Item 7-A
Council Mtg: 1/28/97 Santa Monica, CA
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Decision of the Landmarks Commission
Designating the Structure Located at 1127 6th Street as
a City Landmark (Case No. LC-96-CA-002). Applicant:
City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission
Appellant: Wilshire Riviera Equities, L.P.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council uphold the decision
of the Landmarks Commission designating the structure located at
1127 6th Street as a City Landmark. However, due to the
building's structural condition and to the procedural errors that
occurred in processing the landmark application, staff also
recommends that the Council authorize demolition of the property
without issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness. On October
14, 1996, the Landmarks Commission voted 6-0 to designate the
structure a City Landmark and did not authorize any demolition of
the structure. The property owner has appealed this decision
(Attachment A).
BACKGROUND
Landmarks Commission Action
The Landmarks Commission's review of this structure was initiated
by the property owner's filing of a demolition permit application
on April 19, 1996. Per the requirements of the City's Demolition
Ordinance, the Landmarks Commission reviews all demolition
permits for structures which are fifty years of age or older. A
sixty day hold is placed on these demolition permit applications
to allow adequate time to assess the building for potential
landmark status. Once a landmark designation application is
filed, the Landmarks Ordinance sets forth specific time frames
for the processing of such applications. Staff, in processing
this application, did not meet some of the required time frames.
The Commission reviewed the demolition permit for 1127 6th Street
at its regular meeting on May 13, 1996. Based on the Historic
Resources Inventory's evaluation that the building appears to be
individually eligible for local designation, the Commission
continued the item for further study. On June 10, 1996, the
Commission voted by its own motion to file a Landmark Designation
Application. The City's architectural historian was directed to
research the structure to determine its merit as a landmark, and
to prepare a preliminary evaluation for the July 8, 1996 regular
meeting. The actual application, therefore, was not prepared
until after the Demolition Ordinance mandated 60 day period.
In addition, the Landmarks Ordinance requires that the property
owner be notified of a landmark designation filing within 30 days
of application. In this instance, although the meeting's agenda
and minutes documenting the Commission's action were sent to the
property owner, no notice summarizing the action was sent.
The July meeting was canceled due to lack of a quorum, and this
item was continued to the August 12, 1996 meeting. The
Commission then reviewed the consultant's preliminary report,
determined that the application merited formal consideration, and
scheduled a public hearing for September 9, 1996. At this public
hearing the property owner requested a continuance, and the
Commission continued the item to October 14, 1996.
At the October meeting, the Landmarks Commission considered
testimony from the property owner and his assistant, attorney,
and architectural consultant. These representatives testified
that the structure was not worthy of designation, and that City
staff had not met the timelines required by the Ordinance in
processing the application. The property owner's written
objections to the designation are contained in Attachment B. In
evaluating the application, the Landmarks Commission addressed
only the architectural merits of the property, and not the
timeline requirements of the ordinance. The Commission found that
the subject property was representative of the shingle style
which migrated from the East Coast to the West Coast during the
early part of the Century, and therefore was a significant
building worthy of designation. Specifically, the Commission
found that the application met the requirements of three of the
six Landmarks Ordinance designation criteria: that the
shingle-style structure embodied an element of the architectural
history
of the City; that it had aesthetic interest as an example of
historic building craftsmanship; and that it is an established
and familiar feature of the local neighborhood.
Description of Structure
Constructed in 1905, the subject property is a two-story, wood
frame building on a brick foundation with a cross gable roof and
central chimney. The front-facing gable is elaborately
ornamented with shingling, and has been crafted to give the
profile of a gambrel. Similar shingle decoration is found on
each side elevation in a variety of patterns, including
fishscale, wave, diamond and cross-hatch. Narrow clapboard clads
the first story and rear elevation. A shallow flight of steps
leads to an inset entry porch supported by square posts. The
first floor projecting bay contains a double pair of
round-headed windows whose arches are divided by tripartite
mullions.
The second story, which appears to have been added to the
original one-story cottage between 1910 and 1920, features a
three-quarter closed porch and three-window group above the first
floor bay. The second story south elevation displays a
diamond-paned window. An original corner pilaster exists at the
northeast corner. A garage with a small residential unit add-on
is set on the rear of the property at the alley. Photographs of
the structure as well as the Landmark Designation Application are
contained in Attachment C.
Architectural Significance
When the original cottage was expanded into a two-story residence
in 1925, it was designed to reflect the elements of the American
Shingle style, a tradition which originated in seaside
communities in the northeastern United States. Essentially a
domestic style, the Shingle idiom incorporated features of both
the Queen Anne and Colonial Revival styles, such as ornamental
siding; porches on both first and second stories; sweeping roofs;
shallow eaves; and tripartite fenestration. The style's
flexibility and range of decorative possibilities made it a
popular choice for vernacular builders and carpenter/designers.
Architectural historian James Marston Fitch called Shingle Style
"a paradigm of domestic felicity," noting that these buildings'
confidence and lack of pretense were in contrast to the elaborate
and overdecorated homes of the world of high fashion and wealth.
Shingle houses and cottage builders used an open interior plan
and porches to create hospitable houses with interesting facades
which reflected the use of new technology in decorating and
woodworking that became available to carpenter-builders in the
last decades of the 19th century.
APPELLANT'S STATEMENT
The appellant states that this landmark designation appeal is
based on the following reasons. (Please note that each of the
appellant's reasons is indicated in bold text. Staff's analysis
follows each statement in regular text.)
1. The improvement does not merit nor does it qualify for
designation as a Landmark.
This application was prepared by a City-contracted architectural
historian. Research of the property found that the structure
merited landmark designation by meeting three of the Landmarks
Ordinance's six designation criteria. Only one of the six
criteria needs to be met to approve a landmark designation. The
criteria used to support the designation are:
1. The structure exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests
elements of the cultural, social, and architectural
history of the City in that its design, which features
ornamental shingle siding, first and second story
porches, sweeping roofs, shallow eaves, and tripartite
fenestration, reflects elements of the American Shingle
style, and remains one of the rare examples of such
found in the City. The American shingle style was an
architectural tradition that originated in seaside
communities in the northeastern United States. This
domestic architectural style migrated to the west coast
during the early 20th Century when the 1127 6th house
was constructed. As a representative example of the
idiom, this structure is an important contributor to
the architectural history of the City and its resort
cottage building heritage.
2. The structure has aesthetic or artistic interest or
value in that this indigenous American architectural
style incorporated features common to the Queen Anne
and Colonial Revival styes, specifically, the
strucuture's ornamental siding, porches on both first
and second stories, sweeping roofs, shallow eaves, and
tripartite fenestration. This ornamentation, such as
the variety of shingle patterns, including fishscale,
wave, diamond and cross-hatch patterns, was an original
artistic creation of the builder. Facade textures such
as this reflect the use of new technology in
decorating and woodworking that had become available to
carpenter-builders in the last decades of the 19th
Century.
3. It is an established and familiar visual feature of a
neighborhood in that the
structure is the only building on the block and
immediate vicinity which represents the vernacular
shingle design popular during the early 20th century
when this structure was built. This unique style makes
the structure easily identifiable and distinguishable
from the surrounding infill buildings in the
neighborhood.
2. Wilshire Riviera Equities, L.P. was not properly or timely
notified of the landmark designation application, as
required under Section 9.36.120 (a) of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code.
Section 9.36.120 (a) of the Code states that, "Within thirty days
of filing a landmark designation application, the property owner
and tenants of the subject property shall be notified of the
filing of such an application."
The Landmarks Commission filed the designation by their own
motion at the Landmarks Commission meeting on June 10, 1996. A
copy of the minutes of this meeting, along with the Agenda for
the upcoming meeting were mailed to Wilshire Riviera Equities on
July 3, 1996. However, no letter notifying the property owner of
the filing was sent. The City Attorney has prepared an Opinion
regarding the appellant's claims of procedural error, which is
included as Attachment F.
3. The landmark designation application was not properly or
timely filed.
The appellant claims that the application was not filed by June
18, 1996 (the time required by the Ordinance). The Ordinance
language (Section 9.36.120(a)) reads that "the Commission may
file an application for the designation of a Landmark on its own
motion." This was accomplished by the Landmarks Commission on
June 10, 1996. A sub-consultant of the City's architectural
historian was present at the meeting on June 10, and advised the
Commission that work on the application could be completed in
time to return to the next month's meeting with a preliminary
report. However, the physical act of completing the paper work
for the application, and the logging of the paperwork into the
City's computer system did not occur until after a complete
report had been generated by the City's consultant.
Staff is clarifying the internal procedures to ensure that when
future applications are filed by motion of the Commission, the
application will be entered into the computer system and a draft
application prepared within the 60 day period allotted by the
Demolition Ordinance.
4. Notice of the Public Hearing was not published in a daily
newspaper of general circulation within the time frame
required under Section 9.36.120 (d) of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code.
Section 9.36.120(d) sets forth a noticing time frame of "not more
than twenty days and not less than ten days prior to the date
scheduled for a public hearing" to provide notice of the public
hearing in the newspaper. Notice was published in The Outlook on
August 31, 1996 for the September 9, 1996 hearing. The notice
should have been published no later than August 30, 1996 to meet
the minimum ten day notice required. See Attachment F, City
Attorney Opinion.
5. Wilshire Riviera Equities never received notice that the
subject property had been placed on the City's Historic
Resources Inventory or that a hearing was held on August 12,
1996 regarding the subject property, nor did it receive a
copy of the staff report until September 9, 1996.
No notice regarding the original placement of the building on the
City's Historic Resurces Inventory in 1993 was required, as this
is only an informational document. A copy of a memorandum from
the City Planning Division was mailed to Wilshire Riviera
Properties, L.P. on May 13, 1996 regarding the appellant's
demolition permit application. This memorandum stated that the
Landmarks Commission would be receiving a copy of the
application, that the property was identified in the City's
Historic Resources Inventory and that the demolition permit might
be approved if no application for Landmark Designation was filed
by June 18, 1996.
The August 12, 1996 meeting was to determine whether the Landmark
Designation application merited consideration, and was not a
public hearing requiring that notice be provided. A copy of the
June 10, 1996 minutes, and July 8, 1996 meeting Agenda were
mailed to the applicant which showed that the item was being
reviewed by the Commission, however, the July meeting was
subsequently canceled, and the item continued to August. The
staff report recommending that the structure merited landmark
designation was received by the property owner at the September
9th hearing. However, at the appellant's request, the hearing
was continued until October 14, 1996, so that the appellant had
adequate time to review the staff report.
6. The subject improvement is a public hazard and beyond
repair.
This building was yellow-tagged by the City after the Northridge
Earthquake in 1994. The applicant has submitted reports to the
Landmarks Commission from two Civil Engineers (M.Z. Foroutan and
Nabih Youssef & Associates) which both state that the integrity
of the structural systems of the buildings were compromised as a
result of the earthquake. These reports state the damage as
follows: unreinforced masonry (URM) chimney cracked at first and
second floor; portion of chimney above roof collapsed; first
floor plaster wall finishes at boiler flue extensively damaged;
URM boiler flue vulnerable to collapse; termite damage; opening
in joints in wood siding; extensive mortar loss at URM
foundations; and shifting and settling of the floor/cracks in the
wall finish at the door frame.
A second report prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates submitted
after the appeal filing provides further information on the
nature of work required to repair the structure. Specifically,
extensive removal of existing original building elements,
including the exterior siding and chimneys, would be necessary in
order to repair the structure. Further, given the building
condition and risk of collapse, it is likely few original
materials could be saved in the repair process, resulting in a
reconstructed, rather than a restored, building. The structural
report is contained in Attachment G.
The Landmark Commission's decision to designate a property as a
Landmark was based on criteria including social, aesthetic, and
architectural merits. The physical condition of the building was
not discussed by the Commission at the time of designation.
Although Planning staff believes the structure is meritorious as
a landmark and should be so recognized, given the excessive
structural damage, building repair could not be accomplished
without destroying the building's character defining exterior
features.
CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS
Under the provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance, the City Council
has several options. First, the Council may uphold the decision
of the Landmarks Commission and designate the structure located
at 1127 6th Street a landmark based upon the Landmarks Ordinance
criteria contained in Section 9.36.100.
A second option allows the Council to uphold the appeal and
overturn the decision to designate the structure if it believes
that the criteria for designation were not met. Additionally,
the Council could concur with the Commission's analysis that the
structure merits designation, but still overturn the designation
due to the procedural errors identified by the appellant.
A third option is for the Council to uphold the landmark
designation, but authorize building demolition without requiring
the appellant to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Landmarks Ordiance Section 9.36.120(g) reads as follows:
The Commission shall have the power, after a public hearing,
whether at the time it renders such decision to designate a
Landmark or at any time thereafter, to specifiy the nature
of any alteration, restoration, construction, removal,
relocation or demolition of or to a Landmark or Landmark
Parcel which may be performed without the prior issuance of
a certificate of appropriateness pursuant to this Chapter.
The Commission shall also have the power, after a public
hearing, to amend, modify or rescind any specification made
pursuant to the provisions of this subsection.
In most circumstances staff does not recommend that this
provision be used since it significantly detracts from the very
protections that a landmark designation provides. However, given
the unusual circumstances involved here where the structure is
severely earthquake damaged and cannot be repaird without
significant removal of original building elements, and in light
of the procedural irregularities involved in processing the
application, Planning staff believes it is appropriate for the
Council to also consider actions that otherwise would be reviewed
through a Certificate of Appropriateness.
In addition, the Council should be aware of the Landmarks
Ordinance time constraints
related to appeals. Section 9.36.180(e) requires that the Council
issue a determination on an appeal no more than 30 days from the
date of the initial public hearing. The Council must, therefore,
render a decision on this appeal no later than February 27, 1997.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notice of this public hearing was published in The Outlook
Newspaper and mailed to all owners and residential and commercial
tenant of property located within a 300 foot radius of the
project at least 10 days prior to the hearing. A copy of the
notice is contained in Attachment D.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that City Council uphold the
decision of the Landmarks Commission to designate the structure
located at 1127 6th Street a City Landmark with the following
findings and then, pursuant to Landmarks Ordinance Section
9.36.120(g) authorize the building's demolition.
1. The structure exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests
elements of the cultural, social, and architectural
history of the City in that its design, which features
ornamental shingle siding, first and second story
porches, sweeping roofs, shallow eaves, and tripartite
fenestration, reflects the elements of the American
Shingle style, and remains one of the rare examples of
such found in the City. The American shingle style was
an architectural tradition that originated in seaside
communities in the northeastern United States. This
domestic architectural style migrated to the west coast
during the early 20th Century when the 1127 6th house
was constructed as a representative example of the
idiom, this structure is an important contributor the
architectural history of the City and its resort
cottage building heritage.
2. The structure has aesthetic or artistic interest or
value in that this indigenous American architectural
style incorporated domestic features common to the
Queen Anne and Colonial Revival styes, specifically,
the structure's ornamental siding, porches on both
first and second stories, sweeping roofs, shallow
eaves, and tripartite fenestration. This
ornamentation, such as the variety of shingle patterns,
including fishscale, wave diamond and cross-hatch
patterns, was an original artistic creation of the
builder. Facade textures such as this reflect the use
of new technology in decorating and woodworking that
had become available to carpenter-builders in the last
decades of the 19th Century.
3. It is an established and familiar visual feature of a
neighborhood in that the
structure is the only building on the block and
immediate vicinity which represents the vernacular
shingle design popular during the early 20th century
when this structure was built. This unique style makes
the structure easily identifiable and distinguishable
from the surrounding infill buildings in the
neighborhood.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Amanda Schachter, Senior Planner
Donna Jerex, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments (Available from the City of Santa Monica City Clerk's
Office):
A: Appeal Form
B: Letter Brief to Landmarks Commission
from Isaacs & Clouse dated October 11, 1996
C: Landmark Designation Application LC-96-LM-002
D: Public Notice
E: Landmarks Commission Excerpt Minutes: August 12, 1996 and
October 14, 1996 meetings
F. City Attorney's Opinion
G. Structural Report prepared by Nabih Youssef & Associates,
January 16, 1997
H. September 9, 1996 Landmarks Commission staff report
I. Landmarks Commission Designation Statement of Official
Action