HomeMy WebLinkAboutD-1550 Tract 2307 - De Tolosa Ranch Recorded 09/25/2001RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
SLO Estates, T-nc.
rat Ptti►�►e; %i cp-- T-�- I-�
+i
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Strect
San Luis Obisilio, CA 93401 -3249
4Nb4�o-- Lz
JULIE RODEWALD
San Luis Obispo County— Clerk/Recorder
Recorded at the request of
First American Title Company
oCx: 2001012161
III�IB�IYIIII�IIIIIVIIIIIIII
DG
9/25/2001
8:00 AM
Titles:..1 Pages: 21
Fees 0.00
Taxes
0.00
Others
i 0.00
PAID
$0.00
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNERS
OF HISTORIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT (Property Address)
IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
IS EGREEMENT (this "Agreement ") is made and entered into as of this � day of
2001,1 by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter
referred to as the "City "), and SLO Estates, Inc., a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as
"Owner "), and Iicollectively referred to as the "parties."
Section 1. Description of Preservation Measures. The Owner hereby agrees to undertake and
complete, at its expense, the preservation, maintenance and improvements measures described in this
Agreement relating to the real property described in Exhibit B attached hereto located at 1600
Madonna Road;! San Luis Obispo, California ( "Property ").
I
Section 2. Effii*tive Date and Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective and
commence on tl'ie date of its recordation in the Recorder's Office of the County of San Luis Obispo
( "Effective Date, "), and shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten (10) years thereafter. Each
year upon the anniversary of the Effective Date, such initial term will automatically be extended as
provided in California Government Code Section 50280 through 50290 and in Section 3 below.
Section 3. Agreement Renewal and Non - Renewal.
u
A. F?ach year on the anniversary of the Effective Date of this Agreement ( "Annual
Renewal Date "), a year shall automatically be added to the initial term of this Agreement, unless
written notice o.`non- renewal is served as provided herein.
B. I;f the Owner or the City desires in any year not to renew this Agreement, the Owner
or the City shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of this Agreement on the other party. Unless
such notice is served by the Owner to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the Annual Renewal
Date, or served by the City to the Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, on(
(1) year shall automatically be added to the term of this Agreement as provided herein.
1550
f �
Historic Preservation Agreement
Page 2
C. The Owner may make a written protest of the notice. The City may, at any time prior
to the Annual Renewal Date, withdraw its notice to the Owner of nonrenewal.
D. If either the City or the Owner serves notice to the other party of nonrenewal in any
year, this Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining.
Section 4. Standards and Conditions. During the term of this Agreement, the Property shall be
subject to the following conditions:
A. Owner agrees to preserve and maintain the Property and its character- defining
features as a qualified historic property, including: the general architectural form, style, materials,
design, scale, proportions, organization of windows, doors, and other openings of the Building
located on the Property ( "Building "); interior architectural elements that are integral to the Building's
historic character or significance; exterior materials, coatings, textures, details, mass, roof line, porch
and other aspects of the appearance of the Building's exterior, as described in Exhibit A, to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director or his designee.
B. All Building alterations and improvements shall comply with applicable City specific
plans, City regulations and guidelines, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of
Historic Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, namely the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Standards and Guidelines for Historic
Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling shall retain original, character - defining architectural
features as a qualified historic property, such as oak and mahogany details, pillars and arches,
special tilework or architectural ornamentation, to the greatest extent possible.
C. The Community Development Director shall be notified by the Owner of changes to
the Building which affect any character - defining exterior features prior to their execution, such as
major landscaping projects and tree removals, exterior door or window replacement, repainting,
remodeling, or any other exterior alterations to the Building requiring a building permit. The Owner
agrees to secure any and all necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to changing the Building's
use or commencing construction work.
D. Owner agrees that property tax savings resulting from this Agreement shall be used
for the property maintenance and improvement measures described in Exhibit B.
E. The following are prohibited without the prior written approval of the Community
Development Director: demolition or partial demolition of the Building or accessory buildings; new
or additional exterior alterations or additions that adversely affect its character- defining features as a
qualified historic property; dilapidated or deteriorating or unrepaired exterior structures such as
fences, roofs, doors, walls or windows; outdoor storage of junk, trash, debris, appliances, or furniture
visible from a public way; or any device, decoration, structure or vegetation which adversely affects
the Property's character, significance and design as a qualified historic property, as determined by
Historic Preservation Agreement
Page 3
the Community Development Director.
F. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the
interior and exterior of the Property by representatives of the County Assessor, the State /
Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of Equalization, and the City, as may be
necessary to determine the Owner's compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owner hereby agrees to furnish any and all information
relating to the Property reasonably requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to
determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
Section 6. Cancellation.
A. The City, following a duly noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth in
Government Code Section 50285, may cancel this Agreement if it determines that the Owner has
breached any of the conditions of this Agreement or has allowed the Property to deteriorate to the
point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historic property; or if the City determines
that the Owner has failed to preserve, maintain or rehabilitate the Property in the manner specified in
Section 4 of this Agreement. If a contract is canceled because of failure of the Owner to preserve,
maintain, and rehabilitate the Property as specified above, the Owner shall pay a cancellation fee to
the State Controller as set forth in Government Code Section 50286, which states that the fee shall be
12 %a% of the full value of the Property at the time of cancellation without regard to any restriction
imposed with this Agreement.
B. If the Property is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council determines that
the acquisition frustrates the purpose of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be canceled and no fee
imposed, as specified in Government Code Section 50288.
Section 7. Enforcement of Agreement.
A. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel this Agreement as referenced
herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of the agreement. In the
event of any default, the City shall give written notice of violation to the Owners by registered or
certified mail addressed to the address stated in this agreement. If such a violation is not corrected to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee within thirty (30)
days thereafter; or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the
breach or default of said breach; of if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days (provided
that acts t cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty (30) days and shall thereafter
be diligently pursued to completion by the Owners); then the City may, without further notice,
declare a default under the terms of this agreement and may bring any action necessary to
specifically enforce the obligations of the Owners growing out of the terms of this agreement, apply
to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by the Owners, or apply for
such relief as may be appropriate..
t 1
Historic Preservation Agreement
Page 4
B. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owner if the City does not
enforce or cancel this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise
provided for in this Agreement or in the City's regulations governing historic properties are available
to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach or default under this Agreement. No waiver by
the City of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other
subsequent breach thereof or default herein under.
C. By mutual agreement, City and Owner may enter into mediation or binding arbitration
to resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this Agreement..
Section 8. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owner hereby subjects the Property located at 1600
Madonna Road, San Luis Obispo, California, to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set
forth in this Agreement. The City and Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants,
reservations, and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and
shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner's successors and assigns in title or interest to the
Property. Every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the
Property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and
accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this Agreement,
regardless of whether such covenants, restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract,
deed, or other instrument.
Section 9. Notice. Unless otherwise provided, all notices herein required shall be in writing, and
delivered in person or sent by United States first class mail, postage prepaid to the address of the
respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later specified by the parties
hereto.
To City: Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
To Owner: SLO Estates, Inc.
1880 Santa Barbara Street, Suite F
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Attention: Patrick N. Smith
and
SLO Estates, Inc.
200 East Carrillo Street, Suite 200
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Attention: Kenneth P. Slaught
1 1
i
Historic Preservation Agreement
Page 5
With a copy to: Seed Mackall & Cole LLP
1332 Anacapa Street, suite 200
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Attention: David M. Reese, Esq.
Section 1.0. General Provisions.
A. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to
create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors or assigns, nor
shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of
any joint enterprise.
B. The Owner agrees to hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers,
agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage, or from claims for damage for personal
injuries, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect
use or activities of the Owner, or from those of their contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or
other person acting on the Owner's behalf which relates to the use, operation, maintenance, or
improvement of the Property. The Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and its elected
and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees with respect to any and all claims or actions
for damages caused by, or alleged to have been cause by, reason of the Owner's activities in
connection with the Property, excepting however any such claims or actions which are the result of
the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City or any of its officials, officers, agents,
employees, contractors, subcontractors or other person acting on the City's behalf.
C. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered,
or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason of the operations referred
to in this Agreement regardless of whither or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans,
specifications or other documents for the Property.
D. All of the Agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in
this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs,
successors, legal representatives_, assigns, and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the
Property, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever.
E. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or
restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to
determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may
recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other
relief ordered by the court.
F. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable
or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the
validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be effected
thereby.
s •
Historic Preservation Agreement
Page 6
G. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California.
Section 11. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written
recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.
Section 12. Recordation and Fees. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties executed and
enter into this Agreement, the City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the
County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. The City may charge reasonable and necessary
fees to recover direct costs of executing and recording this Agreement.
Section 13. Counterparts. This Agreement maybe executed in any number of counterparts, each of
which shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owner have executed this Agreement on the day
and year written above.
CITY OF SAN LUI O 'PO
7
Allen:K. Settle; Mayor
OWNER
SLO ESTATES, INC.,
a California c2ffnkon
By:
Batrick N. Smith, Presidoat
P. Slaught, V
APPROVED TO FORM AND LEGAL EFFECT
,A�lj Jt",
tr. or sen ity Attorney
Date
e/0?-z/0/
Date
Date
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF San Luis Obispo )
On August 27 , 2001 before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and
for said County and State, personally appeared Patrick N. Smith
personally known to me (or}Feved to #1e=b;asi�efs;tie#aetmT? e�
to be the personM whose name( is/4M subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that hey executed the same in hisAWNW40 authorized
capacityl m), and that by his /NWXMI r signatureM on the instrument the personm, or
the entity upon behalf of which the person) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notdry Public
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ss.
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA
SANDRA L NAUMANN
toCommtdon # 1282670
No1Qy PtAft — Cdffomfa
San Lull Obispo County
" y Comm. Bphn Nov 29.2M4
On , 2001 before me, the undersigned a NlotaryFublic ip and
for said County and State, personally appeared��—
personally known to me (or Feved to nag —n the b2sis evidence)
to be the person(,-,+whose name(s} is/art—,subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he /shefthey executed the same in his /her /their authorized
capacity(ies, and that by his /ho�i +,t„,� gnature(s'on the instrument the personop, or
the entity upon behalf of which the person( acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my
Notary Public
d 4nd official seal.
• Exhibit A 0
Historical Resources Inventory/Property Description
State of California - The Resources Agency
DEPARTMENT OF PARRS AND RECREATION
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY
IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
1. Historic name: Solomon Foreman House
2. Common or current name: DeVaul Ranch House
3. Number & street: 1600 Madonna
City: San Luis Obispo Vicinity only:
4. UTM zone: A B
5. Quad map No. USGS 35120 -C6 -Tf -024
DESCRIPTION
6. Property category: Structure
Ser. No.
National
Register Status
Local
Designation
Zip: 93401 County: San Luis Obispo
C D
Assessor's Parcel No.: 067 - 241 -001 Other:
[If district, number of documented resources]
•7. Physical Appearance: Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the property, including condition, boundaries,
related features, surroundings, and (if appropriate) architectural style.
This Vernacular Farmhouse has many attractive features including decorative window overhangs, shallow bays, a paneled
front door with glass transom, and a large porch with decorative posts and brackets. Its medium -pitch cross - gabled roof has
projecting eaves finished as a cornice. The siding is shiplap; the window and door surrounds a molded trim. There is a brick
chimney. There is also a large lean -to addition. Architecturally, the house has features associated with the "Italianate Style'
(mid 1860s to 1880s), particularly the house's interior. Exterior windows have elements of three styles: the hood molds
over the windows are found in Gothic Revival (1830 -1880) (Blumenson, 1981), the rectangular bay of the San Francisco
Stick (1870s to 1890) that has vertical stick motifs on the top and bottom, and the long, narrow double sash openings that
are capped with cornice and a protruding sill typical of the Italianate Style. Created as a 'Country house" for the Foremans,
the house features extra architectural detailing which was more typical of "in -town" residences and not of working farms or
ranches outside the city. The interior has tall ceilings, approximately 14 feet, with glass transom windows over doorways.
The central hall leads from the entry to separate gentleman's and lady's parlors, joined by a pocket door. In one of the
sitting rooms a rare, painted, molded fireplace is still in place. This house is in fair -to -good condition.
8. Planning agency:
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development Department
9. Owner & address:
DeVaul Ranch, LLC
10. Type of ownership: Private
11. Present use: Residential
12. Zoning: R -3 -PD (annexation pending)
13. Threats: None
Page 2 0
Historical Resources Inventory
•
Send a copy of this form
to: State Office of
Historic Preservation,
P.O. Box 942896,
Sacramento, CA 94296-
0001
Complete these items for
historic preservation
compliance projects
under Section 106 (36
CFR 800). All items
must be completed for
historical resources
survey information. DPR
523 (Rev. 6/90)
• . •
Page 3
Historical Resources Inventory
HISTORICAL INFORMATION
• 14. Construction date(s):11376 (est.)
15. Alterations & dater
16. Architect: Unknown
s
Original location: same Date moved:
17. Historic attributes
(with number from list): 2
02-- Single Family Property
03-- Multiple Family Property
04- -Hotel
06-- Commercial Building 1 -3 stories
14- Government Building
SIGNIFICANCE AND EVALUATION
Builder: Unknown
18. Context for evaluation: Theme: Residential Architecture Area: San Luis Obispo
Period: 1900-1940 Property type: Single Family. Residence
19. Briefly discuss the property's importance within the context. Use historical and architectural analysis as appropriate.
Compare with similar properties..
This house is in the urban fringe area. County Museum files indicate that Solomon W. Foreman, a rancher, "...established his
permanent home on this place..:" in 1886. Construction details in the house, barn and outhouse point to an early development
of the ranch and it is clear that the development started in the late 1870s by S.W. "Harry" and Margaret Foreman. Later, the
property was used as a dairy and in 1903, the property owner was R.J. Bullock, great grandfather of the current generation of
DeVauls. This attractive farmhouse has received some exterior modifications; however the addition of two bathrooms and
kitchen expansion is not visible from the front of the house and does not detract from the house's overall historic character.
The house is believed to be one of the oldest frame structures still existing within the vicinity of the City of San Luis Obispo.
It appears older than the two remaining farm homes in the area, the Long - Bonetti Ranch and the Froom Ranch. The property's
unique and unusual architecture as a "country home" makes the DeVaul ranch house, grounds and outbuildings a valuable
addition to the City's historic landscape. Formal gardens, privy, ranch fencing, Eucalyptus windrow and barn are in poor
condition but add to the historic context of the house.
(refer to attached historic narrative by Betsy Bertrando, June 1998)
20. Sources:
County Museum Files
County Recorder & Title Company documents
Page 4
Historical Resources Inventory
C. L. U. 1.
City Directories: 1931, . 1938, 1942, 1950
Bertrando and Bertrando, Historical research
21. Applicable National Register criteria:
22. Other recognition:
State Landmark No. (if applicable)
23 Evaluator:
Date of Evaluation:
24. Survey type: Project related
25 Survey name: Historic Resources Survey II
*26. Year form prepared: 1998
By: Jeff Hook
Organization: City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Depart.
Address: 990 Palm Street
City & Zip: San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone: (805) 781 -7170
•
*Sketch map. Show location and boundaries of property in
relation to nearby streets, railways, natural landmarks, etc.
Name each feature.
M
DOCUMENTATION OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The purpose of this evaluation sheet is to document the reasons why properties recommended
for inclusion on the San Luis Obispo Master List of Historical Resources are in fact historically
significant. Specific criteria for "National Register consideration" should be identified for all
recommended type #4 properties.
Property Address: 1.600 Madonna
Property Use: Residential
Recommended Numeric Ranking: 5
ARCHITECTURAL FACTORS:
1.Style:
Is the structure an excellent example of a distinctive architectural style? (An excellent example
is a building where the style has not been altered by the introduction of conflicting architectural
elements.)
X Yes No
Is the structure an example of an architectural style seldom seen in San Luis Obispo?
X Yes _ No
Page 5
Historical Resources Inventory
2 Design:.
is
Does the structure have significant aesthetic because of demonstrated craftsmanship, use
of detailing and execution of style?
X Yes—No
Does the structure incorporate unique details or architectural features seldom seen in San Luis
Obispo?
_Yes X No
Was the structure designed by a master architect such as Frank Lloyd Wright?
_Yes X No (If yes, name person
3. Significance of Building Designer:
Was the structure designed by a person who made significant contributions to the state or region
such as Julie Morgan? Other local buildings in Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, and San Luis
Obispo.
Yes X No (If yes, name person Unknown )
Was the structure designed by an architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant
contributions to San Luis Obispo?
_Yes X No (If yes, name person Unknown ).
Was the structure designed by a "pioneer" architect in the city or county?
Yes X No (If yes, name person Unknown ).
4. Landmarks:
Does the structure have a symbolic importance to the community or is it a notable community
or neighborhood landmark?
Yes X No
The building is one of the area's oldest remaining wood frame houses and has been a visual
landmark at the south end of Madonna Road for over 100 years.
H •
Historical 6
Resources Inventory
HISTORICAL FACTORS:
1. Residents or Tenants
Was the structure occupied by a significant community leader —e.g. mayor or congressman?
_Yes X No
Was the structure occupied by a community or public servant who made early, unique or
outstanding contributions to important local affairs?
Yes X No (If 'yes, name person.)
Was the structure occupied by a person with fame or outstanding recognition at the local,
regional, state or national level?
_Yes X No (If yes, name person.)
Was the structure occupied by a person or persons (e.g. families) that made important
contributions to the community?
Yes X No (If yes, name person(s).
Was the structure occupied by a business or public agency that made significant contributions to
the historical development of the community?
Yes X No (If yes,. identify business.)
2. Historical Events
Was the structure or site involved in a landmark, famous, or first -of -its -kind event?
Yes No Unknown
Did the structure or site make unique or interesting contributions to the history of the city (e.g.
the Chinese - American cultural activities)?
_ Yes X No
Was the structure directly associated with secondary patterns of local history?
Yes X No
Does the structure occupy its original site?
_Yes X No
Page 7 •
Historical Resources Inventory
Does the structure occupy its original site?
_Yes X No
NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA
The following criteria should be used to evaluate structures and sites recommended as Type #4
properties —those potentially eligible for the National Register of Historical Places.
A. The property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the
broad patterns of our history.
B. The property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
C. The property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or
represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack
individual distinction.
D. The property has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in
prehistory or history.
Page 8 + •
Historical Resources Inventory
BERTRANDO AND BERTRANDO, JUNE 1998
HISTORY
The project area lies within the boundaries of the historic La Laguna or Laguna Rancho. The
project area known as the De Vaul Ranch formed part of the southwest border of the Laguna
Rancho and extended within the Rancho boundary 378.36 acres in a northeasterly direction.
The Laguna Rancho was originally a part of the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa lands. in
1844, after the Mission ranchos had been regranted by the Mexican government, Governor
Micheltorena granted the church "one square league (4157+ acres) in the place called
Laguna "(Engelhardt 1963). 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. The properties were later claimed by the
church and confirmed by the American government in 1855 (Kocher 1972). In 1859, Bishop
Alemany sold the Laguna property to Captain John Wilson.. -
W.W. Stow, from San Francisco, eventually acquired the land from the Wilson estate. Stow was
known locally as a major benefactor of the first library in San Luis Obispo. As he had "a very
kindly feeling towards San Luis Obispo" he wanted to contribute books not money for the
library. Wanting to make the selections himself, Stow felt "there was too much reading of
fiction, which might be stopped if historical and biographical works were placed on the shelf'
(Tognazzini 1992).
The land was eventually combined with the Rancho Canada de los Osos, also owned by Wilson.
and subdivided in 1869 by William H. Patterson. The area surveyed by James Stratton
encompassed the entire Los Osos Valley from Morro Bay to San Luis Obispo Creek. The De
Vaul Ranch is Lot 60 out of 78 in the early subdivision.
In 1875, Stow sold the property to S.W. (Harry) Foreman, a surveyor. Harry and his wife
Margaret had, what was for that time, a rather elaborate home built for them that remains today
as the house on the De Vaul ranch. Harry had money and was quick to make a deal, always in
his favor. Both Harry and Margaret kept a country house rather than a working farm or ranch.
not typical for the area ( Froom pers. comm).
Later, Lots 60,67,68 and 69 (comprising the south and west corner of the old Laguna Rancho)
became one of the four county ranches belonging to Annie Nelson. Her home was on the Froom
ranch and dairy. She married Ludwig Nelson from Norway. Later Harriet Perry Froom, wife of
John Froom, bought and ran the same operation. John Froom was a Canadian who had worked
for the Nelson's ( Froom pers. comm.).
Farms, dairies and ranches grew out of the subdivision as it slowly developed. Land reclamation
was undertaken for the area just to the north and east of the De Vaul Ranch and, in 1882,
Chinese, under contract to Ali Louis, were working on the land reclamation project and drainage
ditch for Laguna Lake (Wong 1987). The Sandercock Company, a drayage firm, gives listings
for the month of July of transporting "Chinamen to lagoon ", as well as loads of rice and lumber.
Page 9 •
Historical Resources Inventory
As the population increased in the town, Laguna Lake became a popular area for duck hunting,
and black bass were stocked in the lake. By 1896 farmers around the lake, growing mostly
barley at that time, posted "No Hunting Allowed" signs throughout the area, as the popularity of
the lake became troublesome to the surrounding landowners (Tognazzini - 1996).
Just east of the De Vaul Ranch on the opposite side of Los Osos Valley Road was another
popular recreation spot for the residents of San Luis Obispo. A one mile racetrack that was also
part of the social life in San Luis Obispo. The grandstand has been moved and still can be seen
from Madonna Road where it was later used with a' /2 mile track.
In 1903, R.J. Bullock purchased Lot 60 and resided in the De Vaul house. There were three bovs
and one girl in the family. Changes had been made to the house. The original lean -to across the
back had been the kitchen, but now the dining room became the kitchen. An addition was added
to the lean -to and indoor plumbing was added as well (Froom pers. comm.).
The brothers, Thomas and Alva De Vaul purchased the property in 1947. At one time the De
Vaul's owned considerable land in the county. This is the last major piece of property belonging
to the family (Schoniger pers. comm.).
The current tenant, Gisele Schoniger, has lived in the house for 15 years, prior to that it was used
for a short time in the 1970's as an alternate grade school known as the Community School.
DE VAUL RANCH
Construction details in the house, barn and outhouse point to an early development of the ranch
and it is clear the development started in the late 1870's by Harry and Margaret Foreman. Later,
it was a dairy and in 1903, the property owner was R.J. Bullock, great grandfather of the current
generation of De Vaul's. During the 1900's, the land was used for dry farming and the range
leased for cattle. Crops planted were garbanzo, squash, pumpkin and barley. This is the last
remaining ranch that was part of the extensive De Vaul holdings (Schoniger pers. comm.). Part
of the complex on the "windward" side was fenced by eucalyptus trees. The remaining trees are
an extremely old planting. "Old" eucalyptus groves are referred to in local newspaper articles
from the 1880's and 90's. Part of the older fence boards in the barn area were 12" to 20" wide
redwood planks that were fastened with square nails. Along the south side, barbed wire was
used with living walnut trees as posts. The barbed wire has been grown over and covered by the
trunks and in some places the wire has grown at least 2 ft higher than the original height of the
fence. Remains of farm equipment are still common in the area.
STRUCTURES
The "country home" built by the Foreman's followed a trend, albeit in a less exuberant manner,
that started in California in 1852 when an editorial in the Alta California claimed that almost
Page 10
Historical Resources Inventory
every San Franciscan of means planned to build a country house (Kirker 1986). Currently
known as the De Vaul house, the single story house is in good condition and is approximately
120 years old. Some of the features common to the.Italianate style (mid- 1860's to 1880's are a
part of this house, particularly in the interior. The exterior window treatment has elements of
three styles; the hood molds over the windows found in Gothic Revival (1830 -1880) (Blumenson
1981), the rectangular bay of the San Francisco Stick (l 870's to 1890) that has vertical stick
motifs on the top and bottom, and the long, narrow double sash openings that are capped with
cornice and a protruding sill typical of the Italianate style. The extra detailing would have been
more commonly found within the City of San Luis Obispo and not a part of a working ranch
household where extra features more often were added to the barns and dairies.
The interior boasts of.high ceilings, approximately 14 feet, with glass transomes over the
doorways. The central hall with its series of doors _leading to the gentleman's parlor and the
ladies parlor with its own bay window can be joined with the opening of a pocket door. Rooms
off both sides of the hallway have pocket doors connecting them. The hall ends under a
graceful, high sculpted archway that leads into the back portion and kitchen area. In one of the
front rooms a rare painted, molded, metal fireplace insert is still in place. The front portion of
the house still retains the design characteristics from when it was first constructed.
,_
The barn has had wood replaced through the years as well as roofing. It also has some very %vide
redwood planks remaining with square nails as fasteners. Evidences of use remain with
stanchions from the dairy and rotting gunny sacks that held the beans. Parts of old harnesses for
horse plowing mingle with a variety of old bottles and hardware. The back of the barn is
completely open and only the roof is in fair condition. Boards barely hold the structure together
and its future is perilous. On the fence adjacent to the barn there are brands on the post and
board - DJ (unidentified brand) and AD presumably for Alva De Vaul.
Other
Two other small old structures remain in the complex. One is the original outhouse, however,
not in its original location and the other an old shed with the words "Community Club" over the
door. Parts of old equipment and milk cans have been placed "artfully" around the garden by
the present tenant as landscaping devices.
There is a tall fountain that is in the middle of the front walkway that was brought around Cape
Horn and it is still operational (Schoniger pers. comm.). It adds emphasis to the design of the
house and is an important detail to the overall architectural style.
Page 11
Historical Resources Inventory
DISCUSSION
•
The De Vaul house is about 120 years old, one of the oldest frame structures still existing within
the vicinity of the City of San Luis Obispo. It appears to be older than the two remaining farm
homes in the area. One is the Froom Ranch adjacent on the east side of the property. The
Froom was a dairy operation in the 1880's and parts of the dairy related structures from.the early
period are still in evidence, however, the house was built after 1900. . The other farm known as
the Long/Bonetti Ranch, also from the 1880's, has only two side sections remaining possibly
from that period (Triem 1990). It is currently undergoing a development process to reuse and
add to the historic complex.
The unique and unusual architecture as a "country home" makes the De Vaul House a valuable
addition to our historic landscape. The addition did little to change the original character of the
house except to add two bathrooms and a more current kitchen. The addition is not seen from
the front of the. house and does not detract from the'original period of construction.
The barn is in a very dilapidated state and not a part of the original intent of the property as a
"country house ". It was used as a dairy during the ownership of Annie Nelson, and later as
storage for equipment used for crops and dry farming.
CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATIONS
The City of San Luis Obispo produced The Histori cal Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG)
in 1987 in order to preserve a sense of the community's history. As expressed in the guidelines:
"These `reminders of the past' help define the character of San Luis Obispo ".
Historic Resource Criteria for Building Evaluation and Recommendations as stated in the HPPG
allows the De Vaul ranch to be included in the City's historic properties under the following
categories.
I. Architectural Criteria
1. Purity of a traditional style...
2. Rarity of existence......
3.. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a traditional social
milieu......
4. The degree to which the structure has maintained its integrity..
II. Design
1. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its uniqueness, artistic merit,
details and craftsmanship...
M. Age An important very early, rare and unusual. example of frame construction still
existing within the City of San Luis Obispo's sphere of influence (HPPG 1987).
Page 12 i •
Historical Resources Inventory
The on -site investigation and records search of the historic structures existing on the,De Vaul
Ranch found a potentially significant historic structure and historic ranch remains. The
complex also contains the original and as yet unlocated privy site.
The City of San Luis Obispo does not have sufficient cultural resource documentation on many
of the areas surrounding the downtown core. This has not allowed the remaining early-
farm/ranch complexes to have been put on the City's Fist of historic properties. There has been
no comprehensive study and evaluation of the our city's rural roots. Only recently have
individual projects brought some of these properties to our attention as part of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) evaluation process. As the surrounding land is annexed,
these remaining properties often are our only reminders of our agricultural background.
Remains of family farms as well as cattle and dairy ranches are in danger of all disappearing as
individually they are often minor structures on the landscape.
In this case of the De Vaul Ranch, the house is,in very good condition with only minor
modifications to the original building. It is also most interesting in the design details and
original use as a "country house ". It's very early date of construction also insures the house of
rare company with the few remaining wood houses in the county that pre -date 1880.
It is sometimes difficult to absorb rural buildings within an urban landscape without also
maintaining some of the rural landscape surrounding the building. Often an adaptive reuse plan
(e.g LongBonetti Ranch) and/or the rural structure as a focal point within a planned
development (e.g. Rodriquez Adobe in a City park) can be very successful and give a special
quality to the project. This is the recommendation of this consultant. The importance of
retaining pockets of our early development as well as historic districts has already been
expressed by the city.
Results of this research and application of the City's criteria recommends the "country house''
with its fountain entrance walkway be preserved as a culturally significant structure. The
location of the house at the west end of the level. area with hills forming directly at the rear of. .,
the house allows a view shed to remain naturally as one views the house from the front even
with the proposed development. The barn is too fragile and separate from the "country house"
to be kept without complete rebuilding. It is also not "unique ". However, photo documentation,
and basic plans of the barn and its contents, before removal would be an important part of
allowing the continuity of land use history to be made available for study. The privy site, if
uncovered should be studied by an archaeologist who specializes in historical sites.
The alternative mitigation procedure would be a complete documentation and recording of the
remaining structures done to NABS (Historic American Buildings Survey) and HAER (Historic
American Engineering Record) standards prior to removal. This would also be required to some
degree if modifications to the structure were necessary. Removal of the house and fountain is
not recommended and strongly discouraged.
Exhibit B
DeVaul Ranch House Rehabilitation Plan
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
1. Owner shall preserve, maintain, and repair the historic building, including its
character - defining architectural features in good condition, to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director or designee. Character- defining features shall
include, but are not limited to: roof, eaves, dormers, trim, porches, walls and siding,
architectural detailing, doors and windows, window screens and shutters, balustrades and
railings, foundations, and surface treatments.
2. Owner agrees to make the following improvements and/or repairs during the term
of this contract, but in no case later than occupancy. All changes or repairs shall be
consistent with the City's Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects: (list improvements
appropriate for the specific property. Some examples of repairs or improvements are
listed below)
Remove greenhouse addition on the left side of the house
2. Add new stairway to secondary space (gallery/hallway) to provide access
to the improved attic space.
Bedroom No. 1 to remain as is, including fireplace /mantel.
4. Bedroom No. 2 to be remodeled to accommodate master bathroom for
Bedroom No. 1. Eliminate doorway into new master bathroom.
Existing living room to remain. Remove gallery wall at entry to living
room. Lower ceiling height from 13 to 10 feet.
6. Parlor room to remain. Pocket door between living room and parlor to
remain. Lower ceiling height from 13 feet to 10 feet..
Private side entry (addition to original construction) to accommodate
utility functions (washer /dryer, storage).
Existing utility/powder rooms (not part of the original construction) to be
remodeled to accommodate a larger powder room.
9. Existing family room (not part of the original construction) to remain,
including fireplace.
Page 2
Maintenance and Improvement Measures
10. Kitchen (not part of origirial construction) to remain. Pocket door between
family room and kitchen to remain.
11. Add improved attic space to include bedrooms Two (2) and Three (3) and
a bath. Total square footage = 600 s.f.±
12. Construct a two car garage with a granny flat above, that will be in
keeping with the architecture of the house.
END OF DOCUMENT