SR-07-28-2015-6ACity Council Report
%aala Ifioniea`
City Council Regular Meeting: July 28, 2015
Agenda Item: ° -A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, ARB /Landmarks (PCD)
Subject: Appeal of Landmarks
Modern Multi- family
Structures of Merit.
I Z - •uii -1.-0 _ .n
Commission Decision to Designate the Mid - Century
Residential Buildings at 2002 -08 21st Street as
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the
Landmarks Commission to designate the subject buildings at 2002 -08 21st Street as
Structures of Merit based upon their age and the rarity of their architectural style and
on -site configuration as specified in designation criteria SMMC 9.36.080(b)(1).
Executive Summary
The property owner, Park Virginia LLC, has filed an appeal of the December 8, 2014
decision of the Landmarks Commission to designate the two Mid - Century Modern
residential buildings sited in a courtyard configuration, located at 2002 -08 21St Street as
Structures of Merit. A third residential building on the property as well as the garage
were not included in the designation.
The buildings have been studied and analyzed by the City's historic consultant,
Architectural Resources Group (ARG). They concluded that although the buildings -
constructed between 1949 and 1950 - were not identified on the City's Historic
Resources Inventory, the age, rarity of their architectural style, and on -site configuration
warrants designation as Structures of Merit.
The Structure of Merit designation does not fully protect a resource from changes or
alterations. Except for demolition, a Certificate of Appropriateness is not required for
any exterior work that may impact a building's character. Therefore, owners may
undertake such construction activities without oversight and accountability to the
Landmarks Commission.
Background
The City's Landmarks Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 9.36) formally establishes criteria for
the designation of Structures of Merit as a means of officially recognizing
buildings /improvements that are historically noteworthy, but do not rise to the level of
i[
.5ias
significance to be considered a City Landmark. The City's Landmarks Commission, or
City Council on appeal, is delegated the authority to designate a building /structure as a
Structure of Merit if it meets one or more of the following:
9.36.080(a) The structure has been identified in the City's Historic Resources Survey.
Me.
9.36.080(b) The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the
following criteria:
9.36.080(b)(1) The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design,
detail or historical type.
9.36.080(b)(2) The structure is representative of a style in the City that is no longer
prevalent.
9.36.080(b)(3) The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
Currently, the City has six designated Structures of Merit and 114 designated City
Landmarks. Structures of Merit are entitled to most of the same preservation incentives
as Landmarks, including eligibility for Mills Act contract consideration, as established in
the City's Historic Preservation Element. Except for demolition, a Certificate of
Appropriateness is not required for any exterior work or alterations that may impact a
building's character. Therefore, owners may undertake such construction activities
without oversight and accountability to the Commission. If demolition is proposed, the
City's Landmarks Ordinance establishes a procedure which allows the Landmarks
Commission to delay action for a period of time up to 360 days to allow negotiation with
the applicant in pursuit of the building's preservation. However, at the conclusion of the
360 day negotiation period, if a mutually acceptable agreement is not reached, the
demolition permit must be issued.
2of11
Property Description
The subject site is comprised of two separate legal parcels improved with three
one -story multi - family residential buildings and one garage building. The residential
buildings are positioned on the site to create open space in the form of a central
courtyard. All of the residential buildings are oriented towards this courtyard. A garage
building with original wood tilt -up doors, stucco cladding, and a shed roof is also onsite
and is accessed via a rear alley.
The two buildings most visible from the street are Mid - Century Modern in style, with
nearly -flat shed roofs and smooth stucco cladding punctuated by horizontal wood
cladding. Constructed between 1949 and 1950, these buildings have roofs with wide
overhanging boxed eaves cantilevered above the entries supported by angled, fin -like
stucco supports. The fenestration consists of original single and paired double -hung,
multi -light wood windows. Each unit has a single wood - paneled door and metal security
door. These buildings are included in the Structure of Merit designation.
Constructed in 1943, the rear building is only partially visible from the public right -of -way
and appears not to exhibit a formal architectural style, though it has a shed roof that
echoes the rooflines of the other two buildings. It has smooth stucco cladding, paired
aluminum sliding windows, and single metal paneled doors with metal security doors,
shaded by metal awnings. The rear garage addition was constructed in 1953. These
buildings are not included in the designation.
3of11
Subject buildings as seen from 21" Street
Rear of 2002 21" Street (not included in designation)
Historic Resources Inventory Status
The subject property is not listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory.
4of11
Landmarks Commission Action
At the request of the Planning Commission during its review of a pending development
application on the entire site (2002 -18 21st Street), on July 14, 2014, the Landmarks
Commission conducted a public discussion on the potential historic significance of the
existing buildings and improvements. The Landmarks Commission concluded that the
buildings appeared to warrant further study and asked that a future agenda include a
discussion of this analysis.
Staff engaged Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to conduct the historic analysis,
develop a context statement for the neighborhood and prepare a written report. The
report concluded that only the buildings on a portion of the subject property (2002 -08
21s` Street) appeared to possess sufficient integrity exemplifying Mid - Century Modern
courtyard housing to warrant further consideration as either a Landmark or Structure of
Merit. The buildings located at 2012 -18 21St Street did not warrant further consideration
or study. The report also noted that the Historic Resources Inventory listed a multi-
family courtyard property at 1625 Centinela Avenue that is of similar architectural style
and design to the subject property.
The property owner retained the services of its own historic consultant, Chattel,
Incorporated, to analyze and review the property and prepare an independent
assessment. This report concluded that none of the existing buildings appear to meet
any national, state or local designation criteria, and are not rare, unique or
representative examples of a Mid - Century Modern architectural style but rather a
commonplace and hybrid example of Minimal traditional and Mid - Century Modern
architecture.
In early September 2014, the property owner subsequently filed four demolition permit
applications for the subject properties and adjacent parcels (2002 -2018 21 s` Street).
These applications were forwarded to the Commission and scheduled for consideration
on October 13, 2014, together with both consultant reports for background information.
After review of the applications, relevant reports and public testimony, the Commission
5of11
considered both an original motion to file a Landmark designation application for only
the buildings at 2002 -2008 21St Street and a substitute motion to file a Structure of Merit
application for the same improvements. The original motion failed for lack of a second,
however, the substitute motion passed unanimously and the Structure of Merit
application was filed.
A final Structure of Merit Assessment Report prepared by ARG concluded that the
primary residential buildings on the subject site could meet the requirements for a
Structure of Merit designation, as a unique and rare example of Mid - Century Modern
style courtyard housing. The property owner's consultant also presented additional
information to the Commission that described another courtyard property located in the
City at 822 Cedar Avenue that is of the same architectural style and site configuration.
They further expressed that this recent discovery may have a higher degree of
architectural integrity than either the subject property or the Centinela property.
On December 8, 2014, the Commission considered all the material in the record, heard
public testimony, and deliberated the merits of the subject improvements relative to a
Structure of Merit designation criteria set forth as follows in 9.36.080(b)(1): The
structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type.
Commissioners commented that this criterion is highly subjective and lacks an
established threshold to gauge what constitutes "unique" or "rare." There was
agreement amongst all Commissioners that given the two other extant examples of
similar architecture that have been identified, it would be difficult to conclude that the
subject property is "unique." Still, some Commissioners expressed strong support for
the Structure of Merit designation, asserting that courtyard housing, in general, is an
increasingly rare property type in the neighborhood and City and an example in the Mid -
Century Modern style is even rarer. Other Commissioners, including its Architectural
Historian, expressed an opinion that even if the subject property could be classified as
"rare," it still needs to be a good and worthwhile example of a style that would warrant
preservation. The subject property, in their opinion, is neither exemplary nor clearly
Mid - Century Modern. Although the Commission voted to designate two of the existing
6of11
buildings as Structures of Merit, the decision was not unanimous with four
Commissioners in favor, two opposed, and one member unable to participate due to a
conflict.
Appeal Summary
The appellant filed a timely appeal on December 18, 2014. In the attached appeal
statement, the appellant reminds Council that a new residential development has been
proposed and its entitlement pending since 2006, culminating with a Planning
Commission request in May 2014 for the Landmarks Commission to discuss the historic
significance of the subject properties. The appeal statement describes the procedural
steps leading to the Landmarks Commission vote to designate a portion of the subject
properties as Structures of Merit. The statement asserts that the Landmarks
Commission action was not so much a historic preservation issue as it was a way to
conduct a broader discussion about the loss and erosion of affordable and /or courtyard
housing within the City. As the property owner engaged an historic consultant
( "Chattel ") to study the historic significance, the appeal statement also includes excerpts
from the Chattel report stating that the buildings are not rare or unique examples of the
Mid - Century Modern style but rather, modest buildings designed in a hybrid Minimal
Traditional style. The appeal statement concludes with an expressed opinion that a
Structure of Merit designation is weak and does not offer any real protection and that
the underlying concern with the citywide loss of affordable housing is really the driving
force behind the designation.
Historic Resources Inventory Status
The subject property is not listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory.
Discussion
Appeal Analysis
With no established thresholds or parameters to act as a guide, the determination as to
7of11
whether a potential historic resource meets a specific designation criteria is fairly
subjective. In this case, the question is whether the subject buildings at 2002 -2008 21s'
Street, which in combination form a low -scale courtyard apartment housing complex,
are unique or rare examples of an architectural design, detail or historical type.
Given the two other extant examples of similar projects found on Centinela Avenue and
Cedar Street, the subject buildings do not appear "unique ". Although the architectural
style is described as either Mid - Century Modern or Minimal Traditional, the more
relevant fact is that the subject complex has a central courtyard that is open and visible
to 21St Street. Although this signature design element was typical for the immediate
post -World War II era, the application of this site designing principle lessened in the
1960s and 70s and is infrequent in the design of contemporary multi - family projects.
Project economics (i.e. demand for more space on the interior of units) and security
concerns have made the open courtyard a less utilized design form, resulting in smaller
common open space that is often physically and visually "walled off' from the street.
While the City has many examples of apartment complexes and other housing stock
that reflect popular and historic trends from all eras, staff believes that the low -scale
courtyard complexes from the mid - twentieth century are less commonplace and
increasingly rare.
Conclusion
The City Council's review of this application is de novo. 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 9.36.080 and whether or not to designate
the subject property as a Structure of Merit. In applying the City's criteria for individual
recognition as a Structure of Merit, the Landmarks Commission, staff and the City's
historic consultant believe that the subject buildings at 2002 -08 21 st Street meet the
threshold of significance for Structure of Merit designation based on their age and
Criteria 9.36.080(b)(1). Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council deny the
appeal and uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission to designate the subject
buildings based upon the findings stated below:
8 of11
9.36.080(b) The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets the following
criteria:
The subject buildings were constructed between 1949 and 1950 and meets the 50 -year
age criterion.
9.36.080(b)(1) The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design,
detail or historical type.
The residential building at 2002 21st Street, in conjunction with the adjacent building
located at 2008 21st Street, combine to create a rare intact example of a one -story,
Mid - Century Modern courtyard apartment complex dating to the immediate post -World
War II period. Although courtyard housing of this type, style, and age was common in
Santa Monica and in the Pico neighborhood in particular, very few unaltered examples
remain. Although on separate parcels, the complex was planned and designed as a
courtyard apartment, and its two primary residential buildings were constructed between
1949 and 1950 as a unified design. While the City has many examples of apartment
complexes and other housing stock that reflect popular and historic trends from all eras,
the low -scale courtyard complexes from the mid - twentieth century are less
commonplace and increasingly rare.
Alternatives
As a de novo matter before the City Council, the Council may consider other options
which it deems appropriate, based upon the testimony and evidence presented in the
full public record on the matter.
Environmental Analysis
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
9of11
result in the designation of the existing buildings and would not change the existing
environmental baseline, there is no potential that the project would cause a significant
effect on the environment.
10 of 11
Public Outreach
The public notice for the hearing to designate residential buildings at 2002 21 st Street
and the adjacent building at 2008 21st Street as Structures of Merit 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.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of the recommended
action.
Prepared By: Scott Albright, Senior Planner
Approved Forwarded to Council
David Martin, Director 7!1612015 Elaine M Polachek, Asst. City MaW'a§2015
Attachments:
A.
Appellant's Appeal Statement
(PDF)
B.
LC STOA (2002 21 st Street)
(DOCX)
C.
LC STOA (2008 21 st Street)
(DOCX)
D.
LC Staff Report (DOCX)
E.
LC Minutes (December 8, 2014)
(DOCX)
F.
City Consultant Report (PDF)
G.
Property Owner's Consultant Report (PDF)
11 of 11
2002 -2008 21st Street, Santa Monl�a
Appeal Statement
On 12/08/14 the Landmark Commission voted to approve a section of the 2002 -2008 21" Street properties for
the Structure of Merit designation, culminating a long and tortuous journey through the planning process. In
light of this decision, we formally request the City Council to fully deliberate our earnest appeal and carefully
note the following:
The Park Virginia Town Homes delayed project (2002 -2018 21st Street) has been in the City pipeline for over
eight years. By rights it should have been totally completed by now. The delays were due, in measurable part,
to several shortcomings in the planning process, such as the significant mistakes by the planning department
in calculating the number of units resulting in over a 1 %: years delay and the preparation of the EIR which took
over 5 years instead of the customary one.
The original historic evaluation of the properties was prepared by San Buena Ventura Research Associates as
part of the EIR prepared by the City of Santa Monica through Rincon which found that "the subject properties
(2002 -2018) did not meet any of the criteria for designation as an individual landmark, district contributor,
or structure of merit. At the Planning Commission hearing on 5/28/14, the Commissioners noted that, for
legal reasons, it would be impossible for them to deny or delay the project. They instead opted to, apparently
due to the public pressure from a few neighborhoods and out of town persons, send the project to the
Landmarks Commission. We subsequently commissioned the Historic Preservation Consultant, Robert Chattel,
a noted courtyard expert, to prepare an extensive report on the project as a whole, with specific focus on the
Structure of Merit Designation, as more of a probability than a Landmark. Chattel's assessment determined
that the project did qualify for neither the landmark status nor the structure of merit status, reaching the
same conclusion as that in the San Buenaventura 3/07/14 report. The LMC engaged the City Historic
Consultants, Architectural Resources Group (ARG), to prepare a report. The ARG report, dated 10/10/14,
concluded that of the total project, the properties at 2014 -2018 21" Street do not meet the criteria for a
Structure of Merit; however, the 2002 -2008 property may be eligible for Structure of Merit designation. It is
important to note that the Chattel report, provided to the city staff, was somehow misplaced and therefore,
not circulated to the commissioners in the normal advance time of the 1b/13/14 hearing date. We discovered
the oversight shortly before the hearing date and thanks to Scott Albright the report was sent out on 10/13/14
before the hearing that evening. The lack of substantive material impacted the meeting with several of the
commissioners indicating that they had not had adequate time to read the report and review the supporting
information. The discussion period reflected that the commissioners were clearly unprepared to reach an
informed decision on the merits for designation. Some of the Commissioners quoted: "short notice ", "rush to
judgment ", "swirl of various issues ", "how to deal with it ". The discussion regarding the designation criteria
proved most Illuminating. As a reminder and from the Landmark Ordinance:
For the purposes of this Chapter, an improvement may be designated a Structure of Merit if the
Landmarks Commission determines that it merits official recognition because it has one of the
following characteristics:(b)The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age (which it is) and meets one
of the following criteria:
(1)The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type.
(This is the criteria that was selected and we believe has absolutely not been proven)
Commissioner Lambert wanted to clarify the unique and rare criteria. "We have hundreds of courtyard
complexes that are not rare or unique but if we don't broaden that definition we're gonna lose them" I Isn't
this the 800 pound gorilla in the middle of the room? Isn't the erosion of affordable housing along with the
vanishing courtyard breed truly the real underlying and overriding issuOere that is clouding the actual merits
of the property itself according to the strict Interpretation of the SOM criteria? The discussions strongly
emphasized the 'historic area 'and so begs the question, where is the Pico neighborhood officially registered
or depicted as a Historic District or area? However, the applications for demolition permits had been filed, and
under the mandated time constraints, LMC was forced to take action at the meeting. The only action available
was to flle the application for SOM designation of 2002 -2008 21$` Street, as to take no action would have
triggered the demolition permit. Ultimately, the LMC voted to file the application of the SOM. One of the
Commissioners additionally requested that ARG further assess the Structure of Merit status with a focus on
the historic neighborhood and the history of the workers in the area. Scott Albright replied that "staff will also
be looking to have more clarification with regards to the occupations of the properties' residents." This action
certainly was not a unanimous decision to move forward for the application of SOM on designation criteria
merits. Of great note is the fact that there was little or no mention of the occupant's occupation history or of
the Historic area which dominated their original report in the subsequent ARG addendum 10/27/14, which
stated that of the whole project, two of the buildings (north and south) at 2002 -2008 21" may be eligible for
Structure of Merit Status, while the third building in the rear (L- shaped) had gone through too many
alterations and additions to be considered part of this possible designation or of any contribution. This report
concluded that "2002 -2008 21" Street appears eligible under City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit Criterion
9.36.080(b)(1) as a rare intact example of a one -story mid century modern courtyard apartment complex ".
However their own original report contradicted this finding (ARG p.24.), which reads "This property is not
identified in the City's Historic Resources Survey, and was constructed in a modest interpretation of the Mid -
Century Modern style, which is relatively common among postwar buildings in Santa Monica ", therefore, It is
not a rare and unique example of an architectural design, but quite "modest" at best ". Why has the subject
property never been identified in the City's Historic Resource Inventory or in the City's Historic Resource
Survey? Maybe it's as simple as it doesn't belong in eitherl The Chattel assessment unequivocally and
authoritatively states that the structures do not merit designation, and they are rather a hybrid of Minimal
Traditional and Mid - Century Modern buildings, a style common to Santa Monica. We know that there are
approx 20 bungalow or courtyard properties in this area alone and over a 100 in the city, many being more
architecturally intact and a far superior example or representation of post WWII design which may deserve a
review for designation, but truly not this property.
The staff report claims, "The complex was planned and designed as a courtyard apartment and its two primary
residential buildings were constructed between 1949 and 1950 as a unified design ". We do not concur, as
they were not built as a 'mirror' of one another as is customary in this style but instead in a piecemeal
construction as per the correct Chronology of Development and Alterations (see table attachment A). The
staff report states that "very few unaltered examples remain." The North and South buildings at the property
have gone through several alterations such as the addition of metal security doors to all front and back entries
and replacement of all front and back door lights. In the L- shaped rear building at 2002 21 ", alterations
include replacement of wood doors with metal doors, replacement of wood windows with nine sliding
aluminum windows, addition of metal awning and overhangs over doors, addition of security door, and new
stucco finish.
The 12/8/14 LMC hearing was to determine whether or not to designate the subject properties. The LMC's
argument regarding the rarity of the property does not hold, as a minimum of 2 other properties one at 822
and 828 Cedar St. and one at 1621 -1625 Centinela Ave are virtually carbon copies of the subject property (see
attachments B and C). The Cedar properties were not located by ARG, but by our consultant who also
questions what constitutes rare. There may be many more similar properties in Santa Monica however, as
there is no directory or data base to research we remain with only these 3 at this juncture. Of note, all
Commissioners agreed to not even use the original word "unique" as it was too subjective, thus entailing a
most Interesting discussion on the subjective use of unique and rare. W.' at constitutes rare? How many Is
rare? The most salient remark which proves our contention was from the Preservationist Commissioner
O'Neill, who said "even if it is rare, what if it's not good lo
Throughout the LMC hearing, the Commissioners were divided with 2 strongly for, 2 strongly against and 2
totally unsure of the merits of the designation criteria. As the 71h member had recused herself a tie looked
eminent, Commissioner Bach said, "It's a sticky issue and I'm feeling much on the fence ". Eventually, after a
truly long deliberation Commissioner Kaplan finally capitulated and the vote came in at 4 to 2 for the SOM
designation only on the north and south buildings at 2002 -2008 21st St. Commissioner Bach admitted that in
all her years she had not witnessed such a passionate argument and such a close call. We believe the earnest
struggle was due, in great part to the on -site tour that all, but Commissioner Berley, attended where they
actually examined firsthand, the hybrid design, the patchwork quilt development along with the irreparable
structural conditions and probably convinced some that the site was probably not worth preserving as "a
representative and rare Intact example of the courtyard apartment'.
We sincerely believe that significance of this appeal accords us the privilege to both posit the facts while
additionally providing a valuable and hopefully insightful context. My wife and I are long time residents of
Santa Monica. We have owned the property for over 15 years, and have continuously endeavored to maintain
the property in the best possible condition, for ourselves, for our tenants, and for the neighborhood. At the
time we purchased the property, it was understood by us that should one adhere to the existing codes, laws,
ordinances, and requirements, then one would be permitted to demolish and build on the subject land. It
appears as though we are not being accorded those rights. During the long, expensive, and somewhat
arduous process of attempting to develop this project since 2006, we have worked closely with the city staff,
particularly the planning department, to assure that all the City State and Federal requirements are adhered
to, precisely. As always, we have been ready and willing to cooperate with the staff to further assure a more
balanced approach to the design parameters satisfying the legal requirements involved as well as the
neighborhood wishes pertaining to the project. It has always been our plan that once the children were raised
and on their own we would build our dream project of beautiful townhomes. We have never intended to
create a high end complex to house high income residents. On the contrary, our aspiration is to bring to life
what our City has envisioned and promoted, i.e. equitable housing for middle income and low income families
but in and more functional fashion beyond what these dilapidated units allow us to do now. Even if we wanted
to remain on this property as a landlord we wouldn't be able to, as the property itself has exceeded its shelf
life and is beyond repair. So, we now introduce the following facts that have a legitimate bearing on the
outcome of your deliberations:
LMC's argument (based on ARG's report) regarding the rare intact nature. of the property's architecture has
been refuted two other consultant reports. The physical integrity is confronted with the multitude of
foundational and system faults found throughout the property which are not able to be remedied by routine
professional maintenance and preclude any possibility of adaptive re -use. The correction of such problems
would require significant cost prohibitive demolition and new construction and thereby prohibits any
possibility of adaptive re -use. As per Fannie Mae Estimated Useful Life Tables, the majority of the
physical systems have exceeded their life span (see contractor inspection report and Fannie Mae table
attachments D and E).
If, as implied by the LMC determination, only a portion of 2002 -2008 21st plus the property at 2014 -2018 may
be developed then enormous complications will arise as it is impossible to divide this into 2 two -lot projects
without incurring exorbitant costs and starting the entire process all over again with an entirely new design.
This action renders the project infeasible to build and opens the door to severe economic hardship.
The ongoing support of the designation process of this property has bee'h weak from the beginning. First of
all, the SOM designation itself is extremely weak. Either a structure is worth a landmark or it's notl Is It worth
preserving for the future as a worthwhile example of a specific design or type or not ?i And defining the actual
meaning of the designations' ambiguous wording nearly exhausted the LMC, the staff and consultants. And to
what end? The SOM provides little If any protection. It only burdens an already aged and tired applicant and
his aged and tired property with needless delays and expenses for another year and to what end? And while
on the topic of weak, why the weak support of approval to designate by all the consultants, the staff and the
actual voting procedures at two LMC hearings? Why the push for this poorly cobbled together example of a
hybrid design that Is on its last legs? Do we want a designation that states this property is one we want to
preserve and archive as a rare and unique example of our historic architecture? We believe not, and concur
with the Chattel's summation. (see attachment F).
We understand the city's directive to seek to preserve the court yard style complex. But does that mean every
one of them, even if they are clearly not unique or rare as the Designation Criteria mandates, but instead are
poor examples and representatives? Isn't the SOM designation on this property possibly an error in judgment
made not upon meeting the criteria merits but rather upon real and perceived community pressures? Quoting
LMC Commissioner Lambert again in wanting to clarify unique and rare as the criteria demands for
designation, "We have hundreds of courtyard complexes that are not rare or unique but if we don't broaden
that definition we're gonna lose them l" We truly believe that this is the major underlying factor in this
complicated journey of complex issues.
We thank you in advance for your true deliberation and now rely upon the Council's ultimate authority to
render a fair and unbiased decision.
.t,
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF
THE DESIGNATION OF A STRUCTURE OF MERIT
DESIGNATION OF THE MULTI - FAMILY BUILDINGS 09SM -007
LOCATED AT 2002 21 ST STREET AS
STRUCTURES OF MERIT
SECTION I. An application was filed by the Landmarks Commission on October 13,
2014 to designate the residential structures at 2002 21st Street as Structures of Merit.
The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on December 8, 2014,
hereby designates the Mid - Century Modern residential building, originally constructed in
1949, at 2002 21St Street as a Structure of Merit based on the following finding:
9.36.080(b) The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the
following criteria:
The subject property was constructed in 1949 and meets the 50 -year age criterion.
9.36.080(b)(1) The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design,
detail or historical type.
The residential building at 2002 21st Street, in conjunction with the adjacent building
located at 2008 21St Street, combine to create a rare intact example of a one - story, Mid -
Century Modern courtyard apartment complex dating to the immediate post -World War
II period. Although courtyard housing of this type, style, and age was common in Santa
Monica and in the Pico neighborhood in particular, very few unaltered examples remain.
Although on separate parcels, the complex was planned and designed as a courtyard
apartment, and its two primary residential buildings were constructed between 1949 and
1950 as a unified design.
SECTION 11. The non - descript building located in the rear of the property, originally
constructed in 1943, and the garages that are attached to this building, are not included
as part of the Structure of Merit designation.
SECTION III. 1 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 8, 2014 as determined by the following vote:
AYES: Berley, Kaplan, Lambert, Chair Bach
NAYES: O'Neill, Shari
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Sloan
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.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted
January 12, 2015
Margaret Bach, Chairperson
Scott Albright
Landmarks Commission Secretary
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF
THE DESIGNATION OF A STRUCTURE OF MERIT
DESIGNATION OF THE MULTI - FAMILY BUILDING 09SM -008
LOCATED AT 2008 21ST STREET AS A
STRUCTURE OF MERIT
SECTION I. An application was filed by the Landmarks Commission on October 13,
2014 to designate the residential structure at 2008 215` Street as a Structure of Merit.
The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on December 8, 2014,
hereby designates the Mid- Century Modern residential building, originally constructed in
1949/1950, at 2008 215` Street as a Structure of Merit based on the following finding:
9.36.080(b) The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the
following criteria:
The subject property was constructed in 1949/1950 and meets the 50 -year age
criterion.
9.36.080(b)(1) The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design,
detail or historical type.
The residential building at 2008 21st Street, in conjunction with the adjacent building
located at 2002 21St Street, combine to create a rare intact example of a one -story, Mid -
Century Modern courtyard apartment complex dating to the immediate post -World War
II period. Although courtyard housing of this type, style, and age was common in Santa
Monica and in the Pico neighborhood in particular, very few unaltered examples remain.
Although on separate parcels, the complex was planned and designed as a courtyard
apartment, and its two primary residential buildings were constructed between 1949 and
1950 as a unified design.
SECTION 11. 1 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 8, 2014 as determined by the following vote:
AYES: Berley, Kaplan, Lambert, Chair Bach
NAYES: O'Neill, Shari
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Sloan
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.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted
January 12, 2015
Margaret Bach, Chairperson
Scott Albright
Landmarks Commission Secretary
z
• -
r • ••
CITY OF •
DIVISION PLANNING
DATE: December 8, 2014
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FRONT: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: 2002 -2008 21St Street, 09SM -007, 09SM -008
Public Hearing to Consider a Structure of Merit Application
PROPERTY OWNER: Park Virginia
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission
INTRODUCTION
On July 14, 2014, the Landmarks Commission conducted an initial discussion on the
potential historic significance of the existing courtyard residences. This resulted from
the filing of a development application that proposed the demolition of the existing
buildings and the construction of a new residential project in place on the subject sites.
The Commission concluded that additional analysis of the buildings was needed to
assess any significance, and that a context statement of the Pico neighborhood would
be useful for assisting in determining which resources would best reflect the
neighborhood's unique history. The Commission then asked that a future Commission
agenda include a discussion on the results. Staff engaged Architectural Resources
Group (ARG) to conduct this analysis and prepare a report.
In early September 2014, the property owner filed four (4) demolition permits for the
subject properties. These permits were forwarded to the Commission and scheduled
for public discussion on October 13, 2014. A preliminary report prepared by ARG was
included as part of the background materials resented to the Commission. This report
concluded that the properties (2002 -2008 215 Street) appeared to meet the criteria as a
Structure of Merit, as a rare and intact example of mid - century courtyard housing. After
further review of the background materials and after consideration of public testimony
that evening, the Commission filed a Structure of Merit application for the courtyard
complex located at 2002 -2008 21st Street.
-1-
The property owner has retained the services of a historic consultant, Chattel,
Incorporated, who has analyzed and reviewed the property, and prepared an
assessment report that concludes that the existing residence does not meet any
national, state or local designation criteria, and is not a rare or unique example of its
architectural styling, but a rather common example, and is not representative of a style
that is no longer prevalent.
A final Structure of Merit Assessment Report has been prepared by the City's historic
consultant, ARG, and is provided as an attachment. This report again confirms that the
courtyard complex is not listed on the City's historic resources inventory however is over
50 years of age, and maintains that it is a rare and intact example of courtyard housing
from the mid - twentieth century.
Historic Resources Inventory Status
The subject property was not listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notice of the public hearing was provided as follows: 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 C.
I_1 0 F- 3WIM61
Discussion
The parcel at the northwest corner of 21st Street and Virginia Avenue originally
contained a single - family residence, constructed in 1921; it was demolished and
replaced by the courtyard complex there now. The site is now comprised of three one -
story buildings which are site to create an interior courtyard open space. All of the
buildings' units open inward and have main entrances through this courtyard. A garage
building with original wood tilt -up doors, stucco cladding, and a shed roof, is also onsite
and is accessed via a rear alley. The two most visible buildings were constructed in
1949 -1950; the smaller rear building was constructed in 1943. The garage addition at
the rear was constructed in 1953.
The two buildings visible from the street are Mid - Century Modern in style, with nearly -
flat shed roofs and smooth stucco cladding punctuated by horizontal wood cladding.
The roofs have wide overhanging boxed eaves cantilevered above the entries and
supported by angled, fin -like stucco supports. Fenestration consists of single and
paired double -hung, multi -light wood windows. Each unit has a single wood - paneled
door and metal security door.
-2-
The rear building is only partially visible from the public right -of -way and appears not to
exhibit a formal architectural style, though it has a shed roof that echoes the rooflines of
the other two buildings. It has smooth stucco cladding, paired aluminum sliding
windows, and single metal paneled door with a metal security door, shaded by a metal
awning.
The City's historic consultant notes that there are approximately 10 courtyard
complexes within the local neighborhood that exhibit similar characteristics of the
subject property, three of which are Mid - Century Modern in their architectural style.
Two properties appear intact with minimal alterations. The consultant further notes that
the courtyard apartment at 1625 Centinela Avenue is very similar in both style and scale
to the subject property. This specific property has been identified on the City's Historic
Resources Inventory. In addition, the property owner's consultant has further noted that
822 Cedar Street is also exact in its styling and scale to the subject property, although
this is not located in what is generally accepted as the Pico neighborhood. 822 Cedar
Street is also not listed on the HRI.
Landmarks Ordinance /Findings
The Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to review the building's eligibility as
a Structure of Merit based on the criteria discussed below. The Commission may
designate a property as a Structure of Merit if it meets one or more of these criteria.
® 9.36.080(a) The structure has been identified in the City's Historic Resources
Survey.
The subject property has not been identified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory
and does not meet this criterion.
ME
9.36.080(b) The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the
following criteria:
The subject property was constructed between 1943 and 1950 and meets the 50 -year
age criterion.
9.36.080(b)(1) The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural
design, detail or historical type.
The property at 2002 -2008 21st Street is a rare intact example of a one -story, Mid -
Century Modern courtyard apartment complex dating to the immediate post -World War
II period. Although courtyard housing of this type, style, and age was common in Santa
Monica and in the Pico neighborhood in particular, very few unaltered examples remain.
The complex was planned and designed as a courtyard apartment, and its two primary
residential buildings were constructed between 1949 and 1950 as a unified design. As a
-3-
representative and rare intact example of the courtyard apartment property type, the
property appears to satisfy this criterion.
9.36.080(b)(2) The structure is representative of a style in the City that is no
longer prevalent.
The property at 2002 -2008 21st Street is a modest representative of the Mid - Century
Modern style, which is prevalent in Santa Monica and in the Pico Neighborhood. It does
not appear to satisfy this criterion.
® 9.36.080(b)(3) The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
The property at 2002 -2008 21st Street is located in a neighborhood characterized by a
wide range of housing types, architectural styles, and dates of construction. It has not
been previously identified as a potential Historic District. Therefore, the building does
not appear to satisfy this criterion.
Recommendation
Based on the research and evaluation of the property at 2002 -2008 21St Street, it is
recommended that the Landmarks Commission designate the subject residence as a
Structure of Merit subject to the draft findings contained herein.
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.
Structures of Merit
The designation of a building as a Structure of Merit typically offers very little protection.
In fact, in certain cases, where a designation is solely based on its status as a
contributor to a potential historic district, the designation is only valid for a 90 day period
of time (unless the designation of the historic district is commenced). Otherwise, the
designation is automatically nullified. This provision will not impact the potential
designation of the subject property as a Structure of Merit since no potential historic
district including the subject property has been identified. The Recommendation of staff
and its consultant is based on the property being a rare and unique example of a
particular style.
Concerning exterior alterations or improvements, no Certificates of Appropriateness are
ever required for any work, other than demolition. If demolition is proposed, the City's
Landmarks Ordinance establishes a procedure which allows the Landmarks
Commission to delay action for a period of time up to 360 days to allow negotiation with
the applicant in pursuit of preservation of the building. At the conclusion of the 360 day
hold, the demolition permit will be granted.
In the specific case of 2002 -08 21St Street, the buildings are located in an area of the
City that does however require formal discretionary architectural review and approval for
any proposed exterior work. However, this review and approval is outside the purview of
the Landmarks Commission, with review authority granted to the Architectural Review
Board.
Attachments:
A. Architectural Resources Group (ARG) Structure of Merit Assessment Report
(October 2014)
B. Chattel Incorporated, August 2014
C. Public Notice
D. Aerial Photo
E. Correspondence from Public
-5-
Monday, December 8, 2014 City Council Chambers, Room 213
7:00 PM 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica
CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS
COMMISSION: Chair Bach called the meeting to order at 7:07 pm.
ROLL CALL: Present: Margaret Bach, Chair
John Berley
Barbara Kaplan
Leslie Lambert, Chair Pro Tempore
Laura O'Neill
Ruth Shari
Dolores Sloan
Also Present: Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney
Steve Traeger, Principal Urban Designer
Scott Albright, AICP, Commission Secretary
Margaret Chapman, Staff Assistant III
Mr. Albright reviewed administrative items for the meeting and updated the
Commission on the following discussion /designation items: [1] Chain Reaction;
and [2] plaque for the Shangri -La Hotel. Mr. Albright reviewed City Council and
Planning, Commission agendas. Mr. Albright stated that the next Landmarks
Commission will be held on January 12, 2015.
Members of the Commission asked staff questions regarding the following: [1]
the professional building on Twenty -First Street and Arizona Avenue; [2] the
interior work on Rusty's on the Santa Monica Pier; and [3] the clock in the City
Council Chambers.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Jerry Rubin.
4.
5.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to move Item 10 -A after Item 8.
Commissioner O'Neill seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously
approved by voice vote, with all members present.
Commissioner Berley recused himself from this discussion because he is a
member of the design team for the proposed City Services Building.
Miriam Mulder (City Architect) updated the Commission on a study that was
undertaken to determine the feasibility of locating a new City Services Building
adjacent to the Santa Monica City Hall. Peyton Hall (Historic Resources Group — a
member of the Design /Build Team) stated that the historic character of City Hall
would be preserved, and added that the new project would meet the Secretary of
the Interior's standards for rehabilitation, maintain City Hall's eligibility for the
National Register, be located on a secondary or rear elevation, be subordinate to
City Hall, and be sufficiently differentiated. Fred Fisher (Frederick Fisher and
Associates — a member of the Design /Build Team) reviewed the design process
and described the various schemes that were considered for the project.
Members of the Commission asked the Design /Build Team questions regarding
the following: [1] any consequences for removal of the former fire station bay; [2]
whether alternative schemes were considered that align the floors of City Hall to
the proposed project; [3] options for a stepped building which shifts the square
footage to the north; [4] parking in the proposed structure; and [5] access to the
interior courtyard.
Chair Bach thanked the Design /Build Team for their presentation.
The Commission agreed that the proposed City Services Building is needed and
thought that Scheme 3 was the most acceptable.
suggested the following: [1] better access to
Boulevard; and [2] encourage people to enter City
respectful of the historic front entry.
Commissioner Berley returned to the dais.
COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:
The Commission did not have any announcements.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
5 -A. November 10. 2014
Members of the Commission
the courtyard off of Olympic
Hall from the back, but still be
The Commission made corrections to the November 10, 2014 meeting minutes.
Commission Sloan made a motion to approve the November 10, 2014 minutes
with corrections. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion. The motion was
approved by voice vote, with all members present; Chair Pro Tempore Lambert
abstained from the vote.
6 -A. Landmark Designation application 141-M -008 2667 -2671 Main Street
The Commission made corrections to the Statement of Official Action for
Landmark Designation Application 141-M -008, 2667 -2671 Main Street.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to continue this item to the January 12,
2015 meeting. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion.
A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Berley, Kaplan, O'Neill, Shari, Sloan, Lambert, Chair Bach
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
6 -B. Structure of Merit Designation application 09SM -006 828 71h Street designating
the existing single - family residence as a Structure of Merit
Commissioner O'Neill made a motion to approve the Statement of Official Action
for Structure of Merit Designation Application 09SM -006, 828 Seventh Street.
Commissioner Berley seconded the motion.
A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Berley, Kaplan, O'Neill, Shari, Sloan, Lambert, Chair Bach
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
7. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the
Commission)
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Denise Barton,
Jerry Rubin, and Ken Kutcher.
3
Members of the Commission asked Ms. Barton questions regarding the property
at 1305 Second Street (Mar Vista Apartments). Members of the Commission
asked Mr. Kutcher questions regarding 2125 Arizona Avenue.
on
designation of the Shangri-La Hotel in order to include additional historical
information concerning the building and its occupants within the criteria for
designation. (Continued from November 10 2094)
The Commission made ex pane communication disclosures.
Mr. Albright presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission
supplement the designation of the Shangri -La Hotel at 1301 Ocean Avenue, and
include Criterion #3, which Mr. Albright read into the record.
Members of the Commission asked staff questions regarding a book about the
history of the Shangri -La Hotel. Members of the Commission asked staff to
provide documentation to substantiate the claims in the book and asked staff to
have a consultant address the redistribution center issue.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to continue this item and asked staff to
provide the Commission with additional information based upon the discussion
for this item. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion.
The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.
9 -B. Structure of Merit Designation application 09SM -007 2002 21s' Street to
determine whether the existing multi - family residential structures should be
designated as a Structure of Merit (to be heard with 9- C)(continued from
November 10. 2014)
Commissioner Lambert made a motion to hear Item 9 -B with 9 -C. Commissioner
Berley seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote, with all
members present.
The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures. Commissioner
Sloan recused herself because she was a Pico Neighborhood Association
member who provided testimony to the Commission regarding the properties.
Mr. Albright presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission
approve Structures of Merit applications 09SM -007 and 09SM -008 based upon
the draft findings in the staff report.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Diane Miller
(consultant to applicant), Robert Chattel (historic consultant to owner), Hootan
Solemanzadeh, Peter Tigler, Scott Kelso, and Gloria Garvin (Pico Neighborhood
Board of Directors).
Members of the Commission asked Mr. Chattel questions regarding economic
hardship, Environmental Impact Report, why and when parking was removed
from the existing residence, the addition to the northwest building, and his
familiarity of modern vernacular architecture.
The majority of the Commission agreed that the structures at 2002 and 2008
Twenty -First Street represent a rare architectural style and meets the first
criterion of the Structure of Merit ordinance. However, Commissioners Shari and
O'Neill countered that the structures are not rare or unique, and are not good
representative examples of the style.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to approve Structures of Merit designation
applications 09SM -007 (2002 Twenty -First Street) and 09SM -008 (2008 Twenty -
First Street). Commissioner Berley suggested that the Commission discuss the
boundaries of what the motion would entail.
The Commission held a discussion regarding the motion and discussed
preserving courtyard housing, the rarity of the structures, whether the courtyard
is a character - defining feature, and whether the Pico neighborhood was
underrepresented on the Historic Resources Inventory.
Commissioner Lambert made a substitute motion to approve Structures of Merit
designation applications 09SM -007 (2002 Twenty -First Street) and 09SM -008
(2008 Twenty -First Street); Buildings A and C and their respective configurations
in relationship with each other. Commissioner Berley seconded the substitute
motion.
A roll call was held for the substitute motion and was approved by the following
vote:
AYES: Berley, Kaplan, Lambert, Bach
NAYS: O'Neill, Shari
ABSENT: Sloan
ABSTAIN: None
Commissioner Sloan returned to the dais.
G
9 -C. Structure of Merit Designation application 09SM -008. 2008 21st Street to
November 10, 2014)
Discussed with Item 9 -B.
9 -D. Certificate of Appropriateness application 14CA -024. 312 Wilshire Boulevard
consideration of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a facade remodel together
with a sign adjustment and sign plans for tenant improvements to a storefront
located in the Landmark Edwin Building located at 312 Wilshire Boulevard.
(continued from November 10, 2014)
The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures.
Mr. Albright presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission
approve Certificate of Appropriateness application 14CA -024, 312 Wilshire
Boulevard, based upon the draft findings in the staff report.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Howard
Robinson (applicant's representative), Giano Nguyen (project architect), and
Margarita Wuellner (applicant's historic consultant).
Members of the Commission asked Mr. Nguyen questions regarding signage and
color palette. Members of the Commission asked Ms. Wuellner questions about
striation tests.
Members of the Commission commended the applicant for their responsiveness
to the Commission's concerns. Members of the Commission suggested the
aluminum storefront color be the same as the railing color.
Commissioner Kaplan made a motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness
application 14CA -024, 312 Wilshire Boulevard, with the conditions outlined in the
staff report; they also made the following conditions: [1] the mounts on the
windows match the color of the railings; [2] the applicant works with staff on the
signage detail; and [3] matching the existing historic color based on findings.
Commissioner Berley seconded the motion.
A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Berley, Kaplan, O'Neill, Shari, Sloan, Lambert, Chair Bach
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
10. NEW BUSINESS /PUBLIC HEARINGS:
10 -A. Review of Demolition Permits and Consideration Whether to File an Application
for Designation of a Structure as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit
The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures.
Commissioner Lambert stepped out of the room.
911 Twenty -Sixth Street (14PC1763)
R1 — Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence and Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Discussion held. No action taken.
2. 2301 Thirtieth Street (14PC1771)
R1 — Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence and Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Discussion held. No action taken.
3. 2507 Twenty -Sixth Street (14PC1795)
R1 — Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence and Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
1430 Georgina Avenue 04PC1806)
R1 — Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence
Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Philip
Vertoch (project architect).
Discussion held. No action taken.
307 Marquerita Avenue (14PC1807)
R1 — Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence and Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Philip
Vertoch (project architect).
7
No action taken.
6. 311 Sixteenth Street (14PC1825)
R1 — Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence and Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Discussion held. No action taken.
2536 Fifth Street (14PC1861)
OP2 — Ocean Park Low Multiple Residential
Two -Unit Building
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
8. 847 Twenty -Third Street (14PC1888)
R1 — Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence and Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Timi
Hallem (applicant's lawyer).
Discussion held. No action taken.
9. 448 Euclid Street (14PC1891)
R1 — Single Family Residential
Single Family Residence and Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken.
11. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
11-A. Discussion and possible action to make recommendation for the City's Fiscal
Years 2015 -2017 budget relative to the City's Landmarks Commission and
Historic Preservation program. (continued from November 10 2014)
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Carol Lemlein
(Santa Monica Conservancy).
The Commission was presented with a letter which was drafted by Chair Bach to
open the discussion.
Members of the Commission made the following comments: [1] the Historic
Resources Inventory must have a fully - searchable database; [2] preservation
incentives should be included in Tier 2 developments when they involve a historic
resource; [3] all of the properties listed in past Historic Resource Inventories
should be considered historic resources; [4] improvements to the Landmarks
Commission meeting audio; and [5] adequate staffing and consultants support for
Commission workload, including anticipated historic district designation process
and NCOD process.
Commissioner Shari made a motion to endorse the set of priorities that were
discussed during this meeting for the upcoming budget cycle. The motion was
unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.
11 -B. Discussion and possible action on whether to file an application to designate the
existing single - family residence located at 525 Georgina Avenue as a City
Landmark or Structure of Merit. (continued from November 10 2014)
Commissioner Berley made a motion to file a Landmark Designation Application
for 525 Georgina Avenue. Commissioner O'Neill seconded the motion.
A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Berley, Kaplan, O'Neill, Shari, Sloan, Lambert, Chair Bach
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
11 -C. Discussion and possible appointments of Commissioners to participate on the
various subcommittees of the Commission where vacancies exist.
The Commission discussed the current appointments and relevance of various
subcommittees.
Chair Bach asked staff to agendize a discussion to establish a subcommittee to
review the Historic Resources Inventory process.
11 -D. Discussion and possible action to nominate one or more Commissioners to
conduct site visits of all agendized Demolition Permit applications and report
back to the Commission at the appropriate time.
Discussion held. The Commission determined that individual site visits to
agendized Demolition Permit application addresses are not a problem currently.
11 -E. Report from Zoning Ordinance and Housing Preservation subcommittees
discussion and possible action on topics and recent activities related to the
ongoing update to the City's Zoning Ordinance including but not limited to
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts (NCODs) permits and associated
timelines for demolition /substantial remodels transfer of development rights
housing preservation strategies definitions related to historic preservation and
parking.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Howard Laks
and Ken Kutcher. Commissioner Kaplan volunteered to meet with Mr. Kutcher
regarding a proposal that is being brought forth by the Landmarks Commission.
Members of the Commission asked Mr. Kutcher questions regarding height and
landscape flexibility.
Commissioner Shari made a motion to continue the meeting past 11:00 pm.
Chair Bach seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by
voice vote, with all members present.
Commissioner Shari commended the subcommittee on their work on the Zoning
Ordinance and housing preservation issues. The Commission held a discussion
and made revisions regarding a letter from the Commission to the Director of
Planning and Community Development about the redlined version of the draft
Zoning Ordinance update. The Commission also discussed Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay Districts.
Commissioner Berley made a motion to endorse the recommendations made by
the Landmarks Commission regarding housing preservation. The motion was
unanimously approved by voice vote, with all members present.
11 -F. Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison to the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) on recent ARB consideration and action taken on proposed projects
involving additions to or modifications of potential historic resources
Commissioner Berley reported that the Architectural Review Board reviewed the
following cases: [1] signage for the Krispy Kreme donut shop; [2] former
Wildflower Pizza; [3] signage for a storage building; [4] sign plan for 2811
Wilshire Boulevard; [5] signage for the former Callahan's Restaurant; [6] 301
Ocean Avenue; and [7] Saint John's Health Center.
11 -G. Report from Landmarks Commission representative to the Santa Monica Pier
Corporation (SMPC) on recent SMPC activities and action taken on proposed
projects involving the Landmark Santa Monica Pier.
Commissioner Kaplan reported that the Santa Monica Pier Corporation
discussed the following: [1] K -Rail; [2] the purpose of the SMPC; and [3] Rusty's.
10
11 -H. Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison to the Urban Forest Task Force
(UFTF) on recent activities and action taken potentially impacting historic
resources.
Chair Bach stated that she did not have anything to report.
11 -I. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only)
• •
Chair Bach stated that she received a letter from the City of Santa Monica's Civil
Engineering Division regarding cultural resources documentation for the Pier
Bridge Project. Chair Bach asked staff to distribute the letter to the Commission
and asked the Commission to forward any comments to staff.
13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Members of the Commission asked staff to agendize the following discussions:
[1] finalize the subcommittee list; [2] update on 415 Ocean Avenue; [3] Chain
Reaction; [4] update on revised Zoning Ordinance; and [5] San Vicente
Apartment Courtyard potential district.
14. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Meeting of the
Landmarks Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, January 12, 2015; Council
Chambers, City Hall, 1685 Main Street.
15. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Sloan made a motion to adjourn the meeting
on Monday, December 8, 2014 at 11:32 pm. The motion was unanimously
approved by voice vote, with all members present.
ATTEST:
Scott Albright Margaret Bach
Commission Secretary Chair
II
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Methodology .............................................................................. ..............................2
2. Architectural Description ........................................................................................ ..............................4
2.1 Site and Setting ............................................................................................... ..............................4
3. Alterations and Chronology of Development ........................................................ ............................... 7
4. Historic Contexts ..................................................................................................... ..............................8
4.1 Development of the Pico Neighborhood ........................................................ ..............................8
4.2 Courtyard Housing in the Pico Neighborhood ............................................... .............................15
5. Regulations and Criteria for Evaluation ................................................................. .............................17
5.1 City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance ................ .............................17
6. Evaluation of Significance ...................................................................................... .............................18
6.1 Previous Evaluations ...................................................................................... .............................18
6.2 Evaluation of Local Significance ..................................................................... .............................18
7. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. .............................19
8. Bibliography ........................................................................................................... .............................20
Appendix A. Comparable Courtyard Apartment Properties in the Pico Neighborhood
Appendix B. Photographs of Selected Comparable Pico Neighborhood Courtyard Apartment
Properties
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report Page 2
4: s
At the request of the City of Santa Monica's Planning and Community Development Department,
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. (ARG) has prepared this Structure of Merit Assessment Report for a
property located at 2002 -2008 21s' Street. The subject property contains a one - story, Mid- Century
Modern courtyard apartment complex constructed between 1943 and 1950.
ARG evaluated 2002 -2008 21" Street to determine whether it satisfies one or more of the statutory
criteria associated with City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit eligibility, pursuant to Chapter 9.36
(Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Completion of this assessment involved the following:
A site visit and visual inspection of the subject buildings' exteriors on August 5, 2014. The
property was documented with written notes and digital photographs.
® A windshield (reconnaissance level) survey of the Pico neighborhood on the same date. The
entire Pico neighborhood as defined by the City of Santa Monica was driven, street by street, so
surveyors could get a strong sense of the built environment of the neighborhood as a whole.
A supplemental windshield (reconnaissance level) survey of courtyard housing in Pico on August
13, 2014. This survey focused on the courtyard apartment property types most comparable to
2002 -2008 21't Street. This enabled better evaluation of the subject property within its
neighborhood context and against similar properties for comparative analysis. Surveyors drove
every residential and mixed - zoning street in the Pico neighborhood, the boundaries of which are
explained below in Section 2.1. For each courtyard property found, ARG documented its
address, property type, architectural style, and visible exterior alterations and compiled this
information into a table (Appendix A).' A selection of the properties were photographed
(Appendix B).
® For the subject property, background research including date research at the Los Angeles
County Assessor's Office; compilation and review of historical building permits obtained from
the City of Santa Monica's Planning and Community Development Department; and archival
research conducted at the Santa Monica Public Library and various online repositories.
® Development of applicable historic contexts and themes using information from the background
research and field surveys.
® Evaluation of eligibility under Santa Monica Structure of Merit criteria.
' Identified alterations were based on visual analysis only and were not confirmed with building permits.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, Ear Conservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
Page 3
This report was prepared by ARG Architectural Historians and Preservation Planners Katie E. Horak,
Senior Associate; Mary Ringhoff, Associate; and Evanne St. Charles, all of whom meet the Secretary of
the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History and History.
In summary, ARG finds that the property at 2002 -2008 21" Street appears eligible for local listing as a
Structure of Merit. The following sections provide a contextual basis for analysis and a detailed
discussion of how this determination was made.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects. Planners. £r Conservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
2.1 Site and Setting
Page 4
The multi - family property at 2002 -2008 21st Street is located in the Pico neighborhood of Santa Monica,
in an established, fully developed residential area just north of Pico Boulevard. Definitions of Pico
neighborhood geography vary by source; the boundaries used for the purposes of this study follow the
most widely accepted definition: Pico Boulevard on the south, Centinela Avenue on the east, Lincoln
Boulevard on the west, and Santa Monica Boulevard from Lincoln to 20m /Colorado Boulevard east of
20th on the north. The neighborhood fits into the area's regular, rectilinear street grid and has concrete
sidewalks and mature street trees. It contains both multi - family and single - family residences dating from
the early 1920s to the present, with most properties dating to the 1940s and 1950s. The immediate area
was originally subdivided in 1906 as the Campbell Villa tract; much of the rest of the neighborhood was
subdivided in 1904 as the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract. Interstate 10 (Santa Monica
Freeway) runs northeast /southwest through the Pico neighborhood, several blocks northwest of the
subject properties.
Boundaries of the Pico neighborhood, with red dot marking the location of the subject properties. Base map:
Google Maps, 2014.
The Mid - Century Modern -style courtyard apartment at 2002 -2008 21st Street is located on two parcels
at the southwest corner of Virginia Avenue and 21" Street. The property is slightly elevated from the
street and is surrounded by a concrete block wall and wood fence. The open courtyard is entered on 21st
Street; it comprises an open lawn with a mature shade tree, surrounded by a low hedge and concrete
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
& Conservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report Page 5
walkways. Various species of deciduous trees and low -lying vegetation are situated throughout the
courtyard. The complex's detached garage is accessed via an alley at the rear.
2.2 Building Exteriors
Three one -story buildings comprise the courtyard apartment at 2002 -2008 21" Street. Along the north
side of the property is a rectangular building (referred to herein as Building 1) that houses three
residential units. It is paralleled to the south by a very similar building (Building 2), which houses four
residential units, and is made slightly L- shaped by an attached four -car garage at the rear. The third
building (Building 3) is smaller than the other two, is L- shaped, and appears to contain one residence. All
of the buildings' units open inward and have main entrances through the courtyard. The garage building,
accessed via a rear alley, has original wood tilt -up doors, stucco cladding, and a shed roof.
Site plan, 2002 -2008 21't Street, showing Buildings 1 -3. Base map courtesy City of Santa Monica, 2014.
Buildings 1 and 2 are Mid - Century Modern in style, with nearly -flat shed roofs and smooth stucco
cladding punctuated by horizontal wood cladding along the bottom third of the walls. On their primary
facades, the roofs have wide overhanging boxed eaves cantilevered above the entries and supported by
angled, fin -like stucco supports that mark the divisions between residential units. A shallower overhang
shades the rear facades, supported by simple rectangular stucco supports. The buildings have single and
paired double -hung, multi -light wood windows. Each unit has a single wood - paneled door and metal
security door. Broad concrete walkways run between each building and the landscaped courtyard.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
& Conservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
Page 6
Building 3 is only partially visible from the public right -of -way and appears not to exhibit a formal
architectural style, though it has a shed roof that echoes the rooflines of the other two buildings. This
roof's overhang is not as deep as on the other buildings, and the building lacks the distinctive angled
supports seen on the others. Building 3 has smooth stucco cladding, paired aluminum sliding windows,
and at least one single metal paneled door with a metal security door, shaded by a metal awning.
The residential buildings at 2002 -2008 21'` Street were constructed between 1943 and 1950, with the
most intact and visible buildings (Buildings 1 and 2) constructed in 1949 -1950; the smaller Building 3 was
the first of the three constructed (1943). The garage addition at the rear of Building 2 was constructed in
1953. Visible alterations to the buildings include replacement of original windows with aluminum sliding
windows on Building 3; replacement of a wood door with a metal paneled door on Building 3; and the
addition of security doors to all buildings.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, Eq Conservators
2002 - 200821st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report Page 7
3. Alterations and Chronology of Development
Upon review of archived building permits obtained from the City of Santa Monica's Planning and
Community Development Department, historic aerial photographs, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company
maps, city business directories, and property data obtained from the Los Angeles County Assessor's
Office, ARG produced the following chronology of development for 2002 -2008 21" Street. 2 This
chronology provides a summary of the property's development and alterations that have been made
over time.
The parcel at the northwest corner of 21" Street and Virginia Avenue originally contained a single - family
residence, constructed in 1921; it was demolished and replaced by the courtyard complex there now.
The first component of the courtyard apartment complex to have been constructed was the small L-
shaped building at the northwest corner of the property, in 1943; the owner at this time is unknown, as
no permit was found for this construction.' In 1949, property owner Loyd E. Elliott, a barber from Illinois,
had two matching Mid - Century Modern buildings constructed on the parcel; in 1950, he would enlarge
the southern building by placing a small addition at the rear. In 1953, the Elliotts added a four -car garage
to the rear of the parcel, giving the southern apartment building an L shape. Elliott and his wife Julia
owned the complex and lived in one of the units until at least 1963.
Aside from the additions noted above, no other permits for major alterations were found for this
complex.
2 Unless noted otherwise, all construction information comes from building permits on file at the City of Santa
Monica's Planning and Community Development Department, and additional owner information comes from city
business directories supplemented by 1940 census data.
' Los Angeles County Department of the Assessor, Parcel Information, accessed online at
h t t p: // maps. a s s e s s o r. l a co u n ty. g o v /mapping /v e w e r. a s p.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
& Conservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report Page 8
4. Historic Contexts
4.1 Development of the Pico Neighborhood
Early Santa Monica
The roots of present -day Santa Monica, which was originally inhabited by the Tongva people and was
later incorporated into California's network of expansive land grants during the state's Mexican period,
can be traced to the early 1870s. Rancher Colonel R.S. Baker and Nevada Senator John Percival Jones
teamed to organize the Los Angeles and Independence Railroad, envisioning a seaside terminus at Santa
Monica Bay that would become the economic heart of the Los Angeles area. They constructed a wharf
and in 1875 had the townsite of Santa Monica platted and recorded; the original townsite was bounded
by Colorado Street, Montana Street, the coastline, and 26t' Street .4 East of the town, in what is now the
Pico neighborhood, William Spencer established and ran a clay manufacturing plant that made bricks,
pipe, and other building materials; to make the pipe for a large irrigation system project elsewhere, the
plant excavated clay from massive on -site pits up to 50 feet deep.5 South of Spencer's clay operation,
what would become part of the Pico neighborhood was largely agricultural land with fields of barley and
beans.'
The new town's promoters touted Santa Monica as a beautiful and healthful destination, and lots sold
rapidly during 1875. A small commercial district materialized, and some of Los Angeles' most prominent
citizens built shops and houses in the new community. Baker and Jones' vision was never to be realized,
however, as competition by rival railroad lines soon put the LAW out of business; Southern Pacific
acquired the line in 1877 and ran only light traffic on it until the 1890s.7 After reaching an estimated
height of 900 people in 1876, by 1880 Santa Monica's population had dropped to 400.'
Jones and other wealthy promoters did not give up on Santa Monica, and soon reinvented the town as a
resort destination. The completion of a transcontinental rail line into Southern California and the
City of Santa Monica General Plan, "Historic Preservation Element" (Santa Monica, California: PCR Services
Corporation and Historic Resources Group, September 2002), 10.
s Deirdre Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration: A Case Study of the Pico Neighborhood in Santa Monica,
CA (UCLA M.A. Thesis, 2007), 25.
' Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 25 -26.
7 Electric Railway Historical Association, Pacific Electric: Santa Monica Air Line (http: / /www.erha,org /pewal.htm),
accessed 4 August 2014.
6 City of Santa Monica, "Historic Preservation Element," 11.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report Page 9
subsequent fare war between the competing Southern Pacific and Santa Fe Railroad companies led to
an 188Os real estate boom across the region, as people from all over the country took advantage of low
fares and embarked for California's warmer climes.' Santa Monica was one of many communities to
benefit. The community incorporated in late 1886 and embarked on a bid to become the premier resort
city in Southern California. Santa Monica was heavily marketed as a tourist destination and gained
national acclaim for its recreational culture, balmy climate, bathhouses, opulent hotels, and amusement
piers. Jones tried once more to make the city an industrial center, partnering with Southern Pacific
Railroad president Collis P. Huntington to build the infamous "Long Wharf' and make Santa Monica the
region's chief industrial port, serviced exclusively by Huntington's railroad. After years of legal and public
relations battles, the backers of the competing port at San Pedro Bay defeated Jones and the Southern
Pacific, and in 1897 San Pedro became the Port of Los Angeles.
Failed industrial aspirations notwithstanding, Santa Monica's development carried on at a rapid pace
from the 1880s onward. In addition to its resort institutions, the city saw robust agricultural activity, as
farmers on the east side of town grew crops of everything from lima beans to carnations and saw them
freighted off to the larger region. The city's population grew steadily, reaching 1,580 people in 1890 and
3,057 in 1900.10 Residential construction first tended to be concentrated in sites nearest the ocean and
around the present -day commercial core. Small communities of beach cottages arose, many built as
vacation homes for affluent out -of- towners, and large residences were constructed on parcels atop the
palisades that overlook the ocean." Not all housing was for resort visitors; streets filled with modest
bungalows and cottages housing full -time residents, many of whom worked for tourist - oriented
establishments like hotels and restaurants. Religious institutions, schools, clubs, and other community
services grew to serve the permanent population, and city services like street grading and sidewalk
additions greatly improved the landscape after incorporation.
Residential development expanded eastward and accelerated in the early 1890s with the establishment
of electric railway service. Beginning in 1896, the Pasadena Pacific Railway between Los Angeles and
Santa Monica used the old Southern Pacific line to greatly increase accessibility to areas that had
previously been impractical to subdivide and develop. This line later became the Los Angeles Pacific
Railway, and in a 1911 reorganization, became part of the Southern Pacific -owned Pacific Electric
Railway. Within Santa Monica, local cars ran on Broadway, 3rd Street, Montana Avenue, and Lincoln
Boulevard." The already -heavy influx of tourists grew even heavier. Pacific Electric's renowned Airline
route ran near - constant service, carrying thousands of passengers a day in a crowded stream toward
Santa Monica's beaches and amusements. Areas south of the original townsite, Ocean Park in particular,
became the new heart of tourism, with ever - grander bathhouses, piers, amusement parks, and other
attractions. Away from the beach, in the eastern part of town, Santa Monica's permanent residents
were putting down roots.
' George L. Henderson, California and the Fictions of Capital (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 154.
10 Les Storrs, Santa Monica: Portrait of a City (Santa Monica: Santa Monica Bank, 1974), 17.
11 City of Santa Monica, "Historic Preservation Element" 12 -13.
12 Storrs, Santa Monica, 20.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report Page 10
Origins of the Pico Neighborhood
By 1906, Santa Monica had extended its eastern boundary to Cambridge Avenue (now Centinela
Avenue); by 1910, it had extended the city limits well south of Colorado, past Marine Street, wholly
including what would become known as the Pico neighborhood.13 The southern part of the city, to
include much of Pico, Ocean Park, and other neighborhoods, was demarcated by an east /west- running
gully that would later be enlarged to hold Interstate 10. In addition to the gully, the Pico neighborhood
had another crucial linear feature that helped to shape the landscape: the Southern Pacific rail line,
which carried freight and passengers to and from Santa Monica and inspired the rapid development of a
large industrial district in Pico. Among the area's most prominent operations was the Simons Brick plant,
established in 1905 to excavate local clay and fire bricks and tiles for industrial and commercial uses.1 It
became the center of a large brick manufacturing district, which both provided employment for local
residents and made a significant physical mark on the landscape with deep clay excavation pits and vast
brick - drying yards. Other industrial occupants of the Pico district included freight outfits moving crops
like lima beans out, and building materials for the rapidly growing city in.
The neighborhoods that grew up around the industrial areas and in the rest of the Pico neighborhood
were mostly working class, inland from the ocean but proximal to rail lines, industry, and agricultural
operations. Tracts like the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract (1904) and the Campbell Villa
Tract (1906), where the properties at 2002 -2008 and 2014 -2018 21" Street were eventually built, were
subdivided and lots sold slowly but steadily through the 1910s, picking up more rapidly in the 1920s and
1930s. Most of the neighborhood's earliest residential development was in the form of single - family
houses, with multi - family housing occurring much less frequently and nearly always in the form of
bungalow courts.
While the majority of Santa Monica's new turn -of- the - century residents were white, many from the
Midwest, the city had sizable minority populations as well; the oldest and best - established were the
Californios who had lived there for generations. Among the new arrivals from the 1890s to the early
1900s were a number of first - generation Latino migrants, mostly Mexican American (many from the
Valle de Guadalupe in the State of Jalisco), who had worked on the construction of the electric railway
line.15 They and their families bought lots near the line and became some of the first residents of what
would become the Pico neighborhood, in an area they called La Veinte ( "The Twenty ").16 It was in the
general area bounded by Olympic Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, 141h Street, and 20th Street, Santa Monica's
Japanese population was originally based in a small village near Santa Monica Canyon, which was
condemned by the city in 1920 and its buildings subsequently razed. Many of the residents moved to
the Japanese enclave at Los Angeles' Terminal Island, where they continued to work as fishermen, while
11 Thomas E. James (W.L. Young, Chief Draftsman), Official Map of the City of Santa Monica, April 1906 (Santa
Monica, California: City Engineer's Office, 1906), accessed online at
http: / /digital.smpi.org /cdm /singleitem /collection /maps /id /38 /rec /1, 8 August 2014; W.W. Phelps, Map of Santa
Monica and Vicinity, Los Angeles County, Cal, 1910 (Santa Monica, California: City Engineer's Office, 1910),
accessed online at http: / /digital.smpl.org /cdm /singleitem /collection /maps /id /19 /rec /2, 6 August 2014.
14 Dan Mosier, Simons Brick Company, Plant Number 4, Santa Monica,
http://caIbricks.netfirms.com/bricl<.simonssm.html mmhtml, 2010, accessed 11 August 2014.
15 Stella M. Capek and John I. Gilderbloom, Community Versus Commodity: Tenants and the American City (Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press, 1992), 58; Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 26.
11 Paula Scott, Santa Monica: A History on the Edge (San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2004), 55.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Lq Lonsemators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
Page 11
others stayed in Santa Monica and dispersed to other areas; a significant number moved into the Pico
neighborhood.
The city's African American population grew slowly from around 1900 onward, and established
churches, social groups and businesses to provide services often denied by the majority white
community. Most of Santa Monica's black residents first settled in an area around 4th and Bay Streets,
near today's Civic Center." By the 1920s, racial restrictions were well entrenched in Santa Monica;
African Americans were limited to jobs as domestic and service workers, and were prohibited from using
public beaches aside from the one at the foot of Pico Boulevard, known informally as the "Ink Well."18
The Calvary Baptist Church was established in the Pico neighborhood in 1920, first occupying a private
residence at 17th and Broadway.19 Through deed restrictions and less formal forms of segregation,
starting in the 1920s Santa Monica's African American population came to be concentrated in the Pico
neighborhood, further diversifying an area already containing a mix of Latino, white, and Japanese
residents.
The Pico neighborhood began to crystallize as a recognizable place within the larger city of Santa Monica
in the 1920s, as it became one of the most desirable areas for working -class residents to live. It boasted
lower housing costs than the neighborhoods closer to the ocean, and was well- served by the Pacific
Electric railroad. Some of the huge pits from which clay was once dug were filled in (others would
remain until the 1940s), and residents began working to have the sprawling brickyards operation
removed. Farmland at the eastern edge of town was subdivided and built out. Santa Monica Junior
College (now Santa Monica College) was established in Pico in 1929, joining other neighborhood
institutions like businesses, churches, schools, parks, and Woodlawn Cemetery. An African American
business district developed along Broadway Avenue between 17th and 20th Streets, offering a variety of
goods and services from barber shops to doctors' offices.20 In the late 1930s, the neighborhood
experienced an influx of African Americans who had been displaced from the historically black enclave
around Bay and 4 ", where the city sited its new civic center.
By the 1930s, the Pico neighborhood had a range of multi - family as well as single - family housing, much
of which developed thanks to a new manufacturing operation in the area: the Douglas Aircraft
Company. Santa Monica suffered the effects of the Great Depression like the rest of the country, seeing
the precipitous decline of tourism, but the manufacturing work provided by Douglas helped it to recover
more quickly than many other places.
World War II, Labor, and Housing in Pico
The Douglas manufacturing plant moved to the new Clover airfield in the southeastern part of Santa
Monica in 1928 and quickly became a crucial factor in the development of the surrounding area. From
the early 1930s onward, the company created thousands of jobs and spurred rapid development of the
Sunset Park and Pico neighborhoods. In the pre -World War 11 period, Douglas offered attractive
employment designing and building both military aircraft and commercial aircraft like the DC -3. Its
17 Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 27.
" Scott, Santa Monica, 55.
19 Scott, Santa Monica, 56; Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 27.
20 Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 31 -32.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects. Planners. & Consen�ators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
Page 12
impact was swift: in 1933, the company employed 965 workers, and just three years later it was
employing 4,300.21 During the buildup to the war and during wartime, the company expanded to build
military aircraft on a massive scale and its thousands of workers toiled around the clock. By 1944, the
Santa Monica plant was employing 33,000 men and women.22 Santa Monica saw a massive population
increase during World War II, which led to a severe housing shortage and cramped quarters in existing
housing stock.
Early in the war, Douglas refused to hire women or African Americans, but a severe labor shortage and
federal anti - discriminatory hiring rules convinced it to hire both by 1942.23 African Americans streamed
into Santa Monica from all over the country to work in the defense industry, joining Santa Monica's
existing population of African Americans and Mexican Americans in seeking new employment
opportunities during the war. The city's African American population increased from 1,265 in 1940 to
approximately 4,060 in 1960.24 Most made their homes in the Pico neighborhood, both because it was
close to Douglas and because they had few options when it came to living anyplace else in the city.
Racial covenants prevented African Americans from living west of Lincoln Boulevard, north of Colorado
Avenue, or south of Pico Boulevard, and less formal discrimination meant white owners were unlikely to
sell or rent to many of them .21 Santa Monica's Japanese American residents also experienced severe
discrimination, imprisoned in internment camps during World War II. While some returned after the
war, most did not after losing their homes and businesses; the Pico neighborhood would never see the
same concentration it once did."
Postwar Development
The Pica neighborhood came into its own during the postwar period, as its diverse population used the
advances it had made during the war to demand better treatment and housing options. While Douglas
Aircraft no longer employed tens of thousands, the new industrial manufacturing base built during the
war meant that after an initial drop, employment was able to slowly climb back up. Following
neighborhood trends, the tenants who lived in the courtyard apartment property at 2002 -2008 21s'
Street reflected a wide range of occupations during the postwar period; while some were aircraft
workers, others were restaurant employees, salesmen, nurses, construction workers, and teachers.27
Little information has been found on the ethnic background of the property's tenants; of the very few
names of early tenants that could be connected through city directories, most were found to be those of
white Midwest -born individuals, with several California- and Mexican -born Latino residents and one
Filipino American.
Residential development exploded across the city as building materials became available, and Pico
joined the rest of Santa Monica in the construction of hundreds of new multi - family buildings. As
21 Scott, Santa Monica, 112
22 Scott, Santa Monica, 119.
21 Scott, Santa Monica, 120.
24 Census Bureau Publication 9/25/1946, series p -sc, No. 175. Santa Monica (Calif.) Population. Socio /Economic
Study, Santa Monica, California [draft report) (Santa Monica Planning Department, 1974), 45 in ICF International,
Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report (Draft) (City of Santa Monica 2010), 70.
25 Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 30.
" Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 34.
27 Santa Monica City Directories, 1943 -1961.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, Co Conservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
Page 13
historian Les Storrs said about the postwar period, "It was then that Santa Monica really started to
become a city of apartment dwellers..i28 Low - density properties like single - family houses, bungalow
courts, and one -story courtyard apartments werejoined by two -story apartment buildings, larger -scale
courtyard complexes, and even apartment towers. Property owners squeezed additional units onto their
lots wherever they would fit, resulting in ad hoc complexes of buildings in different architectural styles.
Camps and motels for tourists, including several trailer parks used by car campers, were converted to
permanent housing. For new construction, builders used federal funds provided by Section 608 of the
National Housing Act. Most of these new buildings were wood- framed, stucco -clad, two -story buildings
that covered 72% of their total lot area.29
By the 1950s, Santa Monica was well established as a center of industry as well as recreation, and was
strongly connected to the larger regional economy. The city began a number of substantial civic
improvements to better serve its growing population (and to present a more modern fayade to the
world). One of the most visible was the destructive "urban renewal" that demolished old bungalows and
beach cottages in the adjacent Ocean Park neighborhood, many of which had been occupied by African
Americans and Mexican Americans. The older housing was replaced with newer, more expensive
housing, as well as commercial operations and other properties aiming for what the city saw as the
area's "highest and best use." Over the next 20 years, the city's commercial and mixed -use zoned areas
began to see more and bigger developments, from condominium complexes to office towers,
establishing the streetscape which marks Santa Monica today.
Part of Santa Monica's 1950s push for development was a new plan for a better connection to the rest
of Los Angeles: the construction of the Santa Monica Freeway (Interstate 10) between downtown Los
Angeles and the Pacific Ocean. City leaders lobbied regional transportation authorities to have the
freeway sited through Santa Monica, seeing huge benefits in facilitating travel to their city, and
successfully won in the late 1950s. Despite protests from local residents facing the loss of their homes
and the division of their neighborhood by an eight -lane freeway, the city decided to route the freeway
through the gully that transected Pico. The Pico neighborhood had few resources to defend against the
construction: it had Santa Monica's lowest incomes, highest minority population, and no representation
on the City Council.30
With the construction of the freeway, an estimated 1,500 people were displaced, their homes,
businesses, and cultural institutions demolished; on average, displaced residents had lived in the Pico
neighborhood for 17 years.31 The freeway was constructed through Pico between 1964 and 1966, and
had an immediate, devastating effect on the neighborhood. The payment homeowners received for
their properties was usually not enough to purchase a comparable home in another part of Santa
Monica, so many of the area's African American and Latino residents were forced to move out of the
29 Storrs, Santa Monica, 41.
29 Storrs, Santa Monica, 41.
30 In 1946, the City Council had defeated a measure that would have created council districts, ensuring all
neighborhoods in the city would be represented. Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 36.
31 Gary Squier, Anita Landecker, and Paul Zimmerman, Pico Neighborhood Community Plan (Santa Monica,
California: Pico Neighborhood Association, 1983), 24,
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
& Conservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
city or find rental housing. A once - cohesive neighborhood was split in two. Historian Paula Scott
summarized the effect of the freeway on Pico:
Page 14
Whatever the intentions of city decision - makers, the effect of building the freeway through
Santa Monica's densest minority area effectively counteracted several decades of civil- rights
improvements. Lives and businesses that had been painstakingly built up were disbanded and
long -time residents were pushed out of the city altogether. Moreover, by agreeing to destroy a
large pocket of affordable housing in the city, officials reduced the economic diversity of the city
and thereby discouraged minorities from seeking homes in Santa Monica in the future."
Santa Monica's newfound accessibility made it more attractive to higher- income residents, who could
now live at the beach while still easily accessing work in other parts of the Los Angeles basin via the 10
Freeway. Housing prices soared in the 1960s and 1970s, leading to the demolition of smaller, older
apartment buildings and single - family houses to make way for larger multi - family buildings. In 1979,
voters amended the city charter to establish rent control with the goal of preserving low and moderate
income rental housing and giving tenants more rights. In the same year, Pico neighborhood residents
frustrated by the city's treatment of the area formed the Pico Neighborhood Association (PNA) to serve
as an advocacy and planning group. Both rent control and PNA advocacy served as valuable tools in
preserving affordable housing and city services in the marginalized neighborhood. Rent control remains
in effect, but in 1995 the city's laws were altered so landlords can raise rents to market rates when a
unit is vacated.
Built Environment of the Pico Neighborhood
As the above discussion demonstrates, the Pico neighborhood developed most of its building stock from
the 1930s to the late 1960s. It had earlier (1910s- 1920s) residential examples, from Craftsman cottages
to Spanish Colonial Revival bungalow courts, as well as institutions like churches, schools, and a
cemetery (established 1897). Construction in the neighborhood reached its peak during World War II
and in the immediate postwar period, when returning veterans settled in the area and once - temporary
defense workers decided to stay permanently. The most common architectural styles are Minimal
Traditional (some with modest Ranch or Modern stylistic elements), Mid - Century Modern, and Spanish
Colonial Revival. Vernacular properties without a formal architectural style are also common,
particularly in the commercial corridors and industrial districts.
The neighborhood includes subdivisions exclusively or primarily containing single - family houses dating
mostly to the 1940s, as in the area around Delaware Boulevard in the eastern portion of Pico. More
typical streetscapes include a mix of one- and two -story multi - family building types (apartment
buildings, courtyard apartments, and bungalow courts) interspersed with single - family houses. The
neighborhood is also notable for its high amount of industrially zoned areas compared to other areas of
Santa Monica; this is partly because of its historical proximity to rail lines and partly because of
purposeful zoning. In 1929 and again in 1937 and 1948, comprehensive zoning plans shaped the area's
development; these plans formally delineated the industrial district between Colorado Avenue and what
is now the Santa Monica Freeway.33 The neighborhood also has a large amount of mixed -use zoning,
32 Scott, Santa Monica, 136.
33 Pfeiffer, The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration, 29; Storrs, Santa Monica, 41.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
2002.2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
Page 15
meaning that it is fairly common to see apartment buildings (usually two -story apartment houses from
the 1940s to the 1960s) on streets also containing industrial and commercial properties. Subdivisions of
single - family houses tend to have multi - family properties along the edges and facing the larger streets.
A windshield survey of the neighborhood found that much of the Pico neighborhood's historical multi-
family and single - family housing stock remains, although unaltered examples are rare even in areas with
concentrations of extant 1930s -1950s buildings. Later infill from the 1970s into the present day is
common, characterized by two to five story apartment buildings that maximize their lot coverage, many
with below -grade parking. On the whole, the Pico neighborhood is characterized by a broad mix of
property types with a wide age range. The immediate area around the subject properties at 21'` Street
and Virginia Avenue exhibits the same pattern, with a mix of multi - family and single - family properties
dating from the 1910s to the 2000s; there is not a cohesive grouping of intact properties sharing a
period of significance in the vicinity of the subject properties.
4.2 Courtyard Housing in the Pico Neighborhood
Between the 1920s and the 1950s, much of Pico's multi - family housing was courtyard housing. The term
'courtyard housing' is broadly understood to include a spectrum of multifamily property types with
characteristic communal site planning features, including courtyard apartments, garden courts, and
bungalow courts.39 The complex at 2002 -2008 21" Street features two rows of attached units around a
central court, a form often referred to as a courtyard apartment.
Bungalow courts are the earliest form of courtyard housing seen in Santa Monica; this property type
appeared in Southern California as early as the 1910s before reaching widespread popularity in the
1920s. The earliest and most prevalent examples consist of single - family bungalows arranged in a series,
typically facing a center court. The automobile featured prominently in the development of bungalow
courts; by the 1920s nearly all had accommodations for the automobile, commonly with a central or
side driveway leading to rear garages, or alley access. Although early bungalow courts were often
constructed by builders rather than architects and intended for residents of modest means, their
evolution represented a major shift from preceding idioms of American dwelling types. Bungalow courts
were the first multi - family prototype to focus more on space than object, providing residents with the
advantages of parks and shared spaces for communal interaction within a densely urban setting. The
architectural styles most commonly associated with bungalow courts are Craftsman and Spanish
Colonial Revival, although they were designed in other styles, including American Colonial Revival,
Streamline Moderne, Minimal Traditional, and Ranch.
Traditional bungalow courts gave way to other forms of courtyard housing both elaborate and modest in
the decades before and after World War II. In the Pico neighborhood, minimal courtyard apartments
were very common; one -story versions with one to three buildings oriented around a small courtyard
30 Santa Monica's courtyard housing is addressed in more detail in Architectural Resources Group, San Vicente
Apartments: Courtyard Housing Study (City of Santa Monica October 2009), and much of the discussion here is
from that document.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Conservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
Page 16
made the most of a small lot without sacrificing the landscaped interior. Employing a U- shaped or
"double -bar" plan, these tended to be open to the street or featured a low wall over which the
courtyard was visible. Two -story courtyard apartment complexes with one or more buildings offered
more units oriented around the interior courtyard, which continued to serve as the primary location of
pedestrian circulation and open space. Larger, later complexes from the 1950s onward were more
concerned with privacy, and often had a nearly solid streetwall with a small opening into the courtyard.
In some, the lush landscaping and sitting areas gave way to swimming pools for communal use. Across
all of these common courtyard apartment types, individual dwelling unit entrances opened into the
interior courtyard, with occasional street - facing units in the front. The most common architectural styles
for 1940s and 1950s courtyard apartments in this area were Minimal Traditional, Mid - Century Modern,
and Late Moderne.
In the 1960s and 70s, as an emphasis on maximizing lot capacity prevailed, courtyards were seen as
wasted space that could be profitable as inhabitable, rentable square footage. Large, central courtyards
were eliminated or replaced with small lightwells providing natural light to units, and in many cases
corridors were placed indoors or at side elevations with exterior balconies. The Pico neighborhood has a
sizable number of two to three -story apartment buildings from the 1970s to the 1990s that maximize
their lot coverage and have little to no open courtyard space in the center.
One -story Courtyard Housing in the Pico Neighborhood: Windshield Survey
ARG conducted a windshield survey of the Pico neighborhood on August 13, 2014, focusing specifically
on the courtyard apartment property types most comparable to the one -story courtyard apartment at
2002 -2008. The survey found a total of ten properties of this type within the Pico neighborhood (not
including the subject property). A list of all properties identified is included in Appendix A; photographs
of selected properties are included in Appendix B.
The identified courtyard apartments have a date range of 1926 to 1954, with the vast majority (nine of
ten) constructed between 1942 and 1954. The most common style is Minimal Traditional (six examples),
with lesser amounts of Mid - Century Modern (three) and one Spanish Colonial Revival. Two properties, a
1942 Minimal Traditional complex at 1801 -1807 9`h Street and a Mid - Century Modern complex at 1625
Centinela Avenue, appear to be intact with no visible alterations besides the addition of fencing. Two
other properties (3120 Colorado Avenue and 1420 -1422 20`^ Street) have low visibility because of
hedges and fences so their condition and integrity are unknown.
Santa Monica's historic resource inventory (HRI) notes the courtyard apartment at 1625 Centinela has
been found eligible for local listing as a Structure of Merit. It is very similar in both style and scale to the
complex at 2002 -2008 21" Street.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Z? l.onservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report Page 17
5. Regulations and Criteria for Evaluation
5.1 City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance
Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.36 (Landmarks and Historic Districts
Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. The Ordinance was adopted by the Santa Monica City
Council on March 24, 1976 and was twice amended, first in 1987 and again in 1991.35 Among the
primary objectives achieved by the Ordinance was the creation of a local designation program for
buildings, structures, sites, objects, districts, and landscapes in the City that are of historical significance.
With regard to individually significant properties, the Ordinance distinguishes between two tiers of
designation: Landmarks and Structures of Merit. Landmarks, outlined in §9.36.100, are considered to
exhibit "the highest level of individual historical or architectural significance'; Santa Monica's
designated landmarks include well -known and highly significant properties like the Rapp Saloon, Santa
Monica City Hall, and the John Byers Adobe. Structures of Merit, outlined in §9.36.080, possess a degree
of individual significance that is more limited in scope.36 Protections against demolition and alterations
are commensurate with the tier of individual designation assigned to a particular resource.
In addition to individual Landmarks and Structures of Merit, the Ordinance establishes statutory criteria
and procedures for the designation of Historic Districts, defined in §9.36.030 as a "geographic area or
noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties" that collectively contribute to the historic
character of an area within the City. Unlike individual properties, whose designation does not require
owner consent and is approved by the City's Landmarks Commission, Historic Districts must win the
support of a majority of property owners within the district and be approved by the City Council.37
Per §9.36.080 of the Ordinance, a property merits consideration as a Structure of Merit if it satisfies one
or more of the following statutory criteria:
(a) It has been identified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory.
(b) It is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following criteria:
(1) It is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type.
(2) It is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
(3) The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
35 City of Santa Monica General Plan, "Historic Preservation Element," prepared by PCR Services Corporation and Historic
Resources Group (September 2002), 1 -2.
36 City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department, "Historic Preservation in Santa Monica," accessed
8 August 2014 < http /(www smPOV netldepartments(PCDrPrograms /H IstaricPreservatlon />
37 [bid.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report Page 18
6. Evaluation of Significance
6.1 Previous Evaluations
According to a 2012 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) by Rincon Consultants, San Buenaventura
Research Associates conducted a historic resources evaluation for the subject property in 2007 and
found it not eligible for listing under national, state, or local designation programs.38 The property does
not appear to have been evaluated for Structure of Merit eligibility per Santa Monica's ordinance, nor
are specific local Landmark eligibility criteria addressed; the San Buenaventura Research Associates
report was not included as an appendix to the EIR and is not cited in its bibliography, so details of the
evaluation are not known.
6.2 Evaluation of Local Significance
The subject property was evaluated for eligibility under the City's Structure of Merit criteria as listed
above. The property at 2002 -2008 21't Street, a courtyard apartment complex comprising three
buildings on two parcels, appears eligible for local listing as a Structure of Merit. This determination was
made by evaluating the property against each of the criteria as follows:
9.36.080(a). It has been identified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory.
The subject property has not been identified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory and does not
meet this criterion.
9.36.080(b). It is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following criteria:
The subject property was constructed between 1943 and 1950 and meets the 50 -year age criterion.
9.36.080(b)(1). It is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type.
The property at 2002 -2008 21't Street is a rare intact example of a one - story, Mid - Century Modern
courtyard apartment complex dating to the immediate post -World War II period. Although courtyard
housing of this type, style, and age was common in Santa Monica and in the Pico neighborhood in
particular, very few unaltered examples remain. The complex was planned and designed as a courtyard
apartment, and its two primary residential buildings were constructed between 1949 and 1950 as a
unified design. As a representative and rare intact example of the courtyard apartment property type,
the property appears to satisfy this criterion.
38 Rincon Consultants, Inc., 2002 21st Street Condominiums Project: Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH #2007031019 (Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. for the City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development
Department, November 2012), Appendix A: Initial Study 2010, 12.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Planners, & Conservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
9.36.080(b)(2). It is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
Page 19
The property at 2002 -2008 21" Street is a modest representative of the Mid - Century Modern style,
which is prevalent in Santa Monica and in the Pico Neighborhood. It does not appear to satisfy this
criterion.
9.36.080(b)(3). The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
The property at 2002 -2008 21'` Street is located in a neighborhood characterized by a wide range of
housing types, architectural styles, and dates of construction. It has not been previously identified as a
potential Historic District. Therefore, the building does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
7. Conclusion
Based on documentary research, site analysis, the development of historic contexts, and an evaluation
against local eligibility criteria, ARG finds the following: 2002 -2008 21't Street, a courtyard apartment
complex comprising three buildings on two parcels, appears eligible under City of Santa Monica
Structure of Merit Criterion 9.36.080(b)(1) as a rare, intact example of a Mid - Century Modern one -story
courtyard apartment complex.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
R3111" el • r'
Books, Periodicals, and Other Published Materials:
Architectural Resources Group. San Vicente Apartments: Courtyard Housing Study. Prepared by
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. for the City of Santa Monica, October 2009.
Page 20
Capek, Stella M. and John I. Gilderbloom. Community Versus Commodity: Tenants and the American City.
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1992.
City of Santa Monica General Plan, "Historic Preservation Element." Santa Monica, California: PCR
Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group, September 2002.
Gebhard, David, and Robert Winter. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Salt Lake City: Gibbs
Smith, 2003.
Henderson, George L. California and the Fictions of Capital. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
ICF International. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report (Draft). Santa
Monica, California: City of Santa Monica, 2010.
Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll's Century History, Santa Monica Bay Cities, Los Angeles: Luther A. Ingersoll,
1908.
McAlester, Virginia, and Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Homes. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc., 1984.
Pfeiffer, Deirdre. The Dynamics of Multiracial Integration: A Case Study of the Pico Neighborhood in
Santa Monica, CA. M.A. Thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 2007.
Polyzoides, Stefanos, Roger Sherwood, and James Tice. Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles. New York:
Princeton Architectural Press, 1992.
Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2002 21st Street Condominiums Project: Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH #2007031019. Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. for the City of Santa Monica Planning &
Community Development Department, November 2012.
Santa Monica City Directories (various), accessed at the Santa Monica Public Library.
Scott, Paula. Santa Monica: A History on the Edge. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.
Squier, Gary, Anita Landecker, and Paul Zimmerman. Pico Neighborhood Community Plan. Santa
Monica, California: Pico Neighborhood Association, 1983.
Storrs, Les. Santa Monica: Portrait of a City. Santa Monica: Santa Monica Bank, 1974
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
Architects, Planners, Ca Conservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment
Page 21
Upton, Dell, and John Michael Vlach. Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture.
Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1986.
Other Sources:
Arnold, C.E. Los Angeles County Sheet 21 (Santa Monica, Mar Vista, and Westwood, June 1955). Los
Angeles: Los Angeles County, 1955. Accessed online, Santa Monica Public Library Digital Collections,
http: / /digital.smpl. org /cdm /singleitem /r..ollection /maps /id /21 /rec /4 7 August 2014.
City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department. "Historic Preservation in
Santa Monica." Accessed online at http: / /www.smgov. net / departments /PCD /Programs /Historic-
Preservation/.
City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department. Selected building and
alteration permits.
Electric Railway Historical Association. Pacific Electric: Santa Monica Air Line. Accessed online at
http: www.erha.org /pewal.htm, 4 August 2014.
Historic Aerial Images, 1952 -2005. Accessed online at http: / /www.historicaerials.com
James, Thomas E. (W.L. Young, Chief Draftsman). Official Map of the City of Santa Monica, April 1906.
Santa Monica, California: City Engineer's Office, 1906. Accessed online, Santa Monica Public Library
Digital Collections, http: / /digital.smpl.org /cdm /singleitem /collection /maps /id /38 /rec/1 8 August 2014.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Tract Maps. Accessed online at
http:// dpw. lacounty gov /sur /surveyrecord /tractMain cfm.
Los Angeles County Department of the Assessor. Parcel Information. Accessed online at
http : / /maps.assessor.lacounty.gov /mapping /viewer asp.
Los Angeles Public Library. Historical Los Angeles Times. Accessed online at http://www.lapl. org.
Morton, John A. (H.B. Carter, Draftsman). Map Showing a Portion of the City of Santa Monica, 1919.
Santa Monica, California: City Engineer's Office, 1919. Accessed online, Santa Monica Public Library
Digital Collections, http : /Zdigital.smpl.org /cdm /singleitem /collection /maps /id /32/rec /4 6 August 2014.
Mosier, Dan. Simons Brick Company, Plant Number 4, Santa Monica. California Bricks,
h!Ltp:Zlcalbricks.netfirms.com/brick,simonssm.htmI 2010. Accessed 11 August 2014.
Pacific Blue Print & Map Co. Map of the City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica, California: Pacific Blue Print
& Map Co., ca. 1930. Accessed online, Santa Monica Public Library Digital Collections,
htWjjc1igital.smpl .org /cdm /singleitem /collection /maps /id/33 /rec /5 6 August 2014.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
to Conservators
2002 -2008 21st Street
Structure of Merit Assessment
Page 22
Phelps, W.W. Map of Santa Monica and Vicinity, Los Angeles County, Cal, 1910. Santa Monica,
California: City Engineer's Office, 1910. Accessed online, Santa Monica Public Library Digital Collections,
http:// digitalsmpl. org/ cdm/ sinRleitem�collection1maps /id /19 rec 2 6August 2014.
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Company. Digital Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, 1867 -1970
Santa Monica Public Library. Historical Maps of Santa Monica. Accessed online at
http:// digital.smpl.org/cdm/landingpage /collection /maps.
Santa Monica Public Library. Santa Monica Image Archive. Accessed online at
http: //digitaLsmpLorR/ cdm /landingpage /collection /smarchive.
Santa Monica Public Library. Santa Monica Newspaper Index. Accessed online at
http: / /digital.sLnP QML/ m /landingpage /collection /smfile.
United States Bureau of the Census. Sixteenth Census of the United States, 1940, Santa Monica, Los
Angeles County, California. Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Records Administration,
1940.
Architectural Resources Group, Inc.
& Conservators
A entlix A. Comparable Caurryar0 A atlmen[Properties In lM1a Pica Neighborhood(ARM
hield 5 8 13 14
Number
Street
Date (ASSessoQ
Prapertyiype
rve j
uml5tyle
glteratlans
Notes
PM1Ota
Wail cladding replaretl,units fenced a if from
1420 -1922
iOtF Street
]999
Courtard Apadmenf
ury Modern
ourryard flow visibility)
y
Windows replared, doors rep laced, security
1932
91M1 Street
1926
Courtyard Apartment
olonial Revival
doors added
N
]8U1180)
9th Street
1942
C mtyardA artment
Traditional
No major alteratians-ImVfence added.
1625 -16D
Cenfinela Avenue
1953
Courtyard Apartment
my Modern
Units fenced off from courtyard
1625 recommended as Stru ume of
Merit in 2010 BRI.
2009 -2015
tloverCeld Boulevard
1949
Courtyard Apartment
raditional, dlght nan[F
Windows replaced, doors replared
N
N
Windows replaced, securiryddors and
19221924
tlovedleld Boulevard
1954
Courtyard Apartment
raditional
s Indowbaruadded
Identical to 1914 -1920 Chmmilleld
N
Windows replaced, security doors and
1914 -1920
poverfield Boulevard
1953
Courtyard Apartment
Minimal Traditional
windo, bars added
Identical to 192E -1924 Ciovrdield
N
3110
Colorado Avenue
194]
Courtyard Apartment
Minimal Traditional
Unsure -low visibillty(Fedge /fen[e)
ry
same e windows replaced, security doors
1824
MkMgan Avenue
]995
Courtyard Apartment
Minmal Traditional
add d
y
Some windows replaced, security doors
2711 -2]15
Picom.d.,srd
1951
Courtyard Apartment
Mid - Century Modern
added, concrete black entry wall added
y
Appendix B. Photographs of Selected Comparable Pico Courtyard Apartment Properties
1801 -1807 9th Street. ARG, 8.5.14
1824 Michigan Avenue. ARG, 8.13.14
2711 -2715 Pico Boulevard. ARG, 8.13.14
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE
2002 °2018 21 ST STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
HIS i ORic RESO 1RC LE AssI- SSNIFN`I'
Prepared for:
Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP
1250 Sixth Street, Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Prepared by:
Chattel, Inc. I Historic Preservation Consultants
13417 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
August. 6, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... ..............................1
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ..................................... ........................................ . ....... ........... ....
.... -A
PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS ......................................................................... ..............................2
REGULATORYSETTING ............................................................................ ..............................3
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ..................................... ...............................
3
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL_ RESOURCES .................... ...............................
4
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( CEQA) ...................... ...............................
5
CITY OF SANTA MONICA LANDMARKS AND HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE .............
6
SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION ....................................................... ..............................8
OWNERS, BUILDERS, & OCCUPANTS .................................................. .............................15
PICONEIGHBORHOOD ........................................................................... .............................16
MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN EAST SANTA MONICA. ........ -- ..........
18
ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES ......................................................... .............................19
ASSOCIATEDSTYLES ............................................................................. ............................7_1
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT ..................................................... .............................22
CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL- REGISTERS ........................................... .............................22
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ....................................................................... .............................24
CONCLUSION............................................................................................. .............................27
REFERENCES..............................................................................`.............. .............................28
ATTACHME=NTS
ATTACHMENT A: SITE PLAN AND CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS
ATTACHMENT B: PERMIT RESEARCH TABLE
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA:
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
This report provides a historic resource assessment of the buildings on four parcels located at
2020 Virginia Avenue and 2002 -2018 215' Stroet in the City of Santa Monica (City), California
(subject property). It evaluates the subject property for eligibility at federal, state, and local
levels and describes its history.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The subject property includes two clusters of buildings constructed between c. 1921 and 1953.
Several buildings on the subject property are best classified as modest examples of residential
architectural styles commonly constructed between the 19308 and 1960s; however, many of the
buildings are significantly altered and no longer exhibit features of a particular architectural
style. The first buildings at the subject property were a single - family home and a wood shed
building. The subject property was altered over several decades with the addition of buildings
and garages to form two courtyard -like clusters (Clusters I and II, see Figure 1). As the subject
property exists today, the best property types to describe the forms of the two clusters are
bungalow court and midcentury, one -stay court. For a property to be Individually significant
under the context of its property type, it must exemplify an important property type associated
With multi - family residential development and retain suff icient integrity to convey association
with this pattern of development. Consideration was given to the property types of the subject
property; however, neither cluster was originally constructed as a multi - family property type.
Instead, the subject property comprises a collection of buildings built over a period of time that
are not united by a common architectural style and cohesive site plan characteristic of courtyard
apartments. Therefore, the subject property does not exemplify this property type.
The subject property was also evaluated under historical contexts for neighborhood
development. The subject property is located in Santa Monica's Pico neighborhood, which was
historically home to residents of European, African, Japanese, and Mexican descent. Residents
of the subject property during the 1930s and 19403 were families pf European descent from the
Midwest and Plains states, and no connection could be established between the subject
property and the minority heritage of the neighborhood. Neighboring residents along 21" Street
were also all of European descent during this period. While the greater neighborhood area may
be associated with the heritage of Santa Monica's residents of non - European descent, the
subject property and its immediate vicinity was not directly connected to this historic context. As
the neighborhood was adjacent to Douglas Aircraft Corporation, many of its residents were
employed in the aircraft industry. Though one of its residents in 1940 was employed in the
aircraft industry, the subject property is not closely associated with planned housing
development for employees at Santa Monica's defense industries.
This historic resource assessment does not find the subject property to be individually eligible
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and California Register
of Historical Resources (California Register) nor for local designation. Furthermore, this historic
resource assessment does not find there to be a potential historic district of multi - family
residential developments to which the subject property contributes.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2010 218T STREET, SANTA MONICA•.
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
QUALIFICATIONS
Chattel, Inc. (Chattel) is a full service historic preservation consulting firm with practice
throughout the western United States. With offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco, the firm
represents governmental agencies and private ventures, successfully balancing project goals
with a myriad of historic preservation regulations without sacrificing principles on either side.
Comprised of professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications
Standards in history, architecture, architectural history, and historic architecture, the firm offers
professional services including historical resources evaluation and project effects analysis, in
addition to consultation on federal, state, and local historic preservation statutes and
regulations.
Staff engages in a collaborative process and work together as a team on projects. This report
was prepared by associate Allison Lyons with assistance frorn Justin Graving. The subject
property was visited by Allison Lyons and Justin Graving on June 24, 2014, at which time
exterior and interior photographs were taken. Editorial support and peer review was provided
by associate Shane Swerdlow, consulting principal associate Leslie Heumann, and firm
President Robert Chattel, AIA.
PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS
The subject property was previously evaluated by San Buenaventura Research Associates in
March 2007 as part of California Environmental Quality Art (CEQA) review. San BUenaventu a
Research Associates found that the subject property did not appear eligible for listing on the
National Register or California Register, either individually or as contributors to a district. They
also found the subject property did not meet any of the criteria for designation as an individual
landmark, district contributor, or structure of merit in the City of Santa Monica.'
The subject property has been surveyed twice. Johnson Heumann Research Associates
surveyed the subject property and its surrounding neighborhood as part of a citywide windshield
survey to identify potential resources in 1985. Leslie Heumann & Associates surveyed the
subject property again in 1994 as part of the third and final phase of the first comprehensive
citywide inventory. The subject property was not identified for further documentation in either
study.
' San Buenaventura Research Associates, "Historic Resources report; 2.002.18 21 st Street, Santa
Monica, CA," 2.3 March 2007.
21- leumann, Leslie & Associates, "Santa Monica Historic Resources Survey Phase Three," May '1994.
Johnson I- leumann Research Associates, "Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory," 1985 -1986.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2010 21 s' STREET, SANTA MONICA,
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
REGULATORY SETTING
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The National Register is the nation's official list of historic and cultural resources worthy of
preservation. Authorized under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the
National Register is part of a federal program to coordinate and support public and private
efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the country's historic and archaeological resources.
Properties listed In the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and
culture. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service (NPS), which is
part of the United States Department of the Interior. Resources are eligible for National
Register listing if they:
A) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of our history; or
B) are associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; or
C) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of
construction, or that represent the worts of a master, or that possess high artistic
values, or tinat represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components
may lack individual distinction; a'
D) have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in history or
prehistory.'
Once a resource has been determined to satisfy one of the above - referenced criteria, then it
must be assessed for integrity. Integrity refers to the ability of a property to convey its
significance, and the degree to which the property retains the identity, including physical and
visual attributes, for which it is significant under the four basic criteria listed above. The National
Register recognizes seven aspects or qualities of integrity: location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain its historic integrity, a property must possess
several, and usually most, of these aspects.
The National Register includes only those properties that retain sufficient integrity to accurately
convey their physical and visual appearance from their identified period of significance. Period
of significance describes the period in time during which a property's importance is established.
It can refer simply to the date of construction, or it can span multiple years, depending on the
reason the property is important. The period of significance is established based on the
property's relevant historic context and as supported by facts contained in the historic context
statement.
Evaluation of integrity is founded on "an understanding of a property's physical features and
how they relate to its significance. "" A property significant under criterion A or B may still retain
sufficient integrity to convey its significance even if it retains a low degree of integrity of design,
materials or workmanship. Conversely, a property that derives its significance exclusively for its
architecture under criterion C must retain a high degree of integrity of design, materials, and
s National Register Bulletin 1115, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park
Service, 1990, revised 2002).
National Register Bulletin #t15.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSUL] ANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21s` STREET, SANTA MONICA,.
1-1ISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
workmanship. For some properties, comparison with similar properties is considered during the
evaluation of integrity, especially when a property type Is particularly rare.
While integrity is important in evaluating and determining significance, a property's physical
condition, whether it is in a deteriorated or pristine state, has relatively little influence on its
significance. A property that is in good condition may lack the requisite level of integrity to
convey its significance due to alterations or other factors. Likewise, a property in extremely
poor condition may still retain substantial integrity from its period of significance and clearly
convey its significance,
Relationship to Project
The subject property is not listed In the National Register and for reasons stated in this report,
does not appear to meet National Register eligibility requirements either individually or as a
contributor to a potential historic district.
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register was established to serve as an authoritative guide to the state's
significant historical and archaeological resources (Public Resources Code (PCR) §5024.1).
State law provides that in order for a property to be considered eligible for listing in the
California Register, it must be found by the State Historical Resources Commission to be
significant under any of the following four criteria, if the resource:
1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; or
2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past or
3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual or
possesses high artistic values; or
4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.
The primary difference between eligibility for listing in the National and California Registers is
Integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the National Register generally have a higher degree of
integrity than those only eligible for listing in the California Register. There is, however, no
difference with regard to significance. A property that meets the significance criteria for
California Register eligibility would also be eligible for listing in the National Register, unless
there are issues of integrity that decrease the ability of the property to convey its significance.
The California Register also includes properties which: have been formally determined eligible
for listing in, or are listed in the National Register of Historic Places; are registered State
Historical Landmark Number 770, and all consecutively numbered landmarks above Number
770; Points of Historical Interest, which have been reviewed and recommended to the State
Historical Resources Commission for listing; and city and county- designated landmarks or
districts (if criteria for designation are determined by State of California Office of Historic
Preservation (OHP) to be consistent with California Register criteria). PRC §5024.1 also states:
g) A resource identified as significant in an historical resource survey may be listed in
the California Register if the survey meets all of the following criteria:
1) The survey has been or will be included in the State Historical Resources
Inventory.
CFIATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA <
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
2) The survey and the survey documentation were prepared in accordance with
(OHPj... procedures and requirements.
3) The resource is evaluated and determined by the office to have a significance
rating of category 1-5 on DPR [Department of Parks and Recreation] form 523.
4) If the survey is five or more years old at the time of its nomination for inclusion in
the California Register, the survey is updated to identify historical resources
which have become eligible or ineligible due to changed circumstances or further
documentation and those which have been demolished or altered in a manner
that substantially diminishes the significance of the resource.
Relationship to Project
The subject property is not listed in the California Register. For reasons stated in this report, the
subject property does not appear to meet California Register eligibility requirements either
individually or as a contributor to a potential historic district.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
According to CEQA,
an historical resource is a resource listed In, or determined eligible for listing in, the
California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local
register of historical resources..., or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant
for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates
that the resource is not historically or culturally significant (PRC §21084.1).
If the proposed project were expected to cause substantial adverse change in a historical
resource, environmental clearance for the project would require mitigation measures to reduce
impacts. "Substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means the
physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate
surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired"
(CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(1)). California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3
§15064.5 (b)(2) describes material Impairment taking place when a project;
A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and
that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register... or
B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical
characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register... or its identification
in an historical resources survey.., unless the public agency reviewing the effects
of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is
not historically or culturally significant; or
C) Demolishes or materially alters those physical characteristics of an historical
resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or
eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register... as determined by a lead
agency for the purposes of CEQA.
Relationship to Project
The subject property currently does not appear to be eligible for designation in the California
Register or for local designation as a Landmark or Structure of Merit. It, therefore, does not
appear to be a historical resource for purposes of CEQA review.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTAN'T'S
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA.,
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA LANDMARKS AND HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE
The City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance permits the Landmarks
Commission to designate a Landmark if the property under consideration meets one or more of
the following criteria:5
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or' manifests elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political, or architectural history of the City; or
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value;
or
(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or
national history; or
(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; or
(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable
builder, designer, or architect; or
(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.
A noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties may be designated a Historic
District if the City Council finds that such area meets one of the following criteria:'
(1) Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.36.100(a)(1) through (6).
(2) It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a definable
area possessing a concentration of historic, scenic or thematic sites, which
contribute to each other and are unified aesthetically by plan, physical
development or architectural quality.
(3) It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated with
different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation modes, or
distinctive examples of park or community planning.
(4) 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 Landmarks Commission can also designate a Structure of Merit, which due to age,
architectural design, or potential for inclusion in a future historic district, contributes to the City's
cultural identity but does not exhibit the same outstanding qualities typically associated with a
Landmark, as outlined in the above criteria. A property can be designated as a Structure of
Merit If it meets the following characteristics:'
A) The structure has been identified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory; or
D) The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following
criteria:
1) The structure Is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail
or historical type; or
'Santa Monica Municipal Code §9.36.100(x).
'Santa Monica Municipal Code §9.36.100(b).
' Santa Monica Municipal Code §9.36.080.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002«2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA,
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT _
2) The structure is representative of a style in the City that is no longer
prevalent; or
3) The structure contributes to a potential historic district.
Landmarks, Historic Districts, and Structures of Merit are treated by the City as historical
resources under CEQA.
Relationship to Project
The subject property is not designated locally as either a Landmark, contributor to a Historic
District, nor Structure of Merit, and for reasons stated in this report, does not appear to meet
eligibility requirements for local designation individually as a Landmark or Structure of Merit or
as a contributor to a potential Historic District.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2010 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA.
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
rlgure is a1w rian
The subject property is bounded by Virginia Avenue to the north, 21" Street to the east, and an
alleyway to the west. To the south is a parcel containing a multi - family residential apartment
building dating to the 1970s. The subject property is four parcels with nine buildings clustered
around two central landscaped areas. For the purposes of this description, the buildings,
garages, and clusters will be identified as marked on Figure 'I: Site Plan (above).
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULT "ANTS
Virginia AVet1LIC
�
wd
IFr
fV
� sa
� G
C I . ustefl
a
4
�
b
0)
QJ
In
r
C I
...r
V
(
tdl
iM
3 a
r
� n i
k
1
'N
N
true
presumed
rlgure is a1w rian
The subject property is bounded by Virginia Avenue to the north, 21" Street to the east, and an
alleyway to the west. To the south is a parcel containing a multi - family residential apartment
building dating to the 1970s. The subject property is four parcels with nine buildings clustered
around two central landscaped areas. For the purposes of this description, the buildings,
garages, and clusters will be identified as marked on Figure 'I: Site Plan (above).
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULT "ANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA:
hIISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CLUSTER I comprises the two northernmost parcels of the subject property, both of which have
the APN number 4274 -026 -003. This cluster contains three buildings, A, B, and C, with
addresses 2020 Virginia Avenue, 2002 21" Street, and 2006 -2012 21s1 Street. Cluster I is
enclosed by a low painted brick wall topped with vertical wood slats along its north and west
sides (photos 1, 2, and 5). Two shallow concrete steps lead from the sidewalk along 21st Street
to the interior of the cluster (photo 2). The central landscaped area of the cluster consists of a
rectangular grass lawn framed by low hedges and interspersed with birds of paradise plants
(photo 3). At the center of the lawn are mature trees and a stone, grotto -like planter that may
have been a water feature and is now overgrown with a variety of plants (photo 4).
Building A: three -unit building, built 1949
Description
Building A is a rectangular, three -unit residential building (photos 6 -10). The
one -story building features a low -pitch shed roof with wide, enclosed
overhanging eaves supported by attached pylons along the north and south
elevations. Oriented perpendicularly to the building's exterior walls, the pylons,
which taper downwards towards the ground, are the primary architectural feature
of the building. Cladding is stucco above wide horizontal ship -lap siding. The
foundation is concrete slab. Units have paired double -hung, two - over -two wood
sash windows and security doors over wood - paneled primary and secondary
entrance doors. Interiors have four rooms (living room, bedroom, bathroom, and
kitchen) with flat ceilings, wood floors, and plaster walls with little ornamentation.
the primary entrances to the units are evenly spaced along the south elevation,
opening onto the central landscaped area. Secondary entrances are along the
north elevation. The style is vernacular modern, a minimal interpretation of
Mkicentury Modern.
Building History and Alterations
The building was originally constructed by owner Lloyd E. Elliot as a three -unit
residential building in 1949 adjacent to an existing "'shack" on the parcel.' No
major alterations have been made to the building since its initial construction.
Building B: two residential units and one site manager's office, built before 1921, date
unknown
Description
Building B is an L- shaped building with two apartment units and one site
manager's office (photos 11 -19). The building is one -story with stucco cladding.
Its low shed roof features multiple pitches, Indicating locations of various
additions, and shallow eaves. The slope of the roof lines is apparent on the
interior of units. Sliding windows have aluminum or vinyl frames. Entrances
feature plastic awnings and metal security screen doors. The building does not
exhibit features of an identifiable style.
Building History and Alterations
The earliest record of the building is a 1921 alteration permit from owner Clara M.
Howard for the addition of a bathroom to an existing seven by ten foot building on
° City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2002 21st Street, Permit No. 5703, April 7, 1949.
CHATTEL, INC. I I-Ifs,rORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 9
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA_
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
the parcel.9 A permit from 1940 described the addition of one room to an L-
shaped building with an attached garage.10 In 1942, the building was used as an
air raid warden's shed and is described as a wood shack. 11 Additional rooms,
apartment units, and a garage were added and removed from Building B from the
1930s through 1970s. In 2004, permits were filed to legalize conversion of the
existing building with three apartment units. 12 The building does not appear to
date to a specific time or style. As it appears in 2014, Building B is significantly
altered from the original pre -1921 building.
Building C: four-unit building and garage, built 1949
Description
Building C is an L- shaped, four -unit, residential building with an attached rear
garage (photos 20 -22). The residential portion of the building is rectangular. The
one -story building features a low -pitch shed roof with wide, enclosed
overhanging eaves supported by attached pylons along the north and south
elevations, mirroring the same feature on Building A. Cladding is stucco above
wide horizontal ship -lap siding. The foundation is concrete slab. Units have
paired double -hung, two -over -two wood sash windows and security doors over
wood paneled primary and secondary entrance doors. The primary entrances to
units are evenly spaced along the north elevation, opening onto the central
landscaped area. The style is vernacular modern, a minimal interpretation of
Midcentury Modem. At the eastern side of the residential portion is a covered
pass - through that connects the apartment units with a four-car garage. The
garage is clad in stucco, topped with a flat roof, and contains four, one -car wide
wood doors opening onto the alley.
Building History and Alterations
Building C was originally constructed by owners Lloyd and Julie Elliot in '1949
with three apartment units; an additional unit was added in 1950.13 The four -car
garage was added in 1953.14 Security doors were Added at an unknown date.
No other major alterations have been made to the building since these additions.
CLUSTER II comprises the two southernmost parcels of the subject property. The northern
parcel has APN 4274 -026 -005 and address 2014 21st Street. This parcel contains buildings 1,
2, and 3. The southern parcel has APN number 4274 - 026007 and address 2018 21s1 Street.
Buildings 4, 5, and 6 are located on this parcel. Cluster II is enclosed by a concrete masonry
unit (CMU) wall, hedges, and vertical wood slat fence at its east and south sides (photo 23).
Two shallow concrete steps lead from the sidewalk along 21st Street to the interior of the cluster.
The central landscaping of the Cluster II is a rectangular planting area framed by low hedges
and concrete walkways (photos 24 -26). Mature trees are located within and around the cluster.
Patios adjacent to buildings 1, 2, and 6 are enclosed by CMU walls, vertical wood slat fences, or
chain link fences.
'City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2020 Virginia, Permit No. 535, December 22, 1921,
1° City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2020 Virginia, Permit No. B3858, November 27, 1940.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2.020 Virginia, Permit No. 86214, Friday, March 20, 1942.
12 City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2002 21st Street, Permit No. PC016104, December 7, 2004.
13 City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2008 21 st Street, Permit No. B7507, April 25, 1950.
14 City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2008 21st Street, Permit No, 813178, March 16, 1953,
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 10
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21 sr STREET, SANTA MONICA..
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Building 1: one -unit building, built 1938
Description
Building 1 is a one -story, square, stucco -clad, detached, one -unit residential
building (photo 27). It has a medium pitch gable roof with shallow eaves and
horizontal wood ship -lap within the gable ends. Windows are primarily two -over-
two double -hung wood sash with metal security bars. Its primary entrance faces
towards 2151 Street. The building is a modest Minimal Traditional style.
Building History and Alterations
Building 1 was the second building on its parcel and was constructed as a four
room stucco building by owner John A. Boone and builder William C. Carter in
1938.15 Metal security bars have been added over several windows at an
unknown date. No other major exterior alterations have been made to the
building since its initial construction. Interior condition and alterations are
unknown.
Building 2: one -unit building, built c. 1937-1938
Description
Building 2 is a one - story, square, stucco -clad, detached, one -unit residential
building (photo 28). It has a medium pitch gable roof with shallow eaves and
horizontal wood ship -lap within the gable ends. Windows are primarily two -over-
two double -hung wood sash with metal security bars. Its primary entrance faces
towards the central landscaped area and features a multi -light wood door with
awning. A secondary entrance and enclosed patio are located along its west
elevation. Building 2 has a slightly larger footprint than Building 1, but is
otherwise very similar in character. The building is a modest Minimal Traditional
style.
.Building History and Alterations
Building 2 was the third building on its parcel; it was constructed in 1938 by
owner John A. Boone and builder William C. Carter. 16 Metal security bars have
been added over several windows and its primary door does not appear original.
No other major exterior alterations have been made to the building since its initial
construction. Interior condition and alterations are unknown.
Building 3: one -unit building and garage, built c. 1937 -1938
Description
Building 3 is a one- story, roughly T- shaped, one -unit residential building with an
attached one -car garage (photos 29 and 30). The original square- shaped
building has a front gable roof; additions to the north and south have flat roofs.
Cladding is stucco. The primary entrance and windows feature crenellated
stucco relief surrounds (photo 29). Windows are a combination of double -hung
wood sash and aluminum and vinyl sliders with security bars along the west
(rear) elevation. Due to extensive alterations, the building does not exhibit
features of an identifiable style.
6 City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2014 21 st street A, Permit No. 6294, May 17, 1938.
'S City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2014 21st Street, Permit No. 6293, May 17, 1938.
CHATTEL, INC. I I-IISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 1.I
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002.2018 21 s` STREET, SANTA MONICA,,
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Building History and Alterations
Building 3 was the first building on its parcel." Constructed in 1935 as a four -
room, single - family residence, Building 3 was gradually expanded with additions
to the north and south, and its parcel was altered with the addition of two one -unit
buildings to the east. A one -car garage was added to the north in 1941 (photo
30).18 A room was added to the south at an unknown date, creating an outdoor
concrete patio area to the interior of its T -shape footprint (photo 29). Additional
alterations include the replacement of windows, addition of security bars, and
addition of a CMU antenna support along south elevation. Interior condition and
alterations are unknown.
Building 4: one -unit building and garage, pre -1951
Description
Building 4 is one - story, L- shaped, stucco -clad, five -car garage with a separate
room currently used as a musician's practice room (photos 31 and 32). It has a
combination flat roof and shed roof with raised parapet wall along its north
elevation and open eaves at its east elevation. Five one -car wood garage doors
open onto an alley at the west elevation (photo 32). A single unit has a metal
security screen door with awning entrance at the north elevation. Windows at the
east elevation are aluminum sliders with security bars. The building is utilitarian
and does not have a style.
Building History and Alterations
Building 4 was constructed by owner Fred Hansen as a detached two -car
tandem garage before 1951.18 The building was enlarged in '1951 and 1952 in
conjunction with work to expand residential buildings on its shared pareel.20 A
space currently used as a musician's practice room is the rear of the original two -
car tandem garage. It is not known when the conversion occurred (see Figure 2
for site plan showing tandem garage configuration' in '1951).
Building 5: one -unit building, built before 1951
Description
Building 5 is a one - story, square, stucco -clad, detached, one -unit residential
building (photos 33 -36). It has a medium pitch gable roof with shallow eaves and
horizontal wood ship -lap within the gable ends. Windows are primarily two -over-
two double -hung wood sash with metal security bars. Its primary entrance on the
north elevation faces towards the central landscaped area and features an
awning with wood lattice supports. The building is a modest Minimal Traditional
style.
Building History and Alterations
17 City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2014 21st Street, Permit No. 1275, July 25, 1935.
18 City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2014 21st Sheet, Permit No. 84009, January 6, 1941.
18 City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2018 21st Street A & B, Permit No, 89112, March 28, 1951.
20 City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2018 21st St A & B, Permit No. 811126, April 24, 1952,
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 12
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002.2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA:'
FISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
The first description of Building 5 appears on the permit for Building 6 in 1951.21
Its similarity to Buildings 1 and 2 indicates that it was likely constructed in the late
1930s, though no builder is listed for Building 5 on a permit. Metal security bars
have been added over several windows, No other major exterior alterations have
been made to the building since its initial construction. Extensive alterations
were made to the interior following a fire in 1985, and all interior finishes appear
to date to this repair woll(.22
Building 6: two -unit building, built 1951
Description
Building 6 is a one - story, rectangular, stucco -clad, two -unit building (photos 37
and 38). It has a medium pitch cross -gable roof with shallow eaves at its east
elevation and horizontal wood ship -lap within the gable ends. Unit entrances are
located at the east (21x1 Street) and north elevations. The east elevation features
aluminum slider windows. The north elevation features wood sash windows. A
shallow concrete step entrance at the north has metal railing. `rhe building is a
modest Minimal Traditional style.
Building History and Alterations
Building 6 was constructod in 1951 by owner Fred Hansen as a two -unit building
with nine rooms for two families (see Figure 2)." At the time of its construction
the parcel contained a single - family residence (Building 5) and a two -car garage
(Building 6). Some of the original wood sash windows have been replaced with
aluminum sliders since its Initial construction. Interior condition and alterations
are unknown; Ilowevor, extensive alterations were made to the interior following
a fire in 1985.24
21 City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2018 21 st Street A & B, Permit No. 891'12, March 28, 1951,
22 City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2018 21st Street, Permit No. 57919, November 12, 1985.
"City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2018 21 st Street A & B, Permit No. 139112, March 28, '1951.
24 City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2018 21st Street, Permit No. 57919, November'12, 1985.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS '13
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002.2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA,
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Figure 2: Site plan submitted with permit application for construction of Building 6 in 1951
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 14
.
.:.__nN rM�q wnrstt_WILI_
'.izUFUNG COURSE
''
- OZ}L+E1= iON-3Y
P N- 1H5URANCE AS R1
OI'
UIRP
ANS COMP£ UA- '
BY YHE STATL Or. ,
rv,v`
jjj
// sas nPM$
y
a-
�¢\1
_
, hJ
SiNnoFuro of 0�" .-T
bml
v
r
3
Figure 2: Site plan submitted with permit application for construction of Building 6 in 1951
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 14
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 218T STREET, SANTA MONICA..
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
OWNERS, BUILDERS, & OCCUPANTS
No architects are associated with design or construction of buildings at the subject property
2020 Virginia (Building B) is the oldest building on the subject property, constructed before
1921. At the time of the 1930 Federal Census, Building B was a single - family home occupied
by Iowa native Oliver Waycoff, a renter, his wife Myrtle, and their son, Joseph. Oliver Waycoff
was employed as a gardener in a private home. The Waycoffs and neighbors residing in the
surrounding blocks of Virginia Avenue, 21st Street, and 22 id Street, were of European descent.
Most were natives of Midwestern and Plains states.
By 1940, Cluster II included two occupied apartment units identified as 2014 A and B. The units
were built by owner John A. Boone and builder William C. Carter. John Boone worked as a
cement finisher at a construction company. The Boones were originally from Iowa. They filed
permits for the first building on the lot (Building 3) in 1935 when they lived at 317 Windward
Avenue. At the time of the 1940 census, renter Lee Crabtree lived with his wife and three
children in 2014 A. The family was originally from Kansas. Flo worked as a clerk at an airplane
manufacturer (presumably Douglas Aircraft). Owner Boone lived with his wife Lottie in 2014 B.
At the time of the 1940 Federal Census all other residents on 21st Street were people of
European descent, mostly recent arrivals from the Plains and western states of Kansas,
Oklahoma, Texas, and Arkansas. No buildings in Gloster I (2020 Virginia Avenue or 2002-2012
21 st Street) are listed as residences on the 1940 Census.
Building B, described as a shed, was converted to an air warden's shed in March 1942. The
Los Angeles area had a comprehensive network of air wardens by the time.25 Owners Lloyd
and Julia Elliot moved to Building B in the early 1940s, Lloyd was employed as a fireman with
the Santa Monica Fire Department. The Elliots altered existing Building B and constructed
Buildings A and C as twin three -unit buildings during the late 1940s and early 1950s. They lived
at the property from the '1940s through early 1960s. Fred and Mary Hansen purchased the
Cluster II property in the early 1950s. The Hansens expanded Building 4 and constructed
Buildings 5 and 6.
As is the nature of apartment buildings, residents frequently changed. Research did not reveal
any long term residents important in our past.
zs The most famous incident involving the air raid wardens was a false alarm, known as the Battle of Los
Angeles, took place on February 26, 1942, prior to the alterations at 2020 Virginia.
Caughey, Laree, and John Caughey. Los Angeles: Biography of a City. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1977. print.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSUI -TANTs 15
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE a 2002-2018 21- STREET, SANTA MONICA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
HISTORIC CONTEXTS
This historic context provides a relevant framework in which to evaluate significance of the
subject property. Applicable historic contexts include the development of the Pico neighborhood
of east Santa Monica and multi - family residential development in Santa Monica, with additional
focus on the bungalow court and midcentury, one -story court property types.
PICO NEIGHBORHOOD
The Pico neighborhood is located in the southeastern section of Santa Monica to the north and
south of Pico Boulevard. The Pico neighborhood was part of a large annexation to the city in
July 1905, the first annexation to the original 1875 town site of Santa Monica. Historically, the
neighborhood was divided frorn northwest Santa Monica by the Pacific Electric Railway's Santa
Monica line, running roughly parallel
to Colorado Avenue.
Early twentieth century urban
development in this area was a
combination of industrial, residential,
and institutional buildings. Housing
was mostly single - family dwellings.
Institutional growth included
churches and schools. The Grant
School, built in 1905 on the site of
Virginia Avenue Park, was located
to the north of the subject
property.26 The 19205 and 1930s
witnessed the greatest boom in
housing construction across Santa
Monica, though the majority of new
construction in the Pico
neighborhood during this period took
place south of Pico Boulevard.
Donald W. Douglas started what
became Douglas Aircraft
Corporation and moved into the
area at Clover Field (now Santa
Monica airport) in the late 1920s.
Douglas Aircraft would be a major
source of employment for residents
in the area.
Figure 3: 1-lome Owners Loan Corporation Security Map or
Santa Monica, Area No. D-23,1939
The Pico neighborhood did not have
a cohesive identity in 1939 when the Home Owners Loan Corporation2' profiled the areas north
and south of Pico Boulevard as two distinct neighborhoods for the Federal government (see
za "History of Santa Monica, Part IV." Los Angeles Times (1923 - Current File) Aug 08 1985: 3. ProQuest.
21 July 2014 .
Z' The Home Owners Loan Corp. (HOLC) was created in 1933 as part of the New Deal. The HOLC
systematized the appraisal of neighborhoods as part of the mortgage lending process. I IOLC
neighborhood profiles included information on the race of residents and the age and type of housing
found in the neighborhood. Neighborhoods were rates A, 0, C, or D. The affect of these profiles on
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 16
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE 8, 2002 -2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Figure 3). The area was densely built up with schools, churches, trading centers, recreational,
and transportation facilities. The "mixed -use" nature of Area D23, north of Pico, with business
and industry encroaching on residential areas and significant percentages of minority residents,
was considered a high risk for Federal lenders, leading to the area's classification as "D" grade.
The residential sections of Area D23 north of Pico Boulevard were identified as "slums" with
significant concentrations of four to five room frame, stucco, and shack type single - family
homes. Buildings were more than 30 years old at the time. Over 80% of the housing stock was
not owner occupied. Residents of this area were described as: "artisans, laborers, Works]
P[rogress] A[dministration] workers, and non- descript.i2" Ten percent of residents were African -
American. Foreign families (20 %) and people of Mexican - American and Japanese - American
nationalities were also listed as residents.
Areas south of Pico Boulevard were more favorable in the lenders' eyes. This area was
described as a predominantly Caucasian neighborhood of skilled mechanics, many employed at
Douglas Aircraft Corporation. Deed restrictions, newer houses, and a greater percentage of
owner - occupied residences contributed to different character of the area south of Pico
Boulevard, giving it a "C" grade .29
In the post -World War 11 era, smaller neighborhoods within the Pico neighborhood, particularly
north of Pico Boulevard, lost their coherence as pockets of low - scale, detached single - family
housing. Smaller homes were demolished and replaced with multi- family developments. The
neighborhood was further cut off and separated from the northern areas of Santa Monica when
Interstate 10 was constructed in 1966, resulting in demolition of properties north of Pico
Boulevard.
While the Pico neighborhood may have had a higher percentage of residents of minority
ethnicities than other areas of Santa Monica, according to the '1930 and 1940 census, no
African - American, Mexican- American, or Japanese - American families appear to have resided at
the subject properly.
mortgage lending practices and the correlation between lower grades and minority residents has
been cited as the genesis of the practice of redlining.
"Area Description Santa Monica Area No. D -23, Home Owners Loan Corporation, March 7, 1939.
Access through:
"T- RACES: a Testbed for the Redlining Archives of California's Exclusionary Spaces"
R. Marciano, D. Goldberg, C. Hou <Iitq>: / /sait.unc.edu /T- RACES >.
2 9Area Description Los Angeles -Santa Monica Area No. C -165, (dome Owners Loan Corporation, March
7, 1939. Access through:
"T- RACES: a Testbed for the Redlining Archives of California's Exclusionary Spaces"
R. Marciano, D. Goldberg, C. Hou <http:llsalLuunc.edu /T- RACES >.
CHATTEL, INC. 11-IISI "ORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 17
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 218T STREET, SANTA MONICA..
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
MULTI - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN EAST SANTA MONICA
This context describes multi - family residential development in Santa Monica during the first half
of the twentieth century, which saw a substantial increase in the City's population. From 1910
through 1950, Santa Monica's population grew more
than eightfold.30 This rapid influx of new residents
coincided with a 1920s development boom that
changed the composition of housing. Previously a
vacation community of beach -going tourists, the
Santa Monica housing boom included construction of
single - family residences, bungalow courts, and
courtyard apartments in undeveloped areas to
of Santa Monica
ulation
Percent
Increase
7
"71,595
NIA
52
94%
46
144%
00
44%
95
34%
accommodate greater numbers of year -round
resldents.31 Multi- family developments were generally built along or in close proximity to main
corridors, like San Vicente Boulevard, Montana Avenue, Wilshire Boulevard, and, following its
re- zoning from industrial use in the late 1930s, Pico Boulevard, resulting in concentrations of
multi - family developments throughout the City.
Douglas Airaaft had a Substantial impact on population growth and development of multi - family
housing in east Santa Monica. Founded in 1922 at 2345 Wilshire Boulevard, Douglas
expanded to Clover Field at what is now Santa Monica Airport in the late 1920s. World War II
also had a substantial impact on development and population of Santa Monica. By the early
'I 940s, Douglas had been awarded several large federal contracts to develop aircraft and
aviation related technologies for the United States military. 12 Hundreds were employed at the
Clover Field plant,33
Douglas' increasing workforce instigated higher demand for nearby housing. The majority of
these housing needs are believed to have been filled by private developers. Related defense
industry manufacturers also moved to Santa Monica, and developers throughout Santa Monica
constructed both single- and multi - family residences for middle class families. Following World
War II, returning veterans also found employment in Santa Monica's defense industry, and
demand for middle class housing continued. Following the trend towards increasing density, the
subject property was altered between 1937 and 191,i1 to accommodate additional families.
30 U.S. Census Bureau.
31 PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group, "City of Santa Monica Historic Preservation
Element;' September 2002, 9 -11.
37 ICF Jones & Stokes, "Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report,"
November 2010, 79.
33 Clover Field is now called Santa Monica Airport.
CI -IAl TEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS .18
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA,
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES
"Courtyard housing" is a description for a variety of multi- family housing subtypes built
throughout the City of Santa Monica's development. Courtyard housing evolved throughout the
twentieth century. The common feature of all courtyard housing subtypes is a communal site
plan with shared open space. The earliest Incarnation of the property type is the U and L-
shaped bungalow court, discussed below. Two related courtyard housing subtypes evolved
from the bungalow court: the apartment court, where the Coutyard was enclosed by the
building, and the L- or U- shaped court composed of contiguous rather than detached units.
These two types were more prevalent than the bungalow court from the 1930s through 1950s,
the period when the subject property was built. Cluster I shares characteristics with the
micicentury, one -story court while Cluster II is closest to the more traditional bungalow court,
site plans, court
While the subject property does not exemplify the apartment court branch of courtyard housing
evolution, this subtype was prevalent throughout Santa Monica. In the 1920s and 1930s
apartment courts evolved into architect - designed, high -style buildings in the Streamline
Moderne style or modeled after historic architecture of the Mediterranean region. Beginning
with World War ll, courtyard housing designs of all subtypes utilized stripped -down Modern and
Minimal Traditional styles. Apartment court buildings from the 1940s and 1950s typically used
enclosed C- and donut- shaped building plans to provide greater privacy and security. Growing
density in the Los Angeles region during the 1960s and 1970s further altered the shape of
courtyard housing. Central courtyards and landscapes were absent as designs focused on
3" Polyzoides, Stefanos, Roger Sherwood, and James Tice. Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles: A
Typological Analysis. (New Yoik. NY: Princeton Architectural, 1992) 39,
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 19
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002-2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
maximizing lot capacity for rentable units. In Santa Monica, a significant concentration of
courtyard apartments from 1937 through 1960s exists along San Vicente Boulevard.35 Other
examples of the many subtypes of courtyard housing exist throughout the city,
Bungalow Court property type
Bungalow courts were typically constructed in Los Angeles County between 1910 and 1930.
They are one or two stories in height and composed of multiple detached or semi - detached
buildings constructed around the same time, usually arranged in L- or U -shape around a central
landscaped area over one or two residential parcels (see Figure 4). The site plan is
characterized by balance and the implied enclosure of outdoor space to distinguish it as private.
Buildings are often detached single- units, mimicking a single - family home. Some early
bungalow courts represent an evolved property typo wherein a single family residence was
moved on the property, usually to the rear, to accommodate construction of income units In a
courtyard arrangement. Architectural styles associated with bungalow courts are Craftsman,
Mission Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, American Colonial Revival, and Tudor Revival.
Individual unit entries open directly onto the courtyard; front units may open onto the street,
Parking and accommodations for the automobile are typically relegated to rear alleys. Many
bungalow courts were constructed as short term or vacation housing. 'The prevalence of this
property type in the region reflects the high rate of tourism and population growth from the
1910s through '1930s.
Four bungalow courts are designated landmarks in the City of Santa Monica. These flour courts
exemplify the bungalow court property type in their site planning, dates of construction, and
architectural style.
Christie Court
'125 Pacific Street
Mission Revival style
Built 1924
The Palama
211 Alta Avenue
Craftsman style
Built 1922
Residential Kit Houses
1047 Ninth Street
American Colonial Revival style
Built 1923
Hollister Court
2402 41h Street
Craftsman style
Built 1904 - the early 1920s
Midcentury, One -Story Court property type
Midcentury one -story courts are a low -scale courtyard apartment type usually comprising mirror
image rectangular or L- shaped buildings constructed at the same time with a central landscape
35Architectural Resources Group, "San Vicente Apartments: Courtyard Housing Study," October 2009, 3-
5.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 20
2020 VIRGINIA /AVENUE & 2002- 2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA,
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
running between the paired buildings. The concept of this property type grew out of the
bungalow court, an earlier property type also oriented around a central landscape. Unlike
bungalow courts, midcentury, one -story courts contain long, multi -unit buildings. Each building
usually occupies adjacent residential lots. Site plans are characterized by balance and
symmetry. The property type was a popular form of multi - family residential construction in low -
scale neighborhoods and along major streets in Los Angeles County between 1930 and 1959.
Usually minimal in style and ornamentation, associated architectural styles for the type are
Minimal Traditional and Traditional Ranch.
There are no designated midcentury, one -story courts designated as landmarks in the City of
Santa Monica.
ASSOCIATED STYLES
Minimal Traditional
Emerging during the Great Depression and becoming increasingly prevalent in Santa Monica
following WWII, the Minimal Traditional style served as an understated interpretation of Period
Revival styles popular in the 1920s and 1930s, especially American Colonial Revival as well as
Spanish Colonial Revival and other English and French inspired styles. Characteristics of
Minimal Traditional style include a combination of exterior building materials, typically primarily
stucco with specific building elements articulated in brick veneer or flat shiplap, shingle, or
board -and- batten wood siding; modest character with stripped down traditional architectural
details, including faux shutters and bay windows with concave awnings; gabled or hipped roofs;
modest porches with simple wood porch supports; double -hung or casement, wood or steel
sash windows; integration of American Colonial Revival ornamentation, including font porches
with porticos, entrances Surrounds accentuated with pilasters and broken pediments, and
octagonal windows. Several residential buildings have been evaluated for their significance as
excellent examples of the Minimal Traditional style in Santa Monica.
Midcentury Modern
Midcentury Modern was a popular style in California between 194 and 1970. The style is
characterized by simple, geometric volumes; horizontal massing; flat roof, at times with wide
overhanging eaves; unornamented wall surfaces; and floor -to- ceiling windows, often flush -
mounted metal framed. The popular style was used for buildings of all types throughout the
region, including institutional, industrial, commercial, and residential property types.'' A popular
commercial and institutional style in Santa Monica, the most notable example of the style in
Santa Monica is the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, designed by Welton Becket & Associates
completed in 1958 (a designated landmark)."
36 Eligibility criteria were adapted from those established for Surveyl-A, the City of Los Angeles historic
resources survey. The relevant context/theme is Architecture and Engineering, 1850 - 1980 1L.A.
Modernism, 1919- 1980 /Architecture and Engineering, 1850- 1980 /L.A. Modernism, 1919- 1980 /Post-
War Modernism, 1946 - 1976 /Mid- Century Modernism, 1945 -1970 /Residential
37 PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group, "City of Santa Monica Historic Preservation
Element," September 2002, 17.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 21
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002.2010 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA_
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Using the framework established in the historic context, this section includes evaluation of the
subject property for listing in the National and California Registers and for local designation as a
Landmark and Structure of Merit.
CALIFORNIA AND NATIONAL REGISTERS
The following is an evaluation of the subject property under each of the four National and
California Register criteria. Eligibility criteria are grouped together because an equal level of
significance is required for the National and California Registers. This evaluation finds that the
subject property is not eligible for National or California Register listing.
Criterion 1/A
Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our
history and cultural heritage.
Research has not linked the subject property to events that have made a significant contribution
to the broad patterns of our history and cultural heritage. The subject property comprises
altered buildings informally arranged around two central landscapes. It is not an important, a
rare, or unique representation of multi- family residential development in Santa Monica. The
subject property does not appear to be representative of a particular period of development for
multi - family housing in Santa Monica. Though one known resident was employed at Douglas
Aircraft in the 1930s, the majority of the known Occupants were employed elsewhere and the
subject property is not closely associated with housing development specifically for employees
at Santa Monica's defense industries. The subject property is located within the Pico
neighborhood, an area historically associated with people ethnically of African, Japanese, and
Mexican descent. However, residents of subject property during the 1930s and 19403 were
families of European descent from the Midwest and Plains states. Moreover, neighboring
residents along 21st Street were also all of European descent. While the greater neighborhood
area may be associated with the residential heritage of people of minority descent, the subject
property and its immediate vicinity were not. Therefore, the subject property does not meet
Criterion 1 /A.
Criterion 2/13
Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
Research has not linked the subject property to the lives of persons important in our past. None
of the various owners, builders, or residents Is known to have made significant contributions to
history or to have achieved prominence in their field. Thus, the subject property does not meet
Criterion 2 /B.
Criterion 3/C
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual or possesses high artistic values.
Buildings in the subject property are modest examples of residential architectural styles
commonly constructed during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. No architects are associated with
the construction of buildings at the subject property. Neither informal grouping of buildings was
originally constructed or designed as a bungalow court nor a midcentury, one -story court and
neither can be said to exemplify a significant multi - family residential property type.
Cluster I does not exemplify the midcentury one -story court type or Midcentury Modern style.
The only Midcentury Modern elements on Buildings A and C are the horizontal massing and
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 22
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2010 21sT STREET, SANTA IVIONICA.:
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
pylons supporting the eaves. These are minimal gestures towards a popular style at the time of
the construction, but not distinctive elements indicative of a comprehensive or distinctive
architectural design. Building C is altered and expanded, no longer a mirror image of Building A
as it would have been in a true midcentury one-story court.
Like Cluster I, Cluster 11 evolved over time. Though all its buildings are arranged around a
central landscape, of its six buildings, only three, Buildings 1, 2, and 5, are true one unit
detached bungalows configured symmetrically as would be required to exemplify the bungalow
court property type. Constructed in 1938, Buildings 1, 2, and 5 were constructed outside the
period of significance associated with the construction of bungalow courts ('1910 -1930) and are
not a style typically associated bungalow courts. Their imbalanced arrangement around the
central landscape does not embody the characteristics of the bungalow court property type.
Cluster 11 cannot be said to exemplify other types of courtyard housing constructed during the
1930s and 1940s in Santa Monica.
Buildings 1, 2, and 5 in Cluster II are modest examples of the Minimal Traditional style with
wood details in the gable ends. Buildings 1 and 2 were constructed by builder William C.
Carter, a contractor who lived in Los Angeles and appears to have been active in Santa Monica
from the 1930s through 1950s. Ile was the builder for 451.455 San Vicente, a 1940s Minimal
Traditional courtyard apartment building that is identified as a contributor to a district that is
eligible for local listing or designation (see Figure 5).30 He was also the builder for 1134 17 "'
Street, a Streamline Moderns apartment completed in 1938. 1134 17 "' Street was found eligible
for local listing .39 Other buildings constructed by "W.C. Carter" include an identified district of
Minimal Traditional courts and single - family homes along '171' Street. More research would be
required to determine the breadth of Carter's work in Santa Monica; however, based on a
comparison to his known buildings, Buildings 1 and 2 fail to rise to the level of skillfully executed
design and craftsmanship in the Minimal Traditional Style exhibited by Carter's other residential
buildings.
Figure 5: 451.455 San Vicente, built by William C. Carter (photo: Chattel, 2006)
ao"Apartments Built in Santa Monica." Los Angeles Times (1923 - Current Pile) Sep 15 1940: 1. ProOuest.
22 July 2014 .
39Ostashay, Jan and Peter Moruzzi, California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources
Inventory Form and Continuation Sheet, 113417th ST Santa Monica Boulevard, prepared for the City
of Santa Monica, June 2006. Access through < http:// www. smgov .neUDepaitments /PCD /1-listorio-
Resou ices -I nventory/Deta ils / ?id- 4281004007 >.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 23
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE $ 2002 -2010 21s' STREET, SANTA MONICA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Due to the nature of its development, neither cluster on the subject property exemplifies covet
property types, which are epitomized by buildings constructed comprehensively as one multi-
family property comprising multiple, nearly identical or mirror image buildings. f=urthermore,
none of the buildings at the subject property are distinctive examples of an architectural style.
Aside from select architectural flourishes at the eaves, the buildings are otherwise
unremarkable. Therefore, the subject property does not meet Criterion 3 /C.
Criterion 41D
Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The subject property cannot be reasonably expected to yield information important in prehistory
or history. Therefore, it does not meet Criterion 4 /13,
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
The following is art evaluation of the subject property under all criteria of the City of Santa
Monica Landmark and Historic District Ordinance, including criteria for Landmark and Structure
of Merit. This evaluation finds the subject property is not eligible for designation as a Landmark,
contributor to a district, or as a Structure of Merit.
Landmark Designation Criteria
1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political,
or architectural history of the City.
The subject property is located within the Pico Neighborhood, an area historically associated
with African- American, Japanese - American, and Mexican - American residents. However,
residents of subject property during the 1930s and '1940s were families of European descent
from the Midwest and Plains states. Moreover, neighboring residents along 21" Street were
also all of European descent. While the greater neighborhood area may be associated with
residents of non - European descent, the subject property and its immediate vicinity was not.
Therefore, the subject property is not significant for any association with minority heritage in the
City. 40
Though one resident in 1940 was employed in the aircraft industr); the subject property is not
closely associated with planned housing development for employees at Santa Monica's defense
industries and does not exemplify this period of the City's history.
The subject property comprises small -scale apartment buildings that span a period in excess of
25 years in construction and which are typical of multi - family residential development in Santa
Monica. It is not an important, a rare, or unique representation of this type of development. The
subject property features buildings around a central landscaped area, a feature associated with
the courtyard apartment property type in Santa Monica. However, neither exemplifies nor
symbolizes elements of the bungalow court, courtyard apartment, garden apartment, or
midcentury, one -story court property types, in part because the first buildings at the clusters
were not built as part of these property types and later buildings were not added as part of a
single cohesive design.. At most, buildings in the subject property are modest examples of
typical residential architectural styles, Minimal Traditional and Midcentury Modern, constructed
during the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, No architects are associated with construction of buildings
at the subject property. Neither was originally constructed or designed as a bungalow court or
midcentury, one -story court and neither exemplifies its property type.
A0 Year: 1940; Census Place: Santa Monica, Los Angeles, California; Roll: T627_256; Page: 9A;
Enumeration District: 19 -756.
CHATTEL., INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 24
2020 VIRGINIA AvCNUE 8, 20022018 216T STRCET, SANTA MONICA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Therefore, the subject property does not meet Criterion 1.
2. It has aesthetic or at interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The subject property does not have aesthetic or artistic interest or value. Aside from the pylons
and minimal architectural flourishes concentrated at the eaves of Buildings A and C at Cluster I
and gable ends of Buildings 1, 2, and 5 at Cluster 11, the buildings are otherwise unremarkable
with flat walls covered in Stucco punctuated with window openings.
Therefore, the subject property does not meet Criterion 2.
3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national
history.
Research has not linked the subject property with historic personages or with important events
in local, state, or national history.
Thus, the subject property does not meet Criterion 3.
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.
Neither cluster exemplifies its property type or an architectural style. Buildings at the subject
property are modest examples of typical residential architech.nal styles, Minimal Traditional and
Midcentury Modern, constructed during the 1930s, 1940s, and '1950s throughout Santa Monica.
Therefore, the subject property does not meet Criterion 4.
>. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder,
designer, or architect.
Buildings 1, 2, and 5 in Cluster 11 are modest examples of the Minimal Traditional style with
wood details In the gable ends. Buildings 1 and 2 were constructed by builder William C.
Carter, a contractor who lived in Los Angeles and appears to have'been active in Santa Monica
from the 1930s through 1950s. Ile was the builder for 451 -455 San Vicente, a 1940s Minimal
Traditional courtyard apartment building that has been previously evaluated as a contributor to a
district that Is eligible for local listing or designation (see Figure 5).41 He was also the builder for
1134 171h Street, a Streamline Moderne apartment completed in 1938 and which has also been
found eligible for local listing.42 Other buildings constructed by "W.C. Carter" include an
identified district of Minimal Traditional covets and single - family homes along 171" Street. More
research would be required to determine the breadth of Carter's work in Santa Monica;
however, based on a comparison to his known buildings, Buildings 1 and 2 fail to rise to the
level of skillfully executed design and craftsmanship in the Minimal Traditional Style exhibited by
Carter's other residential buildings. None of the other buildings at the subject property was
designed by an architect or builder.
Therefore, the subject property does not meet Criterion 5
""Apartments Built in Santa Monica." Los Angeles Times (1923- Cwrent File) Sep '15 1940: 1. ProQuest.
22 July 2014 ,
420stashay, Jan and Peter MOrrIZZI, California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic Resources
Inventory form and Continuation Sheet, 1134 17th ST Santa Monica Boulevard, prepared for the City
of Santa Monica, June 2006. Access through < htlp: / /www.srngov .net /Departments /PCD /Historic-
Resources- Invento ry /Deta ils / ?id= 4201004007>.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 25
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA,
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT j
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 property is located at the south corner of the Virginia Avenue and 21st Street
intersection. The subject property is setback from the street and is surrounded by a high fence
along its northwest boundary at Virginia Avenue. Along 21s' Street, the subject property is
barely visible behind dense, mature trees. -The subject property is difficult to see from the public
right -of -way at 21" Street. As one of many residential properties in its neighborhood, it does not
have a particularly unique or important location. The fact that a building may have occupied a
certain location for a considerable period of time does not inherently make it a familiar visual
feature of a neighborhood, community, or'the City. The subject property should not be
considered a familiar visual feature of Virginia Avenue or 21st Street.
Therefore, the subject property does not meet Criterion 6.
Structure of Merit Designation Criteria
A) The structure has been identified in the City's Historic resources Inventory.
The structure has not been identified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory,
B) The structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following criteria:
1) The structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or
historical type.
The subject property was built between c. 1921 and 1953 and therefore meets the age
criteria of 50 years. However, it is not a unique or rare example of an architectural design,
detail, or historical type. Neither of the initial buildings constructed at both Clusters I and II
were built as courtyard apartments. A number of multi - family buildings in Santa Monica are
Intact and better executed examples of the bungalow court a court property types and
Minimal Traditional and Midcentury Modern architectural styled, Therefore, the subject
property does not meet Criterion 1.
2) The structure is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
The subject property is not representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
The buildings of the subject property exhibit selected elements of and do not exemplify
Minimal Traditional and Midcentury Modern styles. These styles were popular in Santa
Monica and southern California from the mid -1930s through late 1960s. Intact and more
detailed and characteristic examples of this style are prevalent throughout the City.
Therefore, the subject property does not meet Criterion 2.
3) The structure contributes to a potential historic district.
The subject property does not contribute to a potential historic district. The surrounding
parcels contain a variety of property types and architectural styles. Therefore, the subject
property does not meet Criterion 3.
Cl IATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC 13RESERVATION CONSULTANTS 2.6
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 216T STRCET, SANTA MONICA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
CONCLUSION
The subject property is not architecturally significant, nor is it associated with events or persons
significant in history. The subject property does not exemplify a property type or architectural
style or period of development. Many of the buildings are significantly altered and no longer
exhibit features of a particular architectural style. The subject property is not associated with
individuals significant in our past at a federal, state, or local level. 'though located in the Pico
neighborhood, historically home to residents of African, Japanese, and Mexican descent,
residents of the subject property during the 1930s and 1940s were families of European descent
from the Midwest and Plains states and no connection could be established between the subject
property and the minority heritage of the neighborhood.
This historic resource assessment does not find the subject property to be individually eligible
for listing in the National Register and California Register nor for local designation.
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 27
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21sT STREET, SANTA MONICA'
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
REFERENCES
Articles
"Apartments Built in Santa Monica." Los Angeles Times (1923 - Current File) Sep 15 1940: 1.
ProQuest. 22 July 2014.
"History of Santa Monica, Part IV." Los Angeles Times (1923 - Current File) Aug 08 1985: 3.
ProQuest. 21 July 2014 .
Books and Reports
Architectural Resources Group, "San Vicente Apartments: Courtyard Housing Study," October
2009.
Caughey, Laree, and John Caughey. Los Angeles: Biography of a City. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1977.
CF Jones & Stokes, "Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report,"
November 2010, 79.
National Register Bulletin #15, "How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation,"
National Park Service, 1990, revised 2002.
Herrmann, Leslie & Associates, "Santa Monica Historic Resources Survey Phase Three," May
1994.
Johnson Heumann Research Associates, "Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory," 1985-
1986.
Ostashay, Jan and Peter Moruzzi, California Department of Parks and Recreation Historic
Resources Inventory form and Continuation Sheet, 1134 17th ST Santa Monica
Boulevard, prepared for the City of Santa Monica, June 2006. Access through <
iittp://www.srflgov,not/Departments/PCD/1-tistoric-ResoLirces.,
Inventory /Details /? id m 428'1004007>
PCR Services Corporation and Historic ReSOUr'CeS Group, "City of Santa Monica Historic
Preservation Element," September 2002.
Polyzoides, Stefanos, Roger Sherwood, and James Tice. Courtyard Housing in Los Angeles: A
Typological Analysis. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural, 1992. Print.
San Buenaventura Research Associates, "Historic Resources report: 2002 -18 21st Street,
Santa Monica, CA," 23 March 2007.
Building Permits
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2.002 21st Street, Permit No. 5703, April 7, 1949.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2002 21st Street, Permit No. PC016104, December 7,
2004.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2008 21 st Street, Permit No. B7507, April 25, 1950.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2008 21st Street, Permit No. 813178, March 16, 1953.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2014 21st street A, Permit No. 6294, May 17, 1938.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2014 21st Street, Permit No. 6293, May 17, 1938.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2014 21 st Street, Permit No. 1275, July 25, 1935.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2014 21 st Street, Permit No. B4009, January 6, 1941.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2018 21st St A & B, Permit No. B11126, April 24, 1952.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2018 21st Street A & B, Permit No. 89112, March 28,
1951.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2018 21st Street, Permit No. 57919, November 12, 1985.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2020 Virginia, Permit No. 535, December 22, 1921.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2020 Virginia, Permit No. B3858, November 27, 1940.
City of Santa Monica Building Permit, 2020 Virginia, Permit No. B6214, Friday, March 20, 1942.
CHATTEL., INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 28
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002.2016 21s' STREET, SANTA MONICA
HISTORIC RESOURCE ASSESSMENT
Maps
Pacific Blue Print and Map Co. "Santa Monica City Map: City of Santa Monica, including Color
Coded Listings of Tracts and Subdivisions. Circa 1930." Santa Monica: Santa Monica
City Engineer's Office, 1930. Santa Monica Public Llbrary Historical Maps. Web.
<http %3A %2F %2Fdigital.smpl. org %21 =odm %2 Ffullbrowser %2Fcol lection %21= maps %2F i
d %2F33 %2Fry %2 Fsing leitem %2Frec %2F5 >.
U.S. Census Bureau.
Year: 1930; Census Place: Santa Monica, Los Angeles, California; Roll: 175; Page: 13A;
Enumeration District: 1507; Image: 218.0; FHL microfilm: 2339910
Year: 1940; Census Place: Santa Monica, Los Angeles, California; Roll: T627_256; Page: 9A;
Enumeration District: 19 -756.
INebsites
Area Description Los Angeles -Santa Monica Area No. C -165, Home Owners Loan Corporation,
March 7, 1939. Access through: " T- RACES: a Testbed for the Redlining Archives of
California's Exclusionary Spaces" R. Marciano, D. Goldberg, C, Hou
<http://salt.unc.edu/T-RACES>.
Area Description Santa Monica Area No, D -23, Home Owners Loan Corporation, March 7,
1939. Access through: "T- RACES: a Testbed for the Redlining Archives of California's
Exclusionary Spaces" R. Marciano, D. Goldberg, C. Hou <http: / /Salt.unc.edu /T- RACES>
CHATTEL, INC. I HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS 29
VIRGINIA AVE
2002-2018 21A STREET
SANTA MONICA, CA 90404
ATTACHMENT A
SITE PLAN AND CURRENT PHOTOS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002-.2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
, IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Site plan showing building numbering system. Cluster 1(2020 Virginia Avenue and 2002 -201/
21st Street) contains Buildings A, B, and C. Cluster II (2014 -2018 21st Street) contains Buildings
'I through 6.
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2016 21 ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 1: Cluster I, facing southwest from northeast corner of Virginia Avenue and 21st
Street
Photo 2: Cluster I, facing west from 21$t Street
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 3: Cluster I center landscaping, facing northwest
Photo 4: Cluster I center landscaping, planter
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21 ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
1 IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 5: Cluster I, Building A north elevation (Virginia Avenue), facing southeast
Photo G: Cluster I, Building A south and west elevations, facing northeast
CHAT "rEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 7: Cluster I, Building A Interior, living room, typical
Photo 8: Cluster I, Building A interior, kitchen, typical
CHATTEL, INC, HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 9: Cluster I, Building A interior, bedroom, typical
Photo 10: Cluster I, Building A interior, bath-
room, typical
CHATTEL, INC, HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 11: Cluster 1, Building B south and east elevations, facing northwest from central
landscaped area
Photo 12: Cluster 1, Building B south and west elevations, facing northwest
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002-20111 21 ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 13: Cluster I, Building B east (side) elevation, facing west
Photo 14: Cluster I, Building B west (rear) elevation, facing north
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2016 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 15: Cluster I, Building B south elevation,
entrance to apartment units
Photo 16: Cluster I, Building B interior, apartment main room
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002-201821ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
WAG ATTACHMENT
Photo 17: Cluster I, Building B interior, bath-
room
Photo 18: Cluster I, Building B interior, kitchen
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21 ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 19: Cluster I, Building B interior, site manager office
Photo 20: Cluster I, Building C, north (primary) elevation, facing southwest
CHATTEL, INC. I-IIS -IORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE_ & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 2'I: Cluster I, Building C, north (primary) elevation, facing southwest
Photo 22: Cluster I, Building C, south (rear) elevation, garage, facing southeast
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2015 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 23: Cluster 11, facing west from 21 st Street
Photo 24: Cluster 11 center landscaping, facing west
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 25: Cluster II center landscaping, facing west from porch of Building 6
Photo 26: Cluster II center landscaping, facing northwest towards Building 2
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21 ST STR ET, SANTA ATTACHMENT
Photo 27: Cluster II, Building 1, south elevation, racing noun
Photo 28: Cluster ll, Building 2, south (primary) and east elevanons, iacnny nV,v,vvoo.
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, S ATTACHMENT
Photo 29: Cluster ll, Building 3, south (primary) and east elevations, raciny nvl tma —
Photo 30: Cluster II, Building 3, west (rear) elevation, facing east
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA
ATTAMONICA
Photo 31: Cluster 11, Building 4, east and north elevations, racing suuu iwGok
Photo 32: Cluster 11, Building 4, west (rear) elevation, facing east
CFIATTEL.INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 33: Cluster Il, Building 5, north (primary) and west elevations, facing southeast
Photo 34: Cluster II, Building 5 interior, living room, typical
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 35: Cluster II, Building 5 Interior, kitchen, typical
Photo 36: Cluster 11, Building 5 interior, bedroom, typical
CHATTEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
2020 VIRGINIA AVENUE & 2002 -2018 21ST STREET, SANTA MONICA
IMAGE ATTACHMENT
Photo 37: Cluster II, Building 6, north elevation, facing south
Photo 38: Cluster II, Building 6, east elevation, facing Southwest
CHAIIEL, INC. HISTORIC PRESERVATION CONSULTANTS
VIRGINIA AvE
2002-2018 21 AD
SANA MONICA, CA 90404
ATTACHMENT B
PERMIT RESEARCH TABLE
Address an P.-If
!Ind"
N.EaA, Dnco,allon
Work pesnlrllan
N[L
BIJr
.11.1 e',
Owner Add ... c
fllalivn
2D2o Wglnla
Cluslerl
ex4tlng ]x IDfuot LUilJln¢
adJlllon of balLronrn
ne llsleJ
ne knod
train M. H.—od
1911 4IL Spool,
Gly if Monica 0 upoing Pe mril,
wllh lean to ra 4.
pm anpark
1W.V glnla, lot bo.535,
0.','Al r22,19ll.
EDSO VbgIWa
flnslerl
toner
addaion to gmage
ne liadat
ne lined
W6 flnmming
10I0 Wglnla
Cly of Santa Monlaa 0ullrlmi, Permll,
2020 Yngiol" P 1 Up. 5601• loon,
30,19¢4.
1010 Wglnla
flnslerl
,x1511" bidding I1 O
Alteration, to Lnlldlnd l
n ne kapol
Anon llsleJ
WG flnmming
I.P. Yr¢Inla
C " or"o1a IJDW[a DUi14mg Permll,
m, 550
L3IDOn¢inl; Permp ll.. ]69, IUne U3,
1935,
EOEO Vio¢IWa
CluJmi
(Arawing wllF application
01J UumnldralNn¢
no ne lislerl
nr Wl d
KNall. M. @nprinn
Cd, OI Santa Monlm OOilding Permll,
sM1Ows l loolldN¢ wIIF
SFmvs l loop. I'll to
m3OVaip'b, PermO No. &3050,
allad,cal l mr¢are0el
I-shapnA extningl
NwvmLer E], 1940.
MM Wglnla
floored
Air pool Wa..UA 56d,
Inonof
nnno, fd,d
no,on, lhmJ
611
2010 ViFc
Coy of Santa Win,. 0u0ding Pemil,
and
2310 VbOnc, Pe1m0 NU. 06214,
Poda , Match 20, 194).
2020 VIIOIHIA
flnslerl
uMden11a65 room,, l("All
chord .o- 550 (.,of
inoo llsleJ
pop, Innal
U.'d E. (lllnl
2010 Vaglnla
Clq of Santa Monica Inplo, Po 11,
,In .OIli
101. VDglola, Permll No 6571,
Novernb"0l IA91.
1003 21st spoor
plad.,I
l lrvlblln¢ mml as chock
Winn ..neul -3 apy9
pop, llsleJ
ue llstnd
Uncut c, Elllnl
2020 ViF'41.
In, .1Saof. Mock.8 Wind Permll,
ms, tar 3 larnilbs.
)003 vst Sheet PermL No. 17.11
smfao
MM, 194%
1002 I1a151me1
flnslerl
Scold WmEng
teealrae Conclotilon of
none listed
ne IdW
Parh Vlrglplca 11C
11693 San
OIV ^IS•nla Main. OellJ ln¢ Permll,
,Hslipg 3unl1 bo11Jing
Vkenle
10021/51 Spenl, pennil No PCOl61p9,
December 2, 2001.
2=k7000211,
undorl
(none)
Smoko delvdo,
nv lldcd
pook. lHmJ
IIAIa ClEnt
City of Soul, Monica Billing Pemil,
Slreel
2d62-2uOn Lai Stood, PNmll It,.
ES101, NOVembnt 4, 1901,
No'. 2ht Incal
Ft. lerI
Ili a'llbmar Socto
eWa I..topl .3 on11
n 1,.od
acpn, liueJ
ll o., and fill ,Cldnt
ml, V11SIAn
Cily of Sao to Mmdca OrrAJing Pemril,
erapmenl bnlldine
)]00 21"sheer, Peunll No. 06440,
se denOmr 14, 1149,
OOn 21a15p eel
frslml
3.•arlrrerlS aLc
d igl unll to exls lr¢
ne Impact
t led
_
ln
0 e
a Monica OuilJin. Pon pit,
] nnlls, 32' x 2" In Le
D08211151ree1, Atoll No. n15o1,
a Jdad to rearM cvtsling
Apt1125, 1950.
("Al to Ayl.1
11301 2ut 't—'t
fbolrtl
4 aid oolol
IrAalgen enl-4u,—p—
Inn lislerl
ne lli
NoYA and Elliot
NX1.11,I Mreel
OIV O(Sarrla Mardaa Building P.... Ii,
."coon"
Apt
2:1082111 slreel, Pennon Ni .11 fit,
I111rc1116, 1953.
101•I 11,1 Street
ctod"i,
oAli" FWldn"on Ed
if "'o sl urn tom in,
ore lAeA
er - -11.1
AOOOne
111 Wok"gW
"IV of Son" broil,, Nalpin¢ Pomdt,
oo Aerallln¢
L114 ]1sl Areel Perm. lln. IPS, LJV
1014 21 sI 5h,el
lnsler ll
IleslJonm _
Axon". llnmlphiclo o
o nu lWOrl
______
l4rnC Ceoleo
IoLn Allonnr
MIJ >415tmo1
FAOnblon'(pi¢ Permll
Iipl ISanla
)014 )h1 AUel, Pmntll No.6E93, Ir1oY
r.ol, u'Imm exla ng
—fo ZIO -loon c bbl
17, told,
bdd'cn a.
1019 11 a1511ee1
Tinder ll
]br enr..rnsloca
arlA Enrage
non, lxled
ne 1151eA
Inbn Alf nnpu
)0140 11x1
la Mao la nt ilNio. P,rm li
llalLWldlnO lm un
Slreel
2.142Sap
)019 2LI Slreel, Pmm. No. p9009,
Iam11Y
fatal,
larplaq.6 ,nMon
x014 xla sbeelA
Cluster ll
sellmrkl n.L,l
41 oom,IfIbAfi.aln[[n
ne lined
Wm l: Cooler
lahnn 0oune
3an-Oln 5Lee1
oily Sama MonicanullJiNo
nofid,
raJAence ou rut
n¢ MIL Sfrinnle
R01Of
21st A,Pmmi1 NO 6199,
0",,
too[,
root, 25'from eeislin6
.polr¢el
Nay W. t93n.
M.,
ulldlu0
101¢215151A &n
!loner ll
2dwellln¢s end co'c"
Enlargement gna¢e
p.Ia htnd
Allao
End &Mary Hamer
2014021st
.1, of 5anla Won. nullJing Pennl4
co.". walls
Slreel
201821515t A N 0, Permit No. n11126,
April E9, 1952.
20182Id Slier
Clnsler ll
in nepalr -LUm oil,
ran. llsld
Dann Inn. l oiamno
Did im.
PO Doa
Jlyof5anla Monica coldln¢ Pmntll.
Jema klltlten, ulllity
.1. 11515ocol, Peunll NO.52919,
s, naml and to wr
112, L6s.
to fwrmr—plito n
Will 21st Slreel A&
Clnsler ll
IJwellln9, and ¢ara0e,
Enlargornenl beta,,
rown, blad
ne Inad
FmdHamen
3014 03 b1
in, of Icnla Monica bulldln¢ P.....11,
n
nu[[o walls
Slreel
'Wit I'll 511.¢1 A& to Permll No
IMI1t,Mmdr 16, 1955.
Will 2Ivt Stand A&
Cfmler0
lresNenital And 2 a,,
En61¢emenl4 onll
none l0led
non IEIIrl
FrtJHansen
2014 alln
Ed' of 5anie Monica poll log Notch'
8
gera¢e
.paHmenl dwelling, 9
Slreel
.1. E10Itroat A& n, Pemdt No
moms,2 families
_�
__ _ ___,
_ ___
19U2,hpi 11.._ -