sr-032211-3g~®
c;tYO, City Council Report
Santa Monica"
City Council Meeting: March 22, 2011
Agenda Item: JJ`~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Statement of Official Action Denying the Appeal of the Landmarks
Commission's Denial of a Landmark Designation Application for the
Property Located at 404 San Vicente Boulevard
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached Statement of Official
Action denying Appeal 10APP006 and upholding the decision of the Landmarks
Commission to deny the designation of the 28-unit, multi-family building located at 404
San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark.
Executive Summary and Discussion
This staff report transmits for City Council certification the Statement of Official Action
for Appeal 10APP006. After holding a public hearing on November 23, 2010, the City
Council denied Appeal 10APP006 and upheld the Landmarks Commission's decision to
deny City Landmark status to the building at 404 San Vicente Boulevard. The City
Council's decision was based upon the findings and conditions contained in the
attached Statement of Official Action.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact.
Prepared by: Scott Albright, Senior Planner
Ap ov d: Forwarded to CounciLMM
--xl
ileen P. Fogart , Dir for Rod Gould
Planning & Communi De el merit City Manager
Attachments: A. Statement of Official Action
1
ATTACHMENT A
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
2
PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBER: Appeal 10-006
LOCATION: 404 San Vicente Boulevard
APPLICANT: .Caroline Dixon and Roger Jackson
APPELLANT: Caroline Dixon and Roger Jackson
PROPERTY OWNER:. 404 San Vicente Boulevard HOA
CASE PLANNER: Scott Albright, AICP, Senior Planner
REQUEST: Appeal 09-015 of Landmarks Commission Denial of
Landmark Designation Application 10-003.
CEQA STATUS: The project is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3}. Section 15061(b)(3) provides that
CEQA only applies to those projects that have the potential
'for causing a significant effect on the environment. Since
the proposed action would result in the retention of the
existing structure and would not change the existing
environmental baseline, there is no potential that the
project would cause a significant effect on the environment.
3
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
November 23, 2010 Determination Date
Appeal denied and Landmarks Commission decision to deny
Landmark Designation Application 10-003 upheld based on
X the following findings and subject to the conditions below:
Appeals upheld and Landmarks Commission denial reversed
based upon the following findings:
Other:
EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION: November 23, 2010
The City Council, having held a public hearing on November 23, 2010, hereby denies
Appeal 10-006 and affirms the Landmarks Commission's decision to dehy the
designation of the building at 404 San Vicente Boulevard as a City Landmark based on
the findings and determinations below.
Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and
substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the
Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on
the substantial evidence ih the record. The absence of any particular fact from any
such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on #hat
fact.
Findings and determinations for denial of Designation of the Landmark Building Per
SMMC 9.36.100(a)
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests. elements of tjie cultural, social,
economic, political or architectural history of the City.
While the multifamily residence located oh the corner of 4th Street and San Vicente is
connected to a specific historic period, the Historicist Stucco Box is a utilitarian
example, highly common type, and ubiquitous in Santa Monica. Therefore, the subject
property does hot satisfy this criterion.
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or
value..
The resource does not appear to meet this criterion. The building lacks the sufficient
aesthetic or artistic interest or value necessary for this designation.
(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state
or national history.
4
404 San Vicente Boulevard is not connected to the professional lives of either
Ernest Auerbach or June Lockhart. Therefore, the subject property does not
appear to satisfy 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.
During the late 1960s and early 1970s the transition from the hegemony of Modern
design to a period of historical revival in architecture created many hybrid forms where
the two design strategies were cohjoined. The Historicist Stucco Box is an excellent
example of the architecture of this transitional time. Many developers and builders,
simply continued with the construction of the stucco box, but instead of adding Modern
detailing, references to earlier revival styles were surface mounted to primary
elevations. Common Historicist Stucco Box styles were the Tudor, American Colonial
Revival, and the French Provincial. Although this type and its associated styles were
constructed over a short period (late 1960s-late 1980s), it is one of the most ubiquitous
and common multifamily residential property types in Santa Monica. -They are located
throughout the .City. The subject property exhibits many of the character defining
features of the Historicist Stucco Box. With its monolithic rectangular form, stucco walls,
aluminum slider windows, sliding glass doors, and French provincial ornamentation. it is
a common example of a highly common type. The subject property does not satisfy this
criterion.
(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product. of a
notable builder, designer or architect.
The subject property is a very common example of the prolific postwar developer and
builder, Ernest Auerbach. Therefore the subject property does not appear to meet 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 appear to meet this criterion.
VOTE (on motion to deny appeal
Ayes: McKeown, O'Day, Davis, Holbrook, Bloom, Mayor Pro Tem O'Connor
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent: Mayor Shriver
5
NOTICE
If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under Article 9 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code, the time within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is
governed by Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6, which provision has been
adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1.16.010.
I hereby certify that this Statement of Official Action accurately reflects the final
determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica.
r ~-~" ~ _ ~.Es - l1
MARIA M. STEWA T, City Clerk Date
F:1CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\STOAS\2010\t0APP006 STOA (404 San Vicente Boulevard).docx
6