SR-406-004 (11)
PCD:SF:AS:F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2004\125 Pacific Appeal.doc
Council Mtg: July 26, 2005 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal 04APP-006 of Landmarks Commission Designation of the
Property at 125 Pacific Street (Christie Court) as a City Landmark
Appellant: 125 Pacific, LLC
Applicant: City Landmarks Commission
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council uphold the appeal of the Landmarks
Commission’s designation of 125 Pacific Street as a City Landmark. On July 12, 2004,
the Landmarks Commission filed the Findings & Determination designating this
bungalow courtyard complex as a City Landmark. The property owner has appealed
this decision. The appeal statement is contained in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
This matter involves an appeal of the landmark designation of the property at 125
Pacific Street. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.36.100 (a), a structure, improvement,
natural feature or an object may be designated a landmark if it meets one or more of the
following criteria:
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political or architectural history of the City.
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or
value.
1
(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local,
state or national history.
(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.
(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a
notable builder, designer or architect.
(6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an
established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
In determining if this courtyard bungalow merits Landmarks designation, the Council
should consider how broadly to interpret the Landmark criteria. The bungalow court at
125 Pacific Street was identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory in 1983 (and
revised in 1986) as one of 928 buildings eligible for designation as a contributor to a
potential thematic historic district, but not as an individual City landmark. The
significance of these buildings has been found to be linked to their context and
grouping, which may demonstrate a particular architectural form or development
pattern. The City’s Historic Resources Inventory identifies only 396 buildings as
individually eligible for recognition as a City landmark. This evaluation is based on a
structure’s architectural integrity and the extent to which its character defining features
have been preserved. The property was re-evaluated in November of 2003 within the
framework of the Historic Resources Inventory Update-Ocean Park Area (HRI- OP
Update), with no resulting changes to the property’s assessment, eligibility, or
2
classification. The draft HRI-OP Update was reviewed by the Landmarks Commission
on June 14, 2004.
DISCUSSION
This property was initially assessed by the Landmarks Commission on March 8, 2004,
in its review of an application for demolition permit. The matter was continued to the
April 12 hearing for further consideration. At the conclusion of that hearing, the
Landmarks Commission voted to file an application for landmark designation of the
subject property. The Landmarks Commission held a public hearing on the landmark
application on June 14, 2004, and the Commission voted to approve the designation.
The Commission adopted the findings and determination on July 12, 2004. The June
14 staff report and the Landmarks Commission’s findings and determination are
contained in Attachments C and B, respectively. Pursuant to the Landmarks Ordinance,
the City Council may grant the appeal or uphold the decision of the Landmarks
Commission in whole or in part and designate the bungalow courtyard complex at 125
Pacific Street as a Landmark based upon the Landmarks Ordinance criteria contained
in SMMC Section 9.36.100.
Property Description
Constructed in 1924, the bungalow courtyard complex reflects a simplified Mission
Revival architectural style. Two single-story buildings each contain eight attached units
with primary elevations facing the courtyard. A two-story building with four units on
each floor closes the “U” at the rear of the lot. The courtyard itself is modest in scale,
3
surrounded by wood-frame construction, stucco siding, flat roofs and parapets
highlighted with an edge of red clay tile. Concrete sidewalks border the lawn, and two
rows of planters containing low shrubs, agaves, mature yucca trees, and bougainvillea
are adjacent to the front entrance porch steps.
The buildings have been extensively modified. A coat of non-original rough-textured
stucco covers the exterior surfaces of the east, west, and north elevations leaving only
the south elevations of the east and west buildings with their original smooth stucco
siding. The frames and glazing of all original wood windows have been replaced with
non-original aluminum sliders. Metal security bars have been added, attached to the
building’s walls in front of many of the windows and some of the entrances. All original
entrance doors have been replaced with hollow wood doors, and many of the small
round vents near the roofline contain non-original vinyl slats.
APPEAL SUMMARY
In the appeal filed on July 21, 2004, the appellant contends that the designation should
be disapproved because the property does not satisfy the criteria for designation and
because the appellant believes that the Commission designated this property to retain
rental units that would otherwise be removed pursuant to the Ellis Act. The appellant
asserts that the findings and determination are rationalizations of the Commission’s
action and contradict the staff analysis and recommendation. Additionally, the appellant
takes issue with the fact that staff did not release a consultant’s report prior to release of
the Landmarks packet and staff report, which became available on June 9, 2004, and
4
indicates that the Commission’s inability to review this report earlier prejudiced the
Commission’s decision to nominate the property for designation. The full appeal
statement is contained in Attachment A.
ANALYSIS
Staff recommends against designation of this property for the same reasons detailed in
the staff report provided for the Landmarks Commission hearing. That assessment,
supported by the City’s preservation consultants PCR Services Corporation (PCR),
found that the property is not architecturally significant and many features of the original
structures have been greatly altered. The analysis found that the property did not meet
any of the six (6) designation criteria. It was noted that, because the complex was built
in 1924, it could be considered an established or visual feature of a neighborhood.
However, this criterion, 9.36.100(a)(6), applies to properties which have “a unique
location, a singular physical characteristic, or an established and familiar visual feature
of a neighborhood, community of the City.” For example, the Santa Monica Civic
Auditorium meets this criterion as it has a unique location within the Civic Center, at the
bend of Main Street. Its grand scale, and unique design with futuristic pylons,
commands attention as one travels south along Main Street. The Civic Auditorium is
also a familiar and integral part of the Civic Center complex. The Civic Auditorium is,
thus, an important visual monument in the City of Santa Monica, and is clearly an
established and familiar visual feature of the City. In contrast, while the property at 125
Pacific Street is situated adjacent to Nielson Way, a busy street, the property does not
have a location or singular physical characteristic that makes it unique. Simply by virtue
5
of having occupied this property since 1924, the property cannot be found to meet the
high threshold for landmark designation intended by this criterion.
The City’s consultant found this property would be an altered contributor to a thematic
(non-contiguous courtyard) district, and both staff and the City’s consultants believe that
it does not merit individual landmark status. This assessment is confirmed by the recent
evaluation in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory Update of Ocean Park, which
determined that 10 of the 15 contributors to the thematic district were individually
eligible for designation based on their architectural characteristics and integrity. The
subject property was one of five that was not included, as the evaluation determined
that the property does not meet the level of eligibility for landmark status, primarily due
to the extent of alterations, and lack of any notable architectural characteristics.
As noted, the appellant has also objected to the timing of staff’s release of reports
prepared by the City’s consultant, PCR. Staff disagrees with this aspect of the
appellant’s challenge. PCR initially researched the property for preliminary evaluation in
connection with a development project submitted at the address that is subject to
environmental analysis under CEQA. This analysis, to which the appellant refers,
represented an administrative draft and was not available to the public. After the
Landmarks Commission’s filing of a landmark designation application for the site, PCR
prepared a report specifically addressing the Landmark nomination. This report, which
concluded that the property was not eligible for designation under the Landmarks
Ordinance criteria, was released with the staff report on the day that the Landmarks
Commission packet was delivered. This is standard policy for release of documents in
order to ensure that complete, accurate and thorough information is released to the
6
public. The Landmarks Commission’s review of this matter was in no way prejudiced by
the timing of the release of these documents.
Landmarks Commission Action
The Landmarks Commission found that the courtyard bungalow structure at 125 Pacific
Street met three of the Landmark criteria. The Landmarks Commission found that
Christie Court exemplifies the courtyard bungalow, an architectural form that defined
Southern California’s development in the 1920s generally, and Ocean Park’s
development specifically. The Commission designated the property primarily based on
the value as a significant historic building type within the context of Ocean Park’s
development.
The Landmarks Commission also found Christie Court to be unique among the Ocean
Park courts in its density, with 24 units on a 90’ x 150’ lot. It is one of only two such
complexes west of Neilson Way, formerly the location of the trolley line that was central
to Ocean Park’s development. Additionally, the Commission found that preservation of
this unique property facilitates the study of an important residential type from a
particularly significant growth period (1920s -1930s) in the City’s history. The
Commission further found that the landscaped interior courtyard formed by the U-
shaped complex represents a physical characteristic that is unique at this property, and
provides an example of how bungalow courts provided social and cultural benefits
through fostering a sense of community by connecting residential units with a usable
7
outdoor space, and that it has become a well-known feature to the surrounding
community.
Conclusion
Designation of this courtyard based on criteria 9.36.100(a) is not warranted because
many other superior examples of this building type remain in Ocean Park. While other
similar properties may not be identical to Christie Court in configuration or number of
units, there are sufficient similarities to inform a study of this building type, including its
value to the cultural, social and economic heritage of the City. In addition to the 10
examples in Ocean Park found worthy of individual designation, there are many more
properties of the courtyard bungalow type found in other areas of the City.
In addition, the location west of Nielson Way does not exemplify, symbolize or manifest
elements of the development history in Ocean Park since the courtyard configuration
was not widely used in this area, with the subject property constituting one of only two
(the other being Horatio West Court) such developments visible on early Sanborn maps.
More substantial expression of the courtyard development era is found east of Neilson
Way, where courtyard-type developments represent a more typical development pattern
for the Ocean Park neighborhood and where most of the Historic Resources Inventory’s
Ocean Park Bungalow Courtyard Thematic District contributors are located. The loss of
this property also would not diminish the possibility that the Ocean Park Bungalow
Courtyard Thematic District could be eligible for designation in the future.
8
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notice of this public hearing was published in the California Section of the Los Angeles
Times and mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property
located within a 300 foot radius of the project at least 10 days prior to the hearing. A
copy of the notice is contained in Attachment F.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council uphold the appeal and overturn the Landmarks
Commission’s decision to designate 125 Pacific Street as a City Landmark.
Prepared by: Andy Agle, Interim Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Stephanie Reich, Urban Designer
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments
A. Appeal Statement
B. Findings and Determination, Filed July 12, 2004
C. Landmarks Commission Staff Report dated June 14, 2004
D. City Consultant Evaluation Report, dated April 26, 2004
E. June 14, 2004 Landmarks Commission Minutes
F. Public Notice
G. Letters Received Regarding the Appeal
9
ATTACHMENT A
APPEAL STATEMENT
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office.
Deleted: and the Libraries
10
ATTACHMENT B
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION, FILED JULY 12, 2004
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office.
Deleted: and the Libraries
11
ATTACHMENT C
LANDMARKS COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED JUNE 14, 2004
12
M E M O R A N D U M
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING DIVISION
DATE:
June 14, 2004
TO:
The Honorable Landmarks Commission
FROM:
Planning Staff
SUBJECT:125 Pacific Street (LC-04LM-003) (Christie Court)
Public Hearing to Consider a Landmark Designation Application
PROPERTY OWNER: 125 Pacific St., LLC
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission
INTRODUCTION
On April 12, 2004, the Landmarks Commission filed an application for Landmark
designation of the subject property in response to the proposed demolition of the
existing courtyard apartment complex. This property was previously identified and
evaluated in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (1983, revised 1986) and given a
National Register status code rating of 5D2, indicating eligibility for local designation as
a contributor to a potential non-contiguous thematic district of “Ocean Park Bungalow
Courts.” The property was re-evaluated in November 2003 within the framework of the
Historic Resources Inventory Update – Ocean Park Area, with no resulting changes to
the property’s assessment, eligibility, or classification.
BACKGROUND
The property at 125 Pacific Street is situated at the northwest corner of Pacific Street
and Neilson Way. It is located on Block 3, Lot 12 and a portion (30 feet) of Lot 11 of the
South Santa Monica Tract in the City of Santa Monica. The multi-family property is
13
comprised of two one-story dwellings and a single two-story building configured in a “U”
shape around a central landscaped courtyard, which is entered from Pacific Street to
the south. It is sited on a flat lot within a medium-density residential neighborhood.
The property owner filed a demolition permit for the existing structure on February 23,
2004. The property was initially discussed at the Landmarks Commission’s March 8,
2004, meeting. The discussion was continued at the request of a number of members
of the public who showed interest in the property’s preservation and asked for additional
time to present further research. At the discussion continuation on April 12, 2004, the
Commission nominated the property for Landmark designation.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.36.120, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all
owners and residential and commercial tenants of property within a 300-foot radius of
the project and was published in the “California” section of The Los Angeles Times at
least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is included
as Attachment E.
ANALYSIS
Property Information and Architectural Description
City building permits indicate that the general contracting firm of Alex Dick and Homer
B. Taylor designed the courtyard apartment complex for R. Sorensen, the initial owner
14
of the property. Constructed in 1924, the complex was designed in the simplified
Mission Revival architectural idiom, although older photos presented to the Landmarks
Commission indicate that the Mission Revival styling may not be original. Each of the
single-story buildings contains eight attached units with primary elevations facing the
courtyard. A two-story building (north building) with four units on each floor closes the
“U” at the rear of the lot.
The individual rectangular bungalows around the courtyard are modest in scale, with
wood-frame construction, stucco siding, flat roofs and parapets highlighted with an edge
of red clay tile. On the Pacific Street (south) elevation and on the two-story north
building, the raised center parapets express the Mission Revival influence. On the
Pacific Street elevation, a round arched wing wall with wood gate extends out from the
west building over a narrow concrete rear entry path. The asphalt parking lot to the east
of the structure is not located within the parcel boundaries of the subject property.
Within the courtyard area, concrete steps (or concrete and wood stairs for the second
story of the north building) lead to front entrances flanked on either side by narrow
windows. Small round vents punctuate the walls of the primary and rear elevations of
each building near the roofline. The rear of each unit contains a service entrance with
an adjacent window.
The courtyard is landscaped, with a lawn bordered by concrete sidewalks and ground
level planters containing low shrubs, agaves, mature yucca trees, and bougainvillea
adjacent to the front entrance porch steps.
15
All of the buildings on the property have been extensively modified over the years. A
coat of non-original rough-textured stucco covers the exterior surfaces of the east, west,
and north elevations leaving only the south elevations of the east and west buildings
with their original smooth stucco sheathing. Within original window openings, the frames
and glazing of all visible fenestration has been replaced with non-original aluminum
sliders. Many of the windows and some of the entrances are screened by non-original
metal security bars attached to the building’s walls. All entrance doors have been
replaced with hollow wood doors, and many of the small round vents near the roofline
contain non-original vinyl slats.
Further detail is provided in the attached report, prepared by PCR Consultants.
Historic Context: Courtyard Development in Santa Monica
The subject property is an example of a moderately sized bungalow apartment court,
one of southern California’s most ubiquitous multi-family dwelling types. Bungalow
courtyards were first developed in the early 1910s and their development continued
throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s. The subject property is one of approximately fifteen
court complexes that were developed within the Ocean Park area, and one of two
constructed west of Neilson Way. Although courtyard properties have been replaced by
new construction throughout Santa Monica, the courtyard structures of Ocean Park
remain largely intact today.
16
Early apartment courts are a significant feature of Santa Monica’s architectural and
residential history. Many built during the 1920’s and 1930’s, such as the subject
property, reflect the simplified Mission Revival and Spanish Colonial Revival styles. At
first, the early courts were built as coastal vacation cottages. The subject property is a
typical example of this phenomenon, aimed toward tourists attracted to the convenient
beach and pier amusements. For some, the charm and easy informality of the court
lifestyle resulted in year-round residency. The advantages of court living grew to hold a
special appeal to the elderly, who enjoyed the accessibility that courtyard housing
offers; to the young, who were attracted by reasonably priced units that did not sacrifice
individuality; and to the artistic, who enjoyed the picturesque, communal atmosphere.
The courtyards were also attractive to blue-collar workers. City directories show that
Christie Court was occupied over the years by a variety of occupants including many
widows, musicians, clerks, studio workers, artists, dance instructors, and a variety of
blue-collar workers, including those employed in the aircraft industry.
Historically and economically, the early apartment court was an important episode in
real estate development and the tourist industry, two of the major underpinnings of
Santa Monica’s growth. The court allowed a developer to maximize income on
relatively small Ocean Park parcels, while providing an affordable and neighborly
residential atmosphere.
17
Associations with Historic Persons
Research did not reveal any associations with persons of historic significance in City,
State or national historic events.
Ocean Park Bungalow Courts District
The 1994 Historic Resources Inventory survey listed the Ocean Park Bungalow Courts
Thematic District with 15 contributing properties, including the subject property. Of
these 15 properties, the subject property is the first that has been proposed for
demolition. The recent Ocean Park Inventory Update revisited the district, finding it to
be basically unaltered. In reviewing the contributors, ten were found to be eligible
individually as well as district contributors. The subject property was not among those
evaluated as eligible for individual listing.
Landmarks Ordinance
The Landmarks Ordinance requires an application for Landmark designation to be
scheduled for consideration within 65 days of the date on which the application was
deemed complete. This time limitation may be waived with written permission from the
applicant/owner of the property.
The Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to review the building’s eligibility as
a landmark based on the six criteria discussed below. The Commission may designate
a property as a landmark if it meets one or more of these criteria. If designated, the
18
Commission may consider applications for Certificates of Appropriateness for any
proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, or demolition, in
whole or in part, to the Landmark structure or parcel.
The designation criteria, established in SMMC Section 9.36.100(a) and the statements
of significance for 125 Pacific Avenue 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 is 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 replacement of original windows
with aluminum sliders. Therefore, the structure does not appear to meet this criterion.
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
The subject property does not reflect sufficient aesthetic or artistic interest or value or
other noteworthy interest or value to merit designation under this criterion.
19
(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or
national history.
Current research did 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, including a large number of widows and
a variety of white- and blue-collar workers, such as clerks, salesmen, studio workers,
artists and aircraft workers. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to 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 was included in two surveys, in 1994 and again in the current
Ocean Park Update, both of which identified the property as contributing to a bungalow
courts thematic district. However, the surveys 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 obvious attempt was made by the property’s
builder/architect to move beyond merely a utilitarian interpretation of the style in
providing modest, inexpensive rental housing on a constricted site. Furthermore, many
of the original details on the building have been replaced with incompatible materials.
Due to its lack of distinctive architectural notability 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 by the local contracting firm of Dick and
Taylor, who were among many local design and contracting firms doing business in
20
Santa Monica during this period. Their work does not appear to be particularly notable,
and thus the property does not qualify for designation under this criterion.
(6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.
The subject property does not occupy a prominent or unique location. Although close to
Neilson Way, the property faces mid-block onto Pacific Avenue. It is visible from
Neilson Way due to the fact that the adjacent property has remained undeveloped,
functioning as a surface parking lot. The courtyard structure has become an established
visual feature of the neighborhood by virtue of the fact that it has remained in the
neighborhood since its 1924 construction. However, as its most prominent visual
features are visible only from within the courtyard and not from the exterior, the property
does not appear to meet this criterion.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
The subject property represents a multi-family housing type, bungalow apartment
courts, that the community recognizes as valuable and desirable in its promotion of
social interaction and a healthy relationship with the outdoors. There are still many
courtyard developments in the City, including within the Ocean Park area, and there are
other examples that are more developed architecturally and retain more integrity than
125 Pacific Avenue. According to the recent survey, ten of the fifteen contributors to the
Ocean Park Bungalows Thematic District have sufficient integrity and architectural merit
to qualify for individual designation, but the subject property does not appear to bear
these qualities. Although the demolition of any of these structures is regrettable, based
on the research and evaluation of this property staff concludes that this resource does
21
not meet any of the six designation criteria. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Commission deny this application for City Landmark designation.
Attachments:
Landmark Designation Application
PCR Evaluation Report
PCR Historic Assessment Report
GIS Map of Subject Property
125 Pacific residents’ memo, dated April 12, 2004
Public Notice
F:\PLAN\SHARE\Landmarks\Designations\2004\125 Pacific desgnation rpt.doc
22
ATTACHMENT D
CITY CONSULTANT EVALUATION REPORT, DATED APRIL 26, 2004
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office.
Deleted: and the Libraries
23
ATTACHMENT E
JUNE 14, 2004 LANDMARKS COMMISSION MINUTES
24
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
Founded 1875
“Populus felix in urbe felici”
Monday, June 14, 2004City Council Chambers, Room 213,
MEETING BEGINS AT 6:00 PM
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica
CALL TO ORDER: 6:00 P.M.
Present: John Berley, Commissioner
ROLL CALL
Nina Fresco, Commissioner
Roger Genser, Chair Pro Tempore
Ruthann Lehrer, Chairperson
Barbara Kaplan, Commissioner
Debra Levin, Commissioner
Also Present: Elizabeth Bar-El, Commission Secretary
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Stephanie Reich, Urban Designer
Michael Feinstein, Council Liaison
Arlene Johnson, Staff Assistant
Absent: Colin Maduzia, Commissioner
1. STUDY SESSION PRESENTATION BY HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP (HRG)
OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE IN THE OCEAN PARK
AND SOUTH BEACH AREAS.
Christy McEvoy discussed both the scope of work that was done and the results of
the survey.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Joel Brand and
Kathleen Masser.
25
The following corrections and revisions need to be made to the Ocean Park
Report:
?
Commissioner Fresco commented that 719 Kensington Road was not in the
report, and the actual address may be 711 Kensington Road rather than
719. She also felt that the other pre-war structures not in the HRI have
been overlooked and should be reviewed again.
?
Chair Pro Tem Genser mentioned a clerical error on the numbering system
rd
in reference to 2331 3 Street. He also commented on Santa Monica Shore
and the pre-1968 tower.
?
Chair Lehrer mentioned that the bungalow court list on page 44 of the report
doesn’t appear to be consistent with the one in the appendix
Ms. McAvoy asked the Commission to give a list of items to staff for
corrections, and stated that they would review these comments.
Ms. Bar-El thanked HRG’s staff for the in-depth presentation. She stated that
when the final report is finalized, staff would then update the inventory list so
that they can integrate this information with the existing information on the
inventory. Also, as a result of this work, each DPR has an updated photo and
there are DPR sheets for a lot of non-eligible properties. All of the surveyed
properties that were determined not to be eligible for the inventory have DPR
sheets with photographs, some information, year of construction and type.
2. REPORT FROM STAFF
:
Ms. Bar-El reported that the substantial remodel ordinance would be going to the
th
City Council to consider on July 13. This is a proposed change in the definition of
a substantial remodel. She passed around information on a training summer
program at USC on historic preservation. Sign-ups are before the end of June for
those interested. She also introduced the Landmarks Intern, Pam Edwards.
3.COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS
:
Commissioner Fresco mentioned that brochures on the Santa Monica
Conservancy were available on the desk outside the Council Chamber.
Chair Pro Tem Genser brought in a lithographic image from the early years of
Santa Monica. Commissioner Kaplan mentioned that the photos of the
Boulangerie came in and were with staff.
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Public Input Permitted
A. May 10, 2004
26
The minutes were continued to next meeting due to Commissioner Fresco’s
concerns regarding Item 10-E. Commissioner Fresco and Chair Pro Tem Genser
each had corrections regarding their comments on Item 10-D.
5. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:
None.
6. PUBLIC INPUT:
(On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the
Commission)
Kristina Deutsch addressed the Commission regarding the marketing of the
properties located at 154 and 156 Fraser Avenue in her neighborhood as
development opportunities and asking the Commission to consider filing a
landmark application for these HRI-listed properties.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR:
Public Input Permitted
None.
8. OLD BUSINESS:
Public Input Permitted
A. Review of Demolition Permit Request at 121 Esparta Way (PC015851) and
Consideration Whether to File an Application For Designation of a Structure as a
Landmark or Structure of Merit. (Continued from May 10, 2004)
R1- Single Family Residential
Single Family Resident w/ Detached Garage
Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Ken Kutcher,
attorney for property owners, and Mary Jo Winder, Historic Resources
Consultant, hired by the property owners.
Chairperson Lehrer stated that this property seemed to be an exemplary
representative of Ranch Style architecture in a context of a section of Santa
Monica, that has a whole cluster of this type of house, all of which are well
constructed. She noted that two changes in this area include a new house
adjacent to the subject property, which doesn’t have the same type of high
quality architecture and the property across the street, which has been well done
in terms of construction. 121 Esparta Way is a property type from the more
recent past that the Commission has not looked at before. It is very high quality
in terms of vernacular Ranch Style architecture in California in the mid-century.
27
Commissioner Levin stated that this may not be the best example, but it has a lot
of good qualities and she likes it.
Commission Fresco stated that this house did connect to the others on the street.
It has a certain look, which makes it appealing. However, she felt that the
building doesn't merit any type of designation based on Santa Monica’s history
versus the suburban architectural history of California. The appeal of the original
look of that area is great, but she felt that the preserving of that area is not going
to help further the telling of the Santa Monica story.
Commissioner Berley stated that the house is very handsome. However, it does
not rise to the occasion of being historic. Architecturally, it does not have a level
of quality that would distinguish it in that fashion.
Commissioner Kaplan stated that this is a nice example of a ranch style house.
It borrows details and design style from some great architectural buildings that
were built during the same period.
There was no action taken on this item.
9. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Input Permitted
A. Landmark Designation Application LC-04LM-003, 125 Pacific Street (Ocean Park
Bungalow Courts), to determine whether the property should be designated as a
City Landmark.
Commissioner Kaplan recused herself from this item.
Staff report presented by Ms. Bar-El.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: David Moss,
Ralph Mechur, Mary Hubell, Mark Hooker, Randy Davidson, (PowerPoint
presentation) Kimberley Hightower, Cynthia Fraser, Carlo Brooks, Robert Duffy,
Rachel White (who also spoke for Suzette Marquis), Robert Minzner (who also
spoke for Graham Ferrier, Michelle Katz (who also spoke for Richard Mikoliteh,
and Kathleen Masser.
Mr. Moss, representing the property owner, had submitted a written request for
continuance of this hearing, but stated that they were withdrawing this request
and did not object to holding the hearing at this meeting
.
Chairperson Lehrer thanked the community for coming to show their support and
for all of the intense research that was done.
28
Commissioner Berley had a question regarding the alterations on the building
and how it would affect a designation status.
Chairperson Lehrer stated that the building has had alterations, which are
reversible. It could have a future if restored. She is looking at the building as a
historical property type as a courtyard bungalow with a landscaped court and that
its context in the Ocean Park beach front west of Neilson Way is important. She
stated that the Commission could make findings based on criteria 1 and 6.
Chair Pro Tem Genser stated that there is something unique about the building.
It is unusually large for its era, with 24 units, and very high density. It was built
for inexpensive housing at the time and remains that way today. It not only
contributes to the courtyard potential district, but it also stands alone. He also
agreed with Chair Lehrer that it meets criteria 1 and 6.
David Moss questioned why PCR was not present at the hearing to explain their
report.
Attorney Rosenbaum explained that city consultants are under no obligation to
appear at public hearings, and that staff usually answers questions from the
public, and is qualified to explain points raised in the report.
Commissioner Berley stated that the initial reaction to the building from the street
might be misleading and that the courtyard is indeed special. Therefore, the
Commission should be careful not to judge a book by its cover because a
historical feature may be overlooked.
Following further discussion, Chair Pro Tem Genser made a motion to designate
125 Pacific Street based on Criteria #1 and #6. Chair Lehrer added Criterion #4,
which was accepted as a friendly amendment. The property meets Criterion #1
because it is a good example of a relatively dense bungalow courtyard, a
historical property type that has been significant to Santa Monica’s architectural
and residential history. Also, it manifests Ocean Park’s social and economic
history in that it was home to a succession of people who played a role in the
everyday life of the community and maintains integrity to convey this sense of
continuity. It meets Criterion #4 in that the courtyard bungalow represents a
historical property type and this particular property has 24 units in a U-shaped
configuration and landscaped interior court differing from other courts in the
Ocean Park area. It is a remaining survivor of a building type of which many
examples have been lost citywide. It meets Criterion #6 in thatthe courtyard is a
singular physical characteristic that has become a familiar visual feature to this
beachfront neighborhood. Commissioner Levin seconded the motion, which
passed by the following vote:
Ayes: Berley, Fresco, Genser, Levin, Lehrer
Nayes: None
29
Abstain: Kaplan (recused)
Absent: Maduzia
10. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Public Input Permitted
A. Review of Demolition Permits and Consideration Whether to File an Application
For Designation of a Structure as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.
1. 1032-34 3rd Street (PC015944)
R3-Medium Density Multiple Family North of Wilshire
4 Wooden Structures, Residential Apartments
Structure Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory - 5S3
2. 2220 4th Street (PC016002)
OP2-Low Multiple Residential
One-Story Duplex
Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory
The following members of the public addressed the Commission:
Mike Wolf, Margaret Mills and Mr. Glasser.
3. 3124 5th Street (PC015996)
OP2-Low Multiple Residential
Single Family Dwelling
Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory
4. 2502 Marguerita Ave (PC015975)
R2-Low Density Multiple Family
One-Story, Single Family Residence w/Detached 3-Car Garage
Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory
5. 914 14th Street (PC015974)
R2-Low Density Multiple Residential
Two Two-Story Buildings
Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory
6. 2246 25th Street (PC016032)
R1-Single Family Residential
Single Family Resident w/Detached Garage
Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resources Inventory
No action taken on these items.
B. Discussion of Council’s direction given at the May 18, 2004, meeting regarding
Landmarks Commission review of proposed remodels involving properties listed
30
on the Historic Resources Inventory in R2, R3 and R4 Zones. (Requested by
Commissioner Fresco)
Report presented by Ms. Bar-El. She and Ms. Reich also explained the planning
process and that this text amendment involves on certain multi-family residential
zones.
Commissioner Fresco stated that getting Landmarks Commission input into the
ARB process is a good idea because of the incremental loss of properties in the
downtown area. With all the good intentions, the current system isn't working.
We need a better safeguard for the Inventory buildings and this would prioritize
paying attention to the buildings when there are market pressures to redevelop
them.
Following further discussion, the Commission recommended that the Landmarks
Commission appoint a Commissioner to attend ARB meetings and provide input
on proposed modifications to Inventory structures that are on the ARB agenda.
Staff stated that this recommendation will be brought to Planning staff preparing
the Council staff report.
C. Discussion of Proposed Incentive Programs for Designated Historic Properties
Developed by the Commission’s Ad-hoc Sub-committee or Setting a Special
Meeting Time for Future Discussion of this Subject.
This item was continued to August or September, at a meeting that will
commence earlier.
D. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only)
11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
Public Input Permitted
None.
12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
(Requests from Commissioners to add items to
upcoming agendas)
Commissioner Kaplan requested to agendize a discussion on ways to protect
Main Street historic resources.
Chair Lehrer requested to agendize a discussion on the historic resources in the
South Beach tract.
Commissioners requested to agendize a discussion on 154 and 156 Fraser
Avenue as requested by Ms Deutsch during public input.
31
13. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA,
: MondayJuly 12, 2004.
14. ADJOURNMENT: 11:17 pm
32
ATTACHMENT F
PUBLIC NOTICE
33
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICACITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Appeal 04-006
125 Pacific Street
APPELLANT: 125 Pacific LLC
PROPERTY OWNER: 125 Pacific LLC
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
An appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision to designate the bungalow courtyard apartments at
125 Pacific Street as a City Landmark (04LM-003).
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, July 26, 2005, AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public
hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: Appeal (04APP-006)
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Roxanne
Tanemori at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at roxanne.tanemori@smgov.net. The Landmarks Ordinance is
available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-
monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310)
458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in
alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10
serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in
Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación
al número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
AMANDA SCHACHTER
Planning Manager
F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\NOTICES\2005\04APP-006 (125 Pacific St) Notice 7-26-05.doc
34
ATTACHMENT G
LETTERS RECEIVED REGARDING THE APPEAL
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is
available for review at the City Clerk’s Office.
Deleted:
and the Libraries
35