Agenda packet — San Luis Obispo City Council, October 21, 2025 (part 1 of 3)

City Council
AGENDA

Tuesday, October 21, 2025, 5:30 p.m.

Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
VICE MAYOR SHORESMAN WILL PARTICIPATE REMOTELY FROM HILTON CHICAGO, 720 S.

MICHIGAN AVENUE, CHICAGO, IL 60605
Council meetings may be viewed remotely on Channel 20, the City’s YouTube Channel, and on the City’s website under the Public Meeting Agendas web page. Attendees of City Council or Advisory Body meetings are eligible to receive one hour of complimentary parking; restrictions apply, visit Parking for Public Meetings for more details.

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. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting. *All correspondence will be archived and distributed to councilmembers, however, submissions received after the deadline may not be processed until the following day.

Public Comment during the meeting:

Meetings are held in-person. To provide public comment during the meeting, you must be present at the meeting location.

Electronic Visual Aid Presentation. To conform with the City's Network Access and Use Policy, Chapter 1.3.8 of the Council Policies & Procedures Manual, members of the public who desire to utilize electronic visual aids to supplement their oral presentation must provide display-ready material to the City Clerk by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. Contact the City Clerk's Office at [email protected] or (805) 781-7114.

Pages

1. CLOSED SESSION (4:30 PM TO 5:30 PM)

1.a CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 54956.9.

Name of case: Elks Lodge City Claim No. 24-017

1.b CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subsection (d) and paragraph (1) of subsection (e) of California Government Code Section 54956.9. No. of potential cases: One.

Consideration of initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 54956.9. No. of potential cases: One.

1.c CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 54956.9.

Name of cases:

City of San Luis Obispo v. Righetti NC, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; Righetti Ranch, LP, a Limited Partnership, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Case No. 25CV-0194.

Righetti NC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company v. City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Case No. 25CV-0214

1.d ADJOURNMENT
The City Council will hold a Regular Meeting on October 21, 2025 at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

2. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Erica A. Stewart will call the Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council to order.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Mike Boswell will lead the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. PRESENTATIONS

4.a INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' DAY
Mayor Stewart will present a proclamation declaring October 13, 2025 as Indigenous Peoples' Day.

4.b ARBOR DAY
Mayor Stewart will present a Proclamation declaring November 1, 2025 as Arbor Day.

4.c CITY MANAGER REPORT
Receive a brief report from City Manager Whitney McDonald.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Not to exceed 15 minutes. The Council welcomes your input. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.

6. CONSENT AGENDA
Not to exceed 15 minutes. Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may request the Council to pull an item for discussion. Pulled items shall be heard at the close of the Consent Agenda unless a majority of the Council chooses another time. The public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the three-minute time limit.

Recommendation:

To approve Consent Calendar Items 6a to 6j.

6.a WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND

ORDINANCES
Recommendation:

Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.

6.b MINUTES REVIEW - OCTOBER 7, 2025 COUNCIL MINUTES 13 Recommendation:

Approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held on October 7, 2025.

6.c CONSIDERATION OF THE 2026-27 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT

FUNDING PRIORITIES AND INFORMATION
21 Recommendation:

As recommended by the Human Relations Commission, approve the Human Services Grant funding priorities and information for the 2026-27 funding year.

6.d CONSIDERATION OF 2026-27 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT FUNDING PRIORITIES
39 Recommendation:

As recommended by the Human Relations Commission (HRC), approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ranked funding priorities for the 2026-27 funding year.

6.e AWARD CONTRACT TO CIO SOLUTIONS FOR NETWORK

INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT
47 Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to CIO
Solutions for the purchase of Juniper Network Switches and Firewalls (Project #2000604-02, Firewall Replacement and #2000604-04, Network Switching Infrastructure Project); and

1. Waive formal bids and authorize the use of NASPO Agreement Number AR3232 as allowed under 03.24.060E of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.

2. 6.f REQUEST TO ADD PROPERTY AT 1110 BUCHON STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES (HIST-0504-2025).
57 Recommendation:

Adopt a draft resolution entitled “A Resolution By The City Council Of The City Of San Luis Obispo, California, Adding The Property Located At 1110 Buchon Street To The Master List Of Historic Resources As The Hans Nissen And Lena Peterson Hansen House,” as
recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee.

6.g AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE GRAND AVENUE

SIGN & STRIPING MODIFICATIONS, SPECIFICATION NUMBER
2000615-01
141
Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to award a construction contract to Toste Construction, Inc. in the amount of $228,890.00 for the Grand Ave Sign and Striping Modifications project,
Specification Number 2000615-01, using remaining funds in the 2024 Roadway Sealing project account (2000615); and

1. Approve the plans and specifications for the Grand Avenue Sign and Striping Modifications Project, Specification Number 2000615-01; and

2. Authorize the City Engineer to approve Contract Change Orders not to exceed a total construction contract value of $275,000, using remaining funds in the 2024 Roadway Sealing project account (2000615).

3. 6.h AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT FEDERAL EMERGENCY

MANAGEMENT AGENCYFIRE PREVENTION AND SAFETY GRANT
153
Recommendation:

Authorize the Fire Department to accept the award from
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Fire
Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grant in the amount of
$60,240.00; and

1. Authorize the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the grant documents and approve the budget changes necessary to appropriate the grant amount upon acceptance of the grant award.

2. 6.i APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP FOR TRACT 3136, BULLOCK RANCH, 3580 BULLOCK LANE (FMAP-0168-2022)
191
Recommendation:

Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving the final map for Tract 3136, Bullock Ranch, and authorizing the Mayor to execute a Subdivision Agreement in a form subject to the approval of the City Attorney (3580 Bullock Lane, FMAP-0168-2022).”

6.j AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
(RFP) FOR A DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN CONSULTANT
AND FIDUCIARY INVESTMENT ADVISOR; AUTHORIZATION TO

ADVERTISE A SUBSEQUENT RFP TO CONSOLIDATE

RECORDKEEPING SERVICES
225
Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Designating the City Manager as Plan Administrator for Deferred Compensation Plans”

1. Authorize the Director of Human Resources to advertise a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a Deferred Compensation Consultant;

2. Authorize the Director of Human Resources to advertise a RFP for a Deferred Compensation Recordkeeper, via the selected Consultant; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to execute professional services agreements with the selected consultant and selected
recordkeeper.

4. 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS

7.a AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE A CALPERS RETIRED ANNUITANT FOR

A TEMPORARY PERIOD DUE TO AN APPROVED LEAVE OF
ABSENCE (15 MINUTES)
287
Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution entitled, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Appointing Donald Wright To Provide Specialized Building Plan Review Services During The Temporary Absence Of A Plans Examiner Pursuant To Government Code Section 21221(G).”

7.b RECEIVE A REPORT BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

CONFIRMING THE COST, WORK COMPLETED, PARCEL

DESCRIPTION, AND ASSESSMENT FOR CITY-COMPLETED

SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY A FORMAL NOTICE TO
CORRECT ISSUED TO PROPERTY OWNERS ( 20 MINUTES)
293
Recommendation:

Adopt a Resolution confirming the Work Completion Report describing the work completed, cost, real property description, and parcel assessment for City-completed frontage
improvements as required by Formal Notices to Correct issued to property owners; and

1. Authorize staff to file a special assessment lien with the County Recorder’s Office in the event a property owner fails to pay the assessment within five (5) days of Council’s confirmation; and

2. Authorize staff to negotiate alternative methods of collection, including collection of the assessment in installment payments on the tax roll pursuant to Streets and Highways Code §5628.1, if requested by the property owner within five (5) days of notice of Council’s confirmation.

3. 7.c ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE TOURISM BUSINESS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (20 MINUTES)
351
Recommendation:

Conduct a public hearing to receive testimony regarding the City Council’s intention to continue the San Luis Obispo Tourism Business Improvement District and determine whether a legally sufficient protest is made; and

1. If no legally sufficient protest is made, adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, declaring the basis for and the levy of the assessment for the San Luis Obispo Tourism Business
Improvement District and affirming the establishment of the District.”

2. 7.d REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S

DECISION TO REVOKE A USE PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF A
FRATERNITY ORGANIZATION AT 1236 MONTE VISTA PLACE (USE0332-2025, APPL-0665-2025) (90 MINUTES) 359
Recommendation:

Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, denying an appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke the use permit for a fraternity located at 1236 Monte Vista Place. The project is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as represented in the council agenda report and attachments dated October 21, 2025 (USE-0332-2025, APPL-0665-2025).”

7.e REVIEW OF AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 OF THE CITY’S
MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING REGULATIONS) SECTION 17.02.020 TO

INCLUDE AN APPLICABILITY SUBSECTION AND TO EXEMPT

CERTAIN PUBLIC SAFETY FEATURES IN CITY PROJECTS FROM
THE ZONING REGULATIONS (30 MINUTES)
417
Recommendation:

As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce a Draft Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending Title 17 of the City’s Municipal Code (Zoning Regulations) Section 17.02.020, “Purpose and Authority of the Zoning Regulations” to include an “applicability” subsection and to exempt certain public safety features in City projects from the Zoning Regulations.”

8. LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Not to exceed 15 minutes. Council Members report on subcommittee assignments, listed below, and other City activities. At this time, any Council Member or the City Manager may ask a question for clarification, make an announcement, or report briefly on their activities. In addition, subject to Council Policies and Procedures, they may provide a reference to staff or other resources for factual information, request staff to report back to the Council at a subsequent meeting concerning any matter or take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. (Gov. Code Sec. 54954.2) Mayor
Stewart
Vice Mayor
Shoresman
Council Member
Boswell
Council Member
Francis
Council
Member Marx
SLO Council of
Governments
Zone 9 Advisory
Committee
Airport Land Use Nacimiento Water
Project
Air Pollution
Control District
Regional
Economic Action
Coalition
Downtown
Association
Board
SLO Climate
Coalition
Community
Action
Partnership
Integrated
Waste
Management
Authority
CA Men’s
Colony Advisory
Committee
Homeless
Services
Oversight
Committee
Local Agency
Formation
Commission
County Water
Resources
Advisory
Committee
Performing Arts
Center
Commission
CP Campus
Planning
Committee
SLO Regional
Transit Authority
Visit SLO
County Advisory
Committee
Central Coast
Clean Energy

9. ADJOURNMENT
A Special City Council Meeting is scheduled for October 28, 2025 at 5:30 PM in the Council Chambers, at City Hall, 990 Palm Street. The next Regular Meeting of the City Council will be held on November 4, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES for the hearing impaired - see the Clerk.

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 City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410.

City Council meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20 and the City's YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/CityofSanLuisObispo. Agenda related writings or documents provided to the City Council are available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California during normal business hours, and on the City’s website https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-andminutes. Persons with questions concerning any agenda item may call the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7114.

Page 12 of 429 ends

1 Council Minutes
October 7, 2025, 5:00 p.m.

Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Council Members

Present:

Council Member Mike Boswell, Council Member Emily Francis, Council Member Jan Marx, Vice Mayor Michelle Shoresman, Mayor Erica A. Stewart
City Staff Present: City Manager Whitney McDonald, Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CLOSED SESSION (4:00 PM - 5:00 PM - CONFERENCE ROOM 6 - 990 PALM

STREET)

1.a CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stewart called the Closed Session of the San Luis Obispo City Council to order at 4:00 PM with all members present.

1.b CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION ACTION: City Attorney Christine Dietrick reported that the Council met in Closed Session on one matter as indicated on the agenda. Council provided direction to staff but no reportable action was taken.

1.c ADJOURNMENT
Closed Session Adjourned at 5:10 PM to the Regular City Council meeting.

2. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on October 7, 2025 at 5:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Mayor Stewart.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Shoresman led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. PRESENTATIONS

4.a DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH

Page 13 of 429 ends

2 Mayor Stewart presented a Proclamation declaring October as Domestic Violence Month to Jill LeMeiux

4.b APPRENTICESHIP WEEK
Vice Mayor Shoresman presented a proclamation declaring the week of October 13 - 19, 2025 as Apprenticeship Week to Mark Simonin, IBEW and Dawn Boulanger, Workforce Development Board.

4.c FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
Mayor Stewart presented a proclamation declaring the week of October 5 - 11, 2025 as Fire Prevention Week to Emergency Services Manager Joe Little.

4.d CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager Whitney McDonald provided a report on upcoming projects.

5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:

Nicolette Munoz
Andrew Metrogen
Jack DePuy
--End of Public Comment--

6. CONSENT AGENDA
Public Comment:

None
--End of Public Comment--
Motion By Council Member Marx
Second By Vice Mayor Shoresman
To approve Consent Calendar Items 6a to 6h.

Ayes (5): Council Member Boswell, Council Member Francis, Council Member Marx, Vice Mayor Shoresman, and Mayor Stewart
CARRIED (5 to 0)

6.a WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES Waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.

Page 14 of 429 ends

3 6.b MINUTES REVIEW - SEPTEMBER 16, 2025 COUNCIL MINUTES Approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held on September 16, 2025.

6.c ANNUAL UPDATE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIC PLAN

1. Receive and file the annual update on the implementation status of the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP); and

2. Delegate authority from the City Council to the City Manager or designee to authorize staff to apply for grants that fund implementation of the 2023-2028 Economic Development Strategic Plan, authorize the City Manager or designee to execute related agreements and documents, and direct revenues from these sources to related Economic Development projects.

6.d AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE THE SOUTH STREET AND KING COURT CROSSING PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 2001059

1. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California,

2. Authorizing Appropriation of $320,000 from the Capital Projects Reserve Fund to support the South Street and King Court Crossing Project, Specification Number 2001059” (Attachment A); and

3. Approve the project Plans and Specifications for the South Street and King Court Crossing Project, Specification Number 2001059; and

4. Authorize staff to advertise for bids; and

5. Authorize the City Manager to award the Construction Contract pursuant to Section 3.24.190 of the Municipal Code, if the lowest responsible bid is within the Engineer’s Estimate of $525,000; and

6. Authorize the City Engineer to issue Contract Change Orders, provided they remain within the approved project budget; and

7. Find the Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15302; and

8. Authorize the use of funds from the Project account (Specification Number 2001059) not to exceed $195,000 for the purchase of

Page 15 of 429 ends

4 Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) equipment for San Luis Obispo Fire and Police Department vehicles; and

9. Authorize the Finance Director to return unspent Capital Reserve funding to the Capital Reserve Fund balance after project completion.

6.e APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED FIRST AMENDMENT TO CC&R’S FOR

SAN LUIS OBISPO CLEARVIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, INC.

Authorize the Mayor to consent to the Proposed First Amendment to the Declaration of the CC&Rs of the San Luis Obispo Clearview Estates Homeowners Association, Inc.

6.f APPROVE A SEVEN YEAR CONTRACT WITH JP MORGAN CHASE

FOR BANKING AND MERCHANT PROCESSING SERVICES
Approve a seven-year (2025-2032) contract with an option to extend an additional three years, with JP Morgan Chase for merchant processing and related banking services.

6.g REQUEST FOR THREE-MONTH LEAVE OF ABSENCE FROM HUMAN

RELATIONS COMMISSION
Approve Commissioner Vincent DeTurris’s request for a three-month leave of absence from the Human Relations Commission.

6.h REVIEW AND ADOPT AMENDMENTS TO THE CITYWIDE FY 2025-26

USER AND REGULATORY FEE SCHEDULE AS ADOPTED BY THE
CITY COUNCIL ON JULY 2, 2024

1. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, amending the City’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule with updates to certain User and Regulatory Fees previously adopted by the City Council on July 2, 2024 and authorizing staff to issue refunds to customers for fees paid since October 1, 2024, where the fee is recommended to be reduced.”

2. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, delegating authority to the City Manager to round certain Parks and Recreation user fees down for purposes of operational efficiency and user needs.”

Page 16 of 429 ends

5 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS

7.a 2024-25 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE TOURISM BUSINESS

IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (TBID) AND ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO CONTINUE THE TBID (20 MINUTES)
Laura Fiedler, Economic Development & Tourism Manager and Pashant Patel, TBID Board Member provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.

Public Comments:

None
---End of Public Comment---
Motion By Mayor Stewart
Second By Council Member Francis

1. To receive and approve the TBID Board’s annual report for FY 2024-25; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 11600 (2025 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, declaring its intention to continue the San Luis Obispo Tourism Business Improvement District, to continue the basis for and to levy the assessment for the district, and to set a date for the Public Hearing on the district and the assessment for 2025-26.” Ayes (5): Council Member Boswell, Council Member Francis, Council Member Marx, Vice Mayor Shoresman, and Mayor Stewart
CARRIED (5 to 0)

8. STUDY SESSION

8.a WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE (WUI) CODE, BUILDING HARDENING, AND DEFENSIBLE SPACE REGULATIONS (120 MINUTES)
Fire Chief Todd Tuggle and Fire Marshall Josh Daniel provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.

Public Comments:

Stacey Schalde
Nicolette Munoz
Angellia Moore
DanAvdotoe
Lauren Hackney

Page 17 of 429 ends

6 Erika Estrada
Jay Walter
Carolyn Herzog
Ben Parker
Eric Veium
Chris Allen
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: By consensus the Council:

1. Direct staff to return to City Council to adopt the WUI code as-is, and provide direction on strategic next steps pertaining to WUI code implementation; and

2. Provide direction to:
 Revise the definition of “Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area” within Chapter 15.04 of the City’s municipal code to conform to the definitions provided by state law to include all FHSZs.  Include any necessary updates related to Chapter 4 of the WUI code in the City’s upcoming engineering standards update.  Adopt Chapter 5 of the WUI Code as-is, carry over any local amendments to the building code that have previously been adopted by the City, and make necessary conforming
amendments to existing provisions of Title 15 (e.g., references to Chapter 7A of the building code and clarifying that all building hardening requirements of Chapter 5 are applicable Citywide.)  Include an amendment to WUI Code Chapter 6 that clarifies that its provisions only apply to parcels in VHFHSZs.
 Require new subdivision and large developments to provide Fire Protection Plans as described in Section 602 of the WUI Code as part of the building permit process.
 Require a Landscape Plan for all new landscaping associated with a project that requires a building permit within a VHFHSZ  Include an amendment clarifying that the City will enforce Chapter 6 of the WUI Code (including referenced defensible space requirements) administratively pursuant to Administrative Code Enforcement Procedures of the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 1.24).

Page 18 of 429 ends

7  Enforce state-adopted defensible space requirements in the VHFHSZ using a complaint-based/reactive method, with an initial objective of education.
 The Fire Department will offer a fee-based voluntary inspection program and will continue to seek external funding that would allow the City to subsidize the cost of voluntary inspections for property owners.
 Do not perform AB 38 inspections upon the sale of real property in Very High or High FHSZs at this time.
 Adopt the WUI Code without substantive local amendments to its requirements.
 Develop guidance and requirements for vegetation
management plans as part of the building permit application process, to be available by January 1, 2026.
 Amend the Climate Adaptation and Safety Element of the General Plan as required by Government Code Section 65302 to reflect the updated FHSZ maps.
 Agendize a study session to reevaluate the prohibition in current City policies on subdivisions within the VHFHSZ and discuss possible amendments to the Climate Adaptation and Safety Element of the General Plan.
 Amend the Tree Ordinance to clarify the tree removal process for trees that must be removed under the WUI code.

9. LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Stewart
 Attended the October 1st SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) meeting
 Attended the Central Coast Clean Energy Annual meeting in San Luis Obispo
 Participated in the Creeks to Sea Clean-up

Page 19 of 429 ends

8 Vice Mayor Shoresman
 Met with a Cal Poly Journalism Class
 Presented at the Kiwanis Club meeting on October 2nd.

Council Member Francis
 Attended the Community Action Partnership (CAP) meeting on Sept 25th  Attended Coffee with a Cop on October 1st
 Attended the Butterfly Ball on September 27th
 Attended the Central Coast Community Energy Annual meeting  Attended the Water Resource Advisory Committee meeting on behalf of Council Member Marx
Council Member Marx
 Attended a Integrated Waste Management Authority (IWMA) Closed Session
 Attended the Central Coast Community Energy Annual meeting

10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for October 21, 2025 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/202X

Page 20 of 429 ends

Item 6c
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1010
For Agenda of: 10/21/2025
Placement: Consent
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Samantha Vethavanam, Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Admin Specialist SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF THE 2026-27 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT

FUNDING PRIORITIES AND INFORMATION

RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Human Relations Commission, approve the Human Services Grant funding priorities and information for the 2026-27 funding year.

POLICY CONTEXT
The purpose of the Human Relations Commission is to advise and make recommendations to the City Council and the City Manager which promote and advance inclusion, mutual understanding, respect, and equitable treatment of all San Luis Obispo community residents. The City’s biennial review of the Human Services Grant program provides the Human Relations Commission and the community with the opportunity to provide early input into the grant program to ensure alignment with current community needs. Establishing funding priorities and requirements is an essential step in the grant process, which helps to ensure a transparent, equitable, and intentional application process.

DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s Human Services Grant (HSG) program, previously called Grants-in-Aid, is a competitive grant program that provides financial support to non-profit organizations that promote the economic and social well-being of the community. Applications requesting funding must include a program, project, or initiative tied to at least one funding priority, with the main funding priority taking precedence. For the 2025-26 funding year, the main funding priority was:
 Homelessness prevention, including affordable, alternative, transitional housing, and supportive services
To allow more flexibility for applicants, the grant had additional secondary funding priorities, which would only receive funding if all qualified applicants who met the main

Page 21 of 429 ends

Item 6c
priority were allocated funding first. The secondary priorities included (not listed in order of importance):
 Hunger and malnutrition prevention
 Supportive physical and mental health services for those in need  Services for seniors, veterans and/or people with disabilities in need  Supportive, developmental, and care services for children and youth in need  Services encouraging diversity, equity, and inclusivity in marginalized communities, including access to language services
Attachment A includes the full funding priorities and information for the 2025-26 Human Services Grant cycle.

Human Services Grant 2026-27 Updates
To better support the City Council’s direction regarding the main funding priority, the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion reviewed and updated the Human Services Grant funding priorities and information that were used for the 2025-26 cycle, in advance of the upcoming 2026-27 cycle. These revisions were shared with the Human Relations Commission (HRC) in two separate meetings, August 6, 2025 and September 3, 2025.

In these meetings, HRC provided their recommended edits which have been incorporated in Attachment B.

Next year, the HSG funding priorities and information will go through a review and update process again in advance of the 2027-28 grant cycle and those revisions will be effective through the 2027-29 Financial Plan to ensure consistency with Council goals, after which the priorities will continue to be approved in alignment with future financial plans.

While homelessness prevention remains a core focus, the proposed updated guidelines expand eligible funding uses to include related services such as outreach, emergency shelter, and hygiene services for people experiencing homelessness. Through these changes, the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion is working to ensure that HSG funding directly supports efforts to both prevent and address homelessness. The proposed revised main funding priority is:

For the 2026-27 Fiscal Year, the main funding priority for the City of San Luis Obispo will be preventing and addressing homelessness. More specifically, the City will prioritize funding services that do the following (not listed in order of importance):
 Provide permanent housing solutions that can prevent homelessness or serve those experiencing homelessness
 Provide homelessness prevention activities that can prevent homelessness or serve those experiencing homelessness
 Provide interim housing solutions that can prevent homelessness or serve those experiencing homelessness
 Provide non-housing solutions that can prevent homelessness or serve those experiencing homelessness

Page 22 of 429 ends

Item 6c
Attachment B includes more information about each funding category listed above. The revisions to the main funding priority largely mirror an existing homelessness and housing related state grant called the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention (HHAP) Grant through the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The following secondary funding priority areas include (not listed in order of importance):
 Hunger and malnutrition prevention
 Supportive physical and mental health services for those in need  Services for seniors, veterans, and/or people with disabilities in need  Supportive, developmental, and care services for children and youth in need  Services encouraging diversity, equity, and inclusivity in marginalized communities, including access to language services
Furthermore, the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion made updates to the Funding Requirements, Funding Applicant Criteria, and Additional Funding Information in the funding priorities and information document (included as Attachment B). This information will constitute the Notice of Funding Availability when posted. These updates include:
 Including the federal definitions of “homelessness”, “at risk of homelessness”, and “supportive services” that applicants must adhere to when designing grant applications that address homelessness.
 Specifying that, while grant funding should primarily serve City residents, 100% of the funded activities must occur within the City of San Luis Obispo.  Clarifying requirements around partnership applications, i.e., when two or more organizations apply together for a program, project, or initiative that they plan to implement together. These clarifications include specifying that there must be a lead applicant who is an eligible entity and who will act as the fiscal agent, and that all parties must enter into the required contract with the City.

The last two updates listed above are also in alignment with the City’s DEI High Impact Grant funding requirements.

Human Services Grant Process
The steps in the review process for the HSG program are as follows:

1. Staff Review of Current Information: During the summer of 2025, staff from the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion reviewed the current information and made updates to clarify and streamline the process.

2. HRC Review of Grant Program Information: The HRC then conducted a review of the proposed revisions to the HSG funding priorities and information on August 6, 2025, and provided additional recommended edits to staff.

3. HRC Community Needs Grant Workshop: The HRC hosted a Community Needs Grant Workshop on September 3, 2025, to inform the public about the proposed updates to the HSG program and receive community feedback. HRC provided a

Page 23 of 429 ends

Item 6c
few additional edits and approved the recommended revised HSG funding priorities and information with the edits. Draft minutes from this meeting can be found in Attachment C.

4. City Council Approval of 2026-27 HSG Funding Priorities and Information: The City Council will review the recommended HSG funding priorities and information at the October 21, 2025 Council meeting and approve or amend them before they take effect for the 2026-27 grant cycle.

5. HRC Preliminary Funding Recommendation & Public Hearing: Upon receipt and review of the applications for the 2026-27 grant cycle, the HRC will hold a public hearing at the April 1, 2026 meeting to hear the preliminary funding recommendations from the HRC Review Subcommittee. Community members can provide public input to the HRC during this time. At the end of the hearing, the HRC will vote on their final funding recommendations to be presented to Council for approval.

6. City Council Approval of Final Recommendations: City Council will review and approve the final funding recommendations for the 2026-27 HSG in May 2026.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The HRC conducted a review of the HSG program language and priorities in August and September of 2024. The revised funding priorities were sent to City Council on November 19, 2024, for review, which were subsequently approved on consent.

Public Engagement
As previously noted, the HRC hosted a Community Needs Grant Workshop to get public feedback on the revised HSG funding information and priorities. Notice about this workshop was emailed to community partners one week in advance of the HRC meeting.

Additionally, during the August 6, 2025 HRC meeting, staff mentioned the HSG funding priorities and information would be reviewed again in September during the workshop.

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, as the grant funding disbursements will not result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Specific projects funded by the grants may be subject to environmental review or exemption therefrom.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2026-27
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Page 24 of 429 ends

Item 6c
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $150,000 $150,000 $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $150,000 $150,000 $ $
The City budgets $150,000 annually from the General Fund to the HSG program.

Establishing funding priorities and information does not have an immediate fiscal impact but will aid the HRC in providing a recommendation on how to allocate said funds to Council for final approval.

ALTERNATIVES

1. The Council could revise and adopt different funding priorities and information.

If Council decides to revise and adopt different funding priorities and information for the upcoming Human Services Grant, staff would request specific guidance on final funding priorities and information during the Council meeting.

2. The Council could continue consideration of the funding priorities and information. If Council decides to continue consideration of the funding priorities and information for the upcoming Human Services Grant, Council should provide direction to staff regarding additional information needed to make a decision. This may delay the timeline for posting the Notice of Funding Availability for the grant.

3. The Council could provide direction to the HRC to consider alternative changes to the funding priorities and information. If Council decides to provide direction to the HRC to amend the funding priorities and information, Council would need to continue consideration of the item and provide direction to the HRC. This may delay the timeline for posting the Notice of Funding Availability for the grant.

ATTACHMENTS
A - 2025-26 Human Services Grant Funding Information and Priorities B - Revised 2026-27 Human Services Grant Funding Information and Priorities C - Human Relations Commission September 3, 2025 Approved Minutes

Page 25 of 429 ends

Page 26 of 429 ends

2025-26 Human Services Grant (HSG) Program
Grant Information – Final

PURPOSE
The City of San Luis Obispo Human Relations Commission (HRC) Human Services Grant (HSG) Program provides financial support to non-profit organizations that promote the economic and social well-being of its citizens.

FUNDING PRIORITIES
For the 2025-26 Fiscal Year, the main funding priority is:

Homelessness prevention including affordable, alternative, transitional housing, and supportive services.

Secondary Funding Priorities:

The following secondary funding priorities areas are not listed in order of importance and may receive funding if available:
• Hunger and malnutrition prevention
• Supportive physical and mental health services for those in need • Services for seniors, veterans and/or people with disabilities in need • Supportive, developmental, and care services for children and youth in need • Services encouraging diversity, equity, and inclusivity in marginalized communities, including access to language services.

The Human Relations Commission will first fund all qualified applications that meet the main funding priority. After qualified main priority applications are funded, the HRC will consider applications for the secondary funding priorities.

FUNDING EXAMPLES
Examples of previous funded projects, programs, and activities include:
• Direct rental assistance and relocation stabilization housing services. • Direct financial assistance to residents at risk of being evicted or need support securing housing with first month’s rent or security deposit.
• Direct financial support to secure and maintain permanent housing for youth and families.
• Funding support for transitional housing and incentives. • Residential advocacy, facility monitoring visit, complaint investigations and resolution for older adults in long term care facilities.
• Cover costs of relocation expenses to independent living conditions after treatment. • Provide food, household supplies, rent, and transportation cost for the older adult population.
• Provide access to showers, clothing, and shower items to individuals experiencing homelessness.
• Direct rental assistance to individuals with various backgrounds, including mix-status and undocumented individuals as member of at -large communities of SLO.

Page 27 of 429 ends

FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
1 Applicants must submit a complete application package and within the deadline.

1.1 One-page DEI Statement that includes:

1.1.1 Applicant’s understanding and application of DEI concepts/values

1.1.2 Affirming language that creates access and a sense of belonging to all community members.

1.1.3 Explain how the proposal will advance DEI in the City of SLO.

1.2 One-page detailed budget for the proposal including how the total amount requested will be allocated.

1.3 Organizational chart

1.4 Document certifying Federal Tax-Exempt Status
2 Applications must be submitted through the online portal. Incomplete applications will not be considered.
3 Grant recipients must comply with the HRC Bylaws which are to create an environment within the City in which all persons can enjoy equal rights and opportunities regardless of race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age, physical, mental, or economic status. HRC Bylaws can be found on the City’s website HERE. 4 Grant recipients must enter into a contract with the City prior to receipt of HSG funds, located HERE.
5 Grant recipients must complete periodic reports and provide them timely. 6 Grant recipients must submit a final report at the end of the project/service or at 12 months from start, whichever comes first. Grant recipients are expected to return unused funds.
7 Grant-funded programs must be available to all City residents, without regard to the resident’s race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age, or physical, mental, or economic status.

FUNDING APPLICANTS CRITERIA
1 Grants are made only to non-profit organizations.
2 Applications for a specific program, project, equipment need, or general operational support will be considered if the organization’s mission falls under the main funding priority.
3 Grants are primarily made to organizations serving residents in the City of San Luis Obispo.
4 Agencies serving residents in neighboring communities, also serving a significant number of City residents will be considered.
5 Organizations that received previous HSG funding must be in good standing and have complied with all reporting requirements.

ADDITIONAL FUNDING INFORMATION
1 Applicants’ minimum request of $5,000 and a maximum request of $20,000. 2 A maximum of one (1) grant award is allowed per organization (or per partnership if a collaborative project).
3 Funding may be used for new (innovative) or existing projects, programs, concepts, or initiatives that have proven success and/or utilize best practices or approaches.

Page 28 of 429 ends

4 Projects, programs, concepts, and initiatives that leverage existing or other funding sources to supplement proposal are highly encouraged.
5 Consideration may be provided to proposals who have matching grants secured. 6 Consideration may be provided to applicants whose ongoing fundraising and services were severely impacted by COVID-19 and not recouped by other means. 7 Consideration may be provided to applicants who train or support service providers to expand scope of services and/or increase the numbers of clients. 8 Consideration may be provided to applicants who initiate a new, ongoing funding source for the organization.
9 Consideration may be provided to applicants who direct services efficiently to needy residents with low overhead and administrative costs.

PROHIBITED USE OF FUNDS
1 Funds CANNOT be used for advancing, advocating, promoting, or highlighting political causes, entities, ballot measures, or candidates.
2 Funds CANNOT be used for advancing, advocating, promoting, or highlighting religious causes, entities, individuals, or activities. Funding CANNOT be used of the purpose of disseminating religious information.
3 Funds CANNOT be used for profit or personal gain.

FUNDING DECISIONS
The Human Relations Commission (HRC) will exercise discretion when developing funding recommendations.

The HRC will review, with support from the Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion, all applications (that are completed, timely submitted, and met the funding criteria) and develop funding recommendations based on the answers and attestations provided in each application, and guidance and direction from City Council. Please be as specific and detailed in your applications. Recommendations will be presented to the City Council for approval. Grants are awarded by available funding for current grant cycle. Previous grant awards do not guarantee continued funding. This is a competitive grant.

The HRC encourages organizations that take new, creative approaches to solving the most prevalent health & human service needs in our community!

Page 29 of 429 ends

Page 30 of 429 ends

2026-27 Human Services Grant (HSG) Program
Grant Information – Final Draft – Updated 9/3/25

FUNDING PRIORITIES
Main Funding Priority:

For the 2026-27 Fiscal Year, the main funding for the City of San Luis Obispo will be preventing and addressing homelessness. More specifically, the City will prioritize funding services that do the following (not listed in order of importance):
• Provide permanent housing solutions that can prevent homelessness or serve those experiencing homelessness
• Provide homelessness prevention activities that can prevent homelessness or serve those experiencing homelessness
• Provide interim housing solutions that can prevent homelessness or serve those experiencing homelessness
• Provide non-housing solutions that can prevent homelessness or serve those experiencing homelessness
Category 1: Permanent Housing Solutions
Eligible Use Category Examples
Rapid Rehousing/Rental
Subsidies
Rental subsidies; landlord incentives (such as security deposits, holding fees, funding for needed repairs, landlord relationship management costs); and move-in expenses.

Operating Subsidies for
Permanent Housing
Operating subsidies in new and existing affordable or
supportive housing units serving people experiencing or at risk of homelessness, new or existing residential care facilities.

Permanent Housing Services
and Services Coordination
Supportive services for people in Permanent Housing,
including, but not limited to, intensive case management; coordination of mental health, substance use, or primary care treatment; other evidence-based supportive services.

Category 2: Homelessness Prevention Activities
Eligible Use Category Examples
Prevention and Diversion In addition to rapid rehousing and rental subsidies, prevention programs that prioritize households with incomes at or below 30% AMI; problem solving and diversion support programs that prevent people at risk or recently experiencing homelessness from entering homelessness (such as legal
aid).

Page 31 of 429 ends

Category 3: Interim Housing Solutions
Eligible Use Category Examples
Interim Housing/Motel or
Hotel Vouchers
Operating expenses for congregate and non-congregate
shelters, emergency shelters, and transitional housing; vouchers for motels or hotels for short-term stays for people experiencing homelessness.

Interim Housing Services and
Services Coordination
Supportive services for people in Interim Housing, including, but not limited to, intensive case management; housing
navigation; coordination of mental health, substance use, or primary care treatment; other evidence-based supportive services.

Category 4: Non-Housing Solutions
Eligible Use Category Examples
Services and services
coordination
Street outreach; engagement services; case management;
housing navigation; hygiene services; harm reduction
services; etc.

Operating or administrative
costs for organization
Includes costs incurred to administer homeless services to City residents, such as salaries, office supplies, rent, etc.

Secondary Funding Priorities:

The following secondary funding priority areas are not listed in order of importance and may not receive funding:
• Hunger and malnutrition prevention
• Supportive physical and mental health services for those in need • Services for seniors, veterans, and/or people with disabilities in need • Supportive, developmental, and care services for children and youth in need • Services encouraging diversity, equity, and inclusivity in marginalized communities, including access to language services
The Human Relations Commission will first fund all qualified applications that meet the main funding priority. After qualified main priority applications are funded, the HRC will consider applications for the secondary funding priorities.

FUNDING EXAMPLES
Examples of previously funded projects, programs, and activities include:
• Direct rental assistance and relocation stabilization housing services. • Direct financial assistance to residents at risk of being evicted or needing support to secure housing with the first month’s rent or security deposit. • Direct financial support to secure and maintain permanent housing for youth and families. • Funding to support transitional housing and incentives.

Page 32 of 429 ends

• Providing access to showers, clothing, and shower items to individuals experiencing homelessness.
• Residential advocacy, facility monitoring visits, complaint investigations, and resolution for individuals in long term care facilities.
• Covering costs of relocation expenses to independent living conditions after treatment. • Providing food, household supplies, rent, and transportation cost services targeting the older adult population.

FUNDING REQUIREMENTS
1 Applicants must submit a complete application package within the deadline.

1.1 One-page DEI Statement that includes:

1.1.1 Applicant’s understanding and application of DEI concepts/values.

1.1.2 Affirming language that creates access and a sense of belonging to all community members.

1.1.3 Explain how the proposal will advance DEI in the City of SLO.

1.2 One-page detailed budget for the proposal including how the total amount requested will be allocated.

1.3 Organizational chart

1.4 Document certifying Federal Tax-Exempt Status
2 Applications must be submitted through the online portal. Incomplete applications will not be considered.
3 Grant recipients must comply with the HRC Bylaws which are to create an environment within the City in which all persons can enjoy equal rights and opportunities regardless of race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age, physical, mental, or economic status. HRC Bylaws can be found on the City’s website HERE. 4 Grant recipients must enter into a contract with the City prior to receipt of HSG funds, located HERE.
5 Grant recipients must complete periodic reports and provide them on a timely basis. 6 Grant recipients must submit a final report at the end of the project/service or at 12 months from start, whichever comes first. Grant recipients are expected to return unused funds.
7 Grant-funded programs must be available to all City residents, without regard to the resident’s race, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, age, or physical, mental, or economic status.
8 Grant recipients must adhere to the following definitions when designing grant applications:

1. People literally experiencing homelessness or at imminent risk of homelessness are defined under 24 CFR Section 578.3.

2. Supportive services are defined under 24 CFR Section 578.53.

FUNDING APPLICANT CRITERIA
1 Grants are made only to 501(c)(3) organizations. Organizations without this status will need to partner with a 501(c)(3) as the lead applicant. 2 100% of the funded activities must occur in the City of San Luis Obispo. 3 Funded activities must primarily serve City residents. Applicants that provide services to neighboring communities, but also serve a significant number of City residents, will be considered.

Page 33 of 429 ends

4 Organizations that received previous HSG funding must be in good standing and have complied with all reporting requirements.

ADDITIONAL FUNDING INFORMATION
1 Applicants may submit a minimum request of $5,000 and a maximum request of $20,000. If applying in a partnership, the maximum request amount will be $40,000. 2 A maximum of one (1) grant award is allowed per organization (or per partnership if a collaborative project).
3 If applying in a partnership, a lead organization must be identified in the application. The lead organization must be an eligible entity and must act as the fiscal agent. All parties must enter into the contract.
4 Projects, programs, concepts, and initiatives that leverage existing or other funding sources to supplement proposal are highly encouraged.
5 Consideration may be provided to proposals who have matching grants secured. 6 Consideration may be provided to projects/programs that have low overhead and administrative costs.

PROHIBITED USE OF FUNDS
1 Funds CANNOT be used for advancing, campaigning, advocating, promoting, or highlighting political entities, ballot measures/initiatives, or candidates. 2 Funds CANNOT be used for advancing, advocating, promoting, or highlighting religious causes, entities, individuals, or activities. Funding CANNOT be used for the purpose of disseminating religious information in any form.
3 Funds CANNOT be used for profit or personal gain.

FUNDING DECISIONS
The Human Relations Commission (HRC) will exercise discretion when developing funding recommendations.

The HRC will review, with support from the Office of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion, all applications (that are completed, timely submitted, and meet the funding criteria) and develop funding recommendations based on the answers and attestations provided in each application, with guidance and direction from City Council. Please be as specific and detailed in your applications as possible. Recommendations will be presented to the City Council for approval. Final funding decisions are at the sole discretion of the City Council. Grants are awarded by available funding for current grant cycle. Previous grant awards do not guarantee continued funding. This is a competitive grant process.

The HRC encourages organizations to take innovative, creative approaches to solving the most prevalent health & human service needs in our community!

Page 34 of 429 ends

1 Human Relations Commission Minutes
September 3, 2025, 5:00 p.m.

Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Human Relations
Commissioners

Present:

Commissioner Stephanie Carlotti, Commissioner Vincent
DeTurris, Commissioner Esmeralda Parker, Commissioner Jenn Fields, Vice Chair Catuih Campos, Chair Angie Kasprzak
City Staff Present: Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Manager Matt Pennon, Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Administrative Specialist Samantha
Vethavanam
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Human Relations Commission was called to order on September 3, 2025 at 5:04 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Kasprzak.

2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:

None.
--End of Public Comment--

3. CONSENT

3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - AUGUST 6, 2025 HUMAN

RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
Public Comment:

None.
--End of Public Comment--
Motion By Commissioner Fields
Second By Vice Chair Campos
To approve the Human Relations Commission Minutes of August 6, 2025.

Ayes (6): Commissioner Carlotti, Commissioner DeTurris, Commissioner Parker, Commissioner Fields, Vice Chair Campos, and Chair Kasprzak CARRIED (6 to 0)

Page 35 of 429 ends

2 4. BUSINESS ITEMS

4.a REVIEW OF THE 2024-25 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT YEAR-END

REPORTS
Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Manager Matt Pennon presented the report and responded to inquiries.

Public Comment:

Karen Jones
--End of Public Comment--
The Human Relations Commission reviewed the 2024-25 Human Services Grant year-end reports, and they were received and filed.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.a ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMUNITY

NEEDS WORKSHOP
Assistant Planner Ethan Estrada presented the staff report and responded to inquiries.

Public Comment:

Sam Gottlieb
--End of Public Comment--
Motion By Commissioner Parker
Second By Vice Chair Campos
To approve the CDBG funding priorities are presented during the Community Needs Grant Workshop.

Ayes (6): Commissioner Carlotti, Commissioner DeTurris, Commissioner Parker, Commissioner Fields, Vice Chair Campos, and Chair Kasprzak CARRIED (6 to 0)

5.b HUMAN SERVICES GRANT COMMUNITY NEEDS GRANT WORKSHOP Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Manager Matt Pennon presented the staff report and responded to inquiries.

Public Comment:

Sam Gottlieb
Karen Jones
Juliane McAdam
--End of Public Comment--

Page 36 of 429 ends

3 Motion By Commissioner Carlotti
Second By Commissioner DeTurris
The Human Relations Commission provided input for modifications to the Human Services Grant funding priorities and information for 2026-27 and approved the document with the modifications discussed.

Ayes (6): Commissioner Carlotti, Commissioner DeTurris, Commissioner Parker, Commissioner Fields, Vice Chair Campos, and Chair Kasprzak CARRIED (6 to 0)

6. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION

6.a STAFF & COMMISSIONER UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Manager Matt Pennon and Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Admin Specialist Sam Vethavanam provided the following:
• DEI SLO Business Grantee highlights continue to be posted. • Commissioners will be reviewing the 2024-25 DEI High Impact Grant mid-year reports at the October meeting.
• The 2025-26 DEI High Impact Grant application period just closed and 20 applications were received.
• The City’s Title VI Plan was approved by City Council on September 2, 2025.
• The Office of DEI will be presenting at the Latino Outreach Council on September 11, 2025.
• Staff from the Office of DEI went on a ride-along with the Long Term Care Ombudsman.

Commissioner DeTurris provided an update that he has requested a leave of absence for October, November, and December,
Commissioner Fields provided an update on SLO Climate Coalition events in the month of September.

Chair Kasprzak provided an update on an event for the SLO Tenants Union and an event for Transitions Mental Health Association.

7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:03 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Human Relations Commission is scheduled for October 1, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

APPROVED BY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION: XX/XX/2025

Page 37 of 429 ends

Page 38 of 429 ends

Item 6d
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4008
For Agenda of: 10/21/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Ethan Estrada, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF 2026-27 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK

GRANT FUNDING PRIORITIES

RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Human Relations Commission (HRC), approve the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) ranked funding priorities for the 2026-27 funding year.

POLICY CONTEXT
The recommended funding priorities from the Human Relations Commission (HRC) align with the City’s Major City Goals for FY 2025-27 for Goal 3, Housing and Neighborhood Livability – Healthy, Safe, and Affordable, and Goal 4, Homelessness Response. The recommended funding priorities for the 2026-27 CDBG funding cycle allow the City to further implement the General Plan 6
th Cycle Housing Element by satisfying the following
on-going programs:

Housing Element Program 1.7: Continue to support local and regional solutions to homelessness by funding supportive programs, services, and housing solutions.

Housing Element Program 4.7: Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Housing Element Program 6.17: Financially assist in the development of affordable housing.

Housing Element Program 8.11: Continue to provide resources that support local and regional solutions to meet the needs of the homeless.

DISCUSSION
Background
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, administered through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), provides annual grants on a formula basis to states, counties, and cities. These funds are to be distributed to qualifying projects and programs with the intent of providing decent housing and a

Page 39 of 429 ends

Item 6d
suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for low- and moderate-income persons. As an “urban county” under the CDBG Program, the County of San Luis Obispo receives the funds from HUD and distributes them to its incorporated cities. The City of San Luis Obispo is anticipated to receive an estimated allocation of $526,836 for the 2026-27 funding cycle. As of the writing of this report, the federal government has shutdown due to failed budget negotiations. Depending on the length of this shutdown and/or the budget that is eventually approved, this funding amount may be changed.

Interested parties have submitted their applications for grant funding to the County, which has distributed them to the relevant jurisdictions. City staff is in the process of reviewing these applications and will provide funding recommendations for the City’s Human Relations Commission (HRC) to consider on November 5, 2025. The HRC will provide its own funding recommendations for City Council to consider in February of next year.

Below is the current 2026-27 CDBG schedule:

Date Action
September 3, 2025 HRC Community Needs Workshop and Recommendation of Funding Priorities
September 11, 2025 San Luis Obispo County Releases CDBG Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA)
October 10, 2025 Applications Due by 5:00 PM to San Luis Obispo County October 21, 2025 City Council Reviews and Votes on CDBG Funding Priorities November 5, 2025 HRC Reviews Applications and Votes on Funding Recommendations
February 2026 City Council Reviews and Votes on CDBG Funding Recommendations
April 2026 San Luis Obispo County Reviews and Votes on Funding Recommendations*
* Public notice will be published for a 30-day review prior to the April 2026 County Board of Supervisors meeting.

To help guide the City’s CDBG funding recommendations, ranked funding priorities are established each year. These priorities are based on the City’s Major City Goals, as well as HUD’s National Objectives1for the CDBG Program.

1 HUD’s CDBG Program require each activity funded to meet one of the following three objectives: benefit to low- and moderate-income persons; aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and meet a need having a particular urgency (i.e., disaster response/recovery).

Page 40 of 429 ends

Item 6d
Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On September 3, 2025, the Human Relations Commission (HRC) held a community needs workshop and established ranked funding priorities to recommend to City Council for approval. The HRC’s recommended ranked priorities are:

1. Provide emergency and transitional shelter, homelessness prevention and services.

2. Develop and enhance affordable housing for low- and very low-income persons.

3. Enhance economic development (to include seismic retrofit, economic stability, low- and moderate-income jobs2).

4. Promote accessibility and/or removal of architectural barriers3for the disabled and elderly.

These priorities are identical to the ranked funding priorities used for the 2023-24, 2024- 25, and 2025-26 CDBG funding cycles.

Public Engagement
A public hearing was held by the Human Relations Commission (HRC) on September 3, 2025, in the form of a community needs workshop to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the ranked funding recommendations presented to the HRC. Public noticing was provided for this hearing.

CONCURRENCE
The Human Relations Commission (HRC) reviewed and approved the ranked funding priorities presented in this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed ranked funding priorities for CDBG funding allocations is not considered a “project” under Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: N/A Budget Year: 2026-27
Funding Identified: N/A

2 “Low- and moderate-income jobs” refer to projects and programs that offer professional development or services to assist low- and moderate-income persons with obtaining or retaining employment. 3 “Architectural barriers” refer to physical aspects of a structure or public facility (e.g., sidewalks) that fully or partially prevent access to or ability to traverse said structure or facility for the elderly and the physically handicapped.

Page 41 of 429 ends

Item 6d
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
Approving the CDBG ranked funding priorities does not impact the City fiscally. The action under consideration today is the approval of the ranking for future funding allocation. In February, staff will return to the City Council with an item to review and approve CDBG funding recommendations.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may modify the ranked funding priorities. Should Council pursue this option, the result of any modifications made to the ranked funding priorities must be consistent with HUD’s National Objectives for the CDBG Program.

ATTACHMENTS
A - HRC Minutes of September 3, 2025

Page 42 of 429 ends

1 Human Relations Commission Minutes
September 3, 2025, 5:00 p.m.

Council Hearing Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Human Relations
Commissioners

Present:

2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:

None.

End of Public Comment--

3. CONSENT

3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - AUGUST 6, 2025 HUMAN

RELATIONS COMMISSION MINUTES
Public Comment:

None.

End of Public Comment--
Motion By Commissioner Fields
Second By Vice Chair Campos
To approve the Human Relations Commission Minutes of August 6, 2025.

Ayes (6): Commissioner Carlotti, Commissioner DeTurris, Commissioner Parker, Commissioner Fields, Vice Chair Campos, and Chair Kasprzak CARRIED ( 6 to 0)

Page 43 of 429 ends

2 4. BUSINESS ITEMS

4.a REVIEW OF THE 2024-25 HUMAN SERVICES GRANT YEAR-END

REPORTS
Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Manager Matt Pennon presented the report and responded to inquiries.

Public Comment:

Karen Jones
End of Public Comment--
The Human Relations Commission reviewed the 2024-25 Human Services Grant year-end reports, and they were received and filed.

5. PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.a ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMUNITY

NEEDS WORKSHOP
Assistant Planner Ethan Estrada presented the staff report and responded to inquiries.

Public Comment:

Sam Gottlieb
End of Public Comment--
Motion By Commissioner Parker
Second By Vice Chair Campos
To approve the CDBG funding priorities are presented during the Community Needs Grant Workshop.

Ayes (6): Commissioner Carlotti, Commissioner DeTurris, Commissioner Parker, Commissioner Fields, Vice Chair Campos, and Chair Kasprzak CARRIED ( 6 to 0)

5.b HUMAN SERVICES GRANT COMMUNITY NEEDS GRANT WORKSHOP Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Manager Matt Pennon presented the staff report and responded to inquiries.

Public Comment:

Sam Gottlieb
Karen Jones
Juliane McAdam
End of Public Comment--

Page 44 of 429 ends

Ayes (6): Commissioner Carlotti, Commissioner DeTurris, Commissioner Parker, Commissioner Fields, Vice Chair Campos, and Chair Kasprzak CARRIED ( 6 to 0)

6. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION

6.a STAFF & COMMISSIONER UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion Manager Matt Pennon and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Admin Specialist Sam Vethavanam provided the following:

DEI SLO Business Grantee highlights continue to be posted.

Commissioners will be reviewing the 2024-25 DEI High Impact Grant mid-year reports at the October meeting.

The 2025-26 DEI High Impact Grant application period just closed and 20 applications were received.

The City’s Title VI Plan was approved by City Council on September 2, 2025.

The Office of DEI will be presenting at the Latino Outreach Council on September 11, 2025.

Staff from the Office of DEI went on a ride-along with the Long Term Care Ombudsman.

Chair Kasprzak provided an update on an event for the SLO Tenants Union and an event for Transitions Mental Health Association.

APPROVED BY HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION: 10/01/2025

Page 45 of 429 ends

Page 46 of 429 ends

Item 6e
Department: Information Technology
Cost Center: 1101
For Agenda of: 10/21/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Josh Erquiaga, IT Manager
David Anastasia, Network Services Supervisor
SUBJECT: AWARD CONTRACT TO CIO SOLUTIONS FOR NETWORK

INFRASTRUCTURE EQUIPMENT

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to CIO Solutions for the purchase of Juniper Network Switches and Firewalls (Project #2000604-02, Firewall Replacement and #2000604-04, Network Switching Infrastructure Project); and

2. Waive formal bids and authorize the use of NASPO Agreement Number AR3232 as allowed under 03.24.060E of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.

POLICY CONTEXT
Per the Purchasing Policy, purchases up to $200,000 for general goods require approval from the City Council. Waiving formal bids and authorizing the use of NASPO Contract No. AR3232 to procure this purchase is consistent with City Purchasing Policy Section 204: No-Bid Purchasing, and Municipal Code Section 03.24.060E. This section permits staff to dispense with bidding requirements, “when the purchase will be made cooperatively with one, or more, other units of government, or from a local dealer within the city limit that can provide the same brand, model and configuration of item(s) identified in the cooperative purchase agreement(s) at or below the cooperative purchasing net cost within the same terms and conditions.”

DISCUSSION
Background
The City currently utilizes Juniper network switching and firewall infrastructure as the foundation of its enterprise network. Over the years, the City has made a significant investment of resources in this platform, including staff training, professional certifications, and extensive engineering and configuration efforts. This investment has built a strong foundation of in-house expertise and operational familiarity, which supports efficient management and rapid response to network needs.

Page 47 of 429 ends

Item 6e
Network switches serve as the backbone of internal communications, directing data traffic between devices such as servers, workstations, and printers. As these switches reach End of Life (EOL), they no longer receive firmware updates, security patches, or vendor support. This lack of support increases exposure to vulnerabilities and limits the ability to respond to emerging threats. Additionally, aging hardware is more prone to failure, which can result in service disruptions and increased maintenance costs. Older switches may also lack the performance capabilities required to support modern applications and higher bandwidth demands, making them a bottleneck to future growth and innovation.

Similarly, the City’s Juniper SRX firewalls, which serve as a critical line of defense against external threats, are due for an upgrade. While they have provided reliable protection, newer models offer significantly enhanced capabilities. These include advanced threat detection, intrusion prevention, application-layer filtering, and integrated threat intelligence. Upgraded firewalls also deliver improved throughput and lower latency, ensuring that security enforcement does not compromise network performance. Improved throughput is needed on the City’s firewalls to make full use of the 10 gigabit Internet connection that the City receives as part of its Public-Private Partnership agreement with Astound Broadband. Keeping the City’s firewall infrastructure up to date is critical for maintaining compliance with regulatory standards.

From a cybersecurity perspective, both switches and firewalls play a vital role in safeguarding sensitive data, maintaining service availability, and preventing unauthorized access. Operating outdated infrastructure increases risk of exposure to zero-day vulnerabilities, lateral movement by attackers, and potential data breaches or ransomware incidents. Proactively replacing EOL switches and upgrading our firewalls is a strategic investment that strengthens security posture, enhances operational resilience, and ensures that the City’s network is prepared to meet current and future demands.

Information Technology staff track this equipment and its expected useful life, and this replacement is part of the ongoing Information Technology Capital Improvement Plan forecasting and budgeting process.

City staff recommend the use of the NASPO (National Association of State Procurement Officials) ValuePoint contract for this purchase. NASPO ValuePoint is a cooperative purchasing program facilitating public procurement solicitations and agreements using a lead-state model. NASPO is is a non-profit organization of state and local government procurement officials that provides resources, training, and cooperative purchasing programs to enhance efficiency, transparency, and value in public procurement across the United States. Using NASPO contracts allows the City to ensure it is getting excellent pricing on technology products by leveraging the increased buying power of a much larger organization.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The City Council approved the original purchase of network infrastructure equipment as part of the consent agenda at the Regular City Council meeting on July 1, 2014. The City Council approved upgrades for core network infrastructure as part of the consent agenda at the Regular City Council meeting on September 6, 2022.

Page 48 of 429 ends

Item 6e
Public Engagement
This item is on the agenda for the October 21, 2025 City Council meeting and will follow all the required posting and notification. The public may comment on this item at or before the meeting.

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

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2023-24, 2024-25
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Attachment A - CIO Solutions quote is a quote for hardware and warranty services to replace the end-of-life networking equipment, with a total cost of $453,826.01. This replacement was planned for in the Information Technology capital improvement plan as Project #2000604-04.

Attachment B - CIO Solutions quote is a quote for hardware and warranty services to replace the end-of-life firewalls, with a total cost of $320,912.20. This replacement was planned for in the Information Technology capital improvement plan as Project #2000604-

02. Firewall Replacement, Project # 2000604-02
Network Switching Infrastructure Project,
Project # 2000604-04
Project # 2000604-02 $205,921 $- $17,042 $17,905 $7,212 $1,079 $842 Project # 2000604-04 $- $453,198 $29,777 $50,379 $10,825 $4,996 $625 Funding Source*
Capital
Outlay
Fund
Info Tech
Repl
Fund
Water
Fund
Sewer
Fund
Parking
Fund
Transit
Fund
Whale
Rock
Fund
Project
Total
Costs
Fund # 401 403 601 602 611 621 705
CIO - Juniper Firewall $205,921 $58,695 $21,875 $22,984 $9,101 $1,385 $951 $320,912 CIO - Juniper Switches $0 $374,087 $24,579 $41,585 $8,935 $4,124 $516 $453,826 Contingencies $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total for Construction $205,921 $432,782 $46,454 $64,568 $18,037 $5,509 $1,467 $774,738 Construction Management: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Materials Testing: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Public Relations: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Page 49 of 429 ends

Item 6e
Printing: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Project Cost $205,921 $432,782 $46,454 $64,568 $18,037 $5,509 $1,467 $774,738 Current Project Balance: $205,921 $453,198 $46,819 $68,284 $18,037 $6,075 $1,467 $799,800 Additional Funding: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Post Project Remaining Balance: $0 $20,416 $364 $3,716 $0 $566 $0 $25,062 The 2023-25 Financial Plan identified $799,800 in funding for this capital improvement project (Project #2000604-02, Firewall Replacement and #2000604-04, Network Switching Infrastructure Project). These projects have sufficient balance to support this capital improvement project and will leave a remaining balance of $25,062.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Deny awarding the project. The existing network and firewall equipment have reached end-of-life status with the manufacturer and will no longer be eligible for service, support, and security upgrades at the end of the City’s current maintenance contract, ending June 21, 2025. Denying the award of the project would leave the City in a position that would be difficult to recover from should the end-of-life hardware start to fail or be discovered to have a major security vulnerability.

2. Deny awarding the project to CIO/Juniper. Council may request staff to seek additional proposals. Staff research into alternative solutions and providers in the market indicates that going out to other vendors would increase the cost of the project, potentially doubling the amount currently quoted. Additionally, this would lead to a scenario in which the City would have multiple different hardware platforms or support vendors, thereby increasing the complexity of supporting the City’s IT infrastructure.

ATTACHMENTS
A – CIO Solutions Quote EE034107
B – CIO Solutions Quote EE034129

Page 50 of 429 ends

A quote prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo
Quote #EE034107
by the team at CIO Solutions
5425 Hollister Ave #150, Goleta, CA 93111 805.692.6700 [email protected] www.ciosolutions.com Page 51 of 429 Prepared For Prepared By
City of San Luis Obispo
Eric Mortensen
990 Palm St.

Includes software updates, upgrades, cloud subscriptions, network insights.
$885.00 8 $7,080.00
QFX Subtotal $215,960.00
EX4100's Price Qty Extended
Juniper EX4100-F-12P 12-Port Fanless 10/100/1000BaseT PoE+, 2x 1G/2.5G/10GBaseT Uplink ports, 4x 10G SFP+ Stacking/Uplink ports (optics sold separately) with Standard SW. PoE++ Powered. $1,528.00 33 $50,424.00
Rack Mount Kit for EX4100-F-12P and EX4100-F-12T Switches Only $87.00 33 $2,871.00 3 Year Wired Assurance & Virtual Network Assistant (VNA) subscription for EX-8, EX-12 port switches including JTAC Support. Includes Juniper Care Core support for EX4000-8/EX2300-C-12/EX4000-12/EX4100-F12/EX4100-H-12 port switches. $294.00 33 $9,702.00
EX4100-24MP 24-Port Multi-Gig with 16x 1G, 8x 1G/2.5G/5G/10G PoE+ +, 4x 10G SFP+ Uplink ports, 4x 25G SFP28 Stacking/Uplink ports, redundant fans, 1 AC PSU JPSU-920-AC-AFO included (optics sold separately) with Standard SW.
$2,878.00 10 $28,780.00
3 Year Wired Assurance & Virtual Network Assistant (VNA subscription for EX-24 port switches including JTAC Support. Includes Juniper Care Next Day support for EX2300/EX3400/EX4000/EX4100-F/EX4100-
H/EX4100/EX4400 24-port switches.
$447.00 10 $4,470.00
EX4100 and EX3400 920W AC Power Supply, Front-to-Back airflow (power cord needs to be ordered separately)
$562.00 2 $1,124.00
Juniper EX4100-24T-DC 24-Port 10/100/1000BaseT, 4x 10G SFP+ Uplink ports, 4x 25G SFP28 Stacking/Uplink ports, 1 DC PSU JPSU-150- DC-AFO included (optics sold separately) with Standard SW. $2,060.00 5 $10,300.00
EX3400 150W DC Power Supply, front-to-back airflow (power cord needs to be ordered separately)
$395.00 5 $1,975.00
August 29, 2025 City of San Luis Obispo Quote #EE034107 Page 2 of 4 Page 52 of 429 EX4100's Price Qty Extended
3 Year Wired Assurance & Virtual Network Assistant (VNA subscription for EX-24 port switches including JTAC Support. Includes Juniper Care Core support for EX2300/EX3400/EX4000/EX4100-F/EX4100-
H/EX4100/EX4400 24-port switches.
$447.00 5 $2,235.00
Juniper EX4100-48MP 48-Port Multi-Gig with 32 x 1G, 16 x 1G/2.5G PoE++, 4x 10G SFP+ Uplink ports, 4x 25G SFP28 Stacking/Uplink ports, redundant fans, 1 AC PSU JPSU-920-AC-AFO included (optics sold separately) with Standard SW.
$4,537.00 14 $63,518.00
Power Cord, AC, US/Canada, C13, 15A/125V, 2.5m, Straight $27.00 14 $378.00 EX4100 and EX3400 920W AC Power Supply, Front-to-Back airflow (power cord needs to be ordered separately)
$562.00 14 $7,868.00
3 Year Wired Assurance & Virtual Network Assistant (VNA) subscription for EX-48 port switches including JTAC Support. Includes Juniper Care Core support for EX2300/EX3400/EX4000/EX4100-F/EX4100/EX4400 48 -port switches.
$646.00 14 $9,044.00
EX4100's Subtotal $192,689.00
Existing Switch Support Price Qty Extended
3 Year Wired Assurance & Virtual Network Assistant (VNA subscription for EX-24 port switches including JTAC Support. Includes Juniper Care Next Day support for EX2300/EX3400/EX4000/EX4100-F/EX4100-
H/EX4100/EX4400 24-port switches.
$429.00 22 $9,438.00
3 Year Wired Assurance & Virtual Network Assistant (VNA) subscription for EX-48 port switches including JTAC Support. Includes Juniper Care Next Day support for EX2300/EX3400/EX4000/EX4100-
F/EX4100/EX4400 48-port switches.
$588.00 25 $14,700.00
Existing Switch Support Subtotal $24,138.00
Recap Amount
QFX $215,960.00
EX4100's $192,689.00
Existing Switch Support $24,138.00
Subtotal $432,787.00
Tax $21,039.01
Total $453,826.01
August 29, 2025 City of San Luis Obispo Quote #EE034107 Page 3 of 4 Page 53 of 429 • Quotes expire after 30 days.
• All software sales are final and non-refundable. Vendors do not accept software returns. • Prices of high-demand products may fluctuate between when a quote is made, and the order is placed – tariffs may affect this as well. • CIO Solutions reserves the right to amend the final invoice to reflect any vendor price changes. If change is less than 20% it will be processed with the updated cost. CIO Solutions will consult with client if the price changes by more than 20%. • Equipment orders over $10,000 may require a 50% (pre-tax) deposit prior to ordering. • Vendor shipping fees may vary from the quoted amount. • Labor hours quoted are an Estimate and quotes allow for 15% overage of scoped hours. • Labor will be billed separately.

Acceptance
City of San Luis Obispo CIO Solutions
Signature Signature:

Printed Name: Eric Mortensen Printed Name:

Title: Title:

Date: Date:

August 29, 2025 City of San Luis Obispo Quote #EE034107 Page 4 of 4 Page 54 of 429 A quote prepared for
City of San Luis Obispo
Quote #EE034129
by the team at CIO Solutions
5425 Hollister Ave #150, Goleta, CA 93111 805.692.6700 [email protected] www.ciosolutions.com Page 55 of 429 Prepared For Prepared By
City of San Luis Obispo
Eric Mortensen
990 Palm St.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
[email protected]
www.ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us
Eric Engmyr
Phone: 805-692-6700
Email: [email protected]
Discounts meet or exceed. NASPO ValuePoint Data Communications contract AR3232 SRX Price Qty Extended
Juniper 5yr,SRX4300AC,IDP,AppSec,ATP $97,449.00 2 $194,898.00 Juniper AC PWR CBL-PATCH CORD,10A/250V,2.5M $27.00 2 $54.00 Juniper 850W AC AFO Power Supply $948.00 2 $1,896.00
JNPR Care ND Supt SRX4300 60 Months $53,420.00 2 $106,840.00 SRX Subtotal $303,688.00
Recap Amount
SRX $303,688.00
Subtotal $303,688.00
Tax $17,224.20
Total $320,912.20
• Quotes expire after 30 days.
• All software sales are final and non-refundable. Vendors do not accept software returns. • Prices of high-demand products may fluctuate between when a quote is made, and the order is placed – tariffs may affect this as well. • CIO Solutions reserves the right to amend the final invoice to reflect any vendor price changes. If change is less than 20% it will be processed with the updated cost. CIO Solutions will consult with client if the price changes by more than 20%. • Equipment orders over $10,000 may require a 50% (pre-tax) deposit prior to ordering. • Vendor shipping fees may vary from the quoted amount. • Labor hours quoted are an Estimate and quotes allow for 15% overage of scoped hours. • Labor will be billed separately.

Acceptance
City of San Luis Obispo CIO Solutions
Signature Signature:

Printed Name: Eric Mortensen Printed Name:

Title: Title:

Date: Date:

August 29, 2025 City of San Luis Obispo Quote #EE034129 Page 2 of 2 Page 56 of 429 City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: October 21, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Eva Wynn, Assistant Planner
VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: Item 6f – REQUEST TO ADD PROPERTY AT 1110 BUCHON STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES (HIST-0504-2025)
Staff received the following question, regarding the request to add 1110 Buchon St to the Master List of Historic Resources in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The question is below with staff’s response shown in italics:
1) The staff report and James Papp’s report both refer to the property already being a “contributing list resource,” but I didn’t find clearly stated anywhere in the item documents what the true difference is between a “contributing list resource” and a “Master List Resource.” Can you please clarify for me what the distinction means and why we need to make this change in status now?
Contributing historic resources are described in the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) as properties that contribute to the historic character of a neighborhood, district, or the City as a whole. Contributing properties include those properties that by virtue of their age, design and appearance, contribute to and embody the historic character of the neighborhood or historic district in which they are located (SLOMC 14.01.050).

Both Contributing historic resources and Master List historic resources must meet at least one of the significance criteria of the HPO and retain a high level of integrity. Master List Historic properties are distinguished from Contributing properties as the “The most unique and important resources and properties in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the city’s past, which meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.070.” The Master List is the City’s highest standard/designation of historic property listing and properties must be on the Master List in order to be eligible for the Mills Act historic preservation and tax incentive program.

Page 57 of 429 ends

Item 6f – Request to Add Property at 1110 Buchon Street to Master List Page 2 The property owner applied for the change in designation from Contributing status to Master list in accordance with the process outlined in the HPO where the Cultural Heritage Committee makes a recommendation to the City Council for final action. On August 25th, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed the applicant submitted application which included a historic evaluation (James Papp’s evaluation) in support of the Master List designation, and recommended Master Listing of the property to the City Council.

Page 58 of 429 ends

Item 6f
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4006
For Agenda of: 10/21/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Eva Wynn, Planning Technician
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO ADD PROPERTY AT 1110 BUCHON STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES (HIST-0504-2025).

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a draft resolution entitled “A Resolution By The City Council Of The City Of San Luis Obispo, California, Adding The Property Located At 1110 Buchon Street To The Master List Of Historic Resources As The Hans Nissen And Lena Peterson Hansen House,” as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee.

POLICY CONTEXT
The recommended action on this item is supported by historical preservation policies set out 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 set out in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance Sections 14.01.060 & 14.01.070.

DISCUSSION
Background
Fitzgerald Kelly (owner), represented by James Papp, has requested that the property at 1110 Buchon Street be designated as a Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, as The Hansen House. The applicant has provided an evaluation of the property and its eligibility for Master listing (Historical Evaluation, Attachment B), prepared by James Papp, PhD, Historian and Architectural Historian.

To meet the Eligibility Criteria of a Listed Historic Resource, a building must exhibit a high level of historic or architectural integrity, be at least 50 years old, and meet one or more of the eligibility criteria described in §14.01.070 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Those resources that maintain their original or attained historic and architectural character and contribute either by themselves or in conjunction with other structures to the unique or historic character of a neighborhood, district, or to the City as a whole may be designated as a “Contributing List Resource” (§14.01.050).

Page 59 of 429 ends

Item 6f
The most unique and important resources and properties in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past may be designated as “Master List Resources.” The applicant’s Historic Evaluation prepared by James Papp, PhD (Attachment B) provides a description of the architectural significance of the house and degree of integrity (beginning on pg. 64), in support of the requested designation as a Master List Resource. The evaluation is summarized in the Evaluation of Eligibility section of this report.

The property is located on the northern side of Buchon Street, approximately 50 feet east of Santa Rosa St in the Dallidet Addition Tract of the Old Town Historic District. The District was created to encompass one of the oldest residential neighborhoods and most of the development occurred around the turn of the 20th century. The high concentration of 100-year-old or older residences establishes the District’s predominant architectural and visual character. The District has many examples of High Victorian architecture, including several variations, such as Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences, along with more modest structures with simpler styles including Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman Bungalow. 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 (Historic Preservation Program Guidelines § 5.2.1).

The residence at 1110 Buchon was built in 1921 in the California Bungalow style and the property is currently on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Contributing List Resource (added in 1987 by City Council Resolution No. 6157).

Page 60 of 429 ends

Item 6f
Evaluation of Eligibility
As described in Municipal Code §14.01.070, a resource eligible for designation shall exhibit a high level of integrity, be at least fifty years old, and satisfy at least one additional criterion for Architectural or Historic significance. The property at 1010 Buchon St is over fifty years old and satisfies evaluation criteria for Architectural Style and Integrity, as described below.

Architectural Criteria
The Hansen House Historic Evaluation (Attachment B) asserts the residence qualifies for Master Listing for its architectural significance and rarity due to its embodiment of the California Bungalow’s full-width front-gable and asymmetric porch subtype. According to the evaluation, the Hansen House is the best-preserved example of the Southern California sub-type and is particularly unique for the design’s absence of Swiss and Japanese influences.

It is simple in its structure and plain and angular in its elements, much like Greene and Greene’s pioneering “California House” from 1904 and the first press illustration of a California Bungalow so designated, and as the type would be recognized, in the 1905 Los Angeles Herald (both below). Like these, the Hansen house has an intentional absence of overt Swiss [details] like the ogee knee brace or Japanese ones like the kaza-ana terminus. It is substantial and artfully designed but minimalist in its aesthetics. (Attachment B, pg. 64) Character defining features of the property, noted in Attachment B, include low pitched front and side gables, a dominant horizontal plain frieze, clapboard and rectangular shingle siding, five knee braces with square ends and plain shafts, an integrated asymmetrical porch, and triplet windows flush mounted to the wall.

Historic Criteria
The significance of the Hansen House is provided for in its architectural style and integrity, rather than its association with notable historical events or persons (Attachment B, pg. 68).

Integrity Criteria
The Historic Evaluation discusses the integrity of the resource in terms of setting, design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and association. Based on a comparison of the 1926 Sanborn Map and Google Satellite images, the Hansen House and garage retain their original locations and configurations at 1110 Buchon Street. The lack of significant alterations to the residence footprint and historic characteristics indicate a high degree of integrity. Minor modifications have been made to the residence since it was designated as a Contributing Resource on the City’s Inventory. The Historic Evaluation asserts the clapboard and shingle siding materials, window frames, door frames, bargeboards, beam ends, knee braces, and rafter tails all appear to be original. The front and rear doors are not original; the front door was replaced by previous owners with a diamond-pane door that was common among older homes in the City (Attachment B, pg. 72).

Page 61 of 429 ends

Item 6f
Conclusion
The information in the Historical Evaluation prepared for this application, documenting the architectural character and integrity of the house and the historical context surrounding the property’s period of significance, provides a basis for the Council to find that the dwelling satisfies Evaluation Criteria for Architectural Style and Design and Integrity described in Section 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (SLOMC Ch.

14.01) to a degree that qualifies the property for designation as a Master List Historic Resource. A Master List Resource is the City’s highest designation for historic resources and provides for long term preservation of the resource. Resources on the Master List benefit from eligibility to enter a Mills Act contract with the City which provides economic incentives for restoration and preservation of historic buildings.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On August 25, 2025, the Cultural Heritage Committee considered this request and recommended that the City Council designate the property as a Master List Resource in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The recommendation is based on the findings that the property is significant because of its architectural style and design, it exhibits a high degree of historic and architectural integrity, and is more than 50 years old. The dwelling on the site conveys a purity of style and embodies a uniquely preserved example of the California Bungalow style, for which it is among the City’s most unique and important Historic Resources.

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. Public notice was also previously provided for the Cultural Heritage Committee meeting of August 25, 2025.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Inclusion of the subject properties on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and so is covered by the general rule described in Section 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: No
Fiscal Analysis:

Page 62 of 429 ends

Item 6f
Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $0 $ $ $
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $ $0 $ $0
Adding properties to the Master List of Historic Resources will have no fiscal impacts.

Historic designation of property itself has no bearing on City fiscal resources. As a Master List Resource, however, each property would be eligible for historic preservation incentives under the Mills Act through property tax credits. Any subsequent request to enter into a Mills Act Contract with the City would be considered under separate application. A separate fiscal analysis would be reviewed by the City Council should any properties be proposed for participation in the Mills Act Program.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Decline to designate the property as a Master List Resource in the Inventory of Historic Resources. This decision would be based on finding that the Property is not considered to be sufficiently unique or important, or found to satisfy Evaluation Criteria for listing to a degree warranting such designation. The Property would remain in the Inventory as a Contributing List Resource.

2. Continue consideration of the request for additional information or discussion.

This alternative would allow the City Council to request additional information to aid in determining whether the property should be added to the Master List.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution adding 1110 Buchon Street to the Master List of Historic Resources B - Historic Resource Evaluation, 1110 Buchon (James Papp, PhD)

Page 63 of 429 ends

Page 64 of 429 ends

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. _____ (2025 SERIES)

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1110

BUCHON STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

AS THE HANS NISSEN AND LENA PETERSON HANSEN HOUSE
WHEREAS, the applicant, Fitzgerald Kelly, filed an application on June 27, 2025, for review of the inclusion of the property at 1110 Buchon Street on the City’s Master List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California on August 25, 2025 and recommended that the City Council add the property at 1110 Buchon Street to the Master List of Historic Resources; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the application at a public meeting on October 21, 2025 for the purpose of considering the request to add the property to the Inventory of Historic Resources; and WHEREAS, notices of said public meetings 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 subject property is eligible for inclusion in the City’ s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Master List Resource because the property satisfies at least one of the evaluation criteria for historic resource listing described in 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), exhibits a high degree of integrity, and is more than 50 years old.
b) The subject property satisfies Architectural Criteria for Style and Design (14.01.070 (A)) and Criteria for Integrity (14.01.070 (C)) to a degree that qualifies it for designation as a Master List Resource. The dwelling on the site conveys a purity of style and embodies a uniquely preserved example of the California Bungalow style, featuring a full-width front-gable and asymmetric porch. The building occupies its original site and retains a largely unaltered exterior, with its characteristic design and materials.

Page 65 of 429 ends

Resolution No. _____ (2025 Series) Page 2
R ______
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Inclusion of the subject property on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule described in 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines.

SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby include the property located at 1110 Buchon Street in the Master List of Historic Resources as “The Hans Nissen and Lena Peterson Hansen House.” 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 21st day of October 2025. ___________________________
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

Page 66 of 429 ends

1 Master List Application
Hans Nissen and Lena Peterson Hansen House
1110 Buchon Street
I. Summary Conclusion
The house built by Hans and Lena Hansen at 1110 Buchon Street in 1921 is a California Bungalow, the Golden State’s iconic contribution to suburban architecture, which spread throughout North America, Australia, and New Zealand in the early twentieth century. Its genesis in California has been obscured by its inexplicable rebranding in the 1980s and 1990s as the “Craftsman Bungalow,” a term almost never used contemporaneously.

Bungalows—created in their eponymous location of Bengal for European traders in the seventeenth century—migrated to America through California in the early 1870s. At the turn of the century, architects Bernard Maybeck in Berkeley, Frank Delos Wolfe and Charles McKenzie in San Jose, and Charles and Henry Greene in Pasadena adapted the • asymmetric footprints of Colonial Bungalows
• rustic features and broad, low profile of the Swiss chalet • indoor-outdoor spaces appropriate to California’s mild climate; and • cost- and labor-saving advantages of single-story, open-plan living. into an architectural expression of the California lifestyle soon to be exported to suburbs as far-flung as Montreal, Miami, and Wallaroo.

When the Old Town Historic District was conceived as Conservation District #1 in San Luis Obispo’s 1979 Historical and Architectural Conservation Element, the California Bungalow —with regional pride—was the sole architectural style referenced in the district’s definition.

Attachment B - Historic Resource Evaluation, 1110 Buchon

Page 67 of 429 ends

2 Subsequently—perhaps from
a misconception of historic
districts that the older, taller,
and more elaborate, the
better—the Historic
Preservation Program
Guidelines redefined the Old
Town District’s “predominate
architectural features” as
“two- and rarely three-story
houses” and “High Victorian
architecture,” despite the fact
that of the more than 300
Master and Contributing List
houses in the district 1908 postcard: California Bungalow Inn of Dallas, Texas • 95 percent are 1- and 1½-story bungalows and cottages • 92 percent were built in the twentieth century as the new rather than old town Fully 41 percent of the listed buildings are Colonial Bungalows and California Bungalows:
the core of its resources. Yet perhaps because of the district’s misdescription as old, tall, and “High Victorian” (never a technically accepted term), relatively few of its Colonial Bungalows and almost none of its California Bungalows have been Master Listed.

To support the city’s move to update the Historic Resources Survey, this report analyzes the Old Town Historic District biases as the historiographic context of the Hansen House.

The Hansen House is the California Bungalow subtype characterized by a full-width streetfacing chalet gable and asymmetric integrated porch—the California Bungalow’s Southern California ur-form as developed by Charles and Henry Greene in Pasadena. It articulates a minimalist decorative aesthetic appropriate to its simple form. It also has an extraordinary degree of integrity to communicate this significance, a rare listed building with no horizontal or vertical additions and located within a unique block-long collection of 21 listed bungalows, including 13 Colonial Bungalows and 7 California Bungalows.

The Hansen House’s subtype is not represented elsewhere in San Luis Obispo’s Master List except by the Anholm House, whose profoundly flawed integrity of design, workmanship, and materials—as a result of both substantial loss and substantial expansion—negates its ability to communicate its significance.

The Hans and Lena Hansen House qualifies for the Master List’s standard of “the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of […] architectural […] significance [or] rarity,” and its combination of significance and integrity make it a key Old Town Historic District resource for the city’s highest designation of preservation.

Submitted 24 June 2025 on behalf of Fitzgerald Kelly by James Papp, PhD |Historian and Architectural Historian, City and County of San Luis Obispo 964 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-470-0983 | [email protected]

Page 68 of 429 ends

3 Contents
I. Summary Conclusion 1
II. Chronology 4
III. Historical Context: Immigrants in San Luis Obispo County 10 Danish Immigration to the Central Coast 10
The Dallidet Addition 11
IV. Architectural Historical Context: The California Bungalow 15 Bungalow origins 15
The California Bungalow 18
Dissemination of the California Bungalow 24
Terminology: California Bungalow versus Craftsman Bungalow 25 V. Historiographic Context: Creation and Revision of the Old Town Historic District 30 Possible origin of the Master/Contributing dichotomy 31 The Old Town Historic District’s origin 35
The district’s misnaming 35
The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines’ arbitrary revision of the district’s period of significance 38
The Guidelines’ misdescription of the district’s “Architectural Character” 38 The Guidelines’ misdescription of “Predominant architectural features” 45 Old Town Historic District architectural types 46
VI. The Hansen House in the Universe of San Luis Obispo Listed California Bungalows 47 Master List California Bungalows throughout San Luis Obispo 47 Original Master List in the Old Town Historic District: Vollmer, Patton, Nuss, Crossett, City Kindergarten, Adriance Court
Original list outside of a historic district: Faulkner, Parsons Added by application of owners 1996–2012: Dunlap, Burch, Anholm, Kelly, Dart, and Lyman
Contributing List California Bungalows in the Old Town Historic District 60 VII. Significance of the Hansen House 64
VIII.Period of Significance 68
IX. Integrity 69
X. Conclusion 74

Page 69 of 429 ends

4 II. Chronology of the Hansen House, 1110 Buchon
Hansen Era: 1921–1937
1846 Hans Nissen Hansen, an ethnic Dane, is born in the Duchy of Schleswig. 1856 Lena Peterson (or Petersen) is born in California of ethnic Danish parents from the Duchy of Schleswig, not long after the settlement of the First Schleswig War (1848–1851) in 1852.
1866 Austria’s loss in the Austro-Prussian War puts the Duchy of Schleswig under the control of Prussia, which promises but never administers a plebiscite. 1867/1868 Hans Hansen immigrates to the United States soon after the Duchy of Schleswig has come under the control of Prussia. (The 1867 date is given by his San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram obituary [“Hans Hansen Passes Away,” 25 Jan. 1930, p. 1], the 1868 date in the 1910 and 1920 US Census.) 1877 Hans Hansen is naturalized as a citizen of the United States (US Census, 1920, San Luis Obispo City, Supervisor’s District 7, Enumeration District 50, sheet 4A).
1877 Lena Peterson marries Hans Nissen Hansen in Monterey County (Monterey County marriage records).
1880 The Hansens arrive in San Luis Obispo County and begin ranching in the Santa Margarita area, according to Hans’s obituary (“Hans Hansen Passes Away”), or in 1889, according to Lena’s obituary (“Aged Woman Dies Monday,” Telegram, 7 July 1926, p. 5). According to their son Nelson’s obituary, he was born in San Luis Obispo County in 1882 (“SLO Native Called by Death,” Telegram, 22 Jan. 1945, p. 1). Likely the Hansens moved to San Luis Obispo County in 1880, removed to Chualar in Monterey County in the late 1880s, and returned in the early 1890s.
1882 Nelson Nissen Hansen is born to Lena Hansen.
1889 John Hansen is born to Lena Hansen at Chualar, southeast of Salinas, Monterey County (“Born,” Salinas Daily Journal, 4 Nov. 1889, p. 3). 1891 Aug. 30 The San Luis Obispo Tribune notes Hans Hansen of Chualar staying at the Laughery House (“Hotel Arrivals,” p. 4).
1910 Hans and Lena Hansen and their 27- and 23-year-old sons Nelson and John and 21-year-old daughter Carrie (Caroline) are living on their own dairy farm, owned free of mortgage, on the Chorro Road in the Morro Township (US Census, 1910, Morro Township, Supervisor’s District 5, Enumeration District 35, sheet 5A).
1913/1914 Hans and Lena Hansen move from their Chorro Valley ranch to San Luis in 1913, according to Hans’ obituary (“Hans Hansen Passes Away”) or 1914, according to Lena’s obituary (“Aged Woman Dies Monday”). 1920 Hans and Lena Hansen and daughter Caroline (a music teacher) are renting at 1190 Buchon Street (US Census 1920).

Page 70 of 429 ends

5 1921 Sep. 12 Hansen Nissen Hansen applies for a permit for a 28’ by 42’ five-room frame and plaster house, part lots 3 and 4, block 201 (1110 Buchon Street), estimated cost $2,500 (San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection, Special Collections and Archives, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo).
1926 July 5 Lena Hansen dies aged 69 (“Aged Woman Dies Monday”). 1930 Jan. 25 Hans Hansen dies aged 83. The funeral service is held at 1110 Buchon, where Hans has been living with his daughter Carrie.
1930 Apr. 8 Carrie Hansen, 35, no occupation, is listed as the owner of 1110 Buchon, worth $5,000, with 23-year-old Mabel G. Anderson, bank bookkeeper, as a roomer (US Census, 1930, San Luis Obispo City, Enumeration District 40-27, sheet 11A).

Apr. 9 Nelson Hansen is farming on a rented ranch on Morro Road (US Census, 1930, Morro Township, Supervisor’s District 13, Enumeration District 40- 10, sheet 21B).

From April 30 to May 23 in the Telegram, two rooms and a bath and “desirable rooms for ladies” are offered for rent at 1110 Buchon. 1935 Nov. 18 Vernon Newton, a patient at San Luis Sanitarium, is living at 1110 Buchon (Personal Paragraphs, Telegram, p. 4).
1937 Carrie Hansen, unmarried, deeds 1110 Buchon to Rena Nichols, widow (Public Records, Telegram, 21 Jan. 1937, p. 6).

Nichols Era: 1937–1950s
1891 Mar 26 Rena Katherine McCann is born in California to Irish parents (US Census, 1910, part Assembly District 31, San Francisco, Supervisor’s District 4, Enumeration District sheet 30, sheet 4A; Social Security Numerical Identification Files).
1887 Newton James Nichols is born in California to California-born parents (US Census, 1910, Gilroy Township, Supervisor’s District 5, Enumeration District sheet 74, sheet 24A; California Death Index, 1905–1939) 1910 Rena McCann is working as a domestic and living with 13 other lodgers and a family of 5 at 284 Missouri Street in Potrero Hill, San Francisco (US Census, 1910).

Newton J. Nichols, a locomotive fireman, is living in a lodging house in Gilroy (US Census, 1910).
1911 May 7 Newton James Nichols and Rena Katherine McCann are married in San Francisco, of which they are both described as residents (marriage license No. L-4207).
1912 Oct. 14 Their daughter Evelyn Catherine Nichols is born. 1914 July 25 Their daughter Laura Nichols is born in San Luis Obispo (Social Security Numerical Identification Files).

Page 71 of 429 ends

6 1918 Sep. 11 Newton Nichols’ draft card identifies him as an SP locomotive fireman living with his wife at 1533 Osos (a Colonial Bungalow a block from 1110 Buchon and still extant).
1929 Franklin E. “Frank” Abbott is “in charge” of the Poly orchestra in a grand march (“Many Present at Party When Five Churches Unite in Social,” Telegram, 19 Oct. 1929, p. 3).
1930 Feb. 24 Newton Nichols is the engineer for a special train of three Pullmans and dining, club, and baggage cars departing Los Angeles at 11:50 pm and with former President and Mrs. Calvin Coolidge, Mr. and Mrs. Louis B. Mayer, William Randolph Hearst, and entourage for a visit to Hearst Castle. At 6:45 am on the 25th, the train sidetracks at Hathway Avenue. Despite the banner headline “San Luis Obispo Greets Ex-President Coolidge,” the visit is kept secret till after the party departs by automobiles for Hearst Castle (Telegram, 25 Feb. 1930, p. 1).

Apr. 12 Frank Abbott, 21, is living with his mother, a theater organist, and younger brother, an oil company fireman, in Avila, with no occupation (US Census, 1930, Arroyo Grande Township, Enumeration Dirstrict 40-2, sheet 12A).

May 2 Laura Nichols and Frank Abbott play together in the San Luis Obispo High School Orchestra (“Edna Center in Big Meet,” Telegram, 2 May 1930, p. 2). 1931 Frank Abbott is working with the surveyors on highway construction between San Simeon and Carmel (Pismo Times: Avila News Items, Notes, and Comments, 27 Feb., p. 7; Lela Davis, Avila News, 8 May, p. 3). 1932 Oct. 19 Stanley Abbott is born. Frank and Laura Abbott are living at her parents’ house at 1533 Osos (About Town, Telegram, 21 Oct. 1932, p. 8). 1933–1935 Reference is made to “Frank Abbott and his orchestra” (Telegram: “Dinner and Program Enjoyed by CDA,” 24 June, 1933, p. 7; “Dancing Party Given Honoring Popular Couple,” 18 feb. 1935, p. 3).
1936 Oct. 6 Southern Pacific engineer Newton James Nichols dies at age 50 at the SP’s San Francisco hospital after being taken ill in his cab at San Jose, leaving Rena Nichols a widow. According to the Telegram, Newton Nichols has been with the SP for over 30 years and resident in San Luis for 26 (“Friends Mourn Death of SP Veteran,” 6 Oct. 1936, p. 2).

Oct. 31 Decree of divorce of Laura Abbott is announced (Personal Paragraphs, Telegram, p. 6).

Dec. 2 Frank Abbott dies three days after striking his head on a beam above the piano he is employed to play at a café on the San Pedro waterfront, according to a lawsuit filed by his mother on behalf of herself and his son (“Frank Abbott Passes Away in Southland,” Telegram, 9 Dec. 1936, p. 3; “Café Operators Here Sued in Piano Player’s Death,” News-Pilot, 2 Dec. 1937, p. 7). 1937 In January Rena Nichols buys 1110 Buchon from Carrie Hansen; in March she is assigned the whole estate of Newton Nichols, covering lot 8, block 170

Page 72 of 429 ends

7 in the Dallidet Addition, that is, the house at 1533 Osos (Public Records:

Miscellaneous, Telegram, 12 Mar. 1937, p. 2).
1938–1954 Mrs. Rena Nichols is documented living at 1110 Buchon (1938 City Directory; Telegram: “‘Save a Life’ Knives Added in Drive Here,” 11 Jan. 1943, p. 8; “Marriage Licenses,” 21 July 1954, p. 2).
1938–1955 Mrs. Laura Nichols Abbott, Rena Nichols’ daughter, is documented living at 1110 Buchon (1938 City Directory; Telegram: “Committee Nets $3,200 in Drive,” 17 Mar. 1941, p. 1; “Miss Kirchner Makes Nuptial Vows with Stanley Abbott,” 7 July 1955, p. 6).
1940 1110 Buchon houses Rena Nichols, head, a widow, age 50; daughter Evelyn, single, 27, secretary, oil company; daughter Laura Abbott, widow, 25, secretary, insurance adjustor; and Laura’s son Stanley, 7 (US Census, 1940, Caifornia, San Luis Obispo City, Enumeration District 40-26, sheet 7B). 1940–1941 Marie Bell Abbott, Frank Abbott’s mother, who has been working for several years as the WPA recreational director for the Avila district, goes missing in early 1940, wanted on an arson charge by the San Luis Obispo County sheriff and Los Angeles officers (“Mystery Shrouds Disappearance of Avila Woman,” Telegram-Tribune, 19 Feb. 1941, p. 6). The body of a 5’7”, 250- pound woman that washed ashore near Santa Monica on 31 January 1941 is identified as Marie Abbott by Helen Roberts of National City, who claims to be a friend. Police receive a telegram from Forrest Abbott, Marie’s surviving son, in Bridgeport, CT, who says that a friend of his has viewed the body and that it is not his mother. Helen Roberts is found in a Los Angeles psychopathic ward, and Marie Abbott is put back on the wanted list. 1950 1110 Buchon houses Laura N. Abbott, 35, head, a private secretary in oil production; son Stanley W. Abbott, 17; and mother Rena Nichols, 58 (US Census, 1950, California, San Luis Obispo City, Enumeration District 40-62, sheet 15).
1955 Marie Bell Abbott dies in Oceano without having been mentioned in the press since her disappearance and supposed death and misidentification (“Mrs. Marie Abbott of Oceano Passes,” Arroyo Grande Valley HeraldRecorder, 14 Oct. 1955, p. 7). 1957 Mr. and Mrs. Everett N. Hunter (the former a student) are living at 1110 Buchon, and neither Rena Nichols nor Laura nor Stanley Abbott is listed in the county (1957 City Directory, “Thirty-Four Babies Arrive in County; Stork Is Tired,” Telegram, 18 Sep. 1957, p. 6).
1981 July 19 Rena Nichols Wallace dies and is buried in Goleta Cemetery. 1998 May 24 Laura Nichols Abbott dies and is buried in Goleta Cemetery.

Maxwell Era: 1958–2014
1921 Nov. 18 Otis Mark Maxwell is born in Morton, Mississippi, forty miles east of Jackson.

Page 73 of 429 ends

8 1930 Apr. 19 Otis Mark Maxwell (then known as Mark H. Maxwell) is living with his father (an unemployed house carpenter), mother, and four brothers in Meehan, Mississippi, near the Alabama border (US Census, 1930, Mississippi, Lauderdale County, Beat 4, Enumeration District 38-25, sheet 11A). 1942 Feb. 15 Twenty-year-old Otis Maxwell of Morro Bay, 6’2”, red-haired, gray-eyed, and employed at Camp San Luis, registers for the draft (Registration Card, Selective Service). He appears to be living with his older brother John C.

Maxwell, Jr. In 1940 John C. Maxwell had been assistant manager of the grocery store at the Morro Bay CCC camp (US Census. 1940, Morro Bay Township, Enumeration District 40-12, sheet 16B).

Sep. Otis Maxwell enlists in the US Navy as an apprentice seaman (“Naval Enlistments Reach Record Total in County,” Telegram-Tribune, 2 Oct. 1942, p. 1).
1946 Navy veteran Otis Maxwell has returned to Camp San Luis as one of its six hundred civilian employees (“Veterans Tell Why They Like SLO,” Telegram, 17 Apr. 1946, pp. 1 and 10).

Otis Maxwell, working as construction labor in building houses and roads, is one of three lodgers at 530 Buchon (US Census, 1950, Enumeration District 40-50, sheet 2).
1958–1977 Otis Maxwell, foreman at Madonna Construction, and Julia M. Maxwell are living at 1110 Buchon (City Directories).
1963 Otis and Julia Maxwell apply for a permit to lengthen two windows at 1110 Buchon (“Permit for Duplex Tops San Luis Obispo List,” Telegram-Tribune, 23 Mar. 1963, p. 5).

Otis Maxwell directs the men’s chorus for a surprise fête of almost three hundred employees for Alex Madonna (“Surprise Fête Honors Boss,” Telegram-Tribune, 21 Oct. 1963, p. 4).
1967 Otis Maxwell, as owner-contractor, receives a permit for brick veneer, $100 (“Building Permits,” Telegram-Tribune, 12 May 1967, p. 5) 1979–1981 Otis Maxwell, retired, and Julia Maxwell are living at 1110 Buchon (City Directories).
1981 Julia Maxwell dies in San Luis Obispo (“Card of Thanks” [advertisement], Telegram-Tribune, 14 Feb. 1981, p. 5).
1984 June 21 Otis Maxwell marries LaVerne Boktin in Reno, Nevada (Nevada Marriage Index, 1956–2005)
1983–1989 Otis and LaVerne George Boktin Maxwell, both retired, are living at 1110 Buchon (City Directories).
2010 Oct. 8 LaVerne Maxwell dies aged 90 (“LaVerne Boktin Maxwell,” Tribune, 13 Oct. 2010, p. B2).

Page 74 of 429 ends

9 2014 May 5 Otis Maxwell dies aged 92 in San Luis Obispo (GenealogyBank Obituaries, Births, and Marriages, United States, 1980-2014, familysearch.org, accessed 9 Oct. 2024).

Page 75 of 429 ends

10 III. Historic Context: Immigrants in San Luis Obispo County The difficulty with following Hans Nissen Hansen’s activities is that he was not the only Hans Hansen—or even the only Hans N. Hansen, or even the only Hans Hansen or Hans Hanson born in 1846—in San Luis Obispo County.

What were so many Danes doing here? They left Northern Schleswig (now Southern Jutland) because of two wars from 1848 to 1864 and subsequent Prussian oppression. But though Hans Hansen and his wife Lena Peterson Hansen were in California because of historical forces, there is nothing to suggest that Hans or Lena were historically significant figures themselves, such as leaders of their profession. They were dairy farmers who stuck to their business in Santa Margarita, Chualar, and the Chorro Valley till they retired to the City of San Luis Obispo in 1913 or 1914. In 1921 they built the house at 1110 Buchon that is the subject of this application for its embodiment of the California Bungalow.

Unlike fellow Danish Schleswigers Chris and George Anholm, the Hansens did not have a farm close enough to San Luis to turn into a suburban bungalow tract. They were prosperous enough, however, to build a single suburban bungalow.

Danish immigration to the Central Coast Hans Nissen Hansen, an ethnic Dane who immigrated to the United States from Germany in his early twenties, appears to have been born in 1846 in Northern Schleswig in the disputed Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein.

The British prime minister Lord Palmerston famously observed of the “Schleswig-Holstein question” that vexed Europe in the mid-nineteenth century that only three people had ever understood it: “the Prince Consort, who is dead; a German professor, who went mad; and myself, who have forgotten all about it.”
The dispute arose from the two traditionally conjoined duchies belonging to the Danish royal branch of the Oldenburg dynasty and located between Denmark and Germany.

Schleswig remained outside the Holy Roman Empire and was partially Danish speaking; Holstein remained inside and was largely German speaking. In the mid-nineteenth century, with Frederick VII of Denmark having no issue, the duchies’ future owner was in doubt, against the background of rising nationalism, popular revolutions, and the maneuvering of imperial powers.

An uprising by German-speaking Schleswigers and Holsteiners in 1848—started by a German-oriented claimant to the duchies from the Schleswig-Holstein-SonderburgAugustenburg branch of the Oldenburgs—sparked the First Schleswig War, which continued until 1851 and drew in troops from both the Kingdom of Denmark on one side and the Prussian and Hanoverian kingdoms and Saxon duchies of the German Confederation on the other. It also attracted the interference of the Russian tsar and concluded with a peace conference in London. Schleswig and Holstein remained the possession of the Danish crown but with a semi-autonomous status.

A Danish attempt to integrate Schleswig, the death of Frederick VII in 1863, and the question of whether the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein should go to Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, who had inherited the Danish throne, or Frederick, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg, a Prussian puppet, resulted in the German Confederation’s invasion of Holstein and a subsequent incursion by

Page 76 of 429 ends

11 Prussia and Austria into Schleswig in 1864. Schleswig-Holstein came under joint Prussian and Austrian administration until Austria lost the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, when Prussia became the sole authority.

A promised plebiscite for the region was indefinitely postponed. Rights for ethnic Danes to live in Denmark without ceding land in Schleswig were rescinded. With neither Danish nor Prussian citizenship available, and Prussian persecution, expulsion, and military service in force, many Schleswig Danes left for America. A number of them—including Hans Nissen Hansen and the Anholm brothers—ended up in San Luis Obispo County to build its growing dairy industry.

In the 1860s and ’70s, dairy was replacing the Central Coast’s drought-battered ranching industry. Cattle, raised for tallow and hides during the Spanish and Mexican eras and meat during the California Gold Rush and after, traditionally wandered for most of the year in the wildernesses of local ranchos and public land. When the rains failed, which happened repeatedly in the 1860s, cattle were wiped out. In contrast, dairy herds were kept close to food and water for twice-daily milkings.

Lena Peterson Hansen’s parents, from her 1856 California birthdate, likely came to the state during or soon after the First Schleswig War. Hans Nissen Hansen immigrated to California soon after the Second Schleswig War.

Schleswig was finally granted its plebiscite in 1920 after Germany’s defeat in World War I.

The result was that Northern Schleswig became South Jutland and part of Denmark—hence the change from “Ger-Danish” for the birth nationality of Hans Hansen and his wife’s parents in the 1910 US Census to “Danish” in the 1920 census. Some Schleswigers, suddenly South Jutlanders, returned permanently from San Luis Obispo County to Denmark, some for a visit only, now that there was no risk of Prussian arrest for once having evaded military service. The Hansens, however, appear to have stayed put in San Luis until their deaths, and there is no record they ever visited the old country.

The Dallidet Addition The Hansen House is part of the Dallidet Addition, another product of immigrants, this time from France and Mexican-administered New Mexico.

Pierre Hypolite Dallidet, Sr.—generally referred to as Hypolite in his lifetime—built up his fortune through possible success in the California gold fields, where he went after French military service in Tahiti; a certainly advantageous marriage into a land grant family in San Luis Obispo; subsequent viticulture in town; and real estate investment in town and the surrounding countryside (his earliest recorded deed in the county is agricultural land at the far end of the Chorro Valley).

Dallidet was born in 1823 at Paizay-le-Tort near Melle, about fifty miles from the west coast of France, an area whose primary industry in the nineteenth century was winegrowing. His father was a carpenter, as well as a farmer. Dallidet joined the French army at 20; at 23, he was sent to Polynesia, where he served as a carpenter until 27.

He arrived in San Francisco from Tahiti in 1851 at the height of the California Gold Rush and spent the next two years prospecting at Hangtown (now Placerville), where he either “made a clean-up” and came south “looking for a good vineyard location” (“Monday Club’s Pageant of Nations,” Morning Tribune, 31 Mar. 1934, p. 4, presumably sourced from

Page 77 of 429 ends

12 Monday Club member Rosa Dallidet) or became “disgusted” and set off for Mexico (Cecilia Jensen, “Pioneer Charm Lingers in Old Dallidet Adobe,” Telegram-Tribune, 6 Nov. 1947, p. 1, with his youngest son Paul Dallidet as its explicit source).

In either case, he came to San Luis Obispo in
1853—shortly after a cholera epidemic had
driven and wiped out the town’s hundreds of
Chumash and other Indian inhabitants but
largely spared the few Californios, Yankees,
and Europeans (Samuel Pollard, “1852: How
San Luis Obispo Had the Cholera and Buried
the Victims,” Tribune, 31 Aug. 1892, p. 2). It
was also the year San Luis made the front
page banner of the nascent New York Times
for recapturing an escaping accused bandit
and immediately hanging him from a joist in
the mission (“Exciting Scene in San Luis
Obispo—Another Outlaw Hung,” 29 Nov.
1853, p. 1). Three associates—suspected of
murder near San Miguel but convicted of
horse-stealing in San Luis by a Los Angeles
vigilante trial—were hanged on Avila Beach
when they arrived by mail steamer; a fifth
was shot dead in pursuit (“From San Luis
Obispo: Great Excitement—The Execution,”
Alta California, 16 Oct. 1853).

Hypolite Dallidet, Sr. in his later years
Two years later, Hypolite Dallidet wed the seventeen-year-old (according to their mission marriage record) Asencion Zalazar. They had eight children over the next sixteen years, till Asencion died of complications of the last birth.

He appears to have been the “vandalic
Frenchman” accused of cutting down 50-foot
olive trees that were shading his vines in the
old Mission Vineyard in the late 1850s
(“Letter from San Luis Obispo,” Daily Alta
California, 22 Aug. 1868).

He obtained the land for his own vineyard and suburban housing tract from the family of his wife, the Zalazars, who received it in turn from Asencion’s mother, Dolores Marques, whose father Miguel received the land grant in 1845, shortly before the Bear Flag Rebellion. In 1859 or 1860, according to family recollection, Dallidet built his own adobe just east of what would become Pacific and Santa Rosa, near the Zalazar Adobe, which was razed in 1956, just as the Dallidet Adobe was being saved (Louisiana Clayton Dart, “Dallidet Adobe Is Laden with History,” Telegram-Tribune, 13 June 1959, p. 3).

Page 78 of 429 ends

13 The Dallidet vineyard (unsubdivided) and Dallidet Addition at lower left in C. W. Henderson’s 1894 Sketch Map of the City of San Luis Obispo, Cal. The vineyard is bounded by Marsh Street at northwest, Santa Rosa and Toro Streets running northwest to southeast, and Leff at southeast. Buchon street transects it. The lot of the future Hansen House would be on the north side of Buchon just to the east of Santa Rosa. The ell to the southwest was sold off as lots of the Dallidet Addition as early as 1877 (“Real Estate Transactions,” San Luis Obispo Tribune, 22 Dec. 1877, p. 8).

Page 79 of 429 ends

14 Dallidet’s eldest son, Pierre Hypolite, Jr., threatened the family’s fortune in the 1890s through unsuccessful real estate speculation. On 18 March 1897, while leaving the Dallidet Adobe after a family quarrel, Hypolite, Jr. was shot twice in the back from the veranda by one of his younger brothers, John (“A Dreadful Crime Committed,” Tribune, 19 Mar. 1897, p. 3). John was acquitted, surprisingly, on a plea of self-defense but almost immediately emigrated to Mexico.

With some lots already sold off, in the early twentieth century the remainder of the vineyard was subdivided and marketed nostalgically as La Vina Tract (never printed with a tilde, as in Viña), but the family did not profit, as by then Hypolite Dallidet, Sr. had lost control of the land to the Commercial Bank, which sold it to a syndicate led by Mark Elberg, a director of the Union National Bank (“La Vina Homestead Tract Sold,” Tribune, 7 Jan. 1905, p. 4). Hypolite, Sr. died in 1909 at the age of eighty-five (“Births, Deaths, and Marriages,” Telegram, 17 May 1909, p. 8), and the Dallidet family continued to occupy the Dallidet Adobe and Garden till youngest son Paul Dallidet’s death in 1958, the ninety-eighth or ninety-ninth year since the adobe’s construction. For the previous five years, however, the property had been owned by the County Historical Society, which was supporting Paul and paying the taxes with the goal of saving the adobe and garden.

Hans and Lena Hansen’s lot at 1110 Buchon was part of the Dallidet vineyard between Santa Rosa and Toro Streets. Their house in 1921 became part of a block-long collection of 13 Colonial Bungalows built between 1901 and 1910 and 6 California Bungalows built between 1910 and 1926, which—with 1 nondescript bungalow—were all Contributing Listed in 1987.

Page 80 of 429 ends

15 IV. Architectural Historical Context: The California Bungalow Bungalow origins The word bungalow derives from “late-seventeenth-century Hindi baṅglā, ‘belonging to Bengal,’ from a type of cottage built for early European settlers in Bengal” (New Oxford American Dictionary). The Oxford English Dictionary records the first English use in an India Office MS. of 1676. As a feature of Indian architecture, the bungalow was introduced to American newspaper readers by the late eighteenth century (“From the Asiatic Mirror, Calcutta, November 26, 1794,” Gazette of the United States, 25 Jan. 1796, p. 2) and to California papers from the 1850s (“A Predicament!,” Nevada Journal, 27 Dec. 1851, p. 1), sometimes accompanied by an explanation of its low, light, and airy construction but usually without. Japanese houses were also described as bungalows in American papers.

On 10 November 1875, the intriguing item at
right appeared in the Santa Barbara Daily
News with no further explanation
(“Brevities,” p. 4). Did it refer to the house
below (detail of a William Keith Joseph
painting) that the Rev. Joseph Worcester
built about then, overlooking San Francisco
Bay in Piedmont; that Jack London, who
rented it 1901–1902, called a “bungalow
with a capital B” (Leslie M. Freudenheim,
Building with Nature [Layton: Gibbs Smith,
2005], p. 132); and that is credited by
several sources as the ur-bungalow in
America? Its deep porch plays up the Indian,
bellcast roof the Japanese reference, while
its low profile is uncottagelike.

Alas, there is a more pedestrian explanation for the Daily News’ item: it was the first sentence of a longer paragraph appearing in newspapers in the Midwest and South in September 1875 that promoted the bungalow form as a “summer residence by the seaside.” “[I]t is simple in shape, is usually not more than one story high, and is covered by a simple low-pitched roof, which may be prolonged to form a veranda. With this protection the inmates may pass most of their time in the open air, and thus have the fullest benefit of their sojourn by the sea. Bungalows can be worked and kept clean with a very small amount of labor, as many contrivances to diminish servants’ work have been introduced” (“Bungalows for Summer Houses,” Warrensburg Standard [Missouri], 2 Sep. 1875, p. 3).

Eight months earlier, however, a California promoter was advertising home lots in Alameda County to potential investors in Nevada and Utah with this pitch: “Estimates show that bungalow houses can be erected, containing parlor, two bedrooms, closets, kitchen, etc., at a cost not to exceed $1,000 each” (“Double Your Capital and No Risk,” advertisement, Eureka Daily Sentinel [Nevada], 30 Dec. 1874, p. 2). This ad appears to be the first example in the American press of the bungalow concept adapted to America’s shores: defined not as a simple, ideal, nature-embracing Asian dwelling but a cheap, easily maintained house on its own suburban lot—an entry-level real estate investment in booming California.

Page 81 of 429 ends

16 Digital newspaper databases counter our earlier, high-culture narratives focused on figures like Joseph Worcester. In 1986 Clay Lancaster tried to find the ur–bungalow by reviewing American Architect and Building News for the first house so designated. He found it in the 27 March 1880 issue, designed by architect William Gibbons Preston for Monument Beach, Cape Cod (“The American Bungalow,” pp. 79–106, in Dell Upton and John Michael Vlach, Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture [Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986], p. 80). Built on sand (below), it echoes the 1875 paragraph on seaside bungalows. Its wraparound veranda recalls Indian bungalows but also peripteral American houses from the Greek Revival on; gables and brackets are Swiss/Bracketed. At 2½ stories, it fell within Indian bungalow height but defied Clay Lancaster’s one-story purism.

Hence his second candidate, designed for a Burlingame, California hillside by A. Page Brown and appearing in the 8 June 1895 issue (below left). At only 1½ stories, some authorities designate this the ur-bungalow. Yet its architecture puzzles those same authorities: “authentic Himalayan chalet” (Lancaster, p. 81); “a strange congeries of Bengalese, Queen Anne, and Swiss chalet” (Robert Winter, American Bungalow Style [New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996], p. 13). In fact, its masonry base with Romanesque fenestration, knee braces, half-timbering, and hip roof surmounted by end gables reproduced the then widely sketched, photographed, and published but distinctly unbungaloid seventeenth-century addition to Stokesay Castle (below right).

Page 82 of 429 ends

17 For at its introduction to America—by a dubious California developer—the bungalow defined not high architectural style but the dream of a cheap detached dwelling on its own lot: a downsizing of the 1784 Jefferson Grid, where the future president imagined America divided in metric square miles, each owner separated from his neighbor’s impositions.

Hence the bungalow flourished outside the high-culture range of notable architects and architectural magazines. By the late 1890s, the term bungalow was so ubiquitous that the New York Sun could publish a satiric piece headlined “Billings Has Queered Himself:

Wouldn’t Call His Colonial House a Bungalow and Wouldn’t Have a Den” (Sun, 20 Mar. 1898, sec. 3, p. 7), reprinted in at least twenty-five other papers from Vermont to California (the Dunsmuir News on the front page above the fold [11 June 1898]). A 4 March 1900 satirical column in the Sun, simultaneously printed in the Chicago Inter Ocean, referred to “Mrs. Politely’s colonial bungalow,” built the previous summer in “Suburbanville” (but “her servants all deserted her” when she moved from the city to the suburbs, and she stole a neighbor’s cook, so it seems to have been imagined—like Billings’ Colonial, with its parlors, dining room, and billiard room—as a commodious residence).

The “Colonial Bungalow” appears to be the first consistent association of the bungalow form with a particular architectural style in America, reflecting the streamlining of our national revival architecture for the suburbs. Newspaper.com database searches (executed 14–26 Oct. 2024) give us a rough statistical view of how the popular press represented architectural styles in tandem with structural types. During the two decades 1881–1900, when Eastlake, Queen Anne, and Colonial Revival dominated American domestic architecture, the term cottage slightly dominates house in pairings with them in the press.

Mentions in California newspapers, 1881–1900 (newspapers.com, 21 Oct. 2024) Eastlake cottage 1,709 house 1,465 mansion 14 villa 0 bungalow 0 Queen Anne cottage 465 house 385 mansion 24 villa 16 bungalow 0 Colonial cottage 2,816 house 1,893 mansion 157 villa 2 bungalow 0 “Colonial bungalow” shows 0 in California because the 1898 reprint in the Dunsmuir News, as with 23 of the 28 newspapers, does not trigger the search engine for that term; the number of hits nationally for “Colonial bungalow” is 5 for 1898 and 2 for 1900. There are no hits nationally for “Eastlake bungalow” or “Queen Anne bungalow” 1881–1900.

Looking at the next decade in 5-year increments (table on following page), “Eastlake bungalow” continues to have no hits nationally, though “Queen Anne bungalow” is accepted as a concept after 1905 (as it already had been in England as early as 1893 [“Pegwell Bay will soon become a memory of the past and will be built over with Gothic villas and Queen Anne bungalows” {“Margate Up To Date,” Daily Telegraph, 22 July 1893, p. 2}]). Hits for “Colonial bungalow” increase by nearly a factor of 10 in 1901–1905 and again 1906–1910. (Because newspapers.com does not support exact match phrasal searches, of the 60 hits in 1901–1905, only 2 are of “Colonial bungalow” [both in Oregon], while the other 58 are of widely published column on door drapery that, significantly, equates “the colonial or bungalow style of architecture.”)

Page 83 of 429 ends

18 Newspapers.com database (newspapers.com, 18 Oct. 2024) 1881–1900 1901–1905 1906–1910
Italianate cottage, California & rest of US 0 0 0
Italianate bungalow, California & rest of US 0 0 0
Gothic cottage, California 2,770 357 21
Gothic cottage, rest of US 2,047 238 86
Gothic bungalow, California 0 0 1
Gothic bungalow, rest of US 0 0 1
Eastlake cottage, California 1,687 507 139
Eastlake cottage, rest of US 245 2 3
Eastlake bungalow 0 0 0
Queen Anne cottage, California 458 202 705
Queen Anne cottage, rest of US 12,086 3,016 3,827
Queen Anne bungalow, California 0 0 11
Queen Anne bungalow, rest of US 0 0 50
Colonial cottage, California 5,117 1,570 807
Colonial cottage, rest of US 5,117 3,202 4,020
Colonial bungalow, California 0 0 50
Colonial bungalow, rest of US 7 60 526
The California Bungalow This architectural type appeared by the early twentieth century, reconfiguring the Swiss chalet for the Golden State’s suburbs. The chalet as an architectural revival form is documented back to Samuel H. Brook’s 1839 Designs for Cottage and Villa Architecture (London), closely followed by Andrew Jackson Downing’s 1842 Cottage Residences (New York). Reconfiguration for the California Bungalow included • lowering the Swiss chalet’s 2½- to 3½-story height to 1, sometimes 1½ stories, rarely higher, for sunny but often tiny California lots
• adding large and copious windows, including square bays and oriels, as well as indooroutdoor spaces in the form of porches and pergolas to take advantage of the climate • minimizing fretwork, half-timbering, and other busy decoration that did not look structural
• using muscular elements, including wide door and window frames and square posts • varying exterior wall surfaces with wide clapboard, rectangular shingle, brick, and fieldstone—often varying materials from level to level or among different elements • opening up interior spaces, then paneling or wainscoting them, often with oldfashioned built-in features such as bookcases, large fireplaces, and inglenooks • infusing Japanese influence through lowered roof pitch and extended rafters, often with kaza-ana terminations; curved elements like faux kooryoo rainbow beams; hari crossbeams; elements of Shinto torii in columns, capitals, and beams; patterning of surfaces; and organization of space
Hence, when William Randolph Hearst brought a pile of architecture books to Julia Morgan’s office in April 1919 and asked her to design, at San Simeon, a “Jappo-Swisso bungalow” (Suzanne B. Riess, ed., The Julia Morgan Architectural History Project, vol. 1, The

Page 84 of 429 ends

19 Work of Walter Steilberg and Julia Morgan, “Reminiscences of Walter Steilberg,” p. 57), he meant a California Bungalow infused with Greene and Greene’s Pasadena japonisme.

What he got was Hearst Castle, for, at the end of World War I, the California Bungalow was displaced as the latest fashion by streamlined, eaveless European and colonial revival styles influenced by English architect Sir Edwin Lutyens’ designs. Hearst Castle’s specific Spanish Colonial Revivalism was introduced to California by New York architect Carleton Winslow, Sr. for San Diego’s Panama-California Exposition of 1915–1917. But across California, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the California Bungalow would persist through the 1920s.

Top left, center, and right: folk
architecture at Ballenberg
Freilichtmuseum der Schweiz.

Counter-clockwise from left:
“Cottage in the Swiss Style,”
Samuel H. Brooks’s 1839
Designs for Cottage and Villa
Architecture (London);
“Cottage Villa in the
Bracketed Mode,” Andrew
Jackson Downing’s 1842
Cottage Residences (New
York); Alexander Jackson
Davis’s Swiss Cottage,
Barrytown, NY, 1867; and
designs xv and ix, Downing’s
1850 The Architecture of
Country Houses (New York).

Page 85 of 429 ends

20 Curiously, one of the earliest uses
in a newspaper of the term
“California Bungalow” with
photographs is of a two-story
Colonial Revival in Memphis
(right), with Tuscan columns,
pediment-style front gable,
bellcast bay, diamond panes, and
shingle walls. The writer defines
as Californian “the low, sweeping
effects peculiar to warm climates,
with a broad veranda in front and
wide entrance door of hardwood.

The design is in the latest
California style, and the wide
window space on the first floor
gives a very open, cheerful
appearance. The window effect is
also carried out on the second
floor. The color of the body of the
building is a natural, dark olive
green, to which neutral color the
white trimmings of the window
casings offer a good contrast”
(“California Bungalow Built in
Memphis,” Commercial Appeal,
17 Jan. 1904, Art Section, 2).

But indications of the California Bungalow as
it was later defined begin to show up in
Charles and Henry Greene’s freestanding Dr.

W. H. Roberts Office (Pasadena, 1898) (left):
deep eaves, exposed rafter tails, a square
bay, square columns, and dado of
rectangular natural wood shingles. But as
the elevations on the next page make clear,
the controlling aesthetic was Tudor Revival,
with steep roof pitch, half-timbered walls,
and lychgate entry (Greene and Greene
Collection, Columbia University).

Page 86 of 429 ends

21 Greene and Greene’s 1902 James Culbertson House in Pasadena, despite its japonesque Arts and Crafts interior, also had Elizabethan gables and E (for Elizabeth) footprint, half timbering (though against natural wood shingles, not stucco), diamond panes, and Tudor arch. But the Culbertson House was their last essay in Tudor Revival (till the late 1920s); the 1902 Light Hall for George H. Barker in Pasadena, their last essay in Colonial Revival.

Greene and Greene’s 1903 houses—such as the Mary Reeve Darling House in Claremont (below)—are pure California Bungalow in the chalet ur-form: full-width, low-pitch gables; deep eaves; low profiles; stained shingle or wide clapboard with fieldstone; and subtle asymmetries. Are these half dozen the ur-und-echt California Bungalows? The Greenes were not yet using the term “California Bungalow,” as far as we know, but circa 1904–1905, they drew up a plan they titled “A California House” (next page, top) (Edward R. Bosley, Greene and Greene [New York: Phaidon, 2000], pp. 69–71).

Page 87 of 429 ends

22 We know the region soon
followed the Greenes,
because the Los Angeles
Herald on 24 September
1905 (sec. iii, p. 3, at left)
published a perspective
drawing of a “California
Bungalow on Church
Street,” featuring “beam
ceilings, wide mantels, odd
shaped roof, and novelty
windows for light and
ventilation”: perhaps the
first image of a California
Bungalow identified as such
and in the form we
recognize today.

This Swiss chalet ur-form of the California Bungalow—with its full-width gable; integrated asymmetric entry porch; rectangular side bay; wide-framed, similarly-sized triplet windows; exposed beam ends; knee brackets; rafter tails; and wide clapboard—led to the 1921 Hansen House at the top of the following page.

Page 88 of 429 ends

23 The Greenes’ Swiss inspiration may well
have come from Bernard Maybeck, who had
been experimenting with the chalet form in
the Bay Area since the late 1890s, though his
chalets tended to be towering hillside
structures for wealthy clients, e.g., the 1899
William P. Rieger House at right.

The San Jose partnership of Frank Delos
Wolfe and Charles McKenzie, however,
designed for suburban lots. In their 1907
Book of Designs, consisting mostly of Colonial
Revival and some Prairie School houses, they
included a few designs showing California
Bungalow characteristics in Prairie-esque
hip roof structures: the 1904 deep eaved,
square columned, porched, and pergola’d
Lion House (below left) and the Hyde House
(below right), with square columns, river
rock dado, and chalet entry gable displaying
beam ends, ca. 1900 .

Page 89 of 429 ends

24 Dissemination of the California Bungalow By 1907 Henry L. Wilson had produced The Bungalow Book, $1, for Ye Planry in Los Angeles, with “a short sketch of the evolution of the bungalow from its primitive crudeness to its present state of artistic beauty and cozy convenience,” followed by perspective drawings and floor plans. Working drawings could be ordered for $10. Soon Wilson and Ye Planry parted ways, with Wilson producing simpler and cheaper designs, Ye Planry more sophisticated and expensive ones.

Cover of a Henry L. Wilson catalogue, circa 1910s (Grolier Club). Note the spring California poppies and orange blossoms and winter oranges and poinsettias, with snow on the (San Gabriel?) mountains, evoking year-round indoor-outdoor California living.

Gustav Stickley’s New York–based journal The Craftsman published an article entitled “The California Bungalow: A Style of Architecture Which Expresses the Individuality and Freedom Characteristic of Our Western Coast” in its October 1907 issue (pp. 68–80), though all the examples were monumental ones from the partnership of Myron Hunt and Elmer Grey; one-and-a-half, two, or two-and-a-half stories; and bore little resemblance to the simple, rustic, and asymmetric chalet-like designs of the Greenes and their more faithful disciples.

Greene-style designs began to appear in The Craftsman in several articles in 1908 and 1909, one of which Stickley—who had been deeply impressed by Mission architecture in his 1904 visit to California, even inventing a furniture style around it—referred to as having “the lines of the old Mission house,” if not its materials (“A Small Bungalow Worth Studying,” Aug. 1908, p. 535).

Page 90 of 429 ends

25 Stickley had published some pieces on
bungalows before 1907, the first substantive
one being “How to Build a Bungalow” in
December 1903 (pp. 253–260). But the
article’s hip-roofed example with splayroofed verandas on three sides (below) resembles the bungalows of British India
(1876 illustration at right)—apart from the
windmill and water tank added to
Americanize the Stickley version.

Above left: illustration from “How to Build a Bungalow,” The Craftsman, Dec. 1903, p. 254; above right: illustration from “A Craftsman Bungalow,” The Craftsman, Mar. 1905, p. 737 Terminology: California versus Craftsman The term “Craftsman Bungalow” appears to originate in reference specifically to the bungalows portrayed in The Craftsman rather than in any direct relation to William Morris’s Arts and Crafts movement, though Stickley was an explicit admirer of Morris. In suburban bungaloid Great Britain, the concept of a bungalow and the Arts and Crafts movement appear mutually exclusive: “Craftsman Bungalow” and “Arts and Crafts Bungalow” are used in the British press to refer to the American phenomenon and only from the 2000s, whereas “California Bungalow” appears in the British press a few times in the 1920s in the context of Hollywood films.

Australians, in contrast, were early adopters of a house form designed for a similar climate, as seen from a full-page spread with photographs of ten California Bungalows, so described, in the construction supplement of Sydney’s Local Government Journal of Australasia in 1912 (20 May, p. 8). (See also Graeme Butler’s book The California Bungalow in Australia [Melbourne: Lothian, 1992].) Sydney architect James Peddle promoted the form on his return from America after World War I, and it has been recognized in Urban Conservation Areas under Australia’s National Trust (Belinda Gibbon, “American Beauty:

An Interior Designer’s Passion for the California Bungalow Led to Its Conservation Listing with the National Trust,” Sydney Morning Herald, 10 Aug. 2000, Domain p. 8).

The term “Craftsman Bungalow” first appears in American newspapers in 1905 (Maryville, Missouri Republican 2 Mar., p. 8; Jersey City News, 4 Mar., p. 2; Buffalo News, 5 Mar., p. 4; Salt

Page 91 of 429 ends

26 Lake Tribune, 19 Mar., pt. 3, p. 8) in reference to an article in that month’s The Craftsman, “A Craftsman Bungalow” (pp. 736–741). That article features a hip-roofed, L-shaped fieldstone house with log columns supporting an interior veranda (illustration previous page), more Adirondack than California in nature. In other words, a Craftsman Bungalow need not have been a California Bungalow, but they both shared an aesthetic of open interiors; simple, muscular, angular, design; and rustic materials.

For the decades of the terms’ mutual existence, the California Bungalow is by far the dominant term and concept: its aspirational, almost utopian nature conjured a distinct lifestyle of beauty, simplicity, and multi-season integration with climate, landscape, and vegetation, as seen in Henry L. Wilson’s illustration surrounded by poppies, orange blossoms, oranges, poinsettias, and snow-capped peaks two pages previous.

US Press mentions of “California Bungalow”
in the newspapers.com electronic archives
(14 Oct. 2024)
1905–1909 4,217
1910-1914 17,188
1915–1919 20,296
1920–1924 47,120
1925–1929 24,602
1930–1934 7,941
US Press mentions of “Craftsman Bungalow”
in the newspapers.com electronic archives
(14 Oct. 2024)
1905–1909 128
1910-1914 1,008
1915–1919 805
1920–1924 264
1925–1929 117
1930–1934 18
By the late 1920s, press mentions of “California Bungalow” increasingly included resale ads for previously built bungalows. The numbers were also influenced by a broadening definition of the California Bungalow: 1929 advertisements for, or articles about, new California Bungalows that give specific addresses in Havre, Montana; Evansville, Indiana; and Hempstead, New York can be tracked down to show eaveless stucco and brick Spanish and Tudor Revival houses of the Lutyensesque type (922 Third Ave, Havre, MT, “Lucke Bungalow Is Very Unique,” Hill County Journal, 1 Aug. 1929, p. 2; 1913 and 1915 Keck Ave, Evansville, IN, “The House That Jack Built,” advertisement, Evansville Courier and Journal, 31 Mar. 1929, sec. 2, p. 4; 35 Kensington Court, Hempstead, NY, “Hempstead,” advertisement, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 13 Jan. 1929, p. 10D). Some other new bungalows accompanied by addresses, however, still show a version of the deep-eaved, low-pitched, wide-gabled wood model as developed by the Greenes.

To complicate the picture, searches for various terms like “Queen Anne Bungalow,” where the results produce traceable addresses, show, on Google Street View, what we would recognize today as California Bungalows (“2-Story Queen Annes [sic] Bungalows, Kansas City Star, 2 Sep. 1921, p. 25).

The term “Craftsman Bungalow” virtually disappeared from newspapers in the 1940s, while “California Bungalow” had a resurgence to refer to the new suburban Ranch House style in a reader-familiar way. Only in the 1990s did “Craftsman Bungalow” (9,022 hits in newspapers.com) pull close to “California Bungalow” (10,830), surpassing it in the 2000s (19,653 hits to 5,404), before interest in historic architecture—or the number of newspapers—declined in the 2010s (5,357 uses of “Craftsman Bungalow” to 1,821 of “California Bungalow”).

Page 92 of 429 ends

27 The rise of the term “Craftsman Bungalow” unfortunately misled some historians into thinking that craftsmanship had been integral to the form. The National Register Bulletin How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, describes how “a building that is a classic expression of the design theories of the Craftsman Style, such as carefully detailed handwork, is eligible” for the National Register of Historic Places (p. 20). In fact, there was no such design theory. California Bungalows, aka “Craftsman Bungalows,” were mass produced from pattern books, in cottage courts, and by transient developers and are characterized by their detached placement; low, shady aspects; indoor-outdoor design; and plain, muscular features. In press descriptions, they were valued for their inexpensiveness (no basements) and ease of maintenance without servants (open rooms and lack of decoration), just like the ur-bungalows of the 1870s. Any “carefully detailed handwork”— like kaza-ana terminations of bargeboards and rafter tails1—was likely massmanufactured, just like elaborate features of earlier Gothic and Eastlake houses.

Expansion and contraction The regions with the most prevalent press mentions of the California Bungalow during
• 1905–1909 were California (18,45), Oregon and Washington (517), and Utah (379) • 1910–1919 were California (6,844), Oregon and Washington (2,475), and the South Central states of Oklahoma (4,250), Kansas (2,995), Missouri (2,733), and Texas (2,267), with lesser centers of interest in New York State (1,094), Florida (1,072), and the Midwest states of Indiana (1,322) and Ohio (1,033) (newspapers.com, 14 Oct. 2024) During 1920–1929, as nationwide interest in the California Bungalow surged, California interest appeared to fall: in 1920–1929, there were more press mentions of the California Bungalow in Oklahoma (10,897), New York (8,686), and Missouri (6,541) than in California (5,886). “Real California Bungalow” was a frequently advertiser term in these other states.

1. The kaza-ana is a wind slot in a chigi, or crossed upward-pointing faux extension of the bargeboard above the roof of a Shinto shrine. The third and terminal kaza-ana is open on a beveled edge, forming a deep scoop or mouth. This became a popular motif in rafter tails, the lower terminations of bargeboards, and even faux beam ends in California Bungalows.

Page 93 of 429 ends

28 Sears kit homes, manufactured 1908–1940, featured California-ish bungalow kits by 1911 (the Niota, model no. 161) and had fully captured the aesthetic by 1913 (the Arlington, model no. 145). Sears continued to sell California Bungalow kits into the late 1920s (searsarchives.com/homes). As well, the Mount Diablo Building Corporation would come to towns such as San Luis Obispo—where it filed 18 permit applications between November 1921 and January 1922—with economical models ready to build. The $3,900 Charles John Kelly House at 1352 Pacific Street, Master Listed for Matt and Sara Ritter in 2010, is a Mount Diablo product.

From 1910 to 1912, Arthur and Alfred Heineman (who would build San Luis Obispo’s Motel Inn in Mission Revival style in 1925) constructed the 23-unit Bowen Court (above, 1911), the oldest extant bungalow court in Pasadena, of California Bungalows: with beam ends, knee brackets, and intersecting gables, clad in rectangular stained wood shingles, secluded in two facing lines through the interior of the block, across a pedestrian path and plantings.

In contrast, the Mount Diablo Building Corporation and Kelly Brothers’ 32-bungalow, 2- block development in Marysville, CA in early 1920—called “LA Bungalows” and “Los Angeles Bungalows” in their press—had slightly varying 4-, 5-, and 6-room models sheathed in stucco and pressed right against the sidewalk on their tiny lots (“Kelly Bros. To Build 32 Bungalows on I, J, and Pine Streets,” Marysville Appeal, 29 Jan. 1920, p. 4). The California Bungalow was becoming commoditized for cheapness and convenience, their craftsmanship and interaction with nature expendable.

Page 94 of 429 ends

29 At the high end, Charles and Henry Greene experimented with the California Bungalow in increasingly complex forms (they referred to the three-story Gamble House [1908–1909, above] as a California Bungalow) before transitioning to less rustic architecture in the 1910s. Yet Henry Greene returned to the California Bungalow ur-form as late as 1929 with the adobe Tenalu in Porterville, CA (below, photographed by Julius Shulman).

Page 95 of 429 ends

30 V. Historiographic Context: Creation and Revision of the Old Town Historic District As San Luis Obispo looks to update its Historic Resources Survey, it’s worth examining how we got to our present state and whether it accurately represents and preserves the fabric of our past. Colonial Bungalows and California Bungalows are the two significant streams of bungalow development in early-twentieth-century America. The Old Town Historic District was created between 1983 and 1987 with 127 listed Colonial and California Bungalows: 41 percent of the 309 original listed resources, reflecting this significance. On the Contributing List there were 56 Colonial Bungalows (22 percent of 256 resources) and 46 Contributing List California Bungalows (18 percent): near parity. Yet on the more prestigious Master List, there were 19 Colonial Bungalow resources (36 percent of 53 resources) compared to only 6 California Bungalow resources (11 percent): a 3 to 1 ratio. How did that happen? Above: Conservation Area #1, 1979 ; below, the Old Town Historic District from Google Maps
No substantive reason,
such as lack of master
architects, high artistic
values, or stylistic
embodiment, appears as
to why the California
Bungalow—a regional
form of world significance
and the only specific
architectural style
mentioned in the district’s
inception as Conservation
District #1—was
underrepresented on the
district’s Master List.

Likely the effort to
valorize the Old Town
Historic District as a highbuilt, “High Victorian,”
high-status district of the
imagination ultimately
skewed Master Listings
away from its significant
collection of California
Bungalows, as Colonial
Bungalows around “Nob
Hill” were bigger, grander,
and seen as “Victorian.”
San Luis Obispo’s Master and Contributing Listing versus national standards Our landmarking apparatus was created in the 1980s with an anomaly: a distinction between Contributing and Master resources, the latter defined as “the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of […] architectural […] significance [or] rarity.”

Page 96 of 429 ends

31 Under the National Park Service’s National Register system, used in turn by states and normally by local jurisdictions, resources within historic districts are defined as “Contributing” if they are (A) historically or architecturally significant within the district’s period of significance and (B) have the integrity to communicate that significance. They are “Non-Contributing” if they are not significant or no longer have the integrity to communicate their significance. It is essentially a digital system, 1 or 0, in or out.

The National Register of Historic Places is a national register of locally significant resources; the California Register of Historical Resources, a state register of locally significant resources. In contrast, if a resource has national or statewide significance— significance to a broader society—it qualifies as a National or California State Landmark.

Some cities, like Pasadena and Santa Barbara, maintain a separate list for National and State Landmark–qualified resources, but none of the dozens of California’s nationally Certified Local Governments (certified for a historic preservation apparatus)—except for San Luis—has a category for “the most unique and important” resources.

This dichotomy (1) makes “Contributing” resources, de jure and de facto (e.g., qualification for Mills Act), less important, substituting analog judgments of good/better/best—the type the National Register system was designed to avoid—for what should be digital: national significance: yes/no; statewide significance: yes/no; local significance: yes/no; integrity to communicate that significance: yes/no. (2) The “most unique” standard defies the NRHP guideline of embodiment of periods, types, and methods of construction, which assumes adherence to repeated and recognized historic patterns. And (3), substantive distinctions of design or craft between Master and Contributing resources are often nonexistent.

Possible origin of the Master/Contributing dichotomy
The 1979 Historical and Architectural
Conservation Element, a product of Mayor
Ken Schwartz’s administration and
simultaneous national interest in historic
preservation and urban renewal in the
1970s, assessed the possible historic
resources of San Luis Obispo before the
volunteers of the Historic Resources Survey
were given a crack at them in 1982. The
Element’s Table 4 assesses 1,126 structures
in 4 proposed conservation areas: a
“Commercial Core” much larger than the
current Downtown Historic District;
Conservation Area #1, largely corresponding
to the current Old Town Historic District; an
abortive Conservation Area #2, between
Johnson and Pepper, Higuera and Pismo; and
Conservation Area #3, a smaller version of
the current Mill Street Historic District—
plus 688 structures outside those areas.

Page 97 of 429 ends

32 The assessment was for “Building Condition” (Standard, Less Than Standard, or Substandard) and “Architecture Significance” (Excellent or Good). The source cited for the table is a 1974 Urban Renewal Authority Building Survey. The criteria are not included.

In Conservation District #1, 148 structures are listed of excellent architectural significance and 120 of good architectural significance: 268 altogether. When the Old Town Historic District was created out of largely the same area, it would have some 53 buildings on the Master List and 256 on the Contributing List: 309 altogether.

In addition, however, the 1979 Element marks 33 buildings of “High Architectural Value,” “High Architectural and Historical Value,” and “Moderate Architectural and Historical Value” in Conservation Area #1 on “Map No. 6: Critical Structures.” Of these, 3 would be left out of the Old Town Historic District (Erickson House/461 Islay, The Establishment, and Railroad Square), while 1 (Anderson House/1438 Nipomo) would ultimately be Contributing Listed.

The other 29 became part of the district’s initial 53-resource Master List, including (as seen on the map, below) St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church (at Nipomo and Pismo) and the Myron Angel House (at Buchon and Broad), coded with dark circle and light star for High Architectural and Historical Value; the Brooks House, coded with light circle and dark star for Moderate Architectural and Historical Value; and—coded with a dark star for High Architectural Value—the Rogers, Nichols, and Dana-Parsons Houses along Nipomo; Falkenstein, Vetterline, McKennon, Renetzky, Tucker, Kimball, and Erickson/687 Islay Houses along Broad; the
Biddle, McManus,
Greenfield, and Snyder
Houses along Pismo; the
Bradbury Sanitarium and
Kaiser, Stanton,
Fitzgerald, Brew, Marshall,
Crocker, and Hourihan
Houses on Buchon; the
Bullard House on Morro;
and the Post and Allen
Houses and Hageman
Sanitarium at the corner
of Osos and Leff.

Curiously, though California Bungalow was the only specific style quoted in the description of Conservation Area #1, no California Bungalows were included on this list, which encompassed nineteenth-century Gothic Revival, Italianate, and Swiss/Bracketed, latenineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Eastlake and Queen Anne, and early-twentiethcentury Colonial Revival buildings.

The original Master List for the Old Town Historic District would add, from the 1880s, 1 Italianate (Fitzpatrick); from the 1890s, 5 more Eastlakes (Lewin, Wright, Vollmer/497 Islay, Fleuger, and Miller); from the 1900s, 1 Prairie School (Clark-Norton); from the 1900s and 1910s, 8 more Colonial Bungalows (Upham, Albert, Baker, Dutton, Bradbury, Jackson,

Page 98 of 429 ends

33 Sandercock/535 Islay, and Anderson/1345 Broad); from the 1910s and 1920s, 6 California Bungalow resources (Vollmer/1116 Pismo, Patton, Nuss/Thorne, and Crossett Houses, Kindergarten School, and multi-unit Adriance Court); and from the 1920s and 1930s, 1 Mission Revival (Sandercock/591 Islay), 1 Hacienda Revival (Avila), and 1 Spanish Colonial Revival (Maier).

We don’t know the Element’s criteria, but the National Register’s criteria for Design/Construction are that a resource
• embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; • represent the work of a master, and/or
• possess high artistic value
All three criteria focus on architecture. The National Register’s 1990 Bulletin on How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation further explicates • embodiment as including an architectural style’s characteristic decorative detailing integrated with characteristic lines and massing
• representation of the work of a master as not including all a master’s work but only those resources expressing a particular phase in development, aspect of work, or idea or theme in the craft of a figure of recognized greatness, known craftsman of consummate skill, or anonymous craftsman whose work is distinguishable by its characteristic style and quality
• possession of high artistic value as so fully articulating a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal, and more fully than other properties of its type So how exactly did Conservation District #1 end up with its High Architectural Value list, and how did it become the core of the Old Town Historic District’s Master List? • Was age—or perception of age—a consideration? Of the 29 resources that migrated to the Master List, 4 date before 1886, 6 between 1886 and 1900, 18 from the 1900s, and 1 from the 1910s. The evaluators of these buildings were unlikely to have had an accurate sense of their ages, from poor access to documentation and an incomplete understanding of what styles were represented and when they occurred in general architectural history and the specific architectural history of San Luis Obispo (e.g., surviving California Bungalows turn up on the Central Coast about 5 years after their naissance in Pasadena: the Contributing List 1020 Leff [19082, see p. 62] appears to be the earliest documented). But, notably, not a single building of High Architectural Value was identified after 1911 and outside Gothic Revival, Italianate, Swiss Heimatstil/Bracketed, Eastlake, Queen Anne, and Colonial Bungalow architecture— though Conservation Area #1 cited California Bungalows and had examples of them before 1911, let alone 1929, the 50-year cut-off for historic consideration in 1979. • Was it the work of a master? Knowledge of architects was poor at this time, and though, for instance, ur–San Luis architect Hilamon Spencer Laird’s Kimball and Hourihan Houses were included, his Upham House was the only exclusion from the line

2. Cal Poly Special Collections’ San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection.

Page 99 of 429 ends

34 of 3 Queen Annes and 1 Colonial Bungalow on the south side of Buchon’s ChorroGarden block in the High Architectural Value list. (His last documented project and only documented California Bungalow, at Santa Rosa and Palm, was drawn out of the Mill Street Historic District and has never since been Master or even Contributing Listed.) • Was it embodiment of a type or period of construction, i.e., architectural style? It is not clear the evaluators knew what styles they were looking at; perhaps they did not highlight the Upham House because they could not define it. Still, the altered Anderson House/1438 Nipomo—ultimately put on the Contributing rather than Master List—has no surviving decorative features to associate a style and has an octagonal bay that suggests Colonial Revival and a flared square turret that is generally associated with Swiss/Bracketed (though it is doubtful the evaluators knew this). • Was it integrity? The Upham House’s porch has been partially enclosed with an extension, but so have porches of a number of houses that made the Element’s list (e.g., 1438 Nipomo and the Bullard House), or, alternatively, porches and extensions that have been added much later (the Rogers House and Jessie Wright Maternity Home). • Was it clustering? Most are clumped, particularly at Nob Hill around Buchon at Broad, Garden, and Chorro, but some buildings there (like the Upham) were left out, and others that were included as of High Architectural Value were distant singletons. • Was it elaborateness of form and decorative detail? The Foursquare layout and stolid simplicity of the Bradbury Sanitarium and Allen House seem far from the turrets and horseshoe arches of the Queen Anne Erickson and Vetterline Houses. • Was it size? On the Element’s High Architectural Value list, in addition to the towering St. Stephens, 2 of the structures are 2½ stories, 11 are 2 stories (1 with a 3-story tower), 11 are 1½ stories, and only 4 are 1 story, those 4 including the elaborately decorated Nichols, Kimball, Dana-Parsons, and Marshall Houses—this in an area whose overwhelming proportion of historic structures (i.e., over 50 years old in 1979) were 1- story Italianate and Late Italianate and Eastlake cottages and Colonial Bungalows, California Bungalows, and Lutyensesque eaveless European and Spanish Colonial Revival bungalows.

Ultimately, a combination of size, elaborateness, and proximity to the old “Nob Hill” neighborhood may have been seen as evidence of expenditure, which may have been seen as evidence of High Architectural Value in the early days of trying to evaluate architecture for the purposes of historic preservation. Initially considered to be a method of urban renewal, historic preservation was quickly co-opted by the upper and upper middle classes, and classes tend to preserve their own culture, history, and values. The history and architecture of the less wealthy is generally seen as less valuable and more “modest”—as if immodesty itself is a high architectural value.

Although the proportions differ, it is plausible that the Master/Contributing dichotomy— which has bedeviled San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program with nationally nonconforming, opaque, and subjective standards for almost half a century—was inherited from a 1979 planning document that inherited it, in turn, from an early 1970s Urban Renewal Authority rubric that ignored National Register Criteria that had been assembled collaboratively by leading preservation scholars and practitioners from across the country.

Page 100 of 429 ends

35 The Old Town Historic District’s origin The 1979 Historical and Architectural Conservation Element sketched out the physical boundaries of the Old Town Historic District as Conservation District #1 on Map No. 7; its numerical boundaries in Table 4 as 148 “excellent” and 120 “good” structures in architectural significance; and its typological and chronological boundaries as “single family residential uses between the late 1800s and the 1930s,” specifying 2 descriptors: “California Bungalow” and “California Renaissance” (p. 53). Everything seemed ready to go.

Except this is not how San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines would ultimately name or describe the district. The city’s ultimate view of it—and the listing decisions that comport with that view—would be of a neighborhood of nineteenth-century mansions the city perhaps wished it had, or thought historic districts should have, rather than the important collection of low-built twentieth-century bungalows it actually had and might have celebrated, just as Pasadena landmarks and celebrates districts like Bungalow Heaven or Sydney, Australia its Artarmon Urban Conservation Area of California Bungalows. The dissonance between the Guidelines’ aspirational view of the Old Town Historic District and the statistical data is striking, even shocking.

The district’s misnaming The oldest concentration of buildings in San Luis Obispo— the actual Old Town—is around the 1792 Mission (including the 1801–1810 Sauer and Sauer-Adams Adobes in the Chinatown Historic District); after that, West Monterey Street and Dana Street (including the circa 1860 Hays-Latimer and Simmler [aka Butrón] Adobes in the Downtown Historic District); and, after that, West Marsh/Higuera (the 1874 Norcross, 1876 Pollard, and 1878 Jack House, pre-1876 Jack Carriage House, and 1870s– 1880s Jack Garden—districtless, because the city fathers wanted to turn it into a centerblock heritage park for unwanted old structures flanked by freeway-close motel strips [as per a conversation with late Mayor Ken Schwartz]).

The so-called Old Town Historic District comprises, in fact, the new town: the suburbs springing up in the southerly Mission Vineyard, Murray & Church, Dallidet, and Loomis additions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

The largely empty Old Town Historic District in 1877, looking south from Cerro San Luis, with the Nipomo Street School where Emerson Park is now, at bottom right, and St. Stephen’s across Nipomo Street to the immediate left
E. S. Glover’s 1877 Bird’s Eye View of San Luis Obispo, Cal. (detail above) shows mostly empty blocks in the future Old Town Historic District, apart from the far western section between Broad and Beach. From Glover’s view, the only survivor that can be definitively identified is the Master List Gothic Revival St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church (1344 Nipomo, 1873), with likely the Master List Italianate 2-story Rogers House (1428 Nipomo), Contributing List Italianate 1½-story at 1415 Nipomo, and Italianate cottage at 654 Buchon (though each could be a similar building at the same location; early buildings, often poorly constructed, could be quickly replaced).

Page 101 of 429 ends

36 The September 1886 Sanborn Map shows just a few blocks of the Old Town Historic District, with few structures on them, almost none that survive today. Exceptions include • sheet 7: Master List Rogers House (likely from Glover’s view), Master List Dana-Parsons and Fitzpatrick Houses (644 and 670 Islay), Contributing List 654 and 662 Islay between them, and the since-moved Contributing List 1516 Nipomo (all Italianate) • sheet 6: St. Stephen’s (from Glover’s view) and 2 Contributing List Italianates: 654 Buchon (likely from Glover’s view) and 722 Buchon
• sheet 5: the Master List Snyder House (1406 Morro, Swiss/Bracketed) and Contributing List 969 Pismo (Italianate)
Additionally, the Tribune, 13 Apr. 1883, documented completion of the Meredith House (1421 Garden, originally Contributing, since 2022 Master Listed) (“Improvements,” p. 2).

So 1, likely 4, of the district’s surviving buildings were constructed by 1877; definitively 12 and probably 13 by 1886, with 5 on the original Master List, 8 on the Contributing List.

The 1890s added 23 more listed resources:
• 4 Italianates between 1877 and the 1891 Sanborn Map (Contributing List 530 Buchon, 454 Islay, 550 Islay [altered], and 1541 Osos)
• 3 Late Italianates between the 1888 and 1891 Sanborn Maps (Contributing List 651 and 673 Buchon and 571 Pismo)
• 2 Swiss/Bracketed buildings (Master List Myron Angel and Greenfield Houses, both circa 1890)
• 1 Neobaroque by 1891 (1429 Nipomo)
• 12 Master List Eastlakes (4 built 1888–1891[Lewin, Jessie Wright, McKennon, and Brooks], 6 documented to 1891–1899 [Vollmer/497 Islay, Biddle, Falkenstein, Nichols, Fleuger, and Miller], and 1 probably 1897, possibly 1900 [McManus]) • 1 Queen Anne (Master List Erickson/687 Islay, 1895).
3 This brings the documentable nineteenth-century buildings in the Old Town Historic District to 36 out of 309 original Master and Contributing List buildings, or just 12 percent.

3. There is some age-aspirational dating: e.g., the city’s Master List website claims the “NeoColonial” (Eastlake) Hageman Sanitarium was built circa 1895 for “machinist” (longtime Creston farmer) J. C. Waterbury, but newspapers show Judson Rice (SP roadmaster, city board of trustees member, and in 1903 representative of architects Wolfe and McKenzie in San Luis) and his wife took out a loan on the property in February 1902 (“Proceedings in County Offices,” Tribune, 16 Feb. 1902, p. 3), opened the building as the Buena Vista Restaurant in September (“New Restaurant and Boarding House,” Tribune, 9 Sep. 1902, p. 4), put it up for sale in a marital split in December 1903, sold “the building … built less than two years ago and … designed as a high class boarding house to cater especially to railroad employees” in February 1904 to the Commercial Bank (“Converted into Flats,” Tribune, 10 Feb. 1904, p. 4), which sold it to Judson Clifford Waterbury and his wife in March (“To Establish Sanitarium,” Tribune, 16 Mar. 1904, p. 1), when it was named the Hageman Sanitarium for the maiden name of Mrs. Waterbury, a trained nurse (“Hageman Sanitarium,” Tribune, 8 Apr. 1904, p. 1). The website also attributes the 1902 Marshall House to the 1890s and 1904 Post House to 1898 (“Will Build,” Tribune, 20 July 1904, p. 4).

Page 102 of 429 ends

37 A further 7 Late Italianate and 5 Eastlake houses on the Contributing List date between the 1891 and 1905 Sanborn Maps, so the nineteenth-century number may be marginally higher, speculatively 14 percent, with 86 percent from the twentieth century: very much the new town. But, of course, “Old Town” sounds more “historic.” The original 53-resource Master List was weighted more toward the nineteenth century than the more representative 309-resource overall list. The Old Town Master List had 19 nineteenth-century resources and 34 twentieth-century resources, a 36 percent/64 percent split, versus the circa 14 percent/86 percent split in overall listings. The original twentieth-century Master Listings were:
• 3 Eastlake (Hageman Sanitarium [19024], Kimball [19035], Tucker [after 19066]) • 1 Queen Anne (Vetterline [19027])
• 1 Late Italianate (Fitzgerald [19028])
• 1 Prairie School (Clark-Norton [19069])
• 17 Colonial Bungalows (Brew [by 1901], Crocker [1902], Marshall [1902], Upham [1903], Post [1904], Albert [1904], Baker [1904–1905], Hourihan [1904–1905], Stanton [1904–1905], Dutton [1906], Renetzky [1906], Kaiser [1908], Bullard [circa 1908– 1913], Bradbury [1910], Jackson [1910], Sandercock/535 Islay [1910–1911], and Anderson/1345 Broad [1910]10),
• 2 multi-unit buildings in Colonial Bungalow form (Allen [190311] and the Bradbury Sanitarium [191112])
• 6 California Bungalow resources (Vollmer [1912], Patton [1913], Nuss/Thorne [1913], Crossett [1914], California Bungalow–form Kindergarten School [1917], and the 9- cottage Adriance Court [1921]
13), and
• 3 Lutyensesque revivals (Mission [Sandercock/591 Islay {1926}], Hacienda [Avila {1929}], and Spanish Colonial [Maier {1933}]14)

4. See footnote previous page.

5. “Beautiful New Residence,” Tribune, 13 Feb. 1903, p. 1.

6. Absent from 1906 three-part photograph, Cal Poly Special Collections.

7. “The Spirit of Improvement,” Tribune, 16 July 1902, p. 4.

8. “A. F. Fitzgerald has contracted […],” Tribune, 12 July 1902, p. 4.

9. “Personal Mention,” 10 Oct. 1906. p. 4.

10. All Colonial Bungalow dates cited in James Papp, “Thomas and May Brecheen House, 1133 Pismo, Master List Application, 10 Mar. 2022, pp. 35–40.

11. “Will Build,” Tribune, 20 July 1904, p. 4.

12. “Ocean to Ocean Party Will Reach Here Tomorrow,” Daily Telegraph, 7 Aug. 1911, p. 1.

13. San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection.

14. Op. cit.

Page 103 of 429 ends

38 The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines’ arbitrary revision of the district’s period of significance The period of significance in the Conservation Element (late nineteenth century to 1930s) would be pared to the arbitrary decades 1880–1920 in the Guidelines rather than allowed to develop organically from the district’s significant resources, leading to the Guidelines’ convoluted explanations as to why the 1873 Gothic Revival St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church and 1929 Hacienda Revival M. F. Avila House were Master Listed in the district yet outside the period of significance and not “contributing” (Guidelines, p. 36). Six of the 53 original Master List resources—over 10 percent (Gothic Revival St. Stephen’s, Italianate Rogers House, California Bungalow Adriance Court, and the 3 Lutyensesque revivals)—fall outside the period of significance, despite the first 3 being of styles de jure included in the district’s “Architectural Character,” the latter 3 de facto, given the numerous Contributing Listings of 1920s and ’30s Lutyensesque revivals. Normal practice is to record a district’s significant historic resources over 50 years old, develop from those its character-defining architectural styles, and define the period of significance accordingly. There’s no reason to round the period of significance to arbitrary zeroes or refuse to include character-defining styles examples of which are listed as Contributing.

The Guidelines’ misdescription of the district’s “Architectural Character” The district’s two architectural descriptors in the Conservation Element, “California Renaissance” and “California Bungalow,” would both be dropped from the Guidelines, replaced with
the Old Town District has many examples of High Victorian architecture, a style popular in California during that time period[, which] included several style variations, such as Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick, and Gothic Revival … along the top of the hill […] . Other, more modest structures with simpler styles abound in other areas of the district, […] includ[ing] Neoclassic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing architectural details from several styles.

The Conservation Element’s descriptor “California Renaissance” was indeed problematic, a term created by Harold Kirker for his 1960 book California’s Architectural Frontier: Style and Tradition in the Nineteenth Century (based on his UC Berkeley doctoral dissertation) and used almost nowhere else. Kirker employs it not to denominate a style but the 1850– 1870 era of booming construction and use of local materials and technology. But none of the structures in the Old Town Historic District can be documented by 1870; indeed the area, empty of structures, consists entirely of meadows and fields in Leon Trousset’s architecturally detailed 1870 panoramic painting of San Luis in the Mission Museum.

That said, the revised description of the district for the Guidelines invites deconstruction. • High Victorian This was a popularizing term during the 1970s through 1990s, with hundreds of newspaper uses for any mid-to-late-nineteenth-century American building that preservationists advocated for while trying to avoid technically accurate description, with the advantage that—as with High Mass, high tea, and high crimes and misdemeanors—it sounded more impressive than plain “Victorian” or US-appropriate “mid-to-late-nineteenth-century.” Yet it lacks any precise meaning connected to the American West.

Page 104 of 429 ends

39 Nikolaus Pevsner appears to have invented the phrase in 1951 for High Victorian Design: A Study of the Exhibits of 1851 (London: Architectural Press) and the earliest of his 42-volume The Buildings of England series (1951–1974), using it to describe midVictorian England’s confident aesthetic (which he despised [“bulgy,” “grim,” “gloom,” “swollen corpulence,” “uncommonly revolting”]) rather than any of its dozens of specific architectural revival styles (25 of them in Richard Brown’s 1841 Domestic Architecture [London: Bernard Quaritch], which Pevsner cites15).

American architectural historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock borrowed the phrase in 1956, using “High Victorian Architecture” and “High Victorian Gothic” interchangeably to refer to English Ruskinian polychrome, Continental-influenced (versus Puginian monotone, English-influenced) Gothic Revival, “which flourished from the early fifties to the late sixties” (“High Victorian Gothic,” Victorian Studies, Sep. 1957, pp. 47–71).16 The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture (2021) repeats Hitchcock’s definition but calls it “unsatisfactory,” suggesting “Mid-Victorian” or “precise dates and description of styles.” Whether defined by Pevsner, Hitchcock, or the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture, “High Victorian Architecture” existed in England and was over before the beginning of the Old Town Historic District, while the Victorian era itself took place in Britain and the British Empire, worlds away from San Luis; was characterized by a vast number of different architectural styles expressed in different materials; and ended halfway through the Old Town Historic District’s stated period of significance. • Queen Anne Promoted in first place by the Guidelines, Queen Anne is, with only 7 resources, is one of the rarest styles in the Old Town Historic District (but like Victorian,” association with queens always seems posh). With origins in England in the 1860s through 1870s as a humanistic, counter-Gothic domestic reform architecture— referencing Tudor through early-eighteenth-century buildings in red brick, hung tiles, and occasional half-timbering—Queen Anne in California is characterized by Ionic columns; botanical and sometimes drapery bas-relief in friezes and gables; round turrets; horizontal modillions supporting eaves and jettying; and sometimes faux halftimbering. In the district, 5 of the Queen Annes are clustered at the top of valorized Nob Hill on Buchon at Chorro and Garden (the Master List Crocker [1902], Marshall [1902], Upham [1903], and Stanton [1904–1905] [all with Ionic columns and bas-relief, the Upham with modillions and jettying and the Stanton with a round turret], plus the Contributing List 770 Buchon [ca. 190117] [with modillions and jettying]). The other 2, the Master List Erickson/687 Islay [189518] [ionic columns, bas-relief, and round

15. The full list, to show the specificity and richness of British architectural styles (leaving aside American ones) is Cottage Ornée, Tudor–Henry VII, Tudor–Henry VIII, Elizabethan, Stuart, Florentine, Flemish, Pompeian, Venetian, Swiss, French Chateau, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman, AngloGrecian, Anglo-Italian, Persian, Chinese, Burmese, Oriental, Morisco-Spanish, Anglo-Norman, Lancastrian, Plantagenet, and Palladian. Brown also includes furniture designs for the interiors.

16. St. Stephen’s, based on St. Michael’s Longstanton, Cambridgeshire—a design promulgated to the British Empire and the United States by the Cambridge University–based Eccesiological Society in the 1840s—is Puginian.

17. “Wanted—Girl for general housework” (advertisement), Tribune, 23 Apr. 1901, p. 4.

18. “Chas. Erickson is having his lot […],” Tribune, 13 Aug. 1895, p. 3.

Page 105 of 429 ends

40 turret] and Vetterline [190219] [ionic columns, modillions, faux half-timbering, and English Queen Anne–reference acorn-roofed turret]) are on Broad Street. • Italianate In contrast, Italianate—older and more widespread in the Old West, usually in the form of symmetric, full-width-porticoed, one-story cottages or asymmetric porticoed houses, with deep eaves, often supported by corbels; low-angled gable roofs or flat-topped hip roofs originally with balustrading (so-called widow’s walks though really an Italian Baroque reference); and almost invariably chamfered square columns—boasts 15 houses in the district: 3 Master List (the Rogers [likely by 1877 though heavily altered since] and Dana-Parsons and Fitzpatrick Houses [by 1886]) and 12 Contributing List (2 likely by 1877 [654 Buchon and 1415 Nipomo]; 5 by 1886 [722 Buchon, 654 and 662 Islay, 1516 Nipomo, and 969 Pismo {porch added after 2008}]; 4 by 1891 [530 Buchon, 454 and 550 Islay, and 1541 Osos], and 1 of unknown date moved to its current location 1905–1926 [542 Islay]).

There are 13 more Late Italianate houses (using earlier Italianate forms but with decorative variants): 1 Master List (Fitzgerald [1902], with round Tuscan columns) and 12 Contributing List (3 by 1891 [651 and 673 Buchon]; 1 possibly by 1891 with porch by 1905 [1436 Morro]; 6 by 1905 [575, 871, and 977 Buchon, 462 and 744 Islay, and 1526 Osos]; and 2 after 1905 [1135 Buchon and 1534 Chorro]). • Stick “Stick” is a modern polemical renaming—by the architectural historian Vincent Scully for his 1955 book The Shingle Style and the Stick Style, based on his Yale dissertation—of what was known in America as Swiss or Bracketed (for the brackets in its deep eaves), later as Heimatstil (homeland style) in German-speaking Europe. Scully invented the name to draw attention to “the development in [American] wooden domestic architecture between 1840 and 1876” ([New Haven: Yale] p. 2), including asymmetry and external articulation of framing, though he never disclaimed that it was part of the longer-lived Swiss Revival style. Scully includes no example of Eastlake architecture in his book, but someone must have suggested that one example (the Bassett House, New Haven [fig. 17]) was Eastlake (it isn’t), because in an accompanying footnote (note 90, p. lv) Scully denounces the notion that Eastlake was a recognized architectural style in nineteenth-century America—where, in fact, Eastlake was much written about, designed in, and hugely popular, particularly on the West Coast, having developed out of English architect Charles Locke Eastlake’s “Early English” furniture designs in his bestseller Hints on Household Taste.
20 19. “Spirit of Improvement,” Tribune, 16 Jul. 1902, p. 4.

20. Scully dismisses the existence of Eastlake architecture as “watered-down Gothic revival Sachlichkeit, derived from Pugin and Ruskin.” He adds, “Eastlake’s actual influence was mainly in furniture design” and claims the term Eastlake architecture is “an epithet coined by the Eclectic Apologists of the early twentieth century.” All of which is demonstrably false:
• Charles Locke Eastlake’s “Early English” furniture designs were intentionally stripped down, handcraftable Romanesque compared to Pugin’s complex Gothic.

Page 106 of 429 ends

41 Apparently as a result of Scully’s catchy neologism and footnote rant, the architectural guides that emerged to serve the American preservation movement in the early 1980s—e.g., Mary Mix Foley’s The American House (New York: Harper, 1980), Carole Rifkind’s A Field Guide to American Architecture (New York: Times Mirror, 1980), and (most influentially) Virginia McAlester A Field Guide to American Houses (New York:

Knopf, 1984)—inserted the category “Stick” and banished the categories Swiss/Bracketed and Eastlake, resulting in two of the most important American architectural styles of the nineteenth century being ignored and an entirely imaginary one being valorized, not only in San Francisco (where Eastlake is by far the dominant surviving nineteenth-century architecture) and on the Central Coast but in the Old Town Historic District.
21 So completely and bizarrely did Scully’s footnote expunge Eastlake from architectural historiography through acolytes like McAlester, that in Charles Page and Associates’ 1976 Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey (Santa Cruz: City • Hermann Muthesius’s concept of Sachlichkeit (objectivity or functionalism) in English domestic design, which he introduced in Das englische Haus (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth, 1904, 1905), postdates Eastlake by nearly forty years, rather than Eastlake watering it down • Charles Locke Eastlake, a trained architect, designed furniture, but his furniture designs were quickly translated to architecture, particularly in the American West, where the forms and decorative elements of the one were easily adapted to the wood material and machined spindles, posses, shingles, and trim of the other.
• Finally, the term Eastlake was used in an architectural context in the American press as early as 1875 (“the Renaissance, or more properly at the present day the Eastlake architecture” [“A Great Modern Invention Is Building,” Scranton Morning Republican, 28 Oct. 1875, p. 3]) and was in common architectural usage by the 1880s (e.g., in William T. Comstock’s Modern Architectural Designs and Details [1881] and Samuel and Joseph Newsom’s Picturesque California Houses [1888]).

21. In McAlester’s A Field Guide to American Houses, the “Stick” chapter’s 16 photos comprise 12 Swiss/Bracketed houses (pp. 258–260), 3 Eastlakes (p. 261), and 1 Queen Anne (260). (While the “Queen Anne” chapter contains about two dozen photos of Eastlake houses, as she transfers spindle columns and screens, a core characteristic of Eastlake furniture and houses, to a new category of “Spindlework Queen Anne.”)
“Stick” became so popular (and poorly understood) a term that it was included in a 1973 episode of The Streets of San Francisco, where old-school detective Karl Malden and college-educated detective Michael Douglas and have the following conversation while looking at a house that’s a potential crime scene:
“Looks kind of creepy.”
“Huh, Stick.”
“What?”
“The architecture’s called Stick. You can tell by those bay windows. See how they’re squared off? Must be 1885 or ’90, maybe.”
“But you just put that down in the report. Observations like that are going to get you right to the top of the department.”
In fact, the house used for the episode was the 1867 Italianate Adams House, 300 Pennsylvania Avenue, with canted bays, but in a night shot with the film flipped left to right it was hard to tell. (Square bays are indicative of Eastlake; Swiss/Bracketed tends to eschew bays.)

Page 107 of 429 ends

42 of Santa Cruz, 1976), Eastlake cottages are frequently so identified, but in successor firm Page & Turnbull’s 143-page 2013 Historic Context Statement and Survey Report:

City of Arroyo Grande, the word Eastlake goes unmentioned, despite the city having one of the finest concentrations of Eastlake architecture south of Pacific Grove, including the masterwork Pitkin-Conrow House.

In the Old Town Historic District, there are only 5 examples of what Scully would have called Stick, i.e., Swiss/Bracketed houses, none of which have much of the articulated framing he focused on in his dissertation. Swiss Revival is recognizable for steep jerkinhead gables, vertical siding in gables, terminal-lobed bargeboards, and knee brackets. The Snyder (by 1886) and Myron Angel and Greenfield Houses (circa 1890)— originally Master Listed—are all 1½ or 2½ stories, half stories being common to the style’s steep roofs. Of the 2 originally Contributing examples, 1421 Garden (1½- and 2- story, since Master Listed as the Meredith House [1883], and the only one with eave brackets) is the earliest documented, and 574 Islay (built or placed there between the 1905 and 1926 Sanborn Maps) is the latest and only 1-story example.

The district’s unacknowledged Eastlake buildings, a larger collection than in Arroyo Grande, number 20. Eastlake, a purely American style based on the Englishman Charles Eastlake’s “Early English” furniture designs, is the elaborately decorated architecture that is often denoted “Victorian” or (by people who know “Victorian” isn’t an architectural style but aren’t sure how to identify nineteenth-century American styles) the fallback “Queen Anne.” Its characteristics include round arches to indicate its Romanesque roots22; square bays; parapets, mansards, or open gables; generally steeper gables than Italianate or Colonial Revival but less steep than Gothic; frequent decorative gable shapes above doors and windows; corbels (making it sometimes mistaken for Italianate); ascending and descending finials; spindles and spindle screens; spindle columns; perforation; incising; dentils, dogtooth, volute, and egg molding; sunbursts, bosses, and other almost obsessive geometric filling of surfaces (in contrast to Queen Anne’s figurative bas relief); and borders of square stained panes around clear windows.

The district’s Eastlakes include the Contributing List 1408 Broad, 770 Buchon, 1536 and 1544 Morro, 729 Pismo, and 1728 Santa Rosa (all between the 1891 and 1905 Sanborn Maps), as well as the Master List Lewin (1888–1891), Jessie Wright (1888– 1891), McKennon (by 1891), Brooks (by 1891), Vollmer/497 Islay (189123), Falkenstein (189424), Nichols (1446 Nipomo) (189925), Fleuger (189926), McManus

22. Horseshoe arches, in contrast, are borrowed from Islamic architecture and unwedded to particular American styles, showing up in Queen Anne, Eastlake, and even Swiss.

23. “At the Recorder’s Office: P. B. Prefumo to Victoria Thompson,” Tribune, 26 Ap. 1891, p. 2.

24. “Two More New Dwelling Houses,” Tribune, 12 Aug. 1894, p. 3.

25. “Notes in This City: Dr. Eastman,” Tribune, 6 Aug. 1899, p. 4.

26. “Proceeding County Offices: Mortgages—E. Fleugler et ux,” Tribune, 24 Mar. 1899, p. 3.

Page 108 of 429 ends

43 (probably l897, possibly 190027), Miller (189728), Hageman Sanitarium (1902), and Kimball (190329). The Biddle House (1893) is Eastlake in form and decoration, apart from possibly Queen Anne-inspired half-timber overlay and one jettied dormer [1893]), as is the Tucker House (after 1906), apart from the Colonial Revival borrowing of two open-pediment gables.
• Gothic Revival There is 1 Gothic Revival building in the Old Town Historic District, St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, outside the stated period of significance.30 • Neoclassic Row Houses A “row house” is a row of dwellings with common sidewalls. The only ones near the Old Town Historic District are “The Brownstones” (neither brownstone nor even brown nor even stone), built in the 2010s on the 1100 block of Marsh. It is unclear why the Community Development Department persistently refers to bungalows as row houses.

There are no Neoclassic houses in San Luis as the term is commonly used by architectural historians (or even, eccentrically, by Virginia McAlester to reference World Columbian Exposition–influenced architecture), though Queen Anne and the

27. J. E. Lewis and wife and Madalina Osgood took a mortgage on the lot in 1897 (“Recorder’s Office, Tribune, 8 Aug. 1897, p. 3), which normally signified building; the property passed from J. E. Lewis and wife to E. I. McManus 26 June 1900 (“Recorder’s Office,” Tribune, 27 June 1900, p. 3). There is so far no record of the actual building of the house.

28. “Recorder’s Office […] Alice C. Miller and Husband,” Tribune, 5 Jan. 1897, p. 2.

29. “Beautiful New Residence,” 13 Feb. 1903, p. 1.

30. There are 10 houses in the district that the city’s Master List Historic Properties website incorrectly identifies as Gothic, with the contortive explanation that this is “reflective of [the] tendency for architectural styles to reach SLO decades after peaking in larger metropolitan areas of the US.” In fact—and an important point to make—no such tendency exists: architects and builders who practiced in San Luis Obispo had access to the same books, journals, training, and travel as architects and builders elsewhere and were on the cutting edge of architectural developments.

Gothic Revival for domestic architecture—a novelty in Alexander Jackson Davis’s 1837 Rural Residences and a staple in Andrew Jackson Downing’s 1842 Cottage Residences and 1850 The Architecture of Country Houses and Henry Cleaveland’s 1856 Village and Farm Cottages—was outmoded in the 1870s by the introduction of Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, and Eastlake, which dominated pattern books by the 1880s (e.g., William T. Comstock’s Modern Architectural Designs and Details [1881] and American Cottages [1883] and Samuel and Joseph Newsom’s Picturesque California Houses [1888]). San Luis Obispo’s only surviving Gothic Revival houses are the early 1860s Hays-Latimer Adobe and 1874 Norcross House.

Occam’s razor suggests that if you have to invent an unevidenced explanation of why the wrong era of houses are Gothic Revival, they’re probably not Gothic Revival.

The misidentified Gothic Revival houses in the Old Town Historic District are the Rogers (Italianate); Greenfield (Swiss/Bracketed [circa 1890]); Biddle (Eastlake with Queen Anne , circa 1893); Lewin and Jessie Wright (both Eastlake [1888 and 1891); McKennon and Brooks (both Eastlake and both built by the 1891 Sanborn Map); Falkenstein (Eastlake, 1894 [“Two More New Dwelling Houses, Tribune, 12 Aug. 1894, p. 3]); McManus (Eastlake, probably 1897); Brew, Upham, and Hourihan (all three Colonial Revival and built by 1901, in 1903, and in 1904–1905, respectively [see Papp, Brecheen House Master List Application, 2022]); and Tucker (Eastlake-Colonial, after 1906).

Page 109 of 429 ends

44 Colonial Bungalow (through Georgian architecture) are Neoclassical offshoots, and the Colonial Bungalow is presumably what is being referred to here.

In the Old Town Historic District, the 19 original Master List Colonial Bungalow resources are all from the twentieth century, as well as the 57 Contributing List Colonial Bungalow resources whose dates can be established. Typical are a low-pitched hip roof appearing pyramidal from the street, usually with an integrated asymmetric porch with a closed gable as a pediment, sometimes open pediment, topping either it or the adjoining enclosed structure, which is typically fronted by a canted bay window.

Alternatively, the hip roof may have a central hip dormer, dormer and closed gable, or no dormer or gable. Porch columns are almost always Tuscan, though spindle columns and other Eastlake references are very occasionally used (a holdover from Eastlake).

Rarer variants use gambrel roofs, Japanese irimoya roofs, and (for revival of Early Colonial) open gables.
• Folk Victorian This term was apparently invented by Virginia McAlester—at least it does not appear in newspapers before the appearance of A Field Guide to American Houses in July 1984. It combines “folk” (the indigenous architecture of communities based on purely local traditions and materials, outside of popular movements) with “Victorian” (a term with no architectural relevance to the United States or useful meaning even in the British Empire, where dozens of distinct and often opposed architectural style flourished during Victoria’s rule, an era marked by the international dissemination of styles through mass publishing, as well as the mass manufacture of building materials). In short, “Folk Victorian” is a contradiction in terms. McAlester’s photographic examples (pp. 312–317) suggest her definition included whatever she couldn’t define but what architects and builders of the period would have recognized immediately as Italianate, Eastlake, Swiss, Colonial Revival, Greek Revival, and Gothic Revival. No “folk” architecture exists in the Old Town Historic District, where professional architects and builders designed and constructed with imported ideas and lumber, siding, shingles, molding, doors, windows, columns, balusters, spindles, finials, bosses, etc. The architectural styles, with few exceptions, are specific and definable. • Craftsman Bungalow The historically predominant and meaningful term is California Bungalow, as used in the Conservation Element. • Homes borrowing architectural details from several styles There are no such resources. Apart from the Tucker House with its two open pediments, Biddle House with its half-timbering and one jettied dormer, and Crocker House with its octagonal lantern (which references Mount Vernon and Colonial Revival), there is virtually no borrowing between American architectural styles of even individual features in the Old Town Historic District’s Master List resources. Bellcast and irimoya roofs and one torii arch are used in the district’s Colonial Bungalows, but japonisme was a regular feature of the Colonial Bungalow. There is some minor borrowing in Contributing resources, but never elements of more than one other style. Attributions of vague, mixed, confused, or nonexistent styles are frequent when the spatial and decorative vocabulary of architectural styles are poorly understood or the existence of contemporaneously

Page 110 of 429 ends

45 recognized styles is denied. Writers, architects, builders, and clients of the era were incredibly specific.31
The Guidelines statement of “Architectural Character” relegates the twentieth century to “other, more modest structures with simpler styles … in other areas of the district.” These structures, in turn, were largely relegated to the Contributing List, as if modest size and simple style are not character-defining features of important architectures of the early twentieth century: the streamlined Colonial Bungalow and rustic California Bungalow.

Again, the Old Town Historic District is primarily a twentieth-century district, with some 86 percent of Master and Contributing List resources from the twentieth century.

The Guidelines’ misdescription of “Predominant architectural features” First in the Guidelines’ list of predominant architectural features of the Old Town Historic District is “Two- and rarely three-story houses,” although, of the 309 original Master and Contributing List resources in the district, there are only 15 such houses, or 5 percent:
• one 3-story house (if you count the 3-story tower on the 2-story McManus House) • two 2½-story houses (the Biddle and Angel)
• twelve 2-story houses (the Rogers, Falkenstein, Vetterline, Fitzgerald, Post, Stanton, Tucker, Kaiser, Clark-Norton, Crossett Houses on the Master List, 1438 Nipomo and 729 Pismo on the Contributing List)
In contrast, there are 283 1- to 1½-story houses, or 92 percent, which would normally be considered “predominant.”32
Yet 13 of the 15 extremely atypical resources of 2- to 3-story houses (86 percent) made the district’s original Master List.

Even 1½-story houses are quite rare in the district: 28 out of original listed 309 resources.

Comparing 1-, 1½, and 2- to 3-story houses as a percentage of total listed resources and of Master List resources clearly shows the Master List bias toward size.

Of 309 resources on the original Master and
Contributing Lists for the district
• 256 are 1-story houses (83 percent)
• 28 are 1½-story houses (9 percent)
• 15 are 2- to 3-story houses (5 percent)

31. The California architects Samuel and Joseph Newsom in their 1880s pattern books offered explicitly Swiss, Eastlake, Queen Anne, Picturesque, French Renaissance, and Colonial styles (Picturesque California Homes [San Francisco: Samuel and Joseph C. Newsom, 1884]; Picturesque California Houses [1888]), while a San Francisco Examiner article on “Our Colonial Craze” during its first two years in the Bay Area gave local examples of “Gambrel Roofed type,” “type of English HalfTimbered” (now called Postmedieval), “Cambridge type,” etc., from prominent architects like San Francisco’s Page Brown, Ernest Coxhead, Clinton Day, and the Rev. Joseph Worcester and Boston’s Winslow and Wetherell (13 Sep. 1891, p. 13).

32. Eleven listed buildings are not houses: the Bradbury Sanitarium, the Hageman Sanitarium and Allen House (built as railroad boarding establishments), 4 apartment buildings (974–980 and 1022 Islay, 1341 Osos, and 954–958 Pismo), 2 shops (1609 and 1638 Osos), St. Stephen’s Church, and the Kindergarten School.

Of 53 resources originally on the Master
List for the Old Town Historic District,
• 17 are 1-story houses (32 percent)
• 19 are 1½-story houses (36 percent)
• 13 are 2- to 3-story houses (25 percent)

Page 111 of 429 ends

46 The size-bias in listings is likely a product of the wealth-bias that was partially engrained and partially grew in historic preservation. Wealthy people tend to be the ones who hire prominent architects; historically significant people—defined as leaders of government, industries, and professions—are more likely than not to be wealthy. But very few houses of the Old Town Historic District were listed for historic association, and knowledge of the architects was almost nonexistent, so grandeur substituted for more specific information.

The 53 resources originally designated for the Master List in the district were concentrated among larger 1½- to 2½-story houses in the once-wealthy “Nob Hill” area around the intersections of Buchon with Broad, Garden, and Chorro: an area that looked like what the people in power over the process—leaders of government and professions—imagined a historic district should look like.

Page 112 of 429 ends

47 Old Town Historic District architectural types
Gothic Revival Steep roof,
pointed windows, board and
batten siding
Italianate Chamfered
square columns, low roof
pitch, deep eaves, canted bay,
arched door panels
Swiss/Bracketed
Jerkinhead gables, eave
brackets, lobed bargeboards
Eastlake Spindle columns,
square bays, sunbursts,
finials, small corbels, bosses,
stained perimeter panes,
open gables
Eastlake Romanesque
arches, sunbursts, bosses
Queen Anne Ionic columns,
round tower, leaf bas-relief
Colonial Bungalow Tuscan
columns, open pediment
gables, canted bay
Colonial Bungalow Tuscan
columns, hip roof with hip
dormer, canted bays with
diamond panes
Prairie School Square
column, flat roof, deep eaves

Page 113 of 429 ends

48 V. The Hansen House in the Universe of San Luis Obispo Listed California Bungalows Master List California Bungalows throughout San Luis Obispo The City of San Luis Obispo currently has 14 California Bungalow properties on its Master List, built from 1912 to 1921. Of these, 8 were designated following the 1982 Historic Resources Survey: 6 (the Vollmer, Patton, Nuss/Thorne, and Crossett Houses, City Kindergarten, and Adriance Court) in the Old Town Historic District and 2 (the Faulkner and Parsons Houses) outside of historic districts. Between 1996 and 2012, 6 additional California Bungalows were designated by application from their owners: 1 in the Old Town Historic District, 1 in the Mill Street Historic District, and 4 outside of historic districts.

The Master List standards of “the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of […] architectural […] significance [or] rarity” are inconsistently applied, if applied at all. The California Bungalows grew out of both an aesthetic ideal and the desire for an affordable, easily maintained house, so pattern books—a genre that dates back to the eighteenth century in America and were widely produced in the nineteenth century, including in California—are much in evidence in their design, mass builders in their later construction. A house seemingly unique or rare in one community might be reproduced by the dozens in other communities. But even in our own community, these Master List properties may not be particularly rare.

For example, the Vollmer House, from the original group of Master List properties in the Old Town Historic District, is by the same architect and of virtually the same design as the earlier but unlisted E. M. Payne House two blocks away. The Patton House, also from the original group of Master Listings in the Old Town Historic District, is explicitly a Henry L.

Wilson pattern book house. The Dart House very likely is. The Kelly House is 1 of 18 bungalows built over 2 months for different clients in San Luis Obispo by a mass producer and in a late form that does not embody the spatial or material characteristics of the California Bungalow and that is already represented by the 9 cottages of Adriance Court.

There are 4 of the 14 Master List California Bungalows of the same nested gable subtype and 3 by the same builder, H. E. Lyman. Of later, owner-applied additions to the Master List, 3 properties neither unique, rare, nor important were owned by astute civic activists in city preservation.

None of which is to say that these properties, most of which embody California Bungalow architecture, should not be landmarked, only that San Luis Obispo’s de jure standards of uniqueness and rarity have never de facto been applied. Which—given the Master List standards’ departure from the nationwide practice of historic preservation, where the accepted standards are embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; representation of the work of a master; or possession of high artistic value—is not a bad thing.

Page 114 of 429 ends

49 Original Master List from the 1982 Historic Resources Survey Old Town Historic District, in order of construction
Vollmer House (1912), 1116 Pismo, Old Town Historic District: listed architect Charles McKenzie, listed contractor H. E. Lyman (Master List No. 94) The 1912 Vollmer House (above left), designed by San Jose architect Charles McKenzie and constructed by H. E. Lyman, embodies the side-gabled subtype of California Bungalows, with an asymmetric front porch supported by square columns on a parapet, centered shed dormer on the street façade, and rhythmic kaza-ana rafter tails as decorative features. It is essentially a reverse version of McKenzie’s 1911 E. M. Payne House at 1254 Marsh (above right), constructed by E. D. Bray, equally detailed, and on neither the Master nor Contributing List nor in a historic district.

Frank Delos Wolfe and Charles McKenzie practiced together in San Jose as Wolfe and McKenzie 1899–1910 and attempted to market their work in the 1907 Book of Designs ($2), containing plans for and photographs of 98 houses (republished by George Espinola as Cottages, Flats, Buildings, and Bungalows: 102 Designs by Wolfe and McKenzie in 2004). In 1903 they opened a branch office in San Luis Obispo, the only location where they are known to have done so, advertising in the Tribune almost daily (below left) between 4 March and 14 August 1903. Cal Poly’s collection of historic building permit applications begins in 1906, so it is likely there are Wolfe and McKenzie houses in San Luis Obispo as yet unidentified.

After their split, McKenzie designed at least seven houses in San Luis Obispo (next page), according to building permit applications in the Cal Poly collection between 1911 and 1915. Three of them, including the Vollmer House, are Master Listed, and 4 of them—all built by E. D. Bray, who studied with Wolfe and McKenzie in San Jose (Jean Martin, “E. D.

Page 115 of 429 ends

50 Bray: Architect and Builder of the Central Coast,” La Vista, 2015) and who advertised in the Tribune from 23 August to 26 October 1912 as McKenzie’s authorized agent (previous page right)—are neither Master nor Contributing Listed and so remain unprotected, though all currently exhibit excellent integrity.

Easton Mills House (1911)
Barneberg House (1914)
H. M. Payne House (1911)
Norton House (1915)
Defosset House (1912)
California Bungalow Address Date Contractor Listing District Easton Mills House 1304 Pacific 1911 E. D. Bray None None E. M. Payne House 1254 Marsh 1911 E. D. Bray None None
Defosset House 1397 Marsh 1912 E. D. Bray None None
Vollmer House 1116 Pismo 1912 Harry Lyman Master Old Town Prairie School
Barneberg House 550 Dana 1914 James Maino Master Downtown Norton House 1066 Palm 1915 E. D. Bray None None
Japonesque
H. M. Payne House 1144 Palm 1911 H. D. Payne Master Mill Street

Page 116 of 429 ends

51 Patton House (1913), 1401 Nipomo, Old Town Historic District: listed architect H. L.

Wilson, listed contractor Leonard Thurlow (No. 76)
Henry L. Wilson published The Bungalow
Book described on page 24. The Patton
House appears to be either pattern No. 572
or a reverse of pattern No. 717, both from
the 1910 edition. In any event, it is a pattern
book house and thus not inherently unique
or significant, except insofar as Cal Poly’s
Building Permit Collection does not
explicitly list any other Wilson pattern book
bungalows, though local builders may have
been using his pattern book for their own
work without attribution, as architects were
rarely listed on the city’s permit
applications.

Nuss House (previously Thorne House)
(date assigned by city 1906, actually 1913),
1123 Pismo, Old Town Historic District: no
listed architect, listed contractor W. J. Smith
(No. 95)
Construction commenced in 1913 for local
postmaster William Thorne and his music
teacher wife Marguerite, later acting
postmaster,after her husband was
kidnapped by detectives or fled his debts.

Clarence Day, publisher of San Luis Obispo’s Daily Telegram, bought the property in 1916 and sold it in 1924, generally not considered long enough to establish historic association.

The house is an impressive example of a full-width front-facing gable subtype, but the Streamline Moderne glazing of its porch, probably in the late 1930s or early 1940s, compromises its façade’s ability to communicate its original significance of design, craftsmanship, and materials.

Page 117 of 429 ends

52 Crossett House (1914) , 896 Buchon, Old Town Historic District: listed architect and contractor E. D. Bray (Master List No. 27)
In Cal Poly Special Collections’ (incomplete) San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection 1906–1937, Bray is listed eight times as contractor for Charles McKenzie as architect (1911–1915), eight times for himself as architect (1910–1916) and for no other architects.

He both designed and built the Crossett House, according to the permit application, and it is certainly a master example of the japonesque California Bungalow, with its low roof pitch, extended eaves, and reference to the hari crossbeam in the entry porch. Unfortunately, like the Nuss House, the Crossett House’s side porch has been enclosed with Streamline Moderne fenestration, though the effect is not so global as on the former’s façade. A substantial rear addition has been largely hyphenated away from the house.

City Kindergarten (1917), 1445 Santa Rosa, Old Town Historic District: listed architect Orville Clark, listed contractor H. E. Lyman (No. 97)
The airy California Bungalow with outdoor
spaces was used for schools in the era of
tuberculosis, from the 1917 Simmler School
on the Carrizo Plain (next page left [James
Papp, San Luis Obispo County Architecture
[Charleston: Arcadia, 2023], p. 103]) to the
Fendalton Open-Air School in Christchurch,
New Zealand—where, as a boy, the author of
this report suffered rainy, icy, and snowy
winters in a structure designed for Southern
California summers (next page right [1928,
Christchurch City Libraries]).

Page 118 of 429 ends

53 The City Kindergarten is essentially a side-gabled box with centered, front-gabled, push-out entry porch rather than a porch integrated—as with the Simmler School—into the building.

The kindergarten’s fenestration and varied clapboard widths are elegant, but the building references the California Bungalow’s decorative features without embodying its spatial characteristics of asymmetry and substantial indoor-outdoor areas. The closest Henry L.

Wilson shows to it in The Bungalow Book is No. 711, a “Bungalow Real Estate Office.” Adriance Court (1921), 1531 Santa Rosa, Old Town Historic District: no listed architect, listed contractor W. J. Smith (No. 98)
The nine cottages of Adriance Court do not, in themselves, embody the California Bungalow. Like the City Kindergarten, each references the decorative features of the style:
deep eaves with exposed rafter tails and a Shinto torii-based entry with a kasagi supported by daiwa-topped hashira, which is to say a gate with beam supported by tapered square columns (now often referred to by the misleading neologism “elephant leg”) with a simple capital. But the design does not employ the California Bungalow’s spatial characteristics:
substantial and generally asymmetric indoor-outdoor spaces, rather being simple boxes in a row. Without individual California Bungalow embodiment, as a group they do embody the bungalow court, a distinctive and important Southern California architectural form.

Page 119 of 429 ends

54 Outside of a historic district
Faulkner House (previously Eliza Shipman House) (1916), 1145 Marsh, not in a historic district: no listed architect, listed contractor Harry Lyman] (No. 58) The Faulkner House is one of a row of five contiguous cottages on the 1100 block of Marsh Street—3 Late Italianate (pre-1906), 1 Colonial Revival (ca. 1907–1910), and 1 California Bungalow (1916)—that seem to have been Master Listed in 1982 because they survived as a charming suburban group on a street threatened by urbanization.

The Faulkner House’s hip roof with
pyramidal street front is extremely rare but
not wholly unknown in California
Bungalows, which are almost always frontor side-gabled, to reference their chalet forebears. It has the classic pyramidal-roofand-asymmetric-front gable Colonial Bungalow form (further indicated by the
shallow eaves), except with the pediment
front gable replaced by an open gable.

The gable’s Japonesque faux kooryoo or gorombo (rainbow beam), kaza-ana terminations to 4 faux crossbeams, 2 Swiss-inspired ogee knee brackets, and 3 hashira with daiwa (but also astragal borrowed from an Ialianate square column) cram as many California Bungalow features as possible into the small porch of what is spatially a Colonial Bungalow (including 3 columns; 2 is normal for California Bungalows). The effect is transitional, allowed under NRHP guidelines though hard to define as embodiment.

Lee R. Parsons House (1917), 1204 Nipomo: no listed architect, listed contractor Lee R.

Parsons (No. 75)
In 1917 Parsons, son of the county surveyor, was partner in the San Luis Planing Mill, had converted it from steam to electricity four years earlier, and had just married a second wife, returning from his honeymoon to finish building their house. On a corner site, it has a sophisticated design with an asymmetric front-gabled porch facing Nipomo on a sidegabled structure, with a side porch on Marsh whose gable is nested into the aforementioned side gable. A faux kooryoo over the entrance, supported by stylized hijiki or elbow brackets that are repeated in the side porch, plus window frames suggestive of a torii or Shinto gate add Japanese flavor to a structure whose traditional rectangular form has been broken up aesthetically more than functionally. Glazing on the front of the side porch and side of the front porch appears to be a later adaptation to March Street traffic.

Page 120 of 429 ends

55 Added to the Master List by application of their owners, 1996–2012 Old Town Historic District
Martha Dunlap House (1916), 1511 Morro: no listed architect, listed contractor Harry Lyman (No. 166; added to Master List in 1996)
Bordello owner Martha Dunlap, periodically charged with morals and liquor violations and perjury (“early, prominent Central Coast businesswoman” in the parlance of the city’s Master List website) applied for the building permit 3 Aug. 1916 and died 23 Apr. 1917 at her house in Santa Maria, not long enough to establish historic association, even assuming Dunlap was historically significant, i.e., a leader within her profession. 33 The house is of the nested front gable subtype, and, with many “Jappo-Swisso” exterior features (including ogee knee brackets, kooryoo, and kaza-ana) it embodies the California Bungalow. The redwood-paneled, partially divided reception rooms with now more exaggeratedly tapered hashira (still with astragals) are characteristic of Lyman’s work.

33. “Sheriff Stewart Heads Raid in Santa Maria Purity Crusade,” Morning Press, 30 Jan. 1910, p. 1; “Santa Marian Hurt in Auto Accident,” Daily News and Independent, 24 Apr. 1917, p. 3

Page 121 of 429 ends

56 Mill Street Historic District
The Burch House (1915), 1333 Mill, Mill Street Historic District: listed architect Theo. M.

Maino, listed contractor W. J. Smith (No. 176; added to Master List in 2010) Of the three houses for which Theodore Maino is credited as architect in Cal Poly’s San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection, this one, built for drugstore proprietor W. E. Lawrence, is the only one for which he was not also the contractor. It is of the nested front gable subtype with an unusual—and unusually poorly integrated—wider second story in back that was part of the house by the time the 1926 Sanborn Map came out but does not match the permit application for a 1½-story 30’x34’ structure so was presumably added. The pergola porch is absent from the 1926 Sanborn and may also be a later false-historicist addition. It would be difficult to argue that it has particular architectural significance or rarity and very difficult to argue that it has the integrity to communicate its significance.

Outside of a historic district
Chris Anholm House (1919–1920), 375 Chorro, not in a historic district: architect and contractor unknown (No. 171; added to Master List in 2009) The Chris Anholm House, 2008 The Chris Anholm House, 2011

Page 122 of 429 ends

57 Chris and George Anholm, ethnic Danish immigrants from Schleswig-Holstein, like Hans Hansen, subdivided their farmland at the edge of San Luis Obispo, selling lots and offering to build houses starting in 1928. “Building restrictions protect your investment,” they heralded (“Anholm Tract” [advertisement], Telegram, 8 June 1928, p. 10): In other words, Blacks and Asians were covenanted against buying, renting, or inhabiting the neighborhood, except the latter as servants. After the US Supreme Court struck down the enforcement of racial covenants in 1948 (Shelley v. Kraemer), local businessman and civic leader Young Louis, Ah Louis’s eldest son, and school principal Billy Watson, Ah Louis’s grandson, were able to buy Anholm Tract properties the following year, though Billy Watson was forced to ask other householders if they objected. 34 The Chris Anholm House is unusual, perhaps unique, for its Master List and Mills Act applications being passed simultaneously in 2009. The earlier enclosure of the front porch and changes to fenestration, plus later subtractions (the simple attic vent and kaza-ana bargeboard terminations) and additions (speculative fenestration, new side addition and entry porch to street façade, dormers, and two stories to the rear) would seem to have rendered the house ineligible for Master Listing on the grounds of loss of integrity of design, craftsmanship, and materials. It no longer embodies the simple, full-width gable subtype of the California Bungalow, and its ability to communicate its architectural form or association with Chris Anholm—whose notable contribution to San Luis Obispo’s history was the further institutionalization of racism—is dubious.

Charles John Kelly House (1921), 1352 Pacific, not in a historic district: listed architect C.

C. Peppin, listed contractor Mount Diablo Building Corporation (No. 181; added to Master List in 2010)
The Kelly House was one of 18 bungalows, not all California Bungalows, whose permits were applied for 14 Nov. 1921–6 Jan. 1922, under “the Pedder Plan of Home Building,” advertised with a full page in the Telegram three weeks earlier, (26 Oct. 1921, p. 7).

A stucco bungalow with side gables and
central front gable pushout entry porch—
like the Adriance Court units and many of
the “LA Bungalows” in Mount Diablo’s 32-
unit development in Marysville the previous
year—it has somewhat miniaturized triplet
knee brackets on the front and side gables
and kaza-ana bargeboards yet lacks
embodying muscularity, rustic materials,
and sophisticated indoor-outdoor space.

The NRHP Guidelines may be wrong that the “Craftsman Bungalow”—really the California Bungalow—had anything essentially to do with craftsmanship, but if this sort of massproduced dwelling with a few nominal decorative features qualifies for the Master List’s rarity and uniqueness standard, it is hard to imagine what building would not.

34. Conversation with son Dr. Bill Watson

Page 123 of 429 ends

58 Louisiana Clayton Dart House (1912), 1318 Pacific: no listed architect, listed contractor W. J. Smith (No. 182; added to Master List in 2010)
The California Bungalow built for Mary Putnam and later owned by longtime County Historical Society director Louisiana Clayton Dart (above left) is a subtype of side gables and full-width front porch with front facing gabled dormer. Of the 112 models in Wilson’s 1910 Bungalow Book, 43 of them have full-width front porches, though most of these incorporate some asymmetry. The one that most closely resembles the Dart House is No. 409 (above right), with a bellcast gable supported by knee brackets. Smith uses simpler decorative elements without ogees in the brackets or kaza-ana in bargeboards and rafter tails, and porch columns as miniature torii with kasagi, shimaki, and nuki beams. The japonesque spirit of Wilson’s torii-like columns is evoked by Smith with hijiki or Japanesestyle brackets at the top of the hashira. Smith, like Wilson, uses asymmetries of porch fenestration but puts his door in the middle.

Whether contractor Smith copied Wilson or another architect, the likely source for variation was a pattern book, with manufactured architectural elements available to piece together. But this is a sophisticated design that embodies the California Bungalow and has association to, in Dart, a historically significant local person.

Page 124 of 429 ends

59 Harry Lyman House (1912), 868 Upham, not in a historic district: no listed architect, listed contractor H. E. Lyman (No. 183; added to Master List in 2012) Built by contractor Harry Lyman for his mother Laura Rugg Lyman, this house is of the common subtype with nested front gables. Ogee knee brackets with nailhead terminations, kaza-ana in bargeboard and rafter tails, two faux kooryoo on the façade, and a rectangular oriel side window are testament to Lyman’s attention to the Swiss and Japanese details whose strange marriage embody the California Bungalow. Later enclosure of the important front porch is the only fly in the ointment of this Master Listing, the most recent of a California Bungalow in San Luis Obispo.

Page 125 of 429 ends

60 Contributing List California Bungalows in the Old Town Historic District Often sophisticated but generally small, these were overlooked for Master Listing.

Nested front gables subtype
1520 Beach (1925, James
Jepson, contractor)
752 Islay (1911, John Chapek,
contractor)
1071 Islay (1921, W. J. Smith,
contractor); later addition to
right side
1821 Morro (1919, R. S. Aston,
contractor
1124 Buchon (1916, H. E.

Lyman, contractor); later
porch enclosure
727 Islay
1120 Islay
1519 Nipomo (1924, John
Chapek, contractor)
1425 Garden; lobed
bargeboards recall
Swiss/Bracketed style
868 Islay
1829 Morro (1916, H. E.

Lyman, contractor); later
two-story back addition
1421 Osos; duplex with two
nesting gable entry porches

Page 126 of 429 ends

61 977 Pismo
1152 Pismo (1922, G. L.

Furster, day labor)
1193 Pismo (1921, C. O. Dyer,
contractor); mirror image of
1185 Pismo
1050 Pismo (1927, W. D.

Stainbaugh, contractor)
1179 Pismo (1917, C. Scott,
contractor)
1423 Toro; later second-story
addition and stone cladding of
columns
1145 Pismo (1921, John
Chapek, contractor); later
enclosure of porch
1185 Pismo (1921, C. O. Dyer,
contractor); mirror image of
1193 Pismo
Front- and side-gable subtype Hip roof singleton
655 Islay (1920, Theodore
Maino, contractor); note torii
columns with odd lattice
958 Pismo (1915, John
Chapek, contractor); likely
porch enclosure
753 Islay (earlier Colonial
Revival bungalow, later
stuccoed with California
Bungalow style entry porch
attached)

Page 127 of 429 ends

62 Side-gable subtypes
Full-width porch, front
gable dormer
1060 Pismo (1913, H. E.

Lyman, contractor); rare
absence of central columns
1604 Morro; later porch
enclosure
Asymmetric porch, frontgabled dormer
1068 Pismo (1914, Ernest
McConnell [Los Angeles],
architect, John Chapek,
contractor)
1520 Santa Rosa (1929, W. J.

Smith)
Wraparound porch, shed
dormer
1845 Morro (1913, A[rthur?].

Barnard, architect and
contractor); rare wraparound
porch for California
Bungalow
Asymmetric porch, shed
dormer
1641 Osos (1910, B. F.

Stewart, contractor)
No porch, shed dormer
663 Islay (1921, C. R. Dana,
self-contractor); appears not
to have a later porch
enclosure
Asymmetric porch, no
dormer
1515 Santa Rosa
968 Leff (1927, H. C. Kinsman,
contractor)
Asymmetric push-out
porch, no dormer
1166 Pismo (1922, C. C.

Peppin, architect, Mount
Diablo Building Corp.,
contractor)
Center push-out entry
porch, no dormer
1527 Morro

Page 128 of 429 ends

63 Full-width front-gable subtypes
Full-width porch
1182 Buchon (1910, Leonard
Thurlow, presumed selfcontractor)
676 Islay; second story
addition, fenestration
changes, etc.
1170 Buchon (maybe by 1911
with dormer and possibly
oriel additions circa 1927)
Asymmetric porch
1020 Leff (1908); atypical
canted window, lack of
decorative features
1336 Morro (maybe by 1911)
1731 Morro (maybe by 1913);
atypical, Colonialesque single
Tuscan column, side-facing
door
1536 Garden (before 1925)
Push-out entry porch or
canopy
1175 Buchon (1923, W. J.

Smith, contractor)
1615 Morro (maybe 1921);
later side addition
1511 Osos
1061 Islay; later second-story
addition

Page 129 of 429 ends

64 VII. Significance of the Hansen House
As defined by San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, the Hansen House is among “the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of […] architectural […] significance [or] rarity” for its embodiment of the California Bungalow’s full-width front-gable, asymmetric porch subtype, being the finest articulation of this Southern California ur-form in the district and the best preserved example in the city. It is simple in its structure and plain and angular in its elements, much like Greene and Greene’s pioneering “California House” from 1904 and the first press illustration of a California Bungalow so designated, and as the type would be recognized, in the 1905 Los Angeles Herald (both below). Like these, the Hansen house has an intentional absence of overt Swiss dewtails like the ogee knee brace or Japanese ones like the kaza-ana terminus.

It is substantial and artfully designed but minimalist in its aesthetics.

Above: Greene and Greene’s 1904 California
House; right: California Bungalow in the Los
Angeles Herald 24 Sep. 1905 (see pp. 21–22)
The 1921 Hans Nissen and Lena Peterson Hansen House, 1110 Buchon Street, San Luis Obispo

Page 130 of 429 ends

65 A plain frieze divides the street façade horizontally, with wide clapboard below and rectangular shingle siding above. Five knee braces with square ends (chamfered for softening) and plain shafts support the deep eaves and substantial bargeboard of the street façade. Wide, plain, framing of an attic vent at the gable crest echoes, on a smaller scale, the framing of the windows and door, while descending uprights and canted head add a distinctive touch.

In form, the Hansen House has a dominant roof peak running from front to back, with a small side-projecting wing toward the front left with its own side-facing gable, like Greene and Greene’s California House. The front- and side-facing gables are wide and low-pitched, typical for the California Bungalow’s reference to the Swiss chalet, but unlike a Swiss chalet, the house is a single story, appropriate for the California suburbs.

An integrated asymmetric porch follows the arrangement familiar to Californians from the Colonial Bungalow. In an elegantly symmetrical touch, the porch divides the façade exactly in half, which is rare for Colonial Bungalows, which are more likely to have either the porch or the enclosed façade dominant. The corner is supported by one tapered square column rather than the series of Tuscan columns typical of Colonial Bungalows. A brick base supports the column.

Triplet windows on the right are explicitly echoed within the porch by the front door and flanking windows, also in wide, plain frames. The right windows, in simplified effect, are flush to the wall rather than projecting in a canted bay, as would be typical in the Colonial Bungalow. A brick dado runs below the right windows.

The rear façade echoes this arrangement with subtle differences: An identical attic vent is present, but only the lowest beams have knee braces, the three highest projecting without further support, and the wide, plain frieze is absent as a divider between the square shingle

Page 131 of 429 ends

66 siding and clapboard. A larger door frame and single window are in a purely utilitarian arrangement rather than the rhythmic aesthetic of the street façade.

The west façade’s projecting wing terminates in a chimney with flanking windows and also has side windows, providing a light and airy inglenook for the interior. Two lower knee braces on its gable echo the larger gable’s brackets, with a beam projection from the brickwork at the gable crest completing the arrangement. An original dining room pushout (seen on the Sanborn Map five years later) is obscured from the street beyond the gabled inglenook wing. A kitchen window beyond the pushout appears to be the only one of the bungalow’s twenty windows whose original sash has been replaced.

West-facing inglenook wing
East façade’s seven windows
Rear façade
West façade with pushout and wing
The large number of windows, all with wide, plain frames, are testament to the emphasis on access to fresh air—shaded by deep eaves—in the ideal California Bungalow.

Inside, the living room and dining room of the Hansen House retain their shoulder-high wainscots, divided by battens and, in the dining room, topped by molding that provides a shelf for display of dishes or other artifacts. Interior door and window frames echo the width, plainness, and strength of the exterior but in natural finish, with a multi-paned pocket door between the two rooms. Stylistic harmony between the interior and exterior,

Page 132 of 429 ends

67 as well as communication between the two—e.g., in the large windows and door that make a continuous space of the porch, living room, and (with pocket doors open) dining room— are ideals of the California Bungalow and are particularly well executed here.

Inglenook wing side window
Axis through pocket doors from dining room
to living room and porch
A garage opening to the Pismobuchon Alley
(right) dates from the same era as the
house, with both of them present in the
1926–1956 Sanborn Map book in 1926. It
copies California Bungalow design with a
low-pitched roof, exposed rafter tails, and
vent of vertical slats, a distant echo of
vertical siding in Swiss Revival gable crests
and present in the attic vents of the Hansen
House.

Living room wainscot and doorway to hall
Dining room alcove

Page 133 of 429 ends

68 VIII. Period of Significance
Given that the Hansen House is significant for its embodiment of the California Bungalow rather than historic association, the period of significance would normally be the year of its construction, 1921. Extending the period of significance to the residence of the Hansens (1921–1937) would have little relevance to issues of integrity of design, materials, and workmanship, as the few minor changes to the house occurred well after 1937. Its setting, comprising the other 22 houses on 1100 block of Buchon, consists overwhelmingly of construction predating the Hansen House.

Page 134 of 429 ends

69 IX. Integrity
The earliest available image we have of the Hansen House is from the 1926–1956 Sanborn Map book (top), showing the footprint, height, materials, and location of the house and garage in 1926 (partial lamination over the garage records an update to the lot next door).

A black and white photograph from the 1982 Historic Resources Survey is next (middle), supplement by Google Street Views from 2007 to the present (2015 and 2017 at bottom).

Page 135 of 429 ends

70 Location As shown in a comparison of the 1926 image in the 1926–1956 Sanborn Map book with the current Google Satellite image (below), the Hansen House and garage retain their location at 1110 Buchon and in the same configuration.

Setting The Hansen House is remarkable for the preservation of its setting not only as a low-built surburban street but with almost all of its original houses as it developed from 1901. The most significant change was a Seventh Day Adventist church built on the lot to the west of the Hansen House, the Buchon–Santa Rosa corner, in 1924–1925, three years after the Hansen House was constructed, with a Contributing List Spanish Colonial Revival bungalow added to the rear of that lot in 1929.35 The church has been replaced by a compact, modernist two-story house, but the 1929 bungalow remains. A California Bungalow at the rear of the lot to the east is the Hansen House is of unclear construction date, appearing by 1926 on the Sanborn Map, and is currently obscured from the steet.

To the east, the remaining 10 houses on the 1100 block of Buchon were all Contributing Listed in 1987, and 9 are documented to have pre-existed the Hansen House. Of the 10 houses on the facing side of the block, 9 were Contributing Listed in 1987, and all but 1 are documented to have pre-existed the Hansen House. These Contributing buildings (with 2— 1144 and 1152 Buchon—since Master Listed as the Hill and Strickland Houses) consist of 13 Colonial Bungalows, 5 California Bungalows, and 1 nondescript bungalow.

The 13 Colonial Bungalows date between 1901 and 1910. They are, by 190136, 1504 Santa Rosa; by the 1905 Sanborn Map37, 1132, 1151, 1157, 1165, 1176, 1189, and the since– Master Listed 1144 Buchon; and, by 191038, 1190 Buchon; in addition to 1 Colonial

35. San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection.

36. “Death Call for Two,” Tribune, 16 Feb. 1901, p. 1.

37. Confirmed by “San Luis Obispo, Panoramic View from Terrace Hill, 1907” (probably a year earlier), San Luis Obispo, City—Streets and General Views, Box 1, Folder 35. https://archives.calstate.edu/concern/archives/2v23vx97d, Cal Poly Special Collections.

38. “WANTED—A girl for general housework,” Telegram, 20 Sep. 1910, p. 4.

Page 136 of 429 ends

71 Bungalow with some Eastlake features, 1145 Buchon (on the 1905 Sanborn Map); 2 Colonial Bungalows with some Queen Anne features, 1137 and 1160 Buchon (on the 1905 Sanborn Map); and the since–Master Listed Colonial-Japonesque Bungalow 1152 Buchon (ca. 1906–190739).

Five California Bungalows date between 1910 and 1926. They are, from 191040, 1182 Buchon; from 191141, 1170 Buchon; 1124 Buchon, built by Harry Lyman in 1916 (San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection); from 1923, 1175 Buchon (op. cit.); and, by the 1926 Sanborn, 1118 Buchon.

One nondescript Contributing List bungalow, 1135 Buchon, was built by 1916. 42 Thus, not only does the setting retain its suburban residential use, the actual bungalows— with their design, craftsmanship, and materials—preserve the setting of the Hansen House’s naissance. Though there have been many additions to these houses, the horizontal additions are mostly to the rear and the vertical ones mostly in the form of dormer conversions of attic space, retaining the scale and massing of the street.

Design The Hansen House’s footprint is unchanged from its 1926 appearance in the 1926–1956 Sanborn Map book, the only one of the 21 Master and Contributing Listed buildings on the 1100 block—apart from 1160 and 1177—with this distinction. It has also avoided the fate of other listed houses on the block not only of lean-tos and extensions but second-story additions and dormers to expand attic to living space. Its form, scale, and massing are pristine.

The earliest photograph we have is from the 1982 Historic Resources Survey, but the weathered-brick dado that appears by then on the street façade of the building was permitted in 1967. It is, however, reversible. The plinth of the column, of different brick and height and functional rather than decorative, is likely original.

There are two changes to the façade design since the survey photograph, both taking place between 2015 and 2017, according to Google Street Views. (Otis Maxwell, the previous owner, died in 2014.)

1. The plain frieze has been extended continuously across the façade, having been previously notched along the right-hand half. This seems to make aesthetic sense, and,

39. The early 1906 right-hand Terrace Hill photo at Cal Poly Special Collections (168-1-b-01-35-02, incorrectly dated on the back 1907) does not show 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).

40. San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection.

41. “WANTED—a good girl to help in a home of culture. […] Address or inquire 1170 Buchon St.,” Telegram, 14 Sep. 1911, p. 4.

42. “FOR RENT—Modern 5 room furnished house,” Telegram, 18 Nov. 1916, p. 1.

Page 137 of 429 ends

72 absent the discovery of earlier photographs, it is impossible to tell if the notch is original or was made for a utilitarian purpose, e.g., to accommodate the window canopy or a larger one than that seen in 1982. It is reversible, but there is currently no indication that it should be reversed.

2. A falsely historicist
tapering has been laminated
to the porch’s apparently
original square corner porch
column in an overt hashira
reference that does not seem
to have been intended in the
original design, for square
posts were common through
Swiss Revival architecture in
the nineteenth century and
occur in actual Swiss chalets.

This change is reversible and,
minor though it seems,
would ideally be reversed to
restore the bungalow’s
original aesthetic.

Workmanship As previously mentioned, the kitchen sash has been replaced. The front and rear doors are also not original, the one in front being a mid-century door with colored diamond panes. This may be an artifact of Otis Maxwell’s work for Alex Madonna, either surplus from a job site or influenced by Madonna’s fondness for this aesthetic in his own Swiss Revival architecture, including Madonna Inn. These diamond-pane replacement doors are, however, not uncommon on older houses in San Luis Obispo.

No evidence suggests that bargeboards, beam ends, knee braces, or rafter tails have been altered from their original plain appearance—other than that they and the siding were quite likely stained rather than painted. The mid-century white paint obliterated all perception of detail, which the current painting arrangement at least restores. Few if any houses in San Luis have their original paint or staining. Where unpainted siding has been restored, as with the Leroy Smith House at Johnson and Mill, the original redwood shingles had to be replaced.

Materials Clapboard and shingle siding appears to be original, as do door and window frames, all preserving the California Bungalow plain and muscular aesthetic. The original wood-shingle roofing has been, as usual and expected, replaced.

Feeling Feeling as the summation of location, setting, design, workmanship, and materials has high integrity based on the high integrity of these elements. The passerby on the street experiences a California Bungalow in an almost perfectly preserved state in a block of contemporary Colonial and California Bungalows nearly as well preserved in theirs. The ideal of early-twentieth-century suburban California life—expressed in

Page 138 of 429 ends

73 simplicity and livability of design and workmanship, with the indoor-outdoor experience of the California climate embodied in the front porch, its connection to an open interior, and the plethora of windows—strongly communicates not only to the passerby but the individual admitted to the living room and dining room with their respective inglenook and alcove in original condition.

Association As the application is to list the Hansen House for embodiment of the California Bungalow rather than association with a historic event or person, association is not relevant. Nonetheless, early occupants would easily recognize the bungalow they lived in, with minor changes of tapered porch column and brick dado.

Page 139 of 429 ends

74 X. Conclusion
The Hans Nissen and Lena Peterson Hansen House embodies the architecture of the California Bungalow in its Southern California ur-form: full-width, street-facing, low-pitch gable, rectangular footprint and dominant ridgeline front to back, paying tribute to the simple, rustic nature of the Swiss chalet, with an asymmetric integrated porch inherited from the earliest established American bungalow type, the Colonial Bungalow.

Eschewing the accretions of Swiss decorative features like ogee brackets and gable trusses, as well as Japanese ones like hari, hijiki, faux kooryoo, torii elements, and kaza-ana terminations, the Hansen House displays consistently plain, functional details. Simplicity is clearly its design ideal, from the basic chalet form to the façade bisected in two equal halves between porch and enclosure.

The Hansen House is also extremely unusual for the integrity of its setting and even more unusual for its absence of horizontal and vertical additions. The minor changes to its design features, craftsmanship, and materials detract little from its ability to communicate its significance as a California Bungalow and are largely reversible. In contrast, the only other Master List California Bungalow of the same subtype, the Anholm House, has virtually no integrity, with significant irreversible changes to design, materials, and workmanship, and it does not contribute to a historic district.

In the Old Town Historic District, originally conceived to celebrated the California Bungalow, why were so few of such bungalows Master Listed, and indeed the whole type— perhaps California’s major contribution to world architecture—dismissed as “other, more modest structures with simpler styles […] in other areas of the district”? The culprit seems to be a misguided effort to valorize the very few two-story nineteenth-century houses in an overwhelmingly twentieth-century bungalow district, perhaps with a view to seeming more like the East Coast than the West Coast, or more like San Francisco than Pasadena.

Whatever the cause, in updating its Historic Resources Survey, the City of San Luis Obispo should review and correct these early biases through
• recording and analyzing its historic resources statistically • acknowledging that San Luis Obispo architects, builders, and clients participated in and frequently led the mainstream of American architectural movements • applying accurate dates, clients, and architectural types to historic resources, including key types it has previously overlooked, misnamed, or marginalized, from Greek Revival adobes to Swiss/Bracketed and Eastlake houses and Colonial and California Bungalows • adopting listing criteria that follow national and state standards and practices In the meantime, the Hansen House—for its important embodiment of the minimalist aesthetic in California Bungalow design and its extraordinary degree of integrity to communicate its significance—should be added to the Master List as one of the Old Town Historic District’s “most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of […] architectural […] significance [or] rarity.”

Page 140 of 429 ends

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: October 21, 2025
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Interim Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Dana Ebe, Transportation Planner/Engineer
VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 6g - AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE GRAND

AVENUE SIGN & STRIPING MODIFICATIONS, SPECIFICATION
NUMBER 2000615-01
Staff received the following questions regarding the Grand Avenue Sign & Striping Modifications Project. The questions are below with staff’s response shown in italics:
1) The staff report mentions northbound queuing issues at the Grand Avenue and Slack Street intersection during the heaviest 15 minutes of the morning commute into Cal Poly, particularly in the early weeks of each quarter. This issue was first raised shortly after the pilot project was completed, when construction for Cal Poly’s Vista Meadows housing development was also underway at the intersection. Can you provide data on how many times these northbound queues have been observed, the duration of delays, and how often they have extended back to McCollum or beyond (the US 101 on/off ramps), including the dates of these occurrences?
Following completion of the pilot project improvements in January 2025, staff received feedback from representatives of San Luis Obispo Classical Academy, local residents, and Cal Poly expressing concerns regarding vehicle queuing on northbound Grand Avenue during the peak morning commute and during large events at Cal Poly. In response, staff conducted several rounds of in-person and video traffic observations over longer periods, including weekday mornings, evenings, and weekends during Cal Poly events.

Staff observed that during the heaviest 10–15 minutes of the weekday morning commute (typically between 8:00 and 8:15 a.m.), northbound vehicle queues routinely extended from the Cal Poly entrance back past Loomis Street and, on several occasions, approached the US 101 ramps. These queues typically cleared quickly by approximately 8:20 a.m. Similar, but shorter, queuing was observed during certain evening periods when multiple Cal Poly events occurred simultaneously.

Page 141 of 429 ends

ITEM 6g - AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE GRAND AVE SIGN & STRIPING MODS. Page 2 This queuing pattern has been observed consistently across all monitoring periods, including follow-up observations conducted in October 2025 after the reopening of the east sidewalk on Grand Avenue north of Slack Street. Construction activity related to Cal Poly’s Vista Meadows project may have temporarily worsened queuing earlier in the year. For example, when the east sidewalk on Grand was closed, more pedestrians were funneled to cross Grand Avenue at Slack Street, which in turn slowed vehicle flow into campus. However, staff’s most recent observations confirms that the queuing issue continues to occur even with the sidewalk reopened.

Because queues extending near or onto the US 101 ramps present a safety concern, striping modifications are proposed to extend the two-lane northbound section further south, to just north of McCollum Street, increasing queuing capacity during peak morning periods and Cal Poly special events. 2) Could the project be delayed to after the Cal Poly project on Slack is complete allow for additional data collection on vehicle queuing? Are the suggested improvements still considered part of the pilot project? Will there be a permanent design proposed for the 2027 paving plan? If so, when would ATC and City Council see that plan?
Although construction for Cal Poly’s Vista Meadows project is not yet complete, the east sidewalk on Grand Avenue north of Slack Street reopened prior to the start of the Fall 2025 Quarter. Since then, in-person traffic observations conducted in October 2025 confirmed that vehicle queuing continues to occur even with the sidewalk reopened. Based on these observations, delaying the project until after completion of the Cal Poly Vista Meadows project or waiting for the permanent roadway improvements planned for future years would not address the ongoing safety concerns in the near term. Data collection has already been completed with the sidewalk open, and existing northbound queuing and improper right-turn movements at the US 101 southbound on-ramp continue to present safety issues that should be mitigated as soon as feasible.

The suggested improvements included in the Grand Avenue Sign & Striping Modifications Project directly address feedback received from Cal Poly, Teach Elementary, SLO Classical Academy, Love To Learn Preschool, SLO Garbage, and various community members. These refinements utilize lower-cost, temporary materials and remain part of the ongoing pilot project, allowing staff to evaluate their effectiveness before permanent roadway changes are implemented.

A permanent design for Grand Avenue is anticipated as part of the 2027 paving project. A more comprehensive “after study” data collection effort and public outreach process will be conducted in 2026 to guide the development of permanent design recommendations. Permanent design changes will not be implemented without further data collection, extensive coordination with Cal Poly, Teach Elementary and SLO Classical Academy, community workshops, presentations to the ATC and City Council, and a dedicated project website.

Page 142 of 429 ends

ITEM 6g - AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE GRAND AVE SIGN & STRIPING MODS. Page 3 3) Could staff provide photographic slides or other visual aids that illustrate the proposed changes? I found the current striping and flex posts near the US 101 on-ramp confusing. How might the additional flex posts affect nighttime drivers? Additionally, since the Grand/Loomis intersection experiences frequent illegal left turns, why isn’t a “No Left Turn” sign installed?
All current and new flex posts are equipped with retroreflective wraps at the top to enhance nighttime visibility and help drivers better recognize lane boundaries and turn restrictions.

As for the Grand/Loomis/US 101 SB intersection, a “No Left Turn” sign has not been installed because both left-turn and through movements are prohibited.

According to the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), there are individual signs for “No Left Turn” and “No Through” movements, but not a combined sign. Therefore, a “Right Turn Only” sign was selected as the appropriate standard sign per CA MUTCD guidelines, as it clearly communicates the permitted movement in a single, compliant sign.

As shown below, there are currently two methods of conveying the right turn only restriction: a “Right Turn Only” sign and “Right Turn Only” pavement markings.

Page 143 of 429 ends

ITEM 6g - AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE GRAND AVE SIGN & STRIPING MODS. Page 4 However, even with these measures in place, drivers have still been observed navigating around the flex posts to make illegal turning movements. To address this, four additional flex posts are proposed to be installed to provide a physical deterrent and improve compliance.

Westbound Loomis View:

Southbound Grand View:

Page 144 of 429 ends

ITEM 6g - AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE GRAND AVE SIGN & STRIPING MODS. Page 5 At the US 101 southbound on-ramp, as shown in the image below, the current pilot design includes a dedicated right-turn lane from southbound Grand Avenue onto the on-ramp. The southbound bike lane is channelized to the left of the right-turn lane.

This configuration was intended to allow right-turning vehicles to decelerate outside the through-traffic lane while positioning cyclists to the left to reduce the risk of right-hook collisions. However, in-person observations show that most drivers make a wide, high-speed right turn from the through lane instead of using the designated turn lane. This behavior has also caused confusion for drivers exiting the daycare just north of the on-ramp, as it is unclear whether southbound vehicles are turning right or continuing straight.

Current Configuration

Page 145 of 429 ends

ITEM 6g - AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE GRAND AVE SIGN & STRIPING MODS. Page 6 Modifications to the current striping configuration are proposed to eliminate the dedicated right-turn lane at this intersection and instead provide a wide, dashed green bike lane through the intersection. This configuration increases the width of the striped corner bulb-out, tightens the corner to better control turning speeds onto the on-ramp, and creates a more intuitive layout for drivers.

Proposed Configuration
4) I’m concerned that the bid amounts greatly exceed the engineer’s estimate.

Could staff clarify why the signing and striping improvements are costing more than anticipated?
Staff acknowledge that the bid amounts significantly exceeded the engineer’s estimate. Initially, this work was offered to the 2024 Roadway Sealing contractor.

However, the contractor declined to complete the additional work. The project was then advertised publicly, and only one bid was received, which significantly exceeded the engineer’s estimate. Staff subsequently re-advertised the project and extended the advertising period to encourage broader participation and more competitive pricing. Two new bids were received, but both still significantly exceeded the engineer’s estimate, with one comparable to the original bid.

The higher-than-expected bid amounts are generally consistent with recent trends for smaller striping projects, as staff have observed that bids tend to be elevated due to limited availability of local striping contractors and higher mobilization costs associated with smaller, stand-alone projects. Signing and striping improvements are typically more cost-effective when included as part of larger projects, which benefit from economies of scale.

Although the bid amounts were higher than anticipated, the proposed signing and striping improvements are considered substantial safety enhancements that should be implemented as soon as feasible.

Page 146 of 429 ends

Item 6g
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 9501
For Agenda of: 10/21/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Interim Public Works Director
Prepared By: Luke Schwartz, Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE GRAND AVENUE

SIGN & STRIPING MODIFICATIONS, SPECIFICATION NUMBER
2000615-01

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Manager to award a construction contract to Toste Construction, Inc. in the amount of $228,890.00 for the Grand Ave Sign and Striping Modifications project, Specification Number 2000615-01, using remaining funds in the 2024 Roadway Sealing project account (2000615); and

2. Approve the plans (Attachment A) and specifications (Attachment B) for the Grand Avenue Sign and Striping Modifications Project, Specification Number 2000615-01; and

3. Authorize the City Engineer to approve Contract Change Orders not to exceed a total construction contract value of $275,000, using remaining funds in the 2024 Roadway Sealing project account (2000615).

POLICY CONTEXT
On May 17, 2022, Council approved a Purchasing Policy Update to the Financial Management Manual that required Council approval for Public Projects that cost over $200,000.

Implementation of the project aligns with the City’s Draft Vision Zero Action Plan, and Traffic Safety Report, which recommend improvements such as modifications to the Grand Avenue/Loomis intersection and measures to reduce vehicle speeds along Grand Avenue. Additionally, the project supports the City’s Major Goals of Climate Action, Open Space, and Sustainable Transportation by improving safety and access to sustainable transportation modes.

DISCUSSION
As part of the 2024 Roadway Sealing Project, a pilot complete street project was installed on Grand Avenue, with the purpose of reducing excessive vehicle speeds, improving bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and enhancing safety for all road users. The pilot project,

Page 147 of 429 ends

Item 6g
which was completed in March of 2025, included a “road diet”1, new and enhanced pedestrian crossings, buffered and protected bike lanes, and turn restrictions at the Grand Avenue/Loomis Street/US 101 Southbound Ramps intersection to address collision trends. These improvements were installed using lower-cost, temporary materials to allow for further monitoring before implementing permanent improvements in the future when Grand Avenue is scheduled for repaving (planned for summer 2027).

While preliminary monitoring and community feedback indicate that some of the intended benefits of the pilot complete street project have been observed in terms of high-end vehicle speed reductions and increased comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists, Public Works staff is recommending some refinements to current design elements now rather than waiting for the permanent roadway improvements in future years. These refinements, described herein as the Grand Avenue Sign and Striping Modifications (Project), include the following:

1. Northbound Grand Avenue Restriping – Restripe northbound Grand Avenue between McCollum and Slack Street to begin the transition from one-to-two northbound travel lanes several blocks further upstream of the Cal Poly entrance.

While the current road diet configuration operates acceptably for the vast majority of the day, increased vehicle queues have been observed in the northbound direction for the 15-minute peak period of the morning weekday commute into Cal Poly, specifically during the early weeks of each quarter. The proposed restriping will add additional vehicle queuing capacity to reduce spillbacks during the morning commute and special events, minimizing potential for traffic to spill back to the US 101 ramps. See Figure 1 below for modified road diet limits.

2. Additional Flex Posts – Additional flex posts will be installed in areas where illegal or unsafe vehicle maneuvers have been observed, such as at the Grand & Loomis intersection, where some drivers are making illegal left turns. Flex posts fronting the SLO Classical Academy will also be shifted to provide more width for vehicles to queue on Grand Avenue during afternoon school pick-up times without illegally blocking the bike lane or adjacent vehicle lane.

3. Measures to Improve Visibility and Safety at Grand Avenue & US 101 Southbound On-Ramp – Observations of traffic conditions on southbound Grand Avenue approaching the US 101 Southbound On-Ramp indicate that further measures are needed to reduce vehicle speeds and potential conflicts between turning vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists. The Project includes (a) addition of a radar speed feedback sign on southbound Grand, (b) addition of a “TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO BIKES/PEDS” warning sign with flashing beacon at the on-ramp, and

1 A road diet typically involves the narrowing or removal of vehicle lanes on a multilane roadway where traffic volumes can be accommodated with fewer traffic lanes. Road diets are identified by FHWA as a proven safety countermeasure that reduce crashes by 19%-47% on average. The pilot road diet on Grand Avenue reduced the roadway from five lanes to three lanes from just north of Monterey Street to just south of Slack Street.

Page 148 of 429 ends

Item 6g
(c) revisions to pavement markings to increase visibility and clarity of the road configuration for vehicles entering the on-ramp.

Figure 1: Revised Grand Avenue Road Diet Limits
Project Plans are provided as Attachment A, and Project Specifications are provided as Attachment B. The striping modifications on Grand Avenue were originally included as a bid alternative in the Roadway Sealing 2024 project, which was completed in March 2025.

As part of the project, Grand Avenue was reduced from two lanes in each direction to one lane in order to improve multi-modal transportation and safety for all road users. Following completion, staff received feedback from representatives of San Luis Obispo Classical Academy, local residents, and Cal Poly expressing concerns with the new striping configuration, specifically regarding vehicle queuing on northbound Grand Avenue during the peak morning commute and during large events at Cal Poly. In response, staff monitored the intersection and observed traffic congestion and vehicle queues extended back to Loomis Street and nearing the US 101 ramps during the peak 15 minutes of the morning commute.

Initial engineer’s estimates, based on recent construction bid costs, indicated that total Project costs were anticipated to remain under $200,000, which is within the threshold that can be approved at the City Manager level per Section 203 of the City’s Purchasing Policy. Staff advertised the Project in late spring 2025 with the goal of completing improvements during the Cal Poly summer break. A bid opening was held on June 24, 2025, at which only one bid was received. The bid amount significantly exceeded the engineer’s estimate of $130,000, as shown in the table below. Upon review, staff determined that the sole bidder, Sterndahl Enterprises, failed to submit the original copy of their Bidder’s Bond, rendering the bid non-responsive and leading to its rejection. Staff subsequently re-advertised the Project, extending the advertisement period to encourage broader participation and more competitive bids.

Page 149 of 429 ends

Item 6g
Table 1: Bid results for the bid opening held on June 24th,2025 The project was re-advertised, and a second bid opening was held on August 21, 2025.

Two bids were received; however, both exceeded the Engineer’s Estimate.

Table 2: Bid results for the bid opening held on August 21,2025 Staff recommends awarding the construction contract to Toste Construction, Inc., who was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder following a review of the bid forms for compliance with the project requirements.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
The Grand Avenue pilot complete street improvements were originally approved by City Council on May 21, 2025 as part of the 2024 Roadway Sealing project, which was also presented to the City Active Transportation Committee (ATC) for concurrence. The ATC did not object to the proposed modifications, but did express interest in exploring further intersection improvements at the Grand/ Ave/Slack Street intersection in the future, such as a traffic signal or roundabout, which may reducing queuing and allow for potentially restoring the full northbound lane reductions at a later date. An update on the proposed sign and striping modifications was provided by staff to City Council via email on February 26, 2025, and these proposed changes were presented to the Active Transportation Committee (ATC) at their March 20, 2025 meeting.

Public Engagement
Grand Avenue pilot complete street improvements were originally included in the 2023– 2025 Financial Plan as part of the Roadway Sealing 2024 project, which was supported by an extensive public outreach effort. This effort included presentations and regular coordination with Cal Poly, a public workshop at the City/County Library, multiple presentations to the ATC, community workshops, and the development of a dedicated project website. Direct mailers were also sent to residences and schools along Grand Avenue. Since completion of the pilot project installation, staff has engaged with representatives of Cal Poly, Teach Elementary and SLO Classical Academy, SLO Garbage, and collected input from various community members. A few minor modifications were already implemented based on this input, such as removing/shifting flex posts at select locations. The most prominent areas of feedback that led to the current sign and striping design recommendations were (a) concerns about northbound queueing on Grand Ave during the AM peak commute period, and (b) lingering concerns regarding high speeds on southbound Grand and turning conflicts at the US 101 Southbound OnEngineer’s Estimate Sterndahl Enterprises LLC $130,000 $225,972
Engineer’s Estimate Toste Construction, Inc Sterndahl Enterprises LLC $130,000 $228,890 $244,972

Page 150 of 429 ends

Item 6g
Ramp. A more robust “after study” data collection and public outreach effort will be conducted later in 2026 to help guide permanent design recommendations for Grand Avenue as part of the planned 2027 Paving Project.

CONCURRENCE
This Project has been reviewed and has concurrence from the City Public Works Department, Finance Department, City Attorney’s Office, and City Administration.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Project qualifies for an Exemption to the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 (Existing Facilities) because the Project consists of the repair and maintenance of existing roadways, and minimally disruptive surface improvements within an existing built urban environment (pavement markings sign posts, etc.) in which there is negligible or no expansion of use. A Notice of Exemption will be filed through the Community Development Department.

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: Yes Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

The total estimated cost for the Project is $275,000, which includes $228,890 for the base construction contract plus construction contingencies. The project will be funded from the 2024 Roadway Sealing project account (2000615), which has a current balance of $451,525, comprised of Local Revenue Measure and SB1 Road Repair funds. If approved, after the reallocation, there will be $176,525 remaining in the Roadway Sealing 2024 account.

Funding Sources Total Budget
Available
Current Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Capital Outlay Fund Local
Revenue Measure -
Roadway Sealing 2024 $430,625 $254,100 $176,525
(2000615)
SB1 Road Repair FundRoadway Sealing 2024
(2000615)
$20,900 $20,900 $0
Total $451,525 $275,000 $176,525

Page 151 of 429 ends

Item 6g
Fiscal Impact Summary
Grand Ave Sign and Striping Modifications, Specification No. 2000615-01 Grand Ave Sign and
Striping
Modifications
(2000615-01)
Grand Ave Sign and
Striping
Modifications
(2000615-01) Project Totals
Funding Source Capital Outlay Fund -
LRM SB1 Fund
Fund # 401 211
Bid Total: $207,990 $20,900 $228,890
Contingencies (20%) $45,110 $0 $45,110
Total for Construction $249,588 $20,900 $270,488
Public Relations $0 $0 $0
Materials Testing: $500 $0 $500
Printing: $500 $0 $500
Total Project Cost $254,100 $20,900 $275,000
Capital Outlay (LRM)
- 2000615-01 $254,100 $254,100
SB1 Funds - 2000615-
01 $20,900 $20,900
Total Project Budget
(2000615-01): $254,100 $20,900 $275,000
Any additional unspent funds after project completion will be transferred to the Street Reconstruction and Resurfacing account for further implementation of the Pavement Management Plan or to the completed projects account.

ALTERNATIVES
Deny approval to award the Construction Contract. City Council could choose to deny the award of the construction contract to Toste Construction, Inc. This alternative would delay the implementation of planned improvements along Grand Avenue, which are intended to enhance safety and mobility for both drivers and bicyclists.

Page 152 of 429 ends

Item 6h
Department: Fire
Cost Center: 8503
For Agenda of: 10/21/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Todd Tuggle, Fire Chief
Prepared By: Nicole Vert, Business Analyst
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

AGENCY FIRE PREVENTION AND SAFETY GRANT

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the Fire Department to accept the award from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Grant in the amount of $60,240.00 (Attachment A); and

2. Authorize the City Manager, or their designee, to execute the grant documents and approve the budget changes necessary to appropriate the grant amount upon acceptance of the grant award.

POLICY CONTEXT
The City of San Luis Obispo’s Financial Management Manual, Section 740 - Grant Management Policy states that Council will approve all grant applications in excess of $5,000 and delegate receipt and contract execution to the City Manager.

DISCUSSION
State, federal, and non-profit grants are occasionally offered to assist local governments with the financial impacts associated with daily operations and/or mandated programs.

The Fire Department actively seeks out these opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of the Department while increasing fiscal sustainability for the City. A recent grant opportunity was identified, which is in line with these goals and addresses a current need for the City: the FEMA Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 FP&S program1. The FY 2024 grant applications opened on May 23, 2025, and closed July 3, 2025. Due to the very short time frame within which a grant application needed to be prepared and submitted, Council authority for the application was not able to be obtained prior to the application deadline.

However, to preserve the City’s ability to apply and potentially receive funds through this program, the Fire Department submitted an application and is now seeking confirmation from Council that the award should be accepted. If not approved, the application will be withdrawn and the award declined. The deadline for grant acceptance is October 24th.

1 FEMA FP&S Grant Website: https://www.fema.gov/grants/preparedness/firefighters/safetyawards/documents

Page 153 of 429 ends

Item 6h
The Federal FP&S Grants are one of three grant programs within the Assistance to Firefighters Grants (AFG) that focus on enhancing the safety of the public and firefighters with respect to fire and fire-related hazards. The AFG Program accomplishes this goal by providing direct financial assistance to eligible fire departments for fire prevention programs and firefighter health and safety programs.

Among the five basic homeland security missions noted in the Department of Homeland Security’s Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, the FP&S Program supports the goal to Strengthen National Preparedness and Resilience. The objectives of the FP&S program are to reduce community wildfire risk through assessments, education, tools and fuel reduction. For federal FY 2024, Congress appropriated $32,400,000 in funding for FP&S and is projecting to award grants to 100 applicants.

The FP&S grant application (Attachment B) seeks funding to strengthen the City of San Luis Obispo’s wildfire resilience by increasing capacity, public awareness, and code compliance, in direct alignment with CAL FIRE’s updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) designations. Recognizing the growing wildfire risk within the City’s expanded Fire Hazard Severity Zones, the proposed grant-funded project adopts a comprehensive approach that integrates staff training, expanded assessment efforts, targeted public education, and rigorous evaluation to achieve lasting impact.

This approach supports FEMA’s FY 2024 Fire Prevention & Safety program priorities and positions San Luis Obispo to reduce the threat of wildfire-related injury, loss of life, and property damage in one of California’s most vulnerable wildland urban interface communities.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On May 21, 2024, the City Council authorized the fire department to apply for an FP&S Program grant to purchase personal protection equipment (PPE) for fire prevention staff and authorized the City Manager, or designee, to execute the grant documents and approve the budget changes necessary upon notification that the grant had been awarded.

Public Engagement
This item is on the agenda for the October 21, 2025 City Council meeting and will follow all required postings and notifications. The public will have an opportunity to comment on this item at or before the meeting.

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. If the work associated with the grant funding requires environmental review, staff will not proceed with the project until a review has been completed.

Page 154 of 429 ends

Item 6h

FISCAL IMPACT
Budgeted: No Budget Year: 2025-26
Funding Identified: Yes
Fiscal Analysis:

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $ $2,868.58 $ $
State
Federal $57,371.42
Fees
Other:

Total $ $60,240.00 $ $
If the Fire Department were to receive funding from the FP&S Program, the City would have to match the Federal grant funds equal to 5%. The total package requested is $60,240.00 and if fully funded would result in $57,671.42 grant funding from FEMA and require a match from the city of $2,868.58. The Fire Department will absorb this match requirement within the existing operating budget for FY 2025-26.

ALTERNATIVES
Council could direct staff to decline the AFG program award offer. Without the awarded grant funds, the Fire Department will have less resources available to provide staff training and education to the public regarding fire prevention needs in the City.

ATTACHMENTS
A- FEMA FP&S Wildfire Risk Reduction Grant Application
B- FP&S Award Notification

Page 155 of 429 ends

San Luis Obispo City CouncilOctober 21, 2025

San Luis Obispo City Council
October 21, 2025