HISTORIC ASSESSMENT REPORT - Granicus

HISTORIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

1 5 3 1 G eo r g i n a A v e n u e , S a n t a M o n i c a , C A CITY LANDMARK/STRUCTURE OF MERIT EVALUATION

Prepared for:

City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401

Prepared by:

Jan Ostashay Principal Ostashay & Associates Consulting PO BOX 542 Long Beach, CA 90801

NOVEMBER 2019

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK

1531 Georgian Avenue Historic Assessment Report

page 1

HISTORIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

Steensen House 1531 Georgina Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90402

APN: 4279‐021‐029

INTRODUCTION

At the request of the City of Santa Monica Planning & Community Development Department, City Planning Division, Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC) has prepared this historic assessment report for the property referred to as the Steensen House located at 1531 Georgina Avenue in the City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California.

The two‐story, Monterey Colonial Revival style residence under review was built in 1941 on a corner parcel located in Tract Number 5859 within the North of Montana neighborhood. OAC documented and evaluated the property to determine whether it appears to satisfy one or more of the statutory criteria associated with City of Santa Monica Landmark and Structure of Merit eligibility requirements, pursuant to Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.

This assessment report includes a discussion of the survey methodology used, a summarized description of the property, a brief contextual history of the immediate setting and property, and an evaluation of significance under the City of Santa Monica Landmark and Structure of Merit criteria. Applicable supporting materials, including photographs, have also been included in the report.

FINDINGS

Upon concluding the intensive level assessment evaluation process, OAC finds that the single‐family residence located at 1531 Georgina Avenue does not appear eligible for City Landmark recognition as it does not sufficiently satisfy the evaluation requirements under criteria 9.56.100. The subject property; however, does appear eligible for designation as a Structure of Merit as it continues to be identified as a contributor to the potential Georgina Avenue Residential Historic District. Such recognition is noted under Structure of Merit criteria 9.56.080(a) and 9.56.080(b)(3). This finding is based on the research conducted on the subject property, an intensive‐level survey of the site, a cursory windshield survey of the neighboring area, the development of a relevant historic context, an assessment of historical integrity, and the application of relevant eligibility criteria. The following information provides a contextual basis for the analysis and evaluation findings for the subject property.


page 2

METHODOLOGY

The assessment was conducted by Jan Ostashay, principal with OAC and historic preservation consultant to the City of Santa Monica. Ms. Ostashay satisfies the necessary requirements to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in history and architectural history.

In order to identify and evaluate the subject property as a potential City of Santa Monica Landmark and/or Structure of Merit candidate, an intensive‐level survey was conducted. The assessment included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and its annual updates, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) list maintained by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), and the City’s online Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) in order to determine if any previous evaluations or survey assessments of the property had been performed.

For this current intensive level survey evaluation a site inspection and a review of building permits, tax assessor records, tract maps, and aerial photographs were conducted to understand and document the property’s existing condition and assist in evaluating its potential historical significance and integrity. The City of Santa Monica Landmark and Structure of Merit criteria were employed to evaluate the local significance of the property and its eligibility for such designation. In addition, the following tasks were performed for the study:

• Searched records of the National Register, California Register, Library of Congress archives, U.S. Census records, OHP CHRIS, and City of Santa Monica HRI.

• Conducted a field inspection of the subject property and photographed the site.

• Conducted site‐specific research on the subject property utilizing Sanborn fire insurance maps, city directories, newspaper articles, historical photographs, building permits, tract maps, Los Angeles County assessor records, and other published archival documents and material.

• Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation, designation assessment procedures, and related programs.

• Evaluated the potential historic resource based upon significance criteria established by the City of Santa Monica and utilized the OHP survey methodology for conducting surveys.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Environmental Setting. The property under review is situated at the northwest corner of 16th Street and Georgina Avenue within a well‐developed residential neighborhood north of Montana Avenue. Constructed in 1941, it is sited on a flat rectangular shape parcel that measures roughly 61.5 feet wide by 147.5 feet long. The legal description of the 1531 Georgina Avenue property is Tract No. 5859, lot 29. The single‐family Monterey Colonial Revival style


page 3

residence fronts south onto Georgina Avenue, has a detached garage and short driveway approach off 16th Street.

The neighborhood in which the subject property is located contains a notable concentration of Period Revival style single‐family houses dating primarily from the 1920s and early 1940s. The area is notable for its generous lot sizes, wide streets, broad parkways, and mature trees. The subject property is located within the potential Georgina Avenue Residential Historic District as a contributing resource.

Previous Surveys and Evaluations. The single‐family residence at 1531 Georgina Avenue has been previously identified and recorded as part of the city’s historic resources inventory survey update efforts. The property was initially identified under the 2002 Santa Monica citywide reconnaissance level Historic Resources Inventory Update for the North of Montana survey area conducted by Historic Resources Group of Los Angeles. At that time, it was identified as a contributor to a potential City of Santa Monica historic district, called the Georgina Avenue Grouping. The subject property was then assigned a California Register Historic Status Code of “5D3,” meaning “appears to be a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation.”

The Georgina Avenue Grouping was first identified and recorded as part of the Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase II: 1985‐1986, prepared for the City by Johnson and Heumann Research Associates. This potential district extends from 7th Street on the west to 17th Street on the east. At the time of this initial survey the subject property was not identified either as a potential individual resource or as a potential contributor to the grouping. This omission was probably due to the fact that the 1985‐1986 reconnaissance level survey work focused primarily on the earlier built improvements erected prior to 1940 within the City. Approximately 15 years later when the north of Montana Avenue area was re‐evaluated the subject property was identified and recorded as part of that survey effort.

Under the 2010 Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update survey work by ICF Jones & Stokes the Georgina Avenue grouping was re‐identified and re‐named as the Georgina Avenue Historic District. The boundaries of the Georgina Avenue Historic District renamed the same as that defined under the 2002 HRI for the North of Montana survey. The 2010 survey update assigned a California Register Historic Status Code of “5D,” identifying it as a contributor to a potential locally eligible district.

The Monterey Colonial Revival style residence was re‐identified and evaluated as part of the 2018 citywide reconnaissance level Historic Resources Inventory Update conducted by the Pasadena firms of Architectural Resources Group (ARG) and Historic Resources Group (HRG). Under that survey, its eligibility as a contributor to the potential Georgina Avenue Residential Historic District (renamed under the 2018 survey update) was once again re‐confirmed and a California Register Historic Status Code of “5D3” was assigned to indicate its status as such.


page 4

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND CONSTRUCTION HISTORY

Description. This large corner parcel contains a two‐story, wood‐frame single‐family residence; detached garage; and large backyard area. Reflective of the Monterey Colonial Revival style the Period Revival dwelling was erected in 1941, and was one of several such homes being constructed in the area between the mid‐1920s and the 1940s. Homes erected in the neighborhood after World War II reflected more Modern tendencies in their style and architecture. Those built in the 1980s through to the 2000s appear to be contemporary in design.

Situated at the northwest corner of Georgina Avenue and 16th Street, the house has a generous setback with a large front yard and landscaping that includes nine mature sycamore trees planted in the front yard, side (east) easement, and backyard. The residence has an irregular rectangular plan with a front wing with dormer extending out southward from the west side of the primary, front (south) façade. The structure is capped with a complex roofing system that includes an offset generous sloping side gable roof over much of the main house volume and a dual pitched hipped roof over the northern third of the building. The eaves of the dual pitched hipped roof extend out over to cover a second story encircling wood balcony (gallery) that wraps around from the front façade along the east (side) elevation and terminates just as it turns the rear northeast corner of the house. Though originally covered with wood shingles the roof is composed of composite shingles. The cantilevered balcony features wood flooring, thin wood posts, and wood railing. The exterior of the house is sheathed in semi‐smooth stucco.

The front (primary, south) elevation features a main entrance that is approached from the sidewalk along Georgina Avenue via a curved brick walkway and stepped brick landing (non‐original, altered features). The entry door way is demarcated by an elongated arched shape opening enframed by molded trim that is centrally placed adjacent the extended front wing with dormer. The arch of the door way is echoed in the non‐story arched shape window set into the non‐original panel door with upper blind transom panel. The original door assembly consisted of an arch shaped wood panel door covered on the exterior with false wood louvers and a false louvered transom set within a molded trim door way. Other elements of this wall plane include a series of multi‐pane sash windows with louvered shutters punctuating the front wing section at the first level (south and east elevations), a similar type window to the east of the entry door below the extended balcony, a large (altered) dormer off the sloping roof of the extended wing, and a non‐original arch shaped tracery window offset above the entry door. There is also a narrow, elongated tracery window to the immediate left (west) of the entry door, which has been replaced and modified from its original form, material, and type.

The east (side) elevation of the residence also reflects elements of the Monterey Colonial Revival style in its use and incorporation of the encircling covered wood balcony with wood posts and rail, multi‐pane sash fenestration some with louvered shutters, and wide (double flue) brick engaged chimney with single shoulder slope. The west (side) of the house is not readily visible from the public right‐of‐way. However, it does feature an asymmetrical wall plane punctuated by multi‐pane sash windows of varying size sans shutters and a multi‐panel utility door with upper fixed light window off the service porch. To add further architectural


page 5

detail to this side of the structure a false chimney with closed top and bottom extends from the apex of the western gable end and roof ridge.

The back of the house (north) originally featured a series of large multi‐pane, tripartite wood‐frame windows along the first floor; a paneled utility door off the kitchen that opened to the backyard patio; multi‐pane sash wood‐frame windows some with louvered shutters on the upper level; and a wide open‐framed staircase that provided direct access to and from the upper level cantilevered balcony. An open frame wood pergola was also constructed as part of the original design and connected at the ground level of the staircase to the side of the garage. Modifications; however, have since been made to this elevation over recent years that have added on to, modified, and removed its original features and design elements.

The rear of the house now features a two‐story gable addition at the center of the wall plane and a one‐story wing addition stemming from the northwest corner of the house (features added in 1993). The two‐story addition features stucco sheathing at the first level and faux wood veneer cladding over the second story. Fenestration includes faux multi‐pane sliders and French doors that open to the backyard. At ground level the one‐story wing addition appears to be capped by a gable roof; however, the frame is actually capped with a flat roof with gable shed roof with overhanging eave sloping to the east and a faux gable looking parapet sloping to the west. This wing section is also sheathed with stucco and contains a number of French door assemblies with sidelights and an engaged brick chimney attached onto the north elevation. This wing addition was original built in 1945 as a semi‐enclosed covered porch area with massive reinforced brick barbeque pit oven. It was also designed by Edla Muir and featured a shed roof with comp roll, cement floor with brick topping, an eight inch thick hollow stone wall along its west and north sides, and an open wall span supported by narrow wood posts at its north elevation.

The northern most wall section of the rear elevation under the hipped roof portion of the house features an extended partially uncovered balcony with wood rail and posts (non‐original) as well as a pair of multi‐pane French doors with sidelights (non‐original) that open to the narrow balcony on the upper story. Directly below the balcony is another pair of non‐original multi‐pane French doors with sidelights that open to the brick paved back patio area and pool.

At the backyard is a brick paved patio area, grassy lawn with sycamore tree, and a brick lined swimming pool with integrated spa. The entire backyard is enclosed by a tall stucco sheathed wall capped with brick coping (non‐original). A detached garage is set at the north side of the backyard space, which is accessed via automobile from a small paved driveway off 16th Street (east). The wood‐frame garage is rectangular in plan and is capped with a hipped roof covered in composition shingle. A pedestrian access door is sited off the south elevation with a sash window punctuating the west exterior wall. A small shed roof lean‐to addition with vertical plank siding is attached onto the north elevation of the garage structure. The garage door appears to be the original, which is designed as a four panel door with horizontal wood lap siding set within each panel. The roof of the garage structure was originally covered with wood shingles and featured a wood finial (since removed).


page 6

Building Permit History. A permit on file with the City of Santa Monica for the construction of a new dwelling at 1531 Georgina Avenue dates to January 28, 1941. The owner of the property is noted on the permit as J.H. Steensen with the architect listed as Edla Muir of Santa Monica and the contractor being Coallen Maul also of Santa Monica. Another permit with the same date and ownership/designer/builder information was issued for the construction of a detached garage at a cost of roughly $200. A few years later the Steensen’s had Muir design an attached outdoor barbeque space for them. With an estimated value of $1,200, a permit was issued from the City dated December 20, 1945 for the construction of a 13 foot by 27 foot roofed porch and brick barbeque. Two years later a swimming pool was added to the backyard of the property. In 1963, kitchen remodel work occurred to the interior of the house costing roughly $2,500. The exterior of the residence remained unaltered for over 20 years. In 1985, the semi‐enclosed covered porch area with brick barbeque at the rear of the house was enclosed and extended. A two‐story addition was also built onto the rear of the house at this time as well as the cover balcony staircase was removed for further remodeling along this elevation. Modifications under this permit also included new brick work at the front door landing and front walkway in addition to interior remodel work. In 1990, a new granite spa was added to the swimming pool. Three years later, the small dormer on the front of the house was replaced with a large gabled dormer and French doors were installed along the rear portion of the structure. This work had an estimated value of $9,950.

As there are no references made on any of the permits when the original panel front door with false louvers and false louvered transom were removed, based on physical and archival evidence it appears these changes occurred during either the 1985 or 1993 remodel work. Similarly is the situation for the window change out adjacent the front door to the immediate west (left) and the appearance of the small arch shaped window on the upper story of the front façade. The last permit on file with the City dating to 2019 is a building permit application to demolish the house, garage, and pool (the subject property). This permit application is the prompting of this historic assessment review. The recorded permit history that is one file with the City of Santa Monica includes the following:

YEAR DESCRIPTION OF WORK

1941 New residence, $78,000, architect: Edla Muir

1941 Construct garage, $200, architect: Edla Muir

1945 Roofed porch and brick barbeque, $1,200, architect: Edla Muir

1947 Add swimming pool, $2,500, contractor: Paddock Engineering Co.

1963 Remove existing kitchen cabinets (interior work), $2,500, contractor: Harold Pedemer

1985 New master bath, remodel family room, kitchen; dining room, and bedroom; construct new

250 sq. ft. addition, $45,000, architect: Robert Tchirkow

1990 Add new granite spa inside existing pool, $4,000, architect: Mark L. Smith

1993 Enlarge dormer on front elevation and install two set of French doors on rear elevation

addition, $9,950, contractor: Stoddard Construction

2019 Demolish single‐family residence/garage, $14,000 (proposed, under current review by City)


page 7

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Santa Monica. In 1875, the original townsite of Santa Monica was surveyed, including all the land extending from Colorado Street on the south to Montana Avenue to the north, and from 26th Street on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west. Between 1893 and the 1920s, the community operated primarily as a tourist attraction, visited by mostly wealthy patrons. Those areas just outside of the incorporated city limits were semi‐rural in setting and were populated with scattered residences. After the advent of the automobile in the 1902s and the further expansion of the Pacific Electric trolley system, Santa Monica experienced a significant building boom, with homes being constructed in the tracts north of Montana Avenue and east of Seventh Street for year‐round residents. A commercial district was established between Wilshire and Colorado boulevards, at Second, Third, and Fourth streets. The 1920s also saw the arrival of large companies to the city, such as Merle Norman Cosmetics and Douglas Aircraft. In the years immediately prior to America’s entry into World War II, Santa Monica’s development prospered as Douglas Aircraft received increasing numbers of government contracts. After the war, when Southern California was flooded with returning veterans and their families seeking homes, the demand for housing continued to be high in Santa Monica, and multi‐family apartment construction in particular escalated.

North of Montana.1 The North of Montana area is a residential neighborhood that is located in the northernmost section of Santa Monica. It spans the northern boundary of the city, and is one of its larger neighborhoods. It is roughly bounded by Adelaide Drive, San Vicente Boulevard, and La Mesa Drive on the north; 26th Street on the east; Montana Avenue on the south; and Ocean Avenue on the west. The street grid is generally rectilinear with the exception of San Vicente Boulevard, a large vehicular thoroughfare that is bisected by a landscaped median with mature coral trees. The area’s topography is predominately flat, but the northern sections have slight downward slope north of Georgina Avenue. The neighborhood, which is residential in character, is notable for its generous lot sizes, wide streets, broad parkways, and mature street trees. The neighborhoods north of San Vicente Boulevard are slightly different in character than the rest of the city, and are defined by small, winding streets and large, irregularly‐shaped lots. North of Montana Avenue is traversed by several major north‐south corridors, including 20th Street, 14th Street, 7th Street, and 4th Street, which is also bisected by a landscaped median. Georgina Avenue, Marguerita Avenue, and Alta Avenue run through the neighborhood in the east‐west direction. A landscaped park known as Palisades Park spans the bluff opposite of Ocean Avenue from Adelaide Drive to Montana Avenue.

North of Montana has historically been one of the most affluent neighborhoods of Santa Monica, and it contains several subdivisions that originally targeted the city’s upper‐class citizens. The Palisades Tract, Adelaide Drive/Adelaide Place, Gillette’s Regency Square, and Canyon Vista Park (mostly comprising properties along La Mesa Drive) were just some of the tracts that advertised oversized lots, canyon and ocean views, proximity to the street car line along San Vicente Boulevard, and a general exclusivity not found in other parts of the city. By

1 Excerpt from the Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update, Survey Report prepared by ARG‐HRG, 2018, p. 18.


page 8

the 1930s, the neighborhood was mostly built out and contained some of the finest and most architecturally significant residences in the community. Today, the neighborhood remains residential in character, and still contains a notable concentration of 1920s and 1930s single‐family houses. Some of the multi‐family residential development can be found along the wider, busier thoroughfares such as Ocean Avenue, Montana Avenue, and San Vicente Boulevard. The neighborhood also contains a stretch of low‐scale commercial development along Montana Avenue between 7th and 17th streets and at the corner of 26th Street and San Vicente Boulevard.

Georgina Avenue.2 A rather intact east‐west oriented street in a fully established residential neighborhood, the Georgina Avenue grouping extends from 7th Street on the west to 17th Street to the east. Mirroring the curved shape of San Vicente Boulevard to the north, and terminating at either side where the street jogs, Georgina Avenue has a distinct and recognizable visual character. Most of the blocks along this section of Georgina are located within the Palisades Tract extensions of 1912; the blocks between 14th Street and 17th Street were subdivided in 1922 as Tract Number 5859 (adopted by the City in 1923). This immediate area contains homes dating from 1923 through to the 2000s. The majority of the properties within Tract Number 5859 were built in the mid‐1920s and reflect a variety Period Revival styles in their architecture.

The dwellings on the north side of the street occupy uniformly sized parcels that are perpendicular to the linear segments of the street, but become slightly angled as the street curves. The houses along this side of the street feature uniform setbacks and are lushly planted with lawns, shrubs, and mature trees. On the south side of the avenue, the parcels are irregularly shaped from 7th Street to Euclid Street, where they become rectangular but vary in size. Many of the houses are located on lots that are slightly elevated from the public right‐of‐way. The houses along the south side of the Georgina Avenue vary in their orientation and setback due to the irregular shape of their respective parcels, but also contain substantial landscaping. Landscaped parkways with mature palm trees and lawns line both sides of the street and are a unifying feature of the thoroughfare.

Georgina Avenue is predominantly composed of two‐story, single‐family residences designed in an array of complementary Period Revival styles and mid‐twentieth century architectural styles. The Period Revival styles that are represented include Spanish Colonial Revival, Mediterranean Revival, Tudor Revival, Monterey Colonial Revival, and American Colonial Revival. Though the dwellings along this street were designed by different architects and builders, they are similar with respect to massing, scale, and visual character. Most of the properties have detached garages at the rear of the parcels, which are accessed via long driveways. The properties west of 11th Street are bordered on the north by an alley and lack driveways. Despite some alterations and infill, this section of Georgina Avenue maintains a sufficient concentration of historic properties to visually convey a unified sense of residential development, architecture, and physical planning.

2 Description of the Georgina Avenue neighborhood adapted from the context narrative within the “Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, 1985‐1986: Final Report,” prepared by Johnson Heumann Research Associates, 1986.


page 9

Many of the homes in the immediate area were inhabited by a number of Santa Monica’s more prominent citizens. In addition to E.J. Carrillo, residents of the street included the families of F.E. Bundy, a member of a prominent Westside real estate family and president of the Santa Monica‐Ocean Park Chamber of Commerce; real estate and insurance broker S.H. West; Harvey Hildebrant, manager of the Santa Monica Ice Company; James Kneen, owner of the Kneen Paving Company; Ethel Robinson, vice principal of Santa Monica High School; Dr. John Nuttall, heart specialist and chief of staff at Santa Monica Hospital; Hoit Vicini, Superintendent of the Santa Monica Water District; and H.C. Henshey, owner of Henshey’s Department Store.

Georgina Avenue and the surrounding streets retain a beautiful array of expansive Spanish homes from the 1920s, characterized by red tile roofs and stucco walls, arched porticos and wrought iron balconies, and asymmetrical design set among lush landscaping reminiscent of the Mediterranean climate. Other architectural revival styles such as the Tudor with its half‐timbered facades and stucco treatment; the Storybook, with its false thatched roofs; and the classic American Colonial Revival, with its white Classical columns and pediments help to provide this area of Santa Monica a sense of quiet seclusion among its mature street trees.

Steensen House, 1531 Georgina Avenue. Located at the northwest corner of Georgina Avenue and 16th Street the Steensen House is situated within the area referred to as the North of Montana neighborhood. According to the building permits dating from January 1941, the house and garage were built for then owners Mr. and Mrs. J.H. Steensen. The architect of record for the two improvements and site was Edla Muir of Santa Monica.

City directory research, census records, and other archival data indicate that J.H. Steensen was a banker in the local community for many years. Johannes Howard Steensen was born in Sewanee, Tennessee in 1901 and moved to Santa Monica at an early age with his family. He joined the Bank of Santa Monica in 1918 just after graduating from Santa Monica High School. The Bank of Santa Monica became California Bank in 1922 and Steensen continued his employment with the financial institution as a bookkeeper, teller, and chief teller. When he was initially promoted to manager he worked at the bank’s Pacific Palisades branch. Steensen was later reassigned to the bank’s head office in Los Angeles in 1927 when he was once again promoted. Moving up the corporate ladder, a year later he was sent back to the Santa Monica branch to work as an assistant cashier. By the end of 1937, J.H. Steensen was Junior Vice President of the branch. From 1937 to 1941, he worked as the manager of the Santa Monica office of the California Bank and then went on to become vice president of the bank’s Beverly Hills office.

In 1924, John H. Steensen married Marjorie H. Lelande of Los Angeles. They had two sons, Howard (1927‐1992) and Eric (1930‐1983). Both John and Marjorie were involved in the local community and society affairs. John Steensen was a member of the Los Angeles Country Club, the Los Angeles Athletic Club, the Rotary and Town clubs, as well as a member of the Board of Directors of the YMCA, the advisory board of the American Red Cross and a was a former member of the Santa Monica Board of Education. In 1939, he became president of the Santa Monica Clearing House Association.


page 10

After a short illness, the long‐time Santa Monica resident passed away on September 3, 1955. The Steensen family remained at the Georgina Avenue home for many years. Eventually Howard, the eldest son, moved back east to work as an editor for McGraw‐Hill Book Company in New York City. Son Eric eventually moved on as well and later married. In 1971, Marjorie Steensen deeded the property to her son Eric. Eight year later Marjorie passed away in 1979 in Santa Monica. Ownership of the property remained in the Steensen family until 1985, when the property was sold by Eric’s wife Genevie B. Steensen (a widow) to Keith Smith and his wife Florence. By the early 1990s, the owner of the property was John Eichorn, Jr. The property last transferred ownership in April 2019 to Real Santa Monica, LLC.

In concluding the background research, the data did not reveal any information on the prior owners or occupants of the property to indicate historical significance or notability. Therefore, it does not appear that the property is associated with any person or persons of historical importance.

Edla Muir Lambie, Architect. According to the original building permits, the architect for the house and garage was Edla Muir of Santa Monica. Muir was an American architect best known for designing Post‐World War II era modern style residences in Southern California. Edla Muir, also known by her married name, Edla Muir Lambie, was born in San Francisco, California on January 23, 1906. Her father was Joseph Muir (1864‐1934), a throat surgeon and diplomat, who emigrated from Russia (Poland) to the United States in 1870. Her mother, Ethel Fitch Muir (1883‐1945), was an operatic soprano, the granddaughter of politician and lawyer Thomas Fitch. Thomas Fitch delivered the feature address at the ceremony marking the opening of the original City of Santa Monica Tract in 1875.

Edla’s unusual first name is derived from her father’s first wife’s name, which was Edla Coleman McPherson (1875‐1901). Interestingly, Edla Coleman McPherson’s mother was also named Edla (Edla Jane McPherson, 1846‐1901). Edla Muir’s parents, Joseph and Ethel, had married in San Bernardino, California in 1905. A year later they were in San Francisco and by 1910 they were living in Manhattan, New York. However, in 1916 they divorced and the family split up. By the late 1910s, Edla and her younger brother Fitch were living with their maternal grandmother (Rene Fitch) in Southern California; initially in Inglewood and then finally settling in Santa Monica.

As a schoolgirl at the age of 13 years old, Edla worked weekends and summers for Santa Monica architect John Byers. She graduated from Inglewood High School in 1923, and then began working full time in Byers’ office serving as an office assistant until 1926 when she was promoted to “draftsman” and designer. Though she never went to college or received any formal architectural education, based on her apprenticeship with Byers in 1934 she received her license to practice architecture in California (she also became a member of the American Institute of Architects in Washington a few years later). Following that time, Byers and Muir formed a partnership, renaming the firm John Byers and Edla Muir, Associated Architects. During Muir’s partnership with Byers she worked on just over a dozen independent projects, including the subject property, 1531 Georgina Avenue. Many of her earlier works were


page 11

reflective of the Period Revival stylistic taste preferred by Byers. With the on‐set of World War II the partnership dissolved in 1942.

Edla Muir became the principal of her own firm in West Los Angeles that same year, 1942. Though she honed her drafting skills and design savviness with Byers, Muir’s creative expression as an architect grew and expanded after she established her own practice. She designed homes in a wide variety of styles that appealed to wealthy clients in Santa Monica, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Beverly Hills, and other affluent Southern California communities. Muir focused primarily on designing modern style private homes and her designs were featured in Sunset magazine, Architectural Digest, Architectural Record, and other publications, as representative of the modern California home. The John Rex house (also known as the Zola Hall house, Mandeville Canyon, 1949), the Russell Law house (Malibu, 1956), and the Walter G. and Josephine Taylor Johnston house (Oceanside, 1960) have been published widely. These houses have strong ground‐hugging, horizontal orientations and are constructed of rough‐sawn redwood and glass, like many of her other later modern residential designs. The Russell Law house is noted in the 1977 issue of the AIA Journal, in conjunction with the John Rex house (Zola Hall house), as one of Edla Muir’s most widely acclaimed homes.3 Muir also designed some public, ecclesiastical, and commercial buildings both in California and Washington, as well as in Mexico City. She also designed three film sets for Twentieth Century‐Fox Film corporation movie production.

In total, Muir designed more than 200 projects, mostly residential, and was known for her use of natural materials and careful integration of outdoor and indoor spaces. She had the ability to appeal to a client’s desire for a residence with traditional components while using modern elements that provided convenience and a sense of modernity. Muir was heavily influenced by the new building trends and design programs that were occurring in California’s Post‐World War II period. The Case Study House program (1945‐1962) created by John Entenza, editor and publishers of Arts and Architecture magazine, in particular was to affect the rapid growth of modern architecture in California and quite radically changed Muir’s earlier eclectic style.4 She also took ample advantage of her opportunity to learn from such distinguished members of the modern architectural profession as Richard Neutra, Spaulding and Rex, Charles Eames, and Eero Saarinen.5

Her design for the Zona Hall residence (John Rex house) in West Los Angeles (Mandeville Canyon) won the Honor Award of the Southern California chapter of the AIA in 1952. According to her biography drafted as part of her collection of papers at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), Edla continued her architectural practice until 1971, the year she died at the age of 65. Muir was married to Clyde Lambie and had one son, Alec, but kept her professional name throughout her career. Between the years of 1950 and 1955, she worked briefly in

3 Rochlin, Harriet. “A Distinguished Generation of Women Architects in California,” AIA Journal, 66:9, 41, August,

1977, p. 40. 4 Morgan, Helen. Five California Women Architects in a Historical Perspective, California State University,

Northridge, Thesis, June 1979, p. 97. 5 Ibid.


page 12

Ellensburg, Washington where she and husband had briefly relocated but continued to work in Los Angeles through to 1971.

Edla Muir is considered a master architect amongst her peers and architectural critics, and has been grouped together with other early American female architects including Lutah Marie Riggs, FAIA (1896‐1984); Lillian Rice (1889‐1938); Mary Craig (1889‐1964); and Julia Morgan, FAIA (1872‐1957). Her papers, the Edla Muir papers that date from 1917 to 1986, are in the Architecture and Design Collection at the UCSB campus. In reviewing the list of projects itemized in the Edla Muir papers at UCSB, it appears Muir had roughly 13 projects that were located in the city of Santa Monica. These projects varied in scope and scale that ranged from the design of a dumbwaiter at the First Christian Church in 1964, to alterations and additions to both commercial and residential properties, as well as the design of at least three single‐family residences, including the subject property. The other two homes were for Mr. and Mrs. Eicenhofer (1952) and Mr. and Mrs. Alan Robin (1972).

Period Revival, Monterey Colonial Revival Style.6 The house at 1531 Georgina Avenue is an example of the varied Period Revival dwellings constructed throughout this neighborhood from 1922 to 1941. In particular, the subject property displays stylistic details and features of the Monterey Colonial Revival style.

The Monterey Colonial Revival style is based upon the distinctive style of residential architecture that developed in California beginning in the 1830s, as more and more Yankee merchants and settlers arrived in Alta California and adapted the Anglo building traditions of the East Coast to local Hispanic customs. As its name implies, the style developed in and around Monterey, California and combined vernacular adobe construction with elements of American Federal and Greek Revival architecture, including multi‐light sliding sash windows, louvered shutters, paneled doors, and Classical details executed in wood. The style’s most distinguishing characteristic is a second‐floor covered wood balcony (gallery), often cantilevered, extending the length of the primary façade and sometimes wrapping one or two sides as well. The best‐known example of the style, and one of the earliest, is the Thomas Larkin adobe, constructed beginning in 1834 and one of the first two‐story dwellings in Monterey.7

The style was revived beginning in the mid‐1920s and was favored by architects and homeowners who perhaps found the fantastical Spanish and Mediterranean revivals too exotic and too different from the building traditions familiar to most Americans. The Monterey Colonial Revival style replaced adobe construction with wood‐framed walls veneered in smooth plaster and devoid of surface ornamentation, and featured second‐story balconies, low‐pitched gable or hipped roofs, and double‐hung wood‐frame windows.

Character‐defining features associated with the Monterey Colonial Revival style include:

Usually asymmetrical façade

Two‐story height

6 Adapted from the “City of Santa Monica Historic Context Statement, ARG/HRG, March 2018, p.348. 7 Monterey County Historical Society, “Monterey’s Larkin House Adobe and Gardens,” http://www.mchsmuseum .com/larkinhouse.html.


page 13

Rectangular or L‐shaped plan

Low‐pitched hipped or side gable roofs with wood shakes or clay tiles

Plaster‐veneered exterior walls devoid of surface ornament

Second‐floor covered wood balcony, sometimes cantilevered, across primary façade and occasionally wrapping one or more sides, with simple wood posts and wood or metal railings

Wood‐sash double‐hung windows, typically with divided lights

Louvered or paneled wood shutters

Recessed entrances with paneled wood doors

Large examples of the style in Santa Monica are found north of Montana Avenue, including several along Georgina Avenue (1035 and 1105 Georgina Avenue, as examples) and in the adjacent Gillette’s Regency Square and Palisades Tract.

LOCAL REGULATIONS AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

Santa Monica Landmark Designation Criteria. Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. Among the primary objectives achieved by the Ordinance was the creation of a local designation program for buildings, structures, sites, objects, districts, and landscapes in the City that are of historical significance.

With regard to individually significant properties, the Ordinance distinguishes between two tiers of designation: Landmarks and Structures of Merit. Landmarks outlined in the City’s Municipal Code as Section 9.56.100(A), are considered to exhibit “the highest level of individual historical or architectural significance;” while Structures of Merit outlined in the code as 9.56.080, possess a degree of individual significance that is more limited in scope.

The Ordinance includes criteria and procedures for designating City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Structures of Merit, as well as Historic Districts. Landmarks may include structures, natural features, or any type of improvement to a property that is found to have particular architectural or historical significance to the City. Structures of Merit may include any improvements with certain characteristics that are deemed by the Landmarks Commission to be appropriate for such official recognition pursuant to the established criteria outlined in Section 9.56.80 of the City’s Municipal Code. The respective criteria for Landmark designation and Structure of Merit recognition is as follows:

Landmark Criteria. Pursuant to Section 9.56.100(A) of the Ordinance, a property merits consideration as a City Landmark if it satisfies one or more of the following six 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.


page 14

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

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.

Structure of Merit Criteria. Pursuant to Section 9.56.080 of the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, a property merits consideration as a Structure of Merit if it satisfies one or more of the following statutory criteria:

A). It has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.

B). It is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following criteria:

1. It is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type.

2. It is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.

3. The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.

Historical Integrity Consideration. “Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.”8 In addition to satisfying the criteria of local significance, a property must have integrity. Integrity is the authenticity of a property’s physical identity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during the property’s period of significance.9

A property eligible for local designation must satisfy the applicable significance criteria and retain enough of its historic character and original appearance to be recognizable as historical resource. Both the National Register and the California Register recognize seven aspects or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a property should possess several, and usually most, of those seven aspects or qualities. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. The seven qualities that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Such consideration of integrity is typically assessed for the exterior of properties.

Period of Significance. The NPS defines the period of significance as “the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for…listing” in the national, state, or local registers. The period of significance usually begins with the date “when significant activities or events began giving the property its historic significance;” the period of significance can be “as brief as a single 8 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Nomination Form. (Washington, DC, 1997). 9 Ibid.


page 15

year…[or] span many years.” It is based on “specific events directly related to the significance of the property,” for example the date of construction, years of ownership, or length of operation as a particular entity.”10

Historic District Consideration. Pursuant to the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, the City of Santa Monica defines a Contributing Building or Structure as one “which has been identified by the Landmarks Commission as one which contributes to the designation of an area as a Historic District” (Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.36.030).

Standard preservation practice evaluates collections of properties (buildings, structures, objects, etc.) from similar time periods and historic contexts as historic districts (includes potential districts). The NPS defines a historic district as “a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development.”11

A historic district derives its significance as a single unified entity (resource). The NPS guidelines continue to define a district as:

The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties.12

Resources that have been found to contribute to the historic identity of a district are referred to as “district contributors.” Properties located within the district boundaries that do not contribute to its significance are identified as “non‐contributors.” Those properties identified as non‐contributors were either constructed outside of the period of significance and/or retain a very low level of historical integrity that they no longer possess their “basic” physical features of design, materials, workmanship and overall qualities of character from their periods of significance.

A district can be comprised of both features that lack individual distinction, including properties that lack some qualities of historical integrity, and individually distinctive features that serve as focal points.13 However, the majority of the components that add to the district’s overall historic character must possess adequate integrity, as must the district as a whole.14 Under professional practice, pursuant to the NPS guidelines, a component of a district cannot contribute to the district’s significance if it has been so substantially altered since the district’s period of significance or it does not share the historic associations of the district.15 A district is not eligible if it contains so many alterations or new intrusions that it no longer conveys the “sense” or “feeling” of a historic environment.

10 Ibid. 11 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1997, p.5. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid, p.46.


page 16

EVALUATION OF LOCAL HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Period of Significance. The period of significance for the 1531 Georgina Avenue property is 1941, reflecting the original construction date of the house and garage.

Individual Integrity Evaluation. As already discussed, historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance and is defined as the “authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic period.”16 The National Park Service defines seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association.

The later alterations to the front façade, side elevation and rear elevation have compromised the original design intent of the property. The dwelling’s exterior now reflects a moderate level of historic integrity and has undergone several inappropriate alterations. Though the property still maintains integrity of location, setting, and association the modifications made over the years have altered its design, materials, and workmanship. Such significant changes that were made to the property include the extensive alterations and additions to the east side (street side) and rear (north) of the house in 1985, as well as modifications made to the front façade in 1993. Changes to the front façade include replacement of the front door and transom, window replacement and addition, and the enlargement of the front dormer and associated fenestration. Changes to the landscape and hardscape features in the front yard are minor alterations that modestly affect the property’s overall integrity. Significant alterations made to the side (east) elevation include the removal of the exterior staircase off the balcony (north end), and the extension of the balcony deck and rail system and its wrapping around to the rear of house. Substantial changes to the rear elevation include the remodel of the entire wall plan by the construction of a large two‐story addition with wood siding and stucco, the enclosure and modification to the roofed patio area and barbeque space, the extension of the wrap‐around balcony, and the change out and reconfiguration of fenestration. As such, the property does not possess sufficient historical integrity to render it eligible for individual landmarking.

District Integrity Evaluation. As a historic district can be comprised of both features that lack individual distinction, including properties that lack some qualities of historical integrity, and individually distinctive features, the 1531 Georgina Avenue property continues to appear eligible as a contributor to the previously identified Georgina Avenue Residential Historic District. When seen as a collective grouping, the majority of its components, including the subject property, together add to the potential district’s historic character.

Evaluation Findings. This assessment evaluation a based on the survey methodology utilized; the property type, architectural style and integrity of the subject property; the associated contextual history of the immediate setting and property; and the application of the City of Santa Monica Landmark and Structure of Merit criteria.

16 Ibid.


page 17

Landmark Evaluation:

For Landmark consideration the 1531 Georgina Avenue property was evaluated according to following statutory criteria:

SMMC 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 is located in the “North of Montana” residential neighborhood of Santa Monica, in particular within Tract Number 5859, adjacent the earlier developed Palisades Tract and Gillette’s Regency Square. By the 1930s, the neighborhood was mostly built out and contained some of the finest and most architecturally significant residences in the city. Today, the neighborhood remains residential in character and still contains a notable concentration of 1920s and 1930s Period Revival style single‐family houses. The 1531 Georgina Avenue property was built after that initial construction “boom” in 1941. Developed by notable architect Edla Muir it was designed in the Monterey Colonial Revival style at a period early in her professional career when she was still working with master architect John Byers. The property since its construction has undergone substantial changes that have affected its overall historical integrity. Some of the alterations made in much later years convey a false sense of historicism and design intent that was not initially conceived by the architect. Because of the modifications the property no longer embodies the distinctive or unique architectural characteristics of the Monterey Colonial Revival style, but rather appears as a typical vernacular example of the idiom despite its association with notable architect Edla Muir. Furthermore, the subject property does not represent a distinguishable phase in her career. According to her peers, architectural critics, and biographers she is best known for her design of mid‐century modern ranch style homes of the post‐World War II era period, many of which incorporated the use of natural materials and the careful integration of outdoor and indoor spaces. One biographer, Harriet Rochlin, noted that Muir found her greatest success designing in the modern style, which her mentor John Byers “reviled.” Individually, the property is not a distinguishing or excellent example of its type, style or period and; therefore, does not independently exemplify, symbolize, or manifest elements of the economic or architectural history of the City.

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

According to guidance from the National Park Service, “a property is eligible for its high artistic value if it so fully articulates a particular concept of design that it expresses an aesthetic ideal. A property is not eligible; however, if it does not express aesthetic ideals or design concepts more fully than other properties of its type.”17 Though the 1531 Georgina Avenue property is an extant example of Monterey Colonial Revival residential architecture from the early 1940s designed by architect Edla Muir, it is not one of the earliest examples of the style and it does not reflect particular noteworthy concepts of design that would distinguish it from other

17 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. (Washington, DC, 1997).


page 18

properties of the same style, type, and construction in the area. With the alterations made, the property appears as a vernacular iteration of the Monterey Colonial Revival idiom. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.

SMMC 9.56.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history.

In reviewing research data on the prior owners and occupants of the property there was no evidence to suggest that any of these individuals were of personages of significance or had made significant contributions to important events in local, state, or national history. Therefore, the 1531 Georgina Avenue property does not appear to qualify under this particular criterion.

SMMC 9.56.100(a)(4). It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical style valuable to such a study.

The subject property is a vernacular representative example of a Monterey Colonial Revival style single‐family residence. Because of the alterations that have occurred to the property over the years and its moderate level of historical integrity it now reflects typical design features and details of the style. In addition, the residence does not possess any unique or distinguishable method of construction and lacks the use or incorporation of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. The design of this house and its associated garage does not rise to the level of significance necessary to be eligible under Criterion 4. The 1531 Georgina Avenue property does not appear to be a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type since it has been altered and other comparable examples exist within the neighborhood and throughout the City. In addition, due to its alterations the property overall no longer integrates the epitome of the idiom’s stylistic principles in its design, craftsmanship, or materials sufficiently to render it important or valuable to a study of Period Revival architecture. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.

SMMC 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.

Developed by notable architect Edla Muir the subject property was designed in the Monterey Colonial Revival style at a period early in her professional career when she was still working with master architect John Byers. Muir is a recognized female architect and is best known for her rich, evocative interpretations of the mid‐century modern ranch style homes of the Post‐World War II era. Many of those later residences incorporated the adept use of natural materials and careful integrated of outdoors and indoor spaces. Muir established her own architectural firm in 1942 and maintained the practice through to the early 1970s. With a long, well‐established and recognized body of work the subject property is not comparably stylistic to Muir’s later work and does not accurately represent a distinguishable phase in her career. Therefore, the subject property is not considered a significant or representative example of the


page 19

work of notable architect Edla Muir and, as such, does not appear eligible under this criterion.

SMMC 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.

Although located on a corner parcel, the subject property is visually connected as a contributor to the neighborhood by its scale, massing, shared setback, and design qualities and does not appear individually prominent to render it an established or familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community, or the City. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.

Structure of Merit Evaluation:

For Structure of Merit consideration the 1531 Georgina Avenue property was evaluated according to following statutory criteria:

SMMC 9.56.080(a). It has been identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.

The subject property has been previously identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory as a contributor to the potential Georgina Avenue Residential Historic District. Therefore, it meets this criterion.

SMMC 9.56.080(b). It is a minimum of 50 years of age and meets one of the following criteria.

The subject property was built in 1941, and; therefore, satisfies the 50‐year age criterion.

SMMC 9.56.080(b)(1). It is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type.

The subject property is not considered a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type. Since its construction the building has undergone unsympathetic alterations and as such is not a distinctive or significant individual representative of the Monterey Colonial style. The property reflects vernacular qualities in its design and architectural composition and as such is not a unique or rare example within architect Edla Muir’s professional portfolio of work, which evolved and is best represented by her later residential design work executed in the Modern style. There are also other extant examples of the style found elsewhere in the city and within the immediate area. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.

SMMC 9.56.080(b)(2). It is representative of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent.

As discussed herein this report, the subject property is not considered a representative example of a style in the City that is no longer prevalent. There are several other better extant stylistic representatives of the Monterey Colonial Revival style found elsewhere in the city including


page 20

along Georgina Avenue and in the greater North of Montana neighborhood. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.

SMMC 9.56.080(b)(3). The structure contributes to a potential Historic District.

The property at 1531 Georgina Avenue property appears to satisfy this criterion. The subject property has been most recently identified in the 2018 Historic Resources Inventory survey update as a contributing structure to the potentially eligible Georgina Avenue Residential Historic District. While not individual architecturally distinctive, the subject property is compatible with the overall visual and physical characteristics of the street and neighborhood. The property shares many qualities that define the street as a potential district and the property as a contributor to the grouping. Such shared continuity of features include uniformity in setbacks; landscaped front lawns and well established plantings, including mature sycamore trees and large pine trees; size, massing, scale, and orientation of the structures; and complementary Period Revival styles. While the property does not appear individually significant it does appear to satisfy this criterion as a contributing resource to the potential historic district.

CONCLUSION

Based on the research conducted and this current evaluation assessment, the 1531 Georgina Avenue property appears to meet the threshold of significance for individual City of Santa Monica Structure of Merit designation as it continues to be noted as a contributor to the potential Georgina Avenue Residential Historic District. The subject property; however, does not appear to satisfy the necessary significance criteria for City of Santa Monica Landmark recognition for the reasons provided herein this report.


page 21

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“A Thousand Women in Architecture,” Architectural Record, June, 1938, 103, p.105‐118.

Adler, Alexandra. “Finding Aid for the Edla Muir Papers, circa 1917‐1986,” Architecture and Design Collection; Art, Design & Architecture Museum, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Allaback, Sarah. The First American Women Architects. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.

“An Architect’s Home That Clings to a Cliff: Inside, Privacy with an Air of Freedom,” Los Angeles Times, April 22, 1962, p. K22.

Ancestry.com. United States Census records (database on‐line): 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940; death records; birth records; city directories; voter’s registration records, etc. Provo, Utah.

Baker, Nancy and Mui Ho. “In Celebration of Women in Architecture,” Organization of Women Architects, 1982.

“Banker Sent to New Post,” Evening Outlook, Santa Monica: Copley Press, December 28, 1934.

Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica – The First 100 Years. Los Angeles: Douglas‐West Publishers, 1974

Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica Bay: Paradise by the Sea. Santa Monica: Hennessey+Ingalls, 2000.

“Beach City Growing At Rapid Rate,” Los Angeles Times, January 21, 1923.

“Beautiful Bay District Grows,” Los Angeles Times, August 16, 1925.

“Beverly Hills Banker J.H. Steensen, 55 Dies,” Los Angeles Times, September 4, 1955, p. A1.

Blumenson, John. Identifying American Architecture. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1989.

Carley, Rachel. The Visual Dictionary of American Domestic Architecture. New York, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1994.

City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica General Plan, Historic Preservation Element. Prepared by PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group, 2002.

City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase I: 1983. Prepared by Paul Gleye and Leslie Heumann, 1986.

City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase II: 1985‐1986. Prepared by Johnson Heumann Research Associates, 1986.

City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update, Post Northridge Earthquake. Prepared by Parkinson Field Associates and Janet Tearnen, 1995.

City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update – North of Montana Area 2002. Prepared by Historic Resources Group, 2002.


page 22

City of Santa Monica. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523A Form for 1531 Georgian Avenue. Prepared by Historic Resources Group, 2002.

City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report. Prepared by ICF International, 2010.

City of Santa Monica. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation DPR 523A/523B Form for 1531 Georgian Avenue. Prepared by ICF International, 2010.

City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report. Prepared by HRG and ARG, 2018.

City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Department, Building permits for 610 California Avenue.

“Clearing House Association Elects,” Evening Outlook, Santa Monica: Copley Press, January 31, 1939.

County of Los Angeles. “Certificate of Death: Edla Muir Lambie,” November 1971.

De Wolfe, Evelyn. “Women Architects Mark First 100 Years, Exhibit Celebrates the Progress of the Fastest‐Growing Segment of AIA,” Los Angeles Times, June 25, 1989, p.2.

“Death of Mrs. Edla Muir, Daughter of Senator McPherson Was Here to Contest Mother’s Will,” New York Times, December 31, 1901.

“First Santa Monica Lot Sold for $380,” Los Angeles Times, February 12, 1961.

“Four Win Money in Designing Prizes Totaling $1850 to be Awarded Today by Corporation,” Los Angeles Times, May 8, 1927, E3.

Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. Architecture in Los Angeles. Salt Lake City, Utah: Peregrine Smith Books, 1985.

Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles. Salt Lake City, Utah: Gibbs Smith Publishers, 2003.

Hawthorne, Krisit, Anne McDonnell, Jolee Pink. “Fire Mountain Hidden Gem.” Best of Oceanside Living, Oceanside, California: Oceanside Chamber of Commerce, 2017.

Heckman, Marlin L. Santa Monica in Vintage Postcards. Chicago, Illinois: Arcade Press, 2002.

Historic Aerial Images, 1947‐2005. Accessed at http://historicalaerials.com.

“House Planned for Motion Picture Couple,” Los Angeles Times, February 22, 1948, p. 20.

Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll’s Century History: Santa Monica Bay Cities, 1542‐1908. Los Angeles: Luther A. Ingersoll, 1908.

“John Howard Steensen,” Los Angeles Times, November 8, 1992.

“Joseph Muir, M.D.,” New York State’s Prominent and Progressive Men: An Encyclopedia of Contemporary Biography,” New York Tribune, 1902.


page 23

Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Tract maps (accessed online at http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/surveyrecord/tractmain.cfm).

Los Angeles County Tax Assessor. Property Specific Information Records.

Los Angeles Public Library, On‐line historical and image archives.

Marino, Chris. “Finding Aid for the John Byers papers, 1917‐1955, 0000115,” John Byers papers, Art, Architecture & Design Collection at the Art, Design & Architecture Museum, University of California, Santa Barbara.

Marquez, Ernest. Santa Monica Beach: A Collector’s Pictorial History. Los Angeles: Angel City Press, 2004.

Maynard L. Parker negatives, photographs, and other materials. The Huntington Library, San Marino, California.

McAlester, Virginia & Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses (Revised Edition). New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2013.

Michelson, Alan. “Edla Muir (Architect),” Pacific Coast Architecture Database (PCAD), University of Washington, Seattle, 2005‐2018, http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/, accessed September 9, 2019.

Monterey County Historical Society, “Monterey’s Larkin House Adobe and Gardens,” http:// www. mchsmuseum .com/larkinhouse.html.

Morgan, Helen. Five California Women Architects in a Historical Perspective, California State University, Northridge, Thesis, June 1979.

“Mrs. Lambie, Architect, Dies at 65,” Evening Outlook, Santa Monica: Copley Press, November 9, 1971.

Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Recording Historic Resources. Sacramento, California: State of California, 1995.

“Oval pool, lanai features of Santa Monica home.” Los Angeles Times, June 11, 1983.

Polk & Company. Polk’s Santa Monica City Directory; Los Angeles City Directory. Los Angeles: Polk & Company, (various years).

Rochlin, Harriet. “A Distinguished Generation of Women Architects in California,” AIA Journal, 66:9, 41, August, 1977, p. 40.

“Rotarians Elect new Officers,” Evening Outlook, Santa Monica: Copley Press, April 22, 1939.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Company, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps‐ Santa Monica, California, 1918‐1950.

“Santa Monica Bay New Scene of Great Activity,” Los Angeles Times, July 6, 1911.

Santa Monica Public Library, online Santa Monica Image Archives.


page 24

Santa Monica Public Library, online Historical Maps Collection of Santa Monica.

Santa Monica Public Library, online Santa Monica Newspaper Index.

Scott, Paul A. Santa Monica: A History on the Edge. Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2004.

“Seventh Night of Wagner,” New York Times, August 18, 1911.

“S.F. Beauty Plans Suit for Divorce: Mrs. Ethel Muir,” San Francisco Chronicle, May 21, 1916, p. 24.

Stevens, Mary Otis. “Struggle for Place: Women in Architecture, 1920‐1960,” Women in American Architecture, A Historic and Contemporary Perspective, 1977.

Storrs, Les. Santa Monica, Portrait of a City, 1875‐1975. Santa Monica: Santa Monica Bank, 1874.

“20 Years as Banker Completed,” Evening Outlook, Santa Monica: Copley Press, August 4, 1938.

United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin, “Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985.

United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997.

United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997.

University of California, Santa Barbara Library. Frame Finder, Aerial Photography. Santa Barbara: UCSB Library (accessed online at http://mil.library.ucsb.edu/ap_indexes/ FrameFinder/).

Upton, Dell, and John Michael Vlach. Common Places: Readings in American Vernacular Architecture. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 1986.

Warren, Charles S. ed. History of the Santa Monica Bay Region. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1934.

Warren, Charles S. ed. Santa Monica Blue Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1941.

Warren, Charles S. ed. Santa Monica Community Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1944.

Whiffen, Marcus. American Architecture since 1780: A Guide to the Styles. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999.

White, Col. Carl F. ed. Santa Monica Community Book (Fifth Edition). Santa Monica: Cawston, 1953.

“Winner of Honor Award, Southern California A.I.A. Awards, for residence of Miss Zona Hall, West Los Angeles,” Architectural Record, vol. 12, 1952, p. 32‐34.

“Works of Women Architects Shown” Los Angeles Times, April 29, 1980.



page 25

ATTACHMENTS


© L

ati

tud

e G

eo

gra

ph

ics

Gro

up

Ltd

.

0.3

TH

IS M

AP

IS N

OT T

O B

E U

SED

FO

R N

AV

IGA

TIO

N

WG

S_1

984_W

eb

_Merc

ato

r_A

uxi

liary

_Sp

here

Mile

s0.3

No

tes

1531 G

eo

rgin

a A

ven

ue

San

ta M

on

ica, C

A

Leg

en

d

This

map

is a

use

r g

enera

ted

sta

tic

outp

ut

fro

m a

n In

tern

et

map

pin

g s

ite a

nd

is f

or

refe

rence

only

. Dat

a la

yers

that

ap

pear

on t

his

map

may

or

may

no

t b

e a

ccura

te,

curr

ent, o

r o

therw

ise r

elia

ble

.

0.1

40

1:9,0

28

Reg

ional

Lo

catio

n M

ap

JOsta

Oval

JOsta

Line

© L

ati

tud

e G

eo

gra

ph

ics

Gro

up

Ltd

.

0.1

TH

IS M

AP

IS N

OT T

O B

E U

SED

FO

R N

AV

IGA

TIO

N

WG

S_1

984_W

eb

_Merc

ato

r_A

uxi

liary

_Sp

here

Mile

s0.1

No

tes

1531 G

eo

rgia

n A

ve.

San

ta M

on

ica, C

A

Leg

en

d

This

map

is a

use

r g

enera

ted

sta

tic

outp

ut

fro

m a

n In

tern

et

map

pin

g s

ite a

nd

is f

or

refe

rence

only

. Dat

a la

yers

that

ap

pear

on t

his

map

may

or

may

no

t b

e a

ccura

te,

curr

ent, o

r o

therw

ise r

elia

ble

.

0.0

40

1:2,2

57

Loca

tio

n M

ap

Pa

rce

ls

SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, Santa Monica

Paste-up 1918-Feb 1950

1531 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica

ORIGINAL PLOT - ROOF PLAN


ORIGINAL FIRST FLOOR PLAN


ORIGINAL SECOND FLOOR PLAN


ORIGINAL ELEVATIONS: SOUTH (FRONT) AND WEST


ORIGINAL ELEVATIONS: NORTH (REAR) AND EAST

1531 G

eorg

ina A

ven

ue

, S

an

ta M

onic

a

OR

IGIN

AL P

LA

NS

: R

OO

FE

D P

AT

IO A

ND

BA

RB

EQ

UE

(1

945)


Los Angeles Times, real estate section highlighting subject property for sale, June 11, 1983 (prior to alterations)

1531 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica, CA

Oblique contextual view, looking northwest

Front (south) façade, looking north

Oblique view, looking northwest

Oblique view, looking northeast

Side (east) elevation, looking west

Oblique view with garage, looking southwest


Rear (north) elevation context perspective, looking west

Rear (north) elevation and patio area, looking southwest

Rear (north) elevation (left) and now enclosed roof patio wing

Garage door detail off 16th Street

Garage, side view and backyard area, looking west

View of easements trees, looking north along 16th Street


Aerial view of parcel (Douglas Elliman Real Estate)

Oblique view looking northwest (Douglas Elliman Real Estate)

Front (south) façade (Douglas Elliman Real Estate)

Oblique view looking southwest (Douglas Elliman Real Estate)

Rear (north) elevation and yard (Douglas Elliman Real Estate)

Rear (north) elevation and patio (Douglas Elliman Real Estate)

Architect Edla Muir Post-World War II Era Designs SAMPLING REPRESENTATIVE

1951, Zola Hall Residence, Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles (Maynard L. Parker Photographs, The Huntington Library)

1960, Johnston Residence, Oceanside, CA (MLS)





Architect Edla Muir Post-World War II Era Designs SAMPLING REPRESENTATIVE

1960, Muir/Lambie House, 2020 West Ridge Rd, LA (MLS)


1960, Muir/Lambie House, 2020 West Ridge Rd, LA (J Shulman)




OSTASHAY & ASSOC IATES CONSULT ING

PO BOX 542 LONG BEACH, CA 90801 562.500.9451

Documents

HISTORIC ASSESSMENT REPORT - Granicus