ventura county cultural heritage board...

In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Nicole Doner at 805-654-5042. Reasonable advance notification of the need for accommodation prior to the meeting (48 hours advance notice is preferable) will enable us to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

Ventura County

Cultural Heritage Board

Agenda

Monday, March 07, 2016 Special Meeting

Notice is hereby given that on Monday, March 07, 2016 at 1:15 p.m., the Ventura County

Cultural Heritage Board (CHB) will convene for a Public Meeting at the Ventura County Government Center, Administration Building, Third Floor, Santa Cruz Conference Room, located at 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA. Members of the public are welcome to attend.

1. ROLL CALL Patricia Havens, Ricki Mikkelsen, John Kulwiec, Don Shorts, Gary Blum, Stephen Schafer, Miguel

Fernandez

2. ORAL COMMUNICATION This time is set aside for public comment on items not otherwise on this agenda which are within the

purview of the Cultural Heritage Board. Each speaker is allowed a maximum of five minutes. Board members may question the speaker but there will be no debate or decision. Staff may refer the matter for investigation and/or a future report.

3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 11, 2016 Minutes

4a. CONVENE THE MEETING OF THE VENTURA COUNTY CULTURAL HERITAGE BOARD

7620 Telephone Road, Unincorporated Area of Ventura, CA

Action: Consider the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition of the Day Ranch farmhouse, barn and two garages, Case No. PL15-0010

4b. 67 East Telegraph Road, Unincorporated Area of Fillmore, CA

Action: Consider the conceptual design of the Ventura County Point of Interest No. 11 monument using historic bricks from the former Texaco Fillmore Works Refinery

5. DISCUSSION a. Board Member Reports b. CHB Program Updates from Staff

6. MEETING ADJOURNMENT

It n I -T 3! ¡ l t

I I

I I

//

I I/

(oo

õg cCI'

Cf

,/,

I I,

aa

I I I I I l I , I I I I

Ø =m ! r- z -T.I o o c o) N)

-(,

l\) O o)

rl 3 o -¡ o ã o -l x Ø ! 9. =r+ o -+ì

-f r+ o -l o CN r+ o f c 3 o =r+

I t

I I

t I

I IT T ¡ o X -l m

a< Eõ

'oZ

-'c (o<

c lT

l+

=,

:) '<- oo &9

Ð-l 3õ gz

I I It I

z o n -l T-t

--

, I

Cou

nty

of V

entu

raC

ultu

ral

Her

itage

Boa

rd A

gend

aìte

m 4

b

-o N

) (¡ (¡ o

lt ,-

I I

, Io o

-\.

þ-

f :

.

L:,

Pag

e '1

of

3

CÂL È-XCELS CR

SII\¡ONS

o ¿4

SIDE ELEVATION A

3'X 2'-6'' X 3'THICK PRECAST CONCRETECAP WITH 18" x24" INTERPRETIVE PANELBY INTERPRETIVE GRAPHICS

f" ntousrntRl HEX BoLT

STAMPED SALVAGED BRICK(sEE PHOTOS BOTTOMR|GHT) TO BE RANDOMLYPLACED AND FIELDDIRECTED BY ARCHITECT

CONCRETE FOOTING

1'OVER-HANG,TYP.

12"

FRONT ELEVATION

3'X 2'-6'X 3'THICKCONCRETE CAP WITH 18" x24" INTERPRETIVE PANEL BYINTERPRETIVE GRAPHICS(TTLTED, 30" V|EW

I'rHEX BOLT

2' W|DE, { rnrcr rnoruFRAME

STAMPED SALVAGED BRICK(sEE PHOTOS BOTTOMRTGHT) TO BE RANDOMLYPLACED AND FIELD DIRECTEDBY ARCHITECT

1',-0u

CONCRETE FOOTING

44

3',-2"

(FLAT V|EW)

112"

SALVAGED BRICK PHOTOS

2" WtDE, { rntcxIRON FRAME

CONCRETEPAVING

(toNa,Er(!o-

o1t0)o)

o{5p;ñs3+b gEà8.€=ooI,E

f

=o

c{

rf,

7

SALVAGEBRICKVENEERGROUTED ANDMOUNTEDWITH METALVENEER TIES

À

__tA

I

L

-lI

_.i

4Á

I

__l

SECTION B

18" x24" INTERPRETIVEPANEL FLUSH WITH CAP

3'X 2'-6" X 3'THICKPRECAST CONCRETE CAPWITH THREADED INSERTSFOR ANCHORING.

REBAR AS NEEDE

8x8x16CMU

CONCRETE

24

1

CONCRETE FOOTING

MONUMENT SKETCH

]s

3'X 2'-6'X 3" TH|CKPRECAST CONCRETE CAPWITH 18" x 24"INTERPRETIVE PANEL BYINTERPRETIVE GRAPHICS

2" W|DE, I rnlcxIRON FRAME

SALVAGE BRICKVENEER GROUTED ANDMOUNTED WTH METALVENEER TIES

INDUSTRIAL STEELPLAQUE "Fillmore WorksHistoric Bricks Circa 1919"

STAMPEDSALVAGEDBRICK TO BERANDOMLYPI.ACED ANDFIELD DIRECTEDBY ARCHITECT

CONCRETEPAVING

NOTE: DETAIL lS FOR BIDDING PURPOSES ONLYAND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR TOPROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR FINAL APPROVALAND PERMITTING PROCESSING IF NEEDED.

nPil o{/-Ð

lllrrmS,"iYå DETAILS February 23,2016

lrl?! ir.úrt - b lù. i .l!r:iLrtu a¡t{{ln:di{ ¡i t1.r:!:1i,¿-+::,w.rrmderþn.com

f a f:.i-,:':!rü'f rlF'rî'r À.lirEii7¿¡tlrl¡'!tâ:ial-r1¿1*ts¡i7A.t'R41n t^Nt

t,ÄBU(ioIlf-lr

JtSII\,IONS

INDUSTRIALSTEELPLAQUE"Fillmore WorksHistoric BricksCirca 1919"

CONCRETEPAVING

Ts

7Â

F¡CLI SIiIì

F¡llmore Works Point of lnterest Monument SCALE: 314" = 1'-0" 2

3.3.'i

;*l^r +l¡rf rl¡

I

n

åF >

àf

1

t#. r\lþ

I

t .*-\.-¡

fIr

-,.F r¡.#;-- 4!.::-- rL

,ç f *tí

3u. I, .:l}.

qt l}r: " "k-

Chewon and dedicated in 2ot6.Monument donated

FILLMOREWORKSHAS BEEN DESIGNATED

VENTURA COUNTY POINT OF INTEREST NO. 11

This nlotìutnent marks the entrance to the former Þ-illrnore oil refinery (r9r5 - 195o) and is constructed using bricksrecoverecl from the original facility. First operated by Ventura Refining Company and later by California PetroleumCompany, the refinery *as acquired in r9z8 by The Texas Company (Texaco) and renamed Fillmore Works. In itsd"y, t¡" Þilttnore Works refinery was one of Ventura Countyts largest industrial developments. It employed up tozoo area residents and was vitai t.r operations at the nearby Montebello and Oak Ridge oil fields. 'Ihe establishrnentof the oil refinery influenced the largest growtl-r period in Fillmore's history.

Fillmore Works expanded during WorldWar II to support the immense wartimedernand for oil and aviation fuel shippedfrom Port Huenenre to the PacificTheater. Refining operations ended in195o rn'hen the refinery was no longerviable. In r953, Pacific Coast Pipeline, adivision of Texaco, took over the facilityand operated it for nearly 50 years as acrude oil purnping station. Texacomerged with Chevron Corporation in2oot. Crude oil operations ended in zoozand land revitalization began. Therefinery remains an intportant part ofFillrnore's history.

rg4t'I'exnco F illnrore tf¡orks lle/rnenr - ¡rhoto col¡rtes-V ol F illnrcre tlísrorical /I'luset¡rtl

ooooÐõÀ

(uEcc)o)sÍ

Fos3+b gEàÈ'sc'Clc)o-,E

¿o

lllrrmS¡iYå PLAQUE DESIGN February 2s,2016

lllli ir.v!t 1lÉ lt¡'; 'lL; îl;hlr, ?tl¡ili:,4r{ {i &¿.1 !::r:i ¿'¡4,::?

m-rrmderþn,coma'i À,rir¡;lar¿lDr t-füa.. tAN)

F¡llmore Works Point of lnterest Monument SCALE: 112" = 1'-0" 3

Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board Minutes January 11, 2016 at 1:15 p.m. County of Ventura • Resource Management Agency • Planning Division 8005. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740 • (805) 654-2478 • ventura.org/nna/planning

1. Public Meeting was called to order at 1:20 p.m. by Chair Blum in the Atlantic Conference Room

Commissioners Present: Gary Blum - Chair, Don Shorts, Pat Havens, Ricki Mikkelsen — Vice Chair, and Miguel Fernandez Commissioners Absent: John Kulwiec and Stephen Schafer

Staff Present: Franca Rosengren and Tricia Maier

2. Oral Communications: None.

3. Minutes:

September 14, 2015 — Ms. Havens motioned to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Mr. Fernandez. Motion passed 4-0 (Vice Chair Mikkelsen abstained).

October 26, 2015 — Ms. Havens motioned to approve the minutes. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Mikkelsen. Motion passed 4-0 (Mr. Shorts abstained).

Convene the Meeting of the Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board (VCCHB)

4. Consider the Coastal Planned Development Permit Case No. PL15-0162 and provide a recommendation to the Planning Director regarding the historic significance of the existing building pursuant to CEQA, using the County of Ventura Initial Study Assessment Guidelines.

Ms. Rosengren presented the staff report, Powerpoint presentation, and the following recommended actions:

1. CONDUCT the public hearing, RECEIVE oral and written testimony, and CONSIDER the County Planning staff report and all exhibits and attachments on this project; and,

2. REVIEW and COMMENT on the proposed project in accordance with the County of Ventura Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (ISAGs) Section 8b, Item E. Methodology Step 1 through Step 3, based on the preceding evidence and analysis.

Presentation of public speakers in favor of the recommended actions: Barrey Robles (Barrey Robles Architects), Richard Greenberg (Property Owner), Jeff Bell, and Kevin Estes (Finish-line Carpentry, Inc.).

Ventura County Cultural Heritage Board Minutes

|anuary lI,2016 at 1:15 p.m.

1

County of Ventura . Resource Management Agency. Planning Division800 S. Victoria Avenue, Venura, CA 93009-1740' (805) 654-2478 . ventura.org/rma/planning

Public Meeting was called to order at 1:20 p.m. by Chair Blum in the AtlanticConference Room

Commissioners Present: Gary Blum - Chair, Don Shorts, Pat Havens, Ricki Mikkelsen- Vice Chair, and Miguel FernandezCommissioners Absent: John Kulwiec and Stephen Schafer

Staff Present: Franca Rosengren and Tricia Maier

2. Oral Communications: None

3. Minutes:

September 14,2015 - Ms. Havens motioned to approve the minutes. Motion secondedby Mr. Fernandez. Motion passed 4-0 (Vice Chair Mikkelsen abstained).

October 26,2015 - Ms. Havens motioned to approve the minutes. Motion seconded byVice Chair Mikkelsen. Motion passed 4-0 (Mr. Shorts abstained).

Convene the Meeting of the Ventura Gounty Cultural Heritage Board (VCCHB)

Consider the Coastal Planned Development Permit Case No. PL15-0162 and provide arecommendation to the Planning Director regarding the historic significance of theexisting building pursuant to CEQA, using the County of Ventura Initial StudyAssessment G uidelines.

Ms. Rosengren presented the staff report, Powerpoint presentation, and the followingrecommended actions:

CONDUCT the public hearing, RECEIVE oral and written testimony, andCONSIDER the County Planning staff report and all exhibits and attachments onthis project; and,

REVIEW and COMMENT on the proposed project in accordance with the Countyof Ventura Initial Study Assessment Guidelines (lSAGs) Section 8b, ltem E.Methodology Step 1 through Step 3, based on the preceding evidence andanalysis.

Presentation of public speakers in favor of the recommended actions: Barrey Robles(Barrey Robles Architects), Richard Greenberg (Property Owner), Jeff Bell, and KevinEstes (Finish-line Carpentry, lnc.).

4.

1

2

1

January 11, 2016 CHB Minutes Page 12

Deliberation and Vote: Ms. Havens asked for the number of beachside houses of this style that are still in existence in the Silverstrand Beach Community. Chair Blum answered that there has not been a survey done in this area in order to make this determination. Mr. Robles stated that he believes that this residence is one of the last residences of this style along the Silverstrand beachfront. Vice Chair Mikkelsen asked if the finish on the chimney had been restored back to the original stone finish style. Mr. Greenberg stated that the chimney had been replicated like the original chimney. Mr. Fernandez asked the architect why he decided to install a solid fascia at the low edge of the roof. Mr. Robles stated that it was due to the installation of the insulation and the depth of the roof rafters. Mr. Fernandez stated that the solid fascia makes the residence appear to be a 1950s and 1960s tract home as opposed to a beach bungalow. Mr. Fernandez stated that he appreciates that the floor plan has not changed. Ms. Havens asked for clarification of where the insulation is located for those areas that have skylights. Mr. Estes stated that the insulation is above the surface of the ceiling but below the new roof. Mr. Fernandez asked the architect why he decided to use sliding glass doors at the rear of the residence instead of traditional swing doors. Mr. Estes stated that using sliding glass doors instead of the swing doors provides more outdoor space. Mr. Bell further commented that there is a lot of wind in the area and the sliding glass doors are considered more stable. Mr. Estes stated that the mullions on the windows are custom made to match the original windows of the residence which are made of solid wood construction with aluminum clad to protect the wood on the outside.

Ms. Havens asked for clarification on whether the CHB needs to determine if the site is eligible for a County Landmark or a Site of Merit. Planning staff explained that at this hearing, the CHB must decide whether the site is considered a historic resource, and if so, were the changes that were made to the residence considered "significant".

Mr. Estes stated that the residence was under construction with approved building permits when the property owners were told that the project was required to be reviewed by the Cultural Heritage Board and the Planning Division for the changes to the residence.

Mr. Fernandez stated that the pitch change to the roof dramatically alters the style of the residence to a more modernist look. Mr. Bell stated that he opted for the roof pitch change in order to have safety and security from the weather. He also stated that he was not aware that the project needed to be reviewed by the CHB or the Planning Division until the building inspector mentioned it while the residence was already under construction. He further added that there were a lot of developers who wanted to purchase the property with plans to demolish the residence, whereas the property owner has rehabilitated it. Vice Chair Mikkelsen asked if the interior of the residence has changed. The applicants stated that the interior remains the same except for the replacement of some interior siding. Ms. Haven stated that she is pleased with what the property owner has done to the residence.

Vice Chair Mikkelsen motioned to consider the site potentially eligible for designation as a County Landmark since it is one of the last, original single-story beach bungalows in

January 11,2016 CHB MinutesPage12

Deliberation and Vote: Ms. Havens asked for the number of beachside houses of thisstyle that are still in existence in the Silverstrand Beach Community. Chair Blumanswered that there has not been a survey done in this area in order to make thisdetermination. Mr. Robles stated that he believes that this residence is one of the lastresidences of this style along the Silverstrand beachfront. Vice Chair Mikkelsen asked ifthe finish on the chimney had been restored back to the original stone finish style. Mr.Greenberg stated that the chimney had been replicated like the original chimney. Mr.Fernandez asked the architect why he decided to install a solid fascia at the low edge ofthe roof. Mr. Robles stated that it was due to the installation of the insulation and thedepth of the roof rafters. Mr. Fernandez stated that the solid fascia makes theresidence appear to be a 1950s and 1960s tract home as opposed to a beachbungalow. Mr. Fernandez stated that he appreciates that the floor plan has notchanged. Ms. Havens asked for clarification of where the insulation is located for thoseareas that have skylights. Mr. Estes stated that the insulation is above the surface ofthe ceiling but below the new roof. Mr. Fernandez asked the architect why he decidedto use sliding glass doors at the rear of the residence instead of traditional swing doors.Mr. Estes stated that using sliding glass doors instead of the swing doors provides moreoutdoor space. Mr. Bell further commented that there is a lot of wind in the area and thesliding glass doors are considered more stable. Mr. Estes stated that the mullions onthe windows are custom made to match the original windows of the residence which aremade of solid wood construction with aluminum clad to protect the wood on the outside.

Ms. Havens asked for clarification on whether the CHB needs to determine if the site iseligible for a County Landmark or a Site of Merit. Planning staff explained that at thishearing, the CHB must decide whether the site is considered a historic resource, and ifso, were the changes that were made to the residence considered "significant".

Mr. Estes stated that the residence was under construction with approved buildingpermits when the property owners were told that the project was required to bereviewed by the Cultural Heritage Board and the Planning Division for the changes tothe residence.

Mr. Fernandez stated that the pitch change to the roof dramatically alters the style of theresidence to a more modernist look. Mr. Bell stated that he opted for the roof pitchchange in order to have safety and security from the weather. He also stated that hewas not aware that the project needed to be reviewed by the CHB or the PlanningDivision until the building inspector mentioned it while the residence was already underconstruction. He further added that there were a lot of developers who wanted topurchase the property with plans to demolish the residence, whereas the propertyowner has rehabilitated it. Vice Chair Mikkelsen asked if the interior of the residencehas changed. The applicants stated that the interior remains the same except for thereplacement of some interior siding. Ms. Haven stated that she is pleased with what theproperty owner has done to the residence.

Vice Chair Mikkelsen motioned to consider the site potentially eligible for designation asa County Landmark since it is one of the last, original single-story beach bungalows in

2


the Silverstrand Beach Community. Motion seconded by Ms. Havens. Motion passed 4-1. (Mr. Shorts voted no).

Mr. Fernandez motioned to disagree with Planning staff's findings that the proposed project is consistent with Standard Nos. 5 and 9 of the Secretary of Interior Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings because the features of the residence have not been reconstructed according to their original design (i.e., change to the pitch of the roof at the rear of the residence and the style of replaced fascia). Motion seconded by Vice Chair Mikkelsen. Motion passed 5-0.

After further discussion on the impact of the motion just passed, the Vice Chair motioned to rescind Mr. Fernandez's motion. Motion seconded by Ms. Havens. Motion to rescind passed 5-0.

Mr. Fernandez then restated his original motion to disagree with Planning staff's findings that the proposed project is consistent with Standard Nos. 5, and 9 of the Secretary of Interior Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings because some of the features of the residence have not been reconstructed according to their original design (i.e., change to the pitch of the roof at the rear of the residence and the style of replaced fascia) as stated in the January 11, 2016 staff report; however, the changes that were made to the residence (the proposed project) do not constitute a significant impact to a potential historical resource. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Mikkelsen. Motion passed 5-0.

5. Discussion a. Board Member Reports — Mr. Shorts mentioned that the Pierpont Inn is under

construction. Ms. Havens stated that she considers the Colony House still significant even after the date the post office was moved out of it. Ms. Havens also mentioned that she is working on the book for the Tapo District and would like to have the website links to the two museums in her district (Strathearn and Stagecoach Inn) located on the CHB website. Chair Blum stated that the Gull Wing Museum is looking for a new home and the current building may be a historic building since it is over 50 years old. Chair Blum also stated that he was contacted by two previous owners of his home. Vice Chair Mikkelsen stated that she wished that the CHB could have toured the 2001 Ocean Drive, Silverstrand property. Chair Blum responded that if it was a different process such as a Landmark or a Certificate of Appropriateness, then the CHB would have toured the site.

b. Updates from Staff — Ms. Maier explained that the Planning Division has been training Planning counter staff to check sites that are more than 50 years old to determine whether or not the site could potentially be a historic resource, if not already identified. Ms. Maier also commented that the Planning Division is still working with other County agencies on the procedure to alert the Planning Division prior to issuing any permits for those sites that have been built more than 50 years ago but aren't officially designated, particularly in cases where no Planning permit is required such as window replacements.

5.

January 11, 2016 CHB MinutesPage l3

the Silverstrand Beach Community. Motion seconded by Ms. Havens.Motion passed 4-1. (Mr. Shorts voted no).

Mr. Fernandez motioned to disagree with Planning staff's findings that the proposedproject is consistent with Standard Nos. 5 and g of the Secretary of lnterior Guidelinesfor Rehabilitating Historic Buildings because the features of the residence have notbeen reconstructed according to their original design (i.e., change to the pitch of the roofat the rear of the residence and the style of replaced fascia). Motion seconded by ViceChair Mikkelsen. Motion passed 5-0.

After further discussion on the impact of the motion just passed, the Vice Chairmotioned to rescind Mr. Fernandez's motion. Motion seconded by Ms. Havens. Motionto rescind passed 5-0.

Mr. Fernandez then restated his original motion to disagree with Planning staff'sfindings that the proposed project is consistent with Standard Nos. 5, and 9 of theSecretary of lnterior Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings because some ofthe features of the residence have not been reconstructed according to their originaldesign (i.e., change to the pitch of the roof at the rear of the residence and the style ofreplaced fascia) as stated in the January 11,2016 staff report; however, the changesthat were made to the residence (the proposed project) do not constitute a significantimpact to a potential historical resource. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Mikkelsen.Motion passed 5-0.

Discussiona. Board Member Reports - Mr. Shorts mentioned that the Pierpont lnn is under

construction. Ms. Havens stated that she considers the Colony House stillsignificant even after the date the post office was moved out of it. Ms. Havens alsomentioned that she is working on the book for the Tapo District and would like tohave the website links to the two museums in her district (Strathearn andStagecoach lnn) located on the CHB website. Chair Blum stated that the GullWing Museum is looking for a new home and the current building may be a historicbuilding since it is over 50 years old. Chair Blum also stated that he was contactedby two previous owners of his home. Vice Chair Mikkelsen stated that she wishedthat the CHB could have toured the 2001 Ocean Drive, Silverstrand property.Chair Blum responded that if it was a different process such as a Landmark or aCertificate of Appropriateness, then the CHB would have toured the site.

Updates from Staff - Ms. Maier explained that the Planning Division has beentraining Planning counter staff to check sites that are more than 50 years old todetermine whether or not the site could potentially be a historic resource, if notalready identified. Ms. Maier also commented that the Planning Division is stillworking with other County agencies on the procedure to alert the Planning Divisionprior to issuing any permits for those sites that have been built more than 50 yearsago but aren't officially designated, particularly in cases where no Planning permitis required such as window replacements.

b

3


Ms. Rosengren reminded Ms. Havens and Vice Chair Mikkelsen of the California Preservation Foundation training on Thursday, January 14, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. Ms. Havens and Vice Chair Mikkelsen requested a follow-up email confirmation on the start time of the training. Ms. Rosengren also requested the availability of the CHB for a possible CHB meeting on January 25, 2016. Chair Blum announced a tentative CHB meeting for January 25, 2016 at 1:15 p.m.

6. Adjournment of the Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Board by Chair Blum.

January 11, 2016 CHB MinutesPage l4

Ms. Rosengren reminded Ms. Havens and Vice Chair Mikkelsen of the CaliforniaPreservation Foundation training on Thursday, January 14, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.Ms. Havens and Vice Chair Mikkelsen requested a follow-up email confirmationon the start time of the training. Ms. Rosengren also requested the availability ofthe CHB for a possible CHB meeting on January 25,2016. Chair Blumannounced a tentative CHB meeting for January 25,2016 at 1:15 p.m.

6. Adjournment of the Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Board by Chair Blum.

4

Staff Report and Recommendations Agenda of March 7, 2016, Item 4a County of Ventura • Resource Management Agency • Planning Division 800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA 93009-1740 • (805) 654-2478 • ventura.org/rma/plannin

APPLICANT:

OWNER:

David Armstrong Armstrong Advisors [email protected]

R.H. Smith Family Properties, LLC P.O. Box 25010 Ventura, CA 93002-2250

REQUEST:

On behalf of the Owner, the applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness (County Cultural Heritage Ordinance (CHO) Code § 1366) to demolish the circa 1881 farmhouse, a circa 1940 barn and two garages circa 1935 on an undesignated property. Case No. CH15-0010.

LOCATION AND ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:

7620 Telephone Road, Unincorporated Area of Ventura, CA APN 131-0-050-150

I. CULTURAL HERITAGE BACKGROUND:

A. Historical Background

The subject property consists of 78 acres of an original 80 acre parcel purchased by James Allen Day in 1874. The site is in the unincorporated area of Ventura County and generally is surrounded by the City of Ventura. An evaluation of the project was completed by San Buenaventura Research Associates (SBRA) with a revised date of October 29, 2015 ("Report" - Exhibit 1) for the subject property referred to as the Day Ranch. The Day Ranch currently contains a main residence, a barn, two garages, a fruit stand, small storage buildings and greenhouses, and row crops. The property's existing main residence was estimated to have been built in 1881 and was described in the Report as follows:

Main Residence — circa 1881 The two-story ltalianate style residence features a square plan with a low truncated hipped roof, punctuated with a brick chimney. Under the overhanging closed eaves are decorative carved brackets. A porch extends across the front (northern elevation) and wraps around the entire western elevation and half of the eastern elevation. The porch is supported by narrow square capped posts and a wooden balustrade. At the rear south elevation is a one-story wing with a low hipped roof and porch.

Staff Report and Recommendations

Agenda of March 7,2016, Item 4aCounty of Ventura. Resource Management Agency. Planning Division800 S. Victoria Avenue, Ventura, CA %m9-1740' (805) 654-2478'ventura.org/rma/plannin¿

OWNER:APPLICANT:

David ArmstrongArmstrong Advisorsdavid @a rmstrongadviso rs. co m

R.H. Smith Family Properties, LLCP.O. Box 25010Ventura, CA 93002-2250

REQUEST:

On behalf of the Owner, the applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness (CountyCultural Heritage Ordinance (CHO) Code S 1366) to demolish the circa 1881 farmhouse,a circa 1940 barn and two garages circa 1935 on an undesignated property. Case No.cH15-0010.

LOCATION AND ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER:

7620 Telephone Road, Unincorporated Area of Ventura, CAAPN 131-0-050-150

I. CULTURAL HERITAGE BACKGROUND:

A. Historical Background

The subject property consists of 78 acres of an original 80 acre parcel purchased byJames Allen Day in 1874. The site is in the unincorporated area of Ventura County andgenerally is surrounded by the City of Ventura. An evaluation of the project wascompleted by San Buenaventura Research Associates (SBRA) with a revised date ofOctober 29, 2015 ("Report" - Exhibit 1) for the subject property referred to as the DayRanch. The Day Ranch currently contains a main residence, a barn, two garages, a fruitstand, small storage buildings and greenhouses, and row crops. The property's existingmain residence was estimated to have been built in 1881 and was described in the Reportas follows:

Main Residence - circa 1881The two-story ltalianate style residence features a square plan with a low truncatedhipped roof, punctuated with a brick chimney. Under the overhanging c/osedeaves are decorative carued brackets. A porch extends across the front (northernelevation) and wraps around the entire western elevation and half of the easternelevation. The porch is supported by narrow square capped posfs and a woodenbalustrade. At the rear south elevation is a one-story wing with a low hipped roofand porch.

5

Staff Report and Recommendations Cultural Heritage Board Meeting of March 7, 2016

Page 2 of 8

There have been relatively few alterations to the exterior of the house over its 134 year history. The back porch was added around 1920 or later. The porch railing on the first floor was added; and a wooden balcony railing on the second floor above the porch and the roof cresting was estimated to be removed in 1950.

RESIDENCE OF J. A. DAY, NEAR SATICOY, VENTURA CO. CAL.

Historic Drawing No. 1 [Source: Mason, 1883]

Assessor's Record Photo (circa 1955) Photo No. 1

Staff Report and RecommendationsCultural Heritage Board Meeting of March 7,2016

Page 2 of 8

There have been relatively few alterations to the exterior of the house over its 134 yearhistory. The back porch was added around 1920 or later. The porch railing on the firstfloor was added; and a wooden balcony railing on the second floor above the porch andthe roof cresting was estimated to be removed in 1950.

RESTDENcE 0F J. A. D AY urnn sATtcoy vENTURÀ c0. cAL.

Historic Drawing No. 1 [Source: Mason, 1883]

Assessor's Record Photo (circa 1955) Photo No. 1

6

2015 Aerial Photo of Site - Photo No. 2



Page 3 of 8

Barn circa 1940 The one-story barn was built around 1940 and was used as a walnut dehydrator building when walnuts were grown on the site (before 1974). The barn has a medium high front facing gable roof with a gabled addition on the north side built circa 1947. The building is wood-framed with corrugated metal siding and roof and rests on a concrete foundation. The barn is considered in fair condition.

il$Þ|a-

.-{* 2tÍT9-


Residencet

Ò..'tr

E Ë E^.E


Page 3 of 8

Barn

Þ

t

$L\fi

.tf

{.


Barn circa'1940The one-story barn was built around 1940 and was used as a walnut dehydrator buildingwhen walnuts were grown on the site (before 1974). The barn has a medium high frontfacing gable roof with a gabled addition on the north side built circa 1947. The buildingis wood-framed with corrugated metal siding and roof and rests on a concrete foundation.The barn is considered in fair condition.

,

7


Page 4 of 8

Garages circa 1935 Both garages were built around 1935. Garage 1 is located adjacent to the barn on the south and measures 16 feet by 20 feet and is wood framed with board and batten siding and corrugated metal roof. The building is in fair condition. Garage 2 is located to the northwest of the main residence and measures 12 feet by 20 feet. This garage recently collapsed.

Fruit stand, small storage buildings and greenhouses circa 1990s Since these structures are less than 50 years old, no historical review is required.

Landscape elements A few remaining walnut trees exist near the house.

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CHO ANALYSIS:

A. Project Description

The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the main residence, barn and two garages.

B. Historic significance of the site and subject structures

The subject property is an undesignated site and had not been previously surveyed until an evaluation was prepared by SBRA in 2015. SBRA determined the residence was not eligible for National Register (Criterion C) or California Register (Criterion 3) as a distinctive and scarce example of the Italianate informal farm house in Ventura County because the residence did not retain sufficient historical integrity from its period of significance. The residence's integrity of design had been reduced with the removal of the second story balcony and roof cresting. SBRA further determined the residence was eligible for County Landmark designation under Cultural Heritage Ordinance (CHO) Section 1365-5 Criterion 2, for its important role in the county's agricultural history due to its over one hundred year association with agriculture (lemon and walnut farming) and under Criterion 5: it embodies distinctive and scarce characteristics of the Italianate style. The barn was determined to have integrity and considered eligible for County Landmark designation under CHO Criterion 2. Both garages were considered non-contributing due to their loss of integrity from neglect.

C. Certificate of Appropriateness Timing Constraint under CHO Section 1366-5


Page 4 of IGaraqes circa 1935Both garages were built around 1935. Garage 1 is located adjacent to the barn on thesouth and measures 16 feet by 20 feet and is wood framed with board and batten sidingand corrugated metal roof. The building is in fair condition. Garage 2 is located to thenorthwest of the main residence and measures 12 feet by 20 feet. This garage recentlycollapsed.

Fruit stand. small storaqe buildinos and qreenhouses circa 1990sSince these structures are less than 50 years old, no historical review is required

Landscape elementsA few remaining walnut trees exist near the house

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CHO ANALYSIS:

A. Project Description

The applicant requests a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the main residence,barn and two garages.

B. Historic significance of the site and subject structures

The subject property is an undesignated site and had not been previously surveyed untilan evaluation was prepared by SBRA in 2015. SBRA determined the residence was noteligible for National Register (Criterion C) or California Register (Criterion 3) as adistinctive and scarce example of the ltalianate informal farm house in Ventura Countybecause the residence did not retain sufficient historical integrity from its period ofsignificance. The residence's integrity of design had been reduced with the removal ofthe second story balcony and roof cresting. SBRA further determined the residence waseligible for County Landmark designation under Cultural Heritage Ordinance (CHO)Section 1365-5 Criterion 2, for its important role in the county's agricultural history due toits over one hundred year association with agriculture (lemon and walnut farming) andunder Criterion 5: it embodies distinctive and scarce characteristics of the ltalianate style.The barn was determined to have integrity and considered eligible for County Landmarkdesignation under CHO Criterion 2. Both garages were considered non-contributing dueto their loss of integrity from neglect.

C. Certificate of Appropriateness Timing Gonstraint under CHO Section1366-5

8


Page 5 of 8

CHO Section 1366-5 states:

If the Cultural Heritage Board or staff, as applicable, fails to act on a request for a Certificate of Appropriateness within ninety (90) days from submission of a complete COA application, a Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be required; proposed projects on undesignated and designated Cultural Heritage Sites may proceed without an approved COA, provided an action is not pending on the designation of the site, and all other necessary permits have been obtained.

The County's Cultural Heritage Ordinance provides a 90-day period for the Cultural Heritage Board or staff to act on a complete Certificate of Appropriateness application. The Certificate of Appropriateness application was original submitted on October 15, 2015, but was not considered complete until December 15, 2015 when additional information was submitted including a letter analyzing the structural stability of the residence and corrections to the historic resource report). Thus, the CHB has until March 15, 2016 to act on the COA or no COA will be required.

D. Relocation Efforts

As outlined in the December 15, 2015 letter from the applicant (Exhibit 3), David Armstrong, the property owners attempted to sell or donate the structures for removal and off-site preservation a number of times without success. This included conversations with the City of Ventura and Friends of the Library regarding a potential move to Ventura Community Park across the street. When these efforts did not pan out, the property owners determined relocation to be impractical and likely cost-prohibitive to interested buyers. Subsequently, a structural evaluation of the farmhouse dated December 11, 2015 was conducted by GeoWorks to provide information on the structural stability of the existing home (Exhibit 3). Based on a visual analysis, the engineer who conducted the evaluation concluded that the existing foundation and framing were structurally inadequate and, therefore, the farmhouse should be deemed uninhabitable.

Additionally, the applicant believes maintaining a habitable structure on the site to be in conflict with the primary use of agriculture under the Ventura County Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance (NCZO). The subject property, which is zoned "AE-40ac" (Agricultural Exclusive, 40 acre minimum lot size), allows more than one principal use to legally exist on the lot (e.g., agriculture, oil production, and a residence could all be permitted on the same property). Nothing in the County's NCZO or the Ventura County General Plan prohibits maintaining a residence on an agricultural property. In fact, it's quite common throughout the county for A-E zoned properties to contain a principal residence, a second dwelling unit and often farmworker dwelling units, even when the site is actively farmed.


Page 5 of I

CHO Section 1366-5 states:

lf the Cultural Heritage Board or staff, as applicable, fails to act on a request for aCertificate of Appropriafeness within ninety (90) days from submission of acomplete COA application, a Certificate of Appropriateness shall not be required;proposed projects on undesignated and designated Cultural Heritage Sifes mayproceed without an approved COA, provided an action is not pending on thedesignation of the site, and all other necessary permits have been obtained.

The County's Cultural Heritage Ordinance provides a 90-day period for the CulturalHeritage Board or staff to act on a complete Certificate of Appropriateness application.The Certificate of Appropriateness application was original submitted on October 15,2015, but was not considered complete until December 15, 2015 when additionalinformation was submitted including a letter analyzing the structural stability of theresidence and corrections to the historic resource report). Thus, the CHB has until March15,2016 to act on the COA or no COA will be required.

D. Relocation Efforts

As outlined in the December 15, 2015 letter from the applicant (Exhibit 3), DavidArmstrong, the property owners attempted to sell or donate the structures for removaland off-site preservation a number of times without success. This included conversationswith the City of Ventura and Friends of the Library regarding a potential move to VenturaCommunity Park across the street. When these efforts did not pan out, the propertyowners determined relocation to be impractical and likely cost-prohibitive to interestedbuyers. Subsequently, a structural evaluation of the farmhouse dated December 11 ,2015was conducted by GeoWorks to provide information on the structural stability of theexisting home (Exhibit 3). Based on a visual analysis, the engineer who conducted theevaluation concluded that the existing foundation and framing were structurallyinadequate and, therefore, the farmhouse should be deemed uninhabitable.

Additionally, the applicant believes maintaining a habitable structure on the site to be inconflict with the primary use of agriculture under the Ventura County Non-Coastal ZoningOrdinance (NCZO). The subject property, which is zoned "AE-40ac" (AgriculturalExclusive, 40 acre minimum lot size), allows more than one principal use to legally existon the lot (e.9., agriculture, oil production, and a residence could all be permitted on thesame property). Nothing in the County's NCZO or the Ventura County General Planprohibits maintaining a residence on an agricultural property. ln fact, it's quite commonthroughout the county forA-E zoned properties to contain a principal residence, a seconddwelling unit and often farmworker dwelling units, even when the site is actively farmed.

9


Page 6 of 8

III. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA") ANALYSIS:

CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) defines "historical resources" subject to protection under CEQA as those that are:

1. Listed in the California Register or determined to be eligible for listing in California Register by the State Historic Resources Commission (subd. (a)(1));

2. Listed on a local register or identified as significant in a historic survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code (subd. (a)(2));

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California (subd. (a)(3)); or,

4. Determined by the lead agency to be historically significant (subd.(a)(4))1

Although not currently listed on a local register, SBRA determined the main residence and barn were eligible for local designation for their role in the county's agricultural history and for the residence's distinctive and scarce architectural characteristics. If the Board agrees and finds that the residence and barn are historically significant (under CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)(3) or (4)), then the site is considered a historic resource for purposes of CEQA.

1. Public Resources Code § 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(b)):

CEQA statutory and regulatory provisions help guide the CHB in determining whether a project, treatment or other development activity may cause a significant adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.

A review of both statutory and categorical exemptions from CEQA environmental impact analysis under CEQA Guidelines sections 15260-15285 and 15300-15333, respectively, indicates that CEQA applies when an activity is considered a discretionary action. Since the Cultural Heritage Board has the discretion to approve, conditionally approve or deny a COA request, the COA is considered a discretionary action.

The preparation of either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report would be required before approval of the demolition of historic resources could occur. The purpose would be to identify mitigation measures and evaluate alternatives to the project that would meet project objectives while potentially avoiding or reducing any of the significant impacts caused by the project. Given the 90-day timeframe to act upon a COA request described in (C) above, it would be difficult for staff to prepare an

'Section 15064.5(a)(3)(A)-(D) restates the California Register standards. The statutory source of these standards is Public Resources Code section 5024.1


Page 6 of I

III. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ("CEQA'') ANALYSIS:

CEQA Guidelines 515064.5(a) defines "historical resources" subject to protection underCEQA as those that are:

1. Listed in the California Register or determined to be eligible for listing inCalifornia Register by the State Historic Resources Commission (subd. (aX1));

2. Listed on a local register or identified as significant in a historic survey meetingthe requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code (subd.(aX2));

3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which alead agency determines significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific,economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals ofCalifornia (subd. (aX3)); or,

4. Determined by the lead agency to be historically significant (subd.(aXa))r

Although not currently listed on a local register, SBRA determined the main residenceand barn were eligible for local designation for their role in the county's agricultural historyand for the residence's distinctive and scarce architectural characteristics. lf the Boardagrees and finds that the residence and barn are historically significant (under CEQAGuidelines 515064.5(a)(3) or (4)), then the site is considered a historic resource forpurposes of CEQA.

1 . Public Resources Code S 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines S 15064.5(b)):

CEQA statutory and regulatory provisions help guide the CHB in determining whether aproject, treatment or other development activity may cause a significant adverse changein the significance of an historical resource.

A review of both statutory and categorical exemptions from CEQA environmental impactanalysis under CEQA Guidelines sections 15260-15285 and 15300-15333, respectively,indicates that CEQA applies when an activity is considered a discretionary action. Sincethe Cultural Heritage Board has the discretion to approve, conditionally approve or denya COA request, the COA is considered a discretionary action.

The preparation of either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental lmpactReport would be required before approval of the demolition of historic resources couldoccur. The purpose would be to identify mitigation measures and evaluate alternativesto the project that would meet project objectives while potentially avoiding or reducing anyof the significant impacts caused by the project. Given the gO-day timeframe to act upona COA request described in (C) above, it would be difficult for staff to prepare an

1 Section 1506a.5(a)(3XA)-(D) restates the California Register standards. The statutory source of thesestandards is Public Resources Code section 5024.1

10


Page 7 of 8

environmental impact analysis, circulate a draft environmental document for public review and comment and ultimately finalize the document for the CHB's consideration and evaluation within this timeline.

Based on the timing constraints to act upon the COA request and the fact that the demolition would adversely affect the eligibility of a potential site to become a designated Cultural Heritage Site, staff recommends the Cultural Heritage Board take action to deny the project. Denial of the project qualifies it for an exemption under CEQA §15061(b)(4) whereby a project is exempt if the project will be rejected or disapproved by a public agency (Section 15270(a)). Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required, because CEQA does not require an environmental analysis be completed before a project is denied.

Please note that in accordance with CHO Section 1366-8, there is no waiting period following the denial of a COA for projects on sites not designated a formal or interim Cultural Heritage Site. Thus, the applicant may be issued a demolition permit immediately thereafter.

2. Planning Staff Conclusions Regarding Project Impacts to Historic Resources:

Staff considers the main residence and barn eligible for County Landmark designation for their role in the county's agricultural history and for the residence's distinctive and scarce architectural characteristics. Staff believes that approval of the COA request for demolition would adversely affect the eligibility of this site to become a designated historic resource. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board find that the main residence and barn are eligible for County Landmark designation, find that the demolition would adversely affect the eligibility of a potential site to become a designated Cultural Heritage Site and take action to deny the COA request.

3. Opportunity to Show Hardship

At the CHB public hearing on this matter, if desired, the property owner must be given the opportunity to present facts and evidence demonstrating that a failure to grant the requested Certificate of Appropriateness will cause an economic hardship as provided by CHO Section 1366-3(d).

PROPOSED CULTURAL HERITAGE ORDINANCE FINDINGS FOR DISAPPROVAL:

As stated in the CHO, "The Cultural Heritage Board or staff may disapprove the issuance of said Certificate of Appropriateness for any proposed work if, and only if, it makes one of the following applicable findings." (CHO § 1366-7, subdivisions (a)-(c)) In this instance, the CHB may, if it so decides and finds, deny the COA request on the basis of the following finding:


Page 7 of 8

environmental impact analysis, circulate a draft environmentaldocument for public reviewand comment and ultimately finalize the document for the CHB's consideration andevaluation within this timeline.

Based on the timing constraints to act upon the COA request and the fact that thedemolition would adversely affect the eligibility of a potential site to become a designatedCultural Heritage Site, staff recommends the Cultural Heritage Board take action to denythe project. Denial of the project qualifies it for an exemption under CEQA 515061(bX4)whereby a project is exempt if the project will be rejected or disapproved by a publicagency (Section 15270(a)). Therefore, no further environmental analysis is required,because CEQA does not require an environmental analysis be completed before a projectis denied.

Please note that in accordance with CHO Section 1366-8, there is no waiting periodfollowing the denial of a COA for projects on sites not designated a formal or interimCultural Heritage Site. Thus, the applicant may be issued a demolition permit immediatelythereafter.

2. Planninq Staff Conclusions Reqarding Proiect lmpacts to Historic Resources:

Staff considers the main residence and barn eligible for County Landmark designation fortheir role in the county's agricultural history and for the residence's distinctive and scarcearchitectural characteristics. Staff believes that approval of the COA request fordemolition would adversely affect the eligibility of this site to become a designated historicresource. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board find that the main residence andbarn are eligible for County Landmark designation, find that the demolition wouldadversely affect the eligibility of a potential site to become a designated Cultural HeritageSite and take action to deny the COA request.

3. Opportunitv to Show Hardship

At the CHB public hearing on this matter, if desired, the property owner must be given theopportunity to present facts and evidence demonstrating that a failure to grant therequested Certificate of Appropriateness will cause an economic hardship as provided byCHO Section 1366-3(d).

PROPOSED CULTURAL HERITAGE ORDINANCE FINDINGS FOR DISAPPROVAL:

As stated in the CHO, "The Cultural Heritage Board or staff may disapprove the issuanceof said Certificate of Appropriateness for any proposed work if, and only if, it makes oneof the following applicable findings." (CHO S 1366-7, subdivisions (a)-(c)) In this instance,the CHB may, if it so decides and finds, denythe COA request on the basis of the followingfinding:

11

C


Page 8 of 8

"The proposed project would adversely affect the eligibility of a potential site to become a designated Cultural Heritage Site." (CHO § 1366-7(c))

PUBLIC COMMENTS

No public comment regarding this request has been received to date.

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

1. CONDUCT the public hearing, HEAR testimony, CONSIDER the oral and written testimony, and CONSIDER the County Planning staff report and all exhibits and attachments on this project;

2. FIND that the main residence and barn are eligible for County Landmark designation for their role in the county's agricultural history and for the residence's distinctive and scarce architectural characteristics;

3. FIND that the proposed request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the residence, barn and two garages would adversely affect the eligibility of a potential site to become a designated Cultural Heritage Site; and

4. Based on the preceding evidence and analysis, DENY a Certificate of Appropriateness (CHO § 1366 et seq.) for the demolition of the residence, barn, and two garages on the subject property.

Prepared by:

Nicole Doner, Senior Planner 805-654-5042

Attachments:

Reviewed by:

(7-101 f /\ (2— Tricia Maier, Manager Planning Programs Section (805) 654-2464

Exhibit 1: SBRA Historic Resource Report revised October 29, 2015 Exhibit 2: R. H. Smith Family Properties, LLC letter dated September 24, 2015 Exhibit 3: David S. Armstrong letter dated December 15, 2015 and attachment (GeoWorks

Structural Evaluation)


Page 8 of 8

"The proposed project would adversely affect the eligibility of a potential site tobecome a designated Cultural Heritage Sife." (CHO $ 1366-7(c))

PUBLIC COMMENTS

No public comment regarding this request has been received to date.

RECOMMENDED AGTIONS:

1. CONDUCT the public hearing, HEAR testimony, CONSIDER the oral and writtentestimony, and CONSIDER the County Planning staff report and all exhibits andattachments on this project;

2. FIND that the main residence and barn are eligible for County Landmarkdesignation for their role in the county's agricultural history and for the residence'sdistinctive and scarce architectural characteristics;

3. FIND that the proposed request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for thedemolition of the residence, barn and two garages would adversely affect theeligibility of a potential site to become a designated Cultural Heritage Site; and

4. Based on the preceding evidence and analysis, DENY a Certificate ofAppropriateness (CHO S 1366 et seq.) for the demolition of the residence, barn,and two garages on the subject property.

Prepared by: Reviewed by:

fþtan M,o, Étz-Nicole Doner,805-654-5042

Senior Planner Tricia Maier, ManagerPlanning Programs Section(805) 654-2464

Attachments:

Exhibit 1: SBRA Historic Resource Report revised October 29, 2015Exhibit 2: R. H. Smith Family Properties, LLC letter dated September 24,2015Exhibit 3: David S. Armstrong letter dated December 15,2015 and attachment (GeoWorks

Structural Evaluation)

12

Historic Resources Report 7620 Telephone Road Ventura, CA

11 August 2015 (Rev 29 October 2015)

Prepared for:

R.H. Smith Family Properties, LLC

63 N. Ash Street

Ventura, CA 93001

Prepared by:

SAN BUENAVENTURA

• ▪ ilRESEARCH

T. .c CONSULTING M MS WOODLAND DRIVE M SANTA PAULA CA 95O0ON

County of Ventura Cultural Heritage Board Meeting

March 7, 2016 Exhibit 1

SBRA Historic Resource Report, revised October 29, 2015

H istoric Resources Report7620 Telephone RoadVentura, CA

11 August 2015 (Rev 29 October 2015)

Prepared for:

R.H. Smith Family Properties, LLC

63 N. Ash Street

Ventura, CA 93001

Prepared by:

sAN DUENAVENTURARESEARCH A559CIATE5I1ISTORIC

. RESgURCTS .CONSULTING

County of VenturaCultural Heritage Board Meeting

March 7,2016Exhibit I

SBRA Historic Resource Report,revised October 29, 2015

I t)2t v00Dt^ilD DRtvr r s^NTA rAULA C^ ?10¿01

13

Executive Summary

This report was prepared for the purpose of determining the eligibility of potential historic resources located

on a ranch at 7620 Telephone Road, Ventura. [Figure 1]

This report assesses the historical and architectural significance of potentially significant historic properties

in accordance with the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Re-

sources (CRHR) Criteria for Evaluation, and County of Ventura criteria.

This report was prepared by San Buenaventura Research Associates of Santa Paula, California, Judy Triem, His-

torian; and Mitch Stone, Preservation Planner, for R.H. Smith Family Properties, LLC, and is based on a field

investigation and research conducted in July and August 2015. The conclusions contained herein represent the professional opinions of San Buenaventura Research Associates, and are based on the factual data avail-

able at the time of its preparation, the application of the appropriate local, state and federal regulations, and

best professional practices.

Summary of Findings

The property evaluated in this report was found to be ineligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, but poten-tially eligible for designation as a Ventura County landmark.

Report Contents

1. Administrative Setting 1

Ventura County Landmark Criteria

Ventura County Site of Merit Criteria

2. Historical Setting 3

General Historical Context

Site-Specific Context

3. Potential Historic Resources 8

4. Eligibility of Historic Resources 10

National and California Registers: Significance, Eligibility and Integrity

Integrity Discussion

Summary Conclusion

Local Significance and Eligibility

Summary Conclusion

5. Selected Sources 13

Executive Summary

This report was prepared for the purpose of determinjng the etigibitity of potential historic resources located

on a ranch at7620 Tetephone Road, Ventura. [Figure 1]

This report assesses the historical and architectural significance of potentiatty significant historic properties

in accordance with the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the Catifornia Register of Historical Re-

sources (CRHR) Criteria for Evatuation, and County of Ventura criteria.

This report was prepared by San Buenaventura Research Associates of Santa Paula, California, Judy Triem, His-

torian; and Mitch Stone, Preservation Ptanner, for R.H. Smith Famil.y Properties, LLC, and is based on a fietdinvestigation and research conducted in Juty and August 2015. The conctusions contained herein representthe professional opinions of San Buenaventura Research Associates, and are based on the factual data avait-

abte at the time of its preparation, the apptication of the appropriate locat, state and federal regutations, and

best professionaI practices.

Summary of Findíngs

The property evatuated in this report was found to be inetigibte for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, but poten-tiatl.y etigibte for designation as a Ventura County [andmark.

Repod Contents

1. AdministrativeSettingVentura County Landmark Criteria


2. Historical SettingGeneraI HistoricaI Context


3. Potential Historic Resources

4. Etigibitity of Historic Resources

National and Catifornia Registers: Significance, EtigibiLity and IntegrityIntegrity Discussion

Summary Conctusion

LocaI Significance and ELigibitity

Summary Conclusion

5. Selected Sources 73

7

3

8

10

14

Figure 1. Project Location [Source: USGS 7.5' Quadrangle, Saticoy CA, 1951 rev 1967]

Project Location

Figure 1. Project Location [Source: USGS 7.5'Quadrangte, Saticoy CA, 1951 rev 7967]

15

1. Administrative Setting

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires evaluation of project impacts on historic resources,

including properties "listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Re-

sources [or] included in a local register of historical resources." A resource is eligible for listing on the Cali-

fornia Register of Historical Resources if it meets any of the criteria for listing, which are:

1. 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;

2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or repre-

sents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or

4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC

§5024.1(c))

By definition, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) also includes all "properties formally de-

termined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Places," and certain specified State His-

torical Landmarks. The majority of formal determinations of NRHP eligibility occur when properties are evalu-

ated by the Office of Historic Preservation in connection with federal environmental review procedures (Sec-

tion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966). Formal determinations of eligibility also occur

when properties are nominated to the NRHP, but are not listed due to a lack of owner consent.

The criteria for determining eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) have been

developed by the National Park Service. Eligible properties include districts, sites, buildings and structures,

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of

our history; or

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that rep-

resent 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; or

D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

According to the NRHP standards, in order for a property that is found to be significant under one or more of

the criteria to be considered eligible for Listing, the "essential physical features" that define the property's

significance must be present. The standard for determining if a property's essential physical features exist is

known as integrity, which is defined for the NRHP as "the ability of a property to convey its significance." The

CRHR defines integrity as "the authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the sur-

vival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Historical resources eligible

for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain

enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the

reasons for their significance." (National Register Bulletin 15; California OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin 6)

For purposes of both the NRHP and CRHR, an integrity evaluation is broken down into seven "aspects." The

seven aspects of integrity are: Location (the place where the historic property was constructed or the place

where the historic event occurred); Design (the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space,

structure, and style of a property); Setting (the physical environment of a historic property); Materials (the

physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pat-

1. Administrative Setting

The Catifornia EnvironmentaL Quatity Act (CEaA) requires evaluation of project impacts on historic resources/

inctuding properties "tisted in, or determined etigibte for listing in, the Catifornia Register of Historical Re-

sources [or] inctuded in a [oca[ register of historical resources." A resource is etigibLe for tisting on the Cati-

fornia Register of Historical Resources if it meets any of the criteria for listing, which are:

1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of [oca[ or

regional history or the cuttura[ heritage of Catifornia or the United States;

2, Associated with the lives of persons important to locat, California or nationaI history;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or repre-

sents the work of a master or possesses high artistic vatues; or

4. Has yietded, or may be tìkeLy to yietd, information important in prehistory or history. (PRC

5502a.1(c))

By definition, the Catifornia Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) atso inctudes att "properties formatty de-

termined eLigibLe for, or listed in, the National Register of Historic Ptaces," and certain specified State His-

torical Landmarks. The majority of formal determinations of NRHP etigibitity occur when properties are evatu-

ated by the 0fÊice of Historic Preservation in connection with federal environmental review procedures (Sec-

tion 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966). Formal determinations of etigibitity also occur

when properties are nominated to the NRHP, but are not listed due to a lack of owner consent.

The criteria for determining eLigibitity for listing on the NationaI Register of Historic Ptaces (NRHP) have been

devetoped by the NationaI Park Service. EtigibLe properties inctude districts, sites, buitdings and structures,

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of

our history; or

B. That are associated with the [ives of persons significant in our past; or

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that rep-

resent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic vatues, or that represent a significant and

distinguishabte entity whose components may [ack individuaI distinction; or

D. That have yietded, or may be Likety to yietd, information important in prehistory or history.

According to the NRHP standards, in order for a property that is found to be significant under one or more of

the criteria to be considered etigible for listing, the "essential physical features" that define the propeÉy's

significance must be present. The standard for determining if a propefty's essentiaI physicaI features exist isknown as íntegrity, which is defined for the NRHP as "the abiLity of a property to convey its significance." The

CRHR defines integrity as "the authenticity of a historical resource's physical identity evidenced by the sur-

vival of characteristics that existed during the resource's period of significance. Historical resources eLigibLe

for listing in the Catifornia Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above and retain

enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizabte as historical resources and to convey the

reasons for their significance." (National. Register Buttetin 15; Catifornia 0HP Technical Assistance Buttetin 6)

For purposes of both the NRHP and CRHR, an integrity evatuation is broken down into seven "aspects." The

seven aspects of integrity are:. Location (the ptace where the historic property was constructed or the ptace

where the historic event occurred); Design (the combination of etements that create the form, ptan, space,

structure, and styte of a property); Settíng (the physicat environment of a historic property); Materíaß (thephysical elements that were combined or deposited during a particutar period of time and in a parlicutar pat-

16

Historic Resources Report

7620 Telephone Road, Ventura

tern or configuration to form a historic property); Workmanship (the physical evidence of the crafts of a par-

ticular culture or people during any given period of history or prehistory); Feeling (a property's expression of

the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time), and; Association (the direct link between an

important historic event or person and a historic property).

It is not required that significant property possess all aspects of integrity to be eligible; depending upon the

NRHP and CRHR criteria under which the property derives its significance, some aspects of integrity might be

more relevant than others. For example, a property nominated under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1

(events), would be likely to convey its significance primarily through integrity of location, setting and asso-

ciation. A property nominated solely under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3 (design), would usually rely

primarily upon integrity of design, materials and workmanship.

While the NRHP guidelines and the CRHR regulations include similar language with respect to the aspects of

integrity, the latter guidelines also state "it is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient in-

tegrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the

California Register." Further, according to the NRHP guidelines, the integrity of a property must be evaluated

at the time the evaluation of eligibility is conducted. Integrity assessments cannot be based on speculation

with respect to historic fabric and architectural elements that may exist but are not visible to the evaluator,

or on restorations that are theoretically possible but which have not occurred. (National Register Bulletin 15;

CCR §4852 (c); California OHP Technical Assistance Bulletin 6)

The minimum age criterion for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and the California Register of

Historical Resources (CRHR) is 50 years. Properties less than 50 years old may be eligible for listing on the

NRHP if they can be regarded as "exceptional," as defined by the NRHP procedures, or in terms of the CRHR,

"if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand its historical importance" (Chapter

11, Title 14, §4842(d)(2))

Historic resources as defined by CEQA also includes properties listed in "local registers" of historic properties.

A "local register of historic resources" is broadly defined in §5020.1 (k) of the Public Resources Code, as "a

List of properties officially designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant

to a local ordinance or resolution." Local registers of historic properties come essentially in two forms: (1)

surveys of historic resources conducted by a local agency in accordance with Office of Historic Preservation

procedures and standards, adopted by the local agency and maintained as current, and (2) landmarks desig-

nated under local ordinances or resolutions. These properties are "presumed to be historically or culturally

significant... unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or

culturally significant." (PRC §§ 5024.1, 21804.1, 15064.5)

Ventura County Landmark Criteria

An improvement, natural feature, or site may become a designated landmark if it meets one the following

criteria:

1. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the County's social, aesthetic, engineering, architec-

tural or natural history;

SAN BUENAVENTURA RESEARCH ASSOCIATES Page 2 of 14

Historic Resources Report7620 Telephone Road, Ventura

tern or configuration to form a historic property); Workmanship (the physicat evidence of the crafts of a par-

ticutar culture or peopte during any given period of history or prehistory); Feeling (a property's expression of

the aesthetic or historic sense of a particutar period of time), and; Associotion (the direct link between an

important historic event or person and a historic property).

It is not required that significant property possess atl aspects of integrity to be etigibte; depending upon the

NRHP and CRHR criteria under which the property derives its significance, some aspects ofintegrity might be

more retevant than others. For example, a property nominated under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1

(events), woutd be Likel.y to convey its significance primariþ through integrity of location, setting and asso-

ciation. A property nominated sotely under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3 (design), woutd usuatty rety

primarity upon integrity of design, materiats and workmanship.

White the NRHP guidel.ines and the CRHR regutations inctude simitar [anguage with respect to the aspects ofintegrity, the latter guidelines atso state "it is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient in-

tegrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may stitl be etigibte for listing in the

Catifornia Register." FuÉher, according to the NRHP guidetines, the integrity of a property must be evatuated

at the time the evatualion of el.igibiLity is conducted. Integrity assessments cannot be based on specutation

with respect to historic fabric and architectural etements that may exist but are not visibte to the evatuator,

or on restorations that are theoreticatl.y possibte but which have not occurred. (National Register Buttetin 15;

CCR 54852 (c); Catifornia 0HP Technical Assistance BuLl.etin 6)

The minimum age criterion for the National Register of Historic Pl.aces (NRHP) and the Catifornia Register of

Historical Resources (CRHR) is 50 years. Properties less than 50 years otd may be eLigibte for listing on the

NRHP if they can be regarded as "exceptional," as defined by the NRHP procedures, or in terms of the CRHR,

"if it can be demonstrated that sufticient time has passed to understand its historical importance" (Chapter

11, TitLe 74, 94842(d)(2))

Historic resources as defined by CEQA atso inctudes properties listed in "tocal registers" of historic properties.

A "tocal register of historic resources" is broadty defined in 55020.1 (k) of the Pubtic Resources Code, as "a

list of properties officia[y designated or recognized as historicatty significant by a [oca[ government pursuant

to a [oca[ ordinance or resotution." Loca[ registers of historic propefties come essentiatþ in two forms: (1)

surveys of historic resources conducted by a [oca[ agency in accordance with 0ffice of Historic Preservation

procedures and standards, adopted by the [oca[ agency and maintained as current, and (2) landmarks desig-

nated under [oca[ ordinances or resolutions. These properties are "presumed to be historicatty or cutturatly

significant... untess the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historicatty or

cutturatty significant." (PRC 55 5024.7, 27804J,, 75064.5)

Ventura County Landmork Crítería

An improvement, natural feature, or site may become a designated landmark if it meets one the fottowing

criteria:

1,. It exemptifies or reflects special elements of the County's social, aesthetic, engineering, architec-

tural or natural history;

SAN BUENAVENTURA REsEARCH ASSOCIATES Page 2off4

17



2. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of

Ventura County or its cities, regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United

States;

3. It is associated with the lives of persons important to Ventura County or its cities, California, or

national history;

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of

Ventura County or its cities, California or the nation;

5. 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;

6. Integrity: Establish the authenticity of the resource's physical identity by evidence of lack of dete-

rioration and significant survival of the characteristics that existed during its period of importance.

This shall be evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, work-

manship.


Sites of Merit satisfy the following criteria:

1. Sites of historical, architectural, community or aesthetic merit which have not been designated as

landmarks or points of interest, but which are deserving of special recognition; and

2. County approved surveyed sites with a National Register status code of 5 or above.

2. Historical Setting

General Historical Context

The western Santa Clara Valley was originally part of two land grants, Rancho Santa Paula y Saticoy and Ran-

cho Ex-Mission San Buenaventura. The portion of the valley running east and west, essentially all of the part

located to the south of the present Foothill Road, was located in Rancho Santa Paula y Saticoy, granted to

Manuel Jimeno Casarin in 1843. The rancho contained some 17,773 acres and was granted to Casarin as re-

ward for his services to the Mexican government as Secretary of State under Governor Micheltorena. He appar-

ently never lived on the rancho and died in Mexico in 1853. Rancho Ex-Mission was owned by the San Bue-

naventura Mission and extended east from Ventura across the foothills of Sulphur Mountain to Santa Paula

Creek, where the missionaries established a granary and cattle raising outpost, with labor supplied from the

Chumash villages of Sisa and Mupu. This area included all of the north-south running canyons. (Bancroft,

1884: Vol. 4, 692)

Thomas Wallace More and his brothers, Andrew and Henry, purchased Rancho Santa Paula y Saticoy during the

1850s. More had also acquired the neighboring Rancho Sespe in 1854 from the estate of Josefa Carrillo. The

California Agriculture Census indicates that by 1860 More had become the largest single landowner in Santa

Barbara County, which at the time included all of contemporary Ventura County. T.W. More raised sheep and

cattle on the ranchos until the disastrous droughts of the late 1850s and early 1860s forced the brothers to

dissolve their partnership and subdivide the rancho lands. (Cleland, 1953: 84, 89)



2. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns ofVentura County or its cities, regional history, or the cuttural heritage of Catifornia or the United

States;

3. It is associated with the lives of persons important to Ventura County or its cities, Catifornia, or

nationaI history;

4. It has yieLded, or has the potentiaI to yietd, information important to the prehistory or history ofVentura County or its cities, Catifornia or the nation;

5. 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 vatues;

6. Integrity: Estabtish the authenticity of the resource's physical identity by evidence of lack of dete-

rioration and significant survival of the characteristics that existed during its period of impoftance.

This shatt be evatuated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, work-

manship.

Ventura County Site of l4erit Crítería

Sites of Merit satisfu the fottowing criteria:

1.. Sites of historicat, architectural, community or aesthetic merit which have not been designated as

[andmarks or points of interest, but which are deserving of special recognition; and

2. County approved surveyed sites with a National Register status code of 5 or above.

2. HistoricalSetting

General Hi storí cal Context

The western Santa Ctara Vattey was originaLLy part of two land grants, Rancho Santa Pauta y Saticoy and Ran-

cho Ex-Mission San Buenaventura. The portion of the vattey running east and west, essentiatþ atl. of the part

located to the south of the present Foothitt Road, was located in Rancho Santa Pauta y Saticoy, granted to

Manuel Jimeno Casarin in 1843. The rancho contained some 77,773 acres and was granted to Casarin as re-

ward for his services to the Mexican government as Secretary of State under Governor Michettorena. He appar-

entty never lived on the rancho and died in Mexico in 1853. Rancho Ex-Mission was owned by the San Bue-

naventura Mission and extended east from Ventura across the foothitts of Sutphur Mountain to Santa Pauta

Creek, where the missionaries estabtished a granary and cattte raising outpost, with labor supptied from the

Chumash villages of Sisa and Mupu. This area inctuded atl of the north-south running canyons. (Bancroft,

1884: VoL. 4,692)

Thomas Watlace More and his brothers, Andrew and Henry, purchased Rancho Santa Pauta y Saticoy during the

1850s. More had also acquired the neighboring Rancho Sespe in 1854 from the estate of Josefa Canitto. The

Catifornia Agriculture Census indicates that by 1860 More had become the largest singte landowner in Santa

Barbara County, which at the time inctuded atl of contemporary Ventura County. T.W. More raised sheep and

cattte on the ranchos until the disastrous droughts of the late 1850s and earty 1860s forced the brothers to

dissotve their partnership and subdivide the rancho lands. (C[e[and, 1953: 84, 89)

sAN DUENAVENTURA REsEARCH A5SOCIATE5 Page 3of14

18



George G. Briggs purchased approximately 15,000 acres of Rancho Santa Paula y Saticoy from More in 1861.

Earlier that year Briggs, together with his nephew Jefferson Crane, had visited T.W. More at his adobe resi-

dence. All three men had known each other in Ohio where they had lived previously. After purchasing the land

from More, Briggs used the two-story adobe built for More by W.D. Hobson as the center of his ranching op-

erations. Briggs, formerly a horticulturist in Marysville, believed he could successfully raise fruit on the land,

and planted a 160 acre orchard near the adobe. Discouraged by the continuing drought conditions, and dis-

heartened by the death of his wife, Briggs in 1867 authorized land agent E.B. Higgins to begin subdividing

the rancho into 150 acre parcels. These parcels were sold primarily to farmers emigrating from the Northern

California gold fields, and the East and Midwest. The survey was prepared by W.H. Norway in 1867. (Sheridan,

1955: 2-7)


James Allen Day: 1874 to 1883

The project site, located at 7620 Telephone Road, contains 77.28 acres, originally 80 acres when purchased by

James Allen Day in 1874. Grant deeds are vague as to parcel description, but it appears that Day purchased 40

acres in Block 91 of Rancho Santa Paula y Saticoy from Sherlock Bristol on July 26, 1874 and 40 acres in

Block 91 from Thomas Witherage on April 3, 1874. These parcels were contiguous and apparently combined

into a single holding. Apparently a small cottage either existed on the property when he bought it, or Day

built one himself. By 1882, he built the larger two-story residence that exists today. (Deed Book 2, page 382;

Book 1, page 722; Ventura County Assessment Roll books, 1881-82, 1883)

By 1882 a large new two-story house has been built on the 80-acre farm of J.A. Day. A lithograph of the

property and description of James A. Day's place follows:

While traveling from San Buenaventura to Saticoy, one is forcibly struck with the appearance of a fruit

farm, about six miles from the former and two miles from the latter place. No garden was ever more care-

fully tilled, no nursery ever presented to the sight clearer, brighter of thriftier fruit trees. The dark, sandy

loam forms an extensive bed, as level as a floor, upon which the trim and tidy foliage casts its beautiful

silhouettes of stem, branches, twigs and leaves....

Undaunted by the disaster that overcame Brigg's orchard venture, Mr. Day has eighty acres set with 8,000

fruit trees of various kinds. Amongst these are 2,000 apricot trees, 1,500 apple trees, 500 lemon trees,

500 lime trees, 500 orange trees and 1,000 walnut trees. Many of these are seven years old, some but

two. The orchard is a complete success except as to oranges, which, although sweet, are small. Many of

the, apricot trees three years from the bud are bearing heavily, while those of six and seven years are

yielding sometimes 200 and 300 pounds to the tree. There are also a number of loquats, guavas and

Japanese persimmons, all of which reach full maturity. Mr. Day sends but little fresh fruit to market, but

has the most perfect apparatus to be found for converting it into other marketable products. He has three

Plummer dryers - two of medium and one of large size. he has a distillery that produces fruit brandy

which rivals the far famed Otard and cognac of France. Mr. Day was one of the first to demonstrate not

only the ability of the country to raise fruit, but also the possibility of making the business profitable...

He has recently planted to fruit trees another tract a mile or two from his home, which bids fair to rival

the older orchard. Mr. Day has also a town residence for the benefit of his family when attending school

or church. (Mason, 1883: 372, 401) [Historic Photo 1]



George G. Briggs purchased approxìmatety 15,000 acres of Rancho Santa Pauta y Saticoy from More in 1861.

Earlier that year Briggs, together with his nephew Jefferson Crane, had visited T.W. More at his adobe resi-

dence. A[[ three men had known each other in 0hio where they had Lived previousty. After purchasing the [and

from More, Briggs used the two-story adobe built for More by W.D. Hobson as the center of his ranching op-

erations. Briggs, formerly a horticutturist in Marysvi[[e, betieved he coutd successfutty raise fruit on the [and,

and planted a 160 acre orchard near the adobe. Discouraged by the continuing drought conditions, and dis-

heartened by the death of his wife, Briggs in 1867 authorized land agent E.B. Higgins to begin subdividing

the rancho into 150 acre parcets. These parcets were sotd primaril.y to farmers emigrating from the Northern

Catifornia gold fietds, and the East and Midwest. The survey was prepared by W.H. Norway in 1867. (Sheridan,

7955: 2-7)

Site-Specífic Context

James Atlen Day: !874 to 1883

The project site, [ocated at7620 Tetephone Road, contains77,28 acres, origina[[y 80 acres when purchased by

James Atten Day in 1874. Grant deeds are vague as to parce[ description, but it appears that Day purchased 40

acres in BLock 91 of Rancho Santa Pauta y Saticoy from Sherlock Bristol on Juty 26, 7874 and 40 acres in

Btock 91 from Thomas Witherage on April 3, 1874. These parcets were contiguous and apparently combined

into a singte hotding. Apparentty a smat[ cottage either existed on the propeÉy when he bought it, or Day

buitt one himsetf. By 1882, he buiLt the larger two-story residence that exists today. (Deed Book 2, page 382;

Book 1, page722; Ventura County Assessment Rot[ books, 1881-82, 1883)

By 1882 a large new two-story house has been buitt on the 8O-acre farm of J.A. Day. A Lithograph of theproperty and description of James A. Day's place fotlows:

White traveting from San Buenaventura to Saticoy, one is forcibty struck with the appearance of a fruitfarm, about six mites from the former and two miles from the latter ptace. No garden was ever more care-

fuLl.y titted, no nursery ever presented to the sight ctearer, brighter of thriftier fruit trees. The dark, sandy

toam forms an extensive bed, as [eve[ as a ftoor, upon which the trim and tidy fotiage casts its beautifulsithouettes of stem, branches, twigs and leaves. . . .

Undaunted by the disaster that overcame Brigg's orchard venture, Mr. Day has eighty acres set with 8,000

fruit trees of various kinds. Amongst these are 2,000 apricot trees, 1,500 appte trees, 500 lemon trees,

500 lime trees, 500 orange trees and 1,000 watnut trees. Many of these are seven years otd, some but

two. The orchard is a complete success except as to oranges, which, atthough sweet, are smatt. Many ofthe apricot trees three years from the bud are bearing heavity, white those of six and seven years are

yietding sometimes 200 and 300 pounds to the tree. There are atso a number of loquats, guavas and

Japanese persimmons, atl of which reach futl maturity. Mr. Day sends but little fresh fruit to market, but

has the most perfect apparatus to be found for converting it into other marketable products. He has three

Ptummer dryers - two of medium and one of large size. he has a distillery that produces fruit brandy

which rivats the far famed 0tard and cognac of France. Mr. Day was one of the first to demonstrate not

only the abitity of the country to raise fruit, but also the possibil.ity of making the business profitabte. . .

He has recentty ptanted to fruit trees another tract a mite or two from his home, which bids fair to rival

the otder orchard. Mr. Day has atso a town residence for the benefit of his famil.y when attending school

or church. (Mason, 7883: 372,401) [Historic Photo 1]

sAN DUENAVENTURA RESEARCH A55OCIATES Page 4of f4

19

4.7



RESIDENCE OF J. A. DAY, NEAR SATICOY, VENTURA CO. CAL.

Historic Photo 1. [Source: Mason, 1883]

James Allen Day was born in Franklin County, New York, on July 3, 1828. He was the son of Orrada Day, a

native of Springfield, Massachusetts, and his grandfather, Robert E. Day, was a pioneer settler of Welsh de-

scent in Hartford, Connecticut, prior to 1776. James Day attended schools in the state of New York and then

went into lime and brick manufacturing. He married Sarah Jane Warren, a native of Connecticut, in 1856. By

1860 the couple is living in Oshkosh, Wisconsin and Day is the owner of a lime and brick manufacturing com-

pany. Their daughters Alice and Bera and son Mark were born there. Achieving success in the manufacturing

business, the family moved to Ventura in 1874 where Day invested in land and took up horticulture among

other businesses. Their daughter Lilia was born in California in 1875.

Upon his arrival in Ventura in 1874, Day invested in both town lots and farmland and continued investing

through the 1900s. By 1891 he owned over 880 acres primarily of farmland and other lots in the City of Ven-

tura. In addition to the farm house he built on Telephone Road, he also built a house in town on Poli and Ash

streets around the same time. His family stayed in town when attending church and school. [Historic Photo 2]

In addition to farming, Day entered into real estate investment during this same time period. He and three

partners built the Masonic Block on Main Street that included the building where the Masonic Hall was lo-


H istoric Resources Report7620 Telephone Road, Ventura

RESTDENCE 0F J. A.DAY NEAR SATrCoy VENTURA C0. cAL

Historic Photo 1. [Source: Mason, 1883]

James Atten Day was born in Franktin County, New York, on Juty 3, 1.828. He was the son of 0rrada Day, a

native of Springfietd, Massachusetts, and his grandfather, Robert E. Day, was a pioneer settter of Wetsh de-

scent in Hartford, Connecticut, prior to 1776. James Day attended schoots in the state of New York and then

went into [ime and brick manufacturing. He married Sarah Jane Warren, a native of Connecticut, in 1856. By

1860 the coupte is living in Oshkosh, Wisconsin and Day is the owner of a lime and brick manufacturing com-

pany. Their daughters Atice and Bera and son Mark were born there. Achieving success in the manufacturing

business, the famity moved to Ventura in 1874 where Day invested in land and took up horticutture among

other businesses. Their daughter Lilia was born in Catifornia in 1875.

Upon his arrival in Ventura in 1874, Day invested in both town [ots and farmtand and continued investing

through the 1900s. By 1891 he owned over 880 acres primarity of farmtand and other lots in the City of Ven-

tura. In addition to the farm house he buitt on Tetephone Road, he atso buitt a house in town on Poti and Ash

streets around the same time. His famity stayed in town when attending church and schoot. [Historic Photo 2]

In addition to farming, Day entered into rea[ estate investment during this same time period. He and three

patners buitt the Masonic Btock on Main Street that included the buil.ding where the Masonic Hat[ was [o-

SAN DUENAVENTURA REsEARG AssOffiTTS Page 5off4

20

Historic Photo 2. J.C. Brewster photo circa 1882 [Source: Museum of Ventura County, as reproduced in the Ventura County Star Free Press 10-26-1986]



cated. Day was himself a Mason. The Masonic Hall was on the top floor with commercial space on the first

floor. Day opened a grocery business in one of the stores. Day joined a Mr. Collins and together they built the

Collins Block, a grouping of buildings on Main Street that included the Collins Bank.

Shortly after he completed the house on Telephone Road, he sold the 80 acre property in 1883 to Amelia W.

Truesdell, according to grant deeds from the period. The family then moved permanently to the Poli Street

residence. It is uncertain why he sold this property after so recently completing the house. He eventually sold

his other agricultural properties as well and spent his time with his Ventura businesses.

Sarah Day died in 1904. In 1908, while celebrating James Day's 80th birthday, the Ventura Free Press acknowl-

edged the event and looked back on his accomplishments stating:

Mr. Day came to Ventura in 1874 and from the beginning showed his faith in the county by investing in

many industries. He was the first to plant apricots extensively in the valley and the first man to go into

fruit-drying on a Large scale. In building a large fruit dryer he backed his faith in the soil with his work

and money." (Ventura Free Press, July 10, 1908)

James Allen Day ended his own life at his Ventura home on January 2, 1915 at the age of 85. A Ventura news-

paper article about his death stated that "he had been in pain for many months and discomfort brought on by

his advancing years." (un-sourced newspaper clipping dated January 8, 1915)



cated. Day was himsetf a Mason. The Masonic Ha[[ was on the top ftoor with commercial space on the firstftoor, Day opened a grocery business in one ofthe stores. Dayjoined a Mr. Cottins and togetherthey buitttheCottins Btock, a grouping of buitdings on Main Street that inctuded the Cottins Bank.

ShortLy after he compteted the house on Tetephone Road, he sotd the 80 acre property in 1883 to Amelia W

Truesdetl, according to grant deeds from the period. The famiþ then moved permanentty to the Poti Street

residence. It is uncertain why he sol.d this property after so recently compteting the house. He eventuatty sotd

his other agricutturaI properties as wetl and spent his tjme with his Ventura businesses.

Sarah Day died in 1904. In 1908, whil.e celebrating James Day's 80th birthday, theVentura Free Press acknowt-

edged the event and looked back on his accomptishments stating:

Mr. Day came to Ventura in 7874 and from the beginning showed his faith in the county by investing in

many industries. He was the first to ptant apricots extensively in the valtey and the first man to go intofruit-drying on a large scate. In buitding a large fruit dryer he backed his faith in the soil with his work

and money." (Ventura Free Press, Jul.y 10, 1908)

James Atten Day ended his own Life at his Ventura home on January 2, 1,91,5 at the age of 85. A Ventura news-

paper articte about his death stated that "he had been'in pain for many months and discomfort brought on by

his advancìng years." (un-sourced newspaper cLipping dated January 8, 1915)

Historic Photo 2. J.C. Brewster photo circa L882 [Source: Museum of Ventura County, as reproduced in theVen ura County Star Free Press 1.0-26-79861

sAN DUENAVENTURA RESEARCH ASSOQATTS Page 6 of 14

21



Amelia Woodworth Truesdell: 1883 to 1908

In 1883, Amelia Truesdell purchased the 80 acre Day Ranch property from James Allen Day. (Grant Deeds,

Book 13, pg. 317)

Amelia Truesdell was born in Lowell, Massachusetts on October 20, 1839 to Deliverance and Hannah Wood-

ward. She graduated from Mt. Holyoke College in 1858. She came to San Francisco in 1864 and married Orran

P. Truesdell, a book printer and proprietor of the Oakland Transcript, a daily newspaper, He died in 1869. The

couple had two sons, the first died in 1873 and the second ten years later. Prior to the San Francisco earth-

quake, she was the manager of the Berkshire, a fashionable hotel in San Francisco. It is uncertain when she

first began writing, but by 1884 her first book of poetry was published entitled California Pilgrimage, a book

of poems about the California missions. Another collection of her poems followed in 1900, La Parra Grande, a

Legend of Santa Barbara's Big Grape Vine; in 1908, Francisca Reina illustrated by Maynard Dixon; in 1911, The

Souls Rubaiyat; and in 1913, All the Way: Being the Collected Poems of Amelia Woodward Truesdell. Her individ-

ual poems were published in magazines such as Out West and the Overland Monthly in the early 1900s. (Oak-

land Tribune, December 20, 1912)

After her second son's death in 1883, she branched out into new directions. Her collection of poetry published

in 1913 after her death states:

Ten years later she was left alone by the death of her other son. With unusual courage and initiative she

then turned to many things, and by sheer force of will created for herself interests and responsibilities. As

a business manager, a member of clubs, an occasional lecturer and writer, she was always at once vital

and very kind. (Truesdell, 1913: ix)

It is unknown why she purchased ranch land in Ventura County in 1883. It may have been the death of her

son in 1883 that brought an interest in a change of Location. Perhaps her book on the California missions

brought her to Ventura and she decided to experience ranch life. A copy of her first book, California Pilgrim-

age, published in 1884, and found in the Museum of Ventura County collection is inscribed to Mr. And Mrs.

Finney, who lived near her on Telephone Road. The Day and Finney families had both come to Ventura County

in 1874 and purchased land in what was known as the Mound District. In the book's pocket is a copy of an

article from the Ventura Signal for September 6, 1884 that states: "Mrs. A.C.W. Truesdell, who recently pur-

chased Mr. Day's place in Mound District is author of a beautiful little book... Mrs. Truesdell has kindly pre-

sented our library with a copy."

Truesdell apparently lived on her ranch but traveled back and forth to the San Francisco Bay area where she

retained a residence. Her poetry books were published in San Francisco. Continuing her life of letters well into

middle age, in 1903 she became the oldest graduate at Stanford University when she obtained a degree in

English at the age of 64. Truesdell was a charter member of the Pacific Coast Woman's Press Association, a

member of the California Club of San Francisco and the Daughters of the American Revolution. (Oakland Trib-

une, 12/20/1912)

Amelia Truesdell became ill and was eventually hospitalized. This may have been why she sold her ranch prop-

erty in 1909. She died in 1912 at the age of 73.



Amelia Woodworth Truesde[l: 1883 to 1908

In 1883, Ametia Truesdetl purchased the 80 acre Day Ranch property from James Atten Day. (Grant Deeds,

Book 13, pg. 317)

Ametia Truesdetl was born in Lowelt, Massachusetts on October 20, 7839 to Detiverance and Hannah Wood-

ward. She graduated from Mt. Hotyoke Cottege in 1858. She came to San Francisco in 1864 and married 0rran

P. Truesdett, a book printer and proprietor of the Oaktand Transcript, a daity newspaper, He died in 1869. The

couple had two sons, the first died in 1873 and the second ten years later. Prior to the San Francisco earth-

quake, she was the manager of the Berkshire, a fashionable hotel in San Francisco. It is unceftain when she

first began writing, but by 1884 her first book of poetry was publ.ished entitted Californía Pilgrimoge, a book

of poems about the Catifornia missions. Another cottection of her poems fottowed in 1900, Lo Parra Grande, a

Legend of Sonta Barbara's Big Grape Vine; in 7908, Francisca Re¡no ittustrated by Maynard Dixon; in 7977, The

Souls Rubaíyat' and in 7973, AU the Way: Beíng the Collected Poems of Amelia Woodward Truesdell. Her individ-

ual poems were pubtished in magazines such as 1ut West and the )verland lvlonthly in the early 7900s. (1ak-

land Tríbune, December 20, 791,2)

After her second son's death in 1883, she branched out into new directions. Her cottection of poetry pubLished

in 1913 after her death states:

Ten years later she was left atone by the death of her other son. With unusual courage and initiative she

then turned to many things, and by sheer force of witl created for hersetf interests and responsibitities. As

a business manager, a member of ctubs, an occasional lecturer and writer, she was atways at once vitaland very kind. (TruesdeLl., 1913: ix)

It is unknown why she purchased ranch land in Ventura County in 1883. It may have been the death of her

son in 1883 that brought an interest in a change of location. Perhaps her book on the Catifornia missions

brought her to Ventura and she decided to experience ranch [ife. A copy of her first book, California Pilgrim-

age, pubtished in 1884, and found in the Museum of Ventura County cottection is inscribed to Mr. And Mrs.

Finney, who lived near her on Telephone Road. The Day and Finney famities had both come to Ventura County

in 7874 and purchased land in what was known as the Mound District. In the book's pocket is a copy of an

articte from the Ventura SignaL for September 6, 7884 that states: "Mrs. A.C.W. Truesdett, who recentty pur-

chased Mr. Day's place in Mound District is author of a beautiful LittLe book. . . Mrs. Truesdetl has kindty pre-

sented our [ibrary with a copy."

Truesdell apparentty lived on her ranch but traveted back and forth to the San Francisco Bay area where she

retained a residence. Her poetry books were pubtished in San Francisco. Continuing her life of letters wetl intomiddte age, in 1903 she became the oldest graduate at Stanford University when she obtained a degree in

Engtish at the age of 64. Truesdetl was a chaÉer member of the Pacific Coast Woman's Press Association, a

member of the California Club of San Francisco and the Daughters of the American Revotution. ()akland Trib-

une,72/20/7972)

Ametia Truesdetl became it[ and was eventuatty hospitatized. This may have been why she sotd her ranch prop-

erty in 1909. She died in t9t7 at the age of 73.

sAN DUENAVENTURA RETARCH ASSOCIATES Page 7off4

22



Oscar Perry Cook: 1909 to 1948

Born in Indiana in 1860, Oscar P. Cook came to Ventura County around 1889. Voter Registration documents for

1889 list him as a nurseryman living in the Saticoy precinct. In 1890 he married Maude L. White, born in 1865

in Missouri. The couple had no children according to census records.

Ventura County Grant deeds show that Cook purchased several properties between 1891 and 1909. Census re-

cords in 1900 and 1910 show he lived on a ranch but no addresses are provided. In 1909 he purchased the 80

acre property from Amelia Truesdell. It is unknown if he ever lived on the Telephone Road ranch as he also

owned a residence at 795 Main Street as early as 1921 and probably earlier. His occupation was farmer accord-

ing to census records. The 1930 and 1940 census show the Cooks as living in Ventura. Oscar Perry Cook died

on February 3, 1948 and his wife Maude L. Cook died on October 16, 1956. (Deed book 110; pg. 427)

Fred W. Smith and Grace Hobson Smith: 1948 to present

In 1948 Fred and Grace Smith purchased the 80 acre ranch from the estate of Oscar P. Cook. The ranch was

purchased as an agricultural investment along with other agricultural lands the couple owned. The Smiths

lived in Ojai. (Deed book 840, pg. 127)

Fred W. Smith was born on May 22, 1892 in Alamosa, Colorado. He attended the University of California, Ber-

keley. By 1917 he is living in Ventura and is a stock feed buyer for the Hobson Brothers Packing Company,

eventually becoming president in 1929. He married Grace Hobson Smith shortly after moving to Ventura. Grace

Hobson Smith, born February 29, 1892, was the daughter of Abram L. Hobson and Helen Barnard Hobson.

Hobson joined his father William Dewey Hobson in the meat packing business. William D. Hobson was known

as the "Father of Ventura County" for his work in separating Ventura County from Santa Barbara County. Abram

together with his brother William A. organized the Hobson Brothers Packing Company and accumulated large

real estate holdings along with being one of the largest dealers of livestock in Southern California.

(McGroarty, 1933: 574-576)

Fred Smith also served as Vice-President of the Board of Trustees of Pomona College in Claremont and was a

member of the California State Board of Education for seven years, serving three years as President. As a char-

ter member of the Ventura Lions Club, he served as International President in 1947-48. Grace Smith also at-

tended the University of California, Berkeley and after her marriage, she became active in philanthropic work

and the education of her three children. She established a scholarship fund at Berkeley and donated a new

school building to the Upper Campus of the Ojai Valley School in 1966. The family are known for their gener-

ous charitable contributions to many Ventura County organizations, and establishing the Smith-Hobson Foun-

dation Fund that focuses on educational and cultural projects in 1964. Grace Smith died in 1968 and Fred

Smith in 1982. (The Lion, February 1982)

Today the property is owned by R.H. Smith Family Properties, LLC., descendants of the Smith family.


The 78.28 acre site at 7620 Telephone Road in Ventura contains a main residence, a barn, two garages, fruit

stand, small storage buildings and greenhouses. Surrounding the buildings are strawberry fields that are fallow

at present.



Oscar Perry Cook: 1909 to 1948

Born in Indiana in 1860, 0scar P. Cook came to Ventura County around 1889. Voter Reg'istration documents for

1889 tist him as a nurseryman living in the Saticoy precinct. In 1890 he married Maude L. White, born in 1865

in Missouri. The coupte had no chitdren according to census records.

Ventura County Grant deeds show that Cook purchased several properties between 1891 and 1909. Census re-

cords in 1900 and 1910 show he [ived on a ranch but no addresses are provided. In 1909 he purchased the 80

acre property from Ametia Truesdett. It is unknown if he ever lived on the Telephone Road ranch as he atso

owned a residence at 795 Main Street as earty as 1921 and probabty eartier. His occupation was farmer accord-

ing to census records. The 1930 and 1940 census show the Cooks as [iving in Ventura. Oscar Perry Cook died

on February 3, 1948 and his wife Maude L. Cook died on 0ctober 76, 7956. (Deed book 770; pg. 427)

Fred W. Smith and Grace Hobson Smith: 1948 to present

In 7948 Fred and Grace Smith purchased the 80 acre ranch from the estate of Oscar P. Cook. The ranch was

purchased as an agricuttural investment atong with other agricultural lands the coupte owned. The Smiths

lived in Ojai. (Deed book 840, p9.727)

Fred W. Smith was born on May 22,1892 in Alamosa, Cotorado. He attended the University of Catifornia, Ber-

ketey. By 1917 he is living in Ventura and is a stock feed buyer for the Hobson Brothers Packing Company,

eventuatty becoming president in7929. He married Grace Hobson Smith shortty after moving to Ventura. Grace

Hobson Smith, born February 29, 1,892, was the daughter of Abram L. Hobson and Helen Barnard Hobson.

Hobson joined his father Wittiam Dewey Hobson in the meat packing business. Wittiam D. Hobson was known

as the "Father of Ventura County" for his work in separating Ventura County from Santa Barbara County. Abram

together with his brother Wittiam A. organized the Hobson Brothers Packing Company and accumutated large

real estate hotdings atong with being one of the largest deaters of livestock in Southern Catifornia.

(McGroarty, 7933: 57 4-57 6)

Fred Smith also served as Vice-President of the Board of Trustees of Pomona College in Ctaremont and was a

member ofthe Cal.ifornia State Board of Education for seven years, serving three years as President. As a char-

ter member of the Ventura Lions Ctub, he served as International President in 7947-48. Grace Smith atso at-

tended the University of Catifornia, Berketey and after her marriage, she became active in phitanthropic work

and the education of her three children. She estabtished a schotarship fund at Berketey and donated a new

schoot buil.ding to the Upper Campus of the 0jai Val.tey School in 1966. The famity are known for their gener-

ous charitabte contributions to many Ventura County organizations, and establishing the Smith-Hobson Foun-

dation Fund that focuses on educational and cuttural projects in 7964. Grace Smith died in 1968 and Fred

Smith in 7982. (The Líon, tebruary 7982)

Today the property is owned by R.H. Smith Famil.y Properties, LLC., descendants of the Smith famity.


The 78.28 acre site at 7620 Tetephone Road in Ventura contains a main residence, a barn, two garages, fruitstand, smatl storage buitdings and greenhouses. Surrounding the buitdings are strawberry fietds that are fallow

at present.

sAN DUENAVENruRA RTsEARCH AssOffiTEs Page 8of14

23



Main Residence. Built in 1881 or 1882, this two-story Italianate style residence features a square plan with a

low truncated hipped roof, punctuated with a brick chimney. Under the overhanging closed eaves are decora-

tive carved brackets. A porch extends across the front (northern elevation) and wraps around the entire west-

ern elevation and half of the eastern elevation. The porch is supported by narrow square capped posts and a

wooden balustrade. At the rear south elevation is a one-story wing with a low hipped roof and porch. [Photos

1-4]

Symmetrically placed wood sash windows are tall and narrow one-over-one with shelf mouldings. The house is

covered with wide horizontal drop siding and rests on a raised foundation covered with wooden lattice.

The interior of the house features a curved wooden staircase railing with decorative spindles in the entrance

hall and a fireplace in the living room. Ceilings are tall and the living room has wood wainscoting. The inte-

rior has retained a large number of original features including the paneled doors, door casings, hardware, and

baseboard mouldings. [Photos 5, 6]

There have been relatively few alterations to the exterior of the house over its 134 year history. Historic pho-

tos prior to 1900 show that the house did not have a porch railing, as it does today. The porch railing was

added sometime after 1950. A wooden balcony railing on the second story above the porch was repeated as

cresting on the roof. These were removed by the 1950s according to the photo in the Assessor building re-

cords. The back porch was probably added around 1920 or later. The house is in poor condition on the interior

as a result of pigeon infestation. The exterior is in fair condition.

Barn. The barn dates from about 1940 according to the Assessor building records. It was used as a dehydrator

building, probably for the walnuts that once grew on this property and were removed in 1974. The building

was thereafter used as a barn. It is a long narrow building measuring 42 by 72 feet. The one-story barn has a

medium high front facing gable roof with a gabled addition on the north side built circa 1947. Sliding track

doors open on the eastern elevation. The building is wood frame with corrugated metal siding and roof and

rests on a concrete foundation. The building is in fair condition. [Photos 7, 8]

Garage 1. The garage was built around 1935 and has a rectangular plan with a gable roof. It is located adja-

cent to the barn on the south. The building measures 16 by 20 feet and is wood frame with board and batten

siding and corrugated metal roof. A sliding track door is located on the eastern elevation and a horizontal

vent above it under the gable peak. Changes appear to have been made to some of the siding and the track

door. It is difficult to see all of the building because it is surrounded on three sides, The building is in fair

condition. [Photo 9]

Garage 2. This garage was built around 1935 and is rectangular in plan with a gable roof. The building meas-

ures 12 by 20 feet and is clad with board and batten siding and a corrugated metal roof and a dirt floor. The

base of the building had severe dry rot that eventually led to its collapse during a recent wind and rainstorm.

[Photo 10]

Several modern temporary buildings and structures were built on the property after 1990, including a fruit

stand, storage units and green houses.

Landscape Elements. A few remaining walnut trees are found near the house where a walnut orchard once

existed. Today the 78 acres are used for growing strawberries.


H istoric Resources Report7620 Telephone Road, Ventura

Main Residence. Buitt in 1881 or 1882, this two-story Itatianate styte residence features a square plan with a

low truncated hipped roof, punctuated with a brick chimney. Under the overhanging closed eaves are decora-

tive carved brackets. A porch extends across the front (northern etevation) and wraps around the entire west-

ern etevation and hatf of the eastern etevation. The porch is supported by narrow square capped posts and a

wooden batustrade. At the rear south etevation is a one-story wing with a low hipped roof and porch. [Photos

7-41

SymmetricatLy ptaced wood sash windows are tatl and narrow one-over-one with shetf mouldings. The house is

covered with wide horizontal drop siding and rests on a raised foundation covered with wooden lattice.

The interior of the house features a curved wooden staircase raiLing with decorative spindles in the entrance

ha[[ and a fireptace in the tiving room. Ceitings are tatt and the living room has wood wainscoting. The inte-

rior has retained a large number of original features inctuding the paneted doors, door casings, hardware, and

baseboard moutdings. [Photos 5, 6]

There have been relativety few alterations to the exterior of the house over its 134 year history. Historic pho-

tos prior to 1900 show that the house did not have a porch raiting, as it does today. The porch raiting was

added sometime after 1950. A wooden balcony raiting on the second story above the porch was repeated as

cresting on the roof. These were removed by the 1950s according to the photo in the Assessor buitding re-

cords. The back porch was probabty added around 7920 or later. The house is in poor condition on the interior

as a resutt of pigeon infestation. The exterior is in fair condition.

Barn. The barn dates from about 1940 according to the Assessor buiLding records. It was used as a dehydrator

buiLding, probabty for the watnuts that once grew on this property and were removed in 1974. The buitding

was thereafter used as a barn. It is a long narrow buitding measuring 42by72 feet. The one-story barn has a

medium high front facing gabte roof with a gabted addition on the north side buitt circa 1947. Stiding track

doors open on the eastern etevation. The buiLding is wood frame with corrugated metal siding and roof and

rests on a concrete foundation. The buitding is in fair condition. [Photos 7, 8]

Garage 1. The garage was built around 1935 and has a rectangular ptan with a gable roof. It is located adja-

cent to the barn on the south. The buitding measures 16 by 20 feet and is wood frame with board and batten

siding and corrugated metal roof. A sl.iding track door is [ocated on the eastern etevation and a horizontal

vent above it under the gable peak. Changes appear to have been made to some of the siding and the track

door. It is difficutt to see atl of the building because it is surrounded on three sides, The buitding is in fair

condition. [Photo 9]

Garage 2. This garage was built around 1935 and is rectangutar in ptan with a gabte roof. The buitding meas-

ures L2 by 20 feet and is ctad with board and batten siding and a corrugated metal roof and a dirt floor. The

base of the buitding had severe dry rot that eventuatty ted to its cottapse during a recent wind and rainstorm.

IPhoto 10]

Several modern temporary buiLdings and structures were buitt on the property after 1990, inctuding a fruitstand, storage units and green houses.

[andscape Elements. A few remaining watnut trees are found near the house where a watnut orchard once

existed. Today the 78 acres are used for growing strawberries.

sAN DUENAVENTURA RE5IARCH AssOCIATEs Page 9off4

24



4. Eligibility of Historic Resources

National and California Registers: Significance, Eligibility and Integrity

In terms of individual eligibility for the NRHP and CRHR, this property does not appear to be eligible under

NRHP Criterion A or CRHR Criterion 1. While it is historically associated with the agricultural development of

Ventura County, it is only generally associated with this theme, and has made no, known individual contribu-

tion to this development.

The property does not appear to be individually eligible under NRHP Criterion B or CRHR 2 for its association

with significant persons. James Day was an early Ventura pioneer and noted for being the first to dry his fruit

before sending it to market. He was also known for building the Masonic block and Collins block of buildings

in Ventura. His Ventura house on Poli Street where he lived from 1883 to 1915 is a designated Ventura land-

mark. Although he lived on the Telephone Road property beginning in 1874 he apparently lived in the existing

house for only one year.

Amelia W. Truesdell, a well known figure in the poetry world during late 1800s and early 1900s, owned the

property from 1883 to 1909. During this time period she wrote her first book of poetry (1884) about the Cali-

fornia missions. Other books followed in 1900 and 1908. She lost her son in 1883, the Last of her immediate

family, her first son having died in 1873 and her husband in 1869. It is known that she lived in Ventura

County and wanted to make changes in her life and surroundings following her second son's death. It is pos-

sible that she bought this property as a place for seclusion and writing her poetry. No information, however,

could be found to confirm if she lived on the property the entire time she owned it or if she actually wrote

her poetry during her stays there. During this time she continued to maintain a residence in the San Francisco

area and obtained a degree in 1903 from Stanford. When she sold the property and returned to the San Fran-

cisco area in 1909, she published three more books of poetry.

The third owner of the property, Oscar Perry Cook, was a farmer and owned several properties including a town

house in Ventura. No notable contributions to the development of the county could be found for Oscar P. and

Maude Cook.

The last owners, Fred Smith and Grace Hobson Smith, were members of a prominent Ventura County family

who lived first in Ventura and then in Ojai and owned a large number of agricultural properties. This property

was just one of their investments and they never lived on the site. Their Ojai home was donated to the City of

Ojai and is now Ojai City Hall.

Although several owners of the property made important contributions to the Ventura County community in

the field of agriculture, philanthropy and the wider field of literature, this property cannot be substantiated to

have been their main residences.

This property appears to be individually eligible under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR 3 as a distinctive and scarce

example of the Italianate informal farm house in Ventura County. Its distinctive characteristics include its

square box shape with a truncated hipped roof and decorative bracketed cornice. The narrow tall double hung

wood windows feature simple shelf mouldings and the house features wide horizontal drop siding. A hipped

roof porch wraps around three sides of the house and is supported by narrow wood capped columns.



4. Eligibility of Historic Resources

Natíonal and Californío Registers: Signíficance, Eligíbility and Integrity

In terms of individuat el.igibitity for the NRHP and CRHR, this property does not appear to be etigibte under

NRHP Criterion A or CRHR Criterion 1. White it is historically associated with the agricultural devetopment of

Ventura County, it is onty generatty associated with this theme, and has made no, known individual contribu-

tion to this development.

The property does not appear to be individuatty etigibl,e under NRHP Criterion B or CRHR 2 for its association

with significant persons. James Day was an earty Ventura pioneer and noted for being the first to dry his fruitbefore sending it to market. He was atso known for buitding the Masonic btock and Cottins bLock of buitdings

in Ventura. His Ventura house on Poti Street where he lived from 1883 to 1915 is a designated Ventura [and-

mark. Atthough he tived on the Tetephone Road property beginning in 1.874 he apparentty lived in the existing

house for onty one year.

Ametia W. Truesdett, a wetl known figure in the poetry wortd during late 1800s and earty 1900s, owned thepropefty from 1883 to 1909. During this time period she wrote her first book of poetry (1884) about the Ca[i-

fornia missions. 0ther books foltowed in 1900 and 1908. She lost her son in 1883, the last of her immediate

famity, her first son having died in 1873 and her husband in 1869. It is known that she lived in Ventura

County and wanted to make changes in her life and surroundings fotlowing her second son's death. It is pos-

sibte that she bought this property as a place for sectusion and writing her poetry. No information, however,

coutd be found to confirm if she lived on the property the entire time she owned it or if she actuatty wrote

her poetry during her stays there. During this time she continued to maintain a residence in the San Francisco

area and obtained a degree in 1903 from Stanford. When she sotd the property and returned to the San Fran-

cisco area in 1909, she pubtished three more books of poetry.

The third owner of the property, Oscar Perry Cook, was a farmer and owned several properties inctuding a town

house in Ventura. No notable contributions to the development of the county could be found for Oscar P. and

Maude Cook.

The last owners, Fred Smith and Grace Hobson Smith, were members of a prominent Ventura County famity

who lived first in Ventura and then in 0jai and owned a large number of agricultural properties. This property

was just one of their investments and they never lived on the site. Their Ojai home was donated to the City ofOjai and is now Ojai City Hal.t.

ALthough several owners of the property made important contributions to the Ventura County community in

the fietd of agricutture, phil.anthropy and the wider field of literature, this propefty cannot be substantiated tohave been their main residences.

This property appears to be individuatty etigibLe under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR 3 as a distinctive and scarce

exampte of the ltalianate informal farm house in Ventura County. Its distinctive characteristics inctude its

square box shape with a truncated hipped roof and decorative bracketed cornice. The narrow tatl doubte hung

wood windows feature simple shetf moutdings and the house features wide horizonta[ drop siding. A hipped

roof porch wraps around three sides ofthe house and is supported by narrow wood capped cotumns.

sAN DUENAVENTURA RESEARCH AS5OCIATE5 Page 10of14

25




The integrity of location for this property is intact. None of the extant buildings have been moved. The integ-

rity of design is partially intact for the main residence since the balcony above the porch and the roof cresting

was removed and a wood railing added to the porch. The integrity of design is intact for the barn, but some-

what reduced for the property as a whole since several earlier buildings have been removed over time. The

barn from the 1880s was probably removed in the 1940s when the present barn/dehydrator building was con-

structed. A farm labor residence from 1935 was removed in 1975. An implement shed from 1935 was removed

by 1991. The integrity of setting for the property is intact since the 77.28 acre parcel remains in use for farm-

ing. Modern housing subdivisions built after 1960 are located to the west of the property, across Ramelli Ave-

nue. The materials and workmanship are intact for the residence and barn. The integrity of feeling and associa-

tion are intact since the site is still used for agriculture.

On a whole, this property does not appears to retain the integrity required to be individually eligible for list-

ing on the NRHP or CRHR because the main residence has lost some of its distinctive architectural design fea-

tures with the removal of the balcony railing and cresting. The barn has retained its integrity. The remaining

buildings (Garages 1 and 2 and modern buildings and structures are non-contributors because Garage 1 has

lost its integrity and Garage 2 has collapsed. The remaining buildings are not fifty years of age.)

Summary Conclusion

The Day Ranch does not appear eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion C or for the CRHR under Crite-

rion 3 due to insufficient integrity.

Local Significance and Eligibility

The Day Ranch appears to be eligible for local landmark designation under the Ventura County Cultural Heri-

tage ordinance. The Day Ranch reflects the county's agricultural history due its over one hundred year associa-

tion with agriculture, the county's leading industry (Criterion 2). The main two-story residence embodies dis-

tinctive characteristics of the Italianate style and appears to be eligible under Criterion 5.


Under Criterion 6, the Day Ranch main residence and barn appear to possess sufficient integrity to be eligible

for listing as a Ventura County Landmark. Garage 1 has had changes to the main door and Garage 2 has col-

lapsed as a result of a rain and wind storm and its poor condition. These two buildings should be considered

non-contributors.

The above integrity discussion for the NRHP and CRHR pertains to the local designation as well. By compari-

son with the NRHP criteria for distinctive characteristics under Criterion C, it states "a property must clearly

contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or

method of construction." The Ventura County Criterion 5 states that it only needs to "embody the distinctive

characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction." The removal of the balcony and cresting

from the main residence is not as critical for the local designation. Enough distinctive features remain for the

residence to be eligible for a local designation. These characteristics include the form of the building, the roof

shape, decorative eave brackets, tall narrow windows with shelf mouldings and horizontal drop wood siding.



Integrity Discussíon

The integrity of locotíon for this property is intact. None of the extant buildings have been moved. The integ-nty of design is partiatty intact for the main residence since the batcony above the porch and the roof cresting

was removed and a wood raiting added to the porch. The integrity of design is intact for the barn, but some-

what reduced for the property as a whote since several eartier buitdings have been removed over time. The

barn from the 1880s was probabty removed in the 1940s when the present barn/dehydrator buitding was con-

structed. A farm labor residence from 1935 was removed in 7975. An imptement shed from 1935 was removed

by 1991. The integrity of seüing for the property is intact since the 77.28 acre parcel remains in use for farm-

ing. Modern housing subdivisions buitt after 1960 are located to the west of the property, across Rametti Ave-

nue. The materials and workmanshíp are intact for the residence and barn. The integrity of feelíng and associa-

tion are intact since the site is stit[ used for agricutture.

0n a whote, this property does not appears to retain the integrity required to be individuatty el.igibl.e for [ist-ing on the NRHP or CRHR because the main residence has lost some of its distinctive architectural design fea-

tures with the remova[ of the batcony raiting and cresting. The barn has retained its integrity. The remainirlg

buitdings (Garages 7 and ? and modern buitdings and structures are non-contributors because Garage t has

lost its integrity and Garage 2 has cottapsed. The remaining buildings are not fifty years of age.)

Summary Conclusion

The Day Ranch does not appear eLigibLe for listing on the NRHP under Criterion C or for the CRHR under Crite-

rion 3 due to insufficient integrity.

Local Significance and Eligíbility

The Day Ranch appears to be etigibLe for loca[ landmark designation under the Ventura County Cultural Heri-

tage ordinance. The Day Ranch reflects the county's agricuttural history due its over one hundred year associa-

tion with agriculture, the county's leading industry (Criterion 2). The main two-story residence embodies dis-

tinctive characteristics of the Itatianate styte and appears to be etigibte under Criterion 5.


Under Criterion 6, the Day Ranch main residence and barn appear to possess sufficient integrity to be eligibte

for listing as a Ventura County Landmark. Garage t has had changes to the main door and Garage 2 has cot-

lapsed as a resutt of a rain and wind storm and its poor condition. These two buil.dings should be considered

no n-contributors.

The above integrity discussion for the NRHP and CRHR pertains to the [oca[ designation as wett. By compari-

son with the NRHP criteria for distinctive characteristics under Criterion C, it states "a propefty must ctearty

contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particutar type, period, ormethod of construction." The Ventura County Criterion 5 states that it onty needs to "embody the distinctive

characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction." The removal of the batcony and cresting

from the main residence is not as critical for the [oca[ designation. Enough distinctive features remain for the

residence to be etigibte for a [ocaI designation. These characteristics inctude the form of the building, the roof

shape, decorative eave brackets, tatl narrow windows with shetf moutdings and horizontal drop wood siding.

sAN DUENAVENTURA RESTARft A5SOffiTE5 Page 11 of14

26

Historic Resources Report 7620 Telephone Road, Ventura

Summary Conclusion

The main residence and barn retain sufficient integrity to qualify for a Ventura County landmark designation. The remaining buildings, including Garage 1 and Garage 2, are non-contributors.



Summary Conclusíon

The main residence and barn retain sufficient integrity to quatify for a Ventura County landmark designation

The remaining buitdings, inctuding Garage 1 and Garage 2, are non-contríbutors.

SAN DUENAVENTWA RE5EARCH A55OCIATE5 Page 12of14

27



5. Selected Sources

Bancroft, Hubert Howe. History of California. 152-1870. Vol. IV. San Francisco: The History Company, 1884,

1890.

California State Library, Ancestry, Author Biography Card for Amelia Truesdell located on Ancestry.com

Daily Alta California, 8/20,1869.

Mason, Jesse. History of Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties. Oakland, CA: Thompson & West, 1883.

McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984.

McGroarty, John Steven. California of the South, Vol. V. Chicago, Los Angeles & Indianapolis: Clarke Publishing

Co., 1933.

Oakland Tribune, 12/20/1912.

Sheridan, E.M. "The Narrative of Jefferson Crane." Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly. 1, November,

1955)2-8.

Sheridan, Sol N. History of Ventura County, California. 2 vols. Chicago: S.J. Clarke, 1926.

Storke, Ada. A Memorial and Biographical History of the Counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ven-

tura, CA. Chicago: Lewis Publishing Col, 1891.

The Lion, February 1982. Lion's Club newsletter.

Triem, Judith. Ventura County: Land of Good Fortune. Northridge: Windsor Publications, 1985.

Triem, Judith. The Santa Clara Valley of Ventura County. Santa Barbara: The Easton Gallery, 2002.

U.S. Census Records, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940.

Ventura County Assessor Roll Books, 1881-82; 1883. Located at Ventura County Museum Library.

Ventura County Assessor Records, Residential Building Record

Ventura County Biographies, Ancestry.com "Mrs. Grace Hobson Smith."

Ventura County Directories, 1884 through 1940.

Ventura County Grant Deeds

Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 32, "The Poinsettia Club of Saticoy." No. 1. 1986: 11-12.

Ventura County Historical Society Quarterly, Vol. 46, "Ventura County Garden of the World." Nos. 1-4, 2002:

111-112.

Ventura County Residential Building Record.



5. Selected Sources

Bancroft, Hubert Howe. Hístory of Calífornía. 752-7870. Vol.. N. San Francisco: The History Company, 1884,

1890.

Catifornia State Library, Ancestry, Author Biography Card for Ametia Truesdetl located on Ancestry.com

Doí ly Alta Californio, I /20,7869.

Mason, Jesse. Hrsúory ofSonta Barbara andVentura Counties.Oaktand, CA: Thompson & West, 1883.

McAtester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guíde to American Houses. New York: Atfred A. Knopf, 1984.

McGroafty, John Steven. CaLifornía of the South, Vot. V. Chicago, Los Angetes & Indianapolis: C[arke Pubtishing

Co., 1933.

1akLand Trí bune, 12 /20 / 7972.

Sheridan, E.M. "The Narrative of Jefferson Crane." Ventura County Historical Society Quarterty. 1, November,

7955)2-8.

Sheridan, SoL N. Hrstory ofVentura County, Calífornia.2 vots. Chicago: S.J. Ctarke, 1926.

Storke, Ada. A l4emorial and Biographícal History of the Counties of Santa Barbara, Son Luis 0bispo and Ven-

tura, CA. Chicago: Lewis Pubtishing Cot, 1891.

The Líon, February 1982. Lion's Ctub newsletter.

Triem, Judith. Ventura County: Land of Good Fortune, Northridge: Windsor Pubtications, 1985.

Triem, Judith. The Santa Clara VoLley of Ventura County. Santa Barbara: The Easton GaLl.ery, 2002.

U.S. Census Records, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1900, 7970,1920,7930,7940.

Ventura County Assessor Rot[ Books, 1881-82; 1883. Located at Ventura County Museum Library.

Ventura County Assessor Records, ResidentiaI Buitding Record

Ventura County Biographies, Ancestry.com "Mrs. Grace Hobson Smith."

Ventura County Directories, 1884 through 1940.

Ventura County Grant Deeds

Ventura County Historical Society Quarterty, Vot. 32, "The Poinsettia Ctub of Saticoy." No. 1. 1986: 11-12.

Ventura County Historical Society Quarterty, VoL. 46, "Ventura County Garden of the Wor[d." Nos. 1-4, 2002:

771-772.

Ventura County ResidentiaI Buitding Record.

sAN DUENAVENTURA REsEARCH AS5OCIATE5 Page 13of14

28

Historic Resources Report 7620 Telephone Road, Ventura

Ventura Free Press, 7/10/1908; Unknown newspaper clipping, 1/8/1915. (located in Ventura County Museum

Library)

Maps

USGS Maps: Saticoy Quadrangle, 1903, 1951

Plat Map of the Rancho Santa Paula y Saticoy, 1860.

Plat Map of the Rancho Santa Paula y Saticoy, 1867, W.H. Norway



Ventura Free Press, T/70/7908t Unknown newspaper ctipping, 7/8/7975. (located in Ventura County Museum

Library)

Maps

USGS Maps: Saticoy Quadrangle, 7903,7957

Ptat Map of the Rancho Santa Pauta y Saticoy, 1860.

Ptat Map of the Rancho Santa Pauta y Saticoy, 1867, W.H. Norway

SAN BUENAVENTffiA RE5EARCH AssOCIATEs Page 14of14

29

Photo 1. Main residence, front (northern) elevation. [23 July 2015]

Photo 2. Main residence, side (western) elevation. [23 July 2015]

Photo 1. Main residence, front (northern) etevation. [23 Juty 2015]

Photo 2. Main residence, side (western) etevation. [23 Jul'y 2015]

30

Photo 3. Main residence, side (eastern) elevation. [23 July 2015]

Photo 4. Main residence, rear (southern) elevation. [23 July 2015]

Photo 3. Main residence, side (eastern) etevation. [23 Juty 2015]

Photo 4. Main residence, rear (southern) etevation. [23 Juty 2015]

31

Photo 5. Main residence, interior living room. [23 July 2015]

Photo 6. Main residence, front entrance hall showing curved staircase railing. [23 July 2015]

Photo 5. Majn residence, interior [iving room. [23 Jul.y 2015]

Photo 6. Main residence, front entrance hat[ showing curved staircase railing. [23 Juty 2015]

32

Photo 7. Metal barn, eastern and northern elevations. [23 July 2015]

Photo 8. Metal barn, western and southern elevations. [23 July 2015]

Photo 7. MetaI barn, eastern and northern etevations. [23 Juty 2015]

Photo 8. Metal barn, western and southern etevations. [23 Juty 2015]

33

Photo 9. Garage 1, eastern elevation. [23 July 2015]

Photo 10. Garage 2, western and southern elevations. [23 July 2015]

LT.,L

r-

Photo 9. Garage 1, eastern etevation. [23 JuLy 2015]

rl

I

/

Photo 10. Garage 2, western and southern etevations. [23 Juty 2015]

34

R.H. SMITH FAMILY PROPERTIES,LLC

POST OFFICE BOX 25010 63 NORTH ASH ST. VENTURA, CA 93002-2250 • PHONE 805-648-3363 • FAX 805-648-4603 E-mail • [email protected]

September 24, 2015

Nicole Donner Senior Planner County of Ventura 800 S. Victoria Ave. Ventura, CA 93009

RE: 7620 Telephone Road, Ventura, CA Zoning Clearance Application

Dear Ms. Donner,

(-) ':-/)

Attached, please find a Zoning Clearance Application for 7620 Telephone Road in Ventura. The proposal is to demolish three agricultural buildings and an abandoned residence to protect public health and safety and facilitate on-going agricultural uses.

The 77.28-acre property is zoned for agricultural production and is actively farmed for berries. Due to the age of the buildings, the owners commissioned an independent Phase I Historical Resource Report from San Buenaventura Associates. Their report is attached to this application.

The property owners have leased the site for farming for many decades. The building identified as "Garage #2" collapsed and represents a health and safety hazard. The other three buildings are significantly compromised.

Despite efforts to secure the buildings, vagrants continue to break in and start warming fires and animal infestations present an on-going threat. These issues are likely to be exacerbated by heavy rains predicted this winter.

Re-use of the buildings has been studied extensively but is impractical due to the notification and buffers required for the use of pesticides and fumigants as well as the dust and noise from farm machinery. The barn buildings are no longer needed for the existing farm operations.



R. H. Smith Family Properties, LLC letter dated September 24, 2015

#llk

R.H. SMITH FAMILYPROPERTIES,LLC

POST OFFICE BOX 25010 63 NORTH ASH ST.

VENTURA, CA 93002-2250 . PHONE 805-648-3363 . FAX 805-648-4603E-mail . [email protected]

September 24,2015

Nicole DonnerSenior PlannerCounty of Ventura800 S. Victoria AveVentura, CA 93009

RE 7620 Telephone Road, Ventura, CAZoning C learance Application

/ _3/ .0 - oSt,-1 f D

Dear Ms. Donner,

Attached, please find a Zoning Clearance Application for 7620 Telephone Road inVentura. The proposal is to demolish three agricultural buildings and an abandonedresidence to protect public health and safety and facilitate on-going agricultural uses.

The 77 .28-aare property is zoned for agricultural production and is actively farmed forberries. Due to the age of the buildings, the owners commissioned an independent Phase IHistorical Resource Report from San Buenaventura Associates. Their report is attached tothis application.

The property owners have leased the site for farming for many decades. The buildingidentified as "Garag e #2" collapsed and represents a health and safety hazard. The otherthree buildings are significantly compromised.

Despite efforts to secure the buildings, vagrants continue to break in and start warmingfires and animal infestations present an on-going threat. These issues are likely to beexacerbated by heavy rains predicted this winter.

Re-use of the buildings has been studied extensively but is impractical due to thenotification and buffers required for the use of pesticides and fumigants as well as thedust and noise from farm machinery. The barn buildings are no longer needed for theexisting farm operations.

County of VenturaCultural Heritage Board Meeting

March 7, 2016Exhibit 2

R. H. Smith Family Properties, LLCletter dated September 24,2015

35

By: .4 gory H. Smith

Managing Member

Nicole Donner September 24, 2015 Page 2

The County's agricultural zoning designation severely constrains the allowable uses of the three buildings, particularly the residence. Most of the allowed uses would place people in the middle of a large commercial agricultural operation and create potentially significant health, safety and liability issues.

Over the years numerous attempts have been made to relocate the main residence for preservation with no luck. We had been in discussions with the Ventura Friends of the Library about the possibility of moving the structure to the City of Ventura's community park across the street as an anchor for a new East Ventura library. The group determined that the rooms in the house were too small to meet their needs and the relocation costs were too great.

A potential buyer performed due diligence on relocating the residence and determined that, due to the square shape of the building and its height, the structure would need to be cut into four pieces for transport. The potential buyer concluded that the high cost and loss of structural integrity made physical relocation uneconomical.

Despite our best efforts over a number of years we have come to the point where we need to act. Please process the attached Zoning Clearance Application for the necessary demolition permits and let us know if additional information is required.

Respectfully,

R. H. SMITH FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC

Nicole DonnerSeptember 24,2015Page 2

The County's agricultural zoningdesignation severely constrains the allowable uses ofthe three buildings, particularly the residence. Most of the allowed uses would placepeople in the middle of a large commercial agricultural operation and create potentiallysignificant health, safety and liability issues.

Over the years numerous attempts have been made to relocate the main residence forpreservation with no luck. We had been in discussions with the Ventura Friends of theLibrary about the possibility of moving the structure to the City of Ventura's communitypark aôross the street as an anchor for a new East Ventura library. The group determinedthat the rooms in the house were too small to meet their needs and the relocation costswere too great.

A potential buyer performed due diligence on relocating the residence and determinedthát, due to the square shape of the building and its height, the structure would need to becut into four pieces for transport. The potential buyer concluded that the high cost andloss of structural integrity made physical relocation uneconomical.

Despite our best efforts over a number of years we have come to the point where we needto act. Please process the attached Zoning Clearance Application for the necessarydemolition permits and let us know if additional information is required.

Respectfully,

R. H. SMITH FAMILY PROPERTIES, LLC

ByH. Smith

Managing Member

36

December 15, 2015

Nicole Doner Cultural Heritage Program Administrator Ventura County Planning Division 800 S Victoria Avenue L1740 Ventura CA 93009

RE: Telephone Roade Demolition Permit Application

In response to your requests for additional information, we had the Historical Resources Report revised and sent to you earlier. An engineering firm has been retained to assess the current house integrity and their report will be forthcoming shortly.

This letter will respond point-by-point to you email questions dated November 2, 2015 with the subject line "alternatives to demolition" but first it is import to review the planning and regulatory context.

County Zoning Context

The property is zoned AE-40 — Agricultural Exclusive with a 40-acre minimum lot size. According to the County's Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance Sec. 8104-1.2 - Agricultural Exclusive (AE) Zone:

The purpose of this zone is to preserve and protect commercial agricultural lands as a limited and irreplaceable resource, to preserve and maintain agriculture as a major industry in Ventura County and to protect these areas from the encroachment of nonrelated uses which, by their nature, would have detrimental effects upon the agriculture industry. (emphasis added)

(AM. ORD. 4377 — 1/29/08)

The County's mandate for this zone is unambiguous: protect commercial agricultural land from "the encroachment of non-related uses which, by their nature, would have detrimental effects upon the agricultural industry,"

County Agricultural Policy

The County also adopted the Agriculture/Urban Buffer Policy (revised July 19, 2006) which states, in part:

New urban developments (and non-farming activities) should be required to lessen public and animal exposure to agricultural chemicals, dust, noise and odors and protect agricultural operations and land from vandalism, pilferage, trespassing and complaints against standard legal agricultural practices.

These guidelines apply to projects requiring discretionary approval by the county or a city where the proposed non-farming activity is abutting or on land zoned AE, OS or RA, and the farming activity is located outside a Sphere of Influence, as adopted by LAFCO.



David S. Armstrong letter dated December 15, 2015 and

attachment (GeoWorks Structural Evaluation)

December 15,2015

Nicole DonerCultural Heritage Program AdministratorVentura County Planning Division800 S Victoria Avenue L1740Ventura CA 93009

RE: Telephone Roade Demolition Permit Application

ln response to your requests for additional information, we had the Historical ResourcesReport revised and sent to you earlier. An engineering firm has been retained to assessthe current house integrity and their report will be forthcoming shortly.

This letter will respond point-by-point to you email questions dated November 2,2015with the subject line "alternatives to demolition" but first it is import to review the planningand regulatory context.

Gounty Zoning Gontext

The property is zoned AE-40 - Agricultural Exclusive with a 4O-acre minimum lot size.According to the County's Non-Coastal Zoning Ordinance Sec. 8104-1.2 - AgriculturalExclusive (AE)Zone:

The purpose of this zone is to preserve and protect commercial agricultural landsas a limited and irreplaceable resource, to preserue and maintain agriculture as amajor industry in Ventura County and to protect these areas from the

effects upon the aqriculture industry. (emphasis added)

(AM. ORD. 4377 - 1l29l09)

The County's mandate for this zone is unambiguous: protect commercial agriculturalland from "the encroachment of non-related uses which, by their nature, would havedetrimental effects upon the agricultural industry,"

County Agricultural Policy

The County also adopted the Agriculture/Urban Buffer Policy (revised July 19, 2006)which states, in part:

New urban developments (and non-farming activities) should be requíred tolessen public and animal exposure to agricultural chemicals, dust, noise andodors and protect agricultural operations and land from vandalism, pilferage,trespassing and complaints against standard legal agricultural practices.

These guidelines apply to projects requiring discretionary approval by the countyor a city where the proposed non-farming activity is abutting or on land zonedAE, OS or RA, and the farming activity is located outside a Sphere of lnfluence,as adopted by LAFCO.

' County of VenturaCultural Heritage Board Meeting

March 7, 2016Exhibit 3

David S. Armstrongletter dated December 15,2015 and

attachment (GeoWorks Structural Evaluation)37

Although the property is located within the City of San Buenaventura's Sphere of Influence, the City also applies the County's buffer policy to applicable discretionary approvals.

Agricultural Regulations

Commercial agriculture is a highly regulated industry. The current farming operation must go to great lengths to prevent having to vacate every residence across Ramelli Avenue and Lemur Street when fumigating the fields. The farmer must create a patchwork of 21 separate fumigation areas at significant additional time and expense.

Large buffer zones are also imposed through various regulatory agencies to protect the neighbors from chemicals, dust, noise and odors. These buffer zones cannot be entered for 48 hours by any person who is not wearing the mandated protective gear and has not received all the of the required training (conducted by a DPR Licensed training instructor within the last 365 days, received a medical evaluation from a certified clinic within the last 365 days, and protective fumigation mask fit-test by a certified clinic and/or instructor within the last 365 days).

Allowed Uses

The principle structures allowed in the AE zone are agriculture related — greenhouses, packing houses, etc. Conversion of the existing structure to a principal use such as these is impractical due to the building's size, configuration and type of construction. Therefore, the County's Non-Coastal Zoning Code treats the existing structure as an accessory use to the primary commercial agricultural use. The County's policies clearly seek to prevent human exposure to agricultural chemicals, dust and noise. So while the code allows certain limited types of habitation uses, any such use would require regular evacuations and significant potential liability.

Changes to the structure to make it habitable would trigger one or more discretionary approvals that may, in turn, trigger the imposition of the agriculture/urban buffer of 300 feet surrounding the structure. This buffer would remove a minimum of 6.5 acres from agricultural production. Removing commercial agriculture from production is not consistent with the existing AE Zoning goals.

The goals and policies of the county's planning division and other regulatory agencies are unequivocal — keep commercial agriculture and people apart. Placing people in the midst of commercial agriculture presents a well-established health risk. Even if exemptions or exceptions could be made to the regulations, the potential liability and moral hazard is enormous.

To specifically address each of the items raised, please see the responses to each of your inquiries:

a) Sale of the structure on its present site to a party willing to preserve the structure.

Based on subsequent questions, our assumption is that this would involve the sale of the entire 70 acres. The County has clearly established that this site

Although the propefty is located within the City of San Buenaventura's Sphere oflnfluence, the City also applies the County's buffer policy to applicable discretionaryapprovals.

Agricultural Regulations

Commercial agriculture is a highly regulated industry. The current farming operationmust go to great lengths to prevent having to vacate every residence across RamelliAvenue and Lemur Street when fumigating the fields. The farmer must create apatchwork of 21 separate fumigation areas at significant additional time and expense.

Large buffer zones are also imposed through various regulatory agencies to protect theneighbors from chemicals, dust, noise and odors. These buffer zones cannot be enteredfor 48 hours by any person who is not wearing the mandated protective gear and hasnot received all the of the required training (conducted by a DPR Licensed traininginstructor within the last 365 days, received a medical evaluation from a certified clinicwithin the last 365 days, and protective fumigation mask fit-test by a certified clinicand/or instructor within the last 365 days).

Allowed Uses

The principle structures allowed in the AE zone are agriculture related - greenhouses,packing houses, etc. Conversion of the existing structure to a principal use such asthese is impractical due to the building's size, configuration and type of construction.Therefore, the County's Non-Coastal Zoning Code treats the existing structure as anaccessory use to the primary commercial agricultural use. The County's policies clearlyseek to prevent human exposure to agricultural chemicals, dust and noise. So while thecode allows certain limited types of habitation uses, any such use would require regularevacuations and significant potential liability.

Changes to the structure to make it habitable would trigger one or more discretionaryapprovals that may, in turn, trigger the imposition of the agriculture/urban buffer of 300feet surrounding the structure. This buffer would remove a minimum of 6.5 acres fromagricultural production. Removing commercial agriculture from production is notconsistent with the existing AE Zoning goals.

The goals and policies of the county's planning division and other regulatory agenciesare unequivocal- keep commercial agriculture and people apart. Placing people in themidst of commercial agriculture presents a well-established health risk. Even ifexemptions or exceptions could be made to the regulations, the potential liability andmoral hazard is enormous.

To specifically address each of the items raised, please see the responses to each ofyour inquiries:

a) Sale of the structure on its present site to a party willing to preserve thestructure.

Based on subsequent questions, our assumption is that this would involve thesale of the entire 70 acres. The County has clearly established that this site

38

should be exclusively dedicated to agriculture. Any purchaser, like the current owners, must maintain the primary use. Continuing agricultural operations creates significant issues as defined above. Terminating the commercial agricultural use would make the house an accessory use without a primary use. Accessory structures without a primary use are deemed non-compliant and trigger code-enforcement action. The RMA Code Enforcement Division would likely cite the building as illegal and require its removal.

b) A façade or conservation easement

These type of easements are a tax minimization strategy and not applicable if the use of the building is impractical as defined above.

c) Subdivision

The site is approximately 70 acres. The zoning requires 40-acre minimum lot size. One lot, by definition, could not conform to the existing zoning. The creation of a new lot or lots would not change the structure's proximity to commercial agriculture uses. Any change in zoning to accommodate a substandard lot would require a vote of the people under SOAR.

d) Sale/donation of the structure for removal and relocation at a new site

As explained in our application, the owners have tried to sell or donate the structure for removal and off-site preservation a number of times without success. One very interested buyer determined that the building would have to be cut into quarters to be moved. This was not practical and would have been difficult to restore once relocated.

The owners also worked with the City of Ventura and the Ventura Friends of the Library to move the structure across the street to the Community Park. After some limited research, the Friends determined that the costs to move, build a new foundation and rehabilitate the structure were prohibitive relative the amount of usable space and the awkward configuration that would result.

e) Alternative uses for the structure that would allow for its preservation on site.

We have reviewed all of the allowable uses within the existing zoning. The allowed uses fall into two main categories: farming related uses and habitation/human occupation. Farming uses such as green houses or packing plants are highly specialized and not suited for the existing structures.

Habitable structures, while allowed under the non-coastal zoning code, fundamentally conflict with the primary use defined by that code. It would also potentially create significant liability issues.

f) Seek availability of financial programs that could assist in the rehab of structure as a caretaker/farmworker residence.

Placing a caretaker or farmworker in the middle of a commercial agricultural

should be exclusively dedicated to agriculture. Any purchaser, like the currentowners, must maintain the primary use. Continuing agriculturaloperationscreates significant issues as defined above. Terminating the commercialagricultural use would make the house an accessory use without a primary useAccessory structures without a primary use are deemed non-compliant andtrigger code-enforcement action. The RMA Code Enforcement Division wouldlikely cite the building as illegal and require its removal.

b) A façade or conservation easement

These type of easements are a tax minimization strategy and not applicable ifthe use of the building is impractical as defined above.

c) Subdivision

The site is approximately 70 acres. The zoning requires 4O-acre minimum lotsize. One lot, by definition, could not conform to the existing zoning. Thecreation of a new lot or lots would not change the structure's proximity tocommercial agriculture uses. Any change in zoning to accommodate asubstandard lot would require a vote of the people under SOAR.

d) Sale/donation of the structure for removal and relocation at a new site

As explained in our application, the owners have tried to sell or donate thestructure for removal and off-site preservation a number of times withoutsuccess. One very interested buyer determined that the building would have tobe cut into quarters to be moved. This was not practical and would have beendifficult to restore once relocated.

The owners also worked with the City of Ventura and the Ventura Friends of theLibrary to move the structure across the street to the Community Park. Aftersome limited research, the Friends determined that the costs to move, build anew foundation and rehabilitate the structure were prohibitive relative theamount of usable space and the awkward configuration that would result.

e) Alternative uses for the structure that would allow for its preservation onsite.

We have reviewed all of the allowable uses within the existing zoning. Theallowed uses fall into two main categories: farming related uses andhabitation/human occupation. Farming uses such as green houses or packingplants are highly specialized and not suited for the existing structures.

Habitable structures, while allowed under the non-coastal zoning code,fundamentally conflict with the primary use defined by that code. lt would alsopotentially create sig n ificant liability issues.

Ð Seek availability of financial programs that could assist in the rehab ofstru ctu re as a caretaker/farmworker resi den ce.

Placing a caretaker or farmworker in the middle of a commercial agricultural

39

operation would expose them to significant chemicals, dust and noise. As a residence it would be required to be vacated on a regular basis. The costs and disruption would be significant on an on-going basis.

We hope this responds to your questions and hope to be scheduled for review by the Cultural Review Board soon. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

David S. Armstrong On behalf of the R.H. Smith Family Trust

Encl. Structural Report

operation would expose them to significant chemicals, dust and noise. As aresidence it would be required to be vacated on a regular basis. The costs anddisruption would be significant on an on-going basis.

We hope this responds to your questions and hope to be scheduled for review by theCultural Review Board soon. Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

David S. ArmstrongOn behalf of the R.H. Smith Family Trust

Encl. Structural Report

40

GeoWorks, Inc. 5158 Cochran St. Sirni Valley, CA 93063 G e o Wolirks

Phone: (805) 304-2101 Justin Phone: (805) 657-0419 Jesse Fax: (805) 582-1228

December 11, 2015 Job No.: GW2038

R.H. Smith Family Properties, LLC C/o David Armstrong P.O. Box 25010 Ventura, CA 93002

SUBJECT: Structural Evaluation of the existing Single Family Residence, 7620 Telephone Road, Ventura, CA 93003.

REF.:

Historic Resources Report, 7620 Telephone Road, Ventura, CA 93003, prepared by San Buenaventura Research Associates, Dated August 11, 2015(Revised October 29, 2015).

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA

Gentlemen:

As requested our office has performed a site observation and walk through of the above reference existing single family residence on December 4, 2015. In addition I have reviewed the referenced Historic Resources Report.

RESIDENCE DESCRIPTION

The residence is a raised floor, two-story, wood-framed house.

The floor is supported by wood posts buried in the ground. It appeared that there are no concrete footings to support the wood posts.

There is no perimeter concrete footing for the house.

There is minimal lateral support for the house.

The structure was originally constructed on the site during 1881 to 1882.

The residence derives support from the underlying earth materials with the use of timber posts.

The lot is described as a farmland parcel.

Page 1 of 2

CcolVorks, lnc.5158 Cochran St.Sirni Valley, CA 93063 Geo

Phone: (805) 304-2101 JustinPhone: (805) 657-0419 Jesse

Fax: (805) 582-1228s

December 11,2015 Job No.: GV/2038

R.H. Smith Family Properties, LLCC/o David ArmstrongP.O. tsox 25010Vcntura, C493002

SUBJECT: Structural Evaluation of the existing Single Family Residence, 7620Telcphone Road, Ventura, CA 93003.

RBF.: Historic Resources Report, 7620 "lelephone Road, Ventura, CA93003, prepared by San Buenaventura Rescarch Associates, DatedAugust 11, 2015(Revised October 29, 2015).

DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA

Gcntlemen

As requested our office has performed a site observation and walk through of the abovereference existing single family residence on December 4,2075. In addition I havereviewed the referenced l-listoric Resources Report.

RESIDENCE DESCRIPTION

The residence is a laised floot, two-story, wood-t'amed house.

The floor is supportecl by wood posts buried in the ground. It appearcd that there are noconcrete footings to support the wood posts.

There is no perimeter concrete footing for the house.

There is minimal latelal support for the house,

The structure was originally constructed on the site cluring 1881 to 1882,

The resiclence derives supporl fi'om the unclerlying eafh materials with the use of timberposts.

The lot is clescribed as a fhtmland parcel.

Page I of2

41

GeoWorks, Inc. 5158 Cochran St. Simi Valley, CA 93063

ks Phone: (805) 304-2101 Justin Phone: (805) 657-0419 Jesse Fax: (805) 582-1228

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

General Findings

The structure is supported upon a timber post system which derives support from the underlying earth material.

There is minimal lateral support for the residence.

It is our office's opinion that the existing foundation and framing of the residence are structurally in-adequate from a visual observation standpoint and therefor the house should be deemed uninhabitable.

Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call

Respectfu!Jy submitted,

t41-/A ustin D. Holt P.E. 71452

Principal Engineer

Page 2 of 2

GeoWorks, [nc.5158 Cochran St.Simi Valley, CA 93063 Geo s

Phone: (805) 304-2101 JustinPhone: (805) 657-0419 Jesse

Fax: (805) 582-1228

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

General Findinss

1'he stlucture is supported upon a timber post system which derives support from theunderlying eaúh material.

There is minimal lateral support lor the residence.

It is oul office's opinion that the existing foundation and framing of the residence are

structurally in-adequate from a visual observation standpoint and therefor the houseshoulcl be deemed uninhabitable.

Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to oall

2

Principal

Page2 on2

42

ventura county cultural heritage board...

Documents