November 27, 2007
City Council Meeting: October
23, 2007
Agenda Item: 6-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of
Planning and Community Development
Subject: Appeal 06APP-044 of Landmarks Commission Designation of the Property at
Recommended
Action
Staff
recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and designate the property at
Executive Summary
The appellant, Harry Wu and SM
Ocean Star, LLC, requests that the City Council overturn the Landmarks
Commission’s decision to designate the property at
The initial report before the
Landmarks Commission supported designation based on the recommendation of the
City’s consultants. In consideration of
the full record to date, including review of the appellant’s appeal statement, it
is recommended that the designation be upheld based on the following four criteria:
•
The property has sufficient historical and architectural
integrity to exemplify elements of the City’s architectural history and manifest
the second wave of residential development on Ocean Avenue characterized by
multi-family apartments during the mid 1930s through the 1950s (Criteria #1).
•
The property articulates
key design elements associated with the American Colonial Revival style that is
of aesthetic interest (Criteria #2).
•
The property embodies distinguishing Colonial Revival architectural
characteristics that are valuable to a study of the idiom in the context of the architectural history of
•
The property is the work of notable local architect William E. Foster (Criteria #5).
This report addresses the points of appeal and explains both the Commission’s findings and staff’s determination that the property qualifies as a Landmark. The recommendation on this matter does not have any budgetary or fiscal impact.
Discussion
Property Description
The subject property at
The six-unit north building is primarily
rectangular in plan with exterior elevations and roof forms carefully
articulated to suggest three distinct two-story configurations. Stucco sheathes
the majority of the building’s exterior surfaces, although wide shiplap siding
distinguishes the gable faces and the center section’s second story elevations.
The north building’s west-facing elevation consists of a projecting first story
porch and second-story balcony.
The courtyard-facing entrances to the north
building’s upper units are highly reflective of the American Colonial Revival
style incorporating pediments, fluted pilasters, and glazed and paneled wooden
entrance doors fronted by red brick porches with wrought iron railings.
Centered above each entrance is a second story leaded oval window that provides
natural light to the interior staircases. Canted bay windows with flared metal
hoods flank the building’s center entrance.
The four-unit courtyard-facing east building
is highly similar to the center section of the north building in its design,
sheathing, and decorative elements. This building is capped by a hipped roof
and is centered by a raised red brick entry porch that features two pairs of
slender, round Doric columns supporting a pedimented portico. Fenestration on the second story consists of
two pairs of six-over-six, double-hung sash windows that flank a small bullseye
window.
In contrast to the north and east buildings
on site, the six-unit building on the south side of the parcel was constructed
14 years later, in 1950, yet shares the same architectural style, massing, unit
arrangements, sheathing, fenestration, and decorative details as the earlier-constructed
apartments. The south building is rectangular in plan and is capped by a hipped
roof. Its
A combination utility room and garage
structure is located at the rear of the parcel behind the east building. This
building is clad in stucco, capped by a shed roof, and is utilitarian in its
design. Additional parking is located in a subterranean garage beneath the
south building.
The appellant filed
an appeal on October 18, 2006, and agreed to extend the time for the City
Council to hear this appeal until the end of October 2007 (Attachment A). Under the provisions of the Landmarks
Ordinance, the City Council may approve the appeal or uphold the decision of
the Landmarks Commission in whole or in part, based upon criteria in SMMC
Section 9.36.100. The City Council’s
review of this application is de novo.
Historic Resources Inventory Status
The subject property was identified and assessed on four
occasions for the City’s on-going Historic Resources Inventory survey process. The
property was initially identified in 1983 during the Phase I Preliminary
Architectural Survey of the City and as a historic resource. The property was
formally documented in 1986
during Phase 2 of the historic resources survey process. At that time, the property was documented as
a contributor to a potential district
called the “Palisades Tract Historic District”. The property was given a
National Register status code of 5D, indicating that the property appeared to
be eligible for local listing as a contributor to the historic district.
The subject property was assessed a third time after the
Northridge earthquake as part of the “Historic Resource Inventory Update for
the City of
The property was most recently identified in the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory Update: North of
Application
History and Landmarks Commission Action
The Landmarks Commission
initially reviewed the
A public hearing to consider the
designation application was scheduled before the Landmarks Commission on
September 11, 2006. However, in order to provide the property owner additional
time to review the staff and consultant’s reports (September
11, 2006 staff report) (consultant’s report), the hearing was continued to the October 9,
2006 meeting after taking testimony from the applicant in support of the
designation. The staff report recommended
Landmark designation of the property.
At the Commission hearings,
extensive public testimony and additional information were presented regarding
the property’s integrity and value as a resource representative of its era, and
the significance of the subject property architect William E. Foster. The
property owner’s representative presented testimony and a consultant’s report
that found that property does not merit designation.
Based on all of the information
presented, the Commission voted 7-0 to designate the garden apartment complex
as a Landmark and the property as a Landmark Parcel. As detailed more fully in
Attachment B, the Commission found that the property met four of the six
designation criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.100. The following summarizes the Commission’s
conclusions:
Historical
Development Pattern & Architectural History
·
The property exhibits a high level of historical and architectural
integrity, exemplifies elements of the City’s architectural history, and
manifests the second wave of residential development on
Architectural
Characteristics
·
The property embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics
that are of a higher level of design, materials, and workmanship than exhibited
by most of the multi-family residences in the City north of
Prominent Architect
·
William E. Foster was an architect of local distinction whose body
of work in
Appeal Summary
As detailed more
fully in Attachment A, the appellant states that the Landmarks Commission erred
in its designation of the apartment complex as a Landmark and the property as a
Landmark Parcel. The appellant contends
that the subject property is not eligible for landmark designation under the
criteria set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance based on the consultant’s reports
from Chattel Architecture Planning & Preservation, Inc., prepared on behalf
of the property owner and provided to the Landmarks Commission. Specifically, the appellant asserts the
following:
·
The property is a common building type designed in a popular
architectural style and is neither the best or last remaining example of a
Colonial Revival style courtyard apartment complex in the immediate area;
·
The subject property was originally constructed in an L-shape and
the subsequent addition of the third building was an intrusive alteration that detracts
from its original courtyard configuration;
·
The property’s location on
·
The property is not a significant or representative example of
architect William E. Foster’s body of work.
The City Council, in
its review of this appeal, must determine whether the subject property
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.
Appeal Analysis
Based on the full record to date, including testimony
and documentary evidence presented at Landmarks Commission public hearings, there
is ample support for the four criteria that the Commission identified in its
action to designate the garden apartment complex as a Landmark and the property
as a Landmark Parcel.
The appellant acknowledges that the contrasting
evaluations of the property by the City’s consultant and the consultant
retained by the property owner are indicative of a disagreement between
experts. While it is not uncommon for
preservation experts to disagree, in this case, the City’s consultant, staff,
and the City’s Landmark Commission all agree that the property merits Landmark
designation.
Staff continues to recommend Landmark designation of
the subject Colonial Revival apartment complex as detailed more fully in the
staff reports provided for the Landmark Commission hearings. The following
discussion addresses the appellant’s key arguments and also 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
Architectural
Style
- The property is an excellent example of the American Colonial Revival architectural style as applied to a small-scale garden apartment complex located within the Palisades Tract. It embodies a number of key character-defining features of the American Colonial Revival style including: scale and massing; gabled and hipped roof forms; roof elements including boxed eaves, cornice returns, modest entablatures; multi-pane, double-hung wood sash windows, many with flanking wood shutters; and porch configurations featuring pedimented porticos, fluted pilasters, round Doric columns, raised brick porch floors, and wrought iron railings.
Property Integrity
- The property exhibits a high level of historical and architectural integrity thereby physically manifesting the architectural history of the City and exemplifying the second wave of residential development on Ocean Avenue characterized by multi-family apartments during the mid 1930s that addressed the housing demand that resulted, in large part, from the influx of workers associated with defense-related industries and the City’s on-going attraction to widows and retirees.
Historical Development Pattern
- The addition of south building in 1950 was a result
of the evolving residential development pattern along
- The property is significant as one of the earliest remaining
examples of the style as applied to a garden apartment complex north of
While the
appellant asserts that the property’s location on
For these
reasons and as further detailed in Attachments B-C, the property exemplifies this
period of
Criterion #2:
It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy
interest or value; and
Criterion
#4: It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a
study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous
materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural
design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
- The property is aesthetically pleasing in its siting, decorative details, and form due to the architect’s masterly handling of the American Colonial Revival style as applied to a modest garden apartment complex. It so fully articulates the key design elements associated with the American Colonial Revival style that it expresses an aesthetic ideal of the style.
- The property possesses numerous unique architectural details such as leaded glass windows and original light fixtures that enhance the property’s aesthetic value.
- The design, materials and craftsmanship are of a higher level than is typically seen on similar garden apartments in the area. In particular, the distinguishing architectural characteristics associated with the entrance areas of the north and east buildings are noteworthy for their highly articulated and refined pediments and porticos. Further the treatment of the north building is characterized by a unique, yet unified, delineation of three separate units within this section of the complex.
- With its high level of integrity and as one of the
earliest examples of the idiom as applied to a garden apartment complex
along Ocean Avenue and the area north of
While the appellant
contends that the property is a common building type designed in a popular
architectural style and is neither the best or last remaining example of a
Colonial Revival style courtyard apartment complex in the immediate area, none
of the criteria for designation require a property to be the best example or
the last remaining example of a particular architectural style or building
type.
For the reasons discussed above, and as further detailed in Attachments
B-C, the subject property is an excellent local example of the American
Colonial Revival style as applied to a small-scale garden apartment and embodies
distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of it period
and style of construction, and possesses sufficient aesthetic and artistic
value necessary for designation under these criteria.
Criterion #5: It is a significant or a
representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or
architect
- Current
research has identified subject property architect William E. Foster as a
Beverly Hills-based architect with four properties attributed to him as the
architect of record in Santa Monica: 423 Ocean Avenue (the subject
property, 1936/1950), 212 San Vicente Boulevard (a two-story, Streamline
Moderne style apartment building, 1937), the Shangri-La Apartment/Hotel
(1301 Ocean Avenue, 1939), and 1730 Wilshire Boulevard (the Gothic Revival
style Pilgrim Lutheran Church, 1953).
Of these, Foster’s Shangri-La Apartment/Hotel appears to be the
best example of his known body of work, identified by historians such as
Paul Gleye, David Gebhard, and Robert Winter as a key example of
Streamline Moderne architecture in the
- Based on his
body of work specifically in the City of Santa Monica and in the City of
Los Angeles that encompasses a wide range of architectural styles, architect William E. Foster qualifies as
a notable local architect, and the subject property constitutes a
representative example of his work in that his design exemplifies the
American Colonial Revival style with design, materials, and craftsmanship
that are of a higher level of dexterity and refinement than other
expressions of the style exhibited in many similarly styled multi-family
garden apartment complexes that are extant in the City.
Designation Criteria that the Resource Does
Not Meet:
Criterion #3: Identified with historic
personages or with important events
As indicated in the Landmarks Commission’s
determination, no evidence has been provided to indicate that the property has associations
with historic personages or important historic events.
Criterion #6:
Unique location, singular physical characteristic, or established and
familiar visual feature
The property does not exhibit a singular characteristic or
location to make it an established visual feature of the City. The subject
property is located mid-block along
Alternatives
In addition to the
recommended action, the City Council may consider the following with respect to
the pending appeal if supported by the full evidentiary records:
1.
Uphold the designation based on revised findings.
2.
Uphold the appeal and reverse the Landmarks Commission’s decision
to designate the garden apartment complex as a Landmark and the property as a
Landmark Parcel.
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 structures 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 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 budget or fiscal impact.
Prepared
by:
Roxanne Tanemori, Associate Planner
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Eileen P. Fogarty Director,
Planning and Community Development |
|
P. City Manager |
Attachments
A.
Appellant’s
appeal statement including Chattel Architecture Planning & Preservation
report and hearing extension letters
B.
Landmarks
Commission Statement of Official Action
C.
September
11, 2006 and October 9, 2006 Landmarks Commission report with original
attachments, including PCR Services Landmark Assessment Report and hearing submittals
ATTACHMENT
A
Appellant’s
Appeal Statement including Chattel Architecture Planning
& Preservation report and hearing extension letters
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 Statement of
Official Action
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF
THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK
_____________________________________________________________________
DESIGNATION OF THE MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LC-06-LM-005 LOCATED AT
AS A LANDMARK
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.
The subject property is an excellent example
of the American Colonial Revival architectural style as applied to a
small-scale garden apartment complex located within the Palisades Tract. The
property exhibits a high level of historical and architectural integrity
thereby physically manifesting the architectural history of the City and
exemplifying the second wave of residential development on
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy
interest or value.
The subject property is aesthetically
pleasing in its siting, decorative details, and form due to the architect’s
masterly handling of the American Colonial Revival style as applied to a modest
garden apartment complex. The subject property so fully articulates the key
design elements associated with the American Colonial Revival style that it
expresses an aesthetic ideal of the style. The property also possesses numerous
unique architectural details such as leaded glass windows and original light
fixtures that enhance the property’s aesthetic value. Therefore, as an
excellent local example of the American Colonial Revival style as applied to a
small-scale garden apartment, the subject property possesses sufficient
aesthetic and artistic value necessary for designation under this criterion.
(4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to
a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous
materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural
design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
The apartment complex located at 423-431
Ocean Avenue embodies a number of key character-defining features of the
American Colonial Revival style including it general scale and massing; gabled
and hipped roof forms; roof elements including boxed eaves, cornice returns,
modest entablatures; multi-pane, double-hung wood sash windows, many with flanking
wood shutters; and porch configurations featuring pedimented porticos, fluted pilasters,
round Doric columns, raised brick porch floors, and wrought iron railings. Additionally, the design, materials and
craftsmanship of the subject property are of a higher level than is typically
seen on similar garden apartments in the area. In particular, the distinguishing
architectural characteristics associated with the entrance areas of the north and
east buildings are noteworthy for their highly articulated and refined
pediments and porticos. Further the treatment of the north building is
characterized by a unique, yet unified, delineation of three separate units
within this section of the complex. With
its high level of integrity and as one of the earliest examples of the idiom as
applied to a garden apartment complex along Ocean Avenue and the area north of
Wilshire Boulevard, the subject property is valuable to a study of the American
Colonial Revival style in the architectural history of Santa Monica from the
mid-1930s to the early 1950s. Therefore, the property satisfies this criterion.
(5) It is a significant or a representative
example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.
Subject property architect William E. Foster
was a Beverly Hills-based architect who designed several buildings in
SECTION II. Based on the above
findings, the real property, commonly known as 423-431 Ocean Avenue (Lot 21,
Block I of the Palisades Tract in the City of Santa Monica), as a Landmark
Parcel to preserve, maintain, protect and safeguard the Landmark, multi-family
residential apartment complex.
SECTION III. The detached utility
room/parking garage located on the rear of the parcel does not contribute to
the property’s historical significance and is, therefore, excluded from the
Landmark Designation of 423-431 Ocean Avenue.
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 IV. I hereby certify that the above findings and
determination accurately reflect the final determination of the Landmarks
Commission of the City of
AYES: Berley, Fresco, Genser,
Kaplan, Lehrer, Levin,
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Respectfully Submitted
November 13, 2006
____________________________________
Nina Fresco, Chairperson
Attest:
__________________________
Landmarks Commission Secretary
F:\CityPlanning\Share\Landmarks\STOAS\2006\STOA
(423-431 Ocean Avenue).doc
ATTACHMENT C
September 11, 2007 and October 9, 2006 Landmarks
Commission report with original attachments, including PCR Services Landmark
Assessment Report and hearing submittals
Electronic version of attachment is not
available for review. Document is
available for review at the City clerk’s office and the Libraries.