San Luis Obispo City Council
November 15, 2022

36 Marshall House
1902–1903 The Tribune reports on 14 Sep. 1902 that J. L.

Anderson is to build the Anderson House (532 Dana) on his new Dana Street lots (“Several New Homes,” p. 1), and the first record of a finished house is a 19 May 1903 surprise party for the Andersons by the Odd Fellows and Rebekahs, the latter of which did housewarmings for their members (“Surprise Party,” Tribune, p. 1). 1903 The Tribune credits “Architect [Hilamon Spencer] Laird” for its description of Mrs. Mary L. Elliott’s house (the Upham House [779 Buchon]) on 8 March 1903 (“Building Still Continues,” p. 2); it is pictured under her name in the 1904 Fire Department Souvenir of San Luis Obispo.
1903 Newly arrived carpenter R. S. Aston’s near commencement of the Aston House (1746 Chorro) is mentioned by the Tribune 17 July 1903 (“Aston Gets Contract,” p. 4) and its near completion— plus his commencement of Judge Unangst’s house—23 August the same year (“Fine Stone Mantels,” p. 3).
1903–1904 The Tribune reports on 3 Apr. 1904 that Judge Unangst has moved into The Judge’s House (1720 Johnson), begun the previous year (“Personal Mention,” p. 4).
1904 The Tribune announces on 8 Apr. 1904 that builder and house mover William Thompson has moved into his own new house, the Albert House (1642 Morro), at the corner of Morro and Leff, with lumber on the ground for the adjoining house (“Personal Mention,” p. 4). The Tribune describes Thompson’s as “quite a novel house,” featuring in the sub-head the automatic window screens that lower as the sash is raised (Grading Building Site,” 1 Mar. 1904, p. 1).
1904–1905 In “Building Commenced,” the Tribune announced the Thomas and Kathleen Hourihan House (860 Buchon) designed by Hilamon Spencer Laird and built by John Chapek (6 Oct. 1904, p. 3). The following June the house was finished and retaining wall being built (“Thos. Hourihan, Tribune, 21 June 1905, p.1).

ATTACHMENT B

37 1904–1905 The commencement of Thompson’s adjoining Baker House (1636 Morro) is noted in “New Residence Commenced” as a duplex “almost identical to the first house built, which is a very artistic, modern cottage” (Tribune, 19 Nov. 1904, p. 1). 1904–1905 The Tribune reports W. C. Phillips as architect of the Stanton House (752 Buchon), with completion of the foundation and ongoing carpenter work, on 16 Dec. 1904 (“E. B. Stanton’s House,”p. 1) and on 10 June 1905 describes it as “just completed” (“Serious Embezzlement,” p. 1).
1905 Construction of the Leonard W. Hill House (1144 Buchon) by John Chapek is announced by the Tribune 27 Jan. 1905 (“Work has been commenced,” p. 1).
1905–1906 Watsonville architect William H. Weeks and Merced contractor Charles M. Kuck are named for the LeRoy B. Smith House (1306 Mill) on 1 Nov. 1905 (daily Tribune, “Home For L. B.

Smith,” p. 4), and the Smiths’ first houseguests are reported the following summer (“Personal Mention,” Tribune, 14 July 1906, p. 4). 1906 The Tribune notes on 11 Feb. 1906 that Supervisor E. M.

Payne and his wife will move out of the Falkenstein House and into the Dutton House (1426 Broad) being constructed by Arthur L.

Dutton adjoining the Myron Angel home on Broad Street (“Personal Mention,” p. 4); on 8 Apr. 1906 it is announced they have so moved. (“Personal Mention,” p. 4).
1906 The Renetzky House (1516 Broad), not on the 1905 Sanborn, is clearly under construction in the left-hand of three panoramic photographs taken from Terrace Hill in early 1906 (Cal Poly Special Collections 168-1-b-01-35-02, incorrectly dated on the back 1907). Mrs. Otto James Kruell, who and whose new husband have moved to San Luis Obispo from the Bay Area in 1906, is referred to as entertaining at that address in 1907 (“Here From Los Angeles,” Telegram, 27 Sep., p. 8).
1906 The Chapek House (843 Upham) is also shown under construction in the left-hand Terrace Hill panoramic photo.

ATTACHMENT B

38 Circa 1906 The Mazza House (1318 Chorro) is not shown on the 1905 Sanborn, but its hip roof appears to be just visible in the center of the three early 1906 panoramic photographs taken from Terrace Hill (168-1-b-01-35-05, incorrectly dated on the back 1907). It is occupied by Mrs. Emma Brumley on 26 May 1910 (“Lost,” Telegram, p. 1), and veterinary surgeon D. B. Mazza announces on 1 June 1910 that his office will be there
henceforward (Telegram “Notice Of New Office,” p. 1).

Circa 1906–1907 The early 1906 right-hand Terrace Hill photo does not show the Charles E. Strickland House (1152 Buchon), but a panoramic photo (Cal Poly Special Collections 168-1-b-01-36- 01) that can be dated to the first months of 1907 does. 1150 (now 1152) Buchon was listed as Strickland’s address in the
advertisement for a patent kidney medication by 17 May 1907 (“In San Luis Obispo,” Tribune, p. 2).

Circa 1906–1907 The Kaufman House (1052 Islay) is not in the 1906 center panoramic photograph from Terrace Hill (168-1-b-01- 35-05), but it is in the early 1907 photograph and occupied by Mr. and Mrs. James A. Leavitt by 1908 (Telegram: “Young People’s Social,” 4 May, p. 8; “Baptist Social Occurs Tonight,” 8 May, p. 1).

After 1906 The Oliver House (1953 Chorro) is not in the 1905 Sanborn or left-hand of the early 1906 Terrace Hill panoramic photos, and the contemporary press mentions neither the address nor lot.
1907 The one-story so-called Nichols House (664 Monterey) replaced the actual two-story home of the late mayor, Dr. George B.

Nichols, recorded in the 1905 Sanborn map, two doors to the west of the Carnegie Library. On 17 May 1907, B. Morganti applied for a permit to build the one-story house on the site. The old Nichols House is visible in the 1907 Terrace Hill panoramic photo.

Circa 1907–1910 The Ramage House (1129 Marsh) does not appear on the 1905 Sanborn map or in the right-hand photo of the 1906 panorama (168-1-b-01-35-03) or in a panorama that can be dated to later 1907. The lot occupied by the Ramage House was sold by J. L. Faulkner to G. C. Lewis and Claude C. Stalnaker on 19 Mar. 1907, by Lewis et al to Charles C. Brumbaugh on 11 Feb. 1908, and by Brumbaugh to Hans P. Wybrandt on 7 Feb. 1910. Faulkner was in the business of building and renting cottages, and neither Lewis, Stalnaker, nor Brumbaugh was a resident of San Luis.

ATTACHMENT B

39 Wybrandt toured Europe from June to October 1910, returning to the Ramage House address (“Mr. Wyburn Back From Long Trip,” Telegram, 5 Oct. 1910, p. 1). It would seem most plausible for Faulkner to have built the house by March 1907, photographic evidence confirms he did not, proving the folly of plausible assumptions.
1908 Lee Parsons of contractors Rasmussen and Parsons applied for a permit to build William H. Schulze the Kaiser House (751 Buchon) on 19 Oct. 1908.

Circa 1908–1913 The Bullard House (1624 Moro) is not in the 1907 panoramic photograph from Terrace Hill, and the address does not appear in the press till a Telegram ad for a Buff Orpington cockerel in 1914 (3 Feb., p. 1).
1910 Harry Lyman applied for a permit to build the Bradbury House (745 Buchon) for Dr. R. M. Bradbury on 12 Jan. 1910. 1910 Joseph Maino for a permit to build the Jackson House (790 Islay) for Dr. Jackson on 3 May 1910.
1910 Rufina Gallego de Herrera, widow of Antonio Jose Herrera, of a pioneer Californio family, purchased part lot 6, block 24 from Laura White and Daniel Wolf on 3 Oct. 1909. The first ad for furnished rooms at 1066 Monterey appeared in the daily Tribune on 30 October 1910 (p. 4), and a Dec. 28 article on a break-in attempt confirms Herrera’s ownership. The absence of earlier press mention of the lot or address suggests that what today is the Heritage Inn (978 Olive), subsequently moved twice, was built soon after the purchase.
1910 A “modern five-room cottage” at 1105 George Street— presumably the Bushnell House (1105 George), as this was the address listed when Bushnell sold his house to Mr. and Mrs. G. C.

Gale in 1919—was offered for sale with bath, stationary tubs, and electric light in 1910 (“For Sale,” Telegram, 29 Sep., p. 4). The fact that this section of George Street was only sewered in late 1909 confirms the house was not only modern but brand new.

ATTACHMENT B

40 1910–1911 James J. Maino applied for a permit to build the Sandercock House (535 Islay) for William Sandercock on 24 Oct. 1910, completed the following March (“Two New Homes In San Luis Obispo,” Telegram, 11 Mar. 1911, p. 3).

Circa 1910 The Frank Anderson House (1345 Broad) had not been built by the 1905 Sanborn map and does not appear in the left-hand photo of the early 1906 Terrace Hill panorama. In July Anna Foreman Schilling, a former resident of San Luis with frequent mention in the social press, and her husband Frank were staying at the Ramona (“Personal Mention,” Tribune, 19 July 1905, p. 4), and on 7 Aug. 1905 C. T. Greenfield sold her the empty lot (“News in Brief,” daily Tribune, 9 Aug. 1905, p. 1). On 26 June 1909, Schilling sold the property to Mrs. Lila M. Andrews. Schilling and her husband lived in Arizona, and her presence in town is not mentioned by local newspapers between 1905 and 1913 (“Hotel Arrivals,” Daily Telegram, 13 Sep. 1913, p. 3), and in her 24 Jan. 1920 obituary (“To Be Buried Here,” Daily Telegram, p. 5) and that of her husband the following December, it is never suggested they lived in San Luis or had a house here. A 23 Aug. 1911 ad in the Telegram (“For Sale Or Exchange,” p. 4) is the earliest documentary evidence of a house on the property.

Historic and Architectural Evaluation All of the thirty-three following Master List resources would qualify for the California Register of Historical Resources and National Register of Historic Places for embodying an architectural type, though the Heritage Inn and Bushnell House would probably not qualify based on integrity. Only about two-thirds would seem to qualify for the Master List’s current uniqueness standard, however.

Righetti House, 1314 Palm, 1889 The Righetti House, so-called because by the 1904 Fire Department Souvenir of San Luis Obispo it was owned by Michael Righetti, was built in 1889 by attorney Ernest Graves, who died in 1900. Graves was a prominent San Luis Obispo pioneer, having been born next to the Mission in 1852 and served as city attorney 1874–1877 and district attorney 1880–1886 (“Death Claims E. Graves,” daily Tribune, 14 July 1900, p. 1). Graves continued to be a prominent attorney and political operative during his occupation of the house up to the time of his death, serving as chair of the county delegation to the state Democratic Convention in 1896 and being granted certiorari by the State Supreme Court for a twenty-day jail sentence for contempt of a local superior court judge in 1899 (“After Thirteen Ballots It Is a Deadlock,” Los Angeles Herald, 18 Aug. 1896, p. 6; “The Contempt Matter,” Tribune, 10 Sep. 1899, p. 3). Michael Righetti was a Cayucos dairy rancher and occupied the house till 1912 (“Righetti Home Sold,” Daily Telegram, 1 Nov. 1912, p 5). Advertisements show by 1915 it was renting furnished rooms, and an apartment house, originally on the Contributing List and since demolished, was built in front of it by 1937.

ATTACHMENT B

41 From its construction by Graves, the house was considered a prominent landmark, and its architect, S. B. Abbott, though having no apparent professional background, showed facility with Colonial reference and skill at using massing as a decorative element consonant with the era and emphasizing the hillside site. The admixture of styles (jerkinhead gables, etc.) is not overwhelming and was also a contemporary characteristic.

The building embodies the transitional style from Queen Anne to Streamline, which occurs in tandem with the transition from Shingle.

Abbott arrived in the county as a developer exaggerating his accomplishments in that department, which were and would continue to be none, so it is possible he borrowed the design from a pattern book and passed it off as his own. However, in 1890 he designed a “Romanesque” Baptist Auditorium in Santa Cruz that appears to have been built, a harder design to find in a pattern book (“Baptist Auditorium,” Santa Cruz Daily Sentinel, 9 Nov. 1890, p. 3). I can find no other evidence of his apparently short-lived career as an architect.

The Righetti House, which should be renamed the Graves House to reflect its historically significant builder, is one of two complex transitional types, but each has a sufficiently oddball combination of features to claim uniqueness, and this is the only documented extant work by architect Abbott.

Erickson House, 461 Islay, 1894–1895
In contrast to the Ernest Graves’ house, Charles Erickson’s house uses Ionic columns, as well as rather abstract fluted pilasters. It also has pediment gables, a segmental pediment above the entrance, soffit dentilation, bellcast tower roof, and other Streamline Colonial characteristics. As with Graves’ house, the addition of exotic extraneous elements, like a horseshoe arch and Juliet balcony on a rather bulbous outcropping, brackets, and sunbursts. Streamline Colonial is interesting in going through a purification process in the 1890s rather than starting pure and going centrifugally eclectic.

ATTACHMENT B

42 Unfortunately, no contemporary sources list an architect for the Erickson House. The craftsmen were employees of Erickson who may have used pattern books for the whole or elements of the whole.59
N. C. Brew House, 771 Buchon, by 1901
There appears to be no record of who were the architect and builder of the Brew House or when—before the first newspaper reference to it in August 1901—it was built. By the 1905 Sanborn map it had its current footprint with curved porch so was most likely built as such.

59. “A New Residence,” Tribune, 5 Jan. 1896, p. 1.

ATTACHMENT B

43 The Brew House represents the Streamline Colonial with open pediment gables intersected by windows, curved wraparound porch with Tuscan columns, semi-octagon bay, and shiplap siding. Fishscale shingling in the entry pediment gable is a common Queen Anne holdover, but the overall appearance is more rational and linear, even severe.

It would be hard to claim uniqueness for the Brew House, but its Master Listing is doubtless based on its being one of a quartet of surviving houses on the south side of Buchon between Chorro and Garden of the same era and style—though the city’s current Master List Historic Properties website attributes them to four different styles (“Carpenter Gothic–Neo-Colonial,” “Queen Anne with Colonial Revival influence,” “Neo-Colonial–Neoclassical with Queen Anne detailing,” “Gothic Revival with Neoclassical overtones”). It is San Luis’s version of Alamo Square in an area referred from the late 1880s to the early 1910s as Nob Hill.

Fumigalli House, 463 Islay, ca 1901–1905

ATTACHMENT B

44 The McAlesters identify “about 35 percent” of Queen Anne houses as the “Free Classic” subtype, using “classical columns rather than delicate turned posts with spindlework detailing.” Most of those “Free Classic” houses are actually Streamline Colonial or transitional Streamline Colonial, making their referents clear with pediments, pediment gables, Palladian windows, etc., as well as an absence of spindlework, brackets, halftimbering, and other Queen Anne decorative exuberance.

The Fumigalli, Oliver, and Bushnell Houses are the opposite: cottages in other respects Colonial Revival except for spindle columns and column brackets (and corner brackets on the bay window cutaways, in the case of the Fumigalli House). It is a subtype of Colonial revival that might be described as transitional (spindle columns and corner brackets are shown as the “plain” country house in Forster Thorpe’s 1892 article) except for its persistence in modest cottages. All three have a pediment above the usually semi-octagon front window, with the portico supporting a hip roof, as do similar examples in San Luis. The porch railing here appears to be a go at Colonial Chinese Chippendale.

As the embodiment of a type of architecture, the Fumigalli House would qualify for National Register status. The three examples on the Master List and the many off suggest it does not have the uniqueness to qualify for Master Listing.

Crocker House, 793 Buchon, 1902

ATTACHMENT B

45 Having commissioned San Luis Obispo architect Hilamon Spencer Laird in 1887 to design his Crocker Building, a forceful exercise in Eastlake, at Higuera and Garden, merchant Jacob Crocker fifteen years later chose Canadian-born, Watsonville-based architect William H.

Weeks to design his house. This is the first documented building in San Luis Obispo by Weeks, who for the next decade would become a dominant force in San Luis Obispo for both public and domestic structures. He was chosen in 1902 to design the house next door (also Streamline Colonial) and Cal Poly’s first two buildings (Mission Revival); in 1903, Dr.

W. M. Stover’s House (Shingle style); in 1904, the Carnegie Library (Richardsonian Romanesque); in 1905, the new public high school (Neoclassical) and LeRoy Smith House (Bay Area Shingle style); in 1906, a third Cal Poly building (Mission Revival); and in 1911, the Stover Sanitarium (Neoclassical). In 1911 Weeks moved from Watsonville to Palo Alto, and his work in San Luis Obispo apparently ceased.

In the octagonal lantern above the porch, which forms a tiny accessible room, Weeks refers to Mount Vernon, America’s first historic house museum. Art Nouveau acanthus leaves in the entrance pediment make both classical and contemporary reference. The use of waveform shingles at the tops of the pediment gables is Shingle style holdover that Weeks repeats in the adjoining house and Hilamon Spencer Laird in the house next to that.

Weeks, at age thirty-eight, was a more awkward architect than he would subsequently become, and the entry façade’s faux balcony with a sort of reverse-Palladian window (a rectangle in the middle and arches on the side) is crammed into the half-story pediment gable for an effect that Frank Lloyd Wright achieved infinitely more elegantly on his own house in 1889.

The Crocker House, though not a particularly streamlined Streamline Colonial, nonetheless is a stylistically engaging and unified house by someone who would become a master architect, and the patriotic Washingtonian octagonalism of the porch and cupola makes it unique in San Luis Obispo, giving it two justifications for Master Listing. It has the high level of integrity to communicate its significance.

Marshall House (Mr. and Mrs. J. C. Naylor House), 785 Buchon, 1902 This house is wholly understood only as a pairing with the Crocker House next door, and though Marshall had a longer tenure, it should be renamed after the Naylors, who commissioned it from architect William H. Weeks at the same time Jacob Crocker, for whom J. C. Naylor worked as head clerk, commissioned his. It was an audacious move for the two to simultaneously commission designs by Weeks on neighboring lots. Too audacious, for shortly after its completion Naylor absconded with funds from the Woodmen of the World, St. Stephen’s Church, and various friends and relations he had borrowed from. The one person he does not seem to have embezzled from was his employer Jacob Crocker. After Naylor was spotted in San Francisco, his wife went there to remonstrate with him and returned to sell the house, to rising Azorean jeweler Manuel Marshall (who had also just bought a car). Mrs. Naylor restored the embezzled funds, and the J. C. Naylors moved to Bakersfield.

The Crocker House was started first, but both houses were finished by the end of 1902. The Naylors’ house was a more modest structure in size as well as design. The result is a less

ATTACHMENT B

46 awkward structure but also a less interesting one. The street façade is dominated by a semi-octagon bay window topped by a pediment gable, with an entry portico to the side.

The broad frieze between the window and pediment is, perhaps uniquely in San Luis Obispo, decorated with a floral bas relief, although it doesn’t have the Art Nouveau flair of the bas relief in the Crocker House entry pediment. The tiny semi-octagon window in the front-facing gable is inset within an elegant curve, a Shingle style touch. Ionic columns, wave shingles, anachronistic diamond panes, and rusticated chimney medallions echo the Crocker House next door, and both employ novelty siding, but there is no sense that they are paired in design.

As one of three documented Weeks houses in San Luis Obispo, all Colonial Revival, the house is rare though not unique and on that basis should qualify for the Master List.

J. L. Anderson House, 532 Dana, 1902–1903
With pediment gables centered by oculus vents, horizontal soffit brackets resembling dentilation, and Tuscan columns supporting a wraparound porch, the Anderson House makes clear reference to Colonial and Federal architecture with minimal twee, and its semi-octagon bays, clustered windows, and shiplap siding are characteristic of Streamline Colonial Revival. One interesting touch of intentionality is that in its cruciform arrangement, the front and one side gable are boxed into pediments, one side gable is hipped (also a common Streamline Colonial arrangement, and the rear gable is plain, as it doesn’t need to impress anyone, being along the creek.

ATTACHMENT B

47 The house is unusual for local Streamline Colonial for being two stories, not one or oneand-a-half: on the Master List, only the Stanton House (1904-05), Kaiser House (1908), and Heritage Inn/Herrera House (1910) also have two stories. It is unique in the city for being surrounded on four sides by portico, and though a small portion has been enclosed on the front with unmatching columns, this does not undermine its ability to communicate its significance. It is also unique here for combining Streamline Colonial with elephant leg columns, rare in other parts of the country. Its uniqueness would appear to qualify it for the Master List.

Upham House (Mary L. Elliott House), 779 Buchon, 1903
This house was designed by Hilamon Spencer Laird, the first person in San Luis Obispo documented to have practiced solely as an architect—rather than builder-architect—for any length of time and with any record of buildings, his known projects dating from 1874 to 1911 and including some of the most prominent buildings in the city, almost all of them on the Master List, though the provenance of most of them was not known when they were so placed.

The house was commissioned by Mrs. Mary L. Elliott, born 1864 to prominent San Luis Obispo banker (and farmer) J. P. Andrews. She lived in it for a short time, married William A. Rideout in 1905, and appears to have rented it and then returned to it with her husband by 1913, J. P. Andrews dying there in 1914.

The asymmetric porch with Ionic columns and dentilation/horizontal brackets above immediately suggest Streamline Colonial. Though the front gable is not transformed into a pediment with a physical box, the wide frieze creates a similar effect, and Frank Furness used this method on the Alexander J. Cassatt Stable (Berwyn, PA, 1898). Besides, the

ATTACHMENT B

48 dentilled boxing at the top creates a mini-pediment above the semi-Palladian window (tripartite with a heightened center but no arch). Molding creates two further minipediments flanking the window, filled with wave shingling, echoing the deconstruction

ATTACHMENT B

49 common to creative architects like Coxhead and Wright with Shingle Colonial. A front addition has caused severe damage to integrity.

The festoon over the gable window and the scroll below it and the ground floor front window denote Federal reference (e.g., The Athenaeum, Portsmouth, NH, 1803, previous page, detail). The stepped gable edges were also employed by Frank Furness, and Laird’s 1894 Shipsey and 1903 Kimball Houses show Furnessian influence.

The number of Laird-designed buildings in San Luis Obispo would not raise the Upham House to the uniqueness standard, but it is the only one commissioned by a woman.

Furness influence makes it unusual, which raises the question of whether the Kimball House should be considered Furnessian Streamline Colonial, but its use of ridge cresting, Egyptian columns, and multiple arches seems to take it to a different realm. The significance of Mary Elliott’s commissioning of the house from a major architect should not be obscured by the meaningless Upham name.

R. S. Aston House, 1746 Chorro, 1903
Contractor R. S. Aston, brother of noted San Luis Obispo photographer Frank Aston, had just arrived here from Bakersfield when he built this house for himself (and to advertise his work) in what seems to have been about a month. A gambrel roof intersects a high-peaked roof; rare octagonal columns supported on stone form the corner entrance characteristic of High-Peaked Colonial Revivals of the Bay Area, though the corner lot gives two façades and warrants four gables. The house has novelty siding, which was a common alternative to shingle in Bay Area High-Peaked Colonials. Aston likely brought his own crew from

ATTACHMENT B

50 Bakersfield to get started so quickly; it was reported by Judge Unangst’s daughter Dorothy Bilodeau that of the two stonemasons on the Judge’s House, one was Irish and one Black.60 As Aston’s own house, the first house by him in the area, and both the earliest surviving High-Peaked and Gambrel Colonial in the city, it achieves Master List uniqueness.

The Judge’s House, 1720 Johnson, 1903–1904

Dorothy Bilodeau claimed that her father
was not satisfied by the original design of
the house, presumably by Aston, so
designed it “on his own ideas, in
cooperation with a minister in the area
whose church was made of similar
materials” (Winslow). It is certainly less
rational on the outside and perhaps more
accommodating inside. Aston’s house,
completed immediately before he started
Unangst’s, is true cruciform in its roofs.

Unangst’s entry gambrel gable runs a
straight ridge back to—peculiarly, perhaps
uniquely—a high-peaked gable in back,
while a gambrel gable on the west side and
high-peaked gable on the east are offset.

In another way of looking at it, the entry and Johnson Avenue façades are both dominated by a roof slope with a gambrel gable at the left. Unlike the Aston House, all novelty siding, here the ground floor is shiplap and gables shingled, somewhat unusual in a Shingle Colonial for being scalloped.

Unangst presided over many of the most important cases in the county, though, since there have been scores of judges in San Luis, and only one Unangst, the Judge Unangst House would seem to be a more transparent and less twee name. Architecturally, the house is unique for being the oldest surviving Shingle Colonial in the city.

60. Carleton M. Winslow, Jr., ed., “The Judge’s House,” Discovering San Luis Obispo County (San Luis Obispo:
1971).

ATTACHMENT B

51 Albert House, 1642 Morro, 1904; Baker House, 1636 Morro, 1904–1905

The uniqueness of these two houses comes from their being paired symmetrical Streamline Colonials by the same builder (and presumably designer) William Thompson at roughly the same time. Tiny speculative developments were a characteristic of small town San Luis Obispo, but this is the only Streamline Colonial one I know of. It is a pity that neither are named after Thompson, as Albert and Baker seem to have no significance and Thompson was actually built 1642 for himself (though local spec builders and developers—including organic architect Warren Leopold, according to Henry Miller in Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch61—often occupied their new houses and moved as soon as sold).

These houses are unusual for streamlining their Colonialness with a square footprint, hip roof, and central hip dormer, a dropping of the pediment that would become more common. There are almost unnoticeable asymmetries. Neither entry portico is quite centered, and the Albert had an inset semi-octagon bay window (now partially walled in) on only one side. The Baker retains them on both sides, but one cutaway corner has a

61. (New York: New Directions, 1957), p. 257.

ATTACHMENT B

52 window and no support, the other a door and a support column. Despite the alteration to the Albert House, it retains enough of its integrity to communicate its significance.

Hourihan House, 860 Buchon, 1904–1905
In a four-decade architectural career (after initially having worked as a dairy farmer) Hilamon Spencer Laird designed in many different styles and was disinclined to limit himself in any. His house for Mary Elliott experimented with decorative techniques that went well beyond common or garden Streamline Colonial; his Kimball House (actually commissioned by John Ingram) is so Furnessian as to depart its genre. (Curiously, Frank Furness’s own Colonial Revival buildings are among his most whitebread designs; perhaps he didn’t feel he had enough abstract decorative scope in them.) Laird’s design for Thomas and Kathleen Hourihan’s house emphasizes its Streamline Colonial nature in two ways:
through its asymmetric wraparound ground floor porch
and porch-topping balcony supported by Tuscan columns,
and by the great hood of a hip roof enclosing the balcony, with the echoing porch roof. It is an audacious design
most reminiscent of McKim, Mead, and White’s doubledecker piazzas at the Newport Casino. They tie to a frontgabled bay that is unusual but not unique for being neither high-peaked nor pedimented, but some late seventeenthcentury Colonial buildings (like Boston’s Bridgham House at right) took this form and were copied by revivalists. It is unique to the city and so Master List qualified.

The Hourihan House is one of sixteen houses the city’s Master List properties website erroneously and anachronistically calls Gothic: the Biddle (Stick), Brew (Colonial Revival), Brooks (Romanesque), Buckley (box frame vernacular), Falkenstein (Stick and Queen Anne), Finney (Queen Anne), Greenfield (Cottage), Kaetzel (Queen Anne), Lewin (Eastlake), McKennon (Queen Anne), McManus (Stick), Rogers (Italianate), Tucker (Colonial Revival, Italianate, and Queen Anne), Upham (Colonial Revival), and Jessie Wright

ATTACHMENT B

53 (Queen Anne). The text for the Hourihan House adds insult to injury by explaining that its supposed Gothicism is ”reflective of the tendency for architectural styles to reach SLO decades after peaking in larger Metropolitan areas,” when San Luis was in fact on the cutting edge of architecture and Laird at the apex of that edge.

Stanton House, 752 Buchon, 1904–1905
Like J. C. Naylor’s house, this structure demonstrates how people dealt with the housing crisis at the turn of the century: they embezzled. There is a poignancy to the patriotic nostalgia and smooth modernity of the Streamline Colonial and the criminal undercurrent used to pay for it.

E. B. Stanton had been the Pacific Coast Railway’s agent, dispatcher, and lumber yard agent since the late 1890s and was a prominent enough figure to be married to a Dana: Irene Josephine, daughter of the longtime county clerk. Edward and Irene had built a 1½-story asymmetric Colonial Revival cottage at Marsh and Toro in 1902 for their brood of children (pictured in the Fire Department Souvenir of San Luis Obispo with that brood but no longer extant). Stanton paid off its mortgage in September 1904 and commenced the two-story house at Buchon and Garden.

The house was described in superlatives during both its building and sale soon after—for in late May 1905, before it was quite finished and certainly before it was paid for, the PCR demoted Stanton from railroad agent and hired a new bookkeeper, and in early June Stanton was arrested, ultimately charged with embezzling $14,433.74 from his employers.

He was additionally sued by contractors for various unpaid bills on his $6,000 house, for which he had also taken out a $2,400 mortgage.

ATTACHMENT B

54 In November Stanton was tried, convicted, and sentenced to five years at San Quentin.

Coverage of the trial does not explain why he did it, but Stanton’s character witnesses included some of the leading men of the town: Louis Sinsheimer, Dr. W. M. Stover, William Sandercock, and the merchant Jacob Crocker. M. Lewin, agent for the mortgagee, seems to have had difficulty in either selling or renting the house and occupied it himself into the 1920s.

The Tribune named the architect as W. C. Phillips, who was based in Arroyo Grande when he became, in 1896, the architect of the Neoclassical (with Eastlake interior) H. M. Warden Building on Higuera at the foot of Garden Street (extant). Phillips relocated to San Luis Obispo and practiced here for about ten years before graduating to the big city of San Jose.

The Stanton House has a sophisticated play of symmetry and asymmetry, depending on whether one sees the tower as one side of a façade or the center of two façades. Curvatures abound: in tower walls and glass, porch balustrade, oculi, the art nouveau soffits of the pediment gables, and the bellcast roofs. Eaves are horizontally exaggerated, including the deeply inset gable pediments. This suggests the influence of Bay Area architects like A. W.

Smith, whose 1900 Siegriest House in Oakland (extant) uses a similar wide-eaved, columned corner tower between gabled façades. (Octagonal and round towers were a not uncommon feature of Streamline Colonial, despite the absence of such appendages or appurtenances on actual Colonial houses.)
In 1904 the Tribune wrote, “The style may be best expressed as American,” adding: “There will be colonial windows.” It is hard to interpret the second statement, as there is a huge variety of windows—sash, oculus, arched, oriel, leaded, diamond-pane, stained glass— probably too many for a unified effect. The first statement is interesting in its recognition that asymmetric Colonial had moved beyond a revival into its own expression of modern Americanness, as Shingle had done and the California Bungalow was to do.

The Stanton House is certainly unique as the most exaggerated expression of Streamline Colonial in San Luis Obispo; I believe it is also the only documented house by W. C. Phillips here, though others may come to light: two reasons to qualify for the Master List.

Leonard W. Hill House, 1144 Buchon, 1905
The Hill House in the Old Town Historic District is the most recent Streamline Colonial addition to the Master List and was added by ignoring the uniqueness criterion. Hill was a local businessman but did not rise to any leadership position that would define him as historically significant. The carpentry was done by local builder John Chapek as a subcontractor, one of his early projects but by no means earliest, and despite the application’s assertion that he was the building’s architect, there is no evidence that he designed the house and considerable that he did not.

First, given the somewhat awkward contemporary Streamline Colonials in which Chapek was listed as architect (the George A. Brown House at 1241 Beach [1907–1908]) or can be plausibly posited as architect (his spec-built 1946 Chorro [John T. Anderson House, 1902– 1903] and 1045 Leff [1903]; 865 Buchon [the William Alberts House, 1904], on which he was the primary contractor; and 843 Upham [1905–1906], where he settled himself), the sophisticated planes and curves of the Hill House were beyond his architectural ability.

ATTACHMENT B

55 Triplets: Master List Leonard Hill House and Frank Anderson House and Contributing List Patrick and Catherine McHenry House
Second, the Hill House is virtually identical—except in reverse—to the Frank Anderson House at 1345 Broadway, at the other end of the Old Town Historic District, one of the earliest additions to the Master List; also to the James M. Akin–built Patrick and Catherine McHenry House at 1264 Palm (1910), in the middle of the Mill Street Historic District but inexplicably relegated to the Contributing List. In short, all three houses were clearly from a marketed set of plans: embodying Streamline Colonial by NRHP standards but the opposite of unique by the standards of the Master List.

LeRoy and Sara Smith House, 1306 Mill, 1906
LeRoy Smith arrived at Cal Poly in his late twenties to teach English and history but was so impressed with the school’s mission that he retrained at Berkeley as an agriculturist—after he had become Cal Poly’s director. He also seems to have arrived with money, immediately buying three adjoining lots at the corner of Mill and Johnson (then Essex). He sold one lot to Leroy Anderson, his boss as the first director of Cal Poly, and hired William H. Weeks, the architect of Cal Poly’s buildings—all in Mission Revival—to design a house.

ATTACHMENT B

56 It took the form of a redwood shingle Bay Area High-Peak Colonial with characteristic shed dormers. As the dormers run the length of the house, it is functionally a two-story, retaining the dormer look with deep overhangs. Another way it differs from most Bay Area models is occupying a corner lot with an entry centered in its long façade. The entry uses, appropriately, square columns, for the side gables have the open pediments of circa 1830s Massachusetts Bay Greek Revival, not a reference seen in other High-Peak Colonials and unique to this city. The building shows Weeks coming into his own as an architect, at the same time he was designing the rationalized and simplified high school of rusticated stone.

Some months after the Smith House was finished, Leroy and Isabel Anderson took out a $4,000 loan to build their own house next door: a Prairie School in dark stained wood (extant). Sara Smith was from Wisconsin; LeRoy Smith had worked there and in San Francisco before coming to Cal Poly. In 1902 Leroy Anderson visited the Midwest to examine other agricultural schools before opening Cal Poly. Any of these might have been the Wright connection. The Anderson House’s architect is unknown (not inconceivably Weeks), but it is the first Prairie School building in San Luis Obispo, of the style Wright was producing in the early 1900s, demonstrating San Luis was indeed on the cutting edge.

Shortly after its completion, Benjamin Ide Wheeler hired Anderson to run the University of California’s ag station, now UC Davis, and Smith replaced his colleague as director.

Dutton House, 1426 Broad, 1906
The first occupant of the Dutton House—built by Dutton for him—was plumber, tinsmith, and County Supervisor E. M. Payne, who was arrested two years after he occupied the

ATTACHMENT B

57 house for illegally selling a consignment of pipes to the county through a third party. But the grand jury, some of whose members were intent on punishing Payne for voting to rescind prohibition of alcohol sales in county jurisdictions, had broken the rules by conducting interviews in the field. The judge threw out the case, which was never revived.

With cruciform footprint and roof arrangement, seemingly a San Luis characteristic for Shingle style, the Dutton House has a pedimentless seventeenth-century reference and unusual roof and portico flaring that are unique in San Luis. The perpendicularity to the street and columned corner entry is reminiscent of suburban High-Peak—though at least one and probably two columns are missing.

Renetzky House, 1516 Broad, 1906
A surprising number of Streamline Colonials have polygonal or round towers; this was an enthusiasm of the early Shingle architects that the absence of towers on Colonial buildings was not able to shake, e.g., McKim, Mead, and White’s dodecagonal tower on the Newport Casino (1879–1881; see p. 8). The Renetzky House’s closed pediment gable on the street façade and open pediment gables on the side façades make its Colonial intentions clear, as does its asymmetric portico with Tuscan columns.

Some lathework in the middle of the columns, a small sunburst at the top of the front pediment gable, and a diamond window rather than oeil de boeuf in the front are eccentric

ATTACHMENT B

58 details but not enough to detract from the genre. As the only Streamline Colonial with an octagonal tower in San Luis, it attains the uniqueness standard.

The Renetzky House’s minor inconsistencies draw attention to the major ones of the next door Master List Tucker House, which the city website oxymoronically describes as “Carpenter Gothic Revival/Neoclassical.” The Tucker House has open pediments with oculus windows, referencing Federal architecture; corner boards and deep eaves with baroque corbels, which are Italianate; and a spindlework and bracketed entry from the Queen Anne. It does not succeed in embodying any of those three styles and so does not attain significance, though it is certainly unique as a mishmash.

Chapek House, 843 Upham, 1906

The Chapek House looks like John Chapek may, indeed, have designed it or aspects of it, as it is ambitious and not everything fits. A later shed dormer and porch enclosure have added slightly to the confusion. Chapek hailed from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, so Colonial was not his milieu, but he was clearly an enthusiast for Colonial Revival, as that is the style of his early surviving spec houses. Like other spec builders, he was in the habit of living in his new buildings until sold, but he settled at 843 Upham for a relatively long time.

The pushout in the street façade’s gable apex is a not uncommon feature of Colonial Revival (and Queen Anne), though its integration into a square balcony topping a semi-octagon bay is unusual, intersecting an open pediment gable. Also unusual is the use of pilasters as well as columns. The side entry portico as a component of a more obtuse roof slope is also an elegant touch, reminiscent of the New England saltbox, though the clutter of dormers detracts somewhat from the effect. Prominent builders’ own houses are always of interest; in San Luis, this one is unique.

Mazza House, 1318 Chorro, circa 1906
This would be a Colonial Revival cottage of little distinction apart from its construction of rusticated Bishop Peak granite (which also confirms an origin of around 1906). The monolithic columns are a tour-de-force, and the provision of stone capitals extremely unusual. The pediment gable is, necessarily, faux stone, and the arched vent would subsequently show up in other Streamline Colonials, becoming a bit clichéd. Yet there is nothing clichéd about the muscularity of the material, which seems completely antithetical to streamlining or to actual Colonial buildings.

ATTACHMENT B

59 Strickland House, 1152 Buchon, circa 1906–1907
One might accuse this house as being as much of a mishmash as the Tucker House except for its clear—and successful—intentionality. The bungaloid profile and Tuscan portico say Streamline Colonial, but the irimoya roof is a wholly successful Japonesque imposition that echoes a front-facing Streamline Colonial pediment gable. Corner cutaways, usually a Queen Anne characteristic, replace Queen Anne corner brackets with additional Tuscan columns, re-emphasizing the Colonial. The retention of the street façade’s flanking semioctagons embodies the Streamline Colonial, but the removal of their central front-facing panels streamlines it further. The Strickland House recalls William Randolph Hearst’s apt characterization of the Greene and Greene style (which he originally asked Julia Morgan to

ATTACHMENT B

60 do for what instead became Hearst Castle) as a “Jappo-Swisso bungalow.” It is the seamless melding of two styles for a result greater than the sum of its parts.

Strickland did the construction for Laird’s design of Mary Elliott’s house, and in 1904 he built a pair of remarkably minimalist and elegant flared-roof Streamline Colonials—a third has been lost—at 2127 and 2135 Price Street.62 These seem to presage 1152 Buchon and should be on the Master List. Was Strickland capable of designing this extraordinary house? Is it too extraordinary to have come from a pattern book? It is unique in San Luis.

Kaufman House, 1052 Islay, circa 1906–1907
This is a perfectly characteristic Streamline Colonial cottage with hip roof and asymmetric pediment gable supported by Tuscan columns. The absence of bay or clustered windows and any flair to its rectangular vent makes it plainer than most. As there is nothing unique about the Kaufman House, it is a mystery why it is the only Master List house on the 800, 900, 1000, and 1100 blocks of Islay. It was added much later than the original survey.

62. “Locates Kansas Colony,” Tribune, 11 Dec. 1903, p. 4

ATTACHMENT B

61 Oliver House, 1953 Chorro, after 1906
The Oliver House is likewise unremarkable, though slightly less unremarkable than the Kaufman House. The Master List website describes it as “significant as ‘a workingman’s farmhouse,’” but it was not a farmhouse, and that would not have made it significant, historic significance of a person requires they be a leader or otherwise exceptionally notable in their field. Rather this is a suburban bungalow that may have been owned by a farmer. It embodies, like a number of other spindle column Streamline Colonial cottages in San Luis Obispo, a type of architecture and should be on the National Register, but it is by no means unique and does not qualify for the Master List.

Nichols House, 664 Monterey, 1907
This is the earliest house in the Morganti compound and was built two years after Nichols’ death, replacing his two-story house shown on the 1905 Sanborn map and visible in contemporary photos. Its fluted ionic columns are unusual, as are its square oriels, and this might attain to uniqueness, but its integrity has been compromised by the glazing of its front porch and blocking (or removal) of its pediment’s oeil de boeuf and the loss of the capital on its side entrance column. If it was Master Listed for its association with Mayor Nichols, that was erroneous; if for its architecture, it is probably unique here. Its integrity would unlikely pass the NRHP. It should certainly be renamed.

ATTACHMENT B

62 Ramage House, 1129 Marsh, circa 1907–1910
The Ramage House is a similar type of three-columned, pediment-gabled Streamline Colonial cottage to the Kaufman House, though it is somewhat more interesting and characteristic for its semi-octagon bay, decorative hexagonal panes, and arched gable vent.

Not unique on its own, and though outside any historic districts, it is one of five adjoining cottages on 1100 block of Marsh added to the Master List at the time of the original Historic Resources Survey: a more modest version of the 700 block of Buchon, and a good save. The Ramage House is the only Streamline Colonial among them.

ATTACHMENT B

63 Kaiser House, 751 Buchon, 1908
Unusual as one of the few two-story Streamline Colonial houses in San Luis Obispo, the Kaiser House also follows the one-story Brecheen House (1907) in eschewing gables, pediments, and dormers, with a low-pitched bellcast and deep eaves. Unlike the bayless Brecheen House, however, it employs four semi-octagons on first and second floors. It also has a curved wraparound porch with somewhat bulbous Tuscan columns and courses of diamond and fishscale shingles. No architect is known, but Rasmussen and Parsons built it.

Bullard House, 1624 Morro, circa 1908–1913 (next page)
The Bullard House, unlike the Aston and Unangst Houses, is a cruciform of all gambrels, two dominant and two essentially exaggerated side dormers. Neither architect nor builder is known for this deceptively elegant structure, whose integrity has been somewhat compromised by the glazing of its entry portico, though its columns are visible through the glass. It embodies the gambrel form, but it is not unique in the city, a nearly identical though not as long gambrel house being situated at 3470 Broad Street, also with novelty

ATTACHMENT B

64 siding below and shingles above, also perpendicular to the street, with surviving stained glass bay in front though missing its columns.

Bradbury House, 745 Buchon, 1910
Harry Lyman, more famous for his Craftsmans, is the documented builder here. Like the Kaufman and Ramage Houses, the Bradbury is a Streamline Colonial with pediment gable over an asymmetric porch supported by three Tuscan columns. It has a flush rather than bay triplet of identical sashes, plus fishscale wainscoting borrowed from curved porches. It embodies the Streamline Colonial cottage but is not unique.

The neighboring Bradbury Sanitarium is a Prairie Box that, like other Prairie Boxes and Kansas City Shirtwaists, is essentially a Colonial Revival offshoot but enough of a distinct type that I have not included it among the Streamline Colonials. Kate Goodrich, a local teacher, purchased the lot from the Vetterlines and took out a $1,100 building loan in 1902 and built a one-and-a-half-story Stick house that the Bradbury’s sanitarium replaced a mere nine years later.63
Jackson House, 790 Islay, 1910
The house of Dr. P. K. Jackson and later blind Judge Jackson—in whose attic apartment Assistant DA and later State Appellate Court Judge Donald Gates shot his wife’s divorce attorney, Lloyd Somogyi, in 195464—was built by Joseph Maino with ambitious Streamline Colonial aesthetics. Its main block runs parallel to Islay, with pediment gables at each end.

Its front façade dormer and rear extension also terminate in pediment gables, and all four

63. “Recorder’s Office,” Tribune, 30 Sep. 1902, p. 2.

64. Bill Morem, “Lawyer’s Rib May Have Saved Two Lives,” Tribune, 10 Feb. 2010.

ATTACHMENT B

65 are centered by Palladian windows, providing an effective use of the triangular space and a Neoclassical reference both inside and out. Simplifying elsewhere, the design eschews bay windows for flush windows. The porch is unusually long but not a curved wraparound; its columns are rather thick, and they bulge and taper minimally; and the eaves do not have the exaggerated depth or creative treatment of the Stanton or Kaiser Houses. Yet the Jackson House makes a forceful statement, and in 1910 the Tribune called it “elegant.”65 No separate architect is documented, and it seems likely to have been designed by Maino, as it does not have quite the professional feel of pattern house. It both embodies the Streamline Revival and is unique in the city.

Heritage Inn, 978 Olive, 1910
Rufina Gallego was born in California of New Mexican parents—probably in San Luis Obispo County, the daughter of ranchero Francisco Gallego—in 1853. She married Antonio Jose Herrera, nineteen years her senior, in 1867; bore eleven children; and died in San Luis Obispo in 1943.66 Antonio was the son of Maria and Tomas Herrera, the latter one of the chief rancheros of the county, who was appointed superintendent of water (juez de agua) in the new American county administration in 1850.67 Don Tomas subscribed $50 to the 1858 Vigilance Committee, and Antonio appears to have been one of its members (p. 303).

In 1890 Antonio made news for offering free right of way through his property to the Southern Pacific for the hoped for railroad extension to San Luis, which the SP had agreed to build only if the local committee obtained right of way.68 Antonio Herrera died at his house on East Monterey Street in 1905, and Rufina appears to have built her new Streamline Colonial on Monterey at the corner of Santa Rosa, where the new, spectacularly banal court building is, in 1910.

65. “In New Home,” 1 Sept. 1910, p. 1.

66. US Census, 1880 and 1900; “A Pioneer Passed Away,” Tribune, 7 July 1905, p. 1.

67. Myron Angel, History of San Luis Obispo County, California (Berkeley: Howell-North, 1966), p. 131.

68. “Railroad,” Tribune, 2 Sep. 1890, p. 2.

ATTACHMENT B

66 Based on early advertisements, it appears to have been designed to function as a rooming house (“neatly furnished rooms; gentlemen preferred”) and office building, as well as a family home. It was also the headquarters of the chief local baseball operation. The San Luis Juniors, fielding Osbaldo Herrera, sent out an all-comers challenge from there in 1911: “Tell ’em to address 1066 Monterey Street” (“Kids Play Ball,” Telegram, 30 Sep., p. 8). In the aughts and teens, Osbaldo’s elder brother Manuel Herrera managed various San Luis teams (the Outlaws, the Stars, the 23 Club, etc.), to the extent that his name became synonymous with baseball (“Herreras Will Meet Regulars: Baseball Supremacy Of City Will Be Decided Tomorrow,” 14 Oct. 1911, p. 1).

The house was moved to a different position on its lot and then to its current location on the motel strip of Olive Street, ironically requiring the demolition of a house owned by a different Herrera family—the Andres Herreras from Michoacan—in what was San Luis Obispo’s barrio before the freeway displaced it. Losing its integrity of location, setting, and feeling, the Rufina Gallego de Herrera House should not also be forced to lose its integrity of rich historical association by suppressing her name. The two-story size and symmetrical design appears unique in San Luis Streamline Colonials and qualified for the Master List.

Bushnell House, 1105 George, 1910
The Bushnell House retains its location, setting, and feeling but has lost much of its design, workmanship, and materials with new fenestration and garage level. It also has no claim to uniqueness. It is of the common spindle column cottage subtype.

ATTACHMENT B

67 Sandercock House, 535 Islay, 1910–1911
Possibly the youngest of the Master List Streamline Colonials, the Sandercock House, built by James J. Maino, went all in on pediment gables, including closed and (where windows intervene) open. It falls just short of being Hawthorne’s House of the Seven Gables. As with Weeks’s 1902 Marshall House (and the more modest Fumigalli cottage), an extension thrusts forward with a semi-octagon bay in front and a pediment gable above. But in the Sandercock house the hip roof is considerably broadened and given a central pediment above the entrance, farther up the roof. Another bay window topped by a pediment gable anchors the center of the other street façade on Beach. A curved wraparound porch balances the front façade bay, but the eaves are not so exaggerated as on the Kaiser House and without the aileron flair. Still, if not a masterpiece, it is a worthy late effort of streamlining the Streamline Colonial, compared to the first cluttered, angular, and vertical essays of William H. Weeks a mere eight years before. It appears to have a design, not just size, unique in the city.

ATTACHMENT B

68 Frank Anderson House, 1345 Broad, circa 1910
As pointed out earlier, this house, one of the first wave of additions to the Master List, is virtually identical to the Leonard Hill House, which was added almost four decades later (after a two-decade effort) at the other end of the Old Town Historic District. The Frank Anderson House has much better integrity than the Hill House, which added a second story, which may explain why it was put on the Master List in the first round. On the other hand, the virtually identical McHenry House at 1264 Palm, with equal integrity and in the middle of the Mill Street Historic District, was relegated to the Contributing List at the same time the Frank Anderson House was put on the Master List. None of them can claim to be unique, although the McHenry House is at least unique to its district.

ATTACHMENT B

69 Thomas Levin Brecheen and May Miller Brecheen
Thomas Brecheen might have been a historically significant educator but became instead a historically significant rogue. Alas, his initial ownership of 1133 Pismo, though providing a name for the house, is too brief to qualify for historic association. His and May Miller Brecheen’s story reminds us, however, that architecture is worked in and lived in, designed or chosen by people. It entwines its iconography—aspirationally if sometimes inappropriately—with their lives. Colonial Revival architecture combined knowledge, reason, and patriotism. Poignant, then, that of San Luis Obispo’s Master List Streamline Colonial houses, two should have been built with the profits of embezzlement, a member of the County Board of Supervisors should have been arrested for malfeasance in a third, and the assistant district attorney should have shot a lawyer in a fourth, owned by a personification of blind justice.

Thomas Brecheen’s connection to two of San Luis Obispo’s Colonial Revival buildings—the brick Nipomo Street School and his wood frame house six blocks to the east—is, like these, a classical tragedy played against the backdrop of Palladio’s Teatro Olimpico.

The Nipomo Street School, where Brecheen taught, was an imposing Colonial Revival brick building with a pediment and bell tower. Built in the late 1880s and expanded in 1897, it looked like a New England church or courthouse, except for somewhat ill-conceived dual entries with wood porches.

Brecheen’s Colonial Revival bungalow looked across Pierre Dallidet’s remaining unbuilt vineyards of at the city’s brand new Mission High School, an even more imposing Neoclassical edifice in rusticated granite. Yet the principal of the high school was in charge

ATTACHMENT B

70 of only four teachers in one school and Brecheen of fifteen in two. As president of the County Board of Education, he doubtless also thought himself in charge of everything.

The moment of Brecheen’s purchase of the house—newly presiding over the County Board of Education; new principal of San Luis Obispo’s grammar schools after previously supervising two other teachers in Cambria, one other in Simi, or in Montalvo only himself— was an iconic but ephemeral one. One year later, in August 1908, Brecheen, only just married to May Miller, abruptly resigned his principalship over a minor matter of class division. In December the Board of Supervisors removed him from the County School Board.

Over the next ten years he moved through
five school districts, beset by legal and
administrative troubles. He went into real
estate, in short order was twice arrested,
and fought the revocation of his real estate
license all the way to the California
Supreme Court, then fought the refusal of a
new license all the way to the Supreme
Court again. Shortly after losing both cases,
he pleaded guilty to petty larceny, then was
arrested for burglary. Eight years after that,
he was sent to prison for participating—as a
representative of the Good Government
Congress—in the theft of 10,000 ballots
before a recount in Jackson County, Oregon.

In unsuccessfully pleading mercy, his
lawyer asserted he was not a habitual
criminal.

According to census and death records,
Thomas Brecheen was born in Hunt County,
Texas in 1877, the fifth son and seventh
child of a farmer. When he was hired as
principal of San Luis Obispo’s high school,
he had been principal of the Cambria
schools for two years and of Montalvo
School and Simi School in Ventura County
for one year each, confirmed by
contemporary newspaper reports. San Francisco Examiner, 20 Sep. 1921, p. 11 He was supposed before then to have graduated from the Sam Houston Normal Institute in Huntsville—or, in a later version, the University of Texas—and to have taught at the Llano Estacado Institute in Plainview for three years, led the Lockney public schools in Floyd County for two, and been principal of the Dalhart public schools in Dallam and Hartley

ATTACHMENT B

71 Counties.
69 This would have made him 19 or 20 when he started his teaching career and in his early twenties when given administrative responsibility. This might have been possible, given his ambition and energy and the fact he was a man in a woman’s field, but in 1919 the district attorney of Alameda County concluded he had falsified his Texas educational record and a subsequent claim of qualifications from the University of California.

Thomas Brecheen appears to have been
idealistic, generous with his time, hardcharging, opinionated, and unwilling to compromise but quite willing to cut legal
and administrative corners. He had what
tragedians would have called hubris, though
he met his nemesis not among the gods but
in boards of trustees and courts of law. We
would probably now describe him as dark
triad: narcissistic, manipulative, and
psychopathic.

Front page above the fold: San Luis Obispo
Daily Telegram, 12 Oct. 1907, p. 1
In October 1907, barely two months after he purchased 1133 Pismo on the instalment plan (broker A. F. Fitzgerald’s specialty), Brecheen was charged with battery after whipping the sons of four prominent citizens with a leather strap—according to Brecheen’s version for refusing his instructions to leave school grounds.70 Newspapers in San Luis Obispo and Ventura Counties came out in his favor. Though he was arrested by Deputy Taylor and arraigned by Justice Smith, the battery charge was thought unsustainable for someone in loco parentis, and there is no evidence of a trial.

Two months later Brecheen was presented with a Christmas present of a gold-mounted Waterman fountain pen by the eighth graders of the Nipomo Street School, “as a testimony of their high appreciation of his unceasing efforts in their behalf and their deep obligation to him for his many kind words of encouragement, counsel, and advice,” again making front-page news.71
Professor Brecheen would appear to have been sitting pretty in the district, with a reputation for being dedicated but not to be trifled with. On 26 July 1908 he married May

69. “New Principal for City Schools,” Daily Telegram, 24 June 1907, p. 1.

70. Daily Telegram: “School Trouble,” 12 Oct. 1907, p. 1; “Warrant Is Served,” 15 Oct. 1907, p. 1. 71 “Remember Prof. Brecheen,” Daily Telegram, 28 Dec. 1907, p. 1.

ATTACHMENT B

72 Miller of Berkeley, brought her to her new home at 1133 Pismo on July 29, and on August 12—making front-page news again, above the fold—resigned his principalship.72 The district trustees had decided against
him, immediate past president of the
County Board of Education, in what would
seem a minor matter: the division of an
unusually large eighth grade class of more
than fifty students between Brecheen at
Nipomo Street School and the district’s viceprincipal, Miss Sarah Wayland, at Court School, when he would normally have taken
them all. He turned in his school keys after
the trustees’ meeting and submitted his
resignation letter the next day. One can only
imagine the scene in his neat but not-paidfor home.

Front page but below the fold: Daily
Telegram, 28 Dec. 1907

Whether he thought the trustees would back down or he was too obstinate to back down himself is unknown. He immediately hinted to the press at business opportunities in San Diego or San Luis.73 These seem to have been illusory. He was reported to have taken charge of Martinez High School, also apparently false.74 Exactly four months after his resignation, he returned from Nevada for a County School Board meeting to discover the Board of Supervisors had removed him two days before for being absent without leave. There was presumably some underlying issue, but after having hung about San Luis Obispo since his resignation, with occasional trips on “business interests” out, Brecheen took the opportunity to announce that he had been offered a principalship in Alameda County for $2,100 a year and was leaving immediately.75 It seems doubtful there was any truth to this; he disappeared from the news until listed among a group of Oakland teachers in 1910.76 In 1911 he was mentioned as a teacher at Fremont High School in Oakland and in 1912 as secretary of the department of business education in the National Education Association.77 Attending a national conference of

72. “Prof. Brecheen Takes Bride,” Daily Telegram, 29 July 1908, p. 1; “Brecheen Quits His Principalship,” Daily Telegram, 13 Aug. 1908, p. 1.
73 “Brecheen’s Resignation,” Daily Telegram, 15 Aug. 1908, p. 1.

74. “News From Afar,” Daily Telegram, 25 Sep. 1908, p. .

75. “Brecheen Gets Place In Alameda Schools,” San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 15 Dec. 1908, p. 2.

76. “Teachers Ask Legislative Aid,” San Francisco Call, 15 Nov. 1910, p. 8.

77. “Pedagogues Mix Up In Baseball Battle,” San Francisco Call, 3 Sep. 1911;“Commercial Teachers May Come,” San Francisco Call, 8 June 1912, p. 5.

ATTACHMENT B

73 commercial teachers in June, in July he was called on the carpet by the Oakland Board of Education for ordering forty-four typewriters without authorization.78 Possibly he was forced out, for in September 1912 Brecheen found an appointment as principal of the new Calistoga High School in Napa County.79 Calistoga High would be his longest appointment, and the local newspaper had consistent praise for his strenuous efforts at school improvement. In fall 1914 he was unanimously reappointed at a salary of $1,600 per year, but in spring 1915 was writing the state superintendent of schools for information on recalling school trustees, later denying he had anyone particular in mind.80 In 1916 he became principal of Ceres High School in Stanislaus County. The Weekly Calistogian eulogized Brecheen as having “boosted the school and the town for all he was worth” during his tenure.81 After a year at Ceres he became principal at Clovis High School in Fresno County.

After a year at Clovis, in July of 1918 it was announced that Brecheen had left to become principal of Livermore High School. In August he was back in Ceres being successfully sued by the editor of the Ceres Courier for the unpaid printing bill of the school yearbook. In September the Daily Telegram in San Luis printed a sensational article, based on a letter from the Clovis relative of a local person, that Brecheen had fled from justice and another teacher had been arrested, “suspected of having spread tuberculosis germs among the pupils of the school” after a pneumonia outbreak (this was during the Spanish Flu pandemic).82 The story seems dubious; the other teacher mentioned had also been hired by Livermore, and no other paper picked up this extraordinary story; but with Brecheen’s history, there’s no knowing.

T. L. Brecheen was principal of Livermore High from 1918 till the following April, when he was terminated by the board of trustees, having been investigated after alleged involvement in the school trustees’ election and found to been unknown at either of the institutions—the University of California and the University of Texas—from which he claimed graduation.83 He was also accused of having closed his school without authorization of the trustees. The attempt to revoke his Alameda County teaching certificate was found unnecessary when it turned out it had expired three years earlier. In November 1919 Brecheen sued for the remaining two months of his year’s salary and reinstatement in his job, gaining the first but not the second.

Shortly after this, Brecheen went into the real estate business in Berkeley, his wife’s home town, and appears to have been living with his in-laws. He was arrested after his employer swore out a complaint that Breechen had attacked him in the street. Brecheen filed two

78. “Berkeley Bars Oakland Pupils,” San Francisco Call, 27 July 1912, p. 17.

79. “The High School Teachers Chosen,” Weekly Calistogian, 6 Sep. 1912, p. 3.

80. “High School Trustees Meet,” Weekly Calistogian, 24 April 1914, p. 2; “Some Misunderstanding: Principal Brecheen Is Not After Anyone’s Scalp,” Weekly Calistogian, 7 May 1915, p. 1.

81. “Renewals for Calistogian Are Very Complimentary,” 28 Sep. 1917, p. 4.

82. “Calistoga News,” Napa Daily Journal, 28 July 1918, p. 8; “Ceres School Prepares for Military Class,” Modesto Morning Herald, 30 Aug. 1918, p. 5; “Former Teacher In Local Schools Leaves Fresno County And Wild Rumors Are Afloat,” San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 27 Sep. 1918, p. 1.

83. “County Sifts School Fight At Livermore,” Oakland Tribune, 13 Dec. 1919, p. 3.

ATTACHMENT B

74 lawsuits against the employer, then went into business for himself.84 In business for himself, he embezzled from a client and was arrested from his in-laws house shortly after the police broke up a fracas in Berkeley’s First National Bank lobby with another injured client. This was all in his first year of practice, which was unfortunately the year after California had passed first-of-its-kind legislation to regulate the real estate industry. The state commissioner revoked Brecheen’s license for “embezzlement, false representations, and gross moral turpitude.” Brecheen sued. Twice. And lost twice. But his suits established the precedents that the state commissioner’s quasi-judicial power to revoke and refuse real estate licenses was Constitutional.

After pleas for petty larceny and trials for burglary, Brecheen dropped out of the news between 1925 and 1930, when he was practicing real estate in Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon. In the 1940 census he listed himself as divorced, but in the 1930 census May Brecheen—living with their nineteen-year-old daughter at her parents home and working as a private children’s nursemaid—claimed he was dead.

84. “Realty Operator Sued Second Time,” San Francisco Examiner, 20 May 1920, p. 2. In 1920, Brecheen ran seven real estate ads in the San Francisco Examiner but was featured in ten articles about his legal and criminal problems.

In Ashland he involved himself (it was
imputed as its paid representative) in the
Good Government Congress, one of the local
populist movements of the Great
Depression. The group, taking over the local
Democratic Party, managed to elect their
candidates for county sheriff and judge, but
when a recount was ordered, they stole and
burned and drowned the ballots. This
became known as the Jackson County
Rebellion, and the state swooped in and
arrested the ringleaders, including
Brecheen, who served a year in prison. The
movement’s overall leader, a local
newspaper publisher named Llewellyn
Banks, died in prison, having shot dead the
constable who came to arrest him. A female
leader of the congress horsewhipped the
editor of another local paper in the street. A
third local paper won the Pulitzer Prize for
its coverage, the first small-town
newspaper to do so.

Right: Front page above the fold, Klamath
News, 6 August 1933

ATTACHMENT B

75 Brecheen disappeared from coverage after his release from prison and in 1940 was living in a large workingmen’s rooming house at the edge of Japantown in Los Angeles, working as a research assistant for the school district, so he claimed to the US Census. Before he died, suffering from senility, his daughter Natalie, who had moved to Los Angeles and married a successful businessman, Norvin Reed, took him in. As she also appears to have taken in her mother, this must have been awkward. After Thomas Brecheen’s death, the Reeds rose to social prominence in Los Angeles, though Nathalie’s marriage also ended in divorce. Norvin and Nathalie’s elder daughter Mayla Ann became a debutante, earned an actual University of California degree, and worked—like her grandfather—as an elementary school teacher.

ATTACHMENT B

76 Architectural Significance of the Brecheen House
Thirty-three Master List Streamline Colonial houses are a limited comparative sampling of the evolution of the style in the city, and rather than being a random selection, they skew toward large houses in prominent locations. But they help us to understand the significance of the Thomas and May Miller Brecheen House.

The bellcast roof of the Brecheen House resembles that of other houses: the 1904–1905 Albert and Baker Houses, the circa 1906–1907 Strickland House, and the 1908 Kaiser House. The Albert and Baker Houses, which removed looming pediment gables in favor of more diminutive hip dormers pushed back to the very center of a square hip roof (not very practical for interior use but audacious for exterior appearance), show that the next step of streamlining was to lower the roof profile and even further integrate the dormers or remove them altogether yet still retain Colonial iconography. The Strickland House did this spectacularly, integrating dormers into the ancient irimoya form, simultaneously demonstrating that Orientalism was not absent from the mind of Colonial Revival architects and builders in creating bellcast roofs. (This interest was not limited to the West Coast; “Chinese Chippendale” had re-entered the lexicon, and Chinese Chippendale furniture was being manufactured in Michigan, the center of the American trade.) Baker and Albert
Houses (above),
dormers facing to the
left (Chorro Street)
and bay windows top
and bottom
Strickland and Kaiser
Houses, front at
bottom; both have
been added to at back
Cowdery House
(below) and Brecheen
House (right), full lot,
oriented to front of lot
at bottom

The Kaiser House, built the years after the Brecheen house, eschews dormers. Its rectangular roof is disturbed only by a slight pushout on the back of its wider side.

ATTACHMENT B

77 The 1904 Cowdery House, 1907 Brecheen House, and top floor of the 1908 Kaiser House

ATTACHMENT B

78 But a Contributing List structure now hidden behind extensive shrubbery at 880 Buchon street had anticipated this trend. The Cowdery House was built for Tribune news editor P.

B. Cowdery in early 1904—slightly earlier even than the Albert House—by an unknown architect and builder. Like the Brecheen House, it is perpendicular to the street, a pure rectangle in shape, with a low bellcast roof entirely free of dormers and pushouts, though bay windows are accommodated under its wide eaves.

Compared to the Cowdery House, the architect of the Brecheen House narrowed and extended the rectangle for its roof, brought the roof pitch is even lower, and moved the house forward on the lot. He or she also was able to lower the street profile of the entire house, since it was not built on a slope, and substituted smooth concrete for rusticate stone in its foundation. Where the Cowdery, Strickland, Albert and Baker, and Kaiser Houses used semi-octagon bay windows, the Brecheen Housed used flush windows
exclusively, limiting curvature to the roof and making the walls of the house uninterrupted planes.

In decorative detail, the Brecheen House architect skillfully pursued minimalism. Where the Cowdery House has a plain frieze and wainscot encircling the house, the Brecheen House makes do with the frieze. Where the standard Streamline Colonial bungalow uses three columns for its asymmetric porch, the Cowdery House reduces that to two, integrated with the siding rather than displaying classical orders, and the Brecheen gets it down to a single contrapuntal column balanced by a cornerboard.

Simultaneously with pursuing minimalism, the Brecheen House architect expanded visual interest. The Cowdery House has two identical plain sash windows on its façade, one on the porch and one on the bay. The Brecheen house repeats this pattern, but the window on the bay is flanked by two half-width windows to create the minimalist and linear version of a Palladian window (no central arch, which also allows the whole window grouping to be taller and admit more light). Each upper sash is divided into two rows of vertical rectangular lights, six wide for the two larger and three wide for the two smaller windows, echoing the three-sash-wide window and avoiding the distraction of diamond and hexagonal panes.

In a sense, that column is the sole explicit vertical reference, the bellcast roof the sole explicit horizontal reference, to the actual Colonial, bracketing the more implicit Palladianism of the front window.

Another Zen-like detail: Where the Cowdery House front door faces the street, pushing the window to the side, the Brecheen House puts the door on the side of the porch, so the single porch window and triple window on the bay can be both exactly centered.

ATTACHMENT B

79 The Brecheen House’s side windows are also more intentionally employed for exterior effect from the street and rhythms within the house. Two identical single sashes flank the fireplace, followed by two paired sashes, whose pairing overcomes the internally necessary dissonance of different sizes at slightly different heights. This does not seem so remarkable until compared to the cluttered, seemingly random side-wall window placements of other suburban houses.

The last detail to remark upon is the remarkable chimney. Like McKim, Mead, and White with the H. A. C. Taylor House chimneys in Newport, the architect has employed stringcourses. But the columnar shaft braced on the wide base with quarter-pyramids of brick is a particularly engaging touch that combines streamlining with visual interest. This is not a design from the Colonial Era, where chimneys were generally interior and, if exterior, were braced with a simple slope from sides or front.

The genius of the Thomas and May Miller Brecheen House is apparent only when we put it in the context of (1) the Streamline Colonial ideals of planarity, linearity, curvilinearity, and minimalism and (2) the inventiveness with which some designers pursued these ideals and others did not. Interestingly, the architects of the era—Hilamon Spencer Laird, W. C.

Phillips, William H. Weeks, and even the dubious S. B. Abbott—tended to produce busy house designs, as if their clients were paying for extra details. Two of the most innovative designs, both with bellcast roofs, are associated with professional builders in their own houses: William Thompson and C. E. Strickland. Of the two most minimalist, the Cowdery and Brecheen Houses, we know neither architect nor builder. It is certainly possible that all of these came from a pattern book, like the Hill, McHenry, and Frank Anderson Houses, but they seem to unusual to have done so.

ATTACHMENT B

80 Period of Significance
Because of its short association with the somewhat
disastrously historically significant Thomas Brecheen, the Brecheen House’s period of significance is not based on his 1907–1908 tenure. It is significant as embodying suburban Streamline Colonial architecture, so its period of
significance would be from its construction to the filling in of the Pismo Street section of La Vina tract
(contemporarily spelled without the tilde) of which it is the oldest surviving occupant: 1907 to circa 1925.

Above right: The back of 1133 Pismo, the front looking northwest across the Dallidet Vineyard, 1132 Buchon in foreground, in a later 1907 photograph when Brecheen was living at his new house, a detail of a panoramic photograph from Terrace Hill (Cal Poly Special Collections (168-1-b-01-36-05). In a nice touch, the back has an asymmetric exit cater-corner to the asymmetric entrance. Below, a wider detail showing the Brecheen House at left facing Pismo, the Hill House at center facing Buchon, and the Strickland House at right facing Buchon.

Character-Defining Features
The character-defining features of the Brecheen House are its low-pitched bellcast roof, asymmetric porch, single Tuscan column on a solid railing, echoing single and tripartite sash windows on its street façade with their muntined upper sashes and plate glass lower sashes, rhythmic fenestration on the southwest façade, plain frieze, novelty siding, stringcoursed chimney with pyramidal base, and end-period Bishop Peak granite curb.

Integrity
The Brecheen House retains excellent integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Location It is in the same place as built, seen in the 1907 Terrace Hill photo at Cal Poly.

Design An addition has been constructed in back, part of which is visible in an L on the southwest side, but in design and materials the L is reasonably compatible with and definitely distinguishable from the original house, being considerably lower and in a modern interpretation of Craftsman. A hip-roof pushout has been added extending

ATTACHMENT B

81 between 2 and 3 feet from the northeast wall and about ten feet long, behind the fence and under the eaves in a largely non-visible area on the lot line. It is distinguishable to an expert but probably, from its singularity, to a non-expert.

The 1926–1956 Sanborn shows no alterations. Oddly, it shows the house as having a fullwidth porch, but all the physical evidence—including structural fabric and hardware and a full-width porch’s incompatibility with the placement of the chimney, which the 1907 photo 168-1-b-01-36-05 shows to be original—confirms the asymmetric porch to be the original design. Sanborn maps periodically had erroneous drawings, as contemporary photography shows, and their errors would not be corrected unless other changes were made to the structure.

All the structural and decorative work on the front and southwest façades appears to be original, including fenestration.

Setting Although it initially looked across to William Weeks’s high school (now demolished) across Pierre Dallidet’s vineyards (now developed), the bungalow surroundings that had been designed to spring up all over La Vina tract soon did. The Brecheen House is surrounded by one- and one-and-a-half-story Colonial Revival and Craftsman houses (whose vogue overlapped by roughly five years) in largely original condition from the 1910s and 1920s. It is next door to the Master List 1913 Thorne/Nuss House and across the street from the 1912 Vollmer House, both Craftsman. Other surrounding houses include the Contributing List 1109 Pismo (post-Craftsman), 1145 (Craftsman), 1147 (Craftsman motifs on a Colonial Revival form), 1155 (Romanesque Streamline Colonial), 1163 (post-Streamline Colonial), 1171 (Streamline Colonial), 1179 (Craftsman), 1185 (Craftsman), and 1195 (Craftsman) on the same side of the street and 1126 (post-Streamline Colonial), 1152 (Craftsman), 1160 (post-Streamline Colonial), 1166 (Craftsman), 1176 (post-Streamline Colonial), and 1190 (Minimal Traditional) on the opposing side. Somewhat older structures (including the Strickland and Hill Houses) line the neighboring Buchon Street and Pismobuchon Alley.

North side of 1100 block of Pismo Street circa 1925 taken by Pasadena photographer Bob Plunkett (detail; courtesy Huntington Library). With the exception of the gas lamp, all the structures visible—1152, 1160, 1166, 1175, 1190, 1202, and 1208 and their concrete curbing, as well as 1206’s brick gatepost in foreground—survive with good to excellent integrity.

ATTACHMENT B

82 Materials The house’s visible materials on the street and southwest façades appear to be all original. The roof shingling and flush ridge cresting has been replaced.

Workmanship The house’s visible workmanship appears to be original.

Feeling The feeling of the house and surroundings are as they were in the early suburban period.

Association Were he to return from prison and the dead, Thomas Brecheen would instantly recognize his house, though it no longer faces the Dallidet vineyards.

ATTACHMENT B

83 Conclusion
The Thomas and May Miller Brecheen House is the purest distillation of the planar, linear, curvilinear, and minimalist ideals of the Streamline Colonial architectural type in San Luis Obispo. It is significant in embodying a type of architecture and possessing high artistic values; its excellent integrity communicates this significance; and it is important and unique in San Luis Obispo. Its addition to the Master List would help to redress the paucity of Master Listings among the more modest but no less significant bungalows at the east end of the Old Town Historic District.

ATTACHMENT B

1 Addendum to Brecheen House Master List Application
Uniqueness and Importance
Contents
Summary Conclusion 1
Methodology and Statistical Results 3
Data set 3
Period 3
Contemporary commonalities in Colonial Revival, with departures from American Colonial architecture 4
Seven subtypes 4
Photographs of the 57 Contributing List Colonial Revival Bungalows in the 5 Old Town Historic District
I. Asymmetric pedimented porch 5
II. Asymmetric pedimented window bay 6
III. Symmetric pedimented porch 7
IV. Unpedimented full-width porch 7
V. Asymmetric and unpedimented with centered pyramidal dormer 7 VI. Asymmetric and unpedimented without dormer 8
VII. Asymmetric with irimoya roof 9
The Brecheen House: Architectural Uniqueness and Importance 10 Stripping of decorative, nonfunctional structures from the roof 10 Low roof pitch 10
Bellcast 10
Deep, soffited eaves 10
Complex window geometry 11
Invisible door 13
Single column 13
Solid parapet 13
Frieze, architrave, corner boards, and baseboard 14
Integrity 14
Conclusion 16
Summary Conclusion
At its May 2022 hearing, the CHC asked applicant for clarification of how 1133 Pismo in the Old Town Historic District meets the “most unique and important” standard of the Master List. The clarification required analysis of the house in comparison with its class. I used a data set of the 57 Contributing List one-story Colonial Revival bungalows in the district, focusing on where the Brecheen House was restrained by physical and stylistic considerations, and where its designer took it in unique directions to embody its genre.

The data shows the house to be a rare subtype of the Colonial Revival bungalow stripped of structural but nonfunctional roof decoration. Within this minimalist form, the anonymous designer lowered the roof pitch to the greatest extent of any of these bungalows; extended the eaves further than any other; accentuated both with a japoniste bellcast; created the district’s most sophisticated geometric pattern of fenestration; successfully experimented

ATTACHMENT C

2 with minimizing columns and doors; and framed the whole with a unique pattern of frieze, architrave, corner boards, and baseboard. These are details, but as the great Modernist Ludwig Mies van der Rohe said, “God is in the details.” The result is minimalist, linear, curvilinear, and unified: empirically the district’s most streamlined bungalow in our National Revival style at the cusp of America’s suburban bungalowization. Embodiment of core stylistic goals, juxtaposed to revolutionary ability to stretch the envelope and to find complexity in simplicity, simplicity in complexity, are what make the Brecheen House not just unique but important—San Luis Obispo’s bungaloid forerunner to Purcell and Elmslie’s 1912 “Airplane House” at Woods Hole and equally worthy of distinction, despite—or because of—its modest size and anonymous designer.

James Papp, PhD, on behalf of Christopher Frago and Heidi Howland-Frago | 2 August 2022

ATTACHMENT C

3 Methodology and Statistical Results
Data set To address the CHC’s question in a statistically unbiased way, I selected as a data set all one-story Colonial Revival bungalows on the Contributing List in the Old Town Historic District. This is a large list—57 properties—because almost no one-story Colonials were originally placed on the Master List, and almost no one-and-a-half or two-story Colonials were originally placed on the Contributing List. In the Old Town Historic District, the Master and Contributing Lists were essentially distinguished by size.

Period A quick check of permits and newspapers shows 1900–1913 construction dates for 15 of the 57 bungalows. The 1907 Brecheen House falls in the middle of the range.

Contemporary commonalities in Colonial Revival, with departures from American Colonial architecture What is remarkable about the 57 bungalows is their consistency. Each one has (or originally had) a columned front porch. Each one has a hip roof that appears pyramidal on the street façade, with roof ridge running front to back. 53 (93%) of the porches are asymmetrically placed, a departure from actual American Colonial architecture, as Neoclassical entry porticoes were centered, quite often under a pediment. 31 (54%) of these bungalows also have a front-facing pediment, though a majority (55%) of these pediments are placed over the window bay rather than the porch:
another departure from Colonial architecture. Only one of the pediments is centered, with the other 30 (97%) asymmetric.

A hip roof with a pyramidal front façade is also an extreme outlier among American Colonial structures, particularly the New England ones on which McKim, Mead, and White originally based the Colonial Revival style. Most New England Colonial houses are sidegabled; the few hip roofs have the ridge running parallel to the street.

McKim, Mead, and White revived these broad-façade Colonials for the landed plutocracy, but a broad façade is impractical on a narrow suburban lot. Some ur–suburban architect may have borrowed the form from Southern Colonial houses, whose H-form wings more often have pyramidal façades; these were being published around the turn of the century.

Rear of Thomas Pinckney’s 1797 Eldorado, South Carolina, sketched before burning in 1897.

Wings present a pyramidal roof to the garden, like the Colonial Revival bungalow to the street (C. R. S. Horton, Savannah and Parts of the Far South, 1902, The Georgian Period, vol. iii). At right, one of Emil John’s three adjoining Eastlake cottages, Santa Cruz, 1884. Two survive.

ATTACHMENT C

4 But asymmetric pyramid-and-gable Eastlake cottages—unpedimented—were in Santa Cruz by 1884 (Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey [San Francisco: Page, 1976], p. 70; see photograph above).

In short: Colonial Revival suburban bungalows are likely to be inconsistent with actual American Colonial architecture but overwhelmingly consistent with one another.

Seven subtypes These 57 porched and pyramidal bungalows fall into 7 subtypes (percentages add to 102% due to rounding):

1. asymmetric pedimented porch (23%)

2. asymmetric pedimented window bay (30%)

3. symmetric pedimented porch (2%)

4. unpedimented full-width porch (5%)

5. asymmetric and unpedimented with centered pyramidal dormer (20%)

6. asymmetric and unpedimented without dormer (11%)

7. Japanese irimoya roof, hipped with gablet (11%) (This is the only subtype covered in A Field Guide to American Houses [under Queen Anne], but all can be found across the US.) The Brecheen House is subtype 6, a bungalow with neither pediment nor dormer.

Photographs of all 57 bungalows appear under their subtype on pages 4–8 following, in order to make the similarities and differences visually clear.

ATTACHMENT C

5 I. Asymmetric pedimented porch (13, or 23%)

1. 641 Buchon

4. 985 Pismo

7. 481 Islay (later porch
enclosure)

10. 1045 Islay
With torii-inspired entry

13. 1053 Islay|Akin 1909

2. 1132 Buchon

5. 663 Pismo|Chapek 1913

8. 572 Islay
With pyramidal dormer

11. 1160 Buchon

3. 1137 Buchon

6. 657 Pismo|Chapek ca 1913

9. 1035 Islay

12. 1512 Santa Rosa

ATTACHMENT C

6 II. Asymmetric pedimented window bay (17, or 30%)

14. 578 Buchon|Esplin 1910

17. 1190 Buchon

20. 1035 Leff

23. 1627 Santa Rosa

26. 1428 Morro|Storz 1908

15. 1051 Buchon

18. 683 Pismo

21. 1606 Santa Rosa

24. 1543 Morro

27. 1720 Morro (later second
pediment and porch
enclosure)

16. 1165 Buchon

19. 1005 Islay

22. 1504 Santa Rosa|1900

25. 1520 Morro (later porch
enclosure)
With pyramidal dormer

28. 1624 Santa Rosa (later
enclosure)

ATTACHMENT C

7 With pyramidal dormer

29. 972 Church
With second pediment

30. 1029 Islay
III. Symmetric pedimented porch (1, or 2%)

31. 533 Buchon|Lyman 1909
IV. Unpedimented full-width porch (3, or 5%)
With dormer

32. 1145 Buchon 33. 1151 Buchon
Without dormer

34. 1157 Buchon
V. Asymmetric and unpedimented with centered pyramidal dormer (11, or 20%)

35. 1171 Pismo 36. 1176 Buchon 37. 1011 Islay

ATTACHMENT C

8 38. 1040 Islay

41. 1045 Leff

44. 1512 Morro

39. 1044 Islay

42. 1027 Leff

45. 1535 Morro

40. 1059 Leff|Wallis 1909

43. 1705 Santa Rosa (later
porch enclosure)
VI. Asymmetric and unpedimented without dormer (6, or 11%)

46. 880 Buchon|1904

49. 878 Islay

47. 1042 Pismo (later porch
enclosure)

50. 1017 Islay|Truesdale ’08

48. 1527 Nipomo

51. 1133 Pismo|1907

ATTACHMENT C

9 VII. Asymmetric with irimoya roof (6, or 11%)
52a. 770 Islay (west façade)|
Strickland 1904

54. 1542 Osos

57. 1535 Nipomo
52b. 770 Islay (south façade)

55. 1533 Osos

53. 870 Islay

56. 1529 Osos

ATTACHMENT C

10 The Brecheen House: Uniqueness and Importance

Stripping of decorative, nonfunctional roof structures The Brecheen House is one of only 6, or 11%, of Colonial Revival bungalows in the Old Town Historic District with neither pediment, dormer, nor irimoya gablet topping the roof. These decorative structures on the other 89% of bungalows normally exhibit even more interior complexity: e.g., 74% of the pediments in the data set have decorative wall shingling and 61%, attic windows or vents.

Low roof pitch The 57 Colonial Revival bungalows have roof pitches up to 40%. The absence of pediments and dormers allows the roofs of subtype 6 to be lower-pitched. Of their 6 roofs, 3 (figs. 46, 49, and 50) are within the normal range of pitch for the complete data set of 57, at 25–30%, but the other 3 (figs. 47, 48, and 51 [the Brecheen House]) are the lowest pitched for the complete data set, at only 12% pitch. This minimal-pitch subset represents 5% of the complete data set.

Bellcast Only 12, or 21%, of the the complete data set’s roofs are bellcast. Of sybtype 6, all three of the high-pitch roofs are bellcast, but the Brecheen House has the only lowpitch bellcast roof, creating a unique effect, with the vanishing pitch at the eaves accentuating horizontality.

The pyramidal bellcast roof is clearly a Japanese aesthetic reference—a hogyo roof—in the context of increasing visual knowledge of Japanese architecture through Japanese entries in American World’s Fairs. San Luis Obispo’s irimoya roofs, a number of which are bellcast, also emphasize this origin (see the Hazzard and Minnie Root House at 770 Islay, figs. 52a and b; the Master List Strickland House at 1152 Buchon in the main application, the Contributing List Page House at 1344 Mill, and the Master List Payne House at 1144 Palm).

Deep, soffited eaves All but 5 of the 57 bungalows in the complete data set appear to have soffits or closed eaves, the exceptions including the overtly japoniste 1705 Santa Rosa (fig. 42, bellcast roof), 1535 Nipomo (fig. 56, irimoya roof), 770 Islay (figs. 51a. and b, irimoya and bellcast roof), and 1054 Islay (fig. 13, torii-inspired entry arch), all of which have exposed rafter tails, whether faux or not. In addition, 5 of the soffited houses have faux rafter tails attached to the soffits for decorative effect. Thus the Brecheen House is not particularly rare for the clean lines of its soffited eaves.

The Brecheen House is unique, however, for having the furthest extending eaves—in comparison to its clad wall height—among all 57 bungalows, accentuating its linear horizontality. The Brecheen house’s eave-to-wall ratio is 1 to 4, compared to 1 to 4.5 for the data set’s irimoya roofs, to as low as 1 to 7 for the more traditional Colonial Revival bungalows.

ATTACHMENT C

11 Complex window geometry One of the most unusual and skillfully designed features of the Brecheen House is its street façade windows, comprising a single window in the porch and triple window on the bay, the latter consisting of a central window identical in size and configuration to the porch window, flanked by windows of half the width and half the number of rectangular muntined lights. This achieves the balance of a semi-octagonal bay window but flush to the wall rather than protruding, to emphasize planarity. The muntined upper sashes are half the height of the lower plate-glass sashes, and all sashes are functioning, with meeting rails of the same height, emphasizing horizontal lines. Head and sill extend slightly to the side, a further subtle accentuation of horizontality.

This flush, triple-window arrangement is rare, its details unique. In the 57 bungalows, 22 (39%) of the windows on asymmetric bays are protruding semi-octagons, a common feature of Colonial Revival (though not of actual Colonial) houses. Another 17 (30%) are single sash windows, 9 (16%) double windows, and only 5 (9%) triple windows flush to the wall, as in the Brecheen House. The 4 symmetrical bungalows all have flush single or double windows.

The other 4 houses with—like the Brecheen House—flush triple windows treat them with dramatically less precision and creativity. 1042 Pismo (fig. 47) has no clear proportional relation between its central and side windows, the upper and lower sashes are the same height, and the porch window is obscured by subsequent enclosure, so any relationship is unclear. The triple window at 1051 Buchon (fig. 15) also lacks a clear proportion between center and sides, the bar across its nonfunctioning center window doesn’t match the height of the meeting bars of the side sash windows, its double porch window doesn’t echo elements of the triple window on the bay, and all the panes are plain plate glass.

The triple windows at 663 and 657 Pismo (figs. 5 and 6) do have side sashes half the width of the central sash, as with the Brecheen House, but in each case triple windows are merely duplicated in bay and porch, rather than the Brecheen House’s creative echo of its single window on the porch in the center of its triple window on the bay. Decorative muntins at 663 Pismo and leading at 657 Pismo are reserved for the upper part of the nonfunctioning center windows, and the bars separating the decorative from the plate-glass sections (twothirds up the window) are a different height than the meeting rails of the sashes (halfway up). Muntined diamond panes at 663 and leaded diamond-topped panes at 657 don’t contribute horizontal linearity. They are not bad design, but they are—compared to the precise geometry of the Brecheen House fenestration—careless.

ATTACHMENT C

12 The flush triple windows of 1051 Buchon (top
left), 1042 Pismo (bottom left), and 657
Pismo (above) do not match the attention to
proportion, rhythm, and continuity of the
Brecheen House triple window (below).

The Brecheen House’s rectangular muntined lights are rare. 32 (56%) of the 57 bungalows have plain plate glass sash windows, 12 (21%) have diamond-topped vertical lights, and only 4 (7%) have rectangular lights. But the Brecheen lights are not random: they have an aesthetic function directly related to their form and proportions: nearly double in height to width, they almost exactly echo the proportions of the porch and central bay windows themselves, providing a subliminal geometric harmony.

Stacked double, twelve across, and repeated on the porch at six across, their effect is rhythmic horizontality. Compare the off-square lights in only the center window of 1042 Pismo, a perfunctory attempt at decoration with no thought to greater structural effect.

Taken together, the geometry of the windows on the Brecheen façade is varied but unified, aesthetically subtle but forceful, and entirely unique in its relentless attention to geometric

ATTACHMENT C

13 detail among the 57 Contributing List Colonial Revival bungalows—or for that matter the Master List Colonial Revival houses—in the Old Town Historic District.

Invisible door The Brecheen House hides its door by turning it to the side, one of only 7 (12%) in the complete data set that do so, leaving the singular window to center and dominate the porch wall, just as its twin centers and dominates the bay.

Single column All 57 bungalows have (or had) porch columns, ranging from a maximum of 8 to a minimum of 1. There are 43% with 2 columns, 23% with 3, and 14% with 4 columns. Only 9% have a single-column design, and in the 4 cases apart from the Brecheen House, the single-columned porch is a minimal entry porch rather than, as with the Brecheen House, a wide porch for sitting.

Brecheen porch

1044 Islay, one of two singlecolumn duplex entries
1533 Osos entry porch
The Brecheen porch’s single, slightly bulging Tuscan column has a triple function: to express (1) minimalism and (2) counterpoint and (3) not block the view of the aesthetically crucial porch window and its relationship to the center window on the bay. 59% of the data set use Tuscan columns, but it’s nonetheless an intentional choice of the Brecheen designer: projecting, like the bellcast roof, a combined linearity and curvilinearity, along with Neoclassical reference that was considered compatible with Japonisme (e.g., 1053 Islay [fig. 13] uses square columns with Tuscan base and capital to form a Japanese torii-inspired entry arch). Of the 6 bungalows of the Brecheen subtype 6, 3 use Tuscan columns; 2, busier spindle columns; and 1, plain 4x4 posts. 12 (21%) of the bungalows in the overall data set use spindle columns, and 12 use the square columns better known on contemporary Craftsman houses, some of them in elephant leg form. Of these, the Tuscan column is clearly the apposite choice for the Brecheen House.

Solid parapet Like 38 (67%) of examples of the data set, the Brecheen House has a solid porch parapet rather than an open balustrade (15, or 26%) (others, altered, are unknown). So the solid parapet is not rare but is still an architectural choice that enhances linearity, horizontality, and streamlining.

ATTACHMENT C

14 Frieze, architrave, corner boards, and baseboard Key to the house’s streamlined effect is the linearity and unity of its wide accent boards against the narrow novelty siding.

A blank frieze below the
eaves occurs in 43 (75%) of
the data set. 37 (68%) have
defined corner boards, and
39% have defined boards for
the base of the wood wall.

Very rare, however, is a
façade-wide architrave
below the frieze: the
Brecheen House is one of
only 6 (11%) that have them,
3 of these from subtype 6.

As well, the Brecheen House is 1 of only 2 bungalows employing frieze, architrave, base, and corner board. The other is Charles Strickland’s 1904 japoniste Colonial Revival Hazzard and Minnie Root House at 770 Islay (figs. 52a and b), a forerunner to Strickland’s own 1906–1907 japoniste Colonial Revival Master List house at 1152 Buchon. The Root House, like the Brecheen House, is a strong candidate for Master Listing, though with less integrity than the Brecheen House because of new fenestration.

The Brecheen House’s unique innovation is to use the same width of board for architrave, corner boards, and base to create a unifying and streamlining frame for street and side façades. The window casings also use the same width, further accentuating the unity.

Integrity No example of the Brecheen House’s subtype 6—the pedimentless and dormerless bungalow—is on the Old Town Historic District’s Master List. Of the 6 possible Contributing List candidates, 1042 Pismo had its porch enclosed in the 1930s or ’40s, 880 Buchon has had a deck added to the front, 1527 Pismo has new fenestration on its façade, and 1017 Islay has an overtopping stucco addition that has subsumed part of the original house. There is evidence that 878 Islay was moved from a different location, and has an addition on the side. Of the 6 of subtype 6, the Brecheen House is not only the bestATTACHMENT C

15 designed example, in its original location and with an addition conforming to the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation—at the rear, differentiated, and compatible in materials; features; size, scale, and proportion; and massing—it retains the best integrity to communicate its significance.

ATTACHMENT C

16 Conclusion
Analyzing the complete data set of 57 Old Town Historic District Contributing List Colonial Revival bungalows allows us to define what is unique and important in the Brecheen House. As Mies said, “God is in the details.” The anonymous designer of the Brecheen House had a keen sense of the streamlined aesthetic goal of the Colonial Revival and the potential of the small suburban bungalow within that genre. But the designer also had the extraordinary command of rare and unique structural and decorative detail—from roof pitch to corner board width—to make sure the result would demonstrate, as Mies also said, “Less is more.”
The Contributing List and Master List data sets, in juxtaposition, also demonstrate that admission to the Old Town Historic District’s Master List was largely a matter of size, abundance of decorative features, and proximity to Nob Hill. The Brecheen House—as the distillation of streamline Colonial bungalow architecture at the opposite end of the district—was destined to be excluded. It may be the finest but is not the only bungalow that merits Master List protection for embodying a character-defining style of San Luis architecture. After forty years, we need to take a more systematic look.

The 1907 Brecheen House may have been influenced by Prairie style aesthetics (as displayed in the 1912 Airplane House below), but Purcell and Elmslie may equally have borrowed from the bellcast roof, deep eaves, and clustered windows of japoniste Streamline Colonial

ATTACHMENT C

12 Zoning, or remove the property from historic listing if the structure on the property no longer meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the process for listing set forth herein.

14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource, the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the following criteria:

A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. (1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together.
(2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements.

Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. (3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to:

ATTACHMENT D

13 a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30).

B. Historic Criteria
(1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials).
(2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
(i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
(ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history).
(3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g., County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Park Hotel).

ATTACHMENT D

14 C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the original foundation has been changed, if known.
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance.
(3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.

14.01.080 Historic District Designation, Purpose and Application A. Historic (H) District designation. All properties within historic districts shall be designated by an “H” zoning. Properties zoned “H” shall be subject to the provisions and standards as provided in Ordinance 17.54 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code.

B. Purposes of Historic Districts. The purposes of historic districts and H zone designation are to:
(1) Implement cultural resource preservation policies of the General Plan, the preservation provisions of adopted area plans, the Historic Preservation and Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, and (2) Identify and preserve definable, unified geographical entities that possess a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development; (3) Implement historic preservation provisions of adopted area and neighborhood improvement plans;
(4) Enhance and preserve the setting of historic resources so that surrounding land uses and structures do not detract from the historic or architectural integrity of designated historic resources and districts; and
(5) Promote the public understanding and appreciation of historic resources.

C. Eligibility for incentives. Properties zoned as Historic Preservation (H) shall be eligible for preservation incentive and benefit programs as established herein, in the Guidelines and other local, state and federal programs.

ATTACHMENT D

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: November 10, 2022
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Greg Avakian, Parks and Recreation Director
Meghan Burger, Recreation Manager
VIA: Derek Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 5f - INTEGRATE OVERSIGHT OF THE JACK HOUSE COMMITTEE

TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WITH CONTINUED

CITY STAFF SUPPORT OF DOCENTS, BUILDING AND GROUNDS

MAINTENANCE, AND ADVISORY BODIES
Amend Recommendation No. 1 as follows:

As recommended by the Jack House Committee, and as approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission, adopt a Draft Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, to amend the Advisory Body Handbook for revision of the Parks and Recreation Commission Bylaws and removal of the Jack House Committee Bylaws,” which will transfer oversight of, and all responsibilities within the subject matter of the Jack House Committee to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

Issues surrounding Jack House historic architecture and gardens shall be handled through consultation with the Architectural Review Commission and the Cultural Heritage Committee, as needed. Amend language in the Parks & Recreation Commission Bylaws to provide that one Commissioner shall serve as a direct liaison to the volunteer Jack House Docent Committee.

Attached, is the Draft Resolution to “amend the Advisory Body Handbook for revision of the Parks and Recreation Commission Bylaws and removal of the Jack House Committee Bylaws”. This document was noted in the Agenda Report for this item as Attachment F, but was not previously attached to the report.

Attachment:

A – Draft Resolution amending PRC Bylaws

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2022 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE ADVISORY BODY

HANDBOOK FOR REVISION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION

COMMISSION BYLAWS AND REMOVAL OF THE JACK HOUSE

COMMITTEE BYLAWS
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo, the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, and its own resolutions, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo appoints individuals to serve on its advisory bodies; and WHEREAS, those advisory bodies have proposed bylaws to aid them in conducting their meetings fairly, smoothly, efficiently and in accordance with law; and WHEREAS, there have been challenges in maintaining a quorum for the Jack House Committee with the membership required by the 1975 Grant Deed conveying the Jack House to the City; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022, the individual Jack House Committee members submitted a memorandum to the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission recommending the transfer of oversight of the Jack House, and all responsibilities within the subject matter of the Jack House Committee, to the Parks and Recreation Commission; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 2022, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed their bylaws and unanimously recommended to Council: 1) to transfer oversight of the Jack House and move all responsibilities within the subject matter of the Jack House Committee to the Parks and Recreation Commission; 2) to consult with the Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee as needed regarding issues impacting the historic architecture and gardens; and, 3) to designate one Parks and Recreation Commissioner to serve as a direct liaison to the existing volunteer Jack House Docent Committee; and
WHEREAS, City staff have also reviewed said bylaws and have made suggestions for their revision; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office concurred that there are no legal barriers in the recommendations to transfer oversight of the Jack House from the Jack House Committee to the Parks and Recreation Commission; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Charter Section 1204 the City of San Luis Obispo, each body established by ordinance shall present in writing to the City Council for approval its bylaws for procedure, including amendments thereto; and

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of November 15, 2022, the City Council reviewed proposed changes to advisory body bylaws, as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Parks & Recreation Commission Bylaws. The bylaws of the Parks and Recreation Commission are hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
SECTION 2. Jack House Bylaws. The Jack House Bylaws are hereby removed from the Advisory Body Handbook.

Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ____________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2022. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

J. Parks & Recreation Commission Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) is a body of citizens appointed to advise the City's Parks & Recreation Department and the City Council on the development and operation of recreation programs and parks, and on the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Element of the City's General Plan. It also provides recommendations to the City Council and San Luis Obispo Coastal Unified School District Board of Trustees regarding those facilities which have been mutually designated as joint use facilities; and for the operation of recreational facilities, priority for use of the facilities, and development of new recreation facilities at Sinsheimer Park.

Jack House: The PRC is charged with the responsibility to advise the City Council on matters concerning facility use, fees and charges, capital improvements, and any other item affecting the House and Grounds.

ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP

1. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall consist of seven members.

2. Members are appointed by the City Council for a term of four years. Members are eligible for reappointment for an additional four-year term. Members are subject to a term limit of eight years, or two consecutive four-year terms.

ARTICLE 3. MEETINGS

1. Regular meetings of the Parks & Recreation Commission shall be held on the first Wednesday of each month at 5:30 p.m., except during the annual tour of the City's parks and facilities.

2. Meetings will be held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. In the event that the Parks & Recreation Commission chooses to hold all or any portion of a regular meeting other than at City Hall, then the place of such meeting shall be posted at least 72 hours in advance at the Parks & Recreation Department office, 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, California and on the bulletin-board located at the entrance to the City Hall prior to the established meeting time.

3. A standing item for the Jack House reporting shall be included on every agenda.

ARTICLE 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS

1. In April of each year, the Parks & Recreation Commission shall select a Chair and Vice Chair from among its members to serve a one-year term. Special elections for Chair or Vice Chair shall be held at the first meeting following the unscheduled resignation of an officer, or other reason for an officer position to become vacant.

2. Commissioners shall serve as Chair or Vice Chair at the discretion of the Commission.

3. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Parks & Recreation Commission. The Vice Chair will act as the Chair in the absence of the Chair or in case of the inability of the Chair to act.

4. In the event that the Chair and Vice Chair are unavailable to attend to their duties, the assembled members shall determine a Chair Pro Tempore.

5. No person shall serve as Chair or Vice Chair for more than three consecutive terms.

ARTICLE 5. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
All meetings will be conducted in accordance with City practices, customs, and policies. Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall be utilized as a guide in the conduct of meetings.

ARTICLE 6. QUORUM
A quorum is the majority of the total number of established members of the commission..

ARTICLE 7. VOTING

1. Except as otherwise provided in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and state law, no resolution, motion or other action shall be passed or become effective without receiving the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members present.

2. Failure to receive such an affirmative vote shall result in failure or denial, as appropriate, of the motion, resolution or other action.

3. Except as allowed under the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, any member abstaining due to a declared conflict of interest shall not participate in the discussion of the items or otherwise influence or attempt to influence in any manner the decision on the item.

4. All members, when present, must vote except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of interest.

5. Failure or refusal to vote when present—except for a declared conflict of interest—shall be counted as an affirmative vote.

ARTICLE 8. PUBLIC RECORDS
Records of all public hearings shall be made available to the public in the offices of the Parks & Recreation Department.

ARTICLE 9. ATTENDANCE
Any member of the Parks & Recreation Commission who fails, for any reason, to attend three consecutive regular meetings or a total of six regular meetings within any twelve month period shall be automatically be considered for replacement by the City Council. The Chairperson of the Parks & Recreation Commission shall inform the Council of such a situation, explaining any special circumstances.

ARTICLE 10. COMMITTEES

1. A member of the Parks & Recreation Commission shall serve as a liaison to the Jack House, attending all docent meetings and providing a report out of docent updates at each PRC meeting. represent the Commission and sit as a voting member on the Jack House Committee.

2. Additional committee assignments shall be made as deemed necessary by the Chair.

3. Committee assignments will be made in April of each year.

ARTICLE 11. AMENDMENTS

1. These bylaws may be recommended for amendment by the majority vote of the Commission members present at a regular meeting, provided that a quorum is present.

Members shall receive the proposed amendments at least seven days prior to the meeting in which the amendment is proposed.

2. Prior to May 1 in each odd-numbered year, these bylaws shall be reviewed by the Commission. Any proposed changes shall be submitted to the City Council for approval.

If no changes are proposed, a report of the review shall be submitted.

Item 5f
Department: Parks and Recreation
Cost Center: 7008
For Agenda of: 11/15/2022
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Avakian, Parks & Recreation Director
Prepared By: Meghan Burger, Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: INTEGRATE OVERSIGHT OF THE JACK HOUSE ADVISORY

COMMITTEE TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION WITH

CONTINUED CITY STAFF SUPPORT OF DOCENTS, BUILDING AND

GROUNDS MAINTENANCE AND ADVISORY BODIES

RECOMMENDATION

1. As recommended by the Jack House Advisory Committee and as approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission, adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, to amend the Advisory Body Handbook for revision of the Parks and Recreation Commission Bylaws and removal of the Jack House Committee Bylaws” which will transfer oversight of, and all responsibilities within the subject matter of the Jack House Advisory Committee’s, to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Issues surrounding Jack House historic architecture and gardens shall be handled through consultation with the Architecture Review Committee and Cultural Heritage Committee, as needed. Require one Commissioner to serve as a direct liaison to the Jack House by means of the Jack House Docent committee.

2. As recommended by staff to effectuate the Jack House Advisory Committee and Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendations to Council:
a. Consolidate the Jack House Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission into one advisory body known as the Parks and Recreation Commission.
b. Upon a vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Commission, consider appointing a former Jack House Advisory Committee member first to the Commission. c. Consistent with the Charter, amend the Bylaws of the Parks and Recreation Commission to reflect these additional responsibilities.

POLICY CONTEXT
Council Policies and Procedures Handbook 6.5: It is important that advisory bodies wishing to communicate recommendations to the City Council do so through adopted or approved Council agenda procedures. Staff members shall assist the advising body Chair to insure appropriate legal review or City and state legislation is in compliance.

Item 5f
Advisory Body Handbook Section 6 - Advisory Body Bylaws: Permanent advisory bodies are established by the City Council by either ordinance or resolution. Membership is defined in the enabling legislation and all members are appointed by the Council.

Members are selected:
 On the basis of interest, experience and knowledge in the field pertinent to the committee.
 To represent a particular segment of the community (student, elderly, disabled).  From a broad representation of community interest and expertise.

Most advisory bodies meet regularly at established times. Technical or special-purpose bodies may meet regularly or only when projects or proposals require their attention.

Section 1204 of the City Charter requires that each advisory body established by ordinance shall present in writing to the Council for approval its bylaws for procedure:
purpose, specific function, meetings, officers, budget, etc.

DISCUSSION
Background
History of City’s Ownership of the Jack House and Jack House Committee The Historic Jack House and Gardens (collectively referred to as “The Jack House”) were deeded to the City of San Luis Obispo on March 10, 1975. For nearly five decades, the City has managed, maintained, and operated the Jack House consistent with the general terms of the Grant Deed (Attachment A). As is typical with historic homes and gardens, The Jack House had a group of dedicated volunteers who have helped with many aspects of the community's enjoyment of the Jack House. Additionally, when The Jack House was deeded to the City, as part of the applicable deed, the Jack House Advisory Committee (JHC) was created to provide programmatic and maintenance recommendations to Council.

Volunteers to the JHC as well as docents (often members of the Committee) have spent thousands of hours over the years educating visitors through countless tours and events at The Jack House. When the JHC was formed per the Grant Deed, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) was in its infancy (November 1973) and the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) was not yet in existence (November, 1981).

History of Programming at the Jack House and the Jack House Committee Programming at the Jack House has been provided by Jack House Docents as well as Parks and Recreation Department Staff over the years, both in partnership and as sole projects. Programming from the Docents focuses on programming inside of the Jack House (Victorian Tea, Victorian Christmas, “trunk shows”, community tours) while Parks and Recreation Department programs events in the Gardens (Movies in the Gardens, Concerts, and even a past Wedding Fair) in addition to reserving the Bridal Suite and

Item 5f
Gardens for weddings and events.

The JHC has transitioned from a robust and active Advisory Body to one which has not had a full roster since 2019. Over the years, there have been challenges in keeping a full Advisory Body as outlined in the Grant Deed, most recently resulting in a lack of quorum for any business within the JHC purview to occur. Per the request of the JHC, in 2017, staff researched how other municipalities manage historic homes and properties as part of the Parks and Recreation General Element Master Plan process (now the adopted Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future), which resulted in recommendations in continuing the current practices.

Current Status of the Jack House Committee
In the summer of 2021, the remaining members of the JHC spoke with staff regarding the future of the Committee, as the “need” to continue as a committee felt less significant due to City staff managing Capital Improvement Projects (with input from the CHC and ARC as appropriate), coordination of volunteer workdays, facility rentals, and programming of community events. Overall, they felt the City’s care for, and activation of the House is significant and in alignment with the original intent of the Grant Deed.

Over the past 12 months, with additional resignations of JHC Members, this conversation continued and resulted in a recommendation memo from the members of the JHC to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) on October 10, 2022., outlining three options (Attachment B) for restructure which Staff presented along with Staff Agenda Correspondence (Attachment C) to the PRC at the October 12, 2022, meeting. The timing of this request coincides with the addition of a City staff position, a Volunteer Coordinator, who will be tasked with the responsibility to support the Docent program. In addition, as staff evaluate practices as the programs continue to right themselves after the pandemic shutdowns, the conversation of whether the JHC continues to be necessary and feasible to meet the original intent of the Grant Deed and how it aligns with the Blueprint for the Future has remained relevant.

Proposed Advisory Body Change and Jack House Grand Deed Analysis The proposed transfer of the oversight of the Jack House to PRC from the JHC provided the opportunity for the City Attorney’s Office to review the Grant Deed and applicable legal authority and concur that there are no legal barriers in the recommendations to transfer oversight of the Jack House from the JHC to PRC.

The City’s dedication and support to the property over the years continues to meet the intention of the original Grant Deed by maintaining a platform for an advisory body to provide programmatic and maintenance recommendations to Council regarding the House and Gardens. As outlined in the Grant Deed, care of the historic home and property is of upmost importance, and City staff maintain both on a regular basis. In addition, staff and volunteer docent groups collectively provide programming and community building opportunities at the House and this is not expected to change should the advisory body role of the JHC be assumed by the PRC. As for guidance on historical and architectural relevance, both the staff and PRC will be able to defer to CHC and ARC for guidance.

Item 5f
Grant Deed: Initial Requirements and Relevance Today
Jack House Advisory Committee Requirement of the Grand Deed When the City was deeded the Jack House, it was done so with several stipulations requiring the City’s agreement. Of those included the appointment of a seven-member advisory body. From the Grant Deed: “Said committee shall recommend basic rules and regulations for the use of the residence and grounds which may include, but are not limited to, permitted uses, conditions of use, hours and fees, if any. The committee shall serve without pay and consist of city residents including:
(a) One member from the San Luis Obispo County Historical Society; (b) One member from the faculty of the School of Architecture and Environmental Design, California Polytechnic State University, preferably an architectural historian;
(c) One member from the Ornamental Horticulture faculty of the California Polytechnic State University;
(d) One member from the Parks and Recreation Commission; (e) Two members selected at large;
(f) For a period of twenty (20) years from the date hereof, the seventh member of the committee shall be an heir of Robert Edgar Jack and Nellie Hollister Jack; the city residency requirement may be waived for this member. Thereafter, this member may be selected at large.
(g) Committee appointments, tenure and rules of conduct shall be the same as for other advisory bodies to the City Council, e.g., the Planning Commission.” Jack House Docents Historically
The Jack House Docent group has historically served as tour guides and educators, hosting tours to the community and specialized tours to classes, wedding parties and other community groups. The JHC does not have direct oversight of the Docent group; however, the Docent Coordinator traditionally provides updates to the Committee and oftentimes Committee members also serve as Docents. This arrangement has served the City well for decades. Unfortunately, over time, the volunteer base and interest has waned, due to a variety of factors such as changing volunteer dynamics, loss of interest in a program or lack of community awareness to the volunteer opportunity.

Current Role of City Departments
The Public Works Department provides overall maintenance and daily upkeep of the Jack House and Gardens. The Parks and Recreation Department engages the community through programming at the Jack House and Gardens along with support of the Docent program. Staff coordinate events at the Jack House Gardens (including the Spring Concert Series and Movies in the Garden, Yoga Classes) and manage and staff all community facility rentals of the gardens for events such as birthdays and wedding celebrations.

Item 5f
JHC Participation Trends and Challenges
The Committee roster over the past two decades is unique in the fact that most of the member composition has remained the same. The City Clerk’s office has record of only 11 different individuals who have filled six of the seven positions (not including the PRC representative position). Many of these 11 individuals served for over 10 years, some even since the early 2000’s and earlier. In recent years, the Committee has been challenged in fulfilling positions when the terms expire, resulting in inconsistent vacancies, and at times the inability to meet a quorum.

Of the seven necessary Committee members, there are currently only three (3) active members. The vacancy of four (4) seats is problematic as the Committee does not have a quorum (a majority of the committee), which is necessary for any business discussion or action to take place by the Committee. In addition to the current vacancies, the three Committee members who remain have been dedicated volunteers to the Jack House for a decade. Finally, some of the specific Committee eligibility requirements imposed by the Grant Deed are obsolete at this time.

Specifically, there are few architectural historians among Cal Poly's College of Architecture & Environmental Design faculty, and Ornamental Horticultural Science is not currently a major--only a concentration at the university. The time commitment required for this volunteer committee makes it difficult to attract the limited number of faculty members that meet these strict qualifications. Additionally, the roles and responsibilities of the CHC and the ARC have evolved to support many of the historic and related architectural concerns that were established at the origin of the City being deeded the Jack House property in 1975.

The JHC inquired to Staff on the roles and responsibilities of the CHC and ARC as they believed the JHC was duplicating the responsibilities. The creation and the current roles of the CHC and ARC were significant factors in the JHC members’ recommendation to transfer oversight to the PRC and utilize the skill sets of the CHC and ARC when appropriate.

Committee, Family, and Community Input
Jack House Committee Member Recommendations
On September 15, 2022, the remaining committee members met informally with City staff as there was no quorum for a formal meeting, to share concerns regarding lack of volunteers and the future of the Committee and to provide recommendations to realign oversight of the Jack House. The individual Committee members that were consulted communicated that what was necessary in 1975 is no longer relevant or feasible, as recruitment efforts have shown, and in fact recommend alternative solutions to ensuring the intent of the Grant Deed continues to be met while utilizing other staff and Advisory Body resources that are in place.

Item 5f
On September 15, 2022, the individual Committee members outlined hopes and dreams for the future of the Jack House. The individual Committee members each agreed to request a new structure of support for the Jack House, with alternatives outlined in the Memo submitted to Parks and Recreation Commission on October 10, 2022.

Committee Recommendations for
Future Support of the Jack House
Staff or Committee Assignments
1 Continue to maintain Jack House and
Gardens for public enjoyment
Ongoing by Public Works Staff
2 Promotions for events and tours of
the house
Ongoing City staff Communications and Marketing
team
3 Convert Wash House into a museum Potential project for Docent volunteers or local volunteer group
4 Open Carriage House for events and
education
Based on structural integrity, could be a project for
Docent volunteers. May require a CIP to ensure
ADA compliance and structural integrity
5 Repair and refurnish front fence Current volunteer Rotary SLO Project with Parks and Recreation staff oversight
6 Roof replacement Upcoming CIP project assigned to Public Works 7 Provide a storage unit on site Public Works potential project 8 Continue to host weddings and
special events
Ongoing by City Parks and Recreation staff
9 Utilize gardens for community
building opportunities
Ongoing by City Parks and Recreation staff
10 Provide historical guidance regarding
renovations to the inside and exterior
of the House
Cultural Heritage Committee
11 Regular oversight of the House Parks and Recreation Commissioners with one Commissioner assigned to serve as the Jack House
liaison and report out each meeting
12 Support of the Docent Program Assign to the new Volunteer Coordinator who will report to Parks and Recreation Department.

Parks and Recreation Commission Input
On October 12, 2022, staff presented a request from the members of the JHC received on October 10, 2022. After review of this document and following agenda correspondence from staff, the PRC deliberated as to the best way to support the changing needs of the Jack House property. After a comprehensive discussion and with Commissioners expressing concern to ensure the House receives enhanced support from the PRC (as compared to the current structure with a PRC member serving as a distant liaison), the PRC made the formal recommendation with a unanimous (6 aye:0 nay:1 vacancy) vote to Council to: Adopt Option 3 as Recommended by the members of the JHC with an amendment.

Item 5f
Option 3 as Recommended by JHC members: Dissolve the JHC and move all responsibility to the PRC. Issues surrounding historic architecture and gardens could be handled through consultation with the ARC and CHC, as needed. Perhaps one position on the PRC could be reserved for a JH docent member to help advocate for the concerns outlined in Alternative #1, above.

Recommendation from PRC: Transfer oversight of the Jack House Advisory Committee and move all responsibilities to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Issues surrounding historic architecture and gardens could be handled through consultation with the Architecture Review Committee and Cultural Heritage Committee, as needed.

Require one Commissioner to serve as a direct liaison to the Jack House by means of the Jack House Docent committee.

Rather than recommending reserving a PRC position to a Jack House Docent, the PRC opted to recommend the assignment of a PRC member to serve directly as a liaison to the Jack House Docent Committee. (Attachment D). While the PRC did not define what the role of the liaison would be, they requested staff to define in more detail the liaison role while keeping in mind the original intention of the Grant Deed and the requests of the JHC.

Jack Family Input
When the Committee members proposed the recommended changes, City staff reached out to Jack Family heir, Katchy Andrews, who was in favor of reassigning oversight of the Jack House and felt confident that in doing so the intent of the Grant Deed would continue to be honored by City staff and advisory bodies and could foresee no challenges. On October 26, 2022, Ms. Andrews provided written support of transitioning oversight of the Jack House from JHC to PRC (Attachment E). In addition, as she mentions in her email, Ms. Andrews oversees the Community Foundation, which is separate from City funds or oversight, but is funding used for specialized projects within the House. This will not change with the proposed transfer of oversight from JHC to PRC.

Community Input
During the community input sessions for defining City goals for the Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2024, consensus was to continue utilizing the House as currently used. There was mention of turning the house over to a non-profit to manage, while continuing to program at the gardens and exploring additional opportunities to rent out the facility space.

Manage the Jack House in a way that preserves the historic resource, makes the site more visible and welcoming, and more fully realizes its revenue-producing potential. This may mean extending open hours, signage, safe crosswalks and evaluating facility rental offerings and fees. Explore private management opportunities for the house.

Item 5f
Proposed Structure for Jack House and Gardens
Policy Guidance to Council and Enhanced Support by Staff and Volunteers Recommendations from both JHC Members and PRC include the provision of a liaison from PRC to the Jack House. City staff will continue to maintain the regular and structural integrity of the property, maintain the gardens as a community park space, manage event rentals of the gardens (including weddings), and provide community events in the gardens. Because expectations have been established, in part due to the Committee, these work projects continue to be accomplished by City staff without necessary guidance from the Committee.

1. Dedicated PRC Liaison
Included in this recommendation is the specific amendment that an individual liaison should be assigned as a direct and active liaison on the topic of the Jack House and Gardens. Specifically, PRC Bylaw Article 10.1. Amendment (outlined below) includes the recommended Amendment that “A member of the Parks and Recreation Commission shall serve as a liaison to the Jack House, attending all docent meetings and providing a report out of docent updates at each PRC meeting.” This would achieve the following:
a. Formally include a Jack House update to be agendized at all PRC meetings. b. Staff to provide a review of CIP projects to the PRC on an annual basis. c. Ensure general maintenance meets City standards.
d. Receive program and event updates from City Staff.
e. Utilize additional City Advisory Body’s for clarification of historical context:

CHC, ARC.

2. Continued Staff Support: Maintenance and Activation of the Jack House and Gardens Whether or not oversight of the Jack House is transferred to the PRC, City staff will continue to provide infrastructure support, as well as engaging the community in enjoyment of the historical house and gardens. City staff continue to maintain the regular and structural integrity of the property, maintain the gardens as a community park space, manage event rentals of the gardens (including weddings), and provide community events in the gardens.
a. Public Works Department:

1. Regular maintenance of the House and Gardens

2. Management of upcoming restoration and CIP projects
b. Parks and Recreation Department:

1. Coordination of volunteer workdays for restoration and beautification (with oversight of the appropriate City Department)

2. Docent Program Support, the “heart” of the House will receive direct support in recruiting and placing of volunteers through the City’s Volunteer Coordinator.

3. Building Community through programming in the Gardens with expansion of programs at the Gardens, including contract classes (yoga, art classes, etc.) as well as Community Events (Spring Concert series).

Item 5f

4. Collaboration of House and Garden programming: In addition to programming independently, staff will be able to coordinate and expand upon programs currently being hosted by the Docents (Winter Lights at the Jack House for example).

5. Facility Rentals: Using the Jack House Gardens for special events and weddings for outside users will continue to be a responsibility of Parks and Recreation Department

3. Role of Other City Advisory Bodies
As is current practice, staff and docents will be able to glean recommendations from the Cultural Heritage Committee or Architectural Review Committee if maintenance projects arise that fall under those advisory bodies’ purview. In addition, staff and docents will continue to use the History Center as a resource for historical context.

Recommended Additions to PRC Bylaws
In order to ensure that the intention of the Jack House Grant Deed is maintained, clearly stating expectations of the PRC to include the Jack House in monthly conversations and liaison responsibilities should be outlined in the PRC Bylaws. Three amendments are recommended (Attachment F):

Article 1. Purpose (addition to Bylaws):

JACK HOUSE: The PRC is charged with the responsibility to advise the City Council on matters concerning facility use, fees and charges, capital improvements, and any other item affecting the House and Grounds.

Article 3. Meetings (addition to Bylaws)
A standing item for Jack House reporting shall be included on every agenda.

Article 10. Committees (Amendment to Bylaws)
Replace item 1 with: A member of the Parks and Recreation Commission shall serve as a liaison to the Jack House attending all docent meetings and providing a report out of docent updates at each meeting.

Item 5f
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
Public Engagement
Public comment on the item can be provided to the City Council through written correspondence prior to the meeting and through public testimony at the meeting.

The Jack House Committee members submitted a recommendation memo to the Parks and Recreation Commission on October 10, 2022. The Parks and Recreation Commission received a Staff Agenda Correspondence for Agenda Business Item #2 at the October 12, 2022, PRC meeting. The PRC deliberated the role of the Jack House Committee for future oversight of the Jack House property and concurred on a recommendation to Council for the November 15, 2022, Council meeting. No public comment was received during the monthly PRC meeting.

Item 5f

CONCURRENCE
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the relevant property and legal documents associated with Jack House and has concluded that there are no legal barriers to the recommendations stated herein.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a "Project" under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2022-23
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $10,500 $0 $10,500 $10,500
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $10,500 $0 $10,500 $10,500
The Parks and Recreation Department budget includes promotional and advertising funds to support docent led and community events held at the Jack House and Gardens.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Council could reduce the size of the Jack House Committee membership and alter the requirements for membership. This is not recommended as both the current members of the JHC, the PRC and the Jack Family heir are in support of the proposal to have the PRC assume the responsibilities of the house as supported by staff and volunteers. It is hard to recruit volunteers, and this will allow for greater community awareness of the House and Gardens and be a more practical solution.

2. Council could change the scope of the JHC to serve on a quarterly basis or on an “on-call” basis to provide guidance when situations arise requiring historical context. This is not recommended as both the current members of the JHC, the PRC, and the Jack Family heir are in support of the proposal to have the PRC assume the responsibilities of the house as supported by staff and volunteers. It is anticipated that

Item 5f
recruitment challenges would still occur resulting in the lack of quorums for the Committee. The role of the Cultural Heritage Committee and/or the Architectural Review Committee would be included for such matters.

3. Council could direct staff to continue recruiting for Jack House Advisory Committee members and continue to serve as a liaison to the committee. This alternative is not recommended due to the historic decline in advisory body volunteers and ongoing need for support to the Jack House.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Jack House Original Grant Deed
B - Memo from Jack House Committee members to Parks and Recreation Commission October 10, 2022
C - Staff Agenda Correspondence to Parks and Recreation Commission October 12, 2022
D - Draft Minutes of the October 12, 2022, PRC meeting with recommendation to Council
E - Written support from Jack House Family heir
F - PRC Bylaws with Proposed Bylaw Amendments
G - JHC Bylaws

045950- 15 - E00000.00 REC
J
o4595141- 15ar" E00000,00CA
DOQ NO'. ° 11340 - - -- -
RECORDING REQUESTED. BY and OFFICIAL 'RECO'RN
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO- SAN LUIS OBiSPQ CO.,
CITE of SAN LUIS oBISPO APR 15 1975 P.O. Box 321
San Luis Obispo, CA 9340E W1MIAM E. ZIMARIK c
COUNTY RECOMM % ocumentary transfer tax
3C p/ ' • ] Corpu ed on foil value c -f property conveyed, COMPARED cfl__ia ; zi .Y _ _ A_ -= .

GRANT DEED
re _. _._ in ' :. c:.

Signa' urc e. ,!__ aran or agent dae, ni, ^,ing tax — irrr nam .

U_L- i:zcc- porated area City of - U n v
FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, and subject to the covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations set forth, VIRGINIA J. TYNAN, also known J
as VIRGINIA JACK TYNAN, PHYLLIS SINTON, also known as PHYLLIS JACK SINTON, MARGARET E. KAETZEL, also known as MARGARET KAETZEL, GERTRUDE K. KAETZEL, also known as KATHLEEN KAETZEL and GERTRUDE KATHLEEN KAETZEL, KATHLEEN G. VON STEIN, formerly KATHLEEN G.

NORMAND, JUDITH MEYER, formerly JUDITH KAETZEL, and MELBA RETICKER, Grantors, do hereby grant to the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, the following described real property in the City of San Luis Obispo, County of San Luis Obispo, State of California:

Commencing at a point on the southerly line of
Higuera Street South 530 7' West, One Hundred
and eighty -three feet, six inches ( 183 - 6/ 12 feet)
from the Southwest corner of Higuera and Nipoma
Streets and running thence_ south 530 7' West on
the south line of Higuera Street two hundred and
twenty -five ( 225) feet, thence south 360 53' east
to the line of Marsh Street; thence Northeasterly
along the line of Marsh Street, two hundred and
twenty -five ( 225) feet; thence at right angles
northwesterly to Higuera Street and the point of
beginning and being all that portion of Block 62
of the City of San Luis Obispo, occupied as a
residence of. R. E. Jack and wife, and extending
from Higuera Street to Marsh Street according to
two deeds: One made- by H. M. Warden to Nellie
Hollister Jack, dated August 9, 1875; and the.
other made by Thomas Higuera and others on February
11, 1876 to R. Edgar Jack, and both of record in
the Recorder' s Office of San Luis Obispo County,
State of California.

Excepting therefrom that portion thereof conveyed
to Manuel F. Lima, et ux, by deed dated September 29,
1922, and recorded October 2, 1922 in Book 157,

Also excepting therefrom that portion thereof conveyed by deed dated November 14, 1917 and recorded.

November 22, 1917, in Book 118, Page 449 of Deeds
to Nicholas F. Schlicht.
5TATZ ENT TO RETURN - ADDRESS ABOVE 1 -

L,,Z T TO RETURN AMPBS ABOVE
D94 " Vo! 18 FACE
C

a
Together with all furniture, fixtures, equipment, documents, bookstand .-other personal property situated in or on said real property.

By the acceptance of this deed, said City of San Luis
Obispo, hereinafter, referred to as, " C.ity ", agrees:
l: To keep, preserve` and use: said real property and the residence situated thereon in a manner which maintains, enhances and celebrates its place in the historical development of San Luis Obispo.

2. To refer, to the house and grounds as " The Jack Residence" as a memorial to Robert Edgar Jack and Nellie Hollister Jack, pioneers and builders, as well as devoted citizens, of San Luis Obispo City and County.

3. To maintain the original character of the house as an example of a Victorian vintage residence. General maintenance and any restoration improvements shall be in keeping with the age and period when the original residence was constructed.

4. To care for and preserve existing trees and shrubbery, and to return the gardens as much as possible to the appearance of the gardens as illustrated in photographs circa 1910 - 1920 provided by the Grantors.

5. To keep the residence and contents thereof adequately insured against loss by fire and other insurable hazards.

6. To permit, subject to reasonable. rules and regulations, residents of the City and County of San Luis Obispo, visitors and tourists to enter and inspect the residence and gardens and any displays and exhibits which from time to time may be presented.

7. To appoint a committee of seven ( 7) members whose
responsibility shall be to advise the City Council in the 2 -
NOL 10x0 PAG' 194

r
administration of The Jack Residence for the greatest possible public use and enjoyment. Said committee shall recommend basic rules and regulations for the use of the residence and grounds which may include, but are not limited to, permitted uses, conditions of use, hours and fees, if any. The committee shall serve without pay and consist of city residents including:
a) One member from the San Luis Obispo County Historical Society.
b) One member from the. faculty of the School of Architecture and Environmental Design, California Polytechnic State University, preferably an', architectural historian.
c) One member from the Ornamental Horticulture faculty
of the California Polytechnic State University.
d) One member from the Parks and Recreation Commission, e) Two .members selected at large.

U
f) For a', period of twenty ( 20) years from the date
hereof, the seventh member of the committee shall be an heir of Robert Edgar Jack and Nellie Hollister Jack; the city residency requirement may be waived for this member. Thereafter, this member may be selected at large.

Committee appointments, tenure and rules of conduct shall be the same as for other advisory bodies to the City Council, e. g., the Planning Commission.

8. To accept items of personal property for the permanent collection of furnishings and artifacts, only upon majority approval of the Committee. Likewise, to dispose, destroy and give away no item of furnishings or artifacts without majority approval of the Committee and then only with the approval of the City Council.

9. Should, at any time, the residence be destroyed by
3 -
VOL 182. PAGE JL95

f
fire or other act of God, to continue to maintain the real property for park purposes, such park to be known as " The Jack Park ".

10. Not to sell or give away either the whole, or any
part of the real property.

In, the event of a violation of any of the covenants and conditions' herein contained, or failure to comply therewith, said City, and; any successor thereof - -shall forfeit all title to said real and personal property and, in the event of any such forfeiture, title to said;. real and personal property shall revert to the descendants by law of intestacy of Robert Edgar Jack and Nellie Hollister Jack. Should there be no then known descendants of said Robert Edgar Jack and Nellie Hollister Jack, said property shall vest in the County of San Luis Obispo for the uses herein contained; provided, however, that if the County should not accept said property or should fail to use it for the purposes set forth herein, title to- said. property shall then vest in St. Stephen' s Episcopal Church of San Luis Obispo.

In consideration of the foregoing, the grantee herein
agrees to pay all county, city and special taxes or assessments which are now a lien upon the real property and personal property herein described, or which hereafter become a lien upon said real and personal property.

Dated this io day of r c- 1975
Gertrude. Kathleen Kaetz
Kathleen Von Stein
M, W
XL 1828 PAG € 19.11

STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
ss.

COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, )
On /? 0' ' A / 0, ' 1975, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared MARGARET E. KAETZEL, GERTRUDE KATHLEEN KAETZEL, KATHLEEN G. VON STEIN, VIRGINIA J TYNAN and PHYLLIS SINTON ,
known to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that they executed the same.

GEORGIA L FANT Georgia E. Fant

NOTARY PUBLIC
Notary P lic in and for said County and SAIL LUIS OB! SPO COUNTY CALIFORNIA State.

My Ccmmissian Expires February 7, 1976

STATE OF COLORADO, )
ss.

COUNTY
On 1975, before me, the undersigned,
a,,lNo " 2kw'-Public in and for said County and State, personally j,,ppea, e,, JUDITH MEYER, known to me to be the person whose name is * 16 -,_:•' S.# er• to the within instrument and acknowledged that she ex °eyit the same. C4
Notary Public in and for said County and
State.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
ss.

COUNTY OF Santa Barbara )
On March 12 1975, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared MELBA RETICKER, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that she executed the same. ,
OFFICIAL SEAL cam G - lug",
f .. Lil,' L. i1a .. 5 LUE E. DAVID
NOTARY PUBLIC - CALIFO PI: A Notary Public in and for said County and P " CIPAL OFFICE IN
SANTA SARBA; A COUNTY
State.

MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCT. 29, 1976
5 —
VOL LO PAGE 1 1,

C E R T I F I C A T E O F A C C E P T A N C E
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property
conveyed by the GRANT DEED dated MARCH 10, 1975, from
VIRGINIA J. TYNAN, aka VIRGINIA JACK TYNAN, PHYLLIS
SINTON,_ aka PHYLLIS JACK SINTON, MARGARET E. KAETZEL,
aka MARGARET KAETZEL, GERTRUDE K. KAETZEL, aka KATHLEEN KAETZEL and GERTRUDE KATHLEEN KAETZEL, KATHLEEN G.

VON STEIN, formerly KATHLEEN G. NORMAND, JUDITH MEYER,
formerly JUDITH KAETZEL, and MELBA RETICKER, Grantors,
to the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a Political Corporation, is hereby accepted by the undersigned officer on behalf of the City Council pursuant to authority conferred by
Resolution No. 549 ( 1959 Series), recorded May 26, 1959, Volume 1002, Official Records, Page 292, San Luis Obispo C4 County, California, and the Grantee consents to recordation 0 thereof by its duly authorized officer or his agent.

Date: MARCH 10, 1975
VOL 1828 PAGE 198

t
RESOLUTION NO. 2761 ( 1975 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COU14CIL OF THE CITY OF

SAN LUIS OBISPO ACCEPTING THE DEED TO THE
JACK RESIDENCE" AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR

TO SIGN THE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE AND

DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD SAID
DEED.

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:

1. The City of San Luis Obispo hereby accepts the deed
to the real property and the residence known as the " Jack Residence" on Marsh Street and the City agrees to abide by the terms and conditions of said deed.

2. The Mayor is authorized to execute a certificate
of acceptance on behalf of the City.

3. The City Clerk is directed to record said deed.

On motion of Mayor Schwartz, seconded by Councilman
N
Gurnee, and on the following roll call vote:

W
AYES: Councilmen Graham, Gurnee, Norris, Petterson, FP
and Mayor Schwartz
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted this 7th day of April, 1975. rt
it KENNETH E. SCHWARTZ
Mayor .

ATTEST:
1 certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct ,copy of a Resolution passed by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on _ APR 7 1975
J. H. F177PATRICK
T
City Clerk ATRICK
clay ' clerk
R 2761
END OF DOCUMENT .

VOL PACE 199

MEMO

JACK HOUSE COMMITTEE
DATE: October 10, 2022
TO: Parks and Recreation Commission
CC: Meghan Burgher - Recreation Manager
FROM: Chuck Crotser - JHC Chairperson
RE: Jack House Committee reorganization
Due to ongoing difficulties in recruiting new members and a lack of clarity of our specific advisory expectations, our Committee feels that it is a good time to reconsider the role of the Jack House Committee. City staff and myself have spoken with the City Attorney's office, which has concluded that there are no legal barriers to proceeding in the manners proposed below.

Our Committee members feel that moving most of the responsibilities outlined in the original deed to the Parks and Recreation Committee makes good sense, but may take different forms while maintaining the intent of the original “gift”. As such, we would like to offer several suggestions for your consideration:

ALTERNATIVE #1 - Reduce the size of the JHC to 5 members: One member with historical architecture experience, One member with landscape design experience (preferably historical landscapes), One member from the History Center, and two members at large. The architecture and landscape positions need NOT be filled by Cal Poly faculty.

This Committee could meet quarterly, or as needed to advise the PRC or City Council (similar to the Construction Board of Appeals).

The purview of the JHC would be primarily to support educational programs and the docent group. They would also continue to advocate for improving on-site facilities to support these programs such as a secure storage facility, rehabilitation of the Carriage Barn and Wash House for display or educational purposes; improving the kitchen/prep area to better accommodate events, etc. They would also be consulted regarding the access and use of existing resources, currently stored off-site. They would also be consulted on issues of accession and de-accession of historic resources.

ALTERNATIVE #2 - Dissolve the JHC and move all responsibility to the PRC. However, of the 7 members on the PRC, designate one member with historical architecture experience, one member with landscape design experience (preferably historical landscapes) and one member from the History Center OR the docent group.

ALTERNATIVE #3 - Dissolve the JHC and move all responsibility to the PRC. Issues surrounding historic architecture and gardens could be handled through consultation with the ARC and CHC, as needed. Perhaps one position on the PRC could be reserved for a JH docent member to help advocate for the concerns outlined in Alternative #1, above.

As a footnote, . . when the original deed was accepted, the ARC was in its infancy and the CHC had not yet been created, thus the oversight needed at the time was really not in place.

We believe that Alternative #3 would be the most efficient model and would provide the oversight that the family intended in 1975. Ultimately, we rely upon the wisdom of the City Council to make a timely and necessary adjustment to the Jack House Committee.

Thank you, . . .

Parks and Recreation Commission
Agenda Correspondence
DATE: October 12, 2022
Prepared By: Greg Avakian, Director of Parks and Recreation Meghan Burger, Recreation Manager
SUBJECT: Jack House Committee Request to Reconsider the Structure of the Jack House Committee

RECOMMENDATION

1. Review, discuss, and provide direction on the proposed realignment of the Jack House Committee roles and responsibilities

DISCUSSION
Background
The Historic Jack House and Gardens ( collectively referred to as “ The Jack House”) were deeded to the City of San Luis Obispo on March 10, 1975. For close to five decades, the City has managed, maintained, and operated the Jack House consistent with the covenants of the Grant Deed. As is typical with historic homes and gardens, the Jack House had dedicated volunteers who have helped with many aspects of the public’ s enjoyment of the Jack House. Volunteer efforts have included a City Advisory Body (the Jack House Committee) as well as docents who have educated visitors during countless tours.

Volunteer Groups – Jack House Advisory Committee (“ the Committee”) When the City was deeded the Jack House, it was done so with several stipulations requiring the City’s agreement and continued compliance. Of those included the appointment of a seven- member advisory body.

From the Grant Deed: “ Said committee shall recommend basic rules and regulations for the use of the residence and grounds which may include, but are not limited to, permitted uses, conditions of use, hours and fees, if any. The committee shall serve without pay and consist of city residents including:
a) One member from the San Luis Obispo County Historical Society b) One member from the faculty of the School of Architecture and Environmental Design, California Polytechnic State University, preferably an architectural historian. c) One member from the Ornamental Horticulture faculty of the California Polytechnic State University. d) One member from the Parks and Recreation Commission
e) Two members selected at large.
f) For a period of twenty (20) years from the date hereof, the seventh member of the committee shall be an heir of Robert Edgar Jack and Nellie Hollister Jack the city residency requirement may be waived for this member. Thereafter, this member may be selected at large. g) Committee appointments, tenure and rules of conduct shall be the same as for other advisory bodies to the City Council, e.g., the Planning Commission.”
Volunteer Groups – Jack House Docents
In addition to the Committee, a Jack House Docent group has historically served as tour guides and educators, hosting tours to the public and specialized tours to classes, wedding parties and other community groups. The

City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Jack House committee does not have direct oversight of the Docent group; however, the Docent Coordinator traditionally provides updates to the Committee and oftentimes Committee members also serve as Docents.

This arrangement has served the City well for decades, although over time the volunteer base has dwindled, whether due to changing volunteer dynamics, loss of interest in a program or lack of community awareness to the volunteer opportunity.

Current Role of City Departments
The Public Works Department provides overall maintenance and upkeep of the Jack House and Gardens. The Parks and Recreation Department engage the community through programming at the Jack House and Gardens along with support of the Docent program. Staff coordinate events at the Jack House Gardens, including the Spring Concert Series and Movies in the Garden, Yoga Classes, and community rentals such as birthdays and wedding events.

Jack House Committee
Committee Participation Trends and Challenges
The Committee roster over the past two decades is unique in the fact that most of the member make up remains the same. The City’ s Clerks office has record of only 11 different individuals who have filled six of the seven positions ( not including the PRC representative position). Many of these 11 individuals served for over 10 years, some even since the early 2000’ s.

Of the seven necessary committee- members, there are currently only three (3) active members. The vacancy of four (4) seats is problematic because the Committee does not have a quorum ( a majority of the committee), which is necessary for any business discussion or action to take place by the Committee. In addition to the current vacancies, the three committee members who remain have been dedicated volunteers to the Jack House for a decade. Finally, some of the specific Committee eligibility requirements imposed by Grant Deed are obsolete at this time. Specifically, the Committee positions that are required to be filled by specific Cal Poly faculty are no longer offered as academic program areas.

Committee Successes Over Time
While the Committee has provided great benefit to the Jack House and the City in its tenure, the time has come to consider the utility and practicality of this Committee moving forward. Over the past 47 years, the Committee has supported some of the following, all with City staff time:

Coordination of the removal of the elevator shaft to return the House to the original condition; Coordinating new signs for the entry of the Jack House; Preservation of historical art;
Recommendations regarding historical context related to the Jack House; Providing guidance on how and when to rent and program events at the house; Providing support to the Docent program, often serving as Docents themselves.

As the decades have changed, so has the City’ s adoption of regular maintenance and programming of this property. As such, City staff continue to maintain the regular and structural integrity of the property, maintain the gardens as a community park space, manage event rentals of the gardens ( including weddings), and provide community events in the gardens. Because expectations have been established, in part due to the Committee, these work projects continue to be accomplished by City staff without necessary guidance from the committee.

City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Committee, Family and Community Input
Jack House Committee Member Recommendations
On September 15, 2022, the remaining committee members met informally with City staff as there was no quorum for a formal meeting, to share concerns regarding lack of volunteers and the future of the Committee and to provide recommendations to realign oversight of the Jack House. The individual Committee members that were consulted communicated that what was necessary in 1975 is no longer relevant or feasible, as recruitment efforts have shown, and in fact recommend alternative solutions to ensuring the intent of the Grant Deed continues to be met while utilizing other staff and Advisory Body resources that are in place. The individual Committee members each agreed to request a new structure of support for the Jack House, with alternatives outlined in the Memo submitted to PRC on October 11, 2022.

On September 15, 2022, the individual Committee members outlined hopes and dreams for the future of the Jack House. City Staff and Committee representatives discussed alternative oversight opportunities of current and potential support.

Committee Recommendations for Future Support
of the Jack House
Staff or Committee Assignments
Continue to maintain Jack House and Gardens for
public enjoyment
Ongoing by Public Works Staff
Promotions for events and tours of the house Ongoing City staff Communications and Marketing team
Convert Wash House into a museum Potential project for Docent volunteers or local volunteer group
Open Carriage House for events and education Based on structural integrity, could be a project for Docent volunteers. May require a CIP to
ensure ADA compliance and structural integrity
Repair and refurnish front fence Current volunteer Rotary SLO Project with Parks and Recreation staff oversight
Roof replacement Upcoming CIP project assigned to Public Works Provide a storage unit on site Public Works Staff
Continue to host weddings and special events Ongoing by City Parks and Recreation staff Utilize gardens for community building
opportunities
Ongoing by City Parks and Recreation staff
Provide historical guidance regarding renovations
to the inside and exterior of the House
Cultural Heritage Committee
Regular oversight of the House Parks and Recreation Commissioners with one Commissioner assigned to serve as the Jack
House liaison and report out each meeting
Support of the Docent Program Assign to the new Volunteer Coordinator who will report to Parks and Recreation Department.

Jack Family Input
When the Committee members proposed recommended changes, City staff reached out to Jack Family heir, Katchy Andrews, who was in favor of reassigning oversight of the Jack House and felt confident that in doing so the intent of the Grant Deed would continue to be honored and could foresee no challenges.

City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Community Input
During the community input sessions for defining City goals for the Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021- 2024, consensus was to continue using the House as currently used. There was mention of turning the house over to a non-profit to manage, while continuing to program at the gardens and exploring additional opportunities to rent out the facility space.

Manage the Jack House in a way that preserves the historic resource, makes the site more visible and welcoming, and more fully realizes its revenue- producing potential. This may mean extending open hours, signage, safe crosswalks and evaluating facility rental offerings and fees. Explore private management opportunities for the house.

In addition, three former Jack House Committee members and chairs were contacted by current Committee President to provide feedback or concerns regarding these recommendations. There were none and they concurred with the recommendation memo by the Jack House Committee to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

CONCURRENCE
The City Attorney’ s Office has reviewed the relevant property and legal documents associated with Jack House and has concluded that there are no legal barriers to the recommendations stated herein.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact from this approval.

Transferring Oversight Of The Jack House Committee To Parks And Recreation Commission And Bylaw Amendments
The below items are designed to provide the Parks and Recreation Commission advisory recommendations to City Council:

1. As recommended by the Jack House Committee members, recommend an alternative to the current Jack House Committee structure which could include alternatives provided in Memo from Jack House Committee members, including but not limited to the transfer oversight of the subject matter within the purview of the Jack House Committee to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

2. Amend the Parks and Recreation Commission bylaws to reflect the recommended transfer of oversight.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Memo from Jack House Committee to PRC

2. Copy of the Original Grant Deed for Jack Family Residence

3. Copy of Jack House Bylaws

4. Copy of Parks and Recreation Bylaws

City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Parks and Recreation Commission
DRAFT Minutes
October 12, 2022
Ludwick Community Center – 864 Santa Rosa Street
The City of San Luis Obispo has returned to in-person meetings. Zoom participation will not be supported. For those attending in-person, City facilities will be at limited capacity and masks are strongly recommended.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:

Public Comment prior to the meeting (must be received 3 hours in advance of the meeting):

Mail - Delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. Address letters to the City Clerk's Office at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, 93401.

Email - Submit Public Comments via email to [email protected]. In the body of your email, please include the date of the meeting and the item number (if applicable). Emails will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Voicemail - Call (805) 781-7164 and leave a voicemail. Please state and spell your name, the agenda item number you are calling about, and leave your comment.

Verbal comments must be limited to 3 minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to the members and saved as Agenda Correspondence. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.
*All correspondence will be archived and distributed to members, however, submissions received after the deadline will not be processed until the following day.

Public Comment during the meeting:

Meetings have returned to an in-person format. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be present in the Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street. Zoom participation will not be supported. The Parks and Recreation Department is currently located at The Ludwick Community Center, 864 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo. If you have questions, contact the City Clerk's Office at
[email protected] or (805) 781-7100.

Parks and Recreation Committee DRAFT Minutes for October 12, 2022 2 | P a g e
Wednesday, October 12, 2022
5:30 p.m. RESCHEDULED MEETING Ludwick Community Center
864 Santa Rosa Street
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Robert Spector
ROLL CALL: Vice Chair Kari Howell, Commissioners Rick Blair, Kris Roudebush, Adam Stowe, and Andrew Webber
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Committee about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Committee is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.

N/A

CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES

1. Minutes of the Parks and Recreation Committee of September 7, 2022 Motion to approve Commissioner Blair and Commissioner Roudebush.

Commissioner Stowe abstained.

CONSENT ITEMS
NA

BUSINESS ITEMS

Parks and Recreation Committee DRAFT Minutes for October 12, 2022 3 | P a g e

2. Jack House Committee (Burger – 20 minutes)
Recommendation: Review, discuss, and provide direction on the proposed realignment of the Jack House Committee roles and responsibilities Overview and recommendations presented. Rolls of City Staff for caretaking overviewed. Grant deed explained/clarified. Program and Special events and activities discussed. Roles of JHC Committee and Docents explained. Three JHC Committee recommendations presented. Recommendations and impacts outlined.

Discussion with Commission on the various proposals presented. Next Steps for Staff, PRC and Council to align explained.

Questions: Proposal #3 discussed in detail. Request for future report on Jack House plans. The description of what the “Liaison” role is and asking for clarification. Per conversation, the Liaison would work with the JHC Docent committee and P&R Volunteer Coordinator.

Motion by: Commissioner Howell
Second By: Commissioner Stowe
Recommend to Council the Option #3 from Jack House Advisory Committee member recommendations, as submitted to PRC, with an amendment to read: Transfer oversight of the Jack House Committee and move all responsibility to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Issues surrounding historic architecture and gardens could be handled through consultation with the Architecture Review Committee and Cultural Heritage Committee, as needed. Require one Commissioner to serve as a direct liaison to the Jack House by means of the Jack House Docent committee.

Ayes (6): Commissioner Spector, Commissioner Howell, Commissioner Blair, Commissioner Webber, Commissioner Roudebush, Commissioner Stowe Nays:0
Vacant (1)

3. Receive Director Report (Avakian – 20 minutes)
Recommendation: Receive Global Department Update and Current Project Updates related to the following: Rotary SLO workday at the Jack House. a. Ranger Service Division Update – Bog Thistle trail, Righetti Hill Trail, Encampment clean-ups, Fuel Management.
b. Laguna Lake Dog Park Project: Design firm chosen (Wallace Group), timelines and next steps. City Project manager hired and Landscape architect firm Wallace Group selected. Will develop concept designs. Reviewed current infrastructure and potential design amenities. Funding in place from P&R Blueprint (master plan). Next update at November PRC.

Parks and Recreation Committee DRAFT Minutes for October 12, 2022 4 | P a g e
John McKenzie: Presented flyer on dog park fundraiser - Yappy Howler event.

Checking in on ground cover. More area would be great if possible. Glad it is moving forward.

Kathy Kimbal: Will need a lot of additional support from Parks Maintenance staff support. More information on the “puppy” area needed.

Director Avakian: All will be addressed in the Wallace proposal. Consultant will meet with Park Maintenance staff. Wallace group has experience with Dog parks in other communities.
c. Righetti Ranch Park System: RFP (November closing date expected) and community forum timeline to be winter and spring.
d. Project schedules Upcoming CIP Projects 21-23: Current City Parks Projects North Broad Street Park, Cheng Park revitalization
e. Grant Updates: estimated timelines for Mitchell Park and Emerson parks f. Upcoming PRC Agenda Topic Forecast: Program deficiencies discussion requested. Prioritizing the topics list from Commissioners. g. Might possibly move the January meeting date to the second week of the month.

4. Receive Department-wide Program Updates (Burger/Hyfield – 20 minutes) a. Youth Services (Staffing Updates, Lights on Afterschool Program, Minimum Days, Teacher Workday), Community Services (Senior Programming, Special Events and Youth and Adult Sports). Public Art (Chorro Underpass, Tank Farm Roundabout Structure) and other upcoming projects. b. Aquatics, Golf, Facilities

1. Aquatics: Staffing and hours challenges and general updates. Digital waivers now live. Atascadero High School will be paying P&R Dept. to share our pool when their facility is closed.

2. Golf: Operations and Maintenance and hours.

3. Facilities: Outdoor/Indoor Facilities and Special Events.

Q: Annual tour of facilities for PRC proposed. Will discuss at the next PRC meeting.

5. Provide Commissioner Recruitment Update (Chair Spector – 5 minutes) Chair Spector shared the process with the other Commissioners and that the recruitment was successful with the Council Representatives, Marx and Shoresman selecting a new Commissioner to start at the November meeting.

SUBCOMMITTEE LIAISON REPORTS & COMMUNICATIONS
Subcommittee Liaison Reports (Chair) – 15 minutes)
a. Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Blair – two open volunteer positions. Hadley (new CS Coordinator) is doing a great job.

Parks and Recreation Committee DRAFT Minutes for October 12, 2022 5 | P a g e
b. Active Transportation Committee: Commissioner Webber – Lots of construction happening now across SLO. Going over the 2023 plans.
c. Jack House Committee: Vacant
d. Youth Sports Association: Commissioner Stowe – no update.

Communications:

ADJOURNMENT: 7:51 pm
To the Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Committee as approved by the PRC to Wednesday, November 2, 2022, at 5:30 p.m. to be in-person at City Hall (990 Palm Street).

The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the Parks and Recreation Department at (805) 781-7300 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7107.

Meeting audio recordings can be found at the following web address:
http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/1/fol/61014/Row1.aspx

1 Pringle, Brendan
From: Burger, Meghan
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2022 10:23 AM
To: Pringle, Brendan
Subject: FW: Recommendations to Structure of Jack House Advisory Committee Can you export to PDF? My computer keeps crashing.

From: Katchy Andrews <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2022 5:07 PM
To: Burger, Meghan <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Recommendations to Structure of Jack House Advisory Committee This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond.

Meghan,
I appreciate the careful consideration that the JHC, PRC and City staff have followed. The City Council meeting on November 15th will benefit from the the discussions and shared decisions. Reading the reports gives me hope that the recommendations will provide the framework to develop an effective organization.

We are very fortunate to have the local Community Foundation as a partner. We have been able to improve and repair rooms inside the Jack House. I haven’t seen the pictures that have been have been refurbished, but I’m sure that visitors and locals will be thrilled. It is important give credit and recognition to docents and others who do so much to represent the Jack House. The Rotary “picket ticket” painting was quite an event and they would like to do more! Thanks for all you’re doing~~ Katchy
On Oct 25, 2022, at 6:38 PM, Burger, Meghan <[email protected]> wrote:

Katchy,
Thank you for taking the time to discuss the recommendations from the Jack House Advisory Committee (JHC), Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and City staff regarding the current and future role of the Jack House Committee. The recommendations from the three representatives are to be presented to City Council on November 15, 2022. As we discussed, the Jack House continues to be maintained by City staff and oversight of the JHC no longer appears essential in thanks to the outside support systems of the City and other City Advisory Bodies.

Staff received three recommendations from JHC to PRC on October 11, 2022, for a change in structural support of the Jack House property, with both the JHC and PRC recommending that option #3 being preferred, which was to dissolve the JHC and move all responsibilities to the PRC. Issues requiring historic architecture and gardens would be handled through consultation

2 with Architectural Review Committee and Cultural Heritage Committee. A request to have a docent serve on the PRC was also requested; however, the PRC opted to recommend a PRC serve as a liaison to JHC rather than changing the membership requirements of PRC.

RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDE:

Role of the Liaison:

In order to support the Jack House, a PRC Commissioner will be assigned to serve as a direct liaison to the Jack House. The liaison would be expected to attend the Docent meetings and connect with the Docent Coordinator on a monthly basis to advocate for Docent programming needs and educate the other PRC members on needs of the Jack House so that they may make recommendations to City Staff and Council as needed.

Role of the City
As is current, staff will continue to maintain the House and Gardens. The House is currently scheduled for CIP projects that will continue under direction from Public Works staff. Parks and Recreation staff will continue to activate the beautiful gardens through community events, such as the Spring Concert Series and classes held in the Gardens (Yoga, art, etc.). The City’s new Volunteer Coordinator will provide direct support to the Docent program and work with the Docent Coordinator to increase awareness of the program and attract new volunteers.

Role of the PRC:

The PRC will take on the responsibility to provide recommendations to Council and City staff in regards to the activities related to the House and communicate with Staff and the identified advisory bodies (CHC, ARC). The Jack House will be a standing item on the PRC monthly agenda and an opportunity for staff and liaison to report out. Jack House volunteers would also be welcome to attend and provide presentations as appropriate.

Your support as a Jack Family heir and the manager of the Foundation continues to be essential and by City staff propelling forward the recommendations from JHC and PRC, it is with the very best intentions of providing support to the Jack House, the great work of the docents and the original intent of the Grant Deed.

Thank you for your feedback on the matter,
Meghan
Meghan Burger
pronouns she/her/hers
Recreation Manager
<image001.png>
Parks & Recreation
Youth Services
1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3934

3 E [email protected]
T 805.781.7070
slocity.org
<image002.png><image003.png><image004.png>
Stay connected with the City by signing up for e-notifications

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2022 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, TO AMEND THE ADVISORY BODY

HANDBOOK FOR REVISION OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION

COMMISSION BYLAWS AND REMOVAL OF THE JACK HOUSE

COMMITTEE BYLAWS
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo, the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, and its own resolutions, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo appoints individuals to serve on its advisory bodies; and WHEREAS, those advisory bodies have proposed bylaws to aid them in conducting their meetings fairly, smoothly, efficiently and in accordance with law; and WHEREAS, there have been challenges in maintaining a quorum for the Jack House Committee with the membership required by the 1975 Grant Deed conveying the Jack House to the City; and
WHEREAS, on October 10, 2022, the individual Jack House Committee members submitted a memorandum to the City’s Parks and Recreation Commission recommending the transfer of oversight of the Jack House, and all responsibilities within the subject matter of the Jack House Committee, to the Parks and Recreation Commission; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 2022, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed their bylaws and unanimously recommended to Council: 1) to transfer oversight of the Jack House and move all responsibilities within the subject matter of the Jack House Committee to the Parks and Recreation Commission; 2) to consult with the Architectural Review Commission and Cultural Heritage Committee as needed regarding issues impacting the historic architecture and gardens; and, 3) to designate one Parks and Recreation Commissioner to serve as a direct liaison to the existing volunteer Jack House Docent Committee; and
WHEREAS, City staff have also reviewed said bylaws and have made suggestions for their revision; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney’s Office concurred that there are no legal barriers in the recommendations to transfer oversight of the Jack House from the Jack House Committee to the Parks and Recreation Commission; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Charter Section 1204 the City of San Luis Obispo, each body established by ordinance shall present in writing to the City Council for approval its bylaws for procedure, including amendments thereto; and

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
R ______
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting of November 15, 2022, the City Council reviewed proposed changes to advisory body bylaws, as recommended by the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Parks & Recreation Commission Bylaws. The bylaws of the Parks and Recreation Commission are hereby amended to read as set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference,
SECTION 2. Jack House Bylaws. The Jack House Bylaws are hereby removed from the Advisory Body Handbook.

Upon motion of Council Member ___________, seconded by Council Member ____________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2022. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

J. Parks & Recreation Commission Bylaws (A)
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) is a body of citizens appointed to advise the City's Parks & Recreation Department and the City Council on the development and operation of recreation programs and parks, and on the implementation of the Parks and Recreation Element of the City's General Plan. It also provides recommendations to the City Council and San Luis Obispo Coastal Unified School District Board of Trustees regarding those facilities which have been mutually designated as joint use facilities; and for the operation of recreational facilities, priority for use of the facilities, and development of new recreation facilities at Sinsheimer Park.

Jack House: The PRC is charged with the responsibility to advise the City Council on matters concerning facility use, fees and charges, capital improvements, and any other item affecting the House and Grounds.

ARTICLE 2. MEMBERSHIP

1. The Parks and Recreation Commission shall consist of seven members.

2. Members are appointed by the City Council for a term of four years. Members are eligible for reappointment for an additional four-year term. Members are subject to a term limit of eight years, or two consecutive four-year terms.

ARTICLE 3. MEETINGS

1. Regular meetings of the Parks & Recreation Commission shall be held on the first Wednesday of each month at 5:30 p.m., except during the annual tour of the City's parks and facilities.

2. Meetings will be held in the Council Chamber, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. In the event that the Parks & Recreation Commission chooses to hold all or any portion of a regular meeting other than at City Hall, then the place of such meeting shall be posted at least 72 hours in advance at the Parks & Recreation Department office, 1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo, California and on the bulletin-board located at the entrance to the City Hall prior to the established meeting time.

3. A standing item for the Jack House reporting shall be included on every agenda.

ARTICLE 4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS

1. In April of each year, the Parks & Recreation Commission shall select a Chair and Vice Chair from among its members to serve a one-year term. Special elections for Chair or Vice Chair shall be held at the first meeting following the unscheduled resignation of an officer, or other reason for an officer position to become vacant.

2. Commissioners shall serve as Chair or Vice Chair at the discretion of the Commission.

3. The Chair shall preside at all meetings of the Parks & Recreation Commission. The Vice Chair will act as the Chair in the absence of the Chair or in case of the inability of the Chair to act.

4. In the event that the Chair and Vice Chair are unavailable to attend to their duties, the assembled members shall determine a Chair Pro Tempore.

5. No person shall serve as Chair or Vice Chair for more than three consecutive terms.

ARTICLE 5. CONDUCT OF MEETINGS
All meetings will be conducted in accordance with City practices, customs, and policies. Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised shall be utilized as a guide in the conduct of meetings.

ARTICLE 6. QUORUM
A quorum is the majority of the total number of established members of the commission..

ARTICLE 7. VOTING

1. Except as otherwise provided in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code and state law, no resolution, motion or other action shall be passed or become effective without receiving the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the members present.

2. Failure to receive such an affirmative vote shall result in failure or denial, as appropriate, of the motion, resolution or other action.

3. Except as allowed under the Political Reform Act of 1974, as amended, any member abstaining due to a declared conflict of interest shall not participate in the discussion of the items or otherwise influence or attempt to influence in any manner the decision on the item.

4. All members, when present, must vote except when abstaining due to a declared conflict of interest.

5. Failure or refusal to vote when present—except for a declared conflict of interest—shall be counted as an affirmative vote.

ARTICLE 8. PUBLIC RECORDS
Records of all public hearings shall be made available to the public in the offices of the Parks & Recreation Department.

ARTICLE 9. ATTENDANCE
Any member of the Parks & Recreation Commission who fails, for any reason, to attend three consecutive regular meetings or a total of six regular meetings within any twelve month period shall be automatically be considered for replacement by the City Council. The Chairperson of the Parks & Recreation Commission shall inform the Council of such a situation, explaining any special circumstances.

ARTICLE 10. COMMITTEES

1. A member of the Parks & Recreation Commission shall serve as a liaison to the Jack House, attending all docent meetings and providing a report out of docent updates at each PRC meeting.

2. Additional committee assignments shall be made as deemed necessary by the Chair.

3. Committee assignments will be made in April of each year.

ARTICLE 11. AMENDMENTS

1. These bylaws may be recommended for amendment by the majority vote of the Commission members present at a regular meeting, provided that a quorum is present.

Members shall receive the proposed amendments at least seven days prior to the meeting in which the amendment is proposed.

2. Prior to May 1 in each odd-numbered year, these bylaws shall be reviewed by the Commission. Any proposed changes shall be submitted to the City Council for approval.

If no changes are proposed, a report of the review shall be submitted.

Item 5g
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1021
For Agenda of: 11/15/2022
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Kevin Christian, Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: ADVISORY BODY APPOINTMENT DUE TO AN UNSCHEDULED VACANCY – CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE

RECOMMENDATION
Confirm the appointment of Sabin Gray to the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC).

POLICY CONTEXT
The Advisory Body Handbook, last adopted by City Council in September 2021, outlines the recruitment procedures, membership requirements, and term limits for all advisory bodies. Additionally, the City Council Policies and Procedures Manual, last updated April 2021, describes the “Appointment Procedure” and “Process” for Advisory Body appointments. Recruitment and appointment recommendations were performed in conformance with all recruitment procedures, processes, and bylaws found in these resources.

California Government Code Section 54972, Local Appointments List (Maddy Act), requires that on or before December 31st of each year, each legislative body shall prepare an appointments list for their boards, commissions, and committees whose members serve at the pleasure of the legislative body. This obligation was met and is on-going.

DISCUSSION
Annual appointments to the various City Advisory Body Committees were made at the March 15, 2022, City Council meeting. The process for those appointments included recruitment by the City Clerk’s office, interviews, and recommendations by the respective City Council sub-committees, with final confirmation of those recommendations made by the full Council.

Item 5g
The applications of qualified candidates who are not chosen for immediate appointment are held for one-year for possible consideration in the event an unscheduled vacancy occurs. An unscheduled vacancy occurred on the CHC in August when member Valerie Butterbredt resigned. Two applicants from the annual recruitment were invited to interview for this opening. Additionally, as described under “Public Engagement,” outreach was conducted to recruit for this vacancy with the following recommendation for appointment resulting.

The Council Liaison Subcommittee members assigned for the CHC, Councilmembers Christianson and Marx, recommend Sabin Gray to fill the remainder of the vacant term, ending March 31, 2025.

Public Engagement
Notices that the City was accepting applications for City Advisory Bodies were placed on the City’s website and “e-notification” service, listed in the annual Local Appointments List (Maddy Act Notice – GC 54972) on the City Website and City Information kiosk, and distributed via City social media outlets, in November 2021, for the annual recruitment.

Notices that the City was specifically recruiting for the current unscheduled vacancy on the CHC were posted in the City Information kiosk outside City Hall and on the Advisory Body Vacancies page of the City website on August 24, 2022, following Maddy Act guidelines.

An update on City Advisory Body openings was published via “City News” (City website e-notification) and City Social Media outlets on August 30, 2022. Current openings were also announced mid-year during the 2022 Community Academy and most recently included in the Council Agenda Report for Advisory Body Appointments in the September 6, 2022, City Council Agenda report.

CONCURRENCE
The Council liaisons for the CHC concur with the recommendation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to the recommended action in this report, because the action does not constitute a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15378.

Item 5g

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes/No Budget Year: 2022-23
Funding Identified: Yes/No
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ N/A $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $ $ $ $ N/A
Advisory body members serve as volunteers and donate their time. The costs related to recruitment is accounted for in the annual budget appropriation in the City Clerk program.

ALTERNATIVES
Council could recommend changes to the sub-committee recommended appointment or direct staff to re-open recruitment for additional candidates. This is not recommended as the Council Liaisons for the committee feel that they have been quite thorough in their consideration of applicants and the Council’s needs in their selection process.

Item 5h
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: 11/15/2022
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO REMOVE THE PROPERTY AT 1720 MORRO STREET FROM THE CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES LIST OF THE CITY’S

INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee, adopt a Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, removing the property at 1720 Morro Street from the Inventory of Historic Resources.”

POLICY CONTEXT
The recommended action on this item is supported by historical preservation policies in section 3.0 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’ s General Plan, and with procedures and standards for listing of historic resources of The City’ s Historic Preservation Ordinance San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (“SLOMC”) Sections 14.01.060 & 14.01.070. The Historic Preservation Ordinance states that to qualify as a resource, a high degree of integrity must be maintained and that at least one of the historic significance criteria is satisfied.

DISCUSSION
The owner of the property at 1720 Morro
Street has submitted an Historic
Preservation Review application, requesting
that the property be removed from the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources, as ineligible
for listing, based primarily on the
compromised historical integrity of the
building on the site. An evaluation of the
property and its eligibility for listing as an
historic resource has been prepared by
James Papp, PhD, historian and
architectural historian, to inform
consideration of this request (see
Attachment B).

Figure 1: 1720 Morro (1982)

Item 5h
Site and Setting
The property is a residential parcel on the east side of Morro Street, about 150 feet south of Leff Street, within the Old Town Historic District, one of the City’s oldest residential neighborhoods, built up historically around the turn of the 20th Century, with older structures dating back to the 1880s (see description of district, Attachment C).

The site is developed with a single-family dwelling (see Figure 1). As described in the applicant’s Historic Resource Evaluation, the dwelling appears on a 1905 Sanborn Map, but no permit record establishing a construction date has been found, nor is the architect of the building known. City records (see Historic Resource Information, Attachment D) describe the building as Neo-Colonial or Colonial Bungalow in style and discusses various architectural elements of the building. The applicant’s evaluation more specifically describes the style as “Colonial Revival Bungalow.”
Historic Listing
The property was included as a Contributing List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources in 1987, by adoption of Council Resolution 6424. Historic preservation policies are set out in the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s General Plan, and the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch. 14.01) implements these policies. Property may be designated as a Contributing List resource where a building on it maintains its historic and architectural character, and contributes, by itself or in conjunction with other structures, to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole, and satisfies at least one of the historic significance criteria listed in the Ordinance (see Attachment E).

Architecture
Style and Design: The primary residence on this property is described in the applicant’s evaluation as a Colonial Revival Bungalow, with historical context for the style provided from page 6 of the document. As executed in the Old Town District, modest bungalows in this style commonly had a pyramidal hipped roof with a ridge oriented perpendicular to the street frontage, and an asymmetric façade with a windowed bay and a front porch topped by a pedimented front gable (Attachment B, pg. 1, with example photos pp. 9 11).

These basic character-defining features were originally present on this home, but have been impacted by a series of modifications to the building since its construction, including:

1. Oversized front dormer (by 1949)

2. Large Post-Modern style dormer on rear

3. South facing pedimented dormer (1965-1982)

4. Porch enclosure (by 2017), including modification and fluting of porch columns

5. Removal of 10-over-1 sash window from front façade (behind porch enclosure)

6. Replacement window in front bay (also now removed)

7. North-facing “push-out” addition and window (attached to rear porch enclosure)

8. New window opening in north-facing pediment

9. New window opening (now boarded) between originals on south elevation

10.Full width back porch enclosure

Item 5h
With all of these modifications, the Papp evaluation describes loss of the original appearance and character-defining features:

In addition to the loss or major alteration of all three character-defining features of the street façade, the rear and side façades have been altered by various eras of expedient pushouts, enclosures, and added and removed fenestration, such that, among the chronological clutter, only two windows in the entire house—both on the south façade, separated by a stained glass window that was added and later removed—appear to be original. (Papp, pg. 2)
The most visible elevation, the front façade, has been subjected to loss of characterdefining features by enclosure of the front porch, loss of the 10 over 1 sash window and modification of porch columns, the addition of an oversize dormer to the hipped roof form, and addition of the shed awning over the large window bay and removal of the original window. Today, observable original elements of the building at large are limited to the pedimented gable and window bay (missing the window from the opening) on the façade, siding on the south elevation (interrupted with a new window opening), siding remaining on some portions of the north elevation, the north-facing dormer (compromised by the added window), and the box cornice and frieze details.

Work undertaken with these subsequent modifications would not be considered to be consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historical Properties, mainly because it resulted in the removal and destruction of character-defining features, introduced incompatible new features, and substantially changed a roof form that was important in defining the overall historic character of the building. Together these changes have diminished the architectural and historic character of the building, as described in the applicant’s evaluation
Figure 3: Addition to north elevation (left), added dormer window (center), rear dormer (right) Figure 2: Modifications - bay (left), porch (center), and south elevation (right)

Item 5h
Integrity
As defined in the Historical Preservation Ordinance, integrity is measured in large part by the degree to which an historical resource has maintained its historic character or appearance, to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reasons for its significance, and the degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association (§ 14.01.070 (C)). A discussion of the historic integrity of the property, and in particular the cumulative effects of modifications to the building since its construction, is provided in the applicant’s evaluation (Attachment B, from pg. 20).

The loss of integrity discussed in the evaluation centers around the “cluttered and jarring” effect that the modifications have had on the design, materials, workmanship, and feeling of the building in its current state. The upper-floor additions and related outsize dormers have obscured and complicated the original simple pyramid roof form. A recent porch enclosure and modification of porch columns has effectively eliminated the original characteristic porch and entry feature. Removal of the window from the front bay and addition of a canopy has altered this feature, with no remaining documentation to aid in its accurate reconstruction. And enclosures at the front and rear have altered the original building form with significant removal of original wall material. As summarized in the applicant’s evaluation:

In short, loss of 4 of the 7 Aspects of Integrity—design, workmanship, and materials of the street façade and all secondary façades, and the resultant feeling into which these three aspects of integrity aggregate— has been so global and severe that 1720 Morro’s exterior no longer communicates the streamlined and open nature of its original Colonial Revival architecture or its consistency with the other 27 examples of the subtype in the district. It is not eligible for historic resource listing ... (Papp, pg. 2)
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed this Historical Preservation application, requesting removal of the property from the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, at a public hearing on October 24th, 2022 and recommended by a vote of 5-1 that the Council remove the property from the Contributing Properties List, finding that the original dwelling has lost integrity due to alterations and additions to the primary residence, such that it is no longer eligible for listing as a Contributing List Resource.

Public Engagement
Public notice of this hearing has been provided to owners and occupants of property near the subject site, and published in a widely circulated local newspaper, and hearing agendas for this meeting have been posted at City Hall, consistent with adopted notification procedures for development projects

Item 5h

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Consideration of continued eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described in CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3). The determination of continued eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of whether the subject site remains eligible for historic resource listing according to the criteria set forth in the City’ s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2022-23
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $N/A $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $ $0 $ $0
The property on 1720 Morro Street is not a Mills Act approved property and hence does not receive any property tax incentives. The cost for the consultant is borne by the property owner through the application process.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Maintain 1720 Morro Street on the City’ s Inventory of Historic Resources, based on findings that the property continues to satisfy the criteria for Historic Resource Listing of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. This alternative is not recommended because the Historic Resources Evaluation prepared for this property indicates that the property is not eligible for listing as an historical resource.

2. Continue consideration of the request to a future date for additional information or discussion.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution removing 1720 Morro from the Inventory of Historic Resources B - Historical Resource Evaluation (James Papp, PhD)
C - Old Town Historic District (Historic Context Statement) D - Historic Resource Information (City “Yellow File”)
E - Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2022 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, REMOVING THE PROPERTY AT 1720 MORRO

STREET FROM THE INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
(HIST-0495-2022)
WHEREAS, the applicant, Niels Udsen, submitted on August 31, 2022 an application to remove the property located at 1720 Morro Street (“the Property”) from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources (HIST-0495-2022); and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on October 24, 2022 and recommended that the City Council remove the property at 1720 Morro Street from the Contributing List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on November 15, 2022 for the purpose of considering the request to remove the property from the Inventory of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony of the applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation presented by staff.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following findings:
a) The property is not historically significant under the Integrity Criteria set out in § 14.01.070 (C) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The primary dwelling on the property does not possess the historic and architectural integrity to qualify as a Contributing Historic Resource due to previous alterations that have impaired the integrity of the Streamline Colonial dwelling on the property.

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 2
R ______
b) The removal of the property from the City’s Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources is consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance because the building on the property lacks significance within the historical contexts addressed by the Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing set out in § 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The eligibility of the property for inclusion in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources has been evaluated by an architectural historian. As summarized in the applicant’s statement submitted with application HIST-0495-2022, that evaluation concluded that the primary structure on the property no longer has the integrity to qualify as a Contributing Historic Resource due to previous alterations, and that the property is not a candidate for inclusion on the City’s Inventory.

SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. Consideration of continuing eligibility of this property for historic listing is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The determination of continued eligibility for historic listing is limited to review of whether the subject site remains eligible for historic resource listing according to the criteria set forth in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. A determination that the property is not eligible for historic listing will cause the removal of the property from the City's Inventory of Historic Resources, but will have no direct physical effect on the environment, as the determination does not approve any physical site development. As such, it is does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and is covered by the general rule described in CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3).

Resolution No. _____ (2022 Series) Page 3
R ______
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby determine that the structure located on the Property does not meet eligibility criteria for listing as an Historic Resource and removes the Property from the Contributing Properties List of Historic Resources.

Upon motion of ____________________, seconded by ____________________, and on the following roll call vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of ____________ 2022. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
__________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

1 1720 Morro Street
Historic Resource Evaluation & Application to Remove from the Contributing List Summary Conclusion
1720 Morro Street, added to the Contributing List in 1987, was, when built, an example of 1 of 2 closely related subtypes represented by 28 Contributing List Colonial Revival bungalows in the Old Town Historic District. Their character-defining features are (1) a hip roof whose ridge runs perpendicular to the street, giving a pyramidal appearance from the front, and (2) an asymmetric façade with a porch on one side and windowed bay on the other, with (3) a pediment (closed gable) above porch or bay.

In 27 of those 28 listed bungalows, the roof is in its original form, in 23 cases bare and in 4 cases with a small dormer in the form of an attic vent or light. In 27 of those 28 bungalows, the bay is in its original form, with its original window or windows. In 22 of those 28 bungalows, the porch is in its original form, unenclosed, and in a further 4, the primarily glass enclosure continues to communicate that it is a porch rather than an integrated part of the house.

In this high average of integrity for the two subtypes, 1720 Morro Street is the singular exception:
• Oversized, pedimented front- and south-facing dormers have been added to its roof, forming a habitable half story but altering the façade and profile of the character-defining pyramidal roof
• The original window of the character-defining bay was replaced by a huge stained glass window with a structural canopy above. The stained glass window has been returned to the previous owner, but lack of documentation of the original window renders reconstruction to Secretary of the Interior Standards impossible.

2 • In 2017, the character-defining porch was enclosed with a wall and window, so it is no longer apparent it ever was a porch
• In addition to the loss or major alteration of all three character-defining features of the street façade, the rear and side façades have been altered by various eras of expedient pushouts, enclosures, and added and removed fenestration, such that, among the chronological clutter, only two windows in the entire house—both on the south façade, separated by a stained glass window that was added and later removed—appear to be original.

In short, loss of 4 of the 7 Aspects of Integrity—design, workmanship, and materials of the street façade and all secondary façades, and the resultant feeling into which these three aspects of integrity aggregate—has been so global and severe that 1720 Morro’s exterior no longer communicates the streamlined and open nature of its original Colonial Revival architecture or its consistency with the other 27 examples of the subtype in the district. It is not eligible for historic resource listing, as it does not “exhibit a high level of historic integrity” (14.01.070 Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing, San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Ordinance) and has not “maintained enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance” (14.01.070.C.1). It should be removed from the Contributing List in order to preserve the integrity of that list.

Fortunately, at least 22, at most 26, of the other 27 Contributing List examples of this subtype of Colonial Revival architecture in the Old Town Historic District do retain the high level of historic integrity to communicate their significance and remain eligible for the list.

Submitted by James Papp, PhD, historian and architectural historian, SOI Professional Qualification Standards, on behalf of Niels and Bimmer Udsen, Max Udsen and Malina Wiebe

3 Contents
Summary Conclusion 1
Chronology of 1720 Morro Street 4
Historic Context 6
Contributing List Asymmetric Pedimented Colonial Revival Bungalows in the Old Town Historic District 9
Absence of Association with Historic Events or Persons 12 Period of Significance 12
Documentation of 1720 Morro Street, 1905–present 13
Loss of Integrity for 1720 Morro to Communicate Its Significance 20 Conclusion 22

4 Chronology of 1720 Morro Street
1903–1908 The William J. Morris family is documented living at 1720 Morro Street.1 1906 A photograph from Terrace Hill records the roof of 1720 Morro with roof cresting above the pediment gable but without dormers, consistent with contemporary Colonial Revival bungalows with pyramidal roofs and pedimented bays or pedimented porches in the immediate area.
1917 Mr. and Mrs. Charles Kinney move to 1720 Morro from British Columbia.2 1918 Mr. and Mrs. A. F. Mangless are living at 1720 Morro.3 1925–1927 Mr. and Mrs. Harry Eker are living at 1720 Morro.4 1933 Mr. and Mrs. F. D. Silva move to 1720 Morro.5
1936 Eric Luttropp is living at 1720 Morro.6
1941 Corp. Rolly C. Platte is living at 1720 Morro.7
1942 Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Fischer are living at 1720 Morro.8 1949 The street-facing dormer window appears clearly in an aerial photograph. 1954 Mr. and Mrs. Marvin C. Adams are living at 1720 Morro.9 1956 Mr. and Mrs Jack Hubbs are living at 1720 Morro.10 1968 Edward Stanley Salas owns and is living at 1720 Morro and adds a section of back porch.
11 1969 Earl Wayne Stanley, a college student arrested for possession for sale of marijuana, is living at 1720 Morro.12
1975 W. L. Davidson owns 1720 Morro and receives a permit for a bedroom addition (1720 Morro Address File).

1. “Personal Mention,” San Luis Obispo Tribune, 28 Mar. 1903, p. 4; “Births, Deaths, Marriages: MARTIN,” Daily Telegram, 20 June 1908, p. 1.

2. “Chooses This City,” Daily Telegram, 14 Feb. 1917, p. 5.

3. “Local News Notes: To Valley,” Daily Telegram, 27 Aug. 1918, p. 5.

4. Daily Telegram: “Jewell Eker Dies at Fillmore,” 27 July 1925, p. 4; “Sunday School Fetes Teacher,” 3 Sep. 1927, p.

3. “To Valley,” Daily Telegram, 27 Aug. 1918, p. 5.

5. “About Town,” San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 1 May 1933, p. 2.

6. “Around the Town,” San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram, 27 Aug. 1936, p. 8.

7. “Obispan Released from Army Duty,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, 14 Nov. 1941, p. 5.

8. San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune: “Churches: Zion English Lutheran, 25 Apr. 1942, p. 3; “Honor Fischers on Golden Anniversary,” 26 Oct. 1943, p. 2.

9. “SLO County Men in Service,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, 24 June 1954, p. 4.

10. “18 Babies Make Their Debuts, Only Seven of Them Are Boys,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, 19 June 1956, p. 4.

11. “Christmas Party Ends with Crash,” San Luis Obispo Telegram-Tribune, 20 Dec. 1968, p. 2; 1720 Morro Address File, Community Development Department.

12. “Marijuana Suspects Arrested,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald-Recorder, 29 May 1969, . p. 13.

5 1982 1720 Morro is recorded by Chuck Crotser in the Historic Resources Survey, including both dormers and the stained glass window and canopy on the bay (ibid.).
1983 The Old Town Historic District is created.
1986 1720 Morro Street is assessed by R. Wall (ibid.)
1987 Added to the Contributing List.
13 2017 Construction of the front porch enclosure is recorded in a Google Map street view.

13. 1720 Morro, Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.

6 Historic Context
The Colonial Revival style in architecture began during the interest and excitement around the first American centennial. The legendary genesis was an 1877 sketching expedition of Colonial architecture in Marblehead, Salem, and Newburyport, MA and Portsmouth, NH by William Bigelow, Charles McKim, William Mead, and Stanford White, but Harper’s in 1875 had already published illustrated articles on Colonial towns, whose old buildings were part of the attraction of the new oceanside resorts.14 In January 1875, the journal New York Sketchbook of Architecture, in the first mechanical reproduction of a photograph of an American building, had published a view (below) of the shingled rear addition to Bishop Berkeley’s clapboard house, White Hall, part of a series of photographs of Colonial Newport, RI buildings that McKim had commissioned from William James Stillman in 1874.

Shortly after the 1877 sketching party, the firm of McKim, Mead, and Bigelow became McKim, Mead, and White. It would dominate experimentation in Colonial Revival architecture, both in the Shingle style and clapboard variant, the latter of which Virginia and Lee McAlester, in their Field Guide to American Houses, call “asymmetrical form with superimposed Colonial details” but I will refer to as Streamline Colonial, a term that captures its consistent modernizing aesthetic, including in examples that are quite often symmetric.

McKim, Mead, and White catered to the plutocratic class of New York and New England, but by the 1890s, the patriotic style was being adapted by architects and builders for the nation’s developing suburbs. High-Peaked Colonial Revival was a 1½-story San Francisco Bay Area variant, tucked into narrow suburban lots, of which the best San Luis example is the LeRoy Smith House at the corner of Johnson and Mill, designed by Watsonville- and later Palo Alto– based architect William H. Weeks, who also designed the high school, Carnegie Library, first two buildings at Cal Poly, and Crocker and Marshall Houses.

14. Vincent J. Scully, Jr., The Shingle Style and the Stick Style, revised edition [New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971], p. 30, note 36.

7 Smith, who would later become director of Cal Poly, had money of his own. Others needed more modest accommodation.

One-story Colonial Revival bungalows would proliferate in Fremont Heights (later the Mill Street Historic District) and particularly in the Vineyard, La Vina, and surrounding tracts that would in 1983 be designated the Old Town Historic District.

McKim, Mead, and White’s Appleton (1883–1884) and Taylor Houses (1885–1886), both asymmetric (to accommodate service wings) and streamlined (the Taylor House’s wraparound terrace invisible because balustraded only at left and covered periodically). Most significant for the birth of Streamline Colonial: both used clapboard instead of shingle siding.

These one-story Streamline Colonial bungalows were built in San Luis Obispo in a half dozen common subtypes, with a few outlying subtypes of one or two examples. Some are clearly

8 Colonial clones from plans or pattern books, but others seem to be on-the-spot adaptations of a common vocabulary of expected features. The previously mentioned 27 Old Town Historic District Colonial Revival bungalows similar to 1720 Morro are only those of two closely-related subtypes on the Contributing List, with more examples on the Master List. The heyday of Streamline Colonial bungalows in San Luis was 1900–1913, which overlaps with the Prairie style and California Bungalow (aka, American Craftsman). But the Colonial Revival bungalow projects an East Coast rather than Midwest or West Coast aesthetic—except where it subsumed a japoniste aesthetic in a subtype with irimoya roofs. The extent to which that sybtype exists outside of San Luis Obispo will require more research.

Streamline Colonial, Prairie style, and the California Bungalow—which all spread throughout the United States—were destined to be swept away immediately after World War I by Minimal Traditional revival styles, whose characteristic (and often impractical) shallow eaves, emphasized roofs, and limited windows appear to have been inspired by the work of English architect Sir Edwin Lutyens. Modernism and Mid-Century Modernism would hearken back to many of the precepts of the California Bungalow, Prairie, and Streamline Colonial in their treatment of linearity, horizontality, and shadow.

Left: W. H. Weeks’ 1905–1906 Smith House. In
the Bay Area, High-Peaked Colonial had its
narrow end facing the street; here a corner lot
allows a broad street façade. Above: Colonial
portico and Japanese irimoya roof in the ca.
1906–1907 Strickland House, 1152 Buchon, one
of two surviving irimoya-roofed Streamline
Colonial bungalows built by contractor Charles
Strickland.

9 Contributing List Asymmetric Pedimented Colonial Revival Bungalows in the Old Town Historic District
I. Asymmetric with pyramidal roof and pediment-topped porch

1. 641 Buchon

4. 985 Pismo

7. 1045 Islay
Original pyramidal dormer

10. 1512 Santa Rosa

2. 1132 Buchon

5. 663 Pismo|Chapek 1913

8. 572 Islay
Original pyramidal dormer

11. 1160 Buchon

3. 1137 Buchon

6. 657 Pismo|Chapek ca 1913

9. 1035 Islay
Later porch enclosure

12. 481 Islay

10 II. Asymmetric with pyramidal roof and pediment-topped window bay

13. 578 Buchon|Esplin 1910

16. 1190 Buchon

19. 1627 Santa Rosa

22. 1428 Morro|Storz 1908
Later porch enclosure

24. 1035 Leff

14. 1051 Buchon

17. 683 Pismo

20. 1606 Santa Rosa

23. 1543 Morro
Later porch enclosure

25. 1520 Morro

15. 1165 Buchon

18. 1005 Islay

21. 1504 Santa Rosa|1900
Later pedimented dormers
Altered bay fenestration
Later porch enclosure

26. 1720 Morro

11 Original pyramidal dormer
Later porch enclosure

27. 1624 Santa Rosa
Original pyramidal dormer
Later porch enclosure

28. 972 Church

12 Absence of Association with Historic Events or Persons No historic event at 1720 Morro Street is recorded in the contemporary press.

The chronology of 1720 Morro shows that it was primarily used as a rental property before 1972 (the fifty-year cut-off before which historic association would normally be considered), and no tenants occupied it for long enough to establish association. William J. Morris, the first known and probable original owner-occupant of the house, was, during his residence, a Southern Pacific engineer or boilermaker and did not have the leadership in his profession or the community that a historic figure requires under National Register Criteria.

Period of Significance
Given the absence of historic association, the significance of the primary dwelling at 1720 Morro Street is presumptively its embodiment of Colonial Revival bungalow architecture and thus the period of significance its date of construction, circa 1903.

13 Documentation of 1720 Morro Street, 1905–present
William J. Morris of Seattle, referred to as a new railroad engineer, subsequently boilermaker, for the Southern Pacific arrived in San Luis in early 1903. By late 1903 the Wm. J. Morris his residence was said to be on “southerly Morro Street.”15 In 1908 the residence of Mrs. W. J.

Morris was referred to as 1720 Morro, confirming the house as the same, i.e., on lot 5, block 176, in Cocke’s—later Graham’s—Addition.16
In a 1906 panoramic photograph of San Luis Obispo from Terrace Hill, 1720 Morro is visible beyond the Graham House and old Tribune Building (1789 and Santa Barbara Avenue), with the stable building of 1730 Morro to the south, south of that the Jones House facing Church Street (972), and nothing to the north.17 The 1905 Sanborn Map confirms the placement.

Above: 1720 Morro’s roof appears behind trees at center rear of this 1906 detail from Terrace Hill.

Center front are the 1885 Lozelle and Katie Graham House and the Tribune-Republic Building, moved to the site in 1905. The 1885 William and Lydia Graham House is at right. At left is the 1903 James and Alice Herron Jones House, with the stable at 1730 Morro behind it. 1720’s roof (below right) shows ridge cresting on its front gable but no dormers on the hip roof.

15. San Luis Obispo Tribune: “Personal Mention,” 28 Mar. 1903, p. 4; “Native Missourian Dies,” 24 Nov. 1903, p. 4.

16. “Births, Deaths, Marriages: MARTIN,” Daily Telegram, 20 June 1908, p. 1.

17. “San Luis Obispo, panoramic view from Terrace Hill, 1907,” 168-1-b-01-35-01, San Luis Obispo County Regional Photograph Collection, Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives.

At left: 1905 Sanborn Map, with a faint outline where the Tribune-Republic Building will go, between the two Graham Houses at bottom right. 1720 Morro is the left topmost
building. 1730 has a non-dwelling, possibly an open shed, and stable. The Jones House is at bottom left, the Chicago Hotel, now The Establishment, at top right.

14 Above: 1926–1956 Sanborn Map, block 176 and
Triangle Park, backlit to show alterations. 1720
Morro appears as it did on the 1905 map, with
an asymmetric porch in front and full-width porch
in back. Top right: 3 May 1965 aerial photo of
block 176. Second from top right: 1720 from the
1 Jan. 1949 aerial photo, with a shadow showing
the presence of the front dormer. Second from
bottom right: 1720 from the 1965 aerial photo.

Bottom right: Current Google Satellite view
showing the front, south, and rear dormers.

Below: 1720 from the 1926–1956 Sanborn Map.

15 Above: 1720 Morro at the time of the 1982 Historic Resources Survey, when it was recorded with great detail and accuracy by Chuck Crotser, who did not make judgments on what was and was not original. The original window or windows on the bay had already been replaced with stained glass, the canopy above the window added, and the two dormers added, at different times, to the roof. Thirty-five years later, the porch would be enclosed and the mullioned porch window, noted by Crotser, would be destroyed or obscured from view, with one and a half of the elephant leg columns disappearing and the remainder being fluted on their street side. Below: the 2017 Google Map street view shows construction in progress on the enclosure of the front porch to the right, with a modern window added.

16 Above: enclosed front porch, revealing no clue as to the original function. Below left: likely original door with later glazing. Below right: Later falsely historicist French door leading to deck, north façade.

17 Above: later pushout, in part possibly dating before 1965, with modern bay window, north façade.

Below: The north façade pediment gable, with original diamond and scalloped wall shingle, altered by the insertion of a later window to make the attic habitable. The chimney is also a later addition.

18 Above: the rear of the house, with a Postmodern dormer looming over a full-width ground-floor addition that is probably an enclosure of the original porch, extended on both sides, on the right before 1965 and the left in 1968, the latter according to one of the few extant permits connected to the house in the city’s address file. Enclosure to the right may have included a 1936 permitted bathroom (City of San Luis Obispo Historic Building Permit Collection, Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives). Below:

South façade, showing the house’s only two surviving original windows, plus the boarding up of an added but subsequently removed stained glass window between.

19 Street view of the street and south façades shows how the two added dormers and enclosure of the porch have completely changed the profile and fabric of the house for the public. The half-columns on either side of the front door and the window and shiplap at lower center are the only original design, materials, or workmanship visible.
1720 Morro was first described by Chuck Crotser in the 1982 Historic Resources Survey, where he was scrupulous in detail but did not speculate on the age or originality of the various elements of the house. In 1986 a one-page report signed by R. Wall noted that the stained glass window and canopy on the bay were not original but “add to the beauty of this home” and opined, incorrectly, that “their addition does not constitute an irreversible change to the façade” (1720 Morro Address File, Community Development Department). The loss of the original windows and the lack of documentation to reconstruct them to Secretary of the Interior Standards do constitute an irreversible change.

The report inaccurately accepted the dormers as original with stick elements. It emphasized the transitional significance of the ten-over-one porch window and the elephant leg columns, which have both subsequently been lost. The “beauty and unusual features” that the report concluded would “assure its position as an important part of the Old Town Historic District” were either not original or transitory.

The property was added to the Contributing List in 1987.

20 Loss of Integrity for 1720 Morro to Communicate Its Significance 1720 Morro Street is in the same location as when it was built. The suburban setting is adequately consistent: The house was the first on the 1700 block of Morro, and apart from the Jones House at 972 Church Street, the buildings that flank and face it all postdate 1720 Morro’s construction. But the area had been subdivided for suburban development, and a number of pre-existing buildings on block 176, facing Santa Barbara Avenue (The Establishment [Chicago Hotel], the Tribune-Republic Building, the two Graham Houses, and the Jones House) still survive. Association is not relevant here, as no link between the property and a historic person or event can be found.

Street façade: only the shingle-faced pediment above the bay, the small amount of remaining shiplap on the bay, and the flanking door columns and door (apart from its glass) are original; the rest is falsely historicist alteration and addition
The loss of integrity is found in design, materials, workmanship, and the feeling that is the aggregate of these qualities and setting.

The changes include, on the street façade:
• addition of an oversize front-facing dormer by 1949 and south-facing pedimented dormer between 1965 and 1982
• enclosure of the front porch in 2017, so that it no longer communicates having been a porch, loss of one and a half porch columns, and addition of falsely historicist fluting on the one and a half columns remaining

21 • replacement of the fenestration in the pedimented bay with a large stained glass window, which itself was removed in 2022, with no documentation to allow reconstruction to Secretary of the Interior Standards
• structural canopy over the bay’s windows
• non-period glass in the original door
on the north façade:
• pushout with modern bay window, attached to the enclosure of the back porch • falsely historicist French door leading to a late-twentieth-century deck • insertion of an ahistoric sash window into the pediment on the south façade:
• installation of a stained glass window (now removed and the space boarded up) between the only two original windows of the house
• installation of the previously mentioned oversize south-facing dormer on the rear façade:
• apparent enclosure and extension of the full-width back porch with variable wall and windows, topped by a monumental Postmodern dormer
It is possible—with expert knowledge of the Colonial Revival bungalow subtype that 1720 Morro originally embodied, along with early photographic documentation—to imagine what the house looked like in its period of significance. But it no longer communicates what it looked like to the ordinary observer on the street, for whom historic preservation is intended. The false historicism of its dormers, French and bay windows, fluted columns, and modern shiplap siding violate Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and may mislead both amateur and expert. It certainly misled those who placed the house on the Contributing List in 1987.

22 Conclusion
1720 Morro having been redesigned for interior accommodation, the exterior effect is cluttered and jarring, the opposite of the streamlining that made clapboard Colonial Revival bungalows historically significant. There is no façade, least of all the street façade, that predominately communicates the original design, materials, workmanship, or feeling of the house. The house’s lack of integrity to communicate its significance makes it ineligible for listing under the city’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, which requires a historic resource to “exhibit a high level of historic integrity” and to have “maintained enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as a historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance.” There is insufficient documentation for reconstruction to Secretary of the Interior Standards, even if the city had the power to require such reconstruction. Removal from the Contributing List is the only reasonable solution.

Fortunately, the vast majority of the 28 examples of the two subtypes of asymmetric, pedimented Colonial Revival bungalows on the Contributing List in the Old Town Historic District exhibit a high level of integrity. The removal of 1720 Morro Street from the Contributing List will give the list as a whole more validity.

34 5.2.1 Old Town Historic District
Setting
Established in 1987, the Old Town Historic District abuts the Railroad district on the southeast and is generally bounded by Pacific and Islay streets on the north and south, and by Santa Rosa and Beach streets on the east and west. As one of the City’s oldest residential neighborhoods, Old Town was built up historically around the turn of the twentieth century, with older structures dating back to the 1880s. It consists of five subdivisions: the Mission Vineyard Tract recorded in March 1873, the Dallidet Tract recorded in 1876, the Murray Church Tract recorded in 1876, the Ingleside Homestead Tract, recorded in 1887, and the La Vina Homestead Tract, recorded in 1903. The District encompasses 86.1 acres, or 0.13 square miles.

The District’s prominent location, located just south of and uphill from the Downtown commercial district, made it a desirable neighborhood for the City’s emerging merchant class and leading citizens. Here, residents were close to businesses and commerce, but could avoid the flooding and mud that plagued the Downtown. Home sites were laid out in regular grid patterns, with relatively wide (60 foot right-of-way) streets and 60 foot wide lots. The resultant wide streets and lot frontages allowed deep (20+ feet) setbacks and ample landscaping, reinforcing the district’s prosperous image. Today the high concentration of 100 year old or older residences establishes the District’s predominant architectural and visual character.

Site Features and Characteristics
Common site features and characteristics
include:

A. Prominent street yard setbacks of 20
feet or more
B. Coach barn (garage) recessed into rear
yard
C. Finish floors raised 2 3 above finish
grade
D. Front entries oriented toward street,
with prominent walk, stairs and porch
E. Front building facades oriented
parallel to street
1060 Pismo Street, South Elevation

35 Architectural Character
In keeping with its peak period of development between 1880 and 1920, the Old Town District has many examples of High Victorian architecture, a style popular in California during that time period that reflected prosperity, power and discriminating taste. This included several style variations, such as Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences, especially along the top of the hill within the district roughly aligned with Buchon Street. Other, more modest structures with simpler styles abound in other areas of the district. These buildings were first home to the burgeoning merchant class in San Luis Obispo that emerged during the turn of the century. These styles include Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing architectural details from several styles. Most of the houses in this district were designed and constructed by the homes’ first occupants or by local builders and were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period. The shared first story porches along Pismo Street are a good example of a common design feature linking buildings.

Predominant architectural features include:

A. Two- and rarely three-story houses
B. Mostly gable and hip roof types
C. Highly ornamented roof features,
including prominent fascias,
bargeboards, gable end treatments,
decorative shingles, prominent
pediments or cornices
D. Traditional fenestration, such as
double-hung, wood sash windows,
divided light windows, ornamental
front doors, wood screen doors
E. Painted wood surface material,
including siding and decorative
moldings
Although many of the buildings were built at separate times, the pattern, rhythm and repetition of common design elements or detailing of historic building facades along Old Town streets creates a prevailing theme and character for the
district.

Individually Contributing Elements in the
Old Town District
Some buildings within the bounds of the Old
Town District, constructed outside of the
period of significance for the district, 1880-
1920, do not share the elements outlined in the
above description, but have achieved
historical significance on their own and
1543 Morro Street, East Elevation
M.F. Avila House, 1443 Osos Street, East
Elevation Page 304 of 697

36 therefore individually contribute to the historic character of San Luis Obispo.

The M.F. Avila House at 1443 Osos Street is an example of a Spanish Revival style building built in the late 1920s that has been placed on the City’s Master List as a significant resource, in this case for its craftsmanship as well as its association with a historically significant local person. St. Stephens Episcopal Church at 1344 Nipomo Street built in 1873 is an example of Carpenter Gothic style. The first Episcopal church in San Luis Obispo County, St. Stephens is historically significant both its architecture and its association with the pioneer period of San Luis Obispo.

Non-Contributing Elements in the Old Town District
Non-contributing buildings are those buildings that both do not meet the criteria outlined above and have not achieved historical significance. Most of the contemporary buildings in the district fall into this category.

Non-contributing architectural styles,
materials or site features include:

A. Contemporary stucco or other material
exterior siding
B. Flat or extremely low pitched roof
C. Aluminum sliding windows
D. Rectilinear, “boxy” shape or very
horizontal massing
E. Unarticulated wall surfaces
The Vista Grande Apartments, 1415 Morro
Street, East Elevation.

37 ***
1059 Leff Street; Biddle House, 559 Pismo Street; 1624, 1636, 1642 Morro Street; and Pismo Buchon Alley from Santa Rosa Street

12 Zoning, or remove the property from historic listing if the structure on the property no longer meets eligibility criteria for listing, following the process for listing set forth herein.

14.01.070. Evaluation Criteria for Historic Resource Listing When determining if a property should be designated as a listed Historic or Cultural Resource, the CHC and City Council shall consider this ordinance and State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) standards. In order to be eligible for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integrity, be at least fifty (50) years old (less than 50 if it can be demonstrated that enough time has passed to understand its historical importance) and satisfy at least one of the following criteria:

A. Architectural Criteria: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. (1) Style: Describes the form of a building, such as size, structural shape and details within that form (e.g. arrangement of windows and doors, ornamentation, etc.). Building style will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. The relative purity of a traditional style;
b. Rarity of existence at any time in the locale; and/or current rarity although the structure reflects a once popular style;
c. Traditional, vernacular and/or eclectic influences that represent a particular social milieu and period of the community; and/or the uniqueness of hybrid styles and how these styles are put together.
(2) Design: Describes the architectural concept of a structure and the quality of artistic merit and craftsmanship of the individual parts. Reflects how well a particular style or combination of styles are expressed through compatibility and detailing of elements.

Also, suggests degree to which the designer (e.g., carpenter-builder) accurately interpreted and conveyed the style(s). Building design will be evaluated as a measure of:
a. Notable attractiveness with aesthetic appeal because of its artistic merit, details and craftsmanship (even if not necessarily unique);
b. An expression of interesting details and eclecticism among carpenter-builders, although the craftsmanship and artistic quality may not be superior. (3) Architect: Describes the professional (an individual or firm) directly responsible for the building design and plans of the structure. The architect will be evaluated as a reference to:

13 a. A notable architect (e.g., Wright, Morgan), including architects who made significant contributions to the state or region, or an architect whose work influenced development of the city, state or nation.
b. An architect who, in terms of craftsmanship, made significant contributions to San Luis Obispo (e.g., Abrahams who, according to local sources, designed the house at 810 Osos - Frank Avila's father's home - built between 1927 – 30).

B. Historic Criteria
(1) History – Person: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. Historic person will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which a person or group was:
a. Significant to the community as a public leader (e.g., mayor, congress member, etc.) or for his or her fame and outstanding recognition - locally, regionally, or nationally.
b. Significant to the community as a public servant or person who made early, unique, or outstanding contributions to the community, important local affairs or institutions (e.g., council members, educators, medical professionals, clergymen, railroad officials).
(2) History – Event: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. Historic event will be evaluated as a measure of:
(i) A landmark, famous, or first-of-its-kind event for the city - regardless of whether the impact of the event spread beyond the city.
(ii) A relatively unique, important or interesting contribution to the city (e.g., the Ah Louis Store as the center for Chinese-American cultural activities in early San Luis Obispo history).
(3) History-Context: Associated with and also a prime illustration of predominant patterns of political, social, economic, cultural, medical, educational, governmental, military, industrial, or religious history. Historic context will be evaluated as a measure of the degree to which it reflects:
a. Early, first, or major patterns of local history, regardless of whether the historic effects go beyond the city level, that are intimately connected with the building (e.g., County Museum).
b. Secondary patterns of local history, but closely associated with the building (e.g., Park Hotel).

14 C. Integrity: Authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity will be evaluated by a measure of:
(1) Whether or not a structure occupies its original site and/or whether or not the original foundation has been changed, if known.
(2) The degree to which the structure has maintained enough of its historic character or appearance to be recognizable as an historic resource and to convey the reason(s) for its significance.
(3) The degree to which the resource has retained its design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.

14.01.080 Historic District Designation, Purpose and Application A. Historic (H) District designation. All properties within historic districts shall be designated by an “H” zoning. Properties zoned “H” shall be subject to the provisions and standards as provided in Ordinance 17.54 (Zoning) of the Municipal Code.

B. Purposes of Historic Districts. The purposes of historic districts and H zone designation are to:
(1) Implement cultural resource preservation policies of the General Plan, the preservation provisions of adopted area plans, the Historic Preservation and Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, and (2) Identify and preserve definable, unified geographical entities that possess a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development; (3) Implement historic preservation provisions of adopted area and neighborhood improvement plans;
(4) Enhance and preserve the setting of historic resources so that surrounding land uses and structures do not detract from the historic or architectural integrity of designated historic resources and districts; and
(5) Promote the public understanding and appreciation of historic resources.

C. Eligibility for incentives. Properties zoned as Historic Preservation (H) shall be eligible for preservation incentive and benefit programs as established herein, in the Guidelines and other local, state and federal programs.

Item 5i
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5201
For Agenda of: 11/15/2022
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Matt Horn, Public Works Director
Prepared By: Shelsie Moore, Supervising Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE THE REVISED TRANSIT FACILITY

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT,
SPECIFICATION 1000535

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve the revised project plans and specifications for the Transit Facility Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure, Specification Number 1000535; and,

2. Authorize staff to advertise the revised project plans and specifications for bids; and,

3. Appropriate $500,000 from the available Transit Fund Working Capital Balance to the project account (1000535); and,

4. Appropriate $898,093 of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Section 5307 SLO Transit EV Infrastructure funds to the project account (1000535); and,

5. Authorize the City Manager to award the construction contract pursuant to Section

3.24.190 of the Municipal Code for the bid total, if the lowest responsible bid is within the available project budget; and,

6. Authorize the City Engineer to approve Contract Change Orders up to the available project budget.

POLICY CONTEXT
This project supports the Major City Goal of Climate Action, Open Space and Sustainable Transportation by implementing a shift from fossil fuel powered buses to an all-electric fleet. The project progresses the City towards the goal of being carbon neutral by 2030 as identified in the San Luis Obispo’s Climate Action Plan (CAP).

On May 17, 2022, Council approved a Purchasing Policy Update which requires Council approval for Public Projects with a value of $200,000 or more.

DISCUSSION
Background
On March 15, 2022, Council approved staff’s recommendation to advertise the Transit Facility Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure project. The approved project included

Item 5i
construction of the electric vehicle infrastructure needed to support the charging requirements for two zero emission buses (ZEBs) that have been ordered and are pending manufacturer delivery. It also included installation of electrical conduit and concrete bus bays necessary for the future expansion of the electric bus fleet for up to twenty ZEBs.

The project was originally designed with a bid alternate to construct infrastructure improvements for another four-bus bay and two charger facilities to the east of the existing Transit Maintenance Building.

Revised Project Scope
Prior to finalizing the project design, staff conducted several site visits to confirm existing conditions and identify any remaining constructability limitations. During this evaluation, staff unfortunately determined that extensive pavement degradation would likely make clean pavement joints as designed unachievable, requiring the contractor to expand the project’s planned asphalt removal and replacement at a now unknown cost to the City due to it being much more significant than was included in the original project design.

Staff therefore recommends revising the project scope to include replacement of the deteriorated asphalt in the project scope of work (See Attachment A).

Expanding the limits of pavement maintenance work with this project will increase the overall project cost, but the City will receive a more cost-effective price for the work by including it in the bid documents. Additionally, staff recommends removing the option of having an additive alternate in the bid documents and making the entire pavement work part of the base bid due to the need for electrical infrastructure and site improvements accommodating full expansion of the ZEB fleet.

The additional project scope, as well as the time it has been taking to be in coordination with PG&E on the necessary electrical infrastructure upgrades, has delayed advertisement and award of the project (that part never started even though staff had Council’s authorization). The recommended revised project plans (Attachment B) and specifications (Attachment C) will now better meet more of the needs of the Transit Facility as it begins the conversion to an all electric fleet. Staff have increased the cost estimate of the project to account for higher bid prices seen throughout this year due to increases in construction materials and labor.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
This project was identified in the 2021-23 Financial Plan that was approved by Council.

Then, staff presented this project to Council on March 15, 2022, and received approval at that time to bid the then project. Additionally, on June 7, 2022, City Council authorized the Public Works Director to apply for local, state, and federal grants that benefit the City’s Transit Program through June 30, 2023.

Public Engagement

Item 5i
Public engagement was incorporated with the identification of this project as part of the 2021-23 Financial Plan.

CONCURRENCE
This project has the concurrence of the Administration and Public Works Departments including the Interim Transit Manager.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15301 Class 1 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because this project proposes to work within the exiting transit facility. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable City Regulations. A Notice of Exemption has been filed with the Community Development Department.

Staff is also proposing to federalize this project through the use of American Rescue Plan (ARP) Formula Funds (ARP Section 5307 SLO Transit EV Infrastructure Funds). The project is exempt from NEPA review under the Categorical Exclusions (C-List) Class II(c) for Type 08: maintenance, rehabilitation, and reconstruction of facilities that occupy substantially the same geographic footprint and do not result in a change of functional use.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2021-22
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding Sources
Total
Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
State: Low Carbon
Transit Operations
Program (LCTOP)
$344,183 $344,183 $0 N/A
Federal: ARP Section
5307 SLO Transit EV
Infrastructure Funds
$898,093 $898,093 $0 N/A
Other: Transit Fund in
Project Account
(1000535)
$511,856 $511,856 $0 N/A
Other: Transit Fund
Working Capital
Balance
$1,308,205 $500,000 $808,205
Other: APCD* $420,000 $420,000 $0 N/A
Other: PG&E* $50,000 $50,000 $0 N/A

Item 5i
Total $3,532,337 $2,724,132 $808,205 N/A
*Highly Likely to Secure, Pending Approval
Engineer's Estimate
Contingencies (20%)
Total Construction Estimate
Construction Support Services
Materials Testing
Printing & Advertising
Additional Design Costs
Total Project Estimate
Available Project Balance
Appropriation from Transit Fund
Working Capital Balance
Appropriation from ARP Funding*
LCTOP Funding
APCD Funding **
PG&E Funding **
Current Funding Requst -
Total Available Project Budget $2,724,132
$400,000
$2,400,000
$50,000
$9,500
$344,183
$898,093
$500
$2,500,000
$420,000
$50,000
$500,000
Transit Facility Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure, Specification No. 1000535
$511,856
$40,000
Project Account (1000535)
Transit Fund (621)
$2,000,000
*ARP Transit Formula Funds (ARP Section 5307 SLO Transit EV Infrastructure funds) are separate from other ARP awards the City has received for General Fund Revenue Loss and are specifically provided to transit systems to fund transit needs.
**These are rebate/reimbursement opportunities that will be requested during the award phase or after project completion as required by the funding programs
This project is identified in the 2021-23 Financial Plan, Capital Improvement Program (page 485) and additional funding has been secured through grant opportunities. The ARP funding and LCTOP funding identified in the table above has been secured by the Transit Division. Staff is requesting to appropriate $898,093 from the ARP Funding and $500,000 from the Transit Fund Working Capital Balance to complete the project. Per the project table above, there is sufficient funding identified to complete construction of the revised project. Therefore, staff recommends appropriating funds to complete maintenance around the new bus parking pad with this project.

ALTERNATIVES
Council could decide not to authorize staff to advertise the revised project. The City Council could choose not to authorize the appropriation of funds for the revised Transit Facility Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Project and authorize staff to advertise the project for bids. Staff does not recommend this option, as the transit facility requires

Item 5i
significant infrastructure to be installed in order to charge the electric buses that have been ordered to begin compliance with the City’s Climate Action Plan.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Parking Lot Maintenance Exhibit
B - Revised Project Plans (1000535)
C - Revised Project Specifications (1000535)

08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY

NO PARKING NO PARKING

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRICAL VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
8/16/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 82551
AJSAJS
JJS
1" = 20'

STRIPING PLAN
4 JJS
NO PARKING NO PARKING 10,293 sf
7,280 sf
9,392 sf
10,295 SF

HORIZONTAL CONTROL FOR POINTS 8201 & 8102 AS PUBLISHED
IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2007 HORIZONTAL CONTROL
NETWORK. CITY NETWORK IS BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICANDATUM OF 1983 (NAD83) EPOCH DATE 1991.35, ZONE 5 CALIFORNIA.

VERTICAL CONTROL BENCHMARK NO. 53 WITH AN ELEVATION
OF 134.44 FEET AS PUBLISHED IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2007 BENCHMARK SYSTEM. CITY'S BENCHMARK SYSTEM IS
BASED ON THE NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
(NAVD88).

Reference Documents:

City Standard Specifications - August 2020 EditionCity Engineering Standards - August 2020 Edition

1. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR OR
PERMITTEE TO CONTACT "UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OFNORTHERN CALIFORNIA" BY PHONE AT 8-1-1 FORTY-EIGHT (48)HOURS PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION FOR LOCATION OFPOWER, TELEPHONE, OIL AND NATURAL GAS UNDERGROUND FACILITIES. CONTRACTOR OR PERMITTEE SHALL ALSO
CONTACT THE APPROPRIATE AGENCY FOR THE LOCATION OFCABLE T.V., WATER, SEWER, DRAINAGE OR UNDERGROUND FACILITIES.

2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL POSSESS A CLASS A LICENSE AT THE TIME OF BID OPENING.
general notes: index to plans
datum:
san luis obispo county, california
legend:

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC

VEHICLE CHARGING

INFRASTRUCTURE

APPROVED BY
SPECIFICATION NO. DATE
of
SHEET
Brian Nelson, City Engineer R.C.E. C79870 Approved Date 15 10/24/2022 1000535 1
1 TITLE SHEET
2 DEMOLITION PLAN
3 SITE & HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
4 STRIPING PLAN
5 TURNING TEMPLATE
6 CONTAINMENT AREA GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
7 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES
8 GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES
9 STRUCTURAL DETAILS
10 SYMBOLS AND GENERAL NOTES
11 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM
12 EQUIPMENT ELEVATIONS
13 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN14 ELECTRICAL DETAILS15 AGENCY STANDARD DETAILS ADDRESS: 29 PRADO ROAD, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CAAPN: 053-052-005 OWNER: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
project location:
•• DEMOLITION OF EXISTING ASPHALT BERM AND CONCRETE

PARKING SURFACE PAVEMENT
•• DEMOLITION OF CONTAINMENT AREA CATCH BASINS•• REMOVAL OF AN EXISTING LIGHT POLE AND FOUNDATION•• INSTALLATION OF NEW ASPHALT CONTAINMENT BERMS•• INSTALLATION OF NEW CONCRETE PARKING SURFACE

PAVEMENT
•• INSTALLATION OF NEW STRIPPING•• INSTALLATION OF NEW CHAINLINK FENCING AND BOLLARDS•• INSTALLATION OF NEW 1600A SWITCHBOARD AND CONCRETE

FOUNDATION
•• INSTALLATION OF TWO NEW ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGERS

AND CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS
•• INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE FOUNDATIONS FOR FUTURE

ELECTRICAL VEHICLE CHARGERS
•• INSTALLATION OF NEW CONDUCTORS, CONDUIT, PULLBOXES

AND VAULT
•• INSTALLATION OF TWO NEW 100A CIRCUIT BREAKERS TO THE

EXISTING BOARD, CONDUCTORS AND CONDUITS FOR
TEMPORARY FEED TO THE 2 NEW CHARGERS
•• CONNECTION TO PG&E SERVICES
scope of work:

INFRASTRUCTURE UPGRADE TO CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSIT FACILITY TO INSTALL • • • • • • •• • • •• • • •• • • •• • • • • •• • •• • • • •• • • •• • •• • • • • • •• • • •• •• • •• •• • • • •• • •• • •• • •• • • • • ••• • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• THESE PLANS INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING WORK:

NO. 79870

BRIAN NELSON
R
EG

ISTERED PROFESSIONAL ENGIN
E
E
R

STATE OF CA LIFORNIA
EXP.

CIV IL
09/30/2024

CITY SPECIFICATION NO.

DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 82551
AJSAJS
JJS
1" = 20'

DEMOLITION PLAN
2 JJS

08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY

NO PARKING NO PARKING

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 82551
AJSAJS
JJS
1" = 20'

SITE & HORIZONTAL CONTROL PLAN
3 JJS

08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY

NO PARKING NO PARKING

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 82551
AJSAJS
JJS
1" = 20'

STRIPING PLAN
4 JJS

08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY

NO PARKING NO PARKING

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY

NO PARKING NO PARKING

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 82551
AJSAJS
JJS
1" = 30'

TURNING TEMPLATE
5 JJS

08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY

NO PARKING NO PARKING

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 82551
AJSAJS
JJS

AS SHOWN

CONTAINMENT AREA GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
6 JJS

CITY SPECIFICATION NO.

DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
KAKA
MRPMRP

AS NOTED

GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES
7 No. S5101

KA
KA
MRPMRP

AS NOTED

GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES
8 No. S5101
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____

2 3
5 6
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
KAKA
MRPMRP

AS NOTED

STRUCTURAL DETAILS
9 No. S5101

CITY SPECIFICATION NO.

DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 21736
BABA
DPDP

AS NOTED

SYMBOLS AND GENERAL NOTES
10 E0.1

CITY SPECIFICATION NO.

DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 21736

BABADPDP

AS NOTED

SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM
11 E1.0

DC FAST

EV CHARGING ONLY
chargepoin

CHARGEPOINT EXPRESS

AVAILABLE
chargepoin
Charge On.

CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 21736

BABADPDP

AS NOTED

EQUIPMENT ELEVATIONS
12 E2.0

08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
LEFT
ONLY
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999
08999

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
08999
RIGHT
ONLY

NO PARKING NO PARKING

NO PARKING
08999
RIGHT
ONLY
CITY SPECIFICATION NO.DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 21736
BABA
DPDP

AS NOTED

ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN
13 E3.0

CITY SPECIFICATION NO.

DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 21736

BABADPDP

AS NOTED

ELECTRICAL DETAILS
14 E4.0

CITY SPECIFICATION NO.

DATE:

PROJECT TITLE:

SHEET TITLE:
of
SHEET NO.DESIGNED BY:DRAWN BY:CHECKED BY:APPROVED BY:SCALE:PLAN FILE NO. / LOCATION

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE

CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE
10/24/2022
1000535
15 APPROVED: __/__/____
NO. 82551
AJSAJS
JJS

AS SHOWN

AGENCY STANDARD DETAILS
15 JJS

SPECIAL PROVISIONS
FOR

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFASTRUCTURE Specification No. 1000535
November 2022

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

ENGINEERING DIVISION
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
(805) 781-7200

TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE Specification No. 1000535
Approval Date: November 15, 2022
11/30/2022
11/30/2022 11/30/2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTICE TO BIDDERS..................................................................................................... I BID SUBMISSION ......................................................................................................................................I BID DOCUMENTS ....................................................................................................................................II PROJECT INFORMATION........................................................................................................................II QUALIFICATIONS....................................................................................................................................III AWARD ....................................................................................................................................................IV ACCOMMODATION..................................................................................................................................V BID FORMS ....................................................................................................................A

BID ITEM LIST FOR TRANSIT FACILITY ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE, SPECIFICATION NO. 1000535 ................................................................................................................A LIST OF SUBCONTRACTORS................................................................................................................ C PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10285.1 STATEMENT.............................................................. D PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10162 QUESTIONNAIRE......................................................... D PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTION 10232 STATEMENT ................................................................. D LABOR CODE SECTION 1725.5 STATEMENTS ................................................................................... D NON-COLLUSION DECLARATION..........................................................................................................F BIDDER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.......................................................................................................... G QUALIFICATIONS.................................................................................................................................... H ATTACH BIDDER'S BOND TO ACCOMPANY BID...................................................................................I SPECIAL PROVISIONS.................................................................................................. 1 DIVISION I GENERAL PROVISIONS.......................................................................................................1 1 GENERAL...........................................................................................................................................1 2 BIDDING.............................................................................................................................................1 3 CONTRACT AWARD AND EXECUTION...........................................................................................1 4 SCOPE OF WORK .............................................................................................................................2 5 CONTROL OF WORK ........................................................................................................................2 6 CONTROL OF MATERIALS...............................................................................................................2 7 LEGAL RELATIONS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC .......................................................2 8 PROSECUTION AND PROGRESS ...................................................................................................2 9 PAYMENT...........................................................................................................................................2 DIVISION II GENERAL CONSTRUCTION ...............................................................................................5 10 GENERAL.........................................................................................................................................5 13 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.....................................................................................................6 15 EXISTING FACILITIES.....................................................................................................................6 16 TEMPORARY FACILITIES...............................................................................................................6 DIVISION VI STRUCTURES.....................................................................................................................8 45 GENERAL.........................................................................................................................................8