HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-28-2017 CHC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Agenda
Cultural Heritage Committee
Amended Agenda
Monday, August 28, 2016
5:30 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
This amended agenda includes the addition of Item 1 under Comment and Discussion listed in
italicized type.
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Papp
ROLL CALL: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Damon Haydu, Glen
Matteson, Thom Brajkovich, Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee, and Chair
James Papp.
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Committee or staff may modify the order of items.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 24, 2017 and the Special Meeting of August 14,
2017 of the Cultural Heritage Committee meetings.
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. 862 ISLAY STREET. ARCH-0852-2017; Construction of a new garage and utility building
to replace an existing non-historic garage (to be demolished) at the rear of property designated
as a Contributing List Historic Resource in the Old Town Historic District (Exempt from
environmental review); R-2-H zone; Jerry & Kim Scott, applicants. (Walter Oetzell)
San Luis Obispo – Cultural Heritage Committee Agenda of August 28, 2017 Page 2
2. 12165 AND 12393 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD. SPEC-0143-2017; Conceptual review of
plans for the multiple structures comprising the Froom Ranch Historic Complex, in association
with the Froom Ranch Specific Plan; Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area 3; John Madonna,
applicant. (Emily Creel/Shawna Scott)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
1. Appointment of a subcommittee to explore updates to the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines. (Chair Papp)
2. Agenda Forecast & Staff Updates
ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for Monday, September 25,
2017 at 5:30 PM, in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the
public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to
persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or
accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such requests to the City Clerk’s
Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications
Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.
Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Cultural Heritage Committee are available
for public inspection in the Community Development Department located at 919 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California during normal business hours, and on the City’s website
http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies
Minutes - DRAFT
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, July 24, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, July 24,
2017 in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by
Chair Papp.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Thom Brajkovich, Damon Haydu, Craig Kincaid,
Glen Matteson, and Chair James Papp
Absent: Committee Member Shannon Larrabee
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Planning Technician Kip Morais, Associate Planner
Kyle Bell.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECOND BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, CARRIED 6-01 to approve the Minutes of the Regular
Cultural Heritage Committee Meetings of April 24, 2017, May 15, 2017, and May 22, 2017 with
the following amendments:
May 15th, Page 2: “Committee Member Matteson encouraged the applicant to give careful
consideration to the representation of the site’s agricultural history.”
May 22nd, Page 1: Reflect Committee Member Matteson’s presence in the roll call.
Page 1: Committee Member Matteson voted to abstained, having not attended the March 27th
meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Joseph Carotenuti, San Luis Obispo, introduced the concept of placing a commemorative plaque
at the bridge in Mission Plaza behind the Warden Building, in honor of Queenie Warden.
DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of July 24, 2017 Page 2
Senior Planner Brian Leveille offered information regarding the proper protocol for requesting
and approving memorial plaques.
--End of Public Comment--
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 683 Pismo Street. ARCH-0733-2017: Review of an addition to a Contributing List historic
property in the Medium-Density Residential zone, within the Old Town Historic District;
categorically exempt from environmental review (Class 15332); R-2-H zone; Mark and
Heather Minnoch, applicants. (Kip Morais)
Planning Technician Kip Morais presented the staff report with use of a PowerPoint
presentation.
Applicant Representative Greg Wynn provided an in-depth presentation illustrating the
proposed modifications and responded to Committee inquiries.
Public Comments:
Debbie Wacker, requested clarification regarding the accessory dwelling unit.
--End of Public Comment--
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECOND BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BRAJKOVICH, CARRIED 6-0-1 to adopt the resolution
recommending the Community Development Director approve the renovation and addition to
the rear of a contributing historic resource in the old town historic district with
recommendation to the applicant to work with staff to select a siding more consistent with the
existing siding.
The Committee recessed at 6:12 p.m. and reconvened at 6:17 p.m. with 5 members present.
Committee Member Brajkovich recused for Item 2 and exited the Council Hearing Room for
the remainder of the meeting.
2. 546 Higuera Street. ARCH-0339-2017: Continued review of repositioning, restoration,
and rehabilitation of the Master List Historic structure known as Norcross House,
including the construction of an additional two-story dwelling unit for consistency with
the Historic Preservation Ordinance; categorically exempt from environmental review
(Class 15331 & 15332); C-R zone; Higuera Commons, LLC, applicant. (Kyle Bell)
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Senior Planner Leveille provide clarification regarding the CHC’s purview.
DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of July 24, 2017 Page 3
Applicant John Belsher presented information regarding project feasibility and economic
impacts; presented a PowerPoint presentation and read aloud written correspondence
provided by architect Thom Brajkovich; expressed concerns regarding the potential
financial hardships that a negative review could impose; responded to Committee
inquiries.
Michael Hibma, Architectural Historian, LSA Associates, presented information relative
to the period of significance of the property, citing 1874-1889 as the assumed time frame;
responded to Committee inquiries.
Chair Papp expressed concerns over the absence of an independent Architectural Historian
report and structural engineer’s report as directed in a previous CHC hearing.
Public Comment:
Greg Wynn, architect, San Luis Obispo, stated he is neither for nor against the project;
offered clarification regarding the California Architects Practice Act which describes
architects and structural engineers equally capable of evaluating buildings up to 75-feet
high, excluding hospitals.
Chuck Crotser stated licensed architects have the expertise to evaluate structures and
urged the Committee to approve the project.
Ginger Woods, San Luis Obispo, referenced written correspondence and urged the
Committee to vote in favor of the project; expressed concerns regarding the unused
potential of the property.
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Papp disclosed ex-parte communications with architect Thom Brajkovich and
applicant John Belsher.
Committee Member Haydu commented on significant impacts to historic resources,
including demolition by neglect; stated he does not disagree with the LSA report and
memorandum.
Committee Member Matteson stated the property has been adequately studied, although a
more expedient process would have been beneficial; expressed interest in seeing the
history of the property documented through the construction process.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER KINCAID, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER MATTESON, CARRIED 4-1-1-1 with Chair Papp opposed, to approve staff’s
recommendation.
DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of July 24, 2017 Page 4
Chair Papp stated he disagreed with the adequacy of the original report; stated issue
with the representation of the rear of the home; expressed concerns with the criteria and
inconsistencies in the applicant’s reports.
Committee Member Baer stated the date of the additions is irrelevant in comparison to
the inconsistent nature of materials and unsafe nature of the rear of the home.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Leveille presented an agenda forecast.
The Committee briefly discussed interest in beneficial subjects of member education.
Jamila Haseeba, San Luis Obispo, offered information regarding the biannual SLO County
planning workshop.
Chair Papp provided an update on the mission aqueduct.
Chair Papp reported the historic resources survey did not receive a grant. The Committee
decided to move forward with the Historic Resources Survey project.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:56 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Cultural Heritage
Committee is scheduled for Monday, August 28, 2017, at 5:30 p.m., in the location, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2017
Minutes - DRAFT
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
Monday, August 14, 2017
Special Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday, August
14, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Papp.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Damon Haydu, Glen Matteson, Thom Brajkovich, Sandy Baer,
Vice-Chair Shannon Larrabee (arrived at 6:42 p.m.), and Chair James Papp.
Absent: Committee Member Craig Kincaid
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille, Associate Planner Rachel Cohen, and Assistant Planner
Walter Oetzell.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
--End of Public Comment--
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2017
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER MATTESON, SECOND BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER HAYDU, CARRIED 5-0-2, to approve the minutes of the Cultural
Heritage Committee meeting of June 26, 2017, as amended:
Correct Committee Member Matteson’s name spelling, to remove additional “n.”
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 1027 Nipomo Street. ARCH-3216-2016: Review of a new four-story, mixed-use
development proposed in the Downtown Historic District that includes 6,698 square-feet of
commercial/retail space, 47 hotel rooms, and a 22-space subterranean parking garage (with a
categorical exemption from environmental review (Section 15332, Infill Development); C-D-
H zone; Creekside Lofts, L.P., applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of August 14, 2017 Page 2
Associate Planner Rachel Cohen presented a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee Member inquiries.
Applicant Representative, Architect Bryan Ridley, presented a PowerPoint presentation.
Applicant, Damien Mavis, made additional comments and responded to Committee Member
inquiries.
Public Comments:
Steve Snyder, nearby resident noted his concerns with the scale of the project since it is right
across the creek from residences.
Mark Johnson nearby resident, noted his opposition to the project based on the height of the
project since a 4-story project is proposed near residences. He stated the project is too big
and culturally incomptatible.
Dave Hanning stated that there was no mention of the distances to residences on Dana Street
and that the project is incompatible with the surroundings. He stated that staff needs to be
more considerate of people who live downtown.
--End of Public Comment--
Committee Members discussed the project.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER LARRABEE, CARRIED 4-2-1 to recommend the ARC deny the project based on the
finding that the proposed new buiding is inconsistent with the Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines Section 3.2.1 because the building is not compatible in scale and massing with the
Downtown Historic District’s structures and provided direction that the project reduce the height
of the building to three-stories with the third story setback.
The Committee recessed at 7:10 p.m.
2. 1171 Pismo Street. ARCH-0817-2017: Review of proposed rehabilitation and additions to
a Contributing historic property, including removal of previous additions, demolition of a
detached garage, and new proposed additions and exterior modifications associated with
rehabilitation plans, with a categorical exemption from environmental review (Section
15301, Existing Facilities); R-2-H zone; Gene and Sally Kruger, applicants. (Walter Oetzell)
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented an in-depth staff report with use of a PowerPoint
presentation.
DRAFT Minutes – Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting of August 14, 2017 Page 3
Applicant Representative, Greg Wynn, presented a PowerPoint presentation and responded to
Committee Member inquiries.
Public Comments:
Gabriel Carpendal spoke in support of the project.
Anne Robinson spoke in support of the project.
--End of Public Comment--
Committee Members discussed the project.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER , SECOND BY COMMITTEE MEMBER
BAER, CARRIED 6-0-1 to adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the San Luis Obispo
Cultural Heritage Committee finding proposed modifications and additions to a contributing
historic property consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. (ARCH-0817-
2017).”
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
Senior Planner Brian Leveille provided a brief agenda forecast.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Cultural Heritage
Committee is scheduled for Monday, August 28, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing
Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2017
Meeting Date: August 28, 2017
Item Number: 1
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of the demolition of a detached accessory structure at the rear of a
Contributing List Property, and construction of a replacement garage and utility
building.
ADDRESS: 862 Islay St. BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
FILE #: ARCH-0852-2017 Phone: 781-7593
E-mail: woetzell@slocity.org
FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the draft resolution finding the project consistent with the
City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties.
2.0 SITE DATA
Applicant Jerry & Kim Scott
Representative Ken Haggard, Architect
General Plan Medium Density Residential
Zoning Med. Density Residential with
Historic Overlay (R-2-H)
Site Area 6,425 square feet
Historic Status Contributing List Resource
Old Town Historic District
Environmental
Status
Categorically Exempt
(CEQA Guidelines §15303:
Small Structures)
3.0 SUMMARY
The applicants propose to demolish a dilapidated garage behind a single-family dwelling on
property listed as a Contributing List Resource within the Old Town Historic District, and to
replace it with a new accessory garage and utility building.
4.0 COMMITTEE’S PURVIEW
The Committee’s role is to review the project provide a recommendation to the Community
Development Director on the consistency of the project with Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines and Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
CHC1-1
ARCH-0852-2017 (862 Islay)
Page 2
5.0 DISCUSSION
5.1 Site and Setting
The site is a 6,425 square-foot residential parcel on the north side of Islay Street, between Morro
and Chorro Streets, within the Old Town Historic District. It is developed with a single-family
dwelling, of a Craftsman Bungalow Style,1 estimated to have been built between 1910 and 1920.
The accessory structure, proposed to be demolished, is in the northwest corner of the property,
behind the house. Its date of construction is unknown. An accessory structure with a smaller
footprint is depicted in this location on a Sanborn Map from 1926 (see Attachment 3), but the
property’s permitting history includes no record of its original construction or subsequent
additions. It is sided with board and batten, with gridded windows and double-hung windows
haphazardly arranged on the front façade, and access through one three entries, including an
exterior loft access door. It has accreted additions over time, expanding into its current form and
extent (see Figure 1). Though its ramshackle vernacular style may convey a trace of historical
character, it lacks the distinctive architectural characteristics or known association with local
history that would make it historically significant.2
5.2 Project Description
The proposed project involves replacement of the existing accessory structure with a new garage
and utility building, 1,020 square feet in area, one story in height, providing two covered parking
spaces, storage and workshop areas, laundry facilities, and a half-bath.3 A combination of
horizontal Hardi-plank and Air-Vol Block brick facing is used for primary siding materials,
accented by wood shingles within the front gable end (see Figure 2), wood fascia along the
roofline, and a wood lintel above the garage doors. The roof form transitions into a hipped gable
at the back, and a monitor rises from the composition shingle roof surface.
1 See information about Craftsman style provided in Attachment 4
2 As set out in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historical Preservation Ordinance
3 See Project Plans (Attachment 5)
Figure 1: 862 Islay; front façade (right) and rear accessory structure (left)
CHC1-2
ARCH-0852-2017 (862 Islay)
Page 3
6.0 EVALUATION
Evaluation of this project is focused on determining whether the project is consistent with the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, and whether the proposed work will be carried out in a
manner consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and with The
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards).
6.1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
The City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG) call for accessory structures to
complement a property’s historic character:
New accessory structures should complement the primary structure’s historic
character through compatibility with its form, massing, color, and materials.
(§ 3.4.1 (C) – Accessory Structures)
Staff Analysis: The new accessory structure is compatible in form, massing, color, and materials
with the primary residence on the property. It is of a conventional form associated with residential
accessory structures: rectangular in plan, with sloping rooflines. At one story in height, with a
modest roof monitor feature, and being consistent with applicable residential development
standards, it exhibits a scale and massing compatible with that of the house. Likewise, the wood
and brick materials are conventional residential building materials, compatible in texture and
appearance with the horizontal wood siding of the house.
6.2 Secretary of Interior’s Standards
The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards)
are used to provide guidance for rehabilitation of historic property (see Attachment 6). Of
particular relevance to this project are the following guidelines related to Building Site:
Figure 2: Replacement structure (garage, utility)
CHC1-3
ARCH-0852-2017 (862 Islay)
Page 4
Recommended. Removing non-significant buildings, additions, or site features
which detract from the historic character of the site.
Not Recommended: Introducing new construction onto the building site which is
visually incompatible in terms of size, scale, design, materials, color, and texture;
which destroys historic relationships on the site; or which damages or destroys
important landscape features.
Staff Analysis. As discussed above, the existing accessory structure lacks the distinctive
architectural characteristics or known association with local history that would make it historically
significant, and it has no apparent relation to the Craftsman Bungalow style of the house, the
primary historic structure on the property. The new replacement structure is visually compatible,
and preserves the relationship that exists between the dwelling and the accessory structure behind.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
It consists of the construction of an accessory structure (garage and utility building), a small
structure as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15303 (Construction of Small Structures).
8.0 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 application, based on
findings of inconsistency with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vicinity Map
3. Sanborn Map (1926)
4. Craftsman Style (excerpted from Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, Historic
Context Statement)
5. Project Plans
6. Secretary of Interior’s Standards (Excerpt – Rehabilitation)
CHC1-4
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE
FINDING THE DEMOLITION OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND ITS
REPLACEMENT WITH A NEW GARAGE AND UTILTY BUILDING ON A
CONTRIBUTING LIST PROPERTY AT 862 ISLAY STREET TO BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE CITY’S HISTORIC PRESERVATION ORDINANCE AND WITH THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR STANDARDS FOR THE TREATMENT OF
HISTORIC PROPERTIES
(ARCH-0852-2017)
WHEREAS, the applicants, Jerry & Kim Scott, filed an application on June 29, 2017, for
review of the proposed demolition of an existing accessory structure, and its replacement with a
1,020 square-foot garage and utility building, at 862 Islay Street, a Contributing List Property in
the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources; and,
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Hearing Room (Room 9) of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on August 28, 2017, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed demolition and
replacement accessory structure; 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 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and in
particular § 3.4.1 (C) regarding new accessory structures on historic property. The new
accessory structure is consistent with applicable residential development standards, is
a single story in height, and is subordinate to the residence, the primary historical
structure on the property. Thus, it is compatible in form and massing with primary
structure’s historic character. The wood and brick materials used to construct the new
accessory structure, and its composition shingle roofing, are compatible in appearance
and texture to the wood siding and composition shingle roofing of the primary
structure, and their colors have been expressly selected to harmonize with it.
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC1-5
Resolution No. XXXX-17
ARCH-0852-2017 (862 Islay)
Page 2
2. The project is consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties. The property continues to be used for residential purposes, and its
historic character is preserved. No distinctive materials, features, or finishes of the
residence, the primary historic structure on the property, are affected by the project.
The existing accessory structure lacks the distinctive architectural characteristics or
known association with local history that would make it historically significant, and it
has no apparent relation to the Craftsman Bungalow style of the house. The new
replacement structure is visually compatible with the residence, a single story in height,
and subordinate in size, and preserves the relationship that exists between the dwelling
and the accessory structure located behind it.
3. The project conforms to the goals and policies of the General Plan’s Conservation and
Open Space Policies, and in particular Policies 3.3.1 and 3.3.4, regarding the
preservation of historical and architectural resources. The new accessory building is
sensitively designed in a manner consistent with the property’s historic character and
the architectural style of the residence, the primary historical structure on the property.
The design of the project protects the historical character of the property, and follows
the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
4. The existing accessory structure does not contain features that contribute to the historic
character of the property, and is not itself historically significant.
Section 2. Environmental Review. This project is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as described in CEQA Guidelines §15303
(Construction of Small Structures). It involves the construction of a garage and utility building, a
small accessory structure.
Section 3. Action. The Cultural Heritage Committee does hereby recommend that the
Community Development Director find the project consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation
Ordinance and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties, subject to the following conditions:
1. Colors and materials. Plan submitted for permits to complete this project shall
clearly depict and describe the materials and color of siding, roofing, windows, and
decorative trim used for the new accessory structure. These materials shall be
carefully selected to be compatible with those of the existing residence. Dimensions
of windows, including window frames and mullions, lintels, sills, surrounds,
recesses, trim, and other related window features, shall be clearly indicated, to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
On motion by Committee Member ___________ , seconded by Committee Member ________ ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC1-6
Resolution No. XXXX-17
ARCH-0852-2017 (862 Islay)
Page 3
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 28th day of August, 2017.
________________________
Brian Leveille, Secretary
Cultural Heritage Committee
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC1-7
R-2-H
R-3-H
R-2-H
R-2
R-2-H
R-3-H
R-4-H
R-2-H
R-3-H
R-2-H
R-2-H
R-2-H R-3-H
R-2-H
ISLAYM
O
R
R
OBUCHON
C
H
O
R
R
O
VICINITY MAP ARCH-0852-2017862 Islay ¯
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC1-8
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC1-9
27
Craftsman
By the end of the first World War and continuing through the mid-1940s, a distinctive
architectural style evolved in California. Strongly influenced by the Greene brothers, a design
firm based in California, Craftsman houses featured less ornate detailing than the Victorian style
but still relied on extensive use of wood for structural and exterior elements. This style is
sometimes referred to as “Craftsman Bungalow.”
Characteristic features include:
-raised concrete or wood porch with tapered columns
-clapboard siding or plaster exterior finish
-medium to low pitch gable or hip roofs with side eave overhangs and dormers
-wide roof fascia boards
-open eaves with exposed rafters, often with custom work on rafter ends
-post and pier foundations
-double hung wood windows with divided lights
Examples of this style include:
The Payne House, 1144 Palm Street
1068 Pismo Street
1034 Church Street.
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC1-10
City of San Luis Obispo Architectural Character
Citywide Historic Context Statement
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
141
CRAFTSMAN
Craftsman architecture in America grew out of the late-19th century English Arts and Crafts
movement. It stressed simplicity of design, hand-craftsmanship, and the relationship to the climate and
landscape. Craftsman architecture was widely published in architectural journals and pattern books,
popularizing the style throughout the country. Affordable and easily constructed from local materials,
the mostly one- or one-and-a-half-story homes were often referred to as “bungalows” and dominated
middle-class residential design during the first quarter of the 20th century.
Character-defining features include:
Horizontal massing
Low-pitched gabled roof
Widely overhanging eaves with exposed rafters, beams, or braces
Wood exterior wall cladding (shingle, shake, or clapboard)
Projecting partial-, full-width or wrap-around front porch
Heavy porch piers, often of river stone or masonry
Wood-frame casement or double-hung sash windows, often grouped in multiples
Widely-proportioned front doors, often with a beveled light
Wide window and door surrounds, often with extended lintels
Extensive use of natural materials (wood, brick or river stone)
1339 Higuera Street. Source: City of San Luis Obispo.
Burch House, 1333 Mill Street, 1915. Source: Historic
Resources Group.
Residence, 863 Islay Street, c. 1915. Source: Historic
Resources Group.
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC1-11
ATTACHMENT 5CHC1-12
ATTACHMENT 5CHC1-13
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
CHC1-14
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 Specific Plan.
ADDRESS: 12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd. BY:Emily Creel, Contract Planner
Phone Number: (805) 543-7095 x6814
e-mail: ecreel@swca.com
VIA: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
e-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: SPEC-0143-2017 FROM: Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
Provide feedback on the applicant’s conceptual plan for the multiple structures comprising the
Froom Ranch Historic Complex, including structure demolition, structure relocation, structure
reconstruction, and adaptive reuse within a proposed neighborhood trailhead park.
Applicant John Madonna
Representatives Pam Ricci and Victor Montgomery,
RRM Design Group
Proposed
Zoning/General
Plan
SP‐3 Madonna on LOVR, would
require pre‐zoning for Specific Plan.
Proposes Medium‐High Density
Residential, High Density Residential,
Commercial Retail,
Conservation/Open Space, and Public
Facilities
Site Area Approximately 110 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 Ranch Specific Plan). Following
initiation by the City Council and prior to submittal of the Specific Plan, the applicant presented
preliminary park concepts to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) on August 3, 2016 and
the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) on September 26, 2016. The previous CHC agenda report
and meeting minutes are provided as Attachment 2.
Meeting Date: August 28, 2017
Item Number: 2
CHC2-1
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 2
The applicant-prepared Draft
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
proposes a mix of land uses,
including a Life Plan
Community, approximately
130 multi-family residential
units, 30,000 square feet of
retail-commercial uses, a
70,000-square foot hotel, open
space (54% of the project site),
and a neighborhood trailhead
park (see Figure 1 Conceptual
Land Use Plan).
Based on preliminary feedback
received from the CHC during
the September 26, 2016 pre-
application review (refer to
Section 4.1 of this report), the
applicant has incorporated the
neighborhood trailhead park
into the 110-acre Specific Plan
area and developed a
preliminary plan for
reconstruction and reuse of
certain “key” historic structures
within the park (refer to
Attachment 5 Froom Ranch –
Historical Buildings
Conceptual Plans).
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 (HPO),
City policies, Historic Preservation Guidelines, and Secretary of Interior Standards. This is the
second conceptual review of the project by the CHC. The intention of referring this item to the
CHC at this early stage in the process is to allow staff and the applicant to receive and consider
collective CHC feedback prior to finalizing the Specific Plan and moving forward with
environmental review of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Figure 1. Conceptual Land Use Plan
PROPOSED
PARK SITE
CHC2-2
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 3
3.0 PROJECT AND SITE INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site consists of two parcels
totaling approximately 110 acres (APNs
067-241-030 and 067-241-031) within
unincorporated San Luis Obispo County,
and adjacent to City of San Luis Obispo
city limits. The site is located
immediately west of Los Osos Valley
Road between U.S. Highway 101 and the
Irish Hills Plaza. These parcels are
identified for future annexation in the
Land Use Element (LUE) as the
Madonna on Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR) Specific Plan Area (SP-3).
The current land use and natural setting
includes livestock grazing, stormwater
basins, the Froom Ranch Historic
Complex, John Madonna Construction
office (within the historic complex),
staging and materials storage, quarry
area, unpaved agricultural roads,
wetlands, grasslands, stands of mature
trees, Froom Creek and associated
tributaries, and vacant land. Surrounding uses include Irish Hills Plaza (including the
Costco/Home Depot shopping center) to the north, Los Osos Valley Road and auto dealerships
to the east, hotels along Calle Joaquin 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/Pre-Zoning,
Development Plan/Tentative Tract Map(s), Architectural Review, Annexation, and related
entitlements that would allow for the proposed development of the property. Froom Ranch is
envisioned as a primarily residential project with some commercial development in the
northeast portion of the site closest to Los Osos Valley Road and the adjacent Irish Hills Plaza.
A major component of the planned residential uses is a Life Plan Community known as
Villaggio. Villaggio would provide a variety of different unit types for independent senior
housing as well as access to higher levels of care such as Assisted Living, Memory Care, and
Skilled Nursing, when needed. Additional residential uses in the northern portion of the site
will be multiple-family. As required by the Land Use Element, a minimum of 50% of the
project site must be designated as Open Space; the current plan designates approximately 54%
of the site as Open Space. The Specific Plan also includes a neighborhood trailhead park to
connect to the Irish Hills Natural Reserve, which would incorporate three onsite historic
structures.
Figure 2. Location of Froom Ranch Historic Complex
Historic
Complex
CHC2-3
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 4
3.3 Froom Ranch Historic Complex
The Froom Ranch Historic Complex is located within the northern portion of the project site,
immediately south/southeast of Home Depot (refer to Figure 2, Location of Froom Ranch
Complex). To facilitate the CHC’s review and response to the applicant’s conceptual plan for
the Froom Ranch Historic Complex, background information regarding the Froom Ranch
Historic Complex and detailed descriptions of the structures comprising the complex is
provided in the September 26, 2016 CHC Minutes and Agenda Report (Attachment 2) and
updated Historic Resource Assessment prepared by the applicant’s consultant, First Carbon
Solutions and Chattel, Inc., dated July 21, 2017 (Attachment 3). As discussed in the attached
historic assessment, the following seven structures contribute to the historic significance of the
complex: Main Residence, “Old” Barn, Bunkhouse, Dairy Barn, Creamery/House, Granary,
and Shed. Non-contributing structures within the complex include a repurposed
kiosk/outhouse, storage building, and faux water tower (telecommunications facility).
A comprehensive analysis of the project’s potential environmental impacts and consistency
with the City’s General Plan and HPO, including potentially significant impacts to historic
resources, will be provided in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that will be prepared for
the project. This information will be provided to the CHC upon finalization of the Specific
Plan and public release of the Draft EIR.
Froom Ranch Complex - Federal, State, and Local Criteria
According to the historic evaluation provided by the applicant, the complex appears eligible
for consideration as a local historic resource, meets California Register criteria as a historic
resource, and meets National Register criteria for a historic district1. 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 and Chattel, Inc. 2017).
The historic assessment evaluated 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 will occur
during preparation of the EIR for the Specific Plan and associated entitlements. The HPO
contains the below historic significance criteria2 (refer to Attachment 2, September 26, 2016
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes and Agenda Package, 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 criteria3:
1 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).
2 14.01.060 Listing Procedures for Historic Resources & 14.01.070 Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
3 HPO Section 14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing
CHC2-4
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 5
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, 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.
Based on the historic assessment, the complex appears eligible for consideration as a local
historic resource.
National Criteria for Evaluation and California Criteria for Designation
The historic assessment evaluated 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 2, September 26, 2016 Cultural Heritage
Committee Minutes and Agenda Package, Federal and State Criteria Evaluation, and
Attachment 3, Historic Resources Assessment).
4.0 DISCUSSION
The discussion below includes a summary of the applicant’s previous and current conceptual
proposals 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 District.
4.1 September 26, 2016 Conceptual Review of the Froom Ranch Historic District
At the time of conceptual review in 2016, the applicant had identified an adjacent 7.4-acre
parcel located behind (west of) Home Depot within the City limits as the potential site for a
park, which was conceptually proposed as a receiver site for two relocated historic structures
(the Main Residence and Bunkhouse) and other interpretive elements (refer to Attachment 2,
September 26, 2016 Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes and Agenda Package). The
remaining structures were previously all proposed for demolition, and incorporation of
salvagable materials into new and reconstructed buildings. At the time of this first conceptual
review, no structural analysis had been completed to determine the viability for rehabilitation
of the structures. During CHC’s previous conceptual review, the Dairy Barn was identified as
a vital component of historical value and options for replication and adaptive re-use of the
Dairy Barn were discussed. Committee members considered the initially proposed relocation
CHC2-5
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 6
to be incongruous in proximity to Home Depot, and noted concerns that “any relocation will
destroy the historic narrative”. The CHC made a motion “indicating CHC is in favor of the
preservation of structures intact and in situ, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and Secretary of Interior’s Standards, and toward maintaining the historic narrative
and meaning of the complex” (refer to Attachment 2 September 26, 2016 Cultural Heritage
Committee Minutes and Agenda Package).
4.2 Current Conceptual Proposal for Froom Ranch Historic Complex
The applicant completed a structural analysis of the historic complex in June 2017 (refer to
Attachment 4, Structural Analysis of Historic Structures) and provided an updated Historic
Resource Asssment prepared by First Carbon Solutions and Chattel, Inc. (Attachment 3).
Based on preliminary feedback received during 2016 conceptual review, the results of the
structural analysis, and ongoing historic buildings treatment approach and conformance review
by the applicant’s consultant, the applicant has developed a revised concept for Froom Ranch
Historic Complex. The current proposal includes development of the neighborhood trailhead
park in the general vicinity of the existing historic district and incorporation of three significant
historic structures within the park (refer to Attachment 5 and Figure 3 Historic Structures and
Park Conceptual Site Plan, below).
Figure 3. Historic Structures and Park Conceptual Site Plan
CHC2-6
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 7
As identified on the conceptual plan set provided by the applicant (refer to Attachment 5, Sheet
1 Project Description), and as described in the applicant’s updated Historic Resource
Assessment (refer to Attachment 3), three of the seven existing historic structures (Main
Residence, Creamery/House, and Roundnose Dairy Barn), were deemed to be primary
contributors to the potential historic district based on their exhibition of unique architectural
features and historic significance from their association with the Froom family and dairy
industry of San Luis Obispo County. The Shed, Bunkhouse, Old Barn, and Granary, and non-
significant additions, “are not considered to retain, or embody, enough of the distinctive
features, type or method of construction to be considered significant” (First Carbon Solutions
and Chattel, Inc. 2017). The applicant is requesting feedback from the CHC regarding this
distinction; however, it should be noted that this information has not yet been peer reviewed
through the EIR process. The applicant’s current concept includes the relocation, rehabilitation
or reconstruction, and adaptive re-use of the Main Residence, Creamery/House, and Dairy
Barn. The remaining historic structures (Old Barn, Bunkhouse, Granary, Shed) are proposed
to be thoroughly documented consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards) prior to demolition (refer to Table 1. Froom
Ranch Historic Complex and Attachment 5, Applicant’s Historic Building Conceptual Plans).
Modern structures (outhouse and storage building) would be demolished, except for the faux
water tower, which would remain in place.
Table 1. Froom Ranch Historic Complex Conceptual Approach
STRUCTURE YEAR
BUILT
APPLICANT PROPOSED CONCEPT
Main Residence 1915 Relocate and rehabilitate as building for City Parks and
Recreation:
Structurally reinforce roof and walls;
Provide new foundation; and
Install utilities to building.
“Old” Barn Moved to
site in early
1900s
Remove and document per SOI standards.
Bunkhouse 1915 Remove and document per SOI standards.
Dairy Barn 1913 Relocate out of fault setback and reconstruct consistent with SOI
standards for adaptive reuse in park.
Creamery/House Unknown Relocate and reconstruct western portion of building as City park
restrooms; re-imagine eastern portion for use as a covered area for
picnics and events.
Granary 1913 Remove and document per SOI standards.
Shed 1913 Remove and document per SOI standards.
Outhouse 2000 Remove.
Storage Building 2010 Remove.
Faux Water Tower 2013 Retain in place.
CHC2-7
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 8
The applicant has stated that due to the presence of a trace of the Los Osos earthquake fault
which runs beneath the Dairy Barn and steep existing slopes, the project requires relocation of
the architecturally significant Dairy Barn, Creamery/House, and Main Residence at a new
location approximately 200 feet to the east of their current location (see Figure 4 Comparative
Conceptual Relocation of Dairy Barn, Creamery/House, and Main Residence).
The three buildings would each be relocated to maintain their same relative horizontal spacing.
with the goal of maintaining the visual hierarchy of these three buildings. Grade changes would
be created between the structures with the goal to approximate their existing vertical
relationship. Vertical separation from the existing configuration would be reduced by
approximately 50% but would be kept proportionate with existing elevations.
The Main Residence is proposed to be relocated and rehabilitated per SOI rehabilitation
standards. The Dairy Barn is proposed to be reconstructed to SOI standards and adaptively
reused. The building would not be fully sealed and would have open beams without internal
drywall, similar to existing conditions. Some existing siding would be harvested and reused
for rebuilt facades.
The Creamery/House is proposed to be relocated and partially reconstructed/partially re-
imagined through a more creative interpretation, rather than a full reconstruction (refer to
Figure 5 Creamery/House Proposed Perspective). The applicant’s main goal of re-imagining
Figure 4. Comparative Conceptual Relocation of Dairy Barn, Creamery/House, and Main
Residence
CHC2-8
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 9
the building is to preserve the overall building form and rooflines while providing flexibility
for adaptive reuse in the public park setting. The western portion of the building (the Creamery
portion) would be rebuilt with the same dimensions as the existing building to house public
restrooms. The eastern portion of the building (the House portion) would retain the silhouette
and framing of the existing structure, but would not be entirely enclosed. This portion of the
structure would be more open and would include an open trellis area to facilitate a sheltered
picnic and gathering space. The open trellis area will contain steps to mimic the existing grade
differential between the building areas.
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 2, September 26, 2016 Cultural
Heritage Committee Minutes and Agenda Package, Cultural Heritage Committee Meeting:
Response to April 28, 2016 Letter and Applicant Attachments; Applicant Proposed Parkland
Concept).
4.3 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.4 The COSE provides more
specific policy direction, which is provided in Attachment 2 (September 26, 2016 Cultural
Heritage Committee Minutes and Agenda Package, 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:
4 LUE Section 8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
Figure 5. Creamery/House Proposed Perspective
CHC2-9
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 10
“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
appearance of buildings which contribute to a neighborhood's architectural character
should be maintained.”5
4.4 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.6 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.”7
4.5 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.”8 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:
5 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
6 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Chapter 3: Treatment of Historic Resources
7 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines Chapter 4: Preservation Tools and Incentives
8 HPO Section 14.01.100 Demolition of Historic Resources
CHC2-10
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 11
“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 determined 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.”
Prevention of unpermitted active demolition or demolition by neglect is also regulated by the
HPO:9
“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.”10 Relocation of historic resources is subject to review
by the CHC and Architectural Review Commission, and 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
9 HPO Section 14.01.120 Unpermitted Demolition or Destruction of Resources
10 HPO Sections 14.01.100 Demolition of Historic Resources and 14.01.110 Relocation of Historic Resources
CHC2-11
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 12
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.”
4.6 CHC Discussion Points
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.”11 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. The
CHC should discuss and provide feedback on whether the applicant’s conceptual plan moves
the project towards consistency 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 a part of the Cultural Resources evaluation in the EIR that will be prepared for the Specific
Plan, the historic resources assessment, structural analysis of historic structures, and historic
buildings treatment approach and conformance review report will be peer reviewed through
the EIR process. Once the Specific Plan is finalized, formal ordinance and policy evaluation
will be conducted, including an assessment as to whether the proposed project would maintain
the context and feel of the historic district upon relocation of the three key structures, removal
of four structures, and construction of proximate new development. 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.
At this stage in the process, 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:
11 LUE Section 8.1.5. SP-3, Madonna on LOVR Specific Plan Area
CHC2-12
CHC SPEC-0143-2017 (12165 & 12393 Los Osos Valley Rd)
Page 13
1. The proposed identification of the Dairy Barn, Creamery/House, and Main Residence
as the primary contributors to the potential historic district.
2. The proposed demolition of the historic Old Barn, Bunkhouse, Granary, and Shed.
3. The loss of the historic complex resulting from proposed demolitions and relocation of
the contributing structures.
4. Re-use of materials salvaged from structures proposed for demolition within the
proposed park.
5. Proposed relocation and adaptive reuse of the Dairy Barn, Creamery/House, and Main
Residence within the proposed park, including consideration of context and feeling
(existing location compared to the proposed location).
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 moving
forward with environmental review of the Specific Plan under CEQA.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. September 26, 2016 Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes and Agenda Package
3. Historic Resource Assessment (First Carbon Solutions and Chattel, Inc., updated July 21,
2017)
4. Structural Analysis of Historic Structures at Froom Ranch (Stork, Wolfe & Associates,
June 30, 2017)
5. Froom Ranch – Historical Buildings Conceptual Plans (RRM July 2017)
CHC2-13
C-R
C-T
C-S-PD
C-R
C-S-S
C-S
R-1-SF
C/OS-20
C/OS-10
C/OS-160
C/OS-10
O-S
C-T
C/OS-20
C-T-SF
C/OS-10
R-1-PD
C/OS
C/OS-20
R-1-PD
R-2-SF
L
O
S
O
S
O
S
V
A
L
L
E
Y
CALLE JOAQUINAUTO PARKVICINITY MAP SPEC-0143-2017
12165 and 12393 Los Osos Valley Road ¯
ATTACHMENT 1
CHC2-14
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes
Monday, September 26, 2016
Regular Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on
Monday, September 26, 2016 at 5:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Hill.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp,
Leah Walthert, Vice -Chair Thom Brajkovich and Chair Jaime Hill
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Michael Codron, Senior Planner Brian Leveille,
Parks & Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck, Planning Technician Kip Morais,
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell, Associate Planner Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
Rachel Cohen, and Recording Secretary Brad T. Opstad
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
Shannon Larrabee, San Luis Obispo, spoke from the dais and provided an update on the Leadership
SLO Water -Wise Demonstration Garden.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Minutes for Cultural Heritage Committee Regular Meeting of July 25, 2016:
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the CHC Minutes of July 25, 2016 were approved with the
following amendments:
1.) Page 3, Finding #4, end punctuation change (from ; to .)
2.) Page 4, third paragraph to read: "... provided local examples of painted wall signs from the
early 1900's..."
3.) Page 5, seventh paragraph to read: Union Hardware Building; Miner's minor sign exception
on the following 7: 0: 0 vote
AYES: Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, Vice -Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Hill
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-15
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. Utility Box Art in Historic District locations. OTHR-3827-2016: Review of proposed
artwork designs and traffic signal locations for the 2016 Utility Box Art project at three
locations within the Old Town and Downtown Historic Districts with a categorical exemption
from environmental review, C -D -H & R -2-H zones; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Director Stanwyck spoke about the Utility Box Art Program and provided updates on the
downtown beautification effort with the Historic Districts.
Committee Member Kincaid inquired whether the front of any given utility box is determined by
it being street side or pedestrian side view.
Committee Member Baer discussed her experience as one of the fourteen (14) participants on the
Art Jury.
Chair Hill inquired about a traffic safety enhancement project being undertaken at the corner of
Monterey & Osos Streets; acknowledged that the Committee was in receipt of two pieces of public
correspondence.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Walthert commented that the art does not readily represent the historic nature
of the City's inhabitants or the heritage; Committee Member Baer responded by differentiating
between art as specifically commissioned and art rendered via an open call to artists.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LARRABEE, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the Cultural Heritage Committee adopted a draft Resolution
which provides the determination for City Council that the CHC finds the box art design for the
traffic signal utility boxes located in the Old Town and Downtown Historic Districts, as part of the
2016 Box Art Project, consistent with its Historical Preservation Program; on the following 7: 0:0
vote:
AYES: Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, Vice -Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Hill
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
2. 840 Monterey Street. ARCH -3534-2016: Review of request to place a wall sign on an
elevation without a public entrance on a Contributing Historic Structure (Blackstone Hotel),
with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C -D -H zone; Coast Monument
Signs, applicant.
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 2
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-16
Technician Morais presented a project description, historical background, and PowerPoint slides
of the proposed wall sign.
Committee Member Papp inquired about the frequency of variance requests for signs on elevations
without entrances; inquired about the necessity of placing a sign on the western fagade, given the
existence and placement of the Monterey Street sign, and whether having a secondary sign is a
commercial imperative.
Committee Member Baer qualified that the Committee was considering the sign that faces Chorro
Street, as opposed to the Monterey Street sign with same logo, but also dissimilar in terms of size,
proportion, and placement.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Steve Fear, Coast Monument Signs, Arroyo Grande, discussed the sign installation being low -
impacted and Chorro Street being a major pedestrian thoroughfare.
Jennifer Kurtz, LuluLemon Athletica, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, discussed the
location and proportions of the proposed sign; requested that the Committee disregard the banner
sign indicated in the presentation materials, as it was part of an earlier sign submission.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Papp indicated that a request for a sign of this size and discretion was
reasonable unless the City was adamant that there should not be signs on sides of buildings without
entrances; Director Codron informed that the City is currently in the midst of updating sign
regulations and that this type of exception request is of frequent occurrence, and intent of current
sign regulations is to prevent sign proliferation.
Vice -Chair Brajkovich commented that the proposed sign does not detract from the Historical
Preservation Standards; commented favorably on its positioning and its repetitive use of the
architecture's round elements.
Committee Member Baer commented unfavorably on the marketing signage commercializing the
Mission across the street with its placement.
Chair Hill commented further on sign's inappropriateness in fronting Mission being sufficient
reason for not granting exception; pointed out excessive signage on Court Street as exemplary of
what is beginning to transpire in the downtown and is also inconsistent with the Guidelines.
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 3
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-17
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER LARRABEE, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the Cultural Heritage Committee recommended the
Community Development Director deny approval of the project, as the sign at this location is not
consistent with the surrounding neighborhood and adds sign clutter at a critically sensitive
location facing the Mission; on the following 6:1:0:0 vote:
AYES: Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, and Chair Hill
NOES: Vice -Chair Brajkovich
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
3. 1119 Garden Street. ARCH -2588-2016: Review of proposed modifications to the fagade 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.
The Committee discussed particulars of a conflict-of-interest recusal with Community
Development Director Codron; based on the discussion, Committee Member Larrabee determined
she would not recuse for Garden Street Item 3.
Director Codron introduced the project as a part of recently approved Garden Street Terraces and
requested feedback; Planner Oetzell provided the staff report with PowerPoint slides displaying
the proposed fagade modifications and character -defining architectural features.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Carol Florence, Principal Planner, Oasis Associates, presented the PowerPoint presentation which
provided a historic overview and site perspectives, while underscoring the public-private
partnership between the City and the project owners.
Beverly and Shaun Matthews, project partners and hoteliers, displayed PowerPoint slides of the
proposed reconfigurations on Garden Street and noted the projected complete restoration of two
buildings, and concepts for signage.
Robert Chattel, project preservation architect, discussed the initial Environmental Impact Report
and the updated design development documents; reported that both Master List Buildings will
undergo seismic retrofit as part of the project.
Chair Hill requested that the images be displayed of the windows being added to the site; Vice -
Chair Brajkovich inquired whether location of delivery door would remain the same.
Committee Member Papp inquired whether the Committee was to consider the windows on the
building's side elevation, the street fagade solely, or both; inquired whether the bulkhead removal
would be reversible; inquired about the reasoning behind shifting the original location of the
traditional ingress/egress from the building's center to its side.
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 4
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-18
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Papp commented favorably on the removal of awnings, restoration of the
transom, and retention of the structural and linear elements of the fagade.
Vice -Chair Brajkovich indicated that the project's having maintained the consistency of the fagade
trumps the perceived small problem he initially had with the building being overly symmetrical.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECONDED BY VICE -
CHAIR BRAJKOVICH, the Cultural Heritage Committee found the proposed storefront
modifications to be consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance and adopted the draft
resolution recommending the director find the modifications consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties; on the following 7: 0:0 vote:
AYES: Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, Vice -Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Hill
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Chair Hill calledfor a five-minute recess.
4. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road. PRE -1293-2015: Pre -application review of the conceptual
plan for the multiple structures comprising the Froom Ranch Historic Complex, including
structure demolition, and structure relocation and adaptive reuse within a proposed proximate
park, in association with the Froom Ranch / Il Villagio Specific Plan (Madonna on Los Osos
Valley Road Specific Plan); John Madonna, applicant.
Associate Planner Shawna Scott provided the background of the pre -application review of the
conceptual proposal for the multiple structures comprising the Froom Ranch historic complex;
requested that the CHC provide collective directional items and feedback.
Chair Hill disclosed that the Committee Members toured the site with the Applicant.
Committee Member Papp inquired about a historic survey and indicated the site was eligible for
National, California and Local Historical Registers.
Committee Member Kincaid inquired whether an advisory body had authority to discuss any
criteria since the property has not yet been annexed to the City; Planner Leveille indicated that the
site has been evaluated as part of the General Plan and as part of one of the Specific Plan Areas;
Director Codron added that none of the approvals granted by the City would apply until the site
was under City jurisdiction, but would be those consulted and relied upon prior to construction.
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 5
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-19
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Victor Montgomery, architect with RRM Design Group, spoke on behalf of the John & Susan
Madonna Trust; presented PowerPoint slides of the project site's resources to either be relocated,
demolished, harvested, or adaptively re -used; shared that structural analysis had not been done to
determine viability for rehabilitation.
Vice -Chair Brajkovich inquired about the accumulation of historical artifacts inside the dairy barn;
Chair Hill requested dimensional comparisons with the Octagon Barn.
PUBLIC COMMENT
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, stressed the present-day obligation to retain communicated
insights from the past, via the resources of remaining artifacts; urged for greater preservation
efforts.
Neil Havlik, San Luis Obispo, spoke about his concerns with the development above the 150 -foot
elevation line; related that any such development should be strictly for public purpose, such as a
trailhead park.
Ray Walters, San Luis Obispo, opined that the best location for a trailhead park is adjacent to the
trailheads and that this property is better suited for some development above the 150 -foot elevation
line.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Walthert shared how enamored she had become with the majestic nature of
the dairy barn; lobbied for maintaining its rounded corner as a vital component of historical value.
Committee Member Kincaid commented favorably on the concept of an adaptive re -use of the
property.
Committee Member Larrabee spoke favorably on the direction of the project; spoke of her
uncertainty for any type of restoration on site that could provide any degree of safe access;
suggested that the trailhead park using established infrastructure was of sound reasoning.
Committee Member Papp indicated that the historic survey provided sufficient differentiation of
structures' status but that it is a task better suited for structural engineers to analyze toward
decision-making; indicated that the Committee is faced with the possibility of "demolition by
neglect" and further indicated that determining a commercially viable method to maintain
buildings is both an imperative aspect in preventing it and incumbent upon the developer and the
City to find creative, viable ways to salvage agricultural buildings of significance; indicated that
the first option should not have to be demolition.
Vice -Chair Brajkovich discussed replication and adaptive re -use options for the dairy barn.
Committee Member Baer considered the relocation of a main house as being incongruous in
proximity to a Home Depot and suggested alternative sites to be considered; urged recognition of
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 6
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-20
the circular part of a dairy barn as a design motif that could be represented in other structures as a
valuable reminder of architectural history.
Chair Hill commented favorably on the organization of the structures on site and that any
relocation will destroy the historical narrative.
Committee Member Papp qualified that it would be difficult to arrive at a rating for each respective
structure; supposed that the Committee's predominant interest in salvaging structures, to the extent
that they can be, is the overriding message to be conveyed.
Chair Hill indicated she based her own discussion points solely on information provided by the
First Carbon Solution, none of which states anything about any of the structures being non-
salvageable.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECONDED BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER BAER, the Cultural Heritage Committee provided feedback on the
applicant's conceptual plan for the multiple structures comprising the Froom Ranch Historic
Complex, including structure demolition, structure relocation, and adaptive reuse within a
proposed proximate park; made Motion indicating CHC is in favor of the preservation of structures
intact and in situ, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and Secretary of
Interior's Standards, and toward maintaining the historic narrative and meaning of the complex;
on the following 6:1:0:0 vote:
AYES: Baer, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, Vice -Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Hill
NOES: Kincaid
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
5. 1027 Nipomo Street. ARCH -3216-2016: Review of a new four-story mixed-use
development proposed in the Downtown Historic District that includes 8,131 square -feet of
commercial/retail space, 23 residential units and hotel use (7 rooms), with a categorical
exemption from environmental review; C -D -H zone; Creekside Lofts, applicant.
Planner Cohen provided the Staff Report on the new four-story mixed-use structure.
In response to Committee Member Larrabee's inquiry, Director Codron mentioned that the project
is subject to the City's inclusionary housing requirements such that it will be paying a fee as a
percentage of the total project valuation.
APPLICANT PRESENTATION
Damien Mavis, Applicant representative, provided the historical and evolutionary context leading
to the third iteration of the project.
Chair Hill inquired about the trash enclosure and the building code allowance for the sign across
property lines between the project and Ciopinot.
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 7
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-21
Vice -Chair Brajkovich inquired how the building's height qualified and met Design Guidelines in
the low -scale neighborhood.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mary Mitchell, Soda Water Works, San Luis Obispo; qualified that her building is zoned in a
Community Commercial Historic District with a Planned Development overlay (CC -HPD) area
and in full conformance of the Historic Preservation Guidelines; stated her opposition to the project
as presented for a variety of reasons, including that the modern and monolithic building violates
City guidelines relating to infill projects adjacent to properties on the Master List of Historic
Buildings.
Donna Duerk, San Luis Obispo, spoke in opposition to the project's massing; lamented how the
project not stepping back its upper levels from the street infringes on her neighborhood's privacy.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo, opined that the project does not conform with either Downtown
Guidelines or Historic Preservation Guidelines.
Mary Neal, Sandy's Liquor, San Luis Obispo; voiced objection to the project due to parking issues.
Nancy Hubbard, San Luis Obispo, spoke as member of development team and in favor of project;
discussed how established zoning regulations are set by civic leaders and then stringently adhered
to by developers in order to facilitate needs and requests for growth; discussed how the creek
creates a natural setback buffer between uses.
Thom Jess, Arris Studio Architects, San Luis Obispo; addressed an insulting comment provided
by a member of the public.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Committee Member Papp discussed the current state of various Downtown projects severely
overshadowing the historic spatial nature of the Downtown Historic District and how to decide to
respond to it accordingly.
Committee Members Baer, Brajkovich, Larrabee, and Hill commented unfavorably on the
project's scale, massing, and incompatibility with neighboring structures.
ACTION: UPON MOTION BY CHAIR HILL, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE MEMBER
KINCAID, the Cultural Heritage Committee continued the item to a date uncertain with direction
to the Applicant to re-evaluate height, scale, massing and detailing for greater consistency with
neighboring historic structures within the Downtown Historic District; on the following 7:0:0 roll
call vote:
AYES: Baer, Kincaid, Larrabee, Papp, Walthert, Vice -Chair Brajkovich, and Chair Hill
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 8
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-22
AGENDA FORECAST AND STAFF UPDATES
Planner Leveille provided the Agenda Forecast:
October 201: Two-story addition on Master List structure at 752 Buchon; sign on
Chinatown project
Informal discussion ensued on the following:
A.) Length and breadth of this and future CHC Hearings;
B.) The difficulty in producing and using three-dimensional physical models for context in
scale for projects but potentially using GIS mapping and form -based code as alternatives;
C.) The recent Chinatown archaeological fiasco prompted need for matrix for identifying
cultural resource mitigation measures
ADJOURNMENT: 9:51 p.m.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: 11/28/2016
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of September 26, 2016 Page 9
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-23
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-24
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-25
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-26
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).
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-27
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-28
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-29
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-30
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-31
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-32
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-33
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-34
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-35
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-36
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-37
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-38
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-39
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-40
6-11
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-41
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-42
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-43
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-44
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-45
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-46
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-47
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-48
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-49
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-50
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-51
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-52
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-53
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:
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-54
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).
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-55
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-56
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;
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-57
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-58
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
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-59
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:
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-60
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-61
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):
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-62
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-63
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-64
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-65
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-66
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.
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-67
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-68
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-69
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-70
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-71
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-72
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-73
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-74
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-75
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-76
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-77
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-78
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-79
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-80
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-81
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-82
ATTACHMENT 2
CHC2-83
NORTH
WWW.F
AMERICA | EURO
FIRSTCARBONSOL
OPE | AFRICA |
UTIONS.COM
San
AUSTRALIA | ASI
Luis Obis
A
spo, San
Carrie D. W
Froom
Historic R
Luis Obis
John Mado
C
1
Conta
Wills, MA, RPA
m Ranch
Resource
spo Count
onna Constr
12165 Lo
San Luis
Contact: John
FirstC
1350 Treat Bo
Waln u
I
13
Sherm
act: Mary Bea
A, Senior Scie
Report Date:
Rev
Specific P
e Assessm
ty, Califo
Prepare
ruction Com
os Osos Valley
s Obispo, CA 9
n Madonna, O
Prepare
Carbon Solu
oulevard, Suit
ut Creek, CA 9
925.357
n association
Chattel
3417 Ventura
an Oaks, CA 9
818.788
an, Project Dir
entist, Archae
February 20,
vised: July 21,
Plan
ment
rnia
ed for:
mpany
y Road
93405
Owner
ed by:
utions
te 380
94597
7.2562
with:
l, Inc.
a Blvd.
91423
8.7954
rector
eology
, 2015
, 2017
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-84
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-85
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Table of Contents
FirstCarbon Solutions iii
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
Table of Contents
Section 1: Management Summary, Property History, and Structure Histories and Descriptions ...... 1
1.1 ‐ Management Summary ..................................................................................................... 1
1.2 ‐ Property History ................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 ‐ Structure Histories and Descriptions ................................................................................. 9
Section 2: Historic Background ..................................................................................................... 23
2.1 ‐ History of San Luis Obispo County .................................................................................. 23
2.2 ‐ History of the City of San Luis Obispo ............................................................................. 24
2.3 ‐ Methods and Results of Historic Assessment ................................................................. 30
Section 3: Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch ...................................................... 35
3.1 ‐ Application of National Register of Historical Places Criteria .......................................... 35
3.2 ‐ Application of California Register of Historical Resources Criteria .................................. 36
3.3 ‐ City of San Luis Obispo Criteria ....................................................................................... 38
3.4 ‐ Integrity ........................................................................................................................... 40
3.5 ‐ Historic Themes ............................................................................................................... 42
Section 4: Findings and conclusions ............................................................................................. 45
4.1 ‐ Potential Historic District ................................................................................................. 45
4.2 ‐ Contributing Structures ................................................................................................... 46
4.3 ‐ Non‐Contributing Structures ........................................................................................... 47
Section 5: References ................................................................................................................... 49
Appendix A: Personnel Qualifications
Appendix B: Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms
List of Exhibits
Exhibit 1: Specific Plan Area Map ........................................................................................................... 3
Exhibit 2: Regional Location Map ........................................................................................................... 5
Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Map, Topographic Base .................................................................................... 7
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-86
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-87
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan Management Summary, Property History, and
Historic Resource Assessment Structure Histories and Descriptions
FirstCarbon Solutions 1
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
SECTION 1: MANAGEMENT SUMMARY, PROPERTY HISTORY, AND
STRUCTURE HISTORIES AND DESCRIPTIONS
1.1 ‐ Management Summary
At the request of John Madonna Construction Company (Madonna), FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS)
prepared a Historic Resource Assessment for the Froom Ranch/Villaggio Specific Plan (Specific Plan
area) project that included record search reviews and a field survey of the proposed Specific Plan area
located in San Luis Obispo County, California. The subject property (or property) was evaluated for
historical and architectural significance by FirstCarbon Solutions (FCS) Architectural Historian,
Kathleen A. Crawford, MA. Ms. Crawford meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for
Architectural Historian and is also listed on the City of San Luis Obispo Consultants List (Appendix A).
The Froom Ranch complex portion of the Specific Plan area was identified as a potential historic
district. California Department of Parks and Recreation survey forms document the contributing and
non‐contributing structures.
On April 24, 2017, John Madonna hired historic preservation consulting firm Chattel, Inc. (Chattel) to
provide consulting services related to the Specific Plan area. As part of this work, Chattel President
Robert Chattel, AIA, historic architect, and Associate II Caroline Raftery, architectural historian,
reviewed the February 20, 2015 version of this report, and on May 1, 2017 conducted a site visit
with RRM Design Group Principal Victor Montgomery, AIA, and Principal Planner Pam Ricci, AICP, and
CEO John Madonna and CFO Connie Walter. Based on the site visit and subsequent research,
Chattel provided minor edits to Project Director Mary Bean and the edits have been incorporated
into this Historic Resource Assessment.
1.2 ‐ Property History
The property is located at 12165 Los Osos Valley Road (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3). The Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers for the property are 067‐241‐030 and 067‐241‐031. According to Brian Leveille, Senior
Planner for the City of San Luis Obispo, the property is currently located just outside the city limits.
However, for the purposes of the evaluation, Mr. Leveille suggested the property be evaluated under
City of San Luis Obispo criteria, as the property will be eventually annexed by the City.
The property contains a flat level area that extends along Los Osos Valley Road. A long driveway leads
into the property. The front portion of the property is unused and is currently fenced. At the end of
the driveway is a large, flat, open space that contains the Main Residence, “Old” Barn, Bunkhouse,
Dairy Barn, Creamery, Granary, Outhouse, Storage Building, and Shed with slated roof. This group of
buildings and structures (structures) comprises the Froom Ranch complex. The area around these
buildings is currently used for equipment storage for the John Madonna Construction Company.
Alex Madonna purchased the property in a tax lien sale in 1976. According to Mr. Madonna’s son,
John (the current owner), Alex Madonna purchased numerous old ranches in the area. The
Madonna family is one of the pioneering families in San Luis Obispo County, and Mr. Madonna was
interested in preserving the heritage of the area. John Madonna stated that his father had a policy
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-88
John Madonna Construction Company
Management Summary, Property History, and Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Structure Histories and Descriptions Historic Resource Assessment
2 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
of lifetime tenancy for any of the properties he purchased. In accordance with his policy, Mr. Froom
resided on the ranch property until ill health required that he move in to San Luis Obispo to live with
his brother in 1998. The Main Residence is currently used as office space by the John Madonna
Construction Company.
The John Madonna Construction Company was responsible for the construction of many buildings in
the area, and the buildings that were to be demolished still had valuable materials in them. Mr.
Madonna salvaged these materials and stored them on his various properties.
In addition, Alex Madonna was friends with William Randolph Hearst and shared his love of old
buildings and the preservation of the local heritage. Some of the materials came from various
Hearst structures that were also salvaged over the years. John Madonna has continued this family
tradition and used much of this salvaged material to repair the buildings on the Froom Ranch.
The land rises west of the house complex and contains the Dairy Barn, the Creamery/Old House, the
Granary, the Water Tower, and the foundation of the Horse Barn. The remainder of the property is
currently open space with no buildings. Froom Creek runs through the property, and some of the
land is considered possible wetlands. The area contains two recorded prehistoric sites, which are
discussed in the Cultural Resource Assessment.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-89
L
o
s
O
s
o
s
V
a
ll
e
y
R
d
CalleJoaquin·|}þ1
50310001 • 07/2017 | 1_spec ific _plan_area_map.mxd
Exhibit 1Spec ific Plan Area MapI
Sou rc e: ESRI Imagery
650 0 650325
Feet
JOHN MADONNA CONSTRUCTION • FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Legend
Spec ific Plan Area
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-90
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-91
!
£¤101
£¤101·|}þ41
·|}þ1
·|}þ1
·|}þ227·|}þ1
·|}þ58
Morro Bay
Pismo Beach
SantaMargarita
Atascadero
Grover City
San Luis Obispo
Baywood-Los Osos
SantaMargaritaLake
P a c i f i c O c e a n
LosPadres NF
Los Padres NF
50310001 • 07/2017 | 2_ region al.mxd
Exhibit 2Region al Location Map
5 0 52.5
Miles
!
Text
Project Site
JOHN MADONNA CONSTRUCTION • FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Source: Cen sus 2000 Data, The CaSIL, FCS GIS 2013.
I
Project Site
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-92
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-93
50310001 • 07/2017 | 3_to po .mxd
Exhibit 3Lo cal Vicin ity MapTo po graphic Base
So urce: U SGS Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo 7.5" Quadran gles
JOHN MADONNA CONSTRU CTION • FROOM RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN HISTORIC RESOU RCE ASSESSMENT
I 2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Legend
Pro ject Bo un dary
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-94
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-95
John M
Froom R
Historic
FirstCar
Y:\Publicatio
1.3 ‐
1.3.1
The M
family
had li
west.
Froom
Mado
leave.
Descr
The M
reside
has a
porch
the ro
buildi
East F
The e
conta
suppo
entra
hung,
the po
adonna Construct
Ranch Specific Pla
c Resource Assessm
rbon Solutions
ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503
‐ Structure
1 ‐ History o
Main Residenc
y was continu
ved in the ho
The Main Re
m moved in w
onna, arrange
.
ription of th
Main Residenc
ence. The res
redwood sill
h, and a hippe
oof and exten
ng was heate
Facade
ast facade is
ins a partial w
orted by three
nce includes
, focal window
orch and the
tion Company
an
ment
10001\Historic Resource Ass
e Histories
of the Main
ce was built in
uing to grow a
ouse attached
esidence was
with his brothe
ements were m
he Main Resi
ce is a one‐sto
sidence was c
and concrete
ed roof with s
nds downward
ed by a wood
the main elev
width front po
e round colum
a single wood
ws are located
triangular sp
sessment\50310001 Froom R
and Descr
n Residence
n 1915 by Ha
and needed b
d to the Cream
occupied by
er in San Luis
made to allow
idence
ory, asymmet
constructed in
e foundation,
hingles and a
d into the res
stove and the
vation for the
orch, accesse
mns—two at
d door with a
d south of the
ace created b
Ranch Historic Resource Asse
riptions
e
ns Peterson.
better living co
mery building
members of
Obispo. Wh
w Mr. Froom t
trical, irregula
n approximate
wood horizo
a modest eave
idence, term
ere was no in
e residence an
ed by a short f
the entrance
wood screen
e off center fr
by the roof de
essment.docx
The building
onditions for
g on the uppe
the Froom fa
en the prope
to reside in th
arly shaped, C
ely 1915 by H
ntal shiplap s
e overhang. A
inating about
nterior firepla
nd faces Los O
flight of wood
area and one
n door. A pair
ront door. A
esign is infille
g was construc
its young chi
r slopes of th
amily until 199
erty was purch
he home unti
Craftsman‐sty
Hans Peterson
siding, a parti
A brick chimn
t 3 feet from
ace.
Osos Valley Ro
d stairs. The
e on the sout
r of wood‐fra
front gable ro
d with fish sc
Historical Back
cted as the Fr
ildren. The fa
he property to
98, when Bill
hased by the
il he chose to
yle, single‐fam
n. The buildin
al width fron
ney is present
the floor. The
oad. The faca
front gable ro
th end. The m
med, double‐
oof is present
cale shingles.
kground
9
room
amily
o the
Alex
o
mily
ng
t
t on
e
ade
oof is
main
‐
t over
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-96
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment
10 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
Windows vary in size, shape, and placement around the facades and include wood‐framed, double‐
hung, sash‐style windows.
North Facade
The north facade is the side of the residence that includes multiple wood‐framed double‐hung sash‐
style windows. A bay section projects forward from the main mass of the structure. A dormer
section is present on the side of the roof directly above the bay section.
A rectangular‐shaped addition is located on the northwest corner of the building. The addition was
constructed in two parts at two different times. The front portion of the addition has wood shiplap
siding and was built by Bill Froom to store firewood. The rear portion of the addition has vertical
board and batten siding and was built by John Madonna to house electronic equipment. Several
single doors are present around the three facades.
West Facade
The rear of the residence contains a screened porch with a screen door and screened window
openings. The porch wraps around the house, extending onto the south facade. A single wood and
glass door leads into the rear of the house. The back wall of the house contains wood‐framed
windows.
South Facade
The south facade is the side of the house facing the open area. Multiple window openings are
present.
The building is in good condition and is currently used as offices for the John Madonna Construction
Company.
Alterations
According to John Madonna, the house has undergone a number of alterations. Both John Madonna
and his father, Alex, have made many changes to restore the building. The original foundation was
redwood sills. Portions of the north and south redwood sill foundations were completely rotted, and
these were removed and replaced with concrete foundations. The house was then leveled, as it had
sunk significantly. At some point, the house flooded and the floors were uneven and buckled. The
floors were leveled, sanded, and repaired. Several interior walls were removed to form larger office
spaces. The kitchen sink and stove were removed and the area was converted to general office use.
The only heat in the house was provided by a wood stove that produced significant amounts of soot.
The walls had been painted over the years and the soot was sealed into the layers of paint. The
walls were scraped, the soot and paint were removed, and they were completely repainted. The
house was rewired for all new electrical service, plumbing repairs were made, an HVAC system was
installed, new ceilings were put in, a new roof was put on, and general tenant improvements were
conducted.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-97
John M
Froom R
Historic
FirstCar
Y:\Publicatio
The re
sectio
Histo
The b
other
placin
horse
the 20
to be
Descr
The “O
shape
front
East F
The m
is pre
North
The n
West
The w
replac
adonna Construct
Ranch Specific Pla
c Resource Assessm
rbon Solutions
ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503
ear addition w
on is used by t
ory of the “O
arn was cons
property wa
ng it on logs a
es) until it was
0th century, a
over 125 yea
ription of th
Old” Barn is l
ed, Vernacula
gable roof wi
Facade
main doors are
sent on the u
h and South F
orth and sou
Facade
west facade co
ced with histo
tion Company
an
ment
10001\Historic Resource Ass
was altered b
the John Mad
Old” Barn
structed at an
s reportedly s
and rolling it o
s located on it
nd the barn h
ars old.
he “Old” Bar
ocated west o
r‐style barn b
ith corrugated
e located on t
upper portion
Facades
th facades co
ontains vertic
oric boards sa
sessment\50310001 Froom R
y adding an e
donna Constr
n unknown tim
southeast of t
over the land
ts new site. T
has been in it
rn
of the main re
building. The
d metal roofin
the east facad
of the buildi
ontain vertica
cal wood sidin
alvaged from
Ranch Historic Resource Asse
extra section
ruction Comp
me on anothe
the current ra
and the cree
The relocation
s present loca
esidence. Th
barn has a co
ng.
de and includ
ng. The build
l wood siding
ng. The rear w
nearby barns
essment.docx
at the rear of
any to store i
er property ow
anch complex
k (presumabl
n took place a
ation since th
e barn struct
oncrete floor,
de sets of slid
ding does not
g. No window
wall was rotte
s.
f the addition
its electronic
wned by the
x. The buildin
ly with the ai
at an unknow
hat time. The
ture is a one‐s
, vertical woo
ing doors. A
t contain any
ws are presen
ed and the bo
Historical Back
n. This new
equipment.
Froom family
ng was moved
d of a team o
wn time early
e barn is estim
story, rectang
od siding, and
door for a ha
window open
t.
oards were
kground
11
y. The
d by
of
in
mated
gular‐
a
ayloft
nings.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-98
Historical Bac
12
The buildi
Alteratio
John Mad
when it w
rotted, an
dirt floor.
site. Mr. F
rot and ve
Considera
History o
The buildi
1915. Ho
Froom’s b
Descripti
The small
building h
shingles.
East Faca
A set of co
steps have
other buil
metal slid
ckground
ing is in good
ns
donna made a
was moved to
nd the barn w
The building
Froom used t
ertical boards
able expense
of the Bunkh
ing was const
wever, accord
brother, who
ion of the Bu
bunkhouse i
has a concrete
The building
ade
oncrete steps
e the Froom “
ldings as well
er‐style wind
condition.
a wide range o
its current lo
was twisted. M
g had original
the barn to st
s from other l
was incurred
house
tructed as a b
ding to John M
lived in the sm
unkhouse
s a one‐story,
e foundation,
was construc
s leads to the
“brand” press
. A single wo
dow is presen
Y:\Publications\Client
of changes to
ocation. The b
Mr. Madonna
ly been set do
ore his pickup
ocal farm bui
to stabilize t
bunkhouse fo
Madonna, the
mall residenc
, Craftsman‐s
wood horizo
cted by Hans
single wood
sed into the w
ood entrance
t.
(PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\His
o the barn str
barn was lean
poured a new
own directly o
p truck. The
ildings were u
he barn and r
r the workers
e building is o
e for many ye
style building
ontal shiplap s
Peterson in 1
entrance doo
wet concrete.
door provide
Jo
storic Resource Assessment\
ucture. The b
ning more tha
w concrete fl
on the dirt w
rear wall was
used to replac
restore it to a
s on the prop
one small roo
ears.
used as a res
siding and a f
1915 when he
or on the east
. This detail is
es access to th
ohn Madonna Con
Froom
Historic R
Fi
\50310001 Froom Ranch Hist
barn was in p
an 2 feet, the
oor, replacing
when it was m
s replaced bec
ce the rotted
a stable condi
erty by Hans
om that was u
sidential struc
front gable ro
e built the ma
t elevation. T
s seen on ma
he interior an
nstruction Compa
Ranch Specific Pla
Resource Asessme
irstCarbon Solutio
toric Resource Assessment.d
poor condition
rear wall was
g the original
oved to the
cause of dry
boards.
ition.
Peterson in
used by Bill
cture. The
of with
ain residence.
The concrete
any of the
nd a small
ny
an
ent
ons
docx
n
s
.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-99
John M
Froom R
Historic
FirstCar
Y:\Publicatio
South
The so
West
The w
North
The n
condi
Altera
Accor
painti
proble
Histo
Jim A
horse
to hol
design
Descr
The D
barn u
siding
adonna Construct
Ranch Specific Pla
c Resource Assessm
rbon Solutions
ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503
h Facade
outh facade c
Facade
west facade al
h Facade
orth facade is
tion.
ations
rding to John
ing, a new roo
em; to solve t
ory of the Da
iken lived in a
e barn in 1913
ld 10 cows at
ned to bring h
ription of th
Dairy Barn is a
used for milk
g walls, and a
tion Company
an
ment
10001\Historic Resource Ass
contains a wo
so contains a
s blank with a
Madonna, th
of, and a new
the problem,
airy Barn
a tent by the c
3 for $1,800.0
either end a
hay into the b
he Dairy Barn
a 60‐foot x 80
ing cows. The
gabled roof.
sessment\50310001 Froom R
ood‐framed, d
a wood‐frame
a large metal
he building ha
w floor. The b
a new floor w
creek on the
00, which incl
nd 10 at each
barn.
n
‐foot, one‐sto
e barn has a w
Ranch Historic Resource Asse
double‐hung,
ed, double‐hu
sign propped
as been altere
uilding was u
was installed.
property and
uded labor an
h side. The ba
ory, asymmet
wood pier an
essment.docx
sash‐style wi
ung, sash‐style
d up against t
ed by general
used for pape
.
d built the dai
nd materials.
arn contained
trical, irregula
d concrete bl
indow.
e window.
he wall. The
tenant maint
r file storage
iry barn, the g
The dairy ba
d a 4‐inch car
arly shaped, V
lock foundati
Historical Back
building is in
tenance, inclu
and rats were
granary, and
arn was desig
rrier track
Vernacular‐sty
on, vertical w
kground
13
good
uding
e a
the
gned
yle
wood
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-100
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment
14 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
East Facade
The east facade contains a door at the south end of the facade that opens to a slanting concrete
ramp. The ramp area includes a wide concrete apron covering the ground, located between the
Dairy Barn and the Creamery/House structures. The concrete apron had a specific function that
allowed mud to be removed from the cows’ feet prior to entering the barn for milking.
The east wall contains a small addition on the north end of the facade that houses a variety of
windows that appear to be remnants from other structures. The windows are of wood frame
construction in various shapes and sizes. Each of the three walls contains a single door opening. A
concrete trough is present on the east wall near the addition.
North Facade
The north facade contains two door openings. The east door opening is a single sliding door. The
other door is the main door into the space and includes a wide opening with a sliding door. The
west end of the facade slopes steeply down to the ground. A large metal hook is present at the peak
of the gable roof.
West Facade
The west facade contains an open entrance on the south end of the facade and a concrete entrance
area that leads into the interior space. The shed roof slopes steeply down to the lower level of the
wall.
South Facade
The south facade contains a unique feature. The facade is curved and a portion of the curved
section has no foundation and hangs out over the slope. The wall has vertical siding and a sloping
curved roof. The wall was specifically constructed in this manner to accommodate the movement of
the cows within the interior space. Because their size and breadth, it was easier to move the cows
through a round space.
The building is in fair condition. Corrals are present on the south side of the slope near the barn.
Alterations
The barn has been altered by both Alex and John Madonna over the years to stabilize the building.
New support beams replaced unstable sections, portions were propped up and repaired, beams
were placed in portions of the roof system to keep the roof in place, vertical wallboards were
replaced, and overall general maintenance has kept the structure standing over the years.
Archival research indicates the barn is the only round barn in San Luis Obispo County. A variety of
early dairy farm equipment is still located within the barn structure. The barn was used to milk the
cows, and start the butter and cheese production, and it was utilized until the dairy operations
ceased in 1977.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-101
John M
Froom R
Historic
FirstCar
Y:\Publicatio
Histo
The e
Accor
opera
marri
buildi
house
family
as add
Descr
The C
was b
gable
The e
buildi
one fo
South
The so
single
buildi
The so
wood
adonna Construct
Ranch Specific Pla
c Resource Assessm
rbon Solutions
ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503
ory of the Cr
ast portion o
rding to Bill Fr
ate the dairy.
age to Harrie
ng until 1915
e, and presum
y moved into
ditional living
ription of th
Creamery/Hou
built in severa
d roof. The w
ast portion o
ngs separatin
oot.
h Facade
outh facade c
e door openin
ngs.
outh facade c
pier foundat
tion Company
an
ment
10001\Historic Resource Ass
eamery/Ho
f the building
room, his fath
The residenc
et and the nee
5, when Hans
mably, any of t
the “new” re
g space for the
he Creamery
use is a one‐s
l stages at un
west portion o
f the structur
ng the east wa
contains the t
ng, and a wind
contains a com
tion with rock
sessment\50310001 Froom R
use Building
g was used as
her lived in th
ce was constr
ed for more s
Peterson bui
the children b
esidence built
e workers on
y/House
tory, irregula
nknown times
of the buildin
re was used a
all of the Crea
two buildings
dow is presen
mbination of
k footings and
Ranch Historic Resource Asse
g
the Creamer
he Creamery f
ructed at an u
pace. The yo
lt the Main R
born before 1
t by Hans Pete
the ranch.
rly shaped, as
s. The buildin
g faces the D
as a residence
amery from t
—the Creame
nt in each of t
vertical and h
d infill of the o
essment.docx
ry, an essentia
for a period o
unknown time
oung family liv
Residence. Bi
1915 were als
erson in 1915
symmetrical,
ng is divided i
airy Barn and
e. The overall
the west wall
ery and the H
the three sect
horizontal wo
open areas.
al part of the
of time when
e, possibly aft
ved in the ho
ll Froom was
so born in the
5, the space w
Vernacular ‐s
nto three sec
d was used as
l structure co
of the House
House. Each s
tions that com
ood siding. Th
Historical Back
dairy operat
he first began
ter John Froo
use portion o
born in the
e house. Afte
was possibly u
style building
ctions, each w
s the Creamer
omprises two
e by approxim
section conta
mprise the tw
he building ha
kground
15
ions.
n to
om’s
of the
er the
used
that
with a
ry.
mately
ains a
wo
as a
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-102
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment
16 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
An addition was constructed on the south wall on the house portion but deteriorated to the point
where it was removed.
West Facade
A single wood entrance opening faces the Dairy Barn on the west wall. The interior contains two
small rooms. A root cellar is present under the building and the adjoining structure. The roof on this
portion of the structure slopes down to a low level and is covered with shingles.
North Facade
The north facade contains vertical and horizontal siding. The entrance to the cellar area is located at
the base of the north wall under the Creamery portion of the building. A secondary entrance is
located further down the wall. A small, narrow door is present in the area where the two buildings
are separated. The door is located on the north wall and there is no corresponding door on the
south wall. An open porch was added to the east end of the north wall of the house structure at an
unknown time.
East Facade
The east facade serves as the end wall of the residential portion of the structure. A rectangular‐
shaped window opening is present.
Alterations
The building has been altered by additions to the structure. At one time, an addition was present on
the south wall of the house portion but was in extremely poor condition and was removed by Alex
Madonna. The porch on the north wall of the house was added at an unknown time.
Alex and John Madonna undertook a series of changes to the building because of its instability.
Floors and ceiling areas were replaced with plywood sheeting, vertical siding was replaced, walls and
foundations were stabilized, and general maintenance kept the building standing over the years.
History of the Granary
The Granary was built in 1913 by Jim Aiken in a way that eliminated the rat problem that was
destroying other buildings on the Ranch. The building was secure and many of the local farmers
stored their grain in the building to keep it safe from rats.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-103
John M
Froom R
Historic
FirstCar
Y:\Publicatio
Descr
The G
small,
buildi
and a
facad
from
cover
Altera
None
Histo
The O
Obisp
replac
an ou
locate
septic
adonna Construct
Ranch Specific Pla
c Resource Assessm
rbon Solutions
ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503
ription of th
Granary is loca
, one‐story, d
ng. The build
gabled roof.
e. The interio
being eaten b
ed with horse
ations
noted.
ory of the Ou
Outhouse was
po. Alex Mad
cement build
tdoor bathro
ed near the b
c tank.
tion Company
an
ment
10001\Historic Resource Ass
he Granary
ated on the h
ouble‐walled
ding has a wo
One window
or contains st
by animals. N
e harnesses a
uthouse
s originally the
onna obtaine
ing, so he mo
oom, so John
arn, and the
sessment\50310001 Froom R
ill close to th
d, rectangular
ood pier found
w is present o
torage areas.
No grain was p
and equipmen
e parking kios
ed the contrac
oved the kiosk
Madonna con
parking kiosk
Ranch Historic Resource Asse
e Dairy Barn
‐shaped, asym
dation, vertic
n the south fa
Tongue‐and‐
present durin
nt. The buildi
sk at Reilly’s D
ct to demolis
k structure to
nverted the b
k was repurpo
essment.docx
and the Crea
mmetrical, Ve
cal tongue‐an
acade. A sing
‐groove siding
ng the site vis
ing is in poor
Department S
h the building
o the Ranch. T
building into a
osed and mov
mery/House.
ernacular‐sty
d‐groove woo
gle door is pre
g was used to
it, and the flo
condition.
Store in down
g and constru
The ranch wo
an outhouse.
ved to the loc
Historical Back
. The Granary
le utilitarian
od siding wal
esent on the
o prevent the
oor and walls
ntown San Lu
uct the
orkers reques
A septic tank
cation over th
kground
17
y is a
ls,
east
grain
were
is
sted
k was
he
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-104
Historical Bac
18
Descripti
The Outho
shiplap sid
has a sing
appears to
moved to
Departme
Alteratio
Conversio
History o
The Stora
unit obtai
ckground
ion of the O
ouse is a sma
ding walls and
gle door with
o be in good
its current lo
ent of Parks a
ns
on of the build
of the Storag
ge Building w
ined by Mr. M
uthouse
all, one‐story,
d a front gabl
a moon cuto
condition. Be
ocation, it was
nd Recreatio
ding from a p
ge Building
was moved to
Madonna from
Y:\Publications\Client
asymmetrica
led roof with
ut in the doo
ecause the O
s not evaluate
n (DPR) form
arking kiosk t
this location
m a local frien
(PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\His
al, Vernacular
a shed roof e
r. A small toi
uthouse is mo
ed for historic
.
to a bathroom
by John Mad
d and brough
Jo
storic Resource Assessment\
r‐style buildin
extension on t
let room is pr
odern (less th
c significance
m.
donna. It was
ht to the site.
ohn Madonna Con
Froom
Historic R
Fi
\50310001 Froom Ranch Hist
ng. The buildi
the east wall
resent. The b
han 45 years
e or recorded
s a simple, mo
nstruction Compa
Ranch Specific Pla
Resource Asessme
irstCarbon Solutio
toric Resource Assessment.d
ing has wood
. The buildin
building
old) and was
on a
obile storage
ny
an
ent
ons
docx
g
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-105
John M
Froom R
Historic
FirstCar
Y:\Publicatio
Descr
The S
that is
are ho
small
buildi
evalu
Altera
None
Histo
The b
perso
habits
severa
allow
adonna Construct
Ranch Specific Pla
c Resource Assessm
rbon Solutions
ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503
ription of th
torage Buildin
s located curr
orizontal woo
windows are
ng is modern
ated for histo
ations
noted.
ory of the Sh
uilding is loca
on. John Mad
s of thrift. At
al trips to rem
ed to remain
tion Company
an
ment
10001\Historic Resource Ass
he Storage B
ng is a one‐st
rently to the n
od shiplap sid
e present on t
n (less than 45
oric significan
hed
ated north of
onna stated t
one point, th
move them al
in the structu
sessment\50310001 Froom R
uilding
tory, rectangu
north of the O
ing and it has
the elevations
5 years old) a
ce or recorde
the Main ho
that Bill Froom
he shed build
l. The buildin
ure, since it h
Ranch Historic Resource Asse
ular‐shaped, a
Old Barn. The
s a gable roof
s. The buildin
nd was move
ed on a DPR fo
use and was
m lived throu
ing was full o
ng contains a
holds up the b
essment.docx
asymmetrical
e building has
f with shingle
ng is in good c
ed to its curre
orm.
built at an un
ugh the Great
of so many ca
seeder mach
building.
, Vernacular‐
s no true foun
s. A single do
condition. Be
ent location, it
nknown time
t Depression a
ns of dog foo
hine that Mr. M
Historical Back
style structur
ndation; its w
oor is present
ecause the
t was not
by an unknow
and cultivated
od that it took
Madonna has
kground
19
re
walls
t and
wn
d
k
s
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-106
Historical Bac
20
Descripti
The Shed
The shed
wood sidin
a flat roof
Alteratio
No signific
History o
The water
historic im
ckground
ion of the Sh
Building is a o
roof has a ste
ng walls and a
and a single e
ns
cant changes
of the Water
r tower was c
mportance be
hed Building
one‐story, irreg
ep slant. The
a steeply slant
entrance door
have been m
r Tower
constructed b
ecause it was
Y:\Publications\Client
g with Slante
gularly shape
building has
ted shed roof.
r. The building
made to the b
y Verizon Wir
constructed i
(PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\His
ed Roof
d, asymmetric
no true found
Entrance doo
g is in extreme
uilding.
reless for use
in the last 2 y
Jo
storic Resource Assessment\
cal, Vernacul a
dation; it was
ors are on the
ely poor condi
e as a cell tow
years.
ohn Madonna Con
Froom
Historic R
Fi
\50310001 Froom Ranch Hist
ar‐style storag
constructed w
e north wall. A
tion and is ba
wer. The struc
nstruction Compa
Ranch Specific Pla
Resource Asessme
irstCarbon Solutio
toric Resource Assessment.d
ge building.
with vertical
An addition ha
rely standing.
cture has no
ny
an
ent
ons
docx
as
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-107
John M
Froom R
Historic
FirstCar
Y:\Publicatio
Descr
The W
design
on me
old), i
Altera
None
adonna Construct
Ranch Specific Pla
c Resource Assessm
rbon Solutions
ons\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\503
ription of th
Water Tower a
ned to appea
etal legs, and
it was not eva
ations
noted.
tion Company
an
ment
10001\Historic Resource Ass
he Water Tow
appears to be
r to be a stru
has metal sid
aluated for hi
sessment\50310001 Froom R
wer
e a water towe
cture compat
ding and a do
storic signific
Ranch Historic Resource Asse
er, but it is ac
tible with farm
ome roof. Bec
cance or recor
essment.docx
ctually a steal
m landscapes
cause the Wa
rded on a DP
lth cell tower
s. The circula
ater Tower is m
R form.
Historical Back
r site that was
ar structure st
modern (2 ye
kground
21
s
tands
ears
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-108
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-109
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 23
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
SECTION 2: HISTORIC BACKGROUND
2.1 ‐ History of San Luis Obispo County
San Luis Obispo is located along the Central Coast of California, approximately 200 miles north of Los
Angeles and 230 miles south of San Francisco. The area is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west
and the Santa Lucia mountain range to the north, east, and south. The mountains are the source of
San Luis Obispo Creek, which runs through the City of San Luis Obispo and empties into the Pacific
Ocean.
The San Luis Obispo County area was first settled by the Chumash tribes who built a series of villages
along the local creeks. The region was largely unexplored by Europeans until the arrival of the
Spanish in the late 1700s.
The Spanish government had begun exploration of the New World in the late 1400s, and its process
of settlement and development in the Americas continued into the late 1700s. During this period,
the Russian government had created settlements along the coast of Canada and into the Northern
California area. The establishment of a settlement at Fort Ross led the Spanish crown to consider a
more active presence in California to halt the encroachment of Russia into the western portion of
the Spanish empire in the Americas.
In 1769, a joint military and religious expedition led by Gaspar de Portolá was sent to the Alta
California area in conjunction with Franciscan missionary Father Junipero Serra to create a chain of
missions and presidios to control Alta California for Spain. The group first journeyed to the San
Diego area, establishing the Mission San Diego de Alcala, the first in a chain of 21 missions extending
northward into Alta California.
In addition to his other duties, Portolá was tasked with finding Monterey Bay and establishing a
presidio in Monterey. After accomplishing this process, the expedition proceeded to the San Luis
Obispo area to continue exploring the region. In 1772, the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was
founded in the Valley de Los Osos (Valley of the Bears) near the banks of San Luis Obispo Creek. The
mission became the fifth mission founded in California by Father Serra.
The Spanish crown granted numerous land grants to the soldiers who accompanied Portolá and
Father Serra, thus enabling the overall settlement of the region. Large ranchos were established and
California’s cattle‐based economy developed over the next decades.
After the independence movement by Mexico, Alta California, and other parts of the Southwest,
became part of the Mexican empire. Tr ansition 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.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-110
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment
24 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
A variety of governmental and economic changes in California during the first half of the 1800s led to
a decline in the mission system. Secularization was officially declared in 1833: the mission system
was disbanded, lands were sold, the priests left the missions, and the local tribes were left to fend
for themselves. In 1845, Governor Pio Pico decreed that the Mission lands were for sale. All the
land of Mission San Luis Obispo was sold except for the church, which still stands today. The church
fell into ruins during secularization and the priests left the mission grounds.
California became a state in 1850, and, as the County of San Luis Obispo developed, the church
property served as the first courthouse and jail in the county. Some restoration on the building
began in the 1870s but full restoration was not accomplished until 1933. The Mission serves as a
parish church in the Monterey Diocese at the present time.
2.1.1 ‐ Rancho Canada de Los Osos y Pecho y Islay
Rancho Canada de Los Osos y Pecho y Islay was a 32,341‐acre Mexican land grant in the Los Osos
Valley in San Luis Obispo County. The grant consisted of Rancho Canada de Los Osos (northern
portion) granted to Victor Linares by Governor Juan B. Alvarado in 1842, and Rancho Pecho y Islay
(southern portion) was granted to Francisco Badillo by Governor Manuel Micheltorena in 1843. The
grants were consolidated by Governor Pio Pico in 1845. The grant extended from the Pacific Coast to
along Los Osos Creek and the Los Osos Valley to the outer boundaries of present‐day City of San Luis
Obispo.
The Rancho Canada de Los Osos land was purchased from Linares in 1844 by Scottish Captain John
(Juan) Wilson and his Scottish business partner, James (Diego) Scott. Wilson married into the Carrillo
family, linking him to the prominent Spanish families, including the Vallejos. Wilson, a sea captain
and trader, had come to California in 1837 and with his business partner, James Scott, purchased
other rancho lands in San Luis Obispo County and Sonoma County.
After California’s statehood in 1850, one of the major issues was the ownership of Hispanic land
grants. The Land Act of 1851 required owners to file paperwork to prove their claim; Wilson’s claim
to the Rancho Canada de Los Osos grant was patented in 1869. After Wilson’s death in 1861, the
land passed to his widow, Ramona Carrillo Wilson and their children. Over the next forty years, the
land was gradually sold and a new era began on the former rancho lands.
2.2 ‐ History of the City of San Luis Obispo
The development of the City of San Luis Obispo grew out of the overall settlement of the County. In
1850, California became a state and fell under the control of the United States government. Sorting
out the old Spanish and Mexican land grants, ranchos, and mission lands was an arduous process.
Little formal paperwork existed, land boundaries were vague and unclear, and many of the old
Hispanic families had no way to prove title to the lands that had been in their families for decades.
With the implementation of the California Land Act of 1851, attempts were made to sort out the
ownership and sale of the valuable land. Many of the old ranchos were subdivided into smaller
parcels, and farms and ranches began to develop under the new system. Many families moved into
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-111
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 25
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
San Luis Obispo and the City began to grow and develop. San Luis Obispo was officially designated
the San Luis Obispo county seat in 1868.
Following a major drought in 1862 to 1864, the local economy shifted from cash crops to cattle
production. A booming dairy industry was established that continued well into the mid‐20th century.
Improvements in the development of the railroad system brought increased expansion to the area.
New lines connected the isolated region to the coast and the area soon became a central hub for
trade moving both north and south to the major centers and to the coast. With the arrival of the
Southern Pac ific 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.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-112
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment
26 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
With the United States entrance into World War I in 1917, there was an enormous
demand for agricultural products, which provided an economic boom to Central
California. During the War, many farmers turned to the production of navy beans,
since these were subsidized by the War Relief Administration. Before reliable
refrigeration, navy beans could be shipped to the troops in Europe without spoiling
and San Luis Obispo’s economy boomed.
In the early 20th century, oil derricks were erected in the area and drilling for oil
began. The first lucrative oil fields were located south of San Luis Obispo and were
controlled by families outside of the region, including the Doheny family from Los
Angeles. The Producers Transportation Company represented the largest oil interest
in San Luis Obispo County, accommodating the transport of oil from the Union Oil
Company and the Independent Production Agency via 500 miles of pipeline to the
Port of San Luis . . . .
2.2.1 ‐ History of Froom Ranch
The history of the Froom Ranch was compiled from a variety of sources. The ranch property lies
within the boundaries of the former La Laguna or Laguna Rancho. The following information was
taken from the 1998 report, Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Complex, San Luis Obispo,
written by San Luis Obispo County historian Betsy Bertrando.
The area known as the Froom Ranch originally contained Lost 60, 67, 68, and 69 as
portrayed on the 1869 map—Subdivisions of the Rancho Canada de Los Osos and La
Laguna, surveyed by James Stanton. A total of 867.87 acres made up the original
Froom Ranch parcel. To d ay, 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).
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-113
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 27
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
In 1875, Stow sold the property to S.W. (Henry) Foreman, a surveyor. Henry and his
wife built a rather elaborate house (for the time) that remains today at the end of
Madonna Road and is known as the De Vaul Ranch House (Bertrando 1997).
In 1884, Ludwig Nelson purchased Lot 60 of the La Laguna subdivision from
Foreman. Nelson came from Norway to California in 1859 and arrived in the county
in 1868. By 1883, the land acquired a dairy and 856 acres in the Harmony District.
Nelson is listed as a farmer in 1884 and as a dairyman in the 1982 San Luis Obispo
Great Register. The ranch eventually grew to contain Lots 67, 68, and 69 as well, for
a total of 867.87 acres. When Ludwig died, the property was run by his wife Annie
Nelson. Annie Nelson owned four ranches; one in Estero, two in Cambria/Harmony,
and the Froom Ranch on Los Osos Valley Road (Bill Froom pers. comm.).
John R. Froom was born in Prescott, Grantville County, Canada in 1864. When he
was sixteen years old he left Canada for Iowa. After six months he made his way to
California and did ranch work for a year near Santa Rosa. Then in 1886, he came to
work for Ludwig Nelson in Laguna, living in a little room attached to the creamery
(Structure E; See Results Section). In 1890, he leased 500 acres and began dairying
with fifty cows.
Harriet Perry was a native of Ireland who first came to Illinois with her brother and
later to San Luis Obispo where she settled. Harriet and John Froom were married on
December 14, 1904 and had seven children: Harry, Annie, Minnie, Willie, Robert,
Bunny and John (Morrison 1917). From the estate of Annie Nelson, Harriet Perry
Froom acquired Lots 60, 67, 68, and 69 in 1904. In 1905, the H.P. Froom Ranch
consisted of 412.65 acres. They lived in the small addition at the east end of the
creamery that appears to be, but is not, attached to the creamery (Structure E). In
1915, they moved into the ‘new’ four bedroom house (Structure C).
According to Bill Froom, a dairy had been on the property since the 1850s. The
subdivision map of 1868 gives no information regarding land use or existing
structures. The plat map of 1858 shows one house near the eastern border of the
Laguna Rancho. A ‘thatched’ house is shown just to the outside of the southern
point of the rancho.
For several years the ranch has been owned by Alex Madonna and used as an
equipment storage yard. Madonna ran cattle on the ranch as well. He has been
responsible for the upkeep of the ranch structures and has painted most of the
buildings. Bill Froom, until this fall, continued to reside in the house he has spent
most of his life in. Health problems have recently necessitated Bill living with his
brother in San Luis Obispo. Currently no one resides on the ranch.
A variety of local sources obtained from the files of the Local History Room at the San Luis Obispo
County Library were used to add information to the overall history of the ranch. Local newspapers
interviewed Bill Froom many times and some of his stories about the ranch were recounted in the
articles.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-114
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment
28 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
Local San Luis Obispo historian Joan Sullivan conducted a series of interviews with Bill Froom, which
were published in The Bay News in 1993. An article entitled “The Froom Family Ranch” included the
following information:
Mr. Froom stated that his father had originally leased the ranch for $1500. His lease
included the ranch lands (much larger than today’s ranch property), the harnesses
for the horses, wagon and hay. Bill retained the receipt his entire life. His father
worked the ranch for 31 years and lived in the Creamery house for the first ten
years. Froom said his father “bached it” until 1902 when he married his mother,
Harriet Perry, when she was 18.
The Frooms began having seven children and Bill was the middle child born in 1910 in the house
attached to the Creamery building. As the family expanded, a new house was needed. Hans
Peterson built the Craftsman‐style residence in 1915 and boarded with the family while it was under
construction. Peterson also built a woodshed, the washing room, the storeroom, and the
bunkhouse.
Bill Froom first attended the Laguna Elementary School when he was six years old. He attended the
school for 8 years and was also hired to care for the grounds for one dollar. Many years later, from
1948 to 1966, he served as a Trustee for the Laguna School District that had been formed in 1877.
The school was constructed in 1870 on land donated by Harry Forma. John Froom worked for Forma
as a hired hand prior to buying the Froom Ranch property. In 1870, John Froom planted cypress
trees around the schoolhouse that Froom had traveled to Monterey to obtain. Some of the trees
were still standing in the 1990s.
When Bill Froom was 8 years old, his father asked him if he could milk a cow and that is when he
began helping with feeding and milking the family herd of Durham cows. Bill Froom continued to
milk cows by hand until 1945, when the milking machine was installed. By age 15, Bill was taking
teams of horses out to track hay and farm.
John Froom died when Bill was 17, during the Great Depression in 1929. Bill took over the farm and
ran it until 1977. Like most ranch families, the family weathered the hard times of the 1930s. Bill
took work outside the farm and worked for local families making 15 cents an hour. He recounted
that the most money he ever made during that period was 50 cents an hour.
The ranch was an ideal location for dairy cows and the Froom family owned Durham cows, which
produced milk with a high butter fat content. The cows were milked twice a day and produced 200
gallons of milk a day. Eventually the family switched to Guernsey cows. The dairy was profitable
until the 1950s, when the local dairy economy began to fade. The high cost of operating the dairy
led the family to slowly reduce the herd. They decided to switch over to raising beef cattle. Bill
commented in the Bay News article that “we could always pay our taxes ($160 per acre) dairying and
I found out the hard way that one good dairy cow was worth much more than any beef cow. One
year cattle brought in $11,000 and cost me $13,000.”
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-115
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 29
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
Bill Froom told Joan Sullivan the story of the barns on the property. Jim Aiken lived in a tent by the
creek on the property and built the dairy barn, the granary, and the horse barn in 1913 for
$1,800.00, which included labor and materials. Every day he came up from his tent by the creek and
worked on the buildings. The dairy barn was 80 feet by 60 feet and was designed to hold 10 cows at
either end and 10 at each side. The barn contained a 4‐inch carrier track designed to bring hay into
the barn.
Froom told the story of how difficult it had been to learn to use the milking machine when it was
first installed. It took him 4 hours to do the milking on the first day because the noise of the
machine made the cows nervous. By the second day, the cows were leaking and uncomfortable so
they were much more agreeable to the machine. Froom eventually purchased four milking
machines. Each machine could milk one cow at a time, the most modern method at the time.
Froom stated that “everyone says it would spoil my cows but they liked them better than hand
milking . . . .” Apparently, the cows felt it was more like a calf than a machine. Froom’s farm was
considered one of the most modern in the area, and he routinely gave tours to college classes that
learned his techniques and operation. His horse‐powered churn fascinated his students.
Froom started the County Farm Bureau and served as a director for the Cattlemen’s Association. He
volunteered as a docent at the local history museum. In addition, he traveled around the County
giving demonstrations of how to sharpen tools, explained the production process for butter and
cream, and demonstrated a wide range of farm skills that were being lost.
More information about the buildings was included in the article. The Granary was double walled
and rat free, the only one in the County. A bull pen, built in 1930, had been constructed on the
property after John Froom died, since he had objected to the idea. The horse barn was originally
divided into three sections: wagons were on the left, horse stalls were on the right (two horses to a
stall), and the hay wagon was placed in the middle of the barn.
An article in the San Luis Obispo Telegram ‐Tribune, dated July 11, 1989, detailed an interview with
Bill Froom. Froom had been hired as a teenager in the mid‐1920s by a local banker and worked for
only 3 days. He had to wear a “necktie and nice shoes” and he discovered very quickly he was not
cut out for banking. He listened to his father and returned to the ranching life, which sustained him
for the next 50 years.
Froom took over the farm in 1927 when his father became sick and he was only a junior in high
school. Bill was chosen to take over the farm because the older brother who was first in line to take
the farm was not home, working in the oil fields making $4 a day—big money in those days. Froom
stated that “I had already made my letter in track and so I could skip athletics and come home in the
afternoon to deal with the cows.”
During the difficult years of the Great Depression, the farm did not produce enough income. Bill
went to work as a farm hand on the Dalidlio property across the road from the ranch. He made 15
cents an hour working for the neighbors and was glad to have it, as that wage was considered good
money during the hard times.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-116
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment
30 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
During the World War II years of the 1940s, chromium was mined on the ranch property. The
deposit was a large one and has been untouched since the war years. Chromium is mixed with other
ores to make a high‐grade steel. The expense of extraction and transportation of the ore proved too
costly for any further production after the war.
Froom told a story about the Creamery building. Apparently, one of the workers on the ranch liked
to drink during the day crawled under the Creamery building to do this. He shifted the rock
foundation stones around so that he could sleep in the shade. When John Froom saw what he had
done, he decided to dig out a cellar under the building.
John Froom’s ingenuity led to the design of the Granary building. Rats would chew through the
burlap sacks in which grain was stored, so John Froom built the Granary on stilts with tongue and
groove double walls to prevent rat damage. Farmers from all over the valley brought their grain to
the Froom Ranch for rat‐free storage.
An oral interview was conducted with John Madonna, current owner of the property (Madonna
pers. comm.). The Madonna family is one of the oldest pioneer families in the area and owns the
Madonna Inn, a local landmark, and numerous ranches in the San Luis Obispo County area. John
Madonna stated that Bill Froom had been a boxer in the United States Army during World War II. He
said that Froom had never married and had no children. However, Bill Froom had been heavily
involved with the local school system, contributing a great deal of his time to local education. John
Madonna commented that Bill Froom had named all his cows over the years—names such as Rosie
and Betsy. The dairy operation had approximately 50 cows, though possibly not all at the same
time.
Mr. Madonna stated that his father, Alex Madonna, had purchased the property in a tax lien sale in
1976. Dairy operations ceased in 1977 when Bill Froom retired after having run the ranch since
1927. Mr. Madonna raised beef cattle on the property for several years. The property is currently
used as the office and equipment storage area for the John Madonna Construction Company.
2.3 ‐ Methods and Results of Historic Assessment
2.3.1 ‐ Introduction
The subject property was evaluated for historic and architectural significance and its potential to
meet National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and local City of
San Luis Obispo criteria. This report presents the results of the assessment. The Froom Ranch
complex was assessed for its historic and architectural significance by FCS Architectural Historian,
Kathleen A. Crawford, MA. Ms. Crawford conducted the archival research and on January 6, 2015
visited the property. During the site visit, Ms. Crawford personally inspected and photographed each
structure on the property for this report.
2.3.2 ‐ Archival Research
In order to fully assess the Froom Ranch complex, varieties of archival sources were accessed for
information related to the property and its history. Sources consulted include the San Luis Obispo
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-117
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 31
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
County Assessor’s Office records; the San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office records; the City of
San Luis Obispo Planning Department files, including an interview with Senior Planner Brian Leveille;
the City of San Luis Obispo Building Department building permit files and additional records; the San
Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files; the History Center of San Luis Obispo
files; a variety of internet sources; two films about the Froom Ranch produced by Joan Sullivan, local
San Luis Obispo historian; miscellaneous documents, including Environmental Impact Reports and
previous assessments; and an oral interview conducted on January 27, 2015 with John Madonna,
current owner of the property. One of the most important documents regarding the history of the
Froom Ranch is the report written by local San Luis Obispo historian, Betsy Bertrando, in 1998. Ms.
Bertrando’s report was a valuable source of information, as she had personally interviewed Mr. Bill
Froom, owner of the property, and reviewed a wide range of local maps, oral interviews, historic
documents, and other local sources to complete her assessment of the property. She visited the site
at various times over the years and was able to observe the changes to the property. Her
observations were important in the current assessment of the remaining buildings on the Froom
Ranch property.
In addition, invaluable information was obtained from the City of San Luis Obispo Historic Context
Statement, written in 2013. This document provided important historic context information for fully
assessing the Froom Ranch complex.
2.3.3 ‐ Froom Ranch Historic and Architectural Survey Results
The 1998 Bertrando report provided a base of information to compare the current conditions with
the previous developments on the Froom Ranch property. Conditions on the Froom Ranch have
changed since the report was written: buildings have been removed and the remaining structures
are in various states of repair. The property currently contains the buildings/structures described
below.
1. Main Residence (c. 1915)
The building is a one‐story, Craftsman‐style, single‐family residence located on the lower level near
the front of the property.
Bertrando Report: House/Structure C
The four bedroom house was built by Hans Peterson in 1915. Peterson also built a
wood shed, the washing room, store room and bunkhouse during the same period.
The washing room and store room were added to the rear of the house in a long
addition that is partially of board and batten construction. The main part of the
house has shiplap siding. The building sits on a redwood sill foundation. The
entrance is from a porch supported by three columns that face the east. Above the
porch are decorative shingles under the eaves.
2. “Old” Barn (date unknown)
The building was moved to its current location at an unknown time from another location in the Los
Osos Valley. The “Old” Barn is a one‐story, wood barn structure. The building is over 100 years old.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-118
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment
32 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
Bertrando Report: Old Barn/Structure A
The barn near the house was moved to its present location and is over 100 years old.
The original location was on the south east (sic) side of the ranch until it was moved
slowly over logs over the creek to the present site. The barn has a corrugated roof
and is formed from vertical boards. There is no foundation. Double entry doors face
east at the end of the long driveway.
3. Bunkhouse (c. 1915)
The Bunkhouse is a small Craftsman‐style, residential building located between the Main Residence
and the “Old” Barn on the lower level.
Bertrando Report: Bunkhouse/Structure B
A small structure in good condition sits between the old barn (A) and the house (C).
It is built of the same shiplap boards as the house (C). It has sash windows and a
door opening onto a corner stoop on the east side. It was built by Hans Peterson in
1915 at the same time as the house (Sullivan 1993).
4. Shed with slanted roof (date unknown)
The Shed is a small wooden shed with a small addition. The Shed is located to the north of the Main
Residence on the lower level of the property.
Bertrando Report: Wood Shed/Structure D
The shed has a corrugated roof and vertical board siding. There is a door on the east
and north sides of the structure. A shed roof that abuts a flat roof suggest the flat
roof was a later addition. The shed was in the process of being emptied of great
piles of tin cans. One cleared area has exposed a piece of farm equipment in good
condition. It was a horse drawn seeder labeled ‘California Green Seed Sower.’ It
appeared there may be other pieces of equipment amongst and under the
remaining cans although it was difficult to tell.
5. Outhouse (date unknown)
The Outhouse is a small, one‐story structure located behind the “Old” Barn.
Bertrando Report
Not included.
6. Storage Building (date unknown)
The Storage Building is a small, one‐story wood structure that is located on the lower level north of
the “Old” Barn. The building was probably moved to this location from an unknown location.
Bertrando Report
Not included.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-119
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Historical Background
FirstCarbon Solutions 33
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
7. Creamery/House (date unknown)
The Creamery/House structure is composed of two wood buildings. The west structure is the
Creamery building; the east portion is the house that the family lived in prior the construction of the
Main Residence. The Creamery/House structure is located on the hillside on the upper level.
Bertrando Report: Old Creamery/House/Structure E
One of the most interesting structures within the ranch, the Old Creamery/House is
also complex, having been built in at least three episodes. The west side of the
wood shingled structure includes a room that was home to Bill Froom’s father for
many years. The board and batten creamery housed a horse powered churn and a
butter break table. Only the corn sheller remains. Most of the equipment is now
gone. The author remembers visiting this site in the 1970s and noticing piles of old
bottles under the floor boards on the ground floor. This time it was clean and no
bottles remained.
The middle of the structure was built with shiplap and may have been an addition to
the creamery. The west side appears to be attached to the creamery but is actually
separated by a space about a foot wide. The living space consisted of two rooms
that had been muslin over board and batten construction. Currently the north
facing room is stripped of boards. A later porch addition is on the south side. The
condition of the structure is very weathered and the flooring is unstable.
8. Dairy Barn (c. 1913)
The Dairy Barn is a large, wood barn building with a curved front wall. The Dairy Barn is sited on the
hillside above the house complex.
Bertrando Report: Dairy Barn/Structure F
Another structure of interest is the Dairy Barn. This structure has an unusual
rounded end on the south side that hangs along the edge of the slope. The dairy
barn, as well as the granary and the horse barn, were constructed by Jim Aiken in
1913 for $1800. The barn roof has wood shingles and the walls of vertical planks
rest on formed concrete.
9. Granary (c. 1913)
The Granary is a small, wood structure located on the hillside north of the Dairy Barn and west of the
Horse Barn foundation.
Bertrando Report: Granary/Structure G
The small rectangular granary is in fairly good condition and is composed of vertical
plank walls that rest on concrete and block wood posts. The granary was
constructed by Jim Aiken in 1913.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-120
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historical Background Historic Resource Asessment
34 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
10. Horse Barn (date unknown)
The Horse Barn is no longer extant; only the foundation remains. The Horse Barn was located north
of the Dairy Barn and Creamery/House buildings and east of the Granary.
Bertrando Report: Horse Barn/Structure H
The barn is constructed of vertical boards on a concrete foundation. The wood
shingle roof is missing approximately 12% of the shingles. The barn doors open on
the north side and was used for wagons, horses and hay storage. The horse barn
was constructed by Jim Aiken in 1913. The barn is a style typical of the period.
Additional information
John Madonna stated that the Horse Barn had been used for storage of salvaged materials during
the period of ownership by the Madonna family. Alex Madonna collected salvaged materials from
local ranches, businesses, and homes and stored some of these materials in the barn. The barn was
in extremely poor condition and the sides were falling down. John Madonna attempted to stabilize
and prop up the building but eventually the deterioration was too great. The building collapsed and
the materials were hauled away.
11. Water Tower (2013)
The Water Tower structure is located on the hillside above the Granary area. It is a Verizon Wireless
cell tower site and was constructed within the last 2 years. The Bertrando report did not address
this structure, as it had not been built at the time of the 1998 evaluation.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-121
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 35
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
SECTION 3: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA AND EVALUATIONS: FROOM RANCH
3.1 ‐ Application of National Register of Historical Places Criteria
Criterion A: Event: Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with
events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was
associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. The
subject property, the Froom Ranch, is one of the oldest dairy properties in the history of San Luis
Obispo County. The Froom family was a pioneering ranching family and was part of the overall
development of the important dairy industry in the San Luis Obispo area. The subject property does
merit designation under National Register Criterion A: Event at the local level.
Criterion B: Person: Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with
the lives of persons significant in our past.
Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was
associated with persons significant in our past. The property is associated with the Froom family and
Bill Froom in particular. The Froom family purchased the ranch in the late 19th century as one of the
area’s pioneering families. Bill Froom, son of John Froom, inherited the property in 1929 and
continued to operate a dairy and ranching operation for the next 50 years. Bill Froom was also an
important local leader and made many contributions to the development of the local school system
and community. The subject property does merit designation under National Register Criterion B:
Person.
Criterion C: Design/Construction: Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they embody
the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the
work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.
Evidence was found that would support the determination that the property embodied the
distinctive characteristics of a significant style of architecture, which this criterion includes within the
term “type.” A property is eligible as a specimen of its type or period of construction under this
criterion if it is an important example of building practices of a particular time in history. The Main
Residence is a typical example of the Craftsman‐style of architecture and the interior has been
altered extensively over the years. The building was transitioned to an office use over the last two
decades. However, its exterior appearance has remained essentially the same since it was
constructed by Hans Peterson in 1915. Its appearance includes the following character defining
features as listed in the San Luis Obispo Historic Context Statement:
Horizontal massing
Low‐pitched gable roof
Wood exterior wall cladding
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-122
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment
36 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
Projecting partial‐width front porch
Wood‐frame double‐hung sash windows
Extensive use of natural materials—wood
Therefore, the Main Residence is considered to meet the criteria under style.
The Dairy Barn is a Vernacular‐style structure. The barn is unusual, the only one in the County with a
rounded front. The rounded front was designed to facilitate the milking process and move the cows
through the barn efficiently.
The Creamery/House structure is also a local Vernacular‐style building with a history indicative of the
local area. The building was constructed as a creamery and a residence. The building displays the
features of local building styles and its utilitarian function.
The Dairy Barn and Creamery/House buildings are examples of the type of local Vernacular
architecture and their period of construction at the turn of the 20th century.
The remaining buildings are not considered to retain, or embody, enough of the distinctive features,
type or method of construction to be considered significant.
A “master” under this criterion is a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field. Hans Peterson
and Jim Aiken were responsible for the construction of the majority of the current buildings on the
site. Neither has been identified as a master builder, architect, or craftsman.
“High artistic values” under this criterion refers to properties that so fully articulate a particular
concept of design that they express an aesthetic ideal, which is not the case here. The terminology
referring to “components of an entity” are intended to address historic districts.
The subject property does merit designation under National Register Criterion C: Architecture at the
local level.
Criterion D: Information Potential: Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they have
yielded or are likely to yield information important in prehistory or history. This criterion is intended
to address archaeological resources. To be designated under this criterion the property must have
information to contribute to our understanding of human history and prehistory and that
information must be important. This criterion is not applicable to this property. The subject
property may merit designation under National Register Criterion D: Information Potential at the
local level, see FirstCarbon Solutions Cultural Resource Assessment.
3.2 ‐ Application of California Register of Historical Resources Criteria
Properties that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) must be evaluated for
historical significance under the California Register of Historical Resources.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-123
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 37
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
The criteria for evaluating the significance of historical resources require that the resource must be
significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
(1) Association with Events: It is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of
California or the United States.
Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was
associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional
history, the development of San Luis Obispo County and the dairy industry. The subject property
does merit designation under California Register Criterion (1).
(2) Association with Persons: It is associated with the lives of persons important to local,
California or National History.
Historical evidence was found that would support the determination that the property was
associated with the lives of persons important to local history. The property is associated with the
pioneering Froom family and Bill Froom in particular. The subject property does merit designation
under California Register Criterion (2).
(3) Design/Construction: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or
method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic
values.
Evidence was found that would support the determination that the property embodied the
distinctive characteristics of a significant type, period, region or method of construction. The Main
Residence is a good example of local Craftsman architecture and the Dairy Barn and
Creamery/House buildings exemplify local Vernacular architecture and building techniques. The
buildings were not constructed by master builders or architects, as Hans Peterson and Jim Aiken
have not been identified as masters in these fields. None of the buildings on the property possessed
high artistic values. The subject property does merit designation under California Register Criterion
(3).
(4) Archaeology: It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the
prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
To be designated under this criterion, the property must have information to contribute to our
understanding of human history and prehistory and that information must be important. The
subject property may merit designation under California Register Criterion (4), see FirstCarbon
Solutions Cultural Resource Assessment.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-124
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment
38 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
3.3 ‐ City of San Luis Obispo Criteria
The following criteria and guidelines for evaluation were taken from the City of San Luis Obispo
Historic Context Statement.
Local Designation Guidelines
In 2010, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance that outlines the
process and criteria for the inclusion of historic resources on the City’s Master List or Contributing
List of Historic Resources. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource must exhibit a high
level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old and satisfy at least one of the following
criteria.
A. Architectural criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or
method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possess high artistic values.
1. Style: Describes the form of a building, architectural details within the form (e.g.,
arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be
evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the
structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular, and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social
milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and
how these styles are put together.
2. Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic
merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or
combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements.
Also suggest degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter‐builder) accurately
interpreted and conveyed the style. Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details,
and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter‐builders,
although the craftsmanship and quality may not be superior.
3. Architect: Describe the professional (individual or firm) responsible for the building
design and plans for the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to:
a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright Morgan) including architects who made significant
contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced the
development of the city, state, or nation;
b. An architect, who in terms of craftsmanship made significant contributions to San
Luis Obispo (e.g., Abraham who according to local sources designed the house at
810 Osos—Frank Avila’s father’s home—built between 1927 and 1930).
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-125
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 39
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
B. Historic Criteria
1. History—Persons associated with the lives of persons important to local, state, or
national history. Person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person
or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress leader, etc.)
and for his or her fame and outstanding recognition—locally, regionally or
nationally;
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or as a person who made early,
unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, local affairs or institutions
(e.g., Council member, education, medical professional, clergymen, public officials)
2. History—Event Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the
United States. Historic events will be evaluated as a measure of:
i. A landmark, famous, or first of its kind event for the city—regardless of whether the
impact of the event spread beyond the city;
ii. A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., The Ah
Louis Store as the center for Chinese‐American activities in early San Luis Obispo
history).
3. History—Context. Associated with and also a prime illustration of prominent patterns of
political, social, economic, cultural, medical educational, governmental, military,
industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as to the measure of
the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic
effects go beyond the city level that are immediately connected with the building
(e.g., County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g.,
Park Hotel).
C. Integrity—Authenticity of historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of
characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity will be
evaluated by a measure of:
1. Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether the original
foundation has been changed, if known;
2. The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or
appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reasons for its
historic significance;
3. The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workman‐
ship, feeling and association.
In assessing a property’s integrity, the National Park Service recognizes that properties change over
time. National Register Bulletin 15 states:
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-126
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment
40 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
To retain historic integrity, a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. It
is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. The
property must retain, however, the essential physical features that allow it to convey its historic
identity.
A property that has lost some of its historic materials or details can be eligible if it
retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of massing, spatial
relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and
ornamentation. The property is not eligible if it retains some basic features conveying
massing, but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.
For properties that are considered significant under National Register Criteria A and B, National
Register Bulletin 15 states:
A property is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential
physical features that make up the character or appearance during the period of its
association with the important event, historical pattern, or person.
A property important for illustrating an architectural style or construction technique must retain
most of the physical features that constitute the style or technique.
A property that has sufficient integrity for listing at the national, state or local level will typically
retain a majority of the character defining features, and will retain sufficient integrity to convey its
significance. The required aspects of integrity are dependent on the reasons for a property’s
significance. Increased age and rarity of the property type are also considerations when assessing
integrity thresholds.
For example, for properties that are significant for their architectural merit (Criterion C3, A1‐A3) a
higher priority is placed on integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. For properties that are
significant for events or persons, integrity of feeling and/or association may be more important.
The Froom Ranch complex was assessed for all aspects of its historical significance and historic
integrity. The property meets six of the seven criteria for integrity. The following integrity criteria
were applied to the buildings and the complex as a whole.
3.4 ‐ Integrity
In addition to determining the significance of a property under local, state, and federal criteria, it is
necessary to assess whether the property has integrity. Integrity is the ability of a property to
convey and maintain its significance. A property must not only be shown to be significant under the
established criteria, it must also have integrity. In order to retain historic integrity, a property must
possess several, and usually most, of the seven key aspects of integrity, which are location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-127
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 41
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
Application of the City’s Guidelines for Finding Integrity
1. Integrity is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical integrity clearly indicated by
the retention of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.
2. Integrity relates to the presence or absence of historic materials and character defining
features.
Application of the Seven Aspects of Integrity
Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic
event occurred. The subject buildings remain at their original location. The “Old” Barn was moved
to the current location but has remained in this location for over 100 years.
Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a
property. The buildings retain their basic original design and, therefore, have retained this aspect of
integrity.
Setting: The physical environment of a historic property. Review of historic maps, archival materials,
and aerial photographs, as well as physical inspection of the surrounding area, indicates that the
majority of the Froom Ranch has retained its original appearance. However, the surrounding
neighborhood has changed from its original agricultural setting to a mixed‐use commercial and
residential setting. The property has not retained its overall setting.
Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time
and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
The buildings have retained their original appearance with no significant changes to their overall
materials component. Alex and John Madonna undertook a series of repairs on the buildings over
the decades. Because they were able to salvage materials from old local barns and other sources,
they were able to use old, appropriate materials to do the repairs and renovations. Therefore, the
overall integrity has been retained.
Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given
period in history or prehistory. The quality of the original workmanship has basically been
maintained from the original construction.
Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. The
Froom Ranch farm complex has basically maintained the original feeling of the property.
Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.
The property has been determined to be directly linked to an important historic event, the
development of agriculture and the dairy industry in the Los Osos Valley; and a person important in
local San Luis Obispo history, Bill Froom. Therefore, it has an associative element.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-128
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment
42 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
3.4.1 ‐ Conclusion
Of the seven aspects of integrity, the property retains all but one: Setting. Therefore, it passes the
integrity test.
3.5 ‐ Historic Themes
In addition to the above City of San Luis Obispo standards and guidelines, the City has created
historic context themes that allow further evaluation of the property and is historic significance. The
property was evaluated under the City of San Luis Obispo Theme: Early 20th Century Agriculture and
Industrial Development.
In general, agriculture and industrial properties are generally not associated with particular
architectural styles. Vernacular industrial buildings of brick and reinforced concrete are the
predominate form, and significance is frequently derived from historic association, rather than
aesthetic qualities. Agricultural and industrial resources from this period may be eligible under
several 20th‐century themes.
3.5.1 ‐ Early 20th Century Agriculture and Industrial Development
Associated Property Types, Integrity Consideration & Eligibility Standards
Property Types
Examples of industrial properties from this period include railroad‐related warehouse, rail yards, rail
lines, and rail spurs. Agricultural property types include: warehouses, farmhouses, and related
outbuildings.
An agricultural or industrial building from this period may be significant:
As a rare, intact example of a particular type of agricultural or industrial development; or for
its association with the development of an important local industry—Criterion 1A, B2 (Event).
As a rare example of a specific agricultural or industrial property type—Criterion C3, A1, A2
(Design/Construction).
As a property type that has a direct association with the railroad—Criterion C3, A1, A2
(Design/Construction).
Integrity Considerations
In order to be eligible for listing at the federal, state, or local levels, a property must retain sufficient
integrity to convey its historic significance under Early 20th Century Agricultural and Industrial themes:
Agricultural and industrial properties from this period eligible under Criteria A1,B2 (Event)
should retain integrity of location, design, feeling and association.
Agricultural and industrial properties significant under Criterion C3, A1, A2
(Design/Construction) should retain integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship and
feeling.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-129
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Significance Criteria and Evaluations: Froom Ranch
FirstCarbon Solutions 43
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
Eligibility Standards
To be eligible, a property must:
Date from the period of significance;
Display most of the character‐defining features of the type; and
Retain the essential aspects of integrity.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-130
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-131
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Findings and Conclusions
FirstCarbon Solutions 45
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
SECTION 4: FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 ‐ Potential Historic District
Upon application of National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources,
and local City of San Luis Obispo criteria, standards, and guidelines, the conclusion was reached that
the Froom Ranch complex portion of the subject property is considered eligible as a potential
historic district. The following City of San Luis Obispo criteria apply to the Froom Ranch complex.
These criteria parallel National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical
Resources criteria.
4.1.1 ‐ Architecture: A1, A2
The Froom Ranch complex includes examples of Craftsman architecture: the Main Residence and the
Bunkhouse. The structures are both intact and good examples of the style and contain the main
character defining features of the Craftsman style. In addition, the Froom Ranch complex contains a
unique example of Vernacular architecture: the Dairy Barn with the rounded front, the only such
structure in San Luis Obispo County. Additional Vernacular‐style structures include the
Creamery/House building, Granary and Shed. The structures represent the local farming and dairy
industry development and the predominant architectural styles of the early 20th century.
4.1.2 ‐ Historic Criteria—Person and Event: B1, B2
The Froom Ranch complex is considered to have historic significance for its connection with the
Froom family and Bill Froom and the development of early 20th century ranching and the dairy
industry. The complex exemplifies the Early 20th Century Agricultural Development theme.
4.1.3 ‐ Integrity: C1, C2, C3
The Froom Ranch complex has retained its overall integrity of design, location, feeling, association,
materials, workmanship, and overall historic integrity. As such, the Froom Ranch complex
exemplifies the early 20th century agricultural development of San Luis Obispo County.
The Froom Ranch complex is also locally significant under Criteria 1, 2, and 3 of the State of
California Historical Register and the National Register of Historic Places Criteria A, B, and C. The
property is significant for its association with the overall development of the San Luis Obispo area
and the dairy industry; for its association with the pioneering Froom family and for Bill Froom and
his local contributions; and for the Craftsman and Vernacular architecture of the buildings located on
the property.
In addition, the Froom Ranch complex is considered to meet the criteria for a historic district, since
the various buildings and structures comprise a significant entity.
National Register Bulletin 15 includes the following information regarding historic districts:
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-132
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Findings and Conclusions Historic Resource Assessment
46 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of site,
buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical
development.
A district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often
composed of a wide variety of resources The identity of a district results from the
interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall
historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related
properties. For example, a district can reflect one principal activity, such as a mill or
a ranch, or it can encompass several interrelated activities, such as an area that
includes industrial, residential or commercial buildings, sites, structures, or objects.
A district can also be a grouping of archaeological sites related primarily by their
common components; these types of districts often will not visually present a
specific historic environment.
A district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity. It must be
important for historical, architectural, archaeological, engineering, or cultural values.
Therefore, districts that are significant will usually meet the last portion of Criterion
C plus Criterion A, Criterion B, other portions of Criterion C, or Criterion D.
A district can encompass both features that lack individual distinction and individually
distinctive features that serve as focal points. It may even be considered eligible if all
of the components lack individual distinction, provided that the grouping achieves
significance as a whole within the historic context. In either case, the majority of the
components that add to the district’s historic character, even if they are individually
undistinguished, must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole.
A district can contain buildings, structures, sites, objects, or open spaces that do not
contribute to the significance of the district. The number of non‐contributing
properties a district can contain yet still convey the sense of time and place and
historical development depends on how these properties affect the district’s
integrity . . .
The Froom Ranch complex is considered to meet the necessary criteria as a historic district. The
Froom Ranch complex contains seven contributing structures and three non‐contributing structures.
The Froom Ranch complex is considered an excellent example of early 20th century ranching and
dairy industry development in San Luis Obispo County; its association with the pioneering Froom
family and Bill Froom and his local contributions; and for its examples of Craftsman and Vernacular
architecture.
4.2 ‐ Contributing Structures
4.2.1 ‐ Main Residence
The c. 1915 Craftsman‐style residence served as the Froom family home from 1915 to 1998. The
building is a good example of Craftsman architecture in the San Luis Obispo area.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-133
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment Findings and Conclusions
FirstCarbon Solutions 47
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
4.2.2 ‐ “Old” Barn
The “Old” Barn was built at an unknown time, possibly c. 1900, and moved to the current location
early 20th century. The barn has been renovated extensively.
4.2.3 ‐ Bunkhouse
The c. 1915 Bunkhouse is a Craftsman‐style residential building once occupied by Bill Froom’s
brother.
4.2.4 ‐ Dairy Barn
The c. 1913 Dairy Barn is a unique example of local dairy industry Vernacular construction. The barn
is the only barn in San Luis Obispo County with a rounded facade.
4.2.5 ‐ Creamery/House
The Creamery/House building dates to the early period of the Froom Ranch construction. It served
as both the dairy production area and the first residence on the site.
4.2.6 ‐ Granary
The c. 1913 Granary building was used for grain storage. The building has a unique construction to
pre‐vent damage from animals.
4.2.7 ‐ Storage Building
The c. 1913 Storage Building was built as part of the early Froom Ranch development and has served
as a storage shed for the property.
4.3 ‐ Non‐Contributing Structures
4.3.1 ‐ Outhouse
The Outhouse is a Modern parking kiosk structure repurposed as an outhouse for the John Madonna
Construction Company staff and has no historic significance.
4.3.2 ‐ Storage Building
The Storage Building is a Modern mobile storage unit moved to the site for use by the John Madonna
Construction Company and has no historic significance.
4.3.3 ‐ Water Tower
The Water Tower is a Modern‐style Verizon stealth cell tower site and has no historic significance.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-134
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-135
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment References
FirstCarbon Solutions 49
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
SECTION 5: REFERENCES
Angel, Myron. 1979. History of San Luis Obispo County with Illustrations, Oakland, CA: Thompson
and West, 1883. Reprinted from Fresno Valley Publishers, CA.
Bay News, The. 1993. Numerous articles on Froom Ranch.
Bertrando, Betsy. 1998. “Historical Evaluation for the Froom Ranch Building Complex, San Luis
Obispo County,” Central Coast Engineering, San Luis Obispo.
Ching, Francis. 2002. A Visual Dictionary of Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York.
City of San Luis Obispo, Building Department. 2015. Building Permit Records for 12165 Los Osos
Valley Road, January.
County of San Luis Obispo, Assessor’s Office. N.D. Property Records for 12165 Los Osos Valley
Road, San Luis Obispo.
Historic Aerials.com. 2015. “12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis Obispo, CA.”
Historic Resources Group. 2013. City of San Luis Obispo Citywide Historic Context Statement.
Prepared for City of San Luis Obispo. September 30.
History Center of San Luis Obispo. 2015. Froom Ranch. January.
Leveille, Brian. Senior Planner, City of San Luis Obispo. Personal communication. January 16, 2015.
Madonna, John. Owner, John Madonna Construction Company. Personal communication:
interview. January 27, 2015.
McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester. 2003. A Field Guide to American Homes. Alfred A. Knopf:
New York.
Morro Group, Inc. 1998. Madonna/Eagle Hardware & Garden, Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report. Prepared for County of San Luis Obispo. October.
Morro Group, Inc. 2003. Draft Costco/Froom Ranch Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo. March.
Nava, Julian and Bob Berger. 1986. California: Five Centuries of Contrast. MacMillan Publishing
Company: New York.
San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room. 2015. Froom Ranch Vertical Files.
Miscellaneous documents.
San Luis Obispo Telegram‐Tribune (now The Tribune). 1989. “Bill Froom: A Man Who Never Left,”
July 15.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-136
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
References Historic Resource Assessment
50 FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
Sullivan, Joan. 1993. Touring the Froom Ranch or the Wild West in La Canada de Los Osos. On file
at San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room.
Sullivan, Joan. The Froom Ranch. Videos produced in 1994 and 2007. On file at San Luis Obispo
County Public Library, Local History Room.
United States Department of the Interior. 1991. National Register Bulletin 15. How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C.
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-137
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment
FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
Appendix A:
Personnel Qualifications
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-138
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-139
Page 1
Carrie D. Wills, M.A., RPA
Senior Project Archeologist
Overview
23 Years Experience
Master’s degree, Anthropology – California State University, Hayward
Bachelor’s degree, Anthropology – California State University, Hayward
Registered Professional Archaeologist #11138
Carrie Wills, RPA, M.A. has worked in the areas of prehistoric and historic archaeology on tasks that included
pre-field assessments, archival research, pedestrian field surveys, site evaluation and testing, and data
recovery and analysis since 1991. She has extensive experience conducting field research, evaluating sites
and features for historic significance and preparing reports that comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.
Her experience includes evaluating and assessing historic structures and resources for inclusion on the
National Register of Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources. In addition, Ms. Wills has
conducted numerous consultations with Native American tribal representatives and has good working
relationships with numerous governmental agencies. She has provided feasible mitigation that protects
significant resources while staying within budgetary constraints.
Related Experience
Historic American Buildings Survey Documentation – Larkspur 16.8-Acre Project, City of Larkspur, Marin
County. Serving as project archaeologist, conducted a field survey, records and map review, and historic
building evaluation for more than 20 buildings and structures associated with the circa 1920–1980 Niven
Nursery in the City of Larkspur. The existing buildings and greenhouses that retained their historic integrity
were evaluated for historic significance, recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
forms, and documented to Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards. Additionally, two prehistoric
sites were previously recorded and archaeologically tested within the project area, and although neither of the
sites was found during the pedestrian survey, to ensure site protection, construction monitoring was
recommended during all ground-disturbing activities in these areas.
Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment – DSRSD Central Dublin Recycled Water Distribution and
Retrofit Project, City of Dublin, Alameda County, California. As project archaeologist/manager, conducted a
cultural resource investigation that included record search reviews, historic map reviews, and a limited field
survey of the proposed Central Dublin Recycled Water Distribution and Retrofit Project Area of Potential Effect
(APE) that fulfilled the protocols associated with Section 106 of NHPA. The results of the investigation were
submitted to archaeological staff at the Bureau of Reclamation and received concurrence with MBA’s findings
of effect.
Lake Solano Regional Park Visitor’s Center Project, County of Solano. As project archaeologist, Ms. Wills
conducted a cultural resource investigation that included record search reviews and a pedestrian field survey.
As the project had a federal nexus, the work included a comprehensive report that met the criteria in Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The lead agency was the Bureau of Reclamation which has
specific procedures that must be followed when unanticipated human remains or cultural resources are
discovered. In addition to complying with the Bureau of Reclamation procedures, the results of the research
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-140
Carrie Wills
Page 2
and field survey were submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for concurrence with the
stated recommendations.
KB Home Monte Vista, Historic American Buildings Survey, City of San Jose. Served as project manager for
the KB Home Monte Vista Project. Conducted Historic American Buildings Survey Level III documentation for a
large multi-structure canning facility, Del Monte Plant #3, in San Jose. Tasks included producing over 200
large-format, black, and white photographs of exterior and interior views of the existing structures. The MBA
historic report augments the photographic documentation by placing the structures within the appropriate
historic context and addressing both the architectural and historical aspects of the site’s significance.
Specifically, the historical report focused on the Plant’s contribution to the growth of the canning industry in
San José. The plant was also assessed for historic significance and found to meet the criteria for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places as a District along with two other local Del Monte canneries. MBA
coordinated with state, federal, and city agencies including, but not limited to, City of San Jose Department of
Planning and the National Park Service HABS/Historic American Engineering Record coordinator.
Section 106 Cultural Resources Assessment/HABS Documentation – St. Regis Napa Valley Project, City of
Napa, Napa County. Served as the lead technical consultant for a historical and architectural analysis of a
historic structure in the County of Napa. Also served as the project archaeologist. Following the evaluation of
the historic significance of the building and recording it to HABS standards, the results were sent to SHPO and
received concurrence with MBA’s findings of no effect to historic resources.
Section 106 Evaluation – Dixon Veterans Memorial Hall Project and the Benicia Veterans Memorial Hall
Project, County of Solano. Served as the lead technical consultant for a historical and architectural analysis
of two historic structures in the County of Solano. After evaluating and recording the buildings to Section 106
standards, the results were sent to SHPO and received concurrence with MBA’s findings of no effect to historic
resources.
Section 106 Evaluation – Solano County Free Library Center Project, County of Solano. Served as the lead
technical consultant for a historical and architectural analysis of an historic structure in the County of Solano.
Also served as the senior project archaeologist. After evaluating and recording the building to Section 106
standards, the results were sent to SHPO and received concurrence with MBA’s findings of no effect to historic
resources.
Section 106 Evaluation – Suisun Veterans Memorial Building Project, Suisun City. Served as the lead
technical consultant for a historical and architectural analysis of an older structure in the City of Suisun City.
After evaluating and recording the building to Section 106 standards, the results were sent to SHPO and
received concurrence with MBA’s findings of no effect to historic resources.
Cultural Resources Assessment – Zone 3A, Line D Capacity Improvements Project and Zone 5, Line A West
Levee Improvements Projects, County of Alameda. Served as project manager and senior archaeologist,
conducting a cultural resource assessment for the Zone 3A Line D Capacity Improvements Project, Hayward,
and the Zone 5 Line A West Levee Improvements Project, Union City. The assessment consisted of record
searches, review of historic literature, and more than 20 historic aerials to provide an understanding of
development within the project areas and a historical context for the projects.
Off-road Vehicle Park, City of Bakersfield. As senior project archaeologist, conducted an intensive field
survey of 2,500 acres outside the City of Bakersfield. The project area included rolling hills, large flat valleys,
and steep ravines. The survey resulted in discovery of over 150 prehistoric resources including bedrock
mortars, grinding slicks, and rock art. The resources were recorded and evaluated for eligibility for listing on
the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources. Following the
evaluation, a comprehensive report detailing the findings was produced.
Bel Lago Project, City of Moreno Valley. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a site specific field
assessment of the Kerr Ranch and recorded 23 extant buildings and structures on Department of Parks and
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-141
Carrie Wills
Page 3
Recreation forms; both Primary and Building, Structure and Object forms. Detailed descriptions and
measurements were taken as part of the assessment process and each building and structure was evaluated
individually for listing to the California Register of Historical Places or local registers or landmarks.
Westlake Shopping Center, City of Daly City. As senior project archaeologist for this major refurbishing effort
for a shopping center located in Daly City, assessed the shopping center for historic significance under CEQA
Section 150.64 by reviewing historic maps, photos, and record and archival search results obtained from the
Northwest Information Center and the Daly City Planning Department. Scope included conducting a visual
appraisal of the existing buildings, structures, and signage.
San Demas Project, City of Sacramento. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a record search and field
investigation for a built environment covering one city block in downtown Sacramento. As this was a built
environment, there was no native ground surface to be surveyed; the investigation consisted of comprehensive
research to determine the possibility of historic structures.
Cabrillo Corners Commercial Project, City of Half Moon Bay. As cultural resources specialist, conducted a
record search at the Northwest Information Center and a pedestrian field survey of the proposed project area
that borders Pilarcitos Creek in Half Moon Bay to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources
prior to project development.
Gustine Municipal Airport Project, County of Merced. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a record
search and pedestrian field survey of a 45-acre parcel located in Merced County to determine the presence or
absence of cultural resources prior to improvements to the Airport.
Scheiber/White Projects, County of El Dorado. As senior project archaeologist, conducted record searches
and field investigations for a 226-acre parcel and a 286-acre parcel of undeveloped land and completed Phase
I Reports detailing the record search and field survey results.
Protzel Project, County of El Dorado. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a record search and field
investigation for a 35-acre parcel of land. The field survey resulted in discovery of a site that contained both
prehistoric and historic components located adjacent to one another.
Miller Ranch Property, City of Lincoln. As senior project archaeologist for this 130-acre residential
development, reviewed record search results from the North Central Information Center, Sacramento and
conducted a pedestrian field survey. A negative survey report was prepared detailing the record search and
survey results to meet CEQA requirements.
Fahren’s Creek Development Project, County of Merced. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a record
search and field investigation on a parcel of undeveloped land, a portion of which was immediately adjacent to
Fahren’s Creek. A negative survey report was prepared detailing the record search and survey results to meet
CEQA requirements.
McBride R.V. and Self Storage Project, City of Chino. As senior project archaeologist, conducted a record
search and pedestrian field survey of a 21.15-acre parcel of land to determine the presence or absence of
cultural resources prior to project development. Prepared a negative survey report detailing the record search
and survey results to meet CEQA requirements.
Brehm Communities, City of Chino. As senior project archaeologist for this 35-acre residential development,
conducted a record search at the San Bernardino Archaeological Information Center and a modified field
survey. Performed a visual assessment from various vantage points rather than a typical pedestrian survey
and prepared a negative survey report detailing the record search and survey results to meet CEQA
requirements.
Albers Barnes & Kohler LLP’s Palm Ranch Dairy Project, County of Kern. As senior project archaeologist,
was responsible for CEQA compliance issues related to cultural resources on a 120-acre parcel. Conducted a
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-142
Carrie Wills
Page 4
Phase I survey to determine the presence or absence of cultural resources within the project area, resulting in
the discovery of artifactual material on the ground surface. Conducted a Phase II testing program to determine
the presence or absence of subsurface cultural resources, resulting in inconclusive findings. Provided
mitigation measures to protect any previously undiscovered resources during project excavation activities.
Albers Barnes & Kohler LLP’s Bonanza Farm Dairy Project, County of Kern. As cultural resources specialist,
conducted a record search and pedestrian field survey of two 200-acre parcels to determine the presence or
absence of cultural resources prior to project development. Prepared a negative survey report detailing the
record search and survey results to meet CEQA requirements.
Montezuma Wetlands Project, County of Solano. Served as project manager for Solano County’s Montezuma
Wetlands Project. Provided technical direction of a 4,700-acre archeological survey in Solano County, resulting
in recording and subsurface testing of 12 sites. Co-authored the technical report that included extensive
impacts and mitigation measures.
Arizona Pipeline Reconditioning Project, Phoenix and Tucson, Arizona. Project manager for a 45 mile
pipeline replacement project located along an existing pipeline route in southern Arizona. Project tasks
included archival and record searches, pedestrian field survey, and a comprehensive report detailing the
findings. Various types of historic resources were recorded during the course of the field survey and
recommendations were provided as part of a larger environmental studies report produced for the project.
Costco’s Warehouse Project, City of San Francisco. Served as project manager for Costco’s Warehouse
Project. Surveyed, excavated, and monitored the proposed site, located in downtown San Francisco, for a new
Costco store. Supervised lab procedures and analysis of over 1,400 artifacts.
Mills Associates’ Tassajara Valley Project, County of Solano. As project manager, provided technical
direction of a 2,500-acre archeological survey that resulted in recording and subsurface testing of 14 historic
and one prehistoric archeological site. Analyzed artifacts and prepared technical reports.
Future Urban Areas, Mundie and Associates, County of Contra Costa. As field director, conducted a 4,500-
acre archeological survey that resulted in recording of 11 historic archeological sites, including the previously
unrecorded historic town sites of West Hartley, Empire, and Star Mine associated with the Mount Diablo
coalfield developments of 1850-1885. Recorded features including foundations, privies, cisterns, basements,
and dumps. Hundreds of surface artifacts were examined. Also directed artifact analysis and prepared
technical reports.
Military Projects
Cultural Resources Overview Project, Concord Naval Weapons Station. Served as project manager for the
Cultural Resource Overview Project at Concord Naval Weapons Station. Tasks included review of archival
records and record search results for previously recorded sites within the Station. In addition, more than 500
World War II buildings and structures were evaluated for National Register of Historical Places eligibility and
documented on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation forms. An archaeological site prediction
model was developed to determine the likelihood of the presence of cultural resources within specific areas of
the Station. An extensive context document was prepared to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of the
Naval Weapons Station in terms of its historic presence within Contra Costa County and the City of Concord.
Following assessment of the Station and its historic components, a Cultural Resource Overview Report for the
13,000-acre facility was developed.
NAVFAC Centerville Beach and Point Sur Projects, Counties of Humboldt and Monterey. Served as project
archaeologist with responsibilities including a review of archival and site records prior to pedestrian field
surveys at each of the locations. Following the surveys, documentation on Department of Parks and
Recreation forms was prepared for each of the World War II buildings/structures located within the Station
boundaries. Subsequent efforts included development and submittal of a historic context report and structural
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-143
Carrie Wills
Page 5
assessments of the buildings to determine National Register of Historic Places eligibility status. Prepared a
preliminary Historic and Archeological Resource Protection Plan evaluating known archeological site locations
and preparing maps depicting areas of archaeological sensitivity.
Civil Engineering Laboratory Archaeological and Historic Resources Assessment Project, Port Hueneme.
Served as project archaeologist for the CBC Port Hueneme Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory, Archaeological,
and Historic Resources Assessment Project. The cultural resource evaluation included review of archival
records and historic Port Hueneme documents at the base, review of previously recorded sites records from
the South Central Coastal Information Center, CSU, Fullerton, and research at Ventura Historical Society.
Architectural documentation was prepared for nine World War II buildings on appropriate Department of Parks
and Recreation forms and a single prehistoric site located within the base was assessed. A historic context
report was developed and each of the buildings/structures was individually evaluated for National Register of
Historic Places eligibility. Following assessment and documentation, an EIR/EIS technical report including a
detailed historic setting, an overview of each of the types of buildings within the project area, an impacts
assessment section, and appropriate mitigation for the impacts was prepared.
Navy Construction Battalion Center Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection Plan Project, Port
Hueneme. Served as project manager/archaeologist for the Port Hueneme Navy Construction Battalion Center
Overview; Historic and Archaeological Resources Protection Plan Project. The project tasks included archival
research of Battalion Center documents a record search review at the South Central Coastal Information
Center, CSU, Fullerton, and a pedestrian field survey. Subsequent to the archival research, architectural
documentation of 130 World War II buildings/structures was completed on appropriate Department of Parks
and Recreation (DPR) forms. The forms typically included DPR Primary forms for each building or structure
although in some instances, e.g., for large non-descript warehouse structures, a representative building was
documented and identical buildings were listed on the form as having identical attributes. In addition to the
Primary forms, a Building, Structure, Object (BSO) form providing additional descriptive and evaluative
information was completed when appropriate. Following the archival research for previously recorded cultural
resource sites and the field survey, an archaeological site prediction model was developed for the Battalion
Center. Following documentation, a historic context for the Battalion Center was prepared. In addition, each
building was assessed for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility and a Historic and
Archaeological Resources Protection (HARP) Plan was prepared.
H Street Extension Project, Lockheed Missiles, and Space Company Property. The project consisted of an
extension of H Street within the western portion of the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company facilities.
Archaeological efforts were part of mitigation for construction within a National Register listed prehistoric shell
mound. As project archaeologist, the work included pre-construction site testing using various means including
shovel and backhoe investigations, surface collection for the entire project area, and a Phase III data recovery
program in coordination with the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). Disposition of human remains found within
the site was decided upon an agreement with the MLD. A construction-monitoring program was conducted
during initial grading activities at the site to ensure protection of previously unknown cultural resources and/or
additional human remains.
Naval Fuel Depot Point Molate Historic Resources Assessment Project, City of Rohnert Park. As project
manager, conducted an archival records review at various repositories as well as a record search at the
Northwest Information Center in Rohnert Park for previously recorded cultural resource sites. Conducted a
field survey and general site reconnaissance of the project area. Subsequent to the archival research and
survey, documentation of ten World War II buildings/structures were completed on appropriate Department of
Parks and Recreation forms. The buildings and structures were evaluated for eligibility for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places. In addition, one prehistoric archaeological site was assessed within the
project area. A preliminary Historic and Archeological Resource Protection Plan was prepared evaluating
known archeological site locations with maps depicting areas of archaeological sensitivity. A historic context
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-144
Carrie Wills
Page 6
was prepared for the project area and a technical report detailing all of the research, field survey, building, and
structure evaluations, and the assessment of the prehistoric site was provided to the client.
Energy, Utilities & Pipelines
Santa Cruz Water District’s Pipeline Project, County of Santa Cruz. Served as resource team leader for this
project that proposed modifications to the current operation and maintenance of an existing pipeline through
implementation of the Santa Cruz North Coast Pipeline Rehabilitation Project. Reviewed compliance issues
related to cultural resources found along four major waterways in Santa Cruz County and prepared a CEQA
Initial Study to determine environmental impact associated with project implementation. Also provided
necessary details to aid in the decision-making process for the project’s next phase.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Relicensing Project, County of Kern. As resource team
leader, reviewed cultural resources to meet the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act in preparation of a new FERC license application. Directed the Section 106 review and
prepared the preliminary draft of the license application, evaluated project impacts, and authored the Historic
Properties Management Plan and a Programmatic Agreement.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Relicensing Project, Kilarc-Cow Creek. As resource team
leader, provided NHPA Section 106 compliance review in preparation of a new FERC license application.
Following the survey effort, prepared the preliminary draft of the license application, evaluated the project
impacts, prepared a comprehensive report, and finalized the Historic Properties Management Plan and a
Programmatic Agreement.
Calypso Project Environmental Impact Statement, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Served as resource team leader
for Tractebel North America, Inc.’s Calypso Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a new natural gas
pipeline extending from the Exclusive Economic Zone in the Atlantic Ocean to Port Everglades. Conducted the
NHPA Section 106 review of both offshore and onshore cultural resources and prepared the preliminary drafts
of the third-party EIS for the jurisdictional portion of the pipeline.
Rock Creek Hydroelectric Project, Oregon. Served as project archaeologist for Oregon Trail Electric
Consumer Cooperative’s Rock Creek Hydroelectric Project. Conducted a reconnaissance survey and evaluation
of archaeological and historic resources to meet the requirements of NHPA Section 106.
Patriot Natural Gas Pipeline Project, Tennessee, Virginia, and North Carolina. Served as resource team
leader for a project consisting of the Mainline Expansion and Patriot Extension three states. The Mainline
Expansion involved improvement along East Tennessee Natural Gas Company’s existing pipeline in Tennessee
and Virginia, including approximately 187 miles of new pipeline, replacement of old pipeline, additional
compression at existing facilities, and five new compressor stations. The Patriot Extension involves
approximately 100 miles of new pipeline in Virginia and North Carolina, including three new meter stations.
Provided third-party review of cultural resources reports and prepared third-party EIS.
Northwest Transmission Line Project, Oregon and Washington. Served as project archaeologist for Wallula
Generation, LLC’s Northwest Transmission Line Project. Conducted a 28-mile reconnaissance survey in
Oregon and Washington along the Columbia River, evaluated and recorded archaeological sites, and
completed appropriate forms for submittal to Washington
El Paso Energy’s and Broadwing Communications’ Fiber Optic Line, Texas and California. Served as
resource team leader for a proposed fiber-optic transmission line reaching from El Paso, Texas, to Los Angeles,
California. Prepared a Proponent’s Environmental Assessment demonstrating CEQA compliance that was
submitted with an application to the California Public Utilities Commission.
Fiber Optic Project, Cities of San Jose, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Served as project manager for a
Level Three Communications Fiber Optic Project. Conducted cultural resources studies and supervised
construction monitoring to address CPUC mitigation measures during the “city build" portions of the project in
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-145
Carrie Wills
Page 7
San Jose, San Francisco, and the Los Angeles Basin. Prepared workbooks for each construction spread in
each city to address potential cultural resources impacts and necessary mitigation required to preclude
significant impacts.
Fiber Network Project, Northern and Southern California. Served as project manager for 360 Networks’
Fiber Network Project. Responsible for all aspects of project management for this linear project spanning the
length of California, including coordination, budget, consultation, and compliance issues.
Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline, State of California. As field supervisor for Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline’s Concord-to-
Colton Project, performed records search and intensive archaeological survey of a corridor stretching from
Fresno, through Bakersfield and Mojave, to San Bernardino. Recorded and evaluated for eligibility for listing
on National Register of Historic Places more than 150 historic properties.
CPUC Alturas Transmission Line Project, California and Nevada. As archaeological monitor, documented
compliance with mandated mitigation measures during the construction of this high-voltage power line
reaching from Alturas, California, to Reno, Nevada.
Mine Reclamation Plans and Environmental Analysis
Abandoned Mine Inventory Project, Washington Bureau of Land Management. As project manager,
managed a five-person survey crew who conducted an intensive archaeological survey of 1,700 acres of
difficult terrain and conditions in the City of Spokane. Recorded over 100 mining features and archaeological
properties on appropriate State of Washington forms and prepared Determination of Eligibility forms for
submittal to Washington’s State Historic Preservation Officer.
Black Diamond Mine Project, Merced County. As project archaeologist, conducted record search and
pedestrian field survey for approximately 29 acres of a 136 acre parcel of land in Merced County. During the
field survey, a cemetery with headstones dating back to the mid-1800s was discovered. Although the
cemetery had a fence completely around it, it is often the case with cemeteries of this age that burials are
located outside the defined cemetery area. Thus, archival research was conducted to determine the actual
age and the size of the cemetery as it grew over the years. Recommendations for procedures to be followed if
the proposed project moved forward were presented to the County of Merced in the form of an Initial Study
report.
KRC Aggregates Quarry Expansion Project, San Joaquin County. As project archaeologist, conducted record
searches and a pedestrian field survey for approximately 340 acres that would be utilized for aggregate
resource extraction. Approved mine land reclamation in accordance with the California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act would begin immediately following the completion of aggregate extraction. The field survey
resulted in recordation of 4 historic resources and the preparation of a comprehensive report meeting the
requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Valley Rock Quarry Project, San Joaquin County. As project archaeologist, conducted record searches and a
pedestrian field survey of approximately 315 acres in San Joaquin County. Although no resources were
recorded for this project, a small prehistoric site had been previously recorded near the project’s southern
border. As the boundaries for this prehistoric site were rather vague, the field survey transects were narrowed
to 3 meters in the southern boundary area to determine the presence or absence of the site within the project
area. No evidence of the prehistoric site was found. The findings of the record searches, the field survey, and
the search for the prehistoric site were detailed in an Initial Study report and presented to San Joaquin County.
Environmental Impact Reports for General Plan Updates
General Plan Update, County of Monterey. As senior project archaeologist, assisted in updating the General
Plan with new policies including archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources. Tasks included a
review of existing policies and suggestions for alternatives and updates relevant to current trends. Worked
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-146
Carrie Wills
Page 8
closely with Monterey County staff, agency personnel, and sub-consultants to ensure a high quality, timely Plan
Update.
Trails Specific Plan Project, City of Livermore. As senior project archaeologist, conducted archival and record
searches, including review of the 2000 North Livermore Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report and
the 2003 City of Livermore General Plan Update Master Environmental Assessment that specifically focuses on
cultural resources within the proposed project area. Conducted a 235-acre pedestrian survey to determine the
significance of previously recorded cultural resources and the presence or absence of previously unknown
cultural resources, resulting in the recording of five historic resources using California Department of Parks and
Recreation forms with context analysis and detailed maps. Prepared a comprehensive report including a
detailed setting section with impacts and mitigation measures to ensure protection of significant cultural
resources.
Educational Facility Environmental Analysis
Delta View and Kit Carson Schools Project, Kings County Office of Education. As senior project
archaeologist, conducted archaeological and historical resource assessment at two proposed
telecommunication tower sites located at two school sites. Conducted a record search at the Southern San
Joaquin Valley Information Center and pedestrian surveys at both schools to determine the presence or
absence of cultural resources. Determined negative survey results, and prepared a report detailing the record
search and survey results that was presented to the Kings County Office of Education.
High Desert Power Plant Project, County of San Bernardino. As project manager, conducted an
approximately 2,000-acre field inventory of block and linear project areas located near the City of Victorville.
Recorded and evaluated more than 30 historic and prehistoric sites.
Maya Caves Project, Punta Gorda, Belize, Central America. As excavation team member, worked two field
seasons examining prehistoric cave deposits. Conducted surveys and excavations, analyzed and cataloged
artifacts, and prepared technical report sections.
Professional Affiliations
Society for Historical Archaeology
Society for California Archaeology
Register of Professional Archaeologists #11138
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-147
Kathleen Crawford, M.A. - Architectural Historian
Overview
Kathleen has over 28 years of experience in the preparation of a wide range of historical and architectural projects. She
meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Architectural History and History (36 CFR Part 61). She also meets the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) standards as an Architectural Historian. She has extensive experience
with 19th- and 20th-century architecture in California and has prepared over 12,000 historic and architectural
assessments of structures in California for a variety of historical projects conducted for various types of city, state, and
federal agencies. The majority of these projects required compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act. Ms. Crawford has extensive experience in the implementation of Section 106 in reference to historic
buildings from all historic periods and architectural styles. The vast majority of these projects required preparation of
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms for submittal to the State Historic Preservation Office.
She has prepared several Historic American Building Survey (HABS) surveys and documentation over the years and has
worked with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in the course of the historic
and architectural evaluations. In addition, Ms. Crawford has participated in the production of numerous cultural resources
reports and assessments, environmental impact reports, and historic building surveys of potential historic districts in
California, Arizona, and Kentucky. She has been a Lecturer in the History Department at San Diego State University since
1989, and her extensive teaching experience in U.S. History has aided her understanding of the historical assessment and
evaluation process.
Education
• Master’s degree, History – University of San Diego. 1987
• Bachelor’s degree, History – University of San Diego. 1984
• Bachelor’s degree, Anthropology – University of San Diego. 1984
Project Experience
Oakland International Airport, Oakland, California. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1960s
Airport Structures for National Register of Historic Places eligibility.
Standard Aero Buildings, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment
of circa 1940s Airport Structures for Cell Tower construction.
California State Capitol Building Complex, Sacramento. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa
1860s–1950s California State Capitol Building for installation of new cell tower service for entire State Capitol complex.
HABS Survey of Niven Nursery, Larkspur. Preparation of Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation of circa
1940s Niven Nursery, Larkspur, California.
Independent Order of Odd Fellows Cemetery, Sacramento. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa
1890s National Register-eligible historic Sacramento cemetery.
Leamington Hotel, Oakland. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1920s National Register-
eligible hotel in downtown Oakland.
www.FirstCarbonSolutions.com CORPORATE RESUME
|
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-148
Kathleen Crawford, M.A. - Architectural Historian
East Bay Alliance Chinese Church, Oakland. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1940s church
complex.
Piedmont Apartments, Oakland. Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1930s apartment complex, Oakland.
Oakland Coliseum, Oakland. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1960s sports stadium.
Sheraton Palace Hotel, San Francisco. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1900 National
Register-listed landmark historic hotel for cell tower construction.
University of San Jose Stadium, San Jose. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1950s sports
stadium.
University of Santa Clara, Swig Hall, San Jose. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1960s
residence hall.
Swedish American Hall, San Francisco. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1890s National
Register-eligible building for proposed cell tower placement.
Seton Medical Center, San Francisco. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1950s Seton Medical
Center for cell tower construction.
United Pipe Foundry, Union City. Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1930s historic water tank on historic
foundry property.
Palo Alto Apartment Complex, Palo Alto. Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1950s apartment complex.
Petaluma Hotel, Petaluma. Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1920s hotel in National Register-listed historic
downtown business district.
Paramount Studios, Los Angeles. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of several buildings on
Paramount Studios lot that dated to earliest development of the Paramount Studios Corporation in the 1920s.
St. Mary’s Hospital, Tucson, Arizona. Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1930s hospital in Tucson.
Historic Hotel, Elko, Nevada. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of circa 1930s hotel in Elko, Nevada.
Sunwest Building, Roswell, New Mexico. Preparation of Historic and Architectural Assessment of potentially circa 1950s
National Register-eligible building in Roswell, New Mexico.
San Diego Naval Training Center – Preparation of National Register nomination for property including approximately 400
buildings.
Chollas Heights Radio Station – Preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey for radio station for approximately 100
buildings.
www.FirstCarbonSolutions.com CORPORATE RESUME
|
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-149
Kathleen Crawford, M.A. - Architectural Historian
Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of properties including
approximately 300 buildings.
Long Beach Naval Station and Shipyard – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of properties including
approximately 750 buildings.
Marine Corps Air Station, Camp Pendleton – Preparation of History of Air Station.
Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii – Preparation of History of Air Base.
Naval Air Station, Guam – Preparation of Base Closure Documentation for approximately 150 structures.
San Diego Naval Air Station, Coronado – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of selected air base
facilities.
Naval Air Station, El Centro – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of air base properties, including
approximately 100 buildings.
San Diego Naval Station, 32nd Street – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of properties including
approximately 350 buildings.
Caltrans – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments for approximately 200 properties in San Diego and
Riverside counties.
Kentucky Department of Transportation (KDOT) – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessments of
approximately 100 properties in Louisville, Kentucky.
Miramar Naval Air Station – Preparation of Historical and Architectural Assessment of properties including approximately
250 buildings.
Borrego Springs, San Diego County, California. Preparation of Cultural Resources Report for CA-SDI-20016 and Historic
Assessment of former circa 1940s DiGiorgio Fruit Corporation property in Borrego Springs, California for County of San
Diego.
Hell, Riverside County, California. Preparation of Cultural Resources Report and Historic Assessment of Hell, California for
historic documentation of circa 1950s P-33-18794 archaeological site for County of Riverside.
Federal Aviation Administration, Quieter Home Program, San Diego County, California. Historical and Architectural
Assessment of approximately 1,000 circa 1910–1960 historic homes in Point Loma and San Diego for sound retrofitting
program conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration. State of California DPR 523 forms were prepared for each
property for submittal to City of San Diego Planning Department and San Diego Historical Resources Board.
Cesar Chavez Boulevard, El Centro, San Diego County, - Preparation of Cultural Resources Survey and Historic
Assessment of Cesar Chavez Boulevard, El Centro, San Diego County, for California Department of Transportation.
World Trade Center, San Diego County - Preparation of National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form for World
Trade Center Building, San Diego, San Diego County, California.
www.FirstCarbonSolutions.com CORPORATE RESUME
|
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-150
Kathleen Crawford, M.A. - Architectural Historian
U.S. Post Office, San Diego Station, San Diego County - Preparation of Technical Report for U.S. Post Office, San Diego,
San Diego County, California and Determination of Eligibility for National Register of Historic Places Nomination.
Coronado Historical Association, Coronado, San Diego County – Historical and Architectural Consultant conducting
research for Historic Home Tour, “Wings of Gold, 100 Years of Naval Aviation” exhibit, and “Coronado We Remember”
exhibit.
Coronado Historical Association, Coronado, San Diego County - Interim Registrar and Archivist.
La Jolla Historical Society, La Jolla, San Diego County - Archivist for historical collection.
Associations
• San Diego Historical Society
• Denver Historical Society
Publications
• Engstrand, Iris H.W. and Kathleen A. Crawford. 1981. Reflections: A History of the San Diego Gas & Electric
Company, 1881-1991. Heritage Press, Los Angeles.
• Davie, Theodore and Kathleen A. Crawford. 1988. A History of San Diego Trust & Savings Bank, 1888-1988.
San Diego Trust and Savings Bank, San Diego.
• Crawford, Kathleen A. 1986. A History of the San Diego Transit Corporation, 1886-1986. San Diego Transit
Corporation, San Diego.
• Crawford, Kathleen A. 1985. A History of Great American First Savings Bank, 1885-1985. Great American
First Savings Bank, San Diego.
• Crawford, Kathleen A. 1985. God's Garden: A History of the Grossmont Art Colony. Journal of San Diego
History, Volume XX, Summer 1985.
• Crawford, Kathleen A. and Bruce Kammerling. 1984. The Serra Museum and its Collections, Some
Reminiscences of Fray Junipero Serra. Santa Barbara Mission Press, Santa Barbara.
• Crawford, Kathleen A. 1984. The General's Lady: Maria Amparo Ruiz Burton. Journal of San Diego History,
Volume XIX, Fall, 1984.
• Crawford, Kathleen A., “Fifty Years of the Journal of San Diego History,” Journal of San Diego History, Fall
2006.
www.FirstCarbonSolutions.com CORPORATE RESUME
|
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-151
John Madonna Construction Company
Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Historic Resource Assessment
FirstCarbon Solutions
Y:\Publications\Client (PN‐JN)\5031\50310001\Historic Resource Assessment\50310001 Froom Ranch Historic Resource Assessment.docx
Appendix B:
Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Forms
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-152
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-153
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
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-154
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.)
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-155
Record Search Map
Source: USGS San Luis Obispo (94) and Pismo Beach (94) 7.5' Quadrangles Laguna Land Grant; T31S R12E Secs 3 & 10
RRM DESIGN GROUP
FROOM RANCH HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVALUATION
I 2,000 0 2,0001,000
Feet
Legend
Project Boundary
1/2-mile Buffer
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-156
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.)
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-157
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
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-158
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
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-159
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
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-160
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
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-161
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.)
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-162
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
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-163
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
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-164
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
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-165
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 13 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex
P1. Other Identifier: “Old” Barn
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D.
c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405
d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
• e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:
Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries)
See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
West/January 6, 2015, #15
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
Unknown
*P7. Owner and Address:
John Madonna/Madonna Construction
Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis
Obispo, CA
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Kathleen A. Crawford,
MA RPA
MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380,
Walnut Creek Ca 94597
*P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Phase I
*Attachments: NONE
Location Map Sketch Map
Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-166
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Page 14 of 29 *NRHP Status Code
*Resource Name or # Froom Ranch “Old” Barn
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: “Old” Barn
B3. Original Use: “Old” Barn B4. Present Use: Storage
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: Over 25 years old
The barn was constructed at an unknown time on another property owned by the Froom family. The property was reportedly southeast of
the current ranch complex. The building was moved by placing it on logs and rolling over the land and the creek (presumably with the aid of a
team of horses) until it was located on its new site. The relocation took place at an unknown time early in the 20th century and the barn has
been in its present location since that time. The barn is estimated to be over 125 years old. The “Old” Barn is located west of the main
residence. The barn structure is a one‐story, rectangular shaped, Vernacular style barn building. The barn has a concrete floor, vertical wood
siding and a front gable roof with corrugated metal roofing.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: Another property owned by the Froom
family, located southeast of the current ranch complex
*B8. Related Features: None
The main doors are located on the east façade and include sets of sliding doors. A door for a hay loft is present on the upper portion of the
building. The building does not contain any window openings. The north and south facades contain vertical wood siding. No windows are
present. The west façade contains vertical wood siding. The rear wall was rotted and the boards were replaced with historic boards salvaged
from nearby barns. The building is in good condition.
Alterations:
John Madonna made a wide range of changes to the barn structure. The barn was in poor condition when he received the property. The barn
was leaning more than two feet to the side, the rear wall was rotted, and the barn was twisted. He poured a new concrete floor, the original
floor had been dirt. The building had originally been set down on the dirt when it was moved to the site. Mr. Froom had used it to store his
pickup truck. The rear wall was replaced due to dry rot and vertical boards from other local farm buildings were used to replace the rotted
boards. Considerable expense was undertaken to stabilize the barn and restore it in stable condition.
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson
*B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County
Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria:
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The
ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in
the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in
1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim
Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in
existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a
barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the
family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a
residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s
development.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
B12. References:
San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille,
Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo,
Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral
Interview with John Madonna, January 2015
B13. Remarks:
B14. Evaluator:
Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-167
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
View North: South Façade of “Old” Barn
View Southwest: East and North Facades of “Old” Barn
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-168
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 16 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex
P1. Other Identifier: Shed
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D.
c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405
d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
• e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:
Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries)
See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
Southeast/January 6, 2015, #40
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
c. 1913
*P7. Owner and Address:
John Madonna/Madonna Construction
Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis
Obispo, CA
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Kathleen A. Crawford,
MA
MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380,
Walnut Creek Ca 94597
*P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Phase I
*Attachments: NONE
Location Map Sketch Map
Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-169
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Page 17 of 29 *NRHP Status Code
*Resource Name or # Froom Ranch Shed
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: Shed
B3. Original Use: Shed B4. Present Use: Storage
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: Unknown date of construction
The building is located north of the house and was built at an unknown time by an unknown person. At the time of the Bertrando
investigation, the shed was full of tin cans. John Madonna stated that Bill Froom had lived through the Great Depression and cultivated habits
of thrift. The building was full of cans of dog food which take several trips to remove them all. The building contains a seeder machine which
Mr. Madonna has allowed to remain in the structure as it holds up the building. The Shed Building is a one‐story, irregular shaped,
asymmetrical, Vernacular style, storage building. The shed roof has a steep slant. The building has no true foundation, was constructed with
vertical wood siding walls, and a steeply slanted shed roof. Entrance doors are on the north wall. An addition has a flat roof and a single
entrance door. The building is in extremely poor condition and is barely standing.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
Alterations:
No significant changes have been made to the building.
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson
*B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County
Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria:
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The
ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in
the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in
1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim
Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in
existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a
barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the
family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a
residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s
development.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
B12. References:
San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille,
Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo,
Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral
Interview with John Madonna, January 2015
B13. Remarks:
B14. Evaluator:
Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-170
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
View North: West and South Facades of Shed
View West: South and East Facades of Shed
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-171
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 19 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex
P1. Other Identifier: Diary Barn
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D.
c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405
d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
• e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:
Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries)
See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
West/January 6, 2015, #32
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
c. 1913
*P7. Owner and Address:
John Madonna/Madonna Construction
Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis
Obispo, CA
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Kathleen A. Crawford,
MA
MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380,
Walnut Creek Ca 94597
*P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Phase I
*Attachments: NONE
Location Map Sketch Map
Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-172
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Page 20 of 29 *NRHP Status Code
*Resource Name or # Froom Ranch Dairy Barn
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: Dairy Barn
B3. Original Use: Dairy Barn B4. Present Use: Storage
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: 1913
The dairy barn was built in 1913 by Jim Aiken who lived in a tent by the creek on the property and built the dairy barn, the granary and the
horse barn in 1913 for $1800.00 which included labor and materials. Every day he came up from his tent by the creek and worked on the
buildings. The dairy barn was designed to hold ten cows at either end and ten at each side. The barn contained a four‐inch carrier track
designed to bring hay into the barn. Research indicates the barn is the only round barn in San Luis Obispo County. A variety of early dairy
farm equipment is still located within the barn structure. The barn was used to milk the cows, start the butter and cheese production, and
was used until the dairy operations ceased in 1977. The Dairy Barn is a 60’ x 80’, one‐story, asymmetrical, irregular shaped, Vernacular style
barn. The barn has a wood pier and concrete block foundation, vertical wood siding walls, and a gabled roof.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
The east façade contains a door at the south end of the façade that opens to a slanting concrete ramp. The ramp area includes a wide
concrete apron located between the Dairy Barn and the Creamery/House structures. The concrete apron had a specific function in that the
hard surface allowed the cows to remove mud from their feet prior to entering the barn for milking. The east wall contains a small addition on
the north end of the façade. The addition contains a variety of windows which appear to be remnants from other structures. The windows are
wood framed in various shapes and sizes. Each of the three walls contains a single door opening. A concrete trough is present on the east
wall near the addition. The north façade contains two door openings. The east door opening is a single sliding door. The other door is the
main door into the space and includes a wide opening with a sliding door. The west end of the façade slopes steeply down to the ground area.
A large metal hook is present at the peak of the gable roof. The west façade contains an open entrance on the south end of the façade. A
concrete entrance area leads into the interior space. The shed roof slopes steeply down to the lower level of the wall. The south façade
contains a unique feature. The façade is curved and a portion of the curved section has no foundation and hangs out over the slope. The wall
has vertical siding and a sloping curved roof. The wall was specifically constructed in this manner to accommodate the movement of the cows
within the interior space. Due to their size and breadth, it was easier to move the cows through the space if it was rounded. The building is in
fair condition. Corrals are present on the south side of the slope near the barn.
Alterations: The barn has been altered by a variety of renovations by both Alex and John Madonna over the years to stabilize the building.
New support beams have replaced unstable sections, portions have been propped up and repaired, beams were placed in portions of the roof
system to keep the roof in place, vertical wall boards have been replaced and overall general maintenance has taken place to keep the
structure standing over the years.
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson
*B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County
Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria:
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The
ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in
the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in
1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim
Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in
existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a
barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the
family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a
residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s
development.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
B12. References:
San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille,
Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo,
Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral
Interview with John Madonna, January 2015
B13. Remarks:
B14. Evaluator:
Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-173
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
View North: South Façade of Dairy Barn
View Northwest: East Façade of Dairy Bar
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-174
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
View South: East Façade of Dairy Barn
View West: East Façade of Dairy Barn
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-175
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
View Southwest/East and North Facades of Dairy Barn
View North: West Façade of Dairy Barn
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-176
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 24 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex
P1. Other Identifier: Creamery/House
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec; 3, 10 B.M. M.D.
c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405
d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
• e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:
Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries)
See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch/HP 2: Single-Family Residence
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
West/January 6, 2015, #58
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
c. 1900-1915
*P7. Owner and Address:
John Madonna/Madonna Construction
Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis
Obispo, CA
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Kathleen A. Crawford,
MA
MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380,
Walnut Creek Ca 94597
*P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Phase I
*Attachments: NONE
Location Map Sketch Map
Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-177
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Page 25 of 29 *NRHP Status Code
*Resource Name or # Froom Ranch Creamery/House
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: Creamery/House
B3. Original Use: Milk Processing and Residential B4. Present Use: Not in use
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History:
The Creamery/House are two connected structures; the west portion of the building was used as the Creamery and the east portion was the
residence. According to Bill Froom, his father lived in the Creamery for a period of time when he first began to operate the dairy. The
residence was constructed at an unknown time, possibly after John Froom’s marriage to Harriet and the need for more space. The young
family lived in the house portion of the building until 1915 when Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level. Bill Froom was
born in the house and presumably any of the children born before 1915 were also born in the house on the upper level. After the family
moved into the “new” residence built by Hans Peterson in 1915, the space was possibly used as additional living space for the workers on the
ranch. The Creamery/House is a one‐story, irregular shaped, asymmetrical, Vernacular style building that was built in several stages at
unknown times. The building is divided into three sections, each with gabled roofs.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
The south façade contains the two buildings – the Creamery and the House. Each of the sections contains a single door opening and a window
is present in each of the three sections that comprise the two buildings. The south façade contains a combination of vertical and horizontal
wood siding. The building has a wood pier foundation with rock footings and infill of the open areas.
The overall structure is composed of two buildings which are separated by approximately one foot of space separating the east wall of the
Creamery from the west wall of the House. An addition was constructed on the south wall on the house portion but deteriorated to the point
where it was removed. A single wood entrance opening faces the Dairy Barn on the west wall. The interior contains two small rooms. A cellar
area is present under the building and the adjoining structure. The roof on this portion of the structure slopes down to a low level and is
covered with shingles. The north façade contains vertical and horizontal siding. The entrance to the cellar area is located at the base of the
north wall under the Creamery portion of the building. A secondary entrance is located further down the wall. A small, narrow door is present
in the area where the two buildings are separated. The door is located on the north wall and there is no corresponding door on the south wall.
An open porch was added to the east end of the north wall of the house structure at an unknown time. The east façade serves as the end wall
of the residential portion of the structure. A rectangular shaped window opening is present.
Alterations:
The building has been altered by additions to the structure. At one time, an addition was present on the south wall of the house portion but
was in extremely poor condition and was removed by Alex Madonna. The porch on the north wall of the house was added at an unknown
time. Alex and John Madonna undertook a series of changes to the building because of its instability. Floors and ceiling areas were replaced
with plywood sheeting, vertical siding was replaced, walls and foundations were stabilized, and overall general maintenance was undertaken
to keep the building standing over the years.
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Hans Peterson
*B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County
Period of Significance: 1915--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria: A and C
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The ranch
was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in the
1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in 1902.
The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim Aiken,
a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in
existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a barn
with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the family
moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a residence. The
“Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s development.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
*B12. References:
San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian
Leveille, Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis
Obispo, Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991);
Oral Interview with John Madonna, January 2015
B13. Remarks:
B14. Evaluator:
Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-178
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
View Northwest: East and South Façade of Creamery/house
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-179
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date
DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
Page 27 of 29 *Resource Name or #: Froom Ranch Complex
P1. Other Identifier: Granary
*P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: San Luis Obispo
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Mt. Diablo Date: 1975 T 31S; R 12E Sec;3, 10 B.M. M.D.
c. Address: 12165 Los Osos Valley Road Zip: 93405
d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.)
• e. Other Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate) Elevation:
Assessor’s Parcel No. 67-241-019
*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and
boundaries)
See Building, Structure, and Object Record for Building Description
*P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP 33: Farm /Ranch
*P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.)
P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #)
West/January 6, 2015, #46
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and
Sources: Historic
Prehistoric Both
c. 1913
*P7. Owner and Address:
John Madonna/Madonna Construction
Co. 12165 Los Osos Valley Road, San Luis
Obispo, CA
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation,
and address) Kathleen A. Crawford,
MA
MBA/FCS 1350 Treat Blvd. Ste. 380,
Walnut Creek Ca 94597
*P9. Date Recorded: Jan. 6, 2015
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe)
Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: Phase I
*Attachments: NONE
Location Map Sketch Map
Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record
Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-180
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
Page 28 of 29 *NRHP Status Code
*Resource Name or # Granary
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name: Granary
B3. Original Use: Granary B4. Present Use: Storage
*B5. Architectural Style: Vernacular
*B6. Construction History: 1913
The Granary was built in 1913 by Jim Aiken. The Granary was constructed in a way that eliminated the rat problem. The building was secure
and many of the local farmers stored their grain in the building to keep it safe from rats.
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location:
*B8. Related Features: None
The Granary is located on the hill in close proximity to the Dairy Barn and the Creamery. The Granary is a small, one‐story, double walled,
rectangular shaped, asymmetrical, Vernacular style utilitarian building. The building has a wood pier foundation, vertical tongue and groove
wood siding walls and a gabled roof. One window is present on the south façade. A single door is present on the east façade. The interior
contains storage areas. Tongue and groove siding was used as this prevented he grain from being eaten by animals. No grain was present
during the site visit and the floor was covered in horse harnesses and equipment. The building is in poor condition.
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Jim Aiken
*B10. Significance: Theme: Early 20 Century Agricultural Development Area: San Luis Obispo County
Period of Significance: 1913--1977 Property Type: Dairy Ranch Applicable Criteria:
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity.)
The Froom Ranch complex is a good example of the early 20th Century Agricultural development in the San Luis Obispo County area. The
ranch was developed by John Froom, a native of Canada, who came to the area in the 1870s as a laborer and purchased the existing ranch in
the 1890s and began dairy operations. Froom lived in the Creamery/House structure for many years prior to his marriage to Harriet Perry in
1902. The family continued to live in the house portion for several years and many of their seven children were born in the house. In 1913, Jim
Aiken, a worker on the ranch, constructed the Dairy Barn, added to the Creamery building, built the Granary and the Horse Barn (no longer in
existence) and the Shed for a total of $1800 for materials and labor. The Dairy Barn is a rare example, and the only one in the County, of a
barn with a rounded front wall to accommodate the dairy cows. In 1915, Hans Peterson built the Main Residence on the lower level and the
family moved into the Craftsman style structure. Peterson also built the Bunkhouse at the same time for use by family members as a
residence. The “Old” Barn was moved to the site from a location southeast of the ranch at an unknown time, early in the ranch’s
development.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
B12. References:
San Luis Obispo County Assessor’s Office; San Luis Obispo County Recorder’s Office; City of San Luis Obispo Planning Department; Brian Leveille,
Senior Planner; San Luis Obispo County Public Library, Local History Room files, documents and films; History Center of San Luis Obispo,
Bertrando, Betsy, “Historical Evaluation for Froom Ranch Building Complex APN 67‐241‐019 San Luis Obispo County, CA (P‐40‐04‐991); Oral
Interview with John Madonna, January 2015
B13. Remarks:
B14. Evaluator:
Kathleen A. Crawford, M.A. January 6, 2015
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-181
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information
View Northeast: West and South Facades of the Granary
View Southeast: North and West Facades of the Granary
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-182
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
ATTACHMENT 3
CHC2-183
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES
AT
FROOM RANCH
12165 LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
STORK, WOLFE & ASSOCIATES
599 HIGUERA STREET, SUITE H
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
(805) 548-8600
June 30, 2017
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-184
INDEX
Introduction & Methodology 1 – 2
Main Residence 2 – 4
Dairy Barn 5 – 7
Old Barn 8 – 10
Creamery House 10
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Main House 13
Figure 2 – Main House roof joists w/ mid-span bracing 13
Figure 3 – Unbraced wood cripple wall with redwood sill 14
Figure 4 – Dairy (Round-Nosed) Barn 14
Figure 5 – Dairy Barn roof framing 15
Figure 6 – Dairy Barn exterior wall framing 15
Figure 7 – Western entrance to the Dairy Barn 16
Figure 8 – Bracing at interior line of wood posts 17
Figure 9 – Interior Dairy Barn posts bearing on soil 18
Figure 10 – Old Barn 19
Figure 11 – Old Barn roof framing 19
Figure 12 – Old Barn exterior wall framing 20
Figure 13 – Full-height plywood shear walls 20
Figure 14 – Creamery House 21
Figure 15 – Deterioration of Creamery House 21
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-185
Figure 16 – Deterioration of Creamery House 22
Figure 17 – Creamery House foundation 22
Figure 18 – Deterioration of Creamery House 23
Dairy (Round-Nosed Barn) Schematic Structural Drawings
S2.1 – Foundation Plan
S2.2 – Roof Framing Plan
S3.1 – Structural Elevation ‘A’
S3.2 – Structural Elevation ‘B’
S3.3 – Structural Elevation ‘C’
S3.4 – Structural Section ‘D’
S3.5 – Structural Section ‘E’
Structural Calculations A1 – C9
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-186
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 1 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
INTRODUCTION & METHODOLOGY
John and Susan Madonna wish to study the feasibility of preserving and/or
renovating several existing structures of historic significance at the Froom Ranch
property in San Luis Obispo.
The structures included in this analysis are the Main Residence, the Dairy Barn,
the Old Barn, and the Creamery House. All structures consist of wood-framed
walls and roofs, wood siding, and either a wood or concrete foundation.
Construction of these buildings took place between the late 1800’s and early
1900’s.
As part of the preservation, it is necessary to assess both the gravity and lateral
load resisting systems of the buildings in order to ensure life-safety of the
occupants. For existing structures of historic significance, the structural analysis
is to be per the 2016 California Historic Building Code (CHBC). In order to
balance structural safety with historic preservation, this code allows for a 25%
reduction in current building code design wind & seismic load levels. In addition,
it also provides strength capacities for structural systems that would typically not
be allowed for new structures. Where design gravity loads are not being
increased, the CHBC also allows that the vertical load resisting system may be
assumed adequate by having withstood the test of time, where no distress is
evident, and a complete load path is present.
Guidelines for determining the feasibility of historic preservation is given in the
City of San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance, December 7, 2010.
Feasibility is defined by this document as the ability of a building or other
structure to “be repaired or rehabilitated so as to be safe and usable without
significant loss of historic fabric,” and that the structure has the “physical
capacity…to withstand the repair and/or rehabilitation process without the danger
of further damage.”
Both the structural integrity and the feasibility of rehabilitation have been
addressed in this report for the structures noted above. The study considers
multiple building-use scenarios, including continued commercial use as well as
the conversion to public space. For continued commercial use, the building code
does not require any structural upgrades to be done. However, we have
included in our recommendation the items that pose a significant risk to the
structure, or to the life-safety of the occupants. Where the conversion to public
space is considered, we have included all structural deficiencies, as well as
potential increases to design live loads, and long-term performance
improvements.
Our scope of work for this project involved the following tasks:
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-187
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 2 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
1. Review of the Froom Ranch/El Villagio Specific Plan Section 106
Prehistoric Report dated February 20, 2015.
2. Review of the Seismic Analysis Map provided by Geosolutions. The map
shows the local fault zone, in which it is recommended that no structure
with an occupancy of 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year may be within
this zone.
3. Visually survey each building to verify the original construction, past
alteration, and the current conditions.
4. Perform a structural analysis of each building for CHBC-level gravity,
seismic and wind loads.
5. Prepare a report that includes an outline of the major structural
deficiencies, as well as a general description of the proposed structural
retrofit work.
MAIN RESIDENCE
The Main Residence [Figure 1] was constructed in 1915, and has been occupied
continuously for use as both a residence and an office building. The
approximately 1,600 SF one-story wood-framed structure appears to be in good
condition, and has undergone several renovations and repairs throughout its
history. The majority of the structural framing is original, however concrete
foundations have been added at certain locations around the perimeter where
excessive settlement has occurred. The lateral load-resisting system consists of
wood siding over straight-sheathed exterior wood stud shear walls.
Roof Framing
The roof framing consists of consists of composite shingles over the original
wood shakes over 1x6 skip sheathing supported by 2x4 roof joists at 30” spacing.
The roof joists are braced mid-span with kickers down to interior stud walls below
[Figure 2]. Although the existing roof framing appears to be in good condition,
there is no recognized diaphragm system needed to resist lateral loads.
Required Strengthening:
Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for
private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to
the roof framing system. It is recommended, however that the next time the roof
is replaced, the original wood shakes be removed, and a layer of plywood added
over the existing 1x skip sheathing. The layer of plywood, if detailed and nailed
properly, will act as a structural diaphragm. Additional wood blocking and metal
framing clips will also be required to tie the roof diaphragm to the exterior walls
below. It should also be noted that if a new roofing material is selected that is
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-188
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 3 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
heavier than the existing roofing material, strengthen of the roof rafters will be
required.
For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, the
existing roofing shall be removed and the plywood, blocking and framing clips
added as described above.
Exterior Walls
The exterior walls are constructed of horizontal 2”x4” wood studs at 24” spacing.
The exterior is sheathed with 1x shiplap siding over 1x straight sheathing, which
provides lateral stiffness for the structure in resisting wind and seismic loads.
The wall framing and siding appear to be in good condition.
Required Strengthening:
Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for
private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to
the existing exterior walls. Although the walls are overstressed for CHBC-level
design loads, one-story wood framed structures typically perform well in
earthquakes, and no strengthening is recommended.
For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, it is
recommended that plywood shear walls be added. Plywood, when detailed and
nailed properly provides significantly greater lateral strength and stiffness for
wood shear walls than the existing 1x straight sheathing. For existing structures,
the interior drywall in specific locations can be removed, plywood installed
directly over the existing studs, and then the drywall reinstalled. Holdowns
anchoring the shear wall boundaries to the foundation are also typically required.
First Floor
The first floor is constructed of wood flooring over 1x6 diagonal sheathing over
2”x5-1/2” wood floor joists spaced at 24”. The wood floor joists span across
unbraced wood cripple walls below spaced at approximately 7’-6” [Figure 3]. The
2x redwood sill of the cripple wall bears directly on grade. Releveling of the first
floor has been performed several times throughout the life of the structure.
Required Strengthening:
Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for
private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to
the existing floor structure. The existing floor joists are adequate to resist code-
level office live loads. It should be noted, however, that if future unevenness in
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-189
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 4 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
the floor surface is encountered, it could be an indication of excessive settlement
in the foundation. See the foundation section below for potential strengthening
recommendation.
For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy,
strengthening of the floor joists may be required. The existing floor joists do not
have the capacity to resist code-level design live loads when considering areas
of assemblies. If space is to be made within the structure for meeting or
conference areas, the floor joists below that area are required to be doubled up.
Foundation
The foundation consists of interior and exterior 2x wood stud cripple walls
bearing on an existing wood sill placed directly on grade [Figure 3]. Where past
excessive settlement has occurred, an undocumented concrete foundation was
poured below the sill to provide a greater bearing surface and better long-term
durability. The exterior cripple walls are lightly braced with occasional 1x
diagonal boards, while the interior cripple walls are completely unbraced.
Required Strengthening:
Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for
private commercial purposes, as a minimum both the exterior and interior cripple
wall systems should be strengthened. This can be done with either a system of
properly detailed diagonal boards or a pattern of plywood sheathing. Where
concrete foundations have been added in previous repairs, it should be verified
that the wood sills are properly anchored to the concrete. Because the existing
structure bears directly on top of the soil and proper concrete foundation
embedded into the soil are not present, sliding of the structure during a large
earthquake could occur. Although life-safety does not appear to be a significant
risk assuming the cripple wall bracing is installed, non-structural damage to
interior furnishings and equipment is likely. In addition, attention should be given
if future unevenness in the floor surface is encountered. This could be an
indication of excessive settlement in the foundation. For better long-term
structural performance, see “For Use as Public Space” below.
For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, a
proper concrete foundation should be installed. To install the concrete
foundation, the structure is jacked up, continuous trenches are dug below the
exterior and interior cripple walls, and concrete footings are poured. The
structure is then lowered and bolted to the concrete. In addition to the footings,
all cripple walls require bracing as described above.
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-190
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 5 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
DAIRY BARN
The Dairy Barn [Figure 4] is an approximately 4,200 SF wood-framed farming
facility built in 1913 to house livestock and hay. Weather and neglect has
severely deteriorated many of the barn’s key structural elements over the course
of its history. In addition, a significant portion of the barn is located within the
rupture zone setback of a potentially active trace fault. These items are
discussed below and shall be addressed in the renovation along with the
strengthening of the lateral load-resisting system.
Local Seismic Hazard Mitigation
Because the Dairy Barn is situated within the rupture zone setback of a
potentially active trace fault, there is a high risk of significant damage to the
structure due to ground rupture. If the barn is to be used in any way other than
being fenced off and left in a state of arrested decay, significant alterations to the
building footprint are required.
Required Remediation:
If left in its current location, it is recommended that the round-nosed portion of the
barn be removed, in addition to the next three adjacent bays of framing,
essentially cutting the structure in half. Also requiring demolition due to its
proximity to the fault line is the northern masonry addition to the barn. Because
the round-nosed portion of the building is unique and has historical significance,
a portion of the demolished materials may be salvaged to rebuild the round-
nosed portion at the eastern end of the structure. It is estimated that
approximately 75% of the roof framing and 50% of the floor framing will be good
for re-use. Nearly all the exterior siding is in such a state of decay that it will
have no structural value. This remediation is required to ensure the safety of the
occupants during a large seismic event. The rebuilt round-nosed portion will
require a modern concrete foundation system to prevent they type of settling and
deterioration that is currently present.
Relocation Option:
Another option for the Dairy Barn is to demolish and rebuild the structure at
another location. In order to preserve the historic aspect of the barn, the framing
system should remain the same as the existing framing system, but with
consideration of the strengthening requirements outlined in the sections below. It
is also possible to re-use a portion of the lumber as noted above. Please refer to
the schematic structural drawings provided for reference at the end of this
document.
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-191
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 6 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Roof Framing
The existing roof framing [Figure 5] consists of wood shingles over 1x6 skip
sheathing supported by 2”x6” roof joists at 30” spacing. A collar tie system
consisting of tension rods at 10’-0” spacing thru the double top plate at the two
interior post lines is present to resist the horizontal thrust. The majority of the
roof framing has the capacity to resist code-level dead and live loads. The
existing skip sheathing provides minimal lateral stiffness lateral stiffness, and will
not act as a proper roof diaphragm.
Required Strengthening:
Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.)
– Because the existing wood shingles are in a serious state of deterioration,
much of the roof framing is exposed to weather. It is recommended that the
existing roofing be removed and all framing be inspected for damage. It is
estimated that approximately 10% of the roof framing will need replacing. It is
possible that lumber salvaged from the seismic remediation described above
may be reused for this purpose. Additionally, a layer of plywood will be required
over the skip sheathing in order to create a roof diaphragm. The entire roof shall
be re-roofed with a light weight standing seam or corrugated metal roof with
better long-term performance.
Occupancy greater than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (public use,
meeting space, etc.) – Same as above.
Exterior Walls
The exterior walls [Figure 6] are typically constructed with 1x12 vertical siding
spanning from the double top plate to the wood sill, with an intermediate
horizontal 2”x4” girt mid span. The double top plate and girt span horizontally to
4”x4” wood posts at 10’-0” spacing around the perimeter.
Required Strengthening:
Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.)
– The exterior vertical siding is required to be in good condition to allow for
adequate nailing. Proper nailing is essential for shear wall performance.
Because of years of neglect, it is estimated that up to 75% of the wood siding will
need to be removed and replaced for the wood shear wall system. It is also
estimated that approximately 10% of the wall framing will require replacement
due to weather intrusion at the damaged siding. The entire exterior will require
re-painting to help preserve the condition of the wood.
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-192
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 7 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Occupancy greater than 2,000 man hours per year (public use, meeting space,
etc.) – Same as above.
Wall Bracing
At the main western entrance to the Dairy Barn, not enough wall length existing
to provide adequate lateral stiffness [Figure 7]. At this location, as well as at the
two interior lines of posts [Figure 8], diagonal wood wall bracing will be required.
All connections will be designed to be bolted and hidden. The bottom ends of the
bracing will be required to be anchored to the existing foundation
Required Strengthening:
Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.)
– Install new 4x4 wall braces at the western wall and at the two interior lines of
posts. Strengthen all brace connections and splices with steel plates and bolts.
Anchor braced connections to new concrete pad foundation.
Occupancy greater than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (public use,
meeting space, etc.) – Same as above.
Foundations
The majority of the perimeter foundation consists of a 24” high concrete stem or
retaining wall [Figure 6] with an undetermined footing depth. The concrete
foundation appears to be in good condition for the age of the structure. The
majority of the foundation damage has occurred at the eastern downhill portion of
the structure at the round-nosed area of the barn. The foundation system at the
interior post line appears to be a redwood sill bearing directly on the soil, or else
the wood posts are embedded directly into the soil [Figure 9]. The posts appear
to have settled over time approximately 2”.
Required Strengthening:
Occupancy less than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (tours, exhibits, etc.)
– Provide a modern concrete foundation system to support the re-built round-
nosed portion of the structure. This is included in the Seismic Remediation
section above. Additionally, concrete pad footings will be required below the
posts. These pad footings have been included in the Wall Bracing section
above.
Occupancy greater than 2,000 cumulative man-hours per year (public use,
meeting space, etc.) – Same as above.
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-193
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 8 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
OLD BARN
The old barn [Figure 10] is an approximately 1,300 SF wood structure with a
corrugated metal roof, vertical wood siding, and a concrete slab-on-grade
foundation. It is estimated that the barn is 125 year old, and has been moved
from its original site. The barn appears to be in very good shape for its age due
to the fact that it remains in use. However, its constant use has led to a number
of undocumented alterations that have inadvertently compromised the historic
fabric of the Old Barn significantly.
Roof Framing
The existing roof framing [Figure 11] consists of corrugated metal roofing over
existing wood shingles, over 1x6 skip sheathing, supported by 2”x4” roof joists at
32” spacing. A collar tie system consisting of 2x4 struts near the ridge is present
to resist the horizontal thrust. This appears to have been added at a later date,
most likely to combat a sagging ridge. The majority of the roof framing has the
capacity to resist code-level dead and live loads. The existing skip sheathing
provides minimal lateral stiffness lateral stiffness, and will not act as a proper roof
diaphragm.
Required Strengthening:
Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for
private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to
the roof framing system. It is recommended, however that the next time the roof
is replaced, the original wood shakes be removed, and a layer of plywood added
over the existing 1x skip sheathing. The layer of plywood, if detailed and nailed
properly, will act as a structural diaphragm. Additional wood blocking and metal
framing clips will also be required to tie the roof diaphragm to the exterior walls
below. It should also be noted that if a new roofing material is selected that is
heavier than the existing roofing material, strengthen of the roof rafters may be
required.
For Use as Public Space – If the structure is to be used for public occupancy, the
existing roofing shall be removed and the plywood, blocking and framing clips
added as described above.
Exterior Walls
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-194
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 9 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
At some point in the history of the barn, the exterior walls were reframed with a
more modern system of 2x4 vertical studs spaced at 16” o.c. [Figure 12]. This
system likely replaced a post-and-beam system with horizontal wall girts, similar
to the Dairy Barn described above. Blocking between the vertical studs is used
to support the 1x12 vertical siding.
Required Strengthening:
Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for
private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to
the existing exterior walls. However, because of the three large door openings at
the north elevation of the structure, a wood bracing system is recommended
along this line.
For Use as Public Space – Same as above. Additionally, the exterior vertical
siding is required to be in good condition to allow for adequate nailing. Proper
nailing is essential for shear wall performance. It is estimated that up to 50% of
the wood siding will need to be removed and replaced for the wood shear wall
system. It is also estimated that approximately 5% of the wall framing will require
replacement due to weather intrusion at the damaged siding. The entire exterior
will require re-painting to help preserve the condition of the wood
Wall Bracing
At each of the two interior lines of posts, a shear wall has been added [Figure
13]. It is unclear as to when and why the shear walls were added, however they
do provide a significant amount of stiffness to the structure.
Required Strengthening:
Continued Private Commercial Use – If the structure will continue to be used for
private commercial purposes, the building code does not require any upgrades to
the existing exterior walls. However, if a plywood roof diaphragm is added at a
later date, proper blocking and shear transfer detailing will be required.
For Use as Public Space – Same as above.
Foundations
The Old Barn bears on an undocumented concrete slab-on-grade foundation.
The slab-on-grade appears to be in good shape, and no differential building
settlement is noticeable.
Required Strengthening:
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-195
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 10 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Continued Private Commercial Use – In order to resist the design lateral loads at
the new bracing elements required at the north elevation, it is likely that several
pad footings underpinning the existing slab-on-grade will be required.
For Use as Public Space – Same as above.
CREAMERY HOUSE
The Creamery House [Figure 14] is an existing wood-framed structure in a state
of disrepair. Years of abandonment have made it unfeasible for renovation
[Figures 15 through 18]. Among the issues are the following:
All exterior siding requires replacement
There are no wood studs in the majority of the walls. The siding, which
has no bearing capacity, is currently supporting the majority of the roof
loads.
The roof framing is undersized and severely damaged.
The floor framing is undersized and severely damaged.
The wood post-and-beam foundation system is supported on rocks or soil
and has failed.
Required Strengthening:
The Creamery House is an unsafe building in a state of disrepair, and the
materials are unsalvageable for structure purposes. It is recommended that the
structure be properly documented and demolished.
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-196
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 11 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-197
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 12 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-198
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 13 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Figure 1 – Main House
Figure 2 – Main House roof joists w/ mid-span bracing
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-199
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 14 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Figure 3 – Unbraced wood cripple wall with redwood sill
Figure 4 – Dairy (Round-Nosed) Barn
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-200
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 15 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Figure 5 – Dairy Barn roof framing
Figure 6 – Dairy Barn exterior wall framing
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-201
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 16 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Figure 7 – Lack of wood bracing at main western entrance to the Dairy Barn
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-202
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 17 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Figure 8 – Bracing at interior line of wood posts
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-203
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 18 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Figure 9 – Interior Dairy Barn posts bearing on soil
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-204
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 19 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Figure 10 – Old Barn
Figure 11 – Old Barn roof framing
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-205
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 20 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Figure 12 – Old Barn exterior wall framing
Figure 13 – Full-height plywood shear wall (left & right of photo)
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-206
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 21 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Figure 14 – Creamery House
Figure 15 – Deterioration of Creamery House
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-207
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 22 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Figure 16 – Deterioration of Creamery House
Figure 17 – Creamery House foundation
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-208
ANALYSIS OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES PAGE 23 OF 23
FROOM RANCH, SAN LUIS OBISPO
Figure 18 – Deterioration of Creamery House
ATTACHMENT 4
CHC2-209
SHEET INDEXFROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGS1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION2. EXISTING STRUCTURES3. TEA STAIN MAP4. COMPOSITE SITE PLAN5. PROPOSED SITE PLAN6. E/W SITE SECTIONS7. N/S SITE SECTIONS8. MAIN RESIDENCE - PHOTOSCultural Heritage Committee HearingAugust 28, 20179. CREAMERY - FLOOR PLAN10. CREAMERY - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS11. CREAMERY - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN12. CREAMERY - PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE 13. DAIRY BARN - FLOOR PLAN14. DAIRY BARN - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS15. DAIRY BARN - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS16. DAIRY BARN - FOUNDATION PLAN17. DAIRY BARN - ROOF FRAMING PLAN18. DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATION19. DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATION20. DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATION21. DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL SECTION22. DAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL SECTION23. EXISTING VIEW24. PROPOSED VIEW25. TRAILHEAD PARK PLANATTACHMENT 5CHC2-210
CHC2-211
CHC2-212
CHC2-213
CHC2-214
CHC2-215
CHC2-216
CHC2-217
CHC2-218
CHC2-219
CHC2-220
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA11SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGSCREAMERY - PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
98
12'0 9#.. (4#/+0)%.15'& 9#..(4#/+0)%.15'& 9#..(4#/+0)12'0 9#..4#/+0)1014012 AUGUST 28, 2017ATTACHMENT 5CHC2-221
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA12SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGSCREAMERY - PROPOSED PERSPECTIVE1014012 AUGUST 28, 2017ATTACHMENT 5CHC2-222
CHC2-223
CHC2-224
CHC2-225
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA16SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGSDAIRY BARN - FOUNDATION PLAN1014012 AUGUST 28, 2017ATTACHMENT 5CHC2-226
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA17SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGSDAIRY BARN - ROOF FRAMING PLAN1014012 AUGUST 28, 2017ATTACHMENT 5CHC2-227
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA18SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGSDAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATIONS1014012 AUGUST 28, 2017ATTACHMENT 5CHC2-228
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA19SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGSDAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATIONS1014012 AUGUST 28, 2017ATTACHMENT 5CHC2-229
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA20SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGSDAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL ELEVATIONS1014012 AUGUST 28, 2017ATTACHMENT 5CHC2-230
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA21SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGSDAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL SECTION1014012 AUGUST 28, 2017ATTACHMENT 5CHC2-231
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA22SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGSDAIRY BARN - STRUCTURAL SECTION1014012 AUGUST 28, 2017ATTACHMENT 5CHC2-232
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA23SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGSEXISTING VIEW1014012 AUGUST 28, 2017ATTACHMENT 5CHC2-233
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA24SCALE S: 1/8” = 1’- 0” (12”X18” SHEET) 1/4”=1’-0” (24”X36” SHEET)FROOM RANCH - HISTORICAL BUILDINGSPROPOSED VIEW1014012 AUGUST 28, 2017ATTACHMENT 5CHC2-234
CHC2-235