Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
sr-030910-6b
City Council Meeting: March 9, 2010 Agenda Item: ~$ To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Appeal of Landmarks Commission Designation of the Residential Buildings Located at 1047 9th Street as City Landmarks Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and designate the subject buildings as City Landmarks based on appropriate findings. Executive Summary The appellant, Marina Belokamenskaya, requests that the City Council overturn the Landmarks Commission's decision on December 14, 2009 to designate the three residential buildings at 1047 9th Street as City Landmarks. The parcel was not included in the designation. The three detached Bungalow residences are early examples of a manufactured housing type that was once prevalent in the City. They were constructed around 1923 using the prefabricated building system developed by the Pacific Ready- Cut Homes, and are highly intact examples from that company's 1925 catalogue. The designation was based on the buildings' being excellent examples of an American Colonial Revival style bungalow court constructed using the prefabricated building. system developed by the Los Angeles area Pacific Ready-Cut Homes. The buildings retain sufficient contextual and architectural integrity to represent the residential development and architectural history of Santa Monica, and are representative of mass- housing production techniques. The subject bungalow court is a significant example of early twentieth-century working- and middle-class housing, which was a highly important building type that provided housing for Santa Monica's work force. This report highlights the points of the appeal, the Landmarks Commission's action, and staff's position relative to the designation based on certain findings. The recommendation on this matter does not have any budgetary or fiscal impact. Discussion Property Description The three detached Bungalow residences are early and intact examples of "catalogue homes", a type that was once prevalent within the City. This form of manufactured 1 housing was popular given the quick and efficient shipping methods and construction assembly techniques, and effectively increased the supply of working- and middle-class housing in the City. The buildings on the subject property represent two models from the 1925 Pacific Ready-Cut Catalogue. Pacific Ready-Cut Homes was a manufacturer located in Southern California, and one of many ready-cut companies selling prefabricated homes in the United States during the early twentieth century. The three buildings were assembled on-site in 1923 in a courtyard configuration. The larger of the three buildings is the street-facing unit. Identified in the 1925 Catalogue as "Style 84", the American Colonial Revival style bungalow and has across- gable roofline with exposed eaves and rafter tails. The exterior is finished with horizontal wood clapboard siding. The symmetrical elevation consists of acentrally-located wood door with flanking sidelights between operable, multi-light windows. The entry is protected by a one-bay front porch that has a broken pediment supported by Tuscan wood columns. Windows of similar material and style are located on the secondary elevations. 2 Style 8q..-z, `Pack ~eady-C'ut Hame w~ Specifications Image from reprint of 1925 Pacific Ready-Cut Catalogue ".is. ~d The two remaining residences are identical and are identified in the Pacific Ready-Cut Catalogue as "Style 44". They are also American Colonial Revival in their architectural style and generally consist of similar building materials, roofline forms and a symmetrical layout as the larger front unit. These buildings are smaller in size and located in the rear of the parcel, facing common open space. The design of the front porch differs in its use of an arched frontispiece that is supported by fluted wood pilasters and ornamental brackets. Image from reprint of 1925 Pacific Ready-Cut Catalogue 3 Front unit in 2009 -Style 84 Historic Resources Inventory Status The subject property was surveyed during Phase III (1990-1993) of the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Survey and was determined eligible for local listing as a Structure of Merit property and assigned a National Register Status Code of 5S3.. Landmarks Commission Action At its December 14, 2009 meeting, following testimony from the property owners' representative and Commission discussion, the Commission determined that the structures meet three of the six designation criteria as set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.100. This decision was not unanimous, with two Commissioners voting against the Landmark designation. In addition, the Commission decision was to only designate the buildings; the parcel was not included. In summation, the Commission concluded the following: • The buildings located at 1047 9th Street are fine examples of an American Colonial Revival style bungalow court constructed using the prefabricated building system produced by Pacific Ready-Cut company. Although the grouping of buildings may not fully express itself to the streetscape as a courtyard, and the "L" shaped grouping of buildings on-site may not be typical for bungalow courts, it does, however, represent a vernacular example of the courtyard housing typology, whose building placement was influenced by the limitations of the small parcel size. 4 Rear Unit in 2009 -Style 44 Middle Unit in 2009 -Style 44 • The three detached residences are representative of early twentieth-century working- and middle-class residential development and document the development of mass-produced housing in the City. Kit homes in general were popular with the general public and represented an affordable way for people with smaller budgets to buy into the American dream of owning their own home. • The buildings are excellent and highly intact examples of the American Colonial Revival style as applied to working- and middle-class housing. The modest residences embody many of the style's character-defining features. Furthermore, although their context has been completely lost and the buildings have become an anomaly due to the evolution of the City, they are an important component and add value to the story of this particular neighborhood. The subject buildings were designed and fabricated by Pacific Ready-Cut, one of the largest and most prominent prefabricated kit home companies in the west. Although it is likely that there are :others in the City, the site contains three pristine examples and illustrates two styles of the Pacific Ready-Cut houses. These buildings are unique in that they currently exist as depicted in the 1925 Pacific Ready-Cut catalogue.. They have not been customized or modified by the owner or builder as was common practice at the time. Kit houses in general contributed to the physical development, social history and cultural story of Santa Monica's neighborhoods. The configuration and the siting of the buildings relative to open space and circulation considerations may not have been intentional, but is important. The parcel was not included in the designation of the landmark as it is not critical for the protection and safeguarding of the resource. The commission felt that, by excluding the parcel, future development opportunities involving the landmark buildings, either on or off-site, can be further explored. If a viable off-site option is presented, the Landmarks Commission will cooperatively work with the owners during the required review of any associated Certificate of Appropriateness application. The full text of the Landmarks Commission's Statement of Official Action is presented as Attachment C. The December 14, 2009 staff report and meeting minutes .are presented as Attachments D and E, respectively. Appeal Summary The appellant filed a timely appeal on December 23, 2009 and asserted that the buildings are not significant historic resources because they are not representative examples of a bungalow court, a unique or rare example of the American Colonial Revival architectural style, and that the role of Pacific Ready-Cut Homes in the City's 5 history is undocumented and unknown. Therefore, the Landmarks Commission erred in its decision to designate the buildings as City Landmarks based on its architectural significance pursuant to Criterion #1, #4, and #5. The City Council, in its review of this appeal, must determine whether an improvement satisfies one or more of the following criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.100 in order to be designated as a Landmark: (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value,. or other noteworthy interest or value. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. (4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. (5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. (6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. Under the provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance, the City Council may grant the appeal or uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission, in whole or ih part, based upon these criteria. The City Council's review of this application is de novo. Appeal Analysis Based on the full record to date, there is ample support for the three designation criteria related to association with the City's social history, architectural character, and representative examples of a notable builder. 6 Designation Criteria that the Resource Meets: Criterion #1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City The buildings located at 1047 9th Street are an excellent example of an American Colonial Revival style bungalow court constructed. using the prefabricated building system developed by the Los Angeles area Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, one of the primary ready cut manufacturers in Southern California. Pacific Ready-Cut offered a variety of single-family homes, multi-family homes, and commercial buildings that could be selected from a catalogue and then delivered to a site for construction. The company manufactured over 40,000 homes and commercial buildings between 1908 and 1940. The buildings retain sufficieht contextual and architectural integrity to represent the residential development and. architectural history of Santa Monica. The subject bungalow court is a significant example of early twentieth-century working- and middle- class housing, which was a highly important building type that provided housing for Santa Monica's work force. Furthermore, the three detached residences document the development of mass-produced housing in Southern California. Although a fair number of Pacific Ready-Cut houses remain in the City, these typically exist as single-family residences and are not organized in a courtyard configuration. In addition, most of these are located in the north of Montana Avenue neighborhood. Therefore, the subject buildings manifest the cultural, economic, and social development of the north of Wilshire Boulevard and south of Montana Avenue neighborhood. Criterion #4: It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. The three detached residences located at 1047 9th Street are excellent examples of the American Colonial Revival style as applied to working- and middle-class housing. The modest residences embody many of the style's character-defining features including classical symmetry, front doors with side lights, double-hung sash windows with multiple lights, gabled roofs columns, and overall high level of craft. Furthermore, the subject 7 buildings' high integrity allows this increasingly rare building type to serve as an excellent example of its style and type. Criterion #5: It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect The subject buildings were designed and fabricated by Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, one of the largest and most prolific prefabricated kit home company in the west. They are an unusual example of two styles of Pacific Ready-Cut Homes that were built as depicted in the Pacific Ready-Cut catalogue-not customized or modified by the owner or builder as was common practice at the time. Designation Criteria that the Resource Does Not Meet: Criterion #2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. Although the three dwellings exhibit exceptional integrity and serve as examples of a once ubiquitous housing type, a property is eligible for designation under this critieria only if it expresses aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type. The building lacks the sufficient aesthetic or artistic interest or value necessary for this designation. Criterion #3: Identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. Historical background research did not reveal any information on the property's owners and/or occupants that indicates historical significance or notability. City directory research over a 45-year period indicates numerous tenants/owners have occupied either the primary residence at 1047 9cn Street. In concluding the background research, none of the occupants of the property appear to meet the level of significance necessary for City Landmark eligibility. In addition, a review of city directories to identify occupants of the subject property did not locate any persons of significant historical importance. 8 Criterion #6: Unique location, singular physical characteristic, or established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. The subject buildings are located on a parcel that is mid-block, and in an area that has been substantially altered over the decades with the appearance of numerous postwar apartment buildings that are larger in mass and scale, and are more visually prominent Conclusion In applying the City's significance criteria for individual recognition as a proposed City of Santa Monica Landmark, the three buildings. appear to rise to the threshold of significance for Landmark designation. As an individual resource, they possess sufficient historical importance or architectural merit to warrant designation. The manufactured home building type played an important role in the architectural development of the City of Santa Monica. Kit homes in general were popular with the general public and represented an affordable way for people with limited resources to buy into the American dream of owning their own home. The three detached residences are representative of this early twentieth-century working- and middle-class residential development and document the development of mass-produced housing in the. City. Although there are other examples of kit houses throughout Santa Monica and Southern California, groupings such as these with high integrity are becoming increasingly rare. They exist as an unusual example of two styles of Pacific Ready-Cut homes that were built as depicted in the Pacific Ready-Cut catalogue--not customized or modified by the owner or builder as was common practice at the time. Alternatives As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may consider the following with respect to the pending appeal if supported by the full evidentiary record: 1. Confirm the Landmarks Commission's decision to designate the buildings at 1047 Stn Street as City Landmarks based on other appropriate criteria. 2. Confirm the Landmarks Commission's decision to designate the buildings at 1047 9th Street as City Landmarks based on appropriate criteria, and include the designation of the parcel to protect and safeguard the resource. 9 3. Deny the Landmark Designation application and reverse the Landmarks Commission's decision to designate the three buildings at 1047 9th Street as City Landmarks. Environmental Analysis The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project consists of designating a property as a Landmark thereby aiding in the preservation of a historic resource in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing .Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer. The project is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(b)(3) provides that CEQA only applies to those projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Since the proposed action would result in the retention of the existing structure and would not change the existing environmental baseline, there is no potential that the project would cause a significant effect on the environment. Public Outreach The public notice for this hearing was published at least 10 days prior to the hearing in the Santa Monica Daily Press and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property. 10 Financial Impacts & Budget Actions The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budgetary or fiscal impact. Prepared by: Scott Albright, AICP, Senior Planner Forwarded to Council: Rod Gould City Manager Attachments A. Appellants' Appeal Statement B. Draft City Council Statement of Official Action C. Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action, December 14, 2009 D. Landmarks Commission .Staff Report (w/partial attachments), December 14, 2009 E. Excerpt of Landmarks Commission Minutes, December 14, 2009 F. City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report -February 19, 2010 11 ATTACHMENT A Appellants' Appeal Statement Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries. 12 i I City of Santa t~lonQCa Planning and Community Development Department City Planning Division (310) 458-8341 APPEAL FORM (Please Type or Print all Information) Application Number ~~ .-otc Filed: ~Z•Z?j•7A0°~ By: APPELLANT NAME: ~ ~ l~l~-~ ~+A b5 4 L e tc~t.n,E ,.~PtC Q~/,Q APPELLANT ADDRESS: G~o L vw+A ~ G ~ ~/•~ a :: CONTACT PERSON: ~~ f 4•~T L-A'~' Phone: ~f- ga7_ ~7„rs (all correspondence will be mailed to his address) Address: / S7G o Vf.~-ruRA Q 4v~: ~rE• I S.7'..e lc,/c~.++o, 44 R ty3G PROJECT CASE NUMBER(S) : O g t-/~-~ ° o o Li PROJECT ADDRESS: (O ~{-j IJ~n-4zt ~-rncCr APPLICANT: C `~~ of p~, ~oN« l.fw~~rAAe~ ~vn,.,+~i/. oa ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: ~~/IN~~ 9 ACTION BEING APPEALED: LA"'~^^~-~t ~ CTi G.+MeN /-~r tR-e rAt I Please state the specif' reason(s) for the ppeal {use separate sheet if necessary): is the appeal r lated to the discretionary action and findings issued for the proposed project? ~es _ No If yes, explain: Is the appeal related to the conditions of approval? _ Yes ~ No If yes, which conditions and why: Is the appeal related to design issues? _ Yes ~No If yes, explain: Is the appeal related to compatibi 'ty issues such as building height, massing, pedestrian orientation, etc.? Yes No If yes, explain: Is the appeal related to non-compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code? _ Yes No If yes, which Gode section(s) does the project not comply with and why: Is the appeal related to environmental impacts associated with the project? _ Yes No If yes, explain: Is the~ppeal related to other issues? _ Yes No If yes, explain: APPELLANT SIGNATURE: NOTE; A hearing date on the appeal. will not be scheduled until sufficient information regarding the basis for the appeal has been received to enable-city. Planning Division staff to prepare the required analysis for the staff report. LUNA ~ GLUSHON ATTORNEY S 15760 VENT[TRA BOULEVARD, SUITE 1520 ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 TEL: 818-907-8755 Gi7Y Gt-sA~TR. ~~~~{.;_ GiTY P~A'dro~~~ ~r` . 9 ~C 23 A1Q :d6 Century City Office 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 FAX: 818-907-8760 MEMORANDUM TO: City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission DATE: December 22, 2009 RE: Appeal of Approval of Landmark Designation for 1047 Ninth Street ("Property") Landmarks Commission Application No. 09LM-004 This Memorandum is submitted in support of the appeal of the action taken on December 14, 2009 by the Landmarks Commission to designate the subject Property as a City Landmark. 1. Rebuttal Position to Findings Made Concerning the Designation Criteria Contained in Santa Monica Municipal Code 9.36.100 a) Criterion No. 1: If exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic political or architectural history of the City. The City's consultant PCR and the Landmarks Commission take the position that the subject Property/buildings are an excellent example of an American Revival style bungalow court. In the report previously submitted by the Property owners consultant, Architectural Preservation Platmirtg Services ("APPS Report"), Mary Jo Winder details at pages 1 & 2 of her report the accepted criteria by which bungalow courts are judged. The subject Property has none of said characteristics. The Property should not be considered for designation as a representative example of a bungalow court under 9.36.100 (a) (1). b) Criterion No. 4: It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials of craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. As noted above, the APPS Report takes issue with and disclaims the finding that the subject Property is an example of an American Colonial Revival bungalow court. Judging the Property/buildings by the bungalow court criteria detailed in the APPS Report, the buildings on the Property are not unique examples of this ubiquitous style and therefore would add little information to the study of Colonial Revival architecture in the City of Santa Monica. The Property should not be considered for designation as a unique or rare example of an architectural design under 9.36.100 (a) (4). c) Criterion No. 5: It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. As stated in the APPS Report, "...Pacific Ready-Cut was not exclusive in the Southern Califorrria housing construction market, but shipped pre-fabricated houses all over the country. The role that the company played in Santa Monica is unknown. For this reason and without foundation of knowledge gained through further research and documentation on the pattern book plan industry, it is questionable whether 1047 9~ Street is actually a significant example of the company's influence in the City of Santa Monica..." For the reason noted above, the Property should not be considered for designation under 9.36.100 (a) (5). It is the position of the Property owner and its consultant that the property is not a significant historic resource because it does not exhibit exceptional characteristics of a period, style or method of construction and is not an important work of a significant architect, designer or builder. U'r t ~/~ T ~~-~e P. JH ~{ 1 ~1 rsi t:+..lr:.:. cerr ~L~,ti„l~iGr~ ; LUNA & GLUSHON ATTORNEY S 15760 VENTURA BOULEVARD, SUITE 1520 ENCINO, CALIFORNIA 91436 TEL: 818-907-8755 FAX: 818-907-8760 9 OEC 23 A10 ~6 Century City Office 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 December 22, 2009 Via Federal Express City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attention: Scott Albright, Senior Planner RE: Landmarks Designation 09LM-004 Property located at 1047 9th Street Dear Mr. Albright: On behalf of the owners of the above referenced property, please find enclosed an executed notice of Appeal Form, the applicable filing fee and a Memorandum submitted in support of our appeal to the City Council of the decision of the Landmarks Commission designating the subject property as a City Landmark. Please be advised that the appellant intends to supplement this subject appeal filing with additional documentation in support of its appeal. Thank you for your assistance n this matter. cc: Client (via electronic transmittal) ATTACHMENT B Draft City Council Statement of Official Action 13 ily of CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SANTA MONICA STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT CASE NUMBER: Appeal 09-015 LOCATION: 1047 9th Street APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission APPELLANT: Marina Belokamenskaya PROPERTY OWNER: Marina Belokamenskaya CASE PLANNER: Scott Albright, AICP, Senior Planner REQUEST: Appeal 09-015 of Landmarks Commission Approval of Landmark Designation Application 09-004. CEQA STATUS: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project consists of designating a property as a Landmark thereby aiding in the preservation of a historic resource in a manner. consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer. The project is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(b)(3) provides that CEQA only applies to those projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment: Since the proposed action would result in the retention of the existing structure and would not change the existing environmental baseline, there is no potential that the project would cause a significant effect on the environment. 1 CITY COUNCIL ACTION March 9. 2010 Date X Appeal upheld and Landmarks Commission approval reversed based upon the findings below: Appeal denied and Landmarks Commission approval upheld based on the following findings: Other. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION: March 9, 2010 The City Council, having held a public hearing on March 9, 2010, hereby denies Appeal 09-015 and affirms the Landmarks Commission's designation of the residential buildings located at 1047 9~h Street as City Landmarks based on the findings and determinations below. Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. Findings and determinations for Designation of the Landmark Structures Per SMMC 9.36.100(a) (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. The buildings located at 1047 9th Street are an excellent example of an American Colonial Revival style bungalow court constructed using the prefabricated building system developed by the Los Angeles area Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, one of the primary ready cut manufacturers in Southern California. Pacific Ready-Cut offered a variety of single-family homes, multi-family homes,. and commercial buildings that could be selected from a catalogue and then delivered to a site for construction. The company manufactured over 40,000 homes and commercial buildings between 1908 and 1940. The buildings retain sufficient contextual and architectural integrity to represent the residential development and architectural history of Santa Monica. The subject bungalow court is a significant example of early twentieth-century working- and middle- class housing, which was a highly important building type that provided housing for Santa Monica's work force. Furthermore, the three detached residences document the development of mass-produced housing in Southern California. Although a fair number of Pacific Ready-Cut houses remain in the City, these typically exist as single-family residences and are not organized in a courtyard configuration. In addition, most of 2 these are located in the north of Montana Avenue neighborhood. Therefore, the subject buildings manifest the cultural, economic, and social development of the north of Wilshire Boulevard and south of Montana Avenue neighborhood. (4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. The three detached residences located at 1047 9th Street are excellent examples of the American Colonial Revival style as applied to working- and middle-class housing. The modest residences embody many of the style's character-defining features including classical symmetry, front doors with side lights, double-hung sash windows with multiple lights, gabled roofs columns, and overall high level of craft. Furthermore, the subject buildings' high integrity allows this increasingly rare building type to serve as an excellent example of its style and type. (5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. The subject buildings were designed and fabricated by Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, one of the largest and most prolific prefabricated kit home company in the west. They are an unusual example of two styles of Pacific Ready-Cut Homes that were built as depicted in the Pacific Ready-Cut catalogue-not customized or modified by the owner or builder as was common practice at the time. VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: NOTICE If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of -Civil Procedures Section .1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010. I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica. 3 MARIA M. STEWART, City Clerk Date F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\STOAS\2009\09APP-015 Council STOA (1047 9th Street).docx 4 ATTACHMENT C Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action 15 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES 09-LM-004 LOCATED AT 1047 9T" STREET AS CITY LANDMARKS SECTION I. An application was filed by the Landmarks Commission on September 14, 2009 to designate the three residential structures at 1047 9t" Street as City Landmarks. The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on December 14, 2009, hereby designates the three residential kit home buildings located at 1047 9th Street as City Landmarks based on the following findings: (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. The buildings located at 1047 9th Street, which were constructed in 1923, are an excellent example of an American Colonial Revival style bungalow court constructed using apre-cut kit home building system produced by the Los Angeles area Pacific Ready-Cut. They retain sufficient contextual and architectural integrity to represent the residential development and architectural history of Santa Monica. The subject bungalow court is a significant example of early twentieth-century working- and middle- class housing, which was an important building type that provided housing for Santa Monica's work force. Furthermore, the three detached kit house residences document the development of mass-produced housing in Southern California. Kit homes represented an affordable way for people with smaller budgets to buy into the American dream of home ownership. Therefore, the subject buildings manifest the cultural, economic, and social development of the north of Wilshire Boulevard and south of Montana Avenue neighborhood. (4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. The three detached residences located at 1047 9th Street are excellent examples of the American Colonial Revival style as applied to working- and middle-class housing. The modest residences embody many of the style's character-defining features including classical symmetry; front doors with side lights; double-hung sash windows with multiple lights; gabled roofs; columns, and overall high level of craft. Furthermore, the subject buildings' high integrity allows this increasingly rare building type to serve as an excellent example of its style and type. (5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.. The subject buildings were designed and fabricated. by Pacific Ready-Cut, the largest and most prolific pre-cut kit home company in the west. They are unusually intact examples of two styles of Pacific Ready-Cut homes that were built as depicted in the Pacific Ready-Cut catalogue-not customized or modified by the owner or builder as was common practice at the time. Pacific Ready-Cut offered a variety of single-family homes, multi-family homes, and commercial buildings. The company manufactured over 40,000 homes and commercial buildings between 1908 and 1940. SECTION II. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately reflect the final determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica on December 14, 2009 as determined by the following vote: AYES: Bach; Fresco, Lehrer, Shari NAYES: Berley, Genser ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Chair Kaplan Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. Respectfully Submitted February 8, 2010 Barbara Kaplan, Chairperson Attest: Scott Albright, AICP Landmarks Commission Secretary 2 ATTACHMENT D Landmarks Commission Staff Reports (w/partial attachments), December 14, 2009 21 MEMORANDUM PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING DIVISION DATE: December 14, 2009 TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: 1047 Stn Street, LC-09LM-004 Landmark Designation Application 09LM-004, 1047 gin Street, to determine whether the residential buildings should be designated as a City Landmark. PROPERTY OWNER: Marina Belokamenskaya APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND This staff report presents analysis relevant to the residential buildings located at 1047 gin Street (APN #4281-029-014). A Landmark Designation Application was filed by the Landmarks Commission on September 14, 2009. A Preliminary Historic Assessment had been previously prepared for the subject property by the City's historic resources consultant, PCR Services Corporation (Attachment A), and was most recently distributed to Commissioners on November 9, 2009. Since that time, the property owner's have hired an historic consultant to .assess to potential landmark designation of the building at 1047 gin Street, and a report has been prepared and included as Attachment E. In summation, this report concludes the following: (1) The property at 1047 gin Street does not have any of the attributes of a bungalow court and, therefore, does not qualify for designation as a significant bungalow court. (2) Adequate information has not been provided, as requested by the Commission, on other similar multi-family developments in the City or of the number of other existing pattern book houses attributed to the Pacific Ready-Cut Company. This report further concludes that none of the City's Landmark criteria can be met and therefore is not a significant historic resource because it does not exhibit exceptional -1- characteristics of a period, style, or method of construction and is not an important work of a significant architect, designer, or builder. Historic Resources Inventory Status The subject property was surveyed during Phase III (1990-1993) of the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Survey and was determined eligible for local listing as a Structure of Merit property and assigned a National Register Status Code of 5S3. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.36.120, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property within a 300-foot radius of the project and was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is included as Attachment D. ANALYSIS Architectural Description and_Sianificance The subject buildings, located at 1047 9th Street, were constructed around 1923 in the American Colonial Revival architectural style. The three detached Bungalow residences are situated on the eastside of 9th Street, between Washington Avenue and California Avenue. The subject property is bordered by multi-family housing to the north and south. The legal description of the subject property is Town of Santa Monica Tract Lot O, Block 67: The three detached dwellings on the subject property are early examples of a manufactured housing type, as all were all listed in the 1925 Pacific Ready-Cut Catalogue. The larger street-fronting residence, identified in the catalogue as "Style 84," has a narrow paved walkway that leads from 9th Street to the front entrance. The roof is a cross-gable with exposed eaves and rafter tails. The exterior is wood horizontal clapboard siding with a central wood door between multi-light sidelights and three operable multi-light windows on each side of the primary elevation. There are original windows on the three secondary elevations of the street-fronting dwelling. The American Colonial Revival style one-bay front porch has a broken pediment supported by Tuscan wood columns. The two smaller identical residences identified as "Style 44" face common open space are located along the walkway running west to east on the north side of the lot. Both have cross-gable roofs with exposed eaves and rafter tails. The exterior is wood horizontal clapboard siding with a central wood door and three operable multi-light windows on each side and two operable windows on their secondary elevations. The arched frontispiece surrounding. the front doorway has American Colonial Revival style fluted wood pilasters. -2- Historic Associations: Santa Monica/Town of Santa Monica Tract As discussed more fully in Attachment A, in 1875, the original town site of Santa Monica was surveyed. In the early years, up to the 1920's, the community operated as a tourist attraction, visited mostly by wealthy patrons. After this early period, and generally after the widespread acceptance of the automobile as a primary means of transportation, Santa Monica experienced a significant building boom with homes being constructed for year-round residents. This boom was heightened with the location of large companies into the City, some of which had garnered lucrative government contracts to support war supply efforts during those specific years. Post World War II saw housing demand in the City increase as returning veterans flooded southern California. The three detached Bungalow residences situated on the subject property were originally constructed in 1923. They are located in a neighborhood where significant growth did not occur until the 1920s. In the following decades,. the neighborhood increasingly experienced the development of multi-family residences. Although they generally ranged in size from two families to eight or more families, the new buildings were modest in scale. The general preference was for wood-sided buildings in the Craftsman or American Colonial Revival style, although the stucco and red the of the Spanish Colonial Revival style began to gain favor. Two examples remain extant from the early phase of residential building in the 1000 Block of 9th Street, including the subject property, and 1033 9th Street, the La Mirada Apartment Court, which are both examples of courtyard housing from this early era. By 1950, the neighborhood was almost completely built out with only one lot remaining unimproved. In addition, the once ubiquitous residential bungalow courts in the neighborhood have been- largely replaced with bulkier multi-family housing. Although a few representative examples of Bungalow courts are extant within the tract, it appears that they were not fabricated by Pacific Ready-Cut Homes. Research conducted by the City's historic consultant revealed that there is at least one Pacific Ready-Cut residence located within a few blocks of the subject property, a craftsman single-family residence located at 908 California Avenue. However, it appears that examples of both bungalow courts and Pacific Ready-Cut residences are increasingly rare in the north of Wilshire Boulevard neighborhood in the City of Santa Monica. Landmarks Ordinance/Findings The Landmarks Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 9.36.100) requires the Commission to review the 1047 9th Street property for eligibility as a City Landmark based on the six criteria discussed below. The Commission may designate a property as a Landmark if it meets one or more of these criteria. Based on the research and evaluation of the residential structures located at 1047 9th -3- Street, the buildings appears to meet three designation criteria established in SMMC 9.36.100 and is therefore eligible for City Landmark designation. The following draft findings are made to support this conclusion: (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. The buildings located at 1047 9th Street are an excellent example of an American Colonial Revival style bungalow court constructed using the prefabricated building system developed. by the Los Angeles area Pacific Ready-Cut. It retains sufficient contextual and architectural integrity to represent the residential development and architectural history of Santa Monica. The subject bungalow court is a significant example of early twentieth-century working- and middle-class housing, which was a highly important building type that provided housing for Santa Monica's work force. Furthermore, the three detached residences document the development of mass- produced housing in Southern California. The subject property manifests the cultural, economic, and social development of the north of Wilshire Boulevard and south of Montana Avenue neighborhood. Therefore, the subject property appears to satisfy this criterion. (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The resource does not appear to meet this criterion. The building lacks the sufficient aesthetic or artistic interest or value necessary for this designation. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. Historical background research did not reveal any information on the property's owners and/or occupants that indicates historical significance or notability. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion. (4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. The three detached residences located at 1047 9th Street are excellent examples of the American Colonial Revival style as applied to working- and middle-class housing. The modest residences embody many of the style's .character-defining features including classical symmetry; front doors with side lights; double-hung sash windows with multiple lights;. gabled roofs; columns, and overall high level of craft. Furthermore, the subject buildings' high integrity allows this increasingly rare building type to serve as an excellent example of its style and type. Therefore, the property appears to satisfy this criterion. -4- (5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. The subject buildings were designed and fabricated by Pacific Ready-Cut, the largest and most prolific prefabricated kit home company in the west. They are an unusual example of two styles of Pacific Ready-Cut homes that were built as depicted ih the Pacific Ready-Cut catalogue-not customized or modified by the owner or builder as was common practice at the time. Therefore, the buildings appear to satisfy this criterion. (6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. The subject buildings do not appear to meet this criterion RECOMMENDATION Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Landmarks Commission approve the Landmark Designation application for the residential buildings located at 1047 9th Street because the subject buildings meet three of the designation criteria established in SMMC 9.36.100 and are therefore eligible for City Landmark designation. Staff acknowledges the importance of this type of low-cost, manufactured housing in the development of the City and supports the designation. Relocation of these buildings to another location within the City has been remotely discussed in the spirit of compromise. In this scenario, only the buildings would be designated, and not the parcel. The basis for this idea is that since these structures were generally purchased out of a catalog and arrived as a kit of parts to be assembled on-site, they were generally not designed in response to local environmental considerations and their arrangement on-site isn't so unique that it couldn't be replicated elsewhere: However, staff believes that the placement and arrangement of the buildings on-site had to factor in local conditions and context, and therefore the specific arrangement of these buildings on-site as a bungalow court is an important reflection of this type of development. In addition, since an alternative site location has not been identified at this time to house the buildings, and alternative arrangements have not been identified for the potential interim storage of the buildings, the designation of the parcel is important for the preservation of the resource. Pursuant to SMMC 9.36.180, the Landmarks Commission's determination regarding this application may be appealed to -the City Council if the appeal is filed with the City Planning Division within ten (10) consecutive days commencing from the date that the decision is made by the Landmarks Commission. -5- Attachments A. PCR Services Corporation Landmark Assessment Report, October 2009 B. DPR Forms C. Aerial Photo D. Public Notice E. Historic Assessment Report, prepared for property owner by Mary Jo Winder, November 30, 2009 -6- HISTORIClARCHITECTURAL ASSESSMENT REPORT COMMENTS REGARDING THE PENDING LANDMARK DESIGNATION OI? 1047 NINTH STREET, SANTA MONICA, CA Introduction The following report was prepared at the request of the owner of the property at 1047 Ninth Street, Santa Monica, California. It provides comments, based on my professional analysis, of the property's historic/azchitectural significance. It addresses specific issues of the property's eligibility for designation as a landmark. On August 10, 209, the City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission under its authority to review demolition permits to consider whether a subject property is eligible far designation as a City landmark or structure of merit, reviewed the an application for 1047 Ninth Street. The Commission continued the hearing for this item to the September 14 agenda and requested that the staff provide information on the number of similar properties and of this type of development elsewhere in the City. On September 14, the Commission voted to file a landmark application for the property and, again, requested that staff provide information on the number of similar type properties in the City. The application for landmark designation was scheduled for the October 12, 2009 hearing by the Landmarks Commission, but was continued to the meeting of November 9th at the request of the property owner. Subsequently, on November 9th, again at the request of the property owner, the item was postponed to the meeting of December 14. Both postponements were requested to allow time for an independent professional evaluation of the property at 1047 Ninth Street. Previous historic resources surveys identified the residential buildings on the property as potential structures of merit. It is my professional opinion that the reports byPCR and the staff fail to provide adequate justification for designating the property a City of Santa Monica landmark. No new evidence was provided to support the elevation of this property to that high a status. My conclusion is based on the following facts. Issues 1. The property at 3047 9th Street does not have any of the attributes of a bungalow court and, therefore, does not qualify for designation as a significant bungalow court. An extensive study of bungalow courts, the National Register of Historic Places Bungalow Courts in Pasadena (1994 amendment) is a thorough, scholarly-produced document defining this type of residential development in Southern California. It states bungalow courts are identified by three major characteristics: 1. The focal point created by a central open space, which provides access and a realm for public activity; 2. The site plan configuration; or, arrangement of dwellings around the central space; and 3. A service zone often providing automobile access to the rear of units. The subject property has none of these three characteristics (although, according to Sanborn maps, the property originally included a parkin structure for three spaces that was accessed off the alleyway). The site plan of 1 D47 9' Street does not have a common focal point to serve as a central open space for public activity and the buildings are not arranged around a required central space. Rather, a front building faces the street with a front yard as in asingle-family dwelling and two rear buildings face a very narrow side yard. It is obvious that this property's development was not intended as a bungalow colu-t when it was constructed in 1923. The above referenced study also included an exhaustive description of the various forms (or types) of bungalow courts. This description effectively created a framework for defining what characteristics aproperty must possess to qualify for designation as a bungalow court. They are (also, see attached Exhibit A): • Type A: Detached Wide Court (Enclosed) • Type B: Attached Wide Court (Enclosed) • Type C: Attached Wide Court (Open) • Type D: Detached Narrow Court (Enclosed) • Type E: Detached Narrow Court (Open) • Type F: Attached Narrow Court {Enclosed) • Type G: Half Court or "L" Shaped Clearly, 1047 9a' Street is not a bungalow court according to the above defnition and, therefore, should not be considered for designation as a representative example of that property type. In addition, with only three units, the property is atypical of bungalow courts, which in the study were found to be of between five and fourteen units (60% of the courts were between five and nine units). 2. Adequate information has not been provided, as requested by the Commission, on other similar multi-family developments inthe City or of the number of other existing pattern book houses attributed to the Pacific Ready Cut Company. Only one property, 908 California Avenue, was cited as an example of that company's designs. In addition, there is no context provided to document three-unit detached housing development in the City (a historic context on bungalow courts is irrelevant). The Pacific Ready Cut Company's 1923 catalogue included plans for two bungalow cacu~ts, but 1047 9`s Street is not one of them. Without additional new information, such as would be provided by a historic context for low-density multi-family residential development and an intensive survey of manufactured pattern book residential houses in Santa Monica, the Commission does not have a sound basis to designate this property. ' Bungalow Courts in Pasadena, 1994 amendment to National Register of Historic Places nomination. The catalogue illustrated a Colonial Revival design court on an 80fts140ft. lot with five units and a Spanish Vernacular design court with eight units on the same size lot. Landmark Criteria The City's consultant and staff have recommended designation of the property based on their analysis of eligibility in accordance with three of the six criteria in Chapter 936 of Article 9 of the Municipal Code. Because I have concerns about the conclusions stated under these criteria, I am providing the following comments. Criterion 1. It exemplifies, synzboliZes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of tl:e City. The staff recommendafion in its report states "1047 9a' Street is an excellent example of an American Colonial Revival style bungalow court." It is obvious that the property does not have any of the architectural characteristics of a bungalow court; therefore, the staff report provides no justification for landmark designation under this criterion. In addition, there is only scant documentation about the role of manufactured housing and specifically, the Pacific Ready Cut catalogue houses, in the development of the City during the 1920s and 30s. Without an in-depth historic context on this theme, sufficient justification for landmark designation is lacking. Based on existing documentation, the property should not be considered for designation under this criterion. Criterion 2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. I agree with the conclusion that the properly does not qualifyfor designation under this criterion. Criterion 3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in Local, state or national history. Based on information provided in the PCR and staff reports, I agree that the property is ineligible for designation under this criterion. Criterion 4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. All three of the residential buildings on the property are architecturally intact examples of 1920s Colonial Revival design; the only noteworthy exterior alterations are the construction of small additions on the east rear elevations of the two rear units and replacement of a front door on one of these units. They are, however, not excellent or unique examples of this ubiquitous style and therefore; there is little information these buildings could produce that would be valuable to a study of Colonial Revival architecture in the City. As an unremarkable example of the style, the property lacks distinction for designation under this criterion. Further, there is little evidence of the significance of the type of development-low- density multi-unit residential development-that supports designation of 1047 9`h Street as a landmark. Without an adequate historic context of residential development in the City of Santa Monica, it cannot be ascertained that a property with three detached housing units is significant in the City's history. Criterion 5. dt is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notabCe builder, designer or architecP. Because the buildings are the product of a popular company rather than a notable individual person that is a builder, designer or architect, this criterion should be applied very carefully. As one of several mail-order plan companies that proliferated dm~ing the frst three decades of the Ywentieth century, Pacific Ready-Cut was not exclusive in the Southern California housing construction market, but shipped pre-fabricated houses all over the country. The role that the company played in Santa Monica is unknown. For this reason and without a foundation of knowledge gained through further research and documentation on the pattern book plan industry, it is questionable whether 1047 Stn Street is actually a significant example of the company's influence in the City of Santa Monica. Questions that should be answered aze "did the Pacific Ready-Cut have a significant influence on the appearance of Santa Monica's residential neighborhoods?", "what architect(s) or designer(s) were actually responsible for the particular designs that are represented on this property and did they have significance in regard to their conh~ibutions to the history of architecture?", "how many other 1420s-30spre-fabricated houses are extant in the City?", for example. Answers to these questions would provide crucial information for conducting a comparative analysis of similar properties, which is important when applying this criterion. Because existing documentation does not provide a sound basis to justify assigning significance because of the property's association with a notable builder, designer or architect, the property should not be designated under this criterion. Criterion 6. It lzas a unique location, a singular physical charaeterisfic, ar is an established and familiar visual feature of a neiglzborizood, community or the City. The location of the buildings on the interior of this block on 9~' Street and their architectural features are unremarkable aspects of the neighborhood. The fact that two of the buildings are not even visible from the street prohibits consideration for designation under this criterion. Conclusion Although the buildings at 1047 9th Street are architecturally intact retaining most of the features of their 1923 design, I have concluded that the property is not a significant historic resource because it does not exhibit exceptional characteristics of a period, style or method of construction and is not an important work of a significant architect, designer or builder. Without further study, the property appears ineligible for landmark designation under the City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. Report prepared by: Y3ate: November 30, 2009 Mary 7o Win r Architectural Preservation Planning Services Attachments: Exhibit A -Site Plan for Bungalow Courts Resume for Mary Jo Winder EXIBIT A: SITE PLANS FOR BUNGALOW COURTS ~~ ~ WB.4.vwd Na roaa.oaia Sec4ion number F Page 4 Bungalow Courts in Pasadena AMENDMENT ' Los Angeles County, CA , 7 Type A: Detached Wide Court (Enclosed) Type C: Attached Wide Court {Cpen) TVpa B: Attached Wide Court {Enclosed) ---~ ~ ~ Typa D: Detached Narrow Court (Enclosed) NV/ Fpm IP/06a ~• ~ ~ pNH Agmtl Na t/SiWi/ {Hb) United States Department of the Interfbr National Park Service National F3eister ®# Historic Places Ccrttir~uati~n Sheet Section number F Page 5 Bungalow Courts in Pasadena AMENDMENT Los Angeles County, CA Tvc® E: 1Jeiached Narrow Court (9pen1 - TyAe F: Attached Narrow Court (Enclosed} Type G: Bali Court or "L" -Shaped 11lary Jo Wander s6oy)?aar yaks Avenue. #2 Sattth Pasadena, CA 9x03® 6~6-403-0088 or 626-664`9464 EDUCATION Master ofArchitecture (Historic Preservation), Kansas State University (1984). B.A., Art History, University of Alabamain Huntsville {1982). Snpplemenittt1Tr•aining Introduction to Federal Projects and Historic Preservation Law, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, (1984). Advanced Seminar on Preparing Agreement Documents Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, University of Nevada (1491). PR®FESSIONA.L EXPERIENCE 2002 to present: Principal, Arclritectrrral Preservation Planning Services. Consultant for historic preservation in land-use planning and development and environmental impact reports; evaluation and designation ofhistoric resources; design review for historic properties. 1990 to 2006: Senior Planner, Desib r & Historic Preservation Section, Pl•rruring• Division, City of Pasadena. Staff m Historic Preservation Commission {staff reports, meeting presentations); coordinator for Certified Local Government Program {grant writing, supervision of grant projects including historic resources surveys, historic comegcs, National Register nominations, ordinance revision, preservation plan); administration of Section 106 review process; coordination and supervision of city-wide reconnaissance survey, city-wide historic context report, ethnic history study, preservation plan, ordinance revisions, and preservation element in Land-Use Element of General Plan; management of preparation of Design G'uideZines for Hartorzc Districts in the City of Posadena,~ administration of design review of projects affecting historic resources; preparation of California Environmental Quality Arc documents; preparation of educational brochures/informational materials; presentations to neighborhoodgroups. 1989 to 1990: Preservation Planner, Mehapolitan Area Planning Department, City of Wichita. Staff to Wichita Historic Preservation Board; administration of design review of landmarks and landmark districts; administration of Section 106; administration of Certified Local Government program (grant writing, coordination and supervision of grant projects); preparation of City preservation glans revision of preservation ordinance; administration of designation and revolving loan programs; presentafions to neighborhood and business groups. 1983 to 1988: Preservation Consnlt:•urt, Cities of Leavenworth, KS, Kansas Gity, Mfl, St. Joseph, MO, and private property otii~rters, Preparation of historic resources surveys, National Register nominations, historic contexts, Certified Local Government grant applications, public education materials, brochure for marketing historic properties, certifications for Tax Act projects; consultation on rehabilitation projects. RESUME ATTACHMENT E Excerpt of Landmarks Commission Minutes, December 14, 2009 17 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded 1875 "Populus felix in urbe felicP' Monday, December 14, 2009 7:00 PM City Council Chambers, Room 213 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:02 pm. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Margaret Bach John Berley, Chair Pro Tempore Nina Fresco Roger Censer Ruthann Lehrer Ruth Shari Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney Scott Albright, AICP, Commission Secretary Susan Umeda, Staff Assistant III Absent: Barbara Kaplan, Chair 2. OLD BUSINESS: 8-A Landmark Designation Application 09LM-004 1047 Ninth Street to determine whether the residential buildings should be designated as a City Landmark. (Continued from November 9, 2009) The Commission made ex pane communication disclosures. Mr. Albright presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission approve Landmark Designation Application 09LM-004 and designate 1047 Ninth Street as a landmark parcel based on the draft findings in the staff report. 20 Commissioner Shari stated that the staff report referred to the possibility of relocating the bungalows to another site and asked staff if the owner would be responsible for relocation expenses. Mr. Albright responded in the positive. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Steve Kaplan (owner's representative). Mr. Kaplan stated that the landmark designation application should be denied and that his clients were not advised that the property is listed on the Historic Resources Inventory. Mr. Kaplan added that his clients will seek a Certificate of Economic Hardship if the property is designated as a City Landmark. Commissioner Fresco asked Mr. Kaplan if his clients have owned the property for a long time and just recently decided to develop it. Mr. Kaplan responded in the negative and clarified that the property was purchased for the purpose of redevelopment. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the owner and the real estate agent have an obligation to provide a possible buyer with documentation stating that the property is listed on the Historic Resources Inventory. Commissioner Fresco stated that the property is significant as a parcel because of the way the property is configured and the buildings are grouped. Commissioner Lehrer stated that landmark criteria are strengthened by the fact that the parcel contains pristine examples of two typologies of Ready-Cut kit homes. She stated that there may be other examples of kit homes in the City; however, the Commission may never know the extent because it would be difficult to catalog all of the examples. She stated that the variation of the site is within the framework of a bungalow court and that the Commission should move forward with a designation because the property meets landmark criteria. Commissioner Bach stated that Commission was originally captivated by the intactness of the units and the pristine quality of the buildings; she added that the configuration of the structures is part of the historic quality of the .parcel. Commissioner Bach expressed concern by the fact that the owner was not apprised of the potential significance of the property; however, she stated that the Commission is not the body who could remedy this situation. Commissioner Shari suggested that the Commission should not designate the parcel because the three buildings could be potentially relocated and the courtyard could be replicated. ' Chair Pro Tempore Berley noted that kit homes inherently lack any contextual relationship with the site because they are pre-manufactured structures which come with an instruction book and could be erected on any piece of land. He added that these structures are an anomaly in the neighborhood because of the evolution of the City in that area. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the value 21 of the kit homes to the community is not evident and that it would be difficult to landmark the parcel because of its context. Commissioner Bach noted that there is a sense of courtyard at the rear of the parcel but it is not fully expressed because the front house is oriented to the street and the rear of the property is not visible. She stated that the Commission has insufficient information regarding whether other examples of kit houses exist within the City; however, she stated that the subject structures are very intact examples of kit homes. Commissioner Fresco stated that kit homes are a critical aspect of the history of Santa Monica and noted that the site and location of the buildings are important. She stated- that kit homes were not designed to be put together and taken apart but were designed to be an affordable and accessible way for people to afford the American dream of owning their own home. She stated that bungalow courts offered the benefit of a shared open space but also gave the residents the feeling of living in asingle-family home. She stated that a kit home package contained everything to manufacture a home and it was less expensive than designing and building a custom home. Commissioner Fresco acknowledged that the property is surrounded by large, multi-family structures but stated that this anomaly represents the passage of time and tells the story about an era in the history of Santa Monica. Commissioner Genser stated that the Historic Resources Inventory described subject structures as potential Structures of Merit rather than potential landmarks and noted that the two smaller kit homes are not visible from the street. He stated that the "Half Court or `L' Shaped" parcel configuration, documented in the "Bungalow Courts in Pasadena Amendment" that Mary Jo Winder provided to the Commission, is closest to the configuration of the site. He noted that the courtyard may not rise to the level of a landmark; the only reason the application could be approved is if the kit homes themselves meet landmark criteria. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the early Historic Resources Inventory did not specify that these were kit homes, which is critical in terms of the significance of these structures. She stated that there are Victorian homes in the City which are surrounded by larger-scale developments and that the loss of context in this particular instance may not be a negative. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that an economic hardship case may be evaluated with different criteria than the usual landmark appeal criteria and added that he is unaware of any properties which were exempted for that purpose. He also stated that the City Council uses the same landmark criteria that the Commission uses, although the City Council will review the case de novo. 22 Commissioner Fresco stated that a Certificate of Economic Hardship is not before the Commission at -this time and the Commission should only consider whether the property meets landmark criteria. Commissioner Genser stated that the integrity of the designation would rest with the quality of the buildings themselves since a courtyard configuration cannot be firmly established because the buildings were arranged in a utilitarian configuration. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that, in perspective of the law, there is not an infirmity regarding how this matter has come before the Commission and there is nothing that should halt the landmark designation process. He stated that City law is clear; if a structure is more than forty years. old and a demolition permit application is submitted to the City, that structure will be reviewed by the Landmarks Commission for possible designation. He emphasized that a notification requirement was established when properties are sold and the City's webpage and development applications also have- information about the demolition process. Chair Pro Tempore Berley stated that the landmark designation application should be denied since the role in which the structures play in the community is unclear. He stated that the buildings are great examples of kit houses because they have not been altered; however, he stated that these structures do not meet any landmark criteria. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the buildings are significant and the landmark criteria have been correctly identified because these buildings represent a key element in the social history of Santa Monica since courtyard housing were significant in their role in developing Santa Monica's neighborhoods. She added that the architectural intactness of these pristine kit homes is also significant. She stated that designating the parcel is important to a certain extent but it may be unnecessary because the probability of relocation is remote. She stated that the Commission will work with the owners if relocating the structures becomes viable. Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to approve Landmark Designation Application 09LM-004, 1047 Ninth Street based upon the draft findings in the staff report.. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the designation should include the buildings only, not the parcel. Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the story of Pacific Ready-Cut Homes should contain more detail in the Statement of Official Action because that is a critical element to the importance of the designation. Commissioner Shari stated that the buildings contribute to the history of Santa Monica and should not be relocated outside of the City; she asked staff to include this condition into the Statement of Official Action. Senior Land Use Attorney 23 Rosenbaum stated that a Certificate of Appropriateness application will need to be submitted and reviewed by the Commission for any alteration, including the relocation of the structures. Commissioner Lehrer asked staff to explain what would happen to the parcel designation if the buildings were removed. Senior Land Use Attorney responded that the purpose of designating the parcel always serves to protect the landmark. He stated that there will not be a legal effect if the structures are removed. Commissioner Lehrer stated that designating only the buildings may undercut the courtyard designation. Commissioner Fresco suggested that it is unnecessary to landmark the parcel in this case because the configuration of the buildings will probably riot change. She stated that it is the property owner's responsibility to formulate a plan to relocate the structures; the Commission will then review the plan to determine whether it is appropriate. Commissioner Fresco noted that the structures are still usable because, unlike the Shotgun House, they are complete, livable units. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Fresco, Lehrer, Shari NAYS: Berley, Genser ABSENT: Kaplan 3. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Lehrer made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:09 pm. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote. 24 ATTACHMENT F City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report February 19, 2010 Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's office and the Libraries. 25 1047 9t" Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Evaluation Report Parcel Map Sanborn Maps Photographs Prepared for: City of Santa Monica Planning Division February 19, 2010 104'7 9t" Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation. Report Environmental Setting The subject property located at 1047 9th Street was constructed circa 1923 in the American Colonial Revival architectural style. The three detached Bungalow residences are situated on the east side of 9a' Street, between 10th Street to the east, Lincoln Boulevard to the west, Washington Avenue to the north, and California Avenue to the south. The subject property is bordered by multi-family housing to the north and south, 9th Street to the west, and an alleyway to the east. The Pacific Ocean is approximately one-quarter mile to the west. The legal description of the subject property is Town of Santa Monica Tract, Lot O, Block 67. Regulatory Setting The subject property was surveyed during Phase III (1990-1993) of the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Survey and was determined eligible for local listing as a Structure of Merit property and assigned a National Register Status Code of SS3. Architectural Description The three detached dwellings on the subject property were all included in the 1925 Pacific Ready- CutCatalog (Catalog). The two smaller identical residences on the property are listed as "Style 44," and the larger street-fronting residence is listed as "Style 84."1 The two smaller rear residences, which face north, are located along the walkway running west to east on the north side of the lot. Both have cross-gable roofs with exposed eaves and rafter tails. Their exterior cladding is wood horizontal clapboard siding. Both residences have a central wood door with three operable multi-light windows on each side, and two operable windows on their secondary elevations. The arched frontispiece surrounding the front doorways have American Colonial Revival style fluted wood pilasters. The larger street-fronting residence, "Style 84," has a narrow paved walkway that leads from 9rh Street to the front entrance. The roof is a cross-gable type with exposed eaves and rafter tails. The exterior is clad in wood horizontal clapboard siding. The primary elevation features a central wood door between multi-light sidelights, and three operable multi-light windows on each side. There are original windows on the three secondary elevations of the street-fronting dwelling. The American Colonial Revival-style, one-bay front porch has a broken pediment. supported by Tuscan wood columns. ~ Rosemary 77tornton, ed, California's Kit Homes: A Reprint ofthe 1925 PaciRc Ready-Cut Homes Catalog (Alton: Gentle Beam Publications) 2004, 27 & 46 233 Wilshire 8ouleva rd, Suite 130, Santa Monica, CA 90401 ixrenNer www.pcrnet.com rei 310.451.4488 Fnx 310.451.5279 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmazk Assessment and Evaluation Report Page 2 Historical Background Santa Monica In 1875, the original townsite of Santa Monica was surveyed, including all the land extending from Colorado Street on the south to Montana on the north, and from 26`h Street on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west. Between 1893 and the 1920s, the community operated as a tourist attraction that was visited primarily by wealthy patrons. Areas located just outside of the incorporated city limits were semi-rural in setting and populated with scattered residences. Following the widespread acceptance of the automobile in the 1920s, Santa Monica experienced a significant building boom, with numerous homes constructed in the tracts north of Montana and east of Seventh Street for year- roundresidents. 1047 9a' Street within the Town of Santa Monica Tract The three detached Bungalow residences situated on the subject property were originally constructed in 1923, according to Los Angeles County Tax Assessor records. No original building permits exist for the three detached dwellings. The three dwellings appear to be examples of Style 44 and Style 84 Pacific Ready Cut homes. They have high integrity and continue in the same multi-family residential use. The development history of the 9a' Street neighborhood is as follows. Residential development along 9a' Street in north Santa Monica was sparse before 1920. According to the 1918 Sanborn Map, there were three residences on the west side of the 1000 block of 9~' Street, and only vacant lots on the east side of the block. The 1920s was a period of burgeoning growth for Santa Monica. The area north of Wilshire reflected that growth with increasing numbers of multi-family homes. Although these residences ranged in size from two families to eight or more families, the neighborhood remained modest in scale primarily because of the uniform size of the lots, which were, approximately, 50 feet by 100 feet. During the early 1920s, preference for wood sided buildings in the Craftsman or American Colonial Revival style continued to predominate. During the mid-1920s the stucco and red the of the Spanish Colonial Revival style dominated new construction. Two examples remain extant from the early phase of residential building in the 1000 Block of 9th Street, including the subject property, and 1033 9`h Street, the La Mirada Apartment Court, which are both examples of courtyard housing from the 1920s. By 1950, only one lot was unimproved on the 1000 block of 9`" Street. There is at least one Pacific Ready-Cut residence located within a few blocks of the subject property, a craftsman single-family residence located at 908 California Avenue. It is unclear how many other Pacific Ready-Cut residences were constructed in the Santa Monica Tract, although based on historic Sanborn maps it appears that bungalow courts were once prolific in the Santa Monica Tract neighborhood around the subject property. The once ubiquitous bungalow court has been largely replaced with low-rise multi-family housing. Although a few representative examples of Bungalow courts are extant within the tract, it appears that they were- not fabricated by Pacific Ready-Cut Homes. Therefore, it appears that examples of both bungalow courts and Pacific Ready-Cut 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Page 3 residences are increasingly rare in the north of Wilshire Boulevard and south of Montana Avenue neighborhood in the City of Santa Monica. Pacific Read Based on County of Los Angeles Tax Assessor records, the subject Bungalow Court was constructed on an unimproved lot in 1923. No original building permits exist for the three detached dwellings; however, based on California's Kit Homes. A Reprint of the 1925 Pacific Ready-Cut Homes Catalog,z it appears that all three residences were ordered directly from Pacific Ready-Cut Homes, a mail order home manufacturer located in the City of Vernon. The manufacturing site was centered on over 20 acres near the intersection of Boyle Avenue and Slauson Boulevard. Pacific Ready-Cut constructed a variety ofsingle-family homes, multi-family homes, and commercial buildings, which one could order and have delivered to your construction site. The building materials arrived in wood crates and could be assembled in a few weeks, according to the mail order catalog. Pacific Ready- Cut manufactured over 40,000 homes and commercial buildings between 1908 and 1940, Pacific Ready-Cut was one of many ready-cut companies selling prefabricated homes in the United States during the early twentieth century. The largest mail-order house fabricator was Sears, Roebuck, and Company, located in Chicago, Illinois. In Michigan, the national, re-fabricated home builder, the Aladdin Company, became popular by selling California-themed bungalows with names that evoked images of California including the Pomona, the Sunshine and the Pasadena. In Southern California, Pacific Ready-Cut and California Ready-Cut Bungalow Company, were the primary ready-cut manufacturers. Architectural plan books including "Ye Plenary" Bungalows and the "Draughtsman" Bungalows, also provided a convenient method for builders and developers to construct bungalows quickly and efficiently. It is unknown exactly how many Pacific Ready Cut residences were built in Santa Monica, or how many exist today, nonetheless, it is clear they were once very popular but are now becoming rare. In her excellent unpublished history on the importance of Pacific Ready Cut housing in the development of Southern California, author Carolyn Patricia Fltynn lists Santa Monica as one of the many cities where Pacific Ready Cut homes were constructed. Because many Pacific Ready Cut residences were ordered and shipped, then assembled by a contractor or property owner and not the Pacific Ready Cut company, there is often no documentary record on the original building permit indicating a house was a Pacific Ready Cut home. For instance, the three-residence L-shaped bungalow court at 2318 5`" Street has no mention of Pacific Ready Cut on the building permit, although the three dwellings appear to be slightly altered examples of Style 33 and Style 61 Pacific Ready Cut homes. It appears from review of previous surveys as well as windshield surveys conducted by PCR that most of the known extant Pacific Ready Cut homes were period revival residences in the north of Montana area, while few of the smaller modest Pacific Ready Cut residences remain in the City. This development seems logical, since as property values have increased the smaller residences were demolished to make way for larger dwellings. Several of the z Rosemary Thornton, ec7, California's Kit Homes A Renrlnt ofthe 1925 Pacific Readv-Cut Homes Catalog (Alton: Gentle Beam Publications) 2004. s Carolyn Patricia Flynn, Pacffrc Readv-Cud Homes: Mass-Produced Bungalows in Los Aneeles 1908-1992, Unpublished HA, UCLA, 1986. 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Page 4 larger homes north of Montana remain, as they provided the necessary square footage for their valuable lot. Below is a list of known extant Pacific Ready Cut homes in Santa Monica where Pacific Ready Cut is mentioned on the building permit: Address Owner Contractor Date 653 Palisades Road Dr. F.M. Pattenger Stout & Menzies 1925 524 Lincoln Boulevard L. Blatz Jewett & Stout ~ 1923 322 11`h Street T.E. Nichols Pacific Ready Cut 1922 209 22nd Street Dr. B. R. Johnston Merjie 1926 369 22"d Street C.I. Hourigan Andrew Menzies 1927 318 23`d Street Dr. B.R. Johnson Andrew Menzies 1926 527 23rd Street Donald Gray Andrew Menzies 1927 601 23`d Street M. Pfaffman, Andrew Menzies 1926 45625`h Street Charlotte Lundin Fred Lundin 1922 908 California Avenue Andrew Merriman Pacific Ready Cut 1922 American Colonial Revival The subject property's architectural style was derived from the American Colonial Revival style which was popular from 1910 through the 1940s. The American Colonial Revival style drew heavily upon American Georgian and Adamesque precedents. During the twentieth century, architectural publications focused upon early American Colonial buildings, such as the White Pine Series of Architectural Monographs (1915), and widely disseminated photographs and drawings illustrating the Colonial Revival style. As a result, American Colonial Revival style architecture during the late 1910s was accurately based upon early American prototypes. The architecture was defined by classical symmetry, front doors with classical surrounds and fan lights or side lights, double-hung sash windows with multiple lights, wood shutters and gabled roofs.° The subject property is an excellent example American Colonial Revival styling applied to modest working class housing. Its subtle use of architectural styling allowed for the small bungalow to connect to the larger architectural context of the time. The modest residences embody many of the ° l~irginia McAlester and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Armed A. Knapf, 1990), P8~ 322. 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Page 5 style's character-defining features including classical symmetry; front doors with side lights; double- hung sash windows with multiple lights; gabled roofs; columns, and overall high level of craft. Bungalow Courts In the 1925 Pacific Ready Cut catalog section on residential courts, the catalog text states, On these two pages are pictured several court layouts-actual photographs of structures recently erected by the Pacific Organization. These are merely shown as suggestions. We shall be pleased to design special court layouts to meet the requirements of our customers. We have on file hundreds of court plots and plans available for your inspections Bungalow courts were a ubiquitous building type being constructed throughout Los Angeles County during the first three decades of the twentieth century. Because of the high volume of residential courts being constructed, the profit-minded Pacific Ready Cut Homes marketed their ability to create "hundreds" of different court layouts based on the "requirements of the customers." The small bungalow court located at 1047 9th Street is an excellent example of an existing custom-built court with high integrity. Bungalow courts as a type have a number of general configurations; however few courts are alike and most have some original characteristics that contribute to the type as a whole. PCR believes that the subject property is made up of detached bungalows organized around a public court, and that the property incorporates all three key characteristics of bungalow courts:6 1. .The focal point created by a central open space, which provides access and a realm for public activity; 2. The site plan configuration; or, arrangement of dwellings around the central space; and 3. A service zone often providing automobile access to the rear of units. It appears that the subject property is a version of the L-shaped bungalow court with the court opening to the alley and not the street. Although somewhat rare, a diagram of this type of court is provided in the typology diagrams in Coairryard Housing in Los Angeles. The subject property, an L-shaped bungalow court, does have a primary open space which provides both access and a realm for public activity. The space is located just north of the two rear buildings and is bordered by the adjacent north parcel. The space is as wide, or wider than most bungalow courts in the City and serves as a communal space for the three detached residences. The front yard space is a continuation of the north court space and is connected via concrete sidewalk. The sidewalk, which connects the s Rosemary Thornton, ed, California's Kit Homes: A Reprint ofthe 1925 PaciRc Readv-Cut Komes Catadaa (Alton: Gentle Beam Publfcattons) 2004, 57. s Stefanas Ply~oides, Courtyard Housin2ln Los Angeles. (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982). ~ Stefanos Plyzoides, Courtyard Hausin2 in Los Aneeles, (Los Angeles University of California Press, 1982). 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Page 6 9`" Street sidewalk to the alley in the rear, accesses each detached residence and serves as the primary communal circulation through the court. The subject property's site plan configuration is organized around the outside spaces. The front door to each detached residence opens onto the communal courtyard. The two rear buildings open onto the north communal court space, while the front street-facing residence opens onto the communal front yard. According to Conrryard Housing in Los Angeles, nearly all types of bungalow courts allow for a front dwelling with a front yard to face the street with the court in the rear (see attachment A). The front yard serves as an extension of the court and is connected to it by a paved walkway. Finally, a key characteristic of bungalow court is to have the garage in the rear or along the side of the court. Unfortunately, the rear garage of the subject property was demolished; however, it appears that its original placement was consistent with the courtyard housing typology. Occupancy History City directories indicate that Mr. Evan Brown, a dentist, resided at 1047 9`h Street from 1923 to 1928. In 1930-31 the city directory lists occupants at all three houses: Don Wood at 1047, F.J. Smith at 1047a, and Mrs. Jeffery Hope at 1047b. In 1933 the occupants remained unchanged, except Mrs. C.C. Joslin was listed at 1047. The occupant for 1047 changed again in 1936, .listing H.M. Dewart as the new resident. In 1940, 1047b was listed as vacant. In 1947-48 all of the occupants changed, Ando Sando was listed at 1047, J.J. Hoover at 1047a, and Jack Brown at 1047b. In 1952-53, the occupants changed: Edew K. Tumour was listed at 1047s, and Mrs. M. Bessie Shoup was listed at 1047b. Evaluation of Significance Person(s) of Historical Im op rtance Original property records are not available. The names of the original architect, builder, or owner associated with the subject property are unknown. City directory research over a 45-year period indicates numerous tenants/owners have occupied either the primary residence at 1047 9~h Street. (See City Directory Research page for occupant listing). In concluding the background research, none of the occupants of the property appear to meet the level of significance necessary for City Landmark eligibility. hi addition, a review of city directories to identify occupants of the subject property did not locate any persons of significant historical importance (see Appendix). Statement of other significance No evidence was discovered in current research of the property that indicates other significance. Is the structure representative of a style in the City that is no lonl?er prevalent? The subject property is an excellent example of an American Colonial Revival style bungalow court constructed using the prefabricated building system developed by the Los Angeles area Pacific Ready-Cut. The small modest cottages are significant representations of early twentieth-century working- and middle-class housing. Furthermore, the three detached residences document the 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Page 7 development of mass-produced housing in Southern California. With their exceptional integrity, the three dwellings serve as increasingly rare examples of a once ubiquitous housing type. The property is therefore representative of a style that is no longer prevalent in Santa Monica. Does the structure contribute to a potential historic district? The subject property, situated within the original Santa Monica Townsite, has not been previously identified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory or in subsequent survey updates and evaluations as being a contributor to a potential historic district within the City. The area in which the subject property is located does not possess a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of buildings that are united historically or aesthetically by plan, architectural style, or physical development. Additionally, the surrounding area does not reflect a unifying entity that conveys its overall historic context. Specifically, the area's setting, feeling, and associations have been substantially altered over the decades by the appearance of numerous postwar apartment buildings and condominiums, which, in turn, have negatively affected the design, materials, and workmanship associated with single- and multi-family residences of similar mass and scale associated with the years prior to World War II. Because of compromised integrity issues, there appears to be no identifiable district with which the subject property would be associated as a potential contributor. Conclusion In applying the City's significance criteria for individual recognition as a proposed City of Santa Monica Landmark, the subject property appears to rise to the threshold of significance for Landmark designation. As an individual resource, the property possesses sufficient historical importance or architectural merit to warrant designation. The manufactured home building type played an important role in the architectural development of the City of Santa Monica. Although there are other examples of Pacific Ready-Cut homes throughout Santa Monica and Southern California, groupings such as these with high integrity are becoming increasingly rare. This property is an unusual example of two styles of Pacific Ready-Cut homes that were built as depicted in the Pacific Ready-Cut catalog--not customized or modified by the owner or builder as was common practice at the time. In summary, based on current research and the above assessment, the property located at 1047 9`h Street appears to meet several City of Santa Monica Landmark criteria. The property was evaluated according to statutory criteria as follows: Landmark Criteria 9.36.100(a) (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. The residence located at 1047 9th Street is an excellent example of a modest American Colonial Revival style bungalow court constructed using the prefabricated building system developed by the Los Angeles area Pacific Ready-Cut Housing. It retains sufficient contextual and architectural integrity to represent the residential development and architectural history of Santa Monica. The subject bungalow court is a significant example of early twentieth-century working- and middle- 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Page 8 class housing, which was a highly important building type that provided housing for Santa Monica's work force. Furthermore, the three detached residences document the development of mass- produced housing in Southern California. The subject property manifests the cultural, economic, and social development of the north of Wilshire Boulevard and south of Montana Avenue neighborhood. Therefore, the subject property appears to satisfy this criterion. 9.36.100(a) (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The resource does not appear to meet this criterion. The building lacks the sufficient aesthetic or artistic interest or value necessary for this designation. 9.36.100(a) (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. Historical background research did not reveal any information on the property's owners and/or occupants that indicates historical significance or notability. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion 9.36.100(a) (9) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. The three detached residences located at 1047 9h' Street are excellent examples of American Colonial Revival styling applied to modest working class housing. The subtle use of the American Colonial Revival style allowed for the small bungalows to connect to the larger architectural context of the time. The modest residences embody many of the style's character-defining features including classical symmetry; front doors. with side lights; double-hung sash windows with multiple lights; gabled roofs; columns, and overall high level of craft. Because the bungalows were constructed to be easy-to-assemble and were delivered in boxes and could be constructed in one month, the residences are valuable to a study of a method of construction and craftsmanship, and are a rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. Furthermore, the subject property's high integrity allows this increasingly rare building type to serve as an excellent example of its now unique style and type. Therefore, the property appears to satisfy this criterion. 9.36.100(a) (S) It is a sign cant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. The subject property was designed and fabricated by Pacific Ready-Cut, the largest and most prolific prefabricated kit home company in the west. Historically ubiquitous, but increasingly rare, this property is now an unusual example of two styles of Pacific Ready-Cut homes that were built as depicted in the Pacific Ready-Cut catalog--not customized or modified by the owner or builder as was common practice at the time. Therefore, the property appears to satisfy this criterion. 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmazk Assessment and Evaluation Report Page 9 9.36.100(a) (6) It has a unique locarion, a singular physical characteristiq or is an established and familiar visual feature ofa neighborhood, community or the City. The subject property does not appear to meet this criterion. 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Page 10 BIBLIOGRAPHY Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica Bay -The First 100 Years. Los Angeles: Douglas-West Publishers, 1974. Santa Monica Bay: Paradise By the Sea. Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 2001. City of Santa Monica. Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update: 2007-2008. Prepared by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., March 2008. Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase I: 1983. Prepared by Paul Gleye and Leslie Neumann, 1986: . Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase IL• 1985-1986. Prepared by Johnson Neumann Research Associates, 1986. Historic Resources Inventory Update: North of Montana Area 2001-2002. Prepared by Historic Resources Group, March 2002. Historic Resources Inventory Update. Prepared by Parkinson Field Associates, September 1995. City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Department. Building Permits. Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. Architecture in Los Angeles. Salt Lake City, Utah: GibbsSmith Books, 2003. Ingersoll, Luther A. IngersolPs Century History: Santa Monica Bay Cities. Los Angeles: Luther A. Ingersoll, 1908. Los Angeles County Tax Assessor. Property Information Records. McAlester, Virginia and Lee McAlester. A Field Gtzide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington DC: U.S: Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997. Polk. Polk's Santa Monica City Directory. Los Angeles, (various years). Polyzoides, Stefanos. Courtyard Housing fn Los Angeles. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982. Robinson, W.W. Santa Monica: A Calendar of Events in the Making of a City. California Title Insurance and Trusf Company, 1959. 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Page 11 Rosemary Thornton, ed., California's Kit Homes: A Reprint of the 1925 Pacific Ready-Cut Homes Catalog, (Alton: Gentle Beam Publications) 2004. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Public Library, Santa Monica Index. Santa Monica Public Library Image Archives. Storrs, Les. Santa Monica, Portrait of a City, 1875-1975. Santa Monica: Santa Monica Bank, 1874. Warren, Charles S., ed. History of the Santa Monica Bay Region. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1934. Santa Monica Blue Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1941. Santa Monica Community Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1944 White, Col. Carl F. ed. Santa Monica Community Book (Fifth Edition). Santa Monica: Cawston, 1953. 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Page 12 City Directory Research 1047 9`h Street Year Occu ant 1923-24 1047 Brown Evan A (Cora B) Dentist 1925 1047 Brown E A 1927 1047 Brown E A 1928 1047 Brown E A 1930-31 1047 Wood Don 1047a Smith F J 1047b Jeffery Hope Mrs. 1933 1047 Joslin C C Mrs. 1047a Smith F J 1047b Jeffery Hope Mrs. 1936 1047 Dewart H M 1047a Smith F J 1047b Jeffery Hope Mrs. 1938 1047 Dewart H M 1047a Smith F J 1047b Jeffery Hope Mrs. 1940 1047 Dewart H M 1047a Smith F J 1047b Vacant 1947-48 1047 Sondo Ando 1047a Hoover J J 1047b Brown Jack 1952-53 1047 Sands Anton 1047a Tumour Edew K 1047b Shoup Bessie M Mrs. 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Repoli ATTACHMENTS Current Photographs Assessor's Map Sanborn Map 1918 Sanborn Map 1950 Pacifc Ready-Cut Catalog Extant Bungalow Courts (Not Associated with Pacific Ready-Cut or Prefabricated Housing) Location of Bungalow Courts circa 1950 in the Subject Property's Neighborhood 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Current Photographs Primary (west elevation) of street-fronting dwelling, view east 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Court walkway and street-fronting dwelling windows, view east 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Entry of middle dwelling (north elevation), view southeast 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Entry of rear dwelling (north elevation), view southeast 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmazk Assessment and Evaluation Report Middle and rear dwellings along court walkway, view southwest 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Assessor's Map ~ e m ai ~pw HN `s 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Repor[ Sanborn Map 1918 .~,~„~~ - ~°$47 c F e u _~ d~/1v~ C/ q ~o.„ 51 5T 8T:' ST ,r~ 35 5T ®- 'a a ~ z z 0 4 Q U B _~ a fl ~~~ i -~ _~ °Cirv Paax F ~615PH1 e__...~.~. k /W ~ C1 a ; s=° s~ 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Sanborn Map 1950 ' SroAAeNS^w/GC2 C 9 L.,. 1 tl J ®°LJ. IOTM (51 ST. ~a °~~ 8+h ~- i a n .. n Q ~FF ~~~ ~~ 4F ^A ' nv3 ' ~~'Lt..r Q £_' I~r ~ "A ' J~j~.I ~ y ~ ~ i ~ Q rL~ C. ~A u y ~ x 4 ~I ^' I Q 3Y~~ ~~°!v ~ae~ L~ ~y ~u !-I+ ~~ U .x. M - ian ~ LINCOLN BLVD. ~ _. fe'~~ ST.7 I' ( ..~. Af. L~li.'~ ~~ i -1 v ~I ~I~ lL~i,{I 9 ~~' I~ L-I n ~a Dln f CF i mV ~ xa: ~ ~~ I I !O~ ~~ m ~ v ~ 9 S.. Irr 3e"1:'p x ~SZ dAWTA3, ~x _ . - - ®~ I' T /(p !~ '~ y ~ > e r n,a r. ._ 6~n ~' ~~. ~ ~-I a. 1 :. Y 1 I ~ "~ ,~ - a ,wi ._ .. y.4' NAf£+~a NFU {tt ~ ~~ ~ ~ a o 1 / H, u ~~ p ua~ M/LFS 6YC~;. -°C / r r PARK +~. a ry ~ fe./ - ! ~J~.( l~ ~ - ® Scala of fcet. '~ ,,. 35 ST ~m,_v...~a -~ _~ } 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Pacific Ready-Cut Catalog ' e, , .f - , t i I 1 - ~: ~ i `i f ~r~ ~ ~ - -- ~_. `: Style 4i---2'ac~c ~eady-~'ut Home--Specifications ~:. -' ' Foundation-Floor ']'-30" above around. Woad steps for rear door. 2"xG" " " " ^ ". x 4 girders; 4 z 4 redwood mudsdk; 2" x 4" underpins on outside walls ; 4 " " " " -.-= - - z3 o.c.; 2 floor joists 24 -underpins ao piers. Frame-Dongtas fir. 2"xb tudding 16 o.c.; 2^x4^ rafters 24" o.a; 2"x4" ceiling joists ib" o.c. Double s Leaders for all door npeaings. F[oorsr-I" x 4^ tongued and grooved vertical grain hoot. Walls and Partitions-Framed for lath and piaster or fir floonag thro ' . , plasterboazd. C~ing height 8'-2%4". Outside of building covered with snsulatir . '; wood surfaced siding. Roof-3" surfaced f¢ boards covered with one layer of j ,,, - covered with 2-ply sanded roofing. 2" x 3" roll edge. 2'-0" projeMioa, supported t ~t `~ CV cnlmg supported by 6"xb" postr. Rails and balusters as shown. Wood floor I;fi" thick No. 403. All other doors No. 203 except No. 301 sash door from kitci e t ` ~ double hung as shown. Scrams-74-mesh galvanized wire. Full sliding screens f< . windows. o. 552 screen for front door: No. 551 for rear. Interior Finish-Bas s ~ - - `' ~~ ' ~ Ii o. 1. Continuous head casingg in kitchen, breakfast nook and bath. Bnilt-ia Fee 306: breakfast nook No. 701. 8ardwan ick cabinets No '306 sad No - t .~ . _+ - •' ~* - . . ne s sugazp batL. Balance of house dull brass. Front door to'have,bit key lak with 6un¢a]ow kf t b k d b k K J as tchen, rea noo an ar vats of paint, either white or color. Interior- h ;: ~`;~ -- enamel. Ba3anee of house one coat of stain. Floors-Living zoom and bedmams ' ~ floor paint. sercev porch, front porch floor and frbnt and:rear steps two coats af . '.'-: . ~,e , E .. M ' ... ; ,. ~ I ..'ny_,.,. u ... . Style ¢q.~1'ac~e ~eady-~'ut Home . _:;~ '~.. 8 'fi t' s one one ;~.-;~ ,peed Ca Ion ~ Style 44-sloe 24~x 22 and Porch s '~~~'? ~~ Foundation-Floor 1'-10"- above ground. Wood steps for rear door. 2"x6^ redwood mudslls; 2"z4" uader~im oa outside -_ ('r,• '-' walk - 4" x 4" idcrs - 4°'x 4" underpins on . iers. Frame-Douglas 5a 2" x 6" floor joists 24" o.o.; 2" z 3 studding 16" ~; : o•G: ~2"x4" rafters 24" o.t.; 2"z4" ceiling Jaistr 26 o.c. Double headers far, all openings. Hood in kitchen over stove. - Floor-1"x 4" tongued and grooved vertitai grain 9ooriag throughout. Walls and Partitions-Framed for lath avd plaster. _ Ceding height 8'-2yd".~ ~OnWde of building covered with utsulating felt sad ~"x 4" rahbetted and heve7ed surfa,~dd iedwood ` ~°`% - s'dmg. Roof-1" surfaced fir boards covered with two layers of roofing felt mopped with hot as~hattum and covered wide ;. ~ cashed brick or crushed granite. 24^ protection lined with tongued sad grooved CV ceiling. 2" x 3 wood ro7E edge: Entrance ~ r ' --Gable hood, arched CV ~ cei&ng, supported by fluted pilasters and brackets as shown. Masonry not included. Doors-Finat door 2'-8"x6`-8" I~" thick No- 4D2. All other doors No- 201 except No. 301 sash door for :ear. Windows-Casement and - doubtP h,.~" ,e ehnvm d,•.»~a-ta.mwsh ¢atvanized wire. FnIL hin¢<d for casement sash; half sliding for double hung win- ndle Paint Exterior, two coats of yaint, tither white ar color. interior-"three coats, two of oat antl one s-Living room, bedroom and closet Boors one coat of liquid filler and one coat of vamis74r~y1:{G$re sops two R. Style 41-Size 20 z 28 and Porch ' g felt and 3§"x 4" rabbetted and beveled red- oofing felt, mopped .witfi hot asphaltum and oy purlins as shown. Parch-Gabled roof with and steps. Doom .Front door 2'-8" x 6'-8" ert to screen porah._Wfndows-Casement and . Style 8 ¢ ~, `Pack `.Deady-Cut Home ~ Specifications The following specifications briefly cover the materials furnished. See Price List. Coat of mnstrnc[ing this Lame on youc ready for occupancy, iadvding all carpent¢ Labor, painting labor, cement work, plastering, plumbing, etc., quoted as regv Foundation-Floor 1'-g" above ground.. Wood steps far rear door. 2" x 6" redwood mudsills; 2" x 4" ssnd¢pins on ouv walls; 4" x 4" grrders; 4" x 4" underpins on piers. Frame-Douglaz 5r. 2"x6" $oor joists 16" o.e under living room and dining zoom, 24" o.c. nnd¢ balance of house. 2"a atndding 16" o.c.; 2" x 4" rafters 24" o.c.: 2" x 4" ceiling joists 26" o.c. Special beads far., cagement windows. Dm Leaders far all door openings. Hood in kitchen over stove. Floor-]"x4" tongued and grooved vertical grain fir flooring except Uving-room and dining room which Lave asub-floor of fu boards coved with 3§ x 1*/s" oak $ooriag. -~ Walls and PartitionsFramed for latL and plazt¢ or plasterboard. Ceiling height 8'-2yq". Outside of bueiding mv¢ed v insplatmg felt and ~" x 4" rabbetted and beveled red wood strfaced siding. Roof-I" z 3" or I" x 4" surfaced fir sLeathing covers with No. I *A* cedar shingles laid 4~e" to the weather ~ProjeMioa Ig" with boxed cornice as shown Ponh=Gabled raoE and CV ceiling sapported by 10' tamed colermns as ahowm Wood Boor and steps. Doors-Front door .3'-0"x6'•g" ];f" thick No. 30. AI otter doors No. 201 except No. 301 sazh door from kitther to screen porch. Windows Casement as ~showv. ~ Stationary side }igLts~h Uviag room, hinged side lights in dining room. Screens-l4-meat ga}vanized wire. FvU sliding sereeo: for casement sash. No. 551 screen door for rear. No. 552 s¢eens for side light's in dining mom. - Faterior Finish-Baseboard No. 3, casiaga No: 1, yictaK< moulding No, i. Continuous head casing m kltcbeai breakfast nook and bath. .. board sugarpine: sink cabinets No. 303 and Na breakfast nook No. 70P. Hardware-Nickel fiaisL is kitchen, breakfast soak bath. Balance of Louse dull brass. Front door to bit key lock with bungalow handle Paint-Facterior and ~ e¢een - porch two. ~ coats of 1 eith¢ white or color. Roof 1o receive one coat of sole stain. InL¢ior-TLree coats tLroughout, two ~ of gat and one of enamel. Floors-Oak floors to re paste fiU¢, one coat of shellac and wax. Bedroom $oa receive anc coat of ti uid filler and one coat of vac Front and screen porch floor sad steps two coats of pains Refer to pages I33 to 155 for illustrations of trim, d and buiihin features 46 Style 64-Sine 32a 26 and Porch 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Extant Bungalow Courts 1111 12t~ Street (Not Associated with Pacific Ready-Cut or Prefabricated Housing) 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Repor[ 813 14th Street 1047 9th Street Santa Monica, California City Landmark Assessment and Evaluation Report Location of Bungalow Courts circa 1950 in the Subject Property's Neighborhood ~-- S9MN dRw~a+.CbL. 51.0 +~;~L..:~~a z~ ~~( ~ g ~ ~ ~~ g 6F l tA. i~~I~"' i`_ ! ~Y_~~~~ w,. ~..: ~ ®''~ f Q,. .°~ 8,£ ~=` Z L I j ~ € ® ~~ EUCLID ~ {~ X Xr t '~ ~~ O ~~ ~li ~~~. 12i~ ST. ®' t a I ~ `- -' ~ o - L a ~- 0 Z ~©' d J a v v U zxP. ^, IIrH ST. ®. m~ T ~ s I ~ ~s I uJ ~ ~. . 88 ""'P== c ~ffi .f ©'`t~in~~ 3 ~ Q y~, X aX r' ~ . ~, ~ ~ • ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ' 8.. ••i~.q ~.~, ~,. Tg ~ Pur 1 ~ i 9 4~ b m ~ ,. o I~r' a a '~ t ~' D -- ~. .~ ~ 1 M ~s ~a ~ fF d ~' ~,~ r~ 0. ~ ~ ~~. ~~ m e~ ~~8 ~.. ~_ ~ I. ~:~ ~ g+: i ~ , ~~~~--..~ ,0 ~ 0 - a. __._ .... s.N 90.--=---- ~-~ ~`....~ D ,~ ,.. _, s ~; $, ~4 ~{ uXyr: ~ i $/A•/g/fY/Mq(kL cac...i6a ®'e~~ 9T: 52 X~ 2 Q~~~~~ q s 9~~ @ ~~-~' g `ate 4F Xx ~ ~ ~ I ..ate.. an ... ;~,....~'~e ~~ i ~Y I r~ l i e I .r i~J I i t- __ ~ ~ ~,~~-~~i~ ~a ~o .~~~- . ~~«..r rum.. .~ r lore / 51 sr ®~ r ~; LINCOLN BLVD. I}~0 J .~ $ -iD ~ ~ '~ ~ I ~ ' i h . ~ . O r~ ~-~ I_J c a , ~~__ rVe 68-=a- Q Q 2 C O a U ~ " , l q r~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ •- ~Ii~ r ,z 4" F d - J I~ ,, a w ... Nu .~ i .~ ce ym ~~ a ~> ~,~~ ~ - ? '.'A '' $ :._: Y 9 2 -_o r~s~- ' eo a H . a ~~ R T. 3 X, (~ o _~ ,N/LCJH9 t '~F -°CIrY PARK >_• T ~ ~J uu9~ wry a lr.. ~ ,~~ ® Sala of Feet ~_ 8 5 ~~ ~ 6 i4clc~ -~ lp- ~ MAR 9 2010 -__ --- - __ ;"~~ t,v t-E~ Uri _ _ l T- . (11~,~~ _ (~~'Vt le_vl _ _ _ _ __- - - _?V Y~ ~"~ U.~i-,2 c~J T~V )-~.i ~. l~'l W~1- J~-~-fll -_ ~~ -._._ UVl~tt,9r u,,1 ~ (t 2~ &.~l _ _k~-lit~vt~- ~~-q!!~ °1~L ~~- c~ ~~.ztiti~ V`Y~ ~y..?- ~2-uJ ~i C ,j ~Y~J~' ~2~ ~~'~~JS~ ~` ~ U ?~C~,ce~~ 5~,~~~~ (~-ef iv-~-~-~_-~ vn-„u~-I~Q,_ tip? tize.. CJ V ~ ~`~' e n ~~_V In n __. ~_ ~V-~~ U`~~~i~_~'-~-__~. ~~-~.. 7 ~ W ~-~- G~ _ ~ i'VL _?~~ D_U C rl~ _UV~ G~ L~-u~2 ~~ G U ~a~ c~l~ __ _ - ~~~~--~~-~-~ --~-~~-t---moo G.~~y~- i ~~ -- - --- ~ ~ - __ ~ ~, ~, ~~~:~ _ n~ ~Q_ _____ -~ ~~ . ~_ ~, r ~