Item 6-A

Council Mtg: August 26, 2003 Santa Monica, California

TO: Mayor and City Council

FROM: City Staff

SUBJECT: Appeal of a Decision of the Landmarks Commission Designating the Structure Located at 128 Hollister Avenue as a City Landmark (Case No. LC-03-LM-002). Applicant: City of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission. Appellant: Rosario Perry

INTRODUCTION

This report recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission designating 128 Hollister Avenue as a City Landmark. On June 9, 2003, the Landmarks Commission designated the structure a City Landmark. A representative for the property owner has appealed this decision. The appeal statement is contained in Attachment A. This item was continued from the July 22, 2003 City Council meeting.

DISCUSSION

Landmarks Commission Action

The Landmarks Commission filed an application nominating the structure on the subject property for Landmark designation on April 14, 2003. On June 9, 2003, the Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-1 to approve the designation. The Landmarks Commission staff report is contained in Attachment B.

Architectural Description

Built in the early years of Ocean Park development (around 1905), this house was one of six houses built along the south side of Hollister Avenue at that time, according to the Sanborn map of 1909. In scale, it is larger than the typical turn-of-the-century beach cottages that were being constructed in the Ocean Park area during the first decade of the 20th century. Styles erected in the neighborhood at this time included two-story American Foursquares, Craftsman bungalows, and a few Dutch Colonial-inspired residences. The subject property is an example of the American Foursquare style. The typical American Foursquare has two to two and one-half stories, a nearly square floor plan, and a blocky shape topped by a low pyramidal or hipped roof. Usually, a central dormer is in front and a three- or four-post front porch extends the full width of the house. The dormer and porch roof usually echo the hip form of the main roof. Such hipped roof dwellings were prevalent in southern California from the late 1890s through 1910. The beach cottage, and to a lesser degree the American Foursquare and Craftsman influenced dwellings, were once common in Ocean Park and enclaves still exist, particularly in the South Beach area. However, many of the residences reflecting these styles have been lost due to growth pressures and alterations. The context of the subject property reflects elements of the Ocean Park neighborhood’s period of significant development. The American Foursquare beach house is no longer a prevalent style, and few intact examples are left.

The features on the residence at 128 Hollister Avenue that remain and are typical of the style and period include the general scale and massing, the hipped roof with ornately shaped rafter tails, double-hung sash windows, front porch (now enclosed), and horizontal overlap wood siding. Though the subject property has been slightly modified over the years, it retains sufficient integrity to convey its architectural style and contribute to the neighborhood’s historical past and architectural heritage.

Building permits for this address are few and none date prior to 1943. Based on Sanborn map information, the front porch appears to have been enclosed prior to 1918. In 1959, the living area on the lower floor of the front house was repaired following an estimated $800 worth of fire damage.

Findings for Designation

The Landmarks Ordinance permits the Commission to designate a landmark if the structure under consideration meets one or more of six criteria. The Landmarks Commission found that the Foursquare structure at 128 Hollister Avenue meets three of the criteria (see FINDINGS, below). The criteria were met because the 1905 Foursquare structure is an intact example of the Foursquare style, prevalent at the turn of the 20^th Century and associated with the South Beach tract’s historic development. Furthermore, the two-story residence retains many of the character-defining features that are valuable to a study of this style and of Ocean Park’s social and cultural development and has become a familiar feature of the neighborhood.

Under the provisions of the Landmarks Ordinance, the City Council may grant the appeal or uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission in whole or in part and designate the Foursquare residential structure at 128 Hollister Avenue as a Landmark based upon the Landmarks Ordinance criteria contained in SMMC Section 9.36.100.

APPEAL ANALYSIS

The appellant states that the residence at 128 Hollister Avenue does not qualify for Landmark status under the Landmarks Ordinance designation criteria and points to the staff and consultant reports that did not support landmark designation. The appellant further claims that there was no further evidence in support of designation presented at the hearing. The appellant also contends that there is a conflict of interest in the case when the Landmarks Commission files a designation application and also makes the decision on that application.

The City’s preservation consultant, PCR, conducted an analysis of the subject property, which did not conclude with a recommendation for designation of the property as an individual landmark. The report documented that the structure is relatively intact and that the major modification was the porch enclosure, which occurred prior to 1918. Moreover, PCR found that this particular building type and style was certainly key in the architectural history of the City. Specifically, the Ocean Park area, and the property’s historic and architectural context do contribute to the district’s urban development and architectural heritage. PCR also found that this property has become an established feature of the area since this building has been in the neighborhood since its 1905 construction. However, the report concluded that the structure was significant only as a contributor to the district and not as an individual landmark because PCR believed better examples of this architectural style still existed. The staff report was based largely on these conclusions.

The Landmarks Commission disagreed with staff’s conclusions based on the facts presented. Commissioners expressed that, compared with the South Beach Foursquare houses provided by PCR as examples, the structure at 128 Hollister Avenue is in fact more intact and constitutes a better example of the style as it was applied in the beach tract’s development. Citing the structure’s many features that define the American Foursquare style, its pristine condition and its ability to convey a strong statement regarding the development of Ocean Park, the Commission concluded that three of the designation criteria [SMMC Sections 9.36.100 (a) (1), (4) and (6)] could be met. Moreover, the findings do not require that a property only be designated a landmark if it is the best remaining example of a particular style.

In regard to the issue of conflict of interest, it is not unusual for the Landmarks Commission to file an application to consider designation of a structure as a Landmark. It is indeed the case that one of the basic principles of due process that applies in an adjudicatory matter is a fair hearing by an unbiased decision-maker. A decision-maker who has prejudged the facts may be disqualified because he or she is biased. The decision to designate a property as a landmark is an adjudicatory matter. However, the mere fact that the Landmark Commission decided to file a Landmark application does not demonstrate that the Commission impermissibly prejudged the matter prior to reviewing the landmark application itself. Instead, the decision to file an application was simply a determination by the Commission that the potential historic status of the property should be subject to careful review prior to allowing the property to be irrevocably lost by demolition. The decision to file an application was not a decision that the property constituted a landmark. The Landmarks Commission reviews multiple demolition applications at each of its monthly meetings to determine whether a formal landmark review should be initiated and is well aware of the limited nature of this assessment. In addition, the Landmarks Commission’s authorization to file a landmark application is a common feature of historic preservation ordinances. Thus, were the appellant’s challenge to be accepted, numerous preservation ordinances would be subject to challenge. Staff is unaware of any successful challenge to similar provisions. Moreover, City Council review of this matter is de novo. Thus, any claim of a due process violation is vitiated by the City Council’s review since there can be no claim that the City Council has prejudged this matter.

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notice of this public hearing was published in the California Section of the Los Angeles Times and mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants 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 Foursquare residential structure located at 128 Hollister Avenue as a City Landmark with the following findings:

FINDINGS

(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City.

The front structure on the subject property is an example of the American Foursquare style, built around 1905, and was one of six houses built along the south side of Hollister Avenue at that time according to the Sanborn map of 1909. This architectural type was prevalent during the early history of the City, and specifically in the Ocean Park area in the first decades of the 20th Century. There are other examples of this style remaining in the South Beach neighborhood, but the subject structure is one of the most intact, and perhaps the most pristine example left. As one of the larger, more substantial residences developed during the “upgrade” of South Beach at the turn of the 20^th Century, the structure conveys a strong sense of the district’s urban development and architectural heritage.

(2) 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 to such a study.

The subject property meets this criterion in that it contains many of the character-defining features of the American Foursquare Style including its overall proportions and scale, its ornate rafter tails and the full-length bands of windows along on the upper and lower floors of the front façade. These distinguishing architectural characteristics are valuable to a study of this style, particularly since they are relatively unchanged since the period of significance for the property, which is rare within the City Of Santa Monica and within the South Beach area.

(3) 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 meets this criterion because this building has been located in the neighborhood since its construction, circa 1905, and as such it has become an established feature at the edge of the historic South Beach residential tract. Although not located on the corner, the house is next to the western corner property on the south side of Hollister Avenue and is clearly visible upon approach to the neighborhood from the beach.

Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director

Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager

Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner

Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner

Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Associate Planner

City Planning Division

Planning and Community Development Department

Attachments: (See below)

A. Appeal Statement

B. Landmarks Commission Staff Report dated June 9, 2003

C. City Consultant Evaluation Report, dated May 7, 2003

D. Public Notice

E. Letters Received Regarding the Application

F. Landmarks Designation Application

G. June 9, 2003 Landmarks Commission Minutes

ATTACHMENT A

APPEAL STATEMENT

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.

ATTACHMENT B

Landmarks Commission Staff Report dated June 9, 2003

M E M O R A N D U M

PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

CITY OF SANTA MONICA

PLANNING DIVISION

DATE: June 9, 2003

TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission

FROM: Planning Staff

SUBJECT: 128 Hollister Avenue (LC-03-LM-002)

Public Hearing to Consider a Landmark Designation Application

PROPERTY OWNER: Charles & Jacqueline Ying

APPLICANT: City Of Santa Monica Landmarks Commission

INTRODUCTION

On February 24, 2003, the property owners filed a demolition permit for the subject structure. On March 10, 2003, the Landmarks Commission continued consideration of this demolition permit and requested that staff provide further information on the property. On April 14, 2003, the Landmarks Commission considered additional evidence and filed an application to nominate the front structure on the subject property for consideration as a City Landmark.

BACKGROUND

The property at 128 Hollister Avenue is situated along the south side of Hollister Avenue between Neilson Way and Barnard Way (Ocean Avenue). It is located on Block 2, Lot 13 and a half portion of Lot 14 of the Wadsworth and Hollister Tract in the City of Santa Monica. The property is comprised of a large, two-story front main house and a smaller, rear residence. The main house is 1,924 square feet in size according to County Assessor data. It is sited on a flat lot within a residential neighborhood. The subject property has been previously identified in the City’s Historical Resources Inventory (1983) as a “5D” resource, a contributor to a potential historic district (South Beach Historic District).

The front structure on the subject property was constructed around 1905, although City building permit data has not been found. Building permits for this address are few and none date prior to 1943. Based on Sanborn map information, the front porch appears to have been enclosed prior to 1918. In 1959, the living area on the lower floor of the front house was repaired following an estimated $800 worth of fire damage. The property has been in co-ownership with the adjacent property to the east, which includes a two-car garage at the rear constructed in 1962 and an open garden area towards the street. However, the adjacent property is not included in the nomination and consideration of the landmark status of 128 Hollister because the properties are not legally tied.

Another apparently early expansion, which might have been done at the same time as the porch enclosure prior to 1918, was the expansion of the kitchen in the southeast corner of the first floor. Although building permits for this expansion were not found, the expansion appears to be noted on the 1918 Sanborn map. A staircase leading to the second floor on the east side of the building is unsafe and the door at the top has been closed off. Damage due to deferred maintenance and disuse are evident in both the interior and exterior of the structure.

The Landmarks Commission filed an application for designation of the structure as a City Landmark on April 14, 2003, in response to the owner’s request to demolish the structure. The owner has submitted a report on the structural condition of the house (Attachment C).

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.36.120, notice of the public hearing was mailed to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property within a 300-foot radius of the project and was published in the “California” section of The Los Angeles Times at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is included as Attachment D.

ANALYSIS

Property Information and Architectural Description

Built in the early years of Ocean Park development, according to the Sanborn map of 1909, this house was one of six houses built along the south side of Hollister Avenue at that time. In scale, it is larger than the typical turn-of-the-century beach cottages that were being constructed in the Ocean Park area during the first decade of the 20th century. Styles erected in the neighborhood at this time included two-story American Foursquares, Craftsman bungalows, and a few Dutch Colonial-inspired residences. The subject property is an example of the American Foursquare style. The typical American Foursquare has two to two and one-half stories, a nearly square floor plan, and a blocky shape topped by a low pyramidal or hipped roof. Usually, a central dormer is in front and a three- or four-post front porch extends the full width of the house. The dormer and porch roof usually echo the hip form of the main roof. Such hipped roof dwellings were prevalent in southern California from the late 1890s through 1910. The beach cottage, and to a lesser degree the American Foursquare and Craftsman influenced dwellings, were once common in Ocean Park and enclaves still exist, particularly in the South Beach area. However, many of the residences reflecting these styles have been lost due to growth pressures and alterations.

The structure at 128 Hollister Avenue is listed on the Historic Resources Inventory as a “5D,” contributing to the South Beach District, which consists of five short streets located between the beach and Neilson Way. The heart of the district, Wadsworth, Hart and Fraser Avenues, includes contributing structures along both sides of the street, most of which have been altered to lesser or greater degrees over time. Despite these alterations, the sense of continuity in the district remains on these streets. Hollister Avenue is at the edge of the district, with contributing structures located on the south side of the street only.

The property is currently unoccupied. The applicant has submitted an engineering report, detailing some of the repairs that would be required in order to restore the structure to a safe and habitable residence. This includes reference to foundation conditions, termite damage, lack of earthquake resistance, and requirements for repairs to other systems in the house. The report suggests that a complete retrofit to make the structure habitable would cost approximately $140,000.

Historic Associations

Research did not reveal any information on significant occupants, owners, original architect or builder of the residence to indicate historical significance or notability. Records show that there was a great deal of tenant turnover at the property in its early years.

Landmarks Ordinance

The Landmarks Ordinance requires an application for Landmark designation to be scheduled for consideration within 65 days of the date on which the application was deemed complete. This time limitation may be waived with written permission from the applicant/owner of the property.

The Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to review the building’s eligibility as a landmark based on the six criteria discussed below. The Commission may designate a property as a landmark if it meets one or more of these criteria. If designated, the Commission may consider applications for Certificates of Appropriateness for any proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation, or demolition, in whole or in part, to the Landmark structure or parcel.

The designation criteria, established in SMMC Section 9.36.100(a) and the statements of significance for the Foursquare single-family structure at 128 Hollister Avenue are as follows:

(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

While this particular architectural type was prevalent in the history of the City, specifically the Ocean Park area in the first decades of the 20^th Century, there are other, more interesting intact examples of buildings of this type and style elsewhere within the South Beach neighborhood (particularly along Wadsworth Avenue). The subject property’s historic and architectural context, however, is such that it does contribute to the district’s urban development and architectural heritage. As an individual resource, a finding might be made to satisfy this criterion. While the subject residence manifests elements of the city’s architectural history, it is not the best or only surviving example of Foursquare architecture in the City. Therefore, the substance of this finding is not strong to designate this structure as an individual resource.

(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

The subject property contains no aesthetic or artistic interest or value or other noteworthy interest or value to merit designation under this criterion.

(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

Building permit information did not reveal any information to indicate the subject property was associated with any significant personages or events. Additionally, city directory research did not identify any of the occupants as important in local, state, and/or national history. Therefore, the subject property does not appear to satisfy this criterion.

(4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

This portion of the city was evaluated in the City’s 1983 historic resources inventory, and this property was not individually identified for its distinguishing architectural qualities. Though it is reflective of a particular architectural style and historical period, it is a simple architectural style and this structure does not include any distinguishing architectural or decorational features that would merit individual recognition under this criterion.

(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

Because original building permits were not found, the initial architect and/or builder of the subject property could not be identified. Therefore, at this time the property does not appear to meet this criterion.

(6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

Application of this criterion does not indicate that the resource has a unique location or singular physical characteristic that makes it unique. However, by virtue of the fact that this building has been in the neighborhood since its construction in circa 1905, it has become an established feature of the area, and may meet this criterion.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Two of the findings (#1 and #6) might be made in regard to this structure. Although not the best example of the American Foursquare architectural style, it is nevertheless an example that remains intact and maintains integrity generally. The main alterations to the structure, the enclosure of the porch and first floor rear expansion, occurred prior to 1918, and accordingly reflect the period of significance. As the structure has remained fairly unchanged as viewed from the street, it has become an established feature in the area, although not one that stands out with any particular characteristic or architectural element.

Although two of the findings for City Landmark designation might be made, they are fairly weak and general. Staff research has found that there are other examples of Foursquare style residences within the South Beach district that maintain integrity and are better examples of the Foursquare style. Some of these are clustered together on Wadsworth Avenue, a street that better represents the South Beach development. Furthermore, the applicant has submitted an engineering report attesting to the poor structural condition of the house, including an unstable foundation and termite damage. Considering that the findings are not strong and conclusive regarding the individual eligibility of this structure, the condition of the house indicates that it is not a good candidate for Landmark designation. Therefore, staff recommends against the designation of the subject property as a City Landmark.

Attachments:

Landmark Designation Application

Evaluation Report

Engineering Report of Conditions (submitted by property owner)

Public Notice

F:\PLAN\SHARE\Landmarks\Designations\2003\128 Hollister Ave designation rpt.doc

ATTACHMENT C

City Consultant Evaluation Report, dated May 7, 2003

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.

ATTACHMENT D

Public Notice

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL

SUBJECT: 03APP-010, Appeal of Landmarks Commission Approval of LC-03LM-002

128 Hollister Avenue

APPLICANT: Landmarks Commission

APPELANT: Rosario Perry

PROPERTY OWNER: Charles & Jacqueline Ying

A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:

Appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s designation of the early 20th Century Foursquare-style single-family structure located at 128 Hollister Avenue as a City Landmark.

DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, July 22, 2003 AT 6:45 p.m.

LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California

HOW TO COMMENT

The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.

Address your letters to: City Clerk

Re: 03APP-010

1685 Main Street, Room 102

Santa Monica, CA 90401

MORE INFORMATION

If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at Elizabeth-bar-el@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.org.

The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.

ESPAÑOL

Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al número (310) 458-8341.

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

___________________________

JAY M. TREVINO, AICP

Planning Manager

F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\03APP-010.doc

ATTACHMENT E

Letters Received Regarding the Application

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.

ATTACHMENT F

Landmarks Designation Application

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.

ATTACHMENT G

June 9, 2003

Landmarks Commission Minutes

MINUTES

MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

City of Santa Monica Founded 1875

“Populus felix in urbe felici”

Monday, June 9, 2003

7:00 p.m.

City Council Chambers, Room 213,

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica

CALL TO ORDER: 7:09 pm

1. ROLL CALL

Present:

Commissioner Fresco

Chair Pro Tem Genser

Chairperson Lehrer

Commissioner Kaplan

Commissioner Posek

Commissioner Schnitzler

Also Present:

Kimberly Christensen

Elizabeth Bar-El

Joseph Lawrence, Assistant City Attorney

Arlene Johnson

Councilman Michael Feinstein

Absent:

Commissioner Rosenfield

2 REPORT FROM STAFF:

Ms. Bar-El stated that the application for changes to the Mariasol Restaurant were withdrawn. The Bubba Gump final EIR will going to the Planning Commission on June 18^th. Per the Commission’s request, she reported on the construction at 1433 4th Street. She also introduced the Historic Preservation intern to the Commission.

3. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Chair Pro Tem Genser acknowledged that May is Historic Preservation month and he accepted on behalf of the Commission a proclamation to that effect. He also spoke publicly about Landmarks and the interests that have come forth in the community.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

Public Input Permitted

A. May 12, 2003

Chair Pro Tem Genser made a motion to approve the minutes pending correction on the 2^nd motion of the minutes for April 14^th. Commissioner Posek seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote, with Chairperson Lehrer abstaining, and the following corrections: the April 14^th minutes were seconded by Commissioner Posek, not Commissioner Kaplan. Commissioner Fresco’s statement on Item 8A should include, “she felt strongly that this building should be saved, and would like to see at least the front corner façade remain.

5. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION:

None.

6. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission)

The following member of the public addressed the Commission: Bea Nemlaha on 3rd Street Historic District incentives.

7. CONSENT CALENDAR:

Public Input Permitted

None.

8. OLD BUSINESS:

Public Input Permitted

None.

9. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS:

Public Input Permitted

A. Certificate of Appropriateness LC-03CA-002, 380 Santa Monica Pier. Sign Program to establish parameters for all signs within the boundaries of Pacific Park. (Continued to July 14, 2003)

B. Landmark Designation Application LC-03LM-002, 128 Hollister Avenue, to determine whether the proposed property should be designated as a City Landmark.

Staff report presented by Ms. Bar-El.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission in favor of the designation: Marshall Sisken, Hillary Kay, and Danielle Guillou.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Rosario Perry, Attorney for applicant, Stan Shul, Joel Brand, Margaret McLean, William Cleaver.

Chairperson Lehrer was disturbed by inaccuracies in the comparables. A lot of the pictures were incorrect for the addresses. Many of the comparables had been altered significantly. She stated that this property is pristine, and a great candidate for preservation. Also it meets 3 of the criteria. It does have architectural significance. She was troubled by the staff report that indicated that, it has to be the best of its kind. According to the criteria, it doesn't have to be the best of its kind, it has to be a good example of its type or style. Hollister has very little of historic value that has survived over the years. The building makes a very strong statement and she supports the designation.

Chair Pro Tem Genser concurs with Chairperson Lehrer. He stated that he, too, found the comparables to be different from this property. This house is unique and is one of the last surviving examples on Hollister Avenue adjacent to an area where there are many examples of historic homes.

Commissioner Posek stated that the location of property is such that it really stands out. This house is a gateway to that neighborhood and is significant.

Commissioner Fresco concurred with Chairperson Lehrer. She stated that the consultant report belittles the importance of this house. She stated that this is an important house with incredible integrity and it is worthy of landmark designation.

Commissioner Kaplan stated that the building is elegant in simplicity. She was saddened by the consultant report because it did not recognize its significance. Also, she felt the engineering report’s description of the conditions were extreme and didn’t agree with many of them. She stated she would like to save this house because its integrity and style is important for the community and the area.

Chair Pro Tem Genser stated that the house is particularly visible and significant due to the adjacent open lot. He stated that the house obviously relates to the rest of the neighborhood, which is probably the most intact historic neighborhood in the entire city. He would like to save the house in a reasonable and justifiable way.

Commissioner Fresco stated that the mission of the Landmarks Commission is not just to preserve the important architectural buildings that were built by people of wealth, but to preserve the City’s history and cultural history as well. The Commission has to look at Ocean Park’s buildings and decide if they help tell a story about where the neighborhood came from and preserve that thread in some way.

Commissioner Fresco made a motion to designate the property as a landmark based on criteria 1, 4 and 6, rating characteristics of the American four-square style, such as the square massing, hip roof with ornately shaped rafter tails, the full span windows across the second floor and the front porch and the wood siding. Commissioner Posek seconded the motion, which passed by the following vote:

Roll Call Vote:

Ayes: Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer, Posek

Nayes: Schnitzler

Absent: Rosenfield

Abstain: None

C. Landmark Designation Application LC-03LM-003, 522 24th Street, to determine whether the eucalyptus deanei tree located on the property should be designated as a City Landmark.

Staff report presented by Ms. Bar-El and Walter Warner, Community Forrester.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Harry Rumack, owner, Joseph Argenta, Attorney for 528 24^th Street, Lev Ginsburg, and Giles Smith.

Commissioner Posek agreed that the tree has good lineage, but the conditions are extremely onerous. He felt that future owners will be extremely burdened by limiting what they can do. He feels the tree will do well if it is not landmarked.

The Commissioners discussed the implications of the condition for the building on the adjacent property. The City Attorney addressed legal issues related to trimming and root pruning of neighbors’ trees. Commissioners asked for further clarification.

After further discussion with the Community Forrester, Chair Pro Tem Genser made a motion to continue to the July 14^th meeting. Commissioner Schnitzler seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote. Commissioner Posek opposed.

10. DISCUSSION ITEMS:

Public Input Permitted

A. Review of Demolition Permits and Consideration Whether to File an Application For Designation of a Structure as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.

1. 523 25th Street (PC014508)

R1-Single Family Residential

Single Family Residential

Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resource Inventory

2. 1311 Centinela Avenue (PC014478)

R2-Low Density Multiple Residential

8 Detached Units and 7 One-Car Garages

Structure Not Identified in the Historic Resource Inventory

The following member of the public addressed the Commission: Lee Novik.

A demolition permit for the property at 1311 Centinela Ave. had previously been approved and had expired.

No action was taken on these items.

B. Discussion of 1911 La Mesa Drive (Oscar Neimeyer/ Strick House) and Consideration of Whether to file an Application for Designation of the Property as a City Landmark. (Continued from May 12, 2002)

Commissioner Schnitzler recused herself from this discussion.

The following member of the public addressed the public: Nigel Briand, representing the property owner and Bea Nemlaha.

Mr. Briand stated that due to financial constraints, the applicant needs to move into the La Mesa property as soon as possible. He also stated that to move in and wait to do the addition would be a burden to the owner because he had planned to convert the garage into a 2-floor library. He stated that the owner has one of the world’s largest collections of 20^th century design and architecture books. The garage has to be approved before they can do any other additions or remove the existing garage.

Commissioner Posek stated that the Commission has the burden to protect the property, and would like to have an agreement similar to the one with the previous owner, so the Commission can move forward without impeding the applicant, and without the applicant doing anything to degrade the house.

Ms. Bar-El stated that if a landmark application is filed, the project cannot move forward until the Commission decides whether or not to designate.

Commissioner Kaplan stated that the Commission’s duty is to determine whether the property is worthy of designation, and not how quickly things are done. She was concerned that the owner is trying to add something to this house that looks like it was done in the 1960s, which is done in 2003.

Chairperson Lehrer stated that she is satisfied that the intention for the remodel is appropriate for the property.

Upon further discussion, Commissioner Fresco made a motion to continue this item to the August meeting. Chairperson Lehrer seconded the motion, which passed by voice vote. Commissioner Kaplan opposed.

C. Presentation of the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, including explanation of how it has developed and how it is used. (Continued from May 12, 2002) [see below]

D. Consideration of adoption of a resolution delegating authority for certain types of modifications to the Landmarks Commission Secretary as permitted by Landmarks Ordinance SMMC Section 9.36.170(l). (Continued from May 12, 2002) [see below]

E. Discussion on the Consequences for Property Owners that Violate Requirements and Conditions of Landmark designations and Certificates of Appropriateness. (Requested by Commissioner Schnitzler) [see below]

Discussion of Council Budget Priorities related to Landmarks Topics (requested by Commissioner Genser)

The Commission briefly discussed the need to address Landmarks issues. The newly adopted Council priorities move the Landmarks Ordinance revisions up to begin in February 2004.

G. Discussion of Possibilities for Starting a Commemorative Sign Program for Historic Sites in the City. (Requested by Chair Lehrer) [see below]

Chair Pro Tem Genser made a motion to schedule a special meeting on June 23^rd to discuss items 10C, D, E &G. Commissioner Fresco seconded the motion, which passed unanimously by voice vote.

H. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only)

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:

Public Input Permitted

12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas)

Commissioner Schnitzler asked to agendize Bea Nemlaha’s request to discuss 3^rd Street Neighborhood incentives. Chairperson Lehrer suggested adding this topic to the June 23^rd Special meeting agenda.

Chair Pro Tem Genser asked to agendize a survey of the beach tract.

Commissioner Kaplan asked to agendize a discussion of surveys of courtyard housing.

Commissioner Fresco asked to agendize a discussion of official landmark review of draft EIRs that report impact on historic properties.

13. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Monday, June 23, 2003 (Special Meeting)

14. ADJOURNMENT: 10:50 pm