Landmark decision is denied by Council
CITY HALL — The question as to when a building is fit for preservation, or demolition, caused some heated remarks among city officials as they tried to gauge the historical status of an 87-year-old Santa Monica bungalow.
The City Council last week determined that a Craftsman-style bungalow at 921 19th Street should be open to re-development. The appeal was in response to an October determination by the Landmarks Commission which had designated the 1923 bungalow a historical building, and as such, would be prohibited from plans for its demolition.
The appeal of the Landmarks Commission’s decision was made by Santa Monica attorney Michael Klein, Esq., on behalf of property owner 19th Street Townhomes, LLC, a firm seeking to raze the home to create multi-family housing.
Meanwhile, City Hall said in a related staff report that designating the bungalow as a historic landmark would be a broadening of current criteria. As such, the move might be construed as an attempt by the Landmarks Commission to try halting development citywide, since more and more buildings could be determined “historic” and un-alterable.
Some elected officials took offense to the suggestion, responding staff might be over-stepping its bounds by making such a brash political determination.
“My problem is if the staff report begins to assign motivation, that puts staff more in the political, not professional realm,” Councilman Ken Genser said.
The City Council voted (5-2) in favor of allowing the home to be demolished, with Councilman Kevin McKeown and Genser opposing.
Stephanie Reich, city planner involved in the discussion, said it was not the intent of the staff report to say the Landmarks Commission’s aim in the case was to halt development. Instead, she said the report intended to illustrate that could become the perception if the commission decided to continue on such a broad policy track.
“The interpretation is too broad and could undermine standards,” Reich said. “It is broader than what has been applied in the past.”
Reich explained to the Council that any building up for demolition is first reviewed by the Landmarks Commission to determine if it should be preserved. To become a landmark, a building must meet one of six criteria: ■ The building must exemplify elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of Santa Monica. ■ Have an aesthetic or artistic value. ■ Be identified with people tied to the city’s history. ■ Embody architectural characteristics valuable to a period, style or method of construction. ■ Is a significant example of the work by a notable designer. ■ Is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood.
Jan Ostashay, a historic consultant who works with the city, told staff and the council in the case of the home on 19th Street, it was a Craftsman home — a certain style built in the Donald Douglas era of affordable housing — but that alone was not enough to justify the landmark designation, since there were many more Craftsman homes in Santa Monica, several with a higher quality.
For Genser, the distinction was somewhat of a moot point. He indicated he was more concerned about staff’s interference with the process than the actual determination. Genser explained that once the Landmarks Commission makes a suggestion on the status of a building, it is referred to the City Council, which makes the final determination on historic value of a building.
“Don’t we make our own individual judgment if a building makes the designation or not?” Genser said.
City Manager Susan McCarthy said the decision to determine a building’s historical status was ultimately the council’s. However, she said staff was responsible for indicating to the council when decisions might be significant enough that they would alter city policy.
“We would not be fulfilling our duty if we did not warn you when there is a significant change,” McCarthy said. “Staff is bringing to your attention that which will have impact.”
Genser was frank in his rebuttal. “I think the City Manager is mischaracterizing the staff report, which is in a political context,” Genser said.
McCarthy said the report could have been more artfully written.
According to Klein, his client did not intend to apply a political context to the discussion of the building’s status, but rather he simply wanted to raze a structure that was not worth saving.
“My client is not concerned with policy issues,” Klein said. “The only ‘dis’ here would be a disagreement on the (Landmarks Commission) decision.”
“This just isn’t that unique of a building, and (saving it) would demean the landmarks in this city.”
Roger Genser, chair of the Landmarks Commission, said the topic of development in no way entered the discussion about the Craftsman-style bungalow. He said the commission simply felt the building was unique enough that it deserved to be preserved.
“The implication of the staff report is just plain wrong,” he said.
Mayor Pam O’Connor, who has a background in refurbishing historical buildings, agreed with the conclusions of the staff report.
“Are we going to (save) every last house on the block in the neighborhood?” O’Connor said.
O’ Connor went on to explain that, in the Landmarks Commission decision, there is no mention of how or why the house is historic.
“Just because a building is ‘charming’ or ‘unusual’ does not mean it’s historic,” O’Connor said.
O’Connor deferred to the knowledge of the consultant, upon whose opinions in such matters she said one can often rely.
“If (the consultant) thought the building was unique, (she) would mention it,” O’Connor said.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 18, 2005. Read the original PDF.