City Council Meeting: September 8, 2009
Agenda Item: 6-A
To: Mayor
and City Council
From: Eileen
P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Appeal
of Landmarks Commission Designation of the
Recommended Action
Staff
recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and designate the subject
property as a City Landmark based on revised findings.
Executive Summary
The appellants, NMS Properties
Inc., and Nebraska Studios, LLC, request that the City Council overturn the
Landmarks Commission’s unanimous decision on February 11, 2008 to designate the
structure at
In consideration of the full
record to date, it is recommended that the Council uphold the decision of the
Landmarks Commission to designate the structure and parcel located at
More specifically:
•
The property was the initial home of the SCI-Arc
upon the school’s founding in 1972 through 1992 and therefore symbolizes the
importance of SCI-Arc to the cultural history of
•
The property is associated with Ray Kappe, FAIA, a historic
personage who has been widely recognized for his local, state, and nationally
important contributions as the founder of SCI-Arc and its Director from 1972
through 1987. These years correspond to
the time period when SCI-Arc was located in
This report highlights the points of the appeal, the Landmarks Commission’s action, and staff’s position relative to the designation based on revised findings. The recommendation on this matter does not have any budgetary or fiscal impact.
Discussion
Property
Description
The property at
The subject building was originally constructed in 1951 for
owner/contractor John F. Drescher as a 9,600 square foot light industrial
building. A year later, a recessed third-story penthouse was constructed on the
building’s mezzanine. The structure is composed of steel frame, concrete, and
exterior stucco sheathing and is capped by a corrugated aluminum and a sawtooth
roof with clerestory windows. Fenestration consists primarily of steel-framed
fixed and casement windows on upper stories; original windows have been
replaced with vinyl sliders on the ground floor of the north-facing elevation.
The building’s primary entrance on
According to City directory research, the subject property’s initial
tenant was the American Gyro Corporation.
From 1958 to 1961, the William Brand Wire and Cable Corporation leased
the building. The subject property was
the first location of the Southern California Institute of Architecture
(SCI-Arc) that was founded in 1972 and occupied the subject property for 20
years. Interior spaces have been altered numerous times over the years; today,
the building houses offices, studio spaces, and several classrooms.
Historic Resources
Inventory Status
The subject property is located in the area surveyed during Phase 3 of
the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory (1990-1993). The subject property
was not identified as being eligible for local designation or a contributor to
a four-building grouping within the potential Nebraska Avenue Industrial
District. The four architecturally unified one-story industrial buildings were
constructed in 1946, characterized by brick construction with prominent mortar
lines, raised piers, and Late Moderne detailing. The subject property at
Landmarks
Commission Action
At its February 11, 2008 meeting, following testimony from the property owners’ representative and Commission discussion, the Commission unanimously determined that the structure met three of the six designation criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.100. The following summarizes the Commission’s conclusions:
·
The vernacular industrial/commercial building
constructed in 1951 for John F. Drescher, a noted
·
The subject property also manifests the
evolution of its industrial neighborhood in
·
The subject property is associated with Ray
Kappe, FAIA, a historic personage who has been widely recognized for his local,
state, and nationally important contributions as the founder of SCI-Arc and its
Director from 1972 through 1987. These
years correspond to the time period when SCI-Arc was located in
·
The subject building is a representative example
of a 1950s vernacular modern industrial building and embodies distinguishing
architectural characteristics that are valuable to a study of mid-century
industrial structures in
The full text of the Landmarks Commission’s Statement of Official Action is presented as Attachment B. The February 11, 2008 staff report and February 11, 2008 meeting minutes are presented as Attachments C and D, respectively.
Appeal Summary
The appellants filed an appeal on February 21,
2008 and submitted a supplemental statement on March 2, 2009. The appellants’
February 21, 2008 statement asserted that the Landmarks Commission erred in its
decision to designate the structure as a Landmark based on its architectural
significance pursuant to Criterion #4. Consistent with testimony provided by
the property owners’ representative at the Landmarks Commission designation
hearing, the appellants’ appeal did not object to the Commission’s designation
of the structure or site based on its association with
The appellants’ supplemental statement provided
on March 2, 2009 expanded the appeal statement and asserts that the Landmarks
Commission erred in its decision to designate the structure and site as a
Landmark based on each of the three designation criteria adopted by the
Landmarks Commission and outlined below. The full text of the appeal is
contained in Attachment A.
In summary, the
appellants assert the following:
- While the subject site is
important to the cultural history of Santa Monica for its association with
John F. Drescher, one of Santa Monica’s noted developers and
philanthropists; with Ray Kappe, founder of Sci-Arc, for his numerous
accomplishments and recognitions as an innovator in the field of
architecture; and for its association with SCI-Arc, an important
contributor to the cultural history of Santa Monica and its contribution
to architecture worldwide, the utilitarian industrial building does not
adequately represent the symbolism associated with John F. Drescher, Ray
Kappe, and SCI-Arc.
- The building’s interior
and exteriors have been altered extensively since SCI-Arc relocated in
1992 and no longer contains characteristics that embody Ray Kappe’s vision
or Sci-Arc’s ideology.
- The City’s consultant’s report
prepared by PCR Services Corporation notes that during a telephone
interview, Ray Kappe agreed that a commemoration in the form of a plaque
or kiosk would be the most appropriate consequence of Landmark designation
and that the property is a utilitarian industrial building that is
significant only for what occurred there when it was the home of SCI-Arc,
but that there should be no impediment to its removal for new uses. Accordingly, the appellants state that
the owner proposes to capture and enhance the property’s symbolism by
installing and maintaining a prominent plaque or kiosk on the
- The Commission determined
that the building is architecturally significant based on conjecture and
speculation since this finding was not supported by the City’s
preservation consultant or by City staff.
- The Commission conjectured
that the building is a rare example of Bauhaus-style architecture without
doing a full assessment of the structure’s design, details, and physical
integrity.
- Although the building is
of a certain period, as all structures are, the City’s preservation
consultant did not determine, and the Commission did not adequately show,
that the building embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics or
that it is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or
historical type that would be valuable to such a study.
- The Commission did not
take into consideration the following facts: the building was poorly
constructed; has been significantly altered; is in poor condition and has
significant terminate damage; and has been poorly maintained by previous
owners.
The City Council, in
its review of this appeal, must determine whether an improvement satisfies one
or more of the following criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.100 in order
to be designated as a Landmark:
(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.
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, based upon these
criteria. The City Council’s review of
this application is de novo.
Appeal Analysis
Based on the full
record to date, there is ample support for the two designation criteria related
to association with the City’s cultural history and with historic personages.
However, based upon previous applications of the Criterion #4, staff does not
concur that the subject property meets the standard for designation based on
its architectural merit. Therefore,
staff continues to recommend designation of the structure and parcel based only
on Criteria #1 and #3. The following
summarizes the basis for staff’s determination:
Designation
Criteria that the Resource Meets:
Criterion
#1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political or architectural history of the City
The property at
Since its founding in
The subject property and its setting also manifest
the evolution of its broader industrial neighborhood in
For example, starting in 1972 with the founding of
SCI-Arc, the subject building became associated with a bohemian arts community
informally known as “Drescherville” located on a group of industrial properties
in the immediate area with frontage on
For these
reasons, and as further detailed in Attachments B and C, the property
exemplifies SCI-Arc’s importance to the cultural history of
Criterion #3: Identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history
With
respect to the Landmark Criterion #3, staff concurs with the Landmarks
Commission’s finding that Ray Kappe, FAIA, is a historic personage who has been
widely recognized for his local, state, and nationally important contributions
as the founder of SCI-Arc and its Director from 1972 through 1987. These fifteen years correspond to the time
period when SCI-Arc was located at the subject property in Santa Monica and is
reflective of the time period when Kappe achieved significance, recognition and
acclaim as an architect and educator.
Mr.
Kappe is an internationally recognized and published architect/educator who has
practiced architecture in the
During
his tenure as Director of SCI-Arc, Kappe received numerous awards for
recognition of his distinguished work as a designer and an educator. In 2006, Kappe received the President’s
Lifetime Achievement in Education Award at the National AIA Convention in
The
subject property at
Designation
Criteria that the Resource Does Not Meet:
Criterion #2: It has aesthetic or artistic
interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.
As a vernacular, utilitarian industrial building,
the subject property does not articulate a particular or noteworthy concept of
design sufficient enough to express an aesthetic ideal beyond that represented
by other properties of the same type and style located in the City. Therefore, the subject property does not meet
this criterion.
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.
Criterion
#4 addresses the characteristics or attributes of a building and its
architectural design. Staff interprets
this criterion to require a high threshold of architectural distinction, which
the property at
The
property’s concrete foundation, steel frame construction and sawtooth roof are
typical characteristics of industrial manufacturing buildings that were
ubiquitous in industrial areas in
Staff
has conducted supplemental research in order to better evaluate the
architectural significance of the subject building relative to other structures
of the same era and type. Based on this
research, there are better local examples of the International/Modern style as
applied to a vernacular industrial building that exhibit a higher level of
physical integrity and are more architecturally distinctive. Three examples of such structures are located
on the 1500 block of
There have been significant alterations that affect
the building’s physical integrity. For example, first and second floor
fenestration and the main entrance area of the building’s primary elevation
have been modified in recent years such that it no longer exemplifies the type
and style of a typical of the 1950s industrial building.
Specifically,
based on field inspection, it appears that original glass and frames have been
replaced in many of the first and second floor windows and a majority of the
window systems on the first floor level have been removed and replaced with
vinyl sliders. Windows and doors on
secondary and rear elevations have also been altered with the installation of
inconsistent window and door systems.
The
building at 3030-3060
Criterion #5: It is a significant or a
representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or
architect
According to building permit records, there was no
architect associated with the original design of the subject property
constructed in 1951. Architect Otto Beyerle designed the nondescript penthouse
addition constructed one year later.
Owner John F. Drescher was identified as the building’s contractor. There is no information suggesting that
either Beyerle or Drescher were considered notable members of their respective
professions. Therefore, the subject
property does not meet this criterion.
Criterion #6: Unique location, singular
physical characteristic, or established and familiar visual feature
The subject building is located on a
typical street in its light industrial neighborhood consisting primarily of
industrial, office, and studio spaces. The structure does not have a singular
physical design characteristic, is not particularly prominent within its
context to and is not an established visual feature of the neighborhood.
Therefore, the property does not meet this criterion.
Conclusion
In summary, as the founding location of
SCI-Arc for twenty years, from its inception in 1972 to 1992, the subject
property at
The property does not, however, meet
the threshold of architectural distinction necessary for designation pursuant
to Criterion #4 as explained above.
Furthermore, it has been altered extensively over the years and no
longer embodies the characteristics that exemplify industrial buildings of the
1950s period. The existing stucco exterior is a later alteration, much of the
glass in the window openings has been replaced, most of the windows on the
first-floor level of the façade have been removed and replaced with vinyl
sliders, and nearly all of its door openings have been altered.
While
the subject building does not appear eligible for designation based on its
architectural merit, the property embodies cultural and historical significance
sufficient for Landmark designation. The additional comments provided by PCR
Services and cited by the appellants addressing several potential ways to
document and commemorate the history of the site, along with the summary of the
telephone interview conducted with Ray Kappe, are not relevant to the
determination of whether the property meets one or more of the designation
criteria necessary for Landmark designation.
If
the property is designated a Landmark pursuant to Criteria #1 and #3, any
proposed alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation,
demolition, in whole or in part, of or to the Landmark building or Landmark
Parcel, including any installation of
interpretive elements proposed to commemorate the site’s history, would be
reviewed for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties and would be subject to review and approval by
the Landmarks Commission pursuant to the criteria for issuance of a Certificate
of Appropriateness contained in SMMC 9.36.140.
Alternatives
As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may
consider the following with respect to the pending appeal if supported by the
full evidentiary record:
1. Confirm the Landmarks
Commission’s decision to designate the building and parcel at
2. Deny
the Landmark Designation application and reverse the Landmarks Commission’s
decision to designate the building and parcel at
Environmental
Analysis
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15331, Class 31 of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project consists of designating a property as a Landmark thereby aiding in the preservation of a historic resource in a manner consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grimmer. The project is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(b)(3) provides that CEQA only applies to those projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Since the proposed action would result in the retention of the existing structure and would not change the existing environmental baseline, there is no potential that the project would cause a significant effect on the environment.
Public Outreach
The
public notice for this hearing was published at least 10 days prior to the
hearing in the Santa Monica Daily Press and mailed to all property owners and
occupants within 300 feet of the subject property.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budgetary or fiscal impact.
Prepared by:
|
Approved:
|
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Eileen
P. Fogarty Director, Planning and Community Development |
|
P.
Lamont Ewell City
Manager |
Attachments
A.
Appellants’ Appeal Statement and Supplemental
Statement
B.
C.
Landmarks Commission Statement of Official
Action, February 11, 2008
D.
Landmarks Commission Staff Reports and
Attachments, February 11, 2008
E.
Excerpt of Landmarks Commission Minutes,
February 11, 2008
ATTACHMENT A
Appellants’ Appeal Statement and Supplemental
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
Electronic
version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City
Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.
ATTACHMENT C
Landmarks Commission Statement of Official
Action
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF
THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK
_____________________________________________________________________
|
DESIGNATION OF A
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE LOCATED AT AS A CITY
LANDMARK |
07-LM-011 |
|
|
|
SECTION I. An application was
filed by the City of
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.
Constructed in
1951 for John F. Drescher, a noted
(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.
The subject
property is associated with Ray Kappe, FAIA, a historic personage who has been
widely recognized for his local, state, and nationally important contributions
as the founder of SCI-Arc and its Director from 1972 through 1987. These years correspond to the time period
when SCI-Arc was located in
During his
tenure as Director of SCI-Arc, Kappe received numerous awards for recognition
of his distinguished work as a designer and an educator, and his work has had
wide publication locally, nationally, and internationally. In 1976, the school
was granted accreditation, and the AIA California Chapter also awarded Ray
Kappe with an Excellence in Education Award and its students and faculty with
an Honor Award for an innovative interior renovation at the subject
property. In 2006, Kappe received the
President’s Lifetime Achievement in Education Award at the National AIA
Convention in
The subject
property at
(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
building is a representative example of a 1950s vernacular modern industrial
building and embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics that are valuable
to a study of mid-century industrial structures in
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.
SECTION II. The property commonly known as
3030-3060 Nebraska Avenue (SANTA MONICA LOT COM AT MOST N COR OF LOT 2 BLK 199
TH SE ON NE LINE OF SD LOT 110 FT WITH A UNIFORM DEPTH OF 150 FT SW AT R/A PART
OF LOT 2 BLK 199) is designated as a Landmark Parcel in order to
preserve, maintain, protect and safeguard the Landmark commercial structure.
SECTION III. I hereby certify that the above Findings and
Determination accurately reflect the final determination of the Landmarks
Commission of the City of
AYES: Bach, Berley,
Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer,
NAYES: None
Respectfully Submitted
March 10, 2008
____________________________________
Attest:
____________________________
Roxanne Tanemori, AICP
Landmarks Commission Secretary
ATTACHMENT D
Landmarks Commission Staff Reports and Hearing
Submittals,
February 11, 2008
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City
Clerk’s office and the libraries.
ATTACHMENT E
Excerpt of Landmarks Commission Minutes,
February 11, 2008
|
|
|
MINUTES |
|
REGULAR MEETING OF THELANDMARKS COMMISSION |
|
|
Founded 1875 “Populus felix in urbe felici” |
|
|
|
|
Monday, February 11, 2008 7:00 PM |
City Council Chambers, Room 213 |
|
|
|
CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
LANDMARKS COMMISSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:11 pm.
1. ROLL CALL: Present: Margaret Bach
John Berley
Roger Genser
Nina Fresco, Chairperson
Barbara Kaplan, Chair Pro Tempore
(arrived at 7:14 pm)
Ruthann Lehrer
Ruth Shari
Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison
Susan Umeda, Staff Assistant III
2.
REPORT
FROM STAFF:
Ms. Tanemori presented
an update on appeals that will go before City Council and advised the
Commission about a community meeting to discuss improvements to
Chair Fresco
asked staff to provide a report on
Commissioner Genser asked staff for the status of the temporary addition to City Hall. Ms. Tanemori responded that this item will need to be discussed again at the City Council. City Council Liaison McKeown added that a report he received that day regarding this project addresses the potential use of the courtyard.
8-B. Landmark Designation Application, 07LM-011,
The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures.
Ms. Tanemori
presented the staff report. Staff
recommended that the Commission designate the structure on
Commissioner Genser asked staff why the PCR report stated that the structure could be memorialized with a plaque if the structure is not designated. Ms. Tanemori responded that it was Mr. Kappe’s opinion that a plaque would serve as appropriate commemoration for what happened at the subject property. Commissioner Genser asked staff if Mr. Kappe supports designation. Ms. Tanemori responded that a description of the interview with Mr. Kappe is contained in the consultant’s report.
Commissioner Bach stated that the staff report discounts any architectural features of the structure. She asked staff why the band of windows, which is a beautiful expression of a late Bauhaus, mid-century fenestration pattern, was discounted in the report. Ms. Tanemori responded that the consultant found that the building itself did not rise above other comparable industrial buildings located in the area.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission: John Arnold, owner representative, who stated that the owner is supportive of cultural designation but the site and building should not be designated.
Chair Fresco stated that the Commission does not have at this time any power to discuss establishing a kiosk or monument at the site.
Commissioner Lehrer stated that a structure does not need to rise to a high level of architectural value, but it does need to be a representative example of a type of architecture. Commissioner Lehrer stated that this structure meets this criterion as it comes from the Bauhaus tradition because of the simplicity of its design, its geometry and its band of windows.
Chair Fresco noted
that almost all of the industrial buildings in the City are one-story brick
buildings with vaulted curved ceilings.
She stated that
Commissioner Genser stated that if the structure did not have a relationship with SCI-Arc, the Commission might not consider this building worthy of designation.
Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan stated that the history of the structure has two periods: the Drescher period and the SCI-Arc period and that the Drescher period may have enough significance to designate the building as a cultural landmark. She noted that the building evolved into a culturally-inventive space.
Chair Fresco
stated that the style of the building and its open plan has a lot to do with
what has happened at the site. She also stated that industrial buildings are an
important part of the City of
Commissioner
Bach noted that the Commission is understating of the importance of this
structure since it embodies many strands of
Commissioner
Shari stated that
Commissioner Genser stated that the staff report did not state that the structure met Criterion 4. He asked Commissioner Bach if the Statement of Official Action should include Criterion 4. Commissioner Bach responded in the affirmative because there is a lot of historic fabric left; the design intent together with the expression of horizontality and proportionality are still left on the structure.
Commissioner
Lehrer stated that the structure is unique as there are not a lot of
comparables in
Commissioner
Bach made a motion to approval of the Landmark Designation Application 07LM-011 at
A roll call was held for the
motion and was approved by the following vote:
AYES:
Bach, Berley, Genser, Fresco, Kaplan, Lehrer, Shari