Loading...
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 -