HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-27-2026 CHC Agenda Packet
Cultural Heritage Committee
AGENDA
Monday, July 27, 2026, 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
The Cultural Heritage Committee holds in-person meetings. Zoom participation will not be supported
at this time. 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 advisorybodies@slocity.org. 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 members, 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 cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7114.
Pages
1.CALL TO ORDER
Chair Tischler will call the Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
to order.
2.OATH OF OFFICE
City Clerk Teresa Purrington will administer the Oath of Office to newly
appointed Cultural Heritage Committee Member Mayank Singh.
3.ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
As required by the Cultural Heritage Committee Bylaws, hold the annual election
of Chair and Vice Chair to a one-year term.
4.PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The public is encouraged to submit comments on any subject within the
jurisdiction of the Cultural Heritage Committee that does not appear on this
agenda. Although the Committee will not take action on items presented during
the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a
future agenda for discussion.
5.CONSENT
Matters appearing on the Consent Calendar are expected to be non-
controversial and will be acted upon at one time. A member of the public may
request the Cultural Heritage Committee to pull an item for discussion. The
public may comment on any and all items on the Consent Agenda within the
three-minute time limit.
5.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - APRIL 27, 2026 CULTURAL
HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES
5
Recommendation:
To approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of April 27, 2026.
6.PUBLIC HEARINGS
Note: The action of the Cultural Heritage Committee is a recommendation to the
Community Development Director, another advisory body, or to City Council
and, therefore, is not final and cannot be appealed.
6.a REVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2-STORY DWELLING
UNIT ON THE SAME LOT AS A LOCAL REGISTER RESOURCE AND
WITHIN THE OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT (1520 BEACH
STREET, ARCH-0124-2026)
9
Recommendation:
Recommend to the Community Development Director that the proposed
new development is consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance,
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards.
6.b REVIEW OF A REQUEST TO ENTER INTO A HISTORICAL
PROPERTY PRESERVATION CONTRACT (MILLS ACT) FOR THE
LANDMARK HANS NISSEN AND LENA PETERSON HANSEN HOUSE
LOCATED AT 1110 BUCHON STREET
27
Recommendation:
Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Mills Act
historic property contract between the City and the owner of property at
1110 Buchon Street, to encourage maintenance and restoration of the
Landmark “Hansen House” property.
6.c REVIEW OF A REQUEST TO ENTER INTO A HISTORICAL
PROPERTY PRESERVATION CONTRACT (MILLS ACT) FOR THE
LANDMARK GEORGE AND CORDELIA MCCABE HOUSE LOCATED
AT 571 PISMO STREET
117
Recommendation:
Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Mills Act
historic property contract between the City and the owner of property at
571 Pismo Street, to encourage maintenance and restoration of the
Landmark “McCabe House” property.
7.COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
7.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Receive a brief update from Principal Planner Brian Leveille.
8.ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for
August 24, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available -- 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.
Agenda related writings or documents provided to the Cultural Heritage
Committee are available for public inspection on the City’s website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/mayor-and-city-council/agendas-and-
minutes. Meeting video recordings can be found on the City’s website:
http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=60971&dbid=0&repo=CityCl
erk
1
Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes
April 27, 2026, 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Cultural Heritage
Committee Members
Present:
Member Benjamin Arrona, Member David Blakely, Member
Sabin Gray, Member Ivan Simon, Vice Chair John Ashbaugh,
Chair John Tischler
City Staff Present: Principal Planner Brian Leveille, Deputy City Clerk Sara Armas
_____________________________________________________________________
1. CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee was
called to order on April 27, 2026 at 5:32 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City
Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, by Chair Tischler.
2. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comment:
James Papp
--End of Public Comment--
3. CONSENT
3.a CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES - FEBRUARY 23, 2026 CULTURAL
HERITAGE COMMITTEE MINUTES
Motion By Member Blakely
Second By Vice Chair Ashbaugh
To approve the Cultural Heritage Committee Minutes of February 23,
2026.
Ayes (6): Member Arrona, Member Blakely, Member Gray, Member
Simon, Vice Chair Ashbaugh, and Chair Tischler
CARRIED (6 to 0)
Page 5 of 191
2
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
4.a REQUEST TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY AT 207 BROAD STREET
AS A LANDMARK IN THE CITY’S INVENTORY OF HISTORIC
RESOURCES. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY LISTED AS A LOCAL
REGISTER RESOURCE.
Committee Member Blakely and Vice Chair Ashbaugh noted their Ex Parte
Communications regarding the project.
Assistant Planner Eva Wynn presented the staff report and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Applicant representative James Papp and property owner Richard Silva
provided a brief overview of the project and responded to questions
raised.
Chair Tischler opened the Public Hearing
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Tischler closed Public Comment
Motion By Vice Chair Ashbaugh
Second By Member Gray
Recommend the City Council elevate the property at 207 Broad Street,
whose name is also recommended to be referred to as the "Gary Cully
House and John Wilshusen Patio", to Landmark status in accordance with
the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance based on the following findings:
The architectural significance of the exterior's Tudor Revival style,
specifically described as Lutyensesque Revival, and distinctive
brick veneer siding
The architectural significance of the exterior stonework on the
patio, and potential significance of the steps leading to the property,
crafted by John Wilshusen who notably contributed the renowned
stonework at the Madonna Inn, another Landmark property in the
City’s inventory.
The property's association with Gary Cully, a local craftsman whose
notable work includes the ironwork on the Madonna Inn, the
parabolic wave roof at the Santa Maria Airport, and the ironwork
Page 6 of 191
3
framing the courtyard at 749 & 751 Higuera (Local Register
Resource).
Ayes (5): Member Arrona, Member Gray, Member Simon, Vice Chair
Ashbaugh, and Chair Tischler
Noes (1): Member Blakely
CARRIED (5 to 1)
4.b REVIEW OF NEW EXTERIOR FAÇADE ON THE “NETWORK BUILDING”
(778 HIGUERA STREET - NOT A LISTED HISTORIC RESOURCE) AND
REHABILITATION OF 782 & 786 HIGUERA STREET (LOCAL REGISTER
HISTORIC RESOURCE) IN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT.
Project Planner Ivana Gomez presented the staff report and responded to
Committee inquiries.
Randy Russom, representative from RRM Design Group, provided a brief
overview of the project and responded to questions raised.
Chair Tischler opened the Public Hearing
Public Comment:
None
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Tischler closed Public Comment
Motion By Member Blakely
Second By Vice Chair Ashbaugh
Recommend the Community Development Director find the proposed
project consistent with applicable historic preservation policies, standards,
and guidelines, with a request for the applicant to consider additional
period-appropriate details on the fenestration and rear door opening.
Ayes (6): Member Arrona, Member Blakely, Member Gray, Member
Simon, Vice Chair Ashbaugh, and Chair Tischler
CARRIED (6 to 0)
5. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
5.a STAFF UPDATES AND AGENDA FORECAST
Page 7 of 191
4
Principal Planner Brian Leveille provided the following updates:
The next regularly scheduled meeting is May 25th, but due to the
Memorial Day Holiday it will be rescheduled to May 18th. There are
no items currently scheduled for that meeting
Both items approved by the CHC at the February 23rd meeting
were approved by the City Council at the April 21st meeting
The upcoming California Preservation Foundation Conference in
Riverside will be attended by Members Blakely, Gray, and Vice
Chair Ashbaugh
The Fremont Theater sign is expected to be restored after analysis
by structural engineers
Vice Chair Ashbaugh updated the Committee regarding the status of
replacement efforts for the DeAnza expedition sign.
6. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m. The next rescheduled Regular Meeting
of the Cultural Heritage Committee is scheduled for May 18, 2026 at 5:30 p.m. in
the Council Chambers at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo. The May
25, 2026 Regular Meeting will be cancelled due to the Memorial Day Holiday.
_________________________
APPROVED BY CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/202X
Page 8 of 191
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 2-STORY DWELLING UNIT
ON THE SAME LOT AS A LOCAL REGISTER RESOURCE AND WITHIN THE OLD
TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES AN EXCEPTION REQUEST
TO ALLOW TANDEM PARKING. THIS PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
FROM
Eva Wynn, Assistant Planner FROM: Brian Leveille, Principal Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7172 Phone Number: (805) 781-7166
Email: ewynn@slocity.org Email: bleveille@slocity.org
APPLICATION NUMBER: ARCH-0124-2026
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1520 Beach Street
APPLICANT: Studio Prime Architecture REPRESENTATIVE: John Bellisario
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend to the Community Development Director that the proposed new
development is consistent with the Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines, and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
1.0 BACKGROUND
Studio Prime Architecture, on behalf of the homeowner, filed a development application
(ARCH-0124-2026) to construct a new single-family dwelling at the rear of the property
at 1520 Beach Street. The proposed construction is located behind a residence that is a
Local Register Resource (previously
called a Contributing Resource) and
is within the Old Town Historic
District. The project proposes to
convert the existing residence (Local
Register) to an Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU). No physical alterations
are proposed to the Local Register
Resource, and the proposed
dwelling-type change will not affect
the historic status of the Resource.
Meeting Date: 7/27/2026
Item Number: 6a
Time Estimate: 45 minutes
Figure 1 - 1520 Beach Street, provided by Studio
Prime Architecture
Page 9 of 191
Item 6a
ARCH-0124-2026
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 27, 2026
Pursuant to Municipal Code section 14.01.030(B)(7), the Cultural Heritage Committee
(CHC) shall review development review projects that include new construction, additions,
and/or alterations to historically listed properties and provide recommendations to the
Director regarding the project’s consistency with applicable historic preservation policies,
guidelines, and requirements in the Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG), and Secretary of Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties (SOI Standards).
Following the CHC’s review and recommendation, the project will be reviewed for a final
decision by the Community Development Director (Director). As part of the final review
and decision, the Director will review the recommendation from the CHC and all
accompanying project requests, including the request for tandem parking.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The property is located on the northeastern side of Beach Street, between Buchon Street
and Islay Street, within the Old Town Historic District (District). The District was created
to encompass one of the oldest residential neighborhoods in the City where most of the
development occurred around the turn of the 20th century. The high concentration of 100-
year-old or older residences establishes the District’s predominant architectural and
visual character. The District has many examples of High Victorian architecture, including
several variations, such as Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences,
along with more modest structures with simpler styles including Neo-classic Row House,
Folk Victorian, and Craftsman Bungalow. Most of the houses in the District were designed
and constructed by the homes’ first occupants or by local builders and were influenced
by architectural pattern books of the time period (Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines § 5.2.1).
The existing residence at 1520
Beach Street was built in the
Craftsman Bungalow style and
was added to the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources
as a Local Register Resource
(Resource) in 1983 ( City
Council Resolution No. 5197
(1983 Series)).
Figure 2 - Historic Inventory Photo of 1520 Beach Street
(undated)
Page 10 of 191
Item 6a
ARCH-0124-2026
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 27, 2026
2.2. Proposed Construction
The applicant is proposing to
construct a new 2,288 square
foot, two-story dwelling (see
Project Plans, Attachment A)
behind the exiting Resource.
As shown in plans and
described in the Project
Description (Attachment B),
the proposed dwelling
includes a gable-roof on the
street-facing elevation,
horizontal lap siding visible
from the public right-of-way,
and windows designed to
match the existing Resource.
The proposed design includes
an accent sill on the upper floor, which is not found on the Resource. As noted in the
Project Description, the accent sill is intended to reinforce the Craftsman style of the listed
Resource, without detracting from its historic significance. Additional materials proposed
to differentiate the new dwelling from the Resource include a standing seam metal roof
and natural wood siding at the recessed entry porch. These materials are oriented behind
the Resource to minimize the visual impact of contemporary materials when viewing the
new dwelling from Beach Street.
3.0 EVALUATION
Guidance for new construction associated with historical resources and districts is
provided in the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines and the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties1. Relevant applicable
guidelines, standards, and recommendations from these documents are outlined below.
3.1 Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
Construction in Historic Districts and on Properties with Historic Resources
§3.2.1
Architectural
Compatibility
New structures shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with the district’s prevailing historic character as
measured by their consistency with the scale, massing,
rhythm, signature architectural elements, exterior materials,
siting and street yard setbacks of the district's historic
1 Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring &
Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior National
Park Service; Technical Preservation Services, 2017
Figure 3 - Rendering of Proposed New Dwelling, prepared by Studio
Prime Architecture
Page 11 of 191
Item 6a
ARCH-0124-2026
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 27, 2026
structures. New structures are not required to copy or imitate
historic structures, or seek to create the illusion that a new
building is historic.
§3.2.2
Architectural
Compatibility
New development should not sharply contrast with,
significantly block public views of, or visually detract from, the
historic architectural character of historically designated
structures located adjacent to the property to be developed, or
detract from the prevailing historic architectural character of
the historic district.
The proposed new dwelling is sited at the rear of the property and is consistent in scale
and form with the Resource and with other dwellings in the vicinity. Its massing is
concentrated on the ground floor, stepping back at the upper level, and conventional
hipped and gable roof forms are employed to complement the Resource. The horizontal
siding, window forms, and restrained detailing of the new dwelling exhibit an appearance
that is compatible with the simple form and style of the existing Craftsman Resource,
without detracting from the Resource’s historic character. The scale, roof forms, window
patterns, wood siding and detailing of the new dwelling are also compatible with the
predominant architectural features described for the Old Town Historic District in the
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (HPPG, pg. 35). Based on the proposed form,
massing, material selection, and siting, the proposed new dwelling appears to be
consistent with Historic Preservation Program Guidelines.
3.2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
Related New Construction
Recommended Not Recommended
Locating new construction far enough
away from the historic building, when
possible, where it will be minimally
visible and will not negatively affect
the building’s character, the site, or
setting.
Placing new construction too close to the
historic building so that it negatively
impacts the building’s character, the site,
or setting.
Designing new construction on a
historic site or in a historic setting that
it is compatible but differentiated from
the historic building or buildings.
Replicating the features of the historic
building when designing a new building,
with the result that it may be confused as
historic or original to the site or setting.
Considering the design for related
new construction in terms of its
relationship to the historic building as
well as the historic district and setting.
Page 12 of 191
Item 6a
ARCH-0124-2026
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 27, 2026
Ensuring that new construction is
secondary to the historic building and
does not detract from its significance
Adding new construction that results in
the diminution or loss of the historic
character of the building, including its
design, materials, location, or setting.
Constructing a new building on a historic
property or on an adjacent site that is
much larger than the historic building.
The proposed construction is situated behind the Resource, such that its visibility is
partially obscured, and separated from the Resource by about 10 feet. Though consistent
in form, style, and appearance with the Craftsman Bungalow, its two-story stepped form
and material selection differentiates the proposed dwelling from the existing Resource
and does not detract from the character defining features. The proposed windows, gable-
roof, horizontal siding, and metal roof do not appear identical nor in extreme contrast to
the existing Resource. As noted above, the architectural features of the new dwelling are
also compatible with the predominant architectural features described for the Old Town
Historic District in the HPPG. Based on the site location at the rear of the property,
massing, building form, and material selection, the proposed new dwe lling appears to be
consistent with SOI Standards.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). It consists of construction of one single -family residence in a
residential zone, as described in CEQA Guidelines § 15303 (New Construction of Small
Structures).
5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Staff Recommendation: Recommend that the Community Development Director
find the project consistent with applicable historical preservation policies,
standards, and guidelines.
2. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff.
3. Recommend that the Community Development Director deny the application,
based on specific findings describing inconsistency with historical preservation
policies, standards, and guidelines
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Project Plans – 1520 Beach Street
B - Project Description – 1520 Beach Street
Page 13 of 191
Page 14 of 191
1520 BEACH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
CONVERT EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE TO DETACHED
ADU WITH EXISTING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED
2-STORY PRIMARY RESIDENCE.
PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT.
REQUESTING DIRECTOR'S ACTION APPROVAL FOR TANDOM
PARKING OUTSIDE OF FRONT SETBACK.
MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS
FRONT:
CORNER LOT STREET SIDE:
INTERIOR SIDE:
REAR:
PROPOSED SETBACKS
FRONT:
SIDE (NORTH):
SIDE (SOUTH):
REAR:
EXISTING PREVIOUS AREA
NATURAL VEGETATION:
LANDSCAPING:
PROPOSED PREVIOUS AREA
NATURAL VEGETATION:
LANDSCAPING:
VICINITY MAP
792 FT²
121 FT²
131 FT²
1,157 FT²
2,201 FT²
-131 FT²
-26 FT²
-59 FT²
+1,296 FT²
+44 FT²
+428 FT²
3,753 FT²
+1,552 FT²
PARKING
PARKING SPACES REQUIRED (SFR)
PARKING SPACES PROVIDED
SHEET LIST
PROJECT DIRECTORY
PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA
BLDG FOOTPRINT - PRIMARY SFR:
COVERED PORCHES:
DETACHED STORAGE SHEDS:
HARDSCAPE:
TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA:
PROPOSED NEW IMPERVIOUS AREA
(E) STORAGE SHEDS DEMO'D:
(E) COVERED PORCH DEMO'D:
(E) HARDSCAPE DEMO'D:
(N) BLDG FOOTPRINT:
(N) COVERED PORCHES:
(N) HARDSCAPE:
TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA:
NET CHANGE:
NATURAL GRADE HIGH POINT:
NATURAL GRADE LOW POINT:
AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE:
MAX. ALLOWABLE HEIGHT:
PROPOSED HEIGHT OFF F.F.:
BUILDING HEIGHT
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
201.62
203.50
202.56
202.56' + 35' = 237.56'
203.33 F.F. + 23.8' = 227.13'
IMPERVIOUS AREA
PROJ. ADDRESS:
APN:
LOT AREA:
AVG. SLOPE OF LOT:
ZONING:
EXISTING:
USE:
OCCUPANCY CLASS.:
EXISTING PRIMARY SFD:
PROPOSED TO CONVERT
TO ADU (2 BED)
SPRINKLERS:
PROPOSED DETACHED
PRIMARY SFD TOTAL:
FIRST FLOOR:
SECOND FLOOR:
PROPOSED COVERED PORCHES:
STORIES:
BEDROOMS:
SPRINKLERS REQ'D:12 DU / ACRE
2.0 DU ALLOWED
1.5 DU
OWNER:
MICHAEL FAZIO
1520 BEACH ST.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
MELEGANT@GMAIL.COM
1520 BEACH ST.
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA
003-616-003
5000 FT²
2%
R-2-H
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL /
OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING
(NO CHANGE)
R-3
792 FT²
NO (EXISTING/PROPOSED)
2288 FT²
1296 FT²
992 FT²
28 FT²
2
3
YES
DENSITY
MAX. DENSITY (R-2 ZONE):
MAX. DENSITY ALLOWED:
EXISTING/PROPOSED DENSITY:
SETBACKS
PROJECT DATA
2,020 FT²
0FT²
1,247 FT²
0 FT²
2SPACES(UPTO4BEDS)
2, TANDEM
MAX LOT COVERAGE (R-2):
TOTAL LOT SIZE:
EXISTING LOT COVERAGE
BLDG FOOTPRINT - PRIMARY SFR/GAR.:
COVERED PORCHES:
DETACHED STORAGE SHEDS:
TOTAL EXISTING LOT COVERAGE:
PROPOSED NEW LOT COVERAGE
(N) BLDG FOOTPRINT ADDITION:
(N) COVERED PORCHES:
(E) DETACHED STORAGED SHEDS DEMOD.:
TOTAL PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE:
A1
LOT COVERAGE
20'
10'
5' MIN
5' MIN
60'
5.17'
5.17'
5.17'
A1 TITLE SHEET
A2 EXISTING SITE PLAN
A3 PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A4 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN
A5 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
A6 PERSPECTIVE RENDERINGS
A7 EXISTING SITE AND HOUSE
A8 PROPOSED STREET VIEW RENDER
A9 COLOR + MATERIAL BOARD
SHT 1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN
PERVIOUS AREA
50% (2500 FT²)
5000 FT²
792 FT²
100 FT²
131 FT²
1023 FT² (20.46%)
1296 FT²
72.5 FT²
-131 FT²
2260.5 FT² (45.21%)
ARCHITECT:
JOHN BELLISARIO, AIA
STUDIO PRIME ARCHITECTURE (SP-ARC)
971 OSOS STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
(805) 776-3130
JOHN@STUDIOPRIMEINC.COM
CIVIL:
RICHARD BURDE, PE
SLO CIVIL DESIGN, LLC
971 OSOS STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
(805) 503-8059
RICHARD@SLOCIVILDESIGN.COM
AREA OF WORK
FAZIO RESIDENCE TITLE SHEET
Attachment A - Project Plans
Page 15 of 191
OH
E
SINGLE STORY
SE
W
E
R
M
A
I
N
12
'
'
H
D
P
E
COVERD PARKING ONE STORY GARAGE
WA
T
E
R
M
AI
N
8"C
AS
T
I
R
O
N
792 FT²
F.F. = +203.8
(E) SFD / PROPOSED TO (N) ADU
OHE OHE OHEOHE
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
OH
E
203
N 53°176 20' 34" E 50.00'
2
0
1
TWOST
SINGLE STORY
N 52°176 53' 26" E, 50.02'
STORAGE
SHED STORAGE
SHED
BRICK
(E) GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
2
0
0
N
36
°
1
7
6
5
1
'
3
8
"
W
50.
19
'
201
202
202
20 3
WM
2
0
3 203
N
3
6
°
1
7
6
5
1
'
3
8
"W
50.
20
'
COVER
(E)CO
203
N 53°176 07' 18" E 100.02'
202
NE
A
R
E
S
T
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
1
5
0
'
A
T
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
-
B
U
C
H
O
N
/
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
.
NE
A
R
E
S
T
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
1
7
5
'
A
T
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
-
B
E
A
C
H
/
I
S
L
A
Y
S
T
.
(E) FRONT YARD
MULCH + PLANTINGS,
TO REMAIN. NO NEW
LANDSCAPING
PROPOSED
(E) OLIVE TREE, 3"Ø, REPLACE
OR INSTALL NEW STREET
TREE SELECTED FROM CITY
APPROVED TREE LIST
UPGRADE (E) 5/8"
WATER METER TO 1"
(E) COVERED
PORCH
PORTION OF (E) DRWY
APPROACH TO BE
DEMO'D TO WIDEN
(E) SHARED DRIVEWAY
APPROACH, TO REMAIN
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE
SSS
DEMO + REPLACE
(E) BASEMENT ACCESS
REMOVE (E) FENCE
DEMO (E) SHEDS REMOVE (E) PALM
TREE, 11.5" Ø
(E) UTILITY POLE,
TO REMAIN
OH
E
20
'
S
T
B
K
BE
A
C
H
S
T
R
E
E
T
C
.
L
.
(R
.
O
.
W
.5
0'
)
1520 BEACH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
LEGEND
EXISTING SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1"=10'
N
A2FAZIO RESIDENCE
CONCRETE AREA
AREA OF WORK
COVERED AREA ABOVE
PAVER AREA
DEMO'D AREA
(N) EXTERIOR RECESSED CAN LIGHT LOCATION IN CLG ABV
FSL
W/
(N)W
S/
(N)S
SD
OHE
(N) ROOF GUTTER DOWNSPOUT LOCATION
FIRE SEPARATION LINE
(E)/(N) WATER LINE
(E)/(N) SEWER LINE
STORM DRAIN LINE
(E) OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE
EXISTING SITE PLAN
Page 16 of 191
(N)W
(
N
)
W
(
N
)
W
(N)W
(
N
)
W
(N)W(N)W(N)W (N)W (N)W(N)W (N)W (N)W
(N)W
(N)W(N)W
(N)S(N)S (N)S (N)S (N)S(N)S (N)S (N)S
OH
E
FSL
(N) CONC.DRWY
5'-0"
SE
W
E
R
M
A
I
N
12
'
'
H
D
P
E
WA
T
E
R
M
AI
N
8"
C
A
S
T
IR
O
N
(R
.
O
.
W
.
5
0
'
)
8'-0"
3'-0"
FS
L
FS
L
FSL
FS
L
BE
A
C
HS
T
R
E
ET
C
.L
.
SINGLE STORYCOVERD PARKING
WI
DE
N
TO
2'-0"
ONE STORY GARAGE
sma
l
l
p
a
l
m
6'
bo
a
r
d
f
en
c
e
&
g
a
t
e
4'
-
0
"
(E) SFD / PROPOSED TO (N) ADU
(E) TANDEM
PARKING
3'-0"
16
'
-
8
"
792 FT²
F.F. = +203.8
F.F. = +203.33
OHE OHE OHE OHE
5'-0"
WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
SD
SD
SDSD
OH
E
SDSDSDSD SDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD SD SD SD SD SDSD
20
2
(E)CO
(N)CO
N 52°176 53' 26" E, 50.02'
N 53°176 20' 34" E 50.00'
N3
6%
%
176
51'
3
8
"
W
5
0
.
1
9
'
WM
203
2
0
1
20
1
2
0
0
N 53°176 07' 18" E 100.02'
TWOSTORY
SINGLE STORY
N
3
6
°
1
7
6
5
1
'
3
8"
W
5
0
.
20'
10
'
-
5
12"
3'-0"
203
20
3
202
203
20 3
202
8'-512"
UPPER FLR
8'
-
7
"
UP
P
E
R
F
L
R
11'-6"
5'
-
2
"
5'
-
2
"
(E) FRONT YARD
MULCH + PLANTINGS,
TO REMAIN. NO NEW
LANDSCAPING
PROPOSED
(E) COVERED
PORCHNE
A
R
E
S
T
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
1
5
0
'
A
T
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
-
B
U
C
H
O
N
/
B
E
A
C
H
S
T
.
NE
A
R
E
S
T
H
Y
D
R
A
N
T
A
P
P
R
O
X
.
1
7
5
'
A
T
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
-
B
E
A
C
H
/
I
S
L
A
Y
S
T
.
TRASH +
RECYCLING BINS
(E) OLIVE TREE, 3"Ø, REPLACE
OR INSTALL NEW STREET
TREE SELECTED FROM CITY
APPROVED TREE LIST
(N) 1" WATER
METER
8'
-
4
"
UP
P
E
R
F
L
R
NEW AREA WELL TO BASEMENT ACCESS, 5' BELOW
GRADE, TO MEET R319.4. PROVIDE PERMANENT
SHIP LADDER + COVER.
FIRE SEPARATION DISTANCE LINE
(N) PRIMARY SFD
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHE
SSS
OUTLINE OF EAVE ABV; UNDERSIDE
OF EAVE TO BE 1-HR RATED WHERE
BTWN 2'-3' FSD IN SPRINKLERED BLDG
(N) COVERED PORCH
INSTALL UNDER-
SIDEWALK DRAIN
(E) CONC. CURB
W/ 6' BOARD
FENCE ON TOP,
ALONG REAR PL
LINE OF FLR ABV
TIE GUTTER
DOWNSPOUT TO
STORM DRAIN
(E) UTILITY POLE,
TO REMAIN
(N) COVERED
(E) SHARED DRIVEWAY
APPROACH, TO BE WIDENED
OH
E
4'-1"
20
'
S
T
B
K
3'-1"
FS
L
5'-2"
(N)
S
1520 BEACH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
LEGEND
N
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1"=10'
A3FAZIO RESIDENCE
CONCRETE AREA
AREA OF WORK
PAVER AREA COVERED AREA ABOVE
(N) EXTERIOR RECESSED CAN LIGHT LOCATION IN CLG ABV
FSL
W/
(N)W
S/
(N)S
SD
OHE
(N) ROOF GUTTER DOWNSPOUT LOCATION
FIRE SEPARATION LINE
(E)/(N) WATER LINE
(E)/(N) SEWER LINE
STORM DRAIN LINE
(E) OVERHEAD ELECTRICAL LINE
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
Page 17 of 191
AREA: 136 FT²
CL.
M. BA
BA 01
DNHALL
BED 02
AREA: 133 FT²
BED 01
FLOOR BELOW
SKYLIGHTS ABOVESKYLIGHTS ABOVE
M. SUITE
AREA: 229.2 FT²
PANTRY
ENTRY
LAUNDRY
FAMILY ROOM
BA 03
MECH/
STORAGE
KITCHEN
LIVING ROOM
UP
FLOOR ABV
1520 BEACH STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401
N
PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS
SCALE: 1"= 8'
A4FAZIO RESIDENCE PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS
Page 18 of 191
Page 19 of 191
Page 20 of 191
Page 21 of 191
Page 22 of 191
$
$
$
$ $ "$
! !$ $
!
$
$
$
$! $
$
$$$ $
! $ $
$$ $
# $
$ $
$
#$
#$! $ $
Page 23 of 191
A
C-4
A
C-4
1
1
7
6
3
2
7
W
JUNE 2026
R.C.B.
R.C.B.
NONE
1520 Beach St.No. C 88309
2
1
4
3
6
7
Fazio Residence - Preliminary Grading Plan
1
5
Page 24 of 191
Date: February 25, 2026
To: City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
RE: CHC + Director’s Action Application Review
1520 Beach St., APN: 003-616-003
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is located at 1520 Beach St. Existing development on the property consists of a one-story
primary single-family residence (792 ft2) with a covered front porch and open space in the rear half of
the lot. There is an existing single vehicle-wide gravel driveway along the right side of the house
accessed by shared driveway approach with the neighboring property to the Southwest.
The proposed project consists of:
1. Reclassifying the existing single family dwelling to an ADU
2. Construct a new detached 2-story primary single family dwelling at the rear of the lot
3. Site improvements to include paving and extension of the existing driveway
The property is located in the Old Town Historic District and the existing house was built in 1920 so is
considered a contributing list historic resource which requires review by the Cultural Heritage
Committee. The project does not propose to alter the existing residence, only to reclassify as an ADU.
The new proposed detached dwelling will have limited visibility from the street as it is located in the rear
half of the property. It would be set back roughly 60’ from the street so the new second floor will have
minimal visibility from the street. The new structure will be primarily visible only looking down the
driveway.
The new house is designed to match the exterior language and primary materials as the existing house.
• Gable roof on the street-facing elevation with outlookers, matching the existing house
• Horizontal lap siding to be painted to match the existing house, located on the Southwest and
Southeast elevations, which are the sides that will be visible from the street.
• White windows matching the same proportions as the existing house, with the decorative
mullions on the upper portion of the windows. The windows have sills and trim painted to match
the existing house
• We’ve also included an accent sill on the upper floor that is not featured on the existing house,
although helps to reinforce the traditional Craftsman character.
Attachment B - Project Description
Page 25 of 191
The proposed design includes a couple materials that deviate slightly from the existing house, such as
standing seam metal roof and natural wood siding at the entry porch. We have taken care that these
more contemporary offerings will be less visible from the street. The only street-facing view of any
roofing will either be behind the existing house or on the upper floor. Due to the low pitch of the roof,
visibility from the street level will be minimal. Similarly, the recessed porch with the wood siding is
located mostly behind the existing house.
The project proposes to maintain the location of the existing driveway and provide an extension in
order to fit two parking spaces in tandem. Per zoning code section 17.72.090.C(1) tandem parking
spaces may be provided subject to review and approval of Director’s Action. Due to the location and
size of the existing house it would not be practical to fit two vehicles in a side-by-side configuration.
Therefore we propose to keep the existing parking arrangement which is seen elsewhere in the
surrounding neighborhood as well.
We feel that the proposed project meets the required findings for Director’s Action approval:
1. The proposed tandem parking is consistent with the intent of the zoning regulations under
17.72.090.C(1).
2. The proposed tandem parking is consistent with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Several properties in the immediate vicinity also have tandem parking, such
as: 1521 Beach; 1526 Beach; 1537 Beach
3. The proposed tandem parking will not have potential adverse affects on surrounding
properties
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please let me know if you have any questions or
need additional information to complete the review.
Thank you,
Cody Lorance
Project Manager
Page 26 of 191
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A REQUEST TO ENTER INTO A HISTORICAL PROPERTY
PRESERVATION CONTRACT (MILLS ACT) FOR THE LANDMARK HANS NISSEN
AND LENA PETERSON HANSEN HOUSE LOCATED AT 1110 BUCHON STREET
BY: Eva Wynn, Assistant Planner FROM: Brian Leveille, Principal Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7172 Phone Number: (805) 781-7166
Email: ewynn@slocity.org Email: bleveille@slocity.org
APPLICATION NUMBER: HIST-0119-2026
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1110 Buchon Street
APPLICANT: James Fitzgerald Kelly REPRESENTATIVE: James Papp, PhD
RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Mills Act historic property
contract between the City and the owner of property at 1110 Buchon Street, to encourage
maintenance and restoration of the Landmark “Hansen House” property.
1.0 BACKGROUND
The owner of the Hans Nissen and Lena Peterson Hansen (Hansen) House at 1110
Buchon Street has submitted an application to enter into a Mills Act historic property
preservation contract with the City (see Draft Agreement, Attachment A). Per the City’s
Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO) § 14.01.030 (B)(8) the Cultural Heritage
Committee (CHC) is tasked with providing a recommendation to the City Council about
the request.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The property is located on
the northern side of Buchon
Street, approximately 50
feet east of Santa Rosa
Street in the Dallidet
Addition Tract of the Old
Town Historic District
(District). The District was
created to encompass one
of the oldest residential
Meeting Date: 7/27/2026
Item Number: 6b
Time Estimate: 30 minutes
Figure 1 - 1110 Buchon Street
Page 27 of 191
Item 6b
HIST-0119-2026
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 27, 2026
neighborhoods where most of the development occurred around the turn of the 20th
century. The high concentration of 100-year-old or older residences establishes the
District’s predominant architectural and visual character. The District has many examples
of High Victorian architecture, including several varia tions, such as Queen Anne,
Italianate, Stick and Gothic Revival influences, along with more modest structures with
simpler styles including Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman
Bungalow. Most of the houses in this District were designed and constructed by the
homes’ first occupants or by local builders and were influenced by architectural pattern
books of the time period (Historic Preservation Program Guidelines § 5.2.1).
The residence at 1110 Buchon was built in 1921 in the California Bungalow style and in
2025 was added to the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a Landmark (Attachment
B - City Council Resolution No. 11601).
2.2 Mills Act Contracts
The Mills Act Program is a property tax reduction program for protection of cultural
resources that encourages their maintenance and restoration (§ 3.6.2 of the General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element). Participation in the program is limited to
designated Landmarks; historic 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)).
The City and owners of a Landmark may enter into a historical property preservation
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. Contr acts have
a minimum term of ten years, and contain standard elements set out in the Mills Act (Govt.
Code §§ 50280-50290), including: a provision for preservation (or, where necessary,
restoration and rehabilitation) of the property in conformance with sta te historic
preservation guidelines; periodic examination of the property for compliance with the
contract; and a provision binding the contract upon successive owners. Automatic one -
year extensions are provided, unless either party gives notice of non -renewal of the
contract.
Page 28 of 191
Item 6b
HIST-0119-2026
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 27, 2026
2.3 Proposed Improvements
Several improvements and maintenance items are identified by the applicant for
completion during the term of the proposed contract (Attachment D, Application Request
and List of Improvements). The application notes that some preservation and repair work
has been completed and the requested contract will assist in the continued efforts to
preserve the Landmark. All of the items discussed appear to be relevant to the
preservation and maintenance of this pro perty and are included in Exhibit A of the
proposed draft contract (Attachment A) and outlined below. Additionally, any work
undertaken on the property must, under the terms of the contract, be carried out in a
manner consistent with the City’s historical preservation standards and guidelines and
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, so as
to retain and preserve original, character-defining architectural features and the historical
character of the property.
The owner of the Hansen House proposes to make the following improvements and/or
repairs during the term of this contract:
continued preservation of the interior structure and systems and exterior fabric
restoration of the porch ceiling wood and paint
restoration of sun-damaged wood and paint on the façade
drainage repair
new guttering
repair of cracking chimney
When the property was included in the City’s Inventory of Landmarked resources in 2025,
the submitted Historic Evaluation (Attachment C) provided details on the corner porch
column, indicating it was originally a square porch column with a “falsely historicist
tapering” laminated over the original column (pg. 72). Based on this evaluation, staff
recommends adding the following item to the list of proposed improvements to aid in the
restoration of the California Bungalow’s original aesthetic:
Restoration of the original square corner porch column
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Entering into a Mills Act Contract with the owners of a 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 resulting in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment
CEQA Guidelines §15378 (b)(4).
Page 29 of 191
Item 6b
HIST-0119-2026
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 27, 2026
4.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Staff Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council that the City enter into a
Mills Act Historic Property Preservation Contract with the property owners, to
encourage maintenance and restoration of the historic property at 1110 Buchon
Street.
2. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff.
3. Recommend to the City Council that the City not enter into the proposed historical
property contract. This action is not recommended because the City participates
in incentive programs that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic
properties, General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, Program 3.6.2),
and as a Landmark Resource, this property is eligible for this program.
5.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement - 1110 Buchon Street
B - Resolution No. 11601 (2025 Series)
C - Historic Resource Evaluation - 1110 Buchon Street
D - Application Request and List of Improvements - 1110 Buchon Street
Page 30 of 191
Attachment A – Draft Agreement
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNER OF THE HISTORIC
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1110 BUCHON 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 James Fitzgerald Kelly (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”), and collectively referred
to as the “parties.”
WHEREAS, Owner is the owners of that certain real property commonly known as 1110
Buchon Street (APN 003-545-016), and legally described as shown in the attached
“Exhibit B” (“Owner’s Property”); and
WHEREAS, Owner has agreed to enter into a Historical Property Contract with the City
for the preservation, maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of Owner’s 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.
Page 31 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
1110 Buchon Street
Page 2
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 their 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 and 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 character, significance, and design as determined by the Community
Development Director.
Page 32 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
1110 Buchon Street
Page 3
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);
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
Page 33 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
1110 Buchon Street
Page 4
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 1110 Buchon Street, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessors Parcel Number 003-545-
016, 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: James Fitzgerald Kelly
1110 Buchon Street
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
Page 34 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
1110 Buchon Street
Page 5
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.
Page 35 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
1110 Buchon Street
Page 6
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.
OWNER
____________________________________ ______________________________
James Fitzgerald Kelly 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:
______________________________
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
Page 36 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
1110 Buchon Street
Page 7
EXHIBIT A
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR THE HANSEN HOUSE
LOCATED AT 1110 BUCHON 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 1110 Buchon 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:
continued preservation of the interior structure and systems and exterior fabric
restoration of the porch ceiling wood and paint
restoration of sun-damaged wood and paint on the façade
drainage repair
new guttering
repair of cracking chimney
restoration of the original square porch column
OWNERS
____________________________________ ______________________________
James Fitzpatrick Kelly Date
Page 37 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
1110 Buchon Street
Page 8
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
For APN/Parcel ID: 003-545-016
To be included in final preservation agreement.
Page 38 of 191
R 11601
RESOLUTION NO. 11601 (2025 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS
OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1110
BUCHON STREET TO THE MASTER LIST OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
AS THE HANS NISSEN AND LENA PETERSON HANSEN HOUSE
WHEREAS, the applicant, Fitzgerald Kelly, filed an application on June 27, 2025,
for review of the inclusion of the property at 1110 Buchon Street on the City’s Master List
of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the Cultural Heritage Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California on August 25, 2025 and recommended that the City Council
add the property at 1110 Buchon Street to the Master List of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo reviewed the
application at a public meeting on October 21, 2025 for the purpose of considering the
request to add the property to the Inventory of Historic Resources; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public meetings were made at the time and in the
manner required by law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has duly considered all evidence, including the record
of the Cultural Heritage Committee hearing and recommendation, testimony of the
applicant and interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendation presented by
staff.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the
following findings:
a) The subject property is eligible for inclusion in the City’ s Inventory of Historic
Resources as a Master List Resource because the property satisfies at least
one of the evaluation criteria for historic resource listing described in 14.01.070
of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), exhibits a high degree of
integrity, and is more than 50 years old.
b) The subject property satisfies Architectural Criteria for Style and Design
14.01.070 (A)) and Criteria for Integrity (14.01.070 (C)) to a degree that
qualifies it for designation as a Master List Resource. The dwelling on the site
conveys a purity of style and embodies a uniquely preserved example of the
California Bungalow style, featuring a full-width front-gable and asymmetric
porch. The building occupies its original site and retains a largely unaltered
exterior, with its characteristic design and materials.
Docusign Envelope ID: 883FFAF3-D3D6-449C-967A-F34B88E58490
Attachment B - Resolution No. 11601 (2025 Series)
Page 39 of 191
Resolution No. 11601 (2025 Series) Page 2
R 11601
SECTION 2. Environmental Determination. The project is categorically exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Inclusion of the
subject property on the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources does not have the potential
for causing a significant effect on the environment, and so is covered by the general rule
described in 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
SECTION 3. Action. The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby
include the property located at 1110 Buchon Street in the Master List of Historic
Resources as “The Hans Nissen and Lena Peterson Hansen House.”
Upon motion of Council Member Marx, seconded by Council Member Francis, and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Boswell, Francis, Marx, Vice Mayor Shoresman,
and Mayor Stewart
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 21st day of October 2025.
Mayor Erica A. Stewart
ATTEST:
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the
City of San Luis Obispo, California, on ______________________.
Teresa Purrington
City Clerk
Docusign Envelope ID: 883FFAF3-D3D6-449C-967A-F34B88E58490
10/28/2025 | 11:45 AM PDT
Page 40 of 191
1
Master List Application
Hans Nissen and Lena Peterson Hansen House
1110 Buchon Street
I.Summary Conclusion
The house built by Hans and Lena Hansen at 1110 Buchon Street in 1921 is a California
Bungalow, the Golden State’s iconic contribution to suburban architecture, which spread
throughout North America, Australia, and New Zealand in the early twentieth century. Its
genesis in California has been obscured by its inexplicable rebranding in the 1980s and
1990s as the “Craftsman Bungalow,” a term almost never used contemporaneously.
Bungalows—created in their eponymous location of Bengal for European traders in the
seventeenth century—migrated to America through California in the early 1870s. At the
turn of the century, architects Bernard Maybeck in Berkeley, Frank Delos Wolfe and
Charles McKenzie in San Jose, and Charles and Henry Greene in Pasadena adapted the
•asymmetric footprints of Colonial Bungalows
•rustic features and broad, low profile of the Swiss chalet
•indoor-outdoor spaces appropriate to California’s mild climate; and
•cost- and labor-saving advantages of single-story, open-plan living.
into an architectural expression of the California lifestyle soon to be exported to suburbs as
far-flung as Montreal, Miami, and Wallaroo.
When the Old Town Historic District was conceived as Conservation District #1 in San Luis
Obispo’s 1979 Historical and Architectural Conservation Element , the California Bungalow
—with regional pride—was the sole architectural style referenced in the district’s
definition.
Attachment & - Hansen House Historic Evaluation
Page 41 of 191
2
Subsequently—perhaps from
a misconception of historic
districts that the older, taller,
and more elaborate, the
better—the Historic
Preservation Program
Guidelines redefined the Old
Town District’s “predominate
architectural features” as
“two- and rarely three-story
houses” and “High Victorian
architecture,” despite the fact
that of the more than 300
Master and Contributing List
houses in the district
1908 postcard: California Bungalow Inn of Dallas, Texas
• 95 percent are 1- and 1½-story bungalows and cottages
• 92 percent were built in the twentieth century as the new rather than old town
Fully 41 percent of the listed buildings are Colonial Bungalows and California Bungalows:
the core of its resources. Yet perhaps because of the district’s misdescription as old, tall,
and “High Victorian” (never a technically accepted term), relatively few of its Colonial
Bungalows and almost none of its California Bungalows have been Master Listed.
To support the city’s move to update the Historic Resources Survey, this report analyzes
the Old Town Historic District biases as the historiographic context of the Hansen House .
The Hansen House is the California Bungalow subtype characterized by a full-width street-
facing chalet gable and asymmetric integrated porch—the California Bungalow’s Southern
California ur-form as developed by Charles and Henry Greene in Pasadena. It articulates a
minimalist decorative aesthetic appropriate to its simple form . It also has an extraordinary
degree of integrity to communicate this significance, a rare listed building with no
horizontal or vertical additions and located within a unique block-long collection of 21
listed bungalows, including 13 Colonial Bungalows and 7 California Bungalows.
The Hansen House’s subtype is not represented elsewhere in San Luis Obispo’s Master List
except by the Anholm House, whose profoundly flawed integrity of design, workmanship,
and materials—as a result of both substantial loss and substantial expansion—negates its
ability to communicate its significance.
The Hans and Lena Hansen House qualifies for the Master List’s standard of “the most
unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of […] architectural […]
significance [or] rarity,” and its combination of significance and integrity make it a key Old
Town Historic District resource for the city’s highest designation of preservation.
Submitted 24 June 2025 on behalf of Fitzgerald Kelly by
James Papp, PhD | Historian and Architectural Historian, City and County of San Luis Obispo
964 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-470 -0983 | papp.architectural.history@gmail.com
Page 42 of 191
3
Contents
I. Summary Conclusion 1
II. Chronology 4
III. Historical Context: Immigrants in San Luis Obispo County 10
Danish Immigration to the Central Coast 10
The Dallidet Addition 11
IV. Architectural Historical Context: The California Bungalow 15
Bungalow origins 15
The California Bungalow 18
Dissemination of the California Bungalow 24
Terminology: California Bungalow versus Craftsman Bungalow 25
V. Historiographic Context: Creation and Revision of the Old Town Historic District 30
Possible origin of the Master/Contributing dichotomy 31
The Old Town Historic District’s origin 35
The district’s misnaming 35
The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines’ arbitrary revision of the district’s
period of significance 38
The Guidelines’ misdescription of the district’s “Architectural Character” 38
The Guidelines’ misdescription of “Predominant architectural features” 45
Old Town Historic District architectural types 46
VI. The Hansen House in the Universe of San Luis Obispo Listed California Bungalows 47
Master List California Bungalows throughout San Luis Obispo 47
Original Master List in the Old Town Historic District: Vollmer, Patton,
Nuss, Crossett, City Kindergarten, Adriance Court
Original list outside of a historic district: Faulkner, Parsons
Added by application of owners 1996 –2012: Dunlap, Burch, Anholm,
Kelly, Dart, and Lyman
Contributing List California Bungalows in the Old Town Historic District 60
VII. Significance of the Hansen House 64
VIII. Period of Significance 68
IX. Integrity 69
X. Conclusion 74
Page 43 of 191
4
II. Chronology of the Hansen House, 1110 Buchon
Hansen Era: 1921–1937
1846 Hans Nissen Hansen, an ethnic Dane, is born in the Duchy of Schleswig.
1856 Lena Peterson (or Petersen) is born in California of ethnic Danish parents
from the Duchy of Schleswig, not long after the settlement of the First
Schleswig War (1848–1851) in 1852.
1866 Austria’s loss in the Austro -Prussian War puts the Duchy of Schleswig under
the control of Prussia, which promises but never administers a plebiscite.
1867/1868 Hans Hansen immigrates to the United States soon after the Duchy of
Schleswig has come under the control of Prussia. (The 1867 date is given by
his San Luis Obispo Daily Telegram obituary [“Hans Hansen Passes Away,” 25
Jan. 1930, p. 1], the 1868 date in the 1910 and 19 20 US Census.)
1877 Hans Hansen is naturalized as a citizen of the United States (US Census,
1920, San Luis Obispo City, Supervisor’s District 7, Enumeration District 50,
sheet 4A).
1877 Lena Peterson marries Hans Nissen Hansen in Monterey County (Monterey
County marriage records).
1880 The Hansens arrive in San Luis Obispo County and begin ranching in the
Santa Margarita area, according to Hans’s obituary (“Hans Hansen Passes
Away”), or in 1889, according to Lena’s obituary (“Aged Woman Dies
Monday,” Telegram, 7 July 1926, p. 5). According to their son Nelson’s
obituary, he was born in San Luis Obispo County in 1882 (“SLO Native Called
by Death,” Telegram, 22 Jan. 1945, p. 1). Likely the Hansens moved to San
Luis Obispo County in 1880, removed to Chualar in Monterey County in the
late 1880s, and returned in the early 1890s.
1882 Nelson Nissen Hansen is born to Lena Hansen.
1889 John Hansen is born to Lena Hansen at Chualar, southeast of Salinas,
Monterey County (“Born,” Salinas Daily Journal, 4 Nov. 1889, p. 3).
1891 Aug. 30 The San Luis Obispo Tribune notes Hans Hansen of Chualar staying at the
Laughery House (“Hotel Arrivals,” p. 4).
1910 Hans and Lena Hansen and their 27 - and 23-year-old sons Nelson and John
and 21-year-old daughter Carrie (Caroline) are living on their own dairy
farm, owned free of mortgage, on the Chorro Road in the Morro Township
(US Census, 1910, Morro Township, Supervisor’s District 5, Enumeration
District 35, sheet 5A).
1913/1914 Hans and Lena Hansen move from their Chorro Valley ranch to San Luis in
1913, according to Hans’ obituary (“Hans Hansen Passes Away”) or 1914,
according to Lena’s obituary (“Aged Woman Dies Monday”).
1920 Hans and Lena Hansen and daughter Caroline (a music teacher) are renting
at 1190 Buchon Street (US Census 1920).
Page 44 of 191
5
1921 Sep. 12 Hansen Nissen Hansen applies for a permit for a 28’ by 42’ five-room frame
and plaster house, part lots 3 and 4, block 201 (1110 Buchon Street),
estimated cost $2,500 (San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection, Special
Collections and Archives, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo).
1926 July 5 Lena Hansen dies aged 69 (“Aged Woman Dies Monday”).
1930 Jan. 25 Hans Hansen dies aged 83. The funeral service is held at 1110 Buchon,
where Hans has been living with his daughter Carrie.
1930 Apr. 8 Carrie Hansen, 35, no occupation, is listed as the owner of 1110 Buchon,
worth $5,000, with 23-year-old Mabel G. Anderson, bank bookkeeper, as a
roomer (US Census, 1930, San Luis Obispo City, Enumeration District 40 -27,
sheet 11A).
Apr. 9 Nelson Hansen is farming on a rented ranch on Morro Road (US Census,
1930, Morro Township, Supervisor’s District 13, Enumeration District 40 -
10, sheet 21B).
From April 30 to May 23 in the Telegram, two rooms and a bath and
“desirable rooms for ladies” are offered for rent at 1110 Buchon.
1935 Nov. 18 Vernon Newton, a patient at San Luis Sanitarium, is living at 1110 Buchon
(Personal Paragraphs, Telegram, p. 4).
1937 Carrie Hansen, unmarried, deeds 1110 Buchon to Rena Nichols, widow
(Public Records, Telegram, 21 Jan. 1937, p. 6).
Nichols Era: 1937–1950s
1891 Mar 26 Rena Katherine McCann is born in California to Irish parents (US Census,
1910, part Assembly District 31, San Francisco, Supervisor’s District 4,
Enumeration District sheet 30, sheet 4A; Social Security Numerical
Identification Files).
1887 Newton James Nichols is born in California to California-born parents (US
Census, 1910, Gilroy Township, Supervisor’s District 5, Enumeration District
sheet 74, sheet 24A; California Death Index, 1905–1939)
1910 Rena McCann is working as a domestic and living with 13 other lodgers and
a family of 5 at 284 Missouri Street in Potrero Hill, San Francisco (US
Census, 1910).
Newton J. Nichols, a locomotive fireman, is living in a lodging house in Gilroy
(US Census, 1910).
1911 May 7 Newton James Nichols and Rena Katherine McCann are married in San
Francisco, of which they are both described as residents (marriage license
No. L-4207).
1912 Oct. 14 Their daughter Evelyn Catherine Nichols is born.
1914 July 25 Their daughter Laura Nichols is born in San Luis Obispo (Social Security
Numerical Identification Files).
Page 45 of 191
6
1918 Sep. 11 Newton Nichols’ draft card identifies him as an SP locomotive fireman living
with his wife at 1533 Osos (a Colonial Bungalow a block from 1110 Buchon
and still extant).
1929 Franklin E. “Frank” Abbott is “in charge” of the Poly orchestra in a grand
march (“Many Present at Party When Five Churches Unite in Social,”
Telegram, 19 Oct. 1929, p. 3).
1930 Feb. 24 Newton Nichols is the engineer for a special train of three Pullmans and
dining, club, and baggage cars departing Los Angeles at 11:50 pm and with
former President and Mrs. Calvin Coolidge, Mr. and Mrs. Louis B. Mayer,
William Randolph Hearst, and entourage for a visit to Hearst Castle. At 6:45
am on the 25th, the train sidetracks at Hathway Avenue. Despite the banner
headline “San Luis Obispo Greets Ex -President Coolidge,” the visit is kept
secret till after the party departs by automobiles fo r Hearst Castle
(Telegram, 25 Feb. 1930, p. 1).
Apr. 12 Frank Abbott, 21, is living with his mother, a theater organist, and younger
brother, an oil company fireman, in Avila, with no occupation (US Census,
1930, Arroyo Grande Township, Enumeration Dirstrict 40 -2, sheet 12A).
May 2 Laura Nichols and Frank Abbott play together in the San Luis Obispo High
School Orchestra (“Edna Center in Big Meet,” Telegram, 2 May 1930, p. 2).
1931 Frank Abbott is working with the surveyors on highway construction
between San Simeon and Carmel (Pismo Times: Avila News Items, Notes, and
Comments, 27 Feb., p. 7; Lela Davis, Avila News, 8 May, p. 3).
1932 Oct. 19 Stanley Abbott is born. Frank and Laura Abbott are living at her parents ’
house at 1533 Osos (About Town, Telegram, 21 Oct. 1932, p. 8).
1933–1935 Reference is made to “Frank Abbott and his orchestra” (Telegram: “Dinner
and Program Enjoyed by CDA,” 24 June, 1933, p. 7; “Dancing Party Given
Honoring Popular Couple,” 18 feb. 1935, p. 3).
1936 Oct. 6 Southern Pacific engineer Newton James Nichols dies at age 50 at the SP’s
San Francisco hospital after being taken ill in his cab at San Jose, leaving
Rena Nichols a widow. According to the Telegram, Newton Nichols has been
with the SP for over 30 years and resident in San Luis for 26 (“Friends
Mourn Death of SP Veteran,” 6 Oct. 1936, p. 2).
Oct. 31 Decree of divorce of Laura Abbott is announced (Personal Paragraphs,
Telegram, p. 6).
Dec. 2 Frank Abbott dies three days after striking his head on a beam above the
piano he is employed to play at a café on the San Pedro waterfront,
according to a lawsuit filed by his mother on behalf of herself and his son
(“Frank Abbott Passes Away in S outhland,” Telegram, 9 Dec. 1936, p. 3; “Café
Operators Here Sued in Piano Player’s Death,” News-Pilot, 2 Dec. 1937, p. 7).
1937 In January Rena Nichols buys 1110 Buchon from Carrie Hansen; in March
she is assigned the whole estate of Newton Nichols, covering lot 8, block 170
Page 46 of 191
7
in the Dallidet Addition, that is, the house at 1533 Osos (Public Records:
Miscellaneous, Telegram, 12 Mar. 1937, p. 2).
1938–1954 Mrs. Rena Nichols is documented living at 1110 Buchon (1938 City
Directory; Telegram: “‘Save a Life’ Knives Added in Drive Here,” 11 Jan.
1943, p. 8; “Marriage Licenses,” 21 July 1954, p. 2).
1938–1955 Mrs. Laura Nichols Abbott, Rena Nichols’ daughter, is documented living at
1110 Buchon (1938 City Directory; Telegram: “Committee Nets $3,200 in
Drive,” 17 Mar. 1941, p. 1; “Miss Kirchner Makes Nuptial Vows with Stanley
Abbott,” 7 July 1955, p. 6).
1940 1110 Buchon houses Rena Nichols, head, a widow, age 50; daughter Evelyn,
single, 27, secretary, oil company; daughter Laura Abbott, widow, 25,
secretary, insurance adjustor; and Laura’s son Stanley, 7 (US Census, 1940,
Caifornia, San Luis Obispo City, Enumeration District 40 -26, sheet 7B).
1940–1941 Marie Bell Abbott, Frank Abbott’s mother, who has been working for several
years as the WPA recreational director for the Avila district, goes missing in
early 1940, wanted on an arson charge by the San Luis Obispo County
sheriff and Los Angeles officers (“Mystery Shrouds Disappearance of Avila
Woman,” Telegram-Tribune, 19 Feb. 1941, p. 6). The body of a 5’7”, 250 -
pound woman that washed ashore near Santa Monica on 31 January 1941 is
identified as Marie Abbott by Helen Roberts of National City, wh o claims to
be a friend. Police receive a telegram from Forrest Abbott, Marie’s surviving
son, in Bridgeport, CT, who says that a friend of his has viewed the body and
that it is not his mother. Helen Roberts is found in a Los Angeles
psychopathic ward, and Marie Abbott is put back on the wanted list.
1950 1110 Buchon houses Laura N. Abbott, 35, head, a private secretary in oil
production; son Stanley W. Abbott, 17; and mother Rena Nichols, 58 (US
Census, 1950, California, San Luis Obispo City, Enumeration District 40 -62,
sheet 15).
1955 Marie Bell Abbott dies in Oceano without having been mentioned in the
press since her disappearance and supposed death and misidentification
(“Mrs. Marie Abbott of Oceano Passes,” Arroyo Grande Valley Herald-
Recorder, 14 Oct. 1955, p. 7).
1957 Mr. and Mrs. Everett N. Hunter (the former a student) are living at 1110
Buchon, and neither Rena Nichols nor Laura nor Stanley Abbott is listed in
the county (1957 City Directory, “Thirty-Four Babies Arrive in County; Stork
Is Tired,” Telegram, 18 Sep. 1957, p. 6).
1981 July 19 Rena Nichols Wallace dies and is buried in Goleta Cemetery.
1998 May 24 Laura Nichols Abbott dies and is buried in Goleta Cemetery.
Maxwell Era: 1958–2014
1921 Nov. 18 Otis Mark Maxwell is born in Morton, Mississippi, forty miles east of Jackson.
Page 47 of 191
8
1930 Apr. 19 Otis Mark Maxwell (then known as Mark H. Maxwell) is living with his father
(an unemployed house carpenter), mother, and four brothers in Meehan,
Mississippi, near the Alabama border (US Census, 1930, Mississippi,
Lauderdale County, Beat 4, Enumeration District 38-25, sheet 11A).
1942 Feb. 15 Twenty-year-old Otis Maxwell of Morro Bay, 6’2”, red-haired, gray-eyed, and
employed at Camp San Luis, registers for the draft (Registration Card,
Selective Service). He appears to be living with his older brother John C.
Maxwell, Jr. In 1940 John C. Maxwell had been assistant manager of the
grocery store at the Morro Bay CCC camp (US Census. 1940, Morro Bay
Township, Enumeration District 40 -12, sheet 16B).
Sep. Otis Maxwell enlists in the US Navy as an apprentice seaman (“Naval
Enlistments Reach Record Total in County,” Telegram-Tribune, 2 Oct. 1942,
p. 1).
1946 Navy veteran Otis Maxwell has returned to Camp San Luis as one of its six
hundred civilian employees (“Veterans Tell Why They Like SLO,” Telegram,
17 Apr. 1946, pp. 1 and 10).
Otis Maxwell, working as construction labor in building houses and roads, is
one of three lodgers at 530 Buchon (US Census, 1950, Enumeration District
40-50, sheet 2).
1958–1977 Otis Maxwell, foreman at Madonna Construction, and Julia M. Maxwell are
living at 1110 Buchon (City Directories).
1963 Otis and Julia Maxwell apply for a permit to lengthen two windows at 1110
Buchon (“Permit for Duplex Tops San Luis Obispo List,” Telegram-Tribune,
23 Mar. 1963, p. 5).
Otis Maxwell directs the men’s chorus for a surprise fête of almost three
hundred employees for Alex Madonna (“Surprise Fête Honors Boss,”
Telegram-Tribune, 21 Oct. 1963, p. 4).
1967 Otis Maxwell, as owner-contractor, receives a permit for brick veneer, $100
(“Building Permits,” Telegram-Tribune, 12 May 1967, p. 5)
1979–1981 Otis Maxwell, retired, and Julia Maxwell are living at 1110 Buchon (City
Directories).
1981 Julia Maxwell dies in San Luis Obispo (“Card of Thanks” [advertisement],
Telegram-Tribune, 14 Feb. 1981, p. 5).
1984 June 21 Otis Maxwell marries LaVerne Boktin in Reno, Nevada (Nevada Marriage
Index, 1956–2005)
1983–1989 Otis and LaVerne George Boktin Maxwell, both retired, are living at 1110
Buchon (City Directories).
2010 Oct. 8 LaVerne Maxwell dies aged 90 (“LaVerne Boktin Maxwell,” Tribune, 13 Oct.
2010, p. B2).
Page 48 of 191
9
2014 May 5 Otis Maxwell dies aged 92 in San Luis Obispo (GenealogyBank Obituaries,
Births, and Marriages, United States, 1980-2014, familysearch.org, accessed
9 Oct. 2024).
Page 49 of 191
10
III. Historic Context: Immigrants in San Luis Obispo County
The difficulty with following Hans Nissen Hansen’s activities is that he was not the only
Hans Hansen—or even the only Hans N. Hansen, or even the only Hans Hansen or Hans
Hanson born in 1846—in San Luis Obispo County.
What were so many Danes doing here? They left Northern Schleswig (now Southern
Jutland) because of two wars from 1848 to 1864 and subsequent Prussian oppression. But
though Hans Hansen and his wife Lena Peterson Hansen were in California because of
historical forces, there is nothing to suggest that Hans or Lena were historically significant
figures themselves, such as leaders of their profession. They were dairy farmers who stuck
to their business in Santa Margarita, Chualar , and the Chorro Valley till they retired to the
City of San Luis Obispo in 1913 or 1914 . In 1921 they built the house at 1110 Buchon that
is the subject of this application for its embodiment of the California Bungalow.
Unlike fellow Danish Schleswigers Chris and George Anholm, the Hansens did not have a
farm close enough to San Luis to turn into a suburban bungalow tract . They were
prosperous enough, however, to build a single suburban bungalow.
Danish immigration to the Central Coast Hans Nissen Hansen, an ethnic Dane who
immigrated to the United States from Germany in his early twenties, appears to have been
born in 1846 in Northern Schleswig in the disputed Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein.
The British prime minister Lord Palmerston famously observed of the “Schleswig -Holstein
question” that vexed Europe in the mid-nineteenth century that only three people had ever
understood it: “the Prince Consort, who is dead; a German professor, who went mad; and
myself, who have forgotten all about it.”
The dispute arose from the two traditionally conjoined duchies belonging to the Danish
royal branch of the Oldenburg dynasty and located between Denmark and Germany.
Schleswig remained outside the Holy Roman Empire and was partially Danish speaking;
Holstein remained inside and was largely German speaking. In the mid-nineteenth century,
with Frederick VII of Denmark having no issue, the duchies’ future owner was in doubt,
against the background of rising nationalism, popular revolutions, and the maneuvering of
imperial powers.
An uprising by German-speaking Schleswigers and Holsteiners in 1848 —started by a
German-oriented claimant to the duchies from the Schleswig -Holstein-Sonderburg-
Augustenburg branch of the Oldenburgs—sparked the First Schleswig War, which
continued until 1851 and drew in troops from both the Kingdom of Denmark on one side
and the Prussian and Hanoverian kingdoms and Saxon duchies of the German
Confederation on the other. It also attracted the interfere nce of the Russian tsar and
concluded with a peace conference in London. Schleswig and Holstein remained the
possession of the Danish crown but with a semi-autonomous status.
A Danish attempt to integrate Schleswig, the death of Frederick VII in 1863, and the
question of whether the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein should go to Prince Christian of
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, who had inherited the Danish throne, or
Frederick, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg, a Prussian puppet,
resulted in the German Confederation’s invasion of Holstein and a subsequent incursion by
Page 50 of 191
11
Prussia and Austria into Schleswig in 1864. Schleswig -Holstein came under joint Prussian
and Austrian administration until Austria lost the Austro -Prussian War of 1866, when
Prussia became the sole authority.
A promised plebiscite for the region was indefinitely postponed. Rights for ethnic Danes to
live in Denmark without ceding land in Schleswig were rescinded. With neither Danish nor
Prussian citizenship available, and Prussian persecution, expulsion, and mi litary service in
force, many Schleswig Danes left for America. A number of them—including Hans Nissen
Hansen and the Anholm brothers—ended up in San Luis Obispo County to build its growing
dairy industry.
In the 1860s and ’70s, dairy was replacing the Central Coast’s drought -battered ranching
industry. Cattle, raised for tallow and hides during the Spanish and Mexican eras and meat
during the California Gold Rush and after, traditionally wandered for most of the year in the
wildernesses of local ranchos and public land. When the rains failed, which happened
repeatedly in the 1860s, cattle were wiped out. In contrast, dairy herds were kept close to
food and water for twice-daily milkings.
Lena Peterson Hansen’s parents, from her 1856 California birthdate, likely came to the
state during or soon after the First Schleswig War. Hans Nissen Hansen immigrated to
California soon after the Second Schleswig War.
Schleswig was finally granted its plebiscite in 1920 after Germany’s defeat in World War I.
The result was that Northern Schleswig became South Jutland and part of Denmark —hence
the change from “Ger-Danish” for the birth nationality of Hans Hansen and his wife’s
parents in the 1910 US Census to “Danish” in the 1920 census. Some S chleswigers,
suddenly South Jutlanders, returned permanently from San Luis Obispo County to
Denmark, some for a visit only, now that there was no risk of Prussian arrest for once
having evaded military service. The Hansens, however, appear to have stayed put in San
Luis until their deaths, and there is no record they ever visited the old country.
The Dallidet Addition The Hansen House is part of the Dallidet Addition, another
product of immigrants, this time from France and Mexican-administered New Mexico.
Pierre Hypolite Dallidet, Sr.—generally referred to as Hypolite in his lifetime—built up his
fortune through possible success in the California gold fields, where he went after French
military service in Tahiti; a certainly advantageous marriage into a land grant family in San
Luis Obispo; subsequent viticulture in town; and real estate investment in town and the
surrounding countryside (his earliest recorded deed in the county is agricultural land at
the far end of the Chorro Valley).
Dallidet was born in 1823 at Paizay-le-Tort near Melle, about fifty miles from the west
coast of France, an area whose primary industry in the nineteenth century was
winegrowing. His father was a carpenter , as well as a farmer. Dallidet joined the French
army at 20; at 23, he was sent to Polynesia, where he served as a carpenter until 27.
He arrived in San Francisco from Tahiti in 1851 at the height of the California Gold Rush
and spent the next two years prospecting at Hangtown (now Placerville), where he either
“made a clean-up” and came south “looking for a good vineyard location” (“Monday Club’s
Pageant of Nations,” Morning Tribune, 31 Mar. 1934, p. 4, presumably sourced from
Page 51 of 191
12
Monday Club member Rosa Dallidet) or became “disgusted” and set off for Mexico (Cecilia
Jensen, “Pioneer Charm Lingers in Old Dallidet Adobe,” Telegram-Tribune, 6 Nov. 1947, p. 1,
with his youngest son Paul Dallidet as its explicit source).
In either case, he came to San Luis Obispo in
1853—shortly after a cholera epidemic had
driven and wiped out the town’s hundreds of
Chumash and other Indian inhabitants but
largely spared the few Californios, Yankees,
and Europeans (Samuel Pollard, “1852: How
San Luis Obispo Had the Cholera and Buried
the Victims,” Tribune, 31 Aug. 1892, p. 2). It
was also the year San Luis made the front
page banner of the nascent New York Times
for recapturing an escaping accused bandit
and immediately hanging him from a joist in
the mission (“Exciting Scene in San Luis
Obispo—Another Outlaw Hung,” 29 Nov.
1853, p. 1). Three associates—suspected of
murder near San Miguel but convicted of
horse-stealing in San Luis by a Los Angeles
vigilante trial—were hanged on Avila Beach
when they arrived by mail steamer; a fifth
was shot dead in pursuit (“From San Luis
Obispo: Great Excitement—The Execution,”
Alta California, 16 Oct. 1853).
Hypolite Dallidet, Sr. in his later years
Two years later, Hypolite Dallidet wed the seventeen-year-old (according to their mission
marriage record) Asencion Zalazar. They had eight children over the next sixteen years, till
Asencion died of complications of the last birth.
He appears to have been the “vandalic
Frenchman” accused of cutting down 50 -foot
olive trees that were shading his vines in the
old Mission Vineyard in the late 1850s
(“Letter from San Luis Obispo,” Daily Alta
California, 22 Aug. 1868).
He obtained the land for his own vineyard and suburban housing tract from the family of
his wife, the Zalazars, who received it in turn from Asencion’s mother, Dolores Marques,
whose father Miguel received the land grant in 1845, shortly before the Bear Flag
Rebellion. In 1859 or 1860, according to family recollection, Dallidet built his own adobe
just east of what would become Pacific and Santa Rosa, near the Zalazar Adobe, which was
razed in 1956, just as the Dallidet Adobe was being saved (Louisiana Clay ton Dart, “Dallidet
Adobe Is Laden with History,” Telegram-Tribune, 13 June 1959, p. 3).
Page 52 of 191
13
The Dallidet vineyard (unsubdivided) and Dallidet Addition at lower left in C. W. Henderson’s
1894 Sketch Map of the City of San Luis Obispo, Cal. The vineyard is bounded by Marsh Street
at northwest, Santa Rosa and Toro Streets running northwest to southeast, and Leff at
southeast. Buchon street transects it. The lot of the future Hansen House would be on the
north side of Buchon just to the east of Santa Rosa. The ell to the southwest was sold off as lots
of the Dallidet Addition as early as 1877 (“Real Estate Transactions,” San Luis Obispo Tribune,
22 Dec. 1877, p. 8).
Page 53 of 191
14
Dallidet’s eldest son, Pierre Hypolite, Jr., threatened the family’s fortune in the 1890s
through unsuccessful real estate speculation . On 18 March 1897, while leaving the Dallidet
Adobe after a family quarrel, Hypolite, Jr. was shot twice in the back from the veranda by
one of his younger brothers, John (“A Dreadful Crime Committed,” Tribune, 19 Mar. 1897, p.
3). John was acquitted, surprisingly, on a plea of self-defense but almost immediately
emigrated to Mexico.
With some lots already sold off, in the early twentieth century the remainder of the
vineyard was subdivided and marketed nostalgically as La Vina Tract (never printed with a
tilde, as in Viña), but the family did not profit, as by then Hypolite Dallidet, Sr. had lost
control of the land to the Commercial Bank, which sold it to a syndicate led by Mark Elberg,
a director of the Union National Bank (“La Vina Homestead Tract Sold,” Tribune, 7 Jan.
1905, p. 4). Hypolite, Sr. died in 1909 at the age of eighty-five (“Births, Deaths, and
Marriages,” Telegram, 17 May 1909, p. 8), and the Dallidet family continued to occupy the
Dallidet Adobe and Garden till youngest son Paul Dallidet’s death in 1958, the ninety-eighth
or ninety-ninth year since the adobe’s construction . For the previous five years, however,
the property had been owned by the County Historical Society , which was supporting Paul
and paying the taxes with the goal of saving the adobe and garden .
Hans and Lena Hansen’s lot at 1110 Buchon was part of the Dallidet vineyard between
Santa Rosa and Toro Streets. Their house in 1921 became part of a block-long collection of
13 Colonial Bungalows built between 1901 and 1910 and 6 California Bungalows built
between 1910 and 1926, which —with 1 nondescript bungalow—were all Contributing
Listed in 1987.
Page 54 of 191
15
IV. Architectural Historical Context: The California Bungalow
Bungalow origins The word bungalow derives from “late-seventeenth-century Hindi
baṅglā, ‘belonging to Bengal,’ from a type of cottage built for early European settlers in
Bengal” (New Oxford American Dictionary). The Oxford English Dictionary records the first
English use in an India Office MS. of 1676. As a feature of Indian architecture, the bungalow
was introduced to American newspaper readers by the late eighteenth century (“From the
Asiatic Mirror, Calcutta, November 26, 1794,” Gazette of the United States, 25 Jan. 1796, p. 2)
and to California papers from the 1850s (“A Predicament!,” Nevada Journal, 27 Dec. 1851, p.
1), sometimes accompanied by an explanation of its low, light, and airy construction but
usually without. Japanese houses were also described as bungalows in American papers.
On 10 November 1875, the intriguing item at
right appeared in the Santa Barbara Daily
News with no further explanation
(“Brevities,” p. 4). Did it refer to the house
below (detail of a William Keith Joseph
painting) that the Rev. Joseph Worcester
built about then, overlooking San Francisco
Bay in Piedmont; that Jack London, who
rented it 1901–1902, called a “bungalow
with a capital B” (Leslie M. Freudenheim,
Building with Nature [Layton: Gibbs Smith,
2005], p. 132); and that is credited by
several sources as the ur-bungalow in
America? Its deep porch plays up the Indian,
bellcast roof the Japanese reference, while
its low profile is uncottagelike.
Alas, there is a more pedestrian explanation for the Daily News’ item: it was the first
sentence of a longer paragraph appearing in newspapers in the Midwest and South in
September 1875 that promoted the bungalow form as a “summer residence by the seaside.”
“[I]t is simple in shape, is usually not more than one story high, and is covered by a simple
low-pitched roof, which may be prolonged to form a veranda. With this protection the
inmates may pass most of their time in the open air, and thus have the fullest be nefit of
their sojourn by the sea. Bungalows can be worked and kept clean with a very small
amount of labor, as many contrivances to diminish servants’ work have been introduced”
(“Bungalows for Summer Houses,” Warrensburg Standard [Missouri], 2 Sep. 1875, p. 3).
Eight months earlier, however, a California promoter was advertising home lots in Alameda
County to potential investors in Nevada and Utah with this pitch: “Estimates show that
bungalow houses can be erected, containing parlor, two bedrooms, closets, kitchen, etc., at
a cost not to exceed $1,000 each” (“Double Your Capital and No Risk,” advertisement,
Eureka Daily Sentinel [Nevada], 30 Dec. 1874, p. 2). This ad appears to be the first example
in the American press of the bungalow concept adapted to America’s shores: defined not as
a simple, ideal, nature-embracing Asian dwelling but a cheap, easily maintained house on
its own suburban lot—an entry-level real estate investment in booming California.
Page 55 of 191
16
Digital newspaper databases counter our earlier, high-culture narratives focused on figures
like Joseph Worcester. In 1986 Clay Lancaster tried to find the ur–bungalow by reviewing
American Architect and Building News for the first house so designated. He found it in the
27 March 1880 issue, designed by architect William Gibbons Preston for Monument Beach,
Cape Cod (“The American Bungalow,” pp. 79 –106, in Dell Upton and John Michael Vlach,
Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture [Athens: University of
Georgia Press, 1986], p. 80 ). Built on sand (below), it echoes the 1875 paragraph on seaside
bungalows. Its wraparound veranda recalls Indian bungalows but also peripteral American
houses from the Greek Revival on; gables and brackets are Swiss/Bracketed. At 2½ stories,
it fell within Indian bungalow height but defied Clay Lancaster’s one-story purism.
Hence his second candidate, designed for a Burlingame, California hillside by A. Page
Brown and appearing in the 8 June 1895 issue (below left). At only 1½ stories, some
authorities designate this the ur-bungalow. Yet its architecture puzzles those same
authorities: “authentic Himalayan chalet” (Lancaster, p. 81); “a strange congeries of
Bengalese, Queen Anne, and Swiss chalet” (Robert Winter, American Bungalow Style [New
York: Simon and Schuster, 1996], p. 13). In fact, its masonry base with Romanesque
fenestration, knee braces, half-timbering, and hip roof surmounted by end gables
reproduced the then widely sketched, photographed, and published but distinctly
unbungaloid seventeenth-century addition to Stokesay Castle (below right).
Page 56 of 191
17
For at its introduction to America—by a dubious California developer—the bungalow
defined not high architectural style but the dream of a cheap detached dwelling on its own
lot: a downsizing of the 1784 Jefferson Grid, where the future president imagined America
divided in metric square miles, each owner separated from his neighbor’s impositions.
Hence the bungalow flourished outside the high-culture range of notable architects and
architectural magazines. By the late 1890s, the term bungalow was so ubiquitous that the
New York Sun could publish a satiric piece headlined “Billings Has Queered Himself:
Wouldn’t Call His Colonial House a Bungalow and Wouldn’t Have a Den” (Sun, 20 Mar.
1898, sec. 3, p. 7), reprinted in at least twenty-five other papers from Vermont to California
(the Dunsmuir News on the front page above the fold [11 June 1898]). A 4 March 1900
satirical column in the Sun, simultaneously printed in the Chicago Inter Ocean, referred to
“Mrs. Politely’s colonial bungalow,” built the previous summer in “Suburbanville” (but “her
servants all deserted her” when she moved from the city to the suburbs, and she stole a
neighbor’s cook, so it seems to have been imagined—like Billings’ Colonial, with its parlors,
dining room, and billiard room—as a commodious residence).
The “Colonial Bungalow” appears to be the first consistent association of the bungalow
form with a particular architectural style in America, reflecting the streamlining of our
national revival architecture for the suburbs. Newspaper.com database searches (executed
14–26 Oct. 2024) give us a rough statistical view of how the popular press represented
architectural styles in tandem with structural types. During the two decades 1881–1900,
when Eastlake, Queen Anne, and Colonial Revival dominated American domestic
architecture, the term cottage slightly dominates house in pairings with them in the press.
Mentions in California newspapers, 1881–1900 (newspapers.com, 21 Oct. 2024)
Eastlake cottage 1,709 house 1,465 mansion 14 villa 0 bungalow 0
Queen Anne cottage 465 house 385 mansion 24 villa 16 bungalow 0
Colonial cottage 2,816 house 1,893 mansion 157 villa 2 bungalow 0
“Colonial bungalow” shows 0 in California because the 1898 reprint in the Dunsmuir News,
as with 23 of the 28 newspapers, does not trigger the search engine for that term; the
number of hits nationally for “Colonial bungalow” is 5 for 1898 and 2 for 1900. There are
no hits nationally for “Eastlake bungalow” or “Queen Anne bungalow” 1881 –1900.
Looking at the next decade in 5-year increments (table on following page), “Eastlake
bungalow” continues to have no hits nationally, though “Queen Anne bungalow” is accepted
as a concept after 1905 (as it already had been in England as early as 1893 [“Pegwell Bay
will soon become a memory of the past and will be built over with Gothic villas and Queen
Anne bungalows” {“Margate Up To Date,” Daily Telegraph, 22 July 1893, p. 2}]). Hits for
“Colonial bungalow” increase by nearly a factor of 10 in 1901 –1905 and again 1906–1910.
(Because newspapers.com does not support exact match phrasal searches, of the 60 hits in
1901–1905, only 2 are of “Colonial bungalow” [both in Oregon], while the other 58 are of
widely published column on door drapery that, significantly, equates “the colonial or
bungalow style of architecture.”)
Page 57 of 191
18
Newspapers.com database (newspapers.com, 18 Oct. 2024)
1881–1900 1901–1905 1906–1910
Italianate cottage, California & rest of US 0 0 0
Italianate bungalow, California & rest of US 0 0 0
Gothic cottage, California 2,770 357 21
Gothic cottage, rest of US 2,047 238 86
Gothic bungalow, California 0 0 1
Gothic bungalow, rest of US 0 0 1
Eastlake cottage, California 1,687 507 139
Eastlake cottage, rest of US 245 2 3
Eastlake bungalow 0 0 0
Queen Anne cottage, California 458 202 705
Queen Anne cottage, rest of US 12,086 3,016 3,827
Queen Anne bungalow, California 0 0 11
Queen Anne bungalow, rest of US 0 0 50
Colonial cottage, California 5,117 1,570 807
Colonial cottage, rest of US 5,117 3,202 4,020
Colonial bungalow, California 0 0 50
Colonial bungalow, rest of US 7 60 526
The California Bungalow This architectural type appeared by the early twentieth
century, reconfiguring the Swiss chalet for the Golden State’s suburbs. The chalet as an
architectural revival form is documented back to Samuel H. Brook’s 1839 Designs for
Cottage and Villa Architecture (London), closely followed by Andrew Jackson Downing’s
1842 Cottage Residences (New York). Reconfiguration for the California Bungalow included
• lowering the Swiss chalet’s 2½- to 3½-story height to 1, sometimes 1½ stories, rarely
higher, for sunny but often tiny California lots
• adding large and copious windows, including square bays and oriels, as well as indoor-
outdoor spaces in the form of porches and pergolas to take advantage of the climate
• minimizing fretwork, half-timbering, and other busy decoration that did not look
structural
• using muscular elements, including wide door and window frames and square posts
• varying exterior wall surfaces with wide clapboard, rectangular shingle, brick, and
fieldstone—often varying materials from level to level or among different elements
• opening up interior spaces , then paneling or wainscoting them, often with old-
fashioned built-in features such as bookcases, large fireplaces, and inglenooks
• infusing Japanese influence through lowered roof pitch and extended rafters, often with
kaza-ana terminations; curved elements like faux kooryoo rainbow beams; hari
crossbeams; elements of Shinto torii in columns, capitals, and beams; patterning of
surfaces; and organization of space
Hence, when William Randolph Hearst brought a pile of architecture books to Julia
Morgan’s office in April 1919 and asked her to design, at San Simeon, a “Jappo-Swisso
bungalow” (Suzanne B. Riess, ed., The Julia Morgan Architectural History Project, vol. 1, The
Page 58 of 191
19
Work of Walter Steilberg and Julia Morgan , “Reminiscences of Walter Steilberg,” p. 57), he
meant a California Bungalow infused with Greene and Greene’s Pasadena japonisme.
What he got was Hearst Castle, for, at the end of World War I, the California Bungalow was
displaced as the latest fashion by streamlined, eaveless European and colonial revival
styles influenced by English architect Sir Edwin Lutyens’ designs. Hearst Castle’s specific
Spanish Colonial Revivalism was introduced to California by New York architect Carleton
Winslow, Sr. for San Diego’s Panama-California Exposition of 1915–1917. But across
California, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the California Bungalow
would persist through the 1920s.
Top left, center, and right: folk
architecture at Ballenberg
Freilichtmuseum der Schweiz.
Counter-clockwise from left:
“Cottage in the Swiss Style,”
Samuel H. Brooks’s 1839
Designs for Cottage and Villa
Architecture (London);
“Cottage Villa in the
Bracketed Mode,” Andrew
Jackson Downing’s 1842
Cottage Residences (New
York); Alexander Jackson
Davis’s Swiss Cottage,
Barrytown, NY, 1867; and
designs xv and ix, Downing’s
1850 The Architecture of
Country Houses (New York).
Page 59 of 191
20
Curiously, one of the earliest uses
in a newspaper of the term
“California Bungalow” with
photographs is of a two-story
Colonial Revival in Memphis
(right), with Tuscan columns,
pediment-style front gable,
bellcast bay, diamond panes, and
shingle walls. The writer defines
as Californian “the low, sweeping
effects peculiar to warm climates,
with a broad veranda in front and
wide entrance door of hardwood.
The design is in the latest
California style, and the wide
window space on the first floor
gives a very open, cheerful
appearance. The window effect is
also carried out on the second
floor. The color of the body of the
building is a natural, dark olive
green, to which neutral color the
white trimmings of the window
casings offer a good contrast”
(“California Bungalow Built in
Memphis,” Commercial Appeal,
17 Jan. 1904, Art Section, 2).
But indications of the California Bungalow as
it was later defined begin to show up in
Charles and Henry Greene’s freestanding Dr.
W. H. Roberts Office (Pasadena, 1898) (left):
deep eaves, exposed rafter tails, a square
bay, square columns, and dado of
rectangular natural wood shingles. But as
the elevations on the next page make clear,
the controlling aesthetic was Tudor Revival,
with steep roof pitch, half-timbered walls,
and lychgate entry (Greene and Greene
Collection, Columbia University).
Page 60 of 191
21
Greene and Greene’s 1902 James Culbertson House in Pasadena, despite its japonesque Arts
and Crafts interior, also had Elizabethan gables and E (for Elizabeth) footprint, half
timbering (though against natural wood shingles, not stucco), diamond panes, and Tudor
arch. But the Culbertson House was their last essay in Tudor Revival (till the late 1920s);
the 1902 Light Hall for George H. Barker in Pasadena, their last essay in Colonial Revival.
Greene and Greene’s 1903 houses —such as the Mary Reeve Darling House in Claremont
(below)—are pure California Bungalow in the chalet ur-form: full-width, low-pitch gables;
deep eaves; low profiles; stained shingle or wide clapboard with fieldstone; and subtle
asymmetries. Are these half dozen the ur-und-echt California Bungalows? The Greenes
were not yet using the term “California Bungalow,” as far as we know, but circa 1904–1905,
they drew up a plan they titled “A California House” (next page, top) (Edward R. Bosley,
Greene and Greene [New York: Phaidon, 2000], pp. 69 –71).
Page 61 of 191
22
We know the region soon
followed the Greenes,
because the Los Angeles
Herald on 24 September
1905 (sec. iii, p. 3, at left)
published a perspective
drawing of a “California
Bungalow on Church
Street,” featuring “beam
ceilings, wide mantels, odd
shaped roof, and novelty
windows for light and
ventilation”: perhaps the
first image of a California
Bungalow identified as such
and in the form we
recognize today.
This Swiss chalet ur-form of the California Bungalow—with its full-width gable; integrated
asymmetric entry porch; rectangular side bay; wide-framed, similarly-sized triplet
windows; exposed beam ends; knee brackets; rafter tails; and wide clapboard —led to the
1921 Hansen House at the top of the following page.
Page 62 of 191
23
The Greenes’ Swiss inspiration may well
have come from Bernard Maybeck, who had
been experimenting with the chalet form in
the Bay Area since the late 1890s, though his
chalets tended to be towering hillside
structures for wealthy clients, e.g., the 1899
William P. Rieger House at right.
The San Jose partnership of Frank Delos
Wolfe and Charles McKenzie, however,
designed for suburban lots . In their 1907
Book of Designs, consisting mostly of Colonial
Revival and some Prairie School houses, they
included a few designs showing California
Bungalow characteristics in Prairie-esque
hip roof structures: the 1904 deep eaved,
square columned, porched, and pergola’d
Lion House (below left) and the Hyde House
(below right), with square columns, river
rock dado, and chalet entry gable displaying
beam ends, ca. 1900 .
Page 63 of 191
24
Dissemination of the California Bungalow By 1907 Henry L. Wilson had produced
The Bungalow Book, $1, for Ye Planry in Los Angeles, with “a short sketch of the evolution
of the bungalow from its primitive crudeness to its present state of artistic beauty and cozy
convenience,” followed by perspective drawings and floor plans. Working drawings could
be ordered for $10. Soon Wilson and Ye Planry parted ways, with Wilson producing
simpler and cheaper designs, Ye Planry more sophisticated and expensive ones .
Cover of a Henry L. Wilson catalogue, circa 1910s (Grolier Club). Note the spring
California poppies and orange blossoms and winter oranges and poinsettias, with snow on
the (San Gabriel?) mountains, evoking year-round indoor-outdoor California living.
Gustav Stickley’s New York–based journal The Craftsman published an article entitled “The
California Bungalow: A Style of Architecture Which Expresses the Individuality and
Freedom Characteristic of Our Western Coast” in its October 1907 issue (pp. 68–80),
though all the examples were monumental ones from the partnership of Myron Hunt and
Elmer Grey; one-and-a-half, two, or two-and-a-half stories; and bore little resemblance to
the simple, rustic, and asymmetric chalet-like designs of the Greenes and their more
faithful disciples.
Greene-style designs began to appear in The Craftsman in several articles in 1908 and
1909, one of which Stickley—who had been deeply impressed by Mission architecture in
his 1904 visit to California, even inventing a furniture style around it—referred to as
having “the lines of the old Mission house,” if not its materials (“A Small Bungalow Worth
Studying,” Aug. 1908, p. 535).
Page 64 of 191
25
Stickley had published some pieces on
bungalows before 1907, the first substantive
one being “How to Build a Bungalow” in
December 1903 (pp. 253–260). But the
article’s hip-roofed example with splay-
roofed verandas on three sides (below)
resembles the bungalows of British India
(1876 illustration at right)—apart from the
windmill and water tank added to
Americanize the Stickley version.
Above left: illustration from “How to Build a Bungalow,” The Craftsman, Dec. 1903, p. 254;
above right: illustration from “A Craftsman Bungalow,” The Craftsman, Mar. 1905, p. 737
Terminology: California versus Craftsman The term “Craftsman Bungalow” appears
to originate in reference specifically to the bungalows portrayed in The Craftsman rather
than in any direct relation to William Morris’s Arts and Crafts movement, though Stickley
was an explicit admirer of Morris. In suburban bungaloid Great Britain, the concept of a
bungalow and the Arts and Crafts movement appear mutually exclusive: “Craftsman
Bungalow” and “Arts and Crafts Bungalow” are used in the British press to refer to the
American phenomenon and only from the 2000s, whereas “California Bungalow” appears
in the British press a few times in the 1920s in the context of Hollywood films.
Australians, in contrast, were early adopters of a house form designed for a similar climate,
as seen from a full-page spread with photographs of ten California Bungalows , so
described, in the construction supplement of Sydney’s Local Government Journal of
Australasia in 1912 (20 May, p. 8). (See also Graeme Butler’s book The California Bungalow
in Australia [Melbourne: Lothian, 1992].) Sydney architect James Peddle promoted the
form on his return from America after World War I, and it has been recognized i n Urban
Conservation Areas under Australia’s National Trust (Belinda Gibbon, “American Beauty:
An Interior Designer’s Passion for the California Bungalow Led to Its Conservation Listing
with the National Trust,” Sydney Morning Herald, 10 Aug. 2000, Domain p. 8).
The term “Craftsman Bungalow” first appears in American newspapers in 1905 (Maryville,
Missouri Republican 2 Mar., p. 8; Jersey City News, 4 Mar., p. 2; Buffalo News, 5 Mar., p. 4; Salt
Page 65 of 191
26
Lake Tribune, 19 Mar., pt. 3, p. 8) in reference to an article in that month’s The Craftsman, “A
Craftsman Bungalow” (pp. 736–741). That article features a hip-roofed, L-shaped fieldstone
house with log columns supporting an interior veranda (illustration previous page), more
Adirondack than California in nature. In other words, a Craftsman Bungalow need not have
been a California Bungalow, but they both shared an aesthetic of open interiors ; simple,
muscular, angular, design; and rustic materials.
For the decades of the terms’ mutual existence, the California Bungalow is by far the
dominant term and concept: its aspirational, almost utopian nature conjured a distinct
lifestyle of beauty, simplicity, and multi-season integration with climate, landscape, and
vegetation, as seen in Henry L. Wilson’s illustration surrounded by poppies, orange
blossoms, oranges, poinsettias , and snow-capped peaks two pages previous.
US Press mentions of “California Bungalow”
in the newspapers.com electronic archives
(14 Oct. 2024)
1905–1909 4,217
1910-1914 17,188
1915–1919 20,296
1920–1924 47,120
1925–1929 24,602
1930–1934 7,941
US Press mentions of “Craftsman Bungalow”
in the newspapers.com electronic archives
(14 Oct. 2024)
1905–1909 128
1910-1914 1,008
1915–1919 805
1920–1924 264
1925–1929 117
1930–1934 18
By the late 1920s, press mentions of “California Bungalow” increasingly included resale ads
for previously built bungalows. The numbers were also influenced by a broadening
definition of the California Bungalow: 1929 advertisements for, or articles about, new
California Bungalows that give specific addresses in Havre, Montana; Evansville, Indiana;
and Hempstead, New York can be tracked down to show eaveless stucco and brick Spanish
and Tudor Revival houses of the Lutyensesque type (922 Third Ave, Havre, MT, “Lucke
Bungalow Is Very Unique,” Hill County Journal, 1 Aug. 1929, p. 2; 1913 and 1915 Keck Ave,
Evansville, IN, “The House That Jack Built,” advertisement, Evansville Courier and Journal,
31 Mar. 1929, sec. 2, p. 4; 35 Kensington Court, Hempstead, NY, “Hempstead,”
advertisement, Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 13 Jan. 1929, p. 10D). Some other new bungalows
accompanied by addresses, however, still show a version of the deep-eaved, low-pitched,
wide-gabled wood model as developed by the Greenes.
To complicate the picture, searches for various terms like “Queen Anne Bungalow ,” where
the results produce traceable addresses, show, on Google Street View, what we would
recognize today as California Bungalows (“2-Story Queen Annes [sic] Bungalows, Kansas
City Star, 2 Sep. 1921, p. 25).
The term “Craftsman Bungalow” virtually disappeared from newspapers in the 1940s,
while “California Bungalow” had a resurgence to refer to the new suburban Ranch House
style in a reader-familiar way. Only in the 1990s did “Craftsman Bungalow” (9,022 hits in
newspapers.com) pull close to “California Bungalow” (10,830), surpassing it in the 2000s
(19,653 hits to 5,404), before interest in historic architecture—or the number of
newspapers—declined in the 2010s (5,357 uses of “Craftsman Bungalow” to 1,821 of
“California Bungalow”).
Page 66 of 191
27
The rise of the term “Craftsman Bungalow” unfortunately misled some historians into
thinking that craftsmanship had been integral to the form. The National Register Bulletin
How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation , describes how “a building that is
a classic expression of the design theories of the Craftsman Style, such as carefully detailed
handwork, is eligible” for the National Register of Historic Places (p. 20). In fact, there was
no such design theory. California Bungalows, ak a “Craftsman Bungalows,” were mass
produced from pattern books, in cottage courts, and by transient developers and are
characterized by their detached placement; low, shady aspects; indoor -outdoor design; and
plain, muscular features. In press descriptions, they were valued for their inexpensiveness
(no basements) and ease of maintenance without servants (open rooms and lack of
decoration), just like the ur-bungalows of the 1870s. Any “carefully detailed handwork”—
like kaza-ana terminations of bargeboards and rafter tails1—was likely mass-
manufactured, just like elaborate features of earlier Gothic and Eastlake houses.
Expansion and contraction The regions with the most prevalent press mentions of
the California Bungalow during
• 1905–1909 were California (18,45), Oregon and Washington (517), and Utah (379)
• 1910–1919 were California (6,844), Oregon and Washington (2,475), and the South
Central states of Oklahoma (4,250), Kansas (2,995), Missouri (2,733), and Texas
(2,267), with lesser centers of interest in New York State (1,094), Florida (1,072), and
the Midwest states of Indiana (1,322) and Ohio (1,033) (newspapers.com, 14 Oct. 2024)
During 1920–1929, as nationwide interest in the California Bungalow surge d, California
interest appeared to fall: in 1920–1929, there were more press mentions of the California
Bungalow in Oklahoma (10,897), New York (8,686), and Missouri (6,541) than in California
(5,886). “Real California Bungalow” was a frequently advertiser term in these other states.
1. The kaza-ana is a wind slot in a chigi, or crossed upward-pointing faux extension of the
bargeboard above the roof of a Shinto shrine. The third and terminal kaza-ana is open on a beveled
edge, forming a deep scoop or mouth. This became a popular motif in rafter tails, the lower
terminations of bargeboards, and even faux beam ends in California Bungalows.
Page 67 of 191
28
Sears kit homes, manufactured 1908–1940, featured California-ish bungalow kits by 1911
(the Niota, model no. 161) and had fully captured the aesthetic by 1913 (the Arlington,
model no. 145). Sears continued to sell California Bungalow kits into the late 1920s
(searsarchives.com/homes). As well, the Mount Diablo Building Corporation would come
to towns such as San Luis Obispo—where it filed 18 permit applications between
November 1921 and January 1922—with economical models ready to build. The $3,900
Charles John Kelly House at 1352 Pacific Street, Master Listed for Matt and Sara Ritter in
2010, is a Mount Diablo product.
From 1910 to 1912, Arthur and Alfred Heineman (who would build San Luis Obispo’s Motel
Inn in Mission Revival style in 1925) constructed the 23-unit Bowen Court (above, 1911),
the oldest extant bungalow court in Pasadena, of California Bungalows : with beam ends,
knee brackets, and intersecting gables, clad in rectangular stained wood shingles , secluded
in two facing lines through the interior of the block, across a pedestrian path and plantings .
In contrast, the Mount Diablo Building Corporation and Kelly Brothers’ 32-bungalow, 2-
block development in Marysville, CA in early 1920 —called “LA Bungalows” and “Los
Angeles Bungalows” in their press—had slightly varying 4-, 5-, and 6-room models
sheathed in stucco and pressed right against the sidewalk on their tiny lots (“Kelly Bros. To
Build 32 Bungalows on I, J, and Pine Streets,” Marysville Appeal, 29 Jan. 1920, p. 4). The
California Bungalow was becoming commoditized for cheapness and convenience, their
craftsmanship and interaction with nature expendable.
Page 68 of 191
29
At the high end, Charles and Henry Greene experimented with the California Bungalow in
increasingly complex forms (they referred to the three-story Gamble House [1908–1909,
above] as a California Bungalow) before transitioning to less rustic architecture in the
1910s. Yet Henry Greene returned to the California Bungalow ur-form as late as 1929 with
the adobe Tenalu in Porterville, CA (below, photographed by Julius Shulman).
Page 69 of 191
30
V. Historiographic Context: Creation and Revision of the Old Town Historic District
As San Luis Obispo looks to update its Historic Resources Survey, it’s worth examining how
we got to our present state and whether it accurately represents and preserves the fabric of
our past. Colonial Bungalows and California Bungalows are the two significant streams of
bungalow development in early-twentieth-century America. The Old Town Historic District
was created between 1983 and 1987 with 127 listed Colonial and California Bungalows: 41
percent of the 309 original listed resources, reflecting this significance. On the Contributing
List there were 56 Colonial Bungalows (22 percent of 256 resources) and 46 Contributing
List California Bungalows (18 percent): near parity. Yet on the more prestigious Master
List, there were 19 Colonial Bungalow resources (36 percent of 53 resources) compared to
only 6 California Bungalow resources (11 percent): a 3 to 1 ratio. How did that happen?
Above: Conservation Area #1, 1979 ; below, the Old Town
Historic District from Google Maps
No substantive reason,
such as lack of master
architects, high artistic
values, or stylistic
embodiment, appears as
to why the California
Bungalow—a regional
form of world significance
and the only specific
architectural style
mentioned in the district’s
inception as Conservation
District #1—was
underrepresented on the
district’s Master List.
Likely the effort to
valorize the Old Town
Historic District as a high-
built, “High Victorian,”
high-status district of the
imagination ultimately
skewed Master Listings
away from its significant
collection of California
Bungalows, as Colonial
Bungalows around “Nob
Hill” were bigger, grander,
and seen as “Victorian .”
San Luis Obispo’s Master and Contributing Listing versus national standards Our
landmarking apparatus was created in the 1980s with an anomaly: a distinction between
Contributing and Master resources, the latter defined as “the most unique and important
historic properties and resources in terms of […] architectural […] significance [or] rarity .”
Page 70 of 191
31
Under the National Park Service’s National Register system, used in turn by states and
normally by local jurisdictions, resources within historic districts are defined as
“Contributing” if they are (A) historically or architecturally significant within the district’s
period of significance and (B) have the integrity to communicate that significance. They are
“Non-Contributing” if they are not significant or no longer have the integrity to
communicate their significance. It is essentially a digital system, 1 or 0 , in or out.
The National Register of Historic Places is a national register of locally significant
resources; the California Register of Historical Resources , a state register of locally
significant resources. In contrast, if a resource has national or statewide significance—
significance to a broader society—it qualifies as a National or California State Landmark.
Some cities, like Pasadena and Santa Barbara, maintain a separate list for National and
State Landmark–qualified resources, but none of the dozens of California’s nationally
Certified Local Governments (certified for a historic preservation apparatus)—except for
San Luis—has a category for “the most unique and important” resources .
This dichotomy (1) makes “Contributing” resources, de jure and de facto (e.g., qualification
for Mills Act), less important, substituting analog judgments of good/better/best—the type
the National Register system was designed to avoid —for what should be digital: national
significance: yes/no; statewide significance: yes/no; local significance: yes/no; integrity to
communicate that significance: yes/no. (2) The “most unique” standard defies the NRHP
guideline of embodiment of periods, types, and methods of construction, which assumes
adherence to repeated and recognized historic patterns. And (3), substantive distinctions
of design or craft between Master and Contributing resources are often nonexistent.
Possible origin of the Master/Contributing dichotomy
The 1979 Historical and Architectural
Conservation Element, a product of Mayor
Ken Schwartz’s administration and
simultaneous national interest in historic
preservation and urban renewal in the
1970s, assessed the possible historic
resources of San Luis Obispo before the
volunteers of the Historic Resources Survey
were given a crack at them in 1982. The
Element’s Table 4 assesses 1,126 structures
in 4 proposed conservation areas: a
“Commercial Core” much larger than the
current Downtown Historic District;
Conservation Area #1, largely corresponding
to the current Old Town Historic District; an
abortive Conservation Area #2, between
Johnson and Pepper, Higuera and Pismo; and
Conservation Area #3, a smaller version of
the current Mill Street Historic District—
plus 688 structures outside those areas.
Page 71 of 191
32
The assessment was for “Building Condition” (Standard, Less Than Standard, or
Substandard) and “Architecture Significance” (Excellent or Good). The source cited for the
table is a 1974 Urban Renewal Authority Building Survey. The criteria are not included.
In Conservation District #1, 148 structures are listed of excellent architectural significance
and 120 of good architectural significance: 268 altogether. When the Old Town Historic
District was created out of largely the same area, it would have some 53 buildings on the
Master List and 256 on the Contributing List : 309 altogether.
In addition, however, the 1979 Element marks 33 buildings of “High Architectural Value,”
“High Architectural and Historical Value,” and “Moderate Architectural and Historical
Value” in Conservation Area #1 on “Map No. 6: Critical Structures.” Of these, 3 would be left
out of the Old Town Historic District (Erickson House/461 Islay, The Establishment, and
Railroad Square), while 1 (Anderson House/1438 Nipomo) would ultimately be
Contributing Listed.
The other 29 became part of the district’s initial 53-resource Master List, including (as seen
on the map, below) St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church (at Nipomo and Pismo) and the Myron
Angel House (at Buchon and Broad), coded with dark circle and light star for High
Architectural and Historical Value; the Brooks House, coded with light circle and dark star
for Moderate Architectural and Historical Value; and —coded with a dark star for High
Architectural Value—the Rogers, Nichols, and Dana-Parsons Houses along Nipomo;
Falkenstein, Vetterline, McKennon, Renetzky, Tucker, Kimball, and Erickson/687 Islay
Houses along Broad; the
Biddle, McManus,
Greenfield, and Snyder
Houses along Pismo; the
Bradbury Sanitarium and
Kaiser, Stanton,
Fitzgerald, Brew, Marshall,
Crocker, and Hourihan
Houses on Buchon; the
Bullard House on Morro;
and the Post and Allen
Houses and Hageman
Sanitarium at the corner
of Osos and Leff.
Curiously, though California Bungalow was the only specific style quoted in the description
of Conservation Area #1, no California Bungalows were included on this list, which
encompassed nineteenth-century Gothic Revival, Italianate, and Swiss/Bracketed, late-
nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century Eastlake and Queen Anne, and early-twentieth-
century Colonial Revival buildings.
The original Master List for the Old Town Historic District would add , from the 1880s, 1
Italianate (Fitzpatrick); from the 1890s, 5 more Eastlakes (Lewin, Wright, Vollmer/497
Islay, Fleuger, and Miller); from the 1900s, 1 Prairie School (Clark -Norton); from the 1900s
and 1910s, 8 more Colonial Bungalows (Upham, Albert, Bak er, Dutton, Bradbury, Jackson,
Page 72 of 191
33
Sandercock/535 Islay, and Anderson/1345 Broad); from the 1910s and 1920s, 6 California
Bungalow resources (Vollmer/1116 Pismo, Patton, Nuss/Thorne, and Crossett Houses,
Kindergarten School, and multi-unit Adriance Court); and from the 1920s and 1930s, 1
Mission Revival (Sandercock/591 Islay), 1 Hacienda Revival (Avila), and 1 Spanish Colonial
Revival (Maier).
We don’t know the Element’s criteria, but the National Register’s criteria for
Design/Construction are that a resource
• embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction;
• represent the work of a master, and/or
• possess high artistic value
All three criteria focus on architecture. The National Register’s 1990 Bulletin on How to
Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation further explicates
• embodiment as including an architectural style’s characteristic decorative detailing
integrated with characteristic lines and massing
• representation of the work of a master as not including all a master’s work but only
those resources expressing a particular phase in development, aspect of work, or idea
or theme in the craft of a figure of recognized greatness, known craftsman of
consummate skill, or anonymous craftsman whose work is distinguishable by its
characteristic style and quality
• possession of high artistic value as so fully articulating a particular concept of design
that it expresses an aesthetic ideal, and more fully than other properties of its type
So how exactly did Conservation District #1 end up with its High Architectural Value list ,
and how did it become the core of the Old Town Historic District’s Master List?
• Was age—or perception of age—a consideration? Of the 29 resources that migrated
to the Master List, 4 date before 1886, 6 between 1886 and 1900, 18 from the 1900s,
and 1 from the 1910s. The evaluators of these buildings were unlikely to have had an
accurate sense of their ages, from poor access to documentation and an incomplete
understanding of what styles were represented and when they occurred in general
architectural history and the specific architectural history of San Luis Obispo (e.g.,
surviving California Bungalows turn up on the Central Coast about 5 years after their
naissance in Pasadena: the Contributing List 1020 Leff [19082, see p. 62] appears to be
the earliest documented). But, notably, not a single building of High Architectural Value
was identified after 1911 and outside Gothic Revival, Italianate, Swiss
Heimatstil/Bracketed, Eastlake, Queen Anne, and Colonial Bungalow architecture—
though Conservation Area #1 cited California Bungalows and had examples of them
before 1911, let alone 1929, the 50 -year cut-off for historic consideration in 1979.
• Was it the work of a master? Knowledge of architects was poor at this time, and
though, for instance, ur–San Luis architect Hilamon Spencer Laird’s Kimball and
Hourihan Houses were included, his Upham House was the only exclusion from the line
2. Cal Poly Special Collections’ San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection.
Page 73 of 191
34
of 3 Queen Annes and 1 Colonial Bungalow on the south side of Buchon’s Chorro-
Garden block in the High Architectural Value list. (His last documented project and only
documented California Bungalow, at Santa Rosa and Palm, was drawn out of the Mill
Street Historic District and has never since been Master or even Contributing Listed.)
• Was it embodiment of a type or period of construction, i.e., architectural style? It
is not clear the evaluators knew what styles they were looking at; perhaps they did not
highlight the Upham House because they could not define it. Still, the altered Anderson
House/1438 Nipomo—ultimately put on the Contributing rather than Master List —has
no surviving decorative features to associate a style and has an octagonal bay that
suggests Colonial Revival and a flared square turret that is generally associated with
Swiss/Bracketed (though it is doubtful the evaluators knew this).
• Was it integrity? The Upham House’s porch has been partially enclosed with an
extension, but so have porches of a number of houses that made the Element’s list (e.g.,
1438 Nipomo and the Bullard House), or, alternatively, porches and extensions that
have been added much later (the Rogers House and Jessie Wright Maternity Home).
• Was it clustering? Most are clumped, particularly at Nob Hill around Buchon at Broad,
Garden, and Chorro, but some buildings there (like the Upham) were left out, and others
that were included as of High Architectural Value were distant singletons.
• Was it elaborateness of form and decorative detail? The Foursquare layout and
stolid simplicity of the Bradbury Sanitarium and Allen House seem far from the turrets
and horseshoe arches of the Queen Anne Erickson and Vetterline Houses.
• Was it size? On the Element’s High Architectural Value list, in addition to the towering
St. Stephens, 2 of the structures are 2½ stories, 11 are 2 stories (1 with a 3-story
tower), 11 are 1½ stories, and only 4 are 1 story, those 4 including the elaborately
decorated Nichols, Kimball, Dana-Parsons, and Marshall Houses —this in an area whose
overwhelming proportion of historic structures (i.e., over 50 years old in 1979) were 1-
story Italianate and Late Italianate and Eastlake cottages and Colonial Bungalows,
California Bungalows, and Lutyensesque eaveless European and Spanish Colonial
Revival bungalows.
Ultimately, a combination of size, elaborateness, and proximity to the old “Nob Hill”
neighborhood may have been seen as evidence of expenditure, which may have been seen
as evidence of High Architectural Value in the early days of trying to evaluate architecture
for the purposes of historic preservation. Initially considered to be a method of urban
renewal, historic preservation was quickly co -opted by the upper and upper middle classes,
and classes tend to preserve their own culture, history, and values. The history and
architecture of the less wealthy is generally seen as less valuable and more “modest”—as if
immodesty itself is a high architectural value.
Although the proportions differ, it is plausible that the Master/Contributing dichotomy —
which has bedeviled San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program with nationally
nonconforming, opaque, and subjective standards for almost half a century —was inherited
from a 1979 planning document that inherited it, in turn, from an early 1970s Urban
Renewal Authority rubric that ignored National Register Criteria that had been assembled
collaboratively by leading preservation scholars and practitioners from across the country.
Page 74 of 191
35
The Old Town Historic District ’s origin The 1979 Historical and Architectural
Conservation Element sketched out the physical boundaries of the Old Town Historic
District as Conservation District #1 on Map No. 7; its numerical boundaries in Table 4 as
148 “excellent” and 120 “good” structures in architectural significance; and its typological
and chronological boundaries as “single family residential uses between the late 1800s and
the 1930s,” specifying 2 descriptors: “California Bungalow” and “California Renaissance” (p.
53). Everything seemed ready to go.
Except this is not how San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines would
ultimately name or describe the district. The city’s ultimate view of it—and the listing
decisions that comport with that view—would be of a neighborhood of nineteenth-century
mansions the city perhaps wished it had, or thought historic districts should have, rather
than the important collection of low-built twentieth-century bungalows it actually had and
might have celebrated, just as Pasadena landmark s and celebrates districts like Bungalow
Heaven or Sydney, Australia its Artarmon Urban Conservation Area of California
Bungalows. The dissonance between the Guidelines’ aspirational view of the Old Town
Historic District and the statistical data is striking, even shocking.
The district’s misnaming The oldest concentration of buildings in San Luis Obispo—
the actual Old Town—is around the 1792 Mission (including the 1801–1810 Sauer and
Sauer-Adams Adobes in the Chinatown Historic District); after that, West Monterey Street
and Dana Street (including the circa 1860 Hays-Latimer and Simmler [aka Butrón] Adobes
in the Downtown Historic District); and, after that, West Marsh/Higuera (the 1874
Norcross, 1876 Pollard, and 1878 Jack House, pre-1876 Jack Carriage House, and 1870s–
1880s Jack Garden—districtless, because the city fathers wanted to turn it into a center-
block heritage park for unwanted old structures flanked by freeway -close motel strips [as
per a conversation with late Mayor Ken Schwartz]).
The so-called Old Town Historic District comprises, in fact, the new town: the suburbs
springing up in the southerly Mission Vineyard, Murray & Church, Dallidet, and Loomis
additions in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century .
The largely empty Old Town Historic District in 1877, looking south from Cerro San Luis, with
the Nipomo Street School where Emerson Park is now, at bottom righ t, and St. Stephen’s
across Nipomo Street to the immediate left
E. S. Glover’s 1877 Bird’s Eye View of San Luis Obispo, Cal. (detail above) shows mostly
empty blocks in the future Old Town Historic District, apart from the far western section
between Broad and Beach. From Glover’s view, the only survivor that can be definitively
identified is the Master List Gothic Revival St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church (1344 Nipomo,
1873), with likely the Master List Italianate 2-story Rogers House (1428 Nipomo),
Contributing List Italianate 1½-story at 1415 Nipomo, and Italianate cottage at 654 Buchon
(though each could be a similar building at the same location ; early buildings, often poorly
constructed, could be quickly replaced).
Page 75 of 191
36
The September 1886 Sanborn Map shows just a few blocks of the Old Town Historic
District, with few structures on them, almost none that survive today. Exceptions include
• sheet 7: Master List Rogers House (likely from Glover’s view), Master List Dana-Parsons
and Fitzpatrick Houses (644 and 670 Islay), Contributing List 654 and 662 Islay
between them, and the since-moved Contributing List 1516 Nipomo (all Italianate)
• sheet 6: St. Stephen’s (from Glover’s view) and 2 Contributing List Italianates: 654
Buchon (likely from Glover’s view) and 722 Buchon
• sheet 5: the Master List Snyder House (1406 Morro, Swiss/Bracketed) and Contributing
List 969 Pismo (Italianate )
Additionally, the Tribune, 13 Apr. 1883, documented completion of the Meredith House
(1421 Garden, originally Contributing, since 2022 Master Listed) (“Improvements,” p. 2).
So 1, likely 4, of the district’s surviving buildings were constructed by 1877 ; definitively 12
and probably 13 by 1886, with 5 on the original Master List, 8 on the Contributing List.
The 1890s added 23 more listed resources:
• 4 Italianates between 1877 and the 1891 Sanborn Map (Contributing List 530 Buchon,
454 Islay, 550 Islay [altered], and 1541 Osos)
• 3 Late Italianates between the 1888 and 1891 Sanborn Maps (Contributing List 651 and
673 Buchon and 571 Pismo)
• 2 Swiss/Bracketed buildings (Master List Myron Angel and Greenfield Houses, both
circa 1890)
• 1 Neobaroque by 1891 (1429 Nipomo)
• 12 Master List Eastlakes (4 built 1888–1891[Lewin, Jessie Wright, McKennon, and
Brooks], 6 documented to 1891–1899 [Vollmer/497 Islay, Biddle, Falkenstein, Nichols,
Fleuger, and Miller], and 1 probably 1897, possibly 1900 [McManus])
• 1 Queen Anne (Master List Erickson/687 Islay, 1895).3
This brings the documentable nineteenth-century buildings in the Old Town Historic
District to 36 out of 309 original Master and Contributing List buildings, or just 12 percent.
3. There is some age-aspirational dating: e.g., the city’s Master List website claims the “Neo-
Colonial” (Eastlake) Hageman Sanitarium was built circa 1895 for “machinist” (longtime Creston
farmer) J. C. Waterbury, but newspapers show Judson Rice (SP roadmaster, city board of trustees
member, and in 1903 representative of architects Wolfe and McKenzie in San Luis ) and his wife
took out a loan on the property in February 1902 (“Proceedings in County Offices,” Tribune, 16 Feb.
1902, p. 3), opened the building as the Buena Vista Restaurant in September (“New Restaurant and
Boarding House,” Tribune, 9 Sep. 1902, p. 4), put it up for sale in a marital split in December 1903,
sold “the building … built less than two years ago and … designed as a high class boarding house to
cater especially to railroad employees” in February 1904 to the Commercial Bank (“Converted into
Flats,” Tribune, 10 Feb. 1904, p. 4), which sold it to Judson Clifford Waterbury and his wife in March
(“To Establish Sanitarium,” Tribune, 16 Mar. 1904, p. 1), when it was named the Hageman
Sanitarium for the maiden name of Mrs. Waterbury, a trained nurse (“Hageman Sanitarium,”
Tribune, 8 Apr. 1904, p. 1). The website also attributes the 1902 Marshall House to the 1890s and
1904 Post House to 1898 (“Will Build,” Tribune, 20 July 1904, p. 4).
Page 76 of 191
37
A further 7 Late Italianate and 5 Eastlake houses on the Contributing List date between the
1891 and 1905 Sanborn Maps , so the nineteenth-century number may be marginally
higher, speculatively 14 percent, with 86 percent from the twentieth century : very much
the new town. But, of course, “Old Town” sounds more “historic.”
The original 53-resource Master List was weighted more toward the nineteenth century
than the more representative 309 -resource overall list. The Old Town Master List had 19
nineteenth-century resources and 34 twentieth-century resources, a 36 percent/64
percent split, versus the circa 14 percent/86 percent split in overall listings. The original
twentieth-century Master Listings were:
• 3 Eastlake (Hageman Sanitarium [19024], Kimball [19035], Tucker [after 19066])
• 1 Queen Anne (Vetterline [19027])
• 1 Late Italianate (Fitzgerald [19028])
• 1 Prairie School (Clark-Norton [19069])
• 17 Colonial Bungalows (Brew [by 1901], Crocker [1902], Marshall [1902], Upham
[1903], Post [1904], Albert [1904], Baker [1904–1905], Hourihan [1904–1905], Stanton
[1904–1905], Dutton [1906], Renetzky [1906], Kaiser [1908], Bullard [circa 1908–
1913], Bradbury [1910], Jackson [1910], Sandercock/535 Islay [1910–1911], and
Anderson/1345 Broad [1910]10),
• 2 multi-unit buildings in Colonial Bungalow form (Allen [190311] and the Bradbury
Sanitarium [191112])
• 6 California Bungalow resources (Vollmer [1912], Patton [1913], Nuss/Thorne [1913],
Crossett [1914], California Bungalow–form Kindergarten School [1917], and the 9-
cottage Adriance Court [1921]13), and
• 3 Lutyensesque revivals (Mission [Sandercock/591 Islay {1926}], Hacienda [Avila
{1929}], and Spanish Colonial [Maier {1933}]14)
4. See footnote previous page.
5. “Beautiful New Residence,” Tribune, 13 Feb. 1903, p. 1.
6. Absent from 1906 three-part photograph, Cal Poly Special Collections.
7. “The Spirit of Improvement,” Tribune, 16 July 1902, p. 4.
8. “A. F. Fitzgerald has contracted […],” Tribune, 12 July 1902, p. 4.
9. “Personal Mention,” 10 Oct. 1906. p. 4.
10. All Colonial Bungalow dates cited in James Papp, “Thomas and May Brecheen House, 1133
Pismo, Master List Application, 10 Mar. 2022, pp. 35 –40.
11. “Will Build,” Tribune, 20 July 1904, p. 4.
12. “Ocean to Ocean Party Will Reach Here Tomorrow,” Daily Telegraph, 7 Aug. 1911, p. 1.
13. San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection.
14. Op. cit.
Page 77 of 191
38
The Historic Preservation Program Guidelines’ arbitrary revision of the district’s
period of significance The period of significance in the Conservation Element (late
nineteenth century to 1930s) would be pared to the arbitrary decades 1880 –1920 in the
Guidelines rather than allowed to develop organically from the district’s significant
resources, leading to the Guidelines’ convoluted explanations as to why the 1873 Gothic
Revival St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church and 1929 Hacienda Revival M. F. Avila House were
Master Listed in the district yet outside the period of significance and not “contributing”
(Guidelines, p. 36). Six of the 53 original Master List resources—over 10 percent (Gothic
Revival St. Stephen’s, Italianate Rogers House, California Bungalow Adriance Court, and the
3 Lutyensesque revivals)—fall outside the period of significance, despite the first 3 being of
styles de jure included in the district’s “Architectural Character,” the latter 3 de facto, given
the numerous Contributing Listings of 1920s and ’30s Lutyensesque revivals. Normal
practice is to record a district’s significant historic resources over 50 years old, develop
from those its character-defining architectural styles, and define the period of significance
accordingly. There’s no reason to round the period of significance to arbitrary zeroes or
refuse to include character-defining styles examples of which are listed as Contributing .
The Guidelines’ misdescription of the district’s “Architectural Character” The
district’s two architectural descriptors in the Conservation Element, “California
Renaissance” and “California Bungalow ,” would both be dropped from the Guidelines,
replaced with
the Old Town District has many examples of High Victorian architecture, a style
popular in California during that time period[, which] included several style
variations, such as Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick, and Gothic Revival … along the top
of the hill […] . Other, more modest structures with simpler styles abound in other
areas of the district, […] includ[ing] Neoclassic Row House, Folk Victorian, and
Craftsman Bungalow, with many homes borrowing architectural details from
several styles.
The Conservation Element’s descriptor “California Renaissance” was indeed problematic, a
term created by Harold Kirker for his 1960 book California’s Architectural Frontier: Style
and Tradition in the Nineteenth Century (based on his UC Berkeley doctoral dissertation)
and used almost nowhere else. Kirker employs it not to denominate a style but the 1850–
1870 era of booming construction and use of local materials and technology. But none of
the structures in the Old Town Historic District can be documented by 1870; indeed the
area, empty of structures, consists entirely of meadows and fields in Leon Trousset’s
architecturally detailed 1870 panoramic painting of San Luis in the Mission Museum.
That said, the revised description of the district for the Guidelines invites deconstruction.
• High Victorian This was a popularizing term during the 1970s through 1990s,
with hundreds of newspaper uses for any mid -to -late-nineteenth-century American
building that preservationists advocated for while trying to avoid technically accurate
description, with the advantage that—as with High Mass, high tea, and high crimes and
misdemeanors—it sounded more impressive than plain “Victorian” or US-appropriate
“mid-to-late-nineteenth-century.” Yet it lacks any precise meaning connected to the
American West.
Page 78 of 191
39
Nikolaus Pevsner appears to have invented the phrase in 1951 for High Victorian
Design: A Study of the Exhibits of 1851 (London: Architectural Press) and the earliest of
his 42-volume The Buildings of England series (1951–1974), using it to describe mid -
Victorian England’s confident aesthetic (which he despised [“bulgy,” “grim,” “gloom,”
“swollen corpulence,” “uncommonly revolting”]) rather than any of its dozens of
specific architectural revival styles (25 of them in Richard Brown’s 1841 Domestic
Architecture [London: Bernard Quaritch], which Pevsner cites 15).
American architectural historian Henry-Russell Hitchcock borrowed the phrase in
1956, using “High Victorian Architecture” and “High Victorian Gothic” interchangeably
to refer to English Ruskinian polychrome, Continental-influenced (versus Puginian
monotone, English-influenced) Gothic Revival, “which flourished from the early fifties
to the late sixties” (“High Victorian Gothic,” Victorian Studies, Sep. 1957, pp. 47–71).16
The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture (2021) repeats Hitchcock’s definition but calls it
“unsatisfactory,” suggesting “Mid-Victorian” or “precise dates and description of styles.”
Whether defined by Pevsner, Hitchcock, or the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture, “High
Victorian Architecture” existed in England and was over before the beginning of the Old
Town Historic District, while the Victorian era itself took place in Britain and the British
Empire, worlds away from San Luis; was characterized by a vast number of different
architectural styles expressed in different materials; and ended halfway through the Old
Town Historic District’s stated period of significance.
• Queen Anne Promoted in first place by the Guidelines, Queen Anne is, with only 7
resources, is one of the rarest styles in the Old Town Historic District (but like
Victorian,” association with queens always seems posh). With origins in England in the
1860s through 1870s as a humanistic, counter-Gothic domestic reform architecture—
referencing Tudor through early-eighteenth-century buildings in red brick, hung tiles,
and occasional half-timbering—Queen Anne in California is characterized by Ionic
columns; botanical and sometimes drapery bas-relief in friezes and gables; round
turrets; horizontal modillions supporting eaves and jettying ; and sometimes faux half-
timbering. In the district, 5 of the Queen Annes are clustered at the top of valorized Nob
Hill on Buchon at Chorro and Garden (the Master List Crocker [1902], Marshall [1902],
Upham [1903], and Stanton [1904–1905] [all with Ionic columns and bas-relief, the
Upham with modillions and jettying and the Stanton with a round turret], plus the
Contributing List 770 Buchon [ca. 190117] [with modillions and jettying]). The other 2,
the Master List Erickson/687 Islay [189518] [ionic columns, bas-relief, and round
15. The full list, to show the specificity and richness of British architectural styles (leaving aside
American ones) is Cottage Ornée, Tudor–Henry VII, Tudor–Henry VIII, Elizabethan, Stuart,
Florentine, Flemish, Pompeian, Venetian, Swiss, French Chateau, Egyptian, Grecian, Roman, Anglo-
Grecian, Anglo-Italian, Persian, Chinese, Burmese, Oriental, Morisco-Spanish, Anglo-Norman,
Lancastrian, Plantagenet, and Palladian. Brown also includes furniture designs for the interior s.
16. St. Stephen’s, based on St. Michael’s Longstanton, Cambridgeshire —a design promulgated to the
British Empire and the United States by the Cambridge University–based Eccesiological Society in
the 1840s—is Puginian.
17. “Wanted—Girl for general housework” (advertisement), Tribune, 23 Apr. 1901, p. 4.
18. “Chas. Erickson is having his lot […],” Tribune, 13 Aug. 1895, p. 3.
Page 79 of 191
40
turret] and Vetterline [190219] [ionic columns, modillions, faux half-timbering, and
English Queen Anne–reference acorn-roofed turret]) are on Broad Street.
• Italianate In contrast, Italianate—older and more widespread in the Old West,
usually in the form of symmetric, full-width-porticoed, one-story cottages or
asymmetric porticoed houses, with deep eaves, often supported by corbels; low -angled
gable roofs or flat-topped hip roofs originally with balustrading (so -called widow’s
walks though really an Italian Baroque reference); and almost invariably chamfered
square columns—boasts 15 houses in the district: 3 Master List (the Rogers [likely by
1877 though heavily altered since] and Dana-Parsons and Fitzpatrick Houses [by
1886]) and 12 Contributing List (2 likely by 1877 [654 Buchon and 1415 Nipomo]; 5 by
1886 [722 Buchon, 654 and 662 Islay, 1516 Nipomo, and 969 Pismo {porch added after
2008}]; 4 by 1891 [530 Buchon, 454 and 550 Islay, and 1541 Osos ], and 1 of unknown
date moved to its current location 1905 –1926 [542 Islay]).
There are 13 more Late Italianate houses (using earlier Italianate forms but with
decorative variants): 1 Master List (Fitzgerald [1902], with round Tuscan columns ) and
12 Contributing List (3 by 1891 [651 and 673 Buchon]; 1 possibly by 1891 with porch
by 1905 [1436 Morro]; 6 by 1905 [575, 871, and 977 Buchon, 462 and 744 Islay, and
1526 Osos]; and 2 after 1905 [1135 Buchon and 1534 Chorro]).
• Stick “Stick” is a modern polemical renaming—by the architectural historian
Vincent Scully for his 1955 book The Shingle Style and the Stick Style, based on his Yale
dissertation—of what was known in America as Swiss or Bracketed (for the brackets in
its deep eaves), later as Heimatstil (homeland style) in German-speaking Europe. Scully
invented the name to draw attention to “the development in [American] wooden
domestic architecture between 1840 and 1876” ([New Haven: Yale] p. 2), including
asymmetry and external articulation of framing, though he never disclaimed that it was
part of the longer-lived Swiss Revival style. Scully includes no example of Eastlake
architecture in his book, but someone must have suggested that one example (the
Bassett House, New Haven [fig. 17]) was Eastlake (it isn’t), because in a n accompanying
footnote (note 90, p. lv) Scully denounces the notion that Eastlake was a recognized
architectural style in nineteenth-century America—where, in fact, Eastlake was much
written about, designed in, and hugely popular, particularly on the West Coast, having
developed out of English architect Charles Locke Eastlake’s “Early English” furniture
designs in his bestseller Hints on Household Taste.20
19. “Spirit of Improvement,” Tribune, 16 Jul. 1902, p. 4.
20. Scully dismisses the existence of Eastlake architecture as “watered -down Gothic revival
Sachlichkeit, derived from Pugin and Ruskin.” He adds, “Eastlake’s actual influence was mainly in
furniture design” and claims the term Eastlake architecture is “an epithet coined by the Eclectic
Apologists of the early twentieth century.” All of which is demonstrably false:
• Charles Locke Eastlake’s “Early English” furniture designs were intentionally stripped down,
handcraftable Romanesque compared to Pugin’s complex Gothic.
Page 80 of 191
41
Apparently as a result of Scully’s catchy neologism and footnote rant, the architectural
guides that emerged to serve the American preservation movement in the early
1980s—e.g., Mary Mix Foley’s The American House (New York: Harper, 1980), Carole
Rifkind’s A Field Guide to American Architecture (New York: Times Mirror, 1980), and
(most influentially) Virginia McAlester A Field Guide to American Houses (New York:
Knopf, 1984)—inserted the category “Stick” and banished the categories
Swiss/Bracketed and Eastlake, resulting in two of the most important American
architectural styles of the nineteenth century being ignored and an entirely imaginary
one being valorized, not only in San Francisco (where Eastlake is by far the dominant
surviving nineteenth-century architecture) and on the Central Coast but in the Old
Town Historic District.21 So completely and bizarrely did Scully’s footnote expunge
Eastlake from architectural historiography through acolytes like McAlester, that in
Charles Page and Associates’ 1976 Santa Cruz Historic Building Survey (Santa Cruz: City
• Hermann Muthesius’s concept of Sachlichkeit (objectivity or functionalism) in English domestic
design, which he introduced in Das englische Haus (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth, 1904, 1905),
postdates Eastlake by nearly forty years, rather than Eastlake watering it down
• Charles Locke Eastlake, a trained architect, designed furniture, but his furniture designs were
quickly translated to architecture, particularly in the American West, where the forms and
decorative elements of the one were easily adapted to the wood material and machined
spindles, posses, shingles, and trim of the other.
• Finally, the term Eastlake was used in an architectural context in the American press as early as
1875 (“the Renaissance, or more properly at the present day the Eastlake architecture” [“A
Great Modern Invention Is Building,” Scranton Morning Republican, 28 Oct. 1875, p. 3]) and was
in common architectural usage by the 1880s (e.g., in William T. Comstock’s Modern
Architectural Designs and Details [1881] and Samuel and Joseph Newsom’s Picturesque
California Houses [1888]).
21. In McAlester’s A Field Guide to American Houses, the “Stick” chapter’s 16 photos comprise 12
Swiss/Bracketed houses (pp. 258–260), 3 Eastlakes (p. 261), and 1 Queen Anne (260). (While the
“Queen Anne” chapter contains about two dozen photos of Eastlake houses, as she transfers spindle
columns and screens, a core characteristic of Eastlake furniture and houses, to a new category of
“Spindlework Queen Anne.”)
“Stick” became so popular (and poorly understood) a term that it was included in a 1973 episode of
The Streets of San Francisco, where old-school detective Karl Malden and college-educated detective
Michael Douglas and have the following conversation while looking at a house that’s a potential
crime scene:
“Looks kind of creepy.”
“Huh, Stick.”
“What?”
“The architecture’s called Stick. You can tell by those bay windows. See how they’re squared
off? Must be 1885 or ’90, maybe.”
“But you just put that down in the report. Observations like that are going to get you right to
the top of the department.”
In fact, the house used for the episode was the 1867 Italianate Adams House, 300 Pennsylvania
Avenue, with canted bays, but in a night shot with the film flipped left to right it was hard to tell.
(Square bays are indicative of Eastlake; Swiss/Bracketed tends to eschew bays .)
Page 81 of 191
42
of Santa Cruz, 1976), Eastlake cottages are frequently so identified, but in successor
firm Page & Turnbull’s 143-page 2013 Historic Context Statement and Survey Report:
City of Arroyo Grande, the word Eastlake goes unmentioned , despite the city having one
of the finest concentrations of Eastlake architecture south of Pacific Grove, including the
masterwork Pitkin-Conrow House.
In the Old Town Historic District, there are only 5 examples of what Scully would have
called Stick, i.e., Swiss/Bracketed houses, none of which have much of the articulated
framing he focused on in his dissertation . Swiss Revival is recognizable for steep
jerkinhead gables, vertical siding in gables, terminal -lobed bargeboards, and knee
brackets. The Snyder (by 1886) and Myron Angel and Greenfield Houses (circa 1890)—
originally Master Listed—are all 1½ or 2½ stories, half stories being common to the
style’s steep roofs. Of the 2 originally Contributing examples, 1421 Garden (1½- and 2-
story, since Master Listed as the Meredith House [1883], and the only one with eave
brackets) is the earliest documented, and 574 Islay (built or placed there between the
1905 and 1926 Sanborn Maps) is the latest and only 1-story example.
The district’s unacknowledged Eastlake buildings, a larger collection than in Arroyo
Grande, number 20. Eastlake, a purely American style based on the Englishman Charles
Eastlake’s “Early English” furniture designs, is the elaborately decorated architecture
that is often denoted “Victorian” or (by people who know “Victorian” isn’t an
architectural style but aren’t sure how to identify nineteenth -century American styles)
the fallback “Queen Anne.” Its characteristics include round arches to indicate its
Romanesque roots22; square bays; parapets, mansards, or open gables; generally
steeper gables than Italianate or Colonial Revival but less steep than Gothic; frequent
decorative gable shapes above doors and windows; corbels (making it sometimes
mistaken for Italianate); ascending and descending finials; spindles and spindle
screens; spindle columns; perforation; incising; dentils , dogtooth, volute, and egg
molding; sunbursts, bosses, and other almost obsessive geometric filling of surfaces (in
contrast to Queen Anne’s figurative bas relief); and borders of square stained panes
around clear windows.
The district’s Eastlakes include the Contributing List 1408 Broad, 770 Buchon, 1536
and 1544 Morro, 729 Pismo, and 1728 Santa Rosa (all between the 1891 and 1905
Sanborn Maps), as well as the Master List Lewin (1888–1891), Jessie Wright (1888 –
1891), McKennon (by 1891), Brooks (by 1891), Vollmer/497 Islay (1891 23),
Falkenstein (189424), Nichols (1446 Nipomo) (189925), Fleuger (189926), McManus
22. Horseshoe arches, in contrast, are borrowed from Islamic architecture and unwedded to
particular American styles, showing up in Queen Anne, Eastlake, and even Swiss.
23. “At the Recorder’s Office: P. B. Prefumo to Victoria Thompson,” Tribune, 26 Ap. 1891, p. 2.
24. “Two More New Dwelling Houses,” Tribune, 12 Aug. 1894, p. 3.
25. “Notes in This City: Dr. Eastman,” Tribune, 6 Aug. 1899, p. 4.
26. “Proceeding County Offices: Mortgages—E. Fleugler et ux,” Tribune, 24 Mar. 1899, p. 3.
Page 82 of 191
43
(probably l897, possibly 190027), Miller (189728), Hageman Sanitarium (1902), and
Kimball (190329). The Biddle House (1893) is Eastlake in form and decoration, apart
from possibly Queen Anne-inspired half-timber overlay and one jettied dormer [1893]),
as is the Tucker House (after 1906), apart from the Colonial Revival borrowing of two
open-pediment gables.
• Gothic Revival There is 1 Gothic Revival building in the Old Town Historic District,
St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, outside the stated period of significance.30
• Neoclassic Row Houses A “row house” is a row of dwellings with common
sidewalls. The only ones near the Old Town Historic District are “The Brownstones”
(neither brownstone nor even brown nor even stone), built in the 2010s on the 1100
block of Marsh. It is unclear why the Community Development Department persistently
refers to bungalows as row houses.
There are no Neoclassic houses in San Luis as the term is commonly used by
architectural historians (or even, eccentrically, by Virginia McAlester to reference
World Columbian Exposition–influenced architecture), though Queen Anne and the
27. J. E. Lewis and wife and Madalina Osgood took a mortgage on the lot in 1897 (“Recorder’s Office,
Tribune, 8 Aug. 1897, p. 3), which normally signified building; the property passed from J. E. Lewis
and wife to E. I. McManus 26 June 1900 (“Recorder’s Office,” Tribune, 27 June 1900, p. 3). There is
so far no record of the actual building of the house.
28. “Recorder’s Office […] Alice C. Miller and Husband,” Tribune, 5 Jan. 1897, p. 2.
29. “Beautiful New Residence,” 13 Feb. 1903, p. 1.
30. There are 10 houses in the district that the city’s Master List Historic Properties website
incorrectly identifies as Gothic, with the contortive explanation that this is “reflective of [the]
tendency for architectural styles to reach SLO decades after peaking in larger metropolitan areas of
the US.” In fact—and an important point to make—no such tendency exists: architects and builders
who practiced in San Luis Obispo had access to the same books, journals, training, and travel as
architects and builders elsewhere and were on the cutting edge of architectural developments.
Gothic Revival for domestic architecture—a novelty in Alexander Jackson Davis’s 1837 Rural
Residences and a staple in Andrew Jackson Downing’s 1842 Cottage Residences and 1850 The
Architecture of Country Houses and Henry Cleaveland’s 1856 Village and Farm Cottages—was
outmoded in the 1870s by the introduction of Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, and Eastlake, which
dominated pattern books by the 1880s (e.g., William T. Comstock’s Modern Architectural Designs
and Details [1881] and American Cottages [1883] and Samuel and Joseph Newsom’s Picturesque
California Houses [1888]). San Luis Obispo’s only surviving Gothic Revival houses are the early
1860s Hays-Latimer Adobe and 1874 Norcross House.
Occam’s razor suggests that if you have to invent an unevidenced explanation of why the wrong era
of houses are Gothic Revival, they’re probably not Gothic Revival.
The misidentified Gothic Revival houses in the Old Town Historic District are the Rogers
(Italianate); Greenfield (Swiss/Bracketed [circa 1890]); Biddle (Eastlake with Queen Anne , circa
1893); Lewin and Jessie Wright (both Eastlake [1888 and 1891); McKennon and Brooks (both
Eastlake and both built by the 1891 Sanborn Map); Falkenstein (Eastlake, 1894 [“Two More New
Dwelling Houses, Tribune, 12 Aug. 1894, p. 3]); McManus (Eastlake, probably 1897); Brew, Upham,
and Hourihan (all three Colonial Revival and built by 1901, in 1903, and in 1904 –1905, respectively
[see Papp, Brecheen House Master List Application , 2022]); and Tucker (Eastlake-Colonial, after
1906).
Page 83 of 191
44
Colonial Bungalow (through Georgian architecture) are Neoclassical offshoots, and the
Colonial Bungalow is presumably what is being referred to here .
In the Old Town Historic District, the 19 original Master List Colonial Bungalow
resources are all from the twentieth century, as well as the 57 Contributing List Colonial
Bungalow resources whose dates can be established. Typical are a low -pitched hip roof
appearing pyramidal from the street, usually with an integrated asymmetric porch with
a closed gable as a pediment, sometimes open pediment, topping either it or the
adjoining enclosed structure, which is typically fronted by a canted bay window.
Alternatively, the hip roof may have a central hip dormer, dormer and closed gable, or
no dormer or gable. Porch columns are almost always Tuscan, though spindle columns
and other Eastlake references are very occasionally used (a holdover from Eastlake).
Rarer variants use gambrel roofs, Japanese irimoya roofs, and (for revival of Early
Colonial) open gables.
• Folk Victorian This term was apparently invented by Virginia McAlester—at least
it does not appear in newspapers before the appearance of A Field Guide to American
Houses in July 1984. It combines “folk” (the indigenous architecture of communities
based on purely local traditions and materials, outside of popular movements) with
“Victorian” (a term with no architectural relevance to the United States or useful
meaning even in the British Empire, where dozens of distinct and often opposed
architectural style flourished during Victoria’s rule, an era marked by the international
dissemination of styles through mass publishing, as well as the mass manufacture of
building materials). In short, “Folk Victorian” is a contradiction in terms. McAlester’s
photographic examples (pp. 312 –317) suggest her definition included whatever she
couldn’t define but what architects and builders of the period would have recognized
immediately as Italianate, Eastlake, Swiss, Colonial Revival, Greek Revival, and Gothic
Revival. No “folk” architecture exists in the Old Town Historic District, where
professional architects and builders designed and constructed with imported ideas and
lumber, siding, shingles, molding, doors, windows, columns, balusters, spindles, finials,
bosses, etc. The architectural styles, with few exceptions, are specific and definable.
• Craftsman Bungalow The historically predominant and meaningful term is
California Bungalow, as used in the Conservation Element.
• Homes borrowing architectural details from several styles There are no such
resources. Apart from the Tucker House with its two open pediments, Biddle House
with its half-timbering and one jettied dormer, and Crocker House with its octagonal
lantern (which references Mount Vernon and Colonial Revival), there is virtually no
borrowing between American architectural styles of even individual features in the Old
Town Historic District’s Master List resources. Bellcast and irimoya roofs and one torii
arch are used in the district’s Colonial Bungalows, but japonisme was a regular feature
of the Colonial Bungalow. There is some minor borrowing in Contributing resources,
but never elements of more than one other style. Attributions of vague, mixed,
confused, or nonexistent styles are frequent when the spatial and decorative vocabulary
of architectural styles are poorly understood or the existence of contemporaneously
Page 84 of 191
45
recognized styles is denied . Writers, architects, builders, and clients of the era were
incredibly specific.31
The Guidelines statement of “Architectural Character” relegates the twentieth century to
“other, more modest structures with simpler styles … in other areas of the district.” These
structures, in turn, were largely relegated to the Contributing List, as if modest size and
simple style are not character-defining features of important architectures of the early
twentieth century: the streamlined Colonial Bungalow and rustic California Bungalow.
Again, the Old Town Historic District is primarily a twentieth -century district, with some
86 percent of Master and Contributing List resources from the twentieth century .
The Guidelines’ misdescription of “Predominant architectural features” First in
the Guidelines’ list of predominant architectural features of the Old Town Historic District is
“Two- and rarely three-story houses,” although, of the 309 original Master and
Contributing List resources in the district, there are only 15 such houses, or 5 percent:
• one 3-story house (if you count the 3-story tower on the 2-story McManus House)
• two 2½-story houses (the Biddle and Angel)
• twelve 2-story houses (the Rogers, Falkenstein, Vetterline, Fitzgerald, Post, Stanton,
Tucker, Kaiser, Clark-Norton, Crossett Houses on the Master List, 1438 Nipomo and 729
Pismo on the Contributing List)
In contrast, there are 283 1- to 1½-story houses, or 92 percent, which would normally be
considered “predominant.”32
Yet 13 of the 15 extremely atypical resources of 2- to 3-story houses (86 percent) made the
district’s original Master List.
Even 1½-story houses are quite rare in the district: 28 out of original listed 309 resources .
Comparing 1-, 1½, and 2- to 3-story houses as a percentage of total listed resources and of
Master List resources clearly shows the Master List bias toward size.
Of 309 resources on the original Master and
Contributing Lists for the district
• 256 are 1-story houses (83 percent)
• 28 are 1½-story houses (9 percent)
• 15 are 2- to 3-story houses (5 percent)
31. The California architects Samuel and Joseph Newsom in their 1880s pattern books offered
explicitly Swiss, Eastlake, Queen Anne, Picturesque, French Renaissance, and Colonial styles
(Picturesque California Homes [San Francisco: Samuel and Joseph C. Newsom, 1884]; Picturesque
California Houses [1888]), while a San Francisco Examiner article on “Our Colonial Craze” during its
first two years in the Bay Area gave local examples of “Gambrel Roofed type,” “type of English Half-
Timbered” (now called Postmedieval), “Cambridge type,” etc., from prominent architects like San
Francisco’s Page Brown, Ernest Coxhead, Clinton Day, and the Rev. Joseph Worcester and Boston’s
Winslow and Wetherell (13 Sep. 1891, p. 13).
32. Eleven listed buildings are not houses: the Bradbury Sanitarium, the Hageman Sanitarium and
Allen House (built as railroad boarding establishments), 4 apartment buildings (974–980 and 1022
Islay, 1341 Osos, and 954–958 Pismo), 2 shops (1609 and 1638 Osos), St. Stephen’s Church, and the
Kindergarten School.
Of 53 resources originally on the Master
List for the Old Town Historic District,
• 17 are 1-story houses (32 percent)
• 19 are 1½-story houses (36 percent)
• 13 are 2- to 3-story houses (25 percent)
Page 85 of 191
46
The size-bias in listings is likely a product of the wealth-bias that was partially engrained
and partially grew in historic preservation. Wealthy people tend to be the ones who hire
prominent architects; historically significant people—defined as leaders of government,
industries, and professions —are more likely than not to be wealthy. But very few houses of
the Old Town Historic District were listed for historic association, and knowledge of the
architects was almost nonexistent, so grandeur substituted for more specific information.
The 53 resources originally designated for the Master List in the district were concentrated
among larger 1½- to 2½-story houses in the once-wealthy “Nob Hill” area around the
intersections of Buchon with Broad, Garden, and Chorro : an area that looked like what the
people in power over the process—leaders of government and professions —imagined a
historic district should look like.
Page 86 of 191
47
Old Town Historic District architectural types
Gothic Revival Steep roof,
pointed windows, board and
batten siding
Italianate Chamfered
square columns, low roof
pitch, deep eaves, canted bay,
arched door panels
Swiss/Bracketed
Jerkinhead gables, eave
brackets, lobed bargeboards
Eastlake Spindle columns,
square bays, sunbursts,
finials, small corbels, bosses,
stained perimeter panes,
open gables
Eastlake Romanesque
arches, sunbursts, bosses
Queen Anne Ionic columns,
round tower, leaf bas-relief
Colonial Bungalow Tuscan
columns, open pediment
gables, canted bay
Colonial Bungalow Tuscan
columns, hip roof with hip
dormer, canted bays with
diamond panes
Prairie School Square
column, flat roof, deep eaves
Page 87 of 191
48
V. The Hansen House in the Universe of San Luis Obispo Listed California Bungalows
Master List California Bungalows throughout San Luis Obispo The City of San Luis
Obispo currently has 14 California Bungalow properties on its Master List, built from 1912
to 1921. Of these, 8 were designated following the 1982 Historic Resources Survey: 6 (the
Vollmer, Patton, Nuss/Thorne, and Crossett Houses, City Kindergarten, and Adriance
Court) in the Old Town Historic District and 2 (the Faulkner and Parsons Houses) outside
of historic districts. Between 1996 and 2012, 6 additional California Bungalows were
designated by application from their owners: 1 in the Old Town Historic District, 1 in the
Mill Street Historic District, and 4 outside of historic districts.
The Master List standards of “the most unique and important historic properties and
resources in terms of […] architectural […] significance [or] rarity” are inconsistently
applied, if applied at all. The California Bungalows grew out of both an aesthetic ideal and
the desire for an affordable, easily maintained house, so pattern books —a genre that dates
back to the eighteenth century in America and were widely produced in the nineteenth
century, including in California—are much in evidence in their design, mass builders in
their later construction. A house seemingly unique or rare in one community might be
reproduced by the dozens in other communities. But even in our own community, these
Master List properties may not be particularly rare.
For example, the Vollmer House, from the original group of Master List properties in the
Old Town Historic District, is by the same architect and of virtually the same design as the
earlier but unlisted E. M. Payne House two blocks away. The Patton House, also from the
original group of Master Listings in the Old Town Historic District, is explicitly a Henry L.
Wilson pattern book house. The Dart House very likely is. The Kelly House is 1 of 18
bungalows built over 2 months for different clients in San Luis Obispo by a mass producer
and in a late form that does not embody the spatial or material characteristics of the
California Bungalow and that is already represented by the 9 cottages of Adriance Court.
There are 4 of the 14 Master List California Bungalow s of the same nested gable subtype
and 3 by the same builder, H. E. Lyman. Of later, owner -applied additions to the Master List,
3 properties neither unique, rare, nor important were owned by astute civic activists in city
preservation.
None of which is to say that these properties, most of which embody California Bungalow
architecture, should not be landmarked, only that San Luis Obispo’s de jure standards of
uniqueness and rarity have never de facto been applied. Which—given the Master List
standards’ departure from the nationwide practice of historic preservation , where the
accepted standards are embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or
method of construction; representation of the work of a master; or possession of high
artistic value—is not a bad thing.
Page 88 of 191
49
Original Master List from the 1982 Historic Resources Survey
Old Town Historic District, in order of construction
Vollmer House (1912), 1116 Pismo, Old Town Historic District: listed architect Charles
McKenzie, listed contractor H. E. Lyman (Master List No. 94)
The 1912 Vollmer House (above left), designed by San Jose architect Charles McKenzie and
constructed by H. E. Lyman, embodies the side -gabled subtype of California Bungalows,
with an asymmetric front porch supported by square columns on a parapet, centered shed
dormer on the street façade, and rhythmic kaza-ana rafter tails as decorative features. It is
essentially a reverse version of McKenzie’s 1911 E. M. Payne House at 1254 Marsh (above
right), constructed by E. D. Bray, equally detailed, and on neither the Master nor
Contributing List nor in a historic district.
Frank Delos Wolfe and Charles McKenzie practiced together in San Jose as Wolfe and
McKenzie 1899–1910 and attempted to market their work in the 1907 Book of Designs
($2), containing plans for and photographs of 98 houses (republished by George Espinola
as Cottages, Flats, Buildings, and Bungalows: 102 Designs by Wolfe and McKenzie in 2004). In
1903 they opened a branch office in San Luis Obispo, the only location where they are
known to have done so, advertising in the Tribune almost daily (below left) between 4
March and 14 August 1903. Cal Poly’s collection of historic building permit applications
begins in 1906, so it is likely there are Wolfe and McKenzie houses in San Luis Obispo as yet
unidentified.
After their split, McKenzie designed at least seven houses in San Luis Obispo (next page),
according to building permit applications in the Cal Poly collection between 1911 and
1915. Three of them, including the Vollmer House, are Master Listed, and 4 of them —all
built by E. D. Bray, who studied with Wolfe and McKenzie in San Jose (Jean Martin, “E. D.
Page 89 of 191
50
Bray: Architect and Builder of the Central Coast,” La Vista, 2015) and who advertised in the
Tribune from 23 August to 26 October 1912 as McKenzie’s authorized agent (previous page
right)—are neither Master nor Contributing Listed and so remain unprotected, though all
currently exhibit excellent integrity.
Easton Mills House (1911)
Barneberg House (1914)
H. M. Payne House (1911)
Norton House (1915)
Defosset House (1912)
California Bungalow Address Date Contractor Listing District
Easton Mills House 1304 Pacific 1911 E. D. Bray None None
E. M. Payne House 1254 Marsh 1911 E. D. Bray None None
Defosset House 1397 Marsh 1912 E. D. Bray None None
Vollmer House 1116 Pismo 1912 Harry Lyman Master Old Town
Prairie School
Barneberg House 550 Dana 1914 James Maino Master Downtown
Norton House 1066 Palm 1915 E. D. Bray None None
Japonesque
H. M. Payne House 1144 Palm 1911 H. D. Payne Master Mill Street
Page 90 of 191
51
Patton House (1913), 1401 Nipomo, Old Town Historic District: listed architect H. L.
Wilson, listed contractor Leonard Thurlow (No. 76)
Henry L. Wilson published The Bungalow
Book described on page 24. The Patton
House appears to be either pattern No. 572
or a reverse of pattern No. 717, both from
the 1910 edition. In any event, it is a pattern
book house and thus not inherently unique
or significant, except insofar as Cal Poly’s
Building Permit Collection does not
explicitly list any other Wilson pattern book
bungalows, though local builders may have
been using his pattern book for their own
work without attribution, as architects were
rarely listed on the city’s permit
applications.
Nuss House (previously Thorne House)
(date assigned by city 1906, actually 1913),
1123 Pismo, Old Town Historic District: no
listed architect, listed contractor W. J. Smith
(No. 95)
Construction commenced in 1913 for local
postmaster William Thorne and his music
teacher wife Marguerite, later acting
postmaster,after her husband was
kidnapped by detectives or fled his debts.
Clarence Day, publisher of San Luis Obispo’s Daily Telegram, bought the property in 1916
and sold it in 1924, generally not considered long enough to establish historic association.
The house is an impressive example of a full -width front-facing gable subtype, but the
Streamline Moderne glazing of its porch, probably in the late 1930s or early 1940s,
compromises its façade’s ability to communicate its original significance of design,
craftsmanship, and materials.
Page 91 of 191
52
Crossett House (1914) , 896 Buchon, Old Town Historic District: listed architect and
contractor E. D. Bray (Master List No. 27)
In Cal Poly Special Collections’ (incomplete) San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection
1906–1937, Bray is listed eight times as contractor for Charles McKenzie as architect
(1911–1915), eight times for himself as architect (1910 –1916) and for no other architects.
He both designed and built the Crossett House, according to the permit application, and it is
certainly a master example of the japonesque California Bungalow, with its low roof pitch,
extended eaves, and reference to the hari crossbeam in the entry porch. Unfortunately, like
the Nuss House, the Crossett House’s side porch has been enclosed with Streamline
Moderne fenestration, though the effect is not so global as on the former’s façade. A
substantial rear addition has been largely hyphenated away from the house.
City Kindergarten (1917), 1445 Santa Rosa, Old Town Historic District: listed architect
Orville Clark, listed contractor H. E. Lyman (No. 97)
The airy California Bungalow with outdoor
spaces was used for schools in the era of
tuberculosis, from the 1917 Simmler School
on the Carrizo Plain (next page left [James
Papp, San Luis Obispo County Architecture
[Charleston: Arcadia, 2023], p. 103]) to the
Fendalton Open-Air School in Christchurch,
New Zealand—where, as a boy, the author of
this report suffered rainy, icy, and snowy
winters in a structure designed for Southern
California summers (next page right [1928,
Christchurch City Libraries]).
Page 92 of 191
53
The City Kindergarten is essentially a side-gabled box with centered, front-gabled, push-out
entry porch rather than a porch integrated—as with the Simmler School—into the building.
The kindergarten’s fenestration and varied clapboard widths are elegant, but the building
references the California Bungalow’s decorative features without embodying its spatial
characteristics of asymmetry and substantial indoor -outdoor areas. The closest Henry L.
Wilson shows to it in The Bungalow Book is No. 711, a “Bungalow Real Estate Office.”
Adriance Court (1921), 1531 Santa Rosa, Old Town Historic District: no listed architect,
listed contractor W. J. Smith (No. 98)
The nine cottages of Adriance Court do not, in themselves, embody the California
Bungalow. Like the City Kindergarten, each references the decorative features of the style :
deep eaves with exposed rafter tails and a Shinto torii-based entry with a kasagi supported
by daiwa-topped hashira, which is to say a gate with beam supported by tapered square
columns (now often referred to by the misleading neologism “elephant leg”) with a simple
capital. But the design does not employ the California Bungalow’s spatial characteristics:
substantial and generally asymmetric indoor-outdoor spaces, rather being simple boxes in
a row. Without individual California Bungalow embodiment, as a group they do embody the
bungalow court, a distinctive and important Southern California architectural form.
Page 93 of 191
54
Outside of a historic district
Faulkner House (previously Eliza Shipman House) (1916), 1145 Marsh, not in a historic
district: no listed architect, listed contractor Harry Lyman] (No. 58)
The Faulkner House is one of a row of five contiguous cottages on the 1100 block of Ma rsh
Street—3 Late Italianate (pre-1906), 1 Colonial Revival (ca. 1907 –1910), and 1 California
Bungalow (1916)—that seem to have been Master Listed in 1982 because they survived as
a charming suburban group on a street threatened by urbanization.
The Faulkner House’s hip roof with
pyramidal street front is extremely rare but
not wholly unknown in California
Bungalows, which are almost always front-
or side-gabled, to reference their chalet
forebears. It has the classic pyramidal-roof-
and-asymmetric-front gable Colonial
Bungalow form (further indicated by the
shallow eaves), except with the pediment
front gable replaced by an open gable.
The gable’s Japonesque faux kooryoo or gorombo (rainbow beam), kaza-ana terminations to
4 faux crossbeams, 2 Swiss-inspired ogee knee brackets, and 3 hashira with daiwa (but also
astragal borrowed from an Ialianate square column) cram as many California Bungalow
features as possible into the small porch of what is spatially a Colonial Bungalow (including
3 columns; 2 is normal for California Bungalows ). The effect is transitional, allowed under
NRHP guidelines though hard to define as embodiment .
Lee R. Parsons House (1917), 1204 Nipomo: no listed architect, listed contractor Lee R.
Parsons (No. 75)
In 1917 Parsons, son of the county surveyor, was partner in the San Luis Planing Mill, had
converted it from steam to electricity four years earlier, and had just married a second wife,
returning from his honeymoon to finish building their house. On a corner site, it has a
sophisticated design with an asymmetric front-gabled porch facing Nipomo on a side-
gabled structure, with a side porch on Marsh whose gable is nested into the
aforementioned side gable. A faux kooryoo over the entrance, supported by stylized hijiki
or elbow brackets that are repeated in the side porch, plus window frames suggestive of a
torii or Shinto gate add Japanese flavor to a structure whose traditional rectangular form
has been broken up aesthetically more than functionally. Glazing on the fr ont of the side
porch and side of the front porch appears to be a later adaptation to March Street traffic.
Page 94 of 191
55
Added to the Master List by application of their owners, 1996–2012
Old Town Historic District
Martha Dunlap House (1916), 1511 Morro: no listed architect, listed contractor Harry
Lyman (No. 166; added to Master List in 1996)
Bordello owner Martha Dunlap, periodically charged with morals and liquor violations and
perjury (“early, prominent Central Coast businesswoman” in the parlance of the city’s
Master List website) applied for the building permit 3 Aug. 1916 and died 23 Apr. 1917 at
her house in Santa Maria, not long enough to establish historic association, even assuming
Dunlap was historically significant, i.e., a leader within her profession.33
The house is of the nested front gable subtype, and, with many “Jappo-Swisso” exterior
features (including ogee knee brackets, kooryoo, and kaza-ana) it embodies the California
Bungalow. The redwood-paneled, partially divided reception rooms with now more
exaggeratedly tapered hashira (still with astragals) are characteristic of Lyman’s work.
33. “Sheriff Stewart Heads Raid in Santa Maria Purity Crusade,” Morning Press, 30 Jan. 1910, p. 1;
“Santa Marian Hurt in Auto Accident,” Daily News and Independent, 24 Apr. 1917, p. 3
Page 95 of 191
56
Mill Street Historic District
The Burch House (1915), 1333 Mill, Mill Street Historic District: listed architect Theo. M.
Maino, listed contractor W. J. Smith (No. 176; added to Master List in 2010)
Of the three houses for which Theodore Maino is credited as architect in Cal Poly’s San Luis
Obispo Building Permits Collection , this one, built for drugstore proprietor W. E. Lawrence,
is the only one for which he was not also the contractor. It is of the nested front gable
subtype with an unusual—and unusually poorly integrated—wider second story in back
that was part of the house by the time the 1926 Sanborn Map came out but does not match
the permit application for a 1½-story 30’x34’ structure so was presumably added. The
pergola porch is absent from the 1926 Sanborn and may also be a later false -historicist
addition. It would be difficult to argue that it has particular architectural significance or
rarity and very difficult to argue that it has the integrity to commun icate its significance.
Outside of a historic district
Chris Anholm House (1919–1920), 375 Chorro, not in a historic district: architect and
contractor unknown (No. 171; added to Master List in 2009)
The Chris Anholm House, 2008
The Chris Anholm House, 2011
Page 96 of 191
57
Chris and George Anholm, ethnic Danish immigrants from Schleswig-Holstein, like Hans
Hansen, subdivided their farmland at the edge of San Luis Obispo , selling lots and offering
to build houses starting in 1928. “Building restrictions protect your investment,” they
heralded (“Anholm Tract” [advertisement], Telegram, 8 June 1928, p. 10): In other words,
Blacks and Asians were covenanted against buying, renting, or inhabiting the
neighborhood, except the latter as servants. After the US Supreme Court struck down the
enforcement of racial covenants in 1948 (Shelley v. Kraemer), local businessman and civic
leader Young Louis, Ah Louis’s eldest son, and school principal Billy Watson, Ah Louis’s
grandson, were able to buy Anholm Tract properties the following year , though Billy
Watson was forced to ask other householders if they objected .34
The Chris Anholm House is unusual, perhaps unique, for its Master List and Mills Act
applications being passed simultaneously in 2009. The earlier enclosure of the front porch
and changes to fenestration, plus later subtractions (the simple attic vent and kaza-ana
bargeboard terminations) and additions (speculative fenestration, new side addition and
entry porch to street façade, dormers, and two stories to the rear) would seem to have
rendered the house ineligible for Master Listing on the grounds of loss of integrity of
design, craftsmanship, and materials. It no longer embodies the simple, full-width gable
subtype of the California Bungalow, and its ability to communicate its architectural form or
association with Chris Anholm—whose notable contribution to San Luis Obispo’s history
was the further institutionalization of racism—is dubious.
Charles John Kelly House (1921), 1352 Pacific, not in a historic district: listed architect C.
C. Peppin, listed contractor Mount Diablo Building Corporation (No. 181; added to Master
List in 2010)
The Kelly House was one of 18 bungalows, not all California Bungalows, whose permits
were applied for 14 Nov. 1921–6 Jan. 1922, under “the Pedder Plan of Home Building ,”
advertised with a full page in the Telegram three weeks earlier, (26 Oct. 1921, p. 7).
A stucco bungalow with side gables and
central front gable pushout entry porch —
like the Adriance Court units and many of
the “LA Bungalows” in Mount Diablo’s 32 -
unit development in Marysville the previous
year—it has somewhat miniaturized triplet
knee brackets on the front and side gables
and kaza-ana bargeboards yet lacks
embodying muscularity, rustic materials,
and sophisticated indoor-outdoor space.
The NRHP Guidelines may be wrong that the “Craftsman Bungalow”—really the California
Bungalow—had anything essentially to do with craftsmanship, but i f this sort of mass-
produced dwelling with a few nominal decorative features qualifies for the Master List’s
rarity and uniqueness standard, it is hard to imagine what building would not.
34. Conversation with son Dr. Bill Watson
Page 97 of 191
58
Louisiana Clayton Dart House (1912), 1318 Pacific: no listed architect, listed contractor
W. J. Smith (No. 182; added to Master List in 2010)
The California Bungalow built for Mary Putnam and later owned by longtime County
Historical Society director Louisiana Clayton Dart (above left) is a subtype of side gables
and full-width front porch with front facing gabled dormer. Of the 112 models in Wi lson’s
1910 Bungalow Book, 43 of them have full-width front porches, though most of these
incorporate some asymmetry. The one that most closely resembles the Dart House i s No.
409 (above right), with a bellcast gable supported by knee brackets. Smith uses simpler
decorative elements without ogees in the brackets or kaza-ana in bargeboards and rafter
tails, and porch columns as miniature torii with kasagi, shimaki, and nuki beams. The
japonesque spirit of Wilson’s torii-like columns is evoked by Smith with hijiki or Japanese-
style brackets at the top of the hashira. Smith, like Wilson, uses asymmetries of porch
fenestration but puts his door in the middle.
Whether contractor Smith copied Wilson or another architect, the likely source for
variation was a pattern book, with manufactured architectural elements available to piec e
together. But this is a sophisticated design that embodies the California Bungalow and has
association to, in Dart, a historically significant local person.
Page 98 of 191
59
Harry Lyman House (1912), 868 Upham, not in a historic district: no listed architect,
listed contractor H. E. Lyman (No. 183; added to Master List in 2012)
Built by contractor Harry Lyman for his mother Laura Rugg Lyman, this house is of the
common subtype with nested front gables. Ogee knee brackets with nailhead terminations,
kaza-ana in bargeboard and rafter tails, two faux kooryoo on the façade, and a rectangular
oriel side window are testament to Lyman’s attention to the Swiss and Japanese details
whose strange marriage embody the California Bungalow. Later enclosure of the important
front porch is the only fly in the ointment of this Master Listing, the most recent of a
California Bungalow in San Luis Obispo.
Page 99 of 191
60
Contributing List California Bungalows in the Old Town Historic District
Often sophisticated but generally small, these were overlooked for Master Listing.
Nested front gable s subtype
1520 Beach (1925, James
Jepson, contractor)
752 Islay (1911, John Chapek,
contractor)
1071 Islay (1921, W. J. Smith,
contractor); later addition to
right side
1821 Morro (1919, R. S. Aston,
contractor
1124 Buchon (1916, H. E.
Lyman, contractor); later
porch enclosure
727 Islay
1120 Islay
1519 Nipomo (1924, John
Chapek, contractor)
1425 Garden; lobed
bargeboards recall
Swiss/Bracketed style
868 Islay
1829 Morro (1916, H. E.
Lyman, contractor); later
two-story back addition
1421 Osos; duplex with two
nesting gable entry porches
Page 100 of 191
61
977 Pismo
1152 Pismo (1922, G. L.
Furster, day labor)
1193 Pismo (1921, C. O. Dyer,
contractor); mirror image of
1185 Pismo
1050 Pismo (1927, W. D.
Stainbaugh, contractor)
1179 Pismo (1917, C. Scott,
contractor)
1423 Toro; later second-story
addition and stone cladding of
columns
1145 Pismo (1921, John
Chapek, contractor); later
enclosure of porch
1185 Pismo (1921, C. O. Dyer,
contractor); mirror image of
1193 Pismo
Front- and side-gable subtype Hip roof singleton
655 Islay (1920, Theodore
Maino, contractor); note torii
columns with odd lattice
958 Pismo (1915, John
Chapek, contractor); likely
porch enclosure
753 Islay (earlier Colonial
Revival bungalow, later
stuccoed with California
Bungalow style entry porch
attached)
Page 101 of 191
62
Side-gable subtypes
Full-width porch, front
gable dormer
1060 Pismo (1913, H. E.
Lyman, contractor); rare
absence of central columns
1604 Morro; later porch
enclosure
Asymmetric porch, front-
gabled dormer
1068 Pismo (1914, Ernest
McConnell [Los Angeles],
architect, John Chapek,
contractor)
1520 Santa Rosa (1929, W. J.
Smith)
Wraparound porch, shed
dormer
1845 Morro (1913, A[rthur?].
Barnard, architect and
contractor); rare wraparound
porch for California
Bungalow
Asymmetric porch, shed
dormer
1641 Osos (1910, B. F.
Stewart, contractor)
No porch, shed dormer
663 Islay (1921, C. R. Dana,
self-contractor); appears not
to have a later porch
enclosure
Asymmetric porch, no
dormer
1515 Santa Rosa
968 Leff (1927, H. C. Kinsman,
contractor)
Asymmetric push-out
porch, no dormer
1166 Pismo (1922, C. C.
Peppin, architect, Mount
Diablo Building Corp.,
contractor)
Center push-out entry
porch, no dormer
1527 Morro
Page 102 of 191
63
Full-width front-gable subtypes
Full-width porch
1182 Buchon (1910, Leonard
Thurlow, presumed self-
contractor)
676 Islay; second story
addition, fenestration
changes, etc.
1170 Buchon (maybe by 1911
with dormer and possibly
oriel additions circa 1927)
Asymmetric porch
1020 Leff (1908); atypical
canted window, lack of
decorative features
1336 Morro (maybe by 1911)
1731 Morro (maybe by 1913);
atypical, Colonialesque single
Tuscan column, side-facing
door
1536 Garden (before 1925)
Push-out entry porch or
canopy
1175 Buchon (1923, W. J.
Smith, contractor)
1615 Morro (maybe 1921);
later side addition
1511 Osos
1061 Islay; later second-story
addition
Page 103 of 191
64
VII. Significance of the Hansen House
As defined by San Luis Obispo’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, the Hansen
House is among “the most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms
of […] architectural […] significance [or] rarity” for its embodiment of the California
Bungalow’s full-width front-gable, asymmetric porch subtype, being the finest articulation
of this Southern California ur -form in the district and the best preserved example in the
city. It is simple in its structure and plain and angular in its elements, much like Greene and
Greene’s pioneering “California House” from 1904 and the first press illustration of a
California Bungalow so designated, and as the type would be recognized, in the 1905 Los
Angeles Herald (both below). Like these, the Hansen house has an intentional absence of
overt Swiss dewtails like the ogee knee brace or Japanese ones like the kaza-ana terminus.
It is substantial and artfully designed but minimalist in its aesthetics.
Above: Greene and Greene’s 1904 California
House; right: California Bungalow in the Los
Angeles Herald 24 Sep. 1905 (see pp. 21–22)
The 1921 Hans Nissen and Lena Peterson Hansen House, 1110 Buchon Street, San Luis Obispo
Page 104 of 191
65
A plain frieze divides the street façade horizontally, with wide clapboard below and
rectangular shingle siding above. Five knee braces with square ends (chamfered for
softening) and plain shafts support the deep eaves and substantial bargeboard of the street
façade. Wide, plain, framing of an attic vent at the gable crest echoes, on a smaller scale, the
framing of the windows and door, while descending uprights and canted head add a
distinctive touch.
In form, the Hansen House has a dominant roof peak running from front to back, with a
small side-projecting wing toward the front left with its own side -facing gable, like Greene
and Greene’s California House. The front - and side-facing gables are wide and low-pitched,
typical for the California Bungalow’s reference to the Swiss chalet, but unlike a Swiss chalet,
the house is a single story, appropriate for the California suburbs.
An integrated asymmetric porch follows the arrangement familiar to Californians from the
Colonial Bungalow. In an elegantly symmetrical touch, the porch divides the façade exactly
in half, which is rare for Colonial Bungalows, which are more likely to have either the porch
or the enclosed façade dominant. The corner is supported by one tapered square column
rather than the series of Tuscan columns typical of Colonial Bungalows. A brick base
supports the column.
Triplet windows on the right are explicitly echoed within the porch by the front door and
flanking windows, also in wide, plain frames. The right windows , in simplified effect, are
flush to the wall rather than projecting in a canted bay, as would be typical in the Colonial
Bungalow. A brick dado runs below the right windows.
The rear façade echoes this arrangement with subtle differences: An identical attic vent is
present, but only the lowest beams have knee braces, the three highest projecting without
further support, and the wide, plain frieze is absent as a divider between the square shingle
Page 105 of 191
66
siding and clapboard. A larger door frame and single window are in a purely utilitarian
arrangement rather than the rhythmic aesthetic of the street façade.
The west façade’s projecting wing terminates in a chimney with flanking windows and also
has side windows, providing a light and airy inglenook for the interior. Two lower knee
braces on its gable echo the larger gable’s brackets, with a beam projection from the
brickwork at the gable crest completing the arrangement. An original dining room pushout
(seen on the Sanborn Map five years later) is obscured from the street beyond the gabled
inglenook wing. A kitchen window beyond the pushout appears to be the only one of the
bungalow’s twenty windows whose original sash has been replaced.
West-facing inglenook wing
East façade’s seven windows
Rear façade
West façade with pushout and wing
The large number of windows, all with wide, plain frames, are testament to the emphasis
on access to fresh air—shaded by deep eaves—in the ideal California Bungalow.
Inside, the living room and dining room of the Hansen House retain their shoulder -high
wainscots, divided by battens and, in the dining room, topped by molding that provides a
shelf for display of dishes or other artifacts. Interior door and window frames echo the
width, plainness, and strength of the exterior but in natural finish, with a multi -paned
pocket door between the two rooms. Stylistic harmony between the interior and exterior,
Page 106 of 191
67
as well as communication between the two —e.g., in the large windows and door that make
a continuous space of the porch, living room, and (with pocket doors open) dining room —
are ideals of the California Bungalow and are particularly well executed here.
Inglenook wing side window
Axis through pocket doors from dining room
to living room and porch
A garage opening to the Pismobuchon Alley
(right) dates from the same era as the
house, with both of them present in the
1926–1956 Sanborn Map book in 1926. It
copies California Bungalow design with a
low-pitched roof, exposed rafter tails, and
vent of vertical slats, a distant echo of
vertical siding in Swiss Revival gable crests
and present in the attic vents of the Hansen
House.
Living room wainscot and doorway to hall
Dining room alcove
Page 107 of 191
68
VIII. Period of Significance
Given that the Hansen House is significant for its embodiment of the California Bungalow
rather than historic association, the period of significance would normally be the year of its
construction, 1921. Extending the period of significance to the residence of the Hansens
(1921–1937) would have little relevance to issues of integrity of design, materials, and
workmanship, as the few minor changes to the house occurred well after 1937. Its setting,
comprising the other 22 houses on 1100 block of Buchon, consists overwhelmingly of
construction predating the Hansen House.
Page 108 of 191
69
IX. Integrity
The earliest available image we have of the Hansen House is from the 1926–1956 Sanborn
Map book (top), showing the footprint, height, materials, and location of the house and
garage in 1926 (partial lamination over the garage records an update to the lot next door).
A black and white photograph from the 1982 Historic Resources Survey is next (middle),
supplement by Google Street Views from 2007 to the present (2015 and 2017 at bottom).
Page 109 of 191
70
Location As shown in a comparison of the 1926 image in the 1926 –1956 Sanborn Map
book with the current Google Satellite image (below), the Hansen House and garage retain
their location at 1110 Buchon and in the same configuration.
Setting The Hansen House is remarkable for the preservation of its setting not only as
a low-built surburban street but with almost all of its original houses as it developed from
1901. The most significant change was a Seventh Day Adventist church built on the lot to
the west of the Hansen House, the Buchon –Santa Rosa corner, in 1924–1925, three years
after the Hansen House was constructed, with a Contributing List Spanish Colonial Revival
bungalow added to the rear of that lot in 1929.35 The church has been replaced by a
compact, modernist two-story house, but the 1929 bungalow remains. A California
Bungalow at the rear of the lot to the east is the Hansen House is of unclear construction
date, appearing by 1926 on the Sanborn Map, and is currently obscured from the steet.
To the east, the remaining 10 houses on the 1100 block of Buchon were all Contributing
Listed in 1987, and 9 are documented to have pre-existed the Hansen House. Of the 10
houses on the facing side of the block , 9 were Contributing Listed in 1987, and all but 1 are
documented to have pre-existed the Hansen House. These Contributing buildings (with 2 —
1144 and 1152 Buchon—since Master Listed as the Hill and Strickland Houses) consist of
13 Colonial Bungalows, 5 California Bungalows, and 1 nondescript bungalow .
The 13 Colonial Bungalows date between 1901 and 1910. They are, by 190136, 1504 Santa
Rosa; by the 1905 Sanborn Map37, 1132, 1151, 1157, 1165, 1176, 1189, and the since–
Master Listed 1144 Buchon; and, by 191038, 1190 Buchon; in addition to 1 Colonial
35. San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection .
36. “Death Call for Two,” Tribune, 16 Feb. 1901, p. 1.
37. Confirmed by “San Luis Obispo, Panoramic View from Terrace Hill, 1907” (probably a year
earlier), San Luis Obispo, City—Streets and General Views, Box 1, Folder 35.
https://archives.calstate.edu/concern/archives/2v23vx97d, Cal Poly Special Collections.
38. “WANTED—A girl for general housework,” Telegram, 20 Sep. 1910, p. 4.
Page 110 of 191
71
Bungalow with some Eastlake features , 1145 Buchon (on the 1905 Sanborn Map); 2
Colonial Bungalows with some Queen Anne features , 1137 and 1160 Buchon (on the 1905
Sanborn Map); and the since–Master Listed Colonial-Japonesque Bungalow 1152 Buchon
(ca. 1906–190739).
Five California Bungalows date between 1910 and 192 6. They are, from 191040, 1182
Buchon; from 191141, 1170 Buchon; 1124 Buchon, built by Harry Lyman in 1916 (San Luis
Obispo Building Permits Collection ); from 1923, 1175 Buchon (op. cit.); and, by the 1926
Sanborn, 1118 Buchon.
One nondescript Contributing List bungalow, 1135 Buchon, was built by 1916.42
Thus, not only does the setting retain its suburban residential use, the actual bungalows—
with their design, craftsmanship, and materials—preserve the setting of the Hansen
House’s naissance. Though there have been many additions to these houses, the horizontal
additions are mostly to the rear and the vertical ones mostly in the form of dormer
conversions of attic space, retaining the scale and massing of the street.
Design The Hansen House’s footprint is unchanged from its 1926 appearance in the
1926–1956 Sanborn Map book, the only one of the 21 Master and Contributing Listed
buildings on the 1100 block—apart from 1160 and 1177—with this distinction. It has also
avoided the fate of other listed houses on the block not only of lean -tos and extensions but
second-story additions and dormers to expand attic to living space. Its form, scale, and
massing are pristine.
The earliest photograph we have is from the 1982 Historic Resources Survey, but the
weathered-brick dado that appears by then on the street façade of the building was
permitted in 1967. It is, however, reversible. The plinth of the column, of different brick
and height and functional rather than decorative, is likely original.
There are two changes to the façade design since the survey photograph, both taking place
between 2015 and 2017, according to Google Street Views . (Otis Maxwell, the previous
owner, died in 2014.)
1. The plain frieze has been extended continuously across the façade, having been
previously notched along the right-hand half. This seems to make aesthetic sense, and,
39. The early 1906 right-hand Terrace Hill photo at Cal Poly Special Collections (168-1-b-01-35-02,
incorrectly dated on the back 1907) does not show 1152 Buchon, but a panoramic photo (Cal Poly
Special Collections 168-1-b-01-36-01) that can be dated to the first months of 1907 does. 1150
(now 1152) Buchon was listed as Strickland’s address in the advertisement for a patent kidney
medication by 17 May 1907 (“In San Luis Obispo,” Tribune, p. 2).
40. San Luis Obispo Building Permits Collection .
41. “WANTED—a good girl to help in a home of culture. […] Address or inquire 1170 Buchon St.,”
Telegram, 14 Sep. 1911, p. 4.
42. “FOR RENT—Modern 5 room furnished house,” Telegram, 18 Nov. 1916, p. 1.
Page 111 of 191
72
absent the discovery of earlier photographs, it is impossible to tell if the notch is original or
was made for a utilitarian purpose, e.g., to accommodate the window canopy or a larger
one than that seen in 1982. It is reversible, but there is currently no indication that it
should be reversed.
2. A falsely historicist
tapering has been laminated
to the porch’s apparently
original square corner porch
column in an overt hashira
reference that does not seem
to have been intended in the
original design, for square
posts were common through
Swiss Revival architecture in
the nineteenth century and
occur in actual Swiss chalets.
This change is reversible and,
minor though it seems,
would ideally be reversed to
restore the bungalow’s
original aesthetic.
Workmanship As previously mentioned, the kitchen sash has been replaced. The
front and rear doors are also not original, the one in front being a mid -century door with
colored diamond panes. This may be an artifact of Otis Maxwell’s work for Alex Madonna,
either surplus from a job site or influenced by Madonna’s fondness for this aesthetic in his
own Swiss Revival architecture, including Madonna Inn. These diamond-pane replacement
doors are, however, not uncommon on older houses in San Luis Obispo.
No evidence suggests that bargeboards, beam ends, knee braces, or rafter tails have been
altered from their original plain appearance—other than that they and the siding were
quite likely stained rather than painted. The mid -century white paint obliterated all
perception of detail, which the current painting arrangement at least restores. Few if any
houses in San Luis have their original paint or staining. Where unpainted siding has been
restored, as with the Leroy Smith House at Johnson and Mill, the origi nal redwood shingles
had to be replaced.
Materials Clapboard and shingle siding appears to be original, as do door and window
frames, all preserving the California Bungalow plain and muscular aesthetic. The original
wood-shingle roofing has been, as usual and expected, replaced.
Feeling Feeling as the summation of location, setting, design, workmanship, and
materials has high integrity based on the high integrity of these elements. The passerby on
the street experiences a California Bungalow in an almost perfectly preserved state in a
block of contemporary Colonial and California Bungalows nearly as well preserved in
theirs. The ideal of early-twentieth-century suburban California life—expressed in
Page 112 of 191
73
simplicity and livability of design and workmanship, with the indoor-outdoor experience of
the California climate embodied in the front porch, its connection to an open interior, and
the plethora of windows—strongly communicates not only to the passerby but the
individual admitted to the living room and dining room with their respective inglenook and
alcove in original condition.
Association As the application is to list the Hansen House for embodiment of the
California Bungalow rather than association with a historic event or person, association is
not relevant. Nonetheless, early occupants would easily recognize the bungalow they lived
in, with minor changes of tapered porch column and brick dado.
Page 113 of 191
74
X. Conclusion
The Hans Nissen and Lena Peterson Hansen House embodies the architecture of the
California Bungalow in its Southern California ur -form: full-width, street-facing, low-pitch
gable, rectangular footprint and dominant ridgeline front to back, paying tribute to the
simple, rustic nature of the Swiss chalet, with an asymmetric integrated porch inherited
from the earliest established American bungalow type, the Colonial Bungalow .
Eschewing the accretions of Swiss decorative features like ogee brackets and gable trusses,
as well as Japanese ones like hari, hijiki, faux kooryoo, torii elements, and kaza-ana
terminations, the Hansen House displays consistently plain, functional details. Simplicity is
clearly its design ideal, from the basic chalet form to the façade bisected in two equal halves
between porch and enclosure.
The Hansen House is also extremely unusual for the integrity of its setting and even more
unusual for its absence of horizontal and vertical additions. The minor changes to its design
features, craftsmanship, and materials detract little from its ability to communicate its
significance as a California Bungalow and are largely reversible. In contrast, the only other
Master List California Bungalow of the same subtype, the Anholm House, has virtually no
integrity, with significant irreversible changes to design, materials, and workmanship, and
it does not contribute to a historic district.
In the Old Town Historic District, originally conceived to celebrated the California
Bungalow, why were so few of such bungalows Master Listed, and indeed the whole type—
perhaps California’s major contribution to world architecture—dismissed as “other, more
modest structures with simpler styles […] in other areas of the district”? The culprit seems
to be a misguided effort to valorize the very few two -story nineteenth-century houses in an
overwhelmingly twentieth-century bungalow district, perhaps with a view to seeming
more like the East Coast than the West Coast, or more like San Francisco than Pasadena.
Whatever the cause, in updating its Historic Resources Survey, the City of San Luis Obispo
should review and correct these early biases through
• recording and analyzing its historic resources statistically
• acknowledging that San Luis Obispo architects, builders, and clients participated in and
frequently led the mainstream of American architectural movements
• applying accurate dates, clients, and architectural types to historic resources, including
key types it has previously overlooked, misnamed, or marginalized, from Greek Revival
adobes to Swiss/Bracketed and Eastlake houses and Colonial and California Bungalows
• adopting listing criteria that follow national and state standards and practices
In the meantime, the Hansen House—for its important embodiment of the minimalist
aesthetic in California Bungalow design and its extraordinary degree of integrity to
communicate its significance—should be added to the Master List as one of the Old Town
Historic District’s “most unique and important historic properties and resources in terms of
[…] architectural […] significance [or] rarity.”
Page 114 of 191
Mills Act Application
Hans Nissen and Lena Peterson Hansen House • 1110 Buchon Street
The Hansen House was added to the Master List of historic resources—now Landmarks—in
1926 for its embodiment of the California Bungalow’s chalet-style subtype characterized by the
full-width street-facing gable and asymmetric porch, its Southern California ur-form.
The Mills Act (California Code GOV § 12, sec. 50281.b.1) describes the 10-year contract as for
the preservation of the qualified historical property and, when necessary, to restore and
rehabilitate the property to conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic
Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, and the State Historical Building Code
The City of San Luis Obispo traditionally mandates specific actions in the contract for
enforcement purposes. In addition, historic properties (the Hansen House turns 105 this year) are
susceptible to unanticipated failures of old materials and systems. Extensive repair and
restoration have recently been undertaken by the applicant, Fitgerald Kelly. He undertakes
• continued preservation of the interior structure and systems and exterior fabric
and, in addition, undertakes
• restoration of the porch ceiling wood and paint
• restoration of sun-damaged wood and paint on the façade
• drainage repair
• new guttering
• repair of cracking chimney
James Papp, PhD • Historian & Architectural Historian, City & County of San Luis Obispo
964 Chorro St, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 • 805-470-0983 • papp.architectural.history@gmail.com
Submitted 27 February 2027 on behalf of James Fitzgerald Kelly
Attachment D - Application Request Letter and List of Improvements for 1110 Buchon Street
Page 115 of 191
Page 116 of 191
CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF A REQUEST TO ENTER INTO A HISTORICAL PROPERTY
PRESERVATION CONTRACT (MILLS ACT) FOR THE LANDMARK GEORGE AND
CORDELIA MCCABE HOUSE LOCATED AT 571 PISMO STREET
BY: Eva Wynn, Assistant Planner FROM: Brian Leveille, Principal Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7172 Phone Number: (805) 781-7166
Email: ewynn@slocity.org Email: bleveille@slocity.org
APPLICATION NUMBER: HIST-0313-2026
PROJECT ADDRESS: 571 Pismo Street
APPLICANT: Ben and Saskia Winter REPRESENTATIVE: James Papp, PhD
RECOMMENDATION
Provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding a Mills Act historic property
contract between the City and the owner of property at 571 Pismo Street, to encourage
maintenance and restoration of the Landmark “McCabe House” property.
1.0 BACKGROUND
The owners of the George and Cordelia McCabe (McCabe) House at 571 Pismo Street
have submitted an application to enter into a Mills Act historic property preservation
contract with the City (see Draft Agreement, Attachment A). Per the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance (HPO) § 14.01.030 (B)(8) the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC)
is tasked with providing a recommendation to the City Council about the request.
2.0 DISCUSSION
2.1 Site and Setting
The property is located on the southern side of Pismo Street within the western section
of the Old Town Historic District. The residence sits between two Landmarks, the Patton
House at 1407 Nipomo St and the Biddle House at 559 Pismo St. The Old Town Historic
District (District) was created to encompass one of the oldest residential neighborhoods
and most of the development occurred around the turn of the 20th century. The high
concentration of 100-year-old or older residences establishes the District’s predominant
architectural and visual character. The District has many examples of High Victorian
architecture, including several variations, such as Queen Anne, Italianate, Stick and
Gothic Revival influences, along with more modest structures with simpler styles including
Neo-classic Row House, Folk Victorian, and Craftsman Bungalow. Most of the houses in
this district were designed and constructed by the homes’ first occupants or by local
builders and were influenced by architectural pattern books of the time period (Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines § 5.2.1).
Meeting Date: 7/27/2026
Item Number: 6c
Time Estimate: 30 minutes
Page 117 of 191
Item 6c
HIST0313-2026
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 27, 2026
The residence at 571 Pismo was built around 1891 and in 2025 was added to the City’s
Inventory of Historic Resources as a Landmark (Attachment B - City Council Resolution
No. 11640). The McCabe House was added as a Landmark because it exhibits a unique
example of a late 19th century double -bay-front Eastlake cottage with a sitting porch
framed by rare, pierced columns.
2.2 Mills Act Contracts
The Mills Act Program is a property tax reduction program for protection of cultural
resources that encourages their maintenance and restoration (§ 3.6.2 of the General Plan
Conservation and Open Space Element). Participation in the program is limited to
designated Landmarks; historic 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)).
The City and owners of a Landmark may enter into a historical property preservation
contract under which the owners agree t o 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. Contracts have
a minimum term of ten years, and contain standard elements set out in the Mills Act (Govt.
Code §§ 50280-50290), including: a provision for preservation (or, where necessary,
restoration and rehabilitation) of the property in conformance with state historic
preservation guidelines; periodic examination of the property for compliance with the
contract; and a provision binding the contract upon successive owners. Automatic one -
year extensions are provided, unless either party gives notice of non -renewal of the
contract.
Figure 1 - 571 Pismo Street Figure 2 - 571 Pismo Street Historic Photo
(1895/96)
Page 118 of 191
Item 6c
HIST0313-2026
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 27, 2026
2.3 Proposed Improvements
Several improvements and maintenance items are identified by the applicant for
completion during the term of the proposed contract (Attachment D, Application Request
and List of Improvements). The application notes that some preservation and repair work
has been completed and the requested contract will assist in the continued efforts to
preserve the Landmark. All of the items discussed appear to be relevant to the
preservation and maintenance of this property and are included in Exhibit A of the
proposed draft contract (Attachment A) and outlined below. Additionally, any work
undertaken on the property must, under the terms of the contract, be carried out in a
manner consistent with the City’s historical preservation standards and guidelines and
with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties, so as
to retain and preserve original, character-defining architectural features and the historical
character of the property.
The owners of the McCabe House intend to reconstruct or continue restoration of the
following improvements and/or repairs during the term of this contract:
reconstruct the descending screen
reconstruct the balusters and fretwork faux corbels
reconstruct the original wood picket fence
replace and reconstruct areas of dry rot
replace defectively applied glazing compound
reconstruct the original exterior sash lugs or ears
install period hardware
repaint
repair dry rot in other areas of the exterior f abric
reconstruct historic interior plaster
insulate the house
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Entering into a Mills Act Contract with the owners of a 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 resulting in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment
CEQA Guidelines §15378 (b)(4).
4.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Staff Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council that the City enter into a
Mills Act Historic Property Preservation Contract with the property owners, to
encourage maintenance and restoration of the historic property at 571 Street.
2. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff.
Page 119 of 191
Item 6c
HIST0313-2026
Cultural Heritage Committee Report – July 27, 2026
3. Recommend to the City Council that the City not enter into the proposed historical
property contract. This action is not recommended because the City participates
in incentive programs that encourage maintenance and restoration of historic
properties, General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, Program 3.6.2),
and as a Landmark Resource, this property is eligible for this program
5.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft Historic Property Preservation Agreement - 571 Pismo Street
B - Resolution No. 11640 (2026 Series)
C - Historic Resource Evaluation 571 Pismo Street
D - Application Request and List of Improvements for 571 Street
Page 120 of 191
Attachment A – Draft Agreement
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE OWNER OF THE HISTORIC
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 571 PISMO 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 Ben and Saskia Winter (hereinafter referred to as “Owner”), and collectively referred
to as the “parties.”
WHEREAS, Owner is the owners of that certain real property commonly known as 571
Pismo Street (APN 003-615-003), and legally described as shown in the attached
“Exhibit B” (“Owner’s Property”); and
WHEREAS, Owner has agreed to enter into a Historical Property Contract with the City
for the preservation, maintenance, restoration, or rehabilitation of Owner’s 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.
Page 121 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
571 Pismo Street
Page 2
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 their 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 and 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 character, significance, and design as determined by the Community
Development Director.
Page 122 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
571 Pismo Street
Page 3
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);
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
Page 123 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
571 Pismo Street
Page 4
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 571 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo, California, Assessors Parcel Number 003-615-003,
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: Ben and Saskia Winter
571 Pismo Street
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
assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions, or conditions cause them to be considered
joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise.
Page 124 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
571 Pismo Street
Page 5
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.
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;
Page 125 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
571 Pismo Street
Page 6
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.
OWNER
____________________________________ ______________________________
Ben Winter Date
____________________________________ ______________________________
Saskia Winter 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:
______________________________
Teresa Purrington, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED
Page 126 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
571 Pismo Street
Page 7
EXHIBIT A
MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENT MEASURES FOR THE MCCABE HOUSE
LOCATED AT 571 PISMO 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 571 Pismo 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:
reconstruct the descending screen
reconstruct the balusters and fretwork faux corbels
reconstruct the original wood picket fence
replace and reconstruct areas of dry rot
replace defectively applied glazing compound
reconstruct the original exterior sash lugs or ears
install period hardware
repaint
repair dry rot in other areas of the exterior fabric
reconstruct historic interior plaster
insulate the house
OWNERS
____________________________________ ______________________________
Ben Winter Date
____________________________________ ______________________________
Saskia Winter Date
Page 127 of 191
Historic Preservation Agreement
571 Pismo Street
Page 8
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
For APN/Parcel ID: 003-615-003
To be included in final preservation agreement.
Page 128 of 191
R 11640
RESOLUTION NO. 11640 (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.
Docusign Envelope ID: DF596B4C-63DF-4B2C-97AA-BED23582DD2E
Attachment B - Resolution No. 11640 (2026 Series)
Page 129 of 191
Resolution No. 11640 (2026 Series) Page 2
R 11640
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 Vice Mayor Francis, seconded by Council Member Shoresman,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Member Boswell, Shoresman, Vice Mayor Francis, and
Mayor Stewart
NOES: None
ABSENT: Council Member Marx
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 21st day of April 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
Docusign Envelope ID: DF596B4C-63DF-4B2C-97AA-BED23582DD2E
4/30/2026 | 3:42 PM PDT
Page 130 of 191
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-width-
front-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 & - +LVWRULF 5HVRXUFH Evaluaiton
Page 131 of 191
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, ra rer 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 inte ntion 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
Page 132 of 191
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 -bay-
front 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
Page 133 of 191
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
papp.architectural.history@gmail.com
on behalf of Ben and Saskia Winter
Page 134 of 191
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
Page 135 of 191
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.
Page 136 of 191
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).
Page 137 of 191
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.
Page 138 of 191
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 D etails,
for the first time includ ing 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 [… ,] wi th 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.
Page 139 of 191
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.
Page 140 of 191
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.
Page 141 of 191
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 front-
facing gable or gablet; Queen Anne, a large open gable, front-facing; Colonial, a front-
facing 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,
Page 142 of 191
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 practic e, 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 nineteenth-
century inability to speak it clearly.
Though Eastlake was initially a reform style emphasizing strength, simplicity, and form -
following-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.
Page 143 of 191
14
IV. Pictorial: San Francisco Eastlakes
V. San Luis Obispo Eastlakes
Erickson House (above); Shipsey House (right)
Page 144 of 191
15
Biddle House
VI. Arroyo Grande Eastlakes
Heritage House Museum (126 S. Mason)
McKennon House
Above: Pitkin-Conrow House; left: 127 S.
Mason
Page 145 of 191
16
VII. San Luis Obispo’s Lost Eastlakes
Above: Cortesi House; below: a house once on the Cuesta Grade, photographed 1912
Page 146 of 191
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
Page 147 of 191
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 nine teenth-
century 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.
Page 148 of 191
19
In Footnote 90, Scully, contradictorily, both criticizes Eastlake architecture as “watered -
down 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 mater ial 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
Page 149 of 191
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 “Eastlake-
Stick,” 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 c olumns 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.)
Page 150 of 191
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, lik e 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).
Page 151 of 191
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.
Page 152 of 191
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
Page 153 of 191
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
Page 154 of 191
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.
Page 155 of 191
26
Double-bay-front is an Eastlake
characteristic. In San Francisco, nineteenth-
century 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 187 5 quotation from
the Scranton Morning Republican on page 10 suggests: “the Renaissance, or more properly
at the present day the Eastlake architecture .”
Page 156 of 191
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.
Page 157 of 191
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 asymmet ry 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.
Page 158 of 191
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-bay-
fronts, all with sitting porches: a one-story 1858 Gothic in Demopolis, Alabam a; 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
Page 159 of 191
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-bay-
front 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 full -
width-front-porch cottage, however, is at the
Lewin House site in the 1888 Sanborn Map
(near right), replaced with a double-bay-
front 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.
Page 160 of 191
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
Page 161 of 191
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 -and-
dart without the darts, which may well be a borrowing from the lobed decor ation of Swiss
Page 162 of 191
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.
Page 163 of 191
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.
Page 164 of 191
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).
Page 165 of 191
36
Samuel Sloan’s 1852 The
Model Architect has detailed
images of both flat fretwork
columns and heavier pierced
bases for substantially three-
dimensional 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
Page 166 of 191
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 three-
dimensionality 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, p ierced 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
Page 167 of 191
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
Page 168 of 191
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
Page 169 of 191
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.
Page 170 of 191
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 —
Page 171 of 191
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)
Page 172 of 191
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
Page 173 of 191
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.
Page 174 of 191
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 d ouble-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.
Page 175 of 191
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 Neo-
Baroque 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
Page 176 of 191
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 Ho use 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 ).
Page 177 of 191
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 glass-
plate-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
Page 178 of 191
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 .
Page 179 of 191
50
Circa 1895–1896 (above) and 1975 (below)
Page 180 of 191
51
XIV. Integrity
Each of the three Master Listed double-bay-
fronted 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
Page 181 of 191
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 double-
bay-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.
Page 182 of 191
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 front-
gabled 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.
Page 183 of 191
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. Th e 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
Page 184 of 191
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.
Page 185 of 191
56
Southwest (above) and northeast (below) side façades. All color photographs of the
McCabe House in this report are by Ben Winter.
XV.
Page 186 of 191
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 we ll as the
significance of its rare pierced-column portico, well in line with precedent set by other
Master List resources.
Page 187 of 191
58
XV. Conclusion
The McCabe House is significant for embodying the single-story double-bay-front sitting-
porch 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.
Page 188 of 191
1
Mills Act Application
The George and Cordelia McCabe House
571 Pismo Street
Introduction The McCabe House was recently raised to Landmark status by the San
Luis Obispo City Council at the recommendation of the Cultural Heritage Committee for the
house’s architectural significance as one of four examples in the city and six known
examples on the Central Coast of the Double-Bay-Front Eastlake Cottage, a form that
appears to be indigenous to this region, in addition to its architectural significance as being
one of the last documented examples of the use of wood pierced columns, an American
architectural form that appears to have been innovated by the influential early American
architect Alexander Jackson Davis, as recorded in his book Rural Residences (New York,
1837). The pierced column form is associated with Greek Revival and Italianate houses of
the mid nineteenth century, but San Luis Obispo’s three examples embody alternative
styles: the Neobaroque aedicular (temple-form) at 1429 Nipomo, which may date as early
as 1877 but whose columns may date from that time or later; the McCabe House, around
the corner on Pismo Street; and the Mill Street Historic District’s 855 Toro (the Richard
Leland House, following page), an asymmetric single-bay Eastlake cottage first documented
in the 1891 Sanborn Map.
Attachment D - Application Request and List of Improvements for 571 Street
Page 189 of 191
2
Association of pierced
columns with the late-
nineteenth-century Eastlake
form is currently unknown
anywhere but San Luis,
making the McCabe House and
the Leland House (at left)
essential to protect, retain, and
maintain. Eastlake was the
dominant late-nineteenth-
century architectural form in
California but is under-
researched due to its denial by
late academic Vincent Scully.
Mills Act The Mills Act is a tax abatement measure dating from the 1970s that
recognizes the added costs of restoring and maintaining historic properties, first passed by
State Senator Jim Mills of San Diego in the California legislature and then passed by popular
referendum after the State Supreme Court ruled the legislative passage unconstitutional.
The City of San Luis Obispo uses a ten -year contract as an enforcement mechanism to
prevent Mills Act properties from falling into desuetude and decay. These renewable
contracts focus on historic structure and fabric as well as such features (such as plumbing,
drainage, and electrical) that contribute to the resource’s sustainability.
Like many new owners of a historic house, applicants Ben and Sakia Winter have already
carried out extensive repairs and will be subject to unexpected emergency repairs and
reconstructions of historic elements. Within the contract, they undertake to preserve and
maintain the McCabe House and its historic structure and fabric. In addition, they will
reconstruct, to Secretary of the Interior Standards of documentation, the front porch’s
• descending screen (above)
• balusters and their elaborate fretwork faux corbels
(right)
After consultation, the façade’s ten true corbels would be problematic to reconstruct, as
they no longer have a flat-roof soffit to support and would have to project in a functionless
Page 190 of 191
3
way under the current shed roof, tending to collect water rather than protect the façade
from water, as well as directly juxtaposing two anachronistic features in a confusion of
historicity.
The Winters will reconstruct the original wood picket fence, though not with a precise copy
to Secretary of the Interior Standards.
In addition, the Winters undertake to continue restoration of the dramatic and character -
defining plate glass sash windows, including
• replacing and reconstructing areas of dry rot
• replacing defectively applied glazing compound
• reconstructing the original exterior sash lugs or ears
(sash lug/ear illustrated at right)
• installing period hardware
• repainting—
though not including repair of the interior sash counterweights, which would require the
highly invasive procedure of opening the walls from the exterior.
The Winters also undertake to repair and reconstruct
• dry rot in other areas of the exterior fabric
• historic interior plaster
Finally, in order to protect the character -defining fenestration from future risk of
replacement by non-historic insulated windows, the Winters undertake to insulate the
remainder of the house.
The result will be the preservation of an important exemplar of a regional form and the
restoration of character-defining features to Secretary of the Interior Standards to convey
its architectural significance.
Submitted on 21 May 2026 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
papp.architectural.history@gmail.com
on behalf of Ben and Saskia Winter
Page 191 of 191