Agenda packet — Santa Monica City Council, October 27, 2026 (part 6 of 6)

1. Example of a similar blade sign for a Kress store in Alhambra, California (National Building Museum, 1936)

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1267 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the Attachment D: Kress Blade Sign Documentation

12.A.f
Attachment D: Kress Blade Sign Docu
1355 Third Street Promenade
HERITAGE Santa Monica, C.

September 9, 2026

CHATTEL
Reading of an Ordinance to Approve th
(7865: Introduction and First

COLONIC
at Nationa Iding Museum
254
STORE
C0. 5-10-25

CENT STORE
Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09

2. Example of a similar blade sign for a Kress store in Alhambra, California (National Building Museum, 1936) Page 3 of
Packet Pg. 1268 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the heritage-consulting.com 215-248-1260 Packet Pg. 1268
Attachment D: Kress Blade Sign Documentation

12.A.f
Attachment D: Kress Blade Sign Docu
1355 Third Street Promenade
HERITAGE Santa Monica, C
September 9, 2026

CHATTEL
(7865: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve th t Natio iding Museun
L
STO Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 10-25

3. Example of a similar blade sign for a Kress store in Alhambra, California (National Building Museum, 1936) Page 4 of
Packet Pg. 1269 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the heritage-consulting.com 215-248-1260 Packet Pg. 1269
Attachment D: Kress Blade Sign Documentation
1355 Third Street Promenade
Santa Monica, CA
September 9, 2026

Page 5 of 5 ends

4. Example of a similar blade sign for a Kress store in Alhambra, California (National Building Museum, 1936)

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1270 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the Attachment D: Kress Blade Sign Documentation
1355 Third Street Promenade
Santa Monica, CA
September 9, 2026

Page 6 of 5 ends

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the Blade Sign Reconstruction Report
Attachment E:
2026 OBM Drawings
Junipher Building
1355 Third Street Promenade
Santa Monica, California

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the * THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY INFORMATION 1355 3RD ST (JUNIPHER BUILDING)

REPLACEMENT OF MISSING HISTORIC BLADE SIGN
September 2026

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the Attachment A: Historic Photographs
1355 Third Street Promenade
Santa Monica, CA
July 8, 2026

5. View northeast of portion of south elevation of subject property during a parade along Santa Monica Boulevard, note former City Hall in background (Santa Monica History Museum, 1930)

6. View west of east and south elevations of subject property from Santa Monica Boulevard, note Clock Tower Building in background (University of Southern California Digital Archive, 1936)

HISTORIC PHOTO
1930, SANTA MONICA HISTORY MUSEUM 1936, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA DIGITAL ARCHIVE © 2026 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 2

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1274 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 3'-0"
2-SIDED BLADE SIGN LOCATION

STREET TREE
N 0’ 8’ 16’ 32’

PLOT PLAN

PROPOSED BILLBOARD
© 2026 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
3 12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1275 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 3'-0"
19'-4"

BUILDING FACE
3'-0"
19'-4"

SIGN SPECIFICATIONS

BLADE SIGN ELEVATION
(West face shown, east face similar)

LETTER DETAIL
Sign connects back to building with 2-3 HSS square
tube outriggers. Outriggers penetrate masonry wall to
connect to vertical strongbacks behind the masonry
wall. Where penetrations occur, full face bricks shall be salvaged, crated, and stored onsite for future reinstallation.

Contractor shall core drill through common brick behind, Gaps between full bricks and outriggers will be infilled with patching mortar to match adjacent brick.

Painted metal sign panel, color to complement
tenant branding. Maximum sign cabinet depth
12”. Final fabrication to be developed with sign
fabricator and structural engineer.

Metal channel letter, painted to reflect
tenant branding
LED bulbs along return
Individual LED bulbs
Illuminated open channel letters
Minimum 2” clear between edge of sign and building face © 2026 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 4

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1276 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the

MOUNTED HEIGHTS

HISTORIC PLACEMENT PROPOSED PLACEMENT
3’-0”
3’-0”
19’-4”
19’-4”
25’
20’
* NOTE: SIGN AND STRUCTURE SHALL NOT TOUCH OR COVER TERRACOTTA. © 2026 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
5 12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the

MOUNTED HEIGHTS

HISTORIC PLACEMENT PROPOSED PLACEMENT
3’-0”
3’-0”
19’-4”
19’-4”
25’
20’
* NOTE: SIGN AND STRUCTURE SHALL NOT TOUCH OR COVER TERRACOTTA. © 2026 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
6 12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the

EXISTING STREET TREES
© 2026 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
7 12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the

PHOTO MOCKUP
© 2026 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
8 EAST FACE

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the

PHOTO MOCKUP
© 2026 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
9 WEST FACE

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the

PHOTO MOCKUP
© 2026 ORANGE BARREL MEDIA, LLC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 10

WEST FACE

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the THANK YOU [email protected]

12.A.f
[email protected]
OBM.com
Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the TERN
ION

CLAY COLLETT
Vice President, West Coast Development OB|M STUDIO
[email protected]

GABY GHERMEZI
Development Director
Attachment: F.
[email protected]
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the Packet Pg. 1283
Attachment E: 2026 OBM Drawings
1355 Third Street Promenade
Santa Monica, CA
September 9, 2026

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

12.A.f
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: F. Heritage Blade Sign Reconstruction Report 2026.09.09 (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1 SIGN ADJUSTMENT FINDINGS –
BLADE SIGN AT 1355 3RD STREET/301 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD

1. The strict application of the provisions of the Sign Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships for the business or property owner which would be inconsistent with the purposes of this Chapter and which would arise from unique physical or topographic circumstances or conditions of project design in that the site is a designated Landmark seeking to reconstruct a historic double-sided blade sign with a vertical orientation that was previously removed from the building. The adjustment allows the building’s historic tenant identification feature, an upper level non-conforming blade sign, together with the building’s other commercial signage, to exceed the maximum amount of sign area otherwise allowed within the Downtown District. The property is important to the history of the City in part because “the Junipher Building by virtue of its location, size, appearance, and tenants, became a visible manifestation of the evolving transition of the Central Business District from a residential to a thriving commercial center” and because of “the building’s . . . distinctive decorative features.” The previously existing upper level blade sign was located above the first floor and extended vertically up the side of the building in order to stand out near the center of Downtown. Additionally, if the tenant blade sign was installed within Code parameters it would be hidden from view bv today’s existing street trees.

2. The granting of the requested variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations imposed on similarly zoned properties or inconsistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance in that the existing Landmark building was constructed before the prohibition of upper-level signs and this identification signage was intended for the upper-level locations. Reinstallation of the proposed blade sign serves as an identification sign for the building’s tenant(s) and creates a unique architectural element essential to the style and character of the Landmark building. Additionally, the approximate 60 SF double-sided blade sign will exceed the 4.5 SF, i.e. the typical amount of signage permitted on a blade sign. The additional square footage enables the sign to be prominently visible in this Downtown location as was the case historically.

3. The granting of the requested variance would not be incompatible with other nearby signs, other elements of street and site furniture, or with adjacent structures. Compatibility shall be determined by the relationships of the elements of form, proportion, scale, color, materials, surface treatment, overall sign size and the size and style of lettering. The proposed upper-level blade sign is compatible and appropriately scaled in relation to the four-story building and will not detract from the visibility of surrounding businesses as the sign will be located very close to the Third Court alley. The upper level sign is located in the same location as the original “Kress” sign, although positioned about five feet higher to be visible above today’s street trees, and as such signage in this location is of particular relevance

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: G. Sign Adjustment Findings Council (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 2 for this Landmark building. The proposed blade sign is a faithful reconstruction of a sign that existed on the building during the 1930s. This building is prominently positioned along Santa Monica Boulevard with corner frontage on the Third Street Promenade, in a highly populated area of the Downtown and is an established visual feature with its Beaux Art design, white glazed brick and terra cotta cladding and distinctive decorative features. A similar sign for Kress department store was a prominent feature of the Landmark building during the 1930s. Reconstruction of the sign and the additional sign square footage of the historic sign is warranted and its installation would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of the Landmark and/or Landmark Property. The metal blade sign would be compatible in size, scale, proportion, and design with the Junipher Building; is located at the building’s southeast corner and as such, would not damage or obscure character-defining features and materials; and would be consistent with historic signage utilized at the Junipher Building during the period of significance, including previous blade signs.

4. The granting of the variance would not be inconsistent with the purposes of Chapter 9.61 of the Municipal Code in that the signage is appropriate for the scale of the building, and consistent with the Sign Code’s stated purpose to encourage signs which are integrated with and harmonious to the buildings and sites which they occupy. The proposed sign adjustments will allow the replacement of this reconstructed blade sign for tenant identification that will continue to enhance the building’s design and overall visibility in the way that is historically accurate.

Specifically, the proposed sign replaces a similar sign for Kress department store that adorned the building during the 1930s.

12.A.g
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: G. Sign Adjustment Findings Council (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street

12.A.h
City of
Santa
Monica
Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.61.205(H)(7)(b), I, Oliver Chi, certify that after non-binding consultation with the of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Landmarks Commission at a duly noticed public hearing held on July 13, 2026 for the digital display at 1355 Third Street Promenade:
i. The digital display is installed in a manner that is reversible as defined by the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; ding
i. The digital display will not materially alter the existing building Rea such that its significance would be materially impaired; and ili. All physical characteristics that convey the existing building's significance will remain intact behind the digital display screen, as Introduction and First determined by a qualified historic preservation professional.

OuCh 10/20/2026
Oliver Chi, Date
City Manager
Attachment: H. City Manager Certification 9.61.205(H)(7)(b) (7865 :

Packet Pg. 1287
1 of 17
City Council Meeting: October 27, 2026 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER __________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

SANTA MONICA APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, AND XYZ NOW LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (“OWNER”) TO ALLOW A DIGITAL BILLBOARD DISPLAY AT 1355 THIRD STREET PROMENADE WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et seq. and Chapter 9.60 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (collectively, the “Development Agreement Statutes”), the City is authorized to enter into binding development agreements with persons or entities having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such real property; and
WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of approximately 7,483 square feet of land located in the City of Santa Monica, State of California, commonly known as 1355 Third Street Promenade and also known as 301 Santa Monica Boulevard, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A” attached to the Development Agreement (the “Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Property is developed with an existing approximately 18,439 square foot commercial building includes approximately 18,439 rentable square feet above grade excluding the basements (the “Existing Building”); and

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 2 of 17
WHEREAS, the City has included the Property within the Downtown Core land use designation under the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element of its General Plan (the “LUCE”). The Property is in the Bayside Conservation “BC” (Promenade) District under the Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”) and is located within the Bayside Conservation “BC” (Third Street Promenade Area) designation under the City’s Zoning Ordinance and is located within the boundaries of the Digital Display District. The Property is also located in the California Coastal Zone; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2014, the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission designated the Existing Building as a City Landmark and the Property as a Landmark Parcel. (13-LM-011.); and
WHEREAS, the City and Owner desire to allow Owner to install, operate, maintain, and repair a high-quality LED digital display and associated sign structure (the “Digital Display”) on the Existing Building for displaying paid static or full motion on-premises and/or off-premises advertising, artistic creations, civic announcements of public interest or importance and content promoting the City and/or its rich history, including Downtown Santa Monica and the Third Street Promenade. The operation of the Digital Display will generate revenues for the City through the Community Benefit Payment set forth in the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Owner has advised the City of Owner’s intent to allow a third-party billboard operator to operate and own, lease, or license the Digital Display from Owner during the term of the Development Agreement; and

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 3 of 17
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2026, Owner filed an application for a Development Agreement (26ENT-0124), pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section

9.60.020 (the “Development Application”). The Development Application proposes an approximately one thousand (1,000) square foot full motion, animated Digital Display to be installed under guidance by a Qualified Historic Preservation Professional to wrap around the corner of the west and south facades of the Existing Building generally above the second floor windows and below the top of the fourth floor windows; and WHEREAS, the design of the Digital Display is more particularly depicted on the Digital Display Plans dated October 19, 2026 (the “Digital Display Plans”) attached as Exhibit “B-1” to the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, after filing the Development Application, Owner made a request to add an historic blade sign for on-site advertising of future tenants of the Existing Building that could be approved as part of the Development Application both (a) to streamline the approval process and (b) because Owner believes this additional tenant signage could facilitate leasing of the Existing Building; and WHEREAS, the design of the blade sign is more particularly depicted on the Blade Sign Plans dated October 19, 2026 (the “Blade Sign Plans”) attached as Exhibit “B-2” to the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, prior to filing the Development Application, a Qualified Historic Preservation Professional (as defined in Article 1 of Development Agreement) was retained by the applicant team to advise it with respect to the location/positioning and design of the Digital Display and, more recently, the Blade Sign. Subsequent to filing the

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 4 of 17
Development Application, City also retained a Qualified Historic Preservation Professional to advise it with respect to the location/positioning and design of the Digital Display and Blade Sign; and
WHEREAS, prior and subsequent to filing the Development Application, Owner held a virtual community meeting and also held meetings with community members and stakeholders, including various preservation advocates, regarding the Digital Display and Development Agreement. Following some of that initial outreach, Owner elected to pursue reconstruction of the historic Blade Sign as well, as added incentive to attract quality tenants for the Existing Building and in an effort to evoke more of the Existing Building’s history.; and
WHEREAS, Owner has paid all necessary costs and fees associated with the City’s processing of the Development Application and Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the primary purpose of the Development Agreement is to allow for a Digital Display on the Property to (1) create a visually stimulating and informative experience at the corner of Santa Monica Boulevard and the Third Street Promenade; (2) promote the City, including the Third Street Promenade, and the arts, (3) attract visitors and patrons to the Promenade; (4) complement the City’s Entertainment District; as well as (5) generate a new source of revenue for the City, while at the same time respecting the prominence of the Existing Building, a City-designated Landmark and its Beaux Arts inspired design and character-defining features. The Parties desire to enter into the Development Agreement in conformance with the Development Agreement Statutes in order to achieve the development of the Digital Display and Blade Sign on

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 5 of 17
the Property. The purposes of the Blade Sign are (1) facilitate occupancy of the building as required by Section 2.5.5 of the Development Agreement and (2) reestablish an aspect of the Existing Building’s historic architectural integrity; and WHEREAS, the Digital Display and Blade Sign are also consistent with and implements numerous LUCE, DCP, and Historic Preservation Element goals and policies including:
• LUCE Goal D1 - “Maintain Downtown’s competitive advantage as a premier local and regional shopping, dining, and entertainment destination, and support its evolution in order to respond to changing market conditions.” • LUCE Goal E1 - “Create an economic base that satisfies the commercial service needs of the City’s residents while providing employment opportunities and a strong fiscal infrastructure for the City.” • LUCE Goal E4 - “Support the retail sector in order to provide for the needs of local residents and visitors and augment sales tax revenues.” • LUCE Policy E1.1 – “Make land use decisions that respond to changing market conditions and meet the needs of City residents and visitors.” • LUCE Goal HP 1 - “Preserve and protect historic resources in Santa Monica through the land use decision-making process.”

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 6 of 17
• LUCE Policy HP 1.3 - “Ensure that new development, alterations or remodeling on, or adjacent to, historic properties are sensitive to historic resources and are compatible with the surrounding historic context.” • LUCE Goal HP 2 - “Preserve and protect historic resources through the development of economic incentives and neighborhood conservation approaches.”
• LUCE Policy E4.6 - “Support Downtown as Santa Monica’s primary destination for comparison retail, including a mix of local, national and international shops and restaurants that serve residents, visitors and area employees.”
• DCP Goal CCP2 - “Downtown continues to be a thriving and diverse economic force that supports the city’s vitality, fiscal stability and high levels of community services.”
• Goal CCP5: The Third Street Promenade continues to anchor the Downtown’s retail and public space experience with updated features and activities.

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 7 of 17
• Policy CCP5.1 New public art should be encouraged and located to enhance the pedestrian experience and create an immersive arts experience.
• Action CCP5.1A Install Pathway Art, Banners and Urban Design Features to support the walking experience and to promote awareness of Downtown’s cultural offerings.
• Policy CCP5.2 Consider opportunity for negotiated development agreement art contributions to be aggregated in order to facilitate the acquisition of significant public art pieces.
• DCP Goal LU3 - “Santa Monica’s Downtown continues to be the economic center for the City, providing a diverse and flexible mix of uses that can meet future resident, business and visitor demand.”
• “The Bayside Conservation district is considered the pedestrian and economic heart of the City. Anchored by the Third Street Promenade, it is a vibrant urban atmosphere supported by a broad mix of building types, office space, entertainment, retail, restaurants, cafes, salons and exercise studios.

The DCP supports the continued expansion of the central retail district by increasing the energy and pedestrian traffic on streets around the Promenade.” (DCP p. 22-23.)

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 8 of 17
• Historic Preservation Element Goal 3 – “Increase public awareness of the history of Santa Monica and historic preservation in the City.” • Historic Preservation Element Objective 3.2 – “Promote the benefits of owning historic property.”
• Historic Preservation Element Objective 3.8 – “Encourage the installation of plaques and/or public art related to historic buildings and sites in the City.” • Historic Preservation Element Policy 3.8.3 – “Investigate the possibility of coordinating historic preservation and public art programming.” • Historic Preservation Element Policy 4.1.3 – “Allow for appropriate additions to and adaptive reuse of historic resources.”
• Historic Preservation Element Goal 5 – “Promote the preservation of historic and cultural resources through incentives and technical assistance.” • Historic Preservation Element Objective 5.2 – “Promote and award incentives.”

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 9 of 17
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that a development agreement is appropriate for the proposed development of the Digital Display and Blade Sign on the Property. The Development Agreement will (1) eliminate uncertainty in planning for the Digital Display and Blade Sign and will result in the orderly development of (i) the Digital Display in accordance with the Digital Display District Ordinance and (ii) Blade Sign in accordance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) findings and criteria, (2) assure installation of necessary improvements on the Property, (3) provide for public infrastructure and services appropriate to development of the Digital Display and Blade Sign, (4) secure for the City improvements that benefit the public, (5) ensure the provision of community benefits as envisioned in the LUCE, DCP, and the Digital Display District Ordinance, and (6) otherwise achieve the goals and purposes for which the Development Agreement Statutes were enacted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has also determined that the Blade Sign meets the sign adjustment findings in SMMC Section 9.61.130; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified, after non-binding consultation with the Landmarks Commission at a duly noticed public hearing, and in accordance with SMMC Section 9.56.140, that:
i. The Digital Display is installed in a manner that is reversible as defined by the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; ii. The Digital Display will not materially alter the existing building such that its significance would be materially impaired; and

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 10 of 17
iii. All physical characteristics that convey the existing building's significance will remain intact behind the Digital Display screen, as determined by a qualified historic preservation professional; and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreement is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered and approved the impacts and benefits of the development of the Digital Display on the Property in accordance with the Development Agreement. The Digital Display will provide a number of significant project and community benefits as set forth in Section 2.5 of Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has found that the provisions of Development Agreement are consistent with the relevant provisions of the City’s General Plan, including the LUCE, the DCP, the Digital Display District Ordinance, and the 1992 LUP; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2026, the City’s Landmarks Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Digital Display and Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2026, the City's Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Development Application and Development Agreement, and at such hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Digital Display including the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, on October 27, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the updated Development Application and Development Agreement, and at

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 11 of 17
such hearing the City determined the Digital Display is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to a Class 1 exemption (existing facilities) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, a Class 3 exemption (new construction or conversion of small structures) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, a Class 11 exemption (accessory structures) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15311, a Class 31 exemption (historical resource restoration/rehabilitation), and a Class 32 categorial exemption (in-fill development) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.

WHEREAS, the proposed Development Agreement, which is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” to this ordinance, conforms to the requirements of Government Code sections 65450 et seq. as well as the requirement of Chapter 9.60 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (Development Agreements); and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after consideration of all oral and written testimony presented at the duly noticed meeting of the City Council on October 27, 2026, made the following findings (collectively, “the Findings”):

Development Agreement Findings

1. The Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any applicable specific plan. The 1355 3rd Street Promenade site is located in the LUCE’s Downtown District and has a Downtown Core General Plan Land Use Designation. Goals and policies in this District are geared primarily toward reinforcing the Downtown as the focus of the City, encouraging a broad mix of uses and new investment in the District that creates dynamic daytime and evening activity, and reinforces the

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 12 of 17
Downtown as the place with the greatest concentration of activity in the City. The Development Agreement supports the City’s goals to encourage economic vitality, enhance placemaking, and promote creative, high-quality design within the Downtown. Goal LU2 establishes Downtown as a thriving creative and cultural center with a unique concentration of innovative businesses, performance spaces, museums and programmed events. The Development Agreement is consistent with Goal LU3, which imagines Santa Monica’s Downtown continues to be the economic center for the City, providing a diverse and flexible mix of uses that can meet future resident, business and visitor demand and also consistent with Goal CCP2 which calls for Downtown to be a thriving and diverse economic force that supports the city’s vitality, fiscal stability and high levels of community services. The Development Agreement is also aligned with Goal CCP5: The Third Street Promenade continues to anchor the Downtown’s retail and public space experience with updated features and activities.

2. The Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the real property is located, in that the project site is located within the Downtown – Bayside Conservation (BC) District, which permits a variety of active commercial and entertainment-oriented uses. The proposed Digital Display and Blade Sign would complement the existing entertainment, retail, dining, and visitor activities. It will enhance the visual and economic activity of the Promenade while complying with operational and design standards established in the Digital Display District Ordinance, including limits on brightness, operating hours, and

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 13 of 17
maintenance. These measures ensure the display complements the district’s entertainment character without negatively affecting nearby light-sensitive residential uses. The Development Agreement is also consistent with Policy CCP5.1 that states new public art should be encouraged and located to enhance the pedestrian experience and create an immersive arts experience and Policy PPS4.3 calling for the Third Street Promenade to be regularly updated to remain consistent with the surrounding areas in terms of infrastructure, landscaping, signage and aesthetic upgrades.

3. The Development Agreement is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices by establishing clear parameters for the Digital Display design, operation, and maintenance, while providing substantial community benefits. These include revenue-sharing with the City, a minimum annual financial guarantee, and a 20% allocation of display time for civic and cultural content such as public safety messages, community event information, and local art. Consistent with the Digital Display District Ordinance, the Development Agreement also advances good land use practices by concentrating digital displays within a focused geographic area and ensuring high-quality design standards that reinforce the City’s goals for a safe, engaging, and economically vibrant urban environment.

4. The Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare. The Development Agreement includes multiple safeguards to protect public health and safety. Illumination levels, transition speeds, and display operations are regulated to minimize glare, driver distraction, and light spillover

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 14 of 17
onto nearby residences. The display incorporates automatic dimming technology and is required to power off between 1:00 a.m. and sunrise. The Digital Display will not show flashing or scrolling text and other visual effects that could compromise driver safety. Collectively, these measures ensure the display operates safely and responsibly without detrimental impacts to the public or surrounding community.

5. The Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property in that the Digital Display will be installed on an existing commercial building, designed to integrate architecturally with the structure. The Development Agreement includes building occupancy standards to promote active ground-floor use, thereby supporting economic activity and maintaining the vitality of the Promenade.

6. The Development Agreement will have a positive fiscal impact on the City. Through a negotiated revenue-sharing structure and minimum annual guarantee, the Development Agreement will provide an ongoing source of funding to support City programs, services, and public art initiatives. The Development Agreement will also include a one-time payment contribution to the City upon completion of the Digital Display In addition, by activating a key Promenade intersection and attracting visitors, the project will contribute to increased economic activity, benefiting nearby businesses and generating additional tax revenues for the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 15 of 17
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct, and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings, and recommends approval of the Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 3. Based upon Findings 1-6, the Development Agreement is hereby approved.

SECTION 4. Each and every term and condition of the Development Agreement shall be and is made a part of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and any appendices thereto. The City Council of the City of Santa Monica finds that public necessity, public convenience, and general welfare require that any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of the Development Agreement, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, be repealed or modified to that extent necessary to make fully effective the provisions of the Development Agreement.

SECTION 5. 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, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.

SECTION 6. 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

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 16 of 17
court of any 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 declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. 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 be effective 30 days from its adoption.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________

HEIDI VON TONGELN
City Attorney

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street 17 of 17

EXHIBITA

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
[behind this page]

12.A.i
Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: ORD-ord-First Reading 1355 3rd DA (7865 : Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Approve the 1355 Third Street City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 12.B
1 of 12
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Jing Yeo, Director, Administration
Subject: Public Hearing and Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Decision to Deny Application to Designate Single-Unit Dwelling Located at 1921 20th Street as a City Landmark
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the item and then select one of the following two options.

1. Deny the Appeal of the Landmarks Commission decision to deny application 26ENT-0089 to designate the single-unit dwelling located at 1921 20th Street, a two-story, Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow, as a City Landmark. a. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (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.

2. Alternatively, if the City Council determines that the single-unit dwelling located at 1921 20th Street meets one or more of the criteria set forth in SMMC 9.56.100(A), the City Council can determine that the property should be designed as a Landmark.
a. Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approving an application and designating the property as a Landmark will result in any significant effect on the environment.
b. If the City Council selects this option, staff will bring back a State of Official Action at a subsequent Council meeting to reflect this determination.

Summary
On April 29, 2026, the Santa Monica Conservancy filed an application to designate the primary residential structure on property located at 1921 20th Street, a two-story, Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow, as a City Landmark, and to designate the parcel as

12.B
Packet Pg. 1305
2 of 12
a Landmark Parcel. The property, which is designed as a Craftsman bungalow, is a single-unit residence built in 1913.

On September 14, 2026, the Landmarks Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on the application. After considering the matter (which included a City-commissioned Historical Resource Assessment Report prepared by Historic Resources Group which identified the Property as eligible for designation as a Landmark), the Commission voted 4 to 2 (with one absence) to decline granting the property as a City Landmark and a Landmark Parcel. Subsequently, a member of the Landmarks Commission appealed the decision.

In accordance with the City’s Landmarks Ordinance, if appealed, the City Council reviews the Commission’s designation of a Landmark or Structure of Merit, as well as any related decisions de novo, as a new hearing separate from the deliberations of the Commission. The Council may review and take action on all determinations, interpretations, decisions, judgments, or similar actions taken that were in the purview of the Commission, and the Council may either approve (in whole or in part) or disapprove the prior determinations and decisions of the Commission.

As detailed in this report and in the Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action (STOA) (attached), the Landmarks Commission made a determination that the property does not meet any of the required six findings necessary for a Landmark designation.

The City Council can vote to uphold that determination. Alternatively, after considering the facts associated with the matter, if the City Council finds that the property meets one or more of the required Landmark criteria as set forth in SMMC 9.56.100(A), the City Council has the option of articulating findings to designate the Property as a Landmark.

Discussion
The single-unit dwelling located at 1921 20th Street is an example of a Craftsman bungalow built in 1913. The structure was identified in the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) in 2018 as a potential Structure of Merit.

12.B
Packet Pg. 1306
3 of 12
Aerial View of 1921 20th Street
Historic Resource Assessment Report
Upon filing of the application by the Conservancy, the City retained Historic Resources Group (HRG) to prepare a Historic Resource Assessment (HRA) to determine if the property is eligible for designation as a City Landmark, and if so, under which criteria for designation as set forth in SMMC 9.56.100(A).

HRG found that the single-unit residence at 1921 20th Street is eligible for designation as a City Landmark under the following three criteria:

Criterion 1: Exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City); Criterion 2: Has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value; and

12.B
Packet Pg. 1307
4 of 12
Criterion 4: 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).

Specifically, HRG concluded that the residence is significant under Landmark Criterion 1, within the context “Residential Development” and theme “Single-family Residential Development (1875-1977),” as a rare remaining and intact example of early residential development in the Pico Neighborhood, and under Landmark Criteria 1, 2, and 4, within the context “Architecture & Design (1875-1977),” theme “Early 20th Century Styles,” and sub-theme “Craftsman,” as an excellent and comparatively rare example of a Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow in Santa Monica. Therefore, HRG found that the 1913 Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street is eligible for designation as a City Landmark.

As has been typical with Historic Resources Assessments, HRG further examined the property against the National Park Service’s seven aspects of integrity for historic resources. HRG concluded that the building retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and did not diminish its eligibility under the Landmarks criteria.

Property Information and Architectural Description
1921 20th Street occupies a generally flat lot of 7,200 square feet. The front (west) edge of the property is retained with a concrete masonry unit garden wall and secured with metal picket fencing and gates. A narrow concrete driveway extends along the north edge of the property from the street to a detached two-car garage at the northeast corner of the lot. The property is occupied by three buildings: a single-unit dwelling fronting 20th Street, a detached garage, and a rear accessory dwelling.

The main residence is a two-story, Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow of wood frame construction. The first- and second-story roofs consist of low-pitched cross gables with

12.B
Packet Pg. 1308
5 of 12
rolled asphalt composition roofing, wide eaves with exposed rafter tails, and overhanging rakes supported on wood outriggers.

There is an exterior brick chimney and a shed-roofed projecting bay on the north (secondary) façade. The house’s exterior walls are clad in wood clapboard siding that flares slightly above the foundation. Fenestration consists primarily of one-over-one double hung wood sash windows in various sizes with simple wood surrounds, overhanging lintels, sills, and aprons.

The property also includes an accessory building (constructed in 1948) and a two-car garage (1951). There is no alley at the rear of the property.

Development History

12.B
Packet Pg. 1309
6 of 12
The subject property at 1921 20th Street consists of a portion of Lot 1 of Block 24 of the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract, recorded in 1904. The property is part of a three-acre parcel that was purchased in 1905 by Anna Lillian Gross, the Iowa-born daughter of German immigrants. Later that year, Gross married Simeon (Simon or Sam) Unfried, a 27-year-old German-born carpenter who had emigrated to the United States as a child. The Unfrieds had subdivided their original 3-acre parcel into separate lots by 1920, when they sold 1921 20th Street to Dr. Edward B. Jones.

In 1927, the Unfrieds replaced the house at 1901 20th Street with a two-story brick commercial building with four shops on the first floor and two apartments and a hall above. The hall, which was locally known as “Unfried Hall,” became a venue for community gatherings and social events, including dances. This was in violation of the city’s anti-dancing ordinance passed in 1922 that limited dancing to downtown Santa Monica only. In 1931, the police closed Unfried Hall and in 1932, the Unfrieds, whose storefronts were already vacant because of the Depression, were foreclosed. By 1936, the brick commercial building had been purchased by Calvary Baptist Church, which enlarged the upstairs hall for services. The Church moved to a new location in 1947 but retained ownership of the commercial building, which was demolished in 1964 to accommodate the widening of 20th Street.

Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow
Craftsman bungalows are typically characterized by low-pitched gabled roofs with wide, unenclosed eave overhangs; decorative beams or braces; exposed rafter tails; tapered square columns or pedestals; and extending porch elements. Small-scale, wood-framed Craftsman bungalows could be constructed easily and affordably and were often available as kit houses, or built from plans in pattern books, through 1910s.

Neighborhoods of Craftsman houses developed into the 1920s as streetcar suburbs.

12.B
Packet Pg. 1310
7 of 12
The 1908 “Ye Planry” is an example of a Craftsman bungalow kit house.

Based on a review of the City’s 2018 Historic Context Statement survey results, 178 properties in Santa Monica were identified as “Craftsman” style. Further, the Airplane bungalow style of 1921 20th Street has always been a rare subtype in Santa Monica.

Context: Residential Development in the Pico Neighborhood The Pico Neighborhood developed from west to east, along the southern side of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks (later removed). The neighborhood contained the largest residential tract in Santa Monica. Residents in this neighborhood are ethnically diverse, and many of the city’s service workers historically lived in this area.

Completion of Pico Boulevard in 1914, the shortest route from Los Angeles to Santa Monica and Ocean Park, was instrumental in its growth and development.

The subject property is part of the Erkenbrecher Tract. The gridded residential portion of this tract was an irregularly shaped subdivision bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the north (north of present-day Olympic Boulevard), Pico Boulevard to the south, present-day Stewart Street to the east, and 14th Street to the west (exclusive of Woodlawn Cemetery). Sanborn Maps from 1918 indicate that the residential blocks north of Delaware Avenue between 14th and 20th Streets were only 25% built out. The more significant period of growth occurred later, primarily multi-unit development that occurred from the 1920’s through the 1940’s. The properties developed during this period with multi-unit buildings were (largely) undeveloped parcels, and that phase of development was the first such development on these properties.

12.B
Packet Pg. 1311
8 of 12
Landmarks Commission Action
Landmarks Commission Discussion
At the public hearing, the Landmarks Commission evaluated all written and oral evidence in the record, including the designation nomination application, the consultant HRA, all correspondence, public testimony, and the staff report. During discussion, the Commissioner considered each one of the six criteria set forth in 9.56.100(A) individually. With respect to Criterion 1, they discussed whether the property exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City within the context of the property’s relationship to the early development of the neighborhood. The Commission discussed that the property was built in 1913, when the neighborhood had very little development and that the building was not a catalyst to advance development in the neighborhood. They discussed that the property appears to have been built as a speculative property because the owner attempted and failed to sell the property once the building was constructed. The Commission discussed, at length, the attributes of the property and its architecture, and agreed that it is not a noteworthy example of a Craftsman Bungalow or the Airplane Bungalow subtype. They also discussed and agreed that there is a lack of any cultural associations with the property, or associations with historic persons, and ultimately found that the building or property does not meet one or more of the Landmarks Criteria.

Historic Integrity
Per the City’s Landmarks Ordinance, historic integrity is not a criterion for Landmark designation and should not be a factor in determining whether a property meets any of the required Landmark designation findings. However, Historic Resources Assessments have typically included a section on assessing integrity.

As noted previously in this report, the Historic Resources Assessments performed by the City’s consultant HRG concluded that the building retains integrity of location,

12.B
Packet Pg. 1312
9 of 12
design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and did not diminish its eligibility under the Landmarks criteria.

In the context of historic preservation, integrity refers to the extent to which a property retains the physical characteristics necessary to convey its historic significance. While historic significance establishes why a property is important, integrity determines whether the property continues to reflect and communicate that significance through its existing physical features. The National Park Service identifies seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Evaluation of integrity considers the degree to which these characteristics remain intact, taking into account alterations, additions, deterioration, and other changes that may have occurred over time. Importantly, integrity does not require that a property remain entirely unchanged or retain all of its original features. Rather, the evaluation considers whether the property retains sufficient character-defining features and historic fabric to convey the significance for which it is recognized or may be eligible for designation. The relative importance of each aspect of integrity depends on the property's particular historic significance, and the determination is based on an assessment of the property as a whole rather than any single alteration or feature.

During the Commission’s deliberation, there were discussions about the property’s integrity and condition, although the Commission did not technically rely on historic integrity for their decision to deny designation.

Landmarks Commission Motion
Initially, there was a motion made to designate the property; however, there was no second for the motion to designate the property and the motion failed. The motion to deny the designation was seconded and approved by a 4-2 vote (Landmarks Statement of Official Action attached.)
Appeal
In denying the designation of the property at 1921 20th Street, the Commission did not agree with the grounds identified in the designation nomination application that the

12.B
Packet Pg. 1313
10 of 12
property is important because it was built in 1913, during a period of very little development in the neighborhood, that the building is architecturally significant and that its association with the original property owner is noteworthy. The appeal supports the reasoning for designation outlined in the designation application nomination, citing the consultant report that stated agreement with some of those points. The Appeal states that:
• The Commission Failed to Give Adequate Weight to the City-Retained Expert's Findings
• Staff's Integrity Analysis Misapplied and Ignored National Park Service Best Practice Guidelines
• Staff's Recommendation Distorted the Professional Record to Serve the Owner's Desired Outcome
• The Commission's Analysis Under Criterion 4 Is Internally Contradictory Environmental Review
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.

Alternative Action
If the City Council finds the property meets one or more of the required criteria, Staff recommends that the Council articulate findings based on evidence in the record that demonstrate how the property meets one of the required findings set forth in SMMC

9.56.100(A). If Council determines that the residence meets one or more of the criteria

12.B
Packet Pg. 1314
11 of 12
set forth in SMMC 9.56.100(A), staff further recommends that the Council consider whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark.

Alternative Environmental Review
Should Council determine that the property meets one or more of the criteria, and that the property is eligible for designation, staff recommends the adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approving an application and designating the property as a Landmark will result in any significant effect on the environment. This determination is based on the record as a whole, which includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the designation of the property as a Landmark will promote the retention and preservation of historic resources, the designation would not result in any physical change to the property, and any future physical changes would be subject to subsequent CEQA review.

If the Council designates the property, staff will bring back a Statement of Official Action at a subsequent Council meeting to reflect the Council’s action.

Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of recommended action.

Prepared By: Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner Approved Forwarded to Council

12.B
Packet Pg. 1315
12 of 12
Attachments:

A. 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report
B. HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1)
C. 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) STOA DocuSigned
D. Approved_Landmarks_Commission Minutes 09-14-26
E. 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1)
F. 20thSt1921-Appeal-Request-Form (1)
G. 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0218) CC STOA

12.B
Packet Pg. 1316
-1-
Landmark Commission Meeting: September 14, 2026
Agenda Item: 6A
To: Landmark Commission
From: Stephanie Reich, Landmark Commission Secretary
Address(s): 1921 20th Street
Permit(s): 26ENT-0089
Applicant: Santa Monica Conservancy
Subject
Public Hearing to consider designation application 26ENT-0089 for the property located at 1921 20th Street to determine whether the residential structure in whole or in part should be designated as a City Landmark and, if designated a Landmark, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A). Consideration of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including an exemption under CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).

Recommended
Action
1) Staff recommends the Commission deny the
designation of the residence at 1921 20th Street as a
City Landmark. The staff analysis concludes that the
structure does not appear eligible for listing as a City Landmark under any of the designation criteria as the
property is a typical example of a common property
type.
2) 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. Alternatively, if the
project were to be approved, the Commission would
adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense
Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines.

Introduction & Background
The Santa Monica Conservancy filed an application to designate the main structure and property as a City Landmark. The property, a modest example of a Craftsman bungalow, is a single-family residence built in 1913. The structure was identified in the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) in 2018 as a potential Structure of Merit. The structure had not been previously identified on the City’s HRI.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 2 Historic Resources Group (HRG) has been retained by the City of Santa Monica (City) to prepare a Historic Resource Assessment (HRA) to determine if the property is eligible for designation, and if so, under which criteria.

HRG has found that the single-family residence at 1921 20th Street is significant under Landmark Criterion 1, within the context “Residential Development” and theme “Single-family Residential Development (1875-1977),” as a rare remaining and intact example of early residential development in the Pico neighborhood, and under Landmark Criteria 1, 2, and 4, within the context “Architecture & Design (1875-1977),” theme “Early 20th Century Styles,” and sub-theme “Craftsman,” as an excellent and comparatively rare example of a Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow in Santa Monica. Although it is in poor condition, the building retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Therefore, the 1913 Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street is eligible for designation as a City Landmark.

Staff agrees that the property is a relatively intact Craftsman Bungalow. However, staff disagrees that the primary structure or property rise to the level of designation. Craftsman Bungalows are found throughout the City of Santa Monica. Staff disagrees that the period referred to within the Historic Context, Single-family Residential Development (1875-1977), is significant in this area since, as stated, the properties in the neighborhood were sparsely developed. The property appears to be a remnant of an earlier time, however that does not necessarily make it eligible for designation. And finally, the building and property are in poor condition and disrepair. While there is certain guidance identifying that more extreme deterioration is necessary to impact integrity, the overall poor condition of this property would make rehabilitation challenging and likely result in substantial replacement of its exterior features and materials beyond what is intended by Secretary of the Interior’s Standards..

While staff disagrees with the conclusion in HRG’s report, the report offers useful information regarding the description and history of the property and summarizes some of that information. The analysis will expand on areas of disagreement and provide a contrast with the applicant’s historic analysis. For more detailed information, please refer to the Historic Resource Assessment and Applicant’s Materials attached to this report.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 3 .

Aerial view of 1921 20thStreet (outlined in red)
Historic Resources Inventory Status
As noted above, 1921 20th Street was evaluated as part of the Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) survey and found to be potentially eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The findings of the 2018 HRI update are quoted below:
1921 20th Street appears eligible for listing as aSanta Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Craftsman architecture as applied to a single-family residence. It exhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. It is also significant for representing early patterns of residential development that shaped the Pico neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twentieth century.

Constructed in 1913, it is one of relatively few extant residential buildings from this formative period of neighborhood growth
The property was not included in a previous HRI.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 4 Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is located in a multi-family neighborhood on 20th Street, a major north-south circulator. The property is in the Pico Neighborhood. The parcels surrounding the subject property are characterized by a mix of multi-family properties and single-family residences with construction dates ranging from the early 20th century to the present. The surrounding neighborhood consists primarily of low-density multi-family residential development, interspersed with other remnant single-family properties and larger multi-family buildings Notably, 1958 20th Street was the residence of Dr. Marcus O. Tucker, the city’s first black physician and his notable family. The house, known as ‘The Tucker Residence’, was constructed in 1937 and remained in the family’s possession until 1988, the year of Essie Tucker’s death. The Tucker Residence was designated a City Landmark in February, 2025.

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.

Alternatively, if the project were to be approved, the Commission would adopt a finding of no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that approving an application and designating the property as a Landmark will result in any significant effect on the environment. This determination is based on the record as a whole, which includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the designation of the property as a Landmark will promote the retention and preservation of historic resources, the designation would not result in any physical change to the property, and any future physical changes would be subject to subsequent CEQA review.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notice of this hearing was provided as required by Section 9.56.170(c) of the Landmarks Ordinance, with notice sent to all owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius and a newspaper notice published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least 10 consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is included attached to this report.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 5 ANALYSIS
Property Information and Architectural Description
1921 20th Street occupies a generally flat lot of 7,200 square feet (.165 acre). The front (west) edge of the property is retained with a concrete masonry unit garden wall and secured with metal picket fencing and gates. A narrow concrete driveway extends along the north edge of the property from the street to a detached two-car garage at the northeast corner of the lot. The property is occupied by three buildings: the single-family residence fronting 20th Street, the detached garage, and a rear accessory dwelling.

The main residence is a two-story, Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow of wood frame construction. It has an irregular plan, asymmetrical composition, and complex massing with a small, two-room second story projecting above the surrounding first-story roof. The first-and second-story roofs consist of low-pitched cross gables with rolled asphalt composition roofing, wide eaves with exposed rafter tails, and overhanging rakes supported on wood outriggers.

The primary (west) façade has a projecting concrete porch with a front gable roof and beadboard soffit supported on wood posts; the porch is accessed from the north and south by wide concrete steps. A wood pergola extends from the north side of the porch over the driveway to form a porte-cochère, supported on the opposite side by wood posts on brick piers. There is an exterior brick chimney and a shed-roofed projecting bay on the north (secondary) façade. The house’s exterior walls are clad in wood clapboard siding that flares slightly above the foundation. Fenestration consists primarily of one-over-one double hung wood sash windows in various sizes with simple wood surrounds, overhanging lintels, sills, and aprons.

The accessory dwelling unit (constructed in 1948) and two-car garage (1951) are unremarkable utilitarian structures. There is no alley at the rear of the property.

Development History
The property at 1921 20th Street is a portion of Lot 1 of Block 24 of the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract, recorded in 1904. The property is part of a three-acre parcel

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 6 that was purchased in 1905 by Anna Lillian Gross, the Iowa-born daughter of German immigrants. Later that year, Gross married Simeon (Simon or Sam) Unfried, a 27-year-old German-born carpenter who had emigrated to the United States as a child. The Unfrieds had subdivided their original 3-acre parcel into separate lots by 1920, when they sold 1921 20th Street to Dr. Edward B. Jones. However, they retained ownership of other lots on the original parcel.

In 1927 the Unfrieds replaced the house at 1901 20th Street with a two-story brick commercial building with four shops on the first floor and two apartments and a hall above.

The hall, which was locally known as “Unfried Hall,” became a venue for community gatherings and social events, including dances. This was in violation of the city’s racist anti-dancing ordinance passed in 1922 that limited dancing to downtown Santa Monica only. In 1931, the police closed Unfried Hall and in 1932, the Unfrieds, whose storefronts were already vacant because of the Depression, were foreclosed. By 1936, the brick commercial building had been purchased by Calvary Baptist Church, which enlarged the upstairs hall for services. The Church moved to a new location in 1947 but retained ownership of the commercial building, which was demolished in 1964 to accommodate the widening of 20th Street.

This later history of the Unfrieds and their 1920s developments occurred after they had sold the property at 1921 20th Street. The history of the “Unfried Hall” is separate and apart from the history of the subject property. Further, none of these later events occurred at or are associated with 1921 20th Street. All the properties that were directly associated with the Unfrieds’ later developments, including the two-story brick commercial building at 1901 20th Street, have since been demolished.

Architectural Style: Craftsman Bungalow
The Gamble House designed by Greene & Greene in
Pasadena is a high-style example of the Craftsman
style.

The 1908 “Ye Planry” is an example of a Craftsman
bungalow kit house.

Craftsman bungalows are typically characterized by low-pitched gabled roofs with wide, unenclosed eave overhangs; decorative beams or braces; exposed rafter tails; tapered square columns or pedestals; and extending porch elements. Small-scale, wood-framed Craftsman bungalows could be constructed easily and affordably and were often available as kit houses, or built from plans in pattern books, through 1910s. Neighborhoods of Craftsman houses developed into the 1920s as streetcar suburbs.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 7 Elaborate and unique homes of the wealthy, such as the Gamble House in Pasadena, represent high style examples while rows of more modest bungalows are found throughout California.

Based on a review of the 2018 Historic Context Statement survey results, 178 properties in Santa Monica were identified by the survey as “Craftsman” style. It is typical of the 2018 Historic Context and survey to identify all Craftsman buildings in the city as being significant, at least in part, for conveying the “patterns of residential development.” The Airplane bungalow has always been a rare subtype in the city of Santa Monica. 315 10th Street, known as Aeroplane Bungalow, is a City Landmark. 315 10th Street Aeroplane Bungalow, a Designated City
Landmark
Context: Residential Development in the Pico Neighborhood The Pico neighborhood developed from west to east, along the southern side of the railroad tracks. The neighborhood contained the largest residential tract in Santa Monica. Residents in this neighborhood are ethnically diverse, and many of the city’s service workers historically lived in this area. Completion of Pico Boulevard in 1914, the shortest route from Los Angeles to Santa Monica and Ocean Park, was instrumental in its growth and development.

The subject property is part of the Erkenbrecher Tract. The gridded residential portion of this tract was an irregularly shaped subdivision bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the north (north of present-day Olympic Boulevard), Pico Boulevard to the south, present-day Stewart Street to the east, and 14th Street to the west (exclusive of Woodlawn Cemetery). Sanborn Maps from 1918 indicate that the residential blocks north of Delaware Avenue between 14th and 20th Streets were only 25% built out. The more significant period of growth occurred later, primarily multi-family development that occurred from the 1920’s through the 1940’s. The properties developed during this period with multi-family buildings were (largely) undeveloped parcels, and that phase of development was the first such development on these properties.

Integrity Analysis
With the exception of modifications to the porch, the property appears to have had very few exterior modifications since it was originally constructed. The property has been vacant for

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 8 several years and is therefore dramatically deteriorated. As such, its seriously deteriorated conditions represent a loss of integrity in several important categories.

Location
The primary residence at 1921 20th Street retains integrity of location. The subject building has remained situated at its location of original construction since 1913. As noted above, the property was part of three properties originally purchased by the original owners. The original development of those adjacent properties is no longer extant. As the primary residence is maintained on the site where it was originally developed, retains integrity of location.

Setting
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. At the time the residence at 1921 20th Street was constructed in 1913, the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Tract was sparsely developed and remained so into the 1920s, when it became a target for multi-family residential development which became more prevalent in the development pattern of this particular area. Additionally, in the 1960s, many other buildings were moved or demolished to accommodate the widening of 20th Street. Single-family development was sparse during the early period and does not reflect the more significant development pattern of multi-family development occurring between the 1920s-1940s in the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Tract.

Therefore, it appears the residence at 1921 20th Street no longer retains integrity of setting.

Design
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. The single-family residence at 1921 20th Street has undergone few alterations since its original construction in 1913 except for the removal of the porch’s brick piers and replacement of the wood posts. Therefore, it retains integrity of design.

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. Apart from the front porch’s brick piers which were removed after sustaining damage in the Northridge earthquake, the Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street retains nearly all of the materials that were deposited in its original construction in 1913. However, as the structure’s materials have not been maintained since its construction, the condition of all the materials is so poor that it has negatively impacted its historic integrity. Rehabilitating the residence in a manner that would retain sufficient original materials in accordance with Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Standards would be challenging where replacement of a majority of the materials is likely. Therefore, the structure no longer retains integrity of materials. Due to this concern, the property appears to no longer retain integrity of materials.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 9 Workmanship
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. As demonstrated above, the house at 1921 20th Street retains integrity of design. However, the condition of the materials is so poor that the integrity of workmanship is lost Integrity of materials is essential to maintain integrity of worksmanship. It is likely that if the property were to be refurbished, the majority of original materials would have to be replaced. Workmanship for the subject property is closely related to integrity of materials.

Therefore, the property does not retain integrity of workmanship.

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. While the property and primary residence retains its integrity of location and design, integrity of setting, materials and workmanship has been lost.

Without integrity of setting, the property stands alone as a remnant and doesn’t convey its relationship to the early period of development. Without integrity of materials and workmanship,it has lost its sense of what it might have been to be on the property or viewing the building during the period of significance. Therefore, the property does not retain integrity of feeling.

Association
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. As demonstrated above, the property at 1921 20th Street has lost integrity of materials, workmanship, and feeling. In the early period of residential development, the area was sparsely developed. As such the property is a remnant and does not convey its association with this period.

The property therefore does not retain its integrity of association.

Evaluation for Local Landmark Designation
Per §9.56.100(A) of the Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance (adopted in 1976 and later amended in 1987, 1991, and most recently 2015), a property merits consideration as a Landmark if it satisfies one or more of six statutory criteria. 1921 20th Street does not appear to be eligible as City Landmark under any criteria 1 through 6.

The following discussion steps through each criterion.
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

The more significant period of growth occurred later as multi-family development that occurred from the 1920’s through the 1940’s. The property appears to be a remnant of the earlier, yet insignificant period of development.

Therefore, it does not appear to symbolize or manifest elements of the history of the neighborhood or the city and does not appear to satisfy this criterion. (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1325 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 10 The primary residence is a simple example of an Airplane Bungalow. Airplane bungalows are a small subset of the modest Craftsman Bungalow type that is still prevalent in the city. As a very simple example, it doesn’t represent the aesthetic of artistic or noteworthy interest or value that would meet this criteria. However, due to its poor condition and loss of materials and integrity, it no longer retains aesthetic or artistic interest, or other noteworthy interest. Therefore, it does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

No evidence was provided to suggest that any of the prior owners or occupants of the property were persons of significance or made significant contributions to important events in local, state, or national history. The original property owners may have owned three adjacent lots, however, no information provided identifies or connects any historic personages or events with the subject property. Accordingly, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion. (4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

The subject building is a typical example of a Craftsman Bungalow, with a subtype of Airplane Bungalow. Airplane Bungalows have always been a rare subtype in Santa Monica. As a very simple subtype not prevalent in the City, the residence appears to be a remnant rather than a quality example of its type and does not appear to embody characteristics valuable to a study of a period. As a simple example, the structure does not convey the horizonal massing proportions and visual relationship between the low horizonal lower floor and modest recessed upper floor composition typical of this sub-type. Additionally, although relatively intact, the residence is in considerable disrepair due to deferred maintenance over the years. Due to its poor condition, the residence appears to lack sufficient overall integrity. Therefore, it does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

There is no evidence that the primary structure on the property is connected to a notable builder, designer or architect. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.
(6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

The subject building is on a typical lot in the Pico neighborhood and does not have a unique location or singular physical characteristic, nor is it an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community or City. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1326 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 11 CONCLUSION & STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE
1921 20th Street is a modest example of an Airplane Bungalow, a subtype of Craftsman bungalow. The Craftsman Bungalow is a type which remains relatively common across the city as a whole. 1921 20th Street does not represent an example of a no-longer prevalent style.

Additionally, the property has deteriorated to a point that the condition has resulted in a loss of integrity. As a practical matter, the property can likely not be rehabilitated with sufficient original material to maintain its integrity. 1921 20th Street does not meet any of the criteria for designation as a City of Santa Monica Landmark.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission deny the designation of the property at 1921 20th Street, as it does not appear to meet any of the Landmark criteria.

Attachments
Public Notice
Designation Nomination Application
Historic Resource Assessment (HRA)Report, Historic Resources Group (HRG)

12.B.a
Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0089) Staff Report [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark

HISTORICAL RESOURCE EVALUATION REPORT
1921 20TH STREET, SANTA MONICA CA
SEPTEMBER 2026
556 S Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 101-514
Pasadena, CA 91105

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for prepared for
City of Santa Monica
City Planning Division
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Cover Photo: 1921 20th Street, Historic Resources Group, 2026

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. 1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 2

2.0 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ................................................................................................ 4 HISTORICAL RESOURCES UNDER CEQA ......................................................................................................... 4 HISTORIC DESIGNATIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 4

4.0 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS ........................................................................... 6 SANTA MONICA HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY ............................................................................. 6 BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCES DIRECTORY (BERD)........................................................................ 6

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATED PROPERTY ......................................................................... 7 LOCATION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 7 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................................................... 7 ALTERATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................ 8

6.0 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY .................................................................................................... 15

7.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT ............................................................................................................. 17 CONTEXT: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................................................... 17 CONTEXT: ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN (1875-1977) .................................................................................. 20

8.0 EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY ............................................................................................. 23 EVALUATION OF HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE ................................................................................................ 23 EVALUATION OF HISTORIC INTEGRITY ........................................................................................................ 25 SUMMARY OF ELIGIBILITY ................................................................................................................................... 27 CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ................................................................................................................. 28

9.0 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 30

10.0 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 31

APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: CRAFTSMAN ARCHITECTURE IN SANTA MONICA
APPENDIX B: RESUMES OF AUTHORS/CONTRIBUTORS

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 2

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This historical resource evaluation report (HRER) evaluates the single-family residential property at 1921 20th Street in the City of Santa Monica, California, for eligibility for designation as a historical resource. This HRER evaluates the property against the established eligibility criteria and integrity thresholds for listing under the City of Santa Monica’s Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance. This evaluation includes review of previous historical resources surveys and evaluations; review of the relevant historic contexts and themes; and documentation of the property’s development history including building permits, newspaper articles, and directory information.

The property at 1921 20th Street (AIN 4274-020-014) is located in the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract in the Pico neighborhood. The parcel is occupied by a two-story single family Craftsman style residence originally constructed in 1913. The property is listed in the City of Santa Monica 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update with a status code of 5S3, meaning that it appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark.

This evaluation has confirmed the Inventory finding. The single-family residence at 1921 20th Street is significant under Landmark Criterion 1, within the context “Residential Development” and theme “Single-family Residential Development (1875-1977),” as a rare remaining and intact example of early residential development in the Pico neighborhood, which was devastated by later development; and under Landmark Criteria 1, 2, and 4, within the context “Architecture & Design (1875-1977),” theme “Early 20th Century Styles,” and sub-theme “Craftsman,” as an excellent and comparatively rare example of a Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow in Santa Monica. Although it is in poor condition, the building retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Therefore, the 1913 Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street is eligible for designation as a City Landmark.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 3

2.0 METHODOLOGY
This report evaluates 1921 20th Street using integrity thresholds and eligibility criteria for designation under the City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance. The field methods and analysis are based on guidance from the National Park Service, the California Office of Historic Preservation, and the City of Santa Monica for evaluating potential historical resources. Identification of physical features and historic integrity was ascertained through building records and a site visit conducted on July 29, 2026, to document existing conditions on the property.

Additional research was conducted to confirm the history and development of the property. The following sources were consulted:
 Building permit records
 Sanborn Fire Insurance maps
 Historic newspaper articles
 Historic photographs
 Field observation of the property
 Other primary and secondary sources relevant to the history and development of the property and surrounding area
 Previous historical resource surveys and historic contexts.

Research, field inspection, and analysis were performed by John LoCascio, AIA, Principal Architect, a qualified professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architecture and Historic Architecture. See Appendix B for resumes of contributing authors.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 4

3.0 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Historical Resources Under CEQA
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) is the principal statute governing environmental review of projects occurring in the state and is codified in Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq. CEQA requires lead agencies to determine if a proposed project would have a significant effect on the environment, including significant effects on historical or unique archaeological resources. Under CEQA Section 21084.1, a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 recognizes that historical resources include: (1) resources listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; (2) resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of PRC Section 5024.1(g); and (3) any objects, buildings, structures, sites, areas, places, records, or manuscripts which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California by the lead agency, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.

Historic Designations
Historical and cultural resources fall within the jurisdiction of several levels of government. The framework for the identification and, in certain instances, protection of cultural resources is established at the federal level, while the identification, documentation, and protection of such resources are often undertaken by state and local governments. As described below, the principal federal, State, and local laws governing and influencing the preservation of historical resources of national, State, regional, and local significance include:
 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended;  The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards);
 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
 The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register);  The California Public Resources Code;
 The Landmark and Historic District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica (Code of Ordinances Chapter 9.56, added by Ord. No. 2486CCS§§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015).

LANDMARK AND HISTORIC DISTRICT ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA The Landmark and Historic District Ordinance was adopted to establish procedures and provide regulations to protect elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history; safeguard the City’s historic, aesthetic, and cultural heritage; foster civic pride; protect and enhance the City’s aesthetic and historic attractions as a stimulus to business

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 5 and industry; and promote the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historic Districts for the education, pleasure and welfare of the City’s residents.

The Ordinance established a Landmarks Commission with the power to, among others, designate Structures of Merit, Landmarks and Landmark Parcels (9.56.060.A); and regulate and control the alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition of or to the same, or to a building or structure within a Historic District (9.56.060.C). The Landmarks Commission may approve the landmark designation of a structure, improvement, natural feature or an object if it finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

The Ordinance requires a certificate of appropriateness for any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, or demolition of or to a Landmark (9.56.140) and requires the Landmarks Commission to use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties to evaluate any such proposed alteration, restoration, or construction (9.56.140.G).

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 6

4.0 SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS
Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory
1921 20th Street is listed in the City of Santa Monica 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update with a status code of 5S3, “Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.” The 2018 Update found that:
1921 20th Street appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Craftsman architecture as applied to a single-family residence. It exhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. It is also significant for representing early patterns of residential development that shaped the Pico neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twentieth century. Constructed in 1913, it is one of relatively few extant residential buildings from this formative period of neighborhood growth.1
Built Environment Resources Directory (BERD)
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) maintains the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), a database of previously evaluated resources throughout the state. The BERD contains information only for cultural resources that have been processed through OHP. This includes resources reviewed for eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Historical Landmarks programs through federal and state environmental compliance laws, and resources nominated under federal and state registration programs.2 1921 20th Street is not listed in the BERD.3
1 City of Santa Monica, “Property Status: 2018 HRI Update Individual Resources,” 11, Appendix B_Individual Resources 090418.xlsx (accessed August 2026).
2 California Office of Historic Preservation, “Built
Environment Resource Directory: Los Angeles County,” 2019. 3 Ibid.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 7

5.0 DESCRIPTION OF EVALUATED PROPERTY
Location
1921 20th Street is located on the east side of 20th Street between Delaware Avenue and Virginia Avenue in the Pico neighborhood of the City of Santa Monica. It is bounded to the west by 20th Street, to the north by a one-story single family residence, and to the east and south by large, two-story multi-family residential developments. The surrounding neighborhood consists primarily of low-density multi-family residential development, interspersed with remnant single-family properties and larger multi-family buildings. A Location Map is provided in Figure 1, below.

FIGURE 1: LOCATION MAP
1921 21st Street outlined in red. Source: Los Angeles County Assessor Physical Description
1921 20th Street occupies a generally flat lot of 7,200 square feet (.165 acre). The front (west) edge of the property is retained with a concrete masonry unit garden wall and secured with metal picket fencing and gates. A narrow concrete driveway extends along the north edge of the property from the street to a detached two-car garage at the northeast corner of the lot.

The property is occupied by three buildings: the single-family residence fronting 20th Street, and the detached garage and an accessory dwelling unit behind.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 8 second-story roofs consist of low-pitched cross gables with rolled asphalt composition roofing, wide eaves with exposed rafter tails, and overhanging rakes supported on wood outriggers. The gable ends have wood lattice grilles. There is a shed-roofed glazed sleeping porch on the front (west) side of the second floor. The primary (west) façade has a projecting concrete porch with a front gable roof and beadboard soffit supported on wood posts; the porch is accessed from the north and south by wide concrete steps. A wood pergola extends from the north side of the porch over the driveway to form a porte-cochère, supported on the opposite side by wood posts on brick piers. There is an exterior brick chimney and a shed-roofed projecting bay on the north (secondary) façade. The house’s exterior walls are clad in wood clapboard siding that flares slightly above the foundation. Fenestration consists primarily of one-over-one double hung wood sash windows in various sizes with simple wood surrounds, overhanging lintels, sills, and aprons. Most of the first-floor windows on the north, east, and south façades have been covered with plywood. The second floor sleeping porch has divided light, wood sash horizontal sliding windows. The primary entrance is asymmetrically located on the west façade, on the projecting porch, and consists of a wide, flush wood door with a simple wood surround and extended lintel, and a metal security screen.

The accessory dwelling unit in the southeast portion of the property was constructed in 1948.4 It is a one-story utilitarian building of wood frame construction with a rectangular plan, asymmetrical composition, and simple massing. It has a flat roof with wide, boxed eaves. The exterior walls are clad in wood clapboard siding. The windows are covered with plywood and are not currently visible from the exterior. There are two doors on the north façade: a paneled door and a metal security screen.

The two-car garage at the northeast corner of the property was constructed in 1951.5 It is a one-story utilitarian building of wood frame construction with a rectangular plan, symmetrical composition, and simple massing. It has a flat roof, and its exterior walls are clad in wood clapboard siding. There is a wood plank overhead auto door on the west façade.

Alterations
1921 20th Street has undergone very few substantive alterations since its original construction in 1913. The only exterior alteration to the main house is the replacement of the original wood posts and brick piers on the front porch with simple wood posts, likely due to damage from the 1994 Northridge earthquake.6 A 1920 photograph provided to the Santa Monica Conservancy by the Unfried family shows a simple wood rail between the piers; this was likely removed at the same time. Although most of the first floor windows are now covered with plywood, it appears that the window frames and sash are all intact. The site has been altered by the construction of the accessory dwelling unit in 1948 and the garage in 1951.

Current photographs of 1921 20th Street are provided below. 4 City of Santa Monica Building Department, Permit No. B 3901, April 29, 1948.
5 City of Santa Monica Building Department, Permit No. B 9572, July 2, 1951.
6 City of Santa Monica Building & Safety, Rapid Evaluation Safety Assessment Form, “1921 20th St,” February 8, 1994.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 9 CURRENT PHOTOGRAPHS, 1921 20TH STREET
Primary (west) façade, view northeast from 20th Street. HRG, 2026 Primary (west) façade, view southeast from 20th Street. HRG, 2026

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 10 Porte-cochère and second floor, view southeast from 20th Street. HRG, 2026 Porch, view north. HRG, 2026

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 11 Primary (west) entrance, view northeast. HRG, 2026
North façade, view southeast from driveway. HRG, 2026

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 12 East façade, view southwest from back yard. HRG, 2026
Detail of second-floor windows, east façade, view southwest from back yard. HRG, 2026

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1341 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 13 Detail of gable vent on east façade, view northwest from back yard. HRG, 2026 Detail of eaves, south façade, view west. HRG, 2026

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1342 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 14 Window, south façade, view northwest. HRG, 2026
Garage (left) and accessory dwelling unit (right), view southeast from driveway. HRG, 2026

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 15

6.0 DEVELOPMENT HISTORY
The following development and ownership/occupant history of 1921 20th Street is summarized from the “1921 20th Street – Unfried House Landmark Designation Application” by the Santa Monica Conservancy, dated January 2024. The history was verified through independent research by HRG.

The property at 1921 20th Street is a portion of Lot 1 of Block 24 of the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract recorded in 1904. The property is part of a three-acre parcel that was purchased in 1905 by Anna Lillian Gross, the Iowa-born daughter of German immigrants.7 Later that year Gross married Simeon (Simon or Sam) Unfried, a 27-year-old German-born carpenter who had emigrated to the United States as a child.8 In December 1912 Simon Unfried was issued a permit to build a residence and garage on the Santa Monica property.9 The Unfrieds and their growing family lived at 1921 20th Street from 1913 until at least 1919.10 In 1920 the family was living at 1928 22nd Street.11 It appears that by that time the Unfrieds had subdivided their original 3-acre parcel into separate lots, as in 1920 they sold 1921 20th Street to Dr. Edward B. Jones.12 However, they retained ownership of other lots on the parcel originally purchased by Anna Unfried in 1905.

Dr. Jones lived at 1921 20th Street while he built a new home in Brentwood. In 1923 he sold the Santa Monica property to Harvey Lewis Baird, a bank cashier who later worked at Douglas Aircraft during World War II.13 In 1942 Baird sold the property to Handsome Anderson, a widow, who lived there with her children.14 In 1947 Anderson married William L. Otis and soon after began improvements to the property including plumbing and electrical repairs, addition of an accessory dwelling unit, and construction of a new garage.15 Anderson died in 1988 and the following year her estate sold 1921 20th Street to Joaquin Conigundo Lagos and Lydia Tapie Lagos, who lived there until their deaths in 1999 and 2016 respectively.16 TABLE 1: SELECTED PERMIT HISTORY
1921 20th STREET SELECTED PERMIT HISTORY
Date Permit No. Owner Architect/Contractor Description of Work 12/17/1912 1692 Simon Unfried Owner Residence & garage
04/29/1948 B31901 W. L. Otis W. H. Acason Residence, 18 ft. by 34 ft. 10/15/1948 B4905 W. Otis Owner Garage, new slab floor
07/02/1951 B9572 William R. Otis Owner building Garage
In 1922, two years after selling the house at 1921 20th Street, the Unfrieds built a one-story, wood framed house at 1901 20th Street; a one-story, wood framed store and garage at 1903 20th 7 “Woollacott to Gross,” Los Angeles County Deed Records, Book 2553-165, July 6, 1905, as cited in Santa Monica
Conservancy, “1921 20th Street – Unfried House Landmark Designation Application,” January 2024, 7.
8 “Unfried-Gross,” Los Angeles Herald, October 12, 1905, as cited in Santa Monica Conservancy, 7.
9 City of Santa Monica, Permit No. 1692, December 17, 1912, as recorded in the City of Santa Monica Building Permit Ledger.
10 Santa Monica City Directories, 1913, 1915-1916, 1917, 1919-1920, and 1921-1922.
11 Department of Commerce – Bureau of the Census,
“Fourteenth Census of the United States: 1920-Population,” Santa Monica Township, January 17 and 19, 1920.
12 “Unfried to Jones,” Los Angeles County Deed Records, as cited in Santa Monica Conservancy, 8.
13 Santa Monica Conservancy, 11.
14 Santa Monica Conservancy, 12.
15 City of Santa Monica Building Department, Permit No. B 3901, April 29, 1948, and Permit No. B 9572, July 2, 1951. 16 Santa Monica Conservancy, 12.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 16 Street; and another one-story, wood framed house and garage around the corner at 2018 Delaware Avenue.17 In 1927 the Unfrieds replaced the house at 1901 20th Street with a two-story brick commercial building with four shops on the first floor and two apartments and a hall above.18 The hall, which was locally known as “Unfried Hall,” became a venue for community gatherings and social events, including dances. This was in violation of the city’s racist anti-dancing ordinance passed in 1922 that limited dancing to downtown Santa Monica only. In 1931 the police shut down Unfried Hall and in 1932 the Unfrieds, already suffering empty storefronts due to the Depression, were foreclosed. By 1936 the brick commercial building had been purchased by Calvary Baptist Church which enlarged the upstairs hall for services. The Church moved to a new location in 1947 but retained ownership of the commercial building, which was demolished in 1964 to accommodate the widening of 20th Street.

This later history of the Unfrieds and their 1920s developments occurred after they had sold the property at 1921 20th Street; thus none of these later events occurred at or are associated with 1921 20th Street. Moreover, all the properties that were directly associated with the Unfrieds’ later developments, including the two-story brick commercial building at 1901 20th Street, have since been demolished.
17 City of Santa Monica, building permits no. 9086, May 19, 1922; 9677-9678, Agusst 22, 1922; and 313-314, November 17, 1922
18 City of Santa Monica, building permit no. 2357, April 6, 1927.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 17

7.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT
To qualify for historic designation, 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 characteristics that make it a good representative of properties associated with that aspect of the past. The significance of a historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated within its historic context. A historic context consists of 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 is made clear.19 The City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Context Statement was prepared by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) and Historic Resources Group (HRG) for the 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update. The historic context statement provides an in-depth narrative account of the city’s development history as reflected by its built environment, and places Santa Monica’s built resources within the broader context of the economic, political, social, and cultural forces that coalesced to shape the city’s development over time. The information included in the historic context statement provides a contextual basis for the evaluation of potential historical resources in Santa Monica.20
The single-family residence at 1921 20th Street is a Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow that was constructed in 1913 in the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract in the Pico neighborhood. The property is therefore evaluated for potential historic significance under the following contexts, themes, and sub-themes excerpted from the Citywide Historic Context Statement.

Context: Residential Development
THEME: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (1875-1977) Pico
The Pico neighborhood developed from west to east, along the southern side of the railroad tracks. The neighborhood contained the largest residential tract in Santa Monica. Residents in this neighborhood are ethnically diverse, and many of the city’s service workers historically lived in this area. Completion of Pico Boulevard in 1914, the shortest route from Los Angeles to Santa Monica and Ocean Park, was instrumental in its growth and development. However, another transportation milestone, the completion of the Santa Monica Freeway extension, later scarred the Pico neighborhood – disrupting the natural flow of traffic and resulting in the demolition of hundreds of homes. Many of today’s industrial parcels adjacent to the freeway were originally residential streets of modest houses and bungalows.

Erkenbrecher Syndicate (1904)
Concomitant with the opening of the “short line” of the Los Angeles-Pacific Railway (providing a newer and shorter route from Los Angeles to Santa Monica), one of Southern California’s 19 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, DC:
1990; revised for Internet 1995), 7, NRB-15_web508.pdf
(nps.gov) (accessed August 2024).
20 City of Santa Monica Planning and Community
Development Department, “City of Santa Monica Historic
Resources Inventory Update Historic Context Statement,” prepared by Historic Resources Group and Architectural
Resources Group, March 2018, 1.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 18 largest real estate investment groups, the Erkenbrecher Syndicate, purchased a tract of 390 acres of land from the Pacific Land Company, which included 38 acres within what would soon become Santa Monica. A portion of this was made into town lots and the rest divided into five-and ten-acre tracts.

Cincinnati-born Byron Erkenbrecher(1874-1971) came to Los Angeles in 1895. After a short-lived stint in the soap manufacturing business, he formed the Erkenbrecher Syndicate, Ltd., mining and real estate brokers. Erkenbrecher’s holdings were widespread, including land in Los Angeles, Glendale, the San Gabriel Valley, San Pedro, and Santa Monica.

The gridded residential portion of this tract was an irregularly shaped subdivision bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the north (north of present-day Olympic Boulevard), Pico Boulevard to the south, present-day Stewart Street to the east, and 14th Street to the west (exclusive of Woodlawn Cemetery). The tract was advertised as “...14 blocks from the ocean between the Southern Pacific Railway and the Electric Car line” and featured good soil, piped water, installed telephone lines and electricity and all street improvements. The standard 50’ x 150’ lots sold for $400 and up. By August 1905, 405 of the tract’s 600 lots had been sold, and 72 homes had been erected. Most of the land sales were speculative in nature. Sanborn Maps from 1918 indicate that the residential blocks north of Delaware Avenue between 14th and 20th Streets were only 25% built out. These blocks were dominated by modest, one-story residences.

The sparsely built-out Erkenbrecher Syndicate Tract made it a target for multi-family residential development from the 1920s through the 1940s. The 1930 U.S. Census indicates that the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Tract was home to Santa Monica’s Latino population, which was clustered in a residential area around Frank Street, High Street, and the 1600 and 1700 blocks of 20th, 21st and 22nd Streets. This area was zoned for industrial uses after construction of the Santa Monica Freeway.

The 1940 census reveals that the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Tract also became home to the city’s service workers during the 1930s: the maids, cooks, janitors, gardeners, and servants for pr ivate households. As such, it contained a high concentration of the city’s African American population – some 200 of the 500 African Americans believed to reside in Santa Monica prior to the war; the vast majority of whom lived on 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th Streets between the train tracks and Delaware Avenue. African Americans referred to the area as the Pico Quarter or Pico Neighborhood. The tract was also home to 50 Japanese and Japanese Americans, who were often employed as gardeners in private homes.

During World War II, the defense industry opened employment to African Americans for the first time. The Erkenbrecher Tract’s proximity to Douglas Aircraft, coupled with the relocation of the Japanese to incarceration camps, solidified the neighborhood’s demographic shift. By the 1950s, the neighborhood was home to an ethnically diverse population served by First African Methodist Episcopal Church and Mexican Methodist Episcopal Church, both on Michigan Avenue. Latino residents came to call the area bounded by Olympic and Pico Boulevards between 14th and 20th Streets “La Veinte,” or “The Twenty.” By the 1960s, the Pico neighborhood was home to 4,000 African American families and business

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 19 owners, and the Latino population totaled approximately 5,000. The neighborhood’s lower property values made it a prime target for the Santa Monica Freeway extension, and the subsequent construction of the Santa Monica Freeway sliced diagonally through the neighborhood, disrupting the grid pattern and displacing low-income residents.

Some Japanese Americans who had returned to the neighborhood after the war were once again displaced. After the completion of the freeway, many of the residential streets between the freeway and Pico were converted from residential to industrial use, displacing many of Santa Monica’s 6,000-8,000 African American residents.

ELIGIBILITY
Landmark Criterion 1; Structure of Merit b1
Significance
Individual properties or historic districts that are eligible under this theme may be significant:
 As the site of an important event in history.
 For exemplifying an important trend or pattern of development. In general, properties significant under this criterion will primarily be eligible as contributors to historic districts.
 As a rare or remnant example of Early Residential Development. This includes remnant beach cottages reflecting the city’s association with beach tourism; rare, remaining examples of some of the city’s earliest residential neighborhoods, or neighborhoods like Pico that were devastated by later development.
 As an excellent example of residential development with a specific association with 1920s and 1930s growth, including continued importance of beach tourism, and development associated with the aviation industry.
 As an excellent example of post-World War II residential development, representing a specific association with postwar growth in the city. This includes residential development associated with the aerospace or other industries, or an important residential development or developer.

Integrity Considerations
A property that is significant for its historic association is eligible if it retains the essential physical features that made up its character or appearance during the period of its association with the important event, historical pattern, or person(s). A residential property eligible under this criterion should retain integrity of location, design, workmanship, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to reflect the important association with the city’s residential development during this period. 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, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. Individually eligible examples identified in the survey typically retain all or most of their original windows, particularly on the primary façade, original wall cladding, and do not

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 20 have additions that are visible from the public right-of-way or obscure important historic features.

Registration Requirements
To be eligible under this criterion, a property must:
 have a proven association with an event important in history; or  represent an important pattern or trend in residential development from a specific period or facet of Santa Monica residential development; and  display most of the character defining features of the property type or style; and  retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.

Landmark Criterion 3
Significance
For an association with a significant person. Significant persons within this theme include Santa Monica pioneers or people who played a significant role in the development of the city; or people who made significant contributions to a demonstrably important profession, including the aviation, aerospace, or entertainment industries. Residences that are significant for an association with an ethnic, social, or cultural group are evaluated under separate themes.

Properties eligible under this criterion are typically those associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance.

Integrity Considerations
A residential property significant under Criterion B/2/3 should retain integrity of location, design, feeling, and association, at a minimum, in order to convey the historic association with a significant person.

Registration Requirements
To be eligible under this criterion, a property must:
 have a proven association with the productive period of a person important to local, state, or national history; and
 display most of the character defining features of the property type or style; and  retain the essential aspects of historic integrity.

Context: Architecture & Design (1875-1977)
THEME: EARLY 20TH CENTURY STYLES
Sub-theme: Craftsman
Craftsman architecture grew out of the late-19thcentury English Arts and Crafts movement. A reaction against industrialization and the excesses of the Victorian era, the movement stressed

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 21 simplicity of design, hand-craftsmanship, and the relationship of the building to the climate and landscape. Craftsman architecture developed in the first decade of the 20th century as an indigenous California version of the American Arts and Crafts movement, incorporating Southern California’s unique qualities. Constructed primarily of stained wood, with wide overhanging eaves, balconies, and terraces extending the living space outdoors, the style embodied the goals of the Arts and Crafts movement.

The Craftsman bungalow dates from the early 1900s through the 1920s. The bungalow’s simplicity of form, informal character, direct response to site, and extensive use of natural materials, particularly wood and stone, was a regional interpretation of the reforms espoused by the Arts and Crafts movement’s founder, William Morris. Craftsman bungalows generally have rectangular or irregular plans and are one to one-and-a-half stories tall. They have wood clapboard or shingle exteriors and a pronounced horizontal emphasis, with broad front porches, often composed with stone, clinker brick, or plastered porch piers. Other character-defining features include low-pitched front-facing gable roofs, and overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails.

As opposed to smaller developer-built or prefabricated bungalows, two-story Craftsman houses were often commissioned for wealthy residents and designed specifically with the homeowner’s needs and the physical site in mind. They generally feature a low-pitched gable roof, wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails, and windows grouped in horizontal bands. A high-style Craftsman house is distinguished by the quality of the materials and complexity of design and may feature elaborate, custom-designed woodwork, stained glass, and other fixtures.

By World War I, the Craftsman style declined in popularity and was largely replaced by Period Revival styles. The Craftsman bungalow continued to be built into the 1920s, but was often painted in lighter colors, stripped of its dark wood interiors, or blended with characteristics of various revival styles.

Typical character-defining features of the Craftsman style, as identified in the Citywide Historic Context Statement, include:
 Horizontal massing
 Low-pitched gable roof with rolled or composition shingle roofing  Wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails, outriggers, or knee braces  Exterior walls clad in wood shingle, shake, or clapboard siding  Projecting partial- or full-width, or wrap-around front porch  Heavy porch piers, often of river stone or masonry
 Wood sash casement or double-hung windows, often grouped in multiples  Wide front doors, often with a beveled light

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 22  Wide, plain window and door surrounds, often with extended lintels  Extensive use of natural materials (wood, brick or river stone) Craftsman Sub-type: Airplane Bungalow
Craftsman Airplane bungalows date from the early 1900s and reached their peak of popularity in the late 1910s. The Airplane Bungalow is a variation of the one-story Craftsman bungalow and shares many of its character-defining features, including a usually asymmetrical composition, low-pitched gable roof, wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails, wood shingles or horizontal wood siding, and a wide porch. The distinguishing feature of the Airplane Bungalow is a small second story in the middle of the house, usually of only one or two rooms, that rises above the surrounding roof. The influence of Japanese architecture is common in Airplane bungalows, exhibited in torii-inspired post-and-beam joinery, flaring eaves and ridges, and corresponding curved bargeboards.

Character-defining features include:
 Small, one- or two-room second story in the middle of the roof  Japanese influences including Asian-inspired post-and-beam joinery, flared eaves and ridges, and curved bargeboards

ELIGIBILITY
Landmark Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5; Structure of Merit b2
Significance
Properties that are eligible under the Architecture and Design context may be significant as:
 An excellent or rare example of an architectural style, property type, or designed landscape. Due to the quality of architecture in Santa Monica, there is a high threshold for properties that are eligible under this context. Eligible examples exhibit high quality of design and distinctive features.
 An important example of the work of a notable builder, designer, landscape architect, or architect.

Integrity Considerations
The required aspects of integrity reflect the significance of the property and the essential physical features required to convey that significance. The rarity of type is also considered. A property that is significant for its architectural merit should retain integrity of design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling, at a minimum, in order to convey its historic significance.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 23

8.0 EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY
1921 20th Street is evaluated below within the relevant contexts and themes in the City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Context Statement, and according to established criteria for designation under the City of Santa Monica’s Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance.

Evaluation of Historic Significance
1921 20th Street was previously evaluated in the 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update. It was found eligible for designation as a local Landmark for representing early patterns of residential development that shaped the Pico neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twentieth century, and as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture as applied to a single-family residence. The property is re-evaluated in this report to confirm whether it meets eligibility criteria for individual designation.

CONTEXT: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Theme: Single-family Residential Development (1875-1977) Landmark Criterion 1; Structure of Merit b1
The existing Craftsman style single-family residence at 1921 20th Street is a rare remaining and intact example of early residential development in the Pico neighborhood, which was devastated by later development. The residence was constructed in 1913 in the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Tract, which was subdivided in 1904 as the earliest residential subdivision in what is now the Pico neighborhood. The tract remained sparsely developed into the 1920s, when it became a target for multi-family residential development. Decades later, the Pico neighborhood was scarred by construction of the Santa Monica Freeway extension which resulted in the demolition of hundreds of homes and disrupted the street grid and traffic flow. Many of the areas adjacent to the freeway, which were once characterized by modest houses and bungalows, were subsequently rezoned for industrial use. In the 1960s, many other buildings were moved or demolished to accommodate the widening of 20th Street. As a result, surviving and intact examples of early 20th century single-family residential development in the Pico neighborhood are exceedingly rare. Table 2 shows the single-family residential properties identified in the 2018 Historic Resource Inventory Update that are eligible for their association with early development in the Pico neighborhood.

TABLE 2: EARLY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES

ELIGIBLE EARLY SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD Address Year built Eligibility
1747 9th Street 1924 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 1437 10th Street 1911 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 1815 10th Street 1911 Eligible for designation as a Structure of Merit 1819 10th Street 1928 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 1833-1839 10th Street 1924 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 1448 12th Street 1907 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 1453 12th Street 1909 Eligible for designation as a Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1352 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 24

ELIGIBLE EARLY SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE PICO NEIGHBORHOOD Address Year built Eligibility
1523 15th Street 1909 Eligible for designation as a Structure of Merit 1754 16th Street 1922 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 1527 17th Street 1923 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 1927 19th Street 1922 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 1837 20th Street 1923 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 1921 20th Street 1913 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 1706 21st Street 1914 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 2019 21st Street 1914 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 2038-2040 21st Street 1926 Eligible for designation as a Structure of Merit 1926 22nd Street 1913 Eligible for designation as a Structure of Merit 1802 Euclid Street 1922 Eligible for designation as a Landmark 1814 Euclid Street 1924 Eligible for designation as a Landmark The 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update identifies only 19 single-family properties (including 1921 20th Street) that are individually significant for representing “early patterns of residential development that shaped the Pico neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twentieth century.” Of these, three were constructed in the 1900s; six (including 1921 20th Street) were constructed in the 1910s; and ten were constructed in the 1920s. Thus, the Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street is one of only six remaining houses constructed in the Pico neighborhood in the 1910s, and one of only nine remaining houses that were constructed in the Pico neighborhood in the first two decades of the 20th century.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street is significant under Santa Monica Landmark Criterion 1. The period of significance under Criterion 1 is 1913, the year in which the residence at 1921 20th Street was originally constructed.

Landmark Criterion 3
According to National Park Service guidance, properties may be significant for an association with the lives of persons significant in our past. Persons “significant in our past” refers to individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, state, or national historic context. A property is not eligible if its only justification for significance is that it was owned or used by a person who was a member of an identifiable profession, class, or social or ethnic group. In addition, the property must be associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance.

Significant persons within the theme of Single-Family Residential Development include Santa Monica pioneers or people who played a significant role in the development of the city; or people who made significant contributions to a demonstrably important profession, including the aviation, aerospace, or entertainment industries. No documentation has been found to suggest that Anna and Simeon Unfried, or any other former owner or occupant of 1921 20th Street rose to prominence in their profession or group or made significant contributions to the

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1353 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 25 history or development of the city, state, or nation while occupying the property. Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not have a proven association with the productive period of a person important to local, state, or national history and is not significant under Santa Monica Landmark Criterion 3.

CONTEXT: ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN (1875-1977)
Theme: Early 20th Century Styles
Sub-theme: Craftsman; Craftsman Sub-type: Airplane Bungalow Landmark Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5; Structure of Merit b2
The single-family residence at 1921 20th Street is an excellent and comparatively rare example of a Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow in Santa Monica. The building exhibits high quality of design and distinctive features characteristic of the style and type, including its irregular plan, asymmetrical composition, complex massing with a two-room second story projecting above the surrounding first-story roof, low-pitched cross gable roofs with rolled asphalt composition roofing, wide eaves with exposed rafter tails and overhanging rakes supported on wood outriggers, wood lattice grilles in the gable ends, shed-roofed glazed sleeping porch, projecting concrete porch with a front gable roof and beadboard soffit, wood pergola extending over the driveway to form a porte-cochère, exterior brick chimney, shed-roofed projecting bay, wood clapboard siding that flares slightly above the foundation, and one-over-one double hung wood sash windows in various sizes with simple wood surrounds and extended lintels.

The house at 1921 20th Street appears to be one of only two known Craftsman style Airplane Bungalows in Santa Monica. The other is at 315 10th Street, which was designated a City Landmark in 2010. No other Craftsman style Airplane Bungalows are designated Landmarks or identified as individually eligible in the Historic Resources Inventory.

Given its high quality of design, distinctive features, and rarity of type, the 1913 single-family residence at 1921 20th Street exemplifies the Craftsman era of architectural history in early 20th century Santa Monica; has aesthetic value; and embodies the distinguishing architectural characteristics of the Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow. Therefore, it is significant under Landmark Criteria 1, 2, and 4. The period of significance under Criteria 1, 2, and 4 is 1913, the year in which the residence at 1921 20th Street was originally constructed.

Evaluation of Historic Integrity
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 prehistoric or historic period.”21 The National Park Service defines seven aspects of integrity for historical resources. These are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The integrity of the Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street is evaluated below based on these seven aspects.

Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the 21 United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Nomination Form (Washington, DC:

National Park Service, 1997), 4.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 26 historic event occurred. The residence at 1921 20th remains on the site where it was originally constructed in 1913. Therefore, it retains integrity of location.

Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. The single-family residence at 1921 20th Street has undergone few alterations since its original construction in 1913 except for the removal of the porch’s brick piers and replacement of the wood posts. The building retains nearly all of the features that identify it as a Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow, including its irregular plan, asymmetrical composition, complex massing with a two-room second story projecting above the surrounding first-story roof, low-pitched cross gable roofs with rolled asphalt composition roofing, wide eaves with exposed rafter tails and overhanging rakes supported on wood outriggers, wood lattice grilles in the gable ends, shed-roofed glazed sleeping porch, projecting concrete porch with a front gable roof and beadboard soffit, wood pergola extending over the driveway to form a porte-cochère, exterior brick chimney, shed-roofed projecting bay, wood clapboard siding that flares slightly above the foundation, and one-over-one double hung wood sash windows in various sizes with simple wood surrounds and extended lintels. Therefore, it retains integrity of design.

Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. At the time the residence at 1921 20th Street was constructed in 1913, the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Tract was sparsely developed and remained so into the 1920s, when it became a target for multi-family residential development.

Decades later, the Pico neighborhood was scarred by construction of the Santa Monica Freeway extension which resulted in the demolition of hundreds of homes and disrupted the street grid and traffic flow. Many of the areas adjacent to the freeway, which were once characterized by modest houses and bungalows, were subsequently rezoned for industrial use.

In the 1960s, many other buildings were moved or demolished to accommodate the widening of 20th Street. Therefore, the residence at 1921 20th Street no longer retains integrity of setting.

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. Apart from the front porch’s brick piers which were removed after sustaining damage in the Northridge earthquake, the Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street retains nearly all of the materials that were deposited in its original construction in 1913, including its wood clapboard siding; wood rafter tails, rake rafters and outriggers; wood lattice grilles in the gable ends; wood sash windows with wood surrounds and extended lintels; concrete porch and steps with beadboard soffit; brick chimney; and wood pergola/porte-cochère supported on brick piers. The property therefore retains integrity of materials.

Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. As demonstrated above, the house at 1021 20th Street retains integrity of design and materials and thus retains the physical evidence of the crafts of early-20th century Craftsman style design and construction in Santa Monica. The property therefore retains integrity of workmanship.

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. As demonstrated above, the residence at 1921 20th Street retains integrity of location, design, materials, and workmanship, and thus retains the physical features that convey

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 27 its historic character as an early-20th century Craftsman stye Airplane Bungalow. Therefore, it retains integrity of feeling.

Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. As demonstrated above, the Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, and feeling, and thus continues to convey its direct link to early residential development in the Pico neighborhood of Santa Monica in the 1910s. The property therefore retains integrity of association.

CONDITION VS. INTEGRITY
The Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street has not been adequately maintained and is in generally poor condition. However, according to National Park Service guidance, “condition” and “integrity” are related but distinct concepts.

Condition refers to the current physical state of a property — how well it is maintained, the extent of deterioration, and the presence of damage or decay. It is an objective assessment of what the property looks like today.

Integrity, on the other hand, is the ability of a property to convey its significance. It is not the same as condition, even though condition can affect integrity. A property can be in poor condition but still retain integrity if its essential physical features remain intact and relevant to its historical meaning.

As demonstrated in the preceding integrity analysis, the essential physical features of the Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street remain intact and visible, although they are deteriorated. Therefore, the condition of the property has not yet deteriorated to the extent that it has affected the property’s historic integrity.

Summary of Eligibility
The preceding analysis has demonstrated that the Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street is eligible for designation as a Santa Monica Landmark under the following criteria:

1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

The existing Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street is a rare remaining and intact example of early residential development in the Pico neighborhood, which was devastated by later development. The residence was constructed in 1913 in the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Tract, which was subdivided in 1904 as the earliest residential subdivision in what is now the Pico neighborhood. The tract remained sparsely developed into the 1920s, when it became a target for multi-family residential development. Decades later, the Pico neighborhood was scarred by construction of the Santa Monica Freeway extension which resulted in the demolition of hundreds of homes and disrupted the street grid and traffic flow. Many of the areas adjacent to the freeway, which were once characterized by modest houses and bungalows, were subsequently rezoned for industrial use. In the 1960s, many other buildings were moved or demolished to accommodate the widening of 20th Street. As a result, surviving

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 28 and intact examples of early 20th century single-family residential development in the Pico neighborhood are exceedingly rare.

2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

The single-family residence at 1921 20th Street has aesthetic interest and value as an embodiment of the distinguishing architectural characteristics of the Craftsman style (see #4 below), and as one of only two identified Craftsman style Airplane Bungalows in Santa Monica.

It has other noteworthy interest and value as is a rare remaining and intact example of early residential development in the Pico neighborhood (see #1 above).

The single-family residence at 1921 20th Street is one of only two identified Craftsman style Airplane Bungalows in Santa Monica. The building embodies the distinguishing architectural characteristics of the Craftsman style, including its irregular plan, asymmetrical composition, complex massing with a two-room second story projecting above the surrounding first-story roof, low-pitched cross gable roofs with rolled asphalt composition roofing, wide eaves with exposed rafter tails and overhanging rakes supported on wood outriggers, wood lattice grilles in the gable ends, shed-roofed glazed sleeping porch, projecting concrete porch with a front gable roof and beadboard soffit, wood pergola extending over the driveway to form a porte-cochère, exterior brick chimney, shed-roofed projecting bay, wood clapboard siding that flares slightly above the foundation, and one-over-one double hung wood sash windows in various sizes with simple wood surrounds and extended lintels.

Character-defining Features
Every historic building is unique, with its own identity and its own distinctive character.

Character-defining features are those visual aspects and physical elements and materials, constructed or deposited during the property’s period of significance, that give the building its historic character and contribute to its historic integrity. Character-defining features should be considered in the planning and design of a project so that they are preserved to the maximum extent possible. In general, retaining character-defining features retains the integrity of the historic property and thus maintains the property’s eligibility as an historical resource.

The period of significance of the Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street is 1913, the year in which it was originally constructed. Therefore, the property’s character-defining features include:
 Irregular plan, asymmetrical composition, and complex massing  Small, two-room second story projecting above the surrounding first-story roof  Low-pitched cross gable roofs with rolled asphalt composition roofing

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 29  Wide eaves with exposed rafter tails
 Overhanging rakes supported on wood outriggers
 Wood lattice grilles in the gable ends
 Exterior brick chimney
 Wood clapboard siding with flared skirt at foundation  Shed-roofed second floor sleeping porch with wood sash horizontal sliding windows  Projecting concrete porch and wide concrete steps with a front gable roof and beadboard soffit
 Wood pergola extending over the driveway to form a porte-cochère, with wood posts and brick piers
 Shed-roofed projecting bay on the north façade
 One-over-one double hung wood sash windows in various sizes with simple wood surrounds and extended lintels
 Wide, flush wood entrance door with simple wood surround and extended lintel

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 30

9.0 CONCLUSION
This report has evaluated the single-family residence at 1921 20th Street in the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Tract, in the Pico neighborhood of the City of Santa Monica, California, for eligibility for designation as a historic resource. The property was evaluated within the applicable historic contexts and themes against the established eligibility criteria and integrity thresholds for designation under the City of Santa Monica’s Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance. 1921 20th Street is occupied by a two-story Craftsman style single-family residence originally constructed in 1913. The property is listed in the City of Santa Monica’s 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update. It was found eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark as an excellent example of Craftsman architecture as applied to a single-family residence, and for representing early patterns of residential development that shaped the Pico neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twentieth century.

This evaluation has confirmed the Inventory finding. The single-family residence at 1921 20th Street is significant within the context Residential Development and theme Single-family Residential Development (1875-1977) under Landmark Criterion 1 as a rare remaining and intact example of early residential development in the Pico neighborhood, which was devastated by later development; and within the context Architecture & Design (1875-1977), theme Early 20th Century Styles, and sub-theme Craftsman under Landmark Criteria 1, 2, and 4 as an excellent and comparatively rare example of a Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow in Santa Monica. Although it is in poor condition, the building retains integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Therefore, the 1913 Craftsman style Airplane Bungalow at 1921 20th Street is eligible for designation as a City Landmark.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica 31

10.0 REFERENCES
California Office of Historic Preservation. “Built
Environment Resource Directory: Los Angeles County,”
2019.

City of Santa Monica. Building permit records.
---. “Property Status: 2018 HRI Update Individual
Resources,” Appendix B_Individual Resources
090418.xlsx. Accessed August 2026.

City of Santa Monica Planning and Community
Development Department. “City of Santa Monica
Historic Resources Inventory Update Historic Context
Statement.” Prepared by Historic Resources Group and
Architectural Resources Group, March 2018.

Santa Monica City Directories, 1913, 1915-1916, 1917,
1919-1920, and 1921-1922.

Santa Monica Conservancy. “1921 20th Street – Unfried
House Landmark Designation Application,” January
2024.

State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation. “California Office of Historic Preservation Technical
Assistance Series #6: California Register and National
Register: A Comparison.” Sacramento, CA: Office of
Historic Preservation, 2011.

U. S. Department of Commerce – Bureau of the Census.
“Fourteenth Census of the United States: 1920-
Population.” Santa Monica Township, January 17 and
19, 1920.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for
Evaluation. Washington D.C.: National Park Service,
1997.

U.S. Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 16: How to Complete the National Register Registration
Form. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997.

Weeks, Kay D., and Anne E. Grimmer. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties With Guidelines for Preserving,
Rehabilitating, Restoring & Reconstructing Historic
Buildings. Revised by Anne E. Grimmer. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park
Service, Technical Preservation Services, 2017.

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica

APPENDIX A

CRAFTSMAN ARCHITECTURE IN SANTA MONICA
Photo Address Year Status
842 2nd Street 1907 Eligible Landmark
2820 2nd Street 1912 Eligible Landmark
2421 3rd Street 1906 Eligible Landmark
2504 3rd Street 1907 Landmark
2507 3rd Street 1910 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
2544 3rd Street 1912 Eligible Landmark
2902 3rd Street 1910 Eligible Landmark
3007-3009 3rd Street 1908 Eligible Landmark
3014 3rd Street 1912 Eligible Landmark
419 4th Street 1922 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
907 4th Street 1910 Eligible Landmark
1033 4th Street 1913 Eligible Landmark
2424 4th Street 1910 Landmark
2434 4th Street 1915 Eligible Landmark
2614 4th Street 1909 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
2617 4th Street 1908 Eligible Landmark
2635 4th Street 1914 Eligible Landmark
2653 4th Street 1914 Eligible Landmark
2658 4th Street 1913 Eligible Landmark
2660 4th Street 1913 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
804 5th Street 1918 Eligible Landmark
834 5th Street 1911 Eligible Landmark
2514 5th Street 1911 Eligible Landmark
1038 6th Street 1908 Eligible Landmark
1138 6th Street 1921 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
2102 6th Street 1923 Eligible Landmark
2210 6th Street 1921 Eligible Landmark
2607 6th Street 1914 Eligible Landmark
2715 6th Street 1910 Eligible Landmark
513 7th Street 1911 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
555 7th Street 1913 Landmark
614 7th Street 1922 Eligible Landmark
953 7th Street 1922 Eligible Landmark
3012 7th Street 1909 Eligible Landmark
857 9th Street 1921 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
1303 9th Street 1913 Eligible Landmark
1747 9th Street 1924 Eligible Landmark
315 10th Street 1911 Landmark
454 10th Street 1913 Eligible Landmark
847 10th Street 1919 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
949 10th Street 1916 Eligible Landmark
1348 10th Street 1915 Eligible Landmark
1437 10th Street 1911 Eligible Landmark
1819 10th Street 1928 Eligible Landmark
1833-1839 10th Street 1924 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
401 11th Street 1913 Eligible Landmark
1144 11th Street 1912 Eligible Landmark
1218 11th Street 1913 Eligible Landmark
1221 11th Street 1911 Eligible Landmark
1229 11th Street 1904 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
1322 12th Street 1905 Eligible Landmark
1453 12th Street 1909 Eligible Landmark
812 14th Street 1923 Eligible Landmark
1238 14th Street 1913 Eligible Landmark
703 16th Street 1923 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
1527 17th Street 1922 Landmark
1248 18th Street 1914 Eligible Landmark
1947-1953 19th Street 1925 Eligible Landmark
1706 21st Street 1914 Eligible Landmark
501 24th Street 1911 Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
1254 26th Street 1915 Eligible Landmark
1458 26th Street 1907 Eligible Landmark
2344 28th Street 1922 Eligible Landmark
2321 29th Street 1924 Eligible Landmark
130 Adelaide Drive 1906 Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
142 Adelaide Drive 1909 Landmark
144 Adelaide Drive 1907 Eligible Landmark
236 Adelaide Drive 1910 Landmark
406 Adelaide Drive 1904 Landmark
308 Alta Avenue 1912 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1374 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
527 Alta Avenue 1914 Eligible Landmark
240-246 Ashland Avenue 1910 Eligible Landmark
422 Ashland Avenue 1915 Eligible Landmark
1129 Ashland Avenue c. 1910 Landmark
501 Bay Street 1924 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1375 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
2511 Beverly Avenue 1911 Landmark
610 California Avenue 1912 Eligible Landmark
832 California Avenue 1921 Eligible Landmark
908 California Avenue 1922 Eligible Landmark
1343-1345 Chelsea
Avenue
1922 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1376 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
528 Colorado Avenue 1910 Eligible Landmark
1802 Euclid Street 1924 Eligible Landmark
144 Fraser Avenue 1906 Eligible Landmark
147 Fraser Avenue 1906 Eligible Landmark
156 Fraser Avenue 1910 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1377 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
325 Georgina Avenue 1912 Landmark
435 Georgina Avenue 1912 Landmark
525 Georgina Avenue 1909 Landmark
713 Georgina Avenue 1912 Eligible Landmark
1208 Georgina Avenue 1922 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1378 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
1026-1028 Grant Street 1924 Eligible Landmark
2612 Highland Avenue 1913 Eligible Landmark
2632 Highland Avenue 1913 Eligible Landmark
2715 Highland Avenue 1908 Eligible Landmark
3114 Highland Avenue 1909 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1379 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
504 Hill Street 1915 Eligible Landmark
522-524 Hill Street 1912 Eligible Landmark
514 Idaho Avenue 1922 Eligible Landmark
1414 Idaho Avenue 1922 Landmark
642 Kensington Road 1916 Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
447 Lincoln Boulevard 1921 Eligible Landmark
929 Lincoln Boulevard 1916 Landmark
933 Lincoln Boulevard 1915 Eligible Landmark
1001 Maple Street 1912 Eligible Landmark
1047 Maple Street 1922 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
401 Marguerita Avenue 1910 Eligible Landmark
707 Marine Street 1912 Eligible Landmark
1006-1108 Michigan
Avenue
1925 Eligible Landmark
656 Navy Street 1924 Eligible Landmark
317 Ocean Park Boulevard 1919 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1382 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
658 Ocean Park Boulevard 1915 Eligible Landmark
754 Ozone Avenue 1908 Eligible Landmark
619 Pacific Street 1914 Eligible Landmark
226 Palisades Avenue 1916 Landmark
405 Palisades Avenue 1911 Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
514 Palisades Avenue 1910 Landmark
608 Palisades Avenue 1912 Eligible Landmark
624 Palisades Avenue 1910 Eligible Landmark
427 Pier Avenue 1910 Eligible Landmark
752-754 Pier Avenue 1925 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
502 Raymond Avenue 1912 Landmark
700 San Vicente Boulevard 1910 Eligible Landmark
900 San Vicente Boulevard 1923 Eligible Landmark
418 Strand Street 1912 Eligible Landmark
9 Vicente Terrace 1911 Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica Photo Address Year Status
913 Wilshire Boulevard 1913 Eligible Landmark

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Historic Resources Group 1921 20th Street, Santa Monica

APPENDIX B

RESUMES OF AUTHORS/CONTRIBUTORS

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for

JOHN LOCASCIO, AIA
Principal Architect
Experience Profile
Years of Experience: 32
California Architect license no: C24223
John LoCascio lives in Altadena, CA and has been with Historic Resources Group since 2011, involved in historic preservation since 2002, and a licensed, practicing architect since 1993.

John’s areas of focus at HRG include historic architecture and technology, building conservation, historic structure reports and federal historic rehabilitation tax credit projects. He provides technical assistance for construction documents; advises on compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and state regulatory/building code; provides construction monitoring; and prepares paint and materials sampling and analysis services.

John has worked on a wide variety of buildings and structures throughout the United States. He is currently advising on historic tax credit projects in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay area and Washington State. In addition, John regularly provides historic architecture consultation for numerous Los Angeles United School District campus modernization projects.

Prior to joining HRG, John served as Executive Director of Claremont Heritage, which included reviewing environmental documents and advising the City of Claremont on planning and design issues. John also worked for 14 years as a project architect in private practice, specializing in custom residential projects.

John LoCascio meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architecture and Historic Architecture. 556 S Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 101-514
Pasadena, CA 91105
Tel 626-793-2400
historicresourcesgroup.com

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for Selected Projects
28th Street YMCA Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse, Los Angeles Angelus Funeral Home Historic Tax Credit Project, Los Angeles Army & Navy YMCA/Harbor House Historic Tax Credit, San Pedro CBS Columbia Square Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse, Hollywood Climate Pledge Arena Historic Tax Credit Project, Seattle Grand Central Air Terminal Rehabilitation & Adaptive Reuse, Glendale Hangar One Rehabilitation, Moffett Federal Airfield, Mountain View Killefer School Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse, Orange Los Angeles International Airport Preservation Plan and HSRs Mayfair Hotel Historic Tax Credit Project, Los Angeles
Venice High School Comprehensive Modernization, Los Angeles Education
Master of Historic Preservation, University of Southern California Bachelor of Architecture, University of Southern California Honors and Awards
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Richard H. Driehaus Foundation National Preservation Award
Angelus Funeral Home/Paul Williams Family Apartments, 2022 California Preservation Foundation Preservation Design Awards Army & Navy YMCA/Harbor House, 2025
Sandi Simon Center for Dance, 2023
Angelus Funeral Home/Paul Williams Family Apartments, 2021 CBS Columbia Square, 2017
Grand Central Air Terminal, 2016
Los Angeles Conservancy Preservation Awards
Army & Navy YMCA/Harbor House, 2025
Academy Museum of Motion Pictures, 2022
Angelus Funeral Home/Paul Williams Family Apartments, 2021 Grand Central Air Terminal, 2017
CBS Columbia Square, 2016
AIA Institute Honor Award
28th Street YMCA, 2015
Professional Affiliations
American Institute of Architects
556 S Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 101-514
Pasadena, CA 91105

12.B.b
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: HRG_Report_1921 20th St_Sep 2026 (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for 1 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION

OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF

THE DESIGNATION OF A CITY LANDMARK

DENIAL OF THE DESIGNATION 26ENT-0089

OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
LOCATED 1921 20th Street

AS A CITY LANDMARK
SECTION I. T h e Santa Monica Conservancy filed a Landmark designation application with the City of Santa Monica (City). The Landmarks Commission, having held a Public Hearing on September 14, 2026 hereby finds that the subject property located at 1921 20th Street does not meet one or more of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100 and denies the designation of the structure and property at 1921 20th Street as a City Landmark.

Landmark Criteria

9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City.

The subject property appears to be a remnant of an early phase of development. During the period of development prior to 1920, Sanborn Maps from 1918 indicate that the residential blocks north of Delaware Avenue between 14th and 20th Streets were only 25% built out. The more significant period of growth occurred later as multi-family development that occurred from the 1920’s through the 1940’s. The property appears to be a remnant of the earlier, yet insignificant period of development. As such, it does not symbolize or manifest elements of the history of the neighborhood or the city.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 1.

9.56.100(A)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

The primary residence is a simple example of an Airplane Bungalow. Airplane Bungalows are a small subset of the modest Craftsman Bungalow type that is still prevalent in the city. As a very simple example, it doesn’t represent the aesthetic of artistic or noteworthy interest or value that would meet this criteria. Further, due to its poor condition and loss of materials and integrity, it no longer retains aesthetic or artistic interest, or other noteworthy interest.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 2.

Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE2DBA7-3746-8E72-8212-97CDA30D28C0

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) STOA DocuSigned (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 2 9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 3.

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.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 4.

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.

There is no evidence that the primary structure on the property is connected to a notable builder, designer or architect.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 5.

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.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 6.

Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE2DBA7-3746-8E72-8212-97CDA30D28C0

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) STOA DocuSigned (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 3 SECTION II. There is no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

SECTION III. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately reflect the final determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica on September 14, 2026 as determined by the following vote:

AYES: Green, May, O’Connor, Payton
NAYS: Hillbrand, Lemlein
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Summers
Each and all the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the decision. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the Landmark and Historic District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter

9.56, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.

Respectfully Submitted
October 12, 2026
Jodi Summers, Chairperson
Attest:

Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP
Landmarks Commission Secretary
Docusign Envelope ID: 7EE2DBA7-3746-8E72-8212-97CDA30D28C0

12.B.c
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) STOA DocuSigned (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1 MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2026
MEETING BEGINS AT 7:00 P.M.

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1685 MAIN STREET, ROOM 250
CALL TO ORDER Chair Green called the meeting to order at 7:07 PM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ROLL CALL
Jack Hillbrand
Carol Lemlein
Joseph May
Pam O’Connor
Neal I. Payton
Amy Green, Chair

Absent:

Jodi Summers, Vice-Chair
Also present:

Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP, Design & Historic Preservation Planner, Commission Liaison Michelle M. Hugard, Deputy City Attorney
Caroline Yeh, Staff Assistant III

1. SPECIAL AGENDA ITEMS
1-A. 7:05 PM
Oath of Office
Joseph May
Carol Lemlein
Pam O’Connor
Docusign Envelope ID: 74D54CC8-03A6-83CA-81D7-295093C8D330

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Approved_Landmarks_Commission Minutes 09-14-26 (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 2 1-B. 7:11 PM
Election of Officers
Commissioner O’Connor made the motion to nominate Vice-Chair Summers as Chair and Chair Green seconded. A roll call was held for the motion and was approved unanimously by the following vote:

AYES: Hillbrand, Lemlein, May, O’Connor, Payton, Green
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Summers
Commissioner Payton made the motion to nominate Commissioner O’Connor as Vice-Chair and Commissioner Green seconded. A roll call was held for the motion and was approved unanimously by the following vote:

AYES: Hillbrand, Lemlein, May, O’Connor, Payton, Green
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Summers
Commissioner Green and Vice-Chair O’Connor agreed that Commissioner Green would continue to chair the meeting.

Commissioner Payton volunteered to be the Pier Board Liaison and Commissioner Green volunteered to be the alternate.
1-C. 7:14 PM
Report from Staff:

Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner, provided the following staff report:

The World Cup, Coast and other Summertime events have been a great success! We are now preparing for upcoming international events including the Olympics. Many sites in Santa Monica will be included in event related hosting, such as national team event spaces. In particular, we anticipate investments, in maintenance and minor upgrades, to the Camera Obscura and Miles Playhouse, prior to hosting planned Olympics related activities. Special events will be continuing in September and throughout the Fall season.

There is also some infrastructure improvements and deferred maintenance across the City. In particular, the Coral Trees on the median along San Vicente have had some important work. Many Coral Trees across the region have been dying due to new pests Docusign Envelope ID: 74D54CC8-03A6-83CA-81D7-295093C8D330

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Approved_Landmarks_Commission Minutes 09-14-26 (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 3 and diseases introduced because of climate change. Unfortunately, our beloved Coral Trees are not immune. Many have died and become a hazard. Two have fallen over.

Public Landscape has had to remove a number of trees on the San Vicente median and a few in the San Vicente Courtyard Apartment Historic District. The focus right now is to preserve as many existing trees as possible and then look for an appropriate replacement tree, hopefully another species of Coral Tree that might have a better survival rate. There will be a Special Meeting of the Urban Forest Commission on Wednesday, October 14 at 6PM, in the Santa Monica Main Public Library in the second floor multi-purpose room.

The Commission reviewed a digital sign at 1355 3rd Street. Since the time of that review, the team has also included the reconstruction of a historic sign at the southeast corner of the building. This sign will be included in the Development Agreement moving forward to the City Council.

The Historic Pier Sign, a Santa Monica beacon since 1941, is set for dismantling and restoration in mid- to late-September. We want to emphasize that this is a preservation operation, not a demolition. As part of the work, electrical service will be disconnected; each neon tube labeled, removed, and crated; temporary supports will stabilize the sign cage; the sign be dismantled and will then travel to a specialty sign restoration facility in Las Vegas. Finally, when the new bridge is completed in 2027, the restored sign will return, mounted higher for better visibility and clearance, in time to welcome the world prior to the LA28 Olympics.

Mills Act Contracts are scheduled for City Council review on October 13.

Thank you to Roger Genser. Roger has been committed to the Landmarks Commission for decades, having been appointed several times. Originally appointed in 2001, he served three terms and then returned in 2018. Roger has often served as Local Historian and has also served as Commission Chair. He has always provided exceptional insight into the City’s history and thoughtful consideration of every item. 1-D. 7:20 PM
Landmarks Commissioner Announcements
Vice-Chair O’Connor stated while on the City Council, she voted for Roger’s 20 years of appointments to the Landmarks Commission and that his passion for protecting historic buildings in Santa Monica was unparalleled. He will be missed, but he’s not leaving town, so she hopes to see him in the future. The Commissioners agreed and spoke of great appreciation for Roger’s accomplishments and commitment to preservation.

Docusign Envelope ID: 74D54CC8-03A6-83CA-81D7-295093C8D330

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: Approved_Landmarks_Commission Minutes 09-14-26 (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 4 2. CONSENT CALENDAR’
2-A. 7:22 PM
Meeting Minutes:

July 13, 2026
Vice-Chair O’Connor made the motion to approve the Consent Calendar and Commissioner Green seconded. A roll call was held and was approved unanimously by the following vote:

AYES: Hillbrand, Lemlein, May, O’Connor, Payton, Green
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Summers

3. STUDY SESSION
 None.

4. CONTINUED ITEMS
 None.

5. STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS
 None.

6. PUBLIC HEARING
6-A. 7:24 PM
1921 20th St (26ENT-0089): Landmark Designation Application Consideration of designation application 26ENT-0089 for the property located at 1921 20th Street to determine whether the residential structure in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if designated a Landmark, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A). Also included is consideration of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including an exemption under CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).

Ex parte communications:

Commissioner Hillbrand visited the site.

Commissioner May spoke with the applicant.

Commissioners Lemlein and Payton, and Chair Green were familiar with the site.

Docusign Envelope ID: 74D54CC8-03A6-83CA-81D7-295093C8D330

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: Approved_Landmarks_Commission Minutes 09-14-26 (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 5 Ms. Reich presented the staff report.

Nina Fresco, representing the Santa Monica Conservancy, presented for the applicant.

Lydia King, Property Owner, stated her opposition to the designation.

No Public Comment.

Ms. King provided Rebuttal.

Ms. Fresco provided Rebuttal.

Commissioner Discussion included:
 The difference between condition and integrity
 The distinguishing qualities and rarity of the building as an Airplane Bungalow  Owner’s position of opposition
 State of California designations and exclusion from consideration if the Owner disagrees with designation
 Development of the tract and neighborhood during the early 1920s  Question of significance of the early period of development  Cultural relationship of building to the tract and neighborhood  Setting on the site that changes visibility
Commissioners also noted that:

The tract was subdivided in 1904, and the building was built 9 years later. The building did nothing to stimulate the development of the area. This building does not appear to represent the development or the tract. It was also noted that the Airplane Bungalow was not popular in Santa Monica and that just because it exists as a subtype, does not mean it is historic.

The majority of the Commissioners also agreed that the property does not appear to have a cultural relationship to the neighborhood or the city. The building did not stimulate development in the neighborhood or the city.

Commissioner Hillbrand noted his disagreement. He dismissed the concern about the lack of development in the neighborhood prior to the 1920’s. He stated that the building is interesting in that it tried to be the early expression of the Craftsman Style and that there are elements that are interesting. He also identified that it would take substantial investment to rehabilitate the property.

Commissioner Hillbrand made the motion to designate the property under Criterion 4, including the CEQA exemption noted in the staff report. There was no second and the motion failed.

Vice-Chair O’Connor made the motion to deny the designation and Chair Green seconded. A roll call was held and approved by the following vote:

Docusign Envelope ID: 74D54CC8-03A6-83CA-81D7-295093C8D330

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: Approved_Landmarks_Commission Minutes 09-14-26 (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 6 AYES: May, O’Connor, Payton, Green
NAYS: Hillbrand, Lemlein
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Summers

7. RESOLUTIONS
 None.

8. WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
8-A. 8:50 PM
San Vicente Boulevard Medians from Ocean Avenue to 26th Street Ms. Reich stated that typically there is no public comment on written communications, but the bylaw reads that if the author is present, then they or anyone else can comment on the item. Otherwise, public comment would fall under item 10, Public Input.

Deputy City Attorney Hugard added that this was public testimony rule 18.

Caroline Dixon, author of the letter, spoke in support of the letter.

Diane Jenkins and Jerry Rubin also provided public comment.

9. DISCUSSION ITEMS
9-A. 8:58 PM
Discussion and possible selection of a Landmarks Commissioner to attend the City Council meeting on October 13 for Mills Act Contract presentation.

No Commissioners volunteered, might not be available that date.

9-B. 9:00 PM
Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on recent ARB consideration and action taken on proposed projects involving additions to or modifications of potential historic resources.

Nothing to report.
9-C. 9:00 PM
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
Docusign Envelope ID: 74D54CC8-03A6-83CA-81D7-295093C8D330

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: Approved_Landmarks_Commission Minutes 09-14-26 (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 7 Ms. Reich passed along the following report from former Commissioner Genser:

There will be a special meeting of the Pier Corporation board scheduled for next Thursday, September 17 at 7pm. The meeting was requested by City Staff for an update about the 256 Santa Monica Pier space, formerly Rusty’s Surf Ranch.

10. PUBLIC INPUT
9:18 PM.

Jerry Rubin spoke regarding the electronic billboard at Santa Monica Boulevard and the Promenade. He stated that the Urban Forest Commission, in an advisory capacity, voted that the existing trees should remain. He suggested that ADA Access be provided for the Camera Obscura. He recognized Roger Genser for his service and for his vote to designate Chain Reaction as a City Landmark.

ADJOURNMENT
Chair Green adjourned the meeting at 9:04 PM.

Attest: Approved:

Stephanie Reich Jodi Summers
Landmarks Commission Liaison Chair
Docusign Envelope ID: 74D54CC8-03A6-83CA-81D7-295093C8D330

12.B.d
Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: Approved_Landmarks_Commission Minutes 09-14-26 (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark City Planning Division (310) 458-8341
Planning and Community Development Department www.smgov.net 09/18
CITY OF SANTA MONICA – CITY PLANNING DIVISION

DESIGNATION APPLICATION
Landmark Structure of Merit
Applications must be submitted by appointment at the City Planning public counter, Room 111 at City Hall, located at 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. To schedule an appointment or if you have any questions completing this application please call City Planning at (310) 458-8341. GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT ADDRESS:

Land Use Element District: Zoning District:

Assessor Parcel: - - Lot Size:

APPLICANT
Name:

Address: Zip:

Phone: Fax:

Email:

CONTACT PERSON (if different) (Note: All correspondence will be sent to the applicant) Name:

Address: Zip:

Phone: Fax:

Email:

Relation to Applicant:

PROPERTY OWNER
Name:

Address: Zip:

Phone: Fax:

Subject improvement is generally known as:

Existing use(s) of site:

Rent control status:

Status: Occupied Unoccupied
Recognized in the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory: Yes No Condition: Excellent Good Fair Deteriorated Ruins Unexposed Threats: None Private Development Vandalism
Public Works Project Zoning Other:

This part to be completed by City staff
Received By: Amount Paid: $
Date Submitted: Check No.:

NOTES TO

APPLICANT
Please complete all
applicable sections
of this application
and submit all
required materials.

Incomplete
applications will not
be accepted for
filing.

Landmarks
Commission meets
on the second
Monday of each
month.

The applicant,
representative, or
legal owner familiar
with the project must
be present at the
Landmarks
Commission
meeting.

A decision on
designation is
rendered at the
hearing. All
decisions by the
Landmarks
Commission are
subject to a 10-day
appeal period. An
official appeal form
and fee schedule is
available at the City
Planning Division
Public Counter.

Appealed projects
will be scheduled for
a hearing before the
City Council.
26ENT-0089

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation

Page 2 ends

~ Please Note ~
The following property and historical information identified below must be provided in order for your application to be determined complete by the City Planning Division.

You may provide information on additional sheets of paper.

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Description of site or structure, note any major alterations & dates of alterations:

Statement of architectural significance:

Statement of historic importance:

NOTES TO

APPLICANT
For more information
on designation
procedures, refer to
SMMC Section 9.56.

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation

Page 3 ends

Person(s) of historic importance:

Local State National
Statement of other significance:

Documents and publications that relate directly to proposed improvement (bibliography):

FOR STRUCTURES ONLY:

Date of construction: Factual Estimated
Source:

Architect/Designer/Engineer:

Contractor/ Other builder:

Architectural Style:

Historic Use of Structure(s):

Present Use of Structure(s):

Is/Are structure(s) on original site: Yes No Unknown
Is/Are structure(s) threatened with destruction: Yes No Unknown If yes, state reason:

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation

12.B.e
APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS - all items must be provided
L Completed Application.

L Payment of Fee, if applicable.
• Payment of Fee is WAIVED for Non-Profit Organizations. Documentation demonstrating Tax-Exempt Status must be included with this application and at the time of filing to be eligible for a Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Application fee waiver.

Staff will confirm non-profit organization status prior to deeming this application complete.

Eight (8) sets of labeled Color Photographs of the building elevations or improvement on 8½" x 11" paper (Color photocopies are acceptable).
- Any information you feel would be of assistance in reviewing the application, such as original plans, old photos, or other historical information.

For structures only: if applicant is requesting approval of modifications, please submit all materials requested for a Certificate of Appropriateness Application.

I hereby certify that the information contained in this application is correct to the best of my knowledge.

Santa Monica Conservancy (Nina Fresco)
Applicant's Name (PRINT)
APPLICATOIN REQUIREME Di stress 4/20/2026
Applicant's Signature
Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commiss

Page 4 ends

Packet Pg. 1403
______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 1
1921 20th Street – Unfried House
The residence at 1921 20th Street qualifies for Landmark designation as an excellent and remarkably intact example of a Craftsman Style Airplane Bungalow. It is also historically significant as a pioneering structure in a rural neighborhood transitioning to a more urban character. It is additionally significant for its association with the Unfried family that foresaw the transition of the neighborhood and built the subject property as well as other early structures and businesses in the area that were the seeds of a thriving, complete neighborhood. Finally, the subject property has a significant association with events impacting Simon and Anna Unfried that demonstrate the universal ills of systemic racism and the resilience of Santa Monica’s African American community, which nonetheless flourished. 1921 20th Street is listed in the 2018 Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory with the status code 5S3 and the following comment:
1921 20th Street appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is an excellent example of Craftsman architecture as applied to a single-family residence. It exhibits distinctive characteristics that are associated with the style as expressed by its form, massing, composition, and architectural details. It is also significant for representing early patterns of residential development that shaped the Pico neighborhood of Santa Monica in the early decades of the twentieth century.

Constructed in 1913, it is one of relatively few extant residential buildings from this formative period of neighborhood growth.
1921 20th Street Building Description
The residence at 1921 20th Street, an excellent example of a Craftsman Style Airplane Bungalow, was built by Simon Unfried who was issued a building permit for it on December 17, 1912. The home was ready for occupancy a few months later, in 1913. No other building permits for the subject property were filed with the City of Santa Monica until nine were issued in 1948. Most of them related to the construction, plumbing, and wiring of an 18 x 34-foot accessory building at the rear of the parcel. Not all the permits indicate which structure they relate to, but it appears that the main house received new bathroom and electrical fixtures and new gas service during construction of the back house. A new garage was added to the rear of the parcel in 1951. Neither of the rear structures are contributing buildings because they were built outside the 1913 period of significance for 1921 20th Street. Over the next few decades, hot water heaters were replaced in both units. In 1994, as a result of the Northridge Earthquake, the only damage sustained to the subject property was to the posts supporting the front porch. The posts were repaired but the brick piers at their base and a railing were

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 2
removed. No other alterations to the subject property were recorded or observed. The subject property has a very high degree of architectural integrity.1 Typical of the Craftsman Style of architecture, this two-story wooden residence clad in lapped siding that flares slightly at its base. It has a plan consisting of a central rectangular core with volumes of various proportions projecting from each elevation to create a varied form. Typical windows on the structure are double hung, single-light wooden sash types, found singly or in pairs, in various sizes. Wooden exterior window surrounds feature a deeply extended, squared top rail. The complex roof of the structure spans its many irregular volumes with low-pitched peaks, multiple gables, wide eaves, heavy extended beams and extended and exposed rafter tails. All but one of the gables (on the second floor, facing the rear) are finished with decorative, open structured vertical and horizontal lattice. The core ground floor volume of the structure is a shallow rectangle with a side-gabled roof as described above. The southwest-facing front porch protrudes from the main volume with a forward-facing gable roof. The porch spans about two-thirds of the front elevation, leaving the south-eastern-most third unshaded. Within the porch area is the main entry door and a wide double-hung window of the type described above.

The front door of solid wood is obscured by a white metal security gate. The beams that support the porch roof extend beyond the structure at the northwest end of the porch across a driveway to the side parcel line and are capped with widely spaced perpendicular members to form a pergola-like porte-cochere at the side of the house. A driveway passes underneath the porte-cochere and leads to a garage at the rear of the parcel. The posts supporting the porte-cochere at the property line are reinforced at their base with brick piers linked to each other by a low brick planter box. The porch floor is concrete supported by a low brick foundation visible at the front edge and is accessed at either end by two concrete steps with rounded corners. A historic photo indicates that a single wide board extending between the posts formed a porch railing. The railing is no longer extant. It appears that there were once brick piers supporting the porch posts, likely matching those supporting the porte-cochere at the property line. The bricks are covered in many coats of paint but appear to have a decorative ruff-textured finish. A pair of windows in a single unit punctuates the portion of the front façade not protected by the porch. A non-original metal awning has been installed above this window.

The secondary southeast elevation of the ground floor is punctuated by a pair of windows in a single unit and is fronted by a concrete pathway that leads to a kitchen door set into a protruding volume the envelops the east corner of the structure. The single light door has three panels below the light and appears to be original to the structure. Access to the door is via two concrete steps leading to a small landing enclosed by a siding-clad half-height wall protecting the outer edge. This elevation continues along the wall of the protruding volume which is punctuated by a typical window and concludes with a utility room consisting of a solid half wall and inoperable glass panes filling the upper portion.
1 City of Santa Monica Permit Document Archives, publicdsocs.smgov.net

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 3
The rear elevation is split between the main volume of the structure and the rear face of the protruding corner volume. The corner volume has a rear-facing gable roof typical to the structure. The glassy utility room continues around the corner and incorporates a door before the wall becomes solid again, punctuated by a typical window. One of the utility room windows has been boarded up. The utility room windows are protected from the elements by non-original metal awnings, and the room is accessed from a single step that leads to a landing centered under the peak of its roof. A non-original metal security gate has replaced or conceals an original door. Tucked in the corner between the protruding volume and the main volume of the structure is a basement stair inside a bulkhead with missing doors. A small basement gives access to a full crawl space. The portion of the main volume visible along the rear elevation of the structure is punctuated by three typical windows of various sizes.

The secondary northwest elevation is fronted by a concrete driveway. The rear half of this elevation features a small volume that protrudes about 18 inches from the core volume. It has a shed roof with typical eaves, and features a typical window in its center. Originally this volume did not extend all the way to the rear (north) corner, but it appears that the rectangular notch was filled in to enlarge to room inside at an early date because a seam is apparent but there is no change in materials. The front (southwest) half of this elevation is dominated by the back of a brick fireplace and its chimney extending above, flanked on either side by typical windows.

The second story of the subject property is comprised of a rectangular core volume capped with a typical side-gabled roof. It has similar proportions but a much smaller footprint than the core ground floor volume atop which it is centered. The gable end facades of the second story (northwest and southeast) are each dominated by typical windows in pairs combined in single units. The rear elevation of the second floor is punctuated by a typical window at either end between which a small volume protrudes, capped with a rear facing gable filled to the eaves with lapped siding. This volume is punctuated by two typical windows. On the primary elevation of the second story, there are pairs of typical windows at either end. From the rails separating the paired windows, an enclosed porch protrudes, resulting in a window within the porch and another opening directly to the outside. This porch is capped by a shed roof with typical eaves and rafter tails. It is glassed-in with a band of original wooden six-light horizontal sash windows that wrap around the sides. The overall form of the second story is an irregular cross-shape.

Though the interior features of a private residential structure are not within the purview of the Landmarks Ordinance, the interior of the subject property, like the exterior has a very high degree of physical integrity, which is unusual for such an old structure in Santa Monica. All of the original windows, trims, baseboards, crown moldings, and doors appear to be extant.

Alterations include the addition of linoleum flooring from various eras in several rooms, and plumbing fixtures that were replaced in the bathrooms. The main entrance from the front

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 4
porch gives access directly to the living room which features a brick fireplace with a wooden mantle. The living room is separated from the dining room by a large lathe and plaster archway with decorative flourishes near the curved corners. In the dining room, a large built-in credenza dominates the interior wall. An open surface between the upper and lower cabinets retains its mirrored backing and is framed by a notched arch very like the larger one between the rooms.

Off the dining room is a large kitchen with original cabinetry and an original built-in breakfast nook with a non-original booth. Beyond the kitchen is the glassy utility room with beadboard half-height wainscoting and lathe and plaster walls above. From the living room, a doorway in the interior wall gives access to a bedroom. This is the room that was expanded slightly when the notch at the north corner of the structure was filled in. A seam in the plaster and the baseboards confirms the alteration and also confirms its date to an early period when all the original materials were still available. A door from the back of this room leads to a narrow hallway that connects through the back of the house to the kitchen. On the exterior side of the hallway is a full bathroom, and on the interior side is a large, original built in linen closet with drawers and cupboards. From the mid-point of the hallway, a narrow, enclosed staircase leads to a small landing on the second floor, across which is the sleeping porch at the front of the house. Either side of the landing gives access to a bedroom, each with a closet and a small lavatory.

Craftsman Style – Airplane Bungalows
Inspired by the work of Charles Sumner Greene and Henry Mather Greene of Pasadena, California, the Craftsman Style was popular from 1905-1930. Designed to suit the southern California climate and ethos, Craftsman bungalows were constructed of wood, and featured low-pitched roofs, reducing their profile so they didn’t disrupt the surrounding landscape. Deep porches and wide eaves provided relief from the hot California sun, and exposed rafters and heavy, exposed support beams under the gables, celebrated the structural integrity of the carpenter-built structures. Partial-width front porches supported by heavy squared or tapered posts were often accented with heavy piers of stone or brick further grounding them in the landscape.2
The subject property exemplifies the Craftsman Style Airplane Bungalow. Its irregular plan evolves from a core volume strategically embellished with additional volumes that provide practical amenities on the inside and visual interest on the outside. For example, the large volume at the east corner enlarges the kitchen and adds space for a utility porch and bathroom on the ground floor. The much smaller pop-out on the northwest elevation may have been designed to accommodate a murphy bed in the first-floor bedroom, which the builder decided soon after the building was constructed to omit. On the second floor, the rear pop out 2 A Field Guide to American Houses, by Virginia & Lee McAlester, Alfred A Knopf Inc., 1984

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 5
accommodates closets and lavatories for each bedroom, and the front pop out provides a sleeping porch. Sleeping porches with an abundant flow of fresh air, were widely popular as a result of a surge of interest in sanitary living in the early 20th Century and were a typical feature of the Craftsman Style. Also typical of the style, the bedrooms on the second floor, though small, have large windows on all three exterior walls. The resulting glassy appearance of small second story bedrooms and sleeping porches on many Craftsman Bungalows in the early 20th Century led the homes to be referred to as Airplane Bungalows for a resemblance to the cockpit of airplanes. Aviation, fast developing from novelty to an industry, was a topic of extreme interest during that period. The manner in which the exposed support beams above the front porch extend to form a trellised port-cochere with a built-in planter box is another classic feature of the Craftsman Style designed to harmonize the structure with the landscape.

The use of brick for the porch face, piers, fireplace, and chimney was chosen over stone as a common local material, locally fired for use in construction. The subject property is an exemplary example of a Craftsman Style Airplane Bungalow.

Neighborhood Context: Fairview Heights
Santa Monica was founded by Robert Baker and John Percival Jones in 1875. By 1900, most of their joint holdings were partitioned so they could go their separate ways in business. Jones sold a large parcel from his portfolio between the railroad tracks and the southern boundary of the San Vicente Rancho to Robert C. Gillis in 1901. It extended from Fourteenth to Stewart Street, but only the portion west of 17th Street was within the city limits. In 1902, Gillis resold the land to the Erkenbrecher Syndicate, a group of wealthy Los Angeles investors, who established a large subdivision there in 1904.3 Realtor W.A. Irwin marketed the parcels, giving the district the name, “Irwin Heights.” Just across the railroad tracks, the Sunset Brick and Tile Company was established in 1903, and soon sold to the Los Angeles Pressed Brick Company. In 1904, five large blocks at the northeast corner of the Erkenbrecher Tract became the Simons Brick Company, and soon after that another block became the Hayes Tile and Pottery Company.

The three brick yards and the Southern Pacific Railroad yards, which they abutted, established a major industrial presence in the area. With this in mind, Irwin Heights sales targeted working class residents, many employed by the brick companies, who couldn’t afford the tonier neighborhoods springing up simultaneously on the north side of Santa Monica and in Brentwood. By the end of 1904, Irwin reported that eighteen houses had been erected on the 600-acre tract he managed. A little less than half of the tract had been subdivided into standard 50 x 150-foot parcels. The rest, east of 20th Street and from Michigan Avenue to Pico Boulevard was sold in approximately 5-acre farm lots. In May 1905, the Santa Monica City Trustees called 3 Los Angeles County Deed Records, Jones to Gillis, Book 1433-216, February 14, 1901, Gillis to Pacific Land Company, Book 1496-149, August 5, 1901, Pacific Land Company to Bundy, Book 1630-84, August 19, 1902, Bundy to Woolacott (Erkenbrecher Syndicate), Book 1260-275, August 19, 1902, www.familysearch.com, Map of Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract, TR0006-026a, recorded October 17, 1904, Los Angeles County Assessor, https://dpw.lacounty.gov/
______________________________________________________________________________

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 6
an election to annex a large area to the city that included the portion of the Erkenbrecher Tract that had been in the unincorporated outskirts. In response to the new official status, Irwin organized a major event featuring a barbeque, a band concert, and a land auction on June 10.4 The auction apparently went so well that he held another a few weeks later. Anna Gross bought 3 acres in lot 1, block 24 of the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Tract, recording her deed on July 6th that year; she married Simon Unfried a few months later. Being only 22-years old, it is possible the parcel was an engagement gift. After that flurry of sales, Irwin began divesting himself of his Santa Monica holdings and soon left town altogether.

In May 1907, the rural population of Irwin Heights decided to organize. They met at the home of F.W. Richards at 23rd Street and Towner (Delaware) Avenue to form the Irwin Heights Improvement Association which adopted a constitution and bylaws and met on a regular schedule. The members were living primarily on the semi-rural acreage tracts in the east section of the subdivision.5 Attendance at the Improvement Association meetings was robust considering how sparsely populated the district was. There were often as many as twenty-five people present at the twice-monthly gatherings where they conducted neighborhood business and socialized. After meeting for six months, they decided to take real ownership of their neighborhood. Upon their request, three streets were renamed by Santa Monica City Council.

Towner Avenue became Delaware Avenue; Irwin Avenue became Virginia Avenue; and Olive Avenue became Kansas Avenue. They didn’t stop there. By their own decree, the name Irwin Heights for the area was abolished, and Fairview Heights took its place. The Fairview Heights Improvement Association members kept each other up to date with a newsletter called Cyclone, which was distributed and also read aloud at meetings. The Fairview Heights Improvement Association was Santa Monica’s first formal neighborhood group. Their success in assuring they got their fair share of city services and municipal investment was notable, winning trees, streetlamps, improved water service, fire plugs, a fire station, and eventually, paved streets. They weighed in on every political question that came up and were forceful, and in the long run successful, in having the brickyards shut down.6 During the 1920s, a significant wave of Black migrants to Santa Monica settled between 14th and 20th Streets, and between Colorado and Santa Monica Boulevards. When the First C.M.E.

Church was built at 19th Street and Michigan Avenue in 1927, migration began to trickle towards the vicinity of the church. In 1936, the Calvary Baptist Church moved into the area, adding to its appeal to African Americans. In 1937, Dr. and Mrs. Marcus and Essie Tucker pioneered a rapid phase of nearby housing development when they commissioned renowned Black architect Paul R. Williams to build them a home at 1958 20th Street. By this time Fairview 4 Auction Sale and Barbeque, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, May 25, 1905 5 For Improvement of Irwin Heights, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, May 18, 1907, Meeting of Santa Monica Council, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, June 27, 1907, City Council Had a Fairly Busy Meeting, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, July 2, 1907
6 In Society, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, June 17, 1910

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1409 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 7
Heights’ original small farm owners were retiring or passing away, their parcels were changing hands, and transformation from a rural character of the area was complete. Apartment buildings and single unit homes developed by middle-class African Americans surrounded the subject property on 20th Street, a district that quickly spread west to 18th Street and east to 22nd Street. Several prominent African American community members built their homes in the immediate vicinity of the subject property including Santa Monica’s first Black Mayor, Hillard Lawson, businessman and activist Silas C. White, Santa Monica College’s first Black Professor Alfred Quinn, and many others. Study of this area as a potential historic district should be considered in the future.
1921 20th Street, Simon and Anna Unfried
On July 6, 1905, Anna Lyllian Gross, a young lady of 22 years, purchased three acres which comprised the north 366 feet of the 625-foot-wide lot 1 in block 24 of the Erkenbrecher Santa Monica Tract, directly from the subdividers for an undisclosed amount. The parcel was 305- feet-deep, extending from 20th to 21st Street at the east corner of Delaware Avenue.7 On October 11, 1905, Miss Gross, born in Iowa to German immigrants, married carpenter Simeon “Simon” “Sam” Unfried, a 27-year-old native of Germany who emigrated to the United States with his family at the age of five. During the first year of their marriage, the Unfried’s lived with Simon’s parents in Los Angeles. By 1907, they were living in Santa Monica on Anna’s parcel on 20th Street near Towner (Delaware) Avenue. No records were found to indicate the physical nature of their first dwelling. In 1908, when the city embarked on a citywide address re-numbering project in order to facilitate mail delivery, the Unfried home was given the address 1921 20th Street, the location of the subject property. The Unfried’s appeared in Fillmore, Ventura County in 1910, by which time they had added Calvin Unfried (1907-1922) and Edward Simon Hap Unfried (1909-1967) to their ranks. Simon, still a carpenter, was working for a building contractor. They returned Santa Monica in September 1911, but whatever manner of cottage they had been living in at 1921 20th Street was no longer suitable. Instead, they found quarters on 23rd Street where a meeting of 35 members of the Fairview Heights Improvement Association doubled as a housewarming party to welcome the Unfried’s back to the neighborhood. Fourteen months later, on December 17, 1912, Simon Unfried pulled a permit to build a residence and garage at 20th and Delaware Avenue at a cost of $2000, and several months after that, the Unfried’s were happily ensconced there, at 1921 20th Street, the subject property, and third son Frederick Harold Unfried (1913-2003) was born.8 They advertised for a renter or buyer for 1921 20th Street in 1916 but didn’t find one until 1918. That year, the 7 Woollacott to Gross, Los Angeles County Deed Records, Book 2553-165, July 6, 1905, www.familysearch.com 8 Unfried-Gross, Los Angeles Herald, October 12, 1905, Simeon Unfried, Los Angeles City Directory, 1906, www.ancestry.com, Simon Sam Unfried, Santa Monica City Directory, 1907, Santa Monica Public Library, Santa Monica Collection, Sam Unfried, Index to Register of Voters, Santa Monica California, 1908, www.ancestry.com, Simon Unfried, United States Census, Fillmore Township, Ventura County, California, 1910 www.ancestry.com, Fairview People Hold a Meeting, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, September 8, 1911

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1410 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 8
Unfried’s lived at 1905 Pico Boulevard, the home of Anna’s parents, and J.B. Brannagan occupied 1921 20th Street. The Unfried’s returned to the subject property in 1919 in time for fourth son Chester Leonard Unfried (1919-1984) to be born. In 1920, it appears they sold 1921 20th Street to Dr. Edward B. Jones, a new arrival to Santa Monica from Oroville, California.

Jones lived there for two years, during which time he planned and built a home in Brentwood.9 Jones sold the subject property at 1921 20th Street to H.L. Baird in 1923.

Unfried Hall
In August 1920, the Unfried’s became retailers, holding a grand opening of a grocery at 1928 22nd near Virginia Avenue, where they also lived temporarily while they built a shop and residence on their property at the corner of Delaware and 20th Street, adjacent to the subject property. In 1922 the Unfried’s moved the store and their home to their new structures at 1901 20th Street and 2018 Delaware, respectively. Simon went back to work as a carpenter and Anna took charge of the market.10 In 1927, things were going well and the Unfried’s pulled a permit to construct a 100- by 60-foot, two-story brick commercial building at a cost of $15,000. It held four retail spaces on the ground floor, and the upstairs was comprised of an apartment, and a banquet hall. Simon Unfried was listed as the architect and the contractor. Their fifth and final son, Alvin Unfried (1928-2002) was born during this busy period. The nearest brick commercial building to Unfried Hall was one W.I. Irwin had built on 14th Street in 1904, so the people of Fairview Heights enthusiastically welcomed this new addition to the area which was soon tenanted by a grocery, dry-goods store, and a butcher. The meeting space a became known as Unfried Hall and became a lively hub of community activity. The Fairview Heights Improvement Association, long wishing for a clubhouse, was the first group to use the hall which they declared would be their headquarters for meetings and social events. In November a grand opening reception, with music and dancing was held. The Unfried’s soon moved into the apartment upstairs next to the hall and rented out the house on Delaware. Their bread and butter, the diversely used hall, was rented for fundraising events and charitable causes, it hosted candidates’ forums, Douglas Aircraft employee dances, veterans’ reunions, community Christmas parties, and regular events of the Fairview Heights Association. But in 1931, with the pressures of the Great Depression bearing down, the Unfried’s bottom line was in the red. Two of their four shops were vacant and the other two were a dry goods store and a 9 J.B. Brannagan, Santa Monica Directory, 1918, www.ancestry.com, Simon Unfried, Draft Card, 1918, www.ancestry.com, Simon Unfried, Santa Monica Directory, 1919, www.ancestry.com, Unfried to Jones, Los Angeles County Deed Records, (untitled), Oroville Daily Register, Oroville, California, October 22, 1920, Costly Residences Being Built in Westgate, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California August 14, 1922 10 Opening New Unfried Store Saturday Evening, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, August 2, 1920, Building Permit B9086 (3), 1901 20th Street, Store and Garage, City of Santa Monica Permit Data Archive, May 19, 1922, Building Permit B9677, 1903 20th Street, Store and Garage, City of Santa Monica Permit Data Archive, August 22, 1922, Building Permit B313 (4), 2018 Delaware Avenue, Dwelling and Garage, City of Santa Monica Permit Data Archive, November 17, 1922

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1411 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 9
grocery now operated by Anna’s sister Lena Gross. In the hall, the Fairview Heights Full Gospel Church was their only client. By 1932, they were in foreclosure.11 It came to light that the public dances hosted there were not permitted according to a city ordinance that restricted where in the city dance halls were allowed to operate. In 1931, the police shut them down. In 1922, the City of Santa Monica had supported efforts of the racist Santa Monica Protective League to shut down a successful Black-owned jazz club on 3rd Street in the Belmar Neighborhood. They did it by passing a law that allowed dancing only in downtown Santa Monica west of 2nd Street, an area where realtors in cahoots with the Protective League would not allow any property to be rented, sold or occupied by any non-Caucasian. A decade later, the arbitrary rule that prevented community members from gathering in their own neighborhoods, proved to be harmful to business owners of all stripes.

Lucia Gatti who owned Gatti Hall at 17th Street and Olympic Boulevard and another hall at 20th and Olympic, and Merl DeCoux who operated the Nity-Nite Club on Pico Boulevard near Main Street joined Anna Unfried in a plea to City Council to amend the restrictive ordinance.

The issue dragged on for a year or more. In 1933, Unfried Hall was still dark except for the Gospel Church on Sundays. Anna continued to push for repeal of the restrictive dancing ordinance. The Unfried’s had already foreclosed on the property, but in 1933, they had one final chance to redeem it from receivership if they could just reopen Unfried Hall. She had a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission in hand. But only City Council could repeal it. City Council was unswayed. After years of careful planning, leveraging of a small piece of land, and lots of hard work, Simon and Anna Unfried were able to benefit from a commercial hub she and her husband built in Fairview Heights as it transitioned from a rural district of farms and orchards to a vibrant residential neighborhood. The ill-intentioned no-dancing provision did not anticipate that harming the economic well-being of some harms the economic well-being of all. The Unfried’s moved or Oroville, California to begin again.12 Simon and Anna Unfried were pioneering figures in the growth and development of the Fairview Heights section of Santa Monica. The subject property is the only one of their structures that remains extant, representing the contribution the Unfried’s made to the development of Fairview Heights and other events significant to the history of Santa Monica. 11 Building Permit B2357 (3), 2018 Delaware Avenue, Dwelling and Garage, City of Santa Monica Permit Data Archive, April 6, 1927, Rabbit Dinner Will Be Served in Unfried Hall, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, November 21, 1927, ˆ Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, November 28, 1931, Notice of Trustee’s Sale, T.O. No.18558-VO, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, August 26, 1932
12 Dance Hall Permit Case Referred Back to Mayor, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, November 14, 1932, Repeal Asked on Dance Ban, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, September 9, 1933, Reopening of Dance Hall Urged by Planning Board, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, September 13, 1933, Resident will Protest Dancing in Unfried Hall, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, September 16, 1933

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1412 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 10
Calvary Baptist Church
Ironically, the racist ordinance designed to curtail Black entrepreneurship and social gatherings created an opportunity for the Calvary Baptist Church. Santa Monica’s Calvary Baptist Church was organized in the home of a community member in July 1920 and held its first service on August 8, 1920, at 1531 6th Street, an old wooden church that had most recently been home to a Seventh Day Adventist congregation. The location, between Broadway and Colorado Avenue in Santa Monica’s downtown, was convenient to Santa Monica’s earliest Black neighborhood.

The church purchased the property for $4000, and immediately began fundraising to retire the debt. On Sunday August 26, 1923, the mortgage was paid off and a full day of events in celebration was well attended. It was an auspicious start for the new organization.13 On March 10, 1933, the Long Beach Earthquake shook Southern California to its core and the 6th Street church, one of its many casualties, was no longer safe. While repairs were underway, the congregation participated in numerous large events in partnership with other Black churches in rented venues including the Municipal Auditorium, the Criterion Theater, other churches, the hall at 20th and Olympic Boulevard, and Unfried Hall. The 6th Street structure was repaired but by this time the congregation had outgrown it. More importantly, there was a growing Black community in Santa Monica on the east side of town, and a Baptist Church was needed there.

Beginning in 1933, just as Anna Unfried lost the fight to keep her building, numerous Black clubs and social organizations began using Unfried Hall on a regular basis. It’s unclear who was managing the property during this period. On May 5, 1936, a small, boxed advertisement in the Santa Monica Outlook announced that Calvary Baptist Church was now located at 20th and Delaware. They had certainly purchased the building by then and may have controlled it since 1933.14 The church gutted the second floor, removing the apartments, in order to enlarge the hall to contain its fast-growing congregation. The ground floor commercial spaces were rented, helping to support the church and pay the mortgage. In July 1939, Reverend Welford P. Carter was installed as pastor. A gifted fundraiser, Carter was able to pay off the mortgage two years later in 1941, and raise funds to purchase several more parcels at the corner of 20th Street and Broadway, where a much larger church was built in 1947 for the still-growing congregation.

Calvary Baptist Church retained ownership of the 6th Street site as well as the former Unfried Hall as income property.15
The 1950 census shows that more than 60% of residents in Fairview Heights between 18th and 22nd Streets and Michigan Avenue and Pico Boulevard were Black, and over 70% on 20th Street 13 Calvary Baptist Church of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, August 7, 1920, Negro Church Needs Money – Starts Debt Clearing Campaign, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, October 26, 1920, Will Hold Dedication Services, California Eagle, Los Angeles, California, August 24, 1923
14 Women Will Give Program, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, October 28, 1933, Calvary Baptist Church, advertisement, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, May 5, 1936
15 101 Years, 08.2021, Our History, by Robert L. Leake, and updated by the Calvary Baptist Church Centennial Committee, downloaded January 19, 2022, www.calvarysm.org

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 11
in particular. In the 1960s, when the Santa Monica Freeway was constructed through the center of the city displacing hundreds of homes occupied largely by Mexicans and Black people, on and off ramps were planned for 20th Street. In 1963 and 1964, every parcel on 20th Street between Michigan and Pico Boulevard was required through condemnation to sell 8 feet from their front yards to the city in order to add lanes to that stretch of roadway. In 1964, when the city purchased frontage from Calvary Baptist Church’s parcel occupied by the brick commercial block built by Simon Unfried, it was determined that the building could not be moved so it had to be demolished in order to clear those eight feet for the widening of 20th Street, leaving the church with a vacant lot. In 1966, a portable building to host a Head Start Program was placed where Unfried Hall once stood. A childcare center operates there to the present day.16 Harvey Lewis Baird, 1921 20th Street
Harvey L. Baird (1887-1963) purchased the subject property in 1923. Baird was born in Evansville, Indiana to Emma Harvey and Lewis Baird. Lewis passed away when Harvey was just two years old. He was raised as an only child by his widowed mother in the home of an uncle in Indiana. In 1904, mother and son moved to 2551 Third Street in Santa Monica, near the home of Emma’s sister.17 In 1917, Baird served with the National Guard’s California Coast Artillery at Fort MacArthur, which exempted him from the draft during WWI. His day job was as an auditor for the Nevada Motion Picture Company in Pasadena. At that time, he and his mother were living in Los Angeles. He married Mary R. Smith in 1919. Their first home together was in Hermosa Beach, but they soon moved to 2628 Third Street in Santa Monica. They purchased the subject property the following year, and raised two children, Barbara and William. Baird now worked as a bank cashier.18 During the Great Depression, Harvey Baird ran a community depot that distributed the products of a New Deal Civil Works Administration (CWA) canning kitchen and sewing room. He was also Commander of the Veteran’s Service League, an advocacy group for veterans that raised money and collected canned goods for the needy.

Under his leadership, they established a clubhouse at 1415 14th Street. By 1940, Harvey and Mary Baird had separated and were ultimately divorced. At first, Mary remained at 1921 20th Street, and Harvey decamped to Topanga, though he still worked in Santa Monica at Douglas Aircraft. In 1942, the subject property at 1921 20th Street was sold to Mrs. Handsome 16 Santa Monica’s Calvary To Burn Mortgage Sunday, California Eagle, Los Angeles, California, November 5, 1964, Application for Conditional Use Permit F89189, 1901 20th Street, Santa Monica Building Permit Archives, November 3, 1966 17 Death Claims Emma Baird, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, May 18, 1933, Harvey L. Baird, Index to Register of Voters, Santa Monica, California, 1908, www.ancestry.com 18 Harvey L. Baird, Draft Card, WWI, June 1917, www.ancestry.com, Harvey L. Baird and Mary R. Smith, Los Angeles County Marriage Records, March 17, 1919, www.ancestry.com, Harvey L. Baird, United States Census, Hermosa Beach, California 1920, www.ancestry.com, Prize Winners, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, November 22, 1922, Harvey L. Baird, United States Census, Santa Monica, California 1930, www.ancestry.com, Announcements, Evening Vanguard, Venice, California, May 18, 1933,

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 12
Anderson. By 1950, Harvey Baird had retired and was living at 711 Hill Street. He passed away in 1963.19 Harvey Lewis Baird does not appear to be a person of historic significance.

Handsome Anderson, 1921 20th Street
Handsome Anderson (1903-1988) born in Mossville, Louisiana was one of the eight children of Elerson and Lonia Perkins. In 1924, she married Harry Harris and had a son, Robert Emery Harris (1925-1999). In 1927, she married Hezekiah Anderson in Jefferson, Texas, and had Maebelle (1930-2011), and Jerry (born 1939). Hezekiah had a child, Herman (1919-1945), from a previous marriage. Hezekiah Anderson died of heart disease in 1941.20 Handsome packed up the children and went to stay with her older sister Frances Celestin in Venice, California and began looking for a home for her family. She soon found the subject property at 1921 20th Street for sale and purchased it from Harvey Baird for $2100. Her sister moved to 1948 20th Street around the same time.21 In 1947, Handsome married William L. Otis, a Mississippi native, who joined the family living at 1921 20th Street. Soon after Otis moved in a number of improvements were made to the property, including plumbing and electrical repairs to the main house, and the addition of a garage and accessory dwelling unit in the backyard.

Handsome’s daughter Maebelle married Bertrand Staggers and moved into the backhouse for a short time. Handsome Anderson died in 1988 and was buried in Woodlawn Cemetery.

Handsome Anderson does not appear to be a person of historic significance.

In 1989, Anderson’s estate cleared probate and 1921 20th Street was offered for sale for $425,000. It was purchased by Joaquin Conigundo Lagos and Lydia Tapie Lagos for an unknown amount. They lived there until they had both passed, the former in 1999 and the latter in 2016.

The Lagos estate sold the property in 2024.
19 Depot Well Stocked, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, March 31, 1934, Vet’s League in New Home, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, March 31, 1934, Dance Ends in Pitched Fight, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, September 3, 1935 M.R. Baird, Santa Monica City Directory, 1940, www.ancestry.com, Harvey L. Baird, Draft Card, WWII, April 1942, www.ancestry.com 20 Elison Perkins, United States Census, Calcasieu County, Louisiana, 1910, www.ancestry.com, Elison Perkins, United States Census, Calcasieu County, Louisiana, 1920, www.ancestry.com, Hezekiah Anderson, United States Census, Calcasieu County, Louisiana, 1930, www.ancestry.com, Hezekiah Anderson, United States Census, Beaumont Texas, 1940, www.ancestry.com, Hezekiah Anderson, Death Certificate, Jefferson County, Texas, June 26, 1941, www.ancestry.com
21 (untitled), California Eagle, Los Angeles, California, August 28, 1941, Bruce Staggers, grandson of Handsome Anderson, Email Correspondence, January 9, 2024, Robert Emery Harris, Draft Card, WWII, April 1942, www.ancestry.com, (untitled), California Eagle, Los Angeles, California, September 13, 1945,

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 13
Integrity Analysis
Location
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. The subject property has not moved from its present location since it was constructed. Therefore, it has a high degree of integrity of location.

Design
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. As a result of the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, the posts supporting the front porch roof were repaired but the brick piers at their base were removed. An original board railing that is no longer extant may also have been removed at this time. No other alterations to the exterior of the subject property were recorded or observed. The subject property has a very high degree of integrity of design.

Setting
Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. 1921 20th Street was the first house on its block when it was built in 1913, so inevitably its setting is altered by the appearance of the built-out environment surrounding it. However, it was not designed to be surrounded by open land as adjacent development was anticipated, some of it realized by the builder himself.

At the time of its construction, the subject property enjoyed eight additional feet of front yard area, which was taken away by the city through condemnation in order to widen 20th Street.

While these changes are part of the historic context of the property and contribute to our understanding of its significance relative to the history of the City of Santa Monica, they are nonetheless alterations. Therefore, the subject property has a moderate degree of integrity of setting.

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. No materials on the exterior of the subject property have been replaced with non-original materials. The subject property has a very high degree of integrity of materials.

Workmanship
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. As noted, the subject property has seen very little alteration of any kind since the time of its construction leaving all the original workmanship intact. Therefore, 1921 20th Street has a high degree of integrity of workmanship. ______________________________________________________________________________

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 14
Feeling
Feeling is a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. The subject property retains nearly all of its original physical features and materials that, taken together, convey the property's historic character. Therefore, 1921 20th Street has a high degree of integrity of feeling.

Association
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. Because of the unaltered condition of the subject property, its design, materials, and workmanship effectively convey its original appearance as Simon Unfried conceived it.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street has a high degree of integrity of association.

Summary of Significance
The residence at 1921 20th Street qualifies for Landmark designation as an exemplary example of a Craftsman Style Airplane Bungalow with a very high degree of architectural integrity that manifests many key features of the type, including a complex, low-pitched roof, flared wood cladding, windows, and doors, an irregular plan based on a core volume strategically embellished with additional volumes, a sleeping porch, a small glassy second story reminiscent of an airplane’s cockpit, exposed support beams above the front porch that extend to form a trellised port-cochere with a built-in planter box, and brick accents on the porch face, piers, fireplace, and chimney.
1921 20th Street is also significant for events associated with its builders, Simon and Anna Unfried who were pioneer residents of Fairview Heights. Of the three structures the Unfried’s left behind in Santa Monica, only the subject property at 1921 20th Street remains extant as a representation of their hard work, excellent planning, quality workmanship, and unfortunate departure from the City of Santa Monica. They completed the subject property in 1913 and moved in with their family. Seven years later, they sold it to start a dry goods store nearby. In 1927, the Unfried’s built a 2-story brick business block at a cost of $15,000, which included 4 ground floor shops, and on the second floor a banquet room called Unfried Hall and an apartment, a pioneering commercial block in Fairview Heights.

In 1932, the police unexpectedly shut down the hall because it was revealed that its use was a violation of the city’s zoning ordinance which didn’t allow dance halls in that part of the city. In 1922, the City of Santa Monica had supported efforts of the racist Santa Monica Protective League to shut down a successful Black-owned jazz club by passing a restrictive no-dancing law.

The ill-intentioned provision did not anticipate that harming the economic well-being of some harms the economic well-being of all. Anna Unfried led a group of other neighborhood-based

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1417 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 15
banquet room owners in a 2-year battle with the city to save her hall from foreclosure. These events in the lives of the Unfried’s that began with the construction of the subject property, are significant in the history of Santa Monica as a tangible manifestation of the far-reaching negative impacts of systemic racism. Unfried Hall was ultimately purchased by the Calvary Baptist Church, which conducted its Sunday services upstairs and rented the ground floor retail spaces to black-owned businesses, which thrived for thirty years. Unfried Hall’s final chapter occurred when the City of Santa Monica demolished it to complete a freeway-related roadway project.

Application of Santa Monica Landmark Designation Findings

1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

The subject property qualifies for landmark designation under this criterion. 1921 20th Street is significant for events associated with its builders, Simon and Anna Unfried who were pioneer residents of Fairview Heights (the Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract between 18th and 22nd Streets). Of the three structures the Unfried’s left behind in Santa Monica, only the subject property at 1921 20th Street remains extant as a representation of their hard work, planning, quality workmanship, and unfortunate departure from the City of Santa Monica. Simon and Anna Unfried invested in high quality structures that were at the physical center of life in Fairview Heights, and were charter members of the Fairview Heights Improvement Association, which was Santa Monica’s first neighborhood organization. They completed the subject property in 1913 and moved in with their family. Seven years later, they sold it to start a dry goods store nearby while they built a store on their own property at 1901 20th Street, and a residence at 2018 Delaware Avenue, which were completed in 1922. In 1927, the Unfried’s replaced their small store with a 2-story brick business block at a cost of $15,000, which included 4 ground floor shops, and on the second floor a banquet room called Unfried Hall and an apartment. It was a pioneering commercial block in Fairview Heights.

In 1932, the police unexpectedly shut down the hall because it was revealed that its use was a violation of the city’s zoning ordinance which didn’t allow dance halls. In 1922, the City of Santa Monica had supported efforts of the racist Santa Monica Protective League to shut down a successful Black-owned jazz club by passing a restrictive no-dancing law. The ill-intentioned provision did not anticipate that harming the economic well-being of some harms the economic well-being of all. Anna Unfried led a group of other neighborhood-based banquet room owners in a 2-year battle with the city to save her hall from foreclosure. She failed to achieve her goal.

These events in the lives of the Unfried’s that began with the construction of the subject property, are significant in the history of Santa Monica as a tangible manifestation of the far-reaching negative impacts of systemic racism. Ultimately, Unfried Hall was purchased by the Calvary Baptist Church, which conducted its Sunday services upstairs and rented the ground ______________________________________________________________________________

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1418 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 16
floor retail spaces to black-owned businesses, which, once the Great Depression passed, thrived for thirty years. A vibrant middle-class African American neighborhood grew up around the former Unfried Hall, a triumph for the resilient community that was able to rise above a system designed to hold it back. Unfried Hall’s final chapter occurred when the City of Santa Monica demolished it to complete a freeway-related roadway project.

2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject property does not appear to qualify for designation under this criterion.

3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

The subject property does not appear to qualify for landmark designation under this criterion.

The subject property qualifies for landmarks designation under this criterion for Landmark designation as an exemplary example of a Craftsman Style Airplane Bungalow. Its irregular plan, based on a core volume strategically embellished with additional volumes that provide practical amenities on the inside and visual interest and articulation on the outside, is a typical feature of the style. Sleeping porches such as the one at 1921 20th Street, that provide an abundant flow of fresh air through numerous operable windows, were widely popular in Craftsman bungalows as a result in a surge of interest in sanitary living in the early 20th Century. The glassy appearance of small second stories on Craftsman Bungalows such as the second story on the subject property, led the homes to be referred to as Airplane Bungalows referencing their similarity to cockpits of airplanes. Aviation, fast developing from a novelty to an industry, was a topic of extreme interest in the early 20th century. The manner in which the exposed support beams above the front porch extend to form a trellised port-cochere with a built-in planter box is another well executed example of a classic feature of the Craftsman style designed to harmonize the structure with the landscape. The use of textured brick for the porch face, piers, fireplace, and chimney was chosen over stone as a local material, locally fired for use in construction. The character defining features of 1921 20th Street include its irregular massing that flares slightly at the base, low-pitched roof forms with lattice filled gables, exposed rafter tails and support beams, wood lapped siding, wooden windows and doors, and brick fireplace and chimney. The second floor sleeping porch as well as the main entry porch on the first level with concrete floor and curved steps, its brick face, and pergola-like porte-cochere with brick piers and connecting planter are also character defining features of the subject property. The parcel itself is significant to the character and context of the structure, but the accessory

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1419 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation ______________________________________________________________________________ 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 17
structures in the rear were later additions that do not contribute to the architectural or cultural significance of 1921 20th Street.

5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

The subject property does not appear to qualify for designation under this criterion.

6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

The subject property does not appear to qualify for designation under this criterion.

Research by
Nina Fresco
January 2024
N.B. The images on the following pages do not include Sanborn Maps because they were never created for the area of the city east of 20th Street, which includes the location of the subject property on the east side of the street at 1921 20th Street.

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1420 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 18
Aerial view, August 1, 1927. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. Unfried Hall is in the lower left-hand corner of the blue rectangle. There is still significant undeveloped land in the area more than a decade after the subject property was contructed. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight c-113_28a)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1421 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 19
Aerial view, January 1, 1928. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. Unfried Hall is in the lower left-hand corner of the blue rectangle. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight c-300_j-262)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1422 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 20
Aerial view, March 31, 1937. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. Unfried Hall is in the lower left-hand corner of the blue rectangle. Development in the area is beginning to fill the open land. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight c-5084-6)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1423 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 21
Aerial view, October 6, 1940. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. Unfried Hall is in the lower left-hand corner of the blue rectangle. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight c-6630_5)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1424 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 22
Aerial view, May 6, 1941. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. Unfried Hall is in the lower left-hand corner of the blue rectangle. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight c-7083_7419)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1425 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 23
Aerial view, December 31, 1946. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. Unfried Hall is in the lower left-hand corner of the blue rectangle. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight gs-em_6-2)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1426 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 24
Aerial view, August 2, 1947. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. Unfried Hall is in the lower left-hand corner of the blue rectangle. These is still significant areas of undeveloped land in the east half of Fairview Heights but infill is intensifing. The brick yards in the upper left still linger. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight gs-em_6-2)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1427 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 25
Aerial view, November 3, 1952. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. Unfried Hall is in the lower left-hand corner of the blue rectangle. Large apartment buildings are appearing in east Fairview Heights, and the brick yards in the upper left are now developed with industrial buildings. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight axj-1952_3k-130)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1428 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation

12.B.e
Scenese s
Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation

BINATE CO

OUTTA FLES
Aerial view, July 1, 1956. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. Unfried Hall is in the lower left-hand corner of the blue rectangle. One last orchard lingers on 23rd Street. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight (-22555_16-16)
1921 20th Street - Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 26
Packet Pg. 1429
1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 27
Aerial view, May 12, 1960. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. Unfried Hall is in the lower left-hand corner of the blue rectangle. The last of the orchards east of 23rd Street has disappeared. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight c-23870_1293)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1430 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 28
Aerial view, September 23, 1968. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. Unfried Hall is no longer extant, the Santa Monica Freeway has caused the demolition of hudreds of homes and 20th Street is now widened, reducing the front setbacks of all the parcels along it. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight tg-2400_5-71)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1431 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 29
Aerial view, April 1, 1971. Subject property in magenta, original 3-acre parcel in blue. (Image: University of California Santa Barbara Air Photo Collection, flight ctg-2755_16-6)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1432 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation

12.B.e
19/2

CHANACTER D IMPERTMENTS

SHERE SITUATEN
Can we Sone
2000 = LAt V RUK 21 811-stt St room dwelling 1620 2:50 /7.00 0 Amanda dand I Smeth
Ru Thin 114 Marine It Store e room 1692
2o che Rel anare residencer pirage 1692 2.50
Simon Unfried duner " 17
48-#Sts toom residence 11623
800 = Loti9 Alk 7 Sla te Fract 2727-3°Sk 4 room residance 1624 1.50 W. a Conny *17
8500 = Lots veT Ocean Park Tract 118 Surf St apartment house 1695 9.50 Tary Herwood Chas Mattached
* PSchrfield Seegend Bras. 1900 = Lots Feet 198 424 Delland Ave sroom dwelling 1696 2.50 700 ° Lot I Plk 16s 1430/s -70h St 4 rom dwelling 1697 1.50 ї. W. Kiener Quner
250 ° Lot E Blk ,08 1222-17th Sty roon dwelling 1698 1.00 Julia Wardman Villeyman
50 % Lot IS Blk 185 1505 - th Strear garage 1699 1.00
John W. Parker Auner
Stineman + thamer 1200 " Late /31-/33 BlAy Creasent Bay Sy Ocean Front e Marine Si Fundatin 1700. 2.50 32.00 3000' Let 19 BlA Z Palenda "3 0.50
Lee witt Creveling luner
1600 = 1837- 7th St 6 rem reedence 1702 2.50
Cluner
He Shipman 9. Ye. Selmon 6o0- Lot 33 Rik & Sentral Reach → 147 Fraw Que garage 1703 1.50 Ida M. MeNwald mabel 50% LotT 021k 2 Arcadia 7 650 Grant Que raising building 1704 1-00 +00 = Lotz Elk : Crescent Ray ze 134/2 Mency Warehone - 1705 1.0 - Ed gripp
100 = Lotos Alk B 8.77. rack 2937 Main it More room: ThEy 1706 1-00 Chillipe + Martin w. ™w. Clawere

76. Kee 3000°= Let Lat9 Palk IL Paliender a it rear alta reidence 1707 350 2→ Babyshell
Let ur BIk +2 907 - 4 t sr speire 1708 /.00 15.00
gie. allen
Mre fohmeon }.N. Me Alonen 100" Lat te Relk 21 827-5 ch sr Addilion in Garage 1709 / oc nee Daiey Careon Q. griffin 200°° Let 3 Annex 702 1507 Berkley it 3 room rec. 1710 1-0 ° v. їх. Дамопро? Auner 200 = dat C Blk/35 1312 - 15X St 2 room recidence 1711 1.00 Mrs Hatti L. dindan 12000- Lots Olk 1o Peplat of the Bey len- 13o Cer Que / Añer 20 roome 17/2 11.50 Cheerig Aldge Really o
P. B. Lamb 2. Beck 6o0 " Lot 4 Blk 42 6. S. M. Lract 1417 - Maple St y rom residence 1713 1.50

7. goldemith Le. N. Willeame 1, 100 % Late 8410 Ray Yew Tract 121-123 Per Ave Haal+ 18 rosme 1717 11.50 H. N. Webt NN Webt 500 ° Late Er 7 Alk 141 rear 1324128-94St Barn 1715 1. 00 shhe
S. K. Noel Acme Urnamentalo ton 295 - Lot In calk 95 409 Nevada Aue Fire Escapec 17/6 Loo 23.50 alkert Engebhardt Cluner "50 " Lat & Rlk 139 1320 - 11th at rear cara 1717 1-00 duner 200 ° Lot 7 Alk 196 1628 - 4.11 Ir Garage 17/8 1.0" C.V. Yeaton
Vice Le. 7. Complon 7. a. Brode 500° 420 Central Que 3 com rudence 1719 1.00 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation Res. & Charles *50% Sot3 Alk In Santa Fe Fact cog Cherry et Repaire 1720 Veny Gregary Cumer 150°2 Lat 21 Ocean Wave tract 198 Grand ave garage 172/ du Bandini 250" LotX Blk 190 1501 - 90k Stet garage 1722 1.00 « 13 200 " ast 18 Elk R S. in. Com Cis In 2504 Main at Addition, Alterin 1723) Lee P clinger gw. Edinger
Chappe Runer • 14 800 c Let24 Blk + 2. A. Ileid out 1724 1.50 122 Pacific St rear 4 tom res.

December 17, 1912, a building permit for the subject proerty (outlined in magenta) was issued to owner/contractor Simon Unfried for a $2000 residence and garage at 20th and Delaware, lot 1, block 24 Erkenbrecher Syndicate Santa Monica Tract. (Source: City of Santa Monica Building Permit Ledger)
1921 20th Street - Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 30
Packet Pg. 1433
1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 31
In 1948, permits were issued for a construction of a rear accesory dwelling, repair of the garage, and plumbing a electrical work in the new structure as well as the subject property. (Source: City of Santa Monica Public Portal)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1434 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation

12.B.e
For Dept. Use Only APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT

BUILDING DEPARTMENT, CITY OF SANTA MONICA
No B 9522
This Application Must Be Filled Out In Ink
Date 7-2 LasS/
NOTE THIS IS NOT A BUILDING PERMIT. DO NOT START WORK
BEFORE PLANS ARE APPROVED, AND PERMIT IS ISSUED.
430
Fee, $ th
LOCATION: Address / 921 - 20 SA
7704
Lot: / Block 24 Tract Erle. Synd. Size of Lot 56 x. 1.50 Firo Zone No.

List Existing Buildings On Lot Rea ...How Used.

Type of Construction:™
Type 1-Fire Resistive O Type 2-Heavy Timber Type 3-Ordinary Masonry . Type 4-Metal Frame Type 5-Wood Frame D Nature of Work:

Construction A Balacement O Alteration 9 Conversion Repair O Occupancy Group:

Specific Use of Building Jarage. No. of Roams..... :.No of Families.

Material: Exterior Walls siding ....First Floor loists. X... Second Floor Jolsta Number of Stories Height to Highest Point... " Rool Material Confe size Width. Soft, by Length. 19 .ft.; Total Floor Area. it!
Including Plumbing, Gas Fitting, 600
VALUATTON OF PROPOSED BLDG. Sowers, Cesspools,
Painting, Finishing, all Labor, etc.

Owner William i R. Otis Address: 1921=20% St
contractor Groves Builder. State License No.

City License No.

Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation Address..: Phone No.
architect.: ...State License No.:.

Address...: Phone No..

NOTE The granting of a Building Permit does not grant any right or privilege to: (I) Erect any building and/or structure or any portion thereof, upon any street, alley, or other public place or portion thereof; or (2) Use any building and/or structure or any portion thereof, for any purpose that is, or may be prohibited by ordinance of the City of Santa Monica.

The granting of a Building Permit does not affect or prejudice any claim of title to; or right of possession in, the prop eity described in such Permit.

I have read the above application and know the contents thereof; the same is true and correct. I further state that I am famitar with the laws governing building within the City of Santa Monica and State of California, and amendments thereto, and that the above building and/or structure will be built in conformity therewith Approves evetud - Date 12/51 Applicant

NOTE NO PLANS HE FLED, SHOW LOT AND BULDING STE PLAN AND WINDOW SIZES ON OTHED SIDE

I ON ZONING DEPARTNEN USE ON F
Distance Curb to Property Line....

Minimum Distance: Property Line to Bidg. Line (15 ). Map Sheet No. 2 (Minimum Side Yard Width. * Upe Classification
Minimum Rear Yard Depth.....

Minimum Depth Off-street Loading..

Minimum Distance between Buildings.... (10) =
Intended use of new construction or alteration gara
Plans Checked and Use Approved Lite Date 7-13 51
In 1951, a new garage was constructed at the rear of the parcel. (Source: City of Santa Monica Public Portal) 1921 20th Street - Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 32
Packet Pg. 1435
1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 33
The only other permits on record for 1921 20th Street were for plumbing repairs. A 1994 assessment after the Northridge Earthquake found the structure of the subject property sound except for the porch posts, which were leaning. (Source: City of Santa Monica Public Portal)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1436 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 34
1920, the Unfried family stand on the front porch of 1921 20th Street. Left to right is Aunt Mary, Simon, Edward, Calvin, Frederick, Anna, and Chester, in arms. In this image, The integrity of the proch is confirmed and the the original railing and missing brick piers lost to the 1994 Northridge Earthquake are well documented. (Photo Courtesy of Laura Unfried Ross, great Granddaughter of Simon and Anna Unfried)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1437 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 35
1921 20th Street - primary facade, street views, looking southeast (photos: NF, winter 2023-2024)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1438 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 36
1921 20th Street - primary facade, street view including sidewalk, looking east (photo: NF, winter 2023-2024)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1439 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 37
1921 20th Street - primary facade, porch steps, a gap in the concrete steps at the foot of each porch post indicates the location and size of the lost brick piers. top: looking north, bottom: looking east. (photos: NF, winter 2023-2024)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1440 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 38
1921 20th Street - views of pergola-style porte-cochere and brick planter box, (photos: NF, winter 2023-2024)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1441 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 39
1921 20th Street - views of southeast elevation, top: kitchen door with half-wall and steps, bottom left: pathway to kitchen door, bottom right,: windows of utility porch just visible through fencing. (photos: NF, winter 2023-2024)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1442 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 40
1921 20th Street - views of rear (northeast) elevation, looking southwest. (photos: NF, winter 2023-2024)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1443 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 41
1921 20th Street - views of northwest elevation, top left: looking southwest down driveway towards street, top right: looking south, seams where rear (north) corner was filled are visible, bottom left: rear portion of northwest facade looking southeast, a shed roof over the projecting volume is tucked under the eaves of the main roof, a sliver of the fireplace is visible at right, bottom right: view of fireplace and chimney looking east. (photos: NF, winter 2023-2024)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1444 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation 1921 20th Street – Unfried House January 2024
Landmark Designation Application page 42
1921 20th Street - top: interior view dining room and living room looking northwest, front door at left, bottom: view of street from inside second floor sleeping porch looking southwest. (photos: NF, winter 2023-2024)

12.B.e
Packet Pg. 1445 Attachment: 26ENT-0089 (1921 20th St) LM Application (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation City of
Santa Monica
Planning and Community Development Department
City Planning Division
(310) 458-8341

APPEAL FORM
(Please Type or Print all Information)
Application Number Filed:

By:

APPELLANT NAME: J a c k H i l l b r a n d
APPELLANT ADDRESS: 1323 18 th S t r e e t , U n i t D , S a n t a M o n i c a , C A 9 0 4 0 4
CONTACT PERSON: J a c k H i l l b r a n d
Phone: 415 - 710 - 4702
(all correspondence will be mailed to this address)
Address: 1323 18 th S t r e e t , U n i t D ,
S a n t a M o n i c a , C A 9 0 4 0 4
PROJECT CASE NUMBER(S) : 26ENT-0089
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1921 20th Street
APPLICANT: Santa Monica Conservancy
ORIGINAL HEARING DATE: September 14, 2026
ACTION BEING APPEALED: Denial of Landmark Designation of 1921 20th Street 26ENT-0218
9/22/26
Jack Hillbrand

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1446 Attachment: 20thSt1921-Appeal-Request-Form (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for 1921 Please state the specific reason(s) for the appeal (use separate sheet if necessary):

Is the appeal related to the discretionary action and findings issued for the proposed project? Yes No If yes, explain:

See Attachment
.

Is the appeal related to the conditions of approval? Yes No If yes, which conditions and why:

See Attachment
Is the appeal related to design issues? Yes No If yes, explain Is the appeal related to compatibility issues such as building height, massing, pedestrian orientation, etc.? Yes No If yes, explain:

Is the appeal related to non-compliance with the Santa Monica Municipal Code? Yes No
If yes, which Code section(s) does the project not comply with and why:

Is the appeal related to environmental impacts associated with the project? Yes No If yes, explain:

See Attachment
Is the appeal related to other issues? Yes No If yes, explain:

See Attachment
APPELLANT SIGNATURE:

NOTE: A hearing date on the appeal will not be scheduled until sufficient information regarding the basis for the appeal has been received to enable City Planning Division staff to prepare the required analysis for the staff report.

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1447 Attachment: 20thSt1921-Appeal-Request-Form (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for 1921 1 CITY OF SANTA MONICA

LANDMARKS COMMISSION APPEAL
Landmark Designation Application 26ENT-0089
1921 20th Street — City Council Appeal
Appellant: Commissioner Jack Hillbrand, Architect
AIA, NCARB, LEED, CA.gov SME
Santa Monica Landmarks Commission
I. Procedural Basis and Standing
The decision of the Landmarks Commission to deny designation of 1921 20th Street as a City Landmark is subject to appeal to the City Council under SMMC §9.56.180 within ten days of the Commission's action.

This appeal is filed because the Commission's denial is not supported by the substantial evidence in the record, contradicts the findings of the city-retained expert consultant, misapplied and in part ignored National Park Service guidance upon which professional consistency in the field of Historic Preservation relies[1].

II. Summary of the Appeal

III. Grounds for Appeal
Ground 1: The Commission Failed to Give Adequate Weight to the City-Retained Expert's Findings
The City of Santa Monica retained HRG to conduct a Historic Resource Assessment precisely because professional expertise is required to evaluate eligibility, and because the City does not have a Qualified Historian or Architectural Historian on staff. The 2018 Historic Resources Inventory had independently and previously identified the property as appearing eligible for Landmark designation, citing its Craftsman architecture, distinctive characteristics, and significance for representing early patterns of residential development in the Pico neighborhood. HRG’s assessment confirmed and expanded on that finding, concluding that the property is eligible under Criteria 1, 2, and 4, and that it retains integrity of

STATEMENT OF APPEAL
The city retained Historic Resources Group (HRG) — a qualified professional preservation consulting firm under the Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61 — specifically to assess whether 1921 20th Street meets the criteria for Landmark designation. HRG's architectural historian concluded that it meets Criteria 1, 2, and 4. The 2018 Historic Resources Inventory had already identified the property as potentially eligible for Landmark designation. The Santa Monica Conservancy filed a thorough, documented nomination. The Commission nonetheless denied designation, relying on staff analysis that contradicts established preservation standards, dismisses the qualified expert's findings without adequate documentation, and gives an appearance of partiality due to the strenuous efforts made to discredit the qualified professional findings — in contrast to the unbiased expert report prepared under federal professional standards[1].

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1448 Attachment: 20thSt1921-Appeal-Request-Form (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for 1921 2 location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Staff disagreed with every assertion of the consultant; this disagreement was based on opinion, not a substantive, impartial rebuttal supported by competing, qualified, professional analysis. Accepting staff’s non-expert opinion and conjectural assertions over two independent professional assessments is an inadequate basis for denial.

Ground 2: Staff's Integrity Analysis Misapplied and Ignored National Park Service Best Practice Guidelines

● Integrity, as defined by the National Park Service, refers to the authenticity of a property's historic identity — the presence of the physical characteristics that existed during its period of significance. ● Condition refers to the current state of repair of those materials. A building in poor condition can retain high integrity if its original fabric — however deteriorated — remains in place and unaltered.

Staff's conclusion that "rehabilitating the residence in a manner that would retain sufficient original materials in accordance with SOI Standards would be challenging where replacement of a majority of the materials is likely" is an improper speculative future projection of what might happen — and a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Thus, it is not an assessment of integrity according to professional standards and guidelines. Furthermore, according to the advice of the Santa Monica City Attorney’s Office, it is improper to consider the impacts of any future rehabilitation or project involving a historic resource as part of the nomination process. Proposed repairs or improvements can only be considered as part of the Certificate of Appropriateness review of submitted plans.
● Designation protects a resource so that rehabilitation can occur in accordance with SOI Standards.

The possibility that rehabilitation might be difficult is not a criterion for denial under SMMC §9.56.100. ● If it were, any neglected historic property could be denied designation precisely because its owner had failed to maintain it — a perverse incentive that undermines the entire purpose of the preservation ordinance.

Ground 3: Staff's Recommendation Distorted the Professional Record to Serve the Owner's Desired Outcome
The proper way for staff to have handled the owner's stated intention to demolish would have been to present it as what it was: an owner objection, appended to an accurate summary of the professional findings. Instead, staff's analysis recast the HRG report's conclusions, selectively emphasized the property's condition, and speculated about future rehabilitation project scoping and costs — not to provide an accurate factual record, but to arrive at a recommendation consistent with the owner's preference. The result was that the Commission deliberated on a distorted record rather than the actual evidence of significance.

This is the most technically significant error in the record. Staff concluded that the property has lost integrity of materials, workmanship, feeling, and association primarily because it is in poor condition due to deferred maintenance. This conflates two distinct concepts that the National Park Service explicitly treats separately[1]:

The Secretary of the Interior's Standards do not equate deferred maintenance with loss of integrity[2].

Deterioration of original materials is not the same as replacement or loss of those materials.

HRG — applying the SOI Standards according to professional guidance — reached the opposite conclusion: that the property retains integrity across six of the seven aspects[1][2]. The Commission's record does not contain a professional rebuttal to HRG's integrity analysis. It contains only staff's disagreement based on opinion and speculation about future work on the property.

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1449 Attachment: 20thSt1921-Appeal-Request-Form (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for 1921 3 Ground 4: The Commission's Analysis Under Criterion 1 Artificially Severs the Property's Association with the Early History of the Pico Neighborhood Staff's characterization of the subject property as a "remnant" of an "insignificant" earlier period inverts and ignores the events documented in the application and supported by HRG as significant. The low 25% build-out rate in the Erkenbrecher Tract was not a sign of neglect or a failed attempt at development, as one commissioner characterized it. It was the direct result of how the tract was originally platted. In 1904, the Erkenbrecher Syndicate deliberately subdivided the area east of 20th Street into large 5-acre farm lots for working-class and semi-rural residents — distinct from the standard 50×150 lots to the west — because it was not yet within the city limit at the time the tract was recorded. It was a coherent settlement pattern exemplified by the Unfrieds' efforts on the 3-acre parcel they purchased, and robust enough to produce Santa Monica's first neighborhood association, the Fairview Heights Improvement Association, which successfully won city services and street renamings still in use today (Delaware, Virginia, Kansas Avenues).

Furthermore, it was precisely because these large parcels remained intact for decades that they became the large multi-family lots staff credits as "the more significant period of growth." The subject property is not an insignificant leftover — it is physical evidence of the agrarian settlement pattern that made the later apartment boom possible. Dismissing it as a "remnant" erases the causal link between the two eras staff treats as unrelated.

Staff additionally argued that the later contributions of the Unfried family — their charter membership in the Fairview Heights Improvement Association, their construction of Unfried Hall, their experience with the city's racist anti-dancing ordinance, and their forced departure from Santa Monica — are "separate and apart from the history of the subject property" because those events occurred after the Unfrieds sold 1921 20th Street in 1920.

The subject property is the physical origin point of the Unfried family's presence in Fairview Heights on a three-acre parcel. Simon Unfried built it in 1913 as his family home; it was the household from which the family participated in the founding of Santa Monica's first neighborhood organization, and it is the only surviving physical remnant of the Unfrieds' later contributions to the development of Fairview Heights.

All of their subsequent buildings — the store, the Delaware house, Unfried Hall — have been demolished.

This structure alone remains to represent their story.

Ground 4: The Commission's Analysis Under Criterion 4 Is Internally Contradictory
Staff acknowledged that the Airplane Bungalow subtype "has always been a rare subtype in the city of Santa Monica" — a type documented in cities and towns across the United States — and that 315 10th Street, known as the Aeroplane Bungalow, is already a designated City Landmark. Staff then denied Criterion 4 eligibility on the grounds that 1921 20th Street is a "simple example" of this rare subtype.

This reasoning is contradictory. If the subtype is rare in Santa Monica, the rarity itself is a basis for Criterion 4 eligibility — "unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type." The The Criterion 1 standard asks whether the property "exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City." The Unfried story manifests: the early history of Santa Monica's working-class immigrant community; the founding of the city's first neighborhood improvement association; the impact of racially motivated municipal ordinances on community commerce; the establishment of a new segregated district in the city; and the resilience of Fairview Heights as a neighborhood. That story begins at 1921 20th Street. The Commission's denial under Criterion 1 was based on acceptance of an unsubstantiated rebuttal of the work of a professional historian qualified under the criteria of the National Park Service, and the well-documented history presented in the application.[1]

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1450 Attachment: 20thSt1921-Appeal-Request-Form (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for 1921 4 designation of 315 10th Street demonstrates that the city has already recognized the Aeroplane Bungalow as a type worthy of Landmark protection. The existence of one designated example does not foreclose designation of a second with different historical associations and typological features.

Furthermore, HRG's qualified architectural historian demonstrated that 1921 20th Street is not a "simple" example of the type — it is an excellent, essentially unaltered specimen exhibiting the type's defining characteristic features: the complex irregular plan, the sleeping porch producing the cockpit-like second story that gave the type its name, the porte-cochere with brick piers and planter box, the exposed structural elements, and the flared wood cladding[2]. The application materials and HRG's assessment document this in detail. Staff's characterization as a "simple subtype" is not supported by the physical evidence in the record. Evidence produced by the applicant at the public hearing — a plan book image of a Craftsman Airplane Bungalow — further indicates that characteristics of the subject property were representative of the subtype's typical variance, not a lesser expression of it.

IV. Requested Relief
The appellant respectfully requests that the City Council:
● Reverse the Landmarks Commission's denial of Designation Application 26ENT-0089 and designate the primary structure at 1921 20th Street as a City Landmark; ● Adopt findings consistent with the HRG Historic Resource Assessment under Landmark Criteria 1, 2, and 4; and
● Define and describe an associated Landmark Parcel as the primary residential structure and parcel at 1921 20th Street, excluding the non-contributing rear accessory structures.

Footnotes
[1]
36 CFR Part 61 — Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs. This regulation establishes the minimum professional qualification standards for historians, architectural historians, architects, and archaeologists performing work under federal historic preservation programs. HRG staff meet or exceed these standards. See Appendix A for the relevant qualification requirements. [2]
The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68) and the companion NPS guidance document How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NPS Bulletin 15) govern integrity assessment for historic resources. These standards distinguish condition from integrity and explicitly acknowledge that deteriorated materials may retain integrity of design, workmanship, and feeling. See Appendix B for the relevant excerpts.

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1451 Attachment: 20thSt1921-Appeal-Request-Form (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for 1921 5 APPENDIX A
36 CFR Part 61 — Professional Qualification Standards
The following minimum qualifications are established under the Code of Federal Regulations for professionals performing historic preservation work under federal programs. HRG's professional staff meet or exceed these criteria.

Historian
The minimum professional qualifications in history are a graduate degree in history or a closely related field; or a bachelor's degree in history or a closely related field plus one of the following:
● At least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, teaching, interpretation, or other demonstrable professional activity with an academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or
● Substantial contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of history.

Architectural Historian
The minimum professional qualifications in architectural history are a graduate degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation, or closely related field, with coursework in American architectural history; or a bachelor's degree in architectural history, art history, historic preservation, or closely related field plus one of the following:
● At least two years of full-time experience in research, writing, or teaching in American architectural history or restoration architecture with an academic institution, historical organization or agency, museum, or other professional institution; or
● Substantial contribution through research and publication to the body of scholarly knowledge in the field of American architectural history.

Architect
The minimum professional qualifications in architecture are a professional degree in architecture plus at least two years of full-time professional experience in architecture; or State licensure in architecture.

Source:
- 36 CFR Part 61 — Procedures for State, Tribal, and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs. - Appendix A — Minimum Professional Qualifications Standards.

APPENDIX B
National Park Service Guidance: Integrity vs. Condition Secretary of the Interior's Standards — Relevant Excerpts

1. Integrity Defined (NPS Bulletin 15)
Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance. The National Register recognizes seven aspects of integrity:
● Location — the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred.
● Design — the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property.
● Setting — the physical environment of a historic property. ● Materials — 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.

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1452 Attachment: 20thSt1921-Appeal-Request-Form (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for 1921 6 ● Workmanship — the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history.
● Feeling — a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. ● Association — the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

2. Integrity Is Not Condition
The NPS guidance is explicit that physical condition and historic integrity are distinct concepts that must be evaluated separately:
"To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects.

The loss of some historic fabric through deterioration, alteration or addition does not automatically mean that a property has lost its integrity… Integrity enables a property to illustrate its significance." Further, NPS Bulletin 15 cautions that evaluators should not confuse deterioration of original fabric with loss of integrity:
"Determining whether a property retains integrity requires considering the property as a whole, not just its condition. A deteriorated property may retain integrity if it retains the physical characteristics that existed during its period of significance, even if those characteristics are in poor repair."

3. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR Part 68) The Standards for Rehabilitation are the basis on which future work on a designated historic resource is evaluated. They are not a threshold test for designation eligibility. Specifically:
"The Standards (Department of Interior regulations, 36 CFR 67) define Rehabilitation as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values."
The Standards are applied to proposed work after designation — they do not govern whether a property is eligible for designation in the first instance. Speculating that rehabilitation might require replacement of materials is not a basis for denying designation; rather, designation is precisely the mechanism that ensures any future rehabilitation would be reviewed against the Standards, protecting the resource from inappropriate intervention.

4. Application to This Case
Staff's analysis concludes that the property has lost integrity of materials, workmanship, feeling, and association because it is in poor condition. This application is inconsistent with NPS guidance, which requires evaluators to assess whether the original physical characteristics are present — not whether they are in good repair.

The Unfried House retains its original wood clapboard siding, fenestration, roof form, exposed rafter tails, porte-cochere, brick chimney, and interior features essentially unaltered since 1913. The deterioration of those features due to deferred maintenance does not constitute their loss or replacement under NPS integrity standards. HRG's assessment, applying these standards correctly, found integrity across six of the seven aspects. Staff's contrary conclusion rests on a conflation of condition and integrity that NPS guidance explicitly prohibits.

Sources:
- NPS Bulletin 15 — How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation; - Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 68); - NPS Preservation Brief 17 — Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character.

12.B.f
Packet Pg. 1453 Attachment: 20thSt1921-Appeal-Request-Form (1) (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark Designation for 1921 1 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION

OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF

THE DESIGNATION OF A CITY LANDMARK

DENIAL OF THE DESIGNATION

OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE
LOCATED 1921 20th STREET

AS A CITY LANDMARK
SECTION I. T h e Santa Monica Conservancy filed a Landmark designation application with the City of Santa Monica (City). The City Council, having held a Public Hearing on September 14, 2026 hereby finds that the subject property located at 1921 20th Street does not meet one or more of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark as enumerated in SMMC 9.56.100 and denies the designation of the structure and property at 1921 20th Street as a City Landmark.

Landmark Criteria

9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 1.

9.56.100(A)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 2.

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1454 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0218) CC STOA [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 2 9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 3.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 4.

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.

There is no evidence that the primary structure on the property is connected to a notable builder, designer or architect.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 5.

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.

Therefore, 1921 20th Street does not meet Landmark Criterion 6.

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1455 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0218) CC STOA [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark 3 SECTION II. There is no possibility of significant effect pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.

SECTION III. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately reflect the final determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica on October 27, 2026 as determined by the following vote:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Each and all the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the decision. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.

NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the Landmark and Historic District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter

Respectfully Submitted
October 27, 2026
Caroline Torosis, Mayor
Attest:

Wolfred Solorzano, City Clerk

12.B.g
Packet Pg. 1456 Attachment: 1921 20th Street (26ENT-0218) CC STOA [Revision 1] (7946 : Appeal of the Landmarks Commission Denial of City Landmark City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 27, 2026
Agenda Item: 16.A
1 of 1
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Walfred Solorzano, City Clerk, Records and Election Services Department Subject: Request by Councilmember Raskin that the City Council consider allocating $10,000 from Councilmember Raskin’s discretionary fund allotment to support programming at the Santa Monica History Museum, including $7,000 for the Museum’s upcoming Route 66 exhibition and $3,000 for its Día de los Muertos programming in November. These programs aim to bring the community together to celebrate Santa Monica’s history and cultural traditions while attracting visitors to downtown Santa Monica. The funding will enable the Museum to expand its programming and further contribute to a vibrant, welcoming downtown, consistent with the goals of the City’s Realignment Plan
Prepared By: Esterlina Lugo, Deputy City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:

A. Approximate_Cultural_Event_Budget_Dia_de_Muertos-2-1 B. Route 66 exhibition budget Oct 2026
C. Discretionary Funds Tracking - budget adoption (9)

16.A
Packet Pg. 1457

APPROXIMATE CULTURAL EVENT BUDGET
Día de los Muertos Museum Event
# Expense Approximate Cost Budget Notes
1 Flowers and Altar Decorations $2,000 Major altar component; marigolds, arrangements, garlands, and decorative elements.
2 Candles and Altar Lighting $400 Candles and related altar supplies for the Día de los Muertos display.
3 Aztec Dance Performance $750 Honorarium/payment for the cultural dance group. $50 increase compared with last year's $700 cost (+7.14%).
4 Mariachi Performance $1,100 Payment for mariachi musicians. $100 increase compared with last year's $1,000 cost (+10%).
5 Student Performers – Dance, Play,
and Student Clubs
$500 Support for student dancers, theatrical performers, and participating student clubs.
6 Food, Snacks, and Drinks $600 Food and refreshments for students and participants during setup, performances, and deinstallation/cleanup. 7 Coordinators & Organizers $1,000 Coordination of schools, performers, communication, scheduling, translations, logistics, setup, event
coordination, and deinstallation.

TOTAL APPROXIMATE BUDGET <b>$6,350</b>
Budget Notes
Flowers – $2,000: Flowers are a major part of the altar and cultural presentation and may include marigolds, arrangements, garlands, and other decorative elements.

Candles – $400: Candles and related altar supplies for the Día de los Muertos display.

Aztec Dance – $750: Honorarium/payment for the cultural dance group. This represents a $50 increase, or 7.14%, compared with last year's $700 cost.

Mariachi – $1,100: Payment for mariachi musicians. This represents a $100 increase, or 10%, compared with last year's $1,000 cost.

Student Performers – $500: Support for student dancers, theatrical performers, and participating student clubs.

Food/Snacks – $600: Snacks, food, and drinks for students and participants during all stages of the event: setup, performances, and deinstallation/cleanup.

Coordinators & Organizers – $1,000: Compensation for coordinating schools, performers, communication, scheduling, translations, logistics, setup, event coordination, and deinstallation.

Selected Year-over-Year Percentage Increases
The graph below presents only the percentage increases relative to the previous year.

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1458 Attachment: Approximate_Cultural_Event_Budget_Dia_de_Muertos-2-1 (8002 : 16.A. Councilmember Raskin: Day of the Dead) Flowers: +20% Mariachi: +10% Aztec Dance: +7.14%
This budget is an "Approximate Cultural Event Budget" rather than a fixed budget, since some expenses—particularly flowers, performers, and food—may vary depending on final participation and vendor costs.

16.A.a
Packet Pg. 1459 Attachment: Approximate_Cultural_Event_Budget_Dia_de_Muertos-2-1 (8002 : 16.A. Councilmember Raskin: Day of the Dead) Main Exhibit: Route 66 2026 Vendor Estimate
Labor $3,000.00
Staffing SMHM $3,000.00
Printing (marketing and wall panels) $2,500.00
A frame Sir Speedy $100.00
Banner Digital Plus $400
Timeline Sir Speedy $250
Wall panels Sir Speedy $700
Postcards Uprint $150.00
Interactive Sir Speedy $400.00
Credit & sponsorship panels Sir Speedy $300
Photographic prints Dan $200
AV support $1,000.00
Screen updates/installations High West Networks 1,000.00 Public programs $2,500.00
Honoraria for guest speakers - 1000
Staffing SMHM 1500
Other supplies $700.00
Hanging materials, mounts, display items Staples/Gaylord Archiva 600 UV protective film Gaylord Archival 100
Total $9,700

16.A.b
Packet Pg. 1460 Attachment: Route 66 exhibition budget Oct 2026 (8002 : 16.A. Councilmember Raskin: Day of the Dead) FY 2026-27 Council Discretionary Funds
FY 2026-27 - New Appropriation and allocations
Description Amount Programmed Date Negrete Torosis Hall Raskin Snell Zernitskaya Zwick Unallocated Uncommitted FY 2025-26 funds,
rollover to FY 2026-27 88,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 13,500.00 $ - $ 18,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 9,500.00 $ 19,000.00 $ - FY 2026-27 - New Appropriation* 140,000.00 Budget Adoption FY26-27, 6/23/26 $ 8,330.00 $ 8,330.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 8,330.00 $ 35,010.00 DISCRET-PICO BID DDLM Event (25,000.00) Council Meeting, 7/14/26, Item 16A (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) DISCFRET-Butterfly Brawl (12,500.00) Council Meeting, 7/28/26, 16G (5,000.00) (2,500.00) (5,000.00) DISCRET-SMC WOMENS SOCCER (9,000.00) Council Meeting, 8/11/2026, Item 16C (2,000.00) (2,000.00) (5,000.00) DISCRET-FOLKLORICO BALLET CMPN (1,188.00) Council Meeting, 9/8/26, Item 16H (1,188.00) DISCRET-GREENWELL COAST CLEANU (2,390.00) Council Meeting, 9/8/26, Item 16I (2,390.00) DISCRET-OFF HOOK SEAFOOD FEST (20,000.00) Council Meeting, 9/22/26, Item 16E (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) (5,000.00) DISCRET-PIER-FECT BENEFIT (8,000.00) Council Meeting, 10/13/26, Item 16B (4,000.00) (4,000.00) * Amounts available per Councilmember reflect either 5 or 12 months, depending on the date the Councilmember's term expires. $ 150,422.00 Unprogrammed Balance Available $ 6,830.00 $ 9,330.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 31,812.00 $ 17,610.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 22,330.00 $ 35,010.00

16.A.c
Packet Pg. 1461 Attachment: Discretionary Funds Tracking - budget adoption (9) (8002 : 16.A. Councilmember Raskin:

Santa Monica City CouncilOctober 27, 2026

Santa Monica City Council
October 27, 2026