SR-11-22-2005-1F
iF
~ov 2 2 2005
F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\STOAS\2005\04APP-006 (125 Pacific Street) STOAdoc
Council Mtg: November 22, 2005 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Certification of the Statement of Official Action for Appeal 04-006 of
Landmarks Commission's Designation of the Property at 125 Pacific
Street as a City landmark
INTRODUCTION
This staff report transmits for City Council certification the Statement of Official Action
for Appeal 04-006 of the Landmarks Commission's designation of property at 125
Pacific Street as a City Landmark.
On July 26, 2005, the City Council upheld the appeal, overturning the Landmarks
Commission's designation of the property at 125 Pacific Street, by a vote of 4-1. The
City Council's decision was based upon the findings contained in the attached
Statement of Official Action.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Statement of Official
Action.
it==
NOV 2 2 2005
Prepared by: Andy Agle, Interim Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Stephanie Reich, Urban Designer
Roxanne Tanemori, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachment: Statement of Official Action
e ...
~
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CITY COUNCil
City of
Santa lUonlcaw
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL
ACTION
PROJECT
CASE NUMBER: 04APP-006
lOCATION: 125 Pacific Street
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission
APPELLANT: 125 Pacific lLC
PROPERTY
OWNER: 125 Pacific LLC
CASE PLANNER: Roxanne Tanemori, Associate Planner
REQUEST: Appeal (04APP-006) of the landmarks Commission's
designation of the property at 125 Pacific Street as a City
landmark.
CITY COUNCil ACTION
Julv 26. 2005
Date.
x
Appeal Upheld based on the following findings below.
Denied.
Other.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION: July 26,2005
1
EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMIT GRANTED: N/A
lENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATES: N/A
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on
the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particUlar fact from any such
summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
FINDINGS
The designation criteria, established in SMMC Section 9.36.100(a), and the statements
of significance for 125 Pacific Street are as follows:
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic,
political or architectural history of the City.
The subject property, constructed in 1924, is one of approximately fifteen bungalow
courts that were constructed within the Ocean Park area, and is one of two courts
erected west of Neilson Way. The subject property was most likely built to initially
accommodate winter visitors and newcomers to the area during Ocean Park's
continuing development during the 1920's and 1930's. Though the property at 125
Pacific Street may be reflective of the architectural history and residential development
of the City, particularly Ocean Park, there are other, more significant examples of this
specific property type located within the Ocean Park community that better embody and
manifest these historical associations. While this is one of only two courts that were
built west of Neilson Way, it is nevertheless modest in design and its integrity has been
compromised due to extensive exterior refinishing and alteration, and replacement of
original windows and exterior doors with non-original aluminum sliders and hollow
doors. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this criterion.
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The subject property is a moderately-sized bungalow apartment court that exhibits
some architectural elements associated with the simplified Mission Revival style such
as its flat roof with Mission-style parapets, red tile coping, and stucco walls (which have
largely been re-surfaced with a rough textured stucco). The subject property does not
exhibit notable architectural characteristics and does not reflect sufficient aesthetic or
artistic interest or value or other noteworthy interest or value to merit designation under
this criterion.
2
(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or
national history.
Current research does not reveal any information on the individuals associated with the
property to indicate historical significance or notability. Numerous tenants have
occupied the complex's 24 units over the years. Current research does not reveal
information indicating that the subject property is associated with important events in
local, state, or national history. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this
criterion.
(4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a
period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or
craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or
historical type valuable to such a study.
The subject property has been surveyed twice for the City's Historic Resource
Inventory, once in 1994 and again in the current Ocean Park Update. In both instances,
the subject property was identified as a potential contributor to a bungalow courts
thematic district. However, the inventory did not identify this property individually for its
distinguishing architectural qualities. The Mission Revival architectural style was
common at the time of this property's construction, but the details on this particular
example are not outstanding. No attempt was made by the property's builder/architect
to move beyond a utilitarian interpretation of the style in providing modest, inexpensive
rental housing. Furthermore, many of the original details on the building have been
replaced with incompatible materials. Due to its lack of distinctive architecture and
compromised integrity, this property does not embody distinguishing architectural
characteristics or unique architectural design to merit individual recognition under this
criteria.
(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable
builder, designer or architect.
The subject property was designed and built in 1924 by the local contracting firm of Dick
and Taylor. They are among the many local contractors who did design and contracting
work during the 1920s in Santa Monica whose work is typical of the period. The
contracting firm of Dick and Taylor was not identified through research as being notable
in their profession. Therefore, the subject property is not a significant or representative
example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect, and does not
meet this criterion.
(6) It has a unique location. a singular physical characteristic. or is an established and
3
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
While the property at 125 Pacific Street is situated adjacent to Nielson Way, a busy
street, the property does not have a prominent or unique location. The subject bungalow
court does not occupy a prominent corner lot, and its most prominent visual features are
visible only from within the courtyard. The subject property does not have a singular
physical characteristic that makes it unique and its does not constitute an important
visual monument in the City. Therefore, the subject property does not meet this
criterion.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Bloom, Holbrook, Katz, O'Connor,
Shriver
Genser
McKeown
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review of this
decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6, which
provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica.
~~!Y~(\ Qor....,...... (\-d-O-O<'
MARIA M. STEWART,\City Clerk Date
F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\STOAS\2005\04APP-006 (125 Pacific Street) STOAdoc
4