The URL can be used to link to this page

SR 01-22-2019 7B City Council Report City Council Meeting: January 22, 2019 Agenda Item: 7.B 1 of 28 To: Mayor and City Council From: David Martin, Director, City Planning Subject: Proposed 11th Street Historic District (18ENT-0166) Consideration of a new proposed historic district on 11th Street consisting of certain properties located along the east side of 11th Street, between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (1221-1253 11th Street), and properties along the north side of Arizona Avenue between 11th Street and 11th Court Alley (1107-1115 Arizona Avenue) and Introduction and first reading of an Ordinance amending the Santa Monica Municipal Code adding Section 9.56.320 for potential designation of the 11th Street Bungalow Historic District. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council consider the proposed historic district on 11th Street, including the recommendations from the Landmark Commission and the City’s planning staff. Executive Summary The purpose of the City’s Historic Preservation program is to protect and enhance improvements representing the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history, and to safeguard the City’s historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage. Adopted in 1976, the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance established procedures to achieve the City’s historic preservation goals, as the program promotes the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts for the education, pleasure, and welfare of City residents and visitors. Currently, there are 131 designated City Landmarks, 11 designated Structures of Merit, and 3 Historic Districts within the City. Historic District designation is one of the options available in the preservation program where the City can protect and enhance improvements that are found to be historically significant. The City’s designated Historic Districts include the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District (est. 1990), the Bay Craftsman Cluster Historic District (est. 2000), and the San 2 of 28 Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartments Historic District (est. 2015). These Districts vary in physical characteristics in terms of district size and architectural styles while representing either the City’s cultural, social, economic, architectural or development history. On June 7, 2018, the Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors organization, in coordination with the Friends of 11th Street Coalition, filed an Historic District application to consider the establishment of a new historic district on 11th Street. The proposed historic district consists of certain properties located along the east side of 11th Street, between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (1221-1253 11th Street), and properties along the north side of Arizona Avenue between 11th Street and 11th Court Alley (1107-1115 Arizona Avenue). The proposed District is comprised of 10 parcels, five of which are considered potential contributors that are substantially intact improvements that date from the area’s period of significance (1905-1925). Two of the 10 buildings have been inappropriately altered and no longer accurately convey their historic character. The remaining three properties are improvements constructed after the area’s period of significance. The proposed district would consist of five contributors and five non-contributors, resulting in a district composition including 50% of its properties as contributors to the historic district. The Landmarks Commission held two public hearings to discuss the proposed historic district on November 12, 2018 and on December 10, 2018. Based on the findings outlined in the Historic District Assessment prepared by Ostashay and Associates Consulting (OAC), and upon review of the proposed district, staff concluded the proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District ineligible as an Historic District and recommended denial of designation. The November 12, 2018 Landmarks Commission meeting staff report is provided as Attachment D. At its December 10, 2018 meeting, in consideration of all testimony, reports, and materials introduced into the public record, the Commission in a 5-0 vote supported the establishment of the proposed district and recommended the City Council adopt an 3 of 28 ordinance designating the 11th Street Bungalow Historic District. In its deliberations, the Commission found that the proposed District contributors represent early and prime example of middle-class housing, have associations with historic personages, are representative of the work of a notable builder, and are the last remaining examples of a contiguous grouping of low scale working class housing that spans the entire first half of the 20th century. Because the criteria established in the Landmarks Ordinance for designation of Historic Districts are designed to evaluate if an area conveys the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history, it is possible to properly apply the criteria based on evidence in the record, with equally valid viewpoints that arrive at different conclusions. Planning staff continues to recommend denial of the Historic District application because the proposed District does not appear to satisfy the criteria for designation. This report includes both perspectives on the proposed historic district; a summary and explanation of the Landmarks Commission’s recommendation and staff’s alternative analysis and recommendation. City Council should consider the findings prepared by both the Landmarks Commission and staff when determining whether appropriate findings can be made to support or deny a historic district on 11th Street. Further, this report also notes that another tool is available, other than the historic district process, to consider whether the identified district contributors are potential individually eligible historic resources. Background On April 12, 2017, District proponents Friends of 11th Street (“Friends”) submitted a report to the City regarding a potential Historic District to include several bungalow properties on 11th Street generally between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (updated in their application in Attachment A). At the June 12, 2017 Landmarks Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the potential Historic District and directed staff to have a professional historic preservation consultant prepare a preliminary historic district assessment of the 1200 block of 11th Street. As directed by the Commission, the City’s professional historic preservation consultant, 4 of 28 OAC, prepared a preliminary assessment of a potential 11th Street historic district (Attachment B). The preliminary assessment studied the potential district boundary area identified as a potential City of Santa Monica Historic District (referred to as a “cluster” due to its size) in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory survey, prior to the most recent update in 2018. This study area was consistent with the boundaries highlighted in the Friends of 11th Street documentation. The preliminary assessment did not find sufficient information that the collective grouping of the 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster appeared to possess sufficient architectural merit, direct associations with important personages, and adequate historical integrity to be eligible for local historic district designation. At the January 8, 2018 Landmarks Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the preliminary assessment and requested additional information regarding the uniqueness of this particular cluster within the larger underlying Town of Santa Monica Tract in efforts to provide the broader historical context of the extant early housing stock, including a study of whether the subject bungalows in the 1200 block 11th Street grouping were some of the last remaining in the Town of Santa Monica Tract. The consultant conducted additional research into the historical development and early architectural composition of the Town of Santa Monica Tract as it relates to the residential development of the 1200 block 11th Street grouping of properties under review built prior to 1925. Prior to a discussion by the Commission to review the findings of this additional research, the subject Historic District application was filed on June 7, 2018, precluding any further preliminary discussions on the proposal by the Commission. OAC prepared a complete assessment of a potential 11th Street Bungalow Historic District and analyzed the proposed District boundaries based on the designation criterion established by the Landmarks Ordinance (Attachment C). The Report concludes that the applicant’s proposed District does not satisfy any of the City’s applicable historic district criteria. Along this stretch of 11th Street, no geographically definable area possessing a distinct concentration of historic properties was visually or 5 of 28 physically apparent. Collectively, the grouping of pre-World War II era housing stock along this block also lacks integrity, cohesiveness, and distinction to define it as a historic district that adequately manifests the early residential development patterns of the City. Previous Surveys and Evaluations The 1200 Block of 11th Street has been previously evaluated as part of the City’s on- going historic resource survey efforts, and further detailed on page 11 of the OAC report (Attachment C). Under the 2010 Citywide Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Update, five contributing properties to the potential 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster were identified within the proposed study area/boundaries. Upon completion of the 2018 Citywide HRI survey update, however, the potential 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster was removed from the City’s Historic Resources Inventory due to the cluster’s inconsistency with state and federal survey guidelines related to historic districts, particularly because of clusters’ diminutive size and inability to convey sufficient information about “patterns” of history and development. The contributing properties within the previously identified potential “cluster” were instead evaluated as potential individual resources. Four of the bungalow properties previously surveyed within the proposed study area/boundaries were revised as potentially eligible for listing as individual Santa Monica Landmarks. According to the 2018 survey findings, these properties, with additional research conducted may each be potentially individually significant as City Landmarks as examples of residential development that helped shape the Mid-City area of the city in the early decades of the twentieth century. Therefore, four of the 10 properties identified in the proposed study area/boundaries are listed on the updated HRI as potentially eligible for listing as individual resources. Review of individual properties as potential City Landmarks or Structures of Merits is another approach to preserve resources established in the Landmarks Ordinance. 6 of 28 Criteria For Designation of a Historic District SMMC Section 9.56.100(B) authorizes the City Council to designate a Historic District by finding that a geographic area or a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties meets one of the following criteria: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. 4. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. 5. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. 6. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. 7. 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. 8. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. Historic District Entitlement Procedures & Public Outreach Section 9.56.130 of the Landmarks Ordinance mandates a review procedure with established timeframes for completion as provided in Attachment G. Although the Ordinance requires at least one public information/community meeting immediately following the application submittal, a second meeting was held on September 24, 2018 for interested persons unable to attend the first meeting held on July 30, 2018 during 7 of 28 the mid-summer. The Landmarks Commission held two public hearings to discuss the proposed historic district on November 12, 2018 and December 10, 2018. Based on the Ordinance, the City Council must make a determination within 45 days of the January 22, 2019 hearing or the application is deemed disapproved (no later than March 8, 2019). Public Information/Community Meeting Summary As mandated by the Landmarks Ordinance, staff conducted a community meeting on Monday, July 30, 2018 at 6:30pm at the Santa Monica Main Library. Approximately 57 members of the public were in attendance. Due to the community meeting scheduled during mid-summer based on the review timeframes established by the Ordinance, a second community meeting was held on September 24, 2018 for interested persons unable to attend the first meeting held in July. Approximately 19 members of the public were in attendance at the second meeting. For both meetings, comments were provided in support of the proposed Historic District in efforts to recognize the bungalow-style residences of the area, and there were questions from property owners regarding the Mills Act and other preservation benefits available to contributing properties. Additionally, the Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors (applicant) hosted a community meeting on September 18, 2018 at the Colorado Center with approximately 20 persons in attendance. Participants provided comments in support of the proposed Historic District. Landmarks Commission Action The Landmarks Commission held two public hearings to discuss the proposed Historic District on November 12, 2018 and on December 10, 2018. In consideration of all testimony, reports, and materials introduced into the public record, the Commission in a 5-0 vote supported the formation of the proposed District and recommended the City Council adopt an ordinance officially designating the 11th Street Bungalow Historic District. The November 12th meeting was well-attended by the public, with five commissioners in 8 of 28 attendance. Proponents in support of the District shared their enthusiasm on preserving the subject bungalows by way of establishing a district. Affected property owners shared their concerns that the proposed District fails to meet the designation criteria, and were not as well represented at the meetings in terms of attendance. The Commission held a broad discussion on the principles of establishing a historic district and its characteristics based on the criteria in the Landmarks Ordinance. A few Commissioners expressed concerns that there was a lack of a distinct concentration of historic properties as a whole, while other Commissioners discussed a possibility of establishing two non-contiguous groupings of bungalows (thereby excluding two non- contributing properties from the boundaries) that would result in a more concentrated grouping. After two failed motions to recommend approval for the applicant’s proposed single District and an alternate District consisting of two separate districts, the Commission continued the item for further discussion. At the December 10, 2018 meeting, with five in attendance, the Commission further discussed the proposed district. Commissioner Green, absent at the first hearing, reviewed the public record of the November 12, 2018 meeting and participated in the continued discussion. The Commission discussed the proposed District’s ability to convey the area’s early development pattern, its association with historic personages, and support for a single district rather than two non-contiguous groupings discussed during the previous meeting. The Commission commented how the larger apartment buildings do not diminish the scale of the area as a district, and how the existing bungalows still retain a low sense of scale. Historic personages involving Kenneth Strickfaden, Waldo K. Cowan, and local contractor/builder Joseph Rowe were discussed in having importance to the proposed District. The Commission discussed and agreed on findings in support of the district under criterion 9.56.100(A)(1), 9.56.100(A)(3), 9.56.100(A)(5), and 9.56.100(B)(3), and summarized below. Approved minutes for these meetings are provided as Attachment E. Landmarks Commission Recommended Findings Pursuant to the Landmarks Ordinance, the Commission reviewed the proposed District’s eligibility based on the historic district criterion, and recommends approval of 9 of 28 the District based on findings under the following criterion as provided in the Commission’s Statement of Official Recommendation (Attachment F): 9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. 9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. 9.56.100(A)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. 9.56.100(B)(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. Below is a brief summary of the Commission’s findings. Under Criteria 9.56.100(A)(1), the Commission finds that although there have been significant changes to the subject District since its period of significance, these changes do not unduly compromise the ability of the overall District to exemplify and manifest the City’s history of conveying an important development pattern. The five contributing properties of the proposed District are significant for conveying patterns of residential development that shaped the MidCity neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twentieth century. Each of these properties contribute to the scale, continuity, and character of this District. As a whole, their integrity of location, design, workmanship, material, setting, feeling, and association work together to visually and physically convey time, place, historical development and authenticity from its period of significance, even with the development of the non-contributing apartment buildings constructed after the area’s period of significance. This cluster of pre-1925 homes in the original Santa Monica tract is rare. As such, the District is an early and prime example of middle-class housing in the City and retains an important linkage to a significant 10 of 28 architectural period that is rapidly disappearing in the City. Under criterion 9.56.100(A)(3), the Commission finds that the District is identified with historic personages Kenneth Strickfaden and Waldo K. Cowan. Kenneth Strickfaden lived at 1223 12th Street from 1914 to 1920. He is largely known for his creation of the electronic special effects in the film Frankenstein (1931) as well as others, including The Wizard of Oz (1939). His development of techniques applied in these and other films can be seen in experiments conducted in his workshop behind his home, where he worked with electrical effects, wireless communications and Tesla coils. These experiments were part of a continuum of his opus as an artist, achieving international fame in adult life applying applications of electronics to filmic artistry. Waldo K. Cowan built five houses on the east side of 11th Street between what is now Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue: 1233, 1239, 1247, 1253 and 1259 11th Street (the latter now 1107 Arizona Avenue) and one on Arizona Avenue, 1109. He also lived in 1259 11th Street with his family from 1906-1914. Records show Cowan known for complete careers in several fields: real estate building and improvements; automobile introduction, use, and industrial development; pear agriculture and improvement; and civic and community leadership and service. He is identified for his early support of the automobile as a new phenomenon and a developing industry, plus its applications for fun and entertainment. Active in Santa Monica public affairs, he was a member of the 1899 Cycle Path Committee. He helped develop the first bicycle path in the city. He headed the Santa Monica Board of Trade and was an organizer and participant in several auto races when the city was known as an attraction for these events. Under criterion 9.56.100(A)(5), the Commission finds that the proposed district is a representative example of the work of notable builder Joseph J. Rowe, a local contractor who constructed two Craftsman style bungalows within the district; 1223 11th Street (1910) and 1229 11th Street (1908). Rowe was a very active contractor having constructed many cottages and bungalows in the City during the 1900s and 1910s. Both of these bungalows embody Rowe’s typical qualities of design and craftsmanship, and are the oldest known extant examples of his work. 11 of 28 Under criterion 9.56.100(B)(3), the Commission finds that the proposed district is one of the last remaining examples of a contiguous grouping of low scale working class housing that spans the entire first half of the 20th century. It represents the eastern most boundary of the earliest phase of development of the Santa Monica tract in the 20th century. The District contains early single-unit residences set at the front of the parcels, several with additional residences in the rear with post WWII era apartments infilling the adjacent lots. Architectural styles present along this portion include California Craftsman Bungalow, Hipped Roof Cottage, Spanish Colonial Revival, Minimal Traditional and Contemporary Vernacular. Although the period of significance is 1905 - 1926, the adjoining apartments extend the vernacular, working class nature of the neighborhood into the 1950’s, maintain its rare low scale, and do not diminish the District’s integrity.. As such, the Historic District reflects significant geographic patterns, including those associated with settlement and growth. Discussion Proposed District Application The application for the proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District (Attachment A) includes the applicant’s purpose/reasons for designation comprised of a comprehensive narrative on the history of the area, architectural significance of the proposed District, and person(s) of historic importance within the proposed study area. A narrative on the historic development of the underlying Santa Monica Tract originally consisting of bungalow-type residences for middle-class residents and changing development patterns is provided in Appendix 3 of the application. Appendix 4 outlines the statement on the architectural significance of the proposed district describing features of the subject bungalows, residences considered to be contributing buildings of the potential district, and a summary of their prior alterations. Appendix 5 includes a statement on persons of importance related to the subject properties within the study area including historic background information on personages. Proposed District Boundaries/Study Area Although the documentation included in the Historic District Application and in the prior 12 of 28 2017 Friends of 11th Street report discusses a potential District boundary consisting of 12 properties, and the potential for smaller clusters of properties, the study area was narrowed to a single contiguous district including 10 properties upon the application submittal, as described as Option 1 in the application. As shown on Figure 1 below, the proposed historic district on 11th Street consists of certain properties located along the east side of 11th Street, between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (1221-1253 11th Street), and properties along the north side of Arizona Avenue between 11th Street and 11th Court Alley (1107-1115 Arizona Avenue). Figure 1 - Proposed District Study Area/Boundaries The proposed District “study area” or boundaries consist of the following 10 properties: - 1221-1223 11th Street (Craftsman Bungalow) - 1227 11th Street - 1229 11th Street (Craftsman Bungalow) - 1233 11th Street (Hipped Roof Cottage w/Colonial Revival details) - 1239 11th Street (Hipped-Roof Cottage w/Colonial Revival details) - 1247 11th Street - 1253 11th Street (5-unit Condominium Residence) - 1107 Arizona Avenue (Hipped-Roof Cottage w/Colonial Revival details) 13 of 28 - 1109 Arizona Avenue (Craftsman Bungalow) - 1115 Arizona Avenue (Spanish Colonial Revival) Both the applicant’s report (Attachment A) and the Historic District Assessment prepared by OAC (Attachment C) provide a property description on the seven pre-World War II era residential properties (bungalows) identified by the applicant as contributors to the proposed historic district. Each summary consists of an architectural description and permit history of the property, and background information on the previous owners and occupants. Summary of Historic Context Town of Santa Monica Tract OAC researched the historical development and early architectural composition of the proposed district’s underlying Town of Santa Monica Tract as it relates to the residential development pattern of the 1200 block of 11th Street and its associated properties under review that were constructed prior to 1925. This research was intended to provide a greater understanding of the quantity of bungalows remaining in the area and determine if any one particular style or property type should be considered a rare example. The Town of Santa Monica Tract covers an expansive area of the City, with its boundaries defined roughly as the south side of Montana to the north, the north side of Colorado Boulevard to the south, the east side of Ocean Avenue to the west, and along the western side of 17th Street from Montana Avenue to Wilshire Boulevard as well as up to 20th Street to Colorado for the eastern border. As a result of redevelopment, the character of many of the neighborhoods within the Town of Santa Monica Tract have changed from 1910s hipped roof cottages and 1920s bungalows to neighborhoods with a mixture of early modest cottages, bungalows, 1920s and 1930s Period Revival homes, 1950s and 1960s apartment buildings, and modern condominiums and commercial buildings. The historical integrity of the contextual setting of the immediate area surrounding the subject 1200 block of 11th Street grouping and much of the Town of Santa Monica Tract have been compromised by this development. Nonetheless, the Tract still includes diversity of property types and styles. 14 of 28 Properties erected within the Town of Santa Monica Tract during the identified period of significance of 1905 to 1925 were researched and studied. OAC’s report identifies extant residential properties in the Town of Santa Monica Tract that were constructed prior to and including 1925 by address and architectural style. As described in the report, there are several remaining small pockets of older housing stock from the first period of the 20th century within the tract, and extant properties constructed prior to this time scattered throughout the tract as well. These early residential properties were constructed in one of several varied styles, including the Hipped Roof Cottage (13), Queen Anne (4), Craftsman (45), Spanish Colonial (22), and Period Revival (27) variants. Based on this research and survey, it appears that the 1200 block of 11th Street grouping, as well as other similar pockets of bungalows remain within the tract, and the tract in general consists of a varied collection of early residences constructed for and by, in many cases, the working and middle-class residents of the City. Neighborhood Context: 1200 Block of 11th Street The 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood contains single-unit residences and multi- unit apartments and condominium buildings. Buildings include a mix of one and two stories with the tallest two three-story condominiums at the south end of the block. Construction dates of the improvements vary from as early as 1905 through 1996. Most of the west side of the 1200 block is developed with post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings with only a single bungalow extant at 1218 11th Street. The east side of the street contains early single-unit residences set at the front of the parcels, several with additional buildings in the rear, with post World War II era apartments interspersed. Architectural styles present along this portion of the street include California Craftsman Bungalow, Hipped Roof Cottage, Spanish Colonial Revival, Minimal Traditional, and Contemporary Vernacular. Of the 18 total parcels along this block of 11th Street (inclusive of the 10 properties within the proposed district boundaries), ten (56%) were built with improvements post-dating World War II. The 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood adheres to a grid-like street network. The area was once developed with modest one-story, single-family dwellings until the mid- 15 of 28 1950s when two-story apartment buildings began replacing many of the homes along this street and others in the immediate neighborhood. Over the years, the block’s characteristics have changed from a rather quiet, calmer residential block to a street with higher traffic volume thereby affecting the historic context, feeling, and setting of the residential street. Parcels within and around the 1200 block of 11th Street were vacant until the early 20th century. Based on a 1902 Sanborn map, the entire east side of 11th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue was undeveloped with only two residences constructed on the west side of the street. The 1909 Sanborn map depicts the area well developed with 16 modest single-unit hipped roof cottages. By 1918, the block was fully developed with Craftsman bungalows. Similar to the surrounding neighborhood, this block of 11th Street was also constructed for the middle class with moderate incomes. Their social and economic status was very similar to those other middle-class residents living elsewhere in the town of Santa Monica and in neighboring communities throughout the southland. Because of their relative economy, bungalows addressed a growing need for affordable housing during the 1910s and 1920s. In terms of reflecting historic residential development patterns in the City, the neighborhood was one of numerous examples of the proliferation of single-unit dwellings in the Santa Monica Townsite. The architectural styles of choice for the smaller homes at the time were typically either the popular California Craftsman bungalow or Spanish Colonial Revival. During the 1920s and 1930s, multi-unit buildings also began replacing smaller homes throughout a number of neighborhoods. These trends intensified in the post-World War II era, with the removal of many modest bungalows for the development of large-scale apartment buildings and condominiums. The 1200 block of 11th Street underwent substantial redevelopment beginning in the late 1950s and through the 1960s and 1970s, and in later decades. Despite continued redevelopment into the modern era, there are still extant pockets of 16 of 28 residential neighborhoods throughout the Town of Santa Monica Tract (as detailed later in this report), the Mid-city area and the city overall that reflect aspects of the community’s association with the early working (middle) class and the overall diverse residential development of Santa Monica. Period of Significance Historic resources are identified as being significant during a specified period of time, referred to as the “period of significance.” The period of significance of the proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District is identified as 1905-1925, which spans the original period of construction of all previously identified “contributing” bungalow properties within the proposed District. Properties constructed after 1925 would be considered non-contributing buildings to the proposed District as lacking characteristics of the bungalow residence described as a modest, one- or one-and one-half story residence with simple exteriors and use of natural materials. Seven of the 10 properties in the study area were constructed within the period of significance. However, two of these bungalow properties constructed within the period of significance have been extensively altered and no longer accurately convey their original historic character. As such, they are also considered non-contributing buildings in the District, as further described later in this report. Associated Builders, Contractors, and Residents Many of the residences constructed on the 1200 block of 11th Street during the early 20th century were the result of local building contractor and real estate entrepreneur Waldo K. Cowan, who built one of his homes at 1253 11th Street in 1905 (now demolished) and later at 1259 11th Street. Most of the dwellings he constructed along this street and elsewhere in the community were speculative real estate investments, including his own on 11th Street. From a collective development of residences constructed by Cowan, because of compromised integrity within the neighborhood, there are limited extant representative examples along the 1200 Block of 11th Street to accurately convey his original concept of plan and design for residential development dating from the first quarter of the twentieth century (under his ownership and development). His few extant contributions to the development of the block date 17 of 28 primarily from 1905 to 1911. Within the proposed historic district are two Craftsman style bungalows that were constructed by local contractor Joseph J. Rowe; 1223 11th Street (1910) and 1229 11th Street (1908). Both of these bungalows reflect typical elements of the Craftsman idiom. Rowe was a very active contractor having constructed many cottages and bungalows in the City during the 1900s and 1910s. Most works by Rowe are limited and inconclusive as to his full professional portfolio. Given the modest size and typical design of the Rowe built bungalows along the 1200 block of 11th Street, it is unlikely a prominent architect or designer was involved or was associated with their designs. ANALYSIS Application of National Park Service Guidelines and Best Practices to Evaluation of Proposed Historic District as Framework and Guidance to Apply Landmarks Ordinance Evaluation Criteria Standard preservation practice evaluates collections of properties from similar time periods and historic contexts as historic districts. While local law does not require compliance with NPS guidelines, the City, like many other jurisdictions, looks to NPS guidelines as persuasive guidance in applying local law’s designation criteria. The NPS defines a historic district as “a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.” Resources that contribute to the historic identity of a district are referred to as “district contributors.” Properties located within the district boundaries that do not contribute to its significance are identified as “non-contributors.” A district can comprise of both, however the majority of the properties that exemplify the district’s historic character must possess integrity. Within the context of historic preservation, integrity is defined as the property’s ability to convey its significance as described more fully on page 44 in Attachment H. According to NPS guidelines, a property of a district cannot contribute to the significance if it has been substantially altered since the period of the proposed district’s significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new intrusions that it no longer conveys its overall sense of historic time and place. 18 of 28 Staff’s overall approach in analyzing the proposed District utilizes these guidelines to help inform whether the district satisfies the Ordinance criteria. The degree to which these guidelines are relied upon to evaluate a district’s eligibility is not mandated by the Ordinance, and criterion findings can be made that differ from these guidelines. The proposed district, as recommended by the Landmarks Commission, is comprised of 10 parcels, five of which are considered potential contributors that are substantially intact improvements that date from the area’s period of significance (1905-1925). Two of the 10 buildings have been inappropriately altered and no longer accurately convey their historic character. The remaining three properties are improvements constructed after the area’s period of significance. The proposed district would consist of five contributors and five non-contributors, resulting in a district composition including 50% of its properties as contributors to the historic district. In addition to having a majority of contributing properties within a potential district, a district should have sufficient historical integrity and possess significance as a whole. Overall, the district must be able to visually and physically convey its sense of time, place, historical development and authenticity from its period of significance. Similarly, NPS Guidelines provide that “the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character, even if they are individually undistinguished, must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole.” While the Landmarks Ordinance does not require that a district consist of a majority of its contributors, such a majority remains important as it helps to define a district’s development pattern, cohesiveness, concentration of resources, and overall integrity. This is demonstrated by the City’s existing Historic Districts, including the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, Bay Street Cluster, and San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartments Historic District which all consist of a majority of its properties as contributors. As currently developed with a variety of improvements from various periods with varying degrees of historic integrity, the small collection of residential improvements along the narrowly defined proposed District boundary, as recommended by the Landmarks 19 of 28 Commission, does not appear to be a distinct concentration of resources developed with more than a majority of its contributors. The two properties identified by the applicant as “altered contributors” have been extensively modified and no longer accurately convey their original historic character. Therefore, these properties were identified as “non-contributors” in the OAC report. Under this scenario, the proposed District, as recommended by the Landmarks Commission, would result in five contributors out of a total of 10 properties within the proposed district boundary (fifty percent composition of contributors). The following table provides a summary of this analysis. Address Description District Status Year Built 1 1221-1223 11th Street Single-family, Apartment Contributor 1910, 1955 2 1227 11th Street Apartment Building Non-contributor 1957 3 1229 11th Street Single-family Contributor 1908, 1912, 1921 4 1233 11th Street Single-family Contributor 1905, 1924 5 1239 11th Street Single-family Non-contributor 1905, 1934 6 1247 11th Street Apartment Building Non-contributor 1955 7 1253 11th Street Condominium Non-contributor 1992 8 1107 Arizona Avenue Single-family Contributor 1907 9 1109 Arizona Avenue Single-family Non-contributor 1911 10 1115 Arizona Avenue Single-family Contributor 1925 The Landmarks Ordinance similarly does not contain a minimum number of properties to create an Historic District. However, as stated in the 2018 citywide HRI update report regarding the identification and evaluations of “clusters”, such small groupings of resources typically do not convey sufficient information about patterns of history and development. Consistent with NPS survey guidelines related to historic districts, the consultant’s Assessment determined that smaller noncontiguous groupings or clusters within the 10 property study area did not convey the history of the development due to their small size and lack of cohesiveness within their setting, similar to the reasoning for denial of the proposed single District set forth in the findings described below. The 1200 block of 11th Street was originally developed with hipped roof cottages and bungalows. However, many post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings and condominiums have infilled the area resulting in a change in the historic setting and feeling of the neighborhood. The spatial organization of the parcels, the different 20 of 28 property types constructed over time, and the varied architectural styles in the neighborhood have visually altered the distinctive development patterns associated with the older properties remaining within the study area. The result is a varied residential development pattern lacking unity, cohesiveness, and a distinct concentration of resources. The extensive loss of historic fabric on some of the older extant residences have further compromised the collective historical integrity of the small assemblage of properties that were once identified as part a thematic grouping. The properties under review do not visually or accurately manifest as a cohesive, unified entity of the early residential development patterns of the Santa Monica that occurred in the area during the first quarter of the twentieth century. Because of its small size and inconsistent composition, the proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District does not accurately or adequately convey an important development “pattern” within the City. It reflects a very small aspect of the City’s overall association with the middle class from the first quarter of the twentieth century, but because of its diminutive, non-cohesive composition, does not fully demonstrate this particular socio-economic group as collectively making important contributions to the City. Further, with respect to historic personages, according to the NPS, properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented may be considered potentially historic resources if they meet certain requirements. The criterion is generally restricted to those extant properties (buildings, structures, or sites) that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person’s important achievements. A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned, occupied or used by a notable person, as it must be shown that the person gained importance within his or her profession while occupying the property. In addition, the property/building that directly represents where the person’s significant accomplishments were achieved must still be extant. Based on this framework for evaluating persons of significance criteria, it appears that the subject district would not be identified with historic personages. 21 of 28 No evidence was found to indicate that any former owners or occupants of the subject properties within the proposed District were associated with any important historical events in local, state, or national history. Although there is evidence to associate the rear garage/workshop at 1223 11th Street with special effects master Ken Strickfaden’s early endeavors into his electrical special effects profession, such association was lost when the structure was demolished and replaced in 1955 with a residential apartment building. Furthermore, much of his research for his professional work was conducted in his home garage located at 1348 15th Street, after he moved out from the 11th Street property. According to standard industry practice, a property that pre- or post-dates an individual’s significant accomplishments are typically not considered eligible. Strickfaden’s residence at the time of creating the sets and props for the 1931 film Frankenstein and other motion pictures and television shows would more closely be associated with the life, profession, and accomplishments of Ken Strickfaden. Staff Evaluation of Historic District Designation Criteria The Landmarks Ordinance requires the City Council to review the proposed District’s eligibility based on the criteria discussed below. The City’s historic consultant concluded that the proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District is ineligible as an Historic District and does not meet any of the criteria for designation as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and 9.56.100(B). Staff agrees with the assessment provided by the City’s consultant, OAC, and recommends against designation of the proposed Historic District consistent with the following findings: 9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. Although the proposed District is associated with an earlier period of the City’s residential development history, it does not appear to satisfy this criterion due to compromised historical integrity of many of its resources and the neighborhood in general. Because of its small size and inconsistent composition, the proposed District does not accurately or adequately convey an important development pattern within the City. It reflects a very small aspect of the City’s overall association with the middle-class 22 of 28 from the first quarter of the twentieth century, but because of its diminutive non- cohesive composition, does not fully demonstrate this particular socio-economic group. Furthermore, there are still extant pockets of residential neighborhoods throughout the Town of Santa Monica Tract, the Mid-city area and the city overall that reflect aspects of the community’s association with the early working (middle) class and the overall diverse residential development of Santa Monica. Though this little assemblage of residences is part of the City’s history, it does not on its own manifest historic elements. The proposed District does not appear to be a geographically definable area possessing a distinct concentration of historic properties. The block is densely developed comprised primarily of large-scale, post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings that are interspersed with modest single-unit residences dating from the 1900s, 1920s, and 1930s. Three of the 10 properties within the proposed District are developed with multi- unit residential buildings constructed after the district’s period of significance (1905- 1925). The overall period of construction along this block was built over a period of time spanning from roughly 1905 to 1996. This sporadic development is evident in the variety, type, and size of existing residential improvements and architectural styles. Contextually, the properties within the proposed District vary in building type, setbacks, scale and massing forms, and levels of historical integrity. Some of the bungalow properties are screened by fencing and landscaping and are not clearly visible from the sidewalk and streets. These characteristics provide a sense of disconnect between the bungalow and multi-unit properties, and a lack of cohesiveness and uniformity within the study area, further emphasized when viewing these properties within the context of the entire 1200 block of 11th Street. As a result of this lack of uniformity, concentration, and cohesiveness, the association of themes is not accurately visually or physically conveyed. Therefore, the proposed District does not exemplify the neighborhood’s early development pattern, and this particular grouping of bungalows does not uniquely exemplify the middle-class in Santa Monica during the first quarter of the twentieth century. 23 of 28 9.56.100(A)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The proposed Historic District consists of properties reflecting various architectural styles and property types. The subject bungalows are typical examples of their architectural styles and lack stylistic articulation and design qualities. The subject properties do not possess aesthetic or artistic value, and therefore the proposed District does not satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history. No evidence was found to indicate that any former owners or occupants of the subject properties within the proposed District were associated with any important historical events in local, state, or national history that would merit consideration under this criterion. Although there is evidence to associate the rear garage/workshop at 1223 11th Street with special effects master Ken Strickfaden’s early endeavors into his electrical special effects profession, such association was lost when the structure was demolished and replaced in 1955 with a residential apartment building. Furthermore, much of his research for his professional work was conducted in his home garage located at 1348 15th Street, after he moved out from the 11th Street property. Strickfaden’s residence at the time of creating the sets and props for the 1931 film Frankenstein and other motion pictures and television shows would more closely be associated with the life, profession, and accomplishments of Ken Strickfaden. Therefore, the proposed District is not associated with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history, and therefore does not appear to satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(A)(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. 24 of 28 Although the proposed District includes a few good examples of properties reflective of the turn-of-century hipped roof cottage and the ubiquitous California Craftsman-style architecture from 1905 to 1925, these bungalows are relatively simple in design and typical examples of the period, and do not embody distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of their respective architectural styles. Based on extent examples of turn-of-century hipped roof cottages and Craftsman-style residences prevalent in the City, the subject bungalows are not unique or rare examples of its architectural design or historical type and remain representative throughout the City. Therefore, the proposed District does not appear to satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(A)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. A few of the District properties were identified with Waldo K. Cowan. Cowan was actively involved in the community and was a local builder/contractor, real estate businessman, and auto dealer. Many of the residents he constructed were speculative housing, including his first personal residence on the block located at 1253 11th Street. Although this property was eventually demolished for new multi-unit construction, his second residence at 1107 Arizona Avenue (1259 11th Street) appears substantially intact. There is no clear evidence that connects the 1107 Arizona Avenue property with his professional or civic life. Mere occupancy association between the house and Cowan’s professional business does not necessarily account for historical significance. From a collective development of residences constructed by Cowan, because of compromised integrity within the neighborhood, there are limited extant representative examples along the 1200 Block of 11th Street to accurately convey his original concept of plan and design for residential development dating from the first quarter of the twentieth century. His few extant contributions to the development of the block date primarily from 1905 to 1911. Within the proposed District there are also two Craftsman style bungalows that were constructed by local contractor Joseph J. Rowe; 1223 11th Street (1910) and 1229 11th 25 of 28 Street (1908). Both of these bungalows reflect typical elements of the Craftsman idiom. Rowe was a very active contractor having constructed many cottages and bungalows in the City during the 1900s and 1910s. Most works by Rowe are limited and inconclusive as to his full professional portfolio. There is insufficient evidence to suggest or conclude that he was a notable, master builder in Santa Monica. Given the modest size and typical design of the Rowe built bungalows along the 1200 block of 11th Street, it is unlikely a prominent architect or designer was involved or was associated with their designs. The subject properties within the proposed District are not significant or representative examples of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect, and therefore does not appear to satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(A)(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. Contextually, properties within the proposed District vary in building types, setbacks, scale and massing forms, and levels of historical integrity. Some of the bungalow properties are screened by fencing and landscaping and are not clearly visible from the sidewalk and streets. These characteristics provide a sense of disconnect between the bungalow and other multi-unit properties constructed after the period of significance and an overall lack of cohesiveness and uniformity, which is even further reduced when viewing the subject properties within the context of the entire block. Therefore, the subject district does not appear to satisfy this criterion. Historic District Criteria 9.56.100(B)(1). Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.56.100(a)(1) through (6). The proposed district does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria for designation as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and 9.56.100(B), as described above. Thus, the proposed District does not satisfy this criterion. 26 of 28 9.56.100(B)(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. The properties under review do not visually or accurately manifest as a cohesive, unified entity of the early residential development patterns of the Santa Monica that occurred in the area during the first quarter of the twentieth century. In consideration of a thematic grouping based on shared themes of architecture, design, development, and socio-economic composition, those properties that are extant vary in integrity, condition, design principals, workmanship, and construction. The spatial organization of the properties, the different property types constructed over time, and the varied architectural styles have visually altered the distinctive development patterns associated with the older properties remaining within the proposed District. Because of the sporadic placement of properties, their varied levels of integrity, the introduction of inappropriate hardscape (street features and conditions, tall fences, irregular streetscape elements, etc.) and softscape features (tall dense landscape obscuring properties from the public right-of-way), and lack of a definable unified area, it appears that the proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District cluster no longer qualifies as a thematic grouping. Therefore, the proposed District does not appear to satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(B)(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. The proposed district within the 1200 block of 11th Street is comprised of improvements of varying dates of construction, architectural styles, and property types. The 1200 block of 11th Street was originally developed with hipped roof cottages and bungalows. However, many post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings and condominiums have infilled the area resulting in a change in the historic setting and feeling of the neighborhood. The result is a varied residential development pattern lacking unity, cohesiveness, and a distinct concentration of resources. The extensive 27 of 28 loss of historic fabric on some of the older extant residences have further compromised the collective historical integrity of the small assemblage of properties that were once identified as part of a cluster or grouping. In addition, because of its small size and inconsistent composition, the proposed District does not accurately or adequately convey an important development pattern within the City. It reflects a very small aspect of the City’s overall association with the middle-class from the first quarter of the twentieth century, but because of its diminutive, non-cohesive composition, does not fully demonstrate this particular socio-economic group. Therefore, the proposed District does not appear to satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(B)(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. Since the proposed District does not appear to meet criterion 9.56.100(A)(6), it does not satisfy this criterion. Alternatives As an alternative to the recommended action, the City Council may: 1) Approve the application and designate proposed historic district by adopting the attached Ordinance (Attachment L) incorporating the Landmarks Commission’s recommended findings, with any minor clarifications as needed, if Council determines designation is supported by the full evidentiary record. Should the Council choose to deny the proposed Historic District application, it should be noted that the process for review of properties on an individual basis for potential designation is available. Any future consideration of properties on an individual basis would be subject to different findings and analysis and done separately and apart from the pending 11th Street Historic District application under consideration in this staff report. Public Correspondence 28 of 28 All public correspondence provided to the City during the Landmarks Commission review and prior to the completion of this report is attached. Correspondence in support of the proposed district is provided as Attachment J, and correspondence from affected property owners in opposition of the proposed district is provided as Attachment K. Environmental Analysis Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency disapproves. Based on the recommended action, CEQA would not be applicable. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. Prepared By: Steve Mizokami, Senior Planner Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Applicant’s Materials: Historic 11th Street Coalition Report (May 2018) B. Preliminary Historic District Assessment, Ostashay & Associates (Dec 2017) C. Historic District Assessment Report, Ostashay & Associates (November 2018) D. November 12, 2018 Landmarks Commission Staff Report E. November 12, 2018 & December 10, 2018 Landmarks Commission Minutes F. Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Recommendation G. Historic District Procedures (SMMC 9.56.130) H. Proponent Outreach (2017) I. NPS Guidelines J. Public Correspondence: Support Letters K. Public Correspondence: Opposition Letters L. 11th Street Historic District Designation Ordinance (first reading) M. Written Comments Appendix 2 Ways to Conﬁgure the District’s Boundaries The proposed district is in the center of Santa Monica on the east side of 11th Street between the lot at 1221/1223 11th Street and Arizona Avenue. It also includes the three lots that face Arizona Avenue (numbers 1107,1109, and 1115 Arizona Avenue) between 11th Street and 11th Court. (See attached map next page.) These three lots were a subdivision of the original Lot M, otherwise all the lots are 50’x150’. The street frontage on 11th Street is 400’ and along Arizona Avenue 150’ for a total area of 60,000 square feet (1.38 acres). The proposed district includes five lots on the Historical Resources Inventory: 1221/1223, 1229, 1233 11th Street and 1107 and 1115 Arizona Avenue. Option 1: A single district The possible proposed district is composed of 10 lots (outlined in black on map page 3), including five contributors, two altered contributors and three non-contributors. In this district there would be 70% contributors if the altered contributors were considered, or 50% if only the unaltered contributors are considered. The role of our altered contributors is very significant. While initially they may appear, in their altered state, to dilute the integrity of the district, they have two major benefits for a district. By their shape, massing, and position on their lots, they still suggest what the district must have looked like 100-odd years ago. And equally important, they could be reversed back to their essential original unaltered states by removing the stucco on 1239 11th Street and 1109 Arizona Avenue and by reapplying the raised eaves and ridges to 1218 11th Street. For a full reversal, historically consistant fencing could replace the a historical ones and pruning of overgrown vegetation would be helpful. This kind of painstaking rehabilitation of landmarks has been successfully conducted by very dedicated owners, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Therefore, it behooves us to always keep open the option of reversibility for any non-contributor that could, with apprpriate effort, be returned to contributor status. Given that possibility, the prospective district might actually increase its integrity, ending up with a larger number of contributing structures, rather than be diminished by the more common deterioration over time by normal building alterations. In other words, an altered contributor is always a potential contributor. Option 2: Two clusters In the event the Landmarks Commission decides to create two clusters (outlined in red on map page 3) instead of a unified district, one cluster would have four lots (1221/1223,1227,1229,1233 11th Street) for a 75% contributor to non-contributor ratio. This cluster would have three lots on the Historical Resources Inventory: 1221/1223, 1229, 1233 11th Street. One of these lots, 1221/1223 11th Street, has been previously recommended by a city-selected architectural historian for landmarking (See ARG’s 1990 1221-1223 11th Street, Santa Monica, Landmark and Structure of Merit Preliminary Assessment Report). The other cluster would only be the three lots along Arizona Avenue (1107,1109, and 1115 Arizona Avenue) for a 100% contributor to non-contributor ratio (67% if the altered contributor at 1109 Arizona Avenue is not considered). This potential cluster has 2 lots on the Historical Resources Inventory: 1107 and 1115 Arizona Avenue. Other Options There is an altered contributor at 1239 11th Street that could be added to the first cluster should the Landmarks Commission want to do so (outlined with a dashed red line on map page 3). In that case, that first cluster would be five lots with an 80% contributor to non-contributor ratio or 60% if this altered addition were dropped out. There is also one final outlier, 1218 11th Street (also outlined in a dashed red line on map), which is on the Historical Resources Inventory across the street from the proposed district. But it has been altered and its inclusion would make the Option 1 District a combined 12 lots (adds 1218 and 1215 11th Street for district continuity) of which five would be contributors, three altered contributors and four non-contributors for a 66% (or 42% if the altered ones are not counted) contributor to non-contributor ratio. Or these two lots could be added to the first cluster which would make that cluster have 6 lots with 3 contributors (50%), one altered contributor and two non contributors. The trade-off to be determined is whether a historic district is better served by being larger but with a lower density of contributors or being smaller clusters with a higher ratio of contributors. Appendix 3 11th Street Bungalow Historic District’s Historical Signiﬁcance By Mario Fonda-Bonardi, AIA This proposed district deﬁnes the growing edge of the City of Santa Monica at the turn of the last century. This entire block was primarily built in a very short span of time, from 1904 to 1911. Though the last house was added at 1115 Arizona Avenue in 1925, both sides of 11th Street were built out with single-family homes in only seven years. Prior to this explosion of construction (today called “urban sprawl”), this area was dry open ﬁelds with a scattering of residences stretching all the way east to where the then recently built Veterans Home was located in what is now Brentwood. There was so much open space that Donald Douglas even had a small airstrip near what is now Douglas Park, before he moved his ﬂedgling airplane business in 1922 to what became Santa Monica Airport. While this proposed district is at the center of the original Santa Monica Tract laid out in 1875, in 1910 the city’s 7800 residents were still primarily clustered in the few blocks adjacent to the beach. The services for this district’s new residents were available downtown, only a 15-minute walk or ﬁve-minute bike ride away. In other words, in 1910 the city had only reached about a third of its eventual 33-block eastward expansion from the beach and it still operated primarily on a low-rise pedestrian scale. Functionally it was a village compared to the built-out city it has become today, with over 94,000 residents and 9 million visitors per year. To the current observer, this proposed district alludes to and makes real a previous century, which was signiﬁcantly different from today. In the 40 years between 1956 and 1996 all the bungalows, except one on the west side of this block of 11th Street were crushed by a wave of dense two- and three-story apartment buildings that now characterize the entire mid-Wilshire area. Likewise, between 1955 and 1992, on the east side of the block, where the district is now being proposed, two- and three-story apartment buildings knocked out four more bungalows of what was once a stylistically coherent block of turn-of-the-last-century bungalows. But enough remains of the original block to provide visual relief from the wall of apartments that have inexorably converted the former village into a city, and enough remains to highlight the difference between then and now. This district makes it possible to understand that 120 years ago, Santa Monica had actual suburbs, and this is what they looked like. While there are many ﬁne singular examples and even some clusters of California bungalows and Craftsman-style homes in the neighborhoods of Santa Monica, particularly north of Montana Avenue and in Ocean Park, there was a time when this particular style of construction was dominant and was substantially distributed throughout the city. In 1913, in the area bounded by Wilshire, Ocean, Colorado and 19th Street there were 442 such buildings (See page 22 “ The Disappearing Bungalow” of the Documentation Report). While all areas of the city have been subjected to urbanization, gentriﬁcation, and mansionization, this mid-Wilshire area has been impacted the most, so that at this time, this is the only and best cluster of such homes in the original Santa Monica Tract. It is particularly unique in that it survives as single-family residences of a consistent architectural style, the California bungalow, in an area where in the last two-thirds of a century, only multi-family buildings have been built. Historically the areas north of Montana Avenue and in Ocean Park had the cachet of beach proximity and ocean views, and so were favored by the wealthier residents. Meanwhile, the middle-class resident found homes inland in such neighborhoods as Sunset Park and mid- Wilshire, while the poorer neighborhoods were traditionally along the transit and manufacturing core where the railroad and eventually the freeway ran. This proposed historic district is an early and prime example of middle-class Santa Monica housing. It highlights how relatively small, single-story houses with backyards allowed middle-class residents to raise families and prosper neither in cramped apartments nor in sprawling mansions. Today we cannot produce such middle-class housing any more. In Santa Monica today, a middle-class buyer can only afford to purchase a small unit in an old multi-story condominium building, if at all. Finally, few people are building single-story homes in Santa Monica today. Finally when this are was built 100 odd years ago, garages were often small, converted, or nonexistent because there was plenty of street parking compared to today, where the management of parking spaces, ramps, and car access is often the tail that wags the dog of the design of most contemporary housing projects. Again, the contrast between the choices available to present and to past home builders and residents is demonstrated by this historic district. Much like the tree rings that show you how big a tree was at different ages, this proposed historic district tells us where the growing edge of our city was in the age when the California bungalow was king. Centrally located and showing where Santa Monica’s suburbs once were, surviving relentless adjacent densiﬁcation, evoking a past lifestyle, in a rare cluster with a speciﬁc, consistent architectural style, and serving the often historically ignored middle class, this proposed historic district is worthy of designation.   Appendix 4 11th Street Bungalow Historic District’s Architectural Signiﬁcance By Mario Fonda-Bonardi, AIA The proposed district has seven contributor buildings of which six are traditional California bungalows. Two of them (1239 11th Street and 1109 Arizona Avenue) have been altered primarily by stuccoing over the wood siding. Such stuccoing is not unusual in these older buildings given the higher maintenance cost of continually having to repaint the wood siding. Unfortunately, this happens to a huge number of similar wood-sided buildings. The 1905-1920 California bungalow is a one-story house characterized by gable ends usually facing the street, decorative corbels, front porches (which are sometimes enclosed), wood window frames, horizontal wood siding, exposed rafters and ridge beams, and wood or asphalt shingle roofs. They are different from the traditional 1900-1915 Craftsman style (as in the iconic Greene and Greene homes in Pasadena), which usually have heavier detailed timbers, wide porches, and often river rock skirts and stone or concrete pedestals. However, there are often hybrids of the two styles so there is not a bright line separating them. The bungalows are visually lighter, often painted a lighter color instead of the dark-stained shingles of traditional Craftsman homes. Because the two styles occur concurrently in time there is often intermixing between them. Many bungalows aspire to the grandeur of the traditional Craftsman home. But Craftsman homes typically are larger, darker, and have gravitas while bungalows are light and graceful, somewhat more beﬁtting a vacation seaside community. The bungalows of the 11th Street district are clearly in that cheerful spirit, and stand in stark contrast to the square, more recent dingbats that surround them. One of the reasons bungalows were so widely diffused all over the country is that they were made up of many smaller wood pieces compared to the heavy timbers of the traditional Craftsman. That made them easier and therefore cheaper to build by the carpenters who had no portable power tools at that time. Another characteristic that all the homes in the district share is a tall attic, which was essential for keeping cool in a pre-air conditioning and pre-insulation environment. That tall attic was often repurposed into a second story (e.g., 1239 11th Street and 1107 Arizona Avenue). The bungalow could be viewed as the tract home of its time: easy and quick to build. Successful builders such as Waldo K. Cowan (1233 11th Street and the demolished 1253 11th Street, plus 1107 Arizona Avenue) and Joseph J. Rowe (1223 and 1229 11th Street), once they had mastered the formula with such curb appeal, could reliably crank them out and probably make money on each one. This surviving line of bungalows still expresses what made them so desirable for buyers 110 years ago. The main difference in their curb appeal today, apart from the two stuccoed ones, is that some of the fencing and shrubbery in the front is not of the best quality and condition (especially the leaning cane fencing at 1239 11th Street). These overgrown impediments mask the district’s natural grace. But such shrubbery and fencing could easily be cleaned up to improve these homes’ street visibility and thus give the district more cohesion and visual integrity on this high-trafﬁc street. While not certain, the fencing is probably not original as very few fences survive 110 years of termites and weathering. The designation of the district would probably enhance the owners’ pride and willingness to improve their homes’ street presentation. The last contributor built, the 1925 home at 1115 Arizona Avenue, is an interesting case since it is the only originally stuccoed home but in a Spanish Revival style. While still small and graceful, it signals the end of the bungalow historical period and foreshadows the start of the ﬂat- roofed Spanish or Mediterranean style that was about to sweep all the tract home projects of Los Angeles in the 1930s. This fad was locally kicked off by our own esteemed John Byers. In fact, the possible Cluster #2 on Arizona Avenue is a perfect, complete mini lesson on three decades of architectural history. On the corner (1107 Arizona Avenue) is a classic hip-roofed bungalow built in 1906, then ﬁve years later a small, gracefully detailed home is built at 1109 Arizona Avenue in the subdivided lot, and then 14 years later, responding to the rising wave of romantic Spanish architecture, the ﬁrst hint of the Spanish Revival in the district sneaks in at 1115 Arizona Avenue. Finally, at some uncertain point, probably after 1925, 1109 Arizona Avenue gets stuccoed, probably due to either maintenance fatigue (continuous repainting of wood siding) or a desire to be more contemporary with the stucco fashion running from the 1930s to the present. So in this one 50’x 150’ subdivided lot you have a complete picture of how the wood-sided bungalow was slowly surpassed by cheaper stucco construction which dominates Southern California construction to this day. Finally, there is the outlier home at 1218 11th Street, built in 1913. This is a Craftsman home with an unusual chain-hung front roof and shows Asiatic inﬂuences, as it once had unsweeping end ridges that were very popular in some Craftsman homes (See the original picture on page 36 of the Documentation Report). Recently, those uplifting ridges were removed in a rerooﬁng misadventure where the city allowed them to be destroyed, even thought the permit rightfully said this home was on the Historic Resources Inventory and therefore could only be remodeled according to the Secretary of Interior Standards. This is a case study in the failure of the construction process, and such disasters are less likely to occur once a historic district is designated. This building and its linking counterpart (1215 11th Street) necessary for a contiguous district, as previously discussed, may or may not be included in the proposed district. In conclusion, this block has a clear and consistent linkage to a signiﬁcant architectural period that is rapidly disappearing in Santa Monica (See pages 22 and 23 “Disappearing Bungalow” in the Documentation Report). Once found in all corners of Santa Monica, the bungalow, because of its high maintenance costs and small footprint (1115 Arizona Avenue is only 771 square feet and 1109 Arizona Avenue is only 1057 square feet), has not found historical favor in an urbanizing city. Few, if any, people are building small, one-story homes in Santa Monica today. While this is changing, with the new explosion of rear yard accessory dwelling units to try to address our current housing shortage, these small new buildings are clearly secondary to the primary residence and not of a consistant style and certainly not visually strong enough to deﬁne an entire street. Today, the pressures of scarce open land and of high construction costs mean that new residential buildings cram residents into small apartments in multi-story buildings. These same pressures, while reduced, existed earlier and often resulted in the wonderful trend of small courtyard houses (See 2402 Hollister Avenue built in 1911) in the bungalow style. This was a graceful attempt to deal with the pressures of urban densiﬁcation while keeping the bungalow spirit. But the purest form of that spirit was what you see on 11th Street: small, welcoming houses with big backyards and some garages off the alley in the back. This was the real manifestation of the aspiration of Santa Monica’s middle class even beyond the two decades of its heyday. The white picket fence was, of course, de rigueur for this American Dream. Like most dreams, it needs to be protected from the “reality” of a still relentlessly urbanizing built-out city.  Appendix 5 People of Historic Importance in the 11th Street Bungalow Historic District By Susan Suntree, Co-chair Friends of 11th Street Waldo K. (Willie) Cowan On 27 March 1903, the Daily Outlook announced that, “The Dudley Investment Company has sold Waldo Cowan a lot on Seventh Street between Arizona and Oregon. Mr. Cowan is a newcomer and will improve the place at once.” Cowan must have taken this to heart, because he made major contributions to Santa Monica civic life in the decade that he and his wife, Susie, lived here. Waldo Cowan was a member of the Santa Monica Board of Trade (a predecessor of the Chamber of Commerce) and the Santa Monica School Board, secretary of the Oddfellows Seaside Lodge #30, treasurer of the Foresters of America Court Neptune 99, treasurer and active leader of the Associated Charities, member of the Cycle Path Committee, founding member of the Los Angeles Automobile Club, and car dealer selling the very first hybrid gas-electric cars in the region. He was also the 1912 election supervisor for his precinct. He ran for assessor and for city council for the 6th Ward, and though he was not elected, his leadership is evident in the work he did on the Board of Education during the era when a new high school on Prospect Hill, Santa Monica High School, was under consideration, and in his other activities that kept him regularly in the news. Cowan was an important early builder during the first decades of the city’s history, building some of the city’s first homes, among the very oldest buildings still standing in the City of Santa Monica, on the 1200 block of 11th Street. On May 23, 1904, Frank Boothe paid for one of the early building permits in the city (#80) to hire Cowan to construct a small home at 1233 11th Street. Cowan bought lot N (1253 11th Street) from Robert Jones, and built himself a house in July 1904. It was a bungalow described by architectural historian and bungalow expert Robert Winter as an excellent example of the Neoclassical Revival style. Cowan sold his home at 1253 11th Street to the Cripe family, who owned, with C.F. Geltner, Santa Monica’s best-known brick kiln. In 1906, after purchasing lot M (now 1107, 1109, and 1115 Arizona Avenue at the corner of 11th and Arizona) from Robert Jones, Cowan built a home for his growing family—a large hip- roofed bungalow that remained in his family for several years. Cowan was an energetic, engaged, and influential member of Santa Monica’s founding community. His range of interests evolved from carpentry to contracting to real estate development to civic duty to model pear orchards to fast cars to the newest innovations in automobile design. His influence is still evident in the Santa Monica tradition of civic participation and in the beauty of the 11th Street bungalows. (See: 1107 Arizona Avenue in the Documentation Report, pages 74-86 for more about Cowan.) Joseph J. Rowe Joseph J. Rowe was a master builder working in the City of Santa Monica during the first two decades of the 20th century. He was aware of Greene and Greene’s work and incorporated the details of Craftsman architecture into his designs. Landmarks Commission staff and consultants’ commentaries have praised the quality of design and craftsmanship embodied in his extant buildings and described it as high relative to other local builders of the period. These comments were included in Landmarks Commission staff and consultant reports when the 1916 house Rowe built at 929 Lincoln Blvd. was landmarked in 2007. Another home built by Rowe, the 1914 William Pigott House at 426 Palisades Avenue, was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is listed in the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory as having a California Historical Resource Status Code of 3S (appears eligible for National Register as an individual property through survey evaluation). Because both the residence at 929 Lincoln and the William Pigott House were designed and constructed with a high level of skill, it appears that Rowe was an exceptional master builder. Rowe’s work is noted for exhibiting a particularly high level of integrity of design, materials, and workmanship. The bungalows at 1223 and 1229, both built in 1911, are the oldest known extant examples of his work. (See: 1229 11th Street in the Documentation Report, pages 51-54 for more about Rowe.) Ken Strickfaden Kenneth Strickfaden (1896-1984) became famous as a founding Hollywood special effects artist and is known for his photographs of early Santa Monica. He moved to Santa Monica with his father, Frank Strickfaden, who bought 1223 11th Street in 1914, which remained in his family for three generations. Listed as a working electrician in the Santa Monica Directories, during his Santa Monica High School years, Ken Strickfaden began his career at his family’s home at 1223 11th Street experimenting, practicing, and inventing in his backyard workshop (see: Strickfaden workshop photo in The Documentation Report, page 43). He experimented with Tesla coils, wireless communications, and electrical effects — skills that led to his fame. Strickfaden also took up photography, and in 1914 began taking photos of Santa Monica area sites; these are part of the Santa Monica Library collection of early images of the city. The house at 1223 11th Street remained his permanent residence until 1920. He and Les Storrs, the city’s former director of planning and zoning, were good friends, and Storrs recalls some of their adventures in his book, Santa Monica: Portrait of a City. Strickfaden became a famous and highly honored Hollywood special effects genius. His wildly arcing and sparking electricity effects for James Whale’s 1931 masterpiece Frankenstein catapulted him into fame and a career that spanned dozens of films, including The Wizard of Oz. Ken’s importance to the development of the film industry was recognized in 1981 at a gala held in his honor by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, where they celebrated his contributions to the evolution of filmic drama through special effects. (See: 1223 11th Street in the Documentation Report, pages 39-43 for more about the Strickfaden family.) Residents of 11th Street The 11th Street residents of most historic importance, however, were the middle-income, middle- class people whose various skills and labor built the city, who created a civic culture, and whose bungalows often remained in their families for generations. Rancher William Nelson, plastering contractor F.A. Griffith, painter Ashford Drumm and their families all lived here. Teachers, policemen, truck drivers, nursery owners, families, real estate investors, retirees, all lived here. Louis B. Mayer bought three lots at the corner of 11th and Wilshire. In the early 1960s, James and Doris Lennon purchased 1223 11th Street from Frank Strickfaden’s granddaughter, Marilyn Throssel, to use as a rental. An uncle of the Lennon Sisters, a 1950s and ’60s singing group, Jimmy Lennon was one of the 20th century’s most famous boxing announcers. His son, Jimmy Lennon, Jr., who grew up on 11th Street, followed in his father's footsteps and, in 2012, was inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame 2013 class. Between 1904 and 1913, 11th Street between Wilshire Blvd. and Arizona Avenue established itself as a family neighborhood of people whose contributions, then and in the present, created a vital, charming city.  Appendix 6 11th Street Bungalow Historic District’s Findings Regarding Eligibility The proposed district is justiﬁed by meeting ﬁve of the six requirements for a historic district designation per Santa Monica’s Landmark Code SMMC 9.56.100A: 1. Exempliﬁes and manifests a part of the social, economic, or architectural history of the city. This potential district benchmarks a time when the edge of the growing city had reached 11th Street and one-story homes could be built proﬁtably and affordably for middle-class buyers. This exempliﬁes a time when the city was a quiet seaside town, in contrast to the mid-rise city with 12 times the population it has become. 2. Has aesthetic or artistic value. While the California bungalow may be aesthetically pleasing and interesting, this is not a primary criteria of this district. 3. Is identiﬁed with local historic personages. There are three historic personages associated with this district. The ﬁrst, Waldo K. Cowan, was a Santa Monica developer and civic leader who served on many boards and commissions (including the Santa Monica School Board) and who built four of the homes in the proposed district that are still standing. His myriad pre-World War I activities included advocating for bike paths, running a construction company (with George P. Elliot), a real estate company (with Bernard Sues), and one of the ﬁrst car dealerships, as well as being active in developing automotive prototypes. In fact, he sold the ﬁrst gas-electric hybrid in Los Angeles in 1912. These ﬁve elements — bike lanes, construction, real estate, automobile dealerships, and hybrids —still ﬁgure prominently in Santa Monica today, over a century later, and were certainly visionary for their time. (See the Documentation Peport on 1107 Arizona Avenue for more details of Cowan’s life). Joseph J Rowe was a turn-of-the-last century Santa Monica master builder who built many buildings in the proposed district (1223 and 1229 11th Street) and outside the proposed district (426 Palisades Avenue, determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and also the City landmark at 929 Lincoln). Many of his buildings have been demolished, but his role in early Santa Monica construction history is indisputable. The third important personage connected to this district is Ken Strickfaden (1896-1984), a special effects genius who worked in Hollywood for decades, specializing in wildly arcing and sparking effects such as those in the 1931 Frankenstein movie. He was also a photographer, and many of his pictures are now in the Santa Monica Library historic photograph collection. While his original special effects workshop, in a garage behind 1223 11th Street, was torn down in 1955 to build a triplex, this is the house where his fabulous career started and it is one of the many links between Santa Monica and Hollywood. (See the Documentation Report on 1223 11th Street for more details of Stickfaden’s life.) This ﬁnding somewhat overlaps ﬁnding #5: A representative sample of work by a notable builder or designer. Waldo Cowan and Stickfadden are true Santa Monica historical ﬁgures while Rowe is probably more suitable in the notable builder category. 4. Embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable for the study of this period and style. While there is a shrinking handful of small, single-family, 100-year-old residences still surviving in the mid-Wilshire area of the original Santa Monica Tract, they are of all different styles (Craftsman, Queen Anne, cottage, etc). Nowhere is there a concentration of a single style, the gracious bungalow style, built by two famous builders (Rowe and Cowan) in such a compressed timeframe (1904–1911). There are also two outliers in the potential district, the 1913 altered Craftsman at 1218 11th Street built by A. Feist and the 1925 Spanish Revival at 1115 Arizona Avenue built by J. Norman. But the core of the district is the rare surviving cluster of half a dozen bungalows built by Rowe and Cowan, two early Santa Monica construction luminaries. 5. Is a representative sample of the work of a notable builder or designer. Joseph J. Rowe, a master builder, built 1223 11th Street and 1233 11th Street. These two 1911 buildings are some of his earliest works and he went on to build the city landmark at 929 Lincoln Blvd. (1916) and also 426 Palisades Avenue. Meanwhile, Waldo K. Cowan built 1233 11th Street (1904), the district’s earliest residence still standing, and its neighbor 1239 11th Street (1905) as well as 1107 Arizona Avenue (1906, built for his own family) and 1109 Arizona Avenue (1911, built for his parents). Two of his homes (1247 and 1253 11th Street) have already been demolished (in 1955 and 1992, respectively) to build an apartment building and a condominium building. This pace of demolition, erasing the earliest works of two of our historic builders, gives added urgency to the designation of the district. In short, 5 of the 10 lots in consideration were built by two (Rowe and Cowan) famous Santa Monica builders. 6. It is a familiar visual feature of a neighborhood. This little piece of history gives the traveler along busy 11th Street, whether by car, bike, scooter, or on foot, a sense of relief from the relentless parade of boxy dingbats that increasingly, in their old or new forms, crowd our city. Because of their location, surrounded entirely by multi-family behemoths, they stand out in a distinctive way. Their visible presence could certainly be enhanced by removal or pruning of screening foliage and fence maintenance, but the original “bones” are there and still holding. That will not be the case if the removal of any more of the original buildings is allowed to proceed. In conclusion, this potential district meets all but one of the requirements of Santa Monica’s Landmark Code SMMC 9.56.100A. In addition, it qualiﬁes for essentially the same reasons per SMMC 9.56.100B because: 1.It is a deﬁnable area possessing a concentration of historic or thematic sites that contribute to each other and are uniﬁed aesthetically by plan, physical development, or architectural quality. 2. It reﬂects signiﬁcant geographical patterns associated with different eras of settlement and growth. 3. It has a unique location or is a familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or of the city. Please note that of the nine speciﬁc criteria (6 for landmarks and 3 for historic districts) listed above, a district only has to meet one. In our case, the potential district meets eight beyond a reasonable doubt. So while the district certainly qualiﬁes, the discretion of the Landmarks Commission should focus on the district’s exact boundaries to enhance the integrity of the district, given the number of non-contributors and the number of altered contributors. (See the discussion in Appendix 2 for the trade-offs in considering the ﬁnal district’s boundaries.) Finally, this proposed district fulﬁlls one of the reasons that approximately 1,500 buildings are catalogued in the Historic Resources Inventory. The reason to maintain that catalogue is to proactively identify potential candidates for landmarking, structures of merit, or the creation of a historic district. In this case, there are six buildings from the HRI that could feed the potential district if it were at its maximum size. In creating this district, the Landmarks Commission would be fulﬁlling the mandate of the LUCE (Land Use Circulation Element), which fully expresses community values including: “Preserves the scale and character of all residential neighborhoods” (pg. 7). And which emphasizes “that Santa Monica continue to celebrate its past by preserving attributes that characterize the City’s rich history” (section 2.3-4). By creating this district, the Landmarks Commission would be fully congruent with all the city’s historical goals, from the municipal code to the LUCE. 11th Street Bungalow Historic District Documentation by Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors and Friends of 11th Street May 2018 DOCUMENTATION FOR THE 11TH STREET BUNGALOW HISTORIC DISTRICT by Susan Suntree, M.A.; Sherrill Kushner, J.D.; Mario Fonda-Bonardi, AIA; Commissioner Diane Miller; Paulo Vianna Photography: Mike Hejjas Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors April 2017 Updated May 2018 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART 1: INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... SUMMARY............................................................................................................................................3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................................5 PART 2: HISTORY OF 11TH STREET ....................................................................................................... 11TH STREET/SANTA MONICA: A HISTORY ..................................................................................................7 EARLY SANTA MONICA MAP (UNDATED) ................................................................................................... 14 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, 1909 .................................................................................................... 15 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, 1918 .................................................................................................. 166 DISTRICT HISTORIC SURVEY SHEET, 1990................................................................................................... 17 DISTRICT HISTORIC SURVEY SHEET, 1994................................................................................................. 188 BUNGALOW HOUSING: HISTORY AND CHARACTER ....................................................................................... 19 THE DISAPPEARING BUNGALOW .............................................................................................................. 22 THE CENTENARIAN BUNGALOWS ........................................................................................................... 223 PART 3: HISTORIC DISTRICT MAPS ....................................................................................................... 11ST STREET BUNGALOW HISTORIC DISTRICT MAP ...................................................................................... 25 NORTH 11TH STREET BUNGALOW HISTORIC DISTRICT STREETSCAPE ................................................................ 26 SOUTH 11TH STREET BUNGALOW HISTORIC DISTRICT STREETSCAPE ................................................................. 27 ARIZONA AVENUE BUNGALOW HISTORIC DISTRICT STREETSCAPE ..................................................................... 28 PART 4: THE BUNGALOWS ................................................................................................................... 1218 11TH STREET .............................................................................................................................. 30 DATA AND NARRATIVE ..................................................................................................................................... 31 ROOF PERMIT ............................................................................................................................................... 332 HISTORIC SURVEY SHEETS ................................................................................................................................. 34 1223 11TH STREET ............................................................................................................................ 388 DATA AND NARRATIVE ................................................................................................................................... 399 STRICKFADEN WORKSHOP ................................................................................................................................. 43 HISTORIC SURVEY SHEETS ................................................................................................................................. 44 LANDMARK ASSESSMENT REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 46 1229 11TH STREET .............................................................................................................................. 51 DATA AND NARRATIVE ..................................................................................................................................... 52 HISTORIC SURVEY SHEETS ............................................................................................................................... 554 1233 11TH STREET ............................................................................................................................ 588 DATA AND NARRATIVE ................................................................................................................................... 599 HISTORIC SURVEY SHEETS ................................................................................................................................. 60 1239 11TH STREET .............................................................................................................................. 65 DATA AND NARRATIVE ................................................................................................................................... 666 HISTORIC SURVEY SHEETS ............................................................................................................................... 677 1107 ARIZONA AVENUE ........................................................................................................................ 71 2 DATA AND NARRATIVE ..................................................................................................................................... 72 HISTORIC SURVEY SHEETS ............................................................................................................................... 766 1109 ARIZONA AVENUE ........................................................................................................................ 80 DATA AND NARRATIVE ..................................................................................................................................... 81 HISTORIC SURVEY SHEETS ................................................................................................................................. 83 1115 ARIZONA AVENUE ........................................................................................................................ 84 DATA AND NARRATIVE ................................................................................................................................... 855 HISTORIC SURVEY SHEETS ............................................................................................................................... 866 PART 5: LETTERS OF SUPPORT ............................................................................................................. Part 1: Introduction 4 Summary Friends of 11th Street, a subcommittee of Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors, was established in order to promote the formation of a bungalow historic district made up of the centenarian bungalows on 11th Street between Arizona Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. Over the years, this proposal has been supported by people like the late Superior Court Judge David Finkel, a former city council member; architectural historians Thomas Hines, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, UCLA; Robert Winter, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Occidental College; and John Crosse; architects such as Ken Breisch, Ph.D., Professor, at the USC School of Architecture and Director of the Historic Preservation Program, and several others from UCLA, USC, and the City of Long Beach; and local residents including Bea Nemlaha who credits our work in the early ’90s with inspiring her and her neighbors to create the Third Street Historic District, Santa Monica’s first historic district. The proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District includes a collection of eight (contributing and altered-contributing) bungalows on one block, which were built between 1904 and 1925, with one back house built in 1911 and another in 1924. Also a 2016 survey of potentially contributing bungalows still extant in the mid-city blocks of the original Santa Monica Tract demonstrates that very few eligible bungalows exist today. The 11th Street Cluster has been identified as a potential historic district in two Historic Resources Inventories. When city founders Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker and Senator John P. Jones purchased a tract of coastal sage and created Santa Monica, their original grid included 11th Street’s 50 x 150 foot lots. What arose is a family neighborhood that was eventually anchored by Madison Elementary School, which was built in 1925, remodeled to earthquake standards in 1937, and is now part of Santa Monica College. These homes commemorate the beginning of Santa Monica’s evolution from a temporary resort village to a viable and vital town that the city’s permanent residents called “home.” There is no other extant cluster of the city’s original bungalows built by the first middle-class residents of the original city of Santa Monica. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to save this cultural and historic treasure by establishing a historic district here that honors and protects for generations to come the architectural expression of affordable, well-built, and well-designed middle-class housing. Additionally, three major contributors to the development of Santa Monica as a community have lived and worked here: Waldo K. Cowan built several bungalows throughout the city as well as on 11th Street and served on several city and organizational boards; Joseph J. Rowe has been described in staff and architectural consultants’ reports as a master builder inspired by renowned architects Greene and Greene (two of his buildings are already either Santa Monica Landmarks or have been declared eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and two of his earliest extant works are included in the 11th Street Cluster); and Kenneth Strickfaden, a Hollywood special effects genius famous for creating the pyrotechnics for the original film version of Frankenstein, began his amazing career in his backyard workshop where he lived with his father and brothers at 1223 11th Street. We look forward to the designation of the 11th Street Bungalow Historic District to protect the city’s history of affordable middle-class housing and the philosophy and architecture that these houses reflect. 5 Acknowledgements The community worked for decades to establish this historic district. This document is dedicated to Syd and Joyce Jurin and Dave and Jan Paley, whose research and leadership from 1989 to 1991 provided the foundation of this neighborhood story. We would like to thank the following individuals and organizations (partial list), including those from the 1980s and 1990s, who have supported this endeavor: Susan Suntree Diane Miller Scott Albright Mario Fonda-Bonardi Paulo & Karenina Vianna Michael Hejjas Sherrill Kushner Merrit Coleman Kathrine Takis Mark Sanders Jane Devine Stacy Dalgleish Paul Lorant Valentino Posa Robert Myers Sylvia & David Shniad Joyce Fox John Fischer Thora Smith Robert Moore Ted & Rose Guill Hope Parsons Nick Boles Bruce Cameron Jeff Hill Bea Nemlaha Kim Groves MaryAnn Soloman Marie Standing Janet Owen Driggs Jeffrey Chusid Thomas Hines Robert Winter Marcia Hanscom Cynthia Lester Sheila Laffey Dana Cuff Jocelyn Gibbs Portia Lee Norman and Lori Peddie Deborah Robbins Donald J. Shelby Julia Zhu Phil Brock Gaye Deal Hannah Heineman Janet Napier Marian Goldsmith Andrew Hoyer Ellen Hannan Stefani Kong Uhler John C. Smith Cathy Huh Pat Becker Robert Lefleur Gary Snyder Ruth Ghio Gayle Kimball Buzz Wilms Charles Bailey Allaire Koslo Virginia Stout Amanda Foulger Emily Kroll John Crosse Eric Dugdale JoAnn Matyas Ellie Pelcyger Zoey Zimmerman Califia Suntree Peggy Watson Peter Spelman Organizations: Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors Friends of Sunset Park Ocean Park Association North of Montana Association Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition Pico Neighborhood Association Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow Santa Monica Conservancy Pasadena Heritage And many others. Part 2: History of 11th Street 7 11th Street/Santa Monica: A History by Susan Suntree Research by Susan Suntree, Paulo Vianna, Jan Paley, Dave Paley, Joyce Jurin In 1875, the amazing Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker and her new husband, Colonel Robert Baker, teamed up with a wealthy silver magnate, Senator John P. Jones, to found the City of Santa Monica. A rare piece of this historic Santa Monica remains: a cluster of bungalows located between Arizona Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard on 11th Street. An original bungalow cluster like this exists nowhere else within the city’s original mid-city boundaries (Wilshire Boulevard, Ocean Avenue, Colorado Avenue, 19th Street). Still standing on the original subdivision in their nearly original shape are eight bungalows (contributors and altered contributors plus two back houses) built between 1904 and 1925. These were the homes of middle-income people: carpenters, brick kiln owners, painters, members of city commissions, and Hollywood artists, whose dreams and schemes created our city and contributed to developing the film culture of Los Angeles. These bungalows, built from old-growth redwood and Douglas fir, stand as an architectural documentary about the life and growth of Santa Monica. It is a testimony to the ordinary people who actually did the work it took to create this city. 1. An alluvial plain fans out from the Santa Monica Mountains to the crescent of Santa Monica Bay. Made up of the rocks, dirt, and dust carried by rain off of the Santa Monica Mountains, it layers over ancient seabed sediments. When the Ice Age ended about 7,000 years ago, the land we call Santa Monica made its appearance, looking geographically very much as it does today. Native Americans, who have lived in Southern California for 15,000 years, became its first citizens. For the Tongva people as for people today, location was everything, and this area was an excellent place to call home. It had easy access to wide varieties of edible plants and game, trout swam in Santa Monica Creek, and sea life abounded. The largest shaman’s cache yet discovered in Los Angeles was found at the foot of Inspiration Point in Palisades Park. These Native Americans had ample routes for trading their famous soapstone bowls, reed baskets, crystal tools, and jewelry. Among these routes was a famous one that crossed over 11th Street. It connected the large village 8 on the banks of the Los Angeles River (where downtown Los Angeles is now located) to the Santa Monica coastal villages. Eventually used by the Spanish as a cattle trail, today we call it Wilshire Boulevard. Although Tongva families continue to make the Westside home and maintain a cultural center at University High School, the population capsized in the wake of Spanish and Yankee colonialism. The Santa Monica area played a notable role in this transition. Juan Cabrillo, a maritime navigator for the Spanish Empire, recorded sailing past its smoky palisades in October 1542. Later, Gaspard de Portola, a Spanish solider and administrator in New Spain, and his overland expedition camped at springs near the city’s northeastern border (some of these springs still provide part of the city’s water supply) and as one story goes, it was the feast day of Santa Monica, and thus our area was given its present name. Eventually, the City of Santa Monica, including 11th Street, was contained within Francisco Sepulveda’s Rancho San Vicente y Santa Monica. Other ranchos whose borders at one time included our city were; to the north, Rancho Boca De Santa Monica and in the Ocean Park and Venice areas, Rancho Ballona. 2. In 1872, when Colonel Robert Baker first arrived from Northern California, Santa Monica and 11th Street were bound for transformation. Prosperous and confident, Baker bought Sepulveda’s rancho. Soon after, he married Arcadia Bandini de Stearns, a wealthy widow and rancho owner. In 1874, Senator John P. Jones, who had made his fortune in the Nevada silver mines, arrived and found sympathetic business partners in the Bakers. A year later, in 1875, the Bakers and Jones established the Town of Santa Monica, an area from Colorado to Montana Avenues, and from the Palisades bluffs to 26th Street, with each block divided into 50 x 150 foot lots. 11th Street was named and ready to become a neighborhood. The Bakers and Jones planned and politicked for Santa Monica to become a port and railroad center for Los Angeles. But first the town needed citizens. On July 15, 1875, the lots of the new town were sold at auction. Crowds arrived by wagon, steamer, and train, and people began to buy. Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker owned Block 113, lot M (1107 Arizona Avenue, at the corner of 11th and Arizona) and lots N and O. Later, she sold the lots to Robert F. Jones, the nephew of 9 Senator Jones, who became president of the Bank of Santa Monica. Senator Jones owned the rest of the lots on the east side of the street (P, Q, R, S, T, U, V). These, plus the Arizona Avenue lots, are central to the proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District. By 1880, when the prospects of a railroad and port dimmed, the city entered an economic depression. Several of the 11th Street lots were hit by tax sales in 1889. Nevertheless, the city continued to grow, although slowly, as new industries emerged. Everyone who has ever lived on 11th Street and tried to garden has confronted the challenge presented by the soil. Those thousands of years of marine and alluvial sediment have added up to one thing: clay. The challenge to 11th Street gardeners became a resource and industry for which Santa Monica was once famous: clay for pipes, bricks, and pottery. Santa Monica bricks were used for many early buildings including some of its first schools. Santa Monica historian Donald Cleland writes that in 1898, the city’s first high school was built on lots between Oregon (now Santa Monica Boulevard) and Arizona between 10th and 11th Streets: “...the building was dedicated at the June graduation exercises that same year." But long before the plan to provide secondary education in Santa Monica had been consummated, sharp criticism had been leveled at the trustees for their choice of a building site. One objector said: ‘This is ridiculous [sic], why build a school away out in the country? It will be twenty years before this town is settled enough to need a school that far out.’ It may be remarked in passing that the new school was to be located four blocks east of the existing Sixth Street School.” The disgruntled critic suggests the rural condition of early Santa Monica, which, according to descriptions in The Outlook newspaper, was surrounded by green fields, farms, and ranches. By 1913, Santa Monica High School was built on Prospect Hill. In 1925, Lincoln School was replaced by the present building and renamed Madison School, which has served as an elementary school, a continuation high school, and more recently as a Santa Monica College campus and site of the Broad Stage. Some of the city’s first homes were built on the 1200 block of 11th Street, creating one of Santa Monica’s earliest family neighborhoods anchored by Lincoln/Madison School. On May 23, 1904, 10 Frank Boothe paid for one of the early building permits in the city (#80) to hire Waldo K. Cowan to construct a small home at 1233 11th Street. Cowan was an important early builder and active civic leader during the first decades of the city’s history. Cowan bought lot N (1253 11th Street) from Robert Jones, and built himself a house in July 1904. It was a bungalow described by architectural historian and bungalow expert Robert Winter as an excellent example of the Neoclassical Revival style. Cowan sold his home at 1253 11th Street to the Cripe family, who owned, with C.F. Geltner, Santa Monica’s best-known brick kiln. In 1906, after purchasing lot M (now 1107,1109, and 1115 Arizona Avenue, at the corner of 11th and Arizona) from Robert Jones, Cowan built a home for his growing family—a large hip-roofed bungalow that remained in his family for several years. (See 1107 Arizona Avenue for more about Cowan.) These homes are among the very oldest buildings in the City of Santa Monica. Another important early contractor, Joseph J. Rowe, shaped 11th Street when in 1911, he built two houses, at 1223 and 1229. Rowe was a master builder working in the City of Santa Monica during the first two decades of the 20th century. He incorporated the details of Craftsman style into his work and was aware of Greene and Greene’s work, emulating features of their architecture. The bungalows at 1223 and 1229 are the oldest known extant examples of his work. (See 1229 11th Street for more about Rowe.) Between 1904 and 1913, 11th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue grew into a neighborhood of family homes that housed the people who made Santa Monica into a vital, charming city. Rancher William Nelson, plastering contractor F.A. Griffith, painter Ashford Drumm, and their families all lived here. Like Cowan, the 11th Street residents were middle- income people whose bungalows often remained in their families for generations and whose various skills and labor built the city. In later decades, 11th Street residents participated in the glamour of early Hollywood. For example, Kenneth Strickfaden, who attended Santa Monica High School, is known for his photographs of early Santa Monica and became famous as a founding Hollywood special effects artist. He began his career in a workshop behind his family’s home at 1223 11th Street. In 1928, Louis B. Mayer bought three lots at the corner of 11th and Wilshire. (See 1223 11th Street for more about the Strickfadens.) In the early1960s, James and Doris Lennon purchased 1223 11th Street from Frank Strickfaden’s granddaughter, Marilyn 11 Throssel, to use as a rental. An uncle of the Lennon Sisters, a famous 1950s and ’60s singing group, Jimmy Lennon was one of the 20th century’s most famous boxing announcers. His son, Jimmy Lennon, Jr., who grew up on 11th Street, followed in his father's footsteps and in 2012, was inducted into the International Boxing Hall of Fame 2013 class. Early in the 20th century, plants from Australia, South Africa, and the Mediterranean were in vogue and replaced most of the native vegetation. Now fully mature trees on 11th Street that were planted in this era include, among others, jacaranda, lemon bottle brush, Canary Island date palms, an empress palm garden, and blackwood acacias. (For decades there lived in the front yard of 1223 11th Street a large, three-trunked Australian blackwood acacia; it is now gone, but is listed in the first edition of Trees of Santa Monica. Its progeny live in the side yard.) In the back and side yards stand magnolias, birds of paradise, and night-blooming jasmine, among other early 20th century garden plants. By 1913, the 1200 block of 11th Street demonstrated aesthetic unity—the California bungalow in a diversity of styles. Santa Monica became famous for its block upon block of white bungalows and its swaying palm trees. The 11th Street bungalows represented the kind of housing that suits the climate as well as the ethos of the people who called Santa Monica home. Built with passive solar cooling, they utilized the low-tech solution of double-hung windows that open on the bottom and on the top to allow cool air to circulate into the house and hot air to circulate out. High ceilings and the orientation of the windows also enhanced air circulation. In The California Bungalow, Robert Winters points out that bungalows “provided a comfortable abode for the average person. In that sense, they are revolutionary in the history of architecture.” The bungalows on 11th Street demonstrate his assertion. Characterized by a return to architectural principles, the California bungalow, a style that swept the nation, emphasized an integration of inside and outside and a harmony of home and surroundings through the use of large windows and an open floor plan. Simple but elegant in design, they were well-built but inexpensive and inaugurated aesthetically pleasing affordable housing. For example, at 1223 11th Street, there is a rhythm of multiple multi-paned windows on three sides of the house. The interior has high ceilings, old-growth fir floors, old-growth redwood wainscoting, built-in shelving, and embossed 12 doorplates, knobs, and window handles. As Winter notes, “only rarely in all of history has such architecture been found outside the realm of the ‘rich, the few, and the well-born.’” He continues: “Many Americans wanted to live simply and artistically and set out to do that.... Behind the word artistic was, I believe, a more profoundly realized concept—respectability.” He points out that the bungalow grew up in an era of expanding democracy, so that “the bungalow filled more than the need for shelter. It provided psychic fulfillment of the American dream.” 3. By the end of World War II, according to Les Storrs’ account in Santa Monica: A Portrait of a City, as a response to population growth, zoning changes allowed the redevelopment of much of the city into apartments. 11th Street experienced these changes. In the 1950s and ’60s, many bungalows, most of which were built before 1909, were replaced by apartments that expressed the fashions of the era, including dingbats and other vernacular features. This began the process, according to Storrs, that led the number of families with children to decline, the city’s average age to rise, and for the still unresolved neighborhood parking problem to grow. In the 1980s and ’90s, three buildings on the block became condominiums. From 1989 to 1991, with the support of Mid City Neighbors, residents formed Friends of 11th Street to support creating the city’s first historic district comprised of the street’s bungalow cluster. That effort has now been revived and, hopefully, will be successful. Spanning from 1904 to the present, the 11th Street neighborhood, in one block, presents a microcosm of the city’s architectural evolution and population growth. 11th Street intersects Wilshire Boulevard, where it is busy with shops, bakeries, restaurants, and bars and is sometimes called “Gourmet Corner.” The neighborhood is bounded by the historic Madison School campus of Santa Monica College and the Broad Stage, the Tony Berlant house and art studio (winner of a Santa Monica Conservancy award) and by the landmarked former Callahan’s Restaurant (now Ingo’s Tasty Diner). Public transportation stops at both the Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevard corners. 11th Street is busy with foot and bicycle traffic as well as with vehicles. The bungalows are a familiar visual feature on this busy street because of their singular Craftsman presence, a rarity in Santa Monica, and because they have stood in place since the oldest was built in 1904, 114 years ago, as living reminders of a bygone era. 13 Ever since its first inhabitants set the precedent, Santa Monicans have valued an artful culture in harmony with the outdoors. The 11th Street bungalows exemplify this tradition. This rare cluster embodies the life and growth of Santa Monica. Researching who owned lots, built houses, and raised families on this11th Street block reveals not only the vision of the city’s founders, but also the dreams of its residents, their character, aspirations, and way of life. Clearly this cluster of homes is a treasure trove, a historic district that tells the story of Santa Monica’s evolution. Now is the time to make this precious resource available for the future—for children, historians, residents, and tourists. Cyclic economic pressures must not rob us of the LAST group of original bungalows in the historic City of Santa Monica. A city needs to know itself. A photo or a notation in a book on a shelf is soon lost to the community imagination and outlook. We need living references to our history and an architectural fabric that offers alternative ideas about urban life. We need to take care of our story by establishing a protective historic district: the 11th Street Bungalow Historic District. 14 Early Santa Monica Map (Undated) 15 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 11th Street, 1909 Bounded by Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue 16 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map of 11th Street, 1918 Bounded by Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue 17 District Historic Survey Sheet, 1990 The 1200 block of 11th Street 18 District Historic Survey Sheet, 1994 The 1200 block of 11th Street 19 Bungalow Housing: History and Character by Sherrill Kushner The California bungalow is so natural to its setting, claimed Mary Austin, an early nature writer of the American Southwest, that they were “as indigenous to the soil as if they had grown up out of it.”1 While it appears that the bungalow was a uniquely Californian and American architectural style and housing type, it had its origins continents away in the Bengal province of India. It first appeared in the Bengali countryside and its name derives from the Gujarat word baṅgalo, meaning “Bengali,” used in a shorthand way to refer to a “house in the Bengali style.”2 These 18th century huts of one story with thatched roofs were adapted by the British, who used them as houses for colonial administrators in summer retreats in the Himalayas and in compounds outside Indian cities. In general, a bungalow is a low house, with a broad front porch, having either no upper floor or upper rooms set in the roof, typically with dormer windows or an attic vent designed to mimic a window over the main portion of the house. Also taking inspiration from the army tent, the English cottage, and the Persian verandah, early bungalow designers clustered dining rooms, bedrooms, kitchens, and bathrooms around central living rooms, thereby creating its essential floor plan. In 19th century England, the bungalow was usually located in seaside communities where it took advantage of nature, sea air, and open green space. The bungalow craze took off after the turn of the 20th century, during an era in which Americans were obsessed with the notion of health, or simply were attracted to economic opportunities in the booming West. Before World War I, a small bungalow could be built for $900. A good-sized bungalow cost maybe $3,500. From eastern America the idea spread westward. Naturally, California was a promising locale for bungalows. Land was relatively cheap, and the possibility of affordable and comfortable housing was attractive to aspiring young workers, the sick on the mend, and the old on modest pensions. The first California house dubbed a bungalow was designed by the San Francisco architect A. Page Brown for J.D. Grant in the early 1890s. “Bungalows reflected the whole range of architectural movements of their day, from Queen Anne to Arts and Crafts, Tudor to Prairie and Pueblo, Spanish to English Colonial Revival, and even 20 Moderne. These styles share a conscious search for the supposed simplicity of preindustrial times. All were meant to counter the excess of the Victorian period by returning to the past when handicrafts displayed the laborer’s personal involvement in the work. It is easy to see how the bungalow — whose existence was defined on the grounds of restoring family values — fit beautifully into the Arts and Crafts movement. It would bring style to all the people whatever their economic or social status.”3 According to promotional literature in the early 20th century, the bungalow’s main purpose was to have most of the living spaces on one floor. This simplified the building process and allowed for easier installation of utilities than in a two-story house. Further, their design promoted safety. In the event of fire, windows as well as doors offered easy escape. Without staircases, thereby eliminating the necessity of multiple trips up and down stairs to carry out household chores, they were attractive to the elderly and also for homemakers. The California bungalow was a one-and-a-half story variation that became popular across the United States, and to varying extents elsewhere, from around 1910 to 1939. Its popularity stemmed from its small size and affordability, making it possible for many Americans to own their own home, equipped with all the latest conveniences. Another reason for the bungalow’s popularity was the idea that simplicity and artistry could harmonize in one affordable house. It allowed people of modest means to achieve respectability. With its special features — style, convenience, simplicity, sound construction, and excellent plumbing — it went beyond providing shelter, but rather the fulfillment of the American dream. Situated on its own plot of land, with a garden, however small, and a car parked out front, a bungalow provided privacy and independence.4 The bungalows sited in the proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District are of the American Craftsman architectural style typical of the American Arts and Crafts movement. Common features usually included: low-pitch rooflines on a gabled or hipped roof; deeply overhanging eaves; exposed rafters or decorative brackets under the eaves; and a front porch beneath an extension of the main roof. Sears Company and The Aladdin Company manufactured such bungalows in kits and sold them from catalogues for construction on sites during the turn of the 20th century, though the 11th Street bungalows are owner/contractor built. They cover a range of dates from 1904 to 1925. The signature look of California bungalows is horizontal in massing. 21 They are integrated with the earth by use of local materials and transitional plantings. They commonly were made of wood shingle, horizontal siding, or stucco exteriors, as well as brick or stone exterior chimneys and partial-width front porches. Resurgent interest in the American Arts and Crafts or American Craftsman movement, and of special-interest publications such as American Bungalow magazine, has contributed to the bungalow’s recent popularity. Rising house prices, nationally and locally, as well as their central and convenient location in many urban neighborhoods, has fueled demand for these houses. Notes 1 Austin, Mary. California: The Land of the Sun. London: Adam and Charles Black, 1914. 2 “Bengal.” Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal. 3 Adapted from American Bungalow Style by Robert Winter and Alexander Vertikoff. Published by Simon and Schuster in cooperation with American Bungalow magazine, 1996. 4American Bungalow magazine. 22 The Disappearing Bungalow This column lists the whole south side of the original city, from Ocean Ave. to Centinela Ave. (current Mid-City and Downtown Neighborhoods combined), and the east-west streets missing from the previous columns. *See detailed list on the next page. Street 1903-1913 (a) 1983 (b) ALL* (e) Ocean Av. 7 2 1 0 0 2nd St. 11 0 0 0 0 3rd St. 9 0 0 0 0 4th St. 15 0 0 0 0 5th St. 19 0 0 0 0 6th St. 26 4 1 0 0 7th St. 37 2 0 0 0 Lincoln Bl. 36 7 2 0 0 9th St. 31 4 0 1 1 10th St. 29 6 0 2 2 11th St. 34 10 8 (d) 4 (d) 4 12th St. 35 10 4 1 1 Euclid St. 30 7 1 0 0 14th St. 27 9 2 0 0 15th St. 29 1 0 0 0 16th St. 20 9 0 0 0 17th St. 19 4 0 1 1 18th St. 15 7 0 1 1 19th St. 13 6 0 0 0 Total: 442 88 19 10 15 (e) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Count is for all Centenarian Bungalows built before 1918 As per Planning Dept. records. May 2018 (c) As per preliminary landmark “windshield” survey. Aug. 1989 THE CASE OF THE DISAPPEARING BUNGALOW as of 2018 The table below shows the number of single-family bungalows in the area bounded by Wilshire Blvd., Ocean Ave., Colorado Ave., and 19th St. during four time periods: Includes the bungalow at 1107 Arizona Ave., corner of 11th St. and Arizona. Based on 2006 HRI website data for North-South streets 23 The Centenarian Bungalows Address Date Constructed Style 1 1233 11TH ST 1904 Colonial Revival 2 1322 12TH ST 1905 Hipped Roof Cottage 3 1328 10TH ST 1906 Hipped Roof Cottage 4 1458 26TH ST 1907 Craftsman 5 1107 ARIZONA AVE 1907 Hipped Roof Cottage 6 1229 11TH ST 1908 Craftsman 7 1235 17TH ST 1910 Dutch Colonial Revival/Craftsman 8 528 COLORADO AVE 1910 Craftsman 9 1223 11TH ST 1911 Craftsman 10 1419 PALISADES BEACH RD 1911 Craftsman 11 1303 9TH ST 1913 Craftsman 12 919 WILSHIRE BLVD 1913 Craftsman 13 1248 18TH ST 1914 Craftsman 14 1348 10TH ST 1915 Craftsman 15 1254 26TH ST 1915 Craftsman • Table with all the 100+-year-old bungalows left on the original south side of the city (from the ocean to Centinela Avenue, and from Wilshire Boulevard to Colorado Avenue). • Based on data from the 2006 HRI, available on the LMC website today. • Excluding the units that have been modified or torn down since 2006. • It includes the current Mid City and Downtown neighborhoods combined. • There are only 15 bungalows over 100 years old left in this part of the city. • Of the 10 oldest surviving bungalows, four are located in this district. • Including the oldest one. Part 3: Historic District Maps 25 The 11th Street Bungalow Historic District Map 26 North 11th Street Bungalow Historic District Streetscape 27 South 11th Street Bungalow Historic District Streetscape 28 Arizona Avenue Bungalow Historic District Streetscape Part 4: The Bungalows 30 1218 11th Street 31 1218 11th Street Data and Narrative Lot D Block 114 Built: 1913 Permit: #1992, 27 May 1913 Owner: J.C. Walters Designer, Builder: A.H. Feist Addresses: 1218 11th Street Santa Monica Historic Resources Surveys: Listed as contributor to an 11th Street district, 1990, 1994, and 2006. Historic Register: 5B5 Additional Permits: 1922, for five-room residence. 24 August 1956, permit #B20334 for apartment and garages; Richard Owen, contractor; C. Carter, architect. “For new 1 bedroom units (currently two dwellings) - 5 garages, rumpus room, laundry room, relocate small house on lot; apartments with 17 rooms for three families. Stucco, 2 story, 25'x 46’ Wand 60’ L.” Post-1994 earthquake chimney rebuild. (Permit not located) 20 April 2015 for roof replacement issued with requirement to meet Historic Resources Inventory: “Property is listed on Historic Resources Inventory. Discretionary permits required compliance with Secretary of Interior standards. Applied | Notice 04/20/2015.” (See: Roof Permit) Owners/ Residents: John P. Jones: 1875 W.L. Chambers: 1905 Florence B. Jones: 1906 Mattie Porter: 1907 J.C. Walters: 1913, owner Joseph Daly: 1923, owner Henry and Georgina Chambers: 1923, rear apartment. He was a driver for Jenkins Transfer and Storage. John and Margaret Klein: 1927, owner. He was the manager of Aztec Tile. Thelma and Elizabeth Vickey: 1956, owners Further residents to be researched. Note: For many decades, Fred and Thelma Rush lived here until they sold the house around the early 2000s to the Lennon family, who have used the house and the apartment behind it as a rental. Narrative: The Santa Monica Surveys of Historic Resources (1990,1994), referring to the “Oriental” style of bungalow architecture, describes 1218 11th Street as follows: “This five-room house, built in 1913 at a cost of $1200 is a very good illustration of the type, the best in Santa Monica.” 32 Roof Permit Secretary of the Interior/Historic Resources Standards for Rehabilitation 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Record 16BLD-0307 Residential Record Status: Issued A notice was added to this record on 04/20/2015. Condition: Historic Resources Inventory Severity: Notice Total Conditions: 1 (Notice: 1) Conditions Showing 1-1 of 1 Zoning - 1 Applied Zoning Historic Resources Inventory Property is listed on Historic Resources Inventory. Discretionary permits required compliance with Secretary of Interior standards. Applied | Notice | 04/20/2015 Work Location 1218 11TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90401 Roofing Re-roof, composition shingle, min class B. Date Invoice Number Amount 01/29/2016 322051 $23.58 01/29/2016 322051 $0.07 01/29/2016 322051 $1.31 01/29/2016 322051 $0.10 01/29/2016 322051 $0.90 Total paid fees: $207.35 Inspections Completed (2) Approved - 1; Correction – 1 33 Approved 1050 Rough-Building (1767736) Result by: ta on 02/03/2016 at 03:50 PM Correction 1090 Final-Building (1783833) Result by: ta on 06/14/2016 at 08:23 AM 1090 Final-Building (1783833, Optional) 1218 11TH ST SANTA MONICA CA 90401 Status Correction 6/14/2016 8:23 AM Desired Date: TBD Details Last Updated Record 6/14/2016 8:23 AM 16BLD-0307 Residential NOTE: ROOF REPAIR WAS NOT COMPLIANT, HARMING THE CONTRIBUTING CHARACTERISTICS. 34 Historic Survey Sheets 35 36 37 38 1223 11th Street 39 Data and Narrative Lot T Block 113 Built: 1911 Permit: #672, 11 April 1911 Owner: Mary E. Drumm Designer, Builder: Joseph J. Rowe Addresses: 428 (pre-1909); 1217 (pre-1958); 1223 (current) Santa Monica Historic Resources Surveys: Listed as contributor to an 11th Street district 1990, 1994, 2007, 2010. National Register of Historic Places: 5D3 Additional Permits: 8 November 1915; Frank Strickfaden, for 1-room addition 1955: Mark and Marilyn Throssel, for 3-unit apartment (1221 11th Street) 1979: James Lennon, to reduce apartments from four to three units (not accomplished) Owners/ Residents: John P. Jones: 1875 Bruno J. and Ellen Frauke: 1907, resident Tax Sale: 1908 (redeemed) Waldo K. Cowen and Bernard Sues: 1 January 1911 Mary E. Drumm: 1911-1912, builder Frank E. and Mary Polly: 1912-1914, owner, residents Frank Strickfaden (remarried: from 1920 Clara Strickfaden): 1914-1944, owner, resident Kenneth Stickfaden: 1914-1920, renter. He was an electrician. Charles G. Strickfaden: 1919, renter. He was a musician. Frank L., Jr.: renter. He was an electrician. Louise F. Nichols (widow of Fred Nichols): 1947-1948, renter William and Anne O. Kirning: 1954, and 1958-59, renters. He was an electrician. Leon Ondrups: 1960-61, renter. He was an engineer. Mark and Marilyn Throssel: 1952 to 1963 (owner, residence and rental) James and Doris Lennon: 1963-present, owners Various renters not yet verified. Susan Suntree and family: 1983 to the present, renter Narrative: 1223 11th Street is a pristine, handsome 107-year-old bungalow that has been altered only once with the addition of a room, permitted in 1915, and enclosure of the porch. The house’s broad- shouldered façade, graceful and stable in its proportions, glows at night like a lantern through its original multi-paned windows. The many windows demonstrate the bungalow philosophy of welcoming the inside and outside to blend together intimately. In this salutary climate, nature and household are literally opened to one another. 1223 is built of old-growth redwood and Douglas 40 fir, contributing to its stability and longevity. Designed and built by Joseph. J. Rowe (See: 1229 11th Street for more about Rowe), one of Santa Monica’s master builders during its founding decades, it expresses the beauty and lasting quality in construction and interior and exterior details expected in affordable middle-class housing. Frank Strickfaden and His Family The history of 1223 11th Street begins in 1875 with the township map created by Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker and Senator John P. Jones, where they laid out street grids, including 11th Street. Senator Jones was the first owner of Lot T. In 1911, Mary E. Drumm, who with her husband was developing homes in Santa Monica, purchased 1223 11th Street previously owned by Bruno and Ellen Frauke, whose small house and the lot had been the subject of a tax sale. Waldo Cowan, an important Santa Monica builder and city leader, purchased the deed with his business partner at the time, Bernard Sues. They may have been the ones to sell it to the Drumms who hired Joseph J. Rowe to construct a new bungalow. The Drumms, whose building permit was issued on 11 April 1911, sold the new house to Frank and Mary Polly; Polly is identified in the Santa Monica Directory as working in the mining business. Francis (Frank) Joseph Strickfaden (1855-1944) made enough money in real estate and insurance in the mining town of Anaconda, Montana, to retire in 1908 to Ashland, Oregon, with his much younger wife, Nancy Creek Strickfaden, and their three sons. In 1909 they built a large Queen Anne style house that has since been designated an Ashland landmark. Both Anaconda and Ashland socialites, Nan and Frank’s tumultuous divorce made the Ashland Tidings, a story that devolved into tragedy. A local man hired by Nan and her girlfriends to burn down the Strickfaden house so she could claim the insurance money was caught and jailed. He later hung himself. The women were never sentenced. A newspaper reported that it just wasn’t right to jail “society ladies.” In 1912, Frank packed his 1908 Model T, filed notice in the newspaper that he was not the one who took all the furnishings from the Ashland house, and moved with his middle son, Ken, to Santa Monica. For two years they lived at California Avenue and Fifth Street. His oldest son, Frank, Jr., and youngest son, Charles, joined them a few years later. In December 1914 Frank purchased the 1223 (then 1217) 11th Street bungalow from Frank and Mary Polly. In 1915, to accommodate his family, he added a garage/workshop, a bedroom, and enclosed the porch, creating the three-bedroom home that stands today 103 years later. It stayed in the Strickfaden family for four decades and three generations. Strickfaden continued investing in real estate in Southern California including, in 1917, property in the Norwalk Tract. Reflecting the social conditions of the era, one of the covenants to the deed read: “Said premises shall not be sold, conveyed, leased to or rented or occupied by any person not of the white or Caucasian race.” Frank married Clara Dunston in 1920. Eventually, Nan, his former wife, in failing health, also moved to Santa Monica, living at 908 19th Street. Frank and Clara’s home continued to be the regular gathering place of the close-knit Strickfaden clan. Ken and Gladys’s youngest daughter, Marilyn, inherited the house from Frank, after he and Clara died. Frank and Clara are buried in Santa Monica’s Woodlawn Cemetery. 41 Frank Strickfaden, Jr. (1894-1971) lived with his mother in Ashland, Oregon, after the divorce, but moved to 1223 11th Street where he explored electricity with Ken in his backyard workshop. Frank worked as an electrician in the Armed Services, and later in the petroleum industry, all the while dropping in as often as he could on his Santa Monica-based family. In 1971, ravaged by cancer, he committed suicide Charles Strickfaden (1900-1981) lived with his father while in high school and became a well- known saxophonist after graduating from Santa Monica High School, and leaving University of California at Berkeley after his freshman year. In 1924, he joined the Paul Whiteman Orchestra, a very popular jazz group that worked with the top musicians of the day. After leaving the Whiteman Orchestra, he played with Hollywood studio orchestras recording film scores and with classical groups like the Janssen Orchestra, which earned him glowing reviews. Charles became wealthy from his real estate and business investments, and retired to Maui where he died. Ken Strickfaden: Hollywood Special Effects Genius Kenneth Strickfaden (1896-1984) entered Santa Monica High School as a sophomore in 1914 when he and his father arrived in Santa Monica; he graduated in1916. According to The Nautilus, Santa Monica High School’s yearbook, he was involved in multiple activities including photography, theater, band, orchestra, and sports, especially track, and was listed as a working electrician in the Santa Monica Directories during his high school years. In his backyard workshop (See: Strickfaden workshop photo) he began experimenting with Tesla coils, wireless communications, and electrical effects — skills that led to his fame. Ken also took up photography, and in 1914 began taking photos of Santa Monica area sites; these are part of the Santa Monica Library collection of early images of the city. 1223 11th Street remained his permanent residence until 1920. He and Les Storrs, the city’s former director of planning and zoning, were good friends, and Storrs recalls some of their adventures in his book, Santa Monica: Portrait of a City. After high school, Ken fought in World War I, flew in the 322nd Pursuit Squadron, and built and raced speedboats. He developed his skills in designing sets while working at amusement parks on the East and West Coasts, worked as an electrician, and eventually was employed in the burgeoning Hollywood film industry where he became known as a Hollywood special effects genius. His wildly arcing and sparking electricity effects for James Whale’s 1931 masterpiece Frankenstein catapulted him into fame and a career that spanned dozens of films, including The Wizard of Oz. Ken’s importance to the development of the film industry was recognized in 1981 at a gala held in his honor by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, where they celebrated his contributions to the evolution of filmic drama through special effects. Ken was also a science educator and ceaseless experimenter, teaching classes in astronomy, general science, and electricity throughout his life. He loved presenting electrical shows to the Armed Forces. Indefatigable, “Elecstrick” and “Kenstric,” as he was known, presented over a thousand “Science on Parade” lectures and taught industrial skills as well as working on Hollywood films. Ken married his high school sweetheart, Gladys Ward, in 1921. In 1933, he and his family moved from 1348 15th Street to a home at 853 26th Street, which Ken designed and built, and where he lived until his death in 1986. Gladys died in 1978, and their daughter 42 Carolyn was killed in an automobile accident in 1981. Ken and Gladys were buried in Woodlawn Cemetery. Marilyn, their youngest daughter who married Mark Throssel, a local Santa Monican, inherited 1223 11th Street from her grandfather, Frank. Marilyn Strickfaden Throssel (1926-2010) attended Occidental College and UCLA. She and her husband retired to Florence, Oregon, after living and working in Southern California, she as a teacher, social services worker, and vocational rehabilitation counselor; he as an engineer. They once again lived in Santa Monica when she and Mark moved into 1223 11th Street for a few years, building the back apartments in 1955. In 1963, they sold the family home to the James and Doris Lennon family, who are the current owners. Marilyn’s description of her teen years, noted in her obituary, provides a vivid picture of mid-20th century Santa Monica: “...she loved to hike across the barren hills where Pepperdine University stands today and to ride her horse ‘Sam’ through sparsely inhabited areas now known as Beverly Hills. Never living more than three miles from the Pacific coastline, Marilyn’s teen years included diving for abalone, many beachside clam crab bakes and summertime kayaking all in her beloved Santa Monica Beach and Bay. She recently said that she believes that she ‘grew up in the very best of times.’” 43 Strickfaden Workshop Kenneth Strickfaden: Dr. Frankenstein’s Electrician by Harry Goldman (2005) 44 Historic Survey Sheets Page of Resource Name or #: Recorded by: Date: State of California -- The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION CONTINUATION SHEET Primary # HRI# Trinomial DPR 523L (1/95) HRG 1221 11th St December 2007 1 Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Survey 1 Address on Inventory: 1221 11th St Legal Address (Tax Assessor): 1221 11th St, Santa Monica, CA 90401 Property Name: Continuation Update Alterations: No significant alterations have occurred since the property was last evaluated. Updated Status Code: 5D3 Evaluation: The survey evaluated the resource on the property as falling under criterion A.4 - Contributes to a district that 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. Historic District(s): 1200 Block 11th Street (formerly 1200 Block 11th Street Grouping) Prepared by: Prepared for: City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200 Jones & Stokes P. Moruzzi, M. Potter, K. Lain ICF International 811 W 7th Street, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Description: The property contains a one-story single family residence. It was designed in the Craftsman style. Arthur E. Maurey (sp?) is recorded as having built the resource. The architectural design is attributed to Not Listed. The resource is recorded in the Historic Resources Inventory with a prior evaluation of 5D. This is a contributor to a cluster of intact, modest single family residences that date from the early part of the Twentieth Century, and are located within the previously identified "1200 Block 11th Street Grouping." Note: Previous evaluations gave this property a 1223 11th St. address. APN: 4282006022 45 46 Landmark and Structure of Merit Preliminary Assessment Report 47 48 49 50 51 1229 11th Street 52 Data and Narrative Lot R Block 113 Built: 1911 Permit: #742, 25 May 1911 Owner: Thomas M. and Florence R. Holbert Designer, Builder: Joseph J. Rowe Addresses: 428 (pre-1909); 1229 front, 1231 back (1918): 1229 front, 1229 1/2 back (current) Santa Monica Historic Resources Surveys: Listed as contributor to an 11th Street district, 1994. National Register: 5D3 Additional Permits: Permit #742, 1911, for cottage Other permits to be researched. Owners/ Residents: 1229 (front) and 1229 1/2 (back) and 1231(back) John P. Jones: 1875 Joseph M. Englund: 1905, owner Edwin G. Lawrence: 1907, owner, resident Thomas M. and Florence R. Holbert: 1908, owner, resident F. L. Moore (1229): Ocean Park Tea and Coffee Company, 1912 Thomas M. Holbert (1229 1/2): 1912. He was a millman. Cornelius L.Rarick: 1915, renter. He was a carpenter. Monica D. Holbert: 1915, renter Thomas M. Holbert: 1915, owner. He was an automobile operator. Dale W. Holbert: 1915, renter. He worked as a plumber at Balsley Bros. Kenneth E. and Marjorie Bashford: 1923, owner. He was a salesman for the CN Hendricks Motor Supply. George Throssel: 1925, renter at 1229 1/2. Rose Bradshaw (1229): 1927 Florence Holbert (1229 1/2): 1923-27, renter. She was an ironer at the Domestic Hand Laundry. Wilburn C. Larson: 1989 (owner, used as a rental) Further residents to be researched. Note: The 1909 Sanborn Map of the block shows a small back house, which was the home of the early residents. After 1911, when the front and back Craftsman cottages were built (replacing the original back house), the front house was designated 1229 and the back house 1231. Later, the back house became 1229 ½, as it is today. Narrative: Joseph J. Rowe, a resident of Santa Monica from 1905 until his death in 1924, designed and built multiple properties in the city, both bungalows and large single-family homes. He was an investor in early Santa Monica real estate as well as builder and designer, and he and his wife purchased 53 property in the 1904 Irwin Heights Tracts. After moving to several different addresses in Santa Monica, he, his wife, Armina, and another relative, Lloyd Clifford Rowe, who was a carpenter, settled at 1117 10th Street where they lived from 1915 to 1924. Rowe is considered to be a master builder who was aware of Greene and Greene’s work and who incorporated the details of Craftsman architecture into his designs. Landmarks Commission staff and consultants’ commentaries praised the quality of design and craftsmanship embodied in his extant buildings and described it as high relative to other local builders of the period. These comments were included in Landmarks Commission staff and consultant reports when the 1916 house Rowe built at 929 Lincoln Boulevard was landmarked in 2007. Another home built by Rowe, the 1914 William Pigott House at 426 Palisades Avenue, was determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is listed in the City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory as having a California Historical Resource Status Code of 3S (appears eligible for National Register as an individual property through survey evaluation). Because both the residence at 929 Lincoln and the William Pigott House were designed and constructed with a high level of skill, it appears that Rowe was an exceptional master builder. The 11th Street bungalow cluster includes Rowe’s earliest extant homes: 1223 11th Street and 1229 11th Street, both built in 1911. Rowe’s work is noted for exhibiting a particularly high level of integrity of design, materials, and workmanship, as is evidenced by both of these Craftsman homes. 54 Historic Survey Sheets 55 56 57 58 1233 11th Street 59 Data and Narrative Lot Q Block 113 Built: 1904 Permit: #80, 23 May 1904, for a one-story cottage Owner: Frank Boothe Builder: (Waldo K.) Cowan and Elliott Addresses: 424 (pre-1909), 1233 and 1237 (1233 1/2), 1233 and 1233 1/2 11th Street (current) Santa Monica Historic Resources Surveys: Listed as contributor to an 11th Street district 1990, 1995. Additional Permits: Permit #3029 1/2: 26 October 1923. Owner: Margaret Enriquez. New screen porch, sleeping room, one laundry space, one nook added to rear of old building. Cost: $600.00 Permit to build 1233 1/2: 24 September 1924. Address was 1237 at that time. Permit #9645, 5 February 1946, patio including Empress Palm Court; masonry and Malibu tiles. Owner: John B. Terry. Permit for patio: 1946: 1233 1/2 Owners/ Residents: John P. Jones:1875 Frank Boothe, Miss Hattie Boothe, Miss Mary Boothe: 1904 William Nelson: 1906 W.J. Davenport: 1912, 1913 Louis P. Heckel: 1915, owner. He was a driller. Frank J. Grossman: 1920 Orrin Hall: 1921 Abigail (H or W)ebband: 1922 Margaret Y. Enriquez: 1923 Henrietta Enriquez: 1923 renter Mary Enriquez: 1923, renter. Student. William A. Brunsch: 1927 John B. Terry: 1946 Associated International Marketing: current owner; front and back houses (back house is two stories with downstairs and upstairs apartments) are rentals managed by Roque and Mark. 1233: Gary and Christina Duncan; 1233 1/2 downstairs: Amnon Schwartz. 60 Historic Survey Sheets 61 62 63 64 65 1239 11th Street 66 Data and Narrative Lot P Block 113 Built: 1905 Permit: #389, 23 November 1905. One-story Craftsman bungalow, Classical Revival Style. Cost: $1225.00. Owner: William Nelson Designer, Builder: Waldo K. Cowan Addresses: 424 (pre-1909); 1239 (current) Santa Monica Historic Resources Surveys: Listed as a contributor to an 11th Street district 1994, and as an altered contributor in 2007. Additional Permits: Permit #9346, 5 July 1922. Builder: Pete Christenson; Owner: Mrs. William Nelson. Added sleeping room, peaked roof. Cost: $100. Permit #5695, 14 September 1934. Contractor: C. Beaird. Applicant: J.C. Steel and Hy R. Stanley. Four-room dwelling and garage 22’ x 38’. Cost: $1500.00. Permit #B17231, 17 February 1955. Owner: Nellie Mudd. Remodel back apartment 1239 1/2 11th Street. Cost: $800.00. Permits need further research. Owners/ Residents: John P. Jones: 1875 Mr. and Mrs. William Nelson: 1907, resident Mrs. William Nelson, Electa Nelson: 1916 J.C. Steel and Hy R. Stanley: 1934, owners Nellie Mudd: 1955 Kamran Ghermazian: owner, resident in 1989 Homayoun Ghovanlou: Current owner; front and back houses are rentals. Currently, Kathrine Takis and Robert LeFleur live in the back house (1239 1/2) Residents needs further research. Narrative: William Nelson was a local rancher. 67 Historic Survey Sheets 68 69 70 71 1107 Arizona Avenue 72 Data and Narrative Lot M Block 113 Built: 1906 Permit: #445, 9 March 1906 Owner/Contractor: Waldo K. Cowan Addresses: 408 11th Street (pre-1909); 1259 11th Street; 1107 Arizona Avenue (for several decades, 1107 and 1109 were same property) Santa Monica Historic Resources Surveys: Listed as contributor to an 11th Street district 1995, 2006 Additional Permits: Permit #B66, 19 June 1946, altered stairway Permit #3696, 29 March 1948, recover the roof Permit #B859718, December 1950, convert attic into rental; change interior walls Owners/ Residents: Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker: 1875 Robert F. Jones (Senator Jones’ nephew) Waldo and Susie Cowan: 1906-14 Carrie Kneer: 1915, owner. She was the widow of Randolph Kneer. John H. Rule: 1915, owner Estelle Grace: 1915, renter. She was a teacher. Chester A. and Anna B. Peck: 1918, owner. He was a MetLife insurance agent. Maria Robirds (widow): 1919, owner. Merwyn and Genevieve D. Christie: 1923. He was a salesman. She was a stenographer. W.R. Parks: 1923, owner. John and Lillie Rule: 1927, owners Amelia Rule: 1932, owner Mr. and Mrs. William Worley: 1946, owner Frank Wixson: 1950, owner Jeffery L. Vinion and Miranda B. Field: 1990, owners Current Resident Owners: Ted Catanzaro and Debbie Mahdessian, who are photographers. Further research needed on residents. Note: The list of owners and renters is complicated. It is possible that the 1107 and 1109 addresses were combined or interchanged. Narrative: Waldo K. (Willie) Cowan On 27 March 1903, the Daily Outlook announced that, “The Dudley Investment Company has sold Waldo Cowan a lot on Seventh Street between Arizona and Oregon. Mr. Cowan is a newcomer 73 and will improve the place at once.” Cowan must have taken this to heart, because he made major contributions to Santa Monica civic life in the decade that he and his wife, Susie, lived here. Waldo Cowan was a member of the Santa Monica Board of Trade (a predecessor of the Chamber of Commerce), the Santa Monica School Board, secretary of the Oddfellows Seaside Lodge #30, treasurer of the Foresters of America Court Neptune 99, and treasurer and active leader of the Associated Charities. He was also the 1912 election supervisor for his precinct. He ran for assessor and for city council for the 6th Ward, and though he was not elected, his leadership is evident in the work he did on the Board of Education during the era when a new high school on Prospect Hill, Santa Monica High School, was under consideration, and in his other activities that kept him regularly in the news. In 1905, he partnered with George P. Elliott to create Cowan and Elliott, a construction company that built many new bungalows, especially in what is now called the mid-city area. Later he formed a partnership with Bernard Sues in a real estate and construction business. Cowan had a major hand in building the bungalows that created the streetscape on 11th Street between Nevada (now Wilshire) and Arizona. Some of his projects included the following: He owned an interest in 1223 11th Street before Mary Drumm bought the lot; he built 1233 11th Street, 1239 11th Street, 1247 11th Street, and 1253 11th Street, where he lived before building and moving into 1259 11th Street (1107 Arizona Avenue) with his family in 1906. In 1910, he subdivided this lot and in 1911 built a home (now 1109 Arizona Avenue) for his parents, William A. and M.B. Cowan. William had been a “Practical Fruit Grower and Nurseryman” according to an 1876 ad in the Daily Outlook for his business at 6th and Railroad. His business featured “Blue Gums, peppers, pines, cypress,” trees still evident in the Santa Monica cityscape. Clearly Waldo Cowan shaped the built environment of 11th Street from its earliest appearance. Susie and Waldo Cowan’s life in Santa Monica was soon to change. On 20 June 1913, Cowan’s mother, Martha, died. She and William had been living in the cottage Cowan built for them (now 1109 Arizona Avenue) in 1911. Cowan and his business partner Bernard Sues drove up to the Antelope Valley where they purchased several acres west of Lancaster. Cowan was sure that the area would be the next Imperial Valley because there was so much water and inexpensive land that would support alfalfa and dairy farms. He reported to the Daily Outlook that the road was good 74 and that it took less than a day’s drive to get there. Perhaps influenced by his father, the nurseryman fruit grower, on 30 June 1914, the Cowans bought a large ranch in Lancaster. After staying with their friends, the Stones, for a few weeks and selling their house (1107 Arizona Avenue) and household goods, they left Santa Monica for their ranch on about 1 August 1914. In 1917, the magazine Rural World featured a photograph of the Cowans’ model pear farm. Cowan loved cars and his commitment to the automobile was a defining activity of his life. One of his earliest Santa Monica civic activities was his membership on the 1899 Cycle Path Committee. In 1903, he was a founding member of the Los Angeles Automobile Club, which intended to build clubhouses and race tracks, and to encourage good roads. Cowan was a supporter of car racing in Santa Monica and probably took part. By 1904, when living at 408 (1253) 11th Street, he posted an ad in the Daily Outlook selling “horse, wagon and harness, Clipper feed cutter, and Petaluma brooder, all in good condition.” Cars were his future. In 1911, it was reported in the Daily Outlook that he was one of the first in the city to purchase a Ford Touring car. Cowan both sold and raced Ramblers from at least 1908. At the time, it was the second-most popular car after the Ford. On 17 May 1908, the Los Angeles Times reported that Cowan sold to the City of Long Beach the first “automobile fire fighter ever seen in the West.” It was a firetruck made from a Rambler, the first car-based fire truck. And the fire chief said he wanted all autos for firefighting from then on. In the Automobile and Sports section of the Los Angeles Times on 13 September 1913, the paper announced, “The Jeffery quadruple drive truck had its first military test in Southern California last Sunday. W.K. Cowan Company is the local distributor for the new power wagon.” Cowan’s car expertise made him a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times, which reported on 18 July 1915: “Veteran motor man again in the field; W.K. Cowan appointed manager of local agency which controls Southern California and Arizona territories.” It noted that Cowan had “come up with motor industry from bicycle days.” In fact, he was in Los Angeles Times as early as 1912 when Cowan reported to be the first person in Los Angeles to sell the very first hybrid gas-electric car. The Los Angeles Times also reported, on 28 February 1915, “Old-timer takes up agency for cars over in Pasadena.” And in October of 1917, a Los Angeles Times article headlined: “Pioneer auto man is honored.” “W.K. Cowan is called to new position; employed as manager of new commercial car department...In his time has been one of the largest distributors in the Southern 75 California field.” His new position was with the commercial car department at J.W. Leavitt’s Chevrolet car distributors. Cowan was an energetic, engaged, and influential member of Santa Monica’s founding community. His range of interests evolved from carpentry to contracting to real estate development to civic duty to model pear orchards to fast cars to the newest innovations in automobile design. His influence is still evident in the Santa Monica tradition of civic participation and in the beauty of the 11th Street bungalows. 76 Historic Survey Sheets 77 78 79 80 1109 Arizona Avenue 81 Data and Narrative Lot M Block 113 Permit: 12 September 1911 Owner: Waldo K. Cowan Contractor: Cerini Addresses: 408 11th Street (pre-1909); 1259 11th Street; 1109 Arizona Avenue Note: 1107, 1109, and 1115 (plus a garage at what is now 1115) swapped addresses until Lot M was legally subdivided into three parcels. Santa Monica Historic Resources Surveys: Listed as altered contributor to an 11th Street district 1995, 2006 Additional Permits 1954, stuccoed exterior Permit #B15216, 8 February 1954, Contractor: William O’Rourke, repair stucco exterior; Cost: $350 Permit #B15649, 13 May 1954, Porch and patio roof; Cost: $200 Permit #B20386, 31 August 1956, Install shower basin, bathroom and toilet; Cost: $500 Owners/Residents: Arcadia Bandini de Stearns Baker: 1875 Robert F. Jones (Senator Jones nephew) Waldo K. Cowan: 1911, built this house for his parents Martha B. and William A. Cowan: 1912 Andrew J. Dickens: 1915. Dickens was a policeman. Mr. Lang: 1917, owner. Mr. Clarence L. Jordan: 1917, owner. He taught at the evening high school. Carrie Kneer: 1919 Arthur and Adeline Cocknell: 1924, owners Thomas and Leona Berry: 1925, owners Leo L. Berry: 1925, renter. He was a clerk at the Santa Monica Post Office. James A. Hall: 1926, owner Helen M. Lamb (widow): 1927, owner Howard Fink: 1954 W. Taylor: 1956 MofioBissada: 1990, owner Yvette and Darren Silver: current owners. The house is a rental. Further residents need to be researched. Narrative: In 1910, Waldo Cowan subdivided his 1259 11th Street (1107 Arizona Avenue) lot and in 1911 built a home (now 1109 Arizona Avenue) for his parents, William A. and M. B. Cowan. William 82 was a nurseryman with a business at 6th and Railroad. Martha Cowan, Waldo’s mother, died in 1913. Her children, in addition to her son, Waldo, included Mrs. Stella Footman of Raymond, California, and Mrs. A.E. Locke. In 1914 and again in 1915, ads in the Daily Outlook listed 1109 Arizona for rent, described as four rooms, furnished, with a garage. Rent was $25. In 1923, William Cowan was listed as living in the Soldiers’ Home. 83 Historic Survey Sheets* * To be located. 84 1115 Arizona Avenue 85 Data and Narrative Lot M Block 113 Built: 18 November 1925 Permit: #1612, “Three rooms built in rear [of 1109] for income — stucco, flat roof, walls of concrete, 26 x 24.” Owner: John Rule Contractor: L.B. Norman Addresses: 408 11th Street (pre-1909); 1259 11th Street; 1107 Arizona Avenue, 1115 Arizona Avenue Santa Monica Historic Resources Surveys: Listed as contributor to an 11th Street district 1995, 2006 Additional Permits: Permit #865, for cottage (the structure that preceded the current 1115 Arizona). This permit was taken out by the owner of 1109 Arizona. No date. Permit #B5309, 22 February 1954. Contractor: T. B. Eyer (Owner: Angle); Repairs; Cost: $70. Permit #B19815, 28 May 1956. Contractor: Arnold Doty (Owner: Angle); Garage; Cost: $800. Owners/ Residents: John Rule: 1925, owner Wilbert G. Graham: 1927, renter. He was a police officer. Mr. and Mrs. G. B. DuRail: 1930. On 26 December they had a son, David Bradford. Amy L. Angle: 1954, owner John G. and Ruth Seablom: 1927, owners. He worked at the Golden Super Service. Michael de Villiers: current owner Further research on residents needed. Narrative: 1115 Arizona Avenue was built to replace an existing rental, and was eventually separated from 1109, to become a unique property. Wilbert Graham was reported in the 26 December 1930 Daily Outlook to have suffered a serious accident: “Popular Santa Monica motorcycle officer is in a serious condition at Martin’s Hospital, following injuries received last night when his motorcycle crashed into a car at the corner of Ninth and Santa Monica Blvd.” He was chasing a speeding automobile. 86 Historic Survey Sheets Part 5: Letters of Support 88 89 November 08, 2017 Members of the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission. The letter that I wrote many years ago still seems appropriate for Santa Monica is a city where bungalows continue to be the main stock of residential housing. Their number is one of the chief reasons for the city being such a fine place to live. I certainly endorse the proposal that this neighborhood became a historic district. My experience here in Pasadena is that the so-called “Bungalow Heaven” has reinforced its residents’ public awareness and sense of community, something that is vital in our modern-day society. Sincerely, Robert W. Winter, PhD Emeritus Professor of History, Occidental College Author of The California Bungalow (1980) Author, American Bungalow Style (1994) Co-author of five editions of guides to the Architecture of Los Angeles County. 90 91 92 On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 12:46 PM, Thomas S. Hines <hines@history.ucla.edu> wrote: Thank you Susan. I am happy to update my 1989 letter by saying here that I still fully support your efforts at preservation of that bungalow tract. All best wishes. Thomas Hines, 6 November 2017 THOMAS S. HINES Research Professor of History and Architecture and Urban Design 1317 Perloff Hall, UCLA 405 Hilgard Avenue Los Angeles, California, 90095 Departmental Telephone: 310-825-7857 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 PRELIMINARY HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT 1200 BLOCK 11th STREET CLUSTER SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: City of Santa Monica City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Prepared by: Jan Ostashay Principal Ostashay & Associates Consulting PO BOX 542 Long Beach, CA 90801 December 2017 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 1 PRELIMINARY HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Santa Monica, California INTRODUCTION On April 12, 2017, the Friends of 11th Street submitted documentation regarding a potential historic district to include several bungalow properties along the 1200 block of 11th Street. At their July 12, 2017 hearing, the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission requested the preparation of a preliminary assessment by a professional historic preservation consultant of the potential historic district. In addition, the Commission also requested staff to explore if other avenues were available for recognizing the properties. At the request of the City of Santa Monica’s Planning and Community Development Department, Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC) has prepared this preliminary assessment of the 1200 block 11th Street grouping of properties (referred to herein as the Study Area) to determine if it should warrant further study as a potential historic district. The City of Santa Monica historic district designation criteria were employed to evaluate the local significance of the area as a potential historic district. The 1200 block 11th Street neighborhood cluster is a grouping of properties located along 11th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue, in the central section of Santa Monica referred to as Mid-City. It includes 12 parcels that contain residential improvements dating from 1905 to 1992. Also included in the grouping are two additional parcels fronting Arizona Avenue at 1109 and 1115 Arizona Avenue (northeast corner of Arizona Avenue and 11th Street). Completion of this preliminary assessment involved a site visit and documentation of potential resources within the Study Area; the collection and review of building permits obtained from the City’s Planning and Community Development; archival research conducted at the Santa Monica Public Library and other relevant repositories; a review of prior survey work of the area; development of applicable historic contexts and themes; and consideration of eligibility under Santa Monica Historic District criteria. This report was prepared by Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC) staff Jan Ostashay, Principal. Ms. Ostashay satisfies the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History and History. METHODOLOGY In order to identify and consider the 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster as a potential historic district a survey was conducted and research performed. The preliminary assessment included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and its annual updates, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and the California Historic Resources Inventory list maintained by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) in order to determine if any previous evaluations or survey assessments of the properties had been performed. The City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory database was also reviewed. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 2 For this preliminary assessment of the 1200 block 11th Street neighborhood cluster a field survey and a review of relevant building permits and tax assessor records were also conducted to understand and document the history, existing conditions and historical integrity of the immediate neighborhood and each property within the survey area. These work tasks also assisted in preliminarily assessing the 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood for local historical significance as a potential historic district. The following are additional tasks that were performed for the study: • Searched records of the National Register, California Register, Library of Congress archives, U.S. Census records, OHP Historic Resources Inventory, and the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (SMHRI). • Conducted an exterior field inspection of the subject properties from the public rights-of-way. • Conducted site-specific research on the subject properties utilizing Sanborn fire insurance maps, city directories, voter’s registration cards, census records, newspaper articles, historical photographs, and building permits. • Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation, designation assessment procedures, and related programs. A review of the material submitted to the City by the Friends of 11th Street was also reviewed and disseminated. The documentation provided by the Friends included copies of previously completed State Inventory forms (DPR523 forms) of the properties under review, photographs, permit history information, various maps, and occupancy narrative histories. REGULATIONS AND HISTORIC DISTRICT CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION City of Santa Monica Historic Districts Ordinance. Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC). The Ordinance was adopted by the Santa Monica City Council in 1976 and twice amended, first in 1987 and again in 1991. 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. The Ordinance includes criteria and procedures for designating City of Santa Monica Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts. Local landmarks and historic districts may include structures, natural features, or any type of improvement to a property that is found to have particular architectural or historical significance to the City. Per Section 9.56.100(b) of the Ordinance, a geographic area or thematic grouping of properties merits consideration as a Historic District if it satisfies one of the following four statutory criteria: 1. Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.56.100(a)(1) through (6). 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 3 Criterion A.1 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. Criterion A.2 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. Criterion A.3 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history. Criterion A.4 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(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 style valuable to such a study. Criterion A.5 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. Criterion A.6 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(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. 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. Historical Integrity. Though the City of Santa Monica designation criteria does not include historical integrity it is defined in the ordinance. Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is defined as the “authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s…historic period.”1 The National Park Service (NPS) defines seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain historic integrity a property will usually possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. Guidelines for Historic Districts and Contributing Properties. Pursuant to the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, the City of Santa Monica defines a Contributing Building or Structure as one “which has been identified by the Landmarks Commission as one which 1 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997, p.4. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 4 contributes to the designation of an area as a Historic District” (Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.36.030). Standard preservation practice evaluates collections of properties (buildings, structures, objects, etc.) from similar time periods and historic contexts as historic districts. The NPS defines a historic district as “a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.”2 A historic district derives its significance as a single unified entity. The NPS guidelines continue to define a district as: The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties.3 Resources that have been found to contribute to the historic identity of a district are referred to as “district contributors.” Properties located within the district boundaries that do not contribute to its significance are identified as “non-contributors.” Those properties identified as non-contributors were either constructed outside of the period of significance and/or retain a low level of historical integrity. A district can comprise both of both features that lack individual distinction and individually distinctive features that serve as focal points.4 However, the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole.5 Because much of the 1200 Block 11th Street grouping’s significance stems from its architectural character, application of a high threshold for retaining integrity was considered appropriate. Properties were assessed based on the quantity, quality, and character of alterations sustained. For the purposes of this preliminary assessment, a building was identified as a contributor to the potential district if it met all of the following criteria: • It relates to the historic contexts/themes within which the grouping is significant; • It was constructed during the period of significance which has been defined for the 1200 Block 11th grouping as 1905-1925; and • It retains a substantial level of historical integrity to accurately reflect its significance. Substantial Integrity To possess substantial integrity, a property usually retains all of its seven qualities of integrity. In a small minority of cases, some properties may have sustained small loses of material 2 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997, p.5. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 5 integrity for one character-defining feature of the property (in-kind replacement of some windows within original openings, replacement of wood roof shingles with compositional roof shingles, small addition at the rear of the property), but in general retained substantially high level of integrity due to the overall quality and detail in their design. Compromised (Low) Integrity Properties with compromised historical integrity generally have sustained a greater loss of historic material for one or more character-defining feature. Due to these alterations low integrity properties were determined to have lost integrity of materials, workmanship, feeling, and in some instances design. Common alterations for this level of integrity include inappropriate window replacement or modifications to window openings, inappropriate door replacement, the application of stucco over wood lap siding, front porch enclosure, removal of historical details or ornamentation, alteration of the original roofline, rough lacy stucco over original textured stucco sheathing, and/or incompatible additions. For some more modest properties, integrity is more easily lost because there are fewer character-defining features that make up the building’s historical character. Period of Significance. Historic resources are identified as being significant during a specified period of time, referred to as the “period of significance.” The NPS defines the term period of significance as “the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for listing” in the National, State or Local registers. A period of significance can be “as brief as a single year or span many years.” It is based on “specific events directly related to the significance of the property,” for example the date of construction, years of ownership, or length of operation as particular entity.6 The period of significance of the 1200 Block 11th Street neighborhood cluster is 1905-1925, which spans the original period of construction of all previously identified “contributing” properties within the Study Area. HISTORIC CONTEXT Santa Monica. In 1875, the original townsite of Santa Monica was surveyed, including all the land extending from Colorado Street on the south to Montana on the north, and from 26th Street on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west. Between 1893 and the 1920s, the community operated as a tourist destination and gained national acclaim for its recreational culture, balmy climate, bathhouses, opulent hotels, and amusement piers. Those areas just outside of the incorporated city limits were semi-rural in setting and were populated with scattered residences. Residential development in the city at this time tended to be concentrated in sites nearest the ocean and around the present-day commercial core. Small communities of beach cottages, many of which were built as vacation homes for affluent out-of-towners, arose in those areas 6 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997, p.42. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 6 proximate to the shoreline, and several large residences were constructed on parcels atop palisades that overlook the ocean.7 Prior to 1900, Santa Monica’s growth was primarily clustered between Washington Avenue to the north, Railroad Avenue (now Colorado Avenue) to the south, 7th Street to the east, and Ocean Avenue to the west. The area of the city north of Nevada Avenue (now Wilshire Boulevard) and east of 6th Street was left largely unimproved in this early development period.8 Residential development expanded outward toward the city’s periphery as Santa Monica began to come of age as a residential enclave in the early 20th century. After the advent of the automobile in the 1920s, Santa Monica experienced a significant building boom. Whereas a significant portion of the first homes built in the older sections of the city were originally used as vacation retreats or retirement homes, the homes being constructed in the tracts north of Montana and east of Seventh Street were developed for year- round middle and upper middle class income residents. Residential development beyond the city’s core was also aided greatly by the proliferation of electric streetcar lines, increasing accessibility to areas that had previously been impractical to subdivide and develop. Architecturally, from the late nineteenth century through the first decade of the twentieth century, the quaint affordable hipped-roof vernacular cottage became the dominant residential building type in the area as elsewhere in Santa Monica and Southern California. During the first decade of the twentieth century the single-family Craftsman bungalow became popular in residential construction with modest scale bungalows built in many of the areas east and south of Santa Monica’s downtown area and elsewhere throughout the southland. The bungalow was well suited to accommodate Southern California’s need for inexpensive housing. Its affordability allowed many people to purchase a single-family home on their own plot of land. By the late 1910s and into the 1920s, the Craftsman style was often melded with revival styles such as the American Colonial Revival. Starting in the early 1920s, residential development in Santa Monica and Southern California, which then also included one-story duplexes and two-story four-plexes, solidly embraced a number of highly popular period revival styles of architecture. The Spanish Colonial Revival style was especially popular and would effectively define Santa Monica’s built environment during one of the city’s greatest period of economic and residential growth, the 1920s. In addition to the small multi-family units being erected, the modest bungalow/apartment court was an especially popular building type that appeared on single or multiple adjoining residential lots throughout Santa Monica, and particularly in the once sparsely populated eastern portions of the townsite during the 1920s and 1930s. By the mid-1930s, the Streamline Moderne style came to predominate and was most commonly applied to apartment courts and two-story apartment buildings. After the Second World War, apartment courts evolved into larger garden apartments. Much of the older housing stock began to be replaced with non- 7 City of Santa Monica General Plan, “Historic Preservation Element,” prepared by PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group (September 2002), 12-13. 8 ICF Jones & Stokes, Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report (prepared for the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department, 2010). 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 7 descript vernacular condominium and large-scale apartment complexes throughout the community from the 1960s to the present day. Mid-City, Santa Monica. The Mid-City area is located behind (east) the present central business district of Santa Monica. Initially, in the decades following the 1875 subdivision, the business district was both the residential and commercial heart of the town of Santa Monica. The 1887 Sanborn map indicates that Oregon (Santa Monica Boulevard) was more or less the dividing line between the mostly residential blocks between Arizona and Oregon avenues and the commercial blocks extending south of Oregon. As elsewhere in the young city, 4th Street was the initial boundary of the most built-up section, with only a handful of widely scattered cottages and farmhouses further to the east. The north and eastward push of the residential district was well underway by 1891. By the end of 1898, Lincoln School had been constructed at 10th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard. It was the second oldest school in Santa Monica and operated as a high school. By 1902, blocks developed with several houses apiece extended to 10th Street on the east and crossed Nevada (Wilshire Boulevard) on the north, and by 1909 had reached up to 17th Street. By 1911, five interurban railway lines served Santa Monica with travel times of 30 to 50 minutes from downtown Los Angeles.9 The availability of affordable streetcar service was a key factor in laying the groundwork for future real estate development in Santa Monica and elsewhere in the greater southern California region. Socioeconomically, interurban streetcar neighborhoods attracted a wide range of people from the working to upper-middle class, with the great majority being the middle class. By keeping fares low in cost and offering a flat fare with free transfers, streetcar operators encouraged households to move out of the city where the cost of land and a new home were cheaper. With accessible streetcar service Santa Monica and the Mid-City area were poised for residential development in the early years of the twentieth century. In reviewing Sanborn maps from 1902 it shows many of the lots east of downtown from 7th Street to 10th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Broadway developed with modest working-class, single-family homes. In the years to follow the empty lots in the area were also developed with bungalows and cottages as were the blocks further east of 10th Street. By 1916, building permits in the city totaled $169,000 “…almost entirely representing the building of homes for the medium class” with the construction of an average bungalow costing between $1,500 and $3,000.10 A combination of factors contributed to the area’s desirability among individuals with middle- class and upper middle class incomes, including the charms of beach accessible living, the warm temperate weather, the local entertainment industry, tourism, adjacency to good schools, a thriving and growing downtown, and access to affordable and efficient transportation. Like many other early working class neighborhoods in the Mid-City area of Santa Monica, like elsewhere in the city and Southern California in general, residents in the area represented a variety of blue and white collar workers as well as widows and retirees. Tenants of these homes 9 “Santa Monica Bay News Scene of Great Activity,” Los Angeles Times, July 16, 1911, IV11. 10 “Along the Coast,” Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1916, IV107. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 8 were either renters or owner-occupants; some were long-term residents while others resided in their abodes only briefly. In 1926, Lincoln School was replaced with a new elementary school, Madison Elementary School (it opened in 1926). The school was heavily damaged following the Long Beach earthquake of 1933 and rebuilt a few years later. By the late 1920s and 1930s, multi-family buildings began replacing the smaller single-family homes found in the Mid-city area. It was during that time that the nearby Wilshire (Nevada Avenue), Santa Monica (Oregon Avenue), and Broadway (Utah Avenue) corridors assumed their current, primarily commercial character. These trends intensified in the post-World War II era, as shown in the 1950 Sanborn map with the result being the redevelopment of older, intact housing stock with larger one- and two- story apartment buildings. In later years, Madison Elementary School became part of Santa Monica College. Despite continued redevelopment into the modern era there are still extant pockets of residential neighborhoods throughout the Mid-city area and the city overall that reflect the community’s association with the early working class and the overall diverse residential growth pattern of Santa Monica. 1200 Block of 11th Street Neighborhood Development. The lots in and around the 1200 block of 11th Street were recorded in the latter part of the 19th century; however, they remained vacant until the early 20th century. In 1902, only one house had been built on the block. The 1909 Sanborn map depicts the area was well developed with sixteen modest single-family hipped roof cottages. Many of the homes were the result of local building contractor and real estate entrepreneur Waldo K. Cowan, who built one of his homes at 1253 11th Street in 1905 (now demolished) and later at 1259 11th Street. Most of the dwellings he built along this street and elsewhere in the community were speculative real estate investments, including his own on 11th Street, which he sold at a profit. By this time, many of the street address numbers in the city had also changed. So this block of 11th Street changed address numbers from the 400 range to the 1200 range. The property at 1259 11th Street was also readdressed to 1107 Arizona following the lot’s subdivision into three smaller parcels. By 1918, the block was fully developed with Craftsman bungalows infilling the empty lots. Like much of the surrounding neighborhood, this block of 11th Street was also built for the middle class with moderate incomes. Because of their relative economy, bungalows answered a growing need for affordable housing during the 1910s and 1920s. Following the real estate boom of the 1920s, many of the property owners built second units behind or adjacent to their main homes for extra income or extended family. The properties along the 1200 block of 11th Street were no different and a number of owners built detached rental units in the ensuing years. The architectural styles of choice for the smaller homes were typically either the popular California Craftsman bungalow or Spanish Colonial Revival. In the 1920s and 1930s, multi-family buildings began replacing smaller homes throughout a number of neighborhoods. These trends intensified in the post-World War II era, with the removal of many modest bungalows for the development of large-scale apartment buildings and condominiums. The 1200 block of 11th Street underwent substantial redevelopment beginning in the late 1950s and through the 1960s and 1970s, and much later. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 9 Property Type/Architectural Style: Hipped Roof Cottage. The turn-of-the-century hipped roof cottage or Victorian vernacular cottage style was a transitional architectural style popular in the older communities of Southern California from the late 1880s to the early 1900s. Buildings designed in the style generally are one-story in height and mass with elements of the American Foursquare and Queen Anne style displayed on a much smaller scale. These modest homes were cost effective to build as many of the parts were already cut and pre-assembled. They were a good alternative for the working class of the period. Common characteristics of the idiom include its box-like or rectangular plan or shape, a pyramidal or hipped roof (sometimes with flared extended eaves), a hipped or gabled dormer(s), a recessed front porch (usually offset on the front façade), and a rounded or canted bay window on a primary elevation. The style developed as a utilitarian example of the Queen Anne cottage. Like the Queen Anne cottage, the front façade is asymmetrical in composition and is divided with a rounded or canted bay and recessed or covered porch entrance. The style was largely replaced by the Craftsman cottage and later the Craftsman bungalow as the predominant wood-frame modest residential house in Southern California, including Santa Monica. Throughout the community, including the 1200 block of 11th Street, there are a number of hipped roof turn-of-the-century cottages in varying states of condition still extant. Property Type/Architectural Style: (California) Craftsman Bungalow. Small developers and owner/contractors with the construction of affordable houses played a central role in Southern California’s real estate boom in the early twentieth century. Working class neighborhoods proliferated across the region and the bungalow provided respectability and a good quality of life for working class families. The property type/style was most commonly manifested in the thousands of bungalows that were constructed in the newly developed suburban areas of the Los Angeles region, including Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Sherman (later West Hollywood), Monrovia, Long Beach, and Pasadena among other nearby communities. Because of their relative economy bungalows answered a growing need for affordable housing during the 1910s and 1920s. The style was widely popularized in architectural journals, design books, and store catalogs, including the Sears Roebuck catalog. The more modest, vernacular examples of the style are typically identified simply as “bungalows” or “California bungalows.” Many of these common vernacular style “California” bungalows still exist today within the city of Santa Monica, including the 1200 block of 11th Street. Bungalows were constructed into the 1920s in the study area and reflect basic Craftsman and period revival stylistic details. The term bungalow typically refers to a modest, one- or one-and one-half story house with an informal floor plan. The exteriors were generally simple, and the use of natural materials was important to the design aesthetic. Square or rectangular shaped cottages with one- to one-and- one-half stories and rectilinear front porches typify the bungalow form. To this basic form, designers and craftsmen introduced elements of the Spanish, Stick, Tudor, Colonial Revival, and even Japanese stylistic features. Simple, horizontal, and craft-oriented natural materials characterized the typical Craftsman design. Common elements of the style included shingle or clapboard siding; battered (tapered) or square porch piers; rectangular (sash) windows; simple wood-frame door and window surrounds; gabled roofs; deeply projecting overhangs; and exposed rafter tails, beams, and bargeboards (fascias). The open front porch area, which was 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 10 raised, usually included a wood or concrete textured deck floor (sometimes tinted); wood ceilings; wood, brick, stone, or plastered balustrades; and porch steps of textured concrete or brick veneer that were approached from the front or side depending on design. 1200 BLOCK 11TH STREET SETTING Site and Setting. This area encompasses single-family and multi-family residential properties along both sides of 11th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue, situated in the central section of Santa Monica. Also included in the Study Area are two additional parcels fronting Arizona Avenue at 1109 and 1115 Arizona Avenue, which were originally part of the property at 1107 Arizona Avenue (original address 1259 11th Street) before the parcel was subdivided decades ago. The 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood and adjacent residential area adhere to a grid-like street network and are divided into a series of rectilinear blocks and parcels that are fairly uniform in size and shape. The some of the older properties are bordered by low, cement curbs. The area was once developed with modest one-story, single-family dwellings until the mid- 1950s when two-story apartment buildings began replacing many of the homes along this street and others in the immediate neighborhood. This development of multi-family structures continued well into the mid-1990s and beyond. A few of the larger multi-family residences occupy two lots thereby disrupting the uniformity of the original subdivision 50’ by 150’ parcel foot print. Because of the later infill of modern apartments/condominiums, the setbacks along this block of the street are somewhat irregular with concrete sidewalks paralleling both sides of the street. With traffic signals placed at both ends of the block (Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue) there is a high volume of automobile traffic that runs along 11th Street. This high amount of traffic adversely disrupts the residential contextual setting of the block. Automobile traffic along other nearby numbered streets is regulated by stop signs, so those residential blocks are less impacted from such traffic impositions. The 11th Street thoroughfare is a single-lane street in both directions; however, because of the dedicated parallel parking lanes and bicycle lanes along the east and west sides of the street the road visually and physically reads as four lanes wide. These transportation attributes further radically modify the historic context, feeling and setting of the area. Study Area Information. The Study Area neighborhood contains single-family houses, multi- family apartments, contemporary apartment houses, and condominiums. Buildings in the area are predominately one and two stories with the tallest building being two three-story condominiums at the south end of the block. Construction dates of the improvements vary greatly from as early as 1905 up through 1996. Most of the west side of the 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood is developed with post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings with only a single bungalow extant at 1218 11th Street. The east side of the street contains a greater density of early single-family residences set at the front of the lots (several have additional residences in the rear) with post World War II era apartments infilling the adjacent lots. Architectural styles present along this portion of the street include California Craftsman Bungalow, Hipped Roof Cottage, Spanish Colonial Revival, Minimal Traditional, and 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 11 Contemporary Vernacular. Of the 18 total parcels along this block of 11th Street ten (56%) were built with improvements post-dating World War II. Properties within the 1200 Block of 11TH Street Neighborhood Address Description Year Built 1 1215 11th Street Apartment Building 1962 2 1218 11th Street Single-family, Apartment 1914, 1921, 1956 3 1223 11th Street Single-family, Apartment 1910 4 1226 11th Street Apartment Building 1996 5 1227 11th Street Apartment Building 1957 6 1228 11th Street Condominium 1980 7 1229 11th Street Single-family 1908, 1912, 1921 8 1233 11th Street Single-family 1905, 1924 9 1234 11th Street Apartment Building 1964 10 1238 11th Street Apartment Building 1956 11 1239 11th Street Single-family 1905, 1934 12 1244 11th Street Apartment Building 1962 13 1247 11th Street Apartment Building 1955 14 1252 11th Street Condominium 1973 15 1253 11th Street Condominium 1992 16 1107 Arizona Avenue (1259 11th Street) Single-family 1907 17 1109 Arizona Avenue Single-family 1911 18 1115 Arizona Avenue Single-family 1925 PREVIOUS SURVEYS AND EVALUATIONS The Study Area has been previously evaluated as part of the City’s on-going historic resource survey efforts. Through historic resources survey work completed in 1994 (Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Phase 3), the 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood was identified as a small thematic grouping called the 1200 block of 11th Street Cluster. It was assessed as eligible for local historic district designation due to its association with early residential architecture. At that time, the grouping contained 12 parcels; seven (7) of which were documented as contributors. Properties along much of the west side of the block and at the ends of the blocks were excluded from the district boundary as they did not contribute to the groupings historic character. The non-contributors located within the grouping boundary were noted as two-story apartment buildings built since the late 1950s. The property located at 1109 Arizona Avenue was also identified as a non-contributor and was not recorded. Identified 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 12 contributing properties were assigned a California Historical Resource status code of 5D3. One property, 1218 11th Street, was also identified as individually eligible for local landmark designation and was assigned a status code of 5B.11 Previous Survey Identified Contributing Properties, 1994 Survey 1200 Block 11th Street Neighborhood Grouping Address Year Built District Status Status Code 1218 11th Street 1914, 1921, 1956 Contributor 5B 1223 11th Street (1221 11th Street) 1910 Contributor 5D3 1229 11th Street 1908, 1912, 1921 Contributor 5D3 1233 11th Street 1905, 1924 Contributor 5D3 1239 11th Street 1905, 1934 Contributor 5D3 1259 11th Street (1107 Arizona Ave) 1907 Contributor 5D3 1115 Arizona Avenue 1925 Contributor 5D3 The Study Area was re-surveyed as part of the Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update completed in 2010, and was again identified as a potential thematic grouping. Under that survey process 6 contributors were re-identified and one property, 1239 12th Street, was downgraded due to compromised integrity. As in the prior survey, the property located at 1109 Arizona Avenue was not recorded. Non-contributing properties were not identified nor discussed under the 2010 survey update. Contributing properties were assigned a California Historical Resource status code of 5D3. Previous Survey Identified Contributing Properties, 2010 Survey Update 1200 Block 11th Street Neighborhood Grouping Address Year Built District Status Status Code 1218 11th Street 1914, 1921, 1956 Contributor 5B 1223 11th Street (1221 11th Street) 1910 Contributor 5D3 1229 11th Street 1908, 1912, 1921 Contributor 5D3 1233 11th Street 1905, 1924 Contributor 5D3 1239 11th Street 1905, 1934 Non-contributor 6L 1107 Arizona Avenue (1259 11th Street) 1907 Contributor 5D3 1115 Arizona Avenue 1925 Contributor 5D3 11 Status Code Key (for tables above): 5D3, appears to be a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing (designation) through survey evaluation; 5B, locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible, or appears eligible through survey evaluation; 6L, determined ineligible for local listing (designation) through local government review process; may warrant special consideration in local planning. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 13 CURRENTLY ASSESSED PROPERTIES Those improvements under preliminary review within the previously identified 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster boundary include the following properties. The property located at 1109 Arizona Avenue was also included as part of the current preliminary assessment. 1218 11th Street (APN: 4282-007-004). According to permit history, this one-story Craftsman bungalow was built in 1913 for then owner J. C. Walters by local builder A.H. Feist at a cost of $1,200. Originally designed with strong Oriental influences that included the distinctive “lift” at the peaks of the roof gables those features have all been since removed. The wood-frame, single-family residence is capped with a cross gable roof with an extremely low pitch, exposed rafters, and extended eaves. The front entry porch is centrally located along the front façade (east elevation) and is sheltered by an extended front gable with open pediment that is supported by a pair of wood posts set on brick pedestals. Portions of the house are sheathed with rows of the original wood shingles with alternating exposure. Large windows flank the central front entry area and are clustered in bands of twos and threes. Extended lintels and sills frame the front window and door openings. The chimney (originally brick) has been rebuilt and is now sheathed in stucco. The south (side) elevation has been extensively altered by the removal of fenestration, the application of brick veneer skirting, and the application of stucco. The once open roof eave along this elevation has also been covered over by the re-roofing the dwelling in recent years. In addition, many of the windows along the side and rear elevations have been infilled or replaced. The house is approached from the public sidewalk via a concrete walkway and steps. Tax assessor records indicate a secondary structure (small bungalow cottage) was built on site at the rear of the lot in 1921. The Sanborn map from 1950 confirms the construction of the cottage and also illustrates a small garage structure at the northwest corner of the parcel. A two-story, non-descript stuccoed sheathed apartment building with garages was built at the rear of the lot in 1956. At the time of its construction the existing garage was demolished and a portion of the cottage was relocated to the front of the new apartment building. The small cottage structure was extensively modified by the application of stucco, replacement of windows and the modification of window openings, the installation of new doors, and the reconfiguration of its building footprint. Permit history indicates the brick chimney on the main house was rebuilt and covered with stucco in 1994 due to earthquake damage. The main house was also re-roofed in 2015, which is probably when the Oriental influenced character-defining features of the bargeboards and roof peaks were removed and the southern roof eave modified. Upon review of the permit history and a visual inspection of the property under this current preliminary survey assessment, the Craftsman bungalow has lost much of its historical integrity of design, workmanship, material, and design. The small cottage at the rear of the property has substantial compromised historical integrity due to extensive inappropriate remodeling work. The earliest occupant of the bungalow listed in the city directories was Charles A. Harris in 1914. Only one year later, Harry J. Byshe, who worked at the Pacific Telegraph and Telephone 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 14 Company, resided there. Donald and Mabelle Prettyman were the owners/occupants of the dwelling during the late 1910s. Mrs. Amy Darlington, widow of Stanley Darlington and a bookkeeper, was renting the property in 1921. A few years later, Joseph Daly, a retiree, was noted in the directory as the owner/occupant of the front house in 1923. At that time, Henry Chambers was listed as living in the cottage at the rear of the lot. In reviewing city directory information, John and Margaret Klein became the owners/occupants of the property by the mid-1920s. Research data indicates that John Klein had various occupations including serving as the manager of Aztec Tile in 1927 and as a roofing salesman in 1931. According to city directory and census records, the Kleins lived at the 1218 11th Street property through the mid- 1930s. During this time, the back unit was rented to Clarence E. Keifer, a tailor at a nearby dry cleaning shop. By 1940, Archie L. Shaver, an insurance salesman, and his wife Grace were the owners and occupants of the property. Weldon, a draftsman, and Ruby Fulton were listed in the city directory and 1940 Census as the tenants of the back cottage. It appears that sometime in the mid-1940s, Fred and Thelma Dickey Rush along with Thelma’s mother Elizabeth Dickey, a widow, purchased the property. Fred and Thelma were married in 1944 and before that time Thelma and Elizabeth had been renting an apartment along Second Street in Santa Monica. Fred was a plumber with his own business while Thelma worked as an office clerk for the Veteran’s Administration in West Los Angeles. Fred, Thelma and Elizabeth remained at the 11th Street residence for several decades. All the while, they continued to rent out the apartment units at the rear of the parcel to a variety of individuals, including retirees, students, and blue and white collar workers. 1221-1223 11th Street(APN: 4282-006-022). This one-story, wood-frame California Craftsman bungalow is similar in design, features, and configuration to its neighbor to the south at 1229 11th Street. The 1223 11th Street bungalow was built in 1911 by local contractor Joseph J. Rowe for then owners Mary and Ashford Drumm. The house features a rectangular plan; wood clapboard siding; and a front-facing gable roof of medium pitch with overhanging eaves, carved braces under the eaves of the gable ends, and extended bargeboards with notched ends. A smaller gable roof extends out over a now enclosed front porch that is offset on the front façade to the south. A large tripartite window with fixed center and flanking sashes punctuates the front wall plane north of the porch. A square shape, wood-frame multi-pane attic window is centered just below the gable of the main roof. A flat wood beltcourse set just above the window line of the gable end adds extra detailing to the front façade. All window and door openings set within the exterior walls of the house are framed by flat molded wood surrounds. The house is slightly elevated above grade; hence, the front door and porch are approached from the street via a walkway and concrete steps. A detached garage with workshop was located at the northeast corner of the lot, but was removed for the construction of a three unit, two-story apartment building in 1955 (1221 11th Street). Besides the enclosure of the front porch other permitted changes to the main house included the construction of a one room addition at the rear of the building in 1915. The property maintains much of its historical integrity of location, design, workmanship, material, setting, feeling, and association. As mentioned, the bungalow on this lot was built for then owners Mary and Ashford Drumm of 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 15 Santa Monica. Ashford Drumm was a house painter and Mary a housewife. They were also real estate investors whereby they bought and sold property as speculative investment throughout much of Santa Monica. With a building permit issued in April 1911, the Drumms sold the property to Frank and Mary Polly. The Pollys lived there for roughly three years before selling it to Frank J. Strickfaden, a retired businessman, in 1914. He remained at the 11th Street property until has passing in 1944. After getting divorced from Nancy Creek Strickfaden, Frank Joseph Strickfaden had moved from Ashland, Oregon with his middle son Ken to Santa Monica in 1912. A few years later his oldest son Frank Jr. and youngest son Charles joined them. In December 1914, Frank Strickfaden purchased the 11th Street property and moved in with his family. Only months later he added a bedroom, enclosed the front porch, and built a garage with workshop at the rear of the lot. In 1920, Frank married Clara Dunston. That same year Frank’s son Ken moved out of the house and a year later married his high school sweetheart Gladys Ward. His other two sons followed suit and moved out to establish their own careers and personal lives. Of the three Strickfaden sons, the most recognized with any notoriety was Ken Joseph Strickfaden. He had entered high school as a sophomore in 1914 when he and his father arrived in Santa Monica. He was an active student involved in a variety of campus activities including photography, theater, band, orchestra, and sports. During his high school years he held several part-time, after-school jobs as an electrician. At home in their backyard workshop on 11th Street (now demolished) he and his older brother Frank began experimenting with Tesla coils, wireless communications, and electrical special effects. After serving in World War I, he worked as an electrician and honed his skills in designing sets while working at amusement parks on the east and west coasts (Coney Island and the Ocean Park pier). Eventually he gained employment in the Hollywood film industry where he became known as a Hollywood special effects genius. It was Ken who created the mad scientist and science fiction apparatus that entertained, thrilled, and frightened many people in more than 100 motion picture films and television programs such as “Frankenstein” (1931), “The Wizard of Oz” (1939), “Young Frankenstein” (1974), and the television series “The Munsters.” He has been recognized by various organizations for his contributions to the motion picture industry, including the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. In addition, to his behind the scenes movie work, he presented some 1,500 traveling lectures on the physical sciences which proved to be both highly educational and entertaining. Much of his research for his professional work was conducted in his home garage at 1348 15th Street after he moved out from the 11th Street property and married Gladys. Year later in 1933, he and his wife Gladys move to 853 26th Street, where he continued to refine his special effects skills by working out of his garage workshop. Their youngest daughter Marilyn, who married Mark Throssel, eventually inherited the 1223 11th Street property from her grandfather Frank J. Strickfaden. In 1963, they sold the family home to James and Doris Lennon. 1229 11th Street (APN: 4282-006-020). The California Craftsman bungalow at 1229 11th Street typifies the homes that once characterized much of the neighborhood during the first quarter of the twentieth century. The wood-frame house has a rectangular plan, is clad with wood clapboard siding, and is capped by a front-facing gable roof with overhanging eaves. A smaller gable projects out over a now enclosed front porch that is offset along the façade to the south. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 16 Roof elements along the front façade feature a moderate pitch, carved eave brackets, and extended bargeboards with notched ends. Fenestration includes a tripartite wood-frame window north of the front porch, an attic window centered beneath the apex of the main gable, and fixed and sash type window frames. All doors and window openings are framed by flat wood surrounds. A second, smaller bungalow with a gable roof and lap siding is sited at the rear of the lot 1229½ 11th Street). Some of the fenestration on this secondary structure has been replaced with slider type frames, as have some entry doors. A detached, wood-frame garage with lap siding and a gable roof, which appears to have been enlarged, is set at the northeast corner of the parcel and is accessed from the alley. The property maintains much of its historical integrity of location, design, workmanship, material, setting, feeling, and association. This modest one-story California Craftsman bungalow was built in 1911 by local building contractor Joseph J. Rowe for then owners Thomas and Florence Holbert. Rowe was also responsible for the construction of the bungalow next door at 1223 11th Street. Both homes embody his quality of design and craftsmanship which is physically evident in the carved braces under the eaves and in the notched ends of the bargeboards. The initial property owner Thomas Holbert was noted in the 1910 US Census and 1912 city directory as a millman while Florence was listed as an ironer. The following year the Holberts are listed as residing at 1229½ 11th Street (the back house) and Frank L. Moore of the Ocean Park Tea and Coffee Company was listed at 1229 11th Street. This slight change in address suggests that the rear dwelling was built within a few years of the first bungalow. The Holberts occupied the rear bungalow during much of their ownership. Sometime around 1940 Mrs. Florence Holbert (now a widow) moved into the front house and remained there until her passing in 1953. Wilburn Larson, a mechanic at the Douglas plant) and his wife Gladyce then became the owners and lived there a number of years before converting the entire property to rental use. 1233 11th Street (APN: 4282-006-019). This one-story, wood-frame single-family residence reflects the design of an American Colonial Revival style bungalow. However, the dwelling was originally designed and built as a turn-of-the-century hipped roof cottage, similar to its neighbor next door to the south. Built in 1904, at a cost of approximately $1,600 it was constructed by the contracting firm of Cowan and Elliott for then owner Frank D. Booth. The extant narrow clapboard siding and hip roof are characteristics of its original design intent and period. The front façade addition, facing west, is symmetrical in composition and features an enclosed soffit broken by a front-facing gabled portico. Fluted pilasters and scrolled brackets frame the entry and the open pediment. The double wood-frame front door is glazed with muntins outlining the shape of each door. A similar glazing pattern is applied to the single and double wood-frame casement windows that flank the main entry. At the rear of the parcel is a two story duplex (1233½ and 1235 11th Street) with attached one-story garage that was built in 1924. This structure incorporates similar clapboard siding and fenestration as used on the front of the main house. Other features of the property include a pergola, tiled side patio area, and mature palm trees, which were added after the original construction date of the front house. It appears the front façade of the house was modified to its current American Colonial Revival appearance around 1923. At that time, permits indicate that a new screen porch, sleeping room, a laundry room and nook at the rear of the structure were added to the house. The 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 17 building permit history also confirms the construction of the duplex in 1924. The permits also reference the installation of the side and rear patio areas with landscaping in 1946 by then owner John B. Terry. A review of city directory listings, voter registration records and census files show the property was owned and occupied by a series of individuals that consisted of blue and white collar workers as well as retirees. City directory listing from 1905 does indicate Frank Booth, a sea captain, resided there with Hattie and Mary Booth. A photograph of the house from circa 1905 also confirms Booth’s occupancy at the residence and its original design as a hipped roof cottage. A review of the 1910 US Census notes the occupant of the property as George K. Boultner, an oil well driller, and his wife Clara and daughter Ester. Only a few years later Wilford Justin Davenport was listed in the 1912-1913 city directories as the owner/occupant. Davenport, a carpenter, along with his wife Anna and youngest son Ralph lived there for only a few short years before moving up the street to 15th Street. Lewis Philip Heckel and his wife Annabel along with their three children resided at the 1233 11th Street property for roughly four years.12 While residing in Santa Monica Lewis Heckel was an auto operator (bus driver). The property was then purchased by Christopher (Crispo) and Margaret Ysais Enriquez in the early 1920s. Shortly thereafter they divorced with Margaret and their children remaining at the 11th Street residence. They lived primarily in the rear building while they rented out the front house over the course of several years. The property was later sold to John B. Terry just before Margaret passed away in 1947. John and Mrs. Mary Blank Terry (widow of Carl S. Blank) lived in the rear unit and continued renting out the front house, as Margaret Enriquez had done before. Research data indicates that Mrs. Mary Blank Terry remained the owner of the property through much of the 1950s. By 1958, however, Mrs. Florence Campbell, a nurse, was residing in the front house while Warren J. Wardell, of Warren’s Body & Paint Shop in Santa Monica, occupied the back unit. Interestingly enough, the property was not listed in the 1960-1961 city directories. 1239 11th Street (APN: 4282-006-018). This altered one-story, wood-frame single-family residence was built in 1905 as a hipped roof cottage similar to its neighbor’s original design (1233 11th Street). Its size, mass, and plan are characteristic of the style from that period just after the turn-of-the-century (20th century). The modest house has a raised foundation and is slightly elevated above grade. The identifying features of the style and period include its box- like plan, hipped roof with overhanging boxed eaves, and Colonial Revival detailing in the round porch columns. There are dormers that are centered on the side (north and south) elevations of the roof. They have; however, since been covered with stucco and the windows within the dormers have been replaced with non-original aluminum slider type frames. Much of the dwelling is sheathed with non-original stucco with fenestration consisting primarily of non- original aluminum framed sliding windows. The only intact original elements appear to be the hipped roof and recessed corner front porch area, which contains some narrow lap wood siding, a wood-frame tripartite window, and Tuscan porch columns. Access to the front porch is 12 The spelling of Lewis Heckel’s first name varies depending on the reference records reviewed. The accurate spelling of his first name is Lewis. The World War I registration record from 1918 is signed by Lewis Philip Heckel. Santa Monica city directory records list him as Louis P. Heckel. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 18 via a non-original stone paved walkway from 11th Street and stucco covered porch steps with cheek walls. At the rear of the lot is a small one-story vernacular style residence that was built in 1934. It features stucco clad exterior walls, a side facing gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails, and a multi-pane canted bay window on its west elevation. Its interity has also been compromised. Permitted alterations to the property include the addition of a sleeping room and roof work to the front house in 1922; construction of the detached dwelling and garage at the back of the lot in 1934; and the remodel of the back house in 1955. Other work includes the replacement of windows, the addition of stucco on the exterior walls of the front unit, and the replacement of the original concrete walkways. Because of the substantial changes to the property its historical integrity of design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and setting has also been compromised. Permit history indicates the property was built by local builder and real estate investor Waldo K. Cowan at a cost of approximately $1,225. This property is one of the earliest homes built along this block of 11th Street. By 1907, William Nelson, a rancher and farmer, and his wife Electra were the owners and occupants of the property. Unfortunately, William Nelson passed away several years later in August of 1915 at the age of 79. His wife Electra maintained the house until the mid-1920s. She lived there along with her daughter Myra, son-in-law F. Delmer Dudley, and granddaughter Frieda. By the mid-1930s, the back house (1239½ 11th Street) had been erected with Grace McCarthy, a nurse, residing at the front house and Leon Compton, an auto mechanic, and his wife Ruth in the house at the rear. During the 1950s, the property was owned by Mrs. Nellie F. Mudd, a nurse. Mudd resided at the back house while the front unit was rented out over the course of several years to various blue and white collar workers. 1107 Arizona Avenue (APN: 4282-006-015). Built slightly larger than the typical hipped roof cottage of the period, this dwelling has a box-like plan, a hipped roof with flared eaves and enclosed soffits, and Colonial Revival detailing evident under the eaves and at the front porch. Narrow clapboard wood siding sheathes the slightly elevated wood-frame structure. Bracketed cant bays are centrally set on the west and south elevations. Fenestration includes fixed and sash type wood window frames. Hip roofed dormers containing pairs of double hung sash windows are centered over each elevation. The dormer at the rear (east) of the house has been modified and no longer reflects its original design intent. The front porch at the southwest corner of the house has been enclosed by a series of multi-pane, fixed type wood-frame windows. The non-original front door is also of wood-frame and glass and is approached via stairs and walkway from Arizona Avenue. The property is surrounded by a tall wood fence and dense foliage making it difficult to see from the public right-of-way. Despite the glazed enclosure to the front porch area, which was done decades ago, and the alteration to the rear dormer and addition of metal vent pipes on the roof, the structure retains good historical integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling and association from its period of construction. A review of city directory listings, census files, and voter registration records indicates the property’s ownership and occupancy over the years. The property at the northeast corner of 11th Street and Arizona Avenue was developed by Waldo Kossmuth Cowan in 1906. At the time, Waldo K. Cowan was a real estate businessman, building contractor, Rambler auto dealer, and 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 19 auto enthusiast among other business endeavors. He and his wife Susie had arrived in Santa Monica just after the turn-of-the 20th century from Fresno where he operated a grocery store. Together they began purchasing parcels to develop and sell the following year. Waldo built this one-story hipped roof cottage a few years later during his partnership with George Elliott. Cowan and Elliott, a local construction company, built many residential bungalow cottages in the city particularly in the area now referred to as the mid-city area of Santa Monica. Cowan as well as Cowan and Elliott helped to develop much of the 11th Street neighborhood as he built 1223 11th Street, 1233 11th Street, 1239 11th Street, 1247 11th Street, and 1253 11th Street (where he lived before building and moving to the dwelling at 1259 11th Street in 1906). Later he formed a partnership with Barnard Sues as a real estate venture and construction business. Cowan was quite civic minded as he served as treasurer of the Santa Monica Board of Trade in 1910. He also was a member of the Santa Monica School Board, secretary of the Oddfellows Seaside Lodge #30, and treasurer and active leader of the Associated Charities. In addition, Cowan was the 1912 Election Supervisor for his precinct. Waldo K. Cowan subdivided the parcel in 1910 and built the adjacent bungalow to the east (1109 Arizona Avenue) for his parents William Alexander and Martha M. Cowan. Unfortunately, Waldo Cowan’s father passed away just after 1910. A few years later Waldo and his wife Susie sold their 11th Street property and moved to their newly purchased ranch in Lancaster. There they grew and sold various fruit trees among other agricultural products. A couple of agricultural publications of the time noted Cowan’s ‘fine pear farm’ and ‘poplar’ trees. After the passing of his father, Waldo’s mother moved from Santa Monica back to Kansas to live with her daughter Essie and her husband Thomas Murphy. Following the ownership and occupancy by the Cowan’s, the city directory from 1914 lists the property as vacant. A year later, however, Mrs. Carrie Kneer, a widow, had purchased the residence and lived there for roughly five years. City directory listings during this time also indicated the property had two occupants at the same address. Hence, it appears that Mrs. Kneer earned extra income by letting rooms out in her home (a practice that was not uncommon). By 1921, John Rule and his wife Emma (Amelia) had purchased the property and were living there. The Rules were retired and lived there for several years with their daughter Genevieve and her husband Merwyn Christie, a salesman. During their tenancy, John Rule built the modest Spanish Colonial Revival bungalow at 1115 Arizona Avenue in 1925. John Rule passed away in the late 1920s, though Amelia and her daughter and son-in-law continued to reside there through the early 1930s. Through the late 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, the owners and occupants of the property included Mrs. Anna Tylee, a nurse; William Worley, and Frank Wixson. 1109 Arizona Avenue (APN: 4282-006-014). This one-story Craftsman bungalow was built in 1911, according to the permit history on file with the City. With roughly 1,057 square feet of space the dwelling is slightly elevated above grade, has a rectangular plan, (non-original) stucco exterior walls, a front facing gable roof with overhanging eaves and carved knee brackets, and multi-pane fenestration of varying size and type. The front façade faces west and is defined by a small concrete landing at the south end, a centrally located extended bay window with shed roof covering, and additional window openings. A small shed roof with exposed purlins and 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 20 brackets shelters the small front entry landing area and panel with glazed upper half front door. The front door is accessed from Arizona Avenue. Windows along the south (side) of the dwelling abutting the public sidewalk consists of two pairs of non-original multi-pane windows that are slightly recessed within wood casings and are flanked by (non-original) louvered shutters. Additional fenestration includes fixed-frame and slider type windows. Permit history regarding the exterior of the property indicates the house was stuccoed in 1954 by then owner Howard Fink. That same year, other improvements included a new side (north) porch and patio roof. Though difficult to see from the public right-of-way, upon current visual inspection it was noted that some windows had been replaced along with the addition of the louvered shutters. Though quaint and charming, because of the inappropriate changes a false sense of historicism has been created. Hence, its historical integrity has been compromised in terms of materials, design, and workmanship. The bungalow cottage was built by Waldo K. Cowan, owner of the adjacent corner property at 1259 11th Street (now 1107 Arizona Avenue) for his parents William A. and Martha M. Cowan. After selling their farm in Fresno just after the turn-of the 20th century the elder Cowan and his wife moved to Cahuenga and then into the 1109 Arizona Avenue property. Unfortunately, William Alexander Cowan passed away at the age of 78 just after 1910. By 1914, the property was listed as vacant in the city directory as Martha had moved to Kansas to live with her daughter Essie and her husband Thomas Murphy. It was at this time that the property became a rental, as it was advertised in the Daily Outlook in 1914 and 1915. By that time, it was rented to Andrew Dickens a Santa Monica Police officer for a brief period. Over the years the ownership and occupancy of the property changed several times. Occupations of the tenants at that time included a grocer, gardener, and mechanic. By the mid-1930s, Bert Greterman and his wife Mayme were the owners/occupants. Greterman was an aerospace worker at the nearby Douglas plant. By the 1950s, Howard and Regina Fink were the owners/occupants. Howard Fink was plumber with his own business in Santa Monica. The Finks were the ones who had made several changes to the property in 1954, including the application of stucco to the exterior walls of the bungalow. Mrs. Dorothy Kiev, a bookkeeper, became the owner in the late 1950s and throughout much of the 1960s. 1115 Arizona Avenue (APN: 4282-006-013). This modest Spanish Colonial Revival style bungalow with roughly 771 square feet of space was built in 1925, at a cost of approximately $2,900. It was designed and built by L.B. Norman of Santa Monica for then owner John Rule and his wife Lillie. At the time, the Rules were the owners/occupants of the corner house at 1107 Arizona Avenue. The 1115 Arizona Avenue improvement was built on a subdivided portion of the original Waldo K. Cowan lot on the northeast corner of 11th Street and Arizona Avenue (1259 11th Street aka 1107 Arizona Avenue). The rectangular shape residence features stucco exterior walls, a flat roof with tiled parapet, and recessed multi-pane fenestration of varying size with wood sills. The south (side) elevation along Arizona Avenue is punctuated by a set of elongated wood-frame 3 over 5 casement windows that are recessed within arch shaped openings and are separated by an engaged spiral column. To the east is a pair of wood-frame, multi-pane casements with flanking wood shutters. The west, front facade is defined by a small attached front porch that is sheltered by 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 21 a tiled shed roof. Within this stoop area is a multi-pane French door that provides access into the dwelling. The porch area has been enclosed since it was initially surveyed and documented probably for security reasons. Permit history is limited and notes minor work to the property in 1954 costing $70. In 1956, an attached one car garage was built onto the rear (north) side of the property. The stuccoed, rectangular shape structure is approached from the alley and has a small concrete driveway apron. In general, much of the original design features are intact, therefore, it retains sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. In reviewing permit history and city directory information it appears the property was initially built as a rental unit. Early occupants included John Seablom and his wife Ruth who resided there up through 1930. Seablom worked at a nearby gas station as an attendant. Occupancy throughout the 1930s appears to have been short term as the turnover of occupants was frequent. By the 1950s, however, Mrs. Amy Angle (widow of Hugh Angle) was the owner and occupant of the property. Her daughter Jean became the owner/occupant in the early 1960s. 1200 Block 11th Street Neighborhood Grouping. Within the narrowly defined potential district boundary are twelve (12) parcels with various improvements on them. Of those twelve properties five (5) have substantially intact improvements that date from the area’s period of significance (1905-1925). Three (3) of the twelve properties have been inappropriately altered and are no longer accurately convey their historic character. One of those properties, 1109 Arizona Avenue, was never previously recorded. The remaining four (4) properties are improvements built after the area’s period of significance. In all, if there were a potential historic district, that would result in five (5) contributors out of a total of 12 properties within the small, irregular district boundary (less than fifty percent composition of contributors). Address Description District Status Year Built 1 1215 11th Street Apartment Building Non-contributor 1962 2 1218 11th Street Single-family, Apartment Non-contributor 1914, 1921, 1956 3 1223 11th Street Single-family, Apartment Contributor 1910 4 1227 11th Street Apartment Building Non-contributor 1957 5 1229 11th Street Single-family Contributor 1908, 1912, 1921 6 1233 11th Street Single-family Contributor 1905, 1924 7 1239 11th Street Single-family Non-contributor 1905, 1934 8 1247 11th Street Apartment Building Non-contributor 1955 9 1253 11th Street Condominium Non-contributor 1992 10 1107 Arizona Avenue Single-family Contributor 1907 11 1109 Arizona Avenue Single-family Non-contributor 1911 12 1115 Arizona Avenue Single-family Contributor 1925 In addition to having a majority of contributing properties within a potential district, a district 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 22 should have sufficient historical integrity and possess significance as a whole. Overall, the district must be able to visually and physically convey its sense of time, place, historical development and authenticity from its period of significance. As currently developed with a variety of improvements from various periods, the small collection of improvements along the narrowly defined 1200 block of 11th Street grouping does not appear to be a distinct concentration of resources developed with more than a majority of its contributors. Because of inappropriate changes to its residential dwellings and street improvements as well as the infill of parcels with later multi-story improvements the potential district also lacks integrity. From a preliminary perspective, the existence of a potential historic district in the immediate area of the 1200 block of 11th Street appears questionable. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT AND FINDINGS Based on current research and the above preliminary assessment, the 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster does not appear to be eligible for local historic district designation. The collective grouping of the 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster lacks sufficient architectural merit, direct associations with important personages, and adequate historical integrity to be eligible for local historic district designation. It also lacks a majority of its contributing resources in its formation and defined boundary. The housing stock of the 1200 Block of 11th Street neighborhood, like similar dwellings found on neighboring streets in the immediate area, is associated with the early residential growth of the middle, working class in the Mid-city area and Santa Monica in general during the first quarter of the twentieth century. However, due to the lack of historical integrity of many of its components and compromised integrity of the neighborhood’s contextual setting, feeling, and association the 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster does not appear to be a geographically definable area possessing a distinct concentration of historic properties. Many post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings and condominiums have infilled the area and, therefore, changed the setting and feeling of the neighborhood. The result is a varied residential development pattern lacking unity, cohesiveness, and a distinct concentration of resources. The extensive loss of historic fabric on some of the older extant homes along the 1200 block of 11th Street have further compromised the collective historical integrity of the small assemblage of properties that were once identified as part a potential thematic grouping. In considering historical recognition alternatives for any of the properties within the survey study area, an option is possible. The humble California Craftsman bungalow at 1223 11th Street and the hipped roof cottage at 1107 Arizona Avenue may warrant further investigation as potential Santa Monica Structure of Merit properties. Further research would be required to confirm their candidacy as Structures of Merit. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 23 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland. National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places. Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 2002. Ancestry.com. United States Census records (database on-line): 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940; World War I draft registration records; World War II draft registration records; city directory files; voter’s registration records. Provo, Utah. www.ancestry.com Associated Telephone Company. Santa Monica Exchange City Directory, 1928-1937. Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica – The First 100 Years. Los Angeles: Douglas-West Publishers, 1974 Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica Bay: Paradise by the Sea. Santa Monica: Hennessey+Ingalls, 2000. Blumenson, John. Identifying American Architecture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1989. Brooks, Mel. Young Frankenstein: A Mel Brooks Book, The Story of the Making of the Film. New York: Hachette Books, 2016. Carley, Rachel. The Visual Dictionary of American Domestic Architecture. New York, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1994. City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase I: 1983. Prepared by Paul Gleye and Leslie Heumann, 1986. City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase III. Prepared by Johnson Heumann Research Associates, 1994. City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update, Post Northridge Earthquake. Prepared by Parkinson Field Associates and Janet Tearnen, 1995. City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update – North of Montana Area 2002. Prepared by Historic Resources Group, 2002. City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update. Prepared by ICF International, 2010. City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Department, Building Permits. Gabriel, Louise B. Early Santa Monica. Chicago, Illinois: Arcadia Publishing, 2006. Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. Architecture in Los Angeles. Salt Lake City, Utah: Peregrine Smith Books, 1985. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 24 Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith Publishers, 2003. Goldman, Harry. Kenneth Strickfaden, Dr Frankenstein’s Electrician. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2005. Heckman, Marlin L. Santa Monica in Vintage Postcards. Chicago, Illinois: Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Historic 11th Street Coalition/Friends of 11th Street. Community Consultants Report (Documentation for 11th Street Historic District). Self-published, prepared by Susan Suntree, Sherrill Kushner, Mario Fonda-Bornardi with photography by Mike Hejjas, 2017. Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll’s Century History: Santa Monica Bay Cities, 1542 to 1908. Los Angeles: Luther A. Ingersoll, 1908. Los Angeles County Tax Assessor. Property Specific Information Records. Los Angeles Public Library, On-line historical and image archives. Marquez, Ernest. Santa Monica Beach: A Collector’s Pictorial History. Los Angeles: Angel City Press, 2004. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990. McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: An Island on the Land. Salt Lake City, Utah: Peregrine Smith Books, 1946, Revised 1988. No Author. “Santa Monica Bay News Scene of Great Activity,” Los Angeles Times, July 16, 1911, IV11. No Author. “Along the Coast,” Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1916, IV107. Polk & Company. Polk’s Santa Monica City Directory. Los Angeles County (various years). ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881-1988). Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Public Library, Santa Monica Index. Santa Monica Public Library, Santa Monica Image Archives. Scott, Paul A. Santa Monica: A History on the Edge. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2004. 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 25 Shelley, Mary, Leslie S. Klinger, ed. The New Annotated Frankenstein. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2017. Skal, David J. Screams of Reason: Mad Science and Modern Culture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998. Storrs, Les. Santa Monica, Portrait of a City, 1875-1975. Santa Monica: Santa Monica Bank, 1874. Tibbetts, John C. and James M. Welsh. American Classic Screen Profiles. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2010. United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985. United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997. United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997. United States Department of the Interior. Preservation Brief 17. “Architectural Character – Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character.” Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1982 rev. 1988. Warren, Charles S. ed. History of the Santa Monica Bay Region. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1934. Warren, Charles S. ed. Santa Monica Blue Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1941. Warren, Charles S. ed. Santa Monica Community Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1944. Whiffen, Marcus. American Architecture since 1780: A Guide to the Styles. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999. White, Col. Carl F. ed. Santa Monica Community Book (Fifth Edition). Santa Monica: Cawston, 1953. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 26 APPENDIX Regional Map Preliminary Historic District Assessment Map Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps Photographs Initial Inventory Forms (1992): 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster 1200 Block 11th Street Cluster Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report page 27 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. 1.1 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles1.1 Notes Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.570 1:36,111 CSMENT.DBO.city World Street Map 12 0 0 Bl o c k 11 t h St r e e t Ne i g h b o r h o o d 12 0 0 Bl o c k 11 t h St r e e t Cl u s t e r Pr e l i m i n a r y As s e s s e d Pr o p e r t i e s SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, Santa Monica 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster Boundary 1918, Feb 1950 paste-up SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, Santa Monica 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster Boundary 1918 SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, Santa Monica 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster Boundary April 1909 PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 1200 BLOCK 11TH STREET CLUSTER BOUNDARY 1215 11TH STREET (1962) 1218 11TH STREET (1914, 1921, 1956) 1223 (1221) 11TH STREET (1910, 1955) 1227 11TH STREET (1957) 1229 11TH STREET (1908, 1912, 1921) 1233 11TH STREET (1905, 1924) PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 1200 BLOCK 11TH STREET CLUSTER BOUNDARY 1239 11TH STREET (1905, 1934) 1247 11TH STREET (1955) 1253 11TH STREET (1992) 1107 ARIZONA AVENUE (1907) 1109 ARIZONA AVENUE (1911) 1115 ARIZONA AVENUE (1925) PROPERTIES WITHIN THE 1200 BLOCK 11TH STREET CLUSTER BOUNDARY 1233 11TH STREET (c1905) 1233 11TH STREET (2017) OSTASHAY & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING PO BOX 542 LONG BEACH, CA 90801 562.500.9451 HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT 1200 BLOCK 11th STREET SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: City of Santa Monica, City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 November 2018 Prepared by: Jan Ostashay Principal Ostashay & Associates Consulting PO BOX 542 Long Beach, CA 90801 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 1 HISTORIC DISTRICT ASSESSMENT REPORT 1200 Block 11th Street Santa Monica, California INTRODUCTION At the request of the City of Santa Monica’s Planning and Community Development Department, Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC) has prepared this historic district assessment to determine if a potential historic district exists along the 1200 block of 11th Street based on the historic district application submitted to the City in June 2018 by the Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors (the applicant). The applicant’s proposed historic district is located within the Town of Santa Monica tract. It contains older single-family housing stock dating back to 1905 as well as multi-story apartment houses and contemporary condominiums. OAC evaluated the block and the grouping of properties identified in the applicants report (dated April 2017, Update May 2018) to determine whether it appears to satisfy one or more of the statutory criteria associated with City of Santa Monica Historic District eligibility, pursuant to Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Completion of this assessment involved a site visit and documentation of potential resources within the district study area; the collection and review of building permits obtained from the City’s Planning and Community Development; archival research conducted at the Santa Monica Public Library, Los Angeles Public Library, and other relevant repositories; a review of prior survey work of the area; development of applicable historic contexts and themes; and consideration of eligibility under Santa Monica Historic District criteria. This report was prepared by Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC) staff Jan Ostashay, Principal. Ms. Ostashay satisfies the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural History and History. In summary, OAC finds that the applicant’s proposed district (and overall 1200 block of 11th Street) does not satisfy any of the City’s applicable historic district criteria. Along this stretch of 11th Street no geographically definable area possessing a distinct concentration of historic properties was visually or physically apparent. Collectively, the grouping of pre-World War II- era housing stock along this block also lacks integrity, cohesiveness, and distinction to define it as a historic district that adequately manifests the early residential development patterns of the City. The following sections of this report provide a contextual basis for analysis and a detailed discussion of how this determination was made. METHODOLOGY In order to identify and consider any portion of the 1200 Block of 11th Street as a potential historic district a survey was conducted and archival research performed. The assessment included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and its annual updates, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and the California 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 2 Historic Resources Inventory list maintained by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) in order to determine if any previous evaluations or survey assessments of the properties had been performed. The City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory database was also reviewed. For this assessment of the study area a field survey and a review of relevant building permits and tax assessor records were also conducted to understand and document the history, existing conditions and historical integrity of the immediate neighborhood and each property within the survey area. These work tasks also assisted in evaluating the 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood for local historical significance as a potential historic district. The following are additional tasks that were performed for the study: • Searched records of the National Register, California Register, Library of Congress archives, U.S. Census records, OHP Historic Resources Inventory, and the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (SMHRI). • Conducted an exterior field inspection of the subject properties from the public rights-of-way. • Conducted site-specific research on the subject properties utilizing Sanborn fire insurance maps, city directories, voter’s registration cards, census records, newspaper articles, historical photographs, and building permits. • Consulted historical collections located at the Santa Monica Library; the Los Angeles Public Library; project team’s in-house library of Santa Monica archives, architectural and historical reference publications; and various internet sites and digital archives. • Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation, designation assessment procedures, and related programs. A review of the material submitted to the City by the Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors, including associated updated reports and material, was also reviewed and studied. The documentation provided by the applicant included copies of previously completed State Inventory forms (DPR523 forms) of the properties under review, photographs, permit history information, various maps, and occupancy narrative histories. In addition to the above work efforts, OAC conducted additional research into the historical development and early architectural composition of the Town of Santa Monica Tract as it relates to the early residential development of the 1200 block 11th Street grouping of properties under review built prior to 1925. The applicant’s proposed district of early Craftsman bungalows and hipped roof cottages is located within the Town of Santa Monica Tract. This expanded research came after the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission held a discussion on the potential landmarking of the 1200 block 11th Street grouping of early Craftsman bungalows and hipped roof cottages at their January 8, 2018 meeting. Upon concluding discussions on the topic, the Landmarks Commission requested additional information on the uniqueness of this particular cluster within the larger Town of Santa Monica Tract in order to 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 3 gain a greater understanding of the broader historical context of the extant early housing stock and owner/occupant composition of the area. The Landmarks Commission request was to ascertain if the bungalows in the applicant’s proposed 1200 block 11th Street grouping were some of the last remaining in the Town of Santa Monica Tract. Following this hearing, a formal historic district application was filed by the applicant with the City in June 2018. In order to gain a better understanding of the development history of the Town of Santa Monica Tract additional research was conducted by OAC that included a review of county assessor records, county assessor parcel maps, U.S. census records (1900-1940), relevant city directories, a review of the City’s GIS based maps of the area, and the collection and review of historic aerial photographs of the tract. In addition, prior surveys were collected and reviewed and the City’s on-line Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) was utilized to identify resources by construction date, property type, architectural style, and location. Google Map, Bing Maps, and Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps were also used to locate and identify relevant properties within the tract boundary. A cursory windshield field survey was conducted within the large tract to further identify and confirm properties. Relevant online resources including the Santa Monica Public Library, the Los Angeles Public Library, the University of California Calisphere, Hathi Trust Digital Library, Ancestry.com and other repositories were also accessed and researched for associated information. REGULATIONS AND HISTORIC DISTRICT CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION City of Santa Monica Historic Districts Ordinance Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC). The Ordinance was adopted by the Santa Monica City Council in 1976 and twice amended, first in 1987 and again in 1991. 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. The Ordinance includes criteria and procedures for designating City of Santa Monica Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts. Local landmarks and historic districts may include structures, natural features, or any type of improvement to a property that is found to have particular architectural or historical significance to the City. Per Section 9.56.100(b) of the Ordinance, a geographic area or thematic grouping of properties merits consideration as a Historic District if it satisfies one of the following four statutory criteria: 1. Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.56.100(a)(1) through (6). Criterion A.1 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. Criterion A.2 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 4 Criterion A.3 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history. Criterion A.4 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(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 style valuable to such a study. Criterion A.5 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. Criterion A.6 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(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. 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. Historic Integrity Currently, the City of Santa Monica designation criteria does not include a definition of historic integrity in its ordinance. However, the City of Santa Monica is a Certified Local Government (CLG) as defined under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, and is, therefore, certified to participate in the identification, registration, and preservation of historic properties located within its jurisdiction of local government. Pursuant to the CLG program, the City has developed and implements a local historic preservation program based on federal and state standards. As required under the program, Santa Monica is obligated to maintain a system for the survey and inventory of historic properties. It is, therefore responsible to assure that survey activities are coordinated with and complementary to the state program and are conducted in conformance with state survey standards and procedures. In addition, survey standards utilized for evaluation of properties must be consistent with the National Register of Historic Places criteria methodology and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Identification and Evaluation. As obligated under the CLG program, the City must also consider the historical integrity of properties being surveyed and assessed for potential local landmark (and historic district) eligibility. Historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is defined as the “authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 5 characteristics that existed during the property’s…historic period.”1 The National Park Service (NPS) defines seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.2 To retain historic integrity a property will usually possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The assessment of historic integrity applies to buildings, structures, objects, sites, and historic districts. Understanding the seven aspects of integrity are as follows: • Location. Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. • Design. Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. • Setting. Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. • Materials. Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship. Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans’ labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. • Feeling. Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property’s historic character. • Association. Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an observer. Integrity is based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Only after significance is fully established can you proceed to the issue of historic integrity. Historic integrity enables a property to illustrate significant, important aspects of its past. For consideration as a potentially historic resource, a property must resemble its historic appearance and retain physical materials, design features, and aspects of its construction dating from the period when it attained significance. Guidelines for Historic Districts and Contributing Properties Pursuant to the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, the City of Santa Monica defines a 1 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997, p.4. 2 Ibid, pp.44-45. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 6 Contributing Building or Structure as one “which has been identified by the Landmarks Commission as one which contributes to the designation of an area as a Historic District” (Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.36.030). Standard preservation practice evaluates collections of properties (buildings, structures, objects, etc.) from similar time periods and historic contexts as historic districts. The NPS defines a historic district as “a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.”3 A historic district derives its significance as a single unified entity. The NPS guidelines continue to define a district as: The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties.4 Resources that have been found to contribute to the historic identity of a district are referred to as “district contributors.” Properties located within the district boundaries that do not contribute to its significance are identified as “non-contributors.” Those properties identified as non-contributors were either constructed outside of the period of significance and/or retain a low level of historical integrity. A district can be comprised of both features that lack individual distinction and individually distinctive features that serve as focal points.5 However, the majority of the components that add to the district’s historic character must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole.6 Under professional practice, pursuant to the NPS guidelines, a component of a district cannot contribute to the significance if it has been substantially altered since the period of the proposed district’s significance or it does not share the historic associations of the district.7 A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new intrusions that it no longer conveys the sense of a historic environment. Because much of the neighborhood’s significance stems from its potential architectural character, application of a high threshold for retaining integrity was considered appropriate during the evaluation process. Properties were assessed based on the quantity, quality, and character of alterations sustained. For the purposes of this evaluation assessment, a building was identified as a contributor to the potential district if it met all of the following criteria: • It relates to the historic contexts/themes within which the grouping is significant; • It was constructed during the period of significance which has been defined for the 3 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997, p.5. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid, p.46. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 7 proposed 1200 Block 11th district as 1905-1925; and • It retains a substantial level of historical integrity to accurately reflect its significance. Substantial Integrity To possess substantial integrity, a property usually retains all of its seven qualities of integrity. In a small minority of cases, some properties may have sustained small losses of material integrity for one character-defining feature of the property (in-kind replacement of some windows within original openings, replacement of wood roof shingles with compositional roof shingles, small addition at the rear of the property), but in general retained substantially high level of integrity due to the overall quality and detail in their design. Compromised (Low) Integrity Properties with compromised historical integrity generally have sustained a greater loss of historic material for one or more character-defining feature. Due to these alterations low integrity properties were determined to have lost integrity of materials, workmanship, feeling, and in some instances design. Common alterations for this level of integrity include inappropriate window replacement or modifications to window openings, inappropriate door replacement, the application of stucco over wood lap siding, front porch enclosure, removal of historical details or ornamentation, alteration of the original roofline, rough lacy stucco over original textured stucco sheathing, and/or incompatible additions. For some more modest properties, integrity is more easily lost because there are fewer character-defining features that make up the building’s historical character. Period of Significance Historic resources are identified as being significant during a specified period of time, referred to as the “period of significance.” The NPS defines the term period of significance as “the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for listing” in the National, State or Local registers. A period of significance can be “as brief as a single year or span many years.” It is based on “specific events directly related to the significance of the property,” for example the date of construction, years of ownership, or length of operation as particular entity.8 The period of significance of the proposed 1200 Block 11th Street historic district was identified as 1905-1925, which spans the original period of construction of all previously identified “contributing” properties within the Study Area. Historic Context A historic context contains information about historical trends and properties, organized by important themes during a particular period of time. Development of a historic context is developed on the basis of background data on the community’s history and on data from the surrounding area. A historic context is linked with tangible built resources through the concept of property type: a grouping of individual properties based on shared physical or associative 8 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997, p.42. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 8 characteristics. Because such contexts are organized by theme, place, and time, they link historic properties to important historic trends, thereby providing a framework for understanding the potential significance of a property. A historic context is not a comprehensive history of an area, but rather it is intended to highlight broad historical trends that help to explain why the built environment evolved in the way that it did. It should be noted that some trends are discussed within the larger context of the Los Angeles region. This is due in part to the fact that much of the historical scholarship on the region focuses on the Los Angeles area. However, these trends are often relevant as they reflect parallel trends that can be seen in Santa Monica during the same period. Nonetheless, development of a historic context is unique to each community. It is within the larger picture of a community’s history that local significance is understood and evaluated. Understanding Persons of Significance Criteria According to the NPS, properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented may be considered potentially historic resources if they meet certain requirements. Persons “significant in our past” refers to individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context.9 The criterion is generally restricted to those extant properties (buildings, structures, or sites) that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person’s important achievements. The persons associated with the property must be individually significant within a historic context. A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned, occupied or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social or ethnic group. It must be shown that the person gained importance within his or her profession or group while occupying the property.10 In addition, the person’s place of business, office, laboratory, studio, or home that directly represents where the person’s significant accomplishments were achieved must still be extant. The best representatives are usually properties associated with the person’s adult or productive life.11 Properties eligible under criteria linked with important personages are usually those associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance.12 Properties that pre- or post-date an individual’s significant accomplishments are usually not eligible. Properties associated with an individual’s formative or later years may also qualify if it can be demonstrated that the person’s activities during this period where historically significant and the property is extant. For properties associated with several community leaders or with a prominent family, it is necessary to identify specific individuals and to explain their significant accomplishments.13 9 Ibid, p. 14. 10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 9 STUDY AREA Proposed 11th Street Historic District Study Area Proposed by the applicant is an historic district containing 10 parcels located on the east side of 11th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (1221-1253 11th Street) as well as the properties along the north side of Arizona Avenue between 11th Street and 11th Court Alley (1107-1115 Arizona Avenue), as further illustrated in the figure below. Composition of the applicant’s proposed district would include five contributors (infilled green), two altered contributors (infilled yellow), and three non-contributors. Study Area Neighborhood The 1200 block of 11th Street (Study Area) neighborhood contains single-family houses, multi- family apartments, contemporary apartment houses, and condominiums. Buildings in the area are predominately one and/or two stories with the tallest building being two three-story condominiums at the south end of the block. Construction dates of the improvements vary greatly from as early as 1905 up through 1996. Most of the west side of the 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood is developed with post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings with only a single bungalow extant at 1218 11th Street. The east side of the street contains four examples of early single-family residences set at the front of the lots (several have additional residences in the rear) with four post World War II era apartments infilling the remaining lots on the block. Three additional early single family dwellings within the study area front onto Arizona Avenue (1107-115 Arizona Avenue). Architectural styles present along this portion of the street include California Craftsman Bungalow, Hipped Roof Cottage, Spanish Colonial Revival, Minimal Traditional, and Contemporary Vernacular. Of the 18 total parcels along this block of 11th Street ten (56%) were built with improvements post-dating World War II. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 10 Properties within the 1200 Block of 11TH Street Study Area Neighborhood Address Description Year Built 1 1215 11th Street Apartment Building 1962 2 1218 11th Street Single-family, Apartment 1914, 1921, 1956 3 1223 11th Street (1221 11th Street) Single-family, Apartment 1911, 1955 4 1226 11th Street Apartment Building 1996 5 1227 11th Street Apartment Building 1957 6 1228 11th Street Condominium 1980 7 1229 11th Street Single-family 1908, 1912, 1921 8 1233 11th Street Single-family 1905, 1924 9 1234 11th Street Apartment Building 1964 10 1238 11th Street Apartment Building 1956 11 1239 11th Street Single-family 1905, 1934 12 1244 11th Street Apartment Building 1962 13 1247 11th Street Apartment Building 1955 14 1252 11th Street Condominium 1973 15 1253 11th Street Condominium 1992 16 1107 Arizona Avenue (1259 11th Street) Single-family 1907 17 1109 Arizona Avenue Single-family 1911 18 1115 Arizona Avenue Single-family 1925 Study Area Setting This area encompasses single-family and multi-family residential properties along both sides of 11th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue, situated in the central section of Santa Monica. Also included in the Study Area are two additional parcels fronting Arizona Avenue at 1109 and 1115 Arizona Avenue, which were originally part of the property at 1107 Arizona Avenue (original address 1259 11th Street) before the parcel was subdivided decades ago. The 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood and adjacent residential area adhere to a grid-like street network and are divided into a series of rectilinear blocks and parcels that are fairly uniform in size and shape. Some of the older properties are bordered by low, cement curbs. The area was once developed with modest one-story, single-family dwellings until the mid- 1950s when two-story apartment buildings began replacing many of the homes along this street and others in the immediate neighborhood. This development of multi-family structures continued well into the mid-1990s and beyond. A few of the larger multi-family residences occupy two lots thereby disrupting the uniformity of the original subdivision 50’ by 150’ parcel 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 11 foot print. Because of the later infill of modern apartments/condominiums, the setbacks along this block of the street are somewhat irregular with concrete sidewalks paralleling both sides of the street. With traffic signals placed at both ends of the block (Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue) there is a high volume of automobile traffic that runs along 11th Street. This high amount of traffic adversely disrupts the residential contextual setting of the block. Automobile traffic along other nearby numbered streets is regulated by stop signs, so those residential blocks are less impacted from such traffic impositions. The 11th Street thoroughfare is a single-lane street in both directions; however, because of the dedicated parallel parking lanes and bicycle lanes along the east and west sides of the street the road visually and physically reads as four lanes wide. Over the years, this block has changed from a rather quiet, calmer residential street to more of a collector street with greater congestion. These transportation attributes further radically modify the historic context, feeling and setting of the area. PREVIOUS SURVEYS AND EVALUATIONS The Study Area has been previously evaluated as part of the City’s on-going historic resource survey efforts. Through historic resources survey work completed in 1994 (Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Phase 3), the 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood was identified as a small potential thematic “cluster” called the 1200 block of 11th Street Cluster. Nineteen (19) potential “clusters” of merit were identified as part of the Phase 3 survey process, of which the 1200 block of 11th Street Cluster was one of them. Properties within these potential “clusters” were assigned National Register Status Codes14 of 5D3, which at the time indicated “a contributor to a fully documented district that is unlikely to be designated as a local historic district, overlay zone, or preservation area but is eligible for special consideration in local planning.” The recorded inventory forms for the potential “clusters” and associated contributing properties were all assigned status codes of 5D3.15 According to the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Phase 3 inventory form prepared for the 1200 block of 11th Street Cluster, the grouping contained 12 parcels; seven (7) of which were documented as potential contributors. Properties along much of the west side of the block and at the ends (north/south) of the blocks were excluded from the “cluster” boundary as they did not contribute to the potential grouping’s historic character. The identified non- contributors located within the potential “cluster” boundary were noted as two-story apartment buildings/condominiums built since the late 1950s. The single-family residence located at 1109 Arizona Avenue was also identified as a non-contributor and was not recorded due to lack of historic integrity. One property, 1218 11th Street, was also identified as 14 Effective August 2003, the former National Register Status Codes (NRSC) were revised by OHP in order to simplify and clarify the identification, evaluation, and understanding of California’s historic resources and better promote their recognition and preservation. The NRSC were revised to reflect the application of the CRHR, CEQA, and local criteria. The name was also changed to “California Historical Resource Status Codes.” 15 Under the current California Historical Resources Status Codes the old NRSC 5D3 status codes now equates to a status code of 6L, which is defined as “determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government review process; may warrant special consideration in local planning.” 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 12 individually eligible for local landmark designation and was, therefore, assigned a status code of 5B5.16 Previous Survey Identified Contributing Properties, 1994 Survey 1200 Block 11th Street “Cluster” Address Year Built District Status Status Code 1218 11th Street 1914, 1921, 1956 Contributor 5B5 1223 11th Street (1221 11th Street) 1911, 1955 Contributor 5D3 1229 11th Street 1908, 1912, 1921 Contributor 5D3 1233 11th Street 1905, 1924 Contributor 5D3 1239 11th Street 1905, 1934 Contributor 5D3 1259 11th Street (1107 Arizona Ave) 1907 Contributor 5D3 1115 Arizona Avenue 1925 Contributor 5D3 The 1200 block of 11th Street “Cluster” was re-surveyed as part of the Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update completed in 2010. Under that survey process it was identified as a potential “cluster” district with six (6) contributors. The property located 1239 11th Street was downgraded to non-contributor status due to compromised integrity and was assigned a status code of 6L.17 As in the prior survey, the property located at 1109 Arizona Avenue was not recorded. In addition, non-contributing properties were not identified nor discussed under the 2010 survey update. Contributing properties were assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code of 5D3.18 The property at 1218 11th Street was also identified as individually eligible for local landmark designation and was, therefore, assigned a status code of 5B.19 Previous Survey Identified Contributing Properties, 2010 Survey Update 1200 Block 11th Street “Cluster” Address Year Built District Status Status Code 1218 11th Street 1914, 1921, 1956 Contributor 5B 1223 11th Street (1221 11th Street) 1911, 1955 Contributor 5D3 16 Under the current California Historical Resources Status Codes the old NRSC 5B5 status codes also equates to a status code of 6L, which is defined as “determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government review process; may warrant special consideration in local planning.” 17 As this survey was completed after August 2003, the California Historical Resource Status Codes (CHRSC) were utilized. Under the CHRSC, the status code of 6L indicates the property was “determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government review process; may warrant special consideration in local planning.” 18 Under the CHRSC, the status code of 5D3 indicates the property “appears to be a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.” 19 Under the CHRSC, the status code of 5B indicates the property is “locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed, designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation.” 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 13 1229 11th Street 1908, 1912, 1921 Contributor 5D3 1233 11th Street 1905, 1924 Contributor 5D3 1239 11th Street 1905, 1934 Non-contributor 6L 1107 Arizona Avenue (1259 11th Street) 1907 Contributor 5D3 1115 Arizona Avenue 1925 Contributor 5D3 Upon completion of the 2018 city-wide survey update, the 1200 block 11th Street Cluster was re-surveyed and re-evaluated. Due to inconsistency with state and federal survey guidelines related to historic districts, the 1200 block 11th Street “cluster” district was found not to meet the necessary survey evaluation registration requirements. According to the 2018 city-wide historic resources inventory update report, several potential districts were identified in the 2010 HRI Update as potential “clusters.” Because of their diminutive size, they generally do not convey sufficient information about “patterns” of history and development in a manner consistent with the registration requirements included the report’s historic context statement and under general standardized industry survey practice methodology. The potential 1200 block 11th Street Cluster was, therefore, dropped from the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. The contributing properties within the previously identified potential “cluster” were instead evaluated as potential individual resources. Under the 2018 survey update, five of the properties previously surveyed along the 1200 block of 11th Street were identified as potentially eligible for listing as individual Santa Monica Landmarks (assigned a status code of 5S3). According to the 2018 survey findings, the properties (with additional research conducted and assessment of integrity) may be potentially individually significant for conveying patterns of residential development that helped shape the Mid-City area of the city in the early decades of the twentieth century. Two of the previously surveyed properties did not satisfy the registration requirements for local, state, or federal listing and were assigned a status code of 6L (ineligible for any type of designation). The following table provides the results of the 2018 survey update for the properties along the 1200 block of 11th Street. 2018 Survey Update Findings, 1200 Block 11th Street Properties Address Year Built District Status Status Code 1218 11th Street 1914, 1921, 1956 Ineligible 5S3 1223 11th Street (1221 11th Street) 1911, 1955 Ineligible 5S3 1229 11th Street 1908, 1912, 1921 Ineligible 5S3 1233 11th Street 1905, 1924 Ineligible 5S3 1239 11th Street 1905, 1934 Ineligible 6L 1107 Arizona Avenue (1259 11th Street) 1907 Ineligible 5S3 1115 Arizona Avenue 1925 Ineligible 6L 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 14 HISTORIC CONTEXT Early Santa Monica In 1875, the original townsite of Santa Monica was surveyed, including all the land extending from Colorado Street on the south to Montana on the north, and from 26th Street on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west. Between 1893 and the 1920s, the community operated as a tourist destination and gained national acclaim for its recreational culture, balmy climate, bathhouses, opulent hotels, and amusement piers. Those areas just outside of the incorporated city limits were semi-rural in setting and were populated with scattered residences. Residential development in the city at this time tended to be concentrated in sites nearest the ocean and around the present-day commercial core. Small communities of beach cottages, many of which were built as vacation homes for affluent out-of-towners, arose in those areas proximate to the shoreline, and several large residences were constructed on parcels atop palisades that overlook the ocean.20 Prior to 1900, Santa Monica’s growth was primarily clustered between Washington Avenue to the north, Railroad Avenue (now Colorado Avenue) to the south, 7th Street to the east, and Ocean Avenue to the west. The area of the city north of Nevada Avenue (now Wilshire Boulevard) and east of 6th Street was left largely unimproved in this early development period.21 Residential development expanded outward toward the city’s periphery as Santa Monica began to come of age as a residential enclave in the early 20th century. After the advent of the automobile in the 1920s, Santa Monica experienced a significant building boom. Whereas a significant portion of the first homes built in the older sections of the city were originally used as vacation retreats or retirement homes, the homes being constructed in the tracts north of Montana and east of Seventh Street were developed for year- round middle and upper middle class income residents. Residential development beyond the city’s core was also aided greatly by the proliferation of electric streetcar lines, increasing accessibility to areas that had previously been impractical to subdivide and develop. Architecturally, from the late nineteenth century through the first decade of the twentieth century, the quaint affordable hipped-roof vernacular cottage became the dominant residential building type in the area as elsewhere in Santa Monica and Southern California. During the first decade of the twentieth century the single-family Craftsman bungalow became popular in residential construction with modest scale bungalows built in many of the areas east and south of Santa Monica’s downtown area and elsewhere throughout the southland. The bungalow was well suited to accommodate Southern California’s need for inexpensive housing. Its affordability allowed many people to purchase a single-family home on their own plot of land. By the late 1910s and into the 1920s, the Craftsman style was often melded with revival styles such as the American Colonial Revival. 20 City of Santa Monica General Plan, “Historic Preservation Element,” prepared by PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group (September 2002), 12-13. 21 ICF Jones & Stokes, Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report (prepared for the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department, 2010). 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 15 Starting in the early 1920s, residential development in Santa Monica and Southern California, which then also included one-story duplexes and two-story four-plexes, solidly embraced a number of highly popular period revival styles of architecture. The Spanish Colonial Revival style was especially popular and would effectively define Santa Monica’s built environment during one of the city’s greatest period of economic and residential growth, the 1920s. In addition to the small multi-family units being erected, the modest bungalow/apartment court was an especially popular building type that appeared on single or multiple adjoining residential lots throughout Santa Monica, and particularly in the once sparsely populated eastern portions of the townsite during the 1920s and 1930s. By the mid-1930s, the Streamline Moderne style came to predominate and was most commonly applied to apartment courts and two-story apartment buildings. After the Second World War, apartment courts evolved into larger garden apartments. Much of the older housing stock began to be replaced with vernacular condominium complexes and larger scale apartment buildings throughout the community from the 1960s to the present day. Residential Development of the Mid-City Area The Mid-City area is located behind (east) the present central business district of Santa Monica. Initially, in the decades following the 1875 subdivision, the business district was both the residential and commercial heart of the town of Santa Monica. The 1887 Sanborn map indicates that Oregon (Santa Monica Boulevard) was more or less the dividing line between the mostly residential blocks between Arizona and Oregon avenues and the commercial blocks extending south of Oregon. As elsewhere in the young city, 4th Street was the initial boundary of the most built-up section, with only a handful of widely scattered cottages and farmhouses further to the east. The north and eastward push of the residential district was well underway by 1891. By the end of 1898, Lincoln School had been constructed at 10th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard. It was the second oldest school in Santa Monica and operated as a high school. By 1902, blocks developed with several houses apiece extended to 10th Street on the east and crossed Nevada (Wilshire Boulevard) on the north, and by 1909 had reached up to 17th Street. By 1911, five interurban railway lines served Santa Monica with travel times of 30 to 50 minutes from downtown Los Angeles.22 The availability of affordable streetcar service was a key factor in laying the groundwork for future real estate development in Santa Monica and elsewhere in the greater southern California region. Socioeconomically, interurban streetcar neighborhoods attracted a wide range of people from the working to upper-middle class, with the great majority being the middle class. By keeping fares low in cost and offering a flat fare with free transfers, streetcar operators encouraged households to move out of the city where the cost of land and a new home were cheaper. With accessible streetcar service Santa Monica and the Mid-City area were poised for residential development in the early years of the twentieth century. In reviewing Sanborn maps from 1902 it shows many of the lots east of downtown from 7th Street to 10th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Broadway developed with modest working-class (middle class), single-family homes. In the years to follow the empty lots in the 22 “Santa Monica Bay News Scene of Great Activity,” Los Angeles Times, July 16, 1911, IV11. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 16 area were also developed with bungalows and cottages as were the blocks further east of 10th Street. By 1916, building permits in the city totaled $169,000 “…almost entirely representing the building of homes for the medium class” with the construction of an average bungalow costing between $1,500 and $3,000.23 A combination of factors contributed to the area’s desirability among individuals with middle- class and upper middle class incomes, including the charms of beach accessible living, the warm temperate weather, the local entertainment industry, tourism, adjacency to good schools, a thriving and growing downtown, and access to affordable and efficient transportation. Like many other early working class neighborhoods in the Mid-City area of Santa Monica, like elsewhere in the city and Southern California in general, residents in the area represented a variety of blue and white collar workers as well as widows and retirees. Tenants of these homes were either renters or owner-occupants; some were long-term residents while others resided in their abodes only briefly. In 1926, Lincoln School was replaced with a new elementary school, Madison Elementary School (it opened in 1926). The school was heavily damaged following the Long Beach earthquake of 1933 and rebuilt a few years later. By the late 1920s and 1930s, multi-family buildings began replacing the smaller single-family homes found in the Mid-city area. It was during that time that the nearby Wilshire (Nevada Avenue), Santa Monica (Oregon Avenue), and Broadway (Utah Avenue) corridors assumed their current, primarily commercial character. These trends intensified in the post-World War II era, as shown in the 1950 Sanborn map with the result being the redevelopment of older, intact housing stock with larger one- and two- story apartment buildings. In later years, Madison Elementary School became part of Santa Monica College. In reviewing U.S. Census records from 1900, 1910, 1920, and 1930s occupants of the homes constructed in and around the Mid-City area (Town of Santa Monica Tract), from its earliest development through the 1920s, included middle class families, widows, retirees, married couples, and single people who owned or rented their abodes in the local community. Many residents of the area were employed in a variety of blue collar and white collar occupations including salesmen, cashier, mechanic, stenographer, carpenter/builder, clerk, driver, machinist, real estate agent, insurance agent, school teacher, day laborer, engineer, bookkeeper, dentist, doctor, brick layer, druggist, oil field worker, rancher, conductor, clergy, etc. Being of the middle class, their social and economic status was very similar to those other residents living elsewhere in the town of Santa Monica and in the neighboring communities throughout the southland. Despite continued redevelopment into the modern era, there are still extant pockets of residential neighborhoods throughout the Town of Santa Monica Tract, the Mid-city area and the city overall that reflect aspects of the community’s association with the early working (middle) class and the overall diverse residential development of Santa Monica. 23 “Along the Coast,” Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1916, IV107. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 17 Residential Development of the 1200 Block of 11th Street Neighborhood The lots in and around the 1200 block of 11th Street were recorded in the latter part of the 19th century; however, they remained vacant until the early 20th century. In reviewing the 1902 Sanborn map, the entire east side of 11th Street between Wilshire Boulevard (then called Nevada Avenue) and Arizona Avenue was undeveloped with only two houses built on the west side of the street. The 1909 Sanborn map depicts the area was well developed with sixteen modest single-family hipped roof cottages. Much of this early development and residential growth was directly linked to the expanding network of streetcar lines in Santa Monica and nearby Los Angeles, which enabled suburban growth outside of the city’s central core. Many of the homes along the 1200 block of 11th Street were the result of local building contractor and real estate entrepreneur Waldo K. Cowan, who built one of his homes at 1253 11th Street in 1905 (now demolished) and later at 1259 11th Street. Most of the dwellings he built along this street and elsewhere in the community were speculative real estate investments, including his own on 11th Street, which he sold at a profit. By this time, many of the street address numbers in the city had also changed. So this block of 11th Street changed address numbers from the 400 range to the 1200 range. The property at 1259 11th Street was also readdressed to 1107 Arizona following the lot’s subdivision into three smaller parcels. By 1918, the block was fully developed with Craftsman bungalows infilling the empty lots. Like much of the surrounding neighborhood, this block of 11th Street was also built for the middle class with moderate incomes. Because of their relative economy, bungalows answered a growing need for affordable housing during the 1910s and 1920s. Following the real estate boom of the 1920s, many of the property owners built second units behind or adjacent to their main homes for extra income or extended family. The properties along the 1200 block of 11th Street were no different and a number of owners built detached rental units in the ensuing years. In terms of reflecting historic residential development patterns in the City, the neighborhood was one of numerous examples of the proliferation of single-family dwellings in the Santa Monica Townsite. The architectural styles of choice for the smaller homes at the time were typically either the popular California Craftsman bungalow or Spanish Colonial Revival. By the 1920s, many Santa Monica residents navigated the city by automobile, crowding streets as cars and streetcars competed for space. With expanding transportation options and a large population boom came the city’s expansion, and by the end of the 1930s the once vacant land in and around the periphery of the town was filled with single- and multi-family neighborhoods. Residences built at this time included automobile-related features such as rear detached garages and driveways with curb cuts. The homes were occupied by families, widows, retirees, students, married couples, and single people of all ages. During the 1920s and 1930s, multi-family buildings also began replacing smaller homes throughout a number of neighborhoods. These trends intensified in the post-World War II era, with the removal of many modest bungalows for the development of large-scale apartment buildings and condominiums. The 1200 block of 11th Street underwent substantial redevelopment beginning in the late 1950s and through the 1960s and 1970s, and much later. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 18 Similar to the middle class residents of the Mid-City neighborhood in general, the early owners and occupants of the residential improvements along the 1200 block of 11th Street and adjacent residential streets also held various blue and white collar jobs, including tailor, sawmill laborer, oil well driller, teacher, railroad conductor, motorman (bus driver), draftsman, janitor, police officer, bookkeeper, blacksmith, ship builder (shipwright), carpenter/contractor, real estate agent, auto mechanic, telephone worker, and the like. Many of the residents were retirees and/or widows, again similar to the rest of the Mid-City area and the city at-large. Associated Residential Property Types/Architectural Styles Hipped Roof Cottage The turn-of-the-century hipped roof cottage or Victorian vernacular cottage style was a transitional architectural style popular in the older communities of Southern California from the late 1880s to the early 1900s. Buildings designed in the style generally are one-story in height and mass with elements of the American Foursquare and Queen Anne style displayed on a much smaller scale. These modest homes were cost effective to build as many of the parts were already cut and pre-assembled. They were a good alternative for the working class of the period. Common characteristics of the idiom include its box-like or rectangular plan or shape, a pyramidal or hipped roof (sometimes with flared extended eaves), a hipped or gabled dormer(s), a recessed front porch (usually offset on the front façade), and a rounded or canted bay window on a primary elevation. The style developed as a utilitarian example of the Queen Anne cottage. Like the Queen Anne cottage, the front façade is asymmetrical in composition and is divided with a rounded or canted bay and recessed or covered porch entrance. The style was largely replaced by the Craftsman cottage and later the Craftsman bungalow as the predominant wood-frame modest residential house in Southern California, including Santa Monica. Throughout the community, including the 1200 block of 11th Street, there are a number of hipped roof turn-of-the-century cottages in varying states of condition still extant. Craftsman Bungalow Small developers and owner/contractors with the construction of affordable houses played a central role in Southern California’s real estate boom in the early twentieth century. Working class neighborhoods proliferated across the region and the bungalow provided respectability and a good quality of life for working class families. The property type/style was most commonly manifested in the thousands of bungalows that were constructed in the newly developed suburban areas of the Los Angeles region, including Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Sherman (later West Hollywood), Monrovia, Long Beach, and Pasadena among other nearby communities. Because of their relative economy bungalows answered a growing need for affordable housing during the 1910s and 1920s. The style was widely popularized in architectural journals, design books, and store catalogs, including the Sears Roebuck catalog. The more modest, vernacular examples of the style are typically identified simply as “bungalows” or “California bungalows.” Many of these common vernacular style “California” bungalows still exist today within the city of Santa Monica, including the 1200 block of 11th 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 19 Street. Bungalows were constructed into the 1920s in the study area and reflect basic Craftsman and period revival stylistic details. The term bungalow typically refers to a modest, one- or one-and one-half story house with an informal floor plan. The exteriors were generally simple, and the use of natural materials was important to the design aesthetic. Square or rectangular shaped cottages with one- to one-and- one-half stories and rectilinear front porches typify the bungalow form. To this basic form, designers and craftsmen introduced elements of the Spanish, Stick, Tudor, Colonial Revival, and even Japanese stylistic features. Simple, horizontal, and craft-oriented natural materials characterized the typical Craftsman design. Common elements of the style included shingle or clapboard siding; battered (tapered) or square porch piers; rectangular (sash) windows; simple wood-frame door and window surrounds; gabled roofs; deeply projecting overhangs; and exposed rafter tails, beams, and bargeboards (fasciae). The open front porch area, which was raised, usually included a wood or concrete textured deck floor (sometimes tinted); wood ceilings; wood, brick, stone, or plastered balustrades; and porch steps of textured concrete or brick veneer that were approached from the front or side depending on design. Associated Builders and Contractors Contractor, Joseph J. Rowe Born in Willingboro, New Jersey, Joseph J. Rowe was a Santa Monica-based building contractor who built two of the residences along the 1200 block of 11th Street (1221 and 1229 11th Street). It appears that he was a skilled craftsman as U.S. Census records from 1900 list his occupation as a laborer in a furniture factory; at this time he was living in Plymouth, Wisconsin with his family. According to the City of Santa Monica local directories, he lived at various residences with his wife Armina M. Rowe after their arrival in the City in 1902. From roughly 1915 to 1925, the couple along with their grown son Lloyd C. Rowe and brother-in-law Gilbert Sanford lived at the 1117 10th Street residence. Lloyd Clifford Rowe (1887-1944), who also had property in Lancaster, California, learned the carpentry business from his father and worked with him on many building commissions during the 1910s and early 1920s. Gilbert Sanford (1871-1948) was a well-versed carpenter and had moved to Santa Monica from the Midwest sometime after 1910 to support J.J. Rowe with his building contracting business. After a brief illness, Joseph J. Rowe died on January 3, 1925, at his home at the age of 78. An obituary of his passing was noted in the Santa Monica Evening Outlook newspaper on January 5, 1925. The brief obituary stated that Rowe was a resident of Santa Monica for twenty-three years and was a member of the Modern Woodmen of America. It also references his widow, Armina; son L. Clifford Rowe of Lancaster and his daughter, Mrs. Harry Ellis (Alta May Rowe) of Glendale along with his surviving four brothers and one sister who were living in the East. For a number of years after Joseph Rowe’s passing the local city directories listed his wife Armina (1857-1937) as the widow of J.J. Rowe. She eventual sold the Santa Monica property and moved in with her daughter and family in Glendale until her passing at the age of 80 years in 1937. Prior survey assessments reviewed building permits on file with the City of Santa Monica for the years 1906-1914 to identify commission received by J.J. Rowe.24 During that period, the 24 Architectural Resources Group. 1221-1223 11th Street: Landmark and Structure of Merit Preliminary Assessment 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 20 contractor oversaw at least twenty projects throughout Santa Monica, including cottages, large single-family residences, and a number of residential alterations/additions. Besides the two 11th Street properties, there are a few other known residences constructed by J.J. Rowe in Santa Monica, including 426 Palisades Avenue (1914, an American Foursquare) and 929 Lincoln Boulevard (1916, Craftsman bungalow). The Santa Monica Evening Outlook from February 1906 also referenced that J.J. Rowe built a home for W. A. Irwin within his newly formed Irwin Heights tract (but did not specify any addresses). Despite the lack of a robust professional portfolio or substantial peer recognition it appears that J.J. Rowe was an established building contractor in the community over his 20 some years in the business. Builder, Waldo K. Cowan Waldo Kossmuth Cowan was born in Grasshopper Falls, Kansas in 1864 to William Alexander and Martha B. Cowan. Waldo K. Cowan married Susie A. Jenkins in 1899 and only a few years later moved to Santa Monica from Fresno where he operated a grocery store and assisted his father on a farm. By 1903, the couple was purchasing parcels to develop and sell in the newly formed tracts of Santa Monica. Cowan was involved in many ventures and at varying times was a real estate businessman, building contractor, Rambler auto dealer, and auto enthusiast among other business endeavors. A few years later he partnered with George Elliott to create Cowan and Elliott, a local construction company that built many residential bungalow cottages in the city particularly in the area now referred to as the mid-city area of Santa Monica. Cowan as well as Cowan and Elliott helped to develop much of the 11th Street neighborhood as he built 1233 11th Street (altered), 1239 11th Street (altered), 1247 11th Street (demolished), 1253 11th Street (demolished), and 1259 11th Street (1107 Arizona Avenue). Later he formed a partnership with Barnard Sues as a real estate venture and construction business (Sues & Cowan). Cowan was quite civic minded as he served as treasurer of the Santa Monica Board of Trade in 1910. He also was a member of the Santa Monica School Board, secretary of the Oddfellows Seaside Lodge #30, and treasurer and active leader of the Associated Charities. In addition, Cowan was the 1912 Election Supervisor for his precinct, a founding member of the Los Angeles Automobile Club, and a member of several local lodges. Waldo Cowan’s association with the 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood is linked to the construction of the modest hipped roof cottage (modified into a Colonial Revival bungalow in 1923) at 1233 11th Street in 1904 with his partner George Elliott. In addition, Cowan built the now altered hipped roof cottage at 1239 11th Street in 1905. He had also built to other hipped roof cottage at 1247 and 1253 11th Street, but those two dwellings were later demolished for new multi-family residences. Cowan also built, owned, and occupied the hipped roof house at 1107 Arizona Avenue (originally addressed as 1259 11th Street, built in 1906). In 1910, he subdivided the parcel and built the adjacent bungalow to the east (now altered) for his parents William and Martha Cowan (1109 Arizona Avenue). A few years later his mother, Martha B. Cowan, died on June 20, 1913 at the age of 71 years. His father, then 81 years old, remained at the 1109 Arizona Avenue house until Waldo and Susie moved to their newly purchased ranch in Lancaster in 1914. William A. Cowan had been a Report, August 2015. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 21 farmer and nurseryman near Fresno for many years as well as a carpenter when the family lived in Grasshopper Falls, Kansas. At their ranch they grew and sold various fruit trees among other agricultural products. Once up at the ranch, a couple of agricultural publications of the time noted Cowan’s ‘fine pear farm’ and ‘poplar’ trees, which he sold as extra income. By the late 1920s, the Cowan’s had moved back to Southern California residing in Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Inglewood; and operating a grocery store in Redondo Beach. Waldo K. Cowan passed away in 1943 with Susie passing 15 years later. IDENTIFICATION OF PROPERTIES WITH STUDY AREA The following seven (7) pre-World War II era residential properties along the 1200 block of 11th Street is a very small assemblage of such improvements, which were identified by the applicant as contributors to a proposed historic district. The residential property at 1218 11th Street has also been included in the following discussion as its initial construction dates to pre-World War II, within the identified period of significance of 1905 to 1925. In addition, the proposed historic district has been identified and discussed in the following narrative. Residential Property, 1218 11th Street (APN: 4282-007-004) Description According to permit history, this one-story Craftsman bungalow was built in 1913 for then owner J. C. Walters by local builder A.H. Feist at a cost of $1,200. Originally designed with strong Oriental influences that included the distinctive “lift” at the peaks of the roof gables those features have all been since removed. The wood-frame, single-family residence is capped with a cross gable roof with an extremely low pitch, exposed rafters, and extended eaves. The front entry porch is centrally located along the front façade (east elevation) and is sheltered by an extended front gable with open pediment that is supported by a pair of wood posts set on brick pedestals. Portions of the house are sheathed with rows of the original wood shingles with alternating exposure. Large windows flank the central front entry area and are clustered in bands of twos and threes. Extended lintels and sills frame the front window and door openings. The chimney (originally brick) has been rebuilt and is now sheathed in stucco. The south (side) elevation has been extensively altered by the removal of fenestration, the application of brick veneer skirting, and the application of stucco. The once open roof eave along this elevation has also been covered over by the re-roofing the dwelling in recent years. In addition, many of the windows along the side and rear elevations have been infilled or replaced. The house is approached from the public sidewalk via a concrete walkway and steps. Tax assessor records indicate a secondary structure (small bungalow cottage) was built on site at the rear of the lot in 1921. The Sanborn map from 1950 confirms the construction of the cottage and also illustrates a small garage structure at the northwest corner of the parcel. A two-story, non-descript stuccoed sheathed apartment building with garages was built at the rear of the lot in 1956. At the time of its construction the existing garage was demolished and a portion of the cottage was relocated to the front of the new apartment building. The small cottage structure was extensively modified by the application of stucco, replacement of windows and the modification of window openings, the installation of new doors, and the reconfiguration of its building footprint. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 22 Permit history indicates the brick chimney on the main house was rebuilt and covered with stucco in 1994 due to earthquake damage. The main house was also re-roofed in 2015, which is probably when the Oriental influenced character-defining features of the bargeboards and roof peaks were removed and the southern roof eave modified. Upon review of the permit history and a visual inspection of the property under this current survey assessment, the Craftsman bungalow has lost much of its historical integrity of design, workmanship, material, and design. The small cottage at the rear of the property has substantial compromised historical integrity due to extensive inappropriate remodeling work. Owners/Occupants The earliest occupant of the bungalow listed in the city directories was Charles A. Harris in 1914. Only one year later, Harry J. Byshe, who worked at the Pacific Telegraph and Telephone Company, resided there. Donald and Mabelle Prettyman were the owners/occupants of the dwelling during the late 1910s. Mrs. Amy Darlington, widow of Stanley Darlington and a bookkeeper, was renting the property in 1921. A few years later, Joseph Daly, a retiree, was noted in the directory as the owner/occupant of the front house in 1923. At that time, Henry Chambers was listed as living in the cottage at the rear of the lot. In reviewing city directory information, John and Margaret Klein became the owners/occupants of the property by the mid-1920s. Research data indicates that John Klein had various occupations including serving as the manager of Aztec Tile in 1927 and as a roofing salesman in 1931. According to city directory and census records, the Kleins lived at the 1218 11th Street property through the mid- 1930s. During this time, the back unit was rented to Clarence E. Keifer, a tailor at a nearby dry cleaning shop. By 1940, Archie L. Shaver, an insurance salesman, and his wife Grace were the owners and occupants of the property. Weldon, a draftsman, and Ruby Fulton were listed in the city directory and 1940 Census as the tenants of the back cottage. It appears that sometime in the mid-1940s, Fred and Thelma Dickey Rush along with Thelma’s mother Elizabeth Dickey, a widow, purchased the property. Fred and Thelma were married in 1944 and before that time Thelma and Elizabeth had been renting an apartment along Second Street in Santa Monica. Fred was a plumber with his own business while Thelma worked as an office clerk for the Veteran’s Administration in West Los Angeles. Fred, Thelma and Elizabeth remained at the 11th Street residence for several decades. All the while, they continued to rent out the apartment units at the rear of the parcel to a variety of individuals, including retirees, students, and blue and white collar workers. Research into all of the known owners and occupants found no evidence of any of them being significant individuals in the history of Santa Monica or elsewhere. Residential Property, 1221-1223 11th Street (APN: 4282-006-022) Description This property contains two buildings. The primary building with an address of 1223 11th Street is a one-story, wood-frame single-family residence designed in the Craftsman style, a popular choice for residential architecture in Santa Monica and elsewhere in Southern California during the first quarter of the twentieth century. It is similar in design, features, scale, and configuration to its neighbor to the south at 1229 11th Street. The 1223 11th Street bungalow was built in 1911 (County Assessor records indicate a 1910 construction date) by local 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 23 contractor Joseph J. Rowe for then owners Mary and Ashford Drumm. The house features a rectangular plan; wood clapboard siding; and a front-facing gable roof of medium pitch with overhanging eaves, carved braces under the eaves of the gable ends, and extended bargeboards with notched ends. A smaller gable roof extends out over a now enclosed front porch that is offset on the front façade to the south. A large tripartite window with fixed center and flanking sashes punctuates the front wall plane north of the porch. A square shape, wood- frame multi-pane attic window is centered just below the gable of the main roof. A flat wood beltcourse set just above the window line of the gable end adds extra detailing to the front façade. All window and door openings set within the exterior walls of the house are framed by flat molded wood surrounds. The house is slightly elevated above grade; hence, the front door and porch are approached from the street via a walkway and concrete steps. A detached garage with workshop was located at the northeast corner of the lot, but was removed for the construction of a three unit, two-story Modern style apartment building in 1955 (1221 11th Street). Besides the enclosure of the front porch other permitted changes to the main house included the construction of a one room addition at the rear of the building in 1915. The property maintains much of its historical integrity of location, design, workmanship, material, setting, feeling, and association. Owners/Occupants As mentioned, the bungalow on this lot was built for then owners Mary and Ashford Drumm of Santa Monica. Ashford Drumm was a house painter and Mary a housewife. They were also real estate investors whereby they bought and sold property as speculative investment throughout much of Santa Monica. With a building permit issued in April 1911, the Drumms sold the property to Frank and Mary Polly. The Pollys lived there for roughly three years before selling it to Frank J. Strickfaden, a retired businessman, in 1914. He remained at the 11th Street property until has passing in 1944. After getting divorced from Nancy Creek Strickfaden, Frank Joseph Strickfaden had moved from Ashland, Oregon with his middle son Kenneth to Santa Monica in 1912. A few years later his oldest son Frank Jr. and youngest son Charles joined them. In December 1914, Frank Strickfaden purchased the 11th Street property and moved in with his family. Only months later he added a bedroom, enclosed the front porch, and built a garage with workshop at the rear of the lot. In 1920, Frank married Clara Dunston. That same year Frank’s son Ken moved out of the house and a year later married his high school sweetheart Gladys Ward. His other two sons followed suit and moved out to establish their own careers and personal lives. Of the three Strickfaden sons, the most recognized with any notoriety was Ken Joseph Strickfaden. He had entered high school as a sophomore in 1914 when he and his father arrived in Santa Monica. He was an active student involved in a variety of campus activities including photography, theater, band, orchestra, and sports. During his high school years he held several part-time, after-school jobs as an electrician. At home in their backyard workshop on 11th Street (now demolished) he and his older brother Frank began experimenting with Tesla coils, wireless communications, and electrical special effects. After serving in World War I, he worked as an electrician and honed his skills in designing sets while working at amusement parks on the east 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 24 and west coasts (Coney Island and the Ocean Park pier). Eventually he gained employment in the Hollywood film industry where he became known as a Hollywood special effects genius. It was Ken who created the mad scientist and science fiction apparatus that entertained, thrilled, and frightened many people in more than 100 motion picture films and television programs such as “Frankenstein” (1931), “The Wizard of Oz” (1939), “Young Frankenstein” (1974), and the television series “The Munsters.” He has been recognized by various organizations for his contributions to the motion picture industry, including the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences. In addition, to his behind the scenes movie work, he presented some 1,500 traveling lectures on the physical sciences which proved to be both highly educational and entertaining. Much of his research for his professional work was conducted in his home garage at 1348 15th Street after he moved out from the 11th Street property and married Gladys in 1921. A year later in 1933, he and Gladys move to 853 26th Street, where he continued to refine his special effects skills by working out of his garage workshop. Their youngest daughter Marilyn, who married Mark Throssel, eventually inherited the 1223 11th Street property from her grandfather Frank J. Strickfaden. In 1963, they sold the family home to James and Doris Lennon. Research into all of the known owners and occupants found no evidence of any of them being significant individuals in the history of Santa Monica or elsewhere with the exception of Ken Strickfaden. As discussed above, Kenneth Strickfaden is best known for his innovations in motion picture and television electrical special effects. However, city directory data, census records, and biographical references from 1920 through the 1930s indicate he was no longer living at the 11th Street address with his father during the period in which he attained significance and saw his most professional productive years. In addition, the workshop/garage where he did experiment with electricity is no longer extant as it was demolished for new construction. Residential Property, 1229 11th Street (APN: 4282-006-020) Description The modest Craftsman bungalow at 1229 11th Street typifies the homes that once characterized much of the city during the first quarter of the twentieth century. The wood-frame, single- family house has a rectangular plan, is clad with wood clapboard siding, and is capped by a front-facing gable roof with overhanging eaves. A smaller gable projects out over a now enclosed front porch that is offset along the façade to the south. Roof elements along the front façade feature a moderate pitch, carved eave brackets, and extended bargeboards with notched ends. Fenestration includes a tripartite wood-frame window north of the front porch, an attic window centered beneath the apex of the main gable, and fixed and sash type window frames. All doors and window openings are framed by flat wood surrounds. A second, smaller bungalow with a gable roof and lap siding is sited at the rear of the lot 1229½ 11th Street). Some of the fenestration on this secondary structure has been replaced with slider type frames, as have some entry doors. A detached, wood-frame garage with lap siding and a gable roof, which appears to have been enlarged, is set at the northeast corner of the parcel and is accessed from the alley. The property maintains much of its historical integrity of location, design, workmanship, material, setting, feeling, and association. County Assessor records give this bungalow a 1912 construction date with the original permit dated rom 1911. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 25 Owners/Occupants This modest one-story California Craftsman bungalow was built in 1911 by local building contractor Joseph J. Rowe for then owners Thomas and Florence Holbert. Rowe was also responsible for the construction of the bungalow next door at 1221-1223 11th Street. Both homes embody his typical quality of design and craftsmanship which is physically evident in the carved braces under the eaves and in the notched ends of the bargeboards. The initial property owner Thomas Holbert was noted in the 1910 US Census and 1912 city directory as a millman while Florence was listed as an ironer. The following year the Holberts are listed as residing at 1229½ 11th Street (the back house) and Frank L. Moore of the Ocean Park Tea and Coffee Company was listed at 1229 11th Street. This slight change in address suggests that the rear dwelling was built within a few years of the first bungalow. The Holberts occupied the rear bungalow during much of their ownership. Sometime around 1940 Mrs. Florence Holbert (now a widow) moved into the front house and remained there until her passing in 1953. Wilburn Larson, a mechanic at the Douglas plant) and his wife Gladyce then became the owners and lived there a number of years before converting the entire property to rental use. Research into all of the known owners and occupants found no evidence of any of them being significant individuals in the history of Santa Monica or elsewhere. Residential Property, 1233 11th Street (APN: 4282-006-019) Description This one-story, wood-frame single-family residence reflects the design of an American Colonial Revival style bungalow. However, the dwelling was originally designed and built as a turn-of- the-century hipped roof cottage, similar to its neighbor next door to the south. Built in 1904, at a cost of approximately $1,600 it was constructed by the contracting firm of Cowan and Elliott for then owner Frank D. Booth. The extant narrow clapboard siding and hip roof are characteristics of its original design intent and period. The front façade addition, facing west, is symmetrical in composition and features an enclosed soffit broken by a front-facing gabled portico. Fluted pilasters and scrolled brackets frame the entry and the open pediment. The double wood-frame front door is glazed with muntins outlining the shape of each door. A similar glazing pattern is applied to the single and double wood-frame casement windows that flank the main entry. At the rear of the parcel is a two story duplex (1233½ and 1235 11th Street) with attached one-story garage that was built in 1924. This structure incorporates similar clapboard siding and fenestration as used on the front of the main house. Other features of the property include a pergola, tiled side patio area, and mature palm trees, which were added after the original construction date of the front house. It appears the front façade of the house was modified to its current American Colonial Revival appearance around 1923. At that time, permits indicate that a new screen porch, sleeping room, a laundry room and nook at the rear of the structure were added to the house. The building permit history also confirms the construction of the duplex in 1924. The permits also reference the installation of the side and rear patio areas with landscaping in 1946 by then owner John B. Terry. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 26 Owners/Occupants A review of city directory listings, voter registration records and census files show the property was owned and occupied by a series of individuals that consisted of blue and white collar workers as well as retirees. City directory listing from 1905 does indicate Frank Booth, a sea captain, resided there with Hattie and Mary Booth. A photograph of the house from circa 1905 also confirms Booth’s occupancy at the residence and its original design as a hipped roof cottage. A review of the 1910 US Census notes the occupant of the property as George K. Boultner, an oil well driller, and his wife Clara and daughter Ester. Only a few years later Wilford Justin Davenport was listed in the 1912-1913 city directories as the owner/occupant. Davenport, a carpenter, along with his wife Anna and youngest son Ralph lived there for only a few short years before moving up the street to 15th Street. Lewis Philip Heckel and his wife Annabel along with their three children resided at the 1233 11th Street property for roughly four years.25 While residing in Santa Monica Lewis Heckel was an auto operator (bus driver). The property was then purchased by Christopher (Crispo) and Margaret Ysais Enriquez in the early 1920s. Shortly thereafter they divorced with Margaret and their children remaining at the 11th Street residence. They lived primarily in the rear building while they rented out the front house over the course of several years. The property was later sold to John B. Terry just before Margaret passed away in 1947. John and Mrs. Mary Blank Terry (widow of Carl S. Blank) lived in the rear unit and continued renting out the front house, as Margaret Enriquez had done before. Research data indicates that Mrs. Mary Blank Terry remained the owner of the property through much of the 1950s. By 1958, however, Mrs. Florence Campbell, a nurse, was residing in the front house while Warren J. Wardell, of Warren’s Body & Paint Shop in Santa Monica, occupied the back unit. Interestingly enough, the property was not listed in the 1960-1961 city directories. Research into all of the known owners and occupants found no evidence of any of them being significant individuals in the history of Santa Monica or elsewhere. Residential Property, 1239 11th Street (APN: 4282-006-018) Description This altered one-story, wood-frame single-family residence was built in 1905 as a hipped roof cottage similar to its neighbor’s original design (1233 11th Street). Its size, mass, and plan are characteristic of the style from that period just after the turn-of-the-century (20th century). The modest house has a raised foundation and is slightly elevated above grade. The identifying features of the style and period include its box-like plan, hipped roof with overhanging boxed eaves, and Colonial Revival detailing in the round porch columns. There are dormers that are centered on the side (north and south) elevations of the roof. They have; however, since been covered with stucco and the windows within the dormers have been replaced with non-original aluminum slider type frames. Much of the dwelling is sheathed with non-original stucco with fenestration consisting primarily of non-original aluminum framed sliding windows. The only intact original elements appear to be the hipped roof and recessed corner front porch area, which contains some narrow lap wood siding, a wood-frame tripartite window, and Tuscan 25 The spelling of Lewis Heckel’s first name varies depending on the reference records reviewed. The accurate spelling of his first name is Lewis. The World War I registration record from 1918 is signed by Lewis Philip Heckel. Santa Monica city directory records list him as Louis P. Heckel. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 27 porch columns. Access to the front porch is via a non-original stone paved walkway from 11th Street and stucco covered porch steps with cheek walls. At the rear of the lot is a small one- story vernacular style residence that was built in 1934. It features stucco clad exterior walls, a side facing gable roof with overhanging eaves and exposed rafter tails, and a multi-pane canted bay window on its west elevation. Its integrity has also been compromised. Permitted alterations to the property include the addition of a sleeping room and roof work to the front house in 1922; construction of the detached dwelling and garage at the back of the lot in 1934; and the remodel of the back house in 1955. Other work includes the replacement of windows, the addition of stucco on the exterior walls of the front unit, and the replacement of the original concrete walkways. Because of the substantial changes to the property its historical integrity of design, workmanship, materials, feeling, and setting has also been compromised. Owners/Occupants Permit history indicates the property was built by local builder and real estate investor Waldo K. Cowan at a cost of approximately $1,225. This property is one of the earliest homes built along this block of 11th Street. By 1907, William Nelson, a rancher and farmer, and his wife Electra were the owners and occupants of the property. Unfortunately, William Nelson passed away several years later in August of 1915 at the age of 79. His wife Electra maintained the house until the mid-1920s. She lived there along with her daughter Myra, son-in-law F. Delmer Dudley, and granddaughter Frieda. By the mid-1930s, the back house (1239½ 11th Street) had been erected with Grace McCarthy, a nurse, residing at the front house and Leon Compton, an auto mechanic, and his wife Ruth in the house at the rear. During the 1950s, the property was owned by Mrs. Nellie F. Mudd, a nurse. Mudd resided at the back house while the front unit was rented out over the course of several years to various blue and white collar workers. Research into all of the known owners and occupants found no evidence of any of them being significant individuals in the history of Santa Monica or elsewhere. Residential Property, 1107 Arizona Avenue (APN: 4282-006-015) Description Built slightly larger than the typical hipped roof cottage of the period, this dwelling has a box- like plan, a hipped roof with flared eaves and enclosed soffits, and Colonial Revival detailing evident under the eaves and at the front porch. Narrow clapboard wood siding sheathes the slightly elevated wood-frame structure. Bracketed cant bays are centrally set on the west and south elevations. Fenestration includes fixed and sash type wood window frames. Hip roofed dormers containing pairs of double hung sash windows are centered over each elevation. The dormer at the rear (east) of the house has been modified and no longer reflects its original design intent. The front porch at the southwest corner of the house has been enclosed by a series of multi-pane, fixed type wood-frame windows. The non-original front door is also of wood-frame and glass and is approached via stairs and walkway from Arizona Avenue. The property is surrounded by a tall wood fence and dense foliage making it difficult to see from the public right-of-way. Despite the glazed enclosure to the front porch area, which was done decades ago, and the alteration to the rear dormer and addition of metal vent pipes on the roof, the structure retains good historical integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 28 setting, feeling and association from its period of construction. Owners/Occupants A review of city directory listings, census files, building permit, and voter registration records indicates the property’s ownership and occupancy over the years. The property at the northeast corner of 11th Street and Arizona Avenue was initially owned and developed by Waldo K. Cowan in 1906. Cowan subdivided the parcel in 1910 and built the adjacent bungalow to the east (1109 Arizona Avenue) for his parents William Alexander and Martha M. Cowan (which has since been extensively remodeled). A few years later Cowan and his wife Susie sold their 11th Street property and moved to their newly purchased ranch in Lancaster. Following the ownership and occupancy by the Cowan’s, the city directory from 1914 lists the property as vacant. A year later, however, Mrs. Carrie Kneer, a widow, had purchased the residence and lived there for roughly five years. City directory listings during this time also indicated the property had two occupants at the same address. Hence, it appears that Mrs. Kneer earned extra income by letting rooms out in her home (a practice that was not uncommon). By 1921, John Rule and his wife Emma (Amelia) had purchased the property and were living there. The Rules were retired and lived there for several years with their daughter Genevieve and her husband Merwyn Christie, a salesman. During their tenancy, John Rule built the modest Spanish Colonial Revival bungalow at 1115 Arizona Avenue in 1925. John Rule passed away in the late 1920s, though Amelia and her daughter and son-in-law continued to reside there through the early 1930s. Through the late 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s, the owners and occupants of the property included Mrs. Anna Tylee, a nurse; William Worley, and Frank Wixson. Research into all of the known owners and occupants found no evidence of any of them being significant individuals in the history of Santa Monica or elsewhere with the exception of Waldo K. Cowen. Residential Property, 1109 Arizona Avenue (APN: 4282-006-014) Description This one-story Craftsman bungalow was built in 1911, according to the permit history on file with the City. With roughly 1,057 square feet of space the dwelling is slightly elevated above grade, has a rectangular plan, (non-original) stucco exterior walls, a front facing gable roof with overhanging eaves and carved knee brackets, and multi-pane fenestration of varying size and type. The front façade faces west and is defined by a small concrete landing at the south end, a centrally located extended bay window with shed roof covering, and additional window openings. A small shed roof with exposed purlins and brackets shelters the small front entry landing area and panel with glazed upper half front door. The front door is accessed from Arizona Avenue. Windows along the south (side) of the dwelling abutting the public sidewalk consists of two pairs of non-original multi-pane windows that are slightly recessed within wood casings and are flanked by (non-original) louvered shutters. Additional fenestration includes fixed-frame and slider type windows. Permit history regarding the exterior of the property indicates the house was stuccoed in 1954 by then owner Howard Fink. That same year, other improvements included a new side (north) porch and patio roof. Though difficult to see from the public right-of-way, upon current visual 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 29 inspection it was noted that some windows had been replaced along with the addition of the louvered shutters. Though quaint and charming, because of the inappropriate changes a false sense of historicism has been created. Hence, its historical integrity has been compromised in terms of materials, design, and workmanship. Owners/Occupants The bungalow cottage was built by Waldo K. Cowan, owner of the adjacent corner property to the west at 1259 11th Street (now 1107 Arizona Avenue) for his parents William A. and Martha B. Cowan. After selling their farm in Fresno just after the turn-of the 20th century the elder Cowan and his wife moved to Cahuenga and then into the 1109 Arizona Avenue dwelling. With their health failing, they resided there near their son for only a few brief years when in June 1913 Martha passed away at the age of 71 years old. A year later the Cowans sold their properties and moved to their ranch in Lancaster. The 1109 Arizona Avenue property went on to become a rental as it was advertised in the Daily Outlook in 1914 and 1915. By that time, it was rented to Andrew Dickens a Santa Monica police officer for a brief period. Over the years the ownership and occupancy of the property changed several times. Occupations of the tenants at that time included a grocer, gardener, and mechanic. By the mid-1930s, Bert Greterman and his wife Mayme were the owners/occupants. Greterman was an aerospace worker at the nearby Douglas plant. By the 1950s, Howard and Regina Fink were the owners/occupants. Howard Fink was plumber with his own business in Santa Monica. The Finks were the ones who had made several changes to the property in 1954, including the application of stucco to the exterior walls of the bungalow. Mrs. Dorothy Kiev, a bookkeeper, became the owner in the late 1950s and throughout much of the 1960s. Research into all of the known owners and occupants found no evidence of any of them being significant individuals in the history of Santa Monica or elsewhere. Residential Property, 1115 Arizona Avenue (APN: 4282-006-013) Description This modest Spanish Colonial Revival style bungalow with roughly 771 square feet of space was built in 1925, at a cost of approximately $2,900. It was designed and built by L.B. Norman of Santa Monica for then owner John Rule and his wife Lillie. At the time, the Rules were the owners/occupants of the corner house at 1107 Arizona Avenue. The 1115 Arizona Avenue improvement was built on a subdivided portion of the original Waldo K. Cowan lot on the northeast corner of 11th Street and Arizona Avenue (1259 11th Street aka 1107 Arizona Avenue). The rectangular shape residence features stucco exterior walls, a flat roof with tiled parapet, and recessed multi-pane fenestration of varying size with wood sills. The south (side) elevation along Arizona Avenue is punctuated by a set of elongated wood-frame 3 over 5 casement windows that are recessed within arch shaped openings and are separated by an engaged spiral column. To the east is a pair of wood-frame, multi-pane casements with flanking wood shutters. The west, front facade is defined by a small attached front porch that is sheltered by a tiled shed roof. Within this stoop area is a multi-pane French door that provides access into the dwelling. The porch area has been enclosed since it was initially surveyed and documented probably for security reasons. Permit history is limited and notes minor work to the property in 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 30 1954 costing $70. In 1956, an attached one car garage was built onto the rear (north) side of the property. The stuccoed, rectangular shape structure is approached from the alley and has a small concrete driveway apron. In general, much of the original design features are intact, therefore, it retains sufficient integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, setting, feeling, and association. Owners/Occupants In reviewing permit history and city directory information it appears the property was initially built as a rental unit. Early occupants included John Seablom and his wife Ruth who resided there up through 1930. Seablom worked at a nearby gas station as an attendant. Occupancy throughout the 1930s appears to have been short term as the turnover of occupants was frequent. By the 1950s, however, Mrs. Amy Angle (widow of Hugh Angle) was the owner and occupant of the property. Her daughter Jean became the owner/occupant in the early 1960s. Research into all of the known owners and occupants found no evidence of any of them being significant individuals in the history of Santa Monica or elsewhere. 1200 Block of 11th Street Proposed Historic District The previously identified 1200 block of 11th Street “cluster” was narrowly defined with twelve (12) parcels containing various residential improvements built between 1905 and 1925 with varying degrees of historic integrity. Under the 2018 citywide survey update, this “cluster” was found ineligible for recognition as a potential City of Santa Monica historic district as it did not meet state and federal survey guidelines related to historic districts. In June of 2018, an application for historic district designation of the 1200 block 11th Street area was submitted to the City for consideration by the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission and City Council. The proposed district boundary was identified in the district application as the east side of 11th Street between the parcel at 1221(1223) 11th Street south to the corner at Arizona Avenue. It also includes the lots along Arizona Avenue between 11th Street and 11th Court. The currently proposed district by the applicant is comprised of ten (10) parcels, five of which are considered potential contributors and two as altered contributors. The proposed district includes five lots on the HRI: 1221-1223, 1229, 1233 11th Street and 1107 and 1115 Arizona Avenue that were built between 1905 and 1925. The nominated assemblage of residences also includes three post-World War II multi-story apartment buildings. Those properties identified as pre-World War II in construction have been identified and discussed herein this report. Of those ten properties in the nominated grouping five (5) have substantially intact improvements that date from the area’s period of significance (1905-1925). Two (2) of the ten properties have been inappropriately altered and are no longer accurately convey their historic character, but are considered “altered contributors” by the applicant. One of those properties, 1109 Arizona Avenue, was never previously recorded or documented. The remaining three (3) properties are improvements built after the area’s period of significance. As described in the applicant’s historic district application the proposed district would be comprised of seven (7) potential contributors/altered contributors and three potential non-contributors (a district composition of 70% contributors). As an option, the applicant also considered omitting the 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 31 “altered” contributors, which would then equate to five (5) contributors and five (5) non- contributors (a district composition of 50% contributors). In addition to having a majority of contributing properties within a potential district, a district should have sufficient historical integrity and possess significance as a whole. Overall, the district must be able to visually and physically convey its sense of time, place, historical development and authenticity from its period of significance.26 As currently developed with a variety of improvements from various periods with varying degrees of historical integrity, the small collection of residential improvements along the narrowly defined proposed 1200 block of 11th Street historic district does not appear to be a distinct concentration of resources developed with more than a majority of its contributors. The two properties identified by the applicant as “altered contributors” have been extensively modified and no longer accurately convey their original historic character. Therefore, OAC identifies those two properties as “non-contributors.” Under this scenario, the proposed district would result in five (5) contributors out of a total of ten (10) properties within the narrowly defined district boundary identified in the application packet (exactly fifty percent composition of contributors). The following table provides a summary of this analysis. Address Description District Status Year Built 1 1221-1223 11th Street Single-family, Apartment Contributor 1910, 1955 2 1227 11th Street Apartment Building Non-contributor 1957 3 1229 11th Street Single-family Contributor 1908, 1912, 1921 4 1233 11th Street Single-family Contributor 1905, 1924 5 1239 11th Street Single-family Non-contributor 1905, 1934 6 1247 11th Street Apartment Building Non-contributor 1955 7 1253 11th Street Condominium Non-contributor 1992 8 1107 Arizona Avenue Single-family Contributor 1907 9 1109 Arizona Avenue Single-family Non-contributor 1911 10 1115 Arizona Avenue Single-family Contributor 1925 As stated in the 2018 citywide historic resources inventory update report regarding the identification and evaluations of “clusters” such small groupings of resources typically do not convey sufficient information about patterns of history and development.27 They also are not consistent with the state and federal recognized survey guidelines related to historic districts. Because of inappropriate changes to its residential dwellings and street improvements as well as the infill of parcels with later multi-story improvements the spatial organization, physical 26 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997, p.42. 27 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report, August 2018. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 32 components, aspects of design, and historic associations of the 1200 block of 11th Street have been extensively compromised. Hence, the nominated district lacks integrity of setting and feeling; two very important integrity qualities in the identification of historic districts. In addition, because of its small size and inconsistent composition, the proposed district does not accurately or adequately convey an important development “pattern” within the city. Due to its diminutive, non-cohesive composition the proposed district does not fully demonstrate this particular socio-economic group as collectively making important contributors to the city’s prosperity. It rather reflects a very small aspect of the City’s overall association with the middle class from the first quarter of the twentieth century. TOWN OF SANTA MONICA TRACT CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS At its January 8, 2018 meeting, the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission held a discussion on the potential landmarking of the 1200 block 11th Street cluster of early Craftsman bungalows and hipped roof cottages as a historic district. The initial findings of the OAC’s preliminary assessment report (the City’s historic preservation consultant), dated December 2017, and a documentation report prepared by the Historic 11th Street Coalition/Friends of 11th Street were also discussed at that time. The OAC’s preliminary assessment findings noted that the identified grouping of twelve (12) properties along the 1200 block of 11th Street appeared to lack sufficient architectural merit, direct associations with important personages, and adequate historic integrity to be eligible for local historic district designation. Upon concluding discussions on the topic, the Landmarks Commission requested additional information on the uniqueness of this particular cluster within the larger Town of Santa Monica tract in order to gain a greater understanding of the broader historical context of the City’s extant early housing stock. The 1200 block of 11th Street grouping of early Craftsman and hipped roof cottages is located within the Town of Santa Monica tract. The Landmarks Commission request was to ascertain if the bungalows in the 1200 block of 11th Street “cluster” were of the “last remaining” in that particular tract. The following information, based on expanded research of the larger tract, provides insight into the historical development and early architectural composition of the Town of Santa Monica tract as it relates to the residential development pattern of the 1200 block of 11th Street and its associated properties under review built prior to 1925. Contextual Setting The Town of Santa Monica Tract covers an expansive area of the city, with its boundaries defined roughly as the south side of Montana to the north, the north side of Colorado Boulevard to the south, the east side of Ocean Avenue to the west, and along the western side of 17th Street from Montana Avenue to Wilshire Boulevard as well as up to 20th Street to Colorado for the eastern border. The blocks within the tract were 320 feet by 600 feet with the lots within each block measuring roughly 150 by 50 feet and alley widths approximately 20 feet. In reviewing Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, historical aerial photographs, U.S. Census records, archival references and resources, old tract maps, and the existing and historical land uses the larger, more accurate residential developmental pattern and trends of the Town of Santa 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 33 Monica Tract can be better understood. Prior to the 1910s, the area was largely undeveloped. Only a scattering of residences dotted the semi-rural landscape as depicted in the 1909 Sanborn Maps. The housing stock at that time included hipped roof cottages, small Queen Anne style homes, and vernacular structures. By the mid-1920s; however, many of the empty lots were filled with modest residential housing stock, primarily Craftsman and Spanish Colonial Revival bungalows. It was during this period that most of the bungalows along the 1200 block of 11th Street were constructed. As a result of modern redevelopment, the character of many of the neighborhoods within the Town of Santa Monica Tract have changed from 1910s hipped roof cottages and 1920s bungalows to neighborhoods with a mixture of early modest cottages, 1910s and 1920s bungalows, 1920s and1930s Period Revival homes, and 1950s and 1960s apartment buildings, as well as modern condominiums and commercial buildings. The historical integrity of the contextual setting of the immediate area surrounding the 1200 block of 11th Street grouping and much of the Town of Santa Monica Tract have been compromised by this historical development. Nonetheless, the tract is still rich in its diversity of property types and styles. Contextual Analysis Reference was made in the applicant’s report, “Documentation for 11th Street Historic District” (Friends of 11th Street), dated April 2017 (later updated to May 2018), of the “disappearing bungalow” within the larger context of the Town of Santa Monica Tract and that the contributing bungalows of the cluster are; therefore, unique and rare examples of the idiom. Properties erected within the Town of Santa Monica Tract during the previously identified period of significance of 1905 to 1925 were researched and studied. A review of historical data; prior survey data; search of the City’s HRI; and a windshield, cursory survey of the Town of Santa Monica Tract conducted by OAC attempted to identify the extant pre-1925 residential cottage and bungalow improvements within this development tract; in particular those residential improvements that were similar to the property types and styles located along the 1200 block of 11th Street (Craftsman bungalows and Hipped Roof Cottages) were studied. The table in the appendix of this report identifies extant residential properties in the Town of Santa Monica Tract that were built prior to and including 1925 by address and architectural style. Most of the properties listed in the table are single-family dwellings; however, a few four- plex apartments, bungalow courts, and early apartment houses are included as they were built prior to 1925 and designed in the associated architectural idiom under review. Such properties are noted in the table. In reviewing the information from the above table of pre-1925 residential properties there are still several small pockets of older housing stock from the first period of the 20th century within the Town of Santa Monica Tract, including those along several blocks of 4th Street, 5th Street 10th Street, 11th Street, California Avenue, Lincoln Boulevard, and Ocean Avenue. There are also many extant individual properties built prior to the first quarter of the 20th century scattered throughout the streets of the Town of Santa Monica Tract. These early residential properties were built in one of several varied styles, including the Hipped Roof Cottage, Queen Anne, Craftsman, Spanish Colonial, and Period Revival variants. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 34 In order to gain a greater understanding of the extant resources remaining in the Town of Santa Monica Tract and determine if any one particular style or property type should be considered a rare or “last remaining” example of its type a review of the table above listing the known pre- 1925 residential properties should be quantified. The following table summarizes the results of the quantitative analysis. Architectural Style Count Queen Anne 4 Hipped Roof Cottage/Queen Anne Cottage 13 Craftsman Bungalow 45 Spanish Colonial/Mission/Spanish influenced 22 Period Revival (American Colonial, Tudor, Italianate, English, etc.) 27 TOTAL 111 From the information in the summary table above, the majority of residential resources remaining within the Town of Santa Monica Tract are the Craftsman bungalows with 45 structures, followed by a high number of Spanish style and Period Revival style homes. Those residential properties built around the turn of the twentieth century, which includes the modest hipped roof cottage and Queen Anne style homes appear to be the rarest amongst the early housing stock of this area. This additional information provides a greater understanding of the broader historical context and architectural composition of the extant early housing stock, which currently exists in the Town of Santa Monica Tract. Remarkably, the tract contains a substantial number of Craftsman style bungalows along with early examples of Spanish influenced style homes and Period Revival style residences. Those two latter styles became very popular in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The extant hipped roof cottages and Queen Anne style residences from around the turn of the twentieth century appear to be just a third of the Craftsman bungalow count, which may indicate rarity for these two particular architectural styles in this area. As reference; however, there are many other hipped roof cottages located in the Ocean Park neighborhood of the City. Upon concluding the additional research and survey it appears that the 1200 block of 11th Street grouping, as well as other similar pockets of homes in the tract, and the tract in general comprises a varied collection of early residential housing stock constructed for (and by, in many cases) the working and middle-class residents of the City. The information provided herein was undertaken to better understand the historical development and architectural patterns of the greater Town of Santa Monica Tract prior to 1925. A table of the research results listing known extant pre-1925 residential properties is provided in the appendix as an exhibit to this report. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 35 EVALUATION OF LOCAL HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE Application of City of Santa Monica Historic District Criteria The pre-World War II-era properties located along the 1200 block of 11th Street have been assessed collectively to determine if a potential City of Santa Monica historic district may exist. In summary, based on current research, the 2010 and 2018 citywide historic resources survey update information, and the above assessment none of the properties along the 1200 Block of 11th Street form a distinct, unique, and cohesive local historic district as defined under the City’s Ordinance and pursuant to the registration requirements consistent with state and federal survey guidelines related to historic districts. The visual and physical continuity, cohesiveness, interrelationship, and unity of a distinct set of resources are not clearly evident to satisfy and support the following application of criteria for such landmark recognition. Landmark Criteria Criterion A.1 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. The proposed historic district, though associated with an earlier period of the City’s residential development history, does not appear to satisfy this criterion due to compromised historical integrity of many of its resources and the neighborhood in general. Because of its small size and inconsistent composition the proposed district does not accurately or adequately convey an important development “pattern” within the city. It reflects a very small aspect of the city’s overall association with the middle class from the first quarter of the twentieth century, but because of its diminutive, non-cohesive composition does not fully demonstrate this particular socio-economic group as collectively making important contributors to the city’s prosperity. Furthermore, there are still extant pockets of residential neighborhoods throughout the Town of Santa Monica Tract, the Mid-city area and the city overall that reflect aspects of the community’s association with the early working (middle) class and the overall diverse residential development of Santa Monica. Though this little assemblage of residences is part of the city’s history, it alone does not manifest historic elements in its own right. This block does not appear to be a geographically definable area possessing a distinct concentration of historic properties. The neighborhood is a densely developed area comprised primarily of large-scale, post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings that are interspersed with modest single- family homes dating from the 1900s, 1920s, and 1930s. The period of construction along this block of 11th Street was built over a period of time spanning from roughly 1905 to 1996. This sporadic development is very evident in the variety, type, and size of residential improvements and styles present within the area. These properties, as well as later infill additions, all have varying heights, setbacks, scale and massing forms, and levels of historical integrity. Many of the older homes are screened off from the street, sidewalk, alley (the public rights-of-way) by the use of high dense vegetation and varied fencing. This seclusion has created small compounds within many of the parcels. From a cohesiveness and uniformity perspective these non-conforming neighborhood features provide a greater sense of disconnect between each of the older homes and the block in general. In addition, the width, reconfiguration, and high traffic volume of the street further compromises the tranquil setting and feeling of a residential 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 36 neighborhood dating from the first quarter of the twentieth century. As a result of this lack of uniformity, concentration, and cohesiveness the association of themes is not accurately visually or physically conveyed. Therefore, the proposed district does not appear to satisfy this criterion. Criterion A.2 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. While the collectiveness of the group of properties under review reflect a varied architectural vocabulary due to the lack of sufficient integrity, design qualities, stylistic articulation they collectively do not possess sufficient aesthetic or artistic value necessary for designation under this criterion as a historic district. Criterion A.3 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history. While there is clear evidence to associate the garage workshop at 1223 11th Street with special effects master Ken Strickfaden’s early endeavors into the electrical special effects profession that connection was lost when the structure was demolished for the construction of an apartment building in 1955. Where he resided when creating the sets and props for the 1931 film “Frankenstein” and other motion pictures and television shows would be more closely associated with the life, profession, and accomplishments of Ken Strickfaden. Under standard industry practice, a property that pre- or post-dates an individual’s significant accomplishments are usually not eligible.28 As for other owners and occupants of the properties within the study area, the current research investigation did not reveal any information to indicate these individuals were historically important or associated with important events. Therefore, the grouping does not appear to satisfy this criterion. Criterion A.4 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(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 style valuable to such a study. Within the proposed district are extant examples of properties reflective of the turn-of-century hipped roof cottage and the ubiquitous California Craftsman bungalow. These residential properties have construction dates that range from 1905 to 1925. A few of the homes along the 1200 block of 11th Street are good examples of their style and period such as the modest California Craftsman bungalow at 1223 11th Street and the hipped roof cottage at 1107 Arizona Avenue. The bungalow located at 1218 11th Street, outside of the proposed district boundary, though once individually eligible for local landmark designation is no longer eligible due to inappropriate alterations and compromised historical integrity of material, workmanship, design, and feeling. In addition, the Spanish Colonial Revival style dwelling along Arizona 28 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997, pp.14-16. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 37 Avenue does not appear to warrant further consideration as a component of the grouping as it is outside of the associated architectural stylistic pattern of the historic context and its offset location away from the properties that front west towards the 1200 block of 11th Street visually and physically disassociates itself from the Study Area (despite it being part of the 1107 Arizona Avenue parcel prior to its subdivision). As for rarity or uniqueness of a resource, there are other more intact extant examples of turn- of-the-century hipped roof cottages in the city that still representative this style and would better convey the story of Santa Monica’s residential development history and architectural heritage. Similarly, is the case with the California Craftsman bungalow homes along this section of 11th Street. Though intact, the extant California Craftsman bungalows under review share common elements of the style that are still consistently representative elsewhere in the surrounding area and in other parts of the Town of Santa Monica Tract and the city of Santa Monica in general. Therefore, the proposed district does not appear to satisfy this criterion. Criterion A.5 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. A few of the properties under review were identified with Waldo K. Cowan. Cowan was actively involved in the community and was a local builder/contractor, real estate businessman, and auto dealer. Most of the homes he had built were as speculative housing (including his first personal residence on the street at 1253 11th Street). Though the 1253 11th Street property was eventually demolished for new multi-family construction his second home he built at 1107 Arizona Avenue (1259 11th Street) appears substantially extant. Cowan and his family resided there for roughly seven years before moving to Lancaster. With the current research conducted, there is no clear evidence that connects the 1107 Arizona Avenue property with his professional or civic life (other than he built it and held some social parties there). Mere occupancy association between the house and Cowan’s professional business does not necessarily account for historical significance. From a collective development of residences built by Cowan, because of compromised integrity within the neighborhood there are not enough extant representative examples along the 1200 Block of 11th Street to accurately convey his original concept of plan and design for residential development dating from the first quarter of the twentieth century (under his ownership and development). His few extant contributions to the development of the block date primarily from 1905 to 1911. Therefore, the proposed district does not appear to satisfy this criterion. Within the proposed historic district there are also two Craftsman style bungalows that were built by local contractor Joseph J. Rowe, 1223 11th Street (1910) and 1229 11th Street (1908). Both of these bungalows reflect typical elements of the Craftsman idiom. In reviewing local newspaper accounts, archival data, and building permit history, it appears Rowe was a very active contractor having constructed many cottages and bungalows in the City during the 1900s and 1910s. The Santa Monica Daily Outlook and the Santa Monica Evening Outlook from 1912 both reference some of Rowe’s commissions as “on the north side of the city and also on the 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 38 south side” of town.29 The construction of a bungalow at 16th and Arizona Avenue by Rowe was also noted in the January 6, 1912 Santa Monica Daily Outlook. Most works by Rowe are limited and inconclusive as to his full professional portfolio. However, two other properties in the city by Rowe have been previously identified: 426 Palisades Avenue (1914), an American Foursquare, and 929 Lincoln Boulevard (1916), a Craftsman bungalow that features the unusual use of clinker brick in its front porch walls and piers. This property is also a designated a City landmark. Nonetheless, at this time there is insufficient evidence to suggest or conclude that he was a notable, master builder in Santa Monica. Given the modest size and typical design of the Rowe built bungalows along the 1200 block of 11th Street it is unlikely a prominent architect or designer was involved or was associated with their design. Therefore, the proposed district does not satisfy this criterion in relationship to local builder J. J. Rowe. Criterion A.6 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(A)(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 application of this criterion does not indicate that the collection of older single-family homes has a singular physical characteristic or location rendering it an established or familiar visual feature. It is situated within a neighborhood that is comprised of varied property types, architectural styles, mass and scale, setbacks, and dates of construction. Many of the properties are visually hidden from view due to dense vegetation and/or tall fences. In addition, the infill of parcels with later multi-story, multi-family improvements further disrupts the original spatial organization and historic character of the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed district does not appear to satisfy this criterion. Historic District Criteria Criterion B.1 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(B)(1). Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.56.100(a)(1) through (6). Since the proposed historic district does not appear to meet Criterion 9.56.100(a)(1) through (6), it does not satisfy this criterion. Criterion B.2 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(B)(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 area unified aesthetically by plan, physical development or architectural quality. The block of properties under review does not visually or accurately manifest as a cohesive, unified entity of the early residential development patterns of the Santa Monica that occurred in the area during the first quarter of the twentieth century. In consideration of a thematic grouping based on shared themes of architecture, design, development, and socio-economic composition, those properties that are extant vary in integrity, condition, design principals, workmanship, and construction. The spatial organization of the lots, the different property 29 Santa Monica Daily Outlook, Santa Monica Evening Outlook, April 18, 1912. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 39 types constructed over time, and the varied architectural styles in the neighborhood have visually altered the distinctive development patterns associated with the older properties along this block. Because of the sporadic placement of properties, their varied levels of integrity, the introduction of inappropriate hardscape (street features and conditions, tall fences, irregular streetscape elements, etc.) and softscape features (tall dense landscape obscuring properties from the public right-of-way), and lack of a definable unified area it appears that the neighborhood no longer qualifies as a thematic grouping. Therefore, the proposed district does not satisfy this criterion. Criterion B.3 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(B)(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. As discussed in this report, the neighborhood and study area are comprised of improvements of varying dates of construction, architectural styles, and property types. The older homes along this block initially consisted of hipped roof cottages and bungalows. However, many post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings and condominiums have infilled the area and, therefore, changed the setting and feeling of the neighborhood. The result is a varied residential development pattern lacking unity, cohesiveness, and a distinct concentration of resources. The extensive loss of historic fabric on some of the older extant homes has further compromised the collective historical integrity of the small assemblage of properties that were once identified as part a thematic grouping. In addition, because of its small size and inconsistent composition the proposed district does not accurately or adequately convey an important development “pattern” within the city. It reflects a very small aspect of the city’s overall association with the middle class from the first quarter of the twentieth century, but because of its diminutive, non-cohesive composition does not fully demonstrate this particular socio-economic group as collectively making important contributors to the city’s prosperity. Therefore, the proposed district does not satisfy this criterion. Criterion B.4 (SMMC Section 9.56.100(B)(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. Since the proposed 1200 Block of 11th Street district does not appear to meet Criterion 9.56.100(a)(6), it does not satisfy this criterion. CONCLUSION The 1200 Block of 11th Street neighborhood was previously identified as a small thematic grouping called the 1200 block of 11th Street Cluster under Phase 3 of the survey work completed in 1994. There were nineteen (19) “clusters” of merit that were identified throughout the City as part of that survey effort, including the 1200 block of 11th Street Cluster. Under the 1994 survey, “clusters” were evaluated and identified as ineligible for designation as local historic districts, but eligible for special consideration in local planning. At that time, the 1200 block of 11th Street Cluster contained 12 parcels (properties), seven (7) of which were identified as contributors and five (5) as non-contributors. Under the citywide survey update 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 40 conducted in 2010 the 1200 block of 11th Street Cluster was re-evaluated and identified a total of twelve (12) properties with six (6) “contributors” and one property downgraded due to compromised integrity. The 2010 survey update report also referred to the “cluster” as a potential historic district. Upon completion of the 2018 city-wide survey update, the 1200 block of 11th Street Cluster was once again re-surveyed and re-evaluated. Due to inconsistency with state and federal survey guidelines related to historic districts the 1200 block of 11th Street “cluster” district was found not to meet the necessary survey evaluation registration requirements. Under this current survey assessment, no potential historic district was identified within the 1200 block of 11th Street. Along this stretch of 11th Street no geographically definable area possessing a distinct concentration of historic properties was visually or physically apparent. In addition, based on current research and the above assessment, the proposed district does not appear to be eligible for local historic district designation. The collective grouping of bungalows and cottages lack sufficient architectural merit, direct associations with important personages, and adequate historical integrity to be eligible for local historic district designation. Because of its diminutive size and lack of cohesive continuity it does not sufficiently manifest information regarding the City’s history or residential development patterns. The older housing stock of the 1200 Block of 11th Street neighborhood, like similar dwellings found on neighboring streets in the immediate area and within the overall Town of Santa Monica tract, is associated with the early residential growth of the middle, working class in the Mid-city area and Santa Monica in general during the first quarter of the twentieth century. However, many post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings and condominiums have infilled the area and, therefore, changed the setting, configuration, and feeling of the neighborhood. Visual changes in the character of area due to different architectural styles, types, and periods as well as a decline in the concentration of “contributing” resources have also attributed to the potential district’s ineligibility. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 41 BIBLIOGRAPHY Ames, David L. and Linda Flint McClelland. National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places. Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 2002. Ancestry.com. United States Census records (database on-line): 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940; World War I draft registration records; World War II draft registration records; city directory files; voter’s registration records; birth and death records. Provo, Utah. www.ancestry.com Architectural Resources Group. Landmark and Structure of Merit Preliminary Assessment Report: 1221-1223 11th Street, prepared for the City of Santa Monica, August 2015. Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group. City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Survey Report, prepared for the City of Santa Monica, August 9, 2018. Associated Telephone Company. Santa Monica Exchange City Directory, 1928-1937. Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica – The First 100 Years. Los Angeles: Douglas-West Publishers, 1974 Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica Bay: Paradise by the Sea. Santa Monica: Hennessey+Ingalls, 2000. Blumenson, John. Identifying American Architecture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1989. Brooks, Mel. Young Frankenstein: A Mel Brooks Book, The Story of the Making of the Film. New York: Hachette Books, 2016. Carley, Rachel. The Visual Dictionary of American Domestic Architecture. New York, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1994. City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase I: 1983. Prepared by Paul Gleye and Leslie Heumann, 1986. City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase III. Prepared by Johnson Heumann Research Associates, 1994. City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update, Post Northridge Earthquake. Prepared by Parkinson Field Associates and Janet Tearnen, 1995. City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update – North of Montana Area 2002. Prepared by Historic Resources Group, 2002. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 42 City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update. Prepared by ICF International, 2010. City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Department, Building Permits. Gabriel, Louise B. Early Santa Monica. Chicago, Illinois: Arcadia Publishing, 2006. Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. Architecture in Los Angeles. Salt Lake City, Utah: Peregrine Smith Books, 1985. Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith Publishers, 2003. Goldman, Harry. Kenneth Strickfaden, Dr. Frankenstein’s Electrician. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2005. Heckman, Marlin L. Santa Monica in Vintage Postcards. Chicago, Illinois: Arcadia Publishing, 2002. Historic 11th Street Coalition/Friends of 11th Street. Community Consultants Report (Documentation for 11th Street Historic District). Self-published, prepared by Susan Suntree, Sherrill Kushner, Mario Fonda-Bornardi with photography by Mike Hejjas, April 2017. Historic 11th Street Coalition/Friends of 11th Street. Community Consultants Report (Documentation for 11th Street Historic District). Self-published, prepared by Susan Suntree, Sherrill Kushner, Mario Fonda-Bornardi with photography by Mike Hejjas, April 2017, May 2018. Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll’s Century History: Santa Monica Bay Cities, 1542 to 1908. Los Angeles: Luther A. Ingersoll, 1908. Los Angeles County Tax Assessor. Property Specific Information Records. Los Angeles Public Library, On-line historical and image archives. Marquez, Ernest. Santa Monica Beach: A Collector’s Pictorial History. Los Angeles: Angel City Press, 2004. McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990. McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: An Island on the Land. Salt Lake City, Utah: Peregrine Smith Books, 1946, Revised 1988. National Trust for Historic Preservation. A Guide to Delineating Edges of Historic Districts. Washington, D.C.: Preservation Press, 1976. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 43 No Author. “Santa Monica Bay News Scene of Great Activity,” Los Angeles Times, July 16, 1911, IV11. No Author. “Along the Coast,” Los Angeles Times, January 1, 1916, IV107. No Author. The Daily Outlook. April 18, 1912. No Author. “List of Letters.” The Daily Outlook, May 5, 1913, p.6. No Author. “For Sale: Real Estate.” The Daily Outlook, July 18, 1913, p.2. No Author. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. January 6, 1912. No Author. “Contractor Dies After Illness of Short Duration,” Santa Monica Evening Outlook. January 5, 1925. PCR Services Corporation. Landmark Assessment Report: 927-929 Lincoln Avenue, Santa Monica, California, prepared for the City of Santa Monica, August 2007. Polk & Company. Polk’s Santa Monica City Directory. Los Angeles County (various years). ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881-1988). Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Public Library, Santa Monica Index. Santa Monica Public Library, Santa Monica Image Archives. Scott, Paul A. Santa Monica: A History on the Edge. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing, 2004. Shelley, Mary, Leslie S. Klinger, ed. The New Annotated Frankenstein. New York: Liveright Publishing Corporation, 2017. Skal, David J. Screams of Reason: Mad Science and Modern Culture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1998. Storrs, Les. Santa Monica, Portrait of a City, 1875-1975. Santa Monica: Santa Monica Bank, 1874. Tibbetts, John C. and James M. Welsh. American Classic Screen Profiles. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2010. United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 44 United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997. United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997. United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin: Historic Residential Suburbs, Guidelines for Evaluation and Documentation for the National Register of Historic Places. Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 2002. United States Department of the Interior. Preservation Brief 17. “Architectural Character – Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character.” Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1982 rev. 1988. Upton, Dell, and John Michael Vlach. Common Place: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1986. Warren, Charles S. ed. History of the Santa Monica Bay Region. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1934. Warren, Charles S. ed. Santa Monica Blue Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1941. Warren, Charles S. ed. Santa Monica Community Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1944. Whiffen, Marcus. American Architecture since 1780: A Guide to the Styles. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999. White, Col. Carl F. ed. Santa Monica Community Book (Fifth Edition). Santa Monica: Cawston, 1953. 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 45 APPENDIX Regional Location Map Historic District Assessment Map Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (1902, 1909, 1918, 1950) Photographs DPR Inventory Forms: 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster (1992) Tract Maps, Town of Santa Monica Town of Santa Monica Tract, Pre-1925 Residential Properties List 1200 Block 11th Street Historic District Assessment Report page 46 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. 1.1 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles1.1 Notes Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.570 1:36,111 CSMENT.DBO.city World Street Map 12 0 0 Bl o c k 11 t h St r e e t Ne i g h b o r h o o d Pr o p o s e d 12 0 0 Bl o c k 11 t h St r e e t Di s t r i c t Pr o p o s e d Co n t r i b u t o r SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, Santa Monica 1200 Block of 11th Street July 1902= INTACT PROPERTY SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, Santa Monica 1200 Block of 11th Street April 1909 = INTACT PROPERTY SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, Santa Monica 1200 Block of 11th Street 1918 = INTACT PROPERTY SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, Santa Monica 1200 Block of 11th Street 1918, Feb 1950 paste-up = INTACT PROPERTY PROPOSED 1200 BLOCK 11TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT BOUNDARY AERIAL: 1200 block 11th Street (Bing Map, 2014) AERIAL: 1200 block 11th Street (Google 2018) PROPOSED 1200 BLOCK 11TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT: PROPERTIES UNDER REVIEW 1215 11TH STREET (1962) 1218 11TH STREET (1914, 1921, 1956) 1223 (1221) 11TH STREET (1911, 1955) 1227 11TH STREET (1957) 1229 11TH STREET (1908, 1912, 1921) 1233 11TH STREET (1905, 1924) PROPOSED 1200 BLOCK 11TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT: PROPERTIES UNDER REVIEW 1239 11TH STREET (1905, 1934) 1247 11TH STREET (1955) 1253 11TH STREET (1992) 1107 ARIZONA AVENUE (1907) 1109 ARIZONA AVENUE (1911) 1115 ARIZONA AVENUE (1925) PROPOSED 1200 BLOCK 11TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT: PROPERTIES UNDER REVIEW 1233 11TH STREET (c1905) [MODIFIED TO COLONIAL REVIVAL BUNGALOW] 1233 11TH STREET (2017) TOWN OF SANTA MONICA TRACT MAP (portion thereof) TOWN OF SANTA MONICA TRACT MAP (portion thereof) 1200 Block 11th Street TOWN OF SANTA MONICA TRACT, PRE-1925 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (estimation) Address Street APN Style/Type DOC 838 2nd Street 4292025006 Craftsman Bungalow 1912; 1940 842 2nd Street 4292025007 Craftsman Bungalow 1907; 1955 1042 2nd Street 4292027010 Mediterranean Revival 4 plex 1921; 1948 803 3rd Street 4292017025 Craftsman Bungalow 1924; 1949 907 4th Street 4292015023 Craftsman Bungalow 1910 917 4th Street 4292015021 Craftsman Bungalow 1911 921 4th Street 4292015020 Craftsman Bungalow 1903 1033 4th Street 4292014015 Craftsman Bungalow 1913 1043 4th Street 4292014013 Craftsman Bungalow 1902 804 5th Street 4292016001 Craftsman Bungalow 1925 811 5th Street 4292009024 Craftsman Bungalow 1912 834 5th Street 4292016007 Craftsman Bungalow 1911 837 5th Street 4292009019 Mediterranean Revival 1924 947 5th Street 4292010014 Spanish Colonial Revival 1923 954 5th Street 4292015011 Hipped Roof Cottage 1906 1005 5th Street 4292011021 Craftsman Bungalow 1906 1018 5th Street 4292014004 Craftsman Bungalow 1912 1038 5th Street 4292014008 Vernacular Bungalow 1910; 1931 1056 5th Street 4292014011 Queen Anne Cottage 1903; 1921 1011 6th Street 4292006019 Hipped Roof Cottage 1907 1038 6th Street 4292011008 Craftsman Bungalow 1908 1108 6th Street 4292012002 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1919 1138 6th Street 4292012009 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1921 1433 6th Street 4291020017 Hipped Roof Cottage 1922 1453 6th Street 429120013 Hipped Roof Cottage 1921; 1989 1437 6th Street 4291020016 Queen Anne Cottage 1898 822 7th Street 4292008005 Craftsman Bungalow 1922 828 7th Street 4292008006 Craftsman Bungalow 1923 833 7th Street 4292001018 Spanish Colonial Revival 1921 927 7th Street 4292002018 English Revival Court 1921 953 7th Street 4292002013 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1922 957 7th Street 4292002012 English Revival Bungalow 1925 1124 7th Street 4292005004 Hipped Roof Cottage 1907 1423 7th Street 4291021024 Queen Anne 1898 1457 7th Street 4291021016 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1922 857 9th Street 4281031013 Craftsman Bungalow 1921 1047 9th Street 4281029014 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1923 1221 9th Street 4282008018 Mission Revival Court 1923 1303 9th Street 4282011027 Craftsman Bungalow 1913 1321 9th Street 4282011023 Renaissance Revival 1924 847 10th Street 4281024016 Craftsman Bungalow 1919 948 10th Street 4281030011 Spanish Colonial Revival 1923 949 10th Street 4281025014 Craftsman Bungalow 1916 1112 10th Street 4282025019 Craftsman Bungalow 1911; 1938 1118 10th Street 4281028004 Spanish Colonial Revival 1925 1322 10th Street 4282011006 Hipped Roof Cottage 1908; 1924 1328 10th Street 4282011007 Hipped Roof Cottage 1906 1330 10th Street 4282011008 Hipped Roof Cottage 1906; 1948 TOWN OF SANTA MONICA TRACT, PRE-1925 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (estimation) 1348 10th Street 4282011011 Craftsman Bungalow 1915 1423 10th Street 4282025022 Vernacular Duplex 1912; 1914; 1922 1437 10th Street 4282025019 Craftsman Bungalow 1911; 1938 921 11th Street 4281022023 Spanish Colonial Revival 1923 941 11th Street 4281022019 Spanish Colonial Revival 1925 1144 11th Street 4281027010 Craftsman Bungalow 1912 1218 11th Street 4282007004 Craftsman Bungalow 1914 1221 11th Street 4282006022 Craftsman Bungalow 1911 1229 11th Street 4282006020 Craftsman Bungalow 1908 1233 11th Street 4282006019 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1924 1239 11th Street 4282006018 Hipped Roof Cottage 1905 1343 11th Street 4282013014 Spanish Colonial Revival 1924 1518 11th Street 4282030004 Craftsman Bungalow 1914 1111 12th Street 4281019018 Colonial Revival Bungalow Court 1922 1304 12th Street 4282013001 Italianate Revival Bungalow 1910 1322 12th Street 4282013005 Hipped Roof Cottage 1905 1448 12th Street 4282024011 Vernacular Bungalow 1907; 1922 1453 12th Street 4282023012 Craftsman Bungalow 1909; 1958 812 14th Street 4281015003 Craftsman Bungalow Court 1923 1238 14th Street 4282004007 Craftsman Bungalow 1913 1339 14th Street 4282016016 Late Queen Anne 1905; 1922; 1922 1513 14th Street 4282034018 Craftsman Bungalow 1910 1121 15th Street 4281005018 Spanish Colonial Revival 1925 1329 15th Street 4282017016 Vernacular Bungalow 1907 1523 15th Street 4282035018 Vernacular Bungalow 1909; 1923 1124 16th Street 4281005006 Spanish Colonial Revival 1924 1754 16th Street 4283012010 Craftsman Bungalow 1922 1235 17th Street 4276011014 Dutch Colonial 1910 1307 17th Street 4276030021 Spanish Colonial Apt Court 1923 1527 17th Street 4275012020 Craftsman Bungalow 1923; 1920 1248 18th Street 4276011007 Craftsman Bungalow 1914 1221 19th Street 4276013026 Minimal Traditional Court 1923; 1924 1224 20th Street 4276013028 Craftsman Bungalow 1922 720 Arizona Avenue 4291008003 Craftsman Bungalow 1922 1107 Arizona Avenue 4282006015 Hipped Roof Cottage 1907 1115 Arizona Avenue 4282006013 Spanish Colonial Revival 1925 1006 Broadway 4282030025 Spanish Colonial Revival 1924 1012 Broadway 4282030023 Spanish Colonial Revival 1925 610 California Avenue 4292005022 Craftsman Bungalow 1912 826 California Avenue 4281035002 Spanish Colonial Revival 1923 832 California Avenue 4281035001 Craftsman Bungalow 1921 908 California Avenue 4281028024 Craftsman Bungalow 1922 1015 California Avenue 4281026021 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1924 1122 California Avenue 4281020024 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1922 1128 California Avenue 4281020002 English Revival Craftsman 1923 1620 California Avenue 4281004024 Spanish Colonial Revival 1925 1626 California Avenue 4281004002 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1923 514 Idaho Avenue 4292010023 Craftsman Bungalow 1915 522 Idaho Avenue 4292010001 Spanish Colonial Revival 1922 1414 Idaho Avenue 4281010023 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1923 TOWN OF SANTA MONICA TRACT, PRE-1925 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (estimation) 917 Lincoln Boulevard 4281033020 Italian Renaissance Revival Apt 1924 929 Lincoln Boulevard 4281033018 Craftsman Bungalow 1916 933 Lincoln Boulevard 4281033017 Craftsman Bungalow 1915 942 Lincoln Boulevard 4292002009 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1922 948 Lincoln Boulevard 4292002010 Colonial Revival Bungalow 1921 1033 Lincoln Boulevard 4281034019 Spanish Colonial Revival 1923 815 Ocean Avenue 4292025014 Craftsman Bungalow 1911 927 Ocean Avenue 4292026018 Mission Revival Bungalow 1922 933 Ocean Avenue 4292026017 Spanish Colonial Revival Apt 1925 1045 Ocean Avenue 4292027011 Colonial Revival Apt 1922 1323 Ocean Avenue 4291014019 Queen Anne 1891 1333 Ocean Avenue 4291014017 Queen Anne 1906 624 Washington Avenue 4292006001 Tudor Revival Apt 1925 919 Wilshire Boulevard 4281028026 Craftsman Bungalow 1913 OSTASHAY & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING PO BOX 542 LONG BEACH, CA 90801 562.500.9451 1 M E M O R A N D U M PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING DIVISION DATE: November 12, 2018 TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Proposed 11th Street Historic District (18ENT-0166) Consideration of recommendation to City Council regarding a new proposed historic district on 11th Street consisting of certain properties located along the east side of 11th Street, between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (1221-1253 11th Street), and properties along the north side of Arizona Avenue between 11 th Street and 11th Court Alley (1107-1115 Arizona Avenue). PROPERTY OWNERS: Various APPLICANT: Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND An historic district application was filed by the Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors organization, in coordination with the Friends of 11 th Street Coalition. The Commission will be conducting a public hearing to discuss the proposed historic district on 11th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue and provide a recommendation to the City Council for consideration. On April 12, 2017, district proponents Friends of 11th Street (“Friends”) submitted documentation regarding a potential historic district to include several bungalow properties on 11th Street (updated as Attachment B). At the June 12, 2017 Landmarks Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the potential historic district and directed staff to have a professional historic preservation consultant prepare a preliminary historic district assessment of the 1200 block of 11th Street. As directed by the Commission, the City’s professional historic preservation consultant, Ostashay and Associates Consulting, prepared a preliminary assessment of a potential 11th Street historic district (Attachment C). The preliminary assessment studied the 2 potential district boundary area identified as a potential City of Santa Monica historic district (cluster) in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory survey, prior to the most recent update in 2018. This study area was consistent with the boundaries highlighted in the Friends of 11th Street documentation. The preliminary assessment did not find sufficient information that the collective grouping of the 1200 Block of 11 th Street Cluster appeared to possess sufficient architectural merit, direct associations with important personages, and adequate historical integrity to be eligible for local historic district designation. At the January 8, 2018 Landmarks Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the preliminary assessment and requested additional information regarding the uniqueness of this particular cluster within the larger underlying Town of Santa Monica Tract in efforts to provide the broader historical context of the extant early housing stock, including a study of whether the subject bungalows in the 1200 block 11th Street grouping were some of the last remaining in the Town of Santa Monica Tract. The consultant conducted additional research into the historical development and early architectural composition of the Town of Santa Monica Tract as it relates to the residential development of the 1200 block 11th Street grouping of properties under review built prior to 1925. Prior to a subsequent discussion by the Commission to discuss the findings of this additional research, the subject historic district application was filed on June 7, 2018, precluding any further preliminary discussions on the proposal by the Commission. Ostashay and Associates Consulting prepared a complete Historic District assessment of a potential 11th Street historic district and analyzed the proposed district boundaries based on the designation criterion established by the Landmarks Ordinance (Attachment D). The assessment concludes that the proposed historic district does not appear to satisfy the criterion for designation, as further outlined in this report. Historic District Entitlement Procedures Section 9.56.130 of the Landmarks Ordinance mandates a review procedure with established timeframes for completion as outlined below. Although the Ordinance requires at least one public information/community meeting immediately following the application submittal, a second meeting was held on September 24, 2018 for interested persons unable to attend the first meeting held on July 30, 2018 during the mid-summer. June 7, 2018 Historic District Application Submitted and Determined to be Complete No permits will be issued to any property within the proposed district while application is pending; however, exceptions for repair work can be granted. 3 July 30, 2018 Public Information/Community Meeting Santa Monica Public Library (no later than August 7, 2018) Notice in Newspaper Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary 57 Participants September 24, 2018 2nd Public Information Meeting Santa Monica Public Library Notice in Newspaper Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary 19 Participants November 12, 2018 Landmarks Commission Recommendation Hearing (To be held no earlier than 45 days after Public Information Meeting, but no more than 180 days after the filing of a Complete application) Notice in Newspaper Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary The Landmarks Commission must make a recommendation within 45 days of its initial hearing date or the application is deemed DISAPPROVED. (no later than December 27, 2018) December 18, 2018 (tentatively scheduled) City Council Public Hearing To be held within 45 days from Landmarks Commission recommendation (no later than December 27, 2018, if the Commission makes a recommendation on November 12th) Notice in Newspaper Notice Mailing to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary The City Council must make a determination within 45 days of its initial hearing date or the application is deemed DISAPPROVED. (no later than February 1, 2019) Historic Districts are approved by Ordinance 4 Public Information/Community Meeting Summary As mandated by the Landmarks Ordinance, staff conducted a community meeting on Monday, July 30, 2018 at 6:30pm at the Santa Monica Main Library. Approximately 57 members of the public were in attendance. Due to the community meeting scheduled during mid-summer based on the review timeframes established by the Ordinance, a second community meeting was held on September 24, 2018 for interested person s unable to attend the first meeting held in July. Approximately 19 members of the public were in attendance at the second meeting. For both meetings, staff provided an overview of the proposed 11th Street Historic District, the Historic District review procedures, how the designation would affect properties, and preservation incentives for contributing properties in a Historic District. Comments were provided in support of the proposed historic district in efforts to recognizing the bungalow- style residences of the area, and there were questions from property owners regarding the Mills Act and other perservation benefits available to contributing properties. Additionally, the Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors (applicant) hosted a community meeting on September 18, 2018 at the Colorado Center with approximately 20 persons in attendance. Participants provided comments in support of the proposed historic district. Public Correspondence Public correspondence provided to the City prior to the completion of this report is attached. Correspondence in support of the proposed district is provided as Attachment F, and correspondence from affected property owners in opposition of the proposed district is provided as Attachment G. PROPOSED 11TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT The proposed 11th Street bungalow historic district application (Attachment B) includes the purpose/reasons for designation comprised of a narrative on the history of the area, architectural significance of the proposed district, and person(s) of historic importance within the proposed study area. A narrative on the historic development of the underlying Santa Monica Tract originally consisting of bungalow-type residences for middle-class residents and changing development patterns is provided in Appendix 3 of the application. Appendix 4 outlines the statement on the architectural significance of the proposed district describing features of the subject bungalows, residences considered to be contributing buildings of the potential district, and a summary of their prior alterations. Appendix 5 includes a statement on persons of importance related to the subject properties within the study area including historic background information on personages. Proposed District Boundaries/Study Area Although the documentation included in the historic district application and in the prior 2017 Friends of 11th Street report discusses a potential district boundary consisting of 12 properties, the study area was narrowed to include 10 properties upon the application submittal. As shown on Figure 1 below, the proposed historic district on 11th Street consists of certain properties located along the east side of 11th Street, between Wilshire 5 Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (1221-1253 11th Street), and properties along the north side of Arizona Avenue between 11th Street and 11th Court Alley (1107-1115 Arizona Avenue). Figure 1 – Proposed District Study Area/Boundaries The proposed district “study area” or boundaries consist of the following 10 properties: - 1221-1223 11th Street (Craftsman Bungalow) - 1227 11th Street - 1229 11th Street (Craftsman Bungalow) - 1233 11th Street (Hipped Roof Cottage w/Colonial Revival details) - 1239 11th Street (Hipped-Roof Cottage w/Colonial Revival details) - 1247 11th Street - 1253 11th Street - 1107 Arizona Avenue (Hipped-Roof Cottage w/Colonial Revival details) - 1109 Arizona Avenue (Craftsman Bungalow) - 1115 Arizona Avenue (Spanish Colonial Revival) Both the applicant’s report (Attachment B) and the Historic District Assessment prepared by Ostashay and Associates (Attachment D) provides a property description on the seven (7) pre-World War II era residential properties (bungalows) identified by the applicant as contributors to the proposed historic district. Each summary consists of an architectural description and permit history of the property, and background information on the previous owners and occupants. Neighborhood Context: 1200 Block of 11th Street The 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood contains single-unit residences and multi-unit apartments and condominium buildings. Buildings in the area are predominately one and two stories with the tallest two three-story condominiums at the south end of the block. Construction dates of the improvements vary from as early as 1905 through 1996. Most of the west side of the 1200 block is developed with post -World War II era multi-story 6 apartment buildings with only a single bungalow extant at 1218 11th Street. The east side of the street contains early single-unit residences set at the front of the parcels, several with additional residences in the rear, with post World War II era apartments infilling the adjacent lots. Architectural styles present along this portion of the street include California Craftsman Bungalow, Hipped Roof Cottage, Spanish Colonial Revival, Minimal Traditional, and Contemporary Vernacular. Of the 18 tota l parcels along this block of 11th Street (inclusive of the 10 properties within the proposed district boundaries), ten (56%) were built with improvements post-dating World War II. The 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood and adjacent residential area adhere to a grid-like street network and are divided into a series of rectilinear blocks and parcels that are fairly uniform in size and shape. The area was once developed with modest one-story, single-family dwellings until the mid-1950s when two-story apartment buildings began replacing many of the homes along this street and others in the immediate neighborhood. This development of multi-family structures continued well into the mid-1990s and beyond. A few of the larger multi-family residences occupy two lots thereby disrupting the uniformity of the original subdivision parcel dimensions of 50 by 150’ feet. Because of the later infill of modern apartments/condominiums, the setbacks along this block of the street are somewhat irregular with concrete sidewalks paralleling both sides of the street. The 11th Street thoroughfare is a single-lane street in both directions with dedicated parallel parking and bicycle lanes along the east and west sides of the street. Over the years, its characteristics have changed from a rather quiet, calmer residential street to more of a collector street, thereby affecting the historic context, feeling, and se tting of the residential street. Period of Significance Historic resources are identified as being significant during a specified period of time, referred to as the “period of significance.” The period of significance of the proposed 11th Street historic district is identified as 1905-1925, which spans the original period of construction of all previously identified “contributing” bungalow properties within the Study Area. Properties constructed after 1925 would be considered non-contributing buildings to the proposed district as lacking characteristics of the bungalow residence described as a modest, one- or one-and one-half story residence with simple exteriors and use of natural materials. Seven (7) of the 10 properties in the study area were constructed within the period of significance. Previous Surveys and Evaluations The 1200 Block of 11th Street has been previously evaluated as part of the City’s on-going historic resource survey efforts, and further detailed on page 11 of the Ostashay and Associates report (Attachment D). Through historic resources survey work completed in 1994 (Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Phase 3), the 1200 block of 11th Street neighborhood was identified as a small potential thematic “cluster” identified as the 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster. 7 Under the 2010 Citywide Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) Update, five (5) contributing properties to the potential 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster were identified within the proposed study area/boundaries. The property located 1239 11th Street was downgraded from the prior survey to non-contributor status due to compromised integrity. Contributing properties were assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code of 5D3. Upon completion of the 2018 city-wide survey update, the potential 1200 Block of 11th Street Cluster was removed from the City’s Historic Resources Inventory due to inconsistency with state and federal survey guidelines related to historic districts, particularly because of their diminutive size an d inability to convey sufficient information about “patterns” of history and development. The contributing properties within the previously identified potential “cluster” were instead evaluated as potential individual resources. Four (4) of the properties previously surveyed within the proposed study area/boundaries were revised as potentially eligible for listing as individual Santa Monica Landmarks (assigned a status code of 5S3). According to the 2018 survey findings, the se properties (with additional research conducted and assessment of integrity) may be potentially individually significant for conveying patterns of residential development that helped shape the Mid-City area of the city in the early decades of the twentieth century. The property at 1115 Arizona Avenue, previously identified as a potential district contributor, was downgraded to a 6L (ineligible for local review, may warrant special planning consideration). Therefore, four (4) of the 10 properties identified in the proposed study area/boundaries are listed on the updated HRI. ANALYSIS Historic Context Parcels within and around the 1200 block of 11th Street were vacant until the early 20th century. Based on a 1902 Sanborn map, the entire east side of 11th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue was undeveloped with only two residences constructed on the west side of the street. The 1909 Sanborn map depicts the area well developed with 16 modest single-unit hipped roof cottages. Much of this early development and residential growth was directly linked to the expanding network of streetcar lines in Santa Monica and nearby Los Angeles, which enabled suburban growth outside of the city’s central core. By 1918, the block was fully developed with Craftsma n bungalows. Similar to the surrounding neighborhood, this block of 11 th Street was also constructed for the middle class with moderate incomes. Because of their relative economy, bungalows addressed a growing need for affordable housing during the 1910s and 1920s. Following the real estate boom of the 1920s, many of the property owners constructed second units behind or adjacent to their main homes for extra income or extended family. The properties along the 1200 block of 11th Street were no different and a number of owners constructed 8 detached rental units in the ensuing years. In terms of reflecting historic residential development patterns in the City, the neighborhood was one of numerous examples o f the proliferation of single-unit dwellings in the Santa Monica Townsite. The architectural styles of choice for the smaller homes at the time were typically either the popular California Craftsman bungalow or Spanish Colonial Revival. During the 1920s and 1930s, multi-unit buildings also began replacing smaller homes throughout a number of neighborhoods. These trends intensified in the post-World War II era, with the removal of many modest bungalows for the development of large -scale apartment buildings and condominiums. The 1200 block of 11th Street underwent substantial redevelopment beginning in the late 1950s and through the 1960s and 1970s, and in later decades. Similar to the middle class residents of the Mid-City neighborhood in general, the early owners and occupants of the residential improvements along the 1200 block of 11th Street and adjacent residential streets also held various blue and white collar jobs. Their social and economic status was very similar to those other middle-class residents living elsewhere in the town of Santa Monica and in neighboring communities throughout the southland. Despite continued redevelopment into the modern era, there are still extant pockets of residential neighborhoods throughout the Town of Santa Monica Tract (as detailed later in this report), the Mid-city area and the city overall that reflect aspects of the community’s association with the early working (middle) class and the overall diverse residential development of Santa Monica. Because of its small size and inconsistent composition, the proposed 11th Street district does not accurately or adequately convey an important development “pattern” within the City. It reflects a very small aspect of the City’s overall association with the middle class from the first quarter of the twentieth century, but because of its diminutive, non-cohesive composition, does not fully demonstrate this particular socio-economic group as collectively making important contributions to the City. Associated Builders, Contractors, and Residents Many of the residences constructed on the 1200 block of 11th Street during the early 20th century were the result of local building contractor and real estate entrepreneur Waldo K. Cowan, who built one of his homes at 1253 11th Street in 1905 (now demolished) and later at 1259 11th Street. Most of the dwellings he constructed along this street and elsewhere in the community were speculative real estate investments, including his own on 11th Street. From a collective development of residences constructed by Cowan, because of compromised integrity within the ne ighborhood, there are limited extant representative examples along the 1200 Block of 11th Street to accurately convey his original concept of plan and design for residential development dating from the first quarter of the twentieth century (under his ownership and development). His few extant contributions to the development of the block date primarily from 1905 to 1911. Within the proposed historic district are two Craftsman style bungalows that were contructed by local contractor Joseph J. Rowe; 1223 11 th Street (1910) and 1229 11th Street (1908). Both of these bungalows reflect typical elements of the Craftsman idiom. Rowe was a very active contractor having constructed many cottages and bungalows in 9 the City during the 1900s and 1910s. Most works by Rowe are limited and inconclusive as to his full professional portfolio. However, two other properties in the City by Rowe have been previously identified: 426 Palisades Avenue (1914), an American Foursquare, and 929 Lincoln Boulevard (1916), a Craftsman bungalow that features the unusual use of clinker brick in its front porch walls and piers. This property is also a designated a City Landmark. Nonetheless, there is insufficient evidence to suggest or conclude that he was a notable, master builder in Santa Monica. Given the modest size and typical design of the Rowe built bungalows along the 1200 block of 11th Street, it is unlikely a prominent architect or designer was involved or was associated with their designs. No evidence was found to indicate that any former owners or occupants of the subject properties within the study area were associated with any important historical events in local, state, or national history. Although there is evidence to associate the rear garage/workshop at 1223 11th Street with special effects master Ken Strickfaden’s early endeavors into his electrical special effects profession, such association was lost when the structure was demolished and replaced in 1955 with a residential apartment building. Furthermore, much of his research for his professional work was conducted in his home garage located at 1348 15th Street, after he moved out from the 11th Street property. According to standard industry practice, a property that pre- or post-dates an individual’s significant accomplishments are typically not considered eligible. Strickfaden’s residence at the time of creating the sets and props for the 1931 film “Frankenstein” and other motion pictures and television shows would more closely be associated with the life, profession, and accomplishments of Ken Strickfaden. Proposed Historic District The proposed district is comprised of ten (10) parcels, five (5) of which are considered potential contributors that are substantially intact improvements that date from the area’s period of significance (1905-1925). Two (2) of the ten (10) buildings have been inappropriately altered and no longer accurately convey their historic character. One of those properties, 1109 Arizona Avenue, was never previously recorded or documented in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. The applicant has proposed these buildings or structures be considered contributing buildings or structures to the District, referring to them as “altered contributors”. The remaining three (3) properties are improvements constructed after the area’s period of significance. As described in the application, the proposed district would be comprised of seven (7) potential contributors and three potential non-contributors (a district composition of 70% contributors). As an option, the applicant also considered omitting the “altered” contributors, which would then equate to five (5) contributors and five (5) non-contributors (a district composition of 50% contributors). In addition to having a majority of contributing properties within a potential district, a district should have sufficient historical integrity and possess si gnificance as a whole. Overall, the district must be able to visually and physically convey its sense of time, place, historical development and authenticity from its period of significance. 10 As currently developed with a variety of improvements from variou s periods with varying degrees of historical integrity, the small collection of residential improvements along the narrowly defined proposed district boundary does not appear to be a distinct concentration of resources developed with more than a majority of its contributors. The two properties identified by the applicant as “altered contributors” have been extensively modified and no longer accurately convey their original historic character. There fore, these properties were identified as “non-contributors” in the OAC report. Under this scenario, the proposed district would result in five (5) contributors out of a total of ten (10) properties within the proposed district boundary (fifty percent composition of contributors). The following table provides a summary of this analysis. Address Description District Status Year Built 1 1221-1223 11th Street Single-family, Apartment Contributor 1910, 1955 2 1227 11th Street Apartment Building Non-contributor 1957 3 1229 11th Street Single-family Contributor 1908, 1912, 1921 4 1233 11th Street Single-family Contributor 1905, 1924 5 1239 11th Street Single-family Non-contributor 1905, 1934 6 1247 11th Street Apartment Building Non-contributor 1955 7 1253 11th Street Condominium Non-contributor 1992 8 1107 Arizona Avenue Single-family Contributor 1907 9 1109 Arizona Avenue Single-family Non-contributor 1911 10 1115 Arizona Avenue Single-family Contributor 1925 As stated in the 2018 citywide historic resources inventory update report regarding the identification and evaluations of “clusters”, such small groupings of resources typically do not convey sufficient information about patterns of history and development. The 1200 block of 11th Street was originally developed with hipped roof cottages and bungalows. However, many post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings and condominiums have infilled the area resulting in a change in the historic setting and feeling of the neighborhood. The spatial organization of the parcels, the different property types constructed over time, and the varied architectural styles in the neighborhood have visually altered the distinctive development patterns associated with the older properties remaining within the study area. The result is a varied residential development pattern lacking unity, cohesiveness, and a distinct concentration of resources. The extensive loss of historic fabric on some of the older extant residences have further compromised the collective historical integrity of the small assemblage of properties that were once identified as part a thematic grouping. The properties under review do not visually or accurately manifest as a cohesive, unified entity of the early residential development 11 patterns of the Santa Monica that occurred in the area during the first quarter of the twentieth century. Contextual Analysis: Town of Santa Monica Tract OAC researched the historical development and early architectural composition of the proposed district’s underlying Town of Santa Monica Tract as it rela tes to the residential development pattern of the 1200 block of 11th Street and its associated properties under review that were constructed prior to 1925. This research was intended to provide a greater understanding of the quantity of bungalows remaining in the area and determine if any one particular style or property type should be considered a rare example. The Town of Santa Monica Tract covers an expansive area of the city, with its boundaries defined roughly as the south side of Montana to the north, the north side of Colorado Boulevard to the south, the east side of Ocean Avenue to the west, and along the western side of 17th Street from Montana Avenue to Wilshire Boulevard as well as up to 20th Street to Colorado for the eastern border. As a result of redevelopment, the character of many of the neighborhoods within the Town of Santa Monica Tract have changed from 1910s hipped roof cottages and 1920s bungalows to neighborhoods with a mixture of early modest cottages, bungalows, 1920s and 1930s Period Revival homes, 1950s and 1960s apartment buildings, and modern condominiums and commercial buildings. The historical integrity of the contextual setting of the immediate area surrounding the subject 1200 block of 11th Street grouping and much of the Town of Santa Monica Tract have been compromised by this development. Nonetheless, the Tract still includes diversity of property types and styles. Properties erected within the Town of Santa Monica Tract during the identified period of significance of 1905 to 1925 were researched and studied. OAC’s report identifies extant residential properties in the Town of Santa Monica Tract that were constructed prior to and including 1925 by address and architectural style. As described in the report, there are several remaining small pockets of older housing stock from the first period of the 20th century within the tract, and extant properties constructed prior to this time scattered throughout the tract as well. These early residential properties were constructed in one of several varied styles, including the Hipped Roof Cottage (13), Queen Anne (4), Craftsman (45), Spanish Colonial (22), and Period Revival (27) variants. Based on this research and survey, it appears that the 1200 block of 11th Street group ing, as well as other similar pockets of bungalows remain within the tract, and the tract in general consists of a varied collection of early residences constructed for and by, in many cases, the working and middle-class residents of the City. Evaluation of Historic District Designation Criteria The Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to review the potential district’s eligibility based on the criteria discussed below and provide a recommendation to the City Council for consideration. The City’s historic consultant believes that the proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District is ineligible as a historic district and does not meet one or more of the criteria for designation as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and 12 9.56.100(B). Staff agrees with the assessment provided by the City’s consultant, OAC, and recommends the following findings: 9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. Although the proposed study area is associated with an earlier period of the City’s residential development history, it does not appear to satisfy this criterion due to compromised historical integrity of many of its resources and t he neighborhood in general. Because of its small size and inconsistent composition, the proposed district does not accurately or adequately convey an important development pattern within the City. It reflects a very small aspect of the City’s overall association with the middle-class from the first quarter of the twentieth century, but because of its diminutive non-cohesive composition, does not fully demonstrate this particular socio-economic group as collectively making important contributions to the City. Furthermore, there are still extant pockets of residential neighborhoods throughout the Town of Santa Monica Tract, the Mid -city area and the city overall that reflect aspects of the community’s association with the early working (middle) class and the overall diverse residential development of Santa Monica. Though this little assemblage of residences is part of the City’s history, it does not on its own manifest historic elements. The study area does not appear to be a geographically definable area possessing a distinct concentration of historic properties. The block is densely developed comprised primarily of large-scale, post-World War II era multi-story apartment buildings that are interspersed with modest single-unit residences dating from the 1900s, 1920s, and 1930s. Three (3) of the ten (10) properties within the study area are developed with multi-unit residential buildings constructed after the district’s period of significance (1905-1925). The overall period of construction along this block was built over a period of time spanning from rou ghly 1905 to 1996. This sporadic development is evident in the variety, type, and size of existing residential improvements and architectural styles. Contextually, the properties within the study area vary in building type, setbacks, scale and massing forms, and levels of historical integrity. Some of the bungalow properties are screened by fencing and landscaping and are not clearly visible from the sidewalk and streets. These characteristics provide a sense of disconnect between the bungalow and multi-unit properties, and a lack of cohesiveness and uniformity within the study area, further emphasized when viewing these properties within the context of the entire 1200 block of 11th Street. As a result of this lack of uniformity, concentration, and cohesiveness, the association of themes is not accurately visually or physically conveyed. Therefore, the proposed district does not exemplify the neighborhood’s early development pattern, and this particular grouping of bungalows does not uniquely exemplify the middle-class in Santa Monica during the first quarter of the twentieth century. 13 9.56.100(A)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The proposed historic district consists of properties reflecting various architectural styles and property types. The subject bungalows are typical examples of their architectural styles and lack stylistic articulation and design qualities. The subject properties do not possess aesthetic or artistic value, and therefore the proposed district does not satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with impor tant events in local, state, or national history. No evidence was found to indicate that any former owners or occupants of the subject properties within the study area were associated with any important historical events in local, state, or national history that would merit consideration under this criterion. Although there is evidence to associate the rear garage/workshop at 1223 11th Street with special effects master Ken Strickfaden’s early endeavors into his electrical special effects profession, such association was lost when the structure was demolished and replaced in 1955 with a residential apartment building. Furthermore, much of his research for his professional work was conducted in his home garage located at 1348 15th Street, after he moved out from the 11th Street property. According to standard industry practice, a property that pre- or post-dates an individual’s significant accomplishments are typically not considered eligible. Strickfaden’s residence at the time of creating the sets and props for the 1931 film “Frankenstein” and other motion pictures and television shows would more closely be associated with the life, profession, and accomplishments of Ken Strickfaden. Therefore, the proposed district is not associated with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history, and therefore does not appear to satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(A)(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. Although the subject district includes a few good extant examples of properties reflective of the turn-of-century hipped roof cottage and the ubiquitous California Craftsman-style architecture from 1905 to 1925, these bungalows are relatively simple in design and typical examples of the period, and do not embody distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a stud y of their respective architectural styles. Based on extent examples of turn-of-century hipped roof cottages and Craftsman-style residences prevalent in the City, the subject bungalows are not unique or rare examples of its architectural design or historical type and remain representative throughout the City. Therefore, the subject district does not appear to satisfy this criterion. 14 9.56.100(A)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. A few of the district properties were identified with Waldo K. Cowan. Cowan was actively involved in the community and was a local builder/contractor, real estate businessman, and auto dealer. Many of the residents he constructed were speculative housing, including his first personal residence on the block located at 1253 11th Street. Although this property was eventually demolished for new multi- unit construction, his second residence at 1107 Arizona Avenue (1259 11th Street) appears substantially intact. T here is no clear evidence that connects the 1107 Arizona Avenue property with his professional or civic life. Mere occupancy association between the house and Cowan’s professional business does not necessarily account for historical significance. From a collective development of residences constructed by Cowan, because of compromised integrity within the neighborhood, there are limited extant representative examples along the 1200 Block of 11th Street to accurately convey his original concept of plan and design for residential development dating from the first qua rter of the twentieth century. His few extant contributions to the development of the block date primarily from 1905 to 1911. Within the proposed historic district there are also two Craftsman style bungalows that were contructed by local contractor Joseph J. Rowe; 1223 11th Street (1910) and 1229 11th Street (1908). Both of these bungalows reflect typical elements of the Craftsman idiom. Rowe was a very active contractor having constructed many cottages and bungalows in the City during the 1900s and 1910s. Most works by Rowe are limited and inconclusive as to his full professional portfolio. There is insufficient evidence to suggest or conclude that he was a notable, master builder in Santa Monica. Given the modest size and typical design of the Rowe built bungalows along the 1200 block of 11th Street, it is unlikely a prominent architect or designer was involved or was associated with their designs. The subject properties within the proposed district are not significant or representative examples of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect, and therefore does not appear to satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(A)(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. Contextually, properties within the study area vary in building types, setbacks, scale and massing forms, and levels of historical integrity. Some of the bungalow properties are screened by fencing and landscaping and are not clearly visible from the sidewalk and streets. These characteristics provide a sense of disconnect between the bungalow and other multi-unit properties constructed after the period of significance and an overall lack of cohesiveness and uniformity, which is even further reduced when viewing the subject properties within the context of the entire block. Therefore, the subject district does not appear to satisfy this criterion. 15 Historic District Criteria 9.56.100(B)(1). Any of the criteria identified in Section 9.56.100(a)(1) through (6). The proposed district does not appear to satisfy any of the criteria for designation as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100(A) and 9.56.100 (B), as described above. Thus, the proposed district does not satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(B)(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. The properties under review do not visually or accurately manifest as a cohesive, unified entity of the early residential development patterns of the Santa Monica that occurred in the area during the first quarter of the twentieth century. In consideration of a thematic grouping based on shared themes of architecture, design, development, and socio-economic composition, those properties that are extant vary in integrity, condition, design principals, workmanship, and construction. The spatial organization of the properties, the different property types constructed over time, and the varied architectural styles have visually altered the distinctive development patterns associated with the older properties remaining within the study area. Because of the sporadic placement of properties, their varied levels of integrity, the introduction of inappropriate hardscape (street features and conditions, tall fences, irregular streetscape elements, etc.) and softscape features (tall dense landscape obscuring properties from the public right-of-way), and lack of a definable unified area, it appears that the 11th Street cluster no longer qualifies as a thematic grouping. Therefore, the proposed district does not appear to satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(B)(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. The proposed district within the 1200 block of 11th Street is comprised of improvements of varying dates of construction, architectural styles, and property types. The 1200 block of 11th Street was originally developed with hipped roof cottages and bungalows. However, many post -World War II era multi-story apartment buildings and condominiums have infilled the area resulting in a change in the historic setting and feeling of the neighborhood. The result is a varied residential development pattern lacking unity, cohesiveness, and a distin ct concentration of resources. The extensive loss of historic fabric on some of the older extant residences have further compromised the collective historical integrity of the small assemblage of properties that were once identified as part of a cluster or grouping. In addition, because of its small size and inconsistent composition, the proposed district does not accurately or adequately c onvey an important development pattern within the City. It reflects a very small aspect of the City’s 16 overall association with the middle-class from the first quarter of the twentieth century, but because of its diminutive, non -cohesive composition, does not fully demonstrate this particular socio-economic group as collectively making important contributions to the City. Therefore, the subject district does not appear to satisfy this criterion. 9.56.100(B)(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. Since the proposed district does not appear to meet criterion 9.56.100(A)(6), it does not satisfy this criterion. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Landmarks Commission forward a recommendation to the City Council denying the proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District based on the findings provided in this report. ATTACHMENTS A. Public Notice B. Applicant’s Materials: Historic 11th Street Coalition Report (May 2018) C. Preliminary Historic District Assessment, Ostashay & Associates (Dec 2017) D. Historic District Assessment Report, Ostashay & Associates (November 2018) E. Proponent Outreach (2017) F. Public Correspondence: Support Letters G. Public Correspondence: Opposition Letters MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded 1875 “Populus felix in urbe felici” Monday, November 12, 2018 7:00 PM City Council Chambers, Room 213 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION 1. ROLL CALL 7:10:02 PM PRESENT: Richard Brand Kenneth Breisch Roger Genser Barry Rosenbaum, Chair Pro Tem Ruth Shari Dolores Sloan, Chairperson ALSO PRESENT: Stephanie Reich, AIA LEED® AP, Design & Historic Preservation Planner Steve Mizokami, Senior Planner, Commission Liaison Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney Melissa Zak, Staff Assistant III ABSENT: Amy Green 2. REPORT FROM STAFF: Information concerning future Landmarks Commission Agendas. Update on recent Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council actions, including development projects, planning policy studies, ordinances, appeals and update of project status and related landmarks matters. 2 Steve Mizokami, Senior Planner and Landmarks Commission Liaison, provided updates on administrative items and upcoming hearing items: • The applicant for Item 9-B requested 25 minutes to present. The Commission may consider this request prior to the start of the item. • The following upcoming hearing items were mentioned: o Landmark designation for 1129 Ashland Ave o Landmark designation for 9 Vicente Terrace o Structure of Merit designation application for 610 California Avenue o Landmark designation for 808 Woodacres Road • The application process for the 3rd Street Neighborhood Historic District Citizen Participation Committed (CPC) is still underway. • The Interim Zoning Ordinance regarding Demolition procedures is an emergency Ordinance and effective immediately. • The next regular meeting of the Landmarks Commission is scheduled for Monday, December 10 in the Council Chambers. 3. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: 7:13:12 PM • Chair Sloan expressed her appreciation to the consultants and staff for the updated HRI. She also called attention to the chapter making recommendations for future research and the appendix that detailed community input. • Commissioner Breisch mentioned that William Murtagh, the first “keeper” of the National Register of Historic Places, recently passed away. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 7:15:51 PM 4-A. October 8, 2018 Commissioner Shari made the motion to approve with corrections, seconded by Commissioner Genser, and approved by roll call vote. AYES Brand, Breisch, Genser, Rosenbaum, Shari, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Green 5. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: 7:18:12 PM 5-A. Landmark Designation 18ENT-0255, 505 Georgina Avenue, denying the American Colonial Revival-style residence as a City Landmark. 3 Commissioner Shari made a motion to approve as amended, seconded by Chair Sloan, and approved by roll call vote. AYES Brand, Breisch, Genser, Rosenbaum, Shari, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Green 6. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission) Carol Lemlein, Santa Monica resident, spoke regarding the concerns surrounding the fence height at 2601 2nd Street, Hostetter House. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Certificate of Appropriateness 17ENT-0158, 1659 Ocean Front Walk, consideration for design approval of exterior improvements including but not limited to the replacement of existing (non-original) windows, modification to the existing (non-original) building colors, and replacement of entry gate. The subject multi-unit residential building is known as the Purser Apartments, a designated City Landmark. The Commission reviewed the proposed project at the August 13, 2018 Landmarks Commission meeting and continued the item to allow the applicant to further clarify the proposal. ACTION: APPROVED ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR The Commissioners provided ex parte disclosures. Commissioner Breisch made the motion to approve, seconded by Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum and approved by roll call vote. AYES Brand, Breisch, Genser, Rosenbaum, Shari, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Green 8. OLD BUSINESS: None 9. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9-A. Certificate of Appropriateness 18ENT-0295, 227 Beach Street, for site improvements including but not limited to new landscape material and landscape lighting, central courtyard fencing, and gates. The subject property is a Contributing building within the Third Street Neighborhood Histo ric District. 7:27:09 PM 4 ACTION: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS The Commissioners provided ex parte disclosures. Mr. Mizokami provided the staff report. The Commission voted to give the applicant five minutes to present, with an additional three minutes for a rebuttal. Isabelle Duvivier of Duvivier Architects presented the proposal. She identified that 12 out of 22 properties in the area have fences higher than six feet tall. She also presented the proposed (grid) and alternative (vertical) gate designs at six feet high. The owner also expressed his intention to rehabilitate the property: to provide a high level of peace, privacy and security. Bea Nemlaha spoke representing the CPC and was supportive of keeping the open design and historic integrity of the neighborhood. She spo ke against installing a fence or gate at the courtyard, as the CPC believes it to be antithetical to the neighborhood’s sensibility. Ms. Nemlaha also spoke against the current tree lighting plan, deeming it inappropriate for the neighborhood. Larry Graber, resident of the 3rd Street Neighborhood Historic District, spoke in opposition to the fencing and requested that the lighting be reduced. Overall the Commissioners were supportive of staff’s recommendations and were sympathetic to the owner’s security concerns. They agreed to raise the maximum fence height to 48” and added a condition requiring the simplification of the fence design using compatible materials based on the architectural style of the building. Commissioner Brand did not support the motion as he supported the request for a taller fence. Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum made the motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as recommended by staff, seconded by Commissioner Shari, and approved by roll call vote. AYES: Breisch, Genser, Rosenbaum, Shari, Sloan NAYS: Brand ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Green 9-B. Historic District application 18ENT -0166, consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding an application for designation of a new proposed historic 5 district on 11th Street consisting of certain properties located along the east side of 11th Street, between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (1221 -1253 11th Street), and properties along the north side of Arizona Avenue between 11th Street and 11th Court Alley (1107-1115 Arizona Avenue). 8:33:48 PM ACTION: CONTINUED The applicant requested 25 minutes to present. Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum made the motion to approve, seconded by Chair Sloan, and approved by roll call vote. AYES Brand, Genser, Rosenbaum, Shari, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Breisch, Green Commissioner Breisch recused himself, explaining that a letter from 1990 was included in the applicant’s material, and that his name was included in the list of proponents without his knowledge or consent. Due to the high volume of chits received, the Commission took a voice vote to reduce public comments to two minutes per speaker. All were in f avor. Mr. Mizokami presented the staff report and identified the reasoning regarding the findings included in the report. He introduced Jan Ostashay, an architectural historian and preservation consultant for the City. Ms. Ostashay identified the necessary features of a historic district. She noted that in the original HRI, properties on this street were identified as a “Grouping” and that the text of the Inventory specifically identified that the “Grouping” was not eligible for designation as a historic district. She stated that the 2010 update survey mistakenly identified this area as a potential district. She further noted that the updated 2018 HRI does not include this group of properties as a potential historic district, but some of the properties have been identified as potential landmarks. She reiterated that the properties on this street do not convey a shared sensibility or feeling of a historic district. Commissioner Genser asked about the princip les that Ms. Ostashay presented and if non-contiguous properties can be considered a historic district. Ms. Ostashay stated that collectively the properties in a district need to convey a sense or feeling. Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum asked if the threshold Ms. Ostashay referred to is a legal threshold or good practice standard. She stated that while the 50% threshold is not included in the Ordinance, cities that are included in Certified Local Governments must comply with the National Park Service guidelines. She also 6 noted that in looking at properties that are included in the proposed district, preservationists and historians cannot speculate on what is or is not reversible regarding alterations. Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum also asked about the chart included in the applicant’s material identified as the “disappearing bungalow”. Ms. Ostashay noted that she studied the development of the Santa Monica Tract to understand the development of the tract, including the updated HRI. In looking at different surveys over the years, consultants have not been consistent with how they have been identified regarding style. She noted that it’s important to understand the quantity and context of those resources. Since the surveys may not properly identify properties as “bungalow”, the number of properties in this category may vary. She stated that this study was done so that she would be able to identify the remaining bungalows in the Santa Monica Tract, and noted that there are many such bungalows remaining in the tract. Mario Fonda-Bonardi presented for applicant team. 9:19:34 PM Commissioner Shari and Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum asked about the proposed district and which properties should be included as contributors. Mr. Fonda- Bonardi noted that there could be two separate clusters, with the possi bility of a more wide-ranging thematic district. The following property owners spoke in support of the designation of the proposed district: Debbie Mahdessian, and Michael DeVilliers. The following property owners spoke in opposition to the designation of the proposed district: Alicia Bartley, Doris Lennon, and Karol Boloorchi. The following members of the public spoke in support of the designation of the proposed district: Susan Suntree, Katherine Takis, Maya Benezer, Andrew Hoyer, Tim Vreeland, Bea Nemlaha, Richard Hilton, Elizabeth Leher, Amanda Pope, Dr. Sheila Laffey, Carol Lemlein, Andrew Tullis, Zina Josephs (on behalf of the Friends of Sunset Park), Ann Thanawalla, Tom Cleys, and Phil Brock. The following members of the public spoke in opposition to the designation of the proposed district: Jimmy Lennon, Christine Lennon, Bill Weatherby, Ruthann Lehrer, and Daniel Lanier. Mario Fonda-Bonardi and Stacey Dalgleish, Vice-President of Mid-City neighbors, provided a rebuttal on behalf of the applicant team. Commissioner Genser made the motion to continue the meeting past 11:00 PM, seconded by Chair Sloan, and approved by voice vote. 7 All Commissioners acknowledged the members of the public who came out to speak on either side of the issue and thanked them for their involvement. Commissioner Shari stated that she did not find a distinct concentration of historic properties as a whole. She referred to the methodology in the consultant’s report, which she found convincing. She noted that the applicant’s report even identified the properties that have been compromised. Commissioner Genser stated that his site visit on Friday helped him understand that there is a group of buildings that contribute to a sense of scale and feeling that suggest the support of a district. He stated he may be supportive of the creation of two separate districts. Commissioner Brand stated his support for the report provided by Ostashay and Associates. He noted that the sense of place has been significantly reduced so that it is difficult to have a sense of a historic district, however, he is impressed with both sides’ arguments. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum stated that he has difficulty supporting the original boundaries of the proposed district but could support the option for two clusters as early and prime examples of Santa Monica housing. Chair Sloan stated her support for the designation, noting criteria 1, 3, and 6. She commented that the proposed district calling attention to residences serving middle and working classes is reflective of the transition in the concept of neighborhood preservation. Ms. Ostashay clarified that a district is a collection of properties that reflect something historic. The smaller the grouping gets, the less it can demonstrate patterns of development. Chair Sloan made a motion to designate the area as the applicant has proposed , under local criteria 1, 3, and 6. Commissioner Genser seconded the motion, but the motion did not pass. AYES: Genser, Rosenbaum, Sloan NAYS: Brand, Shari ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Breisch, Green Commissioner Genser made the motion to separate the proposed district into two districts. Chair Sloan seconded the motion, but the motion did not pass. AYES: Genser, Rosenbaum, Sloan NAYS: Brand, Shari ABSTAIN: 8 ABSENT: Breisch, Green Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made the motion to continue the discussion, seconded by Commissioner Shari, and approved by roll call vote. AYES: Genser, Rosenbaum, Shari, Sloan NAYS: Brand ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Breisch, Green Public hearing on this item is closed and there will be no further testimony at the next meeting, unless the Commission reopens the public hearing. 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 10-A. Update from the Landmarks Ordinance Update Subcommittee and Staff on recent activities related to recommendations for the proposed update to the Landmarks Ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.56, including but not limited to, discussions held, recommendations formulated, input received, and upcoming Subcommittee meetings. Stephanie Reich, Design & Historic Preservation Planner, stated that the Subcommittee has not met, although staff-level meetings have been held regularly and progress is being made. 10-B. Update from the Public Education and Media Outreach Subcommittee on recent activities related to enhancing the awareness of, and engagement and participation in, the City’s historic preservation programs and activities. Commissioner Shari stated that the Subcommittee now has three members: Commissioner Green, Chair Sloan, and herself. She also mentioned that former Commissioner Bach is transferring her presentations as Commission Historian into articles for print in the Santa Monica Daily Press. Commissioner Shari expressed disappointment that a brochure will be held back due to lack of a budget. Ms. Reich expressed appreciation for the work of the Subcommittee. She suggested that staff meet with the Subcommittee to discuss further steps, although there may be challenges to find funds for a brochure. Commissioner Rosenbaum requested a discussion regarding the budget at the next meeting. 10-C. Update from the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Ordinance Subcommittee and Staff on the draft Ordinance and to discuss next steps, including but not limited to, upcoming Subcommittee meetings. Ms. Reich stated that the Subcommittee has not met. Staff has met with proponents and property owners, received input, and is working diligently on ordinance. 9 10-D. Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison to the Architectural Revi ew Board (ARB) on recent ARB consideration and action taken on proposed projects involving additions to or modifications of potential historic resources. Nothing to report 10-E. 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. The Pier Corporation expressed gratitude that Carousel Park was designated. The next regular meeting will not be held until January. 10-F. Update from Staff on notable activities affecting any designated Landmarks or Structures of Merit. Mr. Mizokami mentioned that Staff will be issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness for two dome security cameras to be mounted at the parapet level at the front elevation of City Hall. 10-G. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only). 11. DEMOLITION PERMIT LIST: (Information only, no Commission discussion or action taken) 12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Public and Commission discussion and comment is permitted.) 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas) Chair Sloan requested to add an item on the budget process and the potential to add a budget for the Commission. Commissioner Shari requested to receive an updated chart at the next meeting to clarify the new subcommittee compositions. 14. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting of the Landmarks Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, December 10, 2018; Council Chambers, City Hall, 1685 Main Street. 15. ADJOURNMENT: 12:22:52 AM Chair Sloan made the motion to adjourn, seconded by Commissione r Brand and approved by voice vote. 11th Street Historic District Review Timeframes June 7, 2018 Historic District Application Submitted and Determined to be Complete No permits will be issued to any property within the proposed district while application is pending; however, exceptions for repair work can be granted. July 30, 2018 Public Information/Community Meeting Santa Monica Public Library (no later than August 7, 2018) Notice in Newspaper Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary 57 Participants September 24, 2018 2nd Public Information Meeting Santa Monica Public Library Notice in Newspaper Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary 19 Participants November 12, 2018 Landmarks Commission Recommendation Hearing (To be held no earlier than 45 days after Public Information Meeting, but no more than 180 days after the filing of a Complete application) Notice in Newspaper Notice Mailed to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary The Landmarks Commission must make a recommendation within 45 days of its initial hearing date or the application is deemed DISAPPROVED. (no later than December 27, 2018) December 10, 2018 Continued Landmarks Commission Recommendation Hearing (Recommendation Provided) January 22, 2019 City Council Public Hearing To be held within 45 days from Landmarks Commission recommendation (no later than January 24, 2019) Notice in Newspaper Notice Mailing to Applicant, Property Owners and Occupants/Residents within 750 feet of boundary The City Council must make a determination within 45 days of its initial hearing date or the application is deemed DISAPPROVED. (no later than March 8, 2019) Historic Districts are approved by Ordinance Benefits of a Historic District in Santa Monica Benefits for Owners of "Contributing" Historic Properties Historic districts are comprised of two types of properties: contributing and non-contributing. Broadly defined, a contributing property is any property, structure or object which adds to the historical integrity or architectural qualities that make a historic district significant. There are many benefits for property owners whose buildings have been identified by the Landmarks Commission as integral or contributing to the designation of the area as a historic district. These benefits are defined in Santa Monica's Landmark Ordinance and include these general benefit categories: •tax incentives •permit and fee waivers •expedited permit processing •help from city staff •stabilization or increase in property values •connection with the community's heritage-representing and interpreting the events, personages, and lifestyles of the past •retention of the architectural and visual richness of the community, displaying the roots of its character and diversity •stabilization and protection of the community from radical change with a steadiness or increase in property values •sustainability (wise use of infrastructure, land and non-renewable resources Below is more specific information about many of these benefits. Mills Act contracts The Mills Act is a California State law that enables cities to enter into contracts with property owners of qualified historic structures. The owner of a contributing building in a designated historic district may file a Mills Act Contract Appl ication. If a house is sold, the contract transfers to the new owner. Once approved, a Mills Act contract requires the County Tax Assessor's office to determine the value of the historic property based upon its current Item 9B Attachment E NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN Technical information on the the National Register of Historic Places: survey, evaluation, registration, and preservation of cultural resources National Park Service Cultural Resources National Register, History and Education How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation ., The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes. The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world. This material is partially based upon work conducted under a cooperative agreement with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Date of publication: 1990; revised 1991,1995,1997. Revised for Internet 1995. Cover (Top Left) Criterion B - Frederick Douglass Home, Washington, D.C. From 1877- 1899, this was the home of Frederick Douglass, the former slave who rose to become a prominent author, abolitionist, editor, orator, and diplomat. (Walter Smalling, Jr.) (Top Right) Criterion D - Francis Canyon Ruin, Blanco vicinity, Rio Arriba County, New Mexico. A fortified village site composed of 40 masonry-walled rooms arranged in a cluster of four house blocks. Constructed ca. 1716-1742 for protection against raiding Utes and Comanches, the site has information potential related to Na- vajo, Pueblo, and Spanish cultures. (Jon Samuelson) (Bottom Left) Criterion C - Bridge in Cherrytree Township, Venago County, Pennsylvania. Built in 1882, this Pratt through truss bridge is significant for engi- neering as a well preserved example of a type of bridge frequently used in northwestern Pennsylvania in the late 19th century. (Pennsylvania Department of Transportation) (Bottom Right) Criterion A - Main Street/Market Square Historic District, Houston, Harris County, Texas. Until well into the 20th century this district marked the bounds of public and business life in Houston. Constructed between the 1870s and 1920s, the district includes Houston's municipal and county buildings, and served as the city's wholesale, retail, and financial center. (Paul Hester) PREFACE Preserving historic properties as important reflections of our American heritage became a national policy through passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Historic Sites Act of 1935, and the National Historic Pres- ervation Act of 1966, as amended. The Historic Sites Act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to identify and recognize properties of national significance (National Historic Land- marks) in United States history and archeology. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 authorized the Secretary to expand this recogni- tion to properties of local and State significance in American history, ar- chitecture, archeology, engineering, and culture, and worthy of preserva- tion. The National Register of His- toric Places is the official list of these recognized properties, and is main- tained and expanded by the National Park Service on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior.1 The National Register of Historic Places documents the appearance and importance of districts, sites, build- ings, structures, and objects signifi- cant in our prehistory and history. These properties represent the major patterns of our shared local, State, and national experience. To guide the selection of properties included in the National Register, the National Park Service has developed the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. These criteria are standards by which every property that is nominated to the National Register is judged. In addition, the National Park Service has developed criteria for the recogni- tion of nationally significant proper- ties, which are designated National Historic Landmarks and prehistoric and historic units of the National Park System. Both these sets of criteria were developed to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Stan- dards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, which are uni- form, national standards for preserva- tion activities.2 This publication explains how the National Park Service applies these criteria in evaluating the wide range of properties that may be significant in local, State, and national history. It should be used by anyone who must decide if a particular property qualifies for the National Register of Historic Places. Listing properties in the National Register is an important step in a na- tionwide preservation process. The responsibility for the identification, initial evaluation, nomination, and treatment of historic resources lies with private individuals, State historic preservation offices, and Federal pres- ervation offices, local governments, and Indian tribes. The final evalua- tion and listing of properties in the National Register is the responsibility of the Keeper of the National Register. This bulletin was prepared by staff of the National Register Branch, Inter- agency Resources Division, National Park Service, with the assistance of the History Division. It was originally is- sued in draft form in 1982. The draft was revised into final form by Patrick W. Andrus, Historian, National Regis- ter, and edited by Rebecca H. Shrimpton, Consulting Historian. Beth L. Savage, National Register and Sarah Dillard Pope, National Reg- ister, NCSHPO coordinated the latest revision of this bulletin. Antionette J. Lee, Tanya Gossett, and Kira Badamo coordinated earlier revisions. 'Properties listed in the National Register receive limited Federal protection and certain benefits. For more information concerning the effects of listing, and how the National Register may be used by the general public and Certified Local Governments, as well as by local, State, and Federal agencies, and for copies of National Register Bulletins, contact the National Park Service, National Register, 1849 C Street, NW, NC400, Washington, D.C., 20240. Information may also be obtained by visiting the National Register Web site at www.cr.nps.gov/nr or by contacting any of the historic preservation offices in the States and territories. 2The Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation are found in the Federal Register, Vol. 48, No. 190 (Thursday, September 29,1983). A copy can be obtained by writing the National Park Service, Heritage Preservation Services (at the address above). TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface i I. Introduction 1 II. National Register Criteria for Evaluation 2 III. How to Use this Bulletin to Evaluate a Property 3 IV. How to Define Categories of Historic Properties 4 Building 4 Structure 4 Object 5 Site 5 District 5 Concentration, Linkage, & Continuity of Features 5 Significance 5 Types of Features 5 Geographical Boundaries 6 Discontiguous Districts 6 V. How to Evaluate a Property Within its Historic Context 7 Understanding Historic Contexts 7 How to Evaluate a Property Within Its Historic Context 7 Properties Significant Within More Than on Historic Context 9 Comparing Related Properties 9 Local, State, and National Historic Contexts 9 VI. How to Identify the Type of Significance of a Property 11 Introduction 11 Criterion A: Event 12 Understanding Criterion A 12 Applying Criterion A 12 Types of Events 12 Association of the Property with the Events 12 Significance of the Association 12 Traditional Cultural Values 13 Criterion B: Person 14 Understanding Criterion B 14 Applying Criterion B 15 Significance of the Individual 15 Association with the Property 15 Comparison to Related Properties 15 Association with Groups 15 Association with Living Persons 16 Association with Architects/Artisans 16 Native American Sites 16 Criterion C: Design/Construction 17 Understanding Criterion C • 17 Applying Criterion C 18 Distinctive Characteristics of Type, Period, and Method of Construction 18 Historic Adaptation of the Original Property 19 Works of a Master .....20 Properties Possessing High Artistic Values 20 Criterion D: Information Potential 21 Understanding Criterion D 21 Applying Criterion D 21 Archeological Sites 21 Buildings, Structures, and Objects 21 Association with Human Activity 22 Establishing a Historic Context 22 Developing Research Questions 22 Establishing the Presence of Adequate Data 23 Integrity 23 Partly Excavated or Disturbed Properties 23 Completely Excavated Sites 24 VII. How to Apply the Criteria Considerations 25 Introduction 25 Criteria Consideration A: Religious Properties 26 Understanding Criteria Consideration A 26 Applying Criteria Consideration A 26 Eligibility for Historic Events , 26 Eligibility for Historic Persons 27 Eligibility for Architectural or Artistic Distinction 28 Eligibility for Information Potential 28 Ability to Reflect Historic Associations 28 Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties 29 Understanding Criteria Consideration B 29 Applying Criteria Consideration B 29 Eligibility for Architectural Value 29 Eligibility for Historic Associations 30 Setting and Environment 30 Association Dependent on the Site 30 Properties Designed to Be Moved 31 Artificially Created Groupings 31 Portions of Properties 31 Criteria Consideration C: Birthplaces and Graves 32 Understanding Criteria Consideration C 32 Applying Criteria Consideration C 32 Persons of Outstanding Importance 32 Last Surviving Property Associated with a Person 32 Eligibility for Other Associations 33 Criteria Consideration D: Cemeteries 34 Understanding Criteria Consideration D 34 Applying Criteria Consideration D 34 Persons of Transcendent Importance 34 Eligibility on the Basis of Age 35 Eligibility for Design 35 Eligibility for Association with Events 35 Eligibility for Information Potential 35 Integrity 36 National Cemeteries 36 Criteria Consideration E: Reconstructed Properties 37 Understanding Criteria Consideration E 37 Applying Criteria Consideration E 37 Accuracy of the Reconstruction 37 Suitable Environment 37 Restoration Master Plans 38 iii Last Surviving Property of a Type 38 Reconstructions Older than Fifty Years 38 Criteria Consideration F: Commemorative Properties 39 Understanding Criteria Consideration F 39 Applying Criteria Consideration F 39 Eligibility for Design 39 Eligibility for Age, Tradition, or Symbolic Value 40 Ineligibility as the Last Representative of an Event or Person 40 Criteria Consideration G: Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Past Fifty Years 41 Understanding Criteria Consideration G 41 Applying Criteria Consideration G 42 Eligibility for Exceptional Importance 42 Historical Perspective 42 National Park Service Rustic Architecture 42 Veterans Administration Hospitals 42 Comparison with Related Properties 42 World War II Properties 42 Eligibility for Information Potential 43 Historic Districts 43 Properties Over Fifty Years in Age, Under Fifty Years in Significance 43 Requirement to Meet the Criteria, Regardless of Age 43 VIII. How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property 44 Introduction 44 Understanding the Aspects of Integrity 44 Location 44 Design 44 Setting 44 Materials 45 Workmanship 45 Feeling 45 Association 45 Assessing Integrity in Properties 45 Defining the Essential Physical Features 46 Visibility of the Physical Features 46 Comparing Similar Properties 47 Determining the Relevant Aspects of Integrity 48 IX. Summary of the National Historic Landmarks Criteria for Evaluation 50 X. Glossary 53 XL List of National Register Bulletins 54 IV I. INTRODUCTION The National Register is the nation's inventory of historic places and the national repository of docu- mentation on the variety of historic property types, significance, abun- dance, condition, ownership, needs, and other information. It is the begin- ning of a national census of historic properties. The National Register Cri- teria for Evaluation define the scope of the National Register of Historic Places; they identify the range of re- sources and kinds of significance that will qualify properties for listing in the National Register. The Criteria are written broadly to recognize the wide variety of historic properties as- sociated with our prehistory and his- tory. Decisions concerning the signifi- cance, historic integrity, documenta- tion, and treatment of properties can be made reliably only when the re- source is evaluated within its historic context. The historic context serves as the framework within which the Na- tional Register Criteria are applied to specific properties or property types. (See Part V for a brief discussion of historic contexts. Detailed guidance for developing and applying historic contexts is contained in National Reg- ister Bulletin: How to Complete the Na- tional Register Registration Form and National Register Bulletin: How to Com- plete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form ) The guidelines provided here are intended to help you understand the National Park Service's use of the Cri- teria for Evaluation, historic contexts, integrity, and Criteria Considerations, and how they apply to properties un- der consideration for listing in the National Register. Examples are pro- vided throughout, illustrating specific circumstances in which properties are and are not eligible for the National Register. This bulletin should be used by anyone who is: •Preparing to nominate a property to the National Register, • Seeking a determination of a property's eligibility, • Evaluating the comparable sig- nificance of a property to those listed in the National Register, or • Expecting to nominate a property as a National Historic Landmark in addition to nominating it to the National Register. This bulletin also contains a sum- mary of the National Historic Land- marks Criteria for Evaluation (see Part IX). National Historic Land- marks are those districts, sites, build- ings, structures, and objects desig- nated by the Secretary of the Interior as possessing national significance in American history, architecture, arche- ology, engineering, and culture. Al- though National Register documenta- tion includes a recommendation about whether a property is signifi- cant at the local, State, or national level, the only official designation of national significance is as a result of National Historic Landmark designa- tion by the Secretary of the Interior, National Monument designation by the President of the United States, or establishment as a unit of the National Park System by Congress. These properties are automatically listed in the National Register. II. THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION:3 The quality of significance in American history, architecture, arche- ology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess in- tegrity of location, design, setting, ma- terials, workmanship, feeling, and as- sociation, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribu- tion to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS: Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, proper- ties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed his- toric buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and prop- erties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following catego- ries: a. A religious property deriving primary significance from architec- tural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or b. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architec- tural value, or which is the surviv- ing structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or c. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or d. A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent impor- tance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or e. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or f. A property primarily commemora- tive in intent if design, age, tradi- tion, or symbolic value has in- vested it with its own exceptional significance; or g. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. 3The Criteria for Evaluation are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60, and are reprinted here in full. III. HOW TO USE THIS BULLETIN TO EVALUATE A PROPERTY For a property to qualify for the National Register it must meet one of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation by: • Being associated with an impor- tant historic context and • Retaining historic integrity of those features necessary to con- vey its significance. Information about the property based on physical examination and documentary research is necessary to evaluate a property's eligibility for the National Register. Evaluation of a property is most efficiently made when following this sequence: 1. Categorize the property (Part IV). A property must be classified as a district, site, building, structure, or object for inclusion in the National Register. 2. Determine which prehistoric or historic context(s) the property represents (Part V). A property must possess significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture when evaluated within the historic context of a relevant geographic area. 3. Determine whether the property is significant under the National Register Criteria (Part VI). This is done by identifying the links to important events or persons, design or construction features, or information potential that make the property important. 4. Determine if the property repre- sents a type usually excluded from the National Register (Part VII). If so, determine if it meets any of the Criteria Considerations. 5. Determine whether the property retains integrity (Part VIII). Evaluate the aspects of location, design, setting, workmanship, ma- terials, feeling, and association that the property must retain to convey its historic significance. If, after completing these steps, the property appears to qualify for the Na- tional Register, the next step is to pre- pare a written nomination. (Refer to National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registra- tion Form.) IV. HOW TO DEFINE CATEGORIES OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES The National Register of Historic Places includes significant properties, classified as buildings, sites, districts, structures, or objects. It is not used to list intangible values, except in so far as they are associated with or re- flected by historic properties. The Na- tional Register does not list cultural events, or skilled or talented individu- als, as is done in some countries. Rather, the National Register is ori- ented to recognizing physically con- crete properties that are relatively fixed in location. For purposes of National Register nominations, small groups of proper- ties are listed under a single category, using the primary resource. For ex- ample, a city hall and fountain would be categorized by the city hall (build- ing), a farmhouse with two outbuild- ings would be categorized by the farmhouse (building), and a city park with a gazebo would be categorized by the park (site). Properties with large acreage or a number of re- sources are usually considered dis- tricts. Common sense and reason should dictate the selection of catego- ries. BUILDING A building, such as a house, barn, church, hotel, or similar construc- tion, is created principally to shelter any form of human activity. "Build- ing" may also be used to refer to a historically and functionally related unit, such as a courthouse and jail or a house and barn. Buildings eligible for the National Register must include all of their basic structural elements. Parts of build- ings, such as interiors, facades, or wings, are not eligible independent of the rest of the existing building. The whole building must be considered, and its significant features must be identified. If a building has lost any of its basic structural elements, it is usually con- sidered a "ruin" and is categorized as a site. Examples of buildings include: administration building carriage house church city or town hall courthouse detached kitchen, barn, and privy dormitory fort garage hotel house library mill building office building post office school social hall shed stable store theater train station STRUCTURE The term "structure" is used to distinguish from buildings those functional constructions made usu- ally for purposes other than creating human shelter. Structures nominated to the National Register must include all of the extant basic structural elements. Parts of structures can not be consid- ered eligible if the whole structure remains. For example, a truss bridge is composed of the metal or wooden truss, the abutments, and supporting piers, all of which, if extant, must be included when considering the property for eligibility. If a structure has lost its historic configuration or pattern of organiza- tion through deterioration or demoli- tion, it is usually considered a "ruin" and is categorized as a site. Examples of structures include: aircraft apiary automobile bandstand boats and ships bridge cairn canal carousel corner ib dam earthwork fence gazebo grain elevator highway irrigation system kiln lighthouse railroad grade silo trolley car tunnel windmill OBJECT The term "object" is used to distinguish from buildings and structures those constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed. Although it may be, by nature or design, movable, an object is associated with a specific setting or environment. Small objects not designed for a specific location are normally not eligible. Such works include trans- portable sculpture, furniture, and other decorative arts that, unlike a fixed outdoor sculpture, do not possess association with a specific place. Objects should be in a setting appropriate to their significant historic use, roles, or character. Objects relocated to a museum are inappropriate for listing in the Na- tional Register. Examples of objects include: boundary marker fountain milepost monument scupture statuary SITE A site is the location of a signifi- cant event, a prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or a building or structure, whether standing, ruined, or vanished, where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value regardless of the value of any exist- ing structure. A site can possess associative significance or information potential or both, and can be significant under any or all of the four criteria. A site need not be marked by physical remains if it is the location of a prehistoric or historic event or pattern of events and if no buildings, struc- tures, or objects marked it at the time of the events. However, when the location of a prehistoric or historic event cannot be conclusively deter- mined because no other cultural materials were present or survive, documentation must be carefully evaluated to determine whether the traditionally recognized or identified site is accurate. A site may be a natural landmark strongly associated with significant prehistoric or historic events or patterns of events, if the significance of the natural feature is well docu- mented through scholarly research. Generally, though, the National Register excludes from the definition of "site" natural waterways or bodies of water that served as determinants in the location of communities or were significant in the locality's subsequent economic development. While they may have been "avenues of exploration," the features most appropriate to document this signifi- cance are the properties built in association with the waterways. Examples of sites include: battlefield campsite cemeteries significant for information potential or historic association ceremonial site designed landscape habitation site natural feature (such as a rock formation) having cultural significance pet ro glyph rock carving rock shelter ruins of a building or structure shipwreck trail village site DISTRICT A district possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aes- thetically by plan or physical devel- opment. CONCENTRATION, LINKAGE, & CONTINUITY OF FEATURES A district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a wide variety of resources. The identity of a district results from the interrelation- ship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an ar- rangement of historically or function- ally related properties. For example, a district can reflect one principal activity, such as a mill or a ranch, or it can encompass several interrelated activities, such as an area that in- cludes industrial, residential, or commercial buildings, sites, struc- tures, or objects. A district can also be a grouping of archeological sites related primarily by their common components; these types of districts often will not visually represent a specific historic environment. SIGNIFICANCE A district must be significant, as well as being an identifiable entity. It must be important for historical, architectural, archeological, engineer- ing, or cultural values. Therefore, districts that are significant will usually meet the last portion of Criterion C plus Criterion A, Criterion B, other portions of Criterion C, or Criterion D. TYPES OF FEATURES A district can comprise both features that lack individual distinc- tion and individually distinctive features that serve as focal points. It may even be considered eligible if all of the components lack individual distinction, provided that the group- ing achieves significance as a whole within its historic context. In either case, the majority of the components that add to the district's historic character, even if they are individu- ally undistinguished, must possess integrity, as must the district as a whole. A district can contain buildings, structures, sites, objects, or open spaces that do not contribute to the significance of the district. The number of noncontributing properties a district can contain yet still convey its sense of time and place and historical development depends on how these properties affect the district's integrity. In archeological districts, the primary factor to be considered is the effect of any distur- bances on the information potential of the district as a whole. GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES A district must be a definable geographic area that can be distin- guished from surrounding properties by changes such as density, scale, type, age, style of sites, buildings, structures, and objects, or by docu- mented differences in patterns of historic development or associations. It is seldom defined, however, by the limits of current parcels of ownership, management, or planning boundaries. The boundaries must be based upon a shared relationship among the properties constituting the district. DISCONTIGUOUS DISTRICTS A district is usually a single geo- graphic area of contiguous historic properties; however, a district can also be composed of two or more definable significant areas separated by nonsignificant areas. A discontiguous district is most appro- priate where: • Elements are spatially discrete; • Space between the elements is not related to the significance of the district; and • Visual continuity is not a factor in the significance. In addition, a canal can be treated as a discontiguous district when the system consists of man-made sections of canal interspersed with sections of river navigation. For scattered archeological properties, a discontiguous district is appropriate when the deposits are related to each other through cultural affiliation, period of use, or site type. It is not appropriate to use the discontiguous district format to include an isolated resource or small group of resources which were once connected to the district, but have since been separated either through demolition or new construction. For example, do not use the discontiguous district format to nominate individual buildings of a downtown commerical district that have become isolated through demolition. Examples of districts include: business districts canal systems groups of habitation sites college campuses estates and farms with large acreage/ numerous properties industrial complexes irrigation systems residential areas rural villages transportation networks rural historic districts Ordeman-Shaw Historic District, Montgomery, Montgomery County, Alabama. Historic districts derive their identity from the interrationship of their resources. Part of the defining characteristics of this 19th century residential district in Montgomery, Alabama, is found in the rhythmic pattern of the rows of decorative porches. (Frank L. Thiermonge, III) V. HOW TO EVALUATE A PROPERTY WITHIN ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT UNDERSTANDING HISTORIC CONTEXTS To qualify for the National Regis- ter, a property must be significant; that is, it must represent a significant part of the history, architecture, archeology, engineering, or culture of an area, and it must have the charac- teristics that make it a good represen- tative of properties associated with that aspect of the past. This section explains how to evaluate a property within its historic context.4 The significance of a historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are those patterns or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within history or prehistory is made clear. Historians, architectural historians, folklorists, archeologists, and anthropologists use different words to describe this phenomena such as trend, pattern, theme, or cultural affiliation, but ultimately the concept is the same. The concept of historic context is not a new one; it has been fundamen- tal to the study of history since the 18th century and, arguably, earlier than that. Its core premise is that resources, properties, or happenings in history do not occur in a vacuum but rather are part of larger trends or patterns. In order to decide whether a property is significant within its historic context, the following five things must be determined: • The facet of prehistory or history of the local area, State, or the na- tion that the property represents; • Whether that facet of prehistory or history is significant; • Whether it is a type of property that has relevance and impor- tance in illustrating the historic context; • How the property illustrates that history; and finally • Whether the property possesses the physical features necessary to convey the aspect of prehistory or history with which it is associ- ated. These five steps are discussed in detail below. If the property being evaluated does represent an impor- tant aspect of the area's history or prehistory and possesses the requisite quality of integrity, then it qualifies for the National Register. HOW TO EVALUATE A PROPERTY WITHIN ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT Identify what the property repre- sents: the theme(s), geographical limits, and chronological period that provide a perspective from which to evaluate the property's significance. Historic contexts are historical patterns that can be identified through consideration of the history of the property and the history of the sur- rounding area. Historic contexts may have already been defined in your area by the State historic preservation office, Federal agencies, or local governments. In accordance with the National Regis- ter Criteria, the historic context may relate to one of the following: • An event, a series of events or ac- tivities, or patterns of an area's de- velopment (Criterion A); • Association with the life of an im- portant person (Criterion B); • A building form, architectural style, engineering technique, or artistic values, based on a stage of physical development, or the use of a mate- rial or method of construction that shaped the historic identity of an area (Criterion C); or • A research topic (Criterion D). 4 For a complete discussion of historic contexts, see National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Registration Forms. Determine how the theme of the context is significant in the history of the local area, the State, or the nation. A theme is a means of organizing properties into coherent patterns based on elements such as environ- ment, social/ethnic groups, transpor- tation networks, technology, or political developments that have influenced the development of an area during one or more periods of prehis- tory or history. A theme is considered significant if it can be demonstrated, through scholarly research, to be important in American history. Many significant themes can be found in the following list of Areas of Significance used by the National Register. AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE Agriculture Architecture Archeology Prehistoric Historic—Aboriginal Historic—Non-Aboriginal Art Commerce Communications Community Planning and Development Conservation Economics Education Engineering Entertainment/Recreation Ethnic Heritage Asian Black European Hispanic Native American Pacific Islander Other Exploration/Settlement Health/Medicine Industry Invention Landscape Architecture Law Literature Maritime History Military Performing Arts Philosophy Politics/Government Religion Science Social History Transportation Other Determine what the property type is and whether it is important in illustrating the historic context. A context may be represented by a variety of important property types. For example, the context of "Civil War Military Activity in Northern Virginia" might be represented by such properties as: a group of mid- 19th century fortification structures; an open field where a battle occurred; a knoll from which a general directed troop movements; a sunken transport ship; the residences or public build- ings that served as company head- quarters; a railroad bridge that served as a focal point for a battle; and earthworks exhibiting particular construction techniques. Because a historic context for a community can be based on a distinct period of development, it might include numerous property types. For example, the context "Era of Industrialization in Grand Bay, Michigan, 1875 -1900" could be represented by important property types as diverse as sawmills, paper mill sites, salt refining plants, flour mills, grain elevators, furniture factories, workers housing, commer- cial buildings, social halls, schools, churches, and transportation facilities. A historic context can also be based on a single important type of prop- erty. The context "Development of County Government in Georgia, 1777 -1861" might be represented solely by courthouses. Similarly, "Bridge Construction in Pittsburgh, 1870 - 1920" would probably only have one property type. Determine how the property represents the context through specific historic associations, archi- tectural or engineering values, or information potential (the Criteria for Evaluation). For example, the context of county government expansion is represented under Criterion A by historic districts or buildings that reflect population growth, development patterns, the role of government in that society, and political events in the history oi the State, as well as the impact of county government on the physical development of county seats. Under Criterion C, the context is represented by properties whose architectural treatments reflect their governmental functions, both practically and symbolically. (See Part VI: How to Identify the Type of Significance of a Property.) Determine what physical features the property must possess in order for it to reflect the significance of the historic context. These physical features can be determined after identifying the following: • Which types of properties are as- sociated with the historic context, • The ways in which properties can represent the theme, and • The applicable aspects of integ- rity. Properties that have the defined characteristics are eligible for listing. (See Part VIII: How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property.) PROPERTIES SIGNIFICANT WITHIN MORE THAN ONE HISTORIC CONTEXT A specific property can be signifi- cant within one or more historic contexts, and, if possible, all of these should be identified. For example, a public building constructed in the 1830s that is related to the historic context of Civil War campaigns in the area might also be related to the theme of political developments in the community during the 1880s. A property is only required, however, to be documented as significant in one context. COMPARING RELATED PROPERTIES Properties listed in the National Register must possess significance when evaluated in the perspective of their historic context. Once the historic context is established and the property type is determined, it is not necessary to evaluate the property in question against other properties if: • It is the sole example of a prop- erty type that is important in il- lustrating the historic context or • It clearly possesses the defined characteristics required to strongly represent the context. If these two conditions do not apply, then the property will have to be evaluated against other examples of the property type to determine its eligibility. The geographic level (local, State, or national) at which this evaluation is made is the same as the level of the historic context. (See Part V: How to Evaluate a Property Within Its Historic Context.) LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL HISTORIC CONTEXTS Historic contexts are found at a variety of geographical levels or scales. The geographic scale selected may relate to a pattern of historical development, a political division, or a cultural area. Regardless of the scale, the historic context establishes the framework from which decisions about the significance of related properties can be made. LOCAL HISTORIC CONTEXTS A local historic context represents an aspect of the history of a town, city, county, cultural area, or region, or any portions thereof. It is defined by the importance of the property, not necessarily the physical location of the property. For instance, if a property is of a type found throughout a State, or its boundaries extend over two States, but its importance relates only to a particular county, the property would be considered of local signifi- cance. The level of context of archeologi- cal sites significant for their informa- tion potential depends on the scope of the applicable research design. For example, a Late Mississippian village site may yield information in a research design concerning one settlement system on a regional scale, while in another research design it may reveal information of local importance concerning a single group's stone tool manufacturing techniques or house forms. It is a question of how the available infor- mation potential is likely to be used. STATE HISTORIC CONTEXTS Properties are evaluated in a State context when they represent an aspect of the history of the State as a whole (or American Samoa, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Virgin Islands). These properties do not necessarily have to belong to property types found throughout the entire State: they can be located in only a portion of the State's present political bound- ary. It is the property's historic context that must be important statewide. For example, the "cotton belt" extends through only a portion of Georgia, yet its historical develop- ment in the antebellum period af- fected the entire State. These State historic contexts may have associated properties that are statewide or locally significant representations. A cotton gin in a small town might be a locally significant representation of this context, while one of the largest cotton producing plantations might be of State significance. A property whose historic associa- tions or information potential appears to extend beyond a single local area might be significant at the State level. A property can be significant to more than one community or local area, however, without having achieved State significance. A property that overlaps several State boundaries can possibly be significant to the State or local history of each of the States. Such a property is not necessarily of national signifi- cance, however, nor is it necessarily significant to all of the States in which it is located. Prehistoric sites are not often considered to have "State" signifi- cance, per se, largely because States are relatively recent political entities and usually do not correspond closely to Native American political territo- ries or cultural areas. Numerous sites, however, may be of significance to a large region that might geographi- cally encompass parts of one, or usually several, States. Prehistoric resources that might be of State significance include regional sites that provide a diagnostic assemblage of artifacts for a particular cultural group or time period or that provide chronological control (specific dates or relative order in time) for a series of cultural groups. NATIONAL HISTORIC CONTEXTS Properties are evaluated in a national context when they represent an aspect of the history of the United States and its territories as a whole. These national historic contexts may have associated properties that are locally or statewide significant representations, as well as those of national significance. Properties designated as nationally significant and listed in the National Register are the prehistoric and historic units of the National Park System and those properties that have been designated National Historic Landmarks. The National Historic Landmark criteria are the standards for nationally significant properties; they are found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 65 and are summarized in this bulletin in Part IX: Summary of National Historic Land- marks Criteria for Evaluation. A property with national signifi- cance helps us understand the history of the nation by illustrating the nationwide impact of events or persons associated with the property, its architectural type or style, or information potential. It must be of exceptional value in representing or illustrating an important theme in the history of the nation. Nationally significant properties do not necessarily have to belong to a property type found throughout the entire country: they can be located in only a portion of the present political boundaries. It is their historic context that must be important nationwide. For example, the American Civil War was fought in only a portion of the United States, yet its impact was nationwide. The site of a small military skirmish might be a locally significant representation of this national context, while the capture of the State's largest city might be a statewide significant representation of the national context. When evaluating properties at the national level for designation as a National Historic Landmark, please refer to the National Historic Land- marks outline, History and Prehistory in the National Park System and the National Historic Landmarks Program 1987. (For more information about the National Historic Landmarks program, please write to the Depart- ment of the Interior, National Park Service, National Historic Land- marks, 1849 C Street, NW, NC400, Washington, DC 20240.) 10 VI. HOW TO IDENTIFY THE TYPE OF SIGNIFICANCE OF A PROPERTY INTRODUCTION When evaluated within its historic context, a property must be shown to be significant for one or more of the four Criteria for Evaluation - A, B, C, or D (listed earlier in Part U). The Criteria describe how properties are signifi- cant for their association with impor- tant events or persons, for their importance in design or construction, or for their information potential. The basis for judging a property's significance and, ultimately, its eligibility under the Criteria is historic context. The use of historic context allows a property to be properly evaluated in a nearly infinite number of capacities. For instance, Criterion C: Design/Construction can accom- modate properties representing construction types that are unusual or widely practiced, that are innovative or traditional, that are "high style" or vernacular, that are the work of a famous architect or an unknown master craftsman. The key to determin- ing whether the characteristics or associa- tions of a particular property are signifi- cant is to consider the property within its historic context. After identifying the relevant historic context(s) with which the property is associated, the four Criteria are applied to the property. Within the scope of the historic context, the National Register Criteria define the kind of significance that the properties represent. For example, within the context of "19th Century Gunpowder Produc- tion in the Brandywine Valley," Criterion A would apply to those properties associated with important events in the founding and develop- ment of the industry. Criterion B would apply to those properties associated with persons who are significant in the founding of the industry or associated with important inventions related to gunpowder manufacturing. Criterion C would apply to those buildings, structures, or objects whose architectural form or style reflect important design qualities integral to the industry. And Crite- rion D would apply to properties that can convey information important in our understanding of this industrial process. If a property qualifies under more than one of the Criteria, its significance under each should be considered, if possible, in order to identify all aspects of its historical value. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION* The National Register Criteria recognize different types of values embodied in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects. These values fall into the following categories: Associative value (Criteria A and B): Properties significant for their association or linkage to events (Criterion A) or persons (Criterion B) important in the past. Design or Construction value (Criterion C): Properties significant as representatives of the manmade expression of culture or technology. Information value (Criterion D): Properties significant for their ability to yield important information about prehistory or history. ""For a complete listing of the Criteria for Evaluation, refer to Part II oi this bulletin. 11 CRITERION A: EVENT Properties can be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. UNDERSTANDING CRITERION A: EVENT To be considered for listing under Criterion A, a property must be associated with one or more events important in the defined historic context. Criterion A recognizes properties associated with single events, such as the founding of a town, or with a pattern of events, repeated activities, or historic trends, such as the gradual rise of a port city's prominence in trade and commerce. The event or trends, however, must clearly be important within the associated context: settlement, in the case of the town, or development of a maritime economy, in the case of the port city. Moreover, the property must have an important association with the event or historic trends, and it must retain historic integrity. (See Part V: How to Evaluate a Property Within its Historic Context.) Several steps are involved in determining whether a property is significant for its associative values: • Determine the nature and origin of the property, • Identify the historic context with which it is associated, and • Evaluate the property's history to determine whether it is associ- ated with the historic context in any important way. APPLYING CRITERION A: EVENT TYPES OF EVENTS A property can be associated with either (or both) of two types of events: • A specific event marking an im- portant moment in American pre- history or history and • A pattern of events or a historic trend that made a significant con- tribution to the development of a community, a State, or the nation. Refer to the sidebar on the right for a list of specific examples. ASSOCIATION OF THE PROPERTY WITH THE EVENTS The property you are evaluating must be documented, through ac- cepted means of historical or archeo- logical research (including oral history), to have existed at the time of the event or pattern of events and to have been associated with those events. A property is not eligible if its associations are speculative. For archeological sites, well reasoned inferences drawn from data recovered at the site can be used to establish the association between the site and the events. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ASSOCIATION Mere association with historic events or trends is not enough, in and of itself, to qualify under Criterion A: the property's specific association must be considered important as well. For example, a building historically in commercial use must be shown to have been significant in commercial history. EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH EVENTS Properties associated with specific events: • The site of a battle. • The building in which an important invention was developed. • A factory district where a significant strike occurred. • An archeological site at which a ma- jor new aspect of prehistory was dis- covered, such as the first evidence of man and extinct Pleistocene animals being contemporaneous. • A site where an important facet of European exploration occurred. Properties associated with a pattern of events: • A trail associated with western mi- gration. • A railroad station that served as the focus of a community's transporta- tion system and commerce. • A mill district reflecting the impor- tance of textile manufacturing dur- ing a given period. • A building used by an important lo- cal social organization. • A site where prehistoric Native Americans annually gathered for seasonally available resources and for social interaction. • A downtown district representing a town's growth as the commercial fo- cus of the surrounding agricultural area. 12 TRADITIONAL CULTURAL VALUES Traditional cultural significance is derived from the role a property plays in a community's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Properties may have significance under Criterion A if they are associ- ated with events, or series of events, significant to the cultural traditions of a community.5 Eligible • A hilltop associated in oral his- torical accounts with the founding of an Indian tribe or society is eligible. • A rural community can be eli- gible whose organization, buildings, or patterns of land use reflect the cultural traditions valued by its long- term residents. • An urban neighborhood can be eligible as the traditional home of a particular cultural group and as a reflection of its beliefs and practices. Not Eligible • A site viewed as sacred by a recently established Utopian or religious community does not have traditional cultural value and is not eligible. Criterion A - The Old Brulay Plantation, Brownsville vicinity, Cameron county, Texas. Historically significant for its association with the development of agriculture in southeast Texas, this complex of 10 brick buildings was constructed by George N. Brulay, a French immigrant who introduced commercial sugar production and irrigation to the Rio Grande Valley. (Photo by Texas Historical Commission). 5 For more information, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. 13 CRITERION B: PERSON Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. UNDERSTANDING CRITERION B: PERSON6 Criterion B applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. Persons "significant in our past" refers to individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context. The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person's important achievements. (The policy regarding commemora- tive properties, birthplaces, and graves is explained further in Part VIII: How to Apply the Criteria Consid- erations.) Several steps are involved in determining whether a property is significant for its associative values under Criterion B. First, determine the importance of the individual. Second, ascertain the length and nature of his/her association with the property under study and identify the other properties associated with the individual. Third, consider the property under Criterion B, as outlined below. EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH PERSONS Properties associated with a Significant Person: • The home of an important merchant or labor leader. • The studio of a significant artist. • The business headquarters of an im- portant industrialist. Criterion B - The William Whitney House, Hinsdale, DuPage County, Illinois. This building is locally significant for its historical association with William Whitney, the founder of the town of Hinsdale, Illinois. Whitney, a citizen of New York State, moved to Illinois, established the town, and while living here between 1870 and 1879 was a prominent local businessman and politician. (Photo by Frederick C. Cue). 'For further information on properties eligible under Criterion B, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons. 14 APPLYING CRITERION B: PERSON SIGNIFICANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL The persons associated with the property must be individually signifi- cant within a historic context. A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who is a member of an identifiable profes- sion, class, or social or ethnic group. It must be shown that the person gained importance within his or her profession or group. Eligible • The residence of a doctor, a mayor, or a merchant is eli- gible under Criterion B if the person was significant in the field of medicine, politics, or commerce, respectively. Not Eligible • A property is not eligible un- der Criterion B if it is associ- ated with an individual about whom no scholarly judgement can be made because either re- search has not revealed spe- cific information about the person's activities and their impact, or there is insufficient perspective to determine whether those activities or contributions were historically important. ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROPERTY Properties eligible under Criterion B are usually those associated with a person's productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance. In some instances this may be the person's home; in other cases, a person's business, office, laboratory, or studio may best repre- sent his or her contribution. Proper- ties that pre- or post-date an individual's significant accomplish- ments are usually not eligible. (See Comparison to Related Properties, below, for exceptions to this rule.) The individual's association with the property must be documented by accepted methods of historical or archeological research, including written or oral history. Speculative associations are not acceptable. For archeological sites, well reasoned inferences drawn from data recovered at the site are acceptable. COMPARISON TO RELATED PROPERTIES Each property associated with an important individual should be compared to other associated proper- ties to identify those that best repre- sent the person's historic contribu- tions. The best representatives usually are properties associated with the person's adult or productive life. Properties associated with an individual's formative or later years may also qualify if it can be demon- strated that the person's activities during this period were historically significant or if no properties from the person's productive years survives. Length of association is an important factor when assessing several proper- ties with similar associations. A community or State may contain several properties eligible for associa- tions with the same important person, if each represents a different aspect of the person's productive life. A property can also be eligible if it has brief but consequential associations with an important individual. (Such associations are often related to specific events that occurred at the property and, therefore, it may also be eligible under Criterion A.) ASSOCIATION WITH GROUPS For properties associated with several community leaders or with a prominent family, it is necessary to identify specific individuals and to explain their significant accomplish- ments. Eligible • A residential district in which a large number of prominent or influential merchants, profes- sionals, civic leaders, politi- cians, etc., lived will be eligible under Criterion B if the signifi- cance of one or more specific individual residents is explic- itly justified. • A building that served as the seat of an important family is eligible under Criterion B if the significant accomplishments of one or more individual family members is explicitly justified. Not Eligible • A residential district in which a large number of influential per- sons lived is not eligible under Criterion B if the accomplish- ments of a specific indivi- dual^) cannot be documented. If the significance of the district rests in the cumulative impor- tance of prominent residents, however, then the district might still be eligible under Criterion A. Eligibility, in this case, would be based on the broad pattern of community development, through which the neighborhood evolved into the primary residential area for this class of citizens. • A building that served as the seat of an important family will not be eligible under Criterion B if the significant accomplish- ments of individual family members cannot be docu- mented. In cases where a suc- cession of family members have lived in a house and col- lectively have had a demon- strably significant impact on the community, as a family, the house is more likely to be sig- nificant under Criterion A for association with a pattern of events. 15 ASSOCIATION WITH LIVING PERSONS Properties associated with living persons are usually not eligible for inclusion in the National Register. Sufficient time must have elapsed to assess both the person's field of endeavor and his/her contribution to that field. Generally, the person's active participation in the endeavor must be finished for this historic perspective to emerge. (See Criteria Considerations C and G in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria Consider- ations.) ASSOCIATION WITH ARCHITECTS/ARTISANS Architects, artisans, artists, and engineers are often represented by their works, which are eligible under Criterion C. Their homes and studios, however, can be eligible for consider- ation under Criterion B, because these usually are the properties with which they are most personally associated. NATIVE AMERICAN SITES The known major villages of individual Native Americans who were important during the contact period or later can qualify under Criterion B. As with all Criterion B properties, the individual associated with the property must have made some specific important contribution to history. Examples include sites significantly associated with Chief Joseph and Geronimo.7 7 For more information, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. 16 CRITERION C: DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. Richland Plantation, East Feliciana Parish, Louisiana. Properties can qualify under Criterion C as examples of high style architecture. Built in the 1830s, Richland is a fine example of a Federal style residence with a Greek Revival style portico. (Photo by Dave Gleason). UNDERSTANDING CRITERION C: DESIGN/ CONSTRUCTION This criterion applies to properties significant for their physical design or construction, including such elements as architecture, landscape architec- ture, engineering, and artwork. To be eligible under Criterion C, a property must meet at least one of the following requirements: • Embody distinctive characteris- tics of a type, period, or method of construction. • Represent the work of a master. • Possess high artistic value. • Represent a significant and dis- tinguishable entity whose com- ponents may lack individual dis- tinction. The first requirement, that proper- ties "embody the distinctive charac- teristics of a type, period, or method of construction/' refers to the way in which a property was conceived, designed, or fabricated by a people or culture in past periods of history. "The work of a master" refers to the technical or aesthetic achievements of an architect or craftsman. "High artistic values" concerns the expres- sion of aesthetic ideals or preferences and applies to aesthetic achievement. Resources "that represent a signifi- cant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual dis- tinction" are called "districts." In the Criteria for Evaluation (as published in the Code of Federal Regulations and reprinted here in Part II), districts are defined within the context of Crite- rion C. Districts, however, can be con- sidered for eligibility under all the Crite- ria, individually or in any combina- tion, as is appropriate. For this rea- son, the full discussion of districts is contained in Part IV: How to Define Categories of Historic Properties. Throughout the bulletin, however, districts are mentioned within the context of a specific subject, such as an individual Criterion. Grant Family House, Saco vicinity, York County, Maine. Properties possessing high artistic value meet Criterion C through the expression of aesthetic ideals or preferences. The Grant Family House, a modest Federal style residence, is significant for its remarkably well-preserved stenciled wall decorative treatment in the entry hall and parlor. Painted by an unknown artist ca. 1825, this is a fine example of 19th century New England regional artistic expression. (Photo by Kirk F. Mohney). 17 EXAMPLES OF PROPERTIES ASSOCIATED WITH DESIGN/ CONSTRUCTION Properties associated with design and construction: • A house or commercial building rep- resenting a significant style of archi- tecture. • A designed park or garden associated with a particular landscape design philosophy. • A movie theater embodying high ar- tistic value in its decorative features. • A bridge or dam representing techno- logical advances. APPLYING CRITERION C: DESIGN/ CONSTRUCTION DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPE, PERIOD, AND METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION This is the portion of Criterion C under which most properties are eligible, for it encompasses all archi- tectural styles and construction practices. To be eligible under this portion of the Criterion, a property must clearly illustrate, through "distinctive characteristics/' the following: • The pattern of features common to a particular class of resources, • The individuality or variation of features that occurs within the class, • The evolution of that class, or • The transition between classes of resources. Distinctive Characteristics: "Dis- tinctive characteristics" are the physi- cal features or traits that commonly recur in individual types, periods, or methods of construction. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those characteristics to be considered a true representative of a particular type, period, or method of construction. Characteristics can be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, struc- ture, plan, style, or materials. They can be general, referring to ideas of design and construction such as basic plan or form, or they can be specific, referring to precise ways of combining particular kinds of materials. Eligible • A building eligible under the theme of Gothic Revival archi- tecture must have the distinc- tive characteristics that make up the vertical and picturesque qualities of the style, such as pointed gables, steep roof pitch, board and batten siding, and ornamental bargeboard and veranda trim. • A late Mississippian village that illustrates the important concepts in prehistoric community design and plan- ning will qualify. • A designed historic landscape will qualify if it reflects a his- toric trend or school of theory and practice, such as the City Beautiful Movement, evidenc- ingdistinguished design, lay- out, and the work of skilled craftsmanship. Not Eligible • A commercial building with some Art Deco detailing is not eligible under Criterion C if the detailing was added merely as an afterthought, rather than fully integrated with overall lines and massing typical of the Art Deco style or the transition between that and another style. • A designed landscape that has had major changes to its his- toric design, vegetation, origi- nal boundary, topography/ grading, architectural features, and circulation system will not qualify. Type, Period, and Method of Construction: "Type, period, or method of construction" refers to the way certain properties are related to one another by cultural tradition or function, by dates of construction or style, or by choice or availability of materials and technology. A structure is eligible as a speci- men of its type or period of construc- tion if it is an important example (within its context) of building practices of a particular time in history. For properties that represent the variation, evolution, or transition of construction types, it must be demonstrated that the variation, etc., was an important phase of the archi- tectural development of: the area or community in that it had an impact as evidenced by later buildings. A property is not eligible, however, simply because it has been identified as the only such property ever fabri- cated; it must be demonstrated to be significant as well. Eligible • A building that has some char- acteristics of the Romanesque Revival style and some charac- teristics of the Commercial style can qualify if it illustrates the transition of architectural design and the transition itself is considered an important ar- chitectural development. • A Hopewellian mound, if it is an important example of mound building construction techniques, would qualify as a method or type of construc- tion. • A building which illustrates the early or the developing technology of particular structural systems, such as skeletal steel framing, is eli- gible as an example of a particular method of construc- tion. 18 Swan Falls Dam and Power Plant, Murphy vicinity, Ada County, Idaho. Significant works of engineering can qualify under Criterion C. Built between 1900- 1907 the Swan Falls Dam and Power Plant across the Snake River is one of the early hydroelectric plants in the State of Idaho. (Photo by H.L. Hough). HISTORIC ADAPTATION OF THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY A property can be significant not only for the way it was originally constructed or crafted, but also for the way it was adapted at a later period, or for the way it illustrates changing tastes, attitudes, and uses over a period of time. A district is eligible under this guideline if it illustrates the evolution of historic character of a place over a particular span of time. Looney House, Asheville vicinity, St. Clair County, Alabama. Examples of vernacular styles of architecture can qualify under Criterion C. Built ca. 1818, the Looney House is significant as possibly the State's oldest extant two-story dogtrot type of dwelling. The defining open center passage of the dogtrot was a regional building response to the southern climate. (Photo by Carolyn Scott). Eligible • A Native American irrigation system modified for use by Europeans could be eligible if it illustrates the technology of either or both periods of con- struction. • An early 19th century farm- house modified in the 1880s with Queen Anne style orna- mentation could be significant for the modification itself, if it represented a local variation or significant trend in building construction or remodelling, was the work of a local master (see Works of a Master on page 20), or reflected the tastes of an important person associated with the property at the time of its alteration. • A district encompassing the commercial development of a town between 1820 and 1910, characterized by buildings of various styles and eras, can be eligible. 19 WORKS OF A MASTER A master is a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field, a known craftsman of consummate skill, or an anonymous craftsman whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality. The property must express a particular phase in the development of the master's career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular idea or theme in his or her craft. A property is not eligible as the work of a master, however, simply because it was designed by a promi- nent architect. For example, not every building designed by Frank Lloyd Wright is eligible under this portion of Criterion C, although it might meet other portions of the Criterion, for instance as a representative of the Prairie style. The work of an unidentified craftsman is eligible if it rises above the level of workmanship of the other properties encompassed by the historic context. PROPERTIES POSSESSING HIGH ARTISTIC VALUES High artistic values may be ex- pressed in many ways, including areas as diverse as community design or planning, engineering, and sculp- ture. A property is eligible for its high artistic values if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible, however, if it does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type. A Significant and Distinguishable Entity Whose Components May Lack Individual Distinction. This portion of Criterion C refers to districts. For detailed information on districts, refer to Part IV of this bulletin. Eligible • A sculpture in a town square that epitomizes the design principles of the Art Deco style is eligible. • A building that is a classic ex- pression of the design theories o^ the Craftsman Style, such as carefully detailed handwork, is eligible. • A landscaped park that syn- thesizes early 20th century principles of landscape archi- tecture and expresses an aes- thetic ideal of environment can be eligible. • Properties that are important representatives of the aesthetic values of a cultural group, such as petroglyphs and ground drawings by Native Americans, are eligible. Not Eligible • A sculpture in a town square that is a typical example of sculpture design during its pe- riod would not qualify for high artistic value, although it might be eligible if it were sig- nificant for other reasons. • A building that is a modest ex- ample (within its historic con- text) of the Craftsman Style of architecture, or a landscaped park that is characteristic of turn of the century landscape design would not qualify for high artistic value. 20 CRITERION D: INFORMATION POTENTIAL Properties may be eligible for the National Register if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information im- portant in prehistory or history. UNDERSTANDING CRITERION D: INFORMATION POTENTIAL Certain important research ques- tions about human history can only be answered by the actual physical material of cultural resources. Crite- rion D encompasses the properties that have the potential to answer, in whole or in part, those types of research questions. The most com- mon type of property nominated under this Criterion is the archeologi- cal site (or a district comprised of archeological sites). Buildings, objects, and structures (or districts comprised of these property types), however, can also be eligible for their information potential. Criterion D has two requirements, which must both be met for a property to qualify: • The property must have, or have had, information to contribute to our understanding of human his- tory or prehistory, and • The information must be consid- ered important. Under the first of these require- ments, a property is eligible if it has been used as a source oi data and contains more, as yet unretrieved data. A property is also eligible if it has not yet yielded information but, through testing or research, is deter- mined a likely source of data. Under the second requirement, the information must be carefully evalu- ated within an appropriate context to determine its importance. Informa- tion is considered "important" when it is shown to have a significant bearing on a research design that addresses such areas as: 1) current data gaps or alternative theories that challenge existing ones or 2) priority areas identified under a State or Federal agency management plan. APPLYING CRITERION D: INFORMATION POTENTIAL ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES Criterion D most commonly applies to properties that contain or are likely to contain information bearing on an important archeological research question. The property must have characteristics suggesting the likelihood that it possesses configura- tions of artifacts, soil strata, structural remains, or other natural or cultural features that make it possible to do the following: • Test a hypothesis or hypotheses about events, groups, or pro- cesses in the past that bear on im- portant research questions in the social or natural sciences or the humanities; or • Corroborate or amplify currently available information suggesting that a hypothesis is either true or false; or • Reconstruct the sequence of ar- cheological cultures for the pur- pose of identifying and explain- ing continuities and discontinu- ities in the archeological record for a particular area. BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, AND OBJECTS While most often applied to archeological districts and sites, Criterion D can also apply to build- ings, structures, and objects that contain important information. In order for these types of properties to be eligible under Criterion D, they themselves must be, or must have been, the principal source of the important information. Eligible • A building exhibiting a local variation on a standard design or construction technique can be eligible if study could yield important information, such as how local availability of mate- rials or construction expertise affected the evolution of local building development. Not Eligible • The ruins of a hacienda once contained murals that have since been destroyed. Histori- cal documentation, however, indicates that the murals were significant for their highly un- usual design. The ruins can not be eligible under Criterion D for the importance of the de- stroyed murals if the informa- tion is contained only in the documentation. 21 Criterion D - Chantpe-Frentont 1 Archeological Site, Omaha vicinity, Douglas County, Nebraska. This archeological site, dating from ca. 1100-1450 A.D., consists of pit houses and storage pits which have the potential to yield important information concerning the subsistence patterns, religious and mortuary practices, and social organization of the prehistoric residents of eastern Nebraska. (Nebraska State Historical Society) ASSOCIATION WITH HUMAN ACTIVITY A property must be associated with human activity and be critical for understanding a site's historic environ- ment in order to be eligible under Criterion D. A property can be linked to human activity through events, processes, institutions, design, con- struction, settlement, migration, ideals, beliefs, lifeways, and other facets of the development or maintenance of cultural systems. The natural environment associated with the properties was often very different from that of the present and strongly influenced cultural develop- ment. Aspects of the environment that are pertinent to human activities should be considered when evaluating properties under Criterion D. Natural features and paleontological (floral and faunal) sites are not usually eligible under Criterion D in and of themselves. They can be eligible, however, if they are either directly related to human activity or critical to understanding a site's historic environ- ment. In a few cases, a natural feature or site unmarked by cultural materials, that is primarily eligible under Crite- rion A, may also be eligible under Criterion D, if study of the feature, or its location, setting, etc. (usually in the context of data gained from other sources), will yield important informa- tion about the event or period with which it is associated. ESTABLISHING A HISTORIC CONTEXT The information that a property yields, or will yield, must be evalu- ated within an appropriate historic context. This will entail consulting the body of information already collected from similar properties or other pertinent sources, including modern and historic written records. The researcher must be able to anticipate if and how the potential information will affect the definition of the context. The information likely to be obtained from a particular property must confirm, refute, or supplement in an important way existing information. A property is not eligible if it cannot be related to a particular time period or cultural group and, as a result, lacks any historic context within which to evaluate the impor- tance of the information to be gained. DEVELOPING RESEARCH QUESTIONS Having established the importance of the information that may be recovered, it is necessary to be explicit in demonstrating the connection between the important information and a specific property. One ap- proach is to determine if specific important research questions can be answered by the data contained in the property. Research questions can be related to property-specific issues, to broader questions about a large geographic area, or to theoretical issues independent of any particular geographic location. These questions may be derived from the academic community or from preservation programs at the local, regional, State, or national level. Research questions are usually developed as part of a "research design," which specifies not only the questions to be asked, but also the types of data needed to supply the answers, and often the techniques needed to recover the data. Eligible • When a site consisting of a vil- lage occupation with midden deposits, hearths, ceramics, and stratified evidence of sev- eral occupations is being evaluated, three possible re- search topics could be: 1) the question of whether the site occupants were indigenous to the area prior to the time of oc- cupation or recent arrivals, 2) the investigation of the settle- ment-subsistence pattern of the occupants, 3) the question of whether the region was a center for the domestication of plants. Specific questions could include: A) Do the de- posits show a sequential de- velopment or sudden intro- duction of Ceramic Type X? B) Do the dates of the occupa- tions fit our expectations based on the current model for the reoccupation behavior of slash-and-burn agricultural- ists? C) Can any genetic changes in the food plant re- mains be detected? Not Eligible • A property is not eligible if so little can be understood about it that it is not possible to de- termine if specific important research questions can be an- swered by data contained in the property. 22 ESTABLISHING THE PRESENCE OF ADEQUATE DATA To support the assertion that a property has the data necessary to provide the important information, the property should be investigated with techniques sufficient to establish the presence of relevant data catego- ries. What constitutes appropriate investigation techniques would depend upon specific circumstances including the property's location, condition, and the research questions being addressed, and could range from surface survey (or photographic survey for buildings), to the applica- tion of remote sensing techniques or intensive subsurface testing. Justifica- tion of the research potential of a property may be based on analogy to another better known property if sufficient similarities exist to establish the appropriateness of the analogy. Eligible • Data requirements depend on the specific research topics and questions to be addressed. To continue the example in "De- veloping Research Questions" above, we might want to ascer- tain the following with refer- ence to questions A, B, and C: A) The site contains Ceramic Type X in one or more occupa- tion levels and we expect to be able to document the local evaluation of the type or its in- trusive nature. B) The hearths contain datable carbon deposits and are associated with more than one occupation. C) The midden deposits show good floral/faunal preservation, and we know enough about the physical evolution of food plants to interpret signs that suggest domestication. Not Eligible • Generally, if the applicable re- search design requires clearly stratified deposits, then subsur- face investigation techniques must be applied. A site com- posed only of surface materials can not be eligible for its poten- tial to yield information that could only be found in strati- fied deposits. INTEGRITY The assessment of integrity for properties considered for information potential depends on the data require- ments of the applicable research design. A property possessing information potential does not need to recall visually an event, person, process, or construction technique. It is important that the significant data contained in the property remain sufficiently intact to yield the ex- pected important information, if the appropriate study techniques are employed. Eligible • An irrigation system signifi- cant for the information it will yield on early engineering practices can still be eligible even though it is now filled in and no longer retains the ap- pearance of an open canal. Not Eligible • A plowed archeological site contains several superimposed components that have been mixed to the extent that arti- fact assemblages cannot be re- constructed. The site cannot be eligible if the data require- ments of the research design call for the study of artifacts specific to one component. PARTLY EXCAVATED OR DISTURBED PROPERTIES The current existence of appropri- ate physical remains must be ascer- tained in considering a property's ability to yield important information. Properties that have been partly excavated or otherwise disturbed and that are being considered for their potential to yield additional impor- tant information must be shown to retain that potential in their remaining portions. Eligible • A site that has been partially excavated but still retains sub- stantial intact deposits (or a site in which the remaining de- posits are small but contain critical information on a topic that is not well known) is eli- gible. Not Eligible • A totally collected surface site or a completely excavated bur- ied site is not eligible since the physical remains capable of yielding important informa- tion no longer exist at the site. (See Completely Excavated Sites, on page 24, for exception.) Likewise, a site that has been looted or otherwise disturbed to the extent that the remain- ing cultural materials have lost their important depositional context (horizontal or vertical location of deposits) is not eli- gible. • A reconstructed mound or other reconstructed site will generally not be considered eligible, because original cul- tural materials or context or both have been lost. 23 COMPLETELY EXCAVATED SITES Properties that have yielded important information in the past and that no longer retain additional research potential (such as completely excavated archeological sites) must be assessed essentially as historic sites under Criterion A. Such sites must be significant for associative values related to: 1) the importance of the data gained or 2) the impact of the property's role in the history of the development of anthropology/ archeology or other relevant disci- plines. Like other historic properties, the site must retain the ability to convey its association as the former repository of important information, the location of historic events, or the representative of important trends. Eligible • A property that has been exca- vated is eligible if the data re- covered was of such impor- tance that it influenced the di- rection of research in the disci- pline, as in a site that clearly established the antiquity of the human occupation of the New World. (See Criterion A in Part VI: How to Identify the Type of Significance of a Property and Criteria Consideration G in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria Considerations.) Not Eligible • A totally excavated site that at one time yielded important in- formation but that no longer can convey either its historic/ prehistoric utilization or sig- nificant modern investigation is not eligible. 24 VII. HOW TO APPLY THE CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS INTRODUCTION Certain kinds of properties are not usually considered for listing in the National Register: religious proper- ties, moved properties, birthplaces and graves, cemeteries, reconstructed properties, commemorative proper- ties, and properties achieving signifi- cance within the past fifty years. These properties can be eligible for listing, however, if they meet special requirements, called Criteria Consid- erations, in addition to meeting the regular requirements (that is, being eligible under one or more of the four Criteria and possessing integrity). Part VII provides guidelines for determining which properties must meet these special requirements and for applying each Criteria Consider- ation. The Criteria Considerations need to be applied only to individual proper- ties. Components of eligible districts do not have to meet the special requirements unless they make up the majority of the district or are the focal point of the district. These are the general steps to follow when applying the Criteria Considerations to your property: • Before looking at the Criteria Considerations, make sure your property meets one or more of the four Criteria for Evaluation and possesses integrity. • If it does, check the Criteria Con- siderations (next column) to see if the property is of a type that is usually excluded from the Na- tional Register. The sections that follow also list specific examples of properties of each type. If your property clearly does not fit one of these types, then it does not need to meet any special re- quirements. • If your property does fit one o^ these types, then it must meet the special requirements stipulated for that type in the Criteria Con- siderations. CRITERIA CONSIDERATIONS* Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures, proper- ties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties prima- rily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved signifi- cance within the past fifty years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: a. a religious property deriving pri- mary significance from architec- tural or artistic distinction or his- torical importance; or b. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most im- portantly associated with a his- toric person or event; or c. a birthplace or grave of a histori- cal figure of outstanding impor- tance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associ- ated with his or her productive life; or d. a cemetery which derives its pri- mary significance from graves of persons of transcendent impor- tance, from age, from distinctive design features, from association with historic events; or e. a reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a res- toration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or f. a property primarily commemo- rative in intent if design, age, tra- dition, or symbolic value has in- vested it with its own exceptional significance; or, g. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. *The Criteria Considerations are taken from the Criteria for Evaluation, found in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Part 60. 25 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION A: RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES A religious property is eligible if it derives its primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION A: RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES A religious property requires justification on architectural, artistic, or historic grounds to avoid any appearance of judgment by govern- ment about the validity of any reli- gion or belief. Historic significance for a religious property cannot be established on the merits of a reli- gious doctrine, but rather, for archi- tectural or artistic values or for important historic or cultural forces that the property represents. A religious property's significance under Criterion A, B, C, or D must be judged in purely secular terms. A religious group may, in some cases, be considered a cultural group whose activities are significant in areas broader than religious history. Criteria Consideration for Reli- gious Properties applies: • If the resource was constructed by a religious institution. • If the resource is presently owned by a religious institution or is used for religious purposes. • If the resource was owned by a religious institution or used for religious purposes during its Pe- riod of Significance. • If Religion is selected as an Area of Significance. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration A: Reli- gions Properties • A historic church where an inipor- tant non-religious event occurred, such as a speetfi by Patrick Henry. • A historic synagogue that is signifi- cant for architecture. • A private residence is the site of a meeting important to religious his- tory. • A commercial block that is currently owned as an investment property by a religious institution. • A historic district in which religion was either a predominant or signifi- cant function during the period of significance. Example of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration A: Religious Properties • A residential or commercial district that currently contains a small num- ber of churches that are not a pre- dominant feature of the district. • A town meeting hall that serves as the center of community activity and houses a wide variety of public and private meetings, including reli- gious service. The resource is sig- nificant for architecture and politics, and the religious function is inciden- tal • A town hall, significant for politics from 1875 to 1925, that housed religious services during the 1950s. Since the religious function occurred after the Period of Significance, the Criteria Consideration does not ap- APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION A: RELIGIOUS PROPERTIES ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC EVENTS A religious property can be eligible under Criterion A for any of three rea- sons: • It is significant under a theme in the history of religion having secular scholarly recognition; or • It is significant under another his- torical theme, such as explora- tion, settlement, social philan- thropy, or education; or • It is significantly associated with traditional cultural values. 26 RELIGIOUS HISTORY A religious property can be eligible if it is directly associated with either a specific event or a broad pattern in the history of religion. Eligible • The site of a convention at which a significant denomina- tional split occurred meets the requirements of Criteria Con- sideration A. Also eligible is a property that illustrates the broad impact of a religious in- stitution on the history of a lo- cal area. Not Eligible • A religious property cannot be eligible simply because was the place of religious services for a community, or was the oldest structure used by a reli- gious group in a local area. OTHER HISTORICAL THEMES A religious property can be eligible if it is directly associated with either a specific event or a broad pattern that is significant in another historic context. A religious property would also qualify if it were significant for its associations that illustrate the importance of a particular religious group in the social, cultural, eco- nomic, or political history of the area. Eligibility depends on the importance of the event or broad pattern and the role of the specific property. Eligible • A religious property can qualify for its important role as a temporary hospital during the Revolutionary War, or if its school was significant in the history of education in the community. Not Eligible • A religious property is not sig- nificant in the history of edu- cation in a community simply because it had occasionally served as a school. TRADITIONAL CULTURAL VALUES When evaluating properties associated with traditional cultures, it is important to recognize that often these cultures do not make clear distinctions between what is secular and what is sacred. Criteria Consider- ation A is not intended to exclude traditional cultural resources merely because they have religious uses or are considered sacred. A property or natural feature important to a tradi- tional culture's religion and mythol- ogy is eligible if its importance has been ethnohistorically documented and if the site can be clearly defined. It is critical, however, that the activi- ties be documented and that the associations not be so diffuse that the physical resource cannot be ad- equately defined.8 Eligible • A specific location or natural feature that an Indian tribe be- lieves to be its place of origin and that is adequately docu- mented qualifies under Crite- ria Consideration A. ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC PERSONS A religious property can be eligible for association with a person impor- tant in religious history, if that significance has scholarly, secular recognition or is important in other historic contexts. Individuals who would likely be considered significant are those who formed or significantly influenced an important religious institution or movement, or who were important in the social, economic, or political history of the area. Proper- ties associated with individuals important only within the context of a single congregation and lacking importance in any other historic context would not be eligible under Criterion B. Eligible • A religious property strongly associated with a religious leader, such as George Whitefield or Joseph Smith, is eligible. 8 For more information on applying Criteria Consideration A to traditional cultural properties, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. ELIGIBILITY FOR ARCHITECTURAL OR ARTISTIC DISTINCTION A religious property significant for its architectural design or construc- tion should be evaluated as are other properties under Criterion C; that is, it should be evaluated within an established architectural context and, if necessary, compared to other properties of its type, period, or method of construction. (See "Com- paring Related Properties" in Part V: How to Evaluate a Property Within Its Historic Context.) ELIGIBILITY FOR INFORMATION POTENTIAL A religious property, whether a district, site, building, structure, or object, is eligible if it can yield impor- tant information about the religious practices of a cultural group or other historic themes. This kind of property should be evaluated as are other properties under Criterion D, in relation to similar properties, other information sources, and existing data gaps. Eligible • A historic camp meeting dis- trict that meets the require- ments of Criterion C for its sig- nificance as a type of construc- tion is eligible. Eligible • A 19th century camp meeting site that could provide infor- mation about the length and intensity of site use during re- vivals of the Second Great Awakening is eligible. • Rock cairns or medicine wheels that had a historic reli- gious mythological function and can provide information about specific cultural beliefs are eligible. Criteria Consideration A - Religious Properties. A religious property can qualify as an exception to the Criteria if it is architecturally significant. The Church of the Navity in Rosedale, Iberville Parish, Louisiana, qualified as a rare example in the State of a 19th century small frame Gothic Revival style chapel. (Robert Obier) ABILITY TO REFLECT HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS As with all eligible properties, religious properties must physically represent the period of time for which they are significance. For instance, a recent building that houses an older congregation cannot qualify based on the historic activities of the group because the current building does not convey the earlier history. Likewise, an older building that housed the historic activities of the congregation is eligible if it still physically repre- sents the period of the congregation's significance. However, if an older building has been remodeled to the extent that its appearance dates from the time of the remodeling, it can only be eligible if the period of significance corresponds with the period of the alterations. Eligible • A church built in the 18th cen- tury and altered beyond recog- nition in the 19th century is eligible only if the additions are important in themselves as an example of late 19th cen- tury architecture or as a reflec- tion of an important period of the congregation's growth. Not Eligible • A synagogue built in the 1920s cannot be eligible for the im- portant activities of its congre- gation in the 18th and 19th centuries. It can only be eli- gible for significance obtained after its construction date. • A rural 19th century frame church recently sheathed in brick is not eligible because it has lost its characteristic ap- pearance and therefore can no longer convey its 19th century significance, either for archi- tectural value or historic asso- ciation. 28 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION B: MOVED PROPERTIES A property removed from its original or historically significant location can be eligible if it is significant primarily for architectural value or it is the surviving property most importantly associated with a historic person or event. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION B: MOVED PROPERTIES The National Register criteria limit the consideration of moved properties because significance is embodied in locations and settings as well as in the properties themselves. Moving a property destroys the relationships between the property and its sur- roundings and destroys associations with historic events and persons. A move may also cause the loss of historic features such as landscaping, foundations, and chimneys, as well as loss of the potential for associated archeological deposits. Properties that were moved before their period of significance do not need to meet the special requirements of Criteria Consideration B. One of the basic purposes of the National Register is to encourage the preservation of historic properties as living parts of their communities. In keeping with this purpose, it is not usual to list artificial groupings of buildings that have been created for purposes of interpretation, protection, or maintenance. Moving buildings to such a grouping destroys the integrity of location and setting, and can create a false sense of historic development. APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION B: MOVED PROPERTIES ELIGIBILITY FOR ARCHITECTURAL VALUE A moved property significant under Criterion C must retain enough historic features to convey its architec- tural values and retain integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties • A resource moved from one location on its original site to another loca- tion on the property, during or after its Period of Significance. • A district in which a significant number of resources have been moved from their original location. • A district which has one moved building that makes an especially significant contribution to the dis- trict. • A portable resource, such as a ship or railroad car, that is relocated to a place incompatible with its original function. • A portable resource, such as a ship or railroad car, whose importance is critically linked to its historic loca- tion or route and that is moved. Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration B: Moved Properties • A property that is moved prior to its Period of Significance. • A district in which only a small per- centage of typical buildings in a dis- trict are moved. • A moved building that is part of a complex but is of less significance than the remaining (unmoved) buildings. • A portable resource, such as a ship or railroad car, that is eligible under Criterion C and is moved within its natural setting (water, rails, etc.). • A property that is raised or lowered on its foundations. 29 ELIGIBILITY FOR HISTORIC ASSOCIATIONS A moved property significant under Criteria A or B must be demon- strated to be the surviving property most importantly associated with a particular historic event or an impor- tant aspect of a historic person's life. The phrase "most importantly associ- ated" means that it must be the single surviving property that is most closely associated with the event or with the part of the person's life for which he or she is significant. Eligible • A moved building occupied by an business woman during the majority of her productive ca- reer would be eligible if the other extant properties are a house she briefly inhabited prior to her period of signifi- cance and a commercial build- ing she owned after her retire- ment. Not Eligible • A moved building associated with the beginning of rail transportation in a community is not eligible if the original railroad station and ware- house remained intact on their original sites. SETTING AND ENVIRONMENT In addition to the requirements above, moved properties must still have an orientation, setting, and general environment that are compa- rable to those of the historic location and that are compatible with the property's significance. ASSOCIATION DEPENDENT ON THE SITE For a property whose design values or historical associations are directly dependent on its location, any move will cause the property to lose its integrity and prevent it from convey- ing its significance. Eligible • A property significant as an example of mid-19th century rural house type can be eli- gible after a move, provided that it is placed on a lot that is sufficient in size and character to recall the basic qualities of the historic environment and setting, and provided that the building is sited appropriately in relation to natural and manmade surroundings. Not Eligible • A rural house that is moved into an urban area and a bridge that is no longer situ- ated over a waterway are not eligible. Eligible • A farm structure significant only as an example of a method of construction pecu- liar to the local area is still eli- gible if it is moved within that local area and the new setting is similar to that of the original location. Not Eligible • A 19th century rural residence that was designed around par- ticular topographic features, reflecting that time period's ideals of environment, is not eligible if moved. 30 PROPERTIES DESIGNED TO BE MOVED A property designed to move or a property frequently moved during its historic use must be located in a historically appropriate setting in order to qualify, retaining its integrity of setting, design, feeling, and associa- tion. Such properties include automo- biles, railroad cars and engines, and ships. ARTIFICIALLY CREATED GROUPINGS An artificially created grouping of buildings, structures, or objects is not eligible unless it has achieved signifi- cance since the time of its assemblage. It cannot be considered as a reflection of the time period when the indi- vidual buildings were constructed. PORTIONS OF PROPERTIES A moved portion of a building, structure, or object is not eligible because, as a fragment of a larger resource, it has lost integrity of design, setting, materials, workman- ship, and location. Eligible • A ship docked in a harbor, a locomotive on tracks or in a railyard, and a bridge relo- cated from one body of water to another are eligible. Not Eligible • A ship on land in a park, a bridge placed in a pasture, or a locomotive displayed in an in- door museum are not eligible. Eligible • A grouping of moved historic buildings whose creation marked the beginning of a ma- jor concern with past lifestyles can qualify as an early attempt at historic preservation and as an illustration of that genera- tion's values. Not Eligible • A rural district composed of a farmhouse on its original site and a grouping oi historic barns recently moved onto the property is not eligible. 31 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION C: BIRTHPLACES OR GRAVES A birthplace or grave of a historical figure is eligible if the person is of outstanding importance and if there is no other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION C: BIRTHPLACES AND GRAVES Birthplaces and graves often attain importance as reflections o( the origins of important persons or as lasting memorials to them. The lives of persons significant in our past nor- mally are recognized by the National Register through listing of properties illustrative of or associated with that person's productive life's work. Birthplaces and graves, as properties that represent the beginning and the end of the life of distinguished indi- viduals, may be temporally and geographically far removed from the person's significant activities, and therefore are not usually considered eligible. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration C: Birth- places and Graves • The birthplace of a significant person who lived elsewhere during his or her Period of Significance. • A grave that is nominated for its as- sociation with the significant person buried in it. • A grave that is nominated for infor- mation potential. Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration C: Birthplaces and Graves • A house that was inhabited by a sig- nificant person for his or her entire lifetime. • A grave located on the grounds of the house where a significant person spent his or her productive years. 32 APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION C: BIRTHPLACES AND GRAVES PERSONS OF OUTSTANDING IMPORTANCE The phrase "a historical figure of outstanding importance" means that in order for a birthplace or grave to qualify, it cannot be simply the birthplace or grave of a person significant in our past (Criterion B). It must be the birthplace or grave of an individual who was of outstanding importance in the history of the local area, State, or nation. The birthplace or grave of an individual who was one of several people active in some aspect of the history of a community, a state, or the Nation would not be eligible. LAST SURVIVING PROPERTY ASSOCIATED WITH A PERSON When an geographical area strongly associated with a person of outstanding importance has lost all other properties directly associated with his or her formative years or productive life, a birthplace or grave may be eligible. ELIGIBILITY FOR OTHER ASSOCIATIONS A birthplace or grave can also be eligible if it is significant for reasons other than association with the productive life of the person in question. It can be eligible for signifi- cance under Criterion A for associa- tion with important events, under Criterion B for association with the productive lives of other important persons, or under Criterion C for architectural significance. A birth- place or grave can also be eligible in rare cases if, after the passage of time, it is significant for its commemorative value. (See Criteria Consideration F for a discussion of commemorative properties.) A birthplace or grave can also be eligible under Criterion D if it contains important information on research, e.g., demography, pathol- ogy, mortuary practices, socioeco- nomic status differentiation. Criteria Consideration C - Birthplaces. A birthplace of a historical figure is eligible if the person is of outstanding importance and there is no other appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life. The Walter Reed Birthplace, Gloucester vicinity, Gloucester County, Virginia is the most appropriate remaining building associated with the life of the man who, in 1900, discovered the cause and mode of transmission of the great scourge of the tropics, yellow fever. (Virginia Historic Landmarks Commission) 33 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION D: CEMETERIES A cemetery is eligible if it derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION D: CEMETERIES A cemetery is a collection of graves that is marked by stones or other artifacts or that is unmarked but recognizable by features such as fencing or depressions, or through maps, or by means of testing. Cem- eteries serve as a primary means of an individual's recognition of family history and as expressions of collec- tive religious and/or ethnic identity. Because cemeteries may embody values beyond personal or family- specific emotions, the National Register criteria allow for listing of cemeteries under certain conditions. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration D: Cemeteries • A cemetery that is nominated indi- vidually for Criterion A, B, or C, Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration D: Cemeteries • A cemetery that is nominated along with its associated church, but the church is the main resource nomi- nated. • A cemetery that is nominated under Criterion D for information poten- tial. • A cemetery that is nominated as part of a district but is not the focal point of the district. Criteria Consideration D - Cemeteries. The Hancock Cemetery, Quincy, Norfolk County, Massachusetts meets the exception to the Criteria because it derives its primary significance from its great age (the earliest burials date from 1640) and from the distinctive design features found in its rich collection of late 17th and early 18th century funerary art. (N. Hobart Holly) 34 APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION D: CEMETERIES PERSONS OF TRANSCENDENT IMPORTANCE A cemetery containing the graves of persons of transcendent importance may be eligible. To be of transcendent importance the persons must have been of great eminence in their fields of endeavor or had a great impact upon the history of their community, State, or nation. (A single grave that is the burial place of an important person and is located in a larger cemetery that does not qualify under this Criteria Consideration should be treated under Criteria Consideration C: Birthplaces and Graves.) Eligible • A historic cemetery containing the graves of a number of per- sons who were exceptionally significant in determining the course of a State's political or economic history during a par- ticular period is eligible. Not Eligible • A cemetery containing graves of State legislators is not eli- gible if they simply performed the daily business of State gov- ernment and did not have an outstanding impact upon the nature and direction of the State's history. ELIGIBILITY ON THE BASIS OF AGE Cemeteries can be eligible if they have achieved historic significance for their relative great age in a particular geographic or cultural context. Eligible • A cemetery dating from a community's original 1830s settlement can attain signifi- cance from its association with that very early period. ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGN Cemeteries can qualify on the basis of distinctive design values. These values refer to the same design values addressed in Criterion C and can include aesthetic or technological achievement in the fields of city planning, architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, mortuary art, and sculpture. As for all other nominated properties, a cemetery must clearly express its design values and be able to convey its historic appearance. Eligible • A Victorian cemetery is eli- gible if it clearly expresses the aesthetic principlesrelated to funerary design for that pe- riod, through such features as the overall plan, landscaping, statuary, sculpture, fencing, buildings, and grave markers. Not Eligible • A cemetery cannot be eligible for design values if it no longer conveys its historic ap- pearance because of the intro- duction of new grave markers. ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSOCIATION WITH EVENTS Cemeteries may be associated with historic events including specific important events or general events that illustrate broad patterns. Eligible • A cemetery associated with an important Civil War battle is eligible. • A cemetery associated with the settlement of an area by an ethnic or cultural group is eli- gible if the movement of the group into the area had an im- portant impact, if other prop- erties associated with that group are rare, and if few documentary sources have survived to provide informa- tion about the group's history. Not Eligible • A cemetery associated with a battle in the Civil War does not qualify if the battle was not important in the history of the war. • A cemetery associated with an area's settlement by an ethnic or cultural group is not eli- gible if the impact of the group on the area cannot be estab- lished, if other extant historic properties better convey asso- ciation with the group, or if the information that the cem- etery can impart is available in documentary sources. ELIGIBILITY FOR INFORMATION POTENTIAL Cemeteries, both historic and prehistoric, can be eligible if they have the potential to yield important information. The information must be important within a specific context and the potential to yield information must be demonstrated. A cemetery can qualify if it has potential to yield important informa- tion provided that the information it contains is not available in extant documentary evidence. Eligible • A cemetery associated with the settlement of a particular cul- tural group will qualify if it has the potential to yield im- portant information about sub- jects such as demography, variations in mortuary prac- tices, or the study of the cause of death correlated with nutri- tion or other variables. 35 INTEGRITY Assessing the integrity of a historic cemetery entails evaluating principal design features such as plan, grave markers, and any related elements (such as fencing). Only that portion of a historic cemetery that retains its historic integrity can be eligible. If the overall integrity has been lost because of the number and size of recent grave markers, some features such as buildings, structures, or objects that retain integrity may be considered as individual properties if they are of such historic or artistic importance that they individually meet one or more of the requirements listed above. NATIONAL CEMETERIES National Cemeteries administered by the Veterans Administration are eligible because they have been designated by Congress as primary memorials to the military history of the United States. Those areas within a designated national cemetery that have been used or prepared for the reception of the remains of veterans and their dependents, as well as any landscaped areas that immediately surround the graves may qualify. Because these cemeteries draw their significance from the presence of the remains of military personnel who have served the country throughout its history, the age of the cemetery is not a factor in judging eligibility, although integrity must be present. A national cemetery or a portion of a national cemetery that has only been set aside for use in the future is not eligible. 36 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION E: RECONTRUCTED PROPERTIES A reconstructed property is eligible when it is accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dig- nified manner as part of a restoration master plan and when no other building or structure with the same associations has survived. All three of these requirements must be met. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION E: RECONSTRUCTED PROPERTIES "Reconstruction" is defined as the reproduction of the exact form and detail of a vanished building, struc- ture, object, or a part thereof, as it appeared at a specific period of time. Reconstructed buildings fall into two categories: buildings wholly con- structed of new materials and build- ings reassembled from some historic and some new materials. BotH catego- ries of properties present problems in meeting the integrity requirements of the National Register criteria. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration E: Recon- structed Properties • A property in which most or all of the fabric is not original. • A district in which an important re- source or a significant number of re- sources are reconstructions. Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration E: Reconstructed Properties • A property that is remodeled or reno- vated and still has the majority of its original fabric. APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION E: RECONSTRUCTED PROPERTIES ACCURACY OF THE RECONSTRUCTION The phrase "accurately executed" means that the reconstruction must be based upon sound archeological, architectural, and historic data con- cerning the historic construction and appearance of the resource. That documentation should include both analysis of any above or below ground material and research in written and other records. SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT The phrase "suitable environment" refers to: 1) the physical context provided by the historic district and 2) any interpretive scheme, if the historic district is used for interpretive purposes. This means that the reconstructed property must be located at the same site as the original. It must also be situated in its original grouping of buildings, structures, and objects (as many as are extant), and that grouping must retain integrity. In addition, the reconstruction must not be misrepresented as an authentic historic property. Eligible • A reconstructed plantation manager's office building is considered eligible because it is located at its historic site, grouped with the remaining historic plantation buildings and structures, and the planta- tion as a whole retains integ- rity. Interpretation of the plantation district includes an explanation that the manager's office is not the original build- ing, but a reconstruction. Not Eligible • The same reconstructed plan- tation manager's office build- ing would not qualify if it were rebuilt at a location dif- ferent from that of the original building, or if the district as a whole no longer reflected the period for which it is signifi- cant, or if a misleading inter- pretive scheme were used for the district or for the recon- struction itself. 37 RESTORATION MASTER PLANS Being presented "as part of a restoration master plan" means that: 1) a reconstructed property is an essential component in a historic district and 2) the reconstruction is part of an overall restoration plan for an entire district. "Restoration" is defined as accurately recovering the form and details of a property and its setting as it appeared at a particular period by removing later work or by replacing missing earlier work (as opposed to completely rebuilding the property). The master plan for the entire property must emphasize restoration, not reconstruction. In other words, the master plan for the entire resource would not be accept- able under this consideration if it called for reconstruction of a majority of the resource. Eligible • A reconstructed plantation manager's office is eligible if the office were an important component of the plantation and if the reconstruction is one element in an overall plan for restoring the plantation and if no other building or structure with the same associations has survived. • The reconstruction of the plan- tation manager's office build- ing can be eligible only if the majority of buildings, struc- tures, and objects that com- prised the plantation are ex- tant and are being restored. For guidance regarding resto- ration see the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects. LAST SURVIVING PROPERTY OF A TYPE This consideration also stipulates that a reconstruction can qualify if, in addition to the other requirements, no other building, object, or structure with the same association has sur- vived. A reconstruction that is part of a restoration master plan is appropri- ate only if: 1) the property is the only one in the district with which a particular important activity or event has been historically associated or 2) no other property with the same associative values has survived. RECONSTRUCTIONS OLDER THAN FIFTY YEARS After the passage of fifty years, a reconstruction may attain its own significance for what it reveals about the period in which it was built, rather than the historic period it was intended to depict. On that basis, a reconstruction can possibly qualify under any of the Criteria. 38 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION F: COMMEMORATIVE PROPERTIES A property primarily commemorative in intent can be eligible if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical significance. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION F: COMMEMORATIVE PROPERTIES Commemorative properties are designed or constructed after the occurrence of an important historic event or after the life of an important person. They are not directly associ- ated with the event or with the person's productive life, but serve as evidence of a later generation's assess- ment of the past. Their significance comes from their value as cultural expressions at the date of their cre- ation. Therefore, a commemorative property generally must be over fifty years old and must possess signifi- cance based on its own value, not on the value of the event or person being memorialized. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration F: Commemorative Properties • A property whose sole or primary function is commemorative or in which the commemorative function is of primary significance. Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration F: Commemorative Properties • A resource that has a non- commemorative primary function or significance. • A single marker that is a component of a district (whether contributing or non-contributi ng). APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION F: COMMEMORATIVE PROPERTIES ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGN A commemorative property derives its design from the aesthetic values of the period of its creation. A com- memorative property, therefore, may be significant for the architectural, artistic, or other design qualities of its own period in prehistory or history. Eligible • A commemorative statue situ- ated in a park or square is eli- gible if it expresses the aesthet- ics or craftsmanship of the pe- riod when it was made, meet- ing Criterion C. • A late 19th century statue erected on a courthouse square to commemorate Civil War vet- erans would qualify if it reflects that era's shared perception of the noble character and valor of the veterans and their cause. This was commonly conveyed by portraying idealized soldiers or allegorical figures of battle, victory, or sacrifice. 39 ELIGIBILITY FOR AGE, TRADITION, OR SYMBOLIC VALUE A commemorative property cannot qualify for association with the event or person it memorializes. A com- memorative property may, however, acquire significance after the time of its creation through age, tradition, or symbolic value. This significance must be documented by accepted methods of historical research, including written or oral history, and must meet one or more of the Criteria. Eligible • A commemorative marker erected by a cultural group that believed the place was the site of its origins is eligible if, for subsequent generations of the group, the marker itself be- came the focus of traditional association with the group's historic identity. • A building erected as a monu- ment to an important histori- cal figure will qualify if through the passage of time the property itself has come to symbolize the value placed upon the individual and is widely recognized as a re- minder of enduring principles or contributions valued by the generation that erected the monument. • A commemorative marker erected early in the settlement or development of an area will qualify if it is demonstrated that, because of its relative great age, the property has long been a part of the historic identity of the area. Not Eligible • A commemorative marker erected in the past by a cul- tural group at the site of an event in its history would not be eligible if the marker were significant only for association with the event, and it had not become significant itself through tradition. • A building erected as a monu- ment to an important histori- cal figure would not be eligible if its only value lay in its asso- ciation with the individual, and it has not come to symbol- ize values, ideas, or contribu- tions valued by the generation that erected the monument. • A commemorative marker erected to memorialize an event in the community's history would not qualify sim- ply for its association with the event it memorialized. INELIGIBILITY AS THE LAST REPRESENTATIVE OF AN EVENT OR PERSON The loss of properties directly associated with a significant event or person does not strengthen the case for consideration of a commemorative property. Unlike birthplaces and graves, a commemorative property usually has no direct historic associa- tion. The commemorative property can qualify for historic association only if it is clearly significant in its own right, as stipulated above. 40 CRITERIA CONSIDERATION G: PROPERTIES THAT HAVE ACHIEVED SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS A property achieving significance within the last fifty years is eligible if it is of exceptional importance. UNDERSTANDING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION G: PROPERTIES THAT HAVE ACHIEVED SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN THE LAST FIFTY YEARS The National Register Criteria for Evaluation exclude properties that achieved significance within the last fifty years unless they are of excep- tional importance. Fifty years is a general estimate of the time needed to develop historical perspective and to evaluate significance. This consider- ation guards against the listing of properties of passing contemporary interest and ensures that the National Register is a list of truly historic places. Examples of Properties that MUST Meet Criteria Consideration G: Prop- erties that Have Achieved Signifi- cance Within the Last Fifty Years • A property that is less than fifty years old. • A property that continues to achieve significance into a period less than fifty years before the nomination. • A property that has non-contiguous Periods of Significance, one of which is less than fifty years before the nomination. • A property that is more than fifty years old and had no significance until a period less than fifty years before the nomination. Examples of Properties that DO NOT Need to Meet Criteria Consideration G: Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years • A resource whose construction be- gan over fifty years ago, but the completion overlaps the fifty year pe- riod by a few years or less. • A resource that is significant for its plan or design, which is over fifty years old, but the actual completion of the project overlaps the fifty year period by a few years. • A historic district in which a few properties are newer than fifty years old, but the majority of properties and the most important Period of Significance are greater than fifty years old. 9 For more information on Criteria Consideration G, refer to National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Nominating Properties that Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years. 41 APPLYING CRITERIA CONSIDERATION G: PROPERTIES THAT HAVE ACHIEVED SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN THE PAST FIFTY YEARS ELIGIBILITY FOR EXCEPTIONAL IMPORTANCE The phrase "exceptional impor- tance" may be applied to the extraor- dinary importance of an event or to an entire category of resources so fragile that survivors of any age are unusual. Properties listed that had attained significance in less than fifty years include: the launch pad at Cape Canaveral from which men first traveled to the moon, the home of nationally prominent playwright Eugene O'Neill, and the Chrysler Building (New York) significant as the epitome of the "Style Moderne" architecture. Properties less than fifty years old that qualify as exceptional because the entire category of resources is fragile include a recent example of a tradi- tional sailing canoe in the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, where because of rapid deterioration of materials, no working Micronesian canoes exist that are more than twenty years old. Properties that by their nature can last more than fifty years cannot be considered exceptionally important because of the fragility of the class of resources. The phrase "exceptional impor- tance" does not require that the property be of national significance. It is a measure of a property's impor- tance within the appropriate historic context, whether the scale of that context is local, State, or national. Eligible • The General Laundry Building in New Orleans, one of the few remaining Art Deco Style buildings in that city, was listed in the National Register when it was forty years old be- cause of its exceptional impor- tance as an example of that ar- chitectural style. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE A property that has achieved significance within the past fifty years can be evaluated only when sufficient historical perspective exists to deter- mine that the property is exception- ally important. The necessary per- spective can be provided by scholarly research and evaluation, and must consider both the historic context and the specific property's role in that context. In many communities, properties such as apartment buildings built in the 1950s cannot be evaluated because there is no scholarly research avail- able to provide an overview of the nature, role, and impact of that building type within the context of historical and architectural develop- ments of the 1950s. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RUSTIC ARCHITECTURE Properties such as structures built in a rustic style by the National Park Service during the 1930s and 1940s can be evaluated because a broad study, National Park Service Rustic Architecture (1977), provides the context for evaluating properties of this type and style. Specific examples were listed in the National Register prior to reaching fifty years of age when documentation concerning the individual properties established their significance within the historical and architectural context of the type and style. VETERANS ADMINISTRATION HOSPITALS Hospitals less than fifty years old that were constructed by the Veterans Bureau and Veterans Administration can be evaluated because the collec- tion of forty-eight facilities built be- tween 1920 and 1946 has been ana- lyzed in a study prepared by the agency. The study provided a historic and architectural context for develop- ment of veteran's care within which hospitals could be evaluated. The ex- ceptional importance of specific indi- vidual facilities constructed within the past fifty years could therefore be de- termined based on their role and their present integrity. COMPARISON WITH RELATED PROPERTIES In justifying exceptional impor- tance, it is necessary to identify other properties within the geographical area that reflect the same significance or historic associations and to deter- mine which properties best represent the historic context in question. Several properties in the area could become eligible with the passage of time, but few will qualify now as exceptionally important. POST-WORLD WAR II PROPERTIES Properties associated with the post- World War II era must be identified and evaluated to determine which ones in an area could be judged exceptionally important. For ex- ample, a public housing complex may be eligible as an outstanding expres- sion of the nation's post-war urban policy. A military installation could be judged exceptionally important because of its contribution to the Cold War arms race. A church building in a Southern city may have served as the pivotal rallying point for the city's most famous civil rights protest. A post-war suburban subdivision may be the best reflection of contemporary siting and design tenets in a metro- politan area. In each case, the nomi- nation preparer must justify the exceptional importance of the property relative to similar properties in the community, State, or nation. 42 ELIGIBILITY FOR INFORMATION POTENTIAL A property that has achieved significance within the past fifty years can qualify under Criterion D only if it can be demonstrated that the information is of exceptional impor- tance within the appropriate context and that the property contains data superior to or different from those obtainable from other sources, includ- ing other culturally related sites. An archeological site less than fifty years old may be eligible if the former inhabitants are so poorly documented that information about their lifeways is best obtained from examination of the material remains. Eligible • Data such as the rate of adop- tion of modern technological innovations by rural tenant farmers in the 1950s may not be obtainable through inter- views with living persons but could be gained by examina- tion of homesites. Not Eligible • A recent archeological site such as the remains of a Navajo sheep corral used in the 1950s would not be consid- ered exceptionally significant for its information potential on animal husbandry if better in- formation on the same topic is available through ethno- graphic studies or living infor- mants. HISTORIC DISTRICTS Properties which have achieved significance within the past fifty years can be eligible for the National Register if they are an integral part of a district which qualifies for National Register listing. This is demonstrated by documenting that the property dates from within the district's defined Period of Significance and that it is associated with one or more of the district's defined Areas of Significance. Properties less than fifty years old may be an integral part of a district when there is sufficient perspective to consider the properties as historic. This is accomplished by demonstrat- ing that: 1) the district's Period of Significance is justified as a discrete period with a defined beginning and end, 2) the character of the district's historic resources is clearly defined and assessed, 3) specific resources in the district are demonstrated to date from that discrete era, and 4) the majority of district properties are over fifty years old. In these instances, it is not necessary to prove exceptional importance of either the district itself or the less-than-fifty-year-old proper- ties. Exceptional importance still must be demonstrated for district where the majority of properties or the major Period of Significance is less than fifty years old, and for less-than- fifty-year-old properties which are nominated individually. PROPERTIES MORE THAN FIFTY YEARS IN AGE, LESS THAN FIFTY YEARS IN SIGNIFICANCE Properties that are more than fifty years old, but whose significant associations or qualities are less than fifty years old, must be treated under the fifty year consideration. Eligible • A building constructed early in the twentieth century (and having no architectural impor- tance), but that was associated with an important person during the 1950s, must be evaluated under Criteria Con- sideration G because the Pe- riod of Significance is within the past fifty years. Such a property would qualify if the person was of exceptional im- portance. REQUIREMENT TO MEET THE CRITERIA, REGARDLESS OF AGE Properties that are less than fifty years old and are not exceptionally important will not automatically qualify for the National Register once they are fifty years old. In order to be listed in the National Register, all properties, regardless of age, must be demonstrated to meet the Criteria for Evaluation. 43 VIII. HOW TO EVALUATE THE INTEGRITY OF A PROPERTY INTRODUCTION Integrity is the ability of a prop- erty to convey its significance. To be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. The evalua- tion of integrity is sometimes a subjective judgment, but it must always be grounded in an under- standing of a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. Historic properties either retain integrity (this is, convey their signifi- cance) or they do not. Within the concept of integrity, the National Register criteria recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects. The retention of specific aspects of integ- rity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. Determining which of these aspects are most important to a particular property requires knowing why, where, and when the property is significant. The following sections define the seven aspects and explain how they com- bine to produce integrity. SEVEN ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY • Location • Design • Setting • Materials • Workmanship • Feeling • Association UNDERSTANDING THE ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY LOCATION Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The relationship between the property and its location is often important to understanding why the property was created or why some- thing happened. The actual location of a historic property, complemented by its setting, is particularly important in recapturing the sense of historic events and persons. Except in rare cases, the relationship between a property and its historic associations is destroyed if the property is moved. (See Criteria Consideration B in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria Consider- ations, for the conditions under which a moved property can be eligible.) DESIGN Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. It results from conscious decisions made during the original conception and planning of a prop- erty (or its significant alteration) and applies to activities as diverse as community planning, engineering, architecture, and landscape architec- ture. Design includes such elements as organization of space, proportion, scale, technology, ornamentation, and materials. A property's design reflects historic functions and technologies as well as aesthetics. It includes such consider- ations as the structural system; massing; arrangement of spaces; pattern of fenestration; textures and colors of surface materials; type, amount, and style of ornamental detailing; and arrangement and type of plantings in a designed landscape. Design can also apply to districts, whether they are important primarily for historic association, architectural value, information potential, or a combination thereof. For districts significant primarily for historic association or architectural value, design concerns more than just the individual buildings or structures located within the boundaries. It also applies to the way in which buildings, sites, or structures are related: for example, spatial relationships be- tween major features; visual rhythms in a streetscape or landscape plantings; the layout and materials of walkways and roads; and the relation- ship of other features, such as statues, water fountains, and archeological sites. 44 SETTING Setting is the physical environ- ment of a historic property. Whereas location refers to the specific place where a property was built or an event occurred, setting refers to the character of the place in which the property played its historical role. It involves how, not just where, the property is situated and its relationship to sur- rounding features and open space. Setting often reflects the basic physical conditions under which a property was built and the functions it was intended to serve. In addition, the way in which a property is posi- tioned in its environment can reflect the designer's concept of nature and aesthetic preferences. The physical features that constitute the setting of a historic property can be either natural or manmade, includ- ing such elements as: • Topographic features (a gorge or the crest of a hill); • Vegetation; • Simple manmade features (paths or fences); and • Relationships between buildings and other features or open space. These features and their relation- ships should be examined not only within the exact boundaries of the property, but also between the prop- erty and its surroundings. This is particularly important for districts. MATERIALS Materials are the physical ele- ments that were combined or depos- ited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. The choice and combination of materials reveal the preferences of those who created the property and indicate the availability of particular types of materials and technologies. Indigenous materials are often the focus of regional building traditions and thereby help define an area's sense of time and place. A property must retain the key exterior materials dating from the period of its historic significance. If the property has been rehabilitated, the historic materials and significant features must have been preserved. The property must also be an actual historic resource, not a recreation; a recent structure fabricated to look historic is not eligible. Likewise, a property whose historic features and materials have been lost and then reconstructed is usually not eligible. (See Criteria Consideration E in Part VII: How to Apply the Criteria Consider- ations for the conditions under which a reconstructed property can be eligible.) WORKMANSHIP Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. It is the evidence of artisans' labor and skill in constructing or altering a building, structure, object, or site. Workmanship can apply to the property as a whole or to its indi- vidual components. It can be ex- pressed in vernacular methods of construction and plain finishes or in highly sophisticated configurations and ornamental detailing. It can be based on common traditions or innovative period techniques. Workmanship is important because it can furnish evidence of the technol- ogy of a craft, illustrate the aesthetic principles of a historic or prehistoric period, and reveal individual, local, regional, or national applications of both technological practices and aesthetic principles. Examples of workmanship in historic buildings include tooling, carving, painting, graining, turning, and joinery. Ex- amples of workmanship in prehistoric contexts include Paleo-Indian clovis projectile points; Archaic period beveled adzes; Hopewellian birdstone pipes; copper earspools and worked bone pendants; and Iroquoian effigy pipes. FEELING Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. It results from the presence of physical features that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. For example, a rural historic district retaining original design, materials, workmanship, and setting will relate the feeling of agricultural life in the 19th century. A grouping of prehis- toric petroglyphs, unmarred by graffiti and intrusions and located on its original isolated bluff, can evoke a sense of tribal spiritual life. ASSOCIATION Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. A property retains association if it is the place where the event or activity occurred and is sufficiently intact to convey that relationship to an ob- server. Like feeling, association requires the presence of physical features that convey a property's historic character. For example, a Revolutionary War battlefield whose natural and manmade elements have remained intact since the 18th century will retain its quality of association with the battle. Because feeling and association depend on individual perceptions, their retention alone is never sufficient to support eligibility of a property for the National Register. ASSESSING INTEGRITY IN PROPERTIES Integrity is based on significance: why, where, and when a property is important. Only after significance is fully established can you proceed to the issue of integrity. The steps in assessing integrity are: • Define the essential physical fea- tures that must be present for a property to represent its signifi- cance. • Determine whether the essential physical features are visible enough to convey their signifi- cance. • Determine whether the property needs to be compared with simi- lar properties. And, • Determine, based on the signifi- cance and essential physical fea- tures, which aspects of integrity are particularly vital to the prop- erty being nominated and if they are present. Ultimately, the question of integ- rity is answered by whether or not the property retains the identity for which it is significant. 45 DEFINING THE ESSENTIAL PHYSICAL FEATURES All properties change over time. It is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. The property must retain, however, the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic identity. The essential physical features are those features that define both why a property is significant (Applicable Criteria and Areas of Significance) and when it was significant (Periods of Significance). They are the features without which a property can no longer be identified as, for instance, a late 19th century dairy barn or an early 20th century commercial district. CRITERIA A AND B A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appear- ance during the period of its associa- tion with the important event, histori- cal pattern, or person(s). If the property is a site (such as a treaty site) where there are no material cultural remains, the setting must be intact. Archeological sites eligible under Criteria A and B must be in overall good condition with excellent preser- vation of features, artifacts, and spatial relationships to the extent that these remains are able to convey important associations with events or persons. CRITERION C A property important for illustrat- ing a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique. A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, propor- tion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamenta- tion. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style. Archeological sites eligible under Criterion C must be in overall good condition with excellent preservation of features, artifacts, and spatial relationships to the extent that these remains are able to illustrate a site type, time period, method of construc- tion, or work of a master. CRITERION D For properties eligible under Criterion D, including archeological sites and standing structures studied for their information potential, less attention is given to their overall condition, than it they were being considered under Criteria A, B, or C. Archeological sites, in particular, do not exist today exactly as they were formed. There are always cultural and natural processes that alter the deposited materials and their spatial relationships. For properties eligible under Criterion D, integrity is based upon the property's potential to yield specific data that addresses important research questions, such as those identified in the historic context documentation in the Statewide Comprehensive Preservation Plan or in the research design for projects meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archeological Documenta- tion. INTERIORS Some historic buildings are virtu- ally defined by their exteriors, and their contribution to the built environ- ment can be appreciated even if their interiors are not accessible. Examples of this would include early examples of steel-framed skyscraper construc- tion. The great advance in American technology and engineering made by these buildings can be read from the outside. The change in American popular taste during the 19th century, from the symmetry and simplicity of architectural styles based on classical precedents, to the expressions of High Victorian styles, with their combina- tion of textures, colors, and asym- metrical forms, is readily apparent from the exteriors of these buildings. Other buildings "are" interiors. The Cleveland Arcade, that soaring 19th century glass-covered shopping area, can only be appreciated from the inside. Other buildings in this category would be the great covered train sheds of the 19th century. In some cases the loss of an interior will disqualify properties from listing in the National Register—a historic concert hall noted for the beauty of its auditorium and its fine acoustic qualities would be the type of prop- erty that if it were to lose its interior, it would lose its value as a historic resource. In other cases, the over- arching significance of a property's exterior can overcome the adverse effect of the loss of an interior. In borderline cases particular attention is paid to the significance of the property and the remaining historic features. HISTORIC DISTRICTS For a district to retain integrity as a whole, the majority of the compo- nents that make up the district's historic character must possess integrity even if they are individually undistinguished. In addition, the relationships among the district's components must be substantially unchanged since the period of signifi- cance. When evaluating the impact of intrusions upon the district's integ- rity, take into consideration the relative number, size, scale, design, and location of the components that do not contribute to the significance. A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new intrusions that it no longer conveys the sense of a historic environment. A component of a district cannot contribute to the significance if: • it has been substantially altered since the period of the district's significance or • it does not share the historic asso- ciations of the district. VISIBILITY OF PHYSICAL FEATURES Properties eligible under Criteria A, B, and C must not only retain their essential physical features, but the features must be visible enough to convey their significance. This means that even if a property is physically intact, its integrity is questionable if its significant features are concealed under modern construction. Archeo- logical properties are often the exception to this; by nature they usually do not require visible features to convey their significance. 46 NON-HISTORIC EXTERIORS SUNKEN VESSELS If the historic exterior building material is covered by non-historic material (such as modern siding), the property can still be eligible if the significant form, features, and detail- ing are not obscured. If a property's exterior is covered by a non-historic false-front or curtain wall, the prop- erty will not qualify under Criteria A, B, or C, because it does not retain the visual quality necessary to convey historic or architectural significance. Such a property also cannot be considered a contributing element in a historic district, because it does not add to the district's sense of time and place. If the false front, curtain wall, or non-historic siding is removed and the original building materials are intact, then the property's integrity can be re-evaluated. PROPERTY CONTAINED WITHIN ANOTHER PROPERTY Some properties contain an earlier structure that formed the nucleus for later construction. The exterior property, if not eligible in its own right, can qualify on the basis of the interior property only if the interior property can yield significant infor- mation about a specific construction technique or material, such as rammed earth or tabby. The interior property cannot be used as the basis for eligibility if it has been so altered that it no longer contains the features that could provide important infor- mation, or if the presence of impor- tant information cannot be demon- strated. A sunken vessel can be eligible under Criterion C as embodying the distinctive characteristics of a method of construction if it is structurally intact. A deteriorated sunken vessel, no longer structurally intact, can be eligible under Criterion D if the remains of either the vessel or its contents is capable of yielding signifi- cant information. For further infor- mation, refer to National Register Bulletin: Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places. Natural Features A natural feature that is associated with a historic event or trend, such as a rock formation that served as a trail marker during westward expansion, must retain its historic appearance, unobscured by modern construction or landfill. Otherwise it is not eli- gible, even though it remains intact. COMPARING SIMILAR PROPERTIES For some properties, comparison with similar properties should be considered during the evaluation of integrity. Such comparison may be important in deciding what physical features are essential to properties of that type. In instances where it has not been determined what physical features a property must possess in order for it to reflect the significance of a historic context, comparison with similar properties should be under- taken during the evaluation of integ- rity. This situation arises when scholarly work has not been done on a particular property type or when surviving examples of a property type are extremely rare. (See Comparing Related Properties in Part V: How to Evaluate a Property within its Historic Context.) RARE EXAMPLES OF A PROPERTY TYPE Comparative information is particularly important to consider when evaluating the integrity of a property that is a rare surviving example of its type. The property must have the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic character or information. The rarity and poor condition, however, of other extant examples of the type may justify accepting a greater degree of alteration or fewer features, provided that enough of the property survives for it to be a significant resource. Eligible • A one-room schoolhouse that has had all original exterior siding replaced and a replace- ment roof that does not exactly replicate the original roof pro- file can be eligible if the other extant rare examples have re- ceived an even greater degree of alteration, such as the sub- division of the original one- room plan. Not Eligible • A mill site contains informa- tion on how site patterning re- flects historic functional re- quirements, but parts of the site have been destroyed. The site is not eligible for its infor- mation potential if a compari- son of other mill sites reveals more intact properties with complete information. 47 DETERMINING THE RELEVANT ASPECTS OF INTEGRITY Each type of property depends on certain aspects of integrity, more than others, to express its historic signifi- cance. Determining which of the aspects is most important to a particu- lar property requires an understand- ing of the property's significance and its essential physical features. CRITERIA A AND B A property important for associa- tion with an event, historical pattern, or person(s) ideally might retain some features of all seven aspects of integ- rity: location, design, setting, materi- als, workmanship, feeling, and association. Integrity of design and workmanship, however, might not be as important to the significance, and would not be relevant if the property were a site. A basic integrity test for a property associated with an important event or person is whether a historical contemporary would recognize the property as it exists today. For archeological sites that are eligible under Criteria A and B, the seven aspects of integrity can be applied in much the same way as they are to buildings, structures, or objects. It is important to note, however, that the site must have demonstrated its ability to convey its significance, as opposed to sites eligible under Crite- rion D where only the potential to yield information is required. Eligible A mid-19th century waterpowered mill important for its association with an area's industrial develop- ment is eligible if: • it is still on its original site (Location), and • the important features of its setting are intact (Setting), and • it retains most of its historic materials (Materials), and • it has the basic features expres- sive of its design and function, such as configuration, propor- tions, and window pattern (Design). Not Eligible A mid-19th century water- powered mill important for its association with an area's indus- trial development is not eligible if: • it has been moved (Location, Setting, Feeling, and Associa- tion), or • substantial amounts of new materials have been incorpo- rated (Materials, Workman- ship, and Feeling), or • it no longer retains basic de- sign features that convey its historic appearance or function (Design, Workman- ship, and Feeling). CRITERION C A property significant under Criterion C must retain those physi- cal features that characterize the type, period, or method of construction that the property represents. Retention of design, workmanship, and materials will usually be more important than location, setting, feeling, and associa- tion. Location and setting will be important, however, for those proper- ties whose design is a reflection of their immediate environment (such as designed landscapes and bridges). For archeological sites that are eligible under Criterion C, the seven aspects of integrity can be applied in much the same way as they are to buildings, structures, or objects. It is important to note, however, that the site must have demonstrated its ability to convey its significance, as opposed to sites eligible under Criterion D where only the potential to yield information is required. Eligible A 19th century wooden covered bridge, important for illustrating a construction type, is eligible if: • the essential features of its de- sign are intact, such as abut- ments, piers, roof configura- tion, and trusses (Design, Workmanship, and Feeling), and • most of the historic materials are present (Materials, Work- manship, and Feeling), and • evidence of the craft of wooden bridge technology re- mains, such as the form and assembly technique of the trusses (Workmanship). • Since the design of a bridge re- lates directly to its function as a transportation crossing, it is also important that the bridge still be situated over a water- way (Setting, Location, Feel- ing, and Association). Not Eligible For a 19th century wooden cov- ered bridge, important for its construction type, replacement of some materials of the flooring, siding, and roofing would not necessarily damage its integrity. Integrity would be lost, however, if: • the abutments, piers, or trusses were substantially altered (De- sign, Workmanship, and Feel- ing) or • considerable amounts of new materials were incorporated (Materials, Workmanship, and Feeling). • Because environment is a strong factor in the design of this property type, the bridge would also be ineligible if it no longer stood in a place that conveyed its function as a crossing (Setting, Location, Feeling, and Association). 48 CRITERION D For properties eligible under Criterion D, setting and feeling may not have direct bearing on the property's ability to yield important information. Evaluation of integrity probably will focus primarily on the location, design, materials, and perhaps workmanship. Eligible A multicomponent prehistoric site important for yielding data on changing subsistence patterns can be eligible if: • floral or faunal remains are found in clear association with cultural material (Materials and Association) and • the site exhibits stratigraphic separation of cultural compo- nents (Location). Not Eligible A multicomponent prehistoric site important for yielding data on changing subsistence patterns would not be eligible if: • floral or faunal remains were so badly decomposed as to make identification impossible (Materials), or • floral or faunal remains were disturbed in such a manner as to make their association with cultural remains ambiguous (Association), or • the site has lost its strati- graphic context due to subse- quent land alterations (Location). Eligible A lithic scatter site important for yielding data on lithic technology during the Late Archaic period can be eligible if: • the site contains lithic debitage, finished stone tools, hammerstones, or antler flakers (Material and Design), and • the site contains datable mate- rial (Association). Not Eligible A lithic scatter site important for yielding data on lithic technology during the Late Archaic period would not be eligible if: • the site contains natural de- posits of lithic materials that are impossible to distinguish from culturally modified lithic material (Design) or • the site does not contain any temporal diagnostic evidence that could link the site to the Late Archaic period (Associa- tion). 49 IX. SUMMARY OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION A property being nominated to the National Register may also merit consideration for potential designa- tion as a National Historic Landmark. Such consideration is dependent upon the stringent application of the following distinct set of criteria (found in the Code of Federal Regula- tions, Title 36, Part 65). NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS CRITERIA The quality of national significance is ascribed to districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess exceptional value or quality in illus- trating or interpreting the heritage of the United States in history, architec- ture, archeology, engineering, and culture and that possess a high degree of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and: 1. That are associated with events that have made a significant con- tribution to, and are identified with, or that outstandingly repre- sent, the broad national patterns of United States history and from which an understanding and ap- preciation of those patterns may be gained; or 2. That are associated importantly with the lives of persons nation- ally significant in the history of the United States; or 3. That represent some great idea or ideal of the American people; or 4. That embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type specimen exceptionally valuable for a study of a period, style or method of construction, or that represent a significant, distinctive and exceptional entity whose components may lack in- dividual distinction; or 5. That are composed of integral parts of the environment not suf- ficiently significant by reason of historical association or artistic merit to warrant individual rec- ognition but collectively compose an entity of exceptional historical or artistic significance, or out- standingly commemorate or il- lustrate a way of life or culture; or 6. That have yielded or may be likely to yield information of ma- jor scientific importance by re- vealing new cultures, or by shed- ding light upon periods of occu- pation over large areas of the United States. Such sites are those which have yielded, or which may reasonably be ex- pected to yield, data affecting theories, concepts and ideas to a major degree. NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK EXCLUSIONS Ordinarily, cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed his- toric buildings and properties that have achieved significance within the past fifty years are not eligible for des- ignation. If such properties fall within the following categories they may, nevertheless, be found to qualify: 1. A religious property deriving its primary national significance from architectural or artistic dis- tinction or historical importance; or 2. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is nationally significant primarily for its architectural merit, or for association with per- sons or events of transcendent importance in the nation's his- tory and the association conse- quential; or 3. A site of a building or structure no longer standing but the per- son or event associated with it is of transcendent importance in the nations's history and the associa- tion consequential; or 50 4. A birthplace, grave or burial if it is of a historical figure of tran- scendent national significance and no other appropriate site, building, or structure directly as- sociated with the productive life of that person exists; or 5. A cemetery that derives its pri- mary national significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, or from an exception- ally distinctive design or an ex- ceptionally significant event; or 6. A reconstructed building or en- semble o^ buildings of extraordi- nary national significance when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a res- toration master plan, and when no other buildings or structures with the same association have survived; or 7. A property primarily commemo- rative in intent if design, age, tra- dition, or symbolic value has in- vested it with its own national historical significance; or 8. A property achieving national significance within the past 50 years if it is of extraordinary na- tional importance. COMPARING THE NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARKS CRITERIA AND THE NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA In general, the instructions for preparing a National Register nomina- tion and the guidelines stated in this bulletin for applying the National Register Criteria also apply to Land- mark nominations and the use of the Landmark criteria. While there are specific distinctions discussed below, Parts IV and V of this bulletin apply equally to National Register listings and Landmark nominations. That is, the categories of historic properties are defined the same way; historic con- texts are identified similarly; and comparative evaluation is carried out on the same principles enumerated in Part V. There are some differences between National Register and National Historic Landmarks Criteria. The following is an explanation of how each Landmark Criterion compares with its National Register Criteria counterpart: CRITERION 1 This Criterion relates to National Register Criterion A. Both cover properties associated with events. The Landmark Criterion, however, requires that the events associated with the property be outstandingly represented by that property and that the property be related to the broad national patterns of U.S. history. Thus, the quality of the property to convey and interpret its meaning must be of a higher order and must relate to national themes rather than the narrower context of State or local themes. CRITERION 2 This Criterion relates to National Register Criterion B. Both cover properties associated with significant people. The Landmark Criterion differs in that it specifies that the association of a person to the property in question be an important one and that the person associated with the property be of national significance. CRITERION 3 This Criterion has no counterpart among the National Register Criteria. It is rarely, if ever, used alone. While not a landmark at present, the Liberty Bell is an object that might be consid- ered under this Criterion. The appli- cation of this Criterion obviously requires the most careful scrutiny and would apply only in rare instances involving ideas and ideals of the highest order. CRITERION 4 This Criterion relates to National Register Criterion C. Its intent is to qualify exceptionally important works of architecture or collective elements of architecture extraordinarily signifi- cant as an ensemble, such as a historic district. Note that the language is more restrictive than that of the National Register Criterion in requir- ing that a candidate in architecture be "a specimen exceptionally valuable for the study of a period, style, or method of construction" rather than simply embodying distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of con- struction. With regard to historic districts, the Landmarks Criterion requires an entity that is distinctive and exceptional. Unlike National Register Criterion C, this Criterion will not qualify the works of a master, per se, but only such works which are exceptional or extraordinary. Artistic value is considered only in the context of history's judgement in order to avoid current conflicts of taste. CRITERION 5 This Criterion does not have a strict counterpart among the National Register Criteria. It may seem redun- dant of the latter part of Landmark Criterion 4. It is meant to cover collective entities such as Greenfield Village and historic districts like New Bedford, Massachusetts, which qualify for their collective association with a nationally significant event, move- ment, or broad pattern of national development. CRITERION 6 The National Register counterpart of this is Criterion D. Criterion 6 was developed specifically to recognize archeological sites. All such sites must address this Criterion. The following are the qualifications that distinguish this Criterion from its National Regis- ter counterpart: the information yielded or likely to be yielded must be of major scientific importance by revealing new cultures, or by shedding light upon periods of occupation over large areas of the United States. Such sites should be expected to yield data affecting theories, concepts, and ideas to a major degree. The data recovered or expected to be recovered must make a major contribution to the existing corpus of information. Potentially recoverable data must be likely to revolutionize or substantially modify a major theme in history or prehistory, resolve a sub- stantial historical or anthropological debate, or close a serious gap in a major theme of U. S. history or prehis- tory. 51 EXCLUSIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIONS This section of the National His- toric Landmarks Criteria has its counterpart in the National Register's "Criteria Considerations/' The most abundant difference between them is the addition of the qualifiers "na- tional," "exceptional," or "extraordi- nary" before the word significance. Other than this, the following are the most notable distinctions: EXCLUSION 2 Buildings moved from their original location, qualify only if one of two conditions are met: 1) the build- ing is nationally significant for architecture, or 2) the persons or events with which they are associated are of transcendent national signifi- cance and the association is conse- quential. Transcendent significance means an order of importance higher than that which would ordinarily qualify a person or event to be nationally significant. A consequential associa- tion is a relationship to a building that had an evident impact on events, rather than a connection that was incidental and passing. EXCLUSION 3 This pertains to the site of a struc- ture no longer standing. There is no counterpart to this exclusion in the National Register Criteria. In order for such a property to qualify for Landmark designation it must meet the second condition cited for Exclu- sion 2. EXCLUSION 4 This exclusion relates to Criteria Consideration C of the National Register Criteria. The only difference is that a burial place qualifies for Landmark designation only if, in addition to other factors, the person buried is of transcendent national importance. When evaluating properties at the national level for designation as a National Historic Landmark, please refer to the National Historic Land- marks outline, History and Prehistory in the National Park System and the National Historic Landmarks Program, 1987. (For more information about the National Historic Landmarks program, please write to Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Historic Landmarks, 1849 C Street, NW, NC400, Washington, DC 20240.) 52 X. GLOSSARY Associative Qualities - An aspect of a property's history that links it with historic events, activities, or persons. Code of Federal Regulations - Commonly referred to as "CFR." The part containing the National Register Criteria is usually referred to as 36 CFR 60, and is available from the National Park Service. CLG - Certified Local Government. Culture - A group of people linked together by shared values, beliefs, and historical associations, together with the group's social institutions and physical objects necessary to the operation of the institution. Cultural Resource - See Historic Resource. Evaluation - Process by which the significance and integrity of a historic property are judged and eligibility for National Register listing is determined. Historic Context - An organizing structure for interpreting history that groups information about historic properties that share a common theme, common geo- graphical area, and a common time period. The development of historic contexts is a foundation for decisions about the planning, identification, evaluation, registra- tion, and treatment of historic properties, based upon compara- tive historic significance. Historic Integrity - The unimpaired ability of a property to convey its historical significance. Historic Property - See Historic Resource. Historic Resource - Building, site, district, object, or structure evalu- ated as historically significant. Identification - Process through which information is gathered about historic properties. Listing - The formal entry of a prop- erty in the National Register of Historic Places. See also, Registra- tion. Nomination - Official recommenda- tion for listing a property in the National Register of Historic Places. Property Type - A grouping o^ properties defined by common physical and associative attributes. Registration - Process by which a historic property is documented and nominated or determined eligible for listing in the National Register. Research Design - A statement of proposed identification, documen- tation, investigation, or other treatment of a historic property that identifies the project's goals, methods and techniques, expected results, and the relationship of the expected results to other proposed activities or treatments. 53 XL LIST OF NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETINS The Basics How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation * Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Form Part A: How to Complete the National Register Form * Part B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form * Researching a Historic Property * Property Types Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aids to Navigation * Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering America's Historic Battlefields Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aviation Properties Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes * Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering Historic Mining Sites How to Apply National Register Criteria to Post Offices * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties * Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places Technical Assistance Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties* Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning * How to Improve the Quality of Photographs for National Register Nominations National Register Casebook: Examples of Documentation * Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites To order these publications, write to: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., NC 400, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240, or e-mail at: nr_reference@nps.gov. Publications marked with an asterisk (*) are also available in electronic form at www.cr.nps.gov/nr. ,_ . o U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2005—717-788 From:Michele Pearson To:Steve Mizokami Subject:Public Hearing on 11th St. Historical District Date:Friday, November 2, 2018 4:37:12 PM Dear Mr. Mizokami, Thank you for the notice regarding the hearing on the proposed 11th Street and Arizona historical district. I will not be able to attend the hearing in person, but wanted to share my thoughts. I have lived on 12th Street, behind the proposed area since 1979. I thought the housing on 11th Street and on Arizona was already designated as historical buildings. This was done sometime in the late 1980's or early 90's. Perhaps the difference is the designation as a district? In any case, I would like to offer my total support for the approval of this designation. There are two main reasons. 1. This mid city neighborhood is one of 3 main neighborhoods in Santa Monica (north of Montana and south of Pico being the others) where a semblance of "neighborhood" still exists, at least by my estimation. I am a lifetime resident of Santa Monica and have watched it changed dramatically over the years. North of Montana and south of Pico are mainly single family dwellings. Streets with mixed housing (small houses, small apartments/condos i.e. 1-2 stories) are increasingly rare. Any place an apartment exists is rife for "development" of a 3-4 story structure (yes, it's started in my neighborhood already) that blocks the sun and makes one feel hemmed in. One only needs to look at 6th and 7th Streets south of Broadway to see what I mean. It appears that the development "standard" is if one 3-4 story building exists in the neighborhood (and one does here), another can be approved. This would be a disaster for our neighborhood. If there is a way to preserve SOME space with the historical designation of these buildings, I would truly like to see it. It is my understanding that the SM LUCE document speaks strongly in favor of maintaining neighborhoods. We have one here that is unique, diverse and livable. 2. The alley between 11th street and 12th street that services these buildings is already crowded, in poor repair and overused. The nursing facility on 12th Street and Arizona uses this alley for deliveries all day, usually from semis. The current density requires several large trash trucks 4-5 days a week. There are several businesses on Wilshire whose customers and service trucks use the alley now. Should further development, i.e. increased number of residents, be approved, it is likely garage access would be from the alley (since 11th Street is a busy thoroughfare), creating even more density and wear and tear of the roadway. (It's not great now.) For safety reasons, the current level of use of this alley should be maintained as is. Thank you again for allowing me to express my thoughts. Michele Pearson 1244 12th St. #5 Santa Monica, CA 90401 michelep11@verizon.net From:Steve Mizokami To:Melissa Zak Cc:Stephanie Reich Subject:FW: Santa Monica Villas Date:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:06:35 PM 11th Street Correspondence. From this morning as well. Steve Mizokami | Senior Planner | Landmarks Commission Liaison Planning & Community Development | City of Santa Monica 310.458.8341 | steve.mizokami@smgov.net | smgov.net/pcd From: Laura Owens [mailto:rabbilaura@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 6:39 AM To: Dolores Sloan <Dolores.Sloan@SMGOV.NET>; genserprints@verizon.net; Richard Brand <Richard.Brand@SMGOV.NET>; Ruth Shari <Ruth.Shari@SMGOV.NET>; Amy Beth Green <AmyBeth.Green@SMGOV.NET>; Barry Rosenbaum <Barry.Rosenbaum@SMGOV.NET>; breisch@usc.edu; Steve Mizokami <Steve.Mizokami@SMGOV.NET>; Stephanie Reich <Stephanie.Reich@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Santa Monica Villas WE MUST NOT LOSE THE CHARACTER OF OUR PRECIOUS HERITAGE BUILDINGS! PLEASE SAVE THE SANTA MONICA BUNGALOWS! I have lived across the street from Santa Monica for 23 years, and I have shopped, worked, played, eaten, walked, run, studied, exercised and visited Santa Monica for the 50 years I have lived in Los Angeles. One of the things that saddens me deeply about my dear adopted Southern California is the cavalier demolishing of historic buildings. PLEASE KEEP THE HISTORIC CALIFORNIA BUNGALOWS FROM BEING DESTROYED!! Thank you, Rabbi Laura Owens sent from my actual computer Rabbi Laura Owens Congregation B'nai Horin, Children of Freedom Los Angeles, California From:Steve Mizokami To:Melissa Zak Cc:Stephanie Reich Subject:FW: 11st bungalows - a city wide precedent? Date:Tuesday, November 6, 2018 4:05:32 PM Forwarding from this morning. Thanks, Steve Steve Mizokami | Senior Planner | Landmarks Commission Liaison Planning & Community Development | City of Santa Monica 310.458.8341 | steve.mizokami@smgov.net | smgov.net/pcd From: Fred Dewey [mailto:frdewey@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2018 12:30 AM To: Dolores Sloan <Dolores.Sloan@SMGOV.NET>; genserprints@verizon.net; Richard Brand <Richard.Brand@SMGOV.NET>; Ruth Shari <Ruth.Shari@SMGOV.NET>; Amy Beth Green <AmyBeth.Green@SMGOV.NET>; Barry Rosenbaum <Barry.Rosenbaum@SMGOV.NET>; breisch@usc.edu; Steve Mizokami <Steve.Mizokami@SMGOV.NET>; Stephanie Reich <Stephanie.Reich@SMGOV.NET> Cc: ssuntree@verizon.net Subject: 11st bungalows - a city wide precedent? dear council members and city officials, i am a long-time resident in ocean park, at the corner of 2nd and ashland, in a 1930s workers' housing complex of semi-bungalows whose future is uncertain. i appeal to the city to defend its historic character and protect its notable and unprecedented achievement of "bungalow" style housing for the non-rich - whoever may occupy one of these at various times. my street, 2nd street, for blocks in either direction has slowly seen its character altered. where i live will likely be next. i, like many worried renters and neighbors across the city, are looking for a signal the city is willing to act to extend existing protections and show Santa Monica can remain a leader in thoughtful preservation. i strongly support the efforts of my neighbors in mid-city trying to protect their neighborhood. that neighbors actively cherish the character of where they live, and care for it, rather than merely treating footprints as money-making opportunities for the few, needs to be respected, protected, honored, and enhanced. preservation is vital to the diverse and unique character of our community and its historic architectural achievements. the city's existing architecture is its legacy and its character. reckless and greedy real estate development must be stopped. historic districts for this architecture are vital to the mixed character of our city, to its vibrancy, beauty, and diversity. clever and helpful preservation policies have been enacted across the country and are falsely painted as a threat to housing for the middle class. both can co-exist, and must. tearing down architectural character is no solution to the housing crisis. better solutions exist, and protection of remaining bungalows must be part of that. reject the "tower builders" and protect our neighborhoods' integrity and history, now. send a signal the council and the city agencies are not pushovers for developers and their short-term appeal to short-term jobs, revenues, based on false claims of all kinds. sincerely, fred dewey former director Beyond Baroque co-founder of the Neighborhood Councils Movement, Los Angeles former Santa Monica Arts Commissioner Ocean Park resident since 1992 2825 2nd st. santa monica, 90405 From:Susan Mason To:Dolores Sloan; genserprints@verizon.net; Richard Brand; Ruth Shari; Amy Beth Green; Barry Rosenbaum; breisch@usc.edu; Steve Mizokami; Stephanie Reich Cc:historic11th@gmail.com Subject:11th Street historic district Date:Wednesday, November 7, 2018 10:08:52 AM To the Landmarks Commissioners: With the Landmarks Commission Hearing on Nov 12, I'm writing to express my strong support for the Historic 11th Street Bungalow District between Arizona and Wilshire. I've lived in Santa Monica for over 30 years and have been a homeowner in Ocean Park for over 20 years. I'm a member of the Santa Monica Conservancy. At a time when middle class America is vanishing, it's vital to save the history of Santa Monica's middle class. These six remaining 11th Street bungalows were the homes of families who played an important role in creating our city. They are the only remaining cluster of homes from the early 20th century. Pasadena has tours of neighborhoods like this: I've participated in those. We can't let the history of Santa Monica disappear when we need a sense of community. In addition, the economic benefits of saving historic buildings and neighborhoods has been well documented by Donovan Rypkema. The Historic 11th Street Bungalow District meets the goals of the Landmark Commission. Please protect and promote this historic district that represents Santa Monica's cultural and aesthetic history. We can't afford to lose this treasure. Thank you for your consideration. Susan Mason 2411 3rd Street Unit H Santa Monica 90405 Historic 11th Street Coalition 27 December 2017 Re: Community Organizations and Architectural Historians Endorsements Dear Stephanie, Enclosed please find our Community Organizations Endorsements in support of establishing an Historic 11th Street Bungalow District. In addition, there are support statements from esteemed architects Robert Winters and Thomas Hines updating their previous support letters. iane Miller and Susan Suntree Co-chairs Historic 11th Street Coalition Friends of 11th Street Enclosures: . Mid-City Neighbors Friends of Sunset Park Ocean Park Association North of Montana Association Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Pico Neighborhood Association Santa Monicans for Renters Rights Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow Thomas Hines Robert Winter ...:,fU1-/,/l1tJ11IC#-.Co-lt5f�. 1 KAROL E. BOLOORCHI ATTORNEY AT LAW 13500 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 90061 kb@shipit.com October 30, 2018 VIA E-MAIL Steve Mizokami Senior Planner City of Santa Monica, 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, California 90401 Re: Landmark Application #18ENT-0166 (Proposed 11th St. Historic District) Dear Mr. Mizokami: This letter is written on behalf of my client, the trustee of a trust that owns a residence located within the proposed district, and a subject of the above application. Although my client has had someone in attendance at all of the local meetings on this application, he wanted to be assured that the City, the Landmarks Commission, the City Council and the applicants are fully aware that he is opposed to any change of status to the real property located at 1229 11th Street. For that reason, this letter will be copied to all of the relevant parties. My client is 74 years old and has been in Santa Monica since the late 1970’s. He purchased his first home in 1978 (forty years ago) on Bay St., near 2nd street. He is a semi- retired businessman, not a developer. His daughters attended SAMO High and Santa Monica City College, before going away to a university. They both returned to Santa Monica after college. One lives in the back unit at 1229 11th Street and the other lives farther south on 11th St. His dream when he purchased this location was to build a cluster of condominiums for the use of himself and his daughters. That would have also included affordable housing units. He would be able to have his girls and their families near as he aged. There is currently no room for both of them to live there. That is still his American dream. Although Santa Monica allows, by statute, anyone to file an application to render any property within the City a landmark, the actual designation is done by the City. The statute does not require consent by the owner or resident of the property, however this does not mean that it can be undertaken lightly, when that consent is not present. Real property ownership is one of the oldest and most protected rights in this country and any taking or conversion by the government should be done when the need is overwhelming, the facts are compelling and there is 2 no less intrusive alternative. A thorough review of the application and previous documents prepared by both the City and those affiliated with the Applicants demonstrates that this Application is lacking in both merit and equity. In fact, a Preliminary Historic District Assessment commissioned by the City and prepared by an independent expert in relation to an almost identical list of properties as set forth in the application, dated December 2017 and distributed at the first Landmarks Commission meeting the next month, found that “the 1200 block of 11th St. Cluster does not appear to be eligible for historic district designation”. Arguments justifying designating 1229 11th Street a historic landmark or part of a historic district as proposed in the application are without sufficient merit to overcome the property rights of the owner in this instance. The application itself has taken some license with the facts and is written in not merely a persuasive fashion but has included “everything but the kitchen sink” in an effort to justify its purpose. For example, the fact that an owner of one of the properties (although he never lived there and bought it as an investment) was a cousin of the Lennon sisters demonstrates how far reaching are the efforts to make this area into something that it never was/intended to be. The application is authored by those who are heavily invested in the preservation aspect of this city’s development and while that is a commendable and necessary part of the community, in this instance there appears to be a subject matter as well as a personal bias, supporting this application. Leading the charge and referring to themselves as “Friends of 11th Street” includes a person who, until very recently, sat on the Landmarks Commission and has previously made comments favorable to houses within this area becoming historic. While it is somewhat common for commissioners to “represent” particular interests in Santa Monica or to go back and forth between their civic duty and their passion in a particular area, my client deserves a fundamentally and factually unbiased decision by this commission. Having recently stepped down, she has been replaced by another commissioner who is also very closely aligned with another Applicant in this application and as such, there is the appearance of a conflict, whether it is truly present or not. (Interestingly enough this commissioner heard and took no action on a previously filed Application for Demolition on my clients’ same property and a demolition permit was approved). Represented at all of the community meetings is a small but vocal part of the Santa Monica community; a collection of residents and non-residents who are heavily and passionately invested in preservation to the exclusion of other equities. This is an admirable vocation and every community needs to hear their voice and address their concerns when possible, however that small part of the entire Santa Monica citizenry should not have more access than any other group of citizens in Santa Monica. Most of the supporting documents of this application are provided by persons/interests that have no nexus to Santa Monica. As such, this is not an accurate or fair representation of the community interest as a whole. I will not point out each of the deficiencies in this application but will merely state the reasons why this application fails to support the factors necessary for landmark designation. As previously stated, the threshold for the taking or conversion of real property by the government is high and that threshold is not met here. Even though landmark designation is not necessarily the same as eminent domain, when abused, it becomes the same and harkens back to the days when 3 eminent domain was the vehicle used for landmark designation. At least then, property owners were compensated for their property. I will start with the address of 1229 11th Street in this discussion. My client purchased this property in 2006 as a “tear down” and development investment. The property had been abandoned after the death of the previous owners and overlooked by the City. It was in such poor shape that it was sold “as is”. At the time it was truly only useful as development property, with the structures being of little value. The back half of the property was completely overgrown, and the back unit was in use by transients. In cleaning it out it was determined to be infested with rodents and both human and rodent debris. Among the items found were rat carcasses, hypodermic needles and crack pipes. The City and the neighborhood had turned its back on this “potentially historic” property. The property was (and still is) zoned R3, Medium Density Multiple Family Residential. My client paid for the cleanup of the property as well as all costs associated with making the units habitable, pending his “Application for Demolition” which had been filed with the City. At the October 9, 2006 Landmarks Commission meeting the application was reviewed. Some of the present commissioners were on the Commission at that time. No commissioner objected to the demolition application. No Application for Landmark Designation was filed, and the demolition permit was issued through September 29, 2008. My client hired architects and developed plans for construction, however, because of the downturn in the market and the recession, he was unable to develop the property at that time. He paid market value for an R3 zoned lot with development potential. A historic designation, whether separately or as part of a district will greatly reduce the value of this property to him and his children, whether he ever decides to develop it or not. The pertinent question here is whether this house, in this immediate neighborhood, along with the other listed properties, retains enough historical integrity to be designated a historical district, using established criteria. Or, is this particular area being considered more out of personal desire and passion, and at best marginally historic? Using the criteria established by the City, this property does not meet the standards for designation as “historical” in nature. It does not reflect any particular cultural, social, political, economic or architectural significance that is not extant in other areas of Santa Monica. While it may have once and for a very brief period of time represented a “middle class” house in Santa Monica, the city, in the area this close to the beach, quickly became out of reach to most single-family middle-class buyers, except in the area of multi-family housing. The middle class was first represented in areas north of Montana, not this far south. This house was built in 1911 and represented the “mini-me” concept of the California Craftsman, being much smaller than its famous relative. Shortly after it was built, second units were built on this and adjacent parcels, reflecting the need for both rental income and affordable housing in Santa Monica. All of the parcels on this block of 11th Street had additional parcels built behind the main residence. Most of the data submitted suggests that many of these homes were purchased by more senior citizens or retirees than families with small children, an indication that the buyers had accumulated wealth and not necessarily representative of the just the middle class. Also, this type of house was being built all over Santa Monica and is not particularly significant as to style. Indeed, most of the houses in this potential district represented different architectural styles and are not adequately representative of any particular style. These 4 types of homes are extant in Santa Monica, and in areas that remain much more a “neighborhood” than the busy 11th Street corridor, for example, the Third Street Historic District and its surrounding blocks. By the 1920’s there was an explosion of apartment buildings in the city, merely a decade after this house was built. Indeed, this trend continued into the 11th Street corridor and presently this block has twelve original lots that have apartment buildings/condominiums and six original lots that still have a single-family residence. Prior to the explosion of apartment buildings, the six lots that have a single-family dwelling also added multiple dwelling units behind the main structure, an indication that this block was continuously in a state of changing development and not indicative of a significant moment in time. It is also noteworthy that the houses that comprise the proposed historic district represent different styles of architecture which detracts from the cohesiveness of the district. They have also had numerous changes in the structural integrity over time and no longer accurately reflect any particular period. The one thing they have in common is that they are old. Although the applicants have suggested that stucco should be removed, and other changes made to bring structures back to the original facade, that is more an indication of how much the integrity has diminished than a reasonable accommodation to be expected of the current owner. In their present state, many of the houses do not appear to be part of any neighborhood, having been shut off from visibility by either privacy fences or vegetation. This is probably also a means to shut out the noise of the traffic from the busy street. Even though the applicants have suggested that “pride of ownership” in a historical district may persuade the owners to make these changes, the truth is that these houses are mostly rental units, under rent control and most owners will not spend the money necessary to make these changes. The Applicant further defined separate possible clusters for historical designation. In cluster one, which contains my client’s house, there are three structures. Two of those three owners adamantly oppose this historical district. The third owner has not been reachable as of yet. As stated before, there are other areas in Santa Monica that more accurately reflect middle class neighborhoods from the early 1920’s than this particular block. Before proceeding on this application, the City should have at least researched the other areas in the City where the same result could be achieved, with the consent of the owners. The purpose of the change in the statute making owner consent not a requirement did not make that consent irrelevant, even though it appears that the City is interpreting the statute in that manner. IMPORTANT PERSONAGES There is no direct connection to important personages with regard to the 1229 property, nor most of the other properties within the potential district. Although Ken Strickland, a special effects genius, lived at 1223 as a teenager, there is no evidence that his later accomplishments can be in any way attributed to that location. In fact, the notable garage mentioned in the application was torn down many years ago and he moved to another location in Santa Monica in early adulthood, before he obtained any notoriety. The Strickfaden heirs sold the property to James and Doris Lennon in 1963. The Lennons purchased the property as rental property and 5 never resided at that house, and the fact that they may have been cousins to the famous Lennon sisters is far reaching enough to be irrelevant. DISTINGUISHING ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTERISTICS Almost every structure embodies architectural characteristics relevant to a particular period, however nothing is particularly distinguishing or rare about the structures listed for consideration in this application. Each of them has its own architectural characteristics but none have been identified as being unique from other similar type buildings in Santa Monica or identified as a rare specimen. In fact, many of the same characteristics are identified in and around the Third Street District and all of the Bay Street Cluster is Craftsman architectural design. Of the 129 landmarks already designated, either as a landmark or Structure of Merit, many, many of them are either California Craftsman, bungalows or Colonial Revival. There are also numerous other examples in the city that have not yet been designated. Accordingly, the structures in this potential district are in no way unique or rare in the city. NOTABLE BUILDERS The two builders listed as notable are Cowan and Rowe. Cowan was a speculator who built a few houses in Santa Monica, lived here briefly and then moved to Lancaster where he became an enthusiast in horticulture. By 1919, within a decade of him building houses in Santa Monica, he was listed in the California Laws Relating to Animal Industry, (1919, California State Printing Office) as the owner of a nursery in Lancaster. He was truly an entrepreneur and dabbled in many areas, including real estate, construction and automobiles. Indeed, he made a profit on the houses he built in Santa Monica and then moved on to other endeavors. This does not make him notable as a builder within the meaning of the stated criteria. James Rowe also was an early builder in Santa Monica. He already has a Craftsman bungalow at 929 Lincoln that is designated a landmark. There is an almost identical structure at 927 Lincoln, however it is not landmarked. The applicants mention another house of his that was determined eligible for the National Register (William Pigott House at 426 Palisades Ave.), however this house is not listed in the most recent city publication dated July 2018 as a city landmark, which is curious if he is indeed a notable builder. The houses on Lincoln are only about eight blocks away from this potential historical district and were built in 1908, even earlier than his houses being considered here. If he was such a prolific builder there are probably many more examples still existing. There are examples of Craftsman bungalows all over Santa Monica. LOCATION The 1200 block of 11th Street is a busy four lane street with direct access to the freeway. Because of the freeway access it has higher than usual traffic than most residential streets in the city. Two of the lanes are available for parallel parking as this is also a densely populated area. There are stop lights at both intersections which is also not so common in residential areas. It is surrounded by commercial areas both to the north and south of the location. Because most of the lots are comprised of rental apartments, there is a higher rate of short term residents which 6 detract from the “neighborhood” feeling. Many of the people frequenting the area are mostly visiting the commercial establishments on the adjacent Wilshire Blvd. and are not taking note of the neighborhood, beyond the parking spaces and close proximity to the commercial properties. This street has none of the qualities listed in the application of the original “neighborhood” and has completely lost its historical authenticity. The potential historic properties are broken up with multiple multi-unit apartment buildings or condominiums which breaks the flow of the area and severely diminishes its historical value as a district. In other words, the “horse is already out of the barn” with respect to its historical integrity as a historical district. It would be impossible for the city to force the changes necessary to bring the area back to its original authenticity. It would also be extremely burdensome to the owners of the properties to be coerced to correct this, one hundred years after the fact. Because most of the houses are rental units, they will not receive the full benefits of the Mills Act unless they are taken off the market as rentals and the owners or their families move into the units. It is doubtful that this would happen in each instance, but it could be an unintended consequence in several houses if the historical district is formed. CONCLUSION Santa Monica has previously designated nine Craftsman homes as historic and four as Structures of Merit. The city also has designated three Colonial Revival homes as historic and one as a Structure of Merit. These figures do not include the fifty-one historic structures within the Third Street District, many of which represent both of these styles. There are also many other examples within the city, so there is no compelling need to turn what is marginally historical here, into a Historic District. As presently situated, among mostly apartment buildings, on a busy thoroughfare, and many hidden from view, these structures will never harken back to the days of 1910-25 in the minds of passerby’s. This is not the first time that the commission has been asked formally or informally to make this a historic district or to designate particular houses on this block as landmarks. The same people have over and over again requested this, going back to the late 80’s-early 1990’s. Many letters of support in this application were submitted in the early 1990’s. The street has become less historic over time, not more so. Also, since that time the City has designated many Craftsman homes as landmarks and designated two Historic Districts which comprise Craftsman examples. Adding marginally historic areas as landmarks or districts takes away from the status of being a landmark in this city and dilutes the integrity of existing properties so designated. It is already surprising that more of the landmarked properties have not become National Landmarks given the number on the list. Pride of ownership as an owner of a designated structure assumes that the City will be particular when it adds other properties. The Preliminary Historic District Assessment Report prepared by Jan Ostashay got it right the first time, concluding that “due to the lack of historical integrity of many of its components and compromised integrity of the neighborhood’s contextual setting, feeling and association the 1200 block of 11th Street Cluster does not appear to be a geographically definable area possessing a distinct concentration of historical properties”. Efforts to throw a lot of 7 marginal structures together in hopes that the grouping will hide the inherent flaws of each do not change the fact that each is historically deficient. Nothing factually new has been added or discovered since the preliminary assessment was made except that there has been a coordinated campaign by the applicants to obtain by passion what they could not obtain factually. My client respectfully requests that the Commissioners not recommend this group of houses as a Historic District. Karol E. Boloorchi Attorney at Law Cc: Stephanie Reich Roger Genser Dianne Miller Dr. Kenneth Breisch Ted Winterer Susan Suntree Richard Brand Tony Vasquez A.B. Hoyer Ruth Shari Kevin McKeown Lane Dilg Susan Himmelrich Pam O’Connor Yiben Shen Amy Green Terry O’Day Doris Lennon Barry Rosenbaum Gleam Davis Associated International Marketing 3QZI E.La Jolla Street Anaheim, CA 928Q6 November 2,2018 TO: Mr. Steve Mizokami Senior Planner, City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 -3295 RE: case # lSENT-0166: 11 Streetbetween wilshire Blvd. and ArizonaAve' ProPosed Historic District Dear Sir: Associated International Marketing, a California Corporation' is the owner of the property located at lZ33l lth Street, Santa Monica 90401. We would like to inform the City of Santa Monica, the Landmark Commission, City Council and all agencies, applicants that we are opposed to the yes vote by the commissioner to make our property apart of the historic district or any change in its current real property status' please let this letter of opposition carry it through all the course of formalities of the hearing process. Thank you. /2,/-> rs Tlfonso Marketing Corporate SecretarY 1 City Council Meeting: January 22, 2019 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS) (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING SECTION 9.56.320 TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE DESIGNATING THE 11TH STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT WHEREAS, historic preservation is a defining community value for the City of Santa Monica (the “City”); and WHEREAS, the value reflects the community’s consensus that the City’s unique identity and character springs from its long and rich history; and WHEREAS, the community’s present and future welfare depend, in part, upon understanding the City’s history and evolution as a unique community; and WHEREAS, retention and preservation of historic resources also promotes the public health, safety and welfare by revitalizing neighborhoods and business districts, enhancing the City’s economy, improving local aesthetics, and enriching the City’s culture and aesthetic standing; and WHEREAS, the City’s Landmark Ordinance was first adopted in 1976 to: protect improvements and areas that represent elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; safeguard the City’s heritage as it is embodied and reflected in such improvements and areas; foster civic and community pride; protect and 2 enhance aesthetics and attractions; and promote the education, pleasure and welfare of City residents and visitors alike; and WHEREAS, the City’s ongoing commitment to historic preservation was reaffirmed in 2002 when the City Council adopted the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan, and again in 2010 when the City adopted the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan (“LUCE”); and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2018, Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors, in coordination with the Friends of the 11th Street Coalition, filed an historic district application for the properties located along the east side of 11th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (1221-1253 11th Street), and along the north side of Arizona Avenue between 11th Street and 11th Court Alley (1107-1115 Arizona Avenue); and WHEREAS, on July 30 and September 24, 2018, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.56.130(B), City Staff conducted duly-noticed public meetings to discuss the potential Historic District designation, including, but not limited to, the designation process, the effect of designation on future property development, and the benefits of designation; and WHEREAS, on November 12 and December 10, 2018, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.56.130(F), the City’s Landmarks Commission conducted duly-noticed public hearings on the Historic District application and voted unanimously of those present to forward a recommendation to the City Council to designate the area as the City’s fourth Historic District; and WHEREAS, in order to preserve the historic character and integrity of the District, and to promote consistency in the review process, until such time as an ordinance is 3 adopted that specifies the nature of any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, or demolition of or to a building or structure with in the District that can occur without prior approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the City desires to require that: any such work require a Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic Hardship from the Landmarks Commission; any such work be exempt from Architectural Review Board review, provided that a Certificate of Appropriateness is obtained; and all fees for Certificates of Appropriateness be waived; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2019, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.56.130(I), the City Council received the recommendation of the Landmarks Commission and conducted a public hearing on the Historic District application. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 9.56.310 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to read as follows: 9.56.320 The 11th Street Historic District A. The City Council has reviewed and considered the Historic District application for the area (the “11th Street Historic Bungalow District” or “District”) and has reviewed and considered the recommendation on the Historic District application transmitted from the Landmarks Commission. B. The City Council finds and declares that: 1. The 11th Street Bungalow Historic District exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political 4 or architectural history of the City. Although the Historic District is located in the original town of Santa Monica and the lots were recorded during the 19th century, this section of town was the eastern “frontier” and was not developed until the early 20th century. By 1891, the north and eastward push of the residential district was well underway. In 1898, the first high school, Lincoln, was built at Oregon (Santa Monica Boulevard) and 11th Street and this block has remained an educational facility ever since. In 1902, only one house had been built on the block; by 1909 sixteen wood frame cottages had been erected. Much of this early development and residential growth was directly linked to the expanding network of streetcar lines in the City and nearby Los Angeles, which enable suburban growth outside of the City’s central core. Three of these early homes, all hipped roof, turn-of-the century cottages survive: 1233, 1239, and 1259 (1107 Arizona), although 1233 was modified to its current American Colonial Revival appearance around 1923 and 1239 has lost integrity. In 1911/1912 respectively, the 1221-23 and 1229 residences were added. Both were developed in the Craftsman style. By 1918, the block was fully developed, with additional Craftsman bungalows filling in the empty lots, reflecting the popularity of this form of development during the first quarter of the twentieth century. The final contributing structure, 1115 Arizona Avenue, was built in 1925. Consequently, of the ten properties in the District, five have substantially intact improvements that date from the area’s period of significance (1905-1925) and fall into three property types/architectural 5 styles: hipped roof cottages from the turn of the century era, Craftsman bungalows from the teens, and the small, Spanish Colonial Revival style bungalow, located at 1115 Arizona Avenue. A combination of factors contributed to the area’s desirability, including the beach accessible living, temperate climate, the local entertainment industry, tourism, adjacency to good schools, thriving downtown, and accessibility to affordable and efficient transportation. Like much of the surrounding neighborhood, this block of 11th Street was built for the middle and working class with moderate incomes. Because of their relative economy, bungalows were the preferred housing type to respond to the growing need for affordable housing during the 1910s and 1920s. Many of the residents were active and contributed to the City and Southern California via education, construction, commerce, and movie technologies and they exemplified the proliferation of single-family dwellings in the Santa Monica Townsite. Following the real estate boom of the 1920s, many of the property owners built second units behind or adjacent to their main homes for extra income or extended family. Given this, the District reflects an important aspect of the City’s overall association with the middle and working class from the first quarter of the twentieth century. These five properties are significant for conveying patterns of residential development that shaped the Mid-City neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twentieth century. Each of these properties contribute to the scale, continuity, and character of this district. As a whole, their integrity of location, design, workmanship, 6 material, setting, feeling, and association work together to visually and physically convey time, place, historical development and authenticity from its period of significance. The collective low-scale and working-class feeling of the District has been retained as a cohesive whole, even with the development of the non-contributing apartment buildings built in the 1950’s. This cluster of pre-1925 homes in the original Santa Monica tract is rare. As such, the District is an early and prime example of middle-class housing in the City and retains an important linkage to a significant architectural period that is rapidly disappearing in the City. Although there have been significant changes to the District since its period of significance identified as 1905- 1925, these changes do not unduly compromise the ability of the overall district to exemplify and manifest this City’s history by conveying an important development pattern. More specifically, the District does not contain so many alterations or new intrusions that it fails to convey the sense of a historic environment. For instance, the adjoining apartment buildings built in the 1950s extend the vernacular, working class nature of the neighborhood and maintain its low scale. As such, they do not diminish the integrity. The District, taken as a whole, is a microcosm of Santa Monica development. Additionally, while the residential property at 1239 11th Street is no longer a contributing structure due to significant modifications after the Northridge Earthquake, it still maintains adequate aspect of integrity based on location, setting, feeling, and association so as not to detrimentally compromise the overall integrity of the district. Many of the other extant 7 pockets of residential neighborhoods in the Santa Monica Tract also developed during this period of significance do not have subsequent infill that maintain this relationship. For all of these factors, this district exemplifies the neighborhood’s earliest development and the middle -class in Santa Monica during the first quarter of the twentieth century, and as such, it exemplifies and manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, and architectural history of the City. 2. The 11th Street Bungalow Historic District is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. Kenneth Strickfaden lived at 1223 12th Street from 1914 to 1920. He is largely known for his creation of the electronic special effects in the film Frankenstein (1931) as well as others, including The Wizard of Oz (1939). His development of techniques applied in these and other films can be seen in experiments conducted in his workshop behind his home, where he worked with electrical effects, wireless communications and Tesla coils. These experiments were part of a continuum of his opus as an artist, achieving international fame in adult life applying applications of electronics to filmic artistry. A picture of an early Strickfaden laboratory in his backyard workshop dating from 1915 can be found in the book on Kenneth Strickfaden written by Harry Goldman in 2005 entitled: Kenneth Strickfaden: Dr. Frankenstein’s Electrician. He was recognized for his expertise while a student in Santa Monica High School. A review in the Santa Monica Bay Outlook of June 9, 1916 praises his contribution to a 8 drama production: Kenneth Strickfaden of the high school student body has charge of the electrical features of the performance which are quite effective. In a story on June 13, 1918, the newspaper calls attention to Strickfaden’s military service in the war, and highlights his electrical skills: The boy is a master electrician and well known here as “Edison No. 2,” receiving his name on account of his many clever electrical inventions, which made for him the wizard’s name. The story further describes him as a sensation at the Panama Pacific Exposition, a major international fair in 1915. He continued to participate in Santa Monica activities well into his career. A story in the March 22, 1935 Outlook records him scheduled to present a demonstration of electrical equipment “used in sound pictures” at a Boy Scout honors event. A long career in his field of specialty continued, highlighted by his heralded electronic special effects in films such a s Frankenstein and The Wizard of Oz. He was honored in 1981 by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences at a special event dedicated to the then 85-year old’s contributions to film electronic artistry. During Strickfaden’s attendance at Santa Monica High School from 1914-16, he was an active photographer, and he continued working in this genre after graduation. The Santa Monica Public Library owns 57 of these and other photographs associated with him in their Strickfaden Collection, as well as offering images of pages from the Santa Monica Evening Outlook with references to his activities into the 1930’s. He is also in the archives of the Santa Monica History Museum and the Homestead Museum in the City of 9 Industry. Waldo K. Cowan (Willie) built five houses on the east side of 11th Street between what is now Wilshire and Arizona: 1233, 1239, 1247, 1253 and 1259 11th Street (the latter now 1107 Arizona Avenue) and one on Arizona, 1109. He also lived in 1259 11th Street with his family from 1906 - 14. Records show Cowan is known for complete careers in several fields: real estate building and improvements; automobile introduction, use, and industrial development; pear agriculture and improvement; and civic and community leadership and service. His name appears in numerous newspaper articles from the Santa Monica Evening Outlook and Los Angeles Times for his participation in each of these from the 1890’s to the 1920’s. He is identified for his early support of the automobile as a new phenomenon and a developing industry, plus its applications for fun and entertainment. He owned one of the first autos in Santa Monica and was an avid auto racer, favoring Ramblers, the second most popular brand after Ford. He is associated with early models of autos serving as fi refighting equipment, making the first delivery of such a vehicle to the Long Beach Fire Department. And his name appears as an officer or leader in auto sales and service. Active in Santa Monica public affairs, he was a member of the 1899 Cycle Path Committee. He helped develop the first bicycle path in the city. A photo of the early days of this path is in the Santa Monica Public Library Strickfaden Collection. He headed the Santa Monica Board of Trade and was an organizer and participant in several auto races when the city was known as an attraction for these events. Cowan and his wife also 10 owned a pear ranch in Lancaster, CA and was mentioned in newspapers for its development of model fruit. 3. The 11th Street Bungalow Historic District is a significant or representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. Within the Historic District are two Craftsman-style bungalows that were constructed by local contractor Joseph J. Rowe; 1223 11th Street (1910) and 1229 11th Street (1908). Both of these bungalows reflect typical elements of the Craftsman idiom. Rowe is a notable builder who was a very active contractor having constructed many cottages and bungalows in the City during the 1900s and 1910s. Two other properties in the City constructed by Rowe have been previously identified through survey: 426 Palisades Avenue (1914), an American Foursquare, and 929 Lincoln Boulevard (1916), a Craftsman bungalow designated as a City Landmark (2008) that features the unusual use of clinker brick in its front porch walls and piers. The District, consisting of the properties located at 1223 11th Street and 1229 11th Street, is representative of the work of Joseph J. Rowe, a notable builder in Santa Monica. 4. The 11th Street Bungalow District 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. The Historic District is one of the last remaining examples of a contiguous grouping of low-scale, working-class housing that spans the entire first half of the twentieth century. It represents the 11 easternmost boundary of the earliest phase of development of the Santa Monica tract in the twentieth century. The east side of the 1200 block of the 11th Street and the adjacent three parcels on the north side of Arizona comprise single-unit residences, multi-unit apartments and a residential condominium. Buildings in the area are predominantly one and t wo stories with the tallest, a later 1992 three story multi-family condominium. The corner structure’s change in address from 1259 11th Street to 1107 Arizona serves as a historic transition turning the corner within the period of significance. The District contains early single-unit residences set at the front of the parcels, several with additional residences in the rear with post WWII-era apartments infilling the adjacent lots. Architectural styles present along this portion include California Craftsman Bungalow, Hipped Roof Cottage, Spanish Colonial Revival, Minimal Traditional and Contemporary Vernacular. Although the period of significance is 1905 – 1925, the adjoining apartments extend the vernacular, working-class nature of the neighborhood into the 1950’s and maintain its rare low scale. They do not diminish the integrity of the District associated with its period of significance from 1905-1925. The District, taken as a whole, is a microcosm of Santa Monica development. As such, the Historic District “reflects significant geographic patterns, including those associated with settlement and growth.” C. The 11th Street Bungalow Historic District consists of the properties along the east side of 11th Street, between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue 12 (1221-1253 11th Street), and the properties along the north side of Arizona Avenue between 11th Street and 11th Court Alley (1107-1115 Arizona Avenue). D. Structures that contribute to the character an d integrity of the 11th Street Bungalow Historic District shall be defined as primary, street-facing bungalows constructed between 1905 and 1925 during the District’s Period of Significance and located at 1223 11th Street, 1229 11th Street, 1233 11th Street, 1107 Arizona Avenue and 1115 Arizona Avenue, including hipped roof cottages from the turn of the twentieth century era, Craftsman bungalows from the teens, and a Spanish Colonial Revival-style bungalow; noncontributing buildings, structures or sites shall be defined as buildings or structures constructed after 1925 that are not listed as contributors or of the bungalow type, and vacant lots. E. Pursuant to Sections 9.56.130 and 9.56.140 of this Code, until such time as an ordinance is adopted that specifies the nature of any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, or demolition of or to a building or structure within the District that can occur without prior approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, any such work must obtain approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic Hardship by the Landmarks Commission. F. Until such time as an ordinance is adopted that specifies the nature of any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, or demolition to a building or structure within the District that can occur without prior approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, all work to buildings, structures or sites located within the District is exempt from review by the Architectural Review Board, 13 provided that a Certificate of Appropriateness is obtained from the Landmarks Commission or the Landmarks Commission Secretary pursuant to authority granted by the Landmarks Commission in accordance with 9.56.130(L), and all Certificate of Appropriateness fees for any alteration, restoration, or construction, in whole or in part, to a building, structure or site located within the Historic District are waived. SECTION 2. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), this Ordinance is exempt from CEQA as it can be seen with certainty that the Ordinance does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment. This determination is made based on the record as a whole, which includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the designation of these properties as an Historic District pursuant to the City’s Landmarks Ordinance will promote the retention and preservation of historic resources. SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not 14 declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the o rdinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ LANE DILG City Attorney Item 7-B 01/22/19 1 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 2 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 3 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 4 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 5 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 6 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 7 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 8 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 9 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 10 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 11 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 12 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 13 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 14 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 15 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 16 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 17 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 18 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 19 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 20 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 21 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 22 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 23 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 24 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 25 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 26 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 27 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 28 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 29 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 30 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 31 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 32 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 33 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 34 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 35 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 36 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 37 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 38 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 39 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 40 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 41 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 42 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 43 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 44 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 45 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 46 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:ken@downingla.com Sent:Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:33 PM To:Steve Mizokami; councilmtgitems Subject:I am opposed to the 18ENT-0166 Historic District Designation Dear City Council: I am the manager of 1218 12th Street, and 12th Street Partners LLC, owner of 1218 12th Street, across the alley from the proposed historic district. I have driven 11th street thousands of times. As a Santa Monica native, I have seen blocks like this located all over Los Angeles County, particularly in South and Central Los Angeles where I manage property. I do not see any architectural or historical significance to this block. Please do not make this block a historic district. I strongly object to you making this block of 11th Street a historic district. Sincerely, Ken Downing 310 993 4577 cell Item 7-B 01/22/19 47 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 48 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 49 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Item 7-B 01/22/19 50 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:zinajosephs@aol.com Sent:Sunday, January 20, 2019 9:58 PM To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Terry O’Day; Tony Vazquez; David Martin Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com Subject:FOSP: City Council 1/22/19 item 7-B -- 11th Street Historic District -- support January 20, 2019 To: City Council From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 1/22/19 agenda item 7-B – Proposed 11th Street Historic District (18ENT-1066) The FOSP Board has been writing letters of support for the designation of the 11th Street Historic District since June 2017 (see below). We continue to support the designation. We therefore urge the City Council to follow the recommendations of the Landmarks Commission and the City’s planning staff and approve the proposed 11th Street Bungalow Historic District and the proposed ordinance adding Section 9.56.320 to the Municipal Code. Thank you for your consideration. ********************************************************************* December 10, 2018 To: Landmarks Commission From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park Item 7-B 01/22/19 51 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 2 RE: 12/10/18 agenda item 9-A -- Historic District application 18ENT-0166, consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding an application for designation of a new proposed historic district on 11th Street consisting of certain properties located along the east side of 11th Street, between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (1221-1253 11th Street), and properties along the north side of Arizona Avenue between 11th Street and 11th Court Alley (1107-1115 Arizona Avenue). This item is continued from the Commission’s November 12, 2018 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission considered written and oral testimony, commenced deliberations, and continued the item for further discussion. The FOSP Board has been writing letters of support for the designation of the 11th Street Historic District since June 2017 (see below). We continue to support the designation and hope that the concept of a “thematic historic district,” which was suggested but not discussed at the November Commission meeting, will receive some consideration this month. Thank you. ********************************************************************* November 7, 2018 To: Landmarks Commission From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 11/12/18 agenda item 9-B: Historic District application 18ENT-0166 https://www.smgov.net/departments/pcd/agendas/Landmarks-Commission/2018/20181112/A20181112.htm The FOSP Board supports the Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors application for designation of a new historic district on 11th Street consisting of certain properties located along the east side of 11th Street, between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue (1221-1253 11th Street), and properties along the north side of Arizona Avenue between 11th Street and 11th Court Alley (1107-1115 Arizona Avenue). Below is the resolution the FOSP Board signed in June 2017 in support of the establishment of the 11th Street Bungalows Historic District. Thank you for your consideration. ****************************************************************** June 12, 2017 Item 7-B 01/22/19 52 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 3 To: Landmarks Commission From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 6/12/17 agenda item 12-A. Discussion of a potential 11th Street Historic District and possible direction to staff to hire a professional historic preservation consultant to prepare a preliminary assessment. The FOSP Board joins the Board of Santa Monica Mid-City Neighbors in supporting the establishment of the 11th Street Bungalows Historic District. ************************************************************************ RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE 11TH STREET BUNGALOWS HISTORIC DISTRICT AND TO JOIN THE HISTORIC 11TH STREET COALITION We, the Board of Directors of Friends of Sunset Park, a city-recognized neighborhood organization, support the establishment of the 11th Street Bungalow Historic District on 11th Street between Arizona and Wilshire Boulevard in Santa Monica. Bungalow housing is a uniquely Southern California architectural type. This block has the only concentration of early 20th century bungalow housing within the founding boundaries of Santa Monica constructed from 1904 to 1925 in a variety of bungalow styles. Creating a Historic District would conserve the unique character of the neighborhood and its architecture, preserve low-rise density and open green spaces, preserve family housing, and protect the city’s founding history by saving the original bungalows built by the first middle class residents of the Santa Monica. The city's historic resources surveys have repeatedly noted the 11th Street bungalows as contributors to a potential district. Preservation will help maintain affordable housing and a diverse Santa Monica because many of the bungalow residences are rental units with families. The 11th Street bungalow neighborhood offers benefits and amenities not only for the residents who live there, but also for our entire community: garden settings and setbacks, and the architectural presentation the city's history and early 20th Century way of life. These iconic treasures preserve an important piece of living history that bridges the eras and grounds our understanding of where we are. And since there is no other cluster of the city’s original bungalows, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to save a cultural and historic landmark by establishing an historic district. Item 7-B 01/22/19 53 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 4 We therefore are honored to join the Historic 11th Street Coalition, comprised of groups and individuals who support the establishment of the 11th Street Bungalow Historic District. Item 7-B 01/22/19 54 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19 Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors PO Box 3326 Santa Monica CA 90404 Re: Item 7B for January 22,2019 City Council Meeting Dear Santa Monica City Council Members: Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors strongly support the Landmark Designation for the 11th Street Historical District which is within our boundaries. Thank you for making it possible for our members to apply for this important recognition. Andrew Hoyer, our Vice President, is the applicant and our leader as the Applicant for this Landmark status. It has been an expensive, time consuming and long process for our organization. Our Friends of 11th Street Committee has spent hours on detailed professional research to present to the Planning Department. We are so lucky to have a dedicated team of talented residents in our City. All of Santa Monica should be thankful for these generous people who volunteered their professional expertise. This new Historical District will greatly enhance Santa Monica. It will be a resource for the neighborhood status, a walk by benefit for tourist and locals, and a lovely walk from the Santa Monica College Preforming Center to the restaurants on Wilshire Blvd. The Historical District will be an asset that will improve property values and safety in our area. Thank you for your support to increase livability in our neighborhood. Yours Truly, Ellen Hannan Secretary, Santa Monica Mid City Neighbors January 21,2019 Item 7-B 01/22/19 55 of 55 Item 7-B 01/22/19