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 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. 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
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 5 of 12
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. The driveway goes through the posts supporting the porte-cochere and appears to be substandard in width.
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
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. 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. 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, 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 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 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 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