Attachment 4 - Historic Resource Assessment Report (Daly & Associates 2019)

APPENDIX A -

HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Springville Specific Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Report A

HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT REPORT

for

Scholle Farm
APN 157-0-020-210
Terminus of Ponderosa Drive at Springville Drive
Camarillo, Ventura County, CA

Prepared by
Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P.

Daly & Associates
2242 El Capitan Drive
Riverside, CA 92506

Prepared for:

City of Camarillo
Camarillo, CA 93010

November 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 A. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1 B. Background Information ...................................................................................................... 4 C. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 5 II. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................................ 7 A. Federal Level ........................................................................................................................ 7

1. National Register of Historic Places .................................................................................... 7 B. State Level ............................................................................................................................ 9

1. California Register of Historical Resources ........................................................................ 10

2. California Office of Historical Preservation Survey Methodology ..................................... 11 C. City of Camarillo ................................................................................................................. 12 III. EVALUATION ............................................................................................................................ 13 A. Historic Context ................................................................................................................. 13

1. Scholle Farm (Primary #56-150001) .................................................................................. 13 B. Historic Resources Identified ............................................................................................. 18 C. Significance ........................................................................................................................ 30

1. Evaluation of properties under the National Register and California Register Criteria .... 30 APN 157-0-020-210: Scholle Farm House Building (Individual resource) ................................ 30 APN 157-02-21: Scholle Farm Historic District ......................................................................... 31

2. Evaluation under the City of Camarillo criteria ................................................................. 32 D. Project Impacts .................................................................................................................. 32

1. Protect in Place .................................................................................................................. 33

2. Secretary of the Interiors Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties ............... 33

3. California Historic Building Code ....................................................................................... 33 E. Recommended Mitigation Measures ................................................................................. 34 IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 38 V. INVENTORY SITE FORMS (DPR SERIES 523) .............................................................................. 40

1 I. INTRODUCTION

A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This assessment report documents and evaluates the federal , state, and local significance and eligibility of the buildings, structures, and objects situated on an 11.65-acre site known as the Scholle Farm. 1 (See Figures 1, 2, and 3) Since the Springville Specific Plan was adopted in January 2008, and the last survey and evaluation was performed on the built - environment resources situated within the parcel by Jeanette A. McKenna in 2012, a number of the buildings in the parcel no longer exist. This report will serve to update the analysis that was provided in the Final EIR for the Springville Specific Plan.

There are currently seven buildings/structures/or features located within the subject parcel that have sufficient age and physica l integrity to be evaluated in this study. The built- environment resources located within the proposed project area will be evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) , California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) , and/or as a City of Camarillo Historic Landmark . Our report includes a discussion of the survey methodology used, a brief historic context of the property and surrounding area, and the identification and formal evaluation of the subject property.

1 The acreage of the project site is based upon the revised tract map dated July 21, 2011. 2 3

4 Figure 3: Aerial view of the remaining built-environment resources (except for well-head) of Scholle Farm. (Source: Google Earth 2017)
B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The buildings and structures associated with the property known as the Scholle Farm have been surveyed three times previous to the current assessment by Daly & Associates. (See table of previous investigation findings on page 18.) Mary K. Maki, M.A., Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), of Fugro West Inc. performed a reconnaissance survey and inventory of the property in 1994. Ms. Maki did not evaluate the buildings individually, or as a cohesive group of buildings, for significance under criteria for the National Register, California Register, or as historic property in the City of Camarillo.2

Tim Gregory, “The Building Biographer” performed an intensive pedestrian survey and evaluation of the subject property in 1999.
3 Mr. Gregory determined that from a collection of
nine built-environment resources, only the Scholle Farmhouse and packinghouse appeared to meet the criteria to be individually eligible for listing in the National Register, and the two buildings as a whole created a historic district . The historic district was determined eligible under Criterion A for its association with the nineteenth- century farming community in

2 Maki, Mary K. “Rancho Associates Ranch (F-2H), Primary #56-150001”. Fugro West Inc., Ventura, CA; June 1, 1994.
3 Gregory, Tim. “Scholle Farm, Update to Primary #56-150001”. The Building Biographer, Pasadena, CA; January 1999.

5 Springville, and under Criterion C for the rarity of buildings dating from the late ninetee nth- to early twentieth-century in the “area”.4

In 2012, Jeanette A. McKenna, of McKenna et al., performed a Phase 1 (archaeological) survey and architectural evaluation of the Scholle Farm, and prepared an additional update to Primary #56-150001.5 Ms. McKenna identified a total of 14 resources located within the Scholle Farm property. Ms. McKenna evaluated the property under National Register criteria and did not find that any of the resources located on the Scholle Farm w ere eligible for being determined significant individual resources, nor was there the requisite collection of buildings, structures, or objects that met the eligibility for evaluating two or more of the resources as a historic district. Ms. McKenna did not evaluate the property unde r California Register criteria, or as a historic landmark in the City of Camarillo.

The built-environment resources located on APN 157-0-020-21 of the proposed project have not been previously surveyed by a qualified architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Professional Architectural Historians, nor has this parcel or its built -environment resources, been evaluated under the criteria to be listed in the National Register, California Register, or as a City of Camarillo Historic Landmark.

C. METHODOLOGY
This historic resource assessment and evaluation of the Scholle Farm was conducted by Pamela Daly, M.S. H.P., Principal Architectural Historian. Ms. Daly holds a Master of Science Degree in Historic Preservation from the University of Vermont , and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Business Management (with a minor in History).

In order to identify and evaluate the subject properties as potential historical resources, a multi- step methodology was utilized. An inspection o f the site and the existing structures, combined with a review of data for this parcel, was performed to document existing conditions and assist in assessing and evaluating the property for significance. Photographs were taken of the structures, landscape, or other points of interest situated in the proposed p roject area, during the intensive-level survey.

The National Register , California Register, and City of Camarillo criteria were employed to evaluate the significance of the property. In addition, the following tasks were performed for the study:
• The National Register , California Register, and City of Camarillo inventories were searched.
• Review previous Historic Resource Inventory site forms prepared by consultants for the Scholle Farm;

4 We use quotes around the word used by Mr. Gregory as he does not define whether the area is that of the historic location of Springville, Pleasant Valley, Camarillo, or Ventura County. 5 McKenna, Jeanette. “Simmons/Reiman/Scholle Farm, Camarillo, P56-150001”, McKenna et al., August 13, 2012. 6 • Site-specific research was conducted on the subject property utilizing maps, city directories, newspaper articles, historic photographs, and other published sources. • Background research was performed at local and regional historic archives , and through internet resources.
• Ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation, designation assessment processes, and related programs were reviewed and analyzed.

7 II. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

Historic resources fall within the jurisdiction of several levels of government. Federal laws provide the framework for the identification, and in certain instances, protection of historic resources. Additionally, states and local jurisdictions play active roles in the identification, documentation, and protection of such resources within their communities. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 , as amended, particularly Section 106 of the NHPA, and the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) are the primary laws and regulations governing the evaluation and significance of historic resources of national, state, regional, and local importance. A description of these relevant laws and regulations is presented below.

In analyzing the historic significance of the subject property, criteria for designation under federal, state, and local landmark programs were considered. Additionally, the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) survey methodology was used t o survey and rate the relative significance of the Property.

A. FEDERAL LEVEL

1. National Register of Historic Places

First authorized by the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the National Register was established by the NHPA as “an authoritative guide to be u sed by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.” 6 The National
Register recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state and local levels.

To be eligible for listing in the National Register, the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture must be in a district, site, building, structure, or object that possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association, and:
7 A. is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represents the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a signif icant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

6 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 36 § 60.2.
7 Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms, National Register Bulletin 16 , U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, September 30, 1986 (“National Register Bulletin 16”). This bulletin contains technical information on comprehensive planning, survey of cultural resources, and registration in the National Register of Historic Places.
8 D. yields, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

A property eligible for listing in the National Register must meet one or more of the four criteria (A- D) defined above. In addition, unless the property possesses exceptional significance, it must be at least 50 years old to be eligible for National Register listing.

In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must ha ve integrity. “Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.” 8 According to National Register
Bulletin 15 , within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinat ions, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. 9 The seven
factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The following is excerpted from National Register Bulletin 15, which provides guidance on the interpretation and application of these factors.

• Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.10
• Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of the property.
11 • Setting is the physical environment of a historic property.12 • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.13
• Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.14
• Feeling is property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.15

8 National Register Bulletin 15, page 44.
9 Ibid.
10 “The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why something happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved.” Ibid . 11 “A property’s design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such considerations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape.” Ibid.
12 National Register Bulletin 15, page 45.
13 “The choice and combination of materials reveals the preferences of those who created the property and indicated the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area’s sense of time and place.” Ibid. 14 “Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its individual components. It can be expressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated c onfigurations and ornamental detailing. In can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques.” Ibid . 9 • Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.16

In assessing a property’s integrity, the National Register criteria recognize that properties change over time; therefore, it is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics . The property must, however, retain the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic identity.17

For properties that are considered significant under National Register criteria A and B, National Register Bulletin 15 states that a pro perty that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person(s). 18 In assessing the integrity of properties that are considered significant under National Register criterion C, National Register Bulletin 15 provides that a property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique. 19 The primary effects of listing in the National Register on private property owners of historic buildings is the availability of financial and tax incentives. 20 In addition, for pr ojects
that receive federal funding, the NHPA Section 106 clearance process (published at 36 CFR Part 800) must be completed. State and local laws and regulations may apply to properties listed in the National Register. For example, demolition or inappropriate alteration of National Register eligible or listed properties may be subject to CEQA.

B. STATE LEVEL

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as an office of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, implements the policies of the NHPA on a statewide level.

The OHP also carries out the duties as set forth in the Public Resources Code (PRC) and maintains the California Historic al Resources Inventory. The State Historic Preservation Officer

15 “It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character.” Ibid.
16 “A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to the observer. Like feeling, associations require the presence of physical features that convey a property’s historic character…Because feeling and association depend on individual perceptions, their retention alone is never sufficient to support eligibility of a property for the National Register.” Ibid . 17 National Register Bulletin 15, page 46.
18 Ibid.
19 “A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, patter of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of features that once characterized its style.” Ibid . 20 See 36 CFR 60.2(b) (c).
10 (SHPO) is an appointed off icial who implements historic preservation programs within the state’s jurisdictions.

1. California Register of Historical Resources

Created by Assembly Bill 2881, which was signed into law on September 27, 1992, the California Register is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” 21 The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register criteria. 22 Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California pro perties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register.23

The California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:

• California properties listed i n the National Register of Historic Places and those formally determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places; • California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward; • Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Resources Commission for inclusion in the California Register.
24 Other resources which may be nominated to the California Register include:

• Individual historical resources;
• Historical resources contributing to historic districts; • Historical resources identified as significant in historical resources surveys with significance ratings of Category 1 through 5;
• Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as a historic preservation overlay zone.25

To be eligible for the California Register, a historic resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:

21 California Public Resources Code § 5024.1(a).
22 California Public Resources Code § 5024.1(b).
23 California Public Resources Code § 5024.1(d).
24 California Public Resources Code § 5024.1(d).
25 California Public Resources Code § 5024.1(e).
11 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

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

Additionally, a historic resource eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one or more of the criteria of significance described above and retain enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historic resource and to convey the reasons for its significance. Historical resources that have been rehabilitated or restored may be evaluated for listing.
26 Integrity under the California Register is evaluated with regard to the retentio n of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The resource must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which it is proposed for eligibility.

It is possible that a historic resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. 27 2. California Office of Historical Preservation Survey Methodology

The evaluation instructions and classification system prescribed by the California OHP in its Instructions for Recording Historical Resources provide a three -digit evaluation rating code for use in classifying potential historic al resources. The first dig it indicates one of the following general seven evaluation categories for use in conducting cultural resources surveys:

1. Listed in the National Register or the California Register;

2. Determined eligible for listing in the National Register or the California Register;

3. Appears eligible for the National Register or the California Register through survey evaluation;

4. Appears eligible for the National Register or the California Register through other evaluation;

5. Recognized as Historically Significant by Local Government;

6. Not eligible for any Listing or Designation; and

7. Not evaluated for the National Register or California Register or needs re-evaluation.

The second digit of the evaluation status code is a letter code indicating whether the resource is separately eligible (S), eligible as part of a district (D), or both (B). The third digit is a number that is used to further specify significance and refine the relationship of the property to

26 California Code of Regulations, California Register of Historical Resources (Title 14, Chapter11.5), Section 4852(c).
27 Ibid.
12 the National Register and/or California Register. Under this evaluation system, categories 1 through 4 pertain to various levels of National Register eligibility. The California Register, however, may include surveye d resources with evaluation rating codes through level 5. In addition, properties found ineligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, or for designation under a local ordinance are given an evaluation status code of 6.

C. City of Camarillo
The City of Camarillo addresses the preservation of historic resources in Chapter 16.42 of the City of Camarillo Municipal Code.

Chapter 16.42 - HISTORIC PRESERVATION

16.42.010 – Purpose (Ord. 670 § 1 (part), 1989.)

The purpose of this chapter is to promote the general welfare by providing for the identification, protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of historic buildings and structures within the city that reflect special elements of the city's historical heritage for the following reasons:

A. To encourage public knowledge, understanding, and appreciation of the city's past; B. To foster civic pride in the beauty and personality of the city and in the accomplishments of its past;
C. To safeguard the heritage of the city by protecting buildings and structures which reflect the city's history;
D. To protect and enhance property values within the city and to increase economic and financial benefits to the city and its inhabitants;
E. To identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of historical features and alternative land use;
F. To conserve building material resources through maintenance and restoration of existing historical buildings and structures;
G. To take whatever steps are reasonable and necessary to safeguard the property rights of the owners whose building or structure is declared to be a landmark; H. To promote the use of landmarks for the education, enjoyment and welfare of the people of the city; and
I. To promote awareness of the economic benefits of historic preservation.

16.42.060 - Designation of landmarks (Ord. 670 § 1 (part), 1989.)

B. Criteria. A historic resource may be designated as a landmark if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. It is associated with persons or events significant in local, state, or national history; or

2. It reflects or exemplifies a particular period of national, state, or local history; or

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, style, period of architecture, or method of construction.
13 III. EVALUATION

A. HISTORIC CONTEXT

1. Scholle Farm (Primary #56-150001)

The beginning of growth and development in Ventura date s back to the sub division of the large ranchos into small tracts, thus inducing the immigration and settlement of small farmers and fruit-raisers into the region.

In the 1860s and 70s, the lower half of California was hit by disastrous floods and they were immediately followed by droughts that caused the death of thousands of beef cows raised on the rancho lands. The o verextended rancher s were forced to settle the loans they had entered into by selling their lands to the lenders. Many thousands of acres of the historic lands of Ranchos Santa Clara del Norte, Las Posas, Rio de Santa Clara, and Calleguas located be tween the community of San Buenaventura and Port Hueneme, in what was then Santa Barbara County, were sold to the settlers coming to California. The United States Government began to sell their excess lands in Ventura County in the 1870s as well.

On April 1, 1866, the town of San Buenaventura was incorporated ; becoming the first officially recognized town in what would become Ventura County. 28 Charles Marion Simmons had been born in Jefferson County, Kentucky, in 1827.

Simmons’ extended family (father, grandfather, older brother) all had moved and settled in Warren County Illinois by 1850. 29 He married Nancy J. Smith in 1852 in Warren County, Illinois, and they had four children, Rollin, James, Silas, and Mary. 30 According to Oregon State Archives, Simmons and his family moved to Lane County, Oregon, in September of 1853. 31 The family is noted as living in Lane County during the Census of 1860, but moves to Ventura (San Buenaventura District of Santa Barbara County) before 1869, when his marriage to seco nd wife Mary Ann Starke is recorded in Santa Barbara. 32/33 Simmons is farming in San Buenaventura Township at the time of the Census of 1870. 34 Charles files a request to buy government lands

28 Murphy, Arnold L. A Comprehensive Story of Ventura County, California. Oxnard: M & N Printing, 1979; pp. 16-

17. 29 U.S. Census 1850 for “[Charles] Marion Simmons”. Ancestry.com. 30 U.S. Census 1860 and 1870 for “Charles Marion Simmons”. Ancestry.com. 31 State of Oregon Archives. “Charles Marion Simmons”; Early Oregonian Search, accessed through Ancestry.com, June 28, 2018.
32 California Marriage Records for Charles Marion Simmons. Ancestry.com. 33 We could find no records for Nancy Simmons after the Census of 1860. The 1870 Census notes that his daughter Mary is no longer included as a member of the family, but that an additional son, Nathan, had been born in Michigan in 1865.
34 U.S. Census 1860 and 1870 for “Charles Marion Simmons”. Ancestry.com. 14 in the Pleasant Valley area of Ventura County under the Cash Sale conditions of the Homestead Land Act, and is awarded a patent for 153.48 acres of land in 1874 (Figure 4).35

Figure 4: Excerpt from Plat map of 1879 with Charles M. Simmons parcels. (Bureau of Land Management plat map for Township 2 North, Range 21 West, 1879.)

Based upon the fact that Charles Simmons lived in the area prior to the purchase of land, and that he registered to vote in his district of Hueneme Township in 1873, it does not appear that he was one of the many speculators who would buy pa tent lands (at their greatly lower market price), and then turn around and sell them almost immediately for a profit. 36 Historical documents revealed the occurrence of the death of both Simmons and his wife Mary, on October 12, 1875. The veracity of Charl es’ death is affirmed by information in the State of Oregon Archives, for it appears that he still owned property in Land County, Oregon, which was put under probate. The U.S. Census of 1880 lists Simmons’ oldest son Rollin (as head of household) and brother, James Simmons, living in Land County, Oregon, with their half -brother and half- sister. It’s assumed that Rollin became trustee of his father’s land, and he most probably leased the lands in California to a neighboring farmer until 1891 when Simmons’ estate was settled, and the lands were sold to Moritz Reiman.

McKenna was correct in her 2012 report that Christopher and Moritz Reiman were related to the eventual owner Edward Scholle by marriage, but the path of how the Scholle family landed on the subject property proved to be through the maternal line of the Scholle - Borchard family tree.

35 Bureau of Land Management, land patent record for “Charles M. Simmons”, CACAAA076873. 36 Ventura County Voter Registration for Hueneme Township, 1873. Accessed at Ancestry.com.

15 The history of the subject property in the last years of the eighteenth -century, started earlier in the century, when Andreas Borchard (1758 -1828) married Marie Anna Rittmeier (1772-1845) and had at least three sons: Johannes Franziskus Borchard (1801 -1860), Caspar Anton Borchard (1813-1892), and Johanne Christian Borchard (1816-1903).

Johannes Franz Borchard (1801 -1860) married Fransiska Rittmeier (1804 -1860) in Hanover, Germany. The couple would have at six children that would reach adulthood. The oldest was their daughter Franziska (Frances) Borchard (1830-1890).

The young family first settled in Dubuque, Iowa, and it was there that Christian Borchard got his first land patent of 60 acres in 1849 through the Homestead Act. 37 After improving , and selling
the land in Iowa, Christian Borchard and his family then travelled by wagon train to California in the early 1860s. They first settled near Stockton, and then moved to Santa Barbara County (San Buenaventura Township) in 1867. 38 According to local history , Christian Borchard and his son Edward (Johanne/John) settled on the Rancho Rio de Santa Clara (also known as Rancho La Colonia), and he is credited with being the first to plant crops of wheat and barley. Within a year they had 30 acres under cultivation.

The first cultivation of grain in Ventura County was by Christian Borchard and his son, J. A. Borchard, on the Colonia Rancho in 1867. Thirty acres each of wheat and barley were sown. The rust destroyed the wheat crop, but the barley yielded eighteen cents a hundred pounds per acre.
39 Father and son lived in an abandoned adobe house that had belonged to one of the original Spanish grantees.
40 When the legal issues were settled, Christian Borchard would have had to legally purchase his land from Tom Scott who had bought it from the Spanish owners.41

Meanwhile, back in Germany, Christian Borchard’s niece , Franziska Borchard, would marry Johanne Ignatz Wucherpfennig in 1854, and they would have two children before Johanne Ignatz’s untimely death in 1857, after just three years of marriage. Franziska Borchard Wucherpfennig would then marry Anton Joseph Scholle (1834 -1886) in 1860, and would bring into the marriage her two children, Augusta and Casper Wucherpfennig. Anton and Franziska Scholle would have four children of their own; John (1860 -1927), Edward H. Scholle (1862 - 1950), Ignatz (1867-1919), and Julius (1870-1872).

37 U.S. General Land Office Records for “Christian Borchard”, Accession No. MW -0990-101. 38 Oxnard Courier. “Death of Christian Borchard”, January 31, 1903. 39 Storke, Yda Addis. A Memorial and Biographical History of the Counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura, California. Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company, 1891: Pages 183 -186. 40 Storke, page 203.
41 Storke, page 203.
16 Based upon Christian Borchard’s success as a farmer, the availability of old rancho land and government land for sale in San Buenaventura Township, and years of war and political instability in Germany, many members of the Borchard -Scholle family began to immigrate to the United States, and Ventura County , in the early 1870s. Christian was joined by his brother Caspar Anton Borchard (1813 -1892), two nephews Edward and Caspar Borchard (brothers of Franziska Borchard Wucherpfennig Scholle), his grandnephew Caspar Wucherpfennig, his niece Franziska Borchard Wucherpfennig Scholle, her husband and four children, all by 1876.

The extended family is so tightly integrated into the Springville community , that for the Census of 1900, Sheet 29 of the Hueneme Township enumeration has the John Scholle family, Ignatz Scholle family, Caspar Wucherpfennig family, Moritz Reiman family, and Joseph Reiman family, all living on adjoining properties in the same small area. Edward Scholle would come to purchase most of the old Simmons' patent lands from Moritz Reiman, and establish a farmstead there in 1895 (Figure 5). Christian Borchard passed away in 1903, and as the other immigrants grew older, many of the families moved away from agriculture, and from the Pleasant Valley region. As farms changed hands, and farms were consolidated, some of the buildings and structures may have been moved to a new home at the Scholle Farm (Figure 6).

Figure 5: Aerial photograph of the C. M. Simmons parcels under the ownership of Edward Scholle Jr. in 1947.

The highlighted boundary ling was placed just outside of the boundary of the parcels for viewing the intentional physical boundaries that existed between neighboring parcels. The Scholle Farm house and barns are within the circle.

17 Figure 6: Aerial view of Scholle Farm buildings in 1947. It is entirely possible that the Scholle buildings had been moved from what appears to be an empty lot, along the road.

18 B. HISTORIC RESOURCES IDENTIFIED

A site visit and intensive -level inspection of the built- environment resources within the area known as the Scholle Farm was performed by Pamela Daly, Architectural Historian, on May 7, 2018. The fi eld notes and photographs obtained by Ms. Daly were then compared to the results of the investigations and descriptions prepared by Tim Gregory and Jeanette McKenna in their separate reports. The table below was created to compile the buildings, structures, and features reviewed for this current study.

Resource
#
Resource Maki (1994) Gregory (1999) McKenna (2012) Daly (2018) 1 Farm house (main
residence)
Farm house Farm house Farm house
Feature 8
Farm house
2 Abandoned residence
(small house)
With attached barn
Abandoned
residence with
attached barn
Abandoned
residence with
attached barn
Early residence
Feature 14
Early residence, or
just storage for
family/farm.
2a Early barn
Feature 13
Early barn
3 Garage for main
house
Garage for main
house
Garage for main
house
Garage concrete
pad
Feature 10
Garage concrete
pad
4 “Guest house”/hired
help residence
Guest house Guest house Shed/Kitchen/Dining
Feature 11
Guest House
5 Workshop/barn Workshop Workshop Garage/Shop
Feature 12
Workshop
6 Packing house Packing house Packing house Demolished
Feature 1
No longer present
7 Small, aboveground,
metal water tank
Demolished
Feature 3
No longer present
8 Outhouse Outhouse Outhouse Demolished
Feature 2
No longer present
9 Former garage now
used as residence,
immediately
northeast of main
house.

Not recorded Former garage
now used as
residence,
immediately
northeast of
main house with
lean-to carport.

Worker housing
Feature 9;

Worker
housing/bunkhouse
10 Access road Not recorded Not recorded Feature 4: not the original historic
alignment
Significantly altered
11 Fields Not recorded Not recorded Feature 5 Significantly altered

12 Well head Not recorded Not recorded Feature 6 Removed 13 Irrigation canal/lined
diversion ditch
Not recorded Not recorded Feature 7 Partial segment
present

There had been two agricultural -use buildings on the property prior to the current study, which were important contributing resources to the Scholle farmstead. The first is what would have been called the “farm barn” (Figure 7). This building would have been the center of 19 all the activity on the farm from the time it was constructed contemporaneously with the Scholle house being moved onto the property. In the early 1900s, up to the end of World War I, horses, mules, and occasionally oxen, provided the p ower for all the transportation, farm equipment, hauling, and heavy lifting needs on the farm. The barn would have housed valuable animals, and kept expensive machinery dry. For whatever reason, the main barn was removed before 1967, and was not replaced.

Figure 7: The original “farm” barn on the property in 1947. It was removed from the farm by 1967. (Source: NETR Historic Aerials)

The other important building that is no longer on the farmstead is the packing shed.

Based upon Gregory’s description that this building actually had a dirt floor, and from a photograph that shows the building with a steep- pitched gable roof, it is possible that the packing shed pre -dated the Scholle settlement on the property (Figure 8 ). Unfortunately, the packing shed was demolished in 2008. [Note: We were informed by the City of Camarillo that the packing shed was heav ily damaged during a strong Santa Ana wind event . The building materials were subsequently cleared away by the property owners.]

20 Figure 8: Aerial view of the property in 2007 before the packing shed (in blue circle) was demolished. (Source: Google Earth, imaged captured in 2007)

Resource #1 (McKenna #8): Main Residence/Farm House (constructed circa 1870)

Figure 9: Scholle Farm House. View looking northwest.

21 The main residence of the Scholle Farm is a one -story, rectangular-massed single-family abode that measures approximately 42 feet long by 45 feet wide, for 1,890 square feet of living space (Figure 9.) The building is clad in tongue -in-groove wood siding, and the corners are finished with plain, 4 -inch wide corner boards. A medium -pitched hip roof covers the main body of the building, and a red brick chimney with a corbelled top rises from the east roof slope.42 Severely deteriorated asphalt shingles and roofing paper barely cover the roof surface.

The roof has overhanging eaves, with box gutter s along the eave s above the cornice, and shallow decorative brackets extend from under the e aves. The house sits on what appears to be a foundation wall made of poured concrete, concrete -masonry units, or other sturdy framing, and then clad with a thin cementious parging. The crawl space vents are not of a type usually found on houses of this age.

Situated in the center of the front ( south) elevation is an enclosed, front porch approximately 22 feet wide covered by a cross gable roof, and the roof is supported by four doric columns that sit on a raised porch floor. The porch is now enclosed, but the decorative railing with turned balusters still remains along the outer edges of the porch floor. The gable end of the porch roof has a small , square wood framed vent opening surrounded by decorative wood shingles.

Due to the windows being boarded over during the current survey, t he description prepared by Tim Gregory in 1999 was referenced for this study. The wood sash window units consist of a mix of single and multi -light glass, tend to be narrow, have lintels topped above by carved molding , and narrow sill and apron below . Windows on the front elevation are one - over-one (1/1) wood sash. Two, 1/1 sash windows are set on each side of the front porch in the south façade. The porch, once open, has now been enclosed behin d multi -light, wood sash windows, and the porch is flanked by 1/1 wood sash windows set in the exterior wall . A three- sided bay window is situated on the west elevation, immediately to the south (right) of the kitchen door. Each side of the bay window is comprised of 1/1 wood sash windows. On the north façade, there are two, 2 /2 wood sash windows set to the west, and one 2/2 wood sash window to the east of the rear door. The east façade also has three, 2/2 wood sash windows across its expanse.

There i s a rear entrance to the building on the north elevation that is covered by a simple gable roof. The rear porch roof is only as wide as the doorway, and is supported by unadorned, square wood post with scroll- sawn brac ed brac kets. On the west elevation ar e poured concrete steps leading up to what is most probably - the kitchen area of the house.

42 The other red brick chimney appears to be missing from the building since the last survey. 22 designed as an Italianate style cottage (Figures 10 and 11) . The character- defining features of the Italianate style are hip roofs, rectangular or squared massing, paired or single narrow 1/1 wood sash windows set symmetrically on the building , and overhanging boxed eaves with ornamental brackets. The buildings are usually sided with horizontal tongue -in-groove board, but as with many Victorian era buildings, there are very elaborate interpretations of the Italianate style residences, as well as modest versions found usually in urban settings.

The Italianate style of architecture followed the path of the Centra l Pacific Railroad and its heir, the Southern Pacific Railroad, in Southern California. Surviving examples of small Italianate and Queen Anne cottages can be found near the location of the centers of town in Pomona, Ontario, Riverside, Los Angeles, and Ve ntura.
43 It is also this evaluator’s experience
that many, many houses deviate from what is presented in many resource books for architectural styles. The late nineteenth- century presented a wellspring of architectural styles, and very often we find that w hen a house was constructed it may well have transitional features from another architectural style. The treatment of the gable -roofed front entrance of the Scholle Farm House steps right out of a plan book for Queen Anne style cottages, and it is because a main character- defining feature of the Queen Anne style of architecture is its asymmetrical massing, that we don’t agree with Gregory’s theory of the buildings architectural style, and we refute McKenna’s finding that the building has no architectural significance.

Figure 10: example of Italianate cottage.

43 There are several good examples of small cottages along the 600 block of East Thompson Boulevard and 700 block of Santa Clara Street of the old town area of Ventura.

23 Figure 11: Italianate cottage, 1895.
(Source: Sonoma County Library, Historic Photograph Collection)

Resource #2 (McKenna #14): Small residence (constructed circa 1870)

Figure 12: Small residence, front (west) and south elevations. View looking north.

24 Gregory described the small residential unit as a “cabin”, which raises the image of a small building situated in a wild, forested or secluded area (Figure 12). Upon our investigation, and experience with similar architecture, we believe that the residence may have once served as a small, local, railroad depot building before it was considered no longer useful, and was moved and repurposed by the Scholle family on their land (Figure 13). The building could have originally been a supporting structure for the Bakersfield and Ventura Railway (circa 1885-1927) that ran from Port Hueneme to Bakersfield, by way of Santa Paula, that later became enveloped into the Southern Pacific Railroad line.
44 Figure 13: Example of a small railroad depot located in Summers, Arkansas, Frisco Central Division Stations.

Note the board and batten siding. https://condrenrails.com/Frisco%20Catalog/Frisco -Central-Division- Stations.htm

Early railroad buildings were designed with wood -paneled ceilings and walls as they could withstand the vibrations from frequent activity of the passing steam engines and their haulage. Finished plaster walls were expensive to install and maintain, whereas the wood paneling could be sent out by the railroad company to the depot, and a local carpenter could easily install new panels, or replaced damaged panels with little fuss. As shown in the following photographs, a distinctive characteristic of a small depot building is its canted ceiling (Figures 14 and 15).

The original building measures appro ximately 22 feet long by 16 feet wide , and has a gable roof with wood shingles set on a northwest -southeast axis. The building was built on short wood posts, and concrete forms were used to create a shored foundation pad for the structure.

44 History of the Santa Paula Branch. http://www.scrvrhs.com/

25 Figure 14: Interior walls and ceilings of the small residence. Note that both the walls and ceiling are clad with either flat boards (walls) or narrow tongue -in-groove panels covering the ceiling. Also note that the ceiling is canted downwards where it meets the side walls of the room, and the top of the interior wall (with the scraps of remaining wall paper) is framed as an arch instead of meeting the ceiling. View looking from south room to the north.

Figure 15: Photograph of the ceiling of “Percy’s Place”, Hudson Family Ranch, Taft, Kern County, California. This is a photograph of the interior of the small house that had been constructed with an abandoned railroad depot building. The Hudson family had moved the old depot building with teams of horses up int o the hills where the ranch had been located since 1898. It has the same ceiling treatment of a wood paneled ceiling with canted corners where the ceiling meets the wood paneled walls. (Source: Daly, Pamela. Final Historic Evaluation Report of Percy’s Pla ce and Associated Resources, Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Kern County, California. , June 2010.)

26 The northeast roof slope of the old depot building was extended with the addition of a shed roof used to cover an additional room built along the north facing façade. Due to its extremely deteriorated condition, it’s likely that this building could have b een used as a lodging house for workers or boarders, or it may have just been used for storage. It does not appear to have been ever rehabilitated to a level above sub-standard living conditions.

Resource #2a (McKenna #13): small barn (constructed circa 1870)

Figure 16: Small barn with side bay to cover wagons/trucks. View looking east.

This one-story, wood-frame structure, with a medium- pitch gable roof set on an east - west axis, measures approximately 35 feet long by 20 feet wide (Figure 16) . When the structure was moved to the property, it was constructed on an elevated foundation of posts and poured concrete walls, so that an extension of the south facing roof slope could become a cover for a vehicle parked underneath on a concrete pad. The exposed wood members have kerf marks from both large circular saws used by lumber mills, and by band saws that were used to resaw large timbers into boards. Much of the original siding is missing, so this structure may have been used for utilitarian purposes to store hay or alfalfa.

27 Resource #3 (McKenna #10): Concrete pad

All that remains of what may have been a separate living unit in this location (according to Gregory) is the concrete pad (Figure 17) . According to aerial photographs of the site available from Google Earth, the house was demolished between April 2011 and August 2012.

Figure 17: Concrete pad. View looking south.

Resource #4 (McKenna #9 and #11): Rental or lodger house, day-laborer facilities

This building is a one-story, narrow rectangular-massed, wood-frame structure that may have served as a small homestead home, before being moved to its current location and altered for another purpose, which is unknown (Figure 18). The building measures approximately 24 feet long by 1 2 feet wide, and has a medium pitch gable roof set on an east -west axis , with narrow rafter tails extending from under the eaves. The building is clad in tightly butted tongue- in-groove siding with plain, flat corner boards. The building currently sits on a poured concrete foundation. The visible fenestration is comprised of 1/1 wood frame, double hung, eared, sash windows that have flat surrounds, sill and apron. The building does not appear in historic aerial photographs of the farmstead until after 1967.

McKenna described the shed/kitchen/dining building as being contained within a “relatively large shed” with a shed roof that sits on a poured concrete foundation pad. It appears the building was used to serve as a cooking and dining area for workers, and was outfitted with plumbing for kitchen and bathroom facilities. The outdoor dining facility appears in the 1947 aerial photograph of the property.

28 Figure 18: Guest house/bunkhouse situated to the immediate northeast of the main house. View looki ng southeast. One of the original Victorian -era windows is on the left hand side of the north elevation, while one of the new, unfinished openings is visible in the upper façade of the west elevation.

Resource #5 (McKenna 12): Garage/Workshop (constructed circa 1920)

The one-story, utilitarian, wood -framed building measures approximately 36 feet long by 22 feet wide, and has a low pitch gable roof set on an east-west axis (Figure 19). Based upon the raised, poured concrete foundation created to foot the building, the board and batten siding on the west and east elevations, and the presumed date of the installation of the building on the farmstead in 1924, this may be an additional building that was abandoned by the local railroad and rehabilitated for use on the Scholle Farm.

Figure 19: Workshop/garage building. View looking northwest.

29 Resource #13: Segment of concrete-lined diversion ditch (constructed circa 1900)

Based upon review of the aerial photographs of the Scholle Farm property and its surrounding topography in 1947, one can see how the Scholles would have used the natural topography of the entire hillside to the north, to provide its cultivated acreage with runoff from the hills. It also appears that at some point in time, diversion ditches were constructed across the base of the hillside to move the runoff across all of the acreage. We believe that the relatively narrow, and shallow, concrete -lined diversion ditch that runs along the east sides of the old barn and the small residence was created to keep water away from the main activity area of the farmstead; not as a main irrigation conduit (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Diversion ditch to the immediate east of the old barn. View looking north.

30 C. SIGNIFICANCE

1. Evaluation of properties under the National Register and California Register Criteria

APN 157-0-020-210: Scholle Farm House Building (Individual resource)

The subject property has been found, through this study, to have been directly associated with area’s early agricultural history. Charles Marion Simmons was awarded 158+ acres of land in 1874 under the Homestead Land Act, and records show that he and his family had resided i n the area until he and his wife died in 1875. His children removed back to their prior homestead in Land County, Oregon, and his land was held in trust until 1891 , while most probably leased to a local farmer for continued use.

The land was sold in 18 91 to the father -in-law of Christian Borchard’s grandnephew, Christopher (Moritz) Reiman. Christian Borchard had immigrated to the United States in 1836, eventually settling in the area of Pleasant Valley in 1867. The grandnephew, Caspar Wucherpfennig, had arrived in the United States from Germany in the 1870s along with his mother, stepfather, three half -brothers, and two uncles. The emigrants from Germany lived in close proximity to each other in Springville, and to Christian Borchard, his son, and two married daughters. Reiman held the land for only a few years until it was sold to Christian Borchand’s niece’s son Edward Henry Scholle in 1895. Edward H. Scholle Junior would take over the farm from his father circa 1930, and it would continue to be held by the family for many years.

Under the criterion for listing a building in the National Register, or California Register, for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history and cultural heritage in Ventura County, California, and the United States , the Scholle Farm House, appears to be an important historical resource. The building dates from approximately 1870, and even though there is evidence that the building was moved to the property (prior to 1904), the house most likely had been owned by one of the members of the extended Borchard family who lived in the area. The Scholle Farm House meets requirements to be listed in the National Register under Criterion A, and in the California Register under Criterion 1.

Under the criterion for evaluating a building for its direct association with the lives of persons important to the history of Camarillo, and Ventura County, the property does not appear to be eligible for listing in the Nationa l Register under Criterion B, or the California Register under Criterion 2 . We did not find evidence, at this time, that any of the owners or tenants of the Scholle Farm House were directly associated with persons who made a substantial contribution to the history of the region, state, or nation. 45 45 We would recommend that further investigation be made (by deed research) into the original owner/builder of the Scholle Farm House before it was moved to its location in 1904. According to the Census of 1900, Christian Borchard lived in close proximity to the Scholle property, and the building may have been moved to the Scholle property after Borchard’s death in 1903.
31 The Scholle Farm House is a rare example of a late -nineteenth residence constructed as an Italianat e cottage, which was directly associated with the agricultural history of Ventura County and the German community in the Springville and Pleasant Valley area. Daly agrees with the previous reviewers of the property, that the building appears to also be one of the last residential buildings that w as part of the historic Springville community. Per the criterion to evaluate built -environment structures, the Scholle Farm House has the capacity to represent the early history of Ventura County, and California. The building retains a high level of physical integrity, which includes the aspects of design, original materials, workmanship, setting, and location. As the development of the area has encroached upon the Scholle farmstead, the integrity of its ability to convey its association and feeling with the agricultural endeavors of the nineteenth-century has been slowly eroded. The Scholle Farm House appears to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C, or in the California Register under Criterion 3.

The Scholle Farm House has not yielded, nor does it appear to have the potential to yield, information important to the history of the local area, California or the nation. The property does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D, or the California Register under Criterion 4.

APN 157-02-21: Scholle Farm Historic District

Under the criterion for evaluating a collection of buildings, structures, objects, features, and/or landscape, for listing in the National Register or California Register as a historic district, for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history in the community of Camarillo, Ventura County, or California, the group of buildings located on the Scholle Farm does not appear eligible for listing as a historic district.

While the subject property was found to have been associated with the early agricultural history of the Springville area, the loss of the farm barn and the packing shed buildings removed key historic resources from the property. Those key building s could have conveyed the size and scope of the day -in-day-out work and effort required to operate a farm the size of the Scholle’s. Apart from the main farm house, the buildings and structures situated there today appear to have been placed on the site in an almost haphazard fashion , and are unable to convey what they were historically used for , or what purpose they served, on the Scholle farmstead. The fact that buildings had been moved to the site in the past - is not a negative - as long as we can pe rceive how, and under what circumstances, the buildings served to make the Scholle farm succeed for so many years. What does have to be considered is whether the physical integrity of the buildings, where they stand today, add information about the history of the site.

The Scholle Farm property does not appear to meet the guidelines for listing as a historic district in the California Register under Criterion 1 as collection of historical resource s that represent the history of the Scholle Farm. The pr operty does not appear to present the values, important to the history of farming in Ventura County or California, which would make 32 the collection of buildings eligible for listing as a historic district in the National Register under Criterion A.

Under the criterion for evaluating a potential historic district for listing in the National Register or California Register for its direct association with the lives of persons important to the early agricultural history of the community of Camarillo or Ventura County , the property does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B, or the California Register under Criterion 2. We could find no evidence that any of the owners or tenants of the property had made a substantial contribution the agricultural history of the region, state, or nation.

Per the criterion to evaluate built-environment structures, it appears that collection of buildings and structures situated on the Scholle Farm do not have sufficient a rchitectural integrity to present the structural characteristics required to be a strong representative of a successful farm associated with the early settlement of Springville and Ventura County . Apart from the main house, t he property does not have the ability to contribute to the history of Camarillo or California, and does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3, or for listing in the National Register under Criterion C.

The subject property has not yielded, nor does it appear to have the potential to yield, information important to the history of the local area, California or the nation. The property does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion D, or the California Register under Criterion 4, as a historic district.

2. Evaluation under the City of Camarillo criteria

The main house of Scholle Farm was surveyed and evaluated under the criteria for listing a property as a Historic Landmark, and has been found to be eligible for listing as a City of Camarillo historic landmark under criteria 1, 2, and 3.

D. PROJECT IMPACTS

The main house at Scholle Farm has been determined a significant historic resource as a result of the current intensive -level survey and evaluation. The building is eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, and as a local historic resource.

For the other buildings and structures situated in the subject area, it was determined through survey and evaluation that those built-environment resources do not meet the criteria for presenting a cohesive collection of significant resources eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, or City of Camarillo as a historic landmark. As they have been determined to not be significant resources, the removal of those resources will not be considered a substantial adverse change to the environment.

33 Recommendations

1. Protect in Place
The best option for the future of the Scholle Farm House is to prepare a plan to protect the building in place. The loss of a building that conveys the regions direct relationship with the history of agriculture in Camarillo , and Ventura County during the late nineteenth century would be a loss the historic environment.

The Scholle Farm House should be protected from any direct adverse physical changes to the building s (demolition or substantial alterations), or indirect adverse changes (such as continued deterioration of the building s caused by deferred maintenance. It is highly recommended that the roof be inspected and repaired, if only temporarily.)

The National Park Service, division of Technical Preservation Services, has prepared Preservation Briefs Number 31: Mothballing Historic Buildings. (The document can be found at http://www.nps.gov/history/tps/how-to-preserve/briefs/31-mothballing.htm) Mothballing the building will allow project proponents time to develop a plan to protect the resource.

Preparing the building for mothballing should be undertaken with the assistance of a qualified Historic Architect or Architectural Historian with at least 10 years of experience and training in methods of historic building conservation.

2. Secretary of the Interiors Guidelines for the Treatment of Historic Properties If project proponents should decide to rehabilitate and/or reuse the Scholle Farm House, under CEQA they are required to follow The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, revised 2017.) It is recommended that project proponents retain the services of a qualified Historic Architect or Architectural Historian (with experience in preparing rehabilitation plans) to assist in the future use and function of the building/s.

3. California Historic Building Code
Once a building, structure, object, feature, or landscape has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register or California Register, a project that proposes repairs, alterations and/or additions necessary fo r the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, moving or continued use of an historical building or structure” falls under the regulations of the California 2016 Historical Building Code (CHBC), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 8 (January 1, 2017). The regulations of the CHBC have the same authority as state law and are to be considered as such. The intent of the CHBC is to facilitate the preservation and continuing use of qualified historical buildings while providing reasonable safety for the building occupants and access for persons with disabilities.
46 It is recommended that project proponents retain the

46 The document can be found at https://archive.org/details/gov.ca.bsc.title24.2016.08 34 services of a qualified Historic Architect or Architectural Historian (with experience in preparing rehabilitation plans) to assist in the future use and function of the building.

E. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
The Scholle Farm House has been determined through this survey and evaluation as potentially eligible for listing in the California Register as a rare example of a building that is associated with the early agricultural history of Camarillo, and Ventura County , during the late nineteenth century.

Substantial adverse change means the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of a resource, or its immediate surroundings, such that the ability of the historical resource to convey its significance would be materially impaired. The significance of a historic resource is materially impaired when a project demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a resource that convey its historic significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register.

An ill- advised move w ould cause the Scholle Farm House to lose several aspects of historic integrity that includes location, setting, feeling, and association.

• Location is the place where the historical property was situated and where it achieved its historic significance.
• Setting refers to the character of the place where was located, and th e function it was intended to serve, such as single-family dwelling on an agricultural property. • Feeling refers the buildings ability to convey its historical character and use as the house for the Scholle Family farm.
• Association is the link between the location of a building and its historic use.

1. Mitigation measures for “less-than-significant” effects

a. MM1: Moving Scholle Farm House to an acceptable location, for an acceptable use

If the Scholle Farm House cannot remain in its current location, for the project to impart less-than significant impacts to the historic building, the farm house should be relocated onto a lot that will allow the house to retain the integrity aspects of location (within Ventura County), setting (agricultural setting), feeling (relate to the feeling of agriculture in the late nineteenth – early twentieth century), and association (with agriculture in Ventura County).

Moving the house may be undertaken by the project holder, or a purchaser of the building. If the project holder has no future use for the historic building, it’s recommended that the project holder attempt to sell the building (usually for $1) for a period of not less than six months. If there are multiple offers to purchase the building, priority should be given to those who agree to rehabilitate the building to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 35 Rehabilitation. Besides notifying local and regional historic societies and organizations about the wish to sell the building , an advertisement of the sale of the building should be placed in a popular daily newspaper (such as the Ventura County Star and/or Ventura County Reporter, both hard copy and digital editions), at least every two weeks, so as to allow a wide distribution of the proposed sale.

Selection of a new site for the Scholle Farm House requires planning in advance of the move to create a setting as much like its current historic s etting, as possible. Project management should retain the services of a historic arc hitect or architectural historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Professionals, and has at least 10 years experience with using the Guidelines , to assist the project team to develop the moving and rehabilitation plan.
47 The technology of how to move a historic structure has dramatically improved over the last 40 years with the advancement of computer -driven hydraulic lift systems, but John Obed Curtis’ treatise “Moving Historic Buildings”, written for the U.S. Department of the Inte rior’s Heritage Conservation department in 1979, still remains a valuable tool when discussing a nd planning for the issues that will arise when moving a historic structure. The building should only be moved with a specialized rigging company.

Prior to mo ving the building, the project proponents shall retain the services of a professional photographer to capture digital photographs of the interior and exterior of the Scholle Farm House, and the surrounding buildings and structures of the farmstead, to crea te a record the building’s current condition, the current setting/location/feeling of from where the building is being removed, and to where it will be relocated. Photographs will be printed in color as 5” by 7”, and a shot -sheet of the location of where the individual photographs were captured, will be prepared. A minimum of two hard and digital copies of the photographic record will be created, with one copy contributed to each of the following: the Ventura County Museum Archives, and City of Camarillo Library – Local History Room.

Once at its new location, Scholle Farm House could be rehabilitated as a single -family dwelling or with a new purpose by adaptive -reusing the historic building (but maintaining a majority of its historic appearance). While t he best reuse of the Scholle Farm House should be to serve as that of a single family residence, the Rehabilitation Guidelines of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties provides the recommended methods and technologies to rehabilitate the building for use in the twenty-first century so that it could be used for office space, visitors center, wine tasting room, gift shop, or guest cottage.

47 Using an experienced historic preservation professi onal will allow the move and rehabilitation plans to be developed within the Guidelines. This will allow for a rehabilitation plan for the building to be adaptively reused, and to avoid any alterations that could threaten its historic status. It is recommended that as part of the rehabilitation program, a Historic Structures Report (HSR) should be prepared to document current conditions .

A HSR can present a range of rehabilitation programs (and costs) for the Scholle Farm House that meet the SOIS Guidelines.
36 A project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, revised 2017), shall be considered as mitigated to a level of having less -than-significant impact on the historical resource. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (SOIS) are instituted to present the methods required by CEQA to protect and preserve the historic character, features, and physical integrity of the Scholle Farm House.

2. Mitigation measures to address substantial adverse effects to a historical resource

a. MM2: Unacceptable move, rehabilitation, or demolition of the Scholle Farm House

A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment. The relocation of a historical resource from its immediate surroundings has the potential to materially impair the ability of t hat resource to convey its historic significance through loss of aspects of integrity that justify its inclusion in the National Register, California Register, or as a City of Camarillo Historic Landmark.

For this Mitigation Measure, it will be require d to prepare at least two archival quality copies of documentation of the Scholle Farm House prior to a non-acceptable relocation of the building, or its demolition, by using the Historic American Building Survey (HABS) Level III Standards as the guideline for recording the building through photographs, drawings and written description.
48 The initiation of MM2 will not reduce or eliminate the adverse impacts of materially altering those physical characteristics that convey the buildings historic significanc e.

The following documentation will be determined as adequate to document and record the historic resource:

Written Data: The history of the property and description of the historic resource as presented in this evaluation could suffice as appropriate d ocumentation of the Scholle Farm House.

Drawings: Under HABS Level III, a measured sketch plan of the interior floorplan , with identification of the interior spaces, of the building is required to be prepared by hand or CAD by a professional draftsman.

Photographs: HABS Level III documentation would require high resolution color digital color phot ographs be produced to capture interior and exterior views of the Scholle Farm House. It is also recommended that at least two photographs be taken to show the Scholle Farm House and remaining structures in context to the current setting , and in relationship to its location on the landscape. The photographs must be created using archivally stable paper and inks.

48 National Park Service; Historic American Building Surveys: http://www.nps.gov/hdp/habs/index.htm 37 Document: The HABS Level III docume nts must be produced on archival -quality paper, and all digital photographs labeled to HABS standards. A digital version (compact disk) of the HABS document will accompany each archival copy of the document. One copy of the HABS document will be donated the Ventura County Museum Archives, and one copy to the City of Camarillo Library – Local History Room.

IV. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ancestry.com. United States Census 1850, 1860, 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940.

Bureau of Land Management, land patent record for “Charles M. Simmons”, CACAAA076873.

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. General Land Office Records for “Christian Borchard”, Accession No. MW-0990-101.

California 2016 Historical Building Code:
https://archive.org/details/gov.ca.bsc.title24.2016.08

California Marriage Records for “Charles Marion Simmons”. Ancestry.com.

Curtis, John Obed. Moving Historic Buildings; U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C., 1979.

Daly, Pamela. Final Historic Evaluation Report of Percy’s Place and Associated Resources, Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge, Kern County, California. Prepared for Cogstone Resource Management, June 2010.

Gregory, Tim. “Scholle Farm, Update to Primary #56 -150001”. The Building Biographer, Pasadena, CA; January 1999.

Maki, Mary K. “Primary Number 56 -150001” Historic Resources Inventory form (DPR 523 Series). Fugro West Inc., Ventura, CA; June 1, 1994.

McKenna, Jeanette. “Simmons/Reiman/Scholle Farm, Camarillo, P56-150001”, McKenna et al., August 13, 2012.

Murphy, Arnold L. A Comprehensive Story of Ventura County, California. Oxnard: M & N Printing, 1979.

NETR Historic Aerials: http://www.historicaerials.com/

National Park Service; Historic American Building Surveys:
http://www.nps.gov/hdp/habs/index.htm

Office of State Historic Preservation. California Historic Resources Inventory, Survey Workbook (excerpts). State of California: Sacramento, 1986.

Office of State Histor ic Preservation. Historic Properties Directory. State of California:

Sacramento, 1995.

Oxnard Courier. “Death of Christian Borchard”, January 31, 1903.

Parker, Patricia L. National Register Bulletin 24, “Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Pre servation Planning.” Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985.

State of Oregon Archives. “Charles Marion Simmons”; Early Oregonian Search, accessed through Ancestry.com, June 28, 2018.

Storke, Yda Addis. A Memorial and Biographical History of the Counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura, California. Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company, 1891.

United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 15, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, rev. 1991.

United States Department of the Interior. Guidelines for Completing National Register Forms, National Register Bulletin 16. Washington, DC: National Park Service, September 30, 1986.

United States Geographic Survey (USGS). http://historicalmaps.arcgis.com/usgs/ Hueneme 1904, 1:62,500
Hueneme 1943, 1:62,500
Camarillo 1951, 1:24,000

Ventura County Voter Registration for Hueneme Township, 1873. Accessed at Ancestry.com.

Visser, Thomas D. Field Guide to New England Barns and Farm Buildings. Hanover, N.H.; University Press of New England, 1997.

Weeks, Kay D. and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, & Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Revised 2017). United States Department of the Interior, Washington, DC: National Park Service, 2017.

V. UPDATE INVENTORY SITE FORMS (DPR SERIES 523) FOR SCHOLLE FARM

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #: 56-150001 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 1 of 12 ends

*Recorded by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. *Date: November 17, 2019  Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information

P3. Description:

A site visit and intensive-level inspection of the built-environment resources within the area known as the Scholle Farm was performed by Pamela Daly, Architectural Historian, on May 7, 2018. The field notes and photographs obtained by Ms. Daly were then compared to the results of the investigations and descriptions prepared by Tim Gregory and Jeanette McKenna in their separate reports. The table below was created to compile the buildings, structures, and features reviewed for this curr ent study.

There had been two agricultural-use buildings on the property prior to the current study, which were important contributing resources to the Scholle farmstead. The first is what would have been called the “farm barn” (Figure 7). This building woul d have been the center of all the activity on the farm from the time it was constructed contemporaneously with the Scholle hous e being moved onto the property. In the early 1900s, up to the end of World War I, horses, mules, and occasionally oxen, provided the power for all the transportation, farm equipment, hauling, and heavy lifting needs on the farm. The barn would have housed valuable animals, and kept expensive machinery dry. For whatever reason, the main barn was removed before 1967, and was not replaced.

Figure 7: The original “farm” barn on the property in 1947. It was removed from the farm by 1967. (Source: NETR Historic Aerials)

The other important building that is no longer on the farmstead, is the packing shed. Based upon Gregory’s description that this building actually had a dirt floor, and from a photograph that shows the building with a steep- pitched gable roof, it is possible that the packing shed pre-dated the Scholle settlement on the property (Figure 8). Unfortunately, the packing shed was demolished in 2008. [Note: We were informed by the City of Camarillo that the packing shed was heavily damaged during a strong Santa Ana wind event. The building materials were subsequently cleared away by the property owners.] (See additional text on Continuation pages.)

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #: 56-150001 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 2 of 12 ends

*Recorded by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. *Date: November 17, 2019 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3. Description, continued:

Figure 8: Aerial view of the property in 2007 before the packing shed (in blue circle) was demolished. (Source: Google Earth, imaged captured in 2007)

Resource #1 (McKenna #8): Main Residence/Farm House (constructed circa 1870 ) The main residence of the Scholle Farm is a one-story, rectangular-massed single-family abode that measures approximately 42 feet long by 45 feet wide, for 1,890 square feet of living space (Figure 9.) The building is clad in tongue -in-groove wood siding, and the corners are finished with plain, 4-inch wide corner boards. A medium-pitched hip roof covers the main body of the building, and a red brick chimney with a corbelled top rises from the east roof slope. Severely deteriorated asphalt shingle s and roofing paper barely cover the roof surface. The roof has overhanging eaves, with box gutters along the eaves above the cornice, and shallow decorative brackets extend from under the eaves. The house sits on what appears to be a foundation wall made of poured concrete, concrete-masonry units, or other sturdy framing, and then clad with a thin cementious parging. The crawl space vents are not of a type usually found on houses of this age.

Situated in the center of the front (south) elevation is an enclosed, front porch approximately 22 feet wide covered by a cross gable roof, and the roof is supported by four doric columns that sit on a raised porch floor. The porch is now enclosed, but the decorative railing with turned balusters still remains along the outer edges of the porch floor. The gable end of the porch roof has a small, square wood framed vent opening surrounded by decorative wood shingles.

Due to the windows being boarded over during the current survey, the description prepared by Tim Gregory in 1999 was referenced for this study. The wood sash window units consist of a mix of single and multi -light glass, tend to be narrow, have lintels topped above by carved molding, and narrow sill and apron below. Windows on the front elevatio n are one-over-one (1/1) wood sash. Two, 1/1 sash windows are set on each side of the front porch in the south façade. The porch, once open, ha s now been enclosed behind multi-light, wood sash windows, and the porch is flanked by 1/1 wood sash windows set in the exterior wall. A three-sided bay window is situated on the west elevation, immediately to the south (right) of the kitchen door.

Each side of the bay window is comprised of 1/1 wood sash windows. On the north façade, there are two, 2/2 wood sash windows set to the west, and one 2/2 wood sash window to the east of the rear door. The east façade also has three, 2/2 wood sash windows across its expanse.

There is a rear entrance to the building on the north elevation that is covered by a simpl e gable roof. The rear porch roof is only as wide as the doorway, and is supported by unadorned, square wood post with scroll -sawn braced brackets. On the west elevation are poured concrete steps leading up to what is most probably - the kitchen area of the house. (See Continuation sheets for additional text.)

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #: 56-150001 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 3 of 12 ends

*Recorded by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. *Date: November 17, 2019 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3. Description, continued:

A thorough evaluation of the style of architecture presented by the Scholle Farm House is difficult with much of the building boarded over, including character-defining features such as windows and doors, but based upon Gregory’s description of the existing windows and doors, and this evaluators experience of living over 25 years in the eastern region of the United States (where building stock dates back to the mid-1700s), we propose that the Scholle House was designed as an Italianate style cottage. The character-defining features of the Italianate style are hip roofs, rectangular or squared massing, paired or single narrow 1/1 wood sash windows set symmetrically on the building, and overhanging boxed eaves with ornamental brackets . The buildings are usually sided with horizontal tongue-in-groove board, but as with many Victorian era buildings, there are very elaborate interpretations of the Italianate style residences, as well as modest versions found usually in urban settings.

Figure 9: Scholle Farm House. View looking northwest.

The Italianate style of architecture followed the path of the Central Pacific Railroad and its heir, the Southern Pacific Rai lroad, in Southern California. Surviving examples of small Italianate and Queen Anne cottages can be found near the location of the centers of town in Pomona, Ontario, Riverside, Los Angeles, and Ventura. (There are several good examples of small cottages along the 600 block of East Thompson Boulevard and 700 block of Santa Clara Street of the old town area of Ventura.) It is also this evaluator’s experience that many, many houses deviate from what is presented in many resource books for architectural styles. The late nineteenth-century presented a wellspring of architectural styles, and very often we find that when a house was constructed it may well have transitional features from another architectural style. The treatment of the gable- roofed front entrance of the Scholle Farm House steps right out of a plan book for Queen An ne style cottages, and it is because a main character-defining feature of the Queen Anne style of architecture is its asymmetrical massing, that we don’t agree with Gregory’s theory of the buildings architectural style, and we refute McKenna’s finding that the building has no architectural significance. (See Continuation sheets for additional text.)

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #: 56-150001 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 4 of 12 ends

*Recorded by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. *Date: November 17, 2019 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3. Description, continued:

Resource #2 (McKenna #14): Small residence (constructed circa 1870)

Gregory described the small residential unit as a “cabin”, which raises the image of a small building situated in a wild, for ested or secluded area. Upon our investigation, and experience with similar architecture, we believe that the residence may have once served as a small, local, railroad depot building before it was considered no longer useful, and was moved and repurposed by the Scholle family on their land. The building could have originally been a supporting structure for the Bakersfield and Ventura Railway (circa 1885-1927) that ran from Port Hueneme to Bakersfield, by way of Santa Paula, that later became enveloped into the Southern Pacific Railroad line.

Small residence, front (west) and south elevations. View looking north.

Early railroad buildings were designed with wood-paneled ceilings and walls as they could withstand the vibrations from frequent activity of the passing steam engines and their haulage. Finished plaster walls were expensive to install and maintain, whereas the wood paneling could be sent out by the railroad company to the depot, and a local carpenter could easily install new panels, or replaced damaged panels with little fuss. As shown in the following photographs, a distinctive characteristic of a small depot building is its canted ceiling.

The original building measures approximately 22 feet long by 16 feet wide, and has a gable roof with wood shingles set on a northwest-southeast axis. The building was built on short wood posts, and concrete forms were used to create a shored foundation pad for the structure.

The northeast roof slope of the old depot building was extended with the addition of a shed roof used to cover an additional room built along the north facing façade. Due to its extremely deteriorated condition, it’s likely that this building could have been used as a lodging house for workers or boarders, or it may have just been used for storage. It do es not appear to have been ever rehabilitated to a level above sub-standard living conditions. (See Continuation sheets for additional text.)

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #: 56-150001 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 5 of 12 ends

*Recorded by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. *Date: November 17, 2019 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3. Description, continued:

Resource #2a (McKenna #13): small barn (constructed circa 1870) This one-story, wood-frame structure, with a medium-pitch gable roof set on an east-west axis, measures approximately 35 feet long by 20 feet wide. When the structure was moved to the property, it was constructed on an elevated foundation of posts and poured concrete walls, so that an extension of the south facing roof slope could become a cover for a vehicle parked undernea th on a concrete pad. The exposed wood members have kerf marks from both large circular saws used by lumber mills, and by band saws that were used to resaw large timbers into boards. Much of the original siding is missing, so this structure may have been used for utilitarian purposes to store hay or alfalfa.

Small barn with side bay to cover wagons/trucks. View looking east.

Resource #3 (McKenna #10): Concrete pad
All that remains of what may have been a separate living unit in this location (according to Gregory) is the concrete pad.

According to aerial photographs of the site available from Google Earth, the house was demolished between April 2011 and August 2012.

Concrete pad. View looking south.

(See Continuation sheets for additional text.)

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #: 56-150001 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 6 of 12 ends

*Recorded by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. *Date: November 17, 2019 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3. Description, continued:

Resource #4 (McKenna #9 and #11): Rental or lodger house, day-laborer facilities

This building is a one-story, narrow rectangular-massed, wood-frame structure that may have served as a small homestead home, before being moved to its current location and altered for another purpose, which is unknown. The building measures approximately 24 feet long by 12 feet wide, and has a medium pitch gable roof set on an east -west axis, with narrow rafter tails extending from under the eaves. The building is clad in tightly butted tongue-in-groove siding with plain, flat corner boards. The building currently sits on a poured concrete foundation. The visible fenestration is comprised of 1/1 wood frame, double hung, eared, sash windows that have flat surrounds, sill and apron. The building does not appear in historic aerial photographs of the farmstead until after 1967.

McKenna described the shed/kitchen/dining building as being contained within a “relatively large shed” with a shed ro of that sits on a poured concrete foundation pad. It appears the building was used to serve as a cooking and dining area for workers, and was outfitted with plumbing for kitchen and bathroom facilities. The outdoor dining facility appears in the 1947 aeri al photograph of the property.

Guest house/bunkhouse situated to the immediate northeast of the main house. View looking southeast. One of the original Victorian-era windows is on the left hand side of the north elevation, while one of the new, unfinished openings is visible in the upper façade of the west elevation.

(See Continuation sheets for additional text.)

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #: 56-150001 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 7 of 12 ends

*Recorded by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. *Date: November 17, 2019 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
P3. Description, continued:

Resource #5 (McKenna 12): Garage/Workshop (constructed circa 1920) The one-story, utilitarian, wood-framed building measures approximately 36 feet long by 22 feet wide, and has a low pitch gable roof set on an east-west axis. Based upon the raised, poured concrete foundation created to foot the building, the board and batten siding on the west and east elevations, and the presumed date of the installation of the building on the farmstead in 1924, this may be an additional building that was abandoned by the local railroad and rehabilitated for use on the Scholle Farm.

Workshop/garage building. View looking northwest.

Resource #13: Segment of concrete-lined diversion ditch (constructed circa 1900) Based upon review of the aerial photographs of the Scholle Farm property and its surrounding topography in 1947, one can see how the Scholles would have used the natural topography of the entire hillside to the north, to provide its cultivated acreag e with runoff from the hills. It also appears that at some point in time, diversion ditches were constructed across the base of the hillside to move the runoff across all of the acreage. We believe that the relatively narrow, and shallow, concrete -lined diversion ditch that runs along the east sides of the old barn and the small residence was created to keep water away from the main activity area of the farmstead; not as a main irrigation conduit.

Diversion ditch to the immediate east of the old barn. View looking north. (See Continuation sheets for additional text.)

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #: 56-150001 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 8 of 12 ends

*Recorded by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. *Date: November 17, 2019 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Statement of Significance:

Scholle Farm (Primary #56-150001)
The beginning of growth and development in Ventura dates back to the subdivision of the large ranchos into small tracts, thus inducing the immigration and settlement of small farmers and fruit-raisers into the region.

In the 1860s and 70s, the lower half of California was hit by disastrous floods and they were immediately followed by droughts that caused the death of thousands of beef cows raised on the rancho lands. The overextended ranchers were forced to settle the loans they had entered into by selling their lands to the lenders. Many thousands of acres of the historic la nds of Ranchos Santa Clara del Norte, Las Posas, Rio de Santa Clara, and Calleguas located between the communi ty of San Buenaventura and Port Hueneme, in what was then Santa Barbara County, were sold to the settlers coming to California. The United States Government began to sell their excess lands in Ventura County in the 1870s as well.

On April 1, 1866, the town of San Buenaventura was incorporated; becoming the first officially recognized town in what would become Ventura County.

Charles Marion Simmons had been born in Jefferson County, Kentucky, in 1827. Simmons’ extended family (father, grandfather, older brother) all had moved and settled in Warren County Illinois by 1850 (U.S. Census 1850). He married Nancy J.

Smith in 1852 in Warren County, Illinois, and they had four children, Rollin, James, Silas, and Mary (U.S. Census 1860 and 1870).

According to Oregon State Archives, Simmons and his family moved to Lane County, Oregon, in September of 1853 (State of Oregon Archives). The family is noted as living in Lane County during the Census of 1860, but moves to Ventura (San Buenaventura District of Santa Barbara County) before 1869, when his marriage to second wife Mary Ann Starke is recorded in Santa Barbara (California Marriage Records). Simmons is farming in San Buenaventura Township at the time of the Census of 1870. Charles files a request to buy government lands in the Pleasant Valley area of Ventura County under the Cash Sale conditions of the Homestead Land Act, and is awarded a patent for 153.48 acres of land in 1874 (Bureau of Land Management Land Patent Records).

Excerpt from Plat map of 1879 with Charles M. Simmons parcels. (Bureau of Land Management plat map for Township 2 North, Range 21 West, 1879.)

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #: 56-150001 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 9 of 12 ends

*Recorded by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. *Date: November 17, 2019 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Statement of Significance:

Scholle Farm (Primary #56-150001)
The U.S. Census of 1880 lists Simmons’ oldest son Rollin (as head of household) and brother, James Simmons, living in Land County, Oregon, with their half-brother and half-sister. It’s assumed that Rollin became trustee of his father’s land, and he most probably leased the lands in California to a neighboring farmer until 1891 when Simmons’ estate was settled, and the lands we re sold to Moritz Reiman.

The history of the subject property in the last years of the eighteenth-century, started earlier in the century, when Andreas Borchard (1758-1828) married Marie Anna Rittmeier (1772-1845) and had at least three sons: Johannes Franziskus Borchard (1801-1860), Caspar Anton Borchard (1813-1892), and Johanne Christian Borchard (1816-1903).

Johannes Franz Borchard (1801-1860) married Fransiska Rittmeier (1804-1860) in Hanover, Germany. The couple would have six children that would reach adulthood. The oldest was their daughter Franziska (Frances) Borchard (1830-1890).

When Johanne Franz Borchard’s daughter Franziska Borchard was just six years old, her father’s brother Johanne Christian Borchard (her Uncle Christian) would emigrate from Germany to the Un ited States with his wife and infant son Johanne Edward Borchard (1835-?). The young family first settled in Dubuque, Iowa, and it was there that Christian Borchard got his first land patent of 60 acres in 1849 through the Homestead Act (U.S. General Land Office Records for “Christian Borchard”, Accession No.

MW-0990-10). After improving, and selling the land in Iowa, Christian Borchard and his family then travelled by wagon train to California in the early 1860s. They first settled near Stockton, and the n moved to Santa Barbara County (San Buenaventura Township) in 1867. According to local history, Christian Borchard and his son Edward (Johanne/John) settled on the Rancho Ri o de Santa Clara (also known as Rancho La Colonia), and he is credited with being the first to plant crops of wheat and barley.

Within a year they had 30 acres under cultivation.

The first cultivation of grain in Ventura County was by Christian Borchard and his son, J. A. Borchard, on the Colonia Rancho in 1867. Thirty acres each of wheat and barley were sown. The rust destroyed the wheat crop, but the barley yielded eighteen cents a hundred pounds per acre. (Storke, Yda Addis. A Memorial and Biographical History of the Counties of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura, California. Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company, 1891: Pages 183-186, 203.) Father and son lived in an abandoned adobe house that had belonged to one of the original Spanish grantees. When the legal issues were settled, Christian Borchard would have had to legally purchase his land from Tom Scott who had bought it from the Spanish owners.

Franziska Borchard Wucherpfennig would then marry Anton Joseph Scholle (1834 -1886) in 1860, and would bring into the marriage her two children, Augusta and Casper Wucherpfennig. Anton and Franziska Scholle would have four children of their own; John (1860-1927), Edward H. Scholle (1862-1950), Ignatz (1867-1919), and Julius (1870-1872).

Based upon Christian Borchard’s success as a farmer, the availability of old rancho land and government land for sale in San Buenaventura Township, and years of war and political instability in Germany, many members of the Borchard- Scholle family began to immigrate to the United States, and Ventura County, in the early 1870s. Christian was joined by his brother Caspar Anton Borchard (1813-1892), two nephews Edward and Caspar Borchard (brothers of Franziska Borchard Wucherpfennig Scholle), his grandnephew Caspar Wucherpfennig, his niece Franziska Borchard Wucherpfennig Scholle, her husband and four children, all by 1876.

The extended family is so tightly integrated into the Springville community, that for the Census of 1900, Sheet 29 of the Hueneme Township enumeration has the John Scholle family, Ignatz Scholle family, Caspar Wucherpfennig family, Moritz Reiman family, and Joseph Reiman family, all living on adjoining properties in the same small area. Edward Scholle would com e to purchase most of the old Simmons' patent lands from Moritz Reiman, and establish a farmstead there in 18 95. Christian Borchard passed away in 1903, and as the other immigrants grew older, many of the families moved away from agriculture, and from the Pleasant Valley region. As farms changed hands, and farms were consolidated, some of the buildings and stru ctures may have been moved to a new home at the Scholle Farm . (See Continuation sheets for additional text.)
State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #: 56-150001 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial

Page 10 of 12 ends

*Recorded by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. *Date: November 17, 2019 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Statement of Significance, continued:

APN 157-0-020-210: Scholle Farm House Building (Individual resource) The subject property has been found, through this study, to have been directly associated with area’s early agricultural history. Charles Marion Simmons was awarded 158+ acres of land in 1874 under the Homestead Land Act, and records show that he and his family had resided in the area until he and his wife died in 1875. His children removed back to their prior homestead in Land County, Oregon, and his land was held in trust until 1891, while most probably leased to a local farmer for continued use.

The land was sold in 1891 to the father-in-law of Christian Borchard’s grandnephew, Christopher (Moritz) Reiman. Christian Borchard had immigrated to the United States in 1836, eventually settling in the area of Pleasant Valley in 1867. The grandnephew, Caspar Wucherpfennig, had arrived in the United States from Germany in the 1870s along with his mother, stepfather, three half-brothers, and two uncles. The emigrants from Germany lived in close proximity to each other in Springville, and to Christian Borchard, his son, and two married daughters. Reiman held the land for only a few years until i t was sold to Christian Borchand’s niece’s son Edward Henry Scholle in 1895. Edward H. Scholle Junior would take over the farm from his father circa 1930, and it would continue to be held by the family for many years.

Under the criterion for listing a building in the National Register, or C alifornia Register, for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history and cultural heritage in Ventura County, California, and the United States, the Scholle Farm House, appears to be an important hi storical resource. The building dates from approximately 1870, and even though there is evidence that the building was moved to the property (prior to 1904), the house most likely ha d been owned by one of the members of the extended Borchard family who liv ed in the area. The Scholle Farm House meets requirements to be listed in the National Register under Criterion A, and in the California Register under Criterion 1.

The Scholle Farm House is a rare example of a late-nineteenth residence constructed as an Italianate cottage, which was directly associated with the agricultural history of Ventura County and the German community in the Springville and Pleasant Valley area. Daly agrees with the previous reviewers of the property, that the building appears to also be one of the last residential buildings that was part of the historic Springville community. Per the criterion to evaluate built -environment structures, the Scholle Farm House has the capacity to represent the early history of Ventura County, and California. The building retains a high level of physical integrity, which includes the aspects of design, original materials, workmanship, s etting, and location. As the development of the area has encroached upon the Scho lle farmstead, the integrity of its ability to convey its association and feeling with the agricultural endeavors of the nineteenth -century has been slowly eroded. The Scholle Farm House appears to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion C, or in the California Register under Criterion 3.

APN 157-0-020-210: Scholle Farm Historic District
Under the criterion for evaluating a collection of buildings, structures, objects, features, and/or landscape, for listing in the National Register or California Register as a historic district, for its association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history in the community of Camarillo, Ventura County, or California, the group of buildings located on the Scholle Farm does not appear eligible for listing as a historic district.

Page 11 of 12 ends

*Recorded by: Pamela Daly, M.S.H.P. *Date: November 17, 2019 Continuation Update DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
B10. Statement of Significance, continued:

APN 157-0-020-210: Scholle Farm Historic District
The fact that buildings had been moved to the site in the past - is not a negative - as long as we can perceive how, and under what circumstances, the buildings served to make the Scholle farm succeed for so many years. What does have to be considered is whether the physical integrity of the buildings, where they stand today, add information about the history of t he site.

The Scholle Farm property does not appear to meet the guidelines for listing as a historic district in the California Register under Criterion 1 as collection of historical resources that represent the history of the Scholle Farm. The property does not appe ar to present the values, important to the history of farming in Ventura County or California, which would make the collection of buildings eligible for listing as a historic district in the National Register under Criterion A.

Under the criterion for evaluating a potential historic district for listing in the National Register or California Register for its direct association with the lives of persons important to the early agricultural history of the community of Camarillo or Ventura County, the property does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion B, or the California Register under Criterion 2. We could find no evidence that any of the owners or tenants of the property had made a substantial contribution the agricultural history of the region, state, or nation.

Per the criterion to evaluate built-environment structures, it appears that collection of buildings and structures situated on the Scholle Farm do not have sufficient architectural integrity to present the structural characteristics required t o be a strong representative of a successful farm associated with the early settlement of Springville and Ventura County. Apart from the main house, the property does not have the ability to contribute to the history of Camarillo or California, and does not appear eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 3, or for listing in the National Register under Criterion C.

The subject property has not yielded, nor does it appear to have the potential to yield, information important to the history of the local area, California or the nation. The property does not appear eligible for listing in the National Register under C riterion D, or the California Register under Criterion 4, as a historic district.

Evaluation under the City of Camarillo criteria

The main house of Scholle Farm was surveyed and evaluated under the criteria for listing a property as a Historic Landmark, a nd has been found to be eligible for listing as a City of Camarillo historic landmark under criteria 1, 2, and 3.

State of California  The Resources Agency Primary #: 56-150001 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial

Page 12 of 12 ends

*Map Name: Camarillo *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of Map: 1969 DPR 523J (1/95) *Required information

Camarillo City CouncilMay 28, 2025

Camarillo City Council
May 28, 2025