SR 03-05-2019 6A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: March 5, 2019
Agenda Item: 6.A
1 of 11
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Appeal 19ENT-0016 of the disapproval of Structure of Merit Designation
18ENT-0316 for 610 California Avenue. Consideration of a Designation
Application to determine whether the subject residence should be designated
as a Structure of Merit.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold Appeal 19ENT-0016 thereby designating
the primary residence located at 610 California Avenue as a Structure of Merit,
excluding the detached accessory garage, based on the findings contained in this staff
report.
Executive Summary
On August 15, 2018, the property owner filed a demolition permit application to remove
the subject single-unit residence and detached garage at 610 California Avenue. On
October 18, 2018, the Santa Monica Conservancy filed a timely application to designate
the single-unit residence as a Structure of Merit.
On January 14, 2019, the Landmarks Commission was scheduled to conduct a hearing
on the application. Prior to the start of the hearing, five Commissioners recused
themselves because they were members of the Santa Monica Conservancy, the
applicant. With only two of seven Commissioners left, there was no quorum, and the
Commission was unable to conduct the hearing or take any action on the application.
The application was subsequently deemed disapproved because the Commission did
not act on the Structure of Merit application within 90 days of a complete application
being filed.
The appellant, Nina Fresco, has appealed this disapproval to the Council to allow for a
full hearing on the of the Structure of Merit designation application. The appeal states
2 of 11
that the subject property satisfies the Structure of Merit designation criterion and
therefore merits approval. The complete appeal statement is provided as Attachment D.
610 California Avenue
A Structure of Merit Assessment was prepared for the subject property by the City’s
historic preservation consultant, Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC), provided as
Attachment B. Based on the findings as provided in the report, the consultant finds that
the property is eligible for Structure of Merit designation under the City of Santa Monica
Structure of Merit criteria 9.56.080(a) as a structure that has been identified on the
City’s Historic Resources Inventory, 9.56.080(b)(1) as a structure over 50 years in age
and a rare intact early example of a Craftsman bungalow, and 9.56.080(b)(2) as a
structure over 50 years of age and an example of early Craftsman-style architecture no
longer prevalent in the neighborhood.
Based on the findings outlined in the report, and upon review of the proposed
designation application, staff concludes that the subject residence is eligible as a
Structure of Merit and recommends that the Council approve the proposed designation,
consistent with staff’s recommendation to the Landmarks Commission (Attachment C).
Subsequent to the January 14, 2019 Landmarks Commission meeting, no additional
3 of 11
information has been added to the record, and staff continues to support the
designation.
Background
Property Information
The subject property consists of approximately 5,000 square feet in area and is
developed with a one-story, single-unit residence with a detached accessory garage in
the rear of the property accessed by a front driveway. The site is located on the south
side of California Avenue between 6th and 7th Streets in the W ilshire-Montana residential
neighborhood (R2 Low-Density Residential district) which is comprised of single-unit
and multi-unit residences of varying style and age.
Previous entitlements on the property include an approval from Architectural Review
Board for design of a new 3-unit residence in 2015 that has since expired. The property
owner has noted that this previously proposed multi-unit project is not currently being
pursued.
Historic Resources Inventory Status
The subject property has been recently identified for historical significance under the
City’s 2018 Historic Resources Inventory update. The property is listed as potentially
eligible as a Santa Monica Landmark based on its association with the early residential
development of the immediate neighborhood during its formative years.
Application Is Disapproved After Landmarks Commission Cannot Take Action
At its January 14, 2019 meeting, the Landmarks Commission was scheduled to conduct
a public hearing on the application for designation of the single-unit residence as a
Structure of Merit. Prior to the start of the hearing, five Landmarks Commissioners
recused themselves because they were members of the Santa Monica Conservancy,
the organization that filed the application. Landmarks Commissioners are required to be
“neutral and unbiased” when making decisions on Structure of Merit applications.
Recusal is appropriate not only in the event of actual impartiality, or bias, but also when
there is an “unacceptable probability of actual bias”. Courts have ruled that membership
4 of 11
in an organization could be evidence of an “unacceptable probability of actual bias”
because a decision maker could feel pressure to rule in favor of the organization of
which he or she is a member. This potential is increased wh en the organization has a
specific goal or engages in advocacy that could influence the outcome of the decision.
One of the Conservancy’s missions is to “ . . . advocate for saving and landmarking
historic buildings that connect us more closely to our com munity’s heritage”. Each of the
five Commissioners who were members of the Conservancy individually determined
that recusal was appropriate to ensure there was no unacceptable probability of actual
bias in favor of the Conservancy, an organization with its primary stated purpose to
preserve structures within the City of Santa Monica.
Recusal requires abstaining from the decision-making process, including, but not limited
to, leaving the room during any public hearing on the matter and abstaining from
discussing the matter with any person while an application is pending. The Landmarks
Commission’s Rules of Order require four or more Commissioners, or a quorum, be
present to conduct business. Because five Commissioners recused themselves, only
two Commissioners, less than a quorum, were eligible to act on the application. Thus,
the Commission could not hear or act on the application. The application was
subsequently disapproved because the Landmarks Commission did not act within the
timeframe required by the Landmarks Ordinance.
Discussion
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 132 designated
City Landmarks, 11 designated Structures of Merit, and 4 Historic Districts within the
City.
5 of 11
A Structure of Merit is an improvement that has been designated as and determined to
be appropriate for official recognition by the Landmarks Commission. Designation as a
Structure of Merit is one of the options available in the preservation program to allow the
City to protect and enhance improvements that are found to be historically significant. A
Structure of Merit contributes to Santa Monica’s cultural identity but is not sufficiently
distinguished to merit designation as a City Landmark. Preservation incentives are
available for Structures of Merit, similar to designated City Landmarks. A key difference
between Landmark and Structure of Merit designations is the level of historic
significance based on their respective designation criterion, as the Landmark criterion
are more elevated in comparison. Also, upon an owner’s request to demolish a
designated Structure of Merit, the City may negotiate with the property owner in an
effort to agree to a means of historically preserving the designated property. However, if
no such agreement can be reached within this 180-day period, the Structure of Merit
could be demolished.
Appeal
The appellant filed a timely appeal on January 23, 2019 based on the application being
deemed disapproved under the Landmarks Ordinance after the Landmarks Commission
could not act on the Structure of Merit designation application . Pursuant to SMMC
Section 9.56.180(A)(6) (Appeals), the disapproval of a Structure of Merit application that
occurs as a result of the expiration of the required time period for processing may be
appealed to the City Council. The City Council, in its de novo review of this appeal, shall
determine whether the subject residence is eligible for designation based on the
Structure of Merit designation criteria identified in SMMC Section 9.56.080 of the
Landmarks Ordinance.
The appellant believes that the subject property satisfies the Structure of Merit
designation criteria and warrants approval. The appeal statement further highlights and
agrees with the findings provided in the Structure of Merit Assessment (Attachment B)
that supports the designation of the residence. The appeal statement also includes a
copy of the Structure of Merit application (18ENT-0316) material submitted by the Santa
6 of 11
Monica Conservancy, which includes an architectural description and owner/occupant
history of the property.
Staff agrees with the appeal statements that the proposed residence is eligible for
Structure of Merit designation, based on the following analysis.
Analysis
Architectural Description
The subject residence is a one-story, Craftsman bungalow residence constructed in
1912. This transitional Craftsman-style cottage was popular in Santa Monica during the
first quarter of the 20th century. Based on its complex hipped roof, wide lap siding,
fenestration, and date of construction, the modest bungalow exhibits a transitory phase
between the hipped roof cottage and Craftsman bungalow. The residence is rectangular
in plan and is comparable in size (approximately 1,000 SF) to other single-unit
residences constructed at the time.
The wood-framed building is capped with a hipped roof with a side-facing gable wing
over the original front porch at the west side. A prominent gabled dormer is centrally
located on the sloping front side of the roof. The dormer features overhanging eaves,
heavy knee brackets under the eaves, wood -lap siding, flat wood surrounds, and a
horizontal window with fixed pane center and flanking louvered vent openings. Other
roof elements include asphalt shingles, large wood brackets, and extended eaves.
The bungalow cottage is clad with wide shiplap wood siding with beltcourse. The front,
primary elevation (north) features an inset porch at its northwest corner that has been
enclosed with multi-pane, wood-frame windows. The gable porch roof is supported by
square shaped wood columns that sit on flared wood piers. The enclosed porch also
features what appears to be the original Craftsman inspired front door with original
hardware. Fenestration along the side and rear elevations consists of primarily wood-
frame sash of varying size and shape. The front door and windows are framed by flat
wood surrounds, typical of the Craftsman idiom.
7 of 11
The detached garage was constructed in 1927 and consists of wood-framing capped
with a hip roof with minimal eave overhang. Sheathed with wood lap siding, the garage
also features a sash window and pedestrian door on its east (side) elevation and two
large, swing-out barn doors of vertical wood plank with “Z” bracing on its north (front)
elevation.
The property has undergone minor alterations since its original construction. The small
front porch of the residence was enclosed prior to 1918, and a permit dated 1927
references the construction of a 12 foot by 18 foot wood-frame garage. The residence
continues to retain its overall integrity of design, workmanship, materials, location,
association, and feeling. However, the property no longer has integrity of setting due to
the in-fill redevelopment of the neighborhood of postwar-era apartment buildings.
Period of Significance / Character-Defining Features
The period of significance for the property is 1912, reflecting the original construction
date of the bungalow. Significant character-defining features of its original design are
maintained, including its general scale and massing, horizontal wood lap cladding, hip
and gable roof, prominent gabled dormer on the sloping front side of the roof, wide
overhanging eaves, ridge beams and fascia boards, projecting wood window sills and
flat wood surrounds, Craftsman inspired door with original hardware and flat wood
surround, and original door and window openings.
Historic Context
Between 1893 and the 1920s, the community operated primarily as a tourist
attraction/destination, visited by mostly wealthy patrons. The arrival of the Pacific
Electric streetcars in 1905 initiated a period of renewed residential development within
the grid of the early township. 1918 Sanborn maps of the area confirm the prevalence of
motorcars with the appearance of detached automobile garages locate d at the rear of
numerous residential parcels. Within the township, modest single-family residences
were still the dominant building type. Larger residences were constructed on multiple
parcels and prominent corners, indicating wealthy residents had established themselves
in Santa Monica. However, the smaller homes, more typical of the tract at that time,
8 of 11
were often reflective of the modest hipped roof cottage or transitional Craftsman
bungalow. Craftsman-style residences were also prevalent in residential neighborhoods
throughout much of Santa Monica in the 1910s and 1920s.
After the advent of the automobile in the 1920s, Santa Monica experienced a significant
building boom, with homes being constructed in the tracts north of Montana Avenue and
east of Seventh Street for year-round residents. Residences of this period were
designed and constructed in a variety of styles including Craftsman, Colonial Revival,
Mission Revival, and Streamline Moderne.
Although the neighborhood was substantially developed by the onset of World War II, a
marked change in character occurred in the mid-1950s and early 1960s as older
housing was replaced by modern apartment buildings. Currently, the area has been in -
filled with postwar-era apartment buildings or large contemporary multi-story
condominiums with older housing stock typically isolated or clustered in small groups.
The subject property is one such extant example of the early housing stock constructed
in the neighborhood during its formative years.
Landmarks Ordinance / Findings
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.080, the City Council on appeal, may designate an
improvement as a Structure of Merit if it determines that it satisfies one or more of the
following criteria:
A. The property has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
B. The subject building is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the
following criteria:
1) It is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type.
2) It is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
3) The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
9 of 11
Based on the findings as provided in the Assessment, Ostashay & Associates
Consultants finds that the property appears eligible for designation under the City of
Santa Monica Structure of Merit criteria 9.56.080(a), 9.56.080(b)(1), and 9.56.080(b)(2).
Based on the research and evaluation of 610 California Avenue, staff agrees with the
consultant’s findings that the property is eligible for Structure of Merit designation.
The following draft findings are provided to support this conclusion:
9.56.080(a). Structure has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
The subject property has been previously identified in the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory (2018) as a potential City of Santa Monica Landmark (5S3). Therefore, the
subject property satisfies this criterion.
9.56.080(b). Structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following
criteria:
The subject property is a minimum of 50 years of age as it was constructed in 1912.
Therefore, the structure is eligible for further consideration under the following criteria:
9.56.080(b)(1). Structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or
historical type.
The subject residence is a rare intact early example of the Craftsman bungalow style in
this section of the Town of Santa Monica tract. It is one of the oldest remaining
residences in the area, constructed during the area’s earliest period of development.
Given the period of significance (1912) during which it was constructed and its rarity as
an intact early “transitional” Craftsman bungalow in this section of the large tract, the
subject property appears to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.080(b)(2). It is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
10 of 11
Constructed in 1912, the subject residence is an example of an early style Craftsman
bungalow. This transitional Craftsman-style cottage was popular in Santa Monica during
the first quarter of the 20th century. Based on its complex hipped roof, wide lap siding,
fenestration, and date of construction, the modest bungalow exhibits a transitory phase
between the hipped roof cottage and Craftsman bungalow. Craftsman-style residences
were prevalent in residential neighborhoods throughout much of Santa Monica in the
1910s and 1920s. The earliest examples of the style in this portion of the old township
have become increasingly rare due to the demolition of older, small-scale residences to
accommodate higher-density residential development in the 1950s to the present. As a
formative example of early 1910s Craftsman architecture, a style and type no longer
prevalent in this section of the Town of Santa Monica tract neighborhood north of
Wilshire Boulevard, the subject property appears to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.080(b)(3). The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
The subject property is located in a neighborhood characterized by a variety of housing
types, architectural styles, and dates of construction. The neighborhood has not been
previously identified through survey as a potential historic district, and the area lacks
any uniformity or cohesiveness to associate it as such. Therefore, the subject property
does not appear to satisf y this criterion.
Alternatives
As an alternative to the recommended action, the City Council may consider the
following if supported by the full evidentiary record:
1. Articulate revised findings resulting in the denial of the subject appeal and
designation application.
Environmental Analysis
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the proposed historic
designation is exempt from CEQA as it can be seen with certainty that the designation
does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment. This determination
11 of 11
is made based on the record as a whole, which includes, but is not limited to, evidence
that the designation of the structure as an Structure of Merit pursuant to the City’s
Landmarks Ordinance will promote the retention and preservation of historic resources.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of the recommended
action.
Prepared By: Steve Mizokami, Senior Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Structure of Merit Designation Application (18ENT-0316)
B. Structure of Merit Assessment Report (Ostashay & Associates Consulting,
January 2019)
C. January 14, 2019 Landmarks Commission Staff Report (18ENT-0316)
D. Appeal Statement (19ENT-0016)
E. Written Comments
F. PowerPoint
G. PowerPoint Presentation
STRUCTURE OF MERIT ASSESSMENT REPORT
610 California Avenue, Santa Monica, CA
Prepared for:
City of Santa Monica
Planning & Community Development
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
January 2019
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 1
STRUCTURE OF MERIT ASSESSMENT REPORT
Craftsman Bungalow
610 California Avenue
Santa Monica, CA 90403
APN: 4292-005-022
INTRODUCTION
At the request of the City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department
(PCD), City Planning Division, Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC) has prepared this
Structure of Merit Assessment Report for the property referred to as 610 California Avenue in
the City of Santa Monica, California.
The one-story, Craftsman style residence at 610 California Avenue was constructed in 1912 on a
parcel situated in the Town of Santa Monica tract. OAC documented and evaluated the
bungalow to determine whether it appears to satisfy one or more of the statutory criteria
associated with City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit eligibility requirements, pursuant to
Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
This assessment report includes a discussion of the survey methodology used, a summarized
description of the property, a brief contextual history of the property, evaluation of significance
under the City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit criteria, photographs, and any applicable
supporting materials.
METHODOLOGY
The assessment was conducted by Jan Ostashay, principal with OAC. In order to identify and
evaluate the subject property as a potential Structure of Merit candidate, an intensive-level
survey was conducted. 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), the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) list maintained
by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), and the City’s Historic Resources Inventory
(HRI) in order to determine if any previous evaluations or survey assessments of the property
had been performed.
For this current assessment a site inspection and a review of building permits, permit ledger
books, tax assessor records, tract maps, and aerial photographs were completed to understand
and document the property’s existing condition and assist in evaluating its potential historical
significance and integrity. The City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit criteria were employed
to evaluate the local significance of the property and its eligibility for such designation. In
addition, the following tasks were performed for the study:
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 2
• Searched records of the National Register, California Register, Library of Congress
archives, U.S. Census records, OHP CHRIS, and City of Santa Monica HRI.
• Conducted a field inspection of the subject property from the public right-of-way.
• Conducted site-specific research on the subject property utilizing Sanborn fire
insurance maps, city directories, newspaper articles, historical photographs, building
permits, tract maps, and permit ledger books.
• Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical
materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation, designation
assessment procedures, and related programs.
• Evaluated the potential historic resource based upon significance criteria established
by the City of Santa Monica and utilized the OHP survey methodology for conducting
surveys.
FINDINGS
OAC has concluded that the bungalow located at 610 California Avenue appears eligible for
designation as a City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit under criteria 9.56.080(a), 9.56.080(b),
9.56.080(b)(1), and 9.56.080(b)(2). This finding is based on the research conducted on the
subject property, an intensive-level survey of the site, a cursory windshield survey of the
neighboring area, the development of a relevant historic context, application of eligibility
criteria, and an assessment of historical integrity. The following information provides a
contextual basis for the analysis and eligibility finding for the subject property.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The property under review is situated along the south side of California Avenue between 6 th
and 7th streets within the northwest section of the Town of Santa Monica tract on lot X of block
93. Constructed in 1912, it is sited on a flat rectangular shape parcel that measures roughly 50
feet wide by 100 feet long. The legal description of the 610 California Avenue property is Santa
Monica lot X block 93. The single-family bungalow fronts north onto California Avenue, has a
detached garage and driveway, and is located in a medium density residential neighborhood
comprised of single-family and multi-family improvements of varying age and style.
The 610 California Avenue bungalow property has been previously identified for historical
significance under the City’s most recently completed survey update effort (2018). Under that
survey it was included in the associated survey assessment matrix and was identified as eligible
for listing as a Santa Monica landmark because of its association with the early residential
development of the immediate neighborhood during its formative years.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND CONSTRUCTION HISTORY
Description. The subject property is a one-story, single-family residence that was constructed
in 1912 and designed as a (transitional) Craftsman bungalow cottage. This was a popular choice
for residential architecture in Santa Monica during the first quarter of the 20 th century. It is
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 3
separated from the street by an open front lawn with a concrete walkway with steps that lead
to the front door. A concrete strip driveway (California driveway) that leads from the street to
the detached garage is set back along the west side of the parcel. The front perimeter of the
house is also landscaped with shrubs and bushes. Non-original metal security bars have been
installed over all of the windows of the residence.
The dwelling has a rectangular building plan and at roughly 1,000 square feet (1,001 sq. ft.) is
comparable in size to other single-family residences built at roughly that same time. The
structure is slightly elevated above grade and sits on concrete piers. A series of square shape,
wood-frame and wire mesh vents punctuate the base of the house along all sides. The house is
wood-framed and has a complex roof system. The residence is capped by a hipped roof with a
side-facing gable wing over what was once the front porch at the west side. A prominent gabled
dormer is centrally located on the sloping front side of the roof. The dormer features over
hanging eaves, heavy knee brackets under the eaves, wood lap siding, flat wood surrounds, and
a horizontal oriented 3 over 2 window with fixed pane center and flanking louvered vent
openings. The west-facing gable end over the now enclosed front porch space is punctuated by
a small fixed-pane window (3 over 2 configuration), lipped sill, and flat wood surround. Other
elements of the roof include asphalt shingles, exposed raft tails and fascia boards, large wood
brackets, and extended eave line. At the intersection of the two roof forms is a projecting
chimney.
The bungalow cottage is clad with wide shiplap wood siding with beltcourse. The front, primary
elevation (north) features an inset porch at its northwest corner. The gable porch roof is
supported by square shaped wood columns that sit on flared wood piers at the beltcourse line.
The porch was enclosed with a large multi-pane, wood-frame fixed window to the west and an
elongated multi-pane, wood-frame casement window at the north at an early date (the 1918
Sanborn map does not show the porch exposed). The enclosed porch area also features what
appears to be the original Craftsman inspired front door with original hardware. Offset to the
east of the front door is a large square shape, multi-pane fixed wood-frame window.
Fenestration along the side (east and west) and rear elevations is primarily wood-frame sash of
varying size and shape. The front door and windows are framed by flat wood surrounds, typical
of the Craftsman idiom. The rear (south) elevation includes placement of the utilities and a
water heater dog house. An elevated secondary access door is situated at the southeast corner
of the house along the side (east) of the house. This door has a small extended wood-frame
landing and steps, and provides access to the rear yard and garage via a concrete walkway.
At the southwest corner of parcel is sited a rectangular shape accessory structure (garage) that
was built in 1927. The wood-frame improvement is capped with a hip roof with minimal eave
overhang. Sheathed with wood lap siding the garage also features a sash window and
pedestrian door on its east (side) elevation and two large, swing-out barn doors of vertical
wood plank with “Z” bracing on its north (front) elevation. As mentioned, vehicle access is
provided via a California driveway.
Building Permit History. Limited permit history associated with the property is on file with the
City. The City’s building permit ledger book for properties constructed prior to July 1920 does
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 4
include a line item listing the issuance of a permit for the property dated January 29, 1912.
Edward Davis is listed as the property owner with George Peasgood as the contractor. Other
information in the ledger book record notes the cost of the construction for the dwelling as
$1,500 to be erected on lot X block 93 in the Santa Monica tract. Interesting to note is that the
address is incorrectly listed as 610 Lake Street. The small front porch of the house was
enclosed prior to 1918, but no permit is on file for this particular work (1918 Sanborn map does
not indicate an open front porch). A permit dated from 1927, references the construction of a
12 foot by 18 foot wood-frame garage at the rear of the lot at a cost of $180. The owner of the
property is listed on the permit as Lydia A. Strother with Frederick Lee, her attorney, signing the
form on her behalf. An additional permit on file with the City also includes work for the
installation of a water heater in 1980. Besides the work noted, no substantial exterior changes
to the property are visually apparent at this time.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Santa Monica Township, Town of Santa Monica Tract. Santa Monica was originally inhabited
by the Tongva people and was later incorporated into California’s network of vast land grants
during the state’s Mexican period. In 1875, the original townsite of Santa Monica was surveyed
and platted. The township grid of more than 150 blocks reached from Montana Avenue on the
north, to Railroad Avenue (present-day Colorado Avenue) on the south, to roughly to a section
of 26th Street to the east, to the Pacific Ocean to the west. Each block consisted of 24 lots
bisected by an alleyway.
Nine months after the original land auction, Santa Monica had a population of approximately
1,000 people. However, following the initial influx permanent residential development was
slow in the years leading up to the turn of the twentieth century. What residential building
there was in Santa Monica was primarily concentrated within the blocks of Washington Avenue
on the north, 7th Street on the east, Oregon Avenue (Santa Monica Boulevard) on the south,
and Ocean Avenue on the west. The area south of Santa Monica Boulevard was more
commercial in nature, with a cluster of small homes east of 2nd Street on Utah (Broadway)
Avenue and Railroad (Colorado) Avenue. Santa Monica’s small commercial ‘downtown’
centered predominantly on 3rd Street.
Between 1893 and the 1920s, the community operated primarily as a tourist
attraction/destination, visited by mostly wealthy patrons. A review of early U.S. Census records
reveal that the residents of the time were primarily working class, with occupations in the
nearby tourism industry, along with trades people, retailers, railroad industry workers, and
retirees. Typical of the Southern California migration patterns of the period they were usually
either from the Midwest or were European immigrants. Larger residential structures were built
by early, prominent pioneers in what is now the downtown area, along Ocean Avenue, and in
the northern part of the township. Construction to the eastern part of the township was
generally slower to develop. Those areas just outside of the incorporated city limits were semi-
rural in setting and were populated with scattered residences.
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 5
The arrival of the Pacific Electric cars in 1905 sparked a period of renewed residential
development within the grid of the early township. The 1918 Sanborn maps of the area confirm
the prevalence of motorcars with the appearance of detached automobile garages located at
the rear of numerous residential parcels. Within the township, modest single-family residences
were still the dominant building type. The area’s lots, most 50 feet by 150 feet in size, provided
ample space for each property (lots at the north and south ends of the blocks were slightly
smaller in length). Some larger residences were built on multiple parcels and prominent
corners, indicating wealthy residents had established themselves in Santa Monica. These bigger
houses were designed in a variety of period architectural styles including Queen Anne, Eastlake,
and the occasional Mission Revival. The smaller homes, more typical of the tract at that time,
were built reflective of the modest hipped roof cottage or transitional Craftsman bungalow.
After the advent of the automobile in the 1920s, Santa Monica experienced a significant
building boom, with homes being constructed in the tracts north of Montana Avenue and east
of Seventh Street for year-round residents. Commercial buildings, primarily one- or two-story
in height, initially concentrated along 2nd and 3rd Streets between Colorado Avenue and Santa
Monica Boulevard also began to expand north and eastward at this time. The impetus for this
change occurred as a result of the continuing resident and tourist population growth of the City
overall and their demand for consumer goods. Homes of this period were designed and built in
a variety of styles including Craftsman, Colonial Revival, Mission Revival, and Streamline
Moderne. Additionally, heights varied from one to three stories and some lots were combined
to allow clusters of small single-room cottages, courts, and apartment houses.
Although the neighborhood was substantially built-up by the onset of World War II, a marked
change in character occurred in the mid-1950s and early 1960s, when older housing stock
began to be replaced by modern apartment buildings. Today, much of the area has been in-
filled with postwar-era apartment buildings or large contemporary multi-story condominiums
with older housing stock usually isolated or clustered in small groups. The subject property is
one such extant example of the older housing stock built in the neighborhood during its
formative years.
610 California Avenue. The subject property was built at 610 California Avenue in the
northwest portion of Santa Monica’s original township. A permit was issued on January 29,
1912 by the City for the construction of a dwelling on lot X block 93 in the Town of Santa
Monica tract. The single-family, one-story bungalow was built at a cost of roughly $1,500 for
Edward Davis of Santa Monica. The building contractor who erected the structure was George
W. Peasgood, a local builder/carpenter who was also a member of the St. Augustine by the Sea
congregation, the local Episcopal Church.
Reverend Edward Davis (1845-1922) was a minister with the Protestant Episcopal Church in
England prior to being appointed to the Episcopal Missionary in Liberia, West Africa in the
summer of 1873. Davis along with the Bishop Auer sailed from England to West Africa in the fall
of that same year. On January 6, 1874, Davis, a Deacon, was ordained as a “presbyter” and was
assigned to teach at the Boys School in Cavalla (near the Cavalla River and Cape Palmas) and to
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 6
assist at the Church of the Epiphany, which was also in Cavalla.1 As with many in the West
African missionaries, Davis had a difficult time there as he was often ill due to the humid,
tropical climate and unsanitary situations of the region. Many of the English, including Bishop
Auer, died of disease from being so unaccustomed to the tropical environment of the “wet”
and “dry” seasons or acquired the “fever” that ran rampant there in the area. Soon to follow,
war broke out between the West African natives (the Greboes) and the Liberian government.
Because of this dispute, the missionaries became isolated and more of them became ill or
died.2 During this time of strife; however, on September 11, 1874 Reverend Davis married Mrs.
Eliza Ware, a widowed missionary wife whose husband (Robert G. Ware) had died in August
1868. In November of 1875, Reverend Edward Davis was of ill health and returned to England
where he was subsequently joined by his wife. Upon their arrival they in turn submitted their
resignation to the church missionary.3
By 1876, Reverend Edward Davis and his wife Eliza Davis had moved from England to the United
States. At the time, they were living in the Pacific Northwest area of Washington in Jefferson
County. In May 1877, Davis arrived in Port Townsend to assume charge of St. Paul’s Church.4
The 1880 census shows they had a newborn daughter named Caroline. Twenty years later, the
1900 census did not include Caroline under Reverend Edward and his wife’s residency. They
were listed as living in Tacoma, Washington. In 1909, the recently retired minister, Edward
Davis, and his wife Eliza had moved from the state of Washington to Santa Monica where his
sister Lydia lived with her husband Doctor William Strother. The Davis’ first place of residency in
Santa Monica was temporary, along Oregon Avenue; then they moved to 1007 Fifth Street near
California Avenue in 1909.5 As they had limited means they had little monies remaining after
paying their monthly rent. For extra income they often took in rooming boarders.
Construction of the 610 California Avenue property was purchased through contributions
collected by Reverend John. D. H. Browne of the St. Augustine by the Sea Episcopal Church.
Reverend John. D. H. Browne recognized the hard work and dedication the couple had served
for their church over the years and wanted to help them build a home in their new City. The
retired reverend and his wife had served the church for decades as a minister and as a
missionary in West Africa. Browne had written letters to clergy all over the country asking for
monetary contributions to the cause and eventually collected enough funds with which to build
a house.6 Members of the congregation helped with the construction and only a few months
later the modest dwelling was completed.7 On April 27, 1912, the Daily Outlook reported that
1 An Historical Sketch of the African Mission of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., by Rev. Samuel D.
Ferguson, Foreign Committee: New York, 1884.
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Historical Society of the Episcopal Church. “Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church,” Pacific
Northwest Quarterly, University of Washington, 1948.
5 The Daily Outlook, October 20, 1909.
6 The Daily Outlook, “Home for Aged Minister Started,” January 30, 1912.
7 Ibid.
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 7
Edward and Eliza had moved into the 610 California Avenue property. It was only six weeks
later; however, that Eliza passed away on June 6, 1912 at the age of 70 years old.
In November of that same year, Edward’s brother-in-law and wife to Lydia, Doctor William T.
Strother passed away. Following her husband’s death Lydia sold their property on 11 th Street
where they had resided and then moved into the 610 California Avenue property with her
brother Edward. They lived there together for a number of years until Edward’s passing on
January 22, 1922 at the age of 78 years. Lydia Strother continued to live in the California
Avenue property for at least one more year before she moved. A building permit from 1927 (for
the construction of a garage) indicates Lydia was still the property owner at that time, though
her business was being managed locally by an attorney.
The 1928 city directory lists the property as vacant and by 1930 its occupants included a school
teacher, James Meeuwenberg, and his wife Priscilla. They lived there a few years until Thomas
Fohey, a laborer, and his wife Marie became the new residents. A review of the city directories
from the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1960s indicate the occupancy of the property changed often.
The following table illustrates the occupancy of the subject property over a span of roughly 40
plus years.
OCCUPANCY HISTORY (city directory)
Year Occupant
1911 Not listed
1912 Reverend Edward Davis, retired
1913- Reverend Edward Davis, retired; Lydia A. Strother (sister), widow of William T.
-1921 Reverend Edward Davis, retired; Lydia A. Strother (sister), widow of William T.
1923 Reverend George D. Watson, retired, (Eva M.); Lydia A. Strother
1925 Mrs. Eva M. Watson, widow of George D.; Lydia A. Strother
1927 Thomas Baines, building contractor, (Eleanor); owner: Lydia A. Strother
1928 Vacant; owner: Lydia A. Strother
1930 James Meeuwenberg, teacher, (Priscilla H.)
1931 James Meeuwenberg, teacher, (Priscilla H.)
1933 Vacant
1936 Thomas L. Fohey, laborer Santa Monica Park Department, (Marie)
1938 Thomas L. Fohey, laborer, (Marie)
1940 Mrs. Lina Berghofer, widow of F.L.
1947 Benjamin Klarber
1952 Penny Jordan, mechanic, (Frances)
1954 Mrs. Colleen McHale, assistant manager at FIVE-O-ONE (501 California Avenue)
1958 Charles A. Miller, retired, (Gertrude)
1960 Charles A. Miller, retired, (Gertrude)
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 8
The period of significance for the property is 1912, reflecting the original construction date of
the bungalow. The overall integrity of the subject property is good and retains integrity of
design, workmanship, materials, location, association, and feeling. Because of the
redevelopment in the neighborhood the subject property has lost integrity of setting.
Significant character-defining features of the house’s original design are maintained, including
its general scale and massing; set back and siting; horizontal wood lap cladding; complex hip
and gable roof; wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails, ridge beams and fascia
boards; projecting wood window sills and flat wood surrounds; Craftsman inspired door with
original hardware and flat wood surround; original door and window locations, orientation, and
placement; detached garage with vertical wood plank and “Z” bracing garage doors; and
associated concrete walkways and California driveway strips at the front of the lot.
Craftsman Bungalow Style.8 The subject property shares many qualities with Craftsman style
residences typical throughout the City of Santa Monica. The bungalow has its genesis in
Southern California, and was a very popular building type in Los Angeles and the residential
neighborhoods of Santa Monica, Ocean Park, and Venice during the first quarter of the
twentieth century. Because of their relative economy, bungalows answered a growing need for
affordable housing during the 1910s and 1920s. Ornate examples were commissioned for
wealthy residents of suburban enclaves, including some neighborhoods in Santa Monica,
Pasadena, and Los Angeles. Square or rectangular in plan, early bungalows or bungalow
cottages were one to one-and-a-half stories and rectilinear front porches typified the bungalow
form. To this basic form, architects, designers, and builders, introduced elements of the
Colonial Revival, Craftsman, Arts & Crafts, Spanish, and even Japanese architectural styles to
produce a unique building style. Simple, horizontal, and craft-oriented natural materials
generally characterized the Craftsman style.
Common elements of the idiom include low-pitched, gable roof forms; deep overhanging eaves;
exposed rafter tails, beams, and purlins; asymmetrical facades; battered (tapered) or square
porch piers (posts); rectangular or elongated shaped windows, often sash over sash; tripartite
window groupings; flat wood surrounds framing window and door openings; wood shingle or
clapboard clad siding; and front wood or concrete front porch steps and decks.
In addition to bungalow cottages, the Craftsman style was applied to large, single-family
dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplex units, and other multi-family residences that were
considerably bigger than the term bungalow implies. By the late 1910s and into the 1920s, the
Craftsman style was often melded with revival styles such as the American Colonial Revival or
Dutch Colonial. Because of its complex hipped roof, wide lap siding, fenestration, and date of
construction the modest bungalow exhibits a transitory phase between the hipped roof cottage
and Craftsman bungalow.
George W. Peasgood, Contractor. George William Peasgood was a carpenter in Santa Monica.
He was born in Ashkum, Illinois in 1865 to Jane and James Peasgood. By 1875, his father had
8 Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report, 2009.
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 9
passed away and the family had moved to Roxborough, Pennsylvania. Out of four children,
George was the third with his sister Lucy being the only girl and the youngest. George W.
Peasgood was married to Rosina (Rosa) Mildred (Betzold) and they had moved out west with
their four children to Santa Monica at the turn of the twentieth century. Unfortunately, Rosa
passed away due to complications with tuberculosis in 1904 at the age of 32 years. However, a
year later Peasgood married Rosa’s sister Mary Frances Betzold (1870-1958). The Peasgoods
resided at 2339 Delaware Avenue in Santa Monica and George was an active member of the
Fairview Heights Improvement Association. By the late 1910s, George had retired and moved
to Dixieland, Madera County, California with his wife Mary where he became a farmer. George
W. Peasgood passed away in Madera County in 1948 at the age of 83 years old. He was buried
in Santa Monica at the Woodlawn Cemetery alongside his first wife Rosa. Mary continued to
live on the farm and died in early 1958. She was buried in Arbor Vitae Cemetery in Madera,
California.
George W. Peasgood was the contractor for the 610 California Avenue bungalow, which he built
in 1912. Besides the subject property, no information is currently available to indicate what
other properties in the city were built by Peasgood. With limited publications of his work, his
professional portfolio is currently unknown and appears to have been largely unrecognized by
his peers. Interestingly, his two older brothers, John and James, were also building contractors
and worked as the Peasgood Brothers in Santa Monica for many years during the first quarter
of the twentieth century.
REGULATIONS AND DESIGNATION CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
Santa Monica Structure of Merit Criteria. In analyzing the historical significance of the subject
property, criteria for designation under the City’s Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance
was considered. Additionally, consideration of historical integrity and the OHP survey
methodology was used to assess the relative significance of the property in context.
Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic
Districts Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. The Ordinance was adopted by the
Santa Monica City Council on March 24, 1976, and has been amended since that time.
The Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance includes criteria and procedures
for designating City of Santa Monica Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts. An
improvement may be designated a Structure of Merit if the City’s Landmarks Commission
determines that it merits official recognition.
Pursuant to Section 9.56.080 of the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, a property
merits consideration as a Structure of Merit if it satisfies one or more of the following statutory
criteria:
(a) It has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
(b) It is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following criteria:
1) It is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type.
2) It is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 10
3) The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
Historical Integrity Consideration. “Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its
significance.” In addition to satisfying the criteria of local significance, a property must have
integrity. Integrity is the authenticity of a property’s physical identity clearly indicated by the
retention of characteristics that existed during the property’s period of significance.
A property eligible for local designation must satisfy the applicable significance criteria and
retain enough of its historic character and original appearance to be recognizable as historical
resource. Both the National Register and the California Register recognize seven aspects or
qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a property
should possess several, and usually most, of those seven aspects or qualities. Thus, the
retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its
significance. The seven qualities that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling and association. Such consideration of integrity is typically assessed for
the exterior of properties.
Despite the enclosure of the front porch area prior to 1918 (Sanborn map from 1918 does not
indicate an open front porch) the property has undergone little exterior modification. The
overall integrity of the subject property is appears good and retains integrity of design,
workmanship, materials, location, association, and feeling. Because of the redevelopment in
the neighborhood the subject property has lost integrity of setting.
EVALUATION OF LOCAL HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Evaluation Findings. In summary, based on current research and the above assessment, the
bungalow located at 610 California Avenue appears to satisfy the City of Santa Monica’s
Structure of Merit criteria. The subject property was evaluated according to statutory criteria as
follows:
9.56.080(a). It has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
The subject property has been previously evaluated as part of the City’s recent historic
resources survey update process (2018). Therefore, it meets this criterion.
9.56.080(b). It is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following criteria.
The subject property was built in 1912, and; therefore, satisfies the 50-year age criterion.
9.56.080(b)(1). It is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or
historical type.
The subject property is one of only a handful of intact early examples of the Craftsman
bungalow style in this section of the Town of Santa Monica tract. It is one of the oldest
remaining houses in the neighborhood, dating to the areas earliest period of development,
prior to the 1920s boom years. Given the period of significance (1912) during which it was
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 11
constructed and its rarity as an intact early “transitional” Craftsman bungalow in this section of
the large tract, the subject property appears to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.080(b)(2). It is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
Constructed in 1912, the single-family residence on the parcel is an example of an early style
Craftsman bungalow. The Craftsman style was a prevalent architectural mode in residential
neighborhoods throughout much of Santa Monica in the 1910s and 1920s. The earliest
examples of the style in this portion of the old township have become increasingly rare due to
the demolition of older, small-scale residences to accommodate higher-density residential
development in the 1950s to the present. As a formative example of early Craftsman
architecture, a style and type no longer pervasive in this section of the Town of Santa Monica
tract neighborhood north of Wilshire Boulevard, the 610 California Avenue property appears to
satisfy this criterion.
9.56.080(b)(3). The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
The property at 610 California Avenue is located in a neighborhood characterized by a variety of
housing types, architectural styles, and dates of construction. The neighborhood has not been
previously identified as a potential historic district and the area lacks any uniformity or
cohesiveness to associate it as such. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this
criterion.
CONCLUSION
Based on the research conducted, site analysis, its contextual consideration, historic integrity,
and evaluation against applicable significance criteria, OAC finds that the modest Craftsman
bungalow residence located at 610 California Avenue appears eligible for City of Santa Monica
Structure of Merit designation under City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit criteria
9.56.080(a), 9.56.080(b), 9.56.080(b)(1), and 9.56.080(b)(2).
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 12
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ancestry.com. United States Census records (database on-line): 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940;
death records; birth records; city directories; voter’s registration records, etc. Provo,
Utah.
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.
Bricker, Lauren, Robert White and Janet Tearnen. “The Residential Architecture of Pasadena,
CA, 1895-1918: The Influence of the Arts and Crafts Movement.” Multiple Property
Listing. National Park Service, June 25, 1998.
Carley, Rachel. The Visual Dictionary of American Domestic Architecture . New York, New York:
Henry Holt and Company, 1994.
City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica General Plan, Historic Preservation Element. Prepared by
PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group, 2002.
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 II: 1985-1986.
Prepared by Johnson Heumann Research Associates, 1986.
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. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report .
Prepared by ICF International, 2010.
City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report .
Prepared by HRG and ARG, 2018.
City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Department, Building permits for 610 California
Avenue.
The Daily Outlook. “In Society,” (Santa Monica Daily Outlook), October 20, 1909.
The Daily Outlook. “Building Permits Total Soars Again,” (Santa Monica Daily Outlook), January
30, 1912, p.1.
The Daily Outlook. “Home for Aged Minister Started,” (Santa Monica Daily Outlook), January 30,
1912, p.1.
The Daily Outlook. “Dr. Strother Dead,” (Santa Monica Daily Outlook), November 15, 1912.
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 13
The Daily Outlook. “Strother Funeral,” (Santa Monica Daily Outlook), November 18, 1912.
Ferguson, Samuel Rev. An Historical Sketch of the African Mission of the Protestant Episcopal
Church in the U.S.A. New York: Episcopal Church Foreign Committee, 1884.
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.
Heckman, Marlin L. Santa Monica in Vintage Postcards. Chicago, Illinois: Arcade Press, 2002.
Historic Aerial Images, 1947-2005 . Accessed at http://historicalaerials.com.
Historical Society of the Episcopal Church . “Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal
Church,” Pacific Northwest Quarterly, Seattle, Washington: University of Washington,
1948.
Historical Society of the Episcopal Church. Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal
Church, vol. 18-19. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Historical Society of the Episcopal
Church, 1949.
Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll’s Century History: Santa Monica Bay Cities, 1542-1908 . Los
Angeles: Luther A. Ingersoll, 1908.
Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Tract maps (accessed online at
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/surveyrecord/tractmain.cfm).
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.
N.A. The Spirit of the Missions, vol. 35, New York: American Church Press Company, 1870.
N.A. Pacific Northwest Quarterly, vols. 39-40. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington,
1948.
Newmark, Harris. Sixty Years in Southern California, 1853-1913. New York: Knickerbocker
Press, 1916.
Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Recording Historic Resources . Sacramento,
California: State of California, 1995.
Polk & Company. Polk’s Santa Monica City Directory; Los Angeles City Directory. Los Angeles
County (various years).
Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Company, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps- Santa Monica, California,
1918-1950.
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 14
Santa Monica Conservancy. “Designation Application – Structure of Merit: 610 California
Avenue,” City of Santa Monica- City Planning Division document, October 2018.
Santa Monica Public Library, online Santa Monica Image Archives.
Santa Monica Public Library, online Historical Maps Collection of Santa Monica.
Santa Monica Public Library, online Santa Monica Newspaper Index.
Scott, Paul A. Santa Monica: A History on the Edge . Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.
Storrs, Les. Santa Monica, Portrait of a City, 1875-1975 . Santa Monica: Santa Monica Bank,
1874.
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.
University of California, Santa Barbara Library. Frame Finder, Aerial Photography. Santa
Barbara: UCSB Library (accessed online at http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/
FrameFinder/).
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.
Wilson, Henry L. California Bungalows of the Twenties. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.,
1993.
610 California Avenue
Structure of Merit Assessment Report
page 15
ATTACHMENTS
9L
F
L
Q
L
W
\
0
D
S
SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, Santa Monica
1918
SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, Santa Monica
1918, paste-up Feb. 1950
Permit Ledger Book (1912): Edward Davis line item detail
Permit Ledger Book (1912): Edward Davis line item
PHOTOGRAPHS
610 California Avenue, Santa Monica, CA
PHOTO ‐ 1: Front (north) facade, looking south (credit: MLS, 2009)
PHOTO ‐ 2: North (front)/west elevations, looking southeast (2018)
PHOTO ‐ 3: North (front)/east elevations, looking southwest (2018)
PHOTO ‐ 4: Garage/driveway, looking south (2018)
PHOTO ‐ 5: Garage (south/east) elevations and house rear (south)
elevation, looking northwest (credit: MLS, 2009)
PHOTO ‐ 6: East (side) elevation, looking north (credit MLS, 2009)
CONTEXTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS
610 California Avenue, Santa Monica, CA
AERIAL 1: California Avenue between 6th and 7th Streets, 1946 (UCSB)
CONTEXTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS
610 California Avenue, Santa Monica, CA
AERIAL 2: Northwest section of Town of Santa Monica Tract contextual perspective, 1960 (UCSB)
CONTEXTUAL PHOTOGRAPHS
610 California Avenue, Santa Monica, CA
AERIAL 3: Northwest section of Town of Santa Monica Tract contextual perspective, 2018 (Google Maps)
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: January 14, 2019
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Planning Staff
SUBJECT: 610 California Avenue (18ENT-0316)
Public Hearing to consider Structure of Merit Designation Application
18ENT-0316 to determine whether the subject residence should be
designated as a Structure of Merit.
PROPERTY OWNER: Gershon Gabel, Betina Pomerantz
APPLICANT: Santa Monica Conservancy
INTRODUCTION and BACKGROUND
On August 15, 2018, the property owner filed a demolition permit application to remove
the subject single-unit residence and detached garage. On October 18, 2018, a Structure
of Merit application was filed by the Santa Monica Conservancy, within the 75-day waiting
period for demolition permit applications. Although previous entitlements on the property
include Architecture Review Board approval for a new 3-unit residence (expired), a
demolition permit was not previously reviewed by the Landmarks Commission.
A Structure of Merit Assessment was prepared for the subject property by the City’s
historic preservation consultant, Ostashay & Associates Consulting, provided as
Attachment C. Based on the findings as provided in the report, the consultant finds that
the property is eligible for Structure of Merit designation under the City of Santa Monica
Structure of Merit criteria 9.56.080(a), 9.56.080(b), 9.56.080(b)(1) as a rare intact early
example of a Craftsman bungalow, and 9.56.080(b)(2) as an example of early Craftsman-
style architecture no longer prevalent in the neighborhood.
Staff agrees with these findings that the subject residence appears eligible for Structure
of Merit designation, as further described in this report.
10-A
- 2 -
Historic Resources Inventory Status
The subject property has been identified for historical significance under the City’s 2018
Historic Resources Inventory update. The property is listed as potentially eligible as a
Santa Monica landmark based on its association with the early residential development
of the immediate neighborhood during its formative years.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notice of the public hearing was provided as follows: Pursuant to SMMC Section
9.56.090, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and
commercial tenants of property within a 300-foot radius of the project and was published
in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the
hearing. A copy of the notice is included as Attachment A.
ANALYSIS
Property Information and Architectural Description
The subject property consists of approximately 5,000 square feet and is developed with
a one-story, single-unit residence with a detached accessory garage in the rear of the
property accessed by a front driveway. The site is located on the south side of California
Avenue between 6th and 7th Streets in the Wilshire-Montana residential neighborhood (R2
Low-Density Residential district) comprised of single-unit and multi-unit residences of
varying style and age.
Architectural Description
The subject residence is a one-story, Craftsman bungalow residence constructed in 1912.
This transitional Craftsman-style cottage was popular in Santa Monica during the first
quarter of the 20th century. Based on its complex hipped roof, wide lap siding, fenestration,
and date of construction, the modest bungalow exhibits a transitory phase between the
hipped roof cottage and Craftsman bungalow. The residence is rectangular in plan and is
comparable in size (approximately 1,000 SF) to other single-unit residences constructed
at the time.
The wood-framed building is capped with a hipped roof with a side-facing gable wing over
the original front porch at the west side. A prominent gabled dormer is centrally located
on the sloping front side of the roof. The dormer features overhanging eaves, heavy knee
brackets under the eaves, wood-lap siding, flat wood surrounds, and a horizontal window
with fixed pane center and flanking louvered vent openings. Other roof elements include
asphalt shingles, large wood brackets, and extended eaves.
The bungalow cottage is clad with wide shiplap wood siding with beltcourse. The front,
primary elevation (north) features an inset porch at its northwest corner that has been
enclosed with multi-pane, wood-frame windows. The gable porch roof is supported by
square shaped wood columns that sit on flared wood piers. The enclosed porch also
features what appears to be the original Craftsman inspired front door with original
hardware. Fenestration along the side and rear elevations consists of primarily wood-
- 3 -
frame sash of varying size and shape. The front door and windows are framed by flat
wood surrounds, typical of the Craftsman idiom.
The detached garage was constructed in 1927 and consists of wood-framing capped with
a hip roof with minimal eave overhang. Sheathed with wood lap siding, the garage also
features a sash window and pedestrian door on its east (side) elevation and two large,
swing-out barn doors of vertical wood plank with “Z” bracing on its north (front) elevation.
The property has undergone minor alterations since its original construction. The small
front porch of the residence was enclosed prior to 1918, and a permit dated 1927
references the construction of a 12 foot by 18 foot wood-frame garage. The residence
continues to retain its overall integrity of design, workmanship, materials, location,
association, and feeling. However, the property no longer has integrity of setting due to
the in-fill redevelopment of the neighborhood of postwar-era apartment buildings.
Period of Significance / Character-Defining Features
The period of significance for the property is 1912, reflecting the original construction date
of the bungalow. Significant character-defining features of its original design are
maintained, including its general scale and massing, horizontal wood lap cladding, hip
and gable roof, prominent gabled dormer on the sloping front side of the roof, wide
overhanging eaves, ridge beams and fascia boards, projecting wood window sills and flat
wood surrounds, Craftsman inspired door with original hardware and flat wood surround,
and original door and window openings.
Historic Context
Between 1893 and the 1920s, the community operated primarily as a tourist
attraction/destination, visited by mostly wealthy patrons. The arrival of the Pacific Electric
cars in 1905 initiated a period of renewed residential development within the grid of the
early township. 1918 Sanborn maps of the area confirm the prevalence of motorcars with
the appearance of detached automobile garages located at the rear of numerous
residential parcels. Within the township, modest single-family residences were still the
dominant building type. Larger residences were constructed on multiple parcels and
prominent corners, indicating wealthy residents had established themselves in Santa
Monica. However, the smaller homes, more typical of the tract at that time, were often
reflective of the modest hipped roof cottage or transitional Craftsman bungalow.
Craftsman-style residences were also prevalent in residential neighborhoods throughout
much of Santa Monica in the 1910s and 1920s.
After the advent of the automobile in the 1920s, Santa Monica experienced a significant
building boom, with homes being constructed in the tracts north of Montana Avenue and
east of Seventh Street for year-round residents. Residences of this period were designed
and constructed in a variety of styles including Craftsman, Colonial Revival, Mission
Revival, and Streamline Moderne.
Although the neighborhood was substantially developed by the onset of World War II, a
marked change in character occurred in the mid-1950s and early 1960s as older housing
- 4 -
was replaced by modern apartment buildings. Currently, the area has been in-filled with
postwar-era apartment buildings or large contemporary multi-story condominiums with
older housing stock typically isolated or clustered in small groups. The subject property
is one such extant example of the early housing stock constructed in the neighborhood
during its formative years.
Landmarks Ordinance / Findings
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.080, the Landmarks Commission may designate an
improvement as a Structure of Merit if it determines that it satisfies one or more of the
following criteria:
A. The property has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
B. The subject building is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following
criteria:
1) It is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type.
2) It is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
3) The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
Based on the findings as provided in the Assessment, Ostashay & Associates
Consultants finds that the property appears eligible for designation under the City of Santa
Monica Structure of Merit criteria 9.56.080(a), 9.56.080(b), 9.56.080(b)(1), and
9.56.080(b)(2). Based on the research and evaluation of 610 California Avenue, staff
agrees with the consultant’s findings that the property is eligible for Structure of Merit
designation.
The following draft findings are provided to support this conclusion:
9.56.080(a). Structure has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
The subject property has been previously identified in the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory (2018) as a potential City of Santa Monica Landmark (5S3). Therefore, the
subject property satisfies this criterion.
9.56.080(b). Structure is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following
criteria:
The subject property was constructed in 1912 and therefore satisfies the 50-year criterion.
9.56.080(b)(1). Structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or
historical type.
The subject residence is a rare intact early example of the Craftsman bungalow style in
this section of the Town of Santa Monica tract. It is one of the oldest remaining residences
in the area, constructed during the area’s earliest period of development. Given the period
- 5 -
of significance (1912) during which it was constructed and its rarity as an intact early
“transitional” Craftsman bungalow in this section of the large tract, the subject property
appears to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.080(b)(2). It is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.
Constructed in 1912, the subject residence is an example of an early style Craftsman
bungalow. This transitional Craftsman-style cottage was popular in Santa Monica during
the first quarter of the 20th century. Based on its complex hipped roof, wide lap siding,
fenestration, and date of construction, the modest bungalow exhibits a transitory phase
between the hipped roof cottage and Craftsman bungalow. Craftsman-style residences
were prevalent in residential neighborhoods throughout much of Santa Monica in the
1910s and 1920s. The earliest examples of the style in this portion of the old township
have become increasingly rare due to the demolition of older, small-scale residences to
accommodate higher-density residential development in the 1950s to the present. As a
formative example of early 1910s Craftsman architecture, a style and type no longer
prevalent in this section of the Town of Santa Monica tract neighborhood north of Wilshire
Boulevard, the subject property appears to satisfy this criterion.
9.56.080(b)(3). The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.
The subject property is located in a neighborhood characterized by a variety of housing
types, architectural styles, and dates of construction. The neighborhood has not been
previously identified through survey as a potential historic district, and the area lacks any
uniformity or cohesiveness to associate it as such. Therefore, the subject property does
not appear to satisfy this criterion.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the research and evaluation of the subject building located at 610 California
Avenue, staff concludes that the subject property is eligible the Structure of Merit
designation criteria and is therefore eligible for designation. Based on Structure of Merit
criterion 9.56.080(a), 9.56.080(b), 9.56.080(b)(1), and 9.56.080(b)(2), staff recommends
that the Commission designate the primary residence as a Structure of Merit, excluding
the detached accessory garage.
Pursuant to SMMC 9.56.180, the Landmarks Commission’s determination regarding this
application may be appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the City Planning
Division within ten (10) consecutive days commencing from the date that the decision is
made by the Landmarks Commission.
Attachments:
A. Public Notice
B. Applicant Materials
C. Structure of Merit Assessment Report (Ostashay & Associates Consulting,
January 2019)
January 6, 1874, he was ordained as “presbyter” and assigned to teach “Cavalla” and to assist
in the Church of the Epiphany. He had a difficult year in West Africa. Many of the English died
of disease from being so unaccustomed to the climate, including Bishop Auer who ordained
him. Soon war broke out between the West African natives and the Liberian government, the
Missionaries became isolated, and more of them became ill. In spite of all of this, on September
11, 1874 Reverend Davis, married Mrs. Ware (born 1845 in England) a widowed Missionary wife
whose husband had succumbed the year before. Soon, Davis also became ill and had to return
to England to ensure his recovery. The newlyweds subsequently turned their resignations in to
the Mission.1
Reverend Edward and Mrs. Eliza Davis regrouped and moved to Jefferson County in Washington
Territory, USA in 1876.2 The 1880 census shows them with a newborn daughter named Caroline.
By the 1900 census, Caroline had passed away, and they were living in Tacoma, Washington.
In 1909, Edward and Eliza, recently retired, had moved to Santa Monica where Edward’s sister
Lydia lived with her husband Dr. William Strother. The Davis’ first Santa Monica address was on
Oregon Avenue, then they moved to Fifth Street and California Avenue.3
1 An Historical Sketch of the African Mission of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., By Rev. Samuel D. Ferguson, New
York, Foreign Committee, 23 Bible House, 1884
2 1900 census say Eliza came to the US in 1876 and Edward first came to the US in 1868. The 1910 census says they were both
naturalized in 1895.
3 Outlook, October 20, 1909
After noting that the Davis’ were just getting by in rented places for their three years in Santa
Monica, local Rev. John D.H. Brown, a well-known, local Evangelist, wrote letters to clergy
all over the country asking for contributions to build a home for the retired couple who had
spent their lives serving their church in the US and in Africa and could now barely cover rent.4
Consequently, on January 30, 1912 a permit was pulled for a $1500, 5-room house for Edward
Davis at 610 California Avenue. On April 27, 1912 the Outlook reported that Edward and Eliza
had moved in. Unfortunately, six weeks later, on June 6, 1912, Eliza passed away.
In November, Dr. Strother, Edward’s brother-in-law, also passed away, so Edward and Lydia
lived at 610 California together. The 1920 census shows both the siblings still living there. The
California Death Index indicates that Edward Davis passed away on January 12, 1922.5 Lydia
Strother continued to live at 610 California for at least one more year. In 1927 she pulled a
permit to build a garage. By then she was 80 years old. She passed away in 1931 in Canada,
where she was in the care of Marjorie Davis, a niece. The death certificate states that she
had been in Canada for 8 years,
indicating she may have moved
out of the Californa Avenue house
in 1923.
Conclusion
While neither Reverend Davis,
his wife Eliza, his sister Lydia, nor
Reverend Brown were significant
figures in local, state or national
history, this background story
highlights how the house at 610
California Avenue, a pioneer
house as the city was finally
stretching out and filling in
remaining outlying parcels with
development, is part of the social
and cultural story of the city.
This is not just a typical example,
but an exemplary example of
vernacular development in the
second decade of the twentieth
century in Santa Monica,
encapsulated in this simple, and
well-preserved example of a
Craftsman cottage from 1912.
4 Home For Aged Minister Started, Outlook, January 30, 1912
5 The California Death Index only indicates that Edward Davis was born in about 1844 and that he died on that date in Los
Angeles County. No obituaries or other corroborating information was found to confirm the date. Eliza Davis’ tombstone in
Woodlawn Cemetery has his name on it as well as her name, but only her death date.
610 California Avenue
61
0
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
61
0
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
61
0
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
v
e
n
u
e
610 California Avenue
From:The SEO Doctors
To:Clerk Mailbox
Subject:SM Council 3/5/19 - Item 6a
Date:Tuesday, March 5, 2019 7:47:03 AM
610 California Ave.
It's old. I get it. The doors are too small. It's built for a different era. And it needs a paint job.
It depends on the future plans, I say. I could be into a bigger two-story version of what's there.
Or a bigger version that uses the land better.
I think California Ave. represents a walkway of our past as you approach the Incline. I feel
that the buildings on this street should represent a mix of that culture from our past. Victorian.
I would be totally against a modern lego right here.
Let's see some ideas and go from there. I know there's a happy way to keep things the same.
Also, has anything happened here specifically where the structure, or specific pieces of wood,
is important ?
Korie Schmidt
(310)600-2278
TheSEODoctors@gmail.com
Item 6-A
3/05/2019
1 of 2 Item 6-A
3/05/2019
Item 6-A
3/05/2019
2 of 2 Item 6-A
3/05/2019
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
610 California Avenue
Appeal 19ENT-0016 of
Structure of Merit 18ENT-0316
March 5, 2019
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
610 California Avenue
(Appeal of Structure of Merit Disapproval)
Timeline of Application
§August 2018:
Demo Permit Application Filed
by Property Owner
§October 18, 2018:
Structure of Merit Designation
Application Filed
§January 14, 2019:
Landmarks Commission Hearing
§Commission Unable to Conduct Hearing or Ta ke Action on Application
Due to a Lack of Quorum.
§Application Deemed Disapproved
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
610 California Avenue
(Appeal of Structure of Merit Disapproval)
§1912 Craftsman Bungalow
§Modest One-Story Residence
§Parcel Size: 5,000 SF
§R2 Low-Density Residential
District
§Application Filed by Santa Monica Conservancy
§Primary Residence (1912), Detached Accessory Garage (1927)
§Tr ansitional Craftsman-style cottage
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC)
Structure of Merit Assessment of Property
Architectural Description
§Tr ansitional Craftsman: Hipped-Roof, wide lap
siding, fenestration, date of construction.
§Prominent Gabled Dormer, Side-Fa cing Gable,
Wide Overhanging Eaves, Ridge Beams and
Fa scia Boards, Projecting Wood Window Sills &
Flat Wood Surrounds
§Craftsman inspired door with original hardware &
flat wood surround, and original door / window
openings.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
Historic Context: SM Township, Tr act
§Between 1893-1920s, Smaller Residences
Re flective of the Modest Hipped Roof Cottage or
Tr ansitional Craftsman bungalow.
§Mid-1950s / Early 1960s Older Housing Replaced
by Modern Apartment Buildings.
§Extant Example of Early Housing Constructed in
the Neighborhood during its Formative Years.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
Structure of Merit Designation Criterion:
§9.56.080(a).Structure has been identified in the City’s
Historic Resources Inventory.
§9.56.080(b).Structure is a minimum of 50 years of age
and meets one of the following criteria:
§9.56.080(b)(1).Structure is a unique or rare example of
an architectural design,detail or historical type.
One of the oldest intact remaining residences in the
area,constructed during the area’s earliest period of
development.
§9.56.080(b)(2).It is representative of a style in the City
that is no longer prevalent.
Example of early 1910s Craftsman architecture, a style
no longer prevalent in this section of the Tr act
neighborhood.
§9.56.080(b)(3).The structure contributes to a potential
Historic District.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
Re commendation:
Uphold Appeal 19ENT-0016
Approval of Structure of Merit Designation for
610 California Ave
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Ap peal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
CITY COUNCIL HEARING January 22, 2019
11 th Street Historic District
18ENT-0166
§Mills Act Contract (potential property tax savings)
In exchange for Property Tax savings, property owner implements
Rehabilitation + Maintenance tasks to maintain historic building
§Flexible Zoning Standards & Modifications for Historic Resources:
-Ability to Apply for Modifications to Setbacks, Height, Pa rcel Coverage, etc.
-Reduction of Required Parking to allow Change of Use
§Application of California State Historical Building Code for alterations
Preservation Incentives
(For Designated Structures of Merit)
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
610 California Avenue
Appeal 19ENT-0016 of
Structure of Merit 18ENT-0316
March 5, 2019
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
610 California Avenue
(Appeal of Structure of Merit Disapproval)
Timeline of Application
August 2018:
Demo Permit Application Filed
by Property Owner
October 18, 2018:
Structure of Merit Designation
Application Filed
January 14, 2019:
Landmarks Commission Hearing
Commission Unable to Conduct Hearing or Take Action on Application
Due to a Lack of Quorum.
Application Deemed Disapproved
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
610 California Avenue
(Appeal of Structure of Merit Disapproval)
1912 Craftsman Bungalow
Modest One-Story Residence
Parcel Size: 5,000 SF
R2 Low-Density Residential
District
Application Filed by Santa Monica Conservancy
Primary Residence (1912), Detached Accessory Garage (1927)
Transitional Craftsman-style cottage
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC)
Structure of Merit Assessment of Property
Architectural Description
Transitional Craftsman: Hipped-Roof, wide lap
siding, fenestration, date of construction.
Prominent Gabled Dormer, Side-Facing Gable,
Wide Overhanging Eaves, Ridge Beams and
Fascia Boards, Projecting Wood Window Sills &
Flat Wood Surrounds
Craftsman inspired door with original hardware &
flat wood surround, and original door / window
openings.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
Historic Context: SM Township, Tract
Between 1893-1920s, Smaller Residences
Reflective of the Modest Hipped Roof Cottage or
Transitional Craftsman bungalow.
Mid-1950s / Early 1960s Older Housing Replaced
by Modern Apartment Buildings.
Extant Example of Early Housing Constructed in
the Neighborhood during its Formative Years.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
Structure of Merit Designation Criterion:
9.56.080(a).Structure has been identified in the City’s
Historic Resources Inventory.
9.56.080(b).Structure is a minimum of 50 years of age
and meets one of the following criteria:
9.56.080(b)(1).Structure is a unique or rare example of
an architectural design,detail or historical type.
One of the oldest intact remaining residences in the
area,constructed during the area’s earliest period of
development.
9.56.080(b)(2).It is representative of a style in the City
that is no longer prevalent.
Example of early 1910s Craftsman architecture, a style
no longer prevalent in this section of the Tract
neighborhood.
9.56.080(b)(3).The structure contributes to a potential
Historic District.
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
Recommendation:
Uphold Appeal 19ENT-0016
Approval of Structure of Merit Designation for
610 California Ave
CITY COUNCIL HEARING March 5, 2019
Appeal of Structure of Merit
19ENT-0016
CITY COUNCIL HEARING January 22, 2019
11 th Street Historic District
18ENT-0166
Mills Act Contract (potential property tax savings)
In exchange for Property Tax savings, property owner implements
Rehabilitation + Maintenance tasks to maintain historic building
Flexible Zoning Standards & Modifications for Historic Resources:
-Ability to Apply for Modifications to Setbacks, Height, Parcel Coverage, etc.
-Reduction of Required Parking to allow Change of Use
Application of California State Historical Building Code for alterations
Preservation Incentives
(For Designated Structures of Merit)