SR-7-A (46)~~
~~~ ~ 6~
PCD SF DM DJ F IPLANISHAREIC~UNCILISTRPT12fi12Second App wpd
Council Mtg February 16, 1999 Santa Mon~ca, California
TO Mayor and C~iy Cauncif
FROM Ci#y Staff
SUBJECT Ap~eal of a Condition of Approval of the ~andmarks Commission's
Qesignation of the 5tructure Located at 27~2 Second Street as a City
Landmark (Case No LC-98-LM-00~} Appiicant City af Santa Monica
Landmarks Comm~ssian Ap~ellants CF~urch in Qcean Park (Ur~ited
Methodsst), at~d Ocean Park Cammun~ty Organiza#san
INTRODUCTlON
This repvrt recammends t~at the City Caunc~i uphold the decision of the Lartdmarks
Commission designating the structure located at 2712 Secand Street as a City Landmark,
and requests that the Council provrde Staff with direction regarding the alteration,
relocation, or demal~t~on of the structure Qn December 14, 1998, the Landmarks
Commission desigr~ated the structure a City Landmark wifh the candition that the appficant
attempt to relocate the structure withm sixty days According to the condition, the
Commission would re~iew the efforts made by the owner to refocate the structure withirt
sixty days If sufficient e~idence were to demonstrate that relocation was nat passible, the
Comm~ssion wou~d allow the demQl~tion of the stnacture Two appeals ha~e been filed
concerning th~s condifion, one by the Church in Ocean Park (Attachment A~, and the other
by Ocean Park Community Organizat~on (Attachment B)
FEB 1 6 ~9
BACKGROUND
Landmarks Commission Action
The property owner filed a demol~tion permit applicat~on with the City on September 2,
'l998 Per the requirements af the City's Demolition Ordmance, the Landmarks
Commission re~rews all demalition permits for structures which are fifty years of age or
older A six#y day hold is placed on these demolitian permit applicat~ons to allaw adequate
time to assess the building for potential landmark s#atus If a fandmark des~gnation
applicafion ~s ~Filed by the Landmarks Commission or a member of the public, the
Landmarks Ordinance sets forth specific time frames for the pracess~ng of such
applications
The Commissian re~iewed tF~e demolition perrnit for 2712 Second Street at i#s regular
meeting on September 14, 1998 The Historic Resources Inventory's e~aluation of the
bufldmg ind~cates that it appears to be indi~iduafly eligible for designatian as a local
landmark, and for ind~vidual [isting in the Na#ional Regis#er of Histor~c Places Accordingly,
t~e Comm~ssian directed staff to research the structure to determine its ment as a
landmark, and to prepare a preliminary historic evaluatian of tf~e property Th~s preliminary
e~alua#ion was submitted to the Comm~ssion on October 19, 1998 The report presented
e~idence supporting the structure as a strong candidate for local landmark designat~on
Based on this Enformatian, the Commission filed an application to designate the s#ructure
as a local landmark by motian at the October 19, 1998 hearing
2
At ~ts No~ember 9, 1998 heanng, the Gommissian formally considered the application for
landmark designation, and scheduled a public heanng for December 14, 1998 At the
December hearing, the Landmarks Commission designated the structure as a City
Lar~dmark with the condition that the structure maybe demalished pro~ided that, within 60
days, the applicant submits the following a} full docurnentation of the structure for the
histor~c recorcf (including photographs and flaor plans), and 2) suffic~ent evidence that the
structure could nat be relocated
On January '~ 1, 1999, two ap~eals were f~led challeng~ng the candition potentially allowing
demolition - the same date of the regularly scheduled Landmarks Commission's January
meet~ng During the January 11, 1999 meeting, the Commission formally adopted the
findings forthe designafion In add~t~on, the property owner's representative inf~rmed the
Commission that the owner was aware of the appeals and would try to work with the
appellants #o find a suitable location for the structure in order to avoEd demolition
Description and Histonc Siqn~f~cance of Strucfure
This resic~~nce is located in the Santa Monica Tract soutl~ of Hil~ Street in the Ocean Park
neighborhood TF~e structure's style is described as "shatgun" - one raom wide, ane story
tall, and se~eral rooms deep The ent--ance is below the front gable, wh~ch is sheltered by
a~orch Tf~e pro~erty appears to reta~n a good le~el of integnty despite the fact that some
windows are boarded with plywood
3
The shotg~n house is an American buildmg type resultmg from a synthesis of sources from
fhe Car~bbean region, Europe and Afr~ca it is considered to be a vernacular form of
architecture rn that it presents its architectural expression through the use of common
forms, materrals and decoratron of a pface or per~od of time The shotgun style was
initially associated with Afr~can American cammunities of the southeast, but its adaptab~~~ty
to a Wariety of c~rcumstances, such as those where temporary or inexpensive housing was
required, meant that the shotgun house was quickly diffused thraughout the nation and
built m many communit~es Thrs City's architectural survey notes fhat this sfructure may
have been canstructed initially as a beach cottage, or may ha~e pro~ided housrng for
workers associated with the nearby rai! or vd ~ndustries The shotgun hause has been
recognized as an impartanf exarnple of American vernacular housing in such standard
texts as Virginia and Lee McAlisters' A Field Guide toAmerican Houses (1984) and Dell
Upton's Amerr"ca's Architectural Roots (1988)
As a result of the City's historic survey information and re~iew of doc~mentation for this
structure, staff recommended tha# #he structure was "s~gn~ficant for its age, architectural
type, and integrity The structure is a remarkabfy intact example of a shotgun hause and
should be preserved as a n~storical document of San~a Monica's heritage and deser~es the
high~st fe~el of locaE pratecti~n ° The residence is eligible for mdividual lisfing in the
National Regis#~r of Historic Places under Cr~terion C, as it "embodies distmctive
characteristics of a typ~ and penod of construction ° It is alsa elig~ble for local listmg ur~cler
CEty landmark designation criterian (a)(4), as it "embodies d~stinguishing arc~itectural
charactenst«s valuable to a study of a penod and style, and ~s a unique example of a
4
histancal type in the Gity of Santa Mon~ca "(See attached October 8, 1998 Landmarks
Commission Staff ReportlEWaiuation by Historic Consultant }
Photographs of the structure and testimony provided during the pubiic hearings
demonstrate that the mterior ceiling heights do not meet the minimum buifding code
requirements The photographs also show that the building is in a deteriarated condition
and appears to be in need of both structural and cosmetic rehabil~tation
The applicant su~mitted a structural engineer's repart (Attachment J) which concluded that
the structure is nat sersmically adequate The report contends that rehabilifation would
require extensive remo~al of interiar and exter~or surfaces to mstall strengthening
measures in add~tion, due ta the structure's lack of ties and connections for stability, it
would not be able to maintai~ its structural integnty if it were to be moved to anotF~er
locat~on
Although City B~ailding and Saf~ty staff agree that the bu~lding is not seismically resistant,
the (e~el of rehabilitation required witF~ regard to the architectural integrity of the structure
remains unclear, and requires additianal analysis Both CEQA and tF~e State Historic
Building Code (~sed in place of the Uniform Building Code ~~ the case of histor~c bu~ldings)
seek to ensure that his#arical resources are protected Since the City must comply w~th
these rules, further analysis regarding the feasrbil~ty of rehabilitating (as apposed to
rebuildmg) this structure may be required
5
ANALYS IS
Appellant's Staternents
The appellants state that thrs iandmark designation appeal is based on the foflowing
reasons (Please note that each of the appellant's reasons is indicated in bold text Staffs
analysis faliows in regular text ) Although the pro~ect has been appealed by two separate
groups, both appeals refer to the same condition, and are repeated r~ full below
7. (Ocean Park Community Organization or "~PCO").
Neighborhaod Association wants more time to negotiate a community use to
saWe historic building. We disagree with the finding of Section II (1y that
allows the structure to be demolished despite being a City fandmaric.
2. ~Church m Ocean Parkj.
The Church in Ocean Park commends the Landmarks Commission for
designating 2712 Second Street as a landmark. It naturalEy follows then that
this structure should not be allowed to be demolished. Therefore we appeal
Section II (1 y of Findings and Determination. City stafF to issue a demolitian
permit withi~ 30-60 days when there is a community group making sincere
efforts to ha~e the structure relocated.
We support the community as represented by Ocean Park Community
Organization, in their efforts to mv~e the struc~ure to another site and
rehabilitate the structure. The structure represents an important part of
Ocean Park neighborhood history. The Church in ~cean Park and one of its
6
accessory bui~dings has a 100-year history. We, ourselves, made every effort
to rehahilitate #he Archer House at great expense because of our own interest
in preserving history.
The sub~ect of these appeals, Sec~ian 11 (~) of the F~ndings and Determ~natron on th~s
fandmark ~esignat~on reads as follows•
1 The applticar~t shaE4 attempt to relocate the structUre wtithEn 60 days, and
return to the Camm~ssEOn with ev~dence of such ~fforts if the Comm~ss~on
determFnes that the owner has made reasonable effarts to reiocate the
structure and ~t is not pass~ble ta do so, the Cammissfon shall allow City staff
to issue a demolition permit
In making the designat~on f~ndings for tY~ts structure, the Landmarks Cammiss~or~
recogn~zed that the st~ucture met #he m+riEm~m landma~'k desig~at~on cr~ter~an ~~ that t~e
b~ilcimg embodies clESt~ngu~sh~ng arch~tecturaf characterESt{cs valuable to a study of a
per~od and styfe, and is a unique exam~le of a histor~c buildmg type in the City of Santa
Mon~ca Hawe~er, the Commission also recognized that the structure fs in a deter~orated
co~dit~on, and that the restoration would require extens~~e structural modifications which
might result rn tne rebuifding, rather than the ret~abi}~tation, of the architectural
charac#er~st~cs wh~ch quaf~fy this property as a 4ar~dmark
Although stafF bel~eves the structure warrants landmark status, staff has not verified the
property owr~er's contention that the structur~ cannot be repa~red without destroying the
building's character defining exferior f~atures {See Attachment G, letter with report from
7
Nabih Youssef, Structural Engineer}
CITY COUNClL OPTIONS
Under t~e provisions of the Landmarks Ordmance, tf~e C~ty Councif has three options,
wh~ch are outlined below
1) The Council may uphold tf~e decision af the Landmarks Commission and designate
the structure located at 2712 Second Street a landmark based upon the Landmarks
Ordmance critena contained in Section 9 36 140, and consider allor-ving demolition
of the structure
In rnost c~rcumstances stafF does not recomme~d that thES pro~ision be used since ~t
significantly detracts fram the ~ery protections that a landmark designation provides in that
it would al[ow demolit~on of a iandmark s~ructure However, if the Council does take this
act~on, re~iew under the Caiifornia En~ironmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be required
before authorization of the demolition may occur Under CEQA, a pro~ect (including
physical demolition, destruction, relocat~on, or a[teration of the resource} wh~ch may cause
a substantial ad~e~se change in tF~e s~gnificance of an t~EStorical r~source is considered to
be a pro~ect that may have a significant effect on the environment Under CEQA, the City
is required #o identify potentially feasible measures to mitigate signif~cant ad~erse changes
in the signifECance of an historicaf resource
2} The Counc~l may decide that the findings cannot be made for #he designation, and
therefore o~erturn the designation and allow demol~t~on o~the structure Findings
would have to be made demanstrating that the structure does not meet the
$
Landmarks Drd~nance's mmimum cr~teria for designa~ion
3} TF~e Council may uphold the designatior~, but o~erturn the decfsion to allow
demolition of the structure Under this option, ~f the Cauncil chooses #o consider
whether the structure may be aEtered, rehabilitated, or refocated, CEQA revi~w
would be required to deterrnine whether the alterations present a significant impact
on the histaric fesource Under the {a~dmarks ordinance, any permit processing
time frames may be extended by the Director of Planning by such per~ods as are
necessary ta comply with CEQA (see SMMC §9 36 280)
Irt additjon, the Cauncil should note the Landmarks Ordinance t~me cons#raints related to
appeals Sect~on 9 36 180(e} requires that the Counct! issue a determinat~on an an appeal
no more than 30 days from the date of the initial pubf~c hearing The Councrl must,
therefore, rer~der a deas~or~ on this appeal no ~ater than Marc~ 78, 1999
PUBLIC NOTIFICATiON
No#ice of this public hearing was published in The Argonaut Newspaper and mailed ta all
owners and residential and commercial tenant afi property focated within a 30Q faot radEUs
of the pro~ect at least 10 days prior ta #he hearing A capy of the notice ~s contained in
Attachment D
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented m this report does not ha~e any budget or fiscal impact
9
RECOMMENDATI~N
It is respectfully recammended that City Counc~l uphoid the decision of the ~andmarks
Commissian to designate the structure located at 2792 Second Street a City Landmark
with the follawing finding ar~d direct staff regarding how ta proceed with any alteration,
rehab~litation, or relocat~on of the structure
Finding
The st~-ucture located at 2712 Second Street meets SMMC historic designat~on
cnteria 9 36 100{a)(4) in that it embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics
vaiuable to a study of a period and styie, and is a unique exampie of a hisfoncal
type m the city of Santa Monica The shotgun house is an American building type
that resulted from a synthes~s of sources fram the Carib~ean region, Europe, and
Africa It is a~ernacular architectural farm that was ~nit~ally assoc~ated with Afncan-
Amer~can communities of the sautheast, but its adaptabilEty ta a ~ariety of
circumstances, where temporary or inexpensi~e housing was required, meant that
the shotgun house was quickly diffused throughout the nation and used by many
commun~ties T~te shotgur~ house at 27~2 Seeond Street may have beer~
constructed initially as a beach cottage, or may have pro~rided housing for workers
assoaated with the nearby rail or oil industries The shotgun house has be~n
recognized as an ~mportant example of American ~ernacular housing in such
standard texts as Virginia and Lee McAlisters'A Field Gurde fo Amerrcan Houses
{1984} and D~li Upton's America's Archrfecfura! Roofs (1986}
Prspared by Suzanne Fr~ck, Director
Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
David Martin, Senior Planner
Danna Jerex, Associate Planner
C~ty Planning Division
Plann+ng and Commuhrty Development Department
Attachmen#s
A Appeal Forms
B Landmark Designation Apptication LC-98-LM-001
C Public Notice
D Landmarks Commission Excerpt Minutes
E Landmarks Commission stafF reporks
F ~andmarks Comm~ss~on Designation Findings and Determmation
G Report from Nabih Youssef & Assoc , Structurai Engineers
H Lettef from Lawrence & Hard~ng dated 211 QI99
F'~P! AN`SHARE~~COUNCE~'~STRP ~~,2n12Second App vrpd
10
ATTACHMENT A
£s- _~,
~~ Crty of
Santa Monica
Department ot Plann~ng and CommunGty Development
Piann~ng and Z~n~n~ Drvasion
(310j 458-8341
APPEAtFQRM
Date F~led
Rece,ved 8y
Rece~pt Na
_~ ~~~ ;
~ n.
~~l,f~ ~;
~
il~ _ I~J.~~'~~.
-v v v -
Name ~C G~ ~.cL~(~.c,~ , C'c c._Lu~r+'. ~-CcCc (~ ~~< < Gc [~~~3~~3~~.~~ ifi~ L`r-E ~U-~ ~ z~~~-~...
Address /~~ ~~%!~t' ~ ~'~~, ~~~f ~T~ f ~ i ( 1~~{ l~ C ~1~ ! ~'~~?_% `~
Contact Person -~~'-t I~u~ ~u-~C~.~ , C( L C Phor~e -3~` -~`iL• ~d'~2 ~
~
~iease descr~be~ t~~~a. .p~rr~a~ect and d c~s~on ta be appealed ~~I
~.-Lr.i w~tGLr (cS ~'c.r]')r}'1 r 5 5 r c.~ ~~ i~ i~'~ ~ Zl'`i !~ ~7 ~ ~[,l( 4'1.~~ ~./1`~L~ /~~~ A7c c' r
0~7 ! a. ~.Co r~ G~ ,Sf
Gase N~mber L~- -`~ ~, t- ~"~~~ ~
Ad~dress ~-11 ~- ~-~' c~ ~ t.
Applicant '' _1x.f+ ~~r~l-~ l.~m f??U~ ~ r'~ (,ra~U.-C'~-~L,-~ri~w ~~~~~c~1.S ~r~ sf C~~t.1J Cc~p~,c<c~,
Or~gmal Hear4ng Date ~Z~!'f ~ ~"~~~- 4 ~~,
Or~gmal ActROn ~rc ~ CL~~r.n, 6~.;,-x.~ -
~lease sta#e tt~e specific reason(s) for the appeal
~~~-ai~i~c-rhuc:~c~ ~ SSCC~~ari~~ c,~.{~nts rYt~.~,~~ ~7Yx-~- ~ ~..kc r-7~~~
C.~ ~'_ ~~n ~~ n ~ ~+-+~. a~ ~&: S~.U-e_ i~ . , ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~w 1 cw-k, ~U'` :~1~ _~ , :~~-~ L
~ II
~,v 1'it f~ f ~~'LGq r7t ~ ;~fi ~ ~~'i JL.. ~ . ~ LlL~~~ LL~! ~i(.,~ ++-I" I, v ~~i ~~~ _
#3: ~ c~. rr~.: r_t ~ r~c c~ u., ac~ rC. ln,~ ,-n~, ,~ t: ~~,~ r~-~.-~F.t ~~n ;.~--!,~ . v
- ~ ~ - ,
;
Please provide two self-addressed, stamped, letter-slzed envelopes.
l ~ a r- k
G C
S~gnature ~~"`"f ~`~~i Date ~ ~~ ~ ~
`t~1G
~L Citv of ~-
Santa 1Vioriica
Department of P4anntng and Community Development
Plann~ng art~ Zohlr~g Uivision
t310j458-834i
APPEAL FORM
Date ~~led ` ~ ~ E ! ~y ,I ~~fI~//~'.
f~EC~rveG~ ~y ~~ • \_~j `CYl', r
Receip! 1Vo `J~~
Name ~~f ~'~ ~~ ~~ OG,~A~~l p~f ~~ fi~~T~ D ~y,~r~ DI J'T ~
Address ~~h f~ ~l~- f ~~~~"T ~~ T~ ~ ~'t~i ~ ('~f `~ °~f~5
Cantact Person ~r~Tr~ G~~,~'~Q - ~~~ Phone ~ { ~l 1 ~ ~ ~9 U - ~ 5 ~ 9 = ~jo ~a ~
Please descr~b~ the pro~ec# and decrs~on to be appealed ,~ r'~vG f~'~~ ~• C~1-r~ Q~ f
~ 7 ~ ~' J',EC~~/~4 ffRE~~ ~ - .f ~ r G /-v !-~ ~I ~'~
~ h ti Q ~J ~-~PK D~',ri G~~- r ~ o.~l ~ ~'~w ~'-4 r ~ ° ~/ ~ G - ~ ~,~---~ - oa /
~~~~~P': -f~~'r .I'~C-f~a Y' ~l ~~ ~ ~QC• rff~ ~ .~ ~ D~~ o~-•~rd.~ P~~~y•~"
Case Number l- ~r - 9~~-'`~ - 4~ ~
Address ~ ~ ~ ~- .~~ P~~f ~ .~r~.~~T ~ f ~~/T~ ~ D~/ fC~
~ ~~~"ff ~~r!' ~ ~~~~,c~-~r r~ ~~~~~-.,r~ ~aR ~ry~/~~ ~
Original Heanng Date ~~C~^a~.r~~ %Q !s~ ~ ~~I9 ~} ~ ~
9~g+~a1-Astaon ~f ~ D M /~ ? ~l .! i ~ ~ •~ / ,l,/' ~ a ,5/ _ /~l~.~~., C~ 1~ T
Ple se state the specific reasan(s) tor the appeal ~l~l~ ;~~f /? ~~ /~/ ~/ C~~-4-~/ ~~'~'~
~~ ^~'"1 ~ N~ ,~ T ~f ~ ~'ll d " f ~-'t''r~ f (~° M / ~~'r ' 1/ ~ il ~,~ ,~• ~'i~v 4 ~ ~'4r~
~ 7 ~ ~ .l',r~~Gp~/ D ~/'r.~~~~ ~ ~~ ~3 ~ ~'~4 ^~ ~'P ~ , l T ~V~f > ~~~!'~~
~~ ~f ~~~~'V ~~~-~ T~ ~J~ .~r'~ ra Gr/~.E J'~v /~d ~o r
~~' ~Fl.~ e ~/,c~/J To ~~ D,~~ r~.i ~-/f ~D T~f~.'~ ~-F-~ /d~ l.-~E
P~~~-~ ,I',~c r«~ ~! j ~ ) ~ ~ ~~.,~~•.,•~~.r ~ ~-.,i~ ~~ T~.~~, ~~-T,~,~
~,~ /~'° /I~+ T ~,~Li~r/~ T.ij~~ ~'o-^~~y~.~.rt ~-/ ,1,~ c/f~,d ~f's-~o [./
, ~'r r / ~'~~"~~ ~~ ~1~,(~/~ ~ ~~/~'l DL~~~..,~ ~ ~E~PM ~ r a!1~~136-voO,;r
_ G-'~I.rc N Tff.E ~~E ~•T ~ ~' ~~/ Mr/~ »/ ~r~ o /P n.-/ ~ /r~ -/ /'r
f'~ ~/C~lP ~ ~'~~i ,~+ Tf To if~ v~ Tff~ .~T~P ri/'_ :/~P ~ ~P~f.- r~- r~D .
. . - -
~.~" r~v tPa ~? T T~~ G ~ ^~ ^.l ci,c/ f r,,~ . ,~j" ,~ ~~P~P.~' ~I' ~~/TEQ ~}/
~l ~`,F/Y~/ p~ 'Q ~(' ~ "1 a.l / r1/ ~ ~ 4'~/r ~J ~ / ~ r~ o •1f ~ I ~/' T 1 f ~ / •~
CF~.-r r,f Ta ~^-!v /E ~~~ ~fr~r/r: ci~~~ ~~ .4--Jnr.~E~P
,!' ~ r'E ~4~f4 ~P~ ~`}~#B~l~ ~'A- >~" 7~f~F ~~•PuC~r/~,~~ • Ti~~ '
J'TrP ~Gfv•P ~ .QGO~Q~c ~~~/~~ .~} -/ I ~ po R r'~t~,/r ~~~Ci 0 ~
4~4--/ P.4R ~r ~/,~~G.f ga~1f'° °Q If ~tirro~4 T.r~.' C~fv/1C ~- ~-,/
C C~4 ~i ~~4~~r' ~~/e Dn~~ o~ ~ ~~ ~f C ~.~~~4 ~ ~/~~ ~ ~~J' ~ ~f~
~ I~o~,Q I-f ~,r~T~ AP , fi~~' n,~~fK'~/~-f ~•~-d~~ ~v~Qr ~~ 4r
T~ ~P~ ~~ ~~. r-~-~~ ~ r~~ f~ ~~ ~F ~~1.cr~ 9 r G~e~~r ~~-~~-v,~~
~3~GA- v.I~ o~ v/.Q o ry~V /~r r~~~'~T" ~~/ P~e~s~~e v~.v~r ~ ~fra ~4~ /,
Please pravide two self-addressed, stamped, letter•sized enveEopes. j
S~gnature
~ ~~ ~~G~~~ ~~
~"""`t~CDate
, I
~;f~~;f~~
~tF~3
ATTAC~NT B
~_ r ~ ~
~ ~1 ~
Citv of
S anta ~Vionic
~and ~se a°~c'rar.sponatron Managemeni
Pragram and Policy Divi~sQr
:310i4~8 8585
C[~lf OF SANTA AIlQNICA ~w,rumKr,~,,, COt~IMiSSEON
APPLICATION FOR LANDMARK ~~SIGPIA~ON
Tpe Lancimarks Comriussion meets on the second Monday of each month Appticahons t4L ST
be frled a minimum ot three cveeks before the meetu-g date.
~
A~~I~~at~nr- N4r~ber{s;
LC 98LM-OOI
Filed lU/19/98 by Lan~narks Com~ission
Fee ~~~
Rece~~t N/A
pY 0.1
PROJECTA~QFi~SS }~j~ $Pennd StrPPt
La~d Use E~ement Distnct Zonmg District OP-2
lega~ Desc~i~lon [R t. Bl k Tr t)
APPLICAHT C'~y °~ $an~a ranica ~~anamarxs ~a~m3ssi~ne
Ap~reSS 1685 i~lain 5treet, Room 212, Santa Mnnica. CA
CONTAGT P~~~~N ~0nna Jerex, Associate PTanner Pha~e
Address City of 5anta Monica (5ame as AbovP)
Al`TORNEY _ _ Pnone
Address
Sa~ta Momca Bus~ness L~cense #
F•oposed Lar.amark Commonly Known as ~~ic ~«~~unu ~~~ re~
Re~• Control Status
Dw^e~ e~ Pra~erty Crai g Gowan
ega esc, p,or. ,,o b ocK ar rac )
5ta~;~s Dcc~pied lJroccup~ed xx
Ex~s-~~g use{s} o° Site S~n91Q FamiTy Residence
;ccessible t~ Public. Yes, Rest~:cted Yes,lJrrestrrc;ed xX _ N;,t Accessrple ?o PubJi~
31U. 4~tS. ti341
90401
310.458.8341
L I!] '~ t~ f- ~ k d t t ~Qt 5s BTock A, Sarrta IMcrnica Tract
Ada;ess 2708 Third Street, ~`~
Ci;~ Santa Mc~n~ca S~ate
Z,~. yo4o5 Phane.
Is o~operty owner aware of Th~s a~DliCa~ion xX Ye5 No
_at S~~e
Fiecogrized ir, ex;sting Sar.±a Mon ca H,storc Reso~rces Inver,ory
Descnp4o~ _ Altered U^a~te~ed
~ororoon Exce!leRt Gooc zx
De~enarated _ -Ru:ns
l3nexposed ,archaeolag~ca° s~te;
.. ..
~ Case hfo 9~LM OOi
CA
xx Yes No
Fa~ r
BACKGROUND 1NFORMATION Piease ar.ac~~ aad:t~onal s~ees rf~ecessary
D?scr~ntian of s~te or struc;~re, note any ma~or alterat;or~s ana dates af a;terat~on5 Shotgun house. Dne racxn
wise, one starv tall, several ronms deep Appears to reta~a a qood level of inteqrity
despite the fact that w~ndrnrs are boarded on t~zs vacant bui]dirtg.
5ta-er~ent o~ A=ch;tec~~rai S~grdicance ~ The property
qualifies as local ~andmark under des~gnation criterion (a){4} of Landmarks Ord.
iri-that ~t ••emooaies aiszinguisning arcn. cnar valuaoie tio a stiudy ar a~Prion ana
~i.~ic ui~~~ ~n u uniyuc cnunq.~c w~ a n~~..v~ia.o~ ~,~F.c ~~~ ~..~ Lt4~ ~i ..unw. ~ia,..~a.n.
5'a'ementofHistorcallr~portar•ce (see abnve]_ 5tructure is also ~otent~allv elia~ble fnr
individual ]istanq in the Hational Register of Ftistoric Places un~er Criterian C,
as it "embodies distinct~. rharacteristtcs af a type and period af canstructinn."
Yerso~~;s; ~~ H~sEO-ica~ fmportance~Name
Lo~l 5tate _
S~teme^• or o~n~r sig^~ficarce
Unkno~rn
Nat~onal
rage -° cr 4
~.. ,_~~iJ
Documen;s D~ Publ~cations that relate d,rectfy to pr~posed lanpmark ibibiiogra~hy1
Santa MM~tca Hastoric Resaurces Inventory
A:tach photographs oi s.te ov 5tr;;cture
SKETCH ~IAP
In the space be4ow, ~raw a sketch showing the ioca:~on Qf t:~e s~te ar s~r~clure be~ng proposed 4~~e1 streets and
raads ar,d show drstar€ce from ~earest ma;or ~rtersection Add art arrow to show north on the r~ap
5Pe Attached ~hPets
FOR ST€iUCTURES OHLY
DaEe of canstr~ction of afE s:ructures under consideratian Are-19D0
Arcf~itect Contractor
H~storic use af structvre{s) S~ ngTe Fam~ 1y Residencp
PreSent use af structure(s) y~cant
IsiAre suucture(s) o~ arigEnal s~te~ Yes [V4 unknowr
IsfAre s~uct~re~s) t:~reaiened wFth desN•uctian "x Yes No
Ify~s,st3tereas~n Uemolition penmt application filed an September Z,
1998.
I CEfiTfF"~l that ti~e ~nformat~on con;a~ned ~n thss appficat~an ~s c~rrect to fhe best of my knowtedge and t~at tn:s
a~plicat~on is made with the knowle~ge and consent of t~e property owner
AppE~cant's S~gnature Date
dnver's I~cenSe number State Exp~rataon date
6ate Received 1a/19/98 6y OJ for Landmarks Corm~ission
S;~bm~ttal of Pla~ning D~reccor's Evaluations pate 11/9/98
Acc• ntance af Evaluati~n by Landmarks Co~ ^~,ssion pate I1/9/98
DetermEnatian af i.andmarks CommiSSion ihat application merits formal considerat~on Yes No p2te. 11~9/98
Notiticatlons Transm~led 7o Proper:y Owners and Tenanis Wrthin 30 days of f~hng
Formal Cansrderat~ort
Ta Hewspapers af general c~rculat~on Date
To owners and res~dents w~thin 3Ufl feet Date
Pub~~c Hearmg
To NewSDaperS oi general circul3Uon Date 12/3/98
7o awners and res~dents wi~hin 300 feet Date
Publ~c Hear~ng Date t2~14~98 Gont~nua~on Date
Comm~ss~on Recommer~at;orl
C~ty Council Act~on Daie_
Den~ed Date
Amendments to appl~cat~on
Page 2 af
Source
~: ~. - +.i ~ ~
Attached Sheets to Designation Application: 2712 Second Street
Janet L. Tearnen
Historic Resources Consultant
224 Norwood 5treet
Rediands. CA 9237"s
(909)793-8583
fax(9~9)793-8727
e-rnai! tearnen@worldnet att net
September 30, 1998
Ms ~onna Jerex, Associate PlannEr
City of Santa Monica
Planning D~~ision
1685 Main Street
P O Box 2200
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2200
RE Residence at 2712 2"d Street E~aluation of Histonc/Architect~aral Signi#icance
Dear Ms Jerex
Per your facsimile dated 15 September 1998, the Landmarks Commission requested that we
evaluate the historiclarch~tectural signifECance of the residence at 2712 2"~ Street Sigrnfrcance
was assessed in accordance with the National Reg~ster Cntena for E~aluatian and City of Santa
Monica Mun~crpal Code Ghapter 9 36, "Landmarks and H~s#onc Distr~cts "
The ~esidence is iocated w~thin the Santa Monica Tract, sauth of H~ll Street in the Ocean Park
ne~ghborhood It was pre~iously surveyed as part of the Santa Monica Historic Resources
Inventory Phase 3(Lesf~e Heumann & Assoc~ates) At that t~me the property was assigned a
Nationaf Register of Histonc Places Stat~s Code 3S, "appears elig~ble for separate [~ndividual]
listEng in the Nat~onal Register of Histanc Places," and was also recommended for addition to the
C~ty-designated Third Street Neighborhood Histonc District (focated north of Hil! Street)
In preparmg our evaluation we reviewed the following documents as provided to us by the
Plannjng and Zoning Division
Histar~c Resources In~entory (DPR) forms
2712 2nd Street, Leslie Heumann, 1993
2540 Block of Third 5treet District (potential distnct), Leslie Heumann, 1992
200D-2100 Blocks of Third Street DistrECt {potential distric#), Leslie Heumann, 1993
Third Street Neighborhaod Historic District GIS Map. City of Santa Monrca, March 6, 1998
Thrrd Street Neighborhaod Historic District Wafk Through Tour brochure, City of Santa Mornca,
nd
Map of Santa Monica Tract, Recarded by Abbott Kinney and Francis G Ryan, May 8, 1893
A survey o# the praperty was completed to asse:,~ the architectura! qual~ty and integrity of the
residence and talce phofographs A reconnaissance survey of the neighborhoad was also
completed to provide a comparati~e basis for evaluation of significance, and to assess the
feasibihty of add~ng the property to the Third Street Neigt~borhoad H~storic District
~E. ~ ~1~~
This shotgun house can be descnbed as ane room wide, one story tall, and several rooms deep.
its entrance rs located beneath the f~ant gable end and is sheltered by a porch The proper#y
a~pears to reta~n a good level of ~r~tegr~ty although sorne wmdow apenrnqs have been recently
boarded up w~th plywood
The shotgun hause is an American buiiding type that resulted from a synthesis of sources from
the Caribbean region, Europe, and Afnca I# is a ~ernacular arch~tectural farm that was inEtially
assaciated with African-American communities o# the southeast. but Ets adaptab~lity to a ~ar~ety af
circumstances, where temporary or inexpensi~e housing was requfred, meant that the shotgun
house was quickly diffused throughout the nation and used by many communities As Ms
Heurr~ann has noted. the shotgun house at 2712 2"d Street may ha~e been constructed initially as
a beach cottage, or may have provided housing for workers associated w~th the nearby rail ar oil
industries The shotgun house has been recognized as an important example of American
~Ernacuiar housing in such standard texts as Virgmia and Lee McAlis#ers' A Freld Guide to
Amer~car ~'~ ~ses (19$4) and De" '';~ton's Arrrerrca's /lrchrtecfura! Roats (1986)
As a result of the survey and dacument re~iew, we concur with the findings af the Phase 3
Survey that the "property ~s s~gn~ficant for ~ts age, archrtectural type, and mtegr~ty " Th~s
remaricably in#act example of a shatgun house should be preserved as an h~storical document of
Santa Monica's E~er~tage ancf deserves the hEghest level of Iocal protect~on The residence is
el~gible for jndi~idual listing m the National Register of Historic Piaces under Cr~terion C, as ~#
"embadies dist~nctive characteristics of a type and period of construction " It is akso eligible for
locai IistEng under City ~andmark des~gnat~on criter~on {a)(4), "it embodies distmguishing
architectural characteristics ~aluable ta a study of a period and style. and is a unique example of
a historical type in the city o~ Santa Monica "
As a property that is eligible for the National Register and desrgnation as a local landmaric, the
resid~nce deri~es greater significance individua~ly than as a con#ributor to a histaric distrfct
However, ~t couid also be added ta the ThErd Street Neighborhaod Historic Distr~ct, if the
boundaries for the distrFCt were recons~dered and expanded It is consistent with the statement of
signiffcance for tha district and falls within the period of sigrnficance (1875 and 1930)
Please let us know Ef you need any additional mformation
Si~cerely yours,
Janet L Tearnen
Lauren Weiss Bricker
F~PLANISHARE'~LMKIDESI G511997 96'ti27 ~ 25econtl Pre~~m wpd
G
~'t~. "U~ U
,IYIn y~4~1%Jllua .,~n n...uu.ro~.*yeu~.Y
pEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
QFFICE OF FtISTOR]C PREBERVATOI!
HISTOR~C RE50URCES lNVENTOAY
IDENT'FtCATEQN ANp LOCATION
' h~s:or~ name ~Poten*ia~ Na~lOPdl ~15~P)''
2 CommQn o• curren~ name N~T7@
Ser No -
r~at+onai ~leg~ste~ Status 35
_oca~ bes;gnatio~
~3 '~umter 8 street Z712 2Tld 5'treEt Crasscorndor
C~ry Santa Manica Vcinity oniy Zp 90405 Gounry La~N
a U'M zone 11 A B C D
5:~~ad map No ~a:cel Nc 428cs-4d3-~0~ G';he~ ~
DESCRIpTI~N
8 Property ca,ecory Bi23id11'IC~ '~ d~stnct numoer of documented resources
Bnef`y Ges~rbe '.~e ~rese~t on;,s;;,a; ar,oea-a^ce o' ~ e ~•acerrY ~rd~dng ocnd,tor. dounaar•es reia*ed 'ea;ures surcc::nc.ngs and ~ f ap~r~ar~ate~
arch:tect~ral st}~e
A relic fror~ th~ 19th cenfiary, t'~us is a ane story, baai~ci and batten cottage.
E~ctr~nely na~~-raw in its .~ass~.rlg, the buildux3 appears to b~ a"shot~gur--" with rooms
Iyned up one behind the other w~th no ha~lway. A front gabl.e raof caps the structure.
Across the front, a porch is defined by slerraer posts wl~ich ~~r~ya pent roc~ and by
a s~t~~k railirjg, Delicately sawn brackets adorn the pasts. The r.ottage appears t~ be
subs:antially intac~.
~+~•~+~+~.~.~~.; z ,
t.
~
~~J ~ ~,~„' ' i 1 J -- _ _ ~_ ' ~ . ` ~~
, , - - 8 ~iaRnmg agency
• - '~. - -- ' " - C~ty Of Santa *4or11ccz
;' a
~ . ;
~ ~ ~'~ i '
'T,. ~i 9 Jwrter ~ ad~ress
~, a`~ "~` Asda M. GUrtis et al
~ - ~'" 621 Boccacc~o
~~ ' ~ , ~ enioe 90291
„~
~ i~~' ~ l
~`~+
,
- Type af owncrship Pr1VatE
s~
~._ ~ kf ~~ + Present use RQSIC3E'rit131 _ _
.;.' - - -
Zen~ng OP2
~ s, Y ,
_ 'ti
~~ :,,_ ',~ . ? 7hreats
Sen~ a ~e~y ef ;h~s form to State O`f~ce ef H~stonc Presenra::on P~ gox 942896 5a~ramento. CA 94296~0001
,=ar-iolete tt+ese ~;ems fer r~sto•~c ~reser~a:.~~ ~r~pi ar~e F•~.e= s,:nCe• Sec~on 'po ~36 Ct~i- 604i All rtems mus: be campletea tor hiso•~cal resources
s~vey inforr^ahc^
.. `~ .~.c? e~ V' ar.
"` 't;~~
FfiSTORIGAL INFORMATIJN
~~4 Cansm,ct,on datels) , C. 1398 A__ ~ng~nat ~o~avon ~e moved
15 Ptterat~ans 8~ date
16 prch~tect UI7}QlpWf1 oi;dCe+ LTI~yOSJI7
17 Fl~slonc attr~butes (wnth number trom listl 02--5].F1C{ZE F$I[Ltl~ PY'v~"~
S~GNIFIC{WCE AN~ EVALfJATION
18 Context for evalua4on Theme R~LS1C~eFlt~31 AL'~71tE'C~llre Area S21T1~3 MOI11C3
Period 1875-~943 Property type H~~~~ & Apamre7Its Context formally developed~ NO
~~9 &iefly drscuss the property's ~mportance wrth~n the context Use h~sioncal and architecturai analysis as appropnate Compare wEth s~m:~ar
properties
'I'his property is signi.ficant for its age~ architectural type, and inreyrity. Since the
cottage predates the earliest Sanbarn for the area (~902), the Santa Moruca bui~dirx~
permits ( heqinnl,ng in I9 03 ), a~l the o~c} county tax books ( i902 ). its e~ct origi.r~s are
urilcna~m. Hawevax~ a~ook at the 1902 Sar~born indicates that several hoa~s with similar
proportions arx~ footprints were ~ocat.~d in Oce~n Park, suggestiir~g t,t~at this cattage ~c~t
have been a typica~ beach ~alaw. The boatd ar~d batten cor~struction and shotgwz plan
lend ther~5elves to this oonc~usion. In a~ ~ tion to x-esort housi,t~g, shatgEUl hauses were
a~so associated w~th the rail and oil irr.~istries, and were moved fraan location ta
location on the backs of flatbeci rail cars. The survival af this verr~c~ar type in this
exantple is in itself r~narkable. Its inter~xity-the Sanborn maps frcan 1902, 1909, arid
1918 ~rjdicate no alterations--is a~so notable. Mareovex, the cottage contributes to the
Third Street Ne~c~borhood Historic Distr~ct by virtue of zts ~ocat~on~ and is recxu~u~~ended
for addition.
20 Saur~es
Santa Monica Building P~rmits
IAS Angeles County Tax Asse.ssment Records
~zty ~~rectories, Sanborn r,~aps
Historic Dxstrict Application ~
21 Appl~cable Nat~onaf Reg~ster cr~tena Ar B~ C
22 Other recagnn~nn
State landmark Na (~f appl~cab~e)
23 Evaluator L. H~L.IIII~I7T1~R2Vle'4J C~x~u~Qt.t'~
Oate of ava~uat~on 1992
24 Survey type Cu~n~reherLSive
25 Survey name H1StOr1C ReSOLlr'C.~S IriVP.I1tOiY~
26 Year forrtt prepared 1~9~
~ylnamel Leslie Hewnann & Associates
OrganaaLOrt Cl~ af Santa Mon~ca
Adaress 1585 Ma37] Street
C~ry s. ~p Sat~~a Monlca 90401
Prsone {3~0) 458 8341
~Ske#ch map Show locat~on and baundanes oi praperry ~n
relat~on to nearby streets, radways, natural landmarks, etc ~~~
Name each feature ~
~
! ~
- ` -'~~~ ~ 7111L' --
~rf ~ ~ ~` L'~~ +~~' _ F v .
""* y ~ `.;i~ - ` ' o., ~
*' ~ ~~ ~ ~ '~~ _ ' S.
~ Y k
~• _.. ~~~ t µ ~ ~ w 1
•e ~~
~~;.4 #~~
'~::~~~I
~ ~ i
, ~ ^~•~" ~
~
. i ~
z ~ ~ ~
iL` ~
k N
. ~
~ ` x
~ ~ n
'~~ ~ i
~"';~ ~~' ~
; • ~ .
~ ~ ~ ~
~~~~
! ~ - ;~ ~
~~
m ~
~ 1 ~f \ I
~ ~~~ ~~:~ ~~
~ ~~-~ ~ ~ ~-
`- ' - ~ ~. ~.j
_°'? 5ecor.d Stree:. S ~I
Octcber 199h
__ -1 f ~
ATTACHMENT C
:~r - ~~~~
NOTICE OF A PUBLIG HEARING
BEFQRE THE SANTA MONICA CITY CaUNCIL
SUBJECT: CITY CDUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL 99-001 OF LANDMARKS
COMMlSSI~N CONDITION OF APPROVAL REGARDING THE
~ESIGNATi~N OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 2712 SECQND
STREET AS A CITY LANDMARK.
APPLICANT: City of 5anta Monica
APPELLANTS: Church in Ocean Park and Ocean Park Community Organization
WHEN: Tuesday, February ifi, 1999 at 7 00 p m
WHERE: Mam Publ~c L~brary, Aud~torium
1343 Sixth Street
Santa Monica, Californ~a
PROJECT DESCR{PTION
The Ci~y Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the appeai of a condition
regarding the decision of the Landmarks Commission designatian of the s#ructure located
at 27'~ 2 Second Street as a city landmark (LC-98LM-001 } A canc~~tion of the designatron
would permit demolition ~f sufficient e~idence ~s pro~ided that the property owner is unable
to relocate the structure
HOW TO COMMENT
You may comment at the C~ty Council publ~c hearing, or by wnting a let~er Vllritten
information receiWed before 3 00 p m on the Wednesday before the hearing will be given
to the C+t~r Councri in the~r pack~t informatron rece~~ed afterthat trme w~ll be gi~en to the
City Council ~rior to the meeting
Address your letters to City Clerk
Re 99App-001
1685 Main Street, Room 142
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
For more information about this pro~ect, please con#act Associate Plann~r ponna Jerex at
(310j458-8341 The mee#ing facdity is hand~capped accessr~le If you have any special
r~eeds such as sign language interpreting, please contact the Office of Disabfed at (310}
4~8-87Q1 TDD Number (310} 458-8696 Santa MonECa Bus Lines 1, 7& 10 serve the
Mair~ Library
Pursuant to California Go~ernment Cade Section 65009(b), if this matter is ~ubsequently
challenged in Court, the challenge may be limi#ed to o~ly those issues raised at the Public
Hearmg described jn this notice, or m written correspondence deli~ered to the City of Santa
~,
,. ,~ ~ ~ ,~
Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearing
ESPANOL
EI Concilia Municipal c!e !a ciudad de Santa Monica tencfra una audencia pubiica para
re~isar applicaciones proponienda desarrollo en Sa~ta Monica Para mas mformacion,
Ilame a Carmen Gutierrez al numero (310) 458-$341
APPROVED AS TO FORM
`_.~~P'
J(~Y TREVINO
Pfanning Manager
F IPLANISHAREIC4UNCILINOTICES199app001 wpd
2c F ' i ~ `~
ATTACHMENT D
...~. v~i~J
September 14, 1998 Landmarks Commission Minutes
933 15~' Street, (D98-116 and D98-117}
R2, Fi~e-uni# Apartment and Datached Garage
Structure not Identified in Historic Resources ln~entory
3 84 3`~ Street, (D98-120)
R3 , Four-unit apa~kment
Struct e not Identified in Historic Resources in~entory
4 2922 Mon na A~enue, {D98-121 and D98-122)
R2, Single m~ly Residence and Detached Garage
Structure not entified rn Historic Resources Inventory
5 1221 Georgina A nue, (D98-123)
R1, Single Family R idence
Structure Identified ~n istoric Resources Inventory
6 1315 Lincoln Blvd (D98- 4, D98-125 and D98-12fi}
C4, One-story Apartment, -story Tripfex and Detached Garage
Structure not Identified m Hist ic Resources In~entory
7 846 2'[St Street, (D9$-127 and D9 128}
R2, Smgle Family Res~dence and D tached Garage
Structure not Identified in Historic Re urces InWentory
8 453 14th Street, (D98-129)
R1, Smgle Family Residence
Structure not Identifie~ m Historic Reso~rces ven#ory
9 344 Euciid Street, (D98-130) '
R1, Smgle Family Residence, Garage
Structure not ~dentified in Historic Resources InWe
10 2$08 Washington Avenue, (D98-131 }
R1, Single Family Residence, Detached Garage
Structure not Identified in Historic ResoUrces InWentory
'11 735 17th Street, (D98-132)
R1, Single Family Residence, Detached Garage
Structure not Ident~fied in H~storic Resources Inventory
- ~ 12 2712 2"d Street, (D98-133)
OP2, Ocean Park Law Mult~ple Family
Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
- 3 -
-`" ~kl~p
13 2404 2"d Street, {D98-134}
OP2, Ocean Parfc Low Mul#iple Family, Sangle Family Residence
Structure no# Identified in Historic Resources In~entory
Commissioner Frew ~iewed all demolition permits w~th #12 & 13 being
~isted ~n the in~entory He mention~d that #12 was the most mcredible
cattage, and was worth proceeding with re~abilita#~on, as the structure
is also Nationaf Register ehgible
Commissioner Frew moWed for StafF to ca~duc# prelEminary research as to
whether or ~ot the structure at 2712 Secar~d Street merits landmark
consideration, ar~d to bring back a prel~minary repart to the next meeting
Commissioner H~ght secor~ded the motion, and the mot~on carried
B\ Request for Mills Act Cansiderat~an for the Property Loca#ed at 24Q2 Fourth
~treet #7 (Hollister Terrace), a designated City Landmark
Afte brief staff report, Chairperson Page moved to recommend fhat the
City C nc~l appro~e this request Commissioner Frew seconded the
request, d the motion passed by ~oice ~ate
C Landmark Elig ili~y for 476 22"d Street and 528 215t Place Demolition
permits for bath these structures were reviewed by the Commiss~on last
month
Act~ng secretary Jerex explamed that the City's Arch~tectural Historian
researched these properti and d~scoWered that these homes were built by
a local buifder named Cecil le Due to t1~e fact that he built many homes
in the era of the 1924's -1 Q40's, er opir~ion was that findings could be made
to establish a thematic dis~r~ct f these non-contiguous praperties She
found ~hat there were 14 homes at are fa~rly intact and recommends
mo~ing forward to do further rese rch to come up witf~ additionaf
documentation and a recommendat~on on the district w~thin 90 days
Property owners wouEd be not~ced, and it y become a larger issue once
this notic~ng occurs Ms Jerex passed arou photographs of Cecil Gale
homes for the Commissian's reWiew
Comm~ssianer Hight indica#ed tha~ she had seen a ecil Gale house that
was on the market for anly four days The home was afl and gi~en fhe
pressure of the area, #he realtor was discussing ways th house could be
enlarged
Isaac Waxtein, 4l6 22"d St., Santa Monica spoke on this ~t as the
owner of the hames at 476 22"~ Street and 528 215t Place Mr Wa in has
been a builder for the last ten years He has a backgr~und in eng~n rmg
and architecture H~ is alsa an actiWe member of the Boys and G~rls b
Council, ~ust as Cecil Gale was, and is familiar with him as a~auilder H
submitted demolitEOn permits as a business decision due to the new R1
- 4 -
.. ~ „ ~ ~ 7
/ Ir ~
Octaber 19, 1998 Landmarks Comm~ssion Minutes
7. OI.D BUSINESS
Pu6lic Inpuf Perm~tted
A 2712 Second Street Determinat~an as to whether or not an application far
landmark designation should 6e filed for this structure, a pre-190Q shotgun,
potentiafly nat~onaf-register eligible single family resider~ce
S. Forrest King, 2629 Main Street, #1U1, Santa Monica, passed out
pha#ographs and documentation of the sub~ect property He testified tf~at the
property could not be rehabbed without costing more than a new structure pf the
same size He baught the house knowing of its historic status in order to
restore the house they would have to charge o~er ~1800 per month in rents to
recoup the cost Th~s home creates a nuisance, and is ~nsafe for habitability
An option would be to donate the structure to the City or non-profit organization
Palisades Park or B~rgamot station The arbor house is anofher option, the
heritage museum
He owns two budding in the historic distric#, of which he resides in one He
hopes to restore bo#h to original beauty Qnce rehabbed ~hey wauldn't know
what to do with it Restoration would be a waste of time and money He
mentroned applymg for ecanom~c hardship which is a four month proc~ss and
has ne~er been accomplished ~n fa~or of the property owner They have been
forced to hire attorneys, arch~tects, engineers and variaus consultants to help
them prove themselves The damage has already beer~ manEfested regardless
of th~ outcome
Allison St. Onge, 150 Ocean Park Blvd. #327, Santa Monica. Ms St Onge
sits on the Architectural Re~iew Board and was mESSing this even~ng's meet~ng to
be here Sl~e stated the house vacant for 2 years and uninhabitable There is
not a roam big enough in the house to put a bed She sold the house in the
hopes that the owner would be able to rebu~ld and put a new family in ~t To add
on to it or change its conf~~urat~an would take away from the h~stor~eal character
The rooms in the back are tacked on, and you would end up with a structure of
three walk through rooms, none large enough to do anything in One ha~ing no
windows and one havmg only giass block wmdows on nne side One redeeming
charactenstic is the little curly Qs ~n front The owner across the street said he
wo~ld love to add them to his home if they could be remo~ed She had the
#ermite compar~y come out and examine The est~mate cost would be $34,000 to
restore
Chris Harding, 1250 Sixth Street, Santa Monica. Mr Harding stated that staff
report recommends, but does not make you ~ile an application_ The law does
not tell you that you have to do that You have discretion to pic~C and choose as
to when it's appropriate ~o mifiate a landmarks pro~ect He suggests that you
consider the practicality ir~cluding the obvious and physical and economic
- 2 -
x t _ ~ , f '1
li ~-,~ ~
practicalities and not have this owner wait many months untd there is an
economic hardsh~p proceeding when the photographs clearly show the property
cannot be put to economic ~iable use ft does not pro~ide the k~nd of housing
facility that anyone can appropriatefy hve in There is no other viable use for thfs
location A lengthy pracess will reduc~ng the chances that the structure can be
preser~ed The awner would like ta work with the City and Non-profits in a win-
win way, to preser~e this building, which can not be accomplished ~f you
commence with a process that is inherently ad~ersarial and requires substantial
costs to hire ex~ert to participate in what is a very threatening process ff the
building werE saved on site there is nothing that is economically viable that can
be done with it He suggests t~ act more in a prudent fashian in way more
consistent with the Commission's m~ss~on by not filmg the appl~cat~an Th~s is a
structure where the value is not rooted in its location This building is of mterest
because of i#s age and historic use There is no reason why cooperation at the
front end should not occur to make relocation a reality rather than have tl~at
issue ~re~udiced by a lengthy process
Mr Harding stated that he spoke w~th the C~ty attorney who shares h~s concern
about the Economic Hardship process caming at the end of the process He
belie~es that issue in fa~rness should be raised at the front-end and not only after
a lengthy designation process
Comm~ss~oner Frew agraed with everything, mcluding the consultant's report
He befieves the property is worth saving This is clearly a difficuit pro~ect and if
saved wifl be befow-standard and oWer expensi~e He asked ~f it would it be
possibie to continue to the next meeting and see if there is something we could
do with the Cfty Attorney to find out if there is a way to protect the building and
yet leave everybody's aptions open far a few weeks
Commissioner Schmidt wanted to know ~f anyone in~olved with the pro~ect would
be willir~g to help economically in the relocation of the build~ng
Commissioner Page mentianed that we dan't anticipate obtain3ng a build~ng
permit for 3-~ months, therefore we have time #o work with them on demolition
permit
Commissioner Schmidt asked how do we not move ahead with the landmarks
designation yet iceep the demo permit in progress
Acting secretary Jerex stated that the Cammission could go ahead and fil~ the
designation It cloesn't mean that you ha~e to designate the property, but gives
mare time for research The consu~tant wdl loak at the context issue The
heritage museum has been the only building moveci in the c~ty This mave wouEd
mvolve C~ty Council She suggests filing the designatian, ha~e more research
done and then come back for a public hearing En the meantime, the applicant
can talk with staff or pursue other options of warking with a r~on-profit
organizat~on, and getting their ideas together to present ~o City Council
The designation needs #o be filed within 6a days of the filing of the application,
- 3 - .rs- ~~~'~
othenrvise they lose therr nght to fde the application She recommended that the
commissian not enter into an agreement at this point not knowing whether it is
appropriate to extend the 60-day time perioc! for acting on the demo permEt She
stated that they could file the appl~cation and if they chose not #o act on the
application that would be acceptable, and that this has beer~ done before.
Cammissioner Lunsford stated that if we allow cons#ruct~on on this pro~ect, then
we would be obligated to do every other house on the block and try to
incorporate it into the existing 3`~ street histor~cal distnct If we don't ha~e to
proceed with a hearing, that may be a better alternative
Comm~ss~oner Frew said that the problem of not doi~g anyth~ng about this would
be our last chance #o do somethfng about it He moved to proceed with filmg the
application in order to sa~e #he property
Chair Page ment~oned ~hat he wouldn't li~e in the property, e~en if it were
restored because of the s~ze, but would like to see it sa~red The only way to
save the praperty is to start the application process
Cammissioner Frew moved to proceed with filing the application and to go to
Council to discuss a passible site for the pro~erty
The mation faile~, Cammissioner Lunsford voted no, thereby ruling out a ma~onty
vote
Chair Page mentioned that the vote has nothing to do wi#h economics but merEly
the designat~on critena
Commiss~oner SchmEdt mentioned that the vote for designation buys us time to
address the issues
Commissioner Frew moved again for the motEan Commissioner Schmtdt
seconded and the motion carried
B oposed Changes to 1202 Third S#reet Promenade. (Former J C
Pen Building} Representatives for a praposed Banana Republic store at
this loca will present theGr proposal for changes to the building's facade
Acting Secretary Jerex p?e~~nted the report from staff
Kathi Littman, 250~ Broadway, S Monica (the store designer - spoke on
the design of the buildmg in the keepang the Banana Republic style She
propases to ~ring forward the entrance on Wi e to enhance the pedestnan
orientation Signage has been minimized Miscella us existing grills that are
non-functioning will be remov~d and co~ered with stucco
She went on to say that she used onginal documents m preparmg ~lans
- 4 -
~_ r^ ~ [ ~ ~
6~ aJ ~f
November 9, ~998 Landmarks Comm~ssion Minutes
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ubl~c lnput Pe~rnrtfed
Cert ate of Appropriateness Na LC-98CA-007 to allow the mstallation of
signage boWe the front entry ~nto the Georgian Hotel located at 1415 Ocean
A~enue proposal is to install a 33 33 square foot sign composed of re~erse
illuminated ch nel letters to read "THE GEORGIAN HOTE~ " Eacl~ letter wiEl be
"burnt umber" in lor and will be 20" high an a ~is~ble raceway which is blue-
grey in color
Comrnissioner H~ght sugge~ed removal of the past s~gn (5x6 canopy sign)
Paul Hortebagyi , Georgian Hote anager, 1415 Ocean A~enue, stated that you
canno~ see the large s~gn an top o e bu~lding when you are walking by The
Commission discussed the historic me of the sign and agreed that it shoufd
be considered under the new sign ordinan as a non-con~orming historic sign
Comm~ssioner Frew recommanded that any repl ement awning signage match
new t~~ lettermg, anc! moved ta approve the Certifr te of Approprrateness with
conditions requiring that the pole sign be remo~ed, an at any lettermg on the
awn~ng sign sho~ald match #he lettenng appro~ed i the build~ng sign
Cha~rperson Page secanded the motian, which carried by ~oi Wote
7. OLD BUSINESS
Publrc Inpuf Perm~fted
~ A 2712 Second Street A pre-1900 shotgun, patentially national-register
eligible single family residence After a short d~scussion, Commissioner
Frew moved to schedule this item for a public hearing on December 14,
199$ Commissioner Schmidt seconded, and the motion carried
B osed Ceci! Gale Thematic District Preliminary evaluation of the
propos istoric D~strict des~gna#ion and recommendatifln as to the
appropriatene nd qualifica#ion of the application to be cons~dered by the
Landmarlcs Commis
M~chele Abrams, 700 21Si Plac~, e against the landmark status as sF~e
feels s~rongly that it is no# fair to ~mpose upo~ th~ rest of the residents,
it should ba voluntary
Dan Abrams, 700 215t Place stated that h~ was shocked the home Es
architectural and intends to tear it down Stock lou~er shutte an be
bought at hame depot The house is obsolete It has leaks and asbesto
- 2 -
~~ ~~~~
., •3 1.
December 14, 1998 Landmarks Commission Minutes
Com sioner Frew moved, and CommissEOner Hight seconded the motion to
approve t ins#allation The motian passed unanimously
6. PUBLIC HEARI~None
Publ~c lnput Perm~tte
7. OLD BUSINESS
Pu,blrc Input Perm~fted
~ A 2712 Second Stre~t A~re-1900 shotgun, potentially national-register
eligible smgle family residence
S. Forest King, ArchitectlApplicant, Mr K~ng stated that if the property
were restored, it would be of no prac#ical use The building is only 350
square feet If it cloes merit national status, what use would it serve7 This
pro~ect has been going for fi~e months now, and the partner is considering
withdrawing
Kevin Kozal, Attorney for Property Owner reiterated Mr Kir~g's concerns
The structure has 3 small rooms and no hallways There is na ecanomic
argument - the property has no practical use This property should not be
declared a landmark, and he pro~osed as a legal matter that the
commissiort is not oblrgated to declare it a landmark e~en if t~e cri#eria is
met He me~t~oned the "takings ~aw", artd stated that the commiss~on
cannot deny the owner ecanomic ~iab~lity of the property He asked that if
th~ commissian did declare it a landmark, that they also allow demolitian,
ot~eruvise it would become an economic hardship to the applicant
Commiss~oner Lunsford asked Mr King the dimens~ans Qf the bu~lding, and
Mr King answered that the interior space is less than 11 feet wide
Commissior~er Hight asked about lot ca~erage, and Mr King stated tha~ the
property is only 25 feet wide with 4 foot s~deyard se~backs, leavmg littie
room for the de~elaprnent of a structure
Rohert Mycro#t, 262T 3`d Street, spoke against the des~gnation He li~es
in a one bedroom tha# is twice the size of #he property ~n question and rs
rur~ning out of li~mg space
Susan Loughmiller, 707 Cedar Street, s~bmitted a letter on behalf of
OPCO, which she read ta the Commass~on They fa~or preservation of the
structure
- 2 -
-: -t!,~~
Mario Fonda-Bonardi, 2421 2"d Street, Architect, feels the property should
be mo~ed, and proposed movir~g ~t m the }~arking lot next to the Heritage
Museum Shatgun bu~ldmgs are u~usable, t~e more you add, #he more
cha~acter you lose The museum location is close to Ocean and makes a
nice Ju~aposition Perhaps it cauld also be put into storage and then
mo~ed when there is enough maney
Commissioner Lunsford asked when the most recent house was mo~~d in
the Ocean Park, wh~ch was the 1913 building ten years ago
Roqer Genser, 2709 2"d S#reet, who li~es across the street, stated that he
does not understand why the issue has been raised He likes the
possibiliiy of mcorporatmg the property into the lot next door
~ris Oli~eras, 270$ 3`d Street, lives on tf~e other s~de of the pro~erty She
is against the designatian and is puzzled why i# would be considered a
landmark ft is nat a usable building She suggested using kt as a ~isi#or `s
center
Jorge Casuso, 2708 3~' Street, IiKes the new design and haw Mr Kmg
found a creat~ve design solution for the lot He also felt it would be useful
as a ~isitor center
Ke~in Kozal commented that the requirement for remo~ing the buiEding
should not be an open ended time periocl, and requested that this occur
within 30-60 days If the appl~cant cannot arrange to relocate #he building
during that t~me frame, they would like to be able to dernolish the bu~lding
Commissioner Frew commented that the charms of the buildings were
simple and he sees no way to preserve the structure on this site He felt
that it needs to be moved
Chair Page mentioned that the house represents a s~mpler time m I~fe He
doesn't feel the hause can be saved for li~able ~ase and doesn't see any~ne
willing to take on the taslc
Chair Page mo~ed to designate the structure as a City Landrnark and to
allow the structure to be #orn down after full documentation for the record
Commissioner Frew s~conded t~e motivn and added the frEendly
amendmer~t that applicant shall attempt to relocate #he structure within 60
days, anci return to the Commission with e~idence af such efforts If the
Commissian determines that the owner has made reasanable efforts ta
relocate the structure and ~t ~s not poss~b[e tv da so, the Commission may
direct Staff to issue a demqlition perm~t
- 3 -
. ... - t ; ,3 7
The CommESSian ~oted unan~mously in fa~or of the motion, with the
exception of Commissioner Bolton, who abstamed
B Proposed Cecil Gale Thematic District Preliminary e~aluatron of
e proposed Histanc District designat~on and recommendation as to
th appropriateness and qualificat~on of the apphcation Public hearmg
sch duled for January 11, 1999 regular meeting
Janet arnen, the City's Historic Resources Consultant, ad~ised
that thre more address were disca~ered since the last meeting
through re arch information and newspaper ciipp~ngs She stated
that it would `l~ke an ex~austive research process to ~dentify all Cecil
Gale homes in ~e City
~
Comm~ssianer Lun~ford asked if Cecil Gals actuafly clesigned these
homes ~`
.~
Lauren Bricker, (also '~. member af the Ci~y's Historic Consultant
#eam) responded #hat they°do not knaw for sure, but there are certain
signatures of Cecil Gale horrie~s While researching the buildings, they
were struck by the sim~lar features, detailing, quality, and
craftsmanship He was a builder,~ not an architect, bu# had a distinctiWe
approach to design, and that one ~ould learn a(ot about haw a sing[e
builder worked over a period of 1~-,years She felt that Wernacular
architecture is Wery important, e~en t~iough they were not buflt by a
"big" architect She fel# that his bu~ld~ngs were constructed in art
efficient and well-pCanne~ manner, and'~~that the existing buildings
served as good examples of his work `_,
Commissianer l.unsford raised a question af wh~ther or not Gecil Gale
actually built buildings, or ci~d he buy plans from s~eone~
Ms Bricker stated that al#hough he may ha~e bou~t plans, he st~ll
made his own distinctive style known, particularly ~~vith the fror~t
arcades and square tawers All of t~e money spent an c~tails was on
the front of the building '~
Heidi Lemmon, 1D15 24th Street, I~~es in an old house with~ lot of
problems She said that Cecil Gale was a builder and not e~e that
great of one, sa people should not be withheld from #earing down eir
property The Cecil Gale homes ha~e beaut~ful living and din~
roams but the other rooms are very small, and there is no access fo
the backyard
Dan Abrams, 780 215t Place who has a background in arch~tecture,
- 4 -
~~~ _~~j^
~E
ATTACHMENT E
~ ~ :~ ~