
the Historic Preservation Guidelines because they do not sharply contrast with, significantly
block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of the Old
Town and Downtown Historic Districts or historically designated structures.
2.The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 4.20.6 by
providing sidewalk appeal that can be appreciated by people on the sidewalks.
3.The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element Policy 5.1.1
because it encourages and promotes walking as a regular means of transportation.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review
under Section 15301, Class 1, Existing Facilities for the Minor Alteration of Existing Private or
Public Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines because the project proposes to install murals on
existing public structures (utility boxes) that are consistent with the applicable general plan
policies as well as with applicable City regulations.
Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends approval of application #OTHR-3827-
2016.
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC 1 - 7
ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No.XXXX-16
CHC OTHR-3827-2016
Page 2
On motion by Committee member _______, seconded by Committee member ______, and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26th day of September, 2016.
_____________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
CHC 1 - 8
guide mapSan Luis ObispoCity ofLook for it...Box Art Round 1Box Art Round 2ATTACHMENT 2
CHC 1 - 9
30
Box 13&14 were completed as a team with
Marcie Hawthorne (above).
Julie Frankel’s background is in graphic
design and mixed media painting. Julie
is an east coast transplant, living in SLO
since 1988. In her art she often explores
the themes of people watching and
narrative spaces. Julie is also a maker of
artists’ books—which combines both art
and design skill sets. Patterns, stencils,
and textures are one of her passions.
On the design side, Julie worked as an
independent consultant with Biesek
Design on many projects for the National
Park Service.
Abbey Onikoyi
Jeff takes great pleasure in drinking
Thai iced tea, eating chocolate donuts,
and reading a good book.
Jeff Claassen
Charlie Clingman was raised in spacious
rural settings which had animals to play
with and horses to ride. This planted
the seed for his future exploration and
appreciation of nature. He fi nds that 25
years of international surfi ng experience
has not only been a great thrill and good
exercise but a fi ne way to observe the
water and surrounding landscapes. He
seeks to have his paintings represent the
beauty and action he encounters.
Charlie Clingman
Marcie Hawthorne
Julie Frankel
Abbey Onikoyi, a native of Nigeria,
grew up in a family that was one of the
founding royal families of Lagos, with
a tradition rooted in arts and culture.
His goal is to impact humanity with “a
whole new love” through art, music and
communication. He now resides in San
Luis Obispo, where he owns “Spirits of
Africa” Gallery at the Creamery.
An artist and a dreamer by nature, Alister
Dippner has exploded onto the California
art scene in a big way, from creating
album artwork for a number of
up-and-coming bands and musicians to
showcasing his work in over 35 galleries
and art shows. His over active
imagination lead him to become a
professional muralist for two years
before moving to SLO.
Alister Dippner
Rachel LaBonte is a graduating senior
at Cal Poly, studying Fine Art with a
concentration in studio art. She focuses
primarily on painting and drawing, and is
interested in both fi guration and
abstraction. Mediation and its
relationship to reality and humanity have
been central to her most recent body
of work. She hopes to attend graduate
school in the fall, and is planning on
pursuing a career in the fi eld of Painting.
Rachel LaBonte
Jed is a native of California. He has been
drawing and painting since he was fi ve
years old. He attended the San Francisco
Art Institute and Cal State Hayward. He
is currently a freelance designer and
resides in Templeton with his wife and
several stray cats.
Jed Joyce
Justin grew up on the Central Coast
where he attended Cuesta College
before receiving a Bachelor of Art in Art
Studio from UC Santa Barbara. He now
resides in SLO with his wife Heather
and their two sons, Jude and Liam.
Justin works in various media although
prefers oils. The local landscape plays an
important role in his art.
Justin Johnson
15
16
18
20
19
22Joe has over 20 years of experience
creating commissioned murals and
fi ne art paintings for fi lm, television,
hotels, restaurants and residences
internationally. Whether working on
personal paintings or commissioned
murals, he approaches each with an
open mind, a knowledge of art history
and an array of stylistic techniques.
Joe Bachelor1
2
3
13
12
114
5
6
Marcia is a longtime resident of
San Luis Obispo County. Growing up in
the beautiful Carrizo Plains, and painting
currently in her studio in Creston’s
glowing oak woodlands, her work
is guided by the color and light of
landscape. Her paintings hang in the
County Government Center, Compact
Gallery in San Luis Obispo and Firefl y in
Paso Robles.
Marcia Harvey
9
7
Carol feels lucky to live in Baywood
between the ancient, breathing estuary
and the hills with rocks for bones.
Surrounded by inspiration, this county
has been her home since childhood. Here
she has raised her family, adventured,
wore out a few good dogs, made a
lot of art and friends. “I love it all,
absorbing, living, making art, family and
community.”
Carol Paulsen
Chris Pedersen grew up on the Central
Coast of California. He explored his beau-
tiful surroundings and discovered his
drawing talent and creative imagination.
His art career started with a concentra-
tion of illustration and graphic design.
Currently Chris is making fi ne canvas oil
paintings while he continues to develop
illustrations for a children’s book story,
which will likely inspire the youth to no
end. Chris has maintained the youthful
fantasy aspect of possibility.
Chris Pedersen
A SLO native, Jane grew-up with the
old growth oaks. With big dreams, she
left for her bachelor’s in International
Relations, before reluctantly returning.
Four years later, she’s made her home
anew. When not painting, riding her pink
bike, or pretending to save the world,
she works as a counselor and advocate
at the SARP Center.
Jane Pomeroy
Formerly from Southern California,
Lena Rushing has called the Central
Coast home for 16 years. She is best
known for her large scale, acrylic, fi gure
paintings. Honest and authentic, her
intent is to create vibrant, intriguing
works of art that encourage the viewer
to engage in art related dialogue.
She would describe her paintings as a
marriage between fi gurative
expressionism and surrealism.
Lena Rushing
23
27
28
26
Colleen is an artist and surfer in Central
California. Colleen taught herself to paint
and went on to study art overseas, at the
L‘Accademia di Belle Arti, an art school
founded by Michelangelo in Florence.
Shortly after graduation from UC Santa
Cruz, she moved to Hawaii and began
work as a muralist for various Waikiki
hotels, restaurants, theatres and set
companies. Colleen returned to Shell
Beach, where she works as a studio artist
and muralist, creating works inspired by
her love of the ocean.
Colleen Gnos
Samantha is currently working as a
designer for Stephen Patrick Design in
San Luis Obispo. Her passion is art and
design. Samantha’s love for art began as
a child. Her favorite pastime is to draw.
In college, she started as an art major;
then found herself switching to
Interior Design.
Samantha Pereira
Lynn is an active member of the
Downtown Association’s Design Com-
mittee and the Downtown Foresters.
She works and travels extensively as a
decorative artist for local art company
Douglas Bouman and Associates. In
conjunction with that company, she
recently completed a recreation of the
historic entrance to the Coconut Grove
Hollywood for the Ambassador Project
in Los Angeles.
Lynn Hessler
Robert was born and raised in Santo
Domingo, Dominican Republic. At age 16,
he enrolled in the Academy of Fine Arts
in Santo Domingo, where he spent fi ve
years perfecting his craft. After
completing his studies, Robert became
the offi cial muralist of the Dominican
Presidency. In 2001, Robert moved to
Madrid, Spain in order to pursue his
career as an international artist. Robert
now resides on the Central Coast taking
in the warm sunshine and beautiful
landscapes.
Robert MAJA
Amy McKay has been enjoying the SLO
life since 1995, when she came to
Cal Poly for her degree in landscape
architecture. Art has always been her
fi rst love though, and SLO has been
both a supportive and inspirational
environment for her artistic pursuits.
She is thrilled to be a part of the Box Art
project for the second time and feels
grateful every day to be able to share her
art with others. As often as possible, she
can be found painting in her sunny home
studio at the base of Cerro San Luis.
Amy McKay
joey Salazar
joey Salazar was born on the California
Central Coast. She has traveled many
times to New York and South America
to observe and study art, as well as to
gain inspiration. Along her life’s path
joey has worked with many mediums
including, but not limited to, acrylics,
aerosol, photo collage, water and air.
Her work often expresses her feminine
compassion, wisdom and strength which
she hopes to share with others.
California based stencil artist
STENZSKULL, layers grey tones and
colors with stencils to conjure amazing
portraits and fun concepts. 8 years deep
in his stencil medium he is constantly
evolving and refi ning his artistic style.
Hours and hours put in to design and
hand cutting stencils are surely worth
the fi nal product.
STENZSKULL
Ryan Williams was born in Arlington
Heights, IL. in 1973 and currently lives
and works in San Luis Obispo, CA. He
received his BFA from Cal Poly in 2012,
graduating Magna Cum Laude. His
future goals include obtaining his MFA.
In the meantime, Ryan’s eff orts are set
on developing community and maintain-
ing his daily art practice. This is Ryan’s
second time participating in the Box Art
project/competition.
Ryan Williams
Marcie is a San Luis Obispo artist
who has been working as a muralist,
gardening/natural history book illustrator
and plein air painter for thirty years.
She has earned an academic degree in
Biology from Duke University, a fi ne arts
degree from California College of Arts
and Crafts and has also received
additional training in medical and
biological illustration at Duke Medical
School. Marcie has combined a love of
nature and art in a unique way with her
residential and public art mural painting.
10
14 21
24
25
31
32
8
17
29 Blair Rusin
Blair has since experienced life in most
parts of the world. A world that he loves
and works to save, in his artwork and in
his respect for nature. His artistic talent
has been fueled by the beauty found in
the mountains, the oceans and world
cultures. His dreams fi ll in the missing
pieces. As a snowboarder he has been
able to travel the world to discover and
embrace all elements of beauty and
nature. These experiences and
relationships have been a great tool in
leading him to explore all diversities of
his passions.
Box Art Round 1
Box Art Round 2
| THE PROJECT
The City of San Luis Obispo invited artists residing in San Luis Obispo,
Santa Barbara and Monterey counties to apply for a public art proj-
ect to create art on 32 utility boxes located throughout San Luis
Obispo. The goal of the project is to use utility boxes as “canvases”
for original pieces of art as well as contribute to the vitality and at-
tractiveness of the downtown while deterring graffi ti. Not only will
this project improve the “curb appeal” of one of the most attractive,
interesting and economically vibrant downtowns in America, but it
will also give artists an opportunity to add their personal touch to the
City’s public art collection.
| MORE INFORMATION
www.slopublicart.com
City of San Luis Obispo | 805.781.7300
completed October 2010
GUIDE MAP ON BACK
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC 1 - 10
City of San Luis Obispo, Parks and Recreation, 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3934, 805.781.7300, slocity.org
2016 BOX ART SELECTION JURY
Group List
Name Representative
1.Steve Akers Bike SLO County, SLO Resident
2.Sandy Baer SLO History Center, Cultural Heritage Committee
Representative
3.Jamie Bell Land Conservancy
4.Kiersten Demmon Arts Education Teacher, SLO Resident
5.Aaron Gomez Local Business Owner, SLO Resident, Chamber Economic
Vitality Committee Representative
6.Cindy Lambert SLO History Center, SLO Resident
7.Ken McGavin Local Business Owner
8.Charlene Rosales SLO Chamber of Commerce, Governmental Affairs
9.Carol Paquet Artist, Arts Director
10.Allen Root Local Artist, Arts Advocate, Architectural Review
Commission Representative
11.Angela Soll SLO Resident, Architectural Review Commission
Representative
12.Nicki Sucec Local Artist
13.Brent Vanderhoof Downtown Association Representative
14.Chris Woods City Staff, SLO Resident
Facilitated by the City of San Luis Obispo Public Art Manager, Melissa Mudgett
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC 1 - 11
9/13/2016
1
September 6, 2016
2016
UTILITY BOX ART
PROJECT
BOX ART DESIGNS &POTENTIAL CITY
LOCATIONS,AS PROPOSED BY THE ART
JURY SELECTION GROUP,FOR ADVISORY
BODY AND CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
AND APPROVAL
Map of
Proposed*
2016 Box
Art Project
Locations
*As proposed by the Box Art
Jury Selection Group on August
31, 2016
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC 1 - 12
9/13/2016
2
Proposed 2016 Box Art Locations
6
NEW Locations
4
REPAIRED Locations
1
UPGRADED
Utility Box
11
BOX ART
MURALS
Location #36 –Patricia @ Foothill
NEW -PROPOSED
“SLO Many Cows” –Elena Aker
#1
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC 1 - 13
9/13/2016
3
Location #34 –Foothill & Chorro & Broad
NEW -PROPOSED
“Sweet and Low” –Bret Brown
#2
Location #46 –Madonna @ Oceanaire
NEW -PROPOSED
“Once Upon a Dream” –Alister Dippner
#3
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC 1 - 14
9/13/2016
4
Location #43 –Marsh @ Higuera
NEW PROPOSED
“Celebrate SLO” –Nate Erlin
#4
Location #39 –Johnson @ Lizzie
NEW -PROPOSED
“Naturally Beautiful” –Laura Lozano
#5
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC 1 - 15
9/13/2016
5
Location #59 –Broad @ Orcutt
NEW -PROPOSED
“Robot” –Heidi Kruger
#6
Location #30 –Osos @ Monterey
SIGNAL REPLACEMENT
“Love of Color” –Sara Burke
#7
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC 1 - 16
9/13/2016
6
Location #6 –Broad @ Pismo
BOX MODIFICATION REPAIR
“Jacaranda Deco” –Elizabeth Hudson
#8
Location #12 –South @ Higuera
BOX MODIFICATION REPAIR
“Signature Birds of San Luis Obispo County” –
Marcie Hawthorne
#9
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC 1 - 17
9/13/2016
7
Location #24 –Higuera @ Madonna
BOX MODIFICATION REPAIR
“Pismo” –Chris Pederson
#10
Location #25 –Buchon @ Broad
BOX MODIFICATION REPAIR
“Roots, Rocks, Right and Left” –Chris Pederson
#11
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC 1 - 18
9/13/2016
8
NEXT STEPS FOR BOX ART
•Architectural Review Commission (ARC) 9/19/16* at 5:00pm Council Hearing Room
•Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) 9/26/16* 5:30pm Council Hearing Room
•Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC)10/5/16* at 5:30pm Council Chambers
Advisory
Body Reviews
•City Council Review and Approval of Recommended box art designs & locations
•October 18, 2016*
•6:00pm -Council Chambers
City Council
Approval
•Prime, Paint & Prepare Utility Boxes
•Artist Orientation Meeting
•2016 BOX ART PAINTING: Tentatively Scheduled for November 7-18, 2016* (2 Week Period)
Box Art
Painting
Note: Updated information and schedules will be provided on the City’s Website at:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/parks-and-recreation/public-art/box-art-
program
*Public
Meeting
Dates as
listed here
are tentative
and may be
subject to
change
QUESTIONS?
Melissa Mudgett
Recreation Department & Public Art Program Manager
Parks & Recreation
Administration 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934
E mmudgett@slocity.org
T 805.781.7296
slocity.org
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC 1 -19
I Indicates location of proposed box art murals in the Old Town and Downtown Historic District boundaries
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC 1 - 20
September 26, 2016
Cultural Heritage
Committee
2016
UTILITY BOX ART
PROJECT
Proposed box art mural designs for traffic signal
utility boxes located in the Old Town and
Downtown Historic Districts
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC 1 - 21
Review of Box Art Murals proposed
for the Old Town and Downtown
Historic District locations.
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC 1 - 22
OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT
Location #1 –Broad @ Pismo
BOX MODIFICATION & REPAINT
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC 1 - 23
OLD TOWN
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
Location #1 –
Broad @
Pismo
NEW DESIGN
PROPOSED
“Jacaranda
Deco” –
Elizabeth
Hudson
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC 1 - 24
OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT
Location #2 –Buchon @ Broad
BOX MODIFICATION & MURAL RESTORATION
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC 1 - 25
OLD TOWN
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
Location #2 –
Buchon @
Broad
MURAL
RESTORATION
“Roots, Rocks,
Left, Right” –
Chris Pederson
ATTACHMENT 6
CHc 1 - 26
DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT
Location #3 –Osos @ Monterey
BOX REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC 1 - 27
DOWNTOWN
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
Location #3 –
Osos @
Monterey
BOX
RELOCATION
&
REPLACEMENT
“Love of Color”
–Sara Burke
ATTACHMENT 6
CHC 1 - 28
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of new signage on a Contributing List Historic Building (Blackstone Hotel)
with a categorical exemption from environmental review.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 840 Monterey Street BY: Kip Morais, Planning Technician
Phone: (805) 781-7101
E-mail: kmorais@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-3534-2016 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the Community Development Director find the project
consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and Secretary of Interior Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties.
SITE DATA
Applicant Steve Fear: Coast Monument
Signs
Complete Date August 11, 2016
Historic Status Contributing List
General Plan General Retail
Zoning C-D-H (Historic Downtown
Commercial)
Site Area ~7,350 square feet
Environmental
Status
Categorically exempt from
environmental review under
CEQA Guidelines section 15301
(Existing Facilities)
SUMMARY
The applicant has requested a sign exception for a wall sign on the Western Façade (Chorro Street)
of the Contributing List Historic Blackstone Hotel located at 840 Monterey Street in the
Downtown Historic District. The exception request is to allow a sign on a façade with no public
entrance (Chorro Street). The Community Development Director’s consideration of approval of
the sign exception will consider CHC analysis of the Secretary of the Interiors Standards and
Historic Preservation Guidelines.
1.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
1.1 Site Information/Setting
The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Monterey and Chorro Streets in the
Downtown-Commercial zone within the Downtown Historic District (C-D-H). The
Blackstone Hotel is a three-story Contributing List Historic Resource; built in 1876
Meeting Date: September 26, 2016
Item Number: 2
CHC2 - 1
840 Monterey Street
ARCH-3534-2016
Page 2
(Attachment #2, Historic Inventory Report). Nearby resources include the historic Sinsheimer
building across Monterey Street, and Muzio’s Store located at 868 Monterey Street. On
Chorro Street, to the northwest of the building is the Sauer Adobe, and directly across Chorro
to the north west is the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa. The Blackstone Hotel building
was previously occupied by a real estate office and small retail stores (Attachment #2, Historic
Inventory Report).
The Blackstone Hotel consists of three structures that have been integrated over the years. The
original structure, known as the Quintana Block was built in 1876 on the site of the former
Quintana Adobe. The façade was remodeled in 1913 when Monterey Street was realigned,
and again in 1921 when the third story and curved building corner were added (Attachment
#2, Historic Inventory Report).
One of the significant features listed in the Historic Resources Inventory is the “porthole”
windows on the ground floor, which remain from the original Quintana Block building.
Another significant feature is the rounded curve of the building corner which was added in
1921 (Attachment 2, Historic Inventory Report).
1.2 Project Description
The proposed wall sign is 3 feet in width and 3 feet in height (Figure #1). Materials consist of
an aluminum face with a halo-lit aluminum logo, with a clear polycarbonate back with white
diffuser. The wall sign is positioned on the southwest façade (Chorro Street) (Figure #2: Sign
Location).
Figure #1: Wall Sign Detail
CHC2 - 2
840 Monterey Street
ARCH-3534-2016
Page 3
Figure #2: West Elevation Sign Location (Chorro Street)
2.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed sign exception will be reviewed and evaluated by the Community Development
Director. The below evaluation includes staff analysis of the Secretary of Interior Standards for
Rehabilitation of a historic property and Historic Preservation Guidelines for construction on
historic properties within historic districts.
2.1 Secretary of Interior Standards (SOI)
The most appropriate treatment standard to consider in the evaluation of the project is SOI
Standards for Rehabilitation. Rehabilitation Standards are intended to make possible a
compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions, while preserving those
portions of features which concern its historical, cultural, or architectural values.
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction
techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved…
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new
construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that
characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be
compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to
protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Staff Analysis: The SOI Standards for Historic Rehabilitation recommends constructing
new alterations so that there is the least possible loss of historic materials, and so that
character-defining features are not obscured, damaged, or destroyed 1. The proposed wall
sign is of modest size, is compatible with the historic features of the building, and does not
1 Secretary of Interior Standards Additions/Alterations: Some exterior and interior alterations to a historic building
are generally needed to assure its continued use, but it is most important that such alteration s do not radically
change, obscure, or destroy character defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes.
CHC2 - 3
840 Monterey Street
ARCH-3534-2016
Page 4
appear to detract from the essential form and architectural integrity of the historic building.
The sign does not interfere visually with significant features such as the porthole windows
or the curved façade, because the view of these features remains unobstructed from the
street view.
SOI Rehabilitation Standard #10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be
undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the
historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
Staff Analysis: The sign has been designed to be attached directly into the wall, with a
wiring protection device through the wall. According to the manufacturer, this device
eliminates the need for large diameter holes to accommodate wiring. This assembly makes
it possible to remove the sign in the future without impairing the essential form of the
façade. Staff Recommends Condition #1: Plans submitted for Director Review shall
demonstrate a method of installation/application for the proposed sign that in case of future
removal shall not damage the essential form and architectural integrity of the building.
2.2 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide criteria to evaluate alterations to historic
resources and compatibility for new development within Historic Districts.
3.4.3 Retention of character-defining features: Alterations of historically-listed buildings shall
retain character defining features. New features on primary and secondary building facades,
or features visible from a public area, should be completed in a manner that preserves the
original architectural character, form, scale, and appearance of the building.
3.4.4 Exterior building changes: Exterior changes to historically-listed building’s or resources
should not introduce new or conflicting architectural elements and should be architecturally
compatible with the original and/or prevailing architectural character of the building, its
setting and architectural context…
Staff Analysis: The applicant has proposed a sign that does not conflict with existing
architectural elements, and is compatible with the character and context of the building. This is
achieved by placing the sign in a way that does not obstruct the view of the historic portal
windows or the curved façade. The proposed size of the sign appears proportional and does not
overwhelm the elevation or detract from the historic character of the building. To ensure the wall
sign does not distract from the architectural elements and context, staff recommends Condition
#2: As determined by the Director, the backlight illumination shall not extend past the extents of
the overall sign edges or appear excessively bright so as to create glare, distraction, or illuminate
large portions of the wall of the building, and Condition # 3: The wall sign shall not exceed 9
square-feet in total area.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt under the following: Section 153 01 (Existing Facilities),
because the proposed sign is a minor exterior alteration to an existing structure that will not detract
from the building’s historic significance.
CHC2 - 4
840 Monterey Street
ARCH-3534-2016
Page 5
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
1.Continue the item with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent issues.
2.Recommend that the project be denied based on inconsistency with the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines or the Secretary of Interior Standards.
5.0 ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Resolution
2.Historic Inventory Report
3.Project Plans
CHC2 - 5
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE,
RECOMMENDING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FIND THE
WALL SIGN ON A CONTRIBUTING LIST HISTORIC RESOURCE (BLACKSTONE
HOTEL), CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE; 840
MONTEREY STREET, DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT, C-D-H ZONE,
APPLICATION #ARCH-3534-2016
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on September 26, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-3534-2016; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Cultural Heritage Committee hereby finds the project
consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance (ARCH-3534-2016), based on the following
findings:
1.The project is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation,
because distinctive materials and features will remain, and the historic character of the
property will be retained and preserved.
2.The project is consistent with the Historic Preservation Guidelines since the proposed
alterations to a historic structure retain character defining features, do not introduce new
or conflicting architectural elements, and comply with rehabilitation standards of the
Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is categorically exempt under the
following: Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), because the proposed sign is a minor exterior
alteration to an existing building that will not detract from the building’s historic significance.
SECTION 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee hereby recommends the
Community Development Director find the project consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance, subject to the following conditions:
1.Plans submitted for Director Review shall demonstrate a method of installation/application
for the proposed sign that in case of future removal shall not damage the essential form and
architectural integrity of the building.
Attachment 1
CHC2 - 6
Resolution No.XXXX-16
840 Monterey Street (ARCH-3534-2016)
Page 2
2.As determined by the Director, the backlight illumination shall not extend past the extents
of the overall sign edges or appear excessively bright so as to create glare, distraction, or
illuminate large portions of the wall of the building.
3.The wall sign shall not exceed 9 square-feet in total area.
On motion by Committee member, , seconded by Committee member,, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26th day of September 2016.
_____________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
Attachment 1
CHC2 - 7
Attachment 2
CHC2 - 8
Attachment 2
CHC2 - 9
Attachment 2
CHC2 - 10
Attachment 2
CHC2 - 11
Attachment 2
CHC2 - 12
This design is the exclusive property of Signtechand cannot be reproduced in whole or in part,without their prior written approval.CUSTOMER APPROVALCOPY, COLORS & SIZESCustomer Signature DateCustomer Signature DateSigntech does NOT provide primaryelectrical to sign location - RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS!4444 Federal Blvd. San Diego CA 92102Phone: (619) 527-6100 / Fax: (619) 527-6111signtech.comInitial Date:Salesperson:Coordinator:Designer:Scale:Lululemon Drawing Number:Quote:03/21/16Christine M. Mello John F. Cook Melissa Lozano As noted16-00701Page No.San Luis Obispo840 Monterey StreetB 101San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA----Project ID:LULULEMON_93401_1R8R1: remove proposal. Non illuminated signs -ML 3/25/16R2: add elevations per new archs -ML 4/4/16R3: remove awnings, chg elevations -ML 4/25/16R4: Add details for awning. not under our scope, just for LL purposes -ML 5/4/16R5: revise A & B to current std. 5.16.16 -beR6: revised both signs per city planner requirements -ML 6.23.16R7: revised placement for yogo on west elevation -ML 6.27.16R8: revised placement for yogo (sign B) -ML 8.9.16.POUFSFZ4USFFU#4BO-VJT0CJTQP
$"1Attachment 3CHC2 - 13
This design is the exclusive property of Signtechand cannot be reproduced in whole or in part,without their prior written approval.CUSTOMER APPROVALCOPY, COLORS & SIZESCustomer Signature DateCustomer Signature DateSigntech does NOT provide primaryelectrical to sign location - RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS!4444 Federal Blvd. San Diego CA 92102Phone: (619) 527-6100 / Fax: (619) 527-6111signtech.comInitial Date:Salesperson:Coordinator:Designer:Scale:Lululemon Drawing Number:Quote:03/21/16Christine M. Mello John F. Cook Melissa Lozano As noted16-00701Page No.San Luis Obispo840 Monterey StreetB 101San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA----Project ID:LULULEMON_93401_1R8R1: remove proposal. Non illuminated signs -ML 3/25/16R2: add elevations per new archs -ML 4/4/16R3: remove awnings, chg elevations -ML 4/25/16R4: Add details for awning. not under our scope, just for LL purposes -ML 5/4/16R5: revise A & B to current std. 5.16.16 -beR6: revised both signs per city planner requirements -ML 6.23.16R7: revised placement for yogo on west elevation -ML 6.27.16R8: revised placement for yogo (sign B) -ML 8.9.16MONTERREY STREET LEVEL SCHEMATIC FLOOR PLANS BA2Attachment 3CHC2 - 14
This design is the exclusive property of Signtechand cannot be reproduced in whole or in part,without their prior written approval.CUSTOMER APPROVALCOPY, COLORS & SIZESCustomer Signature DateCustomer Signature DateSigntech does NOT provide primaryelectrical to sign location - RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS!4444 Federal Blvd. San Diego CA 92102Phone: (619) 527-6100 / Fax: (619) 527-6111signtech.comInitial Date:Salesperson:Coordinator:Designer:Scale:Lululemon Drawing Number:Quote:03/21/16Christine M. Mello John F. Cook Melissa Lozano As noted16-00701Page No.San Luis Obispo840 Monterey StreetB 101San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA----Project ID:LULULEMON_93401_1R8R1: remove proposal. Non illuminated signs -ML 3/25/16R2: add elevations per new archs -ML 4/4/16R3: remove awnings, chg elevations -ML 4/25/16R4: Add details for awning. not under our scope, just for LL purposes -ML 5/4/16R5: revise A & B to current std. 5.16.16 -beR6: revised both signs per city planner requirements -ML 6.23.16R7: revised placement for yogo on west elevation -ML 6.27.16R8: revised placement for yogo (sign B) -ML 8.9.16REFLECTED CEILING PLAN SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0”ABNOTE(S): ELECTRICAL ACCESS TO BE VERIFIED±62’-10” LEASE LINE TO LEASE LINE ±35’-2” LEASE LINE TO LEASE LINE ±9’-0” LL TO LL 3Attachment 3CHC2 - 15
This design is the exclusive property of Signtechand cannot be reproduced in whole or in part,without their prior written approval.CUSTOMER APPROVALCOPY, COLORS & SIZESCustomer Signature DateCustomer Signature DateSigntech does NOT provide primaryelectrical to sign location - RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS!4444 Federal Blvd. San Diego CA 92102Phone: (619) 527-6100 / Fax: (619) 527-6111signtech.comInitial Date:Salesperson:Coordinator:Designer:Scale:Lululemon Drawing Number:Quote:03/21/16Christine M. Mello John F. Cook Melissa Lozano As noted16-00701Page No.San Luis Obispo840 Monterey StreetB 101San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA----Project ID:LULULEMON_93401_1R8R1: remove proposal. Non illuminated signs -ML 3/25/16R2: add elevations per new archs -ML 4/4/16R3: remove awnings, chg elevations -ML 4/25/16R4: Add details for awning. not under our scope, just for LL purposes -ML 5/4/16R5: revise A & B to current std. 5.16.16 -beR6: revised both signs per city planner requirements -ML 6.23.16R7: revised placement for yogo on west elevation -ML 6.27.16R8: revised placement for yogo (sign B) -ML 8.9.16SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0”13’-7” 24” ±11’-4 3/8” AFF 24” EQ EQ ±35’-2” LEASE LINE TO LEASE LINE ±9’-0” LL TO LL 4AAttachment 3CHC2 - 16
This design is the exclusive property of Signtechand cannot be reproduced in whole or in part,without their prior written approval.CUSTOMER APPROVALCOPY, COLORS & SIZESCustomer Signature DateCustomer Signature DateSigntech does NOT provide primaryelectrical to sign location - RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS!4444 Federal Blvd. San Diego CA 92102Phone: (619) 527-6100 / Fax: (619) 527-6111signtech.comInitial Date:Salesperson:Coordinator:Designer:Scale:Lululemon Drawing Number:Quote:03/21/16Christine M. Mello John F. Cook Melissa Lozano As noted16-00701Page No.San Luis Obispo840 Monterey StreetB 101San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA----Project ID:LULULEMON_93401_1R8R1: remove proposal. Non illuminated signs -ML 3/25/16R2: add elevations per new archs -ML 4/4/16R3: remove awnings, chg elevations -ML 4/25/16R4: Add details for awning. not under our scope, just for LL purposes -ML 5/4/16R5: revise A & B to current std. 5.16.16 -beR6: revised both signs per city planner requirements -ML 6.23.16R7: revised placement for yogo on west elevation -ML 6.27.16R8: revised placement for yogo (sign B) -ML 8.9.16WEST ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0”13’-7” 36” ±9’-6” AFF 36” 5BAttachment 3CHC2 - 17
This design is the exclusive property of Signtechand cannot be reproduced in whole or in part,without their prior written approval.CUSTOMER APPROVALCOPY, COLORS & SIZESCustomer Signature DateCustomer Signature DateSigntech does NOT provide primaryelectrical to sign location - RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS!4444 Federal Blvd. San Diego CA 92102Phone: (619) 527-6100 / Fax: (619) 527-6111signtech.comInitial Date:Salesperson:Coordinator:Designer:Scale:Lululemon Drawing Number:Quote:03/21/16Christine M. Mello John F. Cook Melissa Lozano As noted16-00701Page No.San Luis Obispo840 Monterey StreetB 101San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA----Project ID:LULULEMON_93401_1R8R1: remove proposal. Non illuminated signs -ML 3/25/16R2: add elevations per new archs -ML 4/4/16R3: remove awnings, chg elevations -ML 4/25/16R4: Add details for awning. not under our scope, just for LL purposes -ML 5/4/16R5: revise A & B to current std. 5.16.16 -beR6: revised both signs per city planner requirements -ML 6.23.16R7: revised placement for yogo on west elevation -ML 6.27.16R8: revised placement for yogo (sign B) -ML 8.9.16SCHEMATIC PROPOSAL SCALE: NOT TO SCALEBANOTE(S): FLAG BANNERS AND AWNINGS NOT UNDER OUR SCOPE. 6Attachment 3CHC2 - 18
This design is the exclusive property of Signtechand cannot be reproduced in whole or in part,without their prior written approval.CUSTOMER APPROVALCOPY, COLORS & SIZESCustomer Signature DateCustomer Signature DateSigntech does NOT provide primaryelectrical to sign location - RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS!4444 Federal Blvd. San Diego CA 92102Phone: (619) 527-6100 / Fax: (619) 527-6111signtech.comInitial Date:Salesperson:Coordinator:Designer:Scale:Lululemon Drawing Number:Quote:03/21/16Christine M. Mello John F. Cook Melissa Lozano As noted16-00701Page No.San Luis Obispo840 Monterey StreetB 101San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA----Project ID:LULULEMON_93401_1R8R1: remove proposal. Non illuminated signs -ML 3/25/16R2: add elevations per new archs -ML 4/4/16R3: remove awnings, chg elevations -ML 4/25/16R4: Add details for awning. not under our scope, just for LL purposes -ML 5/4/16R5: revise A & B to current std. 5.16.16 -beR6: revised both signs per city planner requirements -ML 6.23.16R7: revised placement for yogo on west elevation -ML 6.27.16R8: revised placement for yogo (sign B) -ML 8.9.162’-0”1’-4 5/8”2’-0”1SINGLE-FACED, INTERNALLY-ILLUMINATED, HALO-LIT YOGO, FACE-LIT FLIPCABINET: 1 1/8” DEEP BRAKE-FORMEDCABINET FACE: .125” THICK ALUMINUM BRAKE-FORMED FACE PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 186C RED.LOGO: 3” DEEP OF ALL ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION FACE: .125” THICK PAINTED MATTHEWS SATIN WHITERETURNS: .063” X 3” PAINTED MATTHEWS SATIN WHITEBACK: .177” CLEAR LEXAN WITH WHITE DIFFUSER STANDOFFS: STANDOFF FASCIA 1” WITH SPACERS PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 186C RED.ILLUMINATION: WHITE LEDs, 6500K.ATTACHMENT: TBD PER WALL CONDITIONSLUL-WC2-24SCALE: 1 1/2” = 1’A3” 1”1 1/8” 1”x1”x1/8” ANGLEWALL SURFACE3/8” HARDWAREPER CONDITIONSWALL BUSTER PASS THRUDISCONNECT SWITCH120 VOLT PRIMARYELECTRIC FEED(BY OTHERS).063" ALUM RETURN.125" ALUM FACE.063" ALUM CLIPWHITE LEDS#10 CLIP SCREW.177" CLEAR LEXAN BACKCOUNTERSUNK SCREWS (TYP.)BRAKE-FORMEDPANEL1SECTION DETAIL SCALE: 1 1/2” = 1’-0”NIGHT VIEW7Attachment 3CHC2 - 19
This design is the exclusive property of Signtechand cannot be reproduced in whole or in part,without their prior written approval.CUSTOMER APPROVALCOPY, COLORS & SIZESCustomer Signature DateCustomer Signature DateSigntech does NOT provide primaryelectrical to sign location - RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS!4444 Federal Blvd. San Diego CA 92102Phone: (619) 527-6100 / Fax: (619) 527-6111signtech.comInitial Date:Salesperson:Coordinator:Designer:Scale:Lululemon Drawing Number:Quote:03/21/16Christine M. Mello John F. Cook Melissa Lozano As noted16-00701Page No.San Luis Obispo840 Monterey StreetB 101San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA----Project ID:LULULEMON_93401_1R8R1: remove proposal. Non illuminated signs -ML 3/25/16R2: add elevations per new archs -ML 4/4/16R3: remove awnings, chg elevations -ML 4/25/16R4: Add details for awning. not under our scope, just for LL purposes -ML 5/4/16R5: revise A & B to current std. 5.16.16 -beR6: revised both signs per city planner requirements -ML 6.23.16R7: revised placement for yogo on west elevation -ML 6.27.16R8: revised placement for yogo (sign B) -ML 8.9.163’-0”2’-0 7/8”3’-0”1LUL-WC2-36SCALE: 1” = 1’BSINGLE-FACED, INTERNALLY-ILLUMINATED, HALO-LIT YOGO, FACE-LIT FLIPCABINET: 1 1/8” DEEP BRAKE-FORMEDCABINET FACE: .125” THICK ALUMINUM BRAKE-FORMED FACE PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 186C RED.LOGO: 3” DEEP OF ALL ALUMINUM CONSTRUCTION FACE: .125” THICK PAINTED MATTHEWS SATIN WHITERETURNS: .063” X 3” PAINTED MATTHEWS SATIN WHITEBACK: .177” CLEAR LEXAN WITH WHITE DIFFUSER STANDOFFS: STANDOFF FASCIA 1” WITH SPACERS PAINTED TO MATCH PMS 186C RED.ILLUMINATION: WHITE LEDs, 6500K.ATTACHMENT: TBD PER WALL CONDITIONS3” 1”1 1/8” 1”x1”x1/8” ANGLEWALL SURFACE3/8” HARDWAREPER CONDITIONSWALL BUSTER PASS THRUDISCONNECT SWITCH120 VOLT PRIMARYELECTRIC FEED(BY OTHERS).063" ALUM RETURN.125" ALUM FACE.063" ALUM CLIPWHITE LEDS#10 CLIP SCREW.177" CLEAR LEXAN BACKCOUNTERSUNK SCREWS (TYP.)BRAKE-FORMEDPANEL1SECTION DETAIL SCALE: 1 1/2” = 1’-0”NIGHT VIEW8Attachment 3CHC2 - 20
This design is the exclusive property of Signtechand cannot be reproduced in whole or in part,without their prior written approval.CUSTOMER APPROVALCOPY, COLORS & SIZESCustomer Signature DateCustomer Signature DateSigntech does NOT provide primaryelectrical to sign location - RESPONSIBILITY OF OTHERS!4444 Federal Blvd. San Diego CA 92102Phone: (619) 527-6100 / Fax: (619) 527-6111signtech.comInitial Date:Salesperson:Coordinator:Designer:Scale:Lululemon Drawing Number:Quote:03/21/16Christine M. Mello John F. Cook Melissa Lozano As noted16-00701Page No.San Luis Obispo840 Monterey StreetB 101San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 USA----Project ID:LULULEMON_93401_1R8R1: remove proposal. Non illuminated signs -ML 3/25/16R2: add elevations per new archs -ML 4/4/16R3: remove awnings, chg elevations -ML 4/25/16R4: Add details for awning. not under our scope, just for LL purposes -ML 5/4/16R5: revise A & B to current std. 5.16.16 -beR6: revised both signs per city planner requirements -ML 6.23.16R7: revised placement for yogo on west elevation -ML 6.27.16R8: revised placement for yogo (sign B) -ML 8.9.16REDPMS 186CWHITEFONT: TREBUCHET BOLDGRAPHIC FOR AWNING. NOT UNDER OUR SCOPE9Attachment 3CHC2 - 21
Meeting Date: September 26, 2016
Item Number: 3
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of proposed modifications to the façade of the Union Hardware Building,
a Master List Historic Resource
ADDRESS: 1119 Garden St BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FILE #: ARCH-2588-2016 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: Upon finding the proposed storefront modifications are consistent with
the Historic Preservation Ordinance, adopt the draft resolution (Attachment 1) recommending the
Director find the modifications consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the
Rehabilitation of Historic Properties
SITE DATA
Applicant Garden Street SLO Partners, LP
Representative Oasis Associates, Inc.
Submittal Date Jul 7, 2016
Complete Date Aug 5, 2016
General Plan General Retail
Zoning Downtown-Commercial &
Historical Preservation (C-D-H)
Historic Status Master List Resource
Downtown Historic District
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15301:
Existing Facilities)
SUMMARY
The Union Hardware Building, a Master List historic structure (see Attachment 2) in the
Downtown Historic District, forms part of the recently approved Garden Street Terraces project
(see Project Plans, Attachment 3). In November, 2011 the City Council approved (Attachment 4)
a final project design that included rehabilitation of this historic building and preservation of all of
its significant or contributing character-defining features, as described in a Historical Analysis
Report (Attachment 5) prepared for the project. In January, 2016 Garden Street SLO Partners filed
an application for review of building modifications to create a new recessed entry and a new
outdoor seating area for use in conjunction with a restaurant.
CHC3 - 1
ARCH-2285-2016 (1119 Garden)
Page 2
1.0 COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW
The Commission’s purview is to provide a recommendation to the Community Development
Director on whether the proposed modifications to the building façade are consistent with
applicable Secretary of Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Program.1
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The site is on the west side of Garden Street, 100 feet south of Higuera Street, within the
Downtown-Commercial (C-D-H) Zone and in the Downtown Historic District. This block of
Garden Street is characterized by the historic structures along its frontage, including many
examples of early 20th Century commercial development. The Smith (1123-27), Laird (1129-35),
and Stover Buildings (1130) are Master List Historic Resources, and the Barrett Block (1110-
1124) is a Contributing List Historic Resource.
2.2 Union Hardware Building
Modifications are proposed for the easterly, street facing façade of
1119 Garden, known as the Union Hardware & Plumbing Company
Building (Union Hardware Building). The building is a historic
resource, included on the City’s Master List of Historic Properties. It
is a two-story brick commercial structure built in 1912, with a classic
early 20th Century commercial storefront and distinctive white glazed
and light tan fired bricks on the façade (see Attachment 2). It most
recently hosted SLO Brew, a brewpub and night club, and is now
vacant and awaiting seismic strengthening and rehabilitation, as part
of the Garden Street Terraces project, which is currently under
construction.
Historical Analysis Report
A Historical Analysis Report was prepared by Chattel Architecture,
Planning & Preservation in April, 2011 (Attachment 5), which included the Union Hardware
Building. It described the building, noting its rectangular massing, brick façade and walls, parapet,
cornice and dentils, symmetrical fenestration, and distinctive second-floor sliding metal door. The
1 Historic Preservation Ordinance § 14.01.030 (B) – Cultural Heritage Committee; Duties
Figure 2: (1995)
Union Hardware Building
Figure 1: West side of Garden Street
CHC3 - 2
ARCH-2285-2016 (1119 Garden)
Page 3
report identified the character-defining features of the building, indicating whether these features
were “significant,” “contributing,” or “non-contributing” (see Table 1).
Table 1: Relevant character-defining features of the Union Hardware Building2
Significant: Street-facing façade with ground level retail storefront
Storefronts with inset entries
Yellow/buff brick and white glazed brick veneer façade
Bulkhead, fixed glazing and transom configuration of storefront
Contributing Fixed storefront glazing and transom
Wood ceiling at inset entry
Metal columns at storefront
Non-Contributing Awnings and flower boxes
Marble cladding on bulkhead
Tile floor at inset entry
Entry doors
Reconfigured east stair
Vestibule at entry
The impacts of the Garden Street Terraces project on cultural and visual resources of Garden Street
were also assessed in the report, following a project design that retains all of the features identified
in the report as “significant” or “contributing” to the building’s character:
All significant and contributing features on the exterior and interior are proposed
to be retained and rehabilitated as necessary, including cleaning and repairing as
necessary the buff brick veneer on the façade, decorative parapet and cornice,
and window heads and sills. The storefronts, including bulkhead, fixed glazing
and transom configuration, will be retained. (Chattel 2011, pg. 8)
The report concluded that the rehabilitation and seismic retrofit of the Union Hardware Building,
as proposed for the Garden Street Terrace project, appeared to be in conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.3
2.3 Project Description
The Union Hardware Building is proposed to be rehabilitated for a restaurant use (see Page 11 of
the Project Plans; Attachment 3). Modifications are proposed for the building façade, including:
Removal of the existing storefront and inset entry, glazing, and bulkhead;
Construction of a new concrete masonry unit (CMU) shear wall
A new storefront system with a “cover glass” glazing system atop a new “subway tile”
wall recessed within ground floor of the building
New smooth cement plaster ceiling and wall finishes in the inset patio
2 Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc.; Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis (April 2011), pp. 6-8
3 Chattel 2011, page 18
CHC3 - 3
ARCH-2285-2016 (1119 Garden)
Page 4
The new CMU wall will be constructed at the ground floor of the building, extending behind one
of the building’s retained pipe columns, on the right side of the façade. A new storefront system
with two new building entries will be installed, recessed several feet behind the wall plane, on
either side of the CMU wall, creating an outdoor seating area in the left side of the building façade,
and a new building entry area in the right side (see Figure 3).
3.0 EVALUATION
The CHC should evaluate the proposed alterations for consistency with the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG)4 and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards).5
3.1 Historical Preservation Program Guidelines
Changes or additions to historically or architecturally significant buildings are to be consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Buildings and
alterations are to retain character-defining features.6 Both of these requirements are discussed
below in further detail.
3.2 Secretary of Interior Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties contains
standards and accompanying guidelines to be used during rehabilitation of historic buildings for
compatible uses through repair and alterations. It is acknowledged that some alterations to a
historic building may be needed to assure its continued use, and specific recommendations are
discussed which apply to storefronts:
Removing or radically changing storefronts, and their features, which are
important in defining the overall historic character of the building so that, as a
result, the character is diminished, is not recommended. (Storefronts – pg. 89).
4 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines § 3.4.1 (f)
5 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties (Washington DC, 1995).
6 HPPG § § 3.4.1 & 3.4.3
Figure 3: Rendering of the building façade, with proposed modifications
CHC3 - 4
ARCH-2285-2016 (1119 Garden)
Page 5
Historic Consultant Evaluation: In the April 2011 Historical Analysis Report prepared for the
Garden Street Terraces project, Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation identified several
character-defining features as significant. Features were identified as significant “because their
loss would cause material impairment of the historical resource.” 7 In a later memorandum, dated
September 27, 2015 (Attachment 8), Chattel Architecture reviewed the overall conformance of the
modified project design, including the proposed changes to the façade of the Union Hardware
Building, with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. In the
analysis, concern is expressed concern about the removal of the existing storefront and entry
components, but the proposed changes and exterior treatment are found to “conform to the
Secretary’s Standards as part of the overall balance”
“…The Secretary’s Standards are intended to be flexible and adaptable to
specific project conditions to balance continuity and change while retaining
historic building fabric to the extent feasible. Their interpretation requires the
exercise of professional judgment and balance of the various opportunities and
constraints of any given project based on use, materials retention and treatment,
and compatibility of new construction. (Sept 2015 Chattel memo, page 2)
The September 2015 memorandum notes that the
remaining character-defining features of the building
are retained, including the existing transom and pipe
columns, with simplified treatment of the new inset
storefronts, allowing for retention of historic fabric
and a contemporary use. Retention of existing
storefront transoms in plane with building façades,
with openness to the sidewalk, is noted in the
memorandum as an increasingly common feature in
the Downtown Historic District.
Staff Analysis: The key determination the CHC
should make is the importance of the existing
storefront glazing and bulkhead to the overall historic
character of the building. The SOI Standards do not
recommend radically changing or removing
storefronts which are important in defining the overall character of a building. Typically,
bulkheads and storefront systems are prominent features of commercial storefronts and are
important elements in the how a building expresses its form and detail. In the case of the Union
Hardware building, the bulkheads and storefront glass panels could be evaluated as less prominent
features since they do not appear to consist of materials from the building’s period of historical
significance. The most prominent and character defining architectural features of the lower level
storefront, the transom windows, pipe columns and yellow and white brick columns on both sides
of the storefront opening, will be retained under the proposed modifications, along with all of the
remaining features identified in the Historical Analysis Report as significant or contributing to the
7 Chattel, 2011.
Figure 4: Historical photo of Union Hardware
& Plumbing Company building
CHC3 - 5
ARCH-2285-2016 (1119 Garden)
Page 6
historic character of the building, including the orientation of the façade (street-facing), the
presence of a ground-level retail storefront, and its configuration with inset entries.
Consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards and accompanying guidelines for
rehabilitation of historic resources, the building could be found to retain its overall historic
character, largely defined by its rectangular massing, brick wall surfaces, and decorative details
(including parapet, cornice, and dentils), while making possible a new use for the building. Based
on this evaluation, provided the CHC finds the removal of the bulkhead and storefront glazing is
not an important feature in defining the overall character of the building, staff recommends that
the Committee adopt the attached resolution recommending that the Director find the
modifications to the façade of the Union Hardware Building consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards, based on findings and subject to conditions.
4.0 CONCURRENCES
Project plans for this application were reviewed by the Building & Safety Division, and the Fire,
Public Works, and Utilities Departments, who provided comments to be considered i n evaluation
of, and action on, the application.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), as it consists of the minor alteration of an existing structure, as described in CEQA
Guidelines § 15301 (Existing Facilities). The proposed modifications would not result in material
impairment to the historic significance of the resource since character defining features of the
building will be retained.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the project with direction to the applicant and staff on pertinent
issues.
2. Recommend that the Community Development Director deny the proposed façade
modifications, based on findings of inconsistency with applicable policies of the General
Plan, historical analysis reports prepared for the Garden Street Terrace Project, historic
preservation policies and guidelines, or design guidelines.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Historic Resource Inventory: Union Hardware & Plumbing Company (Jun 1983)
3. Project Plans (Jul 7, 2016)
4. Council Resolution 10312 (Nov 11, 2011)
5. Historic Analysis Report, Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. (Apr 2011)
6. Excerpts from Secretary of the Interior’s Standards & Guidelines
7. Addendum to the Garden Street Terraces Final EIR (Sept 2011)
8. Memorandum from Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. (Sep 2015)
CHC3 - 6
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FIND
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO THE FAÇADE OF THE UNION HARDWARE
BUILDING, A MASTER LIST HISTORIC RESOURCE IN THE DOWNTOWN
HISTORIC DISTRICT, AT 1119 GARDEN STREET TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF
HISTORIC PROPERTIES (ARCH-2588-2016)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, filed an application on January
6, 2016, for review of proposed modifications to the façade of the Union Hardware & Plumbing
& Company Building, including the replacement of an existing storefront with a new storefront
and creation of an Outdoor Seating area, at 1119 Garden Street; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on September 26, 2016, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed modifications to the
façade of the building at 1119 Garden Street; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicants, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by
staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City
of San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Cultural Heritage Committee makes
the following findings:
1. The project is consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines because
the proposed new storefront preserves the original architectural character, form, scale, and
appearance of the building (§ 3.4.3), and the building will retain its overall historic
character, largely defined by its rectangular massing, brick wall su rfaces, and decorative
details (including parapet, cornice, and dentils), while making possible a new use for the
building, in conformance with the goals and policies of the General Plan and the Secretary
of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Property (§ 3.1.1).
2. The project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines for the Treatment of
Historic Properties. The replacement of the existing retail storefront with new recessed
storefronts of a more contemporary design involves minimal change to the building’s
distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships to rehabilitate the building
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC3 - 7
Resolution No.XXXX-16
ARCH-2258-2016 (1119 Garden)
Page 2
for a use as a restaurant without causing material impairment of the building as an historic
resource. The building retains its overall historic character, largely defined by its
rectangular massing, brick wall surfaces, and decorative details, including parapet, cornice,
and dentils. The storefront revisions maintain a street-facing façade with a ground level
retail storefront, recessed entries, and a storefront configuration that includes a bulkhead,
fixed glazing, and transom windows.
3. The proposed project is consistent with the policies of the General Plan’s Conservation and
Open Space Element (COSE) related to cultural resources. The Union Hardware &
Plumbing Company Building is preserved and rehabilitated, as described in § 3.3.1. The
proposed changes to the building façade are undertaken in a manner consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties, and
maintain the building’s street appearance, as required by § 3.3.4.
Section 2. Environmental Review. This project is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it consists of the minor
alteration of an existing structure, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15301 (Existing Facilities).
Because the work is carried out in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, the project does not cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.
Section 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend that the
Community Development Director find the that proposed modifications to the façade of the Union
Hardware & Plumbing Company Building are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, based on the above findings, and subject to the
following conditions:
1. Signage proposed with the project shall not include installations that block or detract from
historic architectural features such as transoms.
On motion by Committee Member,
seconded by Committee Member,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES.
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26th day of September, 2016.
________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC3 - 8
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC3 - 9
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC3 - 10
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTHISTORIC BUILDINGS: 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETPRESENTATION TO THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE JULY 7, 2016OWNER / APPLICANT : Garden Street SLO Partners, L.P.805 Aerovista Place, #202San Luis Obispo, CA 93401Contact : Hamish Marshall805.544.7343AGENT / PLANNER: Oasis Associates Inc.3427 Miguelito CourtSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401Contact: C.M. Florence, AICP805-541-4509ARCHITECT:Arris Studio Architects1306 Johnson AvenueSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401Contact: Thom Jess, AIA805-547-2240HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANT:Chattel, Inc. 13417 Ventura BoulevardSherman Oaks, CA 91423-3938Contact: Robert Jay Chattel, AIA818-788-7954SHEET INDEX:Page 2 FLOOR PLAN & STREETSCAPEPage 3 PROJECT HISTORYPage 4 DOWNTOWN CHARACTER STUDYPage 5 RENDERED DESIGN PROGRESSIONPage 6 CURRENT RENDERED DESIGNPage 7 CURRENT RENDERED DESIGNPage 8 MEMORANDUM OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCEPage 9 MEMORANDUM OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCEPage 10 SITE PLAN COMPARISONPage 11 ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN- FIRST FLOORPage 12 BUILDING ELEVATIONS, MATERIALS, COLORSPage 13 DOOR AND WINDOW DETAILSPage 14 SIGNAGE EXAMPLESATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 11
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 2FLOOR PLAN & STREETSCAPE1119 Garden Street1125 Garden StreetGarden Street Terraces / Hotel Serra Project AreaMARSH STREETBROAD STREET
HIGUERA STREETGARDEN STREETVICINITY MAP11251119GARDEN STREET IMPROVEMENTS• One way traffic (northbound)• Angled parking• Increased sidewalk widths• Pedestrian crosswalks• Bicycle parking • Site furnishings• Street treesATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 12
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 3TIMELINE OF DESIGN REVIEWThe following is a synopsis of the design approvals for the two historic buildings on Garden Street; 1119 Garden Street – formerly Union Hardware & Plumbing, and SLO Brew and 1125 Garden Street – formerly the Christian Science Reading Room (CSRR). June 1, 2010 – As reviewed by CHC and ARC, the City Council approves project and certifies Final EIR (dated December 2009). The project as analyzed in the EIR included partial preservation, façade retention, and renovation of the historic buildings.After final approval the project design was modified and scaled back. The redesigned project was associated with the EIR’s “Incorporation of Historic Building Alternative” through rehabilitating the existing historical buildings.April 2011 – Historic Analysis Report is provided by Chattel Historic Preservation Consultants (Chattel) for the existing historic buildings including 1119 & 1125 Garden Street. July - November 2011 – The redesigned project is reviewed by CHC and ARC, with final approval provided by City Council. The project is again modified, reduced in scale. March 4, 2014 – City Council approves the revised final design for the project.October 30, 2014 – City Staff reviews design modifications and finds that the proposed changes are in substantial conformance with City Council approval.February 17, 2014 – Submittal of the application and construction documents for a building permit are submitted to the City. July 10, 2015 – Chattel provides the project architect with corrections and design modifications for the historical structures to bring the design into substantial conformance with Secretary of Interior Standards (SOI), as stipulated by the project’s EIR and conditions of approval. September 27, 2015 – Chattel issues a memorandum of substantial conformance of design, as modified per previous direction. November 2015 - January 2016 – In November, the applicant team and City Staff meet to review Garden Street historical building designs as submitted in the building permit plan set. From that meeting the decision by staff is to present the current design information to CHC.PROJECT HISTORY2011 Submittal2013 Submittal2014 Submittal1125 11191125 11191125 1119
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 13
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 4DOWNTOWN CHARACTER STUDYDoc Burnstein’s 860 Higuera St.SLO Brew 738 Higuera St.Sidecar 1127 Broad St.Chipotle 853 Higuera St.Wineman Hotel 851 Higuera St.Big Sky Cafe 1121 Broad St.Naked Fish 857 Higuera St.Yogurtland 956 Higuera St.Urbane Cafe 952 Higuera St.Which Wich 1035 Chorro St.CONTEXTUAL EXAMPLES OF RECESSED DINING SPACE IN HISTORIC AND NON-HISTORIC STRUCTURES MASTER LIST CONTRIBUTINGATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 14
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 5RENDERED DESIGN PROGRESSION1119 GARDEN ST. HISTORICAL PHOTO2009 GARDEN STREET RENDERING 2011 GARDEN STREET RENDERING EXISTING CONDITION (2013) ATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 15
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 6CURRENT RENDERED DESIGNATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 16
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 7CURRENT RENDERED DESIGNATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 17
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 8MEMORANDUM OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCEMs. Carol Florence September 27, 2015 Page 2Methodology Robert Chattel and Bradley Furuya worked closely with architects from CGA and the project team to ensure the Current Plan Check Submittal conforms to the conditions contained in the COA Matrix and addresses the Plan Check Comments. As you know, we have been working on this project for some time and prepared the Historic Analysis Report dated April 2011 (Chattel Report) referenced in the COA Matrix. The Chattel Report establishes that the Secretary’s Standards to be used in project review are the Rehabilitation Standards. Thus, references to the Secretary’s Standards in this memo are to the Rehabilitation Standards. The Chattel Report identifies character-defining features for the two, adjacent historic buildings on Garden Street that are integrated into the project. For ease of reference here, the building to the north, Union Hardware and Plumbing building, also known as SLO Brew, will be referenced by its street address 1119 Garden Street, and the adjacent building to the south, also known at the Christian Science reading room, will be referenced by its street address 1123-1127 Garden Street. The following is a review of overall conformance with the Secretary’s Standards with specific attention to windows. Project Review As stated in the Chattel Report, the Secretary’s Standards are not prescriptive or technical, but “are intended to promote responsible preservation practices” and “provide philosophical consistency” to treatments for historical resources (Chattel Report, page 2). The Secretary’s Standards are intended to be flexible and adaptable to specific project conditions to balance continuity and change while retaining historic building fabric to the extent feasible. Their interpretation requires the exercise of professional judgment and balance of the various opportunities and constraints of any given project based on use, materials retention and treatment, and compatibility of new construction. The Rehabilitation Standards, in particular, look to put a property back into a state of utility and repair rather than replace historic materials. This is the approach taken in reviewing the Current Plan Check Submittal. We should note at the outset that both buildings are constructed on unreinforced masonry and will be retrofitted as an integral part of the project. The seismic retrofit for both buildings is minimally invasive and change visible from the street is limited. 1119 Garden Street As provided in the Chattel Report, the period of significance of the building is 1912. As described in the Current Plan Check Submittal, the proposed treatment to the exterior elevations is in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards. The east elevation or façade facing Garden Street is primary. The north elevation facing the alley is secondary and more utilitarian in nature, constructed of common (red) brick. Only the east elevation is a significant character-defining feature (page 6). The north elevation was identified only for its visibility along the alley. With these facts established, the following describes proposed treatments. The north and east elevations are retained and rehabilitated. Two types of finish brick, yellow above glazed white wainscot, on the east elevation will be cleaned and repointed as necessary. Common brick on the north elevation, which still shows evidence of overpaint, will be restored to an unpainted, exposed red brick finish using gentlest possible means, a chemical rather than abrasive treatment is specified. The second floor double-hung sash wood windows on the east elevation are retained and restored with added interior storm windows to address noise and energy conservation. At the first floor of the east elevation, the lower portion of existing storefront below transom windows would be removed. As proposed, a new storefront would be constructed approximately 10 feet west of the current location creating two insets. The two insets are separately by a new poured-in-place reinforced concrete shear wall which stands free of the retained north pipe column. The south inset widens the existing central inset and the north inset is entirely new. The new ceiling and wall finishes in the inset patio are proposed to be cement plaster (stucco) with a relatively smooth finish. While we express concern about removal of much of the existing storefronts with recessed entries, retention of the MemorandumDATE September 27, 2015 TO Carol Florence, Principal Oasis Associates, Inc. FROM Robert Chattel, AIA, President Bradley Furuya, Associate Chattel, Inc. RE Garden Street Terraces Mixed Use Project 736 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California Review of Plan Check Submittal for Application Number PLBLDG-0953-2015 IntroductionWe has been asked to review the Plan Check Submittal drawing set prepared by Cuningham Group Architects (CGA) dated July 9, 2015 (Current Plan Check Submittal) for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards). We specifically reference the Project Resolutions/Conditions of Approval matrix dated March 28, 2014 (COA Matrix) as follows: HistoricallyǦaccurate window specifications for the buildings at 1119 and 1123 & 1137 Garden Street shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of project plans and details shall be included in working drawings. All of the significant and contributing characterǦdefining historic features identified in the Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation dated April 2011 shall be retained and incorporated into the project consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. We also specifically reference the undated Plan Check Review #1 for Application Number PLBLDG-0953-2015 comments (Plan Check Comments) from the Planning Department as follows: 1. The Garden Street elevations of 1119 Garden Street and 1123 through 1127 Garden Street shall comply with City Council condition #9 which requires retaining character defining features of these buildings consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. 2. Window specification for the listed historic properties on Garden Street shall meet condition #6 and shall be designed to match existing or pre-existing original wood double-hung window systems. In any case where original windows are present, original windows shall be restored and retained. We understand both the COA Matrix and Plan Check Comments to be essentially one and the same.ATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 18
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 9Ms. Carol Florence September 27, 2015 Page 3existing transom and pipe columns (currently inboard of the existing storefront) coupled with simplified treatment of the new inset storefronts allow for both retention of historic fabric and a contemporary use which furthers project goals. Retaining existing storefront transoms in plane with the façade, while allowing a greater openness to the sidewalk, has become common in the historic district. Coupled with greater retention of the storefronts with inset entries at the 1123-1127 Building, these changes are found to conform to the Secretary’s Standards as part of the overall balance. The secondary north elevation is proposed to have both contemporary infill in three existing openings and several new openings cut (and the existing brick toothed to ensure finished exposed edges of brick) to provide for contemporary use, particularly of the upper floor where guestrooms would be located. The infill of two original doorways at the first and second floor would be accomplished with salvaged brick and inset 2 inches to create a shadow line. The third opening at the first floor is wide and it is proposed to be infilled with a new window. New openings generally follow the shape and form of existing openings and proposed guardrails align with the plane of the wall so as not to detract from historic character. 1123-1127 Garden Street As provided in the Chattel Report, the period of significance of the building is 1923. As described in the Current Plan Check Submittal, the proposed treatment to the exterior elevations is in conformance with the Secretary’s Standards. The east elevation or façade facing Garden Street is primary. The south elevation facing a walkway is secondary and more utilitarian in nature, constructed of common (red) brick. Only the east elevation is a significant character-defining feature (page 9). The south elevation was identified only for its visibility along the walkway. With these facts established, the following describes proposed treatments. The south and east elevations are retained and rehabilitated. A blended red brick on the east elevation will be cleaned and repointed as necessary. Common brick on the south elevation, which has been overpainted, will be restored to an unpainted, exposed red brick finish using gentlest possible means, a chemical rather than abrasive treatment is specified. The second floor contemporary sliding aluminum sash windows on the east elevation would be replaced with double-hung sash wood windows to closely match existing windows of this type of the south elevation. At the first floor of the east elevation, the lower portion of existing storefront below transom windows will be replaced based on physical evidence in plane with the façade. Existing leaded glass transoms would be retained and rehabilitated. If the south transom is no longer extant behind existing stucco clad infill, it would be accurately reconstructed to match exactly the existing and visible north transom. Two storefront insets would be eliminated, leaving only the current central second floor entry point to provide access to the building. The existing paired entry door leaves would be replaced with a single contemporary wood and glass door while retaining the existing transoms both at the inset door and at the transom above the doorway. This new door leaf within the existing enframement would be the primary point of entry to the hotel. As such, it utilizes the historic pattern successfully, balancing loss of the two storefront entries. The existing tile floor at the central entry which spans both the interior and exterior will be retained and restored. The new ceiling finish at the inset entry is proposed to be cement plaster (stucco) with a relatively smooth finish. The secondary south elevation is proposed to have contemporary infill in three existing openings on the second floor. The infill would be accomplished with salvaged brick and inset 2 inches to create a shadow line. This infill addresses seismic retrofit requirements and allows for contemporary common area use of the second floor. Three existing steel sash windows on the first floor will be retained and restored. Existing translucent wire glass is proposed to be replaced with clear glass. ConclusionThe Current Plan Check Submittal was reviewed for conformance with Secretary’s Standards and consistency with the COA Matrix, particularly as windows are concerned. Where the Current Plan Ms. Carol Florence September 27, 2015 Page 4Check Submittal might on the surface conflict with identification of character-defining features in the Chattel Report overall balance is achieved as noted. Chattel finds the proposed project to conform to theSecretary’s Standards and thus to be consistent with the COA Matrix. MEMORANDUM OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCEATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 19
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 10SITE PLAN COMPARISON11251119PROPOSED FLOOR / SITE PLANEXISTING FLOOR / SITE PLAN11251119Recessed Portion Of BuildingLOBBYFRONT DESKPRIVATE DININGLOBBY RETAILBARRESTAURANTKITCHENPATIORESTROOMOFFICESATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 20
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 11ARCHITECTURAL FLOOR PLAN- FIRST FLOORDNFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFDFD1234EET UPRESTAURANT130LOBBY140OUTSIDESEATINGMEN145AORAGE152B.O.H.151STORAGE135LOBBY RETAIL141STORAGE134CHEF/ FB MANAGER
139
WALK IN COOLERS130BDISHWASH138PANTRY137FB STORAGE139AB.O.H.133KITCHEN132WOOD FIRE GRILL
130A
RESTROOM LOBBY145FRONT OFFICE &RESERVATIONS144FINANCE OFFICE
144A
RMS DIVISION MGR143WOMEN145BPRIVATE DINING1422A.3024A.3052
A.305
7A.305A.302 A.5024A.50474A.4535A.4526A.4525A.453STAIR 3150ELEV200.95ELEV200' - 11.4"ELEV200.95ELEV199'-9.6"TRASH1312A.4536' - 0"19' - 6"19' - 6"40' - 2" VERIFY EXISTING 39' - 11" VERIFY EXISTING A.1611S1S2S3S4S5S6S12S13A.7011RAMP DN
8A.4535' - 2 3/8"3A.4535' - 4"
1' - 0"9' - 2"5' - 6 3/8"@ 34" A.F.F.
60" MIN
@ 34" A.F.F.60" MIN@ 34" A.F.F.60" MIN30" X 48" CLEARFLOOR AREA30" X 48" CLEARFLOOR AREA.MAX. 5% SLOPE7' - 4"FACE OF CMU6' - 6"TACTILE EXIT SIGN,SEE 8/R.3TACTILE EXIT ROUTESIGN, SEE 9/R.3TACTILE EXIT SIGN,SEE 8/R.33-HR ROLLDOWN DOOR8" CMU WALL@ 3'-6" HIGHA.101.A3ELEV
200.76PARKING SIGNAGE,SEE 3/R.31
A.306 2A.3063A.306PROVIDE FRY REGLET ATINTERSECTION OF NEW WALL ANDEXISTING MASONRY -EA. SIDECOORDINATE LOCATION OFDOOR WITH EXISTING FLOORTILE INSET TO REMAINCENTER NEW WALL ON EXISTINGPIPE COLOUMNADA PROVIDEAUTOMATIC DOOROPENERNEW CONCRETEINFILL PANELPROVIDEFLOODGATEHARDWARE PERSHEET A.191/2,3PROVIDE FLOODGATE HARDWAREPER SHEET A.191/2,3199.54'ACCESSIBLEENTRANCESIGNAGE - SEESHEET G006ACCESSIBLEENTRANCESIGNAGE - SEESHEET G006GARDEN162GAS FIREPLACE
15
A.494 10' - 5" 7' - 0 1/2"ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCESIGNAGE - SEE SHEET G006ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCESIGNAGE - SEE SHEET G006ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCESIGNAGE - SEE SHEET G006ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCESIGNAGE - SEE SHEET G006NEW BRICKINFILL PANEL443 HOUR FIRE BARRIER446A.4531' - 6"4"30"X48"
30"X48"WALK-INCOOLERV.I.F14' - 0"20' - 1 1/2"36' - 8 1/2"5' - 0 3/8"13' - 2"13' - 1 7/8"11' - 3 5/8"
2' - 0 7/8"(E) FLOOR TILES TOREMAIN & PROTECTEDDURING CONSTRUCTION11191125ATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 21
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 12BUILDING ELEVATIONS, MATERIALS, COLORSKEYNOTES 3 Existing brick facade to remain - clean and tuck point brick as required using the gentlest means possible.13b Wood windows - Historically accurate.14 Wood storefront system.29 “Cover Glass” glazing system.30 Existing chimney to remain.40 Keep (E) transom in current position. 41 Patch and repair cracks on concrete coping.42 (E) STL. pipe col. to remain and protected during construction.43 (E) DBL hung windows - repair & restore.50 Brick to match existing. Cold joint - Recess 2” from face of existing brick.51 Brick piers to remain - Door will not have required strike - provide automatic door opener.52 New metal blade sign. Vertical knock-out lettering, with internal illumination. Powdercoat to match storefront color.53 Existing “subway” tile.1125 GARDEN ST.1119 GARDEN ST.Existing Brick- 1125 Garden StreetExisting Brick- 1119 Garden StreetProposed Subway Tile to match existingColor Swatch- Black Fox(window frames and cornice)Color Swatch- Dover White(window frames, cornice and banding)ABCDEBBBAADDDDDDDEEEEEEEEBCCATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 22
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 13DOOR AND WINDOW DETAILS1125 GARDEN STREET1119 GARDEN STREET- Inset Storefront1125 GARDEN STREET TRANSOM1119 GARDEN STREET TRANSOMATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 23
GARDEN STREET TERRACES / HOTEL SERRA MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT HISTORIC BUILDINGS; 1119 & 1125 GARDEN STREETJULY 7, 2016 PAGE 14SIGNAGE EXAMPLESATTACHMENT 3
CHC3 - 24
RESOLUTION NO . 10312 (2011 Series )
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISP O
APPROVING THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE GARDEN STREET TERRACE S
MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE C-D &C-D-H ZONE S
ARC 124-06 ; 1119, 1123-1127, 1129-1137 GARDEN STREET
AND 712, 720, 722, 728, 736, 748 MARSH STREET )
WHEREAS,the applicant, Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, on August 8, 2006 ,
submitted a request for architectural approval of a proposal to develop a mixed-use developmen t
project in the downtown core known as Garden Street Terraces ; and
WHEREAS,the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) conducted a public hearing on Jul
y
25, 2011, and determined that the revised project design is appropriate in the Downtow n
Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District, and recommended final approval of th e
project design to the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) and City Council ; and
WHEREAS,the ARC conducted public hearings of the final design on August 15, 2011 ,
and September 19, 2011, and recommended approval of the project design to the City Council o n
September 19 `h ; an d
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearin g
in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, o n
November 1, 2011, pursuant to an application filed by Garden Street SLO Partners, LP, applican t
for the purpose of considering ARC 124-06, final design review for the Garden S'ireet Terrace s
Project ; an d
WHEREAS,notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law ; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the Final Environmental Impact Repor t
EIR) that was previously certified by the Council on June 1, 2010, along with the Addendu m
dated September 2011 prepared to update the EIR to be consistent with revised project plan s
reviewed by the CHC and ARC ; and
WHEREAS,the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented a t
said hearing .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,by the Council of the City of San Lui s
Obispo as follows :
SECTION 1 .Environmental Determination .
The City Council finds and determines tha t
the project's Final EIR as updated by the Addendum dated September, 2011 adequatel y
addresses the potential significant environmental impacts of the proposed project in accordanc e
with the California Environmental Quality Act and the City's Environmental Guidelines, an d
reflects the independent judgment of the Council . The Council has reviewed and considered th e
R 10312
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC3 - 25
Resolution No . 10312 (2011 Series )
Page 2
information contained in this Addendum in its consideration of the final project design and find s
that the preparation of a subsequent EIR is not necessary, based on the following findings :
Finding s
1 . None of the circumstances included in Section 15162, which require a subsequent EIR hav e
occurred, specifically :
a.The project changes do not result in new environmental impacts .
b.The circumstances under which the project is undertaken will not require major change s
to the EIR .
c.The modified project does not require any substantive changes to previously approve d
mitigation measures .
2 . The proposed modifications to the project description are consistent with prior Counci l
direction to update plans to be consistent with the Reduced Development and Projec t
without Public Parking Spaces alternatives included in the certified Final EIR approved b y
the City Council on June 1, 2011 .
3 . All of the updated mitigation measures are reasonably necessary to reduce potentiall y
significant impacts to less than significant levels and become project conditions .
4 . The changes are consistent with City goals to promote the intensification of infill sites ,
respect the context of the site's setting in the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown
Historical District, provide a project scale compatible with its surroundings, accommodat e
pedestrian flow through the site and onto adjacent streets, and bring economic vitality to th e
downtown core .
5 . The proposed scale and design of buildings will be compatible with surrounding uses a s
found by the City's Architectural Review Commission with their review of project plans
and are consistent with the City's General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Communit y
Design Guidelines .
SECTION 2 .Action.The final design of the Garden Street Terraces Project (ARC 124-06 )
is hereby approved, based on the following findings, and subject to the mitigation measure s
listed in the attached Exhibit A and the following conditions :
Finding s
1 . As designed and conditioned, the building materials, style, character, and form of the ne w
structures within the project will promote the architectural character, style, form, an d
materials of the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtown Historical District an d
complement the architectural character of the surrounding buildings and area consisten t
with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines .
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC3 - 26
Resolution No . 10312 (2011 Series)
Page 3
2.The project is consistent with standards contained in the City's Community Design
Guidelines for the downtown, which encourage projects to be pedestrian-oriented, and to
have proportions and design details that complement surrounding structure s
3.The project's design is consistent with the design principles contained in Section 4 .16 of the
Land Use Element including providing pedestrian-oriented spaces on the ground floor o f
buildings, continuous storefronts, and upper floor dwellings and offices .
4.The project is consistent with the mitigation measures adopted by the City Council on Jun e
1, 2010 with the certification of the Final Garden Street Terraces Project EIR .
Condition s
1.Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with th e
project plans approved by the City Council . A separate full-size sheet shall be included in
working drawings submitted for a building permit that list all conditions, and cod e
requirements of project approval as Sheet No . 2 . Reference should be made in the margin
of listed items as to where in plans requirements are addressed . Any change to approved
design, colors, materials, landscaping or other conditions of approval must be approved b y
the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate .
2.The final design approval shall be valid for five years from the date of City Counci l
approval .
3.The project is subject to all of the conditions approved through City Council Resolution No .
10183 (2010 Series) for a modified use permit and tentative tract map . If a previou s
condition is modified with this latest approval, the latter condition shall prevail and
supersede the former wording of the condition . Any phasing of the overall project, shal l
receive Community Development and Public Works Department review and approval .
4.All applicable mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR shall be included a s
conditions of approval and are included in the attached Exhibit A .
Building Design
5.The new project building through its lowered height and design which includes wall offsets ,
tiered massing, and visual gaps at upper building levels meets the intent of the parameter s
included in the Reduced Development Alternative of the EIR for upper floor setback s
eliminating the need for Condition No . 2 of City Council Resolution No . 10183 (201 0
Series).
6.Historically accurate window specifications for the buildings at 1119 and 1123 & 113 7
Garden Street shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with thei r
review of project plans and details shall be included in working drawings .
7 . Changes to the rear elevation of the building at 1123-1127 Garden for new windows and
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC3 - 27
Resolution No . 10312 (2011 Series )
Page 4
doors shall be a quality and historically accurate treatment . Specific details shall b e
reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their review of projec t
plans and details and specifications included in working drawings .
8.The existing variety of color with the tenant spaces within the buildings at 1129-113 7
Garden, or a similar new proposal, shall be maintained to reinforce the character an d
interest of the block .
9.All of the significant and contributing character-defining historic features identified in th e
Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning &
Preservation dated April 2011 shall be retained and incorporated into the project consisten t
with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines .
10.The building at 748 Marsh shall be painted in a color consistent with its Spanis h
architectural style that differentiates it from the new construction beyond .
11.The central portion of the Marsh Street elevation of the new structure shall be finished in a
compatible color to differentiate it from adjacent storefronts .
12.Plans submitted for a building permit for all project components shall include windo w
details indicating the style and type of materials for the windows, mullions, thei r
dimensions, and colors . Plans shall also include the materials and dimensions of all lintels ,
sills, surrounds, recesses, and other related window features .
13.Plans submitted for a building permit for all project components shall clearly show detail s
for all railings, balconies, decorative architectural features, and storefronts .
14.The plaster finish for buildings shall be smooth-troweled as noted on plans .
Planning
15.The project's required archaeological monitoring report shall be reviewed by the Cultura l
Heritage Committee .
16.The specific art proposals for the project shall return to the ARC for review at a later date
once developed by artists and approved by an art jury as overseen by the SLO Arts Council .
Consider an additional location for public art at the corner of Marsh and Broad Streets .
17.Details of lighting fixtures shall return to staff for review and approval, either prior to, o r
along with, the plans submitted for a building permit . The locations of all lighting fixture s
shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of working drawings . Th e
lighting schedule for buildings shall include a graphic representation of the propose d
lighting fixtures and cut-sheets shall be separately submitted for the project file of th e
proposed lighting fixtures . The selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to insure that light i s
directed downward consistent with Section 17 .23 .050 of the Zoning Regulations . Details o f
all exterior light fixtures, including site lighting and service area lights, need to be included
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC3 - 28
Resolution No . 10312 (2011 Series )
Page 5
as part of plans . A note shall be included on plans that "Lenses of exterior wall-mounte d
lights may be modified or shielding devices added after installation if the Communit y
Development Director determines that they emit excessive glare ."
18.A specific sign program for the project shall be to the review and approval of th e
Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The sign program shall include information o n
the sizes, locations, colors, materials, and types of signage proposed for various building s
and project directional signs, including garage and hotel entry signage . Project signs shall
be designed to be compatible with the architecture of proposed buildings and t o
complement the site's setting within both the Downtown Commercial Zone and Downtow n
Historical District . Once adopted, the sign program shall contain provision for th e
Community Development Director to approve minor deviations to the approved sig n
program if findings can be made in support of the exception being consistent with the inten t
of the program, and in keeping with the design characteristics and historical context of th e
building(s) and/or site . The Director may refer signage proposals to the ARC if there ar e
concerns that a particular design is out of character with the sign program .
19.Mechanical equipment shall be located internally to buildings . With submittal of workin g
drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of buildings, which clearly show th e
sizes of proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment to be placed on the roof t o
confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them . A line of site
diagram may be needed to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate .
20.The required fire risers for buildings shall be located internal to buildings . Other fir e
department equipment shall be located internal to buildings where feasible . The externall y
mounted Fire Department Connection (FDC) for buildings shall have a chrome or bras s
finish to the approval of the Community Development Director .
Trees
21.Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist . The
City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior t o
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction . The City Arborist shal l
approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline o f
trees . A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning . Any required tree protection
measures shall be shown or noted on the building plans . Contact the City Arborist at 781 -
7023 to review and to establish any required preservation measures to be included with th e
building permit submittal .
22.A tree protection bond or surety shall be provided to the city prior to demolition ,
construction, and/or tree relocations to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, Public Work s
Director, and Community Development Director . The surety amount shall be established i n
accordance with current standards for evaluating tree value .
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC3 - 29
Resolution No . 10312 (2011 Series )
Page 6
23 . All new or relocated trees shall be installed per City Engineering Standards . Existing trees
to remain shall be upgraded to include a tree well and grate per City Engineering Standar d
8130 where determined feasible by the City Arborist .
24 . Any required off-site compensatory tree planting as required by Mitigation Measure VIS-5 b
shall be 24" box stock. Said plantings shall be completed prior to acceptance of the publi c
improvements or prior to occupancy whichever occurs first unless otherwise approved fo r
deferral by the Public Works Director .
Public Work s
25 . Plans submitted for a building permit shall address the following items of the Garden Stree t
Improvement Plan :
a.In-ground pavement lights across Higuera Street at Garden Street .
b.Final loading zone design/placement .
c.Public art proposal, if applicable .
d.An increase in height of the parking bollard to improve its visibility .
e.Inclusion of one on-street ADA parking space .
f.Use of the four existing Peak bicycle racks .
g.Final parkway designs .
26 . The Garden Street Alley plan shall include a decorative pavement treatment for its entir e
extent between Garden and Broad Streets and show all existing and proposed public an d
private utilities . Improvements to the public alley, including final bollard design, shall b e
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director . The proposed grease intercepto r
may be located within the public alley . A separate encroachment agreement shall b e
recorded against the property .
27 . Final street furniture details shall comply with the City Engineering Standards in effect a t
the time of submittal or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer .
28 . Disruption to pedestrian or vehicle traffic and/or property access shall be minimized subjec t
to the approval of the Public Works Director . The contractor or sub-contractor(s) may b e
required to provide written notice to any affected properties prior to commencing wit h
work . A list of properties to be noticed shall be approved by the city and documentation o f
delivery of said notice(s) shall be provided to the city .
Upon motion of Council Member Carter, seconded by Vice Mayor Ashbaugh, and on th e
following vote :
AYES :Council Members Carpenter and Carter, Vice Mayor Ashbaugh an d
Mayor Marx
NOES :Council Member Smit h
ABSENT : None
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC3 - 30
Resolution No . 10312 (2011 Series )
Page 7
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 1 "day of November 2011 .
ATTEST :
APPROVED AS TO FORM :
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC3 - 31
GARDEN STREET TERRACES
PROJECT ANALYSIS
Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo
Prepared by
Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc.
April 2011
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 32
GARDEN STREET TERRACES
HISTORIC ANALYSIS REPORT
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & PRESERVATION, INC. 1
Introduction
The Garden Street Terraces project was the subject of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR Case
No. ER#124-06; SCH#2007071062), which the City of San Luis Obispo certified and adopted a
Statement of Overriding Consideration June 1, 2010, selecting the Reduced Development
Alternative. This alternative retains and rehabilitates all five historic buildings on the project site and
does not propose demolition of any historical resource. The five historic buildings on the project site
are:
1. Union Hardware and Plumbing Company building, 1119 Garden Street (Master List building)
2. Smith building, 1123 Garden Street (Master List building)
3. 1129-1135 Garden Street building1 (Master List building)
4. 1137 Garden Street building (Master List building)2
5. 748 Marsh Street building3
The five buildings are also located within the boundaries of the Downtown Historic District. The
Statement of Overriding Considerations allows in Section 1.5(a) that
Mitigation measures are identified in the Final EIR Reduced Development Alternative
that would apply to help reduce project impacts to the historic and visual resources of
Garden Street and their contribution to the character of the Downtown Core and
Downtown Historic District, particularly through the rehabilitation of all onsite historic
buildings consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Resources and greater upper story building setbacks.
The following report builds off of our earlier historic analysis report dated May 2009 and establishes
the regulatory setting, including a summary of the five buildings’ local designation and state historical
resource eligibility with an assessment of impacts of the proposed project and review for
conformance with the Secretary’s Standards. The report concludes that the proposed project
appears to conform with the Secretary’s Standards.
REGULATORY SETTING
California Register of Historical Resources
The California Register was established to serve as an authoritative guide to the state’s significant
historical and archaeological resources (PRC §5024.1). State law provides that in order for a
property to be considered eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found by the State
Historical Resources Commission to be significant under any of the following four criteria; if the
resource:
1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses
1 While the name “Laird” is associated with the building located at 1129-1135 Garden Street, there is no
additional information about the association of any person or business with this name associated with this property.
Therefore, we continue to identify this building only by its address. 2 The DEIR and vesting tentative tract 2967 map includes 1137 Garden Street and 742 Marsh Street as
additional building on one assessor’s parcel number 002-424-019. By virtue of being on the same assessor parcel as
1129-1135 Garden Street, it is also included as a Master List building. However, the Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) form for 1129-1133 Garden Street prepared in April 1983 does not include it in its description. 3 See footnote above.
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 33
GARDEN STREET TERRACES
HISTORIC ANALYSIS REPORT
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & PRESERVATION, INC. 2
high artistic values.
4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The California Register also includes properties which: have been formally determined eligible for
listing in, or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register); are registered
State Historical Landmark Number 770, and all consecutively numbered landmarks above Number
770; points of historical interest, which have been reviewed and recommended to the State Historical
Resources Commission for listing; and city and county-designated landmarks or districts (if criteria
for designation are determined by OHP to be consistent with California Register criteria). PRC
§5024.1 states:
(g) A resource identified as significant in an historical resource survey may be listed in
the California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria:
(1) The survey has been or will be included in the State Historical Resources
Inventory.
(2) The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with
[OHP]… procedures and requirements.
(3) The resource is evaluated and determined by the office to have a
significance rating of category 1-5 on DPR [Department of Parks and
Recreation] form 523.
(4) If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for
inclusion in the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical
resources which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed
circumstances or further documentation and those which have been
demolished or altered in a manner that substantially diminishes the
significance of the resource.
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties
The Secretary’s Standards are promulgated pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, 16
U.S.C. 470 et seq. and provide general guidance on treatments for historical resources and their
immediate surroundings or setting. State environmental law utilizes the Secretary’s Standards as a
means of evaluating proposed projects and potential impacts on historical resources. A project that
conforms with the Secretary’s Standards has a less than significant impact under CEQA.
The Secretary’s Standards are not prescriptive or technical, but “are intended to promote
responsible preservation practices” and “provide philosophical consistency” to treatments for
historical resources (National Park Service (NPS), 2003). NPS identifies four treatment approaches,
which include preservation, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction. These treatments, in
hierarchical order, are defined as follows:
The first treatment, Preservation, places a high premium on the retention of all historic fabric
through conservation, maintenance and repair. It reflects a building's continuum over time,
through successive occupancies, and the respectful changes and alterations that are made.
Rehabilitation, the second treatment, emphasizes the retention and repair of historic
materials, but more latitude is provided for replacement because it is assumed the property
is more deteriorated prior to work. (Both Preservation and Rehabilitation standards focus
attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial
relationships that, together, give a property its historic character.)
Restoration, the third treatment, focuses on the retention of materials from the most
significant time in a property's history, while permitting the removal of materials from other
periods.
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 34
GARDEN STREET TERRACES
HISTORIC ANALYSIS REPORT
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & PRESERVATION, INC. 3
Reconstruction, the fourth treatment, establishes limited opportunities to re-create a non-
surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object in all new materials.4
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation
1. A property shall be used for its historic purpose or be placed in a new use that requires
minimal change to the defining characteristics of the building and its site and environment.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic
materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided.
3. Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes
that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or
architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken.
4. Most properties change over time; those changes that have acquired historic significance in
their own right shall be retained and preserved.
5. Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that
characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the
old in design, color, texture, and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials.
Replacement of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical, or
pictorial evidence.
7. Chemical or physical treatments, such as sandblasting, that cause damage to historic
materials shall not be used. The surface cleaning of structures, if appropriate, shall be
undertaken using the gentlest means possible.
8. Significant archeological resources affected by a project shall be protected and preserved. If
such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures shall be undertaken.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old
and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect
the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property
and its environment would be unimpaired.
4 <http://www2.cr.nps.gov/tps/standguide/overview/choose_treat.htm>
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 35
GARDEN STREET TERRACES
HISTORIC ANALYSIS REPORT
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & PRESERVATION, INC. 4
City of San Luis Obispo’s Historical Preservation Program
In 1987, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo established a permanent Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC), replacing a temporary committee established in 1981, stating, “it is in the public
interest to protect and preserve historical, architectural, and cultural resources including monuments,
sites, objects, structures, buildings and other resources” (Resolution No. 6157). One function of the
CHC is to “review the Inventory of Historical Resources and recommend to the City Council any
amendments.” A property may be found eligible for inclusion in the City’s Inventory of Historical
Resources under one of the following eight criteria: (1) Style, (2) Design, (3) Age, (4) Architect, (5)
Environmental design continuity, (6) History – Person, (7) History – Event, and (8) History –
Context.5
DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT
As described in the Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey from 1983:
The mission remains as the focus for the downtown Central Business District that
grew up around it and is still relatively the same size it was nearly 90 years ago. This
central business core stretches southeast to northwest primarily along Monterey,
Higuera, and Marsh Streets. The cross streets bounding the older section of
downtown are Osos Street on the east and Nipomo Street on the west. Within this
general area is a concentration of commercial, religious, and governmental
structures; some dating back to mission times. Most of the historic buildings date
from between the late 1880’s to the 1930’s. An assortment of architectural styles
found here include: Adobe, Pioneer, Early American Commercial, Romanesque,
Renaissance, Gothic Revival, Mission and Spanish Colonial Revival, Mediterranean,
and Art Deco.6
Boundaries for this historic district were outlined in a map prepared for the Completion Report:
Historic Resources Survey in 1983, however, no official action was taken at that time to recognize
the proposed district. In 1987, the Downtown Historic District, with a revised map that expanded the
former boundaries to include additional properties to the north, south and west, was adopted by City
Council (Council Resolution No. 6158, 1987 Series, Figure 1). The Garden Street Terraces project
is located within the Downtown Historic District. Each building is oriented with a street-facing
elevation designed as a principal façade with retail storefronts to form a continuous streetwall.
BUILDING ANALYSIS AND ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECT IMPACTS
The following is a building specific analysis of exterior and interior character-defining features and an
analysis of proposed project impacts on them. In describing individual buildings and their important
spaces and features, it is common to use the terminology significant, contributing and non-
contributing to identify character-defining features. These terms are generally interchangeable with
primary, secondary and tertiary character-defining features, which are also commonly used
descriptors. We identify features as significant because their loss would cause material impairment
of the historical resource. These significant character-defining features will be retained, preserved
and incorporated into any project affecting the individual building and alterations to these features
will be avoided. In addition, the identified significant character-defining features will be preserved
with minimal change and remain visible to the maximum extent feasible. The goal is to allow change
that does not detract from these significant features. Contributing character-defining features will be
preserved to the extent feasible and rehabilitated. Contributing features will also be reconstructed
maximizing reuse of original material only as necessary and appropriate. Greater flexibility is
5 City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department, “The Historical Preservation Program
Guidelines,” effective February 1987, amended August 21, 1990, appendix C. 6 City of San Luis Obispo, Completion Report: Historic Resources Survey, vol. 1, July 1983.
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 36
GARDEN STREET TERRACES
HISTORIC ANALYSIS REPORT
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & PRESERVATION, INC. 5
afforded to non-contributing features and their complete removal does not adversely impact the
individual building.
Union Hardware and Plumbing building, 1119 Garden Street
Physical Description
As described in the PAR Cultural Resources Inventory and shown in Figure 1:
[The building] is an unreinforced two-story masonry (brick) building with a wood truss
roof. It is on a concrete slab foundation7 and is rectangular in massing… The front
façade has yellow brick; the sides are red brick. It has a stepped parapet and
cornice with dentils beneath the cornice.
All fenestration is symmetrical. There are three sets of windows on the second floor.
Each set is composed of two original multipane (3/1) double-hung windows.
Downstairs fenestration consists of a centrally placed recessed doorway with
ceramic tile flooring and large, fixed pane wood sash display windows. From the
lobby area, there are four wood framed glass doors. The two central doors access
the upstairs. The two doors flanking these access the downstairs spaces on either
side of the building.
The exposed portions of the other three walls are plain in contrast to the entry
façade. The rear (east) and south [elevations] are completely without fenestration.
The north [elevation] facing Garden Alley is exposed red brick. There are four former
doorways on this [elevation]. One on the second floor was originally a loading
window with a large metal sliding door (still in place in the open position and replaced
with modern glass windows). There is a pedestrian metal door below it with an
arched brick detail above it. Another original metal sliding door is present on this wall
nearer the front façade. At the rear and located in the concrete addition is another
recessed pedestrian access. There is also a louvered wall vent on the addition.
Alterations
Few exterior alterations have been made to this building. It is unknown when the board-formed
concrete addition at the rear was constructed, although the reinforced concrete construction
suggests a date after the 1940s. In 1988, current tenants undertook major interior alterations at a
cost of $130,000.8 Work included complete reorganization of spaces on the ground and second
floors, such as removing plaster wall and ceiling finishes to expose interior brick walls as well as
sandblasting wood trusses. Also, a new stair to the second floor was constructed, as well as a new
elevator contained within the rear addition.
History
As described by the PAR Cultural Resources Inventory:
In 1912, F. C. Carpenter and his partner, Galewsky, sold the property to C. L. and F. H.
Johnson. They apparently tore the church down and replaced it with a large commercial
building in that year…City records indicate that this structure was designed by W. H. Crias,
Jr., a San Francisco architect and was built by James Maino in 1912…
7 Upon closer inspection, the foundation is actually a raised wood floor with a concrete slab foundation only
at the rear addition. 8 San Luis Obispo County Assessor, “Hanna Hdwar Bldg, S.L Brewery, 1119 Garden St...
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 37
GARDEN STREET TERRACES
HISTORIC ANALYSIS REPORT
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & PRESERVATION, INC. 6
In 1926, a hardware, plumbing and tin shop [occupied the] building. By 1942, it was
occupied by Union Hardware and Plumbing Company and by 1950, by Fred Johnson
Farm Machine store. In 1957, it had returned to being a plumbing store, a use
retained in the mid-1960s. Between 1968 and 1978 the building at 1119 Garden was
used by John Hanna Farm Equipment. The building was used as a general store in
the 1980s and was then divided into three businesses; Slow Brew, Games People
Play, and offices.
Based on this building occupancy history, it appears the ground floor was in continuous retail
use from construction and the upper floor likely contained offices or warehouse space.
Commercial buildings of this period had finished wood, concrete and/or tile floors, plaster
walls and ceilings. Brick walls, ceiling joists and roof trusses in a commercial building of this
era would not have displayed raw building materials. Historically, hardware stores sold
everything from hammers and nails and other construction-related materials, to guns and
fishing gear, to dishes. “Hard”-ware stores were distinguished from stores that sold “soft”
goods, such as cloth.9 While no historic interior or exterior photographs were found of Union
Hardware, historic photographs of several other hardware stores from the same period in
Southern California all show a tall interior space with built-in cabinetry lining walls. Physical
inspection and history demonstrate that the interior ground floor space of Union Hardware
was finished and raw building materials were not exposed. In addition to documentary
evidence of hardware stores throughout Southern California, existing physical conditions
show exposed brick walls have, in fact, been sandblasted with remnants of plaster evident.
On the second floor, given the roof skylights and loading door in the north elevation, it is
entirely possible that all or a part of the space may have been unfinished with raw building
materials exposed. The skylights and roof trusses appear to be the features that may been
visible.
Chronology
1912 Building constructed, designed by W.H. Crias, Jr.
1926 Used as a hardware, plumbing, and tin shop
1942 Union Hardware and Plumbing Company occupied building
1950 Fred Johnson Farm Machine store occupied building
1957 – mid 1960s Plumbing supply store function returns
1968 – 1978 John Hanna Farm Equipment was building tenant
1980s Building used as general store
1988 Major interior alterations and then occupied by Slow Brew, Games
People Play, and second floor offices
Period of Significance
This building was identified on the City of San Luis Obispo’s Master List of Historic Resources as an
excellent and rare example of early twentieth century architecture in the City. Recognized for its
architectural design, the period of significance is 1912, when the building was constructed. It should
be noted that unless a property is eligible under a context other than architecture, its construction
date is typically used to define the period of significance.
Character-defining features
Overall Visual Aspects
Significant
Street-facing façade with ground level retail storefront
9 Vince Staten, Did Monkeys Invent The Monkey Wrench, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997).
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 38
GARDEN STREET TERRACES
HISTORIC ANALYSIS REPORT
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & PRESERVATION, INC. 7
Visibility of secondary north elevation along alley
Masonry construction
Storefronts with inset entries
Decorative shaped parapet and cornice
Yellow/buff brick and white glazed brick veneer façade
Contributing
None
Non-contributing
Roof
Addition at rear west elevation
Invisibility of south and west elevations (west elevation obscured by addition)
Window or door openings in west masonry wall
Painted common red brick west masonry wall10
Visual Character at Close Range
Significant
Classical detailing, including dentils and string courses
Second floor window enframements including head and sills
Wood sash double hung windows with patterned upper sash in facade
Bulkhead, fixed glazing and transom configuration of storefront
Contributing
North elevation painted common red brick and fenestration pattern
Fixed storefront glazing and transom
Wood ceiling at inset entry
Non-contributing
West and south interior common red brick perimeter walls (south has been plastered)
Awnings and flower boxes
Marble cladding on bulkhead
Tile floor at inset entry
Entry doors
Signage including hanging perpendicular and “frost” film on glass
Visual Character of Interior Spaces, Features and Finishes
Significant
None
Contributing
Two roof skylights
Roof trusses
Heavy timber posts with chamfered corners
Metal columns at storefront
Sliding metal door leaves at secondary north elevation
Exposed brick at second floor (needs further investigation)
10 As a secondary elevation, removal of the non contributing addition at the west elevation would not expose
additional significant or contributing character defining features.
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 39
GARDEN STREET TERRACES
HISTORIC ANALYSIS REPORT
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & PRESERVATION, INC. 8
Non-contributing
Roof framing and cladding materials
Exposed brick at ground floor
Exposed floor joists at ground floor ceiling
Reconfigured east stair
Vestibule at entry
Analysis of proposed project impacts
All significant and contributing features on the exterior and interior are proposed to be retained and
rehabilitated as necessary, including cleaning and repairing as necessary the buff brick veneer on
the façade, decorative parapet and cornice, and window heads and sills. The storefronts, including
bulkhead, fixed glazing and transom configuration, will be retained. Cleaning and repair of
significant and contributing features appears to conform with the Secretary’s Standards 5, 6, and 7.
Distinctive materials, features, and finishes that characterize the property will be preserved in
conformance with standard 5 and deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced
in conformance with standard 6. In conformance with standard 7, cleaning will use the gentlest
means possible.
The non-contributing addition at the rear, west elevation will be removed, exposing the original
masonry construction. This work appears to conform with the Secretary’s Standards 2 as the
historic character of the property will be retained and preserved and distinctive spaces will not be
removed. On the first floor, a new opening will be cut between 1119 Garden Street and 1123
Garden Street. As this opening is proposed along a non-contributing elevation that is not exposed
and thus non-contributing, this work also appears to conform with the Secretary’s Standards 2, as
the historic character of the property will be retained and preserved and distinctive spaces will not be
removed. No work is proposed for the interior of the second floor.
Seismic retrofit is required for conformance with the URM mitigation ordinance and to allow current
occupancy to continue. Structural plans are in an early, conceptual stage. Seismic strengthening
would likely involve installation of a steel moment frame and blind epoxy anchors to accomplish wall
to ceiling and roof anchorage. The roof parapet would be strengthened with steel angle bracing.
This work appears to conform with the Secretary’s Standards 1, 2, 5. Work required for seismic
retrofit appears to conform with the Secretary’s Standards 1 and 2. In conformance with standard 1,
seismic retrofit allows the property to be given a new use that requires minimal change to its
distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. In conformance with standard 2,
the historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. In conformance with standard
5, distinctive materials, features, finishes and construction techniques will be preserved.
1123-1127 Garden Street
Physical Description
As described by the PAR Cultural Resources Inventory and shown in Figure 2:
The 1923 building permit notes that it is a 40-foot by 60-foot, [masonry,] two story,
mixed use building. The structure has a flat roof with dentils at the roof line. Four
modern aluminum sash windows are symmetrically placed across the upper story.
The lower floor has three entries accessing the Christian Science Reading Room,
Good Guy Tuna and the upstairs. Display windows are also present.
The interior has original plaster molded ceilings and accent crown molding, although
the Christian Science Room has been renovated in places with drop ceilings and
inset fluorescent lighting.
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 40
GARDEN STREET TERRACES
HISTORIC ANALYSIS REPORT
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & PRESERVATION, INC. 17
Non-contributing
Invisibility of north and west elevations
Visual Character at Close Range
Significant
Spanish eclectic detailing, including wrought iron balconettes and grill
Engaged pilasters with simple capitols
Recessed entry at corner
Metal casement windows at second floor
Exposed rafter tails
Copper, half round gutters, S-curve downspouts and leaderheads
Bulkhead and fixed glazing configuration of storefront
Contributing
False chimney
Non-contributing
North elevation reinforced concrete frame with masonry infill
Signage including hanging perpendicular and film on glass
Recessed double door entry with sidelights and transom on south façade19
Visual Character of Interior Spaces, Features and Finishes
Significant
High volume space with no full-height partitions in east two-thirds of footprint
Plaster finished perimeter walls and ceiling
Contributing
None
Non-contributing
Concrete floor
Exposed HVAC system
Visible reinforced concrete frame
Analysis of proposed project impacts
Seismic retrofit is required for conformance with the URM mitigation ordinance and to allow current
occupancy to continue. Structural plans are not currently available. No additional work is proposed
for this building.
QUALIFICATIONS
Chattel Architecture, Planning & Preservation, Inc. is a full service historic preservation-consulting
firm with statewide practice. The firm represents governmental agencies and private ventures,
successfully balancing project goals with a myriad of historic preservation regulations without
sacrificing principles on either side. Comprised of professionals meeting the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A) in architectural history
and historic architecture, the firm offers professional services including historic resources evaluation
19 Physical evidence suggests the recessed double door entry appears to be a later addition. Evidence
includes a deeper inset than in other bays and corresponding pilaster capital that does not correspond to the depth of
the recessed door, wood rather than masonry bulkhead at side lights, and wider wood frames and rails than
surrounding bays.
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 41
GARDEN STREET TERRACES
HISTORIC ANALYSIS REPORT
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & PRESERVATION, INC. 18
and project effects analysis, and consultation on Federal, state and local historic preservation
statutes and regulations.
This report was prepared by Jenna Snow, Principal Associate. Ms. Snow holds Master of Science in
Historic Preservation degrees from the Graduate School of Architecture Planning and Preservation
at Columbia University and meets the qualifications standards in architectural history. Ms. Snow has
been as a professional in the field of historic preservation for over 10 years. She joined the firm in
2002. At Chattel, Ms. Snow’s professional work on a wide variety of historic resource assessment,
impacts analyses, and monitors construction projects for conformance with the Secretary’s
Standards. She is a regular contributor to environmental impact reports, historic preservation
certification applications and other work associated with historic building rehabilitation, materials
conservation and preservation planning. Her tasks as project manager for Breed Street Shul Project
included working as liaison between the Breed Street Shul Project, Inc. Board of Directors and
various consultants and contractors, as well as communicating with various granting agencies,
including the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Office of Historic Preservation. As
project manager for historic resource surveys of three Community Redevelopment Agency’s project
areas – Westlake, Wilshire Center/Koreatown, and Hollywood - Ms. Snow led a large team
consisting of two subconsultants and coordinated closely with the Office of Historic Resources. Prior
to joining Chattel Architecture, Ms. Snow worked with New York City’s Department of Design and
Construction, Historic Preservation office as well as the Freedom Trail Foundation in Boston. She
has participated in an internship through the International Council of Monuments and Sites in
Romania and volunteered as part of a recovery team organized by the Western Regional Office of
the National Trust for Historic Preservation in New Orleans and advised victims of hurricane Katrina
on appropriate preservation techniques in response to that disaster.
Conclusion
The proposed project, based on the Reduced Project Alternative, includes rehabilitation of Union
Hardware and Plumbing building located at 1119 Garden Street and the Smith building located at
1123 Garden Street. As described above, proposed rehabilitation and seismic retrofit appears to
conform with the Secretary’s Standards. No work is proposed on the three other buildings on the
project site. Please call me at (818) 788-7954, if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
CHATTEL ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & PRESERVATION, INC.
By: _________________________________
Jenna Snow, Principal Associate
Attachment: Figures
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 42
Garden Street Terraces
Figures to Historic Analysis Report
Figure 2: 1129 Garden Street (left), 1123-1127 Garden Street (center),
1119 Garden Street (right), view northwest.
Figure 1: 1119 Garden Street (right) and 1123-1127 Garden Street (left),
view northwest.
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC3 - 43
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standardsfor the Treatment of Historic Propertieswith Guidelines for Preserving, RehabilitatingRestoring &ReconstructingHistoric BuildingsATTACHMENT 6
CHC3 - 44
StorefrontsThe earliest extant storefronts in the U.S., datingfrom the late 18th and early 19th centuries, had bayor oriel windows and provided limited display space.The 19th century witnessed the progressive enlarge-ment of display windows as plate glass became avail-able in increasingly larger units. The use of cast ironcolumns and lintels at ground floor level permittedstructural members to be reduced in size. Recessedentrances provided shelter for sidewalk patrons andfurther enlarged display areas. In the 1920s and1930s, aluminum, colored structural glass, stainlesssteel, glass block, neon, and other new materials wereintroduced to create Art Deco storefronts.The storefront is usually the most prominent featureof a historic commercial building, playing a crucialrole in a store’s advertising and merchandising strate-gy. Although a storefront normally does not extendbeyond the first story, the rest of the building is oftenrelated to it visually through a unity of form anddetail. Window patterns on the upper floors, corniceelements, and other decorative features should becarefully retained, in addition to the storefront itself.9ATTACHMENT 6
CHC3 - 45
Standards forRehabilitation&Guidelines forRehabilitatingHistoric BuildingsRehabilitationis defined as the act or process of making pos-sible a compatible use for a property through repair, alter-ations, and additions while preserving those portions or fea-tures which convey its historical, cultural, or architecturalvalues.ATTACHMENT 6
CHC3 - 46
Standards for Rehabilitation1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to itsdistinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materi-als or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create afalse sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historicproperties, will not be undertaken.4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained andpreserved.5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship thatcharacterize a property will be preserved.6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deteriorationrequires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture,and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentaryand physical evidence.7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible.Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed,mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, fea-tures, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated fromthe old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and mass-ing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a manner that,if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environmentwould be unimpaired.62ATTACHMENT 6
CHC3 - 47
Guidelines for Rehabilitating HistoricBuildingsIntroductionIn Rehabilitation, historic building materials andcharacter-defining features are protected and main-tained as they are in the treatment Preservation; how-ever, an assumption is made prior to work that exist-ing historic fabric has become damaged or deteriorat-ed over time and, as a result, more repair and replace-ment will be required. Thus, latitude is given in theStandards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines forRehabilitationto replace extensively deteriorated,damaged, or missing features using either traditionalor substitute materials. Of the four treatments, onlyRehabilitation includes an opportunity to make pos-sible an efficient contemporary use through alter-ations and additions.Identify, Retain, and Preserve Historic Materialsand FeaturesLike Preservation, guidance for the treatmentRehabilitationbegins with recommendations toidentify the form and detailing of those architecturalmaterials and features that are important in definingthe building’s historic character and which must beretained in order to preserve that character.Therefore, guidance on identifying, retaining, and preserving character-defining features is alwaysgiven first. The character of a historic building may be defined by the form and detailing of exteriormaterials, such as masonry, wood, and metal; exteriorfeatures, such as roofs, porches, and windows; interiormaterials, such as plaster and paint; and interior features, such as moldings and stairways, room configuration and spatial relationships, as well asstructural and mechanical systems.Protect and Maintain Historic Materials andFeaturesAfter identifying those materials and features that areimportant and must be retained in the process ofRehabilitationwork, then protecting and maintain-ing them are addressed. Protection generally involvesthe least degree of intervention and is preparatory toother work. For example, protection includes themaintenance of historic material through treatmentssuch as rust removal, caulking, limited paint removal,and re-application of protective coatings; the cyclicalcleaning of roof gutter systems; or installation of fenc-ing, alarm systems and other temporary protectivemeasures. Although a historic building will usuallyrequire more extensive work, an overall evaluation ofits physical condition should always begin at thislevel.Repair Historic Materials and FeaturesNext, when the physical condition of character-defining materials and features warrants additionalwork repairingis recommended. Rehabilitationguidance for the repair of historic materials such asmasonry, wood, and architectural metals again beginswith the least degree of intervention possible such aspatching, piecing-in, splicing, consolidating, or other-wise reinforcing or upgrading them according to rec-ognized preservation methods. Repairing alsoincludes the limited replacement in kind—or with63Note: The Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings in this chapter have already appeared in The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation &Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, published in 1992.ATTACHMENT 6
CHC3 - 48
compatible substitute material—of extensively deteri-orated or missing parts of features when there are sur-viving prototypes (for example, brackets, dentils,steps, plaster, or portions of slate or tile roofing).Although using the same kind of material is alwaysthe preferred option, substitute material is acceptableif the form and design as well as the substitute materi-al itself convey the visual appearance of the remainingparts of the feature and finish.Replace Deteriorated Historic Materials andFeaturesFollowing repair in the hierarchy, Rehabilitationguidance is provided for replacingan entire character-defining feature with new material because the levelof deterioration or damage of materials precludesrepair (for example, an exterior cornice; an interiorstaircase; or a complete porch or storefront). If theessential form and detailing are still evident so thatthe physical evidence can be used to re-establish thefeature as an integral part of the rehabilitation, thenits replacement is appropriate. Like the guidance forrepair, the preferred option is always replacement ofthe entire feature in kind, that is, with the same mate-rial. Because this approach may not always be techni-cally or economically feasible, provisions are made toconsider the use of a compatible substitute material.It should be noted that, while the National ParkService guidelines recommend the replacement of anentire character-defining feature that is extensivelydeteriorated, they never recommend removal andreplacement with new material of a feature that—although damaged or deteriorated—could reasonablybe repaired and thus preserved.64Originally built as single-family, semi-detached duplexes, these houses were rehabilitated for a new use as rental apartments.While some alteration to non-significant interior features and spaces was necessary in each one, the exteriors were essentiallypreserved. Photos: Mistick, Inc.ATTACHMENT 6
CHC3 - 49
Design for the Replacement of Missing HistoricFeaturesWhen an entire interior or exterior feature is missing(for example, an entrance, or cast iron facade; or aprincipal staircase), it no longer plays a role in physi-cally defining the historic character of the buildingunless it can be accurately recovered in form anddetailing through the process of carefully document-ing the historical appearance. Although accepting theloss is one possibility, where an important architectur-al feature is missing, its replacement is always recom-mended in the Rehabilitationguidelines as the first orpreferred, course of action. Thus, if adequate histori-cal, pictorial, and physical documentation exists sothat the feature may be accurately reproduced, and ifit is desirable to re-establish the feature as part of thebuilding’s historical appearance, then designing andconstructing a new feature based on such informationis appropriate. However, a secondacceptable optionfor the replacement feature is a new design that iscompatible with the remaining character-definingfeatures of the historic building. The new designshould always take into account the size, scale, andmaterial of the historic building itself and, mostimportantly, should be clearly differentiated so that a false historical appearance is not created.Alterations/Additions for the New UseSome exterior and interior alterations to a historicbuilding are generally needed to assure its continued use, but it is most important that such alterations donot radically change, obscure, or destroy character-defining spaces, materials, features, or finishes.Alterations may include providing additional parkingspace on an existing historic building site; cuttingnew entrances or windows on secondary elevations;inserting an additional floor; installing an entirelynew mechanical system; or creating an atrium or lightwell. Alteration may also include the selectiveremoval of buildings or other features of the environ-ment or building site that are intrusive and thereforedetract from the overall historic character.The construction of an exterior addition on a historicbuilding may seem to be essential for the new use,but it is emphasized in the Rehabilitationguidelinesthat such new additions should be avoided, if possi-ble, and considered onlyafter it is determined thatthose needs cannot be met by altering secondary, i.e.,non character-defining interior spaces. If, after athorough evaluation of interior solutions, an exterioraddition is still judged to be the only viable alterative,it should be designed and constructed to be clearlydifferentiated from the historic building and so thatthe character-defining features are not radicallychanged, obscured, damaged, or destroyed.Additions and alterations to historic buildings are ref-erenced within specific sections of the Rehabilitationguidelines such as Site, Roofs, Structural Systems,etc., but are addressed in detail in New Additions toHistoric Buildings, found at the end of this chapter.65ATTACHMENT 6
CHC3 - 50
66Energ EfficiencEnergy Efficiency/AccessibilityConsiderations/Health and Safety CodeConsiderationsThese sections of the guidance address work done tomeet accessibility requirements and health and safetycode requirements; or retrofitting measures toimprove energy efficiency. Although this work isquite often an important aspect of Rehabilitationprojects, it is usually not a part of the overall processof protecting or repairing character-defining features;rather, such work is assessed for its potential negativeimpact on the building’s historic character. For thisreason, particular care must be taken not to radicallychange, obscure, damage, or destroy character-defin-ing materials or features in the process of meetingcode and energy requirements.Rehabilitation as a Treatment When repair andreplacement of deteriorated features are necessary;when alterations or additions to the property areplanned for a new or continued use; and when itsdepiction at a particular time is not appropriate,Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment.Prior to undertaking work, a documentation plan for Rehabilitation should be developed.ATTACHMENT 6
CHC3 - 51
88Building Exterior Storefronts RehabilitationBuilding ExteriorStorefrontsRecommendedIdentifying, retaining, and preserving storefronts—and theirfunctional and decorative features—that are important indefining the overall historic character of the building such asdisplay windows, signs, doors, transoms, kick plates, cornerposts, and entablatures. The removal of inappropriate, non-historic cladding, false mansard roofs, and other later alter-ations can help reveal the historic character of a storefront.Protecting and maintainingmasonry, wood, and architec-tural metals which comprise storefronts through appropriatetreatments such as cleaning, rust removal, limited paintremoval, and reapplication of protective coating systems.Protecting storefronts against arson and vandalism beforework begins by boarding up windows and installing alarmsystems that are keyed into local protection agencies.Evaluating the existing condition of storefront materials todetermine whether more than protection and maintenanceare required, that is, if repairs to features will be necessary.Not RecommendedRemoving or radically changing storefronts—and their fea-tures—which are important in defining the overall historiccharacter of the building so that, as a result, the character isdiminished.Changing the storefront so that it appears residential ratherthan commercial in character.Removing historic material from the storefront to create arecessed arcade.Introducing coach lanterns, mansard designs, wood shakes,nonoperable shutters, and small-paned windows if they can-not be documented historically.Changing the location of a storefront’s main entrance.Failing to provide adequate protection of materials on a cycli-cal basis so that deterioration of storefront features results.Permitting entry into the building through unsecured or bro-ken windows and doors so that interior features and finishesare damaged by exposure to weather or vandalism.Stripping storefronts of historic material such as wood, castiron, terra cotta, carrara glass, and brick.Failing to undertake adequate measures to assure the preser-vation of the historic storefront.ATTACHMENT 6
CHC3 - 52
Building Exterior Storefronts 89RehabilitationRecommendedRepairingstorefronts by reinforcing the historic materials.Repairs will also generally include the limited replacement inkind—or with compatible substitute materials—of thoseextensively deteriorated or missing parts of storefronts wherethere are surviving prototypes such as transoms, kick plates,pilasters, or signs.Replacingin kind an entire storefront that is too deterioratedto repair—if the overall form and detailing are still evident—using the physical evidence as a model. If using the samematerial is not technically or economically feasible, then com-patible substitute materials may be considered.RecommendedDesign for the Replacement of Missing Historic FeaturesDesigning and constructing a new storefront when the his-toric storefront is completely missing. It may be an accuraterestoration using historical, pictorial, and physical documen-tation; or be a new design that is compatible with the size,scale, material, and color of the historic building.Not RecommendedReplacing an entire storefront when repair of materials andlimited replacement of its parts are appropriate.Using substitute material for the replacement parts that doesnot convey the same visual appearance as the surviving partsof the storefront or that is physically or chemically incom-patible.Removing a storefront that is unrepairable and not replacingit; or replacing it with a new storefront that does not conveythe same visual appearance.Not RecommendedCreating a false historical appearance because the replacedstorefront is based on insufficient historical, pictorial, andphysical documentation.Introducing a new design that is incompatible in size, scale,material, and color.Using inappropriately scaled signs and logos or other types ofsigns that obscure, damage, or destroy remaining character-defining features of the historic building.The following work is highlighted to indicate that it represents the particularly complex technical or design aspects of Rehabilitationprojects and should only be considered after the preservation concerns listed above have been addressed.ATTACHMENT 6
CHC3 - 53
90Building Exterior Storefronts RehabilitationIn the treatment, Rehabilitation, one option for replacing missing his-toric features is to use pictorial documentation and/or physical evidenceto re-create the historic feature. (a) In this example, the ornamentalcornice of an 1866 limestone building was missing; and the groundlevel storefront had been extensively altered. (b) and (c) Based on theavailability of photographic and other documentation, the owners wereable to accurately restore the cornice and storefront to their historic con-figuration. A substitute material, fiberglass, was used to fabricate themissing pressed metal cornice, an acceptable alternative in this project.All work met the Standards.abcATTACHMENT 6
CHC3 - 54
B1 - 11
ATTACHMENT 7
CHC3 - 55
B1 - 12
ATTACHMENT 7
CHC3 - 56
B1 - 13
ATTACHMENT 7
CHC3 - 57
B1 - 14
ATTACHMENT 7
CHC3 - 58
B1 - 15
ATTACHMENT 7
CHC3 - 59
B1 - 16
ATTACHMENT 7
CHC3 - 60
B1 - 17
ATTACHMENT 7
CHC3 - 61
B1 - 18
ATTACHMENT 7
CHC3 - 62
Memorandum
DATE September 27, 2015
TO Carol Florence, Principal
Oasis Associates, Inc.
FROM Robert Chattel, AIA, President
Bradley Furuya, Associate
Chattel, Inc.
RE Garden Street Terraces Mixed Use Project
736 Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo, California
Review of Plan Check Submittal for Application Number PLBLDG-0953-2015
Introduction
We has been asked to review the Plan Check Submittal drawing set prepared by Cuningham Group
Architects (CGA) dated July 9, 2015 (Current Plan Check Submittal) for conformance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s
Standards). We specifically reference the Project Resolutions/Conditions of Approval matrix dated
March 28, 2014 (COA Matrix) as follows:
Historically‐accurate window specifications for the buildings at 1119 and 1123 & 1137
Garden Street shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) with their
review of project plans and details shall be included in working drawings.
All of the significant and contributing character‐defining historic features identified in the
Garden Street Terraces Project Analysis prepared by Chattel Architecture, Planning &
Preservation dated April 2011 shall be retained and incorporated into the project consistent
with the Secretary of the Interior Standards and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
We also specifically reference the undated Plan Check Review #1 for Application Number PLBLDG-
0953-2015 comments (Plan Check Comments) from the Planning Department as follows:
1. The Garden Street elevations of 1119 Garden Street and 1123 through 1127 Garden Street
shall comply with City Council condition #9 which requires retaining character defining
features of these buildings consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards.
2. Window specification for the listed historic properties on Garden Street shall meet condition
#6 and shall be designed to match existing or pre-existing original wood double-hung window
systems. In any case where original windows are present, original windows shall be restored
and retained.
We understand both the COA Matrix and Plan Check Comments to be essentially one and the
same.
ATTACHMENT 8
CHC3 - 63
Ms. Carol Florence
September 27, 2015
Page 2
Methodology
Robert Chattel and Bradley Furuya worked closely with architects from CGA and the project team to
ensure the Current Plan Check Submittal conforms to the conditions contained in the COA Matrix
and addresses the Plan Check Comments. As you know, we have been working on this project for
some time and prepared the Historic Analysis Report dated April 2011 (Chattel Report) referenced in
the COA Matrix. The Chattel Report establishes that the Secretary’s Standards to be used in project
review are the Rehabilitation Standards. Thus, references to the Secretary’s Standards in this memo
are to the Rehabilitation Standards. The Chattel Report identifies character-defining features for the
two, adjacent historic buildings on Garden Street that are integrated into the project. For ease of
reference here, the building to the north, Union Hardware and Plumbing building, also known as
SLO Brew, will be referenced by its street address 1119 Garden Street, and the adjacent building to
the south, also known at the Christian Science reading room, will be referenced by its street address
1123-1127 Garden Street. The following is a review of overall conformance with the Secretary’s
Standards with specific attention to windows.
Project Review
As stated in the Chattel Report, the Secretary’s Standards are not prescriptive or technical, but “are
intended to promote responsible preservation practices” and “provide philosophical consistency” to
treatments for historical resources (Chattel Report, page 2). The Secretary’s Standards are intended
to be flexible and adaptable to specific project conditions to balance continuity and change while
retaining historic building fabric to the extent feasible. Their interpretation requires the exercise of
professional judgment and balance of the various opportunities and constraints of any given project
based on use, materials retention and treatment, and compatibility of new construction. The
Rehabilitation Standards, in particular, look to put a property back into a state of utility and repair
rather than replace historic materials. This is the approach taken in reviewing the Current Plan
Check Submittal.
We should note at the outset that both buildings are constructed on unreinforced masonry and will
be retrofitted as an integral part of the project. The seismic retrofit for both buildings is minimally
invasive and change visible from the street is limited.
1119 Garden Street
As provided in the Chattel Report, the period of significance of the building is 1912. As described in
the Current Plan Check Submittal, the proposed treatment to the exterior elevations is in
conformance with the Secretary’s Standards. The east elevation or façade facing Garden Street is
primary. The north elevation facing the alley is secondary and more utilitarian in nature, constructed
of common (red) brick. Only the east elevation is a significant character-defining feature (page 6).
The north elevation was identified only for its visibility along the alley. With these facts established,
the following describes proposed treatments. The north and east elevations are retained and
rehabilitated. Two types of finish brick, yellow above glazed white wainscot, on the east elevation will
be cleaned and repointed as necessary. Common brick on the north elevation, which still shows
evidence of overpaint, will be restored to an unpainted, exposed red brick finish using gentlest
possible means, a chemical rather than abrasive treatment is specified.
The second floor double-hung sash wood windows on the east elevation are retained and restored
with added interior storm windows to address noise and energy conservation. At the first floor of the
east elevation, the lower portion of existing storefront below transom windows would be removed. As
proposed, a new storefront would be constructed approximately 10 feet west of the current location
creating two insets. The two insets are separately by a new poured-in-place reinforced concrete
shear wall which stands free of the retained north pipe column. The south inset widens the existing
central inset and the north inset is entirely new. The new ceiling and wall finishes in the inset patio
are proposed to be cement plaster (stucco) with a relatively smooth finish. While we express
concern about removal of much of the existing storefronts with recessed entries, retention of the
ATTACHMENT 8
CHC3 - 64
Ms. Carol Florence
September 27, 2015
Page 3
existing transom and pipe columns (currently inboard of the existing storefront) coupled with
simplified treatment of the new inset storefronts allow for both retention of historic fabric and a
contemporary use which furthers project goals. Retaining existing storefront transoms in plane with
the façade, while allowing a greater openness to the sidewalk, has become common in the historic
district. Coupled with greater retention of the storefronts with inset entries at the 1123-1127 Building,
these changes are found to conform to the Secretary’s Standards as part of the overall balance.
The secondary north elevation is proposed to have both contemporary infill in three existing
openings and several new openings cut (and the existing brick toothed to ensure finished exposed
edges of brick) to provide for contemporary use, particularly of the upper floor where guestrooms
would be located. The infill of two original doorways at the first and second floor would be
accomplished with salvaged brick and inset 2 inches to create a shadow line. The third opening at
the first floor is wide and it is proposed to be infilled with a new window. New openings generally
follow the shape and form of existing openings and proposed guardrails align with the plane of the
wall so as not to detract from historic character.
1123-1127 Garden Street
As provided in the Chattel Report, the period of significance of the building is 1923. As described in
the Current Plan Check Submittal, the proposed treatment to the exterior elevations is in
conformance with the Secretary’s Standards. The east elevation or façade facing Garden Street is
primary. The south elevation facing a walkway is secondary and more utilitarian in nature,
constructed of common (red) brick. Only the east elevation is a significant character-defining feature
(page 9). The south elevation was identified only for its visibility along the walkway. With these facts
established, the following describes proposed treatments. The south and east elevations are
retained and rehabilitated. A blended red brick on the east elevation will be cleaned and repointed as
necessary. Common brick on the south elevation, which has been overpainted, will be restored to an
unpainted, exposed red brick finish using gentlest possible means, a chemical rather than abrasive
treatment is specified.
The second floor contemporary sliding aluminum sash windows on the east elevation would be
replaced with double-hung sash wood windows to closely match existing windows of this type of the
south elevation. At the first floor of the east elevation, the lower portion of existing storefront below
transom windows will be replaced based on physical evidence in plane with the façade. Existing
leaded glass transoms would be retained and rehabilitated. If the south transom is no longer extant
behind existing stucco clad infill, it would be accurately reconstructed to match exactly the existing
and visible north transom. Two storefront insets would be eliminated, leaving only the current central
second floor entry point to provide access to the building. The existing paired entry door leaves
would be replaced with a single contemporary wood and glass door while retaining the existing
transoms both at the inset door and at the transom above the doorway. This new door leaf within the
existing enframement would be the primary point of entry to the hotel. As such, it utilizes the historic
pattern successfully, balancing loss of the two storefront entries. The existing tile floor at the central
entry which spans both the interior and exterior will be retained and restored. The new ceiling finish
at the inset entry is proposed to be cement plaster (stucco) with a relatively smooth finish.
The secondary south elevation is proposed to have contemporary infill in three existing openings on
the second floor. The infill would be accomplished with salvaged brick and inset 2 inches to create a
shadow line. This infill addresses seismic retrofit requirements and allows for contemporary common
area use of the second floor. Three existing steel sash windows on the first floor will be retained and
restored. Existing translucent wire glass is proposed to be replaced with clear glass.
Conclusion
The Current Plan Check Submittal was reviewed for conformance with Secretary’s Standards and
consistency with the COA Matrix, particularly as windows are concerned. Where the Current Plan
ATTACHMENT 8
CHC3 - 65
Ms. Carol Florence
September 27, 2015
Page 4
Check Submittal might on the surface conflict with identification of character-defining features in the
Chattel Report overall balance is achieved as noted. Chattel finds the proposed project to conform to
the Secretary’s Standards and thus to be consistent with the COA Matrix.
ATTACHMENT 8
CHC3 - 66
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
Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
e-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: PRE 1293-2015 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
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
Plan
General Plan Park Site: General Retail (City)
SP‐3 Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan
Area
Site Area 117.1 acres
Environmental
Status
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 / 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 for a 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).
Meeting Date: September 26, 2016
Item Number: 4
CHC4-1
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.
1 LUE Section 8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
CHC4-2
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).
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 20th 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
Historic
Complex
Figure 1. Historic Complex Location
CHC4-3
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 façade.
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.”
Modern Structures (Not Historically Significant)
Modern 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
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 20th century
ranching and the dairy industry. 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
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’s preliminary 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
BUILT
SIGNIFICANT
STRUCTURE*
APPLICANT PROPOSED CONCEPT
Main Residence 1915 Yes Relocate into proposed park, re-use as a park
ranger station
“Old” Barn Moved to
site in early
1900s
Yes Demolish
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
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
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 (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 Home 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.
Figure 2. Comparative Conceptual Relocation of Main Residence and Bunkhouse
CHC4-7
CHC PRE 1293-2015 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 8
Staff and 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
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:
(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.”
Economic hardship findings are identified in the HPO as follows:
“(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.”
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
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
HPO: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, of any 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 Staff Response 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 Unpermitted 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
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 for the 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
CHC4-12
ATTACHMENT 1
Chapter 6
Page 6-14
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
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,
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
San Luis Obispo, circa 1890
The historic Carnegie Library in Mission Plaza was
rehabilitated in 2001.
CHC4-13
ATTACHMENT 2
Conservation and Open Space Element
Page 6-15
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.
CHC4-14
ATTACHMENT 2
Chapter 6
Page 6-16
3.4. Archeological resources.
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.
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.
Rehabilitation of the Historic Michael Righetti
House
CHC4-15
ATTACHMENT 2
Conservation and Open Space Element
Page 6-17
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:
Preserve such resources through easements or dedications. Subdivision parcel lines or easements shall 1.
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.
Designate such easements or dedication areas as open space or parkland as appropriate. 2.
Maintain such resources by prohibiting activities that may significantly degrade the resource. 3.
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:
Help identify, and advise on suitable treatment for archaeological and historical resources. 1.
Develop information on historic resources. 2.
Foster public awareness and appreciation of cultural resources through means such as tours, a web 3.
site, identification plaques and awards.
Provide recognition for preservation and restoration efforts. 4.
Communicate with other City bodies and staff concerning cultural resource issues. 5.
Provide guidance to owners to help preservation and restoration efforts. 6.
Review new development to determine consistency with cultural resource preservation guidelines or 7.
standards.
CHC4-16
ATTACHMENT 2
Chapter 6
Page 6-18
3.6.2. Financial assistance and incentives.
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.
CHC4-17
ATTACHMENT 2
6-11
CHC4-18
ATTACHMENT 2
1
1
2
8
10
10
10
11
12
14
15
17
19
20
21
22
23
23
Municipal Code Chapter 14.01 Historic Preservation Ordinance
Sections:
14.01.010 Findings and purpose……………………………………………………...
14.01.020 Definitions………………………………………………………………….
14.01.030 Cultural Heritage Committee –Appointment, Duties, and Actions.........
14.01.040 Community Director role............................................................................
14.01.050 Historic Resource Designation……………………………………………
14.01.055 Historic Gardens, Features, Signs, and other cultural resources...........
14.01.060 Listing Procedures for Historic Resources………………………………
14.01.070 Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing………………………
14.01.080 Historic District Designation Purpose and Application…………………
14.01.090 Process for establishing or amending a Historic District.........................
14.01.100 Demolition of Historic Resources...............................................................
14.01.110 Relocation of Historic Resources…………………………………………
14.01.120 Unpermitted Demolition or Destruction of Historic Resources..............
14.01.130 Historic Preservation Fund.........................................................................
14.01.140 Enforcement.................................................................................................
14.01.150 Appeals…………………………………………………………………….
14.01.160 Severability…………………………………………………………………
.
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
ATTACHMENT 2
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 in 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.
941-1(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
CHC4-20
ATTACHMENT 2
3
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.
CHC4-21
ATTACHMENT 2
4
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
CHC4-22
ATTACHMENT 2
5
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 preserving 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 for local, 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.
CHC4-23
ATTACHMENT 2
6
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.
CHC4-24
ATTACHMENT 2
7
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.
CHC4-25
ATTACHMENT 2
8
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.
CHC4-26
ATTACHMENT 2
9
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, participation 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.
CHC4-27
ATTACHMENT 2
10
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
CHC4-28
ATTACHMENT 2
11
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 façade 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
CHC4-29
ATTACHMENT 2
12
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.
(3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for
the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a
reference to:
CHC4-30
ATTACHMENT 2
13
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 prime illustration of predominant
patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental,
military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure
of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic
effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g.,
County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g.,
Park Hotel).
CHC4-31
ATTACHMENT 2
14
C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the
survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity
will be evaluated by a measure of:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the
original foundation has been changed, if known.
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character
or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s)
for its significance.
(3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association.
14.01.080 Historic District Designation, Purpose and Application
A. Historic (H) District designation. All properties within historic districts shall be designated
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.
CHC4-32
ATTACHMENT 2
15
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;
CHC4-33
ATTACHMENT 2
16
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
CHC4-34
ATTACHMENT 2
17
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
CHC4-35
ATTACHMENT 2
18
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:
CHC4-36
ATTACHMENT 2
19
(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 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.
CHC4-37
ATTACHMENT 2
20
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):
CHC4-38
ATTACHMENT 2
21
(1) Restoration: The owner may be required to restore the property or structure to its
appearance prior 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.
CHC4-39
ATTACHMENT 2
22
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.
CHC4-40
ATTACHMENT 2
23
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.
CHC4-41
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 3. Federal and State Criteria Evaluation
FEDERAL AND STATE CRITERIA EXPLANATION1
Federal Criterion A (Event): Property is
associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Meets Criteria A / (1)
Historical evidence was found that would support
the determination that the property was associated
with events that made a significant contribution to
the broad patterns of local or regional history, the
development of San Luis Obispo County and the
dairy industry.
The Froom Ranch, is one of the oldest dairy
properties in the history of San Luis Obispo
County. The Froom family was a pioneering
ranching family and was part of the overall
development of the important dairy industry in the
San Luis Obispo area.
State Criterion (1) (Association with Events):
Property is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of
California or the United States.
Federal Criterion B (Person): Property is
associated with the lives of persons significant in
our past.
Meets Criteria B / (2)
Historical evidence was found that would support
the determination that the property was associated
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.
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.
Meets Criteria C / (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 turn of the 20th century.
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.
CHC4-42
ATTACHMENT 3
FEDERAL AND STATE CRITERIA EXPLANATION1
Federal Criterion D (Information Potential):
Properties have yielded or are likely to yield
information important in prehistory or history. This
criterion is intended to address archaeological
resources.
Does Not Meet Criteria D / (4)
These criteria are not applicable within the area
of the Froom Ranch Historic complex.
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
ATTACHMENT 3
www.FirstCarbonSolutions.com
Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report
San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California
Prepared for:
John Madonna Construction Company
12165 Los Osos Valley Road
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
Contact: John Madonna, Owner
Prepared by:
FirstCarbon Solutions
1350 Treat Blvd. Suite 380
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
925.357.2562
Contact: Mary Bean, Project Director
Carrie D. Wills, M.A., RPA, Senior Scientist, Archaeology
Report Date: February 20, 2015
CHC4-44
ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHC4-45
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions iii
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Table of Contents
Section 1: Architectural and Historical Discussion .......................................................................... 1
1.1 - Architectural Descriptions and Structure History .............................................................. 1
Section 2: Historic Background ..................................................................................................... 15
2.1 - History of San Luis Obispo County .................................................................................. 15
2.2 - History of the City of San Luis Obispo ............................................................................. 16
2.3 - Methods and Results of Historic Assessment .................................................................. 22
Section 3: Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch ...................................................... 27
3.1 - Application of National Register of Historical Places Criteria .......................................... 27
3.2 - Application of California Register of Historical Resources Criteria .................................. 28
3.3 - City of San Luis Obispo Criteria ....................................................................................... 29
3.4 - Integrity of the Structure ................................................................................................. 32
3.5 - Historic Themes ............................................................................................................... 33
3.6 - Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................................ 34
3.7 - Historic District ................................................................................................................ 35
3.8 - Contributing Structures ................................................................................................... 36
3.9 - Non-Contributing Structures ........................................................................................... 37
3.10 - Recommendations......................................................................................................... 37
Section 4: References ................................................................................................................... 41
Appendix A: Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms
CHC4-46
ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHC4-47
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Architectural and Historical Discussion
FirstCarbon Solutions 1
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
SECTION 1: ARCHITECTURAL AND HISTORICAL DISCUSSION
1.1 - Architectural Descriptions and Structure History
Background
The property was evaluated for historical and architectural significance by FirstCarbon Solutions
(FCS) Architectural Historian, Kathleen A. Crawford, MA. Ms. Crawford meets the Secretary of the
Interior Standards for Architectural Historian and is also listed on the City of San Luis Obispo
Consultants List.
The Froom Ranch property is located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road. The Assessor’s Parcel Number
for the property is 67-241-019. According to Brian Leveille, Senior Planner for the City of San Luis
Obispo, the property is currently located just outside the city limits. However, for the purposes of
the evaluation, Mr. Leveille suggested the property be evaluated under City of San Luis Obispo
criteria, as the property will be eventually annexed by the City.
The property contains a flat level area that extends along Los Osos Valley Road. A long driveway
leads into the property. The front portion of the property is unused and is currently fenced. At the
end of the driveway is a large, flat, open space that contains the Main Residence, the Bunkhouse, the
“Old” Barn, the Outhouse, the Storage Building, and the Shed with the sloping roof. The area around
these buildings is currently used for equipment storage for the John Madonna Construction
Company.
Alex Madonna purchased the property in a tax lien sale in 1976. According to Mr. Madonna’s son,
John (current owner), Alex Madonna purchased numerous old ranches in the area. The Madonna
family is one of the pioneering families in San Luis Obispo County, and Mr. Madonna was interested
in preserving the heritage of the area. John Madonna stated that his father had a policy of lifetime
tenancy for any of the properties he purchased. In accordance with his policy, Mr. Froom resided on
the ranch property until ill health required that he move in to San Luis Obispo to live with his brother
in 1998. The Main Residence is currently used as office space by the John Madonna Construction
Company.
The John Madonna Construction Company was responsible for the construction of many buildings in
the area, and the buildings that were to be demolished still had valuable materials in them. Mr.
Madonna salvaged these materials and stored them on his various properties.
In addition, Alex Madonna was friends with William Randolph Hearst and shared his love of old
buildings and the preservation of the local heritage. Some of the materials came from various
Hearst structures that were also salvaged over the years. John Madonna has continued this family
tradition and used much of this salvaged material to repair the buildings on the Froom Ranch.
The land rises west of the house complex and contains the Dairy Barn, the Creamery/Old House, the
Granary, the Water Tower, and the foundation of the Horse Barn. The remainder of the property is
currently open space with no buildings. Froom Creek runs through the property, and some of the
CHC4-48
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Architectural and Historical Discussion Section 106 Historic Report
2 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
land is considered possible wetlands. The area contains two recorded prehistoric sites, which are
discussed in the Prehistory Report.
Individual Histories and Descriptions
History of the Main Residence
The Main Residence was built in 1915 by Hans Peterson. The building was constructed as the Froom
family was continuing to grow and needed better living conditions for its young children. The family
had lived in the house attached to the Creamery building on the upper slopes of the property to the
west. The Main Residence was occupied by members of the Froom family until 1998, when Bill
Froom moved in with his brother in San Luis Obispo. When the property was purchased by the Alex
Madonna, arrangements were made to allow Mr. Froom to reside in the home until he chose to
leave.
Description of the Main Residence
The Main Residence is a one-story, asymmetrical, irregularly shaped, Craftsman-style, single-family
residence. The residence was constructed in approximately 1915 by Hans Peterson. The building
has a redwood sill and concrete foundation, wood horizontal shiplap siding, a partial width front
porch, and a hipped roof with shingles and a modest eave overhang. A brick chimney is present on
the roof and extends downward into the residence, terminating about 3 feet from the floor. The
building was heated by a wood stove and there was no interior fireplace.
East Facade
The east facade is the main elevation for the residence and faces Los Osos Valley Road. The facade
contains a partial width front porch, accessed by a short flight of wood stairs. The front gable roof is
supported by three round columns —two at the entrance area and one on the south end. The main
entrance includes a single wood door with a wood screen door. A pair of wood-framed, double-
CHC4-49
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Architectural and Historical Discussion
FirstCarbon Solutions 3
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
hung, focal windows are located south of the off center front door. A front gable roof is present over
the porch and the triangular space created by the roof design is infilled with fish scale shingles.
Windows vary in size, shape, and placement around the facades and include wood-framed, double-
hung, sash-style windows.
North Facade
The north facade is the side of the residence that includes multiple wood-framed double-hung sash-
style windows. A bay section projects forward from the main mass of the structure. A dormer
section is present on the side of the roof directly above the bay section.
A rectangular-shaped addition is located on the northwest corner of the building. The addition was
constructed in two parts at two different times. The front portion of the addition has wood shiplap
siding and was built by Bill Froom to store firewood. The rear portion of the addition has vertical
board and batten siding and was built by John Madonna to house electronic equipment. Several
single doors are present around the three facades.
West Facade
The rear of the residence contains a screened porch with a screen door and screened window
openings. The porch wraps around the house, extending onto the south facade. A single wood and
glass door leads into the rear of the house. The back wall of the house contains wood-framed
windows.
South Facade
The south facade is the side of the house facing the open area. Multiple window openings are
present.
The building is in good condition and is currently used as offices for the John Madonna Construction
Company.
Alterations
According to John Madonna, the house has undergone a number of alterations. Both John Madonna
and his father, Alex, have made many changes to restore the building. The original foundation was
redwood sills. Portions of the north and south redwood sill foundations were completely rotted, and
these were removed and replaced with concrete foundations. The house was then leveled, as it had
sunk significantly. At some point, the house flooded and the floors were uneven and buckled. The
floors were leveled, sanded, and repaired. Several interior walls were removed to form larger office
spaces. The kitchen sink and stove were removed and the area was converted to general office use.
The only heat in the house was provided by a wood stove that produced significant amounts of soot.
The walls had been painted over the years and the soot was sealed into the layers of paint. The walls
were scraped, the soot and paint were removed, and they were completely repainted. The house
was rewired for all new electrical service, plumbing repairs were made, an HVAC system was
installed, new ceilings were put in, a new roof was put on, and general tenant improvements were
conducted.
CHC4-50
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Architectural and Historical Discussion Section 106 Historic Report
4 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
The rear addition was altered by adding an extra section at the rear of the addition. This new section
is used by the John Madonna Construction Company to store its electronic equipment.
History of the “Old” Barn
The barn was constructed at an unknown time on another property owned by the Froom family. The
other property was reportedly southeast of the current ranch complex. The building was moved by
placing it on logs and rolling it over the land and the creek (presumably with the aid of a team of
horses) until it was located on its new site. The relocation took place at an unknown time early in
the 20th century, and the barn has been in its present location since that time. The barn is estimated
to be over 125 years old.
Description of the “Old” Barn
The “Old” Barn is located west of the main residence. The barn structure is a one-story, rectangular-
shaped, Vernacular-style barn building. The barn has a concrete floor, vertical wood siding, and a
front gable roof with corrugated metal roofing.
East Facade
The main doors are located on the east facade and include sets of sliding doors. A door for a hayloft
is present on the upper portion of the building. The building does not contain any window openings.
North and South Facades
The north and south facades contain vertical wood siding. No windows are present.
West Facade
The west facade contains vertical wood siding. The rear wall was rotted and the boards were
replaced with historic boards salvaged from nearby barns.
The building is in good condition.
CHC4-51
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Architectural and Historical Discussion
FirstCarbon Solutions 5
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Alterations
John Madonna made a wide range of changes to the barn structure. The barn was in poor condition
when it was moved to its current location. The barn was leaning more than 2 feet, the rear wall was
rotted, and the barn was twisted. Mr. Madonna poured a new concrete floor, replacing the original
dirt floor. The building had originally been set down directly on the dirt when it was moved to the
site. Mr. Froom used the barn to store his pickup truck. The rear wall was replaced because of dry
rot and vertical boards from other local farm buildings were used to replace the rotted boards.
Considerable expense was incurred to stabilize the barn and restore it to a stable condition.
History of the Bunkhouse
The building was constructed as a bunkhouse for the workers on the property by Hans Peterson in
1915. However, according to John Madonna, the building is one small room that was used by Bill
Froom’s brother, who lived in the small residence for many years.
Description of the Bunkhouse
The small bunkhouse is a one-story, Craftsman-style building used as a residential structure. The
building has a concrete foundation, wood horizontal shiplap siding and a front gable roof with
shingles. The building was constructed by Hans Peterson in 1915 when he built the main residence.
East Facade
A set of concrete steps leads to the single wood entrance door on the east elevation. The concrete
steps have the Froom “brand” pressed into the wet concrete. This detail is seen on many of the
other buildings as well. A single wood entrance door provides access to the interior and a small
metal slider-style window is present.
South Facade
The south facade contains a wood-framed, double-hung, sash-style window.
CHC4-52
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Architectural and Historical Discussion Section 106 Historic Report
6 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
West Facade
The west facade also contains a wood-framed, double-hung, sash-style window.
North Facade
The north facade is blank with a large metal sign propped up against the wall. The building is in good
condition.
Alterations
According to John Madonna, the building has been altered by general tenant maintenance, including
painting, a new roof, and a new floor. The building was used for paper file storage and rats were a
problem; to solve the problem, a new floor was installed.
History of the Dairy Barn
Jim Aiken lived in a tent by the creek on the property and built the dairy barn, the granary, and the
horse barn in 1913 for $1,800.00, which included labor and materials. The dairy barn was designed
to hold 10 cows at either end and 10 at each side. The barn contained a 4-inch carrier track designed
to bring hay into the barn.
Description of the Dairy Barn
The Dairy Barn is a 60-foot x 80-foot, one-story, asymmetrical, irregularly shaped, Vernacular-style
barn used for milking cows. The barn has a wood pier and concrete block foundation, vertical wood
siding walls, and a gabled roof.
East Facade
The east facade contains a door at the south end of the facade that opens to a slanting concrete
ramp. The ramp area includes a wide concrete apron covering the ground, located between the
Dairy Barn and the Creamery/House structures. The concrete apron had a specific function that
allowed mud to be removed from the cows’ feet prior to entering the barn for milking.
CHC4-53
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Architectural and Historical Discussion
FirstCarbon Solutions 7
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
The east wall contains a small addition on the north end of the facade that contains a variety of
windows which appear to be remnants from other structures. The windows are of wood frame
construction in various shapes and sizes. Each of the three walls contains a single door opening. A
concrete trough is present on the east wall near the addition.
North Facade
The north facade contains two door openings. The east door opening is a single sliding door. The
other door is the main door into the space and includes a wide opening with a sliding door. The west
end of the facade slopes steeply down to the ground. A large metal hook is present at the peak of
the gable roof.
West Facade
The west facade contains an open entrance on the south end of the facade and a concrete entrance
area that leads into the interior space. The shed roof slopes steeply down to the lower level of the
wall.
South Facade
The south facade contains a unique feature. The facade is curved and a portion of the curved section
has no foundation and hangs out over the slope. The wall has vertical siding and a sloping curved
roof. The wall was specifically constructed in this manner to accommodate the movement of the
cows within the interior space. Because their size and breadth, it was easier to move the cows
through a round space.
The building is in fair condition. Corrals are present on the south side of the slope near the barn.
Alterations
The barn has been altered by both Alex and John Madonna over the years to stabilize the building.
New support beams replaced unstable sections, portions were propped up and repaired, beams
were placed in portions of the roof system to keep the roof in place, vertical wall boards were
replaced, and overall general maintenance has kept the structure standing over the years.
Archival research indicates the barn is the only round barn in San Luis Obispo County. A variety of
early dairy farm equipment is still located within the barn structure. The barn was used to milk the
cows, and start the butter and cheese production, and it was utilized until the dairy operations
ceased in 1977.
History of the Creamery/House Building
The east portion of the building was used as the Creamery, an essential part of the dairy operations.
According to Bill Froom, his father lived in the Creamery for a period of time when he first began to
operate the dairy. The residence was constructed at an unknown time, possibly after John Froom’s
marriage to Harriet and the need for more space. The young family lived in the house portion of the
building until 1915, when Hans Peterson built the Main Residence. Bill Froom was born in the
house, and presumably, any of the children born before 1915 were also born in the house. After the
CHC4-54
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Architectural and Historical Discussion Section 106 Historic Report
8 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
family moved into the “new” residence built by Hans Peterson in 1915, the space was possibly used
as additional living space for the workers on the ranch.
Description of the Creamery/House
The Creamery/House is a one-story, irregularly shaped, asymmetrical, Vernacular-style building that
was built in several stages at unknown times. The building is divided into three sections, each with a
gabled roof. The west portion of the building faces the Dairy Barn and was used as the Creamery.
The east portion of the structure was used as a residence. The overall structure comprises two
buildings separating the east wall of the Creamery from the west wall of the House by approximately
one foot.
South Facade
The south facade contains the two buildings—the Creamery and the House. Each section contains a
single door opening, and a window is present in each of the three sections that comprise the two
buildings.
The south facade contains a combination of vertical and horizontal wood siding. The building has a
wood pier foundation with rock footings and infill of the open areas.
An addition was constructed on the south wall on the house portion but deteriorated to the point
where it was removed.
West Facade
A single wood entrance opening faces the Dairy Barn on the west wall. The interior contains two
small rooms. A root cellar is present under the building and the adjoining structure. The roof on this
portion of the structure slopes down to a low level and is covered with shingles.
CHC4-55
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Architectural and Historical Discussion
FirstCarbon Solutions 9
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
North Facade
The north facade contains vertical and horizontal siding. The entrance to the cellar area is located at
the base of the north wall under the Creamery portion of the building. A secondary entrance is
located further down the wall. A small, narrow door is present in the area where the two buildings
are separated. The door is located on the north wall and there is no corresponding door on the
south wall. An open porch was added to the east end of the north wall of the house structure at an
unknown time.
East Facade
The east facade serves as the end wall of the residential portion of the structure. A rectangular-
shaped window opening is present.
Alterations
The building has been altered by additions to the structure. At one time, an addition was present on
the south wall of the house portion but was in extremely poor condition and was removed by Alex
Madonna. The porch on the north wall of the house was added at an unknown time.
Alex and John Madonna undertook a series of changes to the building because of its instability.
Floors and ceiling areas were replaced with plywood sheeting, vertical siding was replaced, walls and
foundations were stabilized, and general maintenance kept the building standing over the years.
History of the Granary
The Granary was built in 1913 by Jim Aiken in a way that eliminated the rat problem that was
destroying other buildings on the Ranch. The building was secure and many of the local farmers
stored their grain in the building to keep it safe from rats.
Description of the Granary
The Granary is located on the hill close to the Dairy Barn and the Creamery/House. The Granary is a
small, one-story, double-walled, rectangular-shaped, asymmetrical, Vernacular-style utilitarian
CHC4-56
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Architectural and Historical Discussion Section 106 Historic Report
10 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
building. The building has a wood pier foundation, vertical tongue-and-groove wood siding walls,
and a gabled roof. One window is present on the south facade. A single door is present on the east
facade. The interior contains storage areas. Tongue-and-groove siding was used to prevent the grain
from being eaten by animals. No grain was present during the site visit, and the floor and walls were
covered with horse harnesses and equipment. The building is in poor condition.
Alterations
None noted.
History of the Outhouse
The Outhouse was originally the parking kiosk at Reilly’s Department Store in downtown San Luis
Obispo. Alex Madonna obtained the contract to demolish the building and construct the
replacement building, so he moved the kiosk structure to the Ranch. The ranch workers requested
an outdoor bathroom, so John Madonna converted the building into an outhouse. A septic tank was
located near the barn, and the parking kiosk was repurposed and moved to the location over the
septic tank.
Description of the Outhouse
The Outhouse is a small, one-story, asymmetrical, Vernacular-style building. The building has wood
shiplap siding walls and a front gabled roof with a shed roof extension on the east wall. The building
has a single door with a moon cutout in the door. A small toilet room is present. The building
appears to be in good condition. Because the Outhouse is modern (less than 45 years old) and was
moved to its current location, it was not evaluated for historic significance or recorded on a
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) form.
Alterations
Conversion of the building from a parking kiosk to a bathroom.
CHC4-57
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Architectural and Historical Discussion
FirstCarbon Solutions 11
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
History of the Storage Building
The Storage Building was moved to this location by John Madonna. It was a simple, mobile storage
unit obtained by Mr. Madonna from a local friend and brought to the site.
Description of the Storage Building
The Storage Building is a one-story, rectangular-shaped, asymmetrical, Vernacular-style structure
that is located currently to the north of the Old Barn. The building has no true foundation; its walls
are horizontal wood shiplap siding and it has a gable roof with shingles. A single door is present and
small windows are present on the elevations. The building is in good condition. Because the
building is modern (less than 45 years old) and was moved to its current location, it was not
evaluated for historic significance or recorded on a DPR form.
Alterations
None noted.
History of the Shed
The building is located north of the Main house and was built at an unknown time by an unknown
person. John Madonna stated that Bill Froom lived through the Great Depression and cultivated
habits of thrift. At one point, the shed building was full of so many cans of dog food that it took
several trips to remove them all. The building contains a seeder machine that Mr. Madonna has
allowed to remain in the structure, since it holds up the building.
CHC4-58
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Architectural and Historical Discussion Section 106 Historic Report
12 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Description of the Shed Building with Slanted Roof
The Shed Building is a one-story, irregularly shaped, asymmetrical, Vernacular-style storage building.
The shed roof has a steep slant. The building has no true foundation; it was constructed with vertical
wood siding walls and a steeply slanted shed roof. Entrance doors are on the north wall. An addition has
a flat roof and a single entrance door. The building is in extremely poor condition and is barely standing.
Alterations
No significant changes have been made to the building.
History of the Water Tower
The water tower was constructed by Verizon Wireless for use as a cell tower. The structure has no
historic importance because it was constructed in the last 2 years.
Description of the Water Tower
CHC4-59
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Architectural and Historical Discussion
FirstCarbon Solutions 13
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
The Water Tower appears to be a water tower, but it is actually a stealth cell tower site that was
designed to appear to be a structure compatible with farm landscapes. The circular structure stands
on metal legs, and has metal siding and a dome roof. Because the Water Tower is modern (2 years
old), it was not evaluated for historic significance or recorded on a DPR form.
Alterations
None noted.
CHC4-60
ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHC4-61
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 15
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
SECTION 2: HISTORIC BACKGROUND
2.1 - History of San Luis Obispo County
San Luis Obispo is located along the Central Coast of California, approximately 200 miles north of Los
Angeles and 230 miles south of San Francisco. The area is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west
and the Santa Lucia mountain range to the north, east, and south. The mountains are the source of
San Luis Obispo Creek, which runs through the City of San Luis Obispo and empties into the Pacific
Ocean.
The San Luis Obispo County area was first settled by the Chumash tribes who built a series of villages
along the local creeks. The region was largely unexplored by Europeans until the arrival of the
Spanish in the late 1700s.
The Spanish government had begun exploration of the New World in the late 1400s, and its process
of settlement and development in the Americas continued into the late 1700s. During this period,
the Russian government had created settlements along the coast of Canada and into the Northern
California area. The establishment of a settlement at Fort Ross led the Spanish crown to consider a
more active presence in California to halt the encroachment of Russia into the western portion of
the Spanish empire in the Americas.
In 1769, a joint military and religious expedition led by Gaspar de Portolá was sent to the Alta
California area in conjunction with Franciscan missionary Father Junipero Serra to create a chain of
missions and presidios to control Alta California for Spain. The group first journeyed to the San
Diego area, establishing the Mission San Diego de Alcala, the first in a chain of 21 missions extending
northward into Alta California.
In addition to his other duties, Portolá was tasked with finding Monterey Bay and establishing a
presidio in Monterey. After accomplishing this process, the expedition proceeded to the San Luis
Obispo area to continue exploring the region. In 1772, the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was
founded in the Valley de Los Osos (Valley of the Bears) near the banks of San Luis Obispo Creek. The
mission became the fifth mission founded in California by Father Serra.
The Spanish crown granted numerous land grants to the soldiers who accompanied Portolá and
Father Serra, thus enabling the overall settlement of the region. Large ranchos were established and
California’s cattle-based economy developed over the next decades.
After the independence movement by Mexico, Alta California, and other parts of the Southwest,
became part of the Mexican empire. Transition from Spanish control to Mexican control did not
result in major changes in the early years of the 1820s. However, as time went on, the overall system
of government and settlement changed. American traders, fur trappers, explorers, and settlers
gradually filtered into California. Many of these men married daughters of the old Spanish families,
thus acquiring title to many of the ranchos. As the United States was expanding across the
continent, eyes were turning to California as a necessary access to the China trade.
CHC4-62
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Historical Background Section 106 Historic Report
16 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
A variety of governmental and economic changes in California during the first half of the 1800s led to
a decline in the mission system. Secularization was officially declared in 1833: the mission system
was disbanded, lands were sold, the priests left the missions, and the local tribes were left to fend
for themselves. In 1845, Governor Pio Pico decreed that the Mission lands were for sale. All the
land of Mission San Luis Obispo was sold except for the church, which still stands today. The church
fell into ruins during secularization and the priests left the mission grounds.
California became a state in 1850, and, as the County of San Luis Obispo developed, the church
property served as the first courthouse and jail in the county. Some restoration on the building
began in the 1870s but full restoration was not accomplished until 1933. The Mission serves as a
parish church in the Monterey Diocese at the present time.
Rancho Canada de Los Osos y Pecho y Islay
Rancho Canada de Los Osos y Pecho y Islay was a 32,341-acre Mexican land grant in the Los Osos
Valley in San Luis Obispo County. The grant consisted of Rancho Canada de Los Osos (northern
portion) granted to Victor Linares by Governor Juan B. Alvarado in 1842, and Rancho Pecho y Islay
(southern portion) was granted to Francisco Badillo by Governor Manuel Micheltorena in 1843. The
grants were consolidated by Governor Pio Pico in 1845. The grant extended from the Pacific Coast to
along Los Osos Creek and the Los Osos Valley to the outer boundaries of present-day City of San Luis
Obispo.
The Rancho Canada de Los Osos land was purchased from Linares in 1844 by Scottish Captain John
(Juan) Wilson and his Scottish business partner, James (Diego) Scott. Wilson married into the
Carrillo family, linking him to the prominent Spanish families, including the Vallejos. Wilson, a sea
captain and trader, had come to California in 1837 and with his business partner, James Scott,
purchased other rancho lands in San Luis Obispo County and Sonoma County.
After California’s statehood in 1850, one of the major issues was the ownership of Hispanic land
grants. The Land Act of 1851 required each owner to file paperwork to prove their claim; Wilson’s
claim to the Rancho Canada de Los Osos grant was patented in 1869. After Wilson’s death in 1861,
the land passed to his widow, Ramona Carrillo Wilson and their children. Over the next forty years,
the land was gradually sold and a new era began on the former rancho lands.
2.2 - History of the City of San Luis Obispo
The development of the City of San Luis Obispo grew out of the overall settlement of the County. In
1850, California became a state and fell under the control of the United States government. Sorting
out the old Spanish and Mexican land grants, ranchos, and mission lands was an arduous process.
Little formal paperwork existed, land boundaries were vague and unclear, and many of the old
Hispanic families had no way to prove title to the lands that had been in their families for decades.
With the implementation of the California Land Act of 1851, attempts were made to sort out the
ownership and sale of the valuable land. Many of the old ranchos were subdivided into smaller
parcels, and farms and ranches began to develop under the new system. Many families moved into
San Luis Obispo and the City began to grow and develop. San Luis Obispo was officially designated
the San Luis Obispo county seat in 1868.
CHC4-63
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 17
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Following a major drought in 1862 to 1864, the local economy shifted from cash crops to cattle
production. A booming dairy industry was established that continued well into the mid-20th century.
Improvements in the development of the railroad system brought increased expansion to the area.
New lines connected the isolated region to the coast and the area soon became a central hub for
trade moving both north and south to the major centers and to the coast. With the arrival of the
Southern Pacific Railroad in the 1880s, the town and county areas expanded greatly. Union Oil of
California established centers of operation in the County, and the agricultural and dairy development
within the county thrived.
In 1901, California Polytechnic Institute was established in the City. The Institute created a strong
focus on vocational and agricultural training and over the decades provided an important
fundamental training for local residents. The implementation of the Institute and its influence on
the community greatly influenced the development of San Luis Obispo during the 20th century.
Another significant influence on the local area was the development of San Simeon Ranch (known as
Hearst Castle) by newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst. The development of these two
important landmarks, in addition to the Mission San Luis Obispo, served to stimulate the regional
economy and influence the growth in and around San Luis Obispo.
In the 20th century, the development of the automobile made it possible to expand the growth of the
City beyond the downtown core area. City services, roads, and utilities expanded and improved to
meet the needs of the expanded city. Tourism, and particularly automobile tourism, added another
element to the local economy.
The Great Depression of the 1930s slowed the local economy, as it did with the rest of the county.
The establishment of Camp San Luis Obispo, a military training camp, helped to improve the local
economy. Military preparation increased as World War II loomed, and the population of the City
grew significantly, providing an economic boost well into mid-century. During the post-war period of
the 1950s and 1960s, the demand for single-family homes rose dramatically and the City expanded
by annexing areas in the County. Large residential subdivisions were constructed outside of the city
core, and some of the former agricultural land began to transition to residential and commercial use.
The City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context Statement includes the following information regarding
the agricultural development of the area.
The development of ranching and agriculture as the region’s main commercial
enterprises influenced the development of San Luis Obispo. In the early 20th
century, the primary agricultural crops ranged from flower seeds to winter peas,
bush beans, pole beans, and celery. Japanese farmers were particularly successful
with these crops through the 1930s.
With the United States entrance into World War I in 1917, there was an enormous
demand for agricultural products, which provided an economic boom to Central
California. During the War, many farmers turned to the production of navy beans,
since these were subsidized by the War Relief Administration. Before reliable
CHC4-64
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Historical Background Section 106 Historic Report
18 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
refrigeration, navy beans could be shipped to the troops in Europe without spoiling
and San Luis Obispo’s economy boomed.
In the early 20th century, oil derricks were erected in the area and drilling for oil
began. The first lucrative oil fields were located south of San Luis Obispo and were
controlled by families outside of the region, including the Doheny family from Los
Angeles. The Producers Transportation Company represented the largest oil interest
in San Luis Obispo County, accommodating the transport of oil from the Union Oil
Company and the Independent Production Agency via 500 miles of pipeline to the
Port of San Luis . . . .
History of Froom Ranch
The history of the Froom Ranch was compiled from a variety of sources. The ranch property lies
within the boundaries of the former La Laguna or Laguna Rancho. The following information was
taken from the 1998 report, Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Complex, San Luis Obispo,
written by San Luis Obispo County historian Betsy Bertrando.
The area known as the Froom Ranch originally contained Lost 60, 67, 68, and 69 as
portrayed on the 1869 map – Subdivisions of the Rancho Canada de Los Osos and La
Laguna, surveyed by James Stanton. A total of 867.87 acres made up the original
Froom Ranch parcel. Today, the Ranch consists of approximately 500 acres. The
ranch/farm complex sits on Lot 68 of the original subdivision bordering the
southwest boundary of the Laguna Rancho.
The Laguna Rancho was originally part of the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa
lands. In 1844, after the Mission rancho lands had been regranted by the Mexican
government, Governor Micheltorena granted the church “one square league (4157
acres) in the place called ‘Laguna’” (Engledhardt 1964). This was included with two
garden plots and the church in San Luis Obispo. In 1845, the new governor, Pio Pico,
sold off all the remaining mission lands and buildings. Captain John Wilson, and two
partners, Scott and McKinley, bought the San Luis Obispo Mission and the Laguna
Rancho for $500 (Angel 1883). The properties were later claimed by the church and
confirmed by the American government in 1855 (Koeber 1972). In 1859, Bishop
Alemany sold the Laguna property to Captain John Wilson.
W.W. Stow, from San Francisco, eventually acquired the Wilson estate. Stow was
known locally as a major benefactor of the first library in San Luis Obispo.
Contributing books not money, Stow felt ‘there was too much reading of fiction,
which might be stopped if history and biographical works were placed on the shelf’
and wanted to make the selections himself (Togazzani 1992).
In 1875, Stow sold the property to S.W. (Henry) Foreman, a surveyor. Henry and his
wife built a rather elaborate house (for the time) that remains today at the end of
Madonna Road and is known as the De Vaul Ranch House (Bertrando 1997).
CHC4-65
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 19
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
In 1884, Ludwig Nelson purchased Lot 60 of the La Laguna subdivision from
Foreman. Nelson came from Norway to California in 1859 and arrived in the county
in 1868. By 1883, the land acquired a dairy and 856 acres in the Harmony District.
Nelson is listed as a farmer in 1884 and as a dairyman in the 1982 San Luis Obispo
Great Register. The ranch eventually grew to contain Lots 67, 68, and 69 as well, for
a total of 867.87 acres. When Ludwig died, the property was run by his wife Annie
Nelson. Annie Nelson owned four ranches; one in Estero, two in Cambria/Harmony,
and the Froom Ranch on Los Osos Valley Road (Bill Froom pers. comm.).
John R. Froom was born in Prescott, Grantville County, Canada in 1864. When he
was sixteen years old he left Canada for Iowa. After six months he made his way to
California and did ranch work for a year near Santa Rosa. Then in 1886, he came to
work for Ludwig Nelson in Laguna, living in a little room attached to the creamery
(Structure E; See Results Section). In 1890, he leased 500 acres and began dairying
with fifty cows.
Harriet Perry was a native of Ireland who first came to Illinois with her brother and
later to San Luis Obispo where she settled. Harriet and John Froom were married on
December 14, 1904 and had seven children: Harry, Annie, Minnie, Willie, Robert,
Bunny and John (Morrison 1917). From the estate of Annie Nelson, Harriet Perry
Froom acquired Lots 60, 67, 68, and 69 in 1904. In 1905, the H.P. Froom Ranch
consisted of 412.65 acres. They lived in the small addition at the east end of the
creamery that appears to be, but is not, attached to the creamery (Structure E). In
1915, they moved into the ‘new’ four bedroom house (Structure C).
According to Bill Froom, a dairy had been on the property since the 1850s. The
subdivision map of 1868 gives no information regarding land use or existing
structures. The plat map of 1858 shows one house near the eastern border of the
Laguna Rancho. A ‘thatched’ house is shown just to the outside of the southern
point of the rancho.
For several years the ranch has been owned by Alex Madonna and used as an
equipment storage yard. Madonna ran cattle on the ranch as well. He has been
responsible for the upkeep of the ranch structures and has painted most of the
buildings. Bill Froom, until this fall, continued to reside in the house he has spent
most of his life in. Health problems have recently necessitated Bill living with his
brother in San Luis Obispo. Currently no one resides on the ranch.
A variety of local sources obtained from the files of the Local History Room at the San Luis Obispo
County Library were used to add information to the overall history of the ranch. Local newspapers
interviewed Bill Froom many times and some of his stories about the ranch were recounted in the
articles.
Local San Luis Obispo historian Joan Sullivan conducted a series of interviews with Bill Froom, which
were published in The Bay News in 1993. An article entitled “The Froom Family Ranch” included the
following information:
CHC4-66
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Historical Background Section 106 Historic Report
20 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Mr. Froom stated that his father had originally leased the ranch for $1500. His lease
included the ranch lands (much larger than today’s ranch property), the harnesses
for the horses, wagon and hay. Bill retained the receipt his entire life. His father
worked the ranch for 31 years and lived in the Creamery house for the first ten years.
Froom said his father “bached it” until 1902 when he married his mother, Harriet
Perry, when she was 18.
The Frooms began having seven children and Bill was the middle child born in 1910 in the house
attached to the Creamery building. As the family expanded, a new house was needed. Hans
Peterson built the Craftsman-style residence in 1915 and boarded with the family while it was under
construction. Peterson also built a woodshed, the washing room, the storeroom, and the
bunkhouse.
Bill Froom first attended the Laguna Elementary School when he was six years old. He attended the
school for 8 years and was also hired to care for the grounds for one dollar. Many years later, from
1948 to 1966, he served as a Trustee for the Laguna School District that had been formed in 1877.
The school was constructed in 1870 on land donated by Harry Forma. John Froom worked for Forma
as a hired hand prior to buying the Froom Ranch property. In 1870, John Froom planted cypress
trees around the schoolhouse that Froman had traveled to Monterey to obtain. Some of the trees
were still standing in the 1990s.
When Bill Froom was 8 years old, his father asked him if he could milk a cow and that is when he
began helping with feeding and milking the family herd of Durham cows. Bill Froom continued to
milk cows by hand until 1945, when the milking machine was installed. By age 15, Bill was taking
teams of horses out to track hay and farm.
John Froom died when Bill was 17, during the Great Depression in 1929. Bill took over the farm and
ran it until 1977. Like most ranch families, the family weathered the hard times of the 1930s. Bill
took work outside the farm and worked for local families making 15 cents an hour. He recounted
that the most money he ever made during that period was 50 cents an hour.
The ranch was an ideal location for dairy cows and the Froom family owned Durham cows, which
produced milk with a high butter fat content. The cows were milked twice a day and produced 200
gallons of milk a day. Eventually the family switched to Guernsey cows. The dairy was profitable
until the 1950s, when the local dairy economy began to fade. The high cost of operating the dairy
led the family to slowly reduce the herd. They decided to switch over to raising beef cattle. Bill
commented in the Bay News article that “we could always pay our taxes ($160 per acre) dairying and
I found out the hard way that one good dairy cow was worth much more than any beef cow. One
year cattle brought in $11,000 and cost me $13,000.”
Bill Froom told Joan Sullivan the story of the barns on the property. Jim Aiken lived in a tent by the
creek on the property and built the dairy barn, the granary, and the horse barn in 1913 for $1,800.00
which included labor and materials. Every day he came up from his tent by the creek and worked on
the buildings. The dairy barn was 80 feet by 60 feet and was designed to hold 10 cows at either end
and 10 at each side. The barn contained a 4-inch carrier track designed to bring hay into the barn.
CHC4-67
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 21
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Froom told the story of how difficult it had been to learn to use the milking machine when it was
first installed. It took him 4 hours to do the milking on the first day because the noise of the
machine made the cows nervous. By the second day, the cows were leaking and uncomfortable so
they were much more agreeable to the machine. Froom eventually purchased four milking
machines. Each machine could milk one cow at a time, the most modern method at the time.
Froom stated that “everyone says it would spoil my cows but they liked them better than hand
milking . . . .” Apparently, the cows felt it was more like a calf than a machine. Froom’s farm was
considered one of the most modern in the area, and he routinely gave tours to college classes that
learned his techniques and operation. His horse-powered churn fascinated his students.
Froom started the County Farm Bureau and served as a director for the Cattlemen’s Association. He
volunteered as a docent at the local history museum. In addition, he traveled around the County
giving demonstrations of how to sharpen tools, explained the production process for butter and
cream, and demonstrated a wide range of farm skills that were being lost.
More information about the buildings was included in the article. The Granary was double walled
and rat free, the only one in the County. A bull pen, built in 1930, had been constructed on the
property after John Froom died, since he had objected to the idea. The horse barn was originally
divided into three sections: wagons were on the left, horse stalls were on the right (two horses to a
stall), and the hay wagon was placed in the middle of the barn.
An article in the San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, dated July 11, 1989, detailed an interview with
Bill Froom. Froom had been hired as a teenager in the mid-1920s by a local banker and worked for
only 3 days. He had to wear a “necktie and nice shoes” and he discovered very quickly he was not
cut out for banking. He listened to his father and returned to the ranching life, which sustained him
for the next 50 years.
Froom took over the farm in 1927 when his father became sick and he was only a junior in high
school. Bill was chosen to take over the farm because the older brother who was first in line to take
the farm was not home, working in the oil fields making $4 a day—big money in those days. Froom
stated that “I had already made my letter in track and so I could skip athletics and come home in the
afternoon to deal with the cows.”
During the difficult years of the Great Depression, the farm did not produce enough income. Bill
went to work as a farm hand on the Dalidlio property across the road from the ranch. He made 15
cents an hour working for the neighbors and was glad to have it, as that wage was considered good
money during the hard times.
During the World War II years of the 1940s, chromium was mined on the ranch property. The
deposit was a large one and has been untouched since the war years. Chromium is mixed with other
ores to make a high-grade steel. The expense of extraction and transportation of the ore proved too
costly for any further production after the war.
Froom told a story about the Creamery building. Apparently, one of the workers on the ranch liked
to drink during the day crawled under the Creamery building to do this. He shifted the rock
CHC4-68
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Historical Background Section 106 Historic Report
22 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
foundation stones around so that he could sleep in the shade. When John Froom saw what he had
done, he decided to dig out a cellar under the building.
John Froom’s ingenuity led to the design of the Granary building. Rats would chew through the
burlap sacks in which grain was stored, so John Froom built the Granary on stilts with tongue and
groove double walls to prevent rat damage. Farmers from all over the valley brought their grain to
the Froom Ranch for rat-free storage.
An oral interview was conducted with John Madonna, current owner of the property (Madonna pers.
comm.). The Madonna family is one of the oldest pioneer families in the area and owns the
Madonna Inn, a local landmark, and numerous ranches in the San Luis Obispo County area. John
Madonna stated that Bill Froom had been a boxer in the United States Army during World War II. He
said that Froom had never married and had no children. However, Bill Froom had been heavily
involved with the local school system, contributing a great deal of his time to local education. John
Madonna commented that Bill Froom had named all his cows over the years—names such as Rosie
and Betsy. The dairy operation had approximately 50 cows, though possibly not all at the same time.
Mr. Madonna stated that his father, Alex Madonna, had purchased the property in a tax lien sale in
1976. Dairy operations ceased in 1977 when Bill Froom retired after having run the ranch since
1927. Mr. Madonna raised beef cattle on the property for several years. The property is currently
used as the office and equipment storage area for the John Madonna Construction Company.
2.3 - Methods and Results of Historic Assessment
Introduction
The Froom Ranch property was evaluated for historic and architectural significance and its potential
to meet National Register of Historic Places, State of California, and local City of San Luis Obispo
criteria. This report presents the results of the assessment. The Froom Ranch complex was assessed
for its historic and architectural significance by FCS Architectural Historian, Kathleen A. Crawford,
MA. Ms. Crawford conducted the archival research and on January 6, 2015 visited the Froom Ranch
complex. During the site visit, Ms. Crawford personally inspected and photographed each structure
on the property for this report.
Archival Research
In order to fully assess the Froom Ranch complex, varieties of archival sources were accessed for
information related to the property and its history. Sources consulted include the San Luis Obispo
County Assessor’s Office records; the San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office records; the City of
San Luis Obispo Planning Department files, including an interview with Senior Planner Brian Leveille;
the City of San Luis Obispo Building Department building permit files and additional records; the San
Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files; the History Center of San Luis Obispo
files; a variety of internet sources; two films about the Froom Ranch produced by Joan Sullivan, local
San Luis Obispo historian; miscellaneous documents, including Environmental Impact Reports and
previous assessments; and an oral interview conducted on January 27, 2015 with John Madonna,
current owner of the property. One of the most important documents regarding the history of the
CHC4-69
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 23
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Froom Ranch is the report written by local San Luis Obispo historian, Betsy Bertrando, in 1998. Ms.
Bertrando’s report was a valuable source of information, as she had personally interviewed Mr. Bill
Froom, owner of the property, and reviewed a wide range of local maps, oral interviews, historic
documents, and other local sources to complete her assessment of the property. She visited the site
at various times over the years and was able to observe the changes to the property. Her
observations were important in the current assessment of the remaining buildings on the Froom
Ranch property.
In addition, invaluable information was obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context
Statement, written in 2013. This document provided important historic context information for fully
assessing the Froom Ranch complex.
Froom Ranch Historic and Architectural Survey Results
The 1998 Bertrando report provided a base of information to compare the current conditions with
the previous developments on the Froom Ranch property. Conditions on the Froom Ranch have
changed since the report was written: buildings have been removed and the remaining structures
are in various states of repair. The property currently contains the buildings/structures described
below.
1. Main Residence (c. 1915)
The building is a one-story, Craftsman-style, single-family residence located on the lower level near
the front of the property.
Bertrando Report: House/Structure C
The four bedroom house was built by Hans Peterson in 1915. Peterson also built a
wood shed, the washing room, store room and bunkhouse during the same period.
The washing room and store room were added to the rear of the house in a long
addition that is partially of board and batten construction. The main part of the
house has shiplap siding. The building sits on a redwood sill foundation. The
entrance is from a porch supported by three columns that face the east. Above the
porch are decorative shingles under the eaves.
2. “Old” Barn (date unknown)
The building was moved to its current location at an unknown time from another location in the Los
Osos Valley. The “Old” Barn is a one-story, wood barn structure. The building is over 100 years old.
Bertrando Report: Old Barn/Structure A
The barn near the house was moved to its present location and is over 100 years old.
The original location was on the south east (sic) side of the ranch until it was moved
slowly over logs over the creek to the present site. The barn has a corrugated roof
and is formed from vertical boards. There is no foundation. Double entry doors face
east at the end of the long driveway.
CHC4-70
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Historical Background Section 106 Historic Report
24 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
3. Bunkhouse (c. 1915)
The Bunkhouse is a small Craftsman-style, residential building located between the Main Residence
and the “Old” Barn on the lower level.
Bertrando Report: Bunkhouse/Structure B
A small structure in good condition sits between the old barn (A) and the house (C).
It is built of the same shiplap boards as the house (C). It has sash windows and a
door opening onto a corner stoop on the east side. It was built by Hans Peterson in
1915 at the same time as the house (Sullivan 1993).
4. Shed with slanted roof (date unknown)
The Shed is a small wooden shed with a small addition. The Shed is located to the north of the Main
Residence on the lower level of the property.
Bertrando Report: Wood Shed/Structure D
The shed has a corrugated roof and vertical board siding. There is a door on the east
and north sides of the structure. A shed roof that abuts a flat roof suggest the flat
roof was a later addition. The shed was in the process of being emptied of great
piles of tin cans. One cleared area has exposed a piece of farm equipment in good
condition. It was a horse drawn seeder labeled ‘California Green Seed Sower.’ It
appeared there may be other pieces of equipment amongst and under the
remaining cans although it was difficult to tell.
5. Outhouse (date unknown)
The Outhouse is a small, one-story structure located behind the “Old” Barn.
Bertrando Report
Not included.
6. Storage Building (date unknown)
The Storage Building is a small, one-story wood structure that is located on the lower level north of
the “Old” Barn. The building was probably moved to this location from an unknown location.
Bertrando Report
Not included.
7. Creamery/House (date unknown)
The Creamery/House structure is composed of two wood buildings. The west structure is the
Creamery building; the east portion is the house that the family lived in prior the construction of the
Main Residence. The Creamery/House structure is located on the hillside on the upper level.
CHC4-71
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 25
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Bertrando Report: Old Creamery/House/Structure E
One of the most interesting structures within the ranch, the Old Creamery/House is
also complex, having been built in at least three episodes. The west side of the
wood shingled structure includes a room that was home to Bill Froom’s father for
many years. The board and batten creamery housed a horse powered churn and a
butter break table. Only the corn sheller remains. Most of the equipment is now
gone. The author remembers visiting this site in the 1970s and noticing piles of old
bottles under the floor boards on the ground floor. This time it was clean and no
bottles remained.
The middle of the structure was built with shiplap and may have been an addition to
the creamery. The west side appears to be attached to the creamery but is actually
separated by a space about a foot wide. The living space consisted of two rooms
that had been muslin over board and batten construction. Currently the north
facing room is stripped of boards. A later porch addition is on the south side. The
condition of the structure is very weathered and the flooring is unstable.
8. Dairy Barn (c. 1913)
The Dairy Barn is a large, wood barn building with a curved front wall. The Dairy Barn is sited on the
hillside above the house complex.
Bertrando Report: Dairy Barn/Structure F
Another structure of interest is the Dairy Barn. This structure has an unusual
rounded end on the south side that hangs along the edge of the slope. The dairy
barn, as well as the granary and the horse barn, were constructed by Jim Aiken in
1913 for $1800. The barn roof has wood shingles and the walls of vertical planks
rest on formed concrete.
9. Granary (c. 1913)
The Granary is a small, wood structure located on the hillside north of the Dairy Barn and west of the
Horse Barn foundation.
Bertrando Report: Granary/Structure G.
The small rectangular granary is in fairly good condition and is composed of vertical
plank walls that rest on concrete and block wood posts. The granary was
constructed by Jim Aiken in 1913.
10. Horse Barn (date unknown)
The Horse Barn is no longer extant; only the foundation remains. The Horse Barn was located north
of the Dairy Barn and Creamery/House buildings and east of the Granary.
CHC4-72
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Historical Background Section 106 Historic Report
26 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Bertrando Report: Horse Barn/Structure H.
The barn is constructed of vertical boards on a concrete foundation. The wood
shingle roof is missing approximately 12% of the shingles. The barn doors open on
the north side and was used for wagons, horses and hay storage. The horse barn
was constructed by Jim Aiken in 1913. The barn is a style typical of the period.
Additional information
John Madonna stated that the Horse Barn had been used for storage of salvaged materials during
the period of ownership by the Madonna family. Alex Madonna collected salvaged materials from
local ranches, businesses, and homes and stored some of these materials in the barn. The barn was
in extremely poor condition and the sides were falling down. John Madonna attempted to stabilize
and prop up the building but eventually the deterioration was too great. The building collapsed and
the materials were hauled away.
11. Water Tower (2013)
The Water Tower structure is located on the hillside above the Granary area. It is a Verizon Wireless
cell tower site and was constructed within the last 2 years. The Bertrando report did not address this
structure, as it had not been built at the time of the 1998 evaluation.
CHC4-73
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 27
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
SECTION 3: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND EVALUATIONS: FROOM RANCH
3.1 - Application of National Register of Historical Places Criteria
Criterion A: Event: Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was
associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The
subject property, the Froom Ranch, is one of the oldest dairy properties in the history of San Luis
Obispo County. The Froom family was a pioneering ranching family and was part of the overall
development of the important dairy industry in the San Luis Obispo area. The subject property does
merit designation under National Register Criterion A: Event at the local level.
Criterion B: Person: Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with
the lives of persons significant in our past.
Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was
associated with persons significant in our past. The property is associated with the Froom family and
Bill Froom in particular. The Froom family purchased the ranch in the late 19th century as one of the
area’s pioneering families. Bill Froom, son of John Froom, inherited the property in 1929 and
continued to operate a dairy and ranching operation for the next 50 years. Bill Froom was also an
important local leader and made many contributions to the development of the local school system
and community. The subject property does merit designation under National Register Criterion B:
Person.
Criterion C: Design/Construction: Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they embody
the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the
work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
Evidence was found that would support the determination that the property embodied the
distinctive characteristics of a significant style of architecture, which this criterion includes within the
term “type.” A property is eligible as a specimen of its type or period of construction under this
criterion if it is an important example of building practices of a particular time in history. The Main
Residence is a typical example of the Craftsman-style of architecture and the interior has been
altered extensively over the years. The building was transitioned to an office use over the last two
decades. However, its exterior appearance has remained essentially the same since it was
constructed by Hans Peterson in 1915. Its appearance includes the following character defining
features as listed in the San Luis Obispo Historic Context Statement:
• Horizontal massing
• Low-pitched gable roof
• Wood exterior wall cladding
CHC4-74
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Section 106 Historic Report
28 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
• Projecting partial-width front porch
• Wood-frame double-hung sash windows
• Extensive use of natural materials – wood
Therefore, the Main Residence is considered to meet the criteria under style.
The Dairy Barn is a Vernacular-style structure. The barn is unusual, the only one in the County with a
rounded front. The rounded front was designed to facilitate the milking process and move the cows
through the barn efficiently.
The Creamery/House structure is also a local Vernacular-style building with a history indicative of the
local area. The building was constructed as a creamery and a residence. The building displays the
features of local building styles and its utilitarian function.
The Dairy Barn and Creamery/House buildings are examples of the type of local Vernacular
architecture and their period of construction at the turn of the 20th century.
The remaining buildings are not considered to retain, or embody, enough of the distinctive features,
type or method of construction to be considered significant.
A “master” under this criterion is a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field. Hans Peterson
and Jim Aiken were responsible for the construction of the majority of the current buildings on the
site. Neither has been identified as a master builder, architect, or craftsman.
“High artistic values” under this criterion refers to properties that so fully articulate a particular
concept of design that they express an aesthetic ideal, which is not the case here. The terminology
referring to “components of an entity” are intended to address historic districts.
The subject property does merit designation under National Register Criterion C: Architecture at the
local level.
Criterion D: Information Potential: Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they have
yielded or are likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. This criterion is intended
to address archaeological resources. To be designated under this criterion the property must have
information to contribute to our understanding of human history and prehistory and that
information must be important. This criterion is not applicable to this property. The subject
property does not merit designation under National Register Criterion D: Information Potential at the
local level.
3.2 - Application of California Register of Historical Resources Criteria
Properties that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be evaluated for
historical significance under the California Register of Historical Resources.
The criteria for evaluating the significance of historical resources require that the resource must be
significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
CHC4-75
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 29
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
(1) Association with Events: It is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of
California or the United States.
Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was
associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional
history, the development of San Luis Obispo County and the dairy industry. The subject property
does merit designation under California Register Criterion (1).
(2) Association with Persons: It is associated with the lives of persons important to local,
California or National History.
Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was
associated with the lives of persons important to local history. The property is associated with the
pioneering Froom family and Bill Froom in particular. The subject property does merit designation
under California Register Criterion (2).
(3) Design/Construction: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic
values.
Evidence was found that would support the determination that the property embodied the
distinctive characteristics of a significant type, period, region or method of construction. The Main
Residence is a good example of local Craftsman architecture and the Dairy Barn and Creamery/
House buildings exemplify local Vernacular architecture and building techniques. The buildings were
not constructed by master builders or architects, as Hans Peterson and Jim Aiken have not been
identified as masters in these fields. None of the buildings on the property possessed high artistic
values. The subject property does merit designation under California Register Criterion (3).
(4) Archaeology: It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
To be designated under this criterion, the property must have information to contribute to our
understanding of human history and prehistory and that information must be important. The
subject property does not merit designation under California Register Criterion (4).
3.3 - City of San Luis Obispo Criteria
The following criteria and guidelines for evaluation were taken from the City of San Luis Obispo
Historic Context Statement.
Local Designation Guidelines
In 2010, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance that outlines the
process and criteria for the inclusion of historic resources on the City’s Master List or Contributing
List of Historic Resources. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource must exhibit a high
CHC4-76
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Section 106 Historic Report
30 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old and satisfy at least one of the following
criteria.
A. Architectural criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or
method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.
1. Style: Describes the form of a building, architectural details within the form (e.g.,
arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be
evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the
structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular, and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and
how these styles are put together.
2. Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic
merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or
combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements.
Also suggest degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately
interpreted and conveyed the style. Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details,
and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders,
although the craftsmanship and quality may not be superior.
3. Architect: Describe the professional (individual or firm) responsible for the building
design and plans for the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to:
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright Morgan) including architects who made
significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work
influenced the development of the city, state, or nation;
b. An architect, who in terms of craftsmanship made significant contributions to San
Luis Obispo (e.g., Abraham who according to local sources designed the house at
810 Osos—Frank Avila’s father’s home—built between 1927 and 1930).
B. Historic Criteria
1. History – Persons associated with the lives of persons important to local, state, or
national history. Person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person
or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress leader, etc.)
and for his or her fame and outstanding recognition—locally, regionally or
nationally;
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or as a person who made early,
unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, local affairs or
institutions (e.g., Council member, education, medical professional, clergymen,
public officials)
CHC4-77
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 31
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
2. History – Event Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States. Historic events will be evaluated as a measure of:
i. A landmark, famous, or first of its kind event for the city—regardless of whether the
impact of the event spread beyond the city;
ii. A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., The Ah
Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American activities in early San Luis Obispo
history).
3. History – Context. Associated with and also a prime illustration of prominent patterns of
political, social, economic, cultural, medical educational, governmental, military,
industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as to the measure of
the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects
go beyond the city level that are immediately connected with the building (e.g.,
County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Park
Hotel).
C. Integrity – Authenticity of historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity will be
evaluated by a measure of:
1. Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether the original
foundation has been changed, if known;
2. The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or
appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reasons for its
historic significance;
3. The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workman-
ship, feeling and association.
In assessing a property’s integrity, the National Park Service recognizes that properties change over
time. National Register Bulletin 15 states:
To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. It
is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. The
property must retain, however, the essential physical features that allow it to convey its historic
identity.
A property that has lost some of its historic materials or details can be eligible if it
retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of massing,
spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials,
and ornamentation. The property Is not eligible if it retains some basic features
conveying massing, but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized
its style.
CHC4-78
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Section 106 Historic Report
32 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
For properties that are considered significant under National Register Criteria A and B, National
Register Bulletin 15 states:
A property is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential
physical features that make up the character or appearance during the period of its
association with the important event, historical pattern, or person.
A property important for illustrating an architectural style or construction technique must retain
most of the physical features that constitute the style or technique.
A property that has sufficient integrity for listing at the national, state or local level will typically
retain a majority of the character defining features, and will retain sufficient integrity to convey its
significance. The required aspects of integrity are dependent on the reasons for a property’s
significance. Increased age and rarity of the property type are also considerations when assessing
integrity thresholds.
For example, for properties that are significant for their architectural merit (Criterion C3, A1-A3) a
higher priority is placed on integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. For properties that are
significant for events or persons, integrity of feeling and/or association may be more important.
The Froom Ranch complex was assessed for all aspects of its historical significance and historic
integrity. The property meets six of the seven criteria for integrity. The following integrity criteria
were applied to the buildings and the complex as a whole.
3.4 - Integrity of the Structure
In addition to determining the significance of a property under local, state, and federal criteria, it is
necessary to assess whether the property has integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to
convey and maintain its significance. A property must not only be shown to be significant under the
established criteria, it must also have integrity. In order to retain historic integrity, a property must
possess several, and usually most, of the seven key aspects of integrity, which are location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
Application of the City’s Guidelines for Finding Integrity
1. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical integrity clearly indicated by
the retention of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
2. Integrity relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character defining
features.
Application of the Seven Aspects of Integrity
Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic
event occurred. The subject buildings remain at their original location. The “Old” Barn was moved
to the current location but has remained in this location for over 100 years.
CHC4-79
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 33
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a
property. The buildings retain their basic original design and, therefore, have retained this aspect of
integrity.
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property. Review of historic maps, archival materials,
and aerial photographs, as well as physical inspection of the surrounding area, indicates that the
majority of the Froom Ranch has retained its original appearance. However, the surrounding
neighborhood has changed from its original agricultural setting to a mixed-use commercial and
residential setting. The property has not retained its overall setting.
Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time
and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
The buildings have retained their original appearance with no significant changes to their overall
materials component. Alex and John Madonna undertook a series of repairs on the buildings over
the decades. Because they were able to salvage materials from old local barns and other sources,
they were able to use old, appropriate materials to do the repairs and renovations. Therefore, the
overall integrity has been retained.
Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given
period in history or prehistory. The quality of the original workmanship has basically been
maintained from the original construction.
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. The
Froom Ranch farm complex has basically maintained the original feeling of the property.
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
The property has been determined to be directly linked to an important historic event, the
development of agriculture and the dairy industry in the Los Osos Valley; and a person important in
local San Luis Obispo history, Bill Froom. Therefore, it has an associative element.
Conclusion
Of the seven aspects of integrity, the building retains all but one: Setting. Therefore, it passes the
integrity test.
3.5 - Historic Themes
In addition to the above City of San Luis Obispo standards and guidelines, the City has created
historic context themes that allow further evaluation of the property and is historic significance. The
Froom Ranch complex was evaluated under the City of San Luis Obispo Theme: Early 20th Century
Agriculture and Industrial Development.
In general, agriculture and industrial properties are generally not associated with particular
architectural styles. Vernacular industrial buildings of brick and reinforced concrete are the
predominate form, and significance is frequently derived from historic association, rather than
CHC4-80
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Section 106 Historic Report
34 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
aesthetic qualities. Agricultural and industrial resources from this period may be eligible under
several 20th-century themes.
Early 20th Century Agriculture and Industrial Development
Associated Property Types, Integrity Consideration & Eligibility Standards
Property Types
Examples of industrial properties from this period include railroad-related warehouse, rail yards, rail
lines, and rail spurs. Agricultural property types include: warehouses, farmhouses, and related
outbuildings.
An agricultural or industrial building from this period may be significant:
• As a rare, intact example of a particular type of agricultural or industrial development; or for
its association with the development of an important local industry – Criterion 1A, B2 (Event).
• As a rare example of a specific agricultural or industrial property type – Criterion C3, A1, A2
(Design/Construction).
• As a property type that has a direct association with the railroad – Criterion C3, A1, A2
(Design/Construction).
Integrity Considerations
In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient
integrity to convey its historic significance under Early 20th Century Agricultural and Industrial
themes:
• Agricultural and industrial properties from this period eligible under Criteria A1,B2 (Event)
should retain integrity of location, design, feeling and association.
• Agricultural and industrial properties significant under Criterion C3, A1, A2 (Design/
Construction) should retain integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship and feeling.
Eligibility Standards
To be eligible, a property must:
• Date from the period of significance;
• Display most of the character-defining features of the type; and
• Retain the essential aspects of integrity.
3.6 - Findings and Conclusions
Upon application of local City of San Luis Obispo criteria, standards, and guidelines; State of
California Historical Register criteria; and National Register of Historic Places criteria, the conclusion
was reached that the Froom Ranch complex is considered eligible for nomination to the local San
Luis Obispo Historic Register under the following Criteria:
CHC4-81
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 35
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
1. Architecture: A1, A2
The Froom Ranch complex includes examples of Craftsman architecture: the Main Residence and the
Bunkhouse. The buildings are both intact and good examples of the style and contain the main
character defining features of the Craftsman style. In addition, the complex contains a unique
example of Vernacular architecture: the Dairy Barn with the rounded front, the only such structure in
San Luis Obispo County. Additional Vernacular-style structures include the Creamery/House
building, the Granary and the Shed. The buildings represent the local farming and dairy industry
development and the predominant architectural styles of the early 20th century.
2. Historic Criteria – Person and Event: B1, B2
The Froom Ranch complex is considered to have historic significance for its connection with the
Froom family and Bill Froom and the development of early 20th century ranching and the dairy
industry. The complex exemplifies the Early 20th Century Agricultural Development theme.
3. Integrity: C1, C2, C3
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.
The complex is also locally significant under Criteria 1, 2, and 3 of the State of California Historical
Register and the National Register of Historic Places Criteria A, B, and C. The property is significant
for its association with the overall development of the San Luis Obispo area and the dairy industry;
for its association with the pioneering Froom family and for Bill Froom and his local contributions;
and for the Craftsman and Vernacular architecture of the buildings located on the property.
In addition, the Froom Ranch complex is considered to meet the criteria for a historic district, since
the various buildings and structures comprise a significant entity.
3.7 - Historic District
National Register Bulletin 15 includes the following information regarding historic districts:
A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of site,
buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical
development.
A district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often
composed of a wide variety of resources The identity of a district results from the
interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall
historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related
properties. For example, a district can reflect one principal activity, such as a mill or
a ranch, or it can encompass several interrelated activities, such as an area that
includes industrial, residential or commercial buildings, sites, structures, or objects.
A district can also be a grouping of archaeological sites related primarily by their
CHC4-82
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Section 106 Historic Report
36 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
common components; these types of districts often will not visually present a
specific historic environment.
A district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity. It must be
important for historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural values.
Therefore, districts that are significant will usually meet the last portion of Criterion
C plus Criterion A, Criterion B, other portions of Criterion C, or Criterion D.
A district can encompass both features that lack individual distinction and
individually distinctive features that serve as focal points. It may even be considered
eligible if all of the components lack individual distinction, provided that the
grouping achieves significance as a whole within the historic context. In either case,
the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character, even if
they are individually undistinguished, must possess integrity, as must the district as a
whole.
A district can contain buildings, structures, sites, objects, or open spaces that do not
contribute to the significance of the district. The number of non-contributing
properties a district can contain yet still convey the sense of time and place and
historical development depends on how these properties affect the district’s
integrity . . .
The Froom Ranch complex is considered to meet the necessary criteria as a historic district. The
Froom Ranch Historic District contains seven contributing structures and three non-contributing
structures. The Froom Ranch Historic District is considered an excellent example of early 20th
century ranching and dairy industry development in San Luis Obispo County; its association with the
pioneering Froom family and Bill Froom and his local contributions; and for its examples of
Craftsman and Vernacular architecture.
3.8 - Contributing Structures
1. Main Residence
The c. 1915 Craftsman-style residence served as the Froom family home from 1915 to 1998. The
building is a good example of Craftsman architecture in the San Luis Obispo area.
2. “Old” Barn
The “Old” Barn was built at an unknown time, possibly c. 1900, and moved to the current location
early 20th century. The barn has been renovated extensively.
3. Bunkhouse
The c. 1915 Bunkhouse is a Craftsman-style residential building once occupied by Bill Froom’s
brother.
CHC4-83
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 37
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
4. Dairy Barn
The c. 1913 Dairy Barn is a unique example of local dairy industry Vernacular construction. The barn
is the only barn in San Luis Obispo County with a rounded facade.
5. Creamery/House
The Creamery/House building dates to the early period of the Froom Ranch construction. It served
as both the dairy production area and the first residence on the site.
6. Granary
The c. 1913 Granary building was used for grain storage. The building has a unique construction to
pre-vent damage from animals.
7. Storage Building
The c. 1913 Storage Building was built as part of the early Froom Ranch development and has served
as a storage shed for the property.
3.9 - Non-Contributing Structures
1. Outhouse
The Outhouse is a Modern parking kiosk structure repurposed as an outhouse for the John Madonna
Construction Company staff and has no historic significance.
2. Storage Building
The Storage Building is a Modern mobile storage unit moved to the site for use by the John Madonna
Construction Company and has no historic significance.
3. Water Tower
The Water Tower is a Modern-style Verizon stealth cell tower site and has no historic significance.
3.10 - Recommendations
Please note that the order of the Alternatives does not reflect any preference.
Alternative #1
Leave all seven Froom Ranch historic structures in place in their current locations. Stabilize and
maintain the buildings in their current condition. Stabilization and/or rehabilitation of any historic
structures should be done according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for
Rehabilitation. Remove the Outhouse and the Storage Shed, as they have no historic significance.
Create a historic interpretive center with historic and photographic documentation of the Froom
Ranch complex and place the documentation in the center on the property. In addition, place copies
CHC4-84
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Section 106 Historic Report
38 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
of all historic documentation in local historic repositories, including the History Room at the San Luis
Obispo County Library and the San Luis Obispo History Center.
Alternative #2
Retain the seven Froom Ranch historic structures in their current locations or move them to another
location within the property. Stabilize and/or rehabilitate the historic buildings according to the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation.
Create an interpretive center in one of the buildings that documents the history of the Froom Ranch.
Historic photographs could be obtained from local sources and added to the interpretive center
exhibits. Current photographs can be taken of the existing buildings and overall property prior to
moving the buildings to a new location within the project area. If moved, the new location could be
in a highly visible area that would keep a portion of the historic viewshed intact.
Remove the Outhouse and Storage Building, as they have no historic significance.
Alternative #3
Remove the “Old” Barn, the Bunkhouse, the Granary, and the Storage Shed with the slanted roof as
well as the Outhouse and the Storage Shed.
Prior to removal of the other historic-age buildings, prepare a complete history of the property and a
historic and photographic documentation of the structures to the HABS/HAER level of
documentation. Place this documentation in local repositories and in an interpretive center on the
site.
Move the Main Residence, the Dairy Barn and the Creamery/House structures to a new location
within the Froom Ranch property. Prior to changing their locations, document the properties in their
current settings with photographic documentation at the HABS/HAER level of documentation.
Repurpose, stabilize and rehabilitate the Main Residence, the Dairy Barn and the Creamery/House
structures according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation of
Historic Structures.
Repurpose the structures to allow integration into an interpretive exhibit/center at a publicly
accessible location within a central location of the Froom Ranch property. Retain a variety of farm
equipment located at various points on the property to be included as part of the interpretive
exhibits illustrating early farm life and the dairy industry in San Luis Obispo County. Place Froom
Ranch historic documentation in local San Luis Obispo historic repositories, including the History
Room at the San Luis Obispo County Library and San Luis Obispo History Center.
Alternative #4
Move the Main House to the upper level of the property, near the Dairy Barn and the
Creamery/House. Leave the Dairy Barn and the Creamery/House in their current locations, if
feasible. Stabilize and rehabilitate the structures according to the Secretary of the Interior’s
CHC4-85
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 39
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Standards and Guidelines. Repurpose the structures into new uses and create an interpretive center
using the buildings to illustrate the history and setting of the Froom Ranch complex.
Remove all remaining buildings, historic and non-historic, from the site. Prior to removal of the
remaining historic buildings, document all structures and settings to a HABS/HAER level of
documentation. Place all historic documentation in the new interpretive center and other local San
Luis Obispo historic repositories.
Alternative #5
Remove the Diary Barn and the Main House to a central location of Froom Ranch to form the core of
an interpretive center. Reconstruct and/or rehabilitate the Diary Barn and the Main House according
to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Place the two historic buildings in a
publicly accessible location to facilitate preservation of a portion of the historic viewshed.
Remove the remaining buildings on the site, both historic and non-historic, and prior to removal
prepare historic and photographic documentation of the site and the buildings according to
HABA/HAER standards, including measured line drawings and large format black and white
photographs. Create archival-quality historic and photographic documentation of the Froom Ranch
complex and place the documentation in other local San Luis Obispo historic repositories.
Alternative #6
Remove all buildings, historic and non-historic, from the site. Document all seven historic buildings,
the surrounding acreage and the historic dairy equipment with HABS/HAER level photographic
documentation, recordation of floor plans and measured line drawings prior to removal of all
buildings on the site. Prepare a comprehensive history of the Froom Ranch property to accompany
the HABS/HAER documentation. Deposit all materials in the San Luis Obispo County Public Library,
Local History Room; the San Luis Obispo History Center; and other appropriate repositories. In
addition, donate the historic dairy equipment to the San Luis Obispo History Center or other
appropriate agency.
CHC4-86
ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHC4-87
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report References
FirstCarbon Solutions 41
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
SECTION 4: REFERENCES
Angel, Myron. 1979. History of San Luis Obispo County with Illustrations, Oakland, CA: Thompson
and West, 1883. Reprinted from Fresno Valley Publishers, CA.
Bay News, The. 1993. Numerous articles on Froom Ranch.
Bertrando, Betsy. 1998. “Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Building Complex, San Luis
Obispo County,” Central Coast Engineering, San Luis Obispo.
Ching, Francis. 2002. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York.
City of San Luis Obispo, Building Department. 2015. Building Permit Records for 12165 Los Osos
Valley Road, January.
County of San Luis Obispo, Assessor’s Office. N.D. Property Records for 12165 Los Osos Valley Road,
San Luis Obispo.
Historic Aerials.com. 2015. “12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA.”
Historic Resources Group. 2013. City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement.
Prepared for City of San Luis Obispo. September 30.
History Center of San Luis Obispo. 2015. Froom Ranch. January.
Levelle, Brian. Senior Planner, City of San Luis Obispo. Personal communication. January 16, 2015.
Madonna, John. Owner, John Madonna Construction Company. Personal communication: interview.
January 27, 2015.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester. 2003. A Field Guide to American Homes. Alfred A. Knopf:
New York.
Morro Group, Inc. 1998. Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden, Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report. Prepared for County of San Luis Obispo. October.
Morro Group, Inc. 2003. Draft Costco/Froom Ranch Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo. March.
Nava, Julian and Bob Berger. 1986. California: Five Centuries of Contrast. MacMillan Publishing
Company: New York.
San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room. 2015. Froom Ranch Vertical Files.
Miscellaneous documents.
San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune (now The Tribune). 1989. “Bill Froom: A Man Who Never Left,”
July 15.
CHC4-88
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
References Section 106 Historic Report
42 FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Sullivan, Joan. 1993. Touring the Froom Ranch or the Wild West in La Canada de Los Osos. On file
at San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room.
Sullivan, Joan. The Froom Ranch. Videos produced in 1994 and 2007. On file at San Luis Obispo
County Public Library, Local History Room.
United States Department of the Interior. 1991. National Register Bulletin 15. How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C.
CHC4-89
ATTACHMENT 4
John Madonna Construction - Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan
Section 106 Historic Report
FirstCarbon Solutions
H:\Client (PN-JN)\3611\36110015\Historic Report\36110015 Froom Ranch Historic Report.docx
Appendix A:
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms
CHC4-90
ATTACHMENT 4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
CHC4-91
ATTACHMENT 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
DISTRICT RECORD Trinomial
*NRHP Status Code:
DPR 523D (1/95) *Required information
Page 1 of 29 *Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder): Froom Ranch Complex
D1. Historic Name: Froom Ranch D2. Common Name: Froom Ranch
*D3. Detailed Description (Discuss overall coherence of the district, its setting, visual characteristics, and minor features. List all elements of
district.):
The Froom Ranch complex was developed in the late 19th century by John Froom, a Canadian laborer who purchased the dairy farm in the 1890s.
Froom, his wife, Harriet Perry Froom, with their seven children all lived on the Ranch. The ranch was developed as one of the early dairies in San
Luis Obispo County. The ranch complex currently contains the Main Residence (c. 1915); the “Old” Barn (date unknown; moved to the site in the
early 1900s); the Bunkhouse (c. 1915); the Diary Barn (c. 1913); the Creamery/House (date unknown); the Granary (c. 1913); the Shed (c. 1913); the
Outhouse (c. 2000); the Storage Building (c. 2010); and the Water Tower (c. 2013). The buildings are clustered in two groupings: the lower level of
the ranch property which contains the Main Residence, Bunkhouse, Shed, “Old” Barn, Outhouse and Storage Building; and the upper level which
includes the Dairy Barn, the Creamery/House building, the Granary and the Water Tower. The main buildings date to the early development of
the diary complex and represent Craftsman and Vernacular styles which have retained their main character defining features. The buildings have
retained their original locations and associations on the site. The buildings have maintained their historic integrity of location, association,
materials, design, workmanship, feeling, and association.
*D4. Boundary Description (Describe limits of district and attach map showing boundary and district elements.):
The boundaries are the current boundaries of the property, Assessor’s Parcel Number 67-241-419, Lots 60, 67, 68, and 69, Township
31 South, Range 12 East, Sections 3 and 10, located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93402.
*D5. Boundary Justification:
The boundaries are the current boundaries of the historic Froom Ranch complex which has not significantly changed since the
1900s.
*D6. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County
Period of Significance: 1890-1977 Applicable Criteria: A, B, C (Discuss district's importance in terms of its
historical context as defined by theme, period of significance, and geographic scope. Also address the integrity of the district as a whole.)
The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The ranch
was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in the 1890s
and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in 1902. The
family continued to live in the House portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim Aiken, a
worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in existence)
and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a barn with a
rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Mian Residence on the lower level and the family moved into
the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a residence. The “Old” Barn was
moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s development. Bill Froom, the middle son, took
over the ranching and dairy operations in 1927 when his father became ill and, in 1929, when his father died, Bill Froom inherited the ranch and
continued to operate it as one of the dairies in the San Luis Obispo County area until 1977 when he retired. The property was sold to Alex
Madonna in a tax lien sale in 1976, and his son, John Madonna uses it as an office and storage space for the Madonna Construction Company. The
Outhouse, Storage Building and Water Tower (a Verizon cell tower location) were built by the Madonna Construction Company and have no
historic associations.
*D7. References (Give full citations including the names and addresses of any informants, where possible.):
San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning
Department; Brian Leveille, Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and
films; History Center of San Luis Obispo, Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67-
241-019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P-40-04-991); Oral Interview with John Madonna, January 2015;.
*D8. Evaluator: Kathleen A. Crawford Date: January 30, 2015
Affiliation and Address:
Crawford Historic Services, P.O. Box 634, La Mesa, CA 91944
CHC4-92
ATTACHMENT 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 2 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex
P1. Other Identifier: None
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D.
c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405
d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
• e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:
Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries)
The Froom Ranch complex is located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, in the County of San Luis Obispo, California. The ranch complex was
developed in the late 19th century by John Froom, his wife, Harriet Perry Froom, with their seven children. The ranch was developed as one of the
early dairies in San Luis Obispo County. The ranch complex currently contains the Main Residence (c. 1915); the “Old” Barn (date unknown;
moved to the site in the early 1900s); the Bunkhouse (c. 1915); the Diary Barn (c. 1913); the Creamery/House (date unknown); the Granary (c. 1913);
the Shed (c. 1913); the Outhouse (c. 2000); the Storage Building (c. 2010); and the Water Tower (c. 2013). The buildings are clustered in two
groupings: the lower level of the ranch property which contains the Main Residence, Bunkhouse, Shed, “Old” Barn, Outhouse and Storage
Building; and the upper level which includes the Dairy Barn, the Creamery/House building, the Granary and the Water Tower. The main
buildings date to the early development of the diary complex and represent Craftsman and Vernacular styles and have retained their main
character defining features. The buildings have retained their original locations and associations on the site.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
West/January 6, 2015, #41
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
c. 1900-1915
*P7. Owner and Address:
John Madonna/Madonna Construction
Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis
Obispo, CA
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Kathleen A. Crawford,
MA
MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380,
Walnut Creek Ca 94597
*P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Phase I
*Attachments: NONE
Location Map Sketch Map
Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
CHC4-93
ATTACHMENT 4
Exhibit 1Record Search Map
Source: USGS San Luis Obispo (94) and Pismo Beach (94) 7.5' Quadrangles Laguna Land Grant; T31S R12E Secs 3 & 10
RRM DESIGN GROUPFROOM RANCH HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION
I 2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
1/2-mile Buffer
CHC4-94
ATTACHMENT 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 4 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex
P1. Other Identifier: Froom Ranch Main Residence
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D.
c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405
d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
• e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:
Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries)
See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch/HP 2: Single-Family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
West//January 6, 2015/#22
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
C 1915
*P7. Owner and Address:
John Madonna/Madonna Construction
Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis
Obispo, CA
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Kathleen A. Crawford,
MA
MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380,
Walnut Creek Ca 94597
*P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Phase I
*Attachments: NONE
Location Map Sketch Map
Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
CHC4-95
ATTACHMENT 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Page 5 of 29 *NRHP Status Code
*Resource Name or # Froom Ranch Main Residence
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: Main Residence
B3. Original Use: Main Residence B4. Present Use: Living Space
*B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman
*B6. Construction History: 1915
The Main Residence was built in 1915 by Hans Peterson. The building was constructed as the Froom family was continuing to grow and
needed better living conditions for the young children in the family. The family had lived in the house attached to the Creamery building on
the upper slopes of the property to the west. The Main Residence was lived in by members of the Froom family until 1998 when Bill Froom
moved in with his brother in San Luis Obispo. When the property was purchased by the Madonna Construction Company, arrangements were
made to allow Mr. Froom to reside in the home until he chose to leave. The Main Residence is a one‐story, asymmetrical, irregular shaped,
Craftsman style, single‐family residence. The building has a redwood sill and concrete foundation, wood horizontal shiplap siding, a partial
width front porch, and a hipped roof with shingles and a modest eave overhang. A brick chimney is present on the roof and extends
downward into the residence, terminating about three feet from the floor. The building was heated by a wood stove and there was no
interior fireplace.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
The east façade is the main elevation for the residence and faces Los Osos Valley Road. The façade contains a partial width front porch,
accessed by a short flight of wood stairs. The front gable roof is supported by three round columns – two at the entrance area and one on the
south end. The main entrance includes a single wood door with a wood screen door. A pair of wood framed. Double hung sash, focal
windows are located south of the off center front door. A front gable roof is present over the porch and the triangular space created by the
roof design is infilled with fish scale shingles. Windows vary in size, shape and placement around the facades and include wood framed,
double hung sash style windows. The north façade is the side of the residence and includes multiple wood framed double hung sash style
windows. A bay section projects forward from the main mass of the structure. A dormer section is present on the side of the roof directly
above the bay section. A rectangular shaped addition is located on the northwest corner of the building. The addition was constructed in two
parts at two different times. The front portion of the addition has wood shiplap siding and was built by Bill Froom to store firewood. The rear
portion of the addition has vertical board and batten siding and was built by John Madonna to house electronic equipment. Several single
doors are present around the three facades. The rear of the residence contains a screened porch with a screen door and screed window
openings. The porch wraps around the house, extending on to the south façade. A single wood and glass door leads into the rear of the house
The south façade contains two single wood doors. The back wall of the house contains wood framed windows. The south façade is the side of
the house facing the open area. Multiple window openings are present. The building is in good condition and is currently in use as offices for
the Madonna Construction Company.
Alterations:
According to John Madonna, the house has undergone a number of alterations. Both John Madonna and his father, Alex, have made many
changes to restore the building. The original foundation was redwood sills. Portions of the north and south redwood sill foundations were
completely rotted. The rotted portions were removed and replaced with concrete foundations. The house was then leveled as it had sunk
significantly. At some point, the house had been flooded and the floors were all uneven and buckled. The floors were leveled, sanded and
repaired. Several interior walls were removed to form larger office spaces. The kitchen sink and stove were removed and the area was
converted to general office use.
The only heating in the house was provided by a wood stove and the stove produced significant amounts of soot. The walls had been painted
over the years and the soot was sealed into the layers of paint. The walls were scraped, the soot and paint removed, and completely
repainted. The house was rewired for all new electrical service, plumbing repairs were made, an HVAC system was installed, new ceilings
were put in, a new roof was put on the house, and general tenant improvements were conducted.
The rear addition was altered by adding an extra section at the rear of the addition. This new section is used by the Madonna Company to
store their electronic equipment.
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson
*B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County
Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria:
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The
ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in
the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in
1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim
Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in
CHC4-96
ATTACHMENT 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a
barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the
family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a
residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s
development.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
B12. References:
San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille,
Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo,
Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral
Interview with John Madonna, January 2015
B13. Remarks:
B14. Evaluator:
Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015
CHC4-97
ATTACHMENT 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
View Southwest: North Side of Main Residence
View Southwest: Rear Addition to Main Residence
CHC4-98
ATTACHMENT 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
View East: Overview of Main Residence
View North: South Façade of Main Residence
CHC4-99
ATTACHMENT 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 9 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex
P1. Other Identifier: Bunkhouse
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D.
c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405
d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
• e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:
Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries)
See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch/hHP 2: Single-family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
West/January 6, 2015, #47
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
c. 1915
*P7. Owner and Address:
John Madonna/Madonna Construction
Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis
Obispo, CA
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Kathleen A. Crawford,
MA RPA
MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380,
Walnut Creek Ca 94597
*P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Phase I
*Attachments: NONE
Location Map Sketch Map
Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
CHC4-100
ATTACHMENT 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Page 10 of 29 *NRHP Status Code
*Resource Name or # Bunkhouse
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: Bunkhouse
B3. Original Use: Bunkhouse B4. Present Use: Storage
*B5. Architectural Style: Craftsman
*B6. Construction History: 1915
The building was constructed as a bunkhouse for the workers on the Froom property by Hans Peterson in 1915. However, according to John
Madonna, the building is one small room which was used by Bill Froom’s brother. The brother lived in the small residence for many years. The
small bunkhouse is a one‐story, Craftsman style building used as a residential structure. The building has a concrete foundation, wood
horizontal shiplap siding and a front gable roof with shingles. The building was constructed by Hans Peterson in 1915 when he built the main
residence.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
A set of concrete steps leads to the single wood entrance door on the east elevation. The concrete steps have the Froom “brand” pressed into
the wet concrete. This detail is seen on many of the other buildings as well. A single wood entrance door provides access to the interior. A
small metal slider style window is present. The south façade contains a wood framed double hung sash style window. The west façade also
contains a wood framed double hung sash style window. The north façade is blank. A large metal sign is propped up against the wall.
The building is in good condition with no major exterior alterations noted. Alterations:
According to John Madonna, the building has been altered by general tenant maintenance, including painting, a new roof, and a new floor.
The building was used for storage of files and rats were a problem; a new floor was installed to solve the problem.
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson
*B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County
Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria:
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The
ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in
the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in
1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim
Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in
existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a
barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the
family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a
residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s
development.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
B12. References:
San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille,
Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo,
Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral
Interview with John Madonna, January 2015
B13. Remarks:
B14. Evaluator:
Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2014
CHC4-101
ATTACHMENT 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
View North: West and South Facades of Bunkhouse
View South: North Façade of Bunkhouse
CHC4-102
ATTACHMENT 4
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
View of Froom Ranch Brand, Located on steps of Bunkhouse
CHC4-103
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC4-104
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-105
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-106
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-107
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-108
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-109
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-110
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-111
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-112
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-113
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-114
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-115
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-116
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-117
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-118
ATTACHMENT 5
CHC4-119
ATTACHMENT 5
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: 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 a hotel use (with 7 rooms), with a Categorical exemption from environmental review.
ADDRESS: 1027 Nipomo Street BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-3216-2016 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) find the proposed project to be consistent
with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (Attachment 1, Draft Resolution).
Applicant Creekside Lofts, L.P.
Representative Steve Rigor, Architect
Submittal Date 5/17/2016
Complete Date 8/11/2016
Zoning C-D-H (Downtown Historic
District
General Plan General Retail
Site Area 20,731 square feet (0.39 acres)
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt from
environmental review under
Section 15332, Class 32, In-fill
Development Projects, of the
CEQA Guidelines.
2.0 SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted plans for the construction of a new four-story mixed use structure
with 8,131 square feet of retail/commercial space, a seven-room hotel, and 23 residential units in
the Downtown Historic District. The site is currently used as a surface parking lot for adjacent lots
that are the sites of the Creamery and Ciopinot’s Restaurant. Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)
review is required for review of the new proposed development within a historic district. Following
CHC review, the project will be reviewed by the ARC for consideration of final project approval.
3.0 CHC Purview
The CHC’s role is to review the proposed new project in terms of its consistency with the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines for compatible development in Historic Districts.
Meeting Date: September 26, 2016
Item Number: 5
CHC5-1
4.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
4.1 Site Information/Setting
The proposed project consists of a 0.39 acre (20,731 square-foot) site located at 1027 Nipomo
Street within the Downtown Commercial zone with a Historic Overlay (C-D-H) (Attachment 2,
Vicinity Map). The project site is currently used as a surface parking lot for the adjacent properties
(the Creamery and Ciopinot’s) and accessed from Nipomo Street. Neighboring buildings and uses
include the Master List Historic Golden State Creamery (C-D-H) to the west, Ciopinot’s restaurant
(C-D-H) to the south, the Soda Water Works building (C-D-H-PD) and residential (R-3-H) to the
north and the Children’s Museum (PF) and Tonita’s Mexican restaurant (C-D-H) to the west (see
Figure 1 below).
4.2 Project Description
The project proposes to construct a new 48.5-foot, four-story mixed use structure with 8,131 square
feet of retail/commercial space, a seven-room hotel, and 23 residential units. The structure is
contemporary in design with retail storefronts along the street and the hotel and residential units
on the upper floors. The street-facing façade uses a mix of brick and stucco with metal awnings
and balconies with open metal railings (see Figure 2). The brick wraps around the building and
transitions into the use of stucco and off-set vertical wall planes (Figure 3 & Attachment 3, Project
Plans, Sheets 4.0 & 4.1).
Figure 1: Vicinity map and surrounding uses
Creamery
Residential Project site
Soda Water
Works
Children’s
Museum
Ciopinot’s
Restaurant
CHC5-2
The project includes:
8,131 square feet of ground floor retail/commercial space;
A seven room hotel on the second floor;
23 residential units (8 studios and 15 one-bedroom units);
Paying in-lieu fees for 31 parking spaces;
51 bicycle parking spaces (2 in each residential unit, 2 short-term and 3 long-term);
A 15 to 18-foot wide pedestrian pathway/seating area between the neighboring buildings
and the project;
Preservation of the creek walk along San Luis Creek;
Proposed landscaping includes the removal of five parking lot trees and planting 11 new
trees (Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheets A2.2 and A2.3);
Proposed materials include brick, stucco, aluminum storefronts, and metal awnings and
railings.
Figure 2: East (front) elevation of the proposed project
Figure 3: North elevation of the project along San Luis Creek
CHC5-3
5.0 EVALUATION/DISCUSSION
The CHC’s purview is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and construction in a Historic District and provide a
recommendation to Architectural Review Commission.
5.1 Historic Preservation Guidelines
The Historic Preservation Guidelines provide criteria to evaluate alterations to historic resources
and compatibility for new development within Historic Districts. The Guidelines state that
construction in historic districts shall conform with the goals and policies of the General Plan, the
Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG), and the
Community Design Guidelines.1 Staff has provided an analysis of the proposed project below.
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 3.2.1 Architecturally compatible development within
Historic Districts. New structures in historic districts shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as measured by their consistency with
the scale, massing, rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street
yard setbacks of the district's historic structures. New structures are not required to copy or imitate
historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new building is historic.
Staff Analysis: According to the HPPG the Downtown Historic District Common site features and
characteristics2 include:
A. Buildings located at back of sidewalk with zero street and side setbacks
B. Finish floors at grade
C. Recessed front entries oriented toward the street
D. Front facades oriented toward the street
E. Trees placed at regular intervals along the street
The project is proposing a new four-story mixed-use structure and incorporates some of the
characteristics described above. The building is located at the back of the sidewalk with front
facades oriented towards the street, includes recessed front entries, and retains the regular planting
of trees along the street.
The site is located on the west edge of the Downtown Historic District and is surrounded by a mix
of structures that range in architectural style, form, scale and height. Structures that surround the
site include:
Ciopinot’s Restaurant – single story brick rectilinear structure with brick gable end
parapets (Figure 4)
1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Section 3.1.1 Co nformance with design standards. Construction in
historic districts and on properties that contain listed historic resources shall conform with the goals and policies of
the General Plan, the Historic Preservation Ordinance, these Guidelines, the Community Design Guidelines, any
applicable specific or area plan, and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Histor ic Properties.
2 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Section 5.2.2. Downtown Historic District
CHC5-4
Creamery (Master List Historic
property) – single and two-story
structures with an agrarian style
architecture that includes the use of
metal, wood and terra cotta siding
Soda Water Works – two-story
rectilinear false front building with
wood siding (Figure 4)
Children’s Museum – three-story
modern asymmetrical structure with
metal siding and large windows
(Figure 4)
The project is contemporary in design and uses
a mixture of brick and stucco as exterior
materials and metal awnings to accent window
and door openings. These materials are
consistent with other buildings found within the
Downtown Historic District. The overall form
is rectilinear with varying roof/parapet heights
with an overall height of 48.5 feet. This is taller
than any of the adjacent structures, but similar
in height to the proposed Monterey Place (that
has been approved for the site between the
Children's Museum and the Historic Leitcher
Building). The site is also located near the
proposed location of a new parking garage
which will have a height of at least 45 feet
(Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet A12). The
upper stories of the project have more vertical
design with horizontal lines created by
balconies and window fenestrations.
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 3.2.2
Architectural compatibility. The CHC reviews
development in historic districts for architectural compatibility with nearby historic resources,
and for consistency with applicable design and preservation policies, standards, and historic
district descriptions in Section 5.2. New development should not sharply contrast with,
significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the historic architectural character of
historically designated structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from
the prevailing historic architectural character of the historic district.
Figure 2: Structures located nearest the proposed
project site; Ciopinot’s (top), Soda Water Works
(middle), and Children’s Museum (bottom).
CHC5-5
As noted in the previous section, the site in located adjacent to the Master List Historic Golden
State Creamery. The proposed site is located at the backside of the Creamery. Unlike other historic
structures in the
Downtown, the
Creamery was added
to the Master List of
Historic Resources
because of its role
and significant
contribution to the
growth and
development of the
dairy industry in San
Luis Obispo.
Historic elements of
the Creamery
include features that
are associated with
the dairy industry
such as the basic
massing/form of the
buildings, the remaining dairy freezer and delivery doors and the original condenser tower. Most
of the its historic features are viewed from within the interior of the project. As such, the proposed
project will not block views or detract from the historic character of the Creamery.
The project includes many of the Downtown Historic District's predominant architectural features3
such as a flat roof with a parapet, first floor windows are horizontally oriented storefront windows
and upper story windows are vertically oriented, the building has a rectilinear, incorporates both
masonry or smooth stucco wall siding, has simple bulkheads along the storefront, and uses awnings
along the street at on the upper floors.
3 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section 5.2.2 Downtown Historic District, describes the following as being
the predominant architectural features of Downtown:
A. One to two stories (occasionally three)
B. Flat or low pitched roof, often with a parapet
C. Wide entablature or projecting cornice that often includes classical architectural details such as dentils,
brackets and molding
D. First floor windows are horizontally oriented storefront windows, often with display space facing street. In
multi-story structures, windows are vertically oriented, typically with double hung, wood sashes, and
symmetrically arranged so that they are dimensionally taller than their width
E. Structures follow simple rectilinear or “boxy” buildings forms
F. Masonry or smooth stucco wall siding
G. Contrasting bulkheads along base of street façade
H. Use of awnings, historic signs, second-story overhangs and canopies
I. Use of transom windows above storefronts
Figure 3: View of the proposed project from the corner of Higuera and Nipomo
Streets
CHC5-6
6.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is exempt from environmental review under Class 32 (Section 15332) In-fill
Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines because the project is consistent with the
applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with
applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result in significant impacts on
historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to the Architectural Review Commission that the project is consistent with the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommend that the project be denied based on inconsistency with the City’s Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines and/or Secretary of Interior Standards.
2. Continue the item with specific direction for additional discussion or research.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Project Plans
CHC5-7
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE,
RECOMMENDING THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
FIND CONSISTENT WITH THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM
GUIDELINES THE 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 A HOTEL USE (WITH 7 ROOMS) AT 1027 NIPOMO STREET
(ARCH-3216-2016)
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chambers of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
on September 26, 2016, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application ARCH-3216-2016,
Creekside Lofts, L.P., applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee has duly considered all evidence, including
the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
as follows:
Section 1. Findings.
1. The proposed new building is consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
Section 3.2.1 because the building is designed to be architecturally compatible in scale, massing,
rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials, siting and street yard setbacks of the
Downtown Historic District's structures.
2. The proposed new building is consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Section
3.2.2 because it is architectural compatible with nearby historic resources, consistent with the
Downtown Historic District's design and preservation policies, standards, and historic district
descriptions, and it does not sharply contrast with, significantly block public views of, or visually
detract from, the historic architectural character of historically designated structures located
adjacent to the property to be developed, or detract from the prevailing historic architectural
character of the historic district.
3. The project is consistent with Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 3.3.5 because the
new project has been evaluated based on the historic characteristics of the Downtown Historic
District.
Section 2. Environmental Review. The project is exempt from environmental review
under Class 32 (Section 15332) In-fill Development Projects of the CEQA Guidelines because the
CHC5-8
Attachment 1
project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan
policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The project will not result
in significant impacts on historic resources, traffic, noise, air quality or water quality.
Section 3. Action. The Committee hereby recommends to the Architectural Review
Commission that the project (application ARCH-3216-2016) is consistent with the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines.
On motion by Committee member ______, seconded by Committee member _______, and on the
following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26th day of September, 2016.
_____________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
CHC5-9
Attachment 1
C-D
O-H
C-D
O-H
R-3-H
PF-H
C-D-S-H
C-D-H
C-R
C-D-H-PDO-H-PD
C-D-H
R-3
NI
P
O
M
ODANA
HIGUERAMONTEREYVICINITY MAP File No. 3216-20161027 Nipomo St ¯
CHC5-10
Attachment 2
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$ 7+(/2)76$71,3202675((7126&$/(1,3202676$1/8,62%,632&29(56+((77+(/2)76$71,32026$1/8,62%,632&$CHC5-11
Attachment 3
CHC5-12
Attachment 3
CHC5-13
Attachment 3
CHC5-14
Attachment 3
N35°39'48"E 176.10'RN36°52'54"W 73.86'MN53°07'06"E 92.06'MN36°0'26"W 4.02'MN36°53'12"W 152.00'RN53°09'45"E 75.94'MDateScaleSheet09/06/2016LOFTS AT NIPOMO20200100100611x17 SHEET SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"TRUENORTHCIOPINOTCIOPINOTOUTDOORSEATINGTAQUERIAGOSHITAQUERAOUTDOORSEATINGTRASHEDGE OF EXISTING CREEK WALK FENCECREEK EASEMENTTOP OF BANK LINEEXISTING CURBTO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING STRIPPINGTO BE DEMOLISHEDEXISTING WALKWAYTO BE REMAINA2.0EXISTING PAVINGTO BE DEMOLISHEDRELOCATE BUSSTOP TO NEWLOCATIONRELOCATEBUS STOP BENCHEXISTING PATHWAY TO BEREMOVED AND TIED INTOPROPOSED PEDSTRIAN PLAZAEXISTING TRASH TO BERELOCATED PER PLANON SHEET A3.0EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA,SIGNAGE & PARKING LIGHTSTO BE REMOVEDEXISTING PORTIONOF BRICK WALKWAYTO BE REMOVEDEXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BEABANDONED ANDAPPROACH TO BE REPAIRED/CONVERTED TO SIDEWALKPER CITY STANDARDSEXISTING DRIVEWAY TO BEABANDONED ANDAPPROACH TO BE REPAIRED/CONVERTED TO SIDEWALKPER CITY STANDARDSEXISTING ON- STREETPARKINGCHC5-15
Attachment 3
N35°39'48"E 176.10'RN36°52'54"W 73.86'MN53°07'06"E 92.06'MN36°0'26"W 4.02'MN36°53'12"W 152.00'RN53°09'45"E 75.94'MDateScaleSheet09/06/2016LOFTS AT NIPOMO20200100100611x17 SHEET SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"TRUENORTHLOBBYSTAIRRETAIL 2STAIRELEVCIOPINOTCIOPINOTOUTDOORSEATINGTAQUERIAGOSHITAQUERAOUTDOORSEATINGRETAIL 1RETAIL 3TRASHELECTRICALPEDESTRIANPLAZAPEDESTRIANPLAZABUILDING LIMIT LINEEDGE OF EXISTING CREEK WALK FENCECREEK EASEMENTTOP OF BANK LINELANDSCAPINGA2.1RETAIL 4PROPOSED BUSSTOP RE-LOCATIONRELOCATED BUSSTOP BENCHEXISTING PARKINGMETERNEW RETAINING WALLEXISTING WALK, TO REMAIN18'-7"11'-11"14'-11 1/2"16'-4"2'-0 1/2"BIKE RACKBIKE LOCKERS8'-0"CHC5-16
Attachment 3
N35°39'48"E 176.10'RN36°52'54"W 73.86'MN53°07'06"E 92.06'MN36°0'26"W 4.02'MN36°53'12"W 152.00'RN53°09'45"E 75.94'M54132DateScaleSheet09/06/2016LOFTS AT NIPOMO20200100100611x17 SHEET SCALE: 1" = 20'-0"TRUENORTHCIOPINOTTREE REMOVAL NOTESA2.2EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED1. 7" Ø BRISBANE BOXTristania conferta2. 14" Ø RED IRONBARKEucalyptus sideroxylon3. 16" Ø RED IRONBARKEucalyptus sideroxylon4. 12" Ø AMERICAN SWEETGUMLiquidambar styraciflua5. 9" Ø EVERGREEN PEARPyrus kawakamiEXISTING TREETO REMAINEXISTING TREETO REMAINCHC5-17
Attachment 3
DateScaleSheet09/06/2016LOFTS AT NIPOMO1003001505001011x17 SHEET SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"TRUENORTHA2.3EXISTING TREESEXISTING TREEEXISTING TREEEXISTING TREES INRIPARIAN CORRIDORNIPOMO STREETHIGUERA STREETCIOPINOTCIOPINOTOUTDOORSEATINGTAQUERIAGOSHITHE LOFTS AT NIPOMOSANDY'SLIQUOREXISTING TREEEXISTING TREE8'-0"CHC5-18
Attachment 3
5(7$,/6)AA6.0BA6.05(7$,/6)5(7$,/6)(/(967$,567$,5/2%%<75$6+
5(7$,/6)
(/(&75,&$/),5(5,6(5&/26(7
2&&2&&2&&2&&(;,7',6&+$5*((;,7',6&+$5*((;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7(;,7&,23,1277$48(5,$*26+, &,23,127287'2253$7,2%,.(6725$*( 'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$ 7+(/2)76$71,3202675((7
1,3202676$1/8,62%,632),567)/2253/$1&21&(378$/),567)/2253/$1
CHC5-19
Attachment 3
AA6.0FLAT 3STUDIO450 SFFLAT 4STUDIO450 SFFLAT 5STUDIO450 SFFLAT 2STUDIO450 SFFLAT STUDIO450 SFFLAT STUDIO450 SFHOTEL RM 4450 SFHOTEL RM 2635 SFFLAT 1STUDIO450 SFHOTEL RM 3450 SFELEV.STAIR 2DEC55 SFDEC40 SFCOV. DEC75 SFDEC50 SFCOV. DEC65 SFDEC50 SFDEC50 SFBA6.0DEC50 SFDEC50 SFSTAIR 1HOTEL RM 450 SFHOTEL RM 542 SFHOTEL RM 5450 SFHOTEL RM 1635 SFCIRCULATION1,262 SFSTRG.20 SFSTRG.20 SFFLAT STUDIO450 SFTRASHCHUTECOV. DEC70 SFCOV. DEC65 SFCOV. DEC70 SFCOV. DEC90 SFDEC60 SFSTRG.STRG.22 SFSTRG.20 SF7'-101/2"13'-0"16'-6"32'-0"16'-0"33'-0"25'-9 1/2"10'-8 1/2"2'-0"DEC100 SFCIOPINOTTAQUERIAGOSHI2324EXITACCESSEXITACCESSBIKE RACKTYP.DateScaleSheetA3.107/01/16THE LOFTS AT NIPOMOSTREET1/16" = 1'-0"1027 NIPOMO ST, SAN LUIS OBISPOSECOND FLOOR PLANCONCEPTUAL SECOND FLOOR PLAN0'4'8'16'32'I E RAC STORAGEBIKE RACK MOUNTED TENANT'S REQUESTCHC5-20
Attachment 3
AA6.0BA6.0DEC70 SFTH 101 ED841 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 391 SFTH 111 ED868 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 418 SFTH 121 ED820 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 370 SFTH 1 ED829 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 379 SFTH 131 ED839 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 389 SFTH 141 ED839 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 389 SFTH 41 ED930 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 480 SFTH 1 ED997 SF1ST FL : 635 SF /2ND FL : 362 SFTH 1 ED829 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 379 SFTH 51 ED940 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 490 SFELEV.STAIR 2DEC55 SFDEC40 SFDEC75 SFDEC50 SFDEC65 SFDEC50 SFDEC50 SFDEC50 SFDEC50 SFSTAIR 1TH 21 ED900 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 450 SFTH 11 ED997 SF1ST FL : 542 SF /2ND FL : 455 SFTH 31 ED900 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 450 SFTH 1 ED997 SF1ST FL : 635 SF /2ND FL : 362 SFTH 151 ED848 SF1ST FL : 450 SF /2ND FL : 398 SFCIRCULATIONSTRG.20 SFSTRG.25 SFTRASHCHUTEDEC65 SFDEC85 SFDEC60 SFSTRG.STRG.20 SFSTRG.22 SFDEC75 SFDEC100 SF150'-10 1/2"CIOPINOTTAQUERIAGOSHI53738EXITACCESSEXITACCESS6'-0"BIKE RACKUNDER STAIRTYP.BIKE RACKDateScaleSheetA3.207/01/16THE LOFTS AT NIPOMOSTREET1/16" = 1'-0"1027 NIPOMO ST, SAN LUIS OBISPOTHIRD FLOOR PLANCONCEPTUAL THIRD FLOOR PLAN0'4'8'16'32'CHC5-21
Attachment 3
AA6.0BA6.07+7+7+7+ 7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+7+75$6+&+87('(&. 6)'(&.6)'(&.6)'(&.6)'(&.6)'(&.6)'(&.6)'(&.6)&,23,1277$48(5,$*26+,522)67$,5
522)$&&(66+$7&+)25),5('(37$&&(6621/<'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$7+(/2)76$71,3202675((7
1,3202676$1/8,62%,632)2857+)/2253/$1&21&(378$/)2857+)/2253/$1
CHC5-22
Attachment 3
522)$&&(66+$7&+)25),5('(37$&&(6621/<0(&+$1,&$/81,7667$,572:(5522)3$5$3(7:$// 7<3 0(&+$1,&$/81,76522)%(/2: 1212&&83,('522) 1212&&83,('522) 1212&&83,('522) 1212&&83,('522) 1212&&83,('522) 1212&&83,('522) 1212&&83,('522) 'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$7+(/2)76$71,3202675((7
1,3202676$1/8,62%,632522)3/$1&21&(378$/522)3/$1
CHC5-23
Attachment 3
FIRST FLOOR193.2'ROOF238.4'SECOND FL208.2'THRID FL218.8'FOURTH FL229.4'BRICK VENEERDASH STUCCOALUMINUM WINDOWSMETAL CANOPYMETAL DECKBRICK VENEERDASH STUCCOMECHANICAL UNITS BEYOND48'-6" PROPOSED HEIGHT241.5'50' MAX HEIGHT242.0'AVG. NATURAL GRADE192.0'APPROX. HEIGHT17'-3"9'-1"10'-7"10'-7"15'-0"17'-3"PROPERTY LINE15'-11"FIRST FLOOR193.2'ROOF238.4'SECOND FL208.2'THRID FL218.8'FOURTH FL229.4'BRICK VENEERDASH STUCCOALUMINUM WINDOWSMETAL CANOPYMETAL CANOPYDASH STUCCOBRICK VENEERMECHANICAL UNIT BEYOND48'-6" PROPOSED HEIGHT241.5'50' MAX HEIGHT242.0'AVG. NATURAL GRADE192.0'DateScaleSheetA4.009/06/2016THE LOFTS AT NIPOMOSTREET1/16" = 1'-0"1027 NIPOMO ST, SAN LUIS OBISPOCONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONSCONCEPTUAL NORTH EAST ELEVATION0'4'8'16'32'CONCEPTUAL SOUTH EAST ELEVATION
CHC5-24
Attachment 3
FIRST FLOOR193.2'ROOF238.4'SECOND FL208.2'THRID FL218.8'FOURTH FL229.4'DASH STUCCODASH STUCCOMETAL CANOPYALUMINUM WINDOWSBRICK VENEER48'-6" PROPOSED HEIGHT241.5'50' MAX HEIGHT242.0'AVG. NATURAL GRADE192.0'FIRST FLOOR193.2'ROOF238.4'SECOND FL208.2'THRID FL218.8'FOURTH FL229.4'BRICK VENEERDASH STUCCOALUMINUM WINDOWSMETAL CANOPYMETAL CANOPYDASH STUCCO48'-6" PROPOSED HEIGHT241.5'50' MAX HEIGHT242.0'AVG. NATURAL GRADE192.0'DateScaleSheetA4.109/06/2016THE LOFTS AT NIPOMOSTREET1/16" = 1'-0"1027 NIPOMO ST, SAN LUIS OBISPOCONCEPTUAL ELEVATIONSCONCEPTUAL SOUTH EST ELEVATIONCONCEPTUAL NORTH EAST ELEVATION
CHC5-25
Attachment 3
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$ 7+(/2)76$71,3202675((71,3202676$1/8,62%,6323(563(&7,9(3(563(&7,9()5201,3202675((7/22.,1*72:$5'6&5((.Z7UHHVCHC5-26
Attachment 3
75((287/,1(6+2:1)25&/$5,7<'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$ 7+(/2)76$71,3202675((71,3202676$1/8,62%,6323(563(&7,9($3(563(&7,9($)5201,3202675((7/22.,1*72:$5'6&5((.ZR75((6CHC5-27
Attachment 3
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$ 7+(/2)76$71,3202675((71,3202676$1/8,62%,6323(563(&7,9(3(563(&7,9($)5201,3202/22.,1*72:$5'6&,23,127:,7+75((6CHC5-28
Attachment 3
75((287/,1(6+2:1)25&/$5,7<'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$ 7+(/2)76$71,3202675((71,3202676$1/8,62%,6323(563(&7,9($3(563(&7,9()5201,3202/22.,1*72:$5'6&,23,127ZR75((6CHC5-29
Attachment 3
$3352;,0$7(287/,1(2)(;,67,1*75((6,15,3$5,$1&255,'25127( 287/,1(2)(;,67,1*75((6,15,3$5,$1&255,'256+2:1)25&/$5,7<21/<'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$ 7+(/2)76$71,3202675((71,3202676$1/8,62%,6323(563(&7,9(3(563(&7,9(/22.,1*)5207+(&5((.CHC5-30
Attachment 3
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$ 7+(/2)76$71,3202675((71,3202676$1/8,62%,6323(563(&7,9(3(563(&7,9(/22.,1*)5207+(&5($0(5<CHC5-31
Attachment 3
'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$ 7+(/2)76$71,3202675((71,3202676$1/8,62%,6323(563(&7,9(7$48(5,$6,77,1*$5($CHC5-32
Attachment 3
FIRST FLOOR193.2'ROOF238.4'SECOND FL208.2'THRID FL218.8'FOURTH FL229.4'RETAIL 3FLAT FLAT LO YRETAIL 2GOSHIPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE9'-1"10'-7"10'-7"15'-0"RETAIL 2192.0'RETAIL 3191.0'TH 2TH 2HOTEL RM RETAIL 4FLAT STAIR 1STAIR 1STAIR 1CIRCULATIONCIRCULATIONTH 15TH 15TH 14TH 14TH 13TH 13TH 11TH 11FLAT 418'-7"7"48'-6" PROPOSED HEIGHT241.5'50' MAX HEIGHT242.0'AVG. NATURAL GRADE192.0'FIRST FLOOR193.2'ROOF238.4'SECOND FL208.2'THRID FL218.8'FOURTH FL229.4'HOTEL RM 2RETAIL 1CIOPINOTPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINETH TH STAIR 114'-11 1/2"50'-5 1/2"48'-6" PROPOSED HEIGHT241.5'50' MAX HEIGHT242.0'AVG. NATURAL GRADE192.0'DateScaleSheetA.009/06/2016THE LOFTS AT NIPOMOSTREET1/16" = 1'-0"1027 NIPOMO ST, SAN LUIS OBISPOSECTIONS0'4'8'16'32'CONCEPTUAL UILDING SECTION CONCEPTUAL UILDING SECTION ACHC5-33
Attachment 3
CHC5-34
Attachment 3
$03030'DWH6FDOH6KHHW$ 7+(/2)76$71,3202675((71761,3202676$1/8,62%,6326+$'(678'<:,17(562/67,&(CHC5-35
Attachment 3
CHC5-36
Attachment 3
CHC5-37
Attachment 3
CHC5-38
Attachment 3
CHC5-39
Attachment 3