SR-7A (7)L'
PCD SF AS DJ f\plan\share\councillstrpt111276th app
Councd Mtg January 28, 1997 Santa Monica, California
JAN 2 8 1997
TO Mayor and City Councd
FROM City Staff
SUBJECT Appeal of a Decision of the Landmarks Commission Designating the
Structure Located at 1127 6th Slreet as a City Landmark (Case No LC-96-
CA-002) Applicant City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission
Appellant Wilshire Rrviera Eqwties, L P
INTRQDUCTIQN
This report recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Landmarks
Commission designating the structure located ai 1127 6ih Street as a City Landmark
However, due to the bwlding's structural condition and to the procedural errors that
occurred in processing the Iandmark application, staff also recommends that the Council
authonze demolition of the property without issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness
On October 14, 1996, the Landmarks Commission voted 6-0 to designate the structure a
City Landmark and did not authorize any demolition of the structure The property owner
has appealed this deasion (Attachment A)
BACKGROUND
Landmarks Commission Action
The Landmarks Commission's review of this structure was mitiated by the property owner's
fding of a demolition permit application on April 19, 1996 Per the requirements of the
City's Demolition Ordinance, the Landmarks Commission rewews ati derrolition permits
for structures which are fifty years of age or older A sixty day hold is placed on these
~
~ ~
J;'
JAN 2 S ~97
demolition permit appiications to allow adequate time to assess the bwlding for potential
landmark status Once a landmark designation application is filed, the Landmarks
Ordinance sets forth speafic time frames for the processing of such applications Staff,
in processing this application, did not meet some of the required time frames
The Commission reviewed the demolition permit for 1127 6th Street at its regular meeting
on May 13, 1996 Based on the Historic Resources Inventory's evaluation that the bwlding
appears to be indiwdually eligible for local designation, the Commission continued the item
for further study On June 10, 1996, the Commission voted by its own motion to file a
Landmark Designat~on Application The City's architectural histonan was directed to
research the structure to determine its merit as a landmark, and to prepare a preliminary
evaluation for the July 8, 1996 regular meeting The actual appiication, therefore, was not
prepared untd after the Demolition Ordinance mandated 60 day period
In addition, the Landmarks Ordinance reqwres that the property owner be notified of a
landmark des~gnation filing within 30 days of appiication In this instance, although the
meeting's agenda and minutes documenting the Commission's action were sent to the
property owner, no notice summarizmg the action was sent
The July meeting was canceled due to lack of a quorum, and this item was continued to
the August 12, 1996 meeting The Commission then reviewed ihe consultant's preliminary
report, determined that the application mented formal consideration, and scheduled a
2
public heanng for September 9, 1996 At this public hearing the property owner requested
a continuance, and the Comm~ssion continued the item to October 14, 1996
At the October meeting, the Landmarks Commission considered testimony from the
property owner and his assistant, attorney, and architectural consultant These
representatives testified that the structure was not worthy of designation, and that City
staff had not met the timelmes required by the Ordinance in processing the application
The property owner's wntten ob~ections to the designation are contained in Attachment B
In evaluating the application, the Landmarks Commission addressed only the architectural
ments of the property, and not the timeline reqwremenis of the ordinance The
Commission found that the sub~ect property was representative of the shingle style which
migrated from the East Coast to the West Coast dunng the early part of the Century, and
therefore was a significant bwlding worthy of designation Specifically, the Commission
found that the application met the requirements of three of the six Landmarks Ordinance
designation cntena that the shingle-style structure embodied an element of ihe
architectural h~story of the City, that it had aesthetic interest as an example of histonc
budding craftsmanship, and that it is an established and familiar feature of the local
neighborhood
Descriotion of S~ructure
Constructed in 1905, the sub~ect property is a two-story, wood frame bwlding on a bnck
foundation with a cross gable roof and central chimney The front-facing gable is
3
elaborately ornamented with shingling, and has been crafted to give the profde of a
gambrel Similar shingle decoration is found on each side elevation m a vanety of
patterns, including fishscale, wave, diamond and cross-hatch Narrow clapboard clads ihe
first story and rear elevation A shallow flight of steps leads to an inset entry porch
supported by square posts The firsi floor pro~ecting bay contains a double pair of round-
headed windows whose arches are dwided by tripartite mullions
The second story, which appears to have been added to the onginal one-story cottage
between 1910 and 1920, feaiures a three-quarter closed porch and three-window group
above the first floor bay The second story south elevation displays a diamond-paned
window An origmal corner pilaster exists at the northeast corner A garage with a small
residential unit add-on is set on the rear of the property at the aliey Photographs of the
structure as well as the Landmark Designation Application are contamed in Attachment C
Architectural Sianificance
When the original cottage was expanded into a two-story residence in 1925, it was
designed to reflect the elements of the Amencan Shingle style, a tradition which ongmated
in seaside communities in the northeastern United States Essentially a domestic style,
the Shingle idiom incorporated features of both the Queen Anne and Colonial Rewval
styles, such as omamental siding, porches on boih first and second stones, sweeping
roofs, shallow eaves, and tripartite fenestration The style's flexibility and range of
decoraiive possibilities made it a popular choice for vernacular bwlders and
4
carpenteddesigners
Architectural histonan James Marston Fitch called Shingie Style "a paradigm of domest~c
felicity," noting that these bwldings' confidence and lack of pretense were m contrast to
the elaborate and overdecorated homes of the world of high fashion and wealih Shingle
houses and cottage builders used an open intenor plan and porches to create hospitable
houses with ~nteresting facades which reflected the use of new technology in decorating
and woodworking that became available to carpenter-bwiders in the last decades of the
19th century
APPELLANT'S STATEMENT
The appellant states that this landmark designation appeal is based on the following
reasons (Please note that each of the appellant's reasons is indicated in bold text
Staff's analysis follows each statement in regular text )
1. The improvement does not merit nor does it qualify for designation as a
Landmark.
This application was prepared by a City-contracted architectural historian Research of
the propeRy found that the structure mented landmark designation by meeting three of the
Landmarks Ordinance's six designation criteria Oniy one of the six cntena needs to be
met to approve a landmark designation The criteria used to support the designation are
1 The structure exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural,
social, and architectural history of the City in that its design, which features
ornamental shingle siding, first and second story porches, sweeping roofs,
5
shallow eaves, and tripartite fenestration, reflects elements of the American
Shingle style, and remains one of the rare examples of such found in the
City The American shmgle style was an architectural tradition that
onginated in seaside communities in the northeastern United States This
domestic architectural style migrated to the west coast during the early 20th
CenYury when the 1127 6th house was constructed As a representative
example of the idiom, this structure is an important contributor to the
architectural history of the City and its resort cottage bwlding hentage
The structure has aesthetic or artistic interest or value in that this indigenous
American architecturel style incorporated features common to the Queen
Anne and Colonial Revival styes, specifically, the strucuture's ornamental
siding, porches on both first and second stones, sweepmg roofs, shallow
eaves, and tripartite fenestration This ornamentation, such as the variety
of shingle patterns, including fishscale, wave, diamond and cross-hatch
patterns, was an original artistic creation of the bwider Facade textures
such as this reflect the use of new technology in decorating and
woodworkmg that had become available to carpenter-budders in the last
decades of the 19th Century
It is an established and familiar wsual feature of a neighborhood in that the
structure is the only building on the block and immediate vicinity which
represents the vernacular shingle design popular dunng the early 20th
century when this structure was bwlt This unique style makes the structure
easdy identifiable and disiinguishable from the surrounding infill buildings in
the neighborhood
2. Wilshire Riviera Equities, L.P. was not properly or timely notified of the
landmark designation application, as required under Section 9.36.120 (a) of
the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Section 9 36 120 (a) of the Code states that, "Withm thirty days of filing a landmark
designation application, the property owner and tenants of the sub~ect property shall be
notified of the fifing of such an application "
The Landmarks Commission filed the designation 6y their own motion at the Landmarks
Commission meetmg on June 10, 1996 A copy of the mmutes of this meeting, along with
the Agenda for the upcoming meeting were maded to'Wilshire Riviera Eqwties on July 3,
1996 However, no letter notifying the property owner of the filing was sent The City
Attorney has prepared an Opinion regarding the appellanYs claims of procedural error,
which is included as Attachment F
3. The landmark designation application was not properiy or timely filed.
The appellant claims that the application was not filed by June 18, 1996 (the time required
by the Ordinance) The Ordinance language (Section 9 36 120(a)) reads that "the
Commission may file an application for the designation of a Landmark on its own motion "
This was accomplished by the Landmarks Commission on June 10, 1996 A sub-
consultant of the City's architectural historian was present at the meeting on June 10, and
advised the Commission that work on the application could be completed in time to return
to the next month's meeting with a preliminary report However, the physical act of
completing the paper work for the application, and the loggmg of the paperwork mto the
Cit~s computer system did not occur until after a complete report had been generated by
the City's consuitant
Staff is clarifying the internal procedures to ensure that when future applications are filed
by motion of the Commission, the application wdl be entered into the computer system and
a draft application prepared withm the 60 day penod allotted by the Demolition Ordinance
4. Notice of the Public Hearing was not published in a daily newspaper of
7
general circulation withfn the time frame required under Section 9.36.120 (d)
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
Section 9 36 120(d) sets forth a notiang time frame of "not more than twenty days and not
less than ten days pnor to the date scheduled for a public heanng° to prowde notice of the
public hearing in the newspaper Notice was published m The Outlook on August 31, 1996
for the September 9, 1996 heanng The notice should have been pubfished no later than
August 30, 1996 to meet the mirnmum ten day notice required See Attachment F, City
Attorney Opinion
5. Wilshire Riviera Equities never received notice that the subject property had
been placed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory or that a hearing was
held on August 12, 1996 regarding the subject property, nor did it receive a
copy of the staff report until September 9, 1996.
No noiice regardmg the onginal piacement of ihe buddmg on the City's Histonc Resurces
Inventory in 1993 was reqwred, as this is only an informational document A copy of a
memorandum from the City Planning Diwsion was mailed to Wilshire Rrviera Properties,
L P on May 13, 1996 regarding the appellanYs demolition permit application This
memorandum stated that the Landmarks Commission would be receiving a copy of the
application, that the property was identified in the Cdy's Histonc Resources Inventory and
that the demolition permit might be approved if no application for Landmark Designation
was filed by June 18, 1996
e
The August 12, 1996 meeting was to determine whether the Landmark Designation
application merited considerat~on, and was not a public hearing reqwring that notice be
provided A copy of the June 10, 1996 minutes, and July 8, 1996 meetmg Agenda were
mailed to the applicant wh~ch showed that the item was being rewewed by the
Commission, however, the July meeting was subsequently canceled, and the item
continued to August The staff report recommending that the structure merited landmark
designation was recewed by the property owner at the 5eptember 9th heanng However,
at the appellanYs request, the hearing was continued until October 14, 1996, so that the
appelfanf had adequate time to review the staff report
6. The subject improvement is a public hazard and beyond repair.
This building was yeliow-tagged by the City after the Northridge Earthquake m 1994 The
applicant has submdted reports to the Landmarks Commission from two Civd Engmeers
(M Z Foroutan and Nabih Youssef 8 Assoaates) which both state that ihe integnty of the
structural systems of the bwldings were compromised as a result of the earthquake
These reports state the damage as follows unreinforced masonry (URM) chimney cracked
at first and second floor, portion of chimney above roof collapsed, first floor plaster wall
finishes at boder flue extensively damaged, URM boder flue vulnerable to collapse, termite
damage, opening in ~oints in wood siding, extensive mortar loss at URM foundations, and
shifting and settling of the floorlcracks in the wall finish at the door frame
A second report prepared by Nabih Youssef & Assoaates submitted after the appeal filing
9
provides fuRher information on the nature of work reqwred to repair the structure
SpeGfically, extensroe removal of existing original bwlding elements, including the eutenor
sidmg and chimneys, would be necessary in order to repair the structure Further, given
the budding condition and nsk of collapse, it is likely few onginal matenals could be saved
in the repair process, resulting in a reconstructed, rather than a restored, building The
structural report is contained in Attachment G
The Landmark Commission's decision to designate a property as a Landmark was based
on cnteria including social, aesthetic, and architectural merits The physical condition of
the building was not discussed by the Commission at the time of designation Although
Planning staff believes the structure is meritorious as a landmark and should be so
recognized, grven the excessive structural damage, building repair could not be
accomplished without destroying the bwlding's character defining extenor features
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS
Under the provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance, the City Councd has several options
First, the Council may uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission and designate
the structure located at 1127 6th Street a landmark based upon the Landmarks Ordinance
cnteria contamed in Section 9 36 100
A second option allows the Councd to uphold the appeal and overturn the decision to
designate the structure if it believes that the critena for designation were not met
10
Additionally, the Counal could concur with the Commission's analysis that the structure
ments designation, but stdl overtum the designation due to the procedural errors identified
by the appellant
A third option is for the Councd to uphold the landmark designation, but authonze budding
demolition without reqwnng the appellant to obtain a Certificate of Appropnateness
Landmarks Ordiance Section 9 36 120(g) reads as follows
The Commission shall have the power, after a public heanng, whether at ihe time
it renders such decision to designate a Landmark or at any time thereafter, to
speafiy the nature of any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocaiion
or demolition of or to a Landmark or Landmark Parcel which may be performed
without the pnor issuance of a certificate of appropnateness pursuant to this
Chapter The Commiss~on shall also have the power, after a public heanng, to
amend, modify or rescmd any speafication made pursuant to the provisions of this
subsection
In most circumstances staff does not recommend that this provision be used since it
significantly detracts from the very protections that a landmark designation prowdes
However, given the unusual circumstances invoived here where the structure is severely
earthquake damaged and cannot be repa~rd without significant removal of original bwlding
elements, and in light of the procedural irregulanties involved in processmg the
application, Planning staff believes it is appropriate for the Counal to also consider actions
that otherwise would be reviewed through a Certificate of Appropriateness
In addition, the Councd should be aware of the Landmarks Ordinance time constraints
11
related to appeals Section 9 36 180(e) reqwres that the Council issue a determination on
an appeal no more than 30 days from the date of the initial public hearing The Councd
must, therefore, render a deasion on this appeal no later than February 27, 1997
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notice of this public hearing was published in The Outlook Newspaper and mailed to all
owners and residential and commeraal tenant of property located withm a 300 foot radius
of the pro~ect at least 10 days pnor to the hearing A copy of the notice is contained in
Attachment D
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The rewmmendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact
RECOMMENDATION
It is respecffuliy recommended that City Council uphold the decision of the Landmarks
Commission to designaie the structure located at 1127 6th Street a City Landmark with the
following findings and then, pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance Section 9 36 120(g)
authonze the building's demolition
The structure exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural,
social, and architectural history of the City in that its design, which features
ornamental shingle siding, first and second story porches, sweeping roofs,
shallow eaves, and tnpartite fenestration, reflects the elements of the
American Shingle style, and remains one of the rare examples of such found
in the City The American shingle style was an architectural tradition that
originated in seaside communities in the northeastern United States This
12
domestic architectural style migrated to the west coast during the early 20th
Century when the 1127 6th house was constructed as a representative
example of the idiom, this structure is an important contnbutor the
architectural history of the City and its resort cottage build~ng heritage
2 The structure has aesthetic or art~stic interest or value in Yhat this ind~genous
American architectural style incorporated domestic features common to the
Queen Anne and Colonial Revival styes, speafically, the structure's
omamental siding, porches on both first and second stories, sweeping roofs,
shallow eaves, and tripartite fenestration This ornamentation, such as the
variety of shmgle patterns, including fishscale, wave diamond and cross-
hatch patterns, was an original artistic creation of the builder Facade
textures such as this reflect the use of new technology in decoratmg and
woodworking that had become available to carpenter-bwlders in the last
decades of the 19th Century
3 tt is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood in that the
structure is the only building on the block and immediate vicinity which
represents the vernacular shingle design popular dunng the early 2oth
century when this structure was bwlt This urnque style makes the structure
easdy identifiable and distingwshable from the surrounding infill bwldings in
the neighborhood
Prepared by Suzanne Fnck, Director
Amanda Schachter, Senior Planner
Donna Jerex, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Plannmg and Community Development Department
Attachments
A Appeal Form
B Letter Bnef to Landmarks Commission
from Isaacs & Clouse dated October 11, 1996
C Landmark Designation Application LC-96-LM-002
D Public Notice
E Landmarks Commission Excerpt Minutes August 12, 1996 and
October 14, 1996 meefings
F City Attomey's Op~nion
G Structural Report prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates, January 16, 1997
H September 9, 1996 Landmarks Commission staff report
I Landmarks Commission Designation Statement of Official Action
F WLANISHAREICOUNCIL~STRPT111276TH APP
13
ATTACHMENT A
Crtv of
Santa Ivionica
Depatlment ol Planning and Commurxty Development
Planning and Zoning Divlslon
(310)458-8941
APPEAL FORM
FEE Y1p0.00 I ( U %• ~Uf~ Dale ~letl /J ~Z- :% ! `~~ -
( Necerved,By ~~~ f~-
ReceptNo y/' .`'7~v/5 ~
Name l:ilshice xi~7era equicies, t.Y
Add~ESS 9454 Wilshire alvd , Suite 220, Bevezlc Hills, CA 90212
COf118CIPBrSOn Gwen Louchouarn Phone {310) ?74-9826
Pleasedescnbethepm~edanddecisiontobeaPoealed Subject proper[v, located at 112; 6tn S[reet, is
improved with a 4-bedroom house in front, and a 1-bedroom unit and garage- in the rear
T e lmpravements were severly damaget in [he 1994 earthq~ake A demolition permi[ w~as
applied for on Apnl 19, 1995 The Landmark's Co~ission voted on October 14, 1996 ir.
;acoz o[ designatxng cne house as a landmatk. [.e axe appealing, the decision of the
Landmark's Commission
Case Numbe~ LC-96CA-OD^_
Addr¢ss 1127 6th Stzeec, Santa ?Ioaica, CA .
App6Can1 '~lilshire Riviera Equities, L F
OrgmatHeanngDate seocembe~ 9. 1v9o (~onc~nuea c~ o~c~ber 1a. 19vhi
OrginalACliOn In the September 9ch hearinR~ the Connission con[inued [he heari~g cq pctocer
14, 1996 and sendeted it~ decision on October 14th that the house 1s a landmark.
Please stale Ihe speclllc reason(s) br the appeal
. The im~roveme~t docs mt merit nor does it qualift- ior designation as a Landmark.
Wilshire Riviera Equi[ies, L P. was not properly or [inely netified of the Landmark
designaticn application, as required under Section 9 36 120 (a) oi [he Santa 'fonica
Municioal Code.
3 The landmaxk desiena[ion apolication Was not properlg or timely filed.
~ P]otice o; [he Public Hearmg was not ~u6lished m a dazl,j aecspaner of y,eneral
circula[ien withm the tie~e frame required undex Section 9.36.120 (d) of rhe Sanra
P;onica Municipal Code.
~ Ailshire Riviera Equi[ies nzv eceived notice [hat ihe sub,~ec[ pxoperte had been
placed on the City's HistoriceReso~rces Inventory or thet a heerin`e vas held on
August L2~ 1996 reRa:din~. the subie<t orvoercr, noi did ~2 cece~ve a oE rne
stafP repoct until September 9, 1996.
6 The sub~ect im-iovement is a aublic hazard and bevond renair. _
Pfease prmWe iwo seN-addreased, stamped, lenersfzed envelopes
~~ ~_ ^..
Sgnature ~~t , C / /'~_,'.,~/`' l- Date /~ -='.'~-"ifc
Qeoxg~outafcnan ' ~-
-Przs'zdent of :„R° Fi~an<ial Cerp
2he ~ xal Partner o_
,.ilshtre Ri~~iera Equieies, '_ _
~" ~ ~; ; ~
ATTACHMENT B
tAw Ft[tM oF
ISAACS & CLOUSE
429 SANCA MOMCA BOULEVARD
SUri~ 530
SANTA MOMCA, CALIFORNIA 90401
TELEPHONE (310) 45&3860
FACSIMILE (310) 395-9880
October 11, 1996
To: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
Hearing Date: October 14, 1996
Re: Determination on Landmarks Designation
Application No. LG96CA-002
1127 Sixth SVeet
Dear Landmarks Commission:
This law firm represents the owners of the single family residence located at
1127 Sudh Street. This Commission has scheduled a hearing for Odober 14, 1996, to
decide the pending application for landmarks designation. We urge that this
Commission not designate this property as a landmark in the City of Sarrta Monica.
This letter brief summarizes the reasons underlying our position.
1NTRODt1CT10N
The house bcated at 1127 Sixth Street was first constructed in the earlier part
of this century. As noted in the acxompanymg report of Professor Vreeland,
substantial modificaations were made when the former owners cornerted it into a
boarding house in 1950 or thereafter.
The house (and the garage behind it) sufFered devastating damage in the
Northridge earthquake of January 1994. Both buildings were yellow-tagged by the
Cily. The house was shaken off of its foundations, its floors are budcling, its walis
have crumbled, its chimneys are coflapsing, and 'R has become termite-infested. In
short, it has been irreparably damaged and simply cannot he restored to its prior
condition.
Professor Timothy Vresland, a professor emeritus who founded the Architecture
Department at UCLA, has extensivey inspeded the house and prepared a report for
review by this Commission. Professor Vreeland recommends strongly against
designating this property as a landmark. As noted in his accomparrying report, there
is nothing unique or archicecturally signficarrt about this dilapidated structure.
#~ oi5
The Honorable Landmarks Commission
October 11, 1996
Page 2
The initial findings of Portia Lee recommended that the property be designated
as a landmark, based on three of the criteria set forth in the Santa Monica Ordinance.
k is clsar from her report, however, that Ms. Lee never entered the property or
inspected its interior. In corrtrast, Professor Vreeland has had complete and direct
access to the property and has ciosely examined its interior. As stated in his report,
the principle "unique" features noted by Ms. Lee are actually recent modifications to
the house, added Grca 1950 when the structure was converted into a boardmg house.
We would respectfuly suggest that the principals of historic preservation will be
jeopardized if a disirtitegrating, run-of-the-mill craftsman house such as this were to be
designated a"landmark" by this Commission. We urge this Commission to take a
common-sense approach by exercising its discretion not to designate this structure as
a landmark.
BACKGROUND OF THIS HEARING
The house at 1127 6th SVeet has heen owned for the past twerriy-five years by
three brothers (under a limited partnership called Wilshire Riviera Equitiesl. It has
been managed by one of the brothers, Paris Nourafchan, who will be addressing this
Commission at its hearing. Prior to fhe earthquake, the property was rented to five
tenants, afl of whom were forced to evacuate as a result of the extensive damage
caused by the earthquake.
The house has been unoccupied since that time. My clierrts have attempted to
proted the property by erecting fences and boarding up the windows. Despite their
best efforts, the house has become a magnet for transierrts over the past two and
one-hatf years. On several occasions, members of the police and fire departments
have been called to the house in response to emergency calls from tlie resider~ts of
the neighborhood. The police have found drug paraphemalia and weaponry at
various tlmes on the premises.
At the urging of the police and firefighters, my dients filed a demolidon permit
application for the structure at 1127 Sixth Street on April 15, 1996. Unbeknownst to
my clients, however, the house had been placed on the City's Historic Resources
lnventory (Phase 3). Sometime after receiving the application for the demol'~tion
permk, the Planning Division filed a Landmarks Application.
The remainder of this letter brief will address the two primary reasons on which
we base our request that the property not be designated as a landmark. First, the
proper procedures for such a designation have not been followed. Second, the
~.. Dl ~
The Honorable Landmarks Commission
October 11, 1996
Page 3
structure itself does not merR designation as a landmark, for the reasons addressed
by Professor Vreeland in his report.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST LANDMARKS DESIGNA710N
A Due Proceaa Has Been Violated Because the Cfty Did Not Give Propar Notice
and Missed Other Deadlines.
The City has not followed its own rules in connection with the landmarks
designation process for this property. k is important to note that the missed deadlines
discussed below are not mereiy 'technical" issues or procedural niceties. These rules
are fundamerrtal to the integrity af the landmarks pro~ss. They are designed to
protect the due process rights of both the public and the property owner, by
providing signficant safeguards and notice periods.
Among the important rules which the City has failed to observe in this case are
the following:
1. The landmarks a~olication was aoparerrtlv filed well alter the 60 dav
deadline for filinq. Under the Ordinance, an application for landmarks designation
must be filed no later than sixty days aiter the demolitlon application is received. See
S.M. Ord. 9.04.10.16.010(d)(4). My dierrts' demolition application is dated April 15,
1996, and was received by the City on April 18 or 19. (See City Planning Division
Memo to Commission, 6/7/96.) Therefore, the landmarks application was required to
be filed no later than June 18 or 19, 1996.
Although on its face, the landmarks designation indicates that it was written on
June 17, 1996, the City records show that it was not filed until Auaust 28. 1996. (See
Exhibit A attached to this letter, which shows that Uie demolition applica0on was
received on April 19 but the application for landmarks designation was not filed urrtil
August 28). In other words, the application for landmarks designation was filed nearly
one and one-half morrths after ~e deadline.
2. Notice of the landmarks applicadon was not tlmelv serrt to the oroaeriv
owners. IF we assume (for the sake of argument) that the landmarks application was
filed before the deadline (June 18 or 19), then the rules still were not followed. The
Santa Monica Ordinance requires as foilows:
~M 01 i
The Honorable ! andmarks Commission
October 11, 1996
Page 4
"W'dhm thirty days of filing a landmark designation applicaUOn, the
property owner and tenants of the subject property shall be notified of
the fiting of such application." S.M. Ord. 9.36.120(a).
In this case, my dieMs received no notice that a landmarks applicaUon had
been filed until September 4, 1996 - about 78 days after the landmark designation
application was supposedly filed. (Even then, the only "noUCe" received by my clierrts
received "notice" came in the form of a postcard in the mail on September 4, notdying
them of the September 9 hearing date before tFds Commission.) Uritil that time, my
dierrts were given no notice that a landmarks application had been filed or that this
Commission was actively c~nsidering such a designation.
3. Inadequate public notice of the hearinG. The Ordinance iurther provides
that public notice of the hearing on a landmarks application must be published "not
more than twerrty days and not less than ten days" prior to the hearing date "in a daily
newspaper of general arculation" S.M. ord. 9.36.120(d). Therefore, notice of the first
hearing (first set for September 9, 1996) was required to be published between
August 20 and 30, 1996.
We have reviewed each day's edi~on of the Evenina QuNook beiween August
20 and 30, and none contained ~ny notice of the September 9 hearing. Unless notice
was given in some other newspaper of general arculation in the Santa Monica area,
the public failed to receive notice as required by law.
4. Other natice issues. In addiGon to failing to give public notice and tardify
filing the landmarks application, other due process rights of my dierrts have been
implicated here. For example:
a. My dieMs never received notice that their property had been placed on the
City's Histonc Resources Irnerttory (Phase 3);
b. My clier~W did not receive notice of the Commission hearing on August 12
(at which the Commission decided to set the matter for pubGc hearing an September
9); and
c. My clierds did not receive a copy of Portia Lee's July 14 report until the
evening of the September 9, 1996 hearing - more than two morrths aRer it was
prepared. (They did not receive the exhibits to Ms. Lee's report urrtil September 16,
1996.)
The cumulative effect of these factors has been to signficantly disadvantage
~+~ 018
The Honorable Landmarks Commission
October 11, 1996
Page 5
both my dients and the pubfic at large from partiapating in the decision-making
process. We urge the Commission to deny the landmarks application on these
grounds alone.
B. The Property Does Not MerR Landmarks Desipnation.
The accompanying report from Professor Vreeland is a detailed, sophisticated
evaluaakion of this property. He condudes by recommending strongty aqainst
landmarks designation in this case.
For the record, Professor Vreeland has a well-respected reputation and
impeccable crederrtials in this field. He was the founder of the UCLA School of
Architecture and currer~tly teaches as professor emeritus at UCLA. He is a recognized
expert in landmarks and historic preservation. He has worked to restore a number of
diverse buildings, induding serving as project design architect for the restoration of
the Los Mgeles City Hall (1929 building), the Men's Gymnasium on the UCIA campus
(1930), and several bridc tovmhouses in Philadelphia (1824). (See Curriculum Vitae,
attached to Professor Vreeland's report.)
We urge this Commission to review Professor Vreeland's report in detail. k
describes the recerrt additions and modifications to the properiy over the years,
revealing the true origins of itg facade and shingles. He notes that there is nothing
historically remarkable about the house and discredits Ms. Lee's hypothesis that the
shingles are of the "American Shingle" school which was prevalerrt on the east coast in
the 1800's. He concludes that U~ere is simply nothing uniq~e or aestheUCally valuable
about this property.
He also discusses its current dilapidateci condition. Attached to Professor
Yreeland's report is a draft report from the strudural engineering fum which has
recenty examined the property. The engineers' report cor~irms ~e seve~e damage
that the ~tr~cture suffered in the Northridge earth~ake. Essentially, this property is
beyond repair - any attempt to restore it consisterrt with its original style would require
a wholesale replacemeM of its orieinal materials. The resuR would be a prohibitively
expensive replica, not an authentic landmark.
We respec.kiully submit that Professor Vreeland's report is more comprehensive
and persuasive than the initial findings corrtained in Portia Lee's repnrt. Unlike Ms.
Lee, Professor Vreeland had direct access to both the exterior and ir~terior of the
property. He studied the condition of the building and its historic roots in far greater
detail than did Ms. Lee. His report cantains real analysis, not just condusions.
~~ 019
The Honorable Landmarks Commission
Qctober 11, 1996
Page B
For these reasons, we urge the Commission to ac:cept Professor Vreeland's
findings and vote against designating this property as a landmark.
CONCLUSION
We would also reiterate our request to have the right to cross-examine Ms. Lee
at the hearing before mis Commission. The right to cx~xamine wimesses is a core
element of fundamental faimess and due process. Both my dient and Professor
Timothy Vreeland will be preser~t at the hearing and available to answer question§.
In addition, we have requested adequate time at the hearing for presentations
by counsel and Professor Vreeland. The ordinary three-minute time allotted to
speakers will not be suffiaerrt to preserrt my dierrt's position at this adjudicatory
hearing.
We appreciate your consideration and look forward to further explaining our
positlon before this Commission.
Very truly yours,
Gary R. C ouse
GRC:jc
cc: Ms. Pamela O'Conner
Cityr Counsel Liaison
Ms. Dorma Jerex
Planning and Zoning
Mary Strobel, Esq.
City Attomey's Office
~°~ C~GJ
EXHIBIT A
~~ 02~
LACT ** ACT .TIES FOR A PROJECT ** 10/04/96
5creen: 1 14.57
Pro~ect No: 112706ST Type: AD~SUM Status ISSUE~
Title• 1127 06 ST Im t Date: 02/23/92
Location 1127 06 ST Comp Date:
---
No ••----•--•-•••-•--------
Activity Type --------•-------•---------------------•••-
Status Title --•-•-•---•
Init Date
O1 Act• OFP0074 OFFSITE OFFSITE TTM 32145 O1/O1/73
02 Act CONT6653 CONTROL CURRENT 2 RENT CONTROLLED UNITS 04/10/79
03 Act: DA-0600 DAMASS PENDING 1127 06 ST O1/19/94
04 Act: EQD-0070 E4DEM0 PENDING 1127 06 ST 04/19/96
05 Act: 96NA6010 NAB PENOING 1127 ~6 ST 05/16/96
06 Act. 96LM-002 LAND PENDING APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION 08/28/96 -
Enter Choice• and/or Keyword:
~~ p22
LAW FIRM OF
ISAACS & CLOUSE
429 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD
SU11~ 530
SANTA MONICA, CAT iFORNIA 9(MOl
IELEPtIONE (310) 45&3560
FACSIMILE (310) 395-9880
October 11, 1996
To: The Honorable Landmarks Commission
Hearing Date: October 14, 1996
Re: Determination on Landmarks Designation
Application No. LC-96CA-002
1127 Sixth Street
Dear Landmarks Commission:
This law firm represents the owners of the single famdy residence located at
1127 Sixth Street. This Commission has scheduied a hearing for Odober 14, 1996, to
decide the pending appiication for landmarks designation. We urge that this
Commission not designate this property as a landmark in the Ciry of Santa Monica.
This letter brief summarizes the reasons underlymg our position.
INTRODUCTION
The house located at 1127 Sixth Street was first constructed in the earlier part
of this cerrtury. As noted in the accompanying report of Professor Vreeland,
substantial modifications were made when the former owners converted it into a
boarding house in 1950 or thereafter.
The house (and the garage behind it) suffered devastating damage in the
Northridge earthquake of January 1994. Both buildings were yellow-tagged by the
City. The house was shaken off of its foundations, ks floors are buckling, its walls
have crumbled, its chimneys are coilapsing, and d has become termite-infested. In
short, it has been irreparably damaged and simply cannot be restored to its prior
condition.
Professor Timothy Vreeland, a professor emeritus who founded the Architecture
Department at UCLA, has extensively inspected the house and prepared a report for
review by this Commission. Professor Vreeland recommends strongly agamst
designating this property as a landmark. As noted in his accompanying report, there
is nothing urnque or architecturalry significarrt about this dilapidated structure.
~~ oz3
The Honorable Landmarks Commission
October 11, 1996
Page 2
The in~al findings of Portia Lee recommended that the property be designated
as a landmark, based on three of the criteria set forth in the Santa Monica Ordinance.
ft is clear from her report, however, that Ms. Lee never entered the property or
inspected its irrterior. In contrast, Professor Vreeland has had complete and direct
access to the property and has closely examined its irrterior. As stated in his report,
the pnnciple "urnque" features noted by Ms. Lee are actually recent modifications to
the house, added circa 1950 when the structure was conveRed irrto a boarding house.
We would respectfully suggest that the principals of historic preservation will be
jeopardized 'rf a disintegrating, run-of-the-mill craftsman house such as this were to be
designated a"landmark' by this Commission. We urge this Commission to take a
common-sense approach by exercising its discretion not to designate this structure as
a landmark.
BACKGROUND OF THIS HEARING
The house at 1127 6th 5treet has been owned for the past twenty-five years by
three brothers (under a limited partnership called Wilshire Riviera Equities). It has
been managed by one of the brothers, Pans Nourafchan, who will be addressing this
Commission at its hearing. Prior to the earthquake, the property was rented to five
tenants, all of whom were forced to evacuate as a resuR of the extensive damage
caused by the earthquake.
The house has been unoccupied since that time. My clients have attempted to
protect the property by erecting fences and boarding up the windows. Despite their
best efforts, the house has become a magnet for transients over the past two and
one-half years. On several occasions, members of the police and fire departmeMs
have been called to the house in response to emergency calls from the residents of
the neighborhood. The police have found drug paraphernalia and weaponry at
various times on the premises.
At the urging of the police and firefighters, my clierrts filed a demolition permd
apptication for the structure at 1127 Sixth Street on April 15, 1996. Unbeknownst to
my clients, however, the house had been placed on the City's Historic Resources
Inventory (Phase 3). Sometime after receiving the application for the demolition
permit, the Planning Division filed a Landmarks Application.
The remainder of this letter brief will address the two primary reasons on which
we base our request that the property not be designated as a landmark. First, the
proper procedures for such a designation have not been followed. Second, the
~~ 02~1
The Honorable Landmarks Commission
October 11, 1996
Page 3
structure itseif does not merrt designation as a landmark, for the reasons addressed
by Professor Vreeland in his report.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST LANDMARKS DESIGNA710N
A. Due Process Has Been Violated Because the City Did Not Give Proper Notice
and Missed Other Deadlines.
The City has not foilowed its own rules in connection with the landmarks
designation process for this property. k is important to note that the missed deadlines
discussed below are not merely "technical" issues or procedural niceties. These rules
are fundamerrtal to the integrity of the landmarks process. They are designed to
protect the due process rights of both the pubiic and the property owner, by
providing significarrt safeguards and notice periods.
Among the important rules which the City has failed to observe in this case are
the following:
1. The landrnarks application was apparerrtly filed well after the 60 day
deadline for filinp. Under the Ordinance, an application for landmarks designation
must be filed no later than sixty days after the demolition application is received. See
S.M. Ord. 9.04.10.16.010(d){4). My ctients' demolition apptication is dated April 15,
1996, and was received by the City on April 18 or 19. (See City Planning Divisian
Memo to Commission, 6/7/96.) Therefore, the landmarks application was reqwred to
be filed no Iffier than June 18 or 19, 1996.
Afthough on its face, the landmarks designation indicates that it was written on
June 17, 1996, the City records show that it was not filed urrtil Auqust 28, 1996. (See
Exhibit A attached to this letter, which shows that the demolition application was
received on April 19 but the application for landmarks designation was not filed unUl
August 28). In other words, the application for landmarks designation was filed nearly
one and one-half months after the deadline.
2. Notice of the landmarks application was not timely sent to the orooertv
owners. If we assume (for the sake of argument) that the landmarks application was
filed before the deadline (June 18 or 19), then the rules still were not followed. The
Sartta Monica Ordinance requires as follows:
~~ 02~
The Honorable Landmarks Commission
October 11, 1996
Page 4
"W"tthin thirty days of filing a landmark designation application, the
property owner and tenants of the subject property shall be notified of
the fiiing of such application" S.M. Ord. 9.36.120(a).
In this case, my clients received no notice that a landmarks application had
been filed urrtil September 4, 1996 - about 78 days after the landmark designation
application was supposedly filed. (Even then, the only "notice" received by my clients
received "notice" came in the form of a postcard in the maif on September 4, notifying
them of the September 9 hearing date before this Commission.) Until that time, my
clients were given no notice that a landmarks application had been filed or that this
Commission was actrvely considering such a designaGon.
3. Inadequate public notice of the hearinq. The Ordinance further provides
that public not~ce of the heanng on a landmarks appiication rnust be published "not
more than twenty days and not less than ten days" prior to the hearing date "in a daily
newspaper of general circulation:' S.M. Ord. 9.36.120(d). Therefare, notice of the first
hearing (first set for September 9, 1996) was required to be published between
August 20 and 30, 1996.
We have reviewed each day's edition of the Eveninq Outlook between August
20 and 30, and none contained any notice of the September 9 hearing. Unless notice
was grven in some other newspaper of general circulation in the Santa Monica area,
the public failed to receive not~ce as required by law.
4. Other notice issues. In addition to fading to give public notice and tardily
filing the landmarks appiication, other due process rights of my clients have been
implicated here. For example:
a. My Gients never received notice that their property had been placed on the
Cit~r's Historic Resources Inventory (Phase 3);
b. My clients did not receive notice of the Commission hearing on August 12
(at which the Comrnission decided to set the matter for public hearing on September
9); and
c. My clients did not receive a copy of Portia Lee's July 14 report until the
evernng of the September 9, 1996 hearing - more than two months after it was
prepared. (They did not receroe the exhibits to Ms. Lee's report until September 16,
1996.)
The cumulative effect of thesa factors has been to signficarrtly disadvantage
~~* 02v
The Honorable Landmarks Commission
October 11, 1996
Page 5
both my clierits and the pubiic at large trom partiapating in the decision-making
process. We urge the Commission to deny the landmarks application on these
grounds alone.
B. The Property Does Not Merk Landmarks Designation.
The accompanying report from Professor Vreeland is a detailed, sophisticated
evaluation of this properly. He concludes by recommending strongly aqamst
landmarks designation in this case.
For the record, Professor Vreeland has a well-respected reputation and
impeccable credentials in this field. He was the founder of the UCLA School of
Architecture and currently teaches as professor emeritus at UCLA. He is a recognized
expert in landmarks and historic preservation. He has worked to restore a number of
diverse buiidings, including serving as project design architect for the restoration of
the Los Angeles City Hali (1929 building), the Men's Gymnasium on the UCIA campus
(1930), and several brick townhouses in Philadelphia (1824). (See Curriculum V'dae,
attached to Professor Vreeland's report.)
We urge this Commission to review Professor Vreeland's report in detail. ft
descnbes the recent additions and modifications to the properiy over the years,
revealing the true origins of its facade and shingles. He notes that there is nothing
historically remarkable about the house and discredits Ms. Lee's hypothesis that the
shingles are of the "American Shingle" school which was prevalertt on the east coast in
the 1800's. He concludes that there is simply nothing unique or aesthetically valuable
about this property.
He also discusses its current diiapidated condition. Attached to Professor
Vreeland's report is a draft report from the structural engineering firm which has
recently examined the property. The engineers' report confirms the severe damage
that the structure suffered in the Northridge earthquake. Essentially, this property is
beyond repair - any attempt to restore it consisteM with its original style would require
a wholesale replacement of its original materials. The resuR would be a prohibftively
expensive replica, not an autherrtic landmark.
We respectiully submit that Professor Vreeland's report is more comprehensive
and persuasive than the initial findings contained in Portia Lee's report. Unlike Ms.
Lee, Professor Vreeland had direct access to both the exterior and interior of the
property. He studied the condition of the building and its historic roots in far greater
detail than did Ms. Lee. His report contains real analysis, not ~ust conGusions.
~3 02"r
The Honorable Landmarks Commission
Occober 11, 1996
Page 6
For these reasons, we urge the Commission to accept Professor Vreeland's
findings and vote against designating this property as a landmark.
CONCLUSION
We would also reiterate our request to have the right to cross-examine Ms. Lee
at the heanng before this Commission. The right to cross-examine witnesses is a core
element of fundamerrtal fairness and due process. Both my clierrt and Professor
Timothy Vreeland will be present at the hearing and availabte to answer questions.
In addition, we have requested adequate time at the hearing for presentations
by counsel and Professor Vreeland. The ordinary three-minute time allotted to
speakers wilf not be sufficient to preserrt my dierrt's position at this adjudioatory
heanng.
We appreciate your consideration and look forward to further explaining our
position before this Commission.
Very Vuly yours,
''^~,~/ ~( ~-
Ga~ry R~. fC ouse
GRC:jc
cc: Ms. Pamela O'Conner
City Counsel Liaison
Ms. Donna Jerex
Planning and Zoning
Mary Strobel, Esq.
City Attorney's Office
~+~ 07~
EXHIBIT A
~~ oz~
LACT ** ACT1._iIES FOR A PRO~ECT ** 10/04/96
Screen: 1 14:57
Pro~ect No 1127065T Type• ADDSUM Status. ISSUED
Title: 1127 06 ST Im t Date: 02/23/92
Location: 1127 06 ST Comp Date:
-••
No •----••-•---•-----•-----
Activity Type •---••--••------------------------•--
Status Title -••-----•-•-•---
Init Date
O1 Act: OFP0074 OFFSITE OFFSITE TTM 32145 O1/O1/73
02 Act: CONT6653 CONTROL CURRENT 2 RENT CONTROLLED UNITS D4/10/79
03 Act. ~A-O600 DAMASS PENDING 1127 06 ST O1/19/94
04 Act: EQD-0070 EQDEMO PENDING 1127 06 ST 04/19/96
05 Act: 96NAB010 NAB PENDING 1127 06 ST 05/16/96
06 Act• 96LM-002 LAND PENDING APPLICATION FOR ~ESIGNATION 08/28/96 -
Enter Choice. andlor Keyword:
ra~ 03G
~~ 031
THOMAS R VREELAND & ASSOCIATES
Pnncipal Thomas R Vreeland has had expenence with the reconstruchon of older buildmgs
beemnmg m 1965. m Pluladelphia. when he restored a pazr of bnck townhouses m histonc
Socien~ Hill to their onemal 1824 condmon While an associate of Albert C. S4art~n and
~ssociates. he was responsible for the his[oncal evaluative studies of the 1910 Pazkmson Gas
Compan~~ buildmg m do~~ntown Los Aneeles and the 1925 Califorma Theater m San Diego
Imtialh, he was pro~ect design azchitect for their restoranon of Los Angeles Citv Hall (1929)
and. as such. he ~irote a length~~ archrtecrural/h~stoncal analysis of that buildmg Also, while
~iith A C Martin. he «as pro~ect designer for the seismic strengthemng of three UCLA student
residenual buildings, Sproul. Dykstra and Hednck Halls
Smce leavine A C'~SarUn. he has lead the team of engmeers. histonans and other specialists
~vho analyzed three earthquake-damaged older butldmgs on the UCLA campus, Yfen's
G~~mnasium. the Dance Buildmg and Kinse}• Hall (all dated ~ust before or ~ust after 1930), and,
in ~oint ccnturc wdh Victor Chu, produced the seismic reports on each one Later, he spent
six months on a detailed architec[ural anahsis of the 120-vear old St Vibiana's Cathedral m
do~~nto«n Los Angeles together w~th the structural engmeer. Nab~h Youssef He is currentl}',
~~ith his team, makm~ a s~milar study of the 1942 Mam Buildmg of Samt John's Hosprtal and
Health Center. badl}~ damaged m the recent earthquake
Thomas R Vreeland and Associates aze at present m a~omt-venture w-ith Offenhauser/Mekeel
for the restoration and se~smu strengthenmg of the earthquake-damaQed Men~s Gemnasium
at UCLA
~~ 032
THONIAS R. VREELAND & ASSOCIATES
Principal Thomas R. Vreeland, FAIA
Education School of Arts and Arch~tecture. Yale Unrvers~h
Master of Architecture. 1954
Professional Practice
Thomas R. 4reeland and Associates
Prmcipal 1960-1972 and January 1994 - present
Executrve Architect for
Hstonc Buddmgs Se~sm~c Swdy of three bmldmes (K~nse~ Hall. Meds G~•mnasmm. Dance
Bmldmej c 1930 m the histor~c corndor of the UCLA campus
Pro~ect Des~gner for
Science and Technolo~~• Research Buildm~. UCLA. Los Angeles. CA
Therapeutic Research Laboratory, Unrvers~ty of Pennsylvama, Philadelphia, PA
Coopers Pomt Ne~gh6orhood Plan_ Camden, NJ
Center C~h U~an Renewal Plan, Camden. NJ
Boston Cih Hall Competrt~on (1963), (Second Place w•ith M~tchell%G~ur~ola), Boston, MA
Beachcomber S~vim Club, Wh~temarsh, PA
Urban Des~gn Consultant, C~ty Plannmg Department, Camden. NJ
Rittenhouse Sw~m Club, Philadelph~a, PA
A.C. blartin & Associates
Semor Des~gn Architect & Stud~o Head
1981 - Januan• 1994
Pro~ect Desi¢ner for
Los Aneeles C~n• Hall Restorat~on, Los Angeles, CA
Sciencc & Technology Reseazch 8wid~ng, UCLA. Los Angcles, CA
Beckman Inst~[ute. CaLforma Insutute of Technology, Pasadena. CA
Cencer for the Performme Ans. Wh~mer College. Whrt~er, CA
Swdent limon, Chapman College. C~ry of Orange, CA
Home Sa~mgs of Amenca Toarer, Los Angeles. CA
Escond~do Crv~c Center Des~gn Competrt~on, Escondido. CA (Runner-Up)
~=~ os~
TH0;~9AS R VREEL.4\'D c€ .4SSOCL4TES
1~%rote Histoncal Report for
Los Angeles C~tv Hall Restoranon. Los Angeles. CA
Histoncal Comdor (1920's), Cnac Centec Cit~ of Pasadena. CA
Gas Compacro Buddme (1910), Downtown Los Angeles, CA
Cal~fomia Theater (1929). San D~ego, CA
Kam mtzer/C otton/~%reeland
Design Partner 1972-1981
Pro~ect Arch~tect for
World Savmgs Branch Office, Santa Ana. CA
4Vorld Savmss Branch Office. Cemtos. CA
~luseum of Art, Santa Barbara. CA - Four-Ston~ addmon to and renovatwn of or~emal 1930's
buildmg ~
~i'mner of Competition for des~en of CaLfom~a Plaza (m association w~th .4rthur Enckson),
Office/Res~dent~al Complex. Los Angeles, CA
E~rst Island Shoppmg Center. Hallandale, FL
Unn-ersin Town Center Elementarv Scl~ool. Irvme. CA (m collaborat~on w~th Fumih~ko Maki)
L~brarv. School of Archrtecture and Urban Plamm~g, UCLA. Los Aneeles. CA
Rialto Viulti-Level Shoppme Center and Parkmg Complex. Beverly Hills, CA
Office of Louis I. Kahn
Pro~ect Architect 1954-1960
Pro~ect Desiener for
Salk Insutute Research Laboratones. La Jolla, C:~
Rwhards hled~ca] Research Laboratones (8 stones), Universm~ of Pennsylvama,
Phdadelphia. PA
AFL'CIO Blue Cross Buddmg (4 stones). Philadelphia, PA
Trenton Jew~sh Commumrv Center, Trenton. \J
Research Insutute for Advanced Sc~ence. R%dmmeton, DE
Awards
Home SavmQS To~tier - Urban BeauLficahon Award. L A Chamber of Commerce. 1991
Home Savm,s To~ver - Downto~ln Busmess Associat~on Honor A~+ard. 1991
Beckman ]nstitute - Urban Beaunficat~on Award, City of Pasadena, 1991
Santa Ana World Savmgs and Loan - Los Angeles Chapter AIA, Honor Award, 1979
Beachcomber S~vim Club Pavil~on - Philadelph~a Chapter A[.4, Citation for Excellence, 1964
Beachcomber S~vim Club Pavilion - National Producers~ Council, Ben~amm Franklm
~1edal. l 964
~4 n3~i
THO_1ti4S R VREELAA-D & ASSOCL4TES
Beachcomber S~cim Club Pavilion. Pennsclvania Socieri~ of Arehitects. Honor Ac~-azd.
1964
Coopers Pomt-Pvne Neighborhood Plan - Progresstve Architecture. Urban Design
award. 196~
Rittenhouse S~iim Club - Charrettz (Pennsylvania Soc~etc of Architects Joumal).
Archervpal Aw ard. 1963
f2~ttenhouse Swim Club - Pennsvlcania Societ~~ of Archrtects, Honor Award, 196?
Professional Registration
~Ir Vreeland is currenth~ hcensed to praci~ce architecmre in Cal~forn~a
Academ~c Ezperience
Professor of Archrtec[ure
School of Arch~tecmre and Urban Plannmg
lin~versih of Califom~a. Los Aneeles
1966 - to date
Head. Arch~tecture,~C;rban Des~gn Program
School of Archrtecture and [Jrban Plannm~
Gmvers~ty of Californ~a Los Anaeles ~
1968 - 19~3
Chairman, Department of Arch~tecture
College of Fme Arts
Unn•ersit~• of New IvleYico
196~ - 1968
Faculn, Department of Archrtecture
School of Fme Ans
Lnrversm of Penns~hania
! 95= - 19G5
Yrofess~onal Affiliations
Fello~r. Amencan Instnute of Archrtec[s
arclutect m Res~dence. Amencan Academy m Rome
Former Chairman_ \at~onal Comm~ttee of Des~gn, Amencan Inst~[ute of Architects
~- Q35
~~ 035
DRAFT
STRUCTITRAL SYSTEM EYALUATION
1127 SIXTFi ST.
SANTA MOIVICA
Prepazed for:
Mr. Paris Nourafchan
Prepared by:
Nabih Yaussef & Associates
Structuiai Engmeers
800 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510
Los Angeles, CA
October i l, 1996
W O. No. 96660.10.200
.~k ~3~,
] 1~7 Sixt6 St DR AFT
Santa Moaiea
Suvctural5vstem Evaluation ]0/11/96
TA$LE of CON'I'ENTS
0.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.0 IAiTRODUCTION 1
2.0 BUII.DING DESCRIPTIOIV 2
3.0 O$SERVATIONS 4
4.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMME~TDATIOrS 5
APPENDIX
Reference Plans
Photographs
Nabih Youssef & Associates • Struc[ural Engmeers Zi ~ ~ 3~
DRAFT
~ ~Z, s~ s,.
Santa Momca
Svucu~ral Sys[em Evaluazcon 10/11/96
O.D EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to preserR the results of the evaluaUOn of the structura]
systems of the wood framed, smgle family residence and detached garage located az 1127
Sixth Street, Santa Monica.
The integrity of the strucrural systems of the buildings have been compromised as a result
of damage sustained from the 7anuary 17, 1994 Northridge Earthqualce, dryrot and
termite infe~statian. The buitding was "Yellow Tagged" by ihe City Building Deparnnent
following the earthquake
In their current condition, the buildings present potential life safety and falhng hazazds to
people ia and around them, and pose a nuisance to the public. Although the buildings are
not presently occupied, they aze built near the (reference) north and south property lines,
and partial collapse of the structures may damage the adjuent buildmgs, and block the
egess for tfie occupants of these buildings. Also, theze is evidence that iIIegal entty to
the buildings has beea forced.
Extensive zepair work and seistnic upgrade is required to restore structiual integrity.
Damaged iaterior and exterior finishes also must be repaired The scope of repair work to
restore struccural imesrity will require extensive reinforcement and reconstruction of the
buildings. It is our opinion That the cost of tlus repau work greatly exceeds the current
economic vaiue of tfie builduig. We recommend the immediate remova[ ofthe single
family house and detached gazage to mitigate potential life safety hazards.
Nabih Youssef & nssoc~a[es • Structural Engmeers 1
~„ n39
DR~-FT
i iz~ s~xrn sr.
Saata Monica
Structural Systefn E+~aluahon
1.0 1NTRODUCTION
10/11/96
The purpose of flus report is to present the results of the evaluation of the structuml
systems of the smgle fa*n;iy residence and detached garage Iocated at 1127 5ixth St~reet,
Santa Monica. The mtegnty of tl~e structura! systems has been comproaused as a result
of damage sustained from the January 17, 1994 Northridge Eartl~qualce, dryrot ,and
termite infestarion. The evaluation consisted of observauon of the condition of the
structiual eIemeats in order to evaluate the public safety risks the buiIding poses in its
current condition, develop a structural scope of work for the repair of the building, and
provide an opinion regacding the feasibility of b~rilding repau.
T'his evaluation represents our opinion of the structural systems of the building end is not
intended to preempt the responsibility of the original design consultants.
\ab~a Youssef & Assouates • Structural Enguieers 1
~n~ (1~u
DR~4FT
~ ~r s~, S~
s~ M~~~g
ShucGanl 5ystem Evaluahnn 10/11/96
2.0 BUII.DING DESCRIPTTO~i
2.1 Geaeral
The sub~ect buildmg is a two story, wood frame, single family dwelling with detached
garage. The original structure is approx~mately 90 years old. A single story addition was
constsucted at the rear of thc house in 1925, and a small boiler room was added under the
house in the 1950's. The bvilding encloses approximately 2200 square feet of space.
Intenor wall and eeiling finishes consist of lathe and pluter, and gypboazd. Exterior
finishes consist of wood shingles and siding. There are two unreinforced tnasonry
chimneys in the house. Reference plans and photogi~aphs aze gtesented in the Appendix.
(Photos EI, E2)
The garage is a smgle story wood framed s~ucture, of mdetermmate age. Exterior waIl
finish consists of stucco on wood stud bearing walts. (Photos E7, E8)
2.2 Gravity System
The roof fiaming of the hovse coruists of asphalt roofing applied over wood slungles
which are supported by spaced boazds. The spaced boards are in tum supported by wood
zoof joists. The first and second floor framin; consists of straight boazd sheathing, which
is supported by wood fioor joists. The roof and floor joists aze supported by wood
beams and posts, ynd wood stud bearing wails.
The roof fr~**+;ng of the detached garage consists of strazght boazd sheathing supported by
wood roof joists, which are in turn supported by wood beams and posts, and wood smd
bearing wa[ls. The floor is a reinforced concrete slab on grade.
23 Foundations
Foundations of the onginal buiIding consist of unreinforoed masonry (ITRM). {Photo E4)
The building permit for the 1925 single story addrtion indicates that the reinforced
concrete foundations were used in ttus erea. At the boiler room addition, the existing
URM foundations were undespinned v~nth concrete foundaUOns to provide a subterranean
room with sufficient height for the boiler (Photo Fl) Wood posts supporting the first
floor framing aze not adequately anchored to floor beams. (Photo P2)
The foundations of the gaza~e could not be observed.
2.4 Lateral System
The roof and floor diaphragms of the fiouse transfer lateral forces to wood stud shear
walls with wood siding, gypboard, and lathe and plaster sheathmg. The wood shingles
Nabih Youssef & Associates • Swcrural Eng~neen 2
~°* 041
1127 Sixfh St
Santa Monica
Struttural System E~aluat~on
DRAFT
10/11/96
and spaced boazds of the roof frammg do not provide an adequate diaphra~ to transfer
laterat forces to the sheaz walls. ?he sill plates of the shear walls are not bolted to the
foundations. (Photo IF)
?he roof diaphragm of the gara¢e transfers lateral forces w shear walls constructed of
wood studs with stucco fuush.
Nabil; Youssef & Associaces • Swc[ural L•n;~neers 3
~~ aaz
~~z,s~s~.
Santa Monica
Struchual Syatem Evaluanon
3.0 OBSERVATIONS
DRAFT
10/11/96
The building has sustained extensive damage as a result of the Northridge Earthqualce,
and was "Yellow 7agged" by the Ctty Building Department followins tl~e earthquake.
Therc is significant damage to primary gravity and lateral force resistina elements as a
result of earthqualce, dryrot, and terarite damage.
The observed damage mcludes-
House:
• The iTRM chimney has craclced at the first and second floor. (Photo Il, I8) The
portion of the chunney above the roof collapsed. (Photo E3)
• First floor plaster wall finishes at the boiler flue are extensively dama~ed. (Photo I3}
• The URM boiler flue corbels steeply in the attic space and is vulnerable to collapse.
• Teimite damage was nsible at posts where wood siding was removed. (Photo ES)
• Joiats m wood siding have opened. (Photo E4)
• There is extensive mortar loss at URM foundations. (Photos E4. L6, Fl)
• Bricks have displaced across mortar joinu. (Photo E4, Fl)
• There is extensive eracking of iaterioz plaster wall and ceiling finishes. Wall finishe~
have been removed due to e~stent of damage (Photos IZ - II4}
• Floor has shifted and settled, and there are cracks in the wall finish at the door frame.
(Damage Indox Dl, Photo I4)
Garage:
• Wood roof frammg has sustamed dryrot dama~e. (Photo E8)
• Exterior stucco wall fuush has cracked.
Nabih Youssef & Associa[es • Sttuctural Engmeers 4 ,~
a4 ~' l~. 4 J
~~~FT-
iiz~ s~~, st
Senta Moniaa
Sauctura7 System Evaluation 10/1 I/96
4.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMM~NDATIONS
The gravity and lateral force resisting systems of the huildings have been severely
compromised as a result of earthqualce, termite and dryrot dama2e There ~s the potential
for co]lapse due to a future seismic evrnt.
The buildings present potential life safery and fallmg ha~ards to people in and around
them, and pose a nuisance to the pubhc. Although the buildings are not presently
occupied, they are built neaz the (reference) narth and south propeiKy lines, and parhal
collapse ofthe stivcnucs may damage the adjacent bui1~1~*+~s, and block the egress for the
occupants of these build~ngs. Also, there is evidence that illeeal enny to the buildings
has been forced.
Eastensive repair work and seismic upgrade is required to restore siructural integrity.
Damaged mterior and exterior finishes also must be repaired. The structural scope of
work includes•
FIouse:
• Shore existing shucture to remove existing L'RM foundanons, nnd provide new
reinforced wnerete foundations_ Anchor sill plates to foundations_
• Remove exishag URM chimneys to the foundations, and pro~ide new chunneys
designed to current code requirements.
• Remove wood siding and intenor finishes as required to expose structure, and replace
dryrot aad temtite damaged wood posts and joisu.
• Reinforce the existing roof diaphra~ with plywood.
• Repair floors that have shifted and settlcd.
• Reinforce the anchorage of wood posu to beams and foundations
• Repair and reinforcc the shear walls as requued. As a result of damage obsezved
during the Northridge Earthquake. the allowahle Iateral load carrying capacity of
wood stud shear walls with gypsum, lathe and plaster, and ply~voad have been
reduced.
Garage:
• Remove roo5ng and exterior stucco wall fimsh as required to e~pose structure, and
replace dryrot and teraute damaged wood posts, studs and joiscs.
• Reinforce aachorage of sheaz walls to the fowidations
• Reiaforce stucco sheaz walls with plywood.
In thcir cuacnt condition, the buildings pose a significant threat to public safety. The
scope of repair work to restore structural integnty will require extensive reconstruction
and reuiforcement of the buildings. It is our opinion that the cost of this repair work
greatly exceeds the current econom~c value of rhe buildines. We recommend the
tmmediate removal of the single family residence and detached ;ara~~e to mingate
potenual life safety ha2ards.
Nabili Youssef & Assoaates • SIN[NTaI Eneineecs %~ ~* 5 0 4 4
~~~FT
APPENDTX
~~ 045
I IT7 Sixth SL
Sanra Mon~ca
SCUCtural System Eraluanan
_ ~IETZ 1~6~L
__ ! ~~ {~'WN~7Ga3tp.l~7
I
~ ~~X /.1 - ~
I ~ , urzM
~.F+~r.nnl~'f
~o~~ ,
F~u~
I V~M
f
~ C2ewt~ ~
GTtrx"n' ~IL.ER l~c,E
hP~~ / RAOM ~
L crz~.,.~~ ~
_ ~~~
I
. ~ ~_ _ .
~4 ~, ~ ~~ F~ f~ (~_
J
. ~~
.6 o2~c.~NA~ 2 h-ron~{ ~ov~ i tir~Y
'~AVn ti ~
BO~LER ROOM PLAN
D,pMACaE $ PHOTO INDEX ~
(NOT TO SCALE) ~?~~,
~abih Youssef & Associares • Strucmral Eneir.ee's ;~ t5. ~ 4 5
1127 Six~h St
Santa Monica
Sweturel Sysrem Evaluation
{ GuiM~.l~~F
~ ~~ ~~ r f
, L2
~~ ~3
~i
~
+ ~ VfzM , L5
~5 P~oietz
F~uE
~tiJ - ~J . -
-~-
~ L ~ - ' ,
~
~, OfL~Gr~tiat, 2 G,Ta,2~-I ~~,~ ~IGJ(OR."(~
~ ADGr-~ ~
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
DAMAGE & PHOTO INDEX ~
{NOT TO SCALE) CRy~~
E2
Nabih Youssef & Assoua~es • Svuctunl Ens~neers ~ h n~ M
' ~
I 127 Suct~ SL
Santa Moniw
Scvenual System Evaluation
..~?~1.
-- ~ I
~~ oR~G~~SaI.. 2 ~,ra2Y ~o~x,~ ~l ~vRY ~
~ A~ir~'~.1
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
DAMAGE 8~ PHOTO INDEX
(NOT TO SCALE) ~~'
G2
i%aS;h Youssef& Assoaa[es • Structural Engmeen
~+~ n4v
1127 Sixth St.
Saata Moniw
Structutal Symm Evaluation
PHOTO E1
PHOTO E2
Nab~h Youuef & Associates • Strucnual Engmeers ~;L, ~ 4 ~
1 l27 Six[h St
Santa Monica
Swcnual Symm Evaluahon
PHOT~ E3
Nsblh Youssef& Assona[es • Strucmral Enemeers if ~* n 5 0
I I27 Sixth St.
Santa Monica
Saucmr~l Systern Evaluahon
PHOTO E4
Nabih Youssef & qssociates • Swctura! E oueers ~~ ~ 5 1
1127 Sixd~ St
Santa Monica
Stucwal System Evaluation
PHOTO ES
PHOTO E6
Yab;h Youssef 8c Assonates • SwcKUrzl En¢meers ~~ ~ 5 2
~ ir si:m s~
Santa Monica
Struetural Sysrem Evafuarion
PHOTO E7
PHOTO ES
Nabih Youssef & Assoc~aecs • Stnecmral $ngmters
l9ir Q5J
~ iz~ s~n s~
san~a t4funica
Strvc[ueal System Evaluation
PHOTO F7
PHOTD F2
.~ 05~
Nabih Ypussef & Assoaates • Sauccural Engmeecs
PHOT011 ~
~ ••• -
Q^~.~
't:
~\ ~ - .
;~
~-'ie
~ :t:i
--:;a:;
;
s+~ ~t55
PHOTO IZ
habth Youssef & Assoc~ates • Swccural Engineers
1127 S~xth St.
Santa Monica
Swenual System Evaluation
VI N .r
~ ~ r
G~ ~ Vl
%
yo 5'~
~~n
M
<
C
w
0
7
O
CIl
O~
' ~
~ ` '
_- '_' ~ . .-...- ,i-... "'_'_'~_--F1- _'_'"_~_'__..~.~
i iz~ s~m s~.
Sanu Moniu
Sauc[wal Syscem Evatue[ion
PHOTO I4
~labih Youssef & Associata • Swccurat Engmeers ~•~ f' tj ~
i in s;~an sc
Sann Monica
Swcmral Sysem Evaluacion
PHOTO IS
Nabih YousseF& Assoc~ares • Strucmral En~incers ~~ n 5~
i iz~ s~ sr.
Santa Monica
Structural Sysrem Ersluat~on
_ PHOTOI6'
~x~•.c--_ ~,
i`~ / ~
`~ _~ ~
:e. , ~-~~ ~ ,r
_ _
'
-
PHOTO I7
Nabih Youssef & qssonates • Structucal Eng~neen ~ M
~5~
1127 Sixth SL
Sanra Monica
Swctural System Ev~lua[ion
PHOTO IS
Nab~h Youssef & Assoeiatts • Struetural Engmeers ++~ M n 6~
I127 Sixth SL
Saata Moniaa
Structural System Evalvation
PHOTO 19
PHOTO I10
Nabih Youssef & Assot~ates • Swctunl Engineers ;,~ y (1 6 ~
I127 Sixth Sc
Sanm Monica
S~cmrat Syscem Evaluu~on
PHOTO I11
~~ .
~'~
PHOTO It2
Nabih Youssei & Assocmres • Struc[unl En~meers W`r ~~ ~
1127 Sixth Sc
Saata Monica
Strucntruf System Evaiuation
PHOTO I13
PHOTO I14
Nab~h Youssef & Assocwtes • Sm:cmral En;meero ~? +~ n 6;
ATTACHMENT C
a ~ ~
SaI2t3~0II1C3 ~ ~ ~
~a~ use ard rransmrtenw+Me~agemem Daparonem I
~ram~nuvaicyowwan ~.C.CaseNo. (dLM _.,,DOZ
(3~0) a5&8585 ~ i
CITY OF SANTA MONICA LANDMARKS COIIMISSION
APPLICATION FOfl LANDMARK CESI6NATION
The Landmazks Comnuasion meet5 on the seeond Monday of earh manr2i. Apphcahons bfUST
be filed a muumum of thtee weeks before the meeang date.
A~phc uon NumOe'is) F~ed ~~~ 6
G~~ LM-00~ , fee
Aeceipi ___.d
. , By _ n~ .
PROJECf ADDBESS _ I I 2~ b~ StI+Xa" „ •
Lsnd llse HemeM Q~stna , . • Fonuig [NettiiM ~ 2 _ , ..
Legai Qescr;pbpn toc~, Fr,~t
APPUCANT ~~yAM~r~4 C~ry~wiissten Pnono blo 456 'h~41
ndaress Cf~y HAII. lyh5 Meiw f1,~of~, Serta MIHiLA. Gk Ae9-d I
CONTACTPERSON ~LIENNI <T7~7aC ~ ~.phene S'~Wl~r
add~ess , $annt p6 a~e4w . .
A17~RNEY Phor,e ~
Atltlross - -.
Santa Monica 6usmess lmens9 g.
Propasey~andmarkCommomyKnownaz _~'~7 ecr Street, Santa h;~n~~z
LegaiDesuipuon~lotbloekandtract). ~ot 5, filocK~3
Sta:us Oeeupied X Ur.e~+!~etl , .
~usnnpuse(sjof5ite S7ared res_aence
Accessiae to Publ~c - Yes, Restncie~i Yes,Unrestrtc0ed " Not Ac~esable ro PuM~c
Rer[ Convol Status
OwnerpfProPerty w~xsn~:= :._ -- -~~e~s .. r . _
pppre85 ~~5a wilshi.e elva s~::ee z_..
~~(y gev=rl. Aills, Cn ,„ S1818:, ,
ZiP 9-^ a 1 7 Phone ,
rs oroperry owner aware of this applieehon a Yes. No .
'_o:5ize -~ x , s~ ~
Recognued m axisunp Ser~ Monlca HIS~OrIC RASOUrces Invernory, 8 Yes No
Descriaaon Alpred r, Unalrered
Cona~non Excellem ._ Qootl Fair s
Deterioraretl Rans
Unezposed (archeeetogKal srte~
BACKGROUND INFORIIATION Please atlach addiuon~ sheets if necassery _
Descripnon of SAB or stru0hne, npte 9rry mejor aq9r8hor16 end detes Ot atterations _
See Attach=c Shee:s
Statement Of Architecturel SamhcenCe: s P E a t r a ~ ~~_.~~, e,~c s
Statemsnt of HlStotKel lmpptiancb. s e e at c 3 ~ n e a s n e ec s
Person(s) of Historlcal Imponance: Name x/ A ~
~oca~ stere Nauonal .. ~"" ~ 6 4
StaWmem of other sipnrf~cance•
Citv of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission:
Application for Landmarks Designation
1127 6th Street
Santa :1~tonica California
Attached Sheets
Backgraund [nformation
The owner of the above-capt~oned property, Wilsh~re R~~~~era Partnersh~p, applied for a demolihon
permit on Apnl 19, 1996 Follow~ng the Januarv 17, 1994 Northndge earthquake, the residence
was vellow tagged At the present hme rt is unoccupied and surrounded by a chazn l~nk fence.
doors and wlndows have been secured agamst entry A wnt[en structural analysis has been
provtded by a hcensed engmeer as requved by the Gty's Bwldmg and Safety Dnasion
The buildmg was evaluated m 1992 for the City's Histor~c Resources Inventory• It was
determmed to be a potent~a] landmazk and g~ven Nahonal Register Status SSI The Santa Momca
Histonc Resources Inventory Update form dated September z8, 1995 reported that the foundahon
and porch piers had moved due to lack of foundation remforcement No other damage was
visible The Inventory tipdate left the Nanonal Register Status Code unchanged
A prehmmary h~stono-cultural assessment was commissioned by the Santa Momca Landmazks
Commiss~on from consultant Porna Lee/Califomia Archives That report, dated July 14, 1996,
found that the property met three of the cntena for landmark designat~on set out m Santa Momca
C~ty Ordmance 9 36 ] 10 At ~ts August~, ] 996 meehng, the Landmarks Comm~ss~on moved to
proceed with the Appl~canon for Landmark Designahon
ll Property Histon and Description
1127 6th Street is located on the east side of 6th Street between Wilshire Boulevard and Montana
Avenue It compnses Lot S, Block 93 Ongmally a single fam~l}~ house, vohng records mduate
that there were at least two families resident on the property after 1922 and this appeazs to have
contmued through World War II The property is referred to as a"roommg house" on an
alteranon permit taken out m 1950 bc Ernest P Terry~. who listed h~mself as owner
Assessment Records and Biutding Permrts
Page 12 of the Santa Momca Buildmg Permit Ledger lists Permit No 347 granted to J A Miller
on September 1l, 1905 for the wnstrucnon of a"cottage" on Lot S, Block 93, C~ry of Santa
Momca The cost of construchon is $1000 and the contractor, J J Lee In the 1920s there were
several add~hons to the property documented on Los Angeles County Assessor's Buddmg
Descr~pnon Blanks Owner Hugh Evans added a one room and bath on the reaz of the house by
permit dated June 20, 1923 A permit was taken out on February 16, 1925 by owner Western
~+~ 06;,
1127 6th Street -2
Underwood for a gazage and attached room to be placed on the rear of the lot In the same Yeaz
on September 23rd Underwood got a permrt to add a one-room den to the "rear of house "(See
attached permrts and Appendix I)
Ownership Record
Assessor's Records, Map Book, 96 show three owners for the 6th Street properry between 1902
and 1910 Rohert F 7ones, apparently the owner of the ummproved lot, Joseph A M~Iler. the
cottage builder, and Henry C Hollwedel, who apparently took the property between 1907 and
1908 Hollwedel and W Hugh Evans then transferred the ownersh~p between them unhl about
1918 This appeazs to have been a business arrangement
Evans' occupanon ~s hsted m the 1910 census as "Agent " Bom m Wales, he em~grated to the
L;mted States in 1892 Hollwedel was a promment Santa Momca azchitect, who attived in the
c~ty m 1906 He is best known as a promment downtown archrtect, having been responsible for
Hensh~'s Department Store, the Ma~eshc Theater, Santa Momca Bay Women's Club and the
F~rst'~anonal Bank on Manne Street, as well as many pnvate residences Accordmg to Santa
Momca C~ty D~rectones, Hollwedel never res~ded on the property Evans and his wife Munel
resided there unhl 1925 Evans' occuparion ~s always hsted as "real estate "
In 1925 the property was transferred to Westem Underwood who resided there vnth his wife
Helen R Underwood and a daughter Manon L linderwood until he and his wife died Westem
Underwood died m 1931, his wife died m 1940 Underwood's occupahon is listed m the 1910
census records as "Merchant" (Gas and Electnc) Santa Momca Ciry Duectones do not show
Mazion L tinderwood res~dmg at the 6th Street residence after her mother's death
Bu~lder Designers/Or~gmal Owner
J J Lee
7 J Lee, the l~sted contractor of 1 l27 6th Street does not appear in the 1899 edit~on of the Santa
Momca C~ty Directoty, the last surc~vmg ~ssue unhl 1905 However, the Great Register of Los
Angeles County's 1892 edmon hsts Lee, JuLus Jeffrey, age 46, occupahon carpenter, residmg at
1624 Edd Street, Los Angeles He ~s l~sted in the census of 1900 residing at 438 Fifth Street,
Santa Momca, age 50, occupation, carpenter Votmg records for 1902, 1904 and 1906 show him
residmg m Santa Momca In the 1920 census, Lee, Julms J and w~fe Lucille aze shown hvmg
on Overland Avenue m Vemce Townsh~p, occupat~on, carpenter In the Santa Momca Gty
Duectory of 1905, the Lsung reads, "Lee, J 7, azch~tect, r 328 9th Street" Lee, 7 J is listed as
"Builder," ~n the 1907 Gty D~rectory, residence at Nevada and 21st Streets, Lee is recorded with
wife Lucille m the 1921-22 Santa Momca Ciry Directory as carp[enterj His death cerhficate was
filed m Los Angeles County Mazch 12, 1925 A1 his death, Lee was l~vmg m SawYelle
~* ~6~
1127 6th Street -3
Joseph A M~Iler
The 1904 Index to Voters, Santa Momca Precinct 3, lists J J Lee, aee 54, and Joseph A Ibiiller,
age 32, residing at 328 Nmth Street The 1906 Index of Voters, Precmct 6, shows Joseph A
Miller res~dme at 534 6th Street Cazeful checkmg through c~ty records and the Sanbom Fire
Insurance Maps reveals that this 6th 5neet address is m fact, Lot S, Block 93 The dtfference
is accounted for by a total change m the City's street numbenng system m 1907-1908 'Ihe
present street numbenng system was in use in the 1908 voring tndex
In the Santa Momca and Ocean Pazk Dtrectory of 1905, Lee, J J~s l~sted as an azchitect ~nnth
residence at 328 Nmth Street, in the 1907 Santa Momca Bay Dismct Directory he is l~sted as a
builder After 1908, ne~ther man appeazs on the vohng rolls, nor aze they Lsted m the Santa
Momca - Ocean Pazk - Vemce Duectorv of 1912
II Architectural Evaluation
Archrtectural Descnphon
1127 6th Street is a two-ston~, wood frame buildmg on a bnck foundahon with a cross gable
roof and central chimney The front-facing gable, wh~ch ~s elaborately omamented rvith sh~nglmg
has been crafted to grve the proFile of a gambrel Similaz shingle decoration is carned around
onto each side elevahon, patterns include fishscale, wave, diamond and cross-hatch Claddmg
on the First storc+ and rear elevahon is narrow clapboazd A shallow flight of steps leads to an
mset entry porch supported by square posts A pro~echng bay on the first-story contatns a double
pair of round-headed wmdows whose azches aze d~vided by tnpamte mullions The second storr
features a three-quarter closed porch and three-~cnndow group above the first tloor bay An
origmal diamond-paned ~+nndow remazns on the second story of the south elevation An ongnal
comer p~laster also rema~ns at the northeast comer A gazage is set on the reaz of the property
at the alley, a small res~dence umt has been attached to it
Of pamcular mterest m the res~dence at 1127 S~~th Street is the change from a one story
build~ng, "cottage", as stated m the ong~nal bu~lding permrt to a full-fledged two-story dwelling
The assessed valuation of ~mprovements reported m the old Los Angeles County Assessor's Map
Books for Lot S, Block 93, 534 6th Street, later 1127 6th Street, reflect 50% of the assessed
actual value of improvements, as of the annual March assessment date Had the oriemal permit
for a SI000 cottage been cazned out, the assessment would be $500 However, the assessments
reported mdicate that Miller and Lee decided to change bmldmg plans almost ~mmediately_
extending the porch on e~ther end by craftmg the gambrel, closmg in the porch, provid~ng some
fenestranon and fimshmg the mtenor, at least mmimally The 1906 assessment is for $1,OSQ
equalhng a fa~r market value of $2,100 The 1907-1912 assessment ~s $1,300_ a fau market value
of $2,600 ln 1913 the assessment drops to $1,000, (fa~r mazket value $2,000) mdicahng the
namral course of deprec~anon At this hme the Assessor finds 4 bedrooms and a bathroom on
the second t]oor Therefore; it seem logical to conclude that the change m plans from a one story
S~ A~ ~16 ~
1127 bth Street -4
cottage to a one-storv plus dormer l~vmg space occurred m the course of construcnon, and
mtenor remodehng to make upper story hvmg space was completed a few years after the ongmal
structure was erected
Sanbom F~re Insurance Maps for the year 1909 show 1127 bth Street as a"1 1/2 story dwellmg "
The Sanbom for ]918 des~gnates the bu~ldmg as "2 ston~" Smce no permits exist to explam a
change m size of the dwellmg m this penod, the Sanbom representahve lookmg at the buildmg
from an outside vantage pointin 1909, probably considered the upper portion as dormer space
(See Appendices II and III, Sanborn Maps and Los Angeles County Assessor's Buildmg
DescnpUOn Blanks m prelimmary report )
Archrtectural Style
V1'hen the cottage at 1127 6th Street was crafted mto a two story residence, its design reflected
the elements of the Amencan Sh~ngle style, a tradihon wh~ch ongmated m seaside commumnes
m the northeastern Unued States Essentially a domesric style, the Shmgle id~om mcorporated
features of both the Queen Anne and Colomal Rev~val styles, such as ornamental s~dmg, porches
on both first and second stones, sweepmg roofs, shallow eaves and mparnte fenesuahon The
style's flexibdity and range o£ decorahve poss~bdrt~es made rt a populaz choice for vernaculaz
builders and carpenterldes~gners Architectural histonan 7ames Mazston Fitch called Sh~ngle
Style, "a parad~gm of domeshc fehc~ty," nohng that these buildings' confidence and lack of
pretension were m contrast to the elaborate and overdecorated homes of the world of h~gh fash~on
and wealth Shmgle houses and cottage bmiders used an open mtenor plan and porches to create
hospuable houses with mterestmg facades which reflected the use of the new technology m
decoranng and workmg with wood that became ava~labie to carpenter-bwlders in the last decades
af the 19th centurv
III Statement of Significance
Architectural SigmFicance - Landmazk Cntena
1127 6th Street appeazs to meet the follorv~ng cntena necessary to quahfy for landmazk
des~gnanon as reqmred by Santa Momca Ciry Ordmance 9 36 100
(I) As a rare example m Santa Momca of Amencan Shmgle sryle, an mdigenous Amencan
arch~iectura] stvle charactensttc of shorefront commumtees m the eastern Umted States, it
embod~es an element of the azch~tectural h~story of the crty
(2) It has aesthetic mterest as an example of h~stonc buildtng craftsmansh~p and as such is
valuable to the study of the art of shmgle patteming
(6) It ~s an estabhshed and famihar feature of the local neighborhood, easily ~denhfiable and
d~stmgmshable from the later-built, infill butld~ngs that surround ~t
oa 06:i
~__ ~~~ ezt~r~ty ~rcm t~e Grcur_d, ~r ~no~ ~~p~eva-
_ ~re ~ity, ad2quate_y sea_s : ~__ ~~ the
ta-ik tc r~_ai-riz~ ar.y ~h~eat ~o ~re pi;~lic saf~ty
ar,d c_~~ ~ossibi~=ty of wa~e° _nt~~.:si~n --n~o, or
run~L= fro-r, ~h~ an3°rqr~t;rc ~'orace ~~n~t.
~. __~.-~_~ =~r, G7a carr-e~ :~ut, ~=ze
°~~_~te~a_~e .,- ~re ~r.3=_~tiro.~na st~raae ~~-~ as ~~e
Ci~y de~ern-:es is ___~_5~G-_ =~r the pe~ica ci tirce
tne ~=ty -- ~~ires
.-. Deno~s~~a~es to t~e satis~acc-cr_ ci
t~e ~-tv ~na~ an -n~.-es~ica~'_;,~ h~s b~~n ~~~:eV~a~e -
~.vhic~ rewscna~ly conc~~ad~s ~~a~ ~=,er~ :~a~ a~c-i __~
..-g~~f_c~_ ~ sc_= c~: ~am=rat_o~ _~sl:lrirc -~c- u
~:n3°-rarc~~= c ~~cracP ~ar_k or ~ur_~~~~.~ ~ _ ,_am
facil~ t~,°.
.~, ~er~ens=~-a~es to t~~e ~iry ~ha~ the
~_~~ zus ~een 1r_.=estia~t~.,~ to ~e~ermir.e iF ~_°__
~~°e a~Y F~zsent, ~r ~~~.~ ~ee-~ ~ny pasc~ __-e.sses,
ar_d ~_ s~, ~~at t=~c app~cpri~.~~ cc^rec~~~e cr
rcm~~dia~ a;:tio~ s ra~,~e nv~a ~aken
~E~~~=~\ 2~ Secti~: 8 ~~ ~.~1 is aaced ~.. t_~2 ~~__~w P=~~ica
1127 6th Street -6
Sources
"Munel E Evans"
1960 (Santa MomcaJ Eve»rng Outlook September 14, pg 35, col 7
"Hugh Evans"
1960 fSanta MoracaJ Eremng Oullook October 12, p 28, col 5
Fitch, James Mazston
1973 Amencan Burldang rhe Hrstoncal Forces That Shaped Ir Schocken Books, New
Y"ork
Ingersoll, Luther A
7908 Ingersoll's Cennirn H~szory ~jSanra Momca Bay C7t:es Luther A Ingersoll
"Helen L Underwood"
1940 (Sania MoracaJEvemng Outlook March 30_ pg 12, col 5
Ongmal 5ources
Gty of Santa Momca Plannmg and Zonmg Divis~on
:~iiscellaneous Bwldmg Permits
EIistonc Resources Inventory Sheet, 1127 6th Street, Santa Momca, 1993
H~stonc Resources Inventory Update, 1127 6th Street, Santa Monica, 1995
County of Los Angeles
Assessor's Map Books, 1902-1946
Great Re~ster of Los Angeles County, 1897
Supenor Court Probate Index
Los Angeles Public Library Central Library History and (ienealogy Department
Cal~fomia B~ographical Index
Sanbom Map Company, Inc
Insurance Maps of Santa Momca, Califomia 1902, 1909, 1918
State of Califomia
Death Index
lndex to the Registrar of Voters, 1906-1946
~+~+ 070
1127 6th Street -7
Santa Momca Bay Dtstnct D~rectory, 1907
Santa Momca City Directones, 1908-1958
Santa Momca and Ocean Pazk D~rectory, 1905
UnRed States
12th Census of the Umted States Santa Momca Townsh~p and C~ty
Enumerat~on Distnct 153, Sheet 14, iine 58, June 18, 1900 JuLus J Lee
13th Census of the tinrted States Santa Momca Townsh~p and C~ty
Enumeratton D~stnct 344, Sheet 58, lmes 59-64, Apnl 19, 1910
Augh W Evans, et al
Enumerahon D~stnct 277, Sheet 13B, 14A, Imes 99-100, May 2, 1910,
Westem Underwood, et al
14th Census of the Unrted States
Enumerahon D~stnct 600 Sheet 93, January 8, 1920 Hugh W Evans, et al
S:~ Yr f l 7 1
~ ~
SantatyMonica ' ' ''
arouseandTransportanonuarwpemernDepa~mien~ ~~ ~Np q(~~M , OOZ
fhopnm md PoM,y Dlvlqon
(310) a58-BSB6
CITY OF SANTA MOMCA LANp~IARKS COYMISSION
APPLICATION FOR IANDNARK OESI~NATIQN
The Landmazks Commission meMS on the eemnd Monday of each m~th AppLcahons MUST
be filed a muumum of three weeks tefore the meeting date.
Aop~w~uon Numba~is~ ~'d~ (~(17 ~~ lo
G}~1,M•ODZ Fee NI1F'
Receipt , (~~
_ 8y n~ ..,
PROJEGT ADDAESS I12? fiTM Sfi~ . ` '
Land Use~Eki9~9M,('([h6feCpt ~_, Zvnm9 ~IBCI~t ~ ~
~~~p~ ~Gi19~NAMA~Y~~ PAM1Nisst9F'F :PIron01'18~ ~}5~ A3~YI
Add~ess L(iv'N~II. ib65 MAiw ~'ir~Y. ~exta tNMicl. Gk Ro4a~
CONTAGTPERSON '~ENC71 S/Mac ' ~~hone s~WtG
Address _ SAr~G Qs aNel/~
ATT6HNEY Phone ,
Address _
Santa Manica 9~wness Lieatisg #
PropasetlLandmerkCommo~yKnownas ~~~~ etn Street, Santa Mo~~~z ~
Legai DeSaipUan Qot bixk and fiacq: L o t s, s i o~ x~ ,
Status _ Oteupied X Unoccupiad
~(IStII10US8~S) 01$itP 5hared z,gside~ce
Axeasible to Publrc _ Yes, Restdcted Yes,Unreatr~tetl x Not AxesslNe to P~I~c
Fen; Contro15tatus.
Crwnero}Property wilshice Rivieca Eycities.L F .
(1(1dfB55. 9454 Wilshire Blvd ~ Suite ~2~
O~~, gevexly x~iis, cn Siate: __
Zip, 9^%~ 2 Phone~
is proper~y owner eware ot th~s e~ptieanon x Yaa No
LotSize se x ,s~'
Aecognaed in ezisGrp 3aMp MotNra HISMrIc R99CUl'C2S 4nventory R Yes tJp
Desaiptan AKered __ s _Unalrored
Cond:uon Excellent (iood Fa+r x
Datenora~d Ruirw _
unexposed {ercnaeolog,cai srce~ .
BACKGROIlND INFORYATION Please aMech add'Rionsl sheeffi if nacossery
~escription of SAe or structure, note any mejor alterehOns end detes o~ aUerahans
See AttaGhed shee[s
StatementofArchrtecWrelSu~rnf~cence: -PP nttxrhed_She,ets
StatemerrtofHistorieellmpormnca. see ntra~heu snee~.=
P9r50n(s) ot hlt51orK8l ImpOrti11C8: N9me _ n r A
L~tal .. State _ - NaLanfll-.
SutemeN et ether sign~fipnce: „ r~ 7 Z
A-~A'GNMEN.r {~ F&ge t ara
DOCUrtWMB 01 PUbI10lti0M tl~flS f818IY dlfBClly b p10pOSBd 12fldro8~c (61hllOpf2phy) _ s e e s t t a c h e a s h e e t s
Att~h plaroy~~~a otaite wetn~ccxe.
SKETCN MAP:
In the spece befow~ draw t sketCh ahowinp thi lOCetbn of the alte or ttrucWre beirq propo6~tl LabN atreits and
roetls antl slaw d~ance Irom neanat meJor I~:u,a. Add mi ~row p ehow r~th on 1M map.
FOR STRUCTUAE$ ONLY:
Dme ot wr~slrucuon M dl str~cWrae under conelderatlon: _ Soura
AahNeet Contrecmr,
His~c use of fsWCnire(s):
Preeent uee of atrudure~s)
IrJAre struUUre~c) an arpirol srte? Yes No
Is~Are strucwre(s) tlx~~tenad wifh destructbn Y~ No
M yes, slete reeson ,
i CETIi1FY tliet Ihe iMormahon cronteirwd in this epplieetlon Is cprteet Oo rie best m my knowYtlpe md tlmt INs
appllatlon u mede with the la~owlodpi and Cpwrn of the praperq owner.
Ap~IICMYa Sipn~ure De4e
Drhrets I~eroe number 61aM E~Iratlon dota
~ ~ •
By
Submitlal ol Pknnbq Dlnctora Ewluetbn Oeb:
Atxaptanoe of Eva~~~f by Lendmarks Commlulon ~ata:
Dotatminetl~ of Lantlmrks Canmisslon tliat applk~tlai mar~s Mrmel co~idereaon Yu No DaO~;
Nmllle~b~u'RanemMl~d: To PropeAy Ownors and TeneMa NANin 3D deyc of fi6np
FOn11al ConsidiraUOn:
To NwvsAaipen ol peneral c~culetlon Dem:
~ To owners erd roside~ wAhin 900 teet Dma:
P~I~ Hearhp:
F~ Nev~ap~pors of penera~ circuletlon Dem:
To axnecs ud nsideMa wNhln 800 taet D~e:
PubNe Hearm~ D~,, . Continuatlon~ DeM;
Commimbn Recanmendadon
Clry CounalAttlOn paro; I
Denled: D~te:
Amendmoma So applicetion: ~,,i ~~ 3
1
phocographs.ll=~ bth Screet
k °'
~~ ~ ~~
Phocographs: II276th S[reet
Photographs: 1127 6th Street
~h 076
Photographs: 1127 6th Stree[
'a" ~~~
ATTACHMENT D
OFFICIAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
To: Concerned Persons
From: The City of Santa Monica
Subject of Hearing: Landmazk Designation LC-96LM-002
1127 6th Street
Apphcant: Cny of Santa Momca Landmarks Commission
Appellant: Wilshire Riviera Equities, L.P.
A Public Heanng will be held by the City Council on the followmg request:
Appeal of a Decision of the Landmarks Comm~ssion Designatmg the structure located at 1127
6th Street as a City Landmark (Case No LC-96-CA-Q02).
TIME and PLACE of the PUBLIC HEARING is as follows:
TID'LE: TiJFSDAY, JAIVLJARY 28, 1997 AT 6:30 P.M.
LOCATION: COi7NCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, ROOM 213
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT:
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment on this and other projects. You or your
representative, or any other persons may comment at the City Council's public hearing, or by
writing a letter.
Letters should be addressed to the City Council, Santa Momca City Hall, 1685 Mun Street,
Santa Monica, California 90401.
If desired, further mformat~on on any application may be obtamed from the City Planning
D~vision, Room 212, Santa Momca City Hall, 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, Californ~a
90401, or by telephone at (310)455-8341.
_. , ~) ~ ~
- 1 -
ATTACI3MEI~ E
AU9~yt -2, iaab
John Gilchrist, former Executive Dvector of the PRC, introduced the new PRC
Exewtrve Director, Jan Palctukoff, to the Commiss~on
The appLcant and co-owner of The Ash Grove, T~m Rosenfield, was present to
discuss his application
Commissioner Alofsin asked for the length of the buildmg Mr Rosenfield stated
that The Ash Grove's portion of the build~ng ~s 75 feet long
Chair Freund asked about a previously approved wmdow design for the second
story Mr Rosenfield stated that the second story windows were not done because
they would have opened into bathroom areas
Commissioner Hight asked how the proposed sign would be lit Mr Rosenfield
explained that the sign would be back lit and the green band would be neon
Chair Freund expressed concem about the proposed scale of the s~gn and the lack of
cleaz, profess~onal drawings for the sign
A discussion ensued regardmg the sign on an adjacent business (Rusty's Surf
Ranch) Comm~ssioner Schmidt requested to see a copy of Rusty's sign approval at
the next meeting of the Commission The Commission was m ageement that more
mformation was needed regarding the specifics of the proposed sign
A quest~on was asked about the proposed matenal for a partition between the two
bus~nesses Mr Rosenfield stated that staff's recommendation ~s for a wood
partdion rather than a fabnc partit~on, and that the parht~on wdl have no graphics
Staff exp]amed that a fabnc sign could lead to additional signage
Mr Rosenfield requested pemuss~on to put up a temporary banner until the
proposed sign ~s approved by the Comtrussion and fabncated Chair Freund made a
motion to grant The Ash Grove a temporary banner for sixty days, and to continue
th~s uem to the next regular meeting, at w}uch time the appl~cant is to return with
scaled drawings demonstrating proposed buildmg facade and signage requests
Comm~ssioner Frew seconded the mot~on, and the motion was approved by the
follow7ng vote
AYES Alofsm, Freund, Frew, H~ght, Schm~dt, ABSENT Page
10. DISCLTSSION IT'EMS
A I?emoLt~on Perm~ts
- 5 -
,~~ n~~
~~Srl' L2 ~ l~i'ifo
Carried Over from Meeting of ]une I0, 1996 1127 6th Street
Note Consultant Report on Potential EligibiLty for Landmark Designat~on
attached
Consultants David Cameron and Portia Lee made a brief presentation on the above
referenced property
Commissioner Frew made a motion to proceed w~th the nommation of 1127 Sixth
Street for landmazk designation and to set the pubfic heanng for September 9, 1996
Commissioner 5chmudt seconded the motion
The motion was approved by the fol]owmg vote
AYES Alofsin, Freund, Frew, Hight, Schm~dt, ABSENT Page
The Commission discussed the followmg numbered items, but took no action
1 1342 Palisades Beach Road
2 1344 Pal~sades Beach Road
3 1346 Palisades Beach Road
4 2707 Pearl Street
5 1154 Twenty-Tturd Street
6 2221 1/2 Wilshire Boulevard
7 1428 Si~h Street
8 1335-39 Fourth Street
B Uodate from Landmark Des~enat~on Subcomm~ttee Proiects for FY 1996-97,
No Report
C Pronosed Adelaide Dnve Histonc Distnct UndatC,
No Report
D , _ , , „ , , ~ , ~ , , Case Lists.
No Comment
- 6 -
. -. 11 ~3 G
Oc:FobeY 1~,199, ~O
D Santa Momca Crvic Auditonum Events Calendar OctoberlNovember 1996
(Brochure)
E Cahfomia Presen~ation. A Quarterly Pubhcanon of the Califomia Preservation
Foundafion Volume 21. No 3 Su~nmer 1996
9. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Commissioner Freti~ made a motion to appro~~e the Consent Calendaz as submitted Chair
Freund seconded the motion, wluch was approved by voice vote
A Statement of Official Acnon Certificate of Annronnateness No LGCA-96-007.
1210 Fourth Sueet (Santa Momca Bav Women~s Club)
B 3tatement qf Qffictal Action Certificate of Annronrtateness No LC-CA-96-008_
250 Santa Momca P~er (The Ash Grovel
10. OLD BUSINESS: NOI~TE
11. CONTINUED BUSINESS:
Public Hearings:
A Determmaupn on Landmazk Desienation Anohcahon No LC-96CA-002. 1127 6th
Street (contu~ued from meetme of Sentember 9. 19961
YIs. Jerex gave the staff report
Comerussioner Schmidt asked Chair Freund to request staff to explam the
designahon process to the members of the publ~c present and the process w~ll lead
Ms Jerex explamed the process from the submission of the demolition apphcahon
ttuough ttus hearmg
The Deputy City ~ttornev w~as not yet present and the Commiss~on elected to table
this item until her arnval
Follo~r•mg rtem 12A, this item resumed.
Deputy City Attorney Mary 5trobel mtroduced herself to the Comm~ssion She
explamed that the propem~ ocrmer's representative requested, pnor to this heanng.
some changes to the regulaz rules ~crth respects to this hearmg The representahve
requested the follo~~~ne (1) the nght to cross-examme the expert ~cho prepazed the
report on the proposed designation, (2) addinonal nme for the propeny owner's
4
~'~ ~8 i
OL+o1oul 1~, ~aqf~
attorne~~ to present their argument to the Commission, and (3) additional time for
the propem~ owner's expert to tesnfi~ She stated that the Comm~ssion should have
received a~ntten report from the property owmer's expert
Deputy C~h~ Attorney Strobel explamed that the property o~~~ner's attomey is
azgumg that due process reqwres the nght to cross-exanunahon m this context Shc
stated that due process requirements vary dependmg on circumstances and the
mterest mvolved m the heanng She stated the opmion that. m this case, due
process dces not compel the Commission to allow the property or~ner s attomey to
conduct cross-examinat~on of the expert who prepared the report She encouraged
the Commission to cons~der whether under a cucumstance such as ttus, where the
proposed designation procedure w•as mitiated by the propem~ owmer filmg for a
demolrtion perm~2 apphcation, the Commission might want to consider g~vmg
addrtional hme She stated that the Rules of Order for this Commission allow a
five mmute ume hmrt and that the Commission has flexibilrty m establ~slung time
I~mrts She suggested an overall hme hmit be estabhshed for the presentahon and
allow the property owner's representat~ve decide how~ to di~zde up that time
between those pames they wish to address the Commission. She stated she would
not make a specific recommendation on the length of hme to allot the propem~
o~~ner's representahve, however she opmed that five mmutes would be a httle bnef
She did suggest the Commission consider havmg a set hme penod for the
presentauon and hold questions to the end Finally, upon the suggesuon made by
the Planning Duector, Deputy Crty Attomey Strobel suggested allowmg the
property o~rner's representahve a rebuttal penod of a short duranon
Chau Freund thanked Deput~~ Crty Attomey Strobel for her recommendahons He
asked the Commission to comment on the length of time to allow people to speak
He expressed the opmion that five mmutes ~vas too bnef He made a motion that
the nme hmrt be set at fifteen mmutes total. but not mcludmg the question and
answ~er penod. and that the propem~ owner's representatives be allowed to divide
that time up as they wnsh
The mohon was seconded and approved by voice vote
Cha~r Freund asked the Cirv's consultant to address the Commission with a
summary of the comments made at the previous heazmg
The Citv's consultant. Poma Lee, stated that the task was to decide whether or not
the sub~ect property met the appropnate cntena for designauon For the record, she
stated that the designahon ~urisdiction does not cover the non-public, or mtenor,
spaces 5he then stated that she researched the original owner and owner/builder of
the structure as well as wTrtmg a descnpt~on of the property, mcludmg the style
She descnbed the property as bemg located at 1127 Sixth Street, on the east side of
- Q82
OC--kobu' 14, 19~tfo
the sueet beha~ecn Wilshue Boulevard and Montana Avenue and the buildmg
perm~t was granted m September, 1905, for the construction of a cottage. She
stated that m the 1920s there were several addihons to the property and window
alterations to the front of the structure, wkuch aze not cons~dered as histonc. She
also stated that there were three ocvners of the propertr Joseph A Miller, the
cottage builder, Henry Hall Waddell was second owner, and the current propem~
owners The owner/builder ~vas Julius J Lee, a carpenter She described the
buildmg as a"two-story~. wood frame bmldmg on a bnck foundahon wlth a cross-
gable roof and central clumne~~ The front facmg gable is elaboratel~~ omamented
wath sh~nglmg and it has been crafred to give the pmfile of a gambrel Sirxulaz
shmgle decorahon is carned around on to each side elevahon. The pattems mclude
fish scale, ~~ave, diamond, and cross-hatch The s~dmg on the first storv and the
reaz elevahon ~s nazrow clapboazd There is a porch on the front'~ There aze also
porches on the second storv, which have been enclosed The enclosure of the
porches and the ~ti~ndow changes on the first story are htstonc addmons done m
1920 She stated that pernuts aze attached to her report for the addrtions She
reported that the pro~ect evohed, begmmng wrth the onginal bwldmg permit for a
one-storv cottage; then durmg the buildmg process became a one and a half or two
ston~ buildmg She also reported that the st}-1e is a vemaculaz built house and not a
perfect example of a shmgle style house_ wh~ch ts a Ne~;- F.ngland style that evolved
from the Queen Anne style m the late 1800s She commented that the shingle
house style of archrtecture may or may not have a gambrel roof
Ms Lee summazized the crrtena for designahon as follows per Santa Monica
'.Vtume~pal Code 9 36 100(a)(1) and (2) m that [1] it ~s an unusual remainmg
example of an owner/builder small vemacular style cottage of a New England style.
and [2] it has an aesthetic ~nterest as an example of lustonc buildmg craftsmanship
w~th the use of many types of slungle pattenvng The property also meets crnena
(6), as rt is an estabhshed and fanuhaz feature of the local neighborhood easily
idennfiable and distinguishable from the later built m-fill buildmgs that surround it
She stated that this mterpretation has been deemed to broad by some, however the
structure stands out m the neighborhood and embodies the Santa Momca of 1904
Chair Freund thanked Ms Lee for her summauon He asked the propem- owner s
representauves to start their presentahon
The property owner s attomey, Garv Clouse, 429 Santa Momca Boulevazd,
mtroduced hunself to the Commission For the record, he ob~ected to the ume
l~mrtations bemg imposed on his client and stated his opuuon that he has a legal
nght to present a fair and full case for the record Mr Clouse asked if he ~vould be
able to queshon Ms Lee Cha~r Freund stated that the Commission is abidmg by
the recommendation made by Deputy Crty Attorney Strobel regazdmg this issue,
~~ n83
o~.~b~ i4, taq6
specifically that the Commiss~on will forwazd significant questions to the
consultant Mr. Clouse also ob~ected to this decision, for the record
Mr. Clouse began his presentat~on by statmg who currently oumed the propertv. He
stated that the propertc was substantiall}' damaged by [he Northndge earthquake
and this should be considered by the Commiss~on He queshoned whether there is
any meanmgful way to restore the properly to rts pnor condihon He stated the
posiuon that the structure does not merrt designanon as a landmark and took issue
w~th Ms Lee's report as she did not have access to the property He stated
mdependent reasons why the propeRy~ should not be designated such as the
consritut~on and due process He also stated that the landmazks applicahon w~as not
filed until afrer the sixty da~~ deadline, the deadline date havmg been June 18, 199G,
and the fihng date bemg August 28, 1996 He stated that the ordmance reqmres
that the property owner be notified and that this his chents did not recerve nohce of
the designanon apphcation until September 4, 1996, and were unaware of the
contrnuing process by this Commission He asserted that the rules of the ordmance
w•ere not follow-ed by Cin~ staff He aIso stated that the public was not given
adequate nouce of the mitial public heazmg m a local dailv newspaper He stated
that due to these issues, the applicahon should be demed
The property owner, Pans Nourafchan, 1 Yellovv Bnck Road, Rancho Palos Verdes
90275. addressed the Commission He stated that he and his brothers are the
property owners He also stated that he is a structural engmeer ~+nth a master's
degree m earthquake engmeermg from UC Berkele}• m 1968 Mr Nourafchan
stated that the property was purchased 2n 1974, and it has been a rental until the
1994 earthquake He stated that the Cin~ inspected the propert;~ and declazed it
umnhabitable A subsequent structural engineermg report states that the house is
beyond repau, a publ~c hazard and that it ought to be demohshed A second repon
was filed todav bv the firm of Nabih Youssef and Associates He stated that after
the earthquake, the property was secured and fenced The propem~ has attracted
unsavory characters and the Pohce and Fire Department personnel have advised the
property owners to demolish the buildmg Mr Nourafchan stated that he first
became awaze of the landmazk designauon applicatron on September 4, 1996,
which was 138 days after the date the demolrt~on apphcahon was filed He stated
that he never received any notice from the Crtv regazdmg the landmazks
apphcahon He stated that he and his brothers aze not developers and that the
property would st~ll be rented out if not for the carthquake damage He also stated
that the structure can not be repa~red and il has become a public hazard He
appealed to the Commission to allow the structure to be demohshed Lastly, Mr
Nourafchan offered the structure to any ent~ty that might want rt
Gwen Louchouam, 220 Raymond Avenue #, 7, Santa Momca 90405, stated that she
works for the Nourafchan's She stated that she filed the demolrtion apphcauon on
+~~ n8~
Oc,4obe,~ 14, I~tG6
April 19, 1996 She affirmed that the first nohce from the City was regazdmg the
pubhc heanng set for September 10, 1996, and was not recerved until September 4.
1996 She stated that she called Ms Jerex on the date of the heanng and Ms Jerex
explamed the landmazks procedures Ms Louchouarn also stated that Ms Jerex
stated she would give her the relevant documents at the evening meehng She
stated that she could not fmd m the documentarion the copy of any notice sent to
the propem~ owner regazduig the landmazks apphcat~on, which is required by the
ordmance to be sent withm thirty days of the tilmg of the appl~cation Ms
Louchouarn stated that she had a termite mspection done on the propem~ last week
and the mspect~on revealed that the termite mfestanon and dn~ rot is beyond repair
The property owner's consultant, Tim Vreeland, 2179 Century W"oods, Los
Angeles 90064, requested the same amount of hme that Ms Lee used. ~i~hich ~vas
seven and a half mmutes Chair Freund demed the request
IvSr Vreeland stated that he ~s a pract~cmg azclutect and professor at UCLA He
stated that he has v~sited the property tw~ce, a cursory visrt on September 4, 1996,
and a more thorough mspecUOn on October 9, 1996 He describe the structure as
`an ordmary house in an extremely dilap~dated condihon" He stated that the fow
bc- four wood posts supportmg the poxch parapet is eachibihng severe signs of dry
rot He felt that the gambrel roof and slungle are of mterest, ho~vever they are not
umque or unprecedented in Santa Momca He presented a board of photographs to
the Commission ~vhich showed ten houses with sh~ngle pattems alread~~ exisnng m
the City He commented that the once open two-story porch as been partially
closed on the first level and totallv on the second ston- smce 19~0 He also
commented that the pro~echng bay and w~ndows are a later addrtion to the
structure, as are the three-quazler porch and tripart~te wmdows There aze also
manv one-storv additions to the rear of the structure He stated that he took a
sample of the ongmal 1906 house plaster and other samples of wall board (circa
1950) are found m the rear of the structure [The hmer sounded ]
Cha~r Freund asked Mr Vreeland to concentrate on the esteuor features Mr
Vreeland referred to the structure m question as "its ~ust a small, ummagmative
boxy builder's house m deplorable shape that happens to have some decorative
shmgle patterns across the front and a gamhrel roof~ He stated that Santa Momca
already has many examples of shingle house currently occupied and ~n find shape
He refuted Porna Lee~s determmation on cntena #6, which he felt was 20o broad an
mterpretation He further stated that there is no record of an~~ resident of the
propert~~ bemg of lustorical sigmficance, there is no azchitect of note, rts locahon is
acc~dental; it does not form part of a kustorical district, and it does not qualifi, m
his opimon, as an example of the East Coast Amencan Shingle st;~le
Chau Freund thanked Mr Vreeland
~h n85
a--bbev 14, ~~6
Commiss~oner Frew expressed an mterest in heanng more about the date of
nohficanon of the propem~ owner
Deputc~ City Attorne;= Strobel commented on the first issue raised by the property
owner rcgard~ng due process and filmg of the landmazks application She read into
the record landmazks orduiance 9 i6 120{a) as follows.
Any person of the Cin~ may request the designahon of an
improvement as a i.andmazk by properly filing with the
Director of Plannmg an apphcahon for such designation on
a form furmshed by the Plannmg Departrnent. Addrtionally~,
the file an applicatzon for the designauon
of a Landmazk on its own motion
Deput~ City Attorney Strobel stated her understanding that c~7tlun s~xtv days of
recervmg the demoht~on permrt applicatron, the Commission made a motion to file
an application She stated that subsequent to that tune, staff fitled out the
appropnate papern-ork and logged the application m applicatron m August, 1996.
however the Commission actuall~~ made the mouon to bemg the designation
process m June, 1996, which was m the sixt;~ da~~ wmdow She mterpreted the
second line of the code sectron previously read as meamng the mohon to file was
made even though the paperwrork was not ready for submission She also advised
the Commission that the propem~ o~vner does not agree wrth this mterpretatron
Deputy Crty~ Attomey Strobel stated that she could not say for certam ho~v a court
~i~ould rule on this matter She then read the rest of the code section mto the record
VY'~thm thirty days of filing a landmark designauon
applicauon, the property oc~ner and tenants .shall be
notified ofthe filmg
Deputy Crty Attomev Strobel stated that Ms Jerex would address the issue
followmg her concludmg statements She stated that the landmark designauon
procedure sechon of the code has a number of vazious hmehnes which are based on
the Commission's mot~on as the filmg date
Ms Jcrex addressed ~ssues iaised by the propcm~ ow~ner and his representahvcs
Ms Jerex explamed that the Comm~ss~on made a motion at theu June, 1996.
meehng She fuRher explazned that the neact meetmg of the Commiss~on ~~~as m
July-. 1996. at which t~me a copti~ of the packet matenals was sent to the apphcant's
address hsted on the demolrtion permit apphcatron She stated that there is no
official nohce, nor does the ordinance requ~re such a notice be prepared for the
property owner She also stated that the July, 1996 meeting of the Commission ~~as
canceled due to lack of a quorum and all items on that agenda were forwazded to
.., ~8~i
Oc-f~-,w 1~, Iq9b
the August, 1996 agenda She stated that the first public heanng w•as held on
September 9, 1996, and all ad~acent property owners and tenants w~thm a 300 foot
radius were nonfied of the pubhc hearing ten days pnor to the heazmg The pubhc
heanng notice was also published m The Outlook on August 31. 1996 Ms Jerex
stated that she personally placed m the mail a copy of the pubhc nouce addressed to
the applicant of record on August 29. 1996, which the apphcant states was not
recerved tu~hl September 4. 1996 Upon the request of the appl~canf s
representatice, the heazing was connnued to this date so that the property owner
could review the matenals Ms Jerea stated that she telephoned the office of
R%ilshue Rrviera Propernes several nmes duruig the week of Augus[ 20, 1996, but
did not receive any retum telephone calls She further stated that her intenhon w'as
to ga~n access to the propem~ so that the Crty~s consultant could vie~i~ the site
Deputy Crtc Attorney Strobel stated the followmg for clazificahon. "w~th respect to
the thirty da~~s for filmg a landmazk designation appl~cation, the propertc~ o~mer.
being noufied of the filing of such applicahon', she asked A~s Jerex to venfi~ that
when the packet for the Jul~~ meeting was sent to thc applicant. a copy of the June
mmutes was enclosed which mcluded the mopon Nis Jerex ans~r~ered m the
affirmahve
The property owner~s attorner requested rebuttal time Chau Freund stated that the
Commission ~•ould hke to discuss the azchitectural issucs rather than the technical
issues Mr Clouse stated that he has re~ae~ved all the available records of the Citp
regazdmg this propertp and there is no record that any nohficanon w~as sent to the
propert} oamer He cited a letter to his client «~hich hsts ~tems sent to him He
stated that his chent never received a norice of the fihng of the landmazk
designation
Commiss~oner AloYsm asked if rt~s not assumed that a letter sent through the postal
service, whether registered or not. does go through to the addressee, from a legal
pomt of vie~~~ Deputy Crty Attorney Strobel answered m the affirmahve
Chair Freund asked the Commission to quesuon the presenters re~arding
archrtecturalissues
C~mmtssioner Alofsm related to Professor Vreeland her qualificat~ons regardine
histoncal azchitecture She stated that she takes issue with Professor Vreeland's
narrow date range for shingle st} le, which is much broadex m scope accordmg to
Professor Scull}~~s book [Professor Vreeland had cued this baok as a reference
w•hen he addressed the Commission ]
Commiss~oner H~ght gave her opimon that the East Coast shingle style did migrate
to the west at a later date She stated that examples of shingle style can be found in
10
~~ [t87
b~c,aober I1P~ Iq~t{,
such seaside commumhes as Mendocino, Fort Bragg and Eureka She also stated
that their later appeazance m tlus azea does not dim~rush theu sigruficance.
Professor Vreeland stated that h~s pomt is that this structure does not exhibrt "East
Coast Skungle Stple'~ Commissioner Hight stated that tkus structure is an example
of seaside cottage vernacular, which is an agglomerarion of several types of stgles
Professor Vreeland agreed that the structure is a shingle s[rle, ~ust not an"East
Coast Slungle Sn-1e ~
Chair Freund commented that there ~s no cntena that defines the Iandmazks cntena
to estabhshmg a precise penod for designation
Chair Freund asked Ms Lee if she would like to make any addihonal statements
Ms Lee commented on the evoluhon of slungle sryle and housmg styles in Santa
Momca She stated that the house m quesrion may not have had supenor
craftsmanship, but it does have very unaginative craftsmanskup and is a very
mterestmg house She afso stated that it is her opimon that the property meets the
landmarks cnteria and should be designated
David Cameron, who consulted on the pro~ect wnth Portia Lee, stated that under the
landmarks ordmance the Commission has the opportumtv to designate certain
pubhc mtenor spaces, however this does not apply to this structure
Comm~ssioner Frew expressed lus support of the designation He stated that he
bel~eves this to be a sigmficant buildmg and worthy of preservation
Comm~ssioner Frew made a mot~on to designate 1127 Sixth Street as a Ciri
landmazk, and the motion ~~~as seconded
Ms Fnck asked the Commission to specifi~ which crrtena the structure should be
designated under and some generic reasons wh~~
Commissioner Frew~ stated that lus motion is per staffs recommendanons m the
staff report, specifically crrtena 1, 2 and 6
The motion to designate was approved b~ the following vote
AYES Alofsm, Freund. Fre~c~. Hight, Page, Schmidt, ABSTAIN Bolton
Chazr Freund thanked the C~ty consultant, the applicant, and Professor Vreeland for
theu excellent presentahons
[The Commission took a break from 8 50 p m to 9:04 p m Commissioner Alofsm
left during the break ]
11
- n8~
ATTACHMENT F
SANTA MOIVICA CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
DATE. Januarv 15, 1997
TO Suzatme Fnck, Plazuung and CommLUUty Development Duector
Amanda 5chachter, Senior Planner
FROM Marv Strobel, Deputy City Attomey
Barry Rosenbaum, Depury Crty Attorney
RE Procedural Errors In Designatmg 1127 6th Street As
A City Landmazk
You requested an opuuon from this office addressing allegahons by the appellant that
procedural errors occurred dunng the processing of the Landmazk Designation Apphcation
("landmazk apphcahon") for the property at 1127 6th Street ("sub~ect property") and that these
enors violated the appellant's legai nghts.
In tlus matter, the appellant alleges several procedural errors were made These included
(a) the fazlure to file the landmark applica[ion w~th the Plaiuiuig Department within sixty (60)
days from the date of rece~pt of the appellant~s demolrtion permrt applicaUon for the sub~ect
property, (b) the failure to properly notify the appellant that the landmark apphcatron had been
filed w~thm thirEy (30) days of its filuig, and (c) the failure to provide sufficient newspaper notice
of the Landmark Commission's hearing where the Commission formally considered designatmg
the sub~ect property as a landmazk.
The appellant filed its demohtion apphcation on April 19, 1996 The Landmazk
Commission voted by rts own mouon. on June 1Q 1996, to file the landmazk apphcarion
Consequently, tlus vote was taken withm sixty (60) days from the receipt of the demohtion
application The actual appl~cahon paperwork was completed later Whether a court u~ould
construc thc vote of the Comm~ssion to constitute the filmg of a landmazk apphcahon wrthm the
meaning of the Landmazk Ordinance is unclear Although the admuustrative practice has been to
mterpret the provis~on as occurred here, a court could find differently
On July 3, 1996, the City mailed the appellant a copy of the June l Oth minutes ui wluch
the Landmazk Commission's vote to file the landmark applicahon was reflected, and a copy of
the July 8, 1996 agenda on which was listed the scheduled public heazing to determine whether
the sub~ect property mented formal consideration as a landmazk However, the appeilant was not
prov~ded spec~fic notice that the landmazk apphcation had been filed. A court would hkely
conclude that the minutes and agenda did not constrtute compliance wrth the norice reqmrement
of the Landmazk Ordinance.
f18 ~
As appellant contends, the newspaper nohce of the September 9,1996 heanng was not
timely, as it was pubhshed mne days rather than ten days before the heazing. However, the
appellant did receive timely personal nonce of the heanng.
In sum, a court might agree wrth each of the appellant's claims of error While we do not
beheve that any single procedural error would alone provide a basis for reversmg the Landmazk
Commission decision, a court could evaluate these errors cumulahvely. In so doing, a court
could conclude that the cumulative effect of these procedural errors sufficiently impaired the
mtegnty and adequacy of the proceedmgs so as to ~usUfy overturnmg the designaUon decision
While rt is impossible to forecast with certainty how a court would decide the case, the nsk of a
court rulmg m favor of appellant on these issues is sigmficant.
f.latty~nuni~nemos\baz111276th
., , n 9 ~
ATTACFIl~N'T G
NABIH YOUSSEF c& ASSOCt~TES
Structural Eng,p,~~~,a,~:„~'"~;'-: ,
N ~~T`' tIANN'~- - ''~FlSE
A
'97 JAN 21 P 1 59
January 16. 1997
Ms Suzanne Frick
Director of Planiung & Commwun Decelopment
1685 Main St . Room 212
Santa Momca. CA 90407-2200
RE 1127 6th St
Santa Momca
Deaz Ms Fnck
The purpose of this letter is to summanze the scope of work reqwred to rehabilrtate and
restore the structural mtegrity of the smgle family residence located at 1127 6th St . Santa
Momca This suminan~ is based on our deta~led evaluahon report dated October 11,
1996, rvhich has been previouslp submrtted to the cit}~
The structural mtegnty of the buildmg has been severely compromised as a result of
damage sustatned &om the Januarc 17. 1994 \orthridge Earthquake. and extensn~e dren'ot
and termite damage As a result, the bmlding was "Yellovc Tagged" br the city folloHang
die earthquake
In rts present condihon, the bmldmg presents potenttal life safen~ hazards to people m and
azound it, and it poses a nuisance to the publ~c Also. the buildmg is located neaz the
propert~ hnes and partial collapse may damage ad~acent bwldmgs and block egress for
occupants of those buildmgs
The scope of work to repur structural damaee and restore structural mtegntv is as follows
• Prov~de shonng and bracing to suppon the structure in order to replace the damaged
ex~stmg unremforced masonn~ (IIRM) foundation w~th a new remforced concrete
foundahon Anchor stud cr-all sill plates to the ne~v foundahons
• Remove the ri~~o existmg damaged URI~4 chimneys to the foundahons, and provide
new chimneys constructed u~ accordance wrth current code requirements
• Remoce wood siding and mtenor fimshes as requued to expose the structure and
replace dryrot and termrte damaged wood ~oists and posts
• Remfarce the exisnng roof diaphragm ~~th plawood
• Repair floors that have shifted and settled
• Remfarce the anchorage of ~~ood posts to beams and foundauons
• Repair and reinforce existing damaged shear w~alls
• Repair mter~or and exterior fimshes follo~i~ing structural repair (1 o j
80D ~tiilsh~re Boule~~ard, Suite 510 • Los Aneeles, Cahfom~a 9001 ~• 213/362-0707 • FAX 213/688-3018
1127 6th St., Santa Monica
January 16, 1997
Page 2 of 2
Extensrve removal and replacement of exisung ongmal building elements would be
requued m order to impiement the repau program Given the existmg condrt~on of the
builduig and the nsk of collapse. I behe~~e that very few~ matenals and components of the
bwldmg could be saved in the repair process Essenhally, the ~~ast ma~onty of the
butlduig must be replaced. It is beyond the scope of this letter to eshmate the repair
costs Tlus should be done by a l~censed general contractor In my professional opiruon,
the cost to repazr the bmldmg ~c~ll prohibihve, and repair serves no purpose since httle of
the ongmal bwldmg will remam after completion of the extensive repaus that aze
necessazy tc render the building habitahle Rather than be repaired, the bwldmg should
be replaced
In its present condition, the butldmg cannot be considered safe for occupancy and the
pubhc in the vicimty of the buildmg because of the extensrve damage of the gravrty and
earthquake resist~ng system of the structure I recommend the buildmg be removed
immediately to mmgate potenhal life safet~ hazards
Please call if you have any questions
Smcerelc,
Nabih Youssef & Associates
bih Youss f, S ~
President
-•° n92
ATTACHMENT H
MEMORANDUM
PLANNING & ZONING DIVISION
PLANNING AND COMMUNTl'1' DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CTTY OF SANTA MONLCA
DATE: September 9, 1996
TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commiss~on
FROM: Plamm~g Staff
SUBJECT: Landmark Des~gnaUOn ApplicaUOn LC-96LM-002 Detemunat~on on the
Landmark Designauon Apphcatwn for 1127 6th Street
On June 17, 1996, the Landmazks Comm~ssion filed a landmark designation applicadon for a
residence located at 1127 6th Street. On August 12, 1996, after receipt and review of a
preliminary report on the structure's potential for eligibility as a local landmark, the
Commission, scheduled the formal considerahon pubhc hearing for this evemng, September 9,
1996.
The Landmarks Designarion application is contuned in Attachment A, and includes a report by
the City's consulting azchitectural histonan. The applicauon prov~des an architectural
descnption of the buildmg, an architectural and histoncal statement of significance, and site
photographs. Also attached is a copy of the consultant's July 14, 1996 preliminary report on
this structure, wh~ch has previously been provided to the Commission, as well as to the owner
of the structure as listed on the demohtion permit.
Deccrintion of StructurelArchrtectural Stvle
The consultanYs report states that the structure at 1127 6th Street is a two-story, wood frame
buildmg on a brick foundadon with a cross gable roof and central chimney. A later, second
story add~tion made to the house was crafted to give the profile of a gambrel, wluch forms one
of the two primary decorative elements of the structure. The second element ~s the elaborate
., n93
use of shingling on the second story, which is carried out to each side in pattems includmg
fishscale, wave, diamond, and cross-hatch. Claddmg on the first story and rear elevaUOn
coasist of narrow clapboard. A shallow flight of stcps leads to an inset entry porch supported
by squaze posu. A pro~ecting bay on the first story contains a pair of round-headed windows
with arches divided by tnpazUte mulhons. The second story features a three-quarter porch and
a tripartite window group above the first floor bay. A garage is set on the rear of the property
at the alley. A small residence has been built as an attachment to the garage.
Once the second story was added to th~s structure, its design reflected elements of the
Amencan Shmgle style, a tradition which ongmated in seas~de communities m the northeastern
United States. Incorporating features of both the Queen Anne and Colonial Revival styles such
as ornamental sidmg, porches on both first and second stones, sweeping roofs, shallow eaves,
and tnpartite fenesuat~on, the style's flexibihty and range of deconhve possibilit~es made it a
populaz choice for vernacular builders and carpenter/designers.
Landmazks Desienation Cntena
The Landmarks Commission permits the Commission to designate landmarks if the structure
under consideration meets one or more of the followmg cntena:
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifest elements of the cultural, social, econoTruc,
pohUCal, or archrtectural h~story of the Crty.
(2) It has aesthetic or arhstic mterest or value, or other noteworthy interest or values.
(3) It is identified with histonc personages or with important events m local, state or
national history.
(4) It embod~es distmguishing architectural charactensncs valuable to a study of a
penod, style, method of construction, or the use of mdigenous matenals or
craftsmanship, or is a umque or rare example of an azchitectural design, detail, or
historical type to such a study.
(5) It is a significant or a representahve example of the work or product of a notable
builder, designer, or architect.
(6) It has a unique locaaon, a smgular physical characterisac, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, commumty or the City.
~ ~94
-2-
The Landmarks Ordinance permiu the Commission to approve a landmazk designation if
findings can be made to support at least one of the six designation criteria. In the case of the
structure at 1127 6th Streets, planning staff believes that findings can be made to support three
of the six criteria (Nos. 1, 2, and 6). These critena aze more fully descnbed m the attached
designanon apphcat~on and accompanying reports.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff believes that the landmazk designation applicauon presents sufficient evidence to
support landmark designalion of the structure at 1127 6th Street, as it meets three of the six
critena identified in the Landmarks Ordmance for designauon of bu~ldmgs.
Attachmenu: A. Landmark Designation Apphcat~on
B. July 14, 1996 Prehminary Consultant Report
C. Public Notice
F \PLAN\SHARE\IMK\DESIGSSLMDE502 WPD
~95
-3-
ATTACHMENT I
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
OF TI-~ LANDMARKS COMIvIISSION
OF Tf~ CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN Tf~ MATTER OF
TI~ DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK
DESIGNATION OF LANDMARK LC-96LM-002
AT Tf~ 3ITE LOCATED AT
1127 6T'H STREET
LANDMARKS COMMISSION HEARING
NOVEMBER 12, 1996
SECTION I The Landmazks Commission ofthe City of Santa Monica, having filed an appl~cat~on
on June 10, 1996 to designate the res~dence at 1127 6th Street as a Crty Landmark, and a Public
Hearing having been held before the Landmarks Commiss~on of the City of Santa Monica on
September 9, 1996 and October 14, 1996, the Landmarks Comm~sston hereby makes the following
findmgs
The structure is a rare example in Santa Moruca of American Stungle style, an mdigenous
Amencan arclutectural style characteristic of shorefront commumt~es in the eastern Umted
States, it embodies an element of the arctutectural lustory of the c~ty
The structure has aesthetic mterest as an example of historic budding craftsmanship and as
such ~s valuable to the study of the art of s}ungle pattermng
The structure is an established and familiaz feature of the local neighborhood, easily
idennfiable and distmguishable from the later-built, mfill buildmgs that surround ~t
SECTION II The Landmarks Comnuss~on of the City of Santa Monica, m accordance with the
provis~ons of Section 9 36 120 of the Santa Monica Munic~pal Code, hereby detemunes that the
res~dence at 1 l27 6th Street ~s des~gnated a Landmazk
SECTION III I, Steven Frew, Cha~rperson of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa
Mocuca, hereby certify that the above Fmdings and Determination were adopted on October 14, 1996
by the followmg vote
~9r
AYES Alofsm, Freund, Frew, Hight, Page, Schmidt
NOES None
ABSTAIN Bolton
ABSENT None
Respectfully Subrmtted
November 12, 1996
Steven Frew
Chairperson
F ~PLANVSHAREll,.~fK~STOA511127DET WPD
,~q~,