After countless hours of work on both sides of the debate, the yellow Craftsman-style home at 1125 18th Street will be designated as a Structure of Merit (SoM).
The process all began in February when Plus Architecture Inc. submitted a demolition permit application for the property, with the Santa Monica Conservancy countering them two months later. On April 30, the Conservancy submitted a historic resource designation application to nominate the property’s front building, a 952-square-foot rectangular one-story, single-unit wood-frame bungalow residence, as a SoM, limiting any further development on the property.
The Conservancy cited two provisions of the municipal code, Section A, and Sections B1 and B2. Section A, “the structure has been identified on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory,” Section B1, “the structure is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type,” and B2, “the structure is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.”
The city then hired an independent third party, the architecture and design firm Page and Turnbull (P&T), to prepare a Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) to determine if the front residence qualifies for designation as a SoM. P&T’s analysis found that the property did not meet any of the criteria for such a designation. To confirm, city preservation staff reviewed the report, visited the property, and examined similar properties. They also concluded that the building did not warrant designation as a SoM
Nevertheless, the Landmarks Commission held a hearing on the matter on July 14. After considering oral and written arguments and considering the Conservancy’s position, the commission voted 4-2 in favor of granting a SoM designation to 1125 18th Street. Ten days later, Landmarks Commissioner and former Mayor Pam O’Connor, one of the no votes, filed an appeal of the commission’s decision.
According to the staff report, “In accordance with the 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.”
City staff recommended that the city council uphold O’Connor’s appeal and reverse the Landmark Commission’s decision. They point out in their report that, “Upon further research and evaluation, the subject residence is a modest Craftsman bungalow that represents a restrained interpretation or partial application of the Craftsman style rather than a particularly distinguished or unique example.” The staff report also identifies a wide mix of housing styles surrounding 1125 18th St., and thus argues, “The structure does not contribute to a potential historic district.”
Brad Ewing, Co-Chair of Santa Monica Forward, a local organization that believes that “equity, sustainability, and diversity should be the guiding principles that shape our city’s future,” said in a written statement, “Santa Monica’s unique history and historical landmarks should be preserved, but it must be balanced against competing priorities such as the city’s acute housing shortage and our fiscal emergency.” He added, “The process is frequently abused by housing opponents, which has the unfortunate dual effect of exacerbating the housing shortage and undermining faith in historical preservation.”
Ewing also maintained that the Conservancy’s application didn’t meet the criteria that the structure was unique and rare, stating, “There are 178 properties in Santa Monica that are identified as a ‘Craftsman’ style.”
During the hearing, Councilmember Barry Snell inquired whether upholding the designation as a Structure of Merit would preclude development on the rest of the property. Staff said it would not, that the property behind the front building could be developed.
O’Connor was granted 10 minutes to argue her appeal and to rebut any counterargument. She pointed out that the State of California does not recognize the category of “Structures of Merit”; the designation is unique to Santa Monica. “There’s nothing in the nomination that discusses or talks about why it being ‘different’ is significant,” she argued. “The building was built in 1923. It was built well after the era of popularity of the Craftsman style.” She later added, “You have to show proof that something is significant, and the ‘why’ of that is not explained.”
Ruthann Lehrer, a Board Member of the Santa Monica Conservancy and former Landmarks Commissioner with a history in historic preservation, argued for the SoM designation. She stated that, given the number of buildings throughout Santa Monica, one would have to consider only 178 Craftsman-style buildings as “a number that is no longer prevalent.”
She also highlighted the uniqueness of the street-facing window design among Craftsman-style properties, which normally have prominent, wide porch frontage facing the street, and the fact that 1125 18th has a side entrance, not a street-facing entrance.
She presented several images demonstrating how the city has creatively developed around historically designated properties, a point speaking to Snell’s question.
“There are buildings that matter not because they’re architecturally exceptional, but because they document who we were, and what was possible. This is one of those buildings,” said Landmarks Commissioner Jack Hillbrand, arguing in favor of the SoM designation. Hillbrand spoke to the fact that 1125 18th was built by a middle-class homeowner who could not afford more affluent beachside residences, but was able to live in Santa Monica through the construction of this property.
Mayor Pro Tem Caroline Torosis favored giving the property SoM status, citing the importance of its location in the city (east of most Craftsman homes) and stated, “I believe the Landmarks Commission applied the ordinance correctly.”
Councilmember Dan Hall agreed, stating the property clearly meets Section A in the municipal code, and thus “the letter of the law” affirms the Landmark Commission’s decision.
Snell and Councilmember Ellis Raskin were both complimentary of the time and research put into this matter by both sides of the argument, with Snell calling the process “very educational” in complimenting the parties for how much the council learned from the process.
O’Connor’s appeal was denied, 6-0, with Councilmember Jesse Zwick absent.
Author
About The Author
