SR-406-004 (3)
.
.
I'J.'~
, .
/1'06- o(J!l
i r:~, n r. . ...
'~11a .:. ~ iOUf!
--J i ,._~
Santa Monica, California
C/ED:PB:AS
PC/CC037
Council Mtg:
January 23, 1990
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Landmarks Commission's Decision Against
Formally Considering the Landmark Designation of
LC-014-037, 1253-1255 11th street, Two single Family
California Bungalows. Applicant: Landmarks Commission.
Appellant: Councilmember David Finkel.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and
uphold the Landmarks Commission's decision to reject for formal
consideration the landmark designation of LC-014-037, two single
family homes located at 1253 and 1255 11th Street.
At the
meeting of November 9, 1989 the Landmarks Commission decided
against pursuing this landmark designation on a 6-0 vote.
Councilmember David Finkel is appealing that decision. The
appeal statement is contained in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
On September 14, 1989 the Landmarks Commission, on their own
motion, filed an application for the landmark designation of the
houses located at 1253 and 1255 11th street after receiving a
demolition permit for these structures.
At that time, the
commission was presented with preliminary research prepared by
residents of the 11th street neighborhood regarding the area's
historic and architectural significance.
The resident group
- 1 -
I~-A
~ n j.
"'~"" ... oJ ;990
.
.
explained to the commission that they intended to thoroughly
research the history of the eleven California bungalows located
on the 1200 Block of 11th street between Wilshire Boulevard and
Arizona Avenue. This research would then be submitted to the
Commission with the request that the commission sponsor an
historic district application for the neighborhood. The
residents argued that the neighborhood was representative of the
social and cultural development of Santa Monica and, therefore,
merited historic district designation. The Commission filed the
individual landmark designation application for the structures at
1253 and 1255 11th street in order to give themselves and the
neighborhood time to research and prepare a district application.
Additional research was presented to the commission at the
October Landmarks Commission meeting. ThiB information focused
on the history of the California bungalow and its role in
providing affordable homeownership opportunities to persons of
modest incomes. In addition, profiles were prepared on some of
the early 11th Street residents, who were found to hold jobs as
carpenters, pI umbers and realtors. Following review 0 f this
material, the Commission had general concerns regarding the
visual cohesiveness of the neighborhood, the neighborhood
context, owner support for an historic district, and how the
historic district criteria identified in the ordinance
specifically applies to this neighborhood. The Commission
requested that the residents address thes,e issues before the
November meeting. The decision on whether to formally consider
- 2 -
.
.
the landmark designation application for 1253 and 1255 11th
street was, consequently, continued until the November meeting.
At the same time, the Commission requested that staff investigate
developing a new designation and process that could recognize
structures, such as the 11th street houses, that contribute to
the cultural fabric of the City but do not have the same level of
aesthetic or architectural merit as a landmark or a structure
within an historic district. such a designation would require an
amendment to the City'S Landmarks Ordinance.
At the November meeting, following the presentation of additional
research as well as after substantial Commission discussion, the
Landmarks Commission voted 4-3 not to file an historic district
application for the 11th street neighborhood. Although the
Commission felt these structures merit.ed some level of
recognition, the majority did not believe an historic district
was justified. It is important to clarify that the Commission's
decision to not sponsor an historic district application for the
11 th street neighborhood does not preclude the filing of the
application by any City resident. However~ as a result of the
Commission's decision, the landmark application filed for the
houses at 1253 and 1255 11th street was not pursued further, with
the commission voting 6-0 to not designai:e the two buildings
historic landmarks.
In a separate but related matter, at the November 14, 1989
Council meeting, the City council uphE~ld the appeal and
overturned the Planning commission's approval of a three story,
- 3 -
.
.
five unit condominium on the site of the 1253 and 1255 11th
street bungalows.
ANALYSIS
The appellant states on the appeal form that "The residents of
the surrounding area believe that the above property should be
protected by landmark status, and that the Landmarks Commission
erred in not determining that it was entitled to that
protection." However, in filing the landmark designation
application for these structures, the COmIni:3sion did not believe
that the houses merited individual designation. The application
was filed to forestall demolition until the commission was
presented with sufficient information to determine whether an
historic district application was warranted. If the Commission
had not filed the landmark designation application, the
demolition permit for the houses could potentially have been
approved, subject to compliance with all other legal
requirements. Section 9048.1 of the Santa ~onica Municipal Code
permits the Landmarks Commission to review the demolition permits
of pre 1930s structures for a maximum of 30 days. However, if a
landmark designation application is filed during this time the
Commission is permitted a total of 90 days to determine if the
application merits formal consideration.
After three Commission meetings, substantial discussion, and the
presentation of research by the surrounding residents, the
Commission could not sponsor an historic district application for
- 4 -
.
.
the 11th street neighborhood. As a result, they voted to take no
further action on the subject landmark designation application.
The Landmarks Ordinance sets forth specific criteria by which a
landmark designation application is judged. One of the following
criteria must be met:
A.
It exemplifies, symbolizes,
cuI tural , social, economic,
history of the City~
or manifests elements of the
political, or architectural
B. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other
noteworthy interest or value;
c. It is identified with historic personages or with
important events in local, state, or nation history;
D. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics
valuable to a study of a period, style, method of
construction, or the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmenship; or
E. It is representative of the work or product of a notable
builder, designer, or architect.
In reviewing this criteria, the commission did not believe
findings could be made to support the landmark designation of
these two bungalows in that there are better examples of bungalow
architecture in the neighborhood and on ~ 1 th street, and that
these two bungalows alone cannot exemplify the cultural, social
or economic history of the city. In addition, the houses have
- 5 -
.
.
not been designed by a notable builder or architect, but rather a
local and unknown contractor I and no historic personages have
been found to be associated with the houses.
Since the
commission could not support an historic district application for
this neighborhood, and the individual buildings did not meet the
criteria stated above, they could not justify an individual
landmark designation.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the council deny the appeal
and uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission to not
formally consider the Landmark Designation application LC-014-037
for the two single family houses located at 1253 and 1255 11th
street.
prepared by: Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: A. Appeal from Councilmember David Finkel
B. Application for Landmark Designation of
1253 and 1255 11th Street
C. Landmarks Commission staff Report dated
10/12/89
D. Landmarks Commission Staff Report dated
11/9/89
E. Landmarks Commission Minutes dated 9/14/89
F. Landmarks Commission Minutes dated lO/12/89
- 6 -
.
.
Jut, 'c
I ~ t U C l'IV'YI'e.Yrt-
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEv..;ELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
~E~OB~NQ!!~
DATE: October 12, 1989
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Preliminary Recommendation and Determination for Formal
Consideration and Setting Public Hearing for Landmark
Designation Application LC-14-0J7, 1253 and 1255 11th
Street, Santa Monica, CA.
INTRODUCTION:
On September 14, 1989 the Landmarks Commission, on their own mp-
tion, filed an application for the Landmark Designation of the
houses located at 1253 and 1255 11th Street after receiving a
demolition permit for these structures. Photographs of these
structures will be available at the meeting.
BACKGROUND:
,1. The Landmarks Commission is in the process of discussing
the potential of an historic district on the 1200 Block
of 11th Street. This landmark designation application
was filed to delay demolition of these two structures
until a decision on proceeding with an historic district
is resolved.
2. These two California bungalows are both designed in the
Classical Revival style. The structure at 1253 11th
Street features a hipped roof with an intersecting
street facing gable above the front porch. The 1255
11th street structure is located at the rear of the lot.
It is a simpler and smaller structure with a gambrel
roof and a small hipped gable above the front entry.
Both structures are clad in clapboard shingles.
3. The small California bungalow, such as these two struc-
tures, provided even persons of modest incomes home-
ownership opportunities. These structures represent two
of the eleven houses along the 1200 block of 11th street
with potential historic and cultural significance. The
significance of these structures is largely dependent on
their contribution to the neighborhood context and the
character of the streetscape.
- 1 -
.
.
RECOMMENDATION:
In that the Landmarks commission has filed an application for
Landmark Designation on its own motion, the Co~ission must
determine that the houses at 1253 and 1255 11th street meet at
least on of the following five criteria under section 9607 of the
Santa Monioa Municipal Code.
A. It exemplifies, symbolizes or manifests elements of the
cultural, social, economic, political or architectural
history of the city;
B. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value or other
noteworthy interest or value:
C. It is identified with historic personages or with impor-
tant events in local, state, or national history:
D. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics
valuable to a study of a period, style, method of con-
struction, or the use of indigenous material or craftsman-
ship: or
E. It is representative of the work or product of a notable
builder, designer or architect.
In its initial review under Section 9608 (SMMC) the Landmarks
Commission may:
1. Determine that the application merits formal consideration
and schedule the date for the public hearing.
2. Determine that the findings necessary to prove the request
cannot meet the criteria necessary for Landmark Des~gna-
tion and disapprove the application.
3. Continue the item for a maximum of 45 days pursuant to
SMMC Section 9608.C. and consider the item at the November
9th regular meeting.
4. Take no action, whereby within 45 days the application
will be automatically disapproved.
Staff recommends continuing the decision on whether to schedule a
public hearing on this item until the November 9th meeting to
provide additional time to research the 11th street neighbor-
hood's potential as an historic district. If an historic dis-
trict application is filed then this structure would be incorpo-
rated into that new and separate application. However, if the
Commission determines that an historic district designation is
not warranted, staff would recommend not proceeding further vith
this individual landmark designation application.
Attachments: A. Project Application
- 2 -
.
.
DESCRIPTION
The one-story structure at 1253 11th Street is a typical bungalow
with a medium-pitched hipped roof. The street facade is dom~-
nated by a gable above the front porch and a pay window. Details
include the two classical columns bordering the front porch, the
two brackets supporting the bay window, and the slatted vent in
the front gable. Clapboard shingles clad the exterior, while the
roof appears to be composition shingles. Alterations include a
rear room addition and an open carport. Both are not compatible
with the original architecture, however, neither are visible from
the street.
The one story structure at 1255 11th Street is a plain bungalow
located to the rear of the 1253 11th Street house. This struc-
ture features a gambrel roof with composition shingles and clap-
board siding. A small hipped gable located above the entrance is
echoed by a similar shaped pediment. Two large, fixed pane win-
dows border the centrally place front door. The front door and
front window panes appear to be alterations.
STATEMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
.
The California bungalow is characterized by a simplicity in both
design and materials that enabled the builder to construct small
and affordable structure for approximately $1000. The bungalows
were designed in a variety of styles, from California Craftsman
to Classical Revival, spanish Colonial Revival, and Swiss Chalet.
The early, turn of the century, bungalows were typically small
o single story structures with attic areas to increase the storage
potential. The bungalow at 1253 11th Street appears to be clas-
sically inspired, as evidenced by the front columns and simple
proportions.
STATEMENT OF HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE
California bungalows, such as these two on 11th street, provided
even persons of modest incomes homeownership opportunities.
Typically, these structures were built by contractors, using or
modifying plans take from so-called "Bungalow Books" that pro-
vided floor plans, exterior renderings and, in some cases, inte-
rior renderings as well. Companies such as the California Ready
CUt Bungalow Company could also supply builders and potential
home owners with kitchen, bathroom, and lighting fixtures. These
two homes were built by contractor Waldo K. Cowan, who also con-
structed two homes on Arizona Avenue as well as another at 1239
11th street. They represent a housing type that was once preve-
lent in the City that was used by both year-round residents as
well as s~mmer visitors.
arb/lc037
- 1 -
.
.
Athci1me.Y)"t- b
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
tlEMOR~!!Ql!M
DATE: November 9, 1989
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM: Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Preliminary Recommendation and Determination for Formal
Censideration and Setting Public Hearing for Landmark
Designation Application LC-14-037, 1253 and 1255 11th
street, Santa Monica, CA.
INTRODUCTION:
On October 12, 1989 the Landmarks commission reviewed the Land-
mark Designation application for the California Bungalows located
at 1253 and 1255 11th Street. After opening the meeting for
public comment and following Commissioner discussion, the Commis-
sion moved to continue the decision on whether to scjledule a
public hearing until the November regular meeting.
BACKGROUND:
1. On September 14, 1989 the Landmarks Commission, on their
own motion, filed an application for the Landmark Desig-
nation of the above referenced houses after receipt of a
demolition permit the two structures. The Commission
was in the process of discussing the potential of an
historic district on the 1200 block of 11th street and,
therefore, filed the Landmark Designation application to
delay demolition of these houses until resolving the
decision on the historic district.
2. These two California bungalows are both designed in the
Classical Revival style. Clad in clapboard shingles,
the structure at 1253 11th street features a hipped roof
with a street facing front gable above the front porch,
while the structure at 1255 11th Street features a
gambrel roof. The landmark significance of these struc-
tures is largely dependent on their contribution to the
character of the streetscape. Individually, the ar-
chitectural, aesthetic, cultural, and historic value of
the structures is limi ted and not on a par with pre-
viously designated landmarks.
RECOMMENDATION:
In that the Landmarks commission has filed an application for
Landmark Designation on its own motion, the Commission must
- J. -
.
.
determine that the houses at 1253 and 1255 11th street meet at
least on of the following five criteria under section 9607 of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code.
A. It exemplifies, symbolizes or manifests elements of the
cuI tural , social, economic, pol i tical or architectural
history of the city;
B. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value or other
noteworthy interest or value;
C. It is identified with historic personages or with impor-
tant events in local, state, or national history;
D. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics
valuable to a study of a period, style, method of con-
struction, or the use of indigenous material or craftsman-
ship; or
E. It is representative of the work or product of a notable
builder, designer or architect.
In its initial review under Section 9608 (SMMC) the Landmarks
Commission may:
1. Determine that the application merits formal consideration
and schedule the date for the public hearing. .
2. Determine that the findings necessary to prove the request
cannot meet the criteria necessary for Landmark Designa-
tion and disapprove the application.
3. Take no action, whereby the application will be automati-
cally disapproved.
In that staff did not recommend that the Commission pursue an
historic district application for the 11th Street neighborhood,
staff recommends that the Commission determine that the subject
application does not merit formal consideration. Based on the
criteria established in the Landmarks Ordinance, staff believes
that the findings necessary to prove the landmark designation
request cannot be met. However, these are the types of struc-
tures that could be recognized as CUltural Resource Sites if the
Landmarks Ordinance is amended at a future time to include this
designation.
Attachments: A. site Photographs
AS : MT
ARB/LC0372
11/01/89
- ~ -
.
"5ep+-eYVI~r- l4, v:teq L a.Y\dyY\~v-k'S
CoYV\YY\ ,$~ 1)1"'\ M\......\J+e.s
4. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
.
Mo-cl-.VYI-~+ E
Ms. Meadows moved to discuss item 10C, Discussion of Landmark
Significance of Residential Structures Located on the 1200
Block of 11th Street and 1100 block of Arizona before Item 4,
Election of Officers. Mr. Freund seconded the motion which
was approved following a voice vote by all CO'\TlJ11issioners
present.
~ Discussion of Landmarks significance .of Residential
~ structures Located on the l2QO block of 11th street and
the 1100 Block of Arizona Avenue. .
J
staff. reported that residents ef this_ neighborhood were~
concerned that the craftsman homes would be demolished and
replaced with new developments. Therefore, they prepared the
preliminary research submitted to the Commission in order to
ascertain the Commission's evaluation of the potential
landmark status of these structures. Essentially, they would
like to know if the buildings are worth pursuing as
individual landmarks, as an historic district, or not at all.
Staff _ also noted that they have additional information to
present to the commission if the Commission decides to open
the item for public comm~nt.
Ms. O'Connor moved to open a public hearing. Ms. Hitchcock
seconded the motion which was approved following a voice vote
by the commission.
David Paley, 12331/2 11th street, stated that the interest in
this matter began when 1253 11th Street was posted with a
proposed demolition notice. Concerned that all the bungalows
in the neighborhood would be demol ished, they began
researching building permits for construction dates. Mr.
Paley presented additional photographs of the area as well as
information on bungalow architecture and how these houses are
an example of this style of architecture
Susan Suntree, 1223 11th Street, presented a map showing
that, of the houses built between 1900 and 1915 in the area
bounded by California Avenue, Colorado Avenue, Ocean Avenue,
and 20th Street, very few are still standing. This
particular neighborhood has had fev demol i tions and is an
intact example of an early 1900s Santa Monica neighborhood.
Spe explained that the nine houses under discussion are all
in good condition. She added that the letter from Robert
winter to the Commission states that these. small bungalows
representative of the affordable single-faMily houses that
enabled early California residents to have their own homes
and a piece of the "American Dream. 11_ ~.'f/;.:;~r:~~_~, ~;J:!*;~~!;;;.." ~
, .. r-" J 1 .... .coO ~ ,...... I .....,-A '"". " .
." r
Ms. Suntree added that Waldo' Cowan, . who built several .ot
these 11th Street homes, is listed.in CitY~Directories~tirst .
as a carpenter, then as a contractor, a realtor, and tinally
listed as a metnber of 1 the board ..:.of trade. A.! .He _is
< "';' ;.:ol! >". . , . J- ..~~" .~ .:-;; . , " ',-., -
.. ~" _ L~~~.,;"-'" -. 'Viw .. ~ ....,1'_
~i~... ~~ ..... ..~.. ""~"it""""~
... ,.... .y.:...._~~-iII...~~4;. -.... ....- -i t .I
.. .1..;.- .......If ,'Ow:::: ~. . ~, ~ 16": ~
r -r.:'f,.. ~ .". t -.-. .. ... . I ..... ~ I....
,~ ..). ~ ___ ',,, .:...~.. . _ _.#.*-. . ~ ~..J~...'':' .. .... .
,
.
.
representative of the type of person who lived in the city
and in this neighborhood. -She also stated that this
neighborhood provided a history of affordable housing, with
attractive yet moderate sized homes. She added that the
neighborhood is enhanced- by a nmnher of large and unique
trees. .
Ms. Litvak inquired what Ms. Suntree saw as the future use of
this neighborhood. Ms. Suntree responded that she hoped it
would remain a residential area and that, when walking down
the street, one would' see the City's history.
Ms. Meadows inquired-if tbey were part of an established home
owners group. Ms. SUntree stated they were a part of
Mid-City neighbors. Ms. Meadcws suqgested that they
investigate developing CC and Rs for the neighborhood since
that could provide some restrictions on development.
Ms. Hitchcock inquired if the structures
single-family. Ms. Suntree stated that many
have apartments at the rear of the lots" but
buildings were also constructed before 1915.
Ms. Hitchcock stated she was concerned about the level of
owner support for landmark designation. She inquired how
many of the homes were owner-occupied. Ms. suntree responded
that about three were owner-occupied.
were mostly
of the houses
most of these
~)
Ms. Hitchcock explained that she lives in the Hid-Cites area
and likes the idea of a district designation but was
concerned regarding the level of community support.
Mr. Freund stated that there appears to be two or three good
examples of bungalow architecture, but he was concerned about
saving holes between new buildings. However, here there
appears to be a collective strength.
Ms. O'Connor stated that she felt the landscaping added to
the character of the neiqhborhood. In addition, as a group
this neighborhood represents a housing style that is
important from an historical stand point. The ability to own
ones own home was a part of the American Dream. This
neighborhood is part of the social history ot Santa Monica,
and the criteria in the Landmarks Ordinance addresses this
issue. This neighborhood points to the cultural diversity of
tpe city.
Ms. Hitchcock added that there were no landmarks in the
Mid-Cities area.
.
Mr. Welsh stated that 1218 ~lth street. was ;.the:vbest, house
from an architectural standpoint.
J
Ms. Hernandez paraphrased Mr. winter's letter, "statinq that
these home were the embodiment of a lifestyle. She added
that some of the homes appear to have later additions.
-.j.. ...' . :r~~~'.':-'- \,i.i;
_ 'f3':~1"~h~.~.,i.
F .' ~. ~ -.I<i'_~
~:'" :::f'~ 4.....~... ~ ..~.
, ,
-..t(~~~ fI
~'.~ ~:.1.t..~
.
.
Ms. O'Connor noted' that additions can become a part of the
house's history, depending on how well they were done.
I
Ms. _ Hitchcock moved to have stafr prepare a preliminary
evaluation of the area's' potential as an historic district
with an eye toward filing an Historic District Designation
appli~ation while also reporting to the commission on the
level of community support for such a district. Hr. Welsh
seconded the motion.
~yes:
Freund, Hitchcock, Litvak, Meadows, O'Connor, Welsh,
Hernandez.
Noes:
None
staff noted that a demolition permit was currently pending
for the house at 1253 11th street. To be consistent in their
intent to investigate the neighborhood's potential as an
Historic District, the Commission should consider filing a
Landmark Designation application to allow more time to
research the building.
Ms. Litvak move to file a Landmark Designation application
for the house at 1253 11th street. Mr. Freund seconded the
motion.
Ayes:
Freund, Hitchcock, Litvak, Meadows, O'connor, Welsh,
Hernandez.
.J
Noes:
None
8:45 p.m. The commission recessed for a ten minute break.
8:55 p.m. The Commission reconvened.
5. ELECTION OF OFFICERS:
Hr. Welsh moved to nominate Dan Freund Landmarks Commission
Chair for fiscal year 89-90. Ms. O'Connor seconded the
motion which was approved following a voice vote by all
Commissioners present.
Mr. Welsh nominated Geri Litvak Landmarks Commission Chair
Pro Tempore for fiscal year 89-90. Ms. Meadows seconded the
motion. Ms. Hitchcock nominated Pam O'Connor chair Pro
Tempore. Ms. Hernandez seconded the motion. Ks. Li tvak
declined the nomination. Ms. o'connor was elected Chair Pro
Tempore following a voice vote.
Mr. Welsh agreed to continue serving as the representative to
the pier Restoration Corporation. Ms. Litvak aqreed to serve
as back-up. '
J
Ms. O'Connor agreed to serve as representative to the Bayside
District Corporation with Hr. Freund serving as back-up.
....
~. '
~..r I~.
.,.. . ~
< .
-
, .
1'.
- 4 -
.
Qc..-\-ober \Zl' g 89
Lc\'Y1dW\O\.'l'"'K..s c.ovn m' ~1'5' o~ M \ n.\J~.s
Boulevard. Mr. Welsh stated that he did not feel the
structure was landmark quality. Ms. Hitchcock concurred,
adding that she did like the building.
.
A-\+o..c ~.~m F ·
.
.
Mr. Freund added that the only other building of note was ~he
house at. 555 7th street. However, it was not well maintained
and he did not feel that the original design merited landmark
status.
The Commission took no action on the demolition
received since the September meeting.
permits
G
NEW BUSINESS:
A. Consideration of Historic District potential for the 1200
Block of 11th Street.
Given that a nnmher of members of the public present wished
to speak on this item, Ms. O'Connor moved to open a public
hearing. Ms. Hitchcock seconded the motion which was
approved following a voice vote by all Commissioners presen~.
Dave Paley, 1233 1/2 11th street, presented a slide show of
the houses in the neighborhood, discussing the architectural
merits of the bungalows.
Susan Suntree; 1223 11th Street, spoke regarding the street's
social development. She stated that their research has
involved reviewing land sale records recorded with Los 4It
Angeles County and researching the people who purchased the
property and developed the area.
Syd Jurin, 1244 12th street, #6, presented a petition as well
as letters of the those in support of an 11th street Historic
District.
Jim Betton, P.O. Box 533, Santa Monica spoke on behalf of the
copeland Square Community organization. He stated that it is
difficult to turn back the clock and that the neighborhood is
already fragmented. He suggested moving these houses to
another site, and consolidate them with other older
structures to create an historic area.
sylvia Shniad, 1517 Princeton street, .4, stated that she was
Vice President of Mid city neighbors and that she supported
an 11th street Historic District.
James Mount, 1201 San vicente Blvd., stated that he was the
architect for the proposed condominium at 1253 11th street.
He stated that he has experience in restoration work, having
restored the Simonson Motors Building after it was damaged by
fire. He added that he wrote an article on historic homes in
the City for the centennial edition of the Evening Outlook.
There are historic homes in Ocean Park, Ocean Avenue, and ..
Adelaide Drive. However, this neighborhood is at what was ...
then the eastern edge of the city. These were
- 2 -
~~
.
.
,
.
,
1\-,
t~
p-
f
t.
~..
'-
oJ-
'.
~;"
,~;
~
ol..
~-'
f:
.,
~e
~
~.
.
>>.
, ,
:r _
.....,. .
r-..' -
.
.
, -!#' - 1-
.
~ -
~.
'. .,.
~..
~. speculator, carpenter built, -. cracker-box houses.
Contextually, the houses are swallowed by their surroundings.
Bruce Cameron, 2210 24th"Street, stated tnat it is important
to designate these structures now, before more homes are
demoli~hed. It is also vital to complete the city's Historic
Survey so that it Is known what Cultural resources are left.
The commission closed the public hearing.
S~aff explained that a number of options are outlined in the
staff report for the Commission to consider. staff
recommended that the Commissions' decision on whether or not
to file an historic district application be continued until
the November meeting to allow the residents additional time
to research the neighborhood and to give staff the
opportunity to investigate the development of a new
designation c~lled a CUltural Resource site.
Ms. Hitchcock stated that she would like more information on
cultural resource sites before making a decision.
Mr. Freund explained that this designation had been discussed
informally and generally by the Ordinance Revision
subcommittee. This type of designation would be used for
structures of lesser merit than a landmark, but ones that
still contribute to the city's cultural identity.
staff added that since this would require amending the
ordinance, such a designation could not be used immediately
to protect any of the 11th street houses.
Ms. Hitchcock inquired what protection against demolition
would this type of designation have. Staff responded that
the intent would be to have some limited level of protection,
but that this would need to be developed.
Ms. O'Connor stated that designations give public recognition
to landmark issues. A cultural resource site would increase
public awareness of the City'S cultural diversity. In
addition, more neighborhoods would be eligible for this type
of designation.
Mr. Freund stated that the ordinance does not clearly define
historic district, however, he felt a district should be
visually cohesive. That would be difficult here, and
probably would have been 15 years ago.
Ms. Hitchcock responded that she was a Mid-Cities resident,
and the character of the area is a mix ot apartments and
single ~amily homes.
Mr. Welsh explained that he felt the area was too mixed to be
a district. Mr. Freund added that 1218 11th street, which is
the best house on the block, is in the worst location
- 3 -
.
.
-
,
abutting a parking lot. The few that are grouped together
have less architectural quality.
Mr. Freund suggested that the residents try to address the
following issues: neighborhood context, owner support, what
should define an historic district, the criteria specified in
the ordinance, and other al ternati ves for preserving the
houses.
..
Ms. O'Connor noted that there could be more creative
solutions to preserving the houses while still developing
around them.
Mr. Welsh moved to continue a decision on whether to file an
historic district application on the 11th Street neighborhood
until the November meeting. Mr. Freund second the motion
which was approved by a voice vote.
Ms. Hitchcock requested that photographs or xeroxed
photographs of each building be included in the November
packet.
Ms. O'Connor requested more information on cultural Resource
sites.
8:50 p.m. The Commission recessed for a break.
9:12 p.m. The Commission reconvened.
B. LC-14-037, 1253-1255 11th street tt
Determination for Formal Consideration and Setting Public
Hearing for Landmark Designation.
Mr. Freund moved to open a pub 1 ic hearing. Mr. Welsh
seconded the motion which was approved by a voice vote.
James Mount, 1201 San Vicente Blvd. spoke on behalf of the
owners of 1255 and 1253 11th street. He stated that the
proposed development was approved by the Planninq Commission
before being appealed to City Council. Based on the
Landmarks Ordinance, the houses could not be designated. He
requested that the Landmarks Commission pass on this and let
the appeal be heard by city Council.
Bruce Cameron, 2210 24th street, stated that he had sympathy
for the owners economic constraints, however, the Landmarks
Ordinance provides the opportuni ty to fully discuss these
issues through the Certificate at Appropriateness and
Certificate of Economic Hardship process.
Syd Jurin, 1244 12th street, stated that he was a property
owner and that he wanted to see Santa Monica's heritage
preserved. He requested additional time to resea~ch all five
points noted in the ordinance.
The Commission closed the public hearinq.
.
- 4 7
,
.
.
-
-;- I ~
~
Ms. O'Connor noted that most properties designated landmarks
do not meet all five criteria identified in the ordinance~
the ordinance only requires that a landmark meet one of the
cr! teria. The important issue is the degree to which a
criterion is met.
Ms. Hitchcock also noted that meeting more than one of the
criteria does not automatically ensure a landmark
designation. The Commission recently passed on a John Byers
designed house located on the Gold Coast.
Hr. Welsh moved to continue the. item. until the November
meeting. Ms. Hitchcock seconded the motion.
Mr. Freund noted that he agreed with the staff report which
stated that the building was not individually significant,
but that its significance hinges on the historic district
issue.
The motion to continue the item was approved following a
voice vote.
7. PUBLIC INPUT:
No persons were present to speak on this item.
8. COMMUNlCATIONS:
"
Several co~unication items
commissioners for their review.
were
directed
to
the
9. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
B. Subcommittee Activities.
Mr. Welsh reported that the Historic Resources Subcommittee
will begin working on the Landmark application for the Santa
Monica Bay Womens Club unless Louise Gabriel and the
Historical Society decide to proceed with the application
independently. He also reported that he is reviewing the
Landmark Brochure text for the P.R. Subcommittee.
ReI
Mr. Freund reported that the ordinance~ision subcommittee
will be establishing priorities for ordinance changes and
will be presenting this information to the Commission at the
November meeting.
The next subcolnmi ttee meetings were scheduled for Monday,
October 30th at the following times:
Historic Resources
Public Relations
Ordinance Revisions
6:00 p.m.
6:30 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
- 5 -