San Luis Obispo City Council
April 21, 2026

City Council
AGENDA

Tuesday, April 21, 2026, 5:30 p.m.

Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Agenda has been amended to include an additional Closed Session Item 1c - Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation.

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 (4:15 PM START)

1.a CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Erica A. Stewart will call the Closed Session of the San Luis Obispo City Council to order at 4:15 PM in the Council Hearing Room at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

1.b CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiator: Nickole Domini
Unrepresented Employees: City Manager, City Attorney and Unrepresented Management Employees

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

The anticipated litigation arises out of alleged damage to private property caused by the failure of a section of the Nacimiento Pipeline that partially serves the City of San Luis Obispo. Additional facts and circumstances of the anticipated litigation are set forth in a letter sent by counsel for the private property owners dated March 23, 2026, and is on file with the City of San Luis Obispo’s Clerk’s Office.

1.d ADJOURNMENT
The Council will hold a Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Council 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 Jan Marx will lead the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.

4. PRESENTATIONS

4.a CALIFORNIA CITIES WEEK
Mayor Stewart will present a Proclamation declaring April 19 - April 25, 2026 as California Cities Week.

4.b VOLUNTEER APPRECIATION WEEK
Mayor Stewart will present a Proclamation declaring April 19 - 25, 2026 as Volunteer Appreciation Week.

4.c BIKE MONTH
Mayor Stewart will present a Proclamation declaring May 2026 as Bike Month.

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

5. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
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
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be noncontroversial 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 6f.

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 - APRIL 7, 2026 COUNCIL MINUTES 9
Recommendation:

Approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held on April 7, 2026.

6.c COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND GRANT

AGREEMENT FOR RIGHETTI FISCALINI RANCH CONSERVATION

EASEMENT WITH THE LAND CONSERVANCY OF SAN LUIS

OBISPO COUNTY
17 Recommendation:

Approve a Community Partnership Agreement with The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County; and

1. Approve a Grant Agreement for the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch conservation easement project; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to sign the Community Partnership Agreement and the Grant Agreement in a final form satisfactory to the City Attorney.

3. 6.d APPROVE A MILLS ACT CONTRACT FOR LANDMARK PROPERTY AT 1421 GARDEN STREET
53 Recommendation:

Adopt a draft resolution entitled “Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City and the Owners of the Meredith House at 1421 Garden Street (Application No. HIST-0681- 2025),” as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee.

6.e REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO DESIGNATE 571 PISMO STREET AS

A HISTORIC LANDMARK
73 Recommendation:

Adopt a draft resolution entitled “Resolution by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, designating the Property Located at 571 Pismo Street as a Landmark Historic Resource, called the George and Cordelia McCabe House (Application No. HIST -0944-2025),” as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee.

6.f AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD TRANSIT OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONTRACT
145
Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to MV
Transportation, Inc. for Transit Operation and Maintenance Services in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office; and

1. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract amendments, provided that the cumulative value of all such amendments does not exceed 10 percent of the total contract amount, inclusive of all base term years.

2. 7. PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS

7.a OVERVIEW OF VACANCIES AND RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION EFFORTS (15 MINUTES)
311
Recommendation:

Conduct a public hearing regarding and receive and file the City of San Luis Obispo Workforce Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Trends presentation.

7.b ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 13 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE

REGARDING PRIVATE SEWER LATERAL INSPECTIONS,

REPLACEMENTS, AND DISSOLUTION OF THE MANDATORY
WASTEWATER FLOW OFFSET PROGRAM (60 MINUTES)
317
Recommendation:

Introduce a Draft Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Amending Section 13.08.395 (Private Sewer Laterals/Systems) and
Section 13.08.396 (Wastewater Flow Offset) of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.”

1. Adopt a Draft Resolution entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, Authorizing the Discretion of the Public Works and Utilities Director to Waive Wastewater Flow Offset Program Requirements and
Resolution and Determination of Satisfaction of Conditions of Approval Related to Wastewater Flow Offsets.”

2. Find the actions exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

3. 8. STUDY SESSION

8.a 2026 WATER AND SEWER RATE STRUCTURE STUDY (60

MINUTES)
365
Recommendation:

Receive a presentation and conduct a Study Session on the 2026 Water and Sewer Rate Structure Study;

1. 2. Confirm the City’s prioritization of rate design attributes; and Confirm staff’s recommendation to proceed with a four-year rate adoption period.

3. 9. 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
Francis
Council Member
Boswell
Council Member
Marx
Council Member
Shoresman
SLO Council of
Governments
Airport Land Use Community
Action
Partnership
Air Pollution
Control District
CP Campus
Planning
Committee
Regional
Economic Action
Coalition
Nacimiento Water
Project
SLO Climate
Coalition
County Water
Resources
Advisory
Committee
Downtown
Association
Board
CA Men’s
Colony Advisory
Committee
Zone 9 Advisory
Committee
Local Agency
Formation
Commission
Homeless
Services
Oversight
Committee
Performing Arts
Center
Commission
Integrated Waste
Management
Authority
SLO Regional
Transit Authority
Visit SLO
County Advisory
Committee
Central Coast
Clean Energy

10. ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the City Council will be held on May 5, 2026 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.
1 Council Minutes
April 7, 2026, 5:30 p.m.

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

Present:

Council Member Mike Boswell, Council Member Michelle
Shoresman, Vice Mayor Emily Francis, Mayor Erica A. Stewart Council Members

Absent:

Council Member Jan Marx
City Staff Present: City Manager Whitney McDonald, Christine Dietrick, City Attorney, Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
_____________________________________________________________________

1. CLOSED SESSION

1.a CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Erica A. Stewart called the Closed Session of the San Luis Obispo City Council to order at 4:00 PM indicating that all Council Members except Council Member Marx were present.

1.b CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS
City Attorney Christine Dietrick reported that the Council met in Closed Session regarding real property negotiations on property located at 975 Broad Street.

Motion By Mayor Stewart
Second By Council Member Boswell
To authorize staff to enter into real property negotiations and provided direction on price and terms.

Ayes (4): Council Member Boswell, Council Member Shoresman, Vice Mayor Francis, and Mayor Stewart
Absent (1): Council Member Marx
CARRIED (4 to 0)

2 1.c CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION City Attorney Christine Dietrick indicated that the Council met in Closed Session regarding conference with Legal Counsel on one matter of existing litigation Ruda et al vs. City of San Luis Obispo.

Motion By Council Member Shoresman
Second By Vice Mayor Francis
To authorize defense of the action and authorize staff to retain Kevin Siegel, Burke Williams Sorensen to act as outside counsel in defense of the city.

Ayes (4): Council Member Boswell, Council Member Shoresman, Vice Mayor Francis, and Mayor Stewart
Absent (1): Council Member Marx
CARRIED (4 to 0)

1.d ADJOURNMENT
Closed Session adjourned at 5:15 PM.

2. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on April 7, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. with all members present except Council Member Marx.

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

4. PRESENTATIONS

4.a MONTH OF THE CHILD
Vice Mayor Francis presented a Proclamation to Shelby West representing the Early Childcare Education & Planning Council.

4.b NATIONAL ARAB AMERICAN HERITAGE MONTH
Council Member Shoresman presented the Proclamation to Sandra Sarrouf representing Cultural Creations Collaborative.

4.c EARTH MONTH
Council Member Boswell presented the Proclamation to Laura Albers representing the SLO Climate Coalition.

3 4.d SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH
Mayor Erica A. Stewart presented the Proclamation to Maggie Torres representing Lumina Alliance.

4.e 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:

Shawn Harris
Ben Lippert
Jackie Loew
Steve Barrasch
Leslie Halls
KC Matthews
--End of Public Comment--

6. CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Stewart requested that Item 6c be pulled from the Consent Agenda.

Public Comment:

None
--End of Public Comment--
Motion By Council Member Shoresman
Second By Vice Mayor Francis
To approve Consent Calendar Items 6a, 6b and 6d.

Ayes (4): Council Member Boswell, Council Member Shoresman, Vice Mayor Francis, and Mayor Stewart
Absent (1): Council Member Marx
CARRIED (4 to 0)

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

6.b MINUTES REVIEW - MARCH 17, 2026 COUNCIL MINUTES
Approve the minutes of the City Council meeting held on March 17, 2026.

4 6.d AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD 879 MORRO ROOF REPLACEMENT, SPECIFICATION NO. 2000075-10

1. Approve the project plans and special provisions for the 879 Morro Roof Replacement, Specification No. 2000075-10; and

2. Award a construction contract (Attachment A) to Ranger Roofing and Solar in the amount of $189,074.96 for the 879 Morro Roof Replacement, Specification No. 2000075-10; and,

3. Authorize staff to issue a Purchase Order to Brezden Pest Control Inc., following completion of the roofing project, at an amount within the remaining available project budget; and,

4. Authorize a transfer of $24,948.21 from Sewer Fund Completed Projects to support the roofing project and pest control work; and,

5. Authorize the City Engineer to approve Contract Change Orders, provided they remain within the approved project budget or any amended budget subsequently authorized by the City Manager.

6.c 2026 LEGISLATIVE ACTION PLATFORM
Public Comments:

None
---End of Public Comment---
Motion By Vice Mayor Francis
Second By Mayor Stewart
To adopt Resolution No. 11638 (2026 Series) entitled, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, establishing a City Legislative Action Platform for 2026 and appointing a Council Member and Staff Persons to act as a liaison between the City of San Luis Obispo and the League of California Cities”; with the following changes

1. Update: Public Safety #18: Support building code reforms to enable single-stair mid-rise apartment buildings, consistent with the findings of the March 2026 Cal Fire – Office of the State Fire Marshal report to the Legislature pursuant to Assembly Bill 835 and that incorporate modern fire and life safety standards.

2. Update: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion #14: Support Medicare and other health insurance program reforms, including updates to geographic designation criteria, that promote equity, expand access

5 to care, enhance regional collaboration, and ensure healthcare sustainability on the Central Coast.

3. Add: Transportation #22: Support legislation that strengthens e‑ bike safety through rider education, improved equipment regulations, and visibility standards, provides cities with local authority to set operating and speed rules on bike paths and multi‑ use trails and that also support the City’s mobility and climate goals.

4. Add: Public Safety #32: Support legislation, laws, and policies that ensure municipalities retain full autonomy over data collection, responsible data use, and data privacy protections.

To appoint the Mayor, City Manager, and the City Attorney to act as the primary legislative liaisons between the League of California Cities and the City of San Luis Obispo.

Ayes (4): Council Member Boswell, Council Member Shoresman, Vice Mayor Francis, and Mayor Stewart
Absent (1): Council Member Marx
CARRIED (4 to 0)

7. PUBLIC HEARING AND BUSINESS ITEMS

7.a 2025 GENERAL PLAN ANNUAL REPORT (30 MINUTES)
David Amini, Senior Planner and Ethan Estrada, Assistant Planner, provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.

Public Comments:

None
---End of Public Comment---
ACTION: No action taken other than receive and file.

8. STUDY SESSION

8.a COMMUNITY CLIMATE ACTION PLAN PROGRESS REPORT AND 2027 PLAN UPDATE STUDY SESSION (60 MINUTES)
Chris Read, Sustainability Manager and Lucia Baesemann, Sustainability and Natural Resources Analyst provided an in-depth staff report and responded to Council questions.

6 Public Comments:

Mary Gardner
June McIvor
Spencer Brandt
Melanie Mills
Lea Brooks
Rachel Whalen
Garret Olson
Eric Vieum
Megan Souza
Laura Albers
Barry Rands
Don Maruska
---End of Public Comment---
The City Council provided the following direction:
 Think about the opportunity to align and accelerate implementation of our existing Plans.
 Recognizing what we are doing in San Luis Obispo, we need every city in the county, every city in the state and the world doing more.

We need to be more assertive in asking other cities to do their part.  We should continue to look for opportunities to tell our story beyond our community.
 Tell our story that we have continued to grow our economy along with reducing our carbon emissions.

Staff should evaluate the following as part of the 2027 Climate Action Plan Update.

1. Re-evaluation of mobility innovations related to bikeshare, carshare, and microtransit.

2. Enhanced support for regional transit and EV charging infrastructure.

3. Re-evaluation of large building energy efficiency programs.

4. Evaluation of the new single-family Home Energy Score program.

5. Proactive legislative advocacy.

7 6. Evaluation of bulk purchasing and direct installation programs for rooftop solar, batteries, and electric heat-pump water-heater and HVAC units.

7. Support for “plug-in” solar and battery energy storage systems.

8. Recommitment to our mode share goals.

9. Look for direct-to renter benefits.

Council wants to maintain our existing carbon neutral goals for 2035.

Continue with the existing “narrow and deep” approach to covered greenhouse gas emissions (focusing on energy, transportation, and landfilled solid waste.)
Motion By Mayor Stewart
Second By Council Member Shoresman
To join the Local Government Climate Alliance to advocate for preapproved positions via the City’s adopted Legislative Action Platform to advance Council goals related to the Climate Action Plan, and delegate City participation in the organization to the City Manager or their designee.

Ayes (4): Council Member Boswell, Council Member Shoresman, Vice Mayor Francis, and Mayor Stewart
Absent (1): Council Member Marx
CARRIED (4 to 0)

9. LIAISON REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Stewart
 Attended the SLO Council of Governments (SLOCOG) Board meeting on April 1
 Toured the ECHO Shelter in Atascadero
 Attended the Mid State Fair Annual Awards
 Attended the Righetti Ranch Groundbreaking
 Attended the Mid-Higuera Bypass Wrap Party
Vice Mayor Francis
 Attended the SLO NOOR Volunteer Appreciation Event
 Attended the Righetti Ranch Groundbreaking
 Attended the Mid-Higuera Bypass Wrap Party

8 Council Member Boswell
 Attended the Community Action Partnership Board of Directors Meeting  Attended the Mid-Higuera Bypass Wrap Party
 Attended the Righetti park groundbreaking
 Attended the SLO Climate Coalition Strategic Planning Retreat  Attended the April 1st WRAC meeting for Council Member Marx Council Member Marx - absent
Council Member Shoresman
 Attended the Righetti Park Groundbreaking
 Attended the Mid-Higuera Bypass Wrap Party
 Attended the Community Academy Public Safety night
 Attended the La Loma Adobe open house
 Spoke to students at Cuesta on the Citywide Single Vote

10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled for April 21, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.

APPROVED BY COUNCIL: XX/XX/202X

Item 6c
Department: Administration
Cost Center: 1005
For Agenda of: 4/21/2026
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Greg Hermann, Deputy City Manager
Prepared By: Robert Hill, Sustainability & Natural Resources Official SUBJECT: COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND GRANT AGREEMENT

FOR RIGHETTI FISCALINI RANCH CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH

THE LAND CONSERVANCY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

RECOMMENDATION

1. Approve a Community Partnership Agreement with The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County; and

2. Approve a Grant Agreement for the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch conservation easement project; and

3. Authorize the City Manager to sign the Community Partnership Agreement and the Grant Agreement in a final form satisfactory to the City Attorney.

POLICY CONTEXT
The City Council set forth a policy for Community Partnerships by Resolution No. 8862 (1998 Series) on October 20, 1998 (Attachment A), with the stated goal to “encourage partnerships with non-profit organizations for the mutual benefit of both the City and the organizations.” Further, the policy also:
…directs the City to form community partnerships only with entities that can demonstrate good organization and stability. Non-profits should have a board of directors, and, if funding is involved, must be qualified under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. To assure both parties in the partnership understand their responsibilities and any financial arrangements, the policy requires that a formal agreement be drawn up. If significant funding or significant in-kind support is involved, the agreement will be approved by the City Council.

There are numerous policies and programs included in the Conservation and Open Space Element (2006) of the City's General Plan related to open space protection. Most pertinent to this project are Program 8.7.1 (J) and (L) and Policy 9.1.1 (A):

8.7.1 Protect open space resources.

The City will take the following actions to protect open space, and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to take the same actions within their

Item 6c
areas of responsibility and jurisdiction:

J. Improve interagency cooperation for open space acquisition, greenbelt, creeks, wetlands, and wildlife habitat protection in open space areas by coordinating with other government agencies and organizations having interest or expertise in resource protection.

L. Establish mutually respectful, long-term relationships with landowners, and conservation organizations such as land trusts, and local environmental organizations.

9.1.1 (A): Preserve natural and agricultural landscapes.

The City will implement the following policies and will encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do likewise:

A. Natural and agricultural landscapes that the City has not designated for urban use shall be maintained in their current patterns of use.

The City Council adopted the City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan that includes the Technical Appendix: Integrated Vegetation Management Plan for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo. This document outlines the City’s approach for invasive species treatment using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) protocols as promulgated by the University of California. This approach is also established in policy in the Conservation and Open Space Element (2006):

7.6.1 Environmental toxins
The City will avoid the use of synthetic organic chemicals unless there is no practical alternative, and support use of integrated pest management techniques.

When the use of a synthetic organic chemical cannot be avoided, the material shall be selective (its effect limited to the target species so far as possible), and it shall be applied selectively.

DISCUSSION
Background and Community Partnership Agreement
The City of San Luis Obispo enjoys a long-standing public-private partnership with The Land Conservancy of San Obispo County (LCSLO) in furtherance of land conservation efforts within the City's Greenbelt. Over the course of this nearly thirty-year relationship, the City has partnered on numerous planning and land protection efforts, including the Stenner Springs Natural Reserve, Maino Open Space, and Bowden Ranch Open Space acquisitions, as well as the Guidetti Ranch, Stenner Ranch, Brughelli Ranch, and O'Connor Ranch conservation easements, together with numerous other successful projects including land restoration and land management activities. In summary, the partnership provides capacity building, fundraising, technical expertise, and relationships that are of significant benefit to the City.

The purposes of the Community Partnership Agreement are two-fold. The first is to formally

Item 6c
document the partnership and recognize the mutual benefits and accomplishments of both the City and LCSLO over the course of over 30 years of working together. The second purpose is to ensure that the required elements of a community partnership, per the 1998 policy, are in place given the size and complexity of the projects and the associated need for clear roles and responsibilities and strong governance; fiscal responsibility and oversight; liability, indemnity and insurance; and, appropriate contractual agreements and purchasing authorities on a project-by-project basis.

Current Funding Requests
LCSLO has reached an agreement to purchase a conservation easement interest in the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch, located in the northeast portion of the City's Greenbelt. On March 30, 2026, the City received a letter from LCSLO requesting consideration of funding in the amount of $65,000 towards the purchase of the conservation easement interest. LCSLO has secured a primary grant from the State of California Department of Conservation's Sustainable Agriculture Land Conservation Program, as well as other private donations, and would have all of the necessary funding to complete the transaction should Council approve the request. The appraised value for the subject conservation easement is $2,390,000. As stated in LCSLO’s letter, the property description and articulation of conservation values are as follows:

The Righetti Fiscalini Ranch is a prominent part of the southern San Luis Obispo Greenbelt and is visible from many City vantage points and open space areas.

Two seasonal streams converge on the ranch which ultimately feed into San Luis Obispo Creek. Wildlife including black bears and various raptor species are frequently observed on the property. The ranch’s current agricultural uses include approximately 91 acres of avocado orchard and 55 acres of vineyard.

The proposed conservation easement will permanently protect these scenic, environmental, and agricultural conservation values by restricting development to one potential future single residence within a defined building envelope. Additional restrictions will prohibit future subdivision, intensive non-agricultural land uses, activities that lead to soil erosion, unnecessary removal of native vegetation, and other perpetual land use restrictions. These restrictions will ensure the conservation values of the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch are protected in perpetuity.

See Attachment B, Draft Grant Agreement, and Attachment C, LCSLO Funding Request Letter.

The City has also solicited a proposal from LCSLO for invasive species treatments at a suite of City open space properties, including Bishop Peak, Irish Hills, Stenner Springs and South Hills Natural Reserves, as well as Miossi Open Space. The priority species identified for treatment are yellow-star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), wooly distaff thistle (Carthamus lanatus), jubata grass (Cortaderia jubata), and stinkwort (Dittrichia graveolens). These species carry a ranking of “high” or “alert” from the California Invasive Species Council, meaning that they have the capability to impact ecosystem processes, impact other plant communities, and impact genetic integrity, as well as possessing high

Item 6c
rates of spread with no management, innate reproductive potential, and potential of human-caused or natural long-distance dispersal, among other risk-based evaluative parameters.

Over the years, the City has sought LCSLO’s services due to their intimate knowledge of City open space locations and habitats, decades of invasive species-specific experience, and specialized licensing and credentials (e.g. pest control applicator’s license, qualified applicator license). As the City moves towards increased management actions attendant to reducing wildland fire risk, it is anticipated that invasive species treatments will play an important role. This is because some of the priority species are highly flammable in and of themselves (pampas grass) while others have the capability of converting grassland systems to the point where livestock grazing as a fuel reduction management strategy is much less viable because species such as yellow star thistle and distaff thistle are unpalatable to livestock grazing animals. The current scope of work and budget provided by LCSLO following coordination with City staff is $43,155.

Previous Council Direction
City Council’s most recent notable action related to land protection within the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt is the adoption of the Major City Goal (MCG) for Open Space, Climate Action, and Resilience included with the 2025-27 Financial Plan, including these goals:
4 – Protect, sustain and advance open space and natural and historic resources a. Pursue priority land conservation opportunities to expand the Greenbelt, identify funding opportunities and resources, and engage with priority landowners on an annual basis
2 – Implement disaster mitigation efforts to reduce risks from flood and fires b. Treat at least 25 acres of vegetative fuels in high wildfire risk areas of City creeks and Open Space
Public Engagement
The Major City Goal strategy to protect and maintain open space is reflective of extensive public engagement during the 2025-27 Financial Plan process, including the Community Forum, Goal Setting Workshop, numerous survey and public input opportunities, Strategic Budget Direction, and the final adoption of the Financial Plan itself. Any member of the public may put forward either written or verbal comments to the City Council pertaining to this agenda item.

CONCURRENCE
The Community Development Department concurs with the recommended action due to the role of the proposed Conservation Easement in service of implementing the Land Use Element (2014) of the City's General Plan.

The City’s Ranger Service and the Fire Department’s Emergency Management personnel support the treatment of invasive species within City open space to reduce the risk of wildland fires.

Item 6c

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommended action to provide grant funding for the purchase of a conservation easement is not considered a Project under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Further, the acquisition of a conservation easement is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it involves "acquisition of lands for fish and wildlife conservation purposes including (a) preservation of fish and wildlife habitat..." (CEQA Guidelines § 15313), and because it involves the "acceptance of ... easement interests in order to maintain the open space character of the area" (CEQA Guidelines§ 15317).

The City also recently completed registration with the State of California pursuant to the Governor’s executive order and its CEQA Suspension process for projects that reduce the risk of wildfire (Secretarial Suspension Authorization, Project ID: 3c76408c-c831- 40e7-85e6-8283a118f7b9, “City of San Luis Obispo Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Wildfire Prevention Project”). This approval specifically covers invasive species treatment actions in the locations identified under the proposed scope of work. Project activities will need to comply with the Statewide Fuels Reduction Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) following submittal of a Notice of Commencement specifying the date and location where activities will actually take place.

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

Righetti Fiscalini Ranch Conservation Easement – In-Lieu Funds Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund
State
Federal
Fees
Other: Avila
Ranch In-Lieu
Open Space
Funds
$603,500 $65,000 $538,500 N/A
Total $603,500 $65,000 $538,500 N/A

Item 6c
Invasive Species Treatments - Open Space Maintenance CIP Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
Current
Funding
Request
Remaining
Balance
Annual
Ongoing
Cost
General Fund $213,221 $43,155 $170,066 N/A
State
Federal
Fees
Other:

Total $213,221 $43,155 $170,066 N/A
As part of the Development Agreement and conditions of approval for the Avila Ranch project, the City collected a total of $603,500 as an in-lieu payment to offset open space impacts and conversion of agricultural soils that occurred at the project site. The Avila Ranch project will dedicate agricultural open space land on-site, and the in-lieu funds represent the off-site requirement that could not be completed within the project boundary. The funds should be spent within the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt and should be used for conservation projects with an agriculture nexus. Per the draft Grant Agreement, the City’s funds would be sent directly to escrow with instruction to be used if, and only if, the escrow officer has all other funds on hand and is in position to record the Deed of Conservation Easement. Because LCSLO is responsible for easement administration and annual monitoring, the annual ongoing cost to the City is negligible.

The Open Space Maintenance CIP is used for a broad variety of activities outlined in the City of San Luis Obispo 2015 Open Space Maintenance Plan, including invasive species treatment activities. A total of $213,221 is currently available to support the funding request of $43,155. Ongoing costs are difficult to determine; in some cases, a single treatment may be effective while in other cases a treatment area may need multiple visits based on the management objective (e.g. eradication, perimeter control) and variable field conditions in the future based on timing and amount of seasonal rainfall. In any case, follow-up treatments would be the subject to a future scope of work and funding availability. This funding request would be enabled through the City’s standard purchase requisition and purchase order process.

ALTERNATIVES
Council may request changes to either the draft Community Partnership Agreement or the draft Grant Agreement. Council could also elect to fund only the conservation easement or only the invasive species treatment work described herein, or fund either of the projects at a lesser amount. Council could choose not to approve any of the recommended actions. Should Council direct an alternative that requires staff to return at a later time, a “date certain” should be identified that works with LCSLO’s acquisition schedule and timing for the conservation easement project.

Item 6c

ATTACHMENTS
A - Community Partnership and Foundation Policy and Resolution No. 8862 (1998 Series) B - Draft Community Partnership Agreement
C - Draft Grant Agreement
D - LCSLO Funding Request Letter - Righetti Fiscalini Ranch Conservation Easement

council o, zo_
j
acEnaa Repoin
H

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officerl Prepared By: Wendy George, Assistant to the City Administrative Officertr Paul LeSage, Parks and Recreation Director a
SUBJECT: COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AND FOUNDATION POLICY

CAO RECOMMENDATION
1) Adopt a resolution approving a Community Partnership and Foundation Policy. 2) Adopt a resolution endorsing a Community Recreation and Parks Foundation, subject to receipt of its 501( c) non-profit status, the formation of a board of directors and approval of proposed by-laws.

DISCUSSION
Background
During the goal setting process for the 1997-99 Financial Plan, the Council created a goal to encourage partnerships with non-profit organizations for the mutual benefit of both the City and the organizations." In considering this goal, the Council recognized that the possibilities for such partnerships and foundations are wide-ranging and could also create competition with other local non-profit agencies. Therefore, staff was directed to develop procedures for establishing them in a well-defined, logical way, based on a full understanding of the implications involved. In order to fulfill this direction, staff surveyed a number of other public agencies and gathered information about the types ofpartnerships and level of governmental support involved. .

The results of this survey were presented to the City Council at its January 13, 1998, meeting.

Following a discussion of the information provided, the City Council directed staff to develop a community partnership policy which addresses establishing partnerships for specific City-related projects and the formation of a Parks and Recreation Foundation. Staff was asked to include the following areas in the policy:

Guidelines for the level of" seed" money to be provided to a partner.

Guidelines for the level of"in-kind" support to be provided to a partner.

The type offormal agreement which must be developed with a partner.

Requirements which a partner must meet to prevent the City from assuming additional liability.

Methods ofpublicizing the City's interest in developing community partnerships.

The level of direct City involvement with a City-endorsed foundation.

Parameters for a City-endorsed foundation which would prevent it from competing with other non-profit organizations.

Council Agenda Report- Community Partnership and Foundation Policy

Community Partnerships
The proposed Community Partnership and Foundation Policy (Attachment 1) is divided into two sections. The first addresses partnerships and the second addresses City-endorsed foundations. In developing the section on partnerships, it became quickly apparent that it would be difficult to create hard and fast rules relating to the types of programs, projects and activities that would be appropriate for partnerships. Instead, the policy sets forth evaluation criteria, such as the level of public benefit offered by the partnership, the extent to which a partnership will help advance existing City goals and the cost-effectiveness ofthe partnership. These criteria can then be used on a case-by-case basis to evaluate the appropriateness of a given partnership.

The policy also directs the City to form community partnerships only with entities that can demonstrate good organization and stability. Non-profits should have a board of directors, and, if funding is involved, must be qualified under Section 501( c) of the Internal Revenue Code. To assure that both parties in the partnership understand their responsibilities and any financial arrangements, the policy requires that a formal agreement be drawn up. If significant funding or significant in-kind support is involved, the agreement will be approved by the City Council.

Otherwise, the City Administrative Officer may provide approval. The agreement will also protect the City from liability by providing indemnification and requiring the partner to be properly insured.

Similar to the issue of trying to succinctly define appropriate types of partnerships, it was difficult for staff to provide specific parameters on the level or type of City support, given the variety of possibilities. However, the policy does provide a general guideline that it is reasonable to expect the City and the partner(s) to share the cost equally. It finther states that this ratio could vary depending on the cost of the program/project, the resources of the partner(s) and the degree of interest on the part of the City. The policy also assures that the potential impact on other existing City services and priorities will be considered when determining the level of the City's in-kind commitment.

In order for partnerships to become one ofthe City's standard problem-solving tools, we propose to send copies of the approved policy to all non-profit organizations within the City. Staff will also consider and, when appropriate, recommend partnerships as a way of completing City programs, projects and activities that would otherwise lack sufficient funding for completion. The community will also be encouraged to consider partnerships when advocating to the City for the initiation of new programs or projects. ( For example, as part ofthe bi-annual goal setting process.) City-Endorsed Foundations
The second section of the policy addresses what we are now calling " City-endorsed foundations".

Attachment 1). We believe this is a more appropriate description than the term "City foundation", which was used during earlier discussions of this issue. These are foundations that are not formed directly by the City, but ones whose efforts the City sanctions; and for which the City may provide limited formation assistance, such as reviewing proposed by-laws to assure their compatibility with City interests. Prior to the City offering such recognition, the proposed foundation will be evaluated to assure that it will not compete for resources that are currently supporting other nonPage 26 of 378 Council Agenda Report- Community Partnership and Foundation Policy

profit activities in the community. Endorsed foundations must be qualified under Section 501( c) of the Internal Revenue Code and have by-laws that clearly state their purposes. The policy requires formal action by the City Council to affect endorsement.

The purpose of a City-endorsed foundation is to assist members ofthe community in raising funds for a particular program area that is of benefit to the City. Funds may be used for the construction or improvement of facilities, purchases of equipment, development of innovative programs and scholarships or other forms offinancial assistance. Funds may be granted by the foundation to the City or to other community organizations that provide services or opportunities within the foundation's program area.

The policy provides very specific restrictions on fundraising, which must be followed by any foundation wishing City endorsement. They shall not:

Accept funds that simply redistribute existing community resources.

Compete against other local non-profit organizations for funds that they have formerly received.

Undertake a general fundraising campaign. All fundraising must be directed toward a specific purpose.

Allocate funds other than to the specific stated purpose ofthe fundraising.

Proposed San Luis Obispo Community Recreation and Parks Foundation Staff recommends that the City Council endorse the formation of a Community Recreation and Parks Foundation that will benefit all ofthe organizations that provide leisure services.

As defined in the organization's proposed by-laws, the Foundation would:

Assist members ofthe community in raising funds for construction ofnew recreation facilities, improvements of existing facilities, purchase of equipment, development of innovative recreation programs and scholarships.

Obtain grants from other non-profit foundations.

The proposed Community Recreation and Parks foundation will meet the guidelines ofthe Council relating to City-endorsed foundations. A set ofbylaws (Attachment 3) has already been developed.

Once a conditional endorsement is received from the City, a board of directors will be formed, based on the by-laws, and the organization will apply for its 501( c) non-profit status.

The Foundation will be careful not to undertake any activity that is contrary to the goals and purposes of the various organizations that provide recreation and park services within the San Luis Obispo community. To ensure this, the board will appoint ex-officio advisory board members from these organizations. The Foundation will not accept funding that merely redistributes existing community resources, nor will it undertake a general fundraising campaign. Funds raised will be used only for the specific activity for which they are intended.

Council Agenda Report- Community Partnership and Foundation Policy

Because of the community nature of this Foundation, all local recreation and park agencies can become active partners under its umbrella This can lead to other successful partnerships similar to the Santa Rosa Skate Park and the Mayor's Youth Task Force.

It is likely that a small amount of stafftime will be needed initially to assist with the organization of the Foundation. That time commitment will decrease as the Foundation board ofdirectors becomes active. Many local citizens are already aware of the proposed Foundation and have expressed an interest in serving on the board.

CONCURRENCES
The Parks and Recreation Commission endorses the formation of a Community Recreation and Parks Foundation.

The San Luis Obispo YMCA concurs with the formation ofa Community Recreation and Parks Foundation, with the understanding that they will become an active partner in it.

The Field Users Task Force has also been apprised of the Community Recreation and Parks Foundation and has expressed its support.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City created by the establishment of a Community Partnership and Foundation Policy. Implementation of the policy has the potential to provide considerable outside financial support or cost savings to the City, but will also require the potential investment of funds and manpower on the part of the City. The net fiscal impact to the City will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Attachments
1 - Resolution approving the Community Partnership and Foundation Policy 2 - Resolution approving the City Endorsement of a Parks and Recreation Foundation 3 - Community Recreation and Parks Foundation By-Laws

Attachement 1
city of San lulS OBISPO community
pantnEnship and foundation policy
Purpose. There are many programs, projects and activities which are of interest to the City and the community, but cannot be addressed directly due to limitations on the City's human or financial resources. However, in keeping with the City's tradition of citizen involvement, City resources can be used in partnership with others to create opportunities for otherwise unfeasible projects or programs. The City encourages the formation of such community partnerships whenever possible. Under certain limited conditions the City will also consider endorsing the establishment of a foundation to encourage public contributions and grant funding for specific purposes that affect City programs. Both partnerships and foundations can be methods for the public to become more involved in creating the quality oflife that is so special to the residents.

A few examples of some successful City partnerships are:

Performing Arts Center
DARE Program
Prado Day Center
Santa Rosa Park roller hockey rink
STAR At-Risk Program
Creek Stewardship Program
I. COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS
Eligible Programs, Projects and Activities. On occasion, the City may propose a partnership with another community organization. More often, however, partnerships with the City are proposed by community organizations wishing.to initiate or enhance certain programs, projects or activities of special interest to them. In judging whether or not to participate in such partnerships, the City will consider such things as:

The level ofpublic benefit offered by the partnership;
The extent to which such a partnership will help advance existing City goals; Whether or not the partnership will help meet a currently unmet community need; The potential success and cost-effectiveness ofthe proposed partnership strategy; Whether or not the City is the appropriate public agency partner( or if another agency would be more appropriate).

Eligible Community Partners. The City shall only form community partnerships with entities that can demonstrate good organization and stability throughout the term of the partnership. Non-profit organizations should have a board of directors and, iffunding is 1 S- 7

to be received from the City, must be qualified under Section 501( c) of the Internal Revenue Code. Ifno funding is to be received from the City, official non-profit status is not required.

Community Partnership Agreement. All community partnerships require a formal agreement between the City and the partner(s). The agreement shall clearly define the purpose of the partnership, the City's responsibilities, the partner(s)' responsibilities, the level of in-kind ( e.g., labor and materials) and direct financial support the City shall contribute, the level of in-kind or financial support the partner(s) shall contribute, any reporting responsibilities the partner(s) shall have and any other operational details relevant to the purpose ofthe partnership. The City's standard contract agreement format shall be used to document the partnership. If City funding, or significant in-kind support is to be provided, or the purposes ofthe partnership could have major community impact, the partnership agreement shall be approved by the City Council. Other agreements may generally be approved by the City Administrative Officer.

Level and Type of City Support. Because there is such a diversity in the nature of potential partnerships, it is difficult to establish rigid parameters for an appropriate level of City support. As a general guideline, it is reasonable to expect the City and the partner(s) shall each contribute half the cost toward a community partnership. However, this ratio could vary depending upon the program/project cost, resources ofthe partner(s) and level of interest on the part of the City. In-kind contributions shall be counted, as well as actual cash, in calculating the total contribution of the parties. Once agreement is reached on the levels of contribution by the parties, it will be documented in the partnership agreement. The level of in-kind support to be committed from the City, particularly the amount of staff support, shall be determined based on work load considerations and the potential impact on other existing City services and priorities. In particular, before the commitment of financial or in-kind support which cannot be easily accommodated within existing departmental budgets, the availability of additional funding must be determined.

Examples:

The City and the Central Coast Women's League form a partnership to enhance the existing skate park The total cost of the enhancements is anticipated to be $ 40,000.

Each party commits to contributing $20,000 either in cash or in a combination of "inkind" services, e.g. volunteer or stafflabor, and cash.

The City and Friends ofLas Casas de Adobe (FOCA) form a partnership to rehabilitate the three City-owned adobes. The total cost of the project is anticipated $1. 2 million.

The parties agree that the City will provide $25,000 in " seed money" from the General Fund to allow FOCA to perform initial studies and establish fundraising mechanisms. In addition the City agrees to provide certain assistance, such as tree trimming, and to approve other sources offunding such as the Community Development Block Grant. The City's funding commitment is documented in the partnership agreement. The Friends of Las Casas de Adobe are responsiblefor the remainingfunding. 2 s 8

Organizations which are formally approved partners of the City may be eligible for certain benefits which are not normally made available to other groups. For example, use of City equipment, such as the trolley or portable toilets, may be approved on a case-bycase basis for official City partners.

Indemnification and Liability Insurance. Any partner(s) shall agree to indemnify the City against all claims or actual liability arising out of the partnership. The City's standard indemnification language shall be included in the partnership agreement. Any partner(s) shall provide proof of insurance in accordance with the City's standard Insurance Requirements for Contractors. Exceptions to the insurance requirements shall be approved by the Risk Manager.

Promotion of Community Partnership Opportunities. Partnerships have become a part ofthe City' s standard set ofproblem solving tools, and this formalized policy shall be made available to non-profit organizations within the community. In addition to being receptive to partnerships proposed by such organizations, staff shall also consider, and when appropriate recommend, partnerships as a way ofcompleting City programs, projects and activities that otherwise lack sufficient funding. The community will also be encouraged to suggest potential partnership strategies when advocating to the City Council for the initiation ofnew programs, projects, and activities( i.e. during the biannual goal setting process).

II. CITY-ENDORSED FOUNDATIONS
Formation ofCommunity Foundations. The formation of community foundations has become a way of tapping into new resources to support programs, projects, and activities that benefit the public. While the City will not directly form such a foundation, under certain conditions the City might endorse and assist in such efforts. In addition to assuring public benefit, one key condition prior to endorsement or assistance is that the proposed foundation is not being formed to compete for resources presently supporting other non-profit activities in the community. Endorsement shall be by the City Council, and forms of assistance provided by City staff shall be advisory only, such as reviewing proposed bylaws to assure compatibility with City conditions and interests.

Purposes of a City-Endorsed Foundation. A City-endorsed foundation's purpose shall be to assist members ofthe community in raising funds for a particular program area that is of benefit to the City, for example recreation and parks. Funds may be used for the construction ofnew facilities, improvements of existing facilities, purchase of equipment, development of innovative programs or providing scholarships or financial assistance to program participants. Funds may be granted by the foundation to City departments or programs, as well as to other organizations within the community which provide services or opportunities within the given program area.
3 S-9

The Endorsement Process. Endorsement of a local foundation shall be given by the City Council through the adoption of a resolution. In order to consider the appropriateness ofan endorsement, the following will be considered:

Non-profit status. The foundation must be qualified under section 501( c) of the Internal Revenue Code.

By-laws. A City-endorsed Foundation shall have formal by-laws which clearly state the purpose ofthe foundation and provide operational directives which assure that the foundation will satisfactorily meet the conditions ofthis policy.

Board of Directors. City employees shall not serve on the board of directors of a City-endorsed foundation. However, as appropriate, City employees may serve in an advisory capacity to the board ofdirectors.

Fiscal Provisions.

A City-endorsed foundation shall not accept fimds that simply redistribute existing community resources.

A City-endorsed foundation shall avoid competing against other local nonprofit organizations for funds that have typically gone to these other community organizations.

A City-endorsed foundation shall not undertake a general fundraising campaign. All fundraising shall be directed toward a particular defined purpose. A City-endorsed foundations primary source of fimds shall be through the solicitation of grants, donations and bequests and the conducting of special fundraising events for a particular purpose.

A City-endorsed foundation shall allocate all funds raised to the particular program, activity or facility stated to be the purpose for the fundraising. 4

RESOLUTION NO. 8862 ( 1998 Series)

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

APPROVING A COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AND FOUNDATION POLICY WHEREAS, there are many programs, projects and activities which are of interest to the City and the community, but cannot be addressed directly due to limitations on the City's human or financial resources; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has a tradition of citizen involvement in its programs, projects and activities; and
WHEREAS, City resources can be used in partnership with others to create opportunities for otherwise unfeasible projects or programs; and
WHEREAS, under certain limited conditions the City and community can also benefit from the establishment of a foundation to encourage public contributions and grant funding for specific purposes that affect City programs.

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

The City of San Luis Obispo Community Partnership and Foundation Policy found in Attachment 1 is hereby approved.

Upon motion ofCouncil Member Williams , seconded by vice Mayor Romero , and on the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members Schwartz, Romero, Williams, Mayor Settle NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Roalman
the foregoing resolution was adopted this 2 n day of nr rnh,, ' 1998.

YAao
Mayor Allen Se e
R8862 Page 33 of 378
Resolution No. 8862 ( 1998 Series)

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND

THE LAND CONSERVANCY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
This COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as the Agreement, is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on _______ by and between the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as “CITY”), and LAND CONSERVANCY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a California non-profit organization (hereinafter referred to as “LCSLO”). The CITY and LCSLO are individually referred to as a “party” or collectively as the “parties”.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the CITY and LCSLO have a long-standing public / private partnership stretching over thirty years where the two entities have engaged in mutually beneficial community projects including conservation planning efforts, land conservation projects, land and stream restoration projects; an historic preservation project; public engagement and education; and, community awareness and fundraising for one another’s projects; and

WHEREAS, select examples of such projects include the Saving Special Places conservation plans; acquisition and / or conservation easements at Maino Open Space, Stenner Springs Natural Reserve, Bowden Ranch Open Space, Froom Ranch Open Space, and, most recently, Dixon Ranch; wetland and floodplain enhancement at Filipponi Ecological Reserve, numerous fish passage improvement projects along Prefumo Creek, Stenner Creek, and San Luis Obispo Creek; ongoing invasive species treatment work and participation and support for the Octagon Barn Center and Bob Jones Pathway, among many other endeavors between CITY and LCSLO; and
WHEREAS, CITY’s 2025-27 Financial Plan feature a Major City Goal work plan for Open Space, Climate Action, and Resilience, including section 4 “Protect, sustain and advance open space and natural and historic resources” with sub-section 4. being most pertinent “Pursue priority land conservation opportunities to expand the Greenbelt, identify funding opportunities and resources, and engage with priority landowners on an annual basis”; and WHEREAS, LCSLO has set forth a request for CITY to participate in funding a currently active conservation easement project, and CITY has solicited a proposal from LCSLO for its services in providing invasives species treatments within CITY open space property; and WHEREAS, the CITY desires to maintain a mutually beneficial relationship between the CITY and LCSLO to advance open space protection and land stewardship goals; and WHEREAS, the CITY has determined that partnerships with community organizations to provide shared services to the community are of great benefit and LCSLO has expressed a willingness to continue these shared services, in partnership and in cooperation with CITY; and WHEREAS, LCSLO is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization and is uniquely qualified to provide the services contemplated under this Agreement due to its more than 40 years of experience delivering conservation planning and land protection projects, as well as its extensive experience, credentials, and professional licenses related to land restoration and invasive species treatment projects within the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. TERM. The duration of this Agreement shall be for a period of approximately three (3) years, commencing on April 21, 2026 and continuing to June 30, 2029 (the “Term”), which may be extended upon the mutual written agreement of the parties.

2. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT. Initially, the CITY and LCSLO intend to engage in certain projects relating to land protection and land restoration and invasive species treatment and in connection therewith the parties intend to implement those projects in accordance with the financial terms outlined in Section 2.1, below.

2.1 PAYMENT TO LCSLO. The CITY shall provide funding to LCSLO for certain known project efforts, described below:

A. CITY will provide matching grant funds in the amount of $65,000 for LCSLO’s Righetti-Fiscalini Ranch project. CITY and LCSLO shall enter into a separate grant agreement (the “Righetti-Fiscalini Grant Agreement”), which shall provide that the CITY’s funds will be delivered directly to an account established for the transaction upon notification from LCSLO. The terms of the Righetti-Fiscalini Grant Agreement shall be subject to the mutual written approval by the CITY and LCSLO.

B. CITY has requested LCSLO’s services for invasive species treatment work at various CITY open space properties. CITY shall issue a Purchase Order (the “City Purchase Order”) in the amount of $43,155 pursuant to LCSLO’s proposal and scope of work, which shall be incorporated into the City Purchase Order. CITY shall remit payment to LCSLO on a reimbursable basis upon receipt of periodic invoices from LCSLO in accordance with the City Purchase Order. The City Purchase Order shall be subject to the mutual written approval by the CITY and LCSLO.

3. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. The CITY’s Sustainability & Natural Resources Official may authorize minor modifications from time to time within the scope of their financial and/or operational authority, to the Roles and Responsibilities as they may deem necessary or appropriate to the partnership between the CITY and LCSLO. Any material amendment or modifications to the Roles and Responsibilities shall be upon mutual written consent of both parties, in accordance with paragraph 6, below.

A. SCOPE OF SERVICES
i. Both parties agree to collaborate on the land conservation and land restoration projects identified at paragraph 2.1, above.
ii. Both parties will consider prospective additional project opportunities as they arise during the Term of this Agreement. Any additional project opportunities that CITY and LCSLO elect to pursue together under this Agreement shall be subject to available funding and staff resources of each of the parties and would be facilitated and administered through an appropriate contractual agreement or purchasing method. Through this Agreement, it is CITY’s express intent to identify LCSLO as a preferred partner and vendor for project activities as described herein.
iii. CITY and LCSLO staff will meet and coordinate project administration and implementation on an as-needed basis.

B. CITY OBLIGATIONS
i. CITY will be available for monthly reoccurring meetings, or as needed, with LCSLO during the Term.
ii. CITY shall remit approved payments to LCSLO as outlined and in accordance with the Righetti-Fiscalini Grant Agreement and City Purchase Order described above.
iii. CITY shall provide administrative support for grant management and reporting. iv. CITY shall coordinate timing and access to CITY’s open space properties where invasive species treatments will occur.
v. CITY will coordinate with LCSLO on any press releases, media, or public communications related to the Scope of Services.

C. LCSLO OBLIGATIONS
i. LCSLO will be available for monthly reoccurring meetings, or as needed, with CITY during the Term.
ii. LCSLO will dutifully carry out the Scope of Services. iii. LCSLO shall submit requests for payment or periodic invoices to CITY as outlined and in accordance with the Righetti-Fiscalini Grant Agreement and City Purchase Order described above.
iv. LCSLO shall provide CITY with a copy of the recorded Deed of Conservation Easement upon completion of the Righetti-Fiscalini project and carry out the perpetual duties of monitoring and enforcement of the Righetti-Fiscalini conservation easement interest.
v. LCSLO shall provide notification of timing and access to CITY’s open space properties where invasive species treatments will occur. vi. LCSLO shall at all times maintain its 501(c)3 non-profit status

4. COMPLETE AGREEMENT. This written Agreement, including all writings specifically incorporated herein by reference, shall constitute the complete agreement between the parties hereto. No oral agreement, understanding or representation not reduced to writing and specifically incorporated herein shall be of any force or effect, nor shall any such oral agreement, understanding or representation be binding upon the parties hereto.

5. AGREEMENT TERMINATION. Either party may terminate the Agreement for convenience provided that 30 days written notice is given. The Agreement may be terminated by either party for cause, provided that written notice has been given in the manner specified herein stating the reasons for the intended termination and providing the other party at least 10 days to cure any alleged breach. If the party receiving notice fails or refuses to cure the alleged breach within 10 days, or to make substantial progress toward cure to the satisfaction of the party demanding cure, this Agreement may be terminated 10 days after receipt of the notice as specified herein.

6. AGREEMENT AMENDMENTS. Except as otherwise stated in Section 3 of this Agreement, any amendment, modification or variation from the terms of this Agreement shall be presented in writing by CITY and / or LCSLO and shall be effective only upon final written approval by an authorized representative of each of the parties.

7. INSURANCE AND LIABILITY
A. Each party to this Agreement shall make the other party, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers as separately additionally insured through a CG 20 26 or equivalent, blanket endorsement or section of the policy no later than October 1 of

each year. Each party agrees to provide commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00-01, in an amount not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, blanket contractual liability.

B. Each party agrees to provide a minimum liability and property damage insurance coverage of one million dollars ($1,000,000).

C. Each party shall maintain worker’s compensation insurance at a level that is consistent with state law requirements.

8. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION
A. CITY agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold LCSLO and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to LCSLO’s employees, agents, officers or volunteers, which arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of the CITY, and its agents, officers, employees or volunteers, in performing its responsibilities hereunder, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that the CITY duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of LCSLO, its agents, officers, employees or volunteers.

B. LCSLO agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the CITY and its agents, officers and employees harmless from and against any and all claims asserted or liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to the CITY employees, agents, officers or volunteers, which arise from or are connected with or are caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omissions of LCSLO, and its agents, officers, employees or volunteers, in performing its responsibilities hereunder, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; provided, however, that LCSLO’s duty to indemnify and hold harmless shall not include any claims or liability arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY, its agents, officers, employees or volunteers

9. NOTICE. All written notices to the parties hereto shall be sent by USPS Mail, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail addressed as follows:

CITY: City Manager
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St.

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
LCSLO: Executive Director
Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
1137 Pacific Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Notices given pursuant to this section shall be deemed effective five (5) calendar days after deposit with USPS Mail. Either party may change its address for notices from time to time by giving written notice of such change in accordance with this section.

11. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT. Both CITY and LCSLO do covenant that each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of each party is a person duly authorized and empowered to execute agreements for their party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be executed the day and year first above written.

ATTEST: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:
________________________________ ________________________________ Teresa Purrington Erica Stewart
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: LAND CONSERVANCY SAN LUIS OBISPO
COUNTY:
________________________________
J. Christine Dietrick Kaila Adriane Dettman Hooker
City Attorney Executive Director

GRANT AGREEMENT FOR

RIGHETTI FISCALINI RANCH

CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACQUISITION
THIS Grant Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made on ___________________________ by the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (“CITY”) and THE LAND CONSERVANCY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY (“LAND CONSERVANCY”) who are collectively referred to as the “Parties”.

RECITALS
WHEREAS, LAND CONSERVANCY has reached an agreement with the Righetti Family to acquire a Conservation Easement interest (the “Conservation Easement”) in land commonly known as the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch, thereby ensuring the preservation of approximately two-hundred acres of real property (the “Property”) located within CITY’s established Greenbelt boundary, which Property is identified as San Luis Obispo County Assessor Parcel Number 044-051-028; and WHEREAS, both CITY and LAND CONSERVANCY desire to ensure the preservation of the Property consistent with goals and policies set forth in CITY’s Conservation and Open Space Element of its General Plan pertaining to protection of wildlife corridors and contiguous habitat, as well as to protect the scenic, open space, and agricultural values of the Property in perpetuity; and
WHEREAS, the appraised value for the Conservation Easement is $2,390,000.00 pursuant to a qualified independent appraisal; and
WHEREAS, CITY, in consideration of a request from LAND CONSERVANCY, and of the Parties’ mutual goals and long-standing partnership in land conservation, desires to make a grant in the amount of $65,000.00 towards the purchase price of the Conservation Easement; and
WHEREAS, LAND CONSERVANCY has secured a primary grant from the State of California Department of Conservation’s Sustainable Agriculture Land Conservation Program, as well as other private donations, that will provide the remaining funds needed to complete the transaction and provide for the long-term monitoring and stewardship of the Conservation Easement; and
WHEREAS, LAND CONSERVANCY will enter into to the Conservation Easement subject to certain contractual requirements by the State of California Department of Conservation that include various protective measures to ensure that the purposes of public expenditures of funds are adhered to and carried out in perpetuity; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises herein and the mutual benefits accruing to the Parties, and to the general public from the acquisition of the Conservation Easement exclusively for conservation purposes as contemplated herein, CITY and LAND CONSERVANCY hereby agree as follows:

A. The Recitals herein are incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement.

B. CITY shall make a grant of funds to LAND CONSERVANCY in the amount of $65,000.00 which shall be deposited to an escrow account at First American Title Company that has been established for the benefit of this transaction, upon LAND CONSERVANCY’s written request made at least 14 days in advance to do so.

C. CITY’s funds shall only be used if, and only if, all other funds are deposited to escrow and the Conservation Easement Deed that will encumber the Property is duly executed, notarized, and recorded with the San Luis Obispo County Clerk / Recorder. If the transaction is substantially delayed or does not take place for any reason whatsoever, then LAND CONSERVANCY shall cause First American Title Company to promptly return the funds to CITY.

D. LAND CONSERVANCY, or its successors and assigns, shall hold all right, privilege and interests accruing from ownership of the Conservation Easement in perpetuity.

STANDARD PROVISIONS

1. Amendments
CITY and LAND CONSERVANCY may amend this Agreement at any time provided that such amendments make specific reference to this Agreement, and are executed in writing, signed by a duly authorized representative of each organization, and approved by the City Manager. Such amendments will not invalidate this Agreement, nor relieve or release the CITY or LAND CONSERVANCY from its obligations under this Agreement, except as expressly provided in writing in any subsequent amendments.

2. Financial Assurance
CITY reserves the right to request copies of invoices, account statements, or audits of LAND CONSERVANCY’s financial records pertinent to this Agreement. LAND CONSERVANCY shall at all times maintain its 501(c)3 non-profit status.

3. Civil Rights
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, no person will, on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, sex or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.

Section 109 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 No person in the United States will on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, sex or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this title.

Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as Amended
No person will be excluded from participation, denied program benefits, or subjected to discrimination on the basis of age under any program or activity receiving federal funding assistance. (42 U.S.C. 610 et. seq.)
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as Amended No otherwise qualified individual will, solely by reason or his or her disability, be excluded from participation (including employment), denied program benefits, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal funds. (29 U.S.C. 794)
Public Law 101-336, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Subject to the provisions of this title, no qualified individual with a disability will, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.

4. Assignability
LAND CONSERVANCY will not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City.

5. Conflict of Interest
No member of the CITY’s governing body and no other public official of such locality, who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection with the planning or carrying out of the project, will have any personal financial interest, direct or indirect, in this agreement; and LAND CONSERVANCY will take appropriate steps to assure compliance.

LAND CONSERVANCY agrees to abide by the provisions of 24 CFR 84.42 and 570.611, which includes maintaining a written code or standards of conduct that will govern the performance of its officers, employees or agents engaged in the award and administration of contracts supported by Federal funds.

6. Severability
If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement will not be affected thereby, and all other parts of this Agreement will nevertheless be in full force and effect.

7. Entire Agreement
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between CITY and LAND CONSERVANCY for the use of funds received under this Agreement and it supersedes all prior communications and proposals, whether electronic, oral, or written between City and LAND CONSERVANCY with respect to this Agreement.

8. No Agency or Employment
LAND CONSERVANCY is solely responsible for the conduct of its activities in association with this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement creates a formal partnership, agency, joint venture, employment, or any other type of relationship. LAND CONSERVANCY shall not represent itself as an agent of CITY for any purpose and has

no authority to bind the CITY in any manner whatsoever. LAND CONSERVANCY and all of its agents, representatives, or participants in any manner in the performance of its obligations and duties hereunder, shall be employees, independent contractors, or volunteers solely of LAND CONSERVANCY. They shall not for any purpose be considered employees or agents of the CITY.

9. Indemnification
LAND CONSERVANCY agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless CITY and its officers, directors, affiliates, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses and expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees) directly, indirectly, wholly or partially arising from or in connection with any act or omission of LAND CONSERVANCY, its employees or agents, in accepting the funds, in expending or applying funds, or in carrying out the project as set forth.

CITY agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless LAND CONSERVANCY its officers, directors, affiliates, employees, and agents, from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses and expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees) directly, indirectly, wholly or partially arising from or in connection with any act or omission of CITY, its employees or agents, in expending or applying funds, or in carrying out the project as set forth.

10. Termination
The CITY or LAND CONSERVANCY may initiate termination of this Agreement in the event of a substantial breach of the terms of this Agreement, or in the event of gross negligence, upon ten (10) days written notice to the other Party. Said termination shall be effective thirty (30) days after receipt by certified mail of a notice of termination to the other Party.

11. Compliance with Human Relations Commission “By Laws” LAND CONSERVANCY hereby certifies and agrees that it will comply with the Human Relations Commission’s “Bylaws” which creates 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.

12. Notices
For purposes of notice under this agreement, all notices shall be considered effective upon being sent by certified mail to the following addresses:

To CITY:

City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: City Manager

To LAND CONSERVANCY:

The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County
1137 Pacific Street, Suite A
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Executive Director

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed the foregoing as of the date year first above written.

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO:

By: ________________________________ Date:_____________________ Whitney McDonald, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By:_________________________________ Date:_____________________ J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
THE LAND CONSERVANCY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY:

By:_________________________________ Date:______________________ Kaila Dettman, Executive Director

March 30, 2026
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Mayor Stewart and City Council
Via: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
Bob Hill, Sustainability & Natural Resources Official
RE: Righetti Fiscalini Ranch Conservation Easement
Dear Mayor Stewart and City Council,
The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County (“The Land Conservancy”) respectfully requests the City Council’s consideration of a $65,000 contribution to help fund a conservation easement on the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch, located on Orcutt Road south of San Luis Obispo in the scenic greenbelt surrounding the City of San Luis Obispo (“City”). A conservation easement on this ranch will permanently protect a suite of scenic, agricultural, and environmental conservation values.

Project Overview
The Righetti Fiscalini Ranch conservation easement project will protect 199 acres within the City’s Greenbelt. The property is situated within Edna Valley’s complex of long-standing agricultural lands, including the adjacent Dixon Ranch which was protected by The Land Conservancy in 2023 with modest matching funding from the City. The Righetti Fiscalini Ranch is a prominent part of the southern San Luis Obispo Greenbelt and is visible from many City vantage points and open space areas. Two seasonal streams converge on the ranch which ultimately feed into San Luis Obispo Creek. Wildlife including black bear and various raptor species are frequently observed on the property. The ranch’s current agricultural uses include approximately 91 acres of avocado orchard and 55 acres of vineyard.

The proposed conservation easement will permanently protect these scenic, environmental, and agricultural conservation values by restricting development to one potential future single residence within a defined building envelope. Additional restrictions will prohibit future subdivision, intensive nonagricultural land uses, activities that lead to soil erosion, unnecessary removal of native vegetation, and other perpetual land use restrictions. These restrictions will ensure the conservation values of the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch are protected in perpetuity.

Support for City Goals
Protecting the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch will address multiple City policy goals. The City’s 2025-2027 Financial Plan identifies pursuit of land conservation opportunities to improve the Greenbelt as an ongoing priority to achieve their Open Space, Climate Action, and Resilience goal of sustaining and advancing open space and natural resources. Additionally, the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan states that open space and productive agricultural land within the Greenbelt should be protected and maintained to preserve the City’s charm and character. The Righetti Fiscalini

Ranch conservation easement will directly support these goals by protecting 199 acres of highly scenic and productive agricultural land from development within the City’s Greenbelt.

The permanent protection of the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch also aligns with the sustainability and healthy community policies identified in the Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan in two important ways.

First, the conservation easement will support the City’s efforts to maintain and expand natural areas surrounding the city to foster carbon sequestration. The natural and agricultural land cover on the property will continue to absorb and store atmospheric carbon for generations to come. Second, the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch provides significant contributions to the City’s goal of supporting local food systems, including produce grown on the ranch, which are a local favorite at farmers’ markets and co-ops.

Finally, the City’s participation in the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch conservation easement acquisition would add to the long history of successful conservation partnerships between the City and The Land Conservancy. Multiple Greenbelt, open space, wildlife habitat, and riparian protection projects have been completed through this partnership including Bowden Ranch, Stenner Springs, Maino Open Space, Guidetti Ranch, and Dixon Ranch among many other conservation and ecosystem restoration projects in the greater City region.

Funding, Timeline, and Long-Term Stewardship
City funding toward this conservation easement will be heavily leveraged by the California Department of Conservation’s Sustainable Agricultural Lands Conservation Program ($2,125,000) and the John S.

Kiewit Memorial Foundation Grant ($200,000). These two match funding sources amount to 97% of the appraised conservation easement value of $2,390,000. This easement would be fully funded and able to close in fall 2026 should the City choose to grant the final $65,000 gap.

Once acquired, the conservation easement will be held and stewarded by The Land Conservancy. The permanent conservation of the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch will be realized through a perpetual commitment to annual monitoring of the easement and, if required, enforcement of easement terms. Funding for this perpetual stewardship commitment will be donated by the landowner at the time of close and will be held in The Land Conservancy’s dedicated Easement Stewardship and Defense account.

Thank you for your consideration of this funding request to protect a key property within the City Greenbelt. Maps and photos of the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch have been included below. Please contact Kyle Walsh, Conservation Director at 805-544-9096 or [email protected] with any questions or for additional information.

Sincerely,
Kyle Walsh
Conservation Director

Photos of the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch
Figure 1. Coyote seen roaming through the grassland at the Righetti Fiscalini Ranch.

Figure 2. Stream channel which connects to San Luis Obispo Creek, shown adjacent to serpentine rock outcrop.

Figure 2. Avocado orchard with Cerro San Luis and Bishop Peak City Open Spaces in the background.

Figure 1. One of several owl boxes located throughout the property. Avocado orchard shown in the background.

Item 6d
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: 4/21/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Eva Wynn, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: APPROVE A MILLS ACT CONTRACT FOR LANDMARK PROPERTY AT 1421 GARDEN STREET

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a draft resolution entitled “Resolution of the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, approving a Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City and the Owners of the Meredith House at 1421 Garden Street (Application No. HIST0681-2025),” 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 of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan, particularly Program 3.6.2, regarding participation in financial incentive programs to encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties, and also with the purpose of encouraging private stewardship of historic buildings through incentives, as provided by Section 14.01.010 (B)(3) of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.

DISCUSSION
The owners of the Meredith
House at 1421 Garden Street
submitted an application on
September 15, 2025, to enter
into a Mills Act historic
property preservation contract
with the City (see Draft
Agreement, Attachment A).

The property is located on the
southwest side of Garden
Street, about 100 feet south of
Pismo Street, in the Old Town
Historic District, one of the
Figure 1: Meredith House (1421 Garden St)

Item 6d
City’s oldest residential neighborhoods, built up historically around the turn of the twentieth century, with older structures dating back to the 1880s.

The subject house, built in 1883, embodies the Swiss Revival/Heimatstil style and was included in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Master List1 property (Landmark) by Resolution No. 11365 (2022). It was found to satisfy historic significance evaluation criteria for Architecture and Persons, and was found to retain a high degree of integrity to communicate its significance. The residence was designated a Landmark for its association with David Milton Meredith, an early San Luis Obispo leader who influenced the city's development in education, finance, and religion; and for its embodiment of the Swiss Revival/Heimatstil style, as concluded by the application and historic evaluation prepared by James Papp, PhD. It is the earliest documented of the city’s Swiss Revival resources. More information regarding the historic significance of the Meredith House can be found in the staff report prepared for the Master List (Landmark) designation application from 2022.

The Mills Act Program
It is the City’s policy that significant historic resources be rehabilitated and preserved (COSE § 3.3.1). The Mills Act Program is a property tax reduction program for protection of cultural resources that encourages their maintenance and restoration (COSE § 3.6.2 of the General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element). Participation in the program is limited to Landmark resources; resources that are of the greatest importance at the local, regional, state, or national level in terms of age, architectural or historical significance, rarity, or association with important persons or events in the City’s past, that meet one or more of the criteria outlined in Section 14.01.060 and that retain a high degree of integrity (HPO § 14.01.050 (A)(1)). Currently, there are 67 properties participating in the program, with the last request (for the Vollmer House at 1116 Pismo St) approved by the Council on June 3, 2025. The City and owners of a Landmark enter into a historical property contract under which the owners agree to restore, maintain, and protect the property in accordance with historical preservation standards. Owners may qualify for property tax relief, potentially realizing tax savings of between 40% and 60% per year. A Mills Act Contract has a minimum term of ten years, and is extended annually for an additional year, unless, after the initial term, either the City or the owner, by written notice, decides not to renew the contract.

As described in the applicant’s request letter (Attachment C), several renovations and maintenance items are planned to be completed within the life of the contract:
 spot maintenance of the recent exterior painting
 repair of porch and other areas of rotting wood
 window upgrades to historic standards

1 Master List and Contributing List Resources – The Historic Preservation Ordinance ( §14.01) was updated by Council Ordinance No. 1753 (2025 Series) which included changes to naming conventions for Historic Resources. The updated ordinance was introduced December 2, 2025 and adopted January 13, 2026 (effective February 13, 2026).

Item 6d
 repair of incorrectly installed drains
 new roof shingles toward the end of their lifespan in the next ten years Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On February 23, 2026, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed this application for participation in the Mills Act Historic Preservation Program, along with the terms of the draft preservation contract, and, by a vote of 6-0 (one seat is vacant), recommended that the City Council approve the historic property preservation contract.

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 February 23, 2026.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Entering into a “Mills Act Contract” with the owners of historical property is not subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines § 15378 (Definitions – Project). Implementation of the Mills Act is a government fiscal activity which does not involve commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15378 (b)(4)).

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

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

Total $ $0 $ $0
After the Mills Act contract is recorded, the County Assessor values the property by an income capitalization method, following guidelines provided by the State Board of Equalization. Because of the timing and the method of valuing the restricted property, it

Item 6d
is difficult to accurately estimate the tax savings and resulting fiscal impacts to the City under a particular historical property contract. However, a recent summary provided by the County Assessor indicated that the total reduction in annual tax revenue to the City amounted to approximately $67,000 for a total of 65 properties on Mills Act contracts at the time, or about $1,000 per property.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Decline to enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the property owner. Denying the request to enter into a Mills Act contract would make unavailable an effective incentive for the historic property’s long-term preservation. The Mills Act Program is a financial assistance program identified in the General Plan for encouraging maintenance and restoration of historic properties.

2. Continue consideration of the request to a future date for additional information or discussion. If the Council wishes to continue consideration of this item to a future date, staff requests that the Council identify the information that should be provided for discussion at the future meeting.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution approving a Mills Act Contract for 1421 Garden St B - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement (HIST-0681-2025) C - Applicant Request Letter

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2026 SERIES)

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

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A HISTORIC PROPERTY

PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE
OWNERS OF THE MEREDITH HOUSE AT 1421 GARDEN STREET
(APPLICATION NO. HIST -0681-2025)
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo is authorized by California Government Code Section 50280 et seq. (known as “the Mills Act”) to enter into contracts with the owners of qualified historical properties to provide for appropriate use, maintenance, and rehabilitation such that these historic properties retain their historic characteristics; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 9136 (2000 Series), establishing the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program as an ongoing historic preservation program to promote the preservation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of historic resources through financial incentives; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo designated 1421 Garden Street, described as the Meredith House, as a Landmark of the City of San Luis Obispo on October 4, 2022, by adoption of Resolution No. 11365, pursuant to the policies in the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines; WHEREAS, Beau and Jennifer Narragon are the owners of that certain qualified real property, together with associated structures and improvement thereon, located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 003-533-011, located at 1421 Garden Street, in the City of San Luis Obispo, California, also described as The Meredith House; and WHEREAS, the City and Owners, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into an agreement to limit the use of the property to prevent inappropriate alterations and to ensure that character-defining features are preserved and maintained in an exemplary manner, and repairs and improvements are completed as necessary to carry out the purposes of California Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Sec. 50280 et seq., and to qualify for an assessment of valuation pursuant to Article

1.9, Sec. 439 et. seq. of the Revenue and Taxation Code; and WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on February 23, 2026, for the purpose of reviewing the proposed historic property preservation agreement, and recommended that the City enter into the agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public meeting in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on April 21, 2026, for the purpose of considering approval of the historic property preservation agreement, and has

Resolution No. _____ (2026 Series) Page 2
R ______
duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation and the evaluation and recommendation by staff ; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings and meetings were made at the time and in the manner required by law.

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) Conservation and Open Space Element Program 3.6.2 states that the City will participate in financial assistance programs such as property tax reduction programs that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic properties. b) The Meredith House, located at 1421 Garden Street, has been recognized as a historic asset in the community by its designation as a Landmark by the City Council on October 4, 2022 (Resolution No. 11365). As such, maintaining the structure will meet the City’s goals for historic preservation listed in policies

3.3.1 through 3.3.5 of the Conservation and Open Space Element.

SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The City Council has determined that the above actions do not constitute a project, as defined in California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines § 15378, and are not subject to environmental review.

SECTION 3. Historic Property Preservation Agreement Approved. The City Council hereby approves the “Historic Property Preservation Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Owners of the Historic Property Located at 1116 Pismo Street,” to be entered into by the City and the property owners, Christopher David Frago and Heidi A. Howland-Frago, attached hereto as “Exhibit A.” SECTION 4. Community Development Director Authorized to Sign Agreement for City. The City Council hereby authorizes the Community Development Director to execute said agreement on behalf of the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo.

SECTION 5. Recordation of the Agreement. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties enter into said agreement, the City Clerk shall cause the agreement to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Resolution No. _____ (2026 Series) Page 3
R ______
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _______________ 2026. ___________________________
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

Attachment C – Draft Historic Preservation Agreement (HIST-0681-2025)

HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNER OF THE HISTORIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1421 GARDEN STREET, IN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this________ day of ________ , 2026, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), and Beau J. Narragon and Jennifer Narragon, Trustees of The JBCH Family Trust (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”), and collectively referred to as the “parties.” WHEREAS, Owners are the owners of that certain real property commonly known as 1421 Garden Street (APN 003-533-011), and legally described as shown in the attached “Exhibit B” (“Owners’ Property”); and
WHEREAS, Owners have agreed to enter into a Historical Property Contract with the City for the preservation, maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of Owners’ Property, a historic resource within the City;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and in further consideration of the mutual benefits, promises, and agreements set out herein, the parties agree as follows:

Section 1. Description of Preservation Measures. The Owner, their heirs, or assigns hereby agree to undertake and complete, at their expense, the preservation, maintenance, and improvements measures described in “Exhibit A” attached hereto.

Section 2. Effective Date and Term of Agreement. This agreement shall be effective and commence upon recordation and shall remain in effect for an initial term of ten (10) years thereafter. Each year upon the anniversary of the agreement’s effective date, such initial term will automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Section 50280 through 50290 and in Section 3, below.

Section 3. Agreement Renewal and Non-renewal.
a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this agreement (hereinafter referred to as “annual renewal date”), a year shall automatically be added to the initial term of this agreement unless written notice of nonrenewal is served as provided herein.
b. If the Owner or the City desires in any year not to renew the agreement, the Owner or the City shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the agreement on the other party. Unless such notice is served by the Owner to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of the agreement as provided herein.

Historic Preservation Agreement
1421 Garden Street

c. The Owner may make a written protest of the notice. The City may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date, withdraw its notice to the Owner of nonrenewal. d. If either the City or the Owner serves notice to the other party of nonrenewal in any year, the agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining.

Section 4. Standards and Conditions. During the term of this agreement, the historic property shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. Owner agrees to preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate the building and its character-defining features, including: the building’s general architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of windows, doors, and other openings; interior architectural elements that are integral to the building’s historic character or significance; exterior materials, coatings, textures, details, mass, roof line, porch, and other aspects of the appearance of the building’s exterior, as described in Exhibit A, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or his designee.
b. All building changes shall comply with applicable City specific plans, City regulations and guidelines, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. Interior remodeling shall retain original, character-defining architectural features such as oak and mahogany details, pillars and arches, special tile work, or architectural ornamentation to the greatest extent possible.
c. The Community Development Director shall be notified by the Owner of changes to character-defining exterior features prior to their execution, such as major landscaping projects and tree removals, exterior door or window replacement, repainting, remodeling, or other exterior alterations requiring a building permit.

The Owner agrees to secure all necessary City approvals and/or permits prior to changing the building’s use or commencing construction work. d. Owner agrees that property tax savings resulting from this agreement shall be used for property maintenance and improvements as described in Exhibit A. e. The following are prohibited: demolition or partial demolition of the historic building; exterior alterations or additions not in keeping with the standards listed above; dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs, doors, walls, windows; outdoor storage of junk, trash, debris, appliances, or furniture visible from a public way; or any device, decoration, structure, or vegetation which is unsightly due to lack of maintenance or because such feature adversely affects, or is visually incompatible with, the property’s recognized

Historic Preservation Agreement
1421 Garden Street

historic character, significance, and design as determined by the Community Development Director.
f. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the interior and exterior of the historic property by representatives of the County Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of Equalization, and the City as may be necessary to determine the owners’ compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement.

Section 5. Furnishing of Information. The Owner hereby agrees to furnish any and all information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this agreement.

Section 6. Cancellation.
a. The City, following a duly-noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth in Government Code Section 50285, may cancel this agreement if it determines that the Owner has breached any of the conditions of this agreement or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historic property; or if the City determines that the Owner has failed to preserve, maintain, or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in Section 4 of this agreement. If a contract is cancelled because of failure of the Owner to preserve, maintain, and rehabilitate the historic property as specified above, the Owner shall pay a cancellation fee to the State Controller as set forth in Government Code Section 50286, which states that the fee shall be 12 ½% of the full value of the property at the time of cancellation without regard to any restriction imposed with this agreement.
b. If the historic building is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of the agreement, the agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government Code Section 50288.

Section 7. Enforcement of Agreement.
a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the agreement as referenced herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of the agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel the agreement by the Owner, the City shall give written notice of violation to the Owner by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this agreement. If such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter; or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default of said breach; or if the default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced within thirty (30) days and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by the Owner);

Historic Preservation Agreement
1421 Garden Street

then the City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of the Owner growing out of the terms of this agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by the owners or apply for such relief as may be appropriate.
b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owner if the City does not enforce or cancel this agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this agreement or in the City’s regulations governing historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach or default under this agreement. No waiver by the City of any breach or default under this agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default herein under.
c. By mutual agreement, City and Owner may enter into mediation or binding arbitration to resolve disputes or grievances growing out of this contract.

Section 8. Binding Effect of Agreement. The Owner hereby subjects the historic building located at 1421 Garden St, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessors Parcel Number 003-533-011, to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this agreement. The City and Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner’s successors and assigns in title or interest to the historic property. Every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the historic property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions expressed in this agreement regardless of whether such covenants, restrictions, and reservations are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument.

Section 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this agreement shall be sent to the address of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later specified by the parties hereto.

To City: Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To Owner: Beau and Jennifer Narragon
1421 Garden St
San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401
Section 10. General Provisions.
a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or

Historic Preservation Agreement
1421 Garden Street

assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise.
b. The Owner agrees to hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or from claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or activities of the Owner, or from those of their contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee, or other person acting on the Owner’s behalf which relates to the use, operation, maintenance, or improvement of the historic property. The Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees with respect to any and all claims or actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, reason of the Owner’s activities in connection with the historic property, excepting however any such claims or actions which are the result of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of City, its officers, agents, or employees. c. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason of the operations referred to in this agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications, or other documents for the historic property.
d. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the historic property, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever.
e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney’s fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court. f. In the event that any of the provisions of this agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be affected thereby.
g. This agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

Section 11. Amendments. This agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.

Historic Preservation Agreement
1421 Garden Street

Section 12. Recordation and Fees. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties enter into this agreement, the City shall cause this agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo. Participation in the program shall be at no cost to the Owner; however the City may charge reasonable and necessary fees to recover direct costs of executing, recording, and administering the historical property contracts.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owner have executed this agreement on the day and year written above.

OWNERS
____________________________________ ______________________________ Beau J. Narragon Date
____________________________________ ______________________________ Jennifer Narragon Date

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
____________________________________ ______________________________ Tyler Corey, Deputy Director Date
For: Timothea Tway
Community Development Director
Pursuant to authority conferred under by Resolution No XXXX ATTEST:
______________________________
Theresa Purrington, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Christine Dietrick, City Attorney

ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED

Historic Preservation Agreement
1421 Garden Street

EXHIBIT A

MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR THE MEREDITH HOUSE LOCATED AT 1421 GARDEN STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA Owner shall preserve, maintain, and repair the historic building, including its character-defining architectural features in good condition, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director or designee, pursuant to a Mills Act Preservation Contract with the City of San Luis Obispo for property located at 1421 Garden Street. Character-defining features shall include, but are not limited to: roof, eaves, dormers, trim, porches, walls and siding, architectural detailing, doors and windows, window screens and shutters, balustrades and railings, foundations, and surface treatments.

Owner agrees to make the following improvements and/or repairs during the term of this contract but in no case later than ten (10) years from the contract date. All changes or repairs shall be consistent with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties:
 spot maintenance of the recent exterior painting
 repair of porch and other areas of rotting wood
 window upgrades to historic standards
 repair of incorrectly installed drains
 new roof shingles toward the end of their lifespan in the next ten years

Historic Preservation Agreement
1421 Garden Street

EXHIBIT B
Legal Description
For APN/Parcel ID(s): 003-533-011
TO BE INCLUDED IN FINAL CONTRACT AGREEMENT.

APN: 003-533-011

Historic Preservation Agreement
1421 Garden Street

State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On ________________, before me ________________________________________ , Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, ___________________________________________________ , Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature _____________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above
State of California }
County of San Luis Obispo }
On ________________, before me ________________________________________ , Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared, ___________________________________________________ , Name of Signer(s)
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature _____________________________
Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above

D. M. and Carrie Proper Meredith House
1421 Garden Street
Mills Act Application
The D. M. and Carrie Proper Meredith House was added to San Luis Obispo’s Master List of Historic Properties in 2023 for association with early San Luis Obispo City and County leader in education and finance D. M. Meredith and for embodiment of the Swiss Revival/Heimatstil style, at 1883 the earliest documented of the city’s Swiss Revival resources, which include the Master List Snyder House (by 1886) and Angel and Greenfield Houses (circa 1890) and, of course, Madonna Inn, designed in 1957 and built over the ensuing decade.

The owners of the Meredith House, Beau and Jennifer Narragon, are applying for Mills Act tax abatement, innovated by State Senator Jim Mills and voted in referendum by the citizens of California in 1976 to assist owners of historic buildings with the additional expenses of preservation. The program reduces property taxes on a formula set by the county, while the city mandates a contract to ensure that the historic resource is properly maintained. The undertaking for the Meredith House focuses on maintenance of the historic structure and fabric of the house against water damage, including
• spot maintenance of the recent exterior painting
• repair of porch and other areas of rotting wood
• window upgrades to historic standards
• repair of incorrectly installed drains
• new roof shingles toward the end of their lifespan in the next ten years Following precedent of the Cultural Heritage Committee, these expenses relate to maintenance of the historic structure itself and not to ancillary aspects of the property.

James Papp, PhD, Historian and Architectural Historian, City and County of San Luis Obispo 964 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | [email protected] 805-470-0983
Submitted 26 August 2025 on behalf of Beau and Jennifer Narragon, 1421 Garden Street Attachment C - Applicaiton Request Letter

Item 6e
Department: Community Development
Cost Center: 4003
For Agenda of: 4/21/2025
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Timmi Tway, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Eva Wynn, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF APPLICATION TO DESIGNATE 571 PISMO STREET AS A

HISTORIC LANDMARK

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a draft resolution entitled “Resolution by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, designating the Property Located at 571 Pismo Street as a Landmark Historic Resource, called the George and Cordelia McCabe House (Application No. HIST -0944-2025),” as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee.

POLICY CONTEXT
The recommended action on this item is supported by historical preservation policies in Section 3.0 (Cultural Heritage) of the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan, including COSE Policy 3.3.1, Historic preservation which provides that significant historic and architectural resources should be identified, preserved and rehabilitated. The recommended action is consistent with procedures and standards for listing of historic resources provided in the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance §14.01.

DISCUSSION
Background
The property owners of 571 Pismo St, represented by James Papp, have requested that the property at 571 Pismo Street be designated as a Landmark in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources (previously called Master List1 Resource), as the George and Cordelia McCabe House. The property is currently a listed Local Register Resource (previously called Contributing1). The applicant has provided an evaluation of the property and its eligibility for Landmark status (Attachment B), prepared by James Papp, PhD, Historian and Architectural Historian.

1 Master List and Contributing List Resources – The Historic Preservation Ordinance ( §14.01) was updated by Council Ordinance No. 1753 (2025 Series) which included changes to naming conventions for Historic Resources. The updated ordinance was introduced December 2, 2025 and adopted January 13, 2026 (effective February 13, 2026).

Item 6e
Figure 1 - McCabe House circa 2025
571 Pismo Street is located within the Old Town Historic District between two Landmarks, the Patton House at 1407 Nipomo St and the Biddle House at 559 Pismo St. The Old Town Historic District was created to encompass one of the oldest residential neighborhoods and most of the development was done around the turn of the 20th century. The high concentration of 100-year-old or older residences establishes predominant architectural and visual character of the District, with many examples of High Victorian architecture, 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 (Historic Preservation Program Guidelines § 5.2.1).

The residence at 571 Pismo was built in or prior to 1891, as evidenced by the December 1891 Sanborn Map of San Luis Obispo (Attachment B, pp 6.). George and Cordelia McCabe owned the house until 1902 when the property was transferred to S. T. Coiner from whom it changed hands several times in the 20th century. The residence was built in the Eastlake style and the property is currently on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, the property was listed as a Contributing Resource in 1983 and is now recognized as a Local Register Resource under the updated Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), adopted in 2026. The submitted application (Attachment B) expands on the architectural style of the residence and how it was influenced over the years. The response to staff’s questions (Attachment C) further elaborates why the resource embodies Eastlake architecture, opposed to Colonial/Queen Anne, and discusses how the remaining original features enable the structure to communicate its significance. The notable features that communicate the style of the residence include the single-story double bay-front Eastlake cottage with sitting porch and the pierced column portico. The application describes both features as rare, and potentially the last example of pierced columns on the Central Coast, or even in the state. The original design of the residence is traceable to a photo from 1895 or 1896 (Figure 2).

A Landmark resource, defined in the HPO § 14.01.020.28, is the “highest level of individual local designation and may be applied to a historic resource that has been found significant at the local, state, or national level.” In order to be eligible for designation, a Figure 2 - McCabe House circa 1895 or 1896

Item 6e
Landmark shall be at least fifty years old, demonstrate significance under at least one of the criteria outlined in §14.01.060, and retain a high degree of integrity. The designation is reserved to those properties that are of the greatest importance at the local, regional, state, or national levels.

Pursuant to §14.01.070 of the City’s HPO, the City Council, with a recommendation from the CHC, shall take an action on the application to designate or not designate the property as a Landmark.

Evaluation of Eligibility
In the City of San Luis Obispo, historic resources must meet at least one criterion set forth in §14.01.060 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance to be eligible for inclusion on the Inventory of Historic Resources and retain a sufficient or high level of integrity, depending on the designation type as Local Register or Landmark. The significance criteria in §14.01.060 include Events, Persons, Architecture, and Information Potential.

Architecture. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an architect or design professional of merit or possesses high artistic values.

The historic evaluation describes that the McCabe House meets the architectural criterion as a unique example of a late 19th century double-bay-front Eastlake cottage with a sitting porch framed by pierced columns of extreme rarity. Distinct characteristics include the character defining Eastlake square bays, including “the five sash windows on each, the panels below and above the windows, and the vertical edge-molding of each bay,” and porch between the bays (pg. 53). The pierced-column portico is described as a rare and delicate feature, which is rarely retained on surviving buildings (Attachment B, pg. 47).

Information Potential: It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

The evaluation states that “the pierced columns on the McCabe House are likely the last used on the Central Coast and possibly California, are exceedingly rare or possibly unique examples of capital-free Eastlake pierced columns and are likely to yield information important in architectural history” (Attachment B, pg. 46). The form is described as the “last use of the pierced-column portico in the region (pg. 2).

The request to list the property at 571 Pismo St as a Landmark is based on the architectural criterion of designation and asserts that the pierced columns are likely to yield information important in architectural history. The application indicates the property is not significant for its association with Events, or Persons. Based on the property’s current designation as a Local Register Resource and supported by the submitted application, the subject property meets at least one criterion set forth in §14.01.060 of the HPO.

Item 6e
Evaluation of Integrity
Architectural or historical integrity is “the ability of a historic resource to convey its significance, typically evidenced by the retention of attributes that existed during a resource’s period of significance and including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” (§14.01.020 (26)). To be designated a historic Landmark, the resource must retain a high degree of integrity to convey its significance and be of the greatest importance at the local, regional, state, or national level.

The submitted evaluation provides a detailed analysis of integrity, identifying the features that enable the structure to retain and communicate its historic significance. The evaluation explains that the removal or replacement of some character defining features, such as the change to the roof line and removal of some façade detailing, are a loss to the residence but do not inhibit the structure from communicating its significance and architectural style. The evaluation concludes that the residence retains a degree of integrity necessary to communicate its significance, evidenced by the retention of character-defining features such as the Eastlake façade, rare pierced columns, and square bay windows.

Conclusion
The submitted application requests the property’s inclusion in the Inventory as a Landmark for its embodiment of a rare double-bay-fronted Eastlake cottage with pierced column portico. The evaluation provides important background on the property and confirms the property’s eligibility for listing under the significance criteria in §14.01.060.

The evaluation affirms the property qualifies for individual listing under the HPO, as updated in 2026, and provides evidence supporting the request to elevate the property’s status to Landmark.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action
On February 23, 2026, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) considered this request and, by a vote of 4-2 (one seat is vacant), recommended that the City Council designate the property as a Landmark in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. The recommendation is based on the findings that the McCabe House is significant because of its distinct architecture and potential to yield information important to the architectural history of the city; and retains a high level of integrity to communicate its significance as a rare, local example of a single-story double bay-front Eastlake cottage with sitting porch and the pierced column portico. For these reasons, the McCabe House is of the greatest importance in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources. During deliberation, Committee Member Blakely brought up concerns regarding the level of integrity and expressed that the alteration to roofline and loss of façade features limit the property’s ability to meet the integrity standard for a Landmark resource under the HPO. The majority of committee members expressed that the essential elements to communicate the property’s significance are retained to the level required for the Landmark designation, and rarity of those elements (i.e. pierced columns, original windows, window bays, etc.) further justify

Item 6e
elevating the property’s historic designation to Landmark. The motion to recommend City Council approve the Landmark request was passed on a 4-2 vote (Committee Chair Tischler and Members Ashbaugh, Arrona, and Gray voting yes; Members Blakely and Simon voting no).

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 February 23, 2026.

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:

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

Total $ $ $ $
Adding the property to the Inventory of Historic Resources will have no fiscal impacts.

Historic designation of property itself has no bearing on City fiscal resources. As a Landmark, however, the 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 of the properties be proposed for participation in the Mills Act Program.

ALTERNATIVES

Item 6e

1. Decline to designate the property as a Landmark in the Inventory of Historic Resources. This decision would require Council to adopt a resolution with the findings that the property is not considered to be sufficiently important or does not retain a high degree of integrity, to justify elevating the property to Landmark status. If the property is not elevated to Landmark status, the property would remain in the Inventory as a Local Register 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 designated as a Landmark.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Resolution designating 571 Pismo St as a Landmark in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources
B - Historic Resource Evaluation, The McCabe House at 571 Pismo St (James Papp, PhD)
C - Response to Staff’s Questions (James Papp, PhD)

R ______
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2026 SERIES)

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

OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 571 PISMO STREET AS A LANDMARK HISTORIC RESOURCE,

KNOWN AS THE GEORGE AND CORDELIA MCCABE HOUSE
(APPLICATION NO. HIST-0681-2025)
WHEREAS, the applicants, Ben and Saskia Winter, filed an application on December 2, 2025, for review of the inclusion of the property at 571 Pismo Street on the City’s List of Historic Resources as a Landmark; 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 February 23, 2026, and recommended that the City Council designate the property at 571 Pismo Street as a Landmark Property on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on April 21, 2026, for the purpose of considering the request to add the property to the Inventory of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, and the evaluation and recommendation prepared 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 Landmark because the property satisfies at least one of the significance criteria for historic resource listing described in 14.01.060 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 criterion as a unique example of a late 19th century double-bay-front Eastlake cottage with a sitting porch framed by rare, pierced columns. The building retains character-defining square window bays, the porch between bays, and pierced columns framing the portico. The pieced columns are rare features that have potential to yield information important to the architectural history of the City of San Luis Obispo.

Resolution No. _____ (2026 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 designate the property located at 571 Pismo Street as a Landmark Resource, referred to as “The George and Cordelia McCabe 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 _____ day of _______________ 2026. ___________________________
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
______________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________. ___________________________
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk

1 Master List Application
The George and Cordelia McCabe House
571 Pismo Street
I. Summary Conclusion
The George and Cordelia McCabe House at 571 Pismo Street in the Old Town Historic District has three points of significance and extreme rarity, embodying the • single-story double-bay-front Eastlake cottage with sitting porch • pierced-column portico
and also possessing
• photo documentation of its earliest appearance to minute detail Eastlake was the dominant late-nineteenth-century domestic architecture of Northern California and the Central Coast and is the dominant architecture of the Old Town Historic District’s nineteenth-century buildings, with 41 percent of them being Eastlake designs.

The double-bay-front cottage is an important Eastlake adaptation with roots in full-widthfront-porch Greek Revival cottages of the mid nineteenth century, transferred through later Italianate cottages. There are only four double-bay-front Eastlake cottages in the City of San Luis Obispo, the other three of which have been Master Listed—the Goldtree-McCaffrey Attachment A - Landmark Application and Evaluaiton

2 Building, Lewin House, and most recently Dana-Barneberg House—and there appears to be only one other double-bay-front Eastlake in San Luis Obispo County: 1905 Vine Street in Paso Robles. Those with sitting as distinct from entry porches—the case with all five San Luis Obispo County examples—appear to be limited to the Central Coast, with one extant example in Santa Barbara, making this a historically significant regional form.

To compound the rarity of the McCabe House, there appear to be only two houses with pierced columns in the City of San Luis Obispo and five in the entire county, and the McCabe House is one of only two in the county displaying fretwork within its piercing.

It also appears to be the sole
Eastlake on the Central
Coast, possibly California,
using pierced columns—a
form more associated with
Gothic Revival and Italianate
architecture of the 1850s
through 1870s. As the last
use of the pierced-column
portico in the region, the
McCabe House fulfills criteria
for designation as a
California Historical
Landmark.

The McCabe House’s pierced-column portico may also, because of its lateness, yield information important to architectural history, a National Register criterion.

Finally, a previously unidentified photograph at the History Center of San Luis Obispo County, developed from a glass plate negative, records the McCabe family with the McCabe House probably in 1895 or 1896. It is rare for historic buildings to survive, rarer still for historic photographs of demolished buildings to survive, which is why communities provide care for the preservation of both. Detailed early photographs of extant buildings that can be still be associated with them, however, are scarcer than hen’s teeth, as such photos are generally family possessions that become dissociated from the structure. The practical advantage of such a photograph is that it can be used for meticulous restoration to Secretary of the Interior Standards, which is the intention of the current owners of the McCabe House, Ben and Saskia Winter.

None of the double-bay-fronted Eastlake cottages in San Luis Obispo is in perfect condition.

The Goldtree House, originally an Italianate cottage later given an Eastlake façade, was still later converted into a two-story apartment building. The Lewin House’s roof and southwest

3 façade were reconfigured in the early twentieth century, and the Dana-Barneberg House acquired canted side bays, lost its roof cresting, and was moved to a new location. The McCabe House also had its roof reconfigured in the mid 1920s or early 1930s, impacting its design, materials, and workmanship.

Nonetheless, it retains the integrity to convey the significance of its innovative double-bayfront Eastlake form and rare pierced columns in their sitting porch setting. In addition, because of its early photographic documentation, both these aspects can be further restored to Secretary of the Interior Standards.

The McCabe House circa 1895 or 1896. George and Cordelia McCabe are seated on the porch, with Leslie, Mabel, and Clarence standing in the garden. Courtesy of the History Center of San Luis Obispo County.

Eastlake architecture is particularly important to preserve, restore, research, and celebrate, as the recognition of this influential style on the West Coast has long been marginalized as a result of the East Coast architectural historian Vincent Scully’s insistence—in a bizarre footnote to his 1971 book The Shingle Style and the Stick Style—that Eastlake architecture

4 never existed. This inveigled the seminal 1980s writers of architecture guides for the burgeoning preservation movement to proscribe mention of Eastlake architecture from their books, despite the fact that they included numerous images of it. As a result, Eastlake is never mentioned in the “Architectural Character” of the Old Town Historic District’s description in San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, despite its dominance as a style.

Eastlake architecture is alive and well and living in San Luis Obispo, and the George and Cordelia McCabe House—an exemplar of the double-bay-front Eastlake Cottage with pierced columns apparently unique on the Central Coast—should be added with its sister structures to the Master List.

Submitted on 1 December 2025 by
James Papp, PhD | Historian and Architectural Historian, City & County of San Luis Obispo 964 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 | 805-470-0983 [email protected]
on behalf of Ben and Saskia Winter

5 Contents
I. Summary Conclusion 1
II. Timeline 6
III. Historical Context: The Strange Rise of Eastlake Architecture 9 IV. Pictorial: San Francisco Eastlakes 14
V. San Luis Obispo Eastlakes 15
VI. Arroyo Grande Easlakes 15
VII. San Luis Obispo’s Lost Eastlakes 16
VIII. Samuel and Joseph Cather Newsom’s Eastlake Designs 17 IX. Historiographic Context: The Strange Erasure of Eastlake Architecture 18 X. The Development of the Double-Bay-Fronted Eastlake Cottage 22 XI. Pierced Columns in American Architecture 35
XII. The McCabe House: Period of Significance 43
XIII. Significance 45
XIV. Integrity 51
XV. Conclusion 58

6 II. Timeline
ca. 1891 Construction of the McCabe House, based on its presence in the December 1891 Sanborn Map of San Luis Obispo (below). A 1 March 1891 transfer between G. W. McCabe et al and the Bank of San Luis Obispo (County Deed Index) may be related to a loan for construction. The block is not included in the 1888 Sanborn Map. Although we know from E. S. Glover’s Bird’s Eye View of San Luis Obispo, California that there were houses on it by 1877, there may have been too few to interest the Sanborn Company.

Above: detail from a panoramic photo
taken from Cerro San Luis, early
1890s: St. Stephen’s at left, Nipomo
Street School at center (on what is now
Emerson Park), McCabe House the last
house on the right, before the vacant
lot where the Biddle House will be built
in 1893. Courtesy of the History Center
of San Luis Obispo County.

7 ca. 1895 The McCabes are photographed in front of their house, George and Cordelia on the porch, the children—Leslie, Mabel, and Clarence, about 12, 5, and 11— in the front garden. George McCabe, a blacksmith and wagonmaker, would later go into the automobile business (“A Proposition: Two Trustees and a Well Known Businessman Meet,” San Luis Obispo Tribune, 27 May 1899, p. 4). 1896 Feb 11 A surprise party is held at “the residence of Mr. and Mrs. G. W. McCabe on Pismo Street,” leading to the first press confirmation of their presence at the house (“Surprise Party,” Tribune, 12 Feb. 1896, p. 2).
1899 May 12 A 1:30 pm fire at “G. W. McCabe’s residence on Pismo Street” causes $49.25 of damage (“From Chief Payne’s Report,” Tribune, 20 July 1899). 1902 Dec. 2 George McCabe et ux transfer the property at 571 Pismo to S. T. Coiner, local manager of the San Luis Implement Company (County Deed Index; “Getting to the Front,” Tribune, 26 Aug. 1903, p. 1).
1905 Jan Harry A. Truesdale purchases the McCabe House from S. T. Coiner (“Coiner Place Sold,” Tribune, 11 Jan. 1905, p. 2). Truesdale would later become County Auditor but was at that time a postman, one of the first three selected by civil service examination for the new free delivery in San Luis (“Carriers Are Selected,” Tribune, 21 Jan. 1904, p. 1).
1911 Jan 28 The seven-room house and lot at 571 Pismo are advertised for sale for $2,450 between 28 Jan. and 2 Mar. in the Daily Telegram. It is purchased by Stephen Albert “Bert” Call and Georgia Alice Smith Call (William Cattaneo, Jr., “Time Traveling,” Telegram-Tribune, 10 Dec. 1978, p. 27). Members of the family will occupy the house till 1970 (Polk’s San Luis Obispo City Directory, 1970). 1914 The Call family pays off the property’s mortgage (Cattaneo, op. cit.). 1925 Jul 21 S. A. Call applies for a permit for $1,000 of unspecified repairs to the residence (San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection [1906–1927], Cal Poly Special Collections).
1926 Apr The 1926 Sanborn Map book of San Luis Obispo shows the U on the southwest side façade of the house filled in and a pushout added to the rear of the northeast side façade.
1933 Gas water heater explosion at 2 am causes fire that does $1,000 damage, “igniting the roof and back rooms of the home … while the city fire department prevented spread of the blaze into the front part of the home” (“Home Damaged in Night Fire,” Telegram, 27 June 1933, p. 8).

8 1937 Feb Aerial photograph by US Army for US Department of Agriculture shows the current front-gabled roof on the house (AXH-1937, frame 39, UCSB Aerial Photography Collection).
1953 Aug 16 Bert and Georgia Call celebrate their fiftieth wedding anniversary with fifty guests at their house at 571 Pismo (“Golden Wedding Anniversary,” 22 Aug. 1953, Telegram-Tribune, p. 2).
1970 Polk’s San Luis Obispo City Directory lists Joy Call living at 571 Pismo, the last year a Call family member is recorded occupying the house. 1975 Feb 15 A photograph by Wayne Nicholls of part of a La Fiesta float in the front yard of the McCabe House in the Telegram-Tribune records the pierced columns, column fretwork, balustrades, balustrade fretwork, and porch frieze screen (see p. 50).
1983 Aug 16 571 Pismo is added to the Contributing List in the Old Town Historic District. ca 1986 Photograph by Barron Wiley (below) shows the McCabe House with missing frieze screen, balusters intact but missing their fretwork, as well as fretwork, bases, and caps missing from the columns.

9 III. Historical Context: The Strange Rise of Eastlake Architecture The Englishman Charles Locke Eastlake (1836–1906) trained as an architect, but his celebrity would come from furniture design and testy commentary about architecture, interior decoration, and the shape of common objects. He was twenty-eight when the Cornhill published his essay “The Fashion of Furniture.” The Queen then commissioned a series of articles called “Hints on Household Taste,” from 1865 to 1866. In 1868 Longmans published in book form Hints on Household Taste in Furniture, Upholstery, and Other Details, for the first time including Eastlake’s drawings of historic furniture and his own designs.

Eastlake promoted traditional craftsmanship and form following function. He inveighed against false structural features (“It is not at all uncommon to see a would-be Doric or Corinthian shaft shorn of its base and actually hanging to the side of a house until the pedestal (which, of course, will also be made of cement) is completed”1), extension tables (“It must depend for its support on some contrivance that is not consistent with the material of which it is made” [75]), and French polish (“because the surface of wood thus lacquered can never change its color or acquire the rich hue that is one of the chief charms of old cabinetwork” [84]).

Above left: Eastlake’s sketch of a contemporary “telescope table” with “planks of polished oak or mahogany laid upon an insecure framework of the same material, and supported by four gouty legs, ornamented by the turner with moldings which look like inverted cups and saucers piled upon an attic baluster” (p. 67, 1869 edition); right, his sketch of a Jacobean table “of a very simple but picturesque design, […] the moldings […] distributed in the legs to give variety of outline without weakening them [… ,] with a delicate bas-relief of ornament” (69–70).

1. Charles L. Eastlake, Hints on Household Taste in Furniture, Upholstery, and Other Details (London:

Longmans, Green, 1869), p. 29.

10 The historic furniture he illustrated was mostly early-seventeenth-century. His own designs for furniture were in what he called the “Early English” style, also pursued by his contemporary architect and furniture designer William Burges. They were solid, planar, and—apart from decorative flourishes of Romanesque arches, turned supports, corbels, bosses, rosettes, perforation, incising, and geometric borders—angular. Joinery was exposed, and flat surfaces of oak allowed to speak for themselves, with decoration reserved for edges. Eastlake’s designs were explicitly an attempt to rationalize, simplify, and make furniture muscular as well as plain. “[O]bjects intended for real and daily service, such as a table which has to bear the weight of heavy books and dishes, or a sofa on which we may recline at full length, ought not to look light and elegant, but strong and comely” (146).

Eastlake was also making an effort to nationalize design using English models, much as Norman Shaw was doing with Queen Anne architecture at the same time.

Eastlake’s designs and ideas caught on in America, where their flat surfaces, straight lines, and lathe-made spindles and finials were susceptible to the new mass manufacture along less substantial lines. Eastlake fought back: In a preface to the expanded fourth edition of Hints on Household Taste in 1878, he warned, “I find American tradesmen continually advertising what they are pleased to call ‘Eastlake’ furniture, with the production of which I have had nothing whatever to do, and for the taste of which I should be very sorry to be considered responsible.”
By 1878, however, America had already invented Eastlake architecture. Charles Eastlake’s furniture looked like buildings. (John Gloag says the same of Norman Shaw’s oak bookcase for the 1862 International Exhibition: “architectural composition […] masquerading as a piece of furniture [Victorian Taste {New York: Harper, 1973}, p. 92].) The term Eastlake was used of architecture in the 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 (in William T. Comstock’s Modern Architectural Designs and Details [1881], for instance, and Samuel and Joseph Newsom’s Picturesque California Homes [1884]).

Yet Eastlake architecture starts as early as 1871, with Philadelphia architect Frank Furness’s winning entry for the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. Architectural historian James O’Gorman in Three American Architects: Richardson, Sullivan, and Wright, 1865–1915 laments it as “a building blatantly mixing forms from a variety of sources” and “a textbook example of eclecticism” without ever identifying its clear organizing aesthetic:

Charles Eastlake’s newly published furniture designs.
2 Mansardic roofs, arches, columns,
corbels, scenic plaques, geometric decoration, and joiner-like exterior elements are all from Eastlake’s book, as can be seen in comparisons on the following page.

2. (Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1991), pp. 16–17.

11 Above: designs for a cabinet and a library bookcase by Charles Locke Eastlake, plates 1 and 25 in his book Hints on Household Taste, 1868; below left: the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts, designed by Frank Furness in 1871 and completed in 1876. Below right: Hilamon Spencer Laird’s Masonic Temple, San Luis Obispo, 1875.

12 Furness went on to be the leading exponent of Eastlake on the East Coast, but on the West Coast, one can see Hilamon Spencer Laird, San Luis Obispo’s first longstanding professional architect, adapting, for the town’s second Masonic Temple, the basic form of Eastlake’s cabinet and bookcase through Furness’s Pennsylvania Academy building, along with Eastlake decorative principles like borders of bosses and perforations (the latter doubling as basement illumination) and motifs (like the sunburst at the street façade crest). This plain, muscular building put San Luis Obispo at the cutting edge of the new architecture.

Wood construction lends itself to Eastlake architecture, given its origin in furniture and preference for geometric shapes, and it is not surprising that Eastlake would come to dominate the wood architecture of California. Queen Anne architecture, in contrast, has its origins in English brick, hung tiles, and plaster, and its curvatures and Neoclassical motifs had to be adapted to wood.

Eastlake architecture developed, as we see, at the beginning of the 1870s; Queen Anne architecture was introduced to America by Henry Hobson Richardson with the William Watts Sherman House in Newport, RI in 1875–1876; and the firm of McKim, Mead, and Bigelow (later McKim, Mead, and White) introduces Colonial Revival with Oakswood in Lennox, MA in 1877–1878.

Good rules of thumb for distinguishing Eastlake, Queen Anne, and Colonial Revival are that • Eastlake, in urban circumstances, generally has a flat, mansardic, or hip roof (in suburban circumstances side gables), often with a diminutive or decorative frontfacing gable or gablet; Queen Anne, a large open gable, front-facing; Colonial, a frontfacing closed gable or open-pediment gable, usually accompanying a hip roof, or a hip roof with central hip dormer
• Eastlake, square towers and bays; Queen Anne, round ones; and Colonial Revival, octagonal or canted ones
• Eastlake, spindle columns; Queen Anne, Ionic; and Colonial Revival, Tuscan • Eastlake, geometric friezes; Queen Anne, figural; and Colonial Revival, blank • Eastlake, plain sash windows and occasionally square and usually stained perimeter panes; Queen Anne, plain sash windows (occasionally a Juliet balcony and/or a Palladian window); and Colonial Revival, diamond or square panes in the upper sash • Eastlake, arches; Queen Anne and Colonial Revival, porticoes • Eastlake, vertical corbels; Queen Anne, horizontal modillions; Colonial, plain soffits • Eastlake, porch frieze screens; Queen Anne and Colonial Revival, none • The sunburst pattern is a specifically Eastlake motif, possibly with its origin in an early seventeenth-century chair at the Earl of Mount Edgecumbe’s Cotehele,

13 illustrated by Charles Eastlake in plate 11 of Hints on Household Taste (detail below) and still extant in the great hall at Cotehele, now belonging to the National Trust.

At the discretion of the architect, builder, client, or local practice, decorative elements were occasionally borrowed from one style to another, but, in general, stylistic vocabularies were consistent. Charges of eclecticism and mixing forms tend to come from a present-day inability to listen to nineteenth-century architectural vocabulary rather than a nineteenthcentury inability to speak it clearly.

Though Eastlake was initially a reform style emphasizing strength, simplicity, and formfollowing-function, it is the style people think of as “Victorian” and cluttered, from the propensity of builders and clients to add more—and more elaborate—spindles, borders, bosses, rosettes, moldings, stained glass perimeter panes, and wall shingles. Some Eastlake buildings reveal a compulsion to cover every surface and extend decoration from every line or point, from ridge cresting to frieze screens and ascending or descending finials. Samuel and Joseph Newsom’s 1884–1886 Carson Mansion in Eureka is the apotheosis of this tendency. (Pure Eastlake, the Carson Mansion is often called Queen Anne, as Queen Anne is the only late-nineteenth-century architectural style most people have heard of.) Eastlake, like Queen Anne, fell from fashion in San Luis Obispo soon after the turn of the century. Colonial Bungalow architecture, which came late to California (“Our Colonial Craze,” San Francisco Examiner, 13 Sep. 1891, p. 13), and lacked the multipliable decorative features of Eastlake, became the latest reform architecture for simplifying and streamlining.

It dominated from the early 1900s to the early 1910s in San Luis Obispo, interspersed and influenced by the Prairie School, before being displaced by yet another simplifying, muscular, back-to-basics architecture: the California Bungalow.

14 IV. Pictorial: San Francisco Eastlakes
V. San Luis Obispo Eastlakes
Erickson House (above); Shipsey House (right)

15 Biddle House
VI. Arroyo Grande Eastlakes
Heritage House Museum (126 S. Mason)
McKennon House
Above: Pitkin-Conrow House; left: 127 S.

Mason

16 VII. San Luis Obispo’s Lost Eastlakes
Above: Cortesi House; below: a house once on the Cuesta Grade, photographed 1912

17 VIII. Samuel and Joseph Cather Newsom’s Eastlake Designs Above: a design advertising “S. and
J. C. Newsom, Eastlake Archts.”
From their pattern book
Picturesque California Homes,
1884; left, the Newsom’s 1884–
1886 Carson Mansion, Eureka

18 IX. Historiographic Context: The Strange Erasure of Eastlake Architecture Eastlake disappeared from architectural historiography through the hubris of an influential scholar dismissing something he knew nothing about in a footnote to an essay about something else that, unlike most footnotes, everyone read. In his 1955 dissertation–based The Shingle Style: Architectural Theory and Design from Richardson to the Origins of Wright, Vincent Scully transformed a fabric into an architectural style. The nature of academia is to look, ex post facto, for patterns that people were not aware of at the time, yet it is as dangerous to deny the self-awareness and intentionality of people in the past as it is of people from other cultures, by assuming that either is more primitive than the analyst.

Suddenly, every building covered with unpainted shingles was being labeled Shingle Style as if that had more reality than the Colonial Revival, Queen Anne, or other styles their architects or builders thought they were creating. Worse, sometimes the shingles were put on later, or unpainted shingles were painted, or they were merely a fungible option to other fabrics on a model, instead of clapboard or novelty siding.

Next, in 1971, Scully combined his shingle book with an essay on a phenomenon he had noticed in some Swiss Revival architecture, “the development in [American] wooden domestic architecture between 1840 and 1876” of asymmetry and external articulation of framing ([New Haven: Yale] p. 2).
3 Having shown his facility for catchy names, Scully
decided to call this the Stick Style, and indeed the name caught on—so well that people forgot that what he was explicitly and admittedly describing was Swiss Revival, one of the earliest and most persistent and influential revival styles, which from England to America and back to Continental Europe.

Scully includes no single example of Eastlake architecture in his “Stick” section, 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 nineteenthcentury America. In point of fact, Eastlake architecture was much designed in, written about, and hugely popular, particularly on the West Coast. A search of newspaper.com’s database shows the term “Eastlake cottage” mentioned 1,687 times in California newspapers between 1881 and 1900, compared to 245 times in the rest of the United States. In contrast, during the same period “Queen Anne cottage” was mentioned 12,086 times in the rest of the United States and only 458 times in California. So a Yale-based architectural historian might be excused for not having seen much Eastlake architecture— though not for denying its existence.

3. The Shingle Style and the Stick Style: Architectural Theory and Design from Downing to the Origins of Wright (New Haven: Yale UP, 1971), p. 2.

19 In Footnote 90, Scully, contradictorily, both criticizes Eastlake architecture as “watereddown Gothic revival Sachlichkeit, derived from Pugin and Ruskin” and questions its existence. He adds, “[Charles] 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. • His furniture designs were portrayed as simple unpainted wood, in contrast to Ruskin’s polychrome Continental Gothic.
• Hermann Muthesius’s Das englische Haus (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth, 1904, 1905) focuses on Norman Shaw, C. F. A. Voysey, Edwin Lutyens and their ilk and their Queen Anne– and Arts and Crafts–descendant architecture from the mid to late 1890s and early 1900s (the more Neoclassical of which gains the nickname Wrenaissance later in the twentieth century), which was antithetical to Pugin and Ruskin (whose English and Continental Gothicisms were in turn antithetical to each other) of many decades earlier. Muthesius’s concept of English Sachlichkeit (objectivity or functionalism) is best expressed by his epigram from William Morris at the beginning of his third chapter, “Der Aufbau des englischen Hauses” (The Construction of the English House): “Of all things not wanted at the present day, the thing that is least wanted is ornament”—which is antithetical to American Eastlake architecture. It is hard not to accuse Scully of being disingenuous here, since he knew almost no American readers would have access to Muthesius’s book, untranslated even in abridgment till 1979 and in full till 2007. (The fact that he doesn’t explain where the term Sachlichkeit is from is even more snobbish and disingenuous.)
• 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, molding, and bosses of the other. Scully might not have been expected to pore through contemporary newspapers, but The American Architect and Building News, which in its first two years discussed Eastlake exclusively as furniture, by its 19 January 1878 edition was discussing Eastlake as architecture (A. F. Oakey, AIA, “The Possibility of a New Style in Architecture,” vol. 3, no. 108, p. 22). By 9 August 1884 the journal was speculating that “the Neo-Gothic and the ‘Eastlake’ have not become so completely things of the past in the West as they have in the East” (“American Interiors,” vol. 16, no. 450, p. 63).

Doubtless the mainstream architectural profession on the East Coast mostly looked down on Eastlake architecture so-called, despite Furness have apparently introduced it to America and practiced it in a variety private and public buildings, but a reading of The

20 American Architect and Building News would make it hard to deny its existence. And even if Scully did not have access to West Coast pattern books like those of the Newsoms, he should have done to East Coast books like William T. Comstock’s previously mentioned Modern Architectural Designs and Details, published in New York in 1881. It’s subtitle is “Containing eighty finely lithographed plates, showing new and original designs in the Queen Anne, Eastlake, Elizabethan, and other modernized styles.” One may glory in or abhor Eastlake architecture, but one must be willfully obtuse to deny its existence and popularity in the late nineteenth century.

Yet that is what Scully’s followers did: a cultlike denial of the objective reality in front of them. The popular guides to American building styles that guided the Preservation Movement in the late 1970s and early 1980s largely blackballed Eastlake and Swiss Revival, in deference to Scully, while writing of “Shingle” and “Stick.” This created a particular problem in San Francisco, where Eastlake architecture was the overwhelming choice in the late nineteenth century, solved by creating a category called “Eastlake/Stick” or “EastlakeStick,” despite the fact that beyond the occasional Swiss gable bracket in an Eastlake gable, Swiss Revival and Eastlake have nothing whatever to do with each other as architectural styles, either aesthetically or in time period.

Virginia McAlester’s 1984 A Field Guide to American Houses has become the longest survivor in print of the preservation guides and is demonstrative of the phenomenon. She admits to Eastlake being only a decorative overlay of other forms but not an architecture in itself. Her “Stick” chapter’s 16 photos comprise 12 Swiss Revival houses (pp. 258–260), 3 Eastlakes (p. 261), and 1 Queen Anne (260). Meanwhile, the “Queen Anne” chapter contains about two dozen photos of Eastlake houses, as she transfers spindle columns and porch friezes—core characteristics of Eastlake houses—to a newly invented category of “Spindlework Queen Anne.”
“Stick” became so popular (and poorly understood) a term that it was even included in a 1973 episode of The Streets of San Francisco, where old-school detective Karl Malden and college-educated detective Michael Douglas have the following conversation while staking out 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 brief night shot with the film flipped left to right it was hard to tell. (Square bays, of course, are indicative of Eastlake. Swiss Revival tends to eschew bays, which were not part of Swiss architectural vocabulary.)

21 The residual effect of the Scully Cult for the preservation profession can be seen in contrasting Charles Page and Associates’ 1976 Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey (Santa Cruz: City of Santa Cruz, 1976), where Eastlake cottages are frequently so identified, with successor firm Page & Turnbull’s 143-page 2013 Historic Context Statement and Survey Report: City of Arroyo Grande, where the word Eastlake goes unmentioned, despite the Arroyo Grande having one of the finest concentrations of Eastlake architecture south of Pacific Grove, including the masterwork Pitkin-Conrow House.

Ironically, the American architect who most closely followed Eastlakes actual beliefs and practices was lionized by Scully: Henry Hobson Richardson. Richardson’s mature style— with semi-circular arches; reliance on planes where the texture of the stone, like the texture of Eastlake’s oak, speaks for itself; and decoration reserved for borders— Richardson’s 1880–1882
Crane Memorial Library,
exterior above and interior at
left, uses planes, surfaces,
shapes, and repetition in
much the same simple and
rhythmic way that Eastlake
did in his cabinet design at
right (plate 30, Hints on
Household Taste, 1868).

22 X. The Development of the Double-Bay-Fronted Eastlake Cottage Some architectural styles, like Greek Revival, are defined by symmetry; others, like Italianate, Queen Anne, and Colonial Bungalows, favor asymmetry. But certain forms persist through changes of decorative style. The symmetrical one-story Greek Revival cottage with full-width front porch appears to be the forebear of the double-bay-front Eastlake cottage.

The above 1850s building, Sunnyside, near Natchez, with square columns and rectangular transom (Greek Revivalists were aware the ancient Greeks did not use arches on their buildings so eschewed fanlights) demonstrates the one-story Greek Revival cottage subtype, as do examples below (1850 and 1873 respectively) from New Orleans.

The subtype was equally present in San Luis Obispo, as in the lost Stanusich Adobe, top of next page, center rear, to the right of the extant Gothic Revival Hays-Latimer Adobe on West Monterey Street, in a detail of Leon Trousset’s 1870 panorama at the Mission Museum.

23 The subtype also survives as the Dallidet Adobe (below left in a detail from an 1876 Carlton Watkins photograph), whose symmetry, hip roof, porch, white-painted square posts, and rectangular transom conveyed the Greek Revival to contemporary observers (photo at bottom by Gregory Morris, 1954).

The last extant nineteenth-century Greek Revival in San Luis Obispo was built between the 1870 Trousset painting and the first Sanborn Map in 1874: the redwood cladding of the Sauer-Adams Adobe at 964 Chorro, which is essentially a Greek Revival cottage on top of a lower commercial story—or Monterey Style adobe, three-dimensional Greek Revival having been brought to Monterey by Thomas O. Larkin of Massachusetts by way of the 1835 Larkin

24 House. Yet Esteban Munras of Monterey had designed a two-dimensional Greek Revival trompe l’oeil interior for the Mission San Miguel, executed by Salinan Indians, in 1820 as California’s earliest Greek Revival architecture. The Sauer-Adams’ square columns with capitals and bases, as well as pediments above each window (seen below in a 1950s photo), are more sophisticatedly Greek than the Dallidet, but the layout (and rectangular transom above the entry door on the ground floor) are the same Greek Revival form.

Greek Revival was going out of fashion by the 1870s, having dominated San Luis architecture in the early American period, but Italianate domestic architecture would remain popular through the end of the century in San Luis. The simple, functional, and attractive Greek Revival cottage had only to replace the Greek columns that held up its portico with Italianate ones (chamfered square posts with horizontally exaggerated capitals, astragals, and high bases) and separate them with their own hip or shed roof (seen on the following page in the circa 1887 Pinho House, Marsh Street, before it was surrounded by the Manse).

Of new architectures, Queen Anne was too high-gabled to adapt to the low-pitched hip or side-gabled Greek Revival cottage form, and the Colonial Bungalow would establish itself with an asymmetric porch and front-facing gable as a pediment over either colonnade or bay. Eastlake architecture, however, had been introduced to America by Frank Furness as a symmetrical form with mansardic roof (steeply tilted hip but unoccupied and unfenestrated, unlike an actual Second Empire mansard). Add spindle columns, frieze screens, perimeter-paned windows, and peaked roof peeking over a hip portico and the Italianate cottage, formerly a Greek Revival cottage, becomes an Eastlake cottage, as seen

25 below on two New Orleans examples, from the Uptown Historic District (left, photo by David J. L’Hoste) and 815 St. Maurice Avenue in an 1883 duplex. Revealing their heritage, the ground-floor frames and crown molding on both are still distinctly Italianate.

In New Orleans such cottages acquired Eastlake decorative features—including front-facing gable exposed above a hip porch roof (see also the late Greek Revival from 1873 on page 22, which seems to have been influenced by its contemporaries), but they kept their full porches, presumably out of utility for the heat. In San Luis Obispo, in contrast, two bays enclosing the central porch and entrance would give the same light and views behind huge sash windows but some measure of protection from cold days and evenings—akin to 1940s Streamline enclosures of earlier Colonial and California Bungalow porches but designed in from construction.

26 Double-bay-front is an Eastlake
characteristic. In San Francisco, nineteenthcentury townhouses typically have asymmetrical bays opposite entrances. The
few double-bay-front examples tend to be
Eastlake, like the triplex at left (2139–43
Pine), with characteristic square bays;
spindle frieze screen; corbels; gablets; and
geometric dogtooth fretwork, window
dentilation, bosses, checkerboard, and
sunbursts, or the quadriplex with similar
characteristics (4186–92 17th Street) below
(Elizabeth Pomada et al., Painted Ladies: San
Francisco’s Resplendent Victorians [New
York: Dutton, 1978], pp. 23 and 58).

The other double-bay-front style in San Francisco, however, is Renaissance Revival, recalling the flanking towers of French cha teaux. Renaissance Revival arrived in America just before Eastlake. The Hartford Daily Courant in a 25 Sep. 1869 column “Our Architecture” notes, “We are just now in a reaction against the Renaissance revival of the classic and returning to the Gothic” (p. 2), perhaps the first American newspaper mention of a style already employed in Europe by the mid 1850s. Renaissance Revival is today often mistaken for Eastlake and even was in the nineteenth century, as the 1875 quotation from the Scranton Morning Republican on page 10 suggests: “the Renaissance, or more properly at the present day the Eastlake architecture.”

27 Classical columns, arches and segmental
arches in and above windows, figurative bas
relief, and the absence of spindlework and
geometric decoration indicate Renaissance
Revival, even though some elements,
particularly the triangular pediments over
windows—a motif absent from Charles
Eastlake’s Mediaevalist furniture designs—
will be borrowed in Eastlake architecture as
the gablet (photos from Pomada, et al., pp.
27, 46, and 63).

We now have two possible progenitors of the double-bay-front Eastlake: (1) the Greek Revival full-width-front-porch cottage, through its Italianate adaptation, Eastlake adaptation, and glazing of the porch ends with square bays, and (2) the double-bay-front Renaissance Revival.

Notably, none of the Renaissance Revival buildings above—2537–41 Washington, 1491–99 McAllister, and 3933 21st Street—or the Eastlakes on the previous page has a sitting porch, only an entry porch (the wide porch of 4186–92 17th Street is to accommodate four doors).

Sitting porches are for small towns, not big cities. But even in surrounding areas of Northern California, double-bay-front Eastlake cottages have entry porches rather than sitting porches between the bays.

28 Samuel and Joseph Newsom’s 1884–1885 Picturesque California Homes 1 and 2 include one double-bay-front out of seventy-four plans: vol. 1, pl. 12, “now building at Eureka.” The front elevation, top left below, shows a Renaissance Revival cottage (classical columns, segmental arched windows, segmental pediments, quoining, elaborate free-form crest decoration) has only a stair-top entry porch (confirmed by the floor plan); likewise the circa 1885 Renaissance Revival cottage in Napa (top right) and the Eastlake (with Swiss Revival gable bracket) 1888 W. S. Clark House in Eureka (bottom left). Is this a cultural or climatological feature of Northern California double-bay-front architecture? Or influenced by the more formal affect of Renaissance Revival? At bottom right we see a much less elaborate building, the Eastlake 1905 Vine Street, Paso Robles, built between the 1892 and 1903 Sanborn Maps. Besides the four in San Luis Obispo City, it appears to be the only double-bay-front Eastlake in San Luis Obispo County, and all five have sitting porches between their bays.

Pacific Grove’s cottages tend to asymmetry or full-width front porches, the latter perhaps because they were used only during summer. I have found no extant examples there, though I have found one demolished example built between the 1897 and 1905 Sanborn Maps.

29 Trio of full-width-front-porch cottages on 18th Street’s 100 block, Pacific Grove. The left two combine Italianate columns, Eastlake frieze screens, and Swiss gable brackets; the rightward one, Italianate columns, Eastlake sunburst corbels, Swiss gable bracket, and later bay.

Moving south to Santa Barbara, one-story
cottages tend to have full-width front
porches and be Italo-Eastlake, with hip roofs
and Italianate columns but center gablets,
like the four at the south end of Brinckerhoff
Avenue in the Brinckerhoff Landmark
District and the two at left. The rare star of
Brinckerhoff Avenue is 519, below, an angled
-double-bay-front sitting-porch Eastlake.

The hundreds of photographs of nineteenth-century houses in Virginia McAlester’s A Field Guide the American Houses include (apart from Beaux Arts plutocrat palaces in Newport and the Vanderbilts’ Renaissance Revival Biltmore in Asheville) only three double-bayfronts, all with sitting porches: a one-story 1858 Gothic in Demopolis, Alabama; two-story 1877 Italianate in Bloomington, Wisconsin; and two-story Italianate I-house in Laurens, South Carolina (pp. 204, 219, and 314 [New York: Knopf, 1984). Frequently reprinted pattern books of the mid nineteenth century—Andrew Jackson Downing’s Cottage Residences (1842) and The Architecture of Country Houses (1850) and Henry Cleaveland’s

30 Village and Farm Cottages (1856)—have, among hundreds of designs, no single-story double-bay-front cottages and just three two-story houses with ground-floor double bays.

Dozens of catalogues of historic houses in California and other states reveal no double-bayfront Eastlake cottages. It is an exceedingly rare nineteenth-century form in America, which—after the symmetry of Georgian, Federal, Greek, and Gothic—embraced asymmetric urban, suburban, and rural architecture. The surviving concentration of the form in San Luis Obispo County is extraordinary and extremely historically significant.

The city’s earliest documented examples still extant are the GoldtreeMcCaffrey Building at 1212 Garden Street and Dana-Barneberg House at 531 Dana Street, both on the 1888 Sanborn Map (the Dana-Barneberg later being moved across the street).

The Goldtree House is an Italianate cottage with a double-bay-front Eastlake porch and gablet. It was not a later adaptation, because the 1886 Sanborn Map shows the previous Gothic-form cottage; the 1888 map, the Italo-Eastlake footprint, confirmed in the photo detail below, with the Italianate hip roof and roof balustrade and Italianate hip porch roof (the Dana-Barneberg, Lewin, and McCabe Houses all have or had flat porch roofs).

The Dana-Barneberg, Lewin, and McCabe
Houses also appear to have been originally
constructed as double-bay-front Eastlake
cottages from the physical evidence. A fullwidth-front-porch cottage, however, is at the Lewin House site in the 1888 Sanborn Map
(near right), replaced with a double-bayfront cottage by 1891 (far right), but if the second house was constructed with the
bones of the first, which is certainly
plausible, it was a thorough transformation
into the Eastlake form.

31 Dana-Barneberg House around the turn of the
last century
Goldtree House as an Italianate cottage with
double-bay Eastlake porch attached
McCabe House in original form
Dana-Barneberg House now, absent ridge
cresting and gable finial
Goldtree House now, with McCaffrey Flats
conversion of 1908
McCabe House with 1925 or 1933 roof

32 Lewin House in 1986, photographed by
Barron Wiley. Courtesy of the History Center.

Lewin House now
Lewin House prior to restoration in 2017 (above left and right) Significant to the Eastlake double-bay front is that it is not just a decorative departure from the Greek Revival cottage but a departure in form, replacing the full-width portico with a smaller portico (or, in the case of the Lewin House, an uncolumned porch) sandwiched between characteristically square Eastlake bays. The square bays’ sash windows took advantage of the newly available larger panes of glass (unlike the two-over-two of Italianate and six-over-six of Greek Revival) and clustered the sashes together to let in light and views.

The reduced portico was emphasized by its own gable or gablet peak (in the San Luis and Eureka examples; in the Paso Robles and Santa Barbara examples, the peaks were put over the bays).

None of the San Luis examples indulged in spindle columns: Goldtree and Dana-Barneberg have chamfered square posts, like stripped-down Italianate, while the Lewin House has no columns and the McCabe House the rare pierced ones, though modified for Eastlake use by eschewing capitals that would interfere with a frieze screen. The Goldtree had (and has) dogtooth fretwork borders; the Dana-Barneberg and Lewin, modified perforated egg-anddart without the darts, which may well be a borrowing from the lobed decoration of Swiss

33 Revival. The Goldtree and McCabe were constructed with porch frieze screens (partial, in the case of the Goldtree, and surviving till the 1970s, in the case of the McCabe). Goldtree, Dana-Barneberg, and McCabe all had fretwork-enhanced balustrades. Only the Goldtree had perimeter stained glass; only the Goldtree and McCabe, corbels. Thus, with the same elements of Eastlake form adapted from the Greek Revival cottage, these four Eastlake double-bay-fronts demonstrate a wide variety of distinct and character-defining decorative elements.

I have been able to track down no American double-bay-front Eastlake cottages outside California and few in this state, but a strange coda to the form is its rebirth in New Zealand/Aotearoa—a British Empire outpost more influenced by England and such forms as Gothic Revival and Queen Anne—in the first decade of the twentieth century.

Double-bay-front cottages with sitting or entry porches turn up frequently in Auckland on the North Island, as a half dozen examples on the following page attest. They more often have gables over than gablets between the bays. Eastlake porch frieze screens are common, along with Italianate columns and Swiss gable brackets.

This incursion would anticipate the second and broader architectural invasion of the California Bungalow to New Zealand and Australia in the 1910s—particularly Australia, where it suited the climate. But how the double-bay-front in the compact California form characteristic of Eastlake and Renaissance Revival cottages made its way to Auckland remains a mystery. Eastlake furniture was mentioned in New Zealand newspapers as early as 1877 (“Fashions and Fancies,” New Zealand Herald, 1 Sep. 1877, p. 6) and was also available (“The Greatest Sale of American Furniture,” advertisement, [Wellington] Evening Post, 6 May 1886, p. 3). Charles Eastlake’s death in 1896 was widely covered in the New Zealand press. But the press never mentions the characteristically American Eastlake architectural style.

34 Italianate columns and canted bays and Swiss
Revival gable brackets distinguish the
cottages above left and right (no date) and
below left (1910), but gables and gablets,
porch frieze screens and decorative wall
shingles make Eastlake origins clear.

Right: a spindle-columned fireplace from the
cottage above—beyond the square bays,
porch frieze screen, and door perimeter
panes—makes the Eastlake connection clear.

The cottages above (1910), below (1903) and
bottom left have Eastlake square bays, though
the faux quoining above would be
characteristically Italianate in America.

35 XI. Pierced Columns in American Architecture
The innovative American architect Alexander Jackson Davis appears to have originated—or first published—pierced columns in the illustration for “Cottage Orne Designed for David Codwise, Esq.” in his 1837 book Rural Residences (below, the original 1835 elevation [Metropolitan Museum of Art]), specifying that they were made of wood.

The cottage’s design is essentially Greek Revival, but Davis in the early 1840s would use similarly two-dimensional
columns on Gothic Revival designs, in lattice or foliate fretwork. Davis’s disciple Andrew Jackson Downing
portrays the master’s latticework columns on Gothic
houses in his popular 1842 Cottage Residence (fig. 51) and 1850 The Architecture of Country Houses (figs. 33, 76, and 128). At right, foliate pierced columns on the 1852 Peter Davis House in Noank, Connecticut, an 1852 essentially
Italianate house with fretwork more common to the
Gothic, built by a 22-year-old shipbuilder who did his own carpentry (Alma deC. McArdle et al, Carpenter Gothic, [New York: Whitney Library of Design, 1983, p. 33).

36 Samuel Sloan’s 1852 The
Model Architect has detailed
images of both flat fretwork
columns and heavier pierced
bases for substantially threedimensional Greek and
Gothic double columns (the
Gothic examples at near
right, but the Greek Revival
example similar and both
essentially Italianate in form
[republished as Sloan’s
Victorian Buildings, {Mineola:

Dover, 1980}, design 11, pl.
52, and design 12, pl. 56]).

Calvert Vaux’s 1857 Villas
and Cottages shows several
examples of lattice columns
but also a veranda with
elaborately pierced columns,
spandrels, frieze, and floor
and roof balustrades (at top
far right; fig. A, p. 111
[Mineola: Dover, 1970]).

A. J. Bicknell and Company’s
1873 Detail, Cottage and
Constructive Architecture,
shows the pierced column (at
bottom far right) close to
how it will appear in San Luis
Obispo County and in the
decade it seems to first
appear here (at least among
its survivors) (republished as
Victorian Architectural
Details [Mineola: Dover,
2005], pl. 23). Bicknell’s

37 pattern book focuses on the Renaissance Revival, Swiss, and Second Empire styles, though there are some repetitive geometric patterns that are either already seeping over from Eastlake or will be picked up in that style. Only eight years later, in the 1881 publication of William T. Comstock’s Modern Architectural Designs and Details: […] Showing New and Original Designs in the Queen Anne, Eastlake, Elizabethan, and Other Modernized Styles, columns are largely spindle, with the occasional chamfered or fluted square column that would do with Renaissance Revival or Italianate (or Queen Anne and Elizabethan/Tudor, which puzzled American architects and builders, as the styles came from England, where there was no tradition of porch building so no predetermined column type) (republished as Victorian Domestic Architectural Plans and Details[Mineola: Dover, 1987]). Comstock has not a single pierced column in his pattern book, since piercing does not suit the threedimensionality of spindle columns Above: the 1830 John Lane House, a Greek Revival with Vicksburg’s earliest pierced columns.

Most of that city’s pierced columns appear on Italianates of the 1870s, such as those on Belle Fleur (above right, circa 1872–1875), resembling ones on the Bianchini and Music Houses in Cambria and 1429 Nipomo in San Luis Obispo. Photographs from southernlagniappe.blogspot.com/2011/02/architectural-mystery.htm, accessed 7 Nov. 2025.

In the built (and extant) world, pierced columns appear to concentrate in specific locations, presumably from local information cascades. The form is so prevalent in Vicksburg, Mississippi, for instance, that the Vicksburg Foundation for Historic Preservation refers to it

38 as the Vicksburg Pierced Column and claims it is found more often there than in any other community, having sent enquiries to SHPOs in the Southeast and along the Mississippi.4 A 1987 inventory found fifty examples of buildings with pierced columns in Vicksburg; as of the writing of an undated article on the foundation’s website, there were only forty, attesting to the form’s fragility.

Pierced Columns in San Luis Obispo County
There is a concentration of pierced columns in Cambria, whose eleven nineteenth-century houses of recognizably nineteenth-century appearance include three with pierced columns, or nearly a quarter: the 1870 Guthrie-Bianchini House (now Cambria Historical Museum) at 2251 Center Street, 1865 Music House (converted into a residence in the early 1870s) at 2581 Main Street, and 1877 Darke–Van Gorden–Squibb House at 4063 Burton Drive (dates of construction from Cambria Historical Society plaques). How many other houses that may have had pierced columns and were demolished—or whose columns were lost or replaced—is unknown.

The Guthrie-Bianchi House’s pierced columns around the turn of the century, with spindle columns on the porch at far left.

All three houses are Italianate. The Music House is out of the frame of the earliest, 1886 Sanborn Map of Cambria, but the Bianchini and Squibb Houses appear with their current

4. “The Vicksburg Pierced Column,” preservevicksburg.org/column.htm, accessed 6 Nov. 2025

39 pierced-columned porches, so the columns are less likely later additions. Physical evidence suggests, however, that the three Bianchini porches were built (or altered) at separate times, as the rear one has Italianate chamfered square columns, the Burton Drive porch has Eastlake spindle columns, and the Center Street porch has pierced columns.

Similar pierced columns on the Guthrie-Bianchini House (above) and Music House (below).

Note their larger upper and smaller lower piercings, emphasized by horizontal astragals between them on the Bianchini House.

I have not been able to find pierced columns in Paso Robles, Arroyo Grande, or other county communities apart from San Luis, where the only two pierced-column buildings are the McCabe House and nearby 1429 Nipomo Street (equally notable as the only false-front

40 aedicular Neo-Baroque house in the city or [possibly] county, the style having been reserved almost exclusively for commercial buildings in the Old West). 1429 Nipomo may date as far back as 1877, as a structure consistent with the center block appears in the same location in E. S. Glover’s Bird’s Eye View of San Luis Obispo, Cal. of that year, though it is portrayed as a hip-roof Italianate without a front porch rather than a false-front gabled building with a porch. Unfortunately, the Sanborn Map does not cover the block till 1891, when 1429 appears in its current form, and the original structure was either rebuilt or replaced in the interim. With square capitals and astragals, its columns are consistent with the 1870s Italianate pierced columns of Cambria, and its existence may have influenced the pierced columns on the McCabe House.

The Squibb House pierced columns, with elaborate fretwork inserts apparently never present in the pierced columns of the Bianchini and Music Houses The 1889 Righetti (Graves) House at the corner of Johnson and Palm appears at a glance to have pierced columns, but they are, in fact, paired columns joined by a crown bracket but terminating in separate bases. (The house is self-consciously Eastlake—its architect described it as a “Romanesque cottage,”5 and Eastlake presented his round-arched furniture

5. “Bids on the Ernest Graves Cottage,” Tribune, 24 May 1889, p. 3.

41 as a Romanesque alternative to Gothic—but it also incorporates Swiss, Queen Anne, and Colonial elements.) Paired columns in California Bungalows of the earlier twentieth century also have distinct bases, referring to the columns on either side of Shinto torii gates.

In other words, pierced columns are, in San Luis Obispo, a specific and rare statement, apparently numbering two survivors in the city and a total of three more in the county.

Above: paired columns on the 1889 Eastlake Righetti (Graves) House with separate bases (photograph 1904); below: paired pairs of paired columns in the California Bungalow–style duplex at 697 and 699 Chorro, the paired columns with separate bases representing the torii or entrance gate to a Shinto shrine
Like the Bianchini and Music Houses, 1429 Nipomo (next page) has a simple rectangular piercing with bead terminations (in profile). The McCabe House, in contrast, has fretwork inserts of ball finials in profile—six per column originally, now four—themselves pierced.

Such fretwork balls or lobes often decorated Swiss Revival and were borrowed for Eastlake.

Importantly, unlike 1429 Nipomo or any of the pierced columns in Cambria—or any other post-Gothic pierced columns I can find in California or anywhere else in the United States—

42 the McCabe House columns lack capitals, so, in common Eastlake practice, they could accommodate an openwork porch frieze screen.

Above: The aedicular Neo-Baroque duplex 1429 Nipomo, central section possibly built by 1877, with pierced columns, here photographed by Barron Wiley (courtesy of the History Center of San Luis Obispo County); below: 2019 Google Street View of the square capitals, astragals, and bead terminations of the piercings; bottom: pierced columns with lattice inserts, 1854 Greek Revival adobe Casa Grande, New Almaden (San Jose)

43 XII. The McCabe House: Period of Significance
The McCabes—assuming they either bought or built the house at 571 Pismo in 1891, which is plausible given their mortgage history and documented occupancy of the property by 1895–1896—lived at the house for eleven years, long enough to establish association, if any of them was historically significant during the period of association. In 1899, the Tribune refers to George McCabe as a well known businessman, but that condition does not rise to historic significance. Nothing is documented about any historically significant activities of Cordelia McCabe’s at the time. The next occupants, the Coiners and Truesdales, lived in the house too briefly to establish historic association and were, at any rate, either not historically significant or, if arguably so (as with later county auditor Harry Truesdale) not living in the house during their period of significance.

The Call family celebrates Joy Call’s birthday in the garden at 571 Pismo circa 1915: from left to right, Albert G., Georgia, Joy, Beth, Aunt Rhoda Reed, Arthur, and Si. Courtesy of the History Center of San Luis Obispo County.

The next occupants were Stephen Albert “Bert” Call—manager of San Luis Obispo’s gas and electric company 1906–1909 before he and his wife purchased the house in 1911 and subsequently a stationary engineer for the San Luis Obispo Ice and Cold Storage Company

44 until his retirement in 1941, living in the house till his death in 1955 (“Bert Call, 84, Native Obispan, Taken by Death,” Telegram-Tribune, 10 Aug. 1955, p. 1)—and his wife Georgia, who died in 1958 and did not receive attention from the newspapers except for social activities.

Son Albert G. Call, chief criminal investigator for the county sheriff and a union leader, did not live at the house during these activities. Daughter Joy Call is documented by city directories as living in the house until just before her retirement in 1975 from work in the county tax collector’s office.

Georgia and Stephen Albert “Bert” Call in 1950. Courtesy of the History Center of San Luis Obispo County.

Thus the McCabe House’s significance is based entirely on its embodiment of the rare double-bay-fronted Eastlake cottage form and the pierced column form in American architecture, which the circa 1895–1896 photograph shows to be the house’s original form, and the period of significance coincides with the date of its construction to this documentation, 1891–1896.

45 XIII. Significance
The George and Cordelia McCabe House at 571 Pismo Street has three points of extreme rarity in San Luis Obispo City and County:
• It is 1 of only 4 double-bay-fronted sitting-porch Eastlake cottages in the city, 5 in the county, and 6 in the Central Coast region
• It retains 1 of only 2 examples of pierced-column porticoes in the city and 5 in the county
• The façade has detailed photo documentation within 5 years of construction Per the Historic Preservation Ordinance, the house embodies two types of construction, the double-bay-fronted Eastlake cottage and the pierced-column portico. Under NRHP Criteria for Evaluation, the pierced columns are likely to yield knowledge important in architectural history, and, as likely the last use of pierced columns on the Central Coast, the house meets criteria for California Historical Landmark designation as “the first, last, only, or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region.” The McCabe House as a double-bay-fronted Eastlake cottage Eastlake is the dominant late-nineteenth-century architecture style in California. The Old Town Historic District’s 37 documentably nineteenth-century Master and Contributing resources include6 • 1 Gothic Revival (St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church)
• 1 Neo-Baroque (1429 Nipomo)
• 1 Queen Anne (Erickson—687 Islay)
• 4 Swiss Revivals (Snyder, Angel, Greenfield, and Meredith) • 6 full-width-front-porch (i.e., Greek Revival–based) Italianate cottages (654 Buchon, 654 Islay, 662 Islay, 454 Islay, 1526 Osos, and 673 Buchon) • 9 Gabled Italianates (Rogers, Dana-Parsons, Fitzpatrick, 1415 Nipomo, 1516 Nipomo, 722 Buchon, 969 Pismo, 530 Buchon, and 651 Buchon, )
• 15 Eastlakes (Lewin, Jessie Wright, McKennon, Brooks, McCabe, Vollmer–497 Islay, Biddle, Falkenstein, Nichols, Fleuger, Miller, Fumigalli, Erickson–461 Islay, McManus, and 550 Islay [this last altered in form and decoration almost beyond recognition]) That is, 41 percent of the documentably nineteenth-century listed properties in the district are Eastlake. It is an impressive concentration, and 87 percent of them are Master Listed— with the two exceptions of the McCabe House and 550 Islay (the latter of which has had its

6. From E. S. Glover’s Berd’s Eye View of San Luis Obispo, California, Sanborn Maps, and newspaper accounts; see Papp, Master List Application: Hans Nissen and Lena Peterson Hansen House, 1110 Buchon Street (2025), pp. 35–36.

46 front porch subsumed into the house and has been shorn of any decorative features apart from one wall-shingled front gable).

The subset of double-bay-fronted Eastlakes in the district is far smaller, 2 of the 15 Eastlakes in the district, the Lewin House and McCabe House. The McCabe House’s surviving columns and balustrade, which the Lewin lacks; five-windowed compared to the Lewin’s four-windowed square bays with crown and base panels—not to mention the frieze screen, corbels, and fretworked balusters that can be restored to Secretary of the Standards from the circa 1895 photograph—makes the McCabe House more complex than the Lewin House in both its double-bay-front and porch and their decorative motifs.

The McCabe House’s pierced columns There seems to be little if any research on pierced columns outside of the American South, yet the two photographs below of an unidentified but no longer extant full-width-front-porch Italianate cottage (perilously leaning) and a gabled Italianate, both in San Luis Obispo, show they were once more abundant than the city’s two survivors. Pierced columns were used on structures as varied as the urban and sophisticated 1856 extension of the Gothic Revival Moses Chase House in Oakland (next page top left) and the remote and simple circa 1860 Italianate Pierano House in Angels Camp and 1863 Knapp House in Pescadero (next page bottom left).

In general, pierced columns date to styles and structures decades earlier than the McCabe House. Otherwise evidenced in San Luis and Santa Barbara Counties on Italianate and NeoBaroque architecture, the pierced columns on the McCabe House are likely the last used on the Central Coast and possibly California, are exceedingly rare or possibly unique examples of capital-free Eastlake pierced columns, and are likely to yield information important in architectural history and meet the criteria for State Historical Landmark status.

Both photos courtesy of the History Center of
San Luis Obispo County

47 Above left: Moses Chase House, Oakland,
extant; below left, Knapp House, 85 Stage
Road, Pescadero (Google Street View); above:

Italianate Trussel House, Santa Barbara
(HABS photograph, 1930s), demolished
Rare and delicate, pierced columns tend not to survive and for that reason warrant heightened recognition and protection. Not only have three of the five examples pictured on this and the previous page been demolished, the pierced columns of the Pierano House in Angels Camp have been “restored” as double columns, as seen in the Depression Era HABS photo on the next page at top (loc.gov) compared to the 2018 photo below it (beyond.nvexpeditions.com/california/calaveras/angelscamp).

48 The McCabe House’s photo documentation The detail from the McCabe House photograph of circa 1895 on the following page shows the extraordinary degree of glassplate-negative precision in recording original detail merely of the porch, including corbels, frieze screen, pierced column interior fretwork, fretwork baluster corbels, and door molding and incising. Photographs of demolished, usually unidentified houses are rare, as are historic house with no photo documentation earlier than HABS reports, historic resources surveys, or Google street views. Of vanishing rarity are extant historic houses with early, detailed photographic documentation. This photograph in the History Center archives will allow restoration of the porch woodwork to Secretary of the Interior Standards. In combination with the 1975 Telegram-Tribune, 1982 historic resources survey photograph, and 1980s Barron Wiley photograph at the History Center, it allows us to

49 identify any earlier restoration work, its source and accuracy, as seen in the 1895 and 1975 photos compared on page 41.

Though not a technical reason for listing, detailed photo documentation is of enormous utility for accurate restoration to Secretary of the Interior Standards. A substantial number of Master List resources in the Old Town Historic District have had either porches added after the period of significance (e.g., the Italianate Rogers and Eastlake Jessie Wright) or character-defining porches enclosed. Lack of photography or lack of interest in investigating the existing photography has led to much misunderstanding of historic integrity in San Luis Obispo, with many Master Listed buildings far more changed than we generally believe or might care to admit.

50 Circa 1895–1896 (above) and 1975 (below)

51 XIV. Integrity
Each of the three Master Listed double-bayfronted Eastlake cottages in San Luis Obispo has significant challenges with integrity that
were deemed insufficient to prevent them
from conveying their significance.

Of the two included in the original round of
Master Listing, the Goldtree House lost its
Italianate hip roof and roof balustrade and
Eastlake front central gablet and frieze
molding when in 1908 it became the
McCaffrey Flats, leaving only its square bays
and front porch. The Lewin House’s roof had
been reconfigured, presumably with the
pushout of its southwest wall between the
1909 and 1926 Sanborn Maps (below),
engulfing the façade’s original side gables
and also giving the street façade an
asymmetric appearance (above right).

Below: The original side gable is the front
multicolored one. The second multicolored
one topped a later (but since enclosed porch),
with the larger, non-original gable enclosing
both.

In addition, the Goldtree House, originally a cottage in a residential district, gained its apartment floor because of the expansion of downtown, and by the time of its Master

52 Listing, its original setting had been replaced by an apartment house on one side and office buildings and parking lots on the others, none of which were there when it was a doublebay-front Eastlake cottage or even at the McCaffrey Flats’ conversion of 1908.

The more recently Master Listed Dana-Barneberg House, whose façade and side gables remain in original configuration, was moved across the street in 1911, losing integrity of location, and also had un-Eastlake canted bays added to both side façades between the 1891 and 1903 Sanborn Maps and lost its ridge cresting.

Thus the integrity of the McCabe House to convey the significance of the double-bay-front Eastlake cottage type exists not in a vacuum of perfection but among real-world comparisons.

Location The McCabe House retains its original location as shown on the 1891 Sanborn Map about the time it was likely constructed.

Setting The McCabe
House remains in a suburban
residential setting. The Biddle
House, built about two years
after it, in 1893, stands on its
southwest side; 1415 Nipomo,
dating from the 1870s, is
visible behind it, and the 1873
St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church
and tower of the circa 1899
McManus House contribute to
its front viewshed. The
Nipomo Street School, closed
at the end of the school year in
1949 and demolished soon
after, has disappeared from
the viewshed, but the
schoolyard persists as
Emerson Park, allowing the
same view of Cerro San Luis
(right) through the clear sash
windows of the McCabe
House’s square bays and to the
street observer standing in
front of the house.

53 .

Design The design of the character-defining Eastlake square bays remains the same, including the five sash windows on each, the panels below and above the windows, and the vertical edge-molding of each bay,
The design of the character-defining porch between the bays remains the same, including the pierced columns and balustrade railing, but excepting the missing frieze screen, four missing of the twelve original fretwork column inserts, and missing upright balusters with their fretwork corbels.

The design of the character-defining frieze molding and its ten supporting corbels, flat porch roof, and porch gablet with bargeboard incising (all Eastlake features), as well as gable bracket and vertical plank decoration (borrowed from Swiss Revival) has been replaced by a hip porch roof.

The design of the character-defining side gables has been replaced with a chalet-style frontgabled roof, possibly circa 1925 with the filling in of the southwest façade U (not a character-defining feature) or possibly circa 1933 after a roof fire.

The design of the character-defining Eastlake solid door, with molding and incising, has been replaced by a two-panel two-pane door.

The wall design throughout the front and side façades of character-defining shiplap and one-over-one sash windows remains.

The McCabe House, like the double-bay-front
Renaissance Revival cottage published by the
Newsom brothers in 1884 (left), has a parlor
attached to one bay and bedchamber to the
other, still used as such by the current owners.

54 As with the Goldtree-McCaffrey House, the replacement of porch roof, gablet, and side gables is a substantial loss to the McCabe House’s ability to convey its significance as an Eastlake façade, though not as substantial, in terms of massing, as if an apartment story had been set on top of it, and the Goldtree-McCaffrey House was judged able to still convey its significance as an double-bay-front Eastlake cottage with the retention of its square bays and porch and their decorative features. The one feature the Goldtree retains that the McCabe does not is its original Eastlake doors, although the McCabe door could be reproduced to SOI Standards.

The McCabe porch, however, unlike the Goldtree, retains structural independence and could be returned to flat-roof design with corbels, frieze, frieze screen, and conceivably even gablet to SOI Standards.

Though in imperfect condition, overall, the McCabe House retains the chief part of its double-bay-fronted Eastlake design to convey the significance of the type.

The other key physical feature of the McCabe House’s significance, independent of its Eastlake design, is its pierced columns and associated fretwork. This unique and historically important feature, with potential eligibility for State Historical Landmark

55 status, retains its integrity, apart from four missing fretwork decorations and the original integrated openwork frieze screen.

Materials As with design, retained material includes
shiplap siding, sash windows, panels, molding, columns, most column fretwork, and railing. Lost material includes the front door, balusters and their fretwork faux corbels, some fretwork, corbels, frieze molding, frieze screen,
gablet siding and bargeboard, and gable bracket.

Workmanship Most structural and decorative
building materials of the mid to late nineteenth century are factory milled, with local workmanship the assembly by
hand. As with design and materials, the retained assembly is in the bay and porch features, the lost assembly in the corbels, frieze, frieze screen, and gablet. The key pieces of individual handwork—the pierced columns and most of
the column fretwork—are retained, with the fretwork faux corbels of the balusters lost but reproducible by modern craftspeople to SOI standards, given the photographs.

Feeling Feeling is a combination of the material integrities (location, design, setting, materials, and workmanship) in the expression of an aesthetic or historic sense of a particular time. The McCabe House retains its location and setting and the design, material, and workmanship of its pierced columns and the majority of the design, materials, and workmanship of its double-bay-front Eastlake architecture. It continues to convey the aesthetic sense of its time.

Association In absence of historically significant persons and events for the house or its features to be associated with, association is not relevant.

56 Southwest (above) and northeast (below) side façades. All color photographs of the McCabe House in this report are by Ben Winter.

XV.

57 In sum, the integrity of the McCabe House in location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling allows it to convey the significance of its rare double-bay-fronted Eastlake cottage design in massing, spatial relationships, and decoration, as well as the significance of its rare pierced-column portico, well in line with precedent set by other Master List resources.

58 XV. Conclusion
The McCabe House is significant for embodying the single-story double-bay-front sittingporch Eastlake cottage and pierced-column portico architectural types. Both types are important in American, Californian, and San Luis Obispan architectural history, the first as a possibly peculiarly Central Coast descendant of the full-width-front-porch Greek Revival cottage form, the second as a phenomenon associated with the Greek and Gothic Revivals and Italianate architecture here adapted—possibly uniquely—to Eastlake. They are extraordinarily rare and important survivors in San Luis Obispo City and County but also for California and the nation as a whole. The McCabe House retains the integrity to communicate the significance of both architectural types, and Master Listing will ideally lead to a Mills Act project to restore lost but thoroughly documented features of the façade to Secretary of the Interior Standards, as the Mills Act was intended.

1 Papp Architectural History - Sauer-Adams Adobe - 964 Chorro St - San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 24 Dec. 2025
Dear Eva,
I’m responding to your 23 Dec. 2025 queries in a document, in case you consider it useful to attach to the Master List application as an addendum.

Query 1. The residence appears to have had significant changes since the original home was built. The change to the roofline, addition of triplet windows below the roof pitch, and removal of detailing appears to drastically alter the character of the residence. My understanding based on your report is that Eastlake architecture is known for its ornate detailing, much of which appears to have been lost when the roof was altered and the horizontal frieze features were removed. The wide and low roof pitch also seems to conflict with provided examples of Eastlake architecture. Could you provide more details as to how the residence communicates its significance without the Eastlake ornamental elements and with a completely altered roofline.

I address the replacement of the roof and the loss of specific decorative features and their impact on integrity of design, materials, and workmanship on pp. 53–55 of the Master List application, both in terms of the McCabe House itself and in the universe of other Master List/Landmark double-bay-front Eastlake cottages in San Luis Obispo.

Let me reiterate here that what is key in evaluating integrity is to keep one’s eyes on the prize: Any losses of integrity are not abstract but are based on the resource’s ability to convey its significance, in this case the extraordinary significance of a specifically regional form—the double-bay-front Eastlake cottage with interstitial sitting porch—and a more widely distributed but, in contrast, locally rare form—pierced columns.

It is also important to emphasize that this is the first time the Goldtree-McCaffrey Building, Lewin House, Dana-Barneberg House, and McCabe House—four houses of the same form and decorative palette—have been connected to a single architectural style and related to examples and architectural trends outside of San Luis Obispo. The city’s current version of the Goldtree-McCaffrey Building is that it is Italianate (probably based on its corbels, though these are the smaller and less elaborate corbels common to Eastlake architecture); Lewin House, that it “has Carpenter Gothic influence” (the common default in the Historic Resources Survey for every gable that approaches an acute angle); Dana-Barneberg House, that it is “Victorian vernacular (“vernacular” being a semi-expert placeholder for “I don’t know” and a definitional impossibility where outside influences and materials are present); and McCabe House, that it is, as you point out, Colonial with Queen Anne influences. These can’t all be true. In fact, none of them is true. But positing these styles was necessary because of the denial of the existence of Eastlake—their actual style based on empirical data and the dominant late-nineteenth-century California architecture.

Finally, unlike the vast majority of Master List buildings, we have a high-resolution early photograph to facilitate understanding of the property and detailed comparisons of current integrity and to serve as documentation for Restoration to Secretary of the Interior Standards. In the vast majority of cases in San Luis Obispo, buildings have been listed with Attachment B - Response to Questions

2 limited understanding of their architectures, only speculation as to what they originally looked like, and no documentation to restore them.

With all of that said, had either the double-bay front or the pierced columns been lost, the McCabe House would no longer have been able to communicate its significance. The altered roof, however, is not crucial to understanding either of these rare and important elements.

The roof does not, per se, “conflict” with Eastlake examples; 519 Brinckerhoff (p. 29 of the application) has a similar full-width front gable; but that is irrelevant. It is clearly nonoriginal in design, materials, and workmanship. But it does not prevent the double-bayfront Eastlake form and pierced columns from conveying their significance to the scholar or the casual viewer.

If the purpose of the Master List is to preserve and convey important information about unusually significant people, events, and architectures of the past, then the McCabe House is a crucial addition. If the Master List is a beauty contest, maybe not.

The original side-gable-center-gablet roof façade is one of the characteristic roof types of the double-bay-front Eastlake form—which includes double-gable on hip (1905 Vine, Paso Robles) and double-gable on full-width front-facing gable (519 Brinckerhoff, Santa Barbara) and possibly others yet undiscovered. But the Cultural Heritage Committee and City Council have concluded over a span of four decades, with each of the city’s other three double-bay-front Eastlake cottages, that significant alteration in the roof—including loss of ridge-cresting (Dana-Barneberg), change in roof configuration (Lewin), and even the addition of a second story (Goldtree-McCaffrey)—does not so undermine the ability of the form to convey its significance as to disqualify it from Master List protection. This was so even before the buildings’ relation as a subtype or their exceeding rarity and regional significance was brought to light.

Many Eastlake houses have highly elaborate decoration, and many do not, as you see from my photographic examples. The elaborate ones, like Samuel and Joseph Cather Newsom’s Carson Mansion (1884–1886), have impressed themselves on the public consciousness, but the less elaborate ones are no less Eastlake. As the Newsoms themselves advertised, “The degree of ornamentation will be governed, more or less, by the size of the builder’s purse” (Picturesque and Artistic Homes and Buildings of California [San Francisco: 1890], p. 24). It is the geometric nature of their decoration, in combination with Eastlake forms like square bays or in this case the double-bay front, that is character-defining. As you see from the early photograph of the McCabe House, its decoration was originally restrained, as was the decoration on the other examples from the Central Coast.

The Swiss Revival decoration associated with the gablet (gable bracket, finial, lobed bargeboard, vertical plank decoration—which are fairly common Swiss features borrowed for Eastlake gablets) is gone, but their loss does not prevent the house from conveying its significance as a rare double-bay-front Eastlake form or the pierced columns from conveying their significance.

The Swiss Revival decoration, with its associated side gables and gablet, is technically reproducible to Secretary of the Interior Standards, though it seems unlikely to be so reproduced any time soon—if more likely than the removal of the top floor of the GoldtreePage 140 of 378 3 McCaffrey Building and the restoration of its original roof. (A surprising number of buildings in town, however, have had their top floors removed).

Some characteristically Eastlake decorative features, like the 2 porch rails and 18 window crown and base panels, remain intact. Others, like the frieze screen, 10 corbels, and associated molding can be reproduced to SOI Standards.

The key (though non-Eastlake) decorative elements are the two pierced columns, most of whose interior fretwork remains and the remainder of which can be reproduced to SOI Standards, as can the porch balusters and their fretwork faux corbels.

It is the intent of my clients to undertake extensive restoration of decorative features and the intent of the Mills Act to facilitate such restoration, and Master Listing is necessary for Mills Act.

Query 2. The City's Historic file indicates the predominant architectural style of the residence at 571 Pismo is Colonial with Queen Anne influences. Can you please identify the discrepancy between the two evaluations? What features of the residence, besides the pierced columns and sitting porch make the residence stand out as Eastlake Architecture? Additionally, why would it have previously been considered Colonial style with Queen Anne features?
My HRE on the McCabe House is chiefly devoted to the discrepancy you mention, which arises from Vincent Scully’s erasure of Eastlake architecture—the dominant latenineteenth-century style of the West—from the American architectural canon.

Remember that San Luis Obispo’s Historic Resources Survey was done in 1982—1983 when American preservation scholarship was still in its nascence. Serious architectural histories (like Henry-Russell Hitchcock’s 1958 Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries and Burchard and Bush-Brown’s 1961 The Architecture of America: A Social and Cultural History) had hitherto focused on large public buildings rather than small private houses, large cities rather than small towns, major architects rather than popular movements, academic rather than popular styles, and the East Coast rather than the West.

Even such an apogee of wood design as the Carson Mansion in Eureka, an Eastlake masterpiece by Newsom and Newsom, who simultaneously advertised their expertise in the Eastlake form, was referenced only to point out that masonry buildings by East Coast architects were “by any absolute standard … superior” (Burchard and Bush-Brown, p. 267), ignoring any explication of what absolute standard that might be. That there was a widely popular and sophisticated form of architecture called Eastlake goes unmentioned in both these massive studies.

The growing academic exploration of long-ignored popular and domestic architecture, for which Yale architectural historian Vincent Scully deserves some credit, had the unfortunate side effect of the invention of “styles” that nineteenth-century architects and builders never recognized in their own era (“Shingle” and “Stick”) and denial of styles that those architects and builders knew themselves to be practicing (Swiss Revival and Eastlake). This was entirely Scully’s doing, but such was the paucity of knowledge and his academic prestige that this rewriting of architectural history was swallowed by most of the authors of taxonomic guides on which community surveyors, city planners, journalists, and even subsequent generations of architectural historians would come to depend.

4 By the time of San Luis Obispo’s survey (the photographs were taken in 1982, the analysis done in 1983), some general taxonomic books—like Poppeliers, Chambers, and Schwartz’s What Style Is It? A Guide to American Architecture (Washington, DC: Preservation Press, 1977), Blumenson’s Identifying American Architecture (New York: Norton, 1977), Foley’s The American House (New York: Harper, 1980), and Rifkind’s A Field Guide to American Architecture (New York: Times Mirror, 1980)—had already been published; others—like Virginia McAlester’s A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Knopf, 1984) and Woodbridge’s California Architecture (San Francisco: Chronicle, 1988)—were yet to come.

Blumenson includes Eastlake; Poppeliers et al., not; Foley has a brief but good discussion of Eastlake in her chapter “Mansardic and Stick Styles”; Rifkind acknowledges it only as a commercial style, though including an elevation of a clearly Eastlake house for which he invents the term “Carpenter Queen Anne.”
But it is unclear which of these books San Luis Obispo’s surveyors had access to, if any. They were offered two three-day seminars on local and California architecture (sixteen classroom hours and two field sessions) and two two-day classes on historical research (eight classroom hours), with five hours of weekly assignments during the subsequent two months (Cindy Lambert, “Saving San Luis Obispo County’s Identity with Preservation Efforts,” La Vista, 2015, p. 59; S. E. Seager, “Architecture Class Offered,” Telegram-Tribune, 12 Jan. 1983, p. B-1). There appears to have been no professional architectural historians involved in the survey itself or in its vetting.

Some of the attributions of architectural style and form in the survey are reliable, but most show completely understandable gaps in knowledge that make the majority of attributions—attributions that have persisted in the city’s records and online material— inaccurate, such as the tendency to attribute no architectural style to adobes; refer to Colonial Bungalows as Neoclassic rowhouses; confuse Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, and Mediterranean; conflate Art Deco and Streamline Moderne; consistently overlook Prairie School (though attribute our one Usonian building to Prairie School because it’s by Frank Lloyd Wright, despite its dating from a full half century after he finished designing Prairie buildings); call any wood building with a near-acute gable Carpenter Gothic, regardless of date, while missing actual Gothic Revival; call any building with deep eaves Craftsman, also regardless of date or design; claim buildings mix multiple styles; and so on. (The surveyors were rarely aware of dates of construction and almost never of architects.)
Notably, as far as I can tell, no building in the survey is described as Eastlake, despite Eastlake’s dominance as a California architectural style in the late nineteenth century (e.g., the 1,687 mentions of the term “Eastlake cottage” during 1881–1900 in California newspapers compared to 245 in the rest of the United States in the Newspapers.com database [see following page]), and despite the large number of Eastlake houses in San Luis, consistent with the period of the city’s expansion.

5 Newspapers.com database search (search performed on 18 Oct. 2024) 1881–1900 1901–1905 1906–1910
“Eastlake cottage,” California 1,687 507 139
“Eastlake cottage,” rest of US 245 2 3
“Queen Anne cottage,” California 458 202 705
“Queen Anne cottage,” rest of US 12,086 3,016 3,827
The McCabe House’s specific attribution of “Colonial with Queen Anne influences" appears to be inspired by the replacement of its roof with a California Bungalow full-width chaletstyle gable, which the surveyors must have thought original. The survey describes the Contributing List 1914 George Andrews House at 1307 Mill (above center), a California Bungalow with just such a gable (as well as other California Bungalow characteristics like knee brackets), as a “Colonial Revival residence.” The Master List Weill House at 2132 Harris (above left, date unknown)—a full-width-front porch Italianate cottage (with Italianate columns and Italianate door, etc.), whose roof, like the McCabe House (above right), has been replaced in chalet style, presumably also during the California Bungalow period—is described as “single-story wood frame with Colonial Revival overtone.” Apparently, someone confused full-width chalet roofs with open gables for the asymmetric closed gables characteristic of Colonial Bungalows
The pierced columns, as I point out in the HRE, are not characteristically Eastlake, which adds to the building’s rarity.

The double-bay-front form with square bays is the stand-out Eastlake feature in form and massing (Italianate and Colonial Revival normally have canted bays, Queen Anne round or canted bays; Greek Revival and Italianate cottages normally have full-with porches and no bays; and Renaissance Revival cottages normally have entry rather than sitting porches).

Other characteristic features include the previously mentioned surviving porch rails (Greek Revival and Italianate cottages tend to have columns without balustrades) and 18 crown and base panels (these can be found in earlier Italianate architecture but are not characteristic of contemporary Queen Anne or Swiss, Colonial, Renaissance, or Elizabethan Revivals) and absent but SOI Standards–reproducible frieze screen and 10 corbels (Italianate corbels are larger and more elaborate, while frieze screens are virtually never employed in any but Eastlake houses). The original gablet was Eastlake but its gable bracket and finial, lobed bargeboard, and vertical gable planking were Swiss Revival, though this was a fairly common Eastlake borrowing.

6 I hope this clarifies the significant formal and decorative features of the McCabe House, the specific nature of integrity in relation to conveying their significance, the nature of Eastlake decorative features and their extant and restorable extent on the McCabe House, and the discrepancies of architectural styles as attributed in the 1982–1983 Historic Resources Survey and subsequent documents. Let me know if you have any other questions.

If you can get an hour or two off work, it might be helpful—and save time in the future—to accompany me and Coco on a walk-through of the major historic districts to identify styles in situ and in comparison, with observations on what has been changed. Others would be welcome to join us—though I wouldn’t want it to become a scheduling nightmare.

Sincerely,
James Papp, PhD
Historian and Architectural Historian
City and County of San Luis Obispo

City of San Luis Obispo, Council Memorandum
City of San Luis Obispo
Council Agenda Correspondence
DATE: April 21, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Public Works and Utilities Director
Prepared By: Alex Fuchs, Mobility Services Business Manager VIA: Whitney McDonald, City Manager
SUBJECT: ITEM 7f – AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD TRANSIT OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONTRACT
Staff received the following questions regarding the recommended action to authorize the City Manager to award a contract to MV Transportation, Inc. for transit operation and maintenance services. The questions are below with staff’s response shown in italics:
1) Which service changes identified in the Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) are incorporated into the draft agreement for transit operations and maintenance services?
The current Financial Plan includes implementation of Short-Range Transit Plan recommendations including:
o Fiscal Year 2025-2026
 Reinstate services to pre-pandemic levels1
 Increase Route 4A/4B Frequency (45-minute headways)
 Revise Route 2A/2B to serve San Luis Ranch
o Fiscal Year 2026-2027
 Operate B Routes on weekends year-round
 New Avila Ranch direct route
The draft agreement (Attachment C to the staff report) includes pricing formulas that account for several SRTP-recommended service changes, including:
 Reinstating services to pre-pandemic levels2
 Increasing Route 4A/4B frequency during the academic year  Operating “B” routes on weekends

1 As of January 2026, suspended services include the San Luis Tripper and the Highland Tripper. All other services have been reinstated.
2 “A” Routes travel clockwise and operate daily while “B” Routes travel counter-clockwise and currently only run on weekdays

ITEM 7f – Authorization to Award Transit Operation and Maintenance Services Contract Page 2 The remaining recommended changes, specifically revisions to Route 2A/B (45- minute headways) and the addition of a new direct service to Avila Ranch, are constrained by current bus bay capacity at the Downtown Transit Center, which limits the number of routes that can operate efficiently at one time. As a result, these changes cannot be implemented until that infrastructure is built. Funding for design alternatives for the Downtown Transit Center was also included in the current Financial Plan and that design work is currently underway.

Design for the Downtown Transit Center Project is anticipated to be completed by July 2027, with construction planned from February through June 2028.

Implementation timing for these service enhancements is dependent on completion of these improvements. Funding for this project is primarily from competitive federal grant programs that may be reduced or eliminated entirely with the adoption of future annual budget appropriations. If staff is unsuccessful in securing competitive federal funds for this project, then other federal and state sources will be pursued.

All other service recommendations may be implemented later in the contract term, subject to the availability of funding, vehicles, and staffing, and would be brought forward for future Council consideration as needed. The agreement structure also allows the City to scale service levels over time based on demand and available resources. Agreement amendments may be necessary to adjust the total City obligation under the contract for these services.

In summary, the draft agreement positions the City to restore and expand transit service in the near term, while deferring more significant service changes until infrastructure constraints at the Downtown Transit Center are addressed.

Additional detail is provided on pages 148-149 of the agenda packet.

Item 6f
Department: Public Works
Cost Center: 5201
For Agenda of: 4/21/2026
Placement: Consent
Estimated Time: N/A
FROM: Aaron Floyd, Public Works & Utilities Director
Prepared By: Alex Fuchs, Mobility Services Business Manager SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION TO AWARD TRANSIT OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE SERVICES CONTRACT

RECOMMENDATION

1. Authorize the City Manager to award a contract to MV Transportation, Inc. for Transit Operation and Maintenance Services in a form approved by the City Attorney’s Office; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract amendments, provided that the cumulative value of all such amendments does not exceed 10 percent of the total contract amount, inclusive of all base term years.

REPORT-IN-BRIEF
This report recommends awarding a new contract (Attachment A) for the operation and maintenance of San Luis Obispo (SLO) Transit services, as the City’s current agreement will expire on June 30, 2026, with no remaining extension options. Following a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process beginning in December 2025, proposals were evaluated based on technical qualifications and cost, with the highest-ranked firms participating in interviews and submitting Best and Final Offers (BAFOs).

The recommended contractor, MV Transportation, Inc. (MV Transportation) was selected among six responsive bidders based on overall proposal quality, experience, responsiveness, and cost. See Attachment B for a copy of MV Transportation proposal.

The proposed contract incorporates updated operating costs, including recently adopted wage increases under a new collective bargaining agreement with the Teamsters Local Union No. 986, and supports implementation of select Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) service change recommendations. Funding for the contract will be provided through a combination of local and federal sources and, if approved, will be included in the City’s FY 2026-27 Supplemental Budget.

POLICY CONTEXT
On May 17, 2022, Council approved a Purchasing Policy Update to the Financial Management Manual, requiring Council authorization for professional services contracts of $150,000 or more. As the Transit Fund budgets for and expends more than $5 million

Item 6f
dollars annually on contracted operation and maintenance services and all proposals submitted in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) far exceed $150,000 for the life of the proposed contract term, Council approval is required to award a new contract for these services.

DISCUSSION
The City’s public transit service, San Luis Obispo (SLO) Transit, is operated and maintained through a contract with a private vendor. The current agreement was awarded on June 14, 2016, and has been extended through subsequent amendments. The current contract is set to expire on June 30, 2026, and no additional Council-approved term extension options remain1. To ensure continuity of service and avoid any disruptions, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to secure a new contract beginning July 1, 2026. On November 18, 2025, Council authorized the advertisement of the RFP for qualified vendors to provide SLO Transit’s operation and maintenance services. On November 20, 2025, the RFP was published and the current contractor was notified.

Table 1 is the schedule and key milestones for this procurement.

Table 1 - Procurement Schedule
Date Milestone
November 18, 2025 Council approves issuance of RFP
November 20, 2025 RFP is published
December 15, 2025 Pre-proposal meeting
January 9, 2026 Questions from prospective Proposers due February 6, 2026 City responses to questions published
February 20, 2026 Proposals due (3:00 p.m. PT)
February 22 to March 3, 2026 Proposal review and initial screening March 9 to March 12, 2026 Interviews
March 20, 2026 Best and Final Offers due
April 21, 2026 Council Hearing to approve contract award April 28, 2026 Agreement executed (projected)
July 1, 2026 Start of service
Responsive Proposers
Proposals were due to the City by Friday, February 20, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. PT. The City received a total of seven proposals, one of which was deemed non-responsive due to lack of required cost proposal forms. The other six proposals were deemed responsive and provided to the Evaluation Committee for evaluation and scoring. The Evaluation Committee consisted of four internal staff members and one external staff member from the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments. Table 2 lists the Proposers and the status of their respective proposals.

1 Council could authorize an extension of the existing agreement on a month-to-month or limited-term basis; however, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) procurement guidelines emphasize full and open competition for these types of services and extended or repeated non-competitive procurements may not be compliant with federal procurement procedures without sufficient justification.

Item 6f
Table 2 - List of Proposers
Proposer Status
Coach Bus Leasing (Coach USA) Responsive
Keolis Transit Services Responsive
LAZ Parking California Responsive
MV Transportation Responsive
RATP Dev USA Responsive
RTW Management Non-responsive
Transdev (First Transit) Responsive
Evaluation and Selection Process
This procurement process used a “Best Value” approach as defined by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Best Value is a competitive, negotiated procurement process in which the award is based on a combination of price and qualitative considerations, allowing the City to select a proposal that provides the greatest overall value and is the most advantageous even if it is not the lowest priced.

To achieve Best Value, proposals were evaluated using factors that reflect the service requirements most important to the City including, but not limited to, operational approach, maintenance management, experience and qualifications of proposed personnel, past performance, safety record, and price. Table 3 lists all evaluation criteria and their respective weights.

Table 3 - Proposal Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Criteria Weight
Technical Factors
Experience and Qualifications 10%
Operational Approach 20%
Maintenance 20%
Safety and Training 10%
Personnel 20%
Reporting 5%
Cost/Price Factor
Cost Proposal Form 15%
Total 100%
Proposals were evaluated in accordance with the RFP requirements, with scores assigned to each Technical Factor based on the quality and completeness of the proposal content. The four highest-ranked firms, Transdev, Keolis Transit, MV Transportation, and RATP Dev, were subsequently invited to participate in virtual interviews with the Evaluation Committee. Interviews were conducted between March 9 and March 12, 2026.

Each Proposer was allotted 30 minutes to respond to clarifying questions related to corporate support, experience with the operation and maintenance of electric vehicles, bus stop maintenance, and specific cost proposal items. The interviews were qualitative in nature, and because some questions were tailored to individual Proposers, responses

Item 6f
were not formally scored.

Best and Final Offer
The RFP required Proposers to submit a base cost proposal for delivery of existing service levels and an alternate cost proposal that included the full implementation of the Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) service expansion recommendations. Requiring Proposers to submit both a base cost proposal and an alternate cost proposal provides the City with a greater understanding of the cost requirements to fully implement the SRTP recommendations so that the final contract can align with available funding and desired service outcomes.

Following the interviews, staff requested Best and Final Offers (BAFO)s from the Proposers. These updated proposals incorporated certain SRTP service recommendations including increased Route 4A/4B frequency during the Academic year and operation of “B” Routes2 on the weekends. The inclusion of these service recommendations increased the projected vehicle service hours by 13% annually which is reflected in the updated pricing. Table 4 is a summary of the total annual costs based on the Best and Final Offers.

Table 4 – Summary of Best and Final Offers
Year One3
(7/1/2026-
6/30/2027)
Year Two
(7/1/2027-
6/30/2028)
Year Three
(7/1/2028-
6/30/2029)
Year Four
(7/1/2029-
6/30/2030)
Keolis Transit $ 6,379,009 $ 6,638,164 $ 7,050,287 $ 7,566,088 MV Transportation $ 5,973,074 $ 5,869,883 $ 6,219,832 $ 6,631,484 RATP Dev4 $ 6,149,077 $ 6,177,143 $ 6,492,335 $ 6,892,393 Transdev $ 5,423,312 $ 5,779,727 $ 6,165,653 $ 6,580,502 The alternate cost proposal also included revisions to Route 2A/B (45-minute headways) and addition of a new, direct service to Avila Ranch. However, as noted in the SRTP, full implementation of all recommended service changes would require additional bus bay capacity. The Downtown Transit Center currently has five bus bays which are fully utilized at several times throughout the day5. There is a project underway to consider design alternatives for the Downtown Transit Center that, among other improvements, will add one to two additional bus bays to support future service expansion. Design for the project is anticipated to be completed by July 2027 with construction occurring from February through June 2028.

2 “A” Routes travel clockwise and operate daily while “B” Routes travel counter-clockwise and currently only run on weekdays.
3 Year One includes one-time Start-up and Transition costs provided by the Proposers 4 RATP Dev’s Best and Final Offer letter stated that maintenance costs, estimated to be $398,485 in Year One, is not included in the proposal and instead will be billed separately as a pass-through expense. Table 4 does not include these costs in the annual totals.
5 Santa Maria Regional Transit (SMRT) requires limited use of the Downtown Transit Center throughout the week which is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding that prioritizes City transit vehicles for bus bay access. When bus bays are fully occupied, SMRT vehicles utilize other on-street locations in between trips, ensuring no impact to City operations.

Item 6f
Staff anticipates that additional SRTP service recommendations will be implemented later in the upcoming contract term, subject to the availability of funding, vehicles, and staffing.

Any future service changes will be coordinated with the selected contractor and implemented through contract amendments as approved by the appropriate delegated authority.

Selected Vendor - MV Transportation
While there were multiple qualified proposals to consider with various pros and cons for each, staff recommends awarding the contract to MV Transportation for transit operation and maintenance services. This recommendation is based on the totality of the thorough review and selection process: evaluation and scoring of proposals for overall quality and completeness, responses to interview questions, cost comparison, and reference checks.

MV Transportation demonstrated the strongest overall alignment with the City’s operational and service priorities, particularly in its approach to maintaining service reliability, safety performance, and operational continuity. In addition, their proposal reflected a strong understanding of key operational challenges and provided strategies for workforce management, maintenance oversight, and service delivery performance.

Reference checks were consistent with these findings, indicating solid past performance with comparable transit systems. Attachment B is a copy of MV Transportation’s technical proposal6.

MV Transportation is the largest privately owned provider of contracted transit operations and maintenance services in the United States delivering services for more than 100 public agencies including 20 in the State of California alone. The company manages comprehensive turnkey transit services including scheduling, dispatch, workforce management, and preventative and predictive maintenance. A significant portion of their portfolio consists of small to mid-sized municipal systems similar to SLO Transit’s service profile.

MV Transportation has extensive experience operating diverse fleets and is a leader in zero-emission transit by supporting battery electric bus deployments, charging strategies, and full fleet transitions. MV Transportation has demonstrated expertise in electric bus operations, infrastructure readiness, and performance optimization as agencies transition from fossil-fuel fleets to battery electric technology.

MV Transportation operates unionized transit services throughout California, including with Teamsters-represented workforces. The company has experience managing contract transitions involving organized labor and maintaining service continuity by engaging early with union representatives including retaining existing employees where possible. MV Transportation’s Best and Final Cost Proposal includes a letter from Teamsters Local Union No. 986 (Attachment C) stating that they have successfully worked with MV on labor matters and fully support MV Transportation in this procurement

6 Portions of the technical proposal have been redacted at MV Transportation’s request based on their assertion that the information is exempt from disclosure as trade secret or proprietary information under applicable law.

Item 6f
process should they be recommended for contract award.

The Evaluation Committee is confident that MV Transportation can provide all the requirements of the contract in a manner consistent with the City’s expectations for highquality transit services.

Next Steps
MV Transportation has requested minor modifications to the draft contract published in the RFP. The requested modifications mainly concern price adjustments for factors beyond MV Transportation’s control, vehicle acceptance standards to be used during the transition period, and facility conditions for hazardous materials. Staff is working with the City Attorney’s office to determine whether and how the requested modifications can be incorporated into the contract. Once the contract is executed and current provider notified, the City will begin working with MV Transportation to implement their start-up and transition plan.

MV Transportation’s Start-up and Transition Plan (document pages 10-15 and 31 of Attachment B) outlines a structured, low-risk approach designed to ensure a seamless, disruption-free transition of transit operations through detailed planning, strong leadership, and continuous coordination with the City. The plan includes a task-driven startup schedule, regular progress meetings, and corporate oversight to track accountability and address risks. MV Transportation will engage early with the Teamsters to retain and retrain the existing Transdev union-represented workforce, preserving institutional knowledge. The plan also details fleet and facility transition processes, including inspections, parts procurement, and system readiness, supported by corporate maintenance leadership.

The current agreement with Transdev requires that for a minimum of thirty days following the expiration of the agreement, Transdev cooperates fully with the City and the new operator in the transition to the successor operator. This cooperation includes consultation regarding labor and management issues, access to non-confidential personnel files, and access to maintenance records.

Previous Council or Advisory Body Action

1. On April 15, 2025, Council adopted SLO Transit’s FY 2026-30 Short-Range Transit Plan which includes service, fare and program change recommendations.

2. On November 18, 2025, Council authorized the advertisement of the RFP for qualified vendors to provide SLO Transit’s operation and maintenance services.

Public Engagement
This is an administrative item, so no outside public engagement was conducted. Public comment can be provided to the City Council meeting through written correspondence prior to the meeting and through public testimony at the meeting. The current vendor, Transdev, and the Teamsters Local Union No. 986, which represents the drivers and other transit worker positions, were notified of the RFP advertisement.

Item 6f
Significant outreach and engagement efforts occurred during the development of the SRTP update. That process resulted in the inclusion of service, fare, and program changes designed to meet the community’s current and future transportation needs.

These recommended changes were incorporated into the RFP Scope of Services. Certain service recommendations identified in years one and two of the SRTP have been incorporated into the agreement.

Based on the Start-up and Transition Plan included in MV Transportation’s proposal, staff does not anticipate any service disruptions during or immediately following the transition period. Transit operation and maintenance service providers, like MV Transportation, regularly transition services between contracted providers and are prepared to address issues as they arise that may affect service delivery. If, however, service disruptions do occur, then the public will be notified as soon as possible through the City’s website, Social Media (Facebook, Instagram, X), on-bus notices, notices at any affected bus stops, and trips planning services like Google Maps and the Transit app.

CONCURRENCE
The Evaluation Committee concurs with the recommended action to award the transit operation and maintenance services contract to MV Transportation. The City Attorney’s Office was involved in the development of the RFP including the draft agreement and approves the form of the agreement. The City’s Risk Manager concurs with the insurance requirements incorporated into the agreement by reference as Exhibit B.

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

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

Funding
Sources
Total Budget
Available
(FY 2026-27)
Current
Funding
Request
Revised
Budget
(FY 2026-27)
Annual
Ongoing Cost
(FY 2027-28)
General Fund $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Transit Fund $ 5,890,244 $ 82,830 $ 5,973,074 $ 5,869,883 State $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Federal $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Fees $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0
Total $ 5,890,244 $ 82,830 $ 5,973,074 $ 5,869,883

Item 6f
In FY 2026-27, the Transit Fund projected $5,890,244 for contracted operation and maintenance services. This amount reflects anticipated implementation of Short-Range Transit Plan (SRTP) service recommendations, based on projected operating costs calculated during the plan’s development.

Since the adoption of the SRTP in April 2025, the City’s current contractor, Transdev, negotiated and executed a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the Teamsters Local Union No. 986. The union represents full-time, regular part-time, casual Drivers, Road Supervisors, and Dispatchers employed by Transdev. The new CBA includes significant increases to hourly wage rates that were not known at the time the SRTP was developed or when the Request for Proposals (RFP) was published. The CBA was provided to Proposers in February 2026 through an addendum to the RFP, along with other requested information. All Proposers incorporated the updated wage rates in their cost proposals and committed to retaining existing represented employees and entering into a new agreement with the Teamsters union if selected.

Staff recommends awarding the contract to MV Transportation for transit operation and maintenance services based on the overall quality and completeness of their proposal, responses to interview questions, and cost. The current funding request of $5,973,074 in the above table is based on MV Transportation’s Best and Final Offer for FY 2026-27 which includes one-time start-up and transition costs of $336,274.06. The year-over-year contractual cost increase, excluding the one-time start-up and transition costs, averages approximately 5.6% over the four-year base term, which is generally consistent with the increases proposed by the other firms in their Best and Final Offers.

Additional funding in the amount of $82,830 in FY 2026-27 will be needed to fulfil the City’s obligations under the agreement. Funding will be provided through a combination of Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Section 5307 program funds and Transportation Development Act (TDA) program funds consistent with prior use of funds for operating assistance.

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the current FTA Certifications and Assurances, which recipients must approve prior to applying for federal funding, and confirmed that the agreement does not contain any concerning language that would prevent the City from applying for FTA Section 5307 funds this fiscal year. Because the FTA updates these Certifications and Assurances annually, the City Attorney’s Office will review future versions each year to ensure no impermissibly restrictive language is introduced before submitting grant applications.

FTA Section 5307 operating assistance grants are awarded on an annual basis, which presents some risk that these funds may not be available in a given year. In that event, the City would rely on Transportation Development Act (TDA) reserves to support transit operations. As noted in the City’s FY 2024–25 TDA single audit, the City currently has slightly more than $10 million in TDA reserves available to fund both transit operating expenses and capital projects. Reserves could fund the equivalent of slightly less than two years of transit operating expenses.

Item 6f
If approved, these costs will be incorporated into the FY 2026-27 Supplemental Budget, which is scheduled to go before Council on June 2, 2026, for consideration.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Council could decide not to approve the contract with MV Transportation and, instead, continue to contract with the current service provider, Transdev. Should Council pursue this option, either the current agreement with Transdev will need to be amended further to extend the term for an additional oneyear period, otherwise the agreement will expire on June 30, 2026, or the City can enter into a new agreement with Transdev using the form of agreement attached to the RFP. This action is not consistent with the FTA’s procurement guidelines which emphasize full and open competition for these types of services.

2. Council could direct staff to negotiate further changes to the agreement terms. Should Council pursue this option, staff will make the necessary changes and return to Council at a later date for authorization. However, this action will shorten the start-up and transition period needed by both the selected vendor and staff to changeover between operators which may cause disruption to services.

ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Agreement for Transit Operation and Maintenance Services B - MV Transportation Technical Proposal
C - Teamsters Union Local No. 986 Letter of Support

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO

AGREEMENT FOR TRANSIT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES This Agreement is made and entered into in the City of San Luis Obispo on __________ , by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and MV Transportation, Inc. , hereinafter referred to as CONTRACTOR.

W I T N E S S E T H:

WHEREAS, on November 20, 2025, CITY requested proposals for transit operation and maintenance services.

WHEREAS, CONTRACTOR is qualified to perform this type of service and has submitted a proposal to do so which has been accepted by CITY.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be for four (4) years commencing on July 1, 2026, through and including June 30, 2030. The term of this Agreement may be extended by mutual consent for an additional four (4) option terms of one (1) year each for a maximum term, including the initial term, of eight (8) years.

2. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE. CITY Request for Proposals (including the terms of all addenda, exhibits, and attachments) and CONTRACTOR’s proposal are hereby incorporated in and made a part of this Agreement, attached as Exhibit A. The CITY’s insurance requirements are hereby incorporated in and made part of this Agreement, attached as Exhibit B. The Federal Transit Administration Third-Party Contracting Provisions are hereby incorporated in and made part of this Agreement, attached as Exhibit C. To the extent that there are any conflicts between the CONTRACTOR’s fees and scope of work and the CITY’s terms and conditions as stated herein, the CITY’s terms and conditions shall prevail unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing signed by both Parties.

3. CITY'S OBLIGATIONS. For providing services as specified in this Agreement, and upon receipt of an invoice, the maximum cost CITY will pay and CONTRACTOR shall receive shall not exceed $5,973,074 in Year One; $5,869,883 in Year Two; $6,219,832 in Year Three; and $6,631,484 in Year Four as set forth in CONTRACTOR’s proposal and pursuant to the payment terms set forth in Exhibit A and in Section 4 of this Agreement.

4. PRICE FORMULA. CITY agrees to pay CONTRACTOR for performance of the services set forth in this agreement as follows:
a. Payment of a fixed hourly rate per vehicle service hour of $90.33 in Year One; $95.78 in Year Two; $102.41 in Year Three; and $107.71 in Year Four. A vehicle service hour is defined as a vehicle providing passenger service for one hour during the service

hours specified herein. A vehicle service hour shall be deemed to have commenced when a vehicle leaves CITY’s Transit Center located at 990 Palm Street to provide the services required herein and shall not include any out-of-service vehicle time used for vehicle operator breaks or lunches. A vehicle service hour shall terminate when a vehicle returns to CITY Transit Center prior to any cleaning, servicing or fueling of the vehicle. The hourly rate shall include vehicle operator wages, fringe benefits, indirect labor and all consumable material costs that can be tracked by vehicle service hour such as vehicle maintenance parts and supplies including oil, and cost incurred in providing all vehicle and general liability insurance required under this Agreement as such insurance is defined in this Agreement..
b. Payment of a fixed monthly rate of $132,813.10 in Year One; $131,903.73 in Year Two; $136,350.28 in Year Three; and $141,018.41 in Year Four to compensate CONTRACTOR for all work to be performed under this agreement as defined in Exhibit A, except that which is included under Paragraph 5(a) and Paragraph 7 of this Agreement including, but not limited to: vehicle operator non-service wages; management, controller and maintenance employee wages and said employees fringe benefits and indirect labor costs; bus washing and cleaning supplies; uniforms; report reproduction; office supplies; project telephones; all other related operational costs; and the contract management fee.
c. Payment of a fixed rate not to exceed $336,274.06 in Year One to compensate CONTRACTOR for all work performed during the start-up and transition period as defined in Exhibit A. This amount shall be invoiced separately and is in excess of the fixed rates as defined herein.
d. Compensation for those items and services provided by CITY and which are specified in Exhibit A shall not be included in the hourly or monthly rates as defined above.

Such items and services include but are not limited to tires; radios including connection fees and service agreements; CITY-owned vehicles; licenses for radios and vehicles; routine maintenance of radios; major facility furnishings; telephone system, building security, office copy machine; all major vehicle components which are engines, transmissions, differentials, and design retrofits; and office, garage, and parking facilities.
e. Additionally, CITY shall provide all marketing, tickets, passes, brochures, and related collateral service materials.

5. EXTRA SERVICES. Special promotional and community services shall be considered extra services and will be provided only with the authorization of CITY and the mutual consent of the CONTRACTOR. Such services shall be defined as those non-permanent service hours operated outside of the services identified in Exhibit A. Extra services shall be considered a change to this agreement as defined herein and shall be in excess of the maximum price defined in Section 3 of this Agreement. The costs for extra services will be determined at a rate per vehicle service hours of $90.33 in Year One; $95.78 in Year Two; $102.41 in Year Three; and $107.71 in Year Four and billed separately from the services specified in Exhibit A.

6. CONTRACTOR’S OBLIGATIONS. For and in consideration of the payments and agreements herein before mentioned to be made and performed by CITY, CONTRACTOR agrees with CITY to do everything required by this Agreement including that work as set forth in Exhibit A.

7. PAYMENT OF TAXES. The contract prices shall include full compensation for all taxes that the Contractor is required to pay.

8. PERMITS AND LICENSES. The Contractor shall procure all permits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices necessary. At its sole cost and expense, CONTRACTOR shall obtain any and all permits, licenses, certificates, or entitlement to operate as are now or hereafter required by any agency, specifically including, but not limited to, those that may be required by the California Public Utilities Commission, the California Highway Patrol, the Department of Motor Vehicles and local jurisdictions, to enable CONTRACTOR to perform this agreement. Copies of all such entitlements shall be provided to CITY when received by CONTRACTOR. In the event that any aspect of this agreement requires prior approval by the PUC, the CONTRACTOR shall submit the necessary application forms. Both parties shall appear as necessary and cooperate in the commission approval process. CITY reserves the right to oppose, support or be neutral on any such request and on the PUC's ruling thereon.

CONTRACTOR covenants to obtain all such approvals before commencing operations, and to conform to the PUC ruling thereon, at its sole cost and expense.

9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. The Contractor shall keep itself informed of and shall observe and comply with all applicable State and Federal laws and regulations, and County and City of San Luis Obispo ordinances, regulations and adopted codes, which in any manner affect those employed by Contractor or in any way affect the performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Contractor to comply with this Section. Failure to comply with local ordinances may result in monetary fines and cancellation of this Agreement.

10. COMPLIANCE WITH INDUSTRY STANDARD. Contractor shall provide services acceptable to City in strict conformance with the Agreement. Contractor shall also provide in accordance with the standards customarily called for under this Agreement using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by reputable providers of such services. Where approval by the City, the City Manager, the Mayor, or other representative of City is required, it is understood to be general approval only and does not relieve Contractor of responsibility for complying with all applicable laws, codes, policies, regulations, and good business practices.

11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. CONTRACTOR is and shall at all times remain as to CITY a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the Services under this Agreement on behalf of CONTRACTOR shall at all times be under CONTRACTOR’s exclusive direction and control. Neither CITY nor any of its officers, employees, or agents shall have control over the conduct of CONTRACTOR or any of CONTRACTOR’s officers, employees, or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees, or agents are in any manner officers, employees, or agents of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall not incur or have

the power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability whatsoever against CITY, or bind CITY in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to CONTRACTOR in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to CONTRACTOR as provided in the Agreement, CITY shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to CONTRACTOR for performing the Services hereunder for CITY. CITY shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to CONTRACTOR for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
c. CONTRACTOR’s duties and services under this Agreement shall not include preparing or assisting the public entity with any portion of the public entity’s preparation of a request for proposals, request for qualifications, or any other solicitation regarding a subsequent or additional contract with the public entity. The public entity entering this Agreement shall at all times retain responsibility for public contracting, including with respect to any subsequent phase of this project. CONTRACTOR’s participation in the planning, discussions, or drawing of project plans or specifications shall be limited to conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications. CONTRACTOR shall cooperate with the public entity to ensure that all bidders for a subsequent contract on any subsequent phase of this project have access to the same information, including all conceptual, preliminary, or initial plans or specifications prepared by contractor pursuant to this Agreement.”

12. PRESERVATION OF CITY PROPERTY. CONTRACTOR shall provide and install suitable safeguards, approved by CITY, to protect CITY property from injury or damage. If CITY property is injured or damaged resulting from the CONTRACTOR’s operations, it shall be replaced or restored at the CONTRACTOR’s expense. The facilities shall be replaced or restored to a condition as good as when the CONTRACTOR began work.

13. IMMIGRATION ACT OF 1986. CONTRACTOR warrants on behalf of itself and all subcontractors engaged for the performance of this work that only persons authorized to work in the United State pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and other applicable laws shall be employed in the performance of the work hereunder.

14. NON-DISCRIMINATION. In the performance of the Services, CONTRACTOR Agrees that it will not engage in, nor permit such subcontractors as it may employ, to engage in discrimination in employment of persons because of age, race, color, sex, national origin or ancestry, sexual orientation, or religion of such persons.

15. INVOICES. All hourly costs shall be invoiced to CITY monthly following the service month provided. Said invoices shall specify the dates of service and the number of vehicle service hours claimed. Hourly costs shall be directly traceable by dispatcher and/or driver trip sheets and/or employee timecards, copies of which will be submitted to CITY monthly with each invoice. The monthly fixed rate and insurance rate shall be invoiced monthly following the service month provided. All reports and submissions required under this Agreement shall be accurately completed and submitted to CITY prior to payment of said monthly rate invoices.

Any extra services provided under this Agreement shall be invoiced separately following the

provision of such services. Copies of all appropriate passenger and service logs shall be attached to each extra service invoice prior to payment.

16. PAYMENT TERMS. CITY’s payment terms are thirty (30) days from the receipt of an original invoice and acceptance by CITY of the materials, supplies, equipment, or services provided by CONTRACTOR (Net 30). CONTRACTOR will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, or as soon thereafter as practical, for services provided in the previous month. Final June invoices shall be received no later than the 5th business day of July to meet CITY fiscal yearend deadlines. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If CITY disputes any of CONTRACTOR's fees it shall give written notice to CONTRACTOR within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. Any final payment under this Agreement shall be made within forty-five (45) days of receipt of an invoice, therefore.

17. INSPECTION. CONTRACTOR shall furnish CITY with every reasonable opportunity for CITY to ascertain that the services of CONTRACTOR are being performed in accordance with the requirements and intentions of this contract. All work done, and all materials furnished, if any, shall be subject to the CITY’s inspection and approval. The inspection of such work shall not relieve CONTRACTOR of any of its obligations to fulfill its contract requirements.

18. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
a. CONTRACTOR shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts, and other such information required by CITY that relate to the performance of the Services under this Agreement. CONTRACTOR shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible.

CONTRACTOR shall provide free access to the representatives of CITY or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records; shall give CITY the right to examine and audit said books and records; shall permit CITY to make transcripts or copies therefrom as necessary; and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the Services under this Agreement shall become the sole property of CITY and may be used, reused, or otherwise disposed of by CITY without the permission of CONTRACTOR. With respect to computer files, CONTRACTOR shall make available to CITY, at CONTRACTOR’s office and upon reasonable written request by CITY, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring, copying and/or printing computer files. CONTRACTOR hereby grants to CITY all right, title, and interest, including any copyright, in and to the documents, designs, drawings, maps, models,

computer files, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared by CONTRACTOR in the course of providing the Services under this Agreement.

19. INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE. To the fullest extent permitted by law (including, but not limited to California Civil Code Sections 2782 and 2782.8), CONTRACTOR shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, and its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents (“City Indemnitees”), from and against any and all causes of action, claims, liabilities, obligations, judgments, or damages, including reasonable legal counsels’ fees and costs of litigation (“claims”), arising out of the CONTRACTOR’s performance or CONTRACTOR’s failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement or out of the operations conducted by CONTRACTOR, including the CITY’s passive negligence, except for such loss or damage arising from the sole or active negligence or willful misconduct of CITY. In the event CITY Indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from CONTRACTOR’s performance of this Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall provide a defense to CITY Indemnitees or at CITY’s option, reimburse CITY Indemnitees the of costs of defense, including reasonable legal fees, incurred in defense of such claims. The review, acceptance or approval of the CONTRACTOR’s work or work product by any indemnified party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the CONTRACTOR’s indemnification or defense obligations. This Section survives the completion of the services or the termination of this contract. The provisions of this section are not limited by and do not affect the provisions of this contract relating to insurance. CONTRACTOR’s indemnification obligations under this section extend to any claims arising out of or related to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of any sub-Contractors/subcontractors.

20. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE. a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Contractor at least sixty (60) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Contractor the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Contractor will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 14.

21. TERMINATION FOR CAUSE. If, during the term of the Agreement, the City determines the Contractor is not faithfully abiding by any term or condition contained herein, the City may notify the Contractor in writing of such defect or failure to perform. This notice must give the Contractor a thirty (30) calendar day notice of time thereafter in which to perform said work or cure the deficiency.

a. If the Contractor has not performed the work or cured the deficiency within the thirty (30) days specified in the notice, such shall constitute a breach of the Agreement and the City may terminate the Agreement immediately by written notice to the Contractor to said effect (“Notice of Termination”). Thereafter, neither party shall have any further duties, obligations, responsibilities, or rights under the Agreement except to comply with the obligations upon termination. b. In said event, the Contractor shall be entitled to the reasonable value of its services performed from the beginning date in which the breach occurs up to the day it received the City’s Notice of Termination, minus any offset from such payment representing the City’s damages from such breach. “Reasonable value” includes fees or charges for goods or services as of the last milestone or task satisfactorily delivered or completed by the Contractor as may be set forth in the Agreement payment schedule; compensation for any other work or services performed or provided by the Contractor shall be based solely on the City’s assessment of the value of the work-inprogress in completing the overall scope. c. The City reserves the right to delay such payment until completion or confirmed abandonment of the project, as may be determined in the City’s sole discretion, so as to permit a full and complete accounting of costs. In no event, however, shall the Contractor be entitled to receive in excess of the not to exceed amount shown in this Agreement.

22. INSURANCE. CONTRACTOR shall maintain prior to the beginning of and for the duration of this Agreement insurance coverage as specified in Exhibit B attached to and made part of this Agreement.

23. BUSINESS LICENSE & TAX. CONTRACTOR must have a valid City of San Luis Obispo business license & tax certificate before execution of the contract. Additional information regarding the City’s business tax program may be obtained by calling (805) 781-7134.

24. SAFETY PROVISIONS. CONTRACTOR shall conform to the rules and regulations pertaining to safety established by OSHA and the California Division of Industrial Safety.

25. PUBLIC AND EMPLOYEE SAFETY. Whenever CONTRACTOR’s operations create a condition hazardous to the public or CITY employees, it shall, at its expense and without cost to CITY, furnish, erect and maintain such fences, temporary railings, barricades, lights, signs and other devices and take such other protective measures as are necessary to prevent accidents or damage or injury to the public and employees.

26. UNDUE INFLUENCE. CONTRACTOR declares and warrants that no undue influence or pressure was used against or in concert with any officer or employee of CITY in connection with the award, terms or implementation of this Agreement, including any method of coercion, confidential financial arrangement, or financial inducement. No officer or employee of CITY has or will receive compensation, directly or indirectly, from CONTRACTOR, or from any officer, employee or agent of CONTRACTOR, in connection with the award of this Agreement or any work to be conducted as

a result of this Agreement. Violation of this Section shall be a material breach of this Agreement entitling CITY to any and all remedies at law or in equity.

27. ASSIGNMENT. CONTRACTOR shall not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract, or its right, title or interest, or its power to execute such a contract to any individual or business entity of any kind without the previous written consent of CITY.

28. OPERATING REVENUES. All operating revenues collected by CONTRACTOR are the property of CITY. Operating revenues include, but are not limited to, all fares and the proceeds from the sale of tickets and passes. Operating revenues shall be counted and kept separately under appropriate security. Within one working day from collection, unless otherwise agreed upon, CONTRACTOR shall deposit fares at a banking institution as directed by CITY. Reports on the revenues collected and deposited shall be provided to CITY on a timely basis. CITY shall be provided with a written description of CONTRACTOR'S procedures regarding the collection, counting and controlling of fare revenues. These procedures are subject to CITY's audit and approval.

29. CONTROL.
a. All services to be rendered by CONTRACTOR under this agreement shall be subject to the control of CITY. CONTRACTOR shall advise CITY of matters of importance and make recommendations when appropriate; however, final decision shall rest with CITY. b. CITY shall not interfere with the management of CONTRACTOR'S normal internal business affairs and shall not attempt to directly discipline or terminate CONTRACTOR employees. CITY may notify CONTRACTOR of the performance of any employee having a negative effect on the service being provided.

30. RESOLUTION OF PROCUREMENT ISSUES. The Federal Acquisition Regulations shall be used where applicable to define, resolve, and settle procurement issues. Unless otherwise directed by CITY, CONTRACTOR shall continue performance under this Agreement while matters in dispute are being resolved.

31. CHANGES. CITY, without invalidating this Agreement may order additions to or deletions from the work to be performed. Such changes shall be specified to CONTRACTOR in writing. If justified, the "CITY’s Obligation" will be adjusted accordingly. New provisions must be mutually agreeable to both CITY and CONTRACTOR. A shift of vehicle service hours between services within the maximum value or an increase or decrease of up to twenty percent (20%) within the current span of service would not constitute a change as defined in this Agreement, but any such shift or change shall only occur at the direction of CITY. In the event that any federal, state, or local law enacted or amended after the effective date of this AGREEMENT modifies the applicable minimum wage or benefits required to be paid to CONTRACTOR's employees subject to this AGREEMENT, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith an equitable adjustment to the rates under this AGREEMENT to reflect the modified labor costs directly attributable to such change.

32. FORCE MAJEURE. CONTRACTOR shall not be held responsible for losses, failure to perform, or excess costs caused by events beyond the control of CONTRACTOR. Such events may