Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4a. Review of the request to designate the property at 771 Toro Street as a Landmark Historic Resource CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE REQUEST TO DESIGNATE THE PROPERTY AT 771 TORO STREET AS A LANDMARK HISTORIC RESOURCE ON THE CITY’S INVENTORY OF HISTORIC RESOURCES, REFERRED TO AS THE ALMA GIOVANOTTI BUNGALOW 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(S): HIST-0338-2026 PROJECT ADDRESS(ES): 771 Toro Street APPLICANT: Jennifer Collins REPRESENTATIVE: James Papp, PhD RECOMMENDATION Recommend the City Council designate the property at 771 Toro Street as a Landmark in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, in accordance with the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. 1.0 BACKGROUND The property owner(s) have requested that the property at 771 Toro Street be designated as a Landmark in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, as the Alma Giovanotti Bungalow. The property is currently listed as a Local Register Resource. The applicant has provided a historic evaluation documenting the property’s eligibility for Landmark designation (Attachment A), prepared by James Papp, PhD, Historian and Architectural Historian. Meeting Date: 8/24/2026 Item Number: 4a Time Estimate: 30 minutes Figure 1 - 771 Toro Street Page 11 of 76 Item 4a HIST-0338-2026 Cultural Heritage Committee Report – August 24, 2026 2.0 DISCUSSION 2.1 Site and Setting The property at 771 Toro Street is located at the northern end of Toro Street between Peach Street and Mill Street. The property is currently listed as a Local Register Resource, added by Resolution No. 5197 in 1983, and is within the Mill Street Historic District. According to the submitted evaluation (Attachment A), the residence was developed as part of a small-family development alongside the residence at 1163 Peach Street. According to the Historic Preservation Program and Guidelines (HPPGs, § 5.2.4), the Mill Street Historic District is a small, highly concentrated residential historic district in San Luis Obispo, established in 1987. Covering approximately 20 acres, it contains one of the highest concentrations of historic structures among the city’s five historic districts . The district developed primarily during the 1900s–1920s, a period of population and economic growth in San Luis Obispo. The neighborhood was originally part of the Town of San Luis Obispo subdivision, recorded in 1878, and was informally known as Fremont Heights. Its location on higher ground and its originally very wide 100 -foot lots reflected practical responses to early San Luis Obispo’s problems with seasonal flooding and fires. Many of the large lots were later subdivided into approximately 50 –60-foot lots, although some of the original wider lots remain. Predominant architectural features in the District include:  One- and occasionally two-story houses  Mostly gable and hip roof types  Traditional fenestration, such as double -hung, wood sash windows, ornamental front doors, wood screen doors  Ornamental roof features, including prominent fascias, bargeboards, prominent pediments or cornices  Painted wood or stucco surface material, including siding and molding Figure 2 - Location of 771 Toro Page 12 of 76 Item 4a HIST-0338-2026 Cultural Heritage Committee Report – August 24, 2026 2.2 Alma Giovanotti Bungalow According to the submitted evaluation (Attachment A), the Alma Giovanotti Bungalow at 771 Toro Street is a California Bungalow built in 1922. The building was designed by William Whitley McKinney and constructed by W. J. Smith, a local builder. The Giovanotti Bungalow exhibits notable features that further characterize the modern, “airplane bungalow” with Prairie School influences (pg. 2). Attachment A characterizes the features that elevate the residence’s significance to the Landmark level as the elements that establish a relationship between the Alma Giovanotti Bungalow and the residence at 1163 Peach Street (Local Register Resource), referred to as the Rose Giovanotti Bungalow. The two buildings were designed by the same architect and employ architectural repetitions and variations which creates a complementary pair with distinct forms and expressions (pg. 2). 3.0 EVALUATION Pursuant to §14.01.030 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (HPO), the Cultural Heritage Committee makes recommendations to the City Council on applications for designation of Landmarks. A Landmark, as defined in §14.01.020.28 of the HPO, is the highest level of individual local designation and may be applied to a historic resource that has been found significant at the local, state, or national level . In order to be eligible for designation, a Landmark shall be at least fifty years old, demonstrate significance under at least one of the criteria outlined in §14.01.060, and retain a high degree of integrity. The HPO indicates that the National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation should be consulted when evaluating and determining significance. Additionally, the designation of Landmark is reserved to those properties 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 the eligibility criteria. Figure 3 - The Alma Giovanotti Bungalow Page 13 of 76 Item 4a HIST-0338-2026 Cultural Heritage Committee Report – August 24, 2026 3.1 Significance Criteria The submitted evaluation (Attachment A) requests th at the residence at 771 Toro Street be designated as a Landmark for its architectural significance and rarity. Designation of the Giovanotti Bungalow is not requested for its association with Persons, Events, or Information Potential. Staff has reviewed the information provided in the evaluation and under the applicable HPO criteria: Significance Criteria - Architecture The architectural significance of property is described in Attachment A (pgs. 16-23) as an extremely rare and highly intact example of the California Bungalow that represents a distinctive local interpretation incorporating Prairie School influences and a more modern expression. The architectural significance of the property is noted as strengthened by its relationship to the Rose Giovanotti Bungalow at 1163 Peach Street. The evaluation provides that the two bungalows were built as a pair, designed by the same architect, and “conceived as contrasting variations on the California Bungalow theme, late in the California Bungalow era, with similar materials and footprints but quite different presentations” (pg. 16). As such the Bungalows constitute a rare example of paired variations on a common architectural theme (California Bungalow), both showcasing the high artistic standards and inventive design by William Whitley McKinney. Their related forms, repetitions, and distinctions demonstrate a level of design intentionality and architectural experimentation that is unusual among residential properties of the period in San Luis Obispo (pg. 2). The evaluation identifies the Alma Giovanotti Bungalows as extremely rare among historic San Luis Obispo houses and buildings because of its “formal and decorative interplay” with the Rose Giovanotti Bungalow (pg. 26). The property is also described as significant within the context of the Mill Street Historic District. The district's character is partly derived from the pattern of small family developments that occurred during the late nineteenth and early twenti eth centuries (pg. 8). The architectural significance of the Alma Giovanotti Bunglaow is expressed through distinctive character-defining features, including:  An asymmetric porch  A flat porch roof  Square porch and stairway columns  A solid porch parapet  A flat-roofed square bay  A low-pitched house roof  Extended and flat-soffited eaves  Horizontally linear and grouped fenestration  Dual front entries,  Stucco fabric,  and footprint, fenestration, materials, and low profile shared with the Rose Giovanotti House at 1163 Peach Street (Attachment A, pg. 24) Page 14 of 76 Item 4a HIST-0338-2026 Cultural Heritage Committee Report – August 24, 2026 These documented characteristics represent a distinctive architectural type and demonstrate the property's architectural significance and rarity under §14.01.060. Based on the submitted documentation and current listing as a Local Register Resource, staff finds that the Alma Giovanotti Bunglaow meets the Architecture criterion. 3.2 Integrity According to the HPO and consistent with the National Register Bulletin No. 15, integrity is defined as “the ability of a historic resource to convey its significance, typically evidenced by the retention of attributes that existed during a resource’s period of significance and including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association” (HPO 14.01.020 (26)). To be included in the City’s Inventory as a Landmark, 1811 Chorro Street must meet at least one significance criteria, be among the resources with the greatest importance at the local, regional, state, or national level, and retain a high degree of integrity to communicate its significance. Attachment A provides an evaluation of the property’s integrity (pg. 25), including the extent of alterations, and finds that the Giovanotti Bungalow retains a high degree of integrity in location, design, materials, workmanship, and setting, with sufficient integrity of feeling to continue communicating its architectural significance. The original wood sash windows have been replaced with modern sash windows and one casement window, although the original window surrounds or architraves remain. The front doors have also been replaced, the front steps have been reconstructed, and the small center chimney has been removed. The setting is noted as altered due to development in the neighborhood, however the suburban setting is retained. The house remains in its original location and retains the principal character -defining features of its original design, including the asymmetric porch supported by three square columns, solid porch parapet, flat-roofed square bay, low-pitched roof, extended and flat- soffited eaves, horizontally linear and grouped fenestration, dual front doors, stucco exterior, and original footprint. These features, together with the property’s low profile and overall form, continue to convey the architectural character of the resource and its relationship to the Mill Street Historic District (Attachment A, pg. 25). Staff concurs that, although certain original materials and features have been removed or replaced, the property retains the essential physical characteristics necessary to convey its architectural significance. The retention of character defining features, as described in Attachment A, indicate the Alma Giovanotti Bungalow retains a high degree of integrity to support the requested Landmark designation. 3.3 Conclusion The submitted application requests designation of the Alma Giovanotti Bungalow at 1811 Chorro Street as a Landmark in the City's Inventory of Historic Resources. The submitted evaluation identifies the property as significant for its architectural character and rarity and provides an analysis of the integrity of the Alma Giovanotti Bungalow. Page 15 of 76 Item 4a HIST-0338-2026 Cultural Heritage Committee Report – August 24, 2026 Based on the submitted evaluation, staff's analysis, and the applicable criteria established by the Historic Preservation Ordinance, staff recommends that the Cultural Heritage Committee deliberate and forward a recommendation to the City Council on the property’s eligibility for Landmark designation as a resource among those of the greatest importance to the City, State, or Nation with a high degree of integrity. Staff has prepared the following findings for the Committee’s consideration: The available documentation demonstrates that the property is a rare and architecturally significant local example of California Bungalow. Its significance is heightened by its relationship to the Rose Giovanotti Bungalow, which together form a distinctive pair of complementary variations on the California Bungalow theme. The Alma Bungalow was designed by William Whitley McKinney and constructed by notable local builder W. J. Smith. Its “airplane bungalow” form, Prairie School influences, artistic quality, and relationship to the companion Rose Bungalow distinguish it from more typical California Bungalows in San Luis Obispo. The property also retains a high degree of historic integrity in location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, and feeling. As a resu lt, the building continues to convey the architectural qualities and historical associations that establish its significance. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Inclusion of the subject property on the Landmark list of 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. 5.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Staff Recommendation: Recommend the City Council elevate the property at 771 Toro Street to a Landmark in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, including Staff’s findings and noted elements of the property which satisfy Evaluation Criteria for Landmark listing as a resource of the greatest level of importance at the local, regional, state, or national level and that the property retains a high degree of integrity. 2. Recommend to the City Council that the property’s Local Register status should be retained and the property not be designated as a Landmark in the City’s Inventory of Historic Resources, based on the finding that the property does not satisfy Evaluation Criteria to be a Landmark Historic Resource as there is not sufficient information to support that the property is of the greatest importance at the local, regional, state, or national level, and/or does not retain a high degree of integrity. Page 16 of 76 Item 4a HIST-0338-2026 Cultural Heritage Committee Report – August 24, 2026 3. Continue consideration of the request with direction to the applicant and staff on any needed information or analysis in order to reach a recommendation. 6.0 ATTACHMENTS A - Historic Resource Evaluation - 771 Toro Street Page 17 of 76 Page 18 of 76 1 The Alma Giovanotti Bungalow 771 Toro Street Mill Street Historic District Historic Resource Evaluation and Landmark Application Summary Conclusion The Alma Giovanotti Bungalow (above) is of the greatest importance at the local level in terms of architectural significance and rarity, as a unique example in the cit y—with the Rose Giovanotti Bungalow (below)—of architect-designed paired variations on the theme of the California Bungalow, within the pattern of small family developments of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. These small developments are what give the Mill Street Historic District its eclectic character. The Giovanotti Bungalows are by far the most audacious of such projects and qualify as Landmarks both for embodiment of style and high artistic standards. Page 19 of 76 2 The Giovanotti bungalows are extremely rare for historic San Luis houses or indeed buildings in general in having been designed by one person—William Whitley McKinney—and built by another—the notable local builder W. J. Smith. McKinney, arrived in San Luis Obispo in 1921 advertising himself as an architectural engineer—something of a reinvention for a rural Missouri civil engineer whose previous purview had been bridges, roads, maps, and property lines. Yet he quickly ran up a string of significant projects, including houses, stores, apartments, and the Exposition Park grandstand. Then, within four years, McKinney reinvented himself again—as a mining engineer. His last documented built projects are the Landmark Dughi, Wickenden, and Smith Buildings at 1029 and 1033 Chorro and 1123–1127 Garden, respectively, all from mid- 1923. After his attempt to promote iron ore veins in the Irish Hills and turn San Luis into a second Pittsburgh suddenly collapsed, he vanished from town in late 1925 or early 1926 and died in San Francisco in 1928. Of his six known surviving buildings here, three—the Dughi, Wickenden, and Smith Buildings— are Landmarks, while the Alma and Rose Giovanotti Bungalows are Local Register Resources, and the R. F. Richardson House at 1163 Marsh is unlisted. This is despite the fact that t he Giovanotti Bungalows are far more inventive and significant architecturally than the Landmark buildings, with a far higher degree of integrity to convey that significance. Ideally, both Giovanotti Bungalows will be Landmarked. The owner of the Alma Giovanotti Bungalow is ready to proceed, and the owners of the Rose Giovanotti Bungalow may soon be. The Alma Giovanotti Bungalow garnered more press attention at the time for its “modern” form, dubbed an “airplane bungalow,” with its Prairie School infusion and without the structural nod to the traditional California Bungalow’s chalet gable in the Rose Giovanotti Bungalow, which was in turn responding to the 1913 Battista and Rose Giovanotti Bungalow on the other side (1151 Peach). But it is ultimately the architectural pairing—with almost musical repetitions, and distinctions of form—of the two contemporary Alma and Rose Bungalows that make them extremely rare in San Luis and among the most important historic buildings here. Both bungalows have the high degree of integrity in location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, and feeling to convey their architectural significance and rarity and to be eligible as Landmarks. 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 Research assistance by N. Y. North Submitted 1 June 2026 on behalf of Jennifer Collins Page 20 of 76 3 Contents Summary Conclusion 1 Timeline: The Giovanottis 4 Timeline: William Whitley McKinney 5 Historic Context: Multiple-Property Developments in San Luis Obispo 7 Architectural Historic Context: The Airplane Bungalow 9 William Whitley McKinney 11 The Alma Giovanotti Bungalow: Architectural Significance 16 Character-Defining Features 24 Integrity 24 Conclusion 26 Page 21 of 76 4 Timeline: The Giovanottis 1858 Battista Giovanotti is born in Switzerland (Passenger List, City of Brooklyn, 1874). 1866 Oct 31 Rose Righetti is born in Switzerland (California Death Index, 1940–1997). 1874 At 16 Battista Giovanotti emigrates to the United States as a laborer, arriving in New York on the City of Brooklyn, via Liverpool, England and Queenstown, Ireland, November 3rd (Passenger List). 1880 Giovanotti is listed as living at the Swiss Benevolent Society in Langley’s San Francisco Directory. Also in 1880, the US Census list Giovanotti working as a hired hand on a farm in San Geronimo, Marin County. 1899 Oct 16 Alma Rose Giovanotti is born (California Death Index, 1940–1997). 1904 Jan 6 Rebecca Harris transfers the deed to block 33, lot 3 and 100 feet of block 2 to Battista and Alma Giovanotti (“Proceedings in County Offices,” Morning Tribune, 12 Jan. 1904, p. 3). 1905 Aug The Sanborn map shows near-identical asymmetric Colonial Bungalows at 1137 and 1143 Peach on the Giovanottis’ newly-acquired property. Both were added to the Contributing List in 1987, though 1143 had received an addition altering its street façade to symmetry between 1926 and 1937. Falsely historicist Eastlake decoration was added to 1143 by 2012 and 1137 by 2015 (Google Map Street Views). 1910 Battista Giovanotti is working as a milker on a dairy ranch owned by a Swiss- Italian couple in Arroyo Grande. 1912–1914 Circa 1913 and later, 1137 is documented as being used for the Giovanotti family house and 1143 for a rental (Telegram: “Another Prize Winner,” 2 March 1912, p. 8; “Former Resident Wins San Luis Obispo Bride,” 29 January 1914, p. 6). 1913 Jul 24 Battista and Rose Giovanotti apply for a permit for a 40’ x 38’ wood house, 100 feet from corner, lot 3, block 33 (1151 Peach), contractor H. W. Rulison, added to the Contributing List in 1987 (Permit File, Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives). Oct 13 The Telegram notes Battista Giovanotti “has become the sole proprietor of a dairy near the Union Creamery” and is referenced as being “of Morro” (With Point and Without,” p. 2). 1920 In the US Census, Battista, Rose, and daughters Esther and Alma are living at 1137 Peach. Battista is listed as a laborer. 1922 Jan 9 Alma Giovanotti applies for a permit for 40’ x 32’ frame and stucco house, southerly third of lot 3, block 33 (771 Toro), contractor W. J. Smith, cost Page 22 of 76 5 $4,000, added to the Contributing List in 1987 (Permit File, Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives). Jan 16 Rose Giovanotti applies for a permit for a 40’ by 32’ frame and stucco house, mid third of block 33, lot 3 (1163 Toro), contractor W. J. Smith, cost $4,500, added to the Contributing List in 1987 (Permit File, Cal Poly Special Collections and Archives). 1934 Sep 26 Battista Giovanotti dies in San Luis Obispo (plot OM-B3, San Luis Cemetery, findagrave.com). 1940 Alma and Esther Giovanotti are living with their widowed mother Rose at 1151 Peach Street, (US Census). 1960 May 9 Rose Giovanotti dies in San Luis Obispo, after living 79 years there (“Rose Giovanotti Dies at Age 93,” Telegram-Tribune, 9 May 1960, p. 2). 1985 Mar 24 Alma Giovanotti dies in San Luis Obispo (California Death Index, 1940 –1997). Timeline: William Whitley McKinney 1873 Aug McKinney is born in August 1873 in Missouri (1900 US Census). 1893 While drinking with two friends in his hometown of Mexico, MO, McKinney testifies that one kills the other with a rock in an unprovoked assault by the railroad tracks. Joe Donnelly is tried three times for murder, convicted in the third trial, and sentenced to hang. McKinney testifies in Donnelly’s trial; his “testimony was regarded by many as an effort to shield himself at Donnelly’s expense,” and is tried as accessory to murder but acquitted. “Since his discharge, young McKinney has been living an upright, commendable life. He works with his father at the carpenter’s trade and is not only industrious and steady, but seems anxious to profit by his awful experience of the past” (Mexico Intelligencer, 21 Nov. 1895, p. 1). Donnelly is eventually pardoned. 1896 W. W. McKinney’s father, R. S. “Shanks” McKinney, born 1845, becomes Audrain County Surveyor, a job he holds till 1923. 1897–1898 Mexico newspapers show W. W. McKinney is billing county for bridge, carpentry, and painting work. 1898 In an affidavit, McKinney admits to fraudulent testimony over the location of a grave in a noted inheritance case (“The Sublette Estate,” Mexico Weekly Ledger, 24 Nov. 1898, p. 2). 1899 Lectures on “Science and the Bible” (Mexico Daily Intelligencer, 15 and 23 Mar. 1899, p. 4). Page 23 of 76 6 1899–1900 Works ten months in Hawaiian Islands for the US Government (“Home from Honolulu,” Mexico Weekly Ledger, 10 May 1900, p. 2), 1900 The US Census lists McKinney in Mexico and employed in US Service as a quartermaster. 1903 McKinney, with J. N. Cross, issues a 25-cent pocket atlas of Audrain County (Mexico Evening Ledger, 13 Jan. 1903, p. 1). 1904 Is working as Audrain County’s deputy surveyor under father Richard S. McKinney, county surveyor, and is billing, like his father, for “engineering” (“Smoker Friday Night,” Mexico Evening Ledger, 7 May 1904, p. 4; “Street Work,” Intelligencer, 21 July 1904, p. 8). Is commissioned by Audrain County to make a school map (“County Court Notes,” Mexico Evening Ledger, 9 Feb.1904, p. 4). 1906 “W. W. McKinney is getting up, by subscription, a commercial map of Mexico” (Mexico Missouri Message, 22 Mar. 1906, p. 1). It is unclear if it is ever completed. He writes to the Mexico Evening Ledger, noting that Mexico has almost doubled in population in four years and encouraging the city administration to “advertize, advertize, advertize” (“A Card from William McKinney,” 15 Mar. 1906, p. 1). It is the first of a series of letters, articles, and poems on promotion, road improvement, urban development, etc. He also designs plans for a “Model Dirt Road” for farmers north of town (“To Make Model Road,” Mexico Evening Ledger, 27 June 1906, p. 4) and is listed in the Mexico newspapers as acting city engineer and later city engineer. 1908 Offers to clean cemetery monuments for free to promote new product Presto (“Fair Enough,” Mexico Evening Ledger, 10 June 1908, p. 4) 1913 In describing a demonstration of dynamite in farming, the Vandalia Mail describes McKinney as former deputy surveyor of Audrain County (28 Nov. 1913, p. 4). During the next few years he will live and work in various rural Missouri towns, until, as assistant surveyor of Audrain County, he enlists in the Army Corps of Engineers in 1917, qualifying by examination as a second lieutenant (“W. W. McKinney to Army,” Mexico Weekly Ledger, 19 July 1917, p. 1). For further chronology, see the section on William Whitley McKinney, p. 11. Page 24 of 76 7 Historic Context: Multiple-Property Developments in San Luis Obispo The first mass developer of the Chumash village of tiłhini was the Catholic Church, which enslaved the local Indians by any measure of what slavery is—captivity, work for subsistence, corporal punishment, the testimony of contemporary visitors, and later emancipation by the Mexican government—and had them build a new form of housing: sex-segregated jacalitos or small jacals (paling-based, mud-plastered, and thatched structures), which Fr. Pedro Font with the De Anza expedition described in the expedition’s stop at the renamed San Luis Obispo in 1776 (Diario Íntimo [Hermosillo: University of Sonora, 2000], p. 225). Font called the church a jacal and the parish hall and priests’ quarters a jacalon (or big jacal). He added, presciently, that there was great risk of fire, and Yokuts Indians burned down the mission complex in the subsequent year. Font did not mention any wickiups (or qnipu, as they are called in Northern Chumash), despite fascination with these structures by other Spanish chroniclers. This suggests—like Sherlock Holmes’ dog that did not bark in the nighttime —that there were no qnipu left to describe. In the early 1790s, Mexico City sent skilled craftsmen north to raise the missions above jacal standards with carpentry, adobe brickwork, and stonework. In 1792–1793, the Mission San Luis Obispo church and parish hall achieved (more or less) their current form, and between 1801 and 1810, the Indian slaves were set to building regimented housing for themselves: two ranks of 17 x 20–foot adobes, some attached and some detached, eighty in all, on either side of Chorro Street to replace the 20-foot-diameter qnipu that would have been scattered in a circle (Paul H. Kocher, Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa: A Historical Sketch [San Luis Obispo: Blake, 1972], p. 19). Chroniclers described coastal wickiups as housing about twenty people each, and the slave adobes probably housed a similar number, with nearly a thousand neophytes at the height of this population in 1805. Circa 1850, the Indians of San Luis Obispo were virtually wiped out by a cholera epidemic, and by the 1874 Sanborn Map, the remaining slave adobes were subsumed by Whites (on the town side of Chorro) or lay in “uninsurable” ruins (on the Mission side). Thr ee survive: one the extended Sauer Adobe and two encased in the Sauer-Adams Adobe. (All had been granted during the Mexican period to Victor Linares, majordomo of the Mission San Luis Obispo and later juez segundo of the area and father of accused bandit Pio Linares. The author of this report lives and works in one of the encased adobes of the Sauer-Adams, still 17’ x 20’.) These slave adobes would be the last mass development until the Goldtree Tract in 1952, planned for Poly faculty and school district and state highways employees, with slightly varying Ranch-style houses designed by R. L. Graves, George Hasslein, and Ken Schwartz. While the adobes were planned to keep the Indians in, the Goldtree development, like all such, was planned to keep non-Whites out, as the FHA would not fund mixed-race housing. Prior to this development, tracts and additions in San Luis were generaally sold as lots—occasionally with an individual house built by the subdivider or a speculator—rather than as mass developments. Page 25 of 76 8 Small family developments characterized San Luis Obispo in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when a few contiguous lots were purchased or a larger lot subdivided, and houses were constructed for family members or as investment properties, often over decades. This practice was especially notable in the Mill Street Historic District, where lots were larger than in many other parts of the city and could accommodate several houses. Examples Sketch Map of the City of San Luis Obispo, Cal., by C. W. Henderson, city engineer, 1894 (detail) range from the LeRoy Smith and Leroy Anderson Houses (1306 and 1318 Mill —neighboring houses built at the same time by Cal Poly’s first two directors on the lot purchased and subdivided by the second, Smith’s the second Bay Area Dutch Colonial [High-Peaked Colonial] in town, Anderson’s the first Prairie School) to the five Torres family buildings (at Toro and Mill’s north corner from the 1890s to the 1940s in Queen Anne [1202 Mill], Eastlake [1214 Mill], Colonial [1220 Mill], Deco-Mission [778 Toro], and Streamline Moderne [780 Toro]) and the five Giovanotti bungalows (Colonial Bungalows at 1137 and 1143 Peach circa 1904–1905, California Bungalow at 1151 Peach in 1913, and updated California Bungalows, one Prairie School–influenced, in 1922 at 771 Toro and 1163 Peach). The Alma and Rose Giovanotti at 771 Toro and 1163 Peach are unique of this genre for being built at the same time, both designed by an architect, both designed by the same architect, and being designed in sophisticated interplay with each other and the Battista and Rose Giovanotti bungalow from 1913 (where the Giovanottis’ Colonial Bungalows from 1904–1905 were identical in all but size). Later large developments, like the Goldtree Tract, would vary designs to avoid monotony, but the Alma and Rose Bungalows are clearly varied to both create visual delight and make the viewer think about architecture and architectural styles. Page 26 of 76 9 Architectural Historic Context: The Airplane Bungalow I am not particularly interested in what other architectural historians think is a style, not even very interested in what I think is a style. I am very interested, however, in what contemporary practitioners and observers thought was a style. During his time in San Luis Obispo, William McKinney was an almost daily advertiser in the local Telegram, and in turn it regularly reported in detail on his projects. The Telegram’s description of the Alma Giovanotti house as an “airplane bungalow” thus is likely from McKinney’s mouth. The paired bungalow on the other side of the lot (1163 Peach), fronted by a more traditionally California Bungalow Swiss chalet gable, was not so described, though in other respects it is a similar structure. Telegram, 5 January 1922, p. 5 El Paso Herald, 21 April 1916, p. 11 References to Airplane Bungalows first appear in the popular press in 1916 in Texas, and the term initially refers to a California Bungalow with a second floor consisting wholly of a sleeping porch. The modern explanation that air was supposed to plane across the roof to cool the porch may be a later folk etymology. More likely the term developed not from a concept but a visual image: the sleeping porch’s deep eaves atop the eaves of the larger structure making the house appear like a biplane (“The Airplane Bungalow,” Herald [Melbourne, Australia], 26 July 1922, p. 12) Greene and Greene’s famous 1908–1909 Gamble House in Pasadena has such a third-floor room, which may be the concept’s origin. By 1917, according to newspaper articles and advertisements, the term had spread to Iowa and back to California, by 1918 to Oklahoma, and by 1920 across the United States, but by 1917 it was no longer pictured or explained. From surviving examples where addresses are listed, it appeared by this time to refer to a second bedroom floor smaller than the ground floor with deep eaves, though purists might insist on a smaller cockpit-type elevation surrounded by windows (e.g., 45th and Woodland, Des Moines [“New Airplane Bungalow,” Des Moines Evening Tribune, 14 Sep. 1917, p. 15; 936 N. Roosevelt Ave in Fresno [“Price $4400,” Real Estate—City, 23 Oct. 1918, Fresno Morning Republican, p. 15). Page 27 of 76 10 This remains the common acceptance of the term throughout the 1920s and 1930s in various parts of the country, but the permit application for the Alma Giovanotti House makes clear that a second story was never contemplated. However, as observers viewed houses with wide eaves associated with the Prairie School, these also were dubbed “airplane houses.” Frank Lloyd Wright’s 1908 Mrs. Howard Weiss House in Madison was known locally as “The Airplane House” (Jill Moore Marx, “Milestones in the Architectural Past, Wisconsin State Journal, 3 Mar. 1968, section 6, p. 1), and the same is true of Louis Sullivan’s 1909 Bradley House in Chicago (Frank Custer, “Bradley Did’t Like Landmark Mansion,” Madison Capital Times, 6 July 1971, entertainment p. 1) and Purcell and Elmslie’s famous 1912 house in Woods Hole, MA (below). A 1918 Modesto Morning Herald ad for a “one- story airplane bungalow” suggests this may have had wider usage (1 Feb., p. 5). It appears to have been solely in this sense of linear and horizontal style that the Telegram, and presumably William McKinney, dubbed the Alma Giovanotti House an “airplane bungalow.” Page 28 of 76 11 William Whitley McKinney Initially advertising himself as W. McKinney, CE, Architectural Engineer, William McKinney, arrived in San Luis Obispo in 1921 with a splash. On June 14, the Telegram reported on page one that McKinney, who has “recently come to this city with his family from San Francisco,” had been engaged to draw the plans for a $35,000 garage, showroom, and office development by Ed Kaiser at Santa Rosa and Higuera. On June 30, he began daily display ads in the Telegram, listing his office in the iconic Johnson Block at Chorro and Higuera (p. 5). He also ran daily ads in the Tribune. On July 6, the Telegram reported on page one that he had applied for the post of city engineer (which he did not receive). Where did he come from, and how did he cut such a swathe and reach such heights, before his precipitous fall? Unlike other early figures who appear to have invented their professional pedigrees—Walter Murray, with no evidence of legal training or even citi zenship, who died a superior court judge; Chauncey Hatch Phillips, who wildly exaggerated his résumé and became a respected banker and land developer; and Hilamon Spencer Laird, who mysteriously morphed from Point Reyes dairyman into San Luis Obispo’s first and most notable architect —William McKinney appears to have been perfectly qualified as a civil engineer, with a record as a community organizer and community booster attested to in the Mexico Evening Ledger, the newspaper of his hometown, Mexico, Audrain County, Missouri. What he did not have during his career in Missouri was a documented experience in architecture. (But the same can be said of William Parker, the County Surveyor who appears to have designed our Landmark Hays-Latimer Adobe, a sophisticated semi-peripteral that appears to be the only Gothic Revival domestic adobe anywhere.) While assistant county surveyor of Audrain, Missouri, McKinney volunteered for the US Army Corps of Engineers in July 1917 and was admitted as a lieutenant and promoted to first lieutenant, becoming the supply officer for the 41st Engineers in Washington, DC.1 If volunteering for the army just before his forty-fourth birthday seems an unusual move, it is worth noting that his father, Richard “Shanks” McKinney, born in 1845, was Audrain County Surveyor and showed no sign of retiring—serving till his seventy-eighth year, in 1923. The posting to Washington must have widened William McKinney’s geographical horizons beyond rural Missouri, and an expected promotion to captain that never came when the war ended had to widen his ambitions beyond the army. McKinney was born in Missouri in August 1873, and the 1900 US Census found him, his wife Carrie (née Motz), and their two children living with his father (the county surveyor), mother, and three sisters in Mexico, pop. 21,160, while apparently doing US service in the Quartermaster Corps. In the 1910 census, McKinney was listed as a civil engineer living with 1. Mexico Evening Ledger: “W. W. McKinney to Army, 17 July 1917, p. 1; “Lieut. W. W. McKinney Writes,” 19 Jan. 1918, p. 4 Page 29 of 76 12 wife Carrie and four children in Mexico. In 1915, he registered the birth of his sixth child in tiny Middletown, Montgomery County, MO, where he applied but was rejected for county surveyor in 1916 (“W. W. McKinney,” Mexico Evening Ledger, 4 Mar. 1916, p. 1). By the 1920 census, his wife and younger five children were listed in Mexico without McKinney, whether he was not yet demobilized or was by then in San Francisco, where he and his wife both had sisters. In 1921, most of the family were in San Luis. He had no known previous connection here. McKinney’s drive, personality, and networking ability, however, seem to have been the perfect fit for San Luis. Drawing on a blank slate, he quickly acquired substantial projects, according to the Telegram (which also reported his hiring of a draftsman, secretary, and stenographer 2). These projects included, in 1921, a two-story stucco apartment house for Queenie Warden (apparently never built) and a store in Santa Maria for a P. Farrentelli. In 1922 McKinney designed the Alma and Rose Giovanotti Bungalows (extant), a cottage for W. E. Alderman (built but no longer extant) across from the sanitarium on Marsh, a Spanish house for R. F. Richardson (extant) at 1363 Marsh, a house for former district attorney Albert Nelson (no longer extant) at Santa Rosa and Walnut, another store in Santa Maria for P. Tarantilli, and the Exposition Park grandstand (no longer extant).3 1922 Exposition Park grandstand, left, and 1922 Richardson House with 1954 façade screen, right There were more houses and business buildings in 1923, including the now -Landmark Dughi and Wickenden Buildings at 1033 and 1029 Chorro (built for J. B. Berkemeyer and the Luigi Marre Cattle Co.4), as well as, during the spring, the buildings, plank access road, and cable car 2. “With Architect,” Telegram, 8 Sep. 1921, p. 5; “Accepts Position,” Telegram, 28 Aug. 1922, p. 5. 3. Warden Apartments: ‘Mrs. Warden Will Erect Apartments,” Telegram, 6 Sep. 1921, p. 7; P. Farrentilli Store: “Dinner Guests,” Telegram, 23 Aug. 1921, p. 5; "Alma Giovanotti House: “Miss Giovanotti to Build,” Telegram, 5 Jan. 1922, p. 5; Rose Giovanotti House: “Start on New House,” Telegram, 12 Jan. 1922, p. 5; W. E. Alderman House: “Building Cottage,” Telegram, 6 Feb. 1922, p.5; R. F. Richardson House: “Building Begun,” Telegram, 26 July 1922, p. 5; Exposition Park, Cal Poly Special Collections Building Permit File. 4. “New Building on Chorro St. Now Planned,” Telegram, 27 June 1923, p. 8. Page 30 of 76 13 system for the US Refractories mining project off the Osos Valley, where McKinney was ultimately described as “engineer for the company” in June.5 In May he applied again for the vacant post of city engineer and again was not chosen (“Merchants to Provide Pay of City Policeman,” Telegram, 22 May 1923, p. 8). He now got involved in larger and more speculative projects, including a subdivision and country club on the Orcutt Ranch that appear never to have gotten built next to a golf course that was built but has now vanished. On 20 October 2023 the Mount Pleasanton Square addition ran a half-page ad on page three of the Morning Tribune touting McKinney’s purchase of a lot there that assumed not only that he was well- known in the city for his house designs but for the nickname Mac. Yet his focus would soon be diverted from architecture. On December 5, 1923, the Tribune reported as an “authentically verified” leak—with a seven-column banner headline across the top of its front page “MAY DEVELOP IRON INDUSTRY IN THIS COUNTY”—the news that McKinney had taken the president and geologist of the Pacific Coast Steel Company through iron ore deposits in the Irish Hills. On 17 April 1924, the Telegram, under the headline “New Pittsburg [sic] May Be Developed at San Luis,” revealed that McKinney had leased 7,000 acres of the Irish Hills where he believed iron ore deposits to be. Nonetheless, this hard-charging community man, who had founded four Boy Scout troops in San Luis Obispo and Pismo on his arrival in the county, made time from June to become the active commander of the San Luis Obispo post of the American Legion.6 5. Telegram: “Quarry Building Plans Are Made,” 13 Apr. 1923, p. 1; “Quarry Road Building Begun,” 9 Apr. 1923, p. 8; “Quarry Plant Being Improved,” 27 Apr. 1923, p. 8; “Refractories Mine to Work Continuously,” 19 June 2023, p. 8. 6. “Will Organize Fourth Troop,” Tribune, 4 Dec. 1921, p. 2; “Legion Selects New Commander,” Telegram, 21 June 1924, p. 1. Page 31 of 76 14 McKinney still kept his hand in architectural engineering, the Telegram making a front-page announcement in September of his plans to construct a two-story, sixteen-unit apartment building embodying “the most modern designs” to provide for “a greater exclusiveness in apartment house life.7 The local capitalists backing it and its location were not announced, and the city’s (incomplete) surviving permit file at Cal Poly Special Collections has no record that it was ever built. The last verifiable McKinney project built appears to be the Landmark E. Taylor Smith Building at 1123–1127 Garden, built as two stores and two apartments with a façade of Flemish bond in two tones of brick, faux castellated parapet, and center segmental arch entry originally to the second-floor apartments, now preserved as part of the Hotel Cerro complex (“Roof Garden Is Added to Plans,” Telegram, 10 Aug. 1923, p. 8). In September 1924, McKinney organized a display of the mineral resources in San Luis Obispo County at a national mining exposition in Sacramento (“Minerals from County Go to Big Exhibit,” Telegram, 22 Sep. 1924, p. 1). By October his daily ads in the Tribune had changed from “Architectural Engineer” to “Consulting Engineer” (2 Oct. 1924, p. 3), and he resumed his daily ads in the Telegram with the new legend. Ever the local booster, in November he organized representatives of the Riverside Portland Cement Co. to visit lime deposits in South County (“Will Investigate Lime Deposits,” Arroyo Grande Herald-Reporter, 20 Nov. 1924, p. 5). The Pacific Coast Steel Co. appears to have lost interest in San Luis Obispo’s iron ore. By 26 February 1925, the Herald-Recorder was reporting that the Pittsburgh Mines Co. was on the verge of taking over McKinney’s 7,000 acres of leases (“Iron Ore Deposits May Be Developed, p. 1). On April 16, the Telegram predicted the future at left for San Luis, which may have horrified as many citizens as it excited. McKinney organized a local Iron Ore Development Association to capitalize the project (“Plan Working of Iron Ores withjin County,” Telegram, 18 Apr. 1925, p. 1). He was now referred to by the Telegram as a mining engineer and began discussions with a third company, Bardue Steel (“More Offers for Iron Ore Deposits Here,” 24 Apr. 1925, p. 1). The Pittsburgh Mining Co. wanted a good-faith investment of $15,000 from the people of San Luis (San Luis Obispo County’s Iron Deposits,” Herald-Recorder, 7 May 1925, p. 4); presumably this was not forthcoming. The association made arrangements to take over McKinney’s leases and have him represent them to the landowners (“Iron Ore Meet Again Tonight,” Telegram, 25 May 1925, p. 1). 7. “$35,000 Will Be Spent for Apartments,” Telegram, 10 Sep. 1924, p. 1. Page 32 of 76 15 Toward the end of 1925, William McKinney seemed to have achieved a statewide profile. In September he was named chair of the Committee on Metallic Minerals of the Mines Department of the California Development Association—but this notice also included the last mention of the Iron Ore Development Association in county newspapers. In December the State Mining Review published articles by him and the mining bureau representative for the district, but this would be the last news of McKinney at all till a notice of foreclosure of his Mount Pleasanton Square lot, number 79, for a $250 note the following May.8 The last of his daily ads of five years appeared in the Tribune on 1 January 1926. Having been constant fodder for the local papers for half a decade, with frequent front-page appearances, William McKinney simply vanished from the discourse, as did iron ore and any mention of a new Pittsburgh. What exactly happened is not clear; the collapse was not reported on; but McKinney’s name appeared for the final time in a brief sheriff’s report on lot 79’s sale for $379.12 in October 1926. Two years later, his death in San Francisco went unreported in both San Luis and Mexico, Missouri papers.9 When, more than half a century later, five of his buildings were put on the Master and Contributing Lists, none was attributed to William Whitley McKinney. 8. “M’Kinney Is Honored by Mining Men,” Telegram, 28 Sep. 1925, p. 4; “County Minerals Subject of Treatise,” Herald-Recorder, 17 Dec. 1925, p. 6; “Foreclosure Suit,” Telegram, 6 May 1926, p. 8. 9. “The Public Service: Miscellaneous,” Tribune, 27 Oct. 1926, p. 14; “McKinney,” San Francisco Chronicle, 1 Nov. 1928, p. 14. Page 33 of 76 16 The Alma Giovanotti Bungalow: Architectural Significance Alma Giovanotti was a longtime employee of the Post Office, a position that would have gained her historic significance under San Luis Obispo’s 1987 Historical Preservation Program Guidelines—“Contributions which, though minor, directly or indirectly, had a beneficial effect on the community (i.e., […] postal workers […])—but not under subsequent revisions. Given her father’s documented professions as milker and laborer, it seems reasonable to assume that the money for their investment properties came from her mother Rose’s Righetti family. The investment bungalows built by Rose Giovanotti and her daughter Alma in early 1922 are rare and significant for a number of reasons: they were • built as a pair • architect-designed Page 34 of 76 17 • conceived as contrasting variations on the California Bungalow theme, late in the California Bungalow era, with similar materials and footprints but quite different presentations. Their designer, William McKinney, had arrived in San Luis only the year before and advertised himself as an architectural engineer, though the Telegram generally referred to him as an architect. He had no documented experience designing buildings before his arrival here, having spent a career in city engineering, county surveying, and (briefly during World War I) as a supply officer in the US Army Corps of Engineers. But he had swift and a spectacular rise here, within two years designingimportant projects in San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria. Three of his buildings are Landmarks in San Luis, though the 1923 Dughi and Wickenden Buildings appear to have been added in a misapprehension that they are wood buildings of circa 1885 rather than steel of 1923 (planned for adding five stories later). They were designed for the Luigi Marre Cattle Co. and were intended to share the same parapet height with J. B. Berkemeyer’s meat market, also designed by McKinney, and now the site of Luna Red (“New Building on Chorro St. Now Planned,” Telegram, 27 June 1923, p. 8.). They were also designed to present a 92-foot frontage with Berkemeyer’s, and that they still do. The planned frontage was described as “panels of white enameled brick facing and lengthwise panels across the top of the buildings of white Kellastone terracotta with ornaments set in a darker shade of Kellastone,” with which their current stucco covering bears no resemblance. The Luigi Marre Cattle Company Building (officially Dughi and Wickenden Buildings) at left The Smith Building’s DPR 523 states, in the Significance section: “A classic example of early twentieth century common brick is this structure,” and no other justification is given for its original Master Listing. It is of workmanlike design, with the dual -shade variegated Flemish bond and faux castellation adding charm to the plain profile. Its recent incorporation into the Hotel Page 35 of 76 18 Cerro has significantly altered its fenestration but not otherwise altered its design , though the faux castellation has sadly been erased with painting. McKinney’s Landmark Smith Building in 2016 None of these Landmark buildings, however, hold a candle to the Giovanotti Bungalows. Frank Lloyd Wright’s 1903 W. R. Heath House in Buffalo (above and next page top) shows the linearity from which the Alma Giovanotti Bungalow would eventually gain its aesthetic: square columns, grouped windows, extended soffited horizontal eaves, shallow hip roofs that from the ground appear flat. Page 36 of 76 19 The flat-roofed Glendale bungalow below, published in Gustave Stickley’s The Craftsman in June 1912, shows how this Prairie School aesthetic migrated to the California Bungalow. The Craftsman referred to this as “a modern California House of the Spanish type, adding “Like all Spanish residences, the roof is flat” (Gustav Stickley, ed. Craftsman Bungalows: 59 Homes from “The Craftsman” [New York: Dover, 1988], p. 71). Page 37 of 76 20 Older Google Street Views pre-landscaping (above) make the relationship between the Alma Giovanotti and Rose Giovanotti Bungalows clear. Each has the same footprint and a front façade with a left window grouping, a central door-and-window grouping, and a right window grouping. From here, McKinney centered a classic California Bungalow chalet gable on Rose and canted an asymmetric flat-roofed, flat soffited porch on Alma. The open structure and dual columns of Rose recollect the Shinto temple origins of much of California Bungalow architecture in its California state (Midwest and Eastern architects were less purist), but the open gable also gives a symbolic air to the house : a play on the chalet gable without quite being the gableof a chalet. The two square columns are not torii-based (or elephant leg, as they have lately and incorrectly been renamed). This would be incorrect for the classic California Bungalow but are a correct echoing of Alma’s columns. Alma’s columns number three, which is perfectly correct for the “modern,” non-torii-based bungalow. Alma’s porch has a higher rectangular porch parapet, Rose a lower curved one, but both are of smooth, streamlined, unbalustraded stucco. Rose has a side-gabled roof and Page 38 of 76 21 exposed rafter tails, Alma a hip roof barely visible beyond a flat-roofed porch and deep, finished eaves. As well, Alma has a square side bay window with flat roof and Rose a canted bay with shed roof, which matches a similarly positioned canted shed-roofed bay on the Battista and Rose Giovanotti Bungalow. Above: Side bays on the Alma, Rose, and Battista and Rose Giovanotti Bungalows The Alma and Rose Bungalows invite oscillation by the viewer walking back and forth between them, because these features were never intended by McKinney to be seen simultaneously. Compared to the cynical variation of a few plastered-on elements to hide the monotony of modern tract housing, this pair is an exercise in architectural rhythm, reference, and I would go so far as to say playfulness. They are much more interesting as an essay than the unrelated buildings of LeRoy Smith and Leroy Anderson (as impressive as those houses are individually) and the unrelated Torres houses of quite different styles and no structural interplay. The interplay not only between the Alma and Rose Giovanotti Bungalows, but between the Rose-Giovanotti and Battista-and-Rose-Giovanotti Bungalows, is important for understanding all three. Here the two latter are seen in tandem as they appear on Peach Street. Page 39 of 76 22 Their images stacked, we see again William McKinney’s ability to play variations on a theme, the later bungalow with wider presentation, lower pitch, more streamlined arrangement of fenestration, and smooth stucco instead of wood. Square columns replace torii ones; a solid parapet, a balustrade; and there are no old-fashioned ogee knee brackets. The architecture of the Alma Giovanotti Bungalow cannot be understood absent the architecture of the Rose Giovanotti Bungalow, or of the Rose Giovanotti Bungalow absent the architecture of the Battista and Rose Giovanotti Bungalow. It is a bit like an Ages of Man illustration but instead the Ages of the California Bungalow. As William McKinney spent only two years designing buildings, the Alma and Rose Giovanotti Bungalows scarcely qualify for listing as the work of master, but they embody their styles of architecture in unusually developed, creative, explicit, and playful ways and are designed to an unusually high artistic standard, both criteria of architectural significance for Landmarking. Page 40 of 76 23 It is a great pity that William McKinney spent so long planning roads and supervising their macadamization, was lured away so quickly from architecture by visions of an iron ore fortune, and died so young. Page 41 of 76 24 Character-Defining Features These features include the asymmetric porch, flat porch roof, square porch and stairway columns, solid porch parapet, flat-roofed square bay, low-pitched house roof, extended and flat- soffited eaves, horizontally linear and grouped fenestration, dual front entries, stucco fabric, and footprint, fenestration, materials, and low profile shared with the Rose Giovanotti House at 1163 Peach Street. Page 42 of 76 25 Integrity The bungalow occupies its original location. It retains W. W. McKinney’s original exterior design of character-defining asymmetric porch supported by three square porch columns, dual front doors, grouped fenestration, extended eaves, and low-pitched roof. Front steps have been replaced but retain their side parapets. In materials and workmanship, the original character-defining stucco fabric remains, though unfortunately the original wood sash windows have been replaced by modern sash windows and one casement window, though the window surrounds or architraves remain. The front doors have also been recently replaced, though the solid and glass doors have been replaced with like doors (the previous solid door was likely also a replacement). The small center chimney has been removed. These losses are unfortunate but do not prevent the bungalow from communicating its architectural significance through aligning and grouping of fenestration. The setting has been altered by the City Council’s approval (on the Cultural Heritage Committee’s recommendation) of two-story buildings behind the house and one on the corner between the Alma and Rose Giovanotti Bungalows to SOI Standards. The rear houses are not visible from most angles (as intended). As for the intervening corner house, the front façades of the Giovanotti Bungalows were never viewable together; they were understood in tandem by the viewer walking by both. The eclectic suburban setting of the bungalows remains largely intact in the Mill Street Historic District. The high degree of integrity in location, design, materials, workmanship, and setting contribute to retention of feeling. As the property is not being applied for listing for historic association, integrity of association is not relevant. The Alma and Rose Giovanotti Bungalows fulfill the all three of the National Parks Service 2023 (conflicting) definitions of “high degree of integrity”: (1) “possesses […] most if not all seven aspects of integrity”; (2) “retains nearly all of those features and materials that would have characterized it during its period of significance”; (3) still possess[es] those essential physical features necessary to tell [its] story” (NHL Bulletin: Guidelines for Preparing National Historic Landmark Nominations (Washington, DC: National Parks Service, 2023), p. 64). Page 43 of 76 26 Conclusion The Alma Giovanotti Bungalow qualifies for Landmarking based on its embodiment of Prairie School–influenced California Bungalow style; its extremely rare formal and decorative interplay with the similarly footprinted and fenestrated but more traditionally Swiss chalet –based Rose Giovanotti Bungalow, designed in turn to play off the neighboring 1913 Battista and Rose Giovanotti Bungalow; and architect William McKinney’s high artistic standards in the aesthetic combination of these three buildings through his innovative design of two of them. By far the most imaginative of McKinney’s surviving buildings, and with a higher degree of integrity compared to his other three Landmarked ones, the Alma and Rose Giovanotti Bungalows are deserving of the greater attention and protection that Landmarking of the Alma Giovanotti Bungalow will bring. Page 44 of 76