SR-406-006
PCD:SF:JT:AS:KC:DJ:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\BayStCluster.doc
Council Mtg: November 28, 2000 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Designating
the Four Residential Buildings Located at 137, 141, 145 and 147 Bay
Street (The Bay Craftsman Cluster) as an Historic District. Applicants:
Morris Abram and Bill Bridges Property Owners: J. and Manhar Patel
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an Ordinance
designating the four structures located at 137, 141, 145 and 147 Bay Street, known as
the Bay Craftsman Cluster, as an Historic District. On September 11, 2000 the
Landmarks Commission voted 4-1 to recommend that the City Council approve the
historic district. Pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance provisions, the Council is required to
take action on the Historic District designation application at the conclusion of this public
hearing or, if the decision is continued, no later than 45 days from this hearing date.
Ordinance adoption is required to designate an historic district. The proposed
Ordinance is contained in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
In June 2000, the Landmarks Commission received a formal request from 17 tenants of
the buildings located at 137, 141, 145, and 147 Bay Street to consider these buildings
1
for potential landmark designation. These structures make up the “Bay Craftsman
Cluster” identified in the City’s Historic Resources Inventory as a potential historic
district.
The Commission heard two residents speak about their preliminary efforts to research
the buildings, as well as their belief that these buildings are unique and a valuable part
of the City’s craftsman architectural history. The Commission asked whether or not the
tenants had spoken with the building owners regarding the designation. Tenants had
not yet had the opportunity to speak with the owners. Although the Commission
generally felt that the buildings deserved to be reviewed for historic merit, the
Commission was reluctant to file a designation application without the owner’s
knowledge and involvement. The Commission and staff suggested that the tenants
contact the owner and research the building’s history. The Commission recommended
that the tenants file a designation application if preliminary research supported the
historic district designation criteria.
On July 24, 2000, an application for Landmark Designation was filed by Bill Bridges and
Morris Abram for four residential buildings located at 137, 141, 145 and 147 Bay Street.
The application, contained in Attachment B, provides an architectural description of the
building, an architectural statement of significance, and site photographs. Following a
preliminary evaluation of the application, the Landmarks Commission determined that,
2
since the request involves multiple buildings on multiple parcels, the application should
be reviewed and processed as an historic district.
Landmarks Commission Action
Santa Monica Municipal Code(SMMC) Section 9.36.120 requires that a hearing to
determine whether a structure merits formal consideration be scheduled within 60 days
of the filing of an application. This application was filed on July 24, 2000 and the formal
consideration hearing was duly noticed and held on August 14, 2000. At that hearing,
staff recommended that the four buildings be considered an historic district due to the
fact that these buildings are located on separate lots, and the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory identifies the structures as a Potential Historic District known as the “Bay
Craftsman Cluster.” The SMMC Section 9.36.030, in part, defines a historic district as
“any geographic area or noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties
which the City Council has designated as and determined to be appropriate for historical
preservation pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter”.
At its August 14, 2000 meeting, the Commission heard testimony from 19 speakers, 18
of which supported the designation (see Attachment C, August 2000 Landmarks
Commission Meeting Minutes). Proponents of the designation included neighborhood
group representatives, neighbors, and tenants of the building. Speakers in favor stated
that the buildings aptly represented the architecture of the “ordinary” people for whom
the buildings were constructed. Concerns about the rapid encroachment of new
3
development and accompanying erosion of buildings that symbolize the unique charm
and character of old Santa Monica, and the Ocean Park neighborhood were also cited
by many of the speakers. The attorney for the property owner conveyed the owner’s
opposition to the designation and requested a 60-day continuance to prepare a
complete and detailed report outlining their reasons why the structures should not be
designated. The Landmarks Commission voted 5-1 to proceed with the application, and
scheduled a public hearing for September 11, 2000.
At the September meeting, 12 members of the public (including the applicants) again
spoke in favor of the designation, and the property owner’s attorney again stated his
client’s opposition and requested a continuance. (See Attachment D, September 11,
2000 Landmarks Meeting Minutes.) Based on the testimony and other evidence
presented, the Commission voted 4-1 to recommend City Council designation of the
historic district.
DISCUSSION
The Landmarks Ordinance permits the City Council, upon recommendation of the
Landmarks Commission, to designate an historic district if one or more of the following
criteria are met:
(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.
4
(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.
(7) It is a noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties or a
definable area possessing a concentration of historic, scenic or
thematic sites, which contribute to each other and are unified
aesthetically by plan, physical development or architectural quality.
(8) It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated
with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation
modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning.
The following section contains excerpted information from the designation application
and City historic information as it relates to these criteria.
ANALYSIS
Architectural Description
The subject property is located on the north side of Bay Street between Neilson Way
and Main Street. This short block was carved from a larger block that once extended to
5
Ocean Avenue. The block contains four parcels. The four potential Craftsman-style
contributing structures are configured in an L-shaped pattern at the corner of Neilson
Way and Bay Street, and are addressed as 137-141, 145, and 147 Bay Street. These
two-story, multi-family buildings were most recently surveyed by the City in 1993, and
identified as the “Bay Craftsman Cluster.” Each is a two-story, front-gabled, multi-family
residence with similar proportions and setbacks. The physical identity of the district is
established by the Craftsman design of the buildings, which include low-pitched, gabled
roofs, exposed beams and rafters, and tripartite windows. The grouping’s architectural
unity and physical proximity is reinforced by the existing parkway palm trees lining Bay
Street. The impact of these buildings is easily recognizable since they have remained
relatively unaltered (with the exception of simulated brick siding) since their construction
in the 1910s. Therefore, the buildings have retained a high degree of architectural
integrity.
District Significance
The Bay Craftsman Cluster meets the following five historic district designation criteria:
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political, or architectural history of the City.
Craftsman architecture was developed in Southern California, and this prototype
complex provides an intact example of multi-family units in the Ocean Park area. The
buildings represent some of the earliest examples of this style of architecture in the two-
story, multi-family format. These structures exemplify classic Craftsman characteristics
6
such as low-pitched overhanging roofs with wide eaves, extended rafters, tripartite
windows, and sleeping porches. Their location adjacent to the old Pacific Electric
railway line is significant from a cultural and social perspective as it provides a link to
the City’s original development of Ocean Park, and particularly Main Street as a new
commercial area. Neilson Way was originally the Pacific Electric right-of-way known as
the “Trolleyway,” and became a vehicular street in the 1930s. When the Pacific Electric
street railway was linked between Los Angeles and Ocean Park in 1896, summer
vacationers and weekend fun seekers were able to travel from the city to the coast in
only 40 minutes. This new transportation mode spurred growth in the area as it drew
more visitors and crowds. Hotels and rooming houses sprang up to accommodate the
weekend onslaught. Beach cottages, or small houses that were simply constructed,
were built both speculatively for the tourist trade, and by individual families for
occasional use.
th
In the beginning of the 20 Century, Ocean Park developed as a resort area. An
elaborate new pier and amusement park were built, along with a huge bathhouse in the
form of a mosque. Residential building activity also intensified during these early years,
and Ocean Park became firmly established as its own community, with a substantial
number of year-round residents. The City of Ocean Park was incorporated for three
years from 1904 until 1907, when residents voted to disincorporate, and the area once
again became part of Santa Monica. During this period, due in part to new restrictions
7
on property leasing, a considerable number of the early beach cottages were replaced
by more substantial houses suitable for year-round living.
Main Street then became the commercial spine of the community, serving permanent
residents as well as visitors who lived in the cottages, bungalows and courts which
appeared as far east as Lincoln Boulevard and beyond. By the close of the 1910s, a
substantial portion of Ocean Park had been improved. The 1920s and 1930s gave rise
to a near-complete buildout of the area. This pattern of development has continued in
the post World War II era, with the result that Ocean Park is characterized by a multi-
layered historical legacy in terms of the ages, styles, and building types it contains. The
Bay Cluster exemplifies typical Ocean Park development during the earliest portion of
the twentieth century.
Unlike many single-family, upscale residences designed for individuals, these well-
crafted buildings were designed for common people who worked locally in fields such as
real estate, nursing, and the restaurant business. The Bay Craftsman Cluster is one of
the last extant examples of multi-family Craftsman buildings in the immediate vicinity,
and serves as a striking visual reminder of the cultural and social patterns of early
twentieth century Santa Monicans.
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or
value.
8
These buildings retain a high integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and setting.
Although this building style would gain popularity towards the end of the 1910s, these
buildings are among the earliest examples of the application of the Craftsman aesthetic
to the multi-family building type. The Craftsman architectural style is characterized by
rustic-textured building materials, board roof overhangs with exposed rafter tails at the
eaves, and extensive pergolas and trellises over porches.
The two-story Craftsman fourplexes at the corner of Bay Street and Neilson Way (137
and 141 Bay Street) feature front-gabled apartments that are oriented end-to-end.
Articulated bargeboards, or boards attached to the projecting end of the gable roof,
outline the shingled buildings. Horizontal slat vents are also located in the gable ends.
A smaller gable, similarly pitched and detailed, covers an entry on the first floor of the
southern elevation. Tripartite windows are visible on the lower story along the side
elevations and above the entry gable on the south elevation. A continuous wood-railed
balcony is attached to the west elevation where a series of glazed doors, double-hung
sash windows, and tripartite openings also appear.
The two buildings at 145 and 147 Bay Street are also intact examples of a Craftsman
fourplex. Each of the buildings is two stories, capped by a front, low-pitched gable roof.
Three gables face forward (south), one over each projecting bay at the ends of the
building, and one over the building’s center bay. Again, extended bargeboards and
9
exposed beams and rafters characterize the Craftsman roof-styling. Three doors are
located in the recessed central bay. Tripartite windows filter bands of square light
across the top and nearly fill the side bays on both stories, and wrap the corners onto
the side elevations. Other than the siding material which appears to simulate brick, the
fourplex remains substantially unaltered.
(3) 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 early Craftsman design and high degree of integrity remaining in these 1910-era
structures makes these buildings a rare example of the Craftsman period and style.
The buildings exist as an intact representative of circa 1910 Craftsman architecture
which had its genesis in Southern California. As more fully described in paragraphs (1)
and (2) above, these 1910 buildings retain most of their original components with the
exception of what appears to be some simulated brickwork siding.
(5) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an
established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or
the City, and
(6) It reflects significant geographical patterns, including those associated
with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation
modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning.
10
These buildings have a unique location on the north side of Bay Street between Neilson
Way and Main Street in that they exist as a mostly intact block face in a neighborhood,
which is highly fragmented in terms of age and building styles. As most other buildings
of this era have been replaced, the buildings have become an established visual feature
of the neighborhood that represents turn of the century Ocean Park. Neilson Way was
originally the Pacific Electric right-of-way known as the “Trolleyway.” It became a
vehicular street in the 1930s. The tracks, which connected Santa Monica to the rest of
the region, were a major stimulus for the development of the City and the Ocean Park
area. In addition to its proximity to transportation, these structures were close to both
the beach and the retail area on Main Street. This remains a desirable location to this
day.
Conclusion
The proposed Bay Craftsman Cluster historic district meets five of the district
designation criteria. Only one criterion is required to approve a designation. Staff
believes the Council should uphold the Landmarks Commission’s recommendation to
designate the Bay Craftsman Cluster as it is an outstanding example of Craftsman
architecture applied to the multi-family housing type. Additionally, the Cluster’s location
adjacent to the former Pacific Electric right-of-way links the development to an early
transportation mode that sparked development in the Ocean Park area. As such, the
cluster is a key representation of Ocean Park’s early development into a community that
served both year round residents and tourists.
11
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
A legal advertisement was published in the Westside Weekly section of the Los Angeles
Times at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. In addition, notices
were mailed to persons who spoke at the August 14 and September 11, 2000
Landmarks Commission meetings. A copy of the notice is included with this report as
Attachment E.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council introduce the attached ordinance for first reading
approving the designation of the Bay Craftsman Cluster.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Donna Jerex, AICP, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments:
A. Proposed Ordinance
B. Designation Application
C. Landmarks Commission meeting minutes (8/14/2000)
D. Landmarks Commission meeting minutes (9/11/2000)
E. Public Notice
F. Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action
12
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
13
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\ORD\bayhisdist-1.DJ.wpd
City Council Meeting 11-28-00 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADDING SECTION 9.36.300 TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO
DESIGNATE AS AN HISTORIC DISTRICT THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT
137, 141, 145, AND 147 BAY STREET
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2000, two Santa Monica residents filed a Landmarks
application for the properties located at 137, 141, 145, and 147 Bay Street (the Bay
A
Craftsman Cluster); and
@
WHEREAS, the Director of Planning conducted a preliminary evaluation of the
proposed designation and recommended to the Landmarks Commission that the
application merits formal consideration and that because the buildings are located on
multiple parcels, the application should be considered as an application for a historic
district;
WHEREAS, on August 14, 2000, the Landmarks Commission unanimously voted
that the Historic District application merited formal consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Landmarks Commission conducted a public hearing on the
Historic District application on September 11, 2000, and recommended designation of
these properties as a Historic District to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received the recommendation of the Landmarks
Commission on October 26, 2000; and
14
WHEREAS, on November 28, 2000, the City Council conducted a public hearing
on the Historic District application,
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.36.300 is added to the Santa Monica Municipal Code to
read as follows:
The Bay Craftsman Cluster
SECTION 9.36.300.
Historic District.
(a) The City Council has reviewed and considered
the Historic District Application for the four buildings located
at 137, 141, 145, and 147 Bay Street (hereinafter “The Bay
Street Cluster”), and has reviewed and considered the
recommendation on the application transmitted from the
Landmarks Commission.
(b) The City Council finds and declares that:
(1) The Bay Street Cluster exemplify,
symbolize, and manifest elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political, or architectural history of the City in that:
(A) The Bay Street Cluster are intact representations
of Craftsman architecture style. Craftsman architecture was
developed in Southern California, and this prototype
complex provides an early, intact example of this style of
architecture in the two-story, multi-family format. These
15
structures exemplify classic Craftsman characteristics such
as low-pitched overhanging roofs with wide eaves, extended
rafters, tripartite windows, and sleeping porches.
(B) The location of the Bay Street Cluster adjacent to
the old Pacific Electric railway line is significant from a
cultural and social perspective as it provides a link to the
Citys original development of Ocean Park, and particularly
=
Main Street as a new commercial area. Neilson Way was
originally the Pacific Electric right-of-way known as the
Trolley way, and became a vehicular street in the 1930s.
A@
When the Pacific Electric street railway was linked between
Los Angeles and Ocean Park in 1896, summer vacationers
and weekend fun seekers were able to travel from the city to
the coast in only 40 minutes. This new transportation mode
spurred growth in the area as it drew more visitors and
crowds. Hotels and rooming houses sprang up to
accommodate the weekend onslaught. Beach cottages, or
small houses that were simply constructed, were built both
speculatively for the tourist trade, and by individual families
for occasional use.
(C) By the close of the 1910s, a substantial portion of
Ocean Park had been improved. The 1920s and 1930s
gave rise to a near-complete buildout of the area. This
16
pattern of development has continued in the post World War
II era, with the result that Ocean Park is characterized by a
multi-layered historical legacy in terms of the ages, styles,
and building types it contains. The Bay Cluster exemplifies
typical Ocean Park development during the earliest portion
of the twentieth century.
(2) The Bay Street Cluster has aesthetic or
artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value
in that:
(A) These buildings retain a high integrity of
design, materials, workmanship, and setting. The Craftsman
architectural style is characterized by rustic-textured building
materials, board roof overhangs with exposed rafter tails at
the eaves, and extensive pergolas and trellises over
porches.
(B) The two-story Craftsman fourplexes at the corner
of Bay Street and Neilson Way (137 and 141 Bay Street)
feature front-gabled apartments that are oriented end-to-end.
Articulated bargeboards, or boards attached to the projecting
end of the gable roof, outline the shingled buildings.
Horizontal slat vents are also located in the gable ends. A
smaller gable, similarly pitched and detailed, covers an entry
17
on the first floor of the southern elevation. Tripartite windows
are visible on the lower story along the side elevations and
above the entry gable on the south elevation. A continuous
wood-railed balcony is attached to the west elevation where
a series of glazed doors, double-hung sash windows, and
tripartite openings also appear.
(C) The two buildings at 145 and 147 Bay
Street are also intact examples of a Craftsman fourplex.
Each of the buildings is two stories, capped by a front, low-
pitched gable roof. Three gables face forward (south), one
over each projecting bay at the ends of the building, and one
over the buildings center bay. Extended bargeboards and
=
exposed beams and rafters characterize the Craftsman roof-
styling. Three doors are located in the recessed central bay.
Tripartite windows filter bands of square light across the top
and nearly fill the side bays on both stories, and wrap the
corners onto the side elevations. Other than the siding
material which appears to simulate brick, the fourplex
remains substantially unaltered.
(3) The Bay Street Cluster embodies
distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a
study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of
18
indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare
example of an architectural design, detail, or historical type
to such a study in that the early Craftsman design and high
degree of integrity remaining in these structures makes
these buildings a rare example of the Craftsman period and
style. The buildings exist as an intact representative of circa
1910 Craftsman architecture which had its genesis in
Southern California. As more fully described in subdivisions
(1) and (2) above of this subsection (b), these 1910 buildings
retain most of their original components with the exception of
what appears to be some simulated brickwork siding.
(4) The Bay Street Cluster has a unique location, a
singular physical characteristic, or is an established and
familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the
City in that these buildings have a unique location on the
north side of Bay Street between Neilson Way and Main
Street. They exist as a mostly intact block face in a
neighborhood that is highly fragmented in terms of age and
building styles. As most other buildings of this era have
been replaced, the buildings have become an established
visual feature of the neighborhood that represents turn of the
century Ocean Park.
19
(5) The Bay Street Cluster reflects significant
geographical patterns, including those associated with
different eras of settlement and growth, particular
transportation modes, or distinctive examples of park or
community planning. These buildings are located on the
north side of Bay Street between Neilson Way and Bay
Street. Neilson Way was originally the Pacific Electric right-
of-way known as the Trolley way. It became a vehicular
A@
street in the 1930s. The tracks, which connected Santa
Monica to the rest of the region, were a major stimulus for
the development of the City and the Ocean Park area. In
addition to its proximity to transportation, these structures
were close to both the beach and the retail area on Main
Street. This remains a desirable location to this day.
(c) Pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code
Sections 9.36.130 and 9.36.140, until such time as an
ordinance is adopted that specifies the nature of any
alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, or
demolition of or to a building or structure within the Historic
District that can occur without prior approval of a Certificate
of Appropriateness, any such work must obtain approval of a
Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic
Hardship by the Landmarks Commission.
20
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
21
ATTACHMENT B
DESIGNATION APPLICATION
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review.
Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.
22
ATTACHMENT C
LANDMARKS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
(8/14/00)
23
M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Founded 1875
“Populus felix in urbe felici”
AUGUST 14, 2000 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M. 1685 MAIN STREET, ROOM 213, SANTA MONICA
CALL TO ORDER: 7:01
ROLL CALL:
1. Present: Commissioner Frew
Commissioner Lehrer
Commissioner Page
Commissioner Schmidt
Chair Pro Tem Bolton
Chairperson Alofsin
Also Present: Donna Jerex, Acting Commission Secretary
2. REPORT FROM STAFF:
Ms. Jerex introduced City Planning’s new Senior Planner, Kimberly Christensen.
She also stated that Commissioner Lunsford officially resigned and the City Clerk
is posting his vacancy.
The last Historic Preservation workshop for the Historic Preservation Element
was held on July 20, 2000. The draft Objections and Implementation Measures
from the last five meetings will be presented to the Planning Commission on
August 16, 2000. It is anticipated that the draft element will be reviewed at a joint
meeting with the Landmarks and Planning Commissions in mid-November.
Ms. Jerex mentioned that she attended the Architectural Review Board meeting
on August 7, 2000, and stated that they are really interested in working with the
Landmarks Commission on neighborhood character and historic preservation
issues. These issues are identified in the Preservation Element as well as
having different departments work together in forming some kind of a system for
that to happen.
The National Trust conference will begin the end of October and run through
November 5, 2000. The deadline for early registration is August 15, 2000.
24
A designation application was filed by the Landmarks Commission last month, on
1230 Montana Avenue, and per the owner’s request we are delaying the hearing
for formal consideration until the September 11, 2000 meeting.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Public Input Permitted
A. July 10, 2000
Commissioner Lehrer moved for approval of the minutes. Commissioner Page
seconded, and the motion unanimously passed. Commissioner Frew abstained,
due to his absence of the previous meeting.
4CONSENT CALENDAR: None
.
Public Input Permitted
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Input Permitted
Consideration of Landmark Designation Application No. LC-CA-00LM-007 for 4
residential buildings located at 137, 141, 145, and 147 Bay Street. The
Landmarks Commission will determine, based on the application and research
presented, whether the application is appropriate for formal consideration. If the
Commission determines that the application merits consideration, a public
hearing on the application for Landmark Designation will be scheduled.
Commissioner Frew moved to reorder the agenda. Commissioner Schmidt
seconded the motion which unanimously passed.
Member of the Public, Morris Abram
stated that he was very pleased that
many came to support this effort. He stated that Mr. Chattel has worked both
sides of this fence and has worked on projects in favor of preservation and where
preservation was not merited. Stated they wanted an objective, fair, and
independent analysis, and have brought that to the Commission in Mr. Chattel’s
report. He thanked the tenants of Bay Street, the supporters in the community
and the staff.
Member of the Public, Robert Chattel,
Preservation Architect. He stated that
the property was previously evaluated in a city historic resources survey. It was
found in that survey to be a national register status code 5D1, which means
25
eligible as a local landmark essentially for a district. The previous evaluation
plays a role in the action before the Commission with respect to consideration of
landmark status at the local level. Stated they concur with Leslie Heumann’s
findings in the 1994 survey that the resources are eligible at a local level. Stated
they are exceptional examples of craftsman architecture. What makes them
particularly unique are features on the interior and the incorporation of rollout
beds that are part of the built-in cabinetry. The units are exceptionally small
inside but make very good use of that small amount of space - the kind of
craftsman bungalow architecture that was emulated and used widely at the time
and is something that would be worthy of study today. He spoke on the
difference between the consideration as a Historic district versus an individual
resource. The nomination was actually silent with respect to whether a historic
district designation is more or less appropriate than an individual resource
district. Stated he would encourage the Commission to consider whether or not
this is a historic district comprised of separate resources that contribute to the
character of the district or one individual resource that has four contributing
buildings.
Member of the Public, Lisa Gordon
, stated she has been retained to represent
the tenants in this matter. Stated that these buildings have been Ellised and the
tenants are aware that the landmark designation does not stop the Ellising of the
buildings. Stated the tenants are here because they believe these buildings
merit designation and are significant. They represent a link to Santa Monica’s
past. In an age where strip malls and uniform buildings have taken over, these
buildings mean so much to the tenants because they realize they are unique and
can never be replicated.
Member of the Public, Dennis Zane
, spoke of his support of the application
submitted by the tenants for formal consideration of these properties. Stated the
properties catch your eye as you drive along Neilson Way. They are looking to
hold onto things which provide a sense of value to the community, that provide
stability and gives life to their sense of neighborhood.
Member of the Public, Ken Breisch
stated he reviewed these buildings in 1994,
and discussed that they had the potential to become City Landmarks based upon
further research that would need to be undertaken. Stated he believes that these
could be a part of the National Register as well as a city landmark. Stated he
has inspected the properties inside and out and found them to be astoundingly
intact. Stated it is extremely important that we recognize architecture of the
ordinary people.
Member of the Public, Pam Vavra,
Wilshire / Montana coalition, stated they
have considered to not take action on whether to support or oppose this
particular application. She stated that the Wilshire/Montana Coalition has
expressed to both City Planning and the City Council their growing concern of the
26
rapid encroachment of new development and the subsequent erosion of
buildings that symbolize the unique character and charm of potential historic
districts such as this. She thanked the Commission for considering this and
other potential landmarks.
Member of the Public, Kathleen Masser
, OPCO, stated that they support the
application without reservation. Stated that these buildings have stood for almost
100 years and are unquestionably familiar and established visual features of our
community.
Member of the Public, Jerry Summers
, stated he has lived there almost 10
years. He presented a map from 1919 and indicated that out of 60 structures in
the map, only 4 remain. Stated he would like to be able to come by and
remember his 10 years as real, tangible and part of the shared community
heritage.
Member of the Public, John Coluccio
, tenant, stated that this is not the first
time the residents came up with the idea to designate this cluster as a landmark.
Stated in early 1999, they held meetings in the communal area. In October 1999
a letter was sent to the Planning Commission by one of the tenants requesting
more information on designations. April 2000, he sent an email to Rick Laudati
at OPCO discussing options for landmarks status. He stated the parcels are not
divided, and there are no fences in between. This type of layout promotes
gathering, trust and security within the community. There has been a history of
occupation by itinerants, vandalism and attempted theft. Stated they want to
preserve the integrity of the Ocean Park neighborhood, and preserve a vital link
to the history of Santa Monica for residents and visitors alike.
Member of the Public, Tim Falguiere
, stated that if you look at the buildings
and architecture, you see a piece of history. Stated that quite often history and
architecture reflect a part of a vanished era and these buildings represent a
period of time that is very important to its period.
Member of the Public, Jim Simmons
, He presented a slide show and stated
that the significance and architectural distinction of these buildings along Bay
Street is more than skin deep. He stated that the interiors’ charming spaces and
unique cabinet work and detailing are rare and precious examples of the
craftsman bungalow building type.
Member of the Public, Annette Del Zoppo
, stated she has been a resident on
Bicknell for 38 years and that this is the only little community left.
27
Member of the Public, Rick Laudati
, OPCO, stated that this hearing is about
historical preservation and landmark status. Stated that OPCO were aware that
the tenants were having meetings, and finally did receive the email asking for
direction on how to go about finding out information on historical preservation.
Member of the Public, Darrell Clarke
, stated that he was thrilled to see the
outpour from the community for these buildings that have been a personal gem
of his since the late 70s. He also presented an old photograph of the Old Trolley
Way, which showed 137 Bay Street in the background.
Member of the Public, David Gray
, Architect, stated that he is disturbed by
what’s happening in Santa Monica. He stated that buildings have been torn
down and built back in a tragic and very negative architectural manner. Stated
that we have an opportunity here together to save a little bit of Santa Monica’s
History; we are losing the scale and it is out of control. Stated we must make a
statement to get control back to the people that want to keep the scale and
quality of architecture in Santa Monica. He also stated that the buildings are
fantastic, and he is very familiar with the craftsman style and the Gamble House.
Stated that we have an opportunity to do something profound for the city and its
future growth.
Member of the Public Michael Tarbet
, stated that this is a time in an economic
boom where people are coming in to tear down the old and put up the new.
Member of the Public, Charity Luv Colbert
, stated she is a homeless resident
of Santa Monica and realizes the stress, duress and the damage done as well as
the ruin of someone’s life, when their home and livelyhood is taken away from
them. Stated she supports the preservation of Ocean Park’s history and stands
behind saving the 80 year old craftsman bungalow courtyard apartments.
Member of the Public, George George
, stated he has respect for the historical
things that are relevant to Santa Monica. Stated this building is a treasure and
doesn’t want this city to become another Miami Beach. Stated we are trying to
preserve a nice community.
Member of the Public, Rosario Perry
, stated they would like to present a
complete and detailed report in opposition to the landmark designation. They
don’t feel the building should be designated a landmark and need time to put the
presentation together. They would like a 60 day continuance rather than 30
days.
Ms. Jerex informed the Commission that the hearing to determine whether this
application merits formal consideration has to be held within 90 days of the filing
of the application, which is this hearing. The application was filed July 24, 2000.
In order to allow the owner additional time, the Commission could move it to the
28
October 9, 2000 hearing, and also get a statement from the owner, stating that
they agree to the extension of time.
Commissioner Bolton stated he would like to hear the owner’s side.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that the charge before the Commission is whether
this is a worthy nomination. She believes it is a worthy nomination due to all of
the information presented by the consultants and architects. Stated the tenant
issue is not the Commission’s issue. Stated the buildings are a very unique
oasis. The cultural significance and historic value of that period, we don’t have
much anymore. Stated she is in favor of moving forward with the designation.
Commissioner Frew, stated that landmark designation provides protection to the
building’s exterior. In this case, the interior is more stunning than the exterior.
We should investigate what options we have as far as the interior. Stated he is in
favor of proceeding with the designation.
Commissioner Frew moved to proceed with the formal designation and to
schedule the public hearing for September 11, 2000. Commissioner Schmidt
seconded and the motion passed.
Roll Call Vote
Ayes: Frew, Lehrer, Page, Schmidt, Alofsin
Nayes: Bolton
Abstain: None
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
6.
Public Input Permitted
A. Demolition Permits
1. 868 Woodacres Road (PC10487)
Single Family Residence
R1
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
2. 2834 Colorado Avenue (PC9999)
Light Industrial Building
C5
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
3. 1347 Pine Street (PC9959)
Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage
R1/Single Family Residential
29
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
4. 710 Marguerita Avenue (PC010516)
Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage
R1
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
5. 1605 Georgina Avenue (PC010525)
Detached Garage
R1/Single Family Residential
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
6. 3011 Glenn Avenue (PC010521)
Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage
R1/Single Family Residential
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
7. 1117 Oak Street (PC010519)
Detached Garage
R1/Single Family Residential
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
B. Request from Commissioner Lunsford to recommend that the City Council
adopt a policy that landmark status be determined prior to the review or
issuance of permits for new development which would involve demolition
of existing potential landmark structures.
Commissioner Page agrees with Commissioner Lunsford
Pam O’Connor, City Council Liaison, stated that preservation can be a
part of the planning process in the earlier stages. If early in a project, it
requires an EIR, and looks as though the property may be significant, then
that study will help make that determination as to whether it has
significance or not. If an EIR is going to study the significance of a
property, it needs to be early in that planning process.
This item will be agendized for next month’s meeting.
C. Planning Commission and Zoning Administrator Case Lists (Information
Only)
7. COMMUNICATIONS: None
8. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: September 11, 2000
30
9. PUBLIC INPUT: (For items not listed on the agenda and within the
Commission’s jurisdiction)
Member of the Public, Pro Se,
Stated he would like to agendize for the next
meeting, the establishment of a disability coalition in Santa Monica. Stated he
would like the support of the Commission in the formation of this coalition and
would like to present background on it at the next meeting.
Pam O’Connor stated that this issue is being looked at by the City Council and
they are moving forward in regards to the best way to approach more activism
regarding disabilities. They are also looking into the possibility of a disabilities
taskforce. The Programs Commission, which deals with advocacy, such as
Social Services and the Women’s Commission have been approached and are
discussing this as well. She also stated that the Commission must figure out what
their role is in the community, how it affects their agenda, and what is best heard
here versus elsewhere.
Commissioner Frew, after 6 years, announced his resignation. This is his last
meeting. The Commission agreed that he will be missed terribly.
ADJOURNMENT: 8:25pm
10.
Attest: Approved
__________________________ _____________________
Commission Secretary Chairperson
31
ATTACHMENT D
LANDMARKS COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
(9/11/00)
32
M I N U T E S
REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Founded 1875
“Populus felix in urbe felici”
SEPTEMBER 11, 2000 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7:00 P.M. 1685 MAIN STREET, ROOM 213, SANTA MONICA
CALL TO ORDER:
7:02pm
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioner Lehrer
Commissioner Page
Commissioner Schmidt
Chair Pro Tem Bolton
Chairperson Alofsin
4. REPORT FROM STAFF:
Ms. Jerex informed the Commission that staff is finalizing the draft for the Historic
Preservation Element. It was introduced to the Planning Commission on August 16,
2000, and they would like to have a joint meeting with the Landmarks Commission on
Wednesday, November 15, 2000. She also stated that this meeting would take the
place of the regular Monday night meeting for the Landmarks Commission.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Public Input Permitted
A. August 14, 2000
Commissioner Bolton moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Page seconded,
and the motion unanimously passed.
Commissioner Bolton moved to reorder the agenda. Commissioner Page seconded,
and the motion unanimously passed.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
Public Input Permitted
11. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public Input Permitted
A. Landmark Designation Application #LC-00LM-007 - 137, 141, 145 and 147
33
Bay Street. The Landmarks Commission will make a decision as to whether
buildings meet one or more of the required
or not these four residential
criteria for landmark designation.
Member of the Public, Morris Abrams and Bill Bridges
, stated that they are
standing in for the tenants of Bay Street and the community who has been
responsive to their efforts. They thanked the Commission for their support not
only for Santa Monica, but the wider community.
Member of the public, Robert Chattel
, He stated that these buildings are in fact
a contiguous grouping of related properties. Stated they are a definable area
possessing a concentration of historic sites which contribute clearly since they
are immediately adjacent to one another. Stated each building is a good
example to the craftsman style and ensemble comprising exceptional. The
property reflects geographical patterns and also meet a very specific criteria to
Santa Monica, particularly transportation modes. Stated they are also distinctive
examples of community planning that is multifamily, bachelor and studio
apartment complex, expressed as arts and crafts style. The Bay craftsman
cluster deserves recognition as a historic district.
Member of the public, Francesca Smith
, She mentioned the letter by Dr.
Robert Winters, and how his research shows what an extraordinary resource this
property is.
Member of the Public, Pam Vavra,
Wilshire/Montana Neighborhood Group,
She stated that the support is very broad for this particular application.
Member of the Public, Jim Simmons
, He presented a slide show of the exterior
of these properties.
Member of the Public, Annette Del Zoppo
, She stated that an individual group
of buildings as one property doesn’t meet the context of a neighborhood to make
this a unique and preservable piece of property. Stated we are throwing away a
lot more than a structure if we let it go.
Member of the Public, John Coluccio
, He stated that this is the culmination of
a long active effort by the tenants to achieve this status. Stated there is a real
and present danger of these buildings becoming vacant, and there isn’t any real
tangible security there, so they are asking the Commission to please move in an
expeditious manner in their decision. Also stated that Santa Monica is built on
visitors and tourist dollars. If we save it, we save the neighborhood and the
integrity of the entire city.
Member of the Public, Kathleen Masser
, OPCO, She reconfirmed that OPCO
fully supports the application.
34
Member of the Public, Michael Tarbet
, He stated their steering committee
voted that this building be designated as a landmark, and hopes the Commission
agrees.
Member of the public, David Gray
, Stated he fully supports Robert Chattels’s
concepts and feels it is very appropriate to designate the property.
Member of the Public, Darrell Clarke
, He stated that the slides, presented by
Jim Simmons, speak for the importance of these buildings and to the soul of
Santa Monica. Also stated that the staff report speaks excellently to the findings
that need to be made to declare this a landmark.
Member of the public, Rosario Perry
, He asked for a 30 day continuance.
Stated that they hired a consultant to prepare a report in opposition. which would
be presented to the Commission in two weeks.
Commissioner Bolton, stated that given the importance of the property, in
fairness, the Commission should give the owner time to prepare their report.
Commissioner Schmidt stated that Mr. Perry and his clients already had 30 days
and thought they would have come prepared with something to present at this
meeting. She also stated that the findings before the Commission makes it very
clear that this building merits designation. Stated she could not imagine that the
owner would bring anything before the Commission that would undue what is
presented at this time, and therefore did not want to wait thirty more days.
Commission Page concurred with Commission Schmidt. Stated he would like to
proceed with the designation.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that the property is a great cluster and is very
significant historically and culturally. Stated she would like to proceed with the
designation.
Commissioner Page moved to recommend approval to the City Council that
these buildings be designated as a Thematic District. Commissioner Lehrer
seconded and the motion passed.
Roll Call Vote
Ayes: Lehrer, Page, Schmidt, Alofsin
Nayes: Bolton
Absent: None
35
B. Landmark Designation Application #LC-00LM-006 for a one and two-story
commercial building located at 1230 Montana Avenue. The Landmarks
Commission will determine, based on the application and research presented,
whether the application is appropriate for formal consideration. If the
Commission determines that the application merits consideration, a public
hearing on the application for Landmark Designation will be scheduled.
Member of the Public, Pam Vavra,
Stated this property is one of the last
remaining elements of what Montana Avenue used to be before the more
recent erosion of some of the unique charm, character, hometown feel that it
has had. Stated she would like the Commission to formally consider the
property for landmark status.
Member of the Public, Norman Peterson
, Stated he has lived in Santa
Monica for 50 years. Also stated he would like the property designated so
th
they could keep Montana Avenue from resembling 5 Avenue in New York
City or Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills. Also stated that the new development
would continue the shaping of Montana Avenue as if it were a trench between
concrete and glass walls on both sides of the street.
Member of Public, Darrell Clarke
, Stated he was troubled with the City’s
Consultant report in that certain statements seemed contradictory. Stated
that the same consultant presented before the Planning Commission in
December 1999, on the same subject of 401 Montana, and at that time didn’t
see it as a historic landmark or a structure of merit. Also stated that the
building absolutely contributes to a very important potential district on
Montana Avenue.
Member of the Public, Annette Del Zoppo
, She stated this building is
indicative of the kinds of buildings that were in the area. Also stated a use for
this property might be something in retail, and still preserve the quality of the
setback, greenery, openness, low profile, and the style that is indicative of the
area and along Montana Avenue.
Member of the Public, Jim Simmons
, He urged the Commission to
designate the building as a landmark, and would like to see it as one of the
last welcome breaths of open space interruption of the cannon that Montana
is becoming with wall to wall, up to the sidewalk storefronts.
Member of the Public, Heather Trim,
She urged the Commission to create
a historic zone along Montana Avenue.
Member of the Public, Dee Shutt
, Stated she would like to see the Mortuary
designated. Stated it would be to everyone’s benefit if we could retain as
much character of Santa Monica as we can, and one way would be to save
36
as many pieces of period architecture as possible, with the Mortuary being a
prime example.
Member of the Public, MaryJo Stenger
, She stated that her family watched
a neighborhood street, full of little grocery stores, hardware stores, and
restaurants turn into concrete and big business. She asked the Commission
to save what is left of little green grass and character, and give back some of
the charm that they lived with so many years ago.
Member of the Public, Doris Sosin
, She stated that the building gave visual
relief from the sidewalk adjacent new structures, and it would be wonderful to
have creative, adaptive reuse for pieces of properties that are in very fine
condition. It is a familiar visual landmark. Stated that corners are particularly
crucial for those that live there and drivers on the road. Stated the Aero
Theater and the Mortuary are examples of English revival, and it would be
nice to have more than one example left to us.
Member of the Public, Jay Johnson
, He stated that this is an excellent
example of what “Old Santa Monica” represents. Urged the Commission to
consider the designation.
Member of the Public, Nick Kanieff
, He stated he is a strong proponent of
the restoration of preservation of any building that has historical or aesthetic
significance. However, he would label this particular project under either
aesthetic or historical. He feels the property is a non-conforming use, an
eyesore and is in favor of the demolition.
Member of the Public, Nilou Norouzi
, She feels Montana Avenue is not
what it used to be, and the structure does not enhance the street in anyway.
Also stated it provides no compliment to the character of the street.
Member of the Public, Vidette McLarney
, Stated she has lived in Santa
Monica 20 years, and has seen it grow. Stated this building is an eyesore
that is depressing and doesn’t fit at all on Montana.
Member of the Public, Steve Prible
, He read an email letter from Dan
Abram, resident of Santa Monica, who couldn’t make it to the meeting. In the
letter Dan stated that he had supported the proposal for a park. He also
stated that Landmark designation should not be used as a tool to stop
development of what may be an undesirable project. Instead, the City should
use its resources to ensure that what is built on a site benefits the
neighborhood.
37
Member of the Public, Wendy Hull,
Stated she walked through the building
about 2 years ago, and it was horrid, and that it looked like something that
could not be revamped unless it was demolished.
Member of the Public, Monica Farassat
, Stated she’s lived in Santa Monica
over 15 years. Also stated she is against the landmark designation because
the building gives a somber feeling.
Member of the Public, Jeff Damavandi
, He read a letter from resident,
Robert Sullivan, who was in support of the demolition.
Member of the Public, Robert Chattel
, Stated it is their professional opinion
that this building does not merit designation either as a structure of merit or as
a landmark, or as a historic district contributor. Stated the resource was not
previous identified in any of the city’s historic resource surveys, and that there
are numerous other examples of its architectural design and type; one
example being the Gates Kingsley Mortuary located at 1925 Arizona, which is
by far the superior of this particular property type mortuary and particularly
English revival influence type in Santa Monica. Stated that the property is not
representative of the architectural style that is no longer prevalent in this city.
Stated they don’t believe a historic district exist along Montana, either
thematic grouping or otherwise, through which this would contribute as a
historic resource. They also don’t believe the location is unique or the
building or its landscaping are significant features in the neighborhood or the
city, and it is not consistent with, nor does it compliment the surrounding
neighborhood.
Member of the Public, Francesca Smith
, She stated the building has had
more than 13 recorded alterations. Stated the interior is no longer intact,
except for small portions of the main chapel. She also stated that because of
the alterations, the building no longer conveys its original appearance.
Member of the Public, Chris Harding, Attorney
, He stated the replacement
project has 6,800 feet of ground floor retail space, 4 apartments on the
second floor, and full code parking for both the retail and the residential.
Stated that this is a classic example of a mixed use project that Santa Monica
has been promoting since the early 1980s; to promote a pedestrian
orientation along the street front. Stated that if the building were preserved,
the city would end up with 12,000 square feet of some use, however would
not be economically viable. If that were to occur, we would end up with a
building with no parking. Stated that many residents have expressed concern
about parking in the area immediately north and south of Montana Avenue,
and to designate this building as a landmark, would be unfair and unwise.
38
Commissioner Schmidt stated that based on the fact that both consultants are
in agreement with each, she does not support the designation.
Commissioner Page, stated that each time he has driven by the mortuary on
Montana, he never gave it much thought. He does not support the
designation.
Commissioner Lehrer stated she does find potential merit in the building.
Stated what she finds architecturally significant about the building is its
English period revival character as reflecting residential architecture and the
context of the neighborhood as being a distinguishing factor in a commercial
district. She also stated that historically, the building reflects the first wave of
commercial development on Montana. Stated she doesn’t find the alterations
to be architecturally significant. In scope, they are relatively minor and don’t
change the character of building which still forms a very strong visual element
in that neighborhood. She also believes the mortuary is a significant business
as far as economics.
Chair Pro Tem Bolton stated he is agreement with the consultants.
Commissioner Page, moved to take no action on this item. Commissioner
Schmidt seconded, and the motion passed.
Roll Call Vote
Ayes: Page, Schmidt, Bolton, Alofsin
Nayes: Lehrer
Absent: None
6. DISCUSSION ITEMS:
Public Input Permitted
A
th
1. 1527 6 Street (PC010536)
C3 Downtown Commercial
Multi-family Residential Structure
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
th
2. 1531 6 Street (PC010537)
C3 Downtown Commercial
Multi-family Residential Structure
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
th
3. 2435 6 Street (PC010551)
OP2 Low Multi-Family
Single Family Dwelling w/Detached Garage
39
Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Member of the Public, Mark Baez,
Stated that they have a thorough report, structural
and asbestos for the property, and have found that most of the materials have been
replaced. Stated the structure foundation is deteriorating and the house is in such poor
condition, that to reconstruct or renovate would mean to replicate rather than restoring it.
Commissioner Lehrer felt that this property needed further evaluation.
Member of the Public, Lance Schmidt
, Stated he supports the proposal because he
feels the house would enhance the neighborhood. He also read a letter from his
neighbor, Jack Behr, which stated his support for the proposal as well.
Commissioner Lehrer withdrew her previous statement.
Ms. Jerex stated that staff has received a number of letters from neighbors who are in
favor of the designation, however they are not here at the meeting. The issue before the
Commission is whether they want to move forward with the designation.
Member of the Public and owner, Bill Sunblad, had questions regarding any petitions
that may have been filed.
Ms. Jerex informed Mr. Sunblad that nothing had been given to staff in regard to the
demolition permit application.
Commissioner Lehrer moved that the demolition be placed on hold until further research
was done. No second.
th
4. 270 18 Street (PC010552)
R1 Single Family Residential
Single Family Dwelling w/Detached Garage
Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Commissioner Lehrer stated that she can’t see the rational for trashing this property,
particularly given the architect and his contribution to architecture in Santa Monica. She
moved to place a hold on the demolition permit, and possibly pursue designation.
Commissioner Schmidt seconded, and the motion passed.
Voice Vote
Ayes: Lehrer, Schmidt, Page, Bolton, Alofsin
Nayes: None
Absent: Nonw
5. 757 Pier Avenue (PC010567)
OP2 Low Multi-Family
Two Story Wood Structure and Detached Shed
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
6. 202 Wilshire Blvd. (PC010568)
40
BSC2 Bayside Commercial District
One Story Wood Structure (Bob Burns Restaurant)
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
7. 221 Marguerita Avenue (PC010609)
R1 Single Family Residential
Single Family Dwelling, Detached Garage, Servants Quarters
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
8. 1906 Broadway (PC010617)
BCD Broadway Commercial District
One Story Structure and Fence
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
th
9. 469 20 Street (PC010625)
R1 Single Family Residential
Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Commissioner Lehrer stated that this property is a very classic, Spanish colonial revival
with many beautiful architectural features to the building, and the street is a fairly intact
street. Also stated that it is a very historical streetscape, as well as being a very
handsome work of historical architecture.
Commissioner Lehrer moved to designate the property. Commissioner Schmidt
seconded. The motion failed.
Voice Vote
Ayes: Lehrer, Schmidt, Alofsin
Nayes: Page, Bolton
Absent: None
th
10. 343 14 Street (PC010666)
R1 Single Family Residential
Single Family Dwelling and Detached Garage
Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory
Commissioner Leher stated it is a rather unique property in terms of its mature
characteristics. From a functional point of view it is a very small house, however it
possibly could be rehabbed.
Commissioner Schmidt stated that the property is very charming looking and has a lot of
character. Additional information would reveal more than we currently have.
Commissioner Schmidt moved to nominate. Commissioner Lehrer seconded, and the
motion passed.
41
Voice Vote
Ayes: Lehrer, Page, Schmidt, Bolton, Alofsin
Nayes: None
Absent: None
ATTACHMENT E
PUBLIC NOTICE
42
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICACITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Historic District Designation Application LC-00LM-007 – Historic District
Designation for four residential buildings located at 137, 141, 145 and 147 Bay
Street (The Bay Craftsman Cluster).
APPLICANTS: Morris Abram and Bill Bridges
PROPERTY OWNER: J. and Manhar Patel
Tuesday, November 28, 2000
WHEN:
WHERE:
Council Chambers, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Room 213
Santa Monica, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider a Recommendation by the
Landmarks Commission to Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance Designating the
Four Residential Buildings Located at 137, 141, 145 and 147 Bay Street (The Bay
Craftsman Cluster) as an Historic District.
HOW TO COMMENT
You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information received
before 3:00 p.m. on the Wednesday before the hearing will be given to the City Council in their packet.
Information received after that time will be given to the City Council prior to the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: LC-00LM-007
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
For more information about this project, please contact Associate Planner Donna Jerex at (310) 458-
8341. Information is also available on the City=s web site at www.santa-monica.org. The meeting facility
is handicapped accessible. If you have any special needs such as sign language interpreting, please
contact the Office of Disabled at (310) 458-8701. TDD Number (310) 458-8696. Santa Monica Bus Lines
1, 2, 3 and 7 serve City Hall.
43
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
El Concilio Municipal de la ciudad de Santa Monica tendra una audencia publica para revisar
applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Para mas informacion, llame a Carmen
Gutierrez al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
_____________________
JAY M. TREVINO
Planning Manager
ATTACHMENT F
LANDMARKS COMMISSION
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
45
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
CITY OF SANTA MONICA LANDMARKS COMMISSION
PROJECT
SUBJECT: Historic District Designation LC-00LM-007
ADDRESS: 137,141, 145, and 147 Bay Street
APPLICANTS: Morris Abram and Bill Bridges
REQUEST: Recommendation to City Council to Consider Historic District
Status for the “Bay Street Cluster” located at 137, 141, 145,
and 147 Bay Street
LANDMARKS COMMISSION ACTION
9/11/2000 Date
X Recommendation to approve Historic District based on the
following findings and subject to the conditions below.
Denied
Other
FINDINGS
1. The four buildings located at 137, 141, 145, and 147 Bay Street (hereafter “The
Bay Street Cluster”) exemplify, symbolize, and manifest elements of the cultural,
social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City in that they are intact
representations of Craftsman architecture style. Craftsman architecture was
developed in Southern California, and this prototype complex provides an intact
example of multi-family units still existing in the Ocean Park District.
2. The Bay Street Cluster has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other
noteworthy interest or values in that these buildings retain a high integrity of
design, materials, workmanship, and setting. Although this building style would
gain in popularity towards the end of the 1910s, these buildings are among the
earliest examples of the application of the Craftsman aesthetic to this building
type. The were also strategically located. Neilson Way was originally the Pacific
Electric right of way known as “Trolley way,” and became a vehicular street in the
1930s. The tracks, which connected Santa Monica to the rest of the region, were
a major stimulus for the development of the City. In addition to its proximity to
transportation, these structures were close to both the beach and the retail area on
Main Street.
46
3. The Bay Street Cluster 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 to such a study. The early Craftsman
design and high degree of integrity remaining in these 1910-era structures makes
these buildings a rare example of the Craftsman period and style.
4. The Bay Street Cluster is a significant or a representative example of the work or
product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. These buildings were
constructed by local builder Charles P. Schemerhorn, who became the proprietor
of the building, then known as “The Dorchester Apartments."
5. The Bay Street Cluster has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic,
and are considered an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood,
community based on their architectural character as a mostly intact block face in a
neighborhood which is highly fragmented in terms of age and building traditions.
6. The Bay Street Cluster reflects significant geographical patterns, including those
associated with different eras of settlement and growth, particular transportation
modes, or distinctive examples of park or community planning. These buildings
have a unique location on the north side of Bay Street between Neilson Way and
Main Street. They exist as a mostly intact block face in a neighborhood, which is
highly fragmented in terms of age and building styles. Neilson Way was originally
the Pacific Electric right of way known as “Trolley way,” and became a vehicular
street in the 1930s. The tracks, which connected Santa Monica to the rest of the
region, were a major stimulus for the development of the City. In addition to its
proximity to transportation, these structures were close to both the beach and the
retail area on Main Street – and this remains a desirable location to this day.
VOTE
Ayes: Lehrer, Page, Schmidt, Alofsin
Nayes: Bolton
Absent: None
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, the time within which judicial review
of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6,
which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1400.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica.
______________
Margot Alofsin, Chairperson Date
47