SR-406-004 (8)
~
..
e
,/c&;;--oo{
e
C/ED:KR:nh
Council Mtg.: June 26, 1984
Santa Mon~ca, Callfornia
/2 -,Lj
JU" 2 6 1984
TO:
Mayor and Clty Councl1
FROM: Clty Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal from a Declsion of the Landmarks Comm~ssion
Deslgnating Case #LC-17-029, the parcel, lncluding the
structure and grounds at 1605 San V~cente Boulevard, a
Clty Landmark.
Introduction
An appeal of the Landmarks Commlss1on decls10n deslgnating thlS
proJect as a Landmark has been flIed by Mr. Jerry Kay, attorney
for Mr. Gorossumako Okura, the owner of the property.
Following
a public hearing on May 10, 1984, the Landmarks Commlssioners
present voted five to one in favor of Landmark Deslgnation for
the entire parcel lncluding the grounds and structure, at 1605
San Vlcente Boulevard.
Staff recommends that the appeal be de-
nled and that the action of the Landmarks Commlss1on be affirmed.
Backsround
In January, 1984 an appllcatlon for the subdlvls10n of the parcel
commonly known as 1605 San Vlcente Boulevard was submltted for
Plannlng Commlsslon reVlew.
At that time, the Plannlng Staff
determlned that the proposal lncluded the demol1t1on of the
structure on the property WhlCh was deslgned by archltect, Donald
B. Parklnson as hls pr1mary reSldence.
The fact that thlS Sln-
gle-faml1y resldence has a un1.que history was brought to the
Landmarks Cornrnisslon 's attentlon.
After touring the house and
grounds and rece1.v1.ng a preliminary evaluat10n from the Planning
- 1 -
/2. -t:J
JUN 2 6 1S14
~.
e
It
Department, the Landmarks Conunlsslon filed a formal appllcatlon
for Landmark Deslgnatlon upon their own motion. At ltS meeting
on April 12th, the Landmarks COmmisslon revlewed the staff report
and app11catlon (see attachment). Based upon thl$ reVlew, the
Commisslon determined that the applicatlon was worthy of formal
cons1deratlon and scheduled a PubllC Hearlng for May 10, 1984,
incl ud1ng proper public notice. Follow1ng testimony from the
nelghbors and the attorney for the owner and developer, the Land-
marks Comm1ssion voted 5-1 to des1gna te the entlre parcel, 1n-
clud1ng the house and grounds at 1605 San Vlcente Boulevard, a
Landmark. The subdlvislon app11cation is deemed lncomplete pend-
ing resolution of the Landmarks Des1gnat1on, and the appl1cant
has been so notlfled.
The or1glnal port1on of the house was constructed 1n 1922 wlth
subsequent add1t1ons by Donald Parkinson 1n 1926 and 1929.
Deslgned 1n the Span1sh Colonlal Rev1val
house lS partlally L-shaped 1n plan. It
Style, the
1S bUll t of
ten room
concrete,
has wooden floors and a red tile roof.
Rooms are arranged "en-
SU1 te" in the Spanish Colonial tradl tion, and each room has a
door lead1ng to a covered patlo faclng the rear yard. Formal
gardens surround the structure WhlCh lS screened from the street
by a 51X foot hedge.
The house 1S one of the few prlvate residences deslgned by Donald
Parklnson. He 15 pr1mar1ly known for the commerc1al work he pur-
sued W1 th his father, John Parklnson. Known as the f1rm of
Parkinson & Park1nson, they designed many commercial bUlld1ngs ln
Los Angeles includlng Los Angeles Clty Hall (in aSsoclatlon with
- 2 -
e
e
John C. Austin and Albert C. Martin), Tltle Insurance (winner of
an AlA honor award), Union StatLon and Bullocks-Wilshire Depart-
ment Store. Donald Parklnson is also recogn1zed for the deslgn
of Santa Mon1ca City Hall, a proJect 1n collaboratlon wlth Joseph
M. Estep, funded in 1938 as a Federal Emergency PubllC Works
proJect. Addltional background lnformation 1S contained ln the
attached staff report.
Analysis
Under Sect10n 9607 of the Santa Monlca Munlc1pal Code, a property
may be des~gnated a Landmark if It meets one or more of the fol-
lowlng cr1terla:
A. It exemplLfies, symbollzes or manlfests elements of the cul-
tural, socla1. economic, pOll tlcal or architectural history
of the CltYi
B. It has aesthetic or artlstlc lnterest or value or other
noteworthy lnterest Or valuei
C. It 1S identified wlth hlStoric personages or with lmportant
events in local, state or natlonal history:
D.
It
embodles
dlstlngulshlng
archltectural
characteristlcs
valuable to a study of a perlod, style, method of construc-
tlon or use of lndlgenous materlals or craftsmanshlPi or
E. It .1S representative of the work or product of a notable
builder, des1gner or archltect.
- 3 -
e e
In rnak1ng lts decls1on, the Landmarks COIDmlssion determined that
the structure and grounds meet three of the cri terla under 9607
and made the followlng findlngs of fact and determlnation:
1. The house has aesthetlc and artlstic value to the commun1ty
of Santa Mon1ca as 1t represents one of the most dlstin-
guished examples of the Span1sh Colonlal Revlval resldentlal
tradition wlthln the Clty llmits.
2. The s1t1ng of the house on the property, lts axial approach,
the transparency of the bUlldlng at its center and connectlon
with the natural landscape beyond 1S a signlf1cant element 1n
the lnterpretation of the lmportance of the house as an em-
bodlment of speclal characteristics and lnterests of the
Span1sh Colon1al Revlval per1od. Its method of constructlon
is unique 1n that it is bU11t of concrete rather than of wood
stud constructl.on and stucco, the more common rnaterl.als for
houses of th1S style.
3. The house represents the work of Donald B. Parklnson, a
notable Ca11fornia arch1 tect who practiced from 1921-1945,
and was his pr1rnary resl.dence.
The dissentlng opiu1on on the Commlsslon stated that although the
house represents the work of a notable arch1tect, Landmark Deslg-
natlon cannot be supported because the owner 1S not 1n favor of
lt, and the home is not available for publ1C enJoyment. Nelther
owner approval nor pUblic access is a requirement for landmark
deslgnatlon 1n Santa Monlca.
- 4 -
.'
e
e
The appellant ma~ntains that the des~gnation of 1605 San Vicente
Boulevard vnll create undue f~naneial hardsh~p for his cl~ent,
the property owner. The appellant does not feel that the parcel,
includ~ng the grounds and structure at 1605 San V~eente Boulevard
~s worthy of Landmark Des~gnat~on based upon the criter~a under
Seetlon 9607 of the Santa Monlca Mun~c~pal Code.
Designatlon as a Landmark w~ll prohiblt any demolit~on or Slg-
n~f~cant exterior alteration to the structure without approval of
a Cert1flcate of Approprlateness from the Landmark Comm1ssion and
will require the owner to ma~ntaln the structure 1n good repa1r.
Should the Clty Councll deny the appeal, and thereby affirm the
Landmark Des~gnatlon a declsion of the Landmarks Commlssion, the
appl~cant has the further recourse to subm1t a Certlflcate of
Approprlateness appllcation to the Landmarks CommlSSlon request-
lng permisslon to demolish the Landmark. Under thls procedure,
the Landmarks Cornmlssion has the authorlty to stay demolltlon for
up to one year. During this year, the Commisslon would have the
opportun1 ty to work Wl th the owner to flnd a SU1 table way in
which to preserve the Landmark. Presently the City has no pro-
gram by which to ass~st 10 the purchase or rehab~lltatlon of en-
dangered Landmarks, but the Landmarks Comm~s8ion 18 aval1able to
asslst the owner ln locating a SUltable buyer for the property
should the owner wlsh to sell. If, after one year the appllcant
can prove that he has exhausted all means of preserv1ng the Land-
mark and 15 sufferlng undue flnanclal hardship he may be granted
a demolition permlt.
- 5 -
...
It
e
Should the City Council uphold the appeal, the owner could con-
t~nue to process h1s subd1v1s~on application with the Plann~ng
Commiss1on. In approv1ng the subdiv1sion, the Planning Commis-
S10n and Counc~l must f1nd that e~ther there is no signlfl.cant
1mpact on a cultural or h~stor~cal resource or that the 1mpact
has been appropr1ately mitl.gated.
C1ty Counc11 Author1ty
Under the provis1ons of Section 9613 of the Santa Mon~ca
Munlcipal Code, the C1ty Council may approve, in whole or ~n
part, or d1sapprove the pr~or determ~nat1on of the Landmarks Com-
m1ss~on. The Council shall base its declsl.on on the eV1dence
subm1tted at the hearing, and upon the record from the Landmarks
Commission and such other records as may eX1st in the case. The
declsion of the Council upon the appeal, relative to any matter
within the jur~sdiction shall be f1.nal. In thlS case, ln which
the Landmark Designat10n 1ncludes the grounds as well as the
structure, it would be posslble to uphold the landmark desl.gna-
t10n of the structure but not neccesarl.ly the grounds. ThlS ac-
t~on would allow for subd~vl.Sl.on but not along the lines proposed
~n the or1.gl.nal subdl.V1Sl.On request which intersect the
structure.
The Council shall make wr1.tten fl.ndl.ngs of fact and reasons
re11ed upon to reach its decision. In the case that the Landmark
Comml.ssion's decision is upheld, these f~ndlngs shall be based
- 6 -
."
e
e
upon at least one of the flve crlterla used to deslgnate a Land-
mark or can be substantially the same as those flndlngs deter-
m1.ned by the Landmarks Comm1.SS10n as prevlously stated in the
staff report.
In the case that such Notlce of Appeal has been
d1sapproved by the Clty Councll, no Notice of Appeal which lS the
same or substantlally the same as the one that has been d1.sap-
proved shall be resubmitted or reconsldered by the Clty Counc1.l
wlthln a 360 day perlod from the effective date of the flnal ac-
t10n on such pr10r Notlce of Appeal.
FlnanClal Impact
The recommendation presented in thlS report does not have a
budget/f~nanclal lrnpact.
Reconunendation
It lS respectfully recommended that the appeal be denled and the
actlon of the Landmarks COImnlssion be affirmed r based upon the
flndlngs enumerated on pages 4 and 5 of thlS staff report.
Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg, ASSlstant Planner,
(Staff person to the Landmarks Commlsslon)
Plannlng and Zonlng Dlvision
Community and EconomlC Development Department
Attachment: Landmarks Des1gnatlon Appllcatlon and Staff Report
- 7 -