Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
SR 08-13-2019 6A
City Council Report City Council Meeting: August 13, 2019 Agenda Item: 6.A 1 of 24 To: Mayor and City Council From: David Martin, Director, City Planning Subject: Appeal 19ENT-0229 of Landmark Designation application 18ENT-0276 designating the single-unit residential property located at 808 Woodacres Road as a City Landmark and associated Landmark Parcel in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Deny Appeal 19ENT-0226 of Landmark Designation 18ENT-0276, and approve the decision of the Landmarks Commission to designate the single-unit residence located at 808 Woodacres Road as a City Landmark and the property commonly known as 808 Woodacres Road as an associated Landmark Parcel in whole based on the findings provided in this staff report; and 2. Adopt the Statement of Official Action attached to this report. Executive Summary The property owner of 808 Woodacres Road is appealing the unanimous decision of the Landmarks Commission to designate the home as a Santa Monica City landmark. On September 11, 2018, the Santa Monica Conservancy (Applicant), filed an application for designation of a two-story Spanish Colonial Revival-style residence located at 808 Woodacres Road as a City Landmark (Attachment A). As a part of the Commission’s consideration of the proposed designation, a Landmark Assessment report, provided as Attachment F, was prepared for the subject property by one of the City’s historic preservation consultants, Ostashay and Associates Consulting (OAC). Based on findings provided in the report, the consultant concluded that the property is eligible for Landmark designation under City of Santa Monica Landmark 2 of 24 Designation Criteria 9.56.100(A)(1), 9.56.100(A)(2), 9.56.100(A)(3), 9.56.100(A)(4), and 9.56.100(A)(5). On April 8, 2019, the Landmarks Commission conducted a public hearing to discuss the proposed Landmark nomination, considered written and oral testimony, held a discussion, and continued the item at the request of the property owner. On June 10, 2019, the Landmarks Commission held the continued public hearing to discuss the proposed Landmark nomination. In consideration of all written and oral testimony, staff and historic preservation consultant reports, and materials introduced into the public record, the Commission, in a 6-0 vote with one Commissioner absent, designated the residence and property as a City Landmark and associated Landmark Parcel. The Commission determined that the property met City of Santa Monica Landmark Designation Criteria 9.56.100(A)(1), 9.56.100(A)(2), 9.56.100(A)(3), 9.56.100(A)(4), and 9.56.100(A)(5), based on findings consistent with those outlined in the OAC report. On June 12, 2019, the property owner, Marcia Alphson (Appellant), filed a timely appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision. The complete appeal statement, as supplemented and amended by the Appellant, is provided in Attachment B. Based on the findings outlined in the OAC report, evidence received prior to and during the Commission’s public hearings on April 8 and June 10, 2019, and review of the complete appeal statement, staff continues to support the designation. Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and approve the designation application based on findings that the property meets Landmark Designation Criteria 9.56.100(A)(1), 9.56.100(A)(2), 9.56.100(A)(3), 9.56.100(A)(4), and 9.56.100(A)(5). Staff further recommends that the City Council designate an associated Landmark Parcel and describe specific character-defining features as described in this report. Background City of Santa Monica Landmark and Historic District Ordinance 3 of 24 Adopted in 1976, the stated purpose of the City’s Landmark and Historic District Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) is: [T]o promote the public health, safety and general welfare by establishing such procedures and providing such regulations as are deemed necessary to: A. Protect improvements and areas which represent elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history. B. Safeguard the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in such improvements and areas. C. Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past. D. Protect and enhance the City’s aesthetic and historic attractions to residents, tourists, visitors and others, thereby serving as a stimulus and support to business and industry. E. Promote the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historic Districts for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of this City. SMMC 9.56.020. The Ordinance further establishes procedures and standards intended to achieve these purposes. Among these procedures, the SMMC grants the Landmarks Commission the power to designate Landmarks. SMMC 9.56.060(A). A Landmark is an improvement which has been designated as and determined to be appropriate for historical preservation by the Landmarks Commission. Designation as a Landmark is one of the options available in the preservation program to allow the City to protect and enhance improvements that are found to be historically significant. Currently, there are 132 designated City Landmarks, 13 designated Structures of Merit, and 4 Historic Districts within the City. 4 of 24 Guiding the exercise of discretion by the Landmarks Commission in designating Landmarks and the Council in approving or disapproving actions of the Landmarks Commission, the Ordinance (SMMC 9.56.100) sets forth six criteria: [T]he Landmarks Commission may approve the landmark designation of a structure, improvement, natural feature, or an object if it finds that 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. 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 accordance with the Ordinance, the City Council reviews the Commission’s designation of a Landmark, as well as any related decisions de novo. SMMC 5 of 24 9.56.180(B). The Council may review and take action on all determinations, interpretations, decisions, judgments or similar actions taken that were in the purview of the Commission, and the Council may approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove the prior determinations and decisions of the Commission. Property Information The subject property consists of approximately 54,000 square feet and is located in the northern portion of the City north of San Vicente Boulevard on Woodacres Road in the R1 single-unit residential district within the North of Montana residential neighborhood. The neighborhood consists primarily of one-story Ranch-style residences from the 1950s and one and two-story residences of varying architectural styles constructed thereafter. Historic Resources Inventory Status The subject property is identified in the City’s 2018 Historic Resources Inventory survey as a 5S3 and appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark and eligible for listing in the National and California Register. The property was not identified on previous City surveys. Landmarks Commission Action The Landmarks Commission held two public hearings to discuss the proposed Landmark nomination on April 8, 2019, and June 10, 2019. The item was originally scheduled and publicly noticed for the February 11, 2019, Landmarks Commission meeting, but the item was then continued at the request of the property owner. Staff recommended approval of the proposed Landmark nomination, as provided in the April 8, 2019 Landmarks Commission staff report. At the conclusion of the public hearing on June 10, 2019, in consideration of all written and oral testimony, staff and historic preservation consultant reports, and materials introduced into the public record, the Commission in a 6-0 vote designated the residence as a City Landmark and designated the property located at 808 Woodacres as an associated Landmark Parcel. The Commission designated the Landmark and Landmark Parcel based on findings set forth in the Statement of Official Action, 6 of 24 including that: (1) it exemplifies the early architectural and residential development history of the City (SMMC 9.56.100(A)(1)); (2) it has aesthetic and artistic qualities of interest (SMMC 9.56.100(A)(2)); (3) it is identified with notable and master architect John Parkinson, a historic personage (SMMC 9.56.100(A)(3)); (4) it reflects the Spanish Colonial Revival style with influences from the Italian Renaissance revival valuable to a study (SMMC 9.56.100(A)(4)); and (5) it is a significant example of the work of master architect John Parkinson (SMMC 9.56.100(A)(5)). The Commission further described certain character-defining features of the property. Although the designation included the primary residence and the parcel, it excluded the detached accessory building. The April 8, 2019 and June 10, 2019 Landmark Commission staff reports (Attachment C) and approved meeting minutes (Attachment D) are provided for reference. The audio recording of the April 8, 2019 and June 10, 2019 meetings are posted on the City’s webpage: https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Boards-Commissions/Landmarks- Commission/. Appeal The appellant filed a timely appeal on June 12, 2019. The appellant makes various claims in her appeal. She asserts that the Landmarks Commission was biased and deprived the owner of due process and equal protection under the United States and California Constitutions, the Commission violated the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the Commission did not make findings on critical issues, and the Commission’s determination results in a taking private property without providing just compensation. The materials provided by the Appellant and Appellant’s representative in support of their appeal are provided as Attachment B and include: the appeal statement; the supplement and addendum to July 2, 2019, submission letter; the transcript of the April 8, 2019, Landmarks Commission meeting as provided by Appellant; and additional letters and correspondence (inclusive of all material submitted during the Landmarks Commission review) from the Appellant and the Appellant’s representative. The transcript of the June 10, 2019, Landmarks Commission meeting had not been submitted by the appellant at the time of the preparation of this staff report. 7 of 24 Analysis Architectural Description The property contains a two-story Spanish Colonial Revival style residence with Italian Renaissance Revival influences constructed in 1920. The residence was designed by architect John Parkinson as his personal residence. The residence, approximately 4,700 square feet in size, consists of an irregular “H” shape floor plan configuration, with a central rectangular mass and two perpendicular wings on either side. The roof consists of a series of medium pitched gabled roofs with minimal overhang capped with red barrel clay tiles. The center mass of the house is capped with a side-facing gable and the two wings include bracketed front-facing gables. Fenestration consists primarily of elongated multi-pane, recessed wood-frame casement windows varying in size. The front window set at the ground floor north wing features a decorative glazed terra cotta frame. Other window types include square multi-pane casements, tripartite windows, decorative stained glass, and fixed-pane with bottle glazing. Some of the window frames along the first and second floors of the living room wing (north) have been replaced with either solid glazed casements or fixed pane glass windows. The front elevation includes a series of three tall arches at the loggia entry and an arcade supported by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta columns and Corinthian capitals. The front entry is defined by a large, recessed wood panel double door with clear stained glass transom set within a monumental arched shaped opening. The rear and side elevations are generally asymmetrical in form and configuration. Classic elements of the Italian Renaissance Revival style include the arched shape arcade with recessed loggia, glazed terra cotta tiles surrounding a window opening on the north wing and arched arcade, and the ornately glazed terra cotta frame of the main entry. Spanish Colonial Revival features include the building’s asymmetrical configuration, smooth trowel-finished stucco siding, red barrel tile roof and overhang details, fenestration pattern and window frame type, and overall massing and varying height composition. 8 of 24 The residence has undergone a few alterations since its original construction. Alterations include minor additions to the rear of the residence at the kitchen, rear patio (enclosure), and a small extended closet was constructed from the rear corner of the upstairs bedroom. Other alterations include the addition of the detached two-story guest house/garage, pool, and tennis court located south of the residence that were constructed in 1970. The non-descript vernacular guest house/garage is rectangular in plan and consists of a flat mansard roof, stucco walls, French doors, and an arched covered patio area. These alterations do not detract from the building’s ability to convey its historic significance in that the residence retains significant character-defining features of its original design including the following: - Scale and proportion of the building, its asymmetrical form and window composition; - Spanish Colonial Revival features including the building’s asymmetrical configuration, smooth trowel-finished stucco siding, red barrel tile roof and overhang details, fenestration pattern and window frame type, and overall massing and varying height composition. - Italian Renaissance Revival features including the arched recessed loggia with arcade supported by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta columns and Corinthian capitals, glazed terra cotta tiles window surrounds on the north wing and arched arcade, and the ornately glazed terra cotta frame of the main entry with large double wood panel door and clear stained glass transom. - Fenestration consisting of recessed wood-frame and metal multi-pane casements, French type windows and doors, square shape multi-pane windows, tripartite windows, decorative stained glass, and fixed-pane bottle glass windows; - Multi-level gable roof with red barrel clay tiles; - Loggia and extended tiled hardscape driveway and front door entry (herringbone pattern of varying size and hue red tiles. The period of significance is 1920-1935 reflecting the original construction date of the residence and the period John Parkinson resided at the property. 9 of 24 Historic Context In 1875, the original townsite of Santa Monica was surveyed, including all the land extending from Colorado Street on the south to Montana on the north, and from 26th Street on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west. Areas of land at the perimeter and outside of the incorporated city limits were semi-rural in setting and were developed with scattered residences. After the advent of the automobile in the 1920s, housing construction significantly increased within the tracts north of Montana Avenue and east of Seventh Street for permanent residents. Many annexations occurred in subsequent years further expanding the City of Santa Monica. Although the subject property was listed in the Santa Monica City directories after its completion and references in the local papers and journals also stated that it was situated within the City of Santa Monica, the Parkinson residence was located outside of the City boundary in an area called the Sawtelle Annex. The Sawtelle area was incorporated in 1906 as a City, and was annexed to Los Angeles in 1922. It remained part of Los Angeles until homeowners of roughly 50 homes north of San Vicente Boulevard comprised of five cul-de-sac streets (Esparta Way, Ermont Place, Woodacres Road, Foxtail Drive, and Larkin Place) petitioned to become part of the City of Santa Monica in 1976. The homeowners claimed their properties were isolated from Los Angeles city services such as schools, police, and fire protection due to their remote location accessible only through the City of Santa Monica. Eventually, this area formally became part of the City of Santa Monica in 1979. As one of the few extant residences from the earliest phase of residential development in this portion of the City located north of San Vicente Boulevard along the southern rim of the Santa Monica Canyon, the property is an increasingly rare example of early residential development in Santa Monica. Overall, the property retains a strong sense of time and place from the first quarter of the twentieth century as it remains a sizable estate property of approximately 54,000 square feet. Although the property has been altered over time, most of the alterations are along secondary elevations or at the rear. Despite its minor alterations, the siting of the residence and overall site characteristics 10 of 24 of expansive landscaped open space continue to convey its historic association and character as an estate-style property within the City of Santa Monica. Parkinson Residence The subject property was Parkinson’s third and last residence built in Southern California where he resided with his wife for approximately fifteen years before his death in 1935. The property was different from the other Parkinson residences based on its semi-rural location, siting, and “estate” characteristics. It was expressively designed by and for John Parkinson as his retreat home, and included many personal preferences including tennis courts small chicken ranch, formal gardens, groves of trees, small private golf course, sunken garden, and pool. In 1946, the property was subdivided and Woodacres Road was created providing access to 16 parcels. Considerable landscaped grounds that extended to San Vicente Boulevard and to the east were removed for potential residential development. The subject property was reduced to a smaller reconfigured parcel of approximately 1.2 acres. The original long driveway accessed from San Vicente Boulevard was also reconfigured and shortened to provide access from the newly established Woodacres Road. Despite the property being subdivided, the residence in its siting on the property retains a strong sense of time, place, and spatial relationships that continues to convey its historic character as an estate-style property and early residential development within this area of the City. John Parkinson, Architect The subject property was designed by architect John B. Parkinson who designed more than 400 structures in the Los Angeles area, including but not limited to the Homer Laughlin Building (1897, Grand Central Market) in downtown Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1923), Los Angeles City Hall (1928), and Bullocks Wilshire (1928-1929). His son, Donald Parkinson, would later design the Public Works Administration (PWA) Moderne inspired Santa Monica City Hall in collaboration with Joseph M. Estep (1938). Parkinson began his prolific architectural career in Southern California when he opened a Los Angeles office in 1894. In 1905, he formed a partnership with G. Edwin Bergstrom, and in 1920, he opened a joint firm, Parkinson & Parkinson, with his son Donald. John Parkinson is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, and 11 of 24 also designed industrial buildings as well as residential properties. The architectural styles of these buildings included Art Deco, Spanish Colonial Revival, Italian Renaissance, Art Deco, Classicism, Romanesque, and Beaux Arts. The importance of John Parkinson is evident by extant iconic buildings that remain throughout the Los Angeles region. By the time the subject residence was completed, John Parkinson was a well- established architect in the Los Angeles area with several large commissions. It was around this time in 1920 that he partnered with his son to form the architectural practice of Parkinson & Parkinson. The firm designed notable and influential buildings in Los Angeles further exemplifying Parkinson as a prominent and notable architect. Parkinson is considered an important person at the local, state, and national levels for his masterful architectural work and the design of extraordinary, iconic buildings that influenced and defined Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during a period of unparalleled expansion during the first half of the twentieth century and is considered one of most influential designers of his time. Appeal Analysis 1. Appellant states that the Landmarks Commission erroneously decided that it could only consider the presence or absence of the six Landmark Designation Criteria and could not consider other issues raised by the appellant. The Appellant states that the Landmarks Commission erred in failing to consider or make findings on the following issues: (1) Visibility of house; (2) Access by public; safety of public; (3) Existence of similar houses; (4) Whether the house was built in Santa Monica, not West LA; (5) Hardship on Alphson; (6) Whether the house has been modified; (7) Whether the six criteria are too vague; and 12 of 24 (8) Whether someone else (e.g. the Parkinson family or Santa Monica taxpayers) should buy the property from Alphson at a price to be set by a jury, judge, or arbitrator. The Commission’s obligation was to exercise its power to determine whether the property merited designation as a landmark within the purpose of the Ordinance and as guided by the criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.56.100(A). The Landmarks Commission here evaluated whether the property was eligible for designation based on the six designation criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.56.100(A). The Commission made its determination after considering evidence in the record, including the evidence referred to by the appellant. The Landmarks Commission specifically considered the issue of visibility of the residence in its review of the application. The Commission acknowledged that the property was not clearly visible from the public right-of-way, and based on its determination, did not find the property eligible under the criterion set forth in 9.56.100(A)(6) which states that the property “has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.” The Landmarks Commission was presented with evidence of alterations to the property, but determined, as identified in the staff report and the OAC Report, that the property still maintained sufficient integrity to meet the findings under the Landmarks Ordinance. Furthermore, the Commission found that although the property was a part of the City of Los Angeles until annexed in 1979, the residence is significant as an increasingly rare example representing the early residential development history in this portion of the City located north of San Vicente Boulevard along the southern rim of the Santa Monica Canyon. Having reviewed the evidence, the Commission determined that the property met five of the six designation criteria and voted 6-0 to designate the residence as a City Landmark. This action was consistent with the Ordinance. 13 of 24 Similarly, in conducting its review, the Council may consider any and all evidence and arguments made by the Appellant. The evidence and arguments should be considered as they relate to whether to approve or disapprove the designations in light of the Landmark Designation Criteria, which are in place to guide discretion under the Landmark and Historic Preservation Ordinance. Should any member of the Council believes that the property meets some or all of the Landmark Designation Criteria but that the designation should nonetheless not be approved, the Council member should state his or her reasoning and the Council member can seek legal advice as to whether denial on such grounds would be consistent with the Ordinance and the guided discretion that it authorizes. 2. The appellant objects to the findings and determination of the Landmarks Commission and objects to the designation because the residence is not substantially visible from the public right-of-way. The appellant asserts that the Landmarks Commission ignored the issue of visibility of the residence from the public right-of-way, and that the visibility of the subject residence, or lack thereof, was not relevant to their decision. Per the above, the Landmarks Commission considered and the City Council may also consider the visibility of the residence in its decision whether to approve or disapprove the Landmark Designation. The Ordinance does not, however, require that an application be denied or that a designation be disapproved because the improvement is not currently accessible to the public or visible from the public right-of-way. The ability to designate a property that is not accessible or visible is consistent with the Ordinance’s purposes of protecting and safeguarding the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage, as well as protecting and safeguarding improvements that represent elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history. SMMC 9.56.020(A), (B). The Appellant has raised privacy concerns and made claims that designation as a Landmark will require appellant to grant public access to the property. The Ordinance does not compel an owner to grant the public physical access to a Landmark or 14 of 24 associated Landmark Parcel, nor does Council have authority to do so in the present hearing. 3. The appellant argues that designation of the property would result in reduced property value and financial burden to appellant. The appellant states that, according to the City, there is no evidence that anyone has ever obtained a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Economic Hardship as prescribed in the Landmarks Ordinance. The appellant further claims that designation of the property would constitute an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. Appellant asserts that the Landmarks Commission should have considered economic hardship in reviewing the landmark application. As set forth above, in conducting its de novo review, the Council may consider any factor raised by the appellant. However, the ultimate decision to approve or disapprove the Landmark and Landmark Parcel designation must be made consistent with the purpose of the Ordinance and the Landmark Designation Criteria, which are in place to guide discretion under the Ordinance. The Ordinance establishes a procedure for the owner of an improvement designated as a Landmark to, after designation of the Landmark and any appeal, apply for and obtain a Certificate of Economic Hardship to allow for alterations, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, demolition, in whole or in part, of or to the Landmark or the Landmark Parcel. SMMC 9.56.160. This process requires the Landmarks Commission to consider all relevant factors but only to grant a certificate of economic hardship if the Landmarks Commission determines that, absent approval of a proposed demolition or remodeling, all reasonable use of or return from the Landmark will be denied the property owner. The Appellant states that, according to the City, there is no evidence that anyone has ever obtained a Certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of Economic Hardship as authorized in the Landmarks Ordinance. Certificates of Appropriateness, required for proposed alterations, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, demolition, in whole or in part, of or to the Landmark or the Landmark Parcel, are regularly issued by the Landmarks Commission and Planning staff. The owner of a 15 of 24 City Landmark may also apply for and obtain a Certificate of Economic Hardship for such work. City staff is not aware of any instance in which a Certificate of Economic Hardship was either issued or denied for a City-designated historic resource. However, the City’s historic preservation program is over forty years old, and staff has not to date been able to confirm definitively whether a Certificate of Economic Hardship has ever been issued or denied. If the Council determines after its de novo review that the appeal should be denied and the Landmark and Landmark Parcel designations approved, Appellant will have the ability to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness and a Certificate of Economic Hardship. The appellant further claims that designation of the subject property would constitute an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation. While Council’s obligation is to approve or disapprove the Landmark and Landmark Parcel designations, and not to make legal determinations more properly reserved for the courts, staff would intervene before allowing Council to proceed on an unconstitutional course. As a result, some basic information regarding takings law is provided here. As an initial matter, staff notes that the decision to approve or disapprove the Landmark and Landmark Parcel in this hearing will not (a) require public access to the property or otherwise compel the owner to submit to physical invasion of the property or (b) deprive appellant of all economic use of the property. The United States Supreme Court, in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York (1978), confirmed the authority of a city, “as part of a comprehensive program to preserve historic landmarks and historic districts, [to] place restrictions on the development of individual historic landmarks—in addition to those imposed by applicable zoning ordinances—without effecting a “taking” requiring the payment of “just compensation.” In assessing whether a regulatory taking requiring compensation has occurred under Penn Central and its progeny, courts consider “the economic impact of the regulation” on the appellant; the extent to which designation will “interfere with distinct investment-backed expectations”; and the “character of the governmental action – for instance whether it amounts to a physical invasion or instead merely affects property interests through some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of 16 of 24 economic life to promote the common good.” See Penn Central Transportation Company v. New York City (1978); Lingle v. Chevron USA (2005). All three factors weigh against finding of a regulatory taking here. First, the economic impact of designation is disputed. Appellant does not and could not claim a loss of all economic value. Rather, appellant has submitted an appraisal estimating that landmark designation will reduce the value of the property from $18,125,000 to $14,500,000; this estimation could be disputed, as others have asserted that landmark designation will increase value based on other similar properties in the City. Second, with respect to investment-backed expectations, appellant’s family took ownership of the home in 1965. At that time, Parkinson had constructed not only the home but also significant works including Los Angeles City Hall, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, and Los Angeles’ Union Station. The property was then located in Los Angeles, which had adopted a historic landmarks ordinance in 1962, and was in 1978 annexed into Santa Monica, which similarly had adopted a landmarks ordinance in 1976. Finally, the Ordinance does not contemplate a physical occupation of property and instead constitutes a comprehensive regulatory scheme to promote the public health, safety and general welfare by, among other things, “[p]rotect[ing] improvements and areas which represent elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history”; “safeguard[ing] the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in such improvements and areas”; and “[f]oster[ing] civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past.” SMMC 9.56.020. Appellant has also referred to Knick v. Township of Scott, a decision issued by the Supreme Court on June 21, 2019. In Knick, the Supreme Court held that, procedurally, the government violates the Takings Clause at the time that it takes property without compensation, and the Supreme Court overruled a prior requirement that a property owner seek compensation in state court before filing a Fifth Amendment claim in federal court. In other words, under the Knick decision, property owners will in many situations be able to raise takings claims in federal court more quickly and without first seeking compensation in state court. The Knick decision has been read by many to indicate that the Supreme Court is more closely scrutinizing takings cases, including prior precedent. 17 of 24 The decision in Knick did not, however, overrule Penn Central or question its substantive holding. Indeed, the Justices did not discuss (or cite) Penn Central or Lingle in Knick, as the facts in Knick involved an ordinance that compelled a property owner to grant public access to her property and thus involved assertion of a physical invasion of property rather than a regulatory taking under the Penn Central line of cases. 4. The appellant alleges that the Landmarks Commission was biased in its decision, and further deprived the property owner of procedural due process. The Landmarks Commission reviewed the designation application in accordance with the procedures established in the Ordinance and evaluated the property according to the City’s Landmark Designation Criteria. The Commission’s decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record in consideration of all written and oral testimony, staff and historic preservation consultant reports, and materials introduced into the public record by Applicant, Appellant and members of the public. The Commission found the property eligible for designation based on meeting five of the six possible Landmark designation criteria established in the Landmarks Ordinance. In addition, the property owner requested and received two continuances of publicly noticed hearings, and the Commission held two public hearings. At each hearing, Appellant was provided extra time to address the Commission. As such, staff believes that the Commission was fair and unbiased in their review of the application, allowed for sufficient due process, and properly made a determination in accordance with the Landmarks Ordinance. Appellant has raised concerns that some members of the Commission were also members of the Conservancy at the time that the application was filed. At the time of the Commission hearing, no member of the Commission was a member of the Conservancy, Commissioners disclosed their past membership, and all confirmed that they could act fairly and impartially in considering whether to designate this property. 18 of 24 Council reviews the Commission’s decision de novo and need not defer to the Commission’s decision. A Council member should recuse if unable to hear the matter in an unbiased manner or if facts present an unacceptable probability of bias. Appellant also raises concerns about the ability of a member of the public to file an application for Landmark designation. The City’s Landmark and Historic District Ordinance does not delegate landmarking authority to nongovernmental actors as was the case with the ordinances at issue in Larkin v. Grendel’s Den (1982), Washington ex rel Seattle Title Trust Co. v. Roberge (1928), Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912), and Young v. City of Simi Valley (9th Cir. 2000). To the contrary, the Landmarks Commission is charged with designating Landmarks and the City Council with approving or disapproving such designations after de novo review. Proposed Findings The Ordinance requires the City Council, on appeal, to review the building’s eligibility as a Landmark based on the six criteria discussed below. In order to be designated as a City Landmark, the Council is required to find that the property meets one or more of these criteria. Based on the findings as provided in the Landmark Assessment Report, the historic preservation consultant finds that the property appears eligible as a landmark under the City of Santa Monica Landmark criteria 9.56.100(A)(1), 9.56.100(A)(2), 9.56.100(A)(3), 9.56.100(A)(4), and 9.56.100(A)(5). Based on the research and evaluation of 808 Woodacres Road, and the record of the proceedings below, staff agrees with the consultant’s findings that the property satisfies Landmark Designation Criteria 1 through 5, but does not satisfy Landmark Designation Criterion 6. The following draft findings are provided to support this conclusion: (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. 19 of 24 The subject property exemplifies the City’s early architectural and development history. As one of the few extant residences from the earliest phase of residential development in this portion of the City located north of San Vicente Boulevard along the southern rim of the Santa Monica Canyon, the property is significant as an increasingly rare example of early residential development in Santa Monica. Constructed in 1920, the property is an early example of residential development in the area that would later expand during subsequent years after its construction. Although the property was located in the City of Los Angeles until its annexation to the City of Santa Monica in 1979, it was generally referred to in City directories and other publications as a property situated in Santa Monica because of its location, siting, and access. Purchased by master architect John Parkinson in 1913, the 22-acre site was later subdivided into a new residential tract in 1946. Overall, the property retains a strong sense of time and place from the first quarter of the twentieth century as it remains an estate-style property of approximately 54,000 square feet. Although the building and property have been altered over time, most of the alterations are along secondary elevations or at the rear of the main structure. Despite its minor alterations, the residence substantially retains all aspects of integrity from its period of significance (1920-1935) and continues to convey its architectural characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival styles. Furthermore, the siting of the residence and overall site characteristics as an estate property continue to convey its historic association and character within the City of Santa Monica. Accordingly, the subject property satisfies this criterion. (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject property is an excellent example of its type, design, and style. Its design fully articulates John Parkinson’s design principles of Period Revival architecture and expresses his aesthetic and artistic ideals of the period and style. Characteristics including the deeply recessed doors and windows, smooth trowel-finish stucco exterior walls, barrel clay roof tiles, arched shaped openings, the crafted use of glazed terra cotta tiles, and the integration of a loggia and arcade enclosed by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta decorative columns with Corinthian capitals further epitomizes the design theories of its architectural style that is of aesthetic and noteworthy interest. The subject 20 of 24 residence consists of high aesthetic and artistic qualities and therefore satisfies this criterion. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. The subject property was designed by architect John Parkinson who was a self-trained architect considered one of most influential designers in the region at that time. Parkinson is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, however also designed industrial buildings and residential properties. Parkinson is considered an important person at the local, state, and national levels for his masterful architectural work and the design of extraordinary, iconic buildings that influenced and defined Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during a period of unparalleled expansion during the first half of the twentieth century. By the time the subject residence was completed, John Parkinson was a well-established architect in the Los Angeles area with several large commissions. It was around this time in 1920 that he partnered with his son to form the architectural practice of Parkinson & Parkinson. The firm designed notable and influential buildings in Los Angeles further exemplifying Parkinson as a prominent and notable architect. The property is identified with master architect John Parkinson, and therefore satisfies 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 is an excellent example of its type, design, and style reflecting the Spanish Colonial Revival style with influences from the Italian Renaissance Revival idiom. Its design fully articulates John Parkinson’s design principles of Period Revival architecture and expresses his aesthetic and artistic ideals of the period and style. Characteristics including the deeply recessed doors and multi-pane fenestration, smooth trowel-finish stucco exterior walls, barrel clay roof tiles, arched shaped openings, the crafted use of glazed terra cotta tiles, and the integration of a loggia and arcade enclosed by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta decorative columns with Corinthian 21 of 24 capitals further epitomize the design theories of its architectural style. Other features associated with Parkinson’s work are evident on the residence including the horizontal emphasis of the property’s overall design and the aesthetic composition, scale, and articulation of the façade. The residence substantially retains all aspects of integrity from its period of significance (1920-1935) and continues to convey its historic significance, embodying distinguishing architectural characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival styles valuable to a study of its type and style. Furthermore, the subject property is a rare example that exemplifies Parkinson’s residential design philosophy and is the only known single-family residence of its type designed, constructed, and resided in by John Parkinson within the City. Therefore, the subject property satisfies 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 was constructed in 1920 and designed by master architect John Parkinson as his personal residence. Parkinson was a self-trained architect who is considered one of the most influential designers as his work is recognized throughout the Southern California region. He is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, however he also designed industrial buildings and residential properties. The architectural styles of these buildings included Art Deco, Spanish Colonial Revival, Italian Renaissance, Art Deco, Classicism, Romanesque, and Beaux Arts. Parkinson helped define Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during a period of unparalleled expansion during the first half of the twentieth century. He designed more than 400 structures in the Los Angeles area, including but not limited to the Homer Laughlin Building (1897, Grand Central Market) in downtown Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1923), Los Angeles City Hall (1928), and Bullocks Wilshire (1928- 1929). The subject property is a rare example that exemplifies Parkinson’s residential design philosophy and is the only known single-family residence of its type designed, built, and resided in by master architect John Parkinson within the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the subject property satisfies this criterion. 22 of 24 (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 is located in the northern portion of the City along Woodacres Road within the North of Montana residential neighborhood. The neighborhood consists of one-story Ranch-style residences from the 1950s and one and two-story residences of varying architectural styles constructed thereafter. Due to its remote location adjacent to the Santa Monica Canyon, the property is not located in a unique location in the City, does not consist of a unique singular physical characteristic, and is not an established and familiar visual feature of the North of Montana residential neighborhood. Therefore, the subject property does not satisfy this criterion. A draft Statement of Official Action reflecting these findings is provided as Attachment H. Parcel Designation The Ordinance grants the Landmarks Commission, and the City Council on appeal, the power to designate a Landmark Parcel to “preserve, maintain, protect or safeguard” a Landmark. SMMC 9.56.060(A); 9.56.030(K). Generally, any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal, or relocation that occurs on a Landmark Parcel requires approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. SMMC 9.56.140. The Landmarks Commission, or the City Council on appeal, also has the power to specify the nature of any alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition of or to a Landmark or Landmark Parcel which may be performed without a Certificate of Appropriateness. SMMC 9.56.120(F). At its June 10 meeting, the Landmarks Commission designated the property commonly known as 808 Woodacres Road (Assessor’s Parcel Number 4280-002-005) as an associated Landmark Parcel. The Commission further excluded the rear detached accessory guest house/garage from the designation because evidence in the record suggested that construction occurred outside the period of significance and that the structure was not otherwise historically significant. Although still subject to issuance of a 23 of 24 Certificate of Appropriateness unless expressly exempted from Landmarks Commission review, this exclusion makes clear that the accessory structure is not considered to be historically significant based on evidence in the record and allows for greater flexibility related to alterations to or demolition of that structure. Staff recommends, as stated in the draft Statement of Official Action, that the City Council exclude the rear accessory structure from the designation. The draft Statement of Official Action also includes a list of character defining features that will be used to guide review and approval of future alterations to the Landmark and Landmark Parcel. The list of character defining features is based on the list provided in the OAC report. However, this list excludes an enclosed “sunken garden” located on the parcel. Due to its location on the parcel; exclusion of this feature from the list of character-defining features will increase flexibility related to future improvements or development in the rear of the property without compromising the integrity of the Landmark. Alternatives As an alternative to the recommended action, the City Council may consider the following if supported by the full evidentiary record: 1. Articulate revised findings resulting in the approval of the subject appeal and denial of the designation application. Environmental Analysis In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the proposed historic designation is exempt from CEQA as it can be seen with certainty that the designation does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment. This determination is made based on the record as a whole, which includes, but is not limited to, evidence that the designation of the property as a Landmark pursuant to the City’s Landmarks Ordinance will promote the retention and preservation of historic resources. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions 24 of 24 There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of the recommended action. Prepared By: Steve Mizokami, Senior Planner Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Applicant Materials B. Appeallant Statement + Owner & Representative Correspondence C. April 8, 2019 and June 10, 2019 Landmarks Commission Staff Reports D. April 8, 2019 and June 10, 2019 Landmark Commission Meeting Minutes E. Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action (June 10, 2019) F. Landmark Assessment Report, Ostashay & Associates Consulting, February 2019 G. Public Correspondence (Received Through 7-17-19) H. Draft STOA of Approval I. Written Comments J. PowerPoint Presentation From:Heidi von Tongeln To:Steve Mizokami Subject:FW: 808 Woodacres Date:Wednesday, July 17, 2019 4:52:34 PM From: Roger Diamond <rogdiamond@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2019 3:59 PM To: Heidi von Tongeln <Heidi.vonTongeln@SMGOV.NET> Cc: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET> Subject: 808 Woodacres Dear Heidi: The 808 Woodacres landmarking case is before the City Council on Tuesday evening July 23, 2019. In preparation for the hearing you may be asked your legal opinion by one or more of the Council members. To be prepared you may wish to review a number of procedural cases involving local government hearings. I think it would be helpful for the City Council to understand that its decision is reviewable by a court. I am familiar with the following cases because I handled them. Please see BAM, Inc., v. Board of Police Commissioners, 7 Cal.App.4th 1343 (1992); Barry v. City of Oceanside, 107 Cal.App.3d 257 (1980); City of Stanton v. Cox, 207 Cal.App.3d 1557 (1989); Gammoh v. City of Anaheim, 75 Cal.App.4th 186 (1999); Haas v. County of San Bernardino, 27 Cal.4th 1017 (2002); Lacy Street v. City of Los Angeles, 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 805 (2004); Madain v. City of Stanton, 185 Cal.App.4th 1277 (2010); Nightlife Partners v. City of Beverly Hills, 108 Cal.App.4th 81 (2003); People Ex Rel Clancy v. Superior Court, 39 Cal.3d 740 (1985); Rubin v. City of Burbank, 101 Cal.App.4th 1194 (2002); Rubin v. City of Los Angeles, 190 Cal.App.3d 560 (1987); Young v. City of Simi Valley, 216 F.3d 807 (9th Cir. 2000). Many of these cases dealt with City Council hearings and bias. You have a difficult position because you have to give the City Council members your legal opinion but if you have to do so in a public setting the accuracy of your legal opinion may be affected. Naturally, my client would prefer to prevail before the City Council and end the matter. Litigation is very expensive. The Council members have a conflict because a political decision may not be the best one for the taxpayers. They may feel that they will not have to bear the litigation expenses because the taxpayers will need to do that. Yet the Council members stand to gain politically if the decision they make is favorable to a majority of the residents of Santa Monica. I note there was a ballot measure in Santa Monica in 2003 regarding landmarking. It was a close election. The initiative measure was barely defeated. The election pitted pro landmarking forces against anti landmarking forces. Apparently like the country the City was closely divided. I handled a case in Santa Monica many years ago. The issue was the order in which the candidates for City Council would appear on the City ballot. The ordinance of the City of Santa Monica gave the top positions on the ballot to the incumbents. I challenged that law in the Superior Court in Santa Monica. I contended it was unfair to give the top position advantage to the incumbents. The incumbents by definition, were the law makers and they could decide by ordinance what the order would be for the candidates. The City fought extremely hard because the case was filed shortly before the scheduled election. It was in the interest of the citizens as a whole not to give the preference of the top ballot position to the incumbents. The City Council directed the City Attorney to fight the case. The interests of the taxpayers and residents of the City clearly were different than the interests of the incumbent Council members who wanted to maintain their position at the top of the ballot. The trial was conducted by Judge Richard Wells and he ruled in my favor. Judge Wells ordered the reshuffling of the ballot so that the positions would be determined by lottery. The Court Clerk conducted the lottery in the courtroom and redetermined the order in which the candidates would appear on theballot. The City Clerk, Mr. Grubb, was in the courtroom when the ruling was made but he quickly leftbefore he could be served with a copy of the court order. The City Clerk had to be tracked down in orderto give him a copy of the court order.Instead of simply accepting the ruling the City Attorney at the direction of the City Council appealed to theCourt of Appeal and to the State Supreme Court. In a landmark ruling (no pun intended) the SupremeCourt ruled that it was unconstitutional to give the preference of ballot position to the incumbents. SeeGould v. Grubb, 14 Cal.3d 661 (1975). I won a unanimous decision from the California Supreme Court. Before we got to the State Supreme Court the City Attorney had unsuccessfully asked Judge Wells tostay his ruling pending appeal. Judge Wells ruled that notwithstanding the City’s appeal his order must beobeyed. The City Attorney also unsuccessfully asked the State Supreme Court to issue a stay pendingthe ultimate outcome of the case. See Grubb v. Superior Court, California Supreme Court No. 30130(filed March 26, 1973). It was a last ditch effort to block the change in the ballot order time for themunicipal election. This is a clear example of the situation where the interests of the voters and taxpayerswere different than the political interest of the City Council members themselves. I respectfully request that you alert the Council members to the conflict of interest which exists in thislandmarking case. I have taken the trouble to make this unusual request because of the intensity of the issue in SantaMonica. In landmarking cases members of the public seem to believe that it is their property which is thesubject of the landmarking hearing. Speakers at City Council and landmarking Commission hearingsseem to be obsessed with the idea that it is their property that is the subject of the proceeding. I am very concerned about the fairness of the hearing and the manner in which it is being conducted.Please advise the Council members not to be rude. The City Council rules require that the participants becivil to one another. That would include the Council members themselves. Thank you. Sincerely, RJD:jb ROGER JON DIAMONDcc: City Council Members From:Roger Diamond To:Steve Mizokami Subject:808 Woodacres Date:Tuesday, July 9, 2019 3:27:47 PM Dear Steve, I want to make sure this email to you is included in the Record on Appeal. We want the City Council to have available for its review the transcript of proceedings before the Landmarks Commission conducted on June 10, 2019. You already have the April 8, 2019 transcript. Since we are appealing from the Landmark Commission we obviously need to present the transcript from that proceeding to the City Council. Please make sure the Council has the transcript. Thank you. Sincerely, ROGER JON DIAMOND RJD:jb Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 1 1 BEFORE THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION 2 OF SANTA MONICA 3 4 MARSHA ALPHSON, ) ) 5 Claimant, ) Case No.: )18ENT-0276 808 6 VS. ) ) 7 SANTA MONICA CONSERVANCY, ) ) CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT 8 ) 6/14/2019 Respondent. ) 9 ) _________________________________________) 10 11 12 13 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 14 SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 15 APRIL 8TH, 2019 16 17 18 19 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. 20 COURT REPORTERS (800) 288-3376 21 www.depo.com 22 23 24 REPORTED BY: JESSIECA J. PATE, CSR NO. 11793 FILE NO.: AD037A5 25 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 2 1 BEFORE THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION 2 OF SANTA MONICA 3 4 MARSHA ALPHSON, ) ) 5 Claimant, ) Case No.: )18ENT-0276 808 6 VS. ) ) 7 SANTA MONICA CONSERVANCY, ) ) 8 ) Respondent. ) 9 ) _________________________________________) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS, taken on behalf of 17 Respondent, at 1685 Main Street, 2nd Floor, Santa Monica, CA 18 90401, commencing at 7:27 p.m., Monday, April 8th, 2019, 19 before Jessieca J. Pate, CSR No. 11793. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 3 1 A P P E A R A N C E S: 2 3 FOR THE CLAIMANT: LAW OFFICES OF ROGER JON DIAMOND 4 BY: ROGER JON DIAMOND, ESQ. 1717 Fourth Street 5 Third Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 6 (310) 452-6643 email: NOT AVAILABLE 7 8 FOR THE RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER RUTH SHARI 9 COMMISSIONER ROGER GENSER COMMISSIONER RICHARD BRAND 10 CHAIR PRO TEM BARRY ROSENBAUM CHAIR DOLORES SLOAN 11 COMMISSIONER KEN BREISCH COMMISSIONER STEPHANIE REICH 12 SENIOR PLANNER STEVE MIZOKAMI CITY ATTORNEY 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 p 22 23 24 25 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 4 1 I N D E X 2 3 WITNESS: 4 PAGE 5 Rosanne Larrel 14 Andrew Goodrich 19 6 Marsha Alphson 25 Craig Jacobson 47 7 Stephen Gee 57 David Boris 59 8 Mike Salazar 51 Leslie Lamberg 53 9 Stephanie Gee 57 Amy Forbes 72 10 11 12 E X H I B I T S 13 NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE 14 15 (NONE OFFERED.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 5 1 SANTA MONICA, CA; MONDAY, APRIL 8TH, 2019; 7:26 P.M. 2 3 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Now, we move to item 9A. Land 4 marked designation, 18ENT-0276. 808 Woodacres Road. 5 Consideration to determine whether the residence in whole or 6 in part should be designated as a city landmark. And if so 7 designated, whether an associated landmark parcel should be 8 defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, 9 protect or safeguard the landmark. The landmark's 10 commission will consider the application based on whether 11 the application research and public testimony presented 12 demonstrates that the building meets one or more of the 13 required criteria for landmark designation. Pursuant to 14 SMMC section 956100-A. This item was continued from 15 February 11, 2019, Landmarks Commission's Meeting. 16 Let's have disclosure, please. 17 COMMISSIONER SHARI: I visited the property Friday at 18 11:30, in the presence of Chair Sloan, chair pro tem, the 19 owner Marsha Alphson and the attorney Roger Diamond. 20 Visited the grounds and some of the interior. 21 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner Genser. 22 COMMISSIONER GENSER: Um, I visited the property on 23 Saturday, around 1:00 o'clock. 24 In addition, um, I was a member of the 25 Santa Monica Conservancy and I have resigned that Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 6 1 position a couple months ago. And, so, I'm no longer a 2 member. I was not involved, at all, in any decision 3 making situations with the conservancy. 4 And also, I was on the Advocacy Committee 5 prior to my appointment, which was in August of 2018. 6 Um, and, there was a point where I think it was 7 mentioned, but no discussion was held. 8 And, so, I have no prejudice regarding 9 this project at all. And I feel free that I can vote on 10 this project with complete objectivity. 11 COMMISSIONER BRAND: No disclosures. 12 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: I was a member of the 13 Conservancy at the time the application was filed, but I 14 have resigned my membership. I held no position in the 15 Conservancy at the time of my resignation that was -- 16 involved policy or decision making. Um, and, um, I was not 17 involved in the Conservancy's decision to file the 18 application in any way. 19 Um, I do feel that I'm able to rule on 20 this matter in a fair and impartial matter. 21 I visited the property with chair pro tem 22 Rosenbaum and Commissioner Shari on Friday. 23 COMMISSIONER GENSER: If I can just add one more 24 thing to clarify my disclosure. 25 I was -- I resigned from Advocacy Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 7 1 Committee prior to my appointment with the Commission by 2 some month. So, I was not privied to any discussion 3 held within context. 4 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Okay. As already mentioned 5 by Chair Sloan and Commissioner Shari, I -- the other two 6 members. I met with the Alphson and attorney 7 representative, it was about 11:00 o'clock on Friday. And 8 as also stated, we essentially toured the exterior of the 9 house. Principally, we did partially review a partial part 10 of the interior. We spoke very generally and briefly with 11 the Alphson and representative. And the focus of that 12 conversation was about the history of the house, with a 13 particular focus on the time the current Alphson occupied 14 the house, which has been for a number of years. 15 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: I have no disclosure in terms 16 of visiting the house, but I too was a member of the Santa 17 Monica Conservancy, I resigned. And I had, um, no 18 interaction whatsoever, with the nomination of this 19 property, no discussion in relationship to the conservancy. 20 So like my colleague, Mr. Genser, I feel that I am not 21 prejudiced in any way in terms of making judgments on this 22 property. 23 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: I now move to the staff report. 24 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: Thank you. 25 So, the next item on agenda is a landmark Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 8 1 designation application for the property located at 2 808 Woodacres Road. The subject property is located in 3 the R-1 north of Montana residential district, just 4 north of San Vicente Boulevard. With a parcel size of 5 about 54,000 square feet. The subject property contains 6 a two-story Spanish colonial revival style residence, 7 with Italian Renaissance revival influences. 8 Constructed in 1921, the residence was designed by 9 architect John Parkinson, as his personal residence. 10 And the property is listed as a 5S3 on the city's reap 11 Sort resource inventory. 12 The landmark assessment was prepared by 13 one of the city's historic preservation consultants, 14 which is Hasta Shai & Associates Consultants, concluding 15 that the building is eligible for landmark designation, 16 based on meeting criterion one, two, three, four and 17 five, as established in landmark's ordinance. And staff 18 is in agreement with these findings. 19 Architectural description, the character 20 defining features fits original design, are further 21 detailed in the staff report; however, a few notable 22 features are as follows: 23 The classic elements of the Italian 24 Renaissance revival style, including the arched shaped 25 arcade with recessed closure and the ornately glazed Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 9 1 terracotta frame of the entry, of the main entry. 2 The Spanish colonial revival feature, 3 include the building's asymmetrical configuration, 4 smooth stucco siding, its red barrel tile roof, it's 5 demonstration patterns and window framed types and the 6 overall massing with the varying height composition. 7 There have been a few alterations to the 8 building since its original construction; however, the 9 residence still retains sufficient integrity and 10 continues to convey its historic significance and 11 architectural qualities. 12 Alterations include minor additions to the 13 rear of the residence, at the kitchen area, as well as 14 the rear patio and second floor bedroom. Other 15 alterations include the addition of the detached, 16 two-story guest house and a garage in the side of the 17 property. As well as a pool and a tennis Court located 18 to the south of the residence that were all constructed 19 in 1970. 20 Historic context constructed in 1921. The 21 property is an early example of residential development 22 in the area, that would later expand during subsequent 23 years after its construction. Although the property was 24 located in the city of Los Angeles until annex-ed to the 25 city of Santa Monica in 1979. It was generally referred Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 10 1 to as a property situated in Santa Monica based on its 2 location, siting and access. 3 Purchased by Parkinson in 1913. The 4 22-acre site was later subdivided into a new residential 5 tract in 1946. Despite the property being subdivided, 6 the residence in its sitting on the property, retains a 7 strong since of time, place and spacial relationships 8 that continues to convey its historic character, as an 9 estate style property and early residential development 10 within this area of the City. 11 The period in significance is 1921 through 12 1935. Reflecting the original construction date of the 13 residence and also the period, John Parkinson resided at 14 the property. 15 So, the subject property was designed by 16 master architect, John B. Parkinson, who designed more 17 than 400 structures in the Los Angeles area. Parkinson 18 began his prolific architectural career in Southern 19 California in 1894 and is also best known for his civic, 20 commercial and hotel projects. 21 By this time of the subject property, the 22 subject residence was completed in 1921. Parkinson was 23 a well established architect in Los Angeles, with 24 several large commissions. And at that time, he then 25 partnered with his son to form the architectural firm of Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 11 1 Parkinson and Parkinson, as the firm would continue to 2 design notable and influential buildings in Los Angeles 3 until his passing in 1935. Further exemplifying 4 Parkinson as a prominent and notable architect. 5 The staff and the City consultant find 6 that the subject property satisfies the criteria for 7 designation, under criterion one, exemplifying the early 8 architectural and residential development history of the 9 City. 10 Under criterion two, as far as esthetic 11 and artistic qualities. 12 And under criterion number three, for its 13 associations with notable and master architect John 14 Parkinson, as a historic personage. 15 Under criterion four, reflecting the 16 Spanish Colonial revival style, with influences from the 17 Italian Renaissance revival style, which is valuable to 18 the study. 19 And under criterion five, as a significant 20 example of the work of master architect John Parkinson. 21 Based on the evidence and findings as 22 provided in the staff report. Staff recommends landmark 23 designation approval, consisting of the primary 24 residence and the entire parcel. 25 That concludes the staff report and we're Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 12 1 available for any questions. 2 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Questions of staff? 3 Commissioner Genser. 4 COMMISSIONER GENSER: Yes. I think it was the last 5 criteria, number six. Um, you omitted that and is that 6 reasoning largely that it's -- you can't see it from the 7 street or the flip side of that, might be because of the 8 isolation, it has a unique setting. So, you're probably, 9 falling on former. Correct? 10 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: That's correct. So, based 11 on its location, as not being established as a familiar 12 feature, within the north of Montana neighborhood, as lack 13 of visibility. 14 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Chair pro tem Rosenbaum. 15 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Yeah. I have a couple of 16 questions from the paralegal staff. The first one I think 17 is not. 18 Does the fact that the property was 19 located in the City of Los Angeles during its period of 20 significance have any bearing on our review in this 21 matter. And more specifically, can this property 22 exemplify the City's early architectural and development 23 history, if it was not part of the City at the time? 24 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: So, I think based on -- 25 even though it was part of the City of Los Angeles, it is Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 13 1 part of the land that is now further within the City of 2 Santa Monica. So, it does exemplify the development of this 3 particular portion, north of San Vicente. Even though it 4 was technically not a part of Los Angeles at that time, it 5 is now a part of the City and then therefore, um, the 6 development exemplifies the history of that development. 7 And overall the Woodacres Road. 8 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: This one is probably for 9 legal. 10 Does the economic impact landmarking may 11 have on this property, if any, positive or negative, 12 have a bearing on the commissions review of this matter? 13 CITY ATTORNEY: No. The commissioners has asked a 14 very narrow question, um, the same question that you are 15 asked any time you are considering whether a property, um, 16 is to be designated and it's whether or not it meets one or 17 more of the criteria for landmark designation as set forth 18 in the ordinance. 19 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Are there any further questions 20 of staff? 21 22 (Brief pause in proceedings.) 23 24 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: All right. Our Applicant and 25 the Alphson are here and have requested each five minutes. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 14 1 So, will you please come forward. 2 MR. DIAMOND: I have a limited amount of time. 3 CITY ATTORNEY: If I may just do a quick overview of 4 the order pursuant to your rules of order. So, the 5 Applicant will get five minutes, the Alphson will get five 6 minutes, the public comment will occur and then each -- then 7 the Alphson will get three minutes in rebuttal, the 8 Applicant will get three minutes in rebuttal. 9 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. Applicant will you 10 introduce yourself. 11 ROSANNE LARREL: Good evening, Commissioners. 12 Rosanne Larrel (phonetic), representing the Santa Monica 13 Conservancy. 14 This is a very large and complex shoot 15 before you and respectfully, I would like to request 16 additional time than the time traditionally allotted. 17 The Applicant would like to ask for ten minute 18 presentation time and five minute rebuttal at the end. 19 I hope that you will indulge us as we go through this 20 complex hearing. 21 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioners, um, let's decide 22 what we're going to do. Um, commissioner Genser. 23 COMMISSIONER GENSER: Well, I think we've, in many 24 instances, allowed an applicant more than five minutes. I 25 would think that a fair response might be to allow the Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 15 1 property Alphson an equal amount of time, no matter what the 2 applicant is allowed. So, I move ten minutes. 3 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner Shari -- 4 COMMISSIONER SHARI: I second that. 5 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: -- wait. He made a motion. 6 You hold your motion until commissioner 7 Shari can speak. 8 COMMISSIONER SHARI: I'm basically supporting the 9 motion. 10 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. 11 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Basically supporting it, with 12 extension of time to both Applicant and Alphson. 13 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: What about rebuttal. 14 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Equally with rebuttal. 15 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: So, do we do a voice vote on 16 this? 17 CITY ATTORNEY: (None audible response.) 18 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: All in favor of extending the 19 time to -- how many minutes did you say? 20 COMMISSIONER GENSER: I think the request was ten 21 minutes and five minutes rebuttal. 22 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: To ten minutes for the 23 presentation now and five minutes rebuttal to both Applicant 24 and owner. 25 So all in favor. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 16 1 (All commissioners replied in the affirmative.) 2 3 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Opposed. 4 ROSANNE LARREL: Okay. Thank you very much. We 5 really appreciate it. 6 So, I'll start off by saying that the 7 province and residence first came to the attention of 8 the Santa Monica Conservancy in the spring of 2018. 9 Thanks to Stephen Gee, the Author of this book, "Iconic 10 Vision," Dawn Parkinson, Architect Los Angeles, as well 11 as PVS documentary with the same name. 12 Aware that a transition (inaudible) was 13 pending, we began to monitor the building. When the 14 Elder Alphson who had owned the property since 1966 and 15 were dedicated stewards of the Parkinson legacy passed 16 away, the Conservancy decided that the time was right to 17 present the landmark nomination that is before you 18 tonight. 19 Just to refresh you a bit about 20 Parkinson's significance and accomplishments, Keven 21 Starr states: John Parkinson was the greatest public 22 architect of Los Angeles at a time when the City was 23 inventing itself. His obit in the "New York Times" 24 December 12, 1935: Future citizens have only to walk 25 through the streets of Los Angeles to be reminded how Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 17 1 much John Parkinson, in his lifetime, contributed to the 2 City that grew up under his hand. 3 A few highlights of 40-year long career, 4 the Homer Laughlin Building, at 3rd and of Broadway; the 5 First Class A's steal frame structure, in Los Angeles 6 1898. The city's first skyscraper, the Braly Block 7 greatly 1904. It was the tallest structure in the City 8 until City Hall was opened in 1928. The city's first 9 world class hotel, the Alexandria, opened in 1906. 10 He designed a major extent of USC 11 beginning 1919, helping it grow into a renown 12 educational institution. He created the Los Angeles and 13 world Coliseum, allowing the city to host 1932 and 1984 14 olympics games. He was an architect at City Hall, with 15 Albert C. Martin and John C. Alstin. Bullocks Wilshire, 16 the art deco masterpiece, in partnership with his son 17 Donald. Union Station, called the last great American 18 train station. 19 From 1905 to '15, he partnered with 20 architect G. Edwin Edward Bergstrom. Then in 1920 until 21 his death in 1935, he worked in partnership with his son 22 Donald, who by the way designed City Hall, where we're 23 meeting tonight. 24 During which time, major icons were built 25 Bullocks Wilshire, L.A. City Hall, Los Angeles Memorial Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 18 1 Coliseum and Union Station. 2 Today more than 50 Parkinson designed 3 buildings remain in downtown Los Angeles. Mainly 4 classic Bozarth and art deco styles. 5 Given his prodigious accomplishments, it 6 is striking that his own residence is relatively modest 7 and unpretentious. It's styles and graceful the 8 Southern California blend of Spanish Colonial 9 (inaudible) and Italianate. The house contains a very 10 high degree of architectural integrity. 11 Residences designed by acclaimed 12 architects for themselves as their own homes, have an 13 additional level of significance. We're please to note 14 the convergence of three independent historic 15 preservation reports, from highly qualified experts. 16 All whom agree that the property meets criteria one 17 through five and with which staff also agrees. 18 We're indebted to Stephen Gee, the 19 acclaimed author and baccalaurean (phonetic) for 20 informing us about this property for sharing information 21 and photographs with us. 22 We're also grateful for the support of a 23 Woodacres neighbor, who provided additional resources to 24 support the nomination after the nomination was filed. 25 We have a PowerPoint presentation to complete the Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 19 1 presentation at this point. So, I will turn it over to 2 Andrew of Architectural Resources Group. 3 ANDREW GOODRICH: Good evening, Commissioners. My 4 name is Andrew Goodrich and I'm here with Architectural 5 Resources Group. 6 We prepared a historical resources 7 assessment reporter for the property at 808 Woodacres. 8 Our conclusions is that the nomination efforts as being 9 put forward by the Santa Monica Conservancy. I'm so 10 very happy to be here as their partner and collaborators 11 tonight. 12 So, just really quickly. So, the property 13 at 808 Woodacres is located at far end north end of 14 Santa Monica, at the crest of Santa Monica canyon. It 15 is located to the north of San Vicente Boulevard, at the 16 very end of a small residential cul-de-sac. On the 17 property, is a two-story Spanish Colonial revival style 18 single family house, that was built in 1920. It was 19 constructed as the personal residence of J D. Parkinson, 20 who was, without question, one of the most enormously 21 influential architects in the Los Angeles region during 22 the early decades of the 20th Century. 23 The house served as Parkinson's personal 24 residence from the 1920s, when it was built, until his 25 death in 1935. In this period 1920 to 1935, Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 20 1 corresponded with a particularly productive period of 2 Parkinson's architectural career. It was during this 3 time that he designed what are widely considered to be 4 some of his signature works, including the Los Angeles 5 Memorial Coliseum, Bullocks Wilshire, Los Angeles City 6 Hall and Los Angeles Union Station. 7 Just a little bit more about Parkinson 8 himself, we've done a great job introducing Parkinson 9 and his many accomplishments. He was born in England, 10 he immigrated to the U.S. in 1885. He worked briefly in 11 the San Francisco bay area and then in Seattle. In 12 1894, he arrived to Los Angeles. Through his hard work, 13 dedication and extraordinary skill, he quickly worked 14 his way up to the top of his profession. (Inaudible) 15 one of Southern California most acclaimed and prolific 16 local architects. 17 So, when John Parkinson constructed his 18 house, overlooking Santa Monica canyon, it was a pretty 19 big deal because Parkinson, the architect, was a pretty 20 good deal. His house is very prominently featured in a 21 number trade articles and trade journals of the 22 trey-articles testicles of the era, especially above, 23 including Architectural Digest, in 1923 and Architect 24 Forum in 1926. And up above are a couple of additional 25 images of the house shortly after construction. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 21 1 And, so, when the house was built, it 2 originally sat on a large 22 acre site. At that time, a 3 very small sliver of the property was located in Santa 4 Monica, but the vast majority was located in the city of 5 Los Angeles. Eventually, in 1978, the entire area 6 between San Vicente Boulevard and Santa Monica Canyon 7 was analyzed by the city as Santa Monica. 8 John Parkinson died in 1935, but the 9 property remained in the hands of the Parkinson family 10 until the mid 1960's. In 1946, as the staff report 11 noted, um, the Parkinson family sold most of the 22-acre 12 site, which was then subdivided into a series of small 13 residential partials and a cul-de-sac, known as 14 Woodacres Grove was woven through the new Subdivision. 15 However, the Parkinson residence remain fully intact. 16 It was incorporated into the new Woodacres subdivision 17 and a great deal of care was taken to make sure that its 18 estate like grounds and (inaudible) settings were 19 preserved. 20 These are some photos of the house that 21 were provided to us by Parkinson biographer, Stephen 22 Gee. As you can see in the exhibits many of the 23 distinguishing characteristics of the Spanish Colonial 24 revival style. Specifically it features complex, 25 asymmetrical masoning moderated pitched with red Clay Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 22 1 towel roof, smooth stucco exterior walls, wood casing 2 windows and arched surrounds. 3 This particular house also exhibits a 4 number of architectural details that exhibit Parkinson's 5 extraordinary skill as an architect and make reference 6 of things to things most used in Italian Renaissance 7 revival style designs. Many of the details include a 8 volt-ed (inaudible) framed by arches, twisted columns 9 with Corinthians capitals, a goose bar entrance with 10 intricate terracotta details, paneled with entrance 11 doors with a leaded transom and appointed arch windows 12 with stained glass and leaded canes. 13 This property was identified in the 2018, 14 HR update as eligible for a listing at the federal state 15 and local level. We subsequently conducted extensive 16 properties specific research and based on the findings 17 of our research, we do believe that the property s 18 available as a Santa Monica landmark under criteria one, 19 two, three, four and five. One, for its association 20 with early development patterns in the north of San 21 Vicente area. Two, for its exceptional level of detail 22 and esthetic interest. Three, for its association with 23 John Parkinson, who is most certainly a historical 24 individual. Four, as an excellent example of the 25 Spanish Colonial revival style and five, a significant Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 23 1 work of master architect John Parkinson. 2 With respect to that last point, I think 3 it's also fair to mention that this is the only personal 4 residence of John Parkinson in southern California that 5 is still known to be standing. 6 His first house was located in the 7 Westlake district, just west of downtown Los Angeles. 8 It was demolished after World War ll. His second house, 9 which was located in an area career known as Korea Town 10 was demolished in 1931. This is his third permanent 11 residence in the Los Angeles area. The only one known 12 still to be standing. 13 Very few alterations have been made to the 14 property over time. The most significant change, of 15 course, was the subdivision of the original 22-acre site 16 in 1946. But overall, the house looks pretty much 17 exactly as it did when it was constructed in the 1920's. 18 Very few material alterations have occurred and retain 19 all Southern aspects of integrity, location, design, 20 setting, material, workmanship, feeling and association. 21 Under criterion one, two, four and five, 22 we proposed a period significance of 1920, which 23 correspondence with the house's original date of 24 construction. 25 Under criterion three, we propose a period Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 24 1 of significance of 1920 to 1935, which encompasses the 2 entire period in which John Parkinson moved here. I 3 shall also emphasize that one of the most distinguishing 4 characteristics of this property is the symbiotic 5 relationship between the house and the adjacent grounds. 6 The bucolic, lushly large gates, estate like setting was 7 a very important role -- I got like twenty seconds left. 8 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Finished. 9 ANDREW GOODRICH: Okay. There's a very important 10 role in keynoting early development patterns and the 11 historical significance of the house. And because of this, 12 we are urging that the entire property encompassing the 13 house and the grounds, be recognized as a landmark parcel. 14 Thank you so much for your time, we're 15 really happy to be here tonight and happy to answer any 16 questions you have. Thank you so much. 17 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Do we have any questions for the 18 applicant? Thank you. 19 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Can the audience ask 20 questions? 21 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: No, not you. The commissioners. 22 Thank you. Thank you for asking. 23 Okay. Um, so, we'll now move to the 24 Alphson and the Alphson's representative. And you've 25 been granted ten minutes. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 25 1 MR. DIAMOND: I don't think that's enough, but first 2 Marsha Alphson is going to address you as the occupant and 3 resident of the house and I'll address you on procedural and 4 legal issues. 5 Come here Marsha. Thank you very much for 6 ten minutes, but it's for a $4 million loss, that's 7 really not appropriate. 8 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Well, we have ten minutes, you 9 haven't requested more, so we'll stay with that. 10 MR. DIAMOND: I'm going to request after Marsha 11 finishes -- I don't want to duplicate what she says, so, if 12 she says something, I would not need -- 13 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Why don't we let her speak. 14 MR. DIAMOND: Sure. 15 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Thank you, Mr. Diamond. 16 MR. DIAMOND: Sure. 17 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Ms. Alphson. 18 MARSHA ALPHSON: Hi. Thank you. Hi. 19 I'm very -- I'm not happy being here. I'm 20 not good at speaking, so forgive me. I don't, you know, 21 it's difficult for me. 22 Um, I feel very bullied and stepped on and 23 put out. And I'm not impressed with the system here, 24 not at all. Um, my mom was dying and she's 92. And, 25 um, nope, again, my parents, we been there 52 years and Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 26 1 no one has approached us. You know. Um, why did it 2 take this long. Maybe because my parents weren't there 3 to, um, defend it. Um, another question I have is, is 4 why would one of the neighbors have to get a lawyer. It 5 makes me feel -- it gives me ideals of -- I don't know 6 if I'm allowed to say them, but it's a very suspicious 7 to me. Because our property split up and maybe possibly 8 they would like to try to get their -- purchase it. 9 Maybe. I don't know if I'm offending anybody or what 10 I'm allowed to say, but I'm just going to go for it. 11 So, I'm really not pleased being here. 12 Ruth-Anne Larrer came on our property and 13 I'm going to call it trespassing. Because she's not a 14 nice person. And she didn't call ahead. She didn't 15 buzz the buzzer, the gate was opened because it was 16 broken and I was getting it fixed. And she came in and 17 she knocked on the front door and I came out because my 18 mom was in the den. That's where she was, she was -- 19 she was in -- she was bed bound at that time. She had 20 about a month, a month-and-a-half to live when Ruth-Anne 21 showed up. 22 I was very nice to Ruth-Anne, I explained 23 to her that we took care of the place very well. Um, 24 that it was -- everything that my dad -- it was his 25 whole entire life to take care of that property. Um, Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 27 1 one point is that the grounds -- the only thing that's 2 original on the grounds, is the house, and wall in the 3 back and the configuration of the driveway. Nothing 4 else is original. 5 Um, Ruth-Anne sent a letter, an e-mail to 6 me, saying that she, um, that I had -- I had changed my 7 mind about selling it. This is not correct. I can't 8 even make up my mind right now, I have so many things 9 going on with my -- with both my parents passing away. 10 I -- she said that she said she -- they were going to 11 tear down the guest house and subdivide the land. 12 Now, this is really fun for me to listen 13 to. I just loss my mom, I'm -- I have so many things 14 going on. I wrote back to her and I asked -- I said, 15 why are you doing this. Why do you have to do this to 16 me now. My parents spent their whole entire lives 17 taking care of this place and keeping it up. And I got 18 appraisals on my own. And, there's a significant 19 decrease in the value, 21 percent. Um, I said, why are 20 you doing this to -- Ruth-Anne, why are you doing this 21 to me now. I don't need this extra stress right now. 22 And she never even replied to me. What she said was, 23 she never got the e-mails. Which they were, um -- I hit 24 reply from her e-mail. I hit reply, my sent messages 25 say that she received it. I sent her three e-mails, I Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 28 1 was very upset. She never replied to me. And I don't 2 believe what she says and I believe that she -- she said 3 that, um, what about my parent's trust lawyer, um, said 4 that we were going to sale the house. He can't even say 5 that we're going to sale it. There's too many things 6 going on right now. So, that's not true. I feel very 7 pressured and abused and I don't like any of this here. 8 None of this. Nobody here. I'm very disgusted. 9 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Thank you, Ms. Alphson. 10 Mr. Diamond. 11 MR. DIAMOND: We do have another speaker. 12 Mr. Boris, I don't know if he wanted to 13 come forward now. 14 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: He can share your minutes. 15 DAVID BORIS: Go ahead. 16 MR. DIAMOND: I just want to -- first of all, just 17 some procedural points. We respectfully ask those who 18 indicated an affiliation with the Conservancy to recuse 19 yourselves, we do not believe, given this issue in this 20 case, whether the Conservancy overstepped its right by 21 filing without paying a fee. I know that may be silly to 22 some of you, but that was one of the bases upon which the 23 Court of Appeals ruled in a case I handled, called Woodies 24 Grove versus City of Newport Beach and they violated other 25 procedural rights also. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 29 1 I noticed nowhere in the staff report or 2 in any reference by the city attorney to the issue that 3 we raised regarding the question of whether it's 4 appropriate and fair and legal under city law, for the 5 Conservancy to act in a way to support maybe a neighbor 6 who also wants to file an application for landmarking in 7 order to obtain a better price on the property that 8 might be -- or might not be available. We raised that 9 issue and that wasn't discussed anywhere in the staff 10 report. 11 And this evening, I understand that the 12 only issue that is before you, is whether one or more of 13 the six criteria for landmarking the property exists. 14 And your staff specifically told me, that you have no 15 other issue to consider. It's not even in the 16 ordinance. It doesn't say anywhere that you can 17 evaluate the effect on the landowner of the decision 18 that you take. How far have we gone as a society where 19 you don't even consider a net and can't even consider, 20 according to your own attorney, the impact of taking 21 somebody's property. The impact on them of the taking 22 of their property. You can't consider that, your staff 23 attorney tells you, I don't believe that that either is 24 the law or will be the law when this case is over. 25 Now, in addition to the recusal, we want Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 30 1 to point out that if the City is going to benefit by 2 landmarking this property and presumably there's some 3 benefit there because why would the city subsidize the 4 Conservancy with respect to filing applications, because 5 their filing fee was waived. The impact is going to 6 force my client to spend a lot of money, running what 7 would be like a museum. She's going to be compelled, in 8 violation of the First Amendment to communicate through 9 the architecture of the property, the ideas that are 10 embodied in the philosophy of the city, in terms of what 11 can be done for the property. I understand that for 12 zone purposes, the city has broad authority to decide 13 what types of properties should be in particular zones. 14 But this is like a spot zoning, which is illegal under 15 land use law. Because you're really just picking on one 16 property and forcing that property to subsidize the City 17 of Santa Monica. 18 Apparently, people in the community, 19 allegedly benefit by landmarking because they have the 20 right to enjoy the esthetic work of some other property. 21 But the city should pay for it. That's what the 22 "Takings Clause" is all about. That's what the 23 Constitution is all about. You can't take somebody's 24 property without compensation. And here, according to 25 my client, the City has done just the opposite, has Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 31 1 treated her like nothing or through their extension, the 2 Conservancy. I don't know how many Conservancy 3 petitions there are, but I think there must be enough 4 that recusal will be in order. 5 Now, we believe that the taking actually 6 took place when the application was filed, because at 7 that moment she loses her value of her property. We're 8 now fighting to get that back, by trying to win a 9 landmarking case. 10 I did ask initially for a continuance, 11 because two of our neighborhood groups were going to 12 come tonight and speak, but they're out of town and I 13 just only learned that in the last couple of days. 14 Friday I actually learned it, I think. And that was the 15 day after we got the staff report. The City staff 16 waited, I think a month or two, to get the report out 17 and waited until the last second, making it very 18 difficult for us to respond in a coherent fashion. But 19 we would like the city attorney and the staff to address 20 the issues that we've raised. One issue in particular 21 is, are you compelled to landmark the property simply 22 because one or more of the criteria has been met. Our 23 position is no. You're not compelled. You have the 24 discretion and you should evaluate factors to decide 25 whether or not you should exercise your discretion and Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 32 1 not landmark. But instead, your own staff tells you 2 that you're -- the only issue is whether or not the 3 criteria has been met. That's like asking a jury in a 4 murder trial what was the color of the shirt of the 5 Defendant and not ask whether the Defendant is guilty or 6 not guilty. 7 You have to decide -- does that mean I'm 8 finished? 9 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Yes. Would you summarize in a 10 few sentencing, please. 11 MR. DIAMOND: Sure. Was that five minutes or ten 12 minutes? 13 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: That was ten minutes. Just give 14 us a few seconds summary, please. 15 MR. DIAMOND: Sure. 16 Number one, we have an appraisal. We have 17 a copy of an appraisal we got showing a reduction in 18 value if you go ahead and landmark the property. It's 19 about $4 million. 20 May I approach, whoever will take this. 21 This is the appraisal. And, again, we didn't know what 22 you were going to cover because we didn't get the staff 23 report until basically Thursday. We were waiting for 24 it. So, that's why we're late in getting the appraisal 25 in. I mentioned it in one of my letters. But I wanted Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 33 1 to ask you, in terms of whether the record is complete, 2 do you have the e-mail letters that I sent to each of 3 the Commissioners. 4 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Yes, we do. They're up here on 5 the di-ah (phonetic) -- each of us not only received them in 6 our individually e-mails, but we also received them on the 7 di-ah, so we have them twice. 8 MR. DIAMOND: There were actually two. There was a 9 second one I sent to Stephanie -- 10 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: You know, your time is up. I'm 11 sorry to do this, Mr. Diamond, but please summarize. 12 MR. DIAMOND: I'm just telling you, the ten minutes 13 for a $4 million loss is really not proportionate to the end 14 back. You got to provide at least like a half a day of 15 evidentiary hearing to address these issues in more detail. 16 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Thank you. 17 MR. DIAMOND: Thank you. Thank you very much. And 18 thank you for coming to site on Friday. We appreciate it. 19 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: We appreciated it too. 20 MR. DIAMOND: One last thing. Apologize. 21 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: I'm sorry. 22 MR. DIAMOND: But you can't see the property anyway 23 from the street or you have to go either the middle of the 24 street. 25 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Please be seated. Thank you. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 34 1 COMMISSIONER SHARI: I have some questions for you. 2 Please wait. 3 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner Shari. 4 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Yes. 5 Mr. Diamond, I hear consider angst in your 6 comments and would you be more comfortable with a 7 continuance? And why was it that it was at the last 8 minute you decided not to continue it? 9 MR. DIAMOND: I didn't know whether the court 10 reporter, the young lady seated here, as she was late. She 11 was moving her car. I didn't know she was here. So, the 12 two main reasons we're asking for the continuance. Is one, 13 making the Woods family and the Lock family were going to 14 come and testify. And I was advised that both were out of 15 town. So, I was, in my mind, agonizing about whether to ask 16 for a continuance or not. I didn't want to disrupt the 17 proceeding, I know there are people here waiting to speak. 18 So, I was ambivalent about whether to pursue the continuance 19 or not, but the last straw was when I couldn't find the 20 reporter, then I panicked and then she showed up. 21 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Can I ask you on other question? 22 MR. DIAMOND: Sure. 23 COMMISSIONER SHARI: You had wanted someone else to 24 speak as part of your ownership -- owner and representative 25 team? Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 35 1 MR. DIAMOND: Yeah. He's Ms. Alphson's employer. 2 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Is it possible for this person 3 to fill out a chair and speak. 4 MR. DIAMOND: He did. 5 DAVID BORIS: I filled it out. 6 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Well, we could move you up to 7 after Mr. Diamond, if you'd like. What is your name, sir. 8 MR. BORIS: David Boris. 9 COMMISSIONER SHARI: So, it makes sense that he speak 10 at this time as opposed to later? 11 MR. DIAMOND: He's security -- 12 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: I'm sorry. Let's see. We have 13 one more question for you. 14 MR. DIAMOND: Sure. 15 CITY ATTORNEY: So, if I may just clarify practice, 16 after commissioner Rosenbaum ask his question. 17 So, generally, with your practices, you 18 would combine anybody who is a representative of the 19 ownership team into the full ten minutes or five minutes 20 in rebuttal. If they are just speaking for or against 21 and not necessarily part of the ownership team, they 22 would just speak in line with the rest of the general 23 public. 24 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Yes. 25 CITY ATTORNEY: So, if Mr. Boris is part of the Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 36 1 ownership team and part of the applicant -- or ownership 2 team, perhaps he can speak during rebuttal, otherwise he may 3 speak when the rest of the general public speaks. 4 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. So, Mr. Boris may speak 5 when you have your rebuttal or I do have -- I do have one 6 for you. And you may speak when your turn comes. He may 7 present himself. 8 Would you please take your seat, 9 Mr. Diamond. 10 Oh, you do -- we have one more question. 11 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Can you speak to the 12 criteria that we assess in determining whether a property is 13 eligible for designation as a landmark? Or specifically, 14 why do you believe that this property doesn't met any of 15 this criteria? You haven't addressed that. That is the 16 issue in front of us tonight and I would like to hear what 17 you think about it. 18 MR. DIAMOND: The City contacted me initially, about 19 a consultant wanting to come out to the property. Because 20 we're very open and honest and receptive, we invited the 21 consultant from the city to come, Mr. Steve Metsuie. Did 22 not come, he was also included, he said he was sick. But 23 anyway, when I read the report, it seemed that it fit the 24 criteria to some extent that I thought I would be wasting 25 your time and my time to argue with here. I wanted to Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 37 1 discuss what I think and still believe our winning 2 procedural issue is. I didn't want to spend a lot of time 3 giving up the merits of the case, to talk procedure. But I 4 believe procedurally, this case has many flaws in it. Um, 5 and didn't address anything in the staff report. 6 I think one of the things you have to do, 7 is make findings as to whether or not it is going to be 8 an undue hardship on the property Alphson. You've 9 ignored that. In my letters, I've asked for it and 10 apparently the City attorney doesn't believe that's 11 something you could consider. To me, that's mind 12 boggling that you can't even consider it. And you're -- 13 obviously, you have to follow the advise of your own 14 attorney, but your own attorney got the City involved in 15 that long litigation regarding districting. And we're 16 going to spend a fortune of Santa Monica -- 17 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: I think you answered my 18 question. 19 MR. DIAMOND: Sure. 20 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: The question was simply is 21 it -- sounds like you're in agreement that this property 22 meets the criteria. 23 MR. DIAMOND: Well, I don't want to agree on the 24 record that it meets it, I'm just gonna say that I wanted to 25 devote my time to more important procedural issues. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 38 1 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Okay. 2 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: And then I just want to 4 visit kind of line with what Commissioner Shari asked. 5 Because you initially asked for a continuance, you asked it 6 in writing, you then withdraw that request tonight. That's 7 why we proceeded. We didn't consider whether or not to 8 continue this matter because you withdrew it. That is the 9 circumstances before us; correct? 10 MR. DIAMOND: Not exactly. That's why there's 11 nuances and we like to do things. It would have been better 12 if I were given a minute to explain our situation regarding 13 the necessity for a continuance. But I was not allowed to 14 speak. I was shushed when I was trying to get your 15 attention and you guys would not let me speak. So, I was 16 faced with a dilemma. It wasn't an all or nothing 17 proposition. The issue of whether we should get a 18 continuance, was nuanced and shaded in different directions 19 and I wanted to at least discuss it with you for a minute. 20 And I couldn't get your attention. All you were more 21 interested in was shutting me up. So, I didn't want to 22 violate any rule. So, I shut up. It's more complicated. 23 We need to present -- 24 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Mr. Diamond -- 25 MR. DIAMOND: Yes. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 39 1 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: -- I'm sorry to interrupt you, 2 but really. You need to answer his question or else, you 3 know, that's what -- your time is up to speak on behalf of 4 your client, but you can answer his question. And, so, he's 5 asking you, if -- you know, you -- what, you know -- 6 Go ahead. Would you repeat your question. 7 And then -- 8 MR. DIAMOND: I apologize if I didn't answer it 9 directly. I'll try to do -- 10 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: You had asked for a 11 continuance and then you with -- would have considered 12 tonight at the outside of this proceeding, but then you 13 indicated that you were withdrawing your continuance, which 14 is why we proceeded without this continuance request. 15 That's how this -- 16 MR. DIAMOND: But all of that happened outside of the 17 record because I couldn't directly address you on the issue 18 of the continuance, because you didn't want to hear from me. 19 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: No. There was a time for you to 20 address us. If you wished to, we were going to take a -- 21 have a discussion and then vote on that. So, we were ready 22 to consider it, Mr. Diamond. 23 MR. DIAMOND: I did not know that. I thought I was 24 disrupting proceedings, if I pushed for it. So, being a 25 nice guy, I withdraw it. So much for being a nice guy. I Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 40 1 was -- I was trying to help you, by not unnecessarily 2 delaying the proceedings. 3 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: I'm sorry. But I have to ask 4 you to take your seat. 5 MR. DIAMOND: See. When you do that, you make it 6 sound like I been disrupting. I'm answering your questions. 7 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: No. It's not that you're 8 disrupting, we have a procedure here. We do have one more 9 question for you. So, please stay there. 10 Ms. Shari. 11 COMMISSIONER SHARI: It's not a question necessarily 12 directed to Mr. Diamond, but I defer to legal in terms of 13 our procedure and the decision that was made, possibly 14 prematurely. Can you shed any light on how we can deal with 15 this? 16 CITY ATTORNEY: If the Commission would -- if 17 Mr. Diamond would like to renew his -- or revisit his 18 request for a continuance, the commission is able to 19 entertain that request, if you so choose. If Mr. Diamond 20 would still like to request a continuance, you may discuss 21 how that may look, but that is within the commission's 22 discretion. 23 MR. DIAMOND: Yes, I would. I appreciate the 24 invitation. So, if we can do that so we can present the 25 neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Lock and Mr. and Mrs. Woods. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 41 1 COMMISSIONER SHARI: So we have before us a request 2 now from the Alphson for a continuance. And in my mind, 3 this is a very important matter. And I would be inclined to 4 grant that continuance. 5 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner Brand. 6 COMMISSIONER BRAND: I would support that continuance 7 as well. 8 THE COURT: Commissioner Rosenbaum. 9 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Yeah. I mean, at the -- 10 after receiving the request in writing, I was prepared to 11 give it serious consideration. And given the importance of 12 this matter, I may still consider that is appropriate. I 13 think it's kind of an odd timing, in the middle of this 14 proceeding that we're talking about continuance. So, I 15 think we should finish public testimony provided, he's 16 provided statements, the applicant has a right to rebuttal. 17 And, so, I think, we may decide at the end not to render a 18 decision tonight, um, and the review the record, the 19 opportunity to come back and consider it more fully. But I 20 would not be inclined to just stop the proceedings at this 21 point. It's come to far. 22 And I think, um, it's our typical practice 23 when a property Alphson request a continuance, to give 24 it very serious consideration if not heart to the 25 property. So, I would continue to do that. But I don't Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 42 1 like how this has been set up at all. 2 You sent a letter asking for a 3 continuance, staff went and talked to you and asked if 4 you were still seeking that continuance and you said, 5 no. I started this proceeding by asking that and you 6 indicated you were ready to go forward. And, so, this 7 is inappropriate, but I will certainly give due 8 consideration for a continuance, but I don't think it's 9 appropriate at this stage of the hearing. 10 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner Breisch. 11 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: Well, I agree. I don't think 12 it's appropriate. We have many people here who wanted to 13 speak. We started the hearing, based upon flip flopping as 14 to whether or not you wanted to continuance. I think we 15 should -- I won't support a continuance. I'll put it that 16 way. 17 MR. DIAMOND: Why not take their testimony since 18 they're here? 19 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Yeah. Let's let the 20 Commissioners -- because we're going to take a vote. And -- 21 MR. DIAMOND: I'm trying to help. 22 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Thank you. I -- thank you. 23 Commissioner Shari. 24 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Well, yes. In fact, people have 25 come to speak on this issue, could they not be heard and Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 43 1 then we can render a decision on a possible continuance. 2 CITY ATTORNEY: Yes. And that's what I was speaking 3 to earlier. If you want to entertain a continuance at all, 4 part of your discussion is how procedurally you'd like to 5 proceed. So, it sounds like there is at least some interest 6 in completing what we would consider to be the public 7 hearing portion. And then at the conclusion of it, you can 8 continue discussing whether or not you would like to engage 9 in any sort of discussion. Whether or not you would like to 10 continue and allow further public testimony at your next 11 available hearing after today. But it sounds like you would 12 like to complete the public hearing portion at least this 13 evening. 14 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Thank you for clarifying. 15 THE COURT: Commissioner Genser. 16 COMMISSIONER GENSER: Yes. Well, I had read your 17 letter and I was at that point prepared to continue this; 18 however, then we were informed that the continuance was 19 withdrawn. And, so, I think we went forward with that 20 assumption. And, so, now we're in kind of a dilemma because 21 we started a public hearing. So, I'm a little bit torn how 22 to proceed. But, um, I may support you in this, but I think 23 that there's been -- the -- this should not have been a 24 withdrawal of the letter to confuse things. And I think 25 that's where we are. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 44 1 MR. DIAMOND: I was under pressure. 2 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Now, I -- do any of the 3 Commissioners wish to say anything else? If not, I think we 4 need a motion and a second on point of view. Commissioner 5 Shari. 6 CITY ATTORNEY: If I may. You only need a motion if 7 you're going to do something other than just continue with 8 the public hearing. If you're just going to continue and 9 move on, I -- you know, with Mr. Diamond's conclusion, then 10 you don't need a motion. 11 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: But if we desire to leave the 12 hearing open and continue it next month's meeting, we may do 13 that, but with a vote at the end of the discussion? 14 CITY ATTORNEY: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. 16 CITY ATTORNEY: It would be highly unusual for you 17 to, um, have a vote at this point during considering where 18 you are in the proceedings. 19 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: So, in other words, there's no 20 choice. We move ahead? 21 CITY ATTORNEY: Unless you would like to change your 22 normal course of action. Your normal course of acts would 23 be just to move on with the proceedings. So, in that case 24 you do not need a motion. If you would like to change the 25 proceedings, which again would be a highly unusual action Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 45 1 for you to take, then somebody could perhaps entertain a 2 motion, but it sounds like you are going to just move 3 forward with the proceedings. At least until after public 4 testimony is given. 5 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner Rosenbaum. 6 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: When we get to that point to 7 consider whether opportunities to speak to the property 8 Alphson representative. 9 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: So, now, I'm kind of stuck. I'm 10 not sure where I -- we move forward. We move forward with 11 the option of -- 12 COMMISSIONER GENSER: At this point -- I'm asking a 13 procedural question. 14 At this point, then, it's my understanding 15 we're going to hear the public testimony. And then the 16 Applicant and the property Alphson, you still have five 17 minutes remaining in rebuttal. So, that will all be 18 part of this process, right? And then after that point 19 we might continue, which we often will do, to further 20 consider the substantive matter later. However, the 21 applicant, the property Alphson may submit additional 22 information. And, so, the public would then have an 23 opportunity to respond to that information at a 24 subsequent hearing; correct? 25 CITY ATTORNEY: Yes. As is your practice with Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 46 1 respect to continued hearings to the extent there is new 2 information. Then, you generally take additional testimony 3 on that new information. 4 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Very good, then. I guess we 5 move forward at this point. And you will have a chance 6 to -- for rebuttal. And ask -- and then we can decide to 7 continue, which I think you can see, there's some 8 understanding here in considering that seriously for you. 9 At which case, when you continue, then, you can bring 10 your -- if you present new material, you can have your 11 public testimony from the owners in the area that you want 12 to bring. So, thank you please. Thank you. We'll move on. 13 MR. DIAMOND: Thank you very much. 14 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: We'll move on. 15 I want to thank you, everybody, for the 16 way we're dealing with this very procedurally and 17 civilly. 18 MR. DIAMOND: Always. 19 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. So, let's see where we 20 are in the order. 21 So, we are now ready for input from the 22 public. So, our first speaker will be Craig Jacobsen. 23 Now, Cindy Lee and Nina Presslow have donated their time 24 to Mr. Jacobsen. 25 So, what does that give Mr. Jacobsen? Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 47 1 I have -- 2 CITY ATTORNEY: Five minutes. 3 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Mr. Jacobsen and Ms. Lee, will 4 you raise your hand and Nina Presslow, could the -- and you 5 do give your time? 6 NINA PRESSLOW: (Inaudible response.) 7 CINDY LEE: (Inaudible response.) 8 CRAIG JACOBSEN: (Inaudible response.) 9 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Yes. Okay. You have five 10 minutes. 11 CRAIG JACOBSEN: Yes. I'm Craig Jacobsen. Thank 12 you. My wife, Lynn and I, are the neighbors 820 Woodacres, 13 next door to 808. We lived in our house which we built for 14 15 years. All three of our children lived in this house, 15 now five grandchildren also enjoy the house. 16 Ever since we bought this property in 17 2001, we knew of and were proud to be next door to a 18 house designed by John Parkinson. Over the years, we 19 told many friends the origin story of Woodacres, how 20 Mr. Parkinson owned of the surrounding land and how the 21 Woodacres neighborhood came to be. We would tell our 22 friends about all of the many things, buildings in L.A. 23 that Mr. Parkinson designed. He was a source of much 24 pride to Lynn and me. 25 We liked every other neighbor on the Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 48 1 street, we're found of and friendly with the Allisons. 2 Lynn and Drew, as everyone called them, had a warm 3 neighborly relationship. Drew was a sweet, lovely 4 person and we were honored to know her. 5 Lynn and I are not members of the Santa 6 Monica or L.A. Conservation Associations. In fact, we 7 do not come to this hearing as landmarking advocates of 8 any kind. Rather we come in support of a landmark 9 status of 808 Woodacres for a couple of reasons. 10 First, we believe it important that all 11 generations try to preserve some elements of our 12 history. Relatively speaking, we are a young country 13 and a young city, always eager it seems, to replace the 14 old with the new. Sometimes it is important to stop for 15 a second, consider the importance of things in a broader 16 historical context. 808 is a one of a kind. It's the 17 only remaining example of a residence designed and lived 18 in by Mr. Parkinson. If this house is not preserved, a 19 window on the past would be permanently closed. 20 Second, Lynn and I are amateur fans of 21 architecture. When we built our house, we were inspired 22 by style of the famous architectural firm, McKim, Mead & 23 White. Our house was based on a style called American 24 Shingle, which was popular in the early 1900's. Others 25 can jive whether or not we were successful in our Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 49 1 process, but the building of our house was a wonderful 2 experience. 3 Third, Lynn and I consider the house at 4 808 to be a Santa Monica treasure, designed by a famous 5 local architect, in a beautiful style, with styles in 6 keeping with the culture of Santa Monica and its 7 neighborhood setting. We think future generations 8 deserve the opportunity to see this house. A house 9 which is of architectural style and a level of 10 craftmanship that is irreplaceable. 11 Lynn and I, my wife, would also like to 12 set the record straight. Mr. Diamond, the attorney we 13 heard from, claimed that somehow Lynn and I were working 14 in partnership with the Conservancy. Nothing could be 15 further from the truth. The first time we heard about 16 the Conservancy was from Mr. Diamond, when he sent a 17 letter to all the neighbors on October 12th, telling us 18 about the application. The letter itself arrived about 19 a month after the application was file and our first 20 communication with the Conservancy was some time after 21 that. Simply put, we knew nothing about the 22 application, had nothing to do with it. 23 Um, my wife and I come to this hearing, 24 not as the neighbors concerned about living next door to 25 demolition and construction, Woodacres has had much Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 50 1 construction over the past 15 years. And as a result, 2 many beautiful new houses have been built on our street. 3 We have no doubt there is much more construction in our 4 future. That doesn't trouble us. What troubles us is 5 construction which comes because of the demolition of a 6 treasured work of Santa Monica architectural and review. 7 And I wanted to add, this isn't personal. Lynn and I 8 respect Marsha's right to come before you to contest 9 this application and fight for her rights. I should 10 also add we have no interest in buying the next door 11 property, we're very happy in our own house. Although 12 not experts in this field, from our reading of the 13 statute, from what we know about this house, not only 14 does 808 qualify for landmark status, but it seems to be 15 a prime example why this law was put on the books to 16 begin with. My wife and I wholeheartedly support the 17 designation of 808 parcel as a landmark. 18 Thank you. 19 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Thank you. 20 MR. DIAMOND: Thank you. 21 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Our next speaker is Carol 22 Limline (phonetic), then Amy Forbes. Let's see. Amy Forbes 23 is -- we'll hold that for a moment. Followed by -- Carol 24 Limline followed by Mike Salazar, followed by Leslie Lamberg 25 (phonetic). Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 51 1 AMY FORBES: Good evening. Um, I asked for a time to 2 speak tonight just to state once again for the record, that, 3 what is before you is whether or not the property at 808 4 Woodacres meets the criteria outlined in the Santa Monica 5 landmark ordinance. Many other issues have been raised 6 during the public testimony and during the testimony, but 7 what is ahead of you is to exercise your responsibilities 8 under the ordinance to determine whether or not this 9 property meets the landmark criteria. 10 Thank you very much. 11 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Mike Salazar. 12 MIKE SALAZAR: Mike Salazar, Ocean Park. Um, I'm 13 here tonight, I must say I am a member of the Conservancy, 14 among the Advocacy Committee. I'm not speaking for that 15 group nor the Conservancy, I'm also not here speaking as an 16 architect. I'm here speaking as an owner, not one, but two 17 landmark properties. The Charles Warren Brown House, my 18 partner and I own in this city. And the condominium at the 19 national register landmark Castle Green, in Pasadena. 20 And nothing in our experience is further 21 from the truth about this notion of devaluating the 22 significant devaluation of your property, um, by merely 23 filing an application, let alone becoming a landmark. 24 In fact, this house clearly has national register 25 status. And in that, they would qualify for a facade Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 52 1 easement that would provide quite a bit of money to the 2 Alphson in agreement to protect the exterior of the 3 house. It also has the opportunity for AirBnB or quote 4 B&B, which is something we're considering. And historic 5 homes get a significantly higher rate. And on this 6 property, with a guest house, the Alphson would be able 7 to stay on the property, rent the front house or vice 8 versa or some arrangement of that. 9 It's also a Mills Act, which as a 10 landmark, that would significantly reduce the tax 11 portion of your tax bill. Your rental rate as a -- not 12 just a significant landmark, but on this incredible 13 site, um, you'll actually most likely realize more money 14 on a monthly basis because of that. So, this notion 15 that you -- you're -- something is taken away from you 16 is just -- it's just bunk. You know, it sounds like 17 we're being bullied tonight into this notion that there 18 is something other than a significant landmark here. 19 So, I just want to be clear that, I would be willing to 20 talk to this Alphson. Not with her attorney, but with 21 her. And give her some pointers on some of the 22 benefits. Our house is 14 feet, a front porch from busy 23 3rd Street. The house is 20 feet from that and we sit 24 on the porch all the time and we get to know our 25 neighbors. And, um, this house has the benefit of being Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 53 1 secluded. If we took this ridiculous notion that it's 2 not visible from the public right of way, I think we 3 toss out probably about ten percent of the homes in 4 Pasadena that are, you know, arguably national registry 5 status as well. So, that's just not an issue. 6 So, I hope that in your ruling, either 7 tonight or if it's unfortunately continued, that you'll 8 acknowledge the 1946 subdivision date. Perhaps not as a 9 period of significance, but because it created, um, a 10 parcel setting, as best as it could, in keeping of the 11 original parcel. 12 Thank you. 13 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Leslie Lamberg. 14 LESLIE LAMBERG: Good to be home. I'm Leslie 15 Lamberg, I'm a resident of Santa Monica and I'm a Planning 16 Commissioner here. But, tonight, I'm speaking as a doe, 17 sent from the Los Angeles Conservancy, not on behalf of the 18 L.A. Conservancy, but as a volunteer who is very active in 19 walking tourists downtown. 20 I do walking tours of historic Broadway 21 commercial and theater district, union station and on 22 occasion, City Hall. And over the years, I've had the 23 privilege of introducing dozens, if not hundreds of 24 people, to the works of John Parkinson. If it were not 25 for John Parkinson, my tours would be much shorter. And Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 54 1 I feel privileged and honored to be able to show people 2 and educate people about the man himself and about the 3 buildings he designed. He was truly the master of 4 iconic Los Angeles. 5 Um, I also want to clear up a couple of 6 points. Um, in terms of nonprofits to able to apply for 7 designation to the city. And, actually, I was one of 8 the People responsible for that section of the Code, is 9 any -- 88501C3 can apply for designation, historic 10 designation to the Landmark's Commission for no fee. 11 And that is actually in the Code. It's not just the 12 Santa Monica Conservancy, it's any neighborhood 13 organization or other C3 that is active in the City. I 14 just want to make that clear. 15 I also, from what I remember, point out 16 that the City Code is pretty clear about what you're 17 parameters are. And that is, and you know this, to 18 designated a landmark, the property must meet one or 19 more of the criteria that are in the Code and that is 20 what you base your decision on. And anything beyond 21 that, is not really legal in, my opinion. 22 So, again, I strongly urge you to adopt 23 the staff report. John Parkinson's designed the 24 buildings that I mentioned, Union Station, City Hall, 25 um, and the Coliseum while he was living on the Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 55 1 Woodacres property. Those are, obviously, very 2 significant iconic buildings in Los Angeles and he was a 3 resident on this property that he designed while those 4 were designed. 5 So, hopefully, you will adopt the staff 6 report tonight and thank you for listening to me. 7 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: We miss you? 8 LESLIE LAMBERG: You miss me? 9 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Yes. 10 LESLIE LAMBERG: No she doesn't. 11 COMMISSIONER SHARI: I actually had a question for 12 Mr. Salazar that I was never able to ask. 13 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Oh, I'm sorry. 14 MS. SHARI: Mr. Salazar, you owned two landmark 15 properties, how long have you owned those properties? 16 MIKE SALAZAR: My partner bought the house that we're 17 in, in 1989 and it was -- I think about five or six years 18 after that that it became landmarked. And it actually 19 brings up a good point because there was an error in the 20 landmark -- I shouldn't say an error, there was an omission 21 and we had to come back, I think in 2001, to get the parcel 22 landmarked. Which is why, again, I would reiterate the 23 point about the setting that was created in 1946. It may 24 not be the period of significance or (inaudible), but it 25 created a significant setting that, um, provides that Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 56 1 importance of, of course, landmarking as well. 2 COMMISSIONER SHARI: So my question is, maybe you 3 have not had opportunity or occasion to put either of your 4 landmark properties up for sale, but if you had, do you 5 think you would have suffered any kind of economics hardship 6 or -- that you would have lost money, left money on the 7 table because it was landmarked? In other words, that you 8 would not have called -- demanded the highest price, just 9 because it's a landmark? 10 MIKE SALAZAR: No. And our house is so visible, it's 11 so prominent with the plaque, that we just -- that's all 12 part of the deal. We feel we're stewards for this house. 13 It will be another hundred years, it's been here 109 years 14 already. But, no, we get constant inquiries about the house 15 wanting to sale because there's very little inventory. So, 16 certainly location, location, location. But, um, from the 17 standpoint of being historic, it's a benefit. Especially 18 when people come into the house and see the inside of the 19 house. And that's not a part of the landmark in this case. 20 But -- 21 COMMISSIONER SHARI: So, in other words, an historic 22 property, a property designated, could actually demand more 23 price, more value? 24 MIKE SALAZAR: Well, I can't say one way or the 25 other, but this notion somehow there's a 21 percent drop in Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 57 1 the house of this significant value, um, just -- 2 MS. SHARI: You don't -- 3 MIKE SALAZAR: -- it doesn't seem to be germane, one, 4 to what you're doing tonight. But that's not been my 5 experience and we've opened the Castle Green Condominium 6 for, I think, 12 years now. And we actually owned the 7 previous one and lived there for five years. And, um, you 8 know, it -- I don't think there's that impact. 9 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Mr. Gee, go ahead. 11 And then following Mr. Gee, David Boris. 12 STEPHEN GEE: Thank you. 13 My name is Stephen Gee. I wrote a book, 14 "Iconic Vision," John Parkinson, architect of Los 15 Angeles. I also wrote and directed, PBS documentary by 16 the same title, "The Ed Nationwide." In reviewing that 17 film, the architectural record said that John Parkinson 18 was one of the great overlooked architects of the 20th 19 century. Um, certainly, no other architect designed 20 more iconic structures in Southern California than John 21 Parkinson. 22 And when we look at this residence, what 23 we're really looking at is an extremely, rare example of 24 his residential architecture. It represents, in many 25 ways, the sum total of these architectural experiences Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 58 1 up until this period. It blends architectural styles. 2 And perhaps more than any other structure that exist, it 3 represents John Parkinson's personal taste, his personal 4 style. And perhaps even more than that. We have to 5 remember, it was in this house, while living in this 6 house, that John Parkinson designed Union Station. It 7 was while living in this house, that John Parkinson 8 designed Los Angeles City hall, Bullocks Wilshire, many 9 of the most iconic structures in the University of 10 Southern California. 11 I believe that this property, reaches that 12 lofty stound of where you have to say as a society, as a 13 community, if we're not going to protect this, what are 14 we actually going to protect. It's worth remembering, 15 that we're in a building today, designed by Donald 16 Parkinson. We didn't even need to leave the building to 17 understand the significance of the Parkinson legacy to 18 Santa Monica and Los Angeles. 19 Make no mistake today, John Parkinson is 20 not just an important architect. In many ways, he is 21 the most important architect in the history of Southern 22 California and his residence deserves every single level 23 of protection that you can give it without any delay. 24 Thank you. 25 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 59 1 (Audience demonstrated an applause.) 2 3 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Please. Applause is not 4 permitted. If you wish to express approval, you may do 5 that. Thank you. 6 Mr. Boris. 7 DAVID BORIS: Well, thank you, Commissioners. 8 Um, I guess this is an emotional time for 9 everybody. I'm David Boris, I'm the chief financial 10 officer for the Alphson companies. And, um, I just want 11 to say that you're affecting her because she has a state 12 taxes that she has to pay. So, the diminution of value 13 of that house is going to affect, um, the amount of 14 money that she can pay her estate taxes. So, please 15 take that in consideration. 16 Um, I been listening to all the testimony 17 and everybody saying things and I'm looking at John 18 Parkinson up there. And I don't think we're dishonoring 19 John Parkinson at all. He's, as Ruth-Anne said, he's 20 got 50 building, USC, Bullocks Wilshire, the Coliseum, 21 that people can go see, that, um, are examples of his 22 architecture. 23 The house that the Alphson's live in, um, 24 they've lived in longer than John Parkinson. They been 25 living in that house 55 years now, much longer than the Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 60 1 Parkinson family. It belongs to them to do with what 2 they want to do with it. By making it a landmark 3 designation, the appraisers have indicated that there 4 will be a $4 million reduction in value. Mr. Salazar is 5 saying something different, but he's not an appraiser, 6 so we're going by what the appraisers have to say. 7 Um, and practically speaking, I don't know 8 how the public is going to see this house. You know, 9 it's on a private -- almost simi-private cul-de-sac. 10 Um, maybe we can get a double decker bus to go down 11 there and look at the house because you can't see it 12 from -- some of you who visited the house, you can't see 13 it from the street. 14 So, I just don't understand why all of 15 this angst, to take this house away from the Alphson 16 family, there's plenty, as Ruth-Anne quoted in the "L.A. 17 Times:" Future citizens have only to walk through the 18 streets of L.A. to be reminded of how much John 19 Parkinson, in his lifetime, contributed to this city. 20 Not walked through the streets of Santa Monica or 21 Woodacres. It's walk through the streets of L.A. Go to 22 the Coliseum. Go to Bullocks Wilshire, go to Union 23 Station, go to the campus at USC and see what he's done. 24 Don't drive in a double decker bus down the street where 25 you can't see the house that he lived in. Let the Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 61 1 Allisons do with what they wanted to do with the house 2 and not take it away from them. 3 Thank you. 4 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: You have a question? Please. 5 We have a question, hold a moment. 6 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Mr. Boris. Are you an 7 appraiser? 8 DAVID BORIS: I am not. 9 COMMISSIONER SHARI: But you referred to some 10 appraisers? 11 DAVID BORIS: Yes. We got -- Mr. Diamond gave the 12 City Attorney the appraisal. 13 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Well, I deal a lot with 14 appraisals as a real estate agent and I was wondering how 15 you know how the appraiser came up with the calculation that 16 you house would be worth $4 million less if it were to be 17 designated. 18 DAVID BORIS: I do not know. 19 COMMISSIONER SHARI: You have no idea? 20 DAVID BORIS: No. 21 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Do you trust this appraiser? 22 DAVID BORIS: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Has he done other work for you? 24 DAVID BORIS: He was accredited with doing landmark 25 appraisals for Santa Monica, so that's why he was chosen. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 62 1 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Thank you. 2 DAVID BORIS: You're welcome. 3 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Any other questions of 4 Mr. Boris? 5 Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Boris. 6 DAVID BORIS: You're welcome. 7 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: All right. Now the Applicant 8 has five -- three minutes to rebut and then the applicant. 9 And then the Alphson. 10 CITY ATTORNEY: Actually, under your rules of order, 11 the Alphson's rebuttal goes before the Applicant's rebuttal. 12 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. Thank you. 13 CITY ATTORNEY: And you agreed to five minutes for 14 each. 15 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. Very good. I'm sorry. 16 The Alphson has five minutes which we 17 agreed to before. Thank you for correcting me. 18 MR. DIAMOND: The issue was not whether a house such 19 as this house should be, um, destroyed, the question is the 20 impact of the City making a decision. Who should bear the 21 cost of the impact, whatever that is. If there is no 22 impact, then there is no danger. But the City has to take 23 responsibility if it's a benefit of the City to landmark the 24 property. You can't have it both ways. That's what the 25 purpose of the "Taking's Clause" is in the Constitution. If Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 63 1 the government is going to do something, it takes away 2 someone else's property, they should pay for it. Not more 3 or less, but the price. And there are ways to determine 4 that price. 5 The affect of the action of this 6 Commission and maybe of the City council may not be felt 7 for a while. But we feed to file actions too soon, 8 rather than too late. In order to be able to present 9 the issue to an appellant court. So, we're confident 10 that on the legal issues, we are in good stead. 11 Incidentally, before I forget, I want to 12 make sure that we still have the continuance because 13 more than ever, we need it to deal with them -- I think 14 it was Mr. Jacobsen, the neighbor, who claims that there 15 was no plan to get the Conservancy, to file an 16 application and waive the fee of $8- or $900. And then 17 they joined in the application, because he wants the 18 property conserved. I believe that the record will show 19 what it is. That the family hired a very prominent, 20 very big law firm called Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, to 21 prepare a report on the nature of the landmarking. I 22 believe that is in the City's file in this matter. I 23 don't know -- I don't take custody of the City's file, 24 but I think somewhere in the file, you will find the 25 report that was commissioned by the Gibson Dunn & Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 64 1 Crutcher firm on behalf of the family. 2 It seems to us, unless we're unnecessarily 3 or unduly paranoid, that this was a scheme to allow the 4 family that wanted the property landmarked, to ride the 5 coattails of the Conservancy. The Conservancy has a 6 special relationship with the City where it gets its 7 application fees waived. So, we need to look into that 8 and explore that because it couldn't be a coincidence 9 that all this came about at the same time. I now that 10 Ruth-Anne merit should be here, if she's in the 11 audience, there she is, somebody identifying herself as 12 Ruth-Anne Lerrer came to my office, on behalf of the 13 Conservancy to discuss this case and she was joined by a 14 partner in the firm of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher. The two 15 of them came to my office. 16 Isn't that right? 17 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Mr. Diamond, your conversation 18 can only be -- you can't address anyone in the audience. 19 MR. DIAMOND: I'm sorry. 20 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: So, please continue. 21 MR. DIAMOND: Sure. Why don't you recall Ruth-Anne 22 Lerrer and ask her who was the person that was with her when 23 she came to my office. I actually thought the lawyer was 24 representing the Conservancy, when it turned out, much to my 25 shock and surprise, that the lawyer wasn't appearing with Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 65 1 Ruth-Anne on behalf of the Conservancy, but was appearing in 2 my office, apparently for a different client. So, this has 3 to be clarified, because it looks real suspicious. 4 Do you have any questions or comments? 5 But I would like to reiterate, we do need 6 the continuance. We've had these new developments here. 7 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: We will discuss the continuance 8 seriously at the end of the rebuttal. 9 MR. DIAMOND: Sure. Thank you very many. Excuse me. 10 One last point. 11 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Yes. 12 MR. DIAMOND: This question of not being able to see 13 the property, is a big issue. I don't -- you have no 14 criteria in your ordinance for assessing whether or not it 15 matters that the subject of the landmarking cannot be seen. 16 Now, this particular case, if you take your life in your 17 hands and walk into the middle of the street or walked to 18 the opposite sidewalk, from that distance, you might be able 19 to see the second floor. But you don't see the basic house. 20 And, so, why would you do this to a lady such as Marsha 21 Alphson, ruin in her life, destroy her financially so that 22 somebody what? Cannot even see the very house that's being 23 protected. It doesn't make any sense. And you've been told 24 apparently by staff and by the city attorney that you can't 25 even consider that. You can't even say, well, we think Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 66 1 there are a couple of criteria that have been met. But on 2 the other hand, we don't think it will be fruitful to apply 3 the landmarking law to this particular case. And we have 4 the flexibility to do that. I cannot believe that a 5 governmental agency can't take that into consideration. So, 6 I'm at a loss to know what to say, because you have your own 7 lawyer advising you. 8 THE COURT: We have a question for you. 9 Commissioner -- I'm sorry, First Chair Pro 10 Tem Rosenbaum. 11 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Yeah. In your request for a 12 continuance, you spoke of a couple -- well, you kind of 13 characterize as witnesses, who were not going to be 14 available tonight because they were out of town. But did 15 want to present. 16 Will they be speaking to, if we were to 17 continue this matter, would they be speaking to the 18 criteria in which we were supposed to assess this 19 property under? 20 MR. DIAMOND: I don't know. I went to the meeting. 21 The Lock Home had a Home Alphson's Meeting with a few 22 officers from the Santa Monica Police Department. I 23 attended that home Alphson's meeting and met with Ms. Lock, 24 who told me she would appear. I didn't get a chance to 25 speak in depth, because the meeting was taking up also that Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 67 1 the police officers who were ironically there to try to help 2 the home Alphsons deal with crime, which brings me to the 3 subject of what are you going to do with the tour bus. 4 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: I think you answered -- that 5 wasn't my question about tour buses, this is landmarks -- 6 okay. That's another matter. 7 Okay. So, you're saying that we needed to 8 continue this hearing in part, for additional people to 9 come to testify, but you don't know what they're going 10 to testify about? Is that what you're saying. 11 MR. DIAMOND: No. Not exactly. Everything is 12 nuance. Ms. Lock said that she was there to support 13 Ms. Offsen (phonetic) and her husband was also there. I 14 think he was a movie director or something. And, so, they 15 wanted to come. That's what I was told. They wanted to be 16 here. They did send a letter. I think you have a letter 17 from Ms. Lock in your file. So, they are interested. 18 This is not something that I just made up, 19 something out of the blue, they are interested in their 20 own neighborhood. They are interested in people taking 21 buses through the area and looking around and destroying 22 the neighborhood. They are concerned about that. 23 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Thank you. 24 MR. DIAMOND: But I'm not sure if you can consider 25 that. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 68 1 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Are you finished with your 2 questions? 3 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Yes. 4 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commission Breisch. 5 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: I have a similar question. If 6 you are asking for a continuance, do you or do you know of 7 anybody who is going to directly supply more information 8 related to the six criteria for listing this property as a 9 city landmarker. 10 MR. DIAMOND: I don't know. 11 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: And the people you're talking 12 about, who you think may come to testify, have they asked 13 for a continuance so that they may testify? 14 MR. DIAMOND: I have not spoken directly to them. 15 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: But they haven't asked us for 16 a continuance, so we have nothing from them asking for a 17 continuance. You're telling us that you think they would 18 like to speak and that's why you're asking for a 19 continuance. Is that the way I understand this? 20 MR. DIAMOND: I get surprised every so often. I sent 21 letters and e-mail out to all the neighbors, trying to 22 organize the situation to see whether or not they're in 23 support for Marsha Alphson. And I was led to believe -- I 24 even met in person with Ms. Lock and she told me in person, 25 but this was a couple months ago, that she was all on the Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 69 1 side of Ms. Alphson and would support her in any testimony 2 that comes here. 3 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: All we can consider is this 4 criteria and whether or not it property meets any of those 5 six criteria. 6 MR. DIAMOND: I disagree. 7 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: Everything -- well, it's our 8 purview, it's the city ordinance, we are not the city. We 9 are commissioned and we are empowered to look at whether or 10 not this property meets these six criteria. 11 MR. DIAMOND: You're empowered to do more. 12 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: Excuse me. If in fact you are 13 telling us you needed a continuance, so that you can supply 14 more information that relates directly to what is our 15 purview, then, you know, I personally might consider a 16 continuance. If you're asking for a continuance because you 17 want to talk about the economic situations or the American 18 Constitution or the legality of the City ordinance, that's 19 not our purview at all. Go to the City council. Go to 20 court. But we would not consider anymore information having 21 to do with property values, et cetera, et cetera. At least 22 I wouldn't. I don't want to speak for the other 23 commissioners, excuse me. But I wouldn't consider that the 24 basis for a continuance because we would be getting no new 25 information that bears upon what our purview is sitting here Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 70 1 behind the desk. 2 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Sir, I do know that the -- 3 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Excuse me. Nobody may speak 4 from the audience. 5 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: So, my question is, are you 6 prepared to address the six criteria which you've evaded all 7 evening? 8 MR. DIAMOND: I'll try to address them now. 9 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: No. You'll try -- thank you. 10 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Would you like to respond to 11 that, Mr. Diamond? 12 MR. DIAMOND: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Go ahead, please. 14 MR. DIAMOND: We would like you to clarify your 15 position as to whether you are saying that you will not 16 consider the impact on the property Alphson of the 17 landmarking decision? Is that your position? 18 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: I'm sorry. At this point, you 19 need to answer that question. 20 MR. DIAMOND: Well, it's a rhetorical question. It's 21 a rhetorical question. 22 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Very good. Thank you. Thank 23 you. 24 I guess we'll move on. Thank you for your 25 rebuttal. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 71 1 MR. DIAMOND: Thank you very much. 2 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Now we move on to -- wait. We 3 do have a question from Commissioner Genser. 4 COMMISSIONER GENSER: There's a couple reasons that 5 you're asking for a continuance. One was the couple of 6 other individuals and the other one was inability to have 7 enough time for the staff -- to review the staff report 8 which came out Thursday. Do you still believe that you had 9 no opportunity to respond to the staff report because you 10 have not done so thus far and also your letter doesn't 11 address that more lengthy level? 12 MR. DIAMOND: We don't have to -- we would have 13 needed more time. If your staff will corroborate that I 14 kept coming down here every day and nudging them and and 15 pushing them for the reports so I can deal with it. And I 16 kept walking over from my office from across the street, 17 searching for the staff report. And finally it came out on 18 Thursday, April 3, which is not much time. 19 MR. GENSER: That's when we seen it also. 20 MR. DIAMOND: Well, I don't know why they were 21 holding back because they had a long time. But the problem 22 with the staff report is it doesn't deal with these issues. 23 And I realize that, um, some or more of you -- 24 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: You'll be able -- if we continue 25 this, you'll be able to speak further. But at this point, Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 72 1 you've answered his questions. So, thank you. 2 MR. DIAMOND: And thank you. 3 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: And now we have, um, the 4 Applicant rebuttal. Is this Amy Forbes. 5 AMY FORBES: I am. 6 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Thank you. 7 AMY FORBES: I am Amy Forbes, as Mr. Diamond has 8 indicated. I a partner with Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, I'm the 9 co-chair of Land Use practice, I'm a long time preservation 10 advocate. Ruth-Anne and I have had the pleasure of working 11 on preservation issues for more than 30 years. 12 I just want to say, I think the 13 commissioners have correctly come to the conclusion that 14 there is no evidence that this -- this wonderful house 15 does not meet the criteria. That is it clearly meets 16 the criteria, it meets five criteria. And so I think 17 what's happening is, we're `hearing a lot of procedural 18 arguments and other arguments that (inaudible) from that 19 major point. And I have provided some indication 20 because there is so much, um, so many allegations 21 floating around, I'm trying to tease them out. But I 22 think one of the critical ones is, I was hired by Craig 23 Jacobson. Because when he received an e-mail on 24 October 12th from Mr. Diamond, he and his wife became 25 alarmed. And he contacted the Conservancy to find out Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 73 1 what was going on. The application for landmark status 2 had already been filed a month previously. 3 So, Mr. Jacobsen had nothing to do with 4 the filing of the application. So, the allegation that 5 somehow there should have been an $800 of fees paid and 6 they weren't, is simply just not rounded in fact and I 7 just included, because I wanted to make sure it gets 8 into the administrative record, the adopted fees that 9 the City has adopted, specifically say that the 10 applications filed by 501C3 for landmark status, do not 11 pay fees. 12 So, case that he cited in his letter to, 13 you is just not am (inaudible). The City clearly has 14 said nonprofits don't have to pay these fees, the 15 application was filed by a nonprofit. And the only 16 reason Mr. Jacobson got activated was because 17 Mr. Diamond contacted everybody on Woodacres saying your 18 house is going to be landmarked next and you should 19 come. And I provided that e-mail to the commissioners, 20 so they can unpack that trail. 21 When Mr. Jacobson came to me, the concern 22 is, that he wants the house preserved. As do many 23 people through most of the testimony that you heard 24 today. He's not trying to buy the property, he has no 25 nefarious purpose, he really is a civic minded person Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 74 1 who cares about this property and has lived next door to 2 it for a long time. 3 I think in terms of what some of the 4 arguments that you heard that try to obfuscate from the 5 basic truth that this is one of the most historic 6 properties in Santa Monica, is that I heard the 7 testimony that it's likely eligible for the National 8 Register as well. That this is a treasure, it should be 9 preserved. 10 The economic impact, which we can all 11 debate, but an appraisal dumped on commission at the 12 very last minute, that nobody has had the chance to 13 review, really can't support that. There's no 14 indication that the appraisal took into account 15 potential incentives or benefits or mil-saps or 16 easements or anything that would offset the potential 17 diminution. There's no evidence that there will be a 18 diminution in value. In fact, we provided in a letter 19 in April, we just did a cursory search of landmarked 20 properties in Santa Monica. And just to pick just one 21 or two out of our letter, 147 Georgina, was designated 22 on April 13th 2003. Subsequently, it had originally 23 sold for $2,950,000 and it subsequently told for 24 $5,425,000. So, the property values go up. There's 25 no -- there's no diminution value it Adelaide. It Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 75 1 actually went up significantly. And we provided a 2 string of other samples, in Santa Monica of single 3 family houses. 4 But as was correctly determined, that is 5 not relevant to the test of whether it's a landmark. 6 But I think it does help take away this idea that 7 somehow Ms. Alphson is being singled out, that this is 8 going to destroy $4 million in value. There's just no 9 evidence of actual facts that that is the case. 10 The other point I wanted to point out is 11 that it is not visible from the street. So, again, we 12 provided some pictures of other landmarks in the city. 13 And that's not the test. And, eventually, houses, 14 whether they're visible or not, it is a contract of 15 stewardship and that these landmarks should be, um, 16 preserved. 17 And that brings me to my last point, which 18 is the reason why the Santa Monica -- the Santa Monica 19 Conservancy got involved in the first place, was because 20 Mr. Gee had been monitoring the property, was very 21 concerned about it. That's why Ms. Ruth-Anne went to 22 knock on the door to find out about it. And what really 23 propelled the application forward, was that in July of 24 2018, she was contacted by an accountant who was asking 25 her what were the regulations on landmarking and how Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 76 1 much did the Conservancy think the value would go down 2 if the property was landmarked because they were doing 3 appraisals and were concerned that it might be 4 landmarked and that they wanted to sale the property. 5 That is the action that propelled the filing of the 6 application that brought us here tonight. 7 So, with that, the rebuttal really is, 8 there's nothing in the record that would suggest that 9 this landmark is anything other than a landmark. And 10 that the procedural arguments that have been raised, 11 that somehow the fees weren't paid and people are trying 12 to take the property and suspicious that someone would 13 hire a lawyer, are nothing more than obstigation (SIC) 14 from that basic truth. 15 I'm a past president of the Los Angeles 16 Conservancy, I care on a personal and professional level 17 about landmarking as far as structure and Mr. Jacobson 18 and his wife Lynn have nothing but the most honest and 19 true of civic motives. And that's why they are here and 20 that's why I'm here. And we urge the commission to 21 follow the recommendations of three historic reports and 22 your own staff. 23 Thank you so much. 24 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Are there questions? 25 AMY FORBES: Thank you. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 77 1 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: You may take your seat. Thank 2 you. 3 Okay. Now, it is time for our discussion. 4 Commission -- Commissioner Brands. 5 COMMISSIONER BRAND: I have a question for staff. I 6 unfortunately wasn't able to visit the site with the 7 attorneys, so I don't know what the site looks like from the 8 public way. But from my understanding, it's obstructed, you 9 can't really view the entire site. A lot of our other 10 landmarking projects that we viewed, were specifically from 11 the public way. And we determined, a lot of those sites 12 were landmark status because you can see it riding by, 13 walking by, et cetera. So, what makes this site different 14 with we cannot see it from the public way? 15 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: So, based on landmark 16 ordinant's criteria, if everything falls under the findings 17 of these six findings that we have for criteria. So, 18 whether or not it's not visible from the street, is not 19 something that is a part of any of those findings. 20 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner -- Chair Pro Tem 21 Rosenbaum. 22 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: I just -- just to clarify 23 again. So, you stated earlier that, um, the economic 24 impact, if any, that they landmarking the property, might 25 have, is not relevant to our review tonight. But does that Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 78 1 mean that there's no role for assessment of economic impact 2 under the landmark fault? 3 CITY ATTORNEY: Um, so, the landmark saw you, as you 4 all may be aware, does have procedure. Um, so, I think 5 there's two things. So, the first, this assessment before 6 you tonight, does not involve economic impact, it involves 7 whether or not the property meets the criteria. There is a 8 process called the certificate of economic hardship, which 9 comes into play, if a property Alphson wishes to request 10 demolish the property. And then, there is an assessment at 11 that point. I mean, it's actually even an alteration that a 12 large enough alteration that it results in city impacted for 13 demolition. But in that way, then, the commission or the 14 City Counsel on appeal may consider economic impact to the 15 property Alphson in determining whether or not those, um, 16 alterations can be reviewed. 17 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: And then the property owner 18 has raised, or her representative has raised, a number of 19 Constitutional and legal challenges. In fact, that seems to 20 be the bulk of their presentation. Any of that have any 21 relevance to us in terms of making an assessment? 22 CITY ATTORNEY: No. 23 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Are there other Commissioners 24 who wish to weigh in? Commissioner Breisch? 25 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: Well, I would just make it Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 79 1 fairly simple. I would accept the recommendation of the 2 staff and the three, um, consultants who looked at this 3 property. It definitely in my mind meet all the the five 4 criteria that it's being presented for. And, um, I guess I 5 would even make a motion that we accept the staff report and 6 move forward to consider this as a landmark. 7 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Is there a second? Chair Pro 8 Tem Rosenbaum. 9 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: If I may. 10 Just distributed to the Commission was a 11 letter, an additional correspondence letter that was 12 submitted to the City. I just wanted to make you aware 13 of that correspondence as you deliberate. 14 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commission Rosenbaum. 15 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: And copies are available in 16 the back as well. 17 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: I as well -- did we have 18 this letter already? 19 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: Yeah. 20 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: No. We do not. So -- so, um -- 21 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: I think maybe I want to take 22 a quick look at the letter, but I think maybe for -- I'm not 23 prepared to second this motion, although I might support it 24 later. I think we should talk about the continuance, see if 25 there is a continuance before we act on the motion. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 80 1 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. We could have a motion 2 and still continue the discussion and then decide to do 3 whatever we decide. So, um, but if there is no second, 4 we'll move ahead. 5 Commissioner Brand. 6 COMMISSIONER BRAND: I'm sorry. I can't. This has 7 been kind of a mess the entire process. I cannot support 8 moving forward as a landmark project and vote -- and 9 recommend we move forward with a continuance. 10 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Mr. Mizokami. 11 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: I just wanted to clarify 12 that this is a letter that was submitted by property Alphson 13 with the address 846 Woodacres Road. This is Karen Lock, 14 that, submitted this letter. So, I just wanted to clarify 15 that this was an inadvertent omission to the record. 16 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner Rosenbaum, are you 17 still wanting to speak or did I just -- 18 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: No. I think wanted to hear 19 what additional commissioners have to say about the 20 continuance. I'm torn about it. It's been my experience 21 that it's typical practice when an Alphson has a property 22 that is being considered for landmark status, request a 23 continuance, that the commission will grant that 24 continuance, typically, unless there is going to be harmful 25 impact to the property and I'm not making a suggestion Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 81 1 that's going to be the case. 2 Although, um, this -- I believe the matter 3 was already continued one time from the February 4 meeting. So, there was in fact one continuance and, um, 5 I have to say that the Alphson's representative is 6 arguing, is in fact, trying to convince me not to 7 continue this matter because, um, I'm not sure I see the 8 basis for that. And more particularly, I don't think 9 the reason for the continuance would further our 10 assessment of the issue that is before us, which is 11 whether this property meets the criteria. I understand 12 that the property Alphson's representative have lots of 13 legal challenges that he's just ready to make and I'm 14 quite convinced, I'm seeing the court reporter in the 15 building. But that doesn't have any bearing on our 16 determination. In fact, I don't think we can consider 17 those legal challenges as what Counsel is telling us and 18 our role as landmark commissioners is to look at the 19 ordinance in front of us and apply it. That's all we 20 can do. Counsel may be able to look at it more broadly 21 and certainly a court may too. 22 So, I would like to hear what other 23 commissioners would like to say. I'm actually voting 24 against it. 25 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner Breisch. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 82 1 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: Well, I specially asked the 2 Alphson's representative if they would b able to present 3 more information that has bearing on what specifically we 4 have to consider, which are the criteria as to whether or 5 not this is a historic property. He evaded that question. 6 He said, well, maybe, but he wasn't sure. He wants to 7 continuance as well, so that perhaps some neighbors can come 8 to speak. But we haven't heard from them. They haven't 9 asked for a continuance. He wasn't even sure if they were 10 going to appear before us. 11 So,to prolong this, based upon everything 12 that we heard from the representative of the Alphson, 13 which to my understanding, has nothing to do with what 14 we're up here to consider. I just don't see why we want 15 to prolong this. I heard nothing that makes me think 16 that some new evidence is going to be presented that's 17 going to convince me that this is not an extremely 18 historic property. Which is what we're here to 19 consider. 20 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner Genser. 21 COMMISSIONER GENSER: Well, I have to say that I was 22 somewhat leaning towards the continuance. However several 23 points have been made by my fellow commissioners. But, 24 also, I'm thinking back, the attorney for the property owner 25 said, I'm not going to deal with all those -- I'm kind of Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 83 1 paraphrasing. Those criteria we're talking about is 2 procedural issues. And I think it's been reiterated by many 3 people, that that is not what we're suppose to be doing. 4 That's not a procedural issue, in terms of legal procedural 5 issues. Our determination is based on the ordinance, which 6 is based on the six criteria, out of which the staff and two 7 consultants suppose to say, it meets five of them. And, so, 8 if the attorney is not going to address those concerns, um, 9 I'm more leaning now against continuing. 10 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commission Rosenbaum. 11 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Yeah. I would add, I think 12 it was already stated, I'll mention it again. And one of 13 the reasons that he was -- the representative -- the 14 Alphson's attorney was asking for a continuance was so that 15 so Karen Lock can attend and testify. We now have a letter 16 from her. Yeah, opposing -- opposing the landmarking of 17 this property, but it would not be the case that we would 18 not have heard from Ms. Lock this evening. We're hearing 19 from her very clearly in the letter that she wrote on 20 March 30. 21 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. Where are we? Yes. 22 Okay. Um, have we had enough discussion that we can let the 23 motion be made again and we get a second? 24 Yes, Commissioner Genser. 25 COMMISSIONER GENSER: Did you make a motion to Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 84 1 continue -- there's no motion on the floor -- 2 COMMISSIONER BRAND: No. It was a motion for 3 landmarking. 4 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: And for continuance. 5 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Um, Commissioner Rosenbaum. 6 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Yes. I'm going to second 7 the motion to landmark this property. So, I believe that 8 there is under the evidence, overwhelming evidence to 9 support designation. It has been set forth in the staff 10 report, set forth in staff oral presentation, set forth in 11 the Oster Shea & Associates (phonetics) reports, the ARG 12 report, the Applicant's submissions and the public testimony 13 that we heard tonight. So, I think the record in this case 14 for landmark is compelling. 15 Um, just -- and, so, just a few of the 16 basis, it's one of the few residences from the earliest 17 phrase of residential development in this portion of the 18 City, the consultant's report says that it retains all 19 aspects of integrity from the period of significance, it 20 is an excellent example of its type, design and style. 21 And I don't think we ever had an architect of this 22 caliber, where people were reviewing any property in the 23 City, let alone a residence that he designed and 24 occupied while he was still extraordinarily active in 25 his career. And as the staff report said and in the Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 85 1 testimony, reaffirm the residence is a classic 2 quintessential Parkinson design residence. And it's the 3 only known single family residence of its time that was 4 designed, built and lived in by Parkinson within the 5 city and may be within the region. So, it's -- yeah, 6 the evidence is overwhelming. The evidence is -- I'm in 7 support of the motion. 8 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner Breisch. 9 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: I just very quickly add, we 10 heard no public testimony that's refused any of the evidence 11 we have before us, as to the historic significance of this 12 property. 13 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commission Shari. 14 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Well, there's no question, but 15 that this property qualifies for designations and landmark. 16 It's abundantly clear in the sources and the reports have 17 been referenced by fellow commissioners. I won't repeat 18 that. I think the only reason we're struggling is that we 19 really like to spread goodwill. And it's unfortunate that 20 even though I believe the Alphson has been sought for 21 conversation and any educational purposes of why a landmark 22 can benefit her, there hasn't been the inclination to see 23 how landmarking a property could in fact be a benefit. 24 So, here we are, um, having to do a job, 25 having every possible evidence to go ahead with the Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 86 1 nomination or end the designation and we're just 2 struggling because of that. One component, which in a 3 perfect world we really like to have, we would like to 4 have the Alphson behind this, but we don't. So, we have 5 to go ahead and do our work anyway. And I will be 6 supporting this designation, along with my majority of 7 my commissioners at any rate. 8 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commissioner Brand and then I 9 will weigh in. 10 COMMISSIONER BRAND: Yes. It's obviously an 11 incredible building done with one of the best architects in 12 Southern California. There's no question about that. But I 13 too, like Commissioner Shari, very disturbed about how this 14 process was done and how, um, vehemently opposed the Alphson 15 is to this process. It's sad that there wasn't an education 16 done or communication was handled more properly with the 17 Alphson. I think I've been on the record before, on many 18 other projects of not supporting something that the Alphson 19 has not bought in to or agreed to. And, so, given the six 20 criteria we're suppose to evaluate, that's one thing we have 21 to consider. And I would support landmarking in that case. 22 But I'm very sad that the Alphson of the property is not 23 endorsing this. 24 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. Now, I haven't spoken at 25 all. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 87 1 I agree that the property is without 2 question landmark-able. Without question. But I also 3 think that granting a continuance is just asking for 4 time. If you believe that it really is landmark-able, 5 it will be landmarked eventually. But at least we allow 6 the last possible mercy, if you want to put it for the 7 continuance. Because there was confusion about it. And 8 although we -- it's not our place to question the 9 motives of people. It is something that as been pointed 10 out, it's generally granted. 11 So, I would err the side of granting it, 12 because sooner or later, whatever it is that is our job, 13 we will do it. It's only time. So, I would urge 14 reconsideration of the continuance. 15 COMMISSIONER SHARI: So, we need to vote. What's on 16 the floor? 17 COMMISSIONER GENSER: Or make a substantive motion. 18 CITY ATTORNEY: Are you going -- 19 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Are you going to make a 20 substantive motion? 21 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: I would be interested in hearing 22 other people's feedback to that first before I do that. I'd 23 like some feedback and if I don't get it, I'll make a 24 substantive motion. 25 Commissioner Rosenbaum. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 88 1 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: This is really a question 2 for legal staff. I think I've spoken too. I'm not inclined 3 to support a continuance in the matter. Unless, in light of 4 the fact that this is headed -- appears to be headed towards 5 litigation that we may be somehow detrimentally impacting 6 that potential litigation by not continuing this matter, if 7 there is a potential risk, then I'll support it. I would 8 love to move forward. 9 CITY ATTORNEY: That's an excellent question. It's 10 always difficult to know what a court will do or a court 11 will view how these proceedings unfolded. Certainly, the 12 Court will weight, you know, whether or not they felt that 13 the commission or that the property Alphson received a fair 14 hearing and whether or not the -- all of the -- the 15 commission weighed the evidence before it and gave the 16 property Alphson ample time to present whatever evidence the 17 property owner felt was the appropriate. And whether or not 18 the commission weighed that evidence appropriately. 19 Certainly, more process is never 20 detrimental to the City's cause, but, um, given the 21 evidence and the indications you've received from the 22 property Alphson, it may be reasonable to move forward. 23 But, again, certainly more process and more time is not 24 going to be detrimental to the city. Most likely. 25 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: I will make a substantive motion Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 89 1 that we allow the continuance and then we can go ahead and 2 then make our decision. 3 Commissioner Brand. 4 COMMISSIONER BRAND: I'll second that motion. 5 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Discussion. First, does it -- 6 now, I have a process question. Does the person of the 7 original motion need to consider accepting it or what? 8 CITY ATTORNEY: No. Substitute motions simply just 9 gets voted on first. 10 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: It is? 11 CITY ATTORNEY: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. So, is there any 13 discussion on that before we vote on it? Were you trying -- 14 um, let's see. Commissioner Shari. 15 COMMISSIONER SHARI: Well, um, in the spirit of 16 allowing the Alphson to be able to make the case, that this 17 is not a landmark-able property or worthy of landmarking, I 18 would indeed support additional time and research and 19 whatever is needed to the Applicant -- to the Alphson and 20 the continuance to be justified. But that is in fact the 21 expectation. And that would actually would have been the 22 case for the opposition. 23 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Thank you. Commissioner again 24 son. 25 COMMISSIONER GENSER: I would support the motion, Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 90 1 because I wanted to give as much opportunity to the property 2 Alphson as possible. I agree with the City attorney, um, 3 more is not less, I guess is what you're saying. However, 4 there is a procedural question I had earlier, which is then, 5 um, and I'm making this sort of a proviso in my head, that 6 the evidence presented in a subsequent hearing is not going 7 to be about procedure, the evidence is going to be about the 8 six criteria. And, so, that's what I'm voting for. And 9 then the public has the right to respond to any of the new 10 information that we see when the commission have a 11 substantive hearing. I think we come back in 30 days, next 12 meeting if possible. 13 CITY ATTORNEY: Also, if I may add. That all of you, 14 would be, of course, keeping an open mind with respect to 15 any evidence that would be proposed and presented to you at 16 the next meeting. 17 COMMISSIONER GENSER: Yes. 18 Now, staff just shook her head saying, no. 19 Not next month potentially. 20 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: For general management 21 purposes. 22 COMMISSIONER GENSER: We should consider that. 23 CITY ATTORNEY: This should come before you in June 24 and the ordinance gives us 65 days to bring it back to you. 25 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Okay. Thank you. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 91 1 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commission Shari, did you want 2 to speak. 3 COMMISSIONER SHARI: No. 4 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: No. Okay. Commissioner 5 Breisch. 6 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: Yes. I have a question for 7 the city attorney. If there is new evidence brought forth 8 and we have to reopen the public hearing, but that new 9 evidence would have to be -- I would think, um, focused 10 specially on the six criteria, that more procedural 11 arguments would not be new evidence in terms of what we're 12 here to consider. 13 CITY ATTORNEY: Right. So, we would have to take a 14 look at what evidence gets presented prior to the hearing. 15 But, I guess, generally, it would be evidence that speaks to 16 your decision and your decision has to do with the criteria. 17 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: As to whether or not this is a 18 historic property. 19 CITY ATTORNEY: Yes. 20 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Commission Rosenbaum. 21 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Yes. As I stated before, I 22 was very reluctant to consider a continuance; however, based 23 on advise from city attorney and the caveat that 24 commissioner Genser recommended, i can be supportive of 25 that. I'd like the other commissioners -- I'm really not Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 92 1 interested in continuing this matter so that we can hear 2 more procedural arguments from Alphson's representative. I 3 know he probably would like to continue to do that, but it 4 has no impot in this proceeding. And you'll have plenty of 5 opportunity to continue to make those arguments, should you 6 believe it necessary to, um, have this reviewed later. And 7 then maybe you won't find that necessary. 8 So, I agree that I think it should be 9 limited to evidence that looks like the criteria that 10 we're assessing to determine whether or not it should be 11 landmarked. I'm not making a determination tonight, 12 we're going to review everything that is before us in 13 this proceeding and that proceeding before making a 14 determination. But it's not of any utility to go beyond 15 that. 16 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: So, I guess, unless commissioner 17 Genser. 18 COMMISSIONER GENSER: Call for the question. 19 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Oh, I didn't hear you. I'm so 20 sorry. Okay. The question has been called for, can we at 21 least have a vote. 22 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Brand. 23 COMMISSIONER BRAND: Yes. 24 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Breisch. 25 COMMISSIONER BREISCH: No. Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 93 1 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Genser. 2 COMMISSIONER GENSER: Yes. 3 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Shari. 4 COMMISSIONER SHARI: We're voting on continuance? 5 Yes. Yes. 6 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: Chair pro tem Rosenbaum. 7 COMMISSIONER ROSENBAUM: Yes. 8 SENIOR PLANNER MIZOKAMI: And chair Sloan. 9 COMMISSIONER SLOAN: Yes. 10 So, there will be a continuance. And 11 that's our conclusion this evening. And thank you 12 everyone for this process of the democratic system. 13 We're on a break for five minutes. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings Page 1 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings A A's 17:5 able 6:19 40:18 52:6 54:1,6 55:12 63:8 65:12,18 71:24,25 77:6 81:20 82:2 89:16 abundantly 85:16abused28:7accept79:1,5accepting89:7access10:2acclaimed18:11,19 20:15 accomplishments 16:20 18:5 20:9 account 74:14 accountant 75:24 accredited 61:24 acknowledge 53:8 acre 21:2 act 29:5 52:9 79:25 action 44:22,25 63:5 76:5 94:17 actions 63:7activated73:16active53:18 54:13 84:24acts44:22actual75:9AD037A51:24 add 6:23 50:7,10 83:11 85:9 90:13 addition 5:24 9:15 29:25 additional 14:16 18:13 18:23 20:24 45:21 46:2 67:8 79:11 80:19 89:18 additions 9:12 address 25:2,3 31:19 33:15 37:5 39:17,20 64:18 70:6,8 71:11 80:13 83:8addressed36:15Adelaide74:25adjacent24:5administrative 73:8 adopt 54:22 55:5 adopted 73:8,9 advise 37:13 91:23 advised 34:14 advising 66:7 Advocacy 6:4,25 51:14 advocate 72:10 advocates 48:7 affect 59:13 63:5 affiliation 28:18 affirmative 16:1 agency 66:5agenda7:25agent61:14ago6:1 68:25agonizing34:15agree18:16 37:23 42:11 87:1 90:2 92:8 agreed 62:13,17 86:19 agreement 8:18 37:21 52:2 agrees 18:17 ahead 26:14 28:15 32:18 39:6 44:20 51:7 57:1070:13 80:4 85:25 86:589:1 AirBnB 52:3 alarmed 72:25 Albert 17:15 Alexandria 17:9 allegation 73:4 allegations 72:20 allegedly 30:19 Allisons 48:1 61:1 allotted 14:16 allow 14:25 43:10 64:3 87:5 89:1 allowed 14:24 15:2 26:626:10 38:13allowing17:13 89:16Alphson1:4 2:4 4:6 5:197:6,11,13 13:25 14:5,715:1,12 16:14 24:24 25:2,17,18 28:9 37:8 41:2,23 45:8,16,21 52:2,6,20 59:10 60:15 62:9,16 65:21 68:23 69:1 70:16 75:7 78:9 78:15 80:12,21 82:12 85:20 86:4,14,17,18 86:22 88:13,16,22 89:16,19 90:2 Alphson's24:24 35:1 59:23 62:11 66:21,23 81:5,12 82:2 83:1492:2Alphsons 67:2Alstin17:15alteration78:11,12 alterations 9:7,12,15 23:13,18 78:16 amateur 48:20 ambivalent 34:18 Amendment 30:8 American 17:17 48:23 69:17 amount 14:2 15:1 59:13 ample 88:16 Amy4:9 50:22,22 51:1 72:4,5,7,7 76:25 analyzed 21:7Andrew4:5 19:2,3,424:9Angeles 9:24 10:17,2311:2 12:19,25 13:416:10,22,25 17:5,12 17:25 18:3 19:21 20:4 20:5,6,12 21:5 23:7,11 53:17 54:4 55:2 57:15 58:8,18 76:15 angst 34:5 60:15 annex-ed 9:24 answer 24:15 39:2,4,8 70:19 answered 37:17 67:4 72:1 answering 40:6 anybody 26:9 35:18 68:7anymore69:20anyway33:22 36:23 86:5apologize33:20 39:8 apparently 30:18 37:1065:2,24appeal78:14 Appeals 28:23 appear 66:24 82:10 appearing 64:25 65:1 appears 88:4 appellant 63:9 applause 59:1,3 applicant 13:24 14:5,8,9 14:17,24 15:2,12,23 24:18 36:1 41:16 45:16,21 62:7,8 72:4 89:19 Applicant's 62:11 84:12application5:10,11 6:136:18 8:1 29:6 31:649:18,19,22 50:951:23 63:16,17 64:773:1,4,15 75:23 76:6 applications 30:4 73:10 apply 54:6,9 66:2 81:19 appointed 22:11 appointment 6:5 7:1 appraisal 32:16,17,21,24 61:12 74:11,14 appraisals 27:18 61:14 61:25 76:3 appraiser 60:5 61:7,15 61:21 appraisers 60:3,6 61:10 appreciate 16:5 33:1840:23appreciated 33:19approach32:20approached26:1 appropriate 25:7 29:4 41:12 42:9,12 88:17 appropriately 88:18 approval 11:23 59:4 April 1:15 2:18 5:1 71:18 74:19,22 arcade 8:25 arch 22:11 arched 8:24 22:2 arches 22:8 architect 8:9 10:16,23 11:4,13,20 16:10,2217:14,20 20:19,2322:5 23:1 49:5 51:1657:14,19 58:20,2184:21architects 18:12 19:21 20:16 57:18 86:11 architectural 8:19 9:11 10:18,25 11:8 12:22 18:10 19:2,4 20:2,23 22:4 48:22 49:9 50:6 57:17,25 58:1 architecture 30:9 48:21 57:24 59:22 area 9:13,22 10:10,17 20:11 21:5 22:21 23:9 23:11 46:11 67:21 ARG 84:11arguably53:4argue36:25arguing81:6 arguments 72:18,1874:4 76:10 91:11 92:292:5 arrangement 52:8 arrived 20:12 49:18 art 17:16 18:4 articles 20:21 artistic 11:11 asked 13:13,15 27:14 37:9 38:4,5,5 39:10 42:3 51:1 68:12,15 82:1,9 asking 24:22 32:3 34:12 39:5 42:2,5 45:12 68:6 68:16,18 69:16 71:575:24 83:14 87:3aspects23:19 84:19assess36:12 66:18assessing65:14 92:10assessment8:12 19:7 78:1,5,10,21 81:10 associated 5:7 Associates 8:14 84:11 association 22:19,22 23:20 associations 11:13 48:6 assumption 43:20 asymmetrical 9:3 21:25 ATKINSON-BAKER1:19 attend 83:15 attended 66:23 attention 16:7 38:15,20attorney3:12 5:19 7:613:13 14:3 15:17 29:229:20,23 31:19 35:1535:25 37:10,14,14 40:16 43:2 44:6,14,16 44:21 45:25 47:2 49:12 52:20 61:12 62:10,13 65:24 78:3 78:22 82:24 83:8,14 87:18 88:9 89:8,11 90:2,13,23 91:7,13,19 91:23 94:16 attorneys 77:7 audible 15:17 audience 24:19 59:1 64:11,18 70:4August6:5author16:9 18:19authority30:12available3:6 12:1 22:1829:8 43:11 66:14 79:15 aware 16:12 78:4 79:12 B b 4:12 10:16 82:2B&B 52:4baccalaurean 18:19back27:3,14 31:8 33:1441:19 55:21 71:21 79:16 82:24 90:11,24 bar 22:9 barrel 9:4 BARRY 3:10 base 54:20 based 5:10 8:16 10:1 11:21 12:10,24 22:1642:13 48:23 77:1582:11 83:5,6 91:22 bases 28:22 basic 65:19 74:5 76:14 basically 15:8,11 32:23 basis 52:14 69:24 81:8 84:16 bay 20:11 Beach 28:24 bear 62:20 bearing 12:20 13:12 81:15 82:3 bears 69:25 beautiful 49:5 50:2becoming51:23bed26:19bedroom9:14began10:18 16:13beginning17:11 behalf 2:16 39:3 53:17 64:1,12 65:1 believe 22:17 28:2,2,19 29:23 31:5 36:14 37:1 37:4,10 48:10 58:11 63:18,22 66:4 68:23 71:8 81:2 84:7 85:20 87:4 92:6 belongs 60:1 benefit 30:1,3,19 52:25 56:17 62:23 85:22,23 benefits 52:22 74:15Bergstrom17:20best10:19 53:10 86:11better29:7 38:11beyond54:20 92:14big20:19 63:20 65:13 bill 52:11 biographer 21:21 bit 16:19 20:7 43:21 52:1 blend 18:8 blends 58:1 Block 17:6 blue 67:19 boggling 37:12 book 16:9 57:13 books 50:15 Boris 4:7 28:12,15 35:535:8,8,25 36:4 57:1159:6,7,9 61:6,8,11,1861:20,22,24 62:2,4,5,6born20:9bought47:16 55:16 86:19 Boulevard 8:4 19:15 21:6 bound 26:19 Bozarth 18:4 Braly 17:6 Brand 3:9 6:11 41:5,6 77:5 80:5,6 84:2 86:8 86:10 89:3,4 92:22,23 Brands 77:4 break 93:13 Breisch 3:11 7:15 42:1042:11 68:4,5,11,1569:3,7,12 70:5,9 78:2478:25 81:25 82:1 84:4 Page 2 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 85:8,9 90:20 91:5,6,1792:24,25Brief13:22 briefly 7:10 20:10 bring 46:9,12 90:24 brings 55:19 67:2 75:17 broad 30:12 broader 48:15 broadly 81:20 Broadway 17:4 53:20 broken 26:16 brought 76:6 91:7 Brown 51:17 bucolic 24:6 building 5:12 8:15 9:816:13 17:4 49:1 58:1558:16 59:20 81:1586:11building's 9:3buildings11:2 18:3 47:22 54:3,24 55:2 built 17:24 19:18,24 21:1 47:13 48:21 50:2 85:4 bulk 78:20 bullied 25:22 52:17 Bullocks 17:15,25 20:5 58:8 59:20 60:22 bunk 52:16 bus 60:10,24 67:3 buses 67:5,21 busy 52:22 buy 73:24buying50:10buzz26:15buzzer26:15 C C 3:1 17:15,15 C3 54:13 CA 2:17 3:5 5:1calculation61:15caliber84:22California1:14 10:1918:8 20:15 23:4 57:2058:10,22 86:12 94:19 call 26:13,14 92:18 called 17:17 28:23 48:2 48:23 56:8 63:20 78:8 92:20 campus 60:23 canes 22:12 canyon 19:14 20:18 21:6 capitals 22:9 car 34:11 care 21:17 26:23,25 27:17 76:16 career 10:18 17:3 20:223:9 84:25cares74:1Carol50:21,23case1:5 2:5 28:20,2329:24 31:9 37:3,4 44:23 46:9 56:19 64:13 65:16 66:3 73:12 75:9 81:1 83:17 84:13 86:21 89:16,22 casing 22:1 Castle 51:19 57:5 cause 88:20caveat91:23century19:22 57:19 certainly 22:23 42:7 56:16 57:19 81:21 88:11,19,23 certificate 78:8 94:1 Certified 94:4 certify 94:5,15 cetera 69:21,21 77:13 chair 3:10,10 5:18,18 6:21 7:5 12:14 35:3 66:9 77:20 79:7 93:6,8 challenges 78:19 81:13 81:17chance46:5 66:24 74:12change23:14 44:21,24changed27:6character8:19 10:8characteristics21:23 24:4 characterize 66:13 Charles 51:17 chief 59:9 children 47:14 choice 44:20 choose 40:19 chosen 61:25 Cindy 46:23 47:7 circumstances 38:9 cited 73:12 citizens 16:24 60:17city3:12 5:6 9:24,2510:10 11:5,9 12:19,2312:25 13:1,5,13 14:315:17 16:22 17:2,7,8 17:13,14,22,25 20:5 21:4,7 28:24 29:2,4 30:1,3,10,12,16,21,25 31:15,19 35:15,25 36:18,21 37:10,14 40:16 43:2 44:6,14,16 44:21 45:25 47:2 48:13 51:18 53:22 54:7,13,16,24 58:8 60:19 61:12 62:10,13 62:20,22,23 63:6 64:6 65:24 68:9 69:8,8,1869:19 73:9,13 75:1278:3,12,14,22 79:1284:18,23 85:5 87:1888:9,24 89:8,11 90:290:13,23 91:7,13,19 91:23 city's 8:10,13 12:22 17:6 17:8 63:22,23 88:20 civic 10:19 73:25 76:19 civilly 46:17 Claimant 1:5 2:5 3:3 claimed 49:13 claims 63:14 clarified 65:3 clarify 6:24 35:15 70:14 77:22 80:11,14 clarifying 43:14class17:5,9classic8:23 18:4 85:1Clause30:22 62:25 Clay 21:25clear52:19 54:5,14,1685:16 clearly 51:24 72:15 73:13 83:19 client 30:6,25 39:4 65:2 closed 48:19 closure 8:25 co-chair 72:9 coattails 64:5 Code 54:8,11,16,19 coherent 31:18 coincidence 64:8 Coliseum 17:13 18:1 20:5 54:25 59:2060:22collaborators 19:10colleague7:20colonial8:6 9:2 11:1618:8 19:17 21:23 22:25 color 32:4 columns 22:8 combine 35:18 come 14:1 25:5 28:13 31:12 34:14 36:19,21 36:22 41:19,21 42:25 48:7,8 49:23 50:8 55:21 56:18 67:9,15 68:12 72:13 73:19 82:7 90:11,23 comes 36:6 50:5 69:278:9comfortable 34:6coming33:18 71:14commencing2:18 comment 14:6 comments 34:6 65:4 commercial 10:20 53:21 commission 1:1 2:1 5:10 7:1 40:16,18 54:10 63:6 68:4 74:11 76:20 77:4 78:13 79:10,14 80:23 83:10 85:13 88:13,15,18 90:10 91:1,20 commission's 5:15 40:21commissioned 63:2569:9commissioner 3:8,9,93:11,11 5:3,17,21,215:22 6:11,12,22,23 7:4 7:5,15,23 12:2,3,4,14 12:15 13:8,19,24 14:9 14:21,22,23 15:3,3,4,5 15:6,8,10,11,13,14,15 15:18,20,22 16:3 24:8 24:17,21 25:8,13,15 25:17 28:9,14 32:9,13 33:4,10,16,19,21,25 34:1,3,3,4,21,23 35:2 35:6,9,12,16,24 36:4 36:11 37:17,20 38:1,2 38:3,4,24 39:1,10,1940:3,7,11 41:1,5,5,6,841:9 42:10,10,11,1942:22,23,24 43:14,15 43:16 44:2,4,11,15,1945:5,5,6,9,12 46:4,1446:19 47:3,9 50:19,21 51:11 53:13,16 55:7,9 55:11,13 56:2,21 57:9 57:10 59:3 61:4,6,9,13 61:19,21,23 62:1,3,7 62:12,15 64:17,20 65:7,11 66:9,11 67:4 67:23 68:1,3,4,5,11,15 69:3,7,12 70:3,5,9,10 70:13,18,22 71:2,3,4 71:24 72:3,6 76:24 77:1,4,5,20,20,22 78:17,23,24,25 79:779:14,17,20,21 80:1,580:6,10,16,16,1881:25,25 82:1,20,2082:21 83:10,11,21,2483:25 84:2,4,5,5,6 85:8,8,9,13,14 86:8,8 86:10,13,24 87:15,17 87:19,21,25 88:1,25 89:3,4,5,10,12,14,15 89:23,23,25 90:17,20 90:22,25 91:1,3,4,4,6 91:17,20,21,24 92:16 92:16,18,19,22,23,24 92:25 93:1,2,3,4,7,9 commissioners 13:13 14:11,21 16:1 19:3 24:21 33:3 42:20 44:359:7 69:23 72:1373:19 78:23 80:1981:18,23 82:23 85:1786:7 91:25 commissions 10:24 13:12 Committee 6:4 7:1 51:14 communicate 30:8 communication 49:20 86:16 community 30:18 58:13 companies 59:10 compelled 30:7 31:21,23 compelling 84:14 compensation 30:24 complete 6:10 18:2533:1 43:12completed10:22completing43:6complex14:14,20 21:24complicated38:22 component 86:2 composition 9:6 concern 73:21 concerned 49:24 67:22 75:21 76:3 concerns 83:8 concludes 11:25 concluding 8:14 conclusion 43:7 44:9 72:13 93:11 conclusions 19:8 condominium 51:1857:5conducted 22:15confident63:9 configuration 9:3 27:3confuse43:24confusion87:7 conservancy 1:7 2:7 5:25 6:3,13,15 7:17,19 14:13 16:8,16 19:9 28:18,20 29:5 30:4 31:2,2 49:14,16,20 51:13,15 53:17,18 54:12 63:15 64:5,5,13 64:24 65:1 72:25 75:19 76:1,16 Conservancy's 6:17 Conservation 48:6 conserved 63:18consider5:10 29:15,1929:19,22 34:5 37:1137:12 38:7 39:2241:12,19 43:6 45:7,2048:15 49:3 65:25 67:24 69:3,15,20,23 70:16 78:14 79:6 81:16 82:4,14,19 86:21 89:7 90:22 91:12,22 consideration 5:5 41:11 41:24 42:8 59:15 66:5 considered 20:3 39:11 80:22 considering 13:15 44:17 46:8 52:4 consisting 11:23constant56:14Constitution30:2362:25 69:18Constitutional 78:19 constructed 8:8 9:18,20 19:19 20:17 23:17 construction 9:8,23 10:12 20:25 23:24 49:25 50:1,3,5 consultant 11:5 36:19 36:21 consultant's 84:18 consultants 8:13,14 79:2 83:7 contacted 36:18 72:25 73:17 75:24contains8:5 18:9contest50:8context7:3 9:20 48:16continuance31:10 34:734:12,16,18 38:5,13 38:18 39:11,13,14,18 40:18,20 41:2,4,6,14 41:23 42:3,4,8,14,15 43:1,3,18 63:12 65:6,7 66:12 68:6,13,16,17 68:19 69:13,16,16,24 71:5 79:24,25 80:9,20 80:23,24 81:4,9 82:7,9 82:22 83:14 84:4 87:3 87:7,14 88:3 89:1,20 91:22 93:4,10 continue 11:1 34:8 38:841:25 43:8,10,17 44:744:8,12 45:19 46:7,964:20 66:17 67:8 Page 3 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 71:24 80:2 81:7 84:192:3,5continued 5:14 46:1 53:7 81:3 continues 9:10 10:8 continuing 83:9 88:6 92:1 contract 75:14 contributed 17:1 60:19 convergence 18:14 conversation 7:12 64:17 85:21 convey 9:10 10:8 convince 81:6 82:17 convinced 81:14copies79:15copy32:17Corinthians 22:9correct12:9,10 27:738:9 45:24 94:13,19 CORRECTED 1:7 correcting 62:17 correctly 72:13 75:4 corresponded 20:1 correspondence 23:23 79:11,13 corroborate 71:13 cost 62:21 council 63:6 69:19 Counsel 78:14 81:17,20 country 48:12 couple 6:1 12:15 20:2431:13 48:9 54:5 66:166:12 68:25 71:4,5course23:15 44:22,2256:1 90:14 court 1:20 9:17 28:23 34:9 41:8 43:15 63:9 66:8 69:20 81:14,21 88:10,10,12 cover 32:22 craftmanship 49:10 Craig 4:6 46:22 47:8,11 47:11 72:22 created 17:12 53:9 55:23 55:25 crest 19:14 crime 67:2criteria5:13 11:6 12:513:17 18:16 22:1829:13 31:22 32:336:12,15,24 37:2251:4,9 54:19 65:14 66:1,18 68:8 69:4,5,10 70:6 72:15,16,16 77:16,17 78:7 79:4 81:11 82:4 83:1,6 86:20 90:8 91:10,16 92:9 criterion 8:16 11:7,10,12 11:15,19 23:21,25 critical 72:22 Crutcher 63:20 64:1,14 72:8 CSR 1:24 2:19 94:4,24cul-de-sac 19:16 21:1360:9culture 49:6 current 7:13cursory74:19custody63:23 D D 4:1 19:19 dad 26:24danger62:22date10:12 23:23 53:8Dated94:20David4:7 28:15 35:5,857:11 59:7,9 61:8,11 61:18,20,22,24 62:2,6 Dawn 16:10 day 31:15 33:14 71:14 94:20 days 31:13 90:11,24 deal 20:19,20 21:17 40:14 56:12 61:13 63:13 67:2 71:15,22 82:25 dealing 46:16 death 17:21 19:25 debate 74:11decades19:22December16:24decide14:21 30:1231:24 32:7 41:17 46:6 80:2,3 decided 16:16 34:8 decision 6:2,16,17 29:17 40:13 41:18 43:1 54:20 62:20 70:17 89:2 91:16,16 decker 60:10,24 declare 94:18 deco 17:16 18:4 decrease 27:19 dedicated 16:15 dedication 20:13defend26:3Defendant32:5,5defer40:12defined5:8defining8:20 definitely 79:3 degree 18:10 delay 58:23 delaying 40:2 deliberate 79:13 demand 56:22 demanded 56:8 democratic 93:12 demolish 78:10 demolished 23:8,10 demolition 49:25 50:5 78:13demonstrated 59:1demonstrates5:12demonstration9:5den26:18Department 66:22 depth 66:25 described 5:8 description 4:13 8:19 deserve 49:8 deserves 58:22 design 8:20 11:2 23:19 84:20 85:2designated5:6,7 13:1654:18 56:22 61:17 74:21 designation 5:4,13 8:1 8:15 11:7,23 13:17 36:13 50:17 54:7,9,10 60:3 84:9 86:1,6 designations 85:15 designed 8:8 10:15,16 17:10,22 18:2,11 20:3 47:18,23 48:17 49:4 54:3,23 55:3,4 57:19 58:6,8,15 84:23 85:4 designs 22:7desire44:11desk70:1Despite10:5destroy65:21 75:8destroyed62:19 destroying 67:21 detached 9:15 detail 22:21 33:15 detailed 8:21 details 22:4,7,10 determination 81:16 83:5 92:11,14 determine 5:5 51:8 63:3 92:10 determined 75:4 77:11 determining 36:12 78:15 detrimental 88:20,24detrimentally88:5devaluating51:21devaluation51:22development9:21 10:911:8 12:22 13:2,6,6 22:20 24:10 84:17 developments 65:6 devote 37:25 di-ah 33:5,7 Diamond 3:3,4 5:19 14:2 25:1,10,14,15,16 28:10,11,16 32:11,15 33:8,11,12,17,20,22 34:5,9,22 35:1,4,7,11 35:14 36:9,18 37:19 37:23 38:10,24,2539:8,16,22,23 40:5,1240:17,19,23 42:17,2144:1 46:13,18 49:1249:16 50:20 61:1162:18 64:17,19,21 65:9,12 66:20 67:11 67:24 68:10,14,20 69:6,11 70:8,11,12,14 70:20 71:1,12,20 72:2 72:7,24 73:17 Diamond's 44:9 died 21:8 different 38:18 60:5 65:2 77:13 difficult 25:21 31:18 88:10 Digest 20:23dilemma38:16 43:20diminution59:12 74:1774:18,25 directed 40:12 57:15directions38:18directly39:9,17 68:7,14 69:14 director 67:14 disagree 69:6 disclosure 5:16 6:24 7:15 disclosures 6:11 discretion 31:24,25 40:22 discuss 37:1 38:19 40:20 64:13 65:7 discussed 29:9 discussing 43:8discussion6:7 7:2,1939:21 43:4,9 44:1377:3 80:2 83:22 89:589:13disgusted 28:8 dishonoring 59:18 disrupt 34:16 disrupting 39:24 40:6,8 distance 65:18 distinguishing 21:23 24:3 distributed 79:10 district 8:3 23:7 53:21 districting 37:15 disturbed 86:13 documentary 16:11 57:15doe53:16doing27:15,20,20 57:461:24 76:2 83:3DOLORES3:10 Donald 17:17,22 58:15 donated 46:23 door 26:17 47:13,17 49:24 50:10 74:1 75:22 doors 22:11 double 60:10,24 doubt 50:3 downtown 18:3 23:7 53:19 dozens 53:23 Drew 48:2,3drive60:24driveway27:3drop56:25due42:7dumped74:11 Dunn 63:20,25 64:14 72:8 duplicate 25:11 dying 25:24 E E 3:1,1 4:1,12e-mail 27:5,24 33:268:21 72:23 73:19 e-mails 27:23,25 33:6 eager 48:13 earlier 43:3 77:23 90:4 earliest 84:16 early 9:21 10:9 11:7 12:22 19:22 22:20 24:10 48:24easement52:1easements74:16 economic 13:10 69:17 74:10 77:23 78:1,6,8 78:14 economics 56:5 Ed 57:16 educate 54:2 education 86:15 educational 17:12 85:21 Edward 17:20 Edwin 17:20 effect 29:17 efforts 19:8either29:23 33:23 53:656:3Elder16:14elements8:23 48:11eligible8:15 22:14 36:13 74:7 else's 63:2 email 3:6 embodied 30:10 emotional 59:8 emphasize 24:3 employee 94:16 employer 35:1 empowered 69:9,11 encompasses 24:1 encompassing 24:12 endorsing 86:23engage43:8England20:9enjoy30:20 47:15enormously19:20entertain40:19 43:3 45:1 entire 11:24 21:5 24:2,12 26:25 27:16 77:9 80:7 entrance 22:9,10 entry 9:1,1 equal 15:1 Equally 15:14 era 20:22 err 87:11 error 55:19,20 especially 20:22 56:17ESQ3:4essentially 7:8established8:17 10:2312:11estate10:9 21:18 24:6 59:14 61:14 esthetic 11:10 22:22 30:20 et 69:21,21 77:13 evaded 70:6 82:5 evaluate 29:17 31:24 86:20 evening 14:11 19:3 29:11 43:13 51:1 70:7 83:18 93:11 eventually 21:5 75:13 87:5everybody46:15 59:9,1773:17evidence 11:21 72:14 Page 4 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 74:17 75:9 82:16 84:884:8 85:6,6,10,2588:15,16,18,21 90:6,7 90:15 91:7,9,11,14,15 92:9 evidentiary33:15 exactly 23:17 38:10 67:11 examination 94:11 example 9:21 11:20 22:24 48:17 50:15 57:23 84:20 examples 59:21 excellent 22:24 84:20 88:9exceptional 22:21excuse65:9 69:12,2370:3exemplifies 13:6exemplify12:22 13:2 exemplifying 11:3,7 exercise 31:25 51:7 exhibit 22:4 exhibits 21:22 22:3 exist 58:2 exists 29:13 expand 9:22 expectation 89:21 experience 49:2 51:20 57:5 80:20 experiences 57:25 experts 18:15 50:12explain38:12explained26:22explore64:8express59:4 extending 15:18 extension 15:12 31:1 extensive 22:15 extent 17:10 36:24 46:1 exterior 7:8 22:1 52:2 extra 27:21 extraordinarily 84:24 extraordinary 20:13 22:5 extremely 57:23 82:17 F facade 51:25 faced 38:16 fact 12:18 42:24 48:6 51:24 69:12 73:6 74:18 78:19 81:4,6,16 85:23 88:4 89:20 factors 31:24 facts 75:9 fair 6:20 14:25 23:3 29:4 88:13fairly79:1falling12:9falls77:16familiar12:11family19:18 21:9,11 34:13,13 60:1,16 63:19 64:1,4 75:3 85:3 famous 48:22 49:4 fans 48:20 far 11:10 19:13 29:18 41:21 71:10 76:17 fashion 31:18fault78:2favor15:18,25 feature 9:2 12:12 featured 20:20 features 8:20,22 21:24 February 5:15 81:3 federal 22:14 fee 28:21 30:5 54:10 63:16 feed 63:7 feedback 87:22,23 feel 6:9,19 7:20 25:22 26:5 28:6 54:1 56:12 feeling 23:20fees64:7 73:5,8,11,1476:11feet8:5 52:22,23fellow82:23 85:17felt63:6 88:12,17 field 50:12 fight 50:9 fighting 31:8 file 1:24 6:17 29:6 49:19 63:7,15,22,23,24 67:17 filed 6:13 18:24 31:6 73:2,10,15 filing 28:21 30:4,5 51:23 73:4 76:5 fill 35:3 filled 35:5film57:17finally71:17financial59:9financially65:21 94:16 find 11:5 34:19 63:24 72:25 75:22 92:7 findings 8:18 11:21 22:16 37:7 77:16,17 77:19 finish 41:15 finished 24:8 32:8 68:1 finishes 25:11 firm 10:25 11:1 48:22 63:20 64:1,14 first 12:16 16:7 17:5,6,8 23:6 25:1 28:16 30:846:22 48:10 49:15,1966:9 75:19 78:5 87:2289:5,9fit36:23fits8:20 five 8:17 11:19 13:25 14:5,5,18,24 15:21,23 18:17 22:19,25 23:21 32:11 35:19 45:16 47:2,9,15 55:17 57:7 62:8,13,16 72:16 79:3 83:7 93:13 fixed 26:16 flaws 37:4 flexibility 66:4 flip 12:7 42:13 floating 72:21floor2:17 3:5 9:14 65:1984:1 87:16flopping42:13 focus 7:11,13focused91:9follow37:13 76:21 followed 50:23,24,24 following 57:11 follows 8:22 Forbes 4:9 50:22,22 51:1 72:4,5,7,7 76:25 force 30:6 forcing 30:16 foregoing 94:6,13,19 forget 63:11 forgive 25:20 form 10:25 former 12:9forth13:17 84:9,10,1091:7 94:7fortune37:16Forum20:24forward14:1 19:9 28:13 42:6 43:19 45:3,10,10 46:5 75:23 79:6 80:8,9 88:8,22 found 48:1 four 8:16 11:15 22:19,24 23:21 Fourth 3:4 frame 9:1 17:5 framed 9:5 22:8 Francisco 20:11 free 6:9 Friday 5:17 6:22 7:731:14 33:18friendly48:1friends47:19,22front26:17 36:16 52:7 52:22 81:19 fruitful 66:2 full 35:19 fully 21:15 41:19 fun 27:12 further 8:20 11:3 13:1,19 43:10 45:19 49:15 51:20 71:25 81:9 94:15 future 16:24 49:7 50:4 60:17 G G 17:20 games 17:14 garage 9:16 gate 26:15 gates 24:6 Gee 4:7,9 16:9 18:18 21:22 57:10,11,12,13 75:20general 35:22 36:3 90:20generally7:10 9:2535:17 46:2 87:1091:15generations 48:11 49:7 Genser 3:9 5:21,22 6:23 7:20 12:3,4 14:22,23 15:20 43:15,16 45:12 71:3,4,19 82:20,21 83:24,25 87:17 89:25 90:17,22 91:24 92:17 92:18 93:1,2Georgina74:21germane57:3 getting 26:16 32:24 69:24 Gibson 63:20,25 64:14 72:8 give 32:13 41:11,23 42:7 46:25 47:5 52:21 58:23 90:1 given 18:5 28:19 38:12 41:11 45:4 86:19 88:20 gives 26:5 90:24 giving 37:3glass22:12glazed8:25go14:19 26:10 28:1532:18 33:23 39:6 42:657:10 59:21 60:10,21 60:22,22,23 69:19,19 70:13 74:24 76:1 85:25 86:5 89:1 92:14 goes 62:11 going 14:22 25:2,10 26:10,13 27:9,10,14 28:4,5,6 30:1,5,7 31:11 32:22 34:13 37:7,16 39:20 42:20 44:7,8 45:2,15 58:13 58:14 59:13 60:6,8 63:1 66:13 67:3,9 68:773:1,18 75:8 80:2481:1 82:10,16,17,2583:8 84:6 87:18,1988:24 90:6,7 92:12 gonna 37:24 good 14:11 19:3 20:20 25:20 46:4 51:1 53:14 55:19 62:15 63:10 70:22 Goodrich 4:5 19:3,4 24:9 goodwill 85:19 goose 22:9 government 63:1 governmental 66:5 graceful 18:7grandchildren 47:15grant41:4 80:23granted24:25 87:10granting87:3,11grateful18:22 great 17:17 20:8 21:17 57:18 greatest 16:21 greatly 17:7 Green 51:19 57:5 grew 17:2 grounds 5:20 21:18 24:5 24:13 27:1,2 group 19:2,5 51:15 groups 31:11 Grove 21:14 28:24 grow 17:11guess46:4 59:8 70:2479:4 90:3 91:15 92:16guest9:16 27:11 52:6 guilty 32:5,6guy39:25,25guys38:15 H H 4:12 half 33:14hall17:8,14,22,25 20:653:22 54:24 58:8hand17:2 47:4 66:2handled28:23 86:16hands21:9 65:17 happened 39:16 happening 72:17 happy 19:10 24:15,15 25:19 50:11 hard 20:12 hardship 37:8 56:5 78:8 harmful 80:24 Hasta 8:14 head 90:5,18 headed 88:4,4 hear 34:5 36:16 39:18 45:15 80:18 81:2292:1,19heard42:25 49:13,1573:23 74:4,6 82:8,1282:15 83:18 84:13 85:10 hearing 14:20 33:15 42:9,13 43:7,11,12,21 44:8,12 45:24 48:7 49:23 67:8 72:17 83:18 87:21 88:14 90:6,11 91:8,14 hearings 46:1 heart 41:24 height 9:6 held 6:7,14 7:3 help 40:1 42:21 67:175:6helping 17:11Hi25:18,18high18:10higher52:5 highest 56:8 highlights 17:3 highly 18:15 44:16,25 hire 76:13 hired 63:19 72:22 historic 8:13 9:10,20 10:8 11:14 18:14 52:4 53:20 54:9 56:17,21 74:5 76:21 82:5,18 85:11 91:18 historical 19:6 22:23 24:11 48:16history7:12 11:8 12:2313:6 48:12 58:21hit27:23,24hold15:6 50:23 61:5holding71:21 home 53:14 66:21,21,23 67:2 Homer 17:4 homes 18:12 52:5 53:3 honest 36:20 76:18 honored 48:4 54:1 Page 5 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings hope 14:19 53:6hopefully55:5host17:13 hotel 10:20 17:9 house 7:9,12,14,16 9:16 18:9 19:18,23 20:18 20:20,25 21:1,20 22:3 23:6,8,16 24:5,11,13 25:3 27:2,11 28:4 47:13,14,15,18 48:18 48:21,23 49:1,3,8,8 50:11,13 51:17,24 52:3,6,7,22,23,25 55:16 56:10,12,14,18 56:19 57:1 58:5,6,759:13,23,25 60:8,1160:12,15,25 61:1,1662:18,19 65:19,2272:14 73:18,22house's 23:23 houses 50:2 75:3,13 HR 22:14 hundred 56:13 hundreds 53:23 husband 67:13 I iconic 16:9 54:4 55:2 57:14,20 58:9 icons 17:24 idea 61:19 75:6 ideals 26:5 ideas 30:9 identified 22:13 identifying 64:11 ignored 37:9 illegal 30:14 images 20:25 immigrated 20:10 impact 13:10 29:20,2130:5 57:8 62:20,21,2270:16 74:10 77:2478:1,6,14 80:25impacted78:12impacting88:5 impartial 6:20 importance 41:11 48:15 56:1 important 24:7,9 37:25 41:3 48:10,14 58:20 58:21 impot 92:4 impressed 25:23 inability 71:6 inadvertent 80:15 inappropriate 42:7 inaudible 16:12 18:920:14 21:18 22:8 47:647:7,8 55:24 72:1873:13incentives 74:15Incidentally63:11 inclination 85:22 inclined 41:3,20 88:2 include 9:3,12,15 22:7 included 36:22 73:7 including 8:24 20:4,23 incorporated 21:16 incredible 52:12 86:11indebted18:18independent18:14 indicated 28:18 39:13 42:6 60:3 72:8 indication 72:19 74:14 indications 88:21 individual 22:24 individually 33:6 individuals 71:6 indulge 14:19 influences 8:7 11:16 influential 11:2 19:21 information 18:20 45:22 45:23 46:2,3 68:769:14,20,25 82:390:10informed 43:18informing18:20initially31:10 36:18 38:5 input 46:21 inquiries 56:14 inside 56:18 inspired 48:21 instances 14:24 institution 17:12 intact 21:15 integrity 9:9 18:10 23:19 84:19 interaction 7:18 interest 22:22 43:5 50:10interested 38:21 67:1767:19,20 87:21 92:194:17interior5:20 7:10 interrupt 39:1 intricate 22:10 introduce 14:10 introducing 20:8 53:23 inventing 16:23 inventory 8:11 56:15 invitation 40:24 invited 36:20 involve 78:6 involved6:2,16,17 37:14 75:19 involves 78:6ironically67:1irreplaceable49:10isolation12:8issue28:19 29:2,9,12,1531:20 32:2 36:16 37:2 38:17 39:17 42:25 53:5 62:18 63:9 65:13 81:10 83:4 issues 25:4 31:20 33:15 37:25 51:5 63:10 71:22 72:11 83:2,5 Italian 8:7,23 11:17 22:6 Italianate 18:9 item 5:3,14 7:25 J J 1:24 2:19 19:19 94:4 94:24 Jacobsen 46:22,24,25 47:3,8,11,11 63:14 73:3Jacobson 4:6 72:2373:16,21 76:17 Jessieca 1:24 2:19 94:4 94:24 jive 48:25 job 20:8 85:24 87:12 John 8:9 10:13,16 11:13 11:20 16:21 17:1,15 20:17 21:8 22:23 23:1 23:4 24:2 47:18 53:24 53:25 54:23 57:14,17 57:20 58:3,6,7,19 59:17,19,24 60:18 joined 63:17 64:13JON3:3,4journals20:21judgments7:21July75:23June90:23 94:20 jury 32:3 justified 89:20 K Karen 80:13 83:15keeping27:17 49:653:10 90:14KEN3:11 kept 71:14,16 Keven 16:20 keynoting 24:10 kind 38:4 41:13 43:20 45:9 48:8,16 56:5 66:12 80:7 82:25 kitchen 9:13 knew 47:17 49:21 knock 75:22 knocked 26:17 know 25:20 26:1,5,9 28:12,21 31:2 32:2133:10 34:9,11,17 39:339:5,5,23 44:9 48:450:13 52:16,24 53:454:17 57:8 60:7,861:15,18 63:23 66:6 66:20 67:9 68:6,10 69:15 70:2 71:20 77:7 88:10,12 92:3 known 10:19 21:13 23:5 23:9,11 85:3 Korea 23:9 L L.A 17:25 47:22 48:6 53:18 60:16,18,21 lack 12:12 lady 34:10 65:20 Lamberg 4:8 50:24 53:13,14,15 55:8,10 land 5:3 13:1 27:11 30:15 47:20 72:9 landmark 5:6,7,9,13 7:25 8:12,15 11:22 13:17 16:17 22:18 24:13 31:21 32:1,18 36:13 48:8 50:14,1751:5,9,17,19,23 52:1052:12,18 54:18 55:14 55:20 56:4,9,19 60:261:24 62:23 73:1,1075:5 76:9,9 77:12,15 78:2,3 79:6 80:8,22 81:18 84:7,14 85:15 85:21 landmark's 5:9 8:17 54:10 landmark-able 87:2,4 89:17 landmarked 55:18,22 56:7 64:4 73:18 74:19 76:2,4 87:5 92:11 landmarker 68:9 landmarking 13:10 29:629:13 30:2,19 31:948:7 56:1 63:21 65:1566:3 70:17 75:2576:17 77:10,24 83:1684:3 85:23 86:21 89:17 landmarks 1:1 2:1 5:15 67:5 75:12,15 landowner 29:17 large 10:24 14:14 21:2 24:6 78:12 largely 12:6 Larrel 4:5 14:11,12 16:4 Larrer 26:12 late 32:24 34:10 63:8 Laughlin 17:4 law 3:3 29:4,24,24 30:1550:15 63:20 66:3laws94:18lawyer26:4 28:3 64:2364:25 66:7 76:13 leaded 22:11,12 leaning 82:22 83:9 learned 31:13,14 leave 44:11 58:16 led 68:23 Lee 46:23 47:3,7 left 24:7 56:6 legacy 16:15 58:17 legal 13:9 25:4 29:4 40:12 54:21 63:10 78:19 81:13,17 83:4 88:2legality 69:18lengthy71:11Lerrer64:12,22Leslie4:8 50:24 53:1353:14,14 55:8,10 let's 5:16 14:21 35:12 42:19 46:19 50:22 89:14 letter 27:5 42:2 43:17,24 49:17,18 67:16,16 71:10 73:12 74:18,21 79:11,11,18,22 80:12 80:14 83:15,19 letters 32:25 33:2 37:9 68:21 level 18:13 22:15,21 49:9 58:22 71:11 76:16life26:25 65:16,21lifetime17:1 60:19light40:14 88:3 liked 47:25limited14:2 92:9Limline50:22,24 line 35:22 38:4 listed 8:10 listen 27:12 listening 55:6 59:16 listing 22:14 68:8 litigation 37:15 88:5,6 little 20:7 43:21 56:15 live 26:20 59:23 lived 47:13,14 48:17 57:7 59:24 60:25 74:1 85:4 lives 27:16living49:24 54:25 58:5,759:25local20:16 22:15 49:5located8:1,2 9:17,2412:19 19:13,15 21:3,4 23:6,9 location 10:2 12:11 23:19 56:16,16,16 Lock 34:13 40:25 66:21 66:23 67:12,17 68:24 80:13 83:15,18 lofty 58:12 long 17:3 26:2 37:15 55:15 71:21 72:9 74:2 longer 6:1 59:24,25 look 40:21 57:22 60:11 64:7 69:9 79:22 81:1881:20 91:14looked79:2looking57:23 59:1767:21 looks 23:16 65:3 77:7 92:9 Los 9:24 10:17,23 11:2 12:19,25 13:4 16:10 16:22,25 17:5,12,25 18:3 19:21 20:4,5,6,12 21:5 23:7,11 53:17 54:4 55:2 57:14 58:8 58:18 76:15 loses 31:7 loss 25:6 27:13 33:13 66:6lost56:6lot30:6 37:2 61:13 72:1777:9,11lots81:12love88:8 lovely 48:3 lushly 24:6 Lynn 47:12,24 48:2,5,20 49:3,11,13 50:7 76:18 M main 2:17 9:1 34:12maintain5:8major17:10,24 72:19 majority 21:4 86:6 making 6:3,16 7:21 31:17 34:13 60:2 62:20 78:21 80:25 90:5 92:11,13 man 54:2 Page 6 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings management 90:20March83:20marked5:4 Marsha 1:4 2:4 4:6 5:19 25:2,5,10,18 65:20 68:23 Marsha's 50:8 Martin 17:15 masoning 21:25 massing 9:6 master 10:16 11:13,20 23:1 54:3 masterpiece 17:16 material 23:18,20 46:10 matter 6:20,20 12:2113:12 15:1 38:8 41:341:12 45:20 63:2266:17 67:6 81:2,7 88:388:6 92:1matters65:15 McKim 48:22 Mead 48:22 mean 32:7 41:9 78:1,11 meet 54:18 72:15 79:3 meeting 5:15 8:16 17:23 44:12 66:20,21,23,25 81:4 90:12,16 meets 5:12 13:16 18:16 37:22,24 51:4,9 69:4 69:10 72:15,16 78:7 81:11 83:7 member 5:24 6:2,127:16 51:13members7:6 48:5membership6:14Memorial17:25 20:5 mention 23:3 83:12 mentioned 6:7 7:4 32:25 54:24 mercy 87:6 merely 51:22 merit 64:10 merits 37:3 mess 80:7 messages 27:24 met 7:6 31:22 32:3 36:14 66:1,23 68:24 Metsuie 36:21mid21:10middle33:23 41:1365:17Mike4:8 50:24 51:11,1251:12 55:16 56:10,24 57:3 mil-saps 74:15 million 25:6 32:19 33:13 60:4 61:16 75:8 Mills 52:9 mind 27:7,8 34:15 37:11 41:2 79:3 90:14 minded 73:25 minor 9:12 minute 14:17,18 34:8 38:12,19 74:12 minutes 13:25 14:5,6,7,814:24 15:2,19,21,2115:22,23 24:25 25:6,828:14 32:11,12,13 33:12 35:19,19 45:1747:2,10 62:8,13,1693:13 mistake 58:19 Mizokami 3:12 7:24 12:10,24 77:15 79:9 79:15,19 80:10,11 92:22,24 93:1,3,6,8 moderated 21:25 modest 18:6 mom 25:24 26:18 27:13 moment 31:7 50:23 61:5 Monday 2:18 5:1 money 30:6 52:1,13 56:6 56:6 59:14Monica1:2,7,14 2:2,7,173:5 5:1,25 7:17 9:2510:1 13:2 14:12 16:819:9,14,14 20:18 21:421:6,7 22:18 30:17 37:16 48:6 49:4,6 50:6 51:4 53:15 54:12 58:18 60:20 61:25 66:22 74:6,20 75:2,18 75:18 monitor 16:13 monitoring 75:20 Montana 8:3 12:12 month 7:2 26:20 31:16 49:19 73:2 90:19 month's 44:12 month-and-a-half 26:20monthly52:14months6:1 68:25motion15:5,6,9 44:4,644:10,24 45:2 79:5,23 79:25 80:1 83:23,25 84:1,2,7 85:7 87:17,20 87:24 88:25 89:4,7,25 motions 89:8 motives 76:19 87:9 move 5:3 7:23 15:2 24:23 35:6 44:9,20,23 45:2,10,10 46:5,12,14 70:24 71:2 79:6 80:4,9 88:8,22 moved 24:2 movie 67:14moving34:11 80:8murder32:4museum30:7 N N 3:1 4:1 name 16:11 19:4 35:7 57:13 narrow 13:14national51:19,24 53:474:7Nationwide 57:16nature63:21necessarily35:21 40:11 necessary 92:6,7 necessity 38:13 need 25:12 27:21 38:23 39:2 44:4,6,10,24 58:16 63:13 64:7 65:5 70:19 87:15 89:7 needed 67:7 69:13 71:1389:19nefarious 73:25 negative 13:11 neighbor 18:23 29:5 47:25 63:14 neighborhood 12:12 31:11 47:21 49:7 54:12 67:20,22 neighborly 48:3 neighbors 26:4 40:25 47:12 49:17,24 52:25 68:21 82:7 net 29:19 never 27:22,23 28:155:12 88:19new10:4 16:23 21:14,1646:1,3,10 48:14 50:265:6 69:24 82:16 90:991:7,8,11 Newport 28:24 nice 26:14,22 39:25,25 Nina 46:23 47:4,6 nomination 7:18 16:17 18:24,24 19:8 86:1 nonprofit 73:15 nonprofits 54:6 73:14 nope 25:25 normal 44:22,22 north 8:3,4 12:12 13:3 19:13,15 22:20 notable 8:21 11:2,4,13note18:13noted21:11notes94:14noticed29:1 notion 51:21 52:14,17 53:1 56:25 nuance 67:12 nuanced 38:18 nuances 38:11 nudging 71:14 number 4:13 7:14 11:12 12:5 20:21 22:4 32:16 78:18 O o'clock 5:23 7:7 oath 94:8 obfuscate 74:4 obit 16:23 objections 94:10 objectivity6:10 obstigation 76:13 obstructed 77:8 obtain 29:7 obviously 37:13 55:186:10occasion 53:22 56:3occupant25:2occupied7:13 84:24occur14:6 occurred 23:18 Ocean 51:12 October 49:17 72:24 odd 41:13 offending 26:9 OFFERED 4:15 office 64:12,15,23 65:271:16officer59:10 officers 66:22 67:1 OFFICES 3:3 Offsen 67:13 offset 74:16 Oh 36:10 55:13 92:19 okay 7:4 14:9 15:10 16:4 24:9,23 36:4 38:1 44:15 46:19 47:9 62:12,15 67:6,7 77:3 80:1 83:21,22 86:24 89:12 90:25 91:4 92:20old48:14olympics 17:14omission55:20 80:15omitted12:5once51:2 ones 72:22 open 36:20 44:12 90:14 opened 17:8,9 26:15 57:5 opinion 54:21 opportunities 45:7 opportunity 41:19 45:23 49:8 52:3 56:3 71:9 90:1 92:5 opposed 16:3 35:10 86:14 opposing 83:16,16opposite30:25 65:18opposition89:22option45:11oral84:10 order 5:8 14:4,4 29:7 31:4 46:20 62:10 63:8 ordinance 8:17 13:18 29:16 51:5,8 65:14 69:8,18 81:19 83:5 90:24 ordinant's 77:16 organization 54:13 organize 68:22 origin 47:19 original 8:20 9:8 10:12 23:15,23 27:2,4 53:1189:7originally 21:2 74:22ornately8:25Oster84:11outlined51:4 outside 39:12,16 overall 9:6 13:7 23:16 overlooked 57:18 overlooking 20:18 overstepped 28:20 overview 14:3 overwhelming 84:8 85:6 owned 16:14 47:20 55:14,15 57:6 owner 5:19 15:24 34:24 51:16 78:17 82:24 88:17owners46:11ownership34:24 35:1935:21 36:1,1 P p 3:1,1,21 p.m 2:18 5:1 PAGE 4:4,13 paid 73:5 76:11 paneled 22:10 panicked 34:20paralegal12:16parameters54:17paranoid64:3paraphrasing83:1parcel5:7 8:4 11:24 24:13 50:17 53:10,11 55:21 parent's 28:3 parents 25:25 26:2 27:9 27:16 Park 51:12 Parkinson 8:9 10:3,13 10:16,17,22 11:1,1,4 11:14,20 16:10,15,21 17:1 18:2 19:19 20:7,8 20:17,19 21:8,9,11,15 21:21 22:23 23:1,424:2 47:18,20,2348:18 53:24,25 57:1457:17,21 58:6,7,16,1758:19 59:18,19,2460:1,19 85:2,4 Parkinson's 16:20 19:23 20:2 22:4 54:23 58:3 part 5:6 7:9 12:23,25 13:1,4,5 34:24 35:21 35:25 36:1 43:4 45:18 56:12,19 67:8 77:19 partial 7:9 partially 7:9 partials 21:13 particular 7:13 13:3 22:3 30:13 31:20 65:16 66:3particularly 20:1 81:8parties94:16partner19:10 51:1855:16 64:14 72:8 partnered 10:25 17:19 partnership 17:16,21 49:14 Pasadena 51:19 53:4 passed 16:15 passing 11:3 27:9 Pate 1:24 2:19 94:4,24 patio 9:14 patterns 9:5 22:20 24:10 pause 13:22 pay 30:21 59:12,14 63:2 73:11,14paying28:21PBS57:15penalty94:18pending16:13people30:18 34:17 42:12,24 53:24 54:1,2 54:8 56:18 59:21 67:8 67:20 68:11 73:23 76:11 83:3 84:22 87:9 people's 87:22 percent 27:19 53:3 Page 7 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 56:25perfect86:3period10:11,13 12:19 19:25 20:1 23:22,25 24:2 53:9 55:24 58:1 84:19 perjury 94:18 permanent 23:10 permanently 48:19 permitted 59:4 person 26:14 35:2 48:4 64:22 68:24,24 73:25 89:6 personage 11:14 personal 8:9 19:19,2323:3 50:7 58:3,3 76:16personally69:15petitions31:3philosophy30:10phonetic14:12 18:19 33:5 50:22,25 67:13 phonetics 84:11 photographs 18:21 photos 21:20 phrase 84:17 pick 74:20 picking 30:15 pictures 75:12 pitched 21:25 place 10:7 26:23 27:17 31:6 75:19 87:8 94:7 plan 63:15PLANNER 3:12 7:2412:10,24 77:15 79:979:15,19 80:11 92:2292:24 93:1,3,6,8 Planning 53:15 plaque 56:11 play 78:9 please 5:16 14:1 18:13 32:10,14 33:11,25 34:2 36:8 40:9 46:12 59:3,14 61:4 64:20 70:13 pleased 26:11 pleasure 72:10 plenty 60:16 92:4 point 6:6 19:1 23:2 27:130:1 41:21 43:17 44:444:17 45:6,12,14,1846:5 54:15 55:19,2365:10 70:18 71:2572:19 75:10,10,17 78:11 pointed 87:9 pointers 52:21 points 28:17 54:6 82:23 police 66:22 67:1 policy 6:16 pool 9:17 popular 48:24 porch 52:22,24 portion 13:3 43:7,12 52:11 84:17 position 6:1,14 31:2370:15,17positive13:11possible35:2 43:1 85:25 87:6 90:2,12possibly26:7 40:13potential74:15,16 88:6 88:7 potentially 90:19 PowerPoint 18:25 practically 60:7 practice 35:15 41:22 45:25 72:9 80:21 practices 35:17 prejudice 6:8 prejudiced 7:21 prematurely 40:14 prepare 63:21 prepared 8:12 19:641:10 43:17 70:679:23presence 5:18present16:17 36:738:23 40:24 46:10 63:8 66:15 82:2 88:16 presentation 14:18 15:23 18:25 19:1 78:20 84:10 presented 5:11 79:4 82:16 90:6,15 91:14 preservation 8:13 18:15 72:9,11 preserve 5:8 48:11 preserved 21:19 48:18 73:22 74:9 75:16 president 76:15Presslow46:23 47:4,6pressure44:1pressured28:7presumably30:2 pretty 20:18,19 23:16 54:16 previous 57:7 previously 73:2 price 29:7 56:8,23 63:3,4 pride 47:24 primary 11:23 prime 50:15 Principally 7:9 prior 6:5 7:1 91:14 private 60:9 privied 7:2privilege53:23privileged54:1pro3:10 5:18 6:21 12:1466:9 77:20 79:7 93:6probably12:8 13:8 53:3 92:3 problem 71:21 procedural 25:3 28:17 28:25 37:2,25 45:13 72:17 76:10 83:2,4,4 90:4 91:10 92:2 procedurally 37:4 43:4 46:16 procedure 37:3 40:8,13 78:4 90:7 proceed 43:5,22 proceeded 38:7 39:14proceeding34:17 39:1241:14 42:5 92:4,13,13proceedings1:13 2:16 13:22 39:24 40:241:20 44:18,23,2545:3 88:11 94:6 process 45:18 49:1 78:8 80:7 86:14,15 88:19 88:23 89:6 93:12 prodigious 18:5 productive 20:1 profession 20:14 professional 76:16 project 6:9,10 80:8 projects 10:20 77:10 86:18 prolific 10:18 20:15 prolong 82:11,15prominent11:4 56:1163:19prominently 20:20propelled75:23 76:5properly86:16 properties 22:16 30:13 51:17 55:15,15 56:4 74:6,20 property 5:17,22 6:21 7:19,22 8:1,2,5,10 9:17,21,23 10:1,5,6,9 10:14,15,21 11:6 12:18,21 13:11,15 15:1 16:14 18:16,20 19:7,12,17 21:3,9 22:13,17 23:14 24:4 24:12 26:7,12,25 29:729:13,21,22 30:2,9,1130:16,16,20,24 31:731:21 32:18 33:2236:12,14,19 37:8,21 41:23,25 45:7,16,21 47:16 50:11 51:3,9,22 52:6,7 54:18 55:1,3 56:22,22 58:11 62:24 63:2,18 64:4 65:13 66:19 68:8 69:4,10,21 70:16 73:24 74:1,24 75:20 76:2,4,12 77:24 78:7,9,10,15,17 79:3 80:12,21,25 81:11,12 82:5,18,24 83:17 84:7 84:22 85:12,15,2386:22 87:1 88:13,1688:17,22 89:17 90:191:18proportionate 33:13propose23:25 proposed 23:22 90:15 proposition 38:17 propounded 94:10 protect 5:9 52:2 58:13 58:14 protected 65:23 protection 58:23 proud 47:17 provide 33:14 52:1 provided 11:22 18:23 21:21 41:15,16 72:19 73:19 74:18 75:1,12provides55:25province16:7proviso90:5 public 5:11 14:6 16:2135:23 36:3 41:15 43:643:10,12,21 44:8 45:3 45:15,22 46:11,22 51:6 53:2 60:8 77:8,11 77:14 84:12 85:10 90:9 91:8 purchase 26:8 Purchased 10:3 purpose 62:25 73:25 purposes 30:12 85:21 90:21 pursuant 5:13 14:4 pursue 34:18 purview 69:8,15,19,25pushed39:24pushing71:15put19:9 25:23 42:1549:21 50:15 56:3 87:694:8 PVS 16:11 Q qualified 18:15qualifies85:15qualify50:14 51:25qualities9:11 11:11question13:14,14 19:20 26:3 29:3 34:21 35:13 35:16 36:10 37:18,20 39:2,4,6 40:9,11 45:13 55:11 56:2 61:4,5 62:19 65:12 66:8 67:5 68:5 70:5,19,20,21 71:3 77:5 82:5 85:14 86:12 87:2,2,8 88:1,9 89:6 90:4 91:6 92:18 92:20 questions 12:1,2,16 13:19 24:16,17,2034:1 40:6 62:3 65:468:2 72:1 76:24 94:9quick14:3 79:22quickly19:12 20:13 85:9quintessential85:2 quite 52:1 81:14 quote 52:3 quoted 60:16 R R 3:1R-1 8:3raise47:4raised29:3,8 31:20 51:5 76:10 78:18,18 rare 57:23 rate 52:5,11 86:7 reaches 58:11 read 36:23 43:16 reading 50:12 ready 39:21 42:6 46:21 81:13 reaffirm 85:1 real 61:14 65:3 realize 52:13 71:23 really 16:5 19:12 24:1525:7 26:11 27:1230:15 33:13 39:2 54:21 57:23 73:2574:13 75:22 76:7 77:985:19 86:3 87:4 88:1 91:25 reap 8:10 rear 9:13,14 reason 73:16 75:18 81:9 85:18 reasonable 88:22 reasoning 12:6 reasons 34:12 48:9 71:4 83:13 rebut 62:8 rebuttal 14:7,8,18 15:13 15:14,21,23 35:2036:2,5 41:16 45:1746:6 62:11,11 65:870:25 72:4 76:7recall64:21received27:25 33:5,6 72:23 88:13,21 receiving 41:10 receptive 36:20 recessed 8:25 recognized 24:13 recommend 80:9 recommendation 79:1 recommendations 76:21 recommended 91:24 recommends 11:22 reconsideration 87:14 record 33:1 37:24 39:1741:18 49:12 51:257:17 63:18 73:8 76:880:15 84:13 86:17recorded94:11 recusal 29:25 31:4 recuse 28:18 red 9:4 21:25 reduce 52:10 reduction 32:17 60:4 reference 22:5 29:2 referenced 85:17 referred 9:25 61:9 reflecting 10:12 11:15 refresh 16:19 refused 85:10 regarding 6:8 29:3 37:1538:12region19:21 85:5register51:19,24 74:8registry53:4regulations75:25 REICH 3:11 reiterate 55:22 65:5 reiterated 83:2 related 68:8 relates 69:14 relationship 7:19 24:5 48:3 64:6 relationships 10:7 relative 94:15 relatively 18:6 48:12 relevance 78:21 relevant 75:5 77:25reluctant91:22remain18:3 21:15remained21:9 Page 8 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings remaining 45:17 48:17remember54:15 58:5remembering58:14 reminded 16:25 60:18 Renaissance 8:7,24 11:17 22:6 render 41:17 43:1 renew 40:17 renown 17:11 rent 52:7 rental 52:11 reopen 91:8 repeat 39:6 85:17 replace 48:13 replied 16:1 27:22 28:1reply27:24,24report7:23 8:21 11:2211:25 21:10 29:1,1031:15,16 32:23 36:2337:5 54:23 55:6 63:21 63:25 71:7,9,17,22 79:5 84:10,12,18,25 REPORTED 1:24 reporter 19:7 34:10,20 81:14 94:5 REPORTERS 1:20 REPORTERS'94:1 reports 18:15 71:15 76:21 84:11 85:16 representative 7:7,11 24:24 34:24 35:18 45:8 78:18 81:5,1282:2,12 83:13 92:2representing14:1264:24represents 57:24 58:3 request 14:15 15:20 25:10 38:6 39:14 40:18,19,20 41:1,10 41:23 66:11 78:9 80:22 requested 13:25 25:9 required 5:13 research 5:11 22:16,17 89:18 resided 10:13 residence 5:5 8:6,8,9 9:9 9:13,18 10:6,13,2211:24 16:7 18:6 19:1919:24 21:15 23:4,1148:17 57:22 58:2284:23 85:1,2,3residences18:11 84:16 resident 25:3 53:15 55:3 residential 8:3 9:21 10:4 10:9 11:8 19:16 21:13 57:24 84:17 resignation 6:15 resigned 5:25 6:14,25 7:17 resource 8:11 resources 18:23 19:2,5 19:6 respect 23:2 30:4 46:1 50:8 90:14respectfully14:15 28:17respond31:18 45:2370:10 71:9 90:9 Respondent 1:8 2:8,173:8response 14:25 15:17 47:6,7,8 responsibilities 51:7 responsibility 62:23 responsible 54:8 rest 35:22 36:3 result 50:1 results 78:12 retain 23:18 retains 9:9 10:6 84:18 review 7:9 12:20 13:12 41:18 50:6 71:7 74:13 77:25 92:12reviewed78:16 92:6reviewing57:16 84:22revisit40:17revival8:6,7,24 9:211:16,17 19:17 21:24 22:7,25 rhetorical 70:20,21 RICHARD 3:9 ride 64:4 ridiculous 53:1 riding 77:12 right 13:24 16:16 27:8 27:21 28:6,20 30:20 41:16 45:18 50:8 53:2 62:7 64:16 90:9 91:13 rights 28:25 50:9 risk 88:7Road5:4 8:2 13:7 80:13Roger3:3,4,9 5:19role24:7,10 78:1 81:18roof9:4 22:1 Rosanne 4:5 14:11,12 16:4 Rosenbaum 3:10 6:22 7:4 12:14,15 13:8 35:16 36:11 37:17,20 38:1,3 39:10 41:8,9 45:5,6 66:10,11 67:4 67:23 68:3 77:21,22 78:17 79:8,14,17,21 80:16,18 83:10,11 84:5,6 87:25 88:1 91:20,21 93:6,7rounded73:6ruin65:21rule6:19 38:22ruled28:23rules14:4 62:10 ruling 53:6 running 30:6 RUTH 3:8 Ruth-Anne 26:12,20,22 27:5,20 59:19 60:16 64:10,12,21 65:1 72:10 75:21 S s 3:1 4:12 22:17 sad 86:15,22 safeguard 5:9 Salazar 4:8 50:24 51:11 51:12,12 55:12,14,16 56:10,24 57:3 60:4 sale 28:4,5 56:4,15 76:4samples75:2San8:4 13:3 19:15 20:11 21:6 22:20 Santa 1:2,7,14 2:2,7,17 3:5 5:1,25 7:16 9:25 10:1 13:2 14:12 16:8 19:9,14,14 20:18 21:3 21:6,7 22:18 30:17 37:16 48:5 49:4,6 50:6 51:4 53:15 54:12 58:18 60:20 61:25 66:22 74:6,20 75:2,18 75:18 sat 21:2satisfies 11:6Saturday5:23saw78:3saying16:6 27:6 59:1760:5 67:7,10 70:15 73:17 90:3,18 says 25:11,12 28:2 84:18 scheme 64:3 search 74:19 searching 71:17 seat 36:8 40:4 77:1 seated 33:25 34:10 Seattle 20:11 secluded 53:1 second 9:14 15:4 23:8 31:17 33:9 44:4 48:15 48:20 65:19 79:7,2380:3 83:23 84:6 89:4seconds24:7 32:14section5:14 54:8security35:11see12:6 21:22 33:22 35:12 40:5 46:7,19 49:8 50:22 56:18 59:21 60:8,11,12,23 60:25 65:12,19,19,22 68:22 77:12,14 79:24 81:7 82:14 85:22 89:14 90:10 seeing 81:14 seeking 42:4 seen 65:15 71:19 selling 27:7send67:16SENIOR3:12 7:24 12:1012:24 77:15 79:9,1579:19 80:11 92:22,2493:1,3,6,8 sense 35:9 65:23 sent 27:5,24,25 33:2,9 42:2 49:16 53:17 68:20 sentencing 32:10 series 21:12 serious 41:11,24 seriously 46:8 65:8 served 19:23 set 13:17 42:1 49:12 84:9,10,10 94:7 setting 12:8 23:20 24:649:7 53:10 55:23,25settings21:18shaded38:18 Shai 8:14shaped8:24share28:14 Shari 3:8 5:17 6:22 7:5 15:3,4,7,8,11,14 34:1 34:3,4,21,23 35:2,9 38:4 40:10,11 41:1 42:23,24 43:14 44:5 55:11,14 56:2,21 57:2 57:9 61:6,9,13,19,21 61:23 62:1 85:13,14 86:13 87:15,19 89:14 89:15 91:1,3 93:3,4 sharing 18:20 Shea 84:11shed40:14Shingle48:24shirt32:4shock64:25shook90:18 shoot 14:14 shorter 53:25 shorthand 94:5,14 shortly 20:25 show 54:1 63:18 showed 26:21 34:20 showing 32:17 shushed 38:14 shut 38:22 shutting 38:21 SIC 76:13 sick 36:22side9:16 12:7 69:187:11sidewalk 65:18siding9:4 signature 20:4 significance 9:10 10:11 12:20 16:20 18:13 23:22 24:1,11 53:9 55:24 58:17 84:19 85:11 significant 11:19 22:25 23:14 27:18 51:22 52:12,18 55:2,25 57:1 significantly 52:5,10 75:1 silly 28:21simi-private 60:9similar68:5simple79:1simply31:21 37:2049:21 73:6 89:8 single 19:18 58:22 75:2 85:3 singled 75:7 sir 35:7 70:2 sit 52:23 site 10:4 21:2,12 23:15 33:18 52:13 77:6,7,9 77:13 sites 77:11 siting 10:2 sitting 10:6 69:25 situated 10:1situation38:12 68:22situations6:3 69:17six12:5 29:13 55:17 68:8 69:5,10 70:677:17 83:6 86:19 90:891:10 size 8:4 skill 20:13 22:5 skyscraper 17:6 sliver 21:3 Sloan 3:10 5:3,18,21 6:12 7:5,23 12:2,14 13:19,24 14:9,21 15:3 15:5,10,13,15,18,22 16:3 24:8,17,21 25:8 25:13,15,17 28:9,14 32:9,13 33:4,10,16,19 33:21,25 34:3 35:6,1235:24 36:4 38:2,2439:1,19 40:3,7 41:542:10,19,22 44:2,1144:15,19 45:5,9 46:446:14,19 47:3,9 50:19 50:21 51:11 53:13 55:7,9,13 57:10 59:3 61:4 62:3,7,12,15 64:17,20 65:7,11 68:1 68:4 70:3,10,13,18,22 71:2,24 72:3,6 76:24 77:1,20 78:23 79:7,14 79:20 80:1,10,16 81:25 82:20 83:10,21 84:5 85:8,13 86:8,24 87:21 88:25 89:5,10 89:12,23 90:25 91:1,491:20 92:16,19 93:8,9small19:16 21:3,12SMMC5:14smooth9:4 22:1 So,to 82:11 society 29:18 58:12 sold 21:11 74:23 somebody 45:1 64:11 65:22 somebody's 29:21 30:23 somewhat 82:22 son 10:25 17:16,21 89:24 soon 63:7 sooner 87:12 sorry 33:11,21 35:1239:1 40:3 55:13 62:1564:19 66:9 70:18 80:692:20sort8:11 43:9 90:5sought85:20 sound 40:6 sounds 37:21 43:5,11 45:2 52:16 source 47:23 sources 85:16 south 9:18 southern 10:18 18:8 20:15 23:4,19 57:20 58:10,21 86:12 spacial 10:7 Spanish 8:6 9:2 11:16 18:8 19:17 21:2322:25speak15:7 25:13 31:1234:17,24 35:3,9,22 Page 9 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 36:2,3,4,6,11 38:14,1539:3 42:13,25 45:751:2 66:25 68:18 69:22 70:3 71:25 80:17 82:8 91:2 speaker 24:19 28:11 46:22 50:21 70:2 speaking 25:20 35:20 43:2 48:12 51:14,15 51:16 53:16 60:7 66:16,17 speaks 36:3 91:15 special 64:6 specially 82:1 91:10 specific 22:16specifically12:21 21:2429:14 36:13 73:977:10 82:3spend30:6 37:2,16spent27:16 spirit 89:15 split 26:7 spoke 7:10 66:12 spoken 68:14 86:24 88:2 spot 30:14 spread 85:19 spring 16:8 square 8:5 staff 7:23 8:17,21 11:5 11:22,22,25 12:2,16 13:20 18:17 21:10 29:1,9,14,22 31:15,1531:19 32:1,22 37:542:3 54:23 55:5 65:2471:7,7,9,13,17,2276:22 77:5 79:2,5 83:6 84:9,10,25 88:2 90:18 stage 42:9 stained 22:12 standing 23:5,12 standpoint 56:17 Starr 16:21 start 16:6 started 42:5,13 43:21 state 22:14 51:2 59:11 stated 7:8 77:23 83:12 91:21 statements 41:16 94:10states16:21station17:17,18 18:120:6 53:21 54:24 58:660:23status48:9 50:14 51:25 53:5 73:1,10 77:12 80:22 statute 50:13 stay 25:9 40:9 52:7 stead 63:10 steal 17:5 stenographically 94:11 Stephanie 3:11 4:9 33:9 Stephen 4:7 16:9 18:18 21:21 57:12,13 stepped 25:22 Steve 3:12 36:21stewards16:15 56:12stewardship75:15stop41:20 48:14 story 47:19stound58:12straight49:12 straw 34:19 street 2:17 3:4 12:7 33:23,24 48:1 50:2 52:23 60:13,24 65:17 71:16 75:11 77:18 streets 16:25 60:18,20 60:21 stress 27:21 striking 18:6 string 75:2 strong 10:7 strongly 54:22structure17:5,7 58:276:17structures 10:17 57:2058:9struggling 85:18 86:2 stucco 9:4 22:1 stuck 45:9 study 11:18 style 8:6,24 10:9 11:16 11:17 19:17 21:24 22:7,25 48:22,23 49:5 49:9 58:4 84:20 styles 18:4,7 49:5 58:1 subdivide 27:11 subdivided 10:4,5 21:12 subdivision 21:14,16 23:15 53:8subject8:2,5 10:15,2110:22 11:6 65:15 67:3submissions84:12submit45:21 submitted 79:12 80:12 80:14 subsequent 9:22 45:24 90:6 subsequently 22:15 74:22,23 subsidize 30:3,16 substantive 45:20 87:17 87:20,24 88:25 90:11 Substitute 89:8 successful 48:25 suffered 56:5sufficient9:9suggest76:8suggestion80:25sum57:25summarize 32:9 33:11 summary 32:14 supply 68:7 69:13 support 18:22,24 29:5 41:6 42:15 43:22 48:8 50:16 67:12 68:23 69:1 74:13 79:23 80:7 84:9 85:7 86:21 88:3,7 89:18,25 supporting 15:8,11 86:6 86:18 supportive 91:24 suppose 83:3,7 86:20supposed66:18sure21:17 25:14,1632:11,15 34:22 35:14 37:19 45:10 63:1264:21 65:9 67:24 73:781:7 82:6,9 surprise 64:25 surprised 68:20 surrounding 47:20 surrounds 22:2 suspicious 26:6 65:3 76:12 sweet 48:3 symbiotic 24:4 system 25:23 93:12 T T 4:12 table 56:7 take 26:2,25 29:18 30:23 32:20 36:8 39:20 40:4 42:17,20 45:1 46:2 59:15 60:15 61:2 62:22 63:23 65:16 66:5 75:6 76:12 77:1 79:21 91:13 taken 2:16 21:17 52:1594:6,14takes63:1Taking's 62:25Takings30:22 talk 37:3 52:20 69:17 79:24 talked 42:3 talking 41:14 68:11 83:1 tallest 17:7 taste 58:3 tax 52:10,11 taxes 59:12,14 team 34:25 35:19,21 36:1,2 tear 27:11 tease 72:21technically13:4tell47:21telling33:12 49:17 68:1769:13 81:17tells29:23 32:1 tem 3:10 5:18 6:21 12:14 66:10 77:20 79:8 93:6 ten 14:17 15:2,20,22 24:25 25:6,8 32:11,13 33:12 35:19 53:3 tennis 9:17 terms 7:15,21 30:10 33:1 40:12 54:6 74:3 78:21 83:4 91:11 terracotta 9:1 22:10 test 75:5,13 testicles 20:22testify34:14 67:9,1068:12,13 83:15testimony5:11 41:1542:17 43:10 45:4,1546:2,11 51:6,6 59:16 69:1 73:23 74:7 84:12 85:1,10 94:9 thank 7:24 16:4 24:14,16 24:18,22,22 25:5,15 25:18 28:9 33:16,17 33:17,18,25 38:2 42:22,22 43:14 46:1246:12,13,15 47:1150:18,19,20 51:10 53:12 55:6 57:9,12 58:24 59:5,7 61:3 62:1 62:5,5,12,17 65:9 67:23 70:9,22,22,24 71:1 72:1,2,6 76:23,25 77:1 89:23 90:25 93:11 Thanks 16:9 theater 53:21 thing 6:24 27:1 33:20 86:20 things 22:6,6 27:8,1328:5 37:6 38:11 43:2447:22 48:15 59:1778:5think6:6 12:4,16,2414:23,25 15:20 23:2 25:1 31:3,14,16 36:17 37:1,6,17 41:13,15,17 41:22 42:8,11,14 43:19,22,24 44:3 46:7 49:7 53:2 55:17,21 56:5 57:6,8 59:18 63:13,24 65:25 66:2 67:4,14,16 68:12,17 72:12,16,22 74:3 75:6 76:1 78:4 79:21,22,24 80:18 81:8,16 82:15 83:2,11 84:13,2185:18 86:17 87:3 88:290:11 91:9 92:8thinking82:24third3:5 23:10 49:3 thought 36:24 39:23 64:23 three 8:16 11:12 14:7,8 18:14 22:19,22 23:25 27:25 47:14 62:8 76:21 79:2 Thursday 32:23 71:8,18 tile 9:4 time 6:13,15 7:13 10:7 10:21,24 12:23 13:4 13:15 14:2,16,16,18 15:1,12,19 16:16,2217:24 20:3 21:2 23:1424:14 26:19 33:1035:10 36:25,25 37:237:25 39:3,19 46:2347:5 49:15,20 51:1 52:24 59:8 64:9 71:7 71:13,18,21 72:9 74:2 77:3 81:3 85:3 87:4,13 88:16,23 89:18 94:7,7 94:11 Times 16:23 60:17 timing 41:13 title 57:16 today 18:2 43:11 58:15 58:19 73:24 told 29:14 47:19 65:23 66:24 67:15 68:2474:23tonight16:18 17:2319:11 24:15 31:12 36:16 38:6 39:1241:18 51:2,13 52:1753:7,16 55:6 57:4 66:14 76:6 77:25 78:6 84:13 92:11 top 20:14 torn 43:21 80:20 toss 53:3 total 57:25 tour 67:3,5 toured 7:8 tourists 53:19 tours 53:20,25 towel 22:1 town 23:9 31:12 34:1566:14tract10:5trade20:21,21traditionally14:16trail73:20 train 17:18 transcribed 94:12 transcript 1:7,13 2:16 94:14 transition 16:12 transom 22:11 treasure 49:4 74:8 treasured 50:6 treated 31:1 trespassing 26:13 trey-articles 20:22 trial 32:4trouble50:4troubles50:4true28:6 76:19 94:13,19truly54:3 trust 28:3 61:21 truth 49:15 51:21 74:5 76:14 try 26:8 39:9 48:11 67:1 70:8,9 74:4 trying 31:8 38:14 40:1 42:21 68:21 72:21 73:24 76:11 81:6 89:13 turn 19:1 36:6 turned 64:24 twenty 24:7twice33:7twisted22:8two7:5 8:16 11:10 22:1922:21 23:21 31:11,1633:8 34:12 51:16 55:14 64:14 74:21 78:5 83:6 two-story 8:6 9:16 19:17 type 84:20 types 9:5 30:13 typical 41:22 80:21 typically80:24 U U.S 20:10 um 5:22,24 6:6,16,16,19 7:17 12:5 13:5,14,15 14:21,22 21:11 24:23 25:22,24,25 26:1,3,3 26:23,25 27:5,6,19,23 Page 10 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 28:3,3 37:4 41:18,2243:22 44:17 49:2351:1,12,22 52:13,25 53:9 54:5,6,25 55:25 56:16 57:1,7,19 59:8 59:10,13,16,21,23 60:7,10 62:19 71:23 72:3,20 75:15 77:23 78:3,4,15 79:2,4,20 80:3 81:2,4,7 83:8,22 84:5,15 85:24 86:14 88:20 89:14,15 90:2,5 91:9 92:6 understand 29:11 30:11 58:17 60:14 68:1981:11understanding 45:1446:8 77:8 82:13undue37:8unduly64:3 unfolded 88:11 unfortunate 85:19 unfortunately 53:7 77:6 UNIDENTIFIED 24:19 70:2 union 17:17 18:1 20:6 53:21 54:24 58:6 60:22 unique 12:8 University 58:9 unnecessarily 40:1 64:2 unpack 73:20unpretentious 18:7unusual44:16,25update22:14upset28:1 urge 54:22 76:20 87:13 urging 24:12 USC 17:10 59:20 60:23 use 30:15 72:9 utility 92:14 V valuable 11:17value27:19 31:7 32:18 56:23 57:1 59:12 60:4 74:18,25 75:8 76:1 values 69:21 74:24 varying 9:6 vast 21:4 vehemently 86:14 versa 52:8 versus 28:24 vice 52:7 Vicente 8:4 13:3 19:15 21:6 22:21 view 44:4 77:9 88:11viewed77:10violate38:22violated28:24violation30:8visibility12:13 visible 53:2 56:10 75:11 75:14 77:18 Vision 16:10 57:14 visit 38:4 77:6 visited 5:17,20,22 6:21 60:12 visiting 7:16voice15:15volt-ed 22:8 volunteer 53:18 vote 6:9 15:15 39:21 42:20 44:13,17 80:8 87:15 89:13 92:21 voted 89:9 voting 81:23 90:8 93:4 VS 1:6 2:6 W wait 15:5 34:2 71:2 waited 31:16,17 waiting 32:23 34:17 waive 63:16 waived 30:5 64:7 walk 16:24 60:17,21 65:17 walked 60:20 65:17 walking 53:19,20 71:16 77:13 wall 27:2 walls 22:1want25:11 28:16 29:2534:16 37:2,23 38:3,2139:18 43:3 46:11,1552:19 54:5,14 59:10 60:2 63:11 66:15 69:17,22 72:12 79:21 82:14 87:6 91:1 wanted 28:12 32:25 34:23 36:25 37:24 38:19 42:12,14 50:7 61:1 64:4 67:15,15 73:7 75:10 76:4 79:12 80:11,14,18 90:1 wanting 36:19 56:15 80:17 wants 29:6 63:17 73:2282:6War23:8warm48:2Warren51:17wasn't 29:9 38:16 64:25 67:5 77:6 82:6,9 86:15 wasting 36:24 way 6:18 7:21 17:22 20:14 29:5 42:16 46:16 53:2 56:24 68:19 77:8,11,14 78:13 ways 57:25 58:20 62:24 63:3 we'll 24:23 25:9 46:12,14 50:23 70:24 80:4 we're 11:25 14:22 17:2218:13,18,22 24:1428:5 31:7 32:24 34:1236:20 37:15 41:1442:20 43:20 45:1546:16 48:1 50:11 52:4 52:17 55:16 56:12 57:23 58:13,15 59:18 60:6 63:9 64:2 72:17 82:14,18 83:1,3,18 85:18 86:1,20 91:11 92:10,12 93:4,13 we've 14:23 20:8 31:2057:5 65:6weigh78:24 86:9 weighed 88:15,18 weight 88:12 welcome 62:2,6 went 42:3 43:19 66:20 75:1,21 weren't 26:2 73:6 76:11 west 23:7 Westlake 23:7 whatsoever 7:18 White 48:23 wholeheartedly 50:16 widely 20:3wife47:12 49:11,2350:16 72:24 76:18willing52:19Wilshire17:15,25 20:558:8 59:20 60:22 win 31:8 window 9:5 48:19 windows 22:2,11 winning 37:1 wish 44:3 59:4 78:24 wished 39:20 wishes 78:9 withdraw 38:6 39:25 withdrawal 43:24 withdrawing 39:13 withdrawn 43:19 withdrew 38:8witness4:3 94:8,9witnesses66:13wonderful49:1 72:14wondering61:14 wood 22:1 Woodacres 5:4 8:2 13:7 18:23 19:7,13 21:14 21:16 47:12,19,21 48:9 49:25 51:4 55:1 60:21 73:17 80:13 Woodies 28:23 Woods 34:13 40:25 words 44:19 56:7,21 work 11:20 20:12 23:1 30:20 50:6 61:23 86:5 worked 17:21 20:10,13working49:13 72:10workmanship23:20works20:4 53:24world17:9,13 23:8 86:3worth58:14 61:16 worthy 89:17 wouldn't 69:22,23 woven 21:14 writing 38:6 41:10 wrote 27:14 57:13,15 83:19 www.depo.com 1:21 X X 4:1,12 Y yeah 12:15 35:1 41:942:19 66:11 79:1983:11,16 85:5 years 7:14 9:23 25:2547:14,18 50:1 53:2255:17 56:13,13 57:6,7 59:25 72:11 York 16:23 young 34:10 48:12,13 Z zone 30:12zones30:13zoning30:14 0 1 1:00 5:23 109 56:13 11 5:15 11:00 7:7 11:30 5:18 11793 1:24 2:19 94:4,24 12 16:24 57:6 12th 49:17 72:24 13th 74:22144:5 52:2214774:2114th94:201517:19 47:14 50:116852:17 1717 3:4 1885 20:10 1894 10:19 20:12 1898 17:6 18ENT-0276 1:5 2:5 5:4 19 4:5 1900's 48:24 1904 17:7 1905 17:19 1906 17:9 1913 10:3 1919 17:11192017:20 19:18,2523:22 24:11920's 23:171920s19:2419218:8 9:20 10:11,22 1923 20:23 1926 20:24 1928 17:8 1931 23:10 1932 17:13 1935 10:12 11:3 16:24 17:21 19:25,25 21:8 24:1 1946 10:5 21:10 23:16 53:8 55:23 1960's 21:10 1966 16:1419709:19197821:519799:25198417:13 1989 55:17 2 2,950,000 74:232052:23 2001 47:17 55:21200374:2220186:5 16:8 22:13 75:24 2019 1:15 2:18 5:1,15 94:20 20th 19:22 57:18 21 27:19 56:25 22 21:2 22-acre 10:4 21:11 23:15 25 4:6 288-3376 1:20 2nd 2:17 3 3 71:18 30 72:11 83:20 90:11 310 3:6 3rd 17:4 52:23 4 4 25:6 32:19 33:13 60:4 61:16 75:8 40-year 17:3 400 10:17 452-6643 3:6 47 4:6 5 5,425,000 74:24 50 18:2 59:20 501C3 73:10 51 4:8 52 25:25 53 4:8 54,000 8:5 55 59:25 57 4:7,9 59 4:7 5S3 8:10 6 6/14/2019 1:8 65 90:24 7 7:26 5:1 7:27 2:18 72 4:9 8 8-63:168001:20 73:58081:5 2:5 5:4 8:2 19:719:13 47:13 48:9,16 49:4 50:14,17 51:3 820 47:12 846 80:13 88501C3 54:9 8th 1:15 2:18 5:1 9 900 63:16904012:18 3:5 92 25:24 956100-A 5:14 Page 11 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com April 8, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 9A 5:3 - 1 - M E M O R A N D U M PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING DIVISION DATE: April 8, 2019 TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: 808 Woodacres Road, 18ENT-0276 Public Hearing to consider Landmark Designation Application 18ENT-0276 to determine whether the property consisting of a two-story residence (single-unit), in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. PROPERTY OWNER: Marcia Alphson APPLICANT: Santa Monica Conservancy INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND The applicant filed a Landmark Designation application for a two-story Spanish Colonial Revival style residence located on the subject property on September 11, 2018. The property owner was informed of the proposed Landmark nomination and requested to extend the review time period for the Commission to hold the public hearing on the application until the February 11, 2019 Landmarks Commission meeting, however subsequently requested a continuance of the item prior to the meeting. A Landmark Assessment report was prepared for the subject building by one of the City’s historic preservation consultant, Ostashay and Associates Consulting (OAC), provided as Attachment C. Based on the findings as provided in the report, the consultant finds that the property is eligible for Landmark designation under the City of Santa Monica Landmark criteria 9.56.100(A)(1) as exemplifying the early architectural and residential development history of the City, 9.56.100(A)(2) for its aesthetic and artistic qualities, 9.56.100(A)(3) for its association with notable and master architect John Parkinson as a historic personage, 9.56.100(A)(4) reflecting the Spanish Colonial Revival style with influences from the Italian Renaissance revival valuable to a study, and 9.56.100(A)(5) as a significant example of the work of master architect John Parkinson. 9-A - 2 - Historic Resources Inventory Status The subject property is identified in the City’s 2018 Historic Resources Inventory survey as a 5S3 and appears eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark and eligible for listing in the National and California Register. The property was not identified on previous City surveys. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Notice of this hearing was provided as required by Section 9.56.170(c) of the Landmarks Ordinance, with notice sent to all owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius and a newspaper notice published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least 10 consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is included as Attachment A. ANALYSIS Property Information and Architectural Description The subject property consists of approximately 54,000 square feet and is located in the northern portion of the City north of San Vicente Boulevard on Woodacres Road in the R1 single-unit residential district within the North of Montana residential neighborhood. The neighborhood consists of one-story Ranch-style residences from the 1950s and one and two-story residences of varying architectural styles constructed thereafter. The property contains a two-story Spanish Colonial Revival style residence with Italian Renaissance Revival influences constructed in 1921. The residence was designed by architect John Parkinson as his personal residence. The residence, approximately 4,700 SF in size, consists of an irregular “H” shape floor plan configuration, with a central rectangular mass and two perpendicular wings on either side. The roof consists of a series of medium pitched gabled roofs with minimal overhang capped with red barrel clay tiles. The center mass of the house is capped with a side-facing gable and the two wings include bracketed front-facing gables. Fenestration consists primarily of elongated multi-pane, recessed wood-frame casement windows varying in size. The front window set at the ground floor north wing features a decorative glazed terra cotta frame. Other window types include square multi-pane casements, tripartite windows, decorative stained glass, and fixed-pane with bottle glazing. Some of the window frames along the first and second floors of the living room wing (north) have been replaced with either solid glazed casements or fixed pane glass windows. The front elevation includes a series of three tall arches at the loggia entry and an arcade supported by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta columns and Corinthian capitals. The front entry is defined by a large, recessed wood panel double door with clear stained glass transom set within a monumental arched shaped opening. The rear and side elevations are generally asymmetrical in form and configuration. Classic elements of the Italian Renaissance Revival style include the arched shape arcade with recessed loggia, glazed terra cotta tiles surrounding a window opening on - 3 - the north wing and arched arcade, and the ornately glazed terra cotta frame of the main entry. Spanish Colonial Revival features include the building’s asymmetrical configuration, smooth trowel-finished stucco siding, red barrel tile roof and overhang details, fenestration pattern and window frame type, and overall massing and varying height composition. The residence has undergone a few alterations since its original construction. Alterations include minor additions to the rear of the residence at the kitchen, rear patio (enclosure), and a small extended closet was constructed from the rear corner of the upstairs bedroom. Other alterations include the addtion of the detached two-story guest house/garage, pool, and tennis court located south of the residence that were constructed in 1970. The non-descript vernacular guest house/garage is rectangular in plan and consists of a flat mansard roof, stucco walls, French doors, and an arched covered patio area. These alterations do not detract from the building’s ability to convey its historic significance in that the residence retains significant character-defining features of its original design including the following: - Scale and proportion of the building, its asymmetrical form and window composition; - Spanish Colonial Revival features including the building’s asymmetrical configuration, smooth trowel-finished stucco siding, red barrel tile roof and overhang details, fenestration pattern and window frame type, and overall massing and varying height composition. - Italian Renaissance Revival features including the arched recessed loggia with arcade supported by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta columns and Corinthian capitals, glazed terra cotta tiles window surrounds on the north wing and arched arcade, and the ornately glazed terra cotta frame of the main entry with large double wood panel door and clear stained glass transom. - Fenestration consisting of recessed wood-frame and metal multi-pane casements, French type windows and doors, square shape multi-pane windows, tripartite windows, decorataive stained glass, and fixed-pane bottle glass windows; - Multi-level gable roof with red barrel clay tiles; - Loggia and extended tiled hardscape driveway and front door entry (herringbone pattern of varying size and hue red tiles. The period of significance is 1921-1935 reflecting the original construction date of the residence and the period John Parkinson resided at the property. Historic Context In 1875, the original townsite of Santa Monica was surveyed, including all the land extending from Colorado Street on the south to Montana on the north, and from 26th Street - 4 - on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west. Areas of land at the perimeter and outside of the incorporated city limits were semi-rural in setting and were developed with scattered residences. After the advent of the automobile in the 1920s, housing construction significantly increased within the tracts north of Montana Avenue and east of Seventh Street for permanent residents. Many annexations occurred in subsequent years further expanding the City of Santa Monica. Although the subject property was listed in the Santa Monica City directories after its completion and references in the local papers and journals also stated that it was situated within the City of Santa Monica, the Parkinson residence was located outside of the City boundary in an area called the Sawtelle Annex. The Sawtelle area was incorporated in 1906 as a City, and was annexed to Los Angeles in 1922. It remained part of Los Angeles until homeowners of roughly 50 homes north of San Vicente Boulevard comprised of five cul-de-sac streets (Esparta Way, Ermont Place, Woodacres Road, Foxtail Drive, and Larkin Place) petitioned to become part of the City of Santa Monica in 1976. The homeowners claimed their properties were isolated from Los Angeles city services such as schools, police, and fire protection due to their remote location accessible only through the City of Santa Monica. Eventually, this area formally became part of the City of Santa Monica in 1979. As one of the few extant residences from the earliest phase of residential development in this portion of the City located north of San Vicente Boulevard along the southern rim of the Santa Monica Canyon, the property is an increasingly rare example of early residential development in Santa Monica. Overall, the property retains a strong sense of time and place from the first quarter of the twentieth century as it remains a sizable estate property of approximately 54,000 SF. Although the property has been altered over time, most of the alterations are along secondary elevations or at the rear. Despite its minor alterations, the siting of the residence and overall site characteristics of expansive landscaped open space continue to convey its historic association and character as an estate-style property within the City of Santa Monica. Parkinson Residence The subject property was Parkinson’s third and last residence built in Southern California where he resided with his wife for approximately fifteen years before his death in 1935. The property was different from the other Parkinson residences based on its semi-rural location, siting, and “estate” characteristics. It was expressively designed by and for John Parkinson as his retreat home, and included many personal preferences including tennis courts small chicken ranch, formal gardens, groves of trees, small private golf course, sunken garden, and pool. In 1946, the property was subdivided and Woodacres Road was created providing access to 16 parcels. Considerable landscaped grounds that extended to San Vicente Boulevard and to the east were removed for potential residential development. The subject property was reduced to a smaller reconfigured parcel of approximately 1.2 acres. The original long driveway accessed from San Vicente Boulevard was also reconfigured and shortened to provide access from the newly established Woodacres Road. Despite the property being subdivided, the residence in its siting on the property retains a strong sense of time, place, and spatial relationships that - 5 - continues to convey its historic character as an estate-style property and early residential development within this area of the City. John Parkinson, Architect The subject property was designed by architect John B. Parkinson who designed more than 400 structures in the Los Angeles area, including but not limited to the Homer Laughlin Building (1897, Grand Central Market) in downtown Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1923), Los Angeles City Hall (1928), and Bullocks Wilshire (1928-1929). His son, Donald Parkinson, would later design the Public Works Administration (PWA) Moderne inspired Santa Monica City Hall in collaboration with Joseph M. Estep (1938). Parkinson began his prolific architectural career in Southern California when he opened a Los Angeles office in 1894. In 1905, he formed a partnership with G. Edwin Bergstrom, and in 1920, he opened a joint firm, Parkinson & Parkinson, with his son Donald. John Parkinson is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, and also designed industrial buildings as well as residential properties. The architectural styles of these buildings included Art Deco, Spanish Colonial Revival, Italian Renaissance, Art Deco, Classicism, Romanesque, and Beaux Arts. The importance of John Parkinson is evident by extant iconic buildings that remain throughout the Los Angeles region. By the time the subject residence was completed, John Parkinson was a well-established architect in the Los Angeles area with several large commissions. It was around this time in 1920 that he partnered with his son to form the architectural practice of Parkinson & Parkinson. The firm designed notable and influential buildings in Los Angeles further exemplifying Parkinson as a prominent and notable architect. Parkinson is considered an important person at the local, state, and national levels for his masterful architectural work and the design of extraordinary, iconic buildings that influenced and defined Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during a period of unparalleled expansion during the first half of the twentieth century and is considered one of most influential designers of his time. Landmarks Ordinance/Findings The Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to review the building’s eligibility as a landmark based on the six criteria discussed below. In order to be designated as a City Landmark, the Commission is required to find that the property meets one or more of these criteria. Based on the findings as provided in the Landmark Assessment Report, the consultant finds that the property appears eligible as a landmark under the City of Santa Monica Landmark criteria 9.56.100(A)(1), 9.56.100(A)(2), 9.56.100(A)(3), 9.56.100(A)(4), and 9.56.100(A)(5). Based on the research and evaluation of 808 Woodacres Road, staff agrees with the consultant’s findings that the property satisfies Landmark Designation Criterion 1 through 5. The following draft findings are provided to support this conclusion: - 6 - (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. The subject property exemplifies the City’s early architectural and development history of the residential neighborhood in the area. Constructed in 1921, the property is an early example of residential development in the area that would later expand during subsequent years after its construction. Although the property was located in the City of Los Angeles until its annexation to the City of Santa Monica in 1979, it was generally referred to in City directories and other publications as a property situated in Santa Monica because of its location, siting, and access. Purchased by Parkinson in 1913, the 22-acre site was later subdivided into a new residential tract in 1946. As one of the few extant residences from the earliest phase of residential development in this portion of the City located north of San Vicente Boulevard along the southern rim of the Santa Monica Canyon, the property is significant as an increasingly rare example of early residential development in Santa Monica. Overall, the property retains a strong sense of time and place from the first quarter of the twentieth century as it remains an estate-style property of approximately 54,000 SF. Although the building and property have been altered over time, most of the alterations are along secondary elevations or at the rear of the main structure. Despite its minor alterations, the residence substantially retains all aspects of integrity from its period of significance (1921-1935) and continues to convey its architectural characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival styles. Furthermore, the siting of the residence and overall site characteristics as an estate property continue to convey its historic association and character within the City of Santa Monica. Accordingly, the subject property appears to satisfy this criterion. (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject property is an excellent example of its type, design, and style. Its design fully articulates Parkinson’s design principles of Period Revival architecture and expresses his aesthetic and artistic ideals of the period and style. Characteristics including the deeply recessed doors and windows, smooth trowel-finish stucco exterior walls, barrel clay roof tiles, arched shaped openings, the crafted use of glazed terra cotta tiles, and the integration of a loggia and arcade enclosed by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta decorative columns with Corinthian capitals further epitomizes the design theories of its architectural style that is of aesthetic and noteworthy interest. The subject residence consists of high aesthetic and artistic qualities and therefore appears to satisfy this criterion. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. The subject property was designed by architect John Parkinson who was a self-trained architect considered one of most influential designers in the region at that time. Parkinson is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, however also designed industrial buildings and residential properties. Parkinson is considered an important - 7 - person at the local, state, and national levels for his masterful architectural work and the design of extraordinary, iconic buildings that influenced and defined Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during a period of unparalleled expansion during the first half of the twentieth century. By the time the subject residence was completed, John Parkinson was a well-established architect in the Los Angeles area with several large commissions. It was around this time in 1920 that he partnered with his son to form the architectural practice of Parkinson & Parkinson. The firm designed notable and influential buildings in Los Angeles further exemplifying Parkinson as a prominent and notable architect. The property is identified with master architect John Parkinson, and therefore appears 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. The subject property is an excellent example of its type, design, and style reflecting the Spanish Colonial Revival style with influences from the Italian Renaissance Revival idiom. Its design fully articulates Parkinson’s design principles of Period Revival architecture and expresses his aesthetic and artistic ideals of the period and style. Characteristics including the deeply recessed doors and multi-pane fenestration, smooth trowel-finish stucco exterior walls, barrel clay roof tiles, arched shaped openings, the crafted use of glazed terra cotta tiles, and the integration of a loggia and arcade enclosed by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta decorative columns with Corinthian capitals further epitomizes the design theories of its architectural style. Other features associated with Parkinson’s work are evident on the residence including the horizontal emphasis of the property’s overall design and the aesthetic composition, scale, and articulation of the façade. The residence substantially retains all aspects of integrity from its period of significance (1921-1935) and continues to convey its historic significance, embodying distinguishing architectural characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival styles valuable to a study of its type and style. Furthermore, the subject property is a rare example that exemplifies Parkinson’s residential design philosophy and is the only known single-family residence of its type designed, constructed, and resided by John Parkinson within the City. Therefore, the subject property appears to 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 was constructed in 1921 and designed by master architect John Parkinson as his personal residence. Parkinson was a self-trained architect who is considered one of most influential designers as his work is recognized throughout the Southern California region. Parkinson is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, however he also designed industrial buildings and residential properties. The architectural styles of these buildings included Art Deco, Spanish Colonial Revival, Italian Renaissance, Art Deco, Classicism, Romanesque, and Beaux Arts. Parkinson helped define Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during a period of unparalleled expansion - 8 - during the first half of the twentieth century. He designed more than 400 structures in the Los Angeles area, including but not limited to the Homer Laughlin Building (1897, Grand Central Market) in downtown Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1923), Los Angeles City Hall (1928), and Bullocks Wilshire (1928-1929). The subject property is a rare example that exemplifies Parkinson’s residential design philosophy and is the only known single-family residence of its type designed, built, and resided by master architect John Parkinson within the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the subject property appears to satisfy 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 is located in the northern portion of the City along Woodacres Road within the North of Montana residential neighborhood. The neighborhood consists of one- story Ranch-style residences from the 1950s and one and two-story residences of varying architectural styles constructed thereafter. Due to its remote location adjacent to the Santa Monica Canyon, the property is not located in a unique location in the City, does not consist of a unique singular physical characteristic, and is not an established and familiar visual feature of the North of Montana residential neighborhood. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Commission designate the property located at 808 Woodacres Road as a City Landmark consisting of the primary residence, excluding the detached accessory guest house/garage and including the parcel (APN 4280-002-005) on which it is sited as a Landmark Parcel based on the draft findings of designation Criteria 1 through 5 contained herein. Pursuant to SMMC 9.36.180, the Landmarks Commission’s determination regarding this application may be appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the City Planning Division within ten (10) consecutive days commencing from the date that the decision is made by the Landmarks Commission. Attachments: A. Public Notice B. Applicant Materials C. Landmark Assessment Report, Ostashay & Associates Consulting, February 2019 D. Public Correspondence 1 M E M O R A N D U M PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING DIVISION DATE: June 10, 2019 TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: 808 Woodacres Road, 18ENT-0276 Continued public hearing to consider Landmark Designation Application 18ENT-0276 to determine whether the property consisting of a two-story residence (single-unit), in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. PROPERTY OWNER: Marcia Alphson APPLICANT: Santa Monica Conservancy INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND On April 8, 2019, the Landmarks Commission conducted a public hearing to discuss the proposed Landmark nomination and considered written and oral testimony, held a discussion, and continued the item at the request of the property owner. The Commission will be continuing the public hearing to discuss the proposed Landmark nomination. Staff notes a minor clerical revision to the Landmark Assessment prepared by Ostashay and Associates Consulting (OAC, February 2019) involving the beginning date of the property’s period of significance. Specifically, the period of significance previously identified as 1921-1935 has been revised to 1920-1935 (page 15) reflecting the original construction date opposed to the completion date of the residence, and the period John Parkinson resided at the property. This revision does not result in any changes to the consultant or staff analysis or recommendations. The updated Landmark Assessment is provided as Attachment C. For reference, the materials provided to the Commission for the April 8, 2019 meeting are provided as attachments, including the applicant’s materials, staff report, Landmark Assessment Report (OAC), and public correspondence through April 8, 2019. In addition, public correspondence provided after the April 8, 2019 meeting is provided as Attachment E. 2 Attachments: A. Planning Staff Report (April 8, 2019) B. Applicant Materials C. Landmark Assessment Report, Ostashay & Associates Consulting, February 2019 D. Public Correspondence received through April 8, 2019 E. Public Correspondence received after April 8, 2019 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded 1875 “Populus felix in urbe felici” Monday, June 10, 2019 7:00 PM City Council Chambers, Room 213 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION: Chair Sloan called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Dolores Sloan, Chair Richard Brand Kenneth Breisch Roger Genser Amy Green Barry Rosenbaum, Chair Pro Tempore Also Present: Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED, AP, Design and Historic Preservation Planner Steve Mizokami, Commission Liaison Wendy Radwan, Staff Assistant III Absent: Ruth Shari 2. REPORT FROM STAFF: Steve Mizokami, Senior Planner and Liaison to the Landmarks Commission, provided a report including: demolition applications for 401 19th Street and 303 12th Street have been withdrawn; a landmark application has been filed for the “Compass Rose” at the Santa Monica Airport; and 5 Mills Act Applications have been filed and will be processed this year. Mr. Mizokami provided an update on the appeal of the Landmark designation of the sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue, which was granted by the City Council on May 14, 2019. Mr. Mizokami stated that a future Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission to consider 2 the update of the Landmarks Ordinance will be rescheduled and reminded the Commission of the emergency exit procedures. 3. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 4-A. May 13, 2019 7:12 PM Commissioners offered corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion to approve as amended. Chair Sloan seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shari 5. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: 5-A. Certificate of Appropriateness 19ENT-0165, 2663-2671 Main Street, approval to allow the removal of non-original building features, removal of the building’s exterior paint color, and restoration of the existing brick material to its natural colors on the subject Mendota Block building, a designated City Landmark. 7:21 PM Commissioner Genser disclosed he resides within 500 feet of the property, recused himself and left the chambers. Commissioners offered corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion to approve as amended. Commissioner Breisch seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Breisch, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Genser, Shari 5-B. Structure of Merit 19ENT-0029, 516 Colorado Avenue, denying the subject building as a Structure of Merit. 7:22 PM 3 Commissioner Brand disclosed he resides within 500 feet of the property, recused himself and left the chambers. Commissioners offered corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion to approve as submitted. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Brand, Shari 6. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission) 7:27 PM The following member of the public addressed the Commission: Carol Lemlein (Santa Monica Conservancy) regarding the press and community meetings held by the new property owner of 1413 Michigan Avenue (Nikkei Hall). Ms. Lemlein stated concern as this is a designated property, the Landmarks Commission should review the project preliminarily. Mr. Mizokami stated that while staff has met with the property owner to review a preliminary concept design, there has been no formal project application filed with the City. 7. DEMOLITION PERMITS: 7-A. Historic Resources Preliminary Review Hearing. Preliminary review and consideration of whether there is credible evidence in the record to proceed with a further public hearing to determine whether buildings or structures meet the criteria for a City Landmark or Structure of Merit in accordance with Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2599 (CCS). Upon filing an application for demolition of a building or structure that is 40 years of age or older, applicants request a review by the Landmarks Commission to determine whether the building or structure meets one or more of the criteria for Landmark or Structure of Merit. Preliminary review hearings do not result in buildings or structures being designated as City Landmarks or Structures of Merit. 7:31 PM Commissioners provided the following ex parte communication disclosures: Commissioner Genser visited all properties with the exception of 7-A.3 AND 7- A.4 and noted that those items were reviewed when he was previously on the Commission, and no action was taken. He said he had visited the properties at the time and did not visit them again. Chair Sloan, Chair Pro Tempore 4 Rosenbaum, Commissioners Breisch and Green noted that they visited the properties. 1. 1808 Pier Avenue (19BLD-1495) (19ENT-0189) Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Review R1 – Single-Unit Residential Single Family Dwelling & Garage Approximate Date of Construction: 1944 Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory End of 75 Day Period: July 21, 2019 Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion that no further hearing is required. Commissioner Genser seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shari 2. 1238 San Vicente Boulevard (19BLD-1561) (19ENT-0190) Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Review R1 – Single-Unit Residential Single Family Dwelling, Garage & Wall Approximate Date of Construction: 1946 Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory End of 75 Day Period: July 25, 2019 Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion that no further hearing is required. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shari 3. 938 Palisades Beach Road (19BLD-1275) (19ENT-0214) Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Review R2 BCH – Low Density Residential Beach Overlay Single Family Dwelling Approximate Date of Construction: 1954 Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory End of 75 Day Period: August 1, 2019 5 Chair Sloan made a motion that no further hearing is required. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shari 4. 940 Palisades Beach Road (19BLD-1317) (19ENT-0215) Landmark/Structure of Merit Designation Review R2 BCH – Low Density Residential Beach Overlay Single Family Dwelling Approximate Date of Construction: 1923 Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory End of 75 Day Period: August 1, 2019 Chair Sloan made a motion that no further hearing is required. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shari 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: None 9. OLD BUSINESS: None 10. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10-A. Landmark Designation 18ENT-0276, 808 Woodacres Road, consideration to determine whether the residence, in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark and, if so designated, whether an associated Landmark Parcel should be defined and described in order to preserve, maintain, protect, or safeguard the Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A). This item is continued from the Commission’s April 8, 2019 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission considered written and oral testimony, commenced deliberations, and continued the item at the request of the property owner. 7:35 PM Commissioners provided the following ex parte communication disclosures: 6 Commissioner Genser stated that he was previously a member of the Santa Monica Conservancy, had resigned his position, has not discussed the matter with the Conservancy, nor anyone else, and stated that he can be completely objective on the matter of designation of the property. Commissioner Green stated that she was previously a member of the Santa Monica Conservancy, had resigned her membership of the Santa Monica Conservancy last year and did not have discussions regarding the property. Chair Sloan previously held a position on the nominations committee of the Santa Monica Conservancy, she stated that she had resigned her membership and can be impartial on the item. Commissioner Breisch had previously been a member of the Santa Monica Conservancy, had resigned his membership. He stated that he has not had communication on this matter and can be fair and impartial. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum noted he has never been a member of the Santa Monica Conservancy and has no disclosures. Mr. Mizokami noted the City’s consultant, Jan Ostashay, has revised the period of significance to start in 1920 reflecting the original construction date. Ruthann Lehrer, representing the Santa Monica Conservancy, made a brief presentation noting the consultant assessments of the properties and that she met with the property owner and her financial advisor. Mr. Roger Diamond, attorney representing the property owner, noted that there was a deed restriction signed by Mr. Parkinson that provided a racial restriction on the property. Mr. Diamond stated that since it appears that Mr. Parkinson was a racist, his association with the property should be considered differently. He also stated that required maintenance of the property is an undue burden as this is not an income-producing property. He also noted that a certificate of economic hardship cannot be considered until after action on a designation He also noted that the property is not visible from the Public Right of Way. Marcia Alphson, property owner, was granted 3 additional minutes to speak in addition to the customary time allocated to property owners and their representatives under the Commission’s Rules of Order by 2/3rds of the Commission. Ms. Alphson stated that the property cannot be seen from the street. She stated concern that the applicant appears to have no consideration for the property owner. She stated that Ms. Lehrer has taken her words out of context and used them in a manner to advance her own argument. Ms. Alphson stated that her neighbor Mr. Jacobson has also hired an attorney and may have other motives for advocating designation of the property. Ms. Alphson also stated that her father would not have been in favor of designation. The following members of the public addressed the Commission in opposition to the designation: Suzanne Wicker (Burbank resident); Scott O’Neil (resident); 7 Shala O’Neil (resident); Karen Locke (resident) submitted written statements by other property owners along Woodacres Road in opposition to the designation; William Brown (resident), Mi Lachman (resident); Don Woods (adjacent neighbor); and Mary Beth Woods (adjacent neighbor). David Boras, Chief Financial Officer for the Alphson family, requested that the Commission have concern for the Alphson family. He stated that designation would reduce the property value by 20%. He thanked Mike Salazar and Ruthann Lehrer for meeting with them. He stated that the Mills Act would not be an advantage to Ms. Alphson. He noted concern that the property should be put up for sale without designation. In response to the Commission’s inquiry, he stated that he was representing the property owner. The following members of the public addressed the Commission in support of the designation: Stephen Gee (author and documentarian who has studied John Parkinson); Melanie Parkinson Larson (great-granddaughter of John Parkinson, architect of the residence); Paddy Calistro (resident); Mike Salazar, (resident/member of the Santa Monica Conservancy speaking on his own behalf); Christina Hildebrand (realtor), Jerry Rubin (resident). Marcia Alphson restated her position in rebuttal to the public testimony. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum suggested that the applicant get 5 additional minutes for a total of 8 minutes in light of the additional speaking time afforded the property owner. All Commissioners were in favor, so the applicant was granted 8 minutes for rebuttal. Ms. Lehrer, in rebuttal stated that the type of deed restrictions that were mentioned were standard practice all over Southern California in the 20’s, and that they may have no bearing on the actual beliefs of any particular property owner(s). She stated that she can see the property from the street, even though she is not tall. She discussed incentives for historic properties, and flexibility given to the property interiors. She stated that she had more than one conversation with the property owner’s tax attorney and understood their intention to sell the property, and they valued the property and not the house. Therefore, the Conservancy felt the property was at risk of demolition. She also reiterated the reasons she believed the property should be designated. Carol Lemlein, also speaking for the applicant on rebuttal, called the Commission’s attention to the letters received from organizations such as the Los Angeles Conservancy and North of Montana Association. The Commission continued their deliberations begun at the previous meeting. Chair Sloan spoke regarding the legality of deed restrictions, and that she believed that such a restriction is not legal. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum also agreed and stated that his understanding that such covenants are no longer legal. Commissioner Breisch stated that in 1948 the Supreme Court overturned 8 all restrictive covenants. Commissioner Breisch also stated that at that time it’s estimated that over 80% of properties in the Los Angeles region were under restrictive covenants. While he personally finds it despicable, he noted that was part of standard real estate practice and not necessarily reflective of a particular property owner’s beliefs. Commissioner Breisch also stated that in 1978 the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the ability for the City of New York to designate property as City Landmarks, and that designations have been deemed not as a taking. Commissioner Breisch made a motion to accept the staff report, Findings 1 through 5, and designate the property. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum reiterated that he supports the designation based on the findings in the staff report, testimony in both Commission meetings, and the balance of the record. Chair Sloan reviewed the photographs and material in the packet again and stated her support for the motion. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum clarified that the motion shall consist of the primary subject residence, include the landmark parcel, exclude the detached accessory structure, and include the character defining features on pages19 and 20 of the Ostashay report. Commissioner Breisch agreed that was a friendly amendment to the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Rosenbaum, Sloan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shari 9:13 PM Chair Sloan called for a break 9:29 PM Chair Sloan called the meeting back to order 10-B. Historic District application 18ENT-0356, consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding an application for designation of a new proposed historic district on 4th Street consisting of certain properties located within the 2500 block of 4th Street including 2506-2516, 2518, 2524, 2525, and 2528 4th Street, and 317-321 Ocean Park Boulevard. This item is continued from the Commission’s May 13, 2019 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission considered written and 9 oral testimony, commenced deliberations, and continued the item at the request of the applicant. 9:31 PM Mr. Mizokami provided a brief staff report, noting that the City’s historic consultant was available. Ruthann Lehrer (representing the applicant, the Santa Monica Conservancy) stated that they believed that the resources represent a cohesive district. She stated that the consultant identified that the district was too small to be a district and that they disagreed with that interpretation. She discussed the architectural merits of each property. She reiterated that this district remained intact even with the changes of the roadway. She stated that the integrity of the resources are high, and that it has a strong visual presence. She noted that the findings are necessarily detailed and can be edited. Ms. Lemlein (representing the applicant, the Santa Monica Conservancy) stated that the findings can be used as a point of departure. Commissioner Brand asked the applicant to explain how they see it as a cohesive district. Ms. Lehrer responded that the architectural styles represent the neighborhood as it evolved, and that a single style is not necessary, but represents how the neighborhood developed over this period of time. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum noted that in looking at the previous HRIs different configurations of such a district differed and had included the 2400 block of 4th Street. He asked the applicant to clarify the choice of the district boundaries. Ms. Lehrer responded that the submitted district has a particular sensibility with the creation of Central Avenue, now Ocean Park Boulevard, which is different from the 2400 block. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum also asked the applicant about portions of the findings that are outside the period of significance. Ms. Lemlein stated that they were amplifying that the district still held together, rather than what had been stated in the consultant’s report which discounted the district in part due to changes in the roadway that occurred later. She also clarified that 14 structures are included in the application, including the accessory structure to 2518 4th Street. Ms. Lemlein also stated that Mission Revival Style is relatively rare in the City. The following members of the public addressed the Commission in support of the proposed district: Mike Salazar (resident), Jeffrey Sturges (resident), and Rich Capparela (resident). Roger Genser asked Mr. Salazar why 3rd Street wasn’t included in the proposed district. Mr. Salazar didn’t know, but also stated that the current HRI has removed a number of potential districts and he is not in agreement with that assessment. 10 The following member of the public addressed the Commission in support of the consultant and staff report: Grant Carpenter (owner’s representative of 5 of the properties) stated that the criteria should be met in a significant way in order to recommend designation of a district. He stated that a criterion of “how a community develops over a period of time” can be so broad as to apply to anything. Ms. Lehrer spoke in rebuttal and stated that the proposed district is a cohesive and unified grouping, with 4 styles that portray an evolution of the neighborhood. Chair Sloan asked how the carving of the district was identified. Ms. Lehrer identified that the cut through of Central Avenue sponsored development of the area and told a story of Ocean Park. Discussion was held. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum spoke in support of the district, noted that there are 14 buildings on 5 parcels, and that there is no requirement in the ordinance as to size. He stated that the City Council had designated the 11th Street District, which is also a small number of properties, so that should put the matter to rest. He also noted that the properties have been identified in previous HRIs. Chair Sloan noted that while there is no requirement for integrity, the structures have sufficient integrity to be noticed. She noticed a flavor of the buildings that have been maintained, even with moving the earth to change the roadway. The properties remain and still tell the story. She also noted that she appreciated the variety in different styles, and there is also cohesiveness that is truly unique. The applicants appear to have a clear intellectual concept around which the application has been made. Commissioner Breisch asked the City’s consultant to explain the reasoning behind their recommendation. Christine Lazzaretto, the City’s consultant from Historic Resources Group, stated that the recommendation is based on current best practice and the application of local criteria. A place that is definable, a linkage historically that is a definable area. This appears to be one of many clusters around Santa Monica which are quite similar, and the area does not appear to be a clearly definable area. Commissioner Genser stated that while he has gone back and forth, is leaning toward recommending in favor of designation. He stated that the craftsman structures on either end act as bookends. The buildings on either side of 4th Street also provide a gateway. Each building is a contributor and the area has a cohesive quality. The courtyard development is very strong. He stated that the district appears to be a cross section of architecture styles in Ocean Park. The widening of 4th Street may not have an effect on the potential district. 11 Commissioner Brand stated that while he agrees with the statements by Commissioner Genser, he does not see the cohesiveness of the district, and does not believe it rises to the level of significance. He stated that he is not inclined to support the creation of a district. Commissioner Breisch stated that there may not be a sufficient concentration to designate a district, and that this district should be reviewed against other potential districts. He stated that just because these buildings have survived does not mean they rise to represent a district. There has been a fair amount of research done although he is not convinced by the argument that the creation of the street at Central (now Ocean Park Boulevard) spurred development because at some point every street was established and in turn spurred development. He stated concern with the discussion of style and the mixture of styles represented. He noted that much of the proposed district is vernacular Mediterranean, and that on the whole does not appear to be strong enough to be a district. Commissioner Genser asked what might happen to the Structure of Merit designation for 2518 4th Street if the district was designated. Mr. Mizokami noted that the property would become a contributor to the district and be reviewed as such. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum restated his support for the request and stated that there is sufficient concentration and noted that many of these properties are included in the current HRI. Roxanne Tanemori, Acting Planning Manager, stated that the HRI update was done to look at best practice. She encouraged the Commission to review all the material, including the consultant’s report and staff report, relative to the criteria in the ordinance. Commissioner Brand made a motion to accept the staff recommendation to recommend that the City Council not designate the district, denying the designation. Commissioner Breisch seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and failed by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Breisch, Green NAYS: Genser, Rosenbaum, Sloan ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shari 3-3 vote, motion fails. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum made a motion to recommend that the City Council designate the district and made specific recommendations regarding 12 revisions to the draft findings, including a statement that the district is composed of a diverse group of buildings. He recommended removing elements that referred to dates outside the period of significance, such as the second and third paragraphs under findings for 9.56.100(A)(1). He stated that the findings should focus more on the character-defining features of each property as noted in the report by the City’s consultant. Commissioner Genser seconded motion, and agreed with the findings as revised by Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum Mr. Mizokami made recommendations regarding the suggested findings, stated that the findings would not include the elements outside the period of significance, and the historic styles should be as described by the consultant. A roll call was held for the motion and failed by the following vote: AYES: Genser, Rosenbaum, Sloan NAYS: Brand, Breisch, Green ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shari 3-3 vote, motion fails. Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the Commission had failed to act as any action requires four votes in the affirmative. As such, the Commission has failed to make a recommendation, and under the Landmarks Ordinance, the application will be deemed disapproved. She further stated that according to the Ordinance, the matter could go to City Council on appeal, and that any member of the public could file an appeal. 11. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 11-A. Report from Commission representative at the May 14, 2019 City Council meeting regarding the appeal of the landmark designation of Sycamore trees at 1122 California Avenue, action taken by the City Council, and the continued importance of public outreach to enhance public understanding of the City’s historic preservation program. 10:46 PM Chair Sloan provided a written report which was sent to the Commissioners and included on the dais. She described the Council meeting and the perception that the Commission was interested in saving the tree, which she thought was erroneous. She said that there was an organized effort by the appellant. She also stated that members of the public in support of the designation also discussed a tree protection ordinance, and she was concerned that the Commission’s action 13 was conflated with the request for a tree protection ordinance. She stated concern about the perception of the Commission. 10:58 PM Chair Sloan made a motion to continue the meeting past 11 pm. The motion was unanimously approved by a voice vote. Diane Miller (resident) stated concern with the future of preservation, the future of the Commission, and about the Council’s decision. Ms. Miller suggested that the Landmarks Ordinance update may be an opportunity to strengthen the Commission’s actions. Sherrill Kushner stated that the Council’s decision called into question the authority of the Landmarks Commission. She recommended a non-binding resolution be considered and provided a written statement for consideration. She added to her recommendation that an updated staff report be provided to the Council. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum stated appreciation for the comments of the Chair and the public. He stated that while he did not attend the meeting, he listened to much of it, and had a different impression. He stated that the Council hearing is de novo. The matter is before the Council in its entirety. There are different approaches that can be included in the ordinance update. He stated that the Council stated clearly that they could not support the findings. Reasonable minds can differ, and he noted that staff presented the Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action and that the position of the Commission was not ignored. He stated that it is unfortunate that the designation was conflated with the issue of a tree protection ordinance for private property. Commissioner Green stated that the way the matter was presented to the Commission was as an issue of saving the tree. She doesn’t see that the Council discussion was much different than what happened at the Landmarks Commission. There was a sense by the Commission that the tree needed to be saved and this was the only tool. She stated that the criteria used to landmark the tree was very subjective, in her opinion and that she was not convinced the tree would be designated with the current Commission. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum noted that the criteria used were not subjective and disagrees with that point. He noted that staff stated the criteria was not subjective. Chair Sloan expressed gratitude to the members of the public who expressed interest in this item. 11-B. Update from the Landmarks Ordinance Update Subcommittee and Staff on recent activities related to recommendations for the proposed update to the 14 Landmarks Ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.56, including but not limited to, discussions held, recommendations formulated, input received, and upcoming Subcommittee meetings. 11:19 PM Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum discussed the subcommittee meetings with staff and that the focus of the subcommittee has been on the different tiers in the existing Landmarks Ordinance. He stated a preference for additional research to be completed prior to a special meeting which would enable another meeting of the subcommittee. He stated that the Subcommittee would like to identify and consider other issues to be broadened that are interrelated, including the overall criteria and related topics. He noted a redline of the Ordinance has been sent to the Commission by Ken Kutcher, although he hasn’t fully reviewed that document. Ruthann Lehrer (Santa Monica Conservancy) stated that the Ordinance has been discussed since the early 2000’s, various interested parties are looking at it, and that she would like to pull some of the various efforts together. She would like the opportunity for interested members of the public to provide input sooner rather than later. Chair Sloan stated that the subcommittee is interested in receiving input from any member of the public. Chair Pro Tempore Rosenbaum stated that they would like to explore different options to include others. Commissioner Genser agreed that the Subcommittee could meet with members of the community. Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner, stated that staff is available to meet with the subcommittee and is available to meet if the subcommittee would also like to meet with members of the public. She stated that if there were to be a special meeting in September or October, she would recommend the 4th or 5th Monday of the month, provided there are no other City or holiday conflicts. 11-C. Update from the Public Education and Media Outreach Subcommittee on recent activities related to enhancing the awareness of, and engagement and participation in, the City’s historic preservation programs and activities. 11:35 pm Chair Sloan stated that the Subcommittee is working on a brochure that they have provided to staff. Staff will be working to have the brochure designed and printed by the end of the month or soon thereafter. Chair Sloan thanked Ms. Tanemori for assisting in finding the funds and she and Commissioner Green acknowledged Commissioner Shari’s effort on the brochure. Chair Sloan also stated that Commissioner Bach has indicated interest in writing an article for the Santa Monica Daily Press about the history of the Landmarks Commission. 15 11-D. Update from the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Ordinance Subcommittee and Staff on the draft Ordinance and to discuss next steps, including but not limited to, upcoming Subcommittee meetings. 11:38 pm The following member of the public addressed the Commission Diane Miller (resident) stated frustration with the lack of progress on the Ordinance for the District. Ms. Reich stated that the team meets weekly to discuss various work efforts, including the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District Ordinance and that work is ongoing. 11-E. Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on recent ARB consideration and action taken on proposed projects involving additions to or modifications of potential historic resources. Nothing to report 11-F. Report from Landmarks Commission representative to the Santa Monica Pier Corporation (SMPC) on recent SMPC activities and action taken on proposed projects involving the Landmark Santa Monica Pier. Nothing to report 11-G. Update from Staff on notable activities affecting any designated Landmarks or Structures of Merit. 11:42 pm Mr. Mizokami noted that staff has reviewed and approved items at 2703 Main Street, 2009 La Mesa, 250 Santa Monica Pier (Seaside on the Pier), 322 Santa Monica Pier (Starline Tours kiosk), and 511 San Vicente Boulevard (non- contributor in the San Vicente Historic District) all within the staff resolution. 11-H. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only). 12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Public and Commission discussion and comment is permitted.) None 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas) None 16 14. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting of the Landmarks Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, July 8, 2019; Council Chambers, City Hall, 1685 Main Street. 15. ADJOURNMENT: Chair Sloan made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:44 pm on Monday, June 10, 2019. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by a voice vote with all members present. APPROVE: Dolores Sloan Chair 1 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 18ENT-0276 LOCATED AT 808 WOODACRES ROAD AS A CITY LANDMARK SECTION I. An application was filed by the Santa Monica Conservancy on September 11, 2018 to designate the residence located at 808 Woodacres Road as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission, having held Public Hearings on April 8, 2019 and June 10, 2019, hereby designates the subject residence located at 808 Woodacres Road as a City Landmark and the property commonly known as 808 Woodacres Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 4280-002-005) as a Landmark Parcel based on the following findings: (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. The subject property exemplifies the City’s early architectural and development history. As one of the few extant residences from the earliest phase of residential development in this portion of the City located north of San Vicente Boulevard along the southern rim of the Santa Monica Canyon, the property is significant as an increasingly rare example of early residential development in Santa Monica. Constructed in 1920, the property is an early example of residential development in the area that would later expand during subsequent years after its construction. Although the property was located in the City of Los Angeles until its annexation to the City of Santa Monica in 1979, it was generally referred to in City directories and other publications as a property situated in Santa Monica because of its location, siting, and access. Purchased by master architect John Parkinson in 1913, the 22-acre site was later subdivided into a new residential tract in 1946. Overall, the property retains a strong sense of time and place from the first quarter of the twentieth century as it remains an estate-style property of approximately 54,000 SF. Although the building and property have been altered over time, most of the alterations are along secondary elevations or at the rear of the main structure. Despite its minor alterations, the residence substantially retains all aspects of integrity from its period of significance (1920-1935) and continues to convey its architectural characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival styles. Furthermore, the siting of the residence and overall site characteristics as an estate property continue to convey its historic association and character within the City of Santa Monica. Accordingly, the subject property satisfies this criterion. 5-A 2 (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject property is an excellent example of its type, design, and style. Its design fully articulates John Parkinson’s design principles of Period Revival architecture and expresses his aesthetic and artistic ideals of the period and style. Characteristics including the deeply recessed doors and windows, smooth trowel-finish stucco exterior walls, barrel clay roof tiles, arched shaped openings, the crafted use of glazed terra cotta tiles, and the integration of a loggia and arcade enclosed by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta decorative columns with Corinthian capitals further epitomizes the design theories of its architectural style that is of aesthetic and noteworthy interest. The subject residence consists of high aesthetic and artistic qualities and therefore satisfies this criterion. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. The subject property was designed by architect John Parkinson who was a self-trained architect considered one of most influential designers in the region at that time. Parkinson is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, however also designed industrial buildings and residential properties. Parkinson is considered an important person at the local, state, and national levels for his masterful architectural work and the design of extraordinary, iconic buildings that influenced and defined Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during a period of unparalleled expansion during the first half of the twentieth century. By the time the subject residence was completed, John Parkinson was a well-established architect in the Los Angeles area with several large commissions. It was around this time in 1920 that he partnered with his son to form the architectural practice of Parkinson & Parkinson. The firm designed notable and influential buildings in Los Angeles further exemplifying Parkinson as a prominent and notable architect. The property is identified with master architect John Parkinson, and therefore satisfies 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 is an excellent example of its type, design, and style reflecting the Spanish Colonial Revival style with influences from the Italian Renaissance Revival idiom. Its design fully articulates John Parkinson’s design principles of Period Revival architecture and expresses his aesthetic and artistic ideals of the period and style. Characteristics including the deeply recessed doors and multi-pane fenestration, smooth trowel-finish stucco exterior walls, barrel clay roof tiles, arched shaped openings, the crafted use of glazed terra cotta tiles, and the integration of a loggia and arcade enclosed by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta decorative columns with Corinthian capitals further epitomize the design theories of its architectural style. Other features associated with Parkinson’s work are evident on the residence including the horizontal emphasis of the property’s overall design and the aesthetic composition, scale, and 3 articulation of the façade. The residence substantially retains all aspects of integrity from its period of significance (1920-1935) and continues to convey its historic significance, embodying distinguishing architectural characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival styles valuable to a study of its type and style. Furthermore, the subject property is a rare example that exemplifies Parkinson’s residential design philosophy and is the only known single-family residence of its type designed, constructed, and resided in by John Parkinson within the City. Therefore, the subject property satisfies 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 was constructed in 1920 and designed by master architect John Parkinson as his personal residence. Parkinson was a self-trained architect who is considered one of the most influential designers as his work is recognized throughout the Southern California region. He is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, however he also designed industrial buildings and residential properties. The architectural styles of these buildings included Art Deco, Spanish Colonial Revival, Italian Renaissance, Art Deco, Classicism, Romanesque, and Beaux Arts. Parkinson helped define Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during a period of unparalleled expansion during the first half of the twentieth century. He designed more than 400 structures in the Los Angeles area, including but not limited to the Homer Laughlin Building (1897, Grand Central Market) in downtown Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1923), Los Angeles City Hall (1928), and Bullocks Wilshire (1928- 1929). The subject property is a rare example that exemplifies Parkinson’s residential design philosophy and is the only known single-family residence of its type designed, built, and resided in by master architect John Parkinson within the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the subject property satisfies this criterion. SECTION II. The property commonly known as 808 Woodacres Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 4280-002-005) is designated as a Landmark Parcel in order to preserve, maintain, protect and safeguard the Landmark building. SECTION III. The rear detached accessory guest house/garage is excluded from this designation. SECTION IV. The following features shall constitute the historic character-defining features of the subject property, reflective of its period of significance (1920-1935): Location, height, massing, scale and proportion, building form; siting of the main residence with substantial landscaped setback from Woodacres Road, and enclosed “sunken garden” on the parcel; Building configuration as a modified “H” shape plan with central core and flanking wings and multi-level, asymmetrical composition of residence; 4 Front yard area with circular driveway around landscaped island and grounds landscaped with mature trees; Physical attributes that define the Spanish Colonial Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival styles of the dwelling; Multi-level complex gable roof with red hue barrel clay tiles, medium pitch, and bracketed under eave details; Stucco engaged chimneys with decorative tile caps (three chimneys, location, height and size, material, form); Smooth trowel-finish stucco covered exterior walls of residence and “sunken garden” hollow clay tile block perimeter wall with vertical plank wood door and ceramic urns; Asymmetrical composition of window placement and associated features (fenestration pattern and shape and size); Fenestration (recessed) of wood-frame and metal, multi-pane casements; French type windows and doors; square shape multi-pane windows; tripartite windows, decorative stained glass; and fixed-pane bottle glass windows (including their size, material, type, shape, location/placement, mullion profile, individual panes, balconette, and glazed terra cotta framing); Triple arched recessed entrance loggia with arcade set on ornate spiral fluted terra cotta glazed columns and Corinthian capitals; Loggia floor and extended tiled flooring to driveway and front door entry (herringbone pattern of varying size and hue red tiles); Full length wood-frame, multi-pane French windows with exterior screens within arched shape arcade (east elevation); Enframed glazed terra cotta chamfered block tile main entry with large double wood panel door, clear stained glass transom, and glazed terra cotta tiles with decorative scrollwork insets set within an arched shape recessed opening; Wood-frame, multi-pane French doors; Mature landscaping features, including trees (pine, eucalyptus, myrtle, varietal palms, and cypress, etc.); Wrought iron hanging pendent light fixtures along front (east) façade; Small bronze signage plate attached to the center pier of the front gate that reads “Woodacres”. 5 SECTION V. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately reflect the final determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica on June 10, 2019 as determined by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Breisch, Genser, Green, Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum, Chairperson Sloan ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Shari NAYES: None Each and all of the findings and determinations are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. Respectfully Submitted July 8, 2019 Dolores Sloan, Chairperson Attest: Steve Mizokami, Landmarks Commission Secretary CITY LANDMARK ASSESSMENT REPORT JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE 808 WOODACRES ROAD SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: City of Santa Monica City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Prepared by: Jan Ostashay Principal Ostashay & Associates Consulting PO BOX 542 Long Beach, CA 90801 FEBRUARY 2019 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 1 CITY LANDMARK ASSESSMENT REPORT JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE 808 Woodacres Road Santa Monica, CA 90402 APN: 4280-002-005 INTRODUCTION This landmark assessment and evaluation report, completed by Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC) for the City of Santa Monica, documents and evaluates the local landmark eligibility of the property located at 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica, Los Angeles County. This assessment report was prepared at the request of the City and includes a discussion of the survey methodology utilized, a concise description of the property, a summarized historical context of the property and related themes, evaluation for significance under the City of Santa Monica landmark criteria, photographs, and any applicable supporting materials. OAC evaluated the subject property, the John Parkinson Residence, to determine whether it appears to satisfy one or more of the statutory criteria associated with City of Santa Monica Landmark eligibility, pursuant to Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. The assessment and this report were prepared by Jan Ostashay, principal with OAC, who satisfies the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History and History. In summary, OAC finds that the John Parkinson Residence, 808 Woodacres Road, appears eligible for local listing as a City Landmark under City of Santa Monica Landmark Criteria 9.56.100(A)(1), 9.56.100(A)(2), 9.56.100(A)(3), 9.56.100(A)(4), and 9.56.100(A)(5). The following sections of the report provide a contextual basis for the assessment analysis and a discussion of how this evaluation determination was made. METHODOLOGY The historical assessment was conducted by Jan Ostashay, principal with Ostashay & Associates Consulting. To help identify and evaluate the subject property as a potential local landmark, an intensive-level survey of the site was conducted. In order to determine if any previous evaluations or survey assessments of the property had been performed the assessment included a review of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and its annual updates, the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) maintained by the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), and the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 2 For this current assessment a site inspection and a review of building permits and tax assessor records were performed to document the property’s existing condition and assist in evaluating the property for historical significance. In researching the City files no building permits were found for the property. However, some relevant building permits were found within the City of Los Angeles online permit files. The City of Santa Monica landmark criteria were employed to evaluate the local significance of the property and its eligibility for designation by the City’s Landmark Commission. In addition, the following tasks were performed for the study: • Searched records of the National Register, California Register, Library of Congress archives, U.S. Census records, OHP CHRIS, and the local City of Santa Monica HRI. • Conducted a site inspection of the subject property and its associated features; photographed the property, features, and adjacent area. • Conducted site-specific and contextual research on the subject property utilizing Sanborn fire insurance maps, city directories, newspaper articles, historical photographs, aerial photographs, and associated archival, historical references and repositories. • Reviewed and analyzed ordinances, statutes, regulations, bulletins, and technical materials relating to federal, state, and local historic preservation, designation assessment procedures, and related programs. • Evaluated the potential historic resource based upon landmark criteria established by the City of Santa Monica and utilized the OHP survey methodology for conducting surveys. The property was not evaluated for National Register or California Register eligibility. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The John Parkinson Residence is located along Woodacres Road in the northern portion of the City near the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and 14th Street. The property is set back from the street near the end of the Woodacres Road cul-de-sac. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 11 of Tract No. 12868; parcel number 4280-002-005. The two-story period revival style dwelling is located in a single-family residential neighborhood consisting primarily of one-story Ranch style homes from the 1950s as well as one- and two-story homes of varying styles erected decades later. The subject property was previously identified in the City’s 2018 Historic Resources Inventory Update survey. Under that survey effort, the property was found to be individually eligible for National Register and California Register listing due to its architectural merit, associations with the early residential development of the area, and master architect John Parkinson. The property was also identified as individually eligible for local listing as a City of Santa Monica landmark for the same reasons. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 3 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Description. The two-story John Parkinson Residence was completed in 1921. However, according to permit history and the Southwest Builder and Contractor publication from March 1920 construction of the dwelling began in earnest in the spring of 1920. Designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style with Italian Renaissance Revival influences the smooth, trowel- finish white stucco structure was built of hollow clay tile with an irregular “H” shape floor plan. The rectangular shape central mass of the house, which contains the sun room, hall and stairs, and recessed open loggia on the first floor, fronts the street with two perpendicular wings set flanking either side. The roofing system consists of a series of medium pitched gabled roofs with minimal overhang all capped with red barrel clay tiles. The center mass of the house is capped with a side-facing gable and the two flanking wings are crowned by front-facing gables that are bracketed. Fenestration consists primarily of varying size elongated multi-pane, wood- frame casement windows deeply recessed within their openings. The front (east) window opening set at the first level of the north wing also features a decorative glazed terra cotta frame. Other window types punctuating the structure include square shape multi-pane casements, tripartite windows, decorative stained glass, and fixed-pane with bottle glazing. It appears that some of the window frames along the first and second floors of the large living room wing (north) have been replaced with either solid glazed casements or fixed pane glass windows. The window openings for these newer frames remain unaltered. The asymmetrical front façade (east, primary) is dominated by the tall triple arches of the entrance loggia with the arcade set on ornate spiral fluted terra cotta columns and Corinthian capitals. The loggia floor, which extends out to the circular driveway is of a herringbone pattern set with varying size and hues of red tiles. This tile flooring also covers the back patio deck at the rear of the house. Full length wood-frame, multi-pane French type windows with exterior wood-frame screens are aligned within the arcade and open to the small patio. Offset to the right of the high vaulted loggia is the main entrance door to the residence. The entry is demarcated by a large, recessed wood panel double door with clear stained glass transom set within a monumental arched shaped opening. This opening is enframed by ornate glazed terra cotta chamfered textured tile blocks in addition to glazed terra cotta tiles with decorative scrollwork on the inset. The rear (west) elevation is also asymmetrical in form and configuration. Varying fenestration type punctuate this exterior wall plane, though a small, low-rise wrought iron balconet set in front of a pair of French door windows hangs from the second floor of the central bedroom. Just below this balconet feature is an extended enclosed patio area that is capped with a tile covered shed roof. Within the enclosed patio area a pair of wood-frame, multi-pane French doors that open out to the enclosed patio deck. Pairs of elongated multi-pane, fixed metal- framed windows flank the slightly raised door opening. Similar to the other elevations the south elevation is asymmetrical in design. This portion of the house is comprised of the south wing that includes a small living room area, kitchen, secondary JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 4 stair access to the second floor, dining room, and laundry room all on the first level. Four bedrooms, bathroom, and stair access are directly above. The south elevation contains a pair of multi-pane, wood-frame French doors that open to the side yard and swimming pool area and multi-pane fixed windows upstairs. Off set to the west of the two doors is the extended kitchen that is features a tile covered shed roof, stucco sheathed walls but with a brick veneer skirt with extruded mortar, diamond paned tripartite fenestration, and panel wood doors with diamond glazed upper panels. The house also includes a basement that is accessed from within the building and from the exterior at the rear. Three engaged stucco clad chimneys are additional features of the dwelling. The back yard directly behind the main house is below grade and was regarded by Parkinson as the “sunken garden.” This large area is enclosed by a stuccoed covered wall of hollow clay tile blocks. Besides steps and ramps from the raised rear patio deck, access to this backyard area is also provided through a wide opening with vertical wood plank door placed at the west side of the stucco wall and through an opening at the south side of the wall near the laundry room. Within this “sunken garden” are a variety of trees, shrubs, and plantings as well as a grassy lawn. On either side of the rear access point are two large ceramic urns that are original to the property’s period of significance. To south of the main house is a landscaped side yard, swimming pool, tennis court, and two- story guest house with garage. These improvements were added to the grounds by the property’s second owner in 1970. This non-descript, vernacular structure has a rectangular plan, flat mansard roof, stucco walls, French doors, arched covered patio area, and an attached two car garage. Access to the house is from Woodacres Road and is approached through a pair of brick piers with metal lanterns atop and a metal gate. An attached pedestrian gate of similar style and material is offset to the right (north) of the entry drive. A small bronze signage plate is attached to the center pier of the front gate and reads “Woodacres.” Upon approach the paved driveway forks right, center, and left. The path to the far left heads to the garage and guest house while the center fork leads you to the front of the house and then loops around a central landscaped island and back to the fork and street. The large front yard area features lush mature landscaping, a small decorative fountain lined at the base with soldier course colored brick set at the fork of the driveway, and a variety of mature tall trees (pine, eucalyptus, myrtle, cypress, etc.). The parcel is enclosed along the perimeter by a tall metal and wood picket fence. Classic elements of the Italian Renaissance Revival style are evident in the arched shape arcade with recessed loggia, the use of glazed terra cotta tiles around the one window opening in the north wing and arched arcade, and the ornately glazed terra cotta frame of the main entry and door feature. The Spanish Colonial Revival idiom heralds to the smooth trowel-finish of the stucco, red barrel tile roof and overhang details, asymmetrical configuration and design of the dwelling, fenestration pattern and window frame type, and overall massing and varying height JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 5 composition. An article in the Architectural Forum magazine from 1926 noted the house as a small Tuscan villa. Alterations. A review of Los Angeles County Tax Assessor records and archival data indicates the subject property was completed in 1921. As the property was under the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles when it was constructed relevant building permits recorded prior to 1979 were found at the City’s Department of Building and Safety’s online building records search database. No associated permits were found filed with the City of Santa Monica. Permits recorded for exterior work on the subject property on file with the City of Los Angeles include the following. Citations to the Southwest Builder and Contractor are also included in the table below. YEAR DESCRIPTION OF WORK 1920 Plans being prepared for a two-story hollow tile residence on San Vicente Bl. for himself 1920 Five room addition with two bathrooms, $6,000 1920 Add to brick residence, 1201 San Vicente Bl., Sawtelle Annex, $6,000 1947 Garage (detached), $850 1970 Accessory living quarters + two car garage (detached), $18,000 1970 Private swimming pool 1970 Add mansard roof to accessory living quarters and garage No other building permits were located in the City of Los Angeles or City of Santa Monica building permit files. At some unspecified date, a small one-story brick and glass addition off the rear corner of the kitchen area was made by Howard Alphson (unspecified date). A one- story frame and glass patio enclosure with tile covered shed roof off the rear of the house as well as the remodel and extension of the back patio deck were also made by Alphson (unspecified date). In addition, a small extended closet was built out from the rear corner of the upstairs back bedroom (date unknown). The changes noted above; however, do not adversely affect the property’s overall historic qualities or important character-defining features. A visual inspection of the exterior of the house and grounds confirms that no major alterations have been made to the property to compromise its overall historical integrity. HISTORICAL CONTEXT Santa Monica. In 1875, the original townsite of Santa Monica was surveyed, including all the land extending from Colorado Street on the south to Montana on the north, and from 26th Street on the east to the Pacific Ocean on the west. Between 1893 and the 1920s, the community operated as a tourist attraction, visited by mostly wealthy patrons. Those areas just outside of the incorporated city limits were semi-rural in setting and were populated with scattered residences. After the advent of the automobile in the 1920s, Santa Monica experienced a significant building boom with homes being constructed in the tracts north of JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 6 Montana and east of Seventh Street for year-round residents. A number of annexations occurred in later years that further expanded the City of Santa Monica. Sawtelle Annex. The subject property was typically listed in the Santa Monica city directories after its completion. References in the local papers, architectural magazines and journals, etc. also stated that it was situated within the City of Santa Monica. However, the Parkinson residence was actually located in what was called the Sawtelle Annex. The Sawtelle area was incorporated in 1906 as a city, but was annexed to Los Angeles in 1922. It remained part of Los Angeles until homeowners of roughly 50 homes north of San Vicente Boulevard comprised of five cul-de-sac streets (Esparta Way, Ermont Place, Woodacres Road, Foxtail Drive, and Larkin Place) petitioned to become part of the City of Santa Monica in 1976 (there was an earlier effort in 1968, but it was denied by Los Angeles). The homeowners in this area claimed they were isolated from Los Angeles city services such as schools, police, and fire protection due to their remote location to the city. They also noted that their properties were only accessible by traveling through Santa Monica. Over the course of a few years with discussions between Los Angeles, Santa Monica, the property owners and others the land formally became part of the City of Santa Monica in 1979. John Parkinson Residence. The subject property located at 808 Woodacres Road was designed and built in 1921 by master architect John Parkinson as his personal residence. It was his third and final residence built in Southern California. The Woodacres property has only had two property owners to date, John Parkinson and his family (1913-c1966) and Howard and Dru Alphson and their family (1966 to present). John Parkinson was one of the most prolific, masterful, and influential architects of Los Angeles. Parkinson had purchased the subject property in early 1913 from the Santa Monica Land and Water Company for just under $100,000. According to the local newspapers, the land purchased, which was approximately 22 acres, extended from 14th Street east to 17th Street and stretched north to the southern rim of the Santa Monica Canyon from San Vicente Boulevard. Accounts in the San Monica Daily Outlook, Los Angeles Herald, and Los Angeles Times from 1913 all cite the preparation of plans for a large residential estate by owner, builder, and architect John Parkinson on the large acreage of land. These newspapers also noted the cost for the construction of the house from $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000. In actuality, the house was built in the spring of 1920, with an enlargement to the dwelling costing $6,000 added in June of that same year.1 John Parkinson sold his home on Wilshire Place in Los Angeles in March 1920 and it was at that time that he and his family, Meta his wife and son Donald (1895-1945), relocated to the “country” along San Vicente Boulevard. His daughter Mary Dorothea (Dorothy, 1890-1980) had married Goodwin Trent in 1917 and they were living in Los Angeles at that time (later they moved to San Marcos where Goodwin became a dairy farmer). 1 Southwest Builder and Contractor, March 12, 1920, p. 15; Southwest Builder and Contractor, June 11, 1920; Los Angeles building permit, June 5, 1920, #8117. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 7 At the time of its construction it was assigned an address of 1201 San Vicente Boulevard, which remained as such until the mid-1940s. Access to the property was via a long windy main driveway from San Vicente Boulevard. The large site that developed into Parkinson’s personal residence consisted of a large wedge shape piece of land that included an open air plunge (swimming pool), tennis courts, formal gardens, an enclosed sunken garden behind the house, a small chicken ranch for the raising of fancy prize poultry, a small private golf course, groves of trees, a service drive, and vast manicured lawns and landscaping. There were so many trees throughout the site and around the grounds perimeter that the Parkinsons called the estate “Woodacres.” A sketch by Parkinson dating from the late 1910s shows a conceptual layout of the grounds, which at the time included a long windy “main” driveway from San Vicente Boulevard to a landscaped circular motor court and the house, a service driveway along the western side of the parcel, an enclosed chicken yard, formal gardens, lake, sunken garden with wall, and lots of trees throughout the site. Upon the actual completion of the house and grounds the property looked closely like the plan Parkinson had sketched. Many of those features are still evident today. The Parkinson family lived and played at Woodacres; however, in the spring of 1922, Meta Parkinson became sick and was confined to bed. Diagnosed with an acute throat and ear infection, she passed away on March 10, 1922 at the age of fifty-five in their Santa Monica home. Months after this devastating loss, Parkinson began a brief courtship with a local bank teller, Florence Gumaer (1884-1966). Though twenty-three years younger than Parkinson, a romantic connection was sparked and they married on April 6, 1923. The newly married Mr. and Mrs. John Parkinson continued to live at the Woodacres home. Though still overseeing the Parkinson architectural firm with his son, John Parkinson also allotted time to travel aboard with Florence. During the early 1930s, Parkinson along with his son Donald and fellow architects John Austin and Albert C. Martin were jointly commissioned as architects for the new Los Angeles Union Terminal building complex. While John Parkinson was working on the designs for the project he suffered what was later diagnosed as a mild heart attack at his office in the Title Insurance Building in downtown Los Angeles. He recuperated at his Santa Monica home and on December 9, 1935 the doctor visited for a check-up and found him “cheerful and happy.”2 However, only ten minutes after the doctor left he was quickly summoned back to the house where he found Parkinson dead from a heart attack.3 It was three days before what would have been his seventy-fourth birthday. Following the death of John Parkinson, Florence remained at Woodacres for a number of years. Donald lived nearby as his home he had designed built just up the street at 1605 San Vicente Boulevard. Daughter Dorothy moved back to Santa Monica with her family in the late 1930s to 2 Ibid, p. 118-119. 3 Ibid, p. 119; Santa Monica Evening Outlook, “Notable Building Designer Dies,” December 10, 1935; JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 8 be closer to Florence and her brother. They were listed in the 1940’s U.S. Census as residing at 900 San Vicente Boulevard. Beginning in early 1945 Florence and Donald wanted to downsize the acreage upon which Woodacres was located. The idea of subdividing the land was nothing new as John Parkinson had sold off a portion of acreage to Donald Douglas back in 1922.4 On January 9, 1946, Tract Number 12868 with its newly created short winding cul-de-sac street called Woodacres Road and flanking 16 parcels was formally established with the City of Los Angeles. It was at this time that the address of the Parkinson Residence was changed to 808 Woodacres Road. Much of the landscaped grounds that extended to San Vicente and eastward were removed for potential residential development and the grounds of Woodacres were consolidated to a single smaller, reconfigured parcel covering just over an acre. The original long driveway approached from San Vicente Boulevard to the house was also reconfigured and shorten to stem off Woodacres Road. Florence eventually moved to a nursing home in Pasadena, leaving the house vacant for a number of years. Often times while in Pasadena she would have someone drive her back to Santa Monica so she could visit her beloved Woodacres.5 In 1966, Florence Parkinson passed away at the age of 82 years. The house then passed on to its second owner, Mr. and Mrs. Howard Alphson. Howard Alphson (1919-2015) was an attorney and his wife Druscilla (1926- 2018) worked in real estate. They raised their three children there, Miriam Lynn Alphson (1956- 1974); Marcia Alphson (1958- ); and John N. Alphson (1960- ) at Woodacres. During their residency at Woodacres, a number of improvements were made to the overall property by the Alphson family, including a two-story detached accessory dwelling and attached two car garage in July 1970, a swimming pool in September 1970, a small brick addition off the rear corner, and the addition of a one-story frame and glass patio enclosure with tile covered shed roof off the rear of the house. The back patio deck was also remodeled and extended at that time. Despite these changes the main house and grounds remain substantially intact. Today, ownership of the Woodacres property remains in the Alphson family. John B. Parkinson, Architect. The subject property was designed by regionally significant architect John B. Parkinson, who designed more than 400 structures in the Los Angeles area, including, the Homer Laughlin Building (1897, Grand Central Market) in downtown Los Angeles, Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1923), Los Angeles City Hall (1928), and Bullocks Wilshire (1928-1929), among other iconic works in the Southland area. John Parkinson’s son, Donald, later designed the Public Works Administration (PWA) Moderne inspired Santa Monica City Hall in collaboration with Joseph M. Estep (1938). 4 Los Angeles Times, “Large New Home Gets Under Way,” July 17, 1922, p. 1. 5 Interview with Stephen Gee, author of “Iconic Vision: John Parkinson Architect of Los Angeles,” January 24, 2019. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 9 John Parkinson began his prolific architectural career in Southern California when he opened an office in Los Angeles in 1894. In 1905, he formed a partnership with G. Edwin Bergstrom, and in 1920, he opened a joint firm, Parkinson & Parkinson, with his son Donald. John Parkinson is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects; however, he also designed industrial buildings as well as some residential properties. His vocabulary of architectural styles included Art Deco, Spanish Colonial Revival, Italian Renaissance, Art Deco, Classicism, Romanesque, and Beaux Arts. John Parkinson was born in Scorton, Lancashire, England in 1861 to a working-class family (Thomas and Mary Ann Parkinson) in an era when architects came from the building trades. As a young man he apprenticed with a local contractor, building stone houses, churches, and commercial buildings. During the winter months he enrolled in the Mechanics Institute of Boulton, where he studied building construction and design.6 He arrived in North America in 1883 with little more than five dollars and a toll box.7 As an adult he travelled to Winnipeg, Canada and Minneapolis, Minnesota working as a builder’s apprentice, building fences and stairs, and then serving as a mill foreman. Shortly thereafter, he returned to England intending to open an architectural practice. Lack of success; however, brought him back to the United States and after located in Napa, California. He eventually landed a commission to build the Bank of Napa, which elevated him to formally practicing architecture. In January 1889, Parkinson moved to Seattle where he made his mark as an architect. At the end of the year Parkinson returned to Napa where he married Meta C. Breckenfeld on Christmas day. He returned to Seattle with his new wife soon after. On October 17, 1890, Mr. and Mrs. Parkinson welcomed a baby daughter, Mary Dorothea. Parkinson’s architectural portfolio continued to grow in Seattle particularly with the commission for the design of the Seattle National Bank Building. The Butler Block project (1891) also earned praise and led to a commission for the design of a schoolhouse, which in turn led to his designing 32 schools in the Pacific Northwest. He soon built his own house within the Seattle neighborhood of Renton Hill and emerged as the City’s first Schools Architect and Superintendent of Construction. As his business grew, Parkinson also invested in numerous real estate ventures. However, only a few years later Seattle was hit by a serious economic depression in the winter of 1893. Parkinson struggled to offset his investments as the real estate market collapsed. He was forced to resign from his position as the architect and Superintendent of Construction for the Seattle schools or faced the idea of being fired. Unemployed and nearly broke he eventually headed to Los Angeles with his family in March 1894 to begin anew. He had announced his arrival in Los Angeles in the “Personals” section of the Los Angeles Times on May 9, 1894. By initially teaming with a former colleague from Seattle, Weymouth Crowell, they won a large contract for an addition to a hotel in Pasadena. He later partnered with J. Lee 6 Gee, Stephen. Iconic Vision: John Parkinson, Architect of Los Angeles. Los Angeles: Angel City Press, p.20. 7 Ibid, p. 14. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 10 Burton, which lasted a year (1894-1895). He then established his own practice under his own name for the next ten years. His first important commission was the Currier Block on Third Street between Spring Street and Broadway in downtown Los Angeles. It was followed shortly after by the design of the Homer Laughlin Building, which included the Grand Central Market on the first floor. On a personal note, he became a father for the second time when Meta gave birth to a baby boy, Donald Berthold Parkinson, August 10, 1895. In 1902, Parkinson was commissioned to design a new bank building at the corner of Fourth and Spring streets by a consortium of investors led by John Hyde Braly, president of the Southern California Savings Bank. The multi-story building was designed as a classical Beaux Arts style structure twelve stories high. Called the Braly Block building it was the first high-rise in the downtown Los Angeles area.8 It remained the tallest building in Los Angeles for more than two decades until 1928, when it would be surpassed by yet another Parkinson landmark, the new Los Angeles City Hall.9 At the time, no single structure did more to enhance John Parkinson’s reputation than the Braly Block.10 In 1905, Parkinson established a partnership with George Edwin Bergstrom (1876-1955). He hired Bergstrom initially as a draftsman, but soon realized his design skills potential. Their ten year collaboration resulted in some of Parkinson’s finest Beaux Arts, Italian Renaissance, and Spanish Colonial Revival architecture created in the Los Angeles downtown business district. These well-designed buildings changed the City’s skyline forever.11 The Parkinson & Bergstrom partnership began with making plans for the most palatial hotel in Los Angeles history: Hotel Alexandria (the lavish Biltmore Hotel in downtown later opened as the largest hotel west of Chicago in 1923).12 Other notable commercial improvements soon followed, including the King Edward Hotel (1905), Bullock’s Department Store #1 (1906-07), the Pacific Mutual Insurance Company building (1908), the reorganization of Central Park (Pershing Square, 1911), the Union Oil Company office building (1911), the Ford Motor Company Factory (1912), and Hotel Rosslyn (1914). The extraordinary success of the Parkinson & Bergstrom partnership resulted in numerous other commissions all designed in a variety of classically crafted architectural styles. The alliance; however, did not extend beyond the agreed upon ten year term and was dissolved in 1915. Parkinson returned to conducting business under his own name and Bergstrom eventually established his own practice. John Parkinson continued his solo work for five more years before inviting his son Donald to partner with him in the firm. Donald Parkinson graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) School of Architecture in 1920 and had also spent a year as a special student at the American Academy in Rome studying architecture before returning to Los Angeles. It was 8 Ibid, p. 74. 9 Ibid, p. 77. 10 Ibid, p. 77. 11 Ibid, p. 79. 12 Ibid, p. 80. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 11 at that time that the architectural firm of John and Donald B. Parkinson Architects (Parkinson & Parkinson) was formally established. It wasn’t much later that the two drew plans for their own personal homes located along San Vicente Boulevard in Santa Monica. Prior to that time John Parkinson and family were living in a home he designed in Los Angeles on Wilshire Place. John Parkinson designed a two-story Spanish Colonial Revival style residence with Italian Renaissance Revival influences for his abode at 1201 San Vicente Boulevard (later changed to 808 Woodacres Road). Donald designed for himself (and his wife he married in the fall of 1921) a one-story Spanish Colonial Revival dwelling, which was located at 1605 San Vicente Boulevard (now demolished). Both structures were set back from the street and approached by long tree-lined winding driveways. In the ensuing years, father and son would work together to design a number of iconic landmarks. They worked collaboratively on the design of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum that ultimately played a role in the bid to bring the 1932 Olympics to the city. The team of Parkinson & Parkinson incorporated the latest architectural techniques and trends and quickly expanded by the acquisition of more commissions. Their portfolio of work grew to include masterful works such as the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1921-1923); County of Los Angeles Hall of Justice Building (1925); Mira Mar Hotel, Santa Monica (1921); the Evening Outlook Newspaper Building, Santa Monica (nd); Los Angeles City Hall (1928); Pacific Coast Stock Exchange (1929-1931); Title Guaranty and Trust Company office building (1929-1931); United States Government Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco branch #1, Los Angeles (1929- 1930); University of Southern California campus classroom buildings (1928); Bullock’s Wilshire Department Store (1928-1929); Bullock’s Westwood (1932); Security Trust and Saving Bank office building (1933); and the Los Angeles Unified School District Manual Arts High School (1934-1935); among many others in Los Angeles and elsewhere in the southland and out of state. In addition to his professional work, John Parkinson took an active interest in Los Angeles civic affairs. He was a member of the commission that drafted a new building code for the city in 1900, and after 1902 served for a number of years on the City’s Municipal Art Commission. He was a member after 1901 of the Southern California Chapter, AIA, and served two years (1904- 1905) as vice-president and continued his chapter affiliations throughout his career.13 From 1919 to 1933 Parkinson served on the State Board of Architects. He was also a member of the California Club, the B.P.O.E., and the Los Angeles Country Club. At the time of John Parkinson’s death in late 1935, he and Donald had together designed more than two hundred buildings and the firm was responsible for roughly four hundred, representing a considerable collection of work.14 Thereafter, Donald Parkinson assumed control of the design firm business after his father’s passing and continued to operate the firm as John 13 Withey, Henry and Elsie Rathburn Withey. “Biographical Dictionary of American Architects, Deceased,” 1956, pgs. 456-457. 14 Ibid, p. 119. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 12 and Donald B. Parkinson out of respect for his father. He went on to complete the Union Passenger Terminal complex and restaurant, as well as the Saks Fifth Avenue store building in Beverly Hills; the Art Deco remodel of the Pacific Mutual Insurance building; Lockheed Administration building; California Bank, Hollywood; and the Santa Monica City Hall with architect Joseph M. Estep. While the business was prospering, it was in November 1945, that the fifty year old Donald Parkinson passed away unexpectedly due to a heart attack at his Santa Monica home. After Donald Parkinson’s death the architectural firm became known as Parkinson, Powelson, Briney, Bernard & Woodford.15 In 1955, it became Woodford & Bernard Architects until 1984; then changed names again to Woodford, Parkinson, Wynn & Partners Architects. In 1992, the Arizona based DWL Architects acquired the firm and renamed their California operation DWL Parkinson Architects (Los Angeles and San Diego offices). Later that same year, architect Scott Field Associates became the sole owner of the firm, which he renamed Parkinson Field Associates. Today, Field retains much of the Parkinson firm’s archives, which are located in Galveston, Texas. The legacy of master architect John Parkinson, along with his son Donald, prevails and is quite evident by the number of extraordinary, iconic buildings that still stand throughout Los Angeles and nearby communities. Parkinson helped to define the look and feel of Los Angeles during a period of unparalleled expansion and helped transformed the city into a major metropolis. John Parkinson is considered one of most influential designers of his time and his buildings are distinctively intertwined with the city’s visual and physical identity. His Santa Monica home is a powerful extant example of that legacy. Spanish Colonial Revival.16 Period Revival styles grew in popularity just after World War I and were patterned after buildings of earlier periods in American and European architecture. Throughout the Southwest, the most common style was the Spanish Colonial Revival. Inspired by the Panama California Exposition of 1915, hosted by the City of San Diego, many architects found Southern California the ideal setting for this particular architectural style that idealized and romanticized the Spanish colonial of California, including W. Sexton’s Spanish Influence on American Architecture and Furnishing, and Garden, published in 1927. The Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style as applied to residential buildings such as the subject dwelling became especially popular in Santa Monica in the years between the two World Wars. Typical character-defining features of this style include asymmetrical facades; courtyards; verandas and arcaded porches; red clay tile roofs; exterior/interior chimneys, sometimes with decorative chimney pots; stucco or plaster finished walls; wood-frame, multi-pane casement windows with prominent lintels and sills (on some occasions metal frames were used); arched shape doorways and window openings; wrought iron window grilles and balconets; projecting 15 Ibid, p. 124. 16 Adapted from the historic context within the “Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report” by ICF, 2010. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 13 vigas (rough-hewn roof beams/timbers); decorative carvings, glazed tiles, and fountains; and enriched main doorways with carved, plank, or other ornate wood doors and hardware. Italian Renaissance Revival.17 Closely associated with the Spanish Colonial Revival style, the Italian Renaissance Revival style is a derivative of renaissance-era Italian domestic architecture that differs from Spanish-inspired designs in several identifiable ways. The term “renaissance” translates to “rebirth” and refers to the artistic movements in Europe that flourished from roughly the 14th century to the 16th century. The Italian Renaissance Revival style is based on Italian architecture with ancient Greek and Roman stylistic elements. Buildings of this style often imitate Italian palazzos. In Southern California, this style often incorporates elements of the Mediterranean style, which is similar to the Spanish Colonial Revival idiom, but includes such elements as bell towers. Key features of the Renaissance Revival style include a symmetrical primary façade; low-pitched, hipped roof; roof typically covered by ceramic tiles; deep overhanging boxed eaves with decorative carved brackets; stucco sheathing; upper-story windows smaller and less elaborate than windows below; extensive use of arches for first story entries and windows; and entrances accented by classical columns or pilasters. EVALUATION CRITERIA Santa Monica Landmark Designation Criteria. Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the City of Santa Monica Municipal Code. The Ordinance includes criteria and procedures for designating City of Santa Monica Landmarks, Structures of Merit, and Historic Districts. Landmarks may include structures, natural features, or any type of improvement to a property that is found to have particular architectural or historical significance to the City. Pursuant to Section 9.56.100(A) of the Ordinance, a property merits consideration as a City Landmark if it satisfies one or more of the following six 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. 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 style valuable to such a study. 17 Ibid. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 14 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. Historical Integrity. “Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance.”18 Both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources recognize seven aspects of qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. According to National Register Bulletin 15, the seven qualities that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. Integrity is the authenticity of a property’s physical identity clearly indicated by the retention of characteristics that existed during the property’s period of significance. In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity. Properties eligible for local landmark designation must meet at least two of the local landmark designation criteria and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their historical significance. To retain historic integrity a property should possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance.19 The following is excerpted from National Register Bulletin 15, which provides guidance on the interpretation and application of the seven qualities or aspects of historical integrity: • Location is the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. • Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. • Setting is the physical environment of a historic property. • Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. • Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. • Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. 18 U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, (Washington, DC, 1995), p. 44. 19 Ibid. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 15 Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. In assessing a property’s integrity, the National Register criteria recognize that properties change over time, therefore, it is not necessary for a property to retain all its historic physical features or characteristics. The property must retain, however, the essential physical features that enable it to convey its historic identity.20 Period of Significance. The NPS defines the period of significance as “the length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for…listing” in the national, state, or local registers. The period of significance usually begins with the date “when significant activities or events began giving the property its historic significance;” the period of significance can be “as brief as a single year…[or] span many years.” It is based on “specific events directly related to the significance of the property,” for example the date of construction, years of ownership, or length of operation as a particular entity.”21 For the John Parkinson Residence property the period of significance is 1920 to 1935, the date of construction and the period during which John Parkinson lived there. EVALUATION FOR LOCAL LANDMARK DESIGNATION Application of City Landmark (Significance) Criteria. In summary, based on current research and the above assessment the John Parkinson property appears to satisfy the necessary City of Santa Monica Landmark significance criteria for formal landmark consideration. The property was evaluated according to statutory criteria, as follows. SMMC 9.56.100(a)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. The subject property, a single‐family residence, exemplifies special elements of the City’s early architectural history in that it manifests elements of both Spanish Colonial Revival design principles and stylistic influences of the Italian Renaissance Revival. The residence was constructed in 1921, and physically and visually memorializes an important aspect of the community’s residential development history and architectural heritage. At the time, the property was one of the first purchased (in 1913) and developed east of Adelaide Drive (and beyond the Palisades Tract) and north of San Vicente Boulevard along the southern rim of Santa Monica Canyon. It was the “so to speak” prototype for residential development in this area, which evolved a number of years later after the construction of the Parkinson property. Initially, located in the City of Los Angeles (until 1979 with the annexation to Santa Monica) it was generally referred to in city directories and other publications as a property situated in Santa Monica because of its location, siting, and access. The 22‐acres of land that Parkinson 20 Ibid, p. 46. 21 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Nomination Form. (Washington, DC, 1997). JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 16 initially purchased in 1913 was eventually subdivided, sold off, and became part of a new residential tract in 1946. The Woodacres property was the impetus for this subdivision and creation of a new post‐World War II residential neighborhood. As one of the few extant residences from the earliest phase of residential development in the neighborhood, the property is significant as an increasingly rare example of early residential development in Santa Monica. Overall, it retains a strong sense of time and place from the first quarter of the twentieth century because of its still rather large property size and layout amongst the vast, irregular shaped parcel. Though the property has undergone some modifications over time, most of the alterations are along secondary elevations or at the rear. Despite these minor changes, the house as well as the grounds and site retain a strong sense of time, place, and spatial relationships that continue to collective convey their historic association and character as a sizable estate property within the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the subject property has direct ties to the City of Santa Monica’s early residential development history and architectural heritage on many levels, and as such appears to satisfy this criterion. SMMC 9.56.100(a)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject property is an excellent example of its type, design, and style. The design of this dwelling fully articulates Parkinson’s design principles of Period Revival architecture and fully expresses his aesthetic and artistic ideals of the period and style so masterfully for his own personal use. The dwelling’s pleasing balance of horizontal massing, multi‐level dynamics, and successful interpretation of a Period Revival style small villa is attained both visually and physically because of its design. The deeply recessed openings around the doors and windows, trowel‐finish stucco exterior walls, barrel clay roof tiles, arched shaped openings, the crafted use of glazed terra cotta tiles, and the integration of a loggia and arcade enclosed by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta decorative columns with Corinthian capitals further epitomizes the design theories of an architectural style and clearly expresses an aesthetic ideal of noteworthiness and value. Therefore, the John Parkinson Residence appears to possess high aesthetic and artistic qualities necessary to satisfy this criterion. SMMC 9.56.100(a)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history. The subject property, Woodacres, was John Parkinson’s third and last residence where he lived with his wife Florence for roughly fifteen years before his death in late 1935. The other two homes were located in Los Angeles closer to downtown and his office. The Woodacres estate was rather different from the other Parkinson residences in its rural location, siting, use, and overall vastness. It was expressively designed by and for John Parkinson as his “retreat” home, and included many “creature” comforts that he had personally planned for his use and interests, such as a small chicken ranch, formal gardens, groves of trees, small private golf course, wall‐enclosed sunken garden, and an open air plunge. By the time Woodacres was completed John Parkinson was already a well‐established architect in the Los Angeles area with several large commissions to his name. It was around the time that the Santa Monica house JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 17 was completed that he partnered with his son Donald to form the architectural practice of John and Donald B. Parkinson (Parkinson & Parkinson). Together they went on to design some of the most notable and influential buildings in Los Angeles; further solidifying his name as an important, prominent person. John Parkinson is considered an important person at the local, state, and national levels for his masterful architectural work and the design of extraordinary, iconic buildings that influenced and defined the look and feel of Los Angeles during a period of unparalleled expansion during the first half of the twentieth century. John Parkinson’s design work is also highly recognized and valued in Seattle, Washington and elsewhere. Therefore, the 808 Woodacres Road property appears to qualify under this particular criterion. • SMMC 9.56.100(a)(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 style valuable to such a study. The 808 Woodacres Road property is an excellent example of a combined stylistic endeavor that reflects the Spanish Colonial Revival style with influences from the Italian Renaissance Revival idiom. The property is a “classic, quintessential” John Parkinson designed residence with its smooth trowel-textured stucco sheathing, asymmetrical composition, varying roof planes, red tile roof, varied balconet element, multi-pane fenestration, arched shaped openings, integration of a loggia and columned arcade, and crafted use of glazed terra cotta tiles. Other elements associated with his work are evident on the house and include the horizontal emphasis of the property’s overall design and the aesthetically pleasing composition and massing of the façade through a sequence of volumes and interplay of solids to voids. The skillful use of these elements makes the subject property a valuable example of its type and style. Hence, the John Parkinson Residence appears to satisfy this criterion. • SMMC 9.56.100(a)(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 directly associated with master architect John Parkinson, an architect of recognized greatness. Parkinson, a self-trained architect, helped to define the look and feel of Los Angeles during a period of unparalleled expansion and helped transform the city into a major metropolis. John Parkinson is considered one of most influential designers of his time and his buildings are distinctively intertwined with Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity. His portfolio work is recognized throughout the Southern California region. The subject property, designed and built by Parkinson as his personal residence, is a rare and outstanding example of his residential design philosophy constructed within the City of Santa Monica. It is the only known single-family residence of its type designed, built, and lived-in by master architect John Parkinson within the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, it appears the subject property satisfies this criterion. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 18 • SMMC 9.56.100(a)(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 John Parkinson Residence is located along Woodacres Road, a small cul-de-sec street accessed from the busy thoroughfare of San Vicente Boulevard. Because of its remote and secluded location adjacent the Santa Monica Canyon southern rim it has not become a unique, established or familiar visual feature of the area or City. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion. Evaluation of Historical Integrity. As discussed above, historic integrity is the ability of a property to convey its historical significance and is defined as the “authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s historic period.22 The NPS defines seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. The changes referenced earlier in the report are not visible from the public right-of-way nor do they adversely affect the property’s historic qualities or important character-defining features. A visual inspection of the exterior of the house and grounds confirms that no major alterations have been made to the property to compromise its overall historical integrity. Therefore, the John Parkinson Residence appears to substantially retain all seven aspects of integrity from its period of significance. Character-defining Features. Every historic property is unique, with its own identity and its own distinguishing character. A property’s form and detailing are important in defining its visual historic character and significance. It is a property’s tangible features or elements that embody its significance for association with specific historical events, important personages, or distinctive architecture and it is those tangible elements; therefore, that should be retained and preserved. Character refers to all those visual aspects and physical features that comprise the appearance of every historic property. According to National Park Service Brief 17, Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character, character-defining features include the overall shape of a property (building, structure, etc.), its material, craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features (as applicable), as well as the various aspects of its site and immediate environment (form, configuration and orientation). The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties defines historic character by the form and detailing of materials, such as masonry, wood, stucco, plaster, terra cotta, metal, etc.; specific features, such as roofs, porches, windows and window elements, moldings, staircases, chimneys, driveways, garages, landscape and hardscape elements, etc.; as well as spatial relationships between buildings, structures, and features; room configurations; 22 National Register Bulletin 16A. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 19 and archaic structural and mechanical systems. Identifying those features or elements that give a historic property visual character and which should be taken into account and preserved to the maximum extent possible is important in order for the property to maintain its historical significance. Distinctive and important character-defining features associated with the subject property include its overall setting, immediate environment, materials and design, and any contributive out-features that aid in defining the property’s association with its respective architectural style. The character-defining features associated with the 808 Woodacres Road residence are those exterior elements on the property that reflect and define its architectural style and association with the property’s designer and initial owner master architect John Parkinson. Such features include, but are not limited to the following: • Location, height, massing, scale and proportion, building form; and siting of the main residence, circular driveway and landscaped island, and enclosed “sunken garden” on the parcel • Building configuration as a modified “H” shape plan with central core and flanking wings • Multi-level, asymmetrical composition of residence • Substantial landscaped setback from Woodacres Road • Circulation pattern of front motor court with circular driveway off Woodacres Road • Front yard area with circular driveway around landscaped island and grounds landscaped with mature trees • Physical attributes that help define the Spanish Colonial Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival styles of the dwelling • Multi-level complex gable roof with red hue barrel clay tiles, medium pitch, and bracketed under eave details • Stucco engaged chimneys with decorative tile caps (three chimneys, location, height and size, material, form) • Smooth trowel-finish stucco covered exterior walls of residence and “sunken garden” hollow clay tile block perimeter wall with vertical plank wood door and ceramic urns • Asymmetrical composition of window placement and associated features (fenestration pattern and shape and size) • Fenestration (recessed) of wood-frame and metal, multi-pane casements; French type JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 20 windows and doors; square shape multi-pane windows; tripartite windows, decorataive stained glass; and fixed-pane bottle glass windows (including their size, material, type, shape, location/placement, mullion profile, individual panes, balconet, and glazed terra cotta framing) • Triple arched recessed entrance loggia with arcade set on ornate spiral fluted terra cotta glazed columns and Corinthian capitals • Loggia floor and extended tiled flooring to driveway and front door entry (herringbone pattern of varying size and hue red tiles) • Full length wood-frame, multi-pane French windows with exterior screens within arched shape arcade (east elevation) • Enframed glazed terra cotta chamfered block tile main entry with large double wood panel door, clear stained glass transom, and glazed terra cotta tiles with decorative scrollwork insets set within an arched shape recessed opening • Wood-frame, multi-pane French doors • Mature landscaping features, including trees (pine, eucalyptus, myrtle, varietal palms, and cypress, etc.) • Wrought iron hanging pendent light fixtures along front (east) facade • Small bronze signage plate attached to the center pier of the front gate that reads “Woodacres” CONCLUSION As discussed herein, the John Parkinson Residence appears to satisfy the City of Santa Monica’s criteria for individual designation as a local Landmark. Upon conclusion of the assessment and evaluation process, the property retains sufficient historical integrity and appears to meet several of the local landmark criteria because of its association with important historical patterns of early residential development; notable architectural merit; association with a master architect, John Parkinson; and recognition for its unique location within the city. Therefore, the property appears eligible for Santa Monica Landmark designation as it satisfies five significance criteria 9.56.100(A)(1) through 9.56.100(A)(5), pursuant to the Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, SMMC 9.56. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 21 BIBLIOGRAPHY American Institute of Architects. Pacific Coast Architect (The Building Review). Los Angeles: Arts & Architecture, Inc., 1926, p. 26. Architectural Forum. Boston, Massachusetts: Rogers and Manson Company, August 1926, p.111-112. Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update: Downtown Community Plan Area, prepared for the City of Santa Monica, April 10, 2017. Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, Draft Historic Resources Inventory Update: Historic Context Statement, prepared for the City of Santa Monica, March 2018. Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica – The First 100 Years. Los Angeles: Douglas-West Publishers, 1974 Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica Bay: Paradise by the Sea: A Pictorial History of Santa Monica, Venice, Marina del Rey, Ocean Park, Pacific Palisades, Topanga Canyon & Malibu. Santa Monica: Hennessey & Ingalls, 2001. Bernstein, Sid. “Santa Monica Annexation OK’D.” Los Angeles Times, November 23, 1978, p. E15. California State Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks & Recreation. “Technical Assistance Bulletin #8: Users’ Guide to the California Historical Resource Status Codes & Historic Resources Inventory Directory,” November 2004. City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase I: 1983. Prepared by Paul Gleye and Leslie Heumann, 1986. City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Historical Resources Inventory, Phase II: 1985-1986. Prepared by Johnson Heumann Research Associates, 1986. City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update, Post Northridge Earthquake. Prepared by Parkinson Field Associates and Janet Tearnen, 1995. City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update – North of Montana Area 2002. Prepared by Historic Resources Group, 2002. City of Santa Monica. Historic Resources Inventory Update. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, 2009. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 22 City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report. Prepared by ICF Jones & Stokes, 2010. City of Santa Monica. City of Santa Monica General Plan, “Historic Preservation Element,” prepared by PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group, September 2002. City of Santa Monica. City of Santa Monica General Plan, “Open Space Element,” prepared by Roma Design Group, March 1997. City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Department, Building Permits. Clark, Denny A. John Parkinson and Donald B. Parkinson, Architects, Los Angeles. Columbus, Ohio: D.A. Clark, c1922. Engineers and Architects Association of Southern California and Building Industries Association of Los Angeles. Southwest Builder and Contractor. Los Angeles: Iles-Ayars Publishing Company, 1922. Forster, Mark. “Committee Votes to Allow Santa Monica to Annex 28 Acres, 58 Homes From L.A.” Los Angeles Times, November 23, 1978, p. WS2. Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles; revised edition. Salt Lake City: Gibbs Smith, Publishers, 2003. Heckman, Marlin L. Santa Monica in Vintage Postcards. Chicago, Illinois: Arcade Press, 2002. Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll’s Century History: Santa Monica Bay Cities, 1542 to 1908. Los Angeles: Luther A. Ingersoll, 1908. Loomis, Jan. Westside Chronicles: Historic Stories of West Los Angeles. Charleston, South Carolina: History Press, 2012. Los Angeles County Tax Assessor. Property Specific Information Records. Los Angeles Public Library, Online historical and image archives. Los Angeles Herald. “Architect to Build at Santa Monica.” January 25, 1913, p. I7. Los Angeles Herald. “John Parkinson to Build $25,000 Home.” March 8, 1913, p. 7. Los Angeles Herald. “$350,000 Paid For San Vicente Tract.” June 21, 1913. Los Angeles Herald. “$100,000 Estate is to Feature Golf, Tennis.” October 15, 1913, p. 1. Los Angeles Herald. “$50,000 Residence For L.A. Architect.” October 18, 1913, p. 1. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 23 Los Angeles Herald. “Architect Sells His Wilshire Home.” March 13, 1920, p. 1. Los Angeles Times. “Plans Palatial Home: Los Angeles Architect to Erect Superb Italian Villa.” January 26, 1913, p. V1. Los Angeles Times. “Many Fine Homes Now Going Ahead.” July 13, 1919, p. V1. Los Angeles Times. “Banker Acquires Fine Beverly Home.” March 14, 1920, p. V2. Los Angeles Times. “Hunt in Vain Here for Wealthy Woman.” October 23, 1920, p. I8. Los Angeles Times. “Large New Home Gets Under Way.” July 17, 1922, p. 14. Los Angeles Times. “Parkinson Rites Said: Noted Architect Laid to Rest.” December 11, 1935, p. A1. Los Angeles Times. “John Parkinson.” December 12, 1935, p. A4. Los Angeles Times. “D.B. Parkinson, Architect and Designer, Dies.” November 19, 1945, p. 2. Los Angeles Times. “Sieroty to Weight Plan to Annex to Santa Monica.” August 7, 1977, p. WS2. Los Angeles Times. “Canyon Group Told To Seek Annex Help.” October 6, 1977, p.WS1. Los Angeles Times. “Landmark Cases, Santa Monica Tried to Preserve Historic Homes, Owners Rights.” November 10, 1985, p. WS1. Marquez, Ernest. Santa Monica Beach: A Collector’s Pictorial History. Los Angeles: Angel City Press, 2004. McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: An Island on the Land. Salt Lake City, Utah: Peregrine Smith Books, 1946, Revised 1988. Ochsner, Jeffrey Karl. “John Parkinson,” in Shaping Seattle Architecture: A Historical Guide to the Architects (ed. Jeffery Karl Ochsner). Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1994. Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Recording Historic Resources. Sacramento, California: State of California, 1995. Pioneer Financial Authority of the Southwest. American Globe. Los Angeles: William J. Schaefle Publisher, 1917. Polk & Company. Polk’s Santa Monica City Directory. Los Angeles County (various years). ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881-1988). JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 24 Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, City of Santa Monica. San Bernardino Sun. “Residents Enjoy Varied Vacations.” July 22, 1937. Santa Monica Daily Outlook. “Three Magnificent Places Are Planned.” January 25, 1913, p. 1. Santa Monica Daily Outlook. “Things Are Going Ahead Rapidly Along Santa Monica Bay.” February 5, 1913, p. 8. Santa Monica Daily Outlook. “Gillette’s Regent Square Opening.” March 15, 1913, p. 7. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “John Parkinson, 74, Noted Architect Taken by Death.” December 10, 1935, p. 1. Santa Monica Public Library, Santa Monica Index, online historical archives and photographs. Santa Monica Public Library, Santa Monica Image Archives. Scott, Paul A. Santa Monica: A History on the Edge. Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2004. Stern, Robert A.M. David Fishman and Jacob Tilove. Paradise Planned: The Garden Suburb and the Modern City. New York: The Monacelli Press, 2013. Storrs, Les. Santa Monica, Portrait of a City, 1875-1975. Santa Monica: Santa Monica Bank, 1874. United States Department of the Interior. Recreation in the United States: National Historic Landmark Theme Study. Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1986. United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 15. “How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997. United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 16A. “How to Complete the National Register Registration Form.” Washington, DC: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1997. United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 24, “Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1985. United States Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 30. “How to Evaluate and Document Rural Historic Landscapes.” Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1989. JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 25 United States Department of the Interior. Preservation Brief 17. “Architectural Character – Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character.” Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, Interagency Resources Division, 1982 rev. Vitacco-Robles, Gary. Cursum Perficio: Marilyn Monroe’s Brentwood Hacienda, the Story of Her Final Months. San Jose, California: Writers Club Press, 2000. Warren, Charles S. ed. History of the Santa Monica Bay Region. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1934. Warren, Charles S. ed. Santa Monica Blue Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1941. Warren, Charles S. ed. Santa Monica Community Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1944. Whiffen, Marcus. American Architecture since 1780: A Guide to the Styles. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999. White, Col. Carl F. ed. Santa Monica Community Book (Fifth Edition). Santa Monica: Cawston, 1953. Withey, Henry F., and Elsie Rathburn Withey. Biographical Dictionary of American Architects (Deceased). Los Angeles: New Age Publishing, Co., 1956. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 26 APPENDIX Vicinity Map Location Map Assessor Map Sanborn Fire Insurance Map Ephemeral Material Current Photographs JOHN PARKINSON RESIDENCE, 808 WOODACRES ROAD City Landmark Assessment Report page 27 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. 0.1 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.1 Notes 808 Woodacres Road Santa Monica, CA Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.040 1:2,257 Location Map Parcels SANBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAP, Santa Monica SM 1918, Feb 1950 paste-up Draft sketch of Woodacres by John Parkinson, c1920 (courtesy Parkinson family; Stephen Gee) THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK Aerial view of Woodacres, 1928 (University of Santa Barbara) N Aerial view of Woodacres, detail, 1928 (University of Santa Barbara) N Aerial view of Woodacres, c1924 – North Aerial view of Woodacres, c1926 – North Front arcade and loggia (Florence Parkinson, far left, Donald Parkinson, far right, late 1920s (courtesy Parkinson family; Stephen Gee) Woodacres, rear patio deck, Florence Parkinson left, Grace Parkinson center, Donald Parkinson right, c. late 1920s (courtesy Parkinson family; Stephen Gee) John Parkinson along southern wall adjacent rear patio deck, c. late 1920s (courtesy Parkinson family; Stephen Gee) John Parkinson in foreground within the sunken garden at rear of house, c. late 1920s (courtesy Parkinson family; Stephen Gee) Woodacres, John Parkinson Residence, looking southwest, c. 1926 (The Architectural Forum) Floor plans of Woodacres, John Parkinson Residence (The Architectural Forum 1926) LATIN TILESGLADDING,McBEAN & CO. JOHN PARKINSON HOUSE JOHN PARKINSONSantaMonica,California Architect SAN FRANCISCO,CROCKER BUILDING LOSANGELES,TRUST &SAVINGS BANK BUILDING VORKS,AT LINCOLN,CALIFORNIA VIEW FROM THEEAST,RESIDENCE OF MR. JOHNPARKINSON, SANTA MONICA, OCEAN VIEV OFTHE RESIDENCE OF MR. JOHNPARKINSON , - Thirty-reven PHOTOGRAPHS 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica, CA Front (east) façade from landscaped island Oblique view of northeast corner of house from circular driveway Front (east) elevations, looking northwest Front (east) elevations, looking southwest Recessed loggia and columned arcade on east elevation Main front entry into residence, east elevation PHOTOGRAPHS 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica, CA South wing, north elevation, looking southeast South wing, south elevation with pool in foreground Guest house, north elevation, and side yard of main residence Two-car garage attached onto east side of guest house Northeast corner of north wing, looking southwest North elevation of north wing PHOTOGRAPHS 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica, CA Rear, west elevation, of residence - sunken garden in foreground Rear, west elevation, looking southeast-sunken garden in foreground Rear enclosed patio deck along west elevation French doors with flanking windows within enclosed rear patio deck Sunken garden with stuccoed perimeter wall, looking northwest Vertical plank door and flanking ceramic urns at west end of sunken garden perimeter wall PHOTOGRAPHS 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica, CA Main entry into property from Woodacres Road Driveway approach past front entry (garage left) Driveway split with fountain in foreground “Woodacres” bronze signage plate on front gate brick pier Contextual neighborhood view (Woodacres Road), looking north Contextual neighborhood view of front gate, looking southwest OSTASHAY & ASSOCIATES CONSULTING PO BOX 542 LONG BEACH, CA 90801 562.500.9451 From:Roger Diamond To:Steve Mizokami Subject:808 Woodacres Date:Friday, February 1, 2019 12:21:47 PM Dear Commissioners: I represent Marcia Alphson, the owner of the house at 808 Woodacres Road in Santa Monica. The Santa Monica Conservancy filed an application to have the home landmarked. This would be disastrous for the value of the home and would accomplish nothing. Also members of the public would have no authority to enter the home. It is a private home and Ms. Alphson is protected by the Right of Privacy guaranteed by the California Constitution. We believe that any landmarking by the Landmarks Commission or the City would violate the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution and the California Constitution. Given the current make up of the United States Supreme Court it is anticipated that a landmarking case will eventually reach the United States Supreme Court and that court will limit precedent that has previously been cited as authority for the proposition that a city may landmark a residence . The case authority seems to apply to commercial structures, not to private homes. It especially would make no sense to apply landmarking to a private home that is not visible from a public way. Marcia Alphson has lived in the house for a substantial amount of time and has no plans to sell it. She does, however, vigorously oppose any effort to landmark the property. Such an act would reduce the value of the home by millions of dollars. There is a solution to the problem of the application. Ms. Alphson has no objection to providing photographs of the house taken at a much earlier time. She would be happy to share her thought with members of the Conservancy. She could fill in unknown details of what it was like to be brought up in the home on Woodacres. The best solution would be to allow a plaque to be installed on the public sidewalk in front of her home. The plaque would recite various historic facts and provide other information that would be enjoyed by tourists from all over the world. Since the home is not visible from the sidewalk the plaque would serve as an adequate substitute for an abstract landmarking designation that would not facilitate in any way tourist enjoyment of the area. Ms. Alphson will cooperate in any way with respect to the preparation of the plaque. Recently Ms. Alphson and I met with Planning Commission Staff and Landmarks Commission Staff at the City Hall. We were told by the Staff represented there that this is an all or nothing proposition. Either the application for landmarking is granted or rejected. They said there was no in-between solution but that cannot be true. As an administrative agency implementing a particular statute or ordinance this Commission has broad authority to fashion an appropriate decision that would satisfy all concerned. Especially where the property owner is in agreement the Landmarks Commission has all sorts authority to provide compromise. The United States recently woke up from a lengthy governmental shut down stand off because the sides would not compromise. That may change. There is no need for an expensive lawsuit that could lead to the destruction of the City’s authority to landmark at all. I would like to arrange a meeting where no more than two Landmarks Commissioners attend at any one time. Could you please contact me to see if we can arrange such a meeting. The City hired a consultant to advise the Commission. As of the preparation of this letter the consultant’s report has not yet been prepared or distributed. Ms. Alphson and I would very much like a postponement of the February 11 meeting so that we can all review the Staff report and provide some helpful insights or suggestions as to how to proceed. Thank you. Sincerely, ROGER JON DIAMOND RJD:jb Dictated But Not Read 1 Wendy Radwan From:Stephanie Reich Sent:Thursday, April 4, 2019 6:28 PM To:Stephanie Reich Cc:Steve Mizokami; Wendy Radwan; Melissa Zak; Heidi von Tongeln Subject:FW: 808 Woodacres/Agenda Item 9A for April 8, 2019 Dear Commissioners, Below is correspondence from Attorney Roger Diamond, representing the property owner of 808 Woodacres Road, requesting a continuance. Please let us know if you have any questions. All the best, Stephanie Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP Design and Historic Preservation Planner Planning & Community Development City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street #212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 310.458.8341 From: Roger Diamond <rogdiamond@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 3:24 PM To: Steve Mizokami Subject: 808 Woodacres/Agenda Item 9A for April 8, 2019 Dear Mr. Mizokami: I finally received the Agenda and Staff Report. The two documents were received by me on April 4, 2019. I respectfully request a postponement of the hearing. The delay in your sending the Staff Report and Agenda to me has created problems. I was waiting for the Agenda and Staff Report in order to submit evidence to the Commissioners. Certain witnesses to support Marcia Alphson’s position are not available for Monday night April 8. In particular Don and Marybeth Wood are out of town. Their property abuts 808 Woodacres. Also, Karen and Peter Locke cannot attend. The Staff Report does not deal with the diminishment in property value which landmarking will cause the property at 808 Woodacres. The appraisals on the property should be considered. There is no discussion about the impact on property of landmarking. How is the Commission supposed to deal with the issue of the impact on the property if there is no discussion at all in the Staff Report? 2 I respectfully request that the meeting to be postponed to allow staff to amend its report to consider the issue of hardship and the necessity for landmarking, especially where the property is not visible from the sidewalk. Those issues are not discussed. Thank you. Sincerely, ROGER JON DIAMOND RJD:jb 1 Wendy Radwan From:Stephanie Reich Sent:Thursday, April 4, 2019 2:29 PM To:Steve Mizokami; Stephanie Reich Cc:Melissa Zak; Wendy Radwan Subject:FW: 808 Woodacres Attachments:scanbrief.pdf Dear Commissioners, Attached is correspondence from Attorney Roger Diamond, representing the property owner of 808 Woodacres Road, Agenda Item 9A on the April 8, 2019 agenda. A hard copy will be available for you on the dais. All the best, Stephanie Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP Design and Historic Preservation Planner Planning & Community Development City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street #212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 310.458.8341 From: Roger Diamond <rogdiamond@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2019 10:40 AM To: Steve Mizokami <Steve.Mizokami@SMGOV.NET>; Stephanie Reich <Stephanie.Reich@SMGOV.NET> Subject: 808 Woodacres Please see attached Judy Burgdorf, Secretary to Attorney Roger Jon Diamond 1 Wendy Radwan From:Steve Mizokami Sent:Monday, April 8, 2019 10:36 AM To:Wendy Radwan Cc:Stephanie Reich Subject:FW: Correspondence regarding Woodacres nomination Attachments:Woodacres Parkinson Family support letter.pdf Correspondence for 808 Woodacres road. Thanks, Steve Steve Mizokami | Senior Planner | Landmarks Commission Liaison Planning & Community Development | City of Santa Monica 310.458.8341 | steve.mizokami@smgov.net | smgov.net/pcd From: Ruthann Lehrer [mailto:ruthannpreserves@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 9:45 AM To: Dolores Sloan <dsloannow@gmail.com>; Barry Rosenbaum <Barry.Rosenbaum@SMGOV.NET>; Richard Brand <Richard.Brand@SMGOV.NET>; Ruth Shari <ruthshari@aol.com>; Roger Genser <genserprints@verizon.net>; Amy Beth Green <AmyBeth.Green@SMGOV.NET>; Kenneth Breisch <Kenneth.Breisch@SMGOV.NET> Cc: Stephanie Reich <Stephanie.Reich@SMGOV.NET>; Steve Mizokami <Steve.Mizokami@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Correspondence regarding Woodacres nomination Hello, I am forwarding to you a letter recently received from a family member. Thank you, Ruthann Lehrer 1 Wendy Radwan From:Steve Mizokami Sent:Monday, April 8, 2019 10:32 AM To:Wendy Radwan Subject:FW: Land Marks Commission Public Hearing 4-8-19 RE: 18ENT-0276, 808 Woodacres Rd Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Categories:Public Correspondence Correspondence for 808 Woodacres Road. Thanks, Steve Steve Mizokami | Senior Planner | Landmarks Commission Liaison Planning & Community Development | City of Santa Monica 310.458.8341 | steve.mizokami@smgov.net | smgov.net/pcd From: Deidre Powell [mailto:deidrewla@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, April 6, 2019 12:09 PM To: Steve Mizokami <Steve.Mizokami@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Land Marks Commission Public Hearing 4‐8‐19 RE: 18ENT‐0276, 808 Woodacres Rd Dear Mr. Mizokami, It has recently come to the attention of several of my neighbors that some homes on Woodacres Road are on a “historical list”. We have not been able to find out what the requirements are if the properties are deemed historical. I have not been able to access the requirements and regulations regarding properties being “listed.” None of the homeowners are aware of how they got put on the “list.” I have looked on the City website and was not able to find exact regulations as to what is required of the resident. I recently went to City Hall and spoke to a gentleman who explained the process a little better. That the City had hired outside groups to evaluate properties. That a volunteer group, the Santa Monica Conversancy, made recommendations to the City. That the requirements for what the homeowner must do, can do, and cannot do to their property are currently being evaluated. I was told that the changes to the interior of a designated property must follow codes by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Secretary of Interior Standards. But what about the exterior? Can electrical panels be upgraded? Can HVAC units be installed? Can windows and doors be retro fitted to be more energy efficient? But nowhere are the regulations spelled out specifically. Not knowing how the “list” was compiled, or how their properties got on the “list,” nor what is required of homeowners, most of them in their 80’s, are quite upset. In addition, one of the homeowners has written appraisals from reputable property evaluators indicating a 21% swing in the value of the property. The property would be worth 21% less if it is granted a Historical Landmark Designation. 2 Considering all the uncertainty, and the probability that their homes will lose a significant percentage of their value, many of us are concerned about the process. These neighbors have been residents and taxpayers on Woodacres for 40 and 50 years. Like most people, the value of their home is the cornerstone of their estate that they hope to leave to children and grandchildren. I, personally, appreciate the value to the community of a historical heritage. My complaint is about the process. If the end goals of the designation were clear and easily accessed, and if residents were notified of the process, they might be more likely to partner with the City in the preservation process. It’s the not knowing and not being able to find out that has many of us upset. I feel that the value of the residents, long time residents and taxpayers, is disrespected. If the entire process was more transparent, property owners might be more willing to sign on to the designation. To address the specifics of the hearing, 808 Woodacres Road, I feel that if Ms. Alphson had a better idea of exactly what restrictions and responsibilities would be hers if the property is designated, she could make a more informed decision. And I firmly believe the decision should be hers. If the City wants to have a true and valid historical designation for specific properties, it should have specific conditions for which qualifies a property to be designated historical. This is certainly not the case today, under the conditions that call for designating a property in the City of Santa Monica. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Deidre Powell 869 Woodacres Road Santa Monica CA 90402 310-850-1069 1 Wendy Radwan From:Steve Mizokami Sent:Monday, April 8, 2019 10:49 AM To:Wendy Radwan Subject:FW: Land Marks Commission Public Hearing 4-8-19 RE: 18ENT-0276, 808 Woodacres Rd Correspondence for 808 Woodacres road. Thanks, Steve Steve Mizokami | Senior Planner | Landmarks Commission Liaison Planning & Community Development | City of Santa Monica 310.458.8341 | steve.mizokami@smgov.net | smgov.net/pcd From: Lori Lane [mailto:lorilane2009@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 10:46 AM To: Steve Mizokami <Steve.Mizokami@SMGOV.NET> Cc: David Kao <davidkao4@yahoo.com> Subject: Fwd: Land Marks Commission Public Hearing 4‐8‐19 RE: 18ENT‐0276, 808 Woodacres Rd Mr. Mizokami, Ms. Powell and I have talked at length regarding the historic list considerations on our street. David Kao, cc’d, and I own 877 Woodacres Rd. We would like to express our agreement with Deidre’s well written letter to you below. We are very concerned with the process and the potential harm it can cause our neighbors and ourselves. If such a designation is to put placed on a home we strongly feel the homeowner should understand not only why but the entire process. We also strongly believe that if it is placed against their will that they should be financially compensated for any difference the designation will devalue the home/property. All of these homes need significant work and many of our neighbors do not have the means if they are to be restricted in the type of remodeling that can be done. Thank you for your time. Most Sincerely, Lori Lane (503) 703-7544 Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Deidre Powell <deidrewla@gmail.com> Date: April 8, 2019 at 10:30:39 AM PDT To: Lori Lane <lorilane2009@gmail.com> 2 Subject: Fwd: Land Marks Commission Public Hearing 4-8-19 RE: 18ENT-0276, 808 Woodacres Rd Deidre Powell 310.850.1069 Begin forwarded message: From: Deidre Powell <deidrewla@gmail.com> Date: April 6, 2019 at 12:08:52 PDT To: steve.mizokami@smgov.net Subject: Land Marks Commission Public Hearing 4-8-19 RE: 18ENT-0276, 808 Woodacres Rd Dear Mr. Mizokami, It has recently come to the attention of several of my neighbors that some homes on Woodacres Road are on a “historical list”. We have not been able to find out what the requirements are if the properties are deemed historical. I have not been able to access the requirements and regulations regarding properties being “listed.” None of the homeowners are aware of how they got put on the “list.” I have looked on the City website and was not able to find exact regulations as to what is required of the resident. I recently went to City Hall and spoke to a gentleman who explained the process a little better. That the City had hired outside groups to evaluate properties. That a volunteer group, the Santa Monica Conversancy, made recommendations to the City. That the requirements for what the homeowner must do, can do, and cannot do to their property are currently being evaluated. I was told that the changes to the interior of a designated property must follow codes by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Secretary of Interior Standards. But what about the exterior? Can electrical panels be upgraded? Can HVAC units be installed? Can windows and doors be retro fitted to be more energy efficient? But nowhere are the regulations spelled out specifically. Not knowing how the “list” was compiled, or how their properties got on the “list,” nor what is required of homeowners, most of them in their 80’s, are quite upset. In addition, one of the homeowners has written appraisals from reputable property evaluators indicating a 21% swing in the value of the property. The property would be worth 21% less if it is granted a Historical Landmark Designation. 3 Considering all the uncertainty, and the probability that their homes will lose a significant percentage of their value, many of us are concerned about the process. These neighbors have been residents and taxpayers on Woodacres for 40 and 50 years. Like most people, the value of their home is the cornerstone of their estate that they hope to leave to children and grandchildren. I, personally, appreciate the value to the community of a historical heritage. My complaint is about the process. If the end goals of the designation were clear and easily accessed, and if residents were notified of the process, they might be more likely to partner with the City in the preservation process. It’s the not knowing and not being able to find out that has many of us upset. I feel that the value of the residents, long time residents and taxpayers, is disrespected. If the entire process was more transparent, property owners might be more willing to sign on to the designation. To address the specifics of the hearing, 808 Woodacres Road, I feel that if Ms. Alphson had a better idea of exactly what restrictions and responsibilities would be hers if the property is designated, she could make a more informed decision. And I firmly believe the decision should be hers. If the City wants to have a true and valid historical designation for specific properties, it should have specific conditions for which qualifies a property to be designated historical. This is certainly not the case today, under the conditions that call for designating a property in the City of Santa Monica. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Deidre Powell 869 Woodacres Road Santa Monica CA 90402 310-850-1069 February 11, 2019 808 Woodacres Road Santa Monica Landmark Nomination Prepared by arg-la.com Prepared for City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission Prepared by Santa Monica Conservancy Architectural Resources Group | Historic Resources Group 808 Woodacres Road Aerial image from Google Maps 808 Woodacres Road •Constructed ca. 1920 •Personal residence of master architect John Parkinson •Parkinson resided here between ca. 1920 and his death in 1935 •House remained in the Parkinson family through the mid-1960s Source: Stephen Gee John D. Parkinson (1861-1935) Source: PBS SoCalSource: Pacific Coast Architecture Database 808 Woodacres Road Source: USC Libraries Source (both): USModernist 808 Woodacres Road Source (both): Santa Monica Conservancy 808 Woodacres Road •Originally sat on a 22-acre site •Address was 1201 San Vicente Boulevard •Property was divided between the cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica Source: Santa Monica Conservancy 808 Woodacres Road •Subdivided by the Parkinson family in 1946 •However, house remained intact and was incorporated into the subdivision •Address changed to 808 Woodacres Road •Subdivided with care to preserve essential setting and estate-like grounds Source: Los Angeles County Department of Public Works 808 Woodacres Road Source (all): Stephen Gee 808 Woodacres Road Source (all): Stephen Gee 808 Woodacres Road •Identified in the 2018 HRI Update •Eligible as a Landmark under Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Criterion 1. Exemplifies elements of the city’s architectural history/patterns of development Criterion 2. Has aesthetic interest/value Criterion 3. Identified with historic personages Criterion 4. Excellent example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style Criterion 5. Significant example of the work of master architect John Parkinson Source (both): Stephen Gee 808 Woodacres Road •Minimally altered •Retains all seven aspects of integrity Source (all): Stephen Gee 808 Woodacres Road •Two periods of significance: 1920 (Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5) 1920-1935 (Criterion 3) •Character-defining features pertain to both the building AND essential site and landscape features •Symbiotic relationship between building and site Source: Stephen Gee 808 Woodacres Road “I thought it the most beautiful site for a home I had ever seen, so near the city and the ocean, with the restful mountains in frost with their ever changing lights and shadows. I now live on the spot, and, living there, I am wondering why everyone able is not living in this, to me, most desirable of all places, so conveniently near Los Angeles.” -John Parkinson Source: Los Angeles Times 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica, CA Historic Resource Assessment Report Prepared for: Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Prepared by: Architectural Resources Group 360 E. 2nd Street, Suite 225 Los Angeles, CA 90012 February 1, 2019 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Preparer Qualifications ...................................................................................................................... 2 2. Architectural Description ................................................................................................................. 3 2.1. Site and Setting .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.2. Building Exterior ................................................................................................................................. 4 2.3. Landscape Features............................................................................................................................ 6 3. Development Chronology and Alterations ..................................................................................... 16 3.1. Development Chronology ................................................................................................................ 16 3.2. Alterations ........................................................................................................................................ 18 4. Historic Contexts ............................................................................................................................ 19 4.1. Early Residential Development North of Montana Avenue ............................................................ 19 4.2. History of 1201 San Vicente Boulevard/808 Woodacres Road ....................................................... 21 4.3. Spanish Colonial Revival Architecture .............................................................................................. 24 4.4. John Parkinson, Architect ................................................................................................................ 26 5. Regulations and Criteria for Evaluation .......................................................................................... 31 5.1. National Register of Historic Places ................................................................................................. 31 5.2. California Register of Historical Resources ...................................................................................... 32 5.3. City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance .................................................. 33 6. Evaluation of Significance ............................................................................................................... 35 6.1. Previous Evaluations ........................................................................................................................ 35 6.2. Evaluation of Eligibility ..................................................................................................................... 35 6.3. Integrity ............................................................................................................................................ 40 6.4. Period of Significance ....................................................................................................................... 43 6.5. Character-Defining Features ............................................................................................................ 43 7. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 44 8. Bibliogaphy ............................................................................................................................................. 45 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 1 1. Introduction 1.1. Executive Summary At the request of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, Architectural Resources Group (ARG) has prepared this Historic Resource Assessment Report for the property at 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica. The property contains a two-story, Spanish Colonial Revival style single-family residence that was constructed ca. 1920.1 The house is surrounded by lushly landscaped grounds that are integral to the property’s context and setting. It was designed by, and was the personal residence of John Parkinson, one of the most prolific and masterful architects in Southern California in the early twentieth century. Parkinson resided at this residence between its construction ca. 1920 and his death in 1935. 808 Woodacres Road was identified in the City of Santa Monica’s 2018 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) update.2 The HRI update concludes that the property appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register), the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), and as a Santa Monica Landmark. It concludes that the property appears both eligible for its architectural merit and also for its association with John Parkinson, a historically significant individual. ARG conducted this in-depth assessment of the subject property to determine whether it is eligible for listing in the National Register, California Register, and/or as a City of Santa Monica Landmark. Preparation of this report included the following tasks related to research, documentation, and analysis: Visited the property on December 7, 2018 to assess existing conditions and document the building’s exterior with digital photographs; Reviewed pertinent federal and state technical bulletins, local ordinances, and other reference materials related to the evaluation of historical resources; Reviewed applicable background materials including historical building permits and Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) data for the subject property; Conducted supplemental research to glean additional information about the property’s development history, occupancy, and historical significance; Identified applicable historic contexts and themes; and Evaluated the building against eligibility criteria for the National Register, the California Register, and as a Santa Monica Landmark. Research materials were culled from the following sources: Los Angeles Public Library; Santa Monica Public Library; the archives of the Los Angeles Times, Santa Monica Outlook, and other local periodicals; 1 The Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor lists the date of construction as 1921, but other documentary sources indicate that the house was completed in 1920. 2 Findings from the 2018 HRI Update are available online at https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Programs/Historic- Preservation/Historic-Resources-Inventory-Update-(2017)/ 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 2 building permits obtained from the City of Santa Monica’s Planning and Community Development Department and the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety; online repositories; and ARG’s in- house collection of architectural books and reference materials.3 Photographic documentation of the property was provided by Stephen Gee, who has written extensively on the life, career, and legacy of architect John Parkinson. A complete list of sources is included in Section 8: Bibliography of this report. In summary, ARG concurs with the finding of the 2018 HRI, and concludes that 808 Woodacres Road (including both the house and grounds) is individually eligible for listing in the National Register, the California Register, and as a Santa Monica Landmark. The following sections provide a contextual basis for analysis and a detailed discussion of how this determination was made. 1.2. Preparer Qualifications This report was prepared by the following ARG staff: Andrew Goodrich, AICP, Associate, Architectural Historian and Preservation Planner, and Lakan Cole, Architectural Historian and Preservation Planner, with oversight by Katie E. Horak, Principal. Ms. Horak, Mr. Goodrich, and Ms. Cole meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in the discipline of Architectural History. 3 The subject house was located within the Los Angeles city limits when it was constructed in 1921. In 1978, the neighborhood in which the house is located was annexed by the City of Santa Monica. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 3 2. Architectural Description 2.1. Site and Setting 808 Woodacres Road is located in Tract No. 12868, a small, established residential neighborhood in the northernmost section of Santa Monica. The neighborhood occupies an area of the city that is almost exclusively residential in character and contains some of its most architecturally distinctive houses. Located to the north of San Vicente Boulevard, this neighborhood is perched atop the crest of Santa Monica Canyon and abuts the city’s northern boundary. The Los Angeles community of Pacific Palisades is located to the north. The neighborhood consists of large, custom single-family houses, all of which occupy large lots and most of which appear to have been built in the early post-World War II period. A few properties in the neighborhood, including those to the immediate east and immediate west of the subject property, are more contemporary and were constructed in 2013 and 2016, respectively.4 The neighborhood is oriented around Woodacres Road, a small cul-de-sac that charts a curvilinear course through the tract and terminates in a small roundabout. The street is narrow and lacks sidewalks, and most of the properties along its length are densely planted with mature vegetation. Together, these tract and landscape features provide the neighborhood with its characteristically bucolic sense of place. The subject property, 808 Woodacres Road, is located near the end of the cul-de-sac, on the south side of the street. The parcel measures approximately 1.25 acres and is roughly rectangular in shape. Location map. The subject property, 808 Woodacres Road, is outlined in red (aerial image from Google Maps). 4 Dates of construction were obtained from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 4 2.2. Building Exterior Near the center of the parcel is a 4,726-square-foot single-family residence that was constructed ca. 1920. The subject residence is deeply set back from the street, and the lot on which it sits is extensively landscaped. It is two stories in height, is oriented at an angle – roughly 45 degrees askew of the cardinal directions – and features complex massing and an irregular, roughly L-shaped footprint. It appears to sit on a poured concrete foundation and appears to be constructed of conventional wood frame. The house is designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, though it includes some exterior decorative details that overtly reference Mediterranean Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival design. Most of the house is capped by a complex roof structure comprising hipped and gabled volumes. The rear (southwest and southeast) elevations also feature small sections of pent roof. The roof is moderate in pitch and is sheathed in red clay barrel tiles. The hipped volume is accentuated by a molded cornice, and the gabled and shed volumes feature projecting eaves, exposed rafters and purlins, and knee brackets. Three stucco-clad chimneys project from the roof: one is placed at the gable wall on the primary (northeast) elevation, another is placed at the end of the side (northwest) elevation, and a third is placed at the gable wall on the rear (southwest) elevation. All of the chimneys are capped by decorative clay barrel tiles. Exterior walls are clad with a smooth stucco finish. Parcel map. 808 Woodacres Road is shaded red (Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 5 The primary elevation of the house faces northeast, toward Woodacres Road. It consists of two wings that interlock to form the house’s L-shaped footprint. Features on this elevation are asymmetrically composed, but exhibit an overarching sense of order and balance Positioned off center is a prominent arched entranceway that serves as the primary point of ingress to the house. The entranceway is composed of terra cotta blocks that form a voussoir and are framed by a helical trim. The keystone and both springers are articulated with abstracted motifs that are set in relief; the archivolt features a continuous band of decorative molding that is also set in relief. Within the entranceway are paired, paneled wood doors that feature decorative brass hardware and are surmounted by a leaded transom. Another visually prominent element of the primary elevation is a loggia, which is located adjacent to the entranceway. The loggia is recessed into the building and is framed by three arches, which are articulated by terra cotta trim and supported by twisted columns with Corinthian capitals. The loggia floor is finished with polychromatic concrete pavers that are laid in a herringbone pattern. Within the loggia is an integral stucco bench with glazed ceramic tile accents and a quarry tile cap. Positioned directly above the bench is a single window with a pointed arched opening, stained glass, leaded cames, and a prominent stucco sill. A single pendant light is affixed to the vaulted ceiling above the loggia. Three pairs of glazed, multi-light wood French doors open onto the loggia. Two additional pairs of French doors and another single, partially glazed door are placed on the southeast wing of the primary elevation. These doors are surmounted by a recessed lintel and flanked by blind sidelights. Some of the French doors features full-length wood frame exterior screen doors. Fenestration on the primary elevation consists primarily of multi-light wood casement windows, which are arranged both singularly and in pairs. Most of these windows are set within recessed openings and lack surrounds, making them appear as if they have been “punched” into the face of the building. A few of the original windows near the northeast end of the primary elevation have been replaced with vinyl casement windows; however, almost all of the windows on the house are original, and the original openings and fenestration patterns remain intact. One window on the primary elevation features an articulated terra cotta surround. Since the house is set far back from the street and the lot on which it sits is densely vegetated, the secondary elevations of the house are generally not visible. However, based on ARG’s site visit, as well as additional photographs of the house that were provided to the consultant team, these secondary elevations appear to ascribe to the same architectural program that defines the publically visible elevations of the house. They are also asymmetrically composed, exterior walls are clad with smooth stucco, and fenestration consists of wood casement windows and glazed French doors. The southwest and southeast elevations feature partially glazed wood doors with diamond panes, and wood casement windows with leaded glazing and diamond panes. Portions of the southwest elevation are clad with red bricks with weeping mortar; the bricks are stacked in a running bond pattern. To the south and east of the main house is a detached, two-story accessory building that is set far back on the lot. This building was constructed in 1970 as a combination garage and guesthouse.5 It is asymmetrically composed, rectangular in plan, and mimics the Spanish Colonial Revival vocabulary of 5 Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, Building Permit No. 11669, issued Jul. 3, 1970. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 6 the main house, though its proportions, massing, materials, and details clearly distinguish it as a more contemporary edifice. The building is capped by a complex roof structure comprising flat, shed, and mansard volumes. Other features on this accessory building include exposed rafter tails, smooth stucco exterior walls, French doors, wrought iron grilles, and a deeply recessed exterior patio that is framed by two rounded arches. The garage is oriented to the northeast, toward the street. 2.3. Landscape Features The subject property is extensively landscaped, which provides it with a characteristically pastoral quality. Its perimeter is densely planted with mature trees and vegetation. Mature vegetation can also be found around the house and at various other points on the site. The house is fronted by a broad front lawn and accessed by a long asphalt driveway that is framed by low curbs. Where it approaches the house, the driveway wraps around a mature California sycamore tree. Shrubs, hedges, and other types of vegetation are planted around the perimeter of the house. The entrance to the driveway is framed by brick piers that are capped by sconces. The piers support a wrought iron driveway gate. A small mailbox is incorporated into one of the piers, and a plaque that is embossed with “WOODACRES” is affixed to another. These site and landscape features are visually prominent features of the property. They play an important role in establishing the bucolic setting of the subject property and placing in into historical context as a 1920s residential estate. Other site features include an in-ground swimming pool, which was constructed in 1970, and a tennis court.6 The swimming pool and tennis court are located to the rear (south and west) of the house. Photographs of the pool that were provided to the consultant team show that it is lined with brick and ceramic tile. These photographs also indicate that the tennis court is enclosed by a tall chain link fence. 6 Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety, Building Permit No. 82867, issued Sept. 28, 1970. As discussed in Section 3: Development Chronology and Alterations, most of the property was originally located within the city limits of Los Angeles until 1978, when several blocks to the north of San Vicente Boulevard were annexed by Santa Monica. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 7 Current Photos Primary (northeast) elevation and front lawn, view southwest (Stephen Gee). Primary elevation, view southwest. Note entranceway and arched loggia (Stephen Gee). Primary elevation, detail of gabled wing at north end, view southwest (Stephen Gee). Primary elevation, detail of gabled wing at south end, view southwest (Stephen Gee). Primary elevation, detail of gabled wing at south end, view southeast (Stephen Gee). Primary elevation, detail of molded relief and leaded transom at entranceway (Stephen Gee). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 8 Primary elevation, detail of arched entranceway and paneled wood doors, view southwest (Stephen Gee). Detail of molded relief at entranceway (Stephen Gee). Primary elevation, detail of arched loggia and twisted column supports, view west (Stephen Gee). Detail of twisted column and Corinthian capital at loggia (Stephen Gee). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 9 Detail of terra cotta window surround on primary elevation. Note replacement window (Stephen Gee). Detail of terra cotta entrance surround on primary elevation (Stephen Gee). Interior of loggia, view northwest. Note integral bench and arched window (Stephen Gee). Detail of arched window at end of loggia, with stained glass and leaded cames (Stephen Gee). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 10 Detail of integral bench at end of loggia. Note decorative tile and quarry tile seat (Stephen Gee). Detail of hardware on main entrance doors, primary elevation (Stephen Gee). Rear (southeast) elevation, view north. Note brick accents and diamond paned windows (Stephen Gee). Detail of wood casement window with diamond panes and leaded glass, southwest elevation (Stephen Gee). In-ground swimming pool and rear accessory building, view southeast. Both date to 1970 (Stephen Gee). Detail of driveway and brick piers at street, view northeast (Stephen Gee). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 11 Primary elevation, view southeast (Stephen Gee). Primary elevation, view southwest, 2008 (Michael Locke, accessed via Flickr). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 12 Historic Photos John Parkinson Residence, featured in Architectural Digest California Home Edition, 1923 (USC Libraries). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 13 John Parkinson Residence, featured in The Architectural Forum, 1926 (USModernist). Floor plan of the John Parkinson Residence, featured in The Architectural Forum, 1926 (USModernist). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 14 John Parkinson Residence, primary (northeast) elevation, n.d. (Stephen Gee). John Parkinson Residence, rear (southwest) elevation, n.d. (Stephen Gee). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 15 Aerial image showing John Parkinson Residence, n.d. (Stephen Gee). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 16 3. Development Chronology and Alterations 3.1. Development Chronology The following development chronology for 808 Woodacres Road was developed from a variety of archival sources including historical building permits from the Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety and the Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department; Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps; historic photos and aerial images; parcel data from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor; the collections of the Los Angeles Public Library, Santa Monica Public Library, and other local and online repositories; and other archival sources of information. The permit record for the subject property is somewhat unique in that prior to 1978, the property was located within the City of Los Angeles. In 1978, 28 acres to north of San Vicente Boulevard, including all properties on Woodacres Road (and 808 Woodacres Road), were annexed by Santa Monica. The chronology below, then, includes references to permits issued by both Los Angeles and Santa Monica. 1913 John Parkinson, an esteemed architect from Los Angeles, acquired 22 acres of land to the north of San Vicente Boulevard, between 14th and 17th streets, from the Santa Monica Land and Water Company. At this time, the property was divided between the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles. A small sliver of the property nearest San Vicente Boulevard was located in Santa Monica; the remainder the property fell within the Los Angeles city limits. ca. 1920 Parkinson constructed a two-story, Spanish Colonial Revival style house on the property to serve as his personal residence. No original building permit is available, but in 1920 an alteration permit was issued to augment the original plans for the house with an additional five rooms. John Parkinson is listed as the architect and owner. The property’s address was originally 1201 San Vicente Boulevard (Los Angeles Permit No. 8117). 1920 Parkinson sold his previous residence at 688 Wilshire Place in what is now the Koreatown district of Los Angeles (not extant). He moved into the new house at 1201 San Vicente Boulevard with his first wife, Meta Breckenfeld Parkinson, and hired hands who lived on site. 1935 John Parkinson died. The property at 1201 San Vicente Boulevard was bequeathed to his second wife, Florence Gumaer Parkinson, who continued to live in the house until ca. 1965. 1944 The Parkinson family initiated the sale of the 22-acre estate to developers. The land was subdivided into Tract No. 12868, a small residential tract. The subdivision map was filed in 1946. However, the John Parkinson house remained extant and was incorporated into one of the parcels within the new subdivision (Tract Map No. 12868; Map Book 271, Sheets 40-41). Commensurate with the subdivision of the land, the address of the subject property was changed from 1201 San Vicente Boulevard to 808 Woodacres Road. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 17 1947 Permit issued to construct a new one-story garage building. Mrs. John Parkinson is listed as the owner (Los Angeles Permit No. 34062). 1965 The property is sold to Howard Alphson (Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor). Permit issued to perform unspecified interior alterations. The permit indicates that the proposed scope of work does not include any additions. Brent Bergh is listed as the architect; Howard Alphson is listed as the owner (Los Angeles Permit No. 60911). 1966 Permit issued to add a fireplace to the existing guesthouse. The guesthouse is presumed to be a part of the detached garage building that was built in 1947. No architect or contractor is listed on the permit; Howard Alphson is listed as the owner (Los Angeles Permit No. 62026). 1970 Permit issued to construct a new two-story ancillary building that would serve as both accessory living quarters and a two-car garage. This is presumed to have been constructed on the site of the 1947 garage, though a demolition permit for the latter could not be located. Thomas Lore and Associates is listed as the architect; Jack G. Ransbottom is listed as the contractor; Howard Alphson is listed as the owner (Los Angeles Permit No. 11669). Permit issued to add a mansard roof to the new ancillary building. Thomas Lore and Associates is listed as the architect; Jack G. Ransbottom is listed as the contractor; Howard Alphson is listed as the owner (Los Angeles Permit No. 20728). Permit issued to construct a new private swimming pool. Tropicana Pools is listed as the contractor; Howard Alphson is listed as the owner (Los Angeles Permit No. 82867). 1978 28 acres to the north of San Vicente Boulevard, which were originally located within the city limits of Los Angeles, were annexed by Santa Monica. The subject property (and all others on Woodacres Road) fell within the city limits of Santa Monica after the annexation. 1995 Permit issued to perform repairs relating to earthquake damage. The scope of work included repairs to damaged plaster and hollow brick on the main house, seismic strengthening (including the installation of straps and bolts) on the main house, and the removal and reconstruction of brick driveway pillars. The work does not appear to have resulted in any visible alterations to the building exterior. Gold Coast Construction is listed as the contractor; Howard and Druscilla Alphson are listed as the owners (Santa Monica Permit No. EQR3135). 1999 Permit issued for copper re-piping. Masterserv Inc. is listed as the contractor; Mr. Alphson is listed as the owner (Santa Monica Permit No. P21528). Permit issued to remove and replace an existing wooden staircase to the guest house with a new steel staircase. Sanchez Iron Works is listed as the contractor; Howard C. Alphson is listed as the owner (Santa Monica Permit No. B66355). 2005 Permit issued to remove old roof, repair damaged wood components, and install new roof. Best Quality Roofing is listed as the contractor (Santa Monica Permit No. 05STP0824). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 18 3.2. Alterations The following alterations were noted on a site visit conducted by ARG on December 7, 2018. Whenever possible, these alterations were corroborated by building permits obtained from the City of Los Angeles and City of Santa Monica, Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, historic photographs and aerial imagery, parcel data from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor, and other sources of archival information. The alterations listed herein pertain only to the building exterior and site; there are no publically accessible interior spaces, so the building interior was not evaluated. For alterations that are reflected in the permit record and/or other sources, the year that the alteration occurred is included parenthetically. Since some of the alterations are minor in scope and are not reflected in the permit record, it is not always known when they took place. A few of the original windows on the primary elevation (specifically, those on the gabled volume north of the entranceway) have been replaced with vinyl casement windows. A detached garage/guesthouse building was added to the southeast of the main house (1970). Recreational amenities including an in-ground swimming pool (1970) and tennis court were added to the rear (south) of the main house. The brick piers at the driveway were reconstructed after sustaining earthquake damage (1995). Some minor changes appear to have been made to the landscape over time, including modifications to the driveway (presumably following the subdivision of the adjacent land in 1946) and the introduction of new trees, shrubs, and plantings. However, changes that have been made to the landscape scheme have generally been subtle and sensitive. New landscape features appear to have been carefully selected and thoughtfully placed in order to complement – and not detract from – the property’s characteristically lush and bucolic character. Overall, the subject property has witnessed very few substantive changes over time. The house and grounds appear much as they did when they were built ca. 1920. Though the 22-acre estate was subdivided in 1946, the subdivision was performed in such a manner that kept the subject house intact and retained the essential spatial relationship between house, lot, and setting. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 19 4. Historic Contexts 4.1. Early Residential Development North of Montana Avenue 808 Woodacres Road is located in the northernmost section of Santa Monica, atop a bluff that overlooks Santa Monica Canyon and abuts the northern city limit. It is located in the area of the city known as North of Montana, a predominantly residential district that is home to many of Santa Monica’s largest and most articulated residential properties. The subject property was constructed amid a period of remarkable growth in this area of Santa Monica, and is associated with patterns of development that expanded the city’s footprint far beyond its historical core and out into its more peripheral zones. Santa Monica was founded in 1875. That year, Colonel Robert S. Baker and Senator John Percival Jones of Nevada acquired and platted a swath of coastal real estate to the west of Los Angeles.7 Like so many other earnest investors at this time, Baker and Jones were riding the wave of a speculative real estate boom that had taken Southern California by storm upon completion of the region’s first-ever transcontinental rail line in the mid-1870s. Areas like Santa Monica, which at the time were miles away from established population centers and were somewhat hard to access, were suddenly seen as lucrative investment opportunities. Baker and Jones subdivided Santa Monica into a uniform (albeit skewed) grid of rectilinear blocks, assigning numbers to north-south streets and naming east-west streets for states. Early in its history, the city was heavily marketed as a tourist destination and earned renown for its recreational culture, balmy climate, bathhouses, opulent hotels, and amusement piers. In the formative years of Santa Monica, residential development tended to be concentrated in areas nearest the ocean and in the vicinity of the present-day central business district. Neighborhoods comprising small beach cottages, many of which were built as vacation homes for affluent out-of- towners, arose in those areas most proximate to the shoreline, and several large residences were built on parcels atop the palisades that overlook the ocean.8 However, residential development expanded outward as Santa Monica began to come of age as a residential enclave in the early twentieth century. Residential development in areas beyond the city’s historical core was accelerated by the advent of electric streetcar lines, increasing accessibility to areas that had previously been impractical to develop. One of these streetcar lines ran along the ridge of Santa Monica Canyon. This line was built in 1906, connecting Los Angeles and Santa Monica by way of San Vicente Boulevard. It provided “an attractive access to what [real estate investor Robert C.] Gillis envisioned as a chain of future subdivisions” overlooking the edge of the canyon.9 The construction of this streetcar line helped steer new residential development north of the Montana Avenue axis, toward what was then the northern city limit. 7 Fred E. Basten, Santa Monica Bay: Paradise by the Sea: A Pictorial History of Santa Monica, Venice, Marina del Rey, Ocean Park, Pacific Palisades, Topanga (Santa Monica, CA: Hennessey + Ingalls, 2001), 10-11. 8 City of Santa Monica General Plan, “Historic Preservation Element,” prepared by PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group (September 2002), 12-13. 9 Betty Lou Young and Thomas R. Young, Santa Monica Canyon: A Walk Through History (Pacific Palisades: Casa Vieja Press, 1998), 49. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 20 Whereas small, modest bungalows accounted for much of the development in the central and southern sections of the city at this time, the area north of Montana Avenue quickly emerged as the city’s premier residential district. Swaths of undeveloped land in the northern reaches of the city were subdivided into generously sized residential lots, many of which were developed with large single-family houses designed in an array of popular early twentieth century architectural styles. The area assumed a tony character, similar to the adjacent communities of Brentwood and Pacific Palisades. The Palisades Tract was one of the first subdivisions to materialize north of Montana Avenue. Subdivided in 1905, it was originally bounded by Adelaide Drive on the north, Palisades Avenue on the south, 7th Street to the east, and Ocean Avenue to the west. However, the tract was expanded in 1912 and once again in 1913, which pushed its boundaries as far south as Montana Avenue and as far east as 14th Street.10 The Palisades Tract was conceived as an upper-income residential district. Much of the subdivision consisted of large parcels whose dimensions averaged 100 feet across by 200 feet deep, and streets were oriented to the west to take full advantage of the area’s prime coastal location.11 Landscaping was also carefully curated to beautify the area without compromising its ocean views. The subdivision attracted some of Santa Monica’s most prominent citizens at the time, many of whom commissioned noted architects to design large and lavish custom residences on the oversized parcels. Other swaths of real estate in the vicinity of the Palisades Tract were also parsed into residential lots. The Adelaide Drive/Adelaide Place (1906) and Brentwood Park (1907) tracts sowed the seeds for residential development at the northwest and northeast corners of the city, respectively.12 In 1913, King C. Gillette, an entrepreneur best known as the inventor of the thin disposable safety razor, subdivided 153 acres between San Vicente Boulevard and Montana Avenue into an exclusive residential tract called Gillette’s Regent Square.13 Two more tracts, Melville Square and Canyon Vista Park, were subsequently slotted into the existing patchwork of subdivisions in 1922 and 1923, respectively.14 Bit by bit, parcels within these subdivisions were developed with large, tasteful houses that were designed in a variety of popular architectural styles. Several of these houses were designed by highly acclaimed architects of the day including Robert Farquhar, Myron Hunt, Elmer Grey, John Byers, Charles and Henry Greene, Meyer and Holler, and others. By the 1920s, many of these subdivisions – and especially those nearest the ocean – had witnessed at least some development, though new houses would continue to be incrementally added to these neighborhoods well into the post-World War II era. On San Vicente Boulevard itself, development charted a bit of a different course. Many of the lots to the south of San Vicente fell within one of the aforementioned tracts, but those fronting onto the boulevard, east of 7th Street, remained largely undeveloped.15 The laggard pace of development along the boulevard can be attributed to the fact that the thoroughfare traversed areas of the city that were still peripheral, and were simply too far away from the central business district and other urban 10 “Historic Resources Inventory Update, Historic Context Statement,” prepared by Historic Resources Group and Architectural Resources Group, Mar. 2018, 64. 11 Ibid; “Gardeners Solve Unusual Problem,” Los Angeles Herald, Oct. 26, 1912. 12 “Historic Resources Inventory Update, Historic Context Statement” (Mar. 2018), 68-70. 13 “Gillette’s Regent Square Opening,” Los Angeles Herald, Mar. 15, 1913. 14 “Historic Resources Inventory Update, Historic Context Statement” (Mar. 2018), 74-77. 15 Ibid, 70. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 21 amenities. Another factor likely had to do with the fact that at this time, many of the parcels on the north side of the street (including the subject property) were located partially in the City of Santa Monica and partially in the City of Los Angeles.16 This comingling of jurisdictions almost certainly would have presented challenges related to permitting, entitlements, and municipal services. Eventually, many of the undeveloped parcels along San Vicente Boulevard were acquired, but instead of being platted into residential subdivisions they became home to some of the city’s largest and most sumptuous estates. The first resident to settle in the area was Percy Winnett, a department store magnate who had most notably co-founded Bullock’s Department Store with John G. Bullock. Winnett established his residence at 923 San Vicente Boulevard (not extant) in the 1910s.17 Others subsequently followed suit. Notably, in 1913 architect John Parkinson purchased 22 acres of undeveloped land from the Santa Monica Land and Water Company and erected a Spanish Colonial Revival style estate (the subject house) several years later, ca. 1920.18 In 1922, Donald Parkinson, the son of John Parkinson, constructed his own estate at 1605 San Vicente Boulevard (not extant), to the immediate east of his father’s house. Both Parkinson houses ascribed to the prevailing pattern of residential development in the area in that they occupied large lots, were set far back from the street, and were surrounded by lush landscaping, reinforcing its character as an exclusive residential district. Patterns of residential development along San Vicente Boulevard changed after World War II. Rising real estate costs and heightened demand for housing in the postwar years rendered many of these large estates ideally suited for infill development, which led many of their owners to subdivide the land. In some instances (like the Winnett estate), the existing house was demolished to accommodate development, but in other cases it was retained and incorporated into the tract around it. This was the case with the John Parkinson residence, which became a part of the Woodacres subdivision. 4.2. History of 1201 San Vicente Boulevard/808 Woodacres Road In January 1913, the Santa Monica Land and Water Company “announced the transfer of twenty-two acres, extending from Fourteenth street to Seventeenth street, near the canyon, to John Parkinson of [the architectural firm of] Parkinson and Bergstrom for about $100,000.”19 Parkinson’s land was lauded for its picturesque setting and “superb panorama of mountains, valley and ocean.”20 Its sale made headlines as one of the most significant real estate transactions to occur in Santa Monica at this time. Shortly after acquiring the site, Parkinson announced plans to erect a “magnificent and costly home of the Italian villa type,” surrounded by an elaborate landscape scheme that would render it “one of the finest estates in the country.”21 Given Parkinson’s reputation as one of Southern California’s premier 16 Ibid, 72. 17 Ibid, 70. 18 “Santa Monica Ambitious,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 26, 1913; “Plans Palatial Home,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 26, 1913. 19 “Santa Monica Ambitious,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 26, 1913. 20 “Plans Palatial Home,” Los Angeles Times, Jan. 26, 1913. 21 Ibid. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 22 architects, not to mention the hyperbolic press coverage about plans for the site, the public understandably had high expectations for the house. A Los Angeles Times article dated 1913 remarks that “many are expecting of [Parkinson’s] home one of the most superb masterpieces in architecture that has yet been built.”22 For reasons that are not known, Parkinson would wait some seven years before actually constructing the house. In 1913, when he purchased the property on San Vicente Boulevard, Parkinson and his family were residing in a house that he had designed at 600 St. Paul Avenue in the Westlake neighborhood of Los Angeles (not extant). In 1915, the family moved to another house at 688 Wilshire Place, in what is now the Koreatown neighborhood of Los Angeles (not extant). They lived on Wilshire Place until 1920.23 In March 1920, the Los Angeles Times reported that “Mr. Parkinson is preparing plans for the erection of a new residence fronting on San Vicente Boulevard, Santa Monica.”24 The house was completed by 1921.25 While early accounts of Parkinson’s ambitions for the site had indicated that he planned to develop it with a lavish Italian Renaissance Revival style estate, the house that he designed was more representative of the Spanish Colonial Revival style that was immensely popular in Southern California at the time. It was, by all accounts, an elegant and dignified dwelling that reflected Parkinson’s extraordinary skill, but its design also did not come across as pretentious. In this sense, the house was a reflection of his professional demeanor – Parkinson biographer Stephen Gee notes that the architect “remained true to his working-class roots, and I don’t think the success he had went to his head.”26 Parkinson waxed poetic on his new residence and the picturesque setting in which it was located not long after construction of the house was complete: About twenty-five years ago, in driving to Santa Monica by way of the Soldiers’ Home, I noticed the strip of land lying between San Vicente Boulevard and the Canyon’s edge, with the Santa Monica mountains directly in front across the canyon, and the broad Pacific to the left. I thought it was the most beautiful site for a home I had ever seen, so near the city and the ocean, with the restful mountains in front with their ever changing lights and shadows. I now live on the spot, and, living there, I am wondering why everyone able is not living in this, to me, most desirable of all places, so conveniently near Los Angeles.27 Given Parkinson’s stature within the Southern California architectural community, his Santa Monica residence was also much discussed in architectural trade journals. In 1923, a full-page photo spread of the residence was featured in Architectural Digest (which, at the time, was less of a conventional periodical and more of a pictorial trade directory).28 In 1926, the house was once again prominently featured, this time in The Architectural Forum. Speaking about the house, The Architectural Forum 22 “Santa Monica: The World’s Great Playground,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 9, 1913. 23 “John Parkinson, Lost and Found,” accessed Dec. 2018. Parkinson’s place of residence was corroborated by review of historic city directories, available via the Los Angeles Public Library. 24 “Architects Home,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 7, 1920. 25 Gleaned from property data obtained from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor, accessed Jan. 2019. 26 “John Parkinson: The Forgotten English Architect of Los Angeles,” BBC News, Jul. 5, 2018. 27 “Santa Monica: Why Farseeing Men Invested Money There,” Los Angeles Times, Apr. 21, 1921. 28 “Parkinson House, Santa Monica, CA,” Architectural Digest (32), 1924. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 23 remarked that it “has real distinction and dignity, and it is only regretted that lack of space prevents the publication of more illustrations of this excellent example of domestic architecture.”29 Parkinson initially lived at the Woodacres estate with his first wife, Meta Breckenfeld Parkinson (1862- 1922). However, in 1922 Meta Parkinson died suddenly at the age of 59.30 In 1923, John Parkinson married his second wife, Florence Gumaer (1884-1966). Born in New York, Gumaer was employed as a teller at the Bank of Santa Monica when she met John Parkinson. She was 23 years his junior.31 Information about Florence Parkinson is scant, but occasional references in newspapers indicate that she was actively engaged in local social affairs. She was a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution, and would often host benefits and other events on behalf of the organization at the subject house. She also served as president of the Women’s Committee of the Los Angeles Philharmonic in the 1940s.32 John and Florence Parkinson lived at the Santa Monica estate until John Parkinson’s death in 1935.33 Florence Parkinson continued to live in the subject house for three decades after her husband’s passing, and the Parkinson legacy would live on at the subject property until the post-World War II period. Briefly in the 1930s, the Parkinsons appear to have rented space within the subject house to renowned Hollywood film actress Greta Garbo (1905-1990). Garbo is listed as a resident of 1201 San Vicente Boulevard in a 1933 city directory (as are the Parkinsons), and an article in the Los Angeles Times dated 1933 also lists 1201 San Vicente Boulevard as Garbo’s home address.34 However, Garbo’s tenure at the subject house appears to have been brief and temporary; details recounting the relationship between Garbo, the Parkinsons, and the subject property are scant. Like many actresses of her time, Garbo is also known to have moved around very frequently at this point in her career – historians have compiled a list of some 25 houses in the Los Angeles area in which she is believed to have lived during the 1930s.35 The 22-acre Parkinson estate remained intact in its entirety until the mid-1940s. In 1944, the Parkinson family initiated the sale of most of the land surrounding the subject house to a consortium of developers headed by Cliff May and the First National Finance Corporation.36 A subdivision map was filed in 1946, and the estate was subdivided into 16 smaller residential parcels, most of which measured between a half acre and a full acre in size and were marketed as sites for custom single-family houses.37 The small cul-de-sac that was platted through the subdivision was named Woodacres Road. The Parkinsons’ 29 “House of John Parkinson, Esq., Santa Monica, Calif,” The Architectural Forum, Aug. 1926, 111-112. 30 Stephen Gee, Iconic Vision: John Parkinson, Architect of Los Angeles (Santa Monica: Angel City Press, 2013), 110; “Mrs. Parkinson Dead,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 13, 1922. 31 Gee (2013), 110. 32 “Bay Women Elect Staff,” Los Angeles Times, Jun. 4, 1942; “Today,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 27, 1942. 33 Gee (2013), 190; “Parkinson Rites Said: Noted Architect Laid to Rest,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 11, 1935. 34 Santa Monica City Directory, 1933, accessed at the Santa Monica Public Library; “Garbo Even Sidesteps Spirit Communication,” Los Angeles Times, Oct. 13, 1933. 1201 San Vicente Boulevard was also identified as the home of Greta Garbo in James W. Lunsford, The Ocean and the Sunset, The Hills and the Clouds: Looking at Santa Monica, 1983. 35 “Places Where Garbo Lived,” accessed Dec. 2018. 36 “Eighteen-Acre Tract’s Subdivision Announced,” Los Angeles Times, Sept. 24, 1944; “Historic Resources Inventory Update, Historic Context Statement” (Mar. 2018), 71. Cliff May, an acclaimed architect who is known as “father of the modern Ranch House,” appears to have only been involved in subdividing the land and not in designing any of the houses within the new tract. 37 Ibid; Tract Map No. 12868, Map Book 271.40-41, accessed via Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 24 decision to sell the Woodacres property coincided with a period marked by development pressures and heightened demand for new housing after the war. The property was subdivided in such a manner that preserved the house in situ, and was sensitive to preserving the aesthetic and spatial qualities between building and site. As such, even with that subdivision, the property continued to read as a large and lavish 1920s residential estate which was incorporated into the new subdivision that developed around it. Since the adjacent circulation pattern had been modified to accommodate the subdivision, the address of the house was also changed, from 1201 San Vicente Boulevard to 808 Woodacres Road. Florence Parkinson continued to live in the subject house until the mid-1960s.38 Quite remarkably, the subject house has had only two sets of owners. In 1965, it was sold to Howard and Druscilla Alphson. Born in North Dakota, Howard Alphson matriculated at the University of North Dakota, served in the U.S. Army Infantry, and earned his law degree from Harvard University. He was posthumously described as a “lawyer, developer, avid sportsman and beloved family man.”39 Druscilla Terhune Alphson, born in Massachusetts, earned a degree in social work from Endicott College and later pursued a career in real estate.40 Howard and Druscilla Alphson were long-time residents of Santa Monica who resided at the subject house between its purchase in 1965 and their deaths in 2015 and 2018, respectively. The house remains within the Alphson family. 4.3. Spanish Colonial Revival Architecture 808 Woodacres Road is designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, a popular choice for residential architecture in the 1920s and ‘30s. Spanish Colonial Revival architecture is a derivative of the Period Revival movement, which flourished after World War I and heavily influenced Southern California’s architectural character in the interwar years. Broadly speaking, the Period Revival movement appropriated and reinterpreted elements of historical architecture, often loosely and eclectically. To an extent, referencing past architectural styles represented a reaction against mass industrialization by evoking imagery of a romanticized past. In many places, and particularly in the rapidly growing region of Southern California, it also represented a search for identity. By visually referencing well-established forms and idioms, architects were able to evince a sense of perpetuity and longevity in a region that was self-conscious about its relative youth.41 The Spanish Colonial Revival style was among the many Period Revival idioms that were popular in the early decades of the twentieth century. Its ascent is generally attributed to the widespread exposure it received during the Panama-California Exposition of 1915, which was held in San Diego to celebrate the 38 It is not known precisely when Florence Gumaer Parkinson vacated the subject house, but her name appears in city directories and other documentary sources related to 808 Woodacres Road into the 1960s. 39 “Howard Clifford Alphson (1919-2015),” obituary published in the Los Angeles Times, Aug. 21, 2015. 40 “Druscilla Alphson (1926-2018),” obituary published in the Los Angeles Times, Jun. 29, 2018. 41 SurveyLA, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Context Statement, “Context: Architecture and Engineering, Theme: Period Revival, 1919-1950,” Jan. 2016, accessed Mar. 2018. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 25 opening of the Panama Canal.42 Anchoring the exposition grounds was a collection of ornamented, monumental buildings that were designed by noted architect Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue and aimed to emphasize the richness and diversity of Spanish architecture. The exposition buildings – whose florid, resplendent façades incorporated elaborate sculptural ornament juxtaposed against simple stucco surfaces – exemplified an embellished interpretation of Spanish architecture known as Churrigueresque. The resounding success of the exposition, and the widespread attention that Goodhue’s buildings attracted, fueled interest in Spanish architecture and prompted other architects and designers to look to Spain for inspiration. Many of these architects were also stationed in Europe during World War I and were introduced to the architectural forms of Spain. What resulted was an amalgamation of Spanish- derived architectural elements that collectively became known as the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Spanish Colonial Revival architecture came of age at just the same time that Southern California was amid a major development boom. The idiom was seen as appropriately suited to the region, and was embraced as a means of celebrating and romanticizing its Spanish roots. It also proved to be a versatile style that could be adapted to any number of building types and construction budgets. The hallmark characteristics of the style were expressed in myriad contexts including modest bungalows, higher style residences, apartment houses and multi-family dwellings, commercial and institutional buildings, and even industrial plants. Given its mass appeal, the style was embraced by developers, and influenced the architectural character of entire communities such as Santa Barbara and Rancho Santa Fe.43 Often, the Spanish Colonial Revival style would borrow from other styles that were popular at the time including Churrigueresque, Gothic Revival, Mediterranean Revival, Moorish Revival, and Art Deco. Spanish Colonial Revival architecture reached its zenith in the 1920s but remained popular through the 1930s, with later versions often simpler in form and ornament. Character-defining features of the Spanish Colonial Revival style include the following: Asymmetrical façades Horizontal massing and irregular plans Low or medium-pitched roofs with clay tile roofing Stucco wall cladding Double-hung, casement, and fixed wood or steel sash windows Wood plank or carved doors, often with decorative iron hardware Arched window and door openings Balconies, terraces, loggias, and/or colonnades Decorative wood or iron balustrades and grillework Decorative terra cotta or glazed ceramic tile accents 42 Virginia McAlester and Lee McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009), 418. 43 David Gebhard, “The Spanish Colonial Revival in Southern California, 1895-1930,” Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 26.2 (May 1967): 131-147. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 26 4.4. John Parkinson, Architect 808 Woodacres Road was designed by John Parkinson (1861-1935), one of the most prolific and influential architects in Southern California during the early decades of the twentieth century. The house served as Parkinson’s personal residence between its completion ca. 1920 and his death in 1935. John D. Parkinson was born in 1861 in the English village of Scorton, Lancashire. His family moved to nearby Swinton and eventually settled in the town of Bolton, which was an important production center in the textile industry. Parkinson was born into modest means – his father worked as an engineer at a cotton mill – and “nothing about his humble beginnings hinted at the remarkable journey that lay ahead.”44 After dropping out of school at age thirteen, he worked at a hardware store and later at the local newspaper, where his duties included delivering papers and sweeping floors.45 Parkinson was introduced to the architectural profession in 1877, at age sixteen, when he was hired as an apprentice by a builder and contractor in his hometown. He also took night classes in drafting and construction, which provided him with a grasp of basic building systems. His meager income precluded him from formally enrolling in architecture school. In 1883, Parkinson and a friend boarded a cattle boat and journeyed across the Atlantic. They first stopped in Winnipeg, Canada and then moved onto Minneapolis, where they found work erecting fences and building stairs. Parkinson returned to England in 1884, “confident that his overseas experiences could elevate him rapidly within the English construction trade,” but was unable to establish a reputation or find work that was suited to his ability.46 Discouraged by the lack of opportunities back home, Parkinson returned to the United States in 1885, arriving by way of San Francisco. He found work as a stair-builder at a planing mill in what was then the rural outpost of Napa. In 1888, Parkinson was selected to design an addition to the Bank of Napa (not extant), which was his first known architectural commission and jumpstarted what would mark the beginning of a long and illustrious career.47 It was also during his time in Napa that Parkinson met his first wife, Meta Breckenfeld. The two were wed in 1889, and remained married until her death in 1922. Eager to further his career, Parkinson moved to Seattle in 1889. Just months after arriving, most of Seattle’s downtown was decimated by the Great Seattle Fire, which was most certainly devastating to Seattle but was fortuitous to Parkinson and other architects and builders who were afforded the opportunity to rebuild the city and leave their mark on its built environment.48 Parkinson mostly designed office buildings and institutional buildings during his time in Seattle; notably, after winning a competition for a grammar school, he was appointed Seattle Schools Architect and Superintendent.49 However, the financial Panic of 1893 threw a wrench in Parkinson’s professional pursuits. New construction was curtailed, and in 1894 Parkinson’s position at the school district was eliminated due to a lack of funding. Many of his other investments also collapsed, which left him strapped for cash. 44 Gee (2013), 19. 45 Ibid, 20. 46 Marques Vickers, Architect John D. Parkinson: Eternally Elevating the Los Angeles Skyline (Larkspur, CA: Marquis Publishing, 2017), 8. 47 Pacific Coast Architecture Database, “Bank of Napa, Headquarters Building #2,” accessed Dec. 2018. 48 Gee (2013), 41; Vickers (2017), 11. 49 Vickers (2017), 11; Los Angeles Conservancy, “John Parkinson (1861-1935),” accessed Dec. 2018. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 27 Parkinson moved to Los Angeles in March 1894. At the time, the city was hardly the sprawling metropolis that it is today, but was rather a fledgling “town en route to becoming a city.”50 He started his own architectural firm with offices on Spring Street. To become better acquainted with the local architectural community and expand his business, Parkinson briefly partnered with architect J. Lee Burton, who was fourteen years his senior.51 In 1895, their firm, Burton and Parkinson, designed the Currier Building, a five-story commercial building at the intersection of Third Street and Broadway (not extant). The five-story, Italian Renaissance Revival style building was a notable new addition to the central business district, and is considered to be Parkinson’s first major commission in Los Angeles.52 The partnership between Parkinson and Burton was short lived and was dissolved not long after the Currier Building was completed. Parkinson practiced independently for the next ten years (1895-1905), muscling his way to the top of his profession and establishing his reputation as one of Los Angeles’s leading architects. During this time, Parkinson’s eponymous firm was at the forefront of architectural and technological innovation and designed what are widely considered to be some the city’s most influential Downtown buildings. It was during this period that Parkinson designed Los Angeles’s first Class A steel-frame building (Homer Laughlin Building, 1897), its first skyscraper (Braly Block 1902-04), and several of its most prominent office buildings and commercial blocks. He also developed an interest in elevator technology, and incorporated state-of-the-art elevator systems into many of his buildings.53 Many of Parkinson’s early Los Angeles commissions earned acclaim, but the Braly Block (1902-04) played an especially influential role in cementing Parkinson’s reputation as one of Los Angeles’s most noteworthy architects. Its construction was widely seen as an important milestone in the city’s quest to eschew its fledgling roots and firmly assert itself as a metropolis on the rise. The Los Angeles Times, speaking shortly after the building’s completion, remarked that it was “one of the finest structures that architectural genius and engineering skill can conceive.”54 At 175 feet, it was the city’s tallest building until the completion of City Hall in 1928, and remained its tallest commercial structure until the 1950s. Its elaborate Beaux Arts façade reflected Parkinson’s vision of how Los Angeles should look and feel. In 1905, Parkinson entered into partnership with G. Edwin Bergstrom, a young architect from Wisconsin. The firm was renamed Parkinson and Bergstrom. Reporting on the partnership, The American Architect and Building News remarked that “the senior member of the firm [Parkinson] has been for years identified with the growth of this city and has supervised the erection of many of the finest buildings to be found in the business and resident districts. Mr. Bergstrom, with whom Mr. Parkinson has formed a partnership, is a practical architect of wide experience.”55 Parkinson and Bergstrom were business partners between 1905 and 1915. During this time the firm churned out an impressive array of building projects in and around Downtown Los Angeles. Parkinson and Bergstrom’s expansive portfolio included the city’s largest and most opulent hotels (Hotel Alexandria, 1906; Hotel Rosslyn, 1914); department stores (Bullocks, 1906; The Broadway, 1914); banks 50 Gee (2013), 55. 51 Ibid, 59-62; Pacific Coast Architecture Database, “Burton and Parkinson, Architects (Partnership),” accessed Dec. 2018. 52 Gee (2013), 63. 53 Ibid, 63-68. 54 “Los Angeles Holds the Record: A Remarkable Building Achievement in this City,” Los Angeles Times, Nov. 22, 1903. 55 Gee (2013), 80. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 28 (Security Trust and Savings Bank, 1907; Citizens National Bank Building, 1914-15); train depots (Southern Pacific Passenger Terminal, 1914); a factory for the Ford Motor Company (1913); the Los Angeles Athletic Club (1911-12); and numerous Class-A office buildings and commercial blocks throughout the central business district.56 The firm played a heavy hand in shaping the architectural character of Downtown Los Angeles amid its growth and expansion in the early decades of the twentieth century. In 1911, Parkinson presided over a renovation of Central Park (now called Pershing Square), a one- square-block public park in the heart of Downtown Los Angeles. He introduced a formal, symmetrical plan that was rooted in the City Beautiful movement that was popular at the time. The Parkinson design included a lush landscaping scheme and 20-foot-wide diagonal footpaths that all intersected at a central fountain. It replaced what had historically been a shabby swath of land with a lush public park that engendered a sense of pride.57 He saw the project as part of his civic duty and completed it pro bono.58 Parkinson and Bergstrom quietly went their separate ways in 1915. By the time their partnership had dissolved, the firm had left a profound and indelible imprint on the built environment of Los Angeles, and particularly on that of Downtown Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Herald once remarked that between the two of them, Parkinson and Bergstrom wielded “a great deal of influence in directing architectural styles in the city, and much of our boasted up-to-dateness is the result of their work.”59 They worked in a diverse array of architectural styles that were popular at the time – as their principal objective was to satisfy the needs of their clients – but demonstrated particular mastery in the Beaux Arts style that was the dominant idiom for commercial architecture at the time their partnership was active. In 1919, Parkinson was hired by the University of Southern California (USC) to develop the institution’s first-ever master plan. His plan became the “blueprint” guiding USC’s building boom of the 1920s, and played an instrumental role in establishing the campus’s orientation and architectural vocabulary that persists (albeit with some modifications) to this day. The Parkinson Plan for USC called for a campus that was oriented around a long, axial corridor (now known as Trousdale Parkway) and flanked on either side by graceful, brick-clad buildings designed in the Romanesque Revival style. Preparation of the master plan signified a major turning point for the university, which had not significantly grown beyond its original boundaries since its inception.60 Parkinson’s firm went on to design several of the USC campus’s early buildings including the Bovard Administration Building (1921), the Law School Building (now the Levanthal School of Accounting) (1926); the Gwynn Wilson Student Union (1928), Bridge Memorial Hall (1928); the Zumberge Hall of Science (1928); and the Physical Education Building (1930).61 John Parkinson entered into partnership once again in 1920, this time with his son, Donald Berthold Parkinson (1895-1945). The firm was renamed Parkinson and Parkinson. “They made a splendid team,” remarked fellow architect John C. Austin, “one with his ripe experience, and the other with the enthusiasm of youth.”62 The formation of their partnership corresponded with a period marked by 56 Pacific Coast Architecture Database, “Parkinson and Bergstrom, Architects (Partnership),” accessed Dec. 2018. 57 Nathan Masters, “From Plaza Abaja to Pershing Square: L.A.’s Oldest Public Park Through the Decades,” KCET, May 9, 2012. 58 Gee (2013), 95. 59 Ibid, 79. 60 University of Southern California, “The 1919 Parkinson Plan,” accessed Dec. 2018. 61 “University of Southern California 2010 Master Plan,” report prepared by Historic Resources Group, May 2011. 62 Gee (2013), 109. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 29 phenomenal optimism and growth: between 1920 and 1930, the economy was thriving, the population of Los Angeles more than doubled, and the city witnessed a wave of development unprecedented in scale and impact.63 It was an exciting time to be practicing architecture and provided ample opportunity for the city’s leading practitioners to dabble in new forms. Indeed, some of the most iconic and enduring architectural works in Parkinson’s portfolio were completed during the period during which he partnered with his son. Notable commissions include the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1921); a new flagship store for the Bullocks department store company on Wilshire Boulevard (Bullocks Wilshire, 1929); many new office buildings in Downtown Los Angeles (Title Insurance Building, 1928; Title Guarantee and Trust Building, 1929-31); and banks and financial institutions (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco’s Los Angeles Branch, 1929; California Bank, Hollywood and Gramercy Branch, 1930). Between 1925 and 1928, Parkinson teamed with fellow architects Albert C. Martin and John C. Austin to design Los Angeles City Hall, a remarkably bold display of architectural prowess that is one of the most, if not the single most iconic building in Los Angeles.64 Aesthetically, the work that came out of the Parkinson firm in the 1920s and early 1930s reflects the stylistic shifts in architecture that were taking place at this time. While most of John Parkinson’s earlier work took cues from Classical traditions and the Beaux Arts style that dominated American commercial architecture at the time, his later buildings veered more in the direction of the Art Deco and Moderne styles that were coming into vogue. This stylistic shift is particularly well expressed in the Parkinsons’ design for Bullocks Wilshire, whose vertical recesses, luminous spire, and buff-hued terra cotta cladding render it one of the most resplendent examples of the Art Deco style in Los Angeles.65 Donald Parkinson is often credited as the principal force behind the firm’s evolving aesthetic. His youth, creative passion, and artistic inclinations helped to breathe new energy into his father’s already-well established practice. John Parkinson’s name is typically associated with large-scale commercial, civic, and institutional buildings, and it is for these prominent projects that the architect is best known. However, over the course of his career Parkinson also took on some notable residential commissions that are equally as significant and showcase his skill and versatility. Among his better known residential commissions include the Stearns House in the University Park neighborhood (1900), the Susana Machado Bernard House in the Westlake neighborhood, (1902), and the Heart House in the Hancock Park neighborhood (1910), each of which was designed in a different architectural style to suit the tastes of their respective owners. All have been designated as City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments (HCMs). Parkinson’s personal residences also merit recognition for the quality of their design. His first Los Angeles house at 600 St. Paul Street (not extant), built in 1901, embodied an eclectic synthesis of styles that referenced emerging architectural trends of the era, including the Prairie School and early experiments in the Mission Revival and Modern idioms that defined the work of Irving Gill. Its boxy massing, wide overhanging eaves, and chaste exterior walls rendered it a curious sight and the subject of many articles in architectural trade journals.66 Parkinson lived here with his family from 1901 to 1915. The family’s next house at 688 Wilshire Place (not extant), designed by noted architects Dennis and 63 Ibid, 113. 64 Los Angeles Conservancy, “Los Angeles City Hal,” accessed Dec. 2018. 65 Los Angeles Conservancy, “Bullocks Wilshire/Southwestern Law School,” accessed Dec. 2018. 66 “John Parkinson, Lost and Found,” accessed Dec. 2018; Gee (2013), 60-61. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 30 Farwell, was a handsome Craftsman style dwelling, with half timbering and other decorative features derived from the Tudor Revival style.67 Its more conventional styling deviated from the modern aspirations of his first house, but it was no less impressive. Parkinson and his family lived here between 1915 and 1920. In 1920, the Wilshire Place house was sold to fruit packing magnate Rosario Di Giorgio. Parkinson’s third house in Santa Monica (the subject house) also generated a considerable amount of discussion in the architectural world. Built ca. 1920, the house was constructed at a point in his career in which he had firmly established reputation as one of Southern California’s most respected and prolific architects, and its elegant blending of Spanish and Italian Renaissance elements was a clear display of the remarkable skill he had honed over his career. The Architectural Forum remarked that this house “had ‘real distinction and dignity,’ and compared the design to a Tuscan villa due to its central structures and projecting wings.”68 He lived here between its completion ca. 1920 and his death in 1935. In addition to presiding over a remarkably successful practice, Parkinson also served on the State Board of Architects from 1919 to 1933 and was the Board President in 1922; was a member of the Los Angeles Municipal Art Commission between 1925 and 1935; and was actively involved in other professional organizations including the American Institute of Architects, the Los Angeles Country Club, and the Elks. John Parkinson’s last major project is also among his most iconic. In 1933, Parkinson and Parkinson were selected as consulting architects for the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal (more commonly known as Los Angeles Union Station). The Parkinsons collaborated with company architects from the Santa Fe, Union Pacific, and Southern Pacific Railroads to design what has been described as “the last great train station built anywhere in the world.”69 Their design for the train station, which blended together the Spanish Colonial Revival and Moderne styles, was lauded as “characteristic of [their] power to combine beauty and utility in a structure that should serve the present and at the same time be essentially a part of the Los Angeles tradition.”70 The elder Parkinson died before the station opened in 1939, but not before he had played a heavy hand in defining the building’s distinctive look and feel. The station was an apposite final tribute to the architect’s long, illustrious, and remarkably productive career. John Parkinson died in 1935, at age 73, in Santa Monica. The Los Angeles Times aptly noted that “future citizens have only to walk through the streets of Los Angeles to be reminded of how much John Parkinson in his lifetime contributed to the city that grew up under his hand.”71 Donald Parkinson assumed control of the firm until his death in 1945, presiding over the completion of Union Station and also designing many other iconic buildings including Santa Monica City Hall (1939). 67 “Architect’s Home,” Los Angeles Times, Mar. 7, 1920; “John Parkinson, Lost and Found,” accessed Dec. 2018. 68 Gee (2013), 109. 69 Ibid, 181. 70 “John Parkinson,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 1935. 71 “John Parkinson,” Los Angeles Times, Dec. 12, 1935. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 31 5. Regulations and Criteria for Evaluation 5.1. National Register of Historic Places The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. Established under the auspices of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the National Register is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level. Eligibility for in the National Register is addressed in National Register Bulletin (NRB) 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. NRB 15 states that in order to be eligible for the National Register, a resource must both: (1) be historically significant, and (2) retain sufficient integrity to adequately convey its significance. Significance is assessed by evaluating a resource against established eligibility criteria. A resource is considered significant if it satisfies any one of the following four National Register criteria:72 Criterion A (events): associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; Criterion B (persons): associated with the lives of significant persons in our past; Criterion C (architecture): embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; Criterion D (information potential): has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Once significance has been established, it must then be demonstrated that a resource retains enough of its physical and associative qualities – or integrity – to convey the reason(s) for its significance. Integrity is best described as a resource’s “authenticity” as expressed through its physical features and extant characteristics. Generally, if a resource is recognizable as such in its present state, it is said to retain integrity, but if it has been extensively altered then it does not. Whether a resource retains sufficient integrity for listing is determined by evaluating the seven aspects of integrity defined by NPS: Location (the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred); Setting (the physical environment of a historic property); Design (the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property); 72 Some resources may meet multiple criteria, though only needs to be satisfied for National Register eligibility. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 32 Materials (the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular manner or configuration to form a historic property); Workmanship (the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory); Feeling (a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time); Association (the direct link between an important historic event/person and a historic property). Integrity is evaluated by weighing all seven of these aspects together and is ultimately a “yes or no” determination – that is, a resource either retains sufficient integrity, or it does not.73 Some aspects of integrity may be weighed more heavily than others depending on the type of resource being evaluated and the reason(s) for the resource’s significance. Since integrity depends on a resource’s placement within a historic context, integrity can be assessed only after it has been concluded that the resource is in fact significant. Generally, a resource must be at least 50 years of age to be eligible for listing in the National Register. Exceptions are made if it can be demonstrated that a resource less than 50 years old is (1) of exceptional importance, or (2) is an integral component of a National Register-eligible historic district whose other component parts are predominantly 50 years or older. 5.2. California Register of Historical Resources The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an authoritative guide used to identify, inventory, and protect historical resources in California. Established by an act of the State Legislature in 1998, the California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of significant architectural, historical, archeological, and cultural resources; identifies these resources for state and local planning purposes; determines eligibility for state historic preservation grant funding; and affords certain protections under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The structure of the California Register program is similar to that of the National Register, though the former more heavily emphasizes resources that have contributed specifically to the development of California. To be eligible for the California Register, a resource must first be deemed significant under one of the following four criteria, which are modeled after the National Register criteria listed above: Criterion 1 (events): associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; Criterion 2 (persons): associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 73 Derived from NRB 15, Section VIII: “How to Evaluate the Integrity of a Property.” 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 33 Criterion 3 (architecture): embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values; Criterion 4 (information potential): has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, state, or the nation. Mirroring the National Register, the California Register also requires that resources retain sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing. A resource’s integrity is assessed using the same seven aspects of integrity used for the National Register. However, since integrity thresholds associated with the California Register are generally less rigid than those associated with the National Register, it is possible that a resource may lack the integrity required for the National Register but still be eligible for listing in the California Register. Certain properties are automatically listed in the California Register, as follows:74 All California properties that are listed in the National Register; All California properties that have formally been determined eligible for listing in the National Register (by the State Office of Historic Preservation); All California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and above; and California Points of Historical Interest which have been reviewed by the State Office of Historic Preservation and recommended for listing by the State Historical Resources Commission. Resources may be nominated directly to the California Register. State Historic Landmarks #770 and forward are also automatically listed in the California Register. There is no prescribed age limit for listing in the California Register, although guidelines state that sufficient time must have passed to obtain a scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with a resource. 5.3. City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance Historic preservation in Santa Monica is governed by Chapter 9.56 (Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance) of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. The Ordinance was adopted by the Santa Monica City Council on March 24, 1976 and was amended in 1987 and again in 1991.75 Its current version was adopted in 2015. Among the primary objectives achieved by the Ordinance was the creation of a local designation program for buildings, structures, sites, objects, districts, and landscapes in the City that are of historical significance. With respect to individually significant properties, the Ordinance distinguishes between two tiers of designation: Landmarks and Structures of Merit. Landmarks, outlined in §9.56.100, are considered to exhibit “the highest level of individual historical or architectural significance;” Santa Monica’s designated landmarks include well-known and highly significant properties like the Rapp Saloon, Santa 74 California Public Resources Code, Division 5, Chapter 1, Article 2, § 5024.1. 75 City of Santa Monica General Plan, “Historic Preservation Element,” prepared by PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group (September 2002), 1-2. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 34 Monica City Hall, and the John Byers Adobe. Structures of Merit, outlined in §9.56.080, possess a degree of individual significance that is more limited in scope.76 Protections against demolition and alterations are commensurate with the tier of individual designation assigned to a particular resource. Landmarks are sited on Landmark Parcels. §9.56.030 defines a Landmark Parcel as “any portion of real property, the location and boundaries as defined and describes by the Landmarks Commission, upon which a Landmark is situated, which is determined by the Landmarks Commission as requiring control and regulation to preserve, maintain, protect or safeguard the Landmark.”77 In addition to individual Landmarks and Structures of Merit, the Ordinance establishes statutory criteria and procedures for the designation of Historic Districts, defined in §9.56.030 as a “geographic area or noncontiguous grouping of thematically related properties” that collectively contribute to the historic character of an area within the City. Unlike individual properties, whose designation does not require owner consent and is approved by the City’s Landmarks Commission, Historic Districts must win the support of a majority of property owners within the district and be approved by the City Council.78 Per §9.56.100(A) of the Ordinance, a property merits consideration as a Landmark if it satisfies one or more of the following six statutory 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; (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. 76 City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department, “Historic Preservation in Santa Monica,” accessed 8 August 2014, http://www.smgov.net/departments/PCD/Programs/Historic-Preservation/. 77 Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 9.36.030 (Definitions), accessed Jan. 2019. 78 Ibid. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 35 6. Evaluation of Significance 6.1. Previous Evaluations 808 Woodacres Road was identified in the 2018 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) update. The HRI concludes that the property appears individually eligible for listing in the National Register and California Register, and as a Santa Monica Landmark (Status Codes 3S, 3CS, 5S3). It states that the property appears eligible for listing as an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture as applied to a single-family residence; as a notable work of master architect John Parkinson; and for its association with Parkinson, who resided in this house between ca. 1920 and 1935. 6.2. Evaluation of Eligibility National Register and California Register ARG concludes that 808 Woodacres Road is individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historical Resources under Criteria A/1, B/2, and C/3, as follows: Criterion A/1. Associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. The subject property meets this criterion for its association with broad patterns of residential development that shaped the northernmost section of Santa Monica in the 1920s. When the house was constructed ca. 1920, it was notable as one of the first residential properties to be completed to the north of San Vicente Boulevard, which abutted what was then the northern city limit and was located in what was then regarded as a peripheral corner of the city. The house’s relative grandeur, lushly landscaped grounds, and expansive 22-acre site played an important role in establishing this area’s image as a wealthy residential enclave comprising exceptionally large and lavish estates. It helped to set the prevailing tone for development in the North of San Vicente district prior to World War II. Many of the large estates that were located to the north of San Vicente Boulevard were sold and subdivided after World War II, and in many instances (such as the Percy Winnett estate), the houses anchoring these estates were demolished to accommodate new development. In other instances (such as the Donald Parkinson estate), the house remained extant for a period, but was later demolished and replaced. The subject house stands out as one of few surviving buildings from the pre-World War II era, and as such it offers a rare glimpse into broad patterns of residential development that played an important role in shaping this area of the city. While most of the subject property’s 22-acre site was subdivided in the 1940s, enough of its essential context remains to adequately convey the property’s association with these early and definitive patterns of residential development. The property was subdivided in such a manner that its essential site features and contextual qualities were retained. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 36 For these reasons, ARG concludes that the subject property is eligible for the National Register/ California Register under Criterion A/1. Criterion B/2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California or national history. The subject property meets this criterion for its association with the life of John Parkinson. Born and reared in England, Parkinson first arrived on the West Coast in 1885 and settled in Los Angeles in 1894. He went onto become one of Southern California’s most prolific and highly respected architects, establishing a remarkably successful practice and designing many of Southern California’s most iconic and beloved landmarks of the early twentieth century. His expansive body of work played an instrumental role in defining the look and feel of pre-World War II Los Angeles. He helped create an architectural identity for Southern California that corresponded with its ascent into a major metropolis. That Parkinson is a significant individual in the annals of local history is indubitable. The Los Angeles Times, reporting on the architect’s death in 1935, aptly (and poetically) observed that “John Parkinson of Los Angeles earned a distinction that death cannot obliterate. The passing years will bring ever-added proof of how much the city owes to his vision and his artistry.”79 Parkinson constructed the subject house ca. 1920 as his personal residence, and continued to live there until his death in 1935. He resided in the house at a period during which his already-established architectural career would soar to great new heights. Some of his most significant and iconic commissions (Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles City Hall, Bullocks Wilshire, Union Station) are associated with this period. The association between Parkinson and the subject property is direct and overt. He lived here for an extended period amid a particularly productive era of his long career. It also bears mention that the subject property is the only known personal residence of John Parkinson in Southern California that is still standing. Between 1901 and 1915, he lived in a self-designed house at 600 St. Paul Avenue in the Westlake neighborhood, which embodied an eclectic synthesis of architectural styles. It was later moved to a different location, and was eventually demolished ca. 1950. Between 1915 and 1920, he resided in a Craftsman style house at 688 Wilshire Place in the Wilshire Center/Koreatown neighborhood. It was demolished in 1931. The subject house, then, is notable as the only residential property in the region that bears direct association with Parkinson’s life. Renowned Hollywood actress Greta Garbo briefly resided at the property in 1933. While Garbo is most certainly a historically significant individual, her tenure at the house appears to have been very brief, and there is insufficient evidence to indicate that this is the property best associated with her productive period. Other owners/occupants of the subject house (Florence Gumaer Parkinson, Howard and Druscilla Alphson) most certainly lived productive lives, but there is insufficient evidence to indicate that these owners/occupants were associated with any singular achievement that would render them a historically significant individual for purposes of this criterion. For these reasons, ARG concludes that the subject property is eligible for the National Register/ California Register under Criterion B/2, for its association with the productive life of John Parkinson. 79 Gee (2013), 11. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 37 Criterion C/3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. The subject property meets this criterion as an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture as applied to a single-family residence. Constructed ca. 1920, it embodies the distinctive characteristics that are associated with the Spanish Colonial Revival style, and does so with a degree of articulation and detail that render this building particularly important to the study of 1920s residential architecture and the Period Revival movement. Characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival style that are expressed in the subject building include its asymmetrical massing, clay tile roof, smooth stucco exterior walls, arched door and window surrounds, paneled wood doors with decorative iron hardware, casement windows, and ceramic tile accents. The house also has a voussoir surround, loggia, and other decorative elements that draw upon the architectural traditions of the Mediterranean region and are aesthetically compatible with the house’s prevailing Spanish aesthetic. The property also meets this criterion by representing the work of master architect John Parkinson. Parkinson, as previously noted, was one of Southern California’s premier architects of the early decades of the twentieth century, demonstrating mastery in a diverse array of popular architectural styles that rendered a considerable number of his buildings iconic landmarks. The subject house is a relatively rare example of a single-family residence designed by Parkinson, who is best known for designing high- profile commercial, civic, and institutional buildings. Its design embodies Parkinson’s ability to design buildings that were highly articulated and monumental, but did so in a way that evinced elegance, sophistication, and grace and did not come off as haughty or pompous. When the house was constructed, it was prominently featured in a variety of periodicals and architectural trade journals including Architectural Digest and Architectural Forum. That is was so widely publicized within the profession is a testament to its high quality of design and architectural significance. For these reasons, ARG concludes that the subject property is eligible for the National Register/ California Register under Criterion C/3. Criterion D/4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. As an archaeological assessment was not conducted as part of this study, the property’s potential for containing subsurface archaeological resources is unknown. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 38 Local Eligibility ARG concludes that 808 Woodacres Road is eligible for listing as a Santa Monica Landmark under Criteria 9.56.100(A) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, as follows: 9.56.100(A)(1). It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. The subject property meets this criterion for its association with broad patterns of residential development that shaped the neighborhood north of San Vicente Boulevard in the decades prior to World War II. When the house was constructed ca. 1920, it was notable as one of the first residential properties to be completed to the north of San Vicente Boulevard. The house’s relative size and grandeur, coupled with its expansive 22-acre site, played an important role in establishing this area’s identity as a wealthy residential enclave comprising some of the city’s largest and most lavish estates. Its type, size, scale, and architectural character helped to sow the seeds and set the tone for future development in the surrounding area. Many of the large estates that were located to the north of San Vicente Boulevard were sold and subdivided after World War II, and in many instances (such as the Percy Winnett estate), the houses anchoring these estates were demolished to accommodate new development. In other instances (such as the Donald Parkinson estate), the house remained extant for a period, but was later demolished and replaced. The subject house stands out as one of few surviving buildings in this area from the pre-World War II era, and as such it offers a rare glimpse into broad patterns of residential development that played an important role in shaping this part of the city. While most of the subject property’s 22-acre site was subdivided in the 1940s, enough of its essential context remains to adequately convey the property’s association with these early patterns of residential development. The property was subdivided in such a manner that not only preserved the house in situ, but was sensitive to preserving the aesthetic and spatial qualities between building and site. As such, the property continues to read as a large and lavish 1920s estate. For these reasons, ARG concludes that the subject property is eligible for listing as a Landmark under Santa Monica Criterion (1). 9.56.100(A)(2). It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject property meets this criterion. The house exhibits a level of articulation and architectural detail that provide it with a distinct appearance and a level of artistic merit that is not often seen on comparable residences from this era. In particular, its vouissoir entrance surround, terra cotta details, and triple-arched loggia with twisted columns and Corinthian capitals are notable features that attract attention and render the house an especially strong aesthetic statement. For these reasons, ARG concludes that the subject property is eligible for listing as a Landmark under Santa Monica Criterion (2). 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 39 9.56.100(A)(3). It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state, or national history. The subject property meets this criterion as a property identified with the productive life of architect John Parkinson, a historically significant individual. Born and reared in England, Parkinson first arrived on the West Coast in 1885 and settled in Los Angeles in 1894. He went onto become one of the region’s most prolific and highly respected architects, establishing a remarkably successful practice and designing many of Southern California’s most iconic and beloved landmarks of the early twentieth century. His expansive body of work played an instrumental role in defining the look and feel of pre-World War II Los Angeles. He helped to create an architectural identity for Southern California that corresponded with its ascent into a major metropolis. Parkinson constructed the subject house ca. 1920 as his personal residence, and continued to live there until his death in 1935. He resided in the house at a period during which his already-established architectural career would soar to great new heights. Some of his most significant and iconic commissions (Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles City Hall, Bullocks Wilshire, Union Station) are associated with this period. The association between Parkinson and the subject property is direct and overt. He lived here for an extended period amid a particularly productive era of his long career. It also bears mention that the subject property is the only known personal residence of John Parkinson in Southern California that is still standing. Between 1901 and 1915, he lived in a self-designed house at 600 St. Paul Avenue in the Westlake neighborhood, which embodied an eclectic synthesis of architectural styles. It was later moved to a different location, and was eventually demolished ca. 1950. Between 1915 and 1920, he resided in a Craftsman style house at 688 Wilshire Place in the Wilshire Center/Koreatown neighborhood. It was demolished in 1931. The subject house, then, is notable as the only residential property in the region that bears direct association with Parkinson’s life. For these reasons, ARG concludes that the subject property is eligible for listing as a Landmark under Santa Monica Criterion (3). 9.56.100(A)(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 meets this criterion as an excellent example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Constructed ca. 1920, it embodies the distinctive characteristics that are associated with the Spanish Colonial Revival style, and does so with a degree of articulation and detail that render this building particularly important to the study of 1920s residential architecture and the Period Revival movement in general. Characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival style that are expressed in the subject building include its asymmetrical massing, clay tile roof, smooth stucco exterior walls, arched door and window surrounds, paneled wood doors with decorative iron hardware, casement windows, and ceramic tile accents. The house also has a voussoir surround, loggia, and other decorative elements that draw upon the architectural traditions of the Mediterranean region. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 40 The architectural significance of the house is underscored by the fact that it was very prominently featured in multiple popular architectural trade journals following its construction ca. 1920. Specifically, the house was featured in Architectural Digest in 1923 and Architectural Forum in 1926. For these reasons, ARG concludes that the subject property is eligible for listing as a Landmark under Santa Monica Criterion (4). 9.56.100(A)(5). It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. The subject property meets this criterion as a significant work of master architect John Parkinson. Parkinson was one of Southern California’s premier architects of the early decades of the twentieth century, demonstrating mastery in a diverse array of popular architectural styles that rendered many of his buildings iconic landmarks. The subject house is a relatively rare example of a single-family residence designed by Parkinson, who is best known for designing high-profile commercial, civic, and institutional buildings. It is particularly demonstrative of how Parkinson was able to successfully take the trademark characteristics of his body of work and meld them into a residential context. Its design embodies Parkinson’s signature ability to design buildings that were dignified, articulated, and monumental, but did so in a way that did not evince a sense of pretense or ostentation. For these reasons, ARG concludes that the subject property is eligible for listing as a Landmark under Santa Monica Criterion (5). 9.56.100(A)(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 satisfy this criterion. While it has many distinctive physical characteristics, it is tucked away at the far end of a small cul-de-sac, and is not visible to those aside from the handful of neighbors and others who have reason to pass down the street. Even from the public right-of-way, the house is difficult to fully see due to its deep setback and extensive landscaping. It is likely a familiar presence to those who are intimately familiar with the neighborhood, but it does not appear to be an established or familiar visual feature as enumerated under this criterion. Landmark Parcel The entire parcel comprising 808 Woodacres Road is eligible as a Landmark Parcel pursuant to the criteria enumerated in Section 9.56.030 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. A Landmark Parcel is “any portion of real property, the location and boundaries as defined and described by the Landmarks Commission, upon which a Landmark is situated, which is determined by the Landmarks Commission as requiring control and regulation to preserve, maintain, protect or safeguard the Landmark.”80 80 Santa Monica Municipal Code, Chapter 9.36.030 (Definitions), accessed Jan. 2019. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 41 As noted above, the subject house is set within lushly landscaped grounds. The spatial relationship between the house and grounds paints a compelling picture of significant patterns of early residential development in this part of the city. The subject property’s deep front setback; lushly landscaped grounds with a variety of mature trees, shrubs, and perimeter plantings; and the overall symbiotic relationship between house and grounds as character-defining features of the property.81 It is important that this association between house and grounds be retained, so that the property can continue to physically represent its historic period as well as the reasons underpinning its historic significance. The 1946 subdivision preserved the house in situ and was sensitive to preserving the aesthetic and spatial qualities between building and site – thereby resulting in the property continuing to convey its association with historical development partners, and continuing to read as a large and lavish 1920s residential estate. It is vital that any future changes to the entire parcel similarly preserve these spatial and associative qualities. For these reasons, ARG concludes that the entire property (house and grounds) merits designation as a Landmark Parcel. Summary of Local Eligibility For the above-listed reasons, the subject property – including both the John Parkinson house and the lushly landscaped grounds that surround it – is eligible as a Santa Monica Landmark. The symbiotic relationship between the house and grounds paints a compelling picture of significant patterns of early residential development (Criterion 1); it exhibits an exceptional level of architectural detail and aesthetic merit (Criterion 2); it is the only-known residential property in Southern California that bears direct association with Parkinson’s life (Criterion 3); and it is an excellent, well articulated example of Spanish Colonial Revival residential architecture and a notable example of Parkinson’s work (Criteria 4 and 5). Since the symbiotic relationship between building and site is imperative to fully understanding the context and historical significance of the subject property, the entire parcel merits designation as a Landmark Parcel as defined by the Santa Monica Municipal Code. 6.3. Integrity Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance, and is defined by the National Park Service (NPS) as the “authenticity of a property’s historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property’s prehistoric or historic period.”82 NPS identifies seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. 81 For a detailed discussion of character-defining features, refer to Section 6.5. Character-Defining Features of this report. 82 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997), 4. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 42 Both the National Register and California Register enumerate that a resource must retain sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing. The Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance does not include specific language about integrity. When evaluating historic resources in municipalities where the historic preservation ordinance does not provide guidance for assessing integrity, in accordance with best professional practices it is customary to use the National Register’s seven aspects of integrity to assess whether or not a resource retains sufficient integrity to convey its significance at the local level. Following is an integrity analysis for 808 Woodacres Road: Location: the house remains on its original site and therefore retains integrity of location. Design: the house has experienced minimal alterations since its construction ca. 1920. The only noted observation to the house itself was the very limited replacement of some windows. The replacement windows generally conform to the original fenestration pattern and are installed in original openings. The house’s form, plan, space, structure, and style remain intact. It has received no visible additions, its scale and massing are the same that they were upon construction, and its design intent remains legible. Thus, the property retains integrity of design. Setting: when the house was constructed, it sat on a 22-acre site that faced toward San Vicente Boulevard and extended between 14th and 17th streets. Its large lot, bucolic setting, and deep setback from San Vicente Boulevard gave the property the appearance of a lavish estate. In 1946, most of the land around the house was subdivided into a residential neighborhood comprising large, custom houses in the Ranch and Modern styles. However, the subject house remained intact and in situ, and was incorporated into the subdivision that grew up around it. The land was also subdivided in such a manner that was sensitive to retaining the essential spatial relationships between house, lot, and street. Thus, the property retains enough of its site and landscape features to continue to clearly read as a 1920s residential estate, and retains integrity of setting. Materials: since the house has been minimally altered, almost all of its original materials remain intact. Original materials that have been removed are limited to a handful of windows. For this reason, the property retains integrity of materials. Workmanship: distinguishing characteristics that provide the house with its architectural character, as well as architectural details that express the skill belying its design remain almost entirely intact. Thus, the property continues to convey the physical evidence of technological practices and aesthetic principles from its ca. 1920 period of construction. For this reason, the property retains integrity of workmanship. Feeling: while its immediate environs have changed considerably over time, the property retains enough of its essential setting and context to read as a prominent, high style estate. Through its essential massing, form, architectural character, and prominent setback, it continues to convey its essential character. For these reasons, the property retains integrity of feeling. Association: the building retains the distinctive look and feel of a high style single-family residence and remains identifiable as such. It retains a strong and palpable association with this period of development in the city. Thus, the property retains integrity of association. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 43 6.4. Period of Significance Historical resources are assigned one or more periods of significance. According to the NPS, “period of significance refers to the span of time during which significant events and activities occurred. Events and associations with historic properties are finite; most properties have a clearly identifiable period of significance.”83 Since 808 Woodacres Road satisfies multiple criteria, two periods of significance have been identified: For criteria relating to the property’s association with early development patterns and architectural significance (National/California Register A/1, C/3, local criteria 1, 2, 4, 5), the period of significance is identified as 1920, the approximate year that the property was constructed. For criteria relating to the property’s association with the life of John Parkinson (National/ California Register B/2, local criterion 3), the period of significance is identified as 1920-1935, the period of time during which Parkinson was associated with the property. 6.5. Character-Defining Features Character-defining features are those physical elements of a resource that define its historic character and help to convey its significance. In instances of future change to a historic resource, character- defining features should be retained to the greatest extent feasible in order to ensure that a resource can continue to physically represent its historical period. ARG developed the following inventory of character-defining features for 808 Woodacres Road, which is listed below. This inventory was developed based on visual inspection of the building, review of historical photographs, and evaluation of historical building permits and various other archival materials. Site and Setting Deep front setback Lushly landscaped grounds with a variety of mature trees, shrubs, and perimeter plantings Symbiotic relationship between house and grounds Mature California sycamore tree to the immediate front (northeast) of the house Building Exterior Two-story height L-shaped footprint and complex massing 83 Ibid, 42. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 44 Asymmetrical façades Complex roof structure comprising a combination of hipped, gabled, and pent volumes, molded cornice, projecting eaves, exposed rafters and purlins, and knee brackets Clay tile roof cladding Stucco chimneys with decorative clay tile caps Smooth stucco exterior walls Terra cotta trim elements Arched voussoir entranceway with terra cotta decorative elements Paneled wood doors with decorative brass hardware and a leaded transom Multi-light French doors Recessed loggia, framed by arches and supported by twisted columns with Corinthian capitals Integral bench with decorative tilework and a quarry tile cap (within loggia) Pointed arch window with stained glass, leaded cames, and a stucco sill (within loggia) Multi-light wood casement windows, set within recessed openings Restrained application of surface ornament 7. Conclusion Based on documentary evidence, site analysis, the development of historic contexts, and an evaluation against federal, state, and local eligibility criteria, ARG concludes that 808 Woodacres Road is individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and as a Santa Monica Landmark. The property is significant for its association with early patterns of development in the northern periphery of Santa Monica (Criterion A/1/1), for its association with the life of renowned architect John Parkinson (Criterion B/2/3), and for its architectural and aesthetic merit (Criterion C/3/2,4,5). It retains sufficient integrity for federal, state, and local listing. ARG further concludes that the parcel as a whole merits designation as a Landmark Parcel. The house, its site and landscape features, and its estate-like grounds have a symbiotic relationship. These features collectively convey the significance of the property under each of the aforementioned eligibility criteria. The Landmark Commission’s oversight of the entire parcel is accordingly required to preserve, maintain, protect and safeguard the historic significance of 808 Woodacres Road. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 45 8. Bibliogaphy Books, Periodicals, Reports, and Other Published Materials Basten, Fred E. Santa Monica Bay: Paradise by the Sea: A Pictorial History of Santa Monica, Venice, Marina del Rey, Ocean Park, Pacific Palisades, Topanga. Santa Monica: Hennessey + Ingalls, 2001. City of Santa Monica General Plan, “Historic Preservation Element,” prepared by PCR Services Corporation and Historic Resources Group (September 2002). Gebhard, David. The Spanish Colonial Revival in Southern California, 1895-1930. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 26.2. May 1967. Gee, Stephen. Iconic Vision: Architect of Los Angeles. Santa Monica: Angel City Press, 2013. Gelernter, Mark. A History of American Architecture: Buildings in their Cultural and Technological Context. Hanover: University Press of New England, 1999. Historic Resources Group and Architectural Resources Group. “City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update: Historic Context Statement.” Prepared for the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department, City Planning Division, March 2018. ICF Jones & Stokes. “Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update Final Report.” Prepared for the City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department, 2010. Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll’s Century History, Santa Monica Bay Cities. Santa Monica: L.A. Ingersoll, 1908. Los Angeles Herald, various dates. Los Angeles Times, various dates. Masters, Nathan. “From Plaza Abaja to Pershing Square: L.A.’s Oldest Public Park through the Decades.” KCET. May 9, 2012. McAlester, Virginia, and Lee McAlester. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1984. McWilliams, Carey. Southern California: An Island on the Land. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1946. “Parkinson House, Santa Monica, CA.” Architectural Digest (32): 1924. Santa Monica City Directories, various dates and publishers. Santa Monica Outlook, various dates. Scott, Paula. Santa Monica: A History on the Edge. San Francisco: Arcadia Publishing, 2004. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 46 “University of Southern California 2030 Master Plan.” Report prepared by Historic Resources Group for the University of Southern California, Real Estate and Asset Management. May 2011. U.S. Department of the Interior. National Register Bulletin 16A: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1997. Vickers, Marques. Architect John D. Parkinson: Eternally Elevating the Los Angeles Skyline. Larkspur, CA: Marquis Publishing, 2017. Young, Betty Lou, and Thomas R. Young. Santa Monica Canyon: A Walk Through History. Pacific Palisades: Casa Vieja Press, 1998. Web Sites and Other Sources City of Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. Building and alteration permits for 1201 San Vicente Boulevard/808 Woodacres Road. City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department. “Historic Preservation in Santa Monica.” Accessed Dec. 2018, http://www.smgov.net/departments/PCD/Programs/Historic- Preservation/. City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department. “Historic Resources Inventory.” Accessed Dec. 2018, http://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Historic-Resources- Inventory/. City of Santa Monica Planning and Community Development Department. Building and alteration permits for 808 Woodacres Road. “John Parkinson: Lost and Found.” Accessed Dec. 2018, https://losangeleshistory.blogspot.com/2012/06/please-visit-our-companion-histories_12.html. Los Angeles Conservancy. “John Parkinson (1861-1935).” Accessed Dec. 2018, https://www.laconservancy.org/architects/john-parkinson. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Tract Maps. Accessed Dec. 2018, http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/surveyrecord/tractMain.cfm. Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor. Property assessment data and maps. Accessed Dec. 2018, https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/. NETRonline. Historic Aerial Images. Multiple dates. Accessed Dec. 2018, http://www.historicaerials.com. Pacific Coast Architecture Database. “Burton and Parkinson, Architects (Partnership).” Accessed Dec. 2018, http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/firm/87/. 808 Woodacres Road, Historic Resource Assessment Report February 1, 2019 ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES GROUP 47 Pacific Coast Architecture Database. “Parkinson and Bergstrom, Architects (Partnership).” Accessed Dec. 2018, http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/firm/88/. “Places Where Garbo Lived.” Accessed Dec. 2018, http://www.garboforever.com/Where_Garbo_Lived.htm. Sanborn Map Company. Fire Insurance Maps, Santa Monica, California. Multiple dates. Accessed Dec. 2018 at the Los Angeles Public Library. Santa Monica Conservancy. “History of Santa Monica.” Accessed Dec. 2018, http://www.smconservancy.org/historic-places/history-of-santa-monica/. Santa Monica Public Library. Historical Maps of Santa Monica. Accessed Dec. 2018, http://digital.smpl.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/maps. Santa Monica Public Library. Santa Monica Newspaper Index. Accessed Dec. 2018, http://digital.smpl.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/smfile. Santa Monica Public Library. Santa Monica Image Archive. Accessed Dec. 2018, http://digital.smpl.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/smarchive. United States Bureau of the Census. Census records, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930, 1940. Accessed Dec. 2018, http://www.ancestry.com. University of Southern California. “The 1919 Parkinson Plan.” Accessed Dec. 2018, https://upcmasterplan.usc.edu/background/history/1919-parkinson-plan/. MEMO 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP To: Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher From: Christine Lazzaretto; Molly Iker-Johnson Date: February 1, 2019 INTRODUCTION Historic Resources Group (HRG) has reviewed the Historic Resource Assessment Report for 808 Woodacres Road, prepared by Architectural Resources Group (ARG) in February 2019.1 808 Woodacres Road is located in the North of Montana neighborhood of Santa Monica, which was surveyed during the City’s 2018 historic resources inventory update. The property was identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and as a City of Santa Monica Landmark under Criteria B/2/3 and C/3/4,52 as an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture as applied to a single-family residence, and as the work of notable architect John Parkinson as his personal residence. The ARG report re- evaluated the property to determine if, after further research, it should be considered a historic resource at the national, state, or local levels. ARG determined that the property, including the house and the grounds, is individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and as a City of Santa Monica Landmark, and the property as a whole merits designation as a Landmark Parcel. Based on additional research and analysis, the property (including the house and grounds) was found to be significant for its association with 1920s residential development at what was then the northern periphery of Santa Monica and as a rare remaining estate property from the period (Criterion A/1/1), for its association with the life of renowned architect John Parkinson (Criterion B/2/3), and as an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival style architecture by master architect John Parkinson (Criterion C/3/1,2,4,5). Based on a review of the ARG report, additional research in primary and secondary sources associated with the property’s development, and observation of the property, HRG concurs with ARG’s finding that the property at 808 Woodacres 1 “808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica, CA, Historic Resource Assessment Report,” prepared by Architectural Resources Group, February 1, 2019. 2 Eligibility criteria are listed throughout this memo in the format National Register/California Register/local ordinance. MEMO 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP Road is eligible for designation at the federal, state, and local levels; and the property as a whole merits designation as a Landmark Parcel. EVALUATION OF ELIGIBILITY As noted in the ARG report, 808 Woodacres is a significant example of 1920s residential development in a prominent subdivision; it was designed by master architect John Parkinson as his personal residence; it is an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival residential architecture in the city; the house and grounds retain important character-defining features that convey their historic significance; and the property overall retains all seven aspects of historic integrity. Criterion A/1/1 (Pattern of Development) ARG found 808 Woodacres Road eligible for national, state, and local designation as an excellent example of residential development with a specific association with 1920s growth under Criterion A/1/1. HRG concurs with ARG’s methodology and conclusion. 1920s Residential Development3 808 Woodacres Road is located along San Vicente Boulevard in the North of Montana neighborhood, an area that became characterized by large estates and was home to many prominent residents. Although the southern portion of San Vicente Boulevard was part of the Palisades Tract, the part of the boulevard north of 7th Street remained largely undeveloped. Eventually, the mesa lots along this stretch of San Vicente became home to some of the largest, most luxurious estates within the City of Santa Monica. The large homes were typically set back from the boulevard and surrounded by lushly landscaped grounds. The first resident in this area was Percy G. Winnett (1881-1968), the co-founder of Bullock’s department stores with John G. Bullock. In the 1910s, Winnett established his residence at 923 San Vicente Boulevard (demolished). During the 1920s other large estates were developed in the area. The prolific and well-known father and son architects, John D. Parkinson (1861-1935) and Donald B. Parkinson (1895-1945) each purchased property along San Vicente Boulevard and built homes. The Spanish Colonial Revival-style Woodacres (c. 1920, John D. Parkinson) at 808 Woodacres Road was constructed on a large parcel with lushly landscaped grounds. His son’s house at 1605 San Vicente Boulevard (1922, Donald B. Parkinson), also in the Spanish Colonial Revival style, remained 3 History of Northern San Vicente Boulevard neighborhood and associated eligibility standards excerpted and adapted from Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, Historic Resources Inventory Update: Historic Context Statement, prepared for the City of Santa Monica, March 2018. MEMO 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP intact until 1984.4 Parkinson and Parkinson were also the architects for Winnett’s iconic Art Deco- style Bullock’s Wilshire along the Miracle Mile.5 After World War II, with rising real estate prices and high demand, the large estates along San Vicente gradually began to change. One of the first of these was John D. Parkinson’s Woodacres. Eleven years after Parkinson’s death in 1935, the Parkinson family subdivided the easternmost part of the estate into Tract 12868. Sixteen large, irregularly shaped parcels were laid out along the newly-created Woodacres Road.6 By the mid-1950s, historic aerial photographs show that one-story Modern and Ranch-style homes had been built on all the parcels.7 Eligibility Standards: Single-Family Residential Development Residential development in Santa Monica reflects citywide trends, as well as patterns specific to each neighborhood. Residential development reflects the growth of the city from the modest, somewhat impermanent seasonal beach bungalows reflecting Santa Monica’s early history as a recreational destination to more substantive permanent residences as railway and automobile access made year around living more feasible. A growing economic base at Douglas Aircraft created steady demand for housing and Santa Monica effectively became a company town for the burgeoning aircraft industry between the mid-1920s and the 1950s. By the 1960s, residential development in Santa Monica became dominated by the construction of multi-family residences throughout the city, which is discussed in a separate theme. Single-family residences that are significant for their architectural merit are evaluated under separate themes. Individual properties or historic districts that are eligible under this theme may be significant: As the site of an important event in history. For exemplifying an important trend or pattern of development. In general, properties significant under this criterion will primarily be eligible as contributors to historic districts. As a rare or remnant example of Early Residential Development. This includes remnant beach cottages reflecting the city’s association with beach tourism; rare, remaining examples of some of the city’s earliest residential neighborhoods, or neighborhoods like Pico that were devastated by later development. 4 “Demolition Catches Santa Monica by Surprise,” Los Angeles Times, December 22, 1985, WS2. 5 The Miracle Mile refers to a stretch of Wilshire Boulevard in Los Angeles between La Brea Avenue and San Vicente Boulevard that was developed by A.W. Ross in the early 1920s. 6 As a result, the John D. Parkinson Residence was re-addressed as 808 Woodacres Road. “Bay DAR Will Donate Party Gifts,” Los Angeles Times, November 30, 1951, B2. 7 Project files for the architect Cliff May show some work for the “Woodacres Subdivision, 1944-45.” MEMO 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP As an excellent example of residential development with a specific association with 1920s and 1930s growth, including continued importance of beach tourism, and development associated with the aviation industry. Evaluation Both ARG and HRG find that 808 Woodacres Road is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and as a City of Santa Monica Landmark under criterion A/1/1 as an excellent example of residential development from the 1920s. It meets the eligibility standards outlined in the Citywide Historic Context Statement for properties developed during the 1920s. It exemplifies an important trend in residential development as an early residential property developed in the northern periphery of the city; it is an increasingly rare example of an estate property from the early 20th century located north of San Vicente Boulevard; and it has a specific association with 1920s growth in the city. Following the subdivision of the original property in 1946, 808 Woodacres Road retained a significant portion of the original surrounding landscape, and the property continues to reflect its estate-like characteristics from the 1920s. The original spatial relationship of the house and surrounding landscape has been maintained, and the property overall is significant for its association with 1920s residential development in Santa Monica. Criterion B/2/3 (Association with an Important Person) ARG found 808 Woodacres Road eligible for national, state, and local designation as the personal residence of noted architect John Parkinson. HRG concurs with ARG’s methodology and conclusion. Architect John Parkinson 808 Woodacres was designed by master architect John Parkinson as his personal residence in approximately 1920. John Parkinson was born in 1861 in Lancashire County, England. He apprenticed to a builder and learned the meaning of craftsmanship and gained a strong knowledge of practical construction. Upon completion of his apprenticeship he immigrated to North America as an adventure where he built fences in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada and learned stair-building in Minneapolis, Minnesota. When he returned to England he found work hard to come by and decided to return to America. Parkinson traveled to California and first settled in Napa. In 1890, he moved to Seattle, Washington where he opened his first architectural practice. He served as School Board Architect from 1891-1894 and designed numerous schools there. A serious economic depression hit Seattle, so he moved on to Los Angeles in 1895. Parkinson designed structures to fulfill the needs of that growing city in every conceivable fashion. In 1896 Parkinson designed the first Class “A” fireproof steel-frame office building in Los Angeles, the Homer Laughlin Building at Third Street and Broadway. His design for the 1904 Braly Block at Fourth and Spring Streets became the city’s first skyscraper. The 12-story building opened to great MEMO 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP acclaim and established Parkinson as the region’s leading architect. It held the distinction of being the tallest structure in Los Angeles until the completion of City Hall twenty-four years later. Parkinson was a key figure in the City Beautiful movement in Southern California, and he influenced civic reform and community planning as a charter member of the Los Angeles Municipal Art Commission, which imposed a building height limit in 1905. Sustained until 1957, it played a significant role in shaping and maintaining the low scale of the city. In 1905, Parkinson formed a partnership with G. Edwin Bergstrom that lasted ten years. The firm of Parkinson & Bergstrom designed numerous public and private buildings throughout Southern California and designed many of the major office and commercial buildings erected in downtown Los Angeles during this period. Among these were the original Bullock’s Department Store (1906), the Pacific Mutual Building (1908), Los Angeles Athletic Club (1911), and, the original Broadway Department Store (1913). The firm designed numerous buildings along the city’s financial corridor of Spring Street including the Alexandria Hotel (1906), Security Trust and Savings Bank (1907), the Rowan Building (1910), Washington Building (1912), and the Security First National Bank (1915). Five years after Bergstrom left to establish his own practice, John Parkinson was joined in 1920 by his son, Donald B. Parkinson. The relationship between father and son was highly productive. Together they designed dozens of the Los Angeles’ most enduring landmarks, including the original campus master plan for the University of Southern California (1919), the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1923/1931), the Title Insurance Building (1929) in downtown Los Angeles, Bullock’s Wilshire (1929), City Hall (1928), and Union Station (1939). They completed relatively few projects in Santa Monica, including John Parkinson’s personal residence (c. 1920), Donald Parkinson’s personal residence (1922, demolished), McKinley School (1923, with Allison & Allison) at 24th Street and Santa Monica Boulevard, 1245 4th Street (1935); and the Miramar Hotel (1921, altered). Though John Parkinson’s work was largely in the form of large-scale commercial, civic, and institutional buildings, he also took on notable residential commissions, including the Stearns House at the intersection between Scarff Street and St. James Park in University Park (1900) and the Heart House at 112 N. Harvard Boulevard in Hancock Park (1910), both of which are designated as City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments (HCMs). Parkinson also designed two houses for himself: the first at 600 St. Paul Street in Los Angeles (1901, demolished), and the second at 1201 San Vicente Boulevard in present-day Santa Monica (c. 1920, address changed in 1946 to 808 Woodacres Road). John Parkinson died in 1935 while designing the plans for Union Station with his son Donald. Eligibility Standards: Association with an Important Person Individual properties or historic districts may be significant for an association with a significant person, including people who made significant contributions to a demonstrably important profession, MEMO 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP including the aviation, aerospace, or entertainment industries. Properties eligible under this criterion are typically those associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time period when he or she achieved significance. According to guidance from the National Park Service, Criterion B applies to properties associated with individuals whose specific contributions to history can be identified and documented. “Persons ‘significant in our past’ refers to individuals whose activities are demonstrably important within a local, State, or national historic context. The criterion is generally restricted to those properties that illustrate (rather than commemorate) a person's important achievements…Architects, artisans, artists, and engineers are often represented by their works, which are eligible under Criterion C. Their homes and studios, however, can be eligible for consideration under Criterion B, because these usually are the properties with which they are most personally associated.”8 In addition, the National Park Service requires that each property associated with an important individual “should be compared to other associated properties to identify those that best represent the person's historic contributions.”9 Evaluation Both ARG and HRG find that 808 Woodacres Road is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and as a City of Santa Monica Landmark under criterion Criterion B/2/3 as the personal residence of architect John Parkinson, where he lived from 1920 until his death in 1935. John Parkinson is a recognized master, and one of the most significant architects working in Southern California in the early 20th century. At the time that he designed 808 Woodacres Road, he had recently entered into a professional partnership with his son, Donald B. Parkinson. The partnership was highly productive, producing such Los Angeles landmarks as Bullock’s Wilshire, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, and Los Angeles Union Station. 808 Woodacres Road meets eligibility standards and National Park Service guidance for evaluating properties associated with an important person. It is associated with Parkinson’s productive period; it is the property with which Parkinson is most personally associated and it represents his own design; and it is the residence that best represents his historic contributions. Criterion C/3/1,2,4,5 (Architectural Merit and Work of a Master Architect) ARG found 808 Woodacres Road eligible for national, state, and local designation as an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival style residential architecture by master architect John Parkinson. Both the residence and grounds retain significant character-defining features of their original design, and the property overall retains all seven aspects of historic integrity and continues to convey its 8 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1995). 9 National Register Bulletin 15. MEMO 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP historic significance. HRG concurs with ARG’s methodology and conclusion, including the identification of character-defining features of both the house and the grounds, and the integrity analysis of the site overall. Description 808 Woodacres Road is located on the south side of Woodacres Road, at the northeast boundary of the City of Santa Monica. It is a large, estate property with a relationship between the house and the surrounding landscaped grounds. It is flanked on all sides by large, single-family residences. The residence is deeply set back from the street by extensive landscaping, including a wide front lawn and mature trees and shrubs. There is a pool south of the main residence and a tennis court to the southwest. There is a two-story garage and guest house building to the southeast of the main house, constructed in 1970. It exhibits Spanish Colonial Revival detailing, with exterior walls clad in smooth cement plaster, an arched entry loggia, and a shed roof with clay barrel tiles, mimicking the style of the main house. The single-family residence on the parcel was constructed in approximately 1920. It was designed in the Spanish Colonial Revival style by master architect John Parkinson. It is roughly L-shaped in plan, with asymmetrical composition, and complex massing. There is a complex roof comprising hipped and gabled volumes clad in clay barrel tiles, with a molded cornice and exposed rafter tails and knee braces. There are three large chimneys clad in smooth cement plaster: one at the north façade, one at the east façade, and one at the west façade. Exterior walls are clad in smooth cement plaster, forming wide, uninterrupted expanses. Fenestration consists primarily of wood sash divided- light casement windows. One window at the first floor of the primary façade has a decorative terra cotta surround. The primary entrance is asymmetrically located on the east façade and consists of a pair of paneled wood doors with an arched transom, recessed beneath a heavy terra cotta archway. The entrance is accessed from the street by a long asphaltic concrete driveway with a wrought iron gate between two heavy brick piers, and a patio paved in concrete pavers. There is a loggia extending south from the primary entrance, with three terra cotta arches supported by twisted columns with Corinthian capitals. There is a built-in bench at the south end of the loggia, clad in smooth cement plaster with a decorative tile surround and terra cotta tile seat. There is a pointed arch window opening at the south end of the loggia with a stained glass insert and leaded cames. Spanish Colonial Revival style10 The Spanish Colonial Revival style attained widespread popularity throughout Southern California following the 1915 Panama-California Exposition in San Diego, which was housed in a series of 10 Description of Spanish Colonial Revival architecture and the associated eligibility standards excerpted from Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, Historic Resources Inventory Update: Historic Context Statement, prepared for the City of Santa Monica, March 2018. MEMO 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP buildings designed by chief architect Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue in the late Baroque Churrigueresque style of Spain and Mexico. The Churrigueresque style, with areas of intricate ornamentation juxtaposed against plain stucco wall surfaces and accented with towers and domes, lent itself to monumental public edifices, churches and exuberant commercial buildings and theaters, but was less suited to residential or smaller scale commercial architecture. For that, architects drew inspiration from provincial Spain, particularly the arid southern region of Andalusia, where many young American architects were diverted while World War I prevented their traditional post- graduate “grand tour” of Great Britain, France, Italy, and Germany. The resulting style was based on infinitely creative combinations of plaster, tile, wood, and iron, featuring plaster-clad volumes arranged around patios, low-pitched tile roofs, and a spreading, horizontal orientation. It was a deliberate attempt to develop a “native” California architectural style and romanticize the area’s colonial past, though it drew directly from Spanish and other Mediterranean precedents and bore little resemblance to the missions and rustic adobe ranch houses that comprised the state’s actual colonial-era buildings. The popularity of the Spanish Colonial Revival style extended across nearly all property types, including a range of residential, commercial, and institutional buildings, and coincided with Southern California’s population boom of the 1920s, with the result that large expanses of Santa Monica, Los Angeles, and surrounding cities were developed in the style. Some towns, such as Santa Barbara, even passed ordinances requiring its use in new construction. It shaped the region’s expansion for nearly two decades, reaching a high point in 1929 and tapering off through the 1930s as the Great Depression gradually took hold. Like other revival styles, the Spanish Colonial Revival style was often simplified, reduced to its signature elements, or creatively combined with design features of other Mediterranean regions such as Italy, southern France, and North Africa, resulting in a pan- Mediterranean mélange of eclectic variations (see Mediterranean Revival Style). It was also sometimes combined, much less frequently, with the emerging Art Deco and Moderne styles. Character-defining features of Spanish Colonial Revival-style architecture may include: Asymmetrical façade Irregular plan and horizontal massing Varied gable or hipped roofs with clay barrel tiles Plaster veneered exterior walls forming wide, uninterrupted expanses Wood-sash casement or double-hung windows, typically with divided lights Round, pointed, or parabolic arched openings Arcades or colonnades Decorative grilles of wood, wrought iron, or plaster Balconies, patios or towers Decorative terra cotta or glazed ceramic tile work MEMO 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP Churrigueresque subtype: intricate ornamentation juxtaposed against plain stucco wall surfaces, accented with towers and domes Eligibility Standards: Architecture and Design A property in Santa Monica may be significant as a good, excellent, or rare example of an architectural style, or for its association with an important architect, landscape architect, builder, or designer. A property that is eligible for designation as an excellent or rare example of its architectural style retains most - though not necessarily all - of the character-defining features of the style, and continues to exhibit its historic appearance. A property that is an excellent example of a style or type can be eligible if it has lost some historic materials or details, but retains the majority of the essential features from the period of significance. These features illustrate the style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation. The property is not eligible, however, if it retains some basic features conveying massing but has lost the majority of the features that once characterized its style.11 A property important for illustrating a particular architectural style or construction technique must retain most of the physical features that constitute that style or technique.12 Properties that are eligible under the Architecture and Design context may be significant as: An excellent or rare example of an architectural style, property type, or designed landscape. Due to the quality of architecture in Santa Monica, there is a high threshold for properties that are eligible under this context. Eligible examples exhibit high quality of design and distinctive features. An important example of the work of a notable builder, designer, landscape architect, or architect. The National Park Service defines a master as “a figure of generally recognized greatness in a field, a known craftsman of consummate skill, or an anonymous craftsman whose work is distinguishable from others by its characteristic style and quality. The property must express a particular phase in the development of the master's career, an aspect of his or her work, or a particular idea or theme in his or her craft.”13 Evaluation Both ARG and HRG find that 808 Woodacres Road is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and as a City of Santa Monica Landmark under Criterion C/3/1,2,4,5 as an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival style 11 National Register Bulletin 15. 12 National Register Bulletin 15. 13 National Register Bulletin 15. MEMO 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP residential architecture by master architect John Parkinson. It meets the eligibility standards and guidance from the National Park Service for evaluating properties for their architectural merit and as the work of a master architect. 808 Woodacres exhibits high quality of design and retains distinctive character-defining features of its Spanish Colonial Revival-style architecture, and of the site overall, including the estate-like setting and associated landscaping. It is a significant example of the work of master architect John Parkinson, who is a figure of recognized greatness in the field of architecture. It was designed by Parkinson c. 1920, shortly after he went into partnership with his son Donald, launching a new and significant period in his career. It is one of only a few examples of Parkinson’s work in Santa Monica, and a rare residential project. The property retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. MEMO 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP CONCLUSION 808 Woodacres Road was identified as eligible for designation at the federal, state, and local levels in the 2018 Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) update. Additional research and a more detailed analysis conducted by ARG confirms the survey finding, which is further corroborated by HRG in this report. It is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and as a City of Santa Monica Landmark as an important example of 1920s residential development in what was then the northernmost portion of the city, and as a remnant estate property from the period; as the home of master architect John Parkinson from 1920-1935; and as an excellent example of Spanish Colonial Revival residential architecture designed by master architect John Parkinson. HRG concurs with ARG’s assessment that the parcel as a whole should be designated as a Landmark Parcel, to recognize the historic relationship between the house, the surrounding estate-like property, and the associated landscape features. The house and grounds together represent the historic significance of the property under each of the applicable eligibility criteria. 1 Melissa Zak From:Steve Mizokami Sent:Monday, June 3, 2019 1:04 PM To:Stephanie Reich; Heidi von Tongeln Cc:Melissa Zak Subject:FW: 808 Woodacres Rd Categories:Landmarks Forwarding correspondence for 808 Woodacres. Melissa, please make copies for the packet this Wednesday. Thanks, Steve Steve Mizokami | Senior Planner | Landmarks Commission Liaison Planning & Community Development | City of Santa Monica 310.458.8341 | steve.mizokami@smgov.net | smgov.net/pcd -----Original Message----- From: Marcia [mailto:musketgirl@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 3, 2019 1:01 PM To: info@smconservancy.org Cc: Roger Jon Diamond <rogdiamond@aol.com>; suzanne@publicinvestment.net; David Boras <david.boras@yahoo.com>; ruthannpreserves@yahoo.com; lockekaren846@gmail.com; Mary Beth Woods <mwoods@marybethwoods.com>; Steve Mizokami <Steve.Mizokami@SMGOV.NET> Subject: 808 Woodacres Rd To All, I have just read your letter titled “Landmark Nomination of 808 Woodacres Rd” that I received from a concerned neighbor. You stated that my parents “were dedicated to honoring and preserving the Parkinson legacy.” In fact, they were not. This was their private home and they wished to have absolutely nothing to do with the Santa Monica Conservancy and how you conduct your business to procure privately owned homes. By making this statement you are spreading fallacies for the benefit of the Conservancy. You are using my deceased parents and lying about what they believed. This letter suggests to the public that my parents were behind making this property an historic home and this is an outright lie. They were not and I am not. This home has been changed by my parents with zero regard for the historic value. Furthermore, Ruthann made a statement that Stephen Gee was their good friend. This is false as well. I demand that you remedy this with a retraction, recirculate this and provide me with a copy. Thank you, Marcia Alphson 2 Sent from my iPhone 9312 Civic Center Dr. Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Estates, Architecture & Historic Properties Crosby Doe Associates, Inc. DRE#01844144 Christina Hildebrand DRE#01394146 June 6, 2019 Landmarks Commission, City of Santa Monica Re: Landmark Status of the Parkinson Residence at 808 Woodacres in Santa Monica Dear Commissioners: I am a seasoned realtor with a firm mostly representing properties that are designed by architects, many of them significant. Some of these properties have landmark status, some don’t. Our specialized niche has grown tremendously since we started it over 40 years ago. More and more buyers appreciate and realize the value of great design, and are very passionate about homes with a unique and long history. There is an ever growing number of folks who seek to buy these homes and who follow the vast number of sites and blogs covering them. There is also a number of very wealthy people with such passion for conservation that they buy endangered homes just to restore them and landmark them, in order to preserve them for future generations. So there is an audience in whose eyes landmark status is a valued pedigree. There is also a growing number of appraisers who specialize in appraising these properties. I have seen them manage to confirm prices way beyond simply square footage, condition and location stats. We sold many homes that would have never gotten the high price they did, if it were based solely on their square footage, location or condition. Their originality, design, and history were what made them so valuable to these buyers. Since there is a limited number of these special homes, some people draw a comparison with artwork when justifying the premium prices. In the case of this particular property, it is a big plus that the home is of a good size, mostly intact, with some renovation necessary, but we are not dealing with a property in complete disrepair. Anyone not familiar with this architect will be easily impressed by his importance to Los Angeles at first introduction of some facts. The large number of LA’s most known landmarks he has designed, the fact that over 50 of his buildings are still existing, and that his sports arena will have been location of THREE Olympic games are quite remarkable. I can see the scenario of a buyer who will be excited to call this extraordinary landmark home her/his own, and not pay less than the buyer who wants to bulldoze it and rebuild. Sincerely, Christina Hildebrand 1 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK DESIGNATION OF A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 18ENT-0276 LOCATED AT 808 WOODACRES ROAD AS A CITY LANDMARK SECTION I. On September 11, 2018, the Santa Monica Conservancy filed an application to designate the residence located at 808 Woodacres Road as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission, having held Public Hearings on April 8, 2019 and June 10, 2019, designated the subject residence located at 808 Woodacres Road as a City Landmark and the property commonly known as 808 Woodacres Road as a Landmark Parcel. On June 12, 2019, the property owner, Marcia Alphson, filed a timely appeal of the Commission’s determination. The City Council, on appeal, having held a Public Hearing on August 13, 2019 hereby approves designation of the subject residence located at 808 Woodacres Road as a City Landmark and the property commonly known as 808 Woodacres Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 4280-002-005) as a Landmark Parcel as promoting the public welfare consistent with the City Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance based on the following findings: (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. The subject property exemplifies the City’s early architectural and development history. As one of the few extant residences from the earliest phase of residential development in this portion of the City located north of San Vicente Boulevard along the southern rim of the Santa Monica Canyon, the property is significant as an increasingly rare example of early residential development in Santa Monica. Constructed in 1920, the property is an early example of residential development in the area that would later expand during subsequent years after its construction. Although the property was located in the City of Los Angeles until its annexation to the City of Santa Monica in 1979, it was generally referred to in City directories and other publications as a property situated in Santa Monica because of its location, siting, and access. Purchased by master architect John Parkinson in 1913, the 22-acre site was later subdivided into a new residential tract in 1946. Overall, the property retains a strong sense of time and place from the first quarter of the twentieth century as it remains an estate-style property of approximately 54,000 square feet. Although the building and property have been altered over time, most of the alterations are along secondary elevations or at the rear of the main structure. Despite its minor alterations, the residence substantially retains all aspects of integrity from its period of significance (1920-1935) and continues to convey its architectural characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival styles. 2 Furthermore, the siting of the residence and overall site characteristics as an estate property continue to convey its historic association and character within the City of Santa Monica. Accordingly, the subject property satisfies this criterion. (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject property is an excellent example of its type, design, and style. Its design fully articulates John Parkinson’s design principles of Period Revival architecture and expresses his aesthetic and artistic ideals of the period and style. Characteristics including the deeply recessed doors and windows, smooth trowel-finish stucco exterior walls, barrel clay roof tiles, arched shaped openings, the crafted use of glazed terra cotta tiles, and the integration of a loggia and arcade enclosed by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta decorative columns with Corinthian capitals further epitomizes the design theories of its architectural style that is of aesthetic and noteworthy interest. The subject residence consists of high aesthetic and artistic qualities and therefore satisfies this criterion. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. The subject property was designed by architect John Parkinson who was a self-trained architect considered one of most influential designers in the region at that time. Parkinson is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, however also designed industrial buildings and residential properties. Parkinson is considered an important person at the local, state, and national levels for his masterful architectural work and the design of extraordinary, iconic buildings that influenced and defined Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during a period of unparalleled expansion during the first half of the twentieth century. By the time the subject residence was completed, John Parkinson was a well-established architect in the Los Angeles area with several large commissions. It was around this time in 1920 that he partnered with his son to form the architectural practice of Parkinson & Parkinson. The firm designed notable and influential buildings in Los Angeles further exemplifying Parkinson as a prominent and notable architect. The property is identified with master architect John Parkinson, and therefore satisfies 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 is an excellent example of its type, design, and style reflecting the Spanish Colonial Revival style with influences from the Italian Renaissance Revival idiom. Its design fully articulates John Parkinson’s design principles of Period Revival architecture and expresses his aesthetic and artistic ideals of the period and style. Characteristics including the deeply recessed doors and multi-pane fenestration, smooth trowel-finish stucco exterior walls, barrel clay roof tiles, arched shaped 3 openings, the crafted use of glazed terra cotta tiles, and the integration of a loggia and arcade enclosed by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta decorative columns with Corinthian capitals further epitomize the design theories of its architectural style. Other features associated with Parkinson’s work are evident on the residence including the horizontal emphasis of the property’s overall design and the aesthetic composition, scale, and articulation of the façade. The residence substantially retains all aspects of integrity from its period of significance (1920-1935) and continues to convey its historic significance, embodying distinguishing architectural characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival and Italian Renaissance Revival styles valuable to a study of its type and style. Furthermore, the subject property is a rare example that exemplifies Parkinson’s residential design philosophy and is the only known single-family residence of its type designed, constructed, and resided in by John Parkinson within the City. Therefore, the subject property satisfies 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 was constructed in 1920 and designed by master architect John Parkinson as his personal residence. Parkinson was a self-trained architect who is considered one of the most influential designers as his work is recognized throughout the Southern California region. He is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, however he also designed industrial buildings and residential properties. The architectural styles of these buildings included Art Deco, Spanish Colonial Revival, Italian Renaissance, Art Deco, Classicism, Romanesque, and Beaux Arts. Parkinson helped define Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during a period of unparalleled expansion during the first half of the twentieth century. He designed more than 400 structures in the Los Angeles area, including but not limited to the Homer Laughlin Building (1897, Grand Central Market) in downtown Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1923), Los Angeles City Hall (1928), and Bullocks Wilshire (1928- 1929). The subject property is a rare example that exemplifies Parkinson’s residential design philosophy and is the only known single-family residence of its type designed, built, and resided in by master architect John Parkinson within the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the subject property satisfies this criterion. SECTION II. The property commonly known as 808 Woodacres Road (Assessor's Parcel Number 4280-002-005) is designated as a Landmark Parcel in order to preserve, maintain, protect and safeguard the Landmark building. SECTION III. The rear detached accessory guest house/garage is excluded from this designation. SECTION IV. The following features shall constitute the historic character-defining features of the subject property, reflective of its period of significance (1920-1935): Scale and proportion of the building, its asymmetrical form and window composition; 4 Front yard area with circular driveway around landscaped island and grounds landscaped with mature trees; Spanish Colonial Revival features including the building’s asymmetrical configuration, smooth trowel-finished stucco siding, red barrel tile roof and overhang details, fenestration pattern and window frame type, and overall massing and varying height composition. Italian Renaissance Revival features including the arched recessed loggia with arcade supported by ornate spiral fluted terra cotta columns and Corinthian capitals, glazed terra cotta tiles window surrounds on the north wing and arched arcade, and the ornately glazed terra cotta frame of the main entry with large double wood panel door and clear stained glass transom. Fenestration consisting of recessed wood-frame and metal multi-pane casements, French type windows and doors, square shape multi-pane windows, tripartite windows, decorative stained glass, and fixed-pane bottle glass windows; Multi-level gable roof with red barrel clay tiles; Loggia and extended tiled hardscape driveway and front door entry (herringbone pattern of varying size and hue red tiles; Wrought iron hanging pendent light fixtures along front (east) façade. SECTION V. I hereby certify that the above Findings and Determination accurately reflect the final determination of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica on August 13, 2019 as determined by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5 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 of the proceedings relating to this designation. All summaries of information contained herein or in the findings are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. If this is a final decision not subject to further appeal under the City of Santa Monica Municipal Code, 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 1.16.010. Respectfully Submitted August 13, 2019 Gleam Davis, Mayor Attest: Steve Mizokami, Landmarks Commission Secretary Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 2 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 3 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 4 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 5 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 6 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 7 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 8 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 9 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 10 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 11 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 12 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 13 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 14 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 15 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 16 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 17 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 18 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 19 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 20 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 21 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 22 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 23 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 24 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 25 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 26 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 27 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 28 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 29 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 30 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 31 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 32 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 33 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 34 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:jamie ryan-ainslie <jamie_ryan_ainslie@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 18, 2019 12:19 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Support for 808 Woodacres landmark designation Dear Sir//Madam, I write to give my wholehearted support to your designation process in making 808 Woodacres Rd, Santa Monica a cultural and historical landmark. I had the distinct pleasure of visiting the house of Dru Alphson in September 2009, when I was studying the architecture of John Parkinson for my Masters Degree in Birmingham, UK. It was a particular highlight of my trip, seeing the building and being that close to the work of the architect, especially as he is an ancestor of mine (my father’s grandmother being John Parkinson’s sister, who married an Ainslie, hence my name). John Parkinson’s career and the resulting buildings are testament to the grit and determination of a young man from northern England who was given opportunity in a young America. Let’s not allow his remarkable story to go unheard and be buried again. Marcia, if you get to read this; think about how much your parents loved the house and the traditional English style they added in the ‘pub’, or the amazing talking point they had in JP’s tool chest ‐ let their appreciation live on in others who admire this fantastic piece of history. Best regards, Jamie Ryan‐Ainslie Item 6-B 07/23/19 35 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Clerk Mailbox Sent:Thursday, July 18, 2019 2:43 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 808 Woodacres Road Attachments:pictree.pdf From: Roger Diamond <rogdiamond@aol.com> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 2:20 PM To: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Steve Mizokami <Steve.Mizokami@SMGOV.NET>; Stephanie Reich <Stephanie.Reich@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Ana Maria Jara <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; ted.winter@smgov.net Cc: musketgirl@gmail.com Subject: 808 Woodacres Road Dear City of Santa Monica and Related City Officials: Please give this matter your urgent attention. I represent Marcia Alphson who resides at 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica, California 90402. On September 11, 2018 the Conservancy filed an application to have Ms. Alphson’s property landmarked. The effect of the application itself is to treat the property as though it is currently landmarked. The landmarking of the property severely restricts what Ms. Alphson may do with her property. On behalf of Ms. Alphson I have objected to the landmarking of the property and we have exercised her right to have a hearing before the Landmarks Commission but the Commission on June 10, 2019 ruled that the property is to be landmarked. We believe the landmarking of the property might include the landscaping, shrubbery and trees located on the property. There is a large sycamore tree on the property and on July 4 and July 5, 2019 there were earthquakes that caused the tree to move. Ms. Alphson advises me that the tree was partially uprooted. The tree leans towards Ms. Alphson’s house and, in particular, towards her bedroom. As stated we believe the City might have included the tree in the landmarking process. As a result it would be a crime for Ms. Alphson to do anything to the tree without City permission. We have appealed the decision of the Landmarks Commission of June 10, 2019 to the City Council and it will be considering the landmarking issue at its meeting on July 23, 2019. The problem is there may not be enough time. We believe the tree constitutes an unsafe or dangerous condition. Please see Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.56.200. I am concurrently providing the City with a photograph of the tree. Ms. Alphson would like to hire an arborist to inspect the tree which also may need trimming. Ms. Alphson will be moving her bedroom in her house because of the tree having shifted. Ms. Alphson does not know the stability of the tree. Please issue an emergency exemption under Section 9.56.200 to allow work to be done on the tree. There is not enough time to go through the extensive bureaucratic process of filling out forms. Instead I respectfully request on behalf of Ms. Alphson that the City send a tree inspector, arborist, police officer, building inspector or any city official to come to Ms. Alphson’s home to review the situation first hand. In addition to Section 9.56.200 of the City’s Code please see Section 9.56.210 which allows the Secretary of the Commission to approve some work. I called the City but was told there is no secretary, or at least no one was available. I wish to have the City Council consider this letter as part of the appeal on July 23, 2019. We wish to have this matter taken care of prior to the appellate hearing Tuesday night July 23. If nothing is done and the City does not cooperate I will mention that at the City Council meeting on July 23. Item 6-B 07/23/19 36 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 2 If any City Council member wishes to inspect the tree or if anybody from the Planning Department wishes to inspect the tree they are welcome to do so including coming on the property over the weekend. Please call me to arrange an inspection My cell phone is 310/749-9737. I called the Building Department and Safety Department on July 18, 2019 but no one was available. Thank you for your immediate attention. Sincerely, RJD:jb ROGER JON DIAMOND cc: M. Alphson All City Council Members Item 6-B 07/23/19 37 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 38 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Pamela Parkinson Kellogg, M.D. 241 Perkins St, C-505 Boston, MA 02130-4012 _____________ Office Telephone (617) 566-7428 Fax (617) 942-7268 July 19. 2019 TO: The Santa Monica City Council RE: Landmark Designation for the Home of John Parkinson Dear Santa Monica City Council Members, I ask you to confirm the unanimous vote of the Santa Monica Landmark Commision to designate 808 Woodacres Road a landmark. This property, my great-grandfather John Parkinson’s primary residence, is a masterpiece that more than any other building represents his own architectural style, uninhibited by the demands of a client. “Woodacres” blends architectural styles and features many of the innovative architectural techniques he mastered. It represents an incredibly important part of Santa Monica’s history and deserves to be protected. Like my sisters Melanie and Kimberly, I was born in Santa Monica and spent part of my childhood exploring “Woodacres”. The house, surrounded by many of the original trees and shrubberies, overlooks the canyon and Santa Monica Mountains. “Woodacres” was a peaceful refuge for John Parkinson and helped energize and inspire him to design several hundred buildings in LA alone, including LA City Hall, Union Station, Bullock’s Wilshire, the LA Memorial Coliseum and the USC master plan. He loved Los Angeles and believed in public service. He designed the LA Memorial Coliseum at no charge in hopes of bringing the Olympic Games to LA. His son Donald, our grandfather, participated on these projects as well and later designed Santa Monica City Hall. As the California historian Kevin Starr noted, John Parkinson is LA’s greatest architect and a major driving force behind Los Angeles’ emergence as a significant US and world city. Awarding landmark status to “Woodacres” would be a fitting tribute to John Parkinson’s devotion to Santa Monica and Los Angeles. Respectfully, Pamela Parkinson Kellogg, M.D. Item 6-B 07/23/19 39 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Item 6-B 07/23/19 40 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Anna Marie <annamarie839@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, July 19, 2019 8:27 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Please Uphold Parkinson Residence Designation (808 Woodacres Rd) Hello Council, I'm writing to urge the Council to uphold the Landmark Commission's unanimous vote to protect the John Parkinson home at 808 Woodacres Road with an historic designation. As you know, designation does NOT limit the owner's ability to remodel the interior or build a sensitive addition to the original home. As an architect, I feel strongly that the building is an important landmark in our City because it was designed by Santa Monica resident and outstanding self-taught architect, Parkinson, who also designed Bullock's Wilshire, the Coliseum, Union Station and numerous handsome LA office buildings. Santa Monica recently lost our magnificent Millard Sheets mural on Wilshire for unfathomable reasons. Please do not let another piece of Santa Monica history slip through your fingers. Protect our City's heritage. Keep in mind, voters like me will remember those council members whose vote allows a second shameful loss. Anna Marie Howell, registered architect 938 Fifth St, Santa Monica Item 6-B 07/23/19 41 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:jenny.butcher273@btinternet.com Sent:Saturday, July 20, 2019 2:37 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Council Appeal of Woodacres Designation on 23rd July 2019 Dear Sir, My interest in the designation of Woodacres arises from the fact that I am a great‐great niece of John Parkinson. Our family in England have always been very proud of the story of John Parkinson who left Bolton for America and through his own efforts and learning became a famous architect in Los Angeles. He never forgot his English roots and was a tremendous support to his sister, Margaret Ainslie, my great grandmother who was widowed at a young age. In 1995 I was invited to the Parkinson Centennial Exhibition in Bolton which was organised by Dr Robert Tracey of the University of Nevada. Woodacres is of special interest as it was designed by John Parkinson as his family home. I fully support the submission by Santa Monica Conservancy which describes fully the architectural significance and aesthetic value of the property. I believe that the house should be protected from any development or alterations which would not be in keeping with its style and period. It is an integral part of John Parkinson's legacy which should be preserved. Yours sincerely Jennifer Butcher 7 Princes Court Morecambe Lancashire LA4 6DE Item 6-B 07/23/19 42 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Cannabis Investment <investmentcannabis@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, July 20, 2019 9:59 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:John Parkinson’s residence at 808 Woodacres Road It's so important that we preserve the little extant examples of iconic architecture from John Parkinson. I hope you will make this property a landmark. Regards, Leslie Gerard Sent with Mixmax To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Item 6-B 07/23/19 43 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Peter Gurski <latvdecorator@me.com> Sent:Saturday, July 20, 2019 3:42 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Woodacres support I support the continuing historic designation of this property. Peter Gurski Board member Save Iconic Architecture Sent from my iPhone Item 6-B 07/23/19 44 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:David Ryan-Ainslie <dryanainslie@hotmail.co.uk> Sent:Sunday, July 21, 2019 3:01 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Council Appeal of Woodacres Designation on 23rd July 2019 Attachments:image1.JPG; ATT00001.txt Dear Sir/Madam I am writing in support of the Landmark Designation of 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica. As a descendant of John Parkinson, I grew up in the same town in Lancashire where he first started work as an apprentice carpenter at the age of 15 and studied Building Design at night school in Bolton for 5 years before emigrating to Canada. Although I have never visited the US myself I am pleased to say that my son, Jamie Ryan ‐Ainslie, was able to do so when he was studying for his Masters Degree at Birmingham University. As part of his course he chose to study the life and work of John Parkinson which involved him filming at many locations in Los Angeles, including the house at 808 Woodacres Road, Santa Monica. We are therefore very familiar with the design of the building and its historic importance which we recognise is now in need of protection. We are naturally very proud of JP's achievements and it would be very sad to lose any part of his legacy, particularly such a unique building that he designed and built as his family home. For your reference I attach a photograph of JP's last visit to Lancashire, the year before he died in 1935. He is pictured on the far right with my Aunt Jean and my grandmother. My grandfather (his nephew) is next to John's wife on the far left. In the centre of the photo are my mother and father together with my uncle. Item 6-B 07/23/19 45 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Simon Harwood <bs0u0177@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, July 21, 2019 4:46 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Woodacre designation Hi, I am emailing you regarding the appeal of woodacres designation in support of the landmark status. Kind regards Simon Harwood Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. Item 6-B 07/23/19 46 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:joanna kendrick <flojo1908@hotmail.co.uk> Sent:Sunday, July 21, 2019 4:54 AM To:councilmtgitems; councilmtgitems Subject:Support John Parkinson Santa Monica I support the designation to landmark. Thanks Jo Kendrick Get Outlook for iOS Item 6-B 07/23/19 47 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:eric.evavold@gmail.com Sent:Sunday, July 21, 2019 9:43 PM To:councilmtgitems Cc:district@smconservancy.org Subject:808 Woodacres Rd Santa Monica Dear Council Members This more than a worthy landmark to save. The subject property was designed by architect John Parkinson who was a self‐trained architect considered one of most influential designers in the region at that time. Parkinson is best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, however also designed industrial buildings and residential properties. Parkinson is considered an important person at the local, state, and national levels for his masterful architectural work and the design of extraordinary, iconic buildings that influenced and defined Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during the first half of the 20th Century. The subject property is an excellent example of its type, design, and style. Its design fully articulates John Parkinson’s design principles of Period Revival architecture and expresses his aesthetic and artistic ideals of the period and style. Parkinson helped define Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during a period of unparalleled expansion during the first half of the twentieth century. He designed more than 400 structures in the Los Angeles area, including but not limited to the Homer Laughlin Building (1897, Grand Central Market) in downtown Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1923), Los Angeles City Hall (1928), and Bullocks Wilshire (1928‐1929) Union Station 1939. The subject property is a rare example that exemplifies Parkinson’s residential design philosophy and is the only known single‐family residence of its type designed, built, and resided in by master architect John Parkinson within the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, the subject property satisfies this criterion. I believe, that all that is stated above, more than enough his home Woodacres as a worthy landmark. I full heartily support the nomination. I am ambassador and tour guide of Bullocks Wilshire, I and many others believe in Parkinson’s mark on Los Angeles, is indelible. At this moment in time when we losing so many landmarks, we can’t afford to be losing our history, We must preserve, these places that define us. If we keep erasing, them there will be no history to tell future generations. Thank you Eric Evavold Sent from my iPhone Item 6-B 07/23/19 48 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Adriene Biondo <adrienebiondo@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, July 21, 2019 9:43 PM To:councilmtgitems Cc:district@smconservancy.org Subject:Council Appeal of 808 Woodacres Rd., Santa Monica Dear Councilmembers, 808 Woodacres Road was designed by architect John Parkinson, a self‐trained architect who designed many of Los Angeles' most iconic buildings. While best known for his civic, commercial, and hotel projects, Parkinson also designed industrial buildings and residential properties and is considered an important entity at the local, state, and national levels. His masterful architectural work and the design of extraordinary buildings influenced and defined Los Angeles’ visual and physical identity during the first half of the 20th century. John Parkinson designed more than 400 structures in the Los Angeles area, including but not limited to the Homer Laughlin Building (1897, Grand Central Market) in downtown Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (1923), Los Angeles City Hall (1928 with Donald Parkinson), and Bullocks Wilshire (1928‐1929) and Los Angeles Union Station (1939). The Woodacres property is an excellent example of its type, design, and style. Its design fully articulates Parkinson’s design principles of Period Revival architecture and expresses his aesthetic and artistic ideals of the period. The subject property is a rare example that exemplifies Parkinson’s residential design philosophy and is the only known single‐family residence of its type designed, built, and resided in by master architect John Parkinson within the City of Santa Monica. I believe that all of the above places 808 Woodacres Road as more than a worthy landmark in the City of Santa Monica and strongly support the designation. Landmarks are important to us and to future generations; without them cities risk erasing their very own shared history and the connectors that define all of us. Sincerely, Adriene Biondo Chair Emeritus Los Angeles Conservancy Modern Committee Item 6-B 07/23/19 49 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:longsongranger@aol.com Sent:Sunday, July 21, 2019 9:52 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Woodacres 6B My name is Ignacio Fernandez, a retired architect and longtime resident of Santa Monica. I support the designation of the property Woodacres 6B, once belonging to the most significant architect in Los Angeles. Architect Parkinson designed a great deal of the most significant, historical public buildings in Los Angeles, including his residence in Woodacres 6B. His home and property should be preserved because the home merits preservation as well as the whole property where it sits, since he designed the house where he lived taking into account the views and setting. The property and house are integral part of each other. Let's not forget that his son's (and partner in the firm) home, which was part of this property was demolished overnight and lost forever! Let this be a lesson to all, that these significantly historical properties are susceptible to be demolished and lost as a historical legacy to the City, State and USA. It must be designated and protected! I urge you to do the right thing, ignacio fernandez, architect (retired) Item 6-B 07/23/19 50 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:phillis dudick <phdphillis@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 22, 2019 12:09 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:WOODACRES ITEM 6B 7/34/19 Dear City Council Members, I am writing to support preserving the Woodacres estate in Santa Monica. This original home of John Parkinson, one of the most celebrated and notable architects in Southern California history, MUST NOT BE LOST to bulldozers. What an honor that the man who designed Union Station, The Coliseum and Los Angeles City Hall, among other significant structures, decided to design and build his own home in Santa Monica. I urge your support for this nomination. Sincerely, Phillis Dudick Santa Monica Resident Item 6-B 07/23/19 51 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 SIAN LIN WINSHIP PRESERVATION CONSULTANT 2146 WESTRIDGE ROAD, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90049 TELEPHONE: (310) 560-6436 • EMAIL: SIANWINSHIP@GMAIL.COM July 22, 2019 Dear City Council Members: In consideration of the landmark designation for the John D. Parkinson Residence, you have likely heard about the importance of the architect’s legacy of commercial and institutional designs in the Los Angeles area. The shear volume of these commissions overwhelms the architect’s contributions in residential design. A review of the Avery Index to architectural periodicals reveals John Parkinson received national recognition for a number of residential commissions during the early 20th century. An architect’s own home is a special commission: one where he can realize his most important and often experimental ideas. Frank Ghery’s residence in Santa Monica is an example of how the Ghery’s de-constructivist ideas were applied to his own home. While less radical in style, Parkinson’s Italian Renaissance Woodacres, reflects what Architectural Forum described as “real distinction and dignity” during in an era when period revival was the favored style in home design. Moreover, Woodacres was the architect’s residence during the creation of many of his most notable architectural designs—a criterion espoused by the National Park Service when considering the importance of historic resources associated with historic personages. This same standard was applied to the landmarking of the Bertold Brecht Residence in Santa Monica in 2011. To not apply these standards equally would be inconsistent and a disservice to the evaluation criteria in the city preservation ordinance. Lastly, Woodacres is one of the last remaining estate houses from the Northern San Vicente Boulevard mesa lots. The area was originally home to three Parkinson and Parkinson designed estates including the Percy G. Winnett estate (demolished) and Donald B. Parkinson residence (demolished). Only the John D. Parkinson residence remains — in a relatively unaltered state with high integrity. Once you consider the architect’s legacy of residential design, the idea of the architect’s own home as laboratory, the context of the house as a backdrop for the architect’s most notable buildings, and as a piece of a Santa Monica’s estate neighborhood that has all but disappeared, you will uphold the landmark designation on this important historic resource. Sian Winship, Master of Historic Preservation, USC, 2011 Item 6-B 07/23/19 52 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Elizabeth Lerer <elerer@elizabethlerer.com> Sent:Monday, July 22, 2019 2:42 PM To:councilmtgitems Cc:Council Mailbox; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Ana Maria Jara; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Greg Morena; Ted Winterer Subject:July 23rd Item 6. B. (Appeal 19ENT-0229 of Landmark Designation - 808 Woodacres) To All, Do not let Santa Monica lose a local structure of important cultural heritage. Save John Parkinson’s home at 808 Woodacres. Will the attorneys for the City of Santa Monica screw up again like they did with the Millard Sheets artwork? That we do not have representation capable of negotiating favorable outcomes for everyone involved is absurd. Why are we paying so much for ineptitude? Will city staff once again be a wasting taxpayer money and continue the dismantling of of our history? Save the Parkinson home. Designate it a landmark. Encourage the property be purchased and preserved in perpetuity as a residency for visiting students of architecture and urban planning. This could and should be a win for the owner, the local community and everyone interested in the cultural heritage of Los Angeles. Thank you, Elizabeth Lerer Resident of NOMA Item 6-B 07/23/19 53 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, July 22, 2019 5:16 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: pro-appeal item 6B It's an interesting house, not a landmark house. From: Marya Shahriary [mailto:marya.shahriary@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 22, 2019 8:35 AM To: Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET> Subject: pro‐appeal item 6B It's an interesting house, not a landmark house. To Mayor Davis, the City Council Members and Manager Cole: The house at 808 Woodacre should be preserved in a history book not on 1.25 acres on private property. We cannot hold on to every building or work of art that every human of any civic importance has made, no matter how beautiful. As a 40-year resident of Santa Monica I have never once heard of this home or the architect who designed it in 1920. I recently visited the house, which is a few blocks away from where I have lived for decades, and it is also COMPLETELY hidden from view from the street. So even if the house were landmarked no one would ever be able to see it unless personally invited through the high gates beyond the high walls onto the property. It actually sounds like a joke to landmark something that cannot be seen. I agree it is an interesting home. Parts beautiful, parts cool, weird, not practical, funky. It reeks of mold everywhere. Lead paint is chipping off every window, the kitchen is the size of a modern bathroom, the bathrooms have wood floors and were last remodeled half a century ago. The lay-out of the home and the size of the rooms make no sense in 2019. It's neat and the architect was famous in Los Angeles, not Santa Monica. But it's not practical, modern, healthy or likely to draw more than 5 fans out of the woodwork per decade. There is nothing about that house that cannot be captured suitably on paper such that a taking of that home via landmark designation can be justified. This is especially true considering no member of the public will ever have the right to enjoy this private home except on paper whether it is landmarked or not. I understand though. My children are prolific artists. More prolific than John Parkinson ever was, in their short lives they have created a collection of likely over 2000 works of art. I have struggled each time I placed a work of their art in the recycle bin, but found comfort in knowing I had photographed and documented each scribble, stick figure, heart and early attempt at writing their names with the ArtKive app. You have at your fingertips the power and the funds to beautifully document this architects private residence right now. You can do this at no cost to yourselves and with the owner's permission. And once documented you can display the LIFE-magazine-quality-photos in the City Hall designed by his son with a display explaining the context and importance of his work. Interesting aside, based on your own historical report it appears he was more an LA architect that a Santa Monica architect unlike his son, and you have never once landmarked any of his work in this city. If you photograph and display his home he may actually become known by younger Item 6-B 07/23/19 54 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 2 members of our community and appreciated for generations to come. You deny this appeal and allow the landmark of this house and no one will see anything of that house. The owner won't lead tours through it. Bus loads of tourists wouldn't show up anyway, but if they did all they would see is gate and a lot of plants. If you landmark this home one resident of Santa Monica will pay for it, and she will pay for it for the rest of her life and her heirs lives. She will pay in lost value, lost time due to increased stress, paperwork, and calls. And based on the documents on your website, hardly anyone aside from Steven Gee, the architects own heirs, Ruth Lehrer and Ms. Alphson's nextdoor neighbors- neighbors living in a large modern new construction home by the way- will care. If you don't landmark the house the same few people will care and that is far too few people to make a landmark out of an unknown, hidden, old and deteriorating private residence. Far too few people to justify a significant taking and far too few people to justify treading on private property rights in this country. Marya Shahriary Item 6-B 07/23/19 55 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 3 8 1 8 A V E N U E N-1/2 G A L V E S T O N, T X 7 7 5 5 0 USA C E L L/ T E X T 4 0 9. 5 2 6. 6 7 9 8 BELIZE C E L L/ T E X T + 5 0 1. 6 2 2. 1 8 3 8 E – M A I L WSFarchitect@gmail.com T H E P A R K I N S O N A R C H I V E S 22 July 2019 City Council City of Santa Monica Santa Monica, California RE: Support Letter for John Parkinson Residence to become a Landmark 808 Woodacres Road Via email councilmtgitems@smgov.net To the City Council: We write this letter to you today In Support of landmarking 808 Woodacres Road, as ruled by the Landmarks Commission. John Parkinson, the leading architect in Southern California for his time, bought the property and built a small 2-story home there in 1918. Parkinson took several years to study the siting, views and other features there until his main house was constructed next to it. The final composition incorporated the lesser home, to be used as guest facilities. The terra cotta architectural tilework on the larger 1923 home there was provided by Gladding, McBean of Northern California – a company that had produced the terra cotta for scores of Parkinson-designed buildings throughout the state. It is unusual for an architect to have years of site study before designing such a home, especially one for himself. We agree with the various testimony and submittals in support of this property becoming a Landmark. Please feel free to contact me should you have further questions on this issue. Most Sincerely Yours, Wm. Scott Field, Architect The Parkinson Architectural Archives Item 6-B 07/23/19 56 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Leslie Lambert <leslielambert92@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 23, 2019 10:13 AM To:Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Greg Morena; Ted Winterer; Ana Jara; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; councilmtgitems Cc:lemlein@aol.cm; ruthannpreserves@yahoo.com Subject:Item 6B Dear Mayor Davis and Councilmembers: I urge you to deny Appeal 19ENF0226, which would overturn the action of the Landmarks Commission designating the John Parkinson home at 808 Woodacre Road as a City Landmark. John Parkinson is, in the opinion of many, the most significant and prolific architect in the history of Los Angeles. He defined the look and importance of LA as a major city in the first half of the twentieth century. It is no accident that he is termed the "Dean of LA Architecture". His work includes such iconic buildings as LA City Hall, the Coliseum, Bullocks Wilshire, Union Station and many of the noteworthy buildings in the historic core of Downtown Los Angeles. As a downtown and Union Station walking tour docent for the LA Conservancy, I have learned to appreciate his work and to educate others about him. An interesting note about Parkinson is that he was not trained as an architect. He was an English stair maker who obviously had a unique gift. The property at 808 Woodacre Road was designed by John Parkinson and was his residence during the period of his most significant work. Frankly, to deny designation of this important home and property as a City Landmark is inconceivable. Again, please deny Appeal 19ENF0226 and uphold the City Landmark designation made by the Landmarks Commission. Thank you for your consideration. With Respect, Leslie Lambert, Sunset Park Resident Item 6-B 07/23/19 57 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings Page 1 1 BEFORE THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION 2 OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA 3 4 5 6 MARSHA ALPHSON, ) ) 7 Claimant, ) Case No.: )18ENT-0276 808 8 ) ) 9 SANTA MONICA CONSERVANCY, ) ) 10 ) Respondent. ) 11 ) _______________________________) 12 13 14 15 16 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 17 Santa Monica, California 18 Monday, June 10, 2019 19 20 21 ATKINSON-BAKER, INC. 22 (800) 288-3376 www.depo.com 23 FILE NO.: AD047B1 24 Reported by: SHELBY K. MAASKE 25 HEARING REPORTER Item 6-B 07/23/19 58 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 2 (Pages 2 to 5) Page 2 1 BEFORE THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION2 OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA 3 4 5 6 IN THE MATTER OF )7 808 WOOD ACRES ROAD ) 18ENT-0276 _________________________________)8 9 10 11 Transcript of Proceedings, taken at12 City Council Chambers, 1685 Main Street13 Santa Monica, California, Room 213, beginning14 at 7:00 p.m. and ending at 8:30 p.m. on15 Monday, June 10, 2019, reported by16 Shelby K. Maaske, Hearing Reporter.17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 3 1 APPEARANCES:2 For the HOME OWNER:3 LAW OFFICES OF ROGER JON DIAMOND 4 BY: ROGER JON DIAMOND, ESQ. 1717 Fourth Street5 Third Floor Santa Monica, California 904016 (310) 452-6643 rogdiamond@aol.com 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 4 1 Santa Monica, California; Monday, June 10, 2019 2 7:00 p.m. 3 4 MS. SLOAN: 10 A, Landmark designation, 5 18ENT-0276 808 Wood Acres Road, consideration to determine 6 whether the residence, in whole or in part, should be 7 designated as a city landmark, and if and so designated, 8 whether an associated landmark parcel to be defined and 9 described in order to preserve, maintain, protect or 10 safeguard the landmark. 11 The Landmarks Commission will consider the 12 application based on whether the application, research, 13 and public testimony presented demonstrates that the 14 building meets one or more of the required criteria for 15 landmark designation pursuant to SMC Section 956100 A. 16 This item is continued from the Commission's 17 April 8th, 2019, meeting. At that meeting, the Commission 18 considered written and oral testimony, commenced 19 deliberation, and continued the item at the request of the 20 property owner. 21 So we will start with ex parte 22 disclosures. Commissioner Genser, will you kick us off, 23 please. 24 MR. GENSER: Yes. I was a member of the 25 Conservancy Advocacy Committee prior to my appointment to Page 5 1 the Commission; I resigned from that position somewhere 2 around August of last year. And I was also resigned from 3 the Conservancy several months ago. In neither case and 4 in no case, have I ever had any discussions pertaining to 5 808 Wood Acres Road with any member from the Conservancy, 6 or with anyone else, for that matter. 7 MS. SLOAN: Commissioner Brand. 8 MR. BRAND: No disclosures. 9 MS. SLOAN: Commissioner Green. 10 MS. GREEN: I was a member of the Santa Monica 11 Conservancy on and off until last year when I resigned. I 12 have never spoken with anybody at the Conservancy about 13 this property, or really, anyone else, for that matter. 14 CITY ATTORNEY: Commissioner Green, you were not 15 present at that last hearing. 16 MS. GREEN: No. I wasn't present at the 17 April 8th meeting, but I did listen very carefully to the 18 entire discussion that took place, about three days ago. 19 MS. SLOAN: I have been a member of the 20 Conservancy and I resigned my position. I briefly held a 21 position on the Nominations Committee for two or three 22 months, and I feel that I'm able to be, here, completely 23 impartial. 24 Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum. 25 MR. ROSENBAUM: No disclosure. Item 6-B 07/23/19 59 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 3 (Pages 6 to 9) Page 6 1 MR. BREISCH: I also was a member of the 2 Conservancy, I resigned my membership in the Conservancy a 3 good number of months ago. I haven't been involved in any 4 way in the decision-making process with the Conservancy, 5 nor have I spoken to anyone in the Conservancy about this 6 issue, so I feel like I can be fair and impartial in terms 7 of my decision making here today. 8 MR. GENSER: I just wanted to add also that I 9 feel like I can be completely objective and I also will 10 have no preconceived notions. Thank you. 11 MS. SLOAN: Very good. 12 Now, we will have our -- just so you folks know 13 the order we are going to proceed, we will take the staff 14 report, questions to staff, and then the Applicant/Owner 15 will have a chance to speak. 16 So Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum. 17 MR. ROSENBAUM: I just want to make that record 18 clear so there's no ambiguity; I have no disclosure 19 because I have never been a member of the Conservancy. 20 MS. SLOAN: Thank you. 21 Any other before I move on? 22 So now we are ready for our staff report. 23 MR. MIZOKAMI: Thank you, Chair Sloan. 24 So really quickly, this is a continued hearing 25 from the April 8th meeting where the Commission continued Page 7 1 the item at the request of the property owner. Staff did 2 want to note, as the same as our memo, that we did 3 provide, with the Commission, a minor clarification to the 4 City's consultant report. 5 Essentially, the beginning year of the period of 6 significance was revised from 1921 to 1920, and it's 7 reflecting the original construction date, as opposed to 8 the completion dates of residence, through 1935, which 9 still remains consistent, which is the periods John 10 Parkinson resided that property. And this clarification 11 does not result in any changes to the consultant or staff 12 recommendations moving forward. 13 Staff is available for any questions. 14 MS. SLOAN: And now we are ready for questions 15 for staff. 16 Seeing none, it is now time for the Applicant's 17 presentation. 18 MS. LARA: Good evening, Commissioners. Can you 19 please clarify the time frames that the Applicant has and 20 that the Owner has? 21 MS. SLOAN: I think you have 10 minutes. 22 CITY ATTORNEY: So the Landmarks' Rules of Order, 23 without further action from the Landmarks Commission, 24 allows for five minutes for the Applicant in the initial 25 presentation and three minutes in rebuttal. The Property Page 8 1 Owner is allotted the same amount of time. 2 The order is as follows: The Applicant will 3 speak, the Owner and/or its representatives will speak, we 4 will take public testimony, and then the Owner will speak 5 in rebuttal, and then the Applicant will speak in 6 rebuttal. 7 MS. LARA: Good evening, Commissioners. Ruth Ann 8 Lara with the Santa Monica Conservancy. So after the 9 lengthy presentation at the April hearing, I will be brief 10 and focus directly on the matter that's before you 11 tonight, whether the Parkinson's residence at 808 12 Wood Acres merits landmark designation. 13 There have been three independent consultant 14 reports from preservation professionals and the staff 15 report, all of which reach the same conclusions, that the 16 same house meets five out of the six criteria of the 17 designations, numbers 1 through 5. 18 The Landmark Commission was established, and I 19 remind you, I'm quoting from your ordinance: 20 "To protect improvements and areas 21 which represent elements of the City's 22 cultural, social economic, political, and 23 architectural history; safeguard the 24 City's historic, aesthetic, and cultural 25 heritage; bolster civic pride in the Page 9 1 beauty noble accomplishments of the 2 past," et cetera. 3 That's your duty. So we are recommending to you 4 that tonight you move ahead with approving the landmark 5 designation of the Parkinson residence in accordance with 6 the five criteria. We are certainly aware of the Owner's 7 objections, and in this regard, we have tried to be 8 helpful. We met with her and her financial advisor, 9 Davis Boris, for a detailed and extensive discussion about 10 the incentives available to landmark properties. 11 We reviewed the Mills Act, the State Historical 12 Building Code, and others. Knowing that the owners wish 13 to sell the property, we had put her and Mr. Boras in 14 touch with Realtors who have extensive experience and 15 knowledge of marketing properties with homes with 16 distinctive architectural significance. 17 While their appraisal reports state that the 18 property is worth more based on the land value rather than 19 with a designated landmark, the marketing of landmark 20 properties is a very specialized field which can attract 21 wealthy buyers, and numerous examples of such sales can be 22 cited. 23 I also note that the appraisal report states that 24 purchases of single-family residences tend to be heavily 25 based upon emotion. But the issues tonight are simply to Item 6-B 07/23/19 60 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 4 (Pages 10 to 13) Page 10 1 evaluate the Parkinson residence and determine whether it 2 merits landmark designation. The other issues are either 3 peripheral or they will be dealt with subsequently. 4 For example, the City's Landmark Ordinance has an 5 extensive process for considering claims of economic 6 hardship and for properties designated. The Parkinson 7 residence is a property with a rare, highest level of 8 significant, as well as high level of architectural and 9 historic integrity. I think we have rarely had a 10 nomination of such a significant property, so we recommend 11 that the structure and the parcel be designated together 12 as a landscape setting, and a defining part of its history 13 and character, as the consultants have noted. We would 14 recommend adopting the staff report and recommendations. 15 Thanks. I'm happy to answer any questions. 16 MS. SLOAN: Commissioner Genser. 17 MR. GENSER: You mentioned you met with the 18 property owner and laid out a number of issues to cover, 19 was that prior to the first hearing? 20 MS. LARA: Subsequent. 21 After the first meeting, we thought it might be 22 helpful for her to meet with the owner of a landmark 23 property for her to understand what it means to be an 24 owner of a landmark property, and at that time, we have 25 had a very extensive discussion. Page 11 1 MR. GENSER: Thank you. That's very helpful. 2 MS. SLOAN: Any other questions for the 3 Applicant? 4 MS. LARA: I think Caroline has a few comments to 5 make as well. 6 I guess we will wait for rebuttal. 7 MS. SLOAN: Thank you. And now the Owner has 8 equal time to speak, or representative. 9 MR. DIAMOND: Yes. Good evening. My name is 10 Roger Diamond, I am the attorney for Marcia Alphson, who's 11 present in the audience. Raise your hand. She has been 12 speaking with the Applicant's representative and also with 13 her financial advisor; I have not been involved with that. 14 But I was informed today of some information that I think 15 would be highly relevant. 16 I know the last time we were here on April 8th, 17 which, by the way, was the night of the college basketball 18 championship game in which we all missed because of that, 19 and tonight we've got another pro game, but that's beside 20 the point. 21 I was told that I should take a look at the deed 22 that covers the property in question, and the reason for 23 that is this particular case is important because of the 24 historical significance or alleged historical significance 25 of the architect, Mr. Parkinson, because he was the one Page 12 1 who apparently did the design for Union Station for that 2 railroad station downtown, for the Coliseum, Macy's 3 Department Store, and so forth. 4 So we've been focusing on Mr. Parkinson because 5 his name is associated with the application, the 6 Applicant, and the Conservancy stressed emphatically the 7 idea of Mr. Parkinson being the one with the moving force 8 in this case. I was told, and I have checked it out, that 9 there's a deed restriction on the property that he signed. 10 It says, quote, 11 "No portion of said tract 12 shall ever be used or occupied by 13 any person whose blood is not 14 entirely that of the white or Caucasian 15 race, except servants or employees 16 rendering services upon the premises 17 which they occupy." 18 So it turns out, and I stress that your City 19 staff should look into this, I asked, briefly, your city 20 attorney if the deed was ever looked at, and apparently, 21 it has not been done so. It would be terrible to use 22 Mr. Parkinson's stature as a famous architect if he, in 23 fact, was racist, as demonstrated in the deed restriction 24 he apparently signed long ago. 25 It's a matter of public record, so we cannot Page 13 1 believe that the Landmarks Commission would ever approve a 2 landmark if it's tied historically with someone who is 3 such a racist, who signed this particular restriction. We 4 urge you to do that. Now, this is especially important to 5 Ms. Alphson because she just learned in the last 30 days 6 or so that since the last meeting we had here on April 8, 7 2019, that she is Jewish. She checked her genealogy and 8 learned that she was Jewish. 9 It would be just especially harmful to her psyche 10 and well being for her to have to be associated with a 11 landmark property that would be associated with somebody 12 such as Mr. Parkinson, so we urge you to vote no. The 13 reason I say that's important is that I know you are 14 looking at the six criteria. 15 I think it was Commissioner Rosenbaum who sort of 16 stressed at the last meeting that we should limit 17 ourselves to something relating to the six criteria. If 18 you read the six criteria in the code, you will see that 19 they are all related to the identity of the architect, and 20 you have a discretionary provision in your code that if 21 any one of the six criteria is met, that the Commission 22 may landmark the property, but you're not obligated to do 23 so. 24 Even if one or more of the six criteria of the 25 ordinance have been met, we don't think any have given Item 6-B 07/23/19 61 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 5 (Pages 14 to 17) Page 14 1 this new revelation that I have today. But you have the 2 right to go beyond the six criteria because -- for 3 example, if it would be an economic hardship on my client 4 to have to bear this landmark, if you go forward with what 5 apparently is the trend -- but that, I'm hoping to be able 6 to stop -- Ms. Alphson will be stuck in a position where 7 she's in a residential property, not an income-producing 8 property, not a commercial property, she would be 9 obligated to keep up the property. 10 In other words, you have to keep it up the way it 11 was and it has been operated all these years, even though 12 she wasn't in a position to take care of the property for 13 seven years when she was absent from the property. How 14 can you force her to take care of a landmarked property 15 without an income stream that's been generated by the 16 property itself? We think it's fundamentally unfair, and 17 with the criteria other than one of the six to consider, 18 is the burden on the owner. 19 In addition to that, we think it would be an 20 economic hardship, and apparently, you procedure is such 21 that we can't seek determination or economic hardship 22 until after you landmark the property, and only then could 23 we come back and seek to have it landmarked. I apologize 24 for running out of time. I just wanted to make one more 25 point about the visibility of the property. This property Page 15 1 is not visible from the public way, so it doesn't make any 2 sense to go out of the way and create a landmark situation 3 for property that can't even be seen. There's no point in 4 it; it would just be Marcia Alphson in the property. 5 Anyway, I went beyond the limits, so I don't want 6 to irritate or alienate anybody on the Commission. If you 7 have any questions or comments, I'll be glad to consider 8 them. And we did get a postponement from April 8th, when 9 we learned some of the neighbors that were going to speak 10 at that time on April 8 were not able to show up and not 11 able to appear. We have them here, fortunately, this 12 evening, so I believe -- you can raise your hands. 13 How many of you are going to come up and speak? 14 Thank you very much. So I'm going to cease speaking now 15 and give them time to come up. We do appreciate, Marcia 16 appreciates you coming here to speak tonight and missing 17 part of the championship game. 18 MS. SLOAN: We may have some questions for you. 19 Commissioner Genser. 20 MR. GENSER: Have you submitted the deed 21 description to the staff? 22 MR. DIAMOND: I just got it today. 23 MR. GENSER: It's not in our packet. 24 MR. DIAMOND: It's a recorded instrument, so it's 25 a matter of record. And the Conservancy, when they Page 16 1 researched the property, should have come across this 2 particular restriction, and I'm surprised they would push 3 their application in the face of this horrible racism 4 that's attached to this particular property. 5 MS. SLOAN: Do you have copies of that that can 6 be made available? 7 MR. DIAMOND: Yes. I'll bring them over tomorrow 8 to your staff. I'll bring them over. But I'm surprised 9 you don't have the title record; it should be in the chain 10 of title. 11 CITY ATTORNEY: So as we've discussed, generally, 12 if the Commission is going to consider the actual document 13 itself -- you can consider his oral, you are free to do 14 that, and give it as much weight as you like -- you would 15 need to review it this evening and make it available for 16 the public to view it as well, or if you are going to 17 review the actual text of the document at a continued 18 hearing, but it would need to be during a public hearing. 19 MR. DIAMOND: It was e-mailed to me this 20 afternoon, but my secretary was out today, so I was unable 21 to print the e-mail, but it's in my computer in my office. 22 It's right across the street. If anybody wants to come 23 over afterwards, I can turn it on the screen. But I can 24 bring it here tomorrow. 25 MS. SLOAN: Okay. This is, of course, a new Page 17 1 situation. 2 MR. DIAMOND: Well, it's new to me too. 3 MS. SLOAN: Now, this is the primary deed, the 4 initial deed that came with the very first use of the 5 property? 6 MR. DIAMOND: Right. It was paragraph one, and 7 they had other restrictions in there, but that was the one 8 that caught my eye, and I was advised to take a look at 9 that one. 10 MS. SLOAN: Do we have any other Commissioners 11 who have questions? 12 City Attorney, where do we go from here? 13 CITY ATTORNEY: That's the Commission's 14 discretion to make. It's within your discretion to make 15 that decision. If you would like a continuance of this 16 hearing, you will need the consent of the property owner 17 because the landmarks ordinance requires you to render a 18 decision within 65 days. 19 So again, you are always welcome to consider oral 20 testimony and give it whatever weight you deem is 21 appropriate, but in order to actually consider the text of 22 the deed and have it be part of the record, it needs to be 23 submitted as part of the record of your proceedings. So 24 it could not be for you to consider after this hearing is 25 closed. Item 6-B 07/23/19 62 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 6 (Pages 18 to 21) Page 18 1 MS. SLOAN: Okay. Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum. 2 MR. ROSENBAUM: Well, I think we continue with 3 the hearing and the rest of the testimony, and we can 4 discuss this as part of our deliberations, if we feel the 5 need to. 6 MS. SLOAN: Okay. 7 So are there any other questions of the 8 representative of the owner? 9 Thank you. 10 MR. DIAMOND: Thank you very much. 11 MS. SLOAN: Okay. 12 Now, when you say it's up to the Commission, do 13 we wait for Commission discussion, or continue with the 14 public input and so forth? 15 CITY ATTORNEY: That would be your normal 16 process, yes. Generally, you would wait for Commission 17 discussion. 18 MS. SLOAN: Okay. 19 So we will proceed until the time that is noted 20 for Commission discussion. 21 So the very next thing we have is input from the 22 public, that does come next. 23 Now, Ms. Alphson has submitted a chit to speak -- 24 was she supposed to speak earlier? 25 CITY ATTORNEY: Your Rules of Order specify the Page 19 1 Owner and/or his representative are allotted that initial 2 five minutes and the three minutes in rebuttal, so if 3 she's the owner and she had her representative speak, 4 perhaps she would like to speak in rebuttal. 5 MS. SLOAN: At the rebuttal time? 6 CITY ATTORNEY: Perhaps. That's up to the Owner 7 and the Owner's representative, Mr. Diamond. 8 MS. SLOAN: So she can't speak now because the 9 time to speak has expired. 10 CITY ATTORNEY: Under your Rules of Order, yes. 11 If you were to change your Rules of Order for this 12 specific circumstance, you do not generally do that, that 13 would been unusual. 14 MS. SLOAN: Okay. It may be that she was unaware 15 that she would be, at that point, speaking and that -- she 16 would have to be one of the public speakers, so I'm going 17 to suggest to the Commission that we discuss whether to 18 let her have the three minutes as a speaker, for which she 19 submitted this. It's up to you folks. So let me hear 20 what you have to say. I recommend that we allow her to 21 move forward and speak, but I want to hear from you. 22 MR. ROSENBAUM: I'll agree. 23 MR. MIZOKAMI: It is a longstanding rule of the 24 Commission that the owner and the owner's representative 25 are one for purposes of the presentation. I think what Page 20 1 the City Attorney recommended is she has not lost her 2 opportunity to speak, if she wants to speak, she can speak 3 in rebuttal. I think we should continue our normal 4 practice. 5 MS. SLOAN: Commissioner Reisch. 6 MR. REICH: I agree with Commissioner Rosenbaum. 7 MS. SLOAN: So should we vote on that? Should we 8 do a voice vote? 9 CITY ATTORNEY: You need two-thirds vote to 10 change your Rules of Order. It's not just a simple 11 majority. 12 MS. SLOAN: Why don't we raise hands because that 13 way we are sure. 14 MR. GENSER: Has anyone made a motion one way or 15 the other? 16 MS. SLOAN: I move that Ms. Alphson be allowed to 17 speak for three minutes as a public speaker. 18 MR. BRAND: Second. 19 MR. MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Brand. 20 MR. BRAND: Yes. 21 MR. MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Breisch? 22 MR. BREISCH: No. 23 MR. MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Genser? 24 MR. GENSER: Yes. 25 MR. MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Green? Page 21 1 MS. GREEN: Yes. 2 MR. MIZOKAMI: Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum? 3 MR. ROSENBAUM: No. 4 MR. MIZOKAMI: Chair Sloan? 5 MS. SLOAN: Yes. 6 Do we have the two thirds? 7 CITY COMMISSIONER: Yes. 8 MS. SLOAN: So Ms. Alphson, you will have the 9 time that is allotted for a rebuttal to the public input, 10 you will be able to speak then. 11 CITY ATTORNEY: So the Commission just moved to 12 allow the Owner to speak for three additional minutes, 13 which would be eight minutes total for the Owner and/or 14 the Owner's representative. That is within the 15 Commission's purview to do that; that's totally within 16 your discretion. You may want to consider offering up 17 additional time to the Applicant because you generally 18 make sure that both the Applicant and the Owner have the 19 same amount of time. 20 MS. SLOAN: I'm sorry. But I heard the vote 21 differently. Can we just review it? I don't, well -- all 22 right. I accept the majority seems to agree against me, 23 so we will just move on. 24 MR. GENSER: It was 4 to 2; we agreed with you. 25 MS. REISCH: Our understanding was that you Item 6-B 07/23/19 63 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 7 (Pages 22 to 25) Page 22 1 wanted to allow Ms. Alphson to speak an additional 2 three minutes as a member of the public, in addition to 3 any rebuttal that they would have. That was our 4 understanding of the motion, that she would be called as a 5 member of the public. And if that's not what you 6 intended -- 7 MS. SLOAN: But didn't we -- have we had three 8 "No" votes. 9 MS. REISCH: You had two "No" votes and four 10 "Yes" votes. 11 MS. SLOAN: So you do Ms. Alphson. I hope you 12 and I can become friends. But you now have -- you may be 13 a speaker. You have three minutes to speak. Please, come 14 forward. 15 MS. ALPHSON: Hello. Kind of changing this a 16 little bit. So I am against the nomination. I had other 17 things to talk about, but I won't because the house cannot 18 be seen, really. I've got pictures and all that, and you 19 really -- those pictures that are shown and that the 20 Conservancy has shown in their newspaper -- they put a big 21 picture of our home and our address and all these things 22 without -- I mean, I guess they can do what they want. 23 They didn't ask my permission or anything, or you 24 know, a little bit of privacy, all that kind of stuff. 25 But for me because of the way things have gone down, this Page 23 1 home, for me, it represents a trophy kill for the 2 Conservancy. They only want the tusks of the elephant and 3 they could care less about the people or the sole living 4 inside. They just want what they want, and it doesn't 5 matter about what happens to the owner. It really 6 doesn't. I've gotten that over and over again. 7 Ruth Ann has literally made an enemy of me, and 8 I'm so not for the Conservancy at all. One example is she 9 took what I said about my parents loving and caring for 10 their home and wrote that my parents were dedicated to 11 honoring and preserving the Parkinson legacy. She spinned 12 what I had to say to benefit the Conservancy by making it 13 sound like my parents supported the Conservancy, which 14 they did not. 15 I got phone calls and e-mails from my parents' 16 friends who saw this. I asked for a retraction at least 17 three times from Ruth Ann, and she told me that I 18 misunderstood what she wrote and gave me an apology, but 19 no retraction. And after getting to know how she 20 operates, her apologizes have no value to me at all. 21 Mr. Jacobson, who was here at the last hearing -- 22 he's my neighbor who got a lawyer and is trying to 23 nominate my home -- he hired expensive lawyers to make our 24 house historic and said he was doing it because he was 25 friends with my dad and this is what my dad would have Page 24 1 wanted. He is here tonight. But if he was friends with 2 my dad, he would have known that this is exactly the 3 opposite of what my dad wanted, so that's just not -- it's 4 not true. 5 When people lie to get what they want, there's 6 usually something very wrong going on. Mr. Jacobson may 7 be wanting to put a stop to the construction around the 8 home, or possibly hoping for the value to drop so he can 9 purchase it and connect it to his own land. 10 MS. SLOAN: I am so sorry. Your time is up. You 11 will have -- the Owner does have a chance to have during 12 rebuttal. 13 MS. ALPHSON: This is hard because we are so 14 limited. 15 MS. SLOAN: Okay. 16 So the next speakers will be -- and I'd 17 appreciate if you come up so that we can move this along. 18 Suzanne Wicker, Scott O'Neil, and Shala O'Neil. Please, 19 come up and you each have three minutes or less. 20 MS. WICKER: Hi. I'm Suzanne Wicker. I'm going 21 to read because I can't speak. 22 MS. SLOAN: Where do you live? 23 MS. WICKER: I live in Burbank. 24 I feel the need to speak up, not only because I 25 know the Alphson family, but because of the injustices Page 25 1 that I see taking place. I've closely known the Alphson 2 family for over 30 years. Howard and Drew Alphson were my 3 bosses, and they've become family to me. And in the last 4 year, I have witnessed Marcia Alphson go through a full on 5 attack by the Conservancy and the Landmarks Commission, 6 quite frankly, over their personnel property, their home. 7 This property has been owned and cared for by the 8 Alphsons since 1966, 53 years. And in review of the 9 Alphson files, we found many documents that Howard 10 purposely saved and tracked that it repeatedly showed the 11 Conservancy has no regard for the property owner. It's 12 appalling that the homeowners have to fight to care and 13 preserve their homes the way they see fit without the 14 interference with the Conservancy and Landmarks 15 Commission. 16 The e-mails that Marcia has received from certain 17 people in the Conservancy are condescending, and have an 18 air as though the Conservancy and Landmarks Commission 19 feel entitled to 808 Wood Acres. Why do they feel 20 entitled? The home is not visible from the street for the 21 public to view; plus, it was significantly modified at the 22 time the Alphsons bought the home 53 years ago, and 23 modified again while they have owned it. 24 The Alphson family loved their home, but please, 25 understand, it's their home, not mine, not yours, not the Item 6-B 07/23/19 64 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 8 (Pages 26 to 29) Page 26 1 Conservancy's, not the City's, and does not belong to the 2 public. This is a private residence to be enjoyed as they 3 see fit without interference of others, such as the 4 Conservancy and Landmarks Commission. The Alphsons bought 5 it, invested in it, and cared for it all these years; they 6 did this for their family, not the Conservancy or 7 Landmarks to come in and take control to decide how they 8 want to change the structure or grounds, all the while, 9 reducing the value of their home. It belongs to the 10 Alphson family until they decide otherwise. 11 The propaganda that is being published by the 12 Conservancy and Landmarks Commission is misleading, if not 13 complete lies. The average person that reads the fliers, 14 memos, and newsletters created by the Conservancy and the 15 Landmarks Commission would ingest inaccuracies and 16 untruths. When the Conservancy publishes that long-time 17 owners of an estate passed away, they put the 18 beneficiaries ar risk. They increase the risk when they 19 published the address and photos of the home. The 20 Conservancy might as well drive members of the public to 21 their home so they can trespass, or much worse, burglarize 22 the home. 23 Let me jump down and say, although it's a 24 beautiful home, it is an object, and people need to be put 25 before inanimate objects. If someone wants to have their Page 27 1 residence designated a historic property, let them request 2 it. Homeowners should have a choice, not forced into it 3 by the Conservancy or the Landmarks Commission. Thank 4 you. 5 I don't know if you have any questions. 6 MS. SLOAN: Any questions? 7 Thank you. 8 Scott O'Neil. 9 MR. O'NEIL: My name is Scott O'Neil. My parents 10 have lived on Wood Acres for 55 years. Going up in 11 Santa Monica and still living here today, we recognize the 12 value and the need for the Conservancy Committee to 13 preserve Santa Monica's integrity. For example, the 14 Marion Davies Guest House, as an example, that was 15 well-founded. 16 Having known the Alphsons for decades, I can tell 17 you, they never viewed nor planned for their property to 18 become a historic site. I never heard a discussion of 19 this nature from Howard, Drew, John, nor Marcia. Howard 20 and Drew were not, quote, "Dedicated in the honor of 21 preserving Parkinson's legacy." The statement from the 22 Conservancy literature, it's just not true. 23 To add, there's only one neighbor that I can find 24 on our street that thinks this is a good idea, the house 25 next door. None of us want the spotlight and the problems Page 28 1 that that brings on our street. How will Ms. Alphson 2 maintain this property after dealing with the 40 percent 3 death tax? She's got a lot of problems ahead of her, and 4 this is just plain unfair. 5 The house cannot be seen from the street. 6 Somebody probably hopped up on the fence or pulled a 7 ladder out to get that shot because it's completely 8 covered. I have been in it, I have seen, they have made 9 modifications to the property. 10 I would say John Parkinson's works speak for 11 themselves in the LA Coliseum, City Hall, Union Station, 12 and SC; these are phenomenal works. This is completely 13 unfair and unfounded. 14 MS. SLOAN: Shala O'Neil. 15 MS. O'NEIL: English is not my native language. 16 I am an immigrant and I am Jewish. I'm just terrified of 17 what I just heard from the lawyer -- which I don't even 18 know his name -- that in this country that I came for 19 freedom, still, there are people that they say if you are 20 not white, you can't reside in this house. And this could 21 be a landmark in this country that is a symbol of freedom? 22 But anyway, I'm sorry. I just had to say that 23 because I'm shaking with what I heard just moments ago. 24 So I just wanted to say this is a very hidden, small, 25 quiet, respectful cul-de-sac, and very peaceful. Mostly Page 29 1 it's elderly that live there as residents, and they have 2 chosen this place for that peace and quiet in this 3 cul-de-sac. They paid high prices, and it is a very rich 4 neighborhood. Good or bad, I don't know. But the last 5 house sold for 40 million dollars. 6 The neighbor that is pro this landmark, was the 7 only neighbor to completely tear down their very old house 8 and build a huge mansion. But now he's pro landmark and 9 saving just the next door neighbor house to be, probably, 10 just so nobody builds next door. I'm sorry. I just lost 11 my page. Without the owner's permission and knowledge, 12 the Alphsons' house -- they showed me the paper -- that 13 they were advertising, the Conservancy, about the campaign 14 fundraising and their address and their parents were dead. 15 I know how hard it was for Marcia to see the name 16 of her parents being printed without even asking any 17 permission or any knowledge of that. She just found it in 18 the newspaper that this is going to be a landmark without 19 anything still being approved. More importantly, if the 20 public goes into such a small cul-de-sac of 16 residences, 21 it would be opening a can of worms of visitors after 22 visitors, and the actual criminals, that they are 23 professional criminals, could be among these visitors. 24 They can come everyday and just scan the houses, 25 who goes inside, what time, what time they're not home, Item 6-B 07/23/19 65 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 9 (Pages 30 to 33) Page 30 1 and then they could choose which house is easiest to be 2 burglarized or robbed. And it's very dangerous for old 3 residents to be home and to be harmed or robbed. So it 4 really would be a financial insurance policy for millions 5 of dollars if this happens, whether their life be harmed 6 or the property because of the visitors of historic 7 landmark. 8 This is going to be something the City of 9 Santa Monica and the Conservancy should consider. Most 10 countries in the world, they pay full price if they want 11 to do landmark, but in this country, they won't, they just 12 take it by force. That's all that I can say. Thank you. 13 MS. SLOAN: Thank you. 14 Next three speakers will be David Boras, Stephen 15 Gee and Melanie Parkinson Larson. 16 Please, come up and wait at the side. 17 MR. BORAS: David Boras, chief financial officer 18 of the Alphson family. I've been with the Alphson family 19 for probably 35 years. Mr. Alphson was like a father to 20 me. First of all, I would like to thank the Commissioners 21 for listening to us; I know it's a tough decision. 22 There's a lot of angst among neighbors, and I just hope 23 that you look at the humanness in this process. 24 But it's not about brick and mortar, it's about 25 the family that you're destroying, the Alphson family that Page 31 1 has occupied this home for 55 years. They wanted to leave 2 something for their kids, their grandkids, their estate. 3 By landmarking it, you will take away 20 percent of that 4 value. 5 I'm sure a lot of you own homes. How would you 6 like it if somebody came up to you to tell you what if all 7 that money that you will save for your kids or your 8 grandkids or your retirement, 20 percent of it is gone 9 because municipal authority just took it away from you. 10 That's what's happening here. 11 I want to thank Mike Salazar and Ruth Ann, we did 12 meet with them. Mike, thank you very much. We discussed 13 the Mills Act, it doesn't apply to Marcia because her 14 property tax is as low as it is, there's no benefit to her 15 for the Mills Act property tax. We discussed Mike's home 16 that he bought on 2504 Third Street, and the advantages he 17 had by landmarking it in 2012. 18 He bought it in 1989, and because it's 19 landlocked, it's on a very small parcel, it's about a 20 2,500 square foot home -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- 21 he has advantages with landmarking it, but he chose that 22 after he bought it. In this instance, with the Alphson 23 home, there is 54,000 square feet of land. In Mike's 24 case, there's only 4,200 square feet of land, so there's 25 about 12 times the land value in the Alphson's residence. Page 32 1 So it's not apples to apples. 2 And in my opinion, what should happen is that we 3 should let the buyer choose what they want to pay for the 4 Alphson residence without being landmarked. 5 If there's a buyer out there that wants to pay 6 for the architectural value, then let him compete with a 7 buyer that may want to tear down. 8 The house is 95 years old. There are problems 9 with mold and problems with the structure. There's 10 problems with the electrical, with the plumbing. I mean, 11 at some point in time there's not enough duct tape to hold 12 this together. You know, the houses are going to be old 13 enough that need to be fixed and need to be torn down, 14 which this happens to be one of them. 15 In fact, there's a number of homes on Wood Acres 16 that have been torn down, just quickly, 821 wood Acres was 17 a house that got torn down, 4,000 square feet, in 18 February 2015. 19 MS. SLOAN: Sorry. Your time is up. 20 MR. BORAS: That happens to be Jacobson's home. 21 MS. SLOAN: Do you have a question? 22 MR. ROSENBAUM: Are you a representative of the 23 Owner? Are you speaking as a representative of the Owner? 24 MR. BORAS: Yes, I am. I'm the CFO; it was on my 25 paper. Page 33 1 MR. ROSENBAUM: Thank you. 2 MS. SLOAN: Our next speaker. 3 MR. DIAMOND: We'll stipulate the Applicant can 4 have more time, if he can just finish. 5 MS. SLOAN: I'm sorry. Sir, we have several 6 speakers. 7 MR. DIAMOND: Let him speak just one minute. 8 We'll waive the time. Let them speak. What's wrong with 9 speech? 10 MS. SLOAN: Mr. Gee. 11 MR. GEE: To begin, my name is Stephan Gee. 12 I wrote a book on Parkinson and also a documentary about 13 him nationwide on PBS. I've spent more than 10 years of 14 my life studying John Parkinson and I absolutely confirm 15 that he absolutely was not a racist. There is no evidence 16 that he ever was a racist, and the suggestion is just one 17 more meaningless distraction in this case. 18 I want to talk to the Commission directly. I 19 know as members of this Commission that you have to 20 determine the fate of many important houses designed by 21 many important architects. Yet, I am certain that you 22 have never determined the fate of the property designed by 23 an architect who contributed more to Southern California 24 than John Parkinson because there simply is not an 25 architect who contributed more to Southern California Item 6-B 07/23/19 66 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 10 (Pages 34 to 37) Page 34 1 than John Parkinson. 2 While it is true that there are many, many 3 buildings that still stand that Parkinson designed, none 4 of them, none of them, better reflect his personal style, 5 his personal taste, better than this one. And yet, here 6 we are, two hearings on a house that, on paper, represents 7 perhaps the strongest, most compelling case from a 8 landmark designation, that you will ever see. I'm sorry 9 that the owners of this house are not on board with this, 10 and I really wish it was not that way, but it is. 11 You, as members of this Commission, have a civic duty 12 to rule strictly on the facts. So I wanted to tell you 13 something about John Parkinson that might help you make 14 your decision today. When John Parkinson got the 15 opportunity to design what we now know as Pershing Square; 16 he did it for free because he believed it was his civic 17 responsibility. He believed it was his civic duty. 18 When John Parkinson had the opportunity to design the 19 Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, a stadium 100 years later 20 that is still described as the greatest stadium on Earth. 21 He did it for free because he believed it was his civic 22 duty. 23 Now, tonight, those of us who understand the true 24 architectural significance of this house, we are asking 25 you, the members of the Commission, to rise above the Page 35 1 noise, rise above the distractions, and do your civic duty 2 and protect this house. Thank you. 3 MS. SLOAN: Melanie Parkinson Larson. 4 MS. PARKINSON LARSON: Good evening. 5 Thank you for the privilege of speaking here 6 tonight in Santa Monica City Hall a building that was 7 designed by my grandfather Donald Parkinson. I am Melanie 8 Parkinson Larson, great granddaughter of the architect 9 John Parkinson, and I am here on behalf of the four 10 generation of Parkinsons who live in Santa Monica. 11 I would just like to first state that my great 12 grandfather was not a racist. In my 65 years, I have 13 never heard a comment about this issue. I did not see it 14 in his autobiography, personal records, or in any family 15 oral history, so I would just like to make that clear, as 16 far as I know. 17 His home on Wood Acres gives us a tangible 18 representation of who he was, what he loved, and what he 19 valued. He lived there while designing his most famous 20 buildings. Its exquisite beauty and privacy nourished his 21 creative spirit. As a child, I loved chasing my sister up 22 and down the stairs and around the gardens. The house 23 remains as I remember it, and I'm sure John Parkinson 24 would agree if he saw it today, which I did as well, and 25 it's still gorgeous. Page 36 1 In a letter to my grandfather, John Parkinson 2 congratulated him on this success of their business 3 partnership, and he also offered some advice, "Great 4 profits are secondary to good work." John Parkinson's 5 good work included a strong sense of civic duty as 6 demonstrated by his refusal to accept any payment for his 7 work designing at the LA Memorial Coliseum. You are on 8 the Landmarks Commission because you share a similar sense 9 of civic duty. 10 In April, you agreed that there was overwhelming 11 evidence that 808 Wood Acres met the requirements for 12 landmarking in the five out of six criteria, and that the 13 caliber of John Parkinson work was exceptional. After two 14 hearings, it's time for the Commission do its job and 15 officially designate the property as a landmark so that it 16 is preserved for posterity. 17 I lived at 105 San Vincente with my grandmother, 18 Grace Wills Parkinson, for many years, in a home that was 19 designed by my grandfather, and it was both shocking and 20 devastating when it was torn town in 1984 even though it 21 was designated a city landmark. It would be terrible if 22 this happens again to a Parkinson's residence. 23 Please, make your decision on this case based on 24 the facts from the multiple reports that you have 25 received, as well as the staff recommendation and the Page 37 1 incredible contribution that my great grandfather made in 2 shaping the culture and historical identity of Southern 3 California. Wood Acres is a unique part of it, and 4 deserves to be protected. Thank you for your time and 5 consideration. 6 MS. SLOAN: Do we have any questions? 7 Thank you. 8 Okay. Now I will read the next three -- wait a 9 minute, are you Freddy Calisatro? It looks like Freddie 10 Calistaro, Karen Locke and Mike Salazar. 11 MS. CALISTRO: Hi. My name is Paddy Calistro. 12 MS. SLOAN: I apologize. 13 MS. CALISTRO: That's okay. I am, one, a 14 resident of Santa Monica, and I live about three and a 15 half blocks from 808 Wood Acres. I'm also a publisher of 16 books about the history of Southern California. I have 17 been for about 30 years. I've spoken at many Landmarks 18 Commission meetings for the City of Los Angeles, and I 19 take a special interest in Wood Acres because I'm reminded 20 of going to Oak Park in Chicago and visiting the home of 21 Frank Lloyd Wright, and if that property had not been 22 landmarked, where would we be? 23 So I just request that because John Parkinson 24 probably designed more homes in Los Angeles and Southern 25 California than Frank Lloyd Wright designed in Chicago, Item 6-B 07/23/19 67 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 11 (Pages 38 to 41) Page 38 1 that we take this into consideration. I reiterate that it 2 is the civic duty of this Committee to landmark 3 significant homes, and this is one. Thank you. 4 MS. SLOAN: Karen Locke. 5 MS. LOCKE: Before I speak, I have 12 6 notifications from homeowners on Wood Acres who 7 unanimously do not want the demarcation. 8 (Papers were distributed) 9 I had some well-thought-out and rational remarks 10 for this evening, then I get a letter from the Santa 11 Monica Conservancy that made my hair catch on fire. The 12 Conservancy intentionally misrepresented the position of 13 Howard and Drew Alphson in support of their landmark 14 designation, and makes me wonder if anything in the letter 15 is, in fact, true. 16 Mr. Alphson was a Harvard-educated tax attorney 17 with many real estate holdings; Ms. Alphson was a real 18 estate broker for her professional life. If they, in any 19 way, supported this Santa Monica Conservancy, they would 20 have requested the designation themselves during their 21 lifetime. In fact, they were vigorously, vehemently, 22 vocally against the designation, and said so on many 23 occasions. 24 I don't know whether I'm more shocked at the 25 intentional misrepresentation of their viewpoint, or the Page 39 1 fact that the Conservancy trespassed on the property to 2 approach Marcia Alphson while Ms. Alphson was on her death 3 bed, and then filed for a designation, which the Alphsons 4 had opposed for decades, within days of her passing. I 5 fully support Marcia Alphson, and the right of every 6 property owner in Santa Monica to make a fully-informed 7 decision regarding their property. I do not support the 8 right of the City or its agents or its designees, to force 9 a property owner into an agreement that devalues their 10 property without the homeowner being informed or 11 compensated. 12 I've attempted to be fully informed regarding the 13 process and responsibilities of the homeowner, I have gone 14 through the City website until I have been blinded. I was 15 told that a designation keeps the homeowner from making 16 any changes to their property, I have also been told that 17 the homeowner must leave the front and two sides of the 18 property untouched, and I've also been told that the only 19 thing a homeowner can't change is the front of the house. 20 I called the City Planning Department on two 21 occasions and did not get a call back. I wrote two 22 e-mails and did not get replies. I met with the City 23 Council representative in person, and was told that the 24 law was under review and that there were no final changes 25 yet. I asked what the recommendations are for the new Page 40 1 laws and was not able to get an answer. 2 I wrote to the Department asking for 3 clarification, and I went -- here's what I was able to 4 learn. Any person can file for historic designation 5 without the knowledge or consent of the property owner, 6 basically, behind their back. The property owner does not 7 have to be notified that they're on "The list," the 218 8 historical resources inventory update of individual 9 resources, and that the research process has begun. 10 The property owner does not need to consent to 11 the designation. Once the application for designation has 12 been filed, without the homeowner consent, no changes can 13 be made to a property, no permits for altercations will be 14 issued, so essentially, the property is frozen. 15 MS. SLOAN: Your time is up. 16 Does anyone have any questions? 17 Thank you. Would you like these back? Thank you 18 for sharing them with us. 19 MS. REICH: It's part of the record. 20 MS. SLOAN: Mike Salazar. 21 MR. SALAZAR: Mike Salazar. Before 2504 Third 22 Street. You have a finite rule tonight. Follow our 23 landmarks ordinance, and declare this home and parcel the 24 significant landmark that is it. There are means to 25 appeal this that will come down the road, certainly, but Page 41 1 your duty is to do as you're charged. 2 As an architect and private owner of the city 3 landmark structure, I had the opportunity to meet with the 4 chief financial advisor, David Boras, and the property 5 owner, as well as Ruth Ann from the Conservancy. It was 6 clear, per the record, I am a member of the Conservancy, 7 but it was made crystal clear as it is tonight, that I'm 8 speaking on my own as an architect and as an owner of a 9 landmark house. 10 I shared my experience today about our landmark 11 house and our decision to seek the Mills Act. We do get 12 benefits from that, everyone would get a benefit from 13 that. We do have low taxes, so we don't see the huge 14 financial windfall that some people do, but we still get a 15 benefit. I explained this in detail to Mr. Boras. 16 Also, shed light on numerous landmark status 17 benefits, allowing the use of the State Historic Building 18 Code, allowing major and minor modifications to things 19 such as setbacks and height limits. Priority plan check, 20 that's worth its weight in gold in this city. And the 21 overall ability to not just modify parts of the outside, 22 but to completely modify the entirety of this house. 23 Also noted other possibilities for the parcel, 24 yet, today we hear that there's just no other option. And 25 an e-mail that I got today from Mr. Boras just went Item 6-B 07/23/19 68 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 12 (Pages 42 to 45) Page 42 1 immediately back to the same position that the 2 determination is it's 1.25 acres and they want to sell it, 3 and essentially wipe the house off. 4 Unfortunately, the meeting was for not. I think 5 Mr. Boras has a duty as a financial author to explore 6 these alternatives. We suggested the he contact qualified 7 Realtors that have this experience, and that know landmark 8 housing can show the benefit of this out-of-the-air 9 $4 million hit, supposedly. It is just meaningless unless 10 he looks at his duty and looks that at the alternatives. 11 I ask you tonight to move this on, call the 12 question, declare this a landmark, and we'll deal with the 13 next step. Also on a larger protest, and hope this 14 Commission and staff does a better job at upholding the 15 time -- the required time restrictions that all the 16 speakers have. Thank you. 17 MS. SLOAN: Our next three speakers are Carol 18 Lemlin, William Brown, and Christina Hildebrandt. 19 MS. LEMLIN: I had submitted my request as a 20 member of the team and expecting to speak in rebuttal. I 21 would request that the Commission consider, at some point 22 in your deliberations, giving the Applicant team 23 equivalent time as has been provided to the owners. Thank 24 you. 25 MS. SLOAN: William Brown, please. Page 43 1 MR. BROWN: Thank you for giving me an 2 opportunity to speak. I have known the Alphsons since I 3 couldn't talk. I've been in that house, on and off, most 4 of my life and at different times. But the thing that 5 really comes to mind here is Mr. Parkinson is an architect 6 and he's done a lot of great work that's already all over 7 the place and everybody knows about it. This is a house 8 that, unless you saw down most of the property coverage in 9 the front, you can't see from the street. And the issue 10 of personal property, if the Parkinsons were that 11 interested in this house being a landmark, instead of 12 selling it when they did, they should have declared it as 13 a landmark instead of selling it. 14 Because, constitutionally, it's private property, 15 and we are going through a large period of time where our 16 government is exercising all sorts of it's powers to take 17 some of those rights away from people in the name of 18 public interest. Again, public interest is where people 19 can go, see, use, participate, and that isn't the case 20 here. Thank you. 21 MS. SLOAN: Christina Hildebrandt. 22 MS. HILDEBRANDT: Thank you. My name Christina 23 Hildebrandt; I'm aware of the matter tonight about the 24 landmark decision of the Parkinson residence and I'm in 25 support of that. I'm here because of the Owner's Page 44 1 opposition seems to be based primarily on a perceived 2 negative image of property value. 3 I want to offer my experience in that area. I'm 4 a long-time Realtor with a company specializing in homes 5 designed by architects and of historical value. 6 Naturally, there are landmark properties among them, and 7 we usually advertise them proudly because of our business 8 working very differently from standard real estate 9 approach. 10 What we started as a small niche has mushroomed 11 into an important section of the market. Right or wrong, 12 there is a growing number of very wealthy individuals whom 13 not only have this as their passion, but who also put much 14 or their money into preservation of these properties. 15 Some of those investors buy properties not only because 16 they want to live in them, but also just to save them by 17 restoring and landmarking them. 18 There are others who collect these homes like 19 art, and it is not uncommon to get higher prices that 20 would be achieved if one considered just location, size, 21 and condition. A valuable example is last week's LA Times 22 report about the renovation of Bob Hope's John Lautner 23 built home in Palm Springs, a billionaire buyer bought the 24 house with the intent to bringing it back to what 25 architect had envisioned. Page 45 1 The same person, Ron Burkle, also bought the 2 Innis house by Frank Lloyd Wright, and he spent almost 3 four times the purchase price on renovations. I could 4 name many other examples of individuals buying sometimes 5 ruins and spending much more to carefully restore them 6 rather than what a new building would cost. For the sake 7 of this meeting, I'm just going to leave it at those 8 examples, but there are many. Thank you. 9 MS. SLOAN: Our next and final speakers will be 10 Don Woods, Mi Lachman, and Jerry Rubin. Why don't you go 11 ahead. 12 MR. RUBIN: All right. Thank you thank you very 13 much, Chair, and Commissioners, City staff. Jerry Rubin, 14 Santa Monica. After hearing all this today, I must say 15 that certainly you should give equal time, as was 16 suggested by Carol Lemlin. And I understand your intent, 17 but I think it's best to stick with those rules that you 18 have, you know, otherwise, it gets a little weird. 19 You know, we have a landmarking ordinance, and 20 I've heard almost tearful emotions on both sides 21 sometimes, but we have a landmark ordinance. And I think 22 that's landmark tree at Miramar, if anything, that's 23 pretty much on private property, but the owner take care 24 of it; they're honored to have it. I don't think it's a 25 good argument, or we would never have any historic Item 6-B 07/23/19 69 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 13 (Pages 46 to 49) Page 46 1 landmarking if we left it up to people about whether they 2 want to designate what is obviously, by your own 3 consultant report, should be designated a landmark. 4 Now, this charge of racism, I'm Jewish. Whether 5 you are Jewish or not, racism is horrible, but the 6 accusation of racism, if unfounded, is besmirching the 7 name of someone is maybe even worse. I can't even imagine 8 that this wouldn't have been revealed, had Mr. Parkinson 9 really been a racist after all of the buildings the he has 10 build would be pretty hard to keep that under wraps. 11 But I would hope that you follow your procedures, 12 and I would hope that the people here in the community 13 somehow come to understand, since this probably will be 14 designated a landmark and probably will be denied if it's 15 appealed, come to cherish this and reevaluate and not be 16 so tearful and worrying about your rights being taken 17 away, they're not being taken away. The history of Santa 18 Monica is being preserved. Thank you. 19 MS. SLOAN: Now is Mi Lachman here? Yes. I'm so 20 sorry. Please, go ahead and speak. 21 MR. LACHMAN: Well, you know, you don't have the 22 deed. I think a lot of this has to do with the deed, and 23 you should have looked at the deed. Now, this gentleman 24 says that there's a restriction on the deed, I think this 25 is very important. I think you need to have a Page 47 1 continuance. I couldn't hear whether or not you did want 2 to have a continuance, but this is so important that I ask 3 you to have a continuance until the attorney comes up with 4 the deed. 5 He has integrity as an attorney, and this is so 6 important. We don't want to have any association with a 7 racist as a landmark project. And I'd like to speak again 8 on the historical ordinance. This is kind of like taking 9 of property, and the gentleman talked about our civic 10 duty, well, is this a civic -- if this is going be a civic 11 issue, the city should -- they are not going to unless 12 it's extremely important, buy these historical, allegedly 13 historical houses, historical minutia you know the most 14 important thing in housing is health, safety, and welfare, 15 not the historical stuff that wants museums. 16 I appreciate, you know, people who volunteer to 17 keep their houses historical, but to have the City go and 18 designate it and limit the property, that is the taking of 19 property. Thank you very much. 20 MS. SLOAN: Now, is Don Woods here? Do you wish 21 to speak? Yes. 22 MR. WOODS: Thank you. I share a property line 23 with the Alphson property and I knew Howard Alphson; he 24 was a friend of mine. Howard was wounded going down a 25 ramp on Normandy beaches, he was patched up and he fought Page 48 1 to the end of the war. He was a Harvard-educated lawyer. 2 He invested in commercial and industrial real estate. If 3 he wanted this property landmarked, he would have done it. 4 He was a very intelligent man. 5 He wanted that property as an asset for his 6 daughter and he left it to his daughter, no one ever heard 7 him say he thought it should be landmarked. You can't 8 take that photograph without trespassing on the property. 9 This house cannot be seen from the street, it's not going 10 to be a museum, even if you landmark it. 11 People will not be able to go onto the property, 12 they can't go in the house, they can't see the front. So 13 is the public purpose so that the public can see the 14 alleged unique architectural aspects? It can't be solved; 15 you can't do that by landmarking it, it won't happen. You 16 can't do that and so you can't achieve it. The only 17 purpose for the landmark act -- the only other public 18 purpose for taking this property, which is what you are 19 doing, the only other public purposes are health, there's 20 no health benefit here, and safety, there's no safety. 21 So some kind of psychic emotional feeling that a 22 property that has some landmark or some historical 23 significance is preserved even though nobody can see it 24 and nobody can have access to it. If this is such a 25 historical property, why aren't the architects of Southern Page 49 1 California getting a pool together and buying it? Why 2 doesn't USC Architectural School buy it? No one is trying 3 to buy it. They've lived in that house for 60 years and 4 no one has made a deal about it until they were passed 5 away and then it became a political football. 6 They talked about the loss of value is 20 7 percent, you know, that's not a number that I can live 8 with, a house down the street was rebuilt, on the same 9 street, Wood Acres, closer to San Vincente, with a 10 cul-de-sac where this house is, sold for $41 million a 11 year or two ago; 20 percent of that is a lot of money. 12 Okay. 13 Now, they're not going to sell this house -- that 14 was a house that was replaced and rebuilt, okay. This is 15 not like that, but someone is going to buy this house who 16 wants to do that. And that's a vast amount of money. 17 That's what Mr. Alphson wanted his daughter to have. That 18 was the benefits of preserving the property and living in 19 it all those years. 20 MS. SLOAN: Mary Beth Woods. 21 MS. WOODS: Hello. I, too, know the Alphsons. I 22 have been their friend for 45 years. I share a property 23 line with them; I was their friend before. Mr. Alphson, 24 when we speak of civic duty, I would like, truly, as my 25 husband said, for everyone in this room to know, as we Item 6-B 07/23/19 70 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 14 (Pages 50 to 53) Page 50 1 celebrate D-Day's anniversary. 2 He did it; he lived it. He preserved our 3 freedoms in this United States of America, and he and his 4 family are truly entitled to the freedom that he worked 5 for by putting his life on the line and working as a very 6 diligent man to earn the money to have this property. 7 When he purchased this property for his family, it had 8 been, I believe, vacant for about 10 years. It was a 9 ramshackle mess, and this Alphson family put it together. 10 It is still, candidly, anybody -- and I invite 11 you all to walk through it. There is limited heat. 12 Marcia Alphson, today, has not been well. It is moldy. 13 It doesn't have proper heat. It doesn't have proper 14 plumbing. It is obsolescent in its complete entirety. We 15 did invite -- I was with Marcia when we invited one of the 16 Realtors who was named by the Conservancy as a historic 17 expert, and this exert did not maintain that this was such 18 an amazing landmark. 19 There is a window and three balustrades on the 20 inside of this house, please. Let's make a date and walk 21 through it, and let me ask you if you will live without 22 heat and with limited plumbing. Let me ask you if you 23 will do that with your family. This woman came home from 24 her house in New Hampshire to take care of her father, who 25 passed away, and then her mother. She is not a wealthy Page 51 1 woman. She has lived really, really in difficult 2 situations. And to find that somebody would enter her 3 property under false premises to try and persuade people 4 to landmark this property when Mr. and Ms. Alphson did not 5 want any part of this, this is absolutely criminal, in my 6 opinion. That we will take such poor care of our human 7 being neighbors. I can't tell you how offended I am. 8 This is asking a government agency to become controlling 9 over somebody else's property. Now is there value to 10 landmarking? Absolutely. But I think the person who owns 11 this property, who worked for the property and chooses to 12 do it, as this other gentleman chose to landmark his 13 property, God bless him. Somebody might purchase this and 14 choose to do it, but it should be a free will and free 15 country that Mr. Alphson fought for. I hope you 16 appreciate that. 17 MS. SLOAN: And that finished our public comment. 18 So now, we have rebuttal from the Applicant. You 19 have three minutes. 20 Actually, the property owner will go first. 21 MS. ALPHSON: Marcia Alphson again. I think 22 there was a lot of good things said. I'm not going to 23 stand down, and I'll see you in court. 24 MS. SLOAN: Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum has a 25 question for our last speaker. Page 52 1 MR. ROSENBAUM: My question is for the City 2 Attorney. Our rules are designed to accord the Applicant 3 and the Owner equal time. I think we should add up the 4 amount of time that has been accorded to the Owner and 5 their representatives and make sure the Applicant has an 6 equal amount of time. That would only be fair, and our 7 effort to be fair. 8 HEARING OFFICER MARKS-BARNETT: I don't know how 9 much time we will need. 10 CITY ATTORNEY: We easily all agree there were at 11 least three additional minutes allocated in terms of other 12 property representatives. It's difficult in some 13 instances to ascertain whether or not somebody was 14 speaking in support of or if they were representative of, 15 but I do understand Commissioner Rosenbaum's comments and 16 I agree that that has definitely been the Commission's 17 past practice. 18 MS. LARA: So we would get six minutes, is that 19 what you are saying? 20 MR. ROSENBAUM: You would get three minutes, as a 21 matter of course. I would recommend that you get five 22 additional minutes if you need that, so a total of eight 23 minutes. 24 MS. SLOAN: So total of eight minutes. 25 MS. LARA: Thank you. I don't think we will need Page 53 1 that much, but thank you for that. So the first issue I 2 would like to address is the issue of racial covenants. 3 Restrictive racial covenants were totally normal in the 4 1920s all over Los Angeles, all over Santa Monica. 5 This was the norm of real estate documents, so to 6 act like this is a unique thing for this property is 7 completely misguided. This was just a standard clause in 8 a title that, when they're discovered, typically, they get 9 voided by the courts because they're totally obsolete. It 10 has nothing to do with a person's beliefs and whatever 11 Mr. Parkinson believed or not, it was simply a standard 12 part of real estate transaction. 13 In my work in preservation, I have heard of this 14 all over Los Angeles in the 1920s. So please, don't give 15 it the kind of weight that you might with the kind of 16 sensitivities that we have today because in the 1920s, it 17 was simply standard practice. 18 In the issue of visibility of the property, well, 19 I'm short, I can see it. So even though there is a 20 partial obscurity because of the wall, the presence of the 21 house is there. You see the wall, you see the second 22 story, you see the roof, you know it's there. And of 23 course, surrounding can change, fences could go up, they 24 can come down, more landscape, whatever. That has nothing 25 to do with the enduring presence of the house, as a Item 6-B 07/23/19 71 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 15 (Pages 54 to 57) Page 54 1 landmark, that's our concern, is that the house be there. 2 We have a number of designated landmarks in the 3 city where visibility is obscured, but that has nothing to 4 do with the significance or their continued permanence as 5 part of your heritage. I'm really sorry that this 6 discussion has gotten so personal. We have tried to be 7 reasonable and to talk to the owner. We have tried to 8 circulate written information about what landmarks are, 9 what regulations really mean. 10 There's so much misunderstanding about that. 11 There's some idea that you can't do anything with the 12 property, when, in fact, the regulations are very 13 reasonable and very limited. We know many landmarked 14 homes have been expanded with additions put on. We know 15 that there's no restrictions on interiors, and the changes 16 to exteriors can be made after they go through the design 17 view before this Commission for certificate of 18 appropriateness. 19 And certainly, as you know, the Landmarks 20 Commission has worked with many, many property owners to 21 accomplish a successful preservation within these 22 parameters. So their fear of the neighbors seems to be 23 quite unfounded. I want to say a word about, one, of the 24 Conservancy as a nonprofit organization dedicated to 25 helping all of us recognize and protect our architectural Page 55 1 heritage, when do we intervene, when do we find it 2 necessary to file a landmark application or take some kind 3 of action to protect the property. 4 Well, we knew about the significance of the 5 Parkinson house, and we knew that the elder Alphsons were 6 in their 90s and not going to be around very much longer. 7 And what would actually trigger the filing of the 8 application was a conversation -- I had a few 9 conversations with Marcia Alphson's tax attorney, who 10 informed me that it was her intention to sell the 11 property, and that she did not want the house protected 12 she did not want it landmarked. 13 She felt, as we have heard from some of the 14 speakers here, the value is in the land and saving the 15 house would be an encumbrance. Well, you know, we don't 16 accept that as an outcome for this property. We know that 17 landmark properties can be successfully purchased by 18 owners who appreciate those qualities and are looking to 19 collect them as you heard from one of the Realtors 20 represented who has done the kind of work for a long time. 21 A private home is a private home, and it remains 22 that way. It certainly doesn't trigger massive visits by 23 the outside world, hardly. I wish that landmarks would 24 generate more interest than they do, but when a private 25 home is landmarked, it remains a private home, it remains Page 56 1 the owner's domain, and hopefully will transition to new 2 owners who will appreciate that. 3 This is a property of rare significance because 4 it's not only Parkinson's work, it's his own house. The 5 architect's own personal residence that he built for 6 himself, that he lived in for the most productive years of 7 his career and it has special significance on that 8 account. So we believe that down the line, the house 9 should be landmarked and that we hope that there will be a 10 buyer found who will appreciate that, and that we will 11 move onto a good future for this property. I think that's 12 the only comments that I have. I'll be happy to answer 13 any questions you might have. Okay. Thank you. 14 MS. LEMLIN: It's difficult to follow on my 15 colleagues theory moving discussion, but I did want to 16 make sure that you have made note of the letters that have 17 arrived from various organizations and the public, and 18 those include the Los Angeles County Conservancy, the 19 North of Montana Association, which is the neighborhood 20 association for the property around Wood Acres. 21 And in addition to Mr. Salazar's testimony, you 22 have two letters from owners of landmarked homes and 23 neither of whom had anything but good things to say about 24 their designations. And in fact, I'd like to point out to 25 you that one of those, the house on La Mesa, was, in fact, Page 57 1 a third-party nomination. And the couple who own it are 2 very happy with the house, with the relationship with the 3 Commission, and I hope you've had an opportunity to read 4 that letter. Thank you very much. 5 MS. SLOAN: Are there any questions for the 6 Applicant? 7 Very good. So now it is time for the 8 commissioners to have their discussion. I would like to 9 start to speak a little bit about deed restrictions. I 10 believe that they have -- there is probably someone here 11 who knows more than I do about it, but I do believe that 12 there has been some legal decision that has made them not 13 effective, and they can easily be done away with. 14 About a deed restriction, I know very well about 15 those because my family would never be able to live in 16 Santa Monica unless we lived in Pico in the old days, a 17 Pico neighborhood. But anyhow, that doesn't mean that I 18 won't consider this house as the house. So I would like 19 to hear from someone here who may have some legal 20 information on the present court views of, you know, legal 21 decisions that have been made about these. 22 MR. ROSENBAUM: If I could just follow up with 23 that. I was going to ask the city attorney to answer that 24 because it was my understanding that the Fair Employer and 25 Housing Act expressly prohibits the existence of Item 6-B 07/23/19 72 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 16 (Pages 58 to 61) Page 58 1 restrictive covenants that makes housing opportunities 2 unavailable based on race and other criteria, and that 3 there's a process to have those illegal covenants removed. 4 I wanted to know if I got that right. 5 CITY ATTORNEY: Yes, you did. That is correct. 6 MS. SLOAN: Is there anything more to add. Just 7 to clarify it -- maybe we could clarify it because -- I 8 think, yes. Okay. Why don't we -- 9 MR. BREISCH: May I, as the historian of the 10 Commission, speak? The Supreme Court over through all 11 racially restrictive covenants in 1948, and they are 12 illegal, but in fact, you will still find racial 13 restrictive covenants in many, many deeds because it was a 14 standard clause in real estate transactions throughout the 15 first half of the 20th Century, until 1948. 16 In fact, it's estimated that in 1940, 80 percent 17 of the properties in Los Angeles had racially restrictive 18 covenants. It's a red herring. These things were 19 standard clauses in real estate transactions; you will 20 find them everywhere. It's abhorrent, of course, and it 21 reflects the general racism of American society during 22 this period of time. I'm not happy about that, of course. 23 I find it despicable, but it is part of our history and 24 it's part of real estate transaction. 25 Just like the fact, I guess you could say, that Page 59 1 Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were slave owners. 2 I think that their houses are landmarked, let's put it 3 that way. You know, they were part of the time. You 4 know, Thomas Jefferson is a major enigma; he wrote the 5 Declaration of Independence and was one of the authors, 6 yet he didn't free his slaves. But that's all part of 7 history, so this whole thing with Parkinson being a 8 racist, et cetera, just because a standard clause in real 9 estate transactions is ridiculous. 10 The other thing I want to say as we move forward, 11 there's been a whole lot of discussion about property 12 rights and takings, et cetera, having to do with landmark 13 ordinances. And in 1978 the Supreme Court upheld the 14 right of New York City to landmark properties in New York, 15 and that's been standing now for, I don't know, what is my 16 math -- 41 years, I guess, and has not been overturned. 17 But that ruling actually allowed municipalities 18 to pass landmark ordinances of the type that Santa Monica 19 has in place at this particular moment, and it's perfectly 20 constitutional and landmarking a property is not and 21 specifically stated, considered a taking. 22 So all of this discussion about property rights, 23 et cetera, is perfectly legitimate, but it does not apply 24 to the landmark ordinance. And, in fact, from my 25 perspective, it's not something we should be considering Page 60 1 as landmark commissioners. The ordinances is very clear 2 in terms of the types of findings we have to make. 3 And as it's been stated, this particular property 4 meets five of the six findings. Actually, I would make a 5 motion that we accept the staff report and move forward 6 because I think that this is, in my mind, a no-brainer. 7 This is a really important property. And we have expert 8 testimony and consultants who all agree to this, and I 9 don't really feel that I can add anything more about the 10 significance of the property. It's there. 11 MS. SLOAN: So we have a motion by Commissioner 12 Breisch and seconded by Commissioner Green that -- would 13 you state what criteria those are, please. 14 MR. BREISCH: 1 through 5. 15 This does not foreclose any discussion? 16 MS. SLOAN: No. 17 MR. BREISCH: Discussion follows the motion. 18 MS. SLOAN: To continue. And also to amend the 19 motion, if the original proponents agree. We, in no way 20 are fixed, but we have a motion to proceed and to direct 21 discussion. 22 And now, Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum. 23 MR. ROSENBAUM: I am going to support that 24 motion. I believe there is abundant evidence to support 25 designation set forth in the staff report and staff's oral Page 61 1 presentation, and the consultant's reports, the 2 Applicant's submissions, and the other testimony. I think 3 the record in this case is compelling. 4 Also, I have carefully reviewed the property 5 owner's submissions. I think the criteria for landmarking 6 this property have been met, while the type of the deed 7 restriction, which has been alleged by the property owner 8 tonight was a terribly sad part of our history, it was, 9 unfortunately, terribly prevalent, as Commissioner Reich 10 has talked about, but it was nullified by law in 1948, and 11 we have heard testimony that it doesn't reflect the 12 beliefs of Parkinson. 13 So my belief, in standing alone, should not be a 14 basis for denying the application. So I agree that it 15 should be designated pursuant to criteria 1 through 5 16 based on the findings and the staff report as modified in 17 the June 10th staff report and the entirety of the record. 18 MS. SLOAN: Are there more comments? I must say 19 that today, for about the sixth time I looked photographs 20 of the property that we had in our packet, and I remember 21 what I saw, and it's a remarkable, remarkable property, 22 even if it was by another architect, and it does satisfy, 23 for me, those five criteria, so I'm prepared to support 24 it. 25 And Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum. Item 6-B 07/23/19 73 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings 17 (Pages 62 to 64) Page 62 1 MR. ROSENBAUM: Just to clarify as part of the 2 maker's motion that the landmark consists of the primary 3 subject residence and would include the parcel as a 4 landmark parcel and that is parcel 480-002-005, and that, 5 I believe, we would be excluding the detached accessory of 6 the guest house and garage after staff recommendation; is 7 that correct? And I also think it would be appropriate to 8 incorporate the character defining features that were set 9 forth in pages 19 and 20 of the report. 10 MS. SLOAN: Very good. Do you need to hear from 11 anyone else? 12 MR. BREISCH: It's okay with me; that's why we 13 have an attorney here. 14 MS. SLOAN: So if I hear no other commissioners 15 wishing to speak, we are ready for vote. 16 MR. MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Brand. 17 MR. BRAND: Yes. 18 MR. MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Breisch. 19 MR. BREISCH: Yes. 20 MR. MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Genser. 21 MR. GENSER: Yes. 22 MR. MIZOKAMI: Commissioner Green. 23 MS. GREEN: Yes. 24 MR. MIZOKAMI: Chair Pro Tem Rosenbaum. 25 MR. ROSENBAUM: Yes. Page 63 1 MR. MIZOKAMI: And Chair Sloan. 2 MS. SLOAN: Yes.3 (Off the record).4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 64 1 2 3 HEARING REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 4 5 I, Shelby K. Maaske, Hearing Reporter in and for 6 the State of California, do hereby certify: 7 That the foregoing transcript of proceedings was 8 taken before me at the time and place set forth, that the 9 testimony and proceedings were reported stenographically 10 by me and later transcribed by computer-aided 11 transcription under my direction and supervision, that the 12 foregoing is a true record of the testimony and 13 proceedings taken at that time. 14 I further certify that I am in no way interested 15 in the outcome of said action. 16 I have hereunto subscribed my name this 19th day 17 of July, 2019. 18 19 20 21 ______________________ SHELBY K. MAASKE 22 HEARING REPORTER 23 24 25 Item 6-B 07/23/19 74 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings Page 1 A abhorrent 58:20 ability 41:21 able 5:22 14:5 15:10,11 21:10 40:1,3 48:11 57:15 absent 14:13absolutely33:14,15 51:551:10abundant 60:24accept21:22 36:6 55:1660:5 access 48:24 accessory 62:5 accomplish 54:21 accomplishments 9:1 accord 52:2 accorded 52:4 account 56:8 accusation 46:6 achieve 48:16 achieved 44:20 acres 2:7 4:5 5:5 8:1225:19 27:10 32:15,1635:17 36:11 37:3,1537:19 38:6 42:2 49:956:20act9:11 31:13,15 41:11 48:17 53:6 57:25 action 7:23 55:3 64:15 actual 16:12,17 29:22 AD047B11:23 add 6:8 27:23 52:3 58:6 60:9 addition 14:19 22:2 56:21 additional 21:12,17 22:1 52:11,22 additions 54:14address22:21 26:1929:14 53:2adopting10:14advantages31:16,21advertise44:7 advertising 29:13 advice 36:3 advised 17:8 advisor 9:8 11:13 41:4 Advocacy 4:25 aesthetic 8:24 afternoon 16:20 agency 51:8 agents 39:8 ago 5:3,18 6:3 12:24 25:22 28:23 49:11agree19:22 20:6 21:2235:24 52:10,16 60:860:19 61:14agreed21:24 36:10agreement39:9 ahead 9:4 28:3 45:11 46:20 air 25:18 alienate 15:6 alleged 11:24 48:14 61:7 allegedly 47:12 allocated 52:11 allotted 8:1 19:1 21:9 allow 19:20 21:12 22:1allowed20:16 59:17allowing41:17,18 allows 7:24 Alphson 1:6 11:10 13:5 14:6 15:4 18:23 20:16 21:8 22:1,11,15 24:13 24:25 25:1,2,4,9,24 26:10 28:1 30:18,18 30:19,25 31:22 32:4 38:13,16,17 39:2,2,5 47:23,23 49:17,23 50:9,12 51:4,15,21,21 Alphson's31:25 55:9Alphsons25:8,22 26:427:16 39:3 43:2 49:2155:5Alphsons'29:12altercations40:13 alternatives 42:6,10 amazing 50:18 ambiguity 6:18 amend 60:18 America 50:3 American 58:21 amount 8:1 21:19 49:16 52:4,6 and/or 8:3 19:1 21:13 Angeles 34:19 37:18,24 53:4,14 56:18 58:17 angst 30:22Ann8:7 23:7,17 31:1141:5anniversary 50:1answer10:15 40:1 56:12 57:23 anybody 5:12 15:6 16:22 50:10 anyway 15:5 28:22 apologize 14:23 37:12 apologizes 23:20 apology 23:18 appalling 25:12 apparently 12:1,20,24 14:5,20 appeal 40:25 appealed 46:15appear15:11APPEARANCES 3:1apples32:1,1Applicant7:19,24 8:2,5 11:3 12:6 21:17,18 33:3 42:22 51:18 52:2 52:5 57:6 Applicant's 7:16 11:12 61:2 Applicant/Owner 6:14 application 4:12,12 12:5 16:3 40:11 55:2,8 61:14 apply 31:13 59:23 appointment 4:25 appraisal 9:17,23appreciate15:15 24:17 47:16 51:16 55:1856:2,10appreciates 15:16approach39:2 44:9 appropriate 17:21 62:7appropriateness54:18approve13:1 approved 29:19 approving 9:4 April 4:17 5:17 6:25 8:9 11:16 13:6 15:8,10 36:10 ar 26:18 architect 11:25 12:22 13:19 33:23,25 35:8 41:2,8 43:5 44:25 61:22 architect's 56:5architects33:21 44:548:25architectural 8:23 9:1610:8 32:6 34:24 48:1449:2 54:25 area 44:3 areas 8:20 argument 45:25 arrived 56:17 art 44:19 ascertain 52:13 asked 12:19 23:16 39:25 asking 29:16 34:24 40:2 51:8 aspects 48:14 asset 48:5 associated 4:8 12:513:10,11association 47:6 56:1956:20ATKINSON-BAKER1:21 attached 16:4 attack 25:5 attempted 39:12 attorney 5:14 7:22 11:10 12:20 16:11 17:12,13 18:15,25 19:6,10 20:1 20:9 21:11 38:16 47:3 47:5 52:2,10 55:9 57:23 58:5 62:13 attract 9:20 audience 11:11 August5:2author42:5authority31:9authors59:5autobiography 35:14 available 7:13 9:10 16:6 16:15 average 26:13 aware 9:6 43:23 B back 14:23 39:21 40:640:17 42:1 44:24bad29:4balustrades 50:19based4:12 9:18,25 36:23 44:1 58:2 61:16 basically 40:6 basis 61:14 basketball 11:17 beaches 47:25 bear 14:4 beautiful 26:24beauty9:1 35:20bed39:3 beginning 2:13 7:5 begun 40:9 behalf 35:9 belief 61:13 beliefs 53:10 61:12 believe 13:1 15:12 50:8 56:8 57:10,11 60:24 62:5 believed 34:16,17,21 53:11 belong 26:1belongs26:9beneficiaries 26:18benefit23:12 31:1441:12,15 42:8 48:20benefits41:12,17 49:18 besmirching 46:6 best 45:17 Beth 49:20 better 34:4,5 42:14 beyond 14:2 15:5 big 22:20 billionaire 44:23 bit 22:16,24 57:9 bless 51:13 blinded 39:14 blocks 37:15blood12:13board34:9Bob44:22bolster8:25book33:12 books 37:16 Boras 9:13 30:14,17,17 32:20,24 41:4,15,25 42:5 Boris 9:9 bosses 25:3 bought 25:22 26:4 31:16 31:18,22 44:23 45:1 Brand 5:7,8 20:18,19,20 62:16,17 Breisch 6:1 20:21,2258:9 60:12,14,17 62:12,18,19brick30:24brief8:9briefly5:20 12:19bring16:7,8,24bringing44:24 brings 28:1 broker 38:18 Brown 42:18,25 43:1 build 29:8 46:10 building 4:14 9:12 35:6 41:17 45:6 buildings 34:3 35:20 46:9 builds 29:10 built 44:23 56:5 Burbank 24:23burden14:18burglarize26:21burglarized30:2Burkle45:1 business 36:2 44:7buy44:15 47:12 49:2,3 49:15 buyer 32:3,5,7 44:23 56:10 buyers 9:21 buying 45:4 49:1 C caliber 36:13California1:17 2:13 3:54:1 33:23,25 37:3,16 37:25 49:1 64:6 Calisatro 37:9 Calistaro 37:10 Calistro 37:11,11,13 call 39:21 42:11 called 22:4 39:20 calls 23:15 campaign 29:13 candidly 50:10 care 14:12,14 23:3 25:12 45:23 50:24 51:6cared25:7 26:5career56:7carefully5:17 45:5 61:4caring23:9Carol42:17 45:16 Caroline 11:4 case 1:7 5:3,4 11:23 12:8 31:24 33:17 34:7 36:23 43:19 61:3 catch 38:11 Caucasian 12:14 caught 17:8 cease 15:14 celebrate 50:1 Century 58:15 certain 25:16 33:21certainly9:6 40:25 45:1554:19 55:22certificate54:17 64:3certify64:6,14cetera9:2 59:8,12,23 CFO 32:24 chain 16:9 Chair 5:24 6:16,23 18:1 21:2,4 45:13 51:24 60:22 61:25 62:24 63:1 Chambers 2:12 championship 11:18 15:17 chance 6:15 24:11 change 19:11 20:10 26:839:19 53:23changes7:11 39:16,2440:12 54:15changing22:15character10:13 62:8 charge 46:4 charged 41:1 chasing 35:21 check 41:19 checked 12:8 13:7 cherish 46:15 Chicago 37:20,25 chief 30:17 41:4 Item 6-B 07/23/19 75 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings Page 2 child 35:21chit18:23choice27:2 choose 30:1 32:3 51:14 chooses 51:11 chose 31:21 51:12 chosen 29:2 Christina 42:18 43:21,22 circulate 54:8 circumstance 19:12 cited 9:22 city 1:2 2:2,12 4:7 5:14 7:22 12:18,19 16:11 17:12,13 18:15,25 19:6,10 20:1,9 21:7,1128:11 30:8 35:6 36:2137:18 39:8,14,20,2241:2,20 45:13 47:1147:17 52:1,10 54:3 57:23 58:5 59:14 City's 7:4 8:21,24 10:4 26:1 civic 8:25 34:11,16,17,21 35:1 36:5,9 38:2 47:9 47:10,10 49:24 Claimant 1:7 claims 10:5 clarification 7:3,10 40:3 clarify 7:19 58:7,7 62:1 clause 53:7 58:14 59:8 clauses 58:19clear6:18 35:15 41:6,760:1client14:3closed17:25 closely 25:1 closer 49:9 code 9:12 13:18,20 41:18 Coliseum 12:2 28:11 34:19 36:7 colleagues 56:15 collect 44:18 55:19 college 11:17 come 14:23 15:13,15 16:1,22 18:22 22:13 24:17,19 26:7 29:2430:16 40:25 46:13,1553:24comes43:5 47:3coming15:16 commenced 4:18 comment 35:13 51:17 comments 11:4 15:7 52:15 56:12 61:18 commercial 14:8 48:2 Commission 1:1 2:1 4:11,17 5:1 6:25 7:3 7:23 8:18 13:1,21 15:6 16:12 18:12,13,16,20 19:17,24 21:11 25:5 25:15,18 26:4,12,15 27:3 33:18,19 34:1134:25 36:8,14 37:1842:14,21 54:17,2057:3 58:10Commission's 4:16 17:13 21:15 52:16 Commissioner 4:22 5:7 5:9,14 10:16 13:15 15:19 20:5,6,19,21,23 20:25 21:7 52:15 60:11,12 61:9 62:16 62:18,20,22 commissioners 7:18 8:7 17:10 30:20 45:13 57:8 60:1 62:14 Committee 4:25 5:21 27:12 38:2 community 46:12company44:4compelling34:7 61:3 compensated 39:11compete32:6complete26:13 50:14completely5:22 6:9 28:728:12 29:7 41:22 53:7completion7:8 computer 16:21 computer-aided 64:10 concern 54:1 conclusions 8:15 condescending 25:17 condition 44:21 confirm 33:14 congratulated 36:2 connect 24:9 consent 17:16 40:5,10 40:12Conservancy 1:9 4:255:3,5,11,12,20 6:2,2,46:5,19 8:8 12:6 15:2522:20 23:2,8,12,1325:5,11,14,17,18 26:4 26:6,12,14,16,20 27:3 27:12,22 29:13 30:9 38:11,12,19 39:1 41:5 41:6 50:16 54:24 56:18 Conservancy's 26:1 consider 4:11 14:17 15:7 16:12,13 17:19 17:21,24 21:16 30:9 42:21 57:18 consideration 4:5 37:538:1considered 4:18 44:2059:21considering 10:5 59:25consistent7:9 consists 62:2 constitutional 59:20 constitutionally 43:14 construction 7:7 24:7 consultant 7:4,11 8:13 46:3 consultant's 61:1 consultants 10:13 60:8 contact 42:6 continuance 17:15 47:1 47:2,3continue 18:2,13 20:360:18continued 4:16,19 6:246:25 16:17 54:4contributed33:23,25 contribution 37:1 control 26:7 controlling 51:8 conversation 55:8 conversations 55:9 copies 16:5 correct 31:20 58:5 62:7 cost 45:6 Council 2:12 39:23 countries 30:10 country 28:18,21 30:11 51:15 County 56:18couple57:1course16:25 52:2153:23 58:20,22court51:23 57:20 58:1059:13courts53:9covenants53:2,3 58:1,3 58:11,13,18 cover 10:18 coverage 43:8 covered 28:8 covers 11:22 create 15:2 created 26:14 creative 35:21 criminal 51:5 criminals 29:22,23 criteria 4:14 8:16 9:613:14,17,18,21,2414:2,17 36:12 58:260:13 61:5,15,23crystal41:7cul-de-sac 28:25 29:3,20 49:10 cultural 8:22,24 culture 37:2 D D-Day's 50:1dad23:25,25 24:2,3dangerous30:2date7:7 50:20 dates 7:8 daughter 48:6,6 49:17 David 30:14,17 41:4 Davies 27:14 Davis 9:9 day 64:16 days 5:18 13:5 17:18 39:4 57:16 dead 29:14 deal 42:12 49:4 dealing 28:2 dealt 10:3death28:3 39:2decades27:16 39:4decide26:7,10decision6:7 17:15,18 30:21 34:14 36:23 39:7 41:11 43:24 57:12 decision-making 6:4 decisions 57:21 Declaration 59:5 declare 40:23 42:12 declared 43:12dedicated23:10 27:20 54:24 deed 11:21 12:9,20,23 15:20 17:3,4,22 46:22 46:22,23,24 47:4 57:9 57:14 61:6 deeds 58:13 deem 17:20 defined 4:8 defining 10:12 62:8 definitely 52:16 deliberation 4:19 deliberations 18:4 42:22demarcation38:7demonstrated12:2336:6demonstrates 4:13 denied 46:14 denying 61:14 Department 12:3 39:20 40:2 described 4:9 34:20 description 15:21 deserves 37:4 design 12:1 34:15,18 54:16 designate 36:15 46:2 47:18 designated 4:7,7 9:1910:6,11 27:1 36:2146:3,14 54:2 61:15designation4:4,15 8:129:5 10:2 34:8 38:14,20 38:22 39:3,15 40:4,1140:11 60:25 designations 8:17 56:24 designed 33:20,22 34:3 35:7 36:19 37:24,25 44:5 52:2 designees 39:8 designing 35:19 36:7 despicable 58:23 destroying 30:25 detached 62:5 detail 41:15 detailed 9:9 determination 14:2142:2determine 4:5 10:133:20determined 33:22 devalues 39:9 devastating 36:20 Diamond 3:3,4 11:9,10 15:22,24 16:7,19 17:2 17:6 18:10 19:7 33:3,7 different 43:4 differently 21:21 44:8 difficult 51:1 52:12 56:14 diligent 50:6 direct 60:20 direction 64:11directly8:10 33:18disclosure5:25 6:18disclosures4:22 5:8discovered53:8 discretion 17:14,1421:16 discretionary 13:20 discuss 18:4 19:17 discussed 16:11 31:12 31:15 discussion 5:18 9:9 10:25 18:13,17,20 27:18 54:6 56:15 57:8 59:11,22 60:15,17,21 discussions 5:4 distinctive 9:16 distraction 33:17distractions35:1distributed38:8document16:12,17documentary33:12documents25:9 53:5 doing 23:24 48:19 dollars 29:5 30:5 domain 56:1 Don 45:10 47:20 Donald 35:7 door 27:25 29:9,10 downtown 12:2 Drew 25:2 27:19,20 38:13 drive 26:20 drop 24:8duct32:11duty9:3 34:11,17,22 35:1 36:5,9 38:2 41:142:5,10 47:10 49:24 E e-mail 16:21 41:25 e-mailed 16:19 e-mails 23:15 25:16 39:22 earlier 18:24earn50:6Earth34:20easiest30:1easily52:10 57:13economic8:22 10:5 14:3 14:20,21 effective 57:13 effort 52:7 eight 21:13 52:22,24 either 10:2 elder 55:5 elderly 29:1 electrical 32:10 elements 8:21 elephant 23:2 else's 51:9emotion9:25emotional48:21emotions45:20emphatically12:6employees12:15 Employer 57:24 encumbrance 55:15 enduring 53:25 enemy 23:7 English 28:15 enigma 59:4 enjoyed 26:2 Item 6-B 07/23/19 76 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings Page 3 enter 51:2entire5:18entirely12:14 entirety 41:22 50:14 61:17 entitled 25:19,20 50:4 envisioned 44:25 equal 11:8 45:15 52:3,6 equivalent 42:23 especially 13:4,9 ESQ 3:4 essentially 7:5 40:14 42:3 established 8:18 estate 26:17 31:2 38:1738:18 44:8 48:2 53:553:12 58:14,19,2459:9estimated 58:16 et 9:2 59:8,12,23 evaluate 10:1 evening 7:18 8:7 11:9 15:12 16:15 35:4 38:10 everybody 43:7 everyday 29:24 evidence 33:15 36:11 60:24 ex 4:21 exactly 24:2 example 10:4 14:3 23:827:13,14 44:21examples9:21 45:4,8exceptional36:13excluding62:5 exercising 43:16 exert 50:17 existence 57:25 expanded 54:14 expecting 42:20 expensive 23:23 experience 9:14 41:10 42:7 44:3 expert 50:17 60:7 expired 19:9 explained 41:15 explore 42:5expressly57:25exquisite35:20extensive9:9,14 10:5,25exteriors54:16 extremely 47:12 eye 17:8 F face 16:3 fact 12:23 32:15 38:1538:21 39:1 54:1256:24,25 58:12,16,2559:24facts34:12 36:24fair6:6 52:6,7 57:24 false 51:3 family 24:25 25:2,3,24 26:6,10 30:18,18,25 30:25 35:14 50:4,7,9 50:23 57:15 famous 12:22 35:19 far 35:16fate33:20,22father30:19 50:24 fear 54:22 features 62:8 February 32:18 feel 5:22 6:6,9 18:4 24:24 25:19,19 60:9 feeling 48:21 feet 31:23,24 32:17 felt 55:13 fence 28:6 fences 53:23 field 9:20fight25:12file1:23 40:4 55:2filed39:3 40:12files25:9filing55:7 final 39:24 45:9 financial 9:8 11:13 30:4 30:17 41:4,14 42:5 find 27:23 51:2 55:1 58:12,20,23 findings 60:2,4 61:16 finish 33:4 finished 51:17 finite 40:22 fire 38:11 first 10:19,21 17:4 30:2035:11 51:20 53:158:15fit25:13 26:3five7:24 8:16 9:6 19:236:12 52:21 60:4 61:23 fixed 32:13 60:20 fliers 26:13 Floor 3:5 focus 8:10 focusing 12:4 folks 6:12 19:19 follow 40:22 46:11 56:14 57:22 follows 8:2 60:17 foot 31:20football49:5force12:7 14:14 30:1239:8forced 27:2foreclose60:15 foregoing 64:7,12 forth 12:3 18:14 60:25 62:9 64:8 fortunately15:11 forward 7:12 14:4 19:21 22:14 59:10 60:5 fought 47:25 51:15 found 25:9 29:17 56:10 four 22:9 35:9 45:3 Fourth 3:4 frames 7:19 Frank 37:21,25 45:2 frankly 25:6 Freddie 37:9Freddy37:9free16:13 34:16,2151:14,14 59:6 freedom 28:19,21 50:4freedoms50:3 friend 47:24 49:22,23 friends 22:12 23:16,25 24:1 front 39:17,19 43:9 48:12 frozen 40:14 full 25:4 30:10 fully 39:5,12 fully-informed 39:6 fundamentally 14:16 fundraising 29:14 further 7:23 64:14future56:11 G game 11:18,19 15:17 garage 62:6 gardens 35:22 Gee 30:15 33:10,11,11 genealogy 13:7 general 58:21 generally 16:11 18:1619:12 21:17generate55:24generated14:15generation35:10 Genser 4:22,24 6:8 10:16,17 11:1 15:19 15:20,23 20:14,23,24 21:24 62:20,21 gentleman 46:23 47:9 51:12 George 59:1 getting 23:19 49:1 give 15:15 16:14 17:20 45:15 53:14 given 13:25 gives 35:17giving42:22 43:1glad15:7go14:2,4 15:2 17:1225:4 43:19 45:10 46:20 47:17 48:11,12 51:20 53:23 54:16 God 51:13 goes 29:20,25 going 6:13 15:9,13,14 16:12,16 19:16 24:6 24:20 27:10 29:18 30:8 32:12 37:20 43:15 45:7 47:10,11 47:24 48:9 49:13,15 51:22 55:6 57:23 60:23gold41:20good6:3,11 7:18 8:711:9 27:24 29:4 35:436:4,5 45:25 51:22 56:11,23 57:7 62:10 gorgeous 35:25 gotten 23:6 54:6 government 43:16 51:8 Grace 36:18 granddaughter 35:8 grandfather 35:7,12 36:1,19 37:1 grandkids 31:2,8 grandmother 36:17 great 35:8,11 36:3 37:1 43:6 greatest 34:20 Green 5:9,10,14,16 20:25 21:1 60:12 62:22,23 grounds 26:8 growing 44:12 guess 11:6 22:22 58:25 59:16 guest 27:14 62:6 H hair 38:11 half 37:15 58:15 Hall 28:11 35:6 Hampshire 50:24 hand 11:11 hands 15:12 20:12 happen 32:2 48:15 happening 31:10happens23:5 30:5 32:1432:20 36:22happy10:15 56:12 57:258:22hard24:13 29:15 46:10 hardship 10:6 14:3,20 14:21 harmed 30:3,5 harmful 13:9 Harvard-educated 38:16 48:1 health 47:14 48:19,20 hear 19:19,21 41:24 47:1 57:19 62:10,14 heard 21:20 27:18 28:17 28:23 35:13 45:20 48:6 53:13 55:13,1961:11hearing 1:25 2:16 5:156:24 8:9 10:19 16:1816:18 17:16,24 18:3 23:21 45:14 52:8 64:3 64:5,22 hearings 34:6 36:14 heat 50:11,13,22 heavily 9:24 height 41:19 held 5:20 Hello 22:15 49:21 help 34:13 helpful 9:8 10:22 11:1 helping 54:25 hereunto 64:16heritage8:25 54:5 55:1herring58:18Hi24:20 37:11hidden28:24 high 10:8 29:3 higher 44:19 highest 10:7 highly 11:15 Hildebrandt 42:18 43:21 43:22,23 hired 23:23 historian 58:9 historic 8:24 10:9 23:24 27:1,18 30:6 40:4 41:17 45:25 50:16 historical 9:11 11:24,24 37:2 40:8 44:5 47:8,12 47:13,13,15,17 48:22 48:25 historically 13:2 history 8:23 10:12 35:15 37:16 46:17 58:23 59:7 61:8 hit 42:9 hold 32:11holdings38:17home3:2 22:21 23:1,1023:23 24:8 25:6,20,2225:24,25 26:9,19,2126:22,24 29:25 30:331:1,15,20,23 32:2035:17 36:18 37:20 40:23 44:23 50:23 55:21,21,25,25 homeowner 39:10,13,15 39:17,19 40:12 homeowners 25:12 27:2 38:6 homes 9:15 25:13 31:5 32:15 37:24 38:3 44:4 44:18 54:14 56:22 honor 27:20 honored 45:24honoring23:11hope22:11 30:22 42:1346:11,12 51:15 56:957:3Hope's 44:22 hopefully 56:1 hoping 14:5 24:8 hopped 28:6 horrible 16:3 46:5 house 8:16 22:17 23:24 27:14,24 28:5,20 29:5 29:7,9,12 30:1 32:8,17 34:6,9,24 35:2,22 39:19 41:9,11,22 42:3 43:3,7,11 44:24 45:2 48:9,12 49:3,8,10,1349:14,15 50:20,2453:21,25 54:1 55:5,1155:15 56:4,8,25 57:257:18,18 62:6houses29:24 32:12 33:20 47:13,17 59:2 housing 42:8 47:14 57:25 58:1 Howard 25:2,9 27:19,19 38:13 47:23,24 huge 29:8 41:13 human 51:6 humanness 30:23 husband 49:25 I idea 12:7 27:24 54:11 identity 13:19 37:2 illegal 58:3,12 image 44:2 imagine 46:7 Item 6-B 07/23/19 77 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings Page 4 immediately 42:1immigrant28:16impartial5:23 6:6 important 11:23 13:4,13 33:20,21 44:11 46:25 47:2,6,12,14 60:7 importantly 29:19 improvements 8:20 inaccuracies 26:15 inanimate 26:25 incentives 9:10 include 56:18 62:3 included 36:5 income 14:15 income-producing 14:7incorporate62:8increase26:18incredible37:1Independence59:5 independent 8:13 individual 40:8 individuals 44:12 45:4 industrial 48:2 information 11:14 54:8 57:20 informed 11:14 39:10,12 55:10 ingest 26:15 initial 7:24 17:4 19:1 injustices 24:25 Innis 45:2input18:14,21 21:9inside23:4 29:25 50:20instance31:22instances52:13 instrument 15:24 insurance 30:4 integrity 10:9 27:13 47:5 intelligent 48:4 intended 22:6 intent 44:24 45:16 intention 55:10 intentional 38:25 intentionally 38:12 interest 37:19 43:18,18 55:24 interested 43:11 64:14interference25:14 26:3interiors54:15intervene55:1inventory40:8 invested 26:5 48:2 investors 44:15 invite 50:10,15 invited 50:15 involved 6:3 11:13 irritate 15:6 issue 6:6 35:13 43:9 47:11 53:1,2,18 issued 40:14 issues 9:25 10:2,18 item 4:16,19 7:1 J Jacobson 23:21 24:6 Jacobson's 32:20 Jefferson 59:1,4 Jerry 45:10,13 Jewish 13:7,8 28:1646:4,5job36:14 42:14 John 7:9 27:19 28:10 33:14,24 34:1,13,14 34:18 35:9,23 36:1,4 36:13 37:23 44:22 JON 3:3,4 July 64:17 jump 26:23 June 1:18 2:15 4:1 61:17 K K 1:24 2:16 64:5,21 Karen 37:10 38:4 keep 14:9,10 46:10 47:17 keeps 39:15 kick 4:22 kids 31:2,7 kill 23:1 kind 22:15,24 47:8 48:21 53:15,15 55:2,20knew47:23 55:4,5know6:12 11:16 13:1322:24 23:19 24:2527:5 28:18 29:4,1530:21 32:12 33:19 34:15 35:16 38:24 42:7 45:18,19 46:21 47:13,16 49:7,21,25 52:8 53:22 54:13,14 54:19 55:15,16 57:14 57:20 58:4 59:3,4,15 Knowing 9:12 knowledge 9:15 29:11 29:17 40:5 known 24:2 25:1 27:16 43:2knows 43:7 57:11 L La 28:11 36:7 44:21 56:25 Lachman 45:10 46:19,21 ladder 28:7 laid 10:18 land 9:18 24:9 31:23,24 31:25 55:14landlocked31:19landmark4:4,7,8,10,158:12,18 9:4,10,19,1910:2,4,22,24 13:2,11 13:22 14:4,22 15:2 28:21 29:6,8,18 30:7 30:11 34:8 36:15,21 38:2,13 40:24 41:3,9 41:10,16 42:7,12 43:11,13,24 44:6 45:21,22 46:3,14 47:7 48:10,17,22 50:18 51:4,12 54:1 55:2,17 59:12,14,18,24 60:1 62:2,4 landmarked 14:14,2332:4 37:22 48:3,754:13 55:12,25 56:956:22 59:2 landmarking 31:3,17,2136:12 44:17 45:19 46:1 48:15 51:10 59:20 61:5 landmarks 1:1 2:1 4:11 7:23 13:1 17:17 25:5 25:14,18 26:4,7,12,15 27:3 36:8 37:17 40:23 54:2,8,19 55:23 Landmarks'7:22 landscape 10:12 53:24 language 28:15 Lara 7:18 8:7,8 10:20 11:4 52:18,25large43:15larger42:13Larson30:15 35:3,4,8Lautner44:22 law 3:3 39:24 61:10 laws 40:1 lawyer 23:22 28:17 48:1 lawyers 23:23 learn 40:4 learned 13:5,8 15:9 leave 31:1 39:17 45:7 left 46:1 48:6 legacy 23:11 27:21 legal 57:12,19,20 legitimate 59:23 Lemlin 42:18,19 45:1656:14lengthy8:9let's 50:20 59:2letter36:1 38:10,14 57:4 letters 56:16,22 level 10:7,8 lie 24:5 lies 26:13 life 30:5 33:14 38:18 43:4 50:5 lifetime 38:21 light 41:16 limit 13:16 47:18 limited 24:14 50:11,22 54:13 limits 15:5 41:19line47:22 49:23 50:556:8list40:7listen5:17 listening 30:21 literally 23:7 literature 27:22 little 22:16,24 45:18 57:9 live 24:22,23 29:1 35:10 37:14 44:16 49:7 50:21 57:15 lived 27:10 35:19 36:17 49:3 50:2 51:1 56:6 57:16 living 23:3 27:11 49:18 Lloyd 37:21,25 45:2 location 44:20 Locke 37:10 38:4,5 long 12:24 55:20long-time 26:16 44:4longer55:6longstanding 19:23 look 11:21 12:19 17:830:23looked12:20 46:23 61:19 looking 13:14 55:18 looks 37:9 42:10,10 Los 34:19 37:18,24 53:4 53:14 56:18 58:17 loss 49:6 lost 20:1 29:10 lot 28:3 30:22 31:5 43:6 46:22 49:11 51:22 59:11 loved 25:24 35:18,21loving23:9low31:14 41:13 M Maaske 1:24 2:16 64:5 64:21 Macy's 12:2 Main 2:12 maintain 4:9 28:2 50:17 major 41:18 59:4majority20:11 21:22maker's 62:2making6:7 23:12 39:15man48:4 50:6 mansion 29:8 Marcia 11:10 15:4,15 25:4,16 27:19 29:15 31:13 39:2,5 50:12,15 51:21 55:9 Marion 27:14 market 44:11 marketing 9:15,19 MARKS-BARNETT 52:8 MARSHA 1:6 Mary 49:20 massive 55:22math59:16matter2:6 5:6,13 8:1012:25 15:25 23:543:23 52:21 mean 22:22 32:10 54:9 57:17 meaningless 33:17 42:9 means 10:23 40:24 meet 10:22 31:12 41:3 meeting 4:17,17 5:17 6:25 10:21 13:6,16 42:4 45:7 meetings 37:18 meets 4:14 8:16 60:4 Melanie 30:15 35:3,7 member 4:24 5:5,10,196:1,19 22:2,5 41:642:20members 26:20 33:1934:11,25 membership 6:2 memo 7:2 Memorial 34:19 36:7 memos 26:14 mentioned 10:17 merits 8:12 10:2 Mesa 56:25 mess 50:9 met 9:8 10:17 13:21,25 36:11 39:22 61:6 Mi 45:10 46:19 Mike 31:11,12 37:10 40:20,21 Mike's 31:15,23 million 29:5 42:9 49:10 millions 30:4 Mills 9:11 31:13,15 41:11 mind 43:5 60:6 mine 25:25 47:24 minor 7:3 41:18 minute 33:7 37:9 minutes 7:21,24,25 19:219:2,18 20:17 21:1221:13 22:2,13 24:1951:19 52:11,18,20,2252:23,24minutia47:13 Miramar 45:22 misguided 53:7 misleading 26:12 misrepresentation 38:25 misrepresented 38:12 missed 11:18 missing 15:16 misunderstanding 54:10 misunderstood 23:18MIZOKAMI6:23 19:2320:19,21,23,25 21:2,462:16,18,20,22,2463:1modifications 28:9 41:18 modified 25:21,23 61:16 modify 41:21,22 mold 32:9 moldy 50:12 moment 59:19 moments 28:23 Monday 1:18 2:15 4:1 money 31:7 44:14 49:11 49:16 50:6 Monica 1:2,9,17 2:2,133:5 4:1 5:10 8:8 27:1130:9 35:6,10 37:1438:11,19 39:6 45:1446:18 53:4 57:1659:18 Monica's 27:13 Montana 56:19 months 5:3,22 6:3 mortar 30:24 mother 50:25 motion 20:14 22:4 60:5 60:11,17,19,20,24 62:2 move 6:21 9:4 19:21 20:16 21:23 24:17 42:11 56:11 59:1060:5moved 21:11moving7:12 12:7 56:15multiple36:24municipal31:9 Item 6-B 07/23/19 78 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings Page 5 municipalities 59:17museum48:10museums47:15 mushroomed 44:10 N name 11:9 12:5 27:928:18 29:15 33:1137:11 43:17,22 45:446:7 64:16named50:16nationwide33:13 native 28:15 Naturally 44:6 nature 27:19 necessary 55:2 need 16:15,18 17:16 18:5 20:9 24:24 26:24 27:12 32:13,13 40:10 46:25 52:9,22,25 62:10 needs 17:22 negative 44:2neighbor23:22 27:2329:6,7,9neighborhood 29:456:19 57:17neighbors15:9 30:22 51:7 54:22 neither 5:3 56:23 never 5:12 6:19 27:17,18 33:22 35:13 45:25 57:15 new 14:1 16:25 17:2 39:25 45:6 50:24 56:1 59:14,14 newsletters 26:14 newspaper 22:20 29:18 niche 44:10night11:17no-brainer 60:6noble9:1noise35:1nominate23:23 nomination 10:10 22:16 57:1 Nominations 5:21 nonprofit 54:24 norm 53:5 normal 18:15 20:3 53:3 Normandy 47:25 North 56:19 note 7:2 9:23 56:16 noted 10:13 18:19 41:23 notifications 38:6notified40:7notions6:10nourished35:20nullified61:10number6:3 10:18 32:15 44:12 49:7 54:2 numbers 8:17 numerous 9:21 41:16 O O'Neil 24:18,18 27:8,9,928:14,15 Oak 37:20object26:24objections9:7 objective 6:9 objects 26:25 obligated 13:22 14:9 obscured 54:3 obscurity 53:20 obsolescent 50:14 obsolete 53:9 obviously46:2 occasions 38:23 39:21 occupied 12:12 31:1 occupy 12:17 offended 51:7offer44:3offered36:3offering21:16office16:21 officer 30:17 52:8 OFFICES 3:3 officially 36:15 okay 16:25 18:1,6,11,18 19:14 24:15 37:8,13 49:12,14 56:13 58:8 62:12 old 29:7 30:2 32:8,12 57:16 Once 40:11 opening 29:21 operated 14:11operates23:20opinion32:2 51:6opportunities58:1opportunity20:2 34:15 34:18 41:3 43:2 57:3 opposed 7:7 39:4 opposite 24:3 opposition 44:1 option 41:24 oral 4:18 16:13 17:19 35:15 60:25 order 4:9 6:13 7:22 8:2 17:21 18:25 19:10,11 20:10 ordinance 8:19 10:4 13:25 17:17 40:2345:19,21 47:8 59:24ordinances59:13,1860:1organization 54:24 organizations 56:17 original 7:7 60:19 out-of-the-air 42:8 outcome 55:16 64:15 outside 41:21 55:23 overall 41:21 overturned 59:16 overwhelming 36:10 owned 25:7,23 owner 3:2 4:20 7:1,20 8:1,3,4 10:18,22,24 11:7 14:18 17:16 18:8 19:1,3,6,24 21:12,13 21:18 23:5 24:1125:11 32:23,23 39:6,940:5,6,10 41:2,5,845:23 51:20 52:3,4 54:7 61:7owner's 9:6 19:7,2421:14 29:11 43:25 56:1 61:5 owners 9:12 26:17 34:9 42:23 54:20 55:18 56:2,22 59:1 owns 51:10 P p.m 2:14,14 4:2packet15:23 61:20 Paddy 37:11 page 29:11 pages 62:9 paid 29:3 Palm 44:23 paper 29:12 32:25 34:6 Papers 38:8 paragraph 17:6 parameters 54:22 parcel 4:8 10:11 31:19 40:23 41:23 62:3,4,4parents23:9,10,13 27:929:14,16parents'23:15Park37:20Parkinson7:10 9:5 10:1 10:6 11:25 12:4,7 13:12 23:11 30:15 33:12,14,24 34:1,3,13 34:14,18 35:3,4,7,8,9 35:23 36:1,13,18 37:23 43:5,24 46:8 53:11 55:5 59:7 61:12 Parkinson's 8:11 12:22 27:21 28:10 36:4,22 56:4 Parkinsons 35:10 43:10part4:6 10:12 15:1717:22,23 18:4 37:340:19 51:5 53:12 54:558:23,24 59:3,6 61:862:1 parte 4:21 partial 53:20 participate 43:19 particular 11:23 13:3 16:2,4 59:19 60:3 partnership 36:3 parts 41:21 pass 59:18 passed 26:17 49:4 50:25 passing 39:4 passion 44:13patched47:25pay30:10 32:3,5payment36:6PBS33:13peace29:2 peaceful 28:25 people 23:3 24:5 25:17 26:24 28:19 41:14 43:17,18 46:1,12 47:16 48:11 51:3 perceived 44:1 percent 28:2 31:3,8 49:7 49:11 58:16 perfectly 59:19,23 period 7:5 43:15 58:22 periods 7:9 peripheral 10:3 permanence 54:4 permission 22:23 29:11 29:17 permits 40:13 Pershing 34:15 person 12:13 26:13 39:23 40:4 45:1 51:10 person's 53:10 personal 34:4,5 35:14 43:10 54:6 56:5 personnel 25:6perspective59:25persuade51:3pertaining5:4phenomenal28:12 phone 23:15 photograph 48:8 photographs 61:19 photos 26:19 Pico 57:16,17 picture 22:21 pictures 22:18,19 place 5:18 25:1 29:2 43:7 59:19 64:8 plain 28:4 plan 41:19 planned 27:17Planning39:20please4:23 7:19 22:1324:18 25:24 30:1636:23 42:25 46:20 50:20 53:14 60:13 plumbing 32:10 50:14 50:22 plus 25:21 point 11:20 14:25 15:3 19:15 32:11 42:21 56:24 policy 30:4 political 8:22 49:5 pool 49:1 poor 51:6 portion 12:11position5:1,20,21 14:614:12 38:12 42:1possibilities41:23possibly24:8posterity36:16 postponement 15:8 powers 43:16 practice 20:4 52:17 53:17 preconceived 6:10 premises 12:16 51:3 prepared 61:23 presence 53:20,25 present 5:15,16 11:11 57:20 presentation 7:17,25 8:919:25 61:1presented4:13preservation8:14 44:1453:13 54:21preserve4:9 25:13 27:13 preserved 36:16 46:1848:23 50:2preserving23:11 27:21 49:18 pretty 45:23 46:10 prevalent 61:9 price 30:10 45:3 prices 29:3 44:19 pride 8:25 primarily 44:1 primary 17:3 62:2 print 16:21 printed 29:16 prior 4:25 10:19 Priority 41:19privacy22:24 35:20private26:2 41:2 43:1445:23 55:21,21,24,25privilege35:5 pro 5:24 6:16 11:19 18:1 21:2 29:6,8 51:24 60:22 61:25 62:24 probably 28:6 29:9 30:19 37:24 46:13,14 57:10 problems 27:25 28:3 32:8,9,10 procedure 14:20 procedures 46:11 proceed 6:13 18:19 60:20proceedings 1:16 2:1117:23 64:7,9,13process6:4 10:5 18:1630:23 39:13 40:9 58:3 productive 56:6 professional 29:23 38:18 professionals 8:14 profits 36:4 prohibits 57:25 project 47:7 propaganda 26:11 proper 50:13,13 properties 9:10,15,20 10:6 44:6,14,15 55:17 58:17 59:14property4:20 5:13 7:17:10,25 9:13,18 10:710:10,18,23,24 11:2212:9 13:11,22 14:7,8,8 14:9,12,13,14,16,22 14:25,25 15:3,4 16:1,4 17:5,16 25:6,7,11 27:1 27:17 28:2,9 30:6 31:14,15 33:22 36:15 37:21 39:1,6,7,9,10,16 39:18 40:5,6,10,13,14 41:4 43:8,10,14 44:2 45:23 47:9,18,19,22 47:23 48:3,5,8,11,18 48:22,25 49:18,22 50:6,7 51:3,4,9,11,1151:13,20 52:12 53:653:18 54:12,20 55:355:11,16 56:3,11,2059:11,20,22 60:3,7,10 61:4,6,7,20,21 Item 6-B 07/23/19 79 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings Page 6 proponents 60:19protect4:9 8:20 35:254:25 55:3 protected 37:4 55:11 protest 42:13 proudly 44:7 provide 7:3 provided 42:23 provision 13:20 psyche 13:9 psychic 48:21 public 4:13 8:4 12:25 15:1 16:16,18 18:14 18:22 19:16 20:17 21:9 22:2,5 25:21 26:226:20 29:20 43:18,1848:13,13,17,19 51:1756:17published 26:11,19 publisher 37:15 publishes 26:16 pulled 28:6 purchase 24:9 45:3 51:13 purchased 50:7 55:17 purchases 9:24 purpose 48:13,17,18 purposely 25:10 purposes 19:25 48:19 pursuant 4:15 61:15 purview 21:15push16:2put9:13 22:20 24:726:17,24 44:13 50:954:14 59:2 putting 50:5 Q qualified 42:6 qualities 55:18question11:22 32:2142:12 51:25 52:1questions6:14 7:13,1410:15 11:2 15:7,1817:11 18:7 27:5,6 37:6 40:16 56:13 57:5 quickly 6:24 32:16 quiet 28:25 29:2 quite 25:6 54:23 quote 12:10 27:20 quoting 8:19 R race 12:15 58:2 racial 53:2,3 58:12 racially 58:11,17 racism 16:3 46:4,5,6 58:21 racist 12:23 13:3 33:15 33:16 35:12 46:9 47:7 59:8 railroad 12:2 raise 11:11 15:12 20:12 ramp 47:25 ramshackle 50:9rare10:7 56:3rarely10:9 rational 38:9reach8:15read13:18 24:21 37:8 57:3 reads 26:13 ready 6:22 7:14 62:15 real 38:17,17 44:8 48:2 53:5,12 58:14,19,24 59:8 really 5:13 6:24 22:18,19 23:5 30:4 34:10 43:5 46:9 51:1,1 54:5,9 60:7,9 Realtor 44:4Realtors9:14 42:7 50:1655:19reason11:22 13:13reasonable54:7,13rebuilt49:8,14 rebuttal 7:25 8:5,6 11:6 19:2,4,5 20:3 21:9 22:3 24:12 42:20 51:18 received 25:16 36:25 recognize 27:11 54:25 recommend 10:10,14 19:20 52:21 recommendation 36:25 62:6 recommendations 7:1210:14 39:25recommended 20:1recommending9:3record6:17 12:25 15:2516:9 17:22,23 40:19 41:6 61:3,17 63:3 64:12 recorded 15:24 records 35:14 red 58:18 reducing 26:9 reevaluate 46:15 reflect 34:4 61:11 reflecting 7:7 reflects 58:21 refusal 36:6regard9:7 25:11regarding39:7,12regulations54:9,12Reich20:6 40:19 61:9Reisch20:5 21:25 22:9reiterate38:1related13:19 relating 13:17 relationship 57:2 relevant 11:15 remains 7:9 35:23 55:21 55:25,25 remarkable 61:21,21 remarks 38:9 remember 35:23 61:20 remind 8:19 reminded 37:19 removed 58:3 render 17:17rendering12:16renovation44:22renovations45:3 repeatedly 25:10replaced49:14 replies 39:22 report 6:14,22 7:4 8:15 9:23 10:14 44:22 46:3 60:5,25 61:16,17 62:9 reported 1:24 2:15 64:9 Reporter 1:25 2:16 64:5 64:22 REPORTER'S 64:3 reports 8:14 9:17 36:24 61:1 represent 8:21 representation 35:18representative11:8,1218:8 19:1,3,7,24 21:1432:22,23 39:23 52:14representatives8:3 52:5 52:12 represented 55:20 represents 23:1 34:6 request 4:19 7:1 27:1 37:23 42:19,21 requested 38:20 required 4:14 42:15 requirements 36:11 requires 17:17 research 4:12 40:9 researched 16:1 reside 28:20resided7:10residence4:6 7:8 8:119:5 10:1,7 26:2 27:131:25 32:4 36:2243:24 56:5 62:3 residences 9:24 29:20 resident 37:14 residential 14:7 residents 29:1 30:3 resigned 5:1,2,11,20 6:2 resources 40:8,9 respectful 28:25 Respondent 1:10 responsibilities 39:13 responsibility 34:17 rest 18:3restore45:5restoring44:17restriction12:9,23 13:316:2 46:24 57:14 61:7restrictions17:7 42:1554:15 57:9restrictive53:3 58:1,11 58:13,17 result 7:11 retirement 31:8 retraction 23:16,19 revealed 46:8 revelation 14:1 review 16:15,17 21:21 25:8 39:24 reviewed 9:11 61:4 revised 7:6 rich 29:3ridiculous 59:9right14:2 16:22 17:621:22 39:5,8 44:1145:12 58:4 59:14 rights 43:17 46:16 59:1259:22 rise 34:25 35:1 risk 26:18,18 road 2:7 4:5 5:5 40:25 robbed 30:2,3 rogdiamond@aol.com 3:6 Roger 3:3,4 11:10 Ron 45:1 roof 53:22 room 2:13 49:25 Rosenbaum 5:24,25 6:16,17 13:15 18:1,219:22 20:6 21:2,332:22 33:1 51:24 52:152:20 57:22 60:22,2361:25 62:1,24,25 Rosenbaum's 52:15 Rubin 45:10,12,13 ruins 45:5 rule 19:23 34:12 40:22 rules 7:22 18:25 19:10 19:11 20:10 45:17 52:2 ruling 59:17 running 14:24 Ruth 8:7 23:7,17 31:11 41:5 S sad 61:8 safeguard 4:10 8:23 safety 47:14 48:20,20 sake 45:6 Salazar 31:11 37:10 40:20,21,21 Salazar's 56:21 sales 9:21 San 36:17 49:9Santa1:2,9,17 2:2,13 3:54:1 5:10 8:8 27:11,1330:9 35:6,10 37:1438:10,19 39:6 45:1446:17 53:4 57:16 59:18 satisfy 61:22 save 31:7 44:16 saved 25:10 saving 29:9 55:14 saw 23:16 35:24 43:8 61:21 saying 52:19 says 12:10 46:24 SC 28:12 scan 29:24School49:2Scott24:18 27:8,9screen16:23second20:18 53:21secondary36:4 seconded 60:12 secretary 16:20 section 4:15 44:11 see 13:18 25:1,13 26:3 29:15 34:8 35:13 41:13 43:9,19 48:12 48:13,23 51:23 53:19 53:21,21,22Seeing7:16 seek 14:21,23 41:11 seen 15:3 22:18 28:5,8 48:9 sell 9:13 42:2 49:13 55:10 selling 43:12,13 sense 15:2 36:5,8 sensitivities 53:16 servants 12:15 services 12:16 set 60:25 62:8 64:8setbacks41:19setting10:12seven14:13shaking28:23Shala24:18 28:14 shaping 37:2 share 36:8 47:22 49:22 shared 41:10 sharing 40:18 shed 41:16 Shelby 1:24 2:16 64:5,21 shocked 38:24 shocking 36:19 short 53:19 shot 28:7 show 15:10 42:8 showed 25:10 29:12 shown 22:19,20side30:16sides39:17 45:20signed12:9,24 13:3significance7:6 9:1611:24,24 34:24 48:23 54:4 55:4 56:3,7 60:10 significant 10:8,10 38:3 40:24 significantly 25:21 similar 36:8 simple 20:10 simply 9:25 33:24 53:11 53:17 single-family 9:24 Sir 33:5 sister 35:21 site 27:18situation15:2 17:1situations51:2six8:16 13:14,17,18,2113:24 14:2,17 36:12 52:18 60:4 sixth 61:19 size 44:20 slave 59:1 slaves 59:6 Sloan 4:4 5:7,9,19 6:11 6:20,23 7:14,21 10:16 11:2,7 15:18 16:5,25 17:3,10 18:1,6,11,18 19:5,8,14 20:5,7,12,16 21:4,5,8,20 22:7,11 24:10,15,22 27:628:14 30:13 32:19,2133:2,5,10 35:3 37:6,1238:4 40:15,20 42:1742:25 43:21 45:9 Item 6-B 07/23/19 80 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings Page 7 46:19 47:20 49:2051:17,24 52:24 57:558:6 60:11,16,18 61:18 62:10,14 63:1,2 small 28:24 29:20 31:19 44:10 SMC 4:15 social 8:22 society 58:21 sold 29:5 49:10 sole 23:3 solved 48:14 somebody 13:11 28:6 31:6 51:2,9,13 52:13 sorry 21:20 24:10 28:2229:10 32:19 33:5 34:846:20 54:5sort13:15sorts43:16 sound 23:13 Southern 33:23,25 37:2 37:16,24 48:25 speak 6:15 8:3,3,4,5 11:8 15:9,13,16 18:23 18:24 19:3,4,8,9,21 20:2,2,2,17 21:10,12 22:1,13 24:21,24 28:10 33:7,8 38:5 42:20 43:2 46:20 47:7 47:21 49:24 57:9 58:10 62:15speaker19:18 20:1722:13 33:2 51:25speakers19:16 24:1630:14 33:6 42:16,17 45:9 55:14 speaking 11:12 15:14 19:15 32:23 35:5 41:8 52:14 special 37:19 56:7 specialized 9:20 specializing 44:4 specific 19:12 specifically 59:21 specify 18:25 speech 33:9 spending 45:5spent33:13 45:2spinned23:11spirit35:21spoken5:12 6:5 37:17 spotlight 27:25 Springs 44:23 square 31:20,23,24 32:17 34:15 stadium 34:19,20 staff 6:13,14,22 7:1,11 7:13,15 8:14 10:14 12:19 15:21 16:8 36:25 42:14 45:13 60:5,25 61:16,17 62:6 staff's 60:25 stairs 35:22stand34:3 51:23standard44:8 53:7,1153:17 58:14,19 59:8standing59:15 61:13 start 4:21 57:9 started 44:10 state 9:11,17 35:11 41:17 60:13 64:6 stated 59:21 60:3 statement 27:21 states 9:23 50:3 station 12:1,2 28:11 stature 12:22 status 41:16 stenographically 64:9 step 42:13 Stephan 33:11 Stephen 30:14 stick 45:17 stipulate 33:3stop14:6 24:7Store12:3story53:22stream14:15 street 2:12 3:4 16:22 25:20 27:24 28:1,5 31:16 40:22 43:9 48:9 49:8,9 stress 12:18 stressed 12:6 13:16 strictly 34:12 strong 36:5 strongest 34:7 structure 10:11 26:8 32:9 41:3 stuck 14:6studying33:14stuff22:24 47:15style34:4subject62:3 submissions 61:2,5 submitted 15:20 17:23 18:23 19:19 42:19 subscribed 64:16 Subsequent 10:20 subsequently 10:3 success 36:2 successful 54:21 successfully 55:17 suggest 19:17 suggested 42:6 45:16 suggestion 33:16supervision64:11support38:13 39:5,743:25 52:14 60:23,2461:23 supported 23:13 38:19 supposed 18:24 supposedly 42:9 Supreme 58:10 59:13 sure 20:13 21:18 31:5 35:23 52:5 56:16 surprised 16:2,8 surrounding 53:23 Suzanne 24:18,20 symbol 28:21 T take 6:13 8:4 11:21 14:12,14 17:8 26:7 30:12 31:3 37:19 38:1 43:16 45:23 48:8 50:24 51:6 55:2 taken 2:11 46:16,17 64:864:13takings59:12 talk 22:17 33:18 43:3 54:7 talked 47:9 49:6 61:10 tangible 35:17 tape 32:11 taste 34:5 tax 28:3 31:14,15 38:16 55:9 taxes 41:13 team 42:20,22 tear 29:7 32:7tearful45:20 46:16tell27:16 31:6 34:1251:7Tem5:24 6:16 18:1 21:251:24 60:22 61:25 62:24 tend 9:24 terms 6:6 52:11 60:2 terrible 12:21 36:21 terribly 61:8,9 terrified 28:16 testimony 4:13,18 8:4 17:20 18:3 56:21 60:8 61:2,11 64:9,12 text 16:17 17:21 thank 6:10,20,23 11:1,715:14 18:9,10 27:3,730:12,13,20 31:11,1233:1 35:2,5 37:4,738:3 40:17,17 42:1642:23 43:1,20,22 45:8 45:12,12 46:18 47:19 47:22 52:25 53:1 56:13 57:4 Thanks 10:15 theory 56:15 thing 18:21 39:19 43:4 47:14 53:6 59:7,10 things 22:17,21,25 41:18 51:22 56:23 58:18 think 7:21 10:9 11:4,14 13:15,25 14:16,1918:2 19:25 20:3 42:445:17,21,24 46:22,2446:25 51:10,21 52:352:25 56:11 58:8 59:260:6 61:2,5 62:7 thinks 27:24 Third 3:5 31:16 40:21 third-party 57:1 thirds 21:6 Thomas 59:1,4 thought 10:21 48:7 three 5:18,21 7:25 8:13 19:2,18 20:17 21:12 22:2,7,13 23:17 24:19 30:14 37:8,14 42:17 50:19 51:19 52:11,20tied13:2time7:16,19 8:1 10:2411:8,16 14:24 15:1015:15 18:19 19:5,921:9,17,19 24:10 25:22 29:25,25 32:11 32:19 33:4,8 36:14 37:4 40:15 42:15,15 42:23 43:15 45:15 52:3,4,6,9 55:20 57:7 58:22 59:3 61:19 64:8 64:13 times 23:17 31:25 43:4 44:21 45:3 title 16:9,10 53:8 today 6:7 11:14 14:1 15:22 16:20 27:11 34:14 35:24 41:10,2441:25 45:14 50:1253:16 61:19told11:21 12:8 23:1739:15,16,18,23 tomorrow 16:7,24 tonight 8:11 9:4,2511:19 15:16 24:134:23 35:6 40:22 41:7 42:11 43:23 61:8 torn 32:13,16,17 36:20 total 21:13 52:22,24 totally 21:15 53:3,9 touch 9:14 tough 30:21 town 36:20 tracked 25:10 tract 12:11 transaction 53:12 58:24 transactions 58:14,1959:9transcribed 64:10transcript1:16 2:11 64:7transcription64:11transition56:1 tree 45:22 trend 14:5 trespass 26:21 trespassed 39:1 trespassing 48:8 tried 9:7 54:6,7 trigger 55:7,22 trophy 23:1 true 24:4 27:22 34:2,23 38:15 64:12 truly 49:24 50:4try51:3trying23:22 49:2turn16:23turns12:18tusks23:2 two 5:21 21:6 22:9 34:6 36:13 39:17,20,21 49:11 56:22 two-thirds 20:9 type 59:18 61:6 types 60:2 typically 53:8 U unable 16:20 unanimously 38:7 unavailable 58:2 unaware 19:14 uncommon 44:19 understand 10:23 25:25 34:23 45:16 46:13 52:15understanding 21:2522:4 57:24 unfair 14:16 28:4,13 unfortunately 42:4 61:9 unfounded 28:13 46:6 54:23 Union 12:1 28:11 unique 37:3 48:14 53:6 United 50:3 untouched 39:18 untruths 26:16 unusual 19:13 update 40:8upheld59:13upholding42:14urge13:4,12USC49:2use12:21 17:4 41:17 43:19 usually 24:6 44:7 V vacant 50:8valuable44:21value9:18 23:20 24:826:9 27:12 31:4,2532:6 44:2,5 49:6 51:9 55:14 valued 35:19 various 56:17 vast 49:16 vehemently38:21 view 16:16 25:21 54:17 viewed 27:17 viewpoint 38:25 views 57:20 vigorously 38:21 Vincente 36:17 49:9 visibility14:25 53:1854:3visible 15:1 25:20visiting37:20visitors29:21,22,23 30:6 visits 55:22 vocally 38:22 voice 20:8 voided 53:9 volunteer 47:16 vote 13:12 20:7,8,9 21:20 62:15 votes 22:8,9,10 W wait 11:6 18:13,16 30:16 37:8 waive 33:8 walk 50:11,20 wall 53:20,21 want 6:17 7:2 15:5 19:21 21:16 22:22 23:2,4,4 24:5 26:8 27:25 30:10 31:11 32:3,7 33:18 38:7 42:2 44:3,16 46:2 47:1,6 51:5 54:2355:11,12 56:15 59:10wanted6:8 14:24 22:124:1,3 28:24 31:1 Item 6-B 07/23/19 81 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 Atkinson-Baker, Inc. www.depo.com June 10, 2019 Transcript of Proceedings Page 8 34:12 48:3,5 49:1758:4wanting 24:7 wants 16:22 20:2 26:25 32:5 47:15 49:16 war 48:1 Washington 59:1 wasn't 5:16 14:12 way 6:4 11:17 14:10 15:1 15:2 20:13,14 22:25 25:13 34:10 38:19 55:22 59:3 60:19 64:14 we'll 33:3,8 42:12 we've 11:19 12:4 16:11wealthy9:21 44:1250:25website 39:14week's 44:21 weight 16:14 17:20 41:20 53:15 weird 45:18 welcome 17:19 welfare 47:14 well-founded 27:15 well-thought-out 38:9 went 15:5 40:3 41:25 white 12:14 28:20 Wicker 24:18,20,20,23 William 42:18,25 Wills 36:18windfall41:14window50:19wipe42:3wish9:12 34:10 47:20 55:23 wishing 62:15 witnessed 25:4 woman 50:23 51:1 wonder 38:14 wood 2:7 4:5 5:5 8:12 25:19 27:10 32:15,16 35:17 36:11 37:3,15 37:19 38:6 49:9 56:20 Woods 45:10 47:20,22 49:20,21 word 54:23words14:10work36:4,5,7,13 43:653:13 55:20 56:4worked50:4 51:11 54:20 working 44:8 50:5 works 28:10,12 world 30:10 55:23 worms 29:21 worrying 46:16 worse 26:21 46:7 worth 9:18 41:20 wouldn't 46:8 wounded 47:24 wraps 46:10 Wright 37:21,25 45:2 written 4:18 54:8 wrong 24:6 31:20 33:8 44:11wrote23:10,18 33:1239:21 40:2 59:4www.depo.com 1:22 X Y year 5:2,11 7:5 25:4 49:11 years 14:11,13 25:2,8,22 26:5 27:10 30:19 31:1 32:8 33:13 34:19 35:12 36:18 37:17 49:3,19,22 50:8 56:6 59:16 York 59:14,14 Z 0 1 1 8:17 60:14 61:15 1.25 42:2 10 1:18 2:15 4:1,4 7:21 33:13 50:8 100 34:19 105 36:17 10th 61:171231:25 38:51629:2016852:1217173:418ENT-0276 1:7 2:7 4:5 19 62:9 1920 7:6 1920s 53:4,14,16 1921 7:6 1935 7:8 1940 58:16 1948 58:11,15 61:10 1966 25:8 1978 59:13 1984 36:20 1989 31:1819th64:16 2 2 21:24 2,500 31:20 20 31:3,8 49:6,11 62:9 2012 31:17 2015 32:18 2019 1:18 2:15 4:1,17 13:7 64:1720th58:152132:1321840:7250431:16 40:21 288-3376 1:22 3 30 13:5 25:2 37:173103:63530:19 4 4 21:24 42:9 4,000 32:17 4,200 31:24 40 28:2 29:54149:10 59:164549:22 452-6643 3:6 480-002-005 62:4 5 5 8:17 60:14 61:155325:8,2254,000 31:235527:10 31:1 6 60 49:3 65 17:18 35:12 7 7:00 2:14 4:2 8 8 13:6 15:10 8:30 2:14 80 58:16 800 1:22 808 1:7 2:7 4:5 5:5 8:11 25:19 36:11 37:15 821 32:16 8th 4:17 5:17 6:25 11:16 15:8 9 90401 3:5 90s 55:6 95 32:8 956100 4:15 Item 6-B 07/23/19 82 of 82 Item 6-B 07/23/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:17 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems; Katie E. Lichtig; Anuj Gupta; David Martin Subject:FW: Item 6 A 808 Woodacres Road Council‐ Please see the below email regarding the 808 Woodacres appeal. Thanks, Stephanie From: Nancy Coleman [mailto:n.coleman1@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:05 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Item 6 A 808 Woodacres Road Mayor Davis and City Council Members, The NOMA Board supports the denial of the Appeal at 808 Woodacres Road.?? This is a valuable home that deserves Landmark status. ?? The Council should Deny??Appeal??19ENT-0226??of??Landmark Designation 18ENT-0276,??and approve the decision of the Landmarks Commission??to??designate??the single-unit residence located at 808 Woodacres Road as a City Landmark and??the property commonly known as 808 Woodacres Road as an associated Landmark Parcel??in whole??based on the findings provided in the staff report. The NOMA Board Nancy Coleman, Chair 1 Vernice Hankins From:Clerk Mailbox Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:31 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Item 6A tonight, Deny Appeal of 808 Woodacres From: Mike Salazar <mikedsalazar@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 4:54 PM To: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Item 6A tonight, Deny Appeal of 808 Woodacres August 13, 2019 RE: ITEM 6A,808 Woodacres Appeal Opposition The evidence is not only overwhelming, but it is concrete: The Parkinson House at 808 Woodacres is a significant local, state and national landmark. Our Landmarks Commission endured much wrath and “disruption” strategy to get to their local-level designation – now being appealed - in approving the property as a city Landmark. As the commission was on more than one occasion and from many angles, you will be tested tonight as well. But not on the meritsof this nomination, as the findings for designation are rock-solid. Please reject this Appeal to “un”-nominate this property, as no credible evidence exists to do otherwise. Rise above the din of the ‘doomsday scenario’ of supposedly having to shoulder “the burden” of a Landmark property. You will hear (likely with a lotof hyperbole and disruption) that landmarking this property “takes” away something significant from this property owner’s land. Yet the Supreme Court made it clear decades ago that landmarking does no such thing. Good friends and good neighbors of the of the owner and property, respectively have been seemingly whipped into a frenzy that falsely portrays Landmark status as a taking of ‘something’ from an owner, all the while ignoring positive financial and time (time is money) benefits only Landmark status affords, such as: - Retaining the ability to remodel & update the interiors, make substantial improvements and additions. - Waiving of most plan check fees. - Priority plan check access and re-submittal priority (time is money). - Use of California Historic Building Code and ‘alternative’ solutions not afforded non-Landmarks. - Less-restrictive energy compliance and upgrades. - Consideration of many Major and Minor building code options and variances (all options can have a financial benefit). - Qualification for Mills Act tax relief for current (minimal direct value) and future (huge) owners. - Sales of a prestigious “architectural” properties can be marketed unlike most homes and any ‘tear down’ could ever be, and increase possibilities to reap financial benefits to seller. 2 I know what it means to have “responsibility” for a Landmark house. The Appellant will tell you their 95 year old Parkinson House is uniquelyoutdated and in need of significant work and updating. Yet they refuse to acknowledge this is typical of most 95-year-old structures, as is the case with our much older LandmarkCharles Warren Brown House: At 109 years old, it needs electrical upgrades, needs plumbing upgrades, has a poorly-functioning kitchen, an inadequate bathroom situation, no insulation, no AC, needs substantial exterior work (paint, shingle replacement and dry-rot repairs among them), has no garage or carport, is on a small lot, etc. Yet our house (and most Landmarks) retains great livability, and only gets more significant and valuableover time – a point the Appellant refuses to neither acknowledge nor investigate.I bring this ‘condition’ issue up because all this has been said for the much-youngerParkinson House in an attempt to ‘disrupt’ or shift discussion away from facts and benefits of Landmark status. Please listen and wade through the calculated “disruption” approach and deny this appeal. Mike Salazar, Architect 2504 3rdStreet, Santa Monica ‐‐ Mike Salazar The information contained in this e‐mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or is not the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or reply by e‐mail and promptly delete the message. Thank you. CITY COUNCIL HEARING August 13, 2019 808 Woodacres Road Appeal 19ENT-0229 808 Woodacres Road 18ENT-0276 Appeal 19ENT-0229 August 13, 2019 CITY COUNCIL HEARING August 13, 2019 808 Woodacres Road Appeal 19ENT-0229 808 Woodacres Road (Appeal 19ENT-0229 of Landmark Designation 18ENT-0276) §1920 Spanish Colonial | Italian Renaissance Revival §Architect: John Parkinson §R1 North of Montana Single-Unit Residential §Parcel Size: +/-54,000 SF §Application Filed by the Santa Monica Conservancy §Landmark Assessment prepared by OAC (City’s Historic Preservation Consultant) §Eligible for Designation Under Criterion 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 CITY COUNCIL HEARING August 13, 2019 808 Woodacres Road Appeal 19ENT-0229 Timeline of Events §September 11, 2018: Application Filed by the Santa Monica Conservancy §April 8,2019: Landmarks Commission Hearing (continued after partial discussion) §June 10, 2019: Continued Landmarks Commission Hearing Designation included Primary Residence + Parcel (Approved under Criterion 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) §June 12, 2019: Appeal Filed by Property Owner CITY COUNCIL HEARING August 13, 2019 808 Woodacres Road Appeal 19ENT-0229 Architectural Description Character Defining Features §Italian Renaissance Revival style elements: + Arched-Shaped Arcade w/ Recessed Logia + Ornately Glazed Te rra Cotta Frame of Main Entry §Spanish Colonial Revival features: + Building’s Asymmetrical Configuration/Varying Height Composition + Smooth Stucco Siding + Red Barrel Tile Roof & Overhang Details + Fenestration Pattern & Window Frames §Property Retains Sufficient Integrity / Historic Significance and Architectural Qualities CITY COUNCIL HEARING August 13, 2019 808 Woodacres Road Appeal 19ENT-0229 Historic Context: §Early example of residential development in the area that would later expand during subsequent years after its construction. §Purchased by Parkinson in 1913, 22-acre site was later subdivided into a new residential tract in 1946. §Residence in its siting on the property retains a strong sense of time, place, and spatial relationships that continues to convey its historic character as an estate-style property. John B. Parkinson | Architect §Designed more than 400 structures in the Los Angeles area, best known for civic, commercial, hotel projects. §By 1921, Parkinson was a well-established architect in the Los Angeles area with several large commissions. §Established around 1921, Parkinson & Parkinson designed notable and influential buildings in Los Angeles. CITY COUNCIL HEARING August 13, 2019 808 Woodacres Road Appeal 19ENT-0229 Appeal Statement §Appellant states the Landmarks Commission erroneously decided it could only consider the 6 Landmark Designation Criteria and could not consider other issues raised by the appellant. §Appellant objects to the findings and determination of the Landmarks Commission and objects to the designation because the residence is not substantially visible from the public right-of-way. The appellant asserts that the Commission ignored the issue of visibility of the residence from the public right-of-way, and that the visibility of the residence, or lack thereof, was not relevant to their decision. §Appellant argues that designation of the property would result in reduced property value and financial burden to appellant. Appellant further claims that designation of the property would constitute an unconstitutional taking without just compensation. §The appellant alleges that the Landmarks Commission was biased in its decision, and further deprived the property owner of procedural due process. CITY COUNCIL HEARING August 13, 2019 808 Woodacres Road Appeal 19ENT-0229 Landmark Designation Criterion: §Criterion 1: Exemplifies the early architectural and residential development history of the City. §Criterion 2: Has aesthetic and artistic values. §Criterion 3: Association with master architect John Parkinson (historic personage). §Criterion 4: Architectural style valuable to a study. §Criterion 5: Significant example of master architect John Parkinson. Recommendation §Staff Recommends Landmark Designation Approval: Primary Residence + Parcel CITY COUNCIL HEARING August 13, 2019 808 Woodacres Road Appeal 19ENT-0229 CITY COUNCIL HEARING August 13, 2019 808 Woodacres Road Appeal 19ENT-0229 Current Landmark Designation 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; 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.