SR-406-004 (5)
/
.
tjtJ6---ootj
.
'''---/IV
CjED:PB:SF:AS
Council Mtg: 11-1-88
?r-\-y.: 1 19~Ff
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Decision of The Landmarks COmmission
Designating Case #LC-04-034, Rivington Place, at 701
Ocean Avenue, a City Landmark. Appellant: Taico
Properties, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the Council deny the appeal and
uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission to designate the
structure at 701 Ocean Avenue, called Rivington Place, a City
Landmark. Following a public hearing on October 13, 1988, the
Landmarks commission voted five to zero in favor of the Landmark
Designation of the structure at 701 Ocean Avenue.
BACKGROUND
On July 14, 1988 the Landmarks Commission, moved to file an
application for the Landmark Designation of Rivington Place
located at 701 Ocean Avenue. The application was prepared for
the Commission by Bruce Cameronl a building tenant.
At the
August 11, 1988 Landmarks Commission meeting, the commission
reviewed the staff report and application (Attachments A and B).
Based on this review, the Commission unanimously determined that
the application ,,'as worthy of formal consideration and set tho
matter for a public hearing.
- 1 -
\2-
NOV
.
.
The hearing was held on September 8, 1988, at which time the
Commission heard testimony from persons both in support of and in
opposition to the designation, including testimony from the
property owner and their representatives. Following the public
testimony and Commission discussion, the Commission moved to
continue the hearing until the October 13, 1988 Landmarks
Commission meeting for further review and revision of the
proposed findings. At the October 13, 1988 Landmarks Commission
meeting, fallowing additional review of the proposed findings for
designation, the Landmarks Commission voted 5-0 to designate the
eighteen unit courtyard housing development at 701 Ocean Avenue a
City Landmark. As a result of this designation, no plans for
alternative use of the site can be considered until this appeal
is resolved.
ANALYSIS
Significance of the Residential Court
This eighteen unit residential court was constructed in 1932.
The term "court" was used by the Landmarks Commission in their
findings to refer to the building and "courtyard" to refer to the
central garden. The structure, which is characteristic of the
eclectic nature of Los Angeles architecture, combines smooth
stucco walls, red tile coping on a flat roof, simple geometric
forms and simple, classically proportioned windows, doorways and
massing. Each unit entry is marked by alternating classical
round, arched, or gabled roof canopies with metal lattice
supports. The court is a one story structure with twelve units
- 2 -
e
.
composing a U-shaped configuration which opens onto Ocean Avenue
and Palisades Park. The remaining six units face Palisades
Avenue.
Courtyard housing, which gained popularity in Southern California
during the 19205 and 19305, incorporates a central garden as part
of the overall living space. This style of architecture was
found to be particularly well suited to the region I s temperate
climate. Rivington Place, in particular, takes advantage of both
its own lushly landscaped courtyard as well as of Palisades Park
across the Ocean Avenue. A shallow set of stairs bordered by
hedges marks the entrance of the courtyard from Ocean Avenue
while light standards punctuate the central lawn and perimeter
path. The name "Rivington Place" is set in metal letters on a
low wall adjacent to the entry steps.
Rivington Place was designed by the prominent father and son
architectural firm of John and Donald Parkinson. This firm is
primarily known for the design of many significant commercial and
institutional buildings in the Los Angeles area. These buildings
include Los Angeles city Hall (in association with John C. Austin
and Albert c. Martin), Bullocks WilShire Department store,
Memorial Coliseum, Union station, and numerous buildings on the
University of Southern California campus. Donald Parkinson, in
conjunction with Joseph Estep, designed Santa Monica city Hall,
also a City Landmark, in 1938. In addition, Donald Parkinson
designed his own home, once located at 1605 San vicente
Boulevard, now a demolished city Landmark.
- 3 -
.
.
Code provisions
Under Section 9607 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, a property
may be designated a City Landmark if it meets one or more of the
following criteria.
A. It exemplifies, symbolizes or manifests elements of the
cultural, social, economic, political or architectural
history of the city;
B. It has aesthetic or artistic value or other noteworthy
interest or value;
C. It is identified with historic personages or with
important events in local, state or national history;
D. It embodies distinguishing
characteristics valuable to a study
style, method of construction or use
materials or craftsmanship; or
architectural
of a period,
of indigenous
E. It is representative of the work or product of a
notable builder, designer, or architect.
Landmarks Commission Determination
In making its decision, the Landmarks Commission determined that
the structure meets four of the criteria under SMMC section 9607
and made the following findings of fact and determination:
- 4 -
e
.
1. Rivington Place exemplifies elements of the city's
cultural and architectural history in that the court is
one of the earlier buildings on the northern portion of
Ocean Avenue. Its siting takes advantage of and pays
tribute to the relationship between Ocean Avenue,
Palisades park, and the Pacific Ocean beyond. The
City's Historic Resources Inventory has identified the
court as a potential City Landmark. The city survey,
funded by the City and through a grant from the
California Office of Historic preservation, involved
the work of historical/archi tectural consultants,
volunteers, and an evaluation committee of five experts
to review the survey findings.
2. Rivington Place has substantial aesthetic and artistic
interest and value in that it opens onto palisades
Park, has a lushly landscaped courtyard and is
surrounded by residential units. The court features
smooth stucco walls, red tile coping on a flat roof,
simple geometric forms and al ternating classical
supports and simple, classically proportioned windows,
doorways and massing. These elements associated with
classical, Mediterranean and English design demonstrate
the eclectic nature of Los Angeles architecture.
3. Rivington Place embodies distinguishing architectural
characteristics valuable to a study of a period and
style of architecture in that it is an excellent
example of courtyard housing, which incorporates a
- 5 -
.
e
central garden as part of the overall living space and
was a popular architectural form in Southern
California. A shallow set of stairs bordered by hedges
marks the Ocean Avenue entrance to Rivington Place and
I ight standards punctuate the central lawn and
perimeter path. Simple styling and luxuriant
landscaping create a garden environment for the
apartment court, twelve units of which open onto Ocean
Avenue and an additional row of six units which face
Palisades Avenue. This type of high density (relative
to its period of construction) housing took advantage
of the area1s temperate climate. Since such courtyards
operated as part of the dwellings' living space, the
main entrances were located along the central open
space, with the service entrances at the perimeter. In
addition, early tourist accommodations utilized the
courtyard format, providing small individual homes
organized around open space; these later developed into
motor courts or motels.
4. Rivington Place (named for an area near John
Parkinson's birth place in England) is a unique example
of John and Donald Parkinson's only known fully extant
multi-family courtyard residence designed and developed
by this prestigious firm. John and Donald Parkinson
were the architects of Los Angeles city Hall (with John
c. Austin and Albert C. Martin), Bullocks Wilshire and
Union station. Donald Parkinson was also the architect
- 6 -
.
.
(with Joseph Estep) of Santa Monica City Hall (a City
Landmark) and of a single family home at 1605 San
Vicente (a demolished City Landmark) which was also his
home.
In the Landmarks Commission I s review of the designation
application the Commission carefully considered the public
testimony presented during the hearing as well as the numerous
letters and documents submitted both for and against the
designation. Based on this information, the Commission revised
the findings submitted by staff to more accurately and
specifically address the courtyard's significance. While some
Commissioners found the court's siting and architectural quality
to be the most significant findings, others felt that the
association with the Parkinson firm to be the overriding factor.
Nevertheless, all five Commissioners present were able to endorse
all four adopted findings.
Appellant's Position
The appellant maintains that Rivington Place does not meet any of
the five criteria in Section 9607 and that lithe Commission abused
its discretion, that the findings are not supported by the
evidence, that the findings do not support the conclusion, that
the commission failed to proceed in the manner required by law,
and that the Ordinance, in general and as applied, is
unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous.1I
In approving the designation of Rivington Place, the commission
based the findings on information presented at the public
- 7 -
.
.
hearing, information presented in the application, and the
architectural and historical information contained in the City's
Historic Resources Inventory. It should be noted that the
Historic Resources Inventory contained the most persuasive
information. This survey, which was completed by consultants who
have conducted numerous arChitectural/historical studies for
other cities in Southern California, deemed Rivington Place
eligible for local landmark designation. This evaluation was
based on the court's simple, yet distinctive design, its
relationship to the Ocean Avenue streetscape, and on the
importance of representing the work of the Parkinson firm in "an
unfamiliar genre. II
The findings adopted by the Landmarks Commission specifically
identify the significant aspects of the court's architecture and
landscaping, as well as the importance of the Ocean Avenue
location and the court's design by the Parkinson firm. While the
appellant clearly disagrees with all the findings supporting the
designation, only one finding is necessary in a Landmark
Designation approval; the commission was able to adopt four
findings that all Commissioners present could support.
The appellant also states that the Commission did not "proceed in
the manner required by law". In fact, the Commission correctly
followed the Landmark Designation procedures specified in
Municipal Code Section 9608. On July 14, 1988 the Commission
moved to file the subject application. On August 11, 1988 the
commission conducted a preliminary evaluation of the application
and determined that a public hearing on the matter should be
- 8 -
.
.
held. On September 8, 1988 the Commission conducted a public
hearing on the designation, heard pUblic testimony, and began
deliberations. As permitted in SMMC section 9608.G, the
Commission continued the hearing for a period of less than 45
days and then rendered a final decision on October 13, 1988.
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Under the provisions of section 9613 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code, the city Council may deny the appeal and approve
the decision of the Landmarks Commission with the findings
contained in the October 13, 1988 Landmarks Commission
Resolution; may disapprove the prior determination of the
Landmarks Commission and uphold the appeal; or otherwise act to
approve, conditionally approve, or deny the project as it deems
appropriate.
Should the appeal be denied by the City Council, no appeal which
is the same or sUbstantially the same as the one that has been
disapproved shall be resubmitted or reconsidered by the city
council within a 360 day period from the effective date of the
final action of the prior appeal.
Should the appeal be upheld by the city Council, no application
which is the same or substantially the same as the one which has
been disapproved shall be resubmitted to or reconsidered by the
Commission or city council within a period of five years from the
effective date of the final action on the prior application.
- 9 -
.
.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the city Council deny the
appeal and approve the Landmark Designation of 701 Ocean Avenue
with the findings contained in the October 13, 1988 Landmarks
Commission Resolution.
Prepared by: Paul Ber1ant, Planning Director
Suzanne Frick, principal Planner
Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
Planning Division
community and Economic Development Department
ATTACHMENTS: A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
AS
PC/CCRIV
10/18/88
August 11, 1988 Landmarks Commission staff
Report
Landmark Designation Application
September 8, 1988 Landmarks Commission staff
Report
October 13, 1988 Landmarks Commission staff
Report
October 13, 1988 Landmarks Commission Resolution
Appeal Letter
Correspondence
- 10 -